Deviance And Relativist Conception Of General Strain Theory
Deviance is defined through two perspectives “normative conception” and “relativist conception” (Inderbitzin, Bates, & Gainey, 2017). By definition, Inderbitzin et al. (2017) described normative conception as “the conception of deviance that assumes there is a general set of norms of behavior, conduct, and conditions on which all individuals can agree” (p.577). Additionally, Inderbitzin et al. (2017) defined relativist conception as the assumption “that the definition of deviance is constructed based on interactions with those in society” (p. 578). Furthermore, Agnew’s (1992) General Strain Theory (GST), indicates the negative influences in one’s life and the stressors caused by them, coupled with the inability of an individual to achieve a certain level of success as defining factor in why an individual chooses to engage in deviant behavior. Moreover, the societal “norms” concept developed by Sumner (1906) further defines how behavior becomes labeled deviant.
…show more content…
According to Sumner (1906) there are three categories of societal “norms” that dictate, measure, and govern people’s behaviors.
Sumner defined these “norms” as “rules of behavior that guide people’s actions” and furthermore, classified them as “folkways, mores, and law” (as cited in Inderbitzin et al., 2017, p.3). The category of “norms” that the individual’s behavior violates ultimately constitutes which level of deviance the individual has committed. Often, these behaviors are labeled as antisocial and will result in simple judgment. Conversely, certain behaviors are condemned by society and can result in both judgment and legal sanctions. Yet, not all behavior rendered deviant is always considered illegal or criminal. Gambling falls into both of these
categories. Rather than seeking a positive means to cope with strain, unlike other deviant behaviors such as substance abuse, gambling appears to be more socially acceptable. However, why do certain individuals choose to participate in gambling? As Greco and Curci (2017) concluded in “Does the General Strain Theory Explain Gambling and Substance Use,” a link exists between GST and its prevalence among individuals partaking in gambling and substance use. Specifically, events associated with strain can lead to negative emotions, and in turn, the likelihood of an individual participating in gambling or substance use increases (Greco & Curci, 2017). Nevertheless, both behaviors are considered deviant. However, the capacity to which an individual engages in gambling will define the extent of its legality.
As cited by Inderbitzin et al. (2017), Agnew (2006) notes that not all deviant behaviors associated with strain are criminal in nature. In fact, Inderbitzin et al. (2017) referenced Agnew’s (2006) assertion that criminal behavior is not the primary coping mechanism for individuals suffering from strain. Instead, individuals facing strain successfully address their stressors in a manner that is socially acceptable (Inderbitzin et al., 2017). On the other hand, Agnew (2006) notes individuals with the inability to appropriately handle strain in a productive manner often turn to behavior that is considered deviant or criminal. Gambling for example, constitutes a deviant violation of Sumner’s (1906) concepts of “folkways” and “mores.” Conversely, in situations where gambling is legal, this behavior still violates the “law” but only in the form of deviance, not criminal. Equally important, Greco and Curci (2017) determined that individuals who have been subjected to family members engaging in gambling and substance use, present at a higher risk of also engaging in those same behaviors as a way to cope with life stressors. Subsequently, these individuals become exposed to the same negative emotions associated with those behaviors.
Is gambling in an Atlantic City or Las Vegas casino anymore deviant then placing a bet with a “bookie”? Is making “prop bets” during the Super Bowl considered deviant behavior? Apparently not, as the Super Bowl halftime show has been described as a “big event that even non-football fans appreciate and bettors can attempt to capitalize on Justin Timberlake’s performance with props that range from which song he’ll perform to which guests will join him” (Kay, 2108). Now for those who partake in “legal gambling” compared to “illegal gambling” who is the one engaging in the “deviant behavior”?
In “Gambling, Risk-Taking, and Antisocial Behavior: A Replication Study Supporting the Generality of Deviance,” Mishra, Lalumiere, and Williams (2017) sought to affirm that deviant traits played a role in the prevalence of an individual’s gambling activities. Certain personality and behavioral traits that may be considered “risky” or “antisocial” were correlated between an individual and their gambling activities (Mishra et al., 2017). Furthermore, a criminal background was found to be an indicator that a participant is more inclined to engage in a greater stakes of gambling compared to those who have no criminal background. Lastly, these findings are in accord with the overall perspective of deviance, which suggests individuals who exhibit a “riskier” personality are more likely to engage in “risky” or “antisocial” behaviors, such as gambling. The research by Mishra et al. (2017) as well as Sumer‘s (1906) “norms” concept, explains further how deviant behavior is defined and how the behavioral traits described by this author’s research as “risky” and “antisocial” coincide with deviance.
Essentially, the behaviors that violate Sumner’s (1906) “norms” concepts are either sanctioned by the strong judgment of society or formal consequences. Together, these three “norms” measure the level of deviance in society. Hence, when an individual engages in behaviors that go against the established “norms” of society, they are committing deviance. These facts, in conjunction with Agnew’s (1992) General Strain Theory, help facilitate a better understanding of why individual decides to engage in deviant behavior.
As prior research has indicated, behaviors exhibited by gamblers are similar to that of other deviant groups. Their coping mechanisms for strain and other behavioral characteristics correspond with GST. Likewise, Eitle and Taylor (2012) established a correlation between GST and traits associated with an individual’s Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS)/Behavioral Approach System (BAS) and those who either did or did not engage in deviant behavior, specifically, gambling. Coinciding with GST, Eitle and Taylor (2012) equated negative feelings as a determining factor in an individual’s decision to engage in deviant behavior. Finally, significant life events, in particular, events associated with negative emotions, were a definitive characteristic of those who engaged in gambling rather than seeking a positive means of support (Eitle & Taylor, 2012).
As illustrated by bright lights and an economy stimulated by gambling, cities such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City do not deter gambling, nor is this vice necessarily viewed as a deviant behavior. It is legal and accepted. Likewise, certain events involving gambling are marketed and made appealing to the general public. Just recently, for example, Super Bowl LII offered a staggering 139 different “prop bets” (Kay, 2018). These “prop bets” included instances involving the game up to everyday mainstream pop culture. The opportunity presented itself to wager on everything from the winner of the game, to “Will any member of NSYNC make a Halftime Show Appearance” and “Who will win the 14th Puppy Bowl” (Kay, 2018?). By incorporating pop culture into the game itself, the appearance that gambling is not such a deviant behavior was presented.
In closing, gambling is one of the many forms of deviant behavior. In accordance with Sumner’s (1906) concepts of “norms,” gambling crosses the spectrum of “folkways, mores, and law” which gives it the label of being a deviant behavior. The deviant perspectives of “normative conception” and “relativist conception” along with Sumner’s (1906) concept of “norms” combined with Agnew’s (1992) General Strain Theory (GST), help further define gambling as deviant behavior. Research has shown gambling as coping mechanism goes against then norms of society, is associated with GST, and despite not always being considered legal, is still a deviant behavior. With cities such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and events such as the Super Bowl, the deviant label attached to gambling does very little to impact the negative perception and overall participation in gambling in society.
According to Sumner (1906) there are three categories of societal “norms” that dictate, measure, and govern people’s behaviors.
Sumner defined these “norms” as “rules of behavior that guide people’s actions” and furthermore, classified them as “folkways, mores, and law” (as cited in Inderbitzin et al., 2017, p.3). The category of “norms” that the individual’s behavior violates ultimately constitutes which level of deviance the individual has committed. Often, these behaviors are labeled as antisocial and will result in simple judgment. Conversely, certain behaviors are condemned by society and can result in both judgment and legal sanctions. Yet, not all behavior rendered deviant is always considered illegal or criminal. Gambling falls into both of these
categories. Rather than seeking a positive means to cope with strain, unlike other deviant behaviors such as substance abuse, gambling appears to be more socially acceptable. However, why do certain individuals choose to participate in gambling? As Greco and Curci (2017) concluded in “Does the General Strain Theory Explain Gambling and Substance Use,” a link exists between GST and its prevalence among individuals partaking in gambling and substance use. Specifically, events associated with strain can lead to negative emotions, and in turn, the likelihood of an individual participating in gambling or substance use increases (Greco & Curci, 2017). Nevertheless, both behaviors are considered deviant. However, the capacity to which an individual engages in gambling will define the extent of its legality.
As cited by Inderbitzin et al. (2017), Agnew (2006) notes that not all deviant behaviors associated with strain are criminal in nature. In fact, Inderbitzin et al. (2017) referenced Agnew’s (2006) assertion that criminal behavior is not the primary coping mechanism for individuals suffering from strain. Instead, individuals facing strain successfully address their stressors in a manner that is socially acceptable (Inderbitzin et al., 2017). On the other hand, Agnew (2006) notes individuals with the inability to appropriately handle strain in a productive manner often turn to behavior that is considered deviant or criminal. Gambling for example, constitutes a deviant violation of Sumner’s (1906) concepts of “folkways” and “mores.” Conversely, in situations where gambling is legal, this behavior still violates the “law” but only in the form of deviance, not criminal. Equally important, Greco and Curci (2017) determined that individuals who have been subjected to family members engaging in gambling and substance use, present at a higher risk of also engaging in those same behaviors as a way to cope with life stressors. Subsequently, these individuals become exposed to the same negative emotions associated with those behaviors.
Is gambling in an Atlantic City or Las Vegas casino anymore deviant then placing a bet with a “bookie”? Is making “prop bets” during the Super Bowl considered deviant behavior? Apparently not, as the Super Bowl halftime show has been described as a “big event that even non-football fans appreciate and bettors can attempt to capitalize on Justin Timberlake’s performance with props that range from which song he’ll perform to which guests will join him” (Kay, 2108). Now for those who partake in “legal gambling” compared to “illegal gambling” who is the one engaging in the “deviant behavior”?
In “Gambling, Risk-Taking, and Antisocial Behavior: A Replication Study Supporting the Generality of Deviance,” Mishra, Lalumiere, and Williams (2017) sought to affirm that deviant traits played a role in the prevalence of an individual’s gambling activities. Certain personality and behavioral traits that may be considered “risky” or “antisocial” were correlated between an individual and their gambling activities (Mishra et al., 2017). Furthermore, a criminal background was found to be an indicator that a participant is more inclined to engage in a greater stakes of gambling compared to those who have no criminal background. Lastly, these findings are in accord with the overall perspective of deviance, which suggests individuals who exhibit a “riskier” personality are more likely to engage in “risky” or “antisocial” behaviors, such as gambling. The research by Mishra et al. (2017) as well as Sumer‘s (1906) “norms” concept, explains further how deviant behavior is defined and how the behavioral traits described by this author’s research as “risky” and “antisocial” coincide with deviance.
Essentially, the behaviors that violate Sumner’s (1906) “norms” concepts are either sanctioned by the strong judgment of society or formal consequences. Together, these three “norms” measure the level of deviance in society. Hence, when an individual engages in behaviors that go against the established “norms” of society, they are committing deviance. These facts, in conjunction with Agnew’s (1992) General Strain Theory, help facilitate a better understanding of why individual decides to engage in deviant behavior.
As prior research has indicated, behaviors exhibited by gamblers are similar to that of other deviant groups. Their coping mechanisms for strain and other behavioral characteristics correspond with GST. Likewise, Eitle and Taylor (2012) established a correlation between GST and traits associated with an individual’s Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS)/Behavioral Approach System (BAS) and those who either did or did not engage in deviant behavior, specifically, gambling. Coinciding with GST, Eitle and Taylor (2012) equated negative feelings as a determining factor in an individual’s decision to engage in deviant behavior. Finally, significant life events, in particular, events associated with negative emotions, were a definitive characteristic of those who engaged in gambling rather than seeking a positive means of support (Eitle & Taylor, 2012).
As illustrated by bright lights and an economy stimulated by gambling, cities such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City do not deter gambling, nor is this vice necessarily viewed as a deviant behavior. It is legal and accepted. Likewise, certain events involving gambling are marketed and made appealing to the general public. Just recently, for example, Super Bowl LII offered a staggering 139 different “prop bets” (Kay, 2018). These “prop bets” included instances involving the game up to everyday mainstream pop culture. The opportunity presented itself to wager on everything from the winner of the game, to “Will any member of NSYNC make a Halftime Show Appearance” and “Who will win the 14th Puppy Bowl” (Kay, 2018?). By incorporating pop culture into the game itself, the appearance that gambling is not such a deviant behavior was presented.
In closing, gambling is one of the many forms of deviant behavior. In accordance with Sumner’s (1906) concepts of “norms,” gambling crosses the spectrum of “folkways, mores, and law” which gives it the label of being a deviant behavior. The deviant perspectives of “normative conception” and “relativist conception” along with Sumner’s (1906) concept of “norms” combined with Agnew’s (1992) General Strain Theory (GST), help further define gambling as deviant behavior. Research has shown gambling as coping mechanism goes against then norms of society, is associated with GST, and despite not always being considered legal, is still a deviant behavior. With cities such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and events such as the Super Bowl, the deviant label attached to gambling does very little to impact the negative perception and overall participation in gambling in society.