Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 1019–1046 | Cite as

Neighborhoods, Individuals, and Instrumental Crime in Russia and Ukraine: A Multilevel Test of Merton’s Anomie Theory

  • Lorine A. HughesEmail author
  • Olena Antonaccio
  • Ekaterina V. Botchkovar
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

Empirically assess Baumer’s (Theor Criminol 11(1):63–93, 2007) efforts to unify Merton’s anomie/strain theory within a multilevel framework that anticipates instrumental crime among individuals who are both strongly committed to monetary success goals and weakly committed to the normative means for pursuing these goals, particularly if they possess certain other personal attributes or are embedded within anomic socio-cultural contexts.

Methods

Multilevel overdispersed Poisson regression models are estimated using survey data from 1431 adult residents of 41 neighborhoods in Lviv, Ukraine, and Nizhni Novgorod, Russia.

Results

Consistent with expectations, financial dissatisfaction among individuals appears to exacerbate the effect of the goals-means interaction on instrumental crime. However, no evidence was observed of moderation involving perceived risk of punishment, commitment to non-monetary success goals, and blocked legitimate opportunities. Although neighborhood anomie exerted a statistically significant main effect on instrumental crime, theorized cross-level interactions involving strong cultural emphasis on monetary success goals, weak cultural emphasis on normative means, and limited consensus regarding the normative means by which to pursue monetary success goals did not materialize.

Conclusions

Findings cast doubt on the cross-cultural generality of Baumer’s multilevel conceptualization of Merton’s strain/anomie theory. However, they confirm financial dissatisfaction as a key predictor of instrumental crime and moderator of unbalanced value commitments among individuals. They also suggest that future efforts to bridge the micro and macro strands of Merton’s theory will need to incorporate alternate theoretical predictors (e.g., personal morality) and consider ways in which an anomic social order contributes to deviant behavior directly rather than merely indirectly through the proportion of the population experiencing a goals-means disjuncture.

Keywords

Anomie Strain Criminological theory Cross-national Multilevel 

References

  1. Agnew R (1987) On testing structural strain theories. J Res Crime Delinq 24(4):281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnew R (1992) Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30(1):47–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akers RL (2001) Social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonaccio O, Tittle CR (2008) Morality, self-control, and crime. Criminology 46(2):801–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antonaccio O, Smith W, Gostjev F (2015) Anomic strain and external constraints: a reassessment on Merton’s anomie/strain theory using the data from Ukraine. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 59:1079–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonaccio O, Botchkovar EV, Hughes LA (2016) Ecological determinants of situated choice in situational action theory: does neighborhood matter? J Res Crime Delinq 54(3):208–243Google Scholar
  7. Baron SW (2011) Street youths and the proximate and contingent causes of instrumental crime: untangling anomie theory. Justice Q 28(3):413–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumer EP (2007) Untangling research puzzles in Merton’s multilevel anomie theory. Theor Criminol 11(1):63–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumer EP, Gustafson R (2007) Social organization and instrumental crime: assessing the empirical validity of classic and contemporary anomie theories. Criminology 45(3):617–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernard TJ (1987) Testing structural strain theories. J Res Crime Delinq 24(4):262–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bollen K (1998) Path analysis. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds) Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Wiley, Sussex, pp 3280–3284Google Scholar
  12. Bollen K, Paxton P (1998) Interactions of latent variables in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model 5(3):267–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Botchkovar EV, Broidy L (2013a) Parenting, self-control, and the gender gap in heavy drinking: the case of Russia. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 57(3):357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Botchkovar EV, Broidy L (2013b) Accumulated strain, negative emotions, and crime: a test of general strain theory in Russia. Crime Delinq 59(6):837–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Botchkovar EV, Hughes LA (2010) Strain and alcohol use in Russia: a gendered analysis. Sociol Perspect 53(3):297–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Botchkovar EV, Tittle CR, Antonaccio O (2009) General strain theory: additional evidence using cross-cultural data. Criminology 47(1):801–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Botchkovar EV, Antonaccio O, Tittle CR (2013) Strain, coping, and socioeconomic status: coping histories and present choices. J Quant Criminol 29(2):217–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Chamlin MB, Cochran JK (2007) An evaluation of the assumptions that underlie institutional anomie theory. Theor Criminol 11:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Council of Europe (2008) The European sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics. Retrieved 21 Sept 2015 http://www.europeansourcebook.org
  21. Couper MP, de Leeuw Edith (2003) Nonresponse in cross-cultural and cross-national surveys. In: Harkness JA, van de Vijver FJR, Mohler PP (eds) Cross-cultural survey methods. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 157–178Google Scholar
  22. Enders CK, Tofighi D (2007) Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: a new look at an old issue”. Psychol Methods 12(2):121–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Featherstone R, Deflem M (2003) Anomie and strain: context and consequences of Merton’s two theories. Sociol Inq 73(4):471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foglesong TS, Solomon PH (2001) Crime, criminal justice, and criminology in Post-Soviet Ukraine. U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Fond “Obschestvennoe Mnenie” (2002) He is a businessman, she is a model. Retrieved 13 Nov 2015. http://bd.fom.ru/report/map/of022204
  26. Gilinskiy Y (2006) Crime in contemporary Russia. Eur J Criminol 3:259–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Grasmick HG, Bursik RJ Jr (1990) Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: extending the deterrence model. Law Soc Rev 24(3):837–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grasmick HG, Green DE (1981) Deterrence and the morally committed. Sociol Q. 22(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ Jr, Arneklev BJ (1993) Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30(1):5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green DE (1989) Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research. J Res Crime Delinq 26(3):253–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hay C (2001) Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: a test of self-control theory. Criminology 39(3):707–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hughes LA, Antonaccio O, Botchkovar EV (2015) How general is control balance theory? Evidence from Ukraine. Justice Q 32(6):950–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kalman A (2002) Organized economic crime and corruption in Ukraine. Final report for the National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 20 Nobv 15 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/international/programs/ukraine.html
  35. Kordos J (2005) Household sample surveys in developing and transition countries. In: Household sample surveys in developing and transition countries. United Nations, NY. Retrieved 03 Dec 2015 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/pdf/Household_surveys.pdf
  36. Latimore LT, Tittle CR, Grasmick HG (2006) Childrearing, self-control, and crime: additional evidence. Soc Inq 76:343–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Makhrova AG, Tatarinceva AA (2006) The development of gentrification processes and reconstruction of Moscow city center medium in post-Soviet period. Regionalnye Issledovania 3(9):28–42Google Scholar
  38. Merton RK (1938) Social structure and anomie. Am Soc Rev 3(5):672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merton RK (1949) Social structure and anomie: revisions and extensions. In: Anshen R (ed) The family: its function and destiny. Harper and Row, New York, pp 226–257Google Scholar
  40. Merton RK (1957) Social theory and social structure (revised and enlarged edition). The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Merton RK (1964) Anomie, anomia, and social interaction: contexts of deviant behavior. In: Clinard M (ed) Anomie and deviant behavior. The Free Press, New York, pp 213–242Google Scholar
  42. Messner SF (1988) Merton’s social structure and anomie: the road not taken. Dev Behav 9(1):33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Messner SF, Rosenfeld R (1994) Crime and the American dream, 1st edn. Thomson Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray GF, Erickson PG (1987) Cross-sectional versus longitudinal research: an empirical comparison of projected and subsequent criminality. Soc Sci Res 16(2):107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4(2):173–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2002) Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 39(2):153–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pogarsky G (2004) Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology 42(1):111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  49. Rossijskaya Academia Nauk (2011) Twenty years of reforms as seen by russians. Retrieved 23 Nov 2015 http://www.isras.ru/files/File/Doklad/20_years_reform.pdf
  50. Stults BJ, Baumer EP (2008) Assessing the relevance of anomie theory for explaining spatial variation in lethal criminal violence: an aggregate-level analysis of homicide within the United States. Int J Conf Violence 2(2):215–247Google Scholar
  51. Sutherland EH, Cressey DR, Luckenbill DF (1992) Principles of Criminology, 11th edn. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  52. Tittle CR (1995) Control balance: toward a general theory of deviance. Westview, Boulder COGoogle Scholar
  53. Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV (2005a) Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: an investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology 43(2):307–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV (2005b) The generality and hegemony of self-control theory: a comparison of Russian and US adults. Soc Sci Res 34(4):703–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tittle CR, Paternoster R (2000) Social deviance and crime: an organizational and theoretical approach. Roxbury, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  56. Tittle CR, Antonaccio O, Botchkovar EV, Kranidioti M (2010) Expected utility, self-control, morality, and criminal probability. Soc Sci Res 39(6):1029–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV, Antonaccio O (2011) Criminal contemplation, national context, and deterrence. J Quant Criminol 27(2):225–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tittle CR, Antonaccio O, Botchkovar EV (2012) Social learning, reinforcement, and criminal probability. Soc Forces 90:863–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Transparency International (2008) Corruption perceptions index. Retrieved 05 Nov 2015 www.transparencyinternational.org
  60. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2008) United Nations surveys on crime trends and operations of the criminal justice system. Retrieved 08 Nov 15 http://www.unode.org
  61. Vågerö D, Kislitsyna O, Ferlander S, Migranova L, Karlson P, Rimachevskaya N (2008) Moscow health survey 2004: social surveying under difficult circumstances. Int J Public Health 53(4):171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wikström P-OH (2006) Linking individual, setting, and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In: Wikström P-OH, Sampson R (eds) The explanation of crime: context, mechanisms and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wikström P-OH (2010) Explaining crime as moral actions. In: Hitlin S (ed) Handbook of the sociology of morality. Springer, New York, pp 211–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wikström P-OH, Treiber K (2007) The role of self-control in crime causation. Eur J Criminol 4(2):237–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zimmerman G, Botchkovar EV, Antonnacio O, Hughes LA (2015) Low self-control in ‘bad’ neighborhoods: assessing the role of context in the relationship between self-control and crime. Justice Q 32(1):56–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorine A. Hughes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olena Antonaccio
    • 2
  • Ekaterina V. Botchkovar
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public AffairsUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  3. 3.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations