The Role of Situational Ambiguity: An Extension of General Strain Theory

ABSTRACT

General Strain Theory (GST) posits that strains are likely to be most criminogenic when high in magnitude, viewed as unfair, associated with low social control, and promote pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping. However, GST ignores other potential characteristics of criminogenic strain that have been particularly salient in explaining decision-making – situational unpredictability and uncertainty. Research suggests that events characterized by uncertainty and unpredictability increase situational anxiety and lead to increased stress, as well as other negative emotions such as anger, frustration, and depression. Therefore, “situational ambiguity” –unpredictability and uncertainty – can be viewed as a situational characteristic of criminogenic strain that has not been considered in prior GST literature. The current paper integrates the concept of situational ambiguity into the GST framework and further discusses the implications of this addition to the overall GST model.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ It is important to note that criminal and deviant behavior, for purposes of this paper, are describing any form of illegal behavior, and may be used interchangeably.

² Control balance theory has also been used to explain how an imbalance in the control one has in relation to the amount of control being exerted against them, both as a deficit or a surplus, can lead to an increased probability of deviant behavior (Tittle 1995). While the resulting imbalance, particularly the deficit of control, might provide a similar construct to the notion of self-efficacy, scholarship on GST has focused primarily on self-efficacy. This is likely due to the major tenets of GST being concerned with the blockage of goals (or negative stimuli), which would likely not exist if an individual were in a control surplus.

³ Studies utilize a diverse range of questions and scales to measure self-efficacy. For the examination of a detailed construction and validation of a self-efficacy scale, see Sherer et al. (1982).

⁴ Examining the relationship between strain and self-efficacy, Agnew and White (1992) found that strain was more likely to lead to deviance when self-efficacy was low, though this interaction failed to remain significant when predicting drug use. Comparably, Jang and Johnson (2003) found support for the moderating effect of self-efficacy on strain and negative affect; those with lower levels of self-efficacy were more likely to respond to strain with increased negative affect, measured as the combination of inner- and outer-directed emotional responses to personal problems (strains). Similar to results presented by Agnew and White (1992), these results failed to remain significant when predicting increased drug use but were unable to explain the moderating relationship of self-efficacy on strain and general deviance (Jang and Johnson 2003). On the other hand, results presented by Paternoster and Mazerolle (1994) suggest that the interaction between strain and self-efficacy are actually in the opposite direction as predicted; strain has a more noticeable impact on adolescent deviance when individuals have higher levels of self-efficacy.

⁵ For a thorough accounting of the empirical validity and review of the literature related to GST, see Agnew and Brezina (2019) and Brezina (2017).

⁶ Anxiety typically refers to stimulation of fear or stress. This was measured as responses such as subjective levels of experienced anxiety and startle response of blinking (Grillon et al. 2004; Herry et al. 2007; Shankman et al. 2011), increased heart rates (Staub, Tursky, and Schwartz 1971) and blood pressure (Greco and Roger 2003), and attention to facial threat (Herry et al. 2007). See Lake and LaBar (2011) for further examples.

⁷ While the current paper focuses on coping with ambiguous situations, it is important to note that a growing body of literature has explored individual differences in coping capabilities. For instance, McLain, Kefallonitis, and Armani (2015) contend that individuals differ in ambiguity tolerance because of specific personality traits. Further, Carleton et al. (2007) evaluate individuals’ intolerance of uncertainty by examining situations, uncertainty, and the future based on certain traits.

⁸ Recent research has linked the criminogenic effect of pretrial detention on future criminal behavior, and generally find that pretrial detention increases the likelihood for future offending (Loeffler and Nagin 2022). Defendants that are detained pretrial for longer than seven days have an increased likelihood of any new arrest (DeMichele, Silver, and Labrecque 2023) and those detained for the entire pretrial period have higher odds of re-arrest on a new charge after disposition (Heaton, Mayson, and Stevenson 2016; Leslie and Pope 2017; Lowenkamp, VanNostrand, and Holsinger 2013). While this research has not clearly pointed to GST or ambiguity as the driving criminogenic force, the stress and uncertainty of the process are noted as leading to increased negative emotionality (Walker 2022).

⁹ Contrasting self-efficacy, situational ambiguity refers to characteristics of individual strains rather than a personality trait, and is therefore based within situations (McLain, Kefallonitis, and Armani 2015).

¹⁰ Pre-existing scales may provide a starting point for broadly operationalizing SA. For instance, the Uncertainty Response Scale (Greco and Roger 2001), Uncertainty Stress Scale (Hilton 1994) and the Tolerance for Ambiguity scale (Budner 1962; see also Furnham and Ribchester 1995; Stephens et al. 2023) offer ways to begin measuring the latent variable of situational ambiguity. However, operationalization decisions will need to be made in relation to the situational context being studied.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joshua H. Williams

Joshua H. Williams is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Justice, Culture, and Social Change at the University of Minnesota Duluth. His research interests include pretrial detention, bail, sentencing, and politics and punishment.

Nikki Hurless

Dr. Nikki Hurless is an Assistant Professor of counseling at Tarleton State University in Fort Worth, TX. She has expertise in traumatic stress and behavior with emphases on emotion regulation and relationship development.

Ana Daniels

Ana Z. Daniels is a Senior Research Analyst at the CSG Justice Center. Her research interests include criminological theory, intersections in race/ethnicity and gender, and reentry.