7.5 Theory Integration
Some contemporary theorists combine select aspects of foundational theories to form brand new explanations for criminal behavior based on ever-changing environmental, social, psychological, economic, and political events. These theorists will take a little bit of classical theory, mix it with some positivist, splash it with some neoclassical, and voila! Because there is no absolute when it comes to which theory is correct, criminologists are able to mix and match multiple theories into a cohesive hodgepodge to suit their needs—as long as the data supports the validity and reliability of the theory, of course.
You might be thinking, haven’t many of the theories discussed in this book already done this? It is true that there is overlap between many of the theories we have covered. However, often a theory will focus strictly on the macro-level (e.g., neighborhoods) or micro-level (e.g., individual characteristics) or will only apply to certain types of crime (e.g., street crime). In the 1980s, many criminologists advocated for the integration of multiple existing theoretical frameworks and components to better account for complex human behavior. But theory integration is not as simple as slapping together a couple different ideas. Rather, there are different ways in which theories can be carefully and thoroughly integrated. These include end-to-end, side-by-side, up-and-down, and conceptual integration, all of which are explained in figure 7.8 (Tibbetts, 2015). Those in favor of theory integration also argue that theories should be multidisciplinary to advance the field of criminology.
| Type of theory integration | Description |
|---|---|
| End-to-end integration | Theories are merged “one after another,” indicating that one occurs before the other. For example, a theory might state that weak social bonds lead to negative peer associations and then to crime. |
| Side-by-side integration | Theories are considered parallel explanations that might apply based on which type of situation is being explained. For example, impulsive theft might be explained by a theory of low self-control, while white collar crime might be explained by rational choice theory, as both have elements of control and opportunity involved. |
| Up-and-down integration | Theories are integrated by increasing the level of abstraction of one theory so that others can be incorporated into it. In other words, one theory’s concepts may be broad enough that other theories can fit within it. |
| Conceptual integration | Key concepts from different theories that have similarities, even if different terms are used, can be integrated if they share similar meaning or operationalization. |
There are many examples of integrated theories, some of which we have already discussed in previous chapters, but some heavily focus on the integration of concepts from multiple theories. American criminologist Delbert Elliott and colleagues provide one example with their integrated perspective on delinquent behavior. This approach combines components of strain, social learning, and social control theories and identifies two primary paths to delinquency. Although Elliott and colleagues recognized multiple different paths to delinquency, both of the primary paths in their theory involve juveniles who have weak social bonds, which can partly be a result of blocked opportunities and strain, and delinquent peer groups. One goal of their integrated approach was to eradicate the class bias that they saw in the traditional theories, where delinquency was assumed and linked only to lower-class juveniles (Elliott et al., 1979).
Another prime example of theory integration is Australian criminologist John Braithwaite’s (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming. Shame and informal social control are central to Braithwaite’s theory. He said that societies “will have a lot of violence if violent behavior is not shameful, high rates of rape if rape is something men can brag about, endemic white collar crime if business people think law-breaking is clever rather than shameful” (Braithwaite, 2000). Braithwaite claims that societies must effectively communicate shame about crime in order to prevent it, as shame can become stigmatizing, which will actually increase crime. Effective shaming, or reintegrative shaming, involves communicating disapproval of behavior while maintaining respect for the individual. In other words, reintegrative shaming treats the person who committed a crime as a good person who did a bad thing but needs forgiveness, while stigmatization degrades, humiliates, and treats the individual as a bad person.
The theory of reintegrative shaming primarily borrows concepts from labeling theory and control theories, with some nods to deterrence theory. It applies to crimes against property and people in which there is a general social consensus that the behavior is wrong. The theory is very much in line with a restorative justice approach to crime control, meaning the goal is to repair harm caused by crime and restore the well-being of both perpetrators and victims rather than just punish those who have offended.
Learn More: Restorative Justice as a Theory of Justice
Remember when we talked about paradigms in Chapter 1? Restorative justice can be seen as a newer paradigm or lens through which we view crime, victimization, justice, and the role of the criminal justice system. The restorative justice paradigm is inclusive, has a problem-solving focus, and involves accountability, dialogue, and reparation in the pursuit of healing and righting relationships (Zehr, 1990). Restorative justice aims to put victims’ needs at the center of the justice process and to encourage greater community engagement through inclusive and collaborative processes. Watch the 6-minute video in figure 7.9 to get an idea of what it might look like in practice.
Rather than focusing on rules, restorative justice focuses on the emotional and relational dimensions of crime. Pranis et al. (2003) characterize this as a shift in thinking from justice as getting even, to justice as getting well. When comparing the main goals of contemporary criminal justice and restorative justice, there are marked differences, as shown in figure 7.10 (Zehr, 2015, p. 30).
| Criminal Justice | Restorative Justice |
|---|---|
| Crime is a violation of the law and the state. | Crime is a violation of people and relationships. |
| Violations create guilt. | Violations create obligations. |
| Justice requires the state to determine blame and impose punishment or expect perpetrators to be rehabilitated. | Justice involves victims, offenders, and community members in an effort to repair the harm or “put things right” |
| The central focus is offenders getting what they deserve. | The central focus is victim needs and offender and community responsibility for repairing harm and promoting accountability. |
As Zehr (2015) suggests in figure 7.11, the key differences between criminal justice and restorative justice can be boiled down to a few central questions. The following table compares the primary questions the contemporary legal system is based on with the core questions of a restorative, transformative approach to justice.
| Criminal justice asks… | Restorative, transformative justice asks… |
|---|---|
| What law was broken? | Who has been harmed? |
| Who did it? | What are their needs? |
| What do they deserve? | Who and/or what structures are obligated to address the harm caused? What needs to happen to address the harm and begin to promote healing of people and relationships? |
While restorative justice is a more recent development in the United States, Indigenous cultures across the globe have been using similar approaches for some time. However, traditional Indigenous practices and restorative justice are not synonymous. Cunneen (2003) notes that restorative justice cannot run the risk of trampling over local traditional customs but requires a reimagining of justice outside the context of colonization. In some Indigenous communities, people involved in a harm or conflict would prefer to have a more culturally responsive justice process and avoid the colonially-based, legal system altogether. In some cases, Indigenous peoples will refer matters to their nation’s justice program and engage in a restorative process that embodies cultural practices, such as prayers and ceremonies unique to that nation. Indigenous nations reclaiming responsibility for justice practices is an important component of self-determination and self-governance.
The integration of theories is actually a contentious topic among criminological scholars. While some support integration as a way of improving our theoretical understandings and getting closer to an accurate explanation of crime, others see major drawbacks to the process. Some theorists claim that the best way for theories to advance is for them to compete against one another to encourage their continued testing. Those opposed to theoretical integration also argue that it is not possible to integrate theories that have opposing assumptions. For example, social control theories assume people are naturally inclined to commit deviant behavior, while learning theories typically assume that people are non-criminogenic prior to learning the behavior from someone else (Krohn & Eassey, 2014). Nonetheless, criminological ideas and concepts continue to be assessed, altered, and integrated.
Check Your Knowledge
Licenses and Attributions for Theory Integration
Open Content, Original
“Theory Integration” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
“Theory Integration Question Set” was created by ChatGPT and is not subject to copyright. Edits for relevance, alignment, and meaningful answer feedback by Colleen Sanders are licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Open Content, Shared Previously
“Learn More: Restorative Justice as a Theory of Justice” is adapted from:
- “Justice as Healing” in Introduction to Criminology by Dr. Alana Marie Abramson and Melissa Leanne Roberts, M.A. is licensed under CC BY 4.0, except where otherwise noted. Modifications by Jessica René Peterson, licensed under CC BY 4.0, include shortening for clarity and brevity and tailoring to the American context.
- “Restorative Justice: A Paradigm Shift” in Introduction to Criminology by Dr. Alana Marie Abramson and Melissa Leanne Roberts, M.A. is licensed under CC BY 4.0, except where otherwise noted. Modifications by Jessica René Peterson, licensed under CC BY 4.0, include shortening for clarity and brevity and tailoring to the American context.
- “Restorative Justice & Indigenous Ways of Knowing” in Introduction to Criminology by Dr. Alana Marie Abramson and Melissa Leanne Roberts, M.A. is licensed under CC BY 4.0, except where otherwise noted. Modifications by Jessica René Peterson, licensed under CC BY 4.0, include shortening for clarity and brevity and tailoring to the American context.
Figure 7.10. “Table 17.1” by Dr. Alana Marie Abramson and Melissa Leanne Roberts, M.A., in 17.2 Justice as Healing, Introduction to Criminology, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
Figure 7.11. “Table 17.2 Citizen Confidence in Canadian Institutions” by Dr. Alana Marie Abramson and Melissa Leanne Roberts, M.A., in 17.2 Justice as Healing, Introduction to Criminology, which is licensed under CC BY 4.0.
All Rights Reserved Content
Opening paragraph of “Theory Integration” is adapted from “The Contemporary School of Criminological Theory” in Introduction to Criminal Justice by Brandon Hamann is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Modifications by Jessica René Peterson, licensed under CC BY 4.0, include just adapting to fit as the introduction.
Figure 7.8. “Common Forms of Criminological Theory Integration” is adapted from Tibbets, 2015. Modifications include paraphrasing and putting material into table format.
Figure 7.9. “DUI Probationer Participates in Restorative Justice Mediation Program” by countysandiego is licensed under the Standard YouTube License.
