Integrated Theories
criminal behavior today can be considered to be
of Crime
MARVIN D. KROHN and JOHN M.
EASSEY
Historically, most criminological theories have
focused on relatively specific factors or processes
that are suggested to explain either crimi-
nal behavior or the distribution of crime. For
example, differential association theory focused
on the interaction of people with their primary
groups to describe the process by which they
learned definitions favorable to the violation of
the law which in turn would lead to criminal
behavior, while theories within the strain tradi-
tion focused on how the social structure created
conditions which caused strain and a need for
adaptation. Once articulated, these theories
competed with other suggested explanations to
determine which set of concepts and propositions
could better account for crime. There were few
attempts to merge or integrate the ideas contained
in one theory with those in another.
Although there were earlier theories that incor-
porated concepts from different disciplines,
different levels of aggregation, and different com-
ponent theories (e.g., Cloward and Ohlin’s (1960)
Differential Opportunity Theory), the appearance
of Elliott, Ageton, and Canter’s (1979) Integrated
Theory served as the impetus for discussion and
debate regarding the development of theories
that sought to combine concepts and theories
into what their authors hoped to be a more sat-
isfactory explanatory scheme. Ten years later a
compendium containing articles by some of the
leading figures in the development of crimino-
logical theory was published (Messner, Krohn, &
Liska, 1989). The chapters in that volume repre-
sented different positions on both how to proceed
with theoretical integration and whether it is
wise to do so. Many of these differences have not
been resolved but their continuing ambiguity has
not dampened the move to find ways to com-
bine the useful ideas contained within different,
and often competing, theories. Indeed, it is fair
The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, First Edition. Edited by J. Mitchell Miller.
© 2014 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2014 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118517390/wbetc028
to say that most “new” theories of crime and
“integrated theories.”
In this entry, we will examine the meaning of
theoretical integration, the issues to be considered
in attempting to combine ideas from different the-
ories, and the different approaches to integration.
We also illustrate the different approaches at inte-
gration by briefly reviewing examples of each.
On the surface, the answer to the question of
what is theoretical integration would seem to be
rather straightforward. You have ideas from more
than one theory that you combine with ideas
from another to form a new theory that offers a
more complete explanation of the phenomenon.
Thomas Bernard (1989, p. 137) offered a defini-
tion of theoretical integration that is consistent
with this basic understanding: “integration is
achieved on the basis of a convergence among
the causal arguments in various criminology
theories.” Akers and Sellers (2009, p. 301) offer
a similar definition stating, “The goal of theory
integration is to identify commonalities in two
or more theories to produce a synthesis that is
superior to any one theory individually.”
Both of the above definitions set the bar rela-
tively low for what is to be considered theoretical
integration. By contrast, Thornberry (1989, p. 52)
considers theoretical integration to be “the act of
combining two or more sets of logically interre-
lated propositions into one larger set of proposi-
tions in order to provide a more comprehensive
explanation of a particular phenomenon.” Thorn-
berry’s definition has important implications for
what should and should not be considered the-
oretical integration and for the consequences to
the constituent theories if integration is success-
ful. For example, by stating that sets of logically
interrelated propositions form the basis of deter-
mining if the constituent theories have been
successfully integrated, Thornberry’s definition
excludes those attempts where only a concept or
even an isolated proposition from one theory is
added on to that of another to form a new theory.
Thornberry asserts that the set of propositions
that represent the basic claims of each theory
need to be incorporated to consider a theory to
2 I N T E G R AT E D T H E O R I E S
be truly integrated. In addition, the definition
also implies that if the integration is successful the
new theory will render the constituent theories
that form it obsolete, because the new theory
offers a more comprehensive explanation. If we
accept Thornberry’s definition of theoretical inte-
gration, there would be few examples of such in
the explanation of crime and criminal behavior.
Much of the work on combining theories has
concentrated on creating potentially better expla-
nations of crime and criminal behavior and has
not been overly concerned about under which
definition the new theory would be consid-
ered integrated. Rather, the theories combining
elements of constituent theories are typically
described under subcategories of theoretical
integrations such as propositional integration,
end-to-end integration, and up-and-down inte-
gration. Clearly to consider all the sub-types of
combining elements of theories to be integrated
theory implies the use of a more liberal definition
of theoretical integration than that provided
by Thornberry. These sub-types of integration
will be discussed below but before doing so, the
question of whether we should even be engaged
in any attempt to combine ideas from theories
needs to be addressed.
On the surface it seems that the answer to the
above question should be in the affirmative. If the
goal of theorizing about criminal behavior is to be
able to explain it and if by including propositions
or concepts from different theories we can better
accomplish this goal, then why shouldn’t we strive
to integrate theories?
Scholars have provided several reasons for
either not integrating theories or being very
cautious in the way that we do so. One argument
against theoretical integration addresses the
best way for the science of explaining criminal
behavior to advance. Hirschi (1989) argues that
science advances best when theories compete
with one another. We empirically assess different
theoretical explanations and those that are better
supported continue to be entertained while those
that prove not to be effective explanations are
abandoned.
While this strategy may appear to be a reason-
able way for the development of theories, there
are difficulties with employing it. The best way
to comparatively assess explanations of crimi-
nal behavior is to examine what are referred to
OF CRIME
as “critical tests.” These are instances where one
theory predicts one result whereas another theory
predicts a different, opposite result. Unfortunately
there are few examples of such critical tests. In
part because of the lack of critical tests, the
comparative effectiveness of different theories
is difficult to ascertain. Hence, even theories
that do not fare well when examined empirically
are retained. According to Bernard and Snipes
(1996) this results in an abundance of theories
that impedes rather than facilitates scientific
progress.
A second argument against theoretical inte-
gration concerns the conflicting assumptions
that underlie different theories. Hirschi (1989)
argues that if assumptions are conflicting then
any integrated theory would necessarily have
to violate the assumptions of one or the other
perspective. So for example, Hirschi has argued
that differential association theory and social
control theories have conflicting assumptions
about whether humans are naturally attracted to
deviant behavior or learn to deviate. In combining
propositions from these theories, as is frequently
done, the assumptions of social control theory
are violated.
Bernard and Snipes (1996) counter by arguing
that the problem lies not in combining incompati-
ble assumptions but rather in Hirschi’s interpreta-
tion of what the underlying assumptions are. They
claim that the assumptions underlying the theo-
ries are not incompatible and, therefore, there is
the potential for integrating these theories.
A third concern with integrating theories is
the almost inevitable increased complexity of
the resulting product. Integrated theories are
designed to incorporate ideas from different
theories, typically expanding both the number
of concepts and the number of propositions.
Those integrated theories that draw from dif-
ferent disciplinary approaches and address the
issues at different levels of analyses add further
complexity. Integrated theories may be incom-
patible to the oft-stated goal of parsimony in our
theoretical explanations. The complexity of inte-
grated theories may lead to additional problems
encountered in attempts to combine theoretical
ideas including the ability to empirically examine
the implications of these theories.
Complex theoretical structures are difficult to
empirically test. The research literature is replete
 I N T E G R AT E D T H E O R I E S
with examples of research that examines partial
theories because the full theory is too difficult
to incorporate in an equation which can be
estimated.
Pearson and Weiner (1985) also point out that
too often the effort to integrate is not informed by
a “systematic integrative framework.” When such
a framework is absent, the process may simply be
picking concepts from different theories without
making sure that they form a logically coherent
whole. The result can be what Gibbons (1994,
p. 187) refers to as theoretical mush.
In spite of these concerns, the effort to find a
way of integrating ideas from different theories to
form a more complete explanation of crime has
continued. These efforts take different forms and
we describe those forms in the next section.
Integrated theories are often classified into one
of two types, propositional or conceptual. Either
type can be applied to theories within the same
level of aggregation (micro-micro or macro-
macro integration) or across different levels
(macro–micro integration). While less common,
cross-level integration is often considered to be a
necessary next step in the development of theo-
ries of crime and deviance. By bringing together
micro- and macro-level theories, the result-
ing theory attempts to account both for the
individual characteristics or processes associated
with crime and deviance and for the qualities of
the larger social context in which the individual
is embedded. Depending on the complexity of
the constituent theories, cross-level integrated
theories can also enhance ecological validity by
more closely approximating the social processes
leading to such behavior. Further, advances
in statistical methodology, such as multi-level
modeling, have allowed for the specification of
increasingly complex models based on cross-level
integrated theories.
Integration can also incorporate theories across
disciplines of study. Like cross-level integration,
interdisciplinary integration has also been less
common. This is primarily because scholars tend
to be less aware of the theories and research
conducted in other disciplines compared to their
own. As a result, most integration only incor-
porates theories from within the criminological
and sociological traditions. Interdisciplinary
integration is becoming more prevalent as devel-
opmental theorists attempt to incorporate ideas
OF CRIME 3
from biology and psychology with sociological
theory in order to explain criminal behavior
across the life-course. In his integrative cognitive
antisocial capacity (ICAP) theory, Farrington
(1992, 2005) attributes the initiation, continu-
ation, and desistence of all types of antisocial
behavior from childhood to adulthood to an
underlying trait referred to as antisocial ten-
dency which is expressed as antisocial behavior
through interactions with one’s social and phys-
ical environment. According to Farrington,
one’s antisocial tendency is not only affected
by sociological factors such as parents, peers,
and community influences, but also depends on
one’s cognitive abilities or deficiencies in several
domains, including impulsivity/hyperactivity,
emotionality, intelligence, and conscience.
Propositional integration seeks to join theories
based on the predictions each constituent theory
makes about crime and deviance, although they
may have been derived through different concepts
and assumptions. This type of integration can be
further classified into one of three possible sub-
types based upon the way in which the constituent
theoretical propositions are linked together: up-
and-down or deductive integration, side-by-side
or parallel/horizontal integration, and end-to-end
or sequential integration.
Up-and-down integration, also referred to as
deductive integration, could be considered the
classic form of theoretical integration. There are
two types of up-and-down integration. In one
type, propositions that are integrated in an up-
and-down manner use the premise of one theory
to derive the propositions of constituent theories.
In particular, if theory A contains a more abstract
or more general proposition from which theory
B can be specified, then it is possible to integrate
theory B with theory A, resulting in a single
theory. Alternatively, if both theories A and B
are able to be elaborated using assumptions more
general than either theory individually, then
it could be possible to synthesize the theories
together in order to create a new theory C which
contains parts of both constituent theories. The
former approach is often referred to as theoret-
ical reduction, while the latter is referred to as
theoretical synthesis. Some scholars argue that
deductive integration is the only true type of
theoretical integration. It is also the most difficult
to do.
4 I N T E G R AT E D T H E O R I E S
Krohn’s (1986) social network theory is an
example of an attempt at up-and-down integra-
tion. The theory uses concepts and propositions
from the more general social network approach
to combine propositions from social control and
differential association theory under one unified
umbrella.
Side-by-side integration, or parallel integration,
is most often accomplished by partitioning the
subject matter of interest into distinct categories
and using different theories to explain each. As
a result, much attention is often given to the
criteria used to partition the subject matter, and
only then focuses on the theories which can
best explain each category. For example, Terrie
Moffitt (1993, 1997) classifies offenders into
adolescence-limited and life-course persistent
in her developmental taxonomy and develops
theory to account for each. Determining the
different classes into which the larger umbrella
of crime and deviance should be partitioned has
been the expressed goal in the development of
crime typologies. Typologies are often guided
by both existing theory and empirical data. The
extant theory coupled with what is known about
the behavior can be a fruitful starting point for the
construction of side-by-side integrated theories.
This method of integration can be useful as
some theories may be better suited to explain
specific types of crime or crime by certain types
of offenders than other theories. For example,
classic strain theory may be better able to explain
crime committed by the poor than by the wealthy
and therefore may benefit from being integrated
with a theory to explain crime by the wealthy.
Thus, it can be advantageous to incorporate mul-
tiple theories into a single framework in order
to more effectively explain a wider variety of
behavior.
Depending on rigor of the definition of inte-
gration, this method may not even be considered
theoretical integration at all, as the constituent
theories may only be considered integrated to
the extent that together they explain all or most
of the cases of the more general phenomenon of
crime and deviance. Further, an integrated theory
using this approach can incorporate as many
constituent theories as there are cases from which
the subject matter has been divided, resulting
in theories which are less parsimonious than
others.
OF CRIME
Theories integrated end-to-end specify the
propositions of one theory as sequentially
following the propositions of another. As such,
end-to-end integration implies a temporal
ordering among the causal variables in which
the first set of variables influences the next set, in
turn leading to the predicted outcome. Logically,
this means that the more distal causes of crime
and deviance are theorized to occur first while
the more proximal causes occur later, mediating
the earlier relationship. The best example of
this type of integration is Elliott et al.’s (1979)
integrated theory in which strain leads to weak
conventional bonds to society, which, in turn,
leads to associations with deviant peer groups,
and thus deviance.
Similar to side-by-side integration, the extent to
which theories linked end-to-end could be con-
sidered to be truly integrated is open for debate.
Hirschi (1989) argues that such an approach
neglects to reconcile conflicting assumptions that
may exist among constituent theories.
Unlike propositional integration, conceptual
integration seeks to synthesize theories on the
conceptual similarity between constituent the-
ories. This is done by identifying concepts in
different theories which may appear dissimilar
based on the words or terminology used to artic-
ulate them, but actually share the same theoretical
meaning or operationalization (Messner et al.,
1989). For example, the concepts of certainty
and severity of formal sanctions from deterrence
theory might be included in the broader concept
of differential reinforcement from social learning
theory, which is concerned with both formal and
informal sanctions. Akers (1999) has referred to
this type of integration as conceptual absorption,
where a concept of one theory is subsumed into a
related, more general concept of another theory.
The utility of this type of integration is open
for debate. For some, conceptual integration may
be used as a means to achieve propositional inte-
gration. However, the integration of theoretical
concepts is only considered to be a necessary
prerequisite for up-and-down integration, as the
other sub-types of propositional integration allow
for integration without conceptual consensus.
Further, it is possible for theories with conceptual
overlap to make conflicting propositional asser-
tions about the expected relationship between
those concepts and crime and deviance.
 I N T E G R AT E D T H E O R I E S
Much of the recent developments in crimino-
logical theory can be characterized as attempts to
incorporate the ideas from different constituent
theories into an integrated theory. The purpose
of such efforts is to provide a more complete
and satisfactory explanation of crime or delin-
quent behavior. Although this would seem to
be a laudable goal, scholars do not agree on the
merits of theoretical integration. Some feel that
it is better to have theories compete with one
another. The outcome of the competition would
then determine which theoretical perspective
would be pursued and which would be put aside.
Others are concerned with the inability of inte-
grated theories to remain true to different and
often competing assumptions of the constituent
theories. In spite of these concerns, the quest
for a more satisfactory explanation of criminal
behavior through the development of theories
integrating concepts and propositions from
different theories continues.
In this entry, we have briefly reviewed the differ-
ent forms that theoretical integration has taken.
These forms are characterized by the substance of
the ideas contained in them (e.g., cross-level and
cross-disciplinary integration) and by the form
in which those ideas are integrated (e.g., propo-
sitional integration and conceptual integration).
The quest for unifying the ideas contained in the-
ories of crime shows no sign of abating. Agnew
(2011) sees the process unfolding in a gradual but
inevitable way because discrete theories simply
have not produced satisfactory explanations of
crime. He asserts that each of these discrete
theories have something to contribute and that it
is incumbent on scholars to find ways to integrate
these ideas.
SEE ALSO:Akers, Ron L.; Theoretical Integra-
tion; Thornberry, Terence P.
References
Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a unified criminology. New
York: New York University Press.
Akers, R. L. (1999). Criminological theories: Introduction
and evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological the-
ories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th
ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
OF CRIME 5
Bernard, T. J. (1989). A theoretical approach to integra-
tion. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska
(Eds.), Theoretical Integration in the study of deviance
and crime: Problems and prospects (pp. 137–160).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical integra-
tion in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 301–348.
Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and
opportunity. New York: Free Press.
Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., & Canter, R. J. (1979).
An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent
behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
quency, 16(1), 3–27.
Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the beginning,
progress, and ending of anti-social behavior from
birth to adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, frame-
works, and forecasts (pp. 253–286). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Farrington, D. P. (2005). The integrated cognitive anti-
social potential (ICAP) theory. In D. P. Farrington
(Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theo-
ries of offending (pp. 73–91). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Gibbons, D. C. (1994). Talking about crime and crim-
inals: Problems and issues in theory development in
criminology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirschi, T. (1989). Exploring alternatives to integrated
theory. In S. F. Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska
(Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance
and crime: Problems and prospects (pp. 37–49).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Krohn, M. D. (1986). The web of conformity: A network
approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior.
Social Problems, 32, 455–473.
Messner, S. F., Krohn, M. K., & Liska, A. E. (Eds.).
(1989). Theoretical integration in the study of deviance
and crime: Problems and prospects. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Moffitt, T. (1993). Life-course-persistent and
adolescence-limited anti-social behavior: A devel-
opmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100,
674–701.
Moffitt, T. (1997). Adolescence-limited and life-course-
persistent offending: A complementary pair of
developmental theories. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.),
Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency
(pp. 11–54). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Pearson, F. S., & Weiner, N. A. (1985). Toward an inte-
gration of criminological theories. Journal of Crimi-
nal Law and Criminology, 76, 116–150.
Thornberry, T. P. (1989). Reflections on the advantages
and disadvantages of theoretical integration. In S. F.
Messner, M. D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theo-
retical integration in the study of deviance and crime:
Problems and prospects (pp. 51–60). Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
6 I N T E G R AT E D T H E O R I E S
Further Readings
Cao, L. (2004). Major criminological theories: Con-
cepts and measurement. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thomson.
Elliott, D. S. (1985). The assumption that theories can
be combined with increased explanatory power. In
R. F. Meier (Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Liska, A. E., Krohn, M. D., & Messner, S. F. (1989).
Strategies and requisites for theoretical integration in
OF CRIME
the study of crime and deviance. In S. F. Messner, M.
D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical integra-
tion in the study of deviance and crime: Problems and
prospects (pp. 1–19). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie.
American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in
the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, and World.
Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology (3rd
ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.