1130961

research-article2022
CADXXX10.1177/00111287221130961Crime & DelinquencyKabiri et al.

Original Research Article

Crime & Delinquency

Violations of Emergent
1­–36
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Norms Regarding sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00111287221130961
https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221130961
COVID-19 Mitigation journals.sagepub.com/home/cad

and Social Hygiene: An

Application of Agnew’s
General Theory of Crime

Saeed Kabiri1, Mahmoud Sharepour1 ,

C. Jordan Howell2, Hadley Wellen3,
Hayden P. Smith3, John K. Cochran2 ,
Seyyedeh Masoomeh (Shamila) Shadmanfaat4,
and Tia Stevens Andersen3

Abstract
This study examines self-reported violations of emergent norms and
regulations regarding COVID-19 mitigation and social hygiene practices
among a sample of high school students randomly selected from public
schools in Rasht, Iran. The study seeks to explain these COVID-19 ordinance
violations through the application of Agnew’s general integrated theory of
crime. Findings demonstrate that life domains, motivations, and constraints
have a direct effect on COVID-19 misbehavior. Moreover, life domains have
an indirect effect on COVID-19 misbehavior through both constraints and
motivations. Finally, the relationship between motivations and COVID-19
misbehavior is moderated by the peers domain, whereas the relationship

1
University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Islamic Republic of Iran
2
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
3
University of South Carolina System, Columbia, SC, USA
4
University of Guilan, Rasht, Islamic Republic of Iran

*Saeed Kabiri is now affiliated to Tehran University Jihad, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Corresponding Author:
John K. Cochran, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., SOC107, Tampa, FL
33620, USA.
Email: cochran@usf.edu
2 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

between constraints and COVID-19 misbehavior is moderated by the family

domain and school domain.

Keywords
COVID-19, social hygiene violations, constraints, motivations, life domains

Introduction
The emergence of COVID-19, also termed the novel coronavirus, led to mas-
sive social changes in daily activities related to culture, politics, economics,
health behaviors, and criminal justice (Maimon & Howell, 2020). While
most people infected with the virus experience mild to moderate respiratory
illness and may recover without medical treatment, people who are older or
who have pre-existing medical problems, such as cardiovascular disease, dia-
betes, chronic respiratory disease, or cancer face increased risk of morbidity
and mortality. Globally, as of July 2022, there have been 562,672,324 con-
firmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,367,793 deaths (WHO, 2022).
In Iran, according to the World Health Organization, about 7,289,542 peo-
ple have been infected and about 141,532 people have died from COVID-19
(WHO, 2022). Since the initial outbreak, several countries and medical/phar-
maceutical institutions have developed COVID-19 vaccines and treatments
(Kim et al., 2021; Knoll & Wonodi, 2021; Le et al., 2020). By July 2022,
12,166,921,655 vaccines had been administered worldwide, with a total of
150,558,738 vaccine doses administered in Iran (WHO, 2022). Prior to and
since the development of effective COVID-19 vaccines, a primary method of
reducing the transmission of the disease has been to adhere to health proto-
cols and physical distancing plans as mandated by governmental agencies
(Barrios et al., 2021; Duczmal et al., 2020; Pedersen & Favero, 2020; Sen-
Crowe et al., 2020). Iran is among the countries that implemented an urban
quarantine plan, with the imposition of fines on citizens who violate COVID-1
ordinances (Alimohamadi et al., 2020; Thu et al., 2020). Breaking quarantine
in Iran carries a fine of IRR 2,000,000 (USD 6.6).
Research has shown that the successful implementation of urban quaran-
tine schemes (i.e., health protocols and physical distancing), are limited by
cultural, religious, social, and economic challenges (Aminnejad & Alikhani,
2020; Huynh, 2020; Lunn et al., 2020; Oosterhoff et al., 2020; Yezli & Khan,
2020). Triberti et al. (2021) found that many people simply do not follow
social distancing guidelines. There is also evidence that individuals who vio-
late public health measures, particularly the rejection of health protocols and
Kabiri et al. 3

failure to maintain social distance, continue to drive rates of COVID-19

within populations (Hardin et al., 2021). As such, the need to identify factors
influencing the violation of the social laws related to the COVID-19 pan-
demic is both clear and crucial. Moreover, studies should employ a theoreti-
cal perspective to explain and predict these behaviors.
One such theory, which may be particularly useful for explaining variation
in COVID-19 ordinance violations, is Agnew’s (2005) integrated general
theory of crime. The theory posits that several life domains influence the
likelihood of criminal acts both directly and indirectly through motivations
for crime and low constraints against crime. Although several studies have
examined Agnew’s theory (see, e.g., Choi & Kruis, 2019; Cochran, 2017;
Ngo & Paternoster, 2014; Zhang et al., 2012), empirical research remains
limited. Despite the dearth of empirical research, the theory is purported as a
general theory of offending and, as such, should be capable of explaining
variation in offending across cultural contexts, including Iran, where the cur-
rent study was conducted. Moreover, since COVID-19 ordinance violations
stem from an array of interpersonal and societal pressures (Aminnejad &
Alikhani, 2020; Huynh, 2020; Lunn et al., 2020; Oosterhoff et al., 2020; Yezli
& Khan, 2020), Agnew’s general theory should provide nuanced understand-
ing of decision making during a global pandemic.
The current study contributes to the literature by examining the utility of
Agnew’s general theory of crime for explaining youth violations of public
health ordinances during the COVID-19 pandemic using an international
sample. Specifically, we examine the direct, indirect, and moderating effects
of these life domains on violations of COVID-19 public health ordinances
among Iranian high school students. We are aware of no other studies in
which the propositions of Agnew’s theory are tested against non-criminal
rule-breaking behaviors using an international sample, despite the theory’s
purported ability to explain all offending behaviors. As such, this study is an
attempt to bridge the gap in this line of research.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

The current study is informed by Agnew’s (2005) integrated general theory
of crime. Agnew (2005) sought to determine why criminals offend by syn-
thesizing available theoretical constructs, including concepts from general
strain theory1 (Agnew, 2001), into an integrated general theory of crime and
deviant behavior. Agnew’s (2005) “variable approach” to theoretical inte-
gration (see Vold et al., 2010), rather than the more common forms of theo-
retical integration that have emerged in the literature (e.g., conceptual
4 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

integration/absorption, end-to-end and/or top-down propositional integra-

tion (see Akers & Sellers, 2013; Liska et al., 1989), was initiated by his
attempt to first identify key theoretical variables that are known and reli-
able correlates of criminal behavior from many different criminological
theories. Agnew (2005) then set out to summarize and organize these known
correlates into one of three causal constructs: constraints against crime,
motivations for crime, and life domains that influence both deviant behav-
ior and these constraints and motivations. The key theoretical proposition
of the resultant integrated general theory was that criminal behavior is
“most likely when the constraints against crime are low and the motivations
for crime are high” (Agnew, 2005, p. 11). These constraints against and
motivations for crime/deviance are themselves the products of a broad
array of individual traits and social, environmental, and situational factors
which, in turn, can be organized into one of five life domains: the self, the
family, the peer group, school, and work.
While Agnew argues constraints against crime and motivations for crime
as the primary mechanisms through which the individual traits and environ-
mental factors located within these life domains cause crime, these life
domains can also have an independent, direct influence on crime (Cochran,
2017). Hence, crime is caused by the direct and indirect effects of the various
individual traits and environmental variables that comprise the five key life
domains and by the constraints against and motivations for them. These moti-
vations and constraints mediate much of the total effects of the life domains.
Moreover, the five life domains each condition or moderate the effect of con-
straints and/or motivations on criminal/deviant behavior.

Constraints and Motivations

For Agnew (2005), constraints are those factors that deter, inhibit, and/or
dissuade individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. Agnew (2005)
organized these constraints into one of three spheres: external controls,
stakes in conformity, and internal controls. The theory asserts that people
refrain for committing criminal acts because (1) they fear getting caught and
punished (external control), (2) they fear the consequences and what they
would risk losing if caught (stakes in conformity), and/or (3) they believe
crime is wrong and produces guilt, shame, and embarrassment (internal con-
trol) (Ngo et al., 2011).
External controls refer to social sanctions applied by others for violating
the law or social norms. External controls may be directly or vicariously
experienced and/or perceived/anticipated; they vary in both their likelihood
(certainty) and intensity (severity) and they may be applied formally by the
Kabiri et al. 5

courts, police, school officials, employers, etc. or informally by family,

neighbors, friends, classmates, colleagues, etc. (Cochran, 2017). Internal
controls refer to those factors through which individuals restrain themselves
and include (a) one’s moral values and attitudes toward the law and social
norms, (b) the degree to which one has been effectively socialized toward
conventional society, (c) personality traits that increase responsiveness to
external constraints (i.e., self-control, risk aversion, delayed gratification,
etc.), and (d) the extent to which individuals may sanction themselves for
violating the law or social norms (Cochran, 2017). Finally, Agnew (2005)
recognized a variety of “stakes in conformity” that individuals have estab-
lished for themselves that they risk losing should they be caught for criminal
acts. These stakes in conformity refer to the various investments, “side bets,”
one makes in their current life and future through the establishment of con-
ventional goals and strong social bonds with conventional others, activities,
and social institutions (i.e., attachments, commitments, and involvements)
that one risks harming or destroying through engagement in criminal behav-
iors (Cochran, 2017).
While constraints may restrain one from criminal involvement, the term
“motivations” refers to risks that tempt, lure, provoke, or pressure one toward
crime. For Agnew (2005), such motivations include (a) stressors, strains, and
negative emotions that pressure one toward crime, (b) coercive forces that
may compel one to violate social rules, (c) social forces that may attract one
to crime through neutralizations and alternative definitions of the situation
that make crime more acceptable/appropriate, (d) social and non-social rein-
forcements that make crime more rewarding, and (e) encouragements for
crime from significant others. These motivations are manifested through
strain and the social learning process.

Life Domains
Agnew (2005) argues the constraints against, and the motivations for, crime
are both influenced by, and are mediators of, a host of individual traits and
environmental factors that he has organized around five variable clusters
known as “life domains”: the self, the family, the peer group, school, and
work. In the life domain of the self, Agnew (2005) recognizes two dominant
sources of constraints and motivations: self-control and conventional social-
ization. High levels of self-control and the internalization of conventional
beliefs, values, and norms are mechanisms of the self that serve to enhance
constraints against, and to attenuate motivations for, criminal acts. Conversely,
low self-control (i.e., impulsivity, risk- and sensation-seeking, irritability,
etc.) reduces the effectiveness of constraints and amplifies motivations
6 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Similarly, poor/ineffective socialization into

conventional values, beliefs, and social norms attenuate the effects of con-
straints and permit pro-criminal motivations to express themselves
behaviorally.
Borrowing from social bonding theory (Hirschi, 1969), Agnew’s family
domain, at least for adolescents, is best conceptualized by the strength of
one’s bond to their parents and other family members (parental attachment)
and by the level of parental supervision experienced. Where parental attach-
ment is strong and parental supervision is effective, the inhibiting effects of
constraints are enhanced, and the criminal motivations are dampened
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Conversely, other factors within the family
domain such as poor parenting, lack of parental support, family conflict,
abuse/neglect, family substance abuse, and/or criminality may attenuate the
effects of constraints against crime and may amplify the influence of criminal
motivations.
The peer group constitutes the third life domain in Agnew’s theory. Peer
associates, through pressure, their own criminal involvements, conflicts,
unstructured/unsupervised activities, etc. are a primary source of criminal
motivations and weakened constraints. However, pro-social peers have the
opposite effects.
Strong attachments to school, teachers, and coaches, strong commitments
to educational goals and aspirations, heavy investment and involvement in
school-related activities, and effective monitoring and supervision by school
officials are elements of the school domain that serve to activate and amplify
constraints against crime and to mitigate the influence of pro-criminal moti-
vations. Conversely, the absence, breaking, weakening etc. of any of these
school bonds, such as poor treatment, poor teaching, bad grades, etc., stimu-
late criminal motivations while dampening the effects of constraints against
criminal behavior. In a similar vein, strong attachments, commitments, and
involvements to work, work goals and aspirations, employers, and co-work-
ers, enhance constraints and reduce criminal motivations while weak or poor
work attachments, commitments, and involvements have the opposite effect.
Since the current study employs a sample of high school youth, we focus on
the school, rather than work, domain.
In short, Agnew’s general theory of crime posits that (a) constraints, moti-
vations, and life domains have direct effects on offending, (b) both constraints
and motivations partially mediate the effects of the life domains on offending,
and (c) the life domains condition or moderate the effects of both constraints
and motivations on offending. While a complete test of Agnew’s general the-
ory is notoriously difficult (Vold et al., 2010), those who have partially tested
the propositions of the theory have all found some support for the association
Kabiri et al. 7

between constraints, motivations, and variables within the life domains (e.g.,
employment, educational attainment, parental supervision, peer delinquency)
and delinquency, offending, and recidivism (see Choi & Kruis, 2019; Cochran,
2017; Grubb & Posick, 2018; Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić et al., 2014; Ngo &
Paternoster, 2014; Ngo et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012).
While previous studies highlight the direct effects of the various life
domains on criminal offending, only a few tests examine the indirect effects
of life domains (Cochran, 2017; Ngo et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2012), with
most studies utilizing a sample gathered in the USA (cf. Kabiri et al., 2020;
Muftić et al., 2014). Ngo et al. (2022) conducted the most recent test of
Agnew’s theory on the perpetration of intimate partner violence. The study,
like most prior tests, provides support for the theory’s propositions: life
domains have a direct and indirect effect on offending. Unfortunately, and
also like most prior tests, the authors failed to examine the moderating role of
the constructs. In fact, despite a few studies testing various interactions (i.e.,
Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić et al., 2014), no known study has directly assessed
whether life domains moderate the effects of low constraints and motivations
on offending.
Moreover, none of these studies have assessed the theory’s efficacy against
data on violations of an emergent social norm such as behaviors violative of
the social hygiene and social distancing norms and ordinances that have
arisen recently under the exigency of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current
study seeks to provide a more complete test of Agnew’s theory on COVID-19
misbehavior using a non-USA sample. Specifically, and expanding upon the
literature reviewed above, we seek to test the following theoretically derived
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1.  Life domains will have a direct effect on COVID-19 ordi-
nance violations.
Hypothesis 2.  Low constraints will increase engagement in COVID-19
ordinance violations.
Hypothesis 3.  Motivations will increase engagement in COVID-19 ordi-
nance violations.
Hypothesis 4.  Low constraints will partially mediate the effect of life
domains on COVID-19 ordinance violations.
Hypothesis 5.  Motivations will partially mediate the effect of life
domains on COVID-19 ordinance violations.
Hypothesis 6.  Life domains will moderate the effect of low constraints
on COVID-19 ordinance violations.
Hypothesis 7.  Life domains will moderate the effect of motivations on
COVID-19 ordinance violations.
8 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Methodology
The Iranian national headquarters responsible for addressing COVID-19
announced that “red cities” in the country, including Rasht, were to be quar-
antined for two weeks beginning on Saturday, December 22, 2020. A city is
classified as red (high risk) when the average daily hospitalization rate is over
3 per 100,000 population in the previous two weeks. Although schools in
Rasht are typically open between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. from Saturday to Thursday,
they converted to a hybrid model with some activities only available online
during the quarantine. Moreover, schools strictly monitored for symptoms of
the virus and symptomatic students were unable to attend the in-person activ-
ities. The present study was conducted during the quarantine in December,
2020. The main purpose of this study, which was approved by the university’s
institutional review board, is to test the efficacy of Agnew’s general theory in
explaining violations of these public health requirements during urban
quarantine.
To do so, we administered a self-reported survey to a sample of high
school students in Rasht, Iran. The survey was completed using pen and
paper. The questions were presented in Farsi then translated to English by the
lead author. The sampling frame consisted of the 6,023 high school students
in Rasht at the time of the survey. Members of the research team obtained a
list from the Rasht Education Department of students enrolled in district high
schools; this list served as the sampling frame for the present study. From this
list, we utilized the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sample-size estimation proce-
dure2 and determined that 410 students should be randomly selected.3
The research team contacted the selected students and their parents to
notify them of the nature of the study and obtain consent and parental permis-
sion to participate in this project. Questionnaires (in paper format) were then
delivered to the students; completed questionnaires were subsequently
picked-up for coding and data entry. As an incentive, participants received a
health package that included hand sanitizer, a guide to health tips during
quarantine, and a facemask. In total, of the 410 self-administered question-
naires distributed, 389 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a
94.49% response rate. The 21 incomplete surveys were not considered in the
final analysis. Although this response rate is high for the social sciences gen-
erally, prior research conducted in Iran, using pen and paper surveys, yield a
similar response rate (e.g., Kabiri et al., 2022; Shadmanfaat et al., 2018,
2020). Descriptive statistics revealed that 27.8% of our respondents were in
their first year of high school, 34.7% were in their second year of high school,
and 37.5% were in their third year of high school. In terms of gender, 51.4%
of the respondents were female and 48.6% were male.
Kabiri et al. 9

Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is a summated scale of self-reported COVID-19 mis-
behaviors capturing norm violations. Since the study was conducted less than
two weeks post quarantine implementation, we focused our analysis on norm
violations within the prior week (i.e., 7 days) to ensure the quarantine was in
effect. COVID-19 misbehavior is a four-item measure developed by
Alessandri et al. (2020). Respondents were asked, “In the past 7 days, to what
extent did you: (1) engage in social distancing; (2) keep the recommended
distance from people and avoid crowded places; (3) limit your social interac-
tions; and (4) follow the guidelines issued by the government.” Response
options were given on a five-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal).
All items were reverse coded, then summated to create the final measure,
COVID-19 misbehavior (α = .824), with higher scores indicating higher lev-
els of COVID misbehavior. The dependent variable approximates a normal
distribution (kurtosis = −.750) with a slight right skew (.193). Moreover, the
average score across participants is 9.89 (SD = 3.69) with a median value of
10. Since the index ranged from 4 to 20, the mean value obtained is close to
the mid-point of the interval (i.e., 10) suggesting an average level of
compliance.
The reliability of the scale described above was examined through calcu-
lations of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) and composite reliability (CR).
The Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients were higher than
the acceptable threshold of .70 as recommended by Nunally (1978).
Reliability and validity measures are presented alongside the descriptive sta-
tistics in Table 1.

Constraints and Motivations

Constraints: Constraints, as discussed in much depth above, are factors
that deter, inhibit, and/or dissuade individuals from engaging in criminal
behavior (Ngo et al., 2011). In the current study, two dimensions of con-
straints were measured using six items assessing internal control (shame)
and informal control (embarrassment). Both shame and embarrassment
were measured through their perceived certainty and severity, as devel-
oped by Cochran (2017). Responses were then summated to create the
final measure, low constraints. Higher scores represent lower levels of
constraint (α = .778). See Appendix A for a complete list of questions.
Response options ranged from 6 to 27, with an average score of 16.90.
Despite measuring two dimensions (shame and embarrassment), the
10 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Table 1.  Descriptive Characteristic (N = 389).

Standard Factor
Variable name Mean deviation loadings CR α Minimum Maximum
COVID-19 misbehavior 9.89 3.69 0.656–0.769 .825 .824 4 20
Motivations 13.53 4.13 0.521–0.603 .743 .745 6 30
Low constraints 16.90 4.87 0.408–0.736 .771 .778 6 27
Low peer domain 8.95 3.13 0.705–0.822 .859 .860 4 20
Low self-domain 34.73 10.32 0.490–0.769 .896 .901 15 75
Low family domain 13.95 3.78 0.623–0.778 .857 .859 6 34
Low school domain 17.58 5.01 0.632–0.833 .906 .907 8 40
Male 0.50 0.50 — — — 0  1
Education 2.10 0.80 — — — 1  3
Family at risk 0.32 0.47 — — — 0  1
Family death 0.23 0.42 — — — 0  1

Note: α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability.

measure proved to be unidimensional and approximated a normal distribu-

tion (Skewness = .320, Kurtosis = −.500).
Motivations: While constraints may restrain one from criminal involve-
ment, motivations are factors that tempt, lure, provoke, or pressure one toward
crime. For the current study, two dimensions of motivation were measured
using six items assessing strain-based motivations and social learning-based
motivations. Responses were then summated to create the final measure, moti-
vations. Higher scores represent higher motivations for crime (α = .745). See
Appendix B for a complete list of questions. Response options ranged from 6
to 30, with an average score of 13.53. Despite measuring two dimensions
(strain and social learning), the measure proved to be unidimensional and
approximated a normal distribution (Skewness = .461, Kurtosis = .338).

Life Domains
In accordance with Agnew (2005), constraints and motivations are influenced
by, and mediators of, individual traits and environmental factors organized
around five “life domains”: the self, the family, the peer group, school, and
work. Since we utilize a sample of high school students, we measure the first
four of these life domains and exclude “work”. Below we discuss our concep-
tualization and operationalization of these life domains.

Low family-domain.  Agnew’s social domain of the family is measured using a

summated scale comprised of six items assessing attachment to parents, harsh
Kabiri et al. 11

parental discipline, and poor monitoring. Two of these six items address
attachment to parents and were borrowed from Liu (2019): (1) “I have a close
relationship with my parents,” and (2) “My parents understand me”. Items
were rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly dis-
agree). We also used two items from the Harsh Parental Discipline scale (Liu,
2019) to measure parental punitive style. We asked students, “When you mis-
behave, did your father or mother . . . (1) hit/beat up/slap you, and (2) taunt/
scream at/ridicule you”. The response options ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (fre-
quently). The final two items comprising the ineffective parenting scale
assessed parents’ monitoring ability. These were captured by items used by
Kabiri et al. (2020): (1) “How often do/does your parent or parents (guardians)
know who you are with when you are away from home” and (2) “In the course
of a day, how often do/does your parent or parents (guardians) know where
you are.” Items were rated on a seven-point rating scale (1 = never; 7 = always).
These two items were reverse coded. Responses to each of the items were
summated to create the construct, low family domain (α = .859). Response
options ranged from 6 to 34, with an average score of 13.95. Higher scores
represent a lower family bond. The measure proved to be unidimensional and
approximated a normal distribution (Skewness = .265, Kurtosis = −.284).

Low school-domain.  To measure the impact of the school domain on misbe-

havior during the urban quarantine, we used eight items related to poor school
support, ineffective disciplinary structure, school disorganization, and school
attachment that were used in a previous study by Kabiri et al. (2020). The
items included: (1) “Most teachers and other adults at this school care about
all students;” (2) “Most teachers and other adults at this school treat student
with respect;” (3) “Students at this school only get punished when they
deserve it;” (4) “The school rules are fair;” (5) “There is much violence in my
school;” (6) “There is a lot of stealing in my school;” (7) “I feel like a part of
my school;” and (8) “I am happy to be at my school.” The responses ranged
from 1 (completely agree) to 5 (completely disagree). Items 5 and 6 were
reverse coded. Responses to each of the items were summated to create the
construct, low school domain (α = .907). Response options ranged from 8 to
40, with an average score of 17.58. Higher scores represent a lower school
bond. The measure proved to be unidimensional and approximated a normal
distribution (Skewness = .492, Kurtosis = .187).

Low peer domain.  Agnew’s peer domain was assessed from a four-item mea-
sure that captures deviant peer affiliation developed by Cutrín, Gómez-
Fraguela, Maneiro, et al. (2017). We added one item related to COVID-19
misbehavior to the original scale. Respondents were asked: (1) “How many
12 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

of your close friends get into trouble and problems;” (2) “How many of your
close friends take drugs/drink alcohol or smoking cigarettes;” (3) “How
many of your close friends carry out risky behavior;” and (4) “How many of
your close friends violate the COVID-19 guidelines issued by the Govern-
ment?” The response categories ranged from 1 (none of them) to 5 (all of
them). Responses to each of the items were summated to create the construct,
low peer domain (α = .860). Response options ranged from 4 to 20, with an
average score of 8.95. Higher scores represent a decreased prosocial peer
bond. The measure proved to be unidimensional and approximated a normal
distribution (Skewness = .293, Kurtosis = −.500).

Low self-domain. Two scales were used to measure the impact of the self-
domain: self-control and social concern. The ability to exercise self-control
was assessed via the self-control scale created by Wikström et al. (2012). The
social concern construct was a nine-item scale that assesses the four subcom-
ponents of social concern: moral intuitions, empathy/sympathy, desire for
close ties, and conformity to others. Moral intuitions were assessed using
items adapted from the moral foundation questionnaire (Haidt & Graham,
2007), whereas the other components were assessed using measures adopted
from Kabiri et al., (2020). See Appendix C for a complete list of questions
used to create the summated scale, low self-domain (α = .901). Response
options ranged from 15 to 75, with an average score of 34.73. Higher scores
represent a lower self-domain (i.e., less self-control and social concern). The
measure proved to be unidimensional and approximated a normal distribu-
tion (Skewness = −.015, Kurtosis = −.752).
The reliability of each scale described above was examined through calcu-
lations of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) and composite reliability (CR).
All the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability coefficients were higher
than the acceptable threshold of .70 as recommended by Nunally (1978).
Reliability and validity measures are presented alongside the descriptive sta-
tistics in Table 1.

Control Variables
In this study, the effects of death experience from COVID-19 in the family
(family death) is controlled with a single item: “Have you lost a family mem-
ber due to coronavirus? Moreover, family members’ risky conditions (family
at risk) are controlled with a single item: Do you have a family member with
a pre-existing condition that puts her at particular risk during the corona out-
break?” Response options to both questions included 0 (no) and 1 (yes).
Additionally, gender (male) was included as a control variable (0 = female;
Kabiri et al. 13

1 = male). The final control variable included in the models is education,

which was coded as an ordinal variable ranging from 1 (first year of high
school) to 3 (third year of high school). Descriptive statistics for the control
variables are presented in Table 1.

Analytic Strategy
Data analysis was performed in several phases. First, bivariate correlations
between independent and dependent variables were examined. Next, struc-
tural equation modeling in AMOS software was performed to observe the
direct effects of constraints, motivations, and life domains on COVID-19
misbehavior, in addition to the indirect effects of life domains on COVID-19
misbehavior through constraints and motivations. In the last step, we assess
Agnew’s (2005) claim that constraints and motivations are moderated by the
effect of life domains using OLS regression.

Results
Correlation analyses were used to examine the associations between Agnew’s
key theoretical constructs and COVID-19 misbehavior. As reported in
Table 2, each of the independent variables of interest (excluding the control
variable, education) are correlated with COVID-19 misbehavior. These cor-
relations are all positive, modest to moderate in strength, and statistically
significant at the p < .01 level. Motivations and low constraints are positively
associated with COVID-19 misbehavior (r = .49 and r = .45, respectively).
Similarly, all the life domain scales (with higher scores representing lower
domains) are positively associated with COVID-19 misbehavior (r = .31–
.49). Finally, all the correlations among the key theoretical variables are also
positive, statistically significant, and modest to moderate in strength (r = .16–
.39). As such, these bivariate associations provide initial support for the
application and efficacy of Agnew’s integrated general theory to an explana-
tion of the violation of emergent social hygiene norms associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic in Iran. In addition, the highest inter-item correlation is
.49, suggesting multicollinearity is not an issue.
Table 3 presents the results of a structural equation model estimating: (1)
the direct effects of life domains, motivations, and low constraints on COVID-
19 misbehavior; (2) the direct effects of life domains on motivations and low
constraints; and (3) the indirect effects of the life domains on COVID-19
misbehavior through motivations and low constraints. The overall structural
model, depicted in Figure 1, proved to be a good fit to the data: df = 2.090,
GFI = .979, IFI = 961, CFI = .958, RMSEA = .053.
14 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Table 2.  Correlation Matrix (N = 389).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 1 COVID-19 —  
misbehavior
 2 Low self- .46** —  
domain
 3 Low family .44** .27** —  
domain
 4 Low peers .31** .23** .19** —  
domain
 5 Low school .49** .22** .16** .17** —  
domain
 6 Motivations .49** .33** .39** .29** .33** —  
 7 Low .45** .27** .27** .20** .24** .27** —  
constraints
 8 Male .26** .10* .09* .09* .15** .13** .17** —  
 9 Education −.04 −.04 −.02 .10* −.03 −.06 −.02 .02 —  
10 Family at risk −.14** −.02 −.07 .03 −.03 −.01 −.05 −.04 −.10* —
11 Family death −.23** −.17** −.14** −.11* −.09* −.11* −.07 .03 −.07 −.01

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.  Structural Equation Model Assessing Agnew’s General Theory on

COVID-19 Misbehavior (N = 389).

Independent Standard
variable Dependent variable Estimate error p-Value R2
Low self-domain COVID-19 misbehavior .21 .01 .001  
Low family domain COVID-19 misbehavior .18 .04 .001  
Low peers domain COVID-19 misbehavior .08 .04 .031  
Low school domain COVID-19 misbehavior .29 .03 .001  
Motivations COVID-19 misbehavior .17 .04 .001  
Low constraints COVID-19 misbehavior .20 .03 .001  
Male COVID-19 misbehavior .13 .25 .001  
Education COVID-19 misbehavior −.02 .15 .485  
Family at risk COVID-19 misbehavior −.11 .26 .002  
Family death COVID-19 misbehavior −.11 .30 .001  
R2 of model .53
Low self-domain Motivations .17 .02 .001  
Low family domain Motivations .28 .05 .001  
Low peers domain Motivations .15 .06 .001  

(continued)
Kabiri et al. 15

Table 3.  (continued)

Independent Standard
variable Dependent variable Estimate error p-Value R2
Low school domain Motivations .21 .04 .001  
Male Motivations .05 .35 .265  
Education Motivations −.03 .22 .461  
Family at risk Motivations .02 .38 .642  
Family death Motivations −.01 .42 .938  
R2 of model .28
Low self-domain Low constraints .16 .02 .002  
Low family domain Low constraints .18 .06 .001  
Low peers domain Low constraints .10 .08 .040  
Low school domain Low constraints .15 .05 .002  
Male Low constraints .11 .45 .022  
Education Low constraints −.01 .28 .888  
Family at risk Low constraints −.03 .48 .526  
Family death Low constraints .01 .54 .893  
R2 of model .15
Total Indirect Effects of Life Domains on COVID-19 Misbehavior Via Low Constraints and
Motivations
Low self-domain COVID-19 misbehavior .06 .01 .001  
Low family domain COVID-19 misbehavior .08 .02 .001  
Low peers domain COVID-19 misbehavior .05 .02 .001  
Low school domain COVID-19 misbehavior .07 .01 .001  

Note. Standardized coefficents are reported;

Model fit indices: df = 2.090, GFI = .979, IFI = .961, CFI = .958, RMSEA = .053.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Findings from this structural model demonstrate that all four life domains
(low self-domain (β = .21, p < .01), low family domain (β = .18, p < .01), low
peers domain (β = .08, p < .01), and low school domain (β = .29, p < .01) have
a direct effect on COVID-19 misbehavior. Moreover, both motivations
(β = .17, p < .01) and low constraints (β = .20, p < .01) have a direct effect on
COVID-19 misbehavior. Taken together, these findings provide support for
Agnew’s theory. Each of the control variables, except for education, were
also significantly associated with the dependent variable of interest.
In further support of Agnew’s theory, each of the life domains (low self-
domain (β = .17, p < .01), low family domain (β = .28, p < .01), low peers
domain (β = .15, p < .01), and low school domain (β = .21, p < .01)) have a
direct effect of motivations. Similarly, each of the life domains (low
16 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Figure 1.  Structural equation model assessing Agnew’s general theory on

COVID-19 misbehavior.
Note. Standardized coefficents are reported; Model fit indices: df = 2.090, GFI = .979, IFI = .961,
CFI = .958, RMSEA = .053.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

self-domain (β = .16, p < .01), low family domain (β = .18, p < .01), low peers
domain (β = .10, p < .05), and low school domain (β = .15, p < .01)) have a
direct effect of low constraints. Thus, stated concisely, the social, environ-
mental, and situational characteristics comprising the life domains all alter
participants’ motivations for, and constraints against, offending. None of the
control variables are associated with motivations and only male (β = .11,
p < .05) is associated with low constraints, with males having lower levels of
constraints than their female counterparts.
Lastly, low self-domain (β = .06, p < .01), low family domain (β = .08,
p < .01), low peers domain (β = .05, p < .01), and low school domain (β = .07,
p < .01) all have an indirect effect on COVID-19 misbehavior through moti-
vations and low constraints. Thus, the inter-individual characteristics com-
prising the life domains alter participants’ motivations and constraints, and
through these constructs influence their decision to offend. As such, the life
domains have a direct and indirect effect on COVID-19 misbehavior as pro-
posed by Agnew. The structural model, with standardized effects presented,
can be viewed in Figure 1.
To further test Agnew’s general theory of crime, we assess whether, and to
what extent, the relationship between motivations (Table 4) and low con-
straints (Table 5) and COVID-19 misbehavior is moderated by life domains.
 Table 4.  The Moderation Effect of Life Domains on the Relationship between Motivations and COVID-19 Misbehavior (N = 389).

Model 1: Low Model 2: Low Model 3: Low Model 4: Low

self-domain family domain peers domain school domain

Standard Standard Standard Standard

Independent variables Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value
Low self-domain .20 .01 .001 .20 .01 .001 .20 .01 .001 .20 .01 .001
Low family domain .18 .04 .001 .18 .04 .001 .16 .04 .001 .18 .04 .001
Low peers domain .08 .04 .028 .08 .04 .028 .08 .04 .029 .08 .04 .033
Low school domain .28 .03 .001 .28 .03 .001 .27 .03 .001 .28 .03 .001
Motivations .17 .04 .001 .17 .04 .001 .16 .04 .001 .17 .04 .001
Low constraints .19 .03 .001 .19 .03 .001 .18 .03 .001 .19 .03 .001
Male .12 .26 .001 .12 .26 .001 .13 .25 .001 .12 .26 .001
Education –.02 .16 .514 –.02 .16 .483 –.02 .16 .562 –.02 .16 .468
Family at risk –.10 .27 .003 –.11 .27 .002 –.11 .27 .002 –.11 .27 .002
Family death –.10 .31 .003 –.11 .31 .002 –.11 .31 .002 –.11 .31 .002
Low Self- −.05 .01 .149 — — — — — — — — —
domain × motivations
Low family domain ×  — — — −.01 .01 .674 — — — — — —
motivations
Low peers domain ×  — — — — — — .09 .01 .017 — — —
motivations
Low school domain ×  — — — — — — — — — −.02 .01 .503
motivations
R2 of model .57 .57 .57 .57

17
(continued)
18
Table 4.  (continued)

Model 1: Low Model 2: Low Model 3: Low Model 4: Low

self-domain family domain peers domain school domain

Standard Standard Standard Standard

Independent variables Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value
R2 change .01 .01 .01 .01
F change 2.09 .09 5.73 .45
Sig. F change .149 .764 .017 .503
Low (−1 SD below the — — — — — — .30 .05 .001 — — —
mean)
Moderate (mean) — — — — — — .38 .04 .001 — — —
High (+1 SD above the — — — — — — .46 .05 .001 — — —
mean)
 Table 5.  The Moderation Effect of Life Domains on the Relationship between Constraints and COVID-19 Misbehavior (N = 389).

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4:

Low self-domain Low family domain Low peers domain School domain

Standard Standard Standard Standard

Independent variables Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value
Low self-domain .20 .01 .001 .19 .01 .001 .20 .01 .001 .20 .01 .001
Low family domain .18 .04 .001 .18 .04 .001 .17 .04 .001 .17 .04 .001
Low peers domain .08 .04 .035 .07 .04 .050 .08 .04 .039 .08 .04 .026
Low school domain .28 .03 .001 .27 .03 .001 .28 .03 .001 .24 .03 .001
Motivations .17 .04 .001 .16 .04 .001 .17 .04 .001 .16 .04 .001
Low constraints .19 .03 .001 .19 .03 .001 .19 .03 .001 .19 .03 .001
Male .12 .26 .001 .12 .26 .001 .12 .26 .001 .13 .26 .001
Education –.02 .16 .499 –.02 .16 .651 –.02 .16 .516 –.02 .16 .584
Family at risk –.11 .27 .002 –.10 .27 .003 –.11 .27 .002 –.11 .27 .002
Family death –.11 .31 .002 –.11 .31 .003 –.11 .31 .002 –.11 .31 .002
Low self-domain × .01 .01 .982 — — — — — — — — —
 low constraints
Low family — — — .08 .01 .018 — — — — — —
domain × low
constraints
Low peers — — — — — — .01 .01 .833 — — —
domain × low
constraints

(continued)

19
20
Table 5.  (continued)

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4:

Low self-domain Low family domain Low peers domain School domain

Standard Standard Standard Standard

Independent variables Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value Estimate error p-Value
Low school — — — — — — — — — .09 .01 .015
domain × low
constraints
R2 of model .57 .57 .57 .57
R2 change .01 .01 .01 .01
F change .01 5.62 .04 5.94
Sig. F change .982 .018 .833 .015
Low (−1 SD below the — — — .10 .05 .028 — — — .18 .04 .001
mean)
Moderate (mean) — — — .26 .03 .001 — — — .27 .03 .001
High (+1 SD above — — — .41 .04 .001 — — — .36 .04 .001
the mean)
Kabiri et al. 21

Table 4 presents the moderating role of the various life domains on the rela-
tionship between motivations and COVID-19 misbehavior. Specifically, inter-
action terms were included to test whether low self-domain (Model 1), low
family domain (Model 2), low peers domain (Model 3), and low school
domain (Model 4) moderate the effect of motivations on COVID-19 misbe-
havior. Results, as presented in Table 4, Model 2, indicate the relationship
between motivations and COVID-19 misbehavior is only moderated by low
peers domain (β = .09, p < .05), garnering partial support for Agnew’s theory.
Indeed, and as depicted in Appendix D, Panel 1, and at the bottom of Table 4,
the relationship between motivations and COVID-19 misbehavior is strongest
for those who score high (+1 standard deviation) on the low peers domain. In
other words, motivations to engage in COVID-19 misbehavior are more likely
to result in ordinance violations when participants have increased association
with delinquent peers. Contrary to the theoretical propositions set forth by
Agnew, the interaction terms in Models 1, 2, and 4 are nonsignificant.
Table 5 presents the moderating role of the various life domains on the
relationship between low constraints and COVID-19 misbehavior.
Specifically, interaction terms were included to test whether low self-domain
(Model 1), low family domain (Model 2), low peers domain (Model 3), and
low school domain (Model 4) moderate the effect of low constraints on
COVID-19 misbehavior. Table 5 indicates the effect of low constraints on
COVID-19 misbehavior is moderated by low family domain (Model 2)
(β = .08, p < .05) and low school domain (Model 4) (β = .09, p < .05), but not
low self-domain (Model 1) or low peers domain (Model 3), garnering partial
support for Agnew’s theory. Indeed, and as depicted in Appendix D, Panels 2
and 3, respectively, the relationship between low constraints and COVID-19
misbehavior is strongest for those who score high (+1 standard deviation) on
low family domain and low school domain. In other words, low constraints
against COVID-19 misbehavior are more likely to result in ordinance viola-
tions when participants have less attachment to their family and school. It
should be noted that the inclusion of the interaction terms in both Tables 4
and 5 have a minimal effect on the amount of explained variance in COVID-
19 misbehavior.

Discussion
The current study utilizes Agnew’s Integrated General Theory of Crime to
examine deviant behavior during an urban quarantine period related to
COVID-19. In accordance with the theory, and as discussed in great depth
22 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

above, (a) constraints, motivations, and life domains have direct effects on
offending, (b) both constraints and motivations partially mediate the effects
of the life domains on offending, and (c) the life domains condition or moder-
ate the effects of both constraints and motivations on offending. The current
study focused on four domains—family, school, self, and peer—and hypoth-
esized that Iranian high school students’ engagement in deviant behaviors,
such as violations of health mandates and social distancing ordinances during
the COVID-19 pandemic, would be influenced by the direct, indirect, and
moderating effects of life domains and both constraints against and motiva-
tions for deviance.
Indeed, the life domains, low constraints, and motivations constructs were
observed to have significant direct effect on COVID-19 misbehavior. In other
words, the social, environmental, and situational factors constituting the five
life domains are predictive of COVID-19 ordinance violations. Moreover, the
effects of the various life domains on COVID-19 misbehavior were mediated
by constraints and/or motivations as predicted by the theory. That is, the
structural equation model demonstrated that the impact of the different life
domains on misbehaving during the lockdown were partially mediated by
both deviant motivations for crime and low constraints against crime. As
such, the inter-individual characteristics comprising the life domains alter
participants’ constraints against crime and motivations for crime, and through
these constructs have an indirect effect on COVID-19 misbehavior. This
finding is consistent with those observed in previous tests of this mediation
hypothesis (Choi & Kruis, 2019; Cochran, 2017; Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić
et al., 2014; Ngo et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2012).
The moderating nature of life domains was also examined in this study
and the results showed that in addition to both direct and indirect effects, life
domains played a significant role in the occurrence of deviant behaviors by
moderating/conditioning the effects of these motivations and constraints.
Specifically, the relationship between motivations and COVID-19 misbehav-
ior is moderated by the peers domain, whereas the relationship between con-
straints and COVID-19 misbehavior is moderated by the family and school
domains. In essence, this means participants with low constraints against
crime are most likely to engage in ordinance violations when they are also
associated with delinquent peers. Moreover, higher motivations for crime are
most likely to result in ordinance violations for those lacking strong family
and school bonds.
The application of Agnew’s Integrated General Theory of Crime to
explain high school students’ misbehavior during a global pandemic pro-
vides nuanced insight relevant for theoretical advancement and proactive
Kabiri et al. 23

policy development. Agnew (2005) argued that to reduce negative behav-

iors like COVID-19 deviancy, the impact of informal control forces, such
as parents, school, and important others, should be increased. According to
Agnew (2005), increasing the severity and certainty of punishment will
only work for individuals that have a high level of self-control, are well
equipped (or able) to resist environmental temptations, reside in an anti-
crime environment, and have a history of less deviant behaviors. In such
cases, increasing the severity and certainty of the punishment is most
effective as it leads individuals to the conclusion that by engaging in
COVID-19 misbehaving, the probability of formal and informal conse-
quences will be high.
According to Agnew (2005) the most effective response is to empower
people and apply prevention programs in different areas of life: 1) reduc-
ing irritability, increasing levels of self-control, 2) improving positive and
effective parenting patterns, 3) increasing the quality of marital relations,
4) improving the individual’s experiences in school and university, 5)
reducing the affiliation with deviant peers, and 6) increasing suitable job
opportunities for individuals. To reduce deviant behaviors during COVID-
19, there is a need for comprehensive personal, family, and school empow-
erment programs (MacArthur et al., 2018). At the individual level,
increasing levels of self-control and social concern through self-control
training courses (Denson et al., 2011; Piquero et al., 2016), empathy/sym-
pathy training (Şahin, 2012; Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016;
Wündrich et al., 2017), and moral training programs (Wikström & Treiber,
2017) can be effective in reducing deviant behaviors during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
This strategy may include support programs for families in need, such as
parenting courses that improve communication skills with children and over-
all parenting methods (Cutrín, Gómez-Fraguela, & Sobral 2017b; DeGarmo
& Forgatch, 2005; DeGarmo & Jones, 2019; Eddy et al., 2019). To lessen
deviant peer affiliation, effective monitoring of children leisure activities
(Elam et al., 2017; Mann et al., 2015), and using authoritative parenting
styles (Li et al., 2015; Xiong et al., 2020) can reduce associations with devi-
ant peers. Policy responses may also include developing student attachment
to school by improving the quality of life in school (Ozgenel et al., 2018;
Toraman & Aycicek, 2019), improving teachers’ relationships with students
(Bao et al., 2015; Sanches et al., 2012), and employing experienced human
resources in schools (Demanet & Van Houtte, 2012).
While these findings are valuable, they are not without limitations. A reliance
on self-reported data includes recognition of the threat of social desirability bias.
24 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Future efforts could include additional data techniques to better measure devi-
ancy in response to COVID-19. Moreover, since our instruments were not pre-
tested, future studies may expand upon our work and reformulate some of our
theoretical constructs. In particular, we believe the operationalization of the
measures “motivations” and “low constraints” could be improved upon.
Additionally, the presence of cultural differences in diverse regions of Iran
diminishes the generalizability of the findings obtained from high school stu-
dents in Rasht (one of the northern cities of Iran). Additional studies would ben-
efit from diverse geographical and cultural areas to promote generalizability and
understand how socio-cultural factors influence behavioral patterns and
COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Cross-cultural tests of Agnew’s theory would
provide further nuance into the causal mechanisms of crime and deviance.
Finally, the study suffers from potential omitted variable bias. Although Agnew
(2005) sets forth a comprehensive theory, other variables not included in the
analysis may explain variation in COVID-19 misbehavior.

Conclusion
In Iran, where the current study was conducted, about 6,293,695 people have
been infected and about 132,333 people have died from COVID-19 (WHO,
2022). This represents a massive impact on the health, public safety, and
social integration of the population. Evidence suggests that individuals who
violate COVID-19 mitigation and prevention efforts continue to drive rates
of COVID-19 within populations (Hardin et al., 2021). As such, the need to
identify factors influencing the violation of the social laws related to the
COVID-19 pandemic is both clear and crucial. The current study found com-
pelling support for Agnew’s integrated general theory of crime and provides
policy implications supported by the theory. Although much work is needed
to understand decision making amid a global pandemic, the current study
serves as a modest step forward.
Kabiri et al. 25

Appendix A: Items Compromising the Summated

Scale, Low Constraints

Item Response options

Low shame Would you feel ashamed 1 (definitely would) to 4
of yourself if you violate (definitely would not)
the COVID-19 guidelines
issued by the Government?
  How big of a problem would 1 (a very big problem) to 5
feeling ashamed of yourself (no problem at all)
be for you if you violate
the COVID-19 guidelines
issued by the Government?
Low embarrassment Would most of the family 1 (definitely would) to 4
members whose opinions (definitely would not)
you value lose respect
for you if you violate the
COVID-19 guidelines
issued by the Government?
  Would most of your 1 (definitely would) to 4
important others whose (definitely would not)
opinions you value lose
respect for you if you
violate the COVID-19
guidelines issued by the
Government?
  How big of a problem would 1 (a very big problem) to 5
it be for you if your family (no problem at all)
members whose opinions
matter to you lost respect
for you because you
violated the COVID-19
guidelines issued by the
Government?
  How big of a problem would 1 (a very big problem) to 5
it be for you if important (no problem at all)
others whose opinions
matter to you lost respect
for you because you
violated the COVID-19
guidelines issued by the
Government?
26 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Appendix B: Items Compromising the Summated

Scale, Motivations

Item Response options

Strain based I am strongly motivated to violate the 1 (completely agree)
Government-issued Covid-19 guidelines to 5 (completely
because I need to spend some time with disagree)
my friends to relieve the stress of my
daily life, and this is one of the reasons
for violating health protocols.*
  I am strongly motivated to violate the 1 (completely agree)
Government-issued Covid-19 guidelines to 5 (completely
because when I am angry or frustrated disagree)
from life events, spending time outside
the home makes me feel good, and this
is one of the reasons I violate health
protocols.*
  I am strongly motivated to violate the 1 (completely agree)
Government-issued Covid-19 guidelines to 5 (completely
because to escape from daily strains, I disagree)
sometimes engage in family gatherings
without considering health protocols.*
Social learning I am strongly motivated to violate the 1 (completely
based Government-issued Covid-19 guidelines disagree) to 5
because it is consistent with my ethical (completely agree)
standards and personal definitions.
  I am strongly motivated to violate the 1 (completely
Government-issued Covid-19 guidelines disagree) to 5
because people around me do that in (completely agree)
similar situations and I figured out it’s
not wrong.
  I am strongly motivated to violate the 1 (completely
Government-issued Covid-19 guidelines disagree) to 5
because people around me (whose (completely agree)
opinions I value) do not regard the
violation of the COVID-19 guidelines
issued by the Government as a wrong
behavior and this is one of my main
reasons for COVID-19 misbehavior.

*Items were reverse coded.

Kabiri et al. 27

Appendix C: Items Comprising the Summated

Scale, Low Self Domain
Self-control Item Response options
I often act on the spur of the 1 (strongly disagree) to
moment without stopping to think 5 (completely agree)
  I often try to avoid things that I know 1 (strongly disagree) to
will be difficult 5 (completely agree)
  I lose my temper easily 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (completely
agree)
  When I am angry, other people 1 (strongly disagree) to
better stay away from me 5 (completely agree)
  I often take a risk just for the fun 1 (strongly disagree)
of it to 5 (completely
agree)
  Sometimes I find it exciting to do 1 (strongly disagree) to
things that are dangerous 5 (completely agree)
Social concern
  Moral intuitions When you decide whether something 1 (extremely relevant)
is right or wrong, to what extent to 5 (not at all
are the following considerations relevant)
relevant to your thinking: whether
someone suffered emotionally
  Moral intuitions When you decide whether something 1 (extremely relevant)
is right or wrong, to what extent to 5 (not at all
are the following considerations relevant)
relevant to your thinking: whether
someone cared for someone
vulnerable
  Moral intuitions When you decide whether something 1 (extremely relevant)
is right or wrong, to what extent are to 5 (not at all
the following considerations relevant relevant)
to your thinking: whether some
people were treated differently than
other.
  Moral intuitions When you decide whether something 1 (extremely relevant)
is right or wrong, to what extent are to 5 (not at all
the following considerations relevant relevant)
to your thinking: whether someone
acted unfairly.
 Empathy/sympathy I can easily understand how people 1 (strongly agree) to 5
are feeling even before they tell me. (strongly disagree)
(continued)
28 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

(continued)

Self-control Item Response options

 Empathy/ In general, the negative emotions 1 (strongly agree) to
 sympathy of others (feelings like fear, anger, 5 (strongly disagree)
sadness, and embarrassment)
greatly affect me.
 Desire for close I desire to be accepted by those I 1 (strongly agree) to
 ties communicate with or those whose 5 (strongly disagree)
opinion impress me (members of
social and prestigious groups, adult
authority figures, police officers, or
neighbors.)
 Conformity to I rarely obey social norms, which are 1 (strongly agree) to
 others against my desires.* 5 (strongly disagree)
 Conformity to Considering situations that I might 1 (strongly agree) to
 others find myself in with my close friends, 5 (strongly disagree)
I may break the rules that are
accepted by most members of
society, because of what my friends
expect of me.*

*Items were reverse coded.

Appendix D: Interaction Plots

Panel 1.  The Moderation Effect of Low Peer Domain on the Relationship
between Motivations and COVID-19 Misbehavior.
Kabiri et al. 29

Panel 2.  The Moderation Effect of Low Family Domain on the Relationship
between Low Constraints and COVID-19 Misbehavior.

Panel 3.  The Moderation Effect of Low School Domain on the Relationship
between Low Constraints and COVID-19 Misbehavior.
30 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iDs
Mahmoud Sharepour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1969-9419
John K. Cochran https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-1564

Notes
1. It should be noted that Agnew’s (2005) integrated general theory of crime (GTC)
is distinct from his general strain theory (Agnew, 2001).
2. We also calculated the sample size needed to detect a medium effect size using
the G*Power software with power (1-β err prob) set at 0.95 and α = 0.05, two-
tailed. Results indicated a sample of 262 would be needed with 10 predictors
(low family-domain, low school-domain, low self-domain, low peer-domain,
low constraints, motivation, male, education, family member’s risky condition,
and death experience from COVID-19 in family).
3. According to the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sample size estimation, the accept-
able sample is 360 students. To ensure the achievement of the appropriate sample
size, 50 additional questionnaires were distributed (n = 410).

References
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminals offend?: A general theory of and delinquency.
Roxbury.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction, evalua-
tion and application (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Alessandri, G., Filosa, L., Tisak, M. S., Crocetti, E., Crea, G., & Avanzi, L.(2020).
Moral disengagement and generalized social trust as mediators and modera-
tors of rule-respecting behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 2102.
Alimohamadi, Y., Holakouie-Naieni, K., Sepandi, M., & Taghdir, M. (2020). Effect
of social distancing on COVID-19 incidence and mortality in Iran since February
20 to May 13, 2020: An interrupted time series analysis. Risk Management and
Healthcare Policy, 13, 1695–1700.
Aminnejad, R., & Alikhani, R. (2020). Physical distancing or social distancing: That
is the question. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie,
67(10), 1457–1458.
Kabiri et al. 31

Bao, Z., Li, D., Zhang, W., & Wang, Y. (2015). School climate and delinquency among
Chinese adolescents: Analyses of effortful control as a moderator and deviant peer
affiliation as a mediator. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43(1), 81–93.
Barrios, J. M., Benmelech, E., Hochberg, Y. V., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2021).
Civic capital and social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of
Public Economics, 193, 104310.
Choi, J., & Kruis, N. E. (2019). The effects of life domains on cyberbullying and bul-
lying: Testing the generalizability of Agnew’s integrated general theory. Crime
and Delinquency, 65(6), 772–800.
Cochran, J. K. (2017). The effects of life domains, constraints, and motivations on
academic dishonesty: A partial test and extension of Agnew’s general theory.
International Journal of Offender Therapy Comparative Criminology, 61(11),
1288–1308.
Cutrín, O., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., Maneiro, L., & Sobral, J. (2017a). Effects of
parenting practices through deviant peers on nonviolent and violent antisocial
behaviors in middle-and late-adolescence. The European Journal of Psychology
Applied to Legal Context, 9(2), 75–82.
Cutrín, O., Gómez-Fraguela, J. A., & Sobral, J. (2017b). Gender differences in youth
substance use: The effects of parenting through a deviant peer group. Journal of
Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 26(6), 472–781.
DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (2005). Early development of delinquency
within divorced families: Evaluating a randomized preventive intervention trial.
Developmental Science, 8(3), 229–239.
DeGarmo, D. S., & Jones, J. A. (2019). Fathering through change (FTC) intervention
for single fathers: Preventing coercive parenting and child problem behaviors.
Development and Psychopathology, 31(5), 1801–1811.
Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). School belonging and school misconduct: The
differing role of teacher and peer attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
41(4), 499–514.
Denson, T. F., Capper, M. M., Oaten, M., Friese, M., & Schofield, T. P. (2011). Self-
control training decreases aggression in response to provocation in aggressive
individuals. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(2), 252–256.
Duczmal, L. H., Almeida, A. C. L., Duczmal, D. B., Alves, C. R. L., Magalhães, F.
C. O., Lima, M. S. D., Silva, I. R., & Takahashi, R. H. C. (2020). Vertical social
distancing policy is ineffective to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Cadernos de
Saúde Pública, 36(5), e00084420.
Eddy, J. M., Kjellstrand, J. M., Martinez, C. R., Newton, R., Herrera, D., Wheeler, A.,
Short, J. W., Schumer, J. E., Burraston, B. O., & Lorber, M. F. (2019). Theory-
based multimodal parenting intervention for incarcerated parents and their chil-
dren. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann-Tynan (eds.), Handbook on children with
incarcerated parents (pp. 219–235). Springer.
Elam, K. K., Chassin, L., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Pandika, D., Wang, F. L., Bountress,
K., Dick, D., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Affiliation with substance-using peers:
Examining gene-environment correlations among parent monitoring, polygenic
risk, and children’s impulsivity. Developmental Psychobiology, 59(5), 561–573.
32 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University
Press.
Grubb, J. A., & Posick, C. (2018). Applying Agnew’s integrated theory of crime and
delinquency to victimization risk: A contemporaneous and longitudinal examina-
tion. Criminal Justice Review, 43(3), 289–308.
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have
moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20,
98–116.
Hardin, B. S., Smith, C. V., & Jordan, L. N. (2021). Is the COVID-19 pandemic
even darker for some? Examining dark personality and affective, cognitive, and
behavioral responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 171, 110504.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Routledge.
Huynh, T. L. D. (2020). Does culture matter social distancing under the COVID-19
pandemic? Safety Science, 130, 104872.
Kabiri, S., Shadmanfaat, S. M., Choi, J., & Yun, I. (2020). The impact of life domains
on cyberbullying perpetration in Iran: A partial test of Agnew’s general theory of
crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101633.
Kabiri, S., Shadmanfaat, S. M., Howell, C. J., Donner, C., & Cochran, J. K. (2022).
Performance-enhancing drug use among professional athletes: A longitudinal test
of social learning theory. Crime & Delinquency, 68(5), 867–891.
Kim, J. H., Marks, F., & Clemens, J. D. (2021). Looking beyond COVID-19 vaccine
phase 3 trials. Nature Medicine, 27, 205–211.
Knoll, M. D., & Wonodi, C. (2021). Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine effi-
cacy. The Lancet, 397(10269), 72–74.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activi-
ties. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Le, T. T., Andreadakis, Z., Kumar, A., Román, R. G., Tollefsen, S., Saville, M., &
Mayhew, S. (2020). The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape. Nature
Reviews Drug Discovery, 19(5), 305–306.
Li, M., Chen, J., Li, X., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2015). Moderation of harsh parenting
on genetic and environmental contributions to child and adolescent deviant peer
affiliation: A longitudinal twin study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(7),
1396–1412.
Liska, A.E., Krohn, M. D., & Messner, S.F. (1989). Strategies and requisites for
theoretical integration in the study of crime and deviance. In S. F. Messner, M.
D. Krohn, & A. E. Liska (eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance
and crime: Problems and prospects (pp. 1–20). State University of New York
Press.
Liu, R. X. (2019). Harsh parental discipline and delinquency in mainland China:
The conditional influences of gender and bonding to paternal grandparents.
Sociological Focus, 52(4), 274–291.
Lunn, P. D., Timmons, S., Belton, C. A., Barjaková, M., Julienne, H., & Lavin, C.
(2020). Motivating social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic: An online
experiment. Social Science and Medicine, 265, 113478.
Kabiri et al. 33

MacArthur, G., Caldwell, D. M., Redmore, J., Watkins, S. H., Kipping, R., White,
J., Chittleborough, C., Langford, R., Er, V., Lingam, R., Pasch, K., Gunnell, D.,
Hickman, M., & Campbell, R. (2018). Individual-, family-, and school-level inter-
ventions targeting multiple risk behaviors in young people. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, 10(10), CD009927. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/
ws/portalfiles/portal/185355798/Full_text_PDF_final_published_version_.pdf/
Maimon, D., & Howell, C. J. (2020, May 26). The coronavirus pandemic moved life
online – a surge in website defacing followed. The Conversation.
Mann, F. D., Kretsch, N., Tackett, J. L., Harden, K. P., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2015).
Person× environment interactions on adolescent delinquency: Sensation seeking,
peer deviance and parental monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences,
76, 129–134.
Muftić, L. R., Grubb, J. A., Bouffard, L. A., & Maljević, A. (2014). The impact of life
domains on juvenile offending in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Direct, indirect, and
moderating effects in Agnew’s integrated general theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 51(6), 816–845.
Ngo, F. T., Fisher, T., & Ruiz, R. A. (2022). Life domains, constraints, motivations,
and intimate partner violence: Assessing the generality of Agnew’s general the-
ory of crime and delinquency. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publica-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221106951
Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2014). Contemporaneous and lagged effects of life
domains and substance use: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delin-
quency. Journal of Criminology, 2014, 320486.
Ngo, F. T., Paternoster, R., Cullen, F. T., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2011). Life domains
and crime: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 302–311.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
Oosterhoff, B., Palmer, C. A., Wilson, J., & Shook, N. (2020). Adolescents’ motiva-
tions to engage in social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Associations
with mental and social health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(2), 179–185.
Ozgenel, M., Yilmaz, F., & Baydar, F. (2018). School climate as a predictor of sec-
ondary school students’ school attachment. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 18, 87–116.
Pedersen, M. J., & Favero, N. (2020). Social distancing during the COVID-19 pan-
demic: Who are the present and future noncompliers? Public Administration
Review, 80(5), 805–814.
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Farrington, D. P., Diamond, B., & Gonzalez, J.
M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis update on the effectiveness of early self-control
improvement programs to improve self-control and reduce delinquency. Journal
of Experimental Criminology, 12(2), 249–264.
Şahin, M. (2012). An investigation into the efficiency of empathy training program
on preventing bullying in primary schools. Children and Youth Services Review,
34(7), 1325–1330.
Sanches, C., Gouveia-Pereira, M., & Carugati, F. (2012). Justice judgements,
school failure, and adolescent deviant behavior. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(Pt 4), 606–621.
34 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Sen-Crowe, B., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Social distancing during
the COVID-19 pandemic: Staying home save lives. The American Journal of
Emergency Medicine, 38(7), 1519–1520.
Shadmanfaat, S. M., Howell, C. J., Muniz, C. N., Cochran, J. K., Kabiri, S., &
Fontaine, E. M. (2020). Cyberbullying perpetration: An empirical test of social
learning theory in Iran. Deviant Behavior, 41(3), 278–293.
Shadmanfaat, S. M., Howell, C. J., Muniz, C. N., Cochran, J. K., Kabiri, S., &
Richardson, D. A. (2018). The predictive ability of self-control and differen-
tial association on sports fans’ decision to engage in cyberbullying perpetration
against rivals. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 12(2), 362–375.
Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy train-
ing: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 63(1), 32–41.
Thu, T. P. B., Ngoc, P. N. H., & Hai, N. M. (2020). Effect of the social distancing
measures on the spread of COVID-19 in 10 highly infected countries. Science of
The Total Environment, 742, 140430.
Toraman, C., & Aycicek, B. (2019). An investigation of the relationships between
attachment levels to school and the variables of the perception of school life
quality and peer pressure among high school students. Journal of Education and
Training Studies, 7(1), 76–84.
Triberti, S., Durosini, I., & Pravettoni, G. (2021). Social distancing is the right thing
to do: Dark triad behavioral correlates in the COVID-19 quarantine. Personality
and Individual Differences, 170, 110453.
Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2010) Theoretical crimi-
nology (6th ed.) Oxford University Press.
WHO. (2022). World Health Organization coronavirus disease (COVID-19) situa-
tion dashboard. WHO. https://covid19.who.int/
Wikström, P.-O. H., Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K., & Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking
rules: The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime.
Oxford University Press.
Wikström, P.-O. H., & Treiber, K. (2017). Beyond risk factors: An analytical approach
to crime prevention. In B. Teasdale & M. S. Bradley (eds.), Preventing crime and
violence (pp. 73–87). Springer.
Wündrich, M., Schwartz, C., Feige, B., Lemper, D., Nissen, C., & Voderholzer, U.
(2017). Empathy training in medical students–a randomized controlled trial.
Medical Teacher, 39(10), 1096–1098.
Xiong, R., Li, S. D., & Xia, Y. (2020). A longitudinal study of authoritative parent-
ing, juvenile delinquency and crime victimization among Chinese adolescents.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4),
1405.
Yezli, S., & Khan, A. (2020). COVID-19 social distancing in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia: Bold measures in the face of political, economic, social and religious
challenges. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 37, 101692.
Zhang, Y., Day, G., & Cao, L. (2012). A partial test of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 58(6), 856–878.
Kabiri et al. 35

Author Biographies
Saeed Kabiri is an affiliated researcher in the Institute of Humanities and Social
Studies at Tehran University Jihad. He earned his master’s degree in Sociology at the
University of Guillan (2012) and his PhD degree in Social Problems of Iran at the
University of Mazandaran (2017). He has published several papers about the sociol-
ogy and criminology of sports. His current research interests involve sport criminol-
ogy. Kabiri’s recent research has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals
such as Deviant Behavior, Journal of Drug Issues, International Criminal Justice
Review, the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, and International Journal of Cyber Criminology.
Mahmoud Sharepour is Full Professor at the Department of Social Sciences,
University of Mazandaran, Iran. His research interests include Sociology of Education,
Urban Sociology, Social Capital, and Social Impact Assessment. He is the author of
several books (in Persian) and articles dealing with these subjects. He has also trans-
lated several important sociological books to Farsi and is currently pursuing a study
of second home and amenity migration in north of Iran.
C. Jordan Howell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology at the
University of South Florida. His research focuses on the human factor of cybercrime.
He employs advanced computer science techniques to gather threat intelligence,
which is then used to test social scientific theory, build profiles of active cyber-
offenders, plot criminal trajectories, and disrupt the illicit ecosystem enabling cyber-
crime incidents.
Hadley Wellen is a doctoral student in the Criminology and Criminal Justice depart-
ment at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests include place-based
criminology, quantitative methods, and mentoring and positive youth development.
Hayden P. Smith is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University
of South Carolina. His principal focus of study is the intersection of the criminal jus-
tice and public health systems. He is a national and international expert on self-injuri-
ous and suicidal behaviors occurring in incarcerated populations. Other areas of study
include officer wellness and resiliency, the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA),
reentry initiatives, and best practices in evaluating corrections-based programs. He
has expertise in program evaluation and policy analysis and has worked with numer-
ous correctional and health systems. His previous publications have appeared in
Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, and Criminal Justice & Behavior.
John K. Cochran is Professor and Chair in the Department of Criminology at the
University of South Florida. He earned his degree in Sociology from the University of
Florida in 1987. His areas of research interest are testing theories of crime and crimi-
nal behavior and examining issues associated with the death penalty. He has over 130
publications in peer-reviewed journals including Criminology, Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Crime and
Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice and
Behavior, and Deviant Behavior.
36 Crime & Delinquency 00(0)

Seyyedeh Masoomeh (Shamila) Shadmanfaat earned her master’s degree in

Sociology at the University of Guillan (2016) and has published several papers about
sociology and criminology of sport with a focus on gender differences. Her recent
research has been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals such as Deviant
Behavior, Journal of Drug Issues, International Criminal Justice Review, the
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and
International Journal of Cyber Criminology.
Tia Stevens Andersen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology
and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. Her main areas of research
include mentoring and other strength-based approaches to positive youth develop-
ment, media constructions of girls’ violence, and gender and racial disparities in juve-
nile justice system processing.