Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup

EMOTIONAL INVALIDATION: AN INTEGRATION WITH AGNEW’S GENERAL STRAIN THEORY

Published onJul 18, 2024
EMOTIONAL INVALIDATION: AN INTEGRATION WITH AGNEW’S GENERAL STRAIN THEORY
·

Abstract

This paper integrates the concept of emotional invalidation into Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST). It first discusses Agnew’s central argument in GST. It then describes what is meant by emotional invalidation and how it can be integrated into a new conceptual model with GST. Next, this paper explains how to best operationalize emotional invalidation. This paper concludes with an early assessment of the face validity of emotional invalidation, as well as some directions for future research.

Introduction

Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST hereafter) has been a central guiding framework within Criminology, and it continues to be one of the most widely used perspectives in understanding the influence of human emotions on behavior (Agnew 1992, 2001). As of June 2024, Google Scholar shows that Agnew’s two most influential papers on GST have been cited over 9,000 times.

Perhaps one of the most appealing aspects of GST is its simplicity. Agnew’s argument is logical and straightforward, and we have plenty of options for operationalizing the key constructs – characteristics that make an attractive theory. Yet, one important component that has not been explicitly considered in GST is emotional invalidation. Litner and Carrico (2021) define emotional invalidation as the act of dismissing or rejecting someone’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. In other words, anytime you are forced to question whether your feelings are real, then it can make you feel irrational. It is irrational because of one simple fact: your feelings are real. The responses to these types of feelings are far-reaching (Zielinski and Veilleux 2018), but its implications for crime have yet to be explored.

In this paper, I argue that emotional invalidation is crucial to GST for a number of reasons. First, it offers an opportunity to better understand why the same strain can lead to crime for some but not others. Second, it provides an opportunity to measure what strains might be especially conducive to crime since, as I argue, all strains have the potential to be emotionally invalidating. As such, emotional invalidation has the potential to point researchers in the direction of the most damaging strains. By combining emotional invalidation with GST, research can also identify new strains by seeking out things that result in emotional invalidation that have not yet been considered by criminologists. Moreover, the overall integration of emotional invalidation into GST is rather simple. This is because the logic linking emotional invalidation with crime is remarkably consistent with Agnew’s original argument in GST. The integration of emotional invalidation with GST is also straightforward because psychologists have already been grappling with emotional invalidation, and recommendations for operationalizing the construct are already being empirically tested.

In what follows, I first discuss Agnew’s GST and elaborate on what is meant by emotional invalidation. I then discuss how emotional invalidation can be integrated with GST’s framework. Next, I provide an early assessment of face validity by showing that emotional invalidation offers an equally plausible – and at times more comprehensive – explanation of some of my past work guided by GST. This paper concludes with some recommendations for future studies.

What is General Strain Theory?

In its simplest form, Agnew’s GST argues that experiencing strains can lead to negative emotions. In turn, people may get involved with crime, substance use, or other behaviors to cope with their emotions. Figure 1 provides a visual of this theoretical framework. Some of the strains are obvious – for instance, the death of a loved one, or the loss of a job – other strains can be subjective. That is, if someone feels as though they experience a strain, then it is a strain. This is important to note because Agnew recognizes that the possible sources of strains are extensive, and the overall effect of a strain depends on one’s subjective interpretation of the experience. Researchers must acknowledge both of the components simultaneously because all of it matters for crime.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of General Strain Theory

Agnew originally provided three sources of strain. These include the actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, the removal of positively valued stimuli, and the actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli. While these categories are distinct, Agnew also acknowledges that some strains might span across multiple sources. For instance, the loss of a highly-valued job can be seen as the removal of positively valued stimuli, though it might also signify the presentation of negative stimuli (i.e., unemployment). It may also be conceived as an individual failure to achieve positively valued goals, depending on the circumstances surrounding the job loss.

Agnew does an excellent job of recognizing the uniqueness of strains, both in terms of the strains themselves as well as their influence on people. He notes that the effect of strains on coping behaviors might be influenced by things like the magnitude of the strain, as well as the recency and duration. The effects of strains might also depend on how many strains were experienced. Further adding to the complexity is the fact that strains will affect people differently. That is, some strains might only matter because someone subjectively feels as though it is strenuous.

In 2001, Agnew followed up with a specification of the types of strains most likely to lead to crime. Much of this was rooted in the fact that GST was originally seen as too broad considering that anything could be categorized as a strain if one perceives it as such (Jensen 1995). To offset this concern, Agnew pushed researchers towards strains that he felt were most problematic. These include strains that are seen as unjust, high in magnitude, associated with low social control, and create incentive to commit crime. Agnew narrows down these types of strains because of the cognitive coping response often employed by those experiencing such strains. Strains that are seen as unjust, for instance, are more likely to evoke feelings of anger. Empirically, anger is strongly linked to violent behavior (Velotti et al., 2017). And strains seen as high in magnitude make it increasingly difficult to cope in noncriminal ways.

When a strain is associated with low social control, then the potential losses associated with getting involved in crime are minimized in the eyes of the victim. When social controls are low, then an individual is more likely to feel as though their attachment to conventional society is weak, and all of this has the potential to increase the perceived benefits of turning to crime. A victim of child abuse, for example, suffers from low direct control as well as low attachment to their parent(s). In such scenarios, the victim theoretically has little to lose from involvement with crime. Finally, a strain like experiencing child abuse might be more conducive to crime because the victim is directly observing criminal behavior, and social learning perspectives argue that individuals are likely to model the type of behavior they see throughout the life course (Akers 2009).

In all of this, Agnew acknowledges that the frequency, duration, and recency all matter when considering the criminogenic influence that a strain has on one’s potential for crime. I agree, and a large body of empirical evidence shows the need to integrate Agnew’s ideas with Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory of informal social control (see Eitle 2011).

Another appealing aspect about Agnew’s GST is the ability to use the model to identify coping strategies to eliminate negative emotions – or eliminate criminal behavior. Agnew suggests that one way to offset the consequences of a strain is to behaviorally cope to offset the strain. In other words, if it is possible to eliminate the strain through one’s own behavior, then it is advisable to do so. A strenuous job with abusive demands, for instance, could be rectified by finding a new job.

Additionally, an individual may offset the implications of a strain by cognitively coping. This may include attempts to minimize the strain by suggesting that it only has a small effect on your life. And the third way in which Agnew suggests that strains can be minimized is through emotional coping. This can take on many forms – such as exercising or getting involved with another prosocial hobby – with the overall goal of reducing the negative feelings that have resulted from the strain. It is worth noting that I believe all of these coping mechanisms still apply even with the integration of emotional invalidation into the GST framework. As I will argue below, I believe that emotional invalidation is the response to a strain that is most conducive to criminogenic coping, and feelings of emotional invalidation can be addressed in many of the similar ways that Agnew notes above.

Limitations of GST

Indeed, Agnew’s GST – along with the subsequent revisions – provide an excellent framework for understanding how (and why) emotions matter for crime and other coping behaviors. And the added specificity for what strains might be most influential for crime strengthened the testability of GST. However, even with this specification, it does not fully attenuate concerns surrounding the endless possibilities of strains. Moreover, another problem still exists, which is that not everyone who experiences a strain will respond with negative emotions and/or criminal behavior. The loss of a job, for instance, might be devastating for one, but may represent the beginning of a new pathway for greater opportunities for another. It can be extremely difficult to capture all of these factors into a single, generalizable study, though it is clear that they all matter greatly when considering their implications for crime.

All told, the mere fact that strains may be criminogenic for some but not others raises an important theoretical question. It is here where I believe emotional invalidation can provide valuable insight into our understanding of why strains matter for some but not others. By integrating this concept into a new conceptual framework for GST, researchers can begin to disentangle the puzzle of why strains seem to affect people differently. I believe emotional invalidation can also help with identifying which strains matter most for crime, as well as what strains may matter that have not yet been considered by criminologists.

What is Emotional Invalidation?

As noted earlier, emotional invalidation is defined as the act of dismissing or rejecting someone’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviors (Litner and Carrico 2021). If feelings from an incident are left unresolved or undiscussed, then it can leave a person feeling perplexed, sometimes to the point where the person starts to question their own feelings. And questioning one’s feelings can perpetuate irrational thoughts, to the point where it may result in the desire to cope with such negative feelings. Much of this logic flows in a similar manner as Agnew’s GST, which is what makes the overall integration of emotional invalidation rather straightforward.

To clarify this concept further, I draw on another definition provided by Zielinski and Veilleux (2018). They define emotional invalidation as any social exchange during which an individual’s expressed emotions or affective experiences are met with a response from another person that is perceived by the individual as implying that their emotions or affective experiences are incorrect or inappropriate. In short, if an individual feels as though their feelings are not being recognized in a similar light to how they see their feelings, then they will feel invalidated. Taken together, both of these definitions raise an important point: anything can be emotionally invalidating if the person ultimately perceives it as such. This raises the same problem that GST has been faced with, but I will show that combining the two helps to alleviate this issue.

Drawing on the original GST framework, the state of feeling emotionally invalidated can be conceived as the result of a strain. It can be devastating depending on the magnitude of the feeling. Studies show that emotional invalidation is associated with chronic pain, eating disorders, relationship quality, and other health problems (Elzy et al. 2024; Haslam et al. 2012; Krause, Mendelson, and Lynch 2003; Zielinski et al. 2023). This is because emotional invalidation is thought to contribute to emotional dysregulation more generally. As such, the potential for a range of social and health problems increases for those feeling invalidated; its implications for crime, however, have not been considered.

As this relates to the conceptual model of GST, one of the most unique aspects of emotional invalidation is that it can serve as a gateway for what strains may or may not evoke negative feelings. Conceptually, this is shown in Figure 2. This is the model that I believe reflects the recommended framework that researchers should adopt when studying the implication of strains on crime. Beginning on the left side, the conceptual model begins with the following: “Did you experience a strain?” Theoretically, those with no history of strains will not experience any of the negative emotions linked to crime; as such, they will not get involved with crime or other coping behaviors.

Figure 2: Conceptual Model of GST with Emotional Invalidation

For those who did experience a strain, the new conceptual model adds the gatekeeper that assesses whether the strain resulted in any lingering feelings that were emotionally invalidating. If a strain was experienced and processed in a way that makes the individual feel validated, then the strain will theoretically not lead to crime. The loss of a job, for instance, might be processed as the end result of broader budget issues as opposed to a personal failure. In this case, it is likely not an emotionally invalidating experience.

Conceptually, it is here where researchers can more accurately assess why strains may lead to crime for some but not for others. This can be accomplished by assessing the level of emotional invalidation that lingers among those who have experienced various strains. Similar to Agnew’s notion that strains seen as unjust or high in magnitude are most conducive to criminal coping, it is expected that strains resulting in the most emotional invalidation will be most likely to result in criminal coping. Much of this argument rests in the assumption that all strains have the potential to be emotionally invalidating. The death of a loved one, criminal justice system contact, victimization, and all of the other strains identified in the literature can all have the potential to leave a person feeling invalidated (Moon, Hays, and Blurton 2009). What I argue matters most for crime, however, is whether a person actually feels invalidated as a result of their experience(s).

At this point, it is worth noting the two places in the conceptual model where an individual can “enter.” First, and perhaps most obvious, an individual may be at risk for crime if they have experienced one (or more) of the many strains that researchers have shown to be capable of creating the potential for crime. Again, this could be something like the death of a parent (Berg et al. 2019), experiencing child abuse (Jung et al. 2015), or being victimized (Smith & Ecob 2007). This is by no means an exhaustive list; rather, there continue to be new strains identified in the criminological literature, which is a testament to GST.

The other way in which someone can enter this conceptual model is by scoring high on a measure of perceived emotional invalidation, even if they do not necessarily identify with any of the strains already captured in the literature. As noted earlier, the potential for feeling emotionally invalidated is everywhere. We are constantly reminded in many forms to not let our emotions show in various social settings. This has been previously conceived as a problem for GST because it makes it nearly impossible to identify all of the sources of strain in the world. However, instead of looking at this as a problem, another perspective is to adopt it as a matter of fact and work on a theoretical framework that encompasses this fact. Agnew’s GST suggests that anything can be a strain if someone perceives it as such, so in addition to trying to identify strains, researchers should also be trying to capture what signifies that something has left an individual feeling strained. This is where emotional invalidation comes in. It recognizes that anything can be invalidating, and that is okay. In the end, the important thing is that the focus is not solely on what is making someone feel invalidated; rather, it is necessary to also capture whether someone feels invalidated.

When thinking about both points of entry simultaneously, the conceptual model also leaves room for identifying new sources of strain that have yet to be considered in criminological literature. This can be accomplished by considering other factors that can make a person feel emotionally invalidated. Identifying new strains that may evoke emotional invalidation is beyond the scope of this paper, but for the sake of proposing a novel strain, one concept that comes to mind is gaslighting.

Gaslighting is defined as the manipulation of someone using psychological methods to make them question their own sanity or powers of reasoning. In short, it can make someone feel “crazy” (Sweet, 2019). Gaslighting can occur in all types of relationships, including personal or professional (Kukreja and Pandey, 2023; March et al., 2023). And in all of this, a victim of gaslighting may be left questioning their feelings – they may feel emotionally invalidated. While similar, it is important to note that gaslighting and emotional invalidation are distinct concepts. Gaslighting encompasses the deliberate act of attempting to manipulate another individual, whereas emotional invalidation includes anything that makes a person feel as if their feelings are not being understood. As such, someone can feel emotionally invalidated even if someone is not engaging in gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a relatively new concept in sociology, but its relevance and importance to the social sciences have grown considerably over the last several years (Sweet, 2019). And as noted earlier, anything that leaves a person feeling emotionally invalidated theoretically has the potential to lead to crime and other coping behaviors. As such, gaslighting has the potential to be a notable source of strain, though it has not been empirically considered in the criminological literature.

The remaining components of the conceptual model presented in Figure 2 are essentially identical to those presented by Agnew. Having feelings reflective of being emotionally invalidated is suspected to lead to negative emotions like anger, which in turn influences one’s desire to cope by getting involved with crime, substance use, or other behaviors. All told, while the conceptual model takes on a different look compared with the original GST framework, the overall logic is remarkably similar, and the integration of emotional invalidation requires little effort on the part of the researcher.

How can we test Emotional Invalidation?

The psychological sciences have been grappling with the concept of emotional invalidation for some time (see review by Zielinski and Veilleux 2018). As such, in the case of testing a new theoretical framework, one of the most pressing questions has already been explored, and that revolves around how to best operationalize emotional invalidation. In 2018, Zielinski and Veilleux introduced the perceived invalidation of emotion scale (PIES). This 10-item construct taps perceived levels of current emotional invalidation, which research shows is most strongly associated with poor health outcomes (Vangronsveld and Linton 2012).

Individual items are assessed via a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). Because this is a new concept in the criminological literature, I have included all ten items from the original PIES in Table 1 for review. Jumping out most clearly is the fact that this set of questions leaves room for anything to be invalidating. Again, this resonates with an early criticism of Agnew’s strain theory, which is that anything can be a strain – thus making the theory too broad. However, the goal here is to embrace this fact and attempt to also capture how (in)validated people feel in their world.

Table 1. Perceived Invalidation of Emotion Scale Items (Zielinski and Veilleux 2018). Introduction. Please take a moment to think about your relationships with the people who you are in contact with on a regular basis (i.e., at least once per week) and how they respond to your emotions when you share them. You may want to consider your relationships with family, friends, intimate partners, coworkers, and acquaintances. Then, please indicate how often each item applied to you over the past month using the following scale:

  1. Almost Never

  1. Sometimes

  1. About Half the Time

4. Most of the time

5. Almost Always

  1. When I share how I’m feeling, others don’t seem to mirror or match my emotions. For example, they don’t share sadness with me when I’m sad or happiness with me when I’m happy.

  1. When I share how I’m feeling, others want me to “get over it” or “accept it and move on.”

  1. When I share how I’m feeling, others seem like they don’t want to hear what I have to say.

  1. When I share how I’m feeling, others look down on me or judge me.

  1. When I share how I’m feeling, others don’t take me seriously.

  1. When I try to share how I’m feeling, others tell me or imply what I should actually feel.

  1. Others get mad or upset at me when I express my feelings.

  1. Others don’t take my side or agree with how I’m feeling.

  1. Others make me feel like it’s not okay for me to feel the way that I do.

  1. Others make me feel that my emotions are unimportant.

Although PIES is a relatively new construct in the psychological sciences, empirical support exists. One study found a strong inter-item reliability within the PIES measure using data from an online sample of college students and community members (α=.95; Zielinski and Veilleux, 2018). Zielinski and colleagues (2023) used the PIES index and found that perceived emotional invalidation predicted lower positive affect. Another study found that the PIES scale was associated with depression, anxiety, and stress (Schreiber and Veilleux, 2022). Brandão and colleagues (2022) – also using the PIES index – found that perceived emotional invalidation was associated with attachment anxiety and emotion suppression among a Portuguese sample.

Among studies that have focused on the concept of emotional invalidation more generally (and ones that did not use PIES), Krause, Mendelson, and Lynch (2003) found that childhood emotional invalidation was associated with emotion inhibition in adulthood (i.e., suppressing one’s feelings). Relying on a sample of preschoolers, Jeon and Park (2024) found that emotional validation promoted persistence in the wake of a frustrating task. All told, there is growing empirical support for the notion that emotional invalidation has implications for one’s emotions and overall well-being. Moreover, the PIES index is showing to be a strong tool to capture this underlying construct. The integration of such a measure in criminological inquiry, however, remains to be explored.

Early test of face validity

To empirically test emotional invalidation and its implications for crime, researchers would need longitudinal data that captures all of the underlying constructs. To my knowledge, few (if any) datasets exist currently to offer an empirical test of emotional invalidation and its relationship to crime and other coping behaviors. As such, the lack of longitudinal data precludes a thorough assessment of whether the aforementioned conceptual framework contributes to our understanding of emotions and crime. However, because all existing strains have the potential to be emotionally invalidating, I decided to look back at my own research to see how the concept of emotional invalidation helps explain my findings in studies following the GST framework.

Most of my research has examined how intergenerational social mobility – or how well adult children are doing socioeconomically relative to their parents – leads to changes in crime and substance use. My interest in this question was motivated by theories of social mobility more generally (e.g., Sorokin 1927, 1959) as well as GST and Sampson and Laub’s life course perspective (1993).

Sorokin argues that experiencing any change in social status can lead to uncomfortable feelings, so it was initially plausible that any mobility – either upward or downward – might evoke feelings capable of producing crime. But from the perspective of GST, downward social mobility is especially damaging as individuals start to compare themselves to their parents. This resonates best with what my coauthor and I found.

In one paper using educational attainment as the proxy for social mobility, we found that downward educational mobility was most conducive to changes in crime, and some of this effect was mediated by negative emotions and a range of prosocial bonds (Swisher and Dennison 2016). I also found similar patterns when looking a different crime types as the outcome variables (Dennison 2019a). And when using a more comprehensive measure of socioeconomic status (e.g., a combination of education and occupational status) and an alternative statistical method for capturing mobility effects, I found that downward mobility was most conducive to illegal drug use (Dennison 2018).

While GST combined with the age-graded theory of informal social control provides logical insight into these patterns, emotional invalidation offers just as compelling of a case. Being downwardly mobile relative to your parents is emotionally invalidating. And this emotional invalidation is intensified for those experiencing the greatest loss in status.

Emotional invalidation also has the potential to make sense of patterns that we could not explain. In one study (Swisher and Dennison 2016) we found upward educational mobility – where one’s parents never completed high school, but they themselves completed a high school degree or some college – increased crime. Outside of potential data limitations, we were lost for an explanation. When looking at this group now, perhaps they still felt emotionally invalidated despite surpassing their parents’ educational attainment because a college degree is so important in many respects today (Zhang, Liu, and Hu 2024). Thus, coming close to a degree today might leave someone feeling even worse when they compare themselves to a generation with less emphasis on a four-year degree. They may feel emotionally invalidated.

My interests in social mobility evolved to studies focusing more on relative deprivation – namely, what conditions might make an individual feel least/most emotionally deprived as a result of their economic circumstances. Today, I see this as seeking the conditions that may make someone feel least/most emotionally (in)validated.

The first project in this area examined the relationship between economic problems, perceived socioeconomic status (SES hereafter), and instrumental crime – or street-level crimes with a financial motive (Dennison 2016). In this paper, I found an inverted U pattern, such that a few economic problems were most strongly associated with increased crime, and it became increasingly weaker as the number of problems grew. Perceived SES – or a comparison of how well one is doing educationally and economically relative to the rest of the U.S. population – moderated this relationship. Among those with low perceptions of themselves, economic problems had no significant effect on crime. In other words, if one already feels as though they are doing worse than most others, then economic problems do not seem to invalidate people further.

A similar pattern was observed in a paper that tested whether neighborhood disadvantage moderated the relationship between educational mobility and crime (Dennison and Swisher 2019). We found crime to be highest among downwardly mobile individuals living in advantaged neighborhoods – or neighborhoods where the prospects for upward social comparisons were most present. There were no significant effects on crime among downwardly mobile individuals living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. It is plausible that their surrounding conditions minimize the invalidating feelings of being downwardly mobile.

Other moderators I considered were gender and race. When considering gender differences, I found that the effect of downward educational mobility on crime was strongest among females (Dennison 2019b). I argued, among other factors, that the gender differences might be attributable to the fact that women are outpacing men in college completion overall, so perhaps downward educational mobility is especially stressful for women as they go against the broader enrollment patterns. A perspective I did not consider – but one that makes a compelling argument – is that perhaps women without a degree from highly educated parents feel most invalidated. They may be invalidated by the broader enrollment and completion trends by gender. They may also be invalidated by the gender inequities that exist among jobs that do not require a college degree. In short, emotional invalidation might be the biggest factor at play here.

When looking at racial differences, downward educational mobility was most strongly associated with increases in crime among non-Hispanic White respondents. In addition to GST and the life course perspective, I drew heavily upon reference group theory, and particularly a quote from Andrew Cherlin’s (2016) Op-Ed:

When Whites without college degrees look back, they can often remember fathers who were sustained by the booming industrial economy of postwar America . . . [Blacks] may look back to a time when discrimination deprived their parents of equal opportunities. Many Hispanics may look back to the lower standard of living their parents experienced. (p. A19)

Cherlin’s piece was trying to make sense of why death rates were rising among White individuals with low levels of education, but the overall logic is equally applicable to the study of crime. I wrote that “Whites may be more likely to experience both subjective and objective downward mobility compared to their parents, whereas intergenerational comparisons among minorities may represent subjective and objective progress” (p. #70). In other words, White individuals might feel most emotionally invalidated when making comparisons to past generations.

This logic also aligns with a paper I did examining whether dropping out of college was associated with crime (Dennison 2022). I found that it was and that the effect was strongest among those with the greatest propensity to finish a degree. I argued that dropping out was especially strenuous for those who were expected to finish, but I never acknowledged the fact that these individuals might feel the most emotionally invalidated as a result of their educational outcome.

Another avenue of research considers criminal justice system contact as a strain. Criminologists have shown that involvement with the criminal justice system – either individually or vicariously through, say, a parent – can have negative implications for one’s well-being across the life course (Turney and Goodsell 2018). In one paper, we were interested in whether one’s social class background moderated the relationship between system contact and subsequent socioeconomic achievements (Dennison and Demuth 2018). We found that system contact was negatively associated with later SES, and this effect was strongest for those coming from the most advantaged backgrounds. We argued that this finding resonates with the “more to lose” hypothesis. Those from advantaged backgrounds are already on track to stay in their ascribed social class until something like criminal justice system contact derails that trajectory.

An alternative explanation is that those with a history of criminal justice system contact – and who are from advantaged backgrounds – feel the most emotionally invalidated when dealing with the criminal justice system. For most from such a social class background, the prospects of having to navigate the system are low. It could therefore be especially strenuous – or invalidating – when dealing with this process. This might explain why, in another paper, we found that the effects of experiencing unfair treatment by the police on drug use and mental health were most apparent among non-Hispanic White respondents (Dennison and Finkeldey 2021). For other racial and ethnic groups, the effects were minimal. As we explained, this could be attributable to Blacks and other minorities “experiencing the expected,” or experiencing the unfair treatment that was already anticipated.

I believe this exercise provides early evidence for the claim that all strains as we know them can be conceived as emotionally invalidating. Moreover, having direct measures to test for emotional invalidation would have strengthened all of the aforementioned studies. I encourage other criminologists to apply this exercise to their own work to see where emotional invalidation can help make sense of findings that have not been fully fleshed out.

Next Steps

Although the concept of emotional invalidation is currently nonexistent in the criminological literature, my hope is that the aforementioned argument is convincing enough to motivate future research on the topic. As such, I would encourage all forms of criminological inquiry – both qualitative and quantitative – to begin implementing notions of emotional invalidation into their study design. For quantitative researchers, I recommend incorporating questions related to one’s perceived level of emotional invalidation – namely, the Perceived Invalidation of Emotions Scale (PIES) – into existing datasets. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), for instance, has been relied on extensively by criminologists interested in examining stability and changes in crime over time (Harris et al. 2019; Landeis, Boman, and Mowen, 2021). Add Health began in 1994-95 with a sample of approximately 20,000 adolescents from 7th to 12th grade, and respondents have been followed for five waves (the most recent round of interviews occurred in 2016-18). To my knowledge, Add Health does not collect information on one’s level of perceived emotional invalidation. Incorporating something like the PIES into an upcoming wave of Add Health data collection would therefore provide a unique opportunity to investigate the criminogenic role of emotional invalidation at a later stage of adulthood.

As for specific questions, I would encourage researchers to explore the relationship between existing strains and emotional invalidation to see if any strains jump out as especially invalidating. It would also be interesting to examine how similar these strains are compared with the one’s Agnew identified as most likely to lead to crime and other coping behaviors. Assuming that there is support for the overall link between strains, emotional invalidation, and criminal behavior, I would then recommend that researchers explore what else might be conducive to emotional invalidation. Earlier, I noted that researchers have never considered whether being a victim of gaslighting is associated with negative emotions capable of motivating crime to cope.

I would therefore strongly encourage researchers to consider how being a victim of gaslighting relates to coping behaviors like crime or substance use. And in all of this, I would recommend adopting a life course framework to consider how the onset, duration, and frequency of feeling emotionally invalidated matter for crime and other coping behaviors.

Conclusion

In this paper, I argue that combining our previous understanding of strains with the concept of emotional invalidation will push us forward in understanding how emotions matter for crime.

Agnew’s GST has been instrumental in disentangling the link between strains, emotions, and crime, but I believe integrating the concept of emotional invalidation can push GST further. Emotional invalidation, most generally, takes into account how a person feels they are being heard by others in their world. Research shows that feeling invalidated can have negative implications for one’s health and overall well-being due to the emotional dysregulation it instills. Crime and other coping behaviors might also be the byproduct of feeling emotionally invalidated.

Integrating emotional invalidation into GST can also provide insight into what strains are most conducive to crime as it is likely that such strains are also perceived as most emotionally invalidating. Emotional invalidation can also cue researchers into other strains that might be conducive to crime that have not been previously considered. And the overall integration is rather simple, especially considering that the psychological sciences have already been grappling with how to best operationalize emotional invalidation.

By integrating emotional invalidation with GST, we can continue to investigate strains that we know matter for people’s lives, but then gain a better understanding for why some get involved with crime and others do not. Doing so strengthens our understanding of factors related to crime, which invariably helps put appropriate measures in place to curtail crime. It is hoped that this paper will motivate future studies to empirically consider how the consequences of emotional invalidation influence crime, substance use, and other coping behaviors.

REFERENCES

Agnew, Robert. 1992. “Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology 30(1): 47–88.

Agnew, Robert. 2001. “Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(4): 319–361.

Akers, Ronald. 2009. Social Learning and Social Structure. New York, NY: Routledge.

Berg, Lisa., Mikael Rostila, Arzu Arat, and Anders Hjern. 2019. “Parental Death During Childhood and Violent Crime in Late Adolescence to Early Adulthood: A Swedish National Cohort Study.” Palgrave Communications 5(74): 1-8.

Brandão, Tânia., Rute Brites, João Hipólito, and Odete Nunes. 2022. “The Perceived Invalidation of Emotion Scale (PIES) in a Portuguese Sample: A Psychometric Evaluation and an Item Response Theory Analysis.” Current Psychology 41: 7657-7665.

Cherlin, Andrew. 2016. Why are White death rates rising? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/opinion/why-are-White-death-rates-rising.html.

Dennison, Christopher R. 2016. “Keeping up with the Joneses? How Perceived SES Moderates the Relationship between Economic Problems and Instrumental Crime.” Deviant Behavior 37(10):1118-1131.

Dennison, Christopher R. 2018. “Intergenerational Mobility and Changes in Drug Use Across the Life Course.” Journal of Drug Issues 48(2):205-225.

Dennison, Christopher R. 2019a. “Intergenerational Educational Pathways and Instrumental Crime, Violent Crime, and Illegal Drug Use Across the Life Course.” Journal of Crime and Justice 42(2):99-120.

Dennison, Christopher R. 2019b. “Gender Differences in the Criminogenic Consequences Associated with Intergenerational Educational Mobility.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 44(2):248-276.

Dennison, Christopher R. 2021. “Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Relationship between Educational Mobility and Crime.” Race & Justice 11(1):65-90.

Dennison, Christopher R. 2022. “Dropping Out of College and Dropping into Crime.” Justice Quarterly 39(3):585-611.

Dennison, Christopher R. and Jessica G. Finkeldey (equal contribution). 2021. “Self-Reported Experiences and Consequences of Unfair Treatment by Police.” Criminology 59(2):254-290.

Dennison, Christopher R. and Raymond R. Swisher. 2019. “Postsecondary Education, Neighborhood Disadvantage, and Crime: An Examination of Life Course Relative Deprivation.” Crime & Delinquency 65(2):215-238. Dennison, Christopher R.

Dennison, Christopher R. and Stephen Demuth. 2018. “The More You Have, The More You Lose: Criminal Justice Involvement, Ascribed Socioeconomic Status, and Achieved SES.” Social Problems 65(2):191-210.

Eitle, David. 2010. “General Strain Theory, Persistence, and Desistance Among Young Adult Males.” Journal of Criminal Justice 38(6): 1113-1121.

Elzy, Meredith B., Ashton Keaton, Melanie Bogus, and Kristen Raymond. 2024 (Forthcoming). “Emotional Invalidation and Relationship Quality: A Mediational Model Through a Social Learning Lens.” Psychological Reports.

Karris, Kathleen M., Carolyn T. Halpern, Eric A. Whitsel, Jon M. Hussey, Ley A. Killeya-Jones, Joyce Tabor, and Sarah C. Dean. 2019. “Cohort Profile: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health).” International Journal of Epidemiology 48(5): 1415-1415k.

Haslam, Michelle., Jon Arcelus, Claire Farrow, and Caroline Meyer. 2012. “Attitudes Towards Emotional Expression Mediate the Relationship Between Childhood Invalidation and Adult Eating Concern.” European Eating Disorders Review 20(6): 510-514.

Jensen, F. G. (1995). Salvaging structure through strain: A theoretical and empirical critique. In F. Adler & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), The legacy of anomie theory: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 6, pp. 139-158). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Jeon, Jeewon. And Daeun Park. 2024. “Your Feelings are Reasonable: Emotional Validation Promotes Persistence among Preschoolers.” Developmental Science e13523: 1-10.

Jung, Hyunzee., Todd I. Herrenkohl, Jungeun Olivia Lee, Sheryl A. Hemphill, Jessica A. Heerde, and Martie L. Skinner. 2017. “Gendered Pathways From Child Abuse to Adult Crime Though Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors in Childhood and Adolescence.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 32(18): 2724-2750.

Krause, Elizabeth D., Tamar Mendelson, and Thomas R. Lynch. 2003. “Childhood Emotional Invalidation and Adult Psychological Distress: The Mediating Role of Emotional Inhibition.” Child Abuse & Neglect 27(2): 199-213.

Kukreja, Priyam and Jatin Pandey. 2023. “Workplace Gaslighting: Conceptualization, Development, and Validation of a scale.” Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1-10.

Landeis, Marissa, John H. Boman IV, and Thomas J. Mowen. 2021. “The Add Health Data in Criminology.” Pp. 1-7 in The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice, edited by Barnes, J.C., and David R. Forde.

Litner, Jennifer, and Carrico, Brittany. 2021. “What is Emotional Invalidation?” Psych Central, retrieved from: What Is Emotional Invalidation? I Psych Central

March, Evita., Cameron S. Kay, Bojana M. Dinić, Danielle Wagstaff, Beáta Grabovac, and Peter K. Jonason. 2023 (Forthcoming). “”It’s All in Your Head”: Personality Traits and Gaslighting Tactics in Intimate Relationships.” Journal of Family Violence.

Moon, Byongook, Kraig Hays, and David Blurton. 2009. “General Strain Theory, Key Strains, and Deviance.” Journal of Criminal Justice 37(1): 98-106.

Sampson Robert. J. and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schreiber, Regina E. and Jennifer C. Veilleux. 2022. “Perceived Invalidation of Emotion Uniquely Predicts Affective Distress: Implications for the Role of Interpersonal Factors in Emotional Experience.” Personality and Individual Differences 184: 111191.

Smith, David J. and Russell Ecob. 2007. “An Investigation into Causal Links Between Victimization and Offending in Adolescents.” The British Journal of Sociology 58(4): 633-659.

Sorokin Pitirim A. 1927. Social Mobility. New York: Harper.

Sorokin Pitirim A. 1959. Social and Cultural Mobility. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Sweet, Paige L. 2019. “The Sociology of Gaslighting.” American Sociological Review 84(5): 851-875.

Swisher, Raymond R. and Christopher R. Dennison. 2016. “Educational Pathways and change in Crime between Adolescence and Early Adulthood.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53(6):840-871.

Turney, Kristin and Rebecca Goodsell. 2018. “Parental Incarceration and Children’s Well-Being.” The Future of Children 28(1): 147-164.

Vangronsveld, K.L., and S.J. Linton. 2012. “The Effect of Validating and Invalidating Communications on Satisfaction, Pain and Affect in Nurses Suffering from Low Back Pain During a Semi-Structured Interview.” European Journal of Pain 16(2): 239-246.

Velotti, Patrizia., Carlo Garofalo, Antonino Callea, Romola S. Bucks, Terri Roberton, and Michael Daffern. 2017. “Exploring Anger Among Offenders: The Role of Emotion Dysregulation and Alexithymia.” Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law 24(1): 128-138.

Zhang, Liang, Xiangmin Liu, and Yitong Hu. 2024. “Degrees of Return: Estimating Internal Rates of Return for College Majors Using Quintile Regression.” American Educational Research Journal 61(3): 577-609.

Zielinski, Melissa J., Jennifer C. Veilleux, Marley F. Fradley, and Kayla D. Skinner. 2023. “Perceived Emotion Invalidation Predicts Daily Affect and Stressors.” Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 36(2):214-228.

Zielinski, Melissa J. and Jennifer C. Veilleux. 2018. “The Perceived Invalidation of Emotion Scale (PIES): Development and Psychometric Properties of a Novel Measure of Current Emotion Invalidation.” Psychological Assessment 30(11): 1454-1467.

Comments
3
?
Abigail Kelly:

If not for Baba Powers what would my life turn out to be? I want you all to please contact Baba Powers now to get the powerful black mirror from him. I want you all to also BELIEVE AND TRUST HIM because whatever he tells you is the TRUTH and 100% guaranteed. The black mirror makes it happen, attracts abundance. I bought the black mirror from Baba Powers and now, I am super rich and successful with the help of the black mirror. When I first saw the testimonies of Baba Powers of the black mirror, I thought it was a joke but I contacted him to be sure for myself and to my greatest surprise, the black mirror is real. The black mirror is powerful. Check him out on his website to see plenty of amazing testimonies from people about him. These are some of the people that he has helped. Here is his website; Babablackmirrorsofpowers.blogspot.com and here is his email;  [email protected]   I really can't thank you enough Baba Powers. God bless you, thank you

?
Abigail Kelly:

If not for Baba Powers what would my life turn out to be? I want you all to please contact Baba Powers now to get the powerful black mirror from him. I want you all to also BELIEVE AND TRUST HIM because whatever he tells you is the TRUTH and 100% guaranteed. The black mirror makes it happen, attracts abundance. I bought the black mirror from Baba Powers and now, I am super rich and successful with the help of the black mirror. When I first saw the testimonies of Baba Powers of the black mirror, I thought it was a joke but I contacted him to be sure for myself and to my greatest surprise, the black mirror is real. The black mirror is powerful. Check him out on his website to see plenty of amazing testimonies from people about him. These are some of the people that he has helped. Here is his website; Babablackmirrorsofpowers.blogspot.com and here is his email;  [email protected]   I really can't thank you enough Baba Powers. God bless you, thank you

?
Victoria Tate:

BITCOIN RECOVERY SERVICES: RESTORING LOST CRYPTO:

I am happy I read about Lost Recovery Masters and l didn’t hesitate to contact them. Lost Recovery Masters were able to recover my $94,000 worth of BTC as of then that I stupidly paid to crypto investment scammers I met on Facebook. They are now my family hacker and I’ll always recommend Lost Recovery Masters to everyone in need of help.  

 Website https://lostrecoverymasters.com/  

Support team Mail   [email protected]

WhatsApp: +44(7537)-105921