AGENDA

Review Social Structure Theories • Especially Anomie/Strain Theories

Start Social Process Theories

Social Structural Theories

• Aspect of the social structure is related to crime • Tend to be macro-level theories

• Social Disorganization• Chicago School• Sampson and friends (Collective efficacy)

• Anomie• Merton (both macro and micro themes)• GST (sort of a misfit here)• Institutional Anomie (Country level theory)

Social Process Theory • Focus on crime unfolds over time (through a process)• How individuals interact with the environment • Process of “Socialization”

Socialization▪ How a person learns the “proper” way to live▪ Includes norms and values that guide human behavior▪ Primary sources: social institutions

▪ Education▪ Religion▪ Family▪ Peer group

Social process theory traditions

▪ Differential association/social learning▪ Adequate socialization toward the incorrect norms and values

▪ Informal social control▪ Inadequate socialization

▪ Labeling theory▪ Socialized to accept delinquent identity as result of criminal

justice system

BEST CHART…EVER

Differential Association and Social Learning Theory▪ Primary groups and significant others influence

individual behavior

Theories:

1. Laws of imitation (Tarde)

2. Differential association (Sutherland)

3. Social learning (Akers)

Laws of Imitation (1 of 2)

▪ Developed by Gabriel Tarde

▪ Rejected the idea of the born criminal

▪ Criminality as lifestyle learned through interaction with and imitation of others

Laws of Imitation (2 of 2)

▪ Criminality as a function of association with criminal types

▪ People are more likely to imitate one another if they are in close contact.

▪ Inferiors imitate superiors.

▪ When two fashions come together, one can be substituted for

the other.

Differential Association

▪ Developed by Edwin Sutherland

▪ Focus on cultural transmission of delinquent values

▪ Akers was student (and later a professor) at the University of Chicago

• Asks a “Chicago School” question

Differential Association

▪ Criticism▪ Vague concepts and phrasings

▪ Difficult to test empirically

Differential Association

• Criminal Behavior is learned • Negatively, this means it is not “invented”• Communication within intimate groups

• Learning involves techniques and attitudes• Attitudes expresses as “definitions of the situation”

• A person becomes delinquent because of an “excess of definitions favorable to law violation”

• The process involves the same learning process as all other behavior

Techniques of Neutralization

▪ Developed by Sykes and Matza

▪ First good attempt to measure Sutherland’s “definitions”

• Documented common rationalizations (excuses) for delinquency among a sample of delinquents

Techniques of Neutralization

▪ Denial of responsibility

▪ Denial of injury

▪ Denial of victim

▪ Condemnation of the condemners

▪ Appeal to higher loyalties

Techniques of Neutralization

Definitions or Something Else??

▪ Sociology criticism Such attitudes do not actually cause criminal behavior.

▪ Rationalization is utilized only after the offense is committed when behavior is called into question.

▪ Psychologist (Behaviorism): To the extent that these rationalizations neutralize guilt, they reinforce behavior (Negative Reinforcement)

Social Learning Theory

▪ Developed by Ronald Akers

▪ Early version: differential reinforcement▪ Revision of differential association theory

▪ Added concepts of operant conditioning and imitation (observational learning) to explain how behavior was learned

Social Learning Theory

Key concepts

▪ Differential associations

▪ Definitions

▪ Differential reinforcement

▪ Imitation

Social Learning Theory (Akers)

Exposure to definitions or different role models

Balance of definitions or role models

produces initialbehaviors

Positive ornegative

reinforcement

DA Definitions BehaviorsRole models

R(+/-)

Social Learning Theory▪ Empirical research measures

▪ Attitudes that support crime (definitions)

▪ Exposure to delinquent peers/family members (differential associations)

▪ Rewards or punishment for delinquency (differential reinforcement)

Delinquent Attitudes

• Same as “procriminal attitudes,” “neutralizations,” “stinking thinking…”• In pretty much every test of crime or deviance, they strongly predict offending.

• As noted, there is debate about whether this is causal (vs. after the fact excuses)

Delinquent Peer Association▪ Most common measure of social learning theory

▪ Connection between the proportion of person’s friends who were delinquent and delinquency• Mapping of friendship networks, proportion of pro-social friends

vs. antisocial friends

▪ Nonsocial learning interpretation

▪ Measurement issues, Delinquent youths attract one another as peers

Evidence: It likely goes both ways, but its pretty clear that peers have a some causal influence on future behavior

Role of Reinforcement & Punishment

▪ Clear that people do respond to rewards and punishments in their environment

• Behaviorists: operant conditioning works• Deterrence (formal punishment) could be absorbed into social

learning theory as simply one form of punishment

Social Learning Theory

▪ Empirical research findings▪ Strong relationships between measures of social

learning and a wide range of outcomes▪ Smoking

▪ Computer crimes

▪ Gang-related delinquency

▪ Other forms of criminal or delinquent activity

Social Learning Theory

Criticism

▪ Unclear the exact role that delinquent peers and delinquent attitudes play in generating delinquency and crime

• Are they really “causes?”• Evidence from rehabilitation programs suggests that they at

least part of the relationship is causal (look at the next slide Jeff)

Policy Implications:Social Learning Theory

▪ Use the principles of learning to▪ Reduce access to delinquent peers

▪ Confront and change antisocial attitudes

▪ Change the balance of reinforcement so that it supports prosocial behavior

▪ Behavioral/cognitive restructuring

programs