Chapter 7
Social Process Theories
Socialization and Crime



Social process theories suggest criminality is a function of
socialization
Any person regardless of race, class or gender can become
criminal
Elements of family, peer group, school, and church contribute to
socialization processes
Socialization and Crime
•
Family Relations
 Family plays a critical role in the determinant of behavior
 Parental efficacy refers to supportive parents who effectively
control their children
 Links between inconsistent discipline and delinquency
Socialization and Crime
•
Weblink
www.childpolicy.org
Socialization and Crime
•
Child Abuse and Crime
 Linkage between child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and crime
 Children subjected to abuse are more likely to use violence in
personal interactions
 In nonviolent societies, parents rarely punish children physically
Socialization and Crime
•
Educational Experience
 Children who fail in school offend more frequently than those who
succeed
 Schools contribute to delinquency by labeling students
 School dropouts have a significant chance of entering a criminal
career
 2003 national survey estimates about 1.5 million violent incidents
occur in public schools each year
Socialization and Crime
•
Peer Relations
 Children seek out peer groups between the ages of 8 and 14
 Peer Rejection: Children rejected by peers are more likely to
display aggressive behavior
 Pro-social friends may inhibit criminality
 Peers and Criminality: Antisocial peer groups increase the
likelihood of delinquency
 Mark Warr suggests delinquent friends tend to be “sticky”
meaning they are not easily lost once they are acquired
Socialization and Crime
•
Institutional Involvement and Belief
 Religion binds people together
 Travis Hirschi and Rodney Stark found the association between
religion attendance, belief, and delinquency is insignificant
 Recent research contends that attending religious services is a
significant inhibitor of crime
Socialization and Crime
•
The Effects of Socialization on Crime
 Social learning theory suggests people learn techniques of crimes
from criminal peers
 Social control theory contends people are controlled by their
bonds to society
 Social reaction theory argues that society contributes to
criminality through the use of labels
Figure 7.1 The Social Processes that Control Human Behavior
Social Learning Theory
•
Crime is a product of learning norms, values, and behaviors
associated with criminal activity
 Differential Association: Edwin H. Sutherland’s view that
criminality is a function of the socialization process
Social Learning Theory
•
Differential Association Theory
 Differential Association: Edwin H. Sutherland’s view that
criminality is a function of the socialization process
• Criminal behavior is learned
• Learning is a by-product of interacting with others
• Learning criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal
groups
• Learning criminal behavior involves assimilating the
techniques of committing crime, including motives, drives,
rationalizations, and attitudes
• The specific direction is learned from perceptions of various
aspects of the legal code as favorable or unfavorable
Social Learning Theory




A person becomes criminal when perceiving the consequences of
violating the law as favorable
Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and
intensity
The process of learning criminal behavior involves the same
mechanisms as any other learning process
Criminal behavior and noncriminal behavior express the same
needs and values
Figure 7.2 Differential Associations
Social Learning Theory
•
Testing Differential Association Theory
 Difficult to conceptualize and test empirically
 Research does support the core principles such as links to family,
and peers with criminality
Social Learning Theory
•
Analysis of Differential Association Theory
 Fails to account for the origin of criminal definitions
 Assumes criminal and delinquent acts to be rational and
systematic
 Some suggest the theory is tautological
Social Learning Theory
•
Differential Reinforcement Theory
 Ronald Akers suggests “direct conditioning” occurs when
behavior is reinforced by rewards or punishment
 People evaluate their own behavior through their interactions with
significant others and groups in their lives
 Once people are indoctrinated into crime, their behavior can be
reinforced through peers and the lack of negative sanctions
Social Learning Theory
•
Testing Differential Reinforcement
 Studies have suggested a strong association between drug and
alcohol abuse and social learning variables
 Deviant behavior is reinforced over time (I.E. smoking)
 Parents may supply negative reinforcements to children’s deviant
behavior
Social Learning Theory
•
Neutralization Theory
 David Matza and Gresham Sykes view criminality as a process
learning neutralizing techniques
 Subterranean values are morally tinged influences
 Drift occurs from conventional behavior to criminal behavior if one
can neutralize their sense of responsibility for antisocial behavior
Social Learning Theory
•
Techniques of Neutralization
 Denial of responsibility: unlawful acts are beyond an offenders
control
 Denial of injury: offender’s perception is changed (i.e. stealing is
borrowing)
 Denial of the victim: the victim had it coming (i.e. vandalism)
 Condemnation of the condemners: shifting the blame to others
(i.e. society)
 Appeal to higher loyalties: loyalty to a higher cause (i.e. Oliver
North and Iran Contra)
Figure 7.3 Techniques of Neutralization
Social Learning Theory
•
Testing Neutralization Theory
 Empirical test results are inconclusive
 Not all criminal offenders approve of social values such as
honesty and fairness
 As Matza predicted, people do seem to drift in and out of
antisocial behavior
Social Learning Theory
•
Are Learning Theories Valid?
 Learning theories fail to explain how the first criminal learned the
necessary techniques and definitions of crime
 Fails to account for spontaneous crime or expressive crimes
 Learning of some criminality frequently occurs after one has
committed the first criminal act
Social Control Theory
•
All people have potential to violate the law
 Self-control refers to a strong moral sense that renders a person
incapable of hurting others or violating social norms
 Walter Reckless argued a strong self-image insulates a person
from the criminogenic influences of the environment
 Howard Kaplan suggests youths with poor self-concepts are more
likely to engage in delinquent behavior (normative groups)
Social Control Theory
•
Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory (social control theory)
 Travis Hirschi links the onset of criminality to the weakening of
the ties than bind people to society ( social bonds)
• Attachment (sensitivity to and interest in others)
• Commitment (time, energy, and effort into conventional
activities)
• Involvement (insulates people from the lure of crime)
• Belief (moral respect for law and social values)
Figure 7.4 Elements of Social Bond Theory
Social Control Theory
•
Testing Social Control Theory
 Empirical studies revealed a strong support for Hirschi’s control
theory
• Youths strongly attached to parents were less likely to commit
criminal acts
• Youths involved in conventional activities were less likely to
engage in criminal behavior
• Youths involved in unconventional behaviors such as drinking
and smoking were more prone to delinquency
• Youths who maintained weak relationships with others moved
toward delinquency
• Those who shunned unconventional acts were attached to
peers
• Delinquents and nondelinquents shar similar beliefs about
society
 Recent research shows attachments to peers, school and family
may be interrelated
Social Control Theory
•
Opposing Views
 Friendship: A criticism of Hirschi’s theory is the notion that
delinquents are detached loners
 Not all elements of the bond are equal: Some people are very
involved and not attached
 Deviant peers and parents: Some people are very attached to
deviant peers
 Restricted in scope: May not explain all modes of criminality
 Change bonds: Bonds seem to change over time
 Crime and social bonds: Direction of association might be
miscalculated in the wrong direction
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Explains criminal careers in terms of destructive social interactions
and stigma-producing encounters (symbolic interaction theory)
 People are given a variety of symbolic labels that define the
whole person
 Negative labels stigmatize and reduce one’s self-image
 Social groups create definitions of positive and negative labels
 Labels may actually maintain and amplify criminal behavior
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Crime and Labeling Theory
 Crime and deviance are defined by the social audience
 Howard Becker described those making the rules as moral
entrepreneurs
 Social groups create deviance by labeling particular people as
“outsiders”
Figure 7.5 The Labeling Process
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Differential Enforcement
 Those with social power penalize the powerless
 Content of law reflects power relationships
 Street crimes punished more severely than white-collar crimes
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Consequences of Labeling
 Labels produce stigma
 Condemnation is carried out in “ceremonies” such as trials and
media attention (degradation ceremonies)
 Differential social control: Self-labeling involves one taking on the
attitudes and roles reflected in how a person views the way
others see them
 Joining deviant cliques: Some labeled people may join cliques
and other outcast peers
 Retrospective reading: refers to the reassessment of a person’s
past to fit a current generalized label or status
 Dramatization of evil: Labels become a personal identity
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Primary and Secondary Deviance
 Edwin Lemert defined a norm violation with little or no long-term
influence as primary deviance
 Secondary deviance refers to a norm violation that results in
application of a negative label with long-term consequences
 The process whereby secondary deviance pushes offenders out
of the mainstream of society is referred to as deviance
amplification
Figure 7.6 Primary and Secondary Deviance
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Research on Social Reaction Theory
 Evidence supports the targets of labeling (poor and powerless)
are victimized by the law and justice system
 Contextual discrimination: refers to judges imposing harsher
sentences on minorities
 Empirical evidence supports that negative labels influence selfimage
 Cumulative disadvantage: Provokes repeat behaviors
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Is Labeling Theory Valid?
 Inability to specify the conditions the must exist before an act or
individual is labeled
 Failure to explain differences in crime rates
 Ignores the onset of deviant behavior
 Charles Tittle suggests criminal careers occur without labeling
Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
•
Evaluating Social Process Theories
 The branches of social process theory-social learning-social
control and social reaction are compatible
 Interactions of social institutions, family, schools, peers, and the
justice system are important in creating and inhibiting criminal
behavior
 Social process theories are not persuasive in explaining
fluctuations in crime patterns
Public Policy Implications of Social Process Theory
•
Learning theories have greatly influenced the way criminal offenders
are treated
 Residential treatment programs utilize group interaction to
promote conventional behavior
 Head Start is a well-known program designed to help lower-class
youths achieve proper socialization
 Diversion programs are concerned with avoiding the stigma of a
criminal label
 Restitution programs permit an offender to repay the victim rather
than face the stigma of a formal trial and court-ordered sentence