ReviewLabeling Theory

Social Support Theory

Review Process Theories

Differential Association/Social Learning Theories (Sutherland, Akers) Evidence Policy Implications

Informal Social Control Theories Types of control Theories (Hirschi, Gottfreodson and Hirschi,

Sampson and Laub) Evidence Policy Implications

Connections/Organization

Gottfredson and Hirschi

Sampson and Laub

Extension of Hirschi’s social bond theoryAge gradedAdult social bonds

○ Quality Marriage○ Quality Job

Why matter!

Sampson and Laub

ContextParenting• Supervision• Discipline Social Bonds• Family• SchoolDelinquent Peers

Childhood Adolescence Adulthood

Individual Differences

Delinquency

Social Bonds•Marriage•Good Job

Length ofIncarceration

Adult Crime

Control vs. Learning• A product of sociological criminology

(Hirschi)– The distinction is based on assumptions about

human nature: What is the nature of human beings in…• Social Learning Theory?• Social Control/Deterrence Theory?• Strain/Anomie Theory?

• Distinctions are not really important in psychology– Operant conditioning, vicarious learning,

cognitive psychology are all grounded in “principles of learning”

Labeling Theory

▪ Developed by Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, and Howard Becker

▪ Key concepts▪ Emphasis is on interactions between

individuals and institutions of formal control (e.g., police, courts, prisons).

▪ Contact with police and the courts may create negative self-image.

▪ Formal interventions may increase criminal behavior.

Roots of the Labeling Perspective (1 of 3) ▪ View of crime and deviance as relative

▪ No act is inherently evil, bad, or criminal.

▪ Deviant categorization depends on many factors

▪ When/where the act is committed

▪ Who the offender is

▪ Who the victim is

▪ What the consequences are

Roots of the Labeling Perspective (2 of 3) ▪ Focus on how power and conflict

shape society (social context)▪ Moral entrepreneurs

▪ Powerful groups define and react to deviant behavior

▪ Benefits powerful, can hurt the less powerful

▪ Criminal justice system: agents enforce the law in the interest of powerful groups

Roots of the Labeling Perspective (3 of 3) ▪ Importance of self-concept

▪ Symbolic interactionism ▪ People communicate through symbols.

▪ People interpret symbolic gestures and incorporate them into their self-image.

▪ “Looking-glass self”▪ Developed by Charles Horton Cooley

▪ One’s own self-concepts are the product of other people’s conceptions or symbolic labels

▪ Self-fulfilling prophesy

A Critique of Labeling Theory ▪ Little empirical support▪ Inaccurate assumptions

▪ Primary deviance as relative, sporadic, and unimportant

▪ Nature of the person predicts official reaction more than the nature of the act

▪ Effect of official sanctions on future behavior▪ Racial bias does exist…but not sole (or

most important) cause of CJ response to crime

▪ Arrest sometimes decreases future crime

Policy Implications:Labeling Theory ▪ Policy implications

▪ Schur: “Radical nonintervention”▪ Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act (1974)▪ Diversion programs

▪ Divert offenders away from the formal juvenile justice processing to programs run by other entities (i.e., social service programs)

Deinstitutionalization (esp. status offenders)

Due Process revolution in Juvenile Court

Labeling Theory in Context Labeling theory most popular in 1960s-

1970sThe central ideas had been around as early

as the 1930sGood “fit” for the social context of 1960sIronic Twist

○ Government, trying to do good, actually makes people worse

○ Good fit with the “can’t trust the government” social movement era

Labeling Theory Extensions I▪ Lawrence Sherman’s “Defiance”

Theory ▪ Police sanctions can

▪ Produce defiance (escalation in offending)

▪ Produce deterrence (decrease in offending)

▪ Be irrelevant

▪ Reintegrative shaming

Labeling Extensions II

▪ Reintegrative Shaming – Developed by John Braithewaite

▪ Effect of formal punishment depends upon how a person is punished.

▪ Shaming and reintegrative punishment will decrease future crime.

▪ Stigmatizing punishment will increase

future crime.

Policy Implication of Reintegrative Shaming

▪ Restorative Justice Goal of the criminal justice system: to repair the

harm created by the offense▪ Victim central to process

▪ Community volunteers also important○ Punishment of offender does little to repair harm

(inflicting pain not really “accountability”).

Policy Implications: Reintegrated Shaming (2 of 2) ▪ Empirical research

▪ Victim-offender mediation

▪ Restitution

▪ Sentencing circles

▪ Mixed findings

▪ Criticism▪ Limited (depends on voluntary participation)

▪ Might reduce funding to more effective rehabilitation programs

Social Support Theory

Newcomer to the theory world (mid 1990s)

Francis CullenDeterrence/control view of human nature is

too simplisticSocial Support as “precondition” for effective

parenting (control)Social Support independently important

○ Altruism

Conclusion ▪ Deviant behavior is the result of individuals

interacting with social institutions over time.▪ Social control theory: inadequate socialization

▪ Differential association/social learning theory: improper socialization

▪ Labeling theory: socialized to accept delinquent identity (interaction with the criminal justice system)

▪ Not well supported by research

▪ Revisions (e.g., informal labeling, reintegrative shaming) more promising

Review of Theories for Exam II Social Structure

Anomie/StrainSocial Disorganization

Social ProcessLearningControlLabeling