Learning to Be a Criminal: Differential Association, Subcultural, and Social Learning Theories.

Learning to Be a Criminal: Differential Association,

Subcultural, and Social Learning Theories

Learning to Be Criminal

• This group of theories argues people learn to engage in criminal behavior• Learn in the same way that you learn noncriminal behavior• Stand in contrast to theories that argue that social class,

broken homes, race, age, etc., lead to crime

• Both micro- and macro-level learning theories• Micro: individual level

• Macro: aggregate or group level

Micro-Level Learning Theories• Sutherland’s theory of differential association

• First and most prominent formal statement of a micro-level learning theory

• First complete statement presented in 1939

• Final version 1947

• Has had a tremendous influence on crime research and remains a dominant theory of crime today

Sutherland and Cressey: “A Theory of Differential Association”• Nine propositions

1. Criminal behavior is learned• Not inherited

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in the process of communication

• Communication can be verbal or in terms of gestures

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups

• Impersonal agencies (e.g., movies, newspapers, etc.) play a relatively unimportant role


4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) the techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes

5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal code as favorable or unfavorable

• Individuals are surrounded by both those who define the legal code as rules to be observed and those who have definitions favorable to the violation of the legal codes


6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of the law over definitions unfavorable to the violation of the law

• This is the principle of differential association

• Refers to both criminal and anti-criminal associations and counteracting forces

• People become criminal because of

contacts with criminal patterns and

isolation from anti-criminal patterns


7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity

• Frequency: how often

• Duration: how long

• Priority: how early in life

• Assumed that lawful behavior developed early in childhood may persist throughout life

• Intensity: how respected or prestigious the source and the emotional reactions related to the associations


8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning

• Learning not restricted to imitation


9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of those same needs and values

• For example, money is a common value that is desired, but that desire does not always lead to crime

• Some gain employment, while others steal

Sutherland and Cressey: “A Theory of Differential Association”• A person’s associations are determined in a general

context of social organization

• The theory can explain both criminal and noncriminal behavior

• Although a micro-level theory, argues differential social organization plays a role• Areas with social organization that favors criminal behavior will

have high crime rates

Criticisms of Differential Association Theory

• Sutherland does not present a good description of definitions favorable or unfavorable to crime• Some argue that individuals hold values that unconditionally approve

of crime• Studies have found few people unconditionally approve of crime

• Rather, some are amoral—neither approve nor condemn crime

• Others argue that people hold values that do not directly approve of crime but are conducive to crime (e.g., thrill seeking, toughness)

• Supported by the data

• More commonly, it is argued people hold beliefs that approve of, justify, or excuse crime in certain situations

• Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization

• Supported by the data

Criticisms of Differential Association Theory

• Fails to fully describe the process by which crime is learned

• Only says crime is the result of having more definitions favorable to the violation of the law than definitions unfavorable to the violation of the law

• This is addressed by Akers’s social learning theory

Akers: “A Social Learning Theory of Crime”

• A reformulation and extension of Sutherland’s differential association theory• Argues definitions favorable to crime are important• Crime may be learned through imitation and differential

reinforcement

• Specifies the learning mechanisms of behavior—how criminal behavior is learned• Draws from theories of learning, particularly

behavioral and social learning theory in psychology, to describe how crime is learned

• Currently one of the leading theories of crime


• Development of social learning theory• Sutherland did not explain the mechanisms of learning

• Burgess and Akers (1966) specified these mechanisms in their “differential association-reinforcement theory”

• Restated Sutherland’s principles in terms of operant and respondent (classical) conditioning

• Still maintains strong elements of symbolic interactionism

• Thus, the theory is considered “soft behaviorism”


• Learning refers to the acquisition, maintenance, and modification of human behavior

• The same learning process produces both conforming and deviant behavior; the difference lies in the direction of the balance of influences on behavior


• Four major concepts of social learning theory

1. Differential association

2. Definitions

3. Differential reinforcement

4. Imitation


1. Differential association• Process by which a person is exposed to normative

definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal behavior

• Has behavioral interactional and normative dimensions

• Behavioral interactional: direct association and interaction with others who engage in a behavior and identification with reference groups

• Normative: exposure to different patterns of norms and values through associations


1. Differential association, continued.…

• Groups that people associate with, which exposes one to definitions, models to imitate, and differential reinforcements

• Most important groups are primary groups:• Family

• Friends

• Groups can also be secondary or reference groups:• Church

• School

• Mass media

• Like Sutherland, the greater frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of the association, the greater the effect on the behavior


2. Definitions

• One’s own attitudes or meanings that are attached to a given behavior

• Orientations, rationalizations, definitions, and other evaluative/moral attitudes that define acts as good/bad

• Can be general (religious, moral, conventional values) or specific (oriented toward particular acts)

• If hold attitudes that disapprove an act, less likely to engage in that behavior

• If hold attitudes that approve an act, more likely to engage in that behavior

• Approving attitudes toward crime can be:• Positive: makes the behavior desirable or permissible

• Neutralizing: justifies or excuses the behavior

• Definitions developed through imitation and differential reinforcement


3. Differential reinforcement• The balance of anticipated or actual rewards or punishments

that follow or are consequences of behavior

• Whether individuals will continue (maintain) or desist a behavior depends on past, present, and anticipated rewards and punishments

• If rewarded, probability of the act being committed or repeated is increased; if punished, the probability is decreased


3. Differential reinforcement, continued.…

• Reinforcement can be:• Positive: presenting a positive stimuli

• Negative: removing an aversive stimuli

• Punishment can be:

• Direct: presenting an aversive stimuli

• Indirect: removing a positive stimuli

• Reinforcers and punishers also can be:

• Nonsocial: the direct physical effects of drugs and alcohol

• Social: praise, gaining status, etc.

• Most learning is the result of social exchanges rather than nonsocial exchanges


4. Imitation

• The engagement of behavior after the observation of similar behavior in others

• Plays a role in the initial acquisition of the behavior

• Whether or not the behavior is imitated is affected by characteristics of the model

• Both prosocial and deviant behavior can be imitated


• The social learning process: Sequence and feedback effects

• Involves the balance of learned definitions, imitation of criminal/deviant models, and reinforcement that produces the initial act

• The facilitative effects of these variables continue in the repetition of acts, with imitation becoming less important

• Nonsocial and social reinforcers and punishers determine if the act is repeated and how often



• Definitions favorable to the violation of the law do not only precede the initiation of the criminal act

• Acts can occur in the absence of any thought given about the rightness/wrongness of the act

• Definitions that neutralize the act can be applied retrospectively



• Differential association with others typically precedes the act

• After associations have been established and the reinforcing/punishing consequences of the act are experienced, the continuation and seeking of new associations are affected


• Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL)• Social structure factors (distal macro-level and meso-level

causes of crime) are hypothesized to have an indirect effect on the individual’s behavior by affecting the differential associations, definitions, differential reinforcements, and imitations (primary proximate causes of crime) of the individual

• These primary proximate factors then have a direct effect on the individual’s behavior

Social Structure Social Learning BehaviorFactors Factors(Distal) (Proximate)


• Four dimensions of social structure

1. Differential social organization• Age composition, population density, and other attributes that lean

communities to high or low rates of crime

2. Differential location in the social structure• Sociodemographic characteristics of individuals that indicate their position

within the larger social structure

3. Theoretically defined structural variables• Anomie, class, oppression, social disorganization, etc.

4. Differential social location• Individual’s memberships in primary, secondary, and reference groups


• Differential social organization and differential location of a person provide the general learning contexts for individuals that increase/ decrease the likelihood of committing crime

• Affects exposure to criminal associations, models, definitions, and reinforcements for crime


• Critiques of social learning theory• The reinforcement principle may be tautological • Some question the temporal sequence of differential peer associations and

delinquency • Some argue youths become delinquent first then seek out other delinquent

friends• “Birds of a feather flock together”

• Delinquent friends have no effect on the onset or continuation of delinquent behavior

• Others (and social learning theory) argue youths have delinquent friends first • “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas”

• Social learning theory recognizes both directeffects of peers and reciprocal effects• But most often the research shows the associations come

before the deviant behavior—consistent with social learning theory


• Critiques of social learning theory

• The strong relationship between self-reported delinquency and peer associations is because delinquency is often measured by the individual’s report of the delinquency of his/her peers

• Measuring the same thing twice

• Research shows the individual’s own delinquency and their friends’ delinquency are not the same


• Empirical support of social learning theory

• Most of the research has found strong support for the social learning variables and criminal, delinquent, and deviant behavior

• When tested against other theories, social learning theory is usually found to have greater support

• Patterson (1975) showed that social learning mechanisms in parent–child interactions are strong predictors of conforming/deviant behavior• Children conform when parents consistently reward good behavior and

punish bad behavior

• Children become deviant when parents directly train the child to be deviant through imitation, supplying favorable/neutralizing definitions to the violation of the law, and reward deviant behavior


• Empirical support for social learning theory

• Other than one’s own delinquent behavior, the best single predictor of the onset, continuance, or desistance of crime is differential association with conforming or law-violating peers• If associate with conforming peers, less likely to engage in deviant

behavior

• If associate with deviant peers, more likely to engage in deviant behavior

• Delinquent gangs

• Promote a high level of delinquent involvement

• Exposed to group processes and norms favorable to violence as well as models and reinforcements for deviant behavior


• Akers’s research on social learning theory

• Has conducted six influential studies

• Found all four social learning variables alone and in combination are strongly related to various forms of deviant behavior

• Smoking, alcohol use, drug use, rape, sexual coercion, etc.

• Found the social learning variables explained more variance than the social bond or anomie/strain variables

• Found the social learning variables mediated the social structural variables

• Shows support for the SSSL theory

Macro-Level Learning Theories

• Argue there are certain groups with values that are conducive to crime or that approve or justify crime in certain circumstances • These values result in high crime rates in these areas

• Miller (1958) argued members of the lower class have a culture that values trouble, toughness, smartness, and excitement and that explains the higher rates of crime found in the lower class

Macro-Level Learning Theories• The “subculture of violence” thesis

• Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1982)

• Attempts to explain the high rates of homicide among African American males in the inner city

• Violence seen as an appropriate, even an expected response to a wide range of insults and provocations

Anderson: The Code of the Street

• Anderson (1999) presents a contemporary subculture of violence thesis (Code of the Street)• Draws on field research conducted in inner city communities

• This code pressures African American youth in the inner city to respond to shows of disrespect with violence• All do not accept the underlying values; however, all young

African American men feel the pressure of the code


• Many poor inner city areas have a violence problem

• Possible causes: lack of jobs that pay a living wage, fallout from rampant drug use, drug trafficking, easy access to guns

• In these areas, residents are often exposed to two conflicting orientations:

1. Street: norms that are often consciously opposed to mainstream society, valuing toughness, manliness, and violence

• Traced to the sense of alienation from mainstream society

2. Decent: middle-class, mainstream values counteracting the negative influences of the area


• The street culture has developed into the “code of the street”• Informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior,

including violence• Governs proper comportment and proper ways to respond if

challenged • Regulates the use of violence• Everyone must know the code to negotiate

in the inner-city environment• Adaptation to the lack of faith in the police

and judicial system • Must take care of “yourself”

Anderson: The Code of the Street• The heart of the code is respect

• Being treated “right”

• Respect is hard-won but easily lost, so must be constantly guarded

• The code provides a framework to getting respect

• Respect can help someone avoid being bothered and/or “dissed”

• Do not have to engage in violence in response

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Decent and street families

• Represent two poles of value orientation

• Often coexist in the same family

• Decent families judge themselves as decent; street individuals often present themselves as decent and judge others

• Often have circumstantial behaviors

• May exhibit both street and decent orientations depending on the situation

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Decent families

• Accept mainstream values more fully and instill them in their children• Value hard work and self-reliance• Value the church and school

• Often “working poor”• Better off financially than the street families

• Strict in child-rearing practices• Teach children to respect authority, have morals, be

polite/considerate, and maintain a positive mental attitude and a spirit of cooperation

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Street families

• Show a lack of consideration for other people• Superficial sense of family/community • Many unable to cope with the physical and emotional demands of

parenthood• May aggressively socialize their children into the code• Often very disorganized

• Limited financial resources • Drug addiction • Deep-seated bitterness and anger

• Often aggressive with their children• Yell, strike, do not explain the punishment

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Street families

• Many “street-oriented” women are sporadic mothers• Children forage for food and money

• Often become employed in the drug trade

• Children often left alone while mom is drinking/getting high

• Children learn to fight at an early age, hit those who cross them, that physical strength is a must, and that they must protect themselves

• Home life fraught with anger, verbal disputes, and physical aggression

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Children of street families often gravitate to the streets at an early

age and socialize with their peers

• Often unsupervised

• Out late on school nights (not doing homework)

• Learn to fight through these groups• Test one another

• Witness disputes of older children and adults and imitate them

• Street-oriented adults they are in contact with help verbalize the message to protect themselves at all costs and punish the child if they lose a fight

• In contrast, children from decent families are more supervised

Anderson: The Code of the Street• By adolescence, most youths have either (1) internalized

the code or (2) learned the need to behave in accordance with its rules

• Must portray that you are capable of violence if the situation requires it• Facial and verbal expressions, gait

• Have the clothes, jewelry, grooming that portrays you are respected


• No guarantee against challenges because there are always people who want to increase their share of respect or “juice”

• To maintain respect, if a person is assaulted, he/she must avenge himself/herself and fight

• Dressing and having fancy things (gold jewelry, expensive clothes) show status but require defending• People will attack to get those valuables since

taking the possessions of others is one way to gain status

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Can also steal a person’s sense of honor, be seen as the

toughest/strongest, steal someone’s girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.

• But stealing these things can provoke others to challenge the stealer and thus is a vicious cycle

• Whoever has the “thing” or trophy

is seen as the current winner

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Often takes very little to be seen as a sign of disrespect

• People will go to great extremes (even risk their lives) to maintain respect

• Cannot run from a physical attack or lose all respect• Must fight back

• Seek revenge if lost the fight

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Must be seen as a man

• “Manhood” means taking the prerogatives of men with respect to strangers, other men, and women—being distinguished as a man

• Physicality and ruthlessness

• A “real man” knows the code of the street

• Must adopt the code whenever they are outside

• Discourage strangers from testing their manhood

• Need to manifest “nerve”• Forceful expression of disrespect toward another person

• Lack a fear of dying (may prefer death to being “dissed”)

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Girls and the code

• Teen girls are mimicking the boys and trying to have their own version of “manhood”• Gain respect by posturing, abusive language, use of violence

• Majority of disputes rooted in assessments of beauty, competition over boyfriends, attempts to regulate people’s knowledge of and opinion of her behavior

• Major cause of conflict: “he says, she says”

• Gossip

• Must defend self against the slander, often with arguments and fights

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Sometimes girls get the men/boys in their lives to fight for

them

• But increasing numbers of girls are fighting themselves

• However, unlike boys, girls rarely use guns

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Many people on the street believe in fate

• Uncertain how long they will live

• Believe they could die violently at any time

• Fearlessness

• More worried about the threat of “justice” at the hands of peers than at the hands of the police

• Going to prison can actually enhance one’s reputation on the street

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Decent families/individuals maintain true nerve consisting

of backing down, walking away from a fight, minding one’s own business

• Fight only in self-defense

• Life is precious

• Accept nonviolent resolutions to problems

• Many hope to be seen as violent prone and tough, but hope they are never tested

Anderson: The Code of the Street• Most people in the inner city are not totally invested in the

code of the street• However, a significant minority of youth is totally invested

Origins of Deviant Subcultures

• The origins of the deviant subcultures discussed by Miller (1958), Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1982), and Anderson (1999) have been explained in many ways• Based on strain theory, some argue individuals are unable to

achieve valued goals using legitimate means and thus achieve them through illegitimate means (e.g., crime)

• Also, if people cannot obtain conventional goals, they may replace those goals with alternative goals they are able to achieve (e.g., respect, toughness, etc.)

Empirical Support for Macro-Level Learning Theories

• Little research done with limited support found

• Research suggests all groups condemn crime• Differences are in the degree to which crime is condemned

by the group and the extent to which the group holds values conducive to crime

• Research tentatively suggests that young people, males, Southerners, and possibly lower-class and urban people are more likely to hold values favorable to crime

• Most evidence shows blacks are not more likely to hold favorable views of crime than whites• Rather, those who live in more disadvantaged areas (not

racial groups) are more likely to hold values favorable to crime

Summary

• The learning and subcultural theories argue individuals have to be exposed to/associate with people who can be deviant models, provide definitions favorable to the violation of the law, and give reinforcements for deviant behavior in order for crime to occur

• Subcultures conducive to criminal/deviant behavior often arise as an adaptation to the alienation from mainstream culture • Form their own means to obtain conventional goals, or• Replace conventional goals with alternative goals they can

obtain more easily, which are often conducive to crime

Learning to Be a Criminal: Differential Association, Subcultural, and Social Learning Theories.

Documents

Transcript of Learning to Be a Criminal: Differential Association, Subcultural, and Social Learning Theories.