Transcript Labeling Theory + Review

Review
Labeling 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
Family
Context
Low
Direct
Control
Low SelfControl
• Large family size, single
parents, parental deviance
• Inadequate supervision,
recognition, punishment
• Insensitive, impulsive, risktaking…
Sampson and Laub

Extension of Hirschi’s social bond theory
 Age graded
 Adult social bonds
○ Quality Marriage
○ Quality Job
 Why matter!
Sampson and Laub
Childhood
Context
Individual
Differences
Adolescence
Parenting
• Supervision
• Discipline
Social Bonds
• Family
• School
Delinquent Peers
Adulthood
Delinquency
Length of
Incarceration
Adult Crime
Social Bonds
•Marriage
•Good Job
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 1960s1970s
 The central ideas had been around as early
as the 1930s
 Good “fit” for the social context of 1960s
 Ironic 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 Cullen

 Deterrence/control view of human nature is
too simplistic
 Social 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
▪
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)
Differential association/social learning theory:
improper socialization
more promising
Review of Theories for Exam II

Social Structure
 Anomie/Strain
 Social Disorganization

Social Process
 Learning
 Control
 Labeling