Transcript Social Process I (Learning)

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
• Differential Association (Edwin Sutherland)
• Differential Reinforcement (Burgess and Akers)
• Social learning (Ronald Akers)
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
•
•
Disputed the term “social disorganization”
(reframed as “differential social organization”)
Asks a “Chicago School” question based on
Shaw and McKay’s theory
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
Differential Association
Criticism
▪
▪
▪
Vague concepts and phrasings
Difficult to test empirically
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
DA
Balance of
definitions or
role models
produces initial
behaviors
Definitions
Role models
Behaviors
Positive or
negative
reinforcement
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