More Lecture Notes

It seems I never get through the material I planned to get through in class, so I am going to resort to posting more lecture notes on the blog. Be sure to check this material out, and don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have about it.

Before we get back to Akers' "Social Learning" theory (an updated version of Sutherland's "Differential Association" theory), let me re-state that famous description of the symbolic interactionist concept of the "looking glass self," which underlies this theory of crimnal behavior: "I am not who I think I am. I am not who you think I am. I am who I think you think I am." -- which suggests that our identity is a product of our interaction with others in which we take into account their attitudes and expectations, so if we are interacting with others who happen to be criminals, we are more likely to develop a criminal identity, to come to see criminal behavior as ok.

Now, Akers' Social Learning theory:

F. Akers identifies FOUR major aspects of social learning theory, which I present below, recognizing that some of this is repetitious:

1. Differential Association: Akers suggests that two types of associations are involved here: DIRECT association or interaction with criminals or INDIRECT association and identification with more distant reference groups (which Sutherland did not acknowledge). This really has to do with IMITATION, which is the fourth major aspect of this theory.

a.) Person absorbs certain norms and values through these associations. And Akers does note that the most important or significant of these contacts are (face-to-face) primary group contacts.

b.) In this context, Akers also describes what PRIORITY, DURATION, FREQUENCY, and INTENSITY entail: "Those associations that occur earlier (priority), last longer and occupy more of one's time (duration), take place most often (frequency), and involves others with whom one has the more important or closer relationship (intensity) will have the greater effect on behavior."

2. Definitions: these are the attitudes or meanings one attaches to a given behavior. Or, orientations or rationalizations, etc. which define the commission of an act as right or wrong, good or bad, justified or unjustified.

a.) Akers distinguishes between POSITIVE definitions which define criminal behavior as morally desirable (or positively), and NEUTRALIZING (or negative) definitions which favor criminal behavior by excusing or rationalizing it.

1.) The latter type of definition is well-illustrated in an article by Sykes and Matza entitled "Techniques of Neutralization" -- that delinquents especially learn such techniques such as "denial of responsibility," "denial of injury," among a few others. Or, more generally, excuses such as: "everybody has a racket," "I can't help myself, I was born that way," etc. (You will see a number of references to this in "Crime Types.") Donald Cressey, a colleague of Sutherland's, wrote a book on trust violators (white collar crime) in which he saw these individuals rationalizing their behavior.

b.) These definitions may be so extreme that they almost require you to violate the law, such as radical, revolutionary ideologies. (eg., Islamic terrorists who use (or misuse) their religion to justify acts of terror.)

c.) In general, the point is that learning such definitions creates a mind set in which one is more likely to engage in criminal behavior.

3. Differential Reinforcement: whether you refrain from or commit a crime depends on past, present, and anticipated future rewards or punishments for one's actions.

a.) POSITIVE reinforcement -- money or approval which is more an indirect, SOCIAL reward.

b.) NEGATIVE reinforcement -- escaping punishment, pain or disapproval. That when you commit a criminal act and are not apprehended or punished for it, tends to reinforce such behavior. (eg., a child who uses foul language and is never punished or confronted for it, will probably continue to use such language.)

4. Imitation: (noted earlier, aspect #1) I would add that this would include identifying with fictional characters on TV or in the movies.

G. According to Prof. Akers, this has been among the most tested of the theories and it has stood up well. It is also supported by other studies which have shown that key groups such as the family, peer groups, gangs exercise considerable influence over individuals either in a conventional or deviant way. (This was even borne out in a study Prof. Akers and his students conducted on college men involved in rape.)

H. This theory (Differential Association/Social Learning) stands out as one of the most broadly applicable theories, underlying a variety of programs involving some sort of group therapy. I would also argue that PROBATION and PAROLE programs relate insofar as they seek to guarantee a person under such supervision stays away from their former criminal associates. (Later in the semester we'll see a video on parole in which this point comes out.)

1. Unfortunately, many of these programs have not been that successful. One could blame the heavy caseloads of most probabtion and parole officers, but I believe this lack of success also has to do with a major flaw or weakness in the theory.

I. I believe that part of the reason for the limited success of prevention and treatment programs based on this theory has to do with the fact that this theory does NOT really get at the ROOT of the problem -- where crime itself comes from. It may be ok as a theory of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, but NOT as a theory of CRIME.

1.) According to differential association, criminals learn from other criminals, who, in turn, learned from a previous group of criminals, etc., etc., etc., AD INFINITUM...... So, where did the first criminal group come from, to get the ball rolling, so to speak? The devil? (Similarly, if delinquents tend to come from broken homes -- or broken homes, like criminal groups, cause delinquency, then one could ask, where did these broken homes come from? How did they develop? Ultimately, you need to uncover the circumstances which give rise to broken homes, or criminal groups.)

a.) Sutherland himself even admitted as much when he made the following remark: "Since criminal behavior is thus developed in association with criminals, it means the CRIME IS THE CAUSE OF CRIME." (my emphasis), which is entirely CIRCULAR. So, there is no theory of crime as such in differential association, or social learning, for that matter.

2.) Ultimately, we must seek to uncover and understand the root causes of crime itself and attempt to remedy them. I believe Elliot Currie attempts this in his book, "Reckoning." This inevitably will take us into larger questions concerning flaws in society, because individuals are bound up with the larger society.
(Similar to the so-called "MEDICAL ANALOGY:" that ultimately we need to treat the disease and not merely the symptoms of the disease. Which is not to say, however, that we should ignore treating the symptoms, which differential association may help in doing. But it is no cure.)


That's it for now. I may highlight a few of the above points in class tomorrow (Thurs., 9/29), especially my criticism of this theory, but for all intents and purposes we will move on to the next theory. Also, I will give the families some time in the beginning to confer on how they are going to divide up responsibilities in regard to the chapter in "Crime Types" you will be reporting on.