Taking Stock

The Status of Criminological Theory

Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, Kristie R. Blevins, Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, Kristie R. Blevins, Francis T. Cullen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138533820
• eBook ISBN: 9781351487023
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Criminology is in a period of much theoretical ferment. Older theories have been revitalized, and newer theories have been set forth. Th e very richness of our thinking about crime, however, leads to questions about the relative merits of these competin paradigms. Accordingly, in this volume advocates of prominent theories are asked to "take stock" of their perspectives. Th eir challenge is to assess the empirical status of their theory and to map out future directions for theoretical development.

Part I
The Core of Criminological Theory

1
The Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance: The Past, Present, and Future

Ronald L. Akers and Gary F. Jensen

This paper has two goals. The first goal is to review the empirical research evidence on the validity of social learning theory as an explanation of criminal and deviant behavior. This is a topic about which we have written extensively, both separately and jointly, over a long period of time (see Akers 1973, 1985, 1998, Jensen 1972; Akers et al. 1979; Jensen and Rojek 1998; Akers and Jensen 2003; Jensen 2003; Akers and Sellers 2004). That previous work establishes that the theory fares very well in terms of all of the major criteria for sound theory, including logical consistency, scope, usefulness and, most importantly, strength of empirical support. Indeed, it is reasonable to propose that the theory has been tested in relation to a wider range of forms of deviance, in a wider range of settings and samples, in more different languages, and by more different people, has survived more “crucial tests” against other theories and is more strongly and consistently supported by empirical data than any other social psychological explanation of crime and deviance (see Akers 1998; Akers and Jensen 2003).

The second goal is to illuminate new directions for expanding, elaborating and testing the theory in the future. We will propose ways to build on the Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL) model (Akers 1998) and our recent efforts in “taking social learning global” (Jensen and Akers 2003) toward an integrated theory that addresses issues that we believe have been ignored for too long. At the risk of over-reaching, we will attempt to stimulate attention, discourse and, perhaps, debate regarding extension of social learning theory by making a rather daring claim. We will assert that social learning theory can be elaborated to account for criminological and sociological regularities, making sense of events not only at the micro-level but also at higher levels of temporal and ecological aggregation, providing a better explanation than has been so far provided by other theories.

Overview of Social Learning Theory

Social learning is a general theory that offers an explanation of the acquisition, maintenance, and change in criminal and deviant behavior that embraces social, nonsocial, and cultural factors operating both to motivate and control criminal behavior and both to promote and undermine conformity. The basic proposition is that the same learning process in a context of social structure, interaction, and situation, produces both conforming and deviant behavior. That is, the theory is not, contrary to the misconception sometimes found in the literature, simply a theory of the acquisition of novel behavior, a theory of bad companions or a “cultural deviance” theory. It is not solely a “positivistic” theory of the causes of crime addressing only “why they do it” and incapable of explaining “why they do not” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; see Akers 1996, 1998). Rather, the theory incorporates crime facilitating as well as protective and preventive factors. The probability of criminal or conforming behavior is a function of the balance of these influences on behavior, not only those operative in one’s learning history, but also on those operating at a given time in a given situation and those predictive of future behavior (Akers 1998: 59).

The concepts, propositions and variables in social learning theory have been presented in published form in great detail over the past forty years, are well known in the classroom and widely cited in the literature (for example, Burgess and Akers 1966; Akers 1973, 1985, 1992, 1994, 1998; Akers et al. 1979; Akers and Jensen 2003; Akers and Sellers 2004). Therefore, we make the assumption that the reader will be somewhat familiar with the theory and, since our focus here is on the empirical status and future directions of the theory, the theory will not be presented in detail. Rather, our overview will concentrate on the four major explanatory concepts or dimensions of the theory—differential association, definitions (and other discriminative stimuli), differential reinforcement, and imitation.

Differential association refers to direct association and interaction with others who engage in certain kinds of behavior or express norms, values, and attitudes supportive of such behavior, as well as the indirect association and identification with more distant reference groups. The groups with which one is in differential association provide the major immediate and intermediate social contexts in which all the mechanisms of social learning operate. The most important of these groups are the primary ones of family and friends, but the concept of differential association also includes both direct and indirect interaction and exposure to secondary and reference groups as well as mass media, internet, computer games, and other “virtual groups” (Warr 2002). Those associations that occur earlier (priority), last longer and occupy more of one’s time (duration), take place most often (frequency), and involve others with whom one has the more important or closer relationship (intensity) will have the greater effect on behavior. The theory hypothesizes that the more one’s patterns of differential association are balanced in the direction of greater exposure to deviant behavior and attitudes, the greater the probability of that person engaging in deviant or criminal behavior.

Definitions are one’s own orientations, rationalizations, justifications, excuses, and other attitudes that define the commission of an act as relatively more right or wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified, and appropriate or inappropriate. Definitions include those learned from socialization into general religious, moral, and other conventional values and norms that are favorable to conforming behavior and unfavorable to committing any deviant or criminal acts (or general beliefs or worldviews that support deviant acts). Specific definitions orient the person to particular acts or series of acts and to define given situations as providing opportunity or lack of opportunity for commission of crime. The greater the extent to which one has learned and endorses general or specific attitudes that either positively approve of, or provide justification (neutralizations) for, the commission of criminal or deviant behavior in situations discriminative for it, the greater the chances are that one will engage in that behavior. Cognitively, these definitions provide a mind-set that makes one more willing to commit the act when the opportunity is perceived. Behaviorally, they affect the commission of deviant or criminal behavior by acting as internal discriminative stimuli in conjunction with external discriminative stimuli (place, time, presence or absence of others, etc.) that provide cues or signals to the individual as to what kind of behavior s/he has the opportunity, or expectation, of exhibiting in that situation. Some of the definitions favorable to deviance are so intensely held as part of a learned belief system, for instance, the radical ideologies of militant groups implicated in terrorists acts, that they provide strong positive motivation for criminal acts (Akers and Silverman 2004). As another example, it appears that in Elijah Anderson’s depiction, the “code of the street” (1999) may require that attacks on one’s honor be responded to in ways that knowingly violate the law. For the most part, however, definitions favorable to crime and delinquency do not directly motivate action in this sense. Rather, they are conventional beliefs so weakly held that they fail to function as definitions unfavorable to crime or they are learned approving, justifying, or rationalizing attitudes that, however weakly or strongly endorsed, facilitate law violation in the right set of circumstances by providing approval, justification, or rationalization.

Differential reinforcement refers to the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow, or are consequences of, behavior. Whether individuals will refrain from, or commit, a crime at any given time (and whether they will continue, or desist, from doing so in the future) depends on the balance of past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for their actions. The greater the value, frequency, and probability of reward for deviant behavior (balanced against the punishing consequences and rewards/punishment for alternative behavior), the greater the likelihood that it will occur and be repeated. Reinforcers and punishers can be nonsocial; for example, the direct physical effects of drugs and alcohol. However, the theory proposes that most of the learning in criminal and deviant behavior is the result of direct, and indirect, social interaction in which the words, responses, presence, and behavior of other persons directly reinforce behavior, provide the setting for reinforcement (discriminative stimuli), or serve as the conduit through which other social rewards and punishers are delivered or made available. The concept of social reinforcement (and punishment) includes the whole range of actual and anticipated, tangible and intangible, material and symbolic rewards valued in society or subgroups. Social rewards can be highly symbolic. In self-reinforcement the individual exercises self-control, reinforcing or punishing one’s own behavior by taking the role of others, even when alone. The balance of reinforcement may motivate individuals to commit law violations or deviant acts even in the face of their own definitions unfavorable to those acts, but the acts are most probable when both the reinforcement balance, and the balance of one’s own definitions, are in the same deviant direction.

Imitation refers to the engagement in behavior after the direct or indirect (e.g. in media depictions) observation of similar behavior by others. Whether or not the behavior modeled by others will be imitated is affected by the characteristics of the models, the behavior observed, and the observed consequences of the behavior (vicarious reinforcement) (Bandura 1977). The observation of salient models in primary groups and in the media affects both pro-social and deviant behavior (Donnerstein and Linz 1995). Imitation is more important in the initial acquisition and performance of novel behavior than in the maintenance or cessation of behavioral patterns once established, but it continues to have some effect in maintaining behavior.

These social learning concepts define sets of variables that are all part of the same underlying process that is operative in each individual’s learning history (both learning from and influencing others), in the immediate situation in which an opportunity for a crime occurs, and in the larger social structural context (at both the meso-level and macro-level). The social learning process is dynamic and includes reciprocal and feedback effects. Reinforcement in operant conditioning is a response-stimulus-response process in which behavior produces consequences that, in turn, produce the probability of the behavior being repeated (Skinner 1959). Therefore, contrary to the way some have characterized the theory (Thornberry et al. 1994), reciprocal and sequential effects of social learning variables and deviant/conforming behavior are recognized, albeit with an emphasis on the effects of the learning variables on deviant behavior. The typical temporal sequence in the process by which persons come to the point of violating the law, or engaging in other deviant acts, is hypothesized to be one in which the balance of learned definitions, imitation of criminal or deviant models, and the anticipated balance of reinforcement produces the initial delinquent or deviant act. The facilitative effects of these variables continue in the repetition of acts, although imitation becomes less important than it was in the first commission of the act. After onset or initiation, the actual social and non-social reinforcers and punishers affect whether or not the acts will be repeated and at what level of frequency. Both the behavior and the definitions, favorable and unfavorable, are affected by the consequences of the initial acts. Whether a deviant act will be repeated in a situation that presents, or is perceived to present, the opportunity, depends on the learning history of the individual and the set of definitions, discriminative stimuli and reinforcement contingencies in that situation.

The theory does not hypothesize that definitions favorable to law violation only precede and are unaffected by the initiation of criminal acts. As noted, acts in violation of the law can occur even when defined as undesirable and, indeed, can occur in the absence of any thought given to right and wrong at the moment. Furthermore, definitions may be applied by the individual retroactively to excuse or justify an act already committed. To the extent such excuses successfully mitigate others’ negative sanctions or one’s self-punishment, however, they become cues for the repetition of deviant acts. At that point, they precede the future commission of the acts. Differential association with conforming and non-conforming others typically precedes the individual’s committing the acts. As noted above, families are the principal primary groups included in the differential association process and it is obvious that association, reinforcement of conforming or deviant behavior, deviant or conforming modeling, and exposure to definitions favorable or unfavorable to deviance (socialization) occurs within the family (or family surrogate) prior to the onset of delinquency or law violations. While it is often the case that one has deviant acts or tendencies (as a function of previously learned patterns in the family) that makes him attractive to, and attracted to, deviant peer groups, associations are more typically formed initially around attractions, friendships, and circumstances, such as neighborhood proximity and family location and preferences, that have little to do directly with co-involvement in some deviant behavior. However, after the greater associations with those exhibiting deviant patterns have been established and the reinforcing or punishing consequences of the deviant behavior are experienced, both the continuation of old, and the seeking of new, associations (over which one has any choice) will, themselves, be affected. One may choose further interaction with others based, in part, on whether they, too, are involved in similar deviant or criminal behavior. But, the theory proposes that the sequence of events in which deviant associations and attractions precede the onset of delinquent behavior will occur more frequently than the sequence of events in which the onset of delinquency precedes the beginning of deviant associations. Further, after the deviant peer associations are taken up, they will continue to the extent that they are, on balance, more rewarding than alternatives, and any deviant behavior, or tendencies, will increase after the peer associations have been formed (Conger 1976). Whether the deviant patterns will be persistent and stable (or will desist) over time is a function of the continuity, or discontinuity, in the person’s patterns of associa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction: Taking Stock of Criminological Theory
• Part I. The Core of Criminological Theory
• Part II. Macro-Level Theories
• Part III. Theories of Power and Peace
• Part IV. Life-Course Theories
• Part V. Theories of Societal Reaction
• Contributors
• Index