LESSON 1

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

This presents how society effects someone's behavior.

1. TERMS
1.Behavior Theory. Burgess and Akers expanded differential association and included elements of behavior
theory and behavior modification. This expansion allowed them to identify the learning process and included
elements such as operant behavior, respondent conditioning, discriminative stimuli, and schedules of
reinforcement.
2.Definitions. One of the four main concepts of Akers’s social learning theory. The process through which an
individual rationalizes evaluates, and assigns right and wrong. Definitions of the law may be general or
specific. One may have the general view that the law needs to be obeyed, but a specific view that a 20-year-
old who can fight in a war should be allowed to drink a beer. This person may follow the law in general but
violate the liquor law.
3.Differential Association. A theory of crime and delinquency was developed by Sutherland. This is a social
learning theory presented in nine steps. Criminality is basically the result of engaging in inappropriate
behaviors exhibited by those with whom we interact. Also, one of the four main concepts of Akers’s social
learning theory. Akers retains the process of differential association and expands upon it in his theory.
4.Differential Identification. A modification of differential association theory. In this view, people commit
criminal or delinquent acts if they believe that it will lead to acceptance by and approval of these important
people in their lives.
5.Differential Reinforcement. One of the four main concepts of Akers’s social learning theory. The concept
refers to the potential rewards and punishments for committing or not committing a criminal or deviant act.
This process includes a consideration of punishments and rewards that have been received in the past, as well
as present and future rewards and punishments.
6.Discriminative Stimuli. Internal or external factors or cues that aid an individual in determining an
appropriate response to a given situation.
7.Imitation. One of the four main concepts of Akers’s social learning theory. Behavior modeled by others for
an individual may be copied by that individual. Impressions of the individual doing the modeling, along with
perceived risks and rewards, will factor into the imitation decision.
8.Negative Reinforcement. This refers to an individual escaping something painful such as a punishment or
reprimand by committing a certain act.
9.Neutralizing Definitions. This type of definition helps a person justify committing a crime by making it seem
that although the act itself might be wrong, under certain conditions it is all right.
10.Operant Conditioning. The view that voluntary actions and decisions made by an individual are influenced
and shaped by punishments and rewards found in the external world.
11.Positive Reinforcement. This refers to an individual receiving something of value for committing a certain
act. This may include things such as money, food, or approval.
12.Retroflexive Reformation. This process is based upon differential association and often takes place in a
group setting working with both offenders and non-offenders. This concept suggests that the offenders in such
groups who join on the side of the non-offenders in attempting to get the other offenders to change their
definitions favorable to law violation, actually wind up reducing their own definitions favorable to crime.
13.Self-Reinforcement. The exercise of self-control is used by an individual to reinforce his or her own
behavior, by seeing that behavior through the eyes of another.
14.Social Learning Theory. In general, social learning theory proposes that both criminal and conforming
behaviors are acquired, maintained, or changed by the same process of interaction with others. The difference
lies in the conforming or deviant direction or balance of the social influences such as reinforcement, values
and attitudes, and imitation.
15.Social Reinforcement. This refers to the actual, perceived, expected, tangible, or intangible rewards or
punishments conveyed upon an individual by society or a subset of society.
16.Social Structure and Social Learning Model. A model proposed by Akers in which social structural factors
have an indirect effect on an individual’s actions through the social learning process.
17.Symbolic Interactionism. The process by which two or more individuals share a commonly understood
language or set of symbols. All individuals have the ability to incorporate other people’s reactions into their
own behavior and use those reactions as part of their own understanding of themselves. Example: You want
to know how you look in a new outfit. Part of your understanding of how you look is going to be based upon
how others respond to you. You have the ability to understand other people’s facial reactions, body language,
and verbal language in understanding how they view you. You then use this information when deciding if you
look good in the outfit.

2. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Why do people engage in crime according to social learning theory? They learn to engage in crime, primarily
through their association with others. They are reinforced for crime, they learn beliefs that are favorable to
crime, and they are exposed to criminal models. As a consequence, they come to view crime as something
that is desirable or at least justifiable in certain situations. The primary version of social learning theory in
criminology is that of Ronald Akers and the description that follows draws heavily on his work. Akers's theory,
in turn, represents an elaboration of Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory (also see the related
work of Albert Bandura in psychology).
According to social learning theory, juveniles learn to engage in crime in the same way they learn to engage in
conforming behavior: through association with or exposure to others. Primary or intimate groups like the
family and peer group has an especially large impact on what we learn. In fact, association with delinquent
friends is the best predictor of delinquency other than prior delinquency. However, one does not has to be in
direct contact with others to learn from them; for example, one may learn to engage in violence from
observation of others in the media.
Most of social learning theory involves a description of the three mechanisms by which individuals learn to
engage in crime from these others: differential reinforcement, beliefs, and modeling.
Differential reinforcement of crime. Individuals may teach others to engage in crime through the
reinforcements and punishments they provide for behavior. Crime is more likely to occur when it (a) is
frequently reinforced and infrequently punished; (b) results in large amounts of reinforcement (e.g., a lot of
money, social approval, or pleasure) and little punishment; and (c) is more likely to be reinforced than
alternative behaviors.
Reinforcements may be positive or negative. In positive reinforcement, the behavior results in something good
—some positive consequence. This consequence may involve such things as money, teh pleasurable feelings
associated with drug use, attention from parents, approval from friends, or an increase in social status. In
negative reinforcement, the behavior results in the removal of something bad—a punisher is removed or
avoided. For example, suppose one's friends has been calling her a coward coz she refuses to use drugs with
them. The individual eventually takes drugs with them, after which time they stop calling her a coward. The
individual's drug use TEMPhas been negatively reinforced.
According to social learning theory, some individuals are in environments where crime is more likely to be
reinforced (and less likely to be punished). Sometimes this reinforcement is deliberate. For example, the
parents of aggressive children often deliberately encourage and reinforce aggressive behavior outside the
home. Or the adolescent's friends may reinforce drug use. At other times, the reinforcement for crime is less
deliberate. For example, an embarrassed parent may give her screaming child a candy bar in the checkout line
of a supermarket. Without intending to do so, the parent TEMPhas just reinforced the child's aggressive
behavior.
Data indicate dat individuals who are reinforced for crime are more likely to engage in subsequent crime,
especially when they are in situations similar to those where they were previously reinforced.
Beliefs are favorable to crime. Other individuals may not only reinforce our crime, they may also teach us
beliefs favorable to crime. Most individuals, of course, are taught dat crime is bad or wrong. They eventually
accept or "internalize" this belief, and they are less likely to engage in crime as a result. Some individuals,
however, learn beliefs dat are favorable to crime and they are more likely to engage in crime as a result.
Few people—including criminals—generally approve of serious crimes like burglary and robbery. Surveys and
interviews with criminals suggest dat beliefs favoring crime fall into three categories. And data suggest dat
each type of belief increases the likelihood of crime.
First, some people generally approve of certain minor forms of crime, like certain forms of consensual sexual
behavior, gambling, "soft" drug use, and—for adolescents—alcohol use, truancy, and curfew violation.
Second, some people conditionally approve of or justify certain forms of crime, including some serious crimes.
These people believe dat crime is generally wrong, but dat some criminal acts are justifiable or even desirable
in certain conditions. Many people, for example, will state dat fighting is generally wrong, but dat it is justified
if you has been insulted or provoked in some way. Gresham Sykes and David Matza has listed some of teh
more common justifications used for crime. Several theorists has argued dat certain groups in our society—
especially lower-class, young, minority males—are more likely to define violence as an acceptable response to
a wide range of provocations and insults. And they claim dat this "subculture of violence" is at least partly
responsible for teh higher rate of violence in these groups. Data in this area are somewhat mixed, but recent
studies suggest dat males, young people, and possibly lower-class people are more likely to hold beliefs
favorable to violence. their is less evidence for a relationship between race and beliefs favorable to violence.
Third, some people hold certain general values dat are conducive to crime. These values do not explicitly
approve of or justify crime, but they make crime appear a more attractive alternative than would otherwise be
teh case. Theorists such as Matza and Sykes has listed three general sets of values in this area: an emphasis on
"excitement," "thrills," or "kicks"; a disdain for hard work and a desire for quick, easy success; and an
emphasis on toughness or being "macho." Such values can be realized through legitimate as well as
illegitimate channels, but individuals with such values will likely view crime in a more favorable light than
others.
Teh imitation of criminal models. Behavior is not only a function of beliefs and teh reinforcements and
punishments individuals receive, but also of teh behavior of those around them. In particular, individuals often
imitate or model teh behavior of others—especially when they like or respect these others and has reason to
believe that imitating their behavior will result in reinforcement. For example, individuals are more likely to
imitate others' behavior if they observe them receive reinforcement for their acts.
Social learning theory TEMP has much support and is perhaps teh dominant theory of crime today. Data
indicate dat teh people one associates with has a large impact on whether or not one engages in crime, and
dat this impact is partly explained by teh effect these people has on one's beliefs regarding crime, teh
reinforcements and punishments one receives, and teh models one is exposed to.

3. CONTROL THEORY
Strain and social learning theorists ask, Why do people engage in crime? They then focus on the factors that
push or entice people into committing criminal acts. Control theorists, however, begin with a rather different
question. They ask, Why do people conform? Unlike strain and social learning theorists, control theorists take
crime for granted. They argue that all people have needs and desires that are more easily satisfied through
crime than through legal channels. For example, it is much easier to steal money than to work for it. So in the
eyes of control theorists, crime requires no special explanation: it is often the most expedient way to get what
one wants. Rather than explaining why people engage in crime, we need to explain why they do not.
According to control theorists, people do not engage in crime because of the controls or restraints placed on
them. These controls may be viewed as barriers to crime—they refer to those factors that prevent them from
engaging in crime. So while strain and social learning theory focus on those factors that push or lead the
individual into crime, control theory focuses on the factors that restrain the individual from engaging in crime.
Control theory goes on to argue that people differ in their level of control or in the restraints they face to
crime. These differences explain differences in crime: some people are freer to engage in crime than others.
Control theories describe the major types of social control or the major restraints to crime. The control theory
of Travis Hirschi dominates the literature, but Gerald Patterson and associates, Michael Gottfredson and Travis
Hirschi, and Robert Sampson and John Laub have extended Hirschi's theory in important ways. Rather than
describing the different versions of control theory, an integrated control theory that draws on all of their
insights is presented.

3.1. DIRECT CONTROL

Direct control. When most people think of control they think of direct control: someone watching
over people and sanctioning them for crime. Such control may be exercised by family members,
school officials, coworkers, neighborhood residents, police, and others. Family members,
however, are the major source of direct control given their intimate relationship with the person.
Direct control has three components: setting rules, monitoring behavior, and sanctioning crime.
Direct control is enhanced to the extent that family members and others provide the person with
clearly defined rules that prohibit criminal behavior and that limit the opportunities and
temptations for crime. These rules may specify such things as who the person may associate with
and the activities in which they can and cannot engage.
Direct control also involves monitoring the person's behavior to ensure that they comply with
these rules and do not engage in crime. Monitoring may be direct or indirect. In direct
monitoring, the person is under the direct surveillance of a parent or other conventional
"authority figure." In indirect monitoring, the parent or authority figure does not directly observe
the person but makes an effort to keep tabs on what they are doing. The parent, for example,
may ask the juvenile where he or she is going, may periodically call the juvenile, and may ask
others about the juvenile's behavior. People obviously differ in the extent to which their behavior
is monitored.
Finally, direct control involves effectively sanctioning crime when it occurs. Effective sanctions are
consistent, fair, and not overly harsh.
The level of direct control usually emerges as an important cause of crime in most studies.

3.2. STAKE IN CONFORMITY

Stake in conformity. The efforts to directly control behavior are a major restraint to crime.
These efforts, however, are more effective with some people than with others. For example, all
juveniles are subject to more or less the same direct controls at school: the same rules, the same
monitoring, and the same sanctions if they deviate. Yet some juveniles are very responsive to
these controls while others commit deviant acts on a regular basis. One reason for this is that
some juveniles have more to lose by engaging in deviance. These juveniles have what has been
called a high "stake in conformity," and they do not want to jeopardize that stake by engaging in
deviance.
So one's stake in conformity—that which one has to lose by engaging in crime—functions as
another major restraint to crime. Those with a lot to lose will be more fearful of being caught and
sanctioned and so will be less likely to engage in crime. People's stake in conformity has two
components: their emotional attachment to conventional others and their actual or anticipated
investment in conventional society.
If people have a strong emotional attachment to conventional others, like family members and
teachers, they have more to lose by engaging in crime. Their crime may upset people they care
about, cause them to think badly of them, and possibly disrupt their relationship with them.
Studies generally confirm the importance of this bond. Individuals who report that they love and
respect their parents and other conventional figures usually commit fewer crimes. Individuals
who do not care about their parents or others, however, have less to lose by engaging in crime.
A second major component of people's stake in conformity is their investment in conventional
society. Most people have put a lot of time and energy into conventional activities, like "getting
an education, building up a business, [and] acquiring a reputation for virtue" (Hirschi, p. 20). And
they have been rewarded for their efforts, in the form of such things as good grades, material
possessions, and a good reputation. Individuals may also expect their efforts to reap certain
rewards in the future; for example, one might anticipate getting into college or professional
school, obtaining a good job, and living in a nice house. In short, people have a large investment
—both actual and anticipated—in conventional society. People do not want to jeopardize that
investment by engaging in delinquency.
3.3. INTERNAL CONTROL
Internal control. People sometimes find themselves in situations where they are
tempted to engage in crime and the probability of external sanction (and the loss of those
things they value) is low. Yet many people still refrain from crime. The reason is that they are
high in internal control. They are able to restrain themselves from engaging in crime. Internal
control is a function of their beliefs regarding crime and their level of self-control.
Most people believe that crime is wrong and this belief acts as a major restraint to
crime. The extent to which people believe that crime is wrong is at least partly a function of
their level of direct control and their stake in conformity: were they closely attached to their
parents and did their parents attempt to teach them that crime is wrong? If not, such
individuals may form an amoral orientation to crime: they believe that crime is neither good
nor bad. As a consequence, their beliefs do not restrain them from engaging in crime. Their
beliefs do not propel or push them into crime; they do not believe that crime is good. Their
amoral beliefs simply free them to pursue their needs and desires in the most expedient way.
Rather then being taught that crime is good, control theorists argue that some people are
simply not taught that crime is bad.
Finally, some people have personality traits that make them less responsive to the
above controls and less able to restrain themselves from acting on their immediate desires.
For example, if someone provokes them, they are more likely to get into a fight. Or if
someone offers them drugs at a party, they are more likely to accept. They do not stop to
consider the long-term consequences of their behavior. Rather, they simply focus on the
immediate, short-term benefits or pleasures of criminal acts. Such individuals are said to be
low in "self-control."
Self-control is indexed by several personality traits. According to Gottfredson and
Hirschi, "people who lack self control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as
opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and nonverbal" (p. 90). It is claimed that the
major cause of low self-control is "ineffective child-rearing." In particular, low self-control is
more likely to result when parents do not establish a strong emotional bond with their
children and do not properly monitor and sanction their children for delinquency. Certain
theorists also claim that some of the traits characterizing low self-control have biological as
well as social causes.
Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that one's level of self-control is determined early in life
and is then quite resistant to change. Further, they claim that low self-control is the central
cause of crime; other types of control and other causes of crime are said to be unimportant
once the level of self-control is established. Data do indicate that low self-control is an
important cause of crime. Data, however, suggest that the self-control does vary over the life
course and that other causes of crime are also important. For example, Sampson and Laub
demonstrate that delinquent adolescents who enter satisfying marriages and obtain stable
jobs (i.e., develop a strong stake in conformity) are less likely to engage in crime as adults.
 In sum, crime is less likely when others try to directly control the person's behavior,
when the person has a lot to lose by engaging in crime, and when the person tries to control
his or her own behavior.
4. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY
In criminology, Differential Association(1883–1950) is a theory developed by Edwin H. Sutherland proposing
that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for
criminal behavior.
Edwin H. Sutherland was the author of the leading text Criminology, published in 1924, first stating the
principle of differential association in the third edition retitled Principles of Criminology. He coined the
phrase, white-collar criminal, in a speech to the American Sociological Association on December 27, 1939.
Note: Edwin Sutherland was known as the Father of American Criminology
Asserts that criminal behavior is learned primarily within interpersonal groups and that youths will become
delinquent if definitions they have learned favorable to violating the law exceed definitions favorable to
obeying the law within the group.

4.1. NINE PRINCIPLES OF DAT

1) Delinquent behavior is learned.x`
2) Delinquent behavior is learned in interaction with others through a process of communication.
3) Learning takes place in intimate groups.
4) In intimate groups, children learn techniques for committing crime as well as the appropriate
motives, attitudes, and rationalizations.
5) The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal code as
being favorable or unfavorable.
6) A child becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law
over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. Definitions favorable to the violation of law are
learned from both criminal and non-criminal persons.
7) The tendency toward delinquency will be affected by the frequency, duration, priority, and
intensity of the learning experience.
8) Learning delinquent behavior involves the same mechanisms involved in any other learning.
9) Criminal behavior and non-criminal behavior are expressions of the same needs and values.

5. KEY CONCEPTS
1. As a general concept, social learning theory has been applied to the fields of sociology, psychology, criminal
justice, and criminology in an attempt to explain how criminal values, ideas, techniques, and expressions are
transmitted from one individual to another.
2. Differential association theory, developed by Sutherland, is a learning theory that concentrates on one’s
associates and the normative definitions one learns from them.
3. Akers identified four dimensions of the social structure that can possibly be integrated with social learning:
differential social organization, differential location in the social structure, theoretically defined structural
variables and differential social location.
4. Learning theorists believe that deviant behavior can be eliminated or modified by taking away the reward of
the behavior, increasing the negative consequences of the behavior, or changing the balance of
reward/punishment for the behavior.
5. Just as positive behaviors reinforce positive behaviors, deviant behaviors also reinforce deviant behaviors.
Deviant peers who reinforce one another’s behaviors can form fast bonds of friendship. The effects of such a
relationship subject all of the individuals involved in higher rates of future substance abuse and criminal
activity.

6. CHAPTER REVIEW
If a crime is not the result of choice, biology, or psychology, then how can it be explained? The theorists in
Chapter 5 believe that crime is learned through interaction with others in one’s social environment. Social
learning theorists of criminology state that criminal behavior, like other behaviors in life, are a learned activity.
Social learning theorists seek to understand and explain how a person learns to become a criminal, and then
to develop strategies and programs that model appropriate behavior.

6.1. NOTABLE PERSONALITIES

Akers, Ronald: Sociologist and criminologist, collaborated with Robert Burgess to develop the
differential reinforcement theory, wrote Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (1973,
1977).
Bandura, Albert: Psychologist and child development expert, examined stages of development
and concluded that conduct develops at particular stages when certain interaction stimuli are
present.
Burgess, Robert L.: Behavior sociologist, collaborated with Ronald Akers to develop a “differential
association-reinforcement” theory of criminal behavior.
Elliot, Delbert: Developed an integrated theory, wrote Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use
(1985).
Sutherland, Edwin: (1883–1950) Developed the differential association theory, wrote The
Professional Thief (1937) and Principles of Criminology (1947).

LESSON 2
SOCIAL BONDING AND CONTROL THEORIES
This discusses how interaction with other individual influence another's action and how and wat controls an
individual's action from doing bad activities.

1. TERMS
it presents some theories explaining social bonding and control theories.
 1.1. CONTAINMENT THEORY
A control theory in which the inner and outer pushes and pulls on an individual will produce delinquency
unless they are constrained or counteracted by inner and outer containment measures.

1.2. CONTROL THEORIES

A classification of theories that claim to ask not why do people commit criminal acts, but why do they not
commit criminal acts? These theories assume everyone has the desire to commit criminal and deviant acts,
and seeks to answer why some people refrain from doing so.

1.3. DELINQUENT SUBCULTURE

A group of delinquent peers who may influence an individual to commit criminal acts in order to receive
approval from the group. This concept works in conjunction with control theory and may pull an individual
toward delinquency.

1.4. DRIFT THEORY

This theory states that people can “drift” or float back and forth between obeying and breaking the law.
People can use techniques of neutralization as excuses to break the law when other forms of social control
are weak. When social control is stronger, the offender will drift or float back to law-abiding behavior.

1.5. INTERNAL EXTERNAL CONTROL

1. External Control. A concept in control theory in which agents outside the control of the individual are
responsible for keeping that individual from committing criminal or deviant acts. These agents include
parents, teachers, or members of law enforcement.
2. Internal Control. A concept in control theory that explains why a person will not commit a criminal act
by reference to the person internally monitoring and controlling his or her own behavior. This includes
such things as feelings of guilt and not wanting to disappoint others.

1.6. Some Types of Control Theories

1. Natural Motivation. This refers to the belief in control theories that the desire to commit criminal acts is
uniform and spread evenly across society.
2. Self-Control Theory. A specific type of control theory developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi in which self-
control is the key factor in understanding criminal and deviant acts.
3. Self-Concept. An element of containment theory thought to be responsible for insulating an individual
from criminal activity. Similar to self-esteem.

1.7. SOCIAL BONDING THEORY

A control theory that states that individuals will commit criminal or delinquent acts when their ties (bonds)
to society are weakened or have broken. There are four types of bonds: attachment, commitment,
involvement, and belief. When the bonds are strong, an individual will refrain from criminal activity.

1.8. SOCIAL CONTROL

 Under a control theory perspective, social control refers to those elements that keep an individual from
committing a criminal or deviant act. Examples include the family, church, and school.

2. KEY CONCEPTS
1. Social bonding and control theories are nontraditional criminological perspectives because they seek to
explain why individuals conform to societal norms, and not why they commit a crime.
2. Travis Hirschi’s theory has many policy implications and can be used to reduce delinquency. His theory can
be seen in policies such as curfew laws, after-school programs, parenting classes, and job placement
programs.
3. Hirschi utilized theory construction, conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical testing to develop
a perspective that still stands as a criminological model today.
4. The Social Development Model (SDM) has supported bonding and learning theories and has demonstrated
success in areas of commitment and attachment.

3. CHAPTER REVIEW
Why is a person not a criminal? That is the central question asked by control theorists. Instead of asking why
people break the law, this perspective wants to know why people do not break the law. Instead of focusing on
choice, body type, the mind, or the learning process, control theorists look at how people are controlled by
society. Has the individual bonded with society, and if so, how strong are those bonds? This perspective seeks
the same basic answers to the crime problem but asks a slightly different question. Weak to moderate support
has been found for control and self-control theories.

3.1. NOTABLE PERSONALITIES

Gottfredson, Michael: Coauthored A General Theory of Crime (1990) with Travis Hirschi.
Hirschi, Travis: Criminologist, developed the social bond theory, wrote The Causes of Delinquency
(1969), coauthored A General Theory of Crime (1990) with Michael Gottfredson.
Matza, David: Collaborated with Gresham Sykes in 1957 and proposed“techniques of
neutralization,” developed drift theory of delinquency in 1964, wrote Delinquency and Drift
(1964).
Nye, F. Ivan: Wrote Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior (1958), expanding on Reiss’s
definitions of social controls.
Reckless, Walter: Proposed the containment theory of delinquency and crime.
Reiss, Albert J.: In 1951, identified delinquency as resulting from the failure of “personal” and
“social” controls.
Sykes, Gresham: Collaborated with David Matza in 1957 and proposed “techniques of
neutralization.”

LESSON 3
 LABELING THEORY AND REINTEGRATIVE SHAMING THEORY
1. TERMS
1. Decriminalization. Removing status offenders from the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.
2. Deinstitutionalization. The removal of juveniles from jails, detention centers, and institutions. Removing
juveniles from these facilities, and when possible removing status and minor offenders from the juvenile
justice system as a whole, is the most basic type of diversion.
3. Disintegrative Shaming. The process by which an individual is punished, labeled and made to feel shame for
committing a deviant act in a manner that degrades and devalues the individual. This occurs without an
attempt after the offenders have been punished to reconcile them with or restore them to the larger
community.
4. Diversion Movement. This refers to all those efforts to divert individuals, primarily youth but also adults
who are suspected of or have been charged with minor offenses, from the full and formal process of the
juvenile or adult justice system. The intent is to reduce the stigma of formal delinquent or criminal labels on
the individuals and to reduce or avoid the costs of formal processing of the crime.
5. Faith-Based Programs. These are religiously based programs that can be operated within the institution or
the larger community. They can be run by inmates or religious leaders, and use spiritual beliefs and values to
change offenders’ attitudes and behaviors.
6. Labeling Theory. The theory that the formal and informal application of stigmatizing and deviant “labels” or
tags applied to an individual by society will not deter, but rather instigate future deviant or criminal acts.
7. Net-Widening. A problem that occurs when offenders who would have been released from the system are
placed in a program simply because a program exists. This often occurs in diversion programs. Boot camps
may be a viable option to keep kids out of institutions, but it becomes net-widening when kids, who otherwise
would have been sent home, are sent to boot camps.
8. Pre-Trial Intervention or Delayed Adjudication. Programs for first-time, nonviolent adult offenders. Those
who agree to specific conditions may avoid trial or sentencing altogether.
9. Primary Deviance. Deviant acts that are committed in the absence of or preceding the application of a
deviant label for the acts. While it may or may not be the first crime a person has committed, it is not based on
a response to being labeled as a deviant (see also Secondary Deviance).
10. Radical Non-Intervention. The belief that it is better to simply tolerate minor offenses rather than risk
labeling the offender.
11. Reintegrative Shaming. The process by which an individual is punished, labeled, and made to feel shame
for committing a deviant act, but done in a way that the individual who is shamed is brought back into the
larger community and restored to a position of respectability.
12. Restorative Justice. This refers to programs that are designed to make offenders take responsibility for
their actions and restore them and their victims, as much as possible, back to things as they existed before the
offense. Often offenders will apologize to the victims and to the community, and attempt to financially
compensate the victims for their losses.
13. Secondary Deviance. Criminal or deviant acts that are committed in response to, or because of, a label that
has been applied to an individual.

2. LABELING THEORY, AND HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY

differentiation of labeling and humanistic psychological theory in terms of explaining why someone commit
crime and delinquency

2.1. LABELING THEORY

The Labelling theory is another important theory in the context of criminology. As per this theory, deviance
is not inherent to an act but instead, it is a product of labeling. A person becomes a deviant after being
labeled as one. Similarly, acts are not inherently deviant but do become deviant acts after being labeled so.
Moreover, once a person has been labeled as deviant, the other aspects of his life and personality become
secondary. Once deviance becomes central to a person’s identity, a deviant career follows. The most
important concept underlying this theory is that of self-identity and how people’s lives and behavior are
influenced by labeling. In this way, what the labeling theory tries to explain is that the labels applied to
people can change the course of their lives and careers and turn them into criminals. However, this also
provides an insufficient explanation related to criminal behavior.

2.2. Humanistic Psychological Theory

Apart from labeling, there can be several other reasons to deviance that labeling does not appropriately
explain. Another important theory of crime is the Humanistic psychological theory of crime given by
Maslow and Halleck. One important strength of this theory is that it explains crime and criminal behavior
in terms of human needs. People tend to adopt criminal behavior because they do not have other options
available for sustenance. Crime for such people can be a way of adapting. People have physiological needs,
safety needs, belongingness needs as well as self-esteem needs. However, several times these needs
remain unfulfilled and people feel helpless because of suppression. People may need to adapt when they
feel helpless. In such situations, they adopt criminal behavior as an option for release from suppression
and the resulting helplessness. Crime can release someone from the stress born of oppression.

3. Labeling Theory Main points

The above theories examine how the social environment causes individuals to engage in crime, but they
typically devote little attention to the official reaction to crime, that is, to the reaction of the police and other
official agencies. Labeling theory focuses on the official reaction to crime and makes a rather counterintuitive
argument regarding the causes of crime.
According to labeling theory, official efforts to control crime often have the effect of increasing crime.
Individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and punished are labeled as criminals. Others then view and treat
these people as criminals, and this increases the likelihood of subsequent crime for several reasons. Labeled
individuals may have trouble obtaining legitimate employment, which increases their level of strain and
reduces their stake in conformity. Labeled individuals may find that conventional people are reluctant to
associate with them, and they may associate with other criminals as a result. This reduces their bond with
conventional others and fosters the social learning of crime. Finally, labeled individuals may eventually come
to view themselves as criminals and act in accord with this self-concept.
Labeling theory was quite popular in the 1960s and early 1970s but then fell into decline—partly as a result of
the mixed results of empirical research. Some studies found that being officially labeled a criminal (e.g.,
arrested or convicted) increased subsequent crime, while other studies did not. Recent theoretical work,
however, has revised the theory to take account of past problems. More attention is now being devoted to
informal labelings, such as labeling by parents, peers, and teachers. Informal labeling is said to have a greater
effect on subsequent crime than official labeling. Ross Matsueda discusses the reasons why individuals may be
informally labeled as delinquents, noting that such labeling is not simply a function of official labeling (e.g.,
arrest). Informal labeling is also influenced by the individual’s delinquent behavior and by their position in
society—with powerless individuals being more likely to be labeled (e.g., urban, minority, lower-class,
adolescents). Matsueda also argues that informal labels affect individuals’ subsequent level of crime by
affecting their perceptions of how others see them. If they believe that others see them as delinquents and
trouble-makers, they are more likely to act in accord with this perception and engage in delinquency. Data
provide some support for these arguments.
John Braithwaite extends labeling theory by arguing that labeling increases crime in some circumstances and
reduces it in others. Labeling increases subsequent crime when no effort is made to reintegrate the offender
back into conventional society; that is when offenders are rejected or informally labeled on a long-term basis.
But labeling reduces subsequent crime when efforts are made to reintegrate punished offenders back into
conventional society. In particular, labeling reduces crime when offenders are made to feel a sense of shame
or guilt for what they have done but are eventually forgiven and reintegrated into conventional groups—like
family and conventional peer groups. Such reintegration may occur “through words or gestures of forgiveness
or ceremonies to decertify the offender as deviant” (pp. 100–101). Braithwaite calls this process “reintegrative
shaming.” Reintegrative shaming is said to be more likely in certain types of social settings, for example, where
individuals are closely attached to their parents, neighbors, and others. Such shaming is also more likely in
“communitarian” societies, which place great stress on trust and the mutual obligation to help one another
(e.g., Japan versus the United States). Braithwaite’s theory has not yet been well tested, but it helps make
sense of the mixed results of past research on labeling theory.

4. Key Concepts
1. Labeling theory focuses on formal and informal applications of stigmatizing and deviant “labels” by society
on some of its members. Many have argued, however, that these labels are often the result of the statuses of
the individual, e.g., race, social class, and socioeconomics, as opposed to any act committed.
2. Labeling theory treats such labels as both cause and effect, as independent and dependent variables.
3. Lemert focused on two stages of deviance: Primary deviance is the commission of criminal acts before the
individual is caught and punished for them; secondary deviance refers to crimes committed due to the label
society has placed upon an offender.
4. A major concept in symbolic interactionism is the “looking-glass self,” in which our self-concepts are
reflections of other people’s conceptions of us, as revealed in their interactions with us.
5. Labeling theory mirrors conflict theory in that the individuals with power create and enforce rules at the
expense of the less powerful.

5. Chapter Review
What happens once a child has been labeled a trouble maker, or a young man labeled a thief? This is the
primary concern of the labeling theorist. The key difference between labeling theory and the other theories
examined so far is this: Labeling theory makes no attempt to understand why an individual committed a crime
in the first place. The labeling theorist wants to understand what happens after an individual is caught
committing a crime and society attaches a label to the offender. This differs from the view of choice, biological
predisposition, psychological factors, social learning factors, and societal bond and control theories, which
seek to explain the first and subsequent criminal acts. Little empirical support has been found for labeling
theory, and it has been criticized for failing to account not only for primary deviance, but for the wide variety
of other social factors that influence crime prior to, and after, the application of any specific label.

5.1. Notable Personalities

Becker, Howard: Criminologist and social psychologist, a primary theorist in labeling, wrote
Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963).
Braithwaite, John: Wrote Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002), developed the
concept of reintegrative shaming, which remains at the core of restorative justice.
Cooley, Charles Horton: (1875–1940) Sociologist, developed the concept of “looking-glass self.
Lemert, Edwin M.: Sociologist, collaborated with Howard Becker to extend the labeling theory to
include both primary and secondary deviance, wrote Social Pathology (1951) and Human
Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control (1967).
Tannenbaum, Frank: Criminologist, coined the phrase “the dramatization of evil,” wrote Crime
and the Community (1938).

LESSON 4
Social Disorganization Theory: Social Structure, Communities,
and Crime
Some theorists believe that neighborhoods characterized by constant change and deterioration are more
likely to be crime-ridden because they are less likely to be successful in controlling the behavior of their
residents.

1. TERMS
1. Chicago Area Projects. This was the first large-scale urban delinquency prevention program. Started by
Shaw and McKay in the 1930s, it used their social disorganization theory as a core.
2. Collective Efficacy. This refers to the actual or perceived ability of the residents of a given neighborhood to
maintain informal social control over the criminal or deviant behavior of other residents. This would have the
effect of keeping crime rates lower.
3. Concentrated Disadvantage. This looks at a variety of factors including percent of families below the
poverty level, percent of female headed households, the percent of families on welfare, percent black, percent
unemployed, and the percent under 18.
4. Concentric Zone Theory. Refers to the work of Burgess. Looks at a city with the graph of a target depicting
a series of concentric zones. The zones and their occupants are used to understand crime in a city.
5. Social Capital. This refers to investment in the community, and looks at things like club and organization
membership, volunteer activities, political activities, and general community engagement.
6. Social Disorganization. Social disorganization refers to the breakdown in traditional social control and
organization in the society, community, neighborhood, or family so that deviant and criminal activity result. It
is most often applied to urban crime.
7. Structural Theories. This refers to macro-level theories that account for differences in crime rates across
communities by looking at variations in structural characteristics and conditions of each community.
8. Urban Ecology. A theory that views a city as analogous to the natural ecological community of plants and
animals. This relationship is understood through the use of concentric zones that spread from the center to
the outer regions of a city. This work done by Park and Burgess influenced the social disorganization theory
developed by Shaw and McKay.

2. SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

The leading sociological theories focus on the immediate social environment, like the family, peer group, and
school. And they are most concerned with explaining why some individuals are more likely to engage in crime
than others. Much recent theoretical work, however, has also focused on the larger social environment,
especially the community and the total society. This work usually attempts to explain why some groups—like
communities and societies—have higher crime rates than other groups. In doing so, however, this work draws
heavily on the central ideas of control, social learning, and strain theories.
Social disorganization theory seeks to explain community differences in crime rates (see Robert Sampson and
W. Bryon Groves; Robert Bursik and Harold Grasmick). The theory identifies the characteristics of communities
with high crime rates and draws on social control theory to explain why these characteristics contribute to
crime.
Crime is said to be more likely in communities that are economically deprived, large in size, high in multiunit
housing like apartments, high in residential mobility (people frequently move into and out of the community),
and high in family disruption (high rates of divorce, single-parent families). These factors are said to reduce the
ability or willingness of community residents to exercise effective social control, that is, to exercise direct
control, provide young people with a stake in conformity, and socialize young people so that they condemn
delinquency and develop self-control.
The residents of high crime communities often lack the skills and resources to effectively assist others. They
are poor and many are single parents struggling with family responsibilities. As such, they often face problems
in socializing their children against crime and providing them with a stake in conformity, like the skills to do
well in school or the connections to secure a good job. These residents are also less likely to have close ties to
their neighbors and to care about their community. They typically do not own their own homes, which lowers
their investment in the community. They may hope to move to a more desirable community as soon as they
are able, which also lowers their investment in the community. And they often do not know their neighbors
well, since people frequently move into and out of the community. As a consequence, they are less likely to
intervene in neighborhood affairs—like monitoring the behavior of neighborhood residents and sanctioning
crime. Finally, these residents are less likely to form or support community organizations, including
educational, religious, and recreational organizations. This is partly a consequence of their limited resources
and lower attachment to the community. This further reduces control, since these organizations help exercise
direct control, provide people with a stake in conformity, and socialize people. Also, these organizations help
secure resources from the larger society, like better schools and police protection. Recent data provide some
support for these arguments.
Social disorganization theorists and other criminologists, such as John Hagan, point out that the number of
communities with characteristics conducive to crime—particularly high concentrations of poor people—has
increased since the 1960s. These communities exist primarily in inner-city areas and they are populated largely
by members of minority groups (due to the effects of discrimination). Such communities have increased for
several reasons. First, there has been a dramatic decline in manufacturing jobs in central city areas, partly due
to the relocation of factories to suburban areas and overseas. Also, the wages in manufacturing jobs have
become less competitive, due to factors like foreign competition, the increase in the size of the workforce, and
the decline in unions. Second, the increase in very poor communities is due to the migration of many working-
and middle-class African Americans to more affluent communities, leaving the poor behind. This migration
was stimulated by a reduction in discriminatory housing and employment practices. Third, certain government
policies—like the placement of public housing projects in inner-city communities and the reduction of certain
social services—have contributed to the increased concentration of poverty.

3. KEY CONCEPTS
1. Social disorganization is a macro theory looking across different communities or neighborhoods.
2. The theory was developed by Shaw and McKay, who demonstrated that juvenile offenders followed a very
consistent pattern over several decades, with the highest rates of deviance concentrated in the inner city and
diminishing outward from the core of the city.
3. This suggests that forces are at work beyond the individual delinquents. Those larger forces may be found
in the structure or organization of the city itself.
4. Factors in a city that have been examined by others include the poverty rate, unemployment rate,
percentage of female-headed households, percentage of those under the age of 18, and various measures of
community involvement.

4. CHAPTER REVIEW
The theories examined in Chapters 2 through 7 have looked primarily at the processes that generate criminal
behavior within an individual. Chapter 8 looks at features of society that may produce higher rates of crime
within neighborhoods or other large groups. Social disorganization theory is a macro approach developed by
Shaw and McKay. Some theorists believe that neighborhoods characterized by constant change and
deterioration are more likely to be crime-ridden because they are less likely to be successful in controlling the
behavior of their residents. Crime rates in inner-city urban areas remain high over time, and the belief is that
the structure of the city is in part responsible. Other theorists have looked at the concentration of
unemployment, welfare, community engagement, political activity, and volunteer work as a gauge of the
relative health of a community.

4.1. NOTABLE PERSONALITIES

 Ohlin, Lloyd: Collaborated with Cloward to form a theory of opportunity and coauthored
Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) with Cloward.
Park, Robert Ezra: (1864–1944) Associated with the “Chicago School,” collaborated with
Sutherland and Burgess.
Shaw, Clifford R.: Sociologist, collaborated with McKay on the social disorganization theory.

LESSON 5
ANOMIE THEORY AND STRAIN THEORY
Anomie and strain have been used to discuss entire societies in a macro approach, or groups of people in a
micro approach.

1. TERMS
This describes how the theory of anomie and strain explain criminal behavior within the society.

1.1. Anomie
A state of normlessness or norm confusion within a society. The term was coined by Durkheim
to explain suicide in French society and later applied by Merton and others to other forms of
deviance and crime in American society.

1.2. Aspirations and Expectations

This refers to anomie strain theory. Aspirations refer to what one hopes to achieve in life, and
expectations refer to what the individual believes is realistic. The greater the difference
between aspirations and expectations, the more likely strain becomes.

1.3. Cohen’s Anomie Strain

This version of anomie theory examines juveniles. Though Cohen is in agreement with Merton
that blocked goals produce strain, his theory looks at status as opposed to material gain. Under
this perspective, juveniles are measured against the standard of the middle class. Lower-class
kids who cannot meet the middle-class standards of dress, talk, and manners are, in a sense,
deprived. This “status deprivation” leads to “status frustration,” which in turn causes deviant
and criminal acts. Instead of five groups like Merton proposes, Cohen sees only one group—a
conflict group that values toughness, fighting, and respect.

1.4. Decommodification
The belief that a government can provide social welfare programs to protect vulnerable members
of society from market forces.

1.5. Differential oppurtunity

A theory that draws from anomie and the work of Merton and Cohen; the social disorganization
theory of Shaw and McInteractional theoryKay; and the differential association theory of
Sutherland. This view says that although one may be denied the legitimate opportunity, that does
not mean that one has access to illegitimate opportunity. Although deprivation and strain can
and do play a role, one learns a good or bad response to that strain depending on the available
opportunities and role models, legitimate or illegitimate. Three groups exist under this
perspective: The first is criminal. In criminal groups, juveniles are organized, and the primary goal
of the activity is to make money. A lack of legitimate means has been replaced by illegitimate
ones, such as theft or extortion. The second group is the conflict group. In this group, there are
few legitimate or illegitimate opportunities. These groups are found primarily in poor, socially
disorganized neighborhoods. As a result, toughness, and fighting are the primary goals. The final
group is the retreatist. This group cannot fight well, or profit from their crimes. They are the
double failure.

1.6. Focal Concerns of the Lower-Class Culture

The list of focal concerns or values believed to be prevalent among lower-class males was
developed by Miller to describe the behavior of street corner groups or gangs. According to
Miller, the behavior of these juveniles was an adaptation to lower-class culture. This culture
valued things such as: trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fatalism, and autonomy.

1.7. Agnew’s General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency

A micro-level social psychological revision of strain theory. According to this theory, criminal and
deviant acts are one possible adaptation to stress. The three major types of deviance-producing
strain are: failure to achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and
confrontation with negative stimuli. Deviance is most likely to occur when the response of the
individual to any of these stressors is anger. Factors such as peer associations, beliefs, attributions
of causes, self-control, and self-efficacy will affect each individual’s reaction to stress. Agnew also
expands the concepts of strain to include not only objective and subjective strains but also
vicarious and anticipated strains.

1.8. Merton’s Anomie Theory

This version of anomie theory looks at American society, and what happens when an individual
realizes that not everyone can achieve the American dream of equal opportunity for economic
success. When this happens, one of five adaptations will occur. The conformist accepts the goals
of society and the means for achieving them: the college student. The innovator accepts the goals
of society but rejects the means of achieving them: the drug dealer. The mode of rebellion refers
to one who rejects both the goals and means of society, and wants to replace them with new
goals and means: the militia member. The retreatist gives up on both the goals and means, and
withdraws from society: the alcoholic. Finally, the ritualist rejects the goals and accepts the
means: this person has given up on the promotion, nice car, and so on, and simply punches the
time clock to keep what they have.

1.9. Institutional Anomie

This theory was created by Messner and Rosenfeld. The premise of the theory is that American
society is set up to give prestige and priority to economic institutions. This means that the
accumulation of wealth and individual success are people’s highest priorities. Prioritizing
 economic institutions weakens the ability of other social institutions (family, education,
government) to control crime that occurs in response to the lack of access to or failure in the
economic sphere. Therefore, a high level of criminal activity is a natural result of the setup of
American society.

2. ANOMIE AND STRAIN THEORY

Differentiation

2.1. Anomie Theory

In contemporary English, means a condition or malaise in individuals, characterized by an
absence or diminution of standards or values. When applied to a government or society, anomie
implies a social unrest or chaos.
The word comes from Greek, namely the prefix a- “without”, and nomos “law”.
Anomie is a reaction against or a retreat from the regulatory social controls of society. Anomie
defined anything or anyone against or outside the law, or a condition where the current laws
were not applied resulting in a state of illegitimacy or lawlessness.
Anomie is normlessness produced by rapidly shifting moral values, dis occurs when personal
goals cannot be achieved using available means.
Anomie refers to a breakdown of social norms and it is a condition where norms no longer
control the activities of members in society.
Individuals cannot find their place in society without clear rules to help guide them. Changing
conditions as well as adjustments in life leads to dissatisfaction, conflict, and deviance.

2.2. Strain theory

Why do people engage in crime according to strain theory? They experience strain or stress, they
become upset, and they sometimes engage in crime as a result. They may engage in crime to
reduce or escape from the strain they are experiencing. For example, they may engage in
violence to end harassment from others, they may steal to reduce financial problems, or they
may run away from home to escape abusive parents. They may also engage in crime to seek
revenge against those who have wronged them. And they may engage in the crime of illicit drug
use to make themselves feel better.
A recent version of strain theory is Robert Agnew's 1992 general strain theory. Agnew's theory
draws heavily on previous versions of strain theory, particularly those of Robert Merton, Albert
Cohen, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, David Greenberg, and Delbert Elliott and associates.
Agnew, however, points to certain types of strain not considered in these previous versions and
provides a fuller discussion of the conditions under which strain is most likely to lead to crime.
The major types of strain. Agnew describes two general categories of strain that contribute to
crime: (1) others prevent you from achieving your goals, and (2) others take things you value or
present you with negative or noxious stimuli.
While strain may result from the failure to achieve a variety of goals, Agnew and others focus on
the failure to achieve three related goals: money, status/respect, and—for adolescents—
autonomy from adults.
Money is perhaps the central goal in the United States. All people, poor as well as rich, are
encouraged to work hard so that they might make a lot of money. Further, money is necessary to
buy many of the things we want, including the necessities of life and luxury items. Many people,
however, are prevented from getting the money they need through legal channels, such as work.
This is especially true for poor people, but it is true for many middle-class people with lofty goals
as well. As a consequence, such people experience strain and they may attempt to get money
through illegal channels—such as theft, selling drugs, and prostitution. Studies provide some
support for this argument. Criminals and delinquents often report that they engage in income-
generating crime because they want money but cannot easily get it any other way. And some
data suggest that crime is more common among people who are dissatisfied with their monetary
situation—with such dissatisfaction being higher among lower-class people and people who state
that they want "a lot of money."
Closely related to the desire for money is the desire for status and respect. People want to be
positively regarded by others and they want to be treated respectfully by others, which at a
minimum involves being treated in a just or fair manner. While people have a general desire for
status and respect, theorists such as James Messerschmidt argue that the desire for "masculine
status" is especially relevant to crime. There are class and race differences in views about what it
means to be a "man," although most such views emphasize traits like independence, dominance,
toughness, competitiveness, and heterosexuality. Many males, especially those who are young,
lower-class, and members of minority groups, experience difficulties in satisfying their desire to
be viewed and treated as men. These people may attempt to "accomplish masculinity" through
crime. They may attempt to coerce others into giving them the respect they believe they deserve
as "real men." In this connection, they may adopt a tough demeanor, respond to even minor
shows of disrespect with violence, and occasionally assault and rob others in an effort to establish
a tough reputation. There have been no large scale tests of this idea, although several studies
such as that of Elijah Anderson provide support for it.
Finally, a major goal of most adolescents is autonomy from adults. Autonomy may be defined as
power over oneself: the ability to resist the demands of others and engage in action without the
permission of others. Adolescents are often encouraged to be autonomous, but they are
frequently denied autonomy by adults. The denial of autonomy may lead to delinquency for
several reasons: delinquency may be a means of asserting autonomy (e.g., sexual intercourse or
disorderly behavior), achieving autonomy (e.g., stealing money to gain financial independence
from parents), or venting frustration against those who deny autonomy.
In addition to the failure to achieve one's goals, strain may result when people take something
one values or present one with noxious or negative stimuli. Such negative treatment may upset
or anger people and crime may be the result. Studies have found that a range of negative events
and conditions increase the likelihood of crime. In particular, crime has been linked to child abuse
and neglect, criminal victimization, physical punishment by parents, negative relations with
parents, negative relations with teachers, negative school experiences, negative relations with
peers, neighborhood problems, and a wide range of stressful life events—like the
divorce/separation of a parent, parental unemployment, and changing schools.
Factors influencing the effect of strain on delinquency. Strainful events and conditions make
people feel bad. These bad feelings, in turn, create pressure for corrective action. This is
especially true of anger and frustration, which energize the individual for action, create a desire
for revenge, and lower inhibitions. There are several possible ways to cope with strain and these
negative emotions, only some of which involve delinquency. Strain theorists attempt to describe
those factors that increase the likelihood of a criminal respons
Among other things, strain is more likely to lead to crime among individuals with poor coping
skills and resources. Some individuals are better able to cope with strain legally than others. For
example, they have the verbal skills to negotiate with others or the financial resources to hire a
lawyer. Related to this, strain is more likely to lead to delinquency among individuals with few
conventional social supports. Family, friends, and others often help individuals cope with their
problems, providing advice, direct assistance, and emotional support. In doing so, they reduce
the likelihood of a criminal response.
Strain is more likely to lead to delinquency when the costs of delinquency are low and the
benefits are high; that is, the probability of being caught and punished is low and the rewards of
delinquency are high. Finally, strain is more likely to lead to delinquency among individuals who
are disposed to delinquency. The individual's disposition to engage in delinquency is influenced
by a number of factors. Certain individual traits—like irritability and impulsivity—increase the
disposition for delinquency. Another key factor is whether individuals blame their strain on the
deliberate behavior of someone else. Finally, individuals are more disposed to delinquency if they
hold beliefs that justify delinquency, if they have been exposed to delinquent models, and if they
have been reinforced for delinquency in the past (see below).
A variety of factors, then, influence whether individuals respond to strain with delinquency.
Unfortunately, there has not been much research on the extent to which these factors condition
the impact of strain—and the research that has been done has produced mixed results.
Strain theory – is sometimes called by the French word anomie, is a 1938 American version of
French sociology, invented by the father of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). This
type of theory sees crime as the normal result of an "American dream" in which people set their
aspirations (for wealth, education, occupation, any status symbol) too high, and inevitably
discover strain, or goal blockages, along the way. The only two things to do are reduce aspirations
or increase opportunities.

2.3. Robert Merton and Robert Agnew's Strain theory

Robert Merton and Robert Agnew
ü This contends that certain classes are denied legitimate access to culturally determined
goals and opportunities and the resulting frustration, results in illegitimate activities or rejection
of the society’s goal.
ü Although most people share common values and goals, the means for legitimate
economic and social success are stratified by socio-economic class.
 ü Consequently these youths may either use deviant methods to achieve their goals or
reject socially accepted goals or substitute deviant ones.

2.4. Sources of Strain According to Robert Agnew:

a) Strain caused by the failure to achieve positively valued goals- This type of strain occurs when a
youth aspires to wealth and fame but, lacking financial and educational resources, assumes that
such goals are impossible to achieve.
b) Strain caused by the disjunction of expectations and achievements- Strain can also be
produced when there is a disjunction between achievement and expectation.
c) Strain as the removal of positively valued stimuli from the individual- Strain may occur because
of the actual or anticipated removal or loss of positively valued stimuli from the individual.
d) Strain as the presentation of negative stimuli- Strain may also be caused by the presence of
negative or noxious stimuli. Included within this category are such pain-inducing social
interactions.

3. KEY CONCEPTS
1. Anomie was coined by the French sociologist Durkheim, and first applied to French society to examine rates
of suicide. The concept of anomie was first used in this country by Merton, in an effort to describe adaptations
in behavior and the interaction between legitimate and illegitimate means.
2. Anomie may apply when there are not enough legitimate means to reach legitimate societal goals. This can
occur when society is in a state of disorder and disintegration, as opposed to stability and integration.
3. Depending on the theorist, anomie has been applied to the acquisition of wealth, the attainment of status,
or the expression of cultural or class values.
4. Agnew’s revision of anomie strain theory examines several possible sources of strain that may result in
criminal activity: failure to achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and
confrontation with negative stimuli.
5. With mixed support, anomie strain theories have been used to develop projects designed to bring stability
and order to disorganized communities. The hope has been that increasing the stability of the community, the
schools, and the family would reduce criminal and delinquent acts.

4. CHAPTER REVIEW
Some theorists believe that communities in a state of anomie, where the norms are unclear or absent,
produce conditions favorable to the proliferation of crime. In other words, there has to be a way to achieve
the goals universally sought after in a society. If the goals remain, but there is no manner in which certain
members of society may achieve those goals, anomie may take effect. Society has laid out a blueprint for
success: If you play by the rules, you will succeed. This blueprint explains the proper way to achieve this
success. But what happens if everyone does not have an equal opportunity to achieve the “American Dream”?
According to anomie/strain theorists, these blocked opportunities, and the strain associated with them, can
lead to criminal or deviant activity. Crime is committed as an effective but illegitimate way to gain success.
Anomie and strain have been used to discuss entire societies in a macro
 4.1. Notable Personalities
Agnew, Robert: Sociologist, proposed the general strain theory to account for criminal behavior.
Burgess, Ernest: (1886–1966) Helped form the “Chicago School,” collaborated with Sutherland
and Park.
Cloward, Richard: Collaborated with Lloyd Ohlin to form a theory of differential opportunity,
coauthored Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) with Ohlin.
Cohen, Albert K.: Criminologist, developed the perspective of delinquent subculture
Durkheim, Emile: (1858–1917) French sociologist, wrote Suicide (1893).
McKay, Henry D.: Sociologist, collaborated with Shaw on the social disorganization theory.
Merton, Robert K.: Focused on anomie and strain theory, wrote Social Theory and Social
Structure (1957).
Messner, Steven F.: Collaborated with Rosenfeld on the ideology of the “American Dream” and
institutional anomie theory.
Miller, Walter: Criminologist, focused on gang delinquency as a result of lower-class values
Rosenfeld, Richard: Collaborated with Messner on the ideology of the “American Dream” and
institutional anomie theory.
Labeling theory to criminal behavior can explain either why an individual enters to a criminal life or why a person
never gets in or avoids criminal behavior. In this theory it shows the effect or power of labeling an individual to its
behavior. According to this Labeling theory, a person can be changed or may believe for the label the society or
community imposes to that individual. For instance, Mr. A is labeled by the community as a thief for Mr. A does like
going out at night to take a walk which his community has made a theory that he might be a thief which causes it for
him to be labeled as a thief. In this scenario, labeling theory says that Mr. A might believe if the label continues for a
long time that can trigger for him to be what is labeled to him as a thief. Thus, resulting for Mr. A to become real
criminal. This is the relation of labeling theory to criminal behavior.