1. Chapter 7
Social Process Theories

2. Socialization and Crime
Social process theories suggest criminality is a function of socialization
Any person regardless of race, class or gender can become criminal
Elements of family, peer group, school, and church contribute to socialization processes

3. Socialization and Crime
Family Relations
Family plays a critical role in the determinant of behavior
Parental efficacy refers to supportive parents who effectively control their children
Links between inconsistent discipline and delinquency

4. Socialization and Crime
Weblink

5. Socialization and Crime
Child Abuse and Crime
Linkage between child abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and crime
Children subjected to abuse are more likely to use violence in personal interactions
In nonviolent societies, parents rarely punish children physically

6. Socialization and Crime
Educational Experience
Children who fail in school offend more frequently than those who succeed
Schools contribute to delinquency by labeling students
School dropouts have a significant chance of entering a criminal career
2003 national survey estimates about 1.5 million violent incidents occur in public schools each year

7. Socialization and Crime
Peer Relations
Children seek out peer groups between the ages of 8 and 14
Peer Rejection: Children rejected by peers are more likely to display aggressive behavior
Pro-social friends may inhibit criminality
Peers and Criminality: Antisocial peer groups increase the likelihood of delinquency
Mark Warr suggests delinquent friends tend to be “sticky” meaning they are not easily lost once they are acquired

8. Socialization and Crime
Institutional Involvement and Belief
Religion binds people together
Travis Hirschi and Rodney Stark found the association between religion attendance, belief, and delinquency is insignificant
Recent research contends that attending religious services is a significant inhibitor of crime

9. Socialization and Crime
The Effects of Socialization on Crime
Social learning theory suggests people learn techniques of crimes from criminal peers
Social control theory contends people are controlled by their bonds to society
Social reaction theory argues that society contributes to criminality through the use of labels

10. Figure 7.1 The Social Processes that Control Human Behavior

11. Social Learning Theory
Crime is a product of learning norms, values, and behaviors associated with criminal activity
Differential Association: Edwin H. Sutherland’s view that criminality is a function of the socialization process

12. Social Learning Theory
Differential Association Theory
Differential Association: Edwin H. Sutherland’s view that criminality is a function of the socialization process
Criminal behavior is learned
Learning is a by-product of interacting with others
Learning criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups
Learning criminal behavior involves assimilating the techniques of committing crime, including motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes
The specific direction is learned from perceptions of various aspects of the legal code as favorable or unfavorable

13. Social Learning Theory
A person becomes criminal when perceiving the consequences of violating the law as favorable
Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity
The process of learning criminal behavior involves the same mechanisms as any other learning process
Criminal behavior and noncriminal behavior express the same needs and values

14. Figure 7.2 Differential Associations

15. Social Learning Theory
Testing Differential Association Theory
Difficult to conceptualize and test empirically
Research does support the core principles such as links to family, and peers with criminality

16. Social Learning Theory
Analysis of Differential Association Theory
Fails to account for the origin of criminal definitions
Assumes criminal and delinquent acts to be rational and systematic
Some suggest the theory is tautological

17. Social Learning Theory
Differential Reinforcement Theory
Ronald Akers suggests “direct conditioning” occurs when behavior is reinforced by rewards or punishment
People evaluate their own behavior through their interactions with significant others and groups in their lives
Once people are indoctrinated into crime, their behavior can be reinforced through peers and the lack of negative sanctions

18. Social Learning Theory
Testing Differential Reinforcement
Studies have suggested a strong association between drug and alcohol abuse and social learning variables
Deviant behavior is reinforced over time (I.E. smoking)
Parents may supply negative reinforcements to children’s deviant behavior

19. Social Learning Theory
Neutralization Theory
David Matza and Gresham Sykes view criminality as a process learning neutralizing techniques
Subterranean values are morally tinged influences
Drift occurs from conventional behavior to criminal behavior if one can neutralize their sense of responsibility for antisocial behavior

20. Social Learning Theory
Techniques of Neutralization
Denial of responsibility: unlawful acts are beyond an offenders control
Denial of injury: offender’s perception is changed (i.e. stealing is borrowing)
Denial of the victim: the victim had it coming (i.e. vandalism)
Condemnation of the condemners: shifting the blame to others (i.e. society)
Appeal to higher loyalties: loyalty to a higher cause (i.e. Oliver North and Iran Contra)

21. Figure 7.3 Techniques of Neutralization

22. Social Learning Theory
Testing Neutralization Theory
Empirical test results are inconclusive
Not all criminal offenders approve of social values such as honesty and fairness
As Matza predicted, people do seem to drift in and out of antisocial behavior

23. Social Learning Theory
Are Learning Theories Valid?
Learning theories fail to explain how the first criminal learned the necessary techniques and definitions of crime
Fails to account for spontaneous crime or expressive crimes
Learning of some criminality frequently occurs after one has committed the first criminal act

24. Social Control Theory
All people have potential to violate the law
Self-control refers to a strong moral sense that renders a person incapable of hurting others or violating social norms
Walter Reckless argued a strong self-image insulates a person from the criminogenic influences of the environment
Howard Kaplan suggests youths with poor self-concepts are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior (normative groups)

25. Social Control Theory
Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory (social control theory)
Travis Hirschi links the onset of criminality to the weakening of the ties than bind people to society ( social bonds)
Attachment (sensitivity to and interest in others)
Commitment (time, energy, and effort into conventional activities)
Involvement (insulates people from the lure of crime)
Belief (moral respect for law and social values)

26. Figure 7.4 Elements of Social Bond Theory

27. Social Control Theory
Testing Social Control Theory
Empirical studies revealed a strong support for Hirschi’s control theory
Youths strongly attached to parents were less likely to commit criminal acts
Youths involved in conventional activities were less likely to engage in criminal behavior
Youths involved in unconventional behaviors such as drinking and smoking were more prone to delinquency
Youths who maintained weak relationships with others moved toward delinquency
Those who shunned unconventional acts were attached to peers
Delinquents and nondelinquents shar similar beliefs about society
Recent research shows attachments to peers, school and family may be interrelated

28. Social Control Theory
Opposing Views
Friendship: A criticism of Hirschi’s theory is the notion that delinquents are detached loners
Not all elements of the bond are equal: Some people are very involved and not attached
Deviant peers and parents: Some people are very attached to deviant peers
Restricted in scope: May not explain all modes of criminality
Change bonds: Bonds seem to change over time
Crime and social bonds: Direction of association might be miscalculated in the wrong direction

29. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Explains criminal careers in terms of destructive social interactions and stigma-producing encounters (symbolic interaction theory)
People are given a variety of symbolic labels that define the whole person
Negative labels stigmatize and reduce one’s self-image
Social groups create definitions of positive and negative labels
Labels may actually maintain and amplify criminal behavior

30. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Crime and Labeling Theory
Crime and deviance are defined by the social audience
Howard Becker described those making the rules as moral entrepreneurs
Social groups create deviance by labeling particular people as “outsiders”

31. Figure 7.5 The Labeling Process

32. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Differential Enforcement
Those with social power penalize the powerless
Content of law reflects power relationships
Street crimes punished more severely than white-collar crimes

33. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Consequences of Labeling
Labels produce stigma
Condemnation is carried out in “ceremonies” such as trials and media attention (degradation ceremonies)
Differential social control: Self-labeling involves one taking on the attitudes and roles reflected in how a person views the way others see them
Joining deviant cliques: Some labeled people may join cliques and other outcast peers
Retrospective reading: refers to the reassessment of a person’s past to fit a current generalized label or status
Dramatization of evil: Labels become a personal identity

34. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Primary and Secondary Deviance
Edwin Lemert defined a norm violation with little or no long-term influence as primary deviance
Secondary deviance refers to a norm violation that results in application of a negative label with long-term consequences
The process whereby secondary deviance pushes offenders out of the mainstream of society is referred to as deviance amplification

35. Figure 7.6 Primary and Secondary Deviance

36. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Research on Social Reaction Theory
Evidence supports the targets of labeling (poor and powerless) are victimized by the law and justice system
Contextual discrimination: refers to judges imposing harsher sentences on minorities
Empirical evidence supports that negative labels influence self-image
Cumulative disadvantage: Provokes repeat behaviors

37. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Is Labeling Theory Valid?
Inability to specify the conditions the must exist before an act or individual is labeled
Failure to explain differences in crime rates
Ignores the onset of deviant behavior
Charles Tittle suggests criminal careers occur without labeling

38. Social Reaction Theory (Labeling Theory)
Evaluating Social Process Theories
The branches of social process theory-social learning-social control and social reaction are compatible
Interactions of social institutions, family, schools, peers, and the justice system are important in creating and inhibiting criminal behavior
Social process theories are not persuasive in explaining fluctuations in crime patterns

39. Public Policy Implications of Social Process Theory
Learning theories have greatly influenced the way criminal offenders are treated
Residential treatment programs utilize group interaction to promote conventional behavior
Head Start is a well-known program designed to help lower-class youths achieve proper socialization
Diversion programs are concerned with avoiding the stigma of a criminal label
Restitution programs permit an offender to repay the victim rather than face the stigma of a formal trial and court-ordered sentence