1. Key Themes of Labeling Theory The role of identity/self-concept in criminal behavior Distinction between “primary” and “secondary” deviation The role of “audiences” in the development of delinquent trajectories

2. Are Deviant Labels Differentially Applied? Saints and the Roughnecks (Chambliss 1973)

3. Matsueda Mead and Symbolic Interactionism: the self as constructed through interactions with others Reflected appraisals: “how one perceives the way others see one” Causal significance of reflected appraisals: Matsueda finds that perceptions of oneself as a “rule violator” related to delinquency.

4. Becker’s Approach to Labeling Interested in sustained patterns of deviant activity In contrast, “casual” deviance may be explained by other theoretical approaches –E.g., control theory –Techniques of neutralization

5. Becker: Outsiders A single criminal act can result in criminal labeling. What are the consequences? –“Master” vs. “auxiliary” status traits Master status: key trait that distinguishes those who “belong” from those who don’t. Auxiliary status: traits associated with a master status trait –Person committing one crime may be viewed as likely to commit another (criminal status subordinates all others)

6. Becker: Outsiders The “self-fulfilling prophecy” of a generally deviant label –Cut off from conventional groups –“Treatment” (e.g., of drug addicts) may result in further deviance

7. Becker’s Focus on Stable Patterns of Deviance How does a stable pattern of deviance emerge? –Movement into organized group –Resulting new identity

8. Labeling Theory as a Developmental Approach? Is labeling theory developmental? How do control theory and labeling theory differ in their explanations for why incarceration leads to increases in the likelihood of recidivism?

9. Versatility and Specialization in Labeling Theory Can labeled criminals acquire a versatile pattern of deviance Vs. self control approach, e.g.

10. Theoretical Integration Pitfalls and Concerns Theory integration versus competition “Crucial tests” as opportunities for adjudication; unfortunately, these tests are not always feasible and are rarely definitive when attempted

11. Theoretical Integration Types Up-and-down: deductive integration –See general theories Side-by-side: parallel integration –See typological theories End-to-end: sequential integration –See developmental theories Cross-level: integration across levels of analysis

12. Elliott, Huizinga, Ageton Integrated Theory of Delinquency and Drug Use Individual level theory

13. Elliott, Huizinga, Ageton (1985) Basic Assumptions of Strain, Control, and Learning Theories Strain: motivation to delinquency is variable, socialization/bonding constant Control: socialization/bonding variable, motivation constant Learning: neither socialization/bonding nor motivation constant

14. Elliott, Huizinga, Ageton Integrating Strain and Control Kornhauser: Control theory must grant variability in motivation but limited variation in strain and it works through controls to affect delinquency EHA: limited variability does not preclude causation; strain may work through controls and directly affect delinquency

15. Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton’s (1985) Control Model (Stage 1) Social disorganization Inadequate socialization Weak conventional bonding Delinquency

16. Strain (blocked access) Social disorganization Inadequate socialization Weak conventional bonding Delinquency Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton’s (1985) Integrated Control-Strain Model (Stage 2)

17. Strain (blocked access) Social disorganization Inadequate socialization Weak conventional bonding Strong delinquent bonding Delinquency Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton’s (1985) Fully Integrated Model

18. Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton’s (1985) Assumptions behind the learning-control integration Frequent non- serious delinquency Deviant socialization outcome Strong bonds Weak bonds Conventional socialization outcome Strong bonds Weak bonds High rewards and high costs No delinquency Low rewards and high costs Frequent serious delinquency High rewards and low costs Infrequent non- serious delinquency Low rewards and low costs