SozTheo

Sozialwissenschaftliche Theorien

Sie befinden sich hier: Home / Archiv für USA

USA

Age Graded Theory/ Turning Points (Sampson and Laub)

[also known as: Age-Graded Life-Course Theory of Crime, Age-Graded Development Theory, Theorie der Turning Points]

Robert J. Sampson’s and John H. Laub’s Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points describe the change in the crime load of individuals as a function of biographical events. For this purpose, they use the so-called ‘Turning Points’, which can either strengthen, weaken or interrupt criminal behaviour.

Main Proponents

Robert J. Sampson und John H. Laub

Theory

With the Age Graded Theory or Theory of Turning Points, Sampson and Laub presented in 1993 one of the most outstanding developmental and life course theories (Schneider, 2007, p. 7). The theory states that criminality in a person’s life course does not necessarily have to be constant, but that biographical turning points can be associated with a discontinuity as well as the (re)initiation of criminal behavior. Turning points are to be understood as “abrupt – radical turnarounds or changes in life history that seperate the past from the future” (Sampson & Laub, 1996, p. 351), such as marriage, parenthood, taking up permanent employment, entering military service, etc.

For their theory, the authors used data from a previous study by the married couple Sheldon and Eleonore Glueck (see: Glueck & Glueck). They compared the personal histories of five hundred juvenile male delinquents who were in a reform school with the personal histories of five hundred nondeviant juveniles in a control group as early as the 1940s to 1950s. In their longitudinal study, the couple investigated the delinquency of adolescents and young men at the ages of 14, 25, and 32.

Sampson and Laub continued the longitudinal study by re-evaluating the already collected and evaluated data using new statistical methods, collecting data from criminal files on 475 delinquents and visiting still living test persons (who are now about 70 years old) and questioning them about their delinquency after the age of 32. The study design thus offers a unique opportunity to investigate the delinquency in the life course of individuals over an almost complete life span. Based on the interviews conducted and documented behavior in the past, Sampson and Laub can assign the subjects to three different categories:

  • Persisters: Persons who continued their criminal career into adulthood
  • Desisters: People who have ended their criminal career
  • Zigzag criminal career: Persons for whom the criminal career had no continuity and was applied from time to time.

From this they conclude that deviant behavior in the life course is characterized by both continuity and change.
The reason why crime occurs is weak social relationships, which are expressed in a low level of “social capital”. The nature and strength of social bonds varies more or less over the life course, and so social capital varies as well. Particular importance is attributed here to informal ties such as friendships, neighborhoods and marriages.

The main focus of this theory of crime is on the so-called turning points that are connected with the establishment or termination of social ties. Marriage, military service, and/or employment strengthen the level of social bonds and are accompanied by a greater degree of social control. The establishment of meaningful social bonds is accompanied by a change in everyday life routines. New informal obligations and increased social control have a positive effect on the development of non-deviant behavior.

However, a biographical turning point can also mark the beginning of an increase in delinquency: the loss of an employment relationship or the termination of a partnership, etc. reduces the level of informal commitments and social control. An increase in deviant/criminal behavior can be the result.

According to this, it is the same underlying social factors and the strength of the associated bonds that – depending on their characteristics – are responsible both for a delinquent life style and for a termination of a criminal career. Or as Sampson and Laub write themselves: “explanations of desistance from crime and persistent offending are two sides of the same coin” (2005: 171).

 

 

Turning Points (Wendepunkte) markieren ein biographisches Ereignis und dessen Einfluss auf die Kriminalitätsbelastung
A “Turning Point” marks a decisive biographical change that coincides with the discontinuation or (re)beginning of a criminal career.

 

Turning Points lönnen sowohl für eine Abnahme als auch Zunahme der Kriminalitätsbelastung verantwortlich sein
Turning Points can both mark the transition from a deviant lifestyle to a norm-compliant lifestyle and also indicate a turnaround to a deviant lifestyle.

 

Schaubild zur Turning Point/ Age Graded Theory
Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 244f.; here cited according to: Siegel, 2011, p. 234. Click on the image for a larger view.

 

Criminal policy implications

Sampson and Laub stand with their theory for a rehabilitating criminal law. In contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime or Moffit’s Two-Path-Theory, Sampson and Laub emphasize that delinquency in people’s lives can be characterized by continuity AND change. The transition to delinquency or the end of a delinquent lifestyle cannot be tied to specific points in time or time spans in the life course, but is possible at any time.
Thus, a life free of crime and punishment can be paved for everyone, even for serious offenders, through the right, meaningful social bonds.

Critical appreciation & relevance

Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded or Turning Points Theory is still the most influential theory in the field of Developmental Criminology. No other study offers a comparable insight into delinquency over the almost complete life span of individuals.

The focus on biographical turning points and their influence on the intensity of social control shows strong parallels to control theories, but also a close relationship to the labelling approach. For example, the authors point out that the future chances of young people are reduced by the experience of imprisonment: “the connection between official childhood misbehavior and adult outcomes may be accounted for in part by the structural disadvantages and diminished life chances accorded institutionalized and stigmatized youth. (Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 137).

The emphasis on changeable delinquent careers (Zigzag criminals) and persons who end their criminal careers at an advanced age (Desisters) contradicts other developmental theories that paint a more deterministic picture of career criminals (see, for example, Moffit’s Two-Path Theory).

Criticism of the age-graded theory is based on the lack of an explanation of why some people change their behavior as a result of the turning points, while for others biographical incisions have no influence on the development of delinquency. Furthermore, it remains unclear which factors and qualities characterize stable social bonds. Finally, the study is based on a sample of purely male subjects. Therefore, no statements can be made here about female delinquency or the influence of biographical turning points. Therefore, the theory cannot claim to be universally valid.

Factors such as a steady job or a partnership are generally regarded as important supporting factors that are taken into account, for example, when assessing the probability of recidivism of offenders. For example, an employment that implies a daily routine as well as social control plays a major role after release from prison. Furthermore, before release, increased emphasis is placed on continuous contact with family and partners, as these ideally serve as supporting factors.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making : pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1996). Socioeconomic Achievement in the Life Course of Disadvantaged Men: Military Service as a Turning Point, Circa 1940-1965. American Sociological Review, 61(3), pp. 347-367.
  • Laub, J. H. & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives : delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] : Harvard Univ. Press.
  • Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: lessons learned and the future of life-course criminology. In: Farrington, D. P. (Hrsg.) Integrated developmental and life course theories of offending. New Brunswick: Transaction, pp. 165–181.

Secondary Literature

  • Schneider, H. J. (2007). Internationales Handbuch der Kriminologie. [Band 1: Grundlagen der Kriminologie]. Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.
  • Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology: The Core (4. Aufl.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Further Information

Video

Interview with John Laub and Robert Sampson — The Stockholm Prize in Criminology

John Laub, Director, Director, National Institute of Justice
Robert Sampson, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, Harvard University
NIJ Conference 2011
June 20-22

 

Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub received the 2011 Stockholm Price in Criminology for their work on Age Graded Theory. In the statement of the jury it says:

Jury Motivation
The authors of the longest life-course study of criminal behavior ever conducted, Laub and Sampson discovered that even very active criminals can stop committing crimes for good after key “turning points” in their lives. In their sample of 500 male offenders born in the 1920s, these turning points included marriage, military service, employment, and other ways of cutting off their social ties to their offending peer group.
These findings have had broad influence in criminology world-wide. They have also influenced the policy debate about criminal justice and sentencing policy, especially concerning the potential for rehabilitation. Their work has influenced other scholars to search for means by which offenders can be assisted to break their links to other offenders, such as by moving to new communities.

Source: http://www.criminologyprize.com

Defiance Theory (Sherman)

According to the Defiance Theory, punishment can have three different effects.

  1. Punishment can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired success.
  2. Punishment can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the subsequent committing of crimes.
  3. Punishment can cause a reaction of defiance. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour.

Which of the reactions causes a punishment depends on various factors. Factors that make defiance more likely are perceived injustice, doubts about the legitimacy of the punisher, injured pride and a lack of social commitment to the punisher.

Main Proponent

Lawrence W. Sherman

Theory

Sherman’s Defiance Theory is not a labeling theory in the true sense of the word. What it has in common with the labeling theories, however, is that it tries to explain the paradoxical effect that punishment can have. Unlike labeling theories, Sherman does not focus exclusively on the negative consequences of punishment. He assumes that punishment sometimes acts as a deterrent and sometimes as a reinforcer to the committing of further crimes.
According to Sherman, sanctions can have three different effects:

  1. Sanctions can provoke future defiance of the law. Thus punishment intensifies deviant behaviour. (Defiance)
  2. Sanctions can have a deterrent effect and thus have the desired effect. (Deterrence)
  3. Sanctions can be ineffective, i.e. have no influence on the further committing of criminal offences. (Irrelevance)

The Defiance Theory aims to uncover the patterns according to which the different modes of action occur. For Sherman, this includes correlations found in empirical studies, such as:

  • that a connection can be established between personality type and mode of action of punishment,
  • that punishment works better on working men than it does on the unemployed,
  • or that it works better on older people than on younger people.

Sherman sees his theory as a ‘General Theory of Crime’, but he uses this term differently from Gottfredson and Hirschi. Sherman makes no claim that his theory alone could explain deviance. However, he assumes that it can be applied to any form of deviance.

If defiance occurs in response to punishment, this may lead to further and more severe acts being committed, with future acts directed against the sanctioning group and explained by a proud, shameless reaction to punishment. Defiance is therefore a state of angry pride.

Defiance is caused by the following factors:

  • A sanction is perceived as unfair.
  • The type of punishment is perceived as unfair. This can happen if the punishment is perceived as arbitrary, discriminatory or excessive, or if the offender has no respect for the punisher.
  • The perpetrator is not integrated into or even alienated from the community.
  • If bonds to the community and in particular to the sanctioning authorities are weak, the willingness to recognise the sanctions also decreases. (At this point, Sherman’s theory corresponds with Braithwaites’ Theory of Reintegrative Shaming.)
  • The punishment has a stigmatizing effect.
  • When the perpetrator feels rejected as a person.
  • Shame is not recognized.
  • When weakness is perceived in the punisher or for other reasons the shame normally caused by the sanction is rejected.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Sherman’s defiance theory is extremely well integrated. This means that it takes into account the findings of other theories and includes elements from various other theories. In particular, it is a continuation of John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

Sherman himself extensively criticized, refined, and expanded his own theory in 1993. He particularly emphasized that defiance can lead to an interaction between police and perpetrators. Police officers, judges and other sanctioning actors themselves react harder when they perceive defiance in their counterparts. If someone appears insightful and respectful, he is more likely to be met with clemency than if someone obviously rejects the punishment. The same processes take place in courts when judging. A judge will impose a harsher punishment if he/ she perceives a defendant as being unreasonable. Someone who perceives that he/ she will receive harsher punishments than other people who have committed the same crime will in turn perceive this punishment as unfair, leading to further defiance. This can create a vicious circle.

Sherman also criticized his original theory for using the term ‘defiance’ with two different meanings. On the one hand, it stands for the emotion of injured pride, from which further crimes are committed. On the other hand, it is also used for the criminal acts themselves. This implies that whenever the emotion defiance occurs, other crimes follow.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Sherman and Braithwaite: Restorative Justice

Sherman and Braitwaite’s recognition that sanctions can both inhibit and reinforce criminal behaviour has clear implications for the design of an ‘ideal’ judicial system.

Sherman and Braithwaite are both advocates of restorative justice. This refers to forms of alternative conflict resolution that respond better to the needs of the individual participants than traditional criminal proceedings. Restorative Justice’ wants to impose more than just a one-sided punishment for a misdemeanour. Instead, a healing process should take place in which the needs of all those involved are heard. In addition, ‘Restorative Justice’ attaches particular importance to respect and communication between all participants, so that stigmatisation or disintegrative shaming can be avoided. This should be replaced by communication between all participants, in which both perpetrators and victims have the chance to explain themselves.

But Braithwaite’s and Sherman’s theories also provide many clues within the classical judicial systems on how to deal more effectively with (potential) perpetrators. It is important to avoid arbitrariness, humiliation and stigmatization, e.g. by the police or the courts.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Sherman, Lawrence H. (1993) Deviance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory of Criminal Sanctions. In: Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), S. 445-473.

Secondary Literature

Weiterführende Informationen

Deterrence theories

Deterrence theories argue that the punishment of crimes results in both actual and potential perpetrators avoiding crime in the future.

Main Proponents

Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, Franz von Liszt, Jack P. Gibbs, Alex Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Stephan Tibbetts, M.C. Stafford, M. Warr, etc.

Theory

A so-called skull beam is an example of deterrence theory in practice.
A so-called skull beam: In the 15th/16th century the heads of executed pirates were nailed to a beam as a deterrent and exhibited in public.
Quelle: Von Bullenwächter – Eigenes Werk, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20898787

Deterrence theories are based on the classical and neoclassical assumptions of a free and rationally thinking individual who strives for utilitarian principles of pleasure gain and pain avoidance (or rational principles of choice maximization and cost reduction). If criminal actions accommodate this aspiration (i.e. if crime can increase one’s own desire), it makes sense to choose them. However, if the offence is punishable, it is likely that the expected costs will outweigh the expected benefits. It is also decisive with what probability and with what delay the sanction is actually enforced on the criminal act.

The deterrence hypothesis states that people can be deterred from criminal acts if threatened punishments follow the delinquent act with certainty and without delay and are so severe or so harsh that the expected pain (cost) from the punishment is greater than the expected pleasure (benefit) from the criminal act. A distinction must be made between macro-general deterrence (corresponds to negative general prevention in German criminal law) and micro-specific deterrence (corresponds to negative special prevention in German criminal law):

  • The former causes the general public, i.e. potential perpetrators, to refrain from criminal acts. Making the sanction visible to the public is therefore extremely important so that the general public also knows what consequences would follow a criminal act and therefore refrains from delinquent behaviour.
  • Micro-Specific deterrence, however, refers to the effect of the sanction on the punished person, who is now deterred from further criminal acts out of fear of further punishment. The German scholar von Liszt envisages this form of punishment for the so-called casual criminal, who must be given a lesson to show him the boundary between conformity and crime for the future.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Obviously, in the opinion of deterrence theorists, there is a demand to always react to crime and possibly without time delay, so that it becomes irrational to act criminally.
It should be noted, however, that it is not the actual punishments that act as a deterrent, but the perceived deterrence, which is influenced by the sanctions actually imposed and their media coverage.
In addition, deterrence theories do not only refer to criminal sanctions, but are also reflected in other policy preventive concepts such as video surveillance and personal checks. The focus here is less on anticipating a harsh punishment than on the increased risk of discovery, which is part of situational crime prevention.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The deterrent effect of sanctions has been discussed in criminal policy for many years. In the USA, where deterrence theories are widely supported, the death penalty is a comparatively extreme form of deterrence. It is questionable whether the implementation of criminal executions is actually based on the idea of deterrence, or whether concepts such as ‘just deserts’, ‘retribution’ or ‘incapacitation’ provide the actual justification.
Even the assumption that the imposition of death sentences has a deterrent effect has been widely studied and empirically disproved in recent years. However, there are also studies that prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
On the whole, however, it seems extremely doubtful whether the deterrence theories can be upheld. In the case of video surveillance, there is also an increasing number of voices denying the deterrent effect of cameras and speaking of a spatial shift in crime combined with a reduction in subjective fear of crime. In any case, a rational decision for or against committing a crime requires a rational actor. It therefore seems unlikely that an emotionally aroused – possibly alcoholized – perpetrator would consider the long-term consequences of his action at the time of the crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

 

Further Information

Techniques of neutralization (Sykes und Matza)

Techniques of neutralization explain how offenders rationalized or justified their behaviour.

Main proponent

Gresham M. Sykes und David Matza

Theory

A special case within the learning approaches is Sykes’ and Matza’s thesis of techniques of neutralization. The focus here is on the learned justifications of the criminal for his already committed offence. Deviators therefore look for loopholes and explanations to justify or neutralize their own deviant action. Sykes and Matza distinguish between five types:

  1. Denial of responsibility: The perpetrator perceives himself as a victim of unfavourable social conditions or circumstances. Not he himself, but others are responsible for his actions.
  2. Denial of injury: The offender trivializes or plays down his actions; does not recognize it as immoral.
  3. Denial of the victim: The offender believes that the victim deserved the crime committed against him (e.g. because of ethnic background or sexual orientation).
  4. Condemnation of the condemners: The perpetrator accuses the police and other state controls of being corrupt, flawed, selfish and unjust.
  5. Appeal to higher loyalties: The offender claims to have acted in the interest of others or on the basis of orders or peer pressure, but not according to his own will.

The techniques of neutralization therefore do not represent an actual theory of crime, but rather describe the rationalizing behaviour of the offender after the crime has been committed.

Contrary to subcultural theories, the Sykes and Matza assume an internalization of common social norms. These are merely changed, weakened or distorted in the course of the techniques of neutralisation that follow the deed.

The cause of deviant behaviour is therefore not a gradual deviation in the acceptance of norms (as subcultural theories argue), but the high flexibility of the system of norms, which paradoxically allows the prevailing norms to be internalised but at the same time to be violated.

Implications for Criminal Policy

The neutralization thesis does not include any concrete political demands by the authors. However, each of the five techniques implies different criminal policy thought-provoking impulses.

Thus, the denial of responsibility can be understood as a call for better social policy, since the perpetrator, in an environment no longer perceived negatively and unfairly, can only hold himself responsible for his own misconduct.

The denial of injury implies too weak or, at least in certain areas, insufficient internalisation of norms, which can lead to a demand for more moral and value education by parents or school institutions. In certain cases, there is also a need for adequate clarification of the applicable law in cases of unawareness or too vague a conception of the law.

The denial of the victim, however, reveals a connection to meanwhile established concepts such as victim-offender mediation or restorative justice. In these concepts, the victim’s suffering is obviously brought closer to the perpetrator, thus making it more difficult to reject the victim and to embellish the crime.

A condemnation of the condemners is to be fought by open and comprehensible procedural justice. In addition, the demand for a paradigm shift, which was later substantiated by the labelling approach, is already recognizable here: Not only the perpetrator, but also the judging instances should be the subject of scientific research, since they too can be criminal or at least flawed.

Finally, the appeal to higher instances conceals a general criticism of hierarchical structures in which ordered behaviour is carried out uncritically and thus criminal behaviour can also occur without the perpetrator’s own motive. Particularly within the military and in states of war, individuals are often forced to choose between orders that may deviate from peace-oriented norms and refusals of orders, which can, however, have legal consequences.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

The neutralization thesis has a unique status in criminology, often difficult among crime theories. On the surface, it only describes the behaviour of the perpetrator following a criminal act. Thus it seems doubtful whether it really addresses the causes of crime. An explanation of criminal behaviour is certainly less to be found in the neutralisation techniques themselves than in the implicit assumption of a flexible interpretation of norms. If one assumes that one or more of the justifications were formed before the crime and thus functioned as a kind of motive, the neutralization thesis could be presented as an etiological theory of crime in which cognitive overcoming of inner inhibitions and internalized moral concepts are causes of crime.

Empirically, it was never possible to determine exactly when the rationalizations came into being. Thus it cannot be ruled out that the techniques of neutralization will only be developed after the crime has been committed. However, a certain etiological explanation of deviating behaviour is retained to the extent that the successful rejection of one’s own guilt can reinforce future criminal action.

Sykes and Matza, however, have little concrete explanation as to when and how exactly which neutralization technique is applied and how strong or how weak the internalization of the existing norms must be, so that the perpetrator still accepts them per se, but is at the same time in a position to violate them.

In some cases, such as political extremists, it is also extremely questionable whether any society-wide norms have been internalised. If this is not the case, deviating behaviour does not have to be neutralised.

Despite all these objections, the neutralization thesis is regularly received. The five techniques mentioned appear as an almost placeless and timeless concept, the justifications can still be applied to a whole range of crimes (war crimes, white-collar crime, lower class crime, sexual violence, murder, etc.). In addition, various studies show that changing or eliminating such justification techniques actually leads to a reduction in crime. It can thus be said that the Sykes and Matzas thesis is almost uniquely topical and important.

Literature

  • Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza: (1958): Techniques of Neutralization: A theory of Delinquency. In: American Sociological Review, 22, S.664-670.

 

Weiterführende Informationen

Theory of differential opportunity (Cloward & Ohlin)

The theory of differential opportunities combines learning, subculture, anomie and social disorganization theories and expands them to include the recognition that for criminal behaviour there must also be access to illegitimate means.

Main proponent

Richard A. Cloward und Lloyd E. Ohlin

Theorie

Cloward & Ohlin’s theory of differential opportunities represents a link between learning, subculture, anomie and social desorganisation theories.

On the one hand, the approach is based on Sutherland, starting from the assumption that criminal motives, techniques and rationalizations are learned through criminal associations. On the other hand, Cloward and Ohlin share with Merton and Cohen the notion that deviant behaviour is a consequence of the stratum-specific pressure to adapt, or more precisely of blocked access to legitimate means, and that this adaptation (according to Cohen) typically takes place collectively through interaction processes in groups.

Cloward and Ohlin see the answer, which is why not all persons suffering from adaptation problems become criminals, in the fact that access to illegitimate means can also be blocked for criminal action – the opportunities differentiate. For example, drug trafficking is more difficult to access in some parts of the city than in others. A person who intends to become a drug dealer not only requires drug suppliers, but also a customer base and a street corner where he can sell his drugs. Access to these means, however, is not open to everyone. It requires relationships with experienced people who are willing to share their knowledge and professional network.

The opportunity to break into cars also depends on the social situation of the environment, the car owner and the presence of possible accomplices. Socially disorganized neighbourhoods thus, according to Shaw and McKay’s theory, offer more access to criminal behaviour than others.

However, the theory of differential opportunities can also be applied within subcultural structures. So it seems obvious that delinquent gangs can only commit crimes if they have the means to do so.

At both the macro-social and subcultural levels, after Cloward and Ohlin, it can now happen that an individual has neither legitimate nor illegitimate means at his disposal. Since in such a case neither the legitimate nor illegitimate means are available to an individual, the authors speak of double failures.

According to Cloward and Ohlin, members of subcultures in such a dilemma react with random violence and intensified territorial expansion.

Altogether it can be said that Cloward and Ohlin aim more at the crime opportunity and less at the motivation for the crime. Crime is only possible if society, certain neighbourhoods, or delinquent subcultures provide illegitimate means. A certain kinship cannot be ignored with routine activity approach where, for example, the presence of an alarm system prevents the opportunity to commit a crime.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Just like the theory itself, the political demands and conclusions are a mixture of different approaches.

According to the theory of differential opportunities, rehabilitation is achievable by learning to conform to behaviour, good social policy, moral education, the resolution of problematic neighbourhoods, but also, to a certain extent, deterrence and situational crime prevention.

Above all, Cloward and Ohlin demand more education and improvement of the economic conditions for the US underclass in order to enable cultural and financial success for all members of society. This includes the establishment of social and political structures within vulnerable or socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Cloward’s and Ohlin’s theory shares some strengths as well as some weaknesses of their related theories, which, however, are partly resolved by their combination.

What remains in any case is the criticism that not every offence needs specific opportunities or certain illegitimate means to be executed. Pure violence or kleptomaniac behaviour is obviously always and everywhere possible. The basic assumption of Cloward and Ohlin that criminal acts are in principle always reactions to status and adaptation problems is and remains debatable. Merton, Cohen and others have already been accused of this narrow view.

Nevertheless, the theory of differential opportunities succeeds in making clear the illegitimate means necessary for most crimes. This underlines situational elements in the criminological discussion on the one hand, and on the other hand plays with the idea of whether everyone would not end up acting criminally if they had the necessary access to it.

Literature

  • Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. New York: The Free Press..

Further information

Social learning theory (Akers)

The theory of social learning states that criminal behaviour is learned when the positive consequences of deviant behaviour are more powerful than the positive consequences of normative behaviour (operant conditioning).

Main proponent

Ronald L. Akers und Robert L. Burgess

Theory

Referring to Sutherland’s theory of differential associations, Aker’s theory of social learning poses the question of how criminal behaviour is learned.

The answer to this question is, on the one hand, the consideration of the Bandura principle of social learning, but above all the assumption that criminal behaviour is learned through the principle of operant conditioning.

Accordingly, the learning of criminal behaviour is dependent on whether it is differentially amplified – i.e. whether a deviant behaviour is positively stimulated or negatively stimulated – or whether it is punished or conformal behaviour is amplified more than criminal behaviour.

The decisive factors are therefore above all what reinforcing consequences are available for deviant behaviour, how effective they are, how intensively and frequently they occur, and how likely it is that they actually follow the behaviour shown.

Aker’s theory was therefore referred to in its first publication (together with Burgess) as the theory of differential amplification. The name change, however, makes it clear that Aker later considered the principle of model learning in addition to the concept of operant conditioning. Accordingly, the observation of the actions of others and their consequences can also lead to a strengthening of one’s own behaviour: The reward of an observing person for their behaviour has a strengthening effect in that the observed behaviour is now carried out by the person.

Thus, a direct social interaction process (in contrast to Sutherland’s theory) is not absolutely necessary here, since non-social situations (e.g. via the media) can also have an amplifying effect. However, Akers agrees with Sutherland in so far as criminal behaviour shown for the first time (whether it is subsequently intensified or not) mostly arises through contact with a criminal environment.

In summary, it can be said that Aker’s theory of social learning takes Sutherland’s basic idea as its starting point, expands it to include the idea of social learning, and finally explains the process of learning criminal behaviour through the principle of operant conditioning.

In this way, despite some similarities, it differs fundamentally from Sutherland’s theory of differential association: contact with criminal persons is not the cause of crime, but the reinforcement/reward of deviant behaviour.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Aker’s theory of social learning initially implies the same criminal policy implications as the theory of differential associations, but there are two crucial aspects that behavioural therapy attempts to address through concepts such as the token economy:

First, criminal actions must have such negative consequences that they outweigh the positive consequences. Conversely, conforming actions must be rewarded in such a way that their negative consequences recede into the background. Criminal policy must therefore prevent both the reinforcement of criminal behaviour and the punishment of compliant behaviour as well as support the punishment of criminal behaviour and the rewarding of compliant behaviour. A political kinship with rational choice theory cannot be overlooked here.

Secondly, the influence of the mass media on individual behaviour must be taken into account. Theories such as Akers’ thus lay the theoretical foundations for the ongoing discussions about the effects of violent ego-shooter games or violent movies.

What remains decisive, however, is the fact that according to Burgess and Akers, the mere observation of a behaviour does not lead to its imitation (as argued by Gabriel Tarde). Rather, the behaviour and its positive consequences must be observed.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Akers succeeds in theoretically integrating the processes and mechanisms of social learning that were missing in Sutherland’s concept of differential association theory, but even he cannot resolve the fundamental objections to the approach of learning theory (partially tautologous, individually different ability to learn, non-consideration of affect crimes).

Thus, the theoretical advancement through the consideration of the principles of social learning and operant conditioning is to be appreciated. However, Akers also fails in his attempt to present a pure learning theory as a general theory of crime.

Literature

Primary Literature

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Burgess, Robert L. (1966). A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. In: Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1977). Deviant behavior: a social learning approach. Belmont, CA.
  • Akers, Ronald L. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern Uniniversity Press.

Further information

  • Akers, Ronald L.; Sellers, Christine (2004): Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th. ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
  • Bandura, Albert (1963). Social learning and personal development. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  • Bandura, Albert (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
  • Beirne, Piers (1987). Between classicism and positivism: crime and penalty in the writing of Gabriel Tarde. In: Criminology, 25(4), 785-819.

Video