SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY OF CRIME
Introduction
Certain areas of a city are considered to be “crime ridden.” The people that live there are thought to be dangerous, often hassled by the police, and it is not an area where the “normal” citizen goes. It is assumed that there is the distinct possibility of violence, drugs, and theft commonly being perpetrated throughout. It is interesting that there are particular families, neighborhoods, communities, that have a much greater incidence of crime. This makes more work for the police and all social agencies who have to spend more time and money in this particular area of the city.
The social learning theory of crime basically argues that some people learn how to commit crimes through the process by which other people learn to conform to the laws. This theory assumes that people are just open minded at birth, and do not have any motivation to commit crime nor to conform to the laws. Social learning theory is rooted in the work of the Chicago School theorists of the early twentieth century. At the individual level, social learning theory drawson the idea that all human behavior can be understood interms of the way that individuals communicate through social symbols. 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. This could be family, peers, neighborhood people, gang-members, and more. As a consequence, they come to view crime as something that is desirable or at least justified.
Background:
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.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 rime is when other teach crime through reinforcement and punishments for certain behavior. Crime is more likely to be committed when it is either constantly reinforced or punished. Reinforcements can be positive or negative. In other worlds the results could be good or something bad. If ridiculed for not stealing something, the person will then often give in and steal.
Another mechanism is beliefs which are favorable to crime. Most people grow up believing crime is bad, but some learn beliefs that crime is all right in many circumstances. That taking drugs might be illegal, technically, but there is nothing really wrong with it, for instance. Few people believe serious crime is all right, but the question is—what does a person believe is serious crime? Robbing your grandmother might be bad, but robbing a big department store does not matter.
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.
The third mechanism is called modeling. It is watching, taking in, and then imitating the behavior people around them, especially the people they like or respect. Imitating others will result in reinforcement of the illegal behaior. People are more likely to follow others’ behavior if they have a first-hand observation.
Social learning theory has much support and is perhaps the main theory of crime today. Information indicates that whoever people associate with have a large impact on whether or they become criminals, and that this impact is partly explained by the effect these people have on one's beliefs regarding crime, the reinforcements and punishments one receives, and the models one is exposed to.
The answer to the problem has to start with the family and the way children are brought up and where. There must be strict controls of allowing children in bars, out late at night, even with parents, and within areas where crimes are common. It is at the very heart of the social learning theory. These restrictions should go up through the teen years. Almost every city and town has a curfew but it is not enforced. People are commonly arrested in homes where children are exposed to guns or drugs, yet we, as a community, as a country, routinely allow children to sit on porches, run the streets and live in areas that is drowning in drugs and crime. Until this is changed, the social learning theory is going to continue to be the main working theory of crime.
Literature review:
Certain areas of a city are considered to be “crime ridden.” The people that live there are thought to be dangerous, often hassled by the police, and it is not an area where the “normal” citizen goes. It is assumed that there are the distinct possibilities of violence, drugs, and theft commonly being perpetrated throughout the neighborhood. It is interesting that there are particular families, neighborhoods, communities, that have a much greater incidence of crime. This makes more work for the police and all social agencies who have to spend more time and money in this particular area of the city.
The social learning theory of crime argues that some people learn how to commit crimes through the process by which other people learn to conform to the laws. This theory assumes that people are just open minded at birth, and do not have any motivation to commit crime nor to conform to the laws. Social learning theory originated with the work of the Chicago School theorists of the early 1900’s. At the individual level, social learning theory draws on the idea that all human behavior can be categorized in terms of the way that individuals communicate through social symbols. People early on make the decision to turn to crime, mostly through their friendship or other relationships to others. They are motivated to do crime, they learn notions that are favorable to crime, and they regularly witness criminal models. This could be family, peers, neighborhood people, gang-members, and more. As a result, they come to view crime as something that is desirable or at least justified. The paradigm studies of social learning theory in criminology is attributed to Ronald Akers and the text below draws from his work, as well as that from Albert Bandura. Akers's theory represents an elaboration of Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory. A great deal of social learning theory consists of a description of the three mechanisms by which individuals learn to turn to crime from these others: differential reinforcement, beliefs, and modeling.
Differential reinforcement of crime is when other teach crime through reinforcement and punishments for certain behavior. Crime is more likely to be committed when it is either constantly reinforced or punished. Reinforcements can be positive or negative. In other words the results could be beneficial or something terrible. If ridiculed for not stealing something, the person will then often give in and steal.
Another mechanism is beliefs which are favorable to crime. Most people grow up believing crime is unacceptable, but some learn beliefs that crime is all right in many circumstances. Some might believe, for instance, that taking drugs might be illegal, technically, but there is nothing really wrong with it. Few people believe serious crime is all right, but the question is—what does a person believe is a serious crime? Robbing your grandmother might be harmful, but robbing a large department store does not matter.
The third and most prominent mechanism is modeling. Albert Bandura was a researcher in this area who believed that aggression which was learned in the family commonly with young people and children. He believed that children imitated their parents exactly how any violence or aggression was witnessed. (Bandura, 1976) He believed the way to stem this aggression was way back when children were young they should be tested and diagnosed so that this aggressive attitude could be treated. (Bandura, 1976). This has been observed in the ‘real world” in that children who are abused, often become abusers.
Bandura is well known for his “Bobo doll” experiment. He wrote that aggression must be considered in three different ways: 1) how that behavior was developed; 2) what makes people behave with aggression; and 3) what decides whether they will continue to act this way. For his experiment, he had a big plastic inflatable clown doll called the Bobo doll. He had children watch a video of a model beating up the doll. The model “pummels it on the head with a mallet, hurls it down, sits on it and punches it on the nose repeatedly, kick it across the room, flings it in the air, and bombards it with balls…” (Bandura) The children were then put in a room with toys there were not supposed to touch. Next they were led to the room with more toys and the Bobo doll. Eighty-eight per cent of the children beat up the Bobo doll. When re-tested, eight months later, 40% of the same children beat up the doll again.
Observational learning is another term for modeling, but plays out a bit differently. Learning occurs when an individual sees and imitates other people and their behavior. In observational learning, four parts must be present: attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation.
Attention is the perception and attention to the important features of the behavior For instance, if the individual does not see or pay attention to someone else that is being aggressive, they will not reproduce the same actions. Retention is next. After the observation, the observer must remember this behavior in order to be retained and later repeated. This is an important process that must happen in order to code and later get back that information. The next process is motor reproduction. The observer learns and actually copies the modeled behavior. A very good example of this motor reproduction is playing tennis or playing a video game. The last process of observational learning is the motivational part. The observer and potential actor needs some sort of positive reinforcement for the modeled behavior.
Another influence of social learning of aggression and violence is environmental. People who are exposed to an entire environment of high crime and violent actions are more likely to be violent than people who are rarely exposed to this same behavior. (Bandura, 1976). Another term for this is social disorganization.
Social learning theory has much support and is perhaps the main theory of crime today. Information indicates that whoever people associate with have a large impact on whether or they become criminals, and that this impact is partly explained by the effect these people have on one’s beliefs regarding crime, the reinforcements and punishments one receives, and the models to which one is exposed.
The answer to the problem has to start with the family and the way children are brought up and where. There must be strict controls of allowing children in bars, out late at night, even with parents, and within areas where crimes are common. It is at the very heart of the social learning theory. These restrictions should go up through the teen years. Almost every city and town has a curfew but it is not enforced. People are commonly arrested in homes where children are exposed to guns or drugs, yet we, as a community, as a country, routinely allow children to sit on porches, run the streets and live in areas that are drowning in drugs and crime. Until this is changed, the social learning theory is going to continue to be the main working theory of crime.
References
Akers, Ronald L. (1973). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Inc.
Akers, Ronald L. (1994). “A Social Learning Theory of Crime.”Cullen, Francis T. and Robert Agnew. (1999). Criminological Theory: Past to Present. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Akers, Ronald L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Burgess, Robert and Ronald L. Akers.(1966). “A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior.”Social Problems, 14: 363-383.
Livingston, Jay. (1996). Crime and Criminology, 2nd ed. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mihalic, Sharon Wofford and Delbert Elliot.(1997). “A Social Learning Theory Model of Marital Violence.”Journal of Family Violence, 12(1).
Sutherland, Edwin. (1947). Principles of Criminology, 4thed. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Akers, Ronald L. (1973). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
Akers, Ronald L. (1994). “A Social Learning Theory of Crime.”Cullen, Francis T. and Robert Agnew. (1999). Criminological Theory: Past to Present.Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Akers, Ronald L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Bandura, Albert (1976) Analysis of Delinquency and Aggression. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, INC: New Jersey.
Burgess, Robert and Ronald L. Akers.(1966). “A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior.”Social Problems,14: 363-383.
Livingston, Jay. (1996). Crime and Criminology, 2nd ed. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mihalic, Sharon Wofford and Delbert Elliot.(1997). “A Social Learning Theory Model of Marital Violence.”Journal of Family Violence,12(1).
Sutherland, Edwin. (1947). Principles of Criminology, 4thed. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.