Download Running head: SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY SOCIAL LEARNING

Running head: SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Kelsey Outlaw
Social Learning Theory
CJ 305: Criminal Behavior
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
2
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory originated with Ronald L. Akers and Robert Burgess. This is
where sociology and psychological behaviorism combine. Human responses are often made
mindlessly. We learn things without knowing simply by interaction with the environment. As far
as the individual, we can focus on symbolic interactionism. This describes the fact that humans
not only are influenced by their surroundings and encounters with others but they are also
influencing others as well. Both of these principles are used in Sutherland’s differential
association theory. Seeming as if the puzzle had found the pieces, the three theorists conversed
and put their work together in order to attempt an explanation of crime. (Sellers & Winfree)
According to Sellers and Winfree, social learning theory cannot be described in one
simple explanation. It’s a mixture of differential association and behavioral learning theories, all
which state that behavior is learned. Behavior is influenced by the people we surround ourselves
with, our environment, our interactions, etc. Criminals typically hangout with criminals and
noncriminals hangout with noncriminals. (Sellers &Winfree) Social learning theory is revolved
around the idea that actions, following the law or not, and reactions are learned through
experience or observation. The most powerful influence of learning is observing and watching
how others act. (Anderson & Kras, 2007)
Bandura dug deeper into the social learning theory studying ideas regarding the cognitive
learning approach. These focused in the sense that behavior patterns were stemmed from the
mind. This could’ve included operant conditioning, differential reinforcement, and
discriminative stimuli. By examining social interactions, people, and environments, Bandura felt
as if violence could be prevented more often and better controlled. (Anderson & Kras, 2007)
When exposure to people with patterns in criminal behavior is more than people with patterns
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
3
that abide the law, criminal behavior is likely to be learned. Akers added imitation, anticipated
reinforcement, and self reinforcement into this mix. All of these approaches show different ways
in which the interaction of humans leads to deviant behavior. (Sellers & Winfree)
Everyone is constantly observing and the individuals being observed are the models.
Models are everywhere and work around the clock whether it’s realized or not. These could be
parents, teachers, peers, friends, etc. Models will illustrate behavior that can be observed and
imitated. (Anderson & Kras, 2007) Certain stimuli might grab someone’s attention more than
others just like certain behaviors might have a greater influence on someone that might not affect
someone else at all. There are many factors that can change or address behaviors. There’s
reinforcement and punishment, both of which can be positive or negative, social or nonsocial.
Each of these ultimately should lead to a change in behavior if used correctly. For example, if a
child is given candy for cleaning their room, they will then want to clean their room more often
because they will associate getting a piece of candy with cleaning their room. This would be an
example of positive reinforcement.
Another key concept in social learning theory is definitions. This can include approving,
disapproving, and neutralizing beliefs of others that will lead to one’s own definitions. It’s show
humans how they are expected to behave. If an individual is exposed to definitions where
criminal behavior is common and not seen as bad, they are likely to engage in it and accept those
same definitions. Same goes for individuals exposed to cultures who abide the law, they are
likely to accept definitions abiding the law. (Sellers & Winfree)
Differential association is the main key concept in social learning theory due to the fact
that it ties it all together. It’s dominated for decades due to the fact it can give an explanation to
individual criminality according to Matsueda. Differential association theory is broken down into
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
4
nine propositions which introduced three concepts—normative conflict, differential association,
and differential group organization—that explain crime at the levels of the society, the
individual, and the group. (Matsueda) The nine propositions are as follows:
1. Criminal behavior is learned. It is not inherited.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others in a process of communication or
social interaction.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal
groups such as family, friends, peers, etc. Interpersonal communication is less significant
in deviant behavior.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes:
a. Techniques of committing the crime—can be easy or hard
b. Specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of legal codes as favorable
or unfavorable. Basically if someone associates with someone who sees violating the law
as normal, that individual is likely to violate those laws.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of
law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all of the processes that are involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained
by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same
needs and values. (Swartz)
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
5
According to Matsueda, crime always leads back to normative conflict. (1988) Normative
conflict will occur when society is separated into groups that conflict over norms, values, and
interests. Everyone has different views of what they think is a law based upon your culture,
where you’re from, your history, etc. One person might stop fully at every stop sign, while
another might tap their breaks and view that as stopping. Due to these conditions, rates of crime
are higher. (Matsueda, 1988)
Research has showed us that in differential association, we are able to test the specific
hypothesis, propositions, or empirical implications of the theory. Over time more and more
studies have been done leading to more connections. Survey instruments were used to measure
someone’s learned definition of law violation. Self-report surveys were more common for
adolescents and young adults. One problem with surveys is that they can be unreliable.
Researchers have also addressed the response errors in measures of definitions of crime, dynamic
processes inherent in the theory, and offense specific models. One study was done to explain the
use of marijuana. As they predicted, the study revealed that you’re more likely to smoke
marijuana if the the definitions approve and you have a number of friends of smoke as well.
In order to explain the influence on delinquency of age, broken homes, socioeconomic
status, neighborhood trouble, and parental and peer processes, Matsueda looked at the process of
which an individual learned definitions favorable and unfavorable to delinquency. This study
involves cross-sectional data in order to look at an inherently dynamic theory. Matsueda also
discovered that definitions of delinquency mediated effects of parent and peer attachment on
delinquent behavior. (1988) This can be explained by if a child witnessed any type of violence
during their younger years, it can lead to criminal behavior in the future. They don’t have to
physically engage in violence, they can see it, hear it, or even see what it does to the people
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
6
surrounding them. Empirical research has also found support for the hypothesis that
reinforcement is very useful. This could be seen in a child abuse case in which if a child is
abused then they are more likely the engage in abusing in their future. They might witness their
parent get what they want from the child abuse and therefore they have learned that in order to
get what they want, they must abuse. (Anderson & Kras, 2007) Imitation and rewards seemed to
be very prominent in attempting to explain criminal behavior.
Today there are a number of ways that differential association is used in the real world.
As I mentioned before with child abuse, this can also stand for any type of domestic violence.
Research has proven that children typically follow the behavior and patterns of those closest with
them. This is usually their parents and close friends. If they display violent behavior or use
violence on the children, it is very likely that the children will use violent behavior in the future.
(Anderson & Kras, 2007) Another example can be seen in bullying. As we could’ve guessed,
juveniles who hang around bullies or examine bullying are more likely to reciprocate those acts.
If people have a positive attitude towards bullying, then it will influence their peers to do the
same. Moon, Hwang, and McCluskey stated that bullying is more dominant in group settings
rather than when it’s just an individual alone. (2011)
Social learning is also used in many ways in today’s world. A very successful program
developed by the Oregon Social Learning Center called the Adolescent Transition Programs
aides families in getting on the right track. They may do this by improving their communication,
their attitudes, their interactions with others, their self control, etc. This program is for children
who have been a part of serious criminal behavior and their goal is to turn their life around while
they are still young. The idea is to get the parents involved in order to show a positive influence
as they have already developed some of these skills. In order to succeed, they used positive
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
7
reinforcement, and are very strict in making sure the children do what they are supposed to. They
go to school and therapy to help guide them into being social in positive ways. (Sellers &
Winfree)
Social learning theory and differential association theory has been used for years and
years in order to give an explanation of deviance and criminal behavior. Empirical studies still
exist and are going on constantly around us. Researchers have linked these theories to prevent
and control crime better than before. This is one of the most powerful theories in attempting to
get inside the criminal mind.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
8
References
Anderson, J. & Kras, K. (2007). Revisiting Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory to Better
Understand and Assist Victims of Intimate Personal Violence, Women & Criminal
Justice, 17:1, 99-124
Matsueda, R. (1988). The Current State of Differential Association Theory. Crime &
Delinquency, 277-306.
Matsueda, R. (n.d.). Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential
Social Organization. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory.
Moon, B., Hwang, H., & Mccluskey, J. (2008). Causes of School Bullying: Empirical Test of a
General Theory of Crime, Differential Association Theory, and General Strain Theory.
Crime & Delinquency, 849-877.
Sellers, C., & Winfree, L. (n.d.). Akers, Ronald L.: Social Learning Theory. Encyclopedia of
Criminological Theory.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
9