Process Theory Continued

1. Process Theory Continued Review Labeling Theory Social Support Theory

2. Review • Process Theories • Differential Association/Social Learning • Theories (Sutherland, Akers) • Evidence • Policy Implications • Informal Social Control Theories • Types of control • Theories (Hirschi, Gottfreodson and Hirschi, Sampson and Laub) • Evidence • Policy Implications

3. Connections/Organization

4. Gottfredson and Hirschi

5. Sampson and Laub • Extension of Hirschi’s social bond theory • Age graded • Adult social bonds • Quality Marriage • Quality Job • Why matter!

6. Sampson and Laub Childhood Adolescence Adulthood • Parenting • Supervision • Discipline • Social Bonds • Family • School • Delinquent Peers Context Delinquency Adult Crime Individual Differences Length of Incarceration • Social Bonds • Marriage • Good Job

7. Control vs. Learning • A product of sociological criminology (Hirschi) • The distinction is based on assumptions about human nature: What is the nature of human beings in… • Social Learning Theory? • Social Control/Deterrence Theory? • Strain/Anomie Theory? • Distinctions are not really important in psychology • Operant conditioning, vicarious learning, cognitive psychology are all grounded in “principles of learning”

8. Labeling Theory ▪ Developed by Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, and Howard Becker ▪ Key concepts ▪ Emphasis is on interactions between individuals and institutions of formal control (e.g., police, courts, prisons). ▪ Contact with police and the courts may create negative self-image. ▪ Formal interventions may increase criminal behavior.

9. Roots of the Labeling Perspective(1 of 3) ▪ View of crime and deviance as relative ▪ No act is inherently evil, bad, or criminal. ▪ Deviant categorization depends on many factors ▪ When/where the act is committed ▪ Who the offender is ▪ Who the victim is ▪ What the consequences are

10. Roots of the Labeling Perspective (2 of 3) ▪ Focus on how power and conflict shape society (social context) ▪ Moral entrepreneurs ▪ Powerful groups define and react to deviant behavior ▪ Benefits powerful, can hurt the less powerful ▪ Criminal justice system: agents enforce the law in the interest of powerful groups

11. Roots of the Labeling Perspective (3 of 3) ▪ Importance of self-concept ▪ Symbolic interactionism ▪ People communicate through symbols. ▪ People interpret symbolic gestures and incorporate them into their self-image. ▪ “Looking-glass self” ▪ Developed by Charles Horton Cooley ▪ One’s own self-concepts are the product of other people’s conceptions or symbolic labels ▪ Self-fulfilling prophesy

13. A Critique of Labeling Theory ▪ Little empirical support ▪ Inaccurate assumptions ▪ Primary deviance as relative, sporadic, and unimportant ▪ Nature of the person predicts official reaction more than the nature of the act ▪ Effect of official sanctions on future behavior ▪ Racial bias does exist…but not sole (or most important) cause of CJ response to crime ▪ Arrest sometimes decreases future crime

14. Policy Implications:Labeling Theory ▪ Policy implications ▪ Schur: “Radical nonintervention” ▪ Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974) ▪ Diversion programs ▪ Divert offenders away from the formal juvenile justice processing to programs run by other entities (i.e., social service programs) • Deinstitutionalization (esp. status offenders) • Due Process revolution in Juvenile Court

15. Labeling Theory in Context • Labeling theory most popular in 1960s-1970s • The central ideas had been around as early as the 1930s • Good “fit” for the social context of 1960s • Ironic Twist • Government, trying to do good, actually makes people worse • Good fit with the “can’t trust the government” social movement era

16. Labeling Theory Extensions I ▪ Lawrence Sherman’s “Defiance” Theory ▪ Police sanctions can ▪ Produce defiance (escalation in offending) ▪ Produce deterrence (decrease in offending) ▪ Be irrelevant ▪ Reintegrative shaming

17. Labeling Extensions II ▪ Reintegrative Shaming • Developed by John Braithewaite ▪ Effect of formal punishment depends upon how a person is punished. ▪ Shaming and reintegrative punishment will decrease future crime. ▪ Stigmatizing punishment will increase future crime.

18. Policy Implication of ReintegrativeShaming ▪ Restorative Justice • Goal of the criminal justice system: to repair the harm created by the offense ▪ Victim central to process ▪ Community volunteers also important • Punishment of offender does little to repair harm (inflicting pain not really “accountability”).

19. Policy Implications: Reintegrated Shaming(2 of 2) ▪ Empirical research ▪ Victim-offender mediation ▪ Restitution ▪ Sentencing circles ▪ Mixed findings ▪ Criticism ▪ Limited (depends on voluntary participation) ▪ Might reduce funding to more effective rehabilitation programs

20. Social Support Theory • Newcomer to the theory world (mid 1990s) • Francis Cullen • Deterrence/control view of human nature is too simplistic • Social Support as “precondition” for effective parenting (control) • Social Support independently important

21. Conclusion ▪ Deviant behavior is the result of individuals interacting with social institutions over time. ▪ Social control theory: inadequate socialization ▪ Differential association/social learning theory: improper socialization ▪ Labeling theory: socialized to accept delinquent identity (interaction with the criminal justice system) ▪ Not well supported by research ▪ Revisions (e.g., informal labeling, reintegrative shaming) more promising

22. Review of Theories to Date • Social Structure • Anomie/Strain • Social Disorganization • Social Process • Learning • Control • Labeling