Social learning theory is a perspective that states that people learn within a social context.

It is
facilitated through concepts such as modeling and observational learning. People, especially children, learn from the environment and seek acceptance from society by learning through influential models. Social learning theory is a perspective that states that social behavior (any type of behavior that we display socially) is learned primarily by observing and imitating the actions of others. The social behavior is also influenced by being rewarded and/or punished for these actions. Social learning theory was derived in an attempt by Robert Sears and other scholars to merge psychoanalytic with stimulus-response learning theory into an inclusive explanation of human behavior. Sears and others drew their conclusions from the clinical richness of psychoanalysis and the rigor of stimulus-response learning. Albert Bandura, conversely, abandoned the psychoanalytic and drive features of the approach. His approach emphasized cognitive and information-processing capabilities that facilitate social behavior. Both theories proposed were envisioned as a general context for the [2] understanding of human behavior, but Banduras theory provided a stronger theoretical beginning.
[1]

Theory
According to Social Learning theory, models are an important source for learning new behaviors and for [3] achieving behavioral change in institutionalized settings. Social learning theory is derived from the work [4] of Albert Bandurawhich proposed that observational learning can occur in relation to three models: Live model in which an actual person is demonstrating the desired behaviour Verbal instruction in which an individual describes the desired behaviour in detail, and instructs the participant in how to engage in the behavior Symbolic

in which modeling occurs by means of the media, including movies, television, Internet, literature, and radio. This type of modeling involves a real or fictional character demonstrating the behaviour. An important factor of Banduras social learning theory is the emphasis on reciprocal determinism. This notion states that an individuals behaviour is influenced by the environment and characteristics of the person. In other words, a persons behaviour, [4] environment, and personal qualities all reciprocally influence each other. Bandura proposed that the modeling process involves several steps:
[4]

1. Attention: In order for an individual to learn something, they must pay attention to the features of the modeled behaviour.

2. Retention: Humans need to be able to remember details of the behaviour in order to learn and later reproduce the behaviour. 3. Reproduction: In reproducing a behavior, an individual must organize his or her responses in accordance with the model behavior. This ability can improve with practice. 4. Motivation: There must be an incentive or motivation driving the individuals reproduction of the behaviour. Even if all of the above factors are present, the person will not engage in the behaviour without motivation. Bandura is known for his 1961-1963 experiments utilizing an inflatable clown known as a Bobo doll in order to test modeling behaviours in children. Children were divided into three groups one of which was exposed to an aggressive adult model, one which was exposed to a passive adult model, and a control group, which was not exposed to an adult model. Adults in the aggressive group were asked to verbally and physically attack the doll, while those in the passive group were asked to play peacefully. Once the children were given the opportunity to play, results showed that those exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to imitate what they had seen, and to behave aggressively toward the doll. It was found that boys were four times more likely than girls to display physical aggression, but levels of verbal aggression were about the same. The results of Banduras studies provided support for the influence of modeling on learning. Further, a later study in 1965 showed that witnessing the model being punished for the aggressive behavior decreased the likelihood [5] that children would imitate the behaviour. Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and behaviourism, and developed a learning theory. In Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954), Rotter suggests that the effect of behaviour has an impact on the motivation of people to engage in that specific behaviour. People wish to avoid negative consequences, while desiring positive results or effects. If one expects a positive outcome from a behaviour, or thinks there is a high probability of a positive outcome, then they will be more likely to engage in that behaviour. The behavior is reinforced, with positive outcomes, leading a person to repeat the behaviour. This social learning theory suggests that behaviour is influenced by these [6] environmental factors or stimuli, and not psychological factors alone. Albert Bandura expanded on Rotter's idea, as well as earlier work by Miller & [8] Dollard, and is related to social learning theories ofVygotsky and Lave. This theory incorporates aspects of behavioral and cognitive learning. Behavioural learning assumes that people's environment (surroundings) cause people to behave in certain ways. Cognitive learning presumes that psychological factors are important for influencing how one behaves. Social learning suggests that a combination of environmental (social) and psychological factors influence behaviour. Social learning theory outlines four requirements for people to learn and model behaviour including attention:retention (remembering what one observed), reproduction (ability to reproduce the behaviour), and motivation (good reason) to want to adopt the behaviour. According to Bandura and Walterss 1963 review on Social Learning Theory, human learning takes place as individuals abstract information from observing behavior of others. The factors of social learning are using symbols and engaging with intentional actions. This is
[7]

proven by the models Bandura used to help build his theory of social learning of attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. Bandura uses these complex behaviors of reciprocal determinism to help illustrate the interactive effect of various factors such as the [9] environment, behavior, and internal events that influence perspectives.

Human development
In human development there are many other factors that go into understanding how social learning theory affects the growth of a child. For instance, children will look up to those of the same gender and imitate their behavior. The role models could be anyone from their parents to their teachers at school, or perhaps, a character on television. By imitating the behavior of this role model the child will learn what is deemed appropriate for society. When the child learns what is approved by his or her peers, the child is likely to adhere to that standard. Children also learn through positive and negative reinforcement. When a child acts a certain way he/she is searching for approval and acceptance of that behavior. If the reinforcement is positive, it is filling a role or desire that the child might have which will lead the child to continue that action. If the child does not receive the approval that he/she is searching for there is change in behavior. Mutual acceptance is necessary for the behavior to be reoccurring. Also the unconditional love from a parent is necessary for the child to learn and develop properly. The parent can't simply withhold love from the child because they didn't behave a certain way. Positive and negative reinforcement is important for child development but the parent cannot withhold love simply because the child did something wrong. Social learning theory plays such a large role in reinforcement because that is the baseline of every action of a child seeking approval from their peers, parents and teachers alike. This theory was further tested by Akers in 1998. He found that drug usage had a direct correlation with peer association, but only if peer interactions were to occur. Concluding that social learning theory affects human development in the way that we interact with our peers [10] and what we do to be socially accepted.

Criminology
In criminology, Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess developed social learning theory to explain deviancy by combining variables which encouraged delinquency (e.g., the social pressure from delinquent peers) with variables that discouraged delinquency (e.g., the [11] parental response to discovering delinquency in their children). The first two stages were used by Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association Theory. Sutherland's model for learning in a social environment depends on the cultural conflict between different factions in a society over who has the power to determine what is deviant. But his ideas were difficult to put into operation and measure quantitatively. Burgess, a

behavioral sociologist, and Akers revised Sutherland's theory and included the idea of reinforcement, which increases or decreases the strength of a behavior, and applied the principles of operant psychology, which holds that behavior is a function of its consequences [12] and can be really bad in some cases Functionalism had been the dominant paradigm but, in the 1960s, there was a shift towards Social Control Theories, conflict criminology, and labeling theories that tried to explain the emerging and more radical social environment. Moreover, people believed that they could observe behavior and see the process of social learning, e.g., parents watched their own children and saw the influence of other children on their own; they could also see what kind of effect they had on their own children, i.e., the processes of differential association and reinforcement. The conservative political parties were advocating an increase in punishment to deter crime. Unlike labeling theory, social learning theory actually supports the use of punishment which translates into longer sentences for those convicted, and helps to explain the increase in the prison population that began in the early 1970s [full citation needed] (Livingston, 1996). Unlike situational crime prevention, the theory ignores the opportunistic nature of crime [full citation needed] (Jeffery, 1990: 2612). To learn one must first observe criminal behavior, but where was this behavior learned? The theory does explain how criminal behavior is "transmitted" from one person to another, which can explain increases in types of crimes, but [full citation it does not consider how criminal acting can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990: 252) needed] although it may be fairly assumed that the processes of learning behaviors can be changed. There is also a definite problem. What may be reinforcement for one person may not be for another. Also, reinforcements can be both social involving attention and behavior between more than one person, and non-social reinforcement which would not involve this interaction [full citation needed] (Burgess & Akers: 1966). Social learning theory has been used in mentoring programs that should, in theory, prevent some future criminal behavior. The idea behind mentoring programs is that an adult is paired with a child, who supposedly learns from the [full behavior of the adult and is positively reinforced for good behavior (Jones-Brown, 1997). citation needed] In the classroom, a teacher may use the theory by changing the seating arrangements to pair a behaving child and a misbehaving child, but the outcome may be that the behaving child begins behaving badly. We can explain attachment in terms of the principles of classic conditioning. The food-giver then becomes a source of pleasure. "Banduras Social Learning Theory posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modeling. The theory has often been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation." Feshbach and R.D. Singer believed that television actually decreases the amount of violence in children. They conducted an experiment about how juvenile boys react to violent shows. Studies show that the juvenile boys that viewed the non-violent shows were more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior than the juvenile boys that witnessed the violent shows.

Sutherland believes individuals learn criminal behavior while in their adolescence from family members and peers. Akers stated positive rewards and the avoidance of punishment [13] helps reinforced aggression.

Serial murder and social learning theory

Hale applied the social learning theory to serial murder using Amsel's frustration theory. In frustration theory, humiliation is the result of a nonreward situation, which is a reward that is not given when a reward had been given in the past. When an individual is conditioned to be rewarded they anticipate it to happen in the future, but when they are presented with a nonreward situation this creates an unconditioned frustration response, otherwise called humiliation. Signs associated with the humiliating experience form a conditioned anticipatory frustration response, which triggers specific internal stimuli. These stimuli prevent an individual from future humiliation. During childhood, serial killers experience many humiliating situations and with unbalanced nonreward situations and no reward situations, they perceive all situations as nonreward and develop the inability to distinguish between the two. They anticipate humiliation in every encounter that they come across. When it comes to choosing their victims serial killers do not go back to the person who caused the humiliation. According to Dollard and Miller's (1939, 1950) theory of learning, the individual is "instigated" toward a behavior, which is some antecedent condition of which the predicted response is the consequences. For a serial killer, frustration gets in the way of an instigated goal and their built up aggression must be released. Their behavior is seen as a delayed and indirect release of aggression. They are unable to release their aggression on their source of [15] frustration and are forced to choose more vulnerable individuals to act on. The child learns to expect humiliation or a negative situation from the past, which then causes frustration or aggression. Jerome Henry Brudos felt he was never accepted by his mother. Brudos transferred his hatred for his mother to other women through his mutilation of their bodies. For Brudos, the murder of strange women served as a catharsis for the humiliation he [16] endured through his mother's rejection. In all of these instances the serial killer was presented with some form of humiliation as a child, and learned to vent their anger through aggression.
[14]

Applications
The applications of social learning theory have been important in the history of education policies in the United States. The zone of proximal development is used as a basis for early intervention programs such as Head Start. Social learning theory can also be seen in the TV and movie rating system that is used in the United States. The rating system is designed to let all parents know what the programs that their children are watching contain. The ratings are based on age appropriate material to help parents decide if certain content is appropriate for their child to watch. Some content may be harmful to children who do not have the cognitive ability to process certain content, however the child may model the behaviors seen on TV.

Within the domain of School Psychology, social learning theory can help create more effective classroom environments. One of the responsibilities of a school psychologist is to work with teachers and administrators to make classrooms more efficacious for students and teachers alike. Using social learning theory as a basis, teachers could help alleviate behavioral issues by modeling appropriate classroom behavior and explicitly reinforcing students that do act appropriately. Through vicarious experiences and consequences, [17] individuals learn how to behave in an appropriate and acceptable manner. Furthermore, social learning theory serves as a means of improving academic outcomes for students. Since some elements of lessons and techniques are not always apparent to students, it is important to help students understand what an unfamiliar practice actually [18] consists of and what the rationale for learning it is. By emphasizing the teacher's role as model and encouraging the students to adopt the position of observer, the teacher can make knowledge and practices explicit to students, enhancing their learning outcomes. Locus of control is an important consideration when helping students in higher education environments perform better academically. Cassandra indicated in the 1970s and 1980s that by encouraging students to accept personal responsibility for their educational outcomes, better academic performance will usually be forthcoming if ability levels are present. More frequent successful academic performance will result as thoughts and belief in the need for personal effort toward the academic task is rewarded. As successful experiences increase in frequency, the student usually incorporates the confidence that hard work often can be [19][20] rewarded with positive academic outcomes. Guided participation is seen in schools across the United States and all around the world in language classes when the teacher says a phrase and asks the class to repeat the phrase. An extension of guided participation is reciprocal learning in which both student and teacher [21] share responsibility in leading discussions. The other part to guided participation is when the student goes home and practices on their own. Guided participation is also seen with parents who are trying to teach their own children how to speak. Scaffolding is another technique that is used widely across the United States. needed] Most academic subjects take advantage of scaffolding, however mathematics is one of the best examples. As students move through their education they learn skills in mathematics that they will build on throughout their scholastic careers. A student who has never taken a basic math class and does not understand the principles of addition and subtraction will not be able to understand algebra. The process of learning [citation needed] math is a scaffolding technique because the knowledge builds on itself over time. Another important application of social learning theory has been in the treatment and conceptualization of anxiety disorders. The classical conditioning approach to anxiety disorder, which spurred the development of behavioral therapy and is considered by some to [22] be the first modern theory of anxiety, began to lose steam in the late 1970s as researchers began to question its underlying assumptions. For example, the classical conditioning approach holds that pathological fear and anxiety are developed through direct learning; however, many people with anxiety disorders cannot recall a traumatic conditioning event, in which the feared stimulus was experienced in close temporal and spatial contiguity
[citation

with an intrinsically aversive stimulus. Social learning theory helped salvage learning approaches to anxiety disorders by providing additional mechanisms beyond classical conditioning that could account for the acquisition of fear. For example, social learning theory suggests that a child could acquire a fear of snakes, for example, by observing a family remember express fear in response to snakes. Alternatively, the child could learn the associations between snakes and unpleasant bites through direct experience, without developing excessive fear, but could later learn from others that snakes can have deadly venom, leading to a re-evaluation of the dangerousness of snake bites, and accordingly, a [25] more exaggerated fear response to snakes (see 19, for a discussion of similar US reevaluation effects). Patricia H. Miller in her book, Theories of Developmental Psychology, list both moral development and gender-role development as important areas of research within social [26] learning theory. Social learning theorists emphasize observable behavior regarding the acquisition of these two skills. For gender-role development, the same-sex parent provides only one of many models from which the individual learns gender-roles. Social learning theory also emphasizes the variable nature of moral development due to the changing social circumstances of each decision: "The particular factors the child thinks are important vary from situation to situation, depending on variables such as which situational factors are operating, which causes are most salient, and what the child processes cognitively. Moral judgements involve a complex process of considering and weighing various criteria in a [26] given social situation." For social learning theory, gender development has to do with the interactions of numerous social factors, involving all the interactions the individual encounters. For social learning theory, biological factors are important but take a back seat to the importance of learned, observable behavior. Because of the highly-gendered society in which an individual might develop, individuals begin to distinguish people by gender even as infants. Bandura's account of gender allows for more than cognitive factors in predicting gendered behavior: for Bandura, motivational factors and a broad network of social influences determine if, when, [26] and where gender knowledge is expressed.

[23][24]

Anomie describes a lack of social norms or "normlessness". It describes the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community e.g. if under unruly scenarios resulting in fragmentation of [2] social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values. It was popularized by French sociologist mile Durkheim in his influential book Suicide (1897). Durkheim never uses the term normlessness; rather, he [3] describes anomie as "derangement", and "an insatiable will". For Durkheim, anomie arises more generally from a mismatch between personal or group standards and wider social standards, or from the lack of a social ethic, which produces moral deregulation and an absence of legitimate aspirations. This is a nurtured condition:

[1]

Most sociologists associate the term with Durkheim, who used the concept to speak of the ways in which an individual's actions are matched, or integrated, with a system of social norms and practices anomie is a mismatch, not simply the absence of norms. Thus, a society with too much rigidity and little individual discretion could also produce a kind of anomie... Thus, fatalistic suicide arises when a person is too rulegoverned...

History
In 1893, Durkheim introduced the concept of anomie to describe the mismatch of collective guild labor to evolving societal needs when the guild was homogeneous in its constituency. He equated homogeneous (redundant) skills to mechanical solidarity whose inertia retarded adaptation. He contrasted this with the self-regulating behavior of a division of labor based on differences in constituency, equated to organic solidarity, whose lack of inertia made it sensitive to need changes. Durkheim observed that the conflict between the evolved organic division of labor and the homogeneous [5] mechanical type was such that one could not exist in the presence of the other. When solidarity is organic, anomie is impossible. Sensitivity to mutual needs promotes evolution in the division of labor. "Producers, being near consumers, can easily reckon the extent of the needs to be [6] satisfied. Equilibrium is established without any trouble and production regulates itself." Durkheim contrasted the condition of anomie as being the result of mechanical solidarity: But on the contrary, if some opaque environment is interposed... relations [are] rare, are not repeated enough... are too intermittent. Contact is no longer sufficient. The producer can no longer embrace the market at a glance, nor even in thought. He can no longer see its limits, since it is, so to speak limitless. Accordingly, production becomes unbridled and unregulated.
[6] [6]

Durkheim's use of the term anomie was about a phenomenon of industrialization mass-regimentation that could not adapt due to its own inertiaits resistance to change, which causes disruptive cycles of collective behavior e.g. economics, due to the necessity of a prolonged buildup of sufficient force or momentum to overcome the inertia. Later in 1897, in his studies of suicide, Durkheim associated anomie to the influence of a lack of norms or norms that were too rigid. But such normlessness or norm-rigidity was a symptom of anomie, caused by the lack of differential adaptation that would enable norms to evolve naturally due to self-regulation, either to develop norms where none existed or to change norms that had become rigid and obsolete.

Etymology
See also: Antinomianism The word comes from Greek , namely the prefix a- "without", and nomos "law". The Greeks distinguished between nomos (, "law"), and arch (, "starting rule, axiom, principle"). For example, a monarch is a single ruler but he or she might still be subject to, and not exempt from, the prevailing laws, i.e. nomos. In the original city state democracy, the majority rule was an aspect of archbecause it was a rule-based, customary system, which might or might not make laws, i.e. nomos. Thus, the original meaning of anomiedefined anything or anyone against or outside the law, or a condition where the current laws were not applied resulting in a state of illegitimacy or lawlessness. The contemporary English understanding of the word anomie can accept greater flexibility in the word "norm", and some have used the idea of normlessness to reflect a similar situation to the idea of anarchy. But, as used by mile Durkheim and later theorists, anomie is a reaction against or a retreat from the regulatory social controls of society, and is a completely separate concept from anarchy, which consists is the absence of the roles of rulers and submitted.

Social disorder
The nineteenth century French pioneer sociologist mile Durkheim borrowed the word from French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau and used it in his influential book Suicide (1897), outlining the social (and not individual) causes of suicide, characterized by a rapid change of the standards or values of societies [7] (often erroneously referred to as normlessness), and an associated feeling of alienation and purposelessness. He believed that anomie is common when the surrounding society has undergone significant changes in its economic fortunes, whether for good or for worse and, more generally, when there is a significant discrepancy between the ideological theories and values commonly professed and what was actually achievable in everyday life. This is contrary to previous theories on suicide which generally maintained that suicide was precipitated by negative events in a person's life and their subsequent depression. In Durkheim's view, traditional religions often provided the basis for the shared values which the anomic individual lacks. Furthermore, he argued that the division of labor that had been prevalent in economic life since the Industrial Revolution led individuals to pursue egoisticends rather than seeking the good of a larger community. Robert King Merton also adopted the idea of anomie to develop Strain Theory, defining it as the discrepancy between common social goals and the legitimate means to attain those goals. In other words, an individual suffering from anomie would strive to attain the common goals of a specific society yet would not be able to reach these goals legitimately because of the structural limitations in society. As a result the individual would exhibit deviant behavior. Friedrich Hayeknotably uses the word anomie with this meaning. According to one academic survey, psychometric testing confirmed a link between anomie and academic dishonesty among university students suggesting that universities needed to foster codes of ethics [8] [9] among students in order to curb it. In another study anomie was seen as a "push factor" in tourism.

As an older variant, the Webster 1913 dictionary reports use of the word anomie as meaning "disregard [10] or violation of the law" but anomie as a social disorder is not to be confused with anarchy. Proponents of anarchism claim that anarchy does not necessarily lead to anomie and that hierarchical command actually increases lawlessness. Some Anarcho-primitivists like Ted Kaczynski argue that conditions such as anomie are directly caused by complex societies, particularly industrial and post-industrial societies due to their deprivation of individual self-determination and a relatively small reference group to relate to, such as the band, clan, or tribe.

Literature, film, and theatre

In Albert Camus's existentialist novel The Stranger, the bored, alienated protagonist Meursault struggles to construct an individual system of values as he responds to the disappearance of the old. He exists [11] largely in a state of anomie, as seen from the apathy evinced in the opening lines: "Aujourdhui, maman est morte. Ou peut-tre hier, je ne sais pas" ("Today mother died. Or maybe yesterday, I don't know"). Fyodor Dostoyevsky expressed a similar concern about anomie in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. The Grand Inquisitor remarks that in the absence of God and immortal life, everything would [12] be lawful. In other words, that any act becomes thinkable, that there is no moral compass, which leads to apathy and detachment. The characters Vladimir and Estragon in Samuel Beckett's absurdist play Waiting For Godot express a sense of anomie, in the extremity of their response to waiting for two days for Godot to appear; as a remedy for boredom, Vladimir considers Estragon's suggestion that they hang themselves to be a reasonable course of action. They also express anomie in their ultimate decision on the matter. Since they are concerned that they might not both die, they decide to do nothing: "It's safer", explains [13] Estragon. The Yugoslav film When I Am Dead and Gone (1967) is a relentless portrayal of anomie throughout the contemporary Yugoslav society, experiencing rapid industrialization and urbanization. Biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain crime and antisocial behavior by exploring both biological factors and environmental factors. While contemporarycriminology has been dominated by sociological theories, biosocial criminology also recognizes the potential contributions of [1] fields such as genetics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology.

Approaches
Environment
Environment has a significant effect on genetic expression. Disadvantaged environments enhance antisocial gene expression, suppress prosocial gene action and prevent the realization of genetic [1] potential.
Genes and environments operating in tandem (interacting) were required to produce significant antisocial behavior, while neither was powerful enough to produce it independent of the other. That is, children genetically at risk for

antisocial behavior reared in positive family environments did not display antisocial behavior, and children not at genetic risk did not become antisocial in adverse family environments.
[1]

Genetics
One approach to studying the role of genetics for crime is to calculate the heritability coefficient, which describes the proportion of the variance that is due to actualized genetic effects for some trait in a given population in a specific environment at a specific time. The heritability coefficient for antisocial behavior is [1] estimated to be between 0.40 and 0.58.

Neurophysiology
Another approach is to examine the relationship between neurophysiology and criminality. One example is that measured levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine have been associated with criminal behavior. Another is that neuroimaging studies give strong evidence that both brain structure and function are involved in criminal behaviors. The limbic system creates emotions such as anger and jealousy that ultimately may cause criminal behavior. The prefrontal cortex is involved in delaying gratification and impulse control and moderates the impulses from the limbic system. If this balance is shifted in favor of the limbic system this may contribute to criminal behavior. Terrie Moffitt's developmental theory of crime argues that "life-course-persistent offenders" make up only 6% of the population but commits more than 50% of all crimes and that this is due to a combination neurophysiological deficits and an adverse environment that creates a criminal path that is very difficult to [1] break once started.

Evolutionary psychology
Men can potentially have many children with little effort; women only a few with great effort. This is [who?] argued to contribute to males having more variable reproductive success than females. One argued consequence of this is that males are more aggressive, and more violently aggressive, than females, since they face higher reproductive competition from their own sex than females. In particular, low-status males may be more likely to remain completely childless. Under such circumstances, it may been have evolutionarily useful to take very high risks and use violent aggression in order to try to increase status and reproductive success rather than become genetically extinct. This may explain why males have higher crime rates than females and why low status and being unmarried is associated with criminality. It may also explain why the degree of income inequality of a society is a better predictor than the absolute income level of the society for male-male homicides; income inequality creates social disparity, while differing average income levels may not do so. Furthermore, competition over females is argued to have been particularly intensive in late adolescence and young adulthood, which is theorized to explain why [2] crime rates are particularly high during this period. The "evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory" focuses on the hormone testosterone as a factor influencing aggression and criminality and being beneficial during certain forms of competition. In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on aggressive behavior in males. In humans, males engage in crime and especially violent crime more than females. The involvement in crime usually rises in the early teens to mid teens in correlation with the rise of testosterone levels. Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by lumbar puncture, which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used less reliable measurements from blood or saliva.

Some studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone, although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex. A significant link between juvenile delinquency and testosterone levels has not been established. Some studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism. Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about [3] half no relationship. Many conflicts causing homicides involve status conflicts, protecting reputation, and seemingly trivial [2] insults. Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate argues that in non-state societies without a police it was very important to have a credible deterrence against aggression. Therefore it was important to have a reputation for retaliation, causing humans to develop instincts for revenge as well as for protecting reputation ("honor"). Pinker argues that the development of the state and the police have dramatically reduced the level of violence compared to the ancestral environment. Whenever the state breaks down, which can be very locally such as in poor areas of a city, humans again organize in groups for protection and aggression and concepts such as violent revenge and protecting honor again become extremely important. Some cultures place greater emphasis on protecting honor than other cultures. One explanation is that protecting honor was in the ancestral past relatively more important for herders than for farmers. The livestock of herders were easily and quickly stolen. As a result, it was important to constantly show toughness as a deterrence, which may cause a higher level of violence. The predictions of the theory was confirmed in a cross-cultural examination of traditional farming and herding Spanish-American societies. However, the prediction that sedentary fishing societies would place a low emphasis on honor was not [2] confirmed. The degree of cultural collectivism is strongly associated with the burden of infectious disease. It has been argued that this is due to collectivism and associated characteristics such as out-group avoidance limiting the spread of infectious diseases. Other characteristics such as strong in-groupout-group bias and willingness to defend the ingroup's honor may promote violence. A study found strong associations between several forms of violent criminal behavior and both infectious disease rates across U.S states and degree of cultural collectivism across U.S. states. The associations remained strong after [2] controlling for income inequality.

Specific forms
Evolutionary psychology researchers have proposed several evolutionary explanations for psychopathy. One is that psychopathy represents a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy. This may benefit the psychopath as long as there are few other psychopaths in the community since more psychopaths means increasing the risk of encountering another psychopath as well as non-psychopaths likely adapting [4][5] more countermeasures against cheaters. Sociobiological theories of rape are theories that explore to what degree, if any, evolutionary adaptations influence the psychology of rapists. Such theories are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation. Some object to such theories on ethical, religious, political, as well as scientific grounds. Others argue that a correct knowledge of the causes of rape is necessary in order to develop effective preventive measures.

The Cinderella effect is the alleged higher rate of stepchildren being abused by stepparents as compared to genetic parents, observed in some, but not all, studies. An explanation of this affect has been attempted by application of evolutionary psychology theories. There have also been various criticisms of [6] these theories. Infanticide is one of the few forms of violence more often done by women than men. Cross-cultural research has found that this is more likely to occur when the child has deformities or illnesses as well as when there are lacking resources due to factors such as poverty, other children requiring resources, and no male support. Such a child may have a low chance of reproductive success, in which case it would decrease the mother's inclusive fitness to spend resources on the child, in particular since women [7] generally have a greaterparental investment than men.

Criminal justice
Punishment of exploitative behaviors harmful to the group was likely a recurring problem in the ancestral environment. As such humans are argued to have developed a range of psychological mechanisms for handling this. Punishment can be a deterrent to undesired behaviors but excessive punishment can also be harmful to the group. Thus, human are argued to favor a proportional response based on how severe the offence is. Cross-cultural research have a found a high agreement regarding how relatively harmful different crimes are perceived to be. On the other hand, evolutionary novel factors that may be rational to consider from a deterrent perspective, such as how difficult it is for the modern police to detect the crime, [8] do not seem to affect people's perceptions of appropriate punishments. Once a crime's severity has been judged, there is a choice regarding how to respond. In some cases in the ancestral environment there may have been benefits from future interactions with the offender which some forms of punishment may have prevented as compared to responses such as reparations or rehabilitation. Research suggests that individuals may modify what they think are appropriate forms of response to offenders based on factors that once in the past small-group environment may have indicated that they could personally benefit from continued interactions with the offender such as kinship, in-group or out-group membership, possession of resources, sexual attractiveness, expressed remorse, intentionality, and prior hi

Rational choice theory

In criminology, the rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. This method was designed by Cornish and Clarke to assist in thinking about situational crime prevention [1] It is assumed, that crime is purposive behavior designed to meet the offenders commonplace needs for such things as money, status, sex and excitement,

and that meeting these needs involves the making of (sometimes quite rudimentary) decisions and choices, constrained as these are by limits, ability, and the availability of relevant information
[2]

Assumptions and Central Points

Rational choice is based on numerous assumptions, one of which is individualism [3] The offender sees themselves as an individual. The second is that individuals have to maximize their goals, and the third is that individuals are self-interested [4] Offenders are thinking about themselves and how to advance their personal goals. Central points of the theory are described as follows:[5]

The human being is a rational actor. Rationality involves end/means calculations. People (freely) choose behavior, both conforming and deviant, based on their rational calculations. The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus pain or hedonistic calculus.

Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure. Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract.

The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws. The swiftness, severity, and certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a laws ability to control human behavior.

Rational choice theory has sprung from older and more experimental collections of hypotheses surrounding what have been essentially, the empirical findings from many scientific investigations into the workings of human nature. The conceiving and semblance of these social models which are hugely applicable to the methodology expressed through the function of microeconomics within society are also similarly placed to demonstrate that a sizable amount of data is collated using behavioral techniques which are tweaked and made adjustable in order to ensure compatibility with the spontaneous motivational drives displayed by the consumer.The theory borrows concepts from economic theories, to give greater weight to non-instrumental motives for crime and the limited or bounded nature of the rational process involved (Clarke, 1997, p. 9).

Elements
The theory is related to earlier drift theory (Matza: 1964) where people use the techniques of neutralization to drift in and out of delinquent behavior, and the Systematic Crime Theory (an aspect of Social Disorganization Theory developed by the Chicago School), where Edwin Sutherland proposed that the failure of families and extended kin groups expands the realm of relationships no longer controlled by the community, and

undermines governmental controls. This leads to persistent "systematic" crime and delinquency. He also believed that such disorganization causes and reinforces the cultural traditions and cultural conflicts that support antisocial activity. The systematic quality of the behavior was a reference to repetitive, patterned or organized offending as opposed to random events. He depicted the law-abiding culture as dominant and more extensive than alternative criminogenic cultural views and capable of overcoming systematic crime if organized for that purpose (1939: 8). In a similar vein, Cohen and Felson (1979) developed Routine Activities Theory which focuses on the characteristics of crime rather than the characteristics of the offender. This is one of the main theories ofenvironmental criminology as an aspect of Crime Prevention Theory. It states that for a crime to occur, three elements must be present, i.e. there must be:

an available and suitable target; a motivated offender; and no authority figure to prevent the crime from happening.

Routine Activities Theory relates the pattern of offending to the everyday patterns of social interaction. Between 1960 and 1980, women left the home to work which led to social disorganization, i.e. the routine of leaving the home unattended and without an authority figure increased probability of criminal activity. The theory is supplemented by the crime triangle or the problem analysis triangle [1] which is used in the analysis both of a crime problem by reference to the three parameters of victim, location, and offender, and of an intervention strategy by reference to the parameters of target/victim, location and absence of a capable guardian with the latter helping to think more constructively about responses as well as analysis.The theory avoids speculation about the source of the offenders motivation, which distinguishes it immediately from most other criminological theories [6] [7] Support for theory Many features of rational choice perspective make it particularly suitable to serve as a criminological metatheory with a broad role in the explanation for a variety of criminological phenomena [8] Since rational choice can explain many different components; it is broad enough to be applied not only to crime but everyday life circumstances. Studies involve offenders being interviewed on motives, methods and target choices [9] Research involves burglars (Walsh, 1980; Maguire 1982; Cromwell et al., 1991) bank and commercial robbers ( New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 1987; Nugent et al., 1989) and offenders using violence (Morrison and O Donnell, 1996).The rational choice perspective has provided a framework under which to organize such information so that individual studies produce more general benefits[10] Rational Choice Theory insists that crime is calculated and deliberate. All criminals are rational actors who practice conscious decision making, that simultaneously work towards gaining the maximum benefits of their present situation.Another aspect of rational choice theory is the fact that many offenders make decisions based on bounded/limited rationality. Bounded/Limited Rationality Ideas of limited rationality emphasize the extent to which individuals and groups simplify a decision because of the difficulties of anticipating or considering all alternatives and all information
[11]

Bounded rationality relates to two aspects, one

part arising from cognitive limitations and the other from extremes in emotional arousal [12] Sometimes emotional arousal at the moment of a crime can be acute, therefore would be offenders find themselves out of control, and rational considerations are far less salient [13] Crime therefore can be influenced by opportunity [14] Opportunity of a crime can be related to cost benefits, socioeconomic status, risk of detection, dependent on situational context, type of offence and access to external benefits. In addition, opportunities are dependent on the individuals current surrou ndings and consequential factors. This theory better explains instrumental crimes rather than expressive crimes.[15] Instrumental crimes involve planning and weighing the risks with a rational mind.[16] An example of an instrumental crime can include: tax evasion, traffic violations, drinking and driving, corporate crime, larceny and sexual assault.[17] On the other hand, expressive crime includes crimes involving emotion and lack of rational thinking without being concerned of future consequences.[18] Expressive crimes can include: non pre-mediated murder such as manslaughter, and assault. As a result, punishment is only effective in deterring instrumental crime rather than expressive crime.[19] In 2000, OGrady et al. performed a study which examined the illegal sale of tobacco products to underage youth.[20] With the use of a rational mind merchants and clerks weigh out the cost benefits and risk factors which are involved in selling cigarettes to underage youth.[21] Due to the minimal risk of police patrol after 5pm, merchants and clerks felt a diminished sense of risk, therefore allowing them to sell their products illegally to underage youth.[22] According to OGrady (2011) the three main critiques of Rational Choice Theory include:

Assumes that all individuals have the capacity to make rational decisions The theory does not explain why the burden of responsibility is excused from young offenders as opposed to adult offenders

This theory contradicts the Canadian Criminal Justice System. This theory does not support the idea that all individuals are rational actors because of cognitive inability. An example of individuals who lack a rational mind include those who are Not Criminally Responsible on Account Due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD).

Routine activity theory

Routine activity theory a sub-field of rational choice criminology, developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen.

Routine activity theory says that crime is normal and depends on the opportunities available. If a target is not protected enough, and if the reward is worth it, crime will happen. Crime does not need hardened offenders, super-predators, convicted felons or wicked people. Crime just needs an opportunity. The basic premise of routine activity theory is that most crimes are petty theft and unreported to the police. Crime is not spectacular nor dramatic. It is mundane and happens all the time. Another premise is that crime is relatively unaffected by social causes such as poverty, inequality, unemployment. For instance, afterWorld War II, the economy of Western countries was booming and the Welfare states were expanding. During that time, crime rose significantly. According to Felson and Cohen, this is because the prosperity of contemporary society offers so much opportunities of crime: there is much more to steal. Routine activity theory is controversial among sociologists who believe in the social causes of crime. But several types of crime are very well explained by routine activity theory : - copyright infringement related to peer-to-peer file sharing - employee theft (internal theft) - corporate crime

Situational Crime Prevention

The main creation of the rational choice theory was to further aide and give focus to situational crime prevention.Situational crime prevention comprises opportunity-reducing measures that (1) are directed at highly specific forms of crime, (2) involve management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in systematic and permanent ways,(3) makes crime more difficult and risky, or less rewarding and excusable as judged by a wide range of offenders [23] Rather than simply responding to crime after the fact, recent attention to crime prevention has focused on specific ways in which to modify the physical and social environment [24] Changes to the physical environment have included such measures as: better streetscape and building design, improved lighting in public spaces, installations of deadlocks and alarms, property marking and identification, and traffic calming and creation of green belts
[25]

Attempts have been made to extend the range

of surveillance of local neighborhood activities, involving such measures as: establishment of neighborhood watch committees, employment of private security guards in residences and businesses, anti-racist/antifascists organizations and community watch committees to prevent police harassment
[26]

Directing enhanced

citizen participation programs that are not crime-centered would include for example sports and recreation programs, needle exchange programs and AIDS counseling, local employment initiatives funded by government grants and campaigns against poverty and unemployment
[27]

Emotions
It is argued that there are three important roles of emotions within a rational choice theory of crime. First the peoples state of emotionality is an important context on which rational conduct rests
[28]

Second is the sneaky

thrill of minor property crime also might operate more generally such that the anticipated emotional consequences of criminal conduct is one of the benefits or utilities (thrills) that are weighed in the process of rational decision making[29] Third as a sizable amount of research can attest, the anticipated emotional costs associated with criminal behavior might serve to effectively reduce the likelihood of such behavior ([30] Emotions are a central part of the psychological process of motivation as they heighten the saliency of certain desires, wants, and outcomes and thus energize people to pursue them [31] Too little emotional intensity and performance suffers from insufficient physical and mental arousal, while too much emotional intensity causes the person to be so aroused that thinking and physical self-control become disorganized [32]If an offender gets angry easily it is highly probable they wont think twice about assaulting someone than an individual who is level headed. Negative emotions can hinder rationality thus leading one to use bounded/limited rationality or may an impulsive move towards a criminal action.

Subcultural theory
In criminology, subcultural theory emerged from the work of the Chicago School on gangs and developed through the symbolic interactionism school into a set of theories arguing that certain groups or subcultures in society have values and attitudes that are conducive to crime and violence. The primary focus is on juvenile delinquency because theorists believe that if this pattern of offending can be understood and controlled, it will break the transition from teenage offender into habitual criminal. Some of the theories are functionalist assuming that criminal activity is motivated by economic needs, while others posit a social class rationale for deviance.

Frederic M. Thrasher
Frederic M. Thrasher (1927: 46) studied gangs in a systematic way, analyzing gang activity and behavior. He defined gangs by the process they go through to form a group: "The gang is an interstitial group originally formed spontaneously, and then integrated through conflict. It is characterized by the following types of behavior: meeting face to face, milling, movement through space as a unit, conflict, and planning. The result of this collective behavior is the development of tradition, unreflective internal structure, esprit de corps, solidarity, morale, group awareness, and attachment to a local territory."

E. Franklin Frazier
In the earliest stages of the Chicago School and their investigation of human ecology, one of the key tropes was the concept of disorganization which contributed to the emergence of an underclass.

Albert K. Cohen
Albert K. Cohen (1955) did not look at the economically oriented career criminal, but looked at the delinquency subculture, focusing on gang delinquency among working class youth in slum areas which developed a distinctive culture as a response to their perceived lack of economic and social opportunity within U.S. society.

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin made reference to R. K. Merton's Strain Theory, while taking a further step in how the Subculture was 'Parallel' in their opportunities: the Criminal subculture had the same rules and level.

Walter Miller
Miller (1958, 1959) agreed with Cohen that there was a delinquency subculture, but argued that it arose entirely from the lower class way of life.

David Matza
David Matza (1964) argued that, rather than being committed to delinquency, young people drifted between conventional and unconventional behavior. ...

P. Cohen
Phil Cohen (1972) studied the youth of East London in the early 1970s. He examined the immediate and the wider context to determine how two different youth subcultures reacted to the changes occurring in their community. He suggested that the Mod reaction was to the new ideology of affluence. They wanted to show that they had money and knew how to spend it. In contrast, skinheads looked back to the more traditional working class community. Each generation tries to find employment or adapts to unemployment. But the 1920s had very different economic circumstances to later decades. Cohen argued that youth develop a cultural style as a means of coping with their particular circumstances and of resisting the dominant values of society. This casts working class youth as the standard bearers of class struggle. There is little in real terms that youth can do to change society, but resistance offers subjective satisfaction which can be shown through style: the clothes, haircuts, music and language of the different youth cultures. Cohen argued that these styles are not meaningless, but are deeply layered in meaning. This is an application of Marxist Subcultural Theory which synthesised thestructuralism of Marxism with

the Labelling Theory. The approach matched that of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at Birmingham University (see Crow: 1997). This approach places emphasis on the contents of youth culture and on the differences produced by class background. The assumption is that a capitalist society attempts to achieve hegemony by using the cultural values of society for their own benefit. The domination of the adults is enforced through the system of mortgages, credit cards, and family commitments, and they are seduced into accepting the relative security of capitalism. But the youth are relatively free of long term commitment or responsibility for a family and, wit

Differential association
In criminology, Differential Association is a theory developed by Edwin Sutherland proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior. The Differential Association Theory is the most talked about of the Learning Theories of deviance. This theory focuses on how individuals learn to become criminals, but does not concern itself with why they become criminals. Learning Theory is closely related to the Interactionist perspective; however, it is not considered so because Interactionism focuses on the construction of boundaries in society and persons' perceptions of them. Learning Theory is considered a positivist approach because it focuses on specific acts, opposed to the more subjective position of social impressions on one's identity, and how those may compel to act. They learn how to commit criminal acts; they learn motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. It grows socially easier for the individuals to commit a crime. Their inspiration is the processes of cultural transmission and construction. Sutherland had developed the idea of the "self" as a social construct, as when a person's self-image is continuously being reconstructed especially when interacting with other people. Phenomenology and ethnomethodology also encouraged people to debate the certainty of knowledge and to make sense of their everyday experiences using indexicality methods. People define their lives by reference to their experiences, and then generalise those definitions to provide a framework of reference for deciding on future action. From a researcher's perspective, a subject will view the world very differently if employed as opposed to unemployed, if in a supportive family or abused by parents or those close to the individual. However, individuals might respond differently to the same situation depending on how their experience predisposes them to define their current surroundings. Differential association predicts that an individual will choose the criminal path when the balance of definitions for law-breaking exceeds those for law-abiding. This tendency will be reinforced if social association provides active people in the person's life. Earlier in life the individual comes under the influence of those of high status within that group, the more likely the individual to follow in their footsteps. This does not deny that there may be

practical motives for crime. If a person is hungry but has no money, there is a temptation to steal. But, the use of "needs" and "values" is equivocal. To a greater or lesser extent, both non-criminal and criminal individuals are motivated by the need for money and social gain.

Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association

The principles of Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association can be summarized into nine key points: 1. Criminal behavior is learned. 2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. 3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. 4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. 5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. 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 mechanisms 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.

Explanation
Furthermore, some new and additional theoretical specifications about the social influence of others on the individual, all in accordance with the original ideas of Sutherland are proposed and empirically tested. The differential association theory according to the version of K.-D. Opp is fairly well corroborated by the data. Only three of the postulated relationships are rejected. The theory explains 51% of the variance of criminal behavior, even considering that no criminal population is used for the test and only minor offenses are measured. The test also shows that the impact of the frequency of contacts with deviant behaviour patterns on the development of positive definitions and on the frequency of communication about relevant techniques is

substantial and cannot be ignored by criminologists. Furthermore, special analysis show that several propositions favour the theory. It is the deviancy of others that has the most substantial impact: the more youngsters have contact with their friends, the stronger the impact of the deviancy of their friends on the development of positive definitions or on the frequency of communication about techniques. The tests also show that the more youngsters identify themselves with others, the stronger the impact of the deviancy of the others on their norms. These results support the modification of the DA theory according to Opp and falsify some propositions of social control theory. An important quality of differential association theory concerns the frequency and intensity of interaction. The amount of time that a person is exposed to a particular definition and at what point the interaction began are both crucial for explaining criminal activity. The process of learning criminal behaviour is really not any different from the process involved in learning any other type of behaviour. Sutherland maintains that there is no unique learning process associated with acquiring non-normative ways of behaving.[1] One very unique aspect of this theory is that the theory purports to explain more than just juvenile delinquency and crime committed by lower class individuals. Since crime is understood to be learned behaviour, the theory is also applicable to white-collar, corporate, and organized crime. [2]

Critique
One critique labeled towards this theory has to do with the idea that people can be independent, rational actors and individually motivated. This notion of one being a criminal based on his or her environment is problematic. This theory does not take into account personality traits that might affect a person's susceptibility to these environmental influences. [3]

Social control theory

In criminology, social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization and social learning builds self-control and reduces the inclination to indulge in behavior recognized as antisocial. It derives from Functionalist theories of crime and was developed by Ivan Nye (1958), who proposed that there were four types of control:

Direct: by which punishment is threatened or applied for wrongful behavior, and compliance is rewarded by parents, family, and authority figures.

Internal: by which a youth refrains from delinquency through the conscience or superego. Indirect: by identification with those who influence behavior, say because his or her delinquent act might cause pain and disappointment to parents and others with whom he or she has close relationships.

Control through needs satisfaction, i.e. if all an individual's needs are met, there is no point in criminal activity.

Discussion
Social control theory proposes that people's relationships, commitments, values, norms, and beliefs encourage them not to break the law. Thus, if moral codes are internalized and individuals are tied into, and have a stake in their wider community, they will voluntarily limit their propensity to commit deviant acts. The theory seeks to understand the ways in which it is possible to reduce the likelihood of criminality developing in individuals. It does not consider motivational issues, simply stating that human beings may choose to engage in a wide range of activities, unless the range is limited by the processes of socialization and social learning. This derives from aHobbesian view of human nature as represented in Leviathan, i.e. that all choices are constrained by implicit social contracts, agreements and arrangements among people. Thus, morality is created in the construction of social order, assigning costs and consequences to certain choices and defining some as evil, immoral and/or illegal.

Albert J. Reiss
The earliest form of the theory (or at least the earliest recorded (Nope Ross, 1901) was proposed by Reiss (1951: 196) who defined delinquency as, "...behavior consequent to the failure of personal and social controls." Personal control was defined as, "...the ability of the individual to refrain from meeting needs in ways which conflict with the norms and rules of the community" while social control was, "...the ability of social groups or institutions to make norms or rules effective." Reiss' version did not specify the sources of such "abilities" nor the specific control mechanisms leading to conformity, but he did assert that the failure of primary groups such as the family to provide reinforcement for non-delinquent roles and values was crucial to the explanation of delinquency.

Jackson Toby
Toby (1957), argued that "the uncommitted adolescent is a candidate for gang socialization." acknowledging "gang socialization" as part of the causal, motivational dynamic leading to delinquency, but introduced the concept of "stakes in conformity" to explain "candidacy" for such learning experiences. He believed that all could be tempted into delinquency, but most refused because they considered that they had too much to lose. But the young who had few stakes or investments in conformity were more likely to be drawn into gang activity. The notion of "stakes in conformity" fits very well with concepts invoked in later versions of social control theory.

F. Ivan Nye
Nye (1958) not only elaborated a social control theory of delinquency, but specified ways to "operationalize" (measure) control mechanisms and related them to self-reports of delinquent behavior. He formulated the

theory having formally interviewed 780 young people in Washington State, but the sample was criticized because it did not have any representatives from any urban environments, and those selected might have been more apt to describe their families unfavorably. Some were concerned that criminal activity was only mentioned in two of the questions, so the extrapolations to crime in general were considered unsafe. Like Reiss, he focused on the family as a source of control. Moreover, Nye specified three different types of control:

direct control = punishments and rewards indirect control = affectionate identification with non-criminals; and internal control = conscience or sense of guilt.

Youth may be directly controlled through constraints imposed by parents, limiting the opportunity for delinquency, as well as through parental rewards and punishments. However, they may be constrained when free from direct control by their anticipation of parental disapproval (indirect control), or through the development of a conscience, an internal constraint on behavior. The focus on the family as a source of control was in marked contrast to the emphasis on economic circumstances as a source of criminogenic motivation at the time. Although he acknowledged motivational forces by stating that, "...some delinquent behavior results from a combination of positive learning and weak and ineffective social control" (1958: 4), he adopted a controltheory position when he proposed that, "...most delinquent behavior is the result of insufficient social control..."

Walter Reckless
Reckless (1961) developed containment theory by focusing on a youth's self-conception or self-image of being a good person as an insulator against peer pressure to engage in delinquency.

inner containment = positive sense of self; outer containment = supervision and discipline.

This inner containment through self-images is developed within the family and is essentially formed by about the age of twelve. Outer containment was a reflection of strong social relationships with teachers and other sources of conventional socialization within the neighborhood. The basic proposition is there are "pushes" and "pulls" that will produce delinquent behavior unless they are counteracted by containment. The motivations to deviate as pushes are:

discontent with living conditions and family conflicts; aggressiveness and hostility, perhaps due to biological factors; and frustration and boredom, say arising from membership of a minority group or through lack of opportunities to advance in school or find employment;

and the pulls are:

delinquent peers, and delinquent subcultures.

David Matza
An analysis of 'neutralization' was developed by Sykes and Matza (1957) who believed that there was little difference between delinquents and non-delinquents, with delinquents engaging in non-delinquent behavior most of the time. They also asserted that most delinquents eventually opt out of the delinquent lifestyle as they grow older, suggesting that there is a basic code of morality in place but that the young are able to deviate by using techniques of neutralization, i.e. they can temporarily suspend the applicability of norms by developing attitudes "favorable to deviant behavior". The five common techniques were:

denial of responsibility (I couldn't help myself) denial of injury (nobody got hurt) denial of victim (they had it coming) condemnation of the condemners (what right do they have to criticize me?) appeal to higher loyalties (I did it for someone else).

Later Matza (1964) developed his theory of "drift" which proposed that people used neutralization to drift in and out of conventional behaviour, taking a temporary break from moral restraints. Matza based his "drift" theory upon four observations which were:

Delinquents express guilt over their criminal acts Delinquents often respect law-abiding individuals A line is drawn between those they can victimize and those they can not Delinquents are not immune to the demands of conforming

Although Drift Theory has not been widely supported by empirical tests, it remains a key idea in criminology despite not answering why some conform and others don't. Hirschi adopted Toby's concept of an investment in conventionality or "stake in conformity". He stressed the rationality in the decision whether to engage in crime and argued that a person was less likely to choose crime if they had strong social bonds.

The General Theory of Crime[

Main article: Self-control theory of crime Hirschi has since moved away from his bonding theory, and in co-operation with Gottfredson, developed a General Theory or "Self-Control Theory" in 1990. Akers (1991) argued that a major weakness of this new theory was that Gottfredson and Hirschi did not define self-control and the tendency toward criminal behavior

separately. By not deliberately operationalized self-control traits and criminal behavior or criminal acts individually, it suggests that the concepts of low self-control and propensity for criminal behavior are the same. Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993) rebutted Akers argument by suggesting it was actually an indication of the consistency of General Theory. That is, the theory is internally consistent by conceptualizing crime and deriving from that a concept of the offender's traits. The research community remains divided on whether the General Theory is sustainable but there is emerging confirmation of some of its predictions (e.g. LaGrange & Silverman: 1999)

Jack P. Gibbs
Gibbs (1989) has redefined social control and applied it to develop a control theory of homicide. Any attempt to get an individual to do or refrain from doing something can be considered an attempt at control. To qualify as 'social' control, such attempts must involve three parties. One or more individuals intends to manipulate the behavior of another by or through a third party. Gibbs' third party can be an actual person or a reference to "society", "expectations" or "norms". For example, if one party attempts to influence another by threatening to refer the matter to a third party assumed to have authority, this is referential social control. If one party attempts to control another by punishing a third (e.g. general deterrence), it is a form of vicarious social control. The presence of the third party distinguishes social control from mere external behavioral control, simple interpersonal responses, or issuing orders for someone to do something. This definition clearly distinguishes social control from mere "reactions to deviance" and from deviant behavior itself. Gibbs argues that "Homicide can be described either as control or as resulting from control failure" (1989: 35), and proposes that the homicide rate is a function not just of the sheer volume of disputes, but also of the frequency of recourse to a third party for peaceful dispute settlement (p37). When one person fails to control the actions of another through the third party, murder represents another violent attempt at direct control. People resort to self-help when forms of social control are unavailable or fail. Gibbs is critical of Hirschi's Social Control Theory because it merely assumes that social relationships, personal investments and beliefs that discourage delinquency are social controls (which is one reason why Hirschi's theory is often referred to as a Social Bond Theory).

Criticisms
Much of the early research on social control theory is based on self-reporting studies. Critics of self-report data note that there may be various motives for disclosing information, and that questions may be interpreted differently by individual participants. Nevertheless, many of the conclusions are intuitively convincing, e.g. that individuals will not engage in crime if they think that this will sacrifice the affection or respect of significant others, or cause them to lose employment or their autonomy if they face imprisonment. Davies (1994 and 2004), reports that in late-nineteenth century Britain, crime rates fell dramatically, as did drug and alcohol abuse, and illegitimacy became less common. All of these indexes of deviance were fairly steady between

World War I and 1955. After 1955, they all rose to create a U-curve of deviance, over the period from 1847 to 1997. He attributes the initial shift to adoption of a culture in which the assumptions of Protestant Christianity were taken for granted. Everyone at the time believed - at least somewhat - in a moral code of helping others. This belief was rooted in religion. The same social norms for the defense of the person and property that informed the law before 1955 remain the policy norms. Furthermore, the concept that people are uncontrollable and may offend against those norms in social interactions, cannot be explained by simply counting how many people practice the golden rule (see the general discussion in Braithwaite: 1989).

Strain theory (sociology)

In sociology and criminology, strain theory states that social structures within society may pressure citizens to commit crime. Following on the work of mile Durkheim, Strain Theories have been advanced by Robert King Merton (1957), Albert K. Cohen (1955), Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), Neil Smelser (1963), Robert Agnew (1992), and Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (1994). Strain may be either:

Structural: this refers to the processes at the societal level which filter down and affect how the individual perceives his or her needs, i.e. if particular social structures are inherently inadequate or there is inadequate regulation, this may change the individual's perceptions as to means and opportunities; or

Individual: this refers to the frictions and pains experienced by an individual as he or she looks for ways to satisfy his or her needs, i.e. if the goals of a society become significant to an individual, actually achieving them may become more important than the means adopted.

Robert Merton
Strain/Anomie Theory Robert Merton The very definition of the word strain can be used to help understand strain theory. According to Websters dictionary strain (in the form of a verb) means to be subjected to tension or stress; to cause a change of form or size in (a body) by application of external force. In the form of a noun, strain is known as a great or excessive effort or striving after some goal, object, or effect. Thus, it is rational to grasp how strain theory insinuates that social structures within society may ultimately pressure citizens to commit crime. Like many sociological theories of crime, Robert Mertons strain/anomie theory has advanced following the work of Emile Durkheim. In Mertons theory anomie is very similar to the very meaning of the word strain, as he proposed anomie to be a situation in which societies inadvertently bring to bear pressure, or strain, on individuals that can lead to rule-breaking behavior. This pressure, or strain if you will, is caused by the discrepancy between culturally defined goals and the institutionalized means available to achieve these goals.

To illustrate this Merton argues that the dominant cultural goal in the U.S is the acquisition of wealth, as a message was depicted that happiness often equated with material success which is often associated with wealth. The socially accepted institutionalized manner of achieving these material goals was believed to be hard work and education, meaning it is widely believed that people who apply themselves to study and work will succeed financially and that those who do not succeed are labeled as either lazy or defective. According to Merton, the problem with this type of society is that the legitimate means for achieving material success are not uniformly distributed. In other words, those from wealthier backgrounds have considerably more access to legitimate means than do those who are economically disadvantaged. As a consequence, anomie, or strain, is generated and produces certain modes of adaptation, or (simply put) coping strategies, that the disadvantaged use to deal with the pressures that are brought to bear on them.

Merton identifies five modes of adaptation: conformity, innovation, retreatism, ritualism, and rebellion. According to Merton, the innovator is the most likely to engage in criminal behavior, as the innovator accepts the socially recognized goals of society, but rejects the legitimate means to achieve these goals. Consequently, the innovator uses proceeds from crimes such as fraud, theft, and illegal drug dealing to access culturally defined goals. Critique of Strain/Anomie theory Although Mertons Strain theory continues to play a role in the sociological theorization of crime today, there are limitations to this theory of crime that have been identified. The first critique of this theory, put forth by Albert Cohen, addressed the fact that there is an ample amount of crime/delinquent behavior that is nonutilitarian, malicious, and negativistic (OGrady, 2011), which highlights that not all crimes are explicable using Mertons theory. Although Merton could explain crimes such as fraud and theft on the basis of in novation, he is unable to explain youth crimes that are often engaged in for social status rather than material acquisition. Furthermore, Strain/Anomie theory fails to adequately address issues such as race and gender. Additionally, Strain/Anomie theory is unable to explain the phenomena of white collar crime.

Robert Dubin
Robert Dubin (1959) viewed deviance as a function of society, disputing the assumption that the deviant adaptations to situations ofanomie are necessarily harmful to society. For example, an individual in the ritualistic adaptation is still playing by the rules and taking part in society. The only deviance lies in abandoning one or more of its culturally prescribed goals. Dubin argued that Merton's focus on the relationship between societys emphasized goals, and institutionalized prescribed means was inadequate.

Dubin felt that a further distinction should be made between cultural goals, institutional means and institutional norms because individuals perceive norms subjectively, interpreting them and acting upon them differently. The personal educational experiences, values, and attitudes may predispose an individual to internalize a norm one way. Another individual with different experiences may legitimately internalize the same norm differently. Both may be acting rationally in their own terms, but the resulting behaviour is different. Dubin also extended Mertons typology to fourteen, with particular interest in Innovation and Ritualism. Merton proposed that the innovative response to strain was accepting the goal, but rejecting the institutionally prescribed means of achieving the goal. The implication seemed to be that that not only did the individual reject the means, he must actively innovate illegitimate means as a substitute which would not always be true. Dubin also thought that a distinction should be made between the actual behaviour of the actor and the values that drove the behaviour. Instead of Innovation, Dubin proposed Behavioural Innovation and Value Innovation. Similarly, in Ritualism, he proposed Behavioural Ritualism and Value Ritualism (Dubin, 1959: 147-149). Merton (1959: 177-189) commented on Dubins revisions, claiming that although Dubin did make valid contributions, they took the focus off deviancy.

Robert Agnew
In 1992, Robert Agnew asserted that strain theory could be central in explaining crime and deviance, but that it needed revision so that it was not tied to social class or cultural variables, but re-focused on norms. To this end, Agnew proposed a general strain theory that is neither structural nor interpersonal but rather individual and emotional, paying special attention to an individual's immediate social environment. He argued that an individual's actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively valued goals, actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli, and actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli all result in strain. Anger and frustration confirm negative relationships. The resulting behavior patterns will often be characterized by more than their share of unilateral action because an individual will have a natural desire to avoid unpleasant rejections, and these unilateral actions (especially when antisocial) will further contribute to an individual's alienation from society. If particular rejections are generalized into feelings that the environment is unsupportive, more strongly negative emotions may motivate the individual to engage in crime. This is most likely to be true for younger individuals, and Agnew suggested that research focus on the magnitude, recency, duration, and clustering of such strain-related events to determine whether a person copes with strain in a criminal or conforming manner. Temperament, intelligence, interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, the presence of conventional social support, and the absence of association with antisocial (e.g., criminally inclined) age and status peers are chief among the factors Agnew identified as beneficial.

Akers' operationalization of Agnew's theory: Sources of strain

Akers (2000: 159) has operationalized Agnew's version of the Strain Theory, as follows: Failure to achieve positively valued goals: the gap between expectations and actual achievements will derive from short- and long-term personal goals, and some of those goals will never be realized because of unavoidable circumstances including both inherent weaknesses and opportunities blocked by others; and the difference between the view of what a person believes the outcome should be and what actually results increases personal disappointment. Frustration is not necessarily due to any outside interference with valued goals, but a direct effect on anger, and has indirect effects on serious crime and aggression. Agnew and White (1992) have produced empirical evidence suggesting that general strain theory was positively able to relate delinquents and drug users, and that the strongest effect on the delinquents studied was the delinquency of their peers. They were interested in drug use because it did not appear to represent an attempt to direct anger or escape pain, but "is used primarily to manage the negative affect caused by strain." Up to this point, strain theory had been concerned with types of strain rather than sources of strain whereas the stress of events can be shown to interfere with the achievement of natural expectations or just and fair outcomes. These may be significant events or minor "hassles" that accumulate and demoralize over time. Frustration leads to dissatisfaction, resentment, and anger all the emotions customarily associated with strain in criminology. It is natural for individuals to feel distress when they are denied just rewards for their efforts when compared to the efforts and rewards given to similar others for similar outcomes. Agnew (1992) treats anger as the most critical emotion since it is almost always directed outwards and is often related to breakdowns in relationships. Research shows that the stress/crime relationship appears to hold regardless of guilt feelings, age, and capacity to cope when events occur simultaneously or in close succession.

Zhang Jie
The strain theory of suicide postulates that suicide is usually preceded by psychological strains. A psychological strain is formed by at least two stresses or pressures, pushing the individual to different directions. A strain can be a consequence of any of the four conflicts: differential values, discrepancy between aspiration and reality, relative deprivation, and lack of coping skills for a crisis. Psychological strains in the form of all the four sources have been tested and supported with a sample of suicide notes in

the United States and in rural China through psychological autopsy studies. The strain theory of suicide forms a challenge to the psychiatric model popular among the suicidologists in the world. The strain theory of suicide is based on the theoretical frameworks established by previous sociologists, e.g. Durkheim (1951), Merton (1957), and Agnew (2006), and preliminary tests have been accomplished with some American (Zhang and Lester 2008) and Chinese data (Zhang 2010; Zhang, Dong, Delprino, and Zhou 2009; Zhang, Wieczorek, Conwell, and Tu 2011). There could be four types of strain that precede a suicide, and each can be derived from specific sources. A source of strain must consist of two, and at least two, conflicting social facts. If the two social facts are non-contradictory, there would be no strain.

Strain Source 1: Differential Values

When two conflicting social values or beliefs are competing in an individuals daily life, the person experiences value strain. The two conflicting social facts are competing personal beliefs internalized in the persons value system. A cult member may experience strain if the mainstream culture and the cult religion are both considered important in the cult members daily life. Other examples include the second generation of immigrants in the United States who have to abide by the ethnic culture rules enforced in the family while simultaneously adapting to the American culture with peers and school. In China, rural young women appreciate gender egalitarianism advocated by the communist government, but at the same time, they are trapped in cultural sexual discrimination as traditionally cultivated by Confucianism. Another example that might be found in developing countries is the differential values of traditional collectivism and modern individualism. When the two conflicting values are taken as equally important in a persons daily life, the person experiences great strain. When one value is more important than the other, there is then little or no strain.

Strain Source 2: Reality vs. Aspiration

If there is a discrepancy between an individuals aspiration or a high goal and the reality the person has to live with, the person experiences aspiration strain. The two conflicting social facts are ones splendid ideal or goal and the reality that may prevent one from achieving it. An individual living in the United States expects to be very rich or at least moderately successful as other Americans do, but in reality the means to achieve the goal is not equally available to the person because of his/her social status or any other reasons. Aspirations or goals can be a college a person aims to get in, an ideal girl a boy wants to marry, and a political cause a person strives for, etc. If the reality is far from the aspiration, the person experiences strain. Another example might be from rural China. A young woman aspiring to equal opportunity and equal treatment may have to live within the traditional and Confucian reality, exemplified

by her family and village, which interferes with that goal. The larger the discrepancy between aspiration and reality, the greater the strain will be.

Strain Source 3: Relative Deprivation

In the situation where an extremely economically poor individual realizes some other people of the same or similar background are leading a much better life, the person experiences deprivation strain. The two conflicting social facts are ones own miserable life and the perceived richness of comparative others. A person living in absolute poverty, where there is no comparison with others, does not necessarily feel bad, miserable, or deprived. On the other hand, if the same poor person understands that other people like him/her live a better life, he or she may feel deprived because of these circumstances. In an economically polarized society where the rich and poor live geographically close to each other, people are more likely to feel this discrepancy. In todays rural China, television, newspaper, magazi nes, and radio have brought home to rural youths how relatively affluent urban life is. Additionally, those young people who went to work in the cities (dagong) and returned to the village during holidays with luxury materials and exciting stories make the relative deprivation even more realistically perceived. Increased perception of deprivation indicates relatively greater strain for individuals.

Strain Source 4: Deficient Coping

Facing a life crisis, some individuals are not able to cope with it, and then they experience coping strain. The two conflicting social facts are life crisis and the appropriate coping capacity. All people who have experienced crises do not experience strain. A crisis may be a pressure or stress in daily life, and those individuals who are not able to cope with the crisis have strain. Such crises as loss of money, loss of status, loss of face, divorce, death of a loved one, etc. may lead to serious strain in the person who does not know how to cope with these negative life events. A high school boy who is constantly bullied and ridiculed by peers may experience great strain if he does not know how to deal with the situation. Likewise, a Chinese rural young woman who is frequently wronged by her mother-in-law may have strain if she is not psychologically ready to cope with a different situation by seeking support from other family members and the village. The less capable the cop

Labeling theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labeling theory is the theory of how the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. Labeling theory holds thatdeviance is not inherent to an act, but instead focuses on

the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms.[1] The theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and some modified versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular. Unwanted descriptors or categorizations - including terms related to deviance,disability or diagnosis of a mental disorder - may be rejected on the basis that they are merely "labels", often with attempts to adopt a more constructive language in its place. A stigma is defined as a powerfully negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.[2] Labeling theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolic-interaction analysis.[3] Labeling theory was developed by sociologists during the 1960s. Howard Saul Becker's book Outsiders was extremely influential in the development of this theory and its rise to popularity.

Theoretical basis
Labeling theory had its origins in Suicide, a book by French sociologist mile Durkheim. He found that crime is not so much a violation of a penal code as it is an act that outrages society. He was the first to suggest that deviant labeling satisfies that function and satisfies society's need to control the behavior. As a contributor to American Pragmatism and later a member of the Chicago School, George Herbert Mead posited that the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the interactions which each person has with the community. The labeling theory suggests that people obtain labels from how others view their tendencies or behaviors. Each individual is aware of how they are judged by others because he or she has attempted many different roles and functions in social interactions and has been able to gauge the reactions of those present. This theoretically builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality of that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Familyand friends may judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments. If deviance is a failure to conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label the person as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. This is the power of the group: to designate breaches of their rules as deviant and to treat the person differently depending on the seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more the individual's selfimage is affected. Labeling theory concerns itself mostly not with the normal roles that define our lives, but with those very special roles that society provides for deviant behavior, called deviant roles, stigmatic roles, or social stigma. A social role is a set of expectations we have about a behavior. Social roles are necessary for the organization and functioning of any society or group. We expect the postman, for example, to adhere to certain fixed rules about

how he does his job. "Deviance" for a sociologist does not mean morally wrong, but rather behavior that is condemned by society. Deviant behavior can include both criminal and non-criminal activities. Investigators found that deviant roles powerfully affect how we perceive those who are assigned those roles. They also affect how the deviant actor perceives himself and his relationship to society. The deviant roles and the labels attached to them function as a form of social stigma. Always inherent in the deviant role is the attribution of some form of "pollution" or difference that marks the labeled person as different from others. Society uses these stigmatic roles to them to control and limit deviant behavior: "If you proceed in this behavior, you will become a member of that group of people." Whether a breach of a given rule will be stigmatized will depend on the significance of the moral or other tenet it represents. For example, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule or it may be criminalized depending on the status of marriage, morality, and religion within the community. In most Western countries, adultery is not a crime. Attaching the label "adulterer" may have some unfortunate consequences but they are not generally severe. But in some Islamic countries, zina is a crime and proof of extramarital activity may lead to severe consequences for all concerned. Stigma is usually the result of laws enacted against the behavior. Laws protecting slavery or outlawing homosexuality, for instance, will over time form deviant roles connected with those behaviors. Those who are assigned those roles will be seen as less human and reliable. Deviant roles are the sources of negative stereotypes, which tend to support society's disapproval of the behavior.

George Herbert Mead

One of the founders of social interactionism, George Herbert Mead focused on the internal processes of how the mind constructs one's self-image. In Mind, Self, and Society (1934),[4] he showed how infants come to know persons first and only later come to know things. According to Mead, thought is both a social and pragmatic process, based on the model of two persons discussing how to solve a problem. Meads central concept is the self, the part of an individuals personality composed of self-awareness and selfimage.[5] Our self-image is, in fact, constructed of ideas about what we think others are thinking about us. While we make fun of those who visibly talk to themselves, they have only failed to do what the rest of us do in keeping the internal conversation to ourselves. Human behavior, Mead stated, is the result of meanings created by the social interaction of conversation, both real and imaginary.

Frank Tannenbaum
Frank Tannenbaum is considered the grandfather of labeling theory. His Crime and Community (1938),[6] describing the social interaction involved in crime, is considered a pivotal foundation of modern criminology. While the criminal differs little or not at all from others in the original impulse to first commit a crime, social interaction accounts for continued acts that develop a pattern of interest to sociologists.

Tannenbaum first introduced the idea of 'tagging'.[7] While conducting his studies with delinquent youth, he found that a negative tag or label often contributed to further involvement in delinquent activities. This initial tagging may cause the individual to adopt it as part of their identity. The crux of Tannenbaum's argument is that the greater the attention placed on this label, the more likely the person is to identify themselves as the label. Kerry Townsend writes about the revolution in criminology caused by Tannenbaum's work: "The roots of Frank Tannenbaums theoretical model, known as the dramatization of evil or labeling theory, surfaces in the mid- to late-thirties. At this time, the 'New Deal' legislation had not defeated the woes of the Great Depression, and, although dwindling, immigration into the United States continued (Sumner, 1994).[8] The social climate was one of disillusionment with the government. The class structure was one of cultural isolationism; cultural relativity had not yet taken hold. 'The persistence of the class structure, despite the welfare reforms and controls over big business, was unmistakable.'[9] The Positivist School of Criminological thought was still dominant, and in many states, the sterilization movement was underway. The emphasis on biological determinism and internal explanations of crime were the preeminent force in the theories of the early thirties. This dominance by the Positivist School changed in the late thirties with the introduction of conflict and social explanations of crime and criminality... "One of the central tenets of the theory is to encourage the end of labeling process. In the words of Frank Tannenbaum, the way out is through a refusal to dramatize the evil, the justice system attempts to do this through diversion programs. The growth of the theory and its current application, both practical and theoretical, provide a solid foundation for continued popularity.":[10]

Edwin Lemert
It was sociologist Edwin Lemert (1951) who introduced the concept of "secondary deviance." The primary deviance is the experience connected to the overt behavior, say drug addiction and its practical demands and consequences. Secondary deviation is the role created to deal with society's condemnation of the behavior. With other sociologists of his time, he saw how all deviant acts are social acts, a result of the cooperation of society. In studying drug addiction, Lemert observed a very powerful and subtle force at work. Besides the physical addiction to the drug and all the economic and social disruptions it caused, there was an intensely intellectual process at work concerning one's own identity and the justification for the behavior: "I do these things because I am this way." There might be certain subjective and personal motives that might first lead a person to drink or shoplift. But the activity itself tells us little about the person's self-image or its relationship to the activity. Lemert writes: "His acts are repeated and organized subjectively and transformed into active roles and become the social criteria for assigning status.....When a person begins to employ his

deviant behavior or a role based on it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary"
[11]

Howard Becker
While it was Lemert who introduced the key concepts of labeling theory, it was Howard Becker who became their champion. He first began describing the process of how a person adopts a deviant role in a study of dance musicians, with whom he once worked. He later studied the identity formation of marijuana smokers. This study was the basis of his Outsiders published in 1963. This work became the manifesto of the labeling theory movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writes: "...social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those roles to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an 'offender.' The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label."[12] While society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses it to justify his actions. He wrote: "To put a complex argument in a few words: instead of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation."[13] Becker's immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He wrote that sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely. Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People act, as Mead and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to do."[14] Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. After 20 years, his views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expanded "structuring perspective."[15]

Albert Memmi
In The Colonizer and the Colonized (1965) Albert Memmi described the deep psychological effects of the social stigma created by the domination of one group by another. He wrote:

"The longer the oppression lasts, the more profoundly it affects him (the oppressed). It ends by becoming so familiar to him that he believes it is part of his own constitution, that he accepts it and could not imagine his recovery from it. This acceptance is the crowning point of oppression."[16] In Dominated Man (1968), Memmi turned his attention to the motivation of stigmatic labeling: it justifies the exploitation or criminalization of the victim. He wrote: "Why does the accuser feel obliged to accuse in order to justify himself? Because he feels guilty toward his victim. Because he feels that his attitude and his behavior are essentially unjust and fraudulent....Proof? In almost every case, the punishment has already been inflicted . The victim of racism is already living under the weight of disgrace and oppression.... In order to justify such punishment and misfortune, a process of rationalization is set in motion, by which to explain the ghetto and colonial exploitation."[17] Central to stigmatic labeling is the attribution of an inherent fault: It is as if one says, "There must be something wrong with these people. Otherwise, why would we treat them so badly?"

Erving Goffman
Perhaps the most important contributor to labeling theory was Erving Goffman, President of the American Sociological Association, and one of America's most cited sociologists. His most popular books include The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,[18] Interaction Ritual, [19] and Frame Analysis.[20] His most important contribution to labeling theory, however, was Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity published in 1963.[21] Unlike other authors who examined the process of adopting a deviant identity, Goffman explored the ways people managed that identity and controlled information about it. Among Goffman's key insights were the following:

The modern nation state's heightened demand for normalcy. Today's stigmas are the result not so much of ancient or religious prohibitions, but of a new demand for normalcy. He wrote: "The notion of the 'normal human being' may have its source in the medial approach to humanity, or in the tendency of large-scale bureaucratic organizations such as the nation state, to treat all members in some respects as equal. Whatever its origins, it seems to provide the basic imagery through which laymen currently conceive themselves.[22]

Living in a divided world. Deviants divide their worlds into 1. forbidden places where discovery means exposure and danger, 2. places where people of that kind are

painfully tolerated, and 3. places where one's kind is exposed without need to dissimulate or conceal.[23]

Dealing with others is fraught with great complexity and ambiguity. He wrote: "When normals and stigmatized do in fact enter one another's immediate presence, especially when they attempt to maintain a joint conversational encounter, there occurs one of the primal scenes of sociology; for, in many cases, these moments will be the ones when the causes and effects of stigma will be directly confronted by both sides....[24] "What are unthinking routines for normals can become management problems for the discreditable....The person with a secret failing, then, must be alive to the social situation as a scanner of possibilities, and is therefore likely to be alienated from the simpler world in which those around them apparently dwell."[25]

Society's demands are filled with contradictions. On the one hand, a stigmatized person may be told that he is no different from others. On the other hand, he must declare his status as "a resident alien who stands for his group."[26] "It requires that the stigmatized individual cheerfully and unselfconsciously accept himself as essentially the same as normals, while at the same time he voluntarily withholds himself from those situations in which normals would find it difficult to give lip service to their similar acceptance of him..." One has to convey the impression that the burden of the stigma is not too heavy yet keep himself at the required distance. "A phantom acceptance is allowed to provide the base for a phantom normalcy."[27]

Familiarity need not reduce contempt. In spite of the common belief that openness and exposure will decrease stereotypes and repression, the opposite is true. "Thus, whether we interact with strangers or intimates, we will still find that the fingertips of society have reached bluntly into the contact, even here putting us in our place." [28]

David Matza[edit]
In On Becoming Deviant (1969),[29] sociologist David Matza gives us the most vivid and graphic account of the process of adopting a deviant role. The acts of authorities in outlawing a proscribed behavior can have two effects, keeping most out of the behavior, but also offering new opportunities for creating deviant identities. He says the concept of "affinity" does little to explain the dedication to the behavior. "Instead, it may be regarded as a natural biographical tendency born of personal and social circumstances that suggests but hardly compels a direction or movement."[30] What gives force to that movement is the development of a new identity. He writes:

"To be cast as a thief, as a prostitute, or more generally, a deviant, is to further compound and hasten the process of becoming that very thing...."[31] In shocked discovery, the subject now concretely understands that there are serious people who really go around building their lives around his activities--stopping him, correcting him, devoted to him. They keep records on the course of his life, even develop theories on how he got that way.... Pressed by such a display, the subject may begin to add meaning and gravity to his deviant activities. But he may do so in a way not especially intended by agents of the state...."[32] "The meaningful issue of identity is whether this activity, or any of my activities can stand for me, or be regarded as proper indications of my being. I have done a theft, been signified a thief. am I a thief? To answer affirmatively, we must be able to conceive a special relationship between being and doing--a unity capable of being indicated. That building of meaning has a notable quality."[33]

The "criminal"[edit]
As an application of phenomenology, the theory hypothesizes that the labels applied to individuals influence their behavior, particularly the application of negative or stigmatizing labels (such as "criminal" or "felon") promote deviant behavior, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. an individual who is labeled has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning of that judgment. Consequently, labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their label(s). Related prevention policies include client empowerment schemes, mediation and conciliation, victimoffenderforgiveness ceremonies (restorative justice), restitution, reparation, and alternatives to prison programs involving diversion. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain society's most serious offenses.[34] Some offenses, including the use of violence, are universally recognized as wrong. Hence, labeling either habitual criminals or those who have caused serious harm as "criminals" is not constructive. Society may use more specific labels such as "murderer" or "rapist" or "child abuser" to demonstrate more clearly after the event the extent of its disapproval, but there is a slightly mechanical determinism in asserting that the application of a label will invariably modify the behavior of the one labeled. Further, if one of the

functions of the penal system is to reducerecidivism, applying a long-term label may cause prejudice against the offender, resulting in the inability to maintain employment and social relationships.

The "mentally ill

The social construction of deviant behavior plays an important role in the labeling process that occurs in society. This process involves not only the labeling of criminally deviant behavior, which is behavior that does not fit socially constructed norms, but also labeling that which reflects stereotyped or stigmatized behavior of the "mentally ill". Labeling theory was first applied to the term "mentally ill" in 1966 when Thomas J. Scheff published Being Mentally Ill. Scheff challenged common perceptions of mental illness by claiming that mental illness is manifested solely as a result of societal influence. He argued that society views certain actions as deviant and, in order to come to terms with and understand these actions, often places the label of mental illness on those who exhibit them. Certain expectations are then placed on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their behavior to fulfill them. Criteria for different mental illnesses are not consistently fulfilled by those who are diagnosed with them because all of these people suffer from the same disorder, they are simply fulfilled because the "mentally ill" believe they are supposed to act a certain way so, over time, come to do so.[35] Scheff's theory had many critics, most notably Walter Gove. Gove consistently argued an almost opposite theory; he believed that society has no influence at all on "mental illness". Instead, any societal perceptions of the "mentally ill" come about as a direct result of these people's behaviors. Most sociologists' views of labeling and mental illness have fallen somewhere between the extremes of Gove and Scheff. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to deny, given both common sense and research findings, that society's negative perceptions of "crazy" people has had some effect on them. It seems that, realistically, labeling can accentuate and prolong the issues termed "mental illness", but it is rarely the full cause.[36] Many other studies have been conducted in this general vein. To provide a few examples, several studies have indicated that most people associate being labeled mentally ill as being just as, or even more, stigmatizing than being seen as a drug addict, ex-convict, orprostitute (for example: Brand & Claiborn 1976).

Additionally, Page's 1977 study found that self declared "ex-mental patients" are much less likely to be offered apartment leases or hired for jobs. Clearly, these studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that labeling can have a very real and very large effect on the mentally ill. None of these studies, however, proved that labeling is the sole cause of any symptoms of mental illness. Peggy Thoits discusses the process of labeling someone with a mental illness in her article, "Sociological Approaches to Mental Illness". Working off of Thomas Scheff's (1966) theory, Thoits claims that people who are labeled as mentally ill are stereotypically portrayed as unpredictable, dangerous, and unable to care for themselves. She also claims that "people who are labeled as deviant and treated as deviant become deviant" (Thoits 1999, p. 134). This statement can be broken down into two processes, one that involves the effects of self-labeling and the other differential treatment from society based on the individual's label. Therefore, if society sees mentally ill individuals as unpredictable, dangerous and reliant on others, then a person who may not actually be mentally ill but has been labeled as such, could become mentally ill. The label of "mentally ill" may help a person seek help, for example psychotherapy or medication. Labels, while they can be stigmatizing, can also lead those who bear them down the road to proper treatment and (hopefully) recovery. If one believes that "being mentally ill" is more than just believing one should fulfill a set of diagnostic criteria (as Scheff see above would argue), then one would probably also agree that there are some who are labeled "mentally ill" who need help. It has been claimed that this could not happen if "we" did not have a way to categorize (and therefore label) them, although there are actually plenty of approaches to these phenomena that don't use categorical classifications and diagnostic terms, for example spectrum or continuum models. Here, people vary along different dimensions, and everyone falls at different points on each dimension.

The "homosexual
The application of labeling theory to homosexuality has been extremely controversial. It was Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues who pointed out the big discrepancy between the behavior and the role attached to it. They had

observed the often negative consequences of labeling and repeatedly condemned labeling people as homosexual: "It is amazing to observe how many psychologists and psychiatrists have accepted this sort of propaganda, and have come to believe that homosexual males and females are discretely different from persons who respond to natural stimuli. Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds... It would clarify our thinking if the terms could be dropped completely out of our vocabulary....[37] "Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual... Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into pigeonholes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.[38] "The classification of sexual behavior as masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual, is, therefore, unfortunate if it suggests that only different types of persons seek out or accept each kind of sexual activity. There is nothing known in the anatomy or physiology of sexual response and orgasm which distinguishes masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual reactions....[39] "In regard to sexual behavior, it has been possible to maintain this dichotomy only by placing all persons who are exclusively heterosexual in a heterosexual category and all persons who have any amount of experience with their own sex, even including those with the slightest experience, in a homosexual category.... The attempt to maintain a simple dichotomy on these matters exposes the traditional biases which are likely to enter whenever the heterosexual or homosexual classification of an individual is involved" [40] Erving Goffman's Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity distinguished between the behavior and the role assigned to it. He wrote: "The term 'homosexual' is generally used to refer to anyone who engages in overt sexual practices with a member of his own sex, the practice being called 'homosexuality.' This usage appears to be based on a medical and legal frame of reference and provides much too broad and heterogenous a categorization for use here. I refer only to individuals who participate in a special community of understanding wherein members of one's own sex are defined as the most desirable sexual objects, and sociability is energetically organized around the pursuit and entertainment of these objects." [41] Labeling theory was also applied to homosexuality by Evelyn Hooker[42][43][44] and by Leznoff and Westley, who published the first sociological study of the gay community.[45] Erving Goffman and Howard Becker used

the lives of gay-identified persons in their theories of labeling and interactionism. Simon and Gagnon likewise wrote: "It is necessary to move away from the obsessive concern with the sexuality of the individual, and attempt to see the homosexual in terms of the broader attachments that he must make to live in the world around him."[46] British sociologist Mary McIntosh reflected the enthusiasm of Europeans for labeling theory in her 1968 study, "The Homosexual Role." "The vantage-point of comparative sociology enables us to see that the conception of homosexuality as a condition is, itself, a possible object of study. This conception and the behavior it supports operate as a form of social control in a society in which homosexuality is condemned... "It is interesting to notice that homosexuals themselves welcome and support the notion that homosexuality as a condition. For just as the rigid categorization deters people from drifting into deviancy, so it appears to foreclose on the possibility of drifting back into normalcy and thus removes the element of anxious choice. It appears to justify the deviant behavior of the homosexual as being appropriate for him as a member of the homosexual category. The deviancy can thus be seen as legitimate for him and he can continue in it without rejecting the norm of society."[47] Sara Fein and Elaine M. Nuehring were among the many who supported the application of labeling theory to homosexuality. They saw the gay role functioning as a "master status" around which other roles become organized. This brings a whole new set of problems and restrictions: "Placement in a social category constituting a master status prohibits individuals from choosing the extent of their involvement in various categories. Members of the stigmatized group lose the opportunity to establish their own personal system of evaluation and group membership as well as the ability to arrive at their own ranking of each personal characteristic.... For example, newly selfacknowledged homosexual individuals cannot take for granted that they share the world with others who hold congruent interpretations and assumptions; their behavior and motives, both past and present, will be interpreted in light of their stigma." [48]

Perhaps the strongest proponent of labeling theory was Edward Sagarin. In his book, Deviants and Deviance, he wrote, "There are no homosexuals, transvestites, chemical addicts, suicidogenics, delinquents, criminals, or other such entities, in the sense of people having such identities."[49] Sagarin's position was roundly condemned by academics in the gay community. Sagarin had written some gay novels under the pseudonym of Donald Webster Cory. According to reports, he later abandoned his gay identity and began promoting an interactionist view of homosexuality.[50] A number of authors adopted a modified, non-deviant, labeling theory. They rejected the stigmatic function of the gay role, but found it useful in describing the process of coming out and reconciling one's homosexual experiences with the social role. Their works included:

Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg, Homosexuals and the Military, 1971.[51]

Barry Dank, "Coming Out in the Gay World," 1971.[52]

Sue Hammersmith and Martin Weinberg, "Homosexual Identity: Commitment, Adjustment, and Significant Others," 1973.[53]

Martin Weinberg and Colin Williams, in "Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations," 1974.[54]

Carol A. B. Warren, in Identity and Community in the Gay World, 1974.[55]

Michael Shively and John DeCecco, "Components of Sexual Identity," 1977.[56]

Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, 1978.[57]

Thomas Weinberg, "On 'Doing' and 'Being' Gay: Sexual Behavior and Homosexual Male Self-Identity." 1978.[58]

Vivienne Cass, "Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model," 1979.[59]

Richard Troiden, "Becoming Homosexual: A model of Gay Identity Acquisition," 1979.[60]

Alan Bell, Martin Weinberg, and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, 1981.[61]

Eli Coleman, "Developmental Stages of the Coming Out Process", 1982.[62]

Barry Adam, in his Survival of Domination: Inferiorization of Everyday Life, took those authors to task for ignoring the force of the oppression in creating identities and their inferiorizing effects. Drawing upon the works of Albert Memmi, Adam showed how gay-identified persons, like Jews and blacks, internalize the hatred to justify their limitations of life choices. He saw the

gravitation towards ghettos was evidence of the self-limitations. He wrote: "A certain romantic liberalism runs through the literature, evident from attempts to paper over or discount the very real problems of inferiorization. Some researchers seem bent on 'rescuing' their subjects from 'defamation' by ignoring the problems of defeatism and complicit self-destruction. Avoidance of dispiriting reflection upon the day-to-day practice of dominated people appears to spring from a desire to 'enhance' the reputation of the dominated and magically relieve their plight. Careful observation has been sacrificed to the 'power of positive thinking.'"[63] Strong defense of labeling theory also arose within the gay community. Dan Slater of the Los Angeles Homosexual Information Center said, "There is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. There is no such thing as gay pride or anything like that. Homosexuality is simply based on the sex act. Gay consciousness and all the rest are separatist and defeatist attitudes going back to centuries-old and outmoded conceptions that homosexuals are, indeed, different from other people." [64] In a later article, Slater stated the gay movement was going in the wrong direction: "Is it the purpose of the movement to try to assert sexual rights for everyone or create a political and social cult out of homosexuality?.... Persons who perform homosexual acts or other non-conforming acts are sexually free. They want others enlightened. They want hostile laws changed, but the resent the attempt to organize their lives around homosexuality just as much as they resent the centuries-old attempt to organize their lives around heterosexuality.[65] William DuBay, in Gay Identity: The Self Under Ban,[66] describes gay identity as one strategy for

dealing with society's oppression. It solves some problems but creates many more, replacing a closet of secrecy with one of gay identity. A better strategy, he suggests, is to reject the label and live as if the oppression did not exist. Quoting Goffman, he writes, "But of course what is a good adjustment for the individual can be an even better one for society."[67] DuBay contends that the attempt to define homosexuality as a class of persons to be protected against discrimination as defined in the statutes has not reduced the oppression. The goal of the movement instead should be to gain acceptance of homosexual relationships as useful and productive for both society and the family. The movement has lost the high moral ground by sponsoring the "flight from choice" and not taking up the moral issues. "Persons whom we confine to back rooms and bars other societies have honored as tenders of children, astrologers, dancers, chanters, minstrels, jesters, artists, shamans, sacred warriors and judges, seers, healers, weavers of tales and magic."[68]

DuBay refers to the "gay trajectory," in which a person first wraps himself in the gay role, organizing his personality and his life around sexual behavior. He might flee from his family and home town to a large gay center. There, the bedeviling force of the stigma will introduce him to more excessive modes of deviance such as promiscuity, prostitution, alcoholism, and drugs. Many resist such temptations and try to normalize their life, but the fast lanes of gay society are littered with the casualties of gay identity. Some come to reject the label entirely. "Accomplishing the forbidden, they are neither gay nor straight. Again learning to choose, they develop the ability to make the ban ambiguous, taking responsibility and refusing explanations of their behaviors." [69] John Henry Mackay writes about a gay hustler in Berlin adopting such a solution: "What was selfevident, natural, and not the least sick did not require an excuse through an explanation.... It was love just like any other love. Whoever could not or would not accept it as love was mistaken."[70]

Modified Labeling theory

Bruce Link and colleagues have conducted several studies which point to the influence that labeling can have on mental patients. Through these studies, which took place in 1987, 1989, and 1997, Link advanced a "modified labeling theory" indicating that expectations of labeling can have a large negative effect, that these expectations often cause patients to withdraw from society, and that those labeled as having a mental disorder are constantly being rejected from society in seemingly minor ways but that, when taken as a whole, all of these small slights can drastically alter their self concepts. They come to both anticipate and perceive negative societal reactions to them, and this potentially damages their quality of life.[71] Modified Labeling theory has been described as a "sophisticated socialpsychological model of 'why labels matter' ". In 2000 results from a prospective two-year study of patients discharged from a mental hospital (in the context of deinstitutionalization) showed

thatstigma was a powerful and persistent force in their lives, and that experiences of social rejection were a persistent source of social stress. Efforts to cope with labels, such as not telling anyone, educating people about mental distress/disorder, withdrawing from stigmatizing situations, could result in further social isolation and reinforce negative self-concepts. Sometimes an identity as a low self-esteem minority in society would be accepted. The stigma was associated with diminished motivation and ability to "make it in mainstream society" and with "a state of social and psychological vulnerability to prolonged and recurrent problems". There was an up and down pattern in selfesteem, however, and it was suggested that, rather than simply gradual erosion of selfworth and increasingselfdeprecating tendencies, people were sometimes managing, but struggling, to maintain consistent feelings of self-worth. Ultimately, "a cadre of patients had developed an entrenched, negative view of themselves, and their experiences of rejection appear to be a key element in the

construction of these self-related feelings" and "hostile neighbourhoods may not only affect their self-concept but may also ultimately impact the patient's mental health status and how successful they are".[72]

Hard and soft labeling[edit]

Hard labeling People who believe in hard labeling believe that mental illness does not exist. It is merely deviance from the norms of society that cause people to believe in mental illness. Thus, mental illnesses are socially constructed illnesses and psychotic disorders do not exist.[73]

Soft labeling People who believe in soft labeling believe that mental illnesses do, in fact, exist. Unlike the supporters of hard labeling, soft labeling supporters believe that mental illnesses

Criminal Triad Theory

Criminal Triad Theory is a theory of criminal behavior developed by William Harmening, a professor of Forensic Psychology at theChicago School of Professional Psychology, and first presented in his book "The Criminal Triad: Psychosocial Development of the Criminal Personality Type" (Charles C. Thomas, 2010). Harmening is 30-year police veteran who developed much of his theory while sitting in his squad car late at night. It takes a negative approach to understanding why people engage in deviant behavior by first understanding the internal psychosocial mechanisms that allow them to self-deter from such behavior. The

theory looks at the interplay between three psychosocial developmental processes that occur between infancy and adolescence. Any disruption in a childs normal developmental course may lead to the development of a criminal personality type, or what Harmening describes as a "propensity" to engage in deviant behavior when the opportunity presents itself.

The Criminal Triad

The three psychosocial processes addressed by the theory are attachment in early childhood, moral development in middle to late childhood, and identity-formation in adolescence. The theory builds upon the developmental theories of Erik Erikson, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Mary Ainsworth, among others. Each of these developmental processes contributes to a child's ability to self-deter from criminal conduct when the dynamic interplay between internal and external variables is such that the temptation presents itself. Thus, each of these processes has a corresponding internal deterrencemechanism that is present and active if the child's developmental course has been non-problematic. Combined, they create an integrated internal deterrence system that acts to deflect any deviant temptations, and provides redundancy in the event that one or two of its component parts fail. The criminal personality type (CPT) then is one lacking a fully developed internal deterrence system. The person either has no internal deterrence mechanism(s) to serve in a backup capacity, or their developmental course has left them with none at all. According to Harmening, the CPT is represented by an individual who is lacking any two, or all three of these internal deterrence mechanisms. This internal deterrence system is the result of many developmental factors, but primarily the parent-child relationship. According to the theory, this relationship begins a developmental process that leads to the child becoming socially-competent, morally aware, and having a sense of self-efficacy. Each of these personal characteristics serves as the foundation for, and is representative of its corresponding deterrence mechanism. Conversely, a child that is exposed to abusive, neglectful, or authoritarian parenting is at risk of entering adolescence without the social competence to develop friendly and intimate relationships, or the sense of personal-efficacy to develop a healthy concept of self. Each of these circumstances contributes to an underdeveloped sense of morality and a deficient need to adhere to societal norms and expectations.

Contents
[hide]

1 The Attachment Process 2 Moral Development 3 Identity-formation 4 The Internal Deterrence system 5 Summary 6 References 7 External links

The Attachment Process

The first process critical to the development of the child's internal deterrence system is that of attachment to a primary caregiver. Assuming a secure attachment, this emotional bond creates in the child a sense of safety, and a belief that their needs will consistently be met by the caregiver(s) in times of distress. They are able to develop a greater sense of physical and emotional autonomy because of this caregiver lifeline. It is from this process that all interpersonal competence and intimacy grow. Their trust in the caregiver(s) translates into a trusting demeanor toward all people. As children, they have less fear of physical vulnerability, which in adulthood translates into less fear of emotional vulnerability. And this opens the door to the development of intimate relationships, and a healthy dependence on those who now serve in a surrogate role for the caregiver(s). Mary Ainsworth (1978) described the various attachment outcomes in children. In addition to secure attachment, she also described various forms of insecure attachment. These children tend to replace trust with fear, mostly the result of inconsistent, neglectful, or abusive parenting. Their fear of separation from the caregiver(s) leads to clinging type behaviors (i.e., separation anxiety, stranger anxiety). This is precisely why we see the seemingly paradoxical behavior of abused children clinging to their abusers when there is an effort to remove them from the home. Insecurely attached children fail to develop the sense of physical and emotional autonomy necessary to develop social competence. Others have described the connection between insecure childhood attachment and adult attachment styles (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Bartholomew, Horowitz, & Leonard, 1991). In short, an insecurely attached child, or one who cannot depend on consistent nurturing from the parents, will ultimately grow into an adult who withholds that same nurturing from others. This nurturing is in a sense a connection with another human being. The parent-child connection is genetically based. It grows into a self-other connection that is psychosocially based. Without this connection the insecurely attached adult has either no emotional dependence on other people, or a dysfunctional over-dependence. Both outcomes are entirely egocentric. Lacking is a healthy bi-

directional dependence on intimate others, family, and close friends. Because of this dysfunctional level of egocentrism, the individual is motivated in their interactions with other people, or lack of, by self-serving needs and expectations. Thus the first element of the internal deterrence system, the "social deterrence mechanism" (SoDM), is developing from the first day of life. It is an existential fear of losing the self-other connection to family, friends, and mentors. A simpler way to say it is that people are deterred from crime by a fear of losing the love, respect, friendship, and camaraderie of people who are important in their lives. The level of fear is directly related to the quality of their childhood attachment. Children who enjoy no secure attachment, again, such as the children of abusive, neglectful, or authoritarian parents, grow into adults with no such fear, and thus they are not deterred socially from engaging in crime. They either have no fear since there is no connection, or their fear, assuming a dysfunctional over-dependence on others, is the fear of abandonment. But those with this type of fear tend to view a relationship as being maintainable by force, either verbal or physical. The fear of losing an emotional connection, as in the case of a securely attached individual, is simply not present. In this case the emotional investment is in egocentric needs.

Moral Development
The second component of the internal deterrence system is the "moral deterrence mechanism" (MDM). At some point during a child'scognitive development, typically around 18-24 months, they develop a clear sense that their actions have the capacity to effect the emotions of others, particularly the caregiver(s). Assuming a secure attachment, and a healthy fear of losing the self-other connection, then the child feels guilty when they affect the emotions of the caregiver(s) in a negative way. They feel this sense of guilt because they are becoming empathically aware, or beginning to understand on a cognitive level the feelings of others. With this understanding eventually comes sympathetic arousal, or the ability to experience on an emotional level what they understand on a cognitive level. So the moral response, assuming a proper course of development, involves three stages; empathic awareness, sympathetic arousal, and an altruistic motivation to improve the conditions that led to the response (Harmening, 2010). We may have a moral response when we see a homeless person begging for money on the street. First we become empathically aware, as we understand on a cognitive level that the person is homeless and without resources. We then are sympathetically aroused, and we vicariously experience on an emotional level the persons distress. And finally, we may then attempt to alleviate that vicarious distress by being altruistically motivated to improve the homeless persons situation, and we hand them a dollar. Unfortunately many people feel no empathy or sympathy at all for the persons plight. Others may be empathically awa re, fully understanding the persons situation, but they experience no sympathetic arousal, and thus withhold any handout. The extent to which they experience this empathy-sympathy-altruism response is a product of their

childhood attachment. If they are insecurely attached, and thus feel little or no self-guilt for impacting in a negative way the emotional responses of the caregiver(s), then this mechanism is underdeveloped. If they do experience a normal level of self-guilt, then that response will be generalized to their interactions with all people as they approach adolescence. The MDM deters criminal behavior by allowing the person to vicariously experience the negative emotions and outcomes their actions may cause in others, an experience they hopefully will seek to avoid by abstaining from the harmful behavior, assuming a secure attachment. The more they experience this empathy-sympathy response, the more those feelings will be integrated with the moral teachings they encounter as they grow older, especially during middle childhood when they begin to think in more abstract ways. The integration of internal affective experience and external teaching leads to a counterbalance of self-guilt with an altruisticallyempowered motivation.

Identity-formation

The Four Identity Outcomes

The final component of the developmental triad, and arguably the most complex, occurs during adolescence. Erik Erikson (1968) was the first to describe the process of identity- formation. It is a time when the adolescent must answer some important questions that ultimately will define who they are as they move into young adulthood; questions such as what type of occupation do I wish to pursue? What type of intimate relationships do I wish to engage in? And, what types of things do I wish to believe? It is a mixture of social identity, sexuality, and ideology, all coming together in an adolescent who has tested the waters, shrugged off the things that didnt work, and who hopefully comes out the other end with a well-defined sense of who they are. As this identity develops, the gap between the adolescent's perceived self and ideal self should narrow, assuming a normal course of development. As it narrows, self-esteem and self-efficacy result. In those cases where the gap only widens, self-contempt ultimately results. It is also true that identity builds upon the

foundation of both attachment and moral development. If the latter two have developed appropriately, then it is more likely that identity will develop in a socially congruent manner. There are four potential identity outcomes when we take into consideration not only how the adolescent views themselves, but also how society views them (Harmening, 2010). In terms of deterrence, only one of the identity outcomes, the congruous identity, is sufficient for deterring crime. The adolescent who develops a congruous identity has developed a well-defined sense of who they are and who they aspire to be, and the distance between the two is narrow. Because their identity is consistent with the expectations of society, they will avoid socially-deviant behavior because such behavior is simply inconsistent with their own self-expectations. They have developed a "self deterrence mechanism" (SeDM). Now it is true that the antisocial identity type likely has a narrow identity gap also. Their self appraisal may be very close to their ideal of who they aspire to be. But because their identity is inconsistent with the expectations of society, it is unlikely they will self-deter from crime for reasons related to this self-society dynamic. In fact, their identity may very well compel them to engage in crime if their ideal-self is deviant-based. For example, many gang members maintain an ideal-self that includes criminality, social deviance, power, and anti-police attitudes. The more they participate in the gang lifestyle, it is likely their identity gap will narrow, and thus the ideal-self they pull closer to is one based in socially-deviant behavior and attitudes. So the development of the SeDM is a two-step process. It first requires some proximity between the persons perceived-self and their ideal-self, which results in self-efficacy and self-esteem, and the identity that does develop must be congruent with sociocultural standards and expectations. Thus their ideal-self, the identity they pull toward, is one that is socially compliant and appropriate. The first step in this process is closely related to attachment. The second step is related to moral development. One without the other will leave the person lacking a fully developed SeDM. Moral awareness without secure attachment (discordant identity) may lead to the young person succumbing to criminal temptations as a way of acting out their identity deficiencies. Attachment without moral awareness (antisocial identity), most often the result of permissive parenting, may lead the young person to engage in crime for reasons of personal gratification, with little thought given to the impact their actions have on others. And in a worst case scenario, that being an insecure attachment coupled with a lack of moral awareness (deficient identity), there is simply no self deterrence mechanism present to any degree.

The Internal Deterrence system

A fully integrated internal deterrence system then is one in which the SoDM, MDM, and SeDM have all developed through their interconnected developmental processes. The fully integrated individual will self-deter from criminal conduct for many reasons, but each will be either "other-directed" (SoDM), "principle-directed" (MDM), or "self-directed" (SeDM). We are thus able to understand why someone engages in criminal conduct by taking a negative approach and understanding first the reasons why they choose not to engage in crime.

The Development of the Internal Deterrence System

Now that we have identified the individual components of the internal deterrence system, we can address the issue of the criminal personality type, and how the internal deterrence system relates to this personality type. We can look at the integrated deterrence system as a Venn diagram. The fully functioning deterrence system is one in which all three of its component parts are contributing to the individual's ability to deter from criminal conduct. This personality type is represented by area A on the diagram. If the temptation to engage in crime is strong enough to overpower one of the persons deterrence mechanismssocial, moral, or selfthen there is still the likelihood of deterrence, as the other two deterrence mechanisms act to buffer the individual against the temptation. A person who is deficient in one particular deterrence mechanism, the result of a subnormal developmental course, is still to be considered a non-criminal personality type due to the additional buffer a second deterrence mechanism provides in the event the other is not sufficient to deter the individual's temptation to engage in crime. For example, an individual may be deterred from crime by a fear of losing family and friends if they get caught (SoDM), or by a belief that it is morally wrong to victimize another person. But they may not be deterred by their own self-expectations or a fear of violating those expectations (SeDM). This person is not likely to engage in any type of crime that victimizes another person. But even in the case of a victimless crime, such as drug trafficking or prostitution, they will still likely be deterred by their fear of losing family and friends. In this case, the person's SoDM and MDM act as a backup for the other. These individuals are represented by areas B, C, and D on the diagram.

The Internal Deterrence System

When we say "criminal personality type," we are talking about those individuals who are lacking two or all three deterrence mechanisms, as represented by areas E, F, G, and H on the diagram. In this situation, assuming only one deterrence mechanism, there simply is no buffer against engaging in deviant behavior if that mechanism fails. An example is the oft-reported case of a pastor or teacher who gets arrested for sexually abusing a child. They are undeterred by a sense of morality (MDM) or any self-expectations related to identity (SeDM). They are deterred only by their fear of losing the love and respect of family and friends (SoDM). But if that deterrence mechanism fails because the temptation simply overpowers their ability to abstain, then they have no deterrence mechanism in reserve to serve as a backup. And if they are void of any deterrence mechanism (area H), then there is nothing internal deterring them, only a fear of getting caught and going to jail, an external variable that is unrelated to psychosocial development, and thus not a component of the internal deterrence system. So in the context of Criminal Triad Theory, the criminal personality type is one who has a propensity to commit crime when environmental circumstances are such that the temptation may be overpowering. The theory does not predict who will commit crime, but only those who carry in them a criminal propensity due to an underdeveloped internal deterrence system. In fact, some with a criminal personality type may never engage in criminal conduct. Simply the fear of losing their freedom may be sufficient to provide a deterrent effect. Alternately, a person with no criminal personality type may still engage in criminal conduct when the environmental circumstances are so overpowering that they simply cannot abstain. In the case of the former, they never become a problem for society. In the case of the latter, they at least tend not to become a long-term problem for society. If the former were to lose their fear of incarceration however, then they may become a serious concern, especially if the crime they engage in is reinforcing in some manner, such as the material benefits of economic crimes tend to do, as well as the psychological benefits of sex crimes and other serial violence.

Summary
Criminal Triad Theory is a relatively new paradigm that will easily avail itself to much research. It not only provides a model for predicting future criminality, but also presents clearly marked way points on the developmental map for intervening in the lives of at-risk children. By strengthening a child's internal deterrence system in their pre-offending stages of development, the likelihood of later criminality is greatly diminished.

Biosocial criminology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2012)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased orunverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (June 2012)

Biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain crime and antisocial behavior by
exploring both biological factors and environmental factors. While contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories, biosocial criminology also recognizes the potential contributions of fields such as genetics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology.[1]

Approaches
Environment
Environment has a significant effect on genetic expression. Disadvantaged environments enhance antisocial gene expression, suppress prosocial gene action and prevent the realization of genetic potential. [1]
Genes and environments operating in tandem (interacting) were required to produce significant antisocial behavior, while neither was powerful enough to produce it independent of the other. That is, children genetically at risk for antisocial behavior reared in positive family environments did not display antisocial behavior, and children not at genetic risk did not become antisocial in adverse family environments.
[1]

Genetics
One approach to studying the role of genetics for crime is to calculate the heritability coefficient, which describes the proportion of the variance that is due to actualized genetic effects for some trait in a given population in a specific environment at a specific time. The heritability coefficient for antisocial behavior is estimated to be between 0.40 and 0.58.[1]

Neurophysiology
Another approach is to examine the relationship between neurophysiology and criminality. One example is that measured levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine have been associated with criminal behavior. Another is that neuroimaging studies give strong evidence that both brain structure and function are involved in criminal behaviors. The limbic system creates emotions such as anger and jealousy that ultimately may cause criminal behavior. The prefrontal cortex is involved in delaying gratification and impulse control and moderates the impulses from the limbic system. If this balance is shifted in favor of the limbic system this may contribute to criminal behavior. Terrie Moffitt's developmental theory of crime argues that "life-course-persistent offenders" make up only 6% of the population but commits more than 50% of all crimes and that this is due to a combination neurophysiological deficits and an adverse environment that creates a criminal path that is very difficult to break once started.[1]

Evolutionary psychology
Men can potentially have many children with little effort; women only a few with great effort. This is argued to contribute to males having more variable reproductive success than females. One argued consequence of this is that males are more aggressive, and more violently aggressive, than females, since they face higher reproductive competition from their own sex than females. In particular, low-status males may be more likely to remain completely childless. Under such circumstances, it may been have evolutionarily useful to take very high risks and use violent aggression in order to try to increase status and reproductive success rather than become genetically extinct. This may explain why males have higher crime rates than females and why low status and being unmarried is associated with criminality. It may also explain why the degree of income inequality of a society is a better predictor than the absolute income level of the society for male-male homicides; income inequality creates social disparity, while differing average income levels may not do so. Furthermore, competition over females is argued to have been particularly intensive in late adolescence and young adulthood, which is theorized to explain why crime rates are particularly high during this period. [2] The "evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory" focuses on the hormone testosterone as a factor influencing aggression and criminality and being beneficial during certain forms of competition. In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on aggressive behavior in males. In humans, males engage in crime and especially violent crime more than females. The involvement in crime usually rises in the early teens to mid teens in correlation with the rise of testosterone levels. Research

on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by lumbar puncture, which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used less reliable measurements from blood or saliva. Some studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone, although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex. A significant link between juvenile delinquency and testosterone levels has not been established. Some studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism. Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship.[3] Many conflicts causing homicides involve status conflicts, protecting reputation, and seemingly trivial insults.[2] Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate argues that in non-state societies without a police it was very important to have a credible deterrence against aggression. Therefore it was important to have a reputation for retaliation, causing humans to develop instincts for revenge as well as for protecting reputation ("honor"). Pinker argues that the development of the state and the police have dramatically reduced the level of violence compared to the ancestral environment. Whenever the state breaks down, which can be very locally such as in poor areas of a city, humans again organize in groups for protection and aggression and concepts such as violent revenge and protecting honor again become extremely important. Some cultures place greater emphasis on protecting honor than other cultures. One explanation is that protecting honor was in the ancestral past relatively more important for herders than for farmers. The livestock of herders were easily and quickly stolen. As a result, it was important to constantly show toughness as a deterrence, which may cause a higher level of violence. The predictions of the theory was confirmed in a crosscultural examination of traditional farming and herding Spanish-American societies. However, the prediction that sedentary fishing societies would place a low emphasis on honor was not confirmed. [2] The degree of cultural collectivism is strongly associated with the burden of infectious disease. It has been argued that this is due to collectivism and associated characteristics such as out-group avoidance limiting the spread of infectious diseases. Other characteristics such as strong in-groupout-group bias and willingness to defend the ingroup's honor may promote violence. A study found strong associations between several forms of violent criminal behavior and both infectious disease rates across U.S states and degree of cultural collectivism across U.S. states. The associations remained strong after controlling for income inequality.[2]

Specific forms
Evolutionary psychology researchers have proposed several evolutionary explanations for psychopathy. One is that psychopathy represents a frequency-dependent, socially parasitic strategy. This may benefit the psychopath as long as there are few other psychopaths in the community since more psychopaths means

increasing the risk of encountering another psychopath as well as non-psychopaths likely adapting more countermeasures against cheaters.[4][5] Sociobiological theories of rape are theories that explore to what degree, if any, evolutionary adaptations influence the psychology of rapists. Such theories are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation. Some object to such theories on ethical, religious, political, as well as scientific grounds. Others argue that a correct knowledge of the causes of rape is necessary in order to develop effective preventive measures. The Cinderella effect is the alleged higher rate of stepchildren being abused by stepparents as compared to genetic parents, observed in some, but not all, studies. An explanation of this affect has been attempted by application of evolutionary psychology theories. There have also been various criticisms of these theories.[6] Infanticide is one of the few forms of violence more often done by women than men. Cross-cultural research has found that this is more likely to occur when the child has deformities or illnesses as well as when there are lacking resources due to factors such as poverty, other children requiring resources, and no male support. Such a child may have a low chance of reproductive success, in which case it would decrease the mother's inclusive fitness to spend resources on the child, in particular since women generally have a greater parental investment than men.[7]

Criminal justice
Punishment of exploitative behaviors harmful to the group was likely a recurring problem in the ancestral environment. As such humans are argued to have developed a range of psychological mechanisms for handling this. Punishment can be a deterrent to undesired behaviors but excessive punishment can also be harmful to the group. Thus, human are argued to favor a proportional response based on how severe the offence is. Cross-cultural research has found a high agreement regarding how relatively harmful different crimes are perceived to be. On the other hand, evolutionary novel factors that may be rational to consider from a deterrent perspective, such as how difficult it is for the modern police to detect the crime, do not seem to affect people's perceptions of appropriate punishments.[8] Once a crime's severity has been judged, there is a choice regarding how to respond. In some cases in the ancestral environment there may have been benefits from future interactions with the offender which some forms of punishment may have prevented as compared to responses such as reparations or rehabilitation. Research suggests that individuals may modify what they think are appropriate forms of response to offenders based on factors that once in the past small-group environment may have indicated that they could personally benefit from continued interactions with the offender such as kinship, in-group or out-group membership, possession of resources, sexual attractiveness, expressed remorse, intentionality, and prior history of cooperation and exploitation.[8]

Social disorganization theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can. (February 2008)

In sociology, the Social disorganization theory was one of the most important theories developed by the Chicago School, related to ecological theories. The theory directly links crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. For example, youths from disadvantaged neighborhoods participate in a subculture which approves of delinquency and acquire criminality in social and cultural settings. A core principle of social disorganization theory is that place mattersi.e., one's residential locationas much or more than one's individual characteristics (age, gender, race) in shaping the likelihood that a person will become involved in illegal activities. Larry Gaines and Roger Miller state in their book, Criminal Justice in Action, that "...crime is largely a product of unfavorable conditions in certain communities." According to the Social Disorganization Theory there are ecological factors that lead to high rates of crime in these communities, and these factors linked to constantly elevated levels of "high school dropouts, unemployment, deteriorating infrastructures, and single-parent homes" (Gaines and Miller). The theory is not intended to apply to all types of crime, but instead to street crime at the neighborhood level. The theory has not been used to explain organized crime, corporate crime, or deviant behavior that takes place outside neighborhood settings. Up to the beginning of seventies, this theory took a back seat to the psychological explanation of crime.[1] A recent overview of social disorganization theory, including suggestions for refining and extending the theory, is a journal article by Kubrin and Weitzer (2003).

Contents
[hide]

1 William Isaac Thomas and Florian Znaniecki 2 Robert Ezra Park and Ernest W. Burgess 3 Edwin Sutherland 4 Ruth Shonle Cavan 5 Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay 6 Robert E. Lee Faris 7 Robert J. Sampson

8 Notes 9 External links 10 References

William Isaac Thomas and Florian Znaniecki

Thomas and Znaniecki (19181920) introduced the idea that a person's thinking processes and attitudes are constructed by the interaction between that person's situation and his or her behavior. Attitudes are not innate but stem from a process of acculturation. Any proposed action will have social importance to an individual both because it relates to the objective situation within which the subject has to act, and because it has been shaped by attitudes formed through a lifetime of social and cultural experiences. This is based on the "four wishes" of the Thomas theorem, viz., "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". These four wishes are the desire for new experiences, the desire for recognition, the desire for domination, and the desire for security. Combined with the cultural values of a pre-existing situation, the four wishes give rise to certain attitudes which are subjectively defined meanings and shared experience, strongly emphasized and embodied in specific institutions. The root of new attitudes arises from the formation of new relationships and interaction between the person and the world outside the community. For example, the emergence of economics as an independent sphere reflected the tendency to reduce quality to a quantity in barter transactions and led to the development of money.

Robert Ezra Park and Ernest W. Burgess

Park and Burgess (1925) developed a theory of urban ecology which proposed that cities are environments like those found in nature, governed by many of the same forces of Darwinian evolution, i.e. competition, which affects natural ecosystems. When a city is formed and grows, people and their activities cluster in a particular area, i.e. the process of "concentration". Gradually, this central area becomes highly populated, so there is a scattering of people and their activities away from the central city to establish the suburbs, i.e. "dispersion". They suggested that, over time, the competition for land and other scarce urban resources leads to the division of the urban space into distinctive ecological niches, "natural areas" or zones in which people share similar social characteristics because they are subject to the same ecological pressures. As a zone becomes more prosperous and "desirable", property values and rents rise, and people and businesses migrate into that zone, usually moving outward from the city center in a process Park and Burgess called "succession" (a term borrowed from plant ecology) and new residents take their place. At both a micro and macro level, society was of thought to operate as a super organism, where change is a natural aspect of the process of growth and neither chaotic nor disorderly. Thus, an organized area is invaded by new elements. This gives rise to local competition and there will either be succession or an accommodation which results in a reorganization. But, during the early stages of competition, there will always be some level of disorganization because there will be disruption to, or a breakdowns in, the normative structure of the community which may or may not lead to

deviant behavior. Thus, although a city was a physical organization, it also had social and moral structures that could be disorganized. Their model, known as Concentric

Zone Theory and first published in The City (1925) predicted that,

once fully grown, cities would take the form of five concentric rings with areas of social and physical deterioration concentrated near the city centre and more prosperous areas located near the city's edge. This theory seeks to explain the existence of social problems such as unemployment and crime in specific Chicago districts, making extensive use of synchronic mapping to reveal the spatial distribution of social problems and to permit comparison between areas. They argued that "neighborhood conditions, be the of wealth or poverty, had a much greater determinant effect on criminal behavior than ethnicity, race, or religion" (Gaines and Miller). In the post-war period, the cartographic approach was criticized as simplistic in that it neglected the social and cultural dimensions of urban life, the political and economic impact of industrialization on urban geography, and the issues of class, race, gender, and ethnicity.

Edwin Sutherland
Sutherland adopted the concept of social disorganization to explain the increases in crime that accompanied the transformation of preliterate and peasant societies where "influences surrounding a person were steady, uniform, harmonious and consistent" to modern Western civilization which he believed was characterized by inconsistency, conflict and un-organization (1934: 64). He also believed that the mobility, economic competition and an individualistic ideology that accompanied capitalist and industrial development had been responsible for the disintegration of the large family and homogeneous neighborhoods as agents of social control. The failure of extended kin groups expanded the realm of relationships no longer controlled by the community and undermined governmental controls leading to persistent "systematic" crime and delinquency. He also believed that such disorganization causes and reinforces the cultural traditions and cultural conflicts that support antisocial activity. The systematic quality of the behavior was a reference to repetitive, patterned or organized offending as opposed to random events. He depicted the law-abiding culture as dominant and more extensive than alternative criminogenic cultural views and capable of overcoming systematic crime if organized for that purpose (1939: 8). But because society is organized around individual and small group interests, society permits crime to persist. Sutherland concluded that if the society is organized with reference to the values expressed in the law, the crime is eliminated; if it is not organized, crime persists and develops (1939:8). In later works, he switched from the concept of social disorganization to differential social organization to convey the complexity of overlapping and conflicting levels of organization in a society.

Ruth Shonle Cavan

Ruth Shonle Cavan produced Suicide (1928) as a study of personal disorganization in which she
confirmed that the mortality rate is relatively stable regardless of economic and social conditions. Despite finding this result, Cavan was excluded from faculty status at Chicago. She served on various research committees for six years and then moved to Rockford College in Illinois. She was particularly interested in dance halls, brothels, insanity, divorce, nonvoting, suicide, and other forms of socially problematic behavior of interest to the political reformers, studying the working lives of "business" girls and their dispersal throughout the zones of Chicago (1929). Partly as a result of her studies, Cavan (1953) emphasized the importance to the efficient functioning of the entire social order of the regulation of sex. While there are variations in the specific arrangements, all societies contain family groups, forbid incest, sanction marriage, approve more highly of legitimate than of illegitimate births, and look upon marriage as the most highly approved outlet for sexual expression of adults. She has continued the work to review delinquency in different countries (1968), returning to write of the Chicago School itself in 1983.

Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay

Mapping can show spatial distributions of delinquency and crime, but it cannot explain the results. Indeed, such research has often been used politically to ascribe immorality to specific population groups or ethnicities. Social disorganization theory and cultural transmission theory examine the consequences when a community is unable to conform to common values and to solve the problems of its residents. Shaw and McKay (1942) applied Sutherland's theory of systematic criminal behavior, and claimed that delinquency was not caused at the individual level, but is a normal response by normal individuals to abnormal conditions. Thus, if a community is not self-policing and imperfectly policed by outside agencies, some individuals will exercise unrestricted freedom to express their dispositions and desires, often resulting in delinquent behavior. They considered the Concentric Zone Theory and produced a diachronic analysis to demonstrate that delinquency was already dispersed in urban areas, and that more wealthy and important groups moved to avoid the existing social disorganization. Their concepts, hypothesis, and research methods have been a strong influence on the analysis of delinquency and crime. Their dependent variables in the delinquency rates were measured by arrests, court appearances, and court adjudications of institutional commitment. Their independent variables were economic conditions by square-mile areas, ethnic heterogeneity, and population turnover. These variables were based on where delinquents lived and consisted of 10 to 16 year-old males who were petitioned to juvenile court (56,000 juvenile court records were used as data from 19001933). The time frames they selected showed strong patterns of immigrant migration, believing that they could demonstrate whether delinquency was caused by particular immigrant groups or by the environment in which the immigrants lived, i.e.:

if high delinquency rates for particular immigrant groups remained high during their migration through the citys different ecological environments, then delinquency could be associated with their distinctive constitutional or cultural features;

if delinquency rates decreased as immigrants moved through different ecological environments, then delinquency could not be associated with the particular constitution of the immigrants, but must somehow be connected with their environment.

Shaw and McKay demonstrated that social disorganization was endemic to the urban areas which were the only places the newly arriving poor could afford to live. In these areas, there was a high rate of turnover in the population (residential instability) and mixes of people from different cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity). Shaw and McKay's analyses relating delinquency rates to these structural characteristics established key facts about the community correlates of crime and delinquency:

The rates of juvenile delinquency were consistent with an ordered spatial pattern with the highest rates in the inner-city areas and declining with distance from the city center.

There was an identical spatial pattern revealed by various other indexes of social problems. The spatial pattern of delinquency rates showed significant long-term stability even though the nationality structure of the population in the inner-city areas changed greatly throughout the decades.

Within inner-city areas the course of becoming delinquent occurred through a network of interpersonal relationships involving family, gangs, and the neighborhood.

Comparing the maps, Shaw and McKay recognized that the pattern of delinquency rates corresponded to the "natural urban areas" of Park and Burgess Concentric Zone Model. This evidenced the conclusion that delinquency rates always remained high for a certain region of the city (ecological zone 2), no matter which immigrant group lived there. Hence, delinquency was not "constitutional", but was to be correlated with the particular ecological environment in which it occurs. In this context, Shaw and McKay asserted that ethnic diversity interferes with communication among adults, with effective communication less likely in the face of ethnic diversity because differences in customs and a lack of shared experiences may breed fear and mistrust. There are a number of problems in Shaw and McKay's work. As defined, social disorganization downplays the significance of ethnic and cultural factors in delinquency. Some ethnicities may encourage criminal activity because the behavior is not considered criminal or wrong. Although research in different countries has tended to support their findings that delinquent rates are highest in areas with economic decline and instability, that research has not found that crime rates spatially disperse from the city center outward. In fact, in some countries, the wealthy live in the center, while the poorest zones are near its fringes. Further, their work does not consider why there is significant non-delinquency in delinquency areas. Thus, the theory identifies social causes of delinquency that seem to be located in specific geographical areas, and its conclusions are not completely generalizable. For a general discussion of their work, see Snodgrass (1976).

Robert E. Lee Faris

Faris (1955) extended the concept of social disorganization to explain social pathologies and social problems in general, including crime, suicide, mental illness, and mob violence. Defining organization as definite and enduring patterns of complementary relations (1955: 3), he defined social disorganization as the weakening or destruction of the relationships which hold together a social organization (1955: 81). Such a concept was to be employed objectively as a measurable state of a social system, independent of personal approval or disapproval. When applied to crime, Faris' central proposition was that, "A crime rate is ...a reflection of the degree of disorganization of the control mechanisms in a society." In turn, crime also contributes to disorganization, and disorganization of such conventional mechanisms is especially likely in large, rapidly growing industrial cities where such disorganization permits highly organized criminality as well as less organized forms of group and individual crime and delinquency.

Robert J. Sampson
Main article: Robert J. Sampson Sampson (1993)[2] claims that any theory of crime must begin with the fact that most violent criminals belonged to teenage peer-groups, particularly street gangs, and that a gang member will become a full-time criminal if social controls are insufficient to address delinquent behavior at an early age. He follows Shaw and McKay (1969) in accepting that if the family and relatives offer inadequate supervision or incomplete socialization, children from broken families are more likely to join violent gangs unless others take the parents' place. But, even children from unstable families are less likely to be influenced by peer groups in a community where most family units are intact. Tight-knit communities are more likely to identify strangers, report deviants to their parents, and pass warnings along. High rates of residential mobility and high-rise housing disrupt the ability to establish and maintain social ties. Formal organizations like schools, church, and the police act as surrogates for family and friends in many communities, but poor, unstable communities often lack the organization and political connections to obtain resources for fighting crime and offering young people an alternative to deviant behavior. Sampson concludes that "the empirical data suggest that the structural elements of social disorganization have relevance for explaining macro level variations in violence." Social disorganization may also produce crime by isolating communities from the mainstream culture. Sampson and Wilson (1995) proposed a theory of race and urban inequality to explain the disproportionate representation of African Americans as victims and offenders in violent crime. The basic idea proposed was that community-level patterns of racial inequality give rise to the social isolation and ecological concentration of the truly disadvantaged, which in turn leads to structural barriers and cultural adaptations that undermine social organisation and ultimately the control of crime. Sampson and Wilson (1995) pursued this logic to argue that

the community-level causes of violence are the same for both whites and blacks, but that racial segregation by community differentially exposes members of minority groups to key violence-inducing and violence-protecting social mechanisms, thereby explaining black-white disparities in violence. Their thesis has come to be known as "racial invariance" in the fundamental causes of crime.

Deviance (sociology)
"Deviant" redirects here. For other uses, see Deviant (disambiguation).

Deviance, in a sociological context, describes actions or behaviors that violate social norms, including
formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime),[1] as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores). It is the purview of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and criminologists to study how these norms are created, how they change over time and how they are enforced. Norms are rules and expectations by which members of society are conventionally guided. Deviance is a failure to conform to these norms. Social norms differ from culture to culture. For example, a deviant act can be committed in one society that breaks a social norm there, but may be normal for another society. Viewing deviance as a violation of social norms, sociologists have characterized it as "any thought, feeling or action that members of a social group judge to be a violation of their values or rules" or group "conduct that violates definitions of appropriate and inappropriate conduct shared by the members of a social system. The departure of certain types of behavior from the norms of a particular society at a particular time and "violation of certain types of group norms where behavior is in a disapproved direction and of sufficient degree to exceed the tolerance limit of the community. Deviance as reactive construction Deviance is concerned with the process whereby actions, beliefs or conditions come to be viewed as deviant by others. Deviance can be observed by the negative, or a stigmatizing social reaction of others towards these phenomena. An example in many societies would be sexual acts that stray from opposite-gender interactions, just as monogamous sex is typically construed as sexually deviant or deviating from the norm. [citation needed] Criminal behavior, such as theft, can be deviant, but other crimes attract little or no social reaction, and cannot be considered deviant (e.g., violating copyright

laws by downloading music on the internet). [citation needed] People may have a condition or disease which causes minor segments in a society to be potentially alienated, such as having HIV, dwarfism, facial deformities, or beingobese. Deviance is relative to time and place because what is considered deviant in one social context may be non-deviant in another (e.g., fighting during a hockey game vs. fighting in a nursing home). Killing another human is considered wrong except when governments permit it during warfare or for self-defence. The issue of social power cannot be divorced from a definition of deviance because some groups in society can criminalize the actions of another group by using their influence on legislators.

Theories
There are three broad sociological classes describing deviant behavior, namely structural functionalism, symbolic interaction and conflict theory.

Structural-functionalism
Social integration is the attachment to groups and institutions, while social regulation is the adherence to
the norms and values of the society. Those who are very integrated fall under the category of "altruism" and those who are not very integrated fall under "egotism." Similarly, those who are very regulated fall under "fatalism" and those who are very unregulated fall under "anomie". Durkheim's strain theory attributes social deviance to extremes of the dimensions of the social bond. Altruistic suicide (death for the good of the group), egoistic suicide (death for the removal of the self-due to or justified by the lack of ties to others), and anomic suicide (death due to the confounding of self-interest and societal norms) are the three forms of suicide that can happen due to extremes. Likewise, individuals may commit crimes for the good of an individual's group, for the self-due to or justified by lack of ties, or because the societal norms that place the individual in check no longer have power due to society's corruption.

Durkheim's theory
Durkheim (18581915) claimed that deviance was in fact a normal and necessary part of social organization.[1] When he studied deviance he stated there are four important functions of deviance. 1. "Deviance affirms cultural values and norms. Any definition of virtue rests on an opposing idea of vice: There can be no good without evil and no justice without crime".[2] 2. Deviance defines moral boundaries, people learn right from wrong by defining people as deviant.

3. A serious form of deviance forces people to come together and react in the same way against it. 4. Deviance pushes society's moral boundaries which, in turn leads to social change.

Merton's strain theory

Main article: Strain theory (sociology)

Robert K. Merton discussed deviance in terms of goals and means as part of his strain/anomie theory.
Where Durkheim states that anomie is the confounding of social norms, Merton goes further and states that anomie is the state in which social goals and the legitimate means to achieve them do not correspond. He postulated that an individual's response to societal expectations and the means by which the individual pursued those goals were useful in understanding deviance. Specifically, he viewed collective action as motivated by strain, stress, or frustration in a body of individuals that arises from a disconnection between the society's goals and the popularly used means to achieve those goals. Often, non-routine collective behavior (rioting, rebellion, etc.) is said to map onto economic explanations and causes by way of strain. These two dimensions determine the adaptation to society according to the cultural goals, which are the society's perceptions about the ideal life, and to the institutionalized means, which are the legitimate means through which an individual may aspire to the cultural goals.[3] Merton described 5 types of deviance in terms of the acceptance or rejection of social goals and the institutionalized means of achieving them:

1. Innovation is a response due to the strain generated by our culture's emphasis on wealth and the lack of opportunities to get rich, which causes people to be "innovators" by engaging in stealing and selling drugs. Innovators accept society's goals, but reject socially acceptable means of achieving them. (e.g.: monetary success is gained through crime). Merton claims that innovators are mostly those who have been socialised with similar world views to conformists, but who have been denied the opportunities they need to be able to legitimately achieve society's goals.[1] 2. Conformists accept society's goals and the socially acceptable means of achieving them (e.g.: monetary success is gained through hard work). Merton claims that conformists are mostly middle-class people in middle class jobs who have been able to access the opportunities in society such as a better education to achieve monetary success through hard work.[1] 3. Ritualism refers to the inability to reach a cultural goal thus embracing the rules to the point where they lose sight of their larger goals in order to feel respectable. Ritualists reject society's goals, but accept society's institutionalized means. Ritualists are most commonly found in dead-end, repetitive jobs, where they are unable to achieve society's goals but still adhere to society's means of achievement and social norms. [1] 4. Retreatism is the rejection of both cultural goals and means, letting the person "drop out". Retreatists reject the society's goals and the legitimate means to achieve them. Merton sees them as true deviants, as they commit acts of deviance to achieve things that do not always go along with society's values. [1] 5. Rebellion is somehow similar to retreatism, because rebellions also reject both the cultural goals and means, but they go one step further to a "counterculture" that supports other social orders that already exist (rule breaking). Rebels reject society's goals and legitimate means to achieve them, and instead creates new goals and means to replace those of society, creating not only new goals to achieve but also new ways to achieve these goals that other rebels will find acceptable.[1]

Symbolic interaction
Main article: Symbolic interaction Symbolic Interaction, refers to the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. The ongoing process is like the game of charades, only its a full-fledged conversation.[4] The term "symbolic interactionism" has come into use as a label for a relatively distinctive approach to the study of human life and human conduct. (Blumer, 1969). With Symbolic interactionism, reality is seen as social, developed interaction with others. Most symbolic interactionists believe a physical reality does indeed exist by an individual's social definitions, and that social definitions do develop in part or relation to something real.

People thus do not respond to this reality directly, but rather to the social understanding of reality. Humans therefore exist in three realities: a physical objective reality, a social reality, and a unique. A unique is described as a third reality created out of the social reality, a private interpretation of the reality that is shown to the person by others (Charon, 2007).[5]Both individuals and society cannot be separated far from each other for two reasons. One, being that they are both created though social interaction, and two, one cannot be understood in terms without the other. Behavior is not defined by forces from the environment such as drives, or instincts, but rather by a reflective, socially understood meaning of both the internal and external incentives that are currently presented (Meltzer et al., 1975).[6]

Herbert Blumer (1969) set out three basic premises of the perspective:

"Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things." "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."

"These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Sutherland's differential association

Main article: Differential association In his differential association theory, Edwin Sutherland posited that criminals learn criminal and deviant behaviors and that deviance is not inherently a part of a particular individual's nature. When an individual's significant others engage in deviant and/or criminal behavior, criminal behavior will be learned as a result to this exposure.[7] Also, he argues that criminal behavior is learned in the same way that all other behaviors are learned, meaning that the acquisition of criminal knowledge is not unique compared to the learning of other behaviors. Sutherland outlined some very basic points in his theory, such as the idea that the learning comes from the interactions between individuals and groups, using communication of symbols and ideas. When the symbols and ideas about deviation are much more favorable than unfavorable, the individual tends to take a favorable view upon deviance and will resort to more of these behaviors.

Criminal behavior (motivations and technical knowledge), as with any other sort of behavior, is learned. Some basic assumptions include:

Learning in interaction using communication within intimate personal groups. Techniques, motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes are all learned. Excess of definitions favorable to deviation. Legitimate and illegitimate behaviors both express the same general needs and essential values.

One example of this would be gang activity in inner city communities. Sutherland would feel that because a certain individual's primary influential peers are in a gang environment, it is through interaction with them that one may become involved in crime.[7]

Neutralization theory
Gresham Sykes and David Matza's neutralization theory explains how deviants justify their deviant
behaviors by providing alternative definitions of their actions and by providing explanations, to themselves and others, for the lack of guilt for actions in particular situations. There are five major types of neutralization:

Denial of responsibility: the deviant believes s/he was helplessly propelled into the deviance, and that under the same circumstances, any other person would resort to similar actions

Denial of injury: the deviant believes that the action caused no harm to other individuals or to the society, and thus the deviance is not morally wrong

Denial of the victim: the deviant believes that individuals on the receiving end of the deviance were deserving of the results due to the victim's lack of virtue or morals

Condemnation of the condemners: the deviant believes enforcement figures or victims have the tendency to be equally deviant or otherwise corrupt, and as a result, are hypocrites to stand against

Appeal to higher loyalties: the deviant believes that there are loyalties and values that go beyond the confines of the law; morality, friendships, income, or traditions may be more important to the deviant than legal boundaries.[8]

Labeling theory
Main article: Labeling theory

Frank Tannenbaum and Howard S. Becker created and developed the labeling theory, which is a
core facet of symbolic interactionism, and often referred to as Tannenbaum's "dramatization of evil." Becker believed that "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance." Labeling is a process of social reaction by the "social audience,"(stereotyping) the people in society exposed to, judging and accordingly defining (labeling) someone's behavior as deviant or otherwise. It has been characterized as the "invention, selection, manipulation of beliefs which define conduct in a negative way and the selection of people into these categories [....]"[9] Labeling theory, consequently, suggests that deviance is caused by the deviant's being labeled as morally inferior, the deviant's internalizing the label and finally the deviant's acting according to that specific label(in other words, you label the "deviant" and they act accordingly). As time goes by, the "deviant" takes on traits that constitute deviance by committing such deviations as conform to the label (so you as the audience have the power to not label them and you have the power to stop the deviance before it ever occurs by not labeling them). Individual and societal preoccupation with the label, in other words, leads the deviant individual to follow a self-fulfilling prophecy of abidance to the ascribed label [1].. This theory, while very much symbolically-interactionist, also has elements of conflict theory, as the dominant group has the power to decide what is deviant and acceptable, and enjoys the power behind the labeling process. An example of this is a prison system that labels people convicted of theft, and because of this they start to view themselves as by definition thieves, incapable of changing. "From this point of view," as Howard S. Becker has written, Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an "offender". The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.[10] In other words, "Behavior only becomes deviant or criminal if defined and interfered as such by specific people in [a] specific situation."[11] It is important to note the salient fact that society is not always correct in its labeling, often falsely identifying and misrepresenting people as deviants, or attributing to them characteristics which they do not have. In legal terms, people are often wrongly accused, yet many of them must live with the ensuant stigma (or conviction) for the rest of their lives. On a similar note, society often employs double standards, with some sectors of society enjoying favoritism. Certain behaviors in one group are seen to be perfectly acceptable, or can be easily overlooked, but in another are seen, by the same audiences, as abominable. The medicalization of deviance, the transformation of moral and legal deviance into a medical condition, is an important shift that has transformed the way society views deviance.[12] The labeling theory helps to explain this

shift, as behavior that used to be judged morally are now being transformed into an objective clinical diagnosis. For example, people with drug addictions are considered "sick" instead of "bad".[12]

Primary and secondary deviation

Edwin Lemert developed the idea of primary and secondary deviation as a way to explain the process of labeling. Primary deviance is any general deviance before the deviant is labeled as such. Secondary deviance is any action that takes place after primary deviance as a reaction to the institutional identification of the person as a deviant.[1] When an actor commits a crime (primary deviance), however mild, the institution will bring social penalties down on the actor. However, punishment does not necessarily stop crime, so the actor might commit the same primary deviance again, bringing even harsher reactions from the institutions. At this point, the actor will start to resent the institution, while the institution brings harsher and harsher repression. Eventually, the whole community will stigmatize the actor as a deviant and the actor will not be able to tolerate this, but will ultimately accept his or her role as a criminal, and will commit criminal acts that fit the role of a criminal. Primary And Secondary Deviation is what causes people to become harder criminals. Primary deviance is the time when the person is labeled deviant through confession or reporting. Secondary deviance is deviance before and after the primary deviance. Retrospective labeling happens when the deviant recognizes his acts as deviant prior to the primary deviance, while prospective labeling is when the deviant recognizes future acts as deviant. The steps to becoming a criminal are: 1. Primary deviation. 2. Social penalties. 3. Secondary deviation. 4. Stronger penalties. 5. Further deviation with resentment and hostility towards punishers. 6. Community stigmatizes the deviant as a criminal. Tolerance threshold passed. 7. Strengthening of deviant conduct because of stigmatizing penalties. 8. Acceptance as role of deviant or criminal actor.

Control theory
Control theory advances the proposition that weak bonds between the individual and society free people to deviate. By contrast, strong bonds make deviance costly. This theory asks why people refrain from deviant or criminal behavior, instead of why people commit deviant or criminal behavior, according to Travis Hirschi. The control theory developed when norms emerge to deter deviant behavior. Without this "control", deviant

behavior would happen more often. This leads to conformity and groups. People will conform to a group when they believe they have more to gain from conformity than by deviance. If a strong bond is achieved there will be less chance of deviance than if a weak bond has occurred. Hirschi argued a person follows the norms because they have a bond to society. The bond consists of four positively correlated factors: opportunity, attachment, belief, and involvement.[12] When any of these bonds are weakened or broken one is more likely to act in defiance. Gottfredson and Hirschi in 1990 founded their Self-Control Theory. It stated that acts of force and fraud are undertaken in the pursuit of self-interest and self-control. A deviant act is based on a criminals own self-control of themselves. More contemporary control theorists such as Michael Jordan take the theory into a new light, suggesting labor market experiences not only affect the attitudes and the "stakes" of individual workers, but can also affect the development of their children's views toward conformity and cause involvement in delinquency. This is an ongoing study as he has found a significant relationship between parental labor market involvement and children's delinquency, but has not empirically demonstrated the mediating role of parents' or children's attitude.[13] In a study conducted by Tim Wadsworth, the relationship between parent's employment and children's delinquency, which was previously suggested by Crutchfield (1993), was shown empirically for the first time. The findings from this study supported the idea that the relationship between socioeconomic status and delinquency might be better understood if the quality of employment and its role as an informal social control is closely examined.[14]

Conflict theory
Main article: Conflict theory In sociology, conflict theory states that society or an organization functions so that each individual participant and its groups struggle to maximize their benefits, which inevitably contributes to social change such as political changes and revolutions. Deviant behaviors are actions that do not go along with the social institutions as what cause deviance. The institution's ability to change norms, wealth or status comes into conflict with the individual. The legal rights of poor folks might be ignored, middle class are also accept; they side with the elites rather than the poor, thinking they might rise to the top by supporting the status quo. Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating within society. However, it explains white-collar crime less well. This theory also states that the powerful define crime. This raises the question: for whom is this theory functional? In this theory, laws are instruments of oppression: tough on the powerless and less tough on the powerful.

Karl Marx
Marx himself did not write about deviant behavior but he wrote about alienation amongst the proletariatas well as between the proletariat and the finished productwhich causes conflict, and thus deviant behavior. Many Marxist writers have used the theory of the capitalist state in their arguments. For example, Steven Spitzer utilized the theory of bourgeois control over social junk and social dynamite; George Rusche was known to present analysis of different punishments correlated to the social capacity and infrastructure for labor. He theorized that throughout history, when more labor is needed, the severity of punishments decreases and the tolerance for deviant behavior increases. Jock Young, another Marxist writer, presented the idea that the modern world did not approve of diversity, but was not afraid of social conflict. The late modern world, however, is very tolerant of diversity.[1] But is extremely afraid of social conflicts, which is an explanation given for the political correctness movement. The late modern society easily accepts difference, but it labels those that it does not want as deviant and relentlessly punishes and persecutes.

Michel Foucault[
Michel Foucault believed that torture had been phased out from modern society due to the dispersion of power; there was no need any more for the wrath of the state on a deviant individual. Rather, the modern state receives praise for its fairness and dispersion of power which, instead of controlling each individual, controls the mass. He also theorized that institutions control people through the use of discipline.[15]"Race and ethnicity could be relevant to an understanding of prison rule breaking if inmates bring their ecologically structured beliefs regarding legal authority, crime and deviance into the institutional environment." For example, the modern prison (more specifically the panopticon) is a template for these institutions because it controls its inmates by the perfect use of discipline. Foucault theorizes that, in a sense, the postmodern society is characterized by the lack of free will on the part of individuals. Institutions of knowledge, norms, and values, are simply in place to categorize and control humans.

Biological theories of deviance

Praveen Attri claims genetic reasons to be largely responsible for social deviance. The Italian school of criminology contends that biological factors may contribute to crime and deviance. Cesare Lombroso was among the first to research and develop the Theory of Biological Deviance which states that some people are genetically predisposed to criminal behavior. He believed that criminals were a product of earlier genetic forms. The main influence of his research was Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution. Lombroso theorized that people were born criminals or in other words, less evolved humans who were biologically more related to our more primitive and animalistic urges. From his research, Lombroso took Darwin's Theory and looked at

primitive times himself in regards to deviant behaviors. He found that the skeletons that he studied mostly had low foreheads and protruding jaws. These characteristics resembled primitive beings such as Homo Neanderthalensis. He stated that little could be done to cure born criminals because their characteristics were biologically inherited. Over time, most of his research was disproved. His research was refuted by Pearson and Charles Buckman Goring|Charles Goring.They discovered that Lombroso had not researched enough skeletons to make his research thorough enough. When Pearson and Goring researched skeletons on their own they tested many more and found that the bone structure had no relevance in deviant behavior. The statistical study that Charles Goring published on this research is called "The English Convict".

Other theories
The Classical school of criminology comes from the works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria assumed a utilitarian view of society along with a social contract theory of the state. He argued that the role of the state was to maximize the greatest possible utility to the maximum number of people and to minimize those actions that harm the society. He argued that deviants commit deviant acts (which are harmful to the society) because of the utility it gives to the private individual. If the state were to match the pain of punishments with the utility of various deviant behaviors, the deviant would no longer have any incentive to commit deviant acts. (Note that Beccaria argued for just punishment; as raising the severity of punishments without regard to logical measurement of utility would cause increasing degrees of social harm once it reached a certain point.)

Functions of deviance
Deviant acts can be assertions of individuality and identity, and thus as rebellions against group norms of the dominant culture and in favor of a sub-culture. Deviance affirms cultural values and norms. It also clarifies moral boundaries, promotes social unity by creating an us/them dichotomy, encourages social change, and provides jobs to control deviance.[16] "Certain factors of personality are theoretically and empirically related to workplace deviance, such as work environment, and individual differences."[17]"Situated in the masculinity and deviance literature, this article examines a "deviant" masculinity, that of the male sex worker, and presents the ways men who engage in sex work cope with the job." In the seminal 1961 report The Girl Delinquent and the Male Street-Corner Gang, Martha S. Lewis wrote that female juvenile delinquents were attracted to male gang members and the gang sub-culture.[18]

Cross-cultural communication as deviance

Cross-cultural communication is a field of study that looks at how people from different cultural backgrounds endeavor to communicate. All cultures make use of nonverbal communication but its meaning varies across cultures. In one particular country, a non-verbal sign may stand for one thing, and mean something else in another culture or country. The relation of cross-cultural communication with deviance is that a sign may be offensive to one in one culture and mean something completely appropriate in another. This is an important field of study because as educators, business employees, or any other form of career that consists of communicating with ones from other cultures you; need to understand non-verbal signs and their meanings, so you avoid offensive conversation, or misleading conversation. Below is a list of non-verbal gestures that are appropriate in one country, and that would be considered deviant in another.

East Asian

United States

Canada

United States

United States

Avoiding eye contact is considered polite

The O.K. signal expresses approval

Thumbs up-used for hitch hiking, or approving of something

Whistling can express Someone may approval, as in whistle when cheering at a public happy. event.

United States

Japan

United States

Nigeria

Europe

When saying hello or talking to someone it is impolite to not look directly at the person.

The O.K. signal means that you are asking for money.

Using your middle finger is very offensive. Used in place of inappropriate language.

This is a rude gesture in Nigeria.

Whistling may be a sign of disapproval at public events.

These are just a few non-verbal cross-cultural communication signs of which one should be aware. CrossCultural communication can make or break a business deal, or even prevent an educator from offending a student. Different cultures have different methods of communication, so it is important to understand the cultures of others. Shaving of heads after death of a family member is more common in some African cultures. Proponents of the theory of a Southern culture of honor hold that violent behavior which would be considered criminal in most of the United States, may be considered a justifiable response to insult in a Southern culture of honor.[19]

Types of deviance
Taboo is a strong social form of behavior considered deviant by a majority. To speak of it publicly is condemned, and therefore, almost entirely avoided. The term taboo comes from the Tongan word tapu meaning "under prohibition", "not allowed", or "forbidden". Some forms of taboo are prohibited under law and transgressions may lead to severe penalties. Other forms of taboo result in shame, disrespect and humiliation. Taboo is not universal but does occur in the majority of societies. Some of the examples include murder, rape, incest, or child molestation. Howard Becker, a labeling theorist, touched basis with different types of deviant behaviors. There are four different types of deviant behaviors falling into different categories. One of the four is falsely accusing an individual which falls under others perceiving you to be obtaining obedient or deviant behaviors. Pure deviance, which falls under perceiving one to participate in deviant and rule-breaking behavior, is also a part of the four types of deviant behaviors listed above. Conforming, which falls under not being perceived as deviant, but merely participating in the social norms that are distributed within societies, can also be placed into the category with pure deviance and falsely accused. Lastly is secret deviance which is when the individual is not perceived as deviant or participating in any rule-breaking behaviors.

The criminal justice system

Police: The police maintain public order by enforcing the law. Police use personal discretion in deciding whether and how to handle a situation. Research suggests that police are more likely to make an arrest if the offence is serious, if bystanders are present, or if the suspect is of a visible minority. [1] Courts: Courts rely on an adversarial process in which attorneys-one representing the defendant and one representing the Crown-present their cases in the presence of a judge who monitors legal procedures. In practice, courts resolve most cases through plea bargaining. Though efficient, this method puts less powerful people at a disadvantage.[1] Punishment: There are four jurisdictions for punishment: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, societal protection. Community-based corrections include probation and parole. These programs lower the cost of supervising people convicted of crimes and reduce prison overcrowding but have not been shown to reduce recidivism.[1]

Conflict theories
Conflict theories are perspectives in sociology that emphasize the social, political, or material inequality of a social group, that critique the broad socio-political system, or that otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies. It is therefore a macro level analysis of society.

Karl Marx is the father of the social conflict theory, which is a component of the 4 paradigms of

sociology. Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict.

In classical sociology
Of the classical founders of social science, conflict theory is most commonly associated with Karl Marx (1818 1883). Based on a dialectical materialist account of history, Marxism posited that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions leading to its own destruction. [1] Marx ushered in radical change, advocating proletarian revolution and freedom from the ruling classes. At the same time, Karl Marx was aware that most of the people living in capitalist societies did not see how the system shaped the entire operation of society. Just like how we see private property, or the right to pass that property on to our children as natural, many of members in capitalistic societies see the rich as having earned their wealth through hard work and education, while seeing the poor as lacking in skill and initiative. Marx rejected this type of thinking and termed it false consciousness, explanations of social problems as the shortcomings of individuals rather than the flaws of society. Marx wanted to replace this kind of thinking with something Engels termed class consciousness, workers' recognition of themselves as a class unified in opposition to capitalist and ultimately to the capitalist system itself. In general, Marx wanted the proletarians to rise up against the capitalist and overthrow the capitalist system.[2]

Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977

What is Social Learning Theory? The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.

His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors. Basic Social Learning Concepts There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea that people can learn through observation. Next is the idea that internal mental states are an essential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior.

Let's explore each of these concepts in greater depth. 1. People can learn through observation. Observational Learning In his famous

Bobo doll experiment, Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviors

they have observed in other people. The children in Banduras studies observed an adult acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously observed. Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning:

1. A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior. 2. A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior. 3. A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.
2. Mental states are important to learning. Intrinsic Reinforcement Bandura noted that external, environmental reinforcement was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. He described intrinsic reinforcement as a form of internal reward, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment. This emphasis on internal thoughts and cognitions helps connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories. While many textbooks place social learning theory with behavioral theories, Bandura himself describes his approach as a 'social cognitive theory.'

3. Learning does not necessarily lead to a change in behavior. While behaviorists believed that learning led to a permanent change in behavior, observational learning demonstrates that people can learn new information without demonstrating new behaviors. The Modeling Process Not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. Factors involving both the model and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements and steps must also be followed. The following steps are involved in the observational learning and modeling process:

Attention: In order to learn, you need to be paying attention. Anything that detracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model interesting or there is a novel aspect to the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning.

Retention: The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning.

Reproduction: Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement.

Motivation: Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and punishment play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing other experience some type of reinforcement or punishment? For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day.

Final Thoughts In addition to influencing other psychologists, Bandura's social learning theory has had important implication in the field of education. Today, both teachers and parents recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building self-efficacy are also rooted in social learning theory.