Introduction
Social learning theory is a comprehensive theory that encompasses interrelated concepts about human behavior. The first to develop this theory is the American psychologist, Albert Bandura, in the 1960s. Bandura theorized that people learn behavior through observation, which he proved through his ‘Bobo doll’ experiment. Social learning theorists believe that human behavior is not just a product of the ‘cause and effect’ phenomenon as what behaviorism suggests, but rather, human beings processes information from the environment and learns their behavior over time. According to Bandura, man is a thinking creature; that he is not helpless to the psychological and environmental forces around him (Bandura, 1971, p.2). Another major contributor to the theory of social learning is the American criminologist, Ronald Akers. Akers believe that there are four factors that influence the process of learning human behavior and these are differential association, definition, differential reinforcement and imitation (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.3). Furthermore, he believes that the tendency to learn a particular behavior depends on the balance between these factors (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.5). The social learning theory as developed by Akers, is currently one of the most utilized theories in explaining human criminal behavior and delinquency. Its strength, according to its proponents, is the increasing number of empirical studies that points to its validity (Akers, & Jennings, 2009, p.103). Using Akers’ social learning theory as a theoretical framework, this paper would like to examine how the theory fits into Mary’s case and determine what factors may have influenced Mary to become delinquent.
According to Akers, behavior is learned, not only through imitation, but also through other equally important factors such as the perception of rewards and punishment; the ethical and moral orientation of an individual and the amount or his or her exposure to a certain behavior. All these factors converge within the individual and contributes to his or her capacity or tendency to learn a particular behavior. This paper will examine how these four factors of social learning are revealed in the case of Mary, which would test the validity of social learning in analyzing delinquent behaviors.
Mary’s Behavioral Analysis under Differential Association.
Consistent with the concept of differential association, it can be deduced that Mary must have learned her delinquent behavior from her close association primarily with her deviant family members as well as her association with her deviant peers. Another notable circumstance was her increasing association with delinquent elements in her neighborhood. As Mary distance herself from positive associations such as the school, she begins to increasingly spend time with deviant peers. Mary’s immediate environment is most likely just as dysfunctional as her family. Most likely, her family is living in one of the city slums or disorganized neighborhoods where crime and delinquency are rampant. Differential association is defined as the “direct association and interaction with others who engage in certain kinds of behavior or express norms, values, and attitudes supportive of such behavior, as well as the indirect association and identification with more distant reference groups” (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.3). For Akers, Mary’s criminal and deviant behavior is most likely learned through her social and non-social interaction with her environment. Also, the extent of Mary’s exposure with other people’s behavior could determine whether she learns a particular behavior or not. If Mary, for instance, associates herself more with deviant persons, then, her risk of learning deviant behaviors is also increased. Accordingly, “the more one’s patterns of differential association are balanced in the direction of greater exposure to deviant behavior and attitudes, the greater the probability of that person engaging in deviant or criminal behavior” (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.3). Mary, for instance, remembers her father as a violent man, a drunkard and an abusive person who constantly beats his family without provocation. Aside from being a drunk and irresponsible person, his father has been in and out of prison for a variety of offenses. This experience suggests that Mary was already exposed to aggressiveness at a young age since the exposure came from her immediate family member. Aside from her family members, Mary’s association with her deviant peers is also indicative of differential association. Mary’s transition to being deviant must have come gradually. Most likely, as her association with deviant peers increased, her propensity to become deviant also significantly increased. The concept of differential association suggests that the tendency to learn a certain behavior varies directly with the amount of exposure and association. And since Mary’s amount of exposure and association with deviant elements is extremely high, her tendency to learn their deviant behavior is highly probable.
Mary’s Behavioral Analysis under Definition.
It should be noted that Mary spent her entire childhood in a dysfunctional family. Her father was a drunk who often beats up his family members without any provocation. At a young age, Mary is already exposed to domestic violence and aggression. Her mother, on the other hand, does not do anything to counter the negative influence of her father. In fact, when her father left, her mother lived with a man much worse than his father. According to the facts of the case, Mary’s step father would often physically and sexually abuse her. And worse still, her mother seems to condone the stepfather’s attitude by refusing to believe when Mary told her about the abuses. Considering the circumstances that surround’s Mary’s family, it can be deduced that she must have a poor moral upbringing, primarily because there is no one to teach her about morality within the family. Her mother, for instance, was mentioned as being an ineffectual and distant parent who neglected the children physically and emotionally. Applying the concept of definition to Mary’s case, it can be seen that her sense of values and morality has not been properly reinforced since her family operates in a dysfunctional way. The concept of definition explains why Mary did not feel any remorse after she committed a crime. Definition is where the cognitive factor of social learning theory comes in. It is defined as “one’s own orientations, rationalizations, justifications, excuses, and other attitudes that define the commission of an act as relatively more right or wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified, appropriate or inappropriate” (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.3). Unlike behavioral theories, Akers’ social learning theory acknowledges the role of Mary’s judgment or rationalization in the process of learning her delinquent behavior. Some children are confused with the aggression that they see from their environment because that is not the value that they are taught at home (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, p.251). There are, however, other children who do not know whether what they were doing is wrong or right primarily because they were not taught about the morality of such behavior. Morality and values are learned through the intervention of parent and the school. Without these interventions, a child will have a poor judgment with regards to what is right or wrong. In this regards, it can be deduced that Mary does not comprehend the grievousness of her offense primarily because she does not have the moral foundation that would aid her definition of what is wrong and what is right.
Mary’s Behavioral Analysis under Differential Reinforcement.
Seeking for her deviant peers’ approval, being delinquent must have been percieved by Mary as a rewarding or satisfying experience. It should be noted that there were no social intervention that occurred that could have addressed Mary’s abusive domestic environment. No police complaints regarding child abuse or social worker interventions that occurred prior to Mary’s commission of the crime. This lack of intervention sends a message to Mary’s young mind that deviant people can do bad things and just get away with it without any punishment. This lack of punishment can also reinforce Mary’s perception of committing a crime. Differential reinforcement refers to how the perception of rewards and punishment influence the commission of an act. According to Akers, once the reward for committing a crime exceeds the punishment, then a person would indulge in it. However, if the perceived punishment exceeds the reward, then the tendency of an individual is to differ. Mary’s definition, however, may balance differential reinforcement if they go against each other. However, if Mary’s own definition and differential reinforcement points towards the same direction, then the commission of an act is highly probable (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.5). According to scholars, reinforcement can either be external or internal . One particular example of external reinforcement is the approval of a parent or peers while internal reinforcement could be the sense of happiness or fulfillment one perceives . It should be noted, for instance, that Mary’s father rarely works and so it can be assumed that Mary’s family is living in extreme poverty. Most likely, the family is living in a slum area or in a neighborhood where crime and deviance thrives. Consistent with Akers’ proposition that delinquent and criminal behavior is learned through social and non-social interaction, it can be deduced that Mary’s environment provided additional reinforcement for her to learn deviant behaviors. Internally, Mary must have perceived that being deviant is rewarding as she must have associated it with power. Being a victim of domestic abuse herself, Mary must have a prevailing notion that aggressiveness is better than non-aggressiveness primarily because aggressive persons in her environment dominate or victimizes non-aggressive ones. Because of the lack of intervention, the deviant behaviors of Mary’s parents were left unchecked. Mary must have thought that being deviant is not bad at all because those who are engaged in it are not being punished. Apparently, there exists an imbalance of rewards and punishment in favor of deviance, which explains why Mary opted to become deviant herself.
Mary’s Behavioral Analysis under imitation.
The concept of imitation is defined as “the engagement in behavior after the direct or indirect observation of similar behavior by others” (Akers, & Jensen, n.d., p.5). Mary’s parents is considerably her primary role model and what ever behavior she sees from her parents is most likely to reflect in her behavior as well . Since Mary is exposed to aggressive behavior of her parents, consistent with Bandura’s observation in his ‘Bobo Doll’ experiment, there is an impecable tendency that Mary will imitate her parents’ behavior if given an opportunity (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961, p.251). Imitation is one of the most prevalent social learning concepts that is highly applicable in a family setting. The concept of imitation, for instance, emphasizes the role of parents in shaping a child’s behavior. And so whatever behavior the parent of a child possess, it is very much likely that the child would also possess similar behavior. Mary’s aggressiveness, for instance, must have been acquired by imitating the agressiveness that she saw from her father. Aside from her parents, Mary also see her peers as behavioral models. And since there is an abundance of deviant behavior that she can emulate in her environment, deviance was further reinforced because of her association with peers who possess a similar behavior. As observed, Mary’s friends were all similarly delinquent and they exhibit delinquent behaviors such as staying out late, drinking regularly, engaging in casual sex and committing petty crimes such as doing drugs and shoplifting.
The Balance of Social Learning Factors and its Impact on Mary’s Behavior
Based on Akers’ social learning theory, Mary’s tendency to learn delinquent behavior is determined by the balance between differential association, definition, differential reinforcement and imitation. The factor that is most prevalent will govern the outcome of learning or determine whether the individual will choose to learn or ignore a particular behavior. For example, “when the exposure to people with behavioral patterns and attitudes favorable to crime exceeds exposure to people with behavioral patterns and attitudes unfavorable to crime, criminal behavior is likely to be learned” (Sellers, & Winfree, n.d., 23). On the other hand, when the amount of exposure tips towards the opposite direction, then it is likely that the law-abiding behavior is learned instead (Sellers, & Winfree, n.d., 23). In Mary’s case, all the factors pertaining to social learning point towards being deviant. In terms of differential association, for instance, Mary’s exposure to deviant behaviors from here family and peers was left unchecked because of her detachment with social institutions that would have provided the balance towards the opposite direction, such as the school or church. Mary became increasingly associated with deviant individuals, which, according to the concept of differential association, will have a huge impact on her tendency to learn deviant behaviors. On the other hand, Mary’s definition of what is right and wrong is must be distorted because of her deficient moral foundation. Mary was not brought up in a morally sound environment, which accounts for her being unable to realize the seriousness of her offenses. Because of the lack of intervention and punishment for the domestic abuses within her family, Mary’s notion of differential reinforcement must also be distorted. Most likely, she thinks that deviance was just fine because no one gets punished anyway. Even worse, deviance must be perceived by Mary as advantageous since most of her role models have exhibited deviant behaviors and it seems to have served them well. Finally, there is an abundance of deviant role models that Mary can emulate. Mary’s parents, her primary role models, are also deviant, which makes Mary most likely to imitate deviant behavior. Apparently, all the factors under the social learning theory that could lead Mary to commit a crime are present. And since all these factors points towards deviance with no one to balance these factors towards the opposite direction, it is very likely that Mary’s will learn delinquency as she did.
Conclusion
As a rational individual, Mary does not just readily react to certain environmental stimulus. According to the theory of social learning, her behavior is governed by complex processes that include differential association, definition of morality, perception of right and wrong (differential reinforcement) and modeling or imitation. The social learning theory posits that behavior is learned and that learning is influenced by these factors. Moreover, her tendency to learn or ignore a particular behavior is a result of how she perceives and rationalizes between these factors. Under the light of Akers’ social learning theory, Mary’s delinquent behavior can be construed as learned primarily because of her differential association with deviant individuals. Ever since she was a child, she has already been exposed to deviance such as domestic violence and incest. For many years, Mary saw her abusive parents as role models; distorting her definition of what is right and wrong in the process. Her association with her deviant parents also distorted her notion regarding the rewards and punishment for deviance. Her acquired deviant behavior was also reinforced as she got acquainted with her neighborhood’s criminal elements. An evaluation of the circumstances that surrounds Mary’s case, under the light of the social learning theory and its major principles, suggests that Mary’s delinquency is highly inevitable.
References
Akers, R., & Jennings, W. (2009). The Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance. Retrieved January 2016, from http://link.springer.com/: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_6#page-1
Akers, R., & Jensen, G. (n.d.). Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance: The Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.cj-resources.com/: http://www.cj-resources.com/CJ_Crim_Theory_pdfs/social%20learning%20theory%20-%20akers%20et%20al%202009.pdf
Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.jku.at/: http://www.jku.at/org/content/e54521/e54528/e54529/e178059/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory_ger.pdf
Bandura, A. (2009). Social Learning Theory. Retrieved November 2015, from http://www.jku.at/org/content/e54521/e54528/e54529/e178059/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory_ger.pdf
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961). Bashing Bobo. Retrieved January 2016, from fc.deltasd.bc.ca: https://fc.deltasd.bc.ca/~dmatthews/FOV2-00074762/S02DB0598.11/Bandura%20Bobo%20Doll.pdf
Bertram, C. (2010, September). Jean Jacques Rousseau. Retrieved April 2015, from http://plato.stanford.edu/: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/
McLeod, S. (2016). Bandura - Social Learning Theory. Retrieved January 2016, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/: http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
Sellers, C., & Winfree, T. (n.d.). Akers, Ronald L.: Social Learning Theory. Retrieved January 2016, from http://faculty.washington.edu/: http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/401D/Readings/Akers.pdf
