Introduction
Crime has been an ever-present feature in the society. Every society has had some deviant individuals who have chosen to engage in this behavior. Throughout the years, the society has come up with various measures that punish those who engage in criminal behavior. The punitive measures have become progressively severe with the hope that criminals who witness the massive punishment that awaits them should they be involved in criminal activities will be deterred from committing crime. The presence of strict and severe punitive measures has to a significantly helped in the deterrence of criminal activities in the society. However, in the 20th century, sociologists began to realize mere punitive measures were not enough to deter people from criminal activities. The key to deterring criminal activities, or criminal tendencies lay in the establishing of the things that motivate people to engage in crime. Sociologists reasoned that if the factors that motivate people to engage in crime were removed, then people would not develop criminal tendencies or engage in crime at all. This new strategy seemed to have a greater advantage over previous methods because it was preventive in nature. It did not seek to punish people from engaging in crime but rather sought to prevent people from engaging in crime at all. Sociologists then began coming up with various theories that sought to explain why people engage in crime. One of the most popular theories in regard to this and that has found massive application across many societies in the world is the social learning theory. This paper seeks to analyze the social learning theory as one of the theory that explains why people engage in crime. The paper will begin by looking at the origin of this theory and its development and evolution throughout the years. The paper will also look at how this theory explains crime in the society, including the major types of crime in the society that can be explained using this theory. The strengths and weaknesses of the theory will also be explained. There will also be an explanation of how this theory has been evaluated and tested in literature. The paper will also look at how attempts to control crime using this theory have been effected in the society.
The social learning theory is traceable to the works of Edwin Sutherland who in the 1940’s forwarded the theory of “Differential Association” where he argued that criminal behavior in the society is usually learned by interacting with intimate peers and in the course of these interaction, persons acquire definition that either refute or support law violation. Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess revised the theory in 1966 whereby the two recognized peer attitude impacts as well as delinquency reactions. Ronald Akers further revised the theory in the 1970’s, and this was, in fact, the time it started being called the “social learning theory." Albert Bandura is also a key contributor to the theory especially in his 1977 work titled “Social Learning Theory’” where he incorporates concepts by both Sutherland and Akers. The last four decades have witnessed even further evolvement of the theory where new concepts have been proposed by various authors.
The social learning theory stipulates the people primarily learn to engage or take part in criminal behavior through association with peers (Akers, 2011). The criminal behavior of people is reinforced as they learn and become acclimatized to beliefs that are favorable to crime. Through association with peers, people become exposed to various criminal models. Consequently, these individuals increasingly start viewing crime as a desirable activity or an activity that is justifiable at least to some point. Akers (2011) gives a perfect definition and explanation of the relationship between the social learning theory and crime. He states that “the probability that individuals will engage in deviant and criminal behavior becomes significantly increased when they associate or make associations with other individuals who exhibit criminal behavior and who consequently espouse definitions that are favorable to it”. Akers (2011) goes to state that the probability of people engaging in crime also increases when they are exposed to the deviant models that seem justifiable and desirable. In addition, people are also likely to engage in crime if they have in the past received greater rewards rather that punishment for criminal behavior or if they anticipate or expect to be rewarded in the future for engaging in this behavior (Akers, 2011). The social learning theory stipulates three major mechanisms through which people learn to commit or engage in crime.
Differential reinforcement
This refers to the process through which individuals anticipate and experience consequences for their behavior. Positive consequences motivate individuals to continue with criminal behavior while negative consequences inadvertently deter people from criminal behavior (Brezina & Piquero, 2003). Differential reinforcement means that the actions of people are in one way, or another determined by the perception of the consequences that a course of action or the lack of it is likely to bring about. According to Akers and Sellers (2004), the engagement or refrainment from crime by an individual depends hugely on the present, past and future anticipated rewards or punishments for their behavior. Using this basis, several assumptions can be made. The first is that levels of crime are likely to be high when such behavior is not frequently punished, when positive reinforcement or rewards, both tangible and intangible (for example, praise, money, and pleasure) accompany the behavior (Brezina & Piquero, 2003). Reinforcement can be positive or negative. Positive reinforcement is when criminal actions are rewarded either through positive outcomes or positive reactions. Negative reinforcement occurs when negative responses of consequences are removed and this, therefore, motivates further engagement in criminal actions (Brezina & Piquero, 2003).
Imitation
Just like the name suggests, imitation refers to the notion that persons will tend to engage in a behavior that they have previously seen others committing (Jeffery. 1995). This is particularly the case if the individual in question is one who is highly admired. A person will tend to model or imitate the behavior of that individual (Jeffery. 1995). However, the extent to which behaviors become imitated is significantly dependent on a couple of factors. These include the specific behavior observed, characteristics or traits of this model and finally the observed outcomes of consequences of the behavior (Akers and Sellers, 2004). It has been found that being a witness to the behavior of people that are especially close affects one’s participation towards conformance or non-conformance to the behavior.
Beliefs that are favorable to crime
Association with other individuals does not only result in criminal behavior reinforcement but also accentuates the beliefs held by a person about crime. While most of the dominant beliefs about crime insinuate that crime is bad activity and that is both ethically and morally wrong, there are however some persons who are exposed to favorable beliefs about crime (Tittle, 2004). These people internalize these beliefs and their tendency to engage in crime rises. Beliefs that favor crime are usually classed into three major categories. Each of these beliefs increases the likelihood of engagement in crime. First, minor forms of crime are generally approved. These include minor alcohol and drug use, gambling and so on (Tittle, 2004). The second belief is the justification of certain crimes some of which are serious in nature. Although the general notion may be that crime is wrong, the belief here is that some certain crimes are justified. This belief is, for example, often raised in instances where individuals believe that they have been insulted or provoked (Tittle, 2004). The third type of belief emanates from the holding of certain values that appear to be conducive to crime. Some persons in the society may hold values that essentially view crime as a favorable alternative to other types of activities. Some of the most dominant values in regard to this aspects include excitement and thrills, dislike for hard work, desire to get rich quickly, desire to exhibit toughness and so on (Akers and Sellers, 2004). All these values make individuals view crime as a favorable activity.
The social learning theory has various strengths and weaknesses. One of its dominant strengths is that the theory has been experimentally and empirically proven in various studies. Therefore, it can be assumed to an accurate theory that truly explains human behavior. In addition, another major strength is that it caters for both cognitive and social aspects. The theory shows how interaction with other people (social) relates to the personal assumptions and beliefs that one develops (cognitive). In this regard, the theory shows the enormous relationship that exists between an individual’s cognitive and social development. The other main strength of the social learning theory is that it does not cater for just one type of criminal behavior. Its unrestrictive nature means that is can be used to explain a wide variety of criminal behaviors. These behaviors may include amongst others, drug use, prostitution armed robbery, rape, murder and so on. The other major strength of the social learning theory is its relative simplicity. Other theories utilize a lot of psychological and sociology jargons that inadvertently fails to resonate with the layman. However, the social learning theory explains crime in a pretty straight forward manner, and that everyone understands.
However, several criticism have been advanced in regards to the social learning theory. One of these is that the theory does not expound on behavioral differences. It is not always the case that association with criminally deviant individuals will lead to the development of criminal behaviors. Some individuals constantly interact with criminals but do not exhibit criminal behaviors. The social learning theory does not explain or cater for this deviation. In addition the social learning theory does explain why some individuals especially the young people usually develop criminally deviant behavior or start engaging in crime in spite of the fact that they may not have been exposed to such behavior in the past. The theory has also faced criticisms in its explanations about the relationships that exists between peers and that motivate criminal behavior. It has been argued that unlike the stipulations of the social learning theory, relationships between delinquent peers are usually weak and are characterized by loose affiliations and are therefore not enough to be solely credited with motivating and reinforcing crime.
The social learning theory has been subjected to intensive experimental and empirical studies that seek to approve or disapprove it. The theory has made a constant appearance in thousands of books and academic articles and also has a huge presence in online forums. It would take a lot of time and space to talk about all the researchers who have conducted studies on this subject. Few studies can however be mentioned. One example is a study conducted by Kandel and Davies (1991) where the authors studied a group of drugs users with a control group of non-users. The results of this study were in congruence with the social learning theory where it was found that there was a close relationship between the frequent drug users and their drug using peers. Diagle at all (2007) conducted a study on criminally delinquent adolescents where it as found the most significant predictors of criminal delinquency was the number of delinquent people or peers that the adolescents interacted with. Many studies have also shown the role of differential reinforcement and imitation in criminal behaviors. These include studies by Graham and Wells, 2003, Bellair, 2003 and Wiesner, 2003 (Ministry of Youth and Child Services: Ontario 2014). In simple terms, much of the literature has proven that social learning theory is indeed a very viable explanation of why people engage in criminal activities.
Much of the literature seems to suggest social learning theory can indeed be used to explain criminal behavior in the society. It emerges that behaviors are usually learned, reinforced, and sustained through association with peers and families. If these associations are the sources of criminal behavior, then efforts to deter crime should be centered on them. Crime prevention and deterrence policy makers should mainly focus on the development and the implementation of preventive measures that utilize the identified social learning variables in order to steer behavior in a directive that is positive (Ministry of Youth and Child Services: Ontario 2014). Sample programs that that utilize the principles of the social learning theory include behavioral modification, mentoring, gang intervention, peer counseling and delinquency prevention (Ministry of Youth and Child Services: Ontario 2014). The major idea behind a lot of these social learning based programs is that the provision of positive role models and experiences for the youth and other people in the society serves to expose these people to conventional values and norms that might in the long term lead to the complete diminishing of criminal behavior.
One of the dominant criminal justice practices that have been used to address the issue of crime using the principles of the social learning theory in the criminal justice field is gang intervention. The issue of gangs continues to be a major problem in the United States especially in big cities. Therefore, the government through the Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention has recognized that involvement with gangs usually results from exposure to the activities of gangs. This is especially the case in inner cities where more youth are involved in criminal activities and in fact belong to gangs which they have been exposed to from a young age. Interaction with young members leads to the introduction to criminal activities in accordance with the social learning theory. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has therefore started focusing on addressing the issue of crime in major cities through gang intervention that seeks to educate the youth to resist associating with gang members in a bid to stop them from imitating the criminal behaviors of gang members or assuming any positive beliefs about criminal engagement as a result of interaction or association with these gang members. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention collaborates with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) to ensure that it has wide information as well as resources on gangs after which it enacts strategies to intervene (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014). One of the programs under the gang intervention initiatives the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention that aims to initiate a nationwide conversation about the youth and gang violence where awareness is raised and the issue is elevated to become one that is national significance (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014).
The Community-Based Violence Prevention has identified several effective anti- gang strategies that include intervention with gang members who are youthful, prevention efforts aimed at the youth who have been identified at being at a high risk of entering into gangs (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014).
The Boys and Girls Clubs of America is another initiative under the OJJDP that is based in Atlanta and that aims to help local affiliate clubs in efforts aimed at preventing the joining of gangs by the youth, intervention with members of gang during the early stage of gang involvement as well as the diversion of the youth from related activities and into more constructive activities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014).
The other program under the gang intervention initiative is the GREAT (Gang Resistance Education And Training) program which a program that is school-based and that is instructed by law enforcement officers. The program aims at preventing the youth from being exposed to gang-related criminal activities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014).
This social learning based perspective has had a significant effect. This effect has mainly been social in nature. The program has seen decreased levels of crimes in areas where it has been effected successfully. In a city such as Atlanta where the program is very active, gang membership rates have gone down significantly. In gang-related crime-prone area, it leads to decreased gang memberships since the level of new admissions into gangs goes down (McGloin, 2005). The society becomes more secure. (Gottfredson, 2001) In addition, the economic losses usually experienced by the society as a result of gang who terrorize them asking them for things such as parking cars taxes or safety common has significantly decreased. This has always been a problem in the society according to Goldstein (1993). The effect on the criminal justice system has also been felt in terms of reduced prosecutions and subsequent incarcerations (Spergel, 2005). The policy has deterred the youth from criminal activities and, therefore, the number of incarcerations in areas where the program has been fully implemented has gone down. This is a very positive effect since most of the jails are already filled up and the reduction in the number of convictions reduces the economic and space constraints that would emerge in prisons if more criminals were absorbed into the system.
Conclusion
The prevention of crime in the society cannot simply adopt a punitive approach that seeks to punish those who engage in crime severely in order to deter others from engaging in such actions. A preventive approach is recommended. A crime prevention approach that is based on the social learning perspective can go a long way in addressing the issue of crime in the society. As shown, the social learning theory stipulates that people primarily learn to engage in crime through association with peers and that this behavior is reinforced as they learn and become acclimatized to beliefs that are favorable to crime. These individuals then begin to view crime as a desirable activity or an activity that is justifiable. The social learning theory can be used to develop and the implement preventive measures that utilize the social learning variables in order to steer behavior in a directive that is positive. Gang intervention is an example of such strategy. The main strength of this theoretical approach is that it can be used for a variety of crimes such as gang activity and not just one type of crime. They are not many weaknesses in this theoretical approach, and the few present are hugely outweighed by the positive outcomes that the approach will bring about. One area of improvement or addition to the theoretical approach should be the incorporation of positive models who can positively motivate young people and steer them away from those who negatively influence them. In a nutshell, a social learning theory- based approach offers the best solution in addressing and preventing crime in the society.
References
Akers, R.L. and C.S. Sellers. (2004). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (4th ed). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.
Akers, R. L. (2011). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Transaction Publishers.
Brezina, T., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Exploring the relationship between social and non-social reinforcement in the context of social learning theory. R. Akers & J. G (Eds.), Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime, 265-288.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brezina, T., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Exploring the relationship between social and non-social reinforcement in the context of social learning theory. R. Akers & J. G (Eds.), Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime, 265-288.
Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 128-147.
Daigle, L.E., F.T. Cullen and J. Wright. (2007). Gender differences in the predictors of juvenile delinquency: Assessing the generality-specificity debate. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5(3), 254−286
Graham, K. and S. Wells. (2003). “Somebody’s gonna get their head kicked in tonight!”: Aggression among young males in bars – a question of values? British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 546−566.
Goldstein, A. P., & Huff, C. R. (1993). The Gang Intervention Handbook. Research Press, 2612 North Mattis Avenue, Champaign, IL 61821.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Gang Problems and Gang Programs in a National Sample of Schools.
Jeffery, C. R. (1995). Criminal behavior and learning theory. In Contemporary Masters in Criminology (pp. 175-186). Springer US.
McGloin, J. (2005). POLICY AND INTERVENTION CONSIDERATIONS OF A NETWORK ANALYSIS OF STREET GANGS*. Criminology & Public Policy,4(3), 607-635.
Ministry of Youth and Child Services: Ontario. (2014, January 1). Review of the Roots of Youth Violence: Literature Reviews. Retrieved November 6, 2014, from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/youthandthelaw/roots/volume5/chapter08_social_learning.aspx
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). (2014, January 1). Comprehensive Anti-Gang Initiative. Retrieved November 6, 2014, from http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/antigang/
Spergel, I. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach (pp. 145-281). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tittle, C. R. (2004). Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime A Guide for the New Century. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 33(6), 716-717.
