WRITE ONE LIKE THIS

?Social learning theory is based on the idea that the same learning processes present in social structure, interaction, and situation produces both conforming and deviant behavior (ASJ, 2021). Ronald Akers expanded upon Edwin Sutherland?s original differential association theory and combined it with general behavioral learning principles. Social learning theory proposes that delinquent behavior is acquired, repeated, and changed by the same process as conforming behavior (ASJ 121). Akers? theory also has a focus on four major concepts: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation.?
? ? ?Winfree, Sellers, and Clason (1993) explore the connection between social learning and adolescent deviance abstention with a focus on drug use. Although research has been previously conducted on why individuals resort to the use of drugs, little research has been done on the abstention from drugs and the cessation of their use. As a result, the researchers specifically focus on understanding the reasons for initiating, quitting, and avoiding drugs. The researchers propose that cessation and abstention are learned behavior and utilize the social learning variables to test their hypothesis (Winfree et al., 1993). Their goal was to distinguish among abstainers, current users and former users of illicit drugs within a sample of 1688 middle school and high school students in two nonurban communities. The results of their study indicated that the social learning variables clearly distinguish abstainers from current illicit drug users but were not as likely to distinguish between former users and current users or former users from abstainers (Winfree et al., 1993).?
? ? ?The study utilized a survey administered to middle school and high school students from two communities. The independent variables of focus were the personal-biographical characteristics and social learning variables. The social learning variables were divided into three subsets. The differential association concept was measured by questioning how many of the student?s best friends used marijuana, alcohol, or other drugs. The responses could be ?(1) I don?t know and none, (2) less than half, (3) about one-half, and (4) more than one-half? (Winfree et al., 1993, p. 109). From this a composite score could be measured which represented the differential peer association. The concept of definitions was measured by personal approval, peer approval, and differential peer definitions. Differential reinforcement and imitation were also measured by asking questions about the reasons for initiating drug use and reasons for abstaining from drug use. The researchers hypothesized that the variables derived from social learning theory would distinguish best between abstainers and current users but not be as clearly defined between abstainers and former users or between current and former users. The results of the study confirmed their expectations. The social learning variables were accurate in predicting abstention and current drug use, which reflected continuous patterns of behavior. However, the cessation of drug use was found to result in a significant behavioral departure that cannot accurately be explained by social leaning variables independently. Social learning theory accounted for the difference in the learning environments of current users and abstainers from drug use. Abstainers were found to be exposed to nondrug using peers with antidrug orientations, whereas current users typically had drug-using friends who approved of drug use. The researchers proposed that the reason it was hard to distinguish between former and current users is due to the fact that they have similar social learning environments which include drug using peers, prodrug orientations, and reinforcers of drug using behavior.
? ? ?When looking at the results of this study, it would be interesting to see how social learning was affected by the pandemic. For example, students were learning virtually and did not get to experience the normal socialization that goes along with typical learning situations. As a result of this, it would be expected that crime would decrease because individuals were not exposed to situations to learn deviant behavior.

References

Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G. (2021). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.?

Winfree, L. T., Sellers, C. S., & Clason, D. L. (1993). Social Learning and Adolescent Deviance Abstention: Toward Understanding the Reasons for Initiating, Quitting, and Avoiding Drugs. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(1), 101?125.?http://www.jstor.org/stable/23365886

Social learning theory has been used to refer to virtually any social behavioristic approach in social science, principally that of Albert Bandura and other psychologists (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b; Bandura and Walters, 1963; Miller and Dollard, 1941; Rotter, 1954; Patterson, 1975; Kunkel, 1975). As a general perspective emphasizing ?reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral and environmental determinants? (Bandura, 1977b:vii), variants of social learning can be found in a number of areas in psychology and sociology. Gerald Patterson and his colleagues at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) have a long history in the explanation, treatment, and prevention of delinquent and deviant behavior (Patterson et al., 1975; Patterson, 1995, 2002; Patterson and Chamberlain, 1994; Andrews, 1980; Andrews and Bonta, 2003; Akers and Jennings, 2009, 2019) from a social learning perspective.

In the field of criminology, however, social learning theory refers primarily to the theory of crime and deviance developed by Ronald L. Akers. Akers?s social learning theory was originally proposed in collaboration with Robert L. Burgess (Burgess and Akers, 1966a) as a behavioristic reformulation of Edwin H. Sutherland?s differential association theory of crime. It is a general theory that has been applied to a wide range of deviant and criminal behavior. It is one of the most frequently tested (Stitt and Giacopassi, 1992; Jennings and Akers, 2011; Sellers, Winfree, and Akers, 2012; Akers and Jennings, 2009, 2019) and is the theory of crime and delinquency most frequently endorsed by academic criminologists in recent surveys (Ellis and Walsh, 1999; Cooper et al., 2010).

SUTHERLAND?S DIFFERENTIAL Association Theory

The late Edwin H. Sutherland is widely recognized as the most important criminologist of the 20th century. Sutherland is known for pioneering sociological studies of professional theft (Sutherland, 1937) and white-collar crime (1940, 1949). He is best known for formulating a general sociological theory of crime and delinquency, the ?differential association? theory.1

Sutherland was the author of a criminology textbook, Principles of Criminology, which was the leading text in the field for over 30 years. It was only in the pages of this text that he fully stated his theory, the final version of which was published in the 1947 edition. He proposed differential association theory as an explanation of individual criminal behavior and suggested that the theory was compatible with what he termed ?differential social organization? as the cause of differences in group or societal crime rates. Sutherland gave only brief attention to differential social organization, however, and concentrated his efforts on fully explicating differential association theory, which is as follows (Sutherland, 1947:6?7):

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 (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple, and (b) 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 law.

7.Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.

8.The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.

9.Although criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.

The first proposition is that criminal behavior is learned, and the terms learned and learning are included in other statements. Criminal behavior is learned in a process of symbolic interaction with others, mainly in primary or intimate groups. Although all nine statements constitute the theory, it is the sixth statement that Sutherland identified as the principle of differential association. This is the principle that a person commits criminal acts because he or she has learned definitions (rationalizations and attitudes) favorable to violation of law in ?excess? of the definitions unfavorable to violation of law.

The theory explains criminal behavior by the exposure to others? definitions favorable to criminal behavior, balanced against contact with conforming definitions. Although one expects that law-violating definitions are typically communicated by those who have violated the law, it is possible to learn law-abiding definitions from them, just as one can be exposed to deviant definitions from law-abiding people (Cressey, 1960). The seventh principle in the theory makes it clear that the process is not a simple matter of either criminal or noncriminal association but one that varies according to what are called the modalities of association. That is, if persons are exposed first (priority), more frequently, for a longer time (duration), and with greater intensity (importance) to law-violating definitions than to law-abiding definitions, then they are more likely to deviate from the law.

After Sutherland?s death, Donald R. Cressey revised Principles of Criminology from the 5th through the 10th editions (Sutherland and Cressey, 1978). Cressey became the major proponent of differential association, clarifying it and applying it to a number of different areas in criminology (see Akers and Matsueda, 1989; Matsueda, 1988) and on occasion included differential association as one of the concepts ?related to general theories of social learning. . . . The content of learning, not the process itself, is considered the significant element determining whether one becomes a criminal or non-criminal? (Sutherland and Cressey, 1960:58; emphasis added). Through the final edition of the text (Sutherland et al., 1992) Sutherland?s theory was purposely left in its 1947 version without modification. Others had suggested partial modifications of the theory, but Akers?s social learning theory (first developed with Robert L. Burgess) is a thorough revision that integrates the sociological principles of the theory with principles of social behaviorism in psychology.

AKERS?S SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Development of the Theory

Sutherland asserted in the eighth statement of his theory that all the mechanisms of learning are involved in criminal behavior. However, beyond a brief comment that more is involved than direct imitation (Tarde, 1912), he did not explain what the mechanisms of learning are. These learning mechanisms were specified by Burgess and Akers (1966a) in their ?differential association-reinforcement? theory of criminal behavior. Burgess and Akers produced a full reformulation that retained the principles of differential association, combining them with, and restating them in terms of, the learning principles of operant and respondent conditioning that had been developed by behavioral psychologists.2 Akers followed up his early work with Burgess to develop social learning theory, applying it to criminal, delinquent, and deviant behavior in general. He has modified the theory, provided a fully explicated presentation of its concepts, examined it in light of the critiques and research by others, and carried out his own research to test its central propositions (Akers, 1973, 1977, 1985, 1998; see also Akers and Jennings, 2009, 2019; Jennings and Akers, 2011; Sellers et al., 2012; Jennings and Henderson, 2014a, 2014b).

Social learning theory is not an alternative to differential association theory. Instead, it is a broader theory that retains all of the differential association processes in Sutherland?s theory (albeit clarified and somewhat modified) and integrates it with differential reinforcement and other principles of behavioral acquisition, continuation, and cessation (Akers, 1985:41). Thus research findings supportive of differential association also support the integrated theory. But social learning theory explains criminal and delinquent behavior more thoroughly than does the original differential association theory (see, e.g., Akers et al., 1979; Warr and Stafford, 1991).

Burgess and Akers (1966a) explicitly identified the learning mechanisms as those found in modern behavioral theory. They retained the concepts of differential association and definitions from Sutherland?s theory but conceptualized them in more behavioral terms and added concepts from behavioral learning theory. These concepts include differential reinforcement, whereby operant behavior (the voluntary actions of the individual) is conditioned or shaped by rewards and punishments. They also include classical or ?respondent? conditioning (the conditioning of involuntary reflex behavior), discriminative stimuli (the environmental and internal stimuli that provide cues or signals for behavior), schedules of reinforcement (the rate and ratio in which rewards and punishments follow behavioral responses), and other principles of behavior modification.

Social learning theory retains a strong element of the symbolic interactionism found in the concepts of differential association and definitions from Sutherland?s theory (Akers, 1985:39?70). Symbolic interactionism is the theory that social interaction is mainly the exchange of meaning and symbols; individuals have the cognitive capacity to imagine themselves in the roles of others and incorporate this into their conceptions of themselves (Sandstrom, Martin, and Fine, 2003). This, and the explicit inclusion of such concepts as imitation, anticipated reinforcement, and self-reinforcement, makes social learning ?soft behaviorism? (Akers, 1985:65). It assumes human agency and soft determinism (see Chapter 1). As a result, the theory is closer to cognitive/behavioral learning theories, such as Albert Bandura?s (1973, 1977b, 1986; Bandura and Walters, 1963), than to the radical or orthodox operant behaviorism of B. F. Skinner (1953, 1959), with which Burgess and Akers began.

The Central Concepts and Propositions of Social Learning Theory

The word learning should not be taken to mean that the theory is only about how novel criminal behavior is acquired. ?Behavioral principles are not limited to learning but are fundamental principles of performance [that account for] . . . the acquisition, maintenance, and modification of human behavior? (Andrews and Bonta, 1998:150; see also Horney, 2006). Social learning theory offers an explanation of crime and deviance that embraces variables that operate both to motivate and control criminal behavior, both to promote and undermine conformity. (See the discussion of questions of criminal motivations and inhibitors in Chapter 6.) The probability of criminal or conforming behavior occurring is a function of the balance of these influences on behavior operative in one?s learning history, at a given time, or in a given situation:

The basic assumption in social learning theory is that the same learning process in a context of social structure, interaction, and situation, produces both conforming and deviant behavior. The difference lies in the direction . . . [of] the balance of influences on behavior.

The probability that persons will engage in criminal and deviant behavior is increased and the probability of their conforming to the norm is decreased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior and espouse definitions favorable to it, are relatively more exposed in-person or symbolically to salient criminal/deviant models, define it as desirable or justified in a situation discriminative for the behavior, and have received in the past and anticipate in the current or future situation relatively greater reward than punishment for the behavior. (Akers, 1998:50)

As these quotations show, although referring to all aspects of the learning process, Akers?s development of the theory has relied principally on four major concepts: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation (Akers et al., 1979; Akers, 1985, 1998).

Differential Association

Differential association has both behavioral-interactional and normative dimensions. The interactional dimension is the direct association and interaction with others who engage in certain kinds of behavior, as well as the indirect association and identification with more distant reference groups. The normative dimension is the different patterns of norms and values to which an individual is exposed through this association (see Clark, 1972).

The groups with which one is in differential association provide the major social contexts in which all the mechanisms of social learning operate. They not only expose one to definitions, but they also present one with models to imitate and with differential reinforcement (source, schedule, value, and amount) for criminal or conforming behavior. The most important of these groups are the primary ones of family and friends, although they may also be secondary and reference groups. Neighbors, churches, schoolteachers, physicians, the police and authority figures, and other individuals and groups in the community (as well as mass media and other more remote sources of attitudes and models) have varying degrees of effect on the individual?s propensity to commit criminal and delinquent behavior. With the large and growing social interaction taking place over cell phones, the Internet, and other voice, picture, and video technologies, these also include what Warr (2002) refers to as ?virtual peer groups? that both overlap with and exist apart from groups with which one is in face-to-face interaction. The term social media that is so often applied to this phenomenon captures very well the facilitation of interaction that makes not only for virtual peer groups but other groups and even entire ?communities.? In social learning terms, these would be different variations on ?virtual differential association.? Those associations that occur earlier (priority), last longer and occupy more of one?s time (duration), take place most often (frequency), and involve others with whom one has the more important or closer relationship (intensity) will have the greater effect on behavior.

Definitions

Definitions are one?s own attitudes or meanings that one attaches to given behavior. That is, they are orientations, rationalizations, definitions of the situation, and other evaluative and moral attitudes that define the commission of an act as right or wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified. In social learning theory, one?s own definitions are distinct from (albeit shaped by) the normative dimension of differential association, which includes definitions shared with or held by others with whom one associates.

In social learning theory, these definitions are both general and specific. General definitions include religious, moral, and other conventional values and norms that are favorable to conforming behavior and unfavorable to committing any deviant or criminal acts. Specific definitions orient the person to particular acts or series of acts. Thus one may believe that it is morally wrong to steal and that laws against theft should be obeyed, but at the same time one may see little wrong with smoking marijuana and rationalize that it is all right to violate laws against drug possession.

The greater the extent to which one holds attitudes that disapprove of certain acts, the less one is likely to engage in them. Conventional beliefs are negative definitions of criminal behavior. Conversely, the more one?s own attitudes approve of a behavior, the greater the chances are that one will enact that behavior. Approving definitions favorable to the commission of criminal or deviant behavior are basically positive or neutralizing. Positive definitions are beliefs or attitudes that make the behavior morally desirable or wholly permissible. Neutralizing definitions favor the commission of a crime by justifying or excusing it. They view the act as something that is probably undesirable but, given the situation, is nonetheless all right, justified, excusable, necessary, or not really that bad. The concept of neutralizing definitions in social learning theory incorporates the notions of verbalizations, rationalizations, techniques of neutralization, accounts, disclaimers, and moral disengagement (Cardwell, Piquero, Jennings, Copes, Schubert, and Mulvey, 2015; Cressey, 1953; Sykes and Matza, 1957; Lyman and Scott, 1970; Hewitt and Stokes, 1975; Bandura, 1990; also see the discussion of neutralizations in Chapter 6). Neutralizing attitudes include such beliefs as ?Everybody has a racket,? ?I can?t help myself; I was born this way,? ?I am not at fault,? ?I am not responsible,? ?I was drunk and didn?t know what I was doing,? ?I just blew my top,? ?They can afford it,? ?He deserved it,? and other excuses and justifications for committing deviant acts and victimizing others. These definitions favorable and unfavorable to criminal and delinquent behavior are developed through imitation and differential reinforcement. Cognitively, they provide a mindset that makes one more willing to commit the act when the opportunity occurs. Behaviorally, they affect the commission of deviant or criminal behavior by acting as internal discriminative stimuli. Discriminative stimuli operate as cues or signals to the individual as to what responses are appropriate or expected in a given situation.

Some of the definitions favorable to deviance are so intensely held that they almost require one to violate the law. For instance, the radical ideologies of militant groups provide strong motivation for terrorist acts (Akers and Silverman, 2004; Akins and Winfree, 2017; Winfree and Akins, 2008). For the most part, however, definitions favorable to crime and delinquency do not directly motivate action in this sense. Rather, they are conventional beliefs so weakly held that they provide no restraint or are positive or neutralizing attitudes that facilitate law violation in the right set of circumstances. ?The concept of definitions is not proposed as an either/or set of categories. Rather, it is a matter of the balance of definitions favorable and unfavorable along a continuum to which one may be more or less exposed by others and may personally internalize to a greater or lesser degree? (Akers and Jennings, 2009:107).

Differential Reinforcement

Differential reinforcement refers to the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of behavior. Whether individuals will refrain from or commit a crime at any given time (and whether they will continue or desist from doing so in the future) depends on the past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for their actions. The probability that an act will be committed or repeated is increased by rewarding outcomes or reactions to it (e.g., obtaining approval, money, food, or pleasant feelings)?positive reinforcement. The likelihood that an action will be taken is also enhanced when it allows the person to avoid or escape aversive or unpleasant events?negative reinforcement. Punishment may also be direct (positive), in which painful or unpleasant consequences are attached to a behavior, or indirect (negative), in which a reward or pleasant consequence is removed. Just as there are modalities of association, there are modalities of reinforcement?amount, frequency, and probability. The greater the value or amount of reinforcement for the person?s behavior, the more frequently it is reinforced, and the higher the probability that it will be reinforced (as balanced against alternative behavior), the greater the likelihood that it will occur and be repeated. The reinforcement process does not operate in the social environment in a simple either/or fashion. Rather, it operates according to a matching function in which the occurrence of, and changes in, each of several different behaviors correlate with the probability and amount of, and changes in, the balance of reward and punishment attached to each behavior (Herrnstein, 1961; Hamblin, 1979; Conger and Simons, 1995).

Reinforcers and punishers can be nonsocial; an example is the direct physical effects of drugs and alcohol. Also, there may be a genetic or physiological basis for the tendency of some individuals (such as those prone to sensation-seeking) more than others to find certain forms of deviant behavior intrinsically rewarding (Brezina and Piquero, 2003; Fox, 2017; Higgins, Mahoney, and Ricketts, 2009; Wood et al., 1995). Social reinforcement, which is the peer, family, or other social context in which the actions take place, one?s learned moral attitudes, and other social variables, affects how much one experiences the intrinsic effects of substance use or committing certain acts as pleasurable and enjoyable or as frightening and unpleasant. ?Individual differences in the propensity to derive intrinsic pleasure and reward from substance use appear to be related to social learning factors in ways predicted by the theory? (Brezina and Piquero, 2003:284). Thus the theory posits effects of nonsocial reinforcement (see Higgins et al., 2011) but proposes that these interact with other social learning variables. The prediction is that most of the learning in criminal and deviant behavior is the result of social exchange in which the words, responses, presence, and behavior of other persons directly reinforce behavior, provide the setting for reinforcement (discriminative stimuli), or serve as the conduit through which other social rewards and punishers are delivered or made available.

The concept of social reinforcement (and punishment) goes beyond the direct reactions of others present while an act is committed. It also includes the whole range of actual and anticipated, tangible and intangible rewards valued in society or subgroups. Social rewards can be highly symbolic. Their reinforcing effects can come from their fulfilling ideological, religious, political, or other goals. Even those rewards that we consider to be very tangible, such as money and material possessions, gain their reinforcing value from the prestige and approval value they have in society. Nonsocial reinforcement, therefore, is more narrowly confined to unconditioned physiological and physical stimuli. In self-reinforcement the individual exercises self-control, reinforcing or punishing one?s own behavior by taking the role of others, even when alone.

Imitation

Imitation refers to the engagement in behavior after the observation of similar behavior in others. Whether the behavior modeled by others will be imitated is affected by the characteristics of the models, the behavior observed, and the observed consequences of the behavior (vicarious reinforcement; Bandura, 1977b). The observation of salient models in primary groups and in the media affects both prosocial and deviant behavior (Donnerstein and Linz, 1995). It is more important in the initial acquisition and performance of novel behavior than in the maintenance or cessation of behavioral patterns once established, but it continues to have some effect in maintaining behavior.

The Social Learning Process: Sequence and Feedback Effects

These social learning variables are all part of an underlying process that is operative in each individual?s learning history and in the immediate situation in which an opportunity for a crime occurs. Akers stresses that social learning is a process with reciprocal and feedback effects. The reciprocal effects are not seen as equal, however. Akers (1998) hypothesizes a typical temporal sequence or process by which persons come to the point of violating the law or engaging in other deviant acts.

This process is one in which the balance of learned definitions, imitation of criminal or deviant models, and the anticipated balance of reinforcement produces the initial delinquent or deviant act. The facilitative effects of these variables continue in the repetition of acts, although imitation becomes less important than it was in the first commission of the act. After initiation, the actual social and nonsocial reinforcers and punishers affect whether or not the acts will be repeated and at what level of frequency. Not only the behavior itself but also the definitions are affected by the consequences of the initial act. Whether a deviant act will be committed in a situation that presents the opportunity to do so depends on the learning history of the individual and the set of reinforcement contingencies in that situation:

The actual social sanctions and other effects of engaging in the behavior may be perceived differently, but to the extent that they are more rewarding than alternative behavior, then the deviant behavior will be repeated under similar circumstances. Progression into more frequent or sustained patterns of deviant behavior is promoted [to the extent] that reinforcement, exposure to deviant models, and definitions are not offset by negative formal and informal sanctions and definitions. (Akers, 1985:60)

The theory does not hypothesize that definitions favorable to law violation only precede and are unaffected by the initiation of criminal acts. Acts in violation of the law can occur in the absence of any thought given to right and wrong. Furthermore, definitions may be applied by the individual retroactively to excuse or justify an act already committed. To the extent that such excuses successfully mitigate others? negative sanctions or one?s self-punishment, however, they become cues for the repetition of criminal acts. At that point they precede the future commission of the acts.

Differential association with conforming and nonconforming others typically precedes the individual?s committing the acts. Families are included in the differential association process, and it is obvious that association, reinforcement of conforming or deviant behavior, deviant or conforming modeling, and exposure to definitions favorable or unfavorable to deviance occurs within the family prior to the onset of delinquency. On the other hand, it can never be true that the onset of delinquency initiates interaction in the family (except in the unlikely case of the late-stage adoption of a child who is already delinquent who is drawn to and chosen by deviant parents). Parents supervise and control their children?s selection of friends (Warr, 2005). However, behavioral similarity, including prior deviant behavior or tendencies, can play a role in the youth?s friendship selection and initiation of interaction in peer groups. Even so, associations with peers and others are most often formed initially around attractions, friendships, and circumstances,