Social Learning Theory: In an Nutshell
The explanation of the social learning theory is divided into three sub-theories itself. The main theory and backbone that runs through the social learning theory is, according to the text, “the brainchild of Edwin Sutherland (1939), deviant behavior is learned through one’s interaction with others.” In 1939 Sutherland laid the foundation for the social learning theory by introducing his theory of differential association. Almost twenty years later, in 1956 Daniel Glaser brought to the table his theory of differential identification, which was to amend the problem--“mechanistic image”--he felt Sutherland overlooked. In 1966 Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers added their own take to the ever evolving and expanding social learning theory with the theory of differential reinforcement.
Sutherland presented his theory of differential association in 1939, and the text explains the heart of his theory, “If an individual associates with people who hold deviant (or criminal) ideas more than people who embrace conventional ideas, the individual is likely to become deviant.” This theory has two aspects to it: first, the individual with the deviant ideas does not necessarily have to be deviant themselves. Just allowing a loophole for justification of a deviant behavior, an individual can affect another impressionable individual. “Therefore, if people are given more ideas of committing deviant acts than ideas of performing conventional acts, they are likely to engage in deviance.” Second, this theory does not specify “only one type of association, that is, deviant association or exposure to deviant ideas.” Hence, this theory refrains from the idea--if an individual has numerous interactions with deviant ideas or actions, that individual will become deviant themselves. The text uses the example of lawyers pointing out that lawyers are in the company of deviant clients daily, but nothing proves that they (lawyers) will commit deviant behavior. Summary of this theory: Differential association equals deviant behavior.
Glaser built off Sutherland’s theory with his introduction of differential identification, which sought to correct the plot holes that Sutherland left open. Glaser believed that the differential association suggested a “mechanistic image” of deviance. He believed associations with deviants were “harmless” unless the individual could identify with those actions and behaviors. The text states that “Glaser’s theory may be taken to suggest that it is all right for us to associate with deviants in real life or in books and movies, as long as we do not take them so seriously that we identify with them, treating them as our heroes. If we do identify with them, we are likely to become deviants ourselves.” Summary of this theory: Differential association plus differential identification equals deviant behavior.
Burgess and Akers also asserted that “Sutherland failed… to specify what that learning process entails.” Burgess and Akers look to psychology for alternates to improve and revise Sutherland’s theory--they arrived at their own theory: differential reinforcement. The theory conveys that an individual behaves conventionally if rewarded (positive reinforcement) for his or her actions, whereas an individual behaves deviant if punishment is not reinforced. “Reinforcement theory says,” according to the text, “that people will continue to engage in deviant activities if they have been rewarded for doing so.” The Law of Differential Reinforcement states that “given a number of available operant, all of which produce the same reinforcer, that operant which produces the reinforcer in the greatest amount, frequency and probability will have the higher probability of occurrence.” Akers (1998, 1985) described deviant behavior under the Law of Differential Reinforcement by stating, “Deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that [1] it has been differentially reinforced over alternative behavior and [2] is defined as desirable or justified when the individual is in a situation discriminative for the behavior.” Summary of this theory: Differential association plus differential reinforcement equals deviant behavior.
Sutherland’s theory of differential association has some faults, or at least difficulty, in a real-world scenario to be defined accurately enough. The text explains, “As Sutherland and Cressey (1979) admit, people often cannot identify the persons from whom they have learned deviant and antideviant ideas.” Several sociologists have claimed that they have research to back up Sutherland, but their research has no empirical ground upon which to stand; these sociologists have only their interpretation of the meaning of Sutherland’s theory.
Glaser’s theory differing from Sutherland’s is that there is “some support from empirical data.” For instance, Victor Matthews (1968) observed “that high school boys who identified with delinquent friends were likely to become delinquent themselves.” The problems at arise are that there is no conclusive evidence that backs this theory and it is feasible that an individual may only identify with a deviant after, instead of before, they commit deviance for themselves.
Burgess-Akers’s theory can only explain why an individual continues to be deviant, not what initially drove him or her to commit the first deviant behavior. “The reason, according to differential reinforcement theory, is that they have in the past been rewarded more than punished for their deviance, whereas others do not repeat a deviant act because they been punished more than rewarded for the act .”
The one thing that is constantly strung throughout these three sub-theories is the theory of differential association. So, it is assumed that before one crosses the line between deviance and conventionality one must first become associated with deviance either by the influence of another’s actions and/or ideas or by an innocent mistake. After the line separating deviances and conventionalities has been breached the punishment has to be greater than the sensation or reward that one receive from the deviant act, but if too extreme it only leads to rebellion--despise of the conventional and the “I’m-goin’-show-you” ideology. Lastly, the more one identifies with deviance the more it is the norm, not the violation; one can only identify if one has been associated with the deviant behavior.
This is my first Sociology 311 (Deviance and Social Control) essay. It is pretty self-explanatory. The only reason for it being posted is because it is the only thing I have somewhat ready. If it is too long for one sitting, I suggest breaking it up into smaller readings.
