INTRODUCTION
The social learning development can be traced back in the work of Robert L. Burgess and Ronald L. Akers in 1966, while displayed in their effort called differential association reinforcement theory of criminal behaviour. The earlier sociological theory of differential association and developmental psychological reinforcement were combined on that process .The deviant behaviour is associated with the work published by Ronald L. Aker’s and this has turned to be regular element in criminology .The social learning approach in 1973.Social learning theory has been constant vital element of our comprehending for both unlawful and lawful acts ,over the most recent 30 years .Since it has been demonstrated by its existing report in divers textbooks and abridged volume focused on the criminal and non criminal acts The hypothesis is also controversial one of the most experienced existing theory of offence and deviant behaviour and has undergone significant elucidation and test since 1970s. The speculation has further accurately tried to tie the demo capricious of premise to macro-level and mezzo level communal structural variables, in an attempt to offer an elucidation of transgression and misbehaviour (Akers and Jensen, 2003).
According to Sutherland (1947) the excess of definitions favourable to violation of law enforces person become a deviant while associating with other people. Criminal behaviour is a learnable and learned in interaction with other deviant people. Through this association, they learn only techniques of certain crimes, but also specific rationale, motives and so forth. This association differs in frequency, duration and so on. Differential association theory explains why any individual forwards towards...
... middle of paper ...
...stice Statistics.
Lacourse, E. Nagin, D. Tremblay, R.E. Vitaro, F and Claes, M. (2003). Developmental trajectories of boys’ delinquent group members and facilitation of violent behaviours during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 15(1), 183-197.
Skinner, A.R. (1935).Two type of conditioned reflex and a pseudo type. Journal of General Psychology, 38: 168-172.
Skinner, B.F. (1958). Reinforcement today. American Psychologist, 13(3): 94-99.
Skinner, B.F. (1962). Two “synthetic” social relations. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 5(4): 531-533.
Sutherland, E.H. (1947). Principles of criminology, 4th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippineott.
Thornberry, S.J., T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Farnworth, M. And Jang, S.J. (1994), “delinquent peers, beliefs and delinquent behaviour: A longitudinal test of interactional theory”, criminology 32:47-84.
Skinner, B.F. A Brief Survey of Operant Behavior. Cambridge, MA: B. F. Skinner Foundation. 1938
Interaction and communication in intimate groups is important element in the process of learning. The learning included acquisition of the necessary skills and techniques of committing the crime, sometimes they are complicated, sometimes simple. Second, the person learned the definitions of favorable and unfavorable legal codes, which provided the person a specific direction of motives, drives, rationalization, and attitudes. The definitions may mainly learned from delinquent peers and family structure. When the definitions favorable to violation of law a person has learned excess definitions unfavorable to violation of law, then the person would become delinquent. Lastly, the person would commit crime when an objective opportunity existed (Sutherland,
Social learning theory was first developed by Robert L. Burgess and Ronald L Akers in 1966 (Social Learning theory, 2016). In 1973, Akers wrote a book entitled Deviant Behaviour: A Social Learning Approach, which discussed Aker’s conception of the social learning theory. He developed social learning theory by extending Sutherland’s theory of differential association (Cochran & Sellers, 2017). Social learning theory is based on the principles of Pavlov’s operant and classical conditioning. Akers believes that crime is like any other social behavior because it is learned through social interaction (Social Learning theory, 2016). Social learning theory states that the probability of an individual committing a crime or engaging in criminal behaviour is increased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior (Cochran & Sellers, 2017). Social learning theory is classified as a general theory of crime, and has been used to explain many types of criminal behaviour (Social Learning theory, 2016). Furthermore, social learning theory is one of the most tested contemporary theories of crime. There are four fundamental components of social learning theory; differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement and imitation (Social Learning theory,
Secondly, differential association varies based on the intensity, duration, frequency, priority, and timing of one’s process of learning. Through this notion, the individual’s self is disregarded and more emphasis is placed on the extrinsic factors. Furthermore, “it is an individual’s experiences and the ways in which the individual defines those experiences which constitute to the learning of criminality”. (Gongenvare & Dotter, 2007,
In this paper, I am going to going to examine the criminological theory of Differential Association theory by Edwin H. Sutherland. Also I am going to examine Kirk White from the film The Wild and Wonderful World of the Whites of West Virginia. Furthermore, I am going to apply Edwin H. Sutherland’s Differential Association theory to explain and understand the deviant actions of this character. I conclude that Differential association theory will explain why this character act in a deviant why.
Differential association theory best explains the burglary deviance. There are many principles associated with this type of learning theory. Edwin Sutherland’s theory discusses how crime is a learned behavior where one’s family, peers, and environment are of great influence. Differential association theory seeks to prove that criminal behavior is learned and this paper will evaluate the connection between the two.
The study of criminology involves many different theories in which people attempt to explain reasoning behind criminal behavior. Although there are many different theories the focus of this paper is the comparison and contrasting sides of The Differential Association Theory (DAT) of Edwin Sutherland and the Neoclassicism Rational Choice Theory. The Differential Theory falls under Social Process Theories which focuses on sociological perspective of crime. The Rational Choice Theory falls under Neoclassicism which believes that criminal behavior is ultimately a choice.
Also, the way Hirschi organized his work is very comprehensive. He developed his theory by comparing and contrasting through three criminological perspectives, including the cultural deviance theory by Sutherland (1939), the strain theory by Merton (1938), and his social bond theory. By doing so, he can design operational measures for a survey based on the key concepts of each theory. For example, question about attitudes toward the violation of laws are based largely on the concept of the cultural deviance theory. Consequently, by using the comparative method, Hirchis can illustrate the advantages of the social bond theory as well as the limitations of those two theories simultaneously. This approach was a new way for criminology. Lastly, the self-control theory by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) has built on the assumption of the social control theory, trying to extend the scope for explaining delinquent behaviors among
Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory can help us address these issues (the theory was meant to explicate how criminals came to
The first criminological theory, that explains behavior of the drug sellers, is the theory of Differential Association. Differential Association, termed by Edwin Sutherland, argued that persons engage in delinquent behavior because they learn it from society and they engage in it when it benefits them. By this, he is saying that an individual will be a criminal if they experience an excess of criminal definitions over conventional definitions. Sutherland discovered that Differential Association is developed through various stages and he explains such development with the use of nine propositions. (Lily et al. 2011, 48) Such propositions are as follows: (1) criminal behavior is learned, (2) it...
...t deviance is a learned behavior like all other social behavior. When there is an excess of definitions favorable to deviance or law violation deviance (or in our case, corporate tax evasion) occurs. Differential Association states that criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication and that the principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. Undoubtedly there can be a connection drawn from the intimate settings where the decisions to commit tax evasion are made and the above state definition. When a people are in small group setting the person inevitably assimilates into the surrounding culture, in this case tax evasion.
“Children are a product of their environment”, is something I constantly hear when a either a young person is acting out or a young person doesn’t look “socially acceptable”. Delinquency and children’s behavior was something I have grown to become interested in during our class; thus leading me to analyze different theories on youth and the factors that prompted the onset of delinquent and how they continue to sustain their negative behavior. I personally do not completely agree with any one theory that applies to youth and child delinquency, yet there are points within each theory that I can agree with. In the following pages I will describe theories such as Choice Theory, Biosocial Theory, and Differential Association Theory.
doi:10.1177/0011128707306017. Roman, C. G., Lachman, P., & Cahill, M. (2013). Assessing youth motivations for joining a peer group as risk factors for delinquent and gang behavior. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(3), 212- 229. doi:10.1177/1541204012461510.
In today’s society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing a person to the point at which they are lead to committing a criminal act. Often, someone who has committed a violent crime shows evidence of a poorly developed childhood, or the unsuitable current conditions in which the subject lives. In addition if one studies victimology which is the role that the victim plays in the crime, it is apparent that there are many different causes for criminal behavior. Through the examination of biological factors, in addition to the social and environmental factors which make up a criminal mind, one can conclude that a criminal often is born with traits common to those of criminals, it is the environment that exist around them that brings out the criminal within them to commit indecent acts of crime.
Thompson, W. E. and Bynum J. E. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: A sociological Approach Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.