Comparative Analysis of Labeling Theory and Social Bond Theory
Throughout the years criminologists have tried to come up with explanations for what makes individuals more prone to engage in criminal activity. The explanations can range from labels given to individuals to the bonds individuals have with others. Over the years, the theories have been tweaked and integrated to help gain a better understanding of why individuals commit crimes. Some theories also call for explanation on how to reduce crime in the future as well. Everything in society is caused by something, which produces the effect. The cause is generally what goes unknown most of the time. This paper will analyze Labeling Theory and Social Bond Theory. First I will clearly describe
…show more content…
Social Bond theory consists of four elements that help to understand and define the theory. The four elements are: attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs. The roots of Social Bond theory can be traced back to General Theory of Crime. The stronger all four elements are, the least likely one will engage in criminal activity, although Hirschi believes that everyone is capable of engaging in criminal activity (Brown, Esbensen, and Geis, 2013). Attachment, which is made of values and norms, and receives the most attention rather than any other element. Attachment usually begins at birth with the mother. Bonds or attachments at an early age help to establish future attachments with other family members, peers, teachers, etc. Parental attachment plays a strong part in an individual’s life. When parental attachment is reduced then delinquency acts are increased. Individuals with strong attachments are more likely to be respectful and refrain from deviant behavior (Brown, Esbensen, and Geis, …show more content…
The theory can be tested and it gives explanations for reducing crime. This theory does not mention the negative attachments, involvements, commitments, or beliefs that one may have. The theory could be extended a step further to looking negative impacts of the four elements to examine if they impact the chances of individuals committing more crimes. Social bond theory is applied to minor offenses; this theory would be more efficient if it would be applied to all offenses (Brown, Esbensen, and Geis, 2013). When social bond theory looks at the attachments, it does not take into account gender differences. Males and females may have different levels of attachment, but it may not affect their choice to partake in criminal activity. The general idea of morals is not taken into account as well. Hirschi generalizes the idea that everyone will commit crimes or do anything if they have weak bonds. Weak bonds leading to criminal activity is not the case for everyone. The theory does not take into account the people with weak bonds who refrain from criminal activity and progress in life (Brown, Esbensen, and Geis,
The two theories that are being analyzed in this paper are Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory. Hirschi's social bonding theory is one of many control theories which all take on the task of explaining the core cause of crime; however, this particular theory seems to be the most popular and able to stand the test of time. The Social Bond theory contains four elements that explain what criminals lack that causes them to be more prone to illegal activity, these elements are attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. On the other end of the spectrum is Akers’ Social Learning Theory, which attempts to explain the correlation between and individual's social environment and their behavior depending on what is praised or punished in an individual's specific social organization. (Walsh & Hemmens)
The two theories I have decided to merge are Agnew’s General Strain Theory and Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory. I picked General Strain Theory because it does a good job at discussing some of the things that can trigger the release of a person’s negative emotions which in turn may lead to deviant behavior. I also decided to write about Social Bond Theory because it describes some of the factors that keep people from committing crime. Both of the theories have strengths and weaknesses individually, but when merged they help fill in each other’s gaps. (Agnew, 2011; Hirschi, 2011) +1 (888) 295-7904
One possible explanation for criminal behavior within society is Travis Hirschi’s theory of social bonding. Instead of asking “who commits crime?” he believes we should be asking “who doesn’t commit crime?” In his theory, Hirschi explains that all people naturally break laws and, therefore, everyone is equally prone to do bad things.
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,
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1990). Crime and Deviance over the Life course: the salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609-627.
Social bond theory benefits in explaining the case study of Edmund Kemper in various ways. For example, the theoretical principle of the social bond theory emphasizes that the absence of the 4 social bonds
While the study of criminal justice and the formation of criminal justice theories are largely molded by several other disciplines such as psychology and sociology (Wellford, 2007), the study of criminal justice has grown and it is time for it to stand alone as its own scientific discipline. Crime theories are developed through studying individuals and assessing as well as their environment and other social aspects. These theories are then used to help form policies in order to deter the individual or group from committing further crimes. Criminal justice theories are not only used for crime but there are also theories which aid criminal justice personnel in the application of the practices that they use. The criminal justice policies are implemented
An integrated theory is a combination of 2 or 3 theories that offers many explanations on why crime is occurring, compared to a traditional criminal theory that just focus on one type of aspect (Lilly et al.2010). The purpose of integrated theories is to help explain many aspects into what causes criminal behavior and why one becomes delinquent. From this an argument arises can integrated theories be used to explain all criminal behavior. Integrated theories are successful in explaining certain aspects of crime on what causes one to become deviant; however one theory alone cannot explain why an individual engages in crime. This paper will examine three integrated theories and look in-depth how these theories can explain different aspects on why criminal behavior occurs and the weakness of each theory. The three integrated theories that will be discussed in this paper are Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity theory, Robert Agnew General Strain theory, and lastly Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond theory.
Travis Hirschi presented a social bonding theory in 1969. The main idea of the social bonding theory is that each and every individual has a drive to act in selfish and even aggressive ways that might possibly lead to criminal behavior. Social bonding theory is somewhat have similarities with the Durkheim theory that “we are all animals, and thus naturally capable of committing criminal acts” (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 162). However, the stronger a person is bonded to the conventional society, for example, family, schools, communities, the less prone a person is to be involved in criminal activity. The great example of this would be the serial killer Nannie Doss. Since early age she did not have any bonds either to her family with an abusive father or to community she lived in. Most of the time during her childhood she was isolated from any social interactions with her schoolmates or friends.
The first theory that can be applied to Adam Lanza is the social bonding theory. The social bonding theory was developed in the 1960s by the criminologist Travis Hirschi. It is best summarized as, “Hirschi's social control theory proposes that delinquents fail to form or maintain a bond to society consisting of attachment, commitment, involvement,
Attachment is an emotional bond that is from one person to another. The attachment theory is a psychological, an evolutionary and an ethological theory that is concerned with relationships between humans, specifically between mother and infant. A young infant has to develop a relationship with at least one of their primary caregivers for them to develop socially and emotionally. Social competence is the condition that possesses the social, emotional and intellectual skills and behaviours, the infant needs these to success as a member of society. Many studies have been focused on the Western society, but there are many arguments to whether or not this can be applicable to other cultures, such as the poorer countries.
Social Control Theory presumes that people will naturally commit crime if there were left to their own devices (i.e. no laws in society) and people do not commit crimes because of certain controlling forces, such as social bonds that hold individuals back partaking on their anti social behavior (Bell, 2011). Examples of controlling forces are family, school, peers, and the law. Young people who are t... ... middle of paper ... ... nd delinquent are more likely to partake in committing criminal behavior (Shaefer and Haaland, 2011, p.155-156).
According to Krohn (1986) bridged together theoretical propositions from the delinquency-enhancing effects of differential association and the delinquency-constraining effects of social bonds, as these interact with social learning and social control. His network theory maintains that the lower the network density in relationship to population density, the weaker the constraints against nonconformity, and the higher rates of
In conclusion, Social Bond Theory has been around for many years and has stood the test of time. The four bonds, attachment, involvement, commitment and belief are all held by individuals and play a major part in determining criminality. While it does not describe deviance perfectly, it does match what is believed to be the basic human view of why people become criminals. The view of Social Bond Theory is that all humans are basically evil and that deviance is a natural process. It is just a matter of how weak or strong these bonds are that either promotes, or deters deviance.
The main focus of the essay will be the implications of labelling theory and how it affects individuals. It also will be focusing on the creation of particular categories of criminals when labelling theory is applied, in addition it will outline what labelling theory is, how it affects people and how it effects the creation of criminal categories. The purpose of this essay is to allow a better understanding of labelling theory and its implication on creating criminal categories.