3.1.7: Symbolic Interactionist Explanations

Because symbolic interactionism focuses on the means people gain from their social interaction, symbolic interactionist explanations attribute deviance to various aspects of the social interaction and social processes that normal individuals experience. These explanations help us understand why some people are more likely than others living in the same kinds of social environments. Several such explanations exist.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Gender socialization helps explain why females commit less serious crime than males. Boys are raised to be competitive and aggressive, while girls are raised to be gentler and nurturing. Philippe Put – Fight – CC BY 2.0.

Differential Association Theory

One popular set of explanations, often called learning theories, emphasizes that deviance is learned from interacting with other people who believe it is OK to commit deviance and who often commit deviance themselves. Deviance, then, arises from normal socialization processes. The most influential explanation is Edwin H. Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory, which says that criminal behavior is learned by interacting with close friends and family members. These individuals teach us not only how to commit various crimes but also the values, motives, and rationalizations that we need to adopt in order to justify breaking the law. The earlier in our life that we associate with deviant individuals and the more often we do so, the more likely we become deviant ourselves. In this way, a normal social process, socialization, can lead normal people to commit deviance.

Sutherland (1947) sought to articulate a formal theory by presenting propositions that could be used to explain how individuals come to engage in crime. In his Principles of Criminology textbook, Sutherland articulated the following nine propositions:

1. Criminal behavior is learned. Stated differently, people are not born criminals. Experience and social interactions inform whether individuals engage in crime.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other people in process of communication. This communication is inclusive of both direct and indirect forms of expression.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. The important and key people in your social life are where such learning processes occur.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. The learning process involves both instruction on how to commit crimes and why they might be committed.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. Definitions encompass an individual’s attitude toward the law. Attitudes towards the legality of crimes, deviance, or antisocial behavior can vary.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. The balance of exposure to definitions favorable or unfavorable to the law is the primary determinant of whether an individual will engage in crime. If exposed to more definitions that are unfavorable to the law, individuals will be more likely to engage in crime.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Not all associations (or interactions) are created equal – how often one interacts with a peer, how much time one spends with a peer, how long someone has known a peer, and how much prestige we attach to certain peers determines the strength of a particular association.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Learning is a process not specific to crime but to all behavior. Thus, the mechanisms through which we learn how to behave at work or in our families are the same general mechanisms that impact how we learn crime.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Behaviors can have the same end goal; however, the means to obtain this goal can vary. Selling drugs or working at a retail store may both reflect the need to earn money; thus, we cannot separate delinquent or non-delinquent acts by different goals. Other factors (e.g., the balance of definitions one is exposed to) determine whether or not a person engages in a specific behavior (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978, pp. 80-83; italics specify text as originally written).

The primary component of the theory is the role of differential association(s). Individuals have a vast array of social contacts and “intimate personal groups” with whom they interact. Figure 1 below depicts some examples of different sources of social influences including friends, family, siblings, neighbors, and co-workers; all serve as different sources of social influence, but the extent of their influence depends on factors that characterize the interactions (i.e., frequency, duration, priority, and intensity). Not all peers/associates have the same level of influence. Consider your own social world, whom do you spend the most time with, trust more, look to regularly for help? These individuals comprise your own intimate personal group that facilitates the definitions you might have regarding deviant or prosocial behavior. For instance, an individual whose friends are extremely important to them and that they have known for multiple years would be anticipated to have a greater degree of influence on an individual’s behavior than that of a new acquaintance from class or work. Overall, research demonstrates that affiliation with delinquent peers can explain the initiation, persistence, frequency, type of offending, and desistance (Elliott & Menard, 1996; Fergusson & Horwood, 1996; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Thomas, 2015; Warr, 1993, 1998).

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Variations in Sources of Social Influence

The effect of affiliation with deviant peers on criminal outcomes is attributable in part to how these sources of social influence inform the degree of definitions favorable/unfavorable towards the law. Although Sutherland (1947) did not clearly operationalize the concept of definitions at the time, it is generally understood that definitions reflect the attitudes favorable to crime that enable individuals to approve or rationalize behavior across situations (e.g., Akers, 1998). Figure above provides some examples of what might serve as definitions favorable/unfavorable to crime. Individuals that internalize and accept definitions more favorable to crime will be more likely to actively participate in criminal behavior.

Sutherland’s theory of differential association was one of the most influential sociological theories ever. Over the years much research has documented the importance of adolescents’ peer relationships for their entrance into the world of drugs and delinquency (Akers & Sellers, 2008). However, some critics say that not all deviance results from the influences of deviant peers. Still, differential association theory and the larger category of learning theories represent remain a valuable approach to understanding deviance and crime.

Social Learning Theory

Building off the recommendations of C.R. Jeffery (1965) to integrate concepts of operant behavior theory into differential association theory, Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers (1966) reformulated the propositions developed by Sutherland into what was initially called differential-reinforcement theory. Akers (1998) eventually modified differential reinforcement theory into its final form, social learning theory (SLT). SLT is composed of four main components:

1. differential associations
2. definitions
3. differential reinforcement
4. imitation

The first two components are nearly identical to those observed in differential association theory. Differential association was expanded to be inclusive of both direct interactions with others who engage in criminal acts, and more indirect associations that expose individuals to various norms or values. For example, friends of friends who may not directly interact with an individual still exert indirect influence through reinforcing behaviors and definitions of a directly tied friend. Definitions were similarly described as attitudes or the meanings attributed to behaviors and can be both general and specific. General definitions reflect broad moral, religious, or other conventional values related to the favorability of committing a crime, whereas specific definitions contextualize or provide additional details surrounding one’s view of acts of crime. For example, a general definition of crime may reflect an individual’s belief that they should never hurt someone else, but the use of substances is acceptable because it does not harm anyone else. Recent efforts have also underscored the idea that attitudes towards crime can be even more specific and depend on situational characteristics of the act (e.g., Thomas, 2018, 2019). For instance, an individual may hold the general definition that they should never fight someone; however, they may adopt a specific definition that suggests that if someone insulted their family or started the conflict first, then perhaps fighting is acceptable.

Borrowing from principles of operant conditioning, Burgess and Akers (1966) argued that differential reinforcements are the driver of whether individuals engage in crime. This concept refers to the idea that an individual’s past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishments for actions explain crime. If an individual experiences or anticipates that certain behaviors will result in positive benefits or occur without consequences, this will increase the likelihood that the behavior will occur. This process consists of four types of reinforcements or punishments:

1. Positive reinforcement: reinforcements that reward behavior, such as money, status from friends, and good feelings, that will increase the likelihood that an action is taken.
2. Positive punishment: the presentation of a negative or aversive consequence, such as getting arrested, injured, or caught, after a behavior is exhibited to decrease the likelihood it will happen again.
3. Negative reinforcement: reinforcements that help a person avoid the negative consequences of a behavior, such as avoiding getting caught, arrested, or facing disappointment from others, that will increase the likelihood that an action is taken.
4. Negative punishment: the removal of a positive reinforcement or stimulus after an undesired behavior occurs to decrease the likelihood a person will engage in the behavior again. For instance, if a child gets into a fight with a friend their parents may take away their cell phone, cut off their Netflix access, or remove other privileges.

Lastly, imitation is the mimicking of a behavior after observing others participate in the behavior. Within intimate personal groups, individuals will observe criminal acts or substance use that are often are used to facilitate the initiation of the behavior. Once the behavior has been engaged in, imitation plays less of a role in the maintenance of or desistance from that behavior.