Explaining Social Learning Theory

Introduction

            
              Social learning theory has its roots in psychological understandings of human behavior.  That is, deviancy is learned through an individual’s intimate groups, proscribed social norms in these intimate groups, environmental settings, and the calculation of advantages and disadvantages that manifest from the communication within these settings (Akers, Sellers, & Jennings, 2017; Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011; Siegel, 2007).  Social learning theory is mostly associated with Edwin H. Sutherland and Ronald L. Akers (Akers et al., 2017; Lilly et al, 2011; Siegel, 2007).  Sutherland was a sociologist during the early twentieth century and earned his doctorates in sociology from the University of Chicago (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011; Siegel, 2007).  After his graduation he taught at numerous universities and eventually settled at the University of Minnesota for approximately three years (Akers et al, 2017, Lilly et al, 2011; Siegel, 2007).  While there, Sutherland focused on studying crimes of theft and white-collar crime.  His writings “The Professional Thief (1939)” and “White-Collar Crime (1949)” became widely praised and accepted in the academic community (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011; Siegel, 2007).  Moreover, Sutherland identified that criminal behaviors were learned through nine principles that he stated in his 1947 textbook titled “Principles in Criminology (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011; Siegel, 2007; Sutherland, 1947).”  These nine principles entailed the specific processes for learning criminal behaviors.  That is, Sutherland (1947) described how criminal behavior is learned through interactions with other persons through communication; how criminal behavior is learned through intimate groups; that specific techniques are learned and the direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes assist with these criminal learnings; how motives and drives are learned through the understanding of what is favorable and unfavorable given the individual’s understanding of legal codes; how a person becomes delinquent because of excess of definitions of favorable outcomes for violations of law; the learned behaviors vary in frequency, duration, intensity, and priority; the learning of criminal behavior is the same as learning other non-criminal behaviors; and how criminal behavior is not an expression as general needs and values like other learned behaviors (Akers et al, 2017; Sutherland, 1947).  In his textbook, Sutherland highlighted the sixth principle for learning criminal behaviors; which, again, stated that individuals commit criminal acts because of “excess definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law (Akers et al, 2017; Sutherland, 1947).”  

            As aforementioned, Ronald L. Akers is also well-known for his insight on social learning theory.  Akers earned his doctorates degree from the University of Kentucky and taught at numerous universities before settling at the University of Florida (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011; Siegel, 2007).  In 1966, Akers co-authored a theory that provided the definitions of how learned behavior came about because it was not mentioned in Sutherland’s (1947) postulations (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011).  The expanded version was met with admiration from the academic community and due to the more in-depth discussion social learning theory was somewhat separated from Sutherland’s concept of differential association (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011).  More precisely, Akers implemented notions that are associated with behavioral psychology and, because of this, social learning theory became known as an understanding about how individuals become motivated to participate in criminal activity and how learned behaviors also control criminal behaviors; which was not fully described by Sutherland (1947) (Akers et al., 2017; Siegel, 2007).  After the widespread acceptance of Akers’s (1966, 1973) social learning theory by the academic community, testing began of the accuracy of the findings and, again, was met with success in the field of criminology (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011).  Eventually, Akers and other scholars revised the original concepts and, in turn, social learning theory became a dominant theoretical application for understanding criminal behaviors (Akers et al, 2017; Lilly et al, 2011).
   

            Of this, this paper will present the assumptions, assertions, and empirical validity of social learning theory.  Additionally, examples and references will be used and cited to verify the content in this paper and thus allow the reader to glean the concept found within social learning theory and how it is applied to comprehending criminal behaviors. 

Social Learning Theory Assumptions about Human Nature

            
            Social learning theory assumes that individuals learn criminal behaviors through specified psychological and environmental conditions (Burgess & Akers, 1966; Akers, 1973, 1998; Sutherland, 1947).  More specifically, social learning theory posits that human behaviors are motivated by proscribed social norms and that individuals, and environmental conditions, cause a pattern of thinking that, in turn, causes a rationalization of criminal behavior based on rewards and disadvantages that may arise because of the conformity or nonconformity in intimate settings (Akers 1973, 1998; Brauer & Tittle, 2012; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Pratt, Cullen, Sellers, Winfree, Madensen, Daigle, Fern, & Gau, 2010; Sutherland, 1947). 

            With this being stated, social learning theory assumes that individuals not only learn behaviors and conform to norms because of general and specific standards that are set within their relationships, but also because of social roles within a group (Akers & Lee, 1999; Gongaware & Dotter, 2007).  That is, social roles are configured and either adhered to or disregarded because of the status that a person has in group (Akers & Lee, 1999; Gongaware & Dotter, 2007; Patterson & Dishion, 1985).  Basically, an individual recognizes these social roles and then determines if the status that a person has is acceptable and unacceptable and, in turn, rationalizes which behaviors will benefit them on a person level, as well as in a group setting, if the social role is accepted or rejected (Akers & Lee, 1999; Gongaware & Dotter, 2007; Patterson & Dishion, 1985). 

            In sum, social learning theory assumes that criminal behaviors have a distinct process of psychological causations of learning via external and internal stimuli.  These causations end up having an individual weighing the possibility of advantages and disadvantages of the criminal behaviors and acceptance of social roles within an intimate group. 

Assertions of Social Learning Theory

            
              As previously stated, social learning theory is rooted with psychological understandings of how criminal behavior is learned by the individual (Akers et al, 2017, Lilly et al, 2001; Siegel, 2007).  Moreover, the concepts of internal and external stimuli will be presented in order to depict the exact ideologies that are within social learning theory.  Starting with differential reinforcement, this concept infers that individual behaviors are shaped by rewards and punishments for participating in or disregarding proscribed social norms (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Brauer & Tittle, 2012; Burgess & Akers, 1966).  For instance, an individual will choose to engage in criminal activities because they are aware of the benefits that come from committing the crime on an individual level and the praise that will be given by others when they go forth with their illegal actions (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Brauer & Tittle, 2012; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Sutherland, 1947).  In contrast, an individual will not participate in criminality if there is little benefit on an individual level and their peers will not provide support for their actions (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Brauer & Tittle, 2012; Burgess & Akers, 1966). 

Classical conditioning is another part of social learning theory and is often confused with differential reinforcement.  Nevertheless, the difference lies in the idea that criminal behaviors are learned because of what is considered acceptable and reliable, and that the more often this comprehension occurs then the individual will, eventually, be more apt to engage in criminal activities because of the routine association with the unlawful behaviors and the benefits that manifest from them (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Krohn, Lizotte, Thornberry, Smith, & McDowall, 1996; Sutherland, 1947).  Discriminative stimuli are defined as the external and internal stimuli that provide cues for criminal behaviors (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).  For instance, an individual may notice the money that has been acquired via criminal activities and, in turn, internally desire to participate in illegal activities because of the fondness of financial prosperity (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947). 

Schedules of reinforcement is the rate at which rewards and punishments follow criminal behaviors (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).  In other words, the more often a reward occurs the more likely an individual is to engage in a particular criminal activity (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).  Whereas, the more punishments, or less rewards, that occur because of criminal behaviors will result in less participation of that specific behavior (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).  For example, if an individual steals on a routine basis, and is not caught, then the offender will most likely continue to participate in theft because the rate of success and reward occurs more often than being punished or having other unfavorable outcomes (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).  Lastly, symbolic interactionalism is also part of social learning and is commonly associated with imitation (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).  Being more precise, this variable infers that individuals are able to see themselves in the role of another human behavior and, in turn, participate in similar activities and take on similar characteristics from the observed behaviors (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers et al, 2017; Burgess & Akers, 1966, Sutherland, 1947).   

Depicting Social Learning Theory in Illegal Drug Sales

               For example purposes, this section of the paper will depict an individual who partakes in illegal drug selling.  Moreover, each of the above-mentioned variables will be implemented in to the example so that the reader can glean how social learning theory predicts criminal behaviors.  Second to this, the understanding of the differences between micro-level theories and macro-level theories will simultaneously be presented. 

Elaborating further, differential reinforcement is applied in an individual’s illegal drug sales because the person observes the criminal behaviors by others and thus learns what behaviors are acceptable regarding the criminal activities and behaviors that come about because of the drug dealing.  More specifically, the individual observes the money, power, popularity, attainment of items, and other benefits that arrive to a person who sells illegal substances (Akers et al, 2017; Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Stylianou, 2002; Sutherland, 1947).  Once an individual notices this behavior and sees how the behavior brings more rewards than punishments the liking of this criminality has its onset (Akers et al, 2017; Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Ford, 2008; Stylianou, 2002; Sutherland, 1947).  As the individual participates in drug dealing, they become conditioned to behavior because of the consistency and enjoyment of the beneficial results that the drug dealing brings (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Esbensen & Huizinga, 1993; Johnson, Marcos, & Bahr, 1987; Sutherland, 1947).  In other words, the more often the drug dealing occurs with positive benefits, then the more normal and acceptable it becomes; which, again, conditions the individual to participating in selling drugs because the benefits provide for an understanding of success and enjoyment (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers & Lee, 1999; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Sutherland, 1947). 

The discriminative stimuli in drug dealing is plentiful.  Meaning that there are many environmental cues that allow for the learning of unlawful drug dealing (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Oetting & Beauvais, 1986).  For instance, an individual can have their social group praise the monies and other items that are acquired from the drug sales, receive external appreciation from others outside of a social group, notice the authority that one has over drug buyers, and even engage in drug use or partying that is often associated with drug dealing (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Oetting & Beauvais, 1986).  Internal stimuli manifests because of the liking of the above-mentioned activities by the individual who decides to engage in illegal drug sales (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Oetting & Beauvais, 1986).  Furthermore, the perceived benefits are what allows the illegal behavior to continue the illegal drug dealing because of the rate at which they occur; which brings up the concept of schedules of reinforcement (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Oetting & Beauvais, 1986). 

Schedules of reinforcement is simple to describe when discussing illegal drug sales and criminal behaviors in general.  Specifically, as the drug dealer reaps the perceived benefits of his or her illegal trade over-and-over again, and calculates the rewards to the less often negative outcomes, the criminal behavior is justified (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Oetting & Beauvais, 1986).  Elaborating further, the more successful transactions that occur the individual learns that the illegal activity is more rewarding than detrimental (Akers, 1973, 1998; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Calhoun, 1974; Oetting & Beauvais, 1986; Sutherland, 1947). 

Symbolic interactionalism and imitation predicts illegal drug dealing for an individual because the dealer sees other people who either sell drugs and have achieved what is desired or observes other non-drug dealing behaviors and justifies drug dealing in order to achieve similar accomplishments or goals by the observed person(s) (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Suchman, 1968; Sutherland, 1947).  For example, an individual selling illegal drugs can view a real-life example or even a fictional character and, in turn, want to be like the observed person because of the liking of particular lifestyles and items that have been acquired via drug dealing (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Suchman, 1968; Sutherland, 1947).  Basically, the individual perceives a person or character as some form of role model and wants to accomplish the same or similar activities that have been observed – hence the concept of learning criminal behaviors (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Suchman, 1968; Sutherland, 1947). 

In sum, illegal drug dealing by an individual occurs because the person identifies with the behaviors, observes the benefits of the behavior from environmental conditions and self-praise, and conditions themselves in to such a lifestyle by routinely engaging in the practices because of the positive outcomes.  Then, the individual justifies the behaviors because of the rate of success and other positive outcomes that manifest from the illegal behavior (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Sutherland, 1947).  

Empirical Validity of Social Learning Theory

                As always, social science includes testing and replicating theories to determine their validity; social learning theory is no different.  Researchers have performed an array of analyses on Sutherland’s (1947) and Akers’s (1973, 1998) concepts of learned criminal behaviors.  Moreover, social scientists have analyzed social learning theory in its full breadth as well as with studies that breakdown each of the variables.  For the most part, correlations are found to have a moderate to strong significance when all of the variables are implemented in to a research project (Brauer, 2009; Conger, 1976; Haynie & Osgood, 2005).  Moreover, when the learning processes are analyzed independently the academic research, again, usually infers that there is a significant correlation between the tested learning processes and the criminal behavior that is being studied (Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Jang, 2002; Kaplan, 1996). 

Obviously, specific criminal behaviors have been analyzed by the criminology community.  For example, substance use and social learning theory is constantly implement by scholars in their research and, again, the results typically indicate a strong indication that the theory holds its weight when such behaviors are analyzed (Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Jang, 2002; Kaplan, 1996).  Other criminal behaviors, such as violence and aggression, are often tested and present very similar results.  That is, scholars have implicated that the above-mentioned behaviors not only occur because of the learning processes that Sutherland (1947) and Akers (1973, 1998) present in their work, but also confirm the ideations about the theory being one of the most dominate criminological theories known to date (Akers & Lee, 1999; Ebensen & Huizinga, 1993).  Property crimes are suggested to happen because of the concepts within social learning theory as well.  In particular, researchers have shown that burglaries, other thefts, and vandalism all occur because of learned behaviors and participation in social groups that have a set of norms that are adhered to (Brauer, 2009; Brauer & Tittle, 2012).  With this being stated, deviant peer groups have been studied and social scientists commonly imply that the congregations manifest because the individuals observe the actions of others and learn them from distant and close persons who participate in similar activities (Ebensen & Huizinga, 1993; Jang, 2002; Kaplan, 1996). 

Non-criminal behaviors are also covered under social learning theory in the criminology field.  More specifically, researchers have studied the likes and dislikes of an individual and concluded that particular characteristics are embraced because an individual is conditioned to like and dislike things given their environment and relationships (Akers & Lee, 1996; Spear & Akers, 1988).  Elaborating further, clothing, music, food, speech, and recreational activities are suggested to be learned by individuals in social science studies (Baumeister & Finkel, 2010; Jang, 2002).  Second to this, criminologists and other researchers have inferred that these learnings can even contribute to other behaviors – including criminal behaviors – because of the reasons why they are liked and the features within the likes and dislikes (Baumeister & Finkel, 2010; Jang, 2002; Kaplan, 1996). 

Overall, social learning theory is accepted in the criminal justice and criminology community.  Many social scientists use the theory in their studies and are able to successfully relate criminal behaviors to the concepts that are found within the theory.  Also, because of the routine confirmation of the concepts within social learning theory, coupled with its consistent use in academic research, researchers are able to not only present plausible findings about criminality, but also discuss credible policy implications.  Which, in turn, allow for methods to quell criminal behaviors and instill a better society in general. 

Conclusion

                In sum, social learning theory depicts the learning processes that humans participate in and, in turn, is able to properly describe how criminal behaviors are accepted and formulated.  Peer groups, individual roles, environmental conditions, and external and internal stimuli all provide the academic community to analyze specific criminal activities and inform criminal justice professionals and the public on ways to counteract the unlawful and deviant behaviors (Akers, 1973, 1998; Burgess & Akers, 1966; Sutherland, 1947).  Finally, after researching the studies on social learning theory it has been determined that it is valid and has many positive contributions to scientific analyses, public and private organizations, and contemporary society in general.  Case in point, social learning theory is credible and it does explain human behaviors and how particular settings and thought patterns transition into criminal thinking and criminal activities.  Other criminological theories are accepted by the academic community; however, social learning theory is one of the major understandings in criminology and, therefore, is a favorite for social scientists when analyzing criminality and presenting policy implementations.    

References

Akers, R. L.  (1973).  Deviant behavior:  A social learning approach.  Belmont, CA: 

            Wadsworth. 

Akers, R. L.  (1998).  Social learning and social structure:  A general theory of crime and

            and deviance.  Boston:  Northeastern University Press.   

Akers, R. L., & Lee, G.  (1999).  Age, social learning, and social bonding in adolescent

            substance use.  Deviant Behavior, 19, 1-25.  

Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M.  (1979).  Social learning and                         deviant Behavior: A test of a general theory.  American Sociological Review, 44(4),

            636-655. 

Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G.  (2017).  Criminological theories:

Introduction, evaluation, & application (7^th ed.).  New York:  Oxford University

Press. 

Baumeister, R. F., & Finkel, E. J. (Eds.).  (2010).  Advanced social psychology:  The state of                              science.  New York:  Oxford University Press. 

Brauer, J. R.  (2009).  Testing social learning theory using reinforcement’s residue:

            A multi-level analysis of self-reported theft and marijuana use in the national

            youth survey.   Criminology, 47(3), 929-970.  

Brauer, J. R., & Tittle, C. R.  (2012).  Social learning theory and human reinforcement.

Sociological Spectrum, 32(2), 157-177.  

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L.  (1966).  A differential association reinforcement theory of

criminal behavior.  Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147.  Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1966.14.2.03a00020.    

Calhoun, J. F. (1974).  Attitudes toward the sale and use of drugs: a cross-sectional analysis of         
            those who use drugs.  Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3(1), 31-47.  

Conger, R. D.  (1976).  Social control and social learning models of delinquent behavior: A                                synthesis.  Criminology, 14(1), 17-40. 

Elliot,D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S.S.  (1985).  Explaining delinquency and drug use.

            Beverly Hills, CA:  SAGE. 

Esbensen, F. A., & Huizinga, D.  (1993).  Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban

youth.  Criminology, 31(4), 565-589.  

Gongaware, T. B., & Dotter, D.  (2007).  Developing the criminal self:  Mead’s social

            psychology and Sutherland’s differential association.  Sociological Spectrum, 25(4),

            379-402.  

Ford, J. A.  (2008).  Social learning theory and nonmedical prescription drug use among

            adolescents.  Sociological Spectrum, 28(3), 299-316.  Retrieved from
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A.  (2011).  Criminological theory:  Context and

            consequences (5^th ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage.

Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W.  (2005).  Reconsidering peers and delinquency:  How do peers        
             matter?  Social Forces, 84(2), 1109-1130. 

Jang, S. J.  (2002).  The effects of family, school, peers, and attitudes on adolescents’ drug use: 

            Do they vary with age?  Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 97-126. 
Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A., & Bahr, S.  (1987).  The role of peers in the complex etiology of        

            adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25(2), 323-339.  

Kaplan, H. B.  (1996).  Empirical validation of the applicability of an integrative theory

            of deviant behavior to the study of drug use.  Journal of Drug Use, 26(2), 345-377.   

Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Thornberry, T. P., Smith, C., & McDowall, D.  (1996). 

            Reciprocal causal relationships among drug use, peers, and beliefs:  A five wave panel

            model.  Journal of Drug Issues, 26(2), 405-428.  

Oetting, E. R., & Beauvis, F.  (1986).  Peer cluster theory: Drugs and the adolescent.

            Journal of Counseling & Development, 65(1), 17-22.  

Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J.  (1985).  Contributions of families and peers to delinquency.

Criminology, 23(1), 63-79.  

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., Fern, N.

E., & Gau, J. M.  (2010).  The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-

analysis.  Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765-802.  doi: 10.1080/07418820903379610.

Siegel, L. (2007).  Criminology:  Theories, patterns, and typologies (9^th ed.).  Belmont, CA:

            Thomson Higher Education.  

Spear, S., & Akers, R. L. (1988).  Social learning variables and the risk of habitual smoking

            among adolescents.  American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 4(6), 336-342. 

Stylianou, S.  (2002).  Control attitudes and perceptions of drug use: An exploratory study.

Sociological Spectrum, 24(4), 427-452.  

Suchman, E. A. (1968).  The "hang-loose" ethic and the spirit of drug use.  Journal of Health and  
            Social Behavior, 9(2), 146-155.  doi: 10.2307/2948333. 

Sutherland, E. H.  (1947).  Principles of criminology (4^th ed.).  Philadelphia:  Lippencott.