Using the Film "Alpha Dog" to Explain Social Learning Theory

Abstract

            
            This paper will examine Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory via a set of criminal acts in the film Alpha Dog (2006).  Moreover, a specific character is chosen because his behaviors are an exemplary exhibition of the concepts within Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory.  The chosen character’s behaviors will be depicted so that the reader can glean how social learning theory is applied to real-life situations, as well as to better understand how psychological and environmental factors cause criminality.

Introduction

               Throughout the film Alpha Dog (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006) there are numerous scenes of social gatherings that entail drug and alcohol use, social interactions because of the environments, mockery that commonly takes place between colleagues while engaging in the partying, and problems that are abundant because of the criminal lifestyle that all of the characters are engaging in (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Furthermore, it also routinely showed how the chosen character for this theory application paper, Elvis, is constantly mocked because of money that he owes a primary drug dealer in the film, his obedience towards the previously mentioned drug dealer, and how he (Elvis) is willing to do chores and outlandish behaviors so that he earns the respect of his peers – mostly from the aforementioned primary drug dealer in the film (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  This character was chosen because the behaviors are directly related with Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory and, therefore, will allow for an understanding of how this theory is applied in situations that entail criminal behaviors of the specified character. 

            Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory best describes Elvis’s behaviors because the theory posits that behaviors are learned from social settings and people within these environments, as well as how Elvis is able to comprehend the rewards and punishments that are construed by the general nature of the criminal underworld, what is considered to be respected in the group that he interacts with, and insecurities that are self-attained because of disapproval from peers who are within his group of associates because of norms and labels that are not acquired (Akers, 1985, 1998, Akers, Sellers, & Jennings, 2017).  All of these behaviors are defined by Akers’s (1985, 1998) as differential reinforcement (Akers, 1985, 1998; Akers et al, 2017).  Moreover, Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning best describes Elvis’s behavior throughout the film because much of the social and antisocial behaviors of Elvis also fall within the realm of Akers’ (1985, 1998) definitions of the terms “discriminative stimuli,” “classical conditioning,” and “schedules of reinforcement;” which posit that Elvis’s criminality was performed because of multiple sociological, environmental, and external and internal psychological factors (Akers et al., 2017, p. 86).  Because of this, this paper will use Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory as it applies to the identified character (Elvis) because the particulars of his (Elvis’s) interactions with his peers culminated to participating in the most severe crime that is proscribed by law – murder. 

Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Elvis’s Behaviors from Start to Finish in Alpha Dog

            
              The first scene that allows Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning to be understood happens when Elvis believes that he has completed chores that his drug dealing colleague assigns him because of money that is owed for marijuana (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Specifically, Elvis enters a garage where his colleagues are exercising and begins to do so himself (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Then, Johnny – the primary drug dealer in the group – starts to make sarcastic and disparaging comments about Elvis’s entry into the garage and Johnny’s interpretation of how he felt that the chores completed were not sufficient for the monies that were owed (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  More specifically, Elvis begins to be ridiculed by everyone in the group because of his obedience and consent to taking orders from Johnny (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Eventually, Elvis decides to go back to performing chores at Johnny’s house because of the money owed and promises that he has made to Johnny (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  This is an example of Akers’s (1985, 1998) concepts of differential reinforcement, classical conditioning, discriminative stimuli, schedules of reinforcement, and symbolic interactionism (Akers et al., 2017, p. 86).

            Differential reinforcement is exhibited in Elvis’ behavior because he observes the ridiculing by his peers and understands the unpleasant feelings from his peers, as well as comprehends his own insecurities and self-worth in the group during this particular moment (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).  Elvis decided to continue with the chores because he did not want unpleasant feelings.  Moreover, Elvis understood the positive and negative results in the situation.  If he chose to not carry out the tasks given to him by Johnny he would be further disrespected by his peers; in contrast, Elvis comprehended that completing the tasks given by Johnny would result in better relationships with his peers in the future (Akers et al, 2017, pp. 86-88).  Classical conditioning occurred in this scene because Elvis understood the possibility of constant negative outcomes if he did not adhere to the orders from Johnny (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).  Meaning that Elvis taught himself to obey orders so that future positive outcomes would happen.  The more adherence by Elvis would eventually transition into more positive outcomes and less disrespect from his peers in other words (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).   Discriminative stimuli happened simultaneously in the above-mentioned scene and the explanation of such is similar to the identified behaviors found in differential reinforcement and classical conditioning concepts of social learning theory.  Specifically, the ridiculing and disrespect from Elvis’s peers were cues that his non-compliance to Johnny’s orders, as well as his previous behavior that caused his chores to come about, were negative and if he chose to not obey Johnny’s orders then more mockery and disrespect would take place (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).  Also, Elvis’s disdain throughout the scene is an example of internal stimuli in social learning theory.  Elvis’s self-thoughts about his worth in his peer group justified his obedience and acceptance of the ridiculing (Akers et al, 2017, pp. 86-88).  If he had not performed the chores, or accepted the mockery, he would have acquired insecurities about his worth through his own thinking (Akers et al, 2017, pp. 86-88). 

            Schedules of reinforcement occurred with similar explanations as well.  Being more precise, Elvis weighed the pros and cons of the situation and determined that it was best to adhere to the orders given by Johnny and deal with the mockery by his peers so that future experiences were eliminated or diminished (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Elvis calculated the rate of positive and negative outcomes in this situation by knowing that if he did adhere to the requests and accepted the disparaging remarks that more positive outcomes would occur in the future for himself (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Symbolic interactionism and imitation is conveyed in this scene by Elvis because he understood that his peers would be required to do the same tasks and deal with similar mockery if they were in his position (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Basically, Elvis thought about what would happen to others, and how they would deal with the behaviors, if they owed money to Johnny. 
      

             Another scene in which Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory is presented is when Elvis is approached by Johnny to give his thoughts about a kidnapping that occurred because another person also owed Johnny money for drugs (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  In this scene, Johnny asks Elvis about what to do about the kidnapping and hostage situation, and Elvis replies by saying “I think no more music videos, that’s what I think (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).”  Meaning that Elvis suggests that the friendly activities with the hostage should end and that it was time to be sterner about the situation so that Johnny could eliminate his worries about imprisonment for kidnapping an individual (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Johnny then decides to use Elvis to setup the murder of the kidnapped individual (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Differential reinforcement came about in this situation because Elvis views the situation as a reward for gaining the respect from Johnny and his peers again (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Whereas, if Elvis rejected the offer by Johnny it was understood by him that more negative outcomes would manifest towards him (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Classical conditioning is exhibited in this scene because Elvis wanted to be accepted by his peers.  More specifically, Elvis’s decision-making in this situation was comprehended that the more adherence to Johnny’s requests would result in beneficial results, and the more similar events that occur the more appreciation and respect will be acquired because of his actions (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Essentially, Elvis learned that obeying Johnny’s requests would result in beneficial outcomes in the future for himself (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Discriminative stimuli in this scene is the acknowledgement of praise from Johnny and Elvis’s other peers if he carries out the criminal activities.  Moreover, performing the homicide could be understood as Elvis’s desire to remove his insecurities about his role in his peer group (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Meaning that he chose to adhere to the request because he did not want to think or feel unimportant or disrespected amongst his intimate group (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Schedules of reinforcement is involved in this scene because Elvis calculates the rate of negative and positive outcomes of the decision to accept or deny the request from Johnny (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Elvis realized that denying the request would result in more negative outcomes for himself and possible retaliation from his peers in other words (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Symbolic interactionism and imitation are presented in this scene because Elvis envisions what others – particularly his peers – would do given the prior critical experiences and how such behaviors could be transitioned into more positive experiences given the obedience in Johnny’s invitation to perform a criminal act.  This is confirmed in the scene when Johnny suggests that Elvis’s debt would be wiped away for accepting the offer to murder the kidnapped individual and the comradery that occurred between Johnny and Elvis during the discussion of the criminal act (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes). 

             The culmination of all of the above-mentioned interactions eventually leads to Elvis’s decision to murder the kidnapped individual as requested by Johnny, and the final scene with Elvis’s main contribution to the murder certainly proves Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory to be merited (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  In particular, Elvis is, again, asked to execute the kidnapped individual, and then arrives at a hotel under the guise that he is taking the kidnapped individual to his residence because Johnny has ordered his release (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  When Elvis arrives, another character attempt to persuade him to not perform the murder but is met with no success and a brief physical altercation occurs between Elvis and the other character (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  After Elvis physically defeats the other character, he goes into the hotel room, lies to the kidnapped person about being there to take him home, and then drives the hostage to an isolated area where the murder is planned to take place (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).  Shortly after the arrival at the remote area, the kidnapped individual realizes his fate and breaks down, there is a short discussion about how the murder should not take place by all of the characters, Elvis remarks about Johnny’s request and the possibility of imprisonment for the kidnapping, and then Elvis kills the hostage with a firearm (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006).
  

            Differential reinforcement occurs during the murder scene because Elvis does not listen to the protestations about the planned homicide because of his understanding of the negative outcomes that will manifest from Johnny and others (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Classical conditioning is apparent in the above-mentioned scene because Elvis has learned that the more adherence to Johnny’s requests brings more respect and other favorable outcomes from his peers (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Whereas, not engaging in the request to murder the kidnapped individual would bring more negative outcomes for himself – in an individual and group fashion (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).  Discriminative stimuli are presented in this final scene when Elvis speaks to his peers about the planned homicide, his interaction with the kidnapped individual, and the stern belief that the planned homicide must be carried out (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Elvis uses these environmental and internal cues to justify the obedience to Johnny’s request to murder the kidnapped individual (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  The concepts of schedules of reinforcement appear in this scene with Elvis because he understands the possible negative outcomes if he does not carry out the homicide (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  This is also shown when Elvis gets into a fight with a protesting member of his peer group and is not deterred by the verbal and physical altercations (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  Symbolic interactionism and imitation is noticed because Elvis adheres to Johnny’s request because he does want to be viewed in an unfavorable light by Johnny and his other peers (Akers et al, 2017; Kimmel & Cassavetes).  More specifically, Elvis carries out the planned murder because of his understanding of how others would be viewed as disrespectful and weak if they disregarded Johnny’s request in general and after telling him (Johnny) that they would perform the homicide (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).  So, Elvis performed the murder in order to not retain such negative labels and ousting form his peers because he was aware of how they would be viewed if they were in his position and rejected the request to engage in the planned murder (Akers et al, 2017, pp. 86-88). 

Conclusion

            
               Overall, the film portrays a great insight into the realities of sociological phenomenon and criminality.  The progression of the film presents the variables associated with illegal drug dealing and the other criminal acts that are incumbent within this type of living.  Social learning theory is certainly relevant due to the various degrees of internal and environmental stimuli that produce interactions amongst individuals who participate in the underground drug world.  Moreover, Akers’ (1985, 1998) concept of symbolic interactionism is valid given the behaviors of the characters in the film; specifically, in the identified character, Elvis, and how he formulated thoughts about how others viewed him and what they would expect or do in order to retain the respect from their peers and then transferred these thoughts into a basis for his actions (Akers et al, 2017, p. 86).  Conformity is identified all throughout Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory, and Elvis, as well as other characters, exhibited these traits as they performed criminal actions under the authority of the primary source for their illegal activities – Johnny (Akers et al., p. 87).  Because of the informal rules in the group and drug dealing world in general, peer pressures, individual thoughts in both external and internal fashions (thoughts about oneself and thoughts about other person’s views about others), and comprehension of the possible outcomes from obedience or disobedience in the particular social setting (rewards or detrimental results), criminality was created and sustained as the environmental cues were manifested. 

            Each scene in the film – especially segments involving Elvis – depicts Akers’ (1985, 1998) explanation about how criminality and delinquency are produced via variables that motivate, control, and deliver notions of conformity and disobedience in group-based criminal or delinquent activities (Akers et al., 2017, p. 86).  Additionally, the film verifies how Akers’ (1985, 1998) furtherance in behavior theories is credible and thus contributes to the validity of prior scholarship in other criminological theories.  Imitation as described by Akers’ (1985, 1998) is also routinely noticed throughout the film.  Particularly, when characters acknowledge behaviors and are able to associate the observations with the informal rules and expected norms within their group of peers; all of which are manufactured through environmental and internal (individual) stimuli (Akers et al., 2017, pp. 86-87).  Of this, Akers’ (1985, 1998) social learning theory is able to be implemented into the understanding of criminality and delinquency in the utmost valid manner and the various scenes within Alpha Dog (Kimmel & Cassavetes, 2006) exhibit the theory’s merit.  On a personal note, this film is fantastic and allows criminologists and students to comprehend how social science is relevant in our society.     

References

Akers, R. L. (1985).  Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:

            Wadsworth.

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

            deviance.  Boston: Northeastern University Press.

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

            evaluation, & application.  New York: Oxford University Press. 

Kimmel, S. (Producer), & Cassavetes, N. (Director). (2006).  Alpha dog [Motion picture]. United

            States: Universal Pictures.