Social explanations of crime and anti-social behaviour Flashcards
What are the three social explanations of crime and anti-social behaviour?
- Labelling
- Self-fulfilling prophecy
- Social Learning
What is labelling?
Labels people are given let us judge what must be going on inside, the kind of people they are.
If a person is labelled as ‘criminal’ or ‘deviant’, that will define them and affect how society behaves towards them.
What did Becker (1963) ask in relation to labelling?
He asked how and why are some actions labelled criminal in the first place.
Powerful groups in society create deviance by making up rules and applying them to people they see as ‘outsiders’.
What counts as criminal behaviour only becomes so when labelled by others - crime is a social construct.
What is a weakness of the labelling theory?
It is only a partial explanation for offending.
Labelling theory implies that without labelling, crime would not exist.
This would suggest that labelling theory is too simple to be a single explanation for crime.
What is a further weakness for labelling as applied to crime?
Lack of evidence.
Most studies of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy have been confined to educational settings. The teacher-student relationship may be unique in expectations, having a major influence on a child’s attainment.
There are too many factors that affect the relationship between labelling and crime.
What is self-fulfilling prophecy?
It takes the idea of labelling a step further.
The ‘deviant’ sees themselves in this way because of the stereotyped response of others towards their label.
Stigmatised and isolated from society, the offender seeks support from deviant groups and subcultures.
This draws the individual further into crime, confirming their criminal identity and deviant status.
Who provided supporting evidence for the self-fulfilling prophecy?
Jahoda (1954)
Studied the Ashanti of Ghana (boys are named after the day they were born). Monday boys are thought to be even tempered compared to aggressive and volatile Wednesday boys.
Over 5 years Jahoda found that Wednesday boys were more likely to be involved in crime.
This suggests that a self-fulfilling prophecy based on cultural expectations had been formed and had influenced the boys’ behaviour.
Who provided a counter argument for evidence supporting the self-fulfilling prophecy?
Zebrowitz et al (1998)
They found that boys with a ‘baby face’ were more likely than their mature faced peers to be delinquent and involved in crime.
Perhaps the ‘baby faced’ boys were overcompensating for the perception that they may be weak or childlike, rather than living up to their label.
What is reintegrative shaming?
Braithwaite (1989) stated that societies have lower crime rates and reoffending rates if they communicate shame about crime effectively.
The offender is supported back into society with guidance from family and prison staff, so are less likely to offend again (application value).
How can Social Learning Theory explain criminal behaviour?
- Observational Learning - criminal behaviour is learned indirectly by observing and imitating the actions of deviant others.
- Vicarious Reinforcement - if criminal behaviour is to be imitated, it must be seen to be rewarded. Offending behaviour is rewarded through acquisition of money or increased status in a criminal gang.
- Role Models - A young offender may look up to and want to be like a gang leader (high status and respect, glamorous and attractive lifestyle).
How can social explanation of crime be linked with issues and debates.
The social explanation makes up the ‘nurture’ side of the nature-nurture debate.
