deviance essay pdf

Social Psychological Perspectives on Deviance

Cite this chapter.

• Howard B. Kaplan 3  

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

12k Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Agnew, Robert. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology , 30 , 47–87.

Article   Google Scholar  

Agnew, Robert, & White, Helene Raskin. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology , 30 , 475–500.

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

Google Scholar  

Akers, Ronald L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Akers, Ronald L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation and application . Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Akers, Ronald L., La Greca, Anthony J., Cochran, John, & Sellers, Christine. (1989). Social learning theory and alcohol behavior among the elderly, Sociological Quarterly , 30 , 625–638.

Akers, Ronald L., & Lee, Gang. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking, Journal of Drug Issues , 26 , 317–343.

Barak, Gregg. (1998). Integrating criminologies . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Battin, Sara R., Hill, Karl G., Abbott, Robert D., Catalano, Richard E., & Hawkins, David J. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology , 36 , 93–115.

Becker, Howard S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in sociology of deviance . New York: Free Press.

Bonger, Willem. (1969). Criminality and economic conditions [1916] . Abridged with an introduction by Austin T. Turk. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Braithwaite, John. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Burgess, Robert L., & Akers, Ronald L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems , 14 , 128–147.

Bursik, Robert J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology , 26 (4), 519–551.

Chambliss, William J. (1969). Crime and the legal process . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chambliss, William J. (1974). The state, the law, and the definition of behavior as criminal or delinquent. In Daniel Glaser (Ed.), Handbook of criminology (pp. 7–43). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Cloward, Richard A., & Ohlin, Lloyd E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Cohen, Albert K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Cohen, Lawrence E., & Felson, Marcus. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activities approach. American Sociological Review , 44 , 588–608.

Cohen, Lawrence E., Kluegal, James, & Land, Kenneth. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review , 46 , 505–524.

Cornish, Derek B., & Clarke, Ronald V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending . New York: Springer.

DeFleur, Melvin L., & Quinney, Richard. (1966). A reformulation of Sutherland’s differential association theory and a strategy for empirical verification. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 3 , 1–22.

Durkheim, Emile. (1895/1938). The rules of sociological method . New York: The Free Press.

Erikson, Kai T. (1966). Wayward puritans: A study in the sociology of deviance . New York: Wiley.

Evans, David T., Cullen, Francis T., Dunaway, R. Gregory, & Burton, Velmer S., Jr. (1995). Religion and crime re-examined: The impact of religion, secular controls, and social ecology on adult criminality. Criminology , 33 , 195–224.

Farrell, Ronald A., & Swigert, Victoria L. (1982). Deviance and social control . Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Gottfredson, Denise C., McNeill III, Richard J., & Gottfredson, Gary D. (1991). Social area influences on delinquency: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28 (2), 197–226.

Gottfredson, Michael, & Travis Hirschi. (1990). A general theory of crime . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hewitt, John P. (1970). Social stratification and deviant behavior . New York: Random House.

Hirschi, Travis. (1969). Causes of delinquency . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1972). Toward a general theory of psychosocial deviance: The case of aggressive behavior. Social Science and Medicine , 6 , 593–617.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior . Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1980). Deviant behavior in defense of self . New York: Academic Press.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1984). Patterns of juvenile delinquency . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1986). Social psychology of self-referent behavior . New York: Plenum Press.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1995). Drugs, crime, and other deviant adaptations. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Drugs, crime, and other deviant adaptations: Longitudinal studies (pp. 3–46). New York: Plenum Press.

Kaplan, Howard B. (1996). Psychosocial stress from the perspective of self theory. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress: Perspectives on structure, theory, life-course, and methods (pp. 175–244). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kaplan, Howard B. (2001). Self-esteem and deviant behavior: A critical review and theoretical integration. In T. J. Owens (Ed.), Extending self-esteem theory and research: Sociological and psychological currents (pp. 375–97). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, Howard B., & Halim, Shaheen. (2000). Aggression and self-derogation: Moderating influences of gender race/ethnicity, and stage in the life course. Advances in Life Course Research , 5 , 1–32.

Kaplan, Howard B., & Johnson, Robert J. (2001). Social deviance: Testing a general theory . New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Kaplan, Howard B., & Cheng-hsien Lin. (2000). Deviant identity as a moderator of the relation between negative self-feelings and deviant behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence , 20 , 150–177.

Kaplan, Howard B., & Peck, B. Mitchell. (1992). Self-rejection, coping style, and mode of deviant response. Social Science Quarterly , 73 , 903–919.

Katz, Jack. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions to doing evil . New York: Basic Books.

Kobrin, Solomon. (1951). The conflict of values in delinquency areas. American Sociological Review 16 , 653–651.

Krohn, Marvin D. (1986). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems , 33 , S81–S93.

Lemert, Edwin M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lind, A. W. (1938). Island community: A study of ecological successions in Hawaii . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Luckenbill, David F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems , 25 , 176–186.

Loeber, Rolf, & Stouthamer-Loeber, Magda. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In Michael Tonry & Norval Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 7, pp. 29–149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Merton, Robert K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Social Science Review , 3 , 672–682.

Messner, Steven F., Krohn, Marvin D., & Liska, Allen E. (1989). Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime . New York: State University of New York Press.

Nye, Ivan F. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior . New York: Wiley.

Paternoster, Raymond. (1985). Assessments of risk and behavioral experience: An explanatory study of change. Criminology , 23 , 417–436.

Paternoster, Raymond, Saltzman, Linda E., Waldo, Gordon P., & Chiricos, Theodore G. (1983). Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review , 17 , 457–480.

Quinney, Richard. (1970). The social reality of crime . Boston: Little, Brown.

Quinney, Richard. (1980). Class, state, and crime . New York: Longman.

Reckless, Walter C. (1961). A new theory of delinquency and crime. Federal Probation , 25 , 42–46.

Reckless, Walter C. (1967). The crime problem (4th ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Reckless, Walter C, Dinitz, Simon, & Murray, Ellen. (1956). Self-concept as an insulator against delinquency. American Sociological Review , 21 , 744–746.

Reiss, Albert J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American Sociological Review , 16 , 196–207.

Rossi, Peter H., Waite, Emily, Bose, Christina E., & Berk, Richard E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review , 39 , 224–237.

Sampson, Robert J., & Groves, W. Byron. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology , 94 (4), 774–802.

Sellin, Thorsten. (1938). Culture conflict and crime. Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 41 . New York.

Shaw, Clifford, & McKay, Henry D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shoemaker, Donald J. (2000). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Skogan, Wesley G., & Maxfield, Michael G. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood reactions . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stark, Rodney. (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology , 25 , 893–909.

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1937). The professional thief . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Sykes, Gresham M., & David Matza. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology , 22 , 664–670.

Taylor, Ian, Walton, Paul, & Young, Jock. (1973). The new criminology . New York: Harper and Row.

Tittle, Charles R. (1980). Sanctions and social deviance: The question of deterrence . New York: Praeger.

Tittle, Charles R. (1994). The theoretical basis for inequality in formal social control. In G. S. Bridges & M. A. Myers (Eds.), Inequality, crime, and social control (pp. 221–252). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tittle, Charles R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance . Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tittle, Charles R., & Paternoster, Raymond. (2000). Social deviance and crime . Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Turk, Austin T. (1964). Prospects for theories of criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Sciences , 55 , 454–461.

Void, George B. (1958). Theoretical criminology . New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, James Q., & Herrnstein, Richard J. (1985). Crime and human nature . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Yarrow, Marian R., Schwartz, Charlotte G., Murphy, Harriet S., & Deasy, Leila C. (1955). The psychological meaning of mental illness in the family. Journal of Social Issues , 11 (4), 12–24.

Zimring, Franklin E. (1971). Perspectives on deterrence . NIMH Monograph Series on Crime and Delinquency Issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Zimring, Franklin, E., & Hawkins, George. (1973). Deterrence . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 77843

Howard B. Kaplan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

John Delamater

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Kaplan, H.B. (2006). Social Psychological Perspectives on Deviance. In: Delamater, J. (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Boston, MA . https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36921-X_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36921-X_18

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-32515-6

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-36921-1

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Crime & Deviance

2017, Blackwell-Wiley Encyclopedia of Social Theory

Related Papers

Anesu Dzinduwa

Kudzai Machona

Chandapaul Brown

Ealyna Misman

Amaan Media

Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition

Scott Grills

Emmanuel Caliwan, J.D.

Srinivas Katherasala

Nature and perspective of deviance and Crime culture in Society

Besufekade Mulu

Balan Andreea

RELATED PAPERS

marlene nascimento

Irene Antonyuk

Lorenzo Alighieri

Technium Social Sciences Journal

Rodica Enache

Bruno Costa

Premium e-journal of social sciences

Ercan Aksoy

Conhecimento & Diversidade

Cláudia Pereira

Michele Iovieno

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

Alain Rouleau

ACTA IASSYENSIA COMPARATIONIS

Harieta Topoliceanu

e-Academia Journal

NURSYAZNI MOHAMAD SUKRI

Sophie Liégard

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Silvia Collado

International Journal of Linguistics

linh nguyên thị dieu linh

Biomass & Bioenergy

Silvia Tabasso

Southern Africa Journal of Education, Science and Technology

Lucia Mandongwe

Value in Health

Javier Rejas

Archivos argentinos …

Verónica Giubergia

Papers on Anthropology

Sergey Vasilyev

BARITULE P R I N C E SAUE

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

valeria lauter

Vanessa Reyes

Social Service Review

CATHERINE BORN

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance and Crime

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Describe the functionalist view of deviance in society through four sociologist’s theories
• Explain how conflict theory understands deviance and crime in society
• Describe the symbolic interactionist approach to deviance, including labeling and other theories

Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories that attempt to explain what deviance and crime mean to society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

Functionalism

Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with the way the different elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society. Strain theory and social disorganization theory represent two functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.

Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance

Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views (1893). For instance, when Black students across the United States participated in sit-ins during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society (1893). Seeing a student given detention for skipping class reminds other high schoolers that playing hooky isn’t allowed and that they, too, could get detention.

Durkheim’s point regarding the impact of punishing deviance speaks to his arguments about law. Durkheim saw laws as an expression of the “collective conscience,” which are the beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society. “A crime is a crime because we condemn it,” he said (1893). He discussed the impact of societal size and complexity as contributors to the collective conscience and the development of justice systems and punishments. For example, in large, industrialized societies that were largely bound together by the interdependence of work (the division of labor), punishments for deviance were generally less severe. In smaller, more homogeneous societies, deviance might be punished more severely.

Robert Merton: Strain Theory

Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is an inherent part of a functioning society, but he expanded on Durkheim’s ideas by developing strain theory , which notes that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person conforms or deviates. From birth, we’re encouraged to achieve the “American Dream” of financial success. A person who attends business school, receives an MBA, and goes on to make a million-dollar income as CEO of a company is said to be a success. However, not everyone in our society stands on equal footing. That MBA-turned-CEO may have grown up in the best school district and had means to hire tutors. Another person may grow up in a neighborhood with lower-quality schools, and may not be able to pay for extra help. A person may have the socially acceptable goal of financial success but lack a socially acceptable way to reach that goal. According to Merton’s theory, an entrepreneur who can’t afford to launch their own company may be tempted to embezzle from their employer for start-up funds.

Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it.

• Conformity : Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
• Innovation : Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.
• Ritualism : People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than attaining a distant dream.
• Retreatism : Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means. Some people who beg and people who are homeless have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success.
• Rebellion : A handful of people rebel and replace a society’s goals and means with their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through socially unacceptable means.

Social Disorganization Theory

Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control. An individual who grows up in a poor neighborhood with high rates of drug use, violence, teenage delinquency, and deprived parenting is more likely to become engaged in crime than an individual from a wealthy neighborhood with a good school system and families who are involved positively in the community.

Social disorganization theory points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A person isn’t born as someone who will commit crimes but becomes one over time, often based on factors in their social environment. Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989) found that poverty and family disruption in given localities had a strong positive correlation with social disorganization. They also determined that social disorganization was, in turn, associated with high rates of crime and delinquency—or deviance. Recent studies Sampson conducted with Lydia Bean (2006) revealed similar findings. High rates of poverty and single-parent homes correlated with high rates of juvenile violence. Research into social disorganization theory can greatly influence public policy. For instance, studies have found that children from disadvantaged communities who attend preschool programs that teach basic social skills are significantly less likely to engage in criminal activity. (Lally 1987)

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see these factors as positive functions of society. They see them as evidence of inequality in the system. They also challenge social disorganization theory and control theory and argue that both ignore racial and socioeconomic issues and oversimplify social trends (Akers 1991). Conflict theorists also look for answers to the correlation of gender and race with wealth and crime.

Karl Marx: An Unequal System

Conflict theory was greatly influenced by the work of German philosopher, economist, and social scientist Karl Marx. Marx believed that the general population was divided into two groups. He labeled the wealthy, who controlled the means of production and business, the bourgeois. He labeled the workers who depended on the bourgeois for employment and survival the proletariat. Marx believed that the bourgeois centralized their power and influence through government, laws, and other authority agencies in order to maintain and expand their positions of power in society. Though Marx spoke little of deviance, his ideas created the foundation for conflict theorists who study the intersection of deviance and crime with wealth and power.

C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite

In his book The Power Elite (1956), sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed the power elite , a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power. Mills’ theories explain why celebrities can commit crimes and suffer little or no legal retribution. For example, USA Today maintains a database of NFL players accused and convicted of crimes. 51 NFL players had been convicted of committing domestic violence between the years 2000 and 2019. They have been sentenced to a collective 49 days in jail, and most of those sentences were deferred or otherwise reduced. In most cases, suspensions and fines levied by the NFL or individual teams were more severe than the justice system's (Schrotenboer 2020 and clickitticket.com 2019).

Crime and Social Class

While crime is often associated with the underprivileged, crimes committed by the wealthy and powerful remain an under-punished and costly problem within society. The FBI reported that victims of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft lost a total of $15.3 billion dollars in 2009 (FB1 2010). In comparison, when former advisor and financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in 2008, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reported that the estimated losses of his financial Ponzi scheme fraud were close to $50 billion (SEC 2009).

This imbalance based on class power is also found within U.S. criminal law. In the 1980s, the use of crack cocaine (a less expensive but powerful drug) quickly became an epidemic that swept the country’s poorest urban communities. Its pricier counterpart, cocaine, was associated with upscale users and was a drug of choice for the wealthy. The legal implications of being caught by authorities with crack versus cocaine were starkly different. In 1986, federal law mandated that being caught in possession of 50 grams of crack was punishable by a ten-year prison sentence. An equivalent prison sentence for cocaine possession, however, required possession of 5,000 grams. In other words, the sentencing disparity was 1 to 100 (New York Times Editorial Staff 2011). This inequality in the severity of punishment for crack versus cocaine paralleled the unequal social class of respective users. A conflict theorist would note that those in society who hold the power are also the ones who make the laws concerning crime. In doing so, they make laws that will benefit them, while the powerless classes who lack the resources to make such decisions suffer the consequences. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, states passed numerous laws increasing penalties, especially for repeat offenders. The U.S. government passed an even more significant law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (known as the 1994 Crime Bill), which further increased penalties, funded prisons, and incentivized law enforcement agencies to further pursue drug offenders. One outcome of these policies was the mass incarceration of Black and Hispanic people, which led to a cycle of poverty and reduced social mobility. The crack-cocaine punishment disparity remained until 2010, when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased the disparity to 1 to 18 (The Sentencing Project 2010).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how societies and/or social groups come to view behaviors as deviant or conventional.

Labeling Theory

Although all of us violate norms from time to time, few people would consider themselves deviant. Those who do, however, have often been labeled “deviant” by society and have gradually come to believe it themselves. Labeling theory examines the ascribing of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered deviant is determined not so much by the behaviors themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of others to these behaviors. As a result, what is considered deviant changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures.

Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labeling theory and identified two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others. Speeding is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding ticket generally does not make others view you as a bad person, nor does it alter your own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.

Sometimes, in more extreme cases, primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. Secondary deviance occurs when a person’s self-concept and behavior begin to change after his or her actions are labeled as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff, and soon enough, develops a reputation as a “troublemaker.” As a result, the student starts acting out even more and breaking more rules; the student has adopted the “troublemaker” label and embraced this deviant identity. Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or grandfathers. Others see themselves as beggars, convicts, or addicts.

Techniques of Neutralization

How do people deal with the labels they are given? This was the subject of a study done by Sykes and Matza (1957). They studied teenage boys who had been labeled as juvenile delinquents to see how they either embraced or denied these labels. Have you ever used any of these techniques?

Let’s take a scenario and apply all five techniques to explain how they are used. A young person is working for a retail store as a cashier. Their cash drawer has been coming up short for a few days. When the boss confronts the employee, they are labeled as a thief for the suspicion of stealing. How does the employee deal with this label?

The Denial of Responsibility: When someone doesn’t take responsibility for their actions or blames others. They may use this technique and say that it was their boss’s fault because they don’t get paid enough to make rent or because they’re getting a divorce. They are rejecting the label by denying responsibility for the action.

The Denial of Injury: Sometimes people will look at a situation in terms of what effect it has on others. If the employee uses this technique they may say, “What’s the big deal? Nobody got hurt. Your insurance will take care of it.” The person doesn’t see their actions as a big deal because nobody “got hurt.”

The Denial of the Victim: If there is no victim there’s no crime. In this technique the person sees their actions as justified or that the victim deserved it. Our employee may look at their situation and say, “I’ve worked here for years without a raise. I was owed that money and if you won’t give it to me I’ll get it my own way.”

The Condemnation of the Condemners: The employee might “turn it around on” the boss by blaming them. They may say something like, “You don’t know my life, you have no reason to judge me.” This is taking the focus off of their actions and putting the onus on the accuser to, essentially, prove the person is living up to the label, which also shifts the narrative away from the deviant behavior.

Appeal to a Higher Authority: The final technique that may be used is to claim that the actions were for a higher purpose. The employee may tell the boss that they stole the money because their mom is sick and needs medicine or something like that. They are justifying their actions by making it seem as though the purpose for the behavior is a greater “good” than the action is “bad.” (Sykes & Matza, 1957)

Social Policy and Debate

The right to vote.

Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola Strickland postdated and mailed a handful of checks for amounts ranging from $90 to $500. By the time she was able to find a new job, the checks had bounced, and she was convicted of fraud under Mississippi law. Strickland pleaded guilty to a felony charge and repaid her debts; in return, she was spared from serving prison time.

Strickland appeared in court in 2001. More than ten years later, she is still feeling the sting of her sentencing. Why? Because Mississippi is one of twelve states in the United States that bans convicted felons from voting (ProCon 2011).

To Strickland, who said she had always voted, the news came as a great shock. She isn’t alone. Some 5.3 million people in the United States are currently barred from voting because of felony convictions (ProCon 2009). These individuals include inmates, parolees, probationers, and even people who have never been jailed, such as Leola Strickland.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, states are allowed to deny voting privileges to individuals who have participated in “rebellion or other crime” (Krajick 2004). Although there are no federally mandated laws on the matter, most states practice at least one form of felony disenfranchisement .

Is it fair to prevent citizens from participating in such an important process? Proponents of disfranchisement laws argue that felons have a debt to pay to society. Being stripped of their right to vote is part of the punishment for criminal deeds. Such proponents point out that voting isn’t the only instance in which ex-felons are denied rights; state laws also ban released criminals from holding public office, obtaining professional licenses, and sometimes even inheriting property (Lott and Jones 2008).

Opponents of felony disfranchisement in the United States argue that voting is a basic human right and should be available to all citizens regardless of past deeds. Many point out that felony disfranchisement has its roots in the 1800s, when it was used primarily to block Black citizens from voting. These laws disproportionately target poor minority members, denying them a chance to participate in a system that, as a social conflict theorist would point out, is already constructed to their disadvantage (Holding 2006). Those who cite labeling theory worry that denying deviants the right to vote will only further encourage deviant behavior. If ex-criminals are disenfranchised from voting, are they being disenfranchised from society?

Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association

In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant behavior developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub 2006). His conclusions established differential association theory , which suggested that individuals learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice and more a result of differential socialization processes. For example, a young person whose friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable. Sutherland developed a series of propositions to explain how deviance is learned. In proposition five, for example, he discussed how people begin to accept and participate in a behavior after learning whether it is viewed as “favorable” by those around them. In proposition six, Sutherland expressed the ways that exposure to more “definitions” favoring the deviant behavior than those opposing it may eventually lead a person to partake in deviance (Sutherland 1960), applying almost a quantitative element to the learning of certain behaviors. In the example above, a young person may find sexual activity more acceptable once a certain number of their friends become sexually active, not after only one does so.

Sutherland’s theory may explain why crime is multigenerational. A longitudinal study beginning in the 1960s found that the best predictor of antisocial and criminal behavior in children was whether their parents had been convicted of a crime (Todd and Jury 1996). Children who were younger than ten years old when their parents were convicted were more likely than other children to engage in spousal abuse and criminal behavior by their early thirties. Even when taking socioeconomic factors such as dangerous neighborhoods, poor school systems, and overcrowded housing into consideration, researchers found that parents were the main influence on the behavior of their offspring (Todd and Jury 1996).

Travis Hirschi: Control Theory

Continuing with an examination of large social factors, control theory states that social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection from society. Individuals who believe they are a part of society are less likely to commit crimes against it.

Travis Hirschi (1969) identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society:

• Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society’s norms in order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic partners.
• Commitment refers to the investments we make in the community. A well-respected local businessperson who volunteers at their synagogue and is a member of the neighborhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a person who doesn’t have a career or ties to the community.
• Similarly, levels of involvement , or participation in socially legitimate activities, lessen a person’s likelihood of deviance. A child who plays little league baseball and takes art classes has fewer opportunities to ______.
• The final bond, belief , is an agreement on common values in society. If a person views social values as beliefs, they will conform to them. An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park, because a clean environment is a social value to them (Hirschi 1969).

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/7-2-theoretical-perspectives-on-deviance-and-crime

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.