INTRODUCTION

Many of us probably remember a time in our childhood or adolescence when an adult, usually a parent or guardian, told us not to hang around with someone. They may have told you that the person was “a bad apple” or been concerned that you would learn bad behaviour from them. After all, as the saying goes, “birds of a feather flock together.” Or maybe you got in trouble for something you and a friend did and the adult in your family told you that you couldn’t hang out with them again, because they were ‘a bad influence.’ If that’s the case, then you have experienced social learning theory in action!

Social Learning Theory explains how people learn from their social environment through observation, imitation, and modelling. It was developed by the American criminologist Ronald L. Akers^[1], who adapted the earlier work of Edwin Sutherland and B.F. Skinner^[2]. Sutherland first proposed that criminal and deviant behaviour are learned in the same way as all other kinds of behaviour. This theory could also help explain why upper -class individuals committed crime since they did not experience the structural disadvantage that had previously been used to explain why crime appeared to happen most often in lower class neighbourhoods (see Chapter 6 for more detail). After all, even in the 1930s, individuals were committing what we now know as white-collar crime!

Saying that behaviour is learned, however, does not give us a lot of information about how we can prevent people from learning bad things. It is here that Akers’ extension of Differential association into Social Learning Theory became so useful for criminologists. Borrowing from the theoretical ideas of Skinner around the principles of reinforcement, Akers suggested that the likelihood of engaging in any kind of behaviour depends on the rewards and punishments that an individual experiences or expects. Akers also identified four main components of social learning: differential associations, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation. Deviant and criminal behaviours undergo learning and modification through the same cognitive and behavioural mechanisms as conforming behaviours; the distinction lies in the direction, content, and outcomes of the learned behaviour.

This chapter will take you through the historical development of social learning theory and teach you about the propositions of both Differential Association and Social Learning Theory. It will also showcase some examples of what we know about social learning in a contemporary context and its ability to help us understand behaviour and find ways to prevent criminal and delinquent activity. We will then discussion the strengths and limitations of the theory and examine the future of social learning in criminology and criminal justice.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Social learning theory was first introduced in 1966 when Burgess and Akers labelled it as “differential reinforcement theory” (Burgess and Akers, 1966).  The term social learning theory, which has been broadly used to refer to various behaviouristic approaches within the social sciences, is primarily associated with the psychologist Albert Bandura (1969; Bandura & Walters, 1963, 1977). However, it has been extended to encompass other theoretical frameworks over time, including within criminology (Beker & Stumphauzer, 1986; Grusec, 1992; Jessor and Jessor, 1977; Rotter, 1954).

This theory emphasises the mutual interaction among cognitive, behavioural, and environmental factors that play a pivotal role in shaping individual outcomes (Bandura & Walters, 1977). Alternatives of social learning can also be found in social and behavioural sciences. However, Akers has consistently used the term “social learning theory” to describe his own theory and took the opportunity to expand upon, and provide clarity on, the theory in response to criticisms raised by other scholars (Akers, 1998). Most importantly to use as criminologists, Aker’s Social Learning theory is a contemporary extension of Sutherland’s differential association theory.

Differential Association Theory

First formally introduced in 1939, differential association theory says that “criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with persons in a pattern of communication” (Cressey, 1960). Over time, Sutherland refined the theory of differential association to comprise of nine key points, which describe the ways that criminal values are acquired (Sutherland, Cressey, & Luckenbill, 1992).

Sutherland’s theory of differential association came at a time when people were beginning to better understand that criminal behaviour was something that happened in all layers of society. Unlike the earlier propositions from the Chicago School or other subcultural theories, differential association can explain the bad behaviour of all social classes. This was a turning point for criminology and helped expand our understanding of bad behaviour. Early research was favourable but exposed a notable gap in explaining the mechanisms underlying the acquisition of antisocial definitions (Akers & Sellers, 2009).

It is this gap where Akers emerged with a major contribution in the form of social learning theory (Curran & Renzetti, 2001). Akers helped to clarify the processes through which individuals acquire the disposition to engage in criminal activities. Like with Sutherland’s perspective, he underscored the significance of differential association in shaping the definitions that may lead to deviant behaviour (Akers, 1977). Importantly, Akers introduced the concept of social reinforcements, suggesting that rewards and punishments determine the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated. He termed this phenomenon differential social reinforcements, asserting that sustained engagement in criminal activities depends on exposure to social reinforcements, with stronger and repeated reinforcements correlating with a higher likelihood of persistent criminal behaviour (Akers, 1977; Akers, 1998; Akers & Jensen, 2011).

THEORY DESCRIPTION

Social learning theory provides a framework for understanding the individual differences of behavioural changes over time and across diverse contexts, by examining the disposition of individuals who engage in deviant or criminal behaviour (Akers, 1977).  Central to social learning theory is the principle of imitation and modelling. Akers argued that individuals learn by observing and imitating the behaviours of others, particularly those who hold significance in their lives. This includes family members, peers, and role models (Akers, 1977, 2011). Through these observational processes, individuals not only acquire specific behaviours but also internalise the associated beliefs, values, and attitudes that accompany them.

Akers introduced the concept of differential reinforcement to explain why individuals choose to engage in or abstain from criminal behaviour. According to this principle, the frequency and intensity of reinforcement (either positive or negative) significantly influence the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated (Burgess & Akers, 1966; Akers & Seller, 2009). In this case, it’s important to know that positive and negative do not have the standard meaning we use in everyday conversation. Instead, we use the psychological definitions. Positive reinforcement is something that strengthens the likelihood of a response when we add a stimulus to an interaction; the thing we add can be good or bad. For example, punishment can be a positive reinforcement, because it is added to the situation. But most people would argue that punishment is not an emotionally positive experience. Negative reinforcement is the opposite. It means we remove a stimulus from a situation to strengthen the likelihood of a response. Again, this can be a good or a bad thing. We can, for instance, remove a loud and aggressive noise from a situation. That would be negative reinforcement but would be an emotionally positive experience. In short, positive reinforcement increases the probability of repeating a behaviour, while negative reinforcement the likelihood of repetition (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Bandura, 1977 & Akers & Jensen, 2011).

Akers also integrated some elements of operant conditioning into Social Learning Theory. In addition to the direct reinforcement associated with behaviours, individuals also learn through the consequences of their actions. Positive outcomes increase the likelihood of repeated criminal behaviour, while negative outcomes may deter individuals from engaging in such activities (Bandura, 1969: Akers & Sellers, 2009). This incorporation of operant conditioning enriches the theory by considering the role of rewards and punishments in shaping behaviour.  Building on Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, Akers refined the concept by emphasising both the quantity and quality of associations (Grusec, 1992; Akers, 2009). The duration, intensity, and priority of associations also play a crucial role in the learning process.  These key principles collectively form the foundation of Akers’ Social Learning Theory, providing a comprehensive understanding of the processes through which individuals acquire and perpetuate criminal behaviour. The theory not only considers the influence of significant others but also integrates elements of reinforcement, definitions, and differential association to explain social learning in the context of deviance.

Table 10.1 Akers Social Learning Theory – A Timeline

THEORY APPLICATION

 Akers’ Social Learning Theory has been applied to several criminological questions in contemporary times, as it remains an incredibly important theory to help understand individual behaviour. Akers asserts that the assumption in social learning theory is that the same learning process produces both conforming and deviant behaviour. We learn to engage in crime through exposure, imitation and reinforcement to behaviours and situations favourable to crime. We also learn to desist from certain behaviours in the same manner (Akers & Jensen, 2017). Research supports that this can be, in fact, the case for many types of deviance.

Social Learning Theory and Understanding Delinquency

Much research on social learning theory has centred around young people and their experiences with delinquent peers. Criminologists have long debated the ways that friendship contributes to delinquency. Social learning argues that our friends teach us to be delinquent; this is very different than social control theorists from Chapter 8, who would argue that delinquent youth choose to hang out with other delinquent youth. But which is it? Do we learn from our friends or do we choose friends like us?

The research suggests that it may be a little bit of both. Early research on social learning theory and gangs found that individuals who have favourable beliefs towards crime and delinquency will have a great risk of joining gangs (Esbensen & Huizinga, 1994). More recent research on the relationship between delinquent peers and drug use in Australian youth showed that having delinquent friends was significantly related to using alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (Mehus et al., 2018). And interestingly, when you ask Australian adolescents about their perspectives of offending, they tell us that one reason is because they learn how to offend from their friends. In one study of 24 young Australians between the ages of 15-17 years old, youth talked about how they thought people learn from older family members or see their friends engaged in crime and they decide to try it too (Skrzypiec, 2013).

Social Learning Theory and Intimate Partner Violence

Social learning theory has also been used to explain and understand more serious forms of crime, including intimate partner violence. Two recent studies stand out. The first is a meta-analysis^[3] of teen dating violence (Pusch, 2022). This study looked at the overall outcomes of 116 individual studies to better examine whether social learning theory could explain teen dating violence. The findings suggested that individuals who witnessed intimate partner violence or were exposed to family violence were more likely to report committing teen dating violence themselves. The findings also suggested that individuals whose peers committed teen dating violence were more likely to report committing teen dating violence (Pusch, 2022). This lends credibility to the importance of social learning theory as a mechanism by teen dating and intimate partner violence can manifest and gives us an avenue to explore for prevention strategies.

Techniques of Neutralization

One question that comes up often in our discussions about differential association and social learning theory is why do people commit offences even when they know that something is wrong. After all, even if someone has learned definitions favorable to the commission of a crime, they must surely have learned that the rest of society does not agree with them. Similarly, most people who commit criminal acts choose to behave in law abiding and pro-social ways in during most of their day to day activities. We also know that many individuals do feel guilt after commiting a crime. So how can individuals have learned pro-crime definitions and also pick and choose when they are going to commit an offence?

One potential answer is through the use of techniques of neutralisation. First articulated by criminologists Gresham M. Sykes^[4] and David Matza, techiniques of neutralisation suggest that individuals who commit crime justify their deviance in ways that are valid to them, but not valid to the legal system or society at large (Sykes & Matza, 1957). These justifications, or rationalisations, help to protect the individual from self-blame and reduce the guilt that they may otherwise feel. Sykes and Matza also argue that these rationalisations can occur before a crime and make it more likely for an individual to choose a criminal act. They argue that what people learn is not ‘attitudes favourable to breaking the law,’ but learning these techniques in conjuction with those attitudes. There are five techniques of neutralisation:

1. Denial of Responsibility: individuals may argue that they are not, in fact, responsible for the offence or subsequent harm, due to a variety of reasons. Some reasons may be due to the fact that the offender was ‘just joking’ or the injury was accidental. In other situations, this justification could be the result of not taking responsibility for one’s behaviour, generally related to reasons outside of the individual’s control (such as growing up in a poor environment).
2. Denial of Injury: this justification shifts the focus from the individual who has committed the offence to make the argument that the offence is not, actually, real. This form of rationalisation is very common with the types of offences that are traditionally called ‘victim-less’ crimes, like gambling or certain types of drug crimes.
3. Denial of Victim: in some cases, an individual may deny that anyone has been wronged during the course of the criminal act. For example, the injury may not be an injury, but a form of retaliation that is deserved by the victim. As such, because the victim ‘deserved’ the injury, there is no real victim. A common example of this justification can be seen in all of the movies about Robin Hood, where the rich deserved to have their goods stolen because they were complicit in exploiting the poor.
4. Condemnation of the Condemners: this technique shifts the focus from the behaviour of the individual to that of the person or system responisible for the punishment of the behaviour. For example, an individual may point out that the hypocrisy of government officials or certain legal standards as a justification for their own criminal or deviant behaviour.
5. Appeal to a Higher Loyalty: individuals may convince themselves that a different set of social norms or rules apply to their particular situation, and therefore they have to act outside of the law to achieve the desired and appropriate outcome. For example, young people may engage in delinquent acts because of their desire to be a good and supportive friend and the importance of friendship overrides the importance of the legal status of the behaviour. This is very common, for example, when it comes to not being a ‘snitch.’

Many different research studies have examined the way that individuals who commit offences potentially apply these techniques of neutralisation to their actions. One study found that it was very common for students who committed music piracy to to apply four of the five techniques of neutralisation (Ingram & Hinduja, 2008). In a stud of over 2000 undergraduate university students, those that committed piracy were more likely to accept the techniques of denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, and appeal to a higher loaylty than their peers who did not commit music piracy. While many people may not think about music piracy as a a crime, a recent article in Wired suggests that there were more than 17 billion visits to music piracy sites in 2023 (Watercutter, 2024). This represents tens of billions of dollars or more for the music industry and research like this gives us new insight into how interested parties can come up with prevention oriented solutions.

 THEORY CRITICISMS

Critics argue that the theory oversimplifies the complexities of human behaviour by reducing it primarily to the influence of social interactions and learning. It may not fully account for many other factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, such as genetics, community or mental health.  The theory can be deterministic by emphasising the role that external factors play in shaping behaviour and does not take into account the decisions that people make. These theories may not sufficiently consider the role of free will and personal agency in decision-making (Kornhauser,1978). After all, learning is not the same thing as doing.

Another criticism is that the theory does not provide a robust explanation for the initial choice to commit a deviant act, or the decision to desist from committing crime over time (Pratt et al., 2010).  Akers’ theory tends to focus on micro-level social interactions and may not adequately address broader structural factors such as poverty, inequality, or discrimination, which also play a role in criminal behaviour (Kornhauser, 1978).

Importantly in an Australian context, many argue that the theory may not adequately account for gender differences or consider cultural variations in the learning process and may not adequately apply to diverse populations (Matsueda & Anderson, 1998). Critics contend that the theory’s emphasis on individual learning and behaviour may not provide clear guidance for policy interventions or strategies to prevent or reduce criminal behaviour at the societal level. This is a very real criticism for diverse societies in need of many different approaches to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour.

THE FUTURE OF THE THEORY

With the rise of the use of the internet for criminal and deviant activity, Social Learning Theory is well positioned to help us understand the contagion of ideas through these platforms (Navarro & Marcum, 2020). Originally, Social Learning Theory was supposed to apply to physical settings, but the proliferation of online interactions lends new ways to test this theory. Recent research on adult cyberbullying has shown that heavy social media use and anonymity can increase cyberbullying behaviours, suggesting that the frequency of our interactions does not have to be with nearby friends and family in order to learn and reinforce negative behaviours (Lowry et al., 2016). The same has been found for young people (Miller & Morris, 2016; Morris & Blackburn, 2012), especially because research on young people tells us that they believe virtual relationships are as important as in-person friendships.

The role of virtual relationships may be even more important now in a post-COVID world. Researchers around the world have found that adolescents were severely impacted by COVID and their friendship groups changed due to social isolation measures. In the United States, a survey of young people found that friendships changed in many diverse ways. Some young people reported that their friendships ended or became less close, but others talked about how the extra free time and ability to interact online meant that they were closer to their friends (Ballonoff Suleiman et al., 2023). Similar diversity in friendship effects was found in England, when school students reported how important interacting with their friends was to them. Even though online interactions increased during lockdowns, students still reported a preference for face-to-face interaction (Widnall et al., 2022). What this tells us is that there is still a lot more to know about how online interactions may impact the way in which people learn. It’s a whole new frontier that Social Learning Theory is well positioned to help us learn more about.

CONCLUSION

 Akers’ Social Learning Theory offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the process of how we learn from other individuals and the environment around us. Central to the theory is the importance of the mechanisms of modelling and differential reinforcement in driving behaviour. The frequency, magnitude, and immediacy of rewards and punishments play pivotal roles in shaping behaviour, influencing whether individuals continue or desist from certain actions. Akers’ emphasis on the social context, coupled with cognitive and behavioural processes, provides a nuanced perspective on how individuals navigate and internalise societal norms and deviant behaviours.

Check Your Knowledge

REFERENCES

 Akers, R.L. (1977). Deviant behavior. A social learning approach.  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., & Jensen, G. F. (Eds.). (2011). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.

Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2017). The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. In Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, & Kristie R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 37-76). New York, NY: Routledge.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed., New). Oxford University Press.

Ballonoff Suleiman, A., Till Hoyt, L., & Cohen, A.K. (2023) It was definitely like an altered social scene: Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on U.S. adolescents’ social relationships. Youth (3), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.3390/youth3010002

Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In David A. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 213-262). Rand McNally.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. Holt Rinehart and Winston: New York.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Beker, J., & Stumphauzer, J. (1986). Helping delinquents change: A treatment manual of social learning approaches (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315804330

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/798612

Cressey, D. R. (1960). The theory of differential association: An introduction. Social Problems, 8(1), 2-6.

Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P., & Blevins, K.R. (Eds.). (2017). Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315130620

Curran, D. J., & Renzetti, C. M. (2001). Theories of crime (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon

Esbensen, F. A., & Huizinga, D. (1993). Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–89. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01142.x

Grusec, J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.776

Ingram, J. R., & Hindjua, S. (2008). Neutralizing music piracy: An empirical examination. Deviant Behavior, 29(4), 334-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701588131

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behaviour and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.

Kornhauser, R. (1978) .Social sources of delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Li, C. K. W. (2022). The Applicability of Social Structure and Social Learning Theory to Explain Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Across National Contexts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23-24), NP22475-NP22500. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211072166

Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C., & Siponen, M. (2016). Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research, 27(4):962-986. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0671

Matsueda, R. L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behaviour. Criminology, 36, 269–308.

Mehus, C. J., Doty, J., Chan, G., Kelly, A. B., Hemphill, S., Toumbourou, J., & McMorris, B. J. (2018). Testing the social interaction learning model’s applicability to adolescent substance misuse in an Australian context. Substance Use & Misuse, 53(11), 1859-1868, DOI 10.1080/10826084.2018.1441307

Miller, B., & Morris, R. G. (2016). Virtual peer effects in social learning theory. Crime & Delinquency, 62(12), 1543-1569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714526499

Morris, R. G., & Blackburn, A. G. (2009). Cracking the code: an empirical exploration of social learning theory and computer crime. Journal of Crime and Justice, 32(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2009.9721260

Navarro, J. N., & Marcum, C. D. (2020). Deviant instruction: The applicability of social learning theory to understanding cybercrime. The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance, 527-545. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-319-78440-3_18.pdf

Pusch, N. (2024). A meta-analytic review of social learning theory and teen dating violence perpetration. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 61(2), 171-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278221130004

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/10788-000

Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1992). Principles of criminology. Altamira Press.

Skrzypiec, G. (2013). Adolescents’ beliefs about why young people commit crime. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(2), 185–200.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 64-670.

Watercutter, A. (2024, February 1). Music piracy is back in a big way – especially from YouTube. Wired.

Widnall, E., Adams, E. A., Plackett, R., Winstone, L., Haworth, C. M. A., Mars, B., Kidger, J. (2022). Adolescent experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and school closures and implications for mental health, peer relationships and learning: A qualitative study in south-west England. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 7163. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127163