R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Microsociological Theories

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $10/Page

Order Essay

Learning Theories

Subcultural Theories

Social Control Theories

I n Chapter 6 macrosociological theories of crime were reviewed, emphasizinghow the organization or structure of a society can generate an environment conducive to crime. In this chapter, the analysis shifts to microsociological theo- ries, which examine how various social institutions (e.g., the family, the school, and religion) and processes (e.g., socialization) can encourage or inhibit criminal behavior.

LEARNI NG THEORIES

Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904) was one of the first theorists to believe that crime was something learned by normal people as they adapted to other people and the conditions of their environment. His theory was a product of his experience as a French lawyer and magistrate and was described in his book Penal Philosophy, published in 1890.1 Because he did not believe that criminals were unique, either physically or psychologically, Tarde completely rejected Lombroso’s conception of the born criminal. “Perhaps one is born vicious,” he wrote, “but it is quite certain that one becomes a criminal.”2

For Tarde, becoming a criminal is a learning process, and learning is a social phenomenon. Reflecting the state of knowledge about the learning process in his day, Tarde viewed all social phenomena as the product of imitation. Through imitation or modeling, a person can learn new responses, such as criminal behavior, by observing others, without performing any overt act or receiving direct rein- forcement or reward.3 Although Tarde did not discuss it, behavior can also be learned by imitating symbolic models where verbal or written instructions are

Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

presented. Written instructions include such things as technical manuals; pictorial models include movies, television, and other audiovisual means. In short, for Tarde, criminal behavior is learned by observing and imitating the criminal behav- ior of other people, something Tarde believed was more likely in urban areas.4

The first twentieth-century criminologist to forcefully argue that criminal behavior was learned was Edwin H. Sutherland (1883–1950). His theory of differ- ential association developed over thirteen years, between 1934 and 1947,5 and, together with its more recent modifications, remains one of the most influential theories of crime causation today. The theory explains crime both at the macro level (differences in crime rates among groups) and at the micro level (differences in individual criminal behavior)—though the former has been largely ignored.6

In addition, the theory can be used to explain white-collar crime (a term Sutherland coined) as well as street crime.7 In his text, Sutherland lists the nine propositions of his theory with accompanying commentary:8

1. Criminal behavior is learned. Negatively, this means that criminal behavior is not inherited, as such; also, the person who is not already trained in crime does not invent criminal behavior, just as a person does not make mechani- cal inventions unless he has had training in mechanics.

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. This communication is verbal in many respects but also includes the “communication of gestures.”

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within inti- mate personal groups. Negatively, this means that the impersonal agencies of communication, such as movies and newspapers, play a relatively unimpor- tant part in the genesis of criminal behavior.

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.

5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable and unfavorable. In some societies an individual is surrounded by persons who invariably define the legal codes as rules to be observed, while in others he or she is surrounded by persons whose defini- tions are favorable to the violation of the legal codes. In our American society these definitions are almost always mixed, with the consequence that we have culture conflict in relation to the legal codes.

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association. It refers to both criminal and anticriminal associations and has to do with counteracting forces. When persons become criminal, they do so because of contacts with criminal patterns and also because of isolation from anticriminal patterns. Any person inevitably assimilates the surrounding culture unless other patterns are in conflict; a southerner does not pronounce “r” because other southerners do not

96 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

pronounce “r.” Negatively, this proposition of differential association means that associations which are neutral so far as crime is concerned have little or no effect on the genesis of criminal behavior. Much of the experience of a person is neutral in this sense, for example, learning to brush one’s teeth. This behavior has no negative or positive effect on criminal behavior except as it may be related to associations which are concerned with the legal codes. This neutral behavior is important especially as an occupier of the time of a child so that he or she is not in contact with criminal behavior during the time he or she is so engaged in the neutral behavior.

7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and in- tensity. This means that associations with criminal behavior and also asso- ciations with anticriminal behavior vary in those respects. “Frequency” and “duration” as modalities of associations are obvious and need no explanation. “Priority” is assumed to be important in the sense that lawful behavior de- veloped in early childhood may persist throughout life, and also that delin- quent behavior developed in early childhood may persist throughout life. This tendency, however, has not been adequately demonstrated, and priority seems to be important principally through its selective influence. “Intensity” is not precisely defined, but it has to do with such things as the prestige of the source of a criminal or anticriminal pattern and with emotional reactions related to the associations. In a precise description of the criminal behavior of a person, these modalities would be related in quantitative form and a mathematical ratio would be reached. A formula in this sense has not been developed, and the development of such a formula would be extremely difficult.

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Negatively, this means that the learning of criminal behavior is not restricted to the process of imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns criminal behavior by association, but this process would not ordinarily be described as imitation.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Thieves generally steal in or- der to secure money, but likewise honest laborers work in order to secure money. The attempts by many scholars to explain criminal behavior by general drives and values, such as the happiness principle, striving for social status, the money motive, or frustration, have been, and must continue to be, futile, since they explain lawful behavior as completely as they explain criminal behavior. They are similar to respiration, which is necessary for any behavior, but which does not differentiate criminal from noncriminal behavior.

Modifying a premise from the theory of the Chicago School, Sutherland maintained that differential associations would not produce criminality if it were not for differential social organization.9 In other words, the degree to which

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 97

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

communities promote or inhibit criminal associations varies with the way or the degree to which they are organized (that is, the extent of culture conflict).10

Sutherland’s theory has been criticized on several grounds, and some of those criticisms provide the groundwork for more contemporary conceptualiza- tions of his work. First, differential association theory has been criticized for be- ing untestable.11 For example, Curran and Renzetti ask, “How can ‘an excess of definitions favorable to law violation’ be measured or observed?”12 Even if such definitions could be measured and observed, one critic wonders where an excess of definitions favorable to law violation could be found.13 As the Chicago theo- rists Shaw and McKay noted, even in the worst neighborhoods, most residents are law-abiding and subscribe to conventional values. Even residents who do commit crimes generally endorse conventional values much of the time.

A common way that researchers have tried to overcome the criticism of untestability is by examining the influence of delinquent peers on offending. Presumably, the more delinquent peers with whom one associates, the more likely he or she is to be exposed to definitions favorable to law violation. Con- sequently, by examining the number and importance of delinquent peers, re- searchers can gauge the extent to which someone is exposed to definitions that are supportive of law violation. As would be predicted by Sutherland’s theory, research has found that association with delinquent peers is strongly associated with delinquent behavior.14 In fact, after their extensive review of research in this area, Akers and Jensen conclude that “[o]ther than one’s own prior deviant behavior, the best single predictor of the onset, continuance, or desistance of crime and delinquency is differential association with conforming and law- violating peers.”15 This finding remains robust regardless of the type of delin- quency under investigation.

Another criticism of Sutherland’s theory involves the question of whether differential associations cause crime or are a result of crime.16 Current research suggests that the effect of associating with delinquent peers on delinquency is reciprocal. In other words, association with delinquent peers is related to delin- quency, and youth who engage in delinquency are likely to associate with delinquent peers.17 Some critics question whether differential associations cause crime at all. If differential associations are so important, then how is the criminal behavior of the recluse Ted Kaczynski—the so-called Unabomber—explained?18

For that matter, why do most correctional officers and probation and parole offi- cers not violate the law? After all, they are exposed to definitions favorable to law violation during much of their workdays. Perhaps the answer is that different people respond differently to procriminal definitions, something Sutherland’s theory ignored.19

Sutherland’s theory has also been criticized for failing to “present a good description of definitions favorable or unfavorable to crime.”20 Although some theorists argue that those who engage in crime reject mainstream values entirely,21 it is generally held that most law violators ascribe to mainstream values, disapprove of crime in general, and condone some criminal acts only in specific situations.22 This was the belief of Gresham Sykes (1922– ) and David Matza (1930– ), who, in 1957, published an influential study entitled “Techniques of

98 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” where they address this weakness in Sutherland’s work.23 Their goal in the study was to provide what they believed was a missing piece in Sutherland’s differential association theory, that is, “the specific content of what is learned—as opposed to the process by which it is learned.”24

According to Sykes and Matza, “Much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defenses to crimes, in the form of justi- fications [or rationalizations] for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large.”25 Sykes and Matza described five techniques of neutralization: (1) denial of responsibility (“I didn’t mean to do it” or “I’m sick”), (2) denial of injury (“Nobody got hurt”), (3) denial of victim (“They had it coming to them” or “We weren’t hurting anyone”), (4) condemnation of the condemners (“Everybody does it”), and (5) appeal to higher loyalties (“I only did it for the gang”).26 For Sykes and Matza, it is by learning those defenses that the juvenile is able to neutralize or deflect the internal guilt and the disapproval of others. Most delinquents, according to Sykes and Matza, believe in the dominant value system of society. Indeed, if asked, most delinquents would readily admit that their delinquent activities are wrong. Consequently, to engage in crime, de- linquents must be able to justify their delinquent behavior and thus reduce the guilt they would feel otherwise.27

Note that Sykes and Matza’s neutralizations are very similar to Freud’s defense mechanisms, which were discussed in Chapter 5. Sykes and Matza’s neutraliza- tions, however, are made prior to a delinquent act—to free an individual of guilt to commit it—while Freud’s defense mechanisms are generally employed after a delinquent act to reduce guilt (and anxiety) caused by it. Some research suggests that neutralizations occur both before and after delinquent acts—supporting both Freud and Sykes and Matza.28 However, a recent review of the research on neu- tralization theory found little evidence supporting Sykes and Matza’s claim that neutralizations are employed before the commission of an illegal act.29

Another problem with Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory involves the degree to which juvenile offenders, and people generally, are committed to con- ventional values and norms. If they are not committed—a presumption of many social control theories—neutralization is unnecessary.30 Matza later (in 1964) conceded that few people (juveniles or adults) are always committed to conven- tional values and norms, but, instead, that most people typically drift between law-abiding and law-violating behaviors. Whether or not they commit crime depends largely on opportunity. Neutralization theory has also been criticized for failing to explain how neutralizations originate or who invented them.31

In their recent review of the research on neutralization theory, Maruna and Copes conclude that results are mixed, and supportive results are often weak.32

Interestingly, they observe that neutralization theory may not be a theory that explains the “why” of criminal causation, but, instead, is a theory that only pro- vides an understanding of the cognitive methods that allow an otherwise law- abiding individual to continue to break the law. In other words, for Maruna and Copes, Sykes and Matza’s neutralization theory is useful in explaining how crime is maintained or continued, but not how it originates.33

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 99

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

Returning to Sutherland’s differential association theory, Sutherland has also been criticized for underemphasizing the importance of the media in crime cau- sation.34 Sutherland maintained that “the impersonal agencies of communication, such as movies and newspapers, play a relatively unimportant part.” Sutherland formulated his theory long before the ubiquity of blockbuster action films, vio- lent video games, cable television, and YouTube, so the fact that he downplayed the influence of the media on delinquency, to some extent, can be understood. The research on media violence and aggression, moreover, has failed to show that exposure to media violence causes violent criminal behavior.35

Finally, Sutherland has been criticized for his rather simplistic conception of the learning process.36 However, modifications and additions have been made to Sutherland’s theory since its final formulation in 1947, as new developments in learning theory have emerged. For example, Daniel Glaser (1918– ) modified Sutherland’s theory by introducing role theory and by arguing that criminal be- havior could be learned by identifying with criminal roles and not just by associ- ating with criminals.37 Thus, a person could imitate the behavior of a drug dealer without actually having met one. Glaser obviously believed that the media had a greater influence on the learning of criminal behavior than Sutherland believed they had.

Robert L. Burgess (1931– ) and Ronald L. Akers (1939– ), as well as C. Ray Jeffery (1921–2007), adapted the principles of operant conditioning and behavior modification, developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner (1904–1990), and the principles of modeling, as developed by Albert Bandura (1925– ), to the expla- nation of criminal behavior. The first three theorists integrated psychological concepts with sociological ones. Burgess and Akers call their reformulation of Sutherland’s theory differential association–reinforcement theory, and in a later elabo- ration, Akers calls it social learning theory.38 Jeffery calls his interpretation the theory of differential reinforcement.39 More recent applications of modern behavioral psy- chology to an understanding of criminality are found in the works of James Q. Wilson (1931– ) and Richard Herrnstein (1930–1994), Akers, and D. A. Andrews (1941– ) and James Bonta (1949– ).40

Akers and Jensen maintain that social learning theory has received consider- able empirical support.41 They relate that social learning theory “has been tested in relation to a wider range of forms of deviance, in a wider range of settings and samples, in more different languages, and by more different people, has survived more ‘crucial tests’ against other theories and is more strongly and consistently supported by empirical data than any other social psychological explanation of crime and deviance.”42 Reaching a different conclusion, Sampson claims that “the data show the results on imitation and reinforcement are either weak or inconsistent”—a conclusion Sampson contends that Akers admits.43 In any event, in the following discussion, the more general term learning theory is used to describe this approach.

Learning theory explains criminal behavior and its prevention with the con- cepts of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, extinction, punishment, and modeling or imitation.44 In learning theory, crime is committed because it is positively reinforced, negatively reinforced, or imitated. The imitation or modeling

100 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

of criminal behavior has already been described in the earlier discussion of Tarde. Here the focus is on the other concepts.

Positive reinforcement is the presentation of a stimulus that increases or maintains a response. The stimulus, or reward, can be either material, such as money, or psy- chological, such as pleasure.45 People steal (a response), for example, because of the rewards—for example, the objects or money—that they receive. They use drugs (at least at first) because of the rewards—for example, the pleasure—that the drugs give them.

Negative reinforcement is the removal or reduction of a stimulus whose re- moval or reduction increases or maintains a response. The stimulus in negative reinforcement is referred to as an aversive stimulus. Aversive stimuli, for most peo- ple, include pain and fear. A person who is negatively reinforced to steal may be stealing to remove or reduce the aversive stimuli of the fear and pain of poverty. Drug addicts are negatively reinforced to continue to use drugs because using them removes or reduces the aversive stimulus of the pain of drug withdrawal. In short, both positive and negative reinforcement explain why a behavior, such as crime, is maintained or increases. Both types of reinforcement can simulta- neously affect the same behavior. In other words, people may commit crime, in this view, both because they are rewarded for it and because it removes aver- sive stimuli.

According to learning theory, criminal behavior is reduced through extinc- tion or punishment. It is important to emphasize that learning theory does not promise that crime or any other behavior necessarily can be eliminated by these means, only that it can be reduced. Extinction—which Akers and Andrews and Bonta call “negative punishment”46—is a procedure in which behavior that pre- viously was positively reinforced is no longer reinforced. In other words, the re- wards have been removed. Thus, if burglars were to continually come up empty in their quests (that is, not to receive rewards for their efforts), they would most likely no longer continue to burglarize. Similarly, if drug users no longer re- ceived rewards such as pleasure from their use of drugs, they would most likely no longer use them (assuming, of course, that they were not addicted and using the drugs for negative reinforcement).

Punishment—which Akers calls “positive punishment”47—is the presentation of an aversive stimulus to reduce a response. It is the principal method used in the United States and other countries to prevent crime or, at least, to reduce it. Most countries use imprisonment as a punishment for crimes. However, a prob- lem is that prisons are also “schools of crime.” That is, besides their aversive properties, prisons often provide an environment in which criminal behavior is learned, in which case imprisonment becomes counterproductive.

As a tool of criminal justice in the United States, punishment is not used effectively in other ways as well. That is, it is not used according to learning theory principles.48 For example, for punishment to be effective, escape must be prevented. Escape is a natural reaction to the presentation of an aversive stim- ulus such as imprisonment. In the United States, the chances of an offender’s escaping punishment (by escaping apprehension in the first place) are great. Also, if apprehended, many offenders, especially first-time offenders, are placed

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 101

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

on probation, which probably does not always function as an aversive stimulus.49

According to learning theory principles, for punishment to be effective it also must be applied consistently and immediately. Consistent application of punish- ment is rare because most criminal offenders are not caught. As for immediacy, the process of criminal justice in the United States generally precludes punish- ment immediately after a criminal act has been committed. The criminal justice process, even when it is working efficiently, is a slow and methodical one.

In addition, extended periods of punishment should be avoided or the effectiveness of the punishment will be reduced. The United States currently imprisons more of its offenders for longer periods than any other country in the world, though in many cases inmates actually serve only a fraction of their original sentences. A related issue is that punishment is far less effective when the intensity with which the aversive stimulus is presented is increased gradually rather than when the stimulus is introduced at full intensity. Prolonged impris- onment is a gradual process of punishment that lacks the full intensity and immediacy of corporal punishment, for example.

To be effective, punishment also must be combined with extinction. That is, the rewards that maintain the behavior must be removed. In the United States, after imprisonment, offenders generally return to the environment in which their crimes were originally committed and rewarded. Additionally, for punishment to be effective, it must be combined with the positive reinforcement of alternative, prosocial behaviors and the availability of prosocial models as well.50 Rarely does this happen.

Finally, according to learning theorists, positive reinforcement is a much more effective and preferred method of manipulating behavior than is punish- ment, because positive reinforcement does not suffer the disadvantages associated with punishment. Criminal justice decision makers often overlook that point. Among the disadvantages of punishment are that it causes generalization and negative self-concepts. Offenders frequently come to view themselves as bad in- stead of viewing only their behaviors as bad. Generalizing the evil people do to their personhood severely hampers efforts at rehabilitation. As noted previously, punishment also causes withdrawal or escape. By punishing offenders, the chances of their avoiding detection and capture the next time they commit crim- inal acts are increased. Finally, punishment causes aggression.51 The punishing of offenders, particularly nonviolent ones, may inadvertently be producing violent offenders. For these reasons, then, the ineffectiveness of punishment in the United States should not be surprising because the way punishment is adminis- tered in this country violates most of the principles of learning theory.52

Another problem with learning theory as applied to crime, and especially with Sutherland’s theory of differential association, is the problem of overpredic- tion. The theory accounts for too much crime and delinquency and has a hard time explaining exceptions.53 Regarding the former, if criminality is so reward- ing for the poor, for example, why do not more poor people commit it? Perhaps it is because they lack the opportunity, skill, or knowledge to commit it. Those possibilities are ignored in differential association theory.54 Regarding exceptions, how can two brothers who have been raised in the same environment (have the

102 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

same associations and are exposed to the same rewards) turn out so differently, with one becoming a gangster and the other one becoming a priest? For that matter, why do people who have been rewarded for law-abiding behavior, such as successful businesspeople or government officials, still commit crimes?55

Or why do people continue to commit crimes even though it has caused them much pain and agony?56

Learning theory, at least as it is used to explain crime, is based on circular reasoning.57 By definition, a reinforcing stimulus is one that maintains or increases the probability of a behavior. Thus, it is impossible to determine in advance of observing a subsequent behavior whether any particular stimulus is or is not re- inforcing. Another fundamental problem is that if all criminal behavior is learned, and none is invented, then how does criminal behavior begin? What is the source of new types of crime?58

Learning theory also ignores the criminalization process. It fails to consider why the normal learned behaviors of some groups are criminalized, whereas the normal learned behaviors of other groups are not.59 For example, why is marijuana consumption illegal, whereas cigarette or alcohol consumption is not? Learning theory ignores the effect that political and economic power has on the definition of criminal behavior.60

Finally, Sutherland’s differential association theory does not explain why individuals have the associations they have, or why the number of definitions favorable or unfavorable to the violation of the law varies from one social con- text to another.61 Reference to differential social organization still begs the ques- tion of why or how society is differentially organized. Likewise, learning/ reinforcement theories, until recently, ignored the social structural influences on the determination of rewards and aversive stimuli.62 That is, few stimuli are in- herently rewarding or aversive, and what is rewarding in any society at any point in time may not be rewarding, or may even be aversive, in another context or under a different circumstance. In short, what generally gives stimuli rewarding or aversive properties is socially determined.63

SUBCULTURAL THEORIES

As noted earlier in this chapter, learning theories can be used to explain crime at both the micro and the macro levels. Learning theories at the macro level often claim that certain groups in the United States have learned values that are con- ducive to crime or that approve of or justify crime in certain circumstances, and that such values explain the higher rates of crime in these groups.64 For example, some theorists suggest that a “subculture of violence” exists in the Southern United States and in some inner-city neighborhoods. A subculture refers to a sub- group within a dominant group or culture that has defined its own norms and values, which are often inconsistent to those of the larger group. Subcultures emerge when a group of people in similar circumstances find themselves cut off from or denied access to mainstream society. Theorists in this tradition include Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin—all of whom were discussed

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 103

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

in Chapter 6 under anomie theories—and Walter B. Miller, Marvin Wolfgang, Franco Ferracuti, and Elijah Anderson.

Walter B. Miller (1920–2004) argued that the lower class has “a long- established, distinctively patterned tradition with an integrity of its own.”65

Delinquent gangs, in Miller’s view, were natural products of the values, or what he called the “focal concerns,” of lower-class culture: trouble (the ability to handle it), toughness (physical and emotional strength), smartness (street savvy), excitement (ways that an otherwise drab existence is enlivened), fate (the belief that life outcomes are a matter of luck or chance), and autonomy (being independent of authority figures such as parents, teachers, or the police). For Miller, delinquency was “normal” behavior of lower-class youths simply defined as delinquent by the middle and upper classes. In short, for Miller, members of the lower class no more wanted to be middle class than members of the middle class wanted to be lower class.66

Perhaps the major problem with “cultural deviance” theories, such as Miller’s, is explaining lower-class nondelinquency. Miller accomplishes the feat, and in doing so substantially alters his theory, by attributing lower-class delinquency to individuals or groups who deviate from lower-class culture or who are part of lower-class cultural subtypes.67 If this were the case, however, then how can lower-class delinquency, or perhaps more accurately, lower-class behavior defined as delinquent by the middle and upper classes, be a product of lower-class culture?

Another major problem with Miller’s theory is that no evidence, besides his own, supports it. Every other study, besides Miller’s, shows that, “at the very least, overwhelming numbers of the poor give allegiance to the values and principles of the dominant American culture.”68 Additionally, there is no “evidence whatever that the poor perceive their way of life as good and preferable to that of other ways of life.”69 Besides, even if lower-class culture were characterized by Miller’s focal concerns, those focal concerns are not necessarily related to delinquency.70

Marvin Wolfgang (1924–1998) and Franco Ferracuti (1927– ), in their 1967 book The Subculture of Violence, examined criminal homicides in Philadelphia and found that they were not distributed evenly across the city, but were concen- trated in African-American neighborhoods.71 They concluded that the high ho- micide rates were the result of a subculture of violence that defines “violence as a more appropriate, or even required, response to a wide variety of provocations and insults.”72 Although they did not explain how the subculture originates, they did provide seven propositions summarizing their theory: (1) No subculture can be totally different from or totally in conflict with the society of which it is a part; (2) To establish the existence of a subculture of violence does not require that the actors sharing in these basic value elements should express violence in all situations; (3) The potential to resort or willingness to resort to violence in a variety of situations emphasizes the penetrating and diffusive character of this cultural theme; (4) The subcultural ethos of violence may be shared by all ages in a subsociety, but this ethos is most prominent in a limited age group, ranging from late adolescence to middle age; (5) The counter-norm is nonviolence; (6) The development of favorable attitudes toward and the use of violence in a subculture usually involve learned behavior and a process of differential learning,

104 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

association, or identification; and (7) The use of violence in a subculture is not necessarily viewed as illicit conduct, and the users therefore do not have to deal with feelings of guilt about their aggression.73

Research examining Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s subculture of violence theory has yielded largely unsupportive results.74 Two lines of research characterize this tradition: one that seeks to explain the higher rate of violence in the Southern United States, and one that examines the presence of the subculture of violence among African Americans in urban areas. Research on the regional differences in violence has been plagued with methodological problems and yields little to no support for the subcultural thesis.75 A more recent, nationwide study of the thesis found that “southern White males from rural areas are more approving of violence only under certain conditions, some of which may be construed as defensive in nature.”76 Likewise, little empirical evidence exists to support a subculture of vio- lence among African-American males. One study, based on data from a national random sample, concluded that “white males express significantly more violent beliefs in defensive or retaliatory situations than blacks and that there is no significant differ- ence between white and black males in beliefs in violence in offensive situations.”77

In his 1999 book, Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City, Elijah Anderson (1943– ) described a contemporary version of a subcul- ture of violence that persists in urban, largely African-American neighborhoods.78

Although the subculture of violence is rejected by most inner-city inhabitants, it “places all young African-American men under much pressure to respond to certain situations—shows of disrespect—with violence.”79 Unlike the work of Wolfgang and Ferracuti, however, Anderson examined how structural disadvan- tage, cultural explanations, and racial discrimination combine to explain the high rate of violence among African-American youth.80 For example, the loss of job opportunities in the inner city has deprived young African-American males of traditional, legitimately employed, male role models. Consequently, those young African-American males often turn to violence and an array of illegal activities.

Unlike earlier versions of subcultural theories, Anderson’s work has received some empirical support.81 For example, a recent study examined the influence of male role models and concentrated urban disadvantage on Black juvenile arrests for violence across several U.S. cities.82 The results suggest that “older African- American men play an important role in the urban context, offering social con- trol in the urban environment that detracts youth from the lure of the street code.”83 Similarly, in their study of more than seven hundred African- American adolescents, Stewart and Simons found that “neighborhood structural characteristics, living in a street family, and discrimination significantly predicted adopting the street code.”84

SOCIAL CONTROL THEORIES

Social control theories address the problems of crime and delinquency from an entirely different perspective than do the preceding theories. The seminal ques- tion for social control theorists is not why people commit crime and delinquency

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 105

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

but rather why they do not. Why do people conform? In other words, social control theorists expect people to commit crime and delinquency unless they are prevented from doing so. They will commit crime, that is, unless they are properly socialized.85

Like many of the other sociological theories of crime causation that have been examined, social control theories, as previously noted, have their origins in the work of Durkheim. Not until the 1950s, however, did social control theories begin to emerge to challenge other, more dominant theories, such as anomie and differential association. Among the early social control theorists were Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (1922–2006), Jackson Toby (1925– ), F. Ivan Nye (1918– ), and Walter C. Reckless (1899–1988).86 However, despite the important contributions of those early theorists, modern social control theory in its most detailed elaboration is at- tributed to the work of Travis Hirschi (1935– ). Hirschi’s 1969 book, Causes of Delinquency, has had a tremendous influence on current criminological thinking.87

A unique feature of Hirschi’s theory (his is a theory of delinquency and not of adult criminality) is that the data on which the theory is based come from self- report surveys rather than from official police or court records or victimization surveys. The self-report surveys, among other things, asked subjects whether they had committed crimes and other offenses.

As did proponents of earlier social control theories, Hirschi argues that delin- quency should be expected if a juvenile is not properly socialized. For Hirschi, proper socialization involves the establishment of a strong moral bond between the juvenile and society. This bond to society consists of (1) attachment to others, (2) commitment to conventional lines of action, (3) involvement in conventional activities, and (4) belief in the moral order and law. Thus, delinquent behavior is likely to occur if there is (1) inadequate attachment, particularly to parents and school; (2) inadequate commitment, particularly to educational and occupational success; (3) inadequate involvement in such conventional activities as scouting and sports leagues; and (4) inadequate belief, particularly in the legitimacy and moral- ity of the law. For Hirschi, although all four elements of the bond to society are important (the importance of involvement was not supported by his data, how- ever), the most important and most basic element of the bond is attachment to others.

In their book, A General Theory of Crime (1990), Michael Gottfredson (1951– ) and Travis Hirschi argue that the primary cause of a variety of deviant behaviors, including many different kinds of crime and delinquency, is ineffec- tive child rearing, which produces people with low self-control.88 Ineffective child rearers, the authors contend, at minimum, fail to monitor their children’s behavior, recognize their children’s deviant behavior when it occurs, and punish their children’s deviant behavior when it is discovered.89 Children with low self- control frequently have child rearers with low self-control.90 Low self-control adversely affects a person’s ability to accurately calculate the consequences of his or her actions. Because everyone has a predisposition toward criminality, accord- ing to this theory, those persons with low self-control find it more difficult to resist. For Gottfredson and Hirschi, people with low self-control tend to be “im- pulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted,

106 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

and nonverbal.”91 The lack of self-control, they argue, remains fairly constant over the course of a person’s life.

Research testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime (GTC) is extensive. Gottfredson argues that “[w]hatever else may be said about the em- pirical status of control theory in criminology, it most likely holds first place among modern theories for the generation of research.”92 Moreover, much of that research is supportive of its central tenet that low self-control is related to crime as well as a wide range of analogous behavior.93 Indeed, the consistently strong support leads Unnever, Pratt, and Cullen to conclude that “[low self- control’s] relationship to delinquent involvement is a ‘fact’ for which extant theories must take account.”94

One of the theory’s most controversial propositions is that self-control de- velops before the age of ten and remains relatively stable over the course of a person’s life.95 Research on this contention is mixed.96 On one hand, Arneklev, Grasmick, and Bursik, based on a limited convenience sample, found that low self-control “appears to be an invariant latent trait.”97 Tremblay and his collea- gues, using data from different periods, different countries, different reporting sources, and different methodologies, also provide empirical support for the proposition that human beings are inherently physically aggressive (i.e., are born with low self-control). Tremblay reports that the frequency of anger out- bursts and physical aggression, as well as the frequency of stealing (taking things from others), vandalism (destroying others’ belongings), and fraudulent behavior (e.g., lying), “increase rapidly from the first year after birth to approximately the third, and then the frequency decreases.”98 He found that human beings use physical aggression most often between eighteen and forty-two months after birth. He admits that “the physical aggressions by very young children appear qualitatively different from physical aggressions by adolescents and adults, [but] the trajectory of the former appears to lead to the trajectory of the latter.”

Tremblay’s research shows that the best predictor of chronic physical aggres- sion by preschool children is having an older sibling because “one needs a target to physically aggress.” Other key predictors are parent separation before birth; family dysfunction; low income; and having mothers who engaged in frequent antisocial behavior during adolescence, gave birth before twenty-one years of age, did not finish high school, smoked during pregnancy, and were coercive- hostile in their parenting. Tremblay also reports that 80 percent of the variation in the frequency of physical aggression at seventeen months of age could be ex- plained by genetic factors, which he asserts do not determine the trajectories of physical aggression but, instead, determine how human beings react to their en- vironment. Tremblay’s conclusion: “Human beings do not appear to need to learn to use physical aggression. As soon as they are in sufficient control of their muscles they use physical aggression to express their anger and to obtain what they desire. The important learning which is going on during the preschool years is learning not to use physical aggression and learning to use alternative strategies to achieve your aims” (emphasis in original).

On the other hand, findings of a study by Harbin, Simons, and Simons, based on a large, longitudinal sample of African-American children and their

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 107

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

caregivers, revealed that low self-control is not “stable and insensitive to social influences after the age of ten.”99 Similarly, Winfree, Taylor, He, and Esbensen con- tend that “our findings are, for the most part, unequivocally critical of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s orienting assumption (or claim) concerning the unchanging nature of self-control after its establishment in preadolescence.”100

Another fundamental proposition of GTC is that parents with low self-control are more likely to raise children with low self-control. Using a nationwide, longi- tudinal sample of youth, Nofzinger found that “mothers with low self-control do indeed produce children with lower self-control.”101 She also discovered that the self-control of the mother influenced both her choice of punishment, as well as how she supervised her children.102

One of the appealing aspects of Hirschi’s social control theory, and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory, too, is their seemingly commonsensical crime prevention im- plication. To prevent delinquency, juveniles must be properly socialized; they must develop a strong moral bond to society (or self-control). For Hirschi, the units of social control most important in the establishment of the bond are the family, the school, and the law. Not surprisingly, then, programs based on social control theories include parent training and functional-family therapies that at- tempt to reduce family conflict through dispute settlement and negotiation, reduce neglect and abuse, teach moderate discipline, and promote positive interactions between parents and children.103 Group homes and surrogate families have been proposed for children whose families are unsalvageable.104 Counseling and prob- lem solving and social skills training have been used with “at-risk” children, espe- cially in school settings.105

Although social control theory is currently very influential in the thinking of many criminologists, it has not escaped extensive criticism. Perhaps the major problem, at least for some criminologists, is the theory’s assumption that delin- quency will occur if not prevented.106 Some criminologists find it troublesome that the theory rejects altogether the idea of delinquent motivation.107 Charles Tittle has addressed this criticism in his integrated control balance theory, which is discussed in Chapter 9. Another criticism of social control theory is that it rests on the unrealistic assumption that all people have equal skill and ability to com- mit crime and delinquency.108

Hirschi’s version of social control theory has also been criticized for under- emphasizing the importance of delinquent associates, which has been found to be strongly related to delinquent behavior.109 Another criticism of social control theory is that it is a good explanation of only less serious delinquency. It does not explain more serious delinquency or adult criminality very well.110 Critics claim that self-control theory does not explain many types of white-collar, po- litical, or organized crime that are committed by persons with high levels of self-control.111

Regarding serious delinquency, critics point out that Hirschi’s survey measure of delinquency consisted of only six “less serious” items: “whether they had stolen anything worth less than $2, stolen anything worth between $2 and $50, stolen anything worth more than $50, taken a car without the owner’s permission, dam- aged or destroyed another person’s property, or had beat up or deliberately hurt

108 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

someone other than a sibling.”112 The theory may not explain adult criminality very well because subjects in Hirschi’s study were several thousand San Francisco area junior and senior high school boys. The subjects in most other tests of social control theory have been junior high and high school boys too.113 A problem with junior high and high school boys as subjects is the reliability and validity of the data. They could have lied on the surveys by either not confessing to what they had done or claiming to have done more than they had—two likely possi- bilities with boys that age and an inherent problem with self-report crime surveys.

Another problem is social control theory’s tacit assumption that a consensus exists in society over moral values.114 Not only does the theory ignore the exis- tence of pervasive social conflict over moral values, it also fails to consider that society, itself, or at least some aspects of society, may be criminogenic.115

Another related problem is that social control theory ignores the criminali- zation process. It fails to consider why certain harmful and destructive behaviors are defined as crime or delinquency, whereas other similar behaviors are not.

Social control theory may also suffer from the problem of overprediction. It may predict too much delinquency. Unless society is much more effective in preventing delinquency than authorities and the media would lead one to believe, there should be much more delinquency than currently is the case.116

The theory does not explain exceptions well, either. The theory does not al- low for delinquency by juveniles who are properly socialized, nor does it allow for conformity by juveniles who are not properly socialized. The theory also has trouble in explaining geographical variations in delinquency (and crime). Are people in one country subject to less social control or do they have less self-control than people in another country? Are there similar differences within countries? Self-control theory has the same problem explaining gender differences in delinquency (and crime). Do females have more self-control than males?

Another problem with social control theory is its trouble with “maturational reform.”117 If juveniles become delinquent because they are not properly social- ized (or lack self-control), then why do most delinquents stop their delinquent behaviors in early adulthood and not become criminals as adults? Does effective socialization of those delinquents (or the acquisition of self-control) suddenly occur in young adulthood and continue through the rest of their lives?118

A related criticism questions the direction of the purported relationship. In other words, does a weakened bond to society cause delinquency, as Hirschi suggests, or does delinquency produce a weakened bond to society?119

Still another problem with social control theory is that it does not explain how juveniles are socialized.120 For example, how are attachments to others pro- duced and changed?

Perhaps the most difficult question for social control theorists to answer is how people were socialized in the first place. In other words, if people are ex- pected to commit crimes unless they are properly socialized, then who socialized the first people, or how were they socialized? So far, social control theorists have not provided a satisfactory answer to that question.

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 109

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

STUDY QUEST I ONS Learning Theories

1. How would Tarde explain crime?

2. How would Sutherland explain crime?

3. What modification to Sutherland’s theory did Glaser make?

4. What are the techniques of neutralization?

5. How would Burgess and Akers and Jeffery explain crime?

6. How would learning theorists prevent crime?

7. What are problems with learning theories of crime?

8. How does learning theory compare with theories described previously in this book?

Subcultural Theories

9. Why are subcultural theories considered macro-level theories of crime?

10. How would Miller explain crime?

11. How would Wolfgang and Ferracuti explain violence?

12. How would Anderson explain crime?

13. What are problems with subcultural theories?

14. How do subcultural theories compare with theories described previously in this book?

Social Control Theories

15. How do social control theorists explain delinquency?

16. How would social control theorists prevent delinquency?

17. What are problems with social control theories?

18. How do social control theories compare with theories described previously in this book?

NOTES

1. See Vold and Bernard (1986:208–209).

2. Tarde (1968:256).

3. See Bandura and Walters (1963).

4. Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:91).

5. See Vold and Bernard (1986:210).

6. Williams and McShane (1994:78).

7. Sutherland (1983).

8. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:75–77).

9. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:77, 89, 93–96); also see Vold and Bernard (1986:213).

110 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

10. Sutherland and Cressey (1974:107–109). Because of the importance of the concepts of differential social organization and culture conflict in Sutherland’s theory, he is considered a “value-conflict” theorist, albeit an apolitical one, by some (see Davis, 1975:Chap. 6). A political-conflict theory is addressed later in this book.

11. See National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP) (1977:31); Kornhauser (1978:189); Martin, Mutchnick, and Austin (1990:164).

12. Curran and Renzetti (1994:188). However, see Andrews (1980) for an explanation of how they can be measured.

13. Sampson (1999:443–444); but see Akers (1999:478–479).

14. Akers and Jensen (2006).

15. Akers and Jensen (2006:51).

16. Lanier and Henry (1998:140).

17. Akers and Sellers (2004).

18. Sampson (1999:441).

19. Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:136); Sampson (1999:446).

20. Cullen and Agnew (2006:115).

21. Cohen (1955).

22. Maruna and Copes (2005).

23. Sykes and Matza (1957).

24. Sykes and Matza (1957:664).

25. Sykes and Matza (1957:666).

26. On loyalty and delinquency, also see Warr (2002:55–58).

27. For a critique of this position, see Taylor, Walton, and Young (1974:183–185).

28. Lanier and Henry (1998:151); Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:162).

29. Maruna and Copes (2005:259).

30. Lanier and Henry (1998:150).

31. Lanier and Henry (1998:151).

32. Maruna and Copes (2005).

33. Maruna and Copes (2005).

34. Curran and Renzetti (1994:190).

35. Savage (2008:1123).

36. Curran and Renzetti (1994:190).

37. Glaser (1956).

38. Burgess and Akers (1966); Akers (1985).

39. Jeffery (1965).

40. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985); Akers (1994, 1998); Andrews and Bonta (1994).

41. Akers and Jensen (2006).

42. Akers and Jensen (2006:37).

43. Sampson (1999:443).

44. See Rachlin (1976) for a description of the concepts.

45. In the case of habitual offenders, rewards may also be nonsocial and neurophysi- ological; see Wood, Gove, Wilson, and Cochran (1997).

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 111

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

46. Akers (1994); Andrews and Bonta (1994).

47. Akers (1994).

48. See Jeffery (1977:274–276).

49. This is one reason why so-called intermediate punishments, such as intensive supervision probation and parole, home confinement and electronic monitoring, and day reporting centers have been introduced.

50. See Bandura and Walters (1963:212); Andrews and Bonta (1994:202–205).

51. See Jeffery (1977:275).

52. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985:229–230) maintain that “problem” or “antisocial” children are also a product of ineffective punishment by parents.

53. See Martin et al. (1990:165).

54. Tittle (1995:3).

55. Lanier and Henry (1998:144); Sampson (1999:447); Tittle (1995:111); but see Akers (1998:98–101).

56. Tittle (1995:111).

57. See Krohn (1999:470); Tittle (1995:111).

58. Glueck and Glueck (1956); Costello (1997); but see Matsueda (1997).

59. Vold and Bernard (1986:229–230).

60. But see Vold and Bernard (1986:226) for a different view.

61. Tittle (1995:3).

62. See Akers (1998). Akers does not present a fully articulated integrated theory. Rather, he simply states that certain social structural factors, primarily drawn from anomie, social disorganization, and conflict theories, affect social psychological processes—that is, social learning concepts, which in turn influence both criminal behavior and crime rates. But which social structural factors are most important? Akers tells us only that the social structural factors strongly related to crime rates will also be strongly related to social learning concepts, and those social structural factors not strongly related to crime rates will not be strongly related to social learning concepts (1998:336). He admits that his theory “does not attempt to explain why a society has the [social structural factors, such as] culture, age structure, class system, race system, family system, economic system, gender/sex role system, or religious system that it has” (1998:336). Nor, for that matter, does his theory, as he again concedes, “explain (by reference to history, social change, or other macro-level variables) why there is social disorganization, conflict, or inequality in society” (1998:336).

63. See the discussion of interactionism in Chapter 8.

64. Cullen ad Agnew (2006:117).

65. Miller (1958).

66. See Vold (1979:224).

67. Kornhauser (1978:205); also see Costello (1997).

68. Ryan (1976:134); also see Kornhauser (1978:206–207).

69. Ryan (1976:134); also see Kornhauser (1978:208).

70. Kornhauser (1978:208).

71. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1982).

112 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

72. Cote (2002:88).

73. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1982:158–161).

74. Cao, Adams, and Jensen (1997). See Lee, Bankston, Hayes, and Thomas (2007) for a different view.

75. Hawley and Messner (1989).

76. Hayes and Lee (2005:593).

77. Cao et al. (1997:374).

78. Anderson (1999).

79. Cullen and Agnew (2006:151).

80. Stewart and Simons (2006).

81. Brezina, Agnew, Cullen, and Wright (2004).

82. Parker and Reckdenwald (2008).

83. Parker and Reckdenwald (2008:726).

84. Stewart and Simons (2006:1).

85. Lanier and Henry (1998:158) observe that social control theories provide the “missing half” of Sutherland’s theory of differential association and other learning theories by suggesting that law-abiding behaviors are learned through a process of socialization. Sutherland’s focus was on the learning of law-violating behaviors.

86. See Reiss (1951); Toby (1957); Nye (1958); Reckless (1961).

87. See Hirschi (1969).

88. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).

89. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:97).

90. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:100–101).

91. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:90).

92. Gottfredson (2006:77).

93. See for example, Pratt and Cullen (2000).

94. Unnever, Pratt, and Cullen (2003:483).

95. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990).

96. Arneklev, Grasmick, and Bursik (1999); Burt, Simons, and Simons (2006); Nofzinger (2008); Turner and Piquero (2002).

97. Arneklev et al. (1999:307).

98. Tremblay (2006).

99. Burt, Simons, and Simons (2006:353).

100. Winfree, Taylor, He, and Esbensen (2006:278).

101. Nofzinger (2008:191).

102. Nofzinger (2008).

103. Lanier and Henry (1998:166).

104. Lanier and Henry (1998:166).

105. Lanier and Henry (1998:166).

106. As noted in Chapter 1, the seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that all human beings are basically evil and, therefore, likely to commit crime. This idea may have been derived from the Christian belief that

M I C R O S O C I O L O G I C A L T H E O R I E S 113

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

everyone is born into original sin. Similar ideas about human nature are found in Freudian psychoanalytic theory, which is considered a prototype for control theories. In Freud’s version of psychoanalytic theory, it is assumed that everyone is capable of committing crime because of the sexual and aggressive drives of the id (see Andrews and Bonta, 1994:70; Kornhauser, 1978:142). Note, however, that Hirschi is one control theorist who does not believe it is necessary to explain criminal behavior as the result of an uncontrolled id (see Andrews and Bonta, 1994:83). Early social control theorists assumed that all human beings were frustrated in the attempt to satisfy their needs or wants, given scarcity of means, and that need frustration was a “chronic condition of humanity” (see Kornhauser, 1978:47). Criminal behavior is one likely outcome of this chronic condition. Other theorists suggest that control theories do not need to assume that people are basically bad. For them, it is necessary only to assume at least a neutral human nature (see Williams and McShane, 1994:181).

107. NIJJDP (1977:44). Social control theorists do not actually deny delinquent motivation. They deny only a special motivation such as social disorganization or anomie. They assume that individuals are motivated to commit delinquency because of their human nature (but see Williams and McShane, 1994:181, for a different view).

108. Tittle (1995:59).

109. Andrews and Bonta (1994:84).

110. Martin et al. (1990:200); Agnew (1985).

111. Beirne and Messerschmidt (2000:221); Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) disagree.

112. Curran and Renzetti (1994:200).

113. See Curran and Renzetti (1994:210–212).

114. NIJJDP (1977:43–44).

115. See Schur (1969).

116. Perhaps there is as much delinquency as social control theory predicts, but because most delinquency goes undiscovered and unreported, there is no way of knowing.

117. NIJJDP (1977:43).

118. See Einstadter and Henry (1995:196) and Williams and McShane (1994:192–193) for an affirmative response to this question.

119. Agnew (1985); Liska and Reed (1985).

120. NIJJDP (1977:43).

114 C H A P T E R 7

R O D D Y , A N T H O N Y I S A A C 3 7 2 7 B U

bohm07508_0495807508_02.06_chapter06
- Chapter 6: Macrosociological Theories
  - The Contributions Of Durkheim
  - The Theory Of The Chicago School Or Social Disorganization Theory
  - Situational Crime Prevention And Routine Activity Theories
  - Functionalism
  - Anomie Theories
  - Study Questions
  - Notes
bohm07508_0495807508_02.07_chapter07
- Chapter 7: Microsociological Theories
  - Learning Theories
  - Subcultural Theories
  - Social Control Theories
  - Study Questions
  - Notes

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order