Theories of Deviant Drinking3. Micro-Normative Theory: Social Learning |
There are many versions of social learning theory in psychology and sociology. However, the oldest and most widely studied theory of social learning and individual deviant behavior was developed in the 1940s by the criminologist, Edwin Sutherland. This micro-level explanation of the social sources of norm-violating behavior is known as differential association theory. Although Sutherland originally focused on criminal behavior, his theory can be readily applied to deviant drinking, illegal drug use, and many other forms of deviant behavior.
Sutherland's theory consists of nine statements that specify various elements of the interpersonal process through which individuals learn to engage in law-violating behavior. The central explanatory principle of differential association--which is contained in statement 6 of the theory--is simple and straightforward: a person engages in criminal behavior because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. All of us are members of intimate personal groups where we are exposed to definitions unfavorable to violation of law. In the family environment, for instance, we learn from our parents that we should respect and obey the law. However, most of us have also at some time been involved in groups where the law is defined in unfavorable terms. For example, some of your close friends might define laws prohibiting the use of certain drugs as unfair and might assure you that the chances of being caught for drug use are small. But, as Sutherland points out above, the mere fact that interpersonal communication in some groups exposes a person to unfavorable definitions of the law is not sufficient to produce criminal behavior. Criminal behavior results only when such definitions exceed noncriminal definitions that support the law. Thus, it is not the absolute amount of exposure to criminal patterns that is important; the differential or ratio of associations with criminal and noncriminal patterns is what provides the theoretical key to Sutherland's explanation of criminal behavior.
What is the nature of the learning process by which criminal patterns are acquired by the individual? Statements 2, 3, and 8 in Sutherland's theory give concise answers to this question (1974: 75-76):
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
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.
In short, criminal behavior is a product of normal social learning through interaction in primary groups, such as friends or family. Sutherland argues that other sources of learning, such as exposure to criminal behavior in the mass media, are relatively unimportant. If we apply this theory to forms of deviant drinking, such as underage drinking or so-called "binge drinking," Sutherland's theory suggests that these behaviors are learned from friends or family, not from TV or motion pictures. The crucial consideration is the extent to which individuals are exposed through social interaction to an excess of definitions favorable to these drinking patterns vs. definitions unfavorable to these patterns of deviant drinking. For many young people, associations with family will be a major source of non-deviant definitions ("I don't want you to drink any alcohol at that party"), which will often compete with the deviant definitions of certain friends who drink ("Slam that one down and I'll pour you another.") However, it is clear that some teenagers also learn patterns favorable to deviant drinking from one or both parents.
Sutherland’s argument that norm-violating behavior is socially learned from an excess of interpersonal associations with deviant patterns is appealing for its clarity and simplicity. But, as statement 7 in his theory indicates, he was cautious not to oversimplify his analysis of this micro-level process (1974: 76): “Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.” Here, he specifies a number of analytical variables that figure into the misleadingly simple conception of an "excess" of associations. This excess may come about through more frequent exposure to deviant patterns than to non-deviant patterns, or it may be a function of greater duration of contact with deviant patterns over time. With regard to the variable of priority, Sutherland suggests that criminal learning early in life may be especially influential on the individual. Finally, Sutherland does not precisely define the meaning of intensity, but he indicates that “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” (1974: 76). All of these contingencies in the social learning process can affect the relative impact of deviant patterns or non-deviant patterns on the individual’s behavior.
There have been a number of attempts to revise Sutherland’s theory in accordance with the concepts and principles of psychological theories of behavioral learning (Jeffery, 1965; Burgess and Akers, 1966; Akers, 1977, 1998; Adams, 1973). These revisions of differential association theory are inspired by the fact that Sutherland did not present an intensive analysis of the kind of learning involved in individual criminality. Although Sutherland emphasized the social character of criminal learning and its fundamental similarity to non-criminal learning, he did not attempt to specify the psychological details of this learning process.
In the most ambitious attempt to fill in these details, Burgess and Akers (1966) used general principles of learning developed by the psychologist B. F. Skinner (1953) as the basis for a complete reformulation of Sutherland’s theory. Terming their revision differential association-reinforcement theory, Burgess and Akers argue that criminal behavior (or any other learned behavior) can be explained as a function of the reinforcement (i.e., rewards) or punishment a person receives from the environment. Put simply, behavior that produces a reward will tend to be performed more frequently in the future, while behavior that is followed by punishment will tend to decrease in frequency. Differential reinforcement occurs when under certain environmental conditions one particular behavior leads to greater or more frequent rewards than does another alternative behavior. The behavior that receives greater environmental reinforcement—for instance, deviant behavior—becomes dominant over the alternative behavior, such as conforming behavior. Therefore, through a process of differential reinforcement, environmental conditions can increase the probability of deviant acts by individuals.
A number of other concepts and general principles of behavior learning are used by Burgess and Akers (1966) to revise or delete each of the original statements in Sutherland’s theory. Even more than Sutherland, Burgess and Akers are able to drive home the point that deviant behavior is “normal” in the sense that it is learned in the same way as any other behavior. In later work, Akers (1977; 1998) has attempted to show how differential association-reinforcement theory might be used to explain other forms of deviant behavior, such as drug addiction, alcoholism, and sexual deviance. Thus, an important contribution of this work has been to extend the social learning tradition to a number of forms of deviant behavior in addition to criminality.
Since differential association-reinforcement theory is phrased in the language of psychological learning theory, it might seem obvious that this is a nonsociological explanation of deviant behavior. However, this question is not as clear-cut as it might seem. Unlike some psychological perspectives that explain individual behavior as a function of variations in personality and other internal factors, the body of behavioristic theory on which Burgess and Akers base their work stresses conditions in the social environment as the key determinants of human behavior. Burgess and Akers, following Sutherland, are also careful to point out that primary groups are the major source of reinforcement involved in the social learning of deviant behavior. However, as opposed to Sutherland and most other sociologists, Burgess and Akers do not limit their attention to the social environment. Differential association-reinforcement theory explicitly includes nonsocial reinforcement and learning without direct contact with other persons as possible sources of deviant behavior (1966; also see Adams, 1973). Only empirical research can determine how essential interpersonal relationships and other social factors are for the learning of deviant behavior, but the inclusion of nonsocial factors in Burgess and Akers’ theory carries it beyond the boundaries of a strictly sociological explanation (see Akers et al., 1979).
Despite the criticisms that have been directed at it, Sutherland’s differential association theory still represents the best example of sociological analysis within the social learning tradition. The special emphasis Sutherland placed on social relationships and shared cultural meanings has been lost to varying degrees in later revisions of his theory. Yet, as recent developments in this micro-normative tradition would suggest, attention to some nonsociological elements in deviant behavior may provide some useful insights for research.
Differential association theory has been especially well-supported by research on illegal drug use. In one of the earliest and most important sociological studies of drug use, "Becoming a Marihuana User," Howard Becker (1953) interviewed dozens of marijuana users about their initial experiences with the drug. He found that most new users were unable to get "high" on marijuana until they had gone through a three-stage process of social learning. That is, through social interaction with more experienced users, new users (1) learned the proper technique for smoking marijuana, (2) learned to perceive the effects associated with the "high," and (3) learned to enjoy these effects--to experience the "high" as pleasurable. Becker's work set the tone for subsequent sociological research by portraying marijuana use and other drug-related deviance as routine outcomes of "normal" social learning processes. Whereas researchers in other disciplines continued to view drug use and "abuse" as symptoms of individual pathology or maladjustment, micro-normative researchers in the sociology of deviance looked instead to the social environment—relationships with family and friends—for answers to the question, "why do people use illegal drugs?" Consequently, sociological research on drug-related deviance has provided strong support for theories of social learning, such as Sutherland's differential association theory (1947) or Akers' social structure/social learning theory (1998).
In a study of marijuana use among college students, "Differential Association and Marijuana Use," Orcutt examines the close parallels between Becker's empirical account of the process of becoming a marijuana user and Sutherland's micro-normative theory, which we examined earlier. This study also illustrates some of the uses and limitations of survey research for examining the influences of social relationships and personal attitudes on the deviant act of marijuana use. The data for this study were collected from two universities in the early 1970s, when marijuana use was on the increase in the U.S. As shown in the following graph, the results show a strong relationship between students' own use of marijuana and the number of their four closest friends who use marijuana. When none of a student's closest friends use marijuana, the chances of that student using are less than one out of ten. On the other hand, when all four friends are users, approximately nine out of ten students are themselves users. What are the odds of marijuana use when two friends use and two friends do not use? Sutherland's theory of differential association would predict a 50/50 split under these circumstances, which is close to the results shown below for both universities. These and other findings from this and more recent research on alcohol- and drug-related deviance (Akers 1998) provide solid support for Sutherland's position that intimate, personal relationships are the primary source of learned techniques, definitions, and motives for deviant behavior.
| Previous Page | Next Page |