UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.5 Free with a free account
Social Learning Theory and Symbolic Interactionism in Criminology
Criminology · Chapter 7: Sociological Theories of Crime and DevianceSection 7.5 · lesson 26 of 91video coming soon
← Social Process Theories: Origins, Development, and Control TheoryNext lesson: Labeling Theory, Secondary Deviance, and Structural Functionalism in Crime →
In this lesson
How offending is learned, and how meaning and self are built through interaction.
- Explain differential association and its propositions.
- Describe the mechanisms social learning theory adds.
- Explain the selection-versus-influence problem.
- Explain symbolic interactionism in criminology.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,519 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Puzzle
Did the Group Make Them That Way
Here is a puzzle. A group of teenagers hangs out together, and several of them get in trouble. Did the group make them that way? Or did they find each other because they were already alike? Hold that question; sorting it out is the hardest problem in this lesson.
Lesson Roadmap
Offending as Learned Behavior
This lesson explains how offending can be learned, just like any other behavior. We begin with differential association, and the propositions on which it rests. Then we see how social learning theory adds the mechanisms that the original theory left vague. You will meet the selection-versus-influence problem, the central methodological difficulty in peer research. We will also look honestly at a contested application, the question of media and imitation. Finally, we turn to symbolic interactionism, which explains how meaning and identity are built through interaction. That perspective lays the foundation for labeling theory in the next lesson. Throughout, notice how each theory treats the people around an individual as a source of learning.
Core Theory
Differential Association and Learned Offending
Differential association theory holds that criminal behavior is learned, like any other behavior. It is learned through interaction within intimate personal groups, such as family and close friends. It is not invented independently by an individual acting alone. What gets learned includes specific techniques, but much more than that. It also includes motives, rationalizations, and attitudes favorable or unfavorable toward breaking the law. This lesson deliberately leaves the content of any technique aside. What matters here is the theory's claim about the social process of learning itself. In other words, the focus is on how learning happens, not on any particular thing learned.
Central Proposition
An Excess of Favorable Definitions
The theory's central proposition concerns an excess of definitions. A person becomes prone to offending through an excess of definitions favorable to violating the law. Those favorable definitions outweigh the unfavorable ones, and they are acquired through a person's associations. This proposition is very hard to measure directly. It would require weighing every favorable and unfavorable message a person absorbed across a lifetime. No research instrument measures that quantity cleanly, so the original, precise form is difficult to test. Still, its general logic remains influential. The theory also claims that learning works the same way, whatever is being learned. The mechanisms that transmit attitudes toward conventional conduct are identical in kind to those for offending. So offenders learn the way everyone learns, from the company they keep and the messages it transmits.
Evaluation
Contribution and Two Weaknesses
Differential association's lasting contribution is its insight into the social character of learning. It correctly saw that attitudes toward offending are transmitted through social relationships. Like attitudes toward anything else, they do not arise in isolation. But the theory has two main weaknesses. First, its learning mechanism is underspecified. It says that definitions are learned, but says little about the psychological process by which learning occurs. Second, it tends to treat association as coming before offending in every case. As we will see shortly, influence between association and behavior does not always run in one direction.
Theory Comparison
Social Learning Specifies the Mechanism
Social learning theory revises differential association by specifying the missing mechanism. It draws on three concepts. The first is differential reinforcement. A behavior becomes more or less likely, depending on the balance of rewarding and punishing consequences it produced before. The second is imitation, acquiring a behavior by observing and modeling others. That connects directly to the observational learning finding from subchapter six point five. The third is definitions, retained from differential association. These are the attitudes and rationalizations that make a behavior seem acceptable or justified in a given circumstance. Together, these three mechanisms give social learning theory a specified process. That is exactly what the original formulation lacked. Now compare the two theories. Differential association's mechanism is an excess of favorable over unfavorable definitions, acquired through association. Its testability is limited, because the excess is difficult to measure directly. Its contribution was establishing the social, learned character of attitudes toward offending. Social learning theory's mechanism combines differential reinforcement, imitation, and specified definitions. It is more testable, because reinforcement and imitation can be operationalized and measured. Its contribution was specifying the learning mechanism that differential association left vague. So the second theory does not replace the first; it builds on it and makes it testable.
Key Problem
Selection Versus Influence in Peer Groups
Peer relationships raise the central methodological difficulty in this entire literature. Peers who offend together tend to resemble one another. But that resemblance has two entirely different possible explanations. Selection says a person already prone to offending seeks out similar peers. On this path, the group's similarity reflects a prior individual disposition, not anything the group produced. Influence says a person joins a peer group for other reasons, and is then shaped toward offending. On this path, the group's learning processes do the causal work. Here is the problem: both paths produce the identical observed pattern. A snapshot of an established group cannot tell them apart. Only longitudinal data tracking individuals from before the group formed can distinguish the two.
Quick Check
Selection or Influence for Two Students
Let's practice telling selection from influence. Two students were already skipping class and fighting before they ever met. Later, they became close friends. Quick check: is their similarity selection or influence? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Similarity Came Before the Friendship
Selection. The similarity existed before the friendship, so the group didn't produce it. Already-similar people choosing each other as friends is selection.
Contested Application
Media Imitation and Offending Evidence
A frequently discussed application of imitation concerns media content and offending. This application is contested, and the evidence should be described honestly, without overstating it either way. Observational learning research shows that behavior can, in principle, be acquired through observation. But showing that specific media content measurably increases real-world offending is a much stronger claim. That claim faces the same selection-versus-influence problem we just discussed. It also faces the challenge of isolating media exposure from many other influences on a person. Imitation, as a general mechanism, does not specify which models a person imitates, when, or how durably. Real-world effects also depend on the reinforcement and definitions a person later meets in actual relationships. So strong causal claims in either direction exceed what the current evidence supports.
New Perspective
Symbolic Interactionism and Identity
Symbolic interactionism is a broader sociological perspective underlying much of this material. It makes three claims. First, meaning is constructed through interaction, rather than being a fixed property of objects or acts. Second, the self is formed over time through the responses of others toward a person. Third, a person's definition of the situation, their interpretation of what is happening, governs their action. That interpretation matters more than the objective facts considered apart from it. For criminology, this supplies the mechanism by which social response shapes identity. How a community, institution, or legal system responds to an act can shape how a person sees themselves. Two people committing an identical act can end up on very different paths. One is treated as having made an isolated mistake; another, as confirming a settled deviant identity. This is the direct foundation for labeling theory, developed fully in subchapter seven point six.
Common Trap
When Group Programs Backfire
Consider a group program that made things worse. Adolescents identified as at elevated risk were grouped together, to provide mutual support. Follow-up data showed participants did somewhat worse than a comparable group that received no intervention. How could good intentions produce a worse outcome than doing nothing? The learning mechanisms explain it. Grouping already-offending peers concentrates differential reinforcement and imitation among them. Each participant is now surrounded by peers who reinforce, rather than discourage, the targeted conduct. This grouping risk is a well-documented cautionary finding in the applied literature. So when a group program ends with more offending than before, suspect the grouping first. Learning theory still implies intervening on associations and meanings, but it must avoid this trap.
Application
Learning Theory and Desistance
Learning theory also bears on desistance, the process by which a person stops offending. If offending is learned through association and reinforcement, stopping may involve a parallel process. New associations, new reinforcement patterns, and new definitions of the situation would replace the old ones. Chapter nine develops desistance more fully, as a process unfolding over time. The grouping risk applies here too. A real path toward desistance needs new associations that reinforce conventional behavior. Removal from an old peer group, with no replacement source of reinforcement, is not enough. We can also match interventions to mechanisms. Consistent positive reinforcement relies on differential reinforcement, while mentoring with a conventional role model relies on imitation. Reframing how someone interprets a situation works through definitions. Shifting a person's peers toward a different group works through differential association itself.
Quick Check
Offending Only After Joining a Group
One more. Some teenagers with no earlier risk indicators join a new group. They start offending only after joining. Quick check: does that support selection or influence? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Offending Followed the Group
Influence. The offending followed the group, with no earlier indicators pointing toward it. Data from before the group formed is what shows that; a snapshot of the group could not.
Key Takeaways
Learning, Peers, and Labeling Ahead
To recap. Offending can be learned through association, and social learning names the mechanisms: reinforcement, imitation, definitions. Peer similarity may be selection or influence, and only longitudinal data can tell. Grouping at-risk youth can backfire. And symbolic interactionism shows how responses build identity. Next, subchapter seven point six develops symbolic interactionism into labeling theory.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Social Learning Theory and Symbolic Interactionism in Criminology
What is differential association theory in criminology?
How does social learning theory improve on differential association?
What is the selection-versus-influence problem in peer research?
What does symbolic interactionism say about crime and identity?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →