Social Learning Theory and Control Theory

A comparison of two models for criminal behavior

Why do people perform criminal acts? Is it something in their genes? Something in the hand of fate? Is it something that they learn the way that other people learn to recite the names of the presidents or their parentsÆ trade?

Many criminologists, along with a high percentage of the sociologists and social psychologists that have studied criminal behavior, have selected this final explanation: People learn to be criminals in the same way that people learn any other kind of voluntary behavior. Scholars who believe this to be the case are adhering to social learning theories û or to related differential association theories û of criminality.

However, while social scientists who argue that criminal behavior is best explained as a form of learned behavior are probably in the majority, other scholars do adhere to competing explanatory models. Ranking high in the competition against social theory models are control theories. Proponents of these two types of models often set themselves in opposition to each other for their basic assumptions about human motivation and human behavior are very different. although in fact there is some area of overlap between the two camps, a point that shall be taken up in much greater depth below. Some scholars have even argued that control theories and social learning theories are in fact simply the proverbial two sides of the same, quite thin coin. However, w

. . .
to lay out the basics of control theories of crime, it may be useful to examine some of the drawbacks of social learning theory, for while this model is widely accepted it is continually being refined and modified so that it dovetails more closely with ethnographic and other empirical evidence about criminal behavior. Among criticisms that have been raised to learning theory (and in particular to AkersÆs own research) is work by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) that notes that modern learning theories of crime are not entirely satisfactory in providing convincing explanations of why people commit criminal acts. Since crime is usually of neither substantial nor long-lasting benefit to the offender, crimes cannot easily be defined as acts promoting an individualÆs interest in some meaningful or substantial way and so should not tend to be repeated (p. 21). This is an important criticism, for learning is less likely to occur in the first place unless benefits be relatively obvious and fairly likely to recur. Repetition is an essential element of learning. However, this does not seem to be the case with criminal behavior: Unsuccessful (and therefore unrewarding crimes) are often repeated by criminals where successfully completed crimes
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Miethe Meier, Gottfredson Hirschi, Control Theory, Ross Ross, Reiss Nye, Sutherland Akers, Society Group-as-a-Whole, social learning, learning theory, criminal behavior, social learning theory, control theory, Appleton-Century-Crofts Wood, University Jeffery, control theories, learning theories, human behavior, social control, criminal acts, social learning theories, wood et al, learned behavior, gottfredson hirschi 1990, Bandura Ross, models criminal behavior,
Approximate Word count = 5447
Approximate Pages = 22 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Social Learning Theory and Control Theory