The application of Social Learning Theory in Criminology

In criminology, Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess (1966) developed Social Learning Theory to explain deviancy by combining variables which encouraged delinquency (e.g. the social pressure from delinquent peers) with variables that discouraged delinquency (e.g. the parental response to discovering delinquency in their children).

Burgess and Aker (1966: 128-147) adapted Sutherland to describe a variety of deviant behaviours:
 * 1) "Criminal behaviour is learned according to the principles of operant conditioning” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). Operant behaviour is affected by ‘environmental consequences’, e.g. conditioning, shaping, stimulus control, and extinction. Conditioning aims to produce consistency of response to stimulus. Shaping gives differential reinforcement of behaviours; for example, parents will reinforce ‘baby talk’ and then as the child gets older, regular speech. Extinction occurs once the operant behaviour is no longer reinforced.
 * 2) “Criminal behaviour is learned both in non-social situations that are reinforcing or discriminative, and through social interaction in which the behavior of other persons is reinforcing or discriminative for criminal behavior” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). Sutherland viewed the process of learning criminal behaviour as symbolic interaction, but Burgess and Akers believed that this excluded other sources of reinforcement, e.g. stealing a loaf of bread may not receive social reinforcement, but it does receive reinforcement because eating the bread nourishes a hungry thief which is inherently reinforcing.
 * 3) “The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs in those groups which compromise the individual’s major source of reinforcements” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). The family is the primary example of an ‘intimate primary group’ but Burgess and Akers allowed any ‘groups’ the possibility of offering positive reinforcement.
 * 4) “The learning of criminal behaviour, including specific techniques, attitudes, and avoidance procedures, is a function of the effective and available reinforcers, and the existing reinforcement contingencies” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). Burgess and Akers agreed but felt that it was important to study motivation to see how reinforcement gained value.
 * 5) “The specific class of behaviours which are learned and their frequency of occurrence are functions of the reinforces which are effective and available, and the rules or norms by which these reinforcers are applied” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). Burgess and Akers broadened the idea from which reinforcements may be derived. Effective reinforcements must be analysed to understand the development of individual behaviour and behaviour within a group.
 * 6) “Criminal behavior is a function of norms which are discriminative for criminal behaviour, the learning of which takes place when such behaviour is more highly reinforced than non-criminal behavior” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). Burgess and Akers posited that there was a process in which norms discriminated in favour of delinquency and that behaviour was then reinforced.
 * 7) "The strength of criminal behaviour is a direct function of the amount, frequency, and probability of its reinforcement” (Sutherland, 1947: 5-7). They proposed that when there is an increase in the amount of reinforcement, there is also an increase in the response rate.

Discussion
The theory can be applied to most criminals and crimes that produce a "gain", but is best applied to behaviour within groups which offer reinforcement, such as gangs, peer groups, or social groups (Akers, 1973). The "gain" can be psychological, e.g. positive attention from other group members, or material, e.g. what was stolen. The degree of positive reinforcement will determine whether the behaviour is continued. In their study of alcohol behaviour, Akers et al. (1989) found that elderly drinking and youthful drinking follow the same lines of norms and group behavior. The theory was focused on the interaction between the individual and the social group, and did not address individual differences or social context (Jeffery, 1990:252; Akers, 1998). Individual differences may be biological, psychological, or the result of other factors; and these differences may affect the interaction between the individual and the social group (Jeffery, 1990: 252). Akers (1998) therefore expanded the theory by explaining crime rates as a function social learning in a social structure. While, the original theory focused on individual criminal behaviour, Social Structure Learning focuses on macro-level causes of crime positing that environments impact the individual through learning (Akers 1998: 302).

Unlike situational crime prevention, the theory ignores the opportunistic nature of crime (Jeffery, 1990: 261-2). To learn one must first observe criminal behaviour, but the theory does not explain how a person first meets people exhibiting criminal behaviour (Jeffery, 1990: 261-2). Further, the theory does not explain how people who have not been associating with criminals still become criminals, e.g. if a solitary child in a rural area steals from his mother’s purse; where was this behaviour learned? The theory does explain how criminal behaviour is ‘transmitted’ from one person to another, which can explain increases in types of crimes, but it does not consider how crime can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990: 252) although it may be fairly assumed that the processes of learning behaviours can be changed.

There is also a definitional problem. What may be reinforcement for one person may not be for another. Also, reinforcements can be both social involving attention and behaviour between more than one person, and non-social reinforcement would not involve this interaction (Burgess & Akers: 1966) Social Learning Theory has been used in mentoring programs that should, in theory, prevent some future criminal behaviour. The idea behind mentoring programs is that an adult is paired with a child, who supposedly learns from the behaviour of the adult and is positively reinforced for good behaviour (Jones-Brown, 1997). In the classroom, a teacher may use the theory by changing the seating arrangements to pair a behaving child and a misbehaving child, but the outcome may be that the behaving child begins to misbehave.