Social Learning Theories

Historical Antecedents of Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory traces its intellectual roots to the work of Edwin Sutherland. In the 1930s, Sutherland began developing differential association theory, and in 1947, in his classic Principles of Criminology textbook, he advanced nine formal propositions to explain crime. Sutherland argued that criminal behavior is learned through communication with others in intimate personal groups. By this, he meant that criminal behavior is not an inherited trait but instead is caused by interaction with others, particularly those in a person's family or friendship networks. He also argued that both the techniques for committing crime successfully and attitudes justifying the violation of law are learned. These justifications, which he called “the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes,” are communicated through a person's exposure to the attitudes expressed by others. He used the term definitions to identify these attitudes, asserting that the people with whom one associates [Page 1529]may hold definitions that are either favorable or unfavorable to law violation. In other words, some people in a person's environment will hold definitions that disapprove of crime, while others will hold definitions that either approve of crime or see little reason why laws must be obeyed.

Because individuals interact with many people throughout their lives, it is likely that they will be exposed to a variety of definitions, both favorable and unfavorable to law violation. Each individual is exposed to his or her own unique configuration of definitions that vary in both strength and degree of favorability to law violation. The key proposition in Sutherland's differential association theory is that criminal behavior is learned when a person is exposed to more definitions favorable to law violation than definitions unfavorable to law violation. Those people exposed to more people who approve of crime and fewer people who disapprove of crime are more likely to learn to commit criminal behavior; this is the principle of differential association.

The effect of differential association on the subsequent learning of criminal behavior is not simplistic, however. Associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. The definitions of the people with whom one associates frequently carry greater weight than the definitions of those with whom one interacts only occasionally. Likewise, longer durations of time spent with others will lend greater impact to their definitions relative to definitions held by those with whom one has contact only briefly. Priority of associations refers to associations formed early in life; the definitions of parents, siblings, and old friends will be more influential than the definitions of those one encounters later in life. Finally, intensity refers to the emotional closeness one feels toward one's associates; the definitions of those for whom one feels greater attachment will carry greater weight than the definitions of those to whom one is less attached.

...