You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Social explanations of criminality locate the causes of offending not in the individual's brain or genes but in their social environment — in what they learn, whom they associate with, and how society reacts to them. Where the biological explanations examined in the previous lesson sit on the "nature" pole, social explanations sit firmly on the side of nurture: they treat offending as a product of ordinary social processes (learning, interaction, reaction) rather than of innate defect. This lesson examines three influential social explanations required by the Edexcel specification: the social learning theory of crime (offending as a behaviour acquired through observation, imitation and reinforcement); labelling theory and the self-fulfilling prophecy (how society's reaction to an act, and the label it attaches to an offender, can amplify and entrench offending); and differential association theory (Sutherland's claim that offending is learned through exposure to an excess of pro-criminal over anti-criminal attitudes). These explanations differ from the biological accounts in a crucial way: because they attribute offending to social processes, they imply that crime is, in principle, preventable and reversible by changing the environment — a hopeful implication with direct relevance to treatment and rehabilitation. Offending is treated throughout as a scientific phenomenon.
Key Definition: A social explanation of criminality attributes offending to environmental and social processes — learning, social interaction and societal reaction — rather than to innate biological factors.
This lesson addresses the social (and psychological) explanations of criminal behaviour content of Edexcel 9PS0 — Paper 2, Topic 6: Criminological Psychology — specifically social learning theory applied to crime, labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy, and differential association theory, together with their evaluation.
Connects to…
Social learning theory (SLT), developed by Albert Bandura (1977), proposes that behaviour — including criminal behaviour — is learned from the social environment through observing and imitating others, rather than being solely the product of direct reinforcement or innate drives. Applied to crime, SLT holds that offending is acquired in the same way as any other behaviour: by watching what others do and what happens to them as a result.
SLT explains the acquisition of offending through several linked processes:
Bandura also emphasised mediational (cognitive) processes that sit between observing a behaviour and reproducing it — attention (noticing the behaviour), retention (remembering it), reproduction (being able to perform it) and motivation (the will to perform it, driven by expected reinforcement). This cognitive element distinguishes SLT from pure behaviourism: the observer is not a passive recipient but actively processes what is modelled.
Key Definition: Vicarious reinforcement is learning the likely consequences of a behaviour by observing whether others are rewarded or punished for it, rather than experiencing those consequences directly.
Bandura's classic Bobo doll studies (1961, 1963) demonstrated that children who observed an adult model behaving aggressively towards a doll were more likely to imitate that aggression, and that observing the model being rewarded increased imitation while observing the model punished decreased it — the empirical foundation for applying SLT to the acquisition of antisocial and aggressive behaviour.
graph LR
A[Model offends<br/>parent, peer, media] --> B[Observation]
B --> C{Model rewarded<br/>or punished?}
C -->|Rewarded| D[Vicarious reinforcement]
C -->|Punished| E[Vicarious punishment]
D --> F[Imitation more likely]
E --> G[Imitation inhibited]
H[Identification<br/>with model] --> F
style F fill:#e74c3c,color:#fff
style G fill:#27ae60,color:#fff
Applied to criminality, SLT explains why offending clusters in families and peer groups without invoking genetics: a child raised among offending models, who sees offending rewarded and identifies with those models, learns both the techniques and the attitudes of crime. It also explains the influence of deviant peer groups and the concern about media portrayals of glamorised crime.
Several features of the theory make it especially well suited to explaining certain patterns of offending. First, it accounts for the strong age-and-peer patterning of crime: adolescents spend increasing time with peers, are highly attentive to peer status, and readily identify with admired age-mates, so a peer group in which offending is modelled and rewarded is a potent learning environment. Second, it explains why offending can appear to be learned in stages — a young person may first observe and retain a behaviour, then reproduce it only later when motivation (an expected reward, or a situation where the behaviour is likely to be reinforced) is present, which fits the mediational-process account rather than a simple stimulus–response model. Third, it makes sense of gang dynamics: high-status gang members function as powerful models, offending is often visibly rewarded with respect and material gain, and identification with the group intensifies imitation. Because the theory specifies conditions under which imitation is more or less likely — the model's status, whether the behaviour is rewarded, the observer's identification — it also predicts when offending will not be imitated, for example where a model is seen to be punished, giving it a degree of testable precision that purely descriptive accounts lack.
Labelling theory takes a strikingly different starting point. Rather than asking what makes an individual offend, it asks what happens after an act is committed and society reacts to it. Associated with Howard Becker (1963), labelling theory argues that no act is inherently criminal or deviant; an act only becomes deviant when society labels it so and applies the label to the person who committed it.
Becker's central claim is often paraphrased as: deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits, but a consequence of the rules and sanctions that others apply — the deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied.
A key distinction (drawn from Lemert and adopted within the labelling tradition) is between:
The crucial claim is that the societal reaction — the labelling — can itself amplify deviance, so that the response to crime becomes part of its cause.
The mechanism connecting label to further offending is the self-fulfilling prophecy: a label, once applied, changes expectations and behaviour in ways that make the label come true.
graph TD
A[Primary deviance:<br/>initial act] --> B[Society labels the person<br/>'criminal' / 'delinquent']
B --> C[Master status:<br/>label dominates identity]
C --> D[Others treat person<br/>according to the label]
C --> E[Person internalises label<br/>into self-concept]
D --> F[Opportunities blocked;<br/>pushed toward deviant groups]
E --> F
F --> G[Secondary deviance:<br/>further, entrenched offending]
style G fill:#e74c3c,color:#fff
The label can become a master status — the single characteristic through which everything else about the person is interpreted, overriding other roles (worker, parent, friend). Two reinforcing pathways then operate. Externally, others treat the labelled person with suspicion, exclude them from legitimate opportunities (employment, housing), and push them towards deviant subcultures that accept them. Internally, the person may absorb the label into their self-concept, coming to see themselves as the kind of person the label describes and acting accordingly. Both pathways converge on secondary deviance — a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the prediction "this person is a criminal" helps bring about the very behaviour it names.
Labelling theory has important real-world implications. It suggests that heavy-handed criminal-justice responses — public shaming, criminal records that block employment, imprisonment that concentrates labelled individuals together — may increase reoffending, and it provides a rationale for approaches (diversion, restorative justice) that avoid attaching stigmatising labels, especially to young or first-time offenders.
Key Definition: A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a belief or label about a person leads others (and the person themselves) to act in ways that cause the belief to become true.
Edwin Sutherland (1939) offered a sociological–behaviourist account in which offending is learned, in exactly the same way as any other behaviour, through interaction with others. Sutherland set out to identify conditions that could explain offending across all social groups, and proposed that an individual becomes an offender when they are exposed to an excess of attitudes favourable to law-breaking over attitudes unfavourable to it. Two things are learned through differential association with others (especially intimate personal groups):
If the frequency, duration, intensity and priority of associations favouring crime outweigh those opposing it, offending becomes likely. The theory therefore predicts that crime will run in families and neighbourhoods not (mainly) for genetic reasons but because pro-criminal norms are socially transmitted. It also predicts that an individual exposed to pro-criminal norms — for example, in prison — may become more likely to offend, providing a learning-theory rationale for the "university of crime" effect: prison maximises association with pro-criminal others.
Sutherland's ambition was to put the explanation of crime on a scientific footing that applied to all offenders, rich and poor alike — a deliberate move away from explanations that pathologised the individual or focused only on the lower classes. By framing offending as a normal product of normal learning processes, the theory normalises and de-individualises crime: the offender is not biologically or morally defective but has simply been socialised into different norms. This has the attractive implication that crime is, in principle, preventable and reversible through changing the social environment and the balance of attitudes a person is exposed to, rather than fixed by biology. The theory can also accommodate the observation that offending often desists in adulthood, as people's associations shift (through employment, relationships or moving away) towards more conventional norms.
Key Definition: Differential association theory holds that offending is learned through social interaction, specifically through exposure to an excess of pro-criminal over anti-criminal attitudes, along with the techniques of committing crime.
The three social explanations are related but distinct, and distinguishing them is a common exam demand:
| Explanation | Core mechanism | Key figure | What it explains best |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social learning theory | Observation, imitation, vicarious reinforcement, identification | Bandura | Why offending is imitated from admired/rewarded models |
| Differential association | Excess of pro-criminal over anti-criminal attitudes learned through association | Sutherland | Why crime clusters socially; the "university of crime" |
| Labelling / self-fulfilling prophecy | Societal reaction amplifies deviance via a label | Becker | Why offending escalates after a label is applied |
The Farrington longitudinal work (the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development) — a decades-long study following a large cohort of London boys — provides converging real-world support for the social account. It identified early risk factors for offending including family criminality, poor parenting, and socio-economic deprivation, and found that a small number of chronic offenders accounted for a large share of offences. These findings fit the social explanations well: they show offending clustering in adverse social environments, consistent with learned pro-criminal attitudes and with the risk that criminal-justice contact and labelling entrench a persistent offending trajectory.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.