4 of 24

Psychological Perspectives

Psychological perspectives place the source of deviance within the individual.
American Psychiatric Association

antisocial
unable to conform to the norms of society
impulsive, aggressive, and irritable
deceive often
feel no remorse for their actions

Sociological perspectives tend to focus on social factors when explaining crime. By contrast, psychological perspectives place the source of deviance within the individual. For example, the American Psychiatric Association, in explaining crime, consider factors such as being antisocial, unable to conform to the norms of society, impulsive, aggressive, irritable, being frequently deceptive, and feeling no remorse for their actions. Similarly, clinical psychologist Stanton Samenow believes that criminals think differently than noncriminals. He believes that criminals tend to engage in chronic lying (even to themselves), view others’ property as their own, and have an inflated self-image. As you can see, the psychological perspective tends to look for the source of deviance within the individual.

5 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

6 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

7 of 24

Functionalist perspective

Functions of deviance

Deviance clarifies social norms

E.g., Trayvon Martin, speeding

Deviance enhances group solidarity

E.g., Casey Anthony, deviant neighbor

Deviance is an innovative force

E.g., civil disobedience, coming out

Deviance can contribute to the stability of society

E.g., prostitution

As you may recall, the functionalist perspective attempts to understand how crime, rather than harming society, may actually benefit society. So let’s look at four ways in which crime benefits society.

First, deviance clarifies social norms. We need a few rule breakers so that we can know what the rules are. For example, we need a few people to kill so that we can know where the line is that separates murder from self-defense. If you remember the death of Trayvon Martin, we learned from that case that if someone is on top of you and banging your head against cement, then you are legally justified in killing him. Another example of rule breakers helping us to see more clearly where the line is between legal and illegal is speeding. Though the speed limit is posted at 65 mph, we know that that is not the actual speed limit. We regularly drive over 65, and when we pass the highway patrol, they do not come after us. However, they will come after those that drive much over 65. We need a few people to drive fast and get caught to know what the actual speed limit is. From conversations with students, is seems to be somewhere around 75. Have you ever gotten a warning or ticket for speeding? How fast were you going? Post your comments to our discussion board.

Second, deviance enhances group solidarity. The example Emile Durkheim used to illustrate this point was public punishments. These days, criminals are not brought to a public place and flogged or executed. But when public punishments occurred, the community would come to watch, and as they watched together, it increased group solidarity. But I think that even today, a similar sort of bonding occurs. I don’t know if you remember the trial of Casey Anthony a few years ago for the murder of her daughter; you may remember having conversations with your coworkers, friends, and family. As we expressed our outrage at Anthony’s actions, you may have noticed feeling closer to the person you were talking to. Another example might be the drug dealer in your neighborhood, and as you and your other neighbors complained to each other about the drug-dealer neighbor, you may have found yourself developing a connection with your other neighbors. You may have even started a neighborhood watch. Have you ever talked with someone about a person that both of you considered deviant? Did that conversation bring you closer to together? Post your comments to our discussion board.

Third, deviance is an innovative force. Breaking the rules can lead to creating a better society. During the Civil Rights movement, an important strategy that was used was civil disobedience. As students illegally sat at lunch counters, they used the attention they received to build support for their cause. Another example would be those that broke the don’t ask don’t tell rule for gay and lesbian members of the military. As they broke the rules, they drew attention to the injustice of the rule. And as a result, the rule was overturned, creating a more tolerant society. In the news recently was the story of how congresspersons were illegally sitting-in in the congressional building. They did this draw attention to their bill that would make it harder for terrorists to buy guns. What do you think of illegal protests? Post your comments to our discussion board.

Fourth, deviance can contribute to the stability of society. I used this example of prostitution earlier in the semester. Kingsley Davis, writing in the 1930s, argued that married men who visited prostitutes were less likely to end marriages since prostitutes could satisfy their needs for activities their wives didn’t want to do. These days due to “amatuer competition” prostitution may have become less necessary. For those of you who are interested, here is the link to the paper https://hec.unil.ch/docs/files/56/618/davis_1937_asr.pdf. We have already discussed this issue earlier, but after reading the article you have additional thoughts, you can post them to our discussion board.

Discussion: The functionalist perspective argues that crime, though we may think is dysfunctional, may actually be functional. What do you think? Post your comments to our discussion board.

8 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

9 of 24

Strain theory (Robert Merton 1938)

There are socially prescribed goals and methods for attaining those goals in every society.
Americans are highly encouraged to achieve economic success.

In societies where economic success in emphasized, anomie occurs, increasing crime.

For some, socially prescribed methods are not available, even though goals are encouraged.

Poor people are blocked from achieving goals, increasing crime.

Robert Merton (1938) developed strain theory to explain crime. He argued that there are socially prescribed goals as well as means to achieve these goals that exist in every society. In American society, there is the goal of economic success: that everyone--the poor, the middle-class, and the rich--is highly encouraged to attain. With respect to socially prescribed methods for attaining those goals, in American society, we are told that getting a good education then getting a good job is the method we should use to become economically successful.

Borrowing from Durkheim, Merton used the term anomie to refer to the weakening of norms. Merton argued that in a society like the United States where there is extreme emphasis on economic success, anomie would occur. That is, when individuals are strongly encouraged to achieve economic success, the norms that regulate behavior tend to weaken. As the power of laws to regulate behavior weaken, crime increases. One thing that Bernie Sanders often repeats is that on Wall Street, fraud is the business model, and he is right. As the drive for profit increases, the power of rules to regulate people’s actions weakens. This weakening of the power of rules to regulate behavior not only occurs on Wall Street, but in American society in general, as we are highly encouraged to become economically successful.

The second point is that for some, socially prescribed methods are not available, even though they are encouraged to achieve economic success. The poor are blocked from achieving goals as they have less access to quality education and good jobs. So in their pursuit of the American dream, they engage in crime.

Discussion: What do you think? Are Americans tempted to commit crime because there is a heavy emphasis on economic success in our society? How about the point that for those whose legitimate opportunities are blocked, they commit crime to achieve the goal of economic success that society encourages them to attain? If we didn’t obsess so much about economic success do you think there would be less crime? If opportunities for economic success were made more available, would that reduce crime? Post your comments to our discussion board.

If you are interested in reading Merton’s discussion of anomie, here is the link: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/Readings/MertonAnomie.pdf.

10 of 24

Strain theory

The graph above illustrates Merton’s typology. Conformists are those that accept the goal of economic success as well as the legitimate means of getting there (going to school and getting a job). Most of us are conformists. Innovators are people who accept the goal of economic success but reject the legitimate means and engage in crime. Criminals, then, are innovators. Ritualists are those that reject the goal of economic success but accept the legitimate means. These are people content to work at minimum wage jobs. Retreatists are those that both reject the goal as well as the means. These are people that do not work and are not interested in working, for example, the homeless. Rebels are those that seek new goals and new means. These are people that want to create a new society, for example, communists.

11 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

12 of 24

Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay 1942)

Poor neighborhoods with weak social institutions have higher rates of crime.

Social disorganization theory argues that the characteristics of the neighborhood is what causes crime rather than the characteristics of the people living in the neighborhood. The diagram on the slide is of Chicago. That is where Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay conducted their research. They found that the highest rates of crime occurred in the area next to the central business district labeled as the zone in transition. The zone in transition is characterized by poverty, high rates of residential mobility and racial diversity. These characteristics, then, led to weak social ties. And due to these weak social ties, informal social control was also weak, which then led to crime. The point I want to emphasize here is that it did not matter which ethnic group lived in the area. When Germans and Swedes occupied this area, their children had high rates of delinquency; when they were replaced by Polish, Italian, and other national groups, the juvenile delinquency rates in the area remained essentially the same. What mattered was the characteristics of the neighborhood--i.e., social disorganization--not the characteristics of the people living in the neighborhood.

Below are articles about social disorganization theory, if you are interested.

Here is an article testing social disorganization theory: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/sampson/files/1989_ajs_groves.pdf

Here is a article summarizing social disorganization theory: https://webfiles.uci.edu/ckubrin/SD%20Theory-%20Then,%20Now%20and%20in%20the%20Future.pdf?uniq=fn2w4g

Here is another article: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jmaahs/Crime%20and%20Media/pdf%20files/cullen_agnew_socialD.pdf

13 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

14 of 24

Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland 1939)

Criminal activity is a learned
The more a person associates with delinquents, the more likely it is that the person will learn criminal behavior
Learn the motivations and the techniques

E.g., using drugs

From the perspective of differential association theory, criminal activity is a learned. As you hang out with people that engage in crime, you learn criminal attitudes and behaviors. The more a person associates with delinquents, the more likely it is that that person will learn criminal behavior. No only do they learn the techniques, such as where the best corner to sell drugs is at, how much to charge, etc., they also learn the motivations, e.g., selling drugs does not hurt anyone, it is easy money, etc.�

Differential association theory proposes that we become deviant when exposed to a higher level of deviant persons and influences compared to conventional influences. And as we associate with criminals, we are more likely to accept their attitudes. And when a person believes that there are more and compelling reasons to commit crime rather than not commit crime, that person is more likely to commit crime. So according to differential association theory, a middle-class person whose friends frequently commit crime is more likely to be a delinquent than a poor person whose friends do not commit crime.

Discussion: What do you think matters more with respect to likelihood to commit crime, the neighborhood that you live in (social disorganization theory) or the friends that you associate with (differential association theory). Post your comments to our discussion board.

15 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

16 of 24

Control theory (Travis Hirschi 1969)

There are four social bonds that affect personal restraint

Attachment refers to our relationship with others
Commitment refers to our dedication to live a socially acceptable life
Involvement refers to participating in conventional activities
Belief refers to a person’s dedication and conviction

People who lack these social bonds often become involved in criminal behavior

For Travis Hirschi, the interesting question is not why people commit crime; for him, the more interesting question is why do people not commit crime. He begins with the assumption that all of us would commit crime if we could get away with it. Let me ask you, if there was no chance that you would get caught, would you steal a million dollars from the bank? Post your comments to our discussion board.

Control theory views crime as the outcome of an imbalance between impulses toward criminal activity and controls that deter it. Hirschi argues that there are four social bonds that affect personal restraint. 1. Attachment refers to our relationship with others. If you have a strong attachment to friends who value good grades and hard work, then you will value good grades and hard work. 2. Commitment refers to our dedication to live a socially acceptable life. If you are a high school dropout, you have little to lose by being arrested. 3. Involvement refers to participating in conventional activities. If school and work keep you constantly busy, you have little time to spend engaged in deviant activities. 4. Belief refers to a person’s dedication and conviction. If you genuinely believe that honesty and hard work is a moral requirement, then you will be less likely to be dishonest or look for illegal ways to make money.

According to Hirschi, people who lack these social bonds often become involved in criminal behavior.

Discussion: Assess control theory. How well do you think this theory explains why people do not commit crime?

17 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

18 of 24

Conflict Theories

Social conflict theories focus on how issues of social class, power, and capitalism relate to crime

From the perspective of the new criminology, laws are used by the powerful to maintain their own privileged positions.

For conflict theorists, crime is related to social class, power, and capitalism. These are issues that Karl Marx also focused on, and that is why I think he would agree most with conflict theorists in explaining crime.

From the perspective of the new criminology, laws are used by the powerful to maintain their own privileged positions. First, laws favor the wealthy; for example, tax laws favor the wealthy. Another example of how laws favor the rich is the separating of civil and criminal law, where someone caught stealing an iphone can be charged with a criminal offense and go to jail, but someone conning people out of millions by using shady business practices would more likely be sued, would not be facing jail time, and would at worst pay punitive damages.

Second, laws are not applied evenly. For example, police departments are hesitant to go after white-collar criminals but frequently patrol urban neighborhoods. At every step of the criminal justice system, from arrest to sentencing to parole, the wealthy are favored.

Discussion:What do you think. Do laws favor the rich? Does the criminal justice system favor the rich? Post your comments to our discussion board.

19 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

20 of 24

Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi 1990)

Most crimes involve spur-of-the-moment decisions

E.g., child abuse, assault, theft
Criminals are not able to delay gratification, so they seek short-term rewards at the expense of long-term consequences

Criminals simply lack self-control

In 1990, Travis Hirschi, with Michael Gottfredson, developed self-control theory. Rather than focusing on social bonds (as Hirschi did in his earlier control theory), he focuses on self-control. Of the sociological theories we have discussed so far, this theory is the most psychological: with the focus on the individual’s ability to control his or her impulses. As mentioned in our discussion of control theory, for Hirschi, the more interesting question is why people do not commit crime rather than why people commit crime. They begin by noting that most crimes involve spur-of-the-moment decisions: because the crying child is driving you crazy you hit the child, because you felt insulted when someone at the bar made a comment about your girlfriend you punched him in the face, because you were walking down the street and there was a wallet sitting in an empty car you stole the wallet.

Some people are able to overcome the impulse to break the law. Those people have self-control. Criminals, on the other hand, are not able to delay gratification, so they seek short-term rewards at the expense of long-term consequences. Criminals simply lack self-control.

21 of 24

Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)

Most people learn this form of self-control from their parents

Criminals are raised by people who fail to teach the importance of rejecting short-term, brief rewards in favor of more pleasurable long-term ones
Parents must

Care
Notice
Note that the behavior is wrong
Punish

How is it that some of us have self-control and others don’t? Gottfredson and Hirschi’s answer is that some of us were socialized to have it and others were not.

Most people learn self-control from their parents. For Gottfredson and Hirschi, criminals are raised by people who fail to teach the importance of rejecting short-term, brief rewards in favor of more pleasurable long-term ones. So what must happen to instill self-control? Gottfredson and Hirschi say it is pretty simple, but some parents don’t do it. It is a four-step process. First, the parent must care about the child. Second, the parent must be able notice bad behavior. Third, the parent must note that the behavior is wrong. And finally, the parent must punish the bad behavior. This seems simple enough, but some parents, for whatever reason, may not care about their child. If they care, they may not be able to notice their bad behavior: maybe they are too busy. If they are able to watch their children, they may not believe their child’s behavior is wrong, for example, they may blame the school, not the child for being expelled. Finally, they, for whatever reason, may not be able to or willing to punish their child.

Discussion: Assess control theory. Post your comments to our discussion board.

22 of 24

Understanding crime—outline

Psychological perspectives
Sociological Perspectives

Functionalist perspective
Strain theory (Robert Merton)
Social disorganization theory (Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay)
Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland)
Control theory (Travis Hirschi)
Conflict theories
Self-control theory (Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi)
Labeling theory

23 of 24

Labeling theory

No behavior is inherently criminal

E.g., using drugs, prostitution, killing

Deviance is created by making rules
There is a difference between rule breakers and deviants

Deviants are the ones that got caught

Deviance is created by applying the rules to certain people
Rule application is not consistent

E.g., Saints and the Roughnecks

Secondary deviance (Edwin Lemert)

Let’s begin our discussion on labeling theory by making the first point that no behavior is inherently criminal. For example, what is inherently criminal about using drugs or prostitution? Even killing is not inherently criminal. It is morally right when fighting an enemy in war or defending yourself and your family from an intruder.

So how does a behavior become criminal? The second point is that deviance is created by making rules. Smoking marijuana becomes a crime as a law is passed to make it a crime. Prostitution becomes as crime as a law is passed to make it a crime. And as you know, in some places, smoking marijuana and prostitution is not a crime. It is the rule, that often varies from place to place, that makes the act a crime.

The third point is that there is a difference between rule breakers and deviants. We all break rules, but only some of us are labeled as deviants. What is the difference between us in this class and the people in the California Men’s Colony? The difference is they got caught. Deviants are the ones that get caught. The point is that there may not be much difference between people in prison and those that are not other than they are the ones that got caught.

Fourth, deviance is created by applying the rules to certain people. That is, to create a criminal, you have to accuse and convict them of a crime. It is the accusation and conviction that creates the criminal. Those that are not accused and convicted are rule breakers, but they are not labeled a criminal. Labeling theory focuses on this process of interaction between deviants and nondeviants that creates the deviant.

Fifth, rule application is not consistent. William Chambliss describes two groups of boys in one town. One group is working class and the other is middle class. Though both groups engage in equal amounts of delinquent activities, one group is considered “just boys being boys,” and the other is considered “troublemakers.” The difference, then, is not the difference in the behavior of the boys, but the difference is in how the community responses differently to the two groups of boys.

Sixth, secondary deviance (Edwin Lemert) refers to crimes committed after internalizing the deviant label. For example, fifteen-year-old Diego is arrested and spends thirty days in juvenile detention. He begins to see himself as a delinquent while there. When he is released, he commits more crimes. Career criminals, then, are created as they internalize the label given to them by the criminal justice system.

Discussion: Labeling theory focuses not on the deviant but those that work to create the deviant through the process of labeling. What is your assessment of labeling theory? Post your comments to our discussion board.

1 of 24

2 of 24

3 of 24

4 of 24

5 of 24

6 of 24

7 of 24

8 of 24

9 of 24

10 of 24

11 of 24

12 of 24

13 of 24

14 of 24

15 of 24

16 of 24

17 of 24

18 of 24

19 of 24

20 of 24

21 of 24

22 of 24

23 of 24

24 of 24