SAGE Reference

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal

Psychology
Social Learning Theory of Crime

By:Gary F. Jensen
Edited by: Robert D. Morgan
Book Title: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Chapter Title: "Social Learning Theory of Crime"
Pub. Date: 2019
Access Date: September 8, 2022
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks,
Print ISBN: 9781483392264
Online ISBN: 9781483392240
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483392240.n459
Print pages: 1416-1418
© 2019 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

Social learning theory of crime refers to a theoretical perspective of crime and criminal behavior, which blends
ideas from psychological behaviorism with sociological traditions. In its contemporary form, the theory is
associated with sociological criminologist Ronald Akers. His version identifies distinct learning mechanisms
crucial to the explanation of both conformity and forms of nonconformity. A recent definition of the perspective
offered by Akers and Gary F. Jensen (2006) defines social learning theory as

a general theory that offers an explanation of the acquisition, maintenance, and change in criminal and
deviant behavior that embraces social, nonsocial, and cultural factors operating both to motivate and control
criminal behavior and both to promote and undermine conformity. The basic proposition is that the same
learning process in a context of social structure, interaction, and situation, produces both conforming and
deviant behavior.” (p. 38)

After describing the history and ideas incorporated into social learning theory, this entry reviews the
mechanisms of social learning as well as research on social learning theory. This entry concludes with a
discussion of the expansion of social learning theory into social structure/social learning (SSSL) theory and
possible new directions.

History and Foundational Ideas

Early History
Some of the basic ideas behind social learning theory were expressed by Neal E. Miller and John Dollard
in their 1941 book Social Learning and Imitation. In the preface, they proposed to “apply training in two
different fields—psychology and social science—to the solution of social problems.” Another psychologist,
Albert Bandura, extended the study of modeling and vicarious learning mechanisms to adolescent aggression
in 1959 and published Aggression: A Social Learning Approach in 1973.

Many of the sociological ideas ultimately incorporated into social learning theory emerged at the University
of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s. The basic thesis among these sociologists was that criminal behavior
can be explained in the same manner as other forms of behavior and that support for such a view could be
found in both ecological patterns of crime and delinquency and in case studies of individuals and groups. In
his research on gangs more than 80 years ago, Frederick Thrasher identified regularities in the emergence of
gangs that still hold true today and are quite consistent with social learning theory.

Differential Association Theory

Known as the father of scientific criminology, Edwin Sutherland was the first scholar to develop a systematized
sociological explanation of criminal behavior in his Principles of Criminology, first published in 1924. By
1939, Sutherland had organized a set of propositions emphasizing the role played by conflicting definitions
of appropriate and inappropriate conduct in a complex society and differential association with people
communicating conflicting definitions.

In 1947, Sutherland’s systematic elaboration of a theory of both crime and criminality in a set of nine
fundamental propositions earned him honors as the most influential theoretical criminologist of the 20th
century. Applied to delinquency, the central proposition of differential association theory was simply that “a
person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions
unfavorable to violation of law” (p. 7). Definitions were the symbolic messages communicated in everyday
interaction with significant others such as parents, peers, and teachers.

Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory

The two traditions, psychological development of a social learning theory of human behavior and sociological
development of criminological theories emphasizing normal learning processes, proceeded rather
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Page 2 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

independently until the mid-1960s. Then, Akers teamed with Robert Burgess, a sociologist trained in operant
theory, to modify Sutherland’s principles using the terminology and principles of modern behaviorism. This
differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior became the foundation for a perspective
in criminology that Akers in 1973 deemed social learning theory. Social learning put the primary emphasis
on mechanisms involving exposure to people and peers, cultural variations, social structures, and social
institutions. Differential association-reinforcement included both nonsocial and social learning processes.

Social Learning Mechanisms

Akers elaborated four key explanatory concepts or dimensions of social learning theory: differential
association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation. The concept of differential association
includes interaction with others who engage in certain kinds of behavior or express norms, values, and beliefs
supportive or contrary to such behavior. The balance of people and groups encouraging or discouraging
criminal behavior provides the major immediate and intermediate social contexts in which social learning
mechanisms operate. The most important of these groups include the so-called primary groups such as family
and friends. Differential association also includes exposure to secondary and reference groups as well as
mass media, Internet, computer games, and other virtual groups.

The concept of culture is central to social learning theory and encompasses values, norms, and beliefs that
can facilitate or inhibit criminal behavior. Sutherland’s definitions favorable and unfavorable to lawbreaking
as a key variable have endured and continue to play that role in social learning theory. Although definitions
played the central role in Sutherland’s version of differential association theory, such definitions do not
capture all ways of learning delinquency. For example, peer pressures to go along can increase the odds of
delinquency even when a youth defines the activity as wrong. Concern about parental reaction can inhibit
delinquency even when a youth does not define the activity as something he or she ought not to do. In short,
in contrast to differential association theory, social learning theory stresses nonnormative as well as normative
learning mechanisms that can lead to or inhibit delinquency. Social learning theory fits with differential
association theory in that the learning processes are normal and can involve learning of expectations that
conflict with the law.

The original emphasis in Sutherland’s theory was on cultural conflict in society as a whole, with some
forms of criminal behavior merely being attempts to abide by enduring subcultural traditions taught and
learned through normal socialization in some groups and settings. This conception was the foundation for the
conception of Sutherland’s theory as a cultural deviance theory. Variations in crime were products of normal
learning processes, but the content of that learning differed.

Imitation and vicarious learning have been incorporated into the theory as well. If a person merely copies
what others are doing, the process is referred to as imitation. Imitation is distinct from learning the normative
standards appropriate to roles within a society or among groups (normative learning). If the learning process
involves observation of the rewards and punishments experienced by others, the social learning mechanism
is vicarious learning. If the learning process involves personal or direct experience of rewards and punishment
as a product of one’s own behavior, then the process is one of differential reinforcements. Differential
reinforcement refers to the general process of the individual’s experience with and/or anticipation of the
balance of positive and negative consequences of behavior.

Imitation is distinguished from differential association in that it refers to that part of the interaction in which
one observes the behavior of others and the consequences of the behavior of the others. In brief, behavior
is the outcome of differential association in which one is exposed to cultural or normative expectations
and expressions, role models, and reward or punishment (including the reactions of others) attached to or
following behavior. One’s internalized attitudes are also an outcome of this same process and in turn serve
as a cause or factor in the variations in overt behavior.

Research
Social learning theory has been subjected to more empirical inquiry in relation to a wider range of forms
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Page 3 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

of deviance and in a wider range of settings and samples than any other criminological theory. Much of
the research testing social learning theory has focused on its ability to explain variations in self-reports of
lawbreaking behavior, especially among adolescents. Two perspectives have dominated comparative tests
in criminology: social control and social learning. Social control theories assume that it is the absence of
constraints or limits on opportunity for crime, which are key to the explanation of crime and delinquency. In
such theories, the motivation for crime is found in characteristics of humans considered to be quite natural
when social, cultural, or opportunity constraints are absent, implying that no special pressure is required. In
contrast, social learning theories focus on normal learning processes, including socially structured schedules
of reward and punishment; variable values, norms, and beliefs; and associations with people who both
encourage and discourage crime and delinquency.

SSSL Theory
The social learning perspective has since been expanded to deal with both micro and macro issues, and
Akers now labels the SSSL theory. In the SSSL approach, social learning is the principal mediating process by
which social structure has consequences for criminal and delinquent behavior. Social structural variables and
factors are the primary macro-level and meso-level causes of crime, while the social learning variables reflect
the primary or proximate causes of criminal behavior that mediate the relationship between social structure
and the behavior of individuals that make up group, community, and societal crime rates.

This assertion is supported by research in which age, race, ethnicity, gender, social class, community,
and region sociodemographic and community variables are inserted in empirical models. The findings
typically are that the net effects of social learning variables remain in these models, while the net effects of
sociodemographic variables are reduced, typically to statistical nonsignificance. For instance, several studies
have found that variations by age and life course are largely accounted for by family socialization, peer
associations, and other social learning variables. Tests of the SSSL model have produced positive findings for
delinquency and substance use, elderly alcohol abuse, rape, violence, and binge drinking by college students.

New Directions
Other than replications and additional comparative tests, Akers and Jensen have outlined new directions
for SSSL theory. One direction has been designated Taking Social Learning Global. The key development
proposed has been to identify those mechanisms that can be designated as macro-level learning mechanisms
that help explain international variations in homicide.

Another direction emphasizing macro processes in SSSL would be to explore the possible relevance of
the logic of the theory to hypotheses about the relative salience of different forms of cultural learning to
the explanation of variation in crime and/or different forms of crime. For example, from a social learning
perspective, the violent resolution of interpersonal conflicts could be argued to become normative in
environments where institutional means of conflict resolution have been scarce, where relations with
institutional authority have been strained, and/or where escape from violent situations is difficult.

Another macro hypothesis reflecting the logic of SSSL is that the most common forms of criminal or delinquent
activity will likely be those involving the most routine and ordinary learning processes. Shoplifting violates
fewer normative rules than purse snatching from an older lady. Robbing someone at gunpoint violates more
normative rules than grabbing a bicycle from someone’s driveway. Shoplifting is most probable when youth
have the opportunity to do so, can manage such activity without generating suspicion, and have either learned
rationales or excuses for such activity or not learned to judge such activity as a violation of norms.

See also Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Social Learning Theory; Social Control Theory; Social Learning
and Environmental Determinants of Psychopathy; Sociological Theories of Crime

Gary F. Jensen

• social learning theory

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology
Page 4 of 5
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2019 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

• theories of crime
• social learning

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483392240.n459
10.4135/9781483392240.n459

Further Readings
Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2003). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new
century. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 11). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2006). Empirical status of social learning theory: Past, present, and future. In
F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory: Vol. 15.
Advances in criminological theory (pp. 37–76). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Jensen, G. F., & Rojek, D. G. (2009). Delinquency and youth crime (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Criminal Psychology

Page 5 of 5