Social Learning Theory explains criminal behavior as a learned process in which deviant actions are reinforced when their positive consequences outweigh those of normative, law-abiding behavior. Drawing on principles of operant conditioning and observational learning, this theory builds on and expands Sutherland’s differential association framework.
Key Points
Social Learning Theory
Main Proponents: Ronald L. Akers, Robert L. Burgess
First Formulations: 1960s–1970s
Country of Origin: United States
Core Idea: Criminal behavior is learned through operant conditioning and observational learning, where deviant actions are reinforced more strongly than conforming ones.
Foundation for: Modern theories of media effects, interventions using behavioral therapy, extensions of differential association theory
Theory
Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory builds on and refines Sutherland’s differential association theory by asking not just who people associate with, but how criminal behavior is actually learned. While Sutherland proposed that crime results from exposure to an excess of definitions favorable to law violation, Akers explains the learning process through the principles of operant conditioning and observational learning.
According to Akers, criminal behavior is learned when deviant actions are differentially reinforced—that is, when they produce more rewarding or less punishing outcomes than conforming behavior. The strength of this reinforcement depends on factors such as its frequency, duration, intensity, and probability. Rewards can be direct (e.g., money, peer approval) or indirect (e.g., status, reputation).
Importantly, Akers expands the learning process beyond direct interaction. Observing others being rewarded for deviant behavior (model learning) can also encourage imitation. This means that media representations or symbolic models can reinforce criminal behavior even without face-to-face contact. Akers‘ early work with Burgess called this „differential reinforcement theory,“ but he later emphasized its broader social learning basis, incorporating Bandura’s insights on observational learning.
Difference from Sutherland’s Differential Association:While Sutherland focused on who individuals associate with and the balance of criminal versus conventional definitions they learn, Akers’ Social Learning Theory explains how such learning occurs. Akers incorporates principles of operant conditioning (reward and punishment) and observational learning (modeling) to describe the reinforcement processes that maintain or discourage criminal behavior. His approach also recognizes that learning can happen indirectly through media and cultural representations, not only via direct personal contact.
In summary, Akers’ Social Learning Theory extends Sutherland’s insight that crime is learned in social contexts by specifying the psychological mechanisms of learning. It maintains that criminal behavior arises not simply from contact with criminals, but from the reinforcement and modeling of deviant behavior over conforming alternatives.
Implications for Criminal Policy
Akers’ theory implies that criminal policy must address the reinforcement structures that sustain crime. This means ensuring that criminal actions have consequences that are sufficiently negative to outweigh their rewards, while also making sure that conforming behaviors are positively reinforced.
Practically, these insights have influenced behavioral therapies such as the token economy, which systematically rewards compliant behavior and discourages deviance. They also highlight the role of the media in shaping behavioral models, contributing to ongoing debates about the influence of violent video games and movies on aggression.
Critically, Burgess and Akers emphasized that merely observing deviant behavior is not enough to produce imitation. It is the observed rewards and punishments associated with that behavior that make imitation more likely.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
Social Learning Theory is widely appreciated for specifying the learning mechanisms absent from Sutherland’s original formulation. By integrating operant conditioning and modeling, Akers offered a more complete and testable framework for understanding how crime is learned.
However, critics argue that the theory faces limitations common to all learning approaches. It can be tautological if „reinforcement“ is defined post hoc by observed behavior. It also may underestimate individual differences in learning capacity or fail to explain impulsive, affective, or irrational crimes. Furthermore, while Akers’ model is robust, it cannot by itself serve as a general theory of crime without accounting for biological, situational, and structural factors.
Literature
Primary Literature
- Akers, Ronald L.; Burgess, Robert L. (1966). A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. In: Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147.
- Akers, Ronald L. (1977). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, CA.
- Akers, Ronald L. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Further Information
- Akers, Ronald L.; Sellers, Christine (2004). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub.
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
- Bandura, Albert (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- Bandura, Albert (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Beirne, Piers (1987). Between Classicism and Positivism: Crime and Penalty in the Writing of Gabriel Tarde. In: Criminology, 25(4), 785-819.
Video
Watch an introduction to Social Learning Theory on YouTube
