Teoria de Reforco a Associacao Diferencial de Burgess e Akers

8/11/2019 Teoria de Reforco a Associacao Diferencial de Burgess e Akers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/teoria-de-reforco-a-associacao-diferencial-de-burgess-e-akers 1/21

A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal BehaviorAuthor(s): Robert L. Burgess and Ronald L. AkersSource: Social Problems, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 128-147Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of SocialProblemsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/798612 .

Accessed: 27/07/2014 15:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 164.41.102.240 on Sun, 27 Jul 2014 15:34:04 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/798612?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/798612?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal



128

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

surprising

r

unexpected.

hey

become

more

meaningful

hen

nterpreted

n

the ight fstudies f therelationship

between

ocial class

and

psychiatric

treatmentnd

hospitalization.

It

was

not

possible

within

he

cope

of this

tudy

o

gather

ystematic

vi-

dence

on the

factors hat

may

in-

fluence

he

process

f

decision

making

bythehospital readmissiontaff.utdiscussions ithvarious taffmembers

suggest

hat n

understanding

f

this

process

s

crucialwhen

ccounting

or

the

differential

peed

f

hospitalization.

A

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION-REINFORCEMENT

THEORY OF CRIMINAL

BEHAVIOR

ROBERT L. BURGESS

AND

RONALD L. AKERS

Universityf

Washington

INTRODUCTION

In

spite

f

the

body

f

iterature

hat

has accumulated

round

hedifferential

association

heory

f criminal ehav-

ior,1

t

has

yet

to

receive

rucial m-

pirical

test or

thorough

estatement

beyond

utherland's

wn

revision

n

1947.

Recognizing

hat

the

theory

s

essentially

learning

heory,

uther-

land

rephrased

t to

state

xplicitly

hat

criminal ehaviors

learned

s

any

be-

havior

s

learned.

n

Cressey's

wo re-

visions f thetextbook,hetheoryas

been

deliberately

eft

unchanged

rom

Sutherland'sevision.

hus,

he

theory

as it

standsnow is

postulated

pon

the

knowledge

f the

earning

rocess

extant

0-25

years go.2

Sutherland,

imself,

ever

was

able

to test

directly

r

find

pecific

mpiri-

cal

support

or

his

theory,ut

he was

convinced hat the

two-edged

heory

-(1)

genetic,

ifferential

ssociation

and (2) structural,ifferentialocial

1

By

1960,

Cressey

had collected a

70-

item bibliography n the theory;see Ed-

win

H.

Sutherland

nd Donald

R.

Cressey,

Principles

f

Criminology, th

ed., Chicago:

J.

B.

Lippincott

Co., 1960,

p.

vi. He has

presented

n exhaustive

eview

of

the

mis-

taken

notions, criticisms,

attempted

re-

formulations,

nd

empirical

tests of the

theory

ontained

n a

sizable

body

of

litera-

ture. Donald

R.

Cressey,

Epidemiology

and

Individual Conduct:

A

Case

from

Criminology,

acific

ociological

Review,

3

(Fall, 1960), pp. 47-58.

For more

recent

literature see Donald R. Cressey,

The

Theory

of Differential

Association: An In-

troduction, ocial Problems,8 (Summer,

1960),

pp.

2-5.

James

F.

Short,

Jr.,

Dif-

ferential

Association

s a

Hypothesis:

Prob-

lems

of

Empirical

Testing,

Social

Prob-

lems,

8

(Summer,

1960),

pp.

14-25.

Henry

D.

McKay, Differential

Association and

Crime

Prevention: roblems

f

Utilization,

Social

Problems, (Summer,

960),

pp.

25-

37.

Albert

J.

Reiss,

Jr.,

and

A. Lewis

Rhodes,

An

Empirical

Test of

Differential

Association

Theory,

The

Journal

of

Re-

search

n Crime

nd

Delinquency,

1

(Janu-

ary,

1964), pp.

5-18.

Harwin

L.

Voss,

Dif-

ferentialAssociation and ReportedDelin-

quent

Behavior:

A

Replication,

Social

Problems,

12

(Summer,

1964), pp.

78-85.

Siri

Naess,

Comparing

Theories

of

Crimi-

nogenesis,

The

Journal

of

Research in

Crime

nd

Delinquency,

(July,

1964), pp.

171-180.

C.

R.

Jeffery,Criminal

Behavior

and

Learning

Theory,

The Journal

of

Criminal

Law,

Criminology

nd Police

Sci-

ence,

56

(September,

1965), pp.

294-300.

2

The

original

formal

tatement

ppeared

in Edwin

H.

Sutherland,

Principles of

Criminology,

rd

ed.,

Philadelphia: J.

B.

Lippincott

Co.,

1939,

pp.

4-8.

The

terms,

systematic

nd

consistency long

with

some

statements

referring

o

social

dis-

organization

nd culture

conflictwere

de-

leted

in

the revised

theory.

Two

sentences

stating

that criminal

behavior is

learned

were added and the terms learned and

learning

were

ncluded n other

entences.

The modalities

of

duration,

priority,

nd

intensity

ere

added. The

revised

theory

s

in

Sutherland and

Cressey,

op.

cit.,

pp.

77-79.

For

Cressey's

discussion of

why

he

left the

theory

n

its

1947

form see

ibid.,

p.

vi.







Criminal

ehavior

129

organization-accounted

or heknown

data on

thefull

range

of

crimes,

n-

cludingconventional iolations nd

white-collar

rimes.3 he

theory

as

received

ome ther

mpirical

upport,4

but

negative

cases have also

been

found.5 he

attempts

o

subject

he

theory

o

empirical

est remarked

y

inconsistent

indings

oth

within he

same

study

nd between

tudies,

s

well

as

by

highly

ircumscribednd

qualified findings

nd

conclusions.

Whetherhe

particular

esearcheron-

cludes hathis findingso or do not

seem

to

support

he

theory, early

ll

have

ndicated

ifficulty

n

operational-

izing

he

oncepts

nd

recommend

hat

the

theory

e

modified

n such a

way

that

t

becomes

more menable

o em-

pirical esting.

Suggested

heoretical

modifications

have

not been

lacking,

utthe

diffi-

cultywith theserestatementss that

they

re

no more

readily

perational-

ized than

Sutherland's.6

ne

recent

paper,

owever,

y

DeFleur

nd

Quin-

ney,7

offersnew

promise

that

the

theory

an be

adequately

perational-

ized.

They

have

presented

detailed

strategy

or

makingpecific

eductions

for

empirical

esting.

ut

while

they

have

clarified

he

problems

n the

der-

ivation

and

generation

f

testable

hypothesesromdifferentialssocia-

tion,

hey

till

ee

its

empirical

alida-

tion

as a

very

difficult,

hough

not

impossible

ask.

Regardless

f the

particular

riti-

cisms,

he

exceptions

aken,

nd

the

difficulties

nvolved n

testing

nd

re-

formulating

he

theory

hathavebeen

offered,

ew

take

exception

o

the

central

earning

ssumptions

n

differ-

ential

association.

f we

accept

the

basicassumptionhat riminal ehav-

ior is

learned

by

the same

processes

and

involves

he same mechanisms

s

conforming

ehavior,

henwe

need

to

recognize

nd

make

use of the

current

knowledge

bout these

processes

nd

mechanisms.either he

extant tate-

ment

f the

theory

or the

reformula-

tions f it

make

xplicit

he

nature f

the

underlying

earning

process

n-

volved

in

differentialssociation.

n

short, o majorrevisions ave been

made

utilizing

established

earning

principles.

That

this

type

of

revision f the

theory

s

neededhas been

recognized

and some

riticismf

differentialsso-

3

Ibid.,

pp.

77-80.

Edwin

H.

Sutherland,

White Collar

Crime,

New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart nd

Winston,

1961,

pp.

234-256

(originallypublished1949).

See

also Cres-

sey's Foreword, bid., p. x.

4

John C. Ball,

Delinquent

and

Non-

Delinquent

Attitudes

Toward the

Preva-

lence

of

Stealing,

The

Journal

f

Criminal

Law, Crimnonology

nd Police

Science,

48

(September-October, 1957), pp. 259-274.

James

F.

Short,

Differential

Association

and

Delinquency,

ocial

Problems,

,

(Jan-

uary, 1957),

pp.

233-239.

Short,

Differ-

ential

Associationwith

Delinquent

Friends

and

Delinquent

Behavior,

Pacific

Sociolo-

gical Review,

1

(Spring,

1958), pp.

20-25.

Short,

Differential

Association

as

a

Hy-

pothesis, op.

cit.

Voss, op.

cit.

Donald R.Cressey, Application nd Verification fthe

Differential

ssociation

Theory,

The

Jour-

nal

of

Criminal

Law,

Criminology

and

Police

Science,

43

(May-June,1952),

pp.

47-50.

Cressey,

Other

People's Money,

Glen-

coe,

Ill.: The

Free

Press,1953,

pp.

147-149.

Glaser, op.

cit.,

pp. 7-10.

5

Marshall

Clinard,

The Black

Market,

New

York:

Rinehart

Co.,

1952,

pp.

285-

329.

Marshall

Clinard, Rural

Criminal

Offenders,

merican

Journal f Sociology,

50

(July, 1944),

pp.

38-45.

Edwin M.

Lemert,

An

Isolation

and Closure

Theory

of Naive Check Forgery, The Journalof

Criminal

Law,

Criminology

and

Police

Science,44,

(September-October,

953),

pp.

293-307.

Reiss and

Rhodes,

op.

cit.

Cressey,

Application

and Verification f the

Dif-

ferential

Association

Theory, op.

cit.,

pp.

51-52.

Cressey,

Other

People's

Money,

op.

cit.,

pp.

149-151.

Glaser,

op.

cit.,

pp.

12-13.

6

See Daniel

Glaser,

Criminality

heo-

ries

and Behavioral

Images,

American

Journal

f

Sociology,

1

(March,1956),

pp.

433-444.

Glaser,

Differential

Association

and Criminological Prediction, op. cit.,

pp.

10-13.

Naess,

op.

cit.,

pp.

174-179.

?

Melvin

DeFleur and Richard

Quinney,

A Reformulationf Sutherland's ifferen-

tial

Association

Theory

and

a

Strategy

or

Empirical

Verification, ournal

f

Research

in Crime and

Delinquency,

3

(January,

1966),

p.

13.







130

SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

ciation

has

revolved

round

the

fact

that t does not

adequately

ortray

he

process ywhich riminal ehaviors

learned.

ut as

Cressey

xplains:

It is

one

thing

o

criticise

he

theory

or

failureo

specify

he

earning

rocess

c-

curately

nd

another o

specify

which

aspects

f the

earning

rocess

hould

be

included

nd

in what

way.8

Sutherland,

f

course,

was as

inter-

ested

n

explaining

he

epidemiology

of

crime s in

explaining

ow the

n-

dividual omes o

engage

n

behavior

in violationf the awand nsistedhat

the two

explanations

ust

be consis-

tent.9

Differentialocial

organization

(normative

onflict)

as been

uccess-

ful n

making

ense of

variationsn

crime

ates.

ut

differential

ssociation

has

been

ess

successfuln

explicating

the

process

y

which his

differential

organization

roduces

ndividual

rimi-

nality.

his

seems

o be

due

notto

the

lack

of

importance

f

associationsor

criminalehavior ut:

...

rather

o

the

fact hat he

heory

ut-

ran

the

capacity

f

either

sychology

r

social

psychology

o

give

dequate,

cien-

tific

nswers

o the

uestion

f

why

here

are such

qualitative

selective)

differ-

encesn

human

ssociation.io

It now

appears,

owever,

hat here

is a

body

of

verified

heory

hich s

adequate

o

the

ask

f

accurately

peci-

fying

his

process.

Modern

earningtheoryeems apableofproviding

n-

sights

nto

the

problem

of

uniting

structural

nd

genetic

formulations.

While

sociologists

now

a

great

deal

about

he tructuref

the

environment

fromwhichdeviantsome,we know

very

ittlebout

he

determining

aria-

bles

operating

ithin

his

nvironment.

The

burden f

criminologicalheory

today

is to combine

knowledge

f

structural

ressures

ith

explanations

of

why

nly

ome of the

persons

n

whom

his

pressure

s exerted

ecome

non-conformists. 1'

It is forthisreason

hat

he

recent

effort

y

C. R.

Jeffery

o

re-examine

differentialssociation n light of

modern

earning

heory

marks

new

departure

nthe bundance

f

thinking

and

writing

hathas characterized

he

intellectual

istory

f this

theory,.2

In

spite

of

their

ntricate

xiomatiza-

tion

of

the

theory,

DeFleur

and

Quinney,

or

example,

ecognize

hat

even

they

have left the

learning

process

n differential

ssociation

n-

specified.

ut,

they

ote,

modern

e-

inforcementearningtheorywould

handle this

problem

'. 1

This

is

precisely

hat

Jeffery

roposed

o

do

and

to the

extenthat

his

bjective

s

served

by

discussing

earning

heory

and criminal

ehavior

ogether,

e

is

at

least

partially

uccessful.

owever,

Jeffery

oes not n

factmake t

clear

just

how

Sutherland's

ifferential

sso-

ciation

heory

may

be

revised. is ex-

planation

ncorporates

ifferential

e-

inforcement:

-.

[A]

criminal

ct

occursn an

en-

vironmentn

which

n

the

past

the

ctor

hasbeen

reinforced

or

behaving

n

this

manner,

and the aversive

consequences

attached to

the behavior

have

been

of

such a nature

that

they

do

not

control

or

prevent

the

resoonse.14

This

statement,

s it

stands,

ears

no

obviousor

direct elation

o

Suther-

land's differential

ssociation,ndno-where lse does

Jeffery

ake t clear

8

Cressey,

Epidemiology

nd

Individual

Conduct,

op. cit.,

p.

54.

9

Sutherland

nd

Cressey, p.

cit.,

p.

80.

Albert K.

Cohen,

Alfred R.

Lindesmith,

and Karl F.

Schuessler

eds.),

The

Suther-

land

Papers,

Bloomington:

Indiana

Uni-

versityPublications,

Social

Science

Series,

No.

15, 1956,

pp. 5-42.

That

Sutherland

intended an explanation of the two-fold

problem

of

rates

of crime and

individual

criminal

behavior

is,

of

course,

the

basic

point

of

Cressey's

paper,

Epidemiology

and

Individual

Conduct,

op.

cit.

o10

eorge

B.

Vold,

Theoretical

Crimi-

nology,

New

York: Oxford

University

Press, 1958,

p.

198.

11

Cressey,

The

Theory

of

Differential

Association,

op. cit.,

p.

5.

12

Jeffery,

p.

cit.

13

DeFleur

and

Quinney,

op.

cit.,

p.

3.

14

Ibid.,

p.

295.







Criminal

ehavior

131

howdifferentialeinforcement

s

a

re-

formulation

f

differentialssociation.

Jeffery

oes discussmodern

earning

principles,

ut he doesnot showhow

these

principles

may

be

incorporated

within

he framework

f

Sutherland's

theory,

or how these

principles

may

lead

to

explanations

f

past

empirical

findings.

Jeffery's

heory

nd

his

discussion

of criminal

ehavior

nd

learning

he-

ory

remains otso much

ncorrect

s

unconvincing.

His

presentation

f

learningrinciplesssupportedholly

by

referenceo

experiments

ith ower

organisms

nd

his extensiono

criminal

behavior

s

mainly hrough

necdotal

and illustrative

aterial. he

potential

valueand

impact

f

Jeffery's

rticles

diminished

y

not

calling

ttention

o

the

lready

arge

nd

growing

ody

f

literaturen

experimental

ehavioral

science,

specially

vidence

sing

hu-

man

subjects,

hat

has direct

mplica-

tions ordifferentialssociationheory.

We

are

basically

n

agreement

ith

Jeffery

hat

earning

heory

as

pro-

gressed

o the

point

where t

seems

likely

hat

differential

ssociation

an

be restated

n

a more

ophisticated

nd

testable

orm n the

anguage

f mod-

ern

earning heory.

ut

that

restate-

mentmust

e

attempted

na

thorough

fashion

efore

we can

expect

thers o

accept

t.

Jefferyegins

o do

this

nd

his thoughtsre significant,ut they

do nottake nto

ccount

he

theory

s

a whole.

The amount f

empirical

esearch

n

the

social

psychology

f

learning

clearly

as

shown hat he

concepts

n

learning

heory

re

susceptible

o

oper-

ationalization.

herefore,

pplying

n

integrated

etof

learning

rinciples

o

differential

ssociation

heory

hould

adequately rovide

herevision eeded

forempiricalesting. hese learning

principles

re

basedon

literally

hou-

sands

of

experimental

ours

overing

a

wide

range

f

the

phylogenetic

cale

and

more

nearly

onstitute

mpirically

derived

awsof behavior

han

ny

ther

set of

principles.

hey

nable

hehan-

dling

f a

great

ariety

f observational

as well as

experimental

vidence

bout

human

behavior.

It

is

the

purpose

f this

aper

o

take

the

first

tep

n the

direction

o which

Jeffery

oints.

A

restatement

f

the

theory,

ot

an alternative

heory,

ill

be

presented,

lthough,

f

necessity,

certain

deas

not ntrinsic

o

differential

association

ill have

to

be

introduced

and additions

will be made

to

the

original

propositions.

t should be

pointed ut thatDeFleur ndQuinneyhave been able to demonstratehat

Sutherland's

ropositions,

hen

tated

in the

formf set

theory,

ppear

o be

internally

onsistent.

y arranging

he

propositions

naxiomatic

orm,

tating

them in

logical

rather

han verbal

symbols,hey

have

brought

he

theo-

retical

grammar p

to

date.'5

Such

is notourintention

n this

paper,

t

all.

We

recognize

nd

appreciate

he

importancef statinghepropositions

in

a

formal,

eductive

ashion.We do

feel,

however,

hat his ask

s,

at the

present

ime,

ubsidiary

o the more

urgent

ask of:

(1)

making

xplicit

the

learning

process,

s it is now

understood

by

modern behavioral

science,

rom

whichthe

propositions

of

differentialssociation

can be

derived;

2) fully

reformulating

he

theory,

tatement

y

tatement,

n

light

of the urrentnowledgefthisearn-

ing

process;

nd

(3)

helping

rimi-

nologists

ecome ware f

the

dvances

in

earningheory

nd researchhat re

directly

elevant

o

an

explanation

f

criminal

ehavior.16

o claim smade

that

hisconstitutes final

tatement.

If it has

any

eminal alue at

all,

that

is,

if t

provokes

serious

ew

ook at

15

DeFleur

and

Quinney, op.

cit.

16

Our main concernhere,of course, s

with

the

nine

statements f

the

theory

s

a

genetic

explanation

of the

process

by

which the

individual comes to

engage

in

illegal

behavior.We do

not

lose

sight

of

the

fact, however,

that this must

be

inte-

grated

with

explanations

of

the variation

and locationof crime.







132

SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

the

heory

nd

encourages

urther

ffort

in this

direction,

ur

objective

will

have

beenserved.

Differential

ssociationnd

Modern

Behavior

heory

In this ection

henine

formal

rop-

ositionsn

which

utherland

xpressed

his

theory

will

be

analyzed

n

terms

of behavior

heory

nd

research

nd

will be

reformulateds seven

new

propositions.See

Table

1.)

I.

Criminal

ehaviors

earned. III.The

process

f

learning

riminal

e-

havior

y

ssociation ith

riminalnd

anti-criminal

atterns

nvolves

ll of

the

mechanismshatare

involvedn

any

other

earning.

Since

both

he

firstnd

eighth

en-

tencesn

the

theory

bviously

orm

unitary

dea,

t

seems est o state hem

together.

utherland as

aware that

these

tatements

id not

ufficiently

e-

scribe he earningrocess, 7utthese

two

temseaveno

doubt hat ifferen-

tial

association

heory

as meant

o fit

into a

general

xplanation

f

human

behavior

nd,

as much s

unambigu-

ously

tated n the

prefatory

emarks

of the

heory:

n

explanation

f crim-

inal

behavior

houldbe a

specific

art

of

a

generaltheory

f

behavior. 's

Modernbehavior

heory

s a

general

theoryprovidesus with a goodidea ofwhat hemechanismsrethat

are

involved n

the

process

f

acquir-

ing

behavior.'9

According

o

this

theory,

here

re

two

major

ategories

f

behavior. n

the one

hand,

heres reflexiver

re-

spondent ehaviorwhich s behavior

that

s

governed y

the

stimuli

hat

elicit it.

Such behaviors re

largely

associated

with he

autonomic

ystem.

The

work

f

Pavlov s

of

special

ignif-

icance ere.

On the

ther

and,

heres

operant

ehavior: ehaviorwhich n-

volves

he

central ervous

ystem.

x-

amples

of

operant

behavior

nclude

verbal

behavior,

laying

all,

driving

a car,and buying new suit. t hasbeenfound hat his lass ofbehavior

is a

function f its

past

and

present

environmental

onsequences.

Thus,

when

particular

perant

s

followed

by

certain

indsof

stimuli,

hat

be-

havior's

requency

f

occurrence

ill

increase

n

thefuture. hese

stimuli

are

called

reinforcingtimuli

r

re-

inforcers20

nd include

food,

money,

17

Cressey,

960,

op.

cit.,p.

54.

18

Sutherland nd

Cressey,

p. cit.,

p.

75.

19

It should

be

mentioned t the

outset

thatthere s

more

thanone

learning

heory.

The

one

we

will

employ

s

called

Behavior

Theory.

More

specifically,

t

is

that

variety

of

behavior

theory

argely

associated

with

the name of B.

F.

Skinner.

(Science

and

Human Behavior,New York: Macmillan,

1953.)

It differs romother

earning

theo-

ries in

that t

restrictstself

o

the

relations

between

observable,

measurable

behavior

and

observable,

measurable conditions.

There is

nothing

n this

theory

hat

denies

the

existence,

or

importance,

r

even

the

inherent

nterest

f the

nervous

system

r

brain.

However,

most

behavioral scientistsin this area are

extremely

areful in

hy-

pothesizing

intervening

variables or

con-

structs,

hether

hey

re

egos,personalities,

response ets,or

some

sort

of

internal

om-

puters.

Generally they adopt

the position

that the

only

real value of a construct

s

its

ability

to

improve

one's

predictions.

f it

does

not,

then

it must be excluded in

ac-

cordance

with

the

rule

of

parsimony.

20 It has

been said by some that a

tau-

tology

s

involvedhere. But

there s

nothing

tautological

about

classifying

events

in

termsof their

effects. s

Skinner,

p. cit.,

pp. 72-73, has noted,this criterion s both

empirical

nd

objective.

There is

only

one

sure

way

of

telling

whether

r not

a

given

stimulus

event is

reinforcing

o a

given

individual under

given

conditions nd that

is to make a

direct test:

observe

the fre-

quency

of a

selected

behavior,

then

make

a stimulus event

contingentupon

it

and

observe

any change

in

frequency.

f

there

is a

change

in

frequency

hen we

may

classify

he stimulus

as

reinforcing

o the

individual

under

the

stated

conditions.Our

reasoning

would become

circular,

however,

if we went on to assert hat givenstimulus

strengthens

he

behavior because

it

is

re-

inforcing. Furthermore,

not all

stimuli,

when

presented,

will

increase

he

frequency

of the

behaviorwhich

produced

hem.

ome

stimuli

will

increase

the

frequency

f

the

behavior which

removes

them,

still

others

will neither

strengthen

nor

weaken

the







Criminal ehavior

133

clothes,

bjects

fvarious

orts,

ocial

attention,

pproval,

ffection

nd

social

status.This entireprocess s called

positive

reinforcement.ne distin-

guishing

haracteristicf

operant

e-

havior s

opposed

o

respondent

ehav-

ior,

hen,

s

that he atters a function

of its

antecedent

timuli,

hereas he

former

s a

functionf itsantecedent

environmental

onsequences.

Typically,perant

nd

respondent

behaviors ccur

together

n an indi-

vidual's

everyday

ehavior,

nd

they

interactn extremelyntricate ays.

Consequently,

o

fully

nderstand

ny

set of

patternedesponses,

he

nvesti-

gator

hould bserve he effects

f the

operants

n the

respondents

s well

as

the effectsf the

respondents

n

the

operants.

The

connections etween

operant

nd

respondent

ehaviors

re

especially

rucial

o an

analysis

f atti-

tudes,

motional

nd

conflictehaviors.

In

everyday

ife,

different

onse-

quencesare usuallycontingentpon

different

lassesof

behavior.

his re-

lationship

etween

behavior nd

its

consequences

unctionso alter

herate

and

form

f

behavior swell as

its

re-

lationship

o

many

eaturesf

the

en-

vironment. he

process

of

operant

reinforcement

s themost

important

process

y

which ehavior

s

generated

and

maintained.

here

re,

n

fact,

ix

possible

environmental

onsequences

relativeo theLaw ofOperant ehav-

ior.

(1)

A

behavior

may

produce

er-

tain

stimulus vents nd

thereby

n-

crease in

frequency.

As we have

indicated

bove,

uch

timulirecalled

positive

einforcersnd

the

process

s

called

positive

einforcement.

2)

A

behavior

may

remove,

void,

or ter-

minate

certain

timulus vents and

thereby

ncrease

n

frequency.

uch

stimuli

re

termed

egative

einforcers

and the

process,

negative

reinforce-

ment.

3)

A

behavior

may

produce

certaintimulusvents

nd

thereby

e-

crease n frequency.uch stimuli recalled aversive timuli

r,

morere-

cently,

unishers.21

he entire

ehav-

ioral

process

s called

positive unish-

ment.

4)

A

behavior

may

remove r

terminateertain timulus vents nd

thereby

ecrease

n

frequency.

uch

stimuli re

positive

einforcersndthe

process

s

termed

egative

unishment.

(5)

A

behavior

may

produce

r

re-

move ertain

timulus

vents

which

o

not changethe behavior's requency

at

all. Such stimuli

re

called

neutral

stimuli.

6)

A

behavior

ay

no

longer

produce

ustomary

timulusvents nd

thereby

ecrease

n

frequency.

he

stimuli

hich

re

produced

re

neutral

stimuli,

nd the

process,

xtinction.

When

reinforcing

timulus o

longer

functionso increase he future

rob-

ability

f

the

behavior

hich

roduced

it,

we

say

he

ndividual

s

satiated.

o

restorehereinforcingropertyfthe

stimulus e need

only

deprive

he n-

dividual

f itfor time.22

The increasen the

frequency

foc-

currence

f

a

behavior

hat s rein-

forced

s the

very

property

f

rein-

forcementhat

permits

he

fascinating

variety

nd

subtlety

hat occur in

operant

s

opposed

to

respondent

e-

havior.Another

rocess roducing

he

variety

e

see

in

behavior

s that

of

conditioning. hen a primaryr un-

conditioned

einforcing

timulus

uch

as

food

is

repeatedly

aired

with a

neutral

timulus,

he

atterwill

even-

tually

unctions

a

reinforcing

timu-

lus

as

well. An

illustration

f this

would be as

follows.The

milk a

mother

eedsto her

nfant s an

un-

conditionedeinforcer.

f

the

food

s

behavior

hich

roduced

hem.

ee

Rob-

ert

L.

Burgess,

onald

.

Akers,

Are

Operant

Principles

autological

The

Psychological

Record,

16

(July,

1966),

pp.

305-312.

21 N.

H.

Azrin and D. F. Hake,

Con-

ditionedPunishment, Journal of the Ex-

perimentalAnalysis

of Behavior,

8

(Sep-

tember,

965), pp.

279-293.

22

See

Jacob

L.

Gewirtz and

Donald M.

Baer,

Deprivation

and

Satiation

of Social

Reinforcers

s Drive

Conditions,

Journal

of

Abnormal and Social

Psychology,57,

1958,

pp.

165-172.







134

SocIAL PROBLEMS

repeatedly

aired

with

ocial

ttention,

affection,

nd

approval,

hese latter

will

eventually

ecome

einforcing

s

will themother erself s a stimulus

object.

Later these

conditioned ein-

forcers

an

be usedto

strengthen

ther

behaviors

y

making

hesereinforcers

contingent

pon

thosenew

behaviors.

Differentialeinforcement

ay

lso

alter

he

form f

a

response.

his

pro-

cess s called

haping

r

response

if-

ferentiation.

t can

be

exemplified

y

a

child

earning

o

speak.

At

first,

he

parentwill reinforcenyvocalization,

but

as

time

wears

n,

and

as thechild

grows

older,

he

parent

will

differen-

tially

reinforce

nly

those

responses

which

uccessfully

pproximate

ertain

criteria. he

childwillbe seento

pro-

ceed

frommere

grunts

o

baby-talk

to articulate

peech.23

Of

course,

rganisms,

hether

i-

geons, monkeys

r

people,

do

not

usually go

around

behaving

n

all

possibleways t all possible imes.n

short,

ehavior oes

not

occur

n a

vacuum;

a

given

behavior s

appro-

priate

o

a

given

ituation.

y

appro-

priate

we mean hat einforcementas

been

forthcomingnly

undercertain

conditionsnd it is under hesecon-

ditions

hat the

behavior

will occur.

In other

words,

ifferential

einforce-

ment ot

only

ncreases

he

probability

of a

response,

t

also makesthat

re-

sponsemoreprobable ponthe recur-

renceof

conditions

he same as or

similar to

those

that were

present

during

previous

einforcements.uch

a

process

s calledstimulusontrol r

stimulus iscrimination.or

example,

a

child

when

he

is

first

aught

o

say

daddy

may

repeat

t when

ny

male

is

present,

r

even,

n the

very

egin-

ning,

when

any

adult s

present.

ut

through

ifferential

einforcement,

he

child

will

eventually

nly

speak

the

word

daddy

when his father

s

presentr in other appropriate on-

ditions.We

may

say

thatthe

father,

as

a

stimulus

bject,

functionss

a

discriminativetimulus

SD)

setting

the occasionfor the

operant

verbal

responsedaddy

because

n

the

past

such

behavior

as been

reinforced

n-

der such conditions.

It has also beendiscoveredhat

he

pattern

r

schedule

f reinforcements

as importants the amount f rein-

forcement.

or

example,

fixed-inter-

val

schedule

f

reinforcement,

here

a

response

s reinforced

nly

after

certain mount

of

time has

passed,

produces

lower ate

f

response

han

that btained ith einforcementased

on a

fixed-ratio

chedule

where

re-

sponse

s

reinforced

nly

fter certain

number

f

responses

ave

lready

een

emitted.

imilarly

response

ate

ob-

tainedwith a fixed-ratiochedule s

lower

han

hatobtained

with

vari-

able-ratio

chedule,

where reinforce-

ment

occurs

for

a

certain

roportion

of

responses

andomly

ariedabout

some entralalue.

A

schedule

f

rein-

forcement,

hen,

eferso the

response

contingenciespon

which

reinforce-

ment

depends.

All of the various

schedules

of

reinforcement,

esides

producing

awful

response

haracter-

istics, roduceawful xtinctionates,

once reinforcements discontinued.

Briefly,

ehavior

einforced

n

an in-

termittentchedule

takes

longer

to

extinguish

han

ehavior

einforcedn

a continuouschedule.

This

concept,

chedules

freinforce-

ment,

s

onethe

mplications

f which

are little nderstood

ymany

behav-

ioral

scientists,

o

a few

additional

words

re

in

order.

irst f

all,

social

reinforcementsre forthe mostpart

intermittent.ne obvious

resultof

thisfact s the

resistance

o extinction

and

satiation f

much social

behav-

ior,

desirable

s

well

as

undesirable.

This is not

peculiar

o human ocial

23

This seems to be theprocess nvolved

in learning to become a marihuana user.

By

successive

approximations,

the user

learns

(from

others)

to close

on the

ap-

propriate

techniques

and effects f

using

marihuana. See Howard S. Becker,

Out-

siders,

Glencoe, ll.: The Free Press,

1963,

pp.

41-58.







Criminal ehavior

135

behavior,

or even lower

organisms

seldom

are faced with a continuous

reinforcement

chedule.

Nevertheless,

reinforcementsediatedby another

organism

re

probably

much

essreli-

able than those

produced

by

the

physical

nvironment.

his is the case

becausesocial reinforcement

epends

upon

behavioral

rocesses

n therein-

forcer

hich renotunder

ood

con-

trol

by

the reinforcee. more

ubtle,

though ssentially

ethodological,

m-

plication

f

this

s thatbecausemost

social behaviors re maintained y

complex

ntermittentcheduleswhich

havebeen

haped

ver

long

period

f

time,

social

observer,

ewly

ntering

a

situation

ay

have extreme

ifficulty

in

immediately

etermining

xactly

what s

maintaining

particular

ehav-

ior or set

of

behaviors.

or

can the

individual

imself

e

expected

o be

able to

identify

is

own

contingencies

ofreinforcement.24

An importantspect f thistheory

is the

presentation

fthe

general

ways

that stimuli

and

responses

an be

formed

nto

complex

onstellations

f

stimulus-response

vents.

lthough

he

basic

principles

re

simple

nd must e

separated

to

distinguish

nd

study

them,

n actual

ife he

principles

unc-

tion

n

concert,

nd

consist

f

complex

arrays

nd constellations.25

uch

com-

plexity

an be

seen in

the fact that

singleS-R eventsmaybe combined

into

sequences

n the

basis

of condi-

tioning

rinciples.

hat

is,

responses

can be

thought

o have

stimulus

rop-

erties.

n

addition,

more

hanone re-

sponse

may

omeunder

hecontrol

f

a

particular

timulus.

hus,

whenthe

stimulus

ccurs,

t will

tend

o

set

the

occasion

or hevarious

esponses

hat

havebeen

conditioned

o

it.

These re-

sponsesmay

be

competitive,

hat

s,

only

ne

or

theother

an

occur.When

this sso,theparticularesponse hich

does

occur

may

lso

depend pon

ther

discriminative

timuli

resent

n the

situationhat

ontrol

nly

one or the

other

esponse.

inally,

hile omeof

the

stimuli owhich

n

individual e-

sponds

manate rom he

external n-

vironment,

ocial

and

otherwise,

ome

comefrom

is own

behavior. n

indi-

vidual

s,

then,

not

only

a

source

f

responses,e is also a source f somestimuli-stimulihat an effectisown

behavior.

The

most

general

behavioral

rin-

ciple

s

the

Law of

Operant

ehavior

which

ays

hat

behaviors a

function

of its

past

and current

nvironmental

consequences.

herehave

beennumer-

ous

studieswith

hildren26

s well as

adults27

hich

ndicate hat

ndividual

behavior

onforms

o

this

law. Of

muchmore nteresto sociologistss

an

experimentesigned

y

Azrin

nd

Lindsley

n

195628

o

investigateo-

operative

ocialbehavior. heir

study

demonstrated

hat

ooperative

ehavior

couldbe

developed,

maintained,

limi-

nated

nd

reinstated

olely

hrough

he

manipulation

f the

contingency

e-

tween

einforcing

timuli

nd

the

co-

operative

esponse.

his

basic

finding

has

received

much

ubsequentupport.It has alsobeendemonstratedhatnot

only

cooperative

ehavior,

ut

also

competitive

ehavior

nd

leading

nd

24

Cressey encountered

his

problem

in

trying o get trust violators to reconstruct

past

associations.

Cressey,

Other

People's

Money,

op. cit., p.

149.

25

Arthur

Staats,

An

Integrated-Func-

tional

Learning Approach

to

Comolex

Hu-

man

Behavior,

Technical

Report

28,

Con-

tract

ONR and

Arizona

State

University,

1965.

26

See,

for

example,

S. W.

Bijou

and P.

T.

Sturges,

Positive

Reinforcers

or Ex-

perimental

Studies

with

Children-Con-

sumables and

Manipulatables,

Child

De-

velopment,

0, 1959,

pp.

151-170.

27

J.

G.

Holland,

Human

Vigilance,

Science, 128,

1959, pp.

61-67; Harold

Weiner, ConditioningHistory nd Human

Fixed-Interval Performance,

Journal

of

the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,

7

(September,

1964), pp.

383-385.

28

N.

H. Azrin

and

O.

R.

Lindsley, The

Reinforcement

of

Cooperation

Between

Children,

The Journal

of

Abnormal and

Social

Psychology,

2

(January,

956).







136

SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

following

ehavior re a function f

their

ast

and

present

onsequences.

Another fthebehavioralrincipleswementionedas that f stimulusis-

crimination.

discriminativetimulus

is a stimulusn the

presence

f

which

a

particularperant

esponse

s rein-

forced.Much

f

our

behavioras come

under he control f certain nviron-

mental,

ncluding

ocial timuli

ecause

in the

past

it

has beenreinforced

n

the

presence

f those stimuli. n an

experiment

y

Donald

Cohen,29

normal 3-year-oldoynamedJustin,

when

placed

under

dentical

xperi-

mental onditions

mitted ifferent

e-

haviors

depending pon

whether

is

partner

as his

mother,

rother,ister,

friend,

r

a

stranger.

he

resultsf

this

investigation

emonstrated

hat

Jus-

tin's

social behavior

was

differentially

controlled

y

reinforcement;

ut t also

demonstrated

hat

is

behavior asdif-

ferent

dependingupon

the social

stimuli resent, husreaffirminghe

principle

f

stimulus iscrimination.

In other

words,

he

dynamic

roperties

of his social

behavior,

whether

o-

operative,ompetitive,

eading

r

fol-

lowing,

were

ontrolled

y

his

previous

extra-experimental

istory

with his

teammates,

lthough

he

experimenter

could

change

thosebehaviors

y

ex-

perimentally

ltering

he

contingencies

of reinforcement.

t

is,

of

course,

l-

most truismosay hat n individual

behaves

ifferently

n the

presence

f

different

eople.

The

significance

f

this

experiment,

owever,

s

thatthe

investigator

as

able

to

isolate

the

determining

ariables nd

the

prin-

ciplesby

which

hey perated

o

pro-

duce this

ommon

henomenon.

While this s

by

no means com-

plete

survey

of

the relevant

experimental

ests

of the

behavioral

principles

utlined

bove, tmay erve

to

point

out that

many

formsof

normal

social

behavior function

according

o

the Law of

Operant

e-

havior.Butwhat bout deviant e-havior?Can we be surethese same

principles

re

operating

ere?

Unfor-

tunately

here

have been

no studies

which

attempt

o

test

directly

he

relevancef these ehavioral

rinciples

to

criminal

ehavior.

ut

there

have

been several

experimental

nvestiga-

tionsof

deviant ehaviors

mitted

y

mental

patients.

or

example,

n

a

study y

Ayllon

nd

Michael,30

t was

shown thatthe bizarrebehaviors f

psychotics

unctioned

ccording

to

these

earning

rinciples.

n this

par-

ticular

tudy

arious

ehavioral

rob-

lems f

psychotic

atients

ere

cured

through

he

manipulation

f

reinforce-

ment

ontingencies.

uch

principles

s

extinction,

egative

nd

positive

ein-

forcement,

nd atiation

ere

ffectively

utilized o

eliminatehe

unwanted e-

haviors.31

his

study

was

one

of the

firstxperimentalests f theconten-

tion hat

not

only

onforming

ut

lso

many

unusual,

nappropriate,

r un-

desirable

behaviors

re

shaped

and

maintained

hrough

ocial

reinforce-

ment.

n

another

xperiment

saacs,

Thomas,

and

Goldiamond3 2demon-

strate

hat

omplex

djustive

ehaviors

can be

operantly

onditioned

n

long-

term

sychotics

y

manipulating

vail-

able reinforcers.

In yetanothernvestigation,33he

29

Donald

J.

Cohen, Justin

and His

Peers:

an

Experimental

Analysis

of

a

Child's Social

World,

Child

Develop-

ment, 3,

1962.

30 T.

Ayllon

and

J.Michael,

The

Psy-

chiatricNurse as a Behavioral Engineer,

Journal

of

the

ExperimentalAnalysis of

Behavior, 2, 1959,

pp.

323-334.

31

There

is,

of

course,

no intention n

our

part

to

equate

mental

llnessor simi-

larly

severe behavior

problems

with crimi-

nal behavior.

The

only

connection

hat we

are

making

is that both

may

be

seen

to

function

ccording

to the same basic be-

havioral

principles

and

both

may

be

in

opposition to establishednorms.

32

W.

Isaacs,

J.

Thomas,

and

I. Goldia-

mond,

Application

of

Operant

Condition-

ing

to

Reinstate Verbal

Behavior in

Psy-

chotics,

Journal

of Speech

and

Disorders,

25, 1960,

pp.

8-12.

33

T.

Ayllon

and

N.

Azrin,

The

Mea-

surement

nd Reinforcement

f

Behavior of







Criminal ehavior

137

personnel

of

a

mental

hospital

ward

for

schizophrenics

ecorded

he behav-

ior of thepatients nd providedconse-

quences

to it

according

to certain

pre-

established

procedures.

Without

going

into the

many

mportant

etails

of this

long

investigation,

we

may

note

that

in each of the six

experiments

hat

were

carried

out,

the

results demon-

strate hat reinforcement as

effective

in

maintaining

desired

performances,

even

though

these

were

back-ward

psychotics

who

had resisted

all

pre-

vioustherapy,ncluding sychoanalysis,

electroshock

herapy, obotomies

and

so forth.

In

each

experiment,

he

performance

fell to a

near

ero

evelwhen

heestab-

lished

response-reinforcement

elation

was

discontinued..

.

The standard

procedure

or

reinforcement

ad

been

to

provide

okens...

[exchanged]

or

a

variety

f reinforcers.erformancee-

creasedwhen his

response-reinforcement

relation as disrur~ted1) by delivering

tokens ndependentlyf the responsewhile stillallowing xchange f tokens

for

the

reinforcers

Exp

II and

III),

(2)

by discontinuing

he token

ystem

entirely

ut providingontinuingccess

to the reinforcersExp IV), or (3) by

discontinuing

he

delivery

f tokens

or

a

previously

einforced

esponse

while

simultaneously

roviding

okens

for a

different,

lternative

esponse Exp I

and VI). Further,the effectiveness f

the reinforcement

rocedure

did not

ap-

pear

to

be

limited o an all-or-none

asis.

Patients selected

and

performed

he as-

signment hatprovided the largernum-

ber

of tokens

when reinforcement as

available

for

more than

one

assignment

(Exp

V).34

Again,

we cannot

review

all

of the

relevant

literature,

yet

perhaps

the

three

nvestigations

ited

will

serve

to

emphasize

that

many

forms

f deviant

behavior

are

shaped

and

maintained

by

various

contingencies

f reinforce-

ment.35

Given this

experimental

vi-

dence

we

would amend Sutherland's

first nd

eighth

ropositions

o read:

I.

Criminal ehaviors learned ccord-

ing

to the

principlesf operant

ondi-

tioning.

II.

Criminal ehavior s

learned

n

interaction ithother

persons

n

the

process

f

communication.

As

DeFleur and

Quinney

have

noted,

he

major

mplication

f this

proposition

s

that

ymbolic

nteraction

is

a

necessary

ondition

or he

earn-

ing of criminal ehavior.36f direct

relevance o this is an

experiment

designed

o test he

elative

ignificance

of

verbal

nstructions

nd

reinforce-

ment

ontingencies

n

generating

nd

maintaining

certain lass of

behav-

iors.37n

brief,

he

results

ndicated

that

behavior ould

not

be maintained

solely

through

verbal instructions.

However,

t was also

discovered

hat

it was an

extremely

rduous

ask to

shape setofcomplex ehaviors ith-

out

using

verbal nstructions

s

dis-

criminative timuli.

Behavior was

quickly

nd

effectively

eveloped

nd

maintained

y

a

combination

fverbal

instructions

nd reinforcementonse-

quences.

ymbolic

nteraction

s,

then,

not

enough,contingencies

f

rein-

forcementust lso be

present.

From the

perspective

f modern

behavior

heory,

wo

aspects

f social-

ization re usually onsideredo dis-

tinguish

t from other

processes

f

behavioral

hange: (1) Only

those

behavioral

hanges

ccurringhrough

learning

re

considered

elevant;

2)

only

the

changes

n

behavior

aving

their

rigins

n interaction

ithother

Psychotics, Journal

of

the

Experimental

Analysis

of

Behavior,

8

(November,

1965),

pp.

357-383.

34

Ibid.,

p.

381.

35

See

also

J.

J.

Eysenck ed.),

Experi-

ments

n Behaviour

Therapy,

New

York:

Pergamon

Press,

The

Macmillan

Company,

1964.

L. Krasner

and

L.

UlIman,

Research

in Behavior

Modification,

ew York:

Holt,

Rinehart and

Winston,

1965.

L.

Ullman

and L. Krasner,Case Studies in Behavior

Modification,

New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart

and

Winston,

1964.

36

DeFleur and

Quinney,

op.

cit.,

p.

3.

37

T.

Ayllon

and N.

Azrin,

Reinforce-

ment

nd Instructions

ithMental

Patients,

Journal

of

the

Experimental

Analysis

of

Behavior, 7, 1964,

pp.

327-331.







138

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

persons

are

considered

roducts

f

socialization.8

Sutherland's

theory

may, hen, e seento be a theoryfdifferentialocializationince

he,

too,

restrictedimself o

learning

aving

its

origin

n

interaction

ith

other

persons.

While social

earning

s,

in-

deed,

mportant

nd

even

redominant,

it

certainly

oes not

exhaust he

earn-

ing

process.

n

short,

we

may

earn

(and,

thus,

our

behavior

would be

modified)

without

ny

direct ontact

with

nother

erson.

As

such,

uther-

land's theorymaybe seen to suffer

from

significant

acuna in

that

it

neglected

he

possibility

f

deviant

e-

havior

eing

earned

n

nonsocialitua-

tions.

Consequently,

o

be

an

adequate

theory

f

deviant

ehavior,

he

theory

must

be

amended urthero

include

thoseforms

f

deviant

ehavior

hat

are

learned

n

the

absence

of

social

reinforcement.ther

people

are not

the

only

source

of

reinforcement

l-

though hey re themost mportant.

As

Jeffery39

as

aptly

noted,

tealing

is

reinforcing

n

and

by

tself

whether

other

eople

know bout

t

and

rein-

force

t

socially

r

not.The same

may

be

said

to

apply

to

many

forms

f

aggressive

ehaviors.40

There

are

many

tudies

which re

relevanto

social nteraction

ndsocial-

ization n

the

one

hand,

and

Suther-

land's

econd

roposition

nthe

other.

For example,n a study yLottand

Lott41

t

was

found hatwhen

hild

A

was

reinforced

n

the

presence

f

child

B,

childA would ater

elect hild

B

as a

companion.

he behavior

f

select-

ingchildB was not thebehaviorhat

was

reinforced.he

experimental

on-

ditions

imply

paired

child

B

with

positive

einforcement.

n

accordance

with

the

principle

f

conditioning,

child

B had become

conditioned

osi-

tive

reinforcer.s such

any

behavior

which

roduced

he

resence

f

child

B

wouldbe

strengthened,

uch

behaviors,

for

example,

as

verbal

responses

requesting

hild

B's

company.

hus,

as Staats42asnoted,heresults fthis

study

ndicate

hat the

concepts

f

reinforcing

timuli

nd

group

ohesion

are

relatedwhen

nalyzed

n terms

f

an

integrated

etof

earning

rinciples.

Glaser43

has

attempted

o

reformu-

late

Sutherland's ifferential

ssocia-

tion

heory

nterms

f

social

dentifica-

tion. t

should e

recognized,

owever,

that

dentification

s wellas

modeling

and

imitative

ehavior

which

are

usually ssociatedwith dentification)

comprise

ust

one featuref

the

ocial-

ization

process.

urthermore,

uch

be-

havior

may

be

analyzed

uite

parsi-

moniously

with

the

principles

of

modern

ehavior

heory.

or

example,

in

a

study

y

Bandura

nd

Ross,44

child

experienced

he

pairing

f

one

adult

with

positive

reinforcers.re-

sumably

his

adult

would

become

conditioned

einforcer.nd

indeed,

later it was found that the child

imitated his

adultmore

thanhe

did

an

adultwho

was not

paired

with

positive

einforcers.hat

is,

the

one

adult,

s he

became

stronger

ein-

forcer,

ad

also become

stronger

D

for

imitating

r

following

ehavior.

38

Paul E.

Secordand Carl W.

Backman,

Social

Psychology,

New

York:

McGraw-

Hill, 1964.

39

Jeffery,

p.

cit.

40

For

some

evidencethat

aggressive

e-

havior

may

be of a

respondent

s well

as

an

operant

nature,

eeN.

Azrin,

R.

Hutchin-

son,

and

R.

McLaughlin,

The

Opportu-

nity for Aggressionas an Operant Rein-

forcer

during

Aversive

Stimulation,

Jour-

nal

of

the

Experimental

Analysis of

Be-

havior,

8

(May,

1965),

pp.

171-180.

41

B. E.

Lott

and

A.

J.

Lott,

The For-

mationof PositiveAttitudes oward

Group

Members,

The

Journal

of

Abnormal

and

Social

Psychology,

1, 1960,

pp.

297-300.

42

Arthur

taats,

Human

Learning,

New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart

nd

Winston,

1964,

p.

333.

43 Glaser, CriminalityTheories and

Behavioral

mages, op.

cit.

44

A.

Bandura,

D.

Ross,

and S.

Ross,

A

Comparative

Test

of

the

Status

Envy,

So-

cial

Power

and the

Secondary

Reinforce-

ment Theories of

Identification

earning,

Journal

f

Abnormal

nd Social

Psychology,

67, 1963,

pp.

527-534.







Criminal

ehavior

139

Thus,

Bandura'sand Ross's

results

demonstrate

hat

mitating

r

follow-

ing

behaviors at

least npart func-tionofthe

reinforcing

alueof

people

as social

stimuli.

On

the

asis

fthese

esultst s

sug-

gested

hat

change

n

the

reinforcing

value of an

individual

will

change

his

power

as a

stimulus

ontrolling

ther

people's

behavior n variousways.

An

increase n

the reinforcingalue of

an

individualwill

increaseverbal and

motor

approach,

or

companionable responses,

respectful

responses,

affectionate ehav-

ior, following

behavior, miling,

pleasant

conversation, ympathetic esponses and

the

like.45

The relevance f these

studies s

that

they

have

isolated

ome of

the

determining

ariables

whereby

he

be-

havior f one

person

s

influencedr

changed

y

the

behavior

f another

s

well

as

the

principles

y

which

hese

variables

perate.

We

have,

of

course,

only

cratched

he urface.

Many

ther

variables re involved.For instance,

not

all

people

are

equally

ffective

n

controlling

r

influencing

he

behavior

of

others. he

person

who

can mediate

themost

reinforcersill exercise he

most

power.

Thus,

the

parent,

who

controls ore f his

child's

einforcers,

will

exercisemore

power

than

an

older

sibling

r

the

temporarybaby

sitter.

As

the

child

becomes

older

and less

dependent pon

the

parent

for manyof his reinforcers,ther

individuals

or

groups

such

as

his

peersmay

xercisemore

ower.

Carry-

ing

the

analysis

ne

step

further,

he

person

who

has

access

o

a

large ange

of

aversive

timuli

will

exert more

power

han

one who

has not.

Thus a

peergroupmay

ome

o

exercise

more

power

over

a

child's

behavior han

the

parent

even

though

the

parent

may

till

control

large

shareof the

child'spositive einforcers.

In

addition

o the

reinforcing

unc-

tion

of an

individual

r

group,

here

is,

as

seen in the Cohen

and

the

Bandura

and

Ross

studies,

he

dis-

criminative

timulus

function f

a

group.

For

example, pecific

ndivid-

uals as

physical timulimayacquirediscriminativeontrol ver n individ-

ual's

behavior. he child

in our

ex-

ample

above

s reinforcedor

certain

kindsof behaviors

n the

presence

f

his

parent,

hus he

parent's

resence

may

come

to controlthis

type

of

behavior.

e is reinforced

or

different

behaviorsn

the

presence

f his

peers,

who

then

ome

o set the

occasion or

this

type

of behavior.

Consequently

thisproposition ustbe amended oread: II.

Criminal ehavior

s

learned

both n

nonsocial

ituations

hat

are

reinforcing

r

discriminative,

nd

through

that

social

interaction

n

which

the behavior

f

other

persons

is

reinforcing

r

discriminative

or

criminal

ehavior.

III. The

principal

art

f the

earn-

ing

of

criminal

ehavior

ccurswithin

intimateersonal roups.

In

terms f

our

nalysis,

he

primary

group

would

be

seen

to be

the

major

sourceof

an

individual's ocial

rein-

forcements.

he

bulk of

behavioral

training

hich he

hild

eceives

ccurs

at a

time

when the

trainers,

sually

the

parents,

ossess

a

very

powerful

system

f

reinforcers.n

fact,

e

might

characterize

primary

roup

s a

gen-

eralized einforcer

one

associated

ith

many einforcers,onditioneds well

as

unconditioned).

nd,

as we

sug-

gested

bove,

s the

child

grows

lder,

groups

other

than the

family

may

come o

control

majority

f

an

indi-

vidual's

einforcers,

.g.,

he

dolescent

peergroup.

To

say

that

the

primary

roup

s

the

principal

molder

f

an

individual's

behavioral

epertoire

s

not

to

ignore

social

learning

which

may

occur

in

othercontexts. s we notedabove,

learning

romsocial

models can

be

adequatelyxplained

n terms f

these

behavioral

rinciples.

he

analysis

we

employed

here

an also be

extended

to

learning

rom

he mass

media

and

5

Staats, 1964,

op.

cit.,

p.

333.







140

SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

from

reference

groups.

In

any

case,

we

may

lter

his

proposition

o

read:

III.

The

principal art f

the

earning

of criminal ehavior ccurs n those

groups

which

omprise

he

ndividual's

major

ource

f

reinforcements.

IV.

When

criminal

behavior

is

learned,

he

earning

ncludes

a)

tech-

niques

f

committing

he

crime,

hich

are

sometimes

ery

omplicated,

ome-

times

very

simple;

(b)

the

specific

direction

f

motives,

rives,

ational-

izations,

nd attitudes.

A

study y

Klaus and

Glaser46

s

well

as

many

ther

tudies47

ndicate

that

einforcement

ontingencies

re

of

prime mportance

n

learning

arious

behavioral

echniques.

nd,

of

course,

many

techniques,

oth

simple

and

complicated,

re

specific

o a

particular

deviant

ct such s

jimmying,

icking

locksof

buildings

nd

cars,

picking

pockets,

hort-

nd

big-con

echniques,

counterfeitingndsafe-cracking.ther

techniques

n

criminal

ehavior

may

be

learned

n

conforming

r neutral

contexts,

.g., driving

car,

signing

checks,

hooting gun,

etc.

In

any

event,

we

need

notalter he first

art

of this

roposition.

The

second

art

f this

proposition

does,

however,

eserve

ome

dditional

comments.

utherland's

major

focus

here

eems

o

be

motivation. uch

of

whatwehavealready iscussedn this

paper

often

goes

underthe

general

heading

of motivation.he

topic

of

motivations as

important

s it s com-

plex.

This

complexity

s relatedo

the

fact hat he same

stimulus

may

have

two

functions:t

may

be

both

rein-

forcing

timulus nd

a discriminative

stimulus

ontrolling

hebehavior

hich

is followed

y reinforcement.48

hus,

motivation

ay

be seento

be a func-

tion

of the

processes

y

which timuli

acquire

conditioned

einforcing

alue

andbecome iscriminativetimuli. e-

inforcers

nd discriminativetimuli

here

would

become the

dependent

variables;

the

independent

ariables

wouldbe the

conditioning

rocedures

previously

entionednd

the evel of

deprivation.

or

example,

when a

prisoner

s

deprived

f

contactwith

members

f

the

opposite

ex,

uch ex

reinforcers

ill become much

more

powerful.hus,those exualreinforc-ersthat re available, uchas homo-

sexual

contact,

ould

come

to exert

great

ealof nfluence

nd

would

hape

behaviors hat

would

be

unlikely

o

occurwithout uch

deprivation.

nd,

without

oing any

furthernto

this

topic,

ome

timuli

may

be morerein-

forcing,

nder

similar

onditions

f

deprivation,

or

certain

ndividuals

r

groups

han for others.

urthermore,

thesatiationf one or moreof these

reinforcers

ould

llowfor n increase

in

therelative

trength

f

others.

Much,

therefore,

an

be

learned

aboutthe

distinctive

haracteristics

f

a

group

y

knowing

hat he vailable

and

effectiveeinforcersre

and

the

46

D. J. Klaus and R. Glaser, Increas-

ing

Team

Proficiency

hrough

Training,

Pittsburg:

American nstitute

of

Research,

1960.

47

See Robert

L.

Burgess,

Communica-

tion Networks

and Behavioral Conse-

quences,

forthcoming.

48

A central

principle

underlying

this

analysis

is that

reinforcing

timuli,

both

positive

and

negative,

elicit

certain re-

spondents.

Unconditionedreinforcers

licit

these

responses

without

training,

condi-

tioned reinforcerselicit such responses

through espondent

onditioning.

taats and

Staats

(Complex

Human

Behavior,

New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart nd

Winston,

1964)

have characterized uch

respondents

s

at-

titude

responses.

Thus,

a

positive

rein-

forcer

elicits

a

positive

attitude. Further-

more,these respondents

ave

stimulus har-

acteristics hich may become discriminative

stimuli

setting

the occasion

for

a

certain

class of

operants

alled

striving

esponses

for

positive

reinforcers

nd

escape

and/or

avoidancebehaviors

or

negative

einforcers.

These

respondents

and their

attendant

stimulimay be generalizedto other rein-

forcing

stimuli.

Thus,

striving responses

can

be

seen to

generalize

to

new

positive

reinforcers

ince

these

also

will

elicit

the

respondent

esponses

and

their characteris-

tic stimuli

which

have become

SD's for

such behavior.







Criminal

ehavior

141

behaviors

pon

which

hey

re contin-

gent.Basically,

e are

contending

hat

thenaturefthereinforcerystemndthe reinforcement

ontingencies

re

crucial eterminants

f

individual

nd

group

behavior.

Consequently,

de-

scription

f an individual's r

group's

reinforcers,

nd

an

understanding

f

the

principles

y

which einforcers

f-

fect

behavior,

would be

expected

o

yield

great

eal

of

knowledge

bout

individualnd

group

eviant ehavior.

Finally,

he rationalizations

hich

Cresseydentifiesithregard o trust

violators

nd

the

peculiar

xtensions

of

defenses

o crimes r

techniques

of neutralization

y

which deviant

behavior s

justified,

s

identified

y

Sykes

nd

Matza,49

may

e

analyzed

s

operant

behaviors

f the

escape

or

avoidance

ype

which re

maintained

because

hey

ave

theeffect f avoid-

ing

or

reducing

he

punishment

hat

comesfrom ocial

disapproval

y

one-

self as well as by others.We may,

therefore,

ewrite

his

proposition

o

read:

V. The

learning

f

criminal e-

havior,

ncluding

pecific

echniques,

attitudes,

nd avoidance

rocedures,

s

a

functionf

the

ffective

ndavailable

reinforcers,

nd

the

existing

einforce-

ment

ontingencies.

V. The

specific

irection

f motives

and drives

s

learned

rom efinitions

of the egalcodesas favorablerun-

favorable.

In this

proposition,

utherland

p-

pears

to

be

referring,

t

least

n

part,

to the

concept

norm which

may

be

defined

s a statementade

by

num-

ber of the members

f a

group,

not

necessarily

ll

of

them,

rescribing

r

proscribing

ertain

ehaviors

tcertain

times.5?

e

often

nfer hat he

norms

of

a

group

re

byobserving

eactiono

behavior,

.e.,

the anctions

pplied

o,

or reinforcementndpunishmenton-

sequences

f,

suchbehavior.We

may

also learnwhat a

group's

norms

re

through

erbalor written tatements.

The

individual

group

member

lso

learns

what is

and

is

not

acceptable

behavior

n

the

basisof

verbal

tate-

ments

made

by

others,

s well

as

through

he

sanctions

i.e.,

the

rein-

forcing

r aversive

timuli)

pplied

o

his behavior

and

othernormviola-

tors) byothers.

Behavior

heory

pecifies

he

place

of

normative

tatements

nd sanctions

in

the

dynamics

f

acquiring

con-

forming

r

normative ehavior.

Just

as the behavior

nd even the

physical

haracteristics

f

the

ndivid-

ual

may

erve

iscriminative

unctions,

verbal

behavior,

nd this

includes

normative

tatements,

an

be

analyzed

as

SD's.

A

normative

tatementan

be

analyzed s an SD indicatinghat he

members

f a

group

ught

o

behave

n

a certain

ay

n

certain

ircumstances.

Such

normative ehavior

would be

developed

ndmaintained

y

ocialre-

inforcement.s

we

observed

n the

Ayllon-Azrin

tudy51

f

instructions

and

reinforcement

ontingencies,

uch

verbalbehavior

would

not

maintain

any

particular

lass

of

behaviors

f it

were

not t east

ccasionally

acked

y

reinforcementonsequences.xtending

their

nalysis,

n

individual

ould

not

conform

o a norm f

he

did

not

have

a

past

history

f

reinforcement

for

such

conforming

ehavior.This

is

important,

or

arlier

we

stated hat

we

can

earn

great

eal about

group

by

knowing

hat he ffective

einforc-

ers

are

and

the

behaviors

pon

which

they

re

contingent.

e

may

now

say

that

we

can learna

great

deal

about

an individual'sr a

group's

behavior

when

we areable to

specify,

ot

only

whatthe

effectiveeinforcers

re,

but

49

Cressey,

Other

People's

Money,

op.

cir.,

pp.

93-138.

G. M.

Sykes

and

David

Matza,

Techniques

of Neutralization:

A

Theory

of

Delinquency,

American Socio-

logical

Review,

22

(December,

1957), pp.

664-670.

50

George

C.

Homans,

Social

Behavior:

Its

Elementaryorms,

New York:

Harcourt,

Brace

and

World,

1961.

51

Ayllon-Azrin, 964,

op.

cit.







142 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

also what the

rules

or norms

re

by

which hesereinforcersre

applied.52

Forthese wotypes fknowledge ill

tellus much

bout

he

ypes

f

behav-

ior

that

he

ndividual

ill

develop

r

the

types

f

behaviors

hat re

domi-

nant

n a

group.

For

example,

t has often

eennoted

that

most fficialriminalcts recom-

mitted

y

membersf

minorityroups

who ive n slums.One

distinguishing

characteristicf a slum sthe

high

evel

of

deprivation

f

many

mportant

ocial

reinforcers.xacerbatinghis ituation

is the

fact hat

hese

eople,

n

contrast

to other

groups,

ack the

behavioral

repertoires

ecessary

o

produce

ein-

forcementn the

prescribed

ays.

hey

havenot

been and

are not now

ade-

quately

einforcedor awfulor nor-

mative

ehavior.

nd

as

we

know rom

the

Law of

Operant

Reinforcement,

reinforcer ill increase he rate of

occurrence

f

any

operant

which

pro-

duces t. Furthermore,e wouldpre-

dict hat

iven large

number f

indi-

vidualsunder

imilar

onditions,

hey

are

likely

o

behave

n

similar

ways.

Within

uch

groups,

many

forms

f

social

reinforcement

ay

become

on-

tingent

pon

lasses f behaviors

hich

are

outside

he

arger

ociety's

orma-

tive

requirements.

orms and

legal

codes,

as

discriminative

timuli,

will

only

ontrol hebehaviorf those

who

have xperiencedhe ppropriateearn-

inghistory.

f an

individual

as

been,

and

s,

reinforced

or uch normative

behavior,

hat

behavior

will

be

main-

tained

n

strength.

f

he has not

been,

and

is not now reinforced

or such

behaviors

hey

wouldbe

weak,

f

they

existed

n his

repertoire

t all.

And,

importantly,

he

reinforcement

ystem

may

hape

and

maintain

nother

lass

of

behaviors

hich

do

result

n rein-

forcementndsuchbehaviorsmaybe

considered

eviant

r criminal

y

ther

members

f the

group.

Thus

we

may

formulate

his

proposition

o read: V.

The

specific

lass

of

behaviors

hich

are

learned

and

their

frequency

f

occurrencere a function fthe rein-

forcers

which re

effective

nd avail-

able,

and therules

r

norms

y

which

these

einforcers

re

applied.

VI. A

person

becomes

delinquent

because of an excess of

definitions

favorable o violation

of law over

definitions

nfavorable

o

violation

f

law.

This

proposition

s

generally

on-

sidered he heart f Sutherland'she-

ory;

it is the

principle

f

differential

association. t follows

directly

rom

proposition

,

and

wemust ow refer

back to that

proposition.

n

proposi-

tion

V,

the use

of the

preposition

from n

the

phrase,

learned rom

definitionsf the

egal

codes

s favor-

able or

unfavorable,

s somewhat

is-

leading.

The

meaning

ere s

not

so

much

hat

earning

esults

rom

hese

definitionss it is that hey orm art

of

the

contentf one's

earning,

eter-

mining

which irectionne's behavior

will

go

in

relation

o

the

aw,

.e.,

aw-

abiding

r

lawbreaking.

These

definitions

f thelaw make

lawbreaking

eem ither

ppropriate

r

inappropriate.

hose

definitions

hich

place awbreaking

n

a favorable

ight

in

a sense can

be

seen as

essentially

norms

of evasion

and/or

norms

di-

rectlyconflicting ith conventional

norms.

hey

are,

as

Sykes

nd

Matza

and

Cressey

ote,

techniques

f

neu-

tralization,

rationalizations,

r

ver-

balizations

whichmake criminal e-

havior eem

all right

r

ustified,

r

which

provide

defenses

gainst

elf-

reproach

and

disapproval

from

others.53

he

principle

f

negative

52

Staatsand

Staats,

op.

cit.

53

Sykes and Matza, op. cit., Cressey,

OtherPeople's Money, op. cit., pp. 93-138;

Donald

R.

Cressey,

The Differential sso-

ciation

Theory

and

Compulsive

Crimes,

Journalof

Criminal

Law,

Criminology

nd

Police

Science, 45 (May-June, 1954),

pp.

29-40; Donald R. Cressey, Social Psycho-

logical

Foundations

for

Using

Criminals n

the Rehabilitation

of

Criminals,

Journal







Criminal

ehavior

143

reinforcement

ould be of

major

ig-

nificancen

the

cquisition

ndmainte-

nanceof such

behaviors.

This

analysis

uggests

hat t

may

not

be

an

excess

of one

kind

of

definitionver nothern the ense f

a

cumulative

atio,

but rather

n the

sense of the relative

mount

f

dis-

criminativetimulus alue

of

one set

of

verbalizations

r

normative

tate-

ments

ver another. s we

suggested

in the

last

section,

normative tate-

ments

re,

themselves,

ehaviors

hat

area functionfreinforcementonse-

quences.

They,

n

turn,

may

serve s

discriminative

timuli or

ther

perant

behaviors

verbal

nd

nonverbal).

ut

recall hat einforcementust

e

forth-

coming,

t

least

occasionally,

efore

verbal statement an continue

s a

discriminativetimulus. ear n

mind,

also,

thatbehavior

may

produce

ein-

forcing

onsequences

venin the

ab-

sence

of

any

accompanying

erbal

statements.

In

other

erms,

person

will

become

delinquent

f the official

orms

or

laws

do

not

perform

discriminative

function

nd

thereby

ontrol

norma-

tive

or

conforming

ehavior.We

know fromthe Law of Differential

Reinforcementhat hat

perant

which

produces

he mostreinforcementill

become

dominant

f itresultsn rein-

forcement.

hus,

if lawful behavior

did not result n reinforcement,he

strength

f the behavior

would

be

weakened,

nd

a

state

of

deprivation

would

result,

which

would,

n

turn,

increase he

probability

hat

other e-

haviors

wouldbe emitted

which

are

reinforced,

nd such behaviors ould

be

strengthened.

nd,

of

course,

hese

behaviors,

hough

ommon

o one

or

more

groups,

may

be

labelled

deviant

by

he

arger ociety.

nd uch

ehavior

patterns,hemselves,

ay

cquire

on-

ditioned

einforcing

alue

and,

subse-

quently,

e

enforced

y

the

members

of

a

group

y

making

arious orms

f

social

reinforcement,

uch as

social

approval,steem,nd statusontingent

upon

thatbehavior.

The

concept

excess

n

the

state-

ment,

excess

of

definitionsavorable

to

violation

f

law,

has been

particu-

larly

esistanto

operationalization.

translationfthis

oncept

n

terms f

modern ehavior

heory

ould

nvolve

the

balance

f reinforcementonse-

quences,

positive

nd

negative.

The

Law

of Differentialeinforcement

s

crucialhere.That is, a personwould

engage

n those

behaviors

or which

he

had beenreinforced

ost

highly

n

the

past.

(The

reader

may

recall hat

inthe

Ayllon-Azrintudy

with

chizo-

phrenics,

t was

found

hat he

patients

selected nd

performed

hose

ehaviors

which

provided

he

most reinforcers

when

reinforcementas

available

or

more

han ne

response.)

riminale-

havior

would,

hen,

ccur

nder

hose

conditionswhere an individualhas

beenmost

highly

einforced

or

such

behavior,

nd

the

versive

onsequences

contingent

pon

the behavior

have

beenof

such

nature hat

hey

o

not

perform

punishment

unction. 54

This

eadsus

to a

discussionf

propo-

sition

II.

But,

first,

etus

reformulate

the

sixth

proposition

o read:

VI.

Criminalbehavior

s

a

function

f

normswhichare discriminative

or

criminalbehavior, he learningof

which

akes

lace

when uch behavior

of

Researchin Crime and

Delinquency,

2

(July,

1965), pp.

45-59.

See

revised

propo-

sition

V.

54

This, then, is essentially

differential

reinforcements Jeffery resents it. We

have

attempted

o show

how

this

is con-

gruent

with

differential

ssociation. Fur-

ther,

while

Jeffery

gnores

the

key

concepts

of

'definitions

and excess

we have in-

corporated them into the

reformulation.

These

definitions,

iewed as

verbalizations,

become

discriminative

timuli;

and ex-

cess operates

o

produce

criminal

behavior

in tworelatedways: (1) verbalizationson-

ducive to law violation have greaterdis-

criminative

timulus

value than

other ver-

balizations,

and

(2)

criminal

behavior has

been

more

highly

reinforced

nd has

pro-

duced

fewer

aversive

outcomes

than has

law

abiding

behavior in the

conditioning

history

f the

individual.







144

SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

is

more

highly einforced

han

non-

criminal

ehavior.

VII. Differentialssociationsmay

vary

n

frequency,

uration,

riority,

and

intensity.

In terms four

nalysis,

he

oncepts

frequency,

uration,

nd

priority

re

straightforward

nough.

The

concept

intensity

ould be

operationalized

o

designate

he

number f the

individ-

ual's

positive

nd

negative

einforcers

another

ndividual

r

group

controls,

as well as thereinforcementalueof

that

ndividualr

group.

As

previously

suggested

he

group

which an

mediate

themost

ositive

einforcersndwhich

has

the

mostreinforcement

alue,

as

well as

access to a

larger

range

of

aversive

timuli,

will exert he

most

control

ver

an

individual's ehavior.

There s a

good

reason o

suspect,

however,

hat

Sutherland as not so

much

referring

o

differential

ssocia-

tionswith ther ersons,s differential

associations ithcriminal

atterns.

f

this

supposition

s

correct,

hen this

proposition

an

be clarified

y

relating

it to

differential

ontingencies

f

rein-

forcementather

han

ifferentialocial

associations.rom

his

perspective,

he

experimental

vidence

with

regard

o

the

various

chedules

freinforcement

is of

major

mportance.

here re hree

aspects

f

theschedules f reinforce-

mentwhich re of particularmpor-

tancehere:

(1)

the

amount

f

rein-

forcement:he

greater

heamount f

reinforcement,

he

higher

he

response

rate;

2)

the

frequency

f reinforce-

ment

which

refers o the number

f

reinforcements

er

given

ime

eriod:

the

shorterhe time

period

between

reinforcements,

he

higher

he

response

rate;

and

(3)

the

probability

f

rein-

forcementhich s the

reciprocal

f

responseserreinforcement:he ower

the

ratio

of

responses

er

reinforce-

ment,

he

higher

he ate

f

response. 55

Priority,

requency,

uration,

nd

intensity

f

association ith

criminal

persons nd groups re importantothe xtenthat

hey

nsure hat eviant

behavior

will receive

reater

mounts

of reinforcement

t more

frequent

n-

tervals r with

a

higher

probability

than

conforming

ehavior.

But

the

frequency,robability,

nd amount f

reinforcementre thecrucial

lements.

This

means hat t s the

oming

nder

the control

f

contingencies

f

rein-

forcement

hat

electively

roduces

he

criminal definitionsnd behavior.

Consequently,

etus rewrite

his

ropo-

sitionto

read: VII.

The

strength f

criminal ehaviors a

direct

unction

of

the

amount,

requency,

nd

proba-

bility

f

its

reinforcement.

IX. While

criminal

ehavior

s

an

expression

f

general

eeds

nd

values,

it

is not

explained

y

those

general

needs and values

since

noncriminal

behaviors an expressionf thesame

needs nd

values.

In

this

proposition,

utherland

ay

have

been

reacting,

t

least

n

part,

o

the

controversy

egarding

he

concept

need.

This

controversy

s now

essen-

tially

resolved.

or,

we

have

finally

come to the

realization

hat

needs

are

unobservable,

ypothetical,

ictional

inner-causal

gents

whichwere

usually

invented

n

the

pot

to

providepuri-ous explanationsf someobservable

behavior.

Futhermore,

hey

were

inferred rom

precisely

he

samebe-

havior

hey

were

upposed

o

explain.

While we

can

ignore

he

reference

to

needs,

we

must

discuss

values.

Values

may

be seen

as reinforcers

which

ave

alience

or

number

f

the

members f

a

group

or

society.

We

agree

with

utherland

o the

xtent

hat

hemeans hat henaturefthese en-

55

R. T.

Kelleher

and

L. R.

Gollub,

A

Review

of Positive

ConditionedReinforce-

ment,

Journal

of

the

Experimental

Analy-

sis

of

Behavior

(October,

1962),

pp.

543-

597.

Because

the

emission

of a

fixed ratio

or

variable

ratio of

responses

requires

a

period

of

time,

the

rate of

responding

will

indirectly

determine

he

frequency

f

re-

inforcement.







Criminal ehavior

145

eral

reinforcers

o

not

necessarily

eter-

mine

which

behavior

they

will

strengthen.oney,rsomethinglse f

general

alue n

society,

illreinforce

any

behavior

hat

roduces

t. This re-

inforcement

ay

dependupon

non-

criminal

ehavior,

ut

t also

may

be-

come

ontingent

pon

set

f

behaviors

that re

labelled

s

criminal.

hus,

f

Sutherlandan

be

interpreted

smean-

ing

that

riminal

nd

noncriminal

e-

havior

cannotbe

maintained

y

the

same set of

reinforcers,

e

must

dis-

agree.However,t maybe that here

are

certain

reinforcing

onsequences

which

nly

riminal

ehavior ill

pro-

duce,

forthe

behavior

inally

haped

will

depend

upon

the

reinforcerhat

is effective

or the

ndividual. ever-

theless,

t s the

reinforcement,

ot

the

specific

ature f

the

reinforcer,

hich

explains

he

rate

nd

form

fbehavior.

But

since this issue

revolves

round

contingencies

f

reinforcement

hich

arehandled lsewhere, e will elimi-

nate

this ast

proposition.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The

purpose

fthis

paper

has

been

the

application

f the

principles

f

modern ehavior

heory

o

Sutherland's

differential

ssociation

heory.

While

Sutherland's

heory

as

had

an en-

during

effect

pon

the

thinking

f

studentsfcriminal

ehavior,

t

has,

ill

now,undergone o majortheoretical

revision

espite

hefact hat here as

been

a

steady

nd

cumulative

rowth

in the

experimentalindings

f the

processes

f

learning.

Thereare three

spects

f

deviant

behavior

which

we

have

attempted

o

deal

with

simultaneously,

ut which

should

be

separated.

irst,

how

does

an

individual

become

delinquent,

r

how doeshe learndelinquent ehav-ior?

Second,

what ustains hisdelin-

quent

behavior

We

have

ttempted

o

describe

he

ways

n

which he

prin-

ciples

of modern ehavior

heory

re

relevant

othe

development

nd

main-

tenance

f criminal ehavior. n the

process,

ehave een hat he

principle

of

differential

einforcement

s

ofcru-

cial importance. ut we must also

attendto

a

third

question,

namely,

what

sustains

he

pattern

r

contin-

gency

f reinforcement?e

only

have

hinted t some

of the

possibly

mpor-

tant variables.We

have

mentioned

briefly,

or

example,

tructuralactors

such as

the

level

of

deprivation

f a

particular roup

with

regard

o im-

portant

ocial

reinforcers,

nd

the ack

of

effective

einforcement

f

lawful

behavior56ndtheconcomitantailure

to

develop

he

appropriate

ehavioral

repertoires

o

produce

reinforcement

legally.57

e havealso

suggested

hat

those behaviors

which

do

result

n

reinforcement

ay,

themselves,

ain

reinforcementalue

and

be enforced

by

the

members

f

the

group

hrough

the

manipulation

f various orms f

socialreinforcementuch

s social

ap-

proval

nd

status,

ontingent

pon

uch

behaviors.58n short, ew normsmay

develop

nd

these

may

etermed elin-

quent

y

he

arger ociety.

There

re

many

ther

opics

hat re

of

direct elevance

o the

problem

f

deviant

ehaviorwhich

we have

not

been able

to

discuss

iven

he

require-

ments f

space.

For

instance,

o

men-

tionhas

beenmade

of someoutstand-

ing

research

n

the

rea

of

punishment.

This

topic is,

of

course,

of

prime

importance

n the reaof crime

reven-

tion.To illustrate

ome f this

esearch

and

its

relevance,

t has

been

found

experimentally

hat he amount

f

be-

havior

suppression

roduced

by

re-

56

Robert

K.

Merton,

Social

Theory

and

Social

Structure,

Glencoe,

Ill.: The Free

Press, pp. 161-195. For a more complete

discussionof social

structure

n termsrele-

vant

to

this

paper,

see Robert

L.

Burgess

and Don

Bushell,

Jr.,

Behavioral

Sociology,

Parts IV and V, forthcoming,967.

57

Ibid., and Richard A. Cloward,

Il-

legitimate

Means, Anomie,

and Deviant

Behavior,

American

Sociological Review,

24

(April,

1959),

pp.

164-177.

58 Albert K. Cohen,

Delinquent

Boys;

The

Culture

of the Gang, Glencoe, Ill.:

The Free Press, 1955







146 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

TABLE 1

A

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION-REINFORCEMENT

THEORY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Sutherland'statements

Reformulated

tatements

1.

Criminal

ehavior

s

learned. 1. Criminal ehavior

s

learned

ccording

8.

The

process

f

learning

riminal e-

to the

principles

f

operant

ondition-

havior

y

association

ith riminalnd

ing.

anti-criminal

atterns

nvolves ll of

themechanismshat re nvolved

n

any

other

earning.

2.

Criminal

ehaviors

learnedn

inter-

2.

Criminal ehavior

s

learnedboth

in

actionwithother

ersons

n a

process

nonsocialituations

hat

re

reinforcing

of

communication.

or discriminative

nd

through

hat o-

cial interaction

n whichthe behavior

of other ersonss reinforcingr dis-

criminative

orcriminalehavior.

3.

The

principal

art

of

the

earning

f

3.

The

principal

art

of the

learning

f

criminal ehavior ccurs

within nti-

criminal

ehavior

ccurs

n

those

roups

mate

personal

roups.

which

omprise

he individual's

major

source

f reinforcements.

4. When criminal ehaviors

learned,

4.

The

learning

f criminal

ehavior,

n-

the

earning

ncludes

a) techniques

f

cluding

specific

echniques,

ttitudes,

committing

he

crime,

hich re some-

and

avoidance

rocedures,

s a function

times

ery omplicated,

ometimes

ery

of the

ffective

ndavailable

einforcers,

simple; (b)

the

specific

irection

f

and

the

existing

einforcement

ontin-

motives,

drives,

rationalizations,

nd

gencies.

attitudes.

5.

The

specific

irection

f

motives nd 5.

The

specific

lass

of

behaviors

hich

drivess learned

rom efinitions

f

the

are

learned nd

their

requency

f oc-

legal

codes

s

favorable

r

unfavorable.

currencere

function

f

the einforcers

which re

effective

nd

available,

nd

the

rulesor norms

y

which hese

e-

inforcers

re

applied.

6.

A person

ecomes

elinquent

ecause

6.

Criminalehavior

s a function

f

norms

of an excess

f definitions

avorable

o

which

are discriminative

or criminal

violation

f

law

over definitions

n-

behavior,

he

learning

f

which

takes

favorable

o violation

f

law. place

when such behavior

s

more

highly

einforced

hannoncriminal

e-

havior.

7.

Differential

ssociations

may vary

n

7.

The

strength

f criminal

ehavior

s

a

frequency,

uration,

riority,

nd inten-

direct

unction

f the

mount,

requency,

sity.

and

probability

f its

reinforcement.

9.

While

criminal

ehaviors an

expres-

9.

(Omit

from

heory.)

sion

of

general

eeds

nd

values,

t

is

not

explained

y

those

general

needs

and values since

noncriminalehavior

is

an

expression

f

the

sameneeds

nd

values.

sponse-contingent

versive

timulis

a

direct unctionf the ntensityf the

aversive

timulus,

ut

hat mild

ver-

sive

stimulus

may

produce

dramatic

behavior-suppression

f it is

paired

with

reinforcement

oran alternative

and

incompatible

ehavior.

Further-

more,

t has beendiscovered

hat

f

an

aversivetimuluss repeatedlyaired

with

positive

einforcement,

nd rein-

forcement

s

not available

otherwise,

the aversive timulus

may

become

discriminative

timulus

SD) forrein-

forcement

nd,

consequently,

ot

de-







Criminal

ehavior

147

crease the behavior's

frequency

f

occurrence.

Thereare, n conclusion,umerouscriteriahathavebeenusedto evaluate

theories.ne such et s asfollows:

(1)

The amount of

empirical support

for the

theory's

basic

propositions.

(2)

The

power

of the

theory,

.e.,

the

amount of data that can

be

derived

from he

theory's

igher-order

rop-

ositions.

(3)

The

controlling

possibilities

of the

theory, ncluding

(a)

whether the

theory's propositions are, in fact,

causal principles, nd (b) whether

the

theory'spropositions

re stated

in such a

way

that

they uggest

pos-

sible

practical

applications.

What dissatisfactionhere has been

with

differential

ssociation

an

be

at-

tributedo its

scoring

ow on these

criteria,specially1) and (3). Wesubmit hatthe reformulated

heory

presented

ere answers ome

of these

problems

nd better

meets each

of

these

criteria. t is

our

contention,

moreover,

hat hereformulated

heory

not

only

specifies

the

conditions

under

which criminal behavior

is

learned,

ut also

someof the condi-

tions nderwhich eviant

ehavior

n

general

s

acquired.

inally,

while

we

have not statedour propositionsn

strictly

xiomatic

orm,

close

exami-

nationwill reveal

hat achof

the ater

propositions

ollow

from,

modify,

r

clarify

arlier

ropositions.

SANCTIONS*

JACK

P. GIBBS

Washington

tate

University

Few

concepts

n

sociology

have

wider

application

han

sanction,

f

only

because

t

enters

ntothe

notion

of

norms

and

related

distinctions

(e.g.,

laws

versus

ustoms).

Given

he

conceptual

inkbetween

anctions

nd

norms,t follows hatthe definitionof crime r deviant ehaviornd the

delimitation

f relatedfields

require

referenceo sanctions. he

importance

of sanctionss

no less

conspicuous

n

substantive

heory,articularly

n so-

cial order.

Asa case n

point,

ery

ittle

remains

f this lements deleted

rom

Hobbesian

heory;

nd,

with

eference

to

contemporary

heoretical

ssues,

he

functionalist

chool

is

distinguished

from heconflictchool n terms f,

inter

lia,

emphasis

n sanctions.1

Despite

ts

importance,

he

concept

sanction emains

mbiguous

nd

its

definition

resents

formidable

rob-

lem.

Thereare few formal

reatments

of

the

concept,

nd

many

writers

reat

sanction s a

primitive

erm.

eaving

theconcept ndefinedmplies hat ts

meaning

s

generally

nderstood,

nd

the

assumption

s

by

no meansun-

justified.

venwithout formal

efini-

tion,

most

bservers ould

agree

that

the

execution f

a felonor

setting

finefor a

trafficffense

epresents

sanction.

onetheless,

he

practice

f

leaving

anctions

ndefinedas certain

*

Some

parts

of this

paper

were written

in connection

with a Russell

Sage

fellow-

ship

for

the

study

of law.

1

On the

whole,

functionalists

o not

emphasize

formal

punitive

sanctions

as

much as

reciprocity

nd

consensus s

bases

of

social order.This is

particularly

rue for

Malinowski. For criticismof Malinowski

on

this

point,

see

E.

Adamson

Hoebel,

The Law

of

Primitive

MAlan,

ambridge:

Harvard

University

ress,

1954,

pp.

190-

210;

and William

Seagle,

Primitive

Law

and Professor

Malinowski,

AmericanAn-

thropologist,

39

(April-June,

1937),

pp.

275-290.

Documents

Teoria de Reforco a Associacao Diferencial de Burgess e Akers