A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior

Burgess, Robert L.; Akers, Robert L.

doi:10.2307/798612

Cited by 689 publications

(265 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

241

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Learning theories are rooted in differential association theory and modern learning theory [37] where criminal behavior is understood as being enforced in a similar way as non-criminal behavior through the presence or absence of social stimuli. Ronald Akers' social learning theory [38] has four concepts: (1) differential association or the manner in which individuals align themselves with beliefs and behaviors of those they associate with; (2) differential reinforcement which is "the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of behavior" [38] (p. 67); (3) Imitation or modeling behavior of others and (4) definitions refers to the way an individual labels a particular act as being acceptable or unacceptable which can be within a broad range of behaviors characterized by general beliefs (such as moral codes) or specific beliefs which are marked by a person's experience of certain specific acts.…”

Section: Parental Maltreatment and Self-reported Violent Delinquencymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Parental Maltreatment and Parental Social Control on Self-Reported Violent Offending in Indonesia and the U.S.: Does Gender Make a Difference?

Kokkalera

Marshall

2018

Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this article, we examine the role of parental maltreatment and parental social control in violent delinquency in two different countries: Indonesia and the U.S. but we go further by asking if gender makes a difference. We use a sample of Indonesian and U.S. youths from ISRD3 data, a self-reported survey instrument administered across multiple countries. We use logistic regressions to examine the associations between parental maltreatment, parental social control and self-reported violent delinquency and test whether gender and country modifies these associations. We find that both gender and country are significant predictors of violent delinquency. Further, there are differences between Indonesian and U.S. youths in terms of the predictors that are associated with violent delinquent offending. Specifically, parental maltreatment in the form of direct exposure to parental violence is a significant predictor for U.S. youths but not Indonesian youths whereas parental supervision is a significant deterrent of violent offending for both. We also find that girls are more likely to report violent offending than males when indirectly exposed to violence. Thus, our findings reiterate that both gender and context matter.

show abstract

Section: Parental Maltreatment and Self-reported Violent Delinquencymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Parental Maltreatment and Parental Social Control on Self-Reported Violent Offending in Indonesia and the U.S.: Does Gender Make a Difference?

Kokkalera

Marshall

2018

Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea that youthful offenders are affected by the company they keep is central to numerous explanations of criminal and delinquent behavior, including differential association theory [Sutherland, 1947;Sutherland and Cressey, 1974], social learning theory [Akers, 1973[Akers, , 1977[Akers, , 1985Bandura, 1973Bandura, , 1977Burgess and Akers, 1966;Glaser, 1978;Jeffery, 1965], strain theory [Cloward and Ohlin, 1960;Cohen, 1955], subcultural theory Ferracuti, 1967/ 1982], and the integrated theories of Elliott [Elliott et al, 1979[Elliott et al, , 1985 and Thornberry [1987;Thornberry et al, 1994]. Empirical support for the notion has come from a myriad of studies showing that young criminals tend to report having friends who also engage in crime and delinquency [Akers et al, 1979;Elliott et al, 1985;Erickson and Empey, 1965;Jensen, 1972;Matsueda and Heimer, 1987;Tittle et al, 1986;Voss, 1964;Warr and Stafford, 1991] and that offenders and their friends are similar in terms of their criminal experience and the types of crimes that they commit [Agnew, 1991;Elliott and Ageton, 1980;Elliott et al, 1985;Fagan et al, 1986].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A longitudinal examination of the relation between co‐offending with violent accomplices and violent crime

Conway

McCord

2002

Aggressive Behavior

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the idea that youthful offenders are affected by the company they keep is widely accepted, evidence in support of this idea is based primarily on reports provided by offenders and their peers. As an alternative to relying on reports of criminal behavior, a method that may overestimate the role that peers play in criminal behavior, the current research on co-offending uses court records to identify and track over time individuals who are known to commit crimes together. The present investigation is the first co-offending study to track patterns of violent criminal behavior (over an 18-year period) among a sample of urban offenders and their accomplices. The study tests whether violence "spreads" from violent offenders to those inexperienced in violence. Results indicate that nonviolent offenders who commit their first co-offense with violent accomplices are at increased risk for subsequent serious violent crime. Findings suggest that lessons of violence can be learned "on the street," where knowledge is passed along through impromptu social contexts, including those in which offenders commit crimes together. Aggr. Behav. 28:97-108, 2002.

show abstract

“…For the late blooming adult the environmental information must be apprehended as negative, either in the shape of material conditions or experience (e.g. humiliation, Tittle, 1995), which gives a reaction of stress processed by classic and/or operant conditioning giving a negative reinforcement (Akers, 2009;Burgess & Akers, 1966) which ends up in a state of negative emotions (Vaske & Boisvert, 2014).…”

Section: The Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Origin of White Collar Criminality? – Exploring a Gene x Environment Interaction Hypothesis

Alalehto¹

2018

Int. J. Criminol. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim for this article is the elementary question: why does white collar criminals become white collar criminals? The answer is a hypothetical syllogistic constructed hypothesis for further empirical exploration in the agenda. The hypothesis takes its point of departure in biosocial criminology, especially the gene-environment interplay, focused on white collar criminality. The hypothesis proposes a link between criminal attitudes and criminal behavior based on how biological (e.g. intergenerational heredity, MAO-A), neurological (e.g. executive functioning, cortical thickness) and social-psychological/sociological factors (e.g. peer-group, rationalizations, social stress, loss of class status) correlates to each other as a system of mechanisms.Keywords: White collar crime, biosocial criminology, mechanisms, formal logic.Human behavior is mediated by a set of biological factors (basically genetics) and a set of environmental factors (basically social relations). On an aggregated scale the two sets explains around 50 per cent each of criminal behavior (Tuvblad, 2014). These two sets are integrated into a complex set of interactions in the central nervous system (brain), the peripheral nervous system (control of movements and autonomic internal functions), and the endocrine system (organs responsible for hormone secretion). These complex set of interactions has continuously over the past decades been acknowledged among criminologists as a point of departure to understand the nature of crime. A topic which concern especially the explanation of interpersonal variation of criminal behavior in a random population (Rebellon, Barnes & Agnew, 2014).In this article I follow up a track which I already have outlined (Alalehto, 2015), mainly focused on psychopathic and sociopathic white collar criminals. In this article I focus more on the average white collar criminal, known as crises responders (Piquero & Weisburd, 2009;Morris & Sayed, 2013), or low-rate or medium-rate white collar criminals (Soothill, Humphreys, & Francis, 2012) or conformists, pragmatists and partly intolerants (Alalehto & Larsson, 2015) involving approximately 60 to 80 per cent of the white collar criminal population. The purpose is to give a theoretical explanation of why white collar criminals become white collar criminals? The answer will be given in a main hypothesis directed to be testable for empirical research.*Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Sociology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Tel: 46907865430; Fax: 46907866694; E-mail: tage.alalehto@umu.seWhat is the origin of the white collar criminal? A standard explanation among sociologist, given already by Edwin Sutherland (1940) is the position of power. Even among biosocial inspired criminologist this is a given structure of explanation. For example, Wiebe (2012), points out a classic Machiavellian thesis in his competitive advantage model: if you are powerful enough then you can get away with anything. It's based on the assumption that a certain kind of sociop...

show abstract

A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior

Cited by 689 publications

References 33 publications

The Role of Parental Maltreatment and Parental Social Control on Self-Reported Violent Offending in Indonesia and the U.S.: Does Gender Make a Difference?

The Role of Parental Maltreatment and Parental Social Control on Self-Reported Violent Offending in Indonesia and the U.S.: Does Gender Make a Difference?

A longitudinal examination of the relation between co‐offending with violent accomplices and violent crime

The Origin of White Collar Criminality? – Exploring a Gene x Environment Interaction Hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About