Social Learning Theory con’t/ Social Structure

The basic assumption in social learning theory is that the same learning process in a context of social structure, interaction, and situation,produces both conforming and deviant behavior. The difference lies inthe direction . . . [of] the balance of influences on behavior.

The probability that persons will engage in criminal and deviant behavior is increased and the probability of their conforming to the norm is decreased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior and espouse definitions favorable to it, are relatively more exposed in-person or symbolically to salient criminal/ deviant models, define it as desirable or justified in a situation discriminative for the behavior, and have received in the past and anticipate in the current or future situation relatively greater reward than punishment for the behavior.

1. Differential Social Organization: 2.Differential Location in the Social Structure 3. Theoretically Defined Structures4.

Differential Social Location

Demographic, social, and cultural characteristics of societies, region, communities, and institutions.-overall characteristics of a community of a society, high/low populations, different cultural characteristics

Relative portion of the collectivities, groups, social roles, and individuals in the social structure as indicated by age, gender, race, class, etc.- how does that put people into different roles/categories. this places us in a different categories, stratification.

- where does a minority group as a whole stand in society, this will reflect on individuals w/in the group.- impact on association etc.

Criminogenic factors specified in one or more structural theories of crime--social disorganization, conflict, anomie, or other (indirectly measured by inequality, pop density, change and mobility)

Primary, secondary, and reference groups that comprise intermediate or immediate social contexts and networks.- family, peer groups, neighborhoods (meso level people)-most directly related to concept of differential social location in learning theory.- what is it about the family that will permit you to associate w/ criminal deviance? the structure of the family, single parent, divorced, etc.

-The main hypothesis in the SSSL Model -The effects of socail structure on criminal behavior are mediated by the social learning variables.

-SS------->SL-------->Criminal or Conforming behavior

1. One or more of the main SL variables measures and tests for effect on deviant and criminal behavior (DA; definitions; reinforcement; imitation)2. Family associations/interaction3. Differential Peer Association - Delinquent friends and gangs4. Empirical Comparison with other theories and in other societies

1. 69% of variance in use and 38% of variance in abuse explained by social learning variables2. (table not shown; 22 to 54% explained variance

1. Sequence and reciprocal effects of delinquency and peer associations2. Perception and actual behavior of peers

-early critique you find association w delinquents and delinquent peers but its a delinquents choose said peers.

-behavior from basis of variables not association-but whatever you have or know you'd teach to the other delinquent behavior to your peers-most research thats been done finds that in sequence most of the time its peer association that precedes delinquent behavior. you begin to be more like the people you are with. -if not from peers then from the family. -"birds of a feather flock together" vs "if you lie down w dogs you wake up w fleas"

- the question to your friends how many engage in a certain kind of behavior-if i engage in delinquent behavior that influences my perception of my friends-don't use respondents perception of behavior ask the subjects themselves. -misperceiving certainty of sanctions -perception of friends behavior and what friends actually do-0.7 correlation (strong) -its the perception theoretically that should have the biggest impact.

-Get individuals in the sample to report on their own behavior and ask them to report who their friends are and then ask the friends yourself to get better reports. -You need some validity of self reports.-Even though you misperceive your friends behavior, because you think that thats what they're doing, then it has an impact on you.-This perception is supposed to come from the actual observation of your peers.

1. Lee et al.

, 2004 example-Theory predisposes take what people usually mean by social structure and hypothesis that thats what produces the difference in individuals-Mediation hypothesis. -Not a lot of studies done. but by en large have been supported. -If there is no relationship between social deviant behavior and social outcome then there is nothing to mediate. theory does not say that all effects will be mediated only a substantial proportion.

2. Other studies--Holland, Verrill, Kim

A. Highfields and Essexfields - WeeksB. Provo (Pinehills) and Silver Lake - EmpeyC. Teaching Family Model - Wolf, BraukmanD.

Oregon Social Learning Center Applied Programs -PattersonE. Oregon Social Learning Center--Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MFTC)F. Oregon Social Learning Center--Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT)G. Andrews' ModelsH. Other ProgramsI. Seattle Social Development Research Group - Hawkins/Catalano

1. guided group interaction (GGI)2. Peer group influence3. effectiveness-common problems discussed and leaders were adults.

encouraged processional attitudes and behaviors. - Empirical evidence-changes were more noticeable w/ black than white kids state reformatory, outcome measure (variable) was reinstitutionalization

1. GGI2. Peer Group/Culture3. Effectiveness- Kids formed groups, it was all peer run and they decided themselves when kids could be released.

-Worked very well, and all judges assigned kids to pine hills program.-Probation officers didn't like that they were being reduced and weren't sending kids back through the system and intensified their efforts to help the kids, and when they reevaluated the program there was no difference between probation officers and pine hills.

1.

Family environment2. Peer group influence3. Behavior modification/point system4. Effectiveness-Parental input and peer input. kids were sent to parents and were in charge of social academic and vocational skills, and peer groups.

1. Adolescent Transition (ATP)--parent groups, teen groups, individual2. At-risk with anti-social patterns, but not delinquent youth3. Aid parents in prosocial parenting skills4.

Group and individual sessions to affect attitudes and peer associations5. Empirical evidence of some success-Worked w parents who worked w teen groups, communication skills, prosocial attitudes/peer associations.-Showed improvements except when there were older delinquents in peer groups.

1. Serious officially adjudicated delinquents2.

Randomly assigned to regular or to MFTC foster care3. Trained foster parents to model, monitor, and reinforce prosocial behavior4. Behavioral therapy sessions5. Empirical evidence of some success-When they evaluated it it had lower rates of official and self report chronic high frequency serious delinquency kids.

-Put one or two young people in a foster family, they did behavioral management methods and *these programs for each child was individualized for the child. they were flexible programs and it was individualized and the kids would get privileges when they were compliant.-Did a lot more of positive reinforcement, so when they did something good they really got praised, worked on affecting change through this. Taking a social perspective. worked on non agressive methods of self expression, compared to group care homes and the kids could be in the foster homes for 1-3 years.

1. Delinquency prevention program of services for 1st & 5th graders in high risk areas2. Classroom based prosocial behavior/skill training3. Behavior modification (reward for prosocial behavior) on playground4. Parenting training to monitor and positively reinforce good behavior and attitudes at home5. Empirical evidence of some success- Police went into high risk areas and worked w 1-5th graders and interaction between home peers and school.

-Classroom based program skills training, group work with the parents.

1. Probation/Prison Studies2. PIC-R Model3. Meta-analysis of Treatment Programs

1. Positive Peer Culture2. Alcohol/drug education-prevention programs3. Meta-analysis of what works

1.

Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP)2. Raising Healthy Children (RHC)

- retro-flexive reformation, groups of delinquents and non delinquents and took the programs from a prison and teaching process would help the offender internalize the prosocial behavior. - promoting anti-gang attitudes, more positive attitudes towards police but didn't prevent gang membership, done through school system by police.