sociology research topics on deviance

Sociology of Deviance Research Paper Topics

In sociology deviance is defined as the violation of a social norm which is likely to result in censure or punishment for the violator. Behind this seemingly simple and clear cut definition, however, lurks a swarming host of controversies. A perusal of course curricula verifies that most sociologists who teach a course on deviance divide the field into two distinctly different perspectives: constructionist approaches and explanatory theories. The constructionist approach sees deviance as ‘‘subjectively problematic,’’ that is, ‘‘in the eye of the beholder,’’ and takes as its primary task an understanding of how judgments of deviance are put together, and with what consequences. Explanatory theories regard deviance as ‘‘objectively given,’’ that is, a syndrome like entity with more or less clear cut, identifiable proper ties whose causal etiology can be explicated by the social scientist. Each perspective has its own mission, agenda, enterprise, and methodology. And though these two approaches define deviance in superficially similar ways, their definitions point to sharply divergent universes of meaning. The enterprises in which these perspectives are engaged are in fact linked only by the objectively similar nature of their subject matter; conceptually and theoretically, they are worlds apart.

45 Sociology of Deviance Research Paper Topics

• Abominations of the body
• Absolutist definitions of deviance
• Addiction and dependency
• Alcoholism and alcohol abuse
• Body modification
• Collective Deviance
• Constructionist perspectives on deviance
• Crime and deviance
• Criminalization of deviance
• Death of the sociology of deviance?
• Deinstitutionalization
• Deviance processing agencies
• Deviance research methods
• Deviance theories
• Deviant Accounts
• Deviant beliefs/cognitive deviance
• Deviant careers
• Deviant identity
• Deviant subcultures
• Explanatory theories of deviance
• Female sex work as deviance
• Medicalization of deviance
• Mental disorder
• Moral boundaries and deviance
• Moral entrepreneur
• Moral panics
• New left realism
• Normative definitions of deviance
• Organizational deviance
• Peacemaking
• Positive deviance
• Positivist theories of deviance
• Poverty and disrepute
• Reactivist definitions of deviance
• Sexual deviance
• Social control
• Transgression
• What is deviance?

Theories of Deviance

Since its inception as a discipline, sociology has studied the causes of deviant behavior, examining why some persons conform to social rules and expectations and why others do not. Typically, sociological theories of deviance reason that aspects of individuals’ social relationships and the social areas in which they live and work assist in explaining the commission of deviant acts. This emphasis on social experiences, and how they contribute to deviant behavior, contrasts with the focus on the internal states of individuals taken by disciplines such as psychology and psychiatry.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Sociological theories are important in understanding the roots of social problems such as crime, violence, and mental illness and in explaining how these problems may be remedied. By specifying the causes of deviance, the theories reveal how aspects of the social environment influence the behavior of individuals and groups. Further, the theories suggest how changes in these influences may yield changes in levels of deviant behaviors. If a theory specifies that a particular set of factors cause deviant behavior, then it also implies that eliminating or altering those factors in the environment will change levels of deviance. By developing policies or measures that are informed by sociological theories, government agencies or programs focused on problems like crime or violence are more likely to yield meaningful reductions in criminal or violent behavior.

Despite their importance, deviance theories disagree about the precise causes of deviant acts. Some look to the structure of society and groups or geographic areas within society, explaining deviance in terms of broad social conditions in which deviance is most likely to flourish. Others explain deviant behavior using the characteristics of individuals, focusing on those characteristics that are most highly associated with learning deviant acts. Other theories view deviance as a social status conferred by one group or person on others, a status that is imposed by persons or groups in power in order to protect their positions of power. These theories explain deviance in terms of differentials in power between individuals or groups.

This topic reviews the major sociological theories of deviance. It offers an overview of each major theory, summarizing its explanation of deviant behavior. Before reviewing the theories, however, it may prove useful to describe two different dimensions of theory that will structure our discussion. The first of these, the level of explanation, refers to the scope of the theory and whether it focuses on the behavior and characteristics of individuals or on the characteristics of social aggregates such as neighborhoods, cities, or other social areas. Micro-level theories stress the individual, typically explaining deviant acts in terms of personal characteristics of individuals or the immediate social context in which deviant acts occur. In contrast, macro-level theories focus on social aggregates or groups, looking to the structural characteristics of areas in explaining the origins of deviance, particularly rates of deviance among those groups.

Theories of deviance also vary in relation to a second dimension, causal focus. This dimension divides theories into two groups, those that explain the social origins of norm violations and those explaining societal reactions to deviance. Social origin theories focus on the causes of norm violations. Typically, these theories identify aspects of the social environment that trigger norm violations; social conditions in which the violations are most likely to occur. In contrast, social reaction theories argue that deviance is often a matter of social construction, a status imposed by one person or group on others and a status that ultimately may influence the subsequent behavior of the designated deviant. Social reaction theories argue that some individuals and groups may be designated or labeled as deviant and that the process of labeling may trap or engulf those individuals or groups in a deviant social role.

These two dimensions offer a four-fold scheme for classifying types of deviance theories. The first, macro-level origin theories, focus on the causes of norm violations associated with broad structural conditions in the society. These theories typically examine the influences of such structural characteristics of populations or communities like the concentration of poverty, levels of community integration, or the density and age distribution of the population on areal rates of deviance. The theories have clear implications for public policies to reduce levels of deviance. Most often, the theories highlight the need for altering structural characteristics of society, such as levels of poverty, that foster deviant behavior.

The second, micro-level origin theories focus on the characteristics of the deviant and his or her immediate social environment. These theories typically examine the relationship between a person’s involvement in deviance and such characteristics as the influence of peers and significant others, persons’ emotional stakes in conformity, their beliefs about the propriety of deviance and conformity, and their perceptions of the threat of punishments for deviant acts. In terms of their implications for public policy, micro-level origin theories emphasize the importance of assisting individuals in resisting negative peer influences while also increasing their attachment to conforming lifestyles and activities.

A third type of theories may be termed micro-level reaction theories. These accord importance to those aspects of interpersonal reactions that may seriously stigmatize or label the deviant and thereby reinforce her or his deviant social status. According to these theories, reactions to deviance may have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of subsequent deviant behavior. Because labeling may increase levels of deviance, micro-level reaction theories argue that agencies of social control (e.g. police, courts, correctional systems) should adopt policies of ”nonintervention.”

Finally, macro-level reaction theories emphasize broad structural conditions in society that are associated with the designation of entire groups or segments of the society as deviant. These theories tend to stress the importance of structural characteristics of populations, groups, or geographic areas, such as degrees of economic inequality or concentration of political power within communities or the larger society. According to macro-level reaction theories, powerful groups impose the status of deviant as a mechanism for controlling those groups that represent the greatest political, economic, or social threat to their position of power. The theories also imply that society can only achieve reduced levels of deviance by reducing the levels of economic and political inequality in society.

The rest of this article is divided into sections corresponding to each of these four ”types” of deviance theory. The article concludes with a discussion of new directions for theory—the development of explanations that cut across and integrate different theory types and the elaboration of existing theories through greater specification of the conditions under which those theories apply.

Macro-Level Origins of Deviance

Theories of the macro-level origins of deviance look to the broad, structural characteristics of society, and groups within society, to explain deviant behavior. Typically, these theories examine one of three aspects of social structure. The first is the pervasiveness and consequences of poverty in modern American society. Robert Merton’s (1938) writing on American social structure and Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s (1960) subsequent work on urban gangs laid the theoretical foundation for this perspective. Reasoning that pervasive materialism in American culture creates unattainable aspirations for many segments of the population, Merton (1964) and others argue that there exists an environmental state of ”strain” among the poor. The limited availability of legitimate opportunities for attaining material wealth forces the poor to adapt through deviance, either by achieving wealth through illegitimate means or by rejecting materialistic aspirations and withdrawing from society altogether.

According to this reasoning, deviance is a byproduct of poverty and a mechanism through which the poor may attain wealth, albeit illegitimately. Thus, ”strain” theories of deviance interpret behaviors such as illegal drug selling, prostitution, and armed robbery as innovative adaptations to blocked opportunities for legitimate economic or occupational success. Similarly, the theories interpret violent crimes in terms of the frustrations of poverty, as acts of aggression triggered by those frustrations (Blau and Blau 1982). Much of the current research in this tradition is examining the exact mechanisms by which poverty and economic inequality influence rates of deviant behavior.

Although once considered a leading theory of deviance, strain theory has come under criticism for its narrow focus on poverty as the primary cause of deviant behavior. Recent efforts have sought to revise and extend the basic principles of the theory by expanding and reformulating ideas about strain. Robert Agnew (1992) has made the most notable revisions to the theory. His reformulation emphasizes social psychological, rather than structural, sources of strain. Agnew also broadens the concept of strain, arguing that poverty may be a source of strain, but it is not the only source. Three sources of strain are important: failure to achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and confrontation with negative stimuli. The first type of strain, failure to achieve positively valued goals, may be the result of a failure to live up to one’s expectations or aspirations. Strain may also result if an individual feels that he or she is not being treated in a fair or just manner. The removal of a positively valued stimulus, such as the death of a family member or the loss of a boyfriend or girlfriend, can also result in strain. Finally, strain can also be produced by the presentation of negative stimuli, such as unpleasant school experiences. Thus, although this reformulation of strain theory retains the notion that deviance is often the result of strain, the concept of strain is broadened to include multiple sources of strain.

The second set of macro-level origin theories examine the role of culture in deviant behavior. Although not ignoring structural forces such as poverty in shaping deviance, this class of theories reasons that there may exist cultures within the larger culture that endorse or reinforce deviant values; deviant subcultures that produce higher rates of deviance among those segments of the population sharing subcultural values.

Subcultural explanations have their origin in two distinct sociological traditions. The first is writing on the properties of delinquent gangs that identifies a distinct lower-class culture of gang members that encourages aggression, thrill seeking, and antisocial behavior (e.g., Miller 1958). The second is writing on cultural conflict that recognizes that within complex societies there will occur contradictions between the conduct norms of different groups. Thorsten Sellin (1938) suggests that in heterogeneous societies several different subcultures may emerge, each with its own set of conduct norms. According to Sellin, the laws and norms applied to the entire society do not necessarily reflect cultural consensus but rather the values and beliefs of the dominant social groups.

Subcultural theories emerging from these two traditions argue that deviance is the product of a cohesive set of values and norms that favors deviant behavior and is endorsed by a segment of the general population. Perhaps most prominent among the theories is Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti’s (1967) writing on subcultures of criminal violence. Wolfgang and Ferracuti reason that there may exist a distinct set of beliefs and expectations within the society; a subculture that promotes and encourages violent interactions. According to Wolfgang and Ferracuti, this violent subculture is pervasive among blacks in the United States and may explain extremely high rates of criminal homicide among young black males.

Although Wolfgang and Ferracuti offer little material specifying the subculture’s precise causes, or empirical evidence demonstrating the pervasiveness of subcultural beliefs, other writers have extended the theory by exploring the relationship between beliefs favoring violence and such factors as the structure of poverty in the United States (Curtis 1975; Messner 1983), the history of racial oppression of blacks (Silberman 1980), and ties to the rural South and a southern subculture of violence (Gastil 1971; Erlanger 1974). Even these writers, however, offer little empirical evidence of violent subcultures within U.S. society.

A third class of theories about the macro-level origins of deviance began with the work of sociologists at the University of Chicago in the 1920s. Unlike strain and subcultural theories, these stress the importance of the social integration of neighborhoods and communities—the degree to which neighborhoods are stable and are characterized by a homogenous set of beliefs and values—as a force influencing rates of deviant behavior. As levels of integration increase, rates of deviance decrease. Based in the early work of sociologists such as Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, the theories point to the structure of social controls in neighborhoods, arguing that neighborhoods lacking in social controls are ”disorganized,” that is, areas in which there is a virtual vacuum of social norms. It is in this normative vacuum that deviance flourishes. Therefore, these theories view deviance as a property of areas or locations rather than specific groups of people.

Early writers in the ”disorganization” tradition identified industrialization and urbanization as the causes of disorganized communities and neighborhoods. Witnessing immense growth in eastern cities such as Chicago, these writers argued that industrial and urban expansion create zones of disorganization within cities. Property owners move from the residential pockets on the edge of business and industrial areas and allow buildings to deteriorate in anticipation of the expansion of business and industry. This process of natural succession and change in cities disrupts traditional mechanisms of social control in neighborhoods. As property owners leave transitional areas, more mobile and diverse groups enter. But the added mobility and diversity of these groups translate into fewer primary relationships—families and extended kinship and friendship networks. And as the number of primary relationships decline, so will informal social controls in neighborhoods. Hence, rates of deviance will rise.

Recent writing from this perspective focuses on the mechanisms by which specific places in urban areas become the spawning grounds for deviant acts (Bursik and Webb 1982; Bursik 1984; and others). For example, Rodney Stark (1987) argues that high levels of population density are associated with particularly low levels of supervision of children. With little supervision, children perform poorly in school and are much less likely to develop ”stakes in conformity”—that is, emotional and psychological investments in academic achievement and other conforming behaviors. Without such stakes, children and adolescents are much more likely to turn to deviant alternatives. Thus, according to Stark, rates of deviance will be high in densely populated areas because social controls in the form of parental supervision are either weak or entirely absent.

Similarly, Robert Crutchfield (1989) argues that the structure of work opportunities in areas may have the same effect. Areas characterized primarily by secondary-sector work opportunities— low pay, few career opportunities, and high employee turnover—may tend to attract and retain persons with few stakes in conventional behavior—a ”situation of company” in which deviance is likely to flourish.

Recent writing from the disorganization perspective has also taken the form of ethnographies; qualitative studies of urban areas and the deviance producing dynamics of communities. As Sullivan (1989, p. 9) states, ethnographies describe the community ”as a locus of interaction, intermediate between the individual and the larger society, where the many constraints and opportunities of the total society are narrowed to a subset within which local individuals choose.” At the heart of Sullivan’s argument is the idea that social networks in neighborhoods are important in understanding whether individuals are capable of finding meaningful opportunities for work. For example, youth were less likely to turn to crime in those neighborhoods where they could take advantage of family and neighborhood connections to blue collar jobs. Because of the greater employment opportunities in these neighborhoods, even youth who become involved in crime were less likely to persist in high-risk criminal behaviors.

Similarly, Jay MacLeod (1995) attempts to explain how the aspirations of youth living in urban areas have been ”leveled,” or reduced to the point where the youths have little hope for a better future. In an analysis of two urban gangs, MacLeod argues that the youths’ family and work experiences, along with their relationships with their peers, help explain why a predominantly white gang had lower aspirations and engaged in more delinquent and antisocial behavior than the other gang, predominantly comprised of African Americans. According to MacLeod, the parents of white youth were much less likely to discipline their children or to encourage them to achieve and do well in school. Also, white youth had more experience on the job market than the African American youth. This contributed to a more pessimistic outlook and a lowering of their future aspirations.

Finally, MacLeod argues that the white youths’ immersion in a subculture, which emphasized rejecting the authority of the school, reinforced their negative attitudes to a much greater extent than the African American peer group.

In sum, theories of the macro-level origins of deviance argue that many of the causes of deviance may be found in the characteristics of groups within society, or in the characteristics of geographic areas and communities. They offer explanations of group and areal differences in deviance—for example, why some cities have relatively higher rates of crime than other cities or why blacks have higher rates of serious interpersonal violence than other ethnic groups. These theories make no attempt to explain the behavior of individuals or the occurrence of individual deviant acts. Indeed, they reason that deviance is best understood as a property of an area, community, or group, regardless of the individuals living in the area or community, or the individuals comprising the group.

The theories’ implications for public policy focus on the characteristics of geographic areas and communities that lead to deviance. The impact of change on neighborhoods, for example, can be reduced if the boundaries of residential areas are preserved. By preserving such boundaries, communities are less likely to become transitional neighborhoods that foster deviance and crime. Also, by maintaining residential properties people become invested in their own community, which helps foster the mechanisms of informal social control that make deviance less likely. Strengthening schools and other stabilizing institutions in neighborhoods, such as churches and community centers, can also contribute to a reduction in deviance. Finally, establishing networks for jobs and job placement in disadvantaged areas may increase the opportunities of employment among youth. If they succeed in increasing employment, the networks should decrease the chances that youth will turn to careers in crime.

Micro-Level Origins of Deviance

Many explanations of deviance argue that its causes are rooted in the background or personal circumstances of the individual. Micro-level origin theories have developed over the past fifty years, identifying mechanisms by which ordinarily conforming individuals may become deviant. These theories assume the existence of a homogeneous, pervasive set of norms in society and proceed to explain why persons or entire groups of persons violate the norms. There exist two important traditions within this category of theories. The first tradition involves ”social learning theories”—explanations that focus on the mechanisms through which people learn the techniques and attitudes favorable to committing deviant acts. The second tradition involves ”social control theories”—explanations that emphasize factors in the social environment that regulate the behavior of individuals, thereby preventing the occurrence of deviant acts.

Edwin Sutherland’s (1947) theory of differential association laid the foundation for learning theories. At the heart of this theory is the assumption that deviant behavior, like all other behaviors, is learned. Further, this learning occurs within intimate personal groups—networks of family members and close friends. Thus, according to these theories individuals learn deviance from persons closest to them. Sutherland specified a process of differential association, reasoning that persons become deviant in association with deviant others. Persons learn from others the techniques of committing deviant acts and attitudes favorable to the commission of those acts. Further, Sutherland reasoned that persons vary in their degree of association with deviant others; persons regularly exposed to close friends and family members who held beliefs favoring deviance and who committed deviant acts would be much more likely than others to develop those same beliefs and commit deviant acts.

Sutherland’s ideas about learning processes have played a lasting role in micro-level deviance theories. Central to his perspective is the view that beliefs and values favoring deviance are a primary cause of deviant behavior. Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers (1966) and subsequently Akers (1985) extended Sutherland’s ideas, integrating them with principles of operant conditioning. Reasoning that learning processes may best be understood in terms of the concrete rewards and punishments given for behavior, Burgess and Akers argue that deviance is learned through associations with others and through a system of rewards and punishments, imposed by close friends and relatives, for participation in deviant acts. Subsequent empirical studies offer compelling support for elements of learning theory (Matsueda 1982; Akers et al. 1979; Matsueda and Heimer 1987).

Some examples may be useful at this point. According to the theory of differential association, juveniles develop beliefs favorable to the commission of delinquent acts and knowledge about the techniques of committing deviant acts from their closest friends, typically their peers. Thus, sufficient exposure to peers endorsing beliefs favoring deviance who also have knowledge about the commission of deviant acts will cause the otherwise conforming juvenile to commit deviant acts. Thus, if adolescent peer influences encourage smoking, drinking alcohol, and other forms of drug abuse— and exposure to these influences occurs frequently, over a long period of time, and involves relationships that are important to the conforming adolescent—then he or she is likely to develop beliefs and values favorable to committing these acts. Once those beliefs and values develop, he or she is likely to commit the acts.

The second class of micro-level origin theories, control theories, explores the causes of deviance from an altogether different perspective. Control theories take for granted the existence of a cohesive set of norms shared by most persons in the society and reason that most persons want to and will typically conform to these prevailing social norms. The emphasis in these theories, unlike learning theories, is on the factors that bond individuals to conforming lifestyles. The bonds act as social and psychological constraints on the individual, binding persons to normative conformity (Toby 1957; Hirschi 1969). People deviate from norms when these bonds to conventional lifestyles are weak, and hence, when they have little restraining influence over the individual. Among control theorists, Travis Hirschi (1969) has made the greatest contributions to our knowledge about bonding processes and deviant behavior. Writing on the causes of delinquency, he argued that four aspects of bonding are especially relevant to control theory: emotional attachments to conforming others, psychological commitments to conformity, involvements in conventional activities, and beliefs consistent with conformity to prevailing norms.

Among the most important of the bonding elements are emotional attachments individuals may have to conforming others and commitments to conformity—psychological investments or stakes people hold in a conforming lifestyle. Those having weak attachments—that is, people who are insensitive to the opinions of conforming others— and who have few stakes in conformity, in the form of commitments to occupation or career and education, are more likely than others to deviate (see, e.g., Paternoster et al. 1983; Thornberry and Christenson 1984; Liska and Reed 1985). In effect, these individuals are ”free” from the constraints that ordinarily bond people to normative conformity. Conversely, individuals concerned about the opinions of conforming others and who have heavy psychological investments in work or school will see the potential consequences of deviant acts—rejection by friends or loss of a job—as threatening or costly, and consequently will refrain from those acts.

A related concern is the role of sanctions in preventing deviant acts. Control theorists like Hirschi reason that most people are utilitarian in theirjudgments about deviant acts, and thus evaluate carefully the risks associated with each act. Control theories typically maintain that the threat of sanctions actually prevents deviant acts when the risks outweigh the gains. Much of the most recent writing on sanctions and their effects has stressed the importance of perceptual processes in decisions to commit deviant acts (Gibbs 1975, 1977; Tittle 1980; Paternoster et al. 1982, 1987; Piliavin et al. 1986; Matsueda, Piliavin, and Gartner 1988). At the heart of this perspective is the reasoning that individuals perceiving the threat of sanctions as high are much more likely to refrain from deviance than those perceiving the threat as low, regardless of the actual level of sanction threat.

Writing from the social control perspective attempts to build on and extend the basic assumptions and propositions of control theory. Michael Gottfredson, in conjunction with Hirschi, has developed a general theory of crime that identifies ”low self-control,” as opposed to diminished social control, as the primary cause of deviant behavior (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1987; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Arguing that all people are inherently self-interested, pursuing enhancement of personal pleasure and avoiding pain, Gottfredson and Hirschi suggest that most crimes, and for that matter most deviant acts, are the result of choices to maximize pleasure, minimize pain, or both.

Crimes occur when opportunities to maximize personal pleasure are high and when the certainty of painful consequences is low. Further, people who pursue short-term gratification with little consideration for the long-term consequences of their actions are most prone to criminal behavior. In terms of classical control theory, these are individuals who have weak bonds to conformity or who disregard or ignore the potentially painful consequences of their actions. They are ”relatively unable or unwilling to delay gratification; they are indifferent to punishment and the interests of others” (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1987, pp. 959-960).

Building on traditional control theory, Charles Tittle (1995) reasons that it helps explain why individuals conform, but it also helps to explain why they engage in deviant behavior. Tittle (1995, p. 135) argues that ”the amount of control to which an individual is subject, relative to the amount of control he or she can exercise, determines the probability of deviance occurring as well as the type of deviance likely to occur.” Conformity results when individuals are subjected to and exert roughly equal amounts of control—there is ”control balance.” According to Tittle, however, individuals who are subjected to more control than they exert will be motivated to engage in deviance in order to escape being controlled by others.

Robert Sampson and John Laub (1993) have also expanded on the basic propositions of control theory. In their research, Sampson and Laub focus on stability and change in the antisocial behavior of individuals as they grow from juveniles to adults. Sampson and Laub argue that family, school, and peer relationships influence the likelihood of deviant behavior among juveniles. In particular, Sampson and Laub argue that the structure of the family (e.g., residential mobility, family size) affects family context or process (e.g., parental supervision, discipline), which, in turn, makes deviance among children more or less likely. Many adolescent delinquents grow up to become adult criminals because their juvenile delinquency makes the formation of adult social bonds to work and family less likely. Despite this continuity in antisocial behavior from adolescence to adulthood, however, Sampson and Laub argue that many juvenile delinquents do not commit deviant acts as adults because they develop adult social bonds, such as attachment to a spouse or commitment to a job.

In sum, micro-level origin theories look to those aspects of the individual’s social environment that influence her or his likelihood of deviance. Learning theories stress the importance of deviant peers and other significant individuals, and their impact on attitudes and behaviors favorable to the commission of deviant acts. These theories assume that the social environment acts as an agent of change, transforming otherwise conforming individuals into deviants through peer influences. People exposed to deviant others frequently and sufficiently, like persons exposed to a contagious disease who become ill, will become deviant themselves. Control theories avoid this ”contagion” model, viewing the social environment as a composite of controls and restraints cementing the individual to a conforming lifestyle. Deviance occurs when elements of the bond— aspects of social control—are weak or broken, thereby freeing the individual to violate social norms. Sanctions and the threat of sanctions are particularly important to control theories, a central part of the calculus that rational actors use in choosing to commit or refrain from committing deviant acts.

The policy implications of micro-level origin theories are obvious. If, as learning theories argue, deviance is learned through association with deviant peers, then the way to eliminate deviance is to assist youths in resisting deviant peer influences and helping them to develop attitudes that disapprove of deviant behavior. Control theories, on the other hand, suggest that deviance can be reduced with programs that help families develop stronger bonds between parents and children. Control theory also implies that programs that help youths develop stronger commitments to conventional lines of activity and to evaluate the costs and benefits of deviant acts will also result in a reduction of problematic behavior.

Micro-Level Reactions to Deviance

Unlike micro-level origin theories, micro-level reaction theories make no assumptions about the existence of a homogeneous, pervasive set of norms in society. These theories take an altogether different approach to explaining deviant behavior, viewing deviance as a matter of definition; a social status imposed by individuals or groups on others. Most argue that there exists no single pervasive set of norms in society and that deviant behavior may best be understood in terms of norms and their enforcement. These theories typically stress the importance of labeling processes—the mechanisms by which acts become defined or labeled as ”deviant—and the consequences of labeling for the person so labeled. Many of these theories are concerned with the development of deviant lifestyles or careers; long-term commitments to deviant action.

One of the most important writers in this tradition is Howard Becker (1963). Becker argues that deviance is not a property inherent in any particular form of behavior but rather a property conferred on those behaviors by audiences witnessing them. Becker (1963, p. 9) notes that ”. . . deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender.’ The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.” Thus, Becker and others in this tradition orient the study of deviance on rules and sanctions, and the application of labels. Their primary concern is the social construction of deviance—that is, how some behaviors and classes of people come to be defined as ”deviant” by others observing and judging the behavior.

Building on the idea that deviance is a property conferred on behavior that is witnessed by a social audience, Becker (1963) also developed a simple typology of deviant behavior. The dimensions upon which the typology is based are whether or not the individual is perceived as deviant and whether or not the behavior violates any rule. Conforming behavior is behavior that does not violate any rules and is not perceived as deviant. Individuals in the opposite scenario, in which the person both violates rules and is perceived by others as deviant, Becker labeled pure deviants. Some individuals, according to Becker, may be perceived as deviant, even though they have not violated any rules. Becker identified these individuals as the falsely accused. Finally, the secret deviant is one who has violated the rules, but, nonetheless, is not perceived by others as being deviant.

Equally important is the work of Edwin Lemert (1951). Stressing the importance of labeling to subsequent deviant behavior, he argues that repetitive deviance may arise from social reactions to initial deviant acts. According to Lemert (1951, p. 287), deviance may often involve instances where ”a person begins to employ his deviant behavior. . . as a means of defense, attack or adjustment to the. . . problems created by the consequent social reactions to him.” Therefore, a cause of deviant careers is negative social labeling; instances where reactions to initial deviant acts are harsh and reinforce a ”deviant” self-definition. Such labeling forces the individual into a deviant social role, organizing his or her identity around a pattern of deviance that structures a way of life and perpetuates deviant behavior (Becker 1963; Schur 1971, 1985).

Perhaps the most significant developments in this tradition have contributed to knowledge about the causes of mental illness. Proponents of micro-level reaction theories argue that the label ”mental illness” can be so stigmatizing to those labeled, especially when mental-health professionals impose the label, that they experience difficulty returning to nondeviant social roles. As a result, the labeling process may actually exacerbate mental disorders. Former mental patients may find themselves victims of discrimination at work, in personal relationships, or in other social spheres (Scheff 1966). This discrimination, and the widespread belief that others devalue and discriminate against mental patients, may lead to self-devaluation and fear of social rejection by others (Link 1982, 1987). In some instances, this devaluation and fear may be associated with demoralization of the patient, loss of employment and personal income, and the persistence of mental disorders following treatment (Link 1987).

Hence, micro-level reaction theories reason that deviant behavior is rooted in the process by which persons define and label the behavior of others as deviant. The theories offer explanations of individual differences in deviance, stressing the importance of audience reactions to initial deviant acts. However, these theories make no attempt to explain the origins of the initial acts (Scheff 1966). Rather, they are concerned primarily with the development and persistence of deviant careers.

Micro-level reaction theories have very different implications for public policy than macro- and micro-level origins theories. Micro-level reaction theories argue that unwarranted labeling can lead to deviant careers. In effect, the reaction to deviance can cause deviant behavior to escalate. Thus, in order to reduce deviance, agencies of social control must adopt policies of nonintervention. Rather than being formally sanctioned and labeled as deviant, nonintervention policies must encourage diversion and deinstitutionalization. Formal sanctioning must be highly selective, focusing only on the most serious and threatening deviant acts.

Macro-Level Reactions to Deviance

The final class of theories looks to the structure of economic and political power in society as a cause of deviant behavior. Macro-level reaction theories—either Marxist or other conflict theories— view deviance as a status imposed by dominant social classes to control and regulate populations that threaten political and economic hegemony. Like micro-level reaction theories, these theories view deviance as a social construction and accord greatest importance to the mechanisms by which society defines and controls entire classes of behavior and people as deviant in order to mediate the threat. However, these theories reason that the institutional control of deviants has integral ties to economic and political order in society.

Marxist theories stress the importance of the economic structure of society and begin with the assumption that the dominant norms in capitalist societies reflect the interests of the powerful economic class; the owners of business. But contemporary Marxist writers (Quinney 1970, 1974, 1980; Spitzer 1975; Young 1983) also argue that modern capitalist societies are characterized by large ”problem populations”—people who have become displaced from the workforce and alienated from the society. Generally, the problem populations include racial and ethnic minorities, the chronically unemployed, and the extremely impoverished. They are a burden to the society and particularly to the capitalist class because they create a form of social expense that must be carefully controlled if the economic order is to be preserved.

Marxist theories reason that economic elites use institutions such as the legal, mental-health, and welfare systems to control and manage society’s problem populations. In effect, these institutions define and process society’s problem populations as deviant in order to ensure effective management and control. In societies or communities characterized by rigid economic stratification, elites are likely to impose formal social control in order to preserve the prevailing economic order.

Conflict theories stress the importance of the political structure of society and focus on the degree of threat to the hegemony of political elites, arguing that elites employ formal social controls to regulate threats to political and social order (Turk 1976; Chambliss 1978; Chambliss and Mankoff 1976). According to these theories, threat varies in relation to the size of the problem population, with large problem populations substantially more threatening to political elites than small populations. Thus, elites in societies and communities in which those problem populations are large and perceived as especially threatening are more likely to process members of the problem populations as deviants than in areas where such problems are small.

Much of the writing in this tradition has addressed the differential processing of people defined as deviant. Typically, this writing has taken two forms. The first involves revisionist histories linking the development of prisons, mental asylums, and other institutions of social control to structural changes in U.S. and European societies. These histories demonstrate that those institutions often target the poor and chronically unemployed independent of their involvement in crime and other deviant acts, and thereby protect and serve the interests of dominant economic and political groups (Scull 1978; Rafter 1985).

A second and more extensive literature includes empirical studies of racial and ethnic disparities in criminal punishments. Among the most important of these studies is Martha Myers and Suzette Talarico’s (1987) analysis of the social and structural contexts that foster racial and ethnic disparities in the sentencing of criminal offenders. Myers and Talarico’s research, and other studies examining the linkages between community social structure and differential processing (Myers 1987, 1990; Peterson and Hagan 1984; Bridges, Crutchfield, and Simpson 1987; Bridges and Crutchfield 1988), demonstrate the vulnerability of minorities to differential processing during historical periods and in areas in which they are perceived by whites as serious threats to political and social order. In effect, minorities accused of crimes during these periods and in these geographic areas are perceived as threats to white hegemony, and therefore become legitimate targets for social control.

In addition to studying the connections between community social structure and the differential processing of racial and ethnic minorities, researchers have also begun to examine how court officials’ perceptions of offenders can influence disparities in punishments. Bridges and Steen (1998), for example, show how court officials’ perceptions of white and minority youths differ, and how these different perceptions contribute to different recommendations for sentencing. Probation officers often attribute the offenses of minority youths to internal characteristics of the youths (i.e., aspects of their personality), while attributing the offenses of white youths to external characteristics (i.e., aspects of their environments). As a result of these differential attributions, minority youths are perceived as more threatening, more at risk for re-offending than whites and more likely to receive severe recommendations for sentences.

Thus, macro-level reaction theories view deviance as a by-product of inequality in modern society, a social status imposed by powerful groups on those who are less powerful. Unlike micro-level reaction theories, these theories focus on the forms of inequality in society and how entire groups within the society are managed and controlled as deviants by apparatuses of the state. Like those theories, however, macro-level reaction theories make little or no attempt to explain the origins of deviant acts, claiming instead that the status of ”deviant” is, in large part, a social construction designed primarily to protect the interests of the most powerful social groups. The primary concern of these theories is explicating the linkages between inequality in society and inequality in the labeling and processing of deviants.

Since macro-level reaction theories view deviance as a status imposed by powerful groups on those with less power, the most immediate policy implication of these theories is that imbalances in power and inequality must be reduced in order to reduce levels of deviance and levels of inequality in the sanctioning of deviance. More effective monitoring of government agencies that are used to control problem populations, such as the criminal justice system, can also help to reduce the disproportionate processing of less powerful groups, such as racial minorities, as deviant.

New Theoretical Directions

A recurring issue in the study of deviance is the contradictory nature of many deviance theories. The theories often begin with significantly different assumptions about the nature of human behavior and end with significantly different conclusions about the causes of deviant acts. Some scholars maintain that the oppositional nature of these theories—the theories are developed and based on systematic rejection of other theories (Hirschi 1989)—tends toward clarity and internal consistency in reasoning about the causes of deviance. However, other scholars argue that this oppositional nature is intellectually divisive—acceptance of one theory precludes acceptance of another—and ”has made the field seem fragmented, if not in disarray” (Liska, Krohn, and Messner 1989, p. 1).

A related and equally troublesome problem is the contradictory nature of much of the scientific evidence supporting deviance theories. For each theory, there exists a literature of studies that supports and a literature that refutes major arguments of the theory. And although nearly every theory of deviance may receive empirical confirmation at some level, virtually no theory of deviance is sufficiently comprehensive to withstand empirical falsification at some other level. The difficult task for sociologists is discerning whether and under what circumstances negative findings should be treated as negating a particular theory (Walker and Cohen 1985).

In recent years, these two problems have renewed sociologists’ interest in deviance theory and, at the same time, suggested new directions for the development of theory. The oppositonal nature of theories has spawned interest in theoretical integration. Many scholars are dissatisfied with classical theories, arguing that their predictive power is exceedingly low (see Elliott 1985; Liska, Krohn, and Messner 1989). Limited to a few key explanatory variables, any one theory can explain only a limited range and amount of deviant behavior. And because most scholars reason that the causes of deviance are multiple and quite complex, most also contend that it may be ”necessary to combine different theories to capture the entire range of causal variables” (Liska, Krohn, and Messner 1989, p. 4).

Because it combines the elements of different theories, the new theory will have greater explanatory power than theories from which it was derived. However, meaningful integration of deviance theories will require much more than the simple combination of variables. Scholars must first reconcile the oppositional aspects of theories, including many of their underlying assumptions about society, the motivations of human behavior, and the causes of deviant acts. For example, learning theories focus heavily on the motivations for deviance, stressing the importance of beliefs and values that ”turn” the individual to deviant acts. In contrast, control theories accord little importance to such motivations, examining instead those aspects of the social environment that constrain people from committing deviant acts. Reconciling such differences is never an easy task, and in some instances may be impossible (Hirschi 1979).

The problem of contradictory evidence suggests a related but different direction for deviance theory. Theories may vary significantly in the conditions—termed scope conditions—under which they apply (Walker and Cohen 1985; Tittle 1975; Tittle and Curran 1988). Under some scope conditions, theories may find extensive empirical support, and under others virtually none. For instance, macro-level origin theories concerned with the frustrating effects of poverty on deviance may have greater applicability to people living in densely populated urban areas than those living in rural areas. The frustration of urban poverty may be much more extreme than in rural areas, even though the actual levels of poverty may be the same. As a result, the frustrations of urban poverty may be more likely to cause deviant adaptations in the form of violent crime, drug abuse, and vice than those of rural poverty. In this instance, ”urbanness” may constitute a condition that activates strain theories linking poverty to deviance. Obviously, the same theories simply may not apply in rural areas or under other conditions.

Effective development of deviance theory will require much greater attention to the specification of such scope conditions. Rather than combining causal variables from different theories as integrationists would recommend, this approach to theory development encourages scholars to explore more fully the strengths and limitations of their own theories. This approach will require more complete elaboration of extant theory, explicitly specifying those circumstances under which each theory may be meaningfully tested and thus falsified. The result will be a greater specification of each theory’s contribution to explanations of deviant behavior.

These two directions have clear and very different implications for the development of deviance theory. Theoretical integration offers overarching models of deviant behavior that cut across classical theories, combining different levels of explanation and causal focuses. If fundamental differences between theories can be reconciled, integration is promising. The specification of scope conditions offers greater clarification of existing theories, identifying those conditions under which each theory most effectively applies. Although this direction promises no general theories of deviance, it offers the hope of more meaningful and useful explanations of deviant behavior.

References:

• Agnew, Robert 1992 ‘‘Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency.’’ Criminology 30:47–88.
• Akers, Ronald L. 1985 Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
• Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich 1979 ‘‘Social Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory.’’ American Sociological Review 44:636–655.
• Becker, Howard 1963 The Outsiders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Blau, Judith, and Peter Blau 1982 ‘‘Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime.’’ American Sociological Review 47:114–128.
• Bridges, George S., and Robert D. Crutchfield 1988 ‘‘Law, Social Standing and Racial Disparities in Imprisonment.’’ Social Forces 66:699–724.
• Bridges, George S., and Edith Simpson 1987 ‘‘Crime, Social Structure and Criminal Punishment.’’ Social Problems 34:344–361.
• Bridges, George S., and Sara Steen 1998 ‘‘Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms.’’ American Sociological Review 63:554–570.
• Burgess, Robert L., and Ronald Akers 1966 ‘‘A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior.’’ Social Problems 14:128–147.
• Bursik, Robert J. 1984 ‘‘Urban Dynamics and Ecological Studies of Delinquency.’’ Social Forces 63:393–413.
• Bursik, Robert J., and J. Webb 1982 ‘‘Community Change and Ecological Studies of Delinquency.’’ American Journal of Sociology 88:24–42.
• Chambliss, William 1978 On the Take. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Chambliss, William, and Milton Mankoff 1976 Whose Law, What Order? New York: Wiley.
• Cloward, Richard 1959 ‘‘Illegitimate Means, Anomie and Deviant Behavior.’’ American Sociological Review 24:164–176.
• Cloward, Richard, and Lloyd E. Ohlin 1960 Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press.
• Crutchfield, Robert D. 1989 ‘‘Labor Stratification and Violent Crime.’’ Social Forces 68:489–513.
• Curtis, Lynn 1975 Violence, Race and Culture. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
• Elliott, Delbert 1985 ‘‘The Assumption That Theories can be Combined with Increased Explanatory Power: Theoretical Integrations.’’ In Robert F. Meier, ed., Theoretical Methods in Criminology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
• Erlanger, Howard 1974 ‘‘The Empirical Status of the Subculture of Violence Thesis.’’ Social Problems 22:280–292.
• Gastil, Raymond 1971 ‘‘Homicide and a Regional Culture of Violence.’’ American Sociological Review 36:412–427.
• Gibbs, Jack P. 1975 Crime, Punishment and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.
• Gibbs, Jack P. 1977 ‘‘Social Control, Deterrence, and Perspectives on Social Order.’’ Social Forces 62:359–374.
• Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi 1990 A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
• Hirschi, Travis 1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Hirschi, Travis 1979 ‘‘Separate and Unequal is Better.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16:34–37.
• Hirschi, Travis 1989 ‘‘Exploring Alternatives to Integrated Theory.’’ In Steven F. Messner, Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E. Liska, eds., Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
• Hirschi, Travis, and Michael R. Gottfredson 1987 ‘‘Causes of White Collar Crime.’’ Criminology 25:949–974.
• Lemert, Edwin 1951 Social Pathology. New York: Mc- Graw-Hill.
• Link, Bruce 1982 ‘‘Mental Patient Status, Work and Income: An Examination of the Effects of a Psychiatric Label.’’ American Sociological Review 47:202–215.
• Link, Bruce 1987 ‘‘Understanding Labeling Effects in the Area of Mental Disorders: An Assessment of the Effects of Expectations of Rejection.’’ American Sociological Review 52:96–112.
• Liska, Allen E., Marvin D. Kroh, and Steven S. Messner 1989 ‘‘Strategies and Requisites for Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime.’’ In Steven S. Messner, Marvin D. Krohn, and Allen E. Liska, eds., Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
• MacLeod, Jay 1995 Ain’t No Makin’ It. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
• Matsueda, Ross L. 1982 ‘‘Testing Control Theory and Differential Association: A Causal Modeling Approach.’’ American Sociological Review 47:36–58.
• Matsueda, Ross L., and Karen Heimer 1987 ‘‘Race, Family Structure and Delinquency: A Test of Differential Association and Social Control Theories.’’ American Sociological Review 52:826–840.
• Matsueda, Ross L., Irving Piliavin, and Rosemary Gartner 1988 ‘‘Ethical Assumptions Versus Empirical Research.’’ American Sociological Review 53:305–307.
• Merton, Robert K. 1938 ‘‘Social Structure and Anomie.’’ American Sociological Review 3:672–682.
• Merton, Robert K. 1964 Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
• Messner, Steven F. 1983 ‘‘Regional and Racial Effects on the Urban Homicide Rate: The Subculture of Violence Revisited.’’ American Journal of Sociology 88:997–1,007.
• Miller, Walter B. 1958 ‘‘Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.’’ Journal of Social Issues 14:5–19.
• Myers, Martha 1987 ‘‘Economic Inequality and Discrimination in Sentencing.’’ Social Forces 65:746–766.
• Myers, Martha 1990 ‘‘Economic Threat and Racial Disparities in Incarceration: The Case of Postbellum Georgia.’’ Criminology 28:627–656.
• Myers, Martha, and Suzette Talarico 1987 Social Contexts of Criminal Sentencing. New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Paternoster, Raymond L., Linda Saltzman, Gordon P. Waldo, and Theodore Chiricos 1982 ‘‘Perceived Risk and Deterrence: Methodological Artifacts in Deterrence Research.’’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73:1,243–1,255.
• Paternoster, Raymond L. 1983 ‘‘Perceived Risk and Social Control.’’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74:457–480.
• Peterson, Ruth D., and John Hagan 1984 ‘‘Changing Conceptions of Race: Toward an Account of Anomalous Findings of Sentencing Research.’’ American Sociological Review 49:56–70.
• Piliavin, Irving, Rosemary Gartner, Craig Thornton, and Ross L. Matsueda 1986 ‘‘Crime, Deterrence and Rational Choice.’’ American Sociological Review 51:101–120.
• Quinney, Richard 1970 The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Quinney, Richard 1974 Critique of Legal Order. Boston: Little, Brown.
• Quinney, Richard 1980 Class, State and Crime. New York: Longman.
• Rafter, Nicole Hahn 1985 Partial Justice: Women in State Prisons, 1800–1935. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
• Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub 1993 Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Scheff, Thomas 1966 Being Mentally Ill. Chicago: Aldine.
• Schur, Edwin 1971 Labeling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper and Row.
• Schur, Edwin 1985 Labeling Women Deviant: Gender, Stigma and Social Control. New York: Harper and Row.
• Scull, Andrew T. 1978 Museums of Madness. London: Heinemann.
• Sellin, Thorsten 1938 Culture, Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.
• Shaw, Clifford 1930 The Jack-Roller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Shaw, Clifford, and Henry McKay 1942 Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Silberman, Charles 1980 Criminal Justice, Criminal Violence. New York: Vintage.
• Spitzer, Steven 1975 ‘‘Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance.’’ Social Problems 22:638–651.
• Stark, Rodney 1987 ‘‘Deviant Places: A Theory of the Ecology of Crime.’’ Criminology 25:893–910.
• Sullivan, Mercer L. 1989 Getting Paid: Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
• Sutherland, Edwin H. 1947 Principles of Criminology, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
• Thornberry, Terence P, and R. L. Christenson 1984 ‘‘Unemployment and Criminal Involvement: An Investigation of Reciprocal Causal Structures.’’ American Sociological Review 49:398–411.
• Tittle, Charles R. 1975 ‘‘Deterrents or Labeling?’’ Social Forces 53:399–410.
• Tittle, Charles R. 1980 Sanctions and Social Deviance. New York: Praeger.
• Tittle, Charles R. 1995 Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
• Tittle, Charles R., and Barbara A. Curran 1988 ‘‘Contingencies for Dispositional Disparities in Juvenile Justice.’’ Social Forces 67:23–58.
• Toby, Jackson 1957 ‘‘Social Disorganization and Stakes in Conformity: Complimentary Factors in the Predatory Behavior of Hoodlums.’’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and Police Science 48:12–17.
• Turk, Austin T. 1976 ‘‘Law as a Weapon in Social Conflict.’’ Social Problems 23:276–291.
• Walker, Howard, and Bernard P. Cohen 1985 ‘‘Scope Statements.’’ American Sociological Review 50:288–301.
• Wolfgang, Marvin E., and Franco Ferracuti 1967 The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. London: Tavistock.
• Young, Peter 1983 ‘‘Sociology, the State and Penal Relations.’’ In David Garland and Peter Young, eds., The Power to Punish. London: Heinemann.

Browse other  Sociology Research Paper Topics .

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

7.3A: Sociological Theories of Deviance

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 8130

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Sociological theories of deviance are those that use social context and social pressures to explain deviance.

Learning Objectives

• Describe four different sociological approaches to deviance
• Social strain typology, developed by Robert K. Merton, is based upon two criteria: (1) a person’s motivations or adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person’s belief in how to attain her goals.
• According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion.
• Structural functionalism argues that deviant behavior plays an active, constructive role in society by ultimately helping cohere different populations within a society.
• Conflict theory suggests that deviant behaviors result from social, political, or material inequalities in a social group.
• Labeling theory argues that people become deviant as a result of people forcing that identity upon them and then adopting the identity.
• conformity : the ideology of adhering to one standard or social uniformity
• typology : The systematic classification of the types of something according to their common characteristics.
• Retrospective labeling : Occurs when a deviant recognizes her acts as deviant prior to the primary deviance, while prospective labeling is when the deviant recognizes future acts as deviant.

The study of social deviance is the study of the violation of cultural norms in either formal or informal contexts. Social deviance is a phenomenon that has existed in all societies with norms. Sociological theories of deviance are those that use social context and social pressures to explain deviance.

Social Strain Typology

Four main sociological theories of deviance exist. The first is the social strain typology developed by American sociologist Robert K. Merton. Merton proposed a typology of deviant behavior, a classification scheme designed to facilitate understanding. Merton typology of deviance was based on two criteria: (1) a person’s motivations or adherence to cultural goals; (2) a person’s belief in how to attain her goals. According to Merton, there are five types of deviance based upon these criteria: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism and rebellion. Merton’s typology is fascinating because it suggests that people can turn to deviance in the pursuit of widely accepted social values and goals. For instance, individuals in the U.S. who sell illegal drugs have rejected the culturally acceptable means of making money, but they still share the widely accepted cultural value of making money. Thus, deviance can be the result of accepting one norm, but breaking another in order to pursue the first.

Structural Functionalism

The second main sociological explanation of deviance comes from structural functionalism. This approach argues that deviant behavior plays an active, constructive role in society by ultimately helping to cohere different populations within a particular society. Deviance helps to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It draws lines and demarcates boundaries. This is an important function that affirms the cultural values and norms of a society for the members of that society. In addition to clarifying the moral boundaries of society, deviant behavior can also promote social unity by creating an “us-versus-them” mentality in relation to deviant individuals. Finally, deviance is actually seen as one means for society to change over time. Deviant behavior can imbalance the social equilibrium but—in the process of restoring balance—society will adjust norms. With changing norms in response to deviance, the deviant behavior can contribute to long-term social stability.

Conflict Theory

The third main sociological theory of deviance is conflict theory. Conflict theory suggests that deviant behaviors result from social, political, or material inequalities of a social group. In response to these inequalities, certain groups will act deviantly in order to change their circumstances, change the social structure that engendered their circumstances, or just to “act out” against their oppressors. An example of conflict theory would be the Occupy Wall Street movement that began in the fall of 2011. Angered at the extreme inequalities in wealth distribution in the United States, protesters began to organize more communal ways of living in Zucotti Park—near Wall Street in New York City—in order to protest the lavish means of life of those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. The protesters were deviating from social norms of coherence in order to articulate grievances against the extremely wealthy. Their actions and perspectives demonstrate the use of conflict theory to explain social deviance.

Labeling Theory

The fourth main sociological theory of deviance is labeling theory. Labeling theory refers to the idea that individuals become deviant when a deviant label is applied to them; they adopt the label by exhibiting the behaviors, actions, and attitudes associated with the label. Labeling theory argues that people become deviant as a result of others forcing that identity upon them. This process works because of stigma; in applying a deviant label, one attaches a stigmatized identity to the labeled individual.

Labeling theory allows us to understand how past behaviors of a deviant-labeled individual are reinterpreted in accordance with their label. This process of recasting past actions in light of a current deviant identity is referred to as “retrospective labeling. ” A clear example of retrospective labeling is seen in how the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre were recast after the incident took place. Much of their behavior leading up to the school shootings has been reinterpreted in light of the deviant identity with which they were labeled as a result of the shootings.

7.1 Deviance and Control

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Define deviance, and explain the nature of deviant behavior
• Differentiate between methods of social control

Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf was forced to resign after his company enrolled customers in unnecessary auto insurance programs, while also fraudulently creating bank accounts without client consent. Both of these actions are prohibited by a range of laws and regulations. Over a million victims were charged improper fees or overcharged for insurance; some suffered reductions in their credit scores, and an estimated 25,000 people had their cars improperly repossessed. Even though these actions were found to be criminal, no one from Wells Fargo faced jail time, as is common in financial crimes. Deviance does not always align with punishment, and perceptions of its impact vary greatly.

What, exactly, is deviance? And what is the relationship between deviance and crime? According to sociologist William Graham Sumner, deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms, whether folkways, mores, or codified law (1906). It can be as minor as picking your nose in public or as major as committing murder. Although the word “deviance” has a negative connotation in everyday language, sociologists recognize that deviance is not necessarily bad (Schoepflin 2011). In fact, from a structural functionalist perspective, one of the positive contributions of deviance is that it fosters social change. For example, during the U.S. civil rights movement, Rosa Parks violated social norms when she refused to move to the “Black section” of the bus, and the Little Rock Nine broke customs of segregation to attend an Arkansas public school.

“What is deviant behavior?” cannot be answered in a straightforward manner. Whether an act is labeled deviant or not depends on many factors, including location, audience, and the individual committing the act (Becker 1963). Listening to music on your phone on the way to class is considered acceptable behavior. Listening to music during your 2 p.m. sociology lecture is considered rude. Listening to music when on the witness stand before a judge may cause you to be held in contempt of court and consequently fined or jailed.

As norms vary across cultures and time, it also makes sense that notions of deviance change. Sixty years ago, public schools in the United States had dress codes that often banned women from wearing pants to class. Today, it’s socially acceptable for women to wear pants, but less so for men to wear skirts. And more recently, the act of wearing or not wearing a mask became a matter of deviance, and in some cases, political affiliation and legality. Whether an act is deviant or not depends on society’s response to that act.

Sociology in the Real World

Why i drive a hearse.

When sociologist Todd Schoepflin ran into his childhood friend Bill, he was shocked to see him driving a hearse for everyday tasks, instead of an ordinary car. A professionally trained researcher, Schoepflin wondered what effect driving a hearse had on his friend and what effect it might have on others on the road. Would using such a vehicle for everyday errands be considered deviant by most people?

Schoepflin interviewed Bill, curious first to know why he drove such an unconventional car. Bill had simply been on the lookout for a reliable winter car; on a tight budget, he searched used car ads and stumbled upon one for the hearse. The car ran well, and the price was right, so he bought it.

Bill admitted that others’ reactions to the car had been mixed. His parents were appalled, and he received odd stares from his coworkers. A mechanic once refused to work on it, and stated that it was “a dead person machine.” On the whole, however, Bill received mostly positive reactions. Strangers gave him a thumbs-up on the highway and stopped him in parking lots to chat about his car. His girlfriend loved it, his friends wanted to take it tailgating, and people offered to buy it. Could it be that driving a hearse isn’t really so deviant after all?

Schoepflin theorized that, although viewed as outside conventional norms, driving a hearse is such a mild form of deviance that it actually becomes a mark of distinction. Conformists find the choice of vehicle intriguing or appealing, while nonconformists see a fellow oddball to whom they can relate. As one of Bill’s friends remarked, “Every guy wants to own a unique car like this, and you can certainly pull it off.” Such anecdotes remind us that although deviance is often viewed as a violation of norms, it’s not always viewed in a negative light (Schoepflin 2011).

Deviance, Crime, and Society

Deviance is a more encompassing term than crime, meaning that it includes a range of activities, some of which are crimes and some of which are not. Sociologists may study both with equal interest, but, as a whole, society views crime as far more significant. Crime preoccupies several levels of government, and it drives concerns among families and communities.

Deviance may be considered relative: Behaviors may be considered deviant based mostly on the circumstances in which they occurred; those circumstances may drive the perception of deviance more than the behavior itself. Relatively minor acts of deviance can have long-term impacts on the person and the people around them. For example, if an adult, who should “know better,” spoke loudly or told jokes at a funeral, they may be chastised and forever marked as disrespectful or unusual. But in many cultures, funerals are followed by social gatherings – some taking on a party-like atmosphere – so those same jovial behaviors would be perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged, just an hour later.

As discussed earlier, we typically learn these social norms as children and evolve them with experience. But the relativity of deviance can have significant societal impacts, including perceptions and prosecutions of crime. They may often be based on racial, ethnic, or related prejudices. When 15-year-old Elizabeth Eckford of the Little Rock Nine attempted to enter her legally desegregated high school, she was abiding by the law; but she was considered deviant by the crowd of White people that harassed and insulted her. (These events are discussed in more detail in the Education chapter.)

Consider the example of marijuana legalization mentioned earlier. Why was marijuana illegal in the first place? In fact, it wasn’t. Humans have used cannabis openly in their societies for thousands of years. While it was not a widely used substance in the United States, it had been accepted as a medicinal and recreational option, and was neither prohibited nor significantly regulated until the early 1900s. What changed?

In the early 1900s, an influx of immigrants began entering the country from Mexico. These newcomers took up residence in White communities, spoke a different language, and began competing for jobs and resources. They used marijuana more frequently than most Americans. Police and others began to circulate rumors regarding the substance’s link to violence and immorality. Newspapers and lawmakers spoke about the “Marijuana Menace” and the “evil weed,” and articles and images began to portray it as a corrupting force on America’s youth. Beginning in 1916, state after state began passing laws prohibiting marijuana use, and in 1937 Congress passed a federal law banning it (White 2012). Penalties for its usage increased over time, spiking during the War on Drugs, with racially and ethnically disparate applications. But more recently, as discussed in the introduction, marijuana is once again seen as an important medical treatment and an acceptable recreational pursuit. What changed this time?

Perceptions and proclamations of deviance have long been a means to oppress people by labeling their private behavior as criminal. Until the 1970s and 1980s, same-sex acts were prohibited by state laws. It was illegal to be gay or lesbian, and the restrictions extended to simple displays like holding hands. Other laws prohibited clothing deemed “inappropriate” for one’s biological sex. As a result, military service members and even war veterans were dishonorably discharged (losing all benefits) if they were discovered to be gay. Police harassed and humiliated LGBTQ people and regularly raided gay bars. And anti-LGBTQ street violence or hate crimes were tacitly permitted because they were rarely prosecuted and often lightly punished. While most states had eliminated their anti-LGBTQ laws by the time the Supreme Court struck them down in 2003, 14 states still had some version of them on the books.

To further explore the relativity of deviance and its relationship to perceptions of crime, consider gambling. Excessive or high-risk gambling is usually seen as deviant, but more moderate gambling is generally accepted. Still, gambling has long been limited in most of the United States, making it a crime to participate in certain types of gambling or to do so outside of specified locations. For example, a state may allow betting on horse races but not on sports. Changes to these laws are occurring, but for decades, a generally non-deviant behavior has been made criminal: When otherwise law-abiding people decided to engage in low-stakes and non-excessive gambling, they were breaking the law. Sociologists may study the essential question arising from this situation: Are these gamblers being deviant by breaking the law, even when the actual behavior at hand is not generally considered deviant?

Social Control

When a person violates a social norm, what happens? A driver caught speeding can receive a speeding ticket. A student who wears a bathrobe to class gets a warning from a professor. An adult belching loudly is avoided. All societies practice social control , the regulation and enforcement of norms. The underlying goal of social control is to maintain social order , an arrangement of practices and behaviors on which society’s members base their daily lives. Think of social order as an employee handbook and social control as a manager. When a worker violates a workplace guideline, the manager steps in to enforce the rules; when an employee is doing an exceptionally good job at following the rules, the manager may praise or promote the employee.

The means of enforcing rules are known as sanctions . Sanctions can be positive as well as negative. Positive sanctions are rewards given for conforming to norms. A promotion at work is a positive sanction for working hard. Negative sanctions are punishments for violating norms. Being arrested is a punishment for shoplifting. Both types of sanctions play a role in social control.

Sociologists also classify sanctions as formal or informal. Although shoplifting, a form of social deviance, may be illegal, there are no laws dictating the proper way to scratch your nose. That doesn’t mean picking your nose in public won’t be punished; instead, you will encounter informal sanctions . Informal sanctions emerge in face-to-face social interactions. For example, wearing flip-flops to an opera or swearing loudly in church may draw disapproving looks or even verbal reprimands, whereas behavior that is seen as positive—such as helping an elderly person carry grocery bags across the street—may receive positive informal reactions, such as a smile or pat on the back.

Formal sanctions , on the other hand, are ways to officially recognize and enforce norm violations. If a student violates a college’s code of conduct, for example, the student might be expelled. Someone who speaks inappropriately to the boss could be fired. Someone who commits a crime may be arrested or imprisoned. On the positive side, a soldier who saves a life may receive an official commendation.

The table below shows the relationship between different types of sanctions.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/7-1-deviance-and-control

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.1 Social Control and the Relativity of Deviance

Learning objectives.

• Define deviance, crime, and social control.
• Understand why Émile Durkheim said deviance is normal.
• Understand what is meant by the relativity of deviance.

Deviance is behavior that violates social norms and arouses negative social reactions. Some behavior is considered so harmful that governments enact written laws that ban the behavior. Crime is behavior that violates these laws and is certainly an important type of deviance that concerns many Americans.

The fact that both deviance and crime arouse negative social reactions reminds us that every society needs to ensure that its members generally obey social norms in their daily interaction. Social control refers to ways in which a society tries to prevent and sanction behavior that violates norms. Just as a society like the United States has informal and formal norms (see Chapter 2 “Eye on Society: Doing Sociological Research” ), so does it have informal and formal social control. Generally, informal social control is used to control behavior that violates informal norms, and formal social control is used to control behavior that violates formal norms. We typically decline to violate informal norms, if we even think of violating them in the first place, because we fear risking the negative reactions of other people. These reactions, and thus examples of informal social control, include anger, disappointment, ostracism, and ridicule. Formal social control in the United States typically involves the legal system (police, judges and prosecutors, corrections officials) and also, for businesses, the many local, state, and federal regulatory agencies that constitute the regulatory system.

Social control is never perfect, and so many norms and people exist that there are always some people who violate some norms. In fact, Émile Durkheim (1895/1962), a founder of sociology discussed in Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” , stressed that a society without deviance is impossible for at least two reasons. First, the collective conscience (see Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” ) is never strong enough to prevent all rule breaking. Even in a “society of saints,” such as a monastery, he said, rules will be broken and negative social reactions aroused. Second, because deviance serves several important functions for society (which we discuss later in this chapter), any given society “invents” deviance by defining certain behaviors as deviant and the people who commit them as deviants. Because Durkheim thought deviance was inevitable for these reasons, he considered it a normal part of every healthy society.

Informal social control, such as the anger depicted here, is used to control behavior that violates informal norms.

gordonramsaysubmissions – gordon-ramsay-15 – CC BY 2.0.

Although deviance is normal in this regard, it remains true that some people are more likely than others to commit it. It is also true that some locations within a given society have higher rates of deviance than other locations; for example, U.S. cities have higher rates of violent crime than do rural areas. Still, Durkheim’s monastery example raises an important point about the relativity of deviance: whether a behavior is considered deviant depends on the circumstances in which the behavior occurs and not on the behavior itself. Although talking might be considered deviant in a monastery, it would certainly be considered very normal elsewhere. If an assailant, say a young male, murders someone, he faces arrest, prosecution, and, in many states, possible execution. Yet if a soldier kills someone in wartime, he may be considered a hero. Killing occurs in either situation, but the context and reasons for the killing determine whether the killer is punished or given a medal.

Deviance is also relative in two other ways. First, it is relative in space : a given behavior may be considered deviant in one society but acceptable in another society. Recall the discussion of sexual behavior in Chapter 3 “Culture” , where we saw that sexual acts condemned in some societies are often practiced in others. Second, deviance is relative in time : a behavior in a given society may be considered deviant in one time period but acceptable many years later; conversely, a behavior may be considered acceptable in one time period but deviant many years later. In the late 1800s, many Americans used cocaine, marijuana, and opium, because they were common components of over-the-counter products for symptoms like depression, insomnia, menstrual cramps, migraines, and toothaches. Coca-Cola originally contained cocaine and, perhaps not surprisingly, became an instant hit when it went on sale in 1894 (Goode, 2008). Today, of course, all three drugs are illegal.

The relativity of deviance in all these ways is captured in a famous statement by sociologist Howard S. Becker (1963, p. 9), who wrote several decades ago that

deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules or sanctions to an “offender.” The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.

This insight raises some provocative possibilities for society’s response to deviance and crime. First, harmful behavior committed by corporations and wealthy individuals may not be considered deviant, perhaps because “respectable” people engage in them. Second, prostitution and other arguably less harmful behaviors may be considered very deviant because they are deemed immoral or because of bias against the kinds of people (poor and nonwhite) thought to be engaging in them. These considerations yield several questions that need to be answered in the study of deviance. First, why are some individuals more likely than others to commit deviance? Second, why do rates of deviance differ within social categories such as gender, race, social class, and age? Third, why are some locations more likely than other locations to have higher rates of deviance? Fourth, why are some behaviors more likely than others to be considered deviant? Fifth, why are some individuals and those from certain social backgrounds more likely than other individuals to be considered deviant and punished for deviant behavior? Sixth and last but certainly not least, what can be done to reduce rates of violent crime and other serious forms of deviance? The sociological study of deviance and crime aims to answer all of these questions.

Key Takeaways

• Deviance is behavior that violates social norms and arouses negative social reactions.
• Crime is behavior that is considered so serious that it violates formal laws prohibiting such behavior.
• Social control refers to ways in which a society tries to prevent and sanction behavior that violates norms.
• Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a normal part of every society.
• Whether a behavior is considered deviant depends on the circumstances under which it occurs. Considerations of certain behaviors as deviant also vary from one society to another and from one era to another within a given society.

For Your Review

• In what ways is deviance considered relative?
• Why did Durkheim consider deviance a normal part of society?

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York, NY: Free Press.

Durkheim, É. (1962). The rules of sociological method (Ed. S. Lukes). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1895).

Goode, E. (2008). Drugs in American society . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Deviance in Sociology: Definition, Theories & Examples

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Deviance in sociology refers to actions or behaviors that violate widely-accepted cultural norms within a society. Since deviance is defined relative to sociocultural standards, what is considered deviant differs across societies and time periods, and is largely determined by those in power. Sociologists study how and why certain behaviors are defined and reacted to as deviant, as well as how labeling of deviance impacts individuals and groups.

Key Takeaways

• Deviant behavior is any behavior that does not conform to societal norms.There are many different types of deviant behavior, including impoliteness, violence, and substance abuse. These behaviors may or may not be criminal.
• While some forms of deviant behavior may be considered harmful or dangerous, others may simply be seen as odd or unusual.
• In some cases, it can be seen as a positive thing. For example, many cultures encourage their members to challenge the status quo and push boundaries in order to create change.
• Durkheim suggested that modern industrial societies were consequently characterized by moral confusion or ‘anomie’. This means that some members of society were more likely to challenge and reject shared values and norms of behavior and this ‘normlessness’ often resulted in crime and deviance.
• Anomie theory has since been further developed by other theorists, such as Robert Merton, who used it to explain deviance in his strain theory.
• The main tenets of modern anomie theories are that: (i) People conform to societal norms in order to gain rewards or avoid punishment; (ii) When there is a discrepancy between the goals people want to achieve and the means available to them to achieve those goals, anomie results, motivating deviance.

What is Deviant Behavior?

Deviance is a behavior, trait, or belief that departs from a social norm and generates a negative reaction in a particular group. In other words, it is behavior that does not conform to the norms of a particular culture or society.

It includes those behaviors that attract negative responses and social controls. It also involves crimes committed in society.

What is considered acceptable or rude varies depending on the culture you are in. For example, eating with your left hand in Arab nations is considered rude.

Some behaviors are acceptable for certain age groups and some activities are illegal for some age groups.

For example, some people who engage in deviant behavior do so in order to challenge existing social norms and bring about change.

Additionally, deviance can also be a way for people to express themselves and their individuality.

Any behavior that breaks the law or goes against societal norms can be considered deviant. One example of deviant behavior is drug use. Using illegal drugs is considered deviant behavior in most social groups.

Committing acts of violence, such as assault or murder, is also considered deviant behavior.

Other examples of deviant behavior include but are not limited to: theft, vandalism, graffiti, public intoxication, loitering, and littering.

Truancy can be considered to be a form of deviance. Truancy is a behavior where a student regularly avoids school without the knowledge of their parents or teachers.

Because deviance is socially constructed (not naturally occurring but created by the society in which it is found), there are no actions which in themselves are inherently abnormal or universally condemned by all societies at all times. Deviance is thus situational and contextual.

For example, while stealing is considered deviant behavior in most societies, it is not considered deviant in some indigenous cultures where “stealing” is seen as a way to redistribute resources.

Similarly, while arranged marriages are the norm in many cultures, they would be considered deviant in Western cultures where individuals have the freedom to choose their own partners.

Ultimately, what is considered deviant behavior varies from culture to culture, and even from one social group to another. While deviance in society often has negative connotations, deviance in culture is not necessarily bad.

Types of Deviant Behavior

Formal deviant behavior.

Formal deviant behavior is defined as behavior that violates formally enacted laws. This type of deviant behavior is often criminal in nature, and can result in punishments such as fines, imprisonment, or even death.

Examples of formal deviant behavior include but are not limited to: murder, robbery, assault, rape, and child molestation (Griffiths et al., 2012).

Informal Deviant Behavior

Informal deviant behavior is defined as behavior that violates informal social norms. This type of deviant behavior is often seen as more minor than formal deviance, and typically does not result in legal punishment.

Instead, people who engage in informal deviant behavior may be ridiculed or ostracized by their peers.

Examples of informal deviant behavior include but are not limited to: littering, jaywalking, public intoxication, and loitering (Griffiths et al., 2012).

Although informal deviant behavior is often seen as less serious than its formal counterpart, it can have serious consequences. Showing up late to work, for example, is an act of informal deviance that can result in dismissal from one”s job.

Subcultural Deviant Behavior

Subcultural deviant behavior is defined as behavior that violates the norms of a particular subculture. A subculture is a social group within a larger culture that has its own distinct values, beliefs, and behaviors.

Examples of subcultural deviant behavior include but are not limited to: gang violence, drug use, and prostitution.

While subcultural deviant behavior is often seen as criminal or harmful, it can also be a way for people to express their identity and solidarity with others in their group.

For example, many gangs use violence as a way to establish their turf and protect their members, as well as to create a shared sense of identity as “strong” and ready to take action (Copes & Williams, 2007).

Serial Deviant Behavior

Serial deviant behavior is defined as a pattern of repeated deviant behavior. For example, being convicted of multiple crimes.

For example, a teenager who shoplifts every time they enter a department store for the excitement is committing serial deviant behavior.

Those who habitually show informally deviant behavior can also be considered to exhibit serial deviant behavior.

For instance, someone who belches loudly and stands unnecessarily close to others may develop an image characterized by this unacceptable behavior, resulting in social punishment (Chercourt, 2014).

Situational Deviance

Situational deviance is defined as behavior that is considered deviant in a particular situation but not in others.

For example, public nudity is considered deviant in most public places, but is expected on nude beaches. Similarly, using profanity is only considered deviant when it occurs in settings where cursing is not allowed or frowned upon, such as at work or school (Chercourt, 2014).

Even within these settings, the attitudes of those around the person committing the deviant act influence how deviant the behavior is considered to be.

While some forms of situational deviance may be seen as harmless or even humorous, others can have serious consequences.

For example, while being inebriated in many situations may be interpreted as entertaining or humorous by others, driving under the influence of alcohol can result in accidents, injuries, and even death.

Sociological Explanations Of Deviance

Social strain typology (robert k. merton).

The social strain typology is a theory of deviance that was developed by sociologist Robert K. Merton. The theory suggests that there are four types of deviant behavior: subcultural, serial, situational, and cultural.

Merton”s theory is based on the idea that there is a tension between goals and means in society. Goals are the things that people want to achieve, such as wealth or success. Means are the ways in which people go about achieving these goals, such as working hard or getting an education.

When people cannot achieve their goals through legitimate means, they may turn to deviant behavior in order to get what they want. For example, someone who wants to be wealthy but cannot legitimately earn enough money may turn to theft or robbery.

The social strain typology is a helpful way of understanding why people engage in deviant behavior. It also helps to explain why some forms of deviance are more common than others.

For example, subcultural deviance is more likely to occur in poor neighborhoods where legitimate means of achieving goals are limited. Serial deviance is more likely to occur in individuals who have a history of engaging in deviant behavior.

And situational deviance is more likely to occur when people find themselves in situations where they are tempted to break the rules.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism is a sociological theory that views society as a system of interconnected parts that work together to promote stability and order.

The theory is based on the idea that societies are organized in a way that allows them to meet the needs of their members.

Durkheim suggested that modern industrial societies were consequently characterized by moral confusion or ‘ anomie ’ – some members of society were more likely to challenge and reject shared values and norms of behavior and this ‘normlessness’ often resulted in crime and deviance.

The functionalist perspective argues that deviant behavior serves a positive function for society by providing a safety valve for people who cannot cope with the demands of everyday life.

For example, people who engage in minor deviant behaviors, like rudeness or angry outbursts, may be less likely to commit more serious crimes, such as murder or rape (Parsons, 1985).

The functionalist perspective also argues that deviant behavior can lead to social change. For example, people who challenge the status quo and push boundaries may help to bring about positive changes, such as increased equality or improved working conditions.

Gandhi, for example,  is often credited with helping to end British rule in India through his deviant behavior of leading peaceful protests and civil disobedience.

The public punishment of criminals also reinforces social conformity by reminding members of society about what counts as acceptable and unacceptable behavior. In other words, it functions to socially control society by reinforcing the rules.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory is a sociological theory that views society as a system of power relationships that are in conflict with one another. The theory is based on the idea that social order is maintained through coercion and force, rather than consent or agreement.

Conflict theorists argue that deviant behavior is a result of social inequality. They believe that people who have less power in society are more likely to engage in deviant behavior as a way of challenging the existing order.

For example, people who are poor or members of minority groups may turn to crime as a way to get the resources they need to survive (Bartos & Wehr, 2002).

This theory originates from the work of Karl Marx , who argued that social conflict is a necessary part of economic change. Marx believed that capitalism would eventually lead to a revolution in which the working class would overthrow the ruling class and establish a more egalitarian society.

While conflict theory has its origins in Marxism, it has been adapted and expanded by other sociologists, such as Max Weber and Randall Collins.

Conflict theory is now used to explain a wide variety of social phenomena, including crime, violence, and discrimination (Bartos & Wehr, 2002).

Labeling Theory

Labeling theory is a sociological theory that views deviance as a result of the way society labels people. The theory is based on the idea that people who are labeled as deviant are more likely to engage in deviant behavior.

Lemert was one of the first to define the concept of primary and secondary deviance (1951). Primary deviance is deviant acts that occur without labels put on the person commiting the act.

For example, a teenager who drinks alcohol socially at a party and is caught, but only gently reprimanded by their parents, has committed primary deviance.

Secondary deviance , meanwhile, is a result of the labels that are put onn someone for committing deviant acts.

A person moves from primary deviance (the thing that gets him/her labeled in the first place) to secondary deviance (a deviant identity or career).

The importance of the distinction between primary and secondary deviance is that everyone commits primary deviance acts from time to time, with few social consequences.

Labeling theory argues that the act of labeling someone as deviant causes them to be seen as different from others. This difference can lead to discrimination and social exclusion, which can in turn lead to further deviant behavior.

For example, someone who is labeled as a criminal may have difficulty finding a job or housing. As a result, they may turn to crime in order to make ends meet.

Or, someone who is labeled as mentally ill may be excluded from social activities and have difficulty making friends. This isolation can lead to further mental health problems (Becker, 2018).

Labeling theory has been used to explain a wide variety of deviant behaviors, including crime, mental illness, and drug use. The theory has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence, but it remains an influential perspective in sociology.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some of the main causes of deviant behavior.

Some of the main theoretical perspectives that sociologists use to explain deviance include functionalism, conflict theory, and labeling theory.

Sociologists have found that deviant behavior is often a result of social inequality.

For example, people who are poor or members of minority groups may turn to crime as a way to get the resources they need to survive.

Additionally, people who are labeled as deviant by society may be more likely to engage in deviant behavior due to discrimination and social exclusion.

What is the difference between deviant and criminal behavior?

Deviance is behavior that violates social norms and arouses negative social reactions. Crime is behavior that is considered so serious that it violates formal laws prohibiting such behavior.

Not all deviant behavior is criminal. For example, social norms around clothing styles for hairstyles may vary from place to place. So, someone who wears unconventional clothes or has an unconventional haircut may be considered deviant in one community but not in another.

Similarly, people who break minor laws, such as jaywalking or littering, may be considered deviant but not criminal.

Similarly, not all criminal behavior is deviant. For example, breaking a law against selling alcohol on a Sunday does not involve committing an act of deviance in a society where selling and consuming alcohol is acceptable.

Is deviant behavior a form of non-conformity?

Deviance is a concept that describes non-conformity to social norms, values and civic expectations. Hence, it is a form of non-conformity.

Nonetheless, not all non-conformity is deviant.

Social norms vary from place to place, so what is considered deviant in one society may not be considered deviant in another. Additionally, social norms change over time, so something that was once considered deviant may become acceptable (and vice versa).

For example, tattoos and piercings were once considered deviant but are now widely accepted. Nonetheless, in a place where they remain uncommon, they may be non-conformist.

Bartos, O. J., & Wehr, P. (2002). Using conflict theory . Cambridge University Press.

Becker, H. S. (2018). Labeling theory reconsidered 1. In Deviance and social control (pp. 41-66). Routledge.

Chercourt, M. (2014). Encyclopedia of Social Deviance. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 54 (2), 83.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press.

Cohen, A. K. (2016) Kriminelle Subkulturen. In: Klimke, D. & Legnaro, A. (Hrsg.) Kriminologische Grundlagentexte. Springer VS: Wiesbaden. S. 269-280 .

Cohen, A. K. (1957) Kriminelle Subkulturen. In: Heintz, P. & König, R. (Hrsg.) Soziologie der Jugendkriminalität. Studien zur Sozialwissenschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. S. 103-117.

Cohen, Albert K. and Short, J. (1968). Research in Delinquent Subcultures. In: Journal of Social Issues , S.20–37.

Copes, H., & Williams, J. P. (2007). Techniques of affirmation: Deviant behavior, moral commitment, and subcultural identity. Deviant behavior, 28 (3), 247-272.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Sociologie et philosophie .

Griffiths, H., Keirns, N., Strayer, E., Sadler, T., Cody-Rydzewski, S., Scaramuzzo, G., … & Jones, F. (2012). Deviance and Control. Introduction to Sociology 2 e.

Lemert, E. (1951). Primary and secondary deviation. Crime. Critical concepts in sociology, 3, 603-607.

Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control . Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto . 1848. Trans. Samuel Moore. London: Penguin, 15.

Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3 , 672–682.

Merton, R.K. (1949). Social structure and anomie: revisions and extensions. In: Anshen, R.N. (Ed.), The Family: Its Functions and Destiny . Harper, New York, pp. 226–257.

Merton, R.K. (1957). Social structure and anomie. In: Merton, R.K. (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure . The Free Press, New York, pp. 185–214.

Merton, R.K. (1957). Continuities in the theory of social structure and anomie. In:

Merton, R.K. (Ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure . The Free Press, New York, pp. 215–248.

Parsons, T. (1985). Talcott Parsons on institutions and social evolution: selected writings . University of Chicago Press.

Pfuhl, E. H., & Henry, S. (1986). The deviance process . Transaction Publishers.

Wellford, C. (1975). Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment.  Social Problems, 22 (3), 332-345.

Related Articles

Criminology

What Do Criminal Psychologists Do? 

Self-Control Theory Of Crime 

What Is Social Control In Sociology?

Subcultural Theories of Deviance

Tertiary Deviance: Definition & Examples

Social Reaction Theory (Criminology)

Penn State University Libraries

Soc 406: sociology of deviance.

• Managing your search
• Background Resources

Introduction

Google & google scholar, library databases, start here (scholarly library databases), finding by citedness, finding other library databases, journal review articles.

• Legal Resources
• Finding Reports
• Evaluating Resources

How to Read a Scholarly Article

By now you have probably read many scholarly articles.  However, this three-page summary by Frederique Laubepin will be worth your time and effort to read.  It is concise with some excellent insight.

How to Read (and Understand) a Social Science Journal Article  (only 3 pages).  By Frederique Laubepin Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, 2013.

Very simply put, these two engines are created by computer programs that send out robots that scrape information from websites that allow them to collect information.  The robots bring the information back to Google and dump this information into a central repository. 

Google Scholar differs from Google, because the robots only scrape and report information from “scholarly sites” such as academic institutions, scholarly associations, and publishers.   Thus, creating a different and smaller pool of information.

Let’s go ahead and do a quick search in   Google and see how this plays out.

Video: Moving from Google to Google Scholar . This video simply demonstrates how Google moves you seamlessly into a smaller pool of information called Google Scholar.

Why is it important for you to understand how Google and Google Scholar are created?

• Google can only scrape information from websites that allow it access
• Information is organized by an automated computer algorithm which significantly affects the types of searches you can do and the results you get.
• They are only one of many tools at your disposal 

Video: Connecting Google Scholar to your Library Account: A Tangent .   You may notice when you click on a title in your results list that the site may ask you to pay to access this information. As a member of Penn State, you should never pay for a resource using Google Scholar. The following video shows you how to select and save your settings in your browser.  

Go ahead and open up  Google Scholar and follow along.

What is a library database?

The Library uses the term ‘database’ to describe a searchable online resource. Usually, the Library pays for access, however, some databases are free to use.

Why would you want to search a library database?

• Comprehensiveness:  many library databases do not allow Google or other search engines to scrape information off of their site.  In sum, this would be fiscal suicide.  You should simply see Google as one place among many to search.
• Efficiency:  the smaller more focused universe of information allows the searcher to focus their search in a core set of publications of a particular discipline or a specific format of information.
• Value-added connections:  databases provide more ways through tagging for a searcher to make connections between information to enhance their searching techniques.  

THE BIG FIVE

It is impossible to list all of the potentially relevant library databases for the interdisciplinary topics covered in an applied demography program.  However, you should be aware of these five databases as you work through your program.  The following set of videos will discuss some searching strategies for finding scholarly articles for your annotated bibliography.

Video: Using library databases to find scholarly literature .  This video will demonstrate how to find scholarly articles in the library database Sociological Abstracts by showing you how to:

• Limit and expand your search using facets to find scholarly literature
• Understand the difference between searching anywhere versus field searching
• Discuss how you can retrieve the relevant articles.
• Show you what information you need to write a proper citation

Video: Using the thesaurus feature in a library database to refine your search.   This video will demonstrate how to use a thesauri in a library database to refine your search by showing you how to:

• How to access and use the thesaurus in your search
• See relationships between tags: narrower, broader, related
• Understand what it means to explode a tag
• EconLit This link opens in a new window particularly useful resource if you are doing research on issues with economic impact. more... less... EconLit provides citations, with selected abstracts, to the international publications on economics since 1969. EconLit covers a broad range of document types, including journal articles, books, dissertations, and articles in collective works.
• Sociological Abstracts This link opens in a new window important scholarly resource for the social sciences particularly useful of societal issues and policy. more... less... CSA Sociological Abstracts abstracts and indexes the international literature in sociology and related disciplines in the social and behavioral sciences. The database provides abstracts of journal articles and citations to book reviews drawn from over 1,700 serials publications, and also provides abstracts of books, book chapters, dissertations, and conference papers. Records added after 1974 contain in-depth and nonevaluative abstracts of journal articles.
• PsycINFO (via ProQuest) This link opens in a new window published in cooperation with APA this resource can be useful for discovering information that focuses on the individual psyche. more... less... PsycINFO provides access to international literature in psychology and related disciplines. Unrivaled in its depth of psychological coverage and respected worldwide for its high quality, the database is enriched with literature from an array of disciplines related to psychology such as psychiatry, education, business, medicine, nursing, pharmacology, law, linguistics, and social work. Nearly all records contain nonevaluative summaries, and all records from 1967 to the present are indexed using the Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms.
• ERIC (ProQuest) This link opens in a new window focus on education at all levels great source for social deviance within the context of education. more... less... ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) is the major database for education literature, sponsored by the U.S. Department. of Education. The same database content is available on many platforms.

Look at the References!

If you discover a relevant scholarly article on topic it is essential to take a look at the references.  Often this will lead you to other important articles that can potentially be of equal or more importance that then the article in-hand.

Why is that?  Scholarly articles have a built in process called the literature review.  Literature reviews provide you with a summary of research on the topic and the context for a particular author(s) own research.  

Find who Cites our Author(s) Article  

Below is an example of a citation map from the Social Science Citation Index of demographers Jennifer Van Hook and Jennifer Glick's 2007 article "Immigration and living arrangements: Moving beyond economic need versus acculturation" in the journal Demography 44(2): 225-249.  It visually shows you the publications that were cited in the article as well as 43 other publication that cited them.  

So how do we find this future literature?  

Most database have some type of limited "cited by" feature.  However, the most important database that scholars use for this type of search are Web of Science and its suite of citation indexes.   

• Web of Science This link opens in a new window Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Citation Index, Data Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. more... less... Web of Science provides access to: the Science Citation Index Expanded 1900-present; the Social Sciences Citation Index 1956-present; and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index 1975-present. Web of Science indexes articles from thousands of journals and also indexes the citations used in those articles, thus allowing the user to see which papers have cited a core paper, and how many times a paper was cited in a given time period. Covers published content is almost every discipline.
• Google Scholar This link opens in a new window Google Scholar is also a convenient computer generated option for finding "cited by" or future materials. It has the added advantage of including books in its "cited by" feature. All you need to do is copy and paste the title of the article in Google Scholar. more... less... Google Scholar enables you to search specifically for scholarly literature, including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from all broad areas of research. Use Google Scholar to find articles from a wide variety of academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories and universities, as well as scholarly articles available across the web. Once you set your institutional preferences, links to full-text, if available at Penn State, should appear.

It is impossible to list all of the potentially relevant databases for many of the interdisciplinary topics covered in an applied demography program.  Below are two suggestions:  

Use the Library Subject Guides

A simple way is to explore other relevant library subject guides that have been created by disciplinary experts.   

Video: Using a mult-subject library database to identify library subject databases.     This video will use a technique using the multi-disciplinary subject indexes Academic Search Complete and Proquest Multiple Databases to identify other relevant subject indexes not listed in the Applied Demography Guide.

Both of these publishers provide access to a suite of over 80 disciplinary subject indexes as well as a number of collection databases listed in the University Libraries databases.

• Academic Search Complete (Ebsco) This link opens in a new window Academic Search Complete allows you to search over 40 subject indexes at one time. It can be a useful interdisciplinary tool. more... less... Academic Search Complete is a comprehensive scholarly, multi-disciplinary full-text database, with more than 5,300 full-text periodicals, including 4,400 peer-reviewed journals. In addition to full text, this database offers indexing and abstracts for more than 9,300 journals and a total of 10,900 publications including monographs, reports, conference proceedings, etc. The database features PDF content going back as far as 1865, with the majority of full text titles in native (searchable) PDF format.
• ProQuest (Multiple Databases) This link opens in a new window The publisher Proquest allows you to search 46 subject databases. more... less... Searches multiple ProQuest products, indexing 5,000+ magazines, journals, and newspapers. Keywords: news, New York Times, current events, contemporary issues, hot topics, English 15, CAS 100.

What is a review journal?  A review journal in academic publishing is an academic journal devoted to the review of progress of empirical research in some particular area or topic during a preceding period often through the means of its publishing review articles.

IMPORTANT TIP: when you browse a particular journal online, the publisher will often designate whether or not the publication is a review article, editorial or research article.  If you discover an article using a search engine or library database and have doubts. Sometimes browsing the journal will help you determine how it is designated by the publisher.  

EXPLORE: if you want to explore some journals click on the link to see a list of CORE journal for criminology and criminal justice .

• Annual Reviews This link opens in a new window Annual Reviews provide summaries of cutting edge research across a wide range of disciplines. The Annual Review of Criminology, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, and the Annual Review of Political Science will be the most useful for your project. However, it can be useful to search across the disciplines. more... less... Since 1932, Annual Reviews has offered comprehensive, timely collections of critical reviews written by leading scientists. Annual Reviews volumes are published each year for 29 focused disciplines within the Biomedical, Physical, and Social Sciences.

• Annual Review of Law and Social Science The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, in publication since 2005, strives to enhance the understanding of the complex connections between law, culture, social structure, and society by focusing on social scientific studies of law and law-like systems of rules, institutions, processes, and behaviors.
• Crime and Justice: A Review of Research This whole title is a review of the latest international research, providing expertise to enhance the work of sociologists, psychologists, criminal lawyers, justice scholars, and political scientists. The series explores a full range of issues concerning crime, its causes, and its cures. In both the review and the thematic volumes, Crime and Justice offers an interdisciplinary approach to address core issues in criminology.
• Criminology and Public Policy Policy journal of the American Society of Criminology. If you browse the journal you will see some articles designated as "Policy Essays". The function essentially as review articles.
• << Previous: Background Resources
• Next: Legal Resources >>
• Last Updated: Nov 16, 2023 5:48 AM
• URL: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/UP/SOC_406

• Boston University Libraries

SO459 / SO859: Deviance and Social Control

Background sources.

• About Deviance and Social Control
• Find Scholarly Articles, Dissertations & More
• Current Events Sources
• Documentary Films & Podcasts
• Deviance in Popular Culture
• Selected Data, Statistical Sources & Public Opinion
• Social Science / Criminal Justice Research Methods
• White Papers & Policy Briefs
• Developing Your Research Topic
• Writing Literature Reviews & Annotated Bibliographies
• Citing Your Sources

Relevant Research & How-to Guides

• SO201: Sociological Methods (Spring/Fall 2023) by BU Libraries Last Updated Apr 3, 2024 15 views this year
• Criminal Justice Data & Statistics by BU Libraries Last Updated Jun 22, 2023 264 views this year
• Criminology & Criminal Justice by BU Libraries Last Updated Aug 28, 2023 432 views this year
• Proposal Writing for Social Science Research (Spring 2023) by BU Libraries Last Updated Apr 8, 2024 202 views this year
• Primary Sources by Donald Altschiller Last Updated Mar 12, 2024 3537 views this year
• Sociology by BU Libraries Last Updated Apr 8, 2024 86 views this year
• Citing Your Sources by BU Libraries Last Updated May 26, 2021 1701 views this year
• Create Bibliographies by JD Kotula Last Updated Oct 11, 2023 2171 views this year

• "Deviance: A Sociology of Unconventionalities," in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Sociology, 2nd ed.
• "Deviance," in Encyclopedia of Religion and Society
• Encyclopedia of Criminology and Deviant Behavior

• << Previous: About Deviance and Social Control
• Next: Find Books >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 7:52 AM
• URL: https://library.bu.edu/socialdeviance

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Deviant behavior - readings in the sociology of deviance, additional details.

Meredith Howard , 175 Fifth Avenue , New York , NY 10010 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Explaining Deviance

Learning objective.

• State the major arguments and assumptions of the various sociological explanations of deviance.

If we want to reduce violent crime and other serious deviance, we must first understand why it occurs. Many sociological theories of deviance exist, and together they offer a more complete understanding of deviance than any one theory offers by itself. Together they help answer the questions posed earlier: why rates of deviance differ within social categories and across locations, why some behaviors are more likely than others to be considered deviant, and why some kinds of people are more likely than others to be considered deviant and to be punished for deviant behavior. As a whole, sociological explanations highlight the importance of the social environment and of social interaction for deviance and the commision of crime. As such, they have important implications for how to reduce these behaviors. Consistent with this book’s public sociology theme, a discussion of several such crime-reduction strategies concludes this chapter.

We now turn to the major sociological explanations of crime and deviance. A summary of these explanations appears in Table 7.1 “Theory Snapshot: Summary of Sociological Explanations of Deviance and Crime” .

Table 7.1 Theory Snapshot: Summary of Sociological Explanations of Deviance and Crime

Functionalist Explanations

Several explanations may be grouped under the functionalist perspective in sociology, as they all share this perspective’s central view on the importance of various aspects of society for social stability and other social needs.

Émile Durkheim: The Functions of Deviance

As noted earlier, Émile Durkheim said deviance is normal, but he did not stop there. In a surprising and still controversial twist, he also argued that deviance serves several important functions for society.

First, Durkheim said, deviance clarifies social norms and increases conformity. This happens because the discovery and punishment of deviance reminds people of the norms and reinforces the consequences of violating them. If your class were taking an exam and a student was caught cheating, the rest of the class would be instantly reminded of the rules about cheating and the punishment for it, and as a result they would be less likely to cheat.

A second function of deviance is that it strengthens social bonds among the people reacting to the deviant. An example comes from the classic story The Ox-Bow Incident (Clark, 1940), in which three innocent men are accused of cattle rustling and are eventually lynched. The mob that does the lynching is very united in its frenzy against the men, and, at least at that moment, the bonds among the individuals in the mob are extremely strong.

A final function of deviance, said Durkheim, is that it can help lead to positive social change. Although some of the greatest figures in history—Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. to name just a few—were considered the worst kind of deviants in their time, we now honor them for their commitment and sacrifice.

Émile Durkheim wrote that deviance can lead to positive social change. Many Southerners had strong negative feelings about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement, but history now honors him for his commitment and sacrifice.

U.S. Library of Congress – public domain.

Sociologist Herbert Gans (1996) pointed to an additional function of deviance: deviance creates jobs for the segments of society—police, prison guards, criminology professors, and so forth—whose main focus is to deal with deviants in some manner. If deviance and crime did not exist, hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people in the United States would be out of work!

Although deviance can have all of these functions, many forms of it can certainly be quite harmful, as the story of the mugged voter that began this chapter reminds us. Violent crime and property crime in the United States victimize millions of people and households each year, while crime by corporations has effects that are even more harmful, as we discuss later. Drug use, prostitution, and other “victimless” crimes may involve willing participants, but these participants often cause themselves and others much harm. Although deviance according to Durkheim is inevitable and normal and serves important functions, that certainly does not mean the United States and other nations should be happy to have high rates of serious deviance. The sociological theories we discuss point to certain aspects of the social environment, broadly defined, that contribute to deviance and crime and that should be the focus of efforts to reduce these behaviors.

Social Ecology: Neighborhood and Community Characteristics

An important sociological approach, begun in the late 1800s and early 1900s by sociologists at the University of Chicago, stresses that certain social and physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods raise the odds that people growing up and living in these neighborhoods will commit deviance and crime. This line of thought is now called the social ecology approach (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008). Many criminogenic (crime-causing) neighborhood characteristics have been identified, including high rates of poverty, population density, dilapidated housing, residential mobility, and single-parent households. All of these problems are thought to contribute to social disorganization , or weakened social bonds and social institutions, that make it difficult to socialize children properly and to monitor suspicious behavior (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008; Sampson, 2006).

Sociology Making a Difference

Improving Neighborhood Conditions Helps Reduce Crime Rates

One of the sociological theories of crime discussed in the text is the social ecology approach. To review, this approach attributes high rates of deviance and crime to the neighborhood’s social and physical characteristics, including poverty, high population density, dilapidated housing, and high population turnover. These problems create social disorganization that weakens the neighborhood’s social institutions and impairs effective child socialization.

Much empirical evidence supports social ecology’s view about negative neighborhood conditions and crime rates and suggests that efforts to improve these conditions will lower crime rates. Some of the most persuasive evidence comes from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (directed by sociologist Robert J. Sampson), in which more than 6,000 children, ranging in age from birth to 18, and their parents and other caretakers were studied over a 7-year period. The social and physical characteristics of the dozens of neighborhoods in which the subjects lived were measured to permit assessment of these characteristics’ effects on the probability of delinquency. A number of studies using data from this project confirm the general assumptions of the social ecology approach. In particular, delinquency is higher in neighborhoods with lower levels of “collective efficacy,” that is, in neighborhoods with lower levels of community supervision of adolescent behavior.

The many studies from the Chicago project and data in several other cities show that neighborhood conditions greatly affect the extent of delinquency in urban neighborhoods. This body of research in turn suggests that strategies and programs that improve the social and physical conditions of urban neighborhoods may well help decrease the high rates of crime and delinquency that are so often found there. (Bellair & McNulty, 2009; Sampson, 2006)

Strain Theory

Failure to achieve the American dream lies at the heart of Robert Merton’s (1938) famous strain theory (also called anomie theory). Recall from Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective” that Durkheim attributed high rates of suicide to anomie, or normlessness, that occurs in times when social norms are unclear or weak. Adapting this concept, Merton wanted to explain why poor people have higher deviance rates than the nonpoor. He reasoned that the United States values economic success above all else and also has norms that specify the approved means, working, for achieving economic success. Because the poor often cannot achieve the American dream of success through the conventional means of working, they experience a gap between the goal of economic success and the means of working. This gap, which Merton likened to Durkheim’s anomie because of the resulting lack of clarity over norms, leads to strain or frustration. To reduce their frustration, some poor people resort to several adaptations, including deviance, depending on whether they accept or reject the goal of economic success and the means of working. Table 7.2 “Merton’s Anomie Theory” presents the logical adaptations of the poor to the strain they experience. Let’s review these briefly.

Table 7.2 Merton’s Anomie Theory

Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it.

• Conformity : Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
• Innovation : Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.
• Ritualism : People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than attaining a distant dream.
• Retreatism : Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means. Some beggars and street people have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success.
• Rebellion : A handful of people rebel and replace a society’s goals and means with their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through socially unacceptable means.

Despite their strain, most poor people continue to accept the goal of economic success and continue to believe they should work to make money. In other words, they continue to be good, law-abiding citizens. They conform to society’s norms and values, and, not surprisingly, Merton calls their adaptation conformity .

Faced with strain, some poor people continue to value economic success but come up with new means of achieving it. They rob people or banks, commit fraud, or use other illegal means of acquiring money or property. Merton calls this adaptation innovation .

Other poor people continue to work at a job without much hope of greatly improving their lot in life. They go to work day after day as a habit. Merton calls this third adaptation ritualism . This adaptation does not involve deviant behavior but is a logical response to the strain poor people experience.

Franco Folini – Homeless woman with dogs – CC BY-SA 2.0.

In Merton’s fourth adaptation, retreatism , some poor people withdraw from society by becoming hobos or vagrants or by becoming addicted to alcohol, heroin, or other drugs. Their response to the strain they feel is to reject both the goal of economic success and the means of working.

Merton’s fifth and final adaptation is rebellion . Here poor people not only reject the goal of success and the means of working but work actively to bring about a new society with a new value system. These people are the radicals and revolutionaries of their time. Because Merton developed his strain theory in the aftermath of the Great Depression, in which the labor and socialist movements had been quite active, it is not surprising that he thought of rebellion as a logical adaptation of the poor to their lack of economic success.

Although Merton’s theory has been popular over the years, it has some limitations. Perhaps most important, it overlooks deviance such as fraud by the middle and upper classes and also fails to explain murder, rape, and other crimes that usually are not done for economic reasons. It also does not explain why some poor people choose one adaptation over another.

Merton’s strain theory stimulated other explanations of deviance that built on his concept of strain. Differential opportunity theory , developed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin (1960), tried to explain why the poor choose one or the other of Merton’s adaptations. Whereas Merton stressed that the poor have differential access to legitimate means (working), Cloward and Ohlin stressed that they have differential access to illegitimate means . For example, some live in neighborhoods where organized crime is dominant and will get involved in such crime; others live in neighborhoods rampant with drug use and will start using drugs themselves.

In a more recent formulation, two sociologists, Steven F. Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (2007), expanded Merton’s view by arguing that in the United States crime arises from several of our most important values, including an overemphasis on economic success, individualism, and competition. These values produce crime by making many Americans, rich or poor, feel they never have enough money and by prompting them to help themselves even at other people’s expense. Crime in the United States, then, arises ironically from the country’s most basic values.

In yet another extension of Merton’s theory, Robert Agnew (2007) reasoned that adolescents experience various kinds of strain in addition to the economic type addressed by Merton. A romantic relationship may end, a family member may die, or students may be taunted or bullied at school. Repeated strain-inducing incidents such as these produce anger, frustration, and other negative emotions, and these emotions in turn prompt delinquency and drug use.

Deviant Subcultures

Some sociologists stress that poverty and other community conditions give rise to certain subcultures through which adolescents acquire values that promote deviant behavior. One of the first to make this point was Albert K. Cohen (1955), whose status frustration theory says that lower-class boys do poorly in school because schools emphasize middle-class values. School failure reduces their status and self-esteem, which the boys try to counter by joining juvenile gangs. In these groups, a different value system prevails, and boys can regain status and self-esteem by engaging in delinquency. Cohen had nothing to say about girls, as he assumed they cared little about how well they did in school, placing more importance on marriage and family instead, and hence would remain nondelinquent even if they did not do well. Scholars later criticized his disregard for girls and assumptions about them.

Another sociologist, Walter Miller (1958), said poor boys become delinquent because they live amid a lower-class subculture that includes several focal concerns , or values, that help lead to delinquency. These focal concerns include a taste for trouble, toughness, cleverness, and excitement. If boys grow up in a subculture with these values, they are more likely to break the law. Their deviance is a result of their socialization. Critics said Miller exaggerated the differences between the value systems in poor inner-city neighborhoods and wealthier, middle-class communities (Akers & Sellers, 2008).

A very popular subcultural explanation is the so-called subculture of violence thesis, first advanced by Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti (1967). In some inner-city areas, they said, a subculture of violence promotes a violent response to insults and other problems, which people in middle-class areas would probably ignore. The subculture of violence, they continued, arises partly from the need of lower-class males to “prove” their masculinity in view of their economic failure. Quantitative research to test their theory has failed to show that the urban poor are more likely than other groups to approve of violence (Cao, Adams, & Jensen, 1997). On the other hand, recent ethnographic (qualitative) research suggests that large segments of the urban poor do adopt a “code” of toughness and violence to promote respect (Anderson, 1999). As this conflicting evidence illustrates, the subculture of violence view remains controversial and merits further scrutiny.

Social Control Theory

Travis Hirschi (1969) argued that human nature is basically selfish and thus wondered why people do not commit deviance. His answer, which is now called social control theory (also known as social bonding theory ), was that their bonds to conventional social institutions such as the family and the school keep them from violating social norms. Hirschi’s basic perspective reflects Durkheim’s view that strong social norms reduce deviance such as suicide.

Hirschi outlined four types of bonds to conventional social institutions: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.

• Attachment refers to how much we feel loyal to these institutions and care about the opinions of people in them, such as our parents and teachers. The more attached we are to our families and schools, the less likely we are to be deviant.
• Commitment refers to how much we value our participation in conventional activities such as getting a good education. The more committed we are to these activities and the more time and energy we have invested in them, the less deviant we will be.
• Involvement refers to the amount of time we spend in conventional activities. The more time we spend, the less opportunity we have to be deviant.
• Belief refers to our acceptance of society’s norms. The more we believe in these norms, the less we deviate.

More Good Foundation – Mormon Family Dinner – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Hirschi’s theory has been very popular. Many studies find that youths with weaker bonds to their parents and schools are more likely to be deviant. But the theory has its critics (Akers & Sellers, 2008). One problem centers on the chicken-and-egg question of causal order. For example, many studies support social control theory by finding that delinquent youths often have worse relationships with their parents than do nondelinquent youths. Is that because the bad relationships prompt the youths to be delinquent, as Hirschi thought? Or is it because the youths’ delinquency worsens their relationship with their parents? Despite these questions, Hirschi’s social control theory continues to influence our understanding of deviance. To the extent it is correct, it suggests several strategies for preventing crime, including programs designed to improve parenting and relations between parents and children (Welsh & Farrington, 2007).

Conflict and Feminist Explanations

Example of conflict theory: crime and social class.

While crime is often associated with the underprivileged, crimes committed by the wealthy and powerful remain an under-punished and costly problem within society. The FBI reported that victims of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft lost a total of $15.3 billion dollars in 2009 (FB1 2010). In comparison, when former advisor and financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in 2008, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reported that the estimated losses of his financial Ponzi scheme fraud were close to $50 billion (SEC 2009).

This imbalance based on class power is also found within U.S. criminal law. In the 1980s, the use of crack cocaine (cocaine in its purest form) quickly became an epidemic that swept the country’s poorest urban communities. Its pricier counterpart, cocaine, was associated with upscale users and was a drug of choice for the wealthy. The legal implications of being caught by authorities with crack versus cocaine were starkly different. In 1986, federal law mandated that being caught in possession of 50 grams of crack was punishable by a ten-year prison sentence. An equivalent prison sentence for cocaine possession, however, required possession of 5,000 grams. In other words, the sentencing disparity was 1 to 100 (New York Times Editorial Staff 2011). This inequality in the severity of punishment for crack versus cocaine paralleled the unequal social class of respective users. A conflict theorist would note that those in society who hold the power are also the ones who make the laws concerning crime. In doing so, they make laws that will benefit them, while the powerless classes who lack the resources to make such decisions suffer the consequences. The crack-cocaine punishment disparity remained until 2010, when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased the disparity to 1 to 18 (The Sentencing Project 2010).

Not surprisingly, conflict explanations have sparked much controversy (Akers & Sellers, 2008). Many scholars dismiss them for painting an overly critical picture of the United States and ignoring the excesses of noncapitalistic nations, while others say the theories overstate the degree of inequality in the legal system. In assessing the debate over conflict explanations, a fair conclusion is that their view on discrimination by the legal system applies more to victimless crime (discussed in a later section) than to conventional crime, where it is difficult to argue that laws against such things as murder and robbery reflect the needs of the powerful. However, much evidence supports the conflict assertion that the poor and minorities face disadvantages in the legal system (Reiman & Leighton, 2010). Simply put, the poor cannot afford good attorneys, private investigators, and the other advantages that money brings in court. As just one example, if someone much poorer than O. J. Simpson, the former football player and media celebrity, had been arrested, as he was in 1994, for viciously murdering two people, the defendant would almost certainly have been found guilty. Simpson was able to afford a defense costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and won a jury acquittal in his criminal trial (Barkan, 1996). Also in accordance with conflict theory’s views, corporate executives, among the most powerful members of society, often break the law without fear of imprisonment, as we shall see in our discussion of white-collar crime later in this chapter. Finally, many studies support conflict theory’s view that the roots of crimes by poor people lie in social inequality and economic deprivation (Barkan, 2009).

Feminist Perspectives

Feminist perspectives on crime and criminal justice also fall into the broad rubric of conflict explanations and have burgeoned in the last two decades. Much of this work concerns rape and sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and other crimes against women that were largely neglected until feminists began writing about them in the 1970s (Griffin, 1971). Their views have since influenced public and official attitudes about rape and domestic violence, which used to be thought as something that girls and women brought on themselves. The feminist approach instead places the blame for these crimes squarely on society’s inequality against women and antiquated views about relations between the sexes (Renzetti, 2011).

Another focus of feminist work is gender and legal processing. Are women better or worse off than men when it comes to the chances of being arrested and punished? After many studies in the last two decades, the best answer is that we are not sure (Belknap, 2007). Women are treated a little more harshly than men for minor crimes and a little less harshly for serious crimes, but the gender effect in general is weak.

A third focus concerns the gender difference in serious crime, as women and girls are much less likely than men and boys to engage in violence and to commit serious property crimes such as burglary and motor vehicle theft. Most sociologists attribute this difference to gender socialization. Simply put, socialization into the male gender role, or masculinity, leads to values such as competitiveness and behavioral patterns such as spending more time away from home that all promote deviance. Conversely, despite whatever disadvantages it may have, socialization into the female gender role, or femininity, promotes values such as gentleness and behavior patterns such as spending more time at home that help limit deviance (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004). Noting that males commit so much crime, Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind (1988, p. 527) wrote, A large price is paid for structures of male domination and for the very qualities that drive men to be successful, to control others, and to wield uncompromising power.…Gender differences in crime suggest that crime may not be so normal after all. Such differences challenge us to see that in the lives of women, men have a great deal more to learn.

Philippe Put – Fight – CC BY 2.0.

Two decades later, that challenge still remains.

Symbolic Interactionist Explanations

Because symbolic interactionism focuses on the means people gain from their social interaction, symbolic interactionist explanations attribute deviance to various aspects of the social interaction and social processes that normal individuals experience. These explanations help us understand why some people are more likely than others living in the same kinds of social environments. Several such explanations exist.

Differential Association Theory

One popular set of explanations, often called learning theories , emphasizes that deviance is learned from interacting with other people who believe it is OK to commit deviance and who often commit deviance themselves. Deviance, then, arises from normal socialization processes. The most influential such explanation is Edwin H. Sutherland’s (1947) differential association theory , which says that criminal behavior is learned by interacting with close friends and family members. These individuals teach us not only how to commit various crimes but also the values, motives, and rationalizations that we need to adopt in order to justify breaking the law. The earlier in our life that we associate with deviant individuals and the more often we do so, the more likely we become deviant ourselves. In this way, a normal social process, socialization, can lead normal people to commit deviance.

Sutherland’s theory of differential association was one of the most influential sociological theories ever. Over the years much research has documented the importance of adolescents’ peer relationships for their entrance into the world of drugs and delinquency (Akers & Sellers, 2008). However, some critics say that not all deviance results from the influences of deviant peers. Still, differential association theory and the larger category of learning theories it represents remain a valuable approach to understanding deviance and crime.

Labeling Theory

If we arrest and imprison someone, we hope they will be “scared straight,” or deterred from committing a crime again. Labeling theory assumes precisely the opposite: it says that labeling someone deviant increases the chances that the labeled person will continue to commit deviance. According to labeling theory, this happens because the labeled person ends up with a deviant self-image that leads to even more deviance. Deviance is the result of being labeled (Bohm & Vogel, 2011).

This effect is reinforced by how society treats someone who has been labeled. Research shows that job applicants with a criminal record are much less likely than those without a record to be hired (Pager, 2009). Suppose you had a criminal record and had seen the error of your ways but were rejected by several potential employers. Do you think you might be just a little frustrated? If your unemployment continues, might you think about committing a crime again? Meanwhile, you want to meet some law-abiding friends, so you go to a singles bar. You start talking with someone who interests you, and in response to this person’s question, you say you are between jobs. When your companion asks about your last job, you reply that you were in prison for armed robbery. How do you think your companion will react after hearing this? As this scenario suggests, being labeled deviant can make it difficult to avoid a continued life of deviance.

Labeling theory also asks whether some people and behaviors are indeed more likely than others to acquire a deviant label. In particular, it asserts that nonlegal factors such as appearance, race, and social class affect how often official labeling occurs.

Victor – Handcuffs – CC BY 2.0.

William Chambliss’s (1973) classic analysis of the “Saints” and the “Roughnecks” is an excellent example of this argument. The Saints were eight male high-school students from middle-class backgrounds who were very delinquent, while the Roughnecks were six male students in the same high school who were also very delinquent but who came from poor, working-class families. Although the Saints’ behavior was arguably more harmful than the Roughnecks’, their actions were considered harmless pranks, and they were never arrested. After graduating from high school, they went on to college and graduate and professional school and ended up in respectable careers. In contrast, the Roughnecks were widely viewed as troublemakers and often got into trouble for their behavior. As adults they either ended up in low-paying jobs or went to prison.

Labeling theory’s views on the effects of being labeled and on the importance of nonlegal factors for official labeling remain controversial. Nonetheless, the theory has greatly influenced the study of deviance and crime in the last few decades and promises to do so for many years to come.

Key Takeaways

• Both biological and psychological explanations assume that deviance stems from problems arising inside the individual.
• Sociological explanations attribute deviance to various aspects of the social environment.
• Several functionalist explanations exist. Durkheim highlighted the functions that deviance serves for society. Merton’s strain theory assumed that deviance among the poor results from their inability to achieve the economic success so valued in American society. Other explanations highlight the role played by the social and physical characteristics of urban neighborhoods, of deviant subcultures, and of weak bonds to social institutions.
• Conflict explanations assume that the wealthy and powerful use the legal system to protect their own interests and to keep the poor and racial minorities subservient. Feminist perspectives highlight the importance of gender inequality for crimes against women and of male socialization for the gender difference in criminality.
• Interactionist explanations highlight the importance of social interaction in the commitment of deviance and in reactions to deviance. Labeling theory assumes that the labeling process helps ensure that someone will continue to commit deviance, and it also assumes that some people are more likely than others to be labeled deviant because of their appearance, race, social class, and other characteristics.

Agnew, R. (2007). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory . Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city . New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Barkan, S. E. (1996). The social science significance of the O. J. Simpson case. In G. Barak (Ed.), Representing O. J.: Murder, criminal justice and mass culture (pp. 36–42). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Barkan, S. E. (2009). The value of quantitative analysis for a critical understanding of crime and society. Critical Criminology, 17 , 247–259.

Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bellair, P. E., & McNulty, T. L. (2009). Gang membership, drug selling, and violence in neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 26 , 644–669.

Bohm, R. M., & Vogel, B. (2011). A Primer on crime and delinquency theory (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Bonger, W. (1916). Criminality and economic conditions (H. P. Horton, Trans.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Cao, L., Adams, A., & Jensen, V. J. (1997). A test of the black subculture of violence thesis: A research note. Criminology, 35, 367–379.

Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The saints and the roughnecks. Society, 11, 24–31.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2004). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, W. V. T. (1940). The ox-bow incident . New York, NY: Random House.

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs . New York, NY: Free Press.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang . New York, NY: Free Press.

Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497–538.

Gans, H. J. (1996). The war against the poor: The underclass and antipoverty policy . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Griffin, S. (1971, September). Rape: The all-American crime. Ramparts, 10 , 26–35.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mears, D. P., Wang, X., Hay, C., & Bales, W. D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46, 301–340.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.

Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American dream . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14 , 5–19.

Pager, D. (2009). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2010). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Renzetti, C. (2011). Feminist criminology . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Sampson, R. J. (2006). How does community context matter? Social mechanisms and the explanation of crime rates. In P.-O. H. Wikström & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms, and development (pp. 31–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology . Philadelphia, PA: J. P. Lippincott.

Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2007). Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places . New York, NY: Springer.

Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence . London, England: Social Science Paperbacks.

Introduction to Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Certificate - Criminology and the Criminal Justice System

The Criminology & Criminal Justice System Certificate Program

The Criminology and Criminal Justice System Certificate at UMass Amherst explores the sociological theories of crime, law, and the criminal justice system.  It equips students to analyze and critique criminal justice structures and processes from a social science perspective.  Central topics explored in these courses include criminological theory, sociology of law, deviance and conformity, access to justice, inequality, mass incarceration, and more.  Students who pursue the Criminology and the Criminal Justice System certificate often go on to pursue graduate school of law school, or go into a variety of careers, including as prosecutors or defense attorneys, social justice activists, educators, probation or parole officers, consultants, policy analysts, or law enforcement officers.

*This is not a law enforcement program, and completing the Criminology and Criminal Justice System Certificate  does not provide educational incentives for regular full-time officers in participating cities and towns through salary increases through the Quinn Bill (Police Career Incentive Pay Program).

The Criminology and Criminal Justice System Certificate requirements include 5 courses, including SOC 241: Criminology; one of three core courses, and three elective courses, one of which may be taken outside of the department if desired.

Certificate Requirements

Required course:.

SOCIOL 241 Criminology 

Choose one course from the following:

SOCIOL 248 Conformity and Deviance SOCIOL 323 Sociology of Law SOCIOL 342 Deviance & Social Order

Choose three upper-level (200+) Sociology / CJ electives:

(Courses offered vary by semester; some are offered only online through CPE.)

SOCIOL 218 The Law, Logic, and Social Science of Courtroom Evidence SOCIOL 242 Drugs & Society SOCIOL 252 Introduction to Human Rights SOCIOL 248 Conformity and Deviance SOCIOL 323 Sociology of Law SOCIOL 340 Probation & Parole SOCIOL 342 Deviance & Social Order SOCIOL 343 Hate Crime in America SOCIOL 344 Gender and Crime SOCIOL 345 Juvenile Delinquency (online only) SOCIOL 346 Communities Crime SOCIOL 347 Corporate Crime SOCIOL 348 Mass Incarceration in the USA SOCIOL 349 Race, Class & Crime SOCIOL 350 Policing and Surveillance SOCIOL 374 Gender, Crime & Family (online only) SOCIOL 391M Serial Mass Murder (online) SOCIOL 392J Race & Policing SOCIOL 394F Crime & Forensics (online) SOCIOL 394S White Collar Crime (online) SOCIOL 395AP American Police (online) SOCIOL 395K Domestic Violence SOCIOL 497S Surveillance and Society

One course from a department outside of Sociology may be used toward the certificate. Some of the available options are listed below.

Other courses may be approved on a case by case basis by the Director of Undergraduate Advising.

ANTHRO 215 Forensics: Myth and Reality CMPSCI 391LI Computer Crime Law EDUC 297A School-to-Prison Pipeline HISTORY 397RL Special Topics: Rape Law: Gender, Race, (In)justice HONORS 322H Criminal Law and Justice in the U.S. JOURNAL 290J: Journalism in Jail LEGAL 250 Intro to Legal Studies LEGAL 333 Law & Culture in America LEGAL 360 Civil Liberties in Wartime LEGAL 397K Seminar: Human Trafficking LEGAL 397RE Law & Politics of Race and Ethnicity in the U.S. LEGAL 472 Race, Gender, and the Law LEGAL S390P/SPP S390P Politics and Policy in the American Police State POLSCI 162 Intro to Constitutional Law POLSCI 163 Intro to Civil Liberties POLSCI 297GL/LEGAL 297R Gender, Law & Politics POLSCI 360 Constitutional Law PSYCH 297F or 321 Forensic Psychology PSYCH 355 Adolescent Psychology PSYCH 380 Abnormal Psychology WGSS 340 Critical Prison Studies

Students are strongly encouraged to pursue a crimonology or criminal justice-based internship or practicum in order to apply the skills they will develop in their coursework. Practica credits do not count toward total certificate credits/requirements.

Multiple Credentials Policy

No more than two courses used to fulfill the requirements of any one credential may be applied towards the fulfillment of another credential, wherein “credential” is defined as an academic degree program (major), minor, or certificate. One course may only be applied to two credentials. For more information, view the Multiple Credentials Policy .

Completing Your Certificate

Once you have enrolled in the final class for your certificate, please fill out the  Certificate Completion Form  and submit an unofficial transcript. Forms may be submitted via e-mail to @email .

Note:  To receive the Certificate in Criminology and the Criminal Justice System, a minimum 2.0 GPA must be maintained  across  courses applied to certificate requirements.

Explore More Certificates in the Sociology Department

• What are UMass Sociology Majors Saying?
• Major Requirements
• Minor Requirements
• Certificate - Social Work & Social Welfare
• Certificate - Population Studies
• Certificate - Social Research Analysis
• Who Do I See For...?
• Procedures for the Resolution of Student Issues and Grievances
• Program Policies
• Internships
• Becoming a Peer Advisor
• Study Abroad
• Undergraduate Research Project
• Meghan K. Beebe Senior Speaker Award
• SBS & University Scholarships
• Career Resources
• CHC Personal Statement

University of Massachusetts Amherst Thompson Hall, 200 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003-9277 tel: (413) 545 0577 | fax: (413) 545 3204 Contact Sociology