|
Implications of the Labeling Theory of Deviance on Increased Deviant Behaviors of Juvenile Delinquents
Meredith M. Peiken
The University of Georgia
Abstract
The effects of using negative social sanctions as means of punishment for Juvenile delinquents were studied. It was proposed that participants labeled as delinquent from negative social sanctions as a result from an initial deviance will have an increase in the possibility of secondary deviance. The participants were 45 7th and 8th grade students (M= 13.26 yrs.) from the Athens-Clarke county area. Participants were given false feedback after completing a personality test. Increase in secondary deviance was assessed by how much the participants related to the target character in a story using the Peer Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ). A significant effect was found between participants who did not receive feedback with those who were told they had a small possibility of deviance, and an effect was found between those who were told they had a small possibility of deviance with those who were told they have a higher possibility of deviance.
No effect was found between those who were not given feedback and those who were told they had a higher possibility of deviance.
Implications of the Labeling Theory of Deviance on Increased Deviant Behaviors of Juvenile Delinquents
Juvenile delinquency is a growing concern in America's society. Youths are grossly over represented in criminal index statistics; juveniles under the age of eighteen account for less than eleven percent of the general population, yet they make up 18.7 % of all arrests for violent crimes and 34.7 % for all property crimes (Cole & Smith, 1999). Because of this fact, government officials and parents alike have pondered an efficient yet severe method of punishing these youths. Government wants to "get tough on crime," however, parents do not want to send their offspring to prison where they can be exposed to hardened criminals. A compromise must be found in order to deter youths and rehabilitate them to be functional members of society. Probation, boot camp, juvenile detention centers, and other non-incarceration methods are the most popular punishment for juvenile offenders, but along with these sanctions comes social stigmatization. These stigmas placed on juvenile delinquents can be seen as both beneficial and detrimental to the youths because it does act as some for of deterrent for recidivism, but it can also have an adverse effect. This paper examines the affects social sanctions have on juvenile delinquents.
Social sanctions are those reactions by society or a social group, either real or perceived, to the behaviors of an individual (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). These reactions serve as punishment or rewards on the specific behavior; they can be intentional by society, the members of the social group, or they can be merely perceptions of the target individual. Negative social sanctions are used to punish an undesirable action, typically one that is deviant or criminal in nature. Negative social sanctions, which can range from apprehension after a crime to isolation from conventional society, create much debate because critics argue that such public reactions to deviant behaviors will cause a negative stigma and label to be placed on the accused. Social scientists believe that such a label will have adverse effects on the delinquent and lead to more deviance because the deviant will learn to define him/herself in terms of the social theory posits "the ironic view that punishment often makes individuals more likely to commit crimes because of altered interactional structure, foreclosed legal opportunities and secondary deviance" (Sherman & Berk, 1984, p. 261 as cited in Kaplan & Damphousse, 1997). However, critics supporting the deterrence literature, another criminology school of thought, believe that negative social sanctions, and subsequently labeling, will deter individuals from committing further crimes, and the idea of punishment will deter the general public (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). Therefore, criminal theorists inquire about which method of punishment is most beneficial to both the accused and society, and research reflects this interest.
Tannenbaum (as cited in Adams & Evans, 1996), a pioneer in labeling research, suggests that society plays an important role in socializing young individuals into creating serious delinquent behaviors by their reactions to undesirable actions. These perceptions that such acts are evil, and the internalization that the individual who does such acts is evil, are root causes of the problem. Punishment of deviant acts backfires when internalization of the punishment causes the individual to believe they are being punished and not the behavior which can ironically lead to increased delinquent acts (Adams & Evans, 1996). Having negative social sanctions used as a response to an initial deviance leads to a higher probability that the individual will be publicly labeled as deviant (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). In a study by Farrington in 1977 (as cited in Kaplan & Johnson, 1991), publicly labeled adolescents had higher self-reports of delinquency than non-labeled youths. Hence, research is supporting the labeling theorists view on how negative social sanctions used as punishment adversely affect the labeled individual.
Another aspect of the labeling theory concerns whom is placing the label on the individual. Zhang (1997) states that delinquent youths are more likely to be labeled as deviant by their significant others as a result of initial deviant behaviors. The labeling of significant others can influence a higher probability of increased deviance due to affected actual and reflected appraisals according to a study by Matsueda in 1992 (as cited in Zhang, 1997). Those seen as delinquent, and subsequently labeled as such by significant others, will develop beliefs about themselves that are based on how they perceive others to view them. This in turn can be conceptualized by the self-responses of the deviant by changes in their beliefs, values, feelings, and behaviors, all of which theoretically can lead to secondary deviance which was found by Wells in 1978 (as cited in Kaplan & Johnson, 1991).
Secondary deviance is increased following negative social sanctions in three main ways 1) a loss of motivation to conform to conventional norms, and an increased motivation to adhere to unconventional norms; 2) an increased association with deviant peer groups; and 3) a positive evaluation and identification to deviant behaviors (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991; Kaplan & Damphousse, 1997). A loss of motivation to conform to conventional norms, and thus an increased conformity to unconventional norms will occur following negative social sanctions when an individual is publicly labeled as deviant.
Society ostracizes the individual by exclusion from conventional groups, which soon is viewed as voluntary withdrawal from such groups (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). This is in truth a maladaptive defense mechanism to buffer against the individual's fear of rejection from society (Link, 1987 as cited in Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). The experiences of being publicly labeled as deviant and the fear of rejection come to be associated with the conventional norms, and the labeled individual foresees the stigmatization from society as exclusion from the social order (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). Therefore, the individual fabricates barriers which deny reentry into conventional groups and social acceptance. This perceived rejection from society allows the labeled individual to become more aware of delinquent acts and will adopt these behaviors as normal because personal fulfillment is achieved through these alternative means.
Because the deviant individual believes to be isolated from conventional society, nonconventional peer associations will be established. Interaction with others similar to the individual increases with the positive value placed on delinquent behaviors (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). These deviant others accept one another into their social sphere and in turn create a deviant social group. With this new conventional society to the labeled individual, such delinquent activities and identities will soon be viewed positively and normal. In a study by Coleman (1986), it was found that the labeled individuals "regain their identity through redefining normality and realizing that it is acceptable to be who they are" (p. 225 as cited in Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). Once the negative deviant behaviors have been transformed in the labeled individual into a more positive light, the deviant individual is consequently motivated to validate this new deviant identity in order to positively evaluate him/herself (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). Deviant actions will serve as means of achieving new social standards and goals redefined by
the individual that replace conventional ones because these traditional goals can no longer be attained once negative social sanctions exclude the labeled one from access to its resources. These socially undesirable behaviors are positively valued because they serve as means to traditionally valued ends. Hence, the vicious circle of delinquent behavior and labeling perpetuates.
To end this social problem, an answer must be given: do negative social sanctions induce a label that creates an image of deviance which leads to a life of deviance? Previous research on the use of negative social sanctions have generally been longitudinal studies spanning as much as three years. Past examinations have been post hoc, and have only used participants with an existing deviant label from either society (by means of police interactions), by significant others, teachers, and peers. Studies have followed these adolescents throughout junior high school and secondary schools to see how such a label affects the daily lives of the individual and to examine the label in action. Secondary deviance, which is an increase in deviant activity, is measured by self-reports, police interaction, and other means (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991; Adams & Evans, 1996; Kaplan & Damphousse, 1997 ). However, the present study looks at the immediate effects and implications of labeling an individual as deviant without an initial deviant act in order to see if deviant activity increases due to the label incurred. The present study posits that using negative social sanctions as punishment of a deviant act, and subsequently labeling an individual as deviant, will result in increased secondary deviance. Those individuals verbally labeled as having a higher deviant predisposition will show the most increase in secondary deviance by personally relating to a deviant individual. Individuals labeled as having a small predisposition to deviance will show an increase in secondary deviance as compared to those without the deviant probability but not as much as those with the highest probability. Not being labeled as having deviant tendencies will result in the smallest increase in secondary deviance.
Methods
Participants
Participants of this study were 45 seventh and eighth grade students (M=13.26 years) randomly selected from 5 junior high schools in the Athens-Clarke county area. Parents of the participants gave written consent for their children to participate in the study.
Materials
The Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory (JEPI) was used to measure the participants' personality (Eysenck, 1965). This test is a 60-item paper and pencil inventory of personality which measures extraversion-intraversion, neuroticisim-stability, and has a falsification scale. This was used as a distracter test in order for the manipulation of labeling to be effective.
The dependent variable was assessed by a questionnaire related to a story about a target character similar in age and social/cultural situations as the participants. However, the target character was involved with various deviant activities like shoplifting, swearing, fighting with peers and siblings, and disregarding any adult authority. The Peer Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ) probed how well the participants self-related to the target character by means of a Likert-type scale of 0--very uncharacteristic of me to 6--very characteristic of me. A sample question would be "I agree that taking a toy worth less than ten dollars is O.K.."
Procedure
All 45 of the participants were randomly assigned to three groups of fifteen each. None of the 45 participants knew which group they were assigned to; each task of the study was done individually so that participant bias would not take place between the participants. Experimenters used the last four digits of the participants' social security number as means of identifying which participants were assigned to which group. Participants were given a consent form to read and sign explaining that the study was examining how well personality affects the ability to relate to peer groups. They were also promised the confidentiality of results. A similar form was given to the parents of the study; however, the parents were told the true nature of the study because deception was involved with minors. The parents were stressed the importance of deception in psychological studies in order to get accurate results of people's natural reactions; they were also told of the importance of keeping results and information anonymous.
All 45 participants individually took the JEPI. After completing the test, the experimenter gave each participant results from the test individually. A randomly selected fifteen participants were not given false results; these participants were assigned to group one. Another randomly selected fifteen were told they scored within the lower 30 percentile of the rest of their peers, meaning their personality is lower in social desirability and can be compared to personalities of criminals and delinquents. They were placed in group two. The remaining fifteen participants were told they scored in the lower 5 percentile which means their personalities are extremely low in social desirability, and they have a higher probability of becoming deviant. These participants were assigned to group three.
After receiving these bogus results, each participant was told they were going to take a test that measures the ability to relate to peer groups. The test consisted of a story about a child of similar age to the participants. Upon completion of reading the story, the participants rated how similarly they believed themselves to be compared to the target character. They used the PRQ to rate the target character which was answered along a Likert-type scale; 0--very uncharacteristic of me to 6--very characteristic of me.
Participants and their parents were debriefed together and again separately after all tasks were completed. Both the participants and their parents were given the opportunity to discuss the study with a clinical therapist for free if needed.
Results
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the Data Set B mean scores from the PRQ by participants in the no probability of deviance group, participants in the small probability of deviance group, and participants in the high probability of deviance group. The alpha level was set at p= .05. This test was found to be statistically significant, F(2, 42)=6.32, p<.004.
A Tukey's HSD test indicated that the mean PRQ score in participants with no probability of deviance (M=12.20, SD=8.28) was significantly lower than the mean PRQ score for those who had a small probability of deviance (M= 21.13, SD= 7.46). The Tukey's HSD test also indicated that the mean PRQ score in participants with a high probability of deviance (M= 13.60, SD= 6.33) was significantly lower that the mean PRQ score for those who had a small probability of deviance. The mean PRQ score of those with no probability of deviance did not differ from the mean PRQ score of those with a high probability of deviance.
Discussion
An effect was found between group 1, who did not receive feedback, and group 2, who were told they have a small probability of deviance. This confirms the hypothesis which stated that participants labeled with a small possibility of deviance would have an increase in secondary deviance as compared to those without a label. This implies that labeling an individual as deviant will result in increased secondary deviance.
A significant effect was found between group 2 and group 3, those labeled with the highest probability of deviance. From the analysis and descriptive statistics, it can be inferred that those in group 2 had a larger increase in secondary deviance than those in group 3. Also, no effect was found between group 1 and group 3. This does not support the hypothesis that individuals labeled as having the highest probability of deviance would have the largest increase in secondary deviance. The effect noticed can be due to nonsystematic error or a flaw in the methodology. Individuals in group 3 could have disbelieved the false feedback given and subsequently not identified with the target character in the story, therefore the label did not "stick". Another possibility explaining the statistical outcome could be in fact that a stronger label placed on individuals acts as a deterrent effect against secondary deviance while a more subtle label has an adverse effect on the individual.
The results from this present study support the fact that labeling an individual as delinquent can have opposite effects of deterrence. It is suggested that such a label leads the individual to secondary deviance which is a loss of motivation to conform to conventional norms and instead conform to nontraditional or delinquent norms (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991). The individual also may have an increase in association with delinquent peers because of the isolation the individual feels from society's ostracizing them. This in turn would lead to a positive value being placed on nonconventional behaviors, and the use of nonconventional means to achieve traditional goals should be implemented.
Limitations on the present study would include the fact that young adolescents were used as participants in a study where deception was involved. Because of the deceptive nature of the methodology, the parents needed to give consent and understand the implications of the study prior to their children's participation. Information on the study could have been revealed from the parent to the child causing the participant's reactions to not be natural. This could affect the data collected.
Also, because of the deception, some participants may have felt some psychological discomfort that was not predicted by the experimenter. Although the participant and parent were offered free counseling in the psychological clinic, self-esteem could have been endangered.
Because social sanctions, particularly negative social sanctions, are used as forms of punishment, society needs to be aware that the punishment is not having the deterrent effect desired. The present study concludes that the social label placed on deviants is causing an increase in secondary deviance and not deterring the individual from a life of crime. A new
delinquent subculture is becoming more prominent in today's society and is drawing in new youths each day. In order to suppress this deviant lifestyle, a more efficient method of punishment needs to be devised where isolation from conventional society will not be a side-effect. Significant others and society must be aware of the social stigma placed on punished delinquents, especially those on juveniles whose self-schemas are more contingent on reflected appraisals. The deviant behavior needs to be punished and not the individual creating the behaviors, and this fact needs to be stressed during punishment.
Further research in the area of the labeling theory with adolescents should look at why some labels 'stick" to some individuals but not others. This case may be rooted in self-esteem, which should also be studied. Participants in future studies should be individuals whom have engaged in real initial deviance, but have not already assumed the deviant identity and have not been social stigmatized with the delinquent label. It would be interesting to note if placing a more salient label on these individuals would lead to a reaction to the label corresponding to secondary deviance.
References
Adams, M. & Evans, T. (1996). Teacher disapproval, delinquent peers, and self-reported delinquency: longitudinal test of labeling theory. Urban Review, 28, 199-211.
Cole, G. & Smith, C. (1999). Criminal justice in America. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Eysenck, S. (1965). Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory. Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
Farrell, R. (1984). Deviance imputations, early recollections and the reconstruction of self. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 30, 189-199.
Kaplan, H. & Damphousse, K. (1997). Negative social sanctions, self-derogation, and deviant behavior: main and interactive effects in longitudinal perspective.
Deviant Behavior, 18, 1-26.
Kaplan, H. & Johnson, R. (1991). Negative social sanctions and juvenile delinquency: Effects of labeling in a model of deviant behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 72, 98-122.
Zhang, L. (1997). Informal reactions and delinquency.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 129-150.
|
