Week 9 Precis for Societal Reaction theory /Labeling Theory
Introduction
First developed in the early 1960s and 1970 Becker (1963) and Lemert (1967) labeling
theory postulates that deviant behavior is the outcome of interaction between actors and
reactors. The theory is a departure from the theories that take for granted the structural
interventions and has evolved over time with recent theorists focusing on its identified
points of weakness. The good points of the theory remain its emphasis on structure,
provision for process over time. Since its original presentation, two major areas of focus
have emerged with the self-concept highlighting the role of the self and the dynamics of
symbolic interaction – in a belief that deviance amplification occurs when the labeled
person conforms to the stereotypic expectations of others
Bernburg and Krohn (2003) focus on the moral tangible (social structure) aspects of
social exclusion- deviance is stabilized due to blocked access to structures opportunities
and conventional others.
An additional development is the inclusion of structural location with Bernburg
examining whether the relationship between labeling and both structural mediators and
subsequent delinquency is contingent on structural location particularly race and social
class.
Attacks on the theory mainly challenge its testability and failure to take into account the
other social processes that lead labeled deviants into more crime. In the days’ readings
Bernburg and Krohn (2003) –Labeling, Life Chances and Adult Crime are attempts to
improve the methodological approaches from cross tabulations, matching procedures to
the use of Poisson models and OLS regressions in longitudinal data sets that provide
“temporal possibilities that provide for modeling labeling experience and behavioral
controls that are necessary to effectively identify the existence and scope of labeling
effects”.
Beinberg and Krohn (2003) “Labeling, Life Chances and Adult Crime: The Direct
and Indirect Effects of Official Intervention in Adolescence and Earl Adulthood”
Using data from a multi-variate panel study of the development of delinquent behavior
among adolescents and young adults, base don an initial sample of 1000 7th and 8th
graders of public school 1987 and 1988. The initial wave conducted over a period of 4 ½
years over intervals of 6months. After a 21/2 yrs gap adolescents and parents were
interviewed over a year for the next 3years.
Data on all subjects was also collected from schools, police, courts and social service
organizations. Used a modified Poisson Regression to analyze the data.The findings
proved consistent support for the hypothesis – official intervention in adolescence has
positive indirect effects on adult crime through reduced educational attainment and non-
employment across alternate measures of interaction and adult crime. High school
