Criminological Theory

Rejecting Individualism:
The Chicago School
 Chicago School Criminologists
• Robert Park: Crime and the city
• Park and Burgess: Concentric Zone Theory
• Shaw and McKay: Social Disorganization theory and the Chicago Area Project
• Sutherland: Differential Association
• Sampson and colleagues: Collective Efficacy
• Bursik and Grasmick: Collective Efficacy
• Warner: Cultural attenuation theory
• Legal Cynicism Theory
• Elijah Anderson’s Cultural Deviance Theory: Code of the Street
• Aker: Social Learning Theory
 Introduction
• As the United States entered the 20th century,
a competing vision of crime emerged
• Crime was a social product
• The Chicago school of criminology argued that
one aspect of American society, the city,
contained potent criminogenic forces
 The Chicago School of Criminology: Theory
in Context
• During the latter half of the 1800s, cities grew at a rapid
pace, and became “a controlling factor in national life”
• Chicago’s growth was particularly remarkable
– Grew from 4,100 residents in 1833 to over 2 million in 1910

• Many of those settling in Chicago carried little with them

• Most newcomers brought little economic relief
– Referred to as “the jungle” by Upton Sinclair
 The Chicago School of Criminology: Theory
in Context
• Criminologists during the 1920s and 1930s
witnessed that these changes created bulging
populations and teaming slum areas
• They believed that growing up in the city,
particularly in the slums, made a difference in
people’s lives
 The Progressive Movement
• The “Progressives” were troubled by the plight
of the urban poor, a mushrooming population
of the system’s casualties who had few
prospects of stable or rewarding lives
• An understanding of the etiology of crime
demanded a very close scrutiny of the
conditions of the urban poor
 The Progressive Movement
• The Progressives believed that the poor were pushed
by their environment into lives of crime
• The goal was to save the poor by providing social
services that would lessen the pains of poverty and
teach the benefits of middle-class culture
– Did this through schools, clinics, recreational facilities,
settlement houses, foster homes, and reformatories
 The Age of Reform
• The Progressives efforts led to the creation of
policies and practices that were intended to
allow the state to treat the individual needs
and problems of offenders
– Trusted the government
• The city became a dominant
feature of American life, and a
pervasive movement arose warning that the
social fabric of urban slums bred crime
 The University of Chicago and Robert Park

• Concluded that the city’s development and

organization were not random
– Rather development is patterned and could be
understood in terms of the basic social processes
• The nature of social processes and their
impact on human behavior could be
ascertained only through a careful study of
city life
 Shaw and McKay’s Theory of Juvenile
Delinquency
• Persuaded that a model of the city formulated
by Ernest Burgess provided a framework for
understanding the social roots of crime
• Neighborhood organization was instrumental
in the preventing or permitting delinquent
careers
Burgess’s Concentric Zone Theory
 Burgess’s Concentric Zone Theory
• Cities grow radially in a series of five
concentric zones
• Competition determined how people were
distributed spatially among these zones
• The zone of transition was a cause for
concern and study
– Deteriorating houses, displacement of residents,
and waves of immigrants lead to weakened family
and communal ties and resulted in social
disorganization
 Shaw and McKay’s Disorganization and
Delinquency
• Mapped the spatial distribution of delinquency
throughout Chicago to see if it conformed to
Burgess’s concentric zone theory
• Delinquency flourished in the zone in transition
and was inversely related to the zone’s
affluence and corresponding distance from the
central business district
– True regardless of the racial or ethnic group residing
there
 Shaw and McKay’s Disorganization and
Delinquency
• The nature of the neighborhood, not
individuals within the neighborhood,
regulated involvement in crime
• Neighborhood organization was the main
factor determining juvenile waywardness
– In the zone in transition, urban growth, transiency,
heterogeneity, and poverty allowed social
disorganization to prevail and delinquency to be
rampant
 Shaw and McKay’s Disorganization and
Delinquency
• Growing up in a disorganized area, it is this
combination of:
1. A break down of control
2. Exposure to a criminal culture that lures
individual youngsters into crime
that creates high rates of delinquency
 Transmission of Criminal Values
• Shaw and McKay attempted to learn more
about why youths become deviant by
interviewing delinquents and compiling their
autobiographies in a format called life
histories
– Found juveniles were drawn into crime through
their association with older siblings or gang
members
– Disorganization produced and
sustained criminal traditions
 The Empirical Status of Social
Disorganization Theory
• Pratt and Cullen’s (2005) meta-analysis found
the variables are related to crime in the
predicted direction
• Sampson and Groves (1989) found structural
factors increased social disorganization and
that, in turn, disorganized areas had higher
levels of crime than organized areas
Summary of Social Disorganization Theory

• Shaw and McKay believed that juvenile delinquency

could only be understood by considering by the social
context which youths lived
– A disorganized areas there is (1) a breakdown of control
and (2) exposure to a criminal culture
– This theory is a considered a “mixed model” or “integrated
theory” since it merges different causal conditions into a
single explanation (weak controls and learning cultural
values)
– Laid the groundwork for control or social bond theories
Sutherland’s Differential Social Organization

• Shaw and McKay’s work laid the groundwork for Edwin

Sutherland’s differential association theory
• Argued that social organization – the context in which
individuals are embedded – regulates criminal behavior
• Contended that groups are arranged differently; some
are organized in support of criminal activity, whereas
others are organized against such behavior
 Sutherland’s Differential Association and
Definitions
• Criminal behavior is learned through social interactions
• The inner-city is characterized by culture conflict
between a conventional culture and an criminal culture
that promote their own definitions
• The ratio of definitions – criminal or
conventional – determines if the
person embraces crime an
acceptable way of life
 Sutherland’s Nine Propositions
1. Criminal behavior is learned
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction
with other persons in a process of
communication
3. The principle part of the learning of criminal
behavior occurs within intimate personal
groups
Sutherland’s Nine Propositions (cont’d)

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the

learning includes (a) techniques of
committing the crime, and (b) the specific
direction of motives, drives, rationalizations,
and attitudes
5. The specific direction of motives and drives
is learned from definitions of legal codes as
favorable and unfavorable
Sutherland’s Nine Propositions (cont’d)

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an

excess of definitions favorable to the
violation of law

7. Differential associations may vary in

frequency, duration, priority, and intensity
 Sutherland’s Nine Propositions (cont’d)

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by

association with criminal and anti-criminal
patterns involves all the mechanisms that are
involved in other learning

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of

general needs and values, it is not explained by
those general needs and values since non-
criminal behavior is not an expression of the
same needs and values
 Theoretical Applications
• Sutherland believed differential association
theory was a general explanation that could
be applied to very divergent types of illegal
activity
• Claimed differential association could account
for the offenses committed by persons of
respectability and high social status in the
course of his occupation– white-
collar crime
Sutherland and White-Collar Crime
• Crime committed by a person of
respectability and high social status in
the course of his occupation
• Lawlessness is widespread in business,
politics, and the professions
• Differential association can explain this
type of crime
 The Chicago School’s Criminological Legacy

• Emphasized the causal importance of the

transmission of a criminal culture but offered much
less detail on the precise origins of this culture
– No focus on the role of power and class domination
• The Chicago school laid the groundwork for the
development of a perspective that remains vital to
this day
– Cultural deviance theory
 Control and Culture in the Community
• Theories have continued to explore why some
communities have higher rates of crime than others
– The control perspective derived from Shaw and McKay is
seen in the theories of collective efficacy and cultural
attenuation
– Other scholars have linked crime to cultural traditions in
communities – Code of the Street
– And still others have examined why some individuals are
more likely to be involved in crime than others – Akers’s
social learning theory
 Collective Efficacy
• Sampson sought to explain how informal
social control at the community level explains
variation in crime rates across neighborhoods
– Known as the systemic theory
• Neighborhoods are characterized by a system of social
networks and ties
– When dense and strong, there is informal social control

– When weak, there is a lack informal social control

 Collective Efficacy
• Bursik and Grasmick presented three levels of
community control
1. Private: intimate relationships among family and friends
2. Parochial: those met during daily routines and voluntary
organizations
3. Public: relationships with external groups that provide
resources to maintaining order
– Organized communities have all three controls, while
disorganized communities do not
 Collective Efficacy
• One problem with the systemic model
– High crime communities have neighbors that often
know one another and have strong private ties,
while low crime areas have weak ties
 Collective Efficacy
• Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls set forth a reconceptualization of the
social disorganization framework called collective efficacy
– Defined as social cohesion among neighbors combined with their
willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good
• Neighborhoods vary in their ability to activate informal social control
– Dependent on mutual trust and solidarity among neighbors
• In neighborhoods where cohesiveness prevails, residents can depend
on one another to enforce rules of civility and good behavior which
allows the area to have collective efficacy
– Residents have a shared expectation for control
 Collective Efficacy
• Collective efficacy is not evenly distributed across
neighborhoods
• Studies have shown collective efficacy is a robust
predictor of levels of violence across neighborhoods and
mediated much of the relationship between crime and
the neighborhood characteristics of residential stability
and concentrated disadvantage
• Is a promising explanation of why urban neighborhoods
differ in their levels of criminal behavior
 Cultural Attenuation Theory
• Cultural Disorganization and Crime
– Neighborhood conditions affect allegiance to
conventional values
• Difficult to have “common ground” and “shared
understandings” when there is transiency, heterogeneity,
when new problems exist that traditional values do not
address effectively, and when following conventional
mandates seem irrelevant to the achievement of goals
• Community cannot organize itself to combat delinquency
united by common values
 Cultural Attenuation Theory
• Warner found that concentrated disadvantage
and residential mobility decrease allegiance to
conventional values
– Conventional values are not rejected but fall into
“disuse”
– Culture is strong with similar values are widely
shared, visibly present in everyday life, and
regularly articulated
 Legal Cynicism Theory
• Police are seen as absent or too present in high-
crime, inner-city neighborhoods
– Officers seen as unresponsive and disrespectful
– Belief in law attenuates and legal cynicism occurs
• Legal cynicism is cultural orientation in which the law and
its agents are viewed as illegitimate, unresponsive, and ill
equipped to ensure public safety

• Concentrated disadvantage contributes to legal

cynicism
 Legal Cynicism Theory
• Evidence to show neighborhoods high in legal
cynicism have high rates of crime
– However, does not mean residents condone crime
– Legal cynicism creates conditions conducive to
crime
 Cultural Deviance Theory: Theoretical
Variations
• Communities are exposed to values oppositional to
conventional culture
• Cultural deviance theory has evolved among a number of
paths
– Some criminologists have asserted that lower-class culture as a
whole is responsible for generating much criminality in urban
areas
– A number of criminologists have explored how delinquent
subcultures arise in particular sectors of society
– Other researchers have developed a similar theme in arguing for
the existence of subcultures of violence
 Cultural Deviance Theory: Code of the
Street
• Written by Elijah Anderson in 1999
• Sought to determine why so many inner-city
young people are inclined to commit
aggression and violence toward one another
• Found a “street code” that values violence
prevails in the inner city and that governs the
choice that adolescents make in their daily
lives
 Cultural Deviance Theory: Code of the
Street
• Minority youth in the inner city are culturally isolated
from conventional society and face economic barriers
– Families can be disrupted and dysfunctional (“street families”)
where the children are neglected and receive harsh physical and
erratic discipline
• These youths’ major product is to campaign for respect
– Display status through dress, masculine demeanor, and
developing reputations for nerve
• A code of the street demands disrespect be met with
immediate threat or application of violence
 Cultural Deviance Theory: Code of the
Street
• The code affects not only kids from street families but
also those from decent families
– Youths from all families are encapsulated by the code of the
street and suffer its consequences

• The code of the street is not intractable

• The code is a cultural adaptation to the conditions
prevailing in destitute urban communities
– Rooted in the structural conditions that expose youths to hurtful
deprivations and strip them of any meaningful way of gaining
respect through conventional avenues
 Cultural Deviance Theory: Code of the
Street
• Anderson’s work subjected to few empirical
tests
– Mixed results
• Some studies are supportive of the
contention that structural sources
contribute to involvement in violent delinquency
• Others find no support that adopting the code
increases safety
– In fact, found embracement increased risk of victimization
 Akers’s Social Learning Theory
• Crime is learned behavior through social
interaction with others
• Incorporates four central concepts:
1. Differential association (interactive and normative)
2. Imitation
3. Definitions
4. Differential social reinforcement
 Akers’s Social Learning Theory
Key Concepts
1. Differential Association
A. Interactional dimension:
B. Normative dimension:
2. Definitions
A. General vs. specific
B. Negative, positive, and
neutralizing
3. Imitation
4. Differential Reinforcement
Definitions of Concepts
The process through which individuals are exposed to definitions favorable and
unfavorable to illegal or law-abiding behavior.
The direct association and interactions with others who engage in certain kinds of
behavior, as well as the indirect association and identification with more distant
reference groups.
The different patterns of norms and values to which an individual is exposed
through this association.
A person’s own attitudes or meanings that are attached to a given behavior. That
is, definitions are orientations, rationalizations, definitions of the situation, and
other evaluative and moral attitudes that define the commission of an act as right
or wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified. The more
a person’s definitions approve of an act, the greater the chances are that the act
will be committed.
General definitions are broad attitudes that approve of conventional behavior and
disapprove of criminal behavior (e.g., moral beliefs from religion). Specific
definitions define certain acts as wrong (e.g., killing a person) and other acts as
permissible (e.g., stealing a person’s computer).
Negative definitions disapprove of a behavior. Positive definitions define the
behavior as desirable or wholly permissible. Neutralizing definitions define an act
as wrong but justify and thus permit the behavior “given the situation.”
Modeling—person engages in behavior after observing similar behavior in others.
The balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are
the consequence of behavior. Most reinforcements leading to crime are social.
 Akers’s Social Learning Theory:
Definitions
• Key factor in motivating crime
• One’s attitudes or meanings attached to a behavior
• Specified dimensions of definitions:
– General
– Specific
– Negative toward criminal behavior
– Positive toward criminal behavior
– Neutralizing
 Akers’s Social Learning Theory: Imitation

• In addition to definitions, people can become

involved in crime through imitation (modeling
criminal conduct)
• Definitions and imitation are most
instrumental in determining initial forays into
crime
• Social reinforcements determine whether any
behavior is repeated: Differential social
reinforcement
 Akers’s Social Learning Theory: Differential
Reinforcement
• Stronger and more persistent the rewards, the
more likely criminal behavior will persist
– Nonsocial and social

• Social context in which individuals are

enmeshed expose people to definitions,
people to imitate, and with differential
reinforcement
 The Empirical Status of Social Learning
Theory
• Research is supportive of this perspective
• The strongest predictor of criminal involvement is
differential association as measured by the number of
delinquent friends
• Criticism: Rather than delinquent friends causing
wayward behavior, this process is really a cause of “birds
of a feather flock together”
– Self-selection occurs but continued association with delinquent
peers amplifies criminal involvement
 Policy Implications: Change the
Individual
• Shaw and McKay: Reorganize communities
• The Chicago School: Reverse criminal learning
• Differential association and social learning
theory often attempt to remove offenders
from settings and people that encourage
crime and to locate them in settings where
they will receive pro-social reinforcement
Policy Implications: Change the Community

• Solution to youthful waywardness is to

eradicate the pathologies that lie within the
fabric of disorganized communities
• Shaw established the Chicago Area Project
(CAP) to serve as a catalyst for the creation of
neighborhood communities in Chicago’s
disorganized slum areas
CAP’s Approach to Delinquency Prevention

• A strong emphasis was placed on the creation

of recreational programs
• Efforts were made to have residents take pride
in their community
• CAP staff would attempt to mediate on behalf
of juveniles in trouble
• CAP used staff indigenous to the area so as to
provide curbside counseling
 CAP Effectiveness
• Lack of evaluations using randomized designs
• However, a 50 year assessment found that
CAP had been effective in reducing rate of
delinquency
• Today, coordinates more than 40 projects and
affiliates
 Conclusion
• The Chicago school elevated to prominence sociological
over individual trait explanations of crime
• Individuals are born into neighborhoods that differ in
their organization which influences the likelihood that
residents will be involved in crime
• The Chicago school made methodological advances
– Showed the value of mapping crime
– Valued qualitative methods