Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory: Understanding Criminal Behavior Through Learning

In the realm of criminology, understanding the origins and motivations behind criminal behavior is crucial for both prevention and intervention. Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory (SLT) offers a profound exploration of how individuals acquire deviant behaviors through social interactions, fundamentally reshaping Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory. By weaving together foundational principles from behaviorism—particularly operant conditioning—and integrating Albert Bandura’s emphasis on observational learning, Akers presents a comprehensive framework that accounts for both environmental influences and cognitive processes in shaping individual actions.

Akers’ theory underscores the significance of reinforcement in behavioral learning while also acknowledging the role of modeling as articulated by Bandura. This duality illustrates how individuals not only learn from direct experiences but also absorb behaviors through observing others within their social milieu, thus highlighting the interplay between personal agency and external influence. As we delve into Akers’ SLT, it becomes evident that this multifaceted perspective not only enriches our understanding of criminal behavior but also opens avenues for effective interventions aimed at curbing delinquency through targeted social learning strategies.

Introduction

Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory (SLT) stands as a cornerstone in criminology, offering a comprehensive explanation for how individuals learn to engage in criminal and deviant behaviors (Akers, 1998). Developed as a significant reformulation and elaboration of Edwin H. Sutherland’s influential Differential Association Theory (DAT), Akers’ SLT integrates sociological insights with psychological learning principles, particularly those of operant conditioning. This combination allows the theory to account not only for the social contexts influencing behavior but also for the cognitive processes that guide individual choices. As such, SLT provides an essential framework for understanding how external interactions—such as family dynamics, peer influences, and societal norms—shape one’s propensity toward deviance.

Foundations in Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, first fully presented in 1939 and finalized in 1947, posits that criminal behavior, like any other behavior, is learned (Sutherland, 1939). It emphasizes the role of socialization in developing criminal behavior, moving away from explanations based on mental defects or genetic influences.

Nine Core Propositions for DAT

1. Criminal behavior is learned. It is not inherited or invented without training.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication, involving both verbal and non-verbal gestures.
3. The principal part of this learning occurs within intimate personal groups (e.g., family, close friends), with impersonal agencies like media playing a relatively unimportant role.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes both (a) techniques of committing the crime (simple or complicated) 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 or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. These “modalities of association” influence the strength of learning.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior involves all the mechanisms involved in any other learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values (e.g., desire for money), as non-criminal behavior can express the same needs (Akers, 2000, pp. 72-74).

---

A critical point of DAT was Sutherland’s assertion (proposition 8) that all learning mechanisms are involved, but he did not specify what these mechanisms were, beyond a brief mention that more than direct imitation was involved.

See Differential Association Theory for more information on this theory

Akers’ Reformulation: Integrating Behavioral Learning Principles

Ronald Akers, along with Robert L. Burgess, addressed this “lacuna” in Sutherland’s theory by integrating behavioral learning principles (1966), specifically operant and respondent conditioning, into the differential association framework. This led to their “differential association-reinforcement,” later more broadly known as Social Learning Theory.

Four Primary Concepts

1. Differential Association: Retained from Sutherland, this refers to the process of being exposed to normative definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal behavior. It has two dimensions:
   • Interactional: Direct association and interaction with others (e.g., family, friends) who engage in certain behaviors, as well as indirect association/identification with more distant reference groups (e.g., virtual peer groups through media).
   • Normative: The patterns of norms and values one is exposed to through these associations. The priority (earlier exposure), duration (longer time), frequency (more often), and intensity (closer relationships) of these associations significantly impact their effect on behavior (Akers, 2000, p. 76).
2. Definitions: These are one’s own attitudes, beliefs, rationalizations, and orientations about what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior (Akers, 1998). They can be:
   • General: Religious, moral, and other conventional values that are favorable to conforming behavior and unfavorable to deviance.
   • Specific: Attitudes oriented toward particular acts. For example, believing theft is wrong but marijuana use is acceptable.
   • Neutralizing: Justifications or excuses for committing deviant acts, like those described by Sykes and Matza (e.g., denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties) (Agnew, 2011, p. 140). Definitions function as discriminative stimuli, signaling whether certain behavior is appropriate and likely to be rewarded or punished (Akers, 1998, p. 84).
3. Differential Reinforcement: This is a key addition to Sutherland’s original theory, drawing heavily from operant conditioning principles. It refers to the balance of actual and anticipated rewards (positive reinforcement) and punishments (aversive stimuli or loss of reward/negative punishment) that follow a behavior.
   • Positive Reinforcement: Behavior is strengthened by rewarding outcomes (e.g., money, social approval, pleasure from drugs).
   • Negative Reinforcement: Behavior is strengthened by the avoidance or removal of unpleasant stimuli (e.g., avoiding social disapproval, escaping a negative situation).
   • Positive Punishment: Behavior is weakened by the presentation of aversive stimuli (e.g., direct physical pain, social disapproval).
   • Negative Punishment: Behavior is weakened by the loss of rewards (e.g., loss of freedom due to incarceration, loss of investments). Reinforcement can be social (e.g., peer approval, parental reactions) or nonsocial (e.g., direct physical effects of drugs, intrinsic rewards like sensation-seeking). Intermittent reinforcement (inconsistent rewards/punishments) can make behavior highly resistant to change (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 92).
4. Imitation (Modeling): This refers to engaging in behavior after observing others do so. Imitation is particularly important in the initial acquisition of novel criminal or deviant behaviors, becoming less crucial in the repetition of acts. Individuals learn from both in-person models and symbolic models (e.g., media) (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 90).

---

Akers stresses that social learning is a complex process with reciprocal and feedback effects. For example, one’s criminal behavior can influence future associations and definitions. The theory also accounts for both selection (individuals choosing peers similar to themselves) and socialization (individuals being influenced by their peers) effects in peer associations.

Behaviorism and Akers’ Social Learning Theory

Ronald L. Akers’ Social Learning Theory significantly draws upon principles from behaviorism, particularly operant conditioning and observational learning (imitation/modeling). Key to Akers’ theory is the concept of differential reinforcement, where behavior is conditioned by its rewards and punishments (consequences) (Burgess & Akers, 1966).

Behaviors are strengthened through positive reinforcement (rewards) and negative reinforcement (avoidance of punishment), and weakened by positive punishment (aversive stimuli) and negative punishment (loss of reward). The theory also incorporates discriminative stimuli, which are environmental or internal cues that signal when a behavior is appropriate and likely to be reinforced. While the theory recognizes classical or respondent conditioning (conditioning of involuntary reflex behavior), the primary focus for explaining criminal behavior is on instrumental learning (operant conditioning).

Akers’ Social Learning Theory, however, moves beyond the “radical” or “orthodox” behaviorism of B.F. Skinner by integrating a strong element of symbolic interactionism and cognitive variables, making it a form of “soft behaviorism”. This means that while external reinforcements are central, the theory also considers internal cognitive processes such as “definitions”—an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and rationalizations about whether a behavior is good, bad, or justified.

These definitions are themselves learned through reinforcement and act as discriminative stimuli. Furthermore, the theory emphasizes that these learning processes occur within a social context, primarily through differential association with intimate personal groups, such as family members and peers, who serve as the main sources of reinforcement, models, and normative definitions. It also incorporates reciprocal and feedback effects, acknowledging that an individual’s behavior not only is shaped by social learning variables but can also influence future associations and definitions.

See Behaviorism for more information on this theoretical branch of psychology

Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

Akers’ Social Learning Theory draws significantly from Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1963), particularly by incorporating observational learning and acknowledging cognitive processes, which distinguished it from more “radical” forms of behaviorism (Akers, 2000, p. 75). While Akers initially, in collaboration with Burgess, focused heavily on B.F. Skinner’s operant and respondent conditioning, his later development of the theory increasingly integrated Bandura’s concepts (Akers, 1998, p. 58).

Key principles adopted from Bandura include imitation or modeling, where individuals learn behaviors by observing others and the vicarious reinforcement (observed consequences) they receive, even without direct personal experience or immediate reinforcement (Murphy, 2024). This inclusion of cognitive variables like anticipated reinforcement and self-reinforcement, alongside Bandura’s emphasis on “reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral and environmental determinants,” led Akers to describe his theory as “soft behaviorism” (Akers, 2000, p. 75). This move allowed Akers’ theory to account for more complex social learning processes beyond direct conditioning, such as how individuals internally evaluate behaviors based on observations, and how attitudes and beliefs are learned and influence behavior (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 89).

Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL) Model

Akers further elaborated his theory to link it with macro-level social structural factors, proposing the Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL) model. This model hypothesizes that social structural factors have an indirect effect on individual conduct. They influence the social learning variables (differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation), which then directly impact individual behavior.

The SSSL model identifies four dimensions of social structure that provide contexts for social learning:

• Differential Social Organization: Characteristics of societies, communities, and institutions (e.g., demographics, culture).
• Differential Location in the Social Structure: Individuals’ positions based on age, gender, race, class, etc..
• Theoretically Defined Structural Variables: Abstract concepts from other structural theories like anomie, social disorganization, conflict, or inequality.
• Differential Social Location in Primary, Secondary, and Reference Groups: Immediate social contexts like family, peer groups, work groups (Akers, 1998).

---

The SSSL model asserts that variations in crime rates across groups and societies reflect how these structural conditions affect the social learning process, which in turn shapes individual behavior.

Empirical Support and Scope

Akers’ Social Learning Theory has received strong and consistent empirical support across numerous studies over many years. It is considered one of the most viable theories for explaining both minor and serious criminal behavior. Research has tested the theory in various contexts, populations, and types of deviance, including:

• Adolescent substance abuse (alcohol, marijuana, smoking) (Rojek & Jensen, 1995).
• Rape and sexual aggression (Akers, 2000, p. 88).
• Elderly drinking behavior (Akers, 2000, p. 88).
• Workplace misconduct and academic dishonesty (Akers, 1998, p. 286).
• Fear of crime and precautionary behavior (Akers, 1998, p. 308).
• Homicide rates across nations (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 105).

---

Findings consistently show that the social learning variables (differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation) are strongly related to deviant and criminal behavior. Furthermore, studies show that social learning variables mediate the effects of socio-demographic and community variables on criminal behavior, meaning that structural factors influence crime largely through the social learning processes.

Rebuttals to Criticism of Akers’ Social Learning Theory

Despite its widespread acceptance, Akers has addressed several critiques:

• “Cultural Deviance” Misconception: Akers clarifies that SLT is not solely about individuals conforming to the norms of deviant subcultures. It also accounts for incomplete or failed socialization into conventional norms and the influence of countervailing processes of reinforcement, imitation, and exposure to deviant definitions outside of organized subcultures (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 98).
• Individual Differences: While some critics argue that SLT assumes “blank slate” individuals who are solely shaped by their environment and doesn’t adequately explain differential receptivity to criminal messages (Walsh, 2014, p. 126), Akers contends that the theory does not neglect individual differences and can account for stable differences in individual propensities over time. He also notes that self-control, a concept from another leading theory, can be viewed as a product of social learning (Akers, 1998, p. 162).
• Tautology: Concerns that reinforcement is circular have been addressed by showing that differential reinforcement can be measured independently of the behavior it explains (Akers, 1998. p. 110).

Applications in Prevention and Treatment

A core strength of Akers’ social learning theory is its direct applicability to crime prevention and treatment programs. If criminal behavior is learned, it can also be unlearned or modified by manipulating the same social learning processes. Many evidence-based interventions in correctional and community settings implicitly or explicitly rely on social learning principles.

These applications often involve:

• Group therapies and self-help programs.
• Positive peer counseling.
• Gang interventions.
• Family and school programs aimed at modifying behavior and attitudes.
• Teenage drug, alcohol, and delinquency prevention/education programs.
• Cognitive-behavioral programs, which are consistently found to achieve higher reductions in recidivism than other treatment modalities. (Akers, 1998; Akers & Sellers, 2009).

---

For example, correctional institutions are sometimes described as “schools for crime” from a social learning perspective, as they may inadvertently reinforce delinquency and foster beliefs favorable to it by confining offenders together. This highlights the importance of designing programs that actively promote pro-social learning environments.

Associated Concepts

• Social Cognitive Theory: This is a psychological perspective that emphasizes the interaction between individuals and their social environment. It posits that people learn through observing others, modeling their behavior, and receiving reinforcement or punishment.
• Subculture of Violence Theory: This theory proposes that certain groups or subcultures within society develop norms and values that condone or even encourage the use of violence.
• Bobo Doll Studies: These studies conducted by Albert Bandura showed how children learn from watching others.
• Social Norms: These are the unwritten rules guiding behavior within societies, impacting interactions, individual choices, and overall well-being. While fostering social cohesion, they can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and inhibit individuality.
• Life-Course and Developmental Criminology: This examination of deviant behavior focuses on how biological, social, and psychological factors shape criminal behaviors across an individual’s lifespan.
• Social Bond Theory: This theory developed by Travis Hirschi, explores why most individuals refrain from criminal activity by emphasizing the importance of social bonds. It asserts that strong attachments, commitments, involvement, and beliefs deter deviance, while weakened connections may lead to delinquent behavior.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In conclusion, Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory provides a profound understanding of criminal behavior through the lens of social interaction and learning. As we explored throughout this article, Akers refined Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory by integrating key behavioral principles such as operant conditioning with observational learning from Bandura’s research. This combination emphasizes the complexity of human behavior, illustrating that our actions cannot be understood through a singular theoretical framework alone.

The multifaceted nature of human conduct necessitates an approach that considers various psychological theories to fully grasp the factors influencing criminality and deviance. By recognizing how individuals learn behaviors—both positive and negative—from their environments, we can better understand not only why certain behaviors manifest but also how they can be modified or redirected. As society continues to grapple with crime prevention and rehabilitation efforts, embracing this comprehensive perspective will undoubtedly enrich our strategies for fostering healthier communities.

Ultimately, Akers’ integration of traditional operant conditioning principles with more contemporary insights underscores the importance of adapting our frameworks to accommodate new research findings in psychology. This dynamic interplay between different theories enhances our understanding of the complex tapestry that is human behavior—a critical consideration for anyone passionate about psychology and its real-world applications.

Last Update: August 14, 2025