The Effects of Labeling on Identity and Deviance

Human behavior is more than an expression of innate qualities of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ Complex cognitive processes, biological structures, and societal influences weave together in fascinating patterns to create the illusion that some people are ‘good’ while others are ‘bad.’ In the ever-evolving field of criminology, labeling theory delves into the complex reciprocal nature of labels, exploring how the labels society gives to offenders influences the development of their identities and motivates future actions. Labeling theory has garnered significant attention in criminology by challenging traditional notions of deviance. Labeling theory argues that it is not the act itself but society’s reaction to it that defines an individual as a “deviant.” This perspective invites us to rethink our assumptions about criminality and encourages critical discussions about the implications of labeling on personal identity and societal dynamics.

As we explore Labeling Theory further, we’ll uncover its historical roots, key figures who shaped its development, and its profound impact on contemporary criminal justice policy. By examining both primary and secondary deviance through this lens, we can gain valuable insights into how stigmatization affects individuals’ self-concepts and life trajectories. Join us on this journey through these complex ideas. We are passionate about research-driven knowledge. It empowers you to understand the psychological underpinnings behind social reactions. This understanding reveals their lasting consequences on marginalized communities.

Introduction: An Examination of Origins, Development, and Implications

Labeling theory occupies a central place in the study of criminology. It emphasizes the significance of societal reaction in the creation of crime and deviance. It also highlights its role in the perpetuation of these behaviors. This theory focuses on the informal and formal application of stigmatizing, deviant “labels” or tags by society on some of its members. Its core tenet is that deviance is not a quality inherent in an act itself, but rather a consequence of the application of rules and sanctions by others to an “offender” (Braithwaite, 1989). The theory argues that the acts or omissions labeled as deviance have no intrinsic quality; their meaning is attributed by the label itself (Ugwudike, 2015).

Historical Background

Labeling theory emerged as a dominant sociological perspective in the 1960s, although its roots can be traced to earlier works on symbolic interactionism by George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley (Blumer, 1969). Mead’s conception of the “self” as shaped through social interaction and Cooley’s notion of the “looking-glass self” laid the intellectual foundation for the theory (Mead, 1934; Cooley, 1902). However, it was Howard Becker’s influential book, “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance” (1963), that solidified labeling theory’s prominence in criminology.

Key Figures

Howard Becker is widely regarded as the principal architect of labeling theory. Other scholars also contributed significantly to its development. These scholars include Edwin Lemert, Erving Goffman, and John Kitsuse. Lemert distinguished between “primary deviance”—the initial act of rule-breaking—and “secondary deviance”—behavior that results from society’s reaction to the initial act (Lemert, 1951). Goffman’s work on stigma further elaborated the social consequences of being labeled as deviant (Goffman, 1963).

Self-Concepts

A hallmark of psychology is the impact of environments on the development of the self. The formation of critical self-concepts that influence an individual’s life trajectory is profoundly influenced by their social environments. Individuals primarily form their understanding of themselves through their perception of how others view them. This core idea is central to Cooley’s Looking Glass Theory, which posits that public interactions have a significant impact on how self-concepts are constructed (Murphy, 2023).

Psychologists largely agree that self-concepts center on individuals’ perceptions of how they fit into different social roles. Consequently, personalities transform and absorb characteristics that align with particular social roles, highlighting the flexible and altering nature of the self in various contexts . From a symbolic interactionist perspective, human beings act toward things based on the “meanings those things have for them,” and these meanings arise directly from “social interaction” with others (Blumer, 1969). Mead’s theory further explains that the self is constructed through role-taking, where individuals take the perspective of others to understand social situations and, in doing so, come to see themselves as others see them (Mead, 1934).

Three Components of Social Influence on Self-Concepts

This dynamic process involves three main components: first, individuals imagine how others perceive them, observing verbal and non-verbal cues, body language, and reactions to scan for internal perceptions. Second, they interpret these imagined evaluations, employing a “theory of mind” to internalize positive perceptions (e.g., being seen as intelligent, attractive, or talented) or develop a negative self-image from negative evaluations. Finally, these interpretations trigger an emotional response, such as pride or shame, which can either boost or diminish self-esteem, regardless of the accuracy of the interpretation.

This continuous feedback from social interactions ensures that self-concepts are not fixed or stagnant, but rather are constantly shaped and derived passively through conforming to the data received from others. Essentially, the individual’s self-concept is a crucial, motivating factor in their behavior, encompassing their beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes about themselves, and is continuously refined through the pervasive social interplay.

See Self-Concepts for more information on this topic

The Core Tenets of Labeling Theory

At its heart, labeling theory posits that deviance is not inherent in any particular action; rather, it is the result of the application of social labels by authorities, institutions, and communities (Becker, 1963). The process of labeling can have lasting effects on individuals, shaping their identities and influencing their future behaviors.

Deviance as a Social Construct

Labeling theory asserts that behaviors become deviant only when they are defined as such by others. This perspective, largely initiated by Howard Becker (1963), argues that acts or omissions labeled as deviance have no intrinsic quality; their meaning is attributed by the label itself. For instance, taking a lemon from a tree in your neighbors yard isn’t deviant until society labels it as deviant. Accordingly, social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and then applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders.

This process is deeply influenced by power dynamics, as powerful groups and “moral entrepreneurs” in society are the ones who can define what is considered deviant or illegal and impose these labels on others, particularly the less powerful . The idea emphasizes that the definition of deviance is a never-ending political decision, shifting focus from the individual rule-breaker to the societal processes that define and react to behavior.

See Psychology of Deviance for more information on this topic

The Role of Moral Entrepreneurs

Howard Becker (1963) posits that powerful interest groups are the central rule creators. They initiate a “moral crusade” to establish new rules and then to label those who violate these rules as “outsiders”. This process is driven by the entrepreneurs’ intentions, which may include promoting a specific moral agenda or protecting their own interests, rather than a universal consensus on what constitutes acceptable behavior (Moyer, 2001, p. 173). Essentially, this view highlights the idea that deviance is not an inherent quality of an act itself, but rather a consequence of these groups making rules and applying them to particular individuals.

Social dominance and power dynamics are inextricably linked to this process of defining and enforcing rules. The ability to create rules and apply them to others is a question of political and economic power (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Powerful groups, or “superordinate groups,” can control how the world, its components, and its possibilities are defined (Becker, 1963). This means that legal norms are often created and enforced by those with political and social advantage, transforming their own norms into dominant standards that others are compelled to conform to.

Consequently, individuals from less powerful groups are more susceptible to being officially labeled and punished, even for the same behavior, because the designation of deviance results more from “who they are than from what they have done”. This reinforces the idea that the definition of deviance is a “never-ending political decision,” reflecting the norms and values of those in power rather than a societal moral consensus.

See Social Dominance Theory for more information on this concept

Primary and Secondary Deviance

Within labeling theory, a crucial distinction is made between primary deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance refers to initial acts of rule-breaking that are often sporadic, unorganized, and have only marginal implications for the individual’s self-concept or psychic structure. These initial nonconforming acts can arise from a wide variety of social, cultural, psychological, or physiological contexts and factors. For labeling theorists, the origin of primary deviance is largely ignored; instead, the focus is on what happens after such acts occur (Lemert, 1951). Primary deviance is primarily of interest when it is detected and reacted to by authorities or others with the power to apply a stigmatizing label, which can be seen as a result of “police bias or sheer bad luck” rather than the inherent nature of the act itself (Walsh, 2014, p. 52).

Secondary Deviance

Secondary deviance, on the other hand, is a more stable, coherent, and frequent pattern of offending that emerges as a direct adaptation to the societal reaction and the internalization of a deviant label. This process involves a public labeling of the individual by social control agents, leading the labeled person to revise their self-perception and accept the deviant label as a master status (Walsh, 2014).

The label can have profound psychological implications, causing individuals to alter their self-identity to conform to stereotypical expectations, and social implications, leading to stigmatization and the foreclosure of legitimate opportunities, such as employment and conventional friendships (Ugwudike, 2015). This social exclusion may prompt labeled individuals to gravitate towards deviant subcultures. They find social support and collective rationalizations there. These subcultures offer new opportunities for deviant behavior, thereby solidifying a “deviant career” in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Lemert (1951) described this as a progressive reciprocal relationship where societal penalties for primary deviation lead to further deviation, eventually culminating in the acceptance of a deviant social status.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy is a cornerstone of labeling theory, asserting that a false definition of a situation can evoke new behavior that makes the originally false conception come true (Merton, 1948). Becker, as previously mentioned, emphasizes that social reaction to behavior can create further acts of deviance. When an individual is publicly identified and labeled as deviant, even for initial, often sporadic acts (primary deviance), this label can trigger a profound psychological impact, causing the individual to alter their self-identity and begin to view themselves as deviant. This internalization can lead the labeled person to conform to the stereotypical expectations associated with the label. It transforms initial nonconforming acts into a more stable and frequent pattern of offending. This is known as secondary deviance (Braithwaite, 1989).

Beyond the psychological shift, the deviant label also carries significant social implications, leading to public stigmatization and exclusion. Once conferred, the label can become an individual’s master status. It overrides all other previous identities. It forecloses opportunities for a legitimate lifestyle, such as employment and conventional friendships. This marginalization and denial of conventional opportunities can effectively compel the labeled individual to live their life in line with the entrenched deviant view (Akers, 2000, p. 136). As a result, individuals may be forced to associate with other delinquents or gravitate towards deviant subcultures, which provide social support, collective rationalizations, and new opportunities for deviant behavior.

This progression solidifies a “deviant career,” where the initial false or minor label ultimately translates fantasy into reality, illustrating how societal reaction itself can inadvertently create or amplify the very deviance it intends to prevent.

See Self-Fulfilling Prophecy for more information on this topic

Stigma and Social Exclusion

Labeled individuals often experience stigma and exclusion from mainstream society, which can limit their opportunities and perpetuate cycles of deviance (Goffman, 1963). Labels play a fundamental role in creating stigma. Stigma is defined as an attribute that is deeply discrediting. It signals something unusual and negative about a person’s moral status (Link & Phelan, 2001). When social groups, particularly those with power, create rules and then apply labels like “criminal,” “dope fiend,” or “delinquent” to individuals, they attribute undesirable characteristics and negative stereotypes to these labeled persons.

This labeling process leads to a significant psychological impact, causing the individual to alter their self-identity and begin to view themselves in line with the imposed label, transforming them from a “whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (Ugwudike, 2015). As society’s perceptions are communicated through these labels, an individual’s self-concept and actions are profoundly shaped by what they believe others think they are, with the person often becoming “the thing he is described as being” (Akers,2000).

Social Implications of Labels

Once stigmatized, individuals face significant social implications, leading directly to public stigmatization and exclusion. The deviant label often becomes a master status, overriding all other previous identities and dictating how others respond to the individual. This effectively forecloses opportunities for a legitimate lifestyle, making it difficult to gain access to conventional avenues such as employment, education, good accommodation, and conventional friendships (Ugwudike, 2015).

Labeled individuals may be marginalized and denied opportunities. This can compel them to live their lives according to the entrenched deviant view. This happens regardless of the initial spuriousness of that view. As a result, they may be forced into association with other delinquents or gravitate towards deviant subcultures, which offer social support, collective rationalizations, and new opportunities for deviant behavior that are denied in mainstream society. This cycle reinforces their deviant status, amplifying their behavior and solidifying a “deviant career” in a self-fulfilling prophecy (Akers, 2000).

Empirical Research and Critiques

A considerable body of empirical research has supported key aspects of labeling theory. Studies have shown that individuals subjected to official intervention—such as arrest, court appearance, or incarceration—are more likely to reoffend, in part due to the social and economic consequences of being labeled a criminal (Bernburg et al., 2006).

However, labeling theory has also been critiqued for several reasons. Some scholars argue that it neglects the underlying causes of the initial deviant act, focusing too much on the societal response (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Others point out that not everyone who is labeled as deviant internalizes the label or engages in further deviance, indicating the need for a more nuanced understanding.

Implications for Criminal Justice Policy

The insights offered by labeling theory have profound implications for criminal justice policy and practice. Recognizing that labeling can contribute to the perpetuation of criminal behavior, some jurisdictions have adopted diversion programs, decriminalization, and “restorative justice” models that seek to reduce the negative effects of formal labeling (Braithwaite, 1989).

For example, juvenile justice systems increasingly emphasize diversion and rehabilitation rather than punitive measures, aiming to prevent young people from acquiring a criminal record and the stigma that accompanies it (Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). Expungement policies and “ban the box” initiatives aim to lessen long-term consequences for individuals with criminal records. These policies make it easier for them to find employment. They also help individuals reintegrate into society.

Contemporary Developments and Applications

Labeling theory remains highly relevant in contemporary criminology. This is especially true in light of ongoing debates about mass incarceration, racial disparities, and the criminalization of marginalized populations. Research indicates that certain groups—such as racial minorities, the poor, and LGBTQ+ individuals—are more likely to be labeled as deviant or criminal, reflecting broader patterns of social inequality (Alexander, 2012).

The theory has also been applied beyond traditional criminal justice settings, influencing research on mental illness, addiction, and sexuality. In each case, the process of labeling and the resulting stigma have been shown to impact individuals’ self-identity, access to resources, and life chances (Link & Phelan, 2001).

Associated Concepts

• Pygmalion Effect: This is a psychological term describing how our expectations of others create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Others tend to live up to the expectations we place on them.
• Social Identity Theory: This theory explores how individuals’ self-concept and identity are influenced by their membership in social groups. According to this theory, people categorize themselves and others into social groups, which can lead to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
• Cultural-Historical Psychology: This theory emphasizes the influence of culture and society on human development and behavior. This approach posits that cultural and historical context deeply affect individuals. The theory suggests the mind cannot be separated from its social and cultural environment.
• Subculture of Violence Theory: This theory asserts that certain social groups develop norms that normalize and even glorify violence as an acceptable conflict resolution method. It highlights how violence can be learned behavior. It is influenced by socioeconomic factors, peer dynamics, and situational contexts. This necessitates targeted interventions to address underlying social issues.
• System Justification Theory: This is a social psychological theory. It proposes that people have a motivation to defend and justify the status quo. This includes the existing social, economic, and political arrangements. According to this theory, individuals engage in cognitive processes. They rationalize and justify the prevailing systems and institutions. This occurs even if such systems may be unfair or unequal.
• Expectancy Theory: This theory suggests that a person will behave or act in certain ways. Consequently, the expectations motivate individuals to select specific behaviors over others.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In understanding the complexities of labeling theory, we grasp how societal perceptions shape individual identities and behaviors. This perspective challenges us to reconsider our definitions of deviance. It emphasizes that it is not merely the act itself but the labels applied by society that forge a path toward criminality. The ripple effects of these labels can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. Individuals internalize their assigned identities. They navigate life through the lens of stigma. By exploring primary and secondary deviance, we unveil how initial acts—often met with harsh social reactions—can spiral into entrenched patterns of behavior that define marginalized lives.

As we reflect on the implications for contemporary criminal justice policy, it becomes clear that addressing labeling’s repercussions is vital in fostering equitable systems. Innovations like restorative justice programs highlight an evolving approach. This approach aims at dismantling cycles of stigma. It promotes reintegration over punishment. Ultimately, recognizing the power dynamics behind labeling enriches our comprehension of crime. It empowers us to advocate for reformative measures. These measures challenge inequality within our social fabric. Through this lens, we see that true progress hinges on transforming societal reactions—paving a pathway towards more compassionate understandings of human behavior and identity in an imperfect world.

Last Update: August 17, 2025