LABELING THEORY

Social Reaction Theory, Social-construction, Symbolic-interaction

Labeling theory arose from the study of deviance in the late 1950's and early 1960's and was a rejection of consensus theory or structural functionalism.

Tannenbaum was an early labeling theorist. His main concept was the dramatization of evil. He argued that the process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, and emphasizing any individual out for special treatment becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, and evoking the very traits that are complained of. A person becomes the thing they are described as being.

Labeling theory or social reaction theory, focuses on the linguistic tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from norms.

Labeling theory or social reaction theory is concerned with how the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them, and is associated with the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping.

Labeling theory or social reaction theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolic-interaction analysis. Labeling theory is concerned with how the self-identity and behavior of an individual is influenced (created) by how that individual is categorized and described by others in their society.

According to labeling theory deviance is not inherent to an act, but rather focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms.

Considerable attention is now being devoted to informal labeling, such as labeling by parents, peers or teachers. Informal labeling has a greater effect on subsequent crime than official labeling.

The main idea of the looking glass self is that people define themselves according to how society perceives them. Cooley's views are very important to labeling theory and its approach to a person's acceptance of labels as attached by society. Charles Cooley developed the theoretical concept of the looking glass self, a type of imaginary sociability. People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their social circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Charles Cooley's Human Nature and the Social Order 1902).

Lemert was as the founder of the "societal reaction" approach. Briefly, this approach distinguishes between primary deviance (where individuals do not see themselves a deviant) and secondary deviance (which involves acceptance of a deviant status).

Primary deviance arises for a wide variety of reasons, biological, psychological, and/or sociological.

Secondary, or intensified deviance becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to the problems caused by societal reaction to primary deviation.

Societal reaction theorists claim that the process of defining and suppressing deviance is important to social solidarity.

Informal labeling

Informal labeling is not simply a function of official labeling. Informal labeling is also influenced by the individual's delinquent behavior and by their position in society.

Informal labels affect individuals' subsequent level of crime by affecting their perceptions of how others see them. If they believe that others see them as delinquents and trouble-makers, they are more likely to justify this perception and engage in delinquency.

These approaches to deviance assumed that deviance could be understood as consisting of behaviour that violates social norms. Deviance is therefore something objective: it is a particular form of behaviour.

Labeling theory rejected this approach and claimed that deviance is not a way of behaving, but is a name put on something: a label. Law is culturally and historically variable: what is crime today is not necessarily crime yesterday or tomorrow.

For example in 1890 it was legal to possess marijuana, but illegal to attempt suicide. Today, the law is reversed. This shows that deviance is not something inherent in the behaviour, but is an outcome of how individuals or their behaviour are labeled.

If deviance is therefore just a label it makes sense to ask: where does the label come from? How does the label come to be applied to specific behaviours and to particular individuals?

The first question leads to a study of the social origins of law. The second question leads to an examination of the actions of labelers such as, psychiatrists, police, coroners, probation officers, judges and juries.

Individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and punished may be labeled as criminals. These people are viewed by others as criminals, and this increases the likelihood of subsequent crime for several reasons. Labeled individuals generally have trouble obtaining legitimate employment, which increases their level of strain and reduces their stake in conformity. Labeled individuals also find that conventional people are reluctant to associate with them, and they may associate with other criminals as a result. This reduces their bond with conventional others and fosters the social learning of crime. Labeled individuals may eventually come to view themselves as criminals and act in accord with this self-concept.

Labeling and reacting to offenders as "criminals" has its negative consequences, aggravating the criminal behavior and making the crime problem worse. Criminal justice system could be "casting the net" (net-widening) of social control too widely. Net-widening, or state intervention, is inherently criminogenic.

Being a "criminal" becomes a person's master status. It controls the way they are identified in public.

People who are labeled deviant tend to lose contact with their conformist friends and start associating with similarly-labeled deviants.

Labeling theorists therefore are critical of conceptions that crime is behavior that violates criminal law. The audience, not the actor, determines when certain behavior becomes defined as crime. This is called the social constructionist viewpoint, that crime varies from situation to situation, across time and place. It's also called the symbolic interactionist viewpoint, that crime is defined by reference to the symbols and meanings that people communicate to one another.

Becker coined the term "moral entrepreneur" to describe individuals who lead campaigns to outlaw certain behaviors by making them "criminal." The outlaw's subsequent behavior is therefore not the important thing to study because what is more important is whether the innocent are falsely accused and exactly which outlaws are rounded up and processed through the criminal justice system. Labeling theorists believe the system exercises a lower-class bias in rounding up offenders.

An Empirical Test of Labeling Theory Using Longitudinal Data 
MELVIN C. RAY, WILLIAM R. DOWNS 
This article uses panel data and multiple regression of follow-up on baseline variables to test direction of causality among drug use behavior, informal labels, and formal labels. Baseline and follow-up data were collected on a random sample of 100 adolescents (54 males) and a clinical sample of 88 adolescents (49 males). Separate regressions were performed on male and female respondents using both samples. Slope differences across samples were tested using interaction terms computed by multiplying sample type (coded as 0 = random, 1 = clinical) by each regressor. Results partially supported by the labeling theory proposition of secondary deviance among males, although changes are suggested in this proposition. Among females, drug use behavior was causally prior to labels, which contradicts secondary deviance. Further research is needed to clarify reasons for this sex difference in causal processes over time. An implication for research is to use panel data where possible in testing direction of causality. An implication for theory in the social sciences is that theories may be sex-specific. Thus theories must be tested separately on each sex as well as on samples including both sexes. - jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/169

Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency 
A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory 
Jón Gunnar Bernburg, University of Iceland and Icelandic Research Council 
Marvin D. Krohn, University at Albany-SUNY 
Craig J. Rivera, Niagara University 
This article examines the short-term impact of formal criminal labeling on involvement in deviant social networks and increased likelihood of subsequent delinquency. According to labeling theory, formal criminal intervention should affect the individual’s immediate social networks. In many cases, the stigma of the criminal status may increase the probability that the individual becomes involved in deviant social groups. The formal label may thus ultimately increase involvement in subsequent deviance. We use panel data of a sample of urban adolescents to examine whether involvement in deviant social groups mediates the relationship between juvenile justice intervention and subsequent delinquent behavior. Using measures from three successive points in time, the authors find that juvenile justice intervention positively affects subsequent involvement in serious delinquency through the medium of involvement in deviant social groups, namely, street gangs and delinquent peers. - jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/1/67

Social Control in China: Applications of the Labeling Theory and the Reintegrative Shaming Theory - Xiaoming Chen, Law School of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian.
This article delineates the underlying philosophy and functions of social control in the Chinese society. This topic is particularly interesting because specific control functions are grounded in a unique macro-control system, which is totally different from that typical of Western countries. The article also scrutinizes the implications of labeling theory and reintegrative shaming theory, as they are elaborated in the West, and tests their sensitivity to cross-cultural differences. Although some caveats are in order, the evidence presented here tends to support the reintegrative shaming theory rather than labeling theory. - ijo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/46/1/45

Labeling Theory and Delinquency Policy - An Experimental Test 
MALCOLM W. KLEIN, University of Southern California 
Propositions endemic to labeling theory, and variables particularly relevant to these propositions, are combined into a guiding paradigm. Components of this labeling paradigm are then tested in an experimentally controlled police diversion project in which juvenile offenders of mid-range seriousness are randomly assigned to release, community treatment, and court petition conditions. Results provide support for some labeling propositions but not others, and are seen as specifying some of the variables that delimit the policy implications of labeling theory. - cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/47

Peers' Rejection as a Possible Consequence of Official Reaction to Delinquency in Chinese Society - LENING ZHANG, State University of New York at Albany 
Drawing on labeling theory, this study examined peers' attitudinal responses to the official label of delinquency. Specifically, two questions were asked: (a) Do peers' attitudinal responses to official delinquents vary with the severity of official reaction? (b) Do peers' attitudinal responses depend on their own labeling status? Questions concerning hypothetical delinquents receiving differing levels of severity of official reaction were administered to delinquents and nondelinquents in Tianjin, China. The severity of official reaction to delinquency was significantly associated with peers' rejection of official delinquents, with this relationship being greater for nondelinquent peers' rejection than for delinquent peers' rejection. Also, peers' attitudinal rejection varied significantly with their own labeling status, but only at certain levels of severity of official reaction. The findings were generally consistent with the labeling perspective. Discussion focuses on their implications for theory and policy. - cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/387

Victims of crime and labeling theory: a parallel process? - Kenney J.S.
Abstract: Labeling theory tends to focus largely on the offender. Yet, implicit in interactionist theories of deviance is a concern for the social situation as a whole. This logically includes the victim of crime. This article explores the potential of extending the interactionist perspective on deviance to the experiences of victims of crime. Specifically, I outline a parallel labeling process for victims in which differential social reactions to this status, flowing from varying attributions of sympathy worthiness, have an impact on the behaviors, adjustment, and identities of the individuals concerned. This process is further distinguished from the related labeling of emotional deviance. I then present the results of a qualitative study of individuals who have suffered the murder of a loved one. Through an empirical examination of the varying social reactions to these individuals by extended family, friends, acquaintances, and the community, as well as victims' varying responses thereto, I indicate how familiar terms such as accommodation, labeling, primary, secondary, and tertiary deviance each have their conceptual counterpart in the experiences of victims. - ingentaconnect.com

Differential Labeling of Mental Illness by Social Status: A New Look at an Old Problem 
Author: Thoits, Peggy A.
Abstract: Whether the higher rates of mental hospitalization and involuntary treatment for marginal social groups are due to differential labeling or simply to the occurrence of higher rates of disorder in these groups remains unresolved. I reexamine this issue with data from the National Comorbidity Survey (N = 5,877) that allow comparisons between disturbed individuals living in the community untreated and disturbed persons who have been hospitalized or seen a professional for their mental health problems under pressure or voluntarily. Contrary to labeling theory, members of lower status groups are not consistently overrepresented among those who have been hospitalized or seen a professional against their will. Consistent with self-labeling theory, persons with greater education and those not in poverty are disproportionately present among individuals who sought treatment by choice. Additional analyses show that factors that predict service utilization are important determinants of mental health service use but do not account systematically for status disparities in hospital or outpatient treatment, especially disparities by poverty status. Although I do not confirm a central tenet of labeling theory here, the negative consequences of labeling and stigma continue to be well-supported in the literature. - ingentaconnect.com

Labeling Theory in Deviance Research: A Critique and Reconsideration - Nanette J. Davis
The labeling, or interactionist, theory of deviance is reviewed and critically evaluated with brief attention focused on alternative formulations as these have influenced the labeling conception. Dissatisfaction with the present state of the theory emphasizes its overconcern with deviant categories with a subsequent failure to adequately account for social control. A reconsideration of the Lemert-Becker and, recently, Quinney formulations redirects attention to an organization-centered sociology, a neglected component in most labeling research. This posits social control as an organizational problem of (1) adaptation to change, and (2) management of conflict within and between groups and associations. A paradigm is presented to organize the variety of approaches to deviance and social control. It summarizes the differences in the alternative perspectives, herein called structure, interaction, and control. The underlying assumptions, modes of analysis, and theoretical and conceptual content provide the dimensions for assessing these categories. - blackwell-synergy.com

Relabeling and Reframing Reconsidered: The Beneficial Effects of a Pathological Label 
HENRY GRUNEBAUM, M.D., RICHARD CHASIN, M.D.
Traditional labeling theory usually contends that pathological labels contribute to pathology and benign labels help alleviate it. However, it is likely that the role of pathological labels as the cause of pathology has been overstated and over-generalized. Family therapists have probably overused the practice of substituting a benign label for a pathological label—relabeling. In fact, there are many families in which a pathological label applied to one family member may have beneficial impact on the family system, including that member. Five such cases are presented, and labeling theory is reviewed. Definitions of the terms reframing and relabeling are suggested, and the differing implications of diagnosis and labeling theory are discussed. - blackwell-synergy.com

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF LABELING IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 
Journal: JUSTICE SYSTEM JOURNAL Volume:4 Issue:1 Dated:(FALL 1978) Pages:114-129
Author(s): G L ALBRECHT ; M H ALBRECHT 
THE ORIGINS AND FORMS OF LABELING THEORY ARE PRESENTED, THE STATUS OF LABELING AS A THEORY ASSESSED, THE STRENGTH OF THE THEORY EVALUATED WITH RESEARCH RESULTS, AND THE POLICY RELEVANCE OF THE THEORY CONSIDERED. 
Abstract: LABELING THEORY VIEWS THE REACTION OF SOCIETY AND PARTICULARLY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES TO NONCONFORMING BEHAVIOR TO BE A SIGNIFICANT CAUSE FOR THE REINFORCEMENT AND PERPETUATION OF ALIENATED BEHAVIOR. THIS THEORY IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE BEEN THE PRIMARY POLICY RATIONALE FOR DIVERSION AND DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION OF JUVENILES. LABELING THEORY, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT TO PERSISTENT CHANGE AND HENCE LACKS THE RIGOR AND LOGIC OF A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. IT ALSO LACKS SUFFICIENT EMPIRICAL RESEARCH TO ESTABLISH ITS VALIDITY. RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE AREAS OF POLICE ARREST, COURT CONTACT, INSTITUTIONALIZATION, AND TREATMENT OF JUVENILE IS EXAMINED TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE TO WHICH LABELING THEORY IS SUBSTANTIATED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT LABELING IS NOT FULLY DEVELOPED, RIGOROUS THEORY; RATHER, IT PROVIDES A LIMITED PERSPECTIVE THAT DRAWS NEEDED ATTENTION TO PROCESSES BY WHICH SOCIETY MAY UNWITTINGLY PRODUCE DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. IT IS TOO EARLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER LABELING WILL BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THE STATUS OF A THEORY WHILE IT IS GRANTED THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS THE UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES OF LABELING, THERE IS ALSO EVIDENCE THAT LABELING HAS DETERRENT AND TREATMENT IMPETUS. THE DESTRUCTIVE CONSEQUENCES OF LABELING ARE VIEWED AS BUT ONE SET OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR. RESEARCHERS ARE ADVISED TO INCORPORATE LABELING, ALONG WITH OTHER CONTRIBUTING CAUSES OF DELINQUENCY, INTO A COMPLEX MODEL THAT CAN EXPLAIN AND PREDICT THE DYNAMICS OF DELINQUENCY DEVELOPMENT. THE CHALLENGE CONFRONTING PRACTITIONERS AND POLICYMAKERS IS THAT OF COMBINING THEORY AND RESEARCH WITH THE JUDGMENT OF EXPERIENCE. - ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=51985

MISUNDERSTANDING LABELING PERSPECTIVES (FROM DEVIANT INTERPRETATIONS, 1979, BY DAVID DOWNES AND PAUL ROCK SEE NCJ-58238) 
K PLUMMER 
CRITICISMS OF THE LABELING THEORY OF SOCIAL DEVIANCE INCLUDING CONFUSION OVER DEFINITIONS AND VALUES, CHARGES OF BIAS AND LIMITATIONS, AND EMPIRICAL FALSIFICATION ARE DISCUSSED. 
Abstract: THE PAST DECADE HAS SEEN STRIKING CHANGES IN THE PROMINENCE GIVEN TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF DEVIANCE. MOST NOTABLE IS THE CHANGING STATUS THAT HAS BEEN ACCORDED TO LABELING THEORY; FROM TOTAL ACCEPTANCE IN THE LATE 1960S, IT IS NOW SUBJECT TO GROWING CRITICISM. BECAUSE THE LABELING PERSPECTIVE IS SEEN ALTERNATELY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY AS A PERSPECTIVE, A THEORY, AND A PROPOSITION, IT BECOMES AN EASY TARGET FOR ATTACK. LABELING THEORY SHOULD FOCUS ON ESTABLISHING THE CHARACTERISTICS, SOURCES, AND CONDITIONS OF LABELS AS WELL AS THE CONSEQUENCES OF LABELING. HOWEVER, LABELING SHOULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH A THEORY OR A PROPOSITION BUT SHOULD BE SEEN AS A PERSPECTIVE IN DEVIANCY RESEARCH. THE THEORY OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM HAS THE CLOSEST AFFINITY WITH LABELING. ITS CENTRAL PROBLEM, CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING, IT CLEARLY ALLIED TO PROBLEMS OF LABELS. ONE MAJOR SET OF PROBLEMS OCCUR OVER THE DEFINITION OF DEVIANCE, AND CONSEQUENTLY, IN PROPERLY APPLYING THE LABELING PERSPECTIVE. A NUMBER OF BIASES AND LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE LABELING THEORY AND THE MOST FREQUENTLY CITED LIMITATION IS THAT IT FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY ACCOUNT OF THE INITIAL MOTIVATIONS TOWARDS DEVIANCE. HOWEVER, IT IS UNFAIR TO ATTACK THE PERSPECTIVE FOR NOT DOING WHAT IT MANIFESTLY DOES NOT SET OUT TO DO SINCE A THEORY OF LABELS IS NOT A THEORY OF BEHAVIOR. ANOTHER GROUP OF OBJECTIONS SUGGEST THAT LABELING THEORY IS SIMPLY INCORRECT FROM AN EMPIRICAL VIEWPOINT. THIS CHARGE IS DUE LARGELY TO THE NARROW INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION GIVEN TO THE THEORY BY RESEARCHERS. LABELING THEORY IS MOST USEFULLY CONCEIVED AS A PERSPECTIVE WHOSE CORE PROBLEMS ARE THE NATURE, EMERGENCE, APPLICATION, AND CONSEQUENCES OF LABELS. - ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=58242 

Labelling problem children does more harm than good

Labelling children as those with learning and behavioural difficulties can be detrimental to them and their teachers as well, says a new study.

Linda Graham of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) found that children labelled as having "ADHD-like" (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) symptoms, for example, were at a disadvantage when it came how people perceived them.

"I have been looking at the things we say and how that affects what we do, and I have looked at the files of students who were referred to special schools for behaviour," she said.

Her interest was in the pervasive nature of the discourses around ADHD. "ADHD went from something which was relatively obscure in the early 1990s, which most people didn't know about unless they had a child with it, to all of a sudden becoming something everyone knows about," she said.

"It is especially problematic when children can end up with an 'informal' diagnosis which becomes a kind of pop-culture explanation for why children behave in certain ways."

She cited the example of one boy who had speech problems and learning difficulties from the age of six and had been described numerous times by schools as having "ADHD-like behaviours".

"This phrase was used to describe everything about him with the use of words like impulsiveness and inattention and hyperactivity, which turned out to be a big problem because his first school, as well as subsequent schools, became fixated on this label informally diagnosing the boy.

"As it turned out, he did not have ADHD, but was speech and language-impaired, which would also give a good explanation to why he was explosive: if he was verbally challenged by another child he would be more likely to hit out.

"However, because of the red-herring effect of ADHD, this was misinterpreted as impulsivity with terrible, long-lasting consequences for the boy concerned." Sydney (IANS).

E-Books