9. Learning Theories
9.5 Research in Learning Theories
Dr. Zachary Rowan and Michaela McGuire, M.A.
Deviant sources of influence have been demonstrated to be one of the most robust predictors of crime. Research indicates that deviant association with friends (e.g., Fergusson et al., 2007; Haynie, 2002), best friends (e.g., Rees & Pogarsky, 2011), siblings (e.g., Hashimi et al., 2021; Rowan, 2016), co-workers (e.g., Piquero et al., 2005), gang members (e.g., Kissner & Pyrooz, 2009), romantic partners (e.g., Capaldi et al., 2008; Haynie et al., 2005), indirect ties (e.g., Payne & Cornwell, 2007), and university roommates (e.g., Duncan et al., 2005) can explain why individuals participate in criminal behaviour.
A meta-analysis, which synthesises all available research on a particular topic and provides an overall estimate of the empirical relationship, conducted by Pratt et al. (2010) indicated that the impact of deviant associations was moderately strong and equally as important as key factors identified by other criminological theories (i.e., self-control). Importantly, Pratt et al. (2010) examined the effects of each of the components of SLT separately and found that differential reinforcements (i.e., the main addition to the revised theory) had the overall weakest effects in explaining crime. While this does not negate the role that reinforcements play, it does suggest that Sutherland’s (1947) concept of differential associations remains a significant factor in learning frameworks of crime.
Although most research testing SLT or differential association theory focuses on examining the relationship between deviant peers and crime, other research has demonstrated the role that peers play in explaining other important relationships in criminology. As stated, Sutherland (1947) argued that a strong theory should be able to explain key correlates of crime, such as age or gender. The research reviewed below provides some evidence to support the capacity of peers and learning mechanisms to help us understand these features of crime.
Age & Peers
Perhaps, the closest thing to a “fact” that exists in criminology is the relationship between age and crime, also known as the age-crime curve (e.g., Piquero et al., 2003). It has been established across a variety of contexts that criminal behaviour rapidly increases in adolescence until the late teenage years and quickly declines thereafter. Warr (1993) evaluated the extent to which peers could help explain this relationship. Warr (1993) noted that interactions with delinquent peers, time spent with peers, and the importance individuals assign to spending time with peers similarly mapped onto the age-crime curve. As youth enter their teenage years, they are more likely to have delinquent friends, spend time with them, and believe it is important to do so. Figure 3 demonstrates the typical relationship between age and crime and highlights when individuals spend the most time with peers in social settings and place