Running head: SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 1
Social Learning Theory and Juvenile Delinquency
Tiara L. Bell
Liberty University
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 2
Social Learning Theory and Juvenile Delinquency
The main causes of juvenile deviancy involve social interaction, peer influence,
and individualism. Adolescents commit crimes due to being exposed to certain risk factors.
Harmening and Gamez (2016) define risk factors as “psychosocial circumstances that contribute
to an adolescent’s propensity or temptation to engage in deviant behavior” (p. 207). An
adolescent’s environment, peer group, psychological constitution, and dynamics of their family
are considered risk factors of juvenile delinquency. One psychological theory that helps explain
why juveniles engage in criminal or unlawful acts and behavior is Social Learning Theory.
Linebach and Kovacsiss (2016) explains this concept as a “theory of integration whereby people,
especially children, learn things from watching other people (p. 11). Children adapt certain
behaviors through exposure from others. Social learning theory explains one’s actions through
learned behavior by watching, listening, and taking cues other people. This theory can serve as
positive role modeling or result in promoting negative behavior. Children adapt certain behaviors
through exposure from others. Learned behavior occurs through direct and indirect behavioral
reinforcement.
The largest impact that contributes to what we learn to engage in includes individuals
within our intimate group family and friends. We are around people of our intimate group more
than anyone else. One of the best predictors of future delinquency is association with delinquent
family members or friends. Delinquent behavior can also be learned indirectly. For example, a
child can learn such behavior from media or through the internet. Children and adolescents are
very impressionable and gullible. Social learning theory (SLT) is the perfect tool to assist with
explaining juvenile delinquency. The deviant behaviors of adolescents are mostly learned
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 3
through three main contributors: peers within their environment, family violence, and cyber
interactions.
Social Learning Theory and Youth’s Environment
Environmental factors and association with peers are two of many indicators of a youth’s
criminal or negative behavior. In the earlier years in an individual’s life, family and friends are
the major sources of their experiences and behavioral reactions (Koon-Magnin, 2016, p. 827).
Association with delinquent friends can cause a child or adolescent to adapt negative behaviors
to fit in. This type of conformity is related to the phenomenon of spatial contagion. This term is
known as the “phenomenon in which the likelihood of a juvenile engaging in certain types of
crime is increased if others in close proximity are committing similar crimes” (Harmening &
Gamez, 2016, p. 215). These types of crimes usually involve drug offenses. If a is child regularly
exposed to pro-criminal behaviors and reactions by family members or peers, they are more
likely to engage in crime and indulge in deviant behavior as a result of social learning experience
(Koon-Magnin, 2017, p. 827). When a child is consistently exposed to negative behavior with no
consequences, the child will begin to believe this behavior is acceptable. It will be difficult to
instill the belief that criminal or deviant behavior is bad when this behavior is routinely modeled
before them as if it were tolerable. Peer influence also contributes to the social learning
experience of deviant behavior. Costello and Zozula (2018) states, “if people realize that a
behavior they want to engage in is harmful or wrong, it might make it psychologically easier for
them to engage in the behavior if their friends do it with them” (p. 107).
While an individual can learn negative behavior from close family and peers, their
physical environment and economic status can influence their actions and behavior through
social learning experience as well. Poor or lower-class neighborhoods provide more
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 4
opportunities for youth to commit crimes (Jones, 2017, p. 778). When a person is within poor
economic status, they may result to criminal behavior to make a means to an end. For example, if
a parent has no money to fend for their children, they may result to stealing from stores or other
citizens. Due to the lack of monetary means, this individual will end up committing a crime or
crimes in order to provide food, water, clothing, or other basic living necessities for their
children.
Harmening and Gamez (2016) state that criminogenic neighborhoods “promote deviant
behavior due to the lack of traditional community controls” (p. 215). These communities are
lower-class neighborhoods with have higher rates of single-parent family dynamics, insufficient
housing, unemployment, and gang activity than middle-class or higher-class neighborhoods.
Gang deviance is most prevalent in urban areas around the United States. Tolle (2017) states that
“gang affiliation results in an increase in offending due to the adaptation of the group and gang
mentality of deviance through social learning” (p. 870). Gang involvement and its social
structure encourages social learning for deviant behavior. Gang activity involves a range of
deviant or criminal behavior such as fighting with other gangs, stealing, robbery, grand theft
auto, selling illegal drugs, damaging, or destroying property, and even homicide. Juveniles who
join gangs are religiously taught to do whatever the established gang members order them to do
in exchange for membership. Through social learning experiences, gang members are taught to
do any and everything for their organization or other members no matter how negative or deviant
those actions may be. Most adolescents join gangs for protection, support, or a familial structure.
This ultimately leads to the social learning experience of deviant behavior through consistent
exposure.
Social Learning Theory & Intimate Relationships
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 5
Children learn to become violent against intimate partners by observing behavioral
patterns of their parents (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015, p. 947). Parental violence provides a
negative influence leading to future delinquency. Manzoni and Schwarzenegger (2019) states
that “children who endure physical maltreatment by their parents are at higher risk of using
violence within their adolescent years” (p. 225). The presence of domestic violence and child
abuse/maltreatment can have a large impact on a child whether their experience is direct or
indirect. The direct forms of maltreatment against children in physical abuse, sexual, abuse,
psychological abuse, and neglect (Manzoni & Schwarzenegger, 2019, p. 226). An indirect
exposure involves a child witnessing domestic violence or verbal altercation between parents or
close family members. Exposure to family violence can lead to violent behavior in adolescence
involving intimate partner abuse or teen dating violence through social learning.
Children who are exposed to domestic violence are at higher risk of being involved in
intimate partner abuse or domestic violence themselves. This can occur as early as adolescence
leading to teen dating violence. This social learning experience can lead to the adolescent being
the one inflicting the abuse or accepting the abuse. As the inflictor of abuse, the teen will use any
type of violence against their partner to force their compliance or out of anger due to their social
learning experience from observing their parents. Some adolescents who are violated by their
partner may accept the abuse through self-blame or believe they deserve the punishment. In this
case, they have also observed domestic violence from their parents and adapt the belief that the
behavior is normal and acceptable. Teen dating aggressions are efforts to gain power and control
of one’s significant other, moved by the of being idea of an unbalanced power relationship
(Bianchi et al., 2018, p. 5). Sexting is one critical issue within teen dating violence, more
specifically forced sexting. The significant other may exert psychological abuse by demanding
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 6
their partner to send them sexual content and threaten to “break up” with them if they do not
comply with their request. Abusers may also use this content as a threat to release it online, to
peers, or family members if their partner tries to leave the relationship or to make their do what
they want them to do.
Social Learning Theory and Cyber/Virtual Interaction
With the expansion of the internet and availability of personal computers, virtual
communication, the sharing of information, and cybercrime are more prevalent than before.
Juveniles can endure negative social learning experiences through virtual or cyber interactions.
Social Learning Theory can contribute to cyber offending due to these offenses requiring unique
cyber skills that most individuals will not possess naturally; these skills are acquired from other
people virtually. Virtual peers are more present in a person’s life than “face-to-face” peers and
may have a substantial impact on the development of our attitudes (Miller & Morris, 2016, p.
1544). Juveniles can now access the internet and observe other individuals and their behaviors
from around the world. This gives offenders the opportunity to learn negative behaviors such as
cyber bullying, digital piracy of media, identity theft, email scams, and social media scams.
Individuals who spend an overwhelming amount of time online has access numerous online
resources while creating and advancing virtual relationships. This leads to exposure of ideas,
methods, and techniques for engaging in crime and deviance in real life and online (Nodeland &
Morris, 2020, p. 51). Virtual peers can have just as much positive or negative influence in regard
to a child or adolescent’s learned behavior.
Christian Worldview
In the Holy Bible, social learning theory is very prevalent in a positive manner as well as
negative. As for positive behavior, The Ten Commandments are rules instilled by God to
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 7
reinforce actions and behaviors that are in his favor. Another positive social learning experience
is instilled in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”. This verse tells us the scriptures of
God’s word will lead us in a positive manner to do God’s will. As for negative social learning
experience, a great example is Genesis 3: 1-24. The verse states the following:
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had
made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the
garden? And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the
garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the
garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You
will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and
you will be like God, knowing good and evil’...” (Genesis 3: 1-24).
This verse is about the deviant social learning experience between the serpent and Eve as he
influenced her disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit. This also transferred to Eve influencing
Adam to eat it as well. This eventually led to God kicking Adam and Eve out of The Garden of
Eden for their disobedience.
Conclusion
Environmental factors contribute to social learning due to social class. Family dynamic or
violence can influence youth delinquency. Virtual interaction can influence cybercrimes such as
cyber bullying. Juvenile offenders are mostly influenced to commit crime through learned
behavior from environmental factors, family violence, and virtual interaction. These influential
factors are true for all children and adolescents whether the social learning experience promotes
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 8
positive or negative behavior. Children and adolescents are constantly watching, listening, and
learning actions and behaviors of the people around them as well as the media presented to them.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 9
References
Bianchi, D., Morelli, M., Nappa, M., Baiocco, R., & Chirumbolo, A. (2018). A Bad Romance:
Sexting Motivations and Teen Dating Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518817037
Costello, B. J., & Zozula, C. (2018). Peer influence: Mechanisms and motivations. Deviant
Behavior, 39(1), 94-110. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1260387
Eriksson, L., & Mazerolle, P. (2015). A cycle of violence? Examining family-of-origin violence,
attitudes, and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
30(6), 945-964. doi:10.1177/0886260514539759
Harmening, W. & Gamex, A. (2016). Forensic Psychology. New York, NY: Pearson.
Jones, A. M. (2017). When in Rome: Testing the moderating influence of neighborhood
composition on the relationship between self-control and juvenile offending. Crime &
Delinquency, 63(7), 759-785. doi:10.1177/0011128715596989
Koon-Magnin, S., Bowers, D., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Arata, C. (2016). Social learning,
self-control, gender, and variety of violent delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 37(7), 824-
836. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1147798
Linebach, J. & Kovacsiss, L. (2016).LPsychology in the justice system. Scotts Valley, CA:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Manzoni, P., Manzoni, P., Schwarzenegger, C., & Schwarzenegger, C. (2019). The influence of
earlier parental violence on juvenile delinquency: The role of social bonds, self-control,
delinquent peer association and moral values as mediators. European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research, 25(3), 225-239. doi:10.1007/s10610-018-9392-3
Miller, B., & Morris, R. G. (2016). Virtual peer effects in social learning theory. Crime &
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 10
Delinquency, 62(12), 1543-1569. doi:10.1177/0011128714526499
Nodeland, B., & Morris, R. (2020). A test of social learning theory and self-control on cyber
offending. Deviant Behavior, 41(1), 41-56. doi:10.1080/01639625.2018.1519135
Tolle, H. (2017). Gang affiliation as a measure of social structure in social structure social
learning theory. Deviant Behavior, 38(8), 870-878. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1206712
