You are very stupid. You will never amount to anything. Why can’t you be like our neighbor’s child? What is wrong with you? These are just some of the questions that children hear. The questions are usually in response to behaviors which deviate from accepted norms and standards. For example, a young girl who stays out late or performs poorly in class may invite such questions. In many cases, these questions are justified are reflect the concern and fears that parents have when their children behave unusually. However, when the questions are inspired by malice and are not designed to correct the child, they may have detrimental impacts on the development and general wellbeing of the child. Essentially, when a child is labelled deviant and abnormal, they may embrace this label and live it out. The conscious labelling theory sheds light on how deviant behavior develops. While it possesses some flaws, this theory offers a credible and compelling explanation for why children labelled deviant go on to become deviant.
Literature Review
Before examining the research that has been conducted on the conscious labelling theory, it is helpful to begin with a definition of this theory. Basically, this theory holds that when such agencies as schools and parents label individuals as deviant, the individuals are likely to engage in deviant behaviors. Essentially, the labelling theory blames labelling for the development of deviant tendencies. According to this theory, the development of deviance is a response to the labelling (Hagan, 2010). For example, when a child is labelled stubborn and useless, they may internalize this label. The child may then begin to demonstrate stubbornness as part of his efforts to confirm the appropriateness of the label. In his exploration of the labelling theory, Frank Hagan cites Frank Tannenbaum whose thoughts captured the essence of the labelling theory: “a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing...; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoking the very traits complained of” (Hagan, 2010, p. 178). Tannenbaum’s definition indicates that labelling is counterproductive since it encourages the very behaviors and tendencies that society finds unacceptable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Now that the definition of the conscious labelling theory has been provided, the stage is set to outline research findings. Nicole Shoenberger, Alex Heckert and Druann Heckert (2014) are among the scholars who have conducted research on the impact that labelling has on behavior. As opposed to other scholars whose research focuses on unacceptable and dangerous behavior, the research that these scholars performed addresses positive behavior. They examined the behaviors of high achieving students who received credit and were praised for their hardwork. It was observed that as a result of being labelled high-achieving, these individuals remained committed to their scholarly pursuits (Shoenberger, Heckert & Heckert, 2014). This observation is important because it shows that labelling can have positive impacts. Essentially, the finding confirms that positive reinforcement promotes responsible and acceptable conduct.
Shoenberger and his colleagues are part of a minority group of scholars. Most scholars have examined the relationship between labelling and negative deviant behaviors. Tawny Garcia (2013) is among the scholars whose focus is on negative behaviors. Through his study, he aimed to determine the impacts that being labelled as a gang member have on one’s participation in criminal activities. Before providing the findings of this study, he asserts that when one is labelled, they tend to internalize the label. Essentially, as noted earlier, those who are labelled accept the label and proceed to demonstrate it. Garcia’s results confirm the premise of the conscious labelling theory. He observed that individuals who were regarded as gang members tended to take part in such criminal operations as dealing drugs, robberies and using weapons (Garcia, 2015). It is worth noting that for his study, Garcia relied on real-world data from secondary sources. The data concerned the criminal patterns among young adults and adolescents in Illinois, California, New Jersey and Louisiana. The implication of the findings is that the impacts of labelling are real and that the conscious labelling theory captures a situation that is actually experienced on the ground. Another important issue that Garcia’s study reveals is that while labelling drives individuals into criminal and deviant behavior, deliberate and conscious action on the part of the individual also plays a role. Therefore, whereas they may blame society for pushing them into a life of crime, gang members and other criminals bear ultimate responsibility for their actions.
Garcia is not isolated in his exploration of the role that labelling plays in the development of deviance. Jorge Chavez and Gregory Rocheleau (2017) also conducted a study that examined the same issue. Their study revealed interesting insights. One of these insights is that when they are labelled, individuals are basically inspired to become deviant. Chavez and Rocheleau observed that the deviant behavior was observed in later life. The significance of this observation lies in the fact that it indicates that labelling has long-time effects. For example, a label that was applied when one was a child could continue to define the individual’s behavior well into adulthood. Another insight that Chavez and Rocheleau share in their article is that race appears to interact with labelling to encourage deviant behavior. They noted that among white and Hispanic participants, labelling had the effect of encouraging engagement in violent behaviors (Chavez & Rocheleau, 2017). As part of their study, Chavez and Rocheleau also explored the relationship between deviance and peer deviance. They sought to establish if staying in the company of deviant individuals led one to become deviant. The results are as suspected; there is indeed a link between peer deviance and individual deviance. Among African American participants, there was a significant association between peer deviance and the development of deviant tendencies (Chavez & Rocheleau, 2017). The meaning of this finding is that when one is labelled a deviant, they seek the company of fellow deviants. Peer deviance offers individuals a sense of belonging and worth. Therefore, the conscious labelling theory is accurate in its prediction that when one is labelled deviant, they are likely to join a deviant group and engage in deviant activities.
Juvenile delinquents have been the focus of the scholarly community. Members of this community have endeavored to understand the forces which shape the behaviors of these individuals. Research indicates that labelling could be inspiring the delinquents to stay on the path of crime and destruction. Joining forces with David Kirk and Kideuk Kim (2014), Akiva Liberman (2014) conducted a study on the arrests and reoffending rates among juvenile delinquents. They set out to determine if being arrested once set the stage for a delinquent to have further contact with the criminal justice system. According to their findings, once arrested, a delinquent youth faces a greater risk of reoffending and being arrested again (Liberman, Kirk & Kim, 2014). To explain this observation, Liberman and his colleagues turn to the labelling theory. They hypothesize that labels trigger further offending. The significance of the observations that these scholars make cannot be overstated. Essentially, the observation establishes the conscious labelling theory as a valid and credible account of how deviant theory develops. One could argue that the findings that Liberman and his colleagues arrive at are accidental and do not offer any insights into the link between labelling and deviance. While this assertion seems valid, it is refuted when one considers the body of research evidence that confirms the findings by Liberman, Kirk and Kim. Daniel Kavish, Christopher Mullins and Danielle Solo (2014) also carried out a study whose purpose was to establish the effect of labelling on deviant behavior. They noted that one’s risk of engaging in delinquent behavior in the future increases when they receive a formal label as a deviant delinquent. Thanks to this observation, one can confidently conclude that there is consensus within the scholarly community that labels encourage deviance.
Family is among the agents that play critical roles in socialization. One’s interaction with members of their family determines, to a large extent, how they develop. In an effort to understand the relationship between one’s interactions with parents and their development of deviant tendencies, some studies have been conducted. Emily Restivo (2015) is among the scholars who are behind these studies. After conducting a study using data on the behavior of youth, Restivo established that when parents express their disapproval of the behavior of their children and assign them labels, they basically encourage deviant and delinquent behavior. Restivo’s findings place her in the same group of scholars whose works have led them to conclude that the conscious labelling theory is valid. Amy Kroska, James Daniel Lee and Nicole Carr (2016) also belong in this group. Through a rigorous study, they observed that juvenile delinquents who are labelled as deviant tend to display deviant behavior. The fact that most scholars agree that labelling promotes deviant behavior affirms the conscious labelling theory as both reliable and accurate.
Research Gaps
The scholarly community has worked tirelessly to enable societies to understand the process of the development of delinquent behavior. Thanks to the efforts of this community, it is now recognized that labelling could be responsible for deviant behavior. While the scholarly efforts are commendable and important, there are some issues that the academic community has failed to address adequately. Establishing conclusively that labelling is directly to blame for deviance is among these issues. As the literature review above shows, nearly all scholars have concluded that there is a link between labelling and deviance. However, little effort has been committed to ruling out other factors which could also be influencing the development of deviance. For example, it could be that substance abuse, and not labelling, is driving deviance among the youth. Therefore, for labelling to be conclusively tied to the development of deviance, further research is needed.
The primary purpose of any research should be to provide mankind with insights for improving communities. To fulfill this purpose, research needs to offer specific and practical insights. The literature review reveals that no scholar has examined the exact mechanisms through which labelling drives deviance. Without an understanding of how labelling works, the research becomes nearly useless. Revealing the mechanisms that underlie labelling and deviance should be a key focus of future research. When they set out to establish these mechanisms, researchers will provide parents, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders with information that can be used to promote positive behavior.
Conclusion
The conscious labelling theory is among the frameworks which attempts to explain deviance. This theory posits that negative labels inspire individuals to become deviant. For the most part, research confirms the validity and accuracy of this theory. Most researchers have established that deviant individuals draw inspiration and drive from the labels that different socialization agents assign them. The findings from the research confirm my personal experiences. In an act of defiance, I decided to keep the company of deviant individuals and engage in deviant behavior. Since I was inspired by the labels that my grandmother inspired me, I believe that I am a living embodiment of the conscious labelling theory. To create safer communities, it is imperative for society to use positive reinforcement instead of negative labels.
References
Chavez, J. M., & Rocheleau, G. C. (2017). Formal labelling, deviant peers, and race/ethnicity.
An examination of racial and ethnic differences in the process of secondary deviance.
Race and Justice. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717727122
Garcia, T. (2013). Labels and its effects on deviance. Retrieved July 2, 2018 from
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/k643b273g
Hagan, F. E. (2010). Introduction to criminology: theories, methods, and criminal behavior.
SAGE.
Kavish, R. D., Mullins, C. W., & Soto, D. A. (2014). Interactionist labelling. Formal and
Informal labelling effect’s on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62 (10),
1313-1336.
Kroska, A., Lee, J. D., & Carr, N. T. (2016). Juvenile delinquency and self-sentiments: exploring
A labelling theory proposition. Social Science Quarterly, 98 (1), 73-88.
Liberman, A. M., Kirk, D. S., & Kim, K. (2014). Labelling effects of first juvenile arrests:
Secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology, 52 (3), 345-370.
Restivo, E. (2015). Parental attachment and deviance: seeking a more precise understanding
Of this relationship. Southern African Journal of Criminology, 28 (2), 1-14.
Shoenberger, N., Heckert, A., & Heckert, D. (2014). Labeling, social learning, and positive
Deviance: a look at high achieving students. Deviant Behavior, 36 (6), 471-491.
