Labeling and delinquency.
Contact with social control agencies is believed to "stigmatize" juveniles (Garfinkel, 1956). One of the possible responses to being stigmatized or negatively labeled is involvement in delinquent behavior. The results of numerous studies show that juveniles who are formally processed through the juvenile justice system and have formal contact with other social control agencies report greater subsequent delinquency (Tannenbaum, 1938; Mead, 1964; Gold, 1970; Ageton & Elliott, 1974; Gibbs, 1974; Klein, 1974; Farrington, 1977; Hepburn, 1977; Thomas, 1977; Thomas & Bishop, 1984).
Fewer studies have examined the effects of informal labeling on delinquency. When informal labeling is the focus of research, much of the emphasis is placed on negative parental reactions (Aultman & Wellford, 1979; Matsueda, 1992). This practice overlooks the potentially important role of teachers and peers in the labeling process.
Though empirical research has supported the predictive power of labeling, there continues to be debate in the criminological field regarding the status of labeling as a theory of delinquency (Hagan, 1974; Meade, 1974; Tittle, 1980). The major criticisms of the labeling perspective are that its alleged theoretical imprecision results in insufficient clarity regarding key concepts, and that its propositions are not empirically verifiable (Wellford, 1975; Gove, 1980).
The present study is intended to improve the status of the labeling perspective by first providing an unambiguous rendition of the theory and a methodology for measuring self-concept. Second, the relative explanatory powers of both formal and informal labeling are assessed. Third, many of the previous attempts to confirm labeling theory's secondary deviance hypothesis have been in the form of integrated theoretical models (Menard & Morse, 1984; Simons et al., 1980). In contrast, the present study assesses a model including only theoretically derived labeling variables and appropriate background variables. Finally, this study assesses the robustness of labeling theory variables' predictive powers in terms of explaining involvement in different types of delinquency (i.e., general, serious, and drug-related).
Symbolic Interaction and Labeling Theory
The symbolic interaction perspective provides the conceptual and theoretical foundation for labeling theory's secondary deviance hypothesis. The first question labeling theorists must address is how do juveniles form their self-conceptions for which they attach negative labels? By answering this question, researchers can then proceed to test hypotheses concerning the relationships between perceived negative labeling and delinquency.
Labeling theorists, borrowing from Mead's (1934) social psychology, assume that juveniles, in their routine activities, are bombarded with different cues and clues as to how they are perceived by others in their community. Juveniles, through role-taking (Cooley, 1902) and defining situations (Thomas, 1923), are able to accurately interpret the meanings of symbols and gestures used to project labels upon them.
This ability to make choices and to participate in cooperative interaction via significant symbols suggests that human beings are not passive receptors of negative labels (Manis, 1955; Miyamoto & Dornbusch, 1956; Couch, 1958; Reeder et al., 1960; Maehn et al., 1962; Kinch, 1963; Sherwood, 1965). Labeling theorists acknowledge that some juveniles negotiate labels and indeed attempt to disavow their deviant imputations (Davis, 1961). Thus, the overly deterministic view (Akers, 1967) of labeling theory's secondary deviance hypothesis appears unwarranted.
Mead believed that "to name or define something is never merely an 'idealistic' procedure. It is instead a consequence of an act" (Melossi, 1985, p. 199). This line of reasoning is consistent with Becker's (1963) notion that social groups create deviance by their reactions to known acts. From this perspective, then, "a name, definition, or label designates something which is the product of a successful conversation of gestures" (Melossi, 1985, p. 199). These successful conversations of gestures are what makes the process of labeling the "self" possible.
To summarize, labeling theorists assume that, during real or imagined interactions, individuals project themselves into the role of significant others and make assessments or self-appraisals (Cooley, 1902; Shibutani, 1961; Bern, 1972). The self becomes an object (Mead, 1934) for which the individual attaches labels, both positive and negative. This assumption is guided by the view that humans have the ability to choose among competing labels for their self-conceptions.
Measuring Perceived Informal Labeling of the Self
The major obstacle to empirically verifying labeling theory's secondary deviance hypothesis is the self-concept variable. Most self-concept studies have relied on global measures of self-esteem (e.g., see Rosenberg, 1979) instead of focusing on the adoption of a deviant self-concept. This body of literature adds little support for labeling theory because a juvenile can have a negative self-concept and yet have high self-esteem.
To empirically test labeling theory, a methodology must be used that captures the complexity and multidimensional nature of the self. Following closely the work of Burke and Tully (1977) and Chassin et al. (1981a), the present study proposes an improved measure of the effects of societal reactions on the self-concept.
Burke and Tully (1977) developed a semantic differential scale for measuring role identities. They analyzed data from a sample of sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students from over 50 classrooms at 15 urban schools in a Midwestern city. Questionnaires containing 34 adjective pairs were presented in a semantic differential index (five-point, Likert-type format). The researchers were interested in measuring the meaning of "boyness and girlness" in response to "usually boys are" and "usually girls are" (Burke & Tully, 1977, p. 887). The results of discriminant analysis showed that the methodology validly measured gender role identities.
Chassin et al. (1981b) employed a modified version of Burke and Tully's (1977) semantic differential index to empirically test labeling theory. Similar to the present study, their sample consisted of 96 males who were incarcerated in a state correctional facility. They were asked to describe themselves within the confines of the institution by selecting from a semantic differential scale consisting of 11 descriptive and contrasting adjectives. Some of the adjective pairs were as follows: rebellious/obedient, strong/weak, and rough/gentle. The findings showed that the technique was a "valid measure of the identification with a deviant label" (Chassin et al., 198 la, p. 35). Those juveniles who had negative self-concepts reported greater involvement in delinquent behavior.
In the present study, a similar methodology is used to measure perceived labeling of the self-concept. This was done because a true test of labeling theory must focus on identifying and measuring the descriptors used by juveniles to label their self-concepts.
Based on the symbolic interaction and labeling theories' assumptions, several predictions were made. First, juveniles who choose negative descriptors for their self-concepts will report greater involvement in delinquency. Second, perceived labeling by parents, teachers, and peers will have stronger, positive effects on self-reported delinquency than labels imputed from contact with social control agencies (formal labeling). Finally, the relative effects of formal and informal labeling will vary by type of delinquency.
Subjects and Procedure
Data were obtained from a larger study of high school students' attitudes and behaviors regarding drugs and delinquency in Mississippi. The study population consisted of juveniles who were held in the state's two training schools in July, 1992. Most of the respondents (58.5%) reported that they lived in rural areas. These juveniles had been remanded to the custody of Mississippi Youth Services for a wide array of behaviors, ranging from status offenses to serious gang-related activities.
A questionnaire was administered in group settings. Each group was comprised of approximately 25 juveniles. The researchers used overhead transparencies and read each item to the subjects. Of the 337 juveniles detained at the two facilities during the survey period, 277 completed the questionnaire. The remaining 60 juveniles did not participate in the study for several reasons, including court appearances, preparation for release, and placement in solitary confinement.
The background variables included gender, race, and age. There were 249 males and 28 females. Regarding race, 210 blacks, 55 whites, 7 Hispanics, and 2 Native Americans were included in the analysis. Data on race were missing for 3 respondents. Dummy coding was used to categorize gender (0 = female and 1 = male) and race (0 = nonwhite and 1 = white). The juveniles' ages ranged from 10 to 18 (see Table 1).
Formal labeling. This variable (FORMAL) reflected the extent to which the youths had been stigmatized by being formally processed through the juvenile justice system (Tannenbaum, 1938) and in contact with other social control agencies. These occasions are used in the present study to represent successful "status degradation ceremonies" (Garfinkel, 1956). The variable was operationalized by the juveniles' responses to the following questions, which were coded 0 = no and 1 yes: (1) Have you ever been taken into custody by the police? (2) Have you ever been required to attend an adjudicatory hearing? (3) Have you ever been on court-ordered probation? (4) Have you ever been on court-ordered parole? (5) Have you ever been on house detention? (6) Have you ever had to pay a fine? (7) Have you ever had to pay restitution? (8) Have you ever been in a temporary holdover? (9) Have you ever been sent to counseling? (10) Have you ever been sent to counseling with your parents? Thus, the scores on this index ranged from 0 to 10, with high scores reflecting high levels of negative formal labeling. The mean and standard deviation for the index were 6.247 and 2.113, respectively, and the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was .6352.
Informal labeling. Perceived negative informal labeling measures were developed by following the methodology introduced by Burke and Tully (1977). As stated earlier, the present study utilizes a semantic differential scale which was comprised of six contrasting descriptive adjectives. Respondents were asked to identify the labels that best reflect the perception of them from the perspective of three groups of significant others: parents (FAMLAB), teachers (TEACHLAB), and peers (PEERLAB). The descriptive contrasting adjectives were as follows: (1) cooperative or troublesome, (2) good or bad, (3) conforming or deviant, (4) obedient or disobedient, (5) polite or rude, and (6) law-abiding or deviant. Positive descriptors (or adjectives) were coded as 0, neutral descriptors were coded as 1, and negative descriptors were coded as 2. Scores for each index ranged from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating greater perceived negative labeling of the self from the perspectives of the three groups of significant others. The mean and standard deviation for the FAMLAB index were 5.645 and 3.686, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for this index was .8309. The mean and standard deviation for the TEACHLAB index were 5.550 and 4.274, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for this index was .8922. Finally, the mean and standard deviation for the PEERLAB index were 5.610 and 3.822, respectively. Cronbach's alpha for this index was .8597.
These adjective pairs were selected because they best distinguished between positive and negative evaluations (or labels) that are assumed to be communicated to juveniles. The resulting negative self-concept measure is an improvement over previous ones in two important ways: (1) it is quantitative in that a composite score can be obtained for multiple groups of significant others' perceived labeling, and (2) the anchor points are adjective pairs that have distinct cultural and social meanings.
Three indices were constructed to assess both the extent and type of self-reported delinquency (i.e., general, drug-related, and serious). The juveniles were asked to report the frequency of their involvement in delinquent behavior during the year prior to their incarceration. Responses to the items were as follows: 1 = never, 2 = 1 to 5 times, 3 = 6 to 10 times, 4 = 11 to 20 times, and 5 = 21 or more times.
The general delinquency index (GENDEL) asked respondents how many times within the last year they had done the following: (1) skipped class when you were in school; (2) drank hard liquor; (3) used barbiturates; (4) gone onto someone's land without permission; (5) burglarized a house; (6) used force to get money or things from someone; (7) been told to bring your parents to school for something you did wrong; (8) sold marijuana or hashish; (9) damaged something that did not belong to you; (10) hurt someone badly enough for him or her to need bandages; (11) taken some part of a car; (12) physically assaulted someone; (13) used hallucinogens; (14) hit a member of your family in anger; (15) been suspended from school; (16) hitchhiked where it was illegal to do so; (17) taken something not belonging to you worth less than $50; (18) drank beer or wine; (19) ran away from home; (20) used tranquilizers; (21) had or tried to have sex with someone against that person's will; (22) been sent to the principal's office for bad behavior in class; (23) carried a gun to school; (24) carried a knife to school; (25) used crack cocaine; (26) taken something not belonging to you worth over $50; (27) set fire to someone's property; (28) used a weapon to get something from a person; (29) taken something from a store without paying for it; (30) taken a motor vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle, without the owner's permission; (31) smoked marijuana; and (32) used inhalants to get high. Cronbach's alpha for GENDEL was .9232. Scores on this index ranged from 32 to 160, and the mean and standard deviation were 67.539 and 20.836, respectively (see Table 1).
The drug-related delinquency index (DRUGDEL) contained the following items: (1) drank hard liquor; (2) used barbiturates; (3) used methadone; (4) used hallucinogens; (5) drank beer or wine; (6) used tranquilizers; (7) used crack cocaine; (8) smoked marijuana; (9) used inhalants; and (10) used powdered cocaine. Cronbach's alpha for DRUGDEL was .8178. Scores on this index ranged from 10 to 50, and the mean and standard deviation were 19.627 and 7.547, respectively (see Table 1). The mean interitem correlation for the 10 items was .3202.
The serious delinquency index (SERDEL) contained the following items: (1) burglarized a house; (2) used force to get money or things from someone; (3) hurt someone badly enough for him or her to need bandages; (4) physically assaulted someone; (5) had or tried to have sex with someone against that person's will; (6) taken something not belonging to you worth over $50; (7) set fire to someone's property; (8) used a weapon to get something from a person; (9) taken a motor vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle, without the owner's permission; (10) bought stolen goods; and (11) broke into a place to steal. Cronbach's alpha for SERDEL was .8640. Scores on this index ranged from 11 to 55, and the mean and standard deviation were 23.536 and 9.019, respectively (see Table 1).
Before testing the secondary deviance hypothesis, correlation analyses were conducted to determine the relationship among the informal labeling measures (parents, teachers, and friends). This is consistent with the notion that juveniles have as many self-conceptions as they do groups of significant others (Mead, 1934). This approach is in stark contrast to that proposed by Matsueda (1992), who assumes that youth-reflected appraisals from parents, teachers, and peers coalesce into a single self representing convergence or consensus in reflected appraisals, rather than splitting into conflicting, compartmentalized selves" (p. 1592).
As shown in Table 2, the strongest relationship was between family labeling and teacher labeling (r = .4882, p <.001). In short, the correlation matrix did not indicate strong enough relationships among the informal labeling measures to preclude separate multivariate analyses. These findings support the notion that competing, opposite appraisals should not be unified into a single conception of self.
The next phase of the study attempted to determine the relative effects of parent, teacher, and peer labeling and contact with social control agencies (formal labeling) on self-reported delinquency. Multiple regression models were used to determine the effects of each of the labeling measures while controlling for the other variables included in the equations. These analyses were not compromised by severe multi-collinearity problems, based on a collinearity analysis that produced minimal variance inflation factors.
Accounting for the variance in the general delinquency scores, among the informal labeling groups, teacher labeling ([beta] .190, p < .05) was the strongest significant predictor, followed closely by formal labeling ([beta] = .l89,p < .05). Peer labeling and family labeling were not significant predictors of general delinquent involvement (see Table 3).
The background variables were found to be more strongly predictive of general delinquency. White youths reported significantly greater levels of delinquent involvement than black youths ([beta] = .205, p < .01), males reported greater involvement than females ([beta] = .223, p < .01), and older youths reported greater involvement than younger ones ([beta] = .225, p < .01). Taken as a whole, the model explained 30.4% of the variance in self-reported general delinquency.
These findings indicate that teachers are important sources of negative labeling, but that negative labeling by social control agents also is important. These two groups appear to be better predictors of general delinquency than peers and family members.
Little is known about the predictive powers of labeling variables in terms of explaining involvement in serious (or index) offenses. As shown in Table 3, peer labeling ([beta] =.25l,p < .001) and teacher labeling ([beta] = .179, p < .05) were both significant predictors of serious delinquency. Consistent with the general delinquency model, family labeling was not significant at the conventional .05 level. Similar to the general delinquency model, formal labeling was a moderately strong predictor ([beta] = .217,p < .001) of serious delinquency among this group of incarcerated youths.
The results also show that racial background was not a significant predictor of involvement in the index offenses. However, age ([beta] = .182, p <.01) had a moderate, positive effect on serious delinquency, with older youths reporting more frequent involvement. Gender was found to have a moderate effect (13 .222, p < .001) on serious delinquency, illustrative of greater male involvement. Overall, approximately 30% of the variance in serious delinquency was explained by the variables included in the model.
In the analysis of drug-related delinquency, shown in Table 3, none of the labeling measures attained statistical significance at the .05 level. This finding suggests that there is a substantial lack of fit between the theory and the phenomenon of interest. In this instance, it is plausible that the nature of the delinquent behavior may have drawn the youths into a retreatist subcultural environment devoid of parental and teacher influence. In such an environment, it is likely that peer relationships will take a form supportive of increased drug use.
Regarding the background variables, whites reported significantly greater drug-related delinquency than did blacks ([beta] = .506, p < .001). Among this sample of incarcerated youths, males reported more frequent drug use ([beta] = .132, p < .05). As would be expected, age was also a strong predictor of drug-related delinquency ([beta] = .230, p < .001); older juveniles reported more frequent involvement in drug crimes. This model explained approximately 42% of the variance in self-reported involvement in drug-related delinquency.
There were three major objectives of the present study: (1) to test the validity of the semantic differential scale for measuring negative self-concepts; (2) to determine the relative effects of informal and formal labeling on self-reported delinquency; and (3) to determine the predictive powers of labeling variables in terms of general and serious delinquency and drug-related offenses.
First, the validity of the semantic differential measure of self-concept was supported by the results of the analyses. As the number of negative descriptive adjectives increased, so did the youths' self-reported involvement in delinquency. This finding is indicative of what Lemert (1951) referred to as secondary delinquency.
Second, in terms of informal labeling sources, the present study was based on the assumption that juveniles have as many selves as they do groups whose opinions they value (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934). For this reason, the three groups of significant others included in the models were parents, teachers, and peers. Teacher and peer labeling were the only significant predictors of general and serious delinquency. This finding is somewhat inconsistent with previous labeling studies that report parent labeling as the strongest predictor of delinquency (Aultman & Wellford, 1979; Matsueda, 1992).
This finding may be, in part, a result of the differences in the measures used. For instance, Matsueda (1992) only utilized appraisals from parents. It may be that perceived parental labeling is a weaker predictor of delinquency because juveniles try to keep their delinquency secret from their parents. As a result of successful deviance disavowal (Davis, 1961) by juveniles in the eyes of their parents, they are able to negotiate more moderate labels. However, in the case of teachers and peers, it is difficult to commit secret delinquency, given that most youths spend more time at school and with friends than they do with their parents.
In addition, many of the juveniles included in the study have been referred previously to one or more social control agencies. In most cases, parents are adamant about keeping their children out of jail: they go to great lengths to preserve their freedom. Yet, parents in these situations often use an array of expletives to describe their children. Weighing these two diametrically opposed reactions, juveniles may be unable to accurately select between two extreme bipolar adjectives to describe themselves through their parents' eyes.
Further, parents, as opposed to teachers and peers, are more inclined to react inclusively instead of exclusively (Orcutt, 1973) to primary deviance. Inclusive reactions are manifested in attempts to increase the amount of quality time spent with the juvenile. In contrast, peer groups and teachers are likely to respond in a more exclusive manner. That is, teachers may send the juvenile to the principal's office and peers may sever their ties with a troublemaker to avoid obtaining a courtesy stigma (Goffman, 1963). These reactions and subsequent perceived appraisals are likely to result in the adoption of negative self-conceptions in relation to teachers and peers.
Third, the results of the present study reiterate the need for additional research on the impact of informal labeling (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). Consistent across the general and serious delinquency models, the magnitude of the informal labeling measures was typically greater than or similar to that of the formal labeling measure. From a labeling theory perspective, then, secondary delinquency may appear more a function of informal than formal labeling.
This finding is consistent with Becker's (1963, p. 16) alternative meaning of the concept "outsiders" (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). If the labels for the self are generated by social control agents whom the juvenile has little regard for, the "deviant imputation made by control agents carries less potency and thereby is less likely to cause a significant shift in actor's motivational commitment" (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989, p. 382). Also, for many juveniles, being arrested or referred to a social agency is a source of esteem. The contacts with the agencies reinforce or legitimize the acquired labels. In short, it appears that contact with social control agents is secondary to the reactions of significant others in explaining involvement in delinquent behavior.
The final objective of the study was to determine the predictive powers of labeling variables in relation to general and serious delinquency and drug-related offenses. For this group of incarcerated youths, labeling variables were found to be significant predictors of the two former types of delinquency. In relation to drug-related offenses, none of the labeling variables attained statistical significance.
A possible explanation for this finding is that juveniles are infrequently jailed or imprisoned for drug use and most other drug-related offenses except for street-level trafficking. Therefore, little in the way of negative formal labeling takes place. As to the informal labels, this finding may reflect apathy toward drugs. That is, with high numbers of school dropouts, teenage pregnancies, and violent crimes among juveniles, drug-related delinquency may be perceived as the lesser of the available evils. These factors combined may be responsible for the inability of formal and perceived informal labeling to have the hypothesized effects on involvement in drug-related offenses.
Another plausible explanation for the apparent lack of fit between labeling theory and drug-related delinquency involves the informal labeling measures employed in the analysis. The adjective pairs included in the indices were general in nature. It may be that a better measure of the self-concept related to drug use is needed for labeling theory predictions to be supported. For instance, Ray and Downs (1986) asked subjects to rate themselves from the perspective of multiple groups of significant others in terms of their drug use. The ratings ranged from "nonuser" to "addict." The results of their study showed that perceived negative labeling was a strong predictor of self-reported drug use behavior patterns. Thus, future research in this area should consider using a semantic differential methodology for measuring the meanings of the perceived labels accorded to juveniles who engage in specific types of delinquency.
To summarize, the results of the present study are generally supportive of labeling theory. Perceived negative labels were related to increased involvement in self-reported delinquent behavior. The study also showed that teachers and peer groups are important sources of negative labels which can lead to the adoption of a deviant self-concept. The results also indicate that labeling variables are better predictors of general and serious delinquency than they are of drug-related offenses.
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Coding Schemes for Selected Variables (N = 277) Variable Coding M SD n FAMLAB 0 = positive perception to 5.645 3.686 248 12 = negative perception TEACHLAB 0 = positive perception to 5.550 4.274 249 12 = negative perception PEERLAB 0 = positive perception to 5.610 3.822 259 12 = negative perception FORMAL 0 = low levels of negative 6.247 2.113 223 formal labeling to 10 = high levels of negative formal labeling GENDEL 32 = low delinquent 67.539 20.836 191 involvement to 160 high delinquent involvement SERDEL 11 = low delinquent 23.536 9.019 252 involvement to 55 = high delinquent involvement DRUGDEL 10 = low delinquent 19.627 7.547 220 involvement to 50 = high delinquent involvement AGE 1 = less than 13 years 3.091 .761 277 2 = 13-14 years 3 = 15-16 years 4 = 17-18 years RACE 0 = nonwhite .200 .401 277 1 = white GENDER 0 = female .899 .302 277 1 = male Note. FAMLAB = Parent Labeling; TEACHLAB = Teacher Labeling; PEERLAB = Peer Labeling; FORMAL = Formal Labeling; GENDEL = General Delinquency; SERDEL = Serious Delinquency; DRUGDEL = Drug-Related Delinquency. Table 2 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Labeling Measures (n = 192) FAMLAB TEACHLAB PEERLAB FORMAL M SD FAMLAB -- 5.541 3.686 TEACHLAB .4882 *** -- 5.338 4.191 PEERLAB .4064 *** .4160 *** -- 5.494 3.782 FORMAL .0863 .0499 .1062 -- 6.270 2.087 Note. FAMLAB = Parent Labeling; TEACHLAB = Teacher Labeling; PEERLAB = Peer Labeling; FORMAL = Formal Labeling; *** p < .001 Table 3 Unstandardized Betas (b), Standard Errors (SE b), and Standardized Betas ([beta]) from Regressions of Delinquency Measures on Informal and Formal Labeling Variables and Background Characteristics GENDEL SERDEL Variables b SE b [beta] b SE b FAMLAB .25 .47 .05 .00 .16 TEACHLAB .92 * .40 .19 * .36 * .15 PEERLAB .86 .44 .16 .56 *** .16 FORMAL 1.83 * .71 .19 * .89 *** .26 AGE 6.33 ** 2.11 .23 ** 2.15 ** .76 RACE 9.41 ** 3.35 .21 ** -2.27 1.32 GENDER 12.84 ** 4.19 .22 ** 5.38 *** 1.59 Constant 10.53 8.91 1.76 3.20 [R.sup.2] .30 *** .30 *** Adj. [R.sup.2] .27 .27 n 143 179 SERDEL DRUGDEL Variables [beta] b SE b [beta] FAMLAB .00 .24 .16 .11 TEACHLAB .18 * .22 .13 .12 PEERLAB .25 *** .00 .15 .00 FORMAL .22 *** .41 .24 .11 AGE .18 ** 2.43 *** .68 .23 *** RACE -.11 9.22 *** 1.16 .51 *** GENDER .22 *** 2.99 * 1.44 .13 * Constant 2.25 2.80 [R.sup.2] .42 *** Adj. [R.sup.2] .39 n 157 Note. FAMLAB = Parent Labeling; TEACHLAB = Teacher Labeling; PEERLAB = Peer Labeling; FORMAL = Formal Labeling; GENDEL = General Delinquency; SERDEL = Serious Delinquency; DRUGDEL = Drug-Related Delinquency. * p < .05; **p <.01; ***p <.001.
Ageton, S., & Elliott, D. S. (1974). The effects of legal processing on delinquent orientation. Social Problems, 22, 87-100.
Akers, R. (1967). Problems in the sociology of deviance: Social definitions and behavior. Social Forces, 46, 455-465.
Aultman, M. G., & Wellford, C. F. (1979). Toward an integrated model of delinquency causation: An empirical analysis. Sociology and Social Research, 63, 316-327.
Becke, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 2-62). New York: Academic Press.
Burke, P. J., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The measurement of role identity. Social Forces, 55, 881-896.
Chassin, L., Eason, B. J., & Young, R. D. (1981a). Identifying with a deviant label: The validation of a methodology. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 31-36.
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Young, R. D., & Light, R. (1981b). Self-concepts of institutionalized adolescents: A framework for conceptualizing labeling effects. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 143-151.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribners and Sons.
Couch, C. (1958). Self-attitude and degree of agreement with immediate others. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 491-496.
Davis, F. (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly handicapped. Social Problems, 9, 120-132.
Farrington, D. P. (1977). The effects of public labeling. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 112-125.
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. Amen. can Journal of Sociology, 61, 420-424.
Gibbs, L. E. (1974). Effects of juvenile legal procedures on juvenile offenders' self-attitudes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 11, 51-55.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma, notes on the management of spoiled identities. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gove, W. R. (1980). The labeling perspective: An overview. In W. R. Gove (Ed.), The labeling of deviance (pp. 9-33). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hagan, J. (1974). Extra-legal attributes and criminal sentencing: An assessment of a sociological viewpoint. Law and Society Review, 8, 357-383.
Hepburn, J. R. (1977). The impact of police intervention upon juvenile delinquents. Criminology, 15, 235-262.
Kinch, J. W. (1963). A formalized theory of the self-concept. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 481-486.
Klein, M. W. (1974). Labeling, deterrence, and recidivism: A study of the dispositions of juvenile offenders. Social Problems, 22, 292-303.
Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Maehn, M., Mensing, J., & Nafager, S. (1962). Concept of self and the reactions of others. Sociometry, 25, 353-357.
Manis, M. (1955). Social interaction and the self concept. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 362-370.
Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labelling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interaction theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577-1611.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G. H. (1964). The psychology of punitive justice. In A. J. Reck (Ed.), Selected writings: George Herbert Mead (pp. 212-239). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meade, A. C. (1974). The labeling approach to delinquency: State of the theory as a function of method. Social Forces, 53, 83-91.
Melossi, D. (1985). Overcoming the crisis in critical criminology: Toward a grounded labeling theory. Criminology, 23, 193-207.
Menard, S., & Morse, B. J. (1984). A structuralist critique of the IQ-delinquency hypothesis: Theory and evidence. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 1347-1378.
Miyamoto, F. S., & Dornhusch, 5. (1956). A test of the symbolic interactionist hypothesis of self-conception. American Journal of Sociology, 17, 399-403.
Orcutt, J. D. (1973). Societal reaction and the response to deviation in small groups. Social Forces, 52, 259-267.
Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6, 359-394.
Ray, M. C., & Downs, W. R. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169-194.
Reeder, L., Donahue, G., & Biblarz, A. (1960). Conception of self and others. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 153-159.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Sherwood, J. (1965). Self identity and referent others. Sociometry, 28, 66-81.
Shibutani, T. (1961). Society and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Simons, R. L., Miller, M. G., & Aigner, S. M. (1980). Contemporary theories of deviance and female delinquency: An empirical test. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 42-57.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston: Ginn.
Thomas, C. W. (1977). The effect of legal sanctions on juvenile delinquency. Unpublished monograph, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
Thomas, C. W., & Bishop, D. M. (1984). The effects of formal and informal sanctions on delinquency: A longitudinal comparison of labeling and deterrence theories. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 1222-1245.
Thomas, W. I. (1923). The unadjusted girl. Boston: Little, Brown.
Tittle, C. R. (1980). Labelling and crime: An empirical evaluation. In W. R. Gove (Ed.), The labelling of deviance (pp. 241-263). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wellford, C. F. (1975). Labeling theory and criminology: An assessment. Social Problems, 22, 332-345.
Craig T. Robertson, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of North Alabama, Florence, Alabama.
Phyllis Gray-Ray, Mississippi Urban Research Center, Jackson State University, Jackso, Mississippi.
Melvin C. Ray, Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi.
Reprint requests to Mike S. Adams, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403. E-mail: email@example.com
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Adams, Mike S.; Robertson, Craig T.; Gray-Ray, Phyllis; Ray, Melvin C.|
|Date:||Mar 22, 2003|
|Previous Article:||Motivations and attitudes affecting high school students' choice of foreign language.|
|Next Article:||Boy v. Girl? How Gender Shapes Who We Are, What We Want, and How We Get Along. .|