Labeling Theory of Deviance in Sociology: Definitions & Examples

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, Ph.D., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years experience of working in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

  • Labeling theory is an approach in the sociology of deviance that focuses on the ways in which the agents of social control attach stigmatizing stereotypes to particular groups, and the ways in which the stigmatized change their behavior once labeled.
  • Labeling theory is associated with the work of Becker and is a reaction to sociological theories, which examine only the characteristics of the deviants rather than the agencies that controlled them.
  • Howard Becker’s (1963) idea is that deviance is a consequence of external judgments, or labels, that modify the individual’s self-concept and change the way others respond to the labeled person.
  • The central feature of labeling theory is the self-fulfilling prophecy , in which the label corresponds to the label in terms of delinquent behavior.
  • It has been criticized for ignoring the capacity of the individual to resist labeling and assuming that it is an automatic process.
  • Labeling theory recognizes that labels will vary depending on the culture, time period, and situation. David Rosenhan’s study On Being Sane in Insane Places  (1973) provides a striking demonstration of the power of labeling and the importance of context.

Labeling Theory Of Deviance

The premise of Labeling Theory is that, once individuals have been labeled as deviants, they face new problems stemming from their reactions to themselves and others to the stereotypes of someone with the deviant label (Becker, 1963; Bernburg, 2009).

Labeling theory stems from the school of symbolic interactionism, which believes that an individual’s sense of self is formed by their interactions with and the labels ascribed to them by other people.

Stigma and Discrimination: The Roots of Labeling Theory

Sociologists generally agree that deviant labels are also stigmatizing labels (Bernburg, 2009). These sociologists define stigma as a series of specific, negative perceptions and stereotypes attached to a label (Link and Pelan, 2001), which can be evident in and transmitted by mass media or the everyday interactions people have between themselves.

According to Becker (1963), “To be labeled a criminal carries a number of connotations specifying auxiliary traits characteristic of anyone bearing the label.”

That is to say, a label of deviance (such as being a criminal) can become one that overtakes one’s entire identity. Those with criminal labels are distrusted and disdained widely, and individuals may believe that criminals are completely unable to behave morally.

Any misbehavior may be explained entirely by how that individual is labeled as a criminal (Travis, 2002).

Lower-class people and those from minority groups are more likely to be involved with police interventions, and when those from minority groups are involved in police interventions, they are more likely to lead to an arrest, accounting for the nature and seriousness of the offense (Warden and Shepard, 1996).

Once arrested, these individuals face more severe sentences regardless of the seriousness of the offense (Bontrager, Bales, and Chiricos, 2007). As a result, those from lower classes and minority communities are more likely to be labeled as criminals than others, and members of these groups are likely to be seen by others as associated with criminality and deviance, regardless of whether or not they have been formally labeled as a criminal.

This manifests both on the societal and individual levels. African American children, for example, are more likely to be seen as rule-breakers by their parents than their white peers (Matsueda, 1992).

Formal and Informal Labeling

Labeling theorists specify two types of categories when investigating the implications of labeling: formal and informal labels. Formal labels are labels ascribed to an individual by someone who has the formal status and ability to discern deviant behavior.

For example, someone who has been arrested or officially convicted of a felony carries the formal label of “criminal,” as they have been suspected of committing a behavior that is established to be deviant (such as breaking the law).

However, labels can also be ascribed to someone by groups of people who do not have the official authority to label someone as deviant.

For example, the teachers and staff at a school can label a child as a “troublemaker” and treat him as such (through detention and so forth). These labels are informal (Kavish, Mullins, and Soto, 2016).

Labeling and Deviant Behavior

Labeling can encourage deviant behavior in three ways: a deviant self-concept, a process of social exclusion, and increased involvement in deviant groups.

Deviant Self-Concept

Deviant self-concept originates from the theory of symbolic interactionism. In summary, symbolic interactionism is a theory in sociology that argues that society is created and maintained by face-to-face, repeated, meaningful interactions among individuals (Carter and Fuller, 2016).

Some sociologists, such as Matsueda (1992), have argued that the concept of self is formed on the basis of their interactions with other people.

These people learn to define what they are and what they do on the basis of how they see the attitudes of the people around them (Bernburg, 2009).

Those labeled as criminals or deviants — regardless of whether this label was ascribed to them on the virtue of their past acts or marginalized status — experience attitudes of stigma and negative stereotyping from others.

Cooley’s concept of the “ looking-glass self ” states how we perceive ourselves depends in part on how others see us, so if others react to us as deviant, we are likely to internalize that label (even if we object to it)

As those labeled as deviants experience more social interactions where they are given the stereotypical expectation of deviance, this can shape that person’s self-concept.

As a result, the person can see themselves as a deviant (Bamburg, 2009).

Social Exclusion

As deviant labeling is stigmatizing, those with deviant labels can be excluded from relationships with non-deviant people and from legitimate opportunities.

Link (1982) proposes two processes for social exclusion among those labeled as deviant: a rejection or devaluation of the deviant person by the community and authorities and secondly, the labeled person can expect rejection and devaluation, leading to social withdrawal.

The uneasy and ambiguous interactions between non-deviantly and defiantly-labeled people can “lead normals and the stigmatized to arrange life to avoid them” (Goffman, 1963).

Because those with deviant labels can actively avoid interactions with so-called “normals,” they can experience smaller social networks and thus fewer opportunities and attempts to find legitimate, satisfying, higher-paying jobs (Link et al., 1989).

Other theorists, such as Sampson and Laub (1990), have examined labeling theory in the context of social bonding theory.

Social bonding theory, first developed by Travis Hirschi, asserts that people who have strong attachments to conventional society (for example, involvement, investment, and belief) are less likely to be deviant than those with weak bonds to conventional society (Chriss, 2007).

Sampson and Laub (1997) argue that being labeled as deviant can have a negative effect on creating ties with those who are non-deviant, inhibiting their social bonding and attachments to conventional society.

Labeling can lead to blocked opportunities, such as reduced education and instability in employment, and the weak conventional ties resulting from this lack of opportunity can create a long-lasting effect on adult criminal behavior.

Deviant Groups

When individuals have little social support from conventional society, they can turn to deviant groups, where having a deviant label is accepted.

However, this can create rationalization, attitudes, and opportunities that make involvement in these groups a risk factor for further deviant behavior (Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006).

This increased involvement in deviant groups stems from two factors. Firstly, labeling can cause rejection from non-deviant peers. Secondly, labeling can cause a withdrawal from interactions with non-deviant peers, which can result in a deviant self-concept.

Thus, those labeled as deviant would want to seek relationships with those who also have a deviant self-concept.

This is summed up by differential association theory (Sutherland and Cressey, 1992), which states that being able to associate and interact with deviant people more easily leads to the transference of deviant attitudes and behaviors between those in the group, leading to further deviance.

Labeling and Subsequent Deviance

Early studies about adolescents who have been labeled as deviant show that those adolescents are more likely to have subsequent deviant behavior into early adulthood (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003).

However, more inclusive reviews of studies that examine how formal labeling affects subsequent behavior show more mixed results.

Most studies found a positive correlation between formal labeling and subsequent deviant behavior, and a smaller but still substantial number found no effect (Huizinga and Henry, 2008).

Criticism in the 1970s undermined the popularity of labeling theory. There was little consistent empirical evidence for labeling theory (the evidence that did exist was methodologically flawed), and critics believed that labeling theory was vague, simplistic, and ideologically motivated.

Notably, Paternoster and Iovanni (1989) argued that large portions of labeling research were methodologically flawed to the extent that it offered few conclusions for sociologists.

This research was flawed for several reasons. Firstly, labeling theory research tended to use samples of individuals from biased sources, such as police records.

This means that this research tended to ignore the effects of there being some formal reaction versus there being no formal reaction to labeling (Bernburg, 2009).

The past 20 years have brought significant attempts to improve the methodology of labeling theory research.

Researchers, such as Matsueda (1992), have clarified how labeling leads to deviance, particularly when this labeling is informal, and these findings have been more replicable than those in the past.

Domestic Violence

In 1981 and 1982, the Minneapolis Police Department conducted an experiment to determine the effect of arresting domestic violence suspects on subsequent behavior (Sherman and Berk, 1984).

This original research found that arresting suspected perpetrators of domestic violence had a deterrent effect. However, when several other cities replicated this experiment, they found that arresting domestic violence perpetrators actually resulted in significant increases in domestic violence (Dunford, Huizinga, and Elliott, 1990).

Noting this discrepancy, Sherman and Smith (1992) aimed to examine the effect of arrest for domestic violence on subsequent violence and found that arrest for domestic violence increased the likelihood of subsequent arrest for domestic violence, but only in cases where the perpetrator was unemployed.

However, when those who were arrested were employed, the arrest had a deterrent effect (Bernburg, 2009).

Sherman and Smith (1992) argued that this deterrence was caused by the increased “stake in conformity” employed domestic violence suspects have in comparison to those who are unemployed.

Those in economically depressed areas — places where perpetrators were less likely to be able to hold down a job — had less to lose by the conventional social tie of work, and recidivism was higher.

Similarly, recidivism was also higher among partners in unmarried couples than those in married couples, unrestricted by the conventional bond of marriage. (Sherman and Smith, 1992).

This finding — which implies that formal labeling only increases deviance in specific situations — is consistent with deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory states that whether or not someone commits an act of deviance is determined largely by the costs and benefits of committing a crime versus the threat of punishment.

In the case of employed domestic violence suspects, the formal label of “abuser” and a threatened felony conviction may have severely costly implications for the future of their career; however, for those who are unemployed, this threat is less amplified.

Delinquency and Adolescent Males

Before Matsueda (1992), researchers saw delinquency in adolescents as a factor of self-esteem, with mixed results. Matsueda looked at adolescent delinquency through the lens of how parents and authorities labeled children and how these labels influenced the perception of self these adolescents have — symbolic interactionism.

This research is unique in that it examines informal labeling — the effects that other people look at an adolescent have on that adolescent’s behavior.

From a theoretical perspective, Matsueda drew on the behavioral principles of George Herbert Mead, which states that one’s perception of themselves is formed by their interactions with others.

This is caused by a transaction, where someone projects themselves into the role of another and sees if the behavior associated with that role suits their situation (Mead, 1934).

Those who are labeled as troublemakers take on the role of troublemakers because others’ projections onto them present delinquency as an option.

The delinquent adolescent misbehaves, the authority responds by treating the adolescent like someone who misbehaves, and the adolescent responds in turn by misbehaving again.

This approach to delinquency from the perspective of role-taking stems from Briar and Piliavin (1965), who found that boys who are uncommitted to conventional structures for action can be incited into delinquency by other boys.

Because these boys do not consider the reactions of conventional others, they take each other’s roles, present motives for delinquency, and thus act delinquently (Matsueda, 1992).

The conventions of these groups can have a heavy influence on the decisions to act delinquently. For example, Short and Strodtbeck (1965) note that the decision for adolescent boys to join a gang fight often originates around the possibility of losing status within the gang.

Consistent with labeling theory, children whose parents see them as someone who gets into trouble or breaks the rules, and children who feel as if their friends, parents, and teachers see them as someone who get into trouble or breaks the rules tend to have higher levels of subsequent delinquency.

Many other studies and analyses have supported these findings (Bernburg, 2009). Later, Sampson and Laub (1997) argued that defiant or difficult children can be subject to labeling and subsequent stigma that undermines attachments to “conventional others” — family, school, and peers.

This lack of conventional tires can have a large impact on self-definition and lead to subsequent deviance (Bernburg, 2009).

Official Punishment, Peer Rejection, and Labeling in Chinese Youths

The consequences of labeling on subsequent delinquency are dependent on the larger cultural context of where the delinquency happens.

Zhang (1994a) examined the effects of the severity of the official punishment of delinquency on the probability that youths were estranged from parents, relatives, friends, and neighbors in the city of Tianjin, China.

In the heavily collectivist, family-centered Chinese culture, those who were labeled as deviant were significantly more likely to be rejected by friends and neighbors than by parents and relatives (Zhang, 1994a).

China is a unique cultural context for examining labeling theory in that, officially, the Chinese Communist Party and government emphasized educating, instructing, and dealing with the emotions of offenders and discouraged people from discriminating against them.

Conversely, however, social control agencies made the punishment of delinquents severe and public, with the idea that such punishments created deterrence.

In the early 1990s, the Chinese government frequently had political and social drives to deter crime and deviance by mobilizing the masses to punish deviants (Zhang, 1994b).

The Chinese government implicitly encouraged the masses to widely revile criminals and deviants while officially stating that they aimed to reform delinquent behavior, particularly in adolescents.

However, certain peers, as another study from Zhang (1994b) shows, are more likely to reject those labeled as deviant than others.

Zhang’s study presented Chinese youths with a group of hypothetical delinquents and found that those who had been punished more severely triggered greater amounts of rejection from youths who themselves had never been officially labeled as deviant.

Youths who had been labeled as deviant did not reject these labeled peers due to the severity of the official punishment.

Because these labeled youths are not necessarily rejecting other labeled youths, it thus makes sense that deviant groups can form where deviants provide social support to other deviants.

This can replace the role that the conventional groups who have rejected these youths would have otherwise served (Bernburg, 2009).

Becker, H. (1963). Overview of Labelling Theories , www. Hewett, Norfolk. Sch. uk/curric/soc/crime/labelling/diakses pada, 10.

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders-Defining Deviance. In: BECKER, Howard. Outsiders: Studies In The Sociology of Deviance. New York.

Bernburg, J. G. (2019). Labeling theory. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 179-196): Springer.

Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41 (4), 1287-1318.

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 43 (1), 67-88.

Briar, S., & Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity. Soc. Probs ., 13, 35.

Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64 (6), 931-961.

Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547-581.

Chriss, J. J. (2007). The Functions of the Social Bond. The Sociological Quarterly, 48 (4), 689-712. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40220048

Chriss, J. J. (2007). Social control: An introduction: Polity.

Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. Criminology, 28 (2), 183-206.

Goffman, E. (2018). Stigma and social identity. In Deviance & Liberty (pp. 24-31): Routledge.

Huizinga, D., & Henry, K. L. (2008). The effect of arrest and justice system sanctions on subsequent behavior: Findings from longitudinal and other studies. In The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 220-254): Springer.

Kavish, D. R., Mullins, C. W., & Soto, D. A. (2016). Interactionist labeling: Formal and informal labeling’s effects on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62(10), 1313-1336.

Link, B. (1982). Mental patient status, work, and income: An examination of the effects of a psychiatric label. American Sociological Review, 202-215.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology, 27(1), 363-385.

Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American journal of sociology, 97 (6), 1577-1611.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111): Chicago University of Chicago Press.

Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6 (3), 359-394.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 609-627.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. Developmental theories of crime and delinquency, 7, 133-161.

Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 680-690.

Sherman, W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The Minneapolis domestic violence experiment.

Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency: University of Chicago Press Chicago.

Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1992). Principles of criminology: Altamira Press.

Travis, J. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America.

Worden, R. E., Shepard, R. L., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1996). On the meaning and measurement of suspects” demeanor toward the police: A comment on “Demeanor and Arrest”. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 33 (3), 324-332.

Zhang, L. (1994b). Peers” rejection as a possible consequence of official reaction to delinquency in Chinese society. Criminal justice and behavior, 21 (4), 387-402.

Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (1994a). The severity of official punishment for delinquency and change in interpersonal relations in Chinese society. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 31 (4), 416-433.

Further Reading

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43 (1), 67-88.

Bernburg, J. G. Chapter title: Labeling and Secondary Deviance.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

labelling case studies sociology

Grade Booster exam workshops for 2024 . Join us in to Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, London, Manchester and Newcastle Book now →

Reference Library

Collections

  • See what's new
  • All Resources
  • Student Resources
  • Assessment Resources
  • Teaching Resources
  • CPD Courses
  • Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

  • All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

  • Study Notes

Labelling Theory - Explained

Last updated 13 Nov 2017

  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share by Email

Howard Becker (1963): his key statement about labelling is: “Deviancy is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender ’. Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label. ”

What did Becker mean?  What makes something deviant is not what is done, but how people react to what is done. The only thing that deviant acts have in common is that they are labelled "deviant" by others.

Becker is not interested, then, in what causes people to behave in a deviant way. Instead he is interested in why people choose to label their behaviour as deviant and what effect the label has (on the individual and for society).

Becker points out that people react differently to the same act depending on the social context and this influences the label that is placed on the act.  Perhaps an extreme example would be the act of killing someone. In the vast majority of cases this would be labelled as murder: highly deviant. However, in a war killing is normalised and indeed may be labelled heroic. However, if the combatant doing the killing is not a member of a formal army, then they will likely be labelled a terrorist and, once again, be deviant. There may be no consensus over the application of the label because "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter".

labelling case studies sociology

Our self concept is how we see ourselves; Becker argues that this is created by recognising how others see us (similar to Cooley's concept of the looking-glass self ): being aware of how we are labelled.  As such, being labelled as deviant can lead to deviance amplification because this label can become our master status : the main way in which we think of and identify ourselves. In this way, people can become career criminals. This relates to the ideas of Lemert (1951) about primary deviance and secondary deviance . Lemert postulated that after someone carries out a deviant act (primary deviance) the reaction of others can lead to further (secondary) deviance.

This idea was developed further by Aaron Cicourel (1968) in his famous study Power and the Negotiation of Justice. Cicourel investigated delinquency in California. He tried to account for the apparent significant difference in delinquency rates between two similar cities and concluded that it was the societal reaction to "delinquency" (so-labelled) that differed rather than the acts themselves.

He identified two "stages" in the "negotiation" of whether behaviour was deemed deviant or not.

labelling case studies sociology

At the time of the London Riots in 2011, some commentators pointed out that then London mayor (Boris Johnson) and Prime Minister (David Cameron) had themselves been part of a "delinquent" "gang" at university, called the Bullingdon Club. Despite the notorious student group being associated with a wide range of illegal behaviour, this behaviour was not subject to the same social control and punishment that it would have attracted had they been poor people rioting, rather than rich people "letting off steam".

Clearly then, for interactionists, any data that might appear to show different levels of offending among different social groups or in different localities is unlikely to be much use: the data itself is a social construct. It tells us about the extent to which the label "deviant" is applied rather than informing about different levels of offending.

  • Labelling Theory (Crime)
  • Secondary deviance
  • Deviant Behaviour
  • Internalised Surveillance
  • Left realism

You might also like

Crime and deviance: a level webinar video 2017.

Topic Videos

​Example Answer for Question 1 Paper 3: A Level Sociology, June 2017 (AQA)

Exam Support

​Example Answer for Question 2 Paper 3: A Level Sociology, June 2017 (AQA)

Example answer for question 4 paper 3: a level sociology, june 2017 (aqa), second year a level sociology students: listen up (3).

3rd October 2017

Making Demography Come to Life

18th October 2017

Modern Crime: Drug Dealing and the Dark Web

19th October 2017

Teaching Sociological Skills: Analysis

Our subjects.

  • › Criminology
  • › Economics
  • › Geography
  • › Health & Social Care
  • › Psychology
  • › Sociology
  • › Teaching & learning resources
  • › Student revision workshops
  • › Online student courses
  • › CPD for teachers
  • › Livestreams
  • › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

  • › Contact us
  • › Terms of use
  • › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

  • Search Menu
  • Advance Articles
  • The Authors' Attic: Interviews with Authors
  • High Impact Articles
  • Award-Winning Articles
  • Virtual Issues
  • Author Guidelines
  • Submission Site
  • Open Access Options
  • Why Submit?
  • About Social Problems
  • About the Society for the Study of Social Problems
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertising and Corporate Services
  • Journals Career Network
  • Dispatch Dates
  • Contact SSSP
  • Contact Social Problems
  • Journals on Oxford Academic
  • Books on Oxford Academic
  • < Previous

Labelling and Deviance: A Case Study in the “Sociology of the Interesting”

  • Article contents
  • Figures & tables
  • Supplementary Data

John Hagan, Labelling and Deviance: A Case Study in the “Sociology of the Interesting”, Social Problems , Volume 20, Issue 4, Spring 1973, Pages 447–458, https://doi.org/10.2307/799707

  • Permissions Icon Permissions

Discussion begins with a review of three major concerns of the labelling perspective in deviance: (1) locating the social origins of stigmatic labels; (2) documenting the application of these labels to selected populations; and (3) assessing the consequences of the labelling process for the recipients' future conduct. It is suggested that the latter concern is the most dramatic aspect of the labelling perspective. Two assumptions accompanying this version of the labelling argument are reviewed: (1) other's reaction to subject intensifies subject's behavior; and (2) psychological differences do not exist in a manner relevant to the production and explanation of deviant behavior. After accumulating evidence suggestive of weaknesses in the preceding assumptions, it is argued that the popularity of the labelling perspective in deviance may be best understood as an instance in the “Sociology of the Interesting.” Implications are suggested.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

  • Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

  • Online ISSN 1533-8533
  • Print ISSN 0037-7791
  • Copyright © 2024 Society for the Study of Social Problems
  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Institutional account management
  • Rights and permissions
  • Get help with access
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An Overview of Labeling Theory

  • Key Concepts
  • Major Sociologists
  • News & Issues
  • Research, Samples, and Statistics
  • Recommended Reading
  • Archaeology

Labeling theory states that people come to identify and behave in ways that reflect how others label them. This theory is most commonly associated with the sociology of crime since labeling someone unlawfully deviant can lead to poor conduct. Describing someone as a criminal, for example, can cause others to treat the person more negatively, and, in turn, the individual acts out.

The Origins of Labeling Theory

The idea of labeling theory flourished in American sociology during the 1960s, thanks in large part to sociologist  Howard Becker . However, its core ideas can be traced back to the work of founding French sociologist  Emile Durkheim . American sociologist  George Herbert Mead's theory framing social construction of the self as a process involving interactions with others also influenced its development. Scholars Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, Albert Memmi, Erving Goffman, and David Matza played roles in the development and research of labeling theory as well.

Labeling and Deviance

Labeling theory is one of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behavior. It begins with the assumption that no act is intrinsically criminal. Definitions of criminality are established by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation of those laws by police, courts, and correctional institutions. Deviance is therefore not a set of characteristics of individuals or groups but a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants and the context in which criminality is interpreted.

Police, judges, and educators are the individuals tasked with enforcing standards of normalcy and labeling certain behaviors as deviant in nature . By applying labels to people and creating categories of deviance, these officials reinforce society's power structure. Often, the wealthy define deviancy for the poor, men for women, older people for younger people, and racial or ethnic majority groups for minorities. In other words, society's dominant groups create and apply deviant labels to subordinate groups.

Many children, for example, break windows, steal fruit from other people’s trees, climb into neighbors' yards, or skip school. In affluent neighborhoods, parents, teachers, and police regard these behaviors as typical juvenile behavior. But in poor areas, similar conduct might be viewed as signs of juvenile delinquency. This suggests that class plays an important role in labeling. Race is also a factor.

Inequality and Stigma

Research shows that schools discipline Black children more frequently and harshly than white children despite a lack of evidence suggesting that the former misbehave more often than the latter.   Similarly, police kill Black people at far higher rates than whites , even when African Americans are unarmed and haven't committed crimes.   This disparity suggests that racial stereotypes result in the mislabeling of people of color as deviant.

Once a person is identified as deviant, it is extremely difficult to remove that label. The individual becomes stigmatized as a criminal and is likely to be considered untrustworthy by others. For example, convicts may struggle to find employment after they're released from prison because of their criminal background. This makes them more likely to internalize the deviant label and, again, engage in misconduct. Even if labeled individuals do not commit any more crimes, they must forever live with the consequences of being formally deemed a wrongdoer.

Critiques of Labeling Theory

Critics of labeling theory argue that it ignores factors—such as differences in socialization, attitudes, and opportunities—that lead to deviant acts.   They also assert that it's not entirely certain whether labeling increases deviancy. Ex-cons might end up back in prison because they have formed connections to other offenders; these ties raise the odds that they will be exposed to additional opportunities to commit crimes. In all likelihood, both labeling and increased contact with the criminal population contribute to recidivism.

Additional References

  • Crime and Community  by Frank Tannenbaum (1938)
  • Outsiders  by Howard Becker (1963)
  • The Colonizer and the Colonized  by Albert Memmi (1965)
  • Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control (second edition)  by Edwin Lemert (1972)
  • Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs  by Paul Willis (1977)
  • Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys  by Victor Rios (2011)
  • Without Class: Girls, Race and Women Identity  by Julie Bettie (2014)

"K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students, Boys, and Students with Disabilities." United States Government Accountability Office, Mar. 2018.

Alang, Sirry, et al. “ Police Brutality and Black Health: Setting the Agenda for Public Health Scholars. ”  American Journal of Public Health , vol. 107, no. 5, May 2017, pp. 662–665., doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303691

Mattson Croninger, Robert Glenn. "A Critique of the Labeling Approach: Toward a Social Theory of Deviance." Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects. College of William and Mary - Arts & Sciences, 1976.

  • Sociology of Deviance and Crime
  • Major Sociological Theories
  • 5 Common Misconceptions About Black Lives Matter
  • Deviance and Strain Theory in Sociology
  • Criminology Definition and History
  • The Life and Work of Howard S. Becker
  • How Psychology Defines and Explains Deviant Behavior
  • What Is Game Theory?
  • How to Tell If You've Been Unintentionally Racist
  • The Sociology of Race and Ethnicity
  • What is a Norm? Why Does it Matter?
  • What Is Social Learning Theory?
  • Why Racial Profiling Is a Bad Idea
  • The Black Codes and Why They Still Matter Today
  • Famous Sociologists
  • "Crime and Punishment"

Book cover

Handbook on Crime and Deviance pp 179–196 Cite as

Labeling Theory

  • Jón Gunnar Bernburg 6  
  • First Online: 29 August 2019

15k Accesses

27 Citations

3 Altmetric

Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

This chapter extracts a current account of the research on the labeling theory of crime. Labeling theory argues that although deviant behavior may initially stem from various causes and conditions, once individuals are labeled as deviants, especially if they are labeled by criminal justice agents (which happens disproportionally to members of disadvantaged social groups), they may experience new problems that stem from the reactions of self and others to powerful, negative stereotypes (stigma) that are attached to deviant labels. These problems in turn increase the likelihood of deviant behavior becoming stable and chronic. Critics tended to dismiss the early work on labeling theory as unscientific. But, thanks to theoretical clarity and increased availability of longitudinal data, the past few decades have witnessed an accumulation of rigorous research on the criminogenic effects of labeling. There is by now a large volume of sophisticated research indicating that criminal justice labeling tends to increase, as opposed to decrease, future criminal behavior. Moreover, a part of this research provides some support for the major theoretical mechanisms, that is, the work has found criminal labeling to influence subsequent crime by weakening social bonds, undermining opportunities, and even by spurring the development of a deviant self-concept.

  • Labeling theory
  • Deviant behavior
  • Criminal behavior
  • Social bonds

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Conflict theory argues that the powerless have restricted access to law-making and criminal justice policy, and hence their interests are often not represented in the laws, policies, and organizations that determine the labeling process (Reiman, 1995 ). Thus, deviance associated with the powerless tends to be labeled as criminal, whereas deviance associated with the powerful often escapes such stigma.

Klein ( 1986 ) reports that the treatment condition had no effect on self-reported delinquency in a follow-up survey that was conducted about nine months later on a subsample of the initial sample of offenders. However, the subsample consisted of only those subjects that participated in the follow-up survey, about 60% of the initial sample. These findings are suspect. The null-findings may be due to sampling bias in which the more serious offenders tend not to be included in the follow-up survey.

Adams, M. S., & Evans, T. D. (1996). Teacher disapproval, delinquent peers, and self-reported delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. The Urban Review, 28, 199–211.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, M. S., Johnson, J. D., & Evans, T. D. (1998). Racial differences in informal labeling effects. Deviant Behavior, 19, 157–171.

Ageton, S., & Elliott, D. (1974). The effect of legal processing on delinquent orientations. Social Problems, 22, 87–100.

Albonetti, C. A., & Hepburn, J. R. (1996). Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: The effects of defendant’s ascribed and achieved status characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 63–81.

Asencio, E. K., & Burke, P. J. (2011). Does incarceration change the criminal identity? A synthesis of labeling and identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological Perspectives, 54, 163–182.

Barrick, K. (2013). A review of prior tests of labeling theory. In: D. P. Farrington & Joseph Murray (Eds.), Labeling theory: Empirical tests (pp. 89–112). New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Google Scholar  

Bartusch, D. J., & Matsueda, R. L. (1996). Gender, reflected appraisals, and labeling: A cross-group test of an interactionist theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 75, 145–177.

Baumer, E. P., Wright, R., Kristinsdottir, K., & Gunnlaugsson, H. (2002). Crime, shame, and recidivism: The case of Iceland. The British Journal of Criminology, 42 , 40–59.

Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: Free Press.

Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57, 698–708.

Bernburg, J. G. (2003). State reaction, life-outcomes, and structural disadvantage: A panel study of the impact of formal criminal labeling on the transition to adulthood . Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University at Albany.

Bernburg, J. G. (2006). Experiencing criminal stigma: Offenders’ perceived reactions of community and self to deviant labeling . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Social Problems in Montreal, Canada.

Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41, 1287–1318.

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67–88.

Besemer, S., Farrington, D. P., & Bijleveld, C. (2013). Official bias in intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 438–455.

Bontrager, S., Bales, W., & Chiricos, T. (2005). Race, ethnicity, threat and the labeling of convicted felons. Criminology, 43, 589–622.

Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493–509.

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45, 547–581.

Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society . Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Convington, J. (1984). Insulation from labeling: Deviant defenses in treatment. Criminology, 22, 619–644.

Davis, F. (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly handicapped. Social Problems, 9, 120–132.

De Li, S. (1999). Legal sanctions and youths’ status achievement: A longitudinal study. Justice Quarterly, 16, 377–401.

Denver, M., Pickett, J. T., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). The language of stigmitization and the mark of violence: Experimental evidence of the social construction and use of criminal record stigma. Criminology, 55, 664–690.

Erikson, K. T. (1966). Wayward puritans: A study in the sociology of deviance. NY, London, Sidney: Wiley

Farrington, D. P. (1977). The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 112–125.

Farrington, D. P., Osborn, S. G., & West, D. J. (1978). The persistence of labelling effects. British Journal of Criminology, 18, 277–284.

Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 420–424.

Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence . New York: Elsmere.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goode, E. (1975). On behalf of labeling theory. Social Problems, 22, 570–583.

Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1990). The social reproduction of a criminal class in working-class London, 1950–1980. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 265–299.

Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse, 28, 660–678.

Harris, A. R. (1976). Race, commitment to deviance, and spoiled identity. American Sociological Review, 41, 432–442.

Harris, P. M., & Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 6–30.

Hay, C. (2001). An exploratory test of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 132–153.

Heimer, K., & Matsueda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: A theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 59, 365–390.

Hjalmarsson, R. (2008). Criminal justice involvement and high school completion. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 613–630.

Irwing, J. (2005). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class . Los Angeles: Roxbury Press.

Jackson, D. B., & Hay, C. (2013). The conditional impact of official labeling on subsequent delinquency: Considering the attenuating role of family attachment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 300–322.

Jensen, G. F. (1980). Labeling and identity. Criminology, 18, 121–129.

Johnson, L. M., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Criminal justice system involvement and continuity of youth crime. Youth & Society, 36, 3–29.

Kaplan, H. B., & Johnson, R. J. (1991). Negative social sanctions and juvenile delinquency: Effects of labeling in a model of deviant behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 72, 98–122.

Kaufman, J. M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Stigmatized individuals and the process of identity. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 807–833.

Kavish, D. R., Mullins, C. W., & Soto, D. A. (2016). Interactionist labeling: Formal and informal labeling’s effects on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1313–1336.

Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86, 36–62.

Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: An experimental test. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13, 47–79.

Lanctot, N., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). Delinquent behavior, official delinquency, and gender: Consequences for adulthood functioning and well-being. Criminology, 45, 131–157.

Lee, J., Courtney, M. E., Harachi, T. W., & Tajima, E. A. (2015). Labeling and the effect of adolescent outcomes for foster youth aging out of care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, 441–451.

Lee, J., Menard, S., & Bouffard, L. A. (2014). Extending interactional theory: The labeling dimension. Deviant Behavior, 35, 1–19.

Lee, J. S., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Hong, S. (2017). Effects of formal and informal deviant labels in adolescence on crime in adulthood. Social Work Research, 41 , 97–109.

Lemert, E. (1967). Human deviance, social problems and social control . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Liberman, A. M., Kirk, D., & Kim, K. (2014). Labeling effect of first juvenile arrests: Secondary deviance and secondary sanctioning. Criminology, 52 , 345–370.

Link, B. G. (1982). Mental patient status, work, and income: An examination of the effects of a psychiatric label. American Sociological Review, 47, 202–215.

Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Struening, E., Shrout, P. E., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1989). A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: An empirical assessment. American Sociological Review, 54, 400–423.

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.

Lopes, G., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A. J., Vásquez, B. E., Schmidt, N. M., & Bernburg, J. G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of official intervention on life chances and crime in emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58 (3), 456–488.

Makarios, M., Cullen, F. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Adolescent criminal behavior, population heterogeneity, and cumulative disadvantage: Untangling the relationship between adolescent delinquency and negative outcomes in emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 683–707.

Markowitz, F. E. (1998). The effects of stigma on the psychological well-being and life satisfaction of persons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 335–347.

Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisal, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577–1611.

McGrath, A. J. (2014). The subjective impact of contact with the criminal justice system: The role of gender and stigmatization. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 884–908.

Morris, R. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). For whom do sanctions deter and label? Justice Quarterly, 30, 837–868.

Murray, J., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. (2012). Parental involvement in the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft, marijuana use, depression, and poor academic performance. Criminology, 50, 255–302.

Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937–975.

Palarma, F., Cullen, F. T., & Gersten, J. C. (1986). The effect of police and mental health intervention on juvenile deviance: Specifying contingencies in the impact of formal reaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 90–105.

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.

Prosser, B. (2015). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Australia: Perspectives from the sociology of deviance. Journal of Sociology, 51, 596612.

Quillian, L., & Pager, D. (2001). Black neighbors, higher crime? The role of racial stereotypes in evaluations of neighborhood crime. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 717–767.

Ray, M. C., & Downs, W. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169–194.

Reiman, J. H. (1995). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Restivo, E., & Lanier, M. M. (2015). Measuring the contextual effects and mitigating factors of labeling theory. Justice Quartely, 32, 116–141.

Rocheleau, G. C., & Chavez, J. M. (2015). Guilt by association: The relationship between deviant peers and deviant labels. Deviant Behavior, 36, 167–186.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 133–161). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Scheff, T. H. (1966). Becoming mentally ill . Chicago: Aldine.

Schmidt, N. M., Lopes, G., Krohn, M. D., & Lizotte, A. J. (2015). Getting caught and getting hitched: An assessment of the relationship between police intervention, life changes, and romantic unions. Justice Quarterly, 32, 976–1005.

Schur, E. M. (1980). The politics of deviance: Stigma contests and the uses of power . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schwartz, R. D., & Skolnick, J. H. (1962). Two studies of legal stigma. Social Problems, 10, 133–143.

Sherman, L. W., & Smith, D. A. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57, 680–690.

Shlosberg, A., Mandery, E. J., West, V., & Callaghan, B. (2014). Expungement and post-exoneration offending. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104, 353–388.

Simmons, J. L. (1965–6). Public stereotypes of deviants. Social Problems, 13, 223–232.

Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future delinquency: Deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society Review, 24, 1109–1131.

Smith, D. A., Visher, C. A., & Davidson, L. (1984). Equity and discretionary justice: The influence of race on police arrest decisions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 234–249.

Stewart, E. A., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (2002). Beyond the interactional relationship between delinquency and parenting practices: The contribution of legal sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 36–59.

Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and community . Boston: Ginn.

Tapio, M. (2010). Untangling race and class effects on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 255–265.

Tittle, C. (1980). Labeling and crime: An empirical evaluation. In W. Gove (Ed.), The labelling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective (Vol. 2, pp. 241–263). New York: Wiley.

Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). New York: The New Press.

Tripplett, R. A., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1994). Theoretical and empirical specification of a model of informal labeling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 241–276.

Walters, G. D. (2016). Reflected appraisals and self-view in delinquency development: An analysis of retrospective accounts from members of the Racine birth cohorts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 100–107.

Ward, J. T., Krohn, M. D., & Gibson, C. L. (2013). The effects of police contact on trajectories of violence: A group-based, propensity score matching analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 440–475.

Warren, P., Tomaskovic-Devey, T., Smith, W., Zingraff, M., & Mason, M. (2006). Driving while black: Bias processes and racial disparity in police stops. Criminology, 44, 709–738.

Wiley, S. A., Carson, D. C., & Esbensen, F. (2017). Arrest and the amplification of deviance: Does gang membership moderate the relationship? Justice Quarterly, 34, 788–817.

Wiley, S. A. & Esbensen, F. (2016). The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in deviance amplification? Crime & Delinquency, 62 , 283–307.

Wiley, S. A., Slocum, L. A., & Esbensen, F. (2013). The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: An exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent delinquency. Criminology, 51, 927–965.

Winnick, T. A., & Bodkin, M. (2008). Anticipated stigma and stigma management among those to be labeled ‘ex-con’. Deviant Behavior, 29, 295–333.

Worden, R., & Shepard, R. (1996). Demeanor, crime, and police behavior: A reexamination of the police services study data. Criminology, 34, 83–106.

Zhang, L. (1994). Peers rejection as a possible consequence of official reaction to delinquency in Chinese society. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 387–402.

Zhang, L. (1997). Informal reactions and delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 129–150.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Sociology, Anthropology and Folklorist, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, 101, Iceland

Jón Gunnar Bernburg

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jón Gunnar Bernburg .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Marvin D. Krohn

Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

Nicole Hendrix

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

Gina Penly Hall

Alan J. Lizotte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Bernburg, J.G. (2019). Labeling Theory. In: Krohn, M., Hendrix, N., Penly Hall, G., Lizotte, A. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_10

Published : 29 August 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-20778-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-20779-3

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Tag: labelling

The ‘adultification’ of black children in schools.

Black children are still three times as likely than white children to be excluded from school according to a recent report by the Commission for Young Lives.

One of the main reasons for this is what the report calls the ‘adulfication’ of black children – where teachers (and other authority figures such as the police) tend to see black children as being older and less innocent than children from other ethnic minority backgrounds. This enables those in power to justify treating black children more harshly.

This recent research is relevant to the sociology of education , and especially the continued relevance of labelling theory in explaining differential exclusion rates.

Different exclusion rates

Exclusion rates saw an overall increase in the decade up to 2019, before the socially chosen reaction to the Pandemic (i.e. Lockdown which included school closures) made comparisons of such trends more difficult.

Immediately prior to the Pandemic, some types of student were much more likely to be excluded than others.

labelling case studies sociology

Depressingly not that much seems to have changed since the 1990!

Why are some children more likely to be excluded than others?

There are different reasons depending on each case, but one thing the report highlights is the ‘adultification’ of black children.

This is where authority figures such as teachers tend to see black children, both boys and girls, as more grown up and less innocent than white children. Thus they think they are more responsible for their actions and this can justify the harsher punishments they receive for deviant behaviour, such as being excluded.

The report also includes a story from a mother of a boy with Autism which documents his journey of being labelled with ‘behavioural difficulties’ in school, to being temporarily and then permanently excluded.

The boy moved to a Pupil Referral Unit, then back to mainstream education, but his mother and the school kind of lost track of him during the Pandemic somehow, he got involved with ‘the wrong friends’, possibly gang and drug connected, and ended up murdering someone before he turned 16.

in this case the mother claimed that the school system let her son down through inadequate provision for his special educational needs.

The consequences of being excluded

While it’s not a path set in stone the report notes that 60% of young people getting court orders and 60% of those in prison have been excluded from school.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean one causes the other, there are multiple factors at work in such pathways!

Commission for Young Lives (2022) All Together Now: Inclusion not exclusion: supporting all young people to succeed in school .

Share this:

  • Share on Tumblr

An Interactionist Perspective on Drug Regulation

This video with Professor David Nutt on the bizarre way in which drugs are (miss) classified and (miss) regulated in the UK seems to be coming from an Interactionist point of view :

In the video Professor Nutt discusses how authorities inappropriately label/ categories certain drugs as harmful when really they are not and then harsher than appropriate penalties follow as a result.

Firstly he reminds us that categorisation (labelling) by authorities is fundamental to the way we understand and manage drugs – for a start there are two types – drugs for medical use (legal) and then illegal drugs.

Illegal drugs are controlled and categorised by the ‘misuse of drugs act’, which Nutt describes as being made up by a group of people based on what they thought.

The act classifies drugs into categories A, B or C . Less harmful drugs are in category C while more harmful drugs are in category A.

  • Class A includes drugs such as heroine and ecstasy
  • Class B includes cannabis
  • Class C includes Steroids, for example,

Over the last 20 years politicians have got more involved in categorising drugs based on their desire to be seen as being tough on drugs and thus tough on crime, and Professor Nut believes certain drugs have been mis-categoriesed.

For example, the medical evidence suggests that Ectasy is not a particularly risky drug, but government officials have put it in category A, along with the highly addictive and really harmful heroine and cocaine.

As a result, people caught with Ecstasy receive harsher penalties than they should based on the relative harm the drug does, just because of the whim of government.

In fact they often face harsher penalties just based on the categorisation – because Judges tend to be more lenient handing out punishments to Heroine users precisely because the later is more addictive while Ectasy is not.

So we have a situation where people are being punished for using recreational drugs with little harmful consequence associated with the drug itself.

A more systematic classification system

Nutt has worked with medical experts to produce a new classification system for drugs based on nine categories of harm, outlining several different harms which drugs do, both to the individual and society.

labelling case studies sociology

There is only data for some of these measurements, but for the data that exists Alcohol comes out on top.

Alcohol is the most common reason for deaths in men under 50, for example.

If you look at the individual only, Crack Cocaine and Crystal Meth come out on top, but because alcohol is so widely used once we factor in social harms it comes out as the most harmful

Why isn’t Alcohol regulated by the misuse of drugs act?

The fact that alcohol is not harmed is a huge anomaly – and the reasons it is not controlled is political and economic – the drinks industry makes a fortune and so does the government through taxes.

Relevance to A-level Sociology

This should be a useful addition for any student studying the Crime and Deviance module.

The Scottish Exam Results: The real losers are last year’s cohort, and the next!

The Scottish Exam Results: The real losers are last year’s cohort, and the next!

Now they’ve had a day to do some basic analysis of the Scottish exam results the newspapers have had a chance to put their spin on the story – and the narrative runs something like this:

First narrative – ‘Scottish pupils have had their teacher predicted grades lowered by the qualifications authority’.

labelling case studies sociology

Second narrative: – Poor Scottish pupils have had their teacher predicted grades lowered more than rich pupils.

labelling case studies sociology

Links to both the above are at the end of this article

This makes for a great story, but I think they might be misleading. As far as I can see, this year’s National Five Scottish students have done better than they would, on average, had they sat the exams.

If you compare the previous years’ results with the teacher predicted grades you get to see how exaggerated those predictions were…..

A comparison of previous year’s results with teacher predicted grades and the actual downward-adjusted grades

labelling case studies sociology

All of the data above is from the articles linked below – NB the blue column for the least and most deprived clusters is only 2019 data, A-C pass rate, and the exam results I’m looking are the National 5s, equivalent to the English GCSE.

What’s really going on?

  • Teachers in Scotland grossly inflated the predicted grades of their pupils, by 10% compared to previous years on average.
  • They exaggerated the results of the poorest students more than for rich students (bloody left-wing teachers that is!)
  • The exam authorities modified the results downards, but the results received are still much better than the previous years, showing an improvement.
  • The poorest students have improved dramatically.

It’s highly unlikely that this bunch of students is hyper-successful compared to previous years, so thus unlikely we would have seen an increase in 10% points in the pass rate.

I think the real thing to keep in mind here is what really goes on in exams – pupils sit them, they are marked, and then stats magic is done on them so we end up with a similar amount of passes and grades distribution to the previous years – so it’s hard-wired into exams that little is going to change year on year.

That’s what we’re seeing here – the exam board adjusting to fit the results in with business as usual, but they’ve had to compromise with those optimistic teachers trying to game the system, and as a result, excuse the pun, this year’s Scottish students have done very well, especiallly the poor.

The students who should be angry are last year’s – they’ve lost out relative to this years, next year’s probably too, and those poor mugs actually had to sit their exams, and didn’t get four months off school!

This probably won’t be the way it’s spun in the media – it’s easy enough to find a few students a parents with individual axes to grind, against the overall trend of the 2020 cohort doing very nicely, thank you teachers!

The Scottish Sun

Cecile Wright: Racism in Multi-Ethnic Primary Schools

This classic ethnographic study suggests that teacher stereotypes and labelling have a negative impact on Asian and Black Caribbean students in primary schools

This classic ethnographic study of four inner city primary schools suggests that the teacher labeling of ethnic minorities leads to them having a more negative experience of school than white children.

The study took place In 1988-1989, and was published in 192. The main research methods included classroom observations and interviews with both school staff (teachers, managers and support staff) and the parents of some students.

The study involved researching almost 1000 students, 57 staff and 38 parents.

Wright’s main conclusion was that although the majority of staff seemed genuinely committed to the ideals of treating students from different ethnic background equally, in practice there was discrimination within the classroom.

This study seems to be great support for the labeling theory of education and suggests that in school factors are one of the main reasons for the underachievement of ethnic minority students.

Asians in Primary Schools

Wright found that Asian students were often excluded from classroom discussions because teachers thought they had a poor grasp of the English language. When teachers did involve Asian students they often used simplistic language.

Asian girls seemed invisible to teachers and they received less attention from teachers than other students. Teachers often showed insensitivity towards their cultural norms such as disapproving when Asian girls wanted to maintain privacy in PE when getting changed.

She cites one example when a teacher was handing out permission letters for a school trip saying to the Asian girls: ‘I suppose we’l have problems with you girls. Is it worth me giving you a letter, because your parents don’t allow you be be away from home overnight’?

Wright concluded that such stereotypical comments from teachers resulted in other students becoming hostile to Asian students and the Asian students becoming isolated.

It also led to the Asian students becoming more ambivalent towards school. For example, when the school introduced a celebration of Asian culture into the curriculum while Asian students did express some pride in having their culture recognized, they also felt concerned that this might lead to more teasing and harassment from white children.

Teachers did, however, expect Asian students to be academically successful.

Black Caribbeans in Primary Schools

Teachers expected Black Caribbean students to be poorly behaved, and they expected that they would have to be punished as a result. Teachers were also insensitive to the fact that many students would have been victims of racism.

Wright cites the example in one class of a student called Marcus who was frequently criticized for shouting out the right answers to questions, while white students were not.

Black Caribbean students received a disproportionate amount of teachers negative attention. Compared to white students whose behaviour was the same they were more likely to be:

  • sent out of the class
  • sent to the head teacher
  • have privileges removed.

Trivializing Ethnic Minority Cultures

Teachers often mispronounced words or names related to minority ethnic groups, causing white students to laugh and embarrassment to ethnic minority children. According to Wright this situation made ‘minority ethnic values and culture appear exotic, novel, unimportant, esoteric or difficult’.

Racism from White Students

Minority ethnic students also experienced racism from other students which made their life even more difficult. White children often refused to play with Asian children and frequently subjected them to name calling and threatening behavior. Both Asian and Black Caribbean children had to suffer intimidation, rejection and occasional physical assault.

Conclusions

Wright does point out that all of the above disadvantaging of ethnic minority students is unintentional. Schools and teachers do appear genuinely committed to the values of equality and celebrating multiculturalism, they’re just very bad at putting these into practice and their actions have the opposite effect!

Wright believes that some Black children are disadvantaged as a result of their negative experiences in primary school, and this holds them back at later stages of their school career.

Evaluation of the study

The study doesn’t explain why Black Caribbean are held back by negative experiences in primary school when this doesn’t seem to affect the later achievement of Asian children as badly.

The study has been critizied for portrayign ethnic minority students as the passive victims of racism. In contrast, studies by Mirza and Mac An Ghail see students as responding much more actively (and in much more diverse ways) to racism in schools.

Maybe obviously, the date! This is from the late 1980s!

Adapted from Haralambos and Holborn (2013) Sociology Themes and Perspectives, edition 8.

Cecile Wright (1992) Race Relations in the Primary School .

Are schools institutionally racist?

Some education polices such as prevent seem to be racist, and most ethnic minority students would agree!

One sociological explanation for differences in educational achievement by ethnicity is that schools are institutionally racist.

This means that the school system as a whole is racist, or that schools are organised in such a way that children from ethnic minority backgrounds are systematically disadvantaged in education compared to white children.

If schools are institutionally racist then we should find evidence of racism at all levels of school organisation – both in the way that head teachers run schools and the way in which teachers interact with pupils. We might also expect to find evidence of racism in government policies (or lack of them) and regulation.(OFSTED).

What might institutional racism in schools look like?

There are numerous places we might look to investigate whether schools are racist, for example:

  • The curriculum might be ethnocentric – the way some subjects are taught or the way the school year and holidays are organised may make children from some ethnic backgrounds not feel included.
  • We could look at school exclusion policies to see if the rules on behaviour and exclusion are biased against the cultural practices of students from particular ethnic backgrounds.
  • We might look at how effectively schools deal with issues of racism in school – do the victims get effective redress, or is racism just ignored?
  • We could look at teacher stereotypes and labelling, to see if teachers en-mass have different expectations of different ethnic groups and/ or treat pupils differently based on their ethnicity.
  • We can look at banding and streaming, to see if students from minority ethnic backgrounds are over-represented in the lower sets.

Below I summarise some recent research evidence which may suggest that schools are institutionally racist…

Exclusions by Ethnicity

More Gypsy-Roma, Traveller and Black Caribbean students are excluded from school, but this might not necessarily be evidence of racism…

Exclusion rates for Gypsy-Roma and Traveller Children

Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) children are 5 times more likely to be excluded from school than white children.

I’ve included the temporary exclusion rates below as you can see the difference (you can’t really see the difference with permanent exclusions because the percentages are too small to really show up).

labelling case studies sociology

Exclusion Rates for Black Caribbean Children

The permanent exclusion (2) rates for Black Caribbean and mixed White Black/ Caribbean are two and half times higher than for White children. The respective exclusion rates are:

  • 2.5 children per 10 000 Black Caribbean pupils
  • 2.4 children per 10 000 mixed Black Caribbean and White pupils
  • 1 child per 10 000 White pupils.

Gypsy-Roma children have the highest exclusion rates of all minority groups with 3.9 children per 10 000 pupils being permanently excluded, four times as many exclusions compared to White children.

labelling case studies sociology

Whether or not these particular ethnic minority students are being excluded because of institutional racism is open to interpretation, and is something that needs to be investigated further. There is certainly qualitative research evidence (see below) that both groups feel discriminated against in the school system.

Schools punish Black Caribbean Pupils for Hair Styles and ‘Kissing Teeth’

Campaign Group ‘No More Exclusions’ argue that schools with strict exclusion policies are unfairly punishing Black Caribbean pupils for having different cultural norms to pupils from other ethnic backgrounds.

They cite evidence of Caribbean girls having been temporarily excluded for having braids in their hair, while other students have been sanctioned for ‘kissing teeth’, a practice mostly associated with Black students.

Such exclusions are mainly being given out by Academies with strict ‘zero tolerance rules’ on student behaviour, but according to David Gilborn there is a problem of discrimination when black Caribbean students are being disproportionately sanctioned as a result.

In defense of this policy, Katharine Birbalsingh, head of Michaela Community School in London, which enforces very strict rules on behaviour, argues that we should expect the same standards of behaviour from all students, and that Black students know that ‘kissing teeth’ is rude, and so should be punished for it.

Another problem is that if you dig down deeper into the data and look at the overall statistics on reasons for exclusion by ethnicity we find that White pupils are more likely to be excluded for ‘persistent disruptive behaviour’ and Black students for more the more serious sounding ‘assault against a pupil’ which suggests maybe that schools are being harsher on White pupils, so this may not be sound evidence of Institutional Racism!

Source: The Independent (no date provided, just lots of adverts, but it must be from late 2019 as it links back to a previous article from October 2019. )

Racist Incidents In Schools Are Mainly Dealt with by Fixed Period Exclusions

According to a recent Guardian article (September 2019), Hate Crimes in schools rose 120% between the years 2015 and 2018. There were 1987 hate crimes recorded by the police in 2018, of which 70% were recorded as being racist. This means that approximately 1500 racist incidents occurred in schools which were deemed serious enough to warrant police involvement.

Now this won’t be all hate crimes going on in school. Adult hate crimes only have a 40% reporting rate , and this might be lower for crimes against children given the increased levels of vulnerability, naivety and anxiety .

Schools handed out 4500 fixed term exclusions for racist abuse in 2017/18, but only 13 permanent exclusions.

labelling case studies sociology

If the under-reporting rate is similar for children as it is for adults and if most of these racist crimes aren’t ‘very serious’ then it seems that schools are doing a pretty good job at dealing with Racism, even if they are not always involving the police. This certainly seems to be backed up by the case study below…

Case Study 1: How One School Dealt with its problem of racism:

Some pupils do experience racist abuse from other pupils. One example is the case study of eight year old Nai’m , a boy who moved to from Bermuda to Britain with his mother in 2017, who was a victim of at least five racist incidents in a year. (article link from January 2020)/

His mother was contacted by the school when one student, apparently his friend, called him a ‘black midget’. Another pupil told Niam’h that his parents had told him he wasn’t allowed to talk to black or brown people. Niam’h plays football for his local professional club and says a lot of racist name calling occurs on the football field.

Besides Niam’h being a victim staff at the school where this incident happened (The Lawrence Community Trust Primary School) had also overheard racist comments from other students – such as ‘go back to your own country’ being directed at ethnic minority students and discussion about skin colour between students.

The school seems to have taken measures to address this problem with some of the racist attitudes being verbalized by some students by taking the following actions:

  • they seem to have excluded at least one student
  • they encouraged Niam’h to give a special assembly on Bermuda
  • They called in Anthony Walker Charity to deliver a presentation to students on Racism

The A-C Economy

David Gilborn (2002) argues that schools are institutionally racist because teachers interpret banding and streaming policy in a way that disadvantages black pupils.

Gilborn and Youdell (1999) argued that Marketisation policies have created what they call an A-C economy: schools are mainly interested in boosting their A-C rates and so perform a process of educational-triage when they put students into ability groups.

Those who are judged (by teachers) to be able to get a C and above get into the higher sets and are taught properly and pushed to get a C, but some students are labelled as no-hopers and get put in the bottom or bottom sets and written off.

Gilborn and Youdell noted that Black Caribbean children were more likely to be labelled as ‘no-hopers by teachers and were overrepresented in the lower sets, thus this kind of labelling is linked to institutional practice and wider policy thus it is institutional racism.

Racism in Education Policy?

David Giborn has argued that education policies in England and Wales have done little to combat racism over the last several decades. He argues that education policy has never successfully celebrated multiculturalism and that ever since the London Bombings of 2005 there has been an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the way schools are required to teach British Values.

PREVENT policy certainly seems to have been interpreted in way that is discriminatory against Muslims. 95% of pupils referred under PREVENT are Muslim despite the fact that there have been more problems with racism and extremism from White people following Brexit.

Schools DO NOT have to report Racist Incidents

Schools are not required to report cases of bullying or racial abuse to their Local Education Authorities, only to their governing bodies. Some LEAs insist that governing bodies send them the data but some do not, meaning we have incomplete data on racial incidents in schools.

This implies that the Tory government (this no-reporting requirement was introduced in 2010) isn’t interested in even knowing whether racism in schools is a problem or not.

The available data (1) shows us that 60 000 racial incidents were reported in the five years between 2016-2020 but that information had to be collected through a Freedom of Information Request and will not included all of the racist incidents in schools during that period.

Student Perception of Racism in Schools

70% of Black students report having experienced racism in school, according to a YMCA poll of 550 students in 2020 (3)

The report is depressing reading with Black students reporting being called racial names such as ‘monkey’ and being criticised because of having untidy ‘Afro’ hairstyles.

The report also noted a resigned acceptance of the fact that schools were just institutionally racist.

Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children feel excluded from mainstream education

Professor Kalwant Bhopal has conducted research with GRT children and found that they don’t feel represented in the school curriculum: parents believed that their histories were not adequately represented, and were uncomfortable with sex education being done in school, as this was something usually done within the family in their culture. In short, it sounds as if they are experiencing the mainstream school curriculum as being ethnocentric.

Parents and pupils also claimed that they had experienced racism from both children and teachers within schools, however, when they reported incidents of racism this tended not to be taken seriously as they were white.

Conclusion: Are schools ‘institutionally racist’?

There is a considerable amount of evidence suggesting that institutional racism does exist in schools today, starting with some overtly discrimantory policies such as PREVENT and the failure of government to even collect data on racist incidents.

The strongest evidence lies in student perceptions of racism, with over 70% of Black British students feeling as if they are discriminated against in education.

Signposting

This material is mainly relevant to the sociology of education , usually taught in the first year of A-level Sociology.

Institutional Racism is one ‘in-school factor’ covered in more depth in this post: In school factors and institutional racism .

Other in-school factors include teacher labelling and pupil subcultures, neither of which are necessarily indicators of racism existing in school at an institutional level!

To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com

Sources, find out more

  • Anthony Walker Foundation (Resources)
  • Worth a follow: https://twitter.com/Muna_Abdi_Phd
  • (1) The Guardian (2021) UK schools report more than 60 000 racist incidents in five years .
  • (2) GOV UK (Accessed January 2023) Permanent Exclusions .
  • (3) The Guardian (2020) Most Black British Children Report Experiencing Racism at School .

Moral Panics and the Media

A moral panic is an exaggerated outburst of public concern over the morality or behaviour of a group in society.

Moral Panic Theory is strongly related to labelling theory , in fact moral panic theory is really labelling theory applied to the media – instead of the agent of social control doing the labelling, it is the media.

Two related key terms include folk devils and deviancy amplification

A folk devil is the subject of a moral panic – the group who the media is focussing on, the group who is being targeted for exaggerated reporting.

Deviancy Amplification is one of the alleged consequences of a moral panic – it is where a group becomes more deviant as a result of media exaggeration of their deviance. It is very similar to the Self Fulfilling Prophecy.

As with just about anything in life, all of this is much easier to understand with an example:

labelling case studies sociology

Stan Cohen’s (1972) study of the Mods and Rockers

Stan Cohen’s (1972) first developed the concept of the ‘moral panic’ in his study of the relationship between the media and the Mods and Rockers in the 1960s.

The Mods and Rockers were two working class youth subcultures, the mods famously riding scooters and dressing in smart clothes such as suits, and the rockers riding larger motorbikes and dressing in leathers.

These were also two of the first youth subcultures in consumer society, and initially they existed peacefully side by side – they were really just about style and music and the members of each were primarily concerned with having a good time.

However, during one bank holiday weekend in Clacton in 1964, where both mods and rockers visited to party, there were some minor acts of Vandalism and some violence between the two groups, this then led to the media turning up at the next big Bank Holiday weekend in Brighton (also 1964) ‘ready’ to report on any disturbances.

Once again at Brighton there was also some minor vandalism and violence between the mods and rockers, but this time the media were present and produced (according to Cohen) some extremely exaggerated reports about the extent of the violence between the two groups.

This had the effect of generating concern among the general public and the police then responded to this increased public fear and perceived threat to social order by policing future mods and rockers events more heavily and being more likely to arrest youths from either subculture for deviant behaviour (whether violent or not).

A further consequence of the exaggerated media reporting was that the mods and rockers came to see themselves as opposed to each other, something which hadn’t been the case before the media exaggeration.

Some further examples of moral panics

There have been several examples of issues which might be regarded as Moral Panics:

  • Inner city mugging by black youths, as outlined by Stuart Hall in Policing the Crisis
  • Punks and Skinheads
  • Football Hooligans
  • Islamic Terrorists
  • Benefit Culture

NB all of the above examples are only ‘possible’ examples of moral panics, see criticisms below.

Criticisms of moral panic theory

  • Cohen’s formulation of moral panic theory assumes that the audience are passive, but audiences today are much more active and able to critically evaluate media content, which means moral panics are less likely.
  • Thornton (1995) found that the media failed to generate a moral panic over rave culture, mainly because youth culture had become mainstream by that point, as had the taking of drugs such as ecstasy.
  • There are various reasons my ‘panics’ may not occur even if the media exaggerate the deviance of some groups – the media also exaggerate the police’s ability to deal with deviance and exaggerated reporting of deviance is so common these days that people are just desensitized to its effects.
  • Finally, some concerns which some may call moral panics may be legitimate – such as concerns over child abuse or rising knife crime today.

Jailing Drill Musicians – justified, or a moral panic?

Jailing Drill Musicians – justified, or a moral panic?

In January two ‘drill’ musicians from the Brixton group 410 were effectively jailed for playing a particular song: ‘Attempted 1.0’. Two artists from the group, Skengdo and AM, both received 9-month suspended sentences for performing this song.

Here it is with lyrics:

It’s still up as of 20th Feb…. I don’t how much longer it will remain up, but while it does it’ll give you a pretty good idea of what the authorities may have deemed to offensive: the strap-line for a start… ‘attempted… should’ve been a murder’ and then all the various references to guns and people getting knifed.

The problem is, by performing this song 410 weren’t technically engaged in an illegal act. The laws preventing inciting of violence only apply to specific acts, and this is not the case with this song.

The two artists were actually found guilty of breaking a criminal behaviour order (CB0) that had forbidden them from mentioning death, injury or rival drill crews in their songs. The nine-month suspended sentence is for breaking the CBO not inciting violence, which they weren’t technically doing by performing their song.

The authorities have criminalised this non-criminal act for these particular artists.

Relevance to A-level sociology

This is a good example of a ‘ right realist ’ policy in action – In fairness to the authorities, there has been a recent increase in knife crime, and this is all part of the response to that. I imagine most of the public would agree with this harsh treatment.

And it’s fair to say that some Drill songs which have been put up on YouTube do have specific references to gang’s ‘score cards’ and specific knife and gun and attacks. So there is a real basis for all of this it’s not just hyperreal. 

Moral Panic Drill.png

However, it also relates to the labelling theory of crime – here we have a legal act (performing a song) which is turned into an illegal act for this specific band by the actions of the authorities. Maybe this is an unnecessary moral panic about this form of artistic expression?

What ‘blaming Drill’ for the increase in knife crime fails to take account of is all of other underlying factors which result in inner city violence – such as funding cuts, relative deprivation, poverty, and structural inequalities which stretch back to the 1980s. 

This is also a new development in the censorship of particular cultural forms: using ASBOs to effectively restrict certain forms of freedom of speech. What’s next I wonder:

– Banning violent video games? – Preventing campaigners discuss poverty and inequality? – or climate change?

It’s highly unlikely that Criminal Behaviour Orders are going to be used to stop people spreading Fake News or Politicians lying to us.

The Guardian

Vice – A nice article on the moral panic over Drill. 

The legalisation of Pot in California

Sociological perspectives on the legalization of marijuana in California and other states

The legalisation of Pot in California

California has become (in January 2018) the 6th state in America to legalize the sale of marijuana for recreational use , following a 2016 referendum of Californian residents.

legalisation pot

This has clearly been a popular change in the law for some: In Berkeley, queues of people snaked around the block from 6 a.m. (odd time to be buying weed?) to late into the evening as one the first dispensaries to open struggled to cope with demand, suggesting that there are eventually going to be many licensed venues selling legal weed.

However, there are those that are opposed to the legalization of marijuana movement, the most powerful being the entire Trump administration , who are looking for ways to derail those 6 states which have legalized the drug.

Pot in California in 2023

Eight years on from the legalisation of pot in California it seems that the impact has been minimal .

An estimated 90% of weed related business is still illegal, rather than legal. This is is because the regulations for legal growers are too complex and taxes are so high it is hard to make a profit for small businesses.

Small businesses find themselves unable to compete with large legal corporations and illegal drugs cartels.

Many small legal growers still trade in unlicensed illegal pot as a result.

Comments/m relevance to A level Sociology

This material is mainly relevant to the Crime and Deviance module.

This whole issue is a great example of how ‘ crime is socially constructed ‘ – you can quite literally hope over from California into the state of Arizona while smoking a joint and tada: you’re a criminal!

Given the situation in 2023 this also shows how changing the law can make very little difference to an already established illegal market. It demonstrates the limited capacity of social policy to make social changes.

From a Functionalist point of view, it might be worth thinking about whether this is happening as a sort of ‘safety valve’ mechanism – there’s so much strain in America, and so many people already using drugs to cope with it, we may as well legalise it because it’s easier for the system to cope with it, and focus more on the ‘real criminals’.

Playing the SENCO Game…

Playing the SENCO Game…

According to the latest Department for Education data, the number of pupils receiving extra time in exams in England and Wales has increased by 35.8% since 2013/14.

However, at the same time there has been a 20.4% decrease in pupils identified as having Special Education Needs.

This represents a real terms 4 year increase of 51.2% of pupils receiving extra time, relative to those pupils identified as SEN (which should give us an indication of the underlying ‘pool’ of pupils who are potentially eligible for extra time.

Here’s the statistics (full sources below)

SEN pupils

So what’s going on here? How do we explain this?

This Telegraph article points to the fact that a disproportionate amount of the increase in pupils receiving extra time is driven by kids ( or rather parents ) in Independent schools…they are twice as likely to receive extra time as kids in state funded schools.

This alone has to push you towards a combination of cultural capital theory and labelling theory in explaining what’s going on here – it’s extremely unlikely that kids in Independent schools have objectively (i.e. really) suddenly become more in need of extra time, relative to kids in state schools – and as the article alludes to, it’s probably down to middle class parents getting their kids assessed for extra time (and maybe those kids gaming the system?)

NB – the number of kids in state schools receiving extra time in exams has also increased, but not as fast as those in independent schools. (Might be interesting to subject this to regional analysis to see if it’s linked to income?)

VERY INTERESTINGLY, if you dig into the Access Arrangements data below, this aspect of the data doesn’t exist from the DFES (I assume it did once, otherwise said article wouldn’t have been written)

As to the increasing number of kids receiving extra time AT THE SAME TIME AS A DECREASE IN KIDS WITH SEN – this might reflect a polarisation – i.e. objectively there are fewer kids with ‘more serious’ SEN that require such exam concessions, but overall there are fewer kids with any SEN…

HOWEVER, once you dig even deeper into the stats below, what do you find…

Statemented kids are on the increase within state funded schools (where you get Pupil Premium for taking on statemented kids), while non statemented SEN kids are on the decrease (which you don’t get funding for, but you have to spend school resources on to keep OFSTED happy)

Compared to Independent schools – Statemented kids are on the decrease, while non-statemented kids are on the increase – and how do we explain the difference – these schools don’t get extra money for taking on statemented SEN kids like state schools, while they can get their kids extra time by doing their own ‘in-house’ SEN assessment.

NB – this is only one possible interpretation, and I’m prepared to stand corrected if anyone wants to pull me up on my less than perfect understanding of SEN funding and access arrangement policy!

Sources of Data

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/special-educational-needs-in-england-january-2017

Access Arrangements

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/access-arrangements-for-gcse-and-a-level-2016-to-2017-academic-year

Telegraph Article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/11/30/one-six-children-now-given-extra-time-public-exams-official/

Will Britain ever have a Black Prime minister?

Will Britain Ever Have a Black Prime Minister? aired on the BBC IN 2017, which looked at the relative average life chances of a Black British child progressing through life… NB Thank you kindly to whoever uploaded this to You Tube (it won’t be there forever, the BBC have unjustly removed this from iPlayer already)

In the summary below I focus on some of the educational disadvantages black children face highlighted by the programme…

Teachers mark black children’s test scores more harshly than other ethnic groups

teacher racism evidence

For in-school test scores, the scores for black British students are consistently lower throughout schooling, until we get to the actual GCSE Results, when the scores of Black British students increase dramatically, with Black African students actually overtaking white British students.

The suggested explanation for this is that in school tests are marked by teachers who know their students and thus know their ethnicity, and that they have an unconscious bias against black students, and thus mark their test scores at a lower level, while GCSEs are marked independently – the markers do not know the students who sat them, and thus do not know their ethnicity: when the tests are marked in a neutral, unbiased way, the scores of black and white pupils are much closer together.

This is backed up by research conducted by Professor  Simon Burgess which compared the results of test scores marked by teachers who knew the students sitting the tests (and hence their ethnicity) with the results of tests marked independently, where the markers did not know the ethnicity of the students who sat the tests: the results for some ethnic groups were lower when the teachers knew the ethnicity of the candidates, suggesting that there is an unconscious bias against certain ethnic groups.

A link to Professor Burgess’ (2009) research

This seems to be pretty damning evidence that teachers hold an unconscious bias against black students

Black students are less likely to get three As at A level than white students

Here we are told that….

  • Only 4% of black children get 3 As or more at A level, compared to…
  • 10% of white pupils
  • 28% of independent school pupils, who are disproportionately white.
  • In fact, the programme points out that you are more likely to be excluded from school if you are black than achieve 3 As at A-level

This seems to be less an example of evidence against black students, rather than evidence of the class-bias in A level results.

The Chances of being admitted to Oxford University are lower for black students compared to white students

The programme visits Oxford University, because every single Prime Minister (who has been to university) since 1937 has attended this bastion of privilege.

We are told that black applicants are less likely to be accepted into Oxford University than White students, even when they have the same 3 As as white students.

In an interview with Cameron Alexander, the then president of the African students union, he comes out and says that Oxford University is ‘institutionally racist’ and that structural factors explain the under-representation of black students – he points out the dominant culture of Oxford University is on of elite, white privilege, one in which staff identify more with independently schooled children, who have benefitted from the advantages of huge amounts of material and cultural capital; while they fail to identify with the hardships a black child from an inner city area may have faced – the result is that privileged white student has a higher change of being accepted into Oxford than a black student, even when they have the same grades as a the privileged white student.

As with the example of test scores above, at first glance this evidence seems damning, however, Oxford University has previously explained this by saying that black students have a higher rejection rate because they apply for harder courses on average than white students.

So what are the chances of a black person ever becoming Prime Minister…?

In short, a black person has a 17 million to 1 chance of becoming Prime Minister, compared to a 1 in 1.4 million chance for a white person…

black prime minister chances

Or in short… a black person is 12 times less likely to become Prime Minister in the U.K. compared to a white person…

life chances ethnicity

Postscript…

Unfortunately this programme has already disappeared from iPlayer, despite the fact that anyone in Britain with a T.V. has already paid for it, which is just bang out of order.

queriesforstudyingsociology@gmail.com

[email protected]

Getting the A*

Teacher stereotyping, pupil identities and the halo effect – Education

Teacher stereotyping, pupil identities and the halo effect .

Teacher’s impact on students and their success cannot go unnoticed. They can have an impact, both positive and negative on pupil’s self-concepts, identity and success. One of the many ways teachers do this is labelling. 

Labelling is a process of classification and is related to many different areas, some of them mentioned above. The process of the Halo effect is where teachers label students (stereotype based on expectations. This view is mostly simplified and generalised. An example of this would be whereby a student who is labelled as smart and bright and the result of this process means they would get more support and have a better chance of succeeding. 

Waterhouse (2004), used case studies assessing four primary and secondary schools. He suggests that teacher labelling of pupils as either normal/ average or deviant types, as a result of impressions formed over time, has implications for the way teachers interact with pupils.

When these labels are applied they become ‘pivotal identities’ for students, which means they act as a tool for interpreting events and student behaviour. 

For example, a student who has the pivotal identity of ‘normal’ is likely to have an episode of deviant behaviour interpreted as unusual, or as a ‘temporary phase’ – something which will shortly end, thus requiring no significant action to be taken; whereas as a student who has the pivotal identity of ‘deviant’ will have periods of ‘good behaviour’ treated as unusual, something which is not expected to last, and thus not worthy of recognition. This runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby students believe the labels and as such act accordingly. 

Becker (1971), discovered that teachers evaluate students according to how closely they fit the idea of an ‘ideal student’. Hempel-Jorgensen (2009), added qualities to the ‘ideal student’ such as hard work, concentrating and listening etc. Read the full paper here to use in your 20 or 16 markers. The concept of labelling and its importance is supported by Becker (1971), Rist (1970), Cicourel and Kitsuse (1971), Keddie (1971), Hargreaves (1976), Hestor and Mellor (1975) adding credence to the notion that teachers directly affect student progress and identity. Becker (1971) and Rist (1970), concluded through their research that social class was that most important factor that influenced teachers in labelling. This is based on the idea that the way children not just act, but dress, speak etc all shape identity and however far from the normality line that identity is, results in the label. 

Harvey and Slatin (1975) discovered that teachers labelled students who were white and middle-class were more likely to succeed. Non-white, middle-class students were labelled as being more likely to fail. 

Gillborne (2011) developed Harvey and Slatin’s research adding that teachers offered fewer opportunities to these “lesser” individuals. 

Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) 

They researched the self-fulfilling prophecy in an elementary school in California using a random sample of 20% from the student population. 

A classic study which supports the self-fulfilling prophecy theory was Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study of an elementary school in California. They selected a random sample of 20% of the student population and informed teachers that these students could be expected to achieve rapid intellectual development. They misinformed teachers stating that certain students who sat an IQ test were smarter than the rest of the class. These students were in fact randomly selected and were not. When Rosenthal and Jacobson returned after some time, the group which was identified as the ‘Spurter’ group (the smarter ones) made 20% more progress than the others, as they were labelled as having more potential. 

Hartley and Sutton (2011), suggests that gender, parents, media and a whole other range of external factors also influence students and have the possibility of leading to the self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Criticisms of the labelling theory of education

  • Negative labelling does not always result in bad consequences. Fuller (1984) proved that it can lead to positive consequences as students changed their work ethic and worked harder. This suggests that the research above is not 100% correct. 
  • Labelling theory emphasises the impact of teachers whereas other labelling sources have equal importance e.g. school, parents, Ofsted etc.
  • The labelling theory generalises too much as it includes all teachers, whereas this is not the case and nor is there any evidence to support otherwise. ​

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

' src=

  • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
  • Subscribe Subscribed
  • Copy shortlink
  • Report this content
  • View post in Reader
  • Manage subscriptions
  • Collapse this bar

Library homepage

  • school Campus Bookshelves
  • menu_book Bookshelves
  • perm_media Learning Objects
  • login Login
  • how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
  • hub Instructor Commons
  • Download Page (PDF)
  • Download Full Book (PDF)
  • Periodic Table
  • Physics Constants
  • Scientific Calculator
  • Reference & Cite
  • Tools expand_more
  • Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Social Sci LibreTexts

13.6A: Ray Rist’s Research

  • Last updated
  • Save as PDF
  • Page ID 8378

Ray Rist, a sociologist, found that social class contributed to the perceptions of teachers and was a predictor of scholastic success.

Learning Objectives

  • Examine the relationship between social class and academic achievement
  • In 1970, Ray Rist published a study on the relationship between the socioeconomic status of children and their educational evaluation.
  • In his study, Rist observed how a classroom teacher placed her students in three learning groups. The “fast learners” were grouped at the front of the class, while the “slow learners” sat at the back.
  • Interestingly, Rist noticed that social class was a predictor of placement. Middle class students made up the group of “fast learners,” while lower class students made up the other two groups.
  • From his data, Rist concluded that each child’s journey through school was determined by the eighth day of kindergarten. The labels given to these children by their kindergarten teacher set them on a course of action that could possibly affect the rest of their lives.
  • self-fulfilling prophecy : a prediction that, by being voiced, causes itself to come true
  • Ray Rist : a sociologist who, in 1970, published a study on the how the socioeconomic statuses of school children could affect their educations

Ray Ristwas a sociologist who, in 1970, published a report linking the socioeconomic status of children to their educational achievement. Through observations of classrooms, Rist demonstrated that a student’s socioeconomic status affected how teachers perceived that student’s aptitude at very early ages. These early perceptions came to inform how the students viewed themselves, and had impacts on their eventual educational success.

Social Class and Academic Success

Although public schools are free and open to all children, there are still educational setbacks for children of a lower social class. In his 1970 article, “ Student Social Class and Teachers’ Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Ghetto Education, “ Ray Rist observed an African American classroom with an African American teacher. He discovered that after only eight days in the classroom, the teacher felt that she knew her students’ abilities well enough to assign them to separate worktables. To Table One, she assigned those she considered “fast learners.” These students sat at the front of the class, closest to her. “Average” students were placed at Table Two, and the “slow learners” were placed at Table Three in the back of the classroom.

Interestingly, Rist found that social class was the underlying basis for assigning the children to the different tables. Middle class students were placed at Table One, while children from poorer homes were placed at the other two tables. During class, the teacher paid the most attention to the children closest to her, less to Table Two, and least to Table Three. As the year went on, the children at Table One perceived that they were treated better and started viewing themselves as smarter than their peers. They emerged as leaders in class activities and even ridiculed the children at the other tables, calling them “dumb.” Eventually, the children at Table Three stopped participating in classroom activities. By the end of the year, the only children who were satisfactorily completing the daily lessons were those at Table One.

The Eighth Day of Kindergarten

Following the initial year, Rist continued to observe this group of students as they advanced in school. The children’s reputations followed them into second grade, where another teacher reviewed their scores and also divided her class into three groups, the “Tigers,” “Cardinals,” and “Clowns.” These groups were constituted the exact same way, and with the exact same breakdown, as Tables One, Two, and Three. From this research, Rist made the startling conclusion that each child’s journey through school was determined by the eighth day of kindergarten. According to Rist, the labels given to children by their kindergarten teachers set them on a course of action that could possibly affect the rest of their lives.

image

IMAGES

  1. Sociology

    labelling case studies sociology

  2. Sociology: Education

    labelling case studies sociology

  3. Sociology Lesson 1 Labelling Theory

    labelling case studies sociology

  4. labelling case studies sociology

    labelling case studies sociology

  5. labelling case studies sociology

    labelling case studies sociology

  6. LABELLING THEORY & Education (Sociology)

    labelling case studies sociology

VIDEO

  1. Print and Apply Label Applicator

  2. Labelling Theory

  3. AQA A-Level Sociology

  4. Master in Applied Sociological Research

  5. Know Your Key Terms: Case Studies

  6. Master in Applied Sociological Research

COMMENTS

  1. Teacher Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy

    Elaboration Stabilisation In the first stage, that of speculation, the teachers make guesses about the types of student they are dealing with. The researchers noted that there were seven main criteria teachers used to type students: their appearance how far they conformed to discipline their ability and enthusiasm for work how likeable they were

  2. Labeling Theory of Deviance in Sociology: Definitions & Examples

    Labeling theory is an approach in the sociology of deviance that focuses on the ways in which the agents of social control attach stigmatizing stereotypes to particular groups, and the ways in which the stigmatized change their behavior once labeled.

  3. Formal Labeling, Deviant Peers, and Race/Ethnicity: An Examination of

    Volume 10, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717727122 PDF / ePub More Abstract The present study examines racial and ethnic variation in the intervening effects of deviant peers on the relationship between receiving a formal label and subsequent deviance.

  4. Labelling Theory

    Share : Howard Becker (1963): his key statement about labelling is: "Deviancy is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an 'offender'. Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.".

  5. Labelling and Deviance: A Case Study in the "Sociology of the

    Discussion begins with a review of three major concerns of the labelling perspective in deviance: (1) locating the social origins of stigmatic labels; (2) documenting the application of these labels to selected populations; and (3) assessing the consequences of the labelling process for the recipients' future conduct.

  6. The Labelling Theory of Crime

    The labelling Theory of Crime is associated with Interactionism - the Key ideas are that crime is socially constructed, agents of social control label the powerless as deviant and criminal based on stereotypical assumptions and this creates effects such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, the criminal career and deviancy amplification.

  7. Labeling Theory and Life Stories of Juvenile Delinquents Transitioning

    Labeling theory contends that an acquisition of a criminal status can be very problematic for offenders navigating into adulthood. This article examines this assertion with the life story of 23 juvenile delinquents.

  8. PDF Labelling and Deviance: A Case Study in the 'Sociology of the ...

    the consequences of the labelling process for the recipients' future conduct. It is suggested that the latter concern is the most dramatic aspect of the labelling per-spective. Two assumptions accompanying this version of the labelling argument are reviewed: (1) other's reaction to subject intensifies subject's behavior; and

  9. Labeling theory

    labeling theory, in criminology, a theory stemming from a sociological perspective known as "symbolic interactionism," a school of thought based on the ideas of George Herbert Mead, John Dewey, W.I. Thomas, Charles Horton Cooley, and Herbert Blumer, among others.The first as well as one of the most prominent labeling theorists was Howard Becker, who published his groundbreaking work ...

  10. Labelling and Deviance: A Case Study in the "Sociology of the

    A longitudinal analysis of the impact of formal intervention on juvenile delinquency/deviance was undertaken and it was concluded that it would be premature to discard the labeling perspective as an etiological theory of deviant/criminal behavior. T. PrattJ. Turanovic 劉梅君Mei-chun Liu This paper is an empiricasl study on social control of crime.

  11. Labeling Theory

    Labeling theory carried the logic of conflict sociology to its logical term by not only asserting that social groups created deviance in making the rules that defined it but also by concluding that deviance was not a quality of the act a person commits but a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to a labeled 'offender' ...

  12. An Overview of Labeling Theory

    The Origins of Labeling Theory . The idea of labeling theory flourished in American sociology during the 1960s, thanks in large part to sociologist Howard Becker.However, its core ideas can be traced back to the work of founding French sociologist Emile Durkheim.American sociologist George Herbert Mead's theory framing social construction of the self as a process involving interactions with ...

  13. (PDF) Labeling Theory

    Labeling Theory DOI: Authors: Jón Gunnar Bernburg University of Iceland Abstract Labeling theory provides a distinctively sociological approach that focuses on the role of social labeling in...

  14. PDF Labelling, Deviance and Media

    OVERVIEW Labelling theory is a perspective that emerged as a distinctive approach to criminology during the 1960s, and was a major seedbed of the radical and critical perspectives that became prominent in the 1970s.

  15. Labelling, Deviance, and Media

    Labelling, Media, and Moral Panics. The successful labelling of a particular situation or set of conditions as deviant and in need of amelioration can, in the extreme, result in "moral panic.". The term was first used by Young ( 1971) in his study of subcultures and drugtaking.

  16. Labeling Theory

    Different authors have specified different processes by which labeling may influence subsequent deviant behavior. If the early theoretical statements were often vague on this point (Goode, 1975), in recent times scholars have clarified these processes.This section discusses the main criminogenic processes posited by contemporary labeling theory, namely, (1) the development of a deviant self ...

  17. Labelers and Labelees: Drug Abusers and the Labeling Perspective

    Since drug abuse or, in some instances, mere drug use is generally considered to be an activity to which the sociology of deviance addresses itself, this paper examines some of the basic tenets of the labeling approach, some criticisms of the approach, and the approach's applicability or inapplicability in "explaining" a deviant activity such as...

  18. (PDF) Labelling and Inclusive Education

    Abstract. The use of labels in inclusive education is a complex issue. Some have argued that labels are a necessary evil in the allocation of limited resources in order to support children with ...

  19. labelling

    Case Study 1: How One School Dealt with its problem of racism: Some pupils do experience racist abuse from other pupils. One example is the case study of eight year old Nai'm , a boy who moved to from Bermuda to Britain with his mother in 2017, who was a victim of at least five racist incidents in a year.

  20. Interactionist Labeling: Formal and Informal Labeling's Effects on

    Prior labeling theory analyses have tested only a limited number of labeling types, but this "interactionist labeling" model incorporates formal labels and multiple informal labels. These different types of labels, based on prior labeling literature, should then either directly or indirectly influence individual levels of delinquency.

  21. Developing an ambivalence perspective on medical labelling in education

    International Studies in Sociology of Education Volume 17, 2007 - Issue 1 ... Developing an ambivalence perspective on medical labelling in education: case dyslexia Full Article; Figures & data; ... and on how the labelling process is socially structured. Empirically, the article is based on four studies in Scandinavia of the construction of ...

  22. Education

    Research: Waterhouse (2004), used case studies assessing four primary and secondary schools. He suggests that teacher labelling of pupils as either normal/ average or deviant types, as a result of impressions formed over time, has implications for the way teachers interact with pupils.

  23. 13.6A: Ray Rist's Research

    According to Rist, the labels given to children by their kindergarten teachers set them on a course of action that could possibly affect the rest of their lives. Students with teacher: Rist's research showed that teachers judge their students' abilities after only eight days in the classroom. 13.6A: Ray Rist's Research is shared under a ...