Assess labelling theory and SFP as explanations for CASB (8 marks)
Labelling theory suggests that crime and antisocial behaviour (CASB) develops as a result of
labels that are given to individuals, e.g. a teenager wearing a hoodie may be labelled as a
criminal. Labelling can lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy (or the Pygmalion effect), which is
where an individual internalises a stereotype according to that stereotype. There are
different stages in this process: the first is when the person is labelled, therefore treated
based on that label, which results in the individual acting accordingly to that label. For
example, a student is labelled as a “trouble-maker” and the teacher treats them differently,
resulting in that student acting naughty. One strength of labelling theory and SFP as an
explanation for CASB is that Rosenthal and Jacobson found that pupils labelled as “spurters”
by an IQ test significantly improved in their next performance compared to those who were
not labelled as “spurters”. Therefore supporting the idea that teachers’ labels and
expectations can cause SFP in terms of students’ performance, and therefore if someone is
labelled as a ‘criminal’ or ‘antisocial’, they may also live up to that label. However, a
weakness of labelling theory and SFP as an explanation of CASB is that much research has
taken place in the context of education, these findings support the idea that labels regarding
criminal behaviour will have the same effect of behaviour.
Labelling may be based on stereotypes, which are overgeneralised beliefs of particular
groups of people, based on limited information, e.g. Muslims may be labelled as terrorists.
Sometimes labelling can become so powerful and negative that they become stigmas.
Stigmas are when society has extreme disapproval of a person/group, which may affect
someone’s self concept. Self concept is someone’s idea of themselves, formed by their
beliefs about themselves and the responses of others to them. One strength of labelling
theory and SFP as an explanation for CASB is that Jahoda found that the Ashanti people’s
expectations about boys born on a Monday being quiet and boys born on a Wednesday
being aggressive were associated with changes in behaviour as nearly 22% of violent crimes
were committed by boys born on a Wednesday, but only 6.9% by boys born on a Monday.
This supports the idea that CASB can be explained through labelling theory and SFP as the
boys conformed to the labels of having Monday or Wednesday personalities. However, a
weakness of labelling theory and SFP as an explanation for CASB is that it fails to explain
how biological factors may explain CASB. CASB could be a result of these individuals
having the warrior gene or high levels of testosterone, which could result in CASB.
To conclude, labelling theory and SFP are good explanations for CASB, as it is supported by
research conducted by Rosenthal & Jacobson, Jahoda, and Madon. All studies have
ecological validity since the participants’ behaviour were all real-life behaviour that occurred
in school or everyday life, meaning there is strong evidence to support labelling theory and
SFP as an explanation for CASB. However, it may be seen as reductionist as it fails to
explain interactions between social and biological factors that may influence an individual’s
criminal behaviour.
Labelling theory suggests that crime and antisocial behaviour (CASB) develops as a result of
labels that are given to individuals, e.g. a teenager wearing a hoodie may be labelled as a
criminal. Labelling can lead to the self-fulfilling prophecy (or the Pygmalion effect), which is
where an individual internalises a stereotype according to that stereotype. There are
different stages in this process: the first is when the person is labelled, therefore treated
based on that label, which results in the individual acting accordingly to that label. For
example, a student is labelled as a “trouble-maker” and the teacher treats them differently,
resulting in that student acting naughty. One strength of labelling theory and SFP as an
explanation for CASB is that Rosenthal and Jacobson found that pupils labelled as “spurters”
by an IQ test significantly improved in their next performance compared to those who were
not labelled as “spurters”. Therefore supporting the idea that teachers’ labels and
expectations can cause SFP in terms of students’ performance, and therefore if someone is
labelled as a ‘criminal’ or ‘antisocial’, they may also live up to that label. However, a
weakness of labelling theory and SFP as an explanation of CASB is that much research has
taken place in the context of education, these findings support the idea that labels regarding
criminal behaviour will have the same effect of behaviour.
Labelling may be based on stereotypes, which are overgeneralised beliefs of particular
groups of people, based on limited information, e.g. Muslims may be labelled as terrorists.
Sometimes labelling can become so powerful and negative that they become stigmas.
Stigmas are when society has extreme disapproval of a person/group, which may affect
someone’s self concept. Self concept is someone’s idea of themselves, formed by their
beliefs about themselves and the responses of others to them. One strength of labelling
theory and SFP as an explanation for CASB is that Jahoda found that the Ashanti people’s
expectations about boys born on a Monday being quiet and boys born on a Wednesday
being aggressive were associated with changes in behaviour as nearly 22% of violent crimes
were committed by boys born on a Wednesday, but only 6.9% by boys born on a Monday.
This supports the idea that CASB can be explained through labelling theory and SFP as the
boys conformed to the labels of having Monday or Wednesday personalities. However, a
weakness of labelling theory and SFP as an explanation for CASB is that it fails to explain
how biological factors may explain CASB. CASB could be a result of these individuals
having the warrior gene or high levels of testosterone, which could result in CASB.
To conclude, labelling theory and SFP are good explanations for CASB, as it is supported by
research conducted by Rosenthal & Jacobson, Jahoda, and Madon. All studies have
ecological validity since the participants’ behaviour were all real-life behaviour that occurred
in school or everyday life, meaning there is strong evidence to support labelling theory and
SFP as an explanation for CASB. However, it may be seen as reductionist as it fails to
explain interactions between social and biological factors that may influence an individual’s
criminal behaviour.
