Differential Reinforcement is a dynamic factor to Akers’ and Burgess’ theory. “Reinforcement values are rewards, positive or negative, anticipated to follow specific behaviors” (Houts & Kassab, 1997). It shows the options the person has and with these options that are presented to them by others they will then weigh out the costs and benefits of the options that are presented to them. If they have a positive weigh or outlook they will most likely keep doing it and not worry about the consequences that may be at hand. “Past differential reinforcement appears to be crucial because it can influence misbehavior independently as well as in combination with other social learning variables” (Antonaccio, Botchkovar, & Tittle, 2012). This is essentially stating that past behaviors can have a major influence on the probability of individuals continuing to committing crimes and breaking laws because of the influence one had at a previous time in their lives. Persons that have personal difficulties as well as individual difficulties in their lives could affect one’s decision to use prescription drugs in an improper way would be from a root cause such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and antisocial behavior (Duncan et al, 2005). Social learning theory is similar to life course theories as well, but there are some differences.
Theorist such as Robert Sampson, a professor at Harvard University, or John Laub a professor at Maryland University, which has been recognized as one of the best schools for criminology, have shown through collecting data and analyzing past data that early events that occur in a person’s life can influence future decisions and events, whether they are criminal decisions or not. The text by Rafter and Brown (2011) describes that the men that were interviewed were first interviewed between the ages of 10 to 17 years old then recorded again around the age of 25 and then recorded throughout their life about every 10 to 15 years or so till the age of 70. This data that was analyzed by Sampson and Laub was significant to theorizing developmental theories such as life course theory. This data showed that trajectories, life events and turning points all played a role in whether these men that were interviewed chose to commit crime, stray from crime, or in this case choose to take non-medical drugs. Within Sampson and Laub’s life course perspective theory or also known as life course theories, they mention the term trajectories often and the term turning points. These two terms typically correspond with one another, meaning that when a turning point occurs, it can either change the person’s trajectory for the better, or sometimes can change their trajectory for the worse. According to class notes and lecture, a trajectory is a long term pattern of behavior, a pathway or a line of development through life in areas such as work, marriage and criminal behavior. In more basic terms a trajectory is essentially where a person is headed in life, or where they are projected to go in life. Trajectories and turning points that occur in one’s life do not always have to turn in a negative manner, a turning point and trajectory can be a positive as well. For example, a career criminal could meet someone who turns their life around for the better and change their criminal trajectory to a non-delinquent path to create a stable life for them and their partner. Another term that is closely related to trajectories is the term known as pathways to crime. According to Siegel (2001) Developmental theorists identify that many criminals are able to travel more than one path: some may specialize in violence; some may be involved in theft; others may engage in a assortment of delinquent acts. Some criminals may begin their delinquent acts early in life; however others are late onset offenders. In the article it also explains that there are three different types of pathways to crime. In an article that was read it describes what some pathways to crime are, according to Siegel (2001) the first pathway to crime is the authority conflict pathway; this pathway begins at an early age with stubborn behavior. This type of behavior then can lead to a type of behavior such as doing things one’s way or also known as disobedience and then that behavior tends to lead to authority avoidances, such as staying out past curfew or even running away. The next pathway is covert pathway; this begins with a minor behavior (lying, shoplifting) that then may lead to property damage or crimes of that magnitude. This behavior then heightens to more severe forms of criminality, ranging from larceny, to breaking and entering. The final pathway is the overt pathway; this pathway quickly increases to forceful acts beginning with aggression, and then typically leads to physical fighting and then to more violent acts.
Overall, social learning theories and life course theories can have a lot of similar qualities and can be used to try and explain the same types of crime. Social learning is more focused on the type of people the subject is involved with and the influences they have on them. While life course deals with events in a person’s life leading up to the crime and how those events could have changed the trajectory of the individual. I don’t believe that there is a good way to determine one theory’s validity more so than the others. Instead, I think that a combination of these two theories could be the best possible explanation for causation of crime.