psychology Effects Of Depression

The effects of depression on individuals can be serious mentally and physically. Many individuals are not even aware that they have depression and feel they can just pull through whatever it is they are going through leaving themselves open to the depression progressively getting worse. By this time the effects of depression begin to take its toll on the individual. Depression can have a profound affect on everything and everyone surrounding those that suffer from it, their work, and those close to them, especially friends and family. In work there decisions would be hard to make, and production slowed and at home interest in activities would be diminished with family unable to share enjoyable moments. It is difficult for someone with depression to show affection for another therefore there is diminished sexual activity. Those suffering from depression will also avoid friends and social gatherings, and lose interest in hobbies. The effects of depression can be quite devastating to the individual and all those around that individual. Left untreated the effects of depression can get worse as the depression worsens. Catching and treating depression in the early stages is much easier than if it progresses. Individuals who suffer from a mild form of depression will probably still be able to join in activities but with great difficulty and be quite distressed by the symptoms of their illness. With symptoms of depression increasing the individual will have greater and greater difficulty participating in work and social activities involving friends and family. When severe depression sets in the individual will have difficulty taking care of themselves and their may be a risk of suicide at this point. Seeking treatment at this point may mean some sort of supervised residential treatment so the individual does not harm themselves. The person with severe depression will have a change in their thinking pattern in which all thoughts point to helplessness and that their is no way out of the current situation. There are many symptoms the person can experience, from mental to physical. The individual can have aches and pains that they cannot associate with their depression and upon seeking medical attention for them nothing is found to be wrong. Depression is a very treatable illness and seeking treatment is important. A physician or heath care professional can help the individual through medication or psychotherapy. Usually both medication and psychotherapy are used together as the medication only deals with the symptoms of depression.Psychotherapy can help the individual learn about where their depression is stemming from and help the individual change their thinking pattern to a more positive way. The effects of depression will begin to diminish and the individual can return to a normal life.

For more information on depression and how depression affects individual you may want to read All About Depression and if you like this article you may be interested Define Depression Six strategies to help your subconscious mind work for you Depression: Flesh and Blood Or Thoughts and Emotions? The Symptoms Of Severe Depression Symptoms May Bring About Interventions Fighting Depression Depression: Flesh and Blood Or Thoughts and Emotions? The Secrets Of Male Depression Effects Of Depression

Read More

psychology Effects of Day Care Overscheduled Children – Ships Without A Shore

In her latest book, Ships Without A Shore: America’s Undernurtured Children, Anne R. Pierce takes a hard look at the emerging data on the effects of day care and the hyper-structuring of children’s lives with endless activities. She analyzes our shifting moral-philosophical priorities and exposes the fractured condition of our families. Pierce submits that today’s childrearing trends may just spell the death of childhood—the crucial stage in human development.

Ships Without A Shore: America’s Undernurtured Children Childhood in America has changed, and not for the better. From day care for babies, to the exhausting array of activities for children, to the storm of lurid and violent shows now deemed appropriate for the young, to the expectation that teenagers build resumes, childhood has been thoroughly redefined. Anne R. Pierce argues that this radical re-definition has been embraced with remarkably little discussion about what children, by nature, need. 

Steeped in intellectual permissiveness, we have convinced ourselves that parental substitutes are as good as parents themselves at caring for children, that the concepts of nurture and of the maternal are archaic and irrelevant, that more lessons and sports are better than less, and that innocence and knowledge are less important than worldly attitudes and competitive skills.

Book Reviews 

Ships Without A Shore: America’s Undernurtured Children

"Thoughtful parents will find Anne Pierce’s Ships Without A Shore a provocative, even disturbing book. Pierce challenges the ethos of self-fulfillment, personal achievement, and moral relativism propagated by conventional wisdom and popular culture, and draws a bleak picture of its effects on child rearing. She draws on her own experience as a parent as well as on neurological, psychological, and other social scientific research, taking a long historical perspective and appealing to the insights of an earlier philosophical and religious tradition. Pierce talks unfashionably and compellingly about children’s natural needs for stable parental love and care and for innocence protected from corruption." —Nathan Tarcov, Committee on Social Thought and Department of Political Science, University of Chicago

"Ships Without A Shore provides a vivid and stinging critique of the state of affairs of our young—from babies to adolescents. Exhibiting exceptional scholarly review, Anne R. Pierce provides a compelling discussion of the key issues that contribute to child development and health in our rapidly changing world, from parenting to peer and media influences. She raises concerns about the way in which modern forces are filling our children’s lives with information and busy activities that have empty materialistic goals and do not engender introspection or enjoyment of simple pleasures. She argues convincingly that without giving children appropriate time to reflect on the wonders of being alive during the right developmental stages, we may be raising an antisocial and non-creative generation of children who will grow to become adults unable to reach their imaginative, altruistic and emotionally balanced potential. This is an extremely important book on the challenges of child development at our current technological crossroads at which media is able to deliver incredible ‘programming’ to our youth to potentially disastrous effect." —James E. Swain MD, PhD, FRCPC, Child Study Center at Yale University

"Gutsy and provocative, Anne Pierce presents an articulate, no-holds-barred indictment of current child-rearing practices. Read this book, and you will have plenty to talk—and to think—about!" —Jane M. Healy, PhD, Educational psychologist and author of "Endangered Minds; Why Our Children Dont Think and What We Can Do About It"

Read More

psychology How do Psychological Aspects Affect the Effects of Perfumes

is a mixture of aroma compounds, solvents, fragrant essential oils and other fixatives. The human body is like a scientific machine, and like every other machine, the human body also wears out with time, giving out unpleasant aspects like sweat, odor etc. Here comes the importance of perfumes, deodorants and further;the basic purpose of perfumes is to give a pleasant scent whenever and wherever applied. 

It is often said that life is a small branch of psychology and hence psychology influences and impacts anything and everything where the mind is a part of the package. In the context of perfumes, fragrances, scents, deodorants and colognes, psychology has influenced the effects. 

Now coming to the psychological aspects of perfumes, fragrance is a desired state of mind. People have associated heaven, beauty and immortality with fragrance. Such is the psychological effect of perfumes on the human mind. Some people have gone to the extent of claiming that perfumes generate happy hormones, but this facet doesn’t have the backing of a scientific research. 

Still, it is a known fact that most people consider perfumes as catalysts of happiness. Catalysts are elements which are not a part of a reaction, but influence the reaction. Likewise, beautiful fragrances might notgenerate happiness directly, but surely act as indirect catalysts. Our minds have always associated perfumeswith freshness and sweat with bad odor; this is nothing but the mental capacity of association as per experiences.

Even in some of the dullest moments, a fresh scent cajoles the mood of your mind and a foul smell will further put you down. All in all, there are a plethora of positive aspects which get connected to perfumes and scents due to the impact of psychology. 

Another psychological aspect is that many people (of both the sexes) believe that fragrances for women have better aroma ingredients for an added effect. This might be because perfumes and women have been compared since ages now. 

Lastly one of the most fascinating psychological facets of designer fragrances are the celebrity endorsedperfumes and their sales. Designer fragrances are nothing but ways to assimilate fragrances into our day today lives. Fans in particular might be able to taste a slice of their favorite celebrity’s personality this way.

Read More

psychology Effects of Attractiveness on Jury Decision Making

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of personal characteristics of the defendant and the victim on jury decision making. The participants of jury simulation research were asking to read the summary of the fact and four different scenarios. They were asked several questions about how they felt about the defendant and the victim. Each participant recommended a sentence for a defendant. Results showed that a defendant was rated more favorably when described as having attractive character. Besides, the length of the sentence did not differ significantly subject to the character description of the defendant. 
The findings of this study can help to understand why jurors take certain decision, why they behave like they behave and what important characteristics of defendants influence them.
Introduction
There are quite a lot of various factors that can influence jury decision making. Some of the important factors are the personal characteristics and socio-economic status of a defendant that have a great influence on the assessment of guilt by jury member. It has been shown that the defendant’s appearance can have a great impact on juror’s perception. As a rule, attractive people enjoy more people’s confidence than unattractive ones. And at the court they also can be treated with more leniencies and tolerance. 
Many social and forensic psychologists have become interested in studying this issue. They investigated different aspects of it including personal characteristics of the defendant, of the victim, of the jury members, etc. Speaking about personal characteristics, there should be pointed out that physical appearance, person’s attractiveness are the most obvious characteristics that can have positive as well as negative impacts on people. Because it is the first thing by which we judge about a person.
There are a lot of researchers investigating the influence of the defendant’s attractiveness on juror’s decisions of guilt or innocence. There should be mentioned: Landy and Aronson (1969); Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972); Efran (1974); Nemeth and Sosis (1073) and others.
In the present research it was hypothesized that an attractive character description would provide positive perception of the defendant while negative description would cause negative one. Besides, the second hypothesis concerned the fact that more attractive defendant would receive shorter and more lenient sentence recommendation.
Opening paragraph
The present study was devoted to the investigation of an attractiveness of the defendant and its influence on the length of the sentence. The participants were asked to rate the defendant’s attractiveness according to the proposed scenarios and to determine his sentence. This research is very important, as reveals significant aspects of juror’s decision making. The present research allowed us to receive quite valid data on the individual level. So, the thesis statement of this research is that it investigates individual level of juror decision making without taking into account collective form of decision making. 
Literature review
As it was mentioned in the introduction, there are many researchers who investigate the influence of the attractiveness of the defendant on juror decision making. In particular, Landy and Aronson (1969) conducted their research using the case of a driving accident as a result of the defendant’s alcohol intoxication. The results of their research were not very effective, that’s why in the present research there were used the case and scenarios from Landy and Aronson’s study to verify their findings. Another researchers, Nemeth and Sosis (1073) carried out a simulated jury study. They use in their investigation a new method – group discussion, as they supposed that it could have less influence on the length of the sentence and inappropriate juror’s decisions while individual decision making could distort the perception of the defendant. Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) studied the correlation between the attractiveness and desirable social skills of people. They used the following method: they showed photographs of different people to the participants of the research. The participants were asked to rate them according to their socially desirable traits. The result revealed that more attractive people were rated as having more socially desirable skills. Besides, in their study, some photographs of children who committed severe crimes were proposed to the participants. The results showed that the crimes were perceived as less severe and less negative if attractive children committed them. Moreover, the participants claimed that attractive children would never commit a crime again, while unattractive would be able to do it. 
Efran (1974) researched the influence of a defendant’s attractiveness on the length and the level of severance of the sentence. At first, the participants were asked to answer the pre-experimental questionnaire. As a result, 79% of the participant claimed that the jurors should take into account first of all the dependant’s physical attractiveness. Then the researcher proposed photographs of attractive and unattractive students with the described case of their cheating. The participants had to rate them according to six-point scale. The results showed that the attractive defendants received shorter and milder punishment. 
Mazzela and Feingold (1994) conducted another interesting study. They carried out a meta-analysis that included 80 studies. There were 25 studies directed at the research of physical attractiveness. The results were the following: mock jurors were disposed to find attractive defendant less guilty in comparison with unattractive ones. In their investigation the researchers analyzed the correlation between physical attractiveness and the length of the sentence depending on the kind of a crime. In other words, they found that the attractive defendant received the same sentence as unattractive defendants if their crime was swindling. On the other hand, in case of cheating, robbery and rape attractive defendants received shorter and less severe sentence. 
Another researchers, Sigall and Ostrove (1975), studied the correlation between the defendant’s attractiveness, the kind of his crime and juror’s decision. They got very interesting results. First of all, they stated that if a defendant was charged with a crime that did not deal with the physical appearance, attractive defendant received less severe punishment. But if the crime related to physical attractiveness of a person, such as fraud, the attractive defendants received more sever sentence, than unattractive defendants. 
Final Summary
Most of the presented researches show us that attractive defendants often receive shorter, milder and lenient sentences and punishments than unattractive defendants. They are more often considered to be less guilty and able to commit crimes in future. This happens because people always believe that an attractive person is a good person, and only unattractive people are guilty of crimes. This is a stereotype of our society, which naturally influences jurors’ judgments, decisions, and sentences. The present study aims at replicate the results of previous researches, in particular of Landy and Aronson’s study, and at investigate how character description influence juror decision making. 
Method
Participants 
A total of 128 people (61 males and 67 females) were haphazardly selected in the San Diego Country area, in California. 
Design
2 x 2 design is used, as there are two independent variables – 
attractiveness of victim and attractiveness of defendant, each of which has two levels of variation – attractive & unattractive. There are four conditions in this experiment: 1) attractive victim, attractive defendant; 2) unattractive victim, unattractive defendant; 3) attractive victim, unattractive defendant; 4) unattractive victim, attractive defendant.
Materials & Procedure
The participants were asked to read the summary of the fact and then each of the four different scenarios. The case was about a driving accident caused by the defendant’s (Sander) alcohol intoxication. John Sander was driving an annual Christmas office on the evening of December 24 when his automobile killed a pedestrian by the name of Martin Lowe.
The circumstances leading to this event were following: the employee of the insurance office where Sander worked began to party at around 2:00 P.M. By 5:00 P.M. Sander had had several drinks. Soon the party was beginning to break up. Sander left the office building and drove home. Then a policeman stooped him for reckless driving. He said that he would let Sander off if he would promise to leave his car and take a taxi. Sander agreed. But the minute the taxi had returned a corner; Sander told the driver to stop and came back to his own car. Upon reaching he drove off. He ran a red light and stuck Lowe, who was crossing the street. Lowe died a few minutes later in the way to the hospital. Sander was charged with negligent homicide. The police medical examiner’s report indicated that Sander’s estimated blood alcohol concentration was between 2.5 and 3.0%.
After reading the fact, the participants were proposed to read the scenarios.
There were four scenarios: attractive victim, attractive defendant; unattractive victim, unattractive defendant; attractive victim, unattractive defendant; unattractive victim, attractive defendant.
The attractive victim was described as a noted architect of the city and prominent member of the community. He designed a lot of wonderful buildings through out the state and was an active member of community welfare board. He was a founding member of an orphanage. At the time the accident he was on his way to the orphanage to deliver Christmas gifts.
The unattractive victim was described as a notorious gangster and Syndicate boss who had been vying for power in the syndicate controlling the state’s underworld activities. He was allegedly responsible for massacre of 5 men. At the time of the accident he was carrying a loaded 32-calibre pistol. He was out of jail on bond and was awaiting trial for mall fraud and income tax invasion. 
As an attractive person, the defendant was depicted as a 64-year-old insurance adjustor. He was employed for 42 years and was known as a good worker and friendly person. He was a widower as his wife recently died of cancer. He was going to spend Christmas Eve with his son and daughter-in-law. The cause of the accident was his gun wound aggravated at the moment of the accident.
The unattractive defendant was 33-year-old janitor. He was not known by many of the employees of his office. He was 2-time divorcee, with three children by his first wife. He was going to have Christmas Eve with his girlfriend at her apartment. He did not suffer any major injuries n the accident. He had two misdemeanors on his criminal record for breaking and entering and a drug violation.
The defendant was accused of negligent automobile homicide. That crime is punishable by imprisonment of one to twenty-five years in the state. 
The participants were asked to render the length of the defendant’s sentence according to each of the four scenarios. 
The participants were also asked several questions about how they felt about the defendant and the victim. They had to use a nine-point scale from “extremely favorable” to “extremely unfavorable”.
The mean age of participants was 29,3. The sample was represented by the males as well as by the females. 
At the end of the experiment the participant were thanked for their participation and were asked to refrain from discussing the case with anyone. They were informed that if they would like to ask anything more about the study or would like to see the results, they could contact the researcher. 
Results
Manipulation check 
A manipulation check was given to the participants to see if they perceived the independent variable, as it was hypothesized. After reading the case and four scenarios, the participants were asked to rate the favorability of the defendant according to the scale from 1 to 9. The results showed that favorability rating of the defendant differed subject to his character description, t(126)=2.14, p.05. Nevertheless, the results were received in the intended manner. Sentence recommendations for the unattractive defendant (M=15.28, SD= 8.32) were a bit longer, than for the attractive defendant (M=13.30, SD=7.86). But this difference was not statistically very significant.
Victim analysis
The results showed that favorability rating of the victim differed subject to his character description, t(126)= 7.92,p

A Psychology Course Will Take You Places!

If Your Intention is to Catch Crooks, Then You Should Search Forensic Colleges

Some General Science Related Reviews

Can You Tell If Someone Is Lying?

Effects of Attractiveness on Jury Decision Making

How to Write Psychology Term Paper

Some General Science Related Reviews

Things To Find In A Psychology Forum

Types Of Degrees In Forensic Psychology

Read More

psychology today Social Reaction Labeling Theory Pros Cons and Effects On Society

Download - Stock Photo
from © Dreamstime.com

The Social Reaction, or Labeling Theoryas it is sometimes known, has developed over time from as early as 1938 (Wellford, 1975). Currently the Social Reaction Theory proposes that when a person commits a crime; they will receive the label of "criminal". When a person is labeled as such by society, they are likely to accept this label as a part of themselves. Because the person now thinks of him/herself as a criminal, he/she is now likely to continue in his/her criminal behavior (Becker, 1963).

Erwin Lemert is credited with being the founder of what is called the "Societal Reaction" theory. This is the precursor to the social reaction or labeling theory which has present day acceptance and includes many of the same concepts. To better understand Labeling Theory, familiarization with Lemerts Societal Reaction Theory is beneficial. This theory explores the journey to social deviance in two stages; primary deviance and secondary deviance, which are both incorporated into Labeling Theory as well.

Primary deviance begins with an initial criminal act, after which a person may be labeled as deviant orcriminal but does not yet accept this label. By this it is meant that they do not think of themselves as being acriminal, it is this lack of viewing themselves as criminal that differentiates primary from secondary deviance. This will remain a state of primary deviance as long as the offender is capable of rationalizing or dealing with this label by saying it is the result of a socially acceptable role (Lemert, 1951). An example of this would be an exotic dancer, who while labeled as deviant, does not consider herself so by claiming it is a legal profession that she must perform in order to maintain an income.

When leading to secondary deviance, this criminal label is placed on an individual during what is known as a "degradation ceremony" in which the accused is officially labeled as a criminal. Often this takes place during court sentencing, but can come about in more subtle fashions as well. For example the relatives of a person become withdrawn and distance themselves from that person when they find out he/she has committed a crime, regardless of whether or not he/she faces formal charges (Wellford, 1975).

Secondary deviance, according to Lemert, occurs when a person finally accepts the deviant or criminal label into their self image. He/She then thinks or him/herself as a criminal or deviant. "This becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation to the problems caused by societal reaction to primary deviation (Lemert, 1951)".

Howard Becker is hailed as the founder of modern labeling theory. He also developed the term "moralentrepreneur" to describe persons in power who campaign to have certain deviant behavior outlawed (Becker, 1963). He claims that many laws are established for such purposes, and that behavior that is defined as criminal is dynamic and changes throughout time. Therefore, the actual criminal behavior is irrelevant to the theory. What really matters is which outlaws are arrested and processed by the criminal justice system (Becker, 1963). As a result of the belief that personal and societal factors do not contribute to motivations for criminal behavior there has been little study of the criminal him/herself and the aforesaid factors. As one might expect, this aspect of Labeling Theory is still being debated. There is one exception to this belief, however most labeling theorists claim that the system is biased toward the lower class, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of arrests and convictions within the American criminal justice system(Wellford, 1975).

Beckers work pays particular attention to the way society reacts to people with "criminal" labels. He proposes that this label becomes a persons master status, meaning that this is a constant label, affecting and over-riding how others will view them. The status people use to identify and classify a person will always be that of a criminal. Any other statuses a person occupies are no longer heeded. A person could be a parent, employee, spouse, etc., but the first and major status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of the criminal (Becker, 1963).

Sometimes the persons criminal master status may compel them to conform more closely to societys norms in an attempt to show others that the person may have made mistakes in life, but such mistakes will not happen again. Henceforth they will act in a fashion deemed "normal" (Foster & Dinitz & Reckless, 1972). But it is believed that in most cases where the master status is that of a criminal, secondary deviance will be completed rather than resisted. An identity change will take place in which the person now accepts the label of criminal. Because this new criminal identity is in place, there is subsequent pressure to behave accordingly. Such an identity change could be signaled by a person losing contact with their former conformist friends and beginning to associate with other criminal labeled deviants (Becker, 1963). This new peer group of like-minded deviants also increases the likelihood of the person continuing and possibly escalating the rate and seriousness of their criminal behavior. Secondary deviance has only occurred when both society and the individual share the view that the offender is a criminal.

From a logical standpoint there are flaws within the main points of labeling theory. Initially the theory states that no acts are inherently criminal (Wellford, 1975). Meaning that acts are only "criminal" when society has deemed them as such. The implications of this being that criminal law is dynamic and ever-changing, differing from society to society. But if this is true then why are certain acts illegal within the majority of the civilized world? Murder, rape, arson, armed robbery. All these are considered crimes in any society or country one could care to name.
Also the theory claims that for a criminal to be successfully labeled an audience must be present to provide a reaction to the crimes committed. Does this mean that if a murder is committed where the killer has successfully avoided anyones suspicion that the act is then not criminal and the killer will not think of him/herself as such? Its probable that the murderers socialization and/or value system could initialize self-labeling, but the theory clearly states the labeling must come from a 3rd party (Hagan, 1973).

For the sake of argument, if self labeling is possible and a person has obtained a self-initialized criminalmaster status/label, how do they react to it? Do they become criminals or try to "rationalize" as stated by Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (Foster & Dinitz & Reckless, 1972)?

The scope of this theory is proposed to cover all criminal activity of all people regardless of different; nationality, ethnicity, social status, religion, and age (Becker, 1963). Since then criminologists have been, at the very least, skeptical. In a study of drunk drivers it was concluded that socioeconomic status, race, sex, and age can indeed influence whether labeling theory has an effect on people. Unfortunately it was not specified exactly how each of these factors altered the effect labeling theory had on the study subjects. Presumably these study results reflected actual behavioral differences that were reacted to differently by others (Marshall & Purdy, 1972).

The one aspect of this theory that could be regarded positively is that it is very parsimonious. It is easy to understand and can be quickly explained, breaking down all criminal behavior into primary and secondary deviance with a few simple statements for each. An act which has been labeled as deviant or criminal is committed by a member of society. Through either a personal audience such as family or friends, or a formal one such as a court of law the person undergoes a degradation ceremony which labels the person deviant. This is essentially primary deviance. When the labeled person is unable to continue to rationalize and deny this criminal label, often as a result of altered interactions with the "audience" who consider the person in question to be criminal, they finally accept this label as a part of themselves. This is secondary deviance. (I think this is a restatement of the definitions from earlier in the paper. To support the opening sentence, perhaps note WHY the theory is parsimonius. Parsimony simply asks how complex the theory is. If it is short and simple, then it is parsimonious. The point of this section is to show that it can be well summed up in a few simple sentances) From this point onward they will act in a way befitting this new criminal label (Scimecca, 1977).

For the purposes of validity this relative simplicity can be seen negatively as it robs the theory of what value it may have, deliberately turning a blind eye to the contributions of theories of criminology that have had great success in validating their(whose claims? Most any theory of criminology focusing on the individual you could care to name, there are dozens with hundreds of variants) claims. This is in specific reference to the personal and societal factors an individual exhibits which may contribute to the likelihood of committing crimes mentioned earlier (Wellford, 1975). 

It would be presumptuous to say that this theory is not testable as several studies have been performed in attempts to see how greatly labeling theory affects different portions of the populace. There are several core variables, each of which is flawed, to be considered. The first is not the initial act of committing a crime, but an "audience" learning of the crime being committed. As it has already been explained, if the audience doesnt know of the crime then this is as far as the process goes. 

The second is the audiences reaction to this act and subsequent treatment of the person who committed it. In a study of a sample of 196 boys who had engaged in delinquent activities brought before a court of law, it was found that the majority of the subjects peers and parents exhibited little change in how they viewed and treated the delinquents (Foster & Dinitz & Reckless, 1972). Though these children did experience feelings of stigmatization from members of law enforcement, having undergone the degradation ceremony in a court of law, they reported these feelings were negligible compared to those whose family members no longer viewed them in the same light. From this we can conclude that both who the audience is comprised of as well as their reactions affects the level of stigmatization the labeled individual feels, if any. 

The third variable is currently open to debate. Hardcore followers of the labeling theory still assert that the personality of the individual undergoing stigmatization is irrelevant. In a study of the societal reaction approach as it relates to mental illness, Dr. Walter Grove saw that there were certain qualities people may have which make them particularly resistant to labeling and stigmatization. Those people with such qualities did not see themselves as deviant despite what anyone else may have thought (Broadhead, 1974). 

After looking at the study results I remain to be convinced that this theory can be effectively tested as there are too many unknowns. In a later work Lemert finally conceded that "primary deviation, is polygenetic, arising out of a variety of social, cultural, psychological, and physiological factors" (Broadhead, 1974). But he and other believers of this theory have been curiously reticent in attempting to further define these factors. To date no study has been attempted to more accurately state the nature of these factors and how they would affect the criminals reaction to primary deviance. As a result these factors, which could be considered confounders, greatly hinder any attempt at the operationalization of this theory. 

The three known variables cannot be measured effectively, nor can the confounders for that matter. In effect, all that can be studied is the result of this process, mainly focusing on whether career criminals see themselves in the light defined by secondary deviance and what the initial reaction society displays is, as well as how it affects those labeled deviant or criminal. 

The biggest question one must ask when evaluating any theory is "has it been empirically validated?" In this case studies have shown little in the way of how this process works, this aspect is still mainly theoretical. There have been plenty of studies which evaluate the conclusion of this process, how criminals view themselves both in the primary and secondary deviance stages. The results of these studies are somewhat mixed in that some provide weak validation for this theory given certain circumstances, the strongest of which being the study of delinquent behavior in children by Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless who had experienced primary deviance and stigmatization to a small degree (Foster & Dinitz & Reckless, 1972). 

The vast majority of the studies had findings do a fine job of disproving social reactions theory. An example of this would be the study by Dentler and Erickson, who concluded that " groups, and society at large will frequently try to accommodate, normalize, and in general resist making an overt reaction to people exhibiting deviant behavior" (Broadhead, 1974). If this is true than people will withhold judgment and stigmatization will not occur, effectively refuting social reactions theory. 

In itself this theory is not very useful in dictating policy for the criminal justice system, but there is the possibility for use in rehabilitation of criminal offenders. In a small study of child behavior after punishment, it was found that if the audience held the offender in a positive regard, the offender was likely to rise to these expectations and act in a manner befitting a "good boy" (Wellford, 1975). In this way it is possible to use labeling theory in a more productive manner. 

The implications of the study results suggest that two things can be done in order to help prevent labeling theory from having negative effects on people whove broken the law. First of all if the court atmosphere could be avoided in situations where the crime were minor offenses or misdemeanors its possible that the offender would be able to avoid formal sentencing and the degradation ceremony that goes with it. In such cases rehabilitative therapy and out-of-court settlements would be preferable. The other possibility is that a formal ceremony which would cancel the stigma associated with the degradation ceremony could be held. Perhaps a court declaration or letter that the offender is hereby rehabilitated could be used after the offender has served his/her punishment (Broadhead, 1974). 
The social reactions theory is undoubtedly flawed in many ways, but it does provide some insight into how both formal and social audiences can have a negative effect on the criminal and increase the likelihood of repeat offenses. This theory has merit in that there is the potential for it to be incorporated into a larger, more inclusive, theory of criminology. 

Read More