1.    age of the "learner"
    2.    intensity of contact with the deviant "teacher"
    3.    ratio of "good" to "bad" social contacts in the "learner's" life

-- Theory predicts that the younger the "learner" is, in an intense relationship with the deviant "teacher", and the more contacts with significant others who are "deviant", then the greater the likelihood the "learner" will also be deviant.  The reverse is also true.

-- the theory answers that question this way -- that "normal behavior" is shaped by the power of social control mechanisms in our culture. Put differently, the social bonds that connect people help to keep us from committing deviance.

-- so what are the basic social factors/components of a social bond between individuals?

1.    attachment -- a measure of the connectedness between individuals
2.    commitment -- a measure of the stake a person has in the community
3.    involvement -- a measure of the time/energy a person is spending on activities that are helpful to the community
4.    belief -- a measure of the person's support for the morals and beliefs of the community

-- the theory argues that there tends to be an inverse correlation between these factors and deviant behavior.  What does that mean?  Be able to explain it.

--  the theory explains deviance as a social process whereby some people are able to define others as deviant. It emphasizes that the deviance is relative -- it is not until a label is given to someone by someone else in a position of social power that the person actually "becomes" a deviant.

-- has some important terms linked to the theory:
    -- primary deviance -- behavior that does not conform to the social norms, but the behavior might be temporary, fleeting, exploratory, trivial, or especially, concealed from most others. The person who commits the deviant act does not see him/herself as deviant; put differently, it is not internalized as a part of the person's self concept

    -- secondary deviance -- behavior that does not conform to the social norms, but 1) the behavior tends to be more sustained over time. The person continues to do the deviant behavior even after being caught and labeled by a social institution. The person accepts the deviant label, incorporating it into the person's self concept.

    -- deviant career -- continued secondary deviance, that becomes one's "job" and becomes one's primary economic activity. Person accepts the deviant label.

    -- radical non-intervention:  labeling theory's solution, at least to juvenile deviance. Has two parts:   1) preferably do not label anyone, but especially not a juvenile. Sociology knows that many adolescents reduce or stop their deviance as they become adults and accept adult statuses and roles.  So labeling them might in fact prevent that "becoming good" transition as they become adults, and 2) if anyone has to be labeled, label fairly -- don't "peak" and notice social class, race, sex, etc., and therefore label some individuals differently than others.

--  there is a social consensus in the society about socially approved goals that each person ought to strive for and the socially approved of means to attain those goals.  This consensus is largely due to a shared value system in the society.

Here is the theory's famous set of options:

Name of Option      Socially Approved Goal     Socially Approved Means

1.  conformity                        yes                                             yes
     (this is the non-deviant option, all the others are deviant options)

2.  innovation                         yes                                              no

3.  ritualism                           abandoned                          yes or no, depending

4.  retreatism                    gives up on goals                      gives up on means

5.  rebellion                     rejects and substitutes            rejects and substitutes
                                            personal goals                            personal means

-- theory makes it clear we need to ask "who has the power to decide what is 'normal' and what is deviant behavior?"  These theories often are linked with labeling theory.

-- a person in such a subculture may feel role conflict or role strain trying to balance the norms of two very diverse groups of which one is a member

-- theory argues that in the last 100+ years, there has been a shift in which social institution primary is associated with the labeling/"handling" of deviance and deviants. In earlier times in Western Europe and America, the religious institutions had the social power to define/label deviant behavior and to "treat" it (e.g., exorcisms, etc.). But now science and especially medicine as a subset of science has taken over much of the social control processing of deviants.

-- this shift, it is argued by those who support the theory, is a more humane way of understanding deviant behavior.  People are not "evil" but they are "sick."  However, the "sick" label still has social consequences that "stick" to the person so labeled.  Some of these consequences are:

    1.    it absolves one of responsibility for the deviant behavior
    2.    there is little or no stigma (so the theory claims) to the label of sick
    3.    so long as the person fulfills the "sick role" appropriately, he or she is able to not receive a harsh negative label. But the sick role is a role and has a complicated behavioral set that the person has to follow or else.
    4.    the key part of the sick role is that one has to accept that medical perspective is "correct" and  therefore anything prescribed by physicians must be done
    5.     a more optimistic view of deviance