Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Lopes, G., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Schmidt, N. M., Vásquez, B. E., & Bernburg, J. G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact of formal police intervention on life chances and crime during emerging adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 456-488.

Abstract: 

Research in labeling theory has been revived recently, particularly in relation to the effect of labeling on critical noncriminal outcomes that potentially exacerbate involvement in crime. This study partakes in that revitalization by examining direct and indirect effects of police intervention in the lives of adolescents who were followed into their 30s. The authors find that early police intervention is indirectly related to drug use at the ages of 29 to 31, as well as unemployment and welfare receipt. Given that such effects were found some 15 years after the labeling event, on criminal and noncriminal outcomes, and after controlling for intra-individual factors, the authors conclude that the labeling perspective is still relevant within a developmental framework.  samples are used for development of intervention programs for juvenile delinquents.

Summary: 

This article examines how a deviant label can be a “turning point” in an adolescent’s life. The deviant label may be indirectly related to subsequent involvement in delinquency and criminal behavior. 

Questions to Consider: 

1. Describe the population sample used in this study.
    
2. Define “spurious”. What are some factors that may result in a spurious relationship between labeling and criminality?
    
3. Explain how labeling can curtail “prosocial opportunities”.
    

Article 2: Robbers, M. L. P. (2009). Lifers on the outside: Sex offenders and disintegrative shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 5-28.

Abstract: 

This article examines the effects of labeling though informal and formal sanctions on sex offender reintegration, using qualitative analysis from a probability sample of 153 registered sex offenders in four counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It also provides an overview of sex offender legislation and literature. Results of the study indicate that the majority of respondents experienced negative treatment because of their status as a sex offender. Results also indicate that formal and informal sanctions are stifling opportunities for sex offenders to be fully reintegrated into society and that treatment programs are not as effective as they could be. Implications for sex offender policy and further research are discussed.

Summary: 

The researchers examine the impact labeling has on sex offender reintergration. The results of the study indicate that the majority of sex offenders were publicly labeled and socially outcast.

Questions to Consider: 

1. Once labeled, what is the message that society is sending to the sex offender?
    
2. What is the community activity that sex offenders are most commonly involved in? Explain why this may or may not be of concern.
    
3. What is your overall reaction to the labeling of sex offenders?
    

Article 3: Saperstein, A., & Penner, A. M. (2014). Beyond the looking glass: Exploring fluidity in racial self-identification and interviewer classification. Sociological Perspectives, 57, 186-207.

Abstract: 

Research has demonstrated the fluidity of racial self-identification and interviewer classification, but how they influence each other over time has not been systematically explored using national, longitudinal data. A typical theoretical prediction, consistent with theories of a “looking-glass self,” is that people calibrate their self-identification in accordance with how they are perceived by others. We examine the degree to which this and other symbolic-interactionist processes account for the dynamics of racial categorization among young adults in the United States. To do so, we deploy a conceptual framework focused on three key dimensions of variation—concordance, stability, and influence—that capture both inconsistency in racial categorization at a given point in time and fluidity in either measure of race over time. We find that while the standard looking-glass self-perspective accounts for the majority of racial fluidity, a substantial proportion of changes in both measures of race remain unexplained by existing theory.

Summary: 

In this article the researchers apply Cooley’s “looking glass self” and Goffman’s “presentation of self” to racial self-identification. 

Questions to Consider:

1. Explain the “one drop rule”.
    
2. President Barack Obama is biracial-his mother is white and his father is African. Do you think that he would have been successful if he had chosen to self-identify as white? Explain.
    
3. Discuss some of the ways individuals “express” their racial identity.
    
4. Discuss “master status” in terms of racial self-identification.