Social reaction theory, also known as labeling theory, explains how society’s response to certain behaviors can actually create or reinforce deviance. It suggests that when people are labeled as “deviant” or “criminal,” they may begin to see themselves that way and continue behaving accordingly. In short, it’s less about what someone does, and more about how others react that shapes their identity and future actions.
Key Takeaways
- Origins: Social reaction theory, also known as labeling theory, grew from the symbolic interactionist perspective, focusing on how everyday interactions and meanings shape identity and behavior.
- Focus: The theory shifts attention from the causes of deviance to the social reactions that follow, showing how labeling can reinforce or amplify deviant behavior.
- Labeling: Deviance is not inherent in an act but results from others applying a label of “deviant.” Once labeled, individuals may internalize that identity and act according to it.
- Power: Labeling is influenced by social inequality, as those with less power—such as lower-class or marginalized groups—are more likely to be labeled and punished.
- Impact: Labels can create a self-fulfilling prophecy, where people begin to see themselves as society does, reinforcing the very behavior the label was meant to condemn.
Origin and Context
Social reaction theory, also known as labeling theory, comes from the symbolic interactionist tradition in sociology.
This means it focuses on how people interact in everyday life and how meaning is created through those interactions.
Unlike older, large-scale (“macro”) theories of deviance that looked at society as a whole, this is a micro-level theory that zooms in on individual relationships and small-group behavior.
The Symbolic Interactionist Foundation
Symbolic interactionism provides the foundation for understanding how labeling and social reactions influence identity.
-
Micro-Level Focus: This approach looks at small-scale interactions—like conversations, gestures, or judgments—rather than big social systems.
-
Active Individuals: People are seen as active participants who shape the social world through their choices and interactions, not just as passive victims of social forces.
-
The Self-Concept: Early thinkers explored how we come to understand ourselves through others:
-
George Herbert Mead (1863–1931): Explained that the self develops through social experience – how we see ourselves depends on how others see us.
-
Charles Horton Cooley: Introduced the idea of the looking-glass self, suggesting that we form our self-image by imagining how others view and judge us.
-
Herbert Blumer (1900–1986): Coined the term symbolic interactionism and emphasized that human behavior is shaped through shared meanings built in social interaction.
-
The Rise of Labeling Theory
Social reaction theory became formalized in the mid-20th century as labeling theory, an explicit interactionist explanation of deviance.
It proposed that being labeled as “deviant” can actually lead a person to act more deviant.
-
Frank Tannenbaum (1938): Introduced the idea of the “dramatization of evil,” suggesting that labeling someone as bad or criminal can make them internalize that identity.
-
Edwin Lemert (1951): Distinguished between primary deviance (the first rule-breaking act) and secondary deviance (further deviance that results from accepting the label).
-
Howard Becker (1963): Argued that deviance is not about the act itself, but about how society defines and reacts to it. As he put it, “Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.”
Because of this focus on how people and institutions respond to deviance, the theory is also known as a societal reaction theory.
Influence from Conflict Theory
Although rooted in symbolic interactionism, labeling theory also draws from conflict theory, which highlights how power and inequality shape social rules.
-
Unequal Enforcement: Conflict theorists point out that laws are not applied equally. People with less power – such as those from lower social classes or marginalized groups – are more likely to be labeled as criminals or deviants.
-
Selective Justice: Those with wealth, influence, or authority often avoid harsh labeling, showing how social power determines who gets stigmatized.
Shifts and Evolution of the Theory
Social reaction theory represented a major shift in how sociologists thought about crime and deviance.
Instead of asking why people commit crimes, it asked what happens after they do – and how society’s reaction can shape future behavior.
-
From Causes to Consequences: Traditional theories focused on what causes deviance. Labeling Theory, however, looked at the social consequences of labeling—how being called “deviant” can influence identity and increase deviance.
-
Questioning Official Data: Labeling theorists argued that official crime statistics reflect social biases, not objective truth, because they’re based on selective enforcement and labeling processes.
-
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Robert Merton (1948) built on W. I. Thomas’s idea that “if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
In labeling, this means that if someone is treated as a “criminal” or “failure,” they may eventually become what others expect them to be.
This pattern is often seen in education, where students labeled as “low achievers” start performing worse over time. -
Later Developments: Labeling Theory peaked in popularity during the 1960s and 1970s but was later refined to address its weaknesses. Critics argued it didn’t clearly explain how labeling leads to continued deviance.
To fill this gap, Karen Heimer and Ross Matsueda developed the Theory of Differential Social Control (1994), which combined labeling ideas with more detailed concepts like reflected appraisals (how we think others see us) and role-taking (seeing ourselves through others’ perspectives).
How It Works
Social reaction theory shows that society doesn’t just react to deviance – it helps create it.
Labels, power, and social reactions play powerful roles in shaping identity and behavior.
Whether someone becomes an “outsider” or reintegrates into society often depends not on what they did, but on how others define and treat them.
1. The Social Construction of Deviance
A key idea in Social Reaction Theory is that deviance is socially created, not inherent in the act itself. Whether something is seen as “wrong” depends on the rules and reactions of society.
-
Social Definition: Sociologist Howard Becker (1963) argued that social groups create deviance by making rules, defining what counts as breaking them, and labeling those who do as “outsiders.”
-
Deviance Is Conferred: A person isn’t deviant because of what they do, but because others apply the label of “deviant” to them.
-
Relativity of Deviance: What’s considered deviant changes depending on time, place, and culture. For example, killing in self-defense or during war may be seen as heroic rather than criminal.
-
Societal Reaction: Because of its focus on how society reacts, labeling theory is sometimes called a societal reaction theory. These reactions can shape whether someone is viewed as an offender or a victim, especially in complex cases like assisted dying or domestic abuse.
2. The Labeling Process and Identity
Social Reaction Theory explores how labeling affects identity and future behavior. Sociologist Edwin Lemert identified several stages in this process.
Primary Deviance
Primary deviance refers to the first act of rule-breaking, which often has little impact on a person’s identity.
For example, someone who speeds or drinks underage may break a rule but doesn’t see themselves – or get treated – as a “criminal.”
Secondary Deviance
Secondary deviance happens when a person internalizes a deviant label and begins to act according to it.
-
The label changes how others treat them and how they see themselves.
-
Deviance becomes part of their lifestyle or identity, sometimes called deviance amplification, where labeling leads to more deviance.
-
For instance, a teenager labeled a “troublemaker” might be excluded from school opportunities and end up embracing that identity.
Tertiary Deviance
Tertiary deviance occurs when someone challenges or redefines the label, trying to normalize their behavior.
For example, people with tattoos or alternative lifestyles might reject stigma and promote social acceptance instead.
Master Status and Stigma
A master status is a powerful label that overshadows all others—such as “addict,” “criminal,” or “ex-con.”
This often leads to stigma, a social mark that reduces a person’s acceptance and opportunities. Stigmatized individuals may struggle to be seen as anything other than their label.
3. The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Another key part of this theory is the self-fulfilling prophecy, where a label or belief ends up coming true because of the behavior it produces.
-
Definition: A self-fulfilling prophecy is when a false idea becomes true simply because people act as if it were.
-
Thomas Theorem: Sociologists W. I. and Dorothy Thomas (1928) stated, “If people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
-
Merton’s Concept: Robert K. Merton (1948) used this idea to show how false beliefs can cause real outcomes – like a rumor of a bank failure actually causing a bank run.
-
In Labeling: When a person is labeled a “failure,” “delinquent,” or “low achiever,” they may start believing it and behaving accordingly. In schools, for instance, students labeled as “slow” often perform worse simply because expectations are lowered.
4. Power, Status, and Labeling Bias
Social reaction theory also highlights that labeling doesn’t happen equally – it’s influenced by power and social status.
-
Unequal Application: People with less power—such as the poor, racial minorities, or marginalized groups—are more likely to be labeled “deviant.”
-
Extralegal Factors: Labels often depend on nonlegal factors like appearance, race, or class. A working-class youth might be punished for the same act a middle-class youth gets away with.
-
Moral Entrepreneurs: Some people, called moral entrepreneurs, push their own beliefs about right and wrong and create or enforce the rules. These individuals often have influence and authority, shaping what society calls “deviant.”
5. Differential Social Control (DSC) Theory
A later extension of labeling theory is Differential Social Control (DSC), developed by Karen Heimer and Ross Matsueda (1994).
This theory combines labeling ideas with the concept of role-taking—how people see themselves through others’ eyes.
DSC suggests that people act based on how they believe important others will react.
-
Reflected Appraisals: People’s behavior is influenced by how they think others see them. If they believe others view them as deviant, they’re more likely to act that way.
-
Antisocial Attitudes: Holding positive attitudes toward crime makes deviant behavior more likely.
-
Anticipated Disapproval: If someone expects strong disapproval from loved ones, they’re less likely to engage in delinquency.
-
Criminal Associations: Spending time with deviant peers increases the chance of deviant behavior.
-
Prior Experience: Past problem-solving through crime makes future deviance more likely.
DSC connects personal relationships and social structures, showing that crime results from both how people see themselves and how society responds to them.
Examples
Social reaction theory shows how labels and reactions can shape lives.
Whether in the justice system, schools, or healthcare, being labeled “deviant,” “delinquent,” or “ill” can change how others see you—and how you see yourself.
These social definitions are powerful because they can turn expectations into reality, reinforcing the very behaviors or identities society fears most.
1. Criminal Justice System
In criminal justice, social reaction theory reminds us that deviance isn’t in the act itself – it’s in society’s reaction to it.
Who gets labeled as “criminal” often depends on who holds power.
Unequal Labeling and Bias
Labels are not applied evenly across society. Some groups are more likely to be targeted and punished.
-
Social Construction of Statistics: Sociologists argue that official crime statistics often reflect the behavior of police and courts more than actual crime rates. These numbers show how justice is applied – especially toward less powerful social groups.
-
Racial and Class Bias: Research consistently finds that minorities and lower-class individuals are treated more harshly than others at every stage of the justice process – from arrest to sentencing. For the same crime, Black and Latino people are more likely to be convicted and receive longer sentences than white offenders.
-
Judicial Inequality: Studies, like those by Griffiths, show that most judges in the UK come from privileged backgrounds, with about 70% educated at elite schools and Oxbridge, which may shape bias in courtroom decisions.
Secondary Deviance and Stigma
Once someone is labeled as a criminal, that label can stick—and push them toward further deviance.
-
Youth Control Complex: Sociologist Victor Rios describes how institutions like police, courts, and schools can work together to “criminalize, stigmatize, and punish” working-class youth, creating a “school-to-prison pipeline.”
-
Cycle of Incarceration: Being labeled a criminal can change how people see themselves. After serving time, stigma often limits opportunities for jobs, housing, or education—making reoffending more likely.
The Role of Context
Whether someone is labeled an offender or a victim often depends on social attitudes and the situation.
In each case, context and social reaction determine how the act is judged – highlighting that deviance is a social judgment, not an absolute fact.
For example, public reaction may differ between:
- A woman who kills an abusive husband.
- A man who helps his terminally ill wife die.
- A teenager introduced to drugs by an adult.
2. Education System
In schools, labeling theory appears in how teachers interact with students and how expectations can shape achievement.
This process often leads to what sociologists call a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labeling in the Classroom
-
Teacher Expectations: Teachers’ beliefs about students’ ability can influence how much students actually learn. High expectations often lead to better performance, while low expectations can harm achievement.
-
The Process: Students labeled as “lazy” or “low-achieving” may start to see themselves that way, eventually behaving in ways that confirm the label. Sociologist Robert Merton (1968) described this as a self-fulfilling prophecy – when a prediction or belief becomes true because people act as if it were.
-
Tracking and Inequality: Some schools use tracking systems that group students by ability. Critics argue that these tracks reinforce existing inequalities – privileged students are pushed toward success, while others get stuck with negative labels.
-
Beyond School: This same dynamic appears in other settings—people tend to act according to how they think others see them. For example, someone constantly treated as “hostile” may eventually become more defensive and angry.
3. Mental Health and Illness
In healthcare, especially mental health, Social Reaction Theory helps explain how society defines what counts as “normal” or “abnormal.”
How Illness Is Socially Defined
Interactionists argue that health and illness are social constructions – what counts as “sick” or “healthy” depends on cultural and social definitions, not just biology.
-
Medicalization of Deviance: Sometimes, “bad” behavior is redefined as “sick” behavior. For example, ADHD was once seen as misbehavior but is now viewed as a medical condition treatable with medication like Ritalin.
-
Demedicalization: The opposite process also happens—when something once considered an illness becomes normalized. A clear example is when homosexuality was removed from the DSM (the main psychiatric manual), reframing it as a normal variation of human sexuality.
Labeling and the “Myth” of Mental Illness
Some sociologists, like Thomas Szasz, argue that mental illness itself is partly a social label.
People who act differently may be seen as “mentally ill,” but this label says more about society’s comfort with difference than about real disease.
-
Social Reaction: According to this view, labeling someone as mentally ill can harm them—people begin to treat them differently, and the individual may internalize the label.
-
Stigma: Sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) explained that illness often carries social stigma, which can isolate people and limit opportunities. Stigma can even affect the care people receive, especially for conditions like mental disorders, HIV/AIDS, or visible skin diseases.
Critical Evaluation
Social reaction theory (also known as labeling theory) was groundbreaking because it shifted attention from why people commit deviant acts to how society’s reactions shape future behavior.
However, despite its influence, the theory has faced several important criticisms.
These include weak empirical support, limited explanatory scope, and concerns about how it portrays individuals and social reality.
1. Weak and Inconsistent Evidence
One of the biggest criticisms of Labeling Theory is that the research evidence supporting it has been inconsistent.
By the early 1980s, enthusiasm for the theory had declined because studies failed to clearly confirm its predictions.
The Labeling Amplification Hypothesis
The core idea that labeling someone as deviant will make them more deviant (a process called deviance amplification) has produced mixed findings:
-
Some studies show that people treated harshly by the justice system are more likely to reoffend, supporting the theory.
-
Others show no effect, or even the opposite—that labeling may discourage future deviance.
-
Research also questions whether being labeled actually harms self-esteem; many studies find little to no evidence that labeling worsens self-image.
The Status Characteristics Hypothesis
Labeling Theory also suggests that social factors—like race, class, and appearance—affect who gets labeled. This is known as the status characteristics hypothesis.
-
Among adults, this idea has weak support.
-
Among young people, results are mixed: some studies show bias, while others find that race, gender, and class matter less than legal factors, such as the seriousness of the crime or criminal history.
2. Ignoring the Causes of Crime
A common criticism is that Labeling Theory doesn’t explain why people break rules in the first place.
The theory focuses mainly on what happens after an act of deviance—how others react and label the person.
By ignoring the initial causes (known as primary deviance), it provides an incomplete explanation of deviant behavior.
3. Conceptual and Theoretical Weaknesses
Critics argue that Social Reaction Theory struggles with vague concepts and unclear mechanisms.
Missing Middle Steps
The theory often fails to clearly describe how labeling leads to further deviance.
Later models, such as Differential Social Control (DSC) by Heimer and Matsueda (1994), tried to fill this gap by introducing ideas like reflected appraisals (how people think others see them) and role-taking (seeing oneself through others’ eyes).
Too Deterministic
Labeling Theory has also been accused of being too deterministic —treating individuals as powerless victims of social labels.
-
It assumes people simply accept the labels given to them, rather than actively resisting or redefining them.
-
Critics argue that it underestimates personal agency, or the ability of people to make choices about their behavior.
-
It also ignores possible positive outcomes of labeling—such as raising awareness, clarifying norms, or promoting social reform.
Oversimplified Model
The theory tends to rely on a one-dimensional explanation, assuming that labeling alone causes secondary deviance.
Critics argue that deviance is far more complex and influenced by many interacting social, psychological, and structural factors.
4. Tension with Symbolic Interactionism
Ironically, labeling theory sometimes conflicts with the symbolic interactionist principles it’s based on:
-
Symbolic Interactionism (drawing on Mead’s ideas) sees deviance as a set of observable behaviors shaped through social meaning and interaction.
-
Labeling Theory, however, defines deviance mainly as a status or label assigned by others.
This difference has led some to argue that Labeling Theory strays from the broader goals of interactionism and overlooks the full range of deviant behavior, including its origins.
5. Criticisms in the Mental Health Context
When applied to areas like mental health, critics say that social reaction theory sometimes goes too far in emphasizing social construction, overlooking real biological and social inequalities.
-
Objective Reality of Illness: Some argue that the theory implies no illness is truly “real.” Critics point out that many physical and mental disorders have clear medical causes and real effects, regardless of how society interprets them.
-
Neglect of Inequality: Others note that the theory focuses so much on labeling that it downplays the structural inequalities (such as poverty and access to healthcare) that shape health outcomes.
References
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders (Vol. 1973). New York: Free Press.
Bernburg, John Gunnar. 2009. Labeling theory. In Handbook of Crime and Deviance, eds. Marvin D. Krohn, Alan J. Lizotte, and Gina Penly Hall. New York: Springer.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, C. (2021). 9 Examples of Primary Deviance.
Lemert, E. (1951a). Primary and secondary deviation. Crime. Critical concepts in sociology, 3, 603-607.
Lemert, E. M. (1951b). Social pathology; A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior.
Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Martino, L. (2017). Concepts of primary and secondary deviance.
Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6 (3), 359-394.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2010). Lemert, Edwin M.: Primary and secondary deviance. Encyclopedia of criminological theory, 551-553.
Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior: Its sociological implications (pp. 18-18). New York: Harper & Row.
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of research in Crime and Delinquency, 30 (4), 445-473.
Wiley, S. A., Slocum, L. A., & Esbensen, F. A. (2013). The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: An exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent delinquency. Criminology, 51 (4), 927-966.
Thorsell, B. A., & Klemke, L. W. (1972). The labeling process: reinforcement and deterrent?. Law & Society Review, 6 (3), 393-403.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the Community. In Crime and the Community. Columbia University Press.
