Labeling Theory

Full text

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 1
FINAL MANUSCRIPT (BEFORE PRODUCTION)
FULL REFERENCE
Jón Gunnar Bernburg. 2019. Labeling Theory. In: Marvin D. Krohn, Nicole Hendrix, Gina
Penly Hall, and Alan J. Lizotte (eds.), Handbook of Crime and Deviance, Second Edition.
Springer Nature Switzerland.
LABELING THEORY
Jón Gunnar Bernburg
University of Iceland
INTRODUCTION
Labeling theory provides a distinctively sociological approach that focuses on the role of
social labeling in the development of crime and deviance. The theory assumes that although
deviant behavior can initially stem from various causes and conditions, once individuals have
been labeled or defined as deviants, they often face new problems that stem from the reactions
of self and others to negative stereotypes (stigma) that are attached to the deviant label
(Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1967). These problems in turn can increase the likelihood of deviant
and criminal behavior becoming stable and chronic. In the words of Lemert (1967), deviant
behavior can become “means of defense, attack, or adaptation” (p. 17) to the problems created
by deviant labeling. Thus, being labeled or defined by others as a criminal offender may
trigger processes that reinforce or stabilize deviant behavior, net of the behavioral pattern and
the social and psychological conditions that existed prior to labeling.
The scientific status of labeling theory has improved considerably in recent years.
Labeling theory became widely accepted during the 1960s as a viable approach to crime and
deviance, but a series of critiques that came out during the 1970s undermined its initial
popularity. According to critics (e.g. Tittle, 1980), labeling theory was vague, simplistic, and
ideological, and empirical tests had failed to provide consistent support for the proposition
that labeling reinforces deviant behavior. In the 1980s, however, scholars began to argue that
this critique had led to a premature demise of labeling theory (Palarma, Cullen, & Gersten,
1986; Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). According to these scholars, the critics had overstated
and simplified the claims made by labeling theory. Moreover, a large part of the research that
had undermined labeling theory was methodologically flawed, and thus did not constitute
valid testing of the theory.
In the past few decades the scientific rigor of labeling research has improved
significantly. Scholars have clarified and elaborated the processes by which labeling
influences deviant behavior, and research has addressed many of the methodological flaws
that plagued the early research on labeling theory. Recent years have seen a rapid
accumulation of sophisticated research that supports the criminogenic effects of labeling. This

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 2
chapter extracts a “current” account of labeling theory, by reviewing a wide selection of
prominent work pertaining to the criminogenic effects of labeling.
Deviant Labels and Stigma
While social labels generally constitute a part of the cultural framework that people use to
define and categorize the social world, deviant labels are special in that they are stigmatizing
markers. This assumption is fundamental to labeling theory. Deviant labels, criminal labels in
particular, are associated with stigma, which means that the mainstream culture has attached
specific, negative images or stereotypes to deviant labels (Link & Phelan, 2001). Negative
stereotypes of criminal offenders are manifested in the mainstream culture in various ways,
for example in films, books, mass media, and even everyday language (Becker, 1963;
Goffman, 1963; Scheff, 1966). Walt Disney’s Beagle Boys provides an example of how
criminals are often portrayed as innately immoral, devious, and fundamentally different from
other people. Such examples remind us that the learning of criminal stereotypes is a part of
childhood socialization.
Individuals labeled as criminals tend to be set aside as fundamentally different from
others, and they tend to be associated with stereotypes of undesirable characteristics
(Simmons, 1965-6). Becker (1963) has argued that the deviant status may become a master
status for the person; that is, the negative images attached to the deviant label may override
other attributes a person may have. “To be labeled a criminal”, Becker (1963) writes, “carries
a number of connotations specifying auxiliary traits characteristics of anyone bearing the
label” (pp. 33-34). The labeled person is seen as unable to “act as a moral being and therefore
might break other important rules.” Moreover, any future (or past) misbehavior tends may be
seen as an indication of his or her essential criminal nature. Studies indicate that the stigma
attached to criminal labeling promotes widespread distrust and distain for people with a
criminal label (Travis, 2002). Moreover, some labels, such as sex and violent offender labels,
seem to have particularly pronounced effects on such feelings (Denver, Pickett, & Bushway,
2017; Harris and Socia 2016).
Formal and Informal Labeling
Labeling theory is concerned with problems that emerge after the social environment has
defined or typified the individual as a deviant, raising the question of how deviant labeling is
imposed on individuals. After all, deviant behavior is common and often does not lead to
labeling (Lemert, 1967). For instance, juvenile delinquency is often not considered
particularly deviant by those who witness such behavior (other juveniles), and thus may not
lead to social reactions. Such reactions occur only when there is a social audience that labels
the behavior (and the individual) as particularly deviant—or criminal, in the case of criminal
labeling (Becker, 1963).
Labeling theory emphasizes that formal labeling, police and criminal justice labeling
in particular, is a salient source of labeling. The contemporary state has a formal monopoly
over the sanctioning of criminals (Garfinkel, 1956). To be formally processed as a criminal or
a delinquent therefore testifies to and brings attention to the person’s immorality and inability
to follow important social norms. Tannenbaum (1938) refers to such public reactions as the
“dramatization of evil.” Erikson (1963) argues that formal reactions entail ceremonies (“rites
of transition”) that mark a change into a deviant status, such as “the criminal trial, with its
elaborate formality and exaggerated ritual” (p. 16). Moreover, when punishment has been
carried out, there are no analogous official ceremonies in place to cancel the criminal stigma,
and thus bring the person back into society. Thus, the stigma of having been formally
processed as a criminal offender tends to “stick” to the person.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 3
It may be noted that by highlighting criminal justice intervention as an important
source of labeling and stigma, labeling theory contradicts the classic notion of specific
deterrence, namely, that punishment ought to deter offenders from commiting crime in the
future (Gibbs, 1975). Such notions of individual rationality ignore the social reality of stigma
and its effects on individual development.
But the notion of informal labeling is still at the heart of labeling theory, which
emphasizes that formal labeling influences individual development largely because it triggers
stigmatization in informal settings (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). An arrest may have no
impact on a youth’s life if it is kept secret from school authorities and members of the local
community. But, if school authorities are notified of the event or if it becomes known in the
community, it can trigger exclusionary reactions by teachers and community members.
Moreover, social audiences may impose deviant labels on actors in the absence of formal
labeling (Matsueda, 1992).
Labeling and Discrimination
Disadvantaged groups are more likely than other groups to experience criminal labeling.
Aggressive policing of lower-class communities raises the likelihood of lower-class people
and minorities experiencing police intervention (Smith, Visher, & Davidson, 1984).
Moreover, since stereotypes of minorities and disadvantaged groups often entail images of
criminality and dangerousness (Quillian & Pager, 2001), members of such groups are policed,
sanctioned, and stigmatized more, net of criminal offending (Warren, Tomaskovic-Devey,
Smith, Zingraff, & Mason, 2006). Encounters between police and citizens are more likely to
lead to an arrest if the citizen is a minority, net of the nature and seriousness of the offense
(Worden & Shepard, 1996). Minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status tend to
receive more severe sentences, net of the seriousness of the offense that they have been
charged with and prior criminal record (Bontrager, Bales, & Chiricos, 2005), but not all
studies support this finding (Albonetti & Hepburn, 1996).
1
However, minority status and
socioeconomic (SES) status shape the risk of labeling in complex ways. Tapia (2010) has
reported evidence suggesting that the “out of place” status of minority youths with high SES
poses them at an even higher risk of an arrest.
Minorities and impoverished individuals may be more vulnerable to informal labeling
as well, due to prevalent stereotypes that associate criminality with such groups. Bernburg
and Krohn (2003) have argued that formal labeling may be more likely to trigger stigma for
members of such groups. Matsueda (1992) has shown that African-American youths are more
likely than white youths to be perceived as rule-breakers by their parents, net of their self-
reported delinquency.
THE CRIMINOGENIC PROCESSES TRIGGERED BY LABELING
Different authors have specified different processes by which labeling may influence
subsequent deviant behavior. If the early theoretial statements were often vague on this point
(Goode 1975), in recent times scholars have clarified these processes. This section discusses
the main criminogenic processes posited by contemporary labeling theory, namely, 1) the
development of a deviant self-concept, 2) the processes of rejection and withdrawal, and 3)
involvement in deviant groups.
1
Conflict theory argues that the powerless have restricted access to law-making and criminal justice policy, and
hence their interests are often not represented in the laws, policies, and organizations that determine the labeling
process (Reiman, 1995). Thus, deviance associated with the powerless tends to be labeled as criminal, whereas
deviance associated with the powerful often escapes such stigma.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 4
Deviant Self-Concept
The effect of labeling on self-concept formation is originally elaborated by Lemert (1967).
His work was grounded in symbolic interactionism. This school of thought emphasizes the
role of self-concept in motivating and controlling behavior, assuming that individuals’
concept of self is shaped by their experience of past and present interactions with others.
Elaborating on this thought, Matsueda (1992) argues that the individual’s image of self is
formed in the process of reflected appraisals, that is, individuals form their self-concept on
the basis of their experience of interacting with other people. People learn how to define
themselves (who they are, what they do) on the basis of how they perceive the attitudes of
others toward them. Since the attitudes of others toward individuals defined as deviants are
shaped by negative stereotypes, these individuals may experience stereotypical expectations
toward themselves. Such a perception of oneself from the standpoint of others may lead to a
change in self-concept; the person may begin to see him or herself as a deviant person, taking
on the role of the deviant. But, Asencio and Burke (2011) have argued, the relation between
reflected appraisals and self concept is complex and dynamic; the views of others may shape
the self-concept differently depending on the situational importance of the perceived views of
others.
Processes of Social Exclusion
The stigma attached to deviant labeling can stir up processes leading to exclusion from
relationships with conventional others and from legitimate opportunities. Specifically,
labeling may lead to social exclusion through two analytically separate processes (Link,
1982). First, conventional others, including peers, community members, and gate-keepers in
the opportunity structure (e.g. teachers and employers), may reject or devalue the labeled
person. Stereotypical images of criminality can become defining features of individuals
labeled as criminal offenders, thereby bringing on negative reactions by others that are driven
by fear, mistrust, self-righteousness, and so on, as well as fear of being associated with
stigma.
Second, labeling may lead to social withdrawal due to anticipated rejection or
devaluation. Goffman (1963) has argued that the social interaction of “normal” people and
stigmatized individuals often entails uneasiness, embarrassment, ambiguity, and intense
efforts at impression management. “The very anticipation of such contacts can . . . lead
normals and the stigmatized to arrange life so as to avoid them” (Goffman, 1963, p. 13). Link,
Cullen, Struening, Shrout, and Dohrenwood (1989) argue that individuals labeled as deviants
often expect others to devalue and even reject themselves, resulting in avoiding situations in
which they anticipate that their deviant label may stir up stigma. In turn, “withdrawal may
lead to constricted social networks and fewer attempts at seeking more satisfying, higher-
paying jobs” (Link et al., 1989, p. 403). Also, stigmatized individuals may internalize their
perception of their devaluated status, resulting in low self-worth (Kaplan & Johnson, 1991).
Individuals labeled as criminal offenders may believe that most people will distrust, devalue,
and reject individuals that have been labeled as criminal offenders, and hence they may often
avoid social encounters that most people see no reason to avoid, but that are vital for
maintaining social bonds to mainstream groups and institutions (Winnick & Bodkin, 2008).
Criminologists have discussed how labeling may undermine conventional social
bonds. Sampson and Laub (1993) incorporate labeling theory into a lifecourse framework,
highlighting the detrimental effects of labeling on the subsequent development of social
bonding and future life chances. These authors argue that by undermining social ties to
conventional others, as well as educational attainment and employment chances, criminal
labeling may have a long term impact on crime and deviant behavior. In this sense labeling
may directly impact individual development temporarily, but this impact may produce a

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 5
“snowball effect” that can last much longer than the actual experience of labeling and
stigmatization. Thus, stigma may only have to “stick” to the person for a short period to have
a long-term effect on the lifecourse, and thereby on the development of crime and
delinquency. Similarly, scholars (Kavish et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2014) have situated labeling
theory within interactional theory, focusing on how labeling undermines social bonds over
time.
Involvement in Deviant Groups
Deviant labeling may lead to involvement in deviant groups, which is by itself an important
risk factor for crime and deviance (Becker, 1963; Braithwaite, 1989). Elaborating on this
point, Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera (2006) argue that deviant groups represent a source of
social support in which deviant labels are accepted, while at the same time providing
collective rationalizations, attitudes, and opportunities that encourage and facilitate deviant
behavior. Bernburg et al. suggest that labeling may increase juvenile involvement in deviant
peer groups due to three main processes. First, labeling can bring on rejection from
conventional peers and from other community members who may fear and mistrust them. For
example, parents may prevent their children from associating with known delinquents. By
associating with deviant groups, known delinquents can receive a more positive image of
themselves from the standpoint of significant others. Second, labeling may result in
withdrawal from encounters with conventional peers, because such encounters may entail
shame, embarrassment, and uneasiness. Finally, youths tend to make friends with those who
are similar to themselves. Youths that have a deviant self-concept may seek the friendship of
individuals that share the deviant self-concept.
The path diagram shown in Figure 1 summarizes the intermediate processes. Criminal
labels are imposed more on racial minorities and the disadvantaged. Formal labeling may
shape a deviant self-concept as well as undermining social bonds and life changes. This may
occur through informal labeling and rejection as well as through withdrawal. Research on
mental illness labeling indicates that anticipated rejection may hurt individual outcomes
independently from the experience of rejection (Markowitz, 1998). Furthermore, weak bonds
to mainstream society and blocked opportunities may impact deviant behavior directly, due to
weaker informal social control and reduced life chances, but also indirectly through
involvement in deviant groups. A deviant self-concept may influence deviant behavior
directly, as the labeled person internalizes a deviant role, but also indirectly through
involvement in deviant groups. There may be a reciprocal relationship between self-concept
changes and changes in social bonds. A deviant self-concept is made “more plausable when
actor’s access to conventional (normal) roles and opportunities becomes problematic”
(Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989, p. 380). In this vein, the formation of a deviant identity may
lead to weaker bonds to the conventional order. (Note that plausable, non-recursive processes
are not depicted in the diagram. In particular, involvement in deviant groups may reduce both
social bonds and life changes, and it may shape the self-concept. Moreover, as Rocheleau and
Chavez (2015) have argued, involvement in deviant groups may in itself be stigmatizing.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 6
Disadvantage
/minority
status
Formal
labeling
Deviant
self-concept
Involvement in
deviant groups
Deviant
behavior
Deviant
behavior
Informal
labeling
Reduced social
bonds / life
chances
Figure 1. Intermediate processes

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 7
RESEARCH ON THE CRIMINOGENIC EFFECTS OF LABELING
In a critical review published in 1989, Paternoster and Iovanni (1989) discussed several
methodological issues that are particularly important for labeling research. It is useful to
review these issues before turning our attention to the research.
Methodological Issues
First of all, when research studies the effect of formal sanctions on subsequent deviance by
using samples of individuals drawn from police records and similar non-random sources, it
contains limited comparison between formally labeled individuals and individuals that have
no formal labeling. Such research examines the relative (severity of formal reaction), rather
than the absolute (formal reaction vs. no formal reaction) effects of formal labeling, which
therefore may underestimate the impact of labeling. The risk is: “When one takes for study a
group which appears at the end of a long series of discretionary decisions, it is reasonable that
the labeling process has run its course by that time” (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989, p. 385).
Second, labeling research often fails to study intermediate processes. Labeling theory
argues that specific processes—changes in the self-concept, processes of social exclusion, and
involvement in deviant groups—mediate the effect of labeling on deviant behavior. That
labeling triggers such processes constitutes the distinct contribution of labeling theory and,
hence, the intermediate processes need to be examined. For example, incarceration can
undermine social bonds and life chances because individuals are often unable to participate in
social routines and to work toward conventional goals during the time of incarceration. Also,
incarceration places the person in the company of offenders, and may thus create ties with
deviant others. Such processes may be criminogenic, but they are not directly driven by the
intermediate (criminogenic) processes posited by labeling theory.
Relatedly, labeling research often fails to examine informal labeling, as well as
processes of stigmatization (i.e. rejection and withdrawal). But informal labeling and
stigmatization processes comprise the core focus of labeling theory. Formal labeling is
thought to influence subsequent deviance in large part because it leads to informal labeling
and stigmatization. The role of informal labeling and stigmatization ultimately cannot be
demonstrated without measuring these concepts.
Finally, research often ignores that the criminogenic processes triggered by labeling
may be contingent on social context. Researchers may often need to specify the conditions
that enhance or moderate labeling effects, including the situational context of labeling (e.g.
whether or not a person is able to hide the fact of his or her arrest), the social status of the
labelee (and perhaps also of the labeler), and the broader national or societal context
(Braithwaite, 1989).
These methodological issues guide the following discussion of the empirical research.
In what follows, I discuss the research on 1) the effect of labeling on subsequent deviance, 2)
intermediate processes, and 3) contingent effects.
The Effect of Labeling on Subsequent Deviance
Again, the study’s sampling method determines the sample variation in labeling. Studies
based on longitudinal surveys of samples from general populations (usually adolescents or
young adults) unambiguously contain a comparison between individuals who have been
formally labeled and individuals who have not. Such research tends to support a positive
effect of adolescent or youth formal labeling (arrest and formal sanctions) on subsequent
delinquency, net of initial delinquency and other controls, as late as in adulthood (e.g.
Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Farrington, Osborn, & West, 1978; Johnson, 2004; Lopes et al.,
2012). Recent studies that have employed propensity score matching to better control for

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 8
confounding factors tend to find such effects as well (e.g. Liberman, Kirk, & Kim, 2014;
Wiley & Esbensen, 2016).
By contrast, more inclusive reviews of studies on the effect of formal labeling on
subsequent behavior, that is, reviews that do not categorize the research based on the
sampling method used, yield more mixed results (Barrick, 2013). But, as Barrick (2013) has
argued, the most consistent support for labeling theory tends to come from the most
sophisticated research (that is, with respect to sample size and measurement).
There are situations in which samples drawn from official or non-random sources can
provide meaningful tests of labeling effects. Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, and Bontrager (2007)
studied the effect of formal adjudication on recidivism in a sample of men and women found
guilty of a felony and sentenced to probation in Florida between 2000 and 2002. The research
setting provided an opportunity to examine labeling effects, because Florida judges have the
option to withhold formal adjudication of guilt for convicted felons who are sentenced to
probation. “For those offenders who have adjudication withheld . . . no civil rights are lost and
such individuals can legitimately say on employment applications and elsewhere that a felony
conviction did not occur” (p. 548). Chiricos et al. found that formal adjudication increased the
likelihood of recidivism, net of prior record, type and seriousness of the offense, and social
demographic factors (another, recent example includes Shlosberg, Mandery, West, &
Callaghan, 2014).
Nonexperimental research on any social topic is subject to the threat of omitted
variable bias. Carefully selecting control variables based on current theory and prior research
(e.g. controlling for initial deviance) reduces the problem, but does not eliminate the threat of
bias (Smith & Paternoster, 1990). In this respect, field experiments that randomize formal
reaction to apprehended offenders are particularly important. Although experiments that
provide a meaningful test of labeling effects have been rare, such work lends some support for
labeling theory. Klein (1986) conducted a field experiment that randomized whether
apprehended youths were counseled and released or whether further action was taken (referral
to social service system, referral with purchase of service, or petition toward juvenile court).
Klein found that youths who were counseled and released had a lower probability of
recidivism after 27 months than youths referred to community agencies or petitioned toward
juvenile court (the last group was most likely to recidivate).
2
Berk, Campbell, Klap, and Western (1992) and Sherman and Smith (1992) examined
the effect of arrest for domestic violence on subsequent violence in field experiments that
were conducted in four US cities. The studies found that arrest for domestic violence
increased the likelihood of subsequent violence, but only if the perpetrator was unemployed.
Some evidence indicated that arrest decreased subsequent violence for employed subjects,
consistent with deterrence theory. These studies indicate that formal labeling amplifies
deviance only under certain conditions.
There is some, albeit limited, research support for the effect of informal labeling on
subsequent offending. In an influential study, Matsueda (1992) used longitudinal data from
the National Youth Survey (NYS) to examine the effect of informal labeling on subsequent
delinquency among adolescent males. Matsueda found parental labeling (that is, parents’ self-
reported perception of whether they see their son as someone who gets into trouble/breaks
rules) and subjective labeling (respondents’ perception of whether friends, parents, teachers
see them as someone who gets into trouble/breaks rules) to influence subsequent delinquency,
2
Klein (1986) reports that the treatment condition had no effect on self-reported delinquency in a follow-up
survey that was conducted about nine months later on a subsample of the initial sample of offenders. However,
the subsample consisted of only those subjects that participated in the follow-up survey, about 60 percent of the
initial sample. These findings are suspect. The null-findings may be due to sampling bias in which the more
serious offenders tend not to be included in the follow-up survey.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 9
net of initial delinquency. In addition to several analyses of the NYS data (Bartusch &
Matsueda, 1996; Heimer & Matsueda, 1994; Lee et al, Menard & Bouffard, 2013; Tripplett &
Jarjoura, 1994; Zhang, 1997), two recent studies support the external validity of Matsueda’s
original findings, showing an effect of subjective labeling in adolescence on adult offending
(Lee, Tajima, Herrenkohl, and Hong, 2017; Walters, 2016).
Research is needed on the potential long-term impact of deviant labeling in childhood.
Informal labeling, by parents, teachers, peers, or community members, may trigger
exclusionary reactions toward children and adolescents and impact their self-concept before
formal agencies come into the picture (Lee et al., 2014; Tripplett & Jarjoura, 1994).
Moreover, labeling in childhood can undermine family, school and peer attachments,
undermining social bonds and increase subsequent deviant behavior (Kavish, Mullins, &
Soto, 2016; Sampson & Laub, 1997). In this regard, the implications of the medicalization of
childhood deviance (Conrad, 2007) need to be addressed from the perspective of labeling
theory. As Prosser (2015) has pointed out, the social impact of the attention deficit
hyperactivity diagnosis (ADHD) label, which in many places has become a standard reaction
to child deviance (and can be seen as a type of formal labeling), has rarely been studied.
Whether or not such labels are stigmatizing and criminogenic is a vital topic for future
labeling research.
Research on Intermediate Processes
Tests of intermediate processes are critically important for the development of labeling
theory. While intermediate processes were usually missing in early labeling research, studies
of mediated effects have become more frequent in recent years. I now review such work in
some detail.
Deviant Self-Concept. Limited longitudinal research exists on the intermediate role of
self-concept formation. A few studies have tested whether deviant self-concept mediates the
effect of informal labeling on subsequent delinquency. In a study discussed above, Matsueda
(1992) found that subjective labeling mediated the effect of parental labeling on son’s
subsequent delinquency. Several re-analyses of the NYS data support these findings (Bartusch
& Matsueda, 1996; Heimer & Matsueda, 1994; Tripplett & Jarjoura, 1994; Zhang, 1997).
More recently, using a retrospective survey on young adults, Walters (2016) found delinquent
self-view in adolescence to mediate the effect of subjective parental labeling on adult
offending.
Very limited research has addressed whether the formation of a deviant self-concept
mediates the effect of formal labeling on subsequent delinquency. However, providing
indirect evidence for such process, recent work shows that low self-worth (Restivo & Lanier,
2013) and neutralization attitudes (Wiley, Slocum, & Esbensen, 2013) mediate a part of the
effect of formal labeling on delinquency.
Social Exclusion—Weak Social Ties, Reduced Life Chances, and Involvement in
Deviant Groups. Research supports the notion that labeling undermines mainstream social
ties. Studies have found informal labeling to be associated with social isolation from family,
friends, and school (Zhang, 1997), and reduced school attachment (Tripplett & Jarjoura,
1994). Moreover, research indicates that formal labeling undermines mainstream social ties
through both short-term and long-term process. In the short term, formal labeling has been
associated with worse parent-child relations (Stewart et al. 2002), lower school grades (Wiley
et al., 2013), and peers’ rejection from nonlabeled youths (Zhang, 1994). In the long term,
formal labeling may undermine conventional social ties through reduced life chances.
Schmidt et al. (2015) find financial hardship in young adulthood to mediate a negative effect
of police intervention in adolescence on the odds of entering into a stable marriage in
adulthood, as well as on the quality of adult romantic relationships.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 10
Many studies support the detrimental effect of formal labeling on life chances. Formal
labeling has been found to negatively impact educational attainment, net of initial
delinquency and controls (e.g. Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; De Li, 1999; Hjalmarsson, 2008;
Kirk & Sampson, 2013). Ethnographic research has illustrated how school-officials routinely
define students as troublemakers, and once the troublemaker label has been designated, the
student’s misbehavior brings on harsher disciplinary procedures than normally would be used,
including suspension, transfer to another school, or even expulsion (Bowditch, 1993).
Extensive research indicates that formal labeling undermines employment. Many jobs
have restrictions on hiring people that have a criminal record (Irwing, 2005), and criminal
background checks in hiring decisions are widespread (Harris & Keller, 2005). Field
experiments and vignette studies indicate how employers are less likely to hire applicants that
have been convicted or incarcerated, even those convicted for minor offenses (Pager, 2003;
Schwartz & Skolnick, 1962). Survey research shows that, net of initial delinquency, having a
conviction, or having been charged or apprehended by police, as early as adolescence, has a
long-term effect on adulthood unemployment (e.g. Bernburg & Krohn, 2003; Makarios,
Cullen, & Piquero, 2017; Lopes et al., 2012), socioeconomic disadvantage and premature
transitions to adulthood (Lanctot, Cernkovich, & Giordano, 2007), and welfare recipiency
(Lopes et al., 2012).
In spite of all the research that supports the negative effect of formal labeling on life
chances, especially employment, only a handful of studies have examined whether reduced
life chances mediate the effect of formal labeling on subsequent crime and deviance. Such
questions require data that span long term individual development. Bernburg and Krohn
(2003) examined the effect of formal labeling during adolescence on adult criminal behavior,
using data on urban males from the Rochester Youth Developmental Study (RYDS. Bernburg
and Krohn examined both police records (arrest/police contact) and self-report data on
juvenile justice intervention (probation, correctional center, community service, detention,
brought to court, treatment program). The study found that formal labeling during
adolescence had a positive effect on self-reported crime in late adolescence and early
adulthood (age 21-22), net of serious adolescent delinquency, academic aptitute, and social
background. Educational attainment and early adult employment mediated these effects in
part. In a follow-up study, Lopes et al. (2012) incorporated adulthood (age 29-31) measures
from the RYDS data and found that both adolescent and young adult formal labeling were
associated with adulthood unemployment, welfare recipiency, and criminal behavior. But, this
study did not find evidence of mediated effects. A few other studies have found educational
attainment and unemployment to mediate the long-term effect of formal labeling on criminal
behavior (De Li, 1999; Lee, Courtney, Harachi, & Tajima, 2015; Sampson & Laub, 1993).
Research has examined whether involvement in deviant groups mediates the effect of
labeling on subsequent deviance. The previously mentioned analyses of the NYS data have
found that the effect of subjective labeling on subsequent delinquency is mediated in part by
association with delinquent peers (Heimer & Matsueda, 1994; Tripplett & Jarjoura, 1994).
Several studies have examined whether involvement in deviant groups mediates the effect of
formal labeling on subsequent delinquency. Most of these studies provide support for this
intermediate process (Bernburg et al., 2006; Kapplan & Johnson, 1991; Restivo and Lanier,
2015; Wiley et al., 2013), but a minority provides mixed support (Johnson, Simons, &
Conger, 2004), or no support (Farrington, 1977). For example, Bernburg et al. (2006) found
that, net of initial delinquency, drug use, involvement in deviant groups, and other controls,
juvenile justice intervention had a positive effect on the odds of serious delinquency one year
later. Furthermore, a large part of this effect was mediated by increased likelihood of
involvement in gangs and association with delinquent peers at an intermediate period.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 11
In summary, Table 1 provides an overview of longitudinal studies that have examined
intermediate processes in the effect of labeling on subsequent deviance. In line with the
methodological discussion above, the table includes only studies using population-based
samples. While the research supports many of the intermediate processes implied by labeling
theory, there are limitations. Research has rarely tested whether deviant self-concept
formation mediates the effect of formal labeling on delinquency (instead, studies have used
delinquent attitudes/neutralizations as proxies; e.g. Wiley et al. 2013). Also, the evidence
tends to be fragmented, as studies usually focus on only one major intermediate process at a
time. But, recent attempts to provide more comprehensive testing of mediated effects have
found simultaneous support for all of the processes tested (Restivo and Lanier, 2015; Wiley et
al. 2013).
But if recent years have seen an accumulation of research support for the negative
impact of formal labeling on social ties and life chances, and for the impact of labeling on
involvement in deviant groups, limited research exists on the processes that are held to drive
these exclusionary effects, namely, situational devaluation (stigmatization), rejection, and
withdrawal. In a rare study, Winnick and Bodkin (2008) surveyed convicts about their
perception of stigmatization of being an ex-convict and how they intended to manage stigma
upon their release from prison. The study found that many convicts believed that most people
will distrust and reject ex-convicts, and that this belief was positively associated with an
intention to withdraw from social participation upon release from prison. Moreover, while
unable to test general hypotheses, qualitative research illustrates how offender labels can
impact everyday situations (e.g. Bowditch, 1993; Bernburg, 2006; Kaufman & Johnson,
2004;). Bernburg (2006) conducted open-ended interviews with individuals that had been
convicted for crimes. The study provided accounts from juvenile delinquents describing how
their peers were ackwardly “polite” and “not-themselves” around them, and how they
anticipated feelings of shame when confronted with their peers’ parents. Moreover, ex-
offenders often dreaded the thought of experiencing situations in which stigma becomes a part
of others’ definition of them. Such encounters entail shame, embarrassment, and an inability
to present themselves in a favorable light (“I could just as well be naked”), a notion that was
sometimes based on experience and sometimes based on anticipation. Individuals provided
accounts of how they tried to avoid situations that, in their minds, could entail such
encounters, including “meeting new people”.
In short, labeling research needs to include measures of devaluation, rejection and
withdrawal. This effort can be aided by qualitative research illustrating how labeling and
stigma impact everyday situations. The work can also build on measures that have been
developed to measure anticipated and experienced rejection in research on mental illness
labeling (Markowitz, 1998). Importantly, however, the research may need to go beyond the
subjective experience of labeled individuals. Rejection and devaluation by others may hurt
social ties and life chances without the labeled person being aware of it. As Matsueda (1992)
found, objective parental labeling (based on interviews with parents) influenced youth
delinquency, net of the effect of the youth’s subjective or perceived labeling. Future research
should attempt to measure objective labeling and even rejection on the part of those
individuals that comprise the person’s relevant social environment, including perhaps school
peers, teachers, and selected community members.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 12
Table 1. Tests of mediated effects
Study
Target population / study’s
timeframe
Type of labeling examined (type
of data)
Support for a criminogenic
effect of labeling?
Intervening variables / support for a
mediated effect?
Informal labeling
Adams and Evans
(1996)
US adolescent males, 2-year
follow-upa
Subjective labeling (self-
reports)
Yes
Peer delinquency / yes
Matsueda (1992)
and Heimer and
Matsueda (1992)
US adolescent males, 3-year
follow-upa
Objective parental labeling
(parent-reports)
Subjective labeling (self-
reports)
Yes
Yes
Subjective labeling / yes
Peer delinquency / yes
Triplett and
Jarjoura (1994)
US adolescent males, 4-year
follow-upa
Objective parental labeling
(parent-reports)
Subjective labeling (self-
reports)
Yes
Yes
Subjective labeling / yes
Parental attachment / no
School attachment / yes
Delinquent peers / yes
Walters (2016)
Young adults, retrospective
Subjective parental labeling
(retrospective self-reports)
Yes
Delinquent self-view / yes
Zhang (1997)
US adolescent males, 2-year
follow-upa
Objective parental labeling
(parent-reports)
Subjective labeling (self-
reports)
Yes
Yes
Subjective labeling / yes
Social isolation / mixed *
Formal labeling
Bernburg and
Krohn (2003)
Early adolescence to early
adulthood, urban US malesb
Juvenile Justice Intervention
(self-reports)
Police Intervention (police
records)
Yes
Yes
Educational attainment / yes
Nonemployment / yes
Educational attainment / yes
Nonemployment / yes
Bernburg et al.
(2006)
Early to middle adolescence,
urban US malesb
Juvenile Justice Intervention
(self-reports)
Yes
Gang Membership / yes
Peer delinquency / yes

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 13
De Li (1999)
Early adolescence to early
adulthood / English working
class malesc
Conviction (official records)
Yes
Unemployment / yes
Farrington (1977)
Early to middle adolescence,
English working class malesc
Conviction (official records)
Yes
Peer delinquency / no
Johnson, et al.
(2004)
Early adolescence to early
adulthood, rural US males
Criminal/Juvenile Justice
Involvement (self-reports)
Yes
Peer delinquency / mixed**
Kaplan and
Johnson (1991)
US adolescents, three year
follow-up
Index for negative social
sanctions (self-reports)
Yes
Dispositions to deviance / yes
Deviant peer association / yes
Lee et al. (2015)
Adolescence to early
aduldhood / US foster youth
Juvenile legal system
involvement (self-reports)
Mixed***
Educational attainment / yes
Unemployment / yes
Lopes et al. (2012)
Adolescence through
adulthood, urban USb
Police intervention age 14-18
(official records)
Police intervention age 21-23
(official records)
Yes
Yes
Educational attainment / No****
Unemployment / No****
Unemployment / No****
Welfare recipiency / No****
Restivo and
Lanier (2015)
US adolescents in high risk
contexts, 3-year follow up
Arrest (self-reports)
Yes
Self-worth / Yes
Delinquent peers / Yes
Perceived life-chances / Yes
Stewart et al.
(2002)
US adolescents / Early to
mid-adolescence
Police and juvenile justice
intervention index (self-reports)
Yes
Poor parenting practices / Yes
Wiley et al. (2013)
US adolescents, 3-year
follow up
Police contact and arrest (self-
reports)
Yes
School commitment / no
Poor grades / yes
Prosocial actitivies / no
Exclusion from prosocial peers /nNo
Less anticipated guilt / yes
Neutralizations / yes
Peer delinquency / yes
Negative peer commitment / yes
Note: The table reports on longitudinal studies that examine mediated effects in population based samples.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 14
a National Youth Survey (NYS).
b Rochester Youth Developmental Study (RYDS).
c Longitudinal data on British working class males (Farrington, 1977).
* Subjective labeling was found to impact social isolation, but social isolation did not impact subsequent delinquency.
** Formal labeling was found to impact deviant peer association, but deviant peer association did not impact subsequent delinquency.
*** Juvenile legal intervention was associated with later criminal behavior at age 21 but not age 23-24.
**** Police intervention negatively impacted life chances and adult crime and drug use, but life chances (educational attainment, unemployment, welfare recipiency) had no
signifant effect on adult crime and drug use.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 15
Contingencies in Labeling Effects
Various conditions may shape the impact of labeling on individual development and
subsequent deviance. First of all, formal labeling should be more criminogenic when it
triggers informal labeling (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). Formal labeling should have a
larger, detrimental impact on individual development, and hence a more pronounced effect on
subsequent deviance, when information about the formal label is brought to the attention of
community members, significant others, or gate-keepers in the opportunity structure (e.g.
teachers, employers). But tests of such hypotheses are limited. Bernburg (2003) found that
when the school is notified by the authorities that there has been a juvenile justice
intervention, the odds of dropping out of high school increase significantly. In a rare study,
Hjalmarsson (2008) compared the effect of formal labeling (arrest and incarceration) on high-
school drop-out in two different contexts, that is, 1) in states that mandate school notification
of arrest and 2) in states that do not mandate notification. Hjalmarsson found that the
observed effects of both arrest and incarceration on high-school drop-out were much larger in
states that mandate notification, but these interaction effects were statistically insignificant,
and thus the large differences found were not beyond chance.
But even if formal labeling is known to others, it may not necessarily lead to informal
labeling and stigmatization (Convington, 1984). “Rather than accepting the deviant label as
indicative of actor’s essential character, others [may] . . . neutralize the consequences of
negative character attribution” (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989: 276). Other actors may bring the
person’s behavior into conformity with the group without excluding the person from it
(Braithwaite, 1989). Moreover, individuals can be differently active in negotiating the
meanings that emerge in social interaction, and hence they may resist when others try to
typify them as deviants (Davis, 1961).
Whether labeling is resisted or neutralized in social situations may thus be contingent
on the characteristics of the actors involved. Although the research on this point is
fragmented, several major factors have been studied, that is, family labeling, minority status
and social disadvantage, gender, family bonds, and prior delinquency.
Family Labeling. Formal labeling may be more likely to trigger stigmatization and
subsequent deviance if the person’s family is already associated with criminal stigma, which
therefore may help to explain the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior (Hagan
& Palloni, 1990; see Murray, Loeber, & Pardini, 2012). Research has found that not only are
children of formally labeled parents more likely to be formally labeled themselves (Besemer,
Farrington, & Bijleveld, 2013), but formal labels seem to be more criminogenic when the
labeled person’s family has previously been labeled deviant (Hagan & Palloni, 1990).
Minority Status, Social Disadvantage. There are two opposite hypotheses regarding
the conditional effects of minority status and disadvantage (Sherman & Smith, 1992). On the
one hand, labeling may have a larger criminogenic effect for minorities and the impoverished.
Sampson and Laub (1997) have argued that since disadvantaged groups tend to have weaker
social bonds and constrained life chances, they are more vulnerable to the negative effects of
labeling. In a sense, they cannot “afford” to miss out on any more opportunities and social
bonds. Bernburg and Krohn (2003) suggest that since racial minorities and the impoverished
tend to be associated with stigma to begin with, formal labels are more likely to trigger stigma
for members of such groups. Finally, powerlessness can undermine the ability to resist
labeling. In an ethnographic study of student discipline in an inner-city high school, Bowditch
(1993) observed that “a student’s vulnerability to suspension, and to identification as a
‘troublemaker,’ may . . . depend upon his or her parents’ ability to influence the actions of
school personnel” (p. 501). “The relatively disadvantaged parents of most parents vis-à-vis

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 16
school workers meant that many parents often received disrespectful and dismissive
treatment. Parents had few, if any, social or political resources with which to challenge a
disciplinarian’s actions” (p. 502).
On the other hand, social disadvantage may weaken the impact of labeling, since
disadvantaged individuals have reduced stakes in maintaining a respectable identity to begin
with (Ageton & Elliott, 1974; Harris, 1976). The identity of such individuals is already
compromised by the stigma that is attached to their group membership, and hence labeling
may have a weaker effect on the self-concept of members of such groups, which implies that
labeling should have a weaker effect on subsequent deviance among racial minorities and the
disadvantaged.
There is some research that supports both viewpoints, although the former hypothesis
has received more substantial support. Bernburg and Krohn (2003) found that the effects of
formal labeling during adolescence on late adolescence and early adult crime were more
pronounced among African Americans and among those that had impoverished backgrounds.
But, the effects of official labeling on educational attainment and employment instability were
not contingent on race or poverty status. As discussed earlier, field experiments (Berk et al.,
1992; Sherman & Smith, 1992) have found that arrest for domestic violence has a larger
positive effect on later violence when the perpetrator is unemployed. Finally, Adams,
Johnson, and Evans (1998) found that the effect of subjective labeling on delinquency was
larger among blacks than among whites.
By contrast, there is research that indicates that disadvantage may sometimes reduce
the effect of formal labeling on subsequent offending. Chiricos et al. (2007) found that the
effect of adjudication on recidivism was significantly larger among whites. This study also
examined whether neighborhood concentrated disadvantage interacted with the effect of
adjudication on recidivism, but found no evidence of such effects. Klein (1986) found that the
effect of formal processing on recidivism were larger among whites and high SES youths.
Ageton and Elliott (1974) found formal labeling to influence delinquent orientations only
among white youths. However, both Klein (1986) and Ageton and Eliott (1974) failed to
report significance tests to demonstrate statistical interaction, and hence these findings should
not be generalized.
Gender. Research on the conditional impact of gender has produced mixed results.
Some studies indicate a stronger criminogenic effect of labeling among males. For example,
Ray and Downs (1986) found an effect of formal labeling on subsequent drug use only among
males, and Bartusch and Matsueda (1996) found that informal labeling had a larger impact on
delinquency among males than among females. By contrast, Chiricos et al. (2007) has found
the effect of adjudication on recidivism to be larger among females than among males, and
McGrath (2014) has found that females experienced stronger feelings of stigmatization during
their sentencing than males.
Family Bonds. Family attachment may moderate the criminogenic effect of labeling.
Drawing on Braithwaite (1989; see below), Jackson and Hay (2013) have argued that strong
family attachment may provide a context for reintegration, whereby the labeled person
experiences shame but then experiences forgiveness and acceptance. Using a sample of high-
risk youths, Jackson and Hay found that arrest had a significantly less pronounced effect on
subsequent delinquency among youths who reported more warmth and attachment within
their families.
Prior Delinquency. Individuals who are already involved in delinquency may not be
affected by labeling as much as those who are less involved in delinquency prior to labeling.
The reason is that the processes discussed above—identity change, social exclusion,
involvement in deviant groups—may already have occurred in the past (due to various
reasons, including prior labeling). Thus, “hard-core” offenders may be “immune to additional

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 17
labeling effects” (Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989:385). Several studies have provided support
this notion, although disagreement exists. Jensen (1980) found that formal labeling has a more
pronounced effect on the delinquent self-concept of youths with low delinquent involvement.
Chiricos et al. (2007) found the effect of adjudication on recidivism among adult offenders to
be stronger among those who did not have a prior criminal record before the age of 30. Wiley,
Carson, and Esbensen (2017) found arrest to amplify delinquent behavior only among
nongang youth but among gang youth. Also, Ward, Krohn, and Gibson (2013) found police
contact to have a more pronounced effect on future violent offending of youths who were on a
low violent-offending trajectory. However, by contrast, Morris and Piquero (2013) found a
more pronounced effect of arrest on the subsequent delinquency of youths on a high-
offending trajectory.
To conclude, we may expect various contingencies in the effects of labeling. But, it is
important to keep in mind that social context not only shapes the likelihood that stigma will
be resisted or escaped, but it also influences various other factors, including the availability of
criminal opportunities and roles. Again, the lack of research that includes measures of
informal labeling and stigmatization prevents us from drawing firm conclusions about the
conditions under which formal labeling is most likely to lead to informal labeling and
stigmatization, under what conditions stigmatization is most likely to reinforce subsequent
delinquency, and so on.
The Broader Societal Context
Braithwaite (1989) has drawn attention to the role of the broader societal context in specifying
the impact of formal criminal labeling. Braithwaite argues that in communitarian societies,
that is, societies that are characterized by high levels of social cohesion, trust, and group
loyalty, moral condemnation (“shaming”) is often followed by informal and even formal
efforts to reintegrate offenders back into the community through forgiveness, efforts to
maintain social bonds, and even ceremonies that symbolize that the offender is no longer a
deviant. By contrast, highly individualistic societies have fewer procedures that reintegrate
offenders, resulting in frequent stigmatization. Thus, formal labeling should be more
criminogenic in individualistic societies than in communitarian societies. There is some
research that has examined aspects of this theory (Hay, 2001), but societal-level tests have
been rare. Baumer et al. (2002) have examined whether recidivism rates are lower in
communitarian countries, relative to countries characterized by individualism, but found no
support for this hypothesis. Cross-national research is needed.
CONCLUSION
Schur (1980) has pointed out that the critics of labeling theory have often assumed that
labeling theory and alternative approaches are “mutually exclusive,” which has caused critics
to ignore the theory’s “most valuable features” (pp. 278-279). Contemporary work on labeling
theory underscores that the theory not only fits well with other theories of crime and deviance,
but that its primary focus on social exclusion complements other sociological theories arguing
that weak social bonds, blocked opportunities, and association with deviant groups are
important factors explaining criminal and delinquent behavior. The scientific rigour of
labeling research has improved in recent years thanks to increased availability of
measurement rich, longitudinal data. But there are still important gaps in the research. Since
available survey data rarely includes measures that specifically target labeling and stigma,
crucial variables are often missing in the research. Accordingly, major hypotheses have not
been properly tested. Above I have highlighted the frequent absence of measures of informal
labeling and deviant self-concept and experienced and anticipated stigmatization. Developing

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 18
such measures and including them in longitudinal survey projects that span long term
individual development continues to be a pressing issue in this area.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. S. & Evans, T. D. (1996). Teacher disapproval, delinquent peers, and self-reported
delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. The Urban Review, 28, 199-211.
Adams, M. S., Johnson, J. D., & Evans, T. D. (1998). Racial differences in informal labeling
effects. Deviant Behavior, 19, 157-171.
Ageton, S., & Elliott, D. (1974). The effect of legal processing on delinquent orientations.
Social Problems, 22, 87-100.
Albonetti, C. A., & Hepburn, J. R. (1996). Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization:
The effects of defendant’s ascribed and achieved status characteristics. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 12, 63-81.
Asencio, E. K. & Burke, P. J. (2011). Does incarceration change the criminal identity? A
synthesis of labeling and identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological
Perspectives, 54, 163-182.
Barrick, K. (2013). A review of prior tests of labeling theory. In: D. P. Farrington & Joseph
Murray (eds.), Labeling Theory: Empirical Tests (pp. 89-112). New Brunswick NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Bartusch, D. J., and Matsueda, R. L. (1996). Gender, reflected appraisals, and labeling: A
cross-group test of an interactionist theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 75, 145-177.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in
incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American
Sociological Review, 57, 698-708.
Bernburg, J. G. (2003). State reaction, life-outcomes, and structural disadvantage: A panel
study of the impact of formal criminal labeling on the transition to adulthood. Ph.d.
Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University at Albany.
Bernburg, J. G. (2006). Experiencing criminal stigma: Offenders’ perceived reactions of
community and self to deviant labeling. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for the Study of Social Problems in Montreal, Canada.
Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct
and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood.
Criminology, 41, 1287-1318.
Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness,
and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67-88.
Besemer, S., Farrington, D. P., & Bijleveld, C. (2013). Official bias in intergenerational
transmission of criminal behavior. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 438-455.
Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and
the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493-509.
Bontrager, S., Bales, W., & Chiricos, T. (2005). Race, ethnicity, threat and the labeling of
convicted felons. Criminology, 43, 589-622.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons
and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45, 547-581.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 19
Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University
Press.
Convington, J. (1984). Insulation from labeling: Deviant defenses in treatment. Criminology,
22, 619-644.
Davis, F. (1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly
handicapped. Social Problems, 9, 120-132.
De Li, S. (1999). Legal sanctions and youths’ status achievement: A longitudinal study.
Justice Quarterly, 16, 377-401.
Denver, M., Pickett, J. T., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). The language of stigmitization and the
mark of violence: Experimental evidence of the social construction and use of criminal
record stigma. Criminology, 55, 664-690.
Emiko, J. S., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, T. I. & Hong, S. (2017). Effects of formal and
informal deviant labels in adolescence on crime in adulthood. Social Work Research, 41,
97-109.
Farrington, D. P. (1977). The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology, 17,
112-125.
Farrington, D. P., Osborn, S. G., & West, D. J. (1978). The persistence of labelling effects.
British Journal of Criminology, 18, 277-284.
Garfinkel, H. (1956). Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies. American Journal of
Sociology, 61, 420-424.
Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York: Elsmere.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goode, E. (1975). On behalf of labeling theory. Social Problems, 22, 570-583.
Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1990). The social reproduction of a criminal class in working-class
London, 1950-1980. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 265-99.
Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex
offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse, 28, 660-678.
Harris, A. R. (1976). Race, commitment to deviance, and spoiled identity. American
Sociological Review, 41, 432-442.
Harris, P. M., and Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal
background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 6-
30.
Hay, C. (2001). An exploratory test of Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 132-153.
Heimer, K., & Matsueda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: A
theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 59, 365-390.
Hepburn, J. R. (1977). The impact of police intervention upon juvenile delinquents.
Criminology, 15, 235-262.
Hjalmarsson, R. (2008). Criminal justice involvement and high school completion. Journal of
Urban Economics, 63, 613-630.
Horowitz, A., & Wasserman, M. (1979). The effect of social control on delinquent behavior:
A longitudinal test. Sociological Focus, 12, 53-70.
Irwing, J. (2005). The warehouse prison: Disposal of the new dangerous class. Los Angeles:
Roxbury Press.
Jackson, D. B., & Hay, C. (2013). The conditional impact of official labeling on subsequent
delinquency: Considering the attenuating role of family attachment. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 300-322.
Jensen, G. F. (1980). Labeling and identity. Criminology, 18, 121-129.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 20
Johnson, L. M., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Criminal justice system involvement
and continuity of youth crime. Youth & Society, 36, 3-29.
Kaplan, H. B., & Johnson, R. J. (1991). Negative social sanctions and juvenile delinquency:
Effects of labeling in a model of deviant behavior. Social Science Quarterly, 72, 98-122.
Kaufman, J. M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Stigmatized individuals and the process of identity.
The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 807-833.
Kavish, D. R., Mullins, C. W., & Soto, D. A. (2016). Interactionist labeling: Formal and
informal labeling’s effects on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1313-
1336.
Kirk, D. S. & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the
transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86, 36-62.
Klein, M. W. (1986). Labeling theory and delinquency policy: An experimental test. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 13, 47-79.
Lanctot, N., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007). Delinquent behavior, official
delinquency, and gender: Consequences for adulthood functioning and well-being.
Criminology, 45, 131-157.
Lee, J., Courtney, M. E., Harachi, T. W., & Tajima, E. A. (2015). Labeling and the effect of
adolescent outcomes for foster youth aging out of care. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 85, 441-451.
Lee, J., Menard, S., & Bouffard, L. A. (2014). Extending interactional theory: The labeling
dimension. Deviant Behavior, 35, 1-19.
Lemert, E. (1967). Human deviance, social problems and social control. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Link, B. G. (1982). Mental patient status, work, and income: An examination of the effects of
a psychiatric label. American Sociological Review, 47, 202-215.
Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Struening, E., Shrout, P. E., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1989). A
modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: An empirical assessment.
American Sociological Review, 54, 400-423.
Link, B. G, & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27,
363-385.
Makarios, M., Cullen, F. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Adolescent criminal behavior,
population heterogeneity, and cumulative disadvantage: Untangling the relationship
between adolescent delinquency and negative outcomes in emerging adulthood. Crime &
Delinquency, 63, 683-707.
Markowitz, F. E. (1998). The effects of stigma on the psychological well-being and life
satisfaction of persons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39,
335-347.
Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisal, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a
symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577-1611.
McGrath, A. J. (2014). The subjective impact of contact with the criminal justice system: The
role of gender and stigmatization. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 884-908.
Morris, R. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). For whom do sanctions deter and label? Justice
Quarterly, 30, 837-868.
Murray, J., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. (2012). Parental involvement in the criminal justice
system and the development of youth theft, marijuana use, depression, and poor academic
performance. Criminology, 50, 255-302.
Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937-
975.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 21
Palarma, F., Cullen, F. T., & Gersten, J. C. (1986). The effect of police and mental health
intervention on juvenile deviance: Specifying contingencies in the impact of formal
reaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 90-105.
Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An
elaboration of the theory and assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6, 359-94.
Prosser, B. (2015). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Australia: Perspectives from the
sociology of deviance. Journal of Sociology, 51, 596612.
Quillian, L., & Pager, D. (2001). Black neighbors, higher crime? The role of racial
stereotypes in evaluations of neighborhood crime. American Journal of Sociology, 107,
717-767.
Ray, M. C., & Downs, W. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal
data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169-94.
Reiman, J. H. (1995). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and
criminal justice. Fourth Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Restivo, E. & Lanier, M. M. (2015). Measuring the contextual effects and mitigating factors
of labeling theory. Justice Quartely, 32, 116-141.
Rocheleau, G. C., & Chavez, J. M. (2015). Guilt by association: The relationship between
deviant peers and deviant labels. Deviant Behavior, 36, 167-186.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and
the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime
and delinquency. (pp. 133-161). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Scheff, T. H. (1966). Becoming mentally ill. Chicago: Aldine.
Schur, E. M. (1980). The politics of deviance: Stigma contests and the uses of power.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schwartz, R. D., & Skolnick, J. H. (1962). Two studies of legal stigma. Social Problems, 10,
133-143.
Sherman, L. W., & Smith, D. A. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal
and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57, 680-690.
Shlosberg, A., Mandery, E. J., West, V., & Callaghan, B. (2014). Expungement and post-
exoneration offending. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104, 353-388.
Simmons, J. L. (1965-6). Public stereotypes of deviants. Social Problems, 13, 223-232.
Schmidt, N. M., Lopes, G., Krohn, M. D., & Lizotte, A. J. (2015). Getting caught and getting
hitched: An assessment of the relationship between police intervention, life changes, and
romantic unions. Justice Quarterly, 32, 976-1005.
Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future delinquency: Deviance
amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society Review, 24, 1109-1131.
Smith, D. A., Visher, C. A., & Davidson, L. (1984). Equity and discretionary justice: The
influence of race on police arrest decisions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
75, 234-249.
Stewart, E. A., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Scaramella, L. V. (2002). Beyond the
interactional relationship between delinquency and parenting practices: The contribution
of legal sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 36-59.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and community. Boston: Ginn.
Tapio, M. (2010). Untangling race and class effects on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 38, 255-265.
Tittle, C. (1980). Labeling and crime: An empirical evaluation. In W. Gove (Ed.), The
labelling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective (pp. 241-263). Second Edition. New York:
Wiley.

Manuscript, Chapter 10, Handbook on Crime and Deviance, 2nd. Ed. Labeling Theory
Author: Jón Gunnar Bernburg 22
Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion.” In M. Mauer &
M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass
imprisonment (pp. 15-36). New York: The New Press.
Tripplett, R. A., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1994). Theoretical and empirical specification of a model
of informal labeling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 241-276.
Walters, G. D. (2016). Reflected appraisals and self-view in delinquency development: An
analysis of retrospective accounts from members of the Racine birth cohorts. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 47, 100-107.
Ward, J. T., Krohn, M. D., & Gibson, C. L. (2013). The effects of police contact on
trajectories of violence: A group-based, propensity score matching analysis. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29, 440-475.
Warren, P., Tomaskovic-Devey, T., Smith, W., Zingraff, M., & Mason, M. (2006). Driving
while black: Bias processes and racial disparity in police stops. Criminology, 44, 709-738.
Wiley, S. A., Carson, D. C., & Esbensen, F. (2017). Arrest and the amplification of deviance:
Does gang membership moderate the relationship? Justice Quarterly, 34, 788-817.
Wiley, S. A., Slocum, L. A., Esbensen, F. (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, 927-965.
Winnick, T. A., & Bodkin, M. (2008). Anticipated stigma and stigma management among
those to be labeled ‘ex-con’. Deviant Behavior, 29, 295-333.
Worden, R., & Shepard, R. (1996). Demeanor, crime, and police behavior: A reexamination
of the police services study data. Criminology, 34, 83-106.
Zhang, L. (1994). Peers rejection as a possible consequence of official reaction to delinquency
in Chinese society. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 387-402.
Zhang, L. (1997). Informal reactions and delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24,
129-150.