Critics of labeling theory vigorously dispute Scheff's (1966) provocative etiological hypothesis and downplay the importance of factors such as stigma and stereotyping. We propose a modified labeling perspective which claims that even if labeling does not directly produce mental disorder, it can lead to negative outcomes. Our approach asserts that socialization leads individuals to develop a set of beliefs about how most people treat mental patients. When individuals enter treatment, these beliefs take on new meaning. The more patients believe that they will be devalued and discriminated against, the more they feel threatened by interacting with others. They may keep their treatment a secret, try to educate others about their situation, or withdraw from social contacts that they perceive as potentially rejecting. Such strategies can lead to negative consequences for social support networks, jobs, and self-esteem. We test this modified labeling perspective using samples of patients and untreated community residents, and find that both believe that "most people" will reject mental patients. Additionally, patients endorse strategies of secrecy, withdrawal, and education to cope with the threat they perceive. Finally, patients' social support networks are affected by the extent to which they fear rejection and by the coping responses they adopt to deal with their stigmatized status.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2095613.pdf

A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders : an empirical assessment

Labeling theory proponents and the theory's critics have different views of stigma and thus differ on the consequences of labeling for people with mental illness. The labeling perspective posits that because of stigma, official labeling through treatment contact has negative consequences for mental patients. In contrast, critics of labeling theory claim that stigma is relatively inconsequential. Instead, they argue that because labeling results in receiving needed services, it provides significant benefits for mental patients. Thus far, no study has tested the relative positive and negative effects of labeling. The author examines these views by comparing the importance of perceived stigma versus the receipt of services for the quality of life of persons with chronic mental illness. Results show that both stigma and services received are significantly associated with quality of life but in opposite ways. These findings have important implications for interventions for mental illness

Labeling mental illness : The effects of received services and perceived stigma on life satisfaction

Scholars have recently revitalized labeling theory as a developmental theory of structural disadvantage. According to this approach, official intervention increases the probability of involvement in subsequent delinquency and deviance because intervention triggers exclusionary processes that have negative consequences for conventional opportunities. The theory predicts that official intervention in adolescence increases involvement in crime in early adulthood due to the negative effect of intervention on educational attainment and employment. Using panel data on urban males that span early adolescence through early adulthood, we find considerable support for this revised labeling approach. Official intervention in youth has a significant, positive effect on crime in early adulthood, and this effect is partly mediated by life chances such as educational achievement and employment.

Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: the direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood*

This article examines the short-term impact of formal criminal labeling on involvement in deviant social networks and increased likelihood of subsequent delinquency. According to labeling theory, formal criminal intervention should affect the individual’s immediate social networks. In many cases, the stigma of the criminal status may increase the probability that the individual becomes involved in deviant social groups. The formal label may thus ultimately increase involvement in subsequent deviance. We use panel data of a sample of urban adolescents to examine whether involvement in deviant social groups mediates the relationship between juvenile justice intervention and subsequent delinquent behavior. Using measures from three successive points in time, the authors find that juvenile justice intervention positively affects subsequent involvement in serious delinquency through the medium of involvement in deviant social groups, namely, street gangs and delinquent peers.

Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory

The labeling theory of deviance was extremely popular during the 1960s and 1970s. After a series of influential critiques, however, the validity of the theory had fallen into question by 1980 and was pronounced dead by 1985. In this paper we examine the application of the labeling perspective to one particular area, juvenile delinquency. We discuss the general theoretical origin of labeling theory in both conflict theory and symbolic interactionism, and use it to present two main labeling hypotheses: 1) that status attributes are influential in determining who is labeled (the “status characteristics hypothesis”) and 2) that labeling experiences are instrumental in producing problems of adjustment and in causing subsequent commitment to further deviance (the “secondary deviance hypothesis”). We note that what is often passed off as a critique of labeling theory itself is frequently a caricature of the theory. The major point of the paper is an elaboration of the full complexity of each labeling hypothesis,...

The Labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence

Despite the widespread popularity enjoyed by labeling theory less than a decade ago, it is now commonly asserted that societal reaction has little etiological impact on future deviancelcrime. The present study challenges this view and suggests that an accurate assessment of the perspective awaits the systematic investigation of the various contingencies involved in the labeling process. Using a random sample of Manhattan youths, a longitudinal analysis of the impact of formal intervention on juvenile delinquency/deviance was undertaken in which the relevance of two such contingencies was examined: types of reaction and types of deviance. The data revealed (I) that police and mental health intervention had both independent and interactive effects in increasing juvenile deviance and (2) that the impact of these various modes of reaction differed according to the form of juvenile deviance (delinquency, anxiety, general psychological impairment) being examined. It was thus concluded that it would be premature to discard the labeling perspective as an etiological theory of deviant/criminal behavior.

Frances Palamara

Papers

The effect of police and mental health intervention on juvenile deviance: specifying contingencies in the impact of formal reaction.