Exercise 3 solution

(a) The first act, taking one small item, is the primary deviance: minor, early rule-breaking that need not change how the teenager sees themselves. The later pattern, being avoided and then spending time with people who shoplift, is closer to secondary deviance, where behaviour is organised around the deviant label. The story does not say how the teenager sees themselves, so even this is an inference from the behaviour described.

(b) Formal control: the owner calling the police (an external sanction enforced by the state, in the Social control page's terms). Informal control: former friends avoiding the teenager, and the neighbours talking, which the page lists as disapproval and in extreme cases exclusion.

(c) Becker and Lemert fit the label and the move from primary to secondary deviance: the label "thief" is applied by others, and the teenager's later behaviour follows it, which the Labeling theory page calls a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sutherland's differential association fits the later part: contact with older people who shoplift matches learning the techniques and attitudes in close personal groups. Both can apply at once; the pages do not say they compete.

(d) The pages do not tell you whether the teenager would have started shoplifting with those people anyway. To say the label caused the later behaviour you would need comparison cases (similar teenagers who were not labelled) and some way to rule out other explanations, such as strain or existing friendships. The Labeling theory page lists studies but gives no figures, so it cannot supply a rate.

A good answer separates what the story states from what is inferred, and does not claim the label caused the outcome.