ABSTRACT
The tension between control theory and social learning theory is exemplified by the disagreement between R. Akers and M. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi. In contrast, Akers argues that the propositions contained in A General Theory of Crime are consistent with learning theories of crime. Without learning, there is no motivation. Consequently, man is motivated only to the extent that he learns to define acts of crime and deviance as favorable through exposure to a delinquent belief structure. In the absence of meaningful differences in motivation, differences in restraint define individual variation in the propensity to commit acts of crime and delinquency. Within social learning theory, crime is no different from any other act and man, having no natural tendency with regard to crime, is free to learn or unlearn a propensity toward such acts. Within the context of A General Theory of Crime, learning results in a decrease in criminal propensity through its effect on self-control.
