SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY AND THE CHAOTIC PERSPECTIVE:
A COMPARATIVE AND INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS

October 29, 2003

No. 009
Distributed as part of the Red Feather Journal of Graduate Sociology. The Red Feather Institute, 8085 Essex, Weidman, Michigan, 48893.

Social Learning Theory and the Chaotic Perspective,
A Comparative Analysis: Applying Models of Nonlinear
Dynamics and Chaos Theory to Various Social Learning
Approaches

ABSTRACT

One of the more popular, and currently visible, branches of Post Modern Sciences is the study of Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos Theory. This analysis discusses the methods by which many social scientists have been championing, whether consciously or not, aspects of chaos theory for decades. More specifically, it seems that various approaches to Social Learning Theory fit quite appropriately into the chaotic perspective. This analysis compares and applies the social learning theories of Albert Bandura, Walter Mischel, M.R. Butz, and C.G. Jung to nonlinear dynamic and chaotic perspectives. Preceding such application, a brief explanation of the chaotic perspective is provided.

INTRODUCTION

The above quote aptly summarizes perhaps the most impenetrable of social scientific walls. With all that has been learned and all that is now known regarding human behavior in social systems, it seems evident that modern science's ultimate goals of prediction, causation, and control are still quite far out of reach, or perhaps misdirected. While modern theoreticians demand direct causal relationships within parsimonious theories (Goodson and Morgan, 1976), this seems a ludicrous requirement regarding social behavior. Moreover, perhaps by demanding the impossible, modern social scientists lose sight of what is possible. It seems that social scientists have become so caught up in attempting to predict and control, they have disregarded the more rational goal of guidance. Is it possible that mere guidance could be social science's ultimate goal? It is if the social science's failure to predict and control are seen not as a failure, but rather as proof of some other truth (Mischel, 1968).

That truth is that human behavioral systems, just as weather patterns, involve so many variables/determinants, at so many different points and levels, that accurate prediction and control simply are not viable goals. The truth of the matter is, social scientists do have a general idea of how and why people behave the way they do (Gergersen and Sailer, 1993). However, these general ideas are constructed in hindsight. Social psychologists, sociologists, and/or criminologists may be able to develop a behavioral life path from determining how specific variables have influenced individuals; however, they cannot, to this writer's knowledge, adequately predict how future variables will or, more importantly, what future variables will affect specific individuals.

This inability has led, perhaps, to the arrival of what is termed the PostModern Sciences. One of the more popular, and currently visible, branches of PostModern Science is the study of Nonlinear Dynamics and, more specifically, Chaos Theory. Within this analysis it will be noted that many social psychologists have been supporting aspects of nonlinear dynamics and chaos theory for decades. More specifically, upon not so in depth evaluation, it is evident that social learning and chaos theories share many attributes/assumptions. At the most fundamental level, both social learning theory and chaos theory attempt to explain the ways in which complex systems change (Morrison, 1991).

While the phrase complex systems often implies the study of issues outside the social sciences, and criminology in particular, one might be hard-pressed to find a social psychologist, sociologist, or criminologist that would describe human behavioral systems as anything if not complex. Even Skinner, the most ardent of modern psychological empiricists, merely felt that because we cannot see inside the brain, we should ignore it. This in no manner insinuates a simple system (Martin, February 1997: Personal Communication). On the contrary, for well over two decades, psychologists have attempted to approach what is known as the creative problem in social psychology-"a general failure to address the complexity of real world systems and behavior in psychological research" (Mandel, 1995: p107).

In criminology, this problem is similarly evident. The purpose of this evaluation is to compare numerous approaches regarding both Social Learning Theory and Chaos Theory. This introductory analysis will modestly brush over some of the more obvious comparable theoretical aspects of each school of thought. Furthermore, this analysis will attempt to focus on Social Learning Theory both as a process oriented theory and as a complex systems theory. In terms of complex systems theory, the complex system of Social Learning Theory includes the individual, his/her brain/mind, his/her body, and his/her environment. In another sense, this analysis will attempt to compare chaos oriented explanations for behavior with that of numerous modern social psychologists.

For instance, comparisons will be made between aspects of chaos theory and Albert Bandura's explanation of unpredictable occurrences and the subsequent affect on behavior and life paths (Bandura, 1986). Other social psychological thinkers whose findings will be analyzed with regard to the chaotic paradigm include Walter Mischel, M.R. Butz, Irving Sigel and George Foreman, and C.G. Jung. Included in these comparisons will be common approaches to behavioral phenomena including anxiety, creativity, assaultive/aggressive action, child development, social development and the butterfly effect. While this essay will focus almost exclusively on social learning theory and social psychological explanations of behavior (both normative and deviant), future works will address the application of the chaotic paradigm to theoretical explanations of criminal behavior including social control theory, self-control theory, and additional sociological aspects of social learning theory and differential association.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND CHAOS THEORY

Preceding such an analysis, it is imperative that readers attain an adequate background in the underlying premises of each theoretical approach. It should be noted that this analysis will not provide readers with a mathematical summary of the Chaotic Paradigm. Such a summary is widely available in numerous mathematics texts. However, a brief overview of the theoretical underpinnings of chaos theory, as applied to human behavioral (whether normative or deviant) systems, is necessary. One applicable example of a chaotic system is what occurs when one pool ball hits a collection of other pool balls. The results seem completely random (chaotic). However, the result can be fully understood with a knowledge of all the variables and physical forces behind such an occurrence (Taleff, 1994). Unfortunately, human behavioral systems are far more complex than a game of billiards. For all practical purposes, the variables involved in human behavior are endless.

Chaos theory further describes a social system in which determinants of behavior are constantly varying and the affects that these determinants have on actual behavior, as well as other determinants, varies according to determinant strength, form, number, order, etc.. In order to predict specific behavior, the social scientist must be able to isolate each of these variables and determine their affect on future behavior (Gergersen and Sailer, 1993). Such isolations and determinations, according to chaos theorists, are not often possible. Consequently, the chaotic paradigm stresses patterns and guidance rather than prediction and control. While direct causal relationships and the prediction of specific behavior, and thus control, are not often possible, nonlinear relationships and patterns of behavior can be evident.

Moreover, chaos theory proposes that social systems and behavioral systems exist in a constant flux between order and disorder. Rarely, does either order or disorder last for long periods. During periods close to order, prediction may be a possibility. However, it is during periods of disorder that great changes take place. Periods of great disorder are the result of what are termed bifurcations. For the purposes of this analysis, bifurcations can best be described through example. In a society in which individuals share the same goals, desires, and laws, when one societal group's income is cut in half in relation to other members of society, a bifurcation has occurred.

Chaos theory proposes that, all other things aside, when four bifurcations occur (i.e. 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16) disorder will arise. More specifically, it will become impossible to predict how those earning 1/16 will behave with regard to the goals, desires, and laws of society. In more general terms, disorder arises when one's skills/methods no longer seem to provide an adequate means to accomplish what that individual feels he/she is supposed to accomplish (Butz, 1992; Young, 1994).

Such propositions bring to mind the criminological anomie/strain theories of Emile Durkheim and Robert Merton (this relationship will be expanded upon in future works). This aspect of Chaos Theory (bifurcations) will be discussed further with regard to social learning theory and child development/anxiety.

The final, and perhaps scientifically most relevant aspect of chaos theory is the emerging patterns which are formed within chaotic systems. While the behavior within nonlinear chaotic systems cannot be accurately predicted in specific circumstances, patterns of behavior will emerge. This, perhaps is the gift of chaos theory. Patterns will emerge as systems fluctuate between periods of disorder and order. The variables or contingencies (regions in phase space) which form these patterns are known as attractors or strange attractors (which signify systems in more chaotic periods) and may be employed to help guide a system. If the pattern created by the contingencies is seen as desirable, then the system should be guided away from bifurcations (Baker, 1993; Pepinsky, 1991).

Regarding the formerly used monetary example, methods should be employed which reverse or subsidize such financial bifurcations (Young, 1991). As these are periods of change, new behaviors may be learned in periods of disorder. As the system moves from disorder towards order, behaviors may be somewhat firmly planted within the systems behavioral repertoire. By moves toward order, the author refers to periods in which an individual seems to possess the necessary skills/methods/means for a given environment. Regarding individual human behavior, feelings of anxiety or panic should be absent, or minimal, during periods that tend towards order. In such a period, the status quo has a greater likelihood of remaining constant. If current behaviors are beneficial or desired, chaos theorists propose that behavioral systems be guided carefully between order and disorder (tending towards order). To accomplish this, teachers, parents and policy-makers must make sure that too many bifurcations, or movements toward disorder, do not occur. In terms of individual behavior, bifurcations between perceived means and needs/desires may take the form of confusion/anxiety/perceived inability (Butz, 1992; Halasz, 1995; Jung, 1968). However, it is during periods of disorder that great advances may be achieved.

Thus, regarding criminological/sociological endeavors, it would be a monumentally poor and practically impossible idea to keep society in a constant state of order. Also, it is imperative to acknowledge that chaotic systems cannot be controlled, or made to function in a linear manner. These systems may be guided towards order; but they must be allowed to drift between order and disorder. Systems forced into periods of complete order will become stagnant or self-destruct; while completely unguided systems may become utterly chaotic and self-destruct (Young, 1991 & 1994; Pepinsky, 1991).

This brings to mind a example of the chaotic paradigm rooted in legend; the manner in which any good sailor approaches the sea. The wise sailor knows that he/she can never control the sea. Conversely, he/she knows that if he/she completely disregards the whims of the ocean, the ship and everyone on it will be ripped apart. Thus, the wise sailor understands that he/she must find some acceptable state, in between, at which there is a symbiotic give and take between sea and ship. While the sailor cannot predict or control every intricate action of the sea, sufficient patterns may be discerned which allow for the survival of ship and sea. This, in a nutshell is chaos theory's advice on how society/governing bodies should approach human behavior (be that behavior deviant or normative).

Regarding individual behavior, periods of disorder provide a window when new behaviors/skills are attempted or may be learned. In terms of behavior regarding segments of society, the aforementioned monetary example applies. Thus change, whether positive or negative, takes place during periods of disorder. During periods closer to order, new occurrences (i.e. new forms of behavior) are rare (Jung, 1968). Thinking in terms of crime and criminology, the importance of guidance during periods tending towards disorder seems obvious. Perhaps the greatest drawback with regard to chaos theory is its inseparable association with the term chaos. Unfortunately, chaos is almost universally viewed as a negative phenomena. In some situations, obviously, such negative connotations are appropriate. However, chaos, with regard to nonlinear dynamics, denotes only change. This change is neither inherently negative nor positive. It also denotes the opportunity for learning, which is neither inherently negative nor positive. Finally, it denotes progress.

From the chaos perspective, without disorder, there is no real change. Obviously, without change there is no progress. By progress, the author refers to all possible meanings of the word (both positive and negative). Now enough of this little semantic editorial.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY ALBERT BANDURA

In essence, chaos theory is a perspective that focuses on change. Similarly, social learning theory also tends to focus on change. Social learning theorists attempt to explain the manner in which social interaction and cognitive skills guide learning (Bandura, 1963). In Albert Bandura's (1979) version of social learning theory , much of what an individual learns is accomplished through observational learning. This seems an adequate explanation considering that if individuals were forced to learn everything by trial and error, not many would survive (Martin, April 1997: Personal Communication).

Bandura separates observational learning into the following four categories:

1. Attention,

2. Retention,

3. Motor Reproduction, and

4. Reinforcement.

In such a process, the individual learns from those that grab the individual's attention. Retention and Motor Reproduction refer to the ability to remember (short and long term) and physically reproduce a given behavior. Finally, reinforcement refers to the manner in which specific behaviors become permanent parts of a behavioral repertoire. Reinforcement can be achieved through direct reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, or self-reinforcement (internal standards) (Bandura et al, 1963; Martin, April 1997: Personal Communication).

Social learning is a constant process. Environmental aspects/controls may affect, slow, or significantly change this process; but no forces can stop this process (Bandura, 1979). In other words, social learning can be guided but never completely controlled.

IRVING SIGEL AND GEORGE FOREMAN

Irving Sigel and George Foreman (1979) describe development as an unobservable period of general cognitive change. This change happens over the long term and is imperceptible except at the point where an individual enters a new developmental stage. Foreman and Sigel go on to define learning as specific cognitive development (1979: 2-3). Thus, while specific cognitive development implies an ongoing collection of information, events, and circumstances, general cognitive change implies acquiring the ability to act, think, or learn in a manner not previously possible.

Within the social learning perspective, specific individuals operate with different rules/skills/tools for processing and reproducing behavior at different developmental stages. For example, a seven-year-old has different cognitive tools to work with than does a four-year-old. While the four-year-old can learn, he/she has not developed to the point where he/she can learn in the same manner as the seven- year-old. In Foreman and Sigel's (1979) example of how different ages may remember a list of objects differently, they explain that a four year old will remember things in mental images, while the seven year old will mentally name each object and remember the list of names.

Also, Foreman and Sigel (1979) stress that social and cognitive developments are not independent entities. Social development affects cognitive development at every level. Thus, due to retarded social development, some seven-year-old children may not develop at the same speed as others (Foreman and Sigel, 1979). Hence, to accompany the numerous aspects of cognitive development, innumerable environmental variables must be taken into account. Perhaps, as formerly stated, this should be the starting point in a comparison of chaos and social learning theories. All else aside, each approach to behavioral explanation gives credence to the vast number of variables that affect behavioral development. These two perspectives, however, do not lend themselves directly to comparison.

While Foreman and Sigel's (1979) approach to social learning theory focuses on how individual people develop, chaos theory tends to focus on how entire systems behave. Moreover, while psychological social learning theory has attempted to develop methods of specific behavioral prediction, chaos theory proposes that such endeavors are destined, for the most part, to fail. However, Foreman and Sigel (1979) claim that the impetus behind the study of human development is the need to both understand and improve life. If this, rather than the ability to predict and control, is the goal of social learning theorists, then perhaps the two approaches have much in common. As the following analysis will suggest, Foreman and Sigel are not the only social psychological thinkers professing such objectives.

WALTER MISCHEL

While social learning theory and chaos theory focus on entirely different concepts, abstractly, they may be seen to approach the scientific pillar of prediction in a similar manner. In his discussion of prediction, social psychologist Walter Mischel (1968) focuses on how individuals react in sharp contrast to very similar events/stimuli. Additionally, he notes that consistent responses to similar stimuli, which are assumed by many trait theorists, may not regularly exist. Mischel views this as a result of the vast number of internal and external variables at work in any given situation. Mishcel (1968: p295) further acknowledges that "efforts to predict to unknown stimulus conditions in which the unknown contingencies operate do indeed invite Chance, the blind technician, to take charge of the proceedings." Obviously, considering real world social learning, there are always unknown contingencies at work.

Mischel also focuses on how modern social scientific theorists label inconsistent results as errors. He argues that variables which are regularly construed as errors are actually, "critical determinants of behavior" (Mischel, 1968: p296). Thus, Mischel acknowledges that variations in findings commonly attributed to researcher error may actually be the result of some unforeseeable/lurking variables. This brings to mind the aforementioned concept of a range of strange attractors. Chaos theorists approach prediction in a similar manner. While the terms used are different, and the mathematics involved often confusing, chaos theory basically parallels Mischel's earlier notions. While the social learning perspective does not necessarily take matters to the same degree, essentially these approaches are working from a similar, unforeseen variable, standpoint.

Chaos theory proposes that prediction within social systems is rarely possible (Young, 1992). This is the case because, whether looking at entire social systems or individual social development, there are simply too many variables/contingencies at work. Chaos theory describes highly complex systems in which innumerable variables are concurrently interacting. Such a system may shift dramatically as any of these variables change in force, number, or direction. As such systems shift, the basin of potential outcomes for a given act shifts unpredictably (Taleff, 1994). Thus, any attempt at prediction must account for each variable. As chaos theory views such variables as in constant change (aside from periods closely approaching order), an attempt to account for the amount and strength of every variable is an exercise in futility. Such an approach seems to sit will with Mischel's (1968) notion of Chance, the blind technician.

COMMON ASPECTS

Originally, practitioners of physics and nonlinear mathematics developed the tenets of chaos theory. Subsequently, chaos oriented theorists are just beginning to approach many of the phenomena researched by psychological social learning theorists. As this is the case, an attempt to focus on how chaos theory might explain certain aspects of social learning/social psychology is, at best, a novice endeavor. This being acknowledged, there are numerous aspects of social learning/social behavior which seem to fit quite well into the chaotic perspective. Moreover, it appears evident that many social psychologists have been operating with some sense of chaotic principles for many years (Bandura, 1982; Butz, 1992; Jung, 1969b; Mischel, 1968 & 1973).

While social learning theory traditionally brings to mind an understanding of an individual's long-term development, there are specific intense moments during this development which appear to function in much the same manner as a system entering its fourth bifurcation. Behavior during moments of anxiety, creativity, and aggression often seem to take on what seems to be a chaotic nature (Bandura, 1982; Butz, 1992; Jung, 1969b; Mischel, 1968 & 1973). ANXIETY AND CHAOS While social learning theorists seem to have a firm handle on the overall development of an individual's behavior, it is apparent that in times of great stress, behavior often becomes utterly unpredictable. Butz (1992) feels that the social learning perspective does indeed provide for a definite basin of outcomes for an individual in anxious situations. Basin of outcomes is a phrase often used by chaos theorists to denote unpredictability of actions/outcomes (i.e. there are numerous potential outcomes/actions that appear equally probable for a given anxious situation).

In essence, an individual becomes anxious when he/she is unsure of his/her ability to perform in a given circumstance. From the social learning perspective, all that an individual has observed and learned throughout life does not seem to have adequately prepared him/her for this moment. It is at such a moment that the pillars of chaos theory may become quite applicable in the social learning perspective. Outcomes in anxious situations, just as outcomes in previously covered nonlinear chaotic systems tending towards disorder, become utterly unpredictable. The individual is forced to choose a specific behavior with insufficient knowledge of the outcome/consequences. In essence, the individual must shoot the cue ball with little idea how the balls/variables will react (outcome unknown) (Taleff, 1994).

Here, the usual decision making process covered within observational learning and behavior reinforcement loses much of its practical relevance (Butz, 1992). As was covered in the previous, and significantly abridged, explanation of chaos theory, such an anxious situation could be viewed as that bifurcation at which the individual can no longer adequately relate to his/her internal and external surroundings. In more chaos-based terms, the pattern of behavior which is guided by one of the system's attractors does indeed become strange. Just as a segment of society may become unpredictable when their finances, after four negative bifurcations, no longer allow them to normatively achieve the goals and desires of society; the individual in an extreme state of anxiety may not have the behavioral finances to act in what is construed a normal or expected manner (Young, 1991; Pepinsky, 1991).

In essence, the individual is not or does not feel, properly prepared to confront the situation at hand. At such a point, several unpredictable results (i.e. an outcome basin) become possible. The individual may attempt a behavior that is destructive or unsuccessful, or he/she may behave in an entirely new and productive manner. In either case, this response/behavior may be based on a seemingly meaningless event in the individual's life. A situation in which an apparently insignificant event has an extraordinary effect on a system is known as the butterfly effect. If the individual behaves in a new and productive manner, then this behavior could be viewed in the same vein as the productive social changes that may occur when a larger social system approaches disorder (Jung, 1969; Young, 1991). In either case, it seems that the individual in such a circumstance is making a kind of intuitive leap into unexplored territory. Stated another way, the individual's construct system has been confronted with an entirely unfamiliar set of variables (Butz, 1992). To return to Mischel's (1968) terminology, "Chance, the blind technician" has assumed control.

CREATIVITY AND CHAOS

In his work concerning creativity, C.G. Jung (1969b) further advanced the notion of nonlinear social learning and positive results. Jung views "untamed instinctive energy" as the potential starting point of creativity. Jung describes an interaction among tension, stress, anxiety, panic, and creativity that is ultimately unpredictable in nature. In such a situation, Jung describes the individual as bordering on chaos. More specifically, depending on the past development and stability of an individual's cognitive system, chaos may ensue. Thus, Jung again brings the discussion back to guidance. In essence, Jung envisions a stable cognitive system that guides the individual subtly between order and disorder during periods of severe anxiety. This brings to mind the chaos theorist's search for general understanding and guidance rather than absolute prediction and control. In an individual sense, the more cognitively developed person may produce creativity from potential chaos.

Conversely, the less developed, or guided, individual may fall into confusion, disorder, or destruction (Jung, 1969b). In a slight stretch, both Jung (1969b) and Butz (1992) seem to view the creative artist, as well as the developing child, as in an almost constant struggle managing chaos and order with each failure or success. Unfortunately, the unstable personality may fall into almost complete disorder in such anxious situations (Butz, 1992; Jung, 1969).

THE BUTTERFLY-EFFECT, SENSITIVE DEPENDENCE AND LIFE PATHS

One aspect of chaos theory that has not yet been adequately approached is the concept of the butterfly-effect or sensitive dependence. The butterfly-effect proposes that seemingly small decisions, actions, or outcomes may have immense affect on larger systems. Simply put, this is the belief that whether or not a butterfly flaps its wings in Bangkok may determine whether or not there is a hurricane in Tampa (Baker, 1993). Such a concept may have numerous applications regarding social learning theories. For instance, Butz (1992) again draws an analogy between anxiety and chaos theory. Butz sees a common relationship between the butterfly-effect in chaos theory and the stress-anxiety relationship within the human mind. In the case of the stress-anxiety relationship, "the small input would be a minor stressor and the result might be an anxiety or panic attack" (Butz, 1992: p831).

In practical terms, a red light that seems to be lasting too long may result in a panic attack based on stressors having seemingly nothing to do with that red light. A series of events, or cognitive realizations, is set into motion by what would otherwise be viewed as an irrelevant occurrence (i.e. a butterfly flapping its wings). In reference to criminological concerns, it is apparent how such an event may result in deviant or destructive behavior.

Conversely, it may also result in some creative/positive solution to the problems underlying such stressors (Jung, 1969b). Another area in which the butterfly-effect is applicable regarding social learning theory is in the development of life paths. Both Albert Bandura (1982) and Walter Mishcel (1968) have focused on what is, essentially, a sensitive dependence approach to social learning/development. As social learning theorists consider learning and social development as entirely interdependent, the terms will be used interchangeably (Foreman and Sigel, 1979). Bandura (1982: p 749) noted that "the unforeseeability and branching power of fortuitous influences make the specific course of lives neither easily predictable or socially engineerable."

Again, such a statement, made well over a decade ago by a social psychologist, sits quite comfortably within a chaotic perspective of social existence. In its most simplistic terms, chaos theory proposes that, because of the innumerable variables and outcome contingencies involved, a social system's behavior can neither be predicted nor controlled (Young, 1992). Bandura's statement can be seen as nothing other than an interpretation of the sensitive dependence that is inherent in human development. To support such a view, Bandura (1982) employs two engaging examples. The first of these concerns a student who sets off to visit his friend at the family cabin. Quite unpredictably, as the two had not spoken in a while, the cabin was sold to the Manson family. Unknowingly, the student falls in with Manson and his life is forever altered. A mere decision, by a seemingly well-adjusted and successful student, to visit a friend resulted in an immensely life altering outcome.

In a more lighthearted example, Bandura (1982) describes a couple's chance meeting at a conference devoted to the influence of fortuitous events on life paths. Because another individual decided that he did not like his seat, the man and woman were seated together and eventually married. While social learning theory generally focuses on more intricate aspects of cognition, such simple, and seemingly meaningless, events obviously forever alter social development/learning (Foreman and Sigel, 1979). How can social learning possibly be predictable when, ultimately, that butterfly, or left turn, can forever change social existence?

Similarly, Walter Mischel (1968) focuses on the manner in which isolated events can completely alter social development. For example, Mischel (1968: p 299) considers an individual's "choice when faced with an immediately available but smaller reward as opposed to a larger, more desirable outcome whose attainment is contingent on waiting." Such a decision, however it is made, sets up an entirely new series of events/consequences for the individual; as well as a new series of choices. Subsequently, either choice may result in a different path of social development (Mischel, 1968). Once again, a return to the concepts of sensitive dependence and innumerable variables. Each decision is based on innumerable variables.

And while these decisions may seem meaningless, they can forever alter the social development/life path. Similarly, the results and, subsequent, further decisions are also based on innumerable variables. In circumstances involving stress and unfamiliarity, it is not difficult to imagine that predictability of social behavior may be an unattainable goal. CONCLUSION While social learning theory and the chaotic paradigm are not often discussed in the same breath, perhaps this should change. In comparing chaotic perspectives with the work of Bandura, Butz, Jung, and Mischel, certain models of chaos theory seem quite applicable to certain aspects of social learning theory (and visa-versa).

Regarding social development and deviance/criminology, this connection seems even more evident. Studies in these areas inevitably return to the manner in which individuals behave within conditions they perceive to be stressful, dangerous, or unfamiliar. It is at these points that the chaotic paradigm seems a legitimate fit. In such conditions, individuals are often not properly prepared, or do not feel properly prepared, to react to their environments. Their behavioral constructs are not adequate to normatively cope with the variables in a given situation. At this point, behavior becomes utterly unpredictable. While in its roots, the language of chaos theory is foreign to most social scientists; it is the concepts, rather than the mathematical language, which are of importance. These concepts are not entirely new. While neither Mishcel (1968) nor Bandura (1962) directly addressed the butterfly-effect or sensitive dependence, it is obvious that they understood how isolated, seemingly irrelevant acts, can forever alter the development/behavior/future of a system or individual. Similarly, Butz (1992) acknowledged the unpredictable nature of behavior in situations perceived to be stressful or dangerous.

Additionally, Jung (1969) focused on how creativity is one of the potential outcomes of a drift into disorder/anxiety. In each circumstance, the social learning theorists, perhaps inadvertently, employ models of the chaotic paradigm to explain behavioral/developmental phenomena that could not adequately be explained through traditional methods. Thus, while chaos theory and social learning theory may not fit together like a hand in a glove, it is obvious that certain models of chaos theory are quite applicable to the social learning perspective.

FUTURE OF CHAOS THEORY AND CRIMINOLOGY

In criminological terms (as in all other terms), chaos theory has potentially vast explanatory prowess. For instance, just as Pepinsky (1991) traces the Societal Rhythms in the Chaos of Violence, will other criminologists be able to pin-point bifurcations which seem to have resulted in great changes with regard to criminal activity? As relatively higher proportions of minorities are incarcerated, is the United States approaching a bifurcation into a period of disorder? Moreover, can chaos theory be implemented to explain unintended consequences such as the rise of organized crime following prohibition? Additionally, can chaos theory be used to explain how certain individuals become less and less rationale in their decision making process and eventually snap? These are all fascinating topics that should soon be the focus of chaos theory/criminological research. Optimally, an understanding of chaos theory may alter the manner in which criminologists, and other social scientists, approach their discipline. In the least, such an understanding should alert researchers and policy-makers alike to the utter futility of a system, or endeavor, designed to predict and control complex human behavioral systems.

REFERENCES

Baker, P.L. (1993). Chaos, Order and Sociological Theory. Sociological Inquiry, 63 (2), pp123-149, May

Bandura, Albert; Ross, Dorthea and Shelia A. Ross (1963). Vicarious Reinforcement and Imitative Learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol 67, pp 601-607

Bandura, Albert (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Bandura, Albert (1979). The Social Learning Perspective: Mechanisms of Aggression. Psychology of Crime and Criminal Justice, New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, pp 198-236 5.

Bandura, Albert (1982). The Psychology of Chance Encounters and Life Paths. American Psychologist, 3, pp 747 - 755

Bandura, Albert (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitve Theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall

Butz, M.R. (1992). Chaos: An Omen of Transcendence in the Psychotherapeutic Process. Psychological Reports, v71, pp 827-843

Butz, M.R. (1992). The Fractal Nature of Development of Self. Psychological Reports, v71, pp 1043 - 1063

Gergersen, H. and L. Sailer (1993). Chaos Theory and Its Implications for Social Science Research. Human Relations, v46(7), pp 777-802

Goodson, F.E. and George E. Morgan (1976). Evaluation of Theory. Contemporary Theories in Pyschology, New York: Macmillan Publishing

Halasz, Michael F. (1995). Nonlinear Dynamics in Behavioral Systems. American Psychologist, Feb, v50(2), pp 107-108

Jung, C.G. (1969). The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. In Collected Works of C.G. Jung, v118, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press 13.

Mandel, David R. (1995). Chaos Theory, Sensitive Dependence, and the Logistic Equation. American Psychologist, Feb., vol 50 (2), p106 14.

Martin, Randy (1997). Lecture: Skinner and Operant Conditioning. Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Mischel, Walter (1968). Personality and Assessment, New York: Wiley 16.

Mischel, Walter (1973). Toward a Cognitive Social Learning Reconceptualization of Personality. Psycholoigical Review, vol 80, pp 252-283 17.

Morrison, F. (1991). The Art of Modeling Dynamic Systems, New York: Wiley

Pepinsky, H.E. (1991). Societal Rhythms in the Chaos of Violence. The Geometry of Violence and Democracy, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press

Pepinsky, H.E. (1991). Chaos and Crime: Explorations in Post Modern Criminology. The Red Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology, January 2

Taleff, Michael J. (1994). Chaos and the Study of Addictions. Behavioral Health Management, Sept-Oct, v14(5), pp 19-22

Young, T.R. (1991). Chaos and Crime: Nonlinear and Fractal Forms of Crime. Critical Criminologist, v3(2)

Young, T.R. (1991). Chaos Theory and Symbolic Interaction Theory: Poetics for the PostModern Sociologist. Symbolic Interactionism, v14(3)

Young, T.R. (1991). Chaos and Social Change: Metaphysics of the PostModern. The Social Science Journal, vol 28 (3)

Young, T.R. (1994). Terms for the Study of Complex Systems. The Red Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology, January 2

Young, T.R. (1994). Chaos, Class and Complex Social Dynamics: Structure and Process in the Post Modern Philosophy of Science. The Red Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology