PROBLEMS IN EVALUATING LABELING THEORY ARE DISCUSSED, TOGETHER WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERTAKING SUCH AN EVALUATION. THE PROPOSITIONS OF LABELING THEORISTS UNDER EVALUATION ARE THEN STATED: (1) THAT OFFICIAL LABELING RESULTS MORE FROM SOCIAL DISADVANTAGE VARIABLES (PERSONAL RESOURCES, POWER, PHYSICAL OR SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES) THAN FROM RULE-BREAKING BEHAVIOR, AND (2) THAT OFFICIAL LABELING HAS PEJORATIVE CONSEQUENCES WHICH RESULT IN RULE-BREAKING BY THOSE WHO ARE LABELED. RESEARCH EVIDENCE RELATING TO EACH PROPOSITION IS SUMMARIZED. THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT A GREATER EFFECT THAN THAT OF ACTUAL RULE-BREAKING. THE EVIDENCE IS CONTRARY TO THE IDEA THAT LABELING LEADS TO CRIME, OR THAT IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLE IN PRODUCING CRIMINAL CAREERS. HOWEVER, THE DATA DO NOT JUSTIFY DISMISSAL OF THE IDEA THAT LABELING MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT ON CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. PROPONENTS OF THE LABELING PERSPECTIVE ARE URGED TO CLARIFY THEIR THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS AND TO IMPROVE BOTH THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THEIR RESEARCH. A LIST OF APPROXIMATELY 60 REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. FOR RELATED ARTICLES ON LABELING, SEE NCJ 69352 AND 69354.