Psychology of Crime - Social Learning Theory - Case Study Example

Psychology of Crime Name ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ Social Learning Theory: A brief outline Social learning is a theory that focuses on the society as being the main learning experience and the environment around us influences what happens to us that. It holds the view that everyone in society learns from one another through observation, imitation and also modeling. Albert Bandura’s social learning theory is the most important among social theories and also the most accepted. The social learning theory as espoused by Albert Bandura and when applied to criminology does away with the intrinsic need for reward and punishment as he feels that observational learning can take place without them. "Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action" (Bandura 77, p22). Observational learning has components like attention, retention, reproduction and motivation. Attention must be paid to modeled events that could also include past reinforcement. Retention occurs through symbolic coding and cognitive organisation and the modeled behaviour could be remembered through practice. Reproduction of the observed model means that the action should be replicated and finally motivation which includes a demonstration of what has been learnt that is also known as vicarious motivations. Social learning is seen to involve cognitive as well as behavioural frameworks. When applied to criminology Bandura’s theory states that aggression is learned through behaviour modeling too. He believed that individuals do not naturally inherit aggressive behaviour but that it is modeled and children particularly learn aggressive responses from observing others, “aggression in children is influenced by the reinforcement of family members, the media, and the environment” (Bandura, 1976, 206). Here the reinforcement could be direct or through a third party or through vicarious reinforcements as in the case of the Bobo Dolls. To prove his theory Bandura carried out an experiment in which a model was selected to act aggressively on a Bobo Doll in front of a subject in “aggressive condition” while the non aggressive subject was allowed to play with the same toys without the model behaving aggressively. Aggressive behaviour included sitting on the doll, hitting it, hitting the doll on the head with a mallet, kicking it and tossing it in the air. Besides verbally aggressive responses were also uttered like “Sock him in the nose, kick him etc and also non- aggressive comments like “he keeps coming back for more” and “he sure is a tough fella.” While being exposed to the model behaviour it was ensured that the subject observes the behaviour even though the subject was engaged in other non –aggressive activities. Therefore any learning that occurred was purely observational or covert as there were no instructions to learn or observe. “Subjects in the aggression condition reproduced a good deal of physical and verbal aggressive behavior resembling that of the models, and their mean scores differed markedly from those of subjects in the nonaggressive and control groups who exhibited virtually no imitative aggression” (Bandura et al 1961). “The kinds of aggressive behaviour, the frequency, the situation in which the aggressive behaviour takes place and the target of the attacks are all determined by environmental experiences” (Siegel, 2009, p161). Bandura also suggests that aggression results from family influence particularly with regard to discipline where it is a seen as coercive and aggressive means of control and conflict situation. Instances of child and spouse abuse also lead to aggression. Certain teen subcultures like teen groups also promote aggression and the set values on antisocial acts. The third influence is symbolic like the violence demonstrated on TV. The physical force is seen as something that will resolve all issues and hence becomes a strategy for life (Bandura 1973) A social learning theory that has been propagated by Ronald Akers offers valid explanations as how criminal behaviour is learnt. He takes Sutherland’s differential association theory a step further. Aker’s differential association refers to a direct association and interaction with others who engage in certain kinds of behaviour or express norms, values and attitudes supportive of such behaviour and it also covers indirect association and identification with more distant reference groups. “Definitions are one’s own orientations, rationalizations, justifications, excuses and other attitudes that define the commission of an act as relatively more right or wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified, appropriate or inappropriate.” The specific definitions will orient the person towards the acts of series of acts and will also define the given situation as conducive to committing the crime or lack of it (Akers & Jensen) Differential reinforcement on the other hand refers to the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are a consequence of behaviour. Whether the individual will commit a crime or not will depend on the anticipated result of the past, present and future anticipated results “the greater the value, frequency and probability of reward for the deviant behaviour the greater the likelihood that it will occur and be repeated. Most o the learning in criminal and deviant behaviour is the result of direct and indirect social interaction in which the words, responses and presence and behaviour of other persons directly reinforce behaviour, provide the setting for reinforcement and serve as a conduit through which social rewards or punishments are made available. The rewards are seen as those valued by the social group whether tangible or intangible symbolic or otherwise. Akers has proposed a Social Structure and Social Learning model that identifies four major dimensions of social structure (differential social organization, differential, location in the social structure, differential social location and social disorganization/conflict) and hypotheses that social learning is the principal mediating process by which by which social structure has an effect on criminal and delinquent behaviour (Lee et al, 2004, p17-18). “Social control is often seen as all-encompassing, practically representing any phenomenon leading to conformity, which leads to norms. Others see social control as a broad representation of regulated mechanisms placed upon society's members. In other words, social control regards what is to be considered deviant, violations of the law, right or wrong. Social control mechanisms can be adopted as laws, norms, mores, ethics, etiquette, and customs, which all control and thus define behavior” (Demelo, 2001, p23). Travis Hirschi in his book ‘Causes of Delinquency’ has propounded the social bond theory and though it does not fit into the model of social learning it never-the -less has relevance to the case study as parental bonds or lack of them can lead to delinquent behaviour. Hirschi explains that conforming to or deviating from social norms depend on such variables as attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. Here attachment pertains to the fact that if the person is attached to others chances of becoming delinquent are lessened. The main attachment is obviously to the parents, followed by peers, teachers, religious leaders or other members of the community and he feels that attachment is internalised (Hirschi 19 69, p19). Commitment on the other hand is a rational choice where one will conform to acceptable behaviour if one is already perceived by society in positive light as one who will not violate law. By involvement he means that if one is suitably engaged in academics or occupational pursuits have a “stake in conformity”. By belief he means that if one does not hold strong conventional norms then one is free to choose deviant behaviour (Krohn& Massey 1980). In Self Control Theory of Delinquency Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) define crime as ‘acts of force or fraud that are taken in pursuit of self interest. . The causes of criminal behaviour explained through the social learning theory Mary’s behaviour in view of Albert Bandura’s observational modeling behaviour has some rationale as all Mary has been observing since she was a child was violence and experiencing it too first from her own father and secondly from her stepfather as well. As the behaviour is reinforced time and again, and her statement at the end which states that he deserved it for trying to have sex with her is a sort of punishment she feels that she is meting out to her stepfather who not only physically abused her but also raped her. She has in some crooked way already anticipated it as a kind of reward and she feels a kind of satisfaction that this has provided her as she transfers the reward as what she would have felt if the person killed was her stepfather. The relationship that she had with her stepfather has obviously heightened arousal as she has been subjected to physical assault and verbal abuse. Mary could have developed aggressive skills while she was living on the streets in an environment where aggression was on display. Her beliefs that the only way she could get instant rewards was through the act of aggression can also be applied here. She was already anticipating the outcome of being able to procure drugs once they had robbed the man. Moreover her belief that the aggression was justified comes out through her statement that he deserved it for trying to pick her up her. If Mary is not prevented from doing so her deviant behaviour could continue and though she did not actually stab the man the fact that she was remorseless shows that she could do so again. There is no one theory that can really explain Mary’s behaviour but her attitude can be explained in behavioural, psychological as well as social learning terms as well. One thing is clear however that she was forced into aggression because she witnessed it all the time in the home and though observational modeling it has become a part of her own behaviour now. Mary has also been subjected to aggression as a means of control and conflict situation and there have been numeral instances where she has been subjected to physical abuse and has been afflicted with this kind of repetitive observational model and to her mind hitting a man is no big deal. In fact she could have perceived it to be a way of resolving her problems (Bandura) that she has made it her life strategy or is on the way to making it so. “Being abused as a child produces a personality disorder which predisposes the individual to a life pattern of violence and aggression.”(Gelles, 1983 p156). We already know that Mary was suffering a personality disorder as she was absconding from home and already the peer group association was growing as she would be out of the house all the time to avoid pain that was being inflicted on her. The environment in which Mary lived obviously affected her as she witnessed aggressive behaviour most often. The fact that her older sister also ran away from home can be seen again as an observational model for Mary imitated that behaviour and can be viewed in the context of vicarious motivation and so she applied cognitive reasoning and came to the conclusion that life would improve and be free of pain outside the home. Human behavior has often been explained in terms of one-sided determinism. “In such modes of unidirectional causation, behavior is depicted as being shaped and controlled by environmental influences or driven by internal dispositions. Social cognitive theory explains psychosocial functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 1986). The term causation is used to mean functional dependence between events. In this model of reciprocal causality, internal personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective and biological events; behavioral patterns; and environmental events all operate as interacting determinants that influence one another bidirectionally”(Bandura, 1999, p159-160). Also in this Hirschi’s theory of social bonding is easily applicable to Mary. Mary had enough reasons to deviate to delinquent behaviour as her attachment to the family was almost non-existent. She had no attachment to anyone in the family and perhaps only some to the older sister who was no longer at home. Her mother made no attempts at establishing any emotional ties with Mary, rather the contrary as her relationship to her second husband was more important to her. Mary had no attachment to the school either as she was seen absconding all the time, and also was not so positively involved in school. She had no reason for commitment as her constant absconding had already singled her out as a bad penny and so she continued with her wayward ways having no incentive to do better and by the time she ran away there was no reason for her to believe in the conformity of conventional norms and by this time probably she was in a state of differential reinforcement as described by Aker as she was spending more and more time outside the home and school with a peer group where modeling and imitation had already been reinforced into her psyche. “Social control theories of crime and delinquency attribute law-breaking to the weakness, breakdown, or absence of those social bonds or socialization processes that are presumed to encourage law-abiding conduct” (Jensen, 2003, p1) In Self Control Theory of Delinquency which Hirschi wrote along with Grottfredson they have pointed out that smoking, drinking, gambling and irresponsible sex are all examples of “analogous behaviour” that may be present in individuals who seek instant gratification. Law breaking is something that provides immediate gratification and it also is an example of conflict resolution and so to behave in an analogous manner requires no motivation. Mary’s absence from school, her eventual leaving of her home and then living in the street and indulging in “criminal’ behaviour could be interpreted as a conflict resolution system, as well as something that brought her gratification unlike her situation at home which was not at all gratifying. The drug habit and the casual sex she indulged in lead us to apply the self control theory to her behaviour especially as her family structure was such that it could have had an impact on her delinquent behaviour, as they had no influence on her level of self control. Krohn and Massey (1980, p532) who have cited Burkett and White suggest that drug use is more status offenses are closely related to bonding variables especially if weakening bonds are seen as allowing for deviant behaviour and the more serious acts cannot be really explained by this theory. However, by her own admittance Mary did not actually stab the man though she was an accomplice so should we then assume that parental bonds hold her still even if remotely? “The probability that persons will engage in criminal and deviant behavior is increased and the probability of their conforming to the norm is decreased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior or espouse definitions favorable to it, are relatively more exposed in-person or symbolically to salient criminal/deviant models, define it as desirable or justified in a situation discriminative for the behavior, and have received in the past and anticipate in the current or future situation relatively greater reward than punishment for the behavior” (Akers, 1998, p50). Applying this theory to Mary’s life is relevant for it is in this brief outline that we can formulate what led her to a deviant life. While still at school Mary was already indulging in deviant behaviour probably because she had got involved with others who were also not in school and were as delinquent as she was. As a young girl she had obviously observed her seen how her biological father’s antisocial behaviour. Besides she had observed that he had gone to prison for criminal and violent offences. Mary had been exposed to deviant behaviour right at home. We can clearly see that her father’s behaviour has influenced her own deviant life. While at school she had already begun to drink, smoke, take drugs, have casual sex, shoplift with other children who were similarly disposed. Here the differential association was again reinforced. After running away from home she lived on the streets with others like her who lived through prostitution and shoplifting. Before Mary had run away her stepfather had attempted to abuse her sexually again like he had been doing for many days but she had had enough so she hit him on the head with a beer bottle and ran away so she probably feels that her indulging in the crime was justified for the past behaviour she had suffered. She could also anticipate that robbing a man was more rewarding than being paid for sex as here she would not have to abuse her body and mentally it was also less stressful and of course she did not anticipate that she would be punished for the deviant behaviour. Another theory of Aker’s known as the differential reinforcement is particularly relevant to Mary’s case where experiments have been carried out and it has shown results to point out that the major variable of the theory had a significant effect in explaining marijuana and alcohol use among adolescents (Tibbets & Hemmens 2010, p447). Here we see that in drug use because she anticipated the reward (pleasure) that the drugs would bring her if she attempted to get money. Her co-offender and she did not immediately succeed and had to make a few attempts. They could have stopped the attempts but did not as the past, present and future rewards filled their minds and they were compelled to act. The environment that she is in is also providing models to her for imitating behaviour. Her earlier behaviour had won her no approval either at home or in school but when she was with her peers she probably received praise for procuring drugs or shoplifting and so differential reinforcement took place and she was encouraged to continue with her deviant behaviour till she got involved in the serious crime of killing a person. The differential association theory is one of the most important for criminal behaviour especially combined with the modeling/imitating theory. Prevention/treatment of Mary’s behaviour according to social learning theory “Given the variety of self-disinhibiting devices, a society cannot rely solely on individuals, however noble their convictions, to protect against brutal deeds. Just as aggression is not rooted in the individual, neither does its control reside solely there. Humanness requires, in addition to benevolent personal codes, safeguards built into social systems that uphold compassionate behavior and discourage cruelty” (Bandura 1977 p. 227). Mary has been arrested and there is sufficient evidence for institutionalization. However if she is institutionalized she will probably meet other’s who hold a criminal record and some of them may also be seen as “heroes” who use violent and aggressive behaviour as a means of justification in resolving issues in life. If Mary were to meet them then perhaps she will again go through differential reinforcement and could again be a victim of model/imitation by being put in an environment which will again be inductive to deviant behaviour. The best method to be adopted would be to keep Mary in a situation where no differential reinforcement can take place and where she can be made to see her behaviour for what it is. She should be placed in an environment where she can see what acts in the eyes of society are worthy of praise and which acts need to be condemned so that her sense of conformity the rules in society are enhanced. The social learning theory offers a model where environmental interaction and observational learning is paramount to the development of deviant behaviour. However, unless statistics can prove so there is no real proof that offending behaviour will be reinforced but there is no proof either that it will not. Mary’s situation has been aptly described by Richard Wortley (120 -122) where she is in denial of the wrongness of her action and is claiming the moral high ground that she did not actually stab the man and saying her crime is therefore less heinous. The suggestion for the crime prevention theory to be adopted should be “reinforcing the illegitimacy of the targeted behaviour”. The second in the group of four strategies is based on “clarifying responsibility” for the behaviour where the offender cites external agents, blames others, claims a lack of behavioural alternatives to avoid self blame. Here the strategy involves constructing situations that minimise dis-inhibitions. There should be restructuring in the way that personal responsibility for the behaviour is taken. The third strategy is “clarifying consequences” of the proposed behaviour and is based on the offender’s denial of causing any harm as their actions are less serious. This strategy prevents the offender from glossing over the negative consequences of the behaviour and the final strategy is “increasing victim worth” this strategy is based on creating an environment where the offender is made to see the victim as an emotional being and not as somebody who deserved to fall like in Mary’s case as she feels he deserved to die. This strategy is very effective in crime prevention. Clarke and Homel feel that preventing crime must “incorporate the threat of feeling guilty when contemplating a morally-wrong act and the fear of shame and embarrassment arising from the disapproval expressed by significant others when offending is revealed” (Wartley, p115). Social condemnation and approval are also factors in determining behaviour. If Mary is exposed to other offenders who hear of her crime she may receive praise for the act and the approval will subsequently lead her to more crime. Instead there should be disapproval of what she has done. However a prison term could also taint her further as she would be condemned and this would in turn lead her to more crime. Siegel and Welsh (2009-2010) in their book Juvenile Delinquency: theory practice and Law say that rather than tainting the offender it is wiser to offer treatment and rehabilitation. Further they say that there is a difference status offence like drug abuse and casual sex can really not be punished because they are part of the social upheaval and the model for such behaviour is the peer group. They feel that having the court intervene in what has now become a routine affair will not have much affect and to differentiate between a delinquent and an antisocial youth is also a task unless some serious crime has been committed like in the case of Mary. However they feel that perhaps if the youth could find a “parent” they could model their behaviour on then there is a chance that slowly the delinquents can be brought into the mainstream. Quoting Reiss, Bandura (1969, p250) says that the family alone is not be the only agency that is solely responsible for the transmission of behavioural traits. Other agencies like the religious, political, legal and educational agencies can also be held responsible for the behaviour. We can thus recommend that Mary be sent to place where behavioural traits can be transmitted to her which will enable her to view herself in a new light and psychiatric treatment could be made available to her where she no longer thinks that she should be deviant because everyone thinks that she is. Presently no one theory on criminology can be counted as the one that has resolved all issues so how is it possible that there can be a solution to crime prevention. Unless the causes of the crime is re-clarified there is no solution and crime manifested behaviour could continue either detected or undetected. The fact that so many theories exist at the same time only goes to show how deep the search for crime prevention really is for most theories are written to prevent crime. Just as there is a requirement to integrate theories of crime so also there should be an approach to treating and preventing crime. Suzette Cote quoting Lilly et al 1995 in the Introduction of her book says “theory matters because criminological theories have vast implications for social policy created to deal with criminal offence” (2002 xxi). References Akers RL, Krohn MD, Lanza-Kaduce L& Radosevich M (1979) Social Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Aug., 1979), pp. 636-655 Published by: American Sociological Association Akers RL & Jensen GF (n.d ). Empirical Status of Social learning theory of Crime and Deviance: The Past Present and Future retrieved from http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/l/l3Bguk/Empirical%20Status%20of%20Social%20Learning%20Theory%20of%20Crime%20and%20Deviance.pdf Akers RL (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance, Northern University Press, Boston Akers RL & Jensen GF (2009) Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime in Advances in criminal theory Volume II. Transaction Publishers New Jersey. Bandura A Ross D & Ross SA (1961) Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm Bandura A (1969) Social Learning Theory of Identificatory Processes from Handbook of Socialisation theory and Research Rand McNally & Company Goslin DA editor 1969, retrieved from http://des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1969HSTR.pdf Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin & O. John (Ed.),Handbook of personality (2nd ed., pp. 154-196). New York: Guilford Publications. (Reprinted in D. Cervone & Y. Shoda [Eds.], The coherence of personality. New York:Guilford Press.) Berkowitz L (1983) The Goals of Aggression in The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research (Eds) Finkelhor D, Gelles RJ, Holtaling GT & Straus M (p166-181) Sage Publications Cote S, (2002) Criminological theories: bridging the past to the future Sage publications Diane Demelo Criminology Theory (2001) Criminology Theory on the Web, 10/1/2001 retrieved from http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/Diane_Demelo/diane.pdf Gelles RJ (1983) An Exchange/ Social Control Theory in The Dark Side of Families: Current Family Violence Research (Eds) Finkelhor D, Gelles RJ, Holtaling GT & Straus M (p151-165) Sage Publications Green D Classics in the History of Psychology An internet resource developed by York University, Toronto, Ontario Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hirschi T. (1969) Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969. Hollin CR (1989) Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to criminological psychology Routeledge Jensen, GF. (2003) Social Control Theories in Encyclopedia of Criminology. Richard A. Wright (Editor). Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. retrieved from http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/l/l3Bguk/soccon.pdf Jensen GF(n.d) Social Learning and Violent Behavior retrieved from http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/l/l3Bguk/slviolrev.pdf Krohn MD & James L. Massey (1980) Social Control and Delinquent Behavior: An Examination of the Elements of the Social Bond, . The Sociological Quarterly 2 1 (Autumn 1980):529-543 retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pb/thornberry/socy7004/pdfs/Social%20Control%20and%20Delinquent%20Behavior.pdf Lee G, Akers RL & Borg MJ (2004) Social Learning and Structural Factors in Adolescent Substance Use, Western Criminology Review, 5(1) 17-34 (2004) retrieved from http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v5n1/manuscripts/lee.pdf Siegel LJ & Welsh BC (2009-2011) Juvenile Delinquency: Theory Practice and Law Wadsworth Cengage Learning Eleventh Edition. Tibbetts SG & Hemmens C (2010) Criminological Theory: A Text Reader Sage Publications Wortley R (n.d) Guilt shame and situational crime prevention (p115- 132) retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_05/06_wortley.pdf Read More