Psychology of Criminal Behavior - Research Paper Example

Running head: PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR Psychology of Criminal Behavior (school) Psychology of Criminal Behavior Introduction There are various explanations being considered in an attempt to understand criminal behavior. These explanations seem to have various angles on criminal behavior, ranging from the criminal’s genes, to his environment, and even his family background. Most people however defer to the psychological explanations of these crimes, acknowledging the fact that crimes are committed for more than just superficial reasons, and that they are committed because of deep-seated and emotional reasons. The psychology of criminal behavior help people, especially law enforcement authorities, understand the reason behind the commission of crimes; they also help establish profiles of potential perpetrators as well as patterns for possible paths towards criminal rehabilitation. No more is the psychology of criminal behavior more impactful than in the family, or in this case, in instances of family violence. Family violence carries a significant amount of family history and turmoil which often represents a culmination of unpleasant emotions, or of a long-string of habitual violent acts. This paper shall discuss the psychology of criminal behavior, more particularly of family violence. It shall consider the current research which focuses on the cognitive aspects of family violence perpetrators by delving into their perceptions, reasoning, beliefs, decision-making, and attitudes. It shall consider psychological theories, including the strengths and weaknesses, and applications in relation to criminal behavior. This essay is being carried out in order to establish a clear and psychological understanding of criminal behavior, within the realm of the family and associated violent acts within said setting. Discussion I. Brief statistics in relation to family violence/ inclusive acts of family violence According to the US Department of Justice (Durose, et.al., 2005), based on 1993 and 2002 statistical surveillance, for every 1000 US residents aged 12 or older, about 1 in 10 are violent acts are related to family violence. These statistical reports are at best, estimations of actual statistics, considering the fact many incidents of family violence are not reported. Nevertheless, out of 3.5 million family violence incidents, 49% are violent acts against spouses, 11% against children victimized by parents, and 41% against other family members (Durose, et.al., 2005). Simple assaults are the most common acts of violence committed against family members, and murders have been seen in less than 1% of these violent incidents. Most of these acts of violence are carried out in or near the victim’s residence, and about 40% of these incidents have also usually involved other family members being injured in the incident (Durose, et.al., 2005). According to the statistics released by the Department of Justice (Durose, 2005), most victims of family violence are females, with 84% being the spouses or girlfriends of the perpetrator; and, about three-fourths of the perpetrators are males. A good majority of the victims are white, between the ages of 25 and 54. Most of the offenders are also white, between 30 or older (Durose, 2005). About 22% of murders committed in 2002 are family-related murders, with 9% of victims mostly being spouses, 6% being children, and 7%, being other members of the family. Most victims of murders are females, and children under 13 are often likely killed by a family member in these cases of family violence (Durose, 2005). About 8 out of ten murderers in these incidents of family violence are found to be male. These are alarming statistics in relation to family violence. They represent a major issue in the field of criminal justice and in the study of criminal behavior. To a certain extent, the theoretical and psychological aspects to this criminal behavior shall be discussed below. II. Cognitive aspects of perpetrators of family violence In a discussion by Amaral (2011), the author sought to consider the cognitive theory in relation to family violence. According to this theory, “individuals who are experiencing any kind of distress (e.g., depression, anxiety, anger) are usually engaging in biased ways of thinking” (Amaral, 2011). In effect, the therapist’s role when working with family violence perpetrators is to recognize the possible biases and to assist the client to establish a cognitive change where they can see the world and establish conclusions in a balanced manner (Beck and Weishaar, 1995). The perpetrator of family violence who displays aggression and anger is therefore, according to the cognitive theory embroiled in a biased way of thinking and there is a need to make some cognitive shifts in order to reduce or eliminate such biases, and subsequently, prevent the onset of violence. The cognitive theory also highlights the differences between men and women during conflict resolution with females more likely to be verbal and to seek negotiations for solutions, and males more likely to suffer from an emotionally impaired expression (Sanderson, 2008). Male perpetrators express how they can sometimes feel a diminished sense of power with their partner’s verbal facility, and they end up resorting to physical acts of expression. The cognitive theory also focuses on distorted perceptions, and how these perceptions often support family abuse and domestic violence (Sanderson, 2008). This theory is often associated with the behavioral theory which believes that human functions are the products of a person’s learning and accustomed actions (Amaral, 2011). In other words, a person is most likely to act in a certain based on his past experience with the action – where he was either punished or rewarded by such behavior, hence explaining the repetition or the avoidance of the action (Amaral, 2011). These two theories were eventually combined with theorists from both camps establishing that modifying behavior calls for a changes in perception and interpretation, and these are aspects which are very much a part of cognitive functions (Beck and Weishaar, 1995). Among cognitive-behavioral theorists, they believe that the more important aspect of acquiring certain behaviors is on how such person interprets and processes any situation (Todd and Bohart, 1994). In effect, an aggressive behavior from someone is influenced by thought processes, basically how they interpret such behavior. These theorists consider the use of anger logs whereby participants are asked to write down their thoughts and perceptions prior to their acts of aggression (Koonin, Cabarcas, and Geffner, 2002). As they record these events, they are able to identify patterns of behavior and perceptions which may signal the onset of their anger; in effect, they may be able to thwart the violent incident by changing their thought processes and eventually controlling their violent tendencies. This theory highlights the fact that violence and aggressive actions are conscious choices; and they are not decisions which are forced upon a person (Amaral, 2011). This theory therefore encourages an individual to recognize the fact that it is with their choice that they act violently and it is with their choice that they are able to prevent such violent acts. III. Perceptions, reasoning, beliefs, and attitudes of these perpetrators of family violence. The perpetrators of family violence have various perceptions, reasons, beliefs, and attitudes regarding their behavior and their actions. In a study by Dekeseredy (2002), the author pointed out that among male aggressors, their primary motivation in their violent and aggressive acts is based on their desire to control their partners. Among female perpetrators however, their motives are usually more complicated; and it often includes self-defense or is the product of an escalated conflict (Kimmel, 2002). Some of these female aggressors also include anger and frustration as a reason for their aggression; and others express that they display violence as a means of get their partners to stop nagging or to get them to listen (Hamberger, 1997). Both male and female aggressors and perpetrators of family violence express that their motives for aggression include anger expression, control, and in some cases, retaliation; males expressed their motivation to lean more towards controlling motives (Hamel, et.al., 2007). Motives aside, it is difficult to establish true motivation for any aggressor because there are always self-biases involved in evaluating personal motives. For which reason, it is important for theorists and clinicians to consider other means of gathering data on motivations for violence. Clinicians are able to establish more accurate assessments on motivation for family violence by reviewing studies or behavior patterns of aggressors. In a study by Johnson (2000), the authors were able to establish that high levels of violence are often accompanied by high levels of controlling and aggressive behavior, including emotional and financial abuse, and isolation. Bowen’s (n.d) discussion also set forth that one of the best predictors of family violence is witnessing it in one’s family origin. Most men who have seen and experienced violence during their childhood or adolescent years between their parents are more likely to manifest the same behavior in their own future relationships. For some men who may experience something shaming or rejecting, they are also more likely to be abusive (Bowen, n.d). Moreover, for both male and female abusers it is agreed upon by many researchers and clinicians that childhood histories impact on future incidents of family aggression. Feelings that they will not be cared for, that they would be taken advantage of, and expecting not to be worthy of being treated otherwise are just some of the reasons for abusers to manifest their aggressive tendencies (Bowen, n.d) Those who engage in family violence may also be motivated by the simple need to retaliate. In a study by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2005), the authors established that in a group of female respondents who have resorted to family violence against their male partners or spouses, their motivation mostly lay, not so much out of fear or even self-defense, but on violence as a means of seeking retribution or of controlling their partners. Other studies, like that of Follingstad, et.al., (2002) express how family violence is often motivated by an attachment to their partners, and by the need to avoid being abandoned by their partners. These are possible motivations and perceptions of perpetrators of family violence. These reasons can be further explained by a variety of theories which help explain behavior. IV. Theories which help explain such behavior Other theories, aside from the cognitive-behavioral theories can be used to explain family violence. The socio-cultural theories establish various explanations for family violence and partner abuse. For example, the feminist theory views family violence as a manifestation of the unequal distribution of power between men and women; they credit how men have traditionally dominated women in most aspects of their lives, and this often translates to the family setting with displays of violence seen as a form of dominance over women (Burgess and Roberts, 2002). This domination is exacerbated by the largely patriarchal nature of most families in the world; this also places much stock on the dominance of the male in the family, and unfortunately it also gives some form of moral legitimacy to physical and aggressive exercise of such power and dominance. Under the socio-cultural theories is the theory on the generational transmission of violence which basically points out that violence is transmitted from one generation to the next (Burgess and Roberts, 2002). Studies claim that more than one fifth of those experiencing abuse as children would also manifest future violent actions in their own families. The socio-cultural theory assists in the understanding of family violence in the context of expected social norms and trends, in this case, feminist ideals and the impact of the environment and the society on a person’s actions. This theory cannot however be applied more specifically to each case of family violence. Although its considerations can be used to understand family violence, it cannot be used to apply to more specific cases of family violence which do not show any apparent signs of male dominance or inherited patterns of behavior. The biopsychosocial perspective is also another theory and viewpoint on family violence. According to this theory, “a child’s perceptions of family members, and of their interactions with him or her and with each other, are important factors in a child’s development. Essentially, early life attachments (sometimes called bonding) translate into a blueprint of how the child will perceive situations outside the family” (Burgess and Roberts, 2002, p. 16). Favorable attachments based on affection and caring then leads to trust which is a quality at the very core of human beings. A child who does not have a caretaker’s protection is set to experience much anxiety and can be overwhelmed and may end up dissociating himself from the trauma of being abandoned. The process of detachment or dissociation from the rest of the normal human world can then build up a person’s defenses, causing them to inhibit feelings which relate to the outside world (Burgess and Roberts, 2002). As a result they are isolated and disconnected from others. In the future, their behavior can arise as defense mechanisms against behavior which they do not like or not used to. As part of the biopsychosocial theory, the control theory can be incorporated. This theory is mainly about a person’s need to control the relationship, including how the partner must behave, must act, and must think (Burgess and Roberts, 2002). Beyond those controlled behavior, violence is the price to be paid. The biopsychosocial theories are clear and biologically and psychologically based theories which help explain family violence. They help provide patterns of behavior which pertains to the individual himself, his physiology and his psychology, and how these elements impact on his actions (Burgess and Roberts, 2002). It is however difficult to use this theory in isolation of the aggressor’s environment. In other words, much explanation and support would still be drawn from outside factors or elements which often pertain to more social and community-based considerations. Conclusion The above discussion explains family violence and its pertinent details and explanations. Firstly, family violence has an alarming prevalence rate, with incidents mostly impacting on women and children. Secondly, the cognitive and behavioral theories explain family violence in terms of rationalizations and perceptions on the part of the aggressor which yield biased conclusions and subsequently trigger violence. Thirdly, male aggressors see their actions as expressions of control, and women aggressors view their displays of violence as acts of self-defense and of retaliation. Lastly, the socio-cultural theories help further explain family violence and these theories refer to the aggressor’s usual social environment where he learns aggression as a response. The biopsychosocial theory looks into the person first and then into his emotions and his environment in order to understand family violence. These theories cannot however be used exclusively for each case of family violence because there are many paths which people may take on the road to such ultimate and unfortunate violence. In knowing how such paths are reached can an adequate and accurate theoretical understanding of family violence can be established. Nonetheless, the current psychological theories used and presented above provide some explanations for family violence, explanations which help us understand the behavior as well as its possible resolution. Works Cited Amaral, R. (2011). Explaining Domestic Violence using Cognitive-Behavioural Theory. Knowledge for Growth. Retrieved 04 August 2011 from http://knowledgeforgrowth.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/explaining-domestic-violence-using-cognitive-behavioural-theory/ Beck, A. T., & Weishaar, M. (1995). Cognitive therapy. In R. J. Corsini & D. Wedding (Eds.), Current psychotherapies. Itasca: F. E. Peacock Publishers. Bowen, E. (n.d). Intimate Partner Abuse: Understanding and Treating Domestic Violence. Intimate Partner Abuse. Retrieved 05 August 2011 from http://www.clinicalsocialworksociety.org/included/docs/continuing_education/IntimatePartnerAbuse.pdf Burgess, A. & Roberts, A. (2002). Violence within families through the life span. Media Wiley. Retrieved 05 August 2011 from http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/70/04714146/0471414670-2.pdf Dekeseredy, W. (2007). Understanding the Complexities of Feminist Perspectives on Woman Abuse: A Commentary on Donald G. Duttons Rethinking Domestic Violence. Violence against women, volume 13, pp. 874-884 Durose, M., Harlow, C., Langan, P., Motivans, M., Rantala, R., & Smith, E. (2005). Family Violence Statistics Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances. US Department of Justice. Retrieved 05 August 2011 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf Follingstad, D., Bradley, R., Helff, C., & Laughlin, J. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament, and need for relationship control. Violence and Victims, volume 17, pp. 35–47. Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005). Investigating three explanations of women’s relationship aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, volume 29, pp. 270–277. Hamel, J., Desmarais, S., & Nicholls, T. (2007). Perceptions of Motives in Intimate Partner Violence: Expressive Versus Coercive Violence. Violence and Victims, volume 22(5), pp. 563-576 Hamberger, K., Lohr, J., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. (1997). An empirical classification of Motivations for domestic violence. Violence Against Women, volume 3, pp. 401–423. Johnson, M. (2000). Conflict and control: Symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Paper presented at the NIJ Gender Symmetry Workshop. Kimmel, M. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and Methodological research review. Violence Against Women, volume 8, pp. 1332–1363. Koonin, M., Cabarcas, A., & Geffner, R. (2002). Treatment of women arrested for domestic violence: Women ending abusive/violent episodes respectfully (WEAVER) manual. San Diego: Family Violence & Sexual Assault Institute. Sanderson, C. (2008). Counselling survivors of domestic abuse. New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Todd, J., & Bohart, A. C. (1994). Foundations of clinical and counseling psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Read More