How Does Social Learning Theory of Criminology Best Explain Terrorism - Essay Example

How Does Social Learning Theory of Criminology Best Explains Terrorism? Introduction The shift toward increased terrorism within the society is challenging and needs to be better understood. Within the fields of criminology and psychology, several theories have explained why people take part in terrorist activities. One such theory is social learning theory, which has developed as an essential tool for understanding criminal behavior. Akers Social Learning Theory Akers Social Learning Theory revolves around the concepts of differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation, that must be explained to understand the theory. Social Learning theory suggests that behavior is learned. Individuals learn behavior through interactions with others. Specifically, individuals learn criminal behavior through exposure to definitions favorable or unfavorable to criminal actions (Akers “Social Learning and Social Structure” 10-21). This indicates Akers assumptions about humans. The first of these assumptions is that at birth everyone is essentially a blank slate, and is in need of socialization that occurs in a learning process. The second assumption Akers makes about human beings in this theory is that they are rational beings. This can be described by saying that people, through their actions, seek pleasure and avoid pain, integrating the rational choice perspective (Akers “Social Learning and Social Structure” 25-40). For example, when applying this idea to terrorism, an individual may come into a situation in which he or she rationalizes the action that they are committing due to religious, social or political reasons. The ultimate intention of the individual is to utilize the fear and intimidation created by their actions to bring about socio-political change (Schmid and Jongman 10-15). The outcome of this event is part of the rationalization of the action. This demonstrates the concept of increasing pleasure and reducing pain. Akers also explains that behavior is viewed as either motivated or controlled. This motivation or control stems from four major dimensions of Social Learning theory. These four dimensions are differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation (or modeling). To understand social learning, the concepts of differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation must be defined (Akers “Social Learning and Social Structure” 10-21). Differential Association Differential association is "the process whereby one is exposed to normative definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal or law-abiding behavior" (Akers, “Criminological Theories”, 143-144). This process occurs in an individuals peer groups. Peer groups can be either primary or secondary. Primary peer groups include friends and family. Secondary groups include institutions, schools, and the like. These groups not only expose the individual to definitions favorable or unfavorable to criminal behavior but also provide models to imitate and reinforcements for criminal or non-criminal behavior. Due to these multiple aspects of the peer group, this dimension is sometimes viewed as the most important dimension of social learning theory (Chappell & Piquero 108). An individuals differential associations are also affected by priority, duration, frequency and intensity. This simply means that the associations an individual has that appear earlier, last longer, occupy more time and involve others with which the individuals have close relationships with will be of more importance in forming the definitions favorable or unfavorable to certain behaviors. Once an individual develops a definition for or against a certain behavior they are more likely to perform that behavior. Definitions There appears to be no clear consensus on what Sutherland meant by the term "definitions." The interpretation that Akers provides includes techniques for the commission of crimes as well as the justifications and neutralizations for the crime (Akers & Jennings 4). The role of excess understanding of techniques for committing crime is rather ambiguous. It appears that it might apply to the notion that if a person has more understanding of how to survive in society through crime than through legitimate means, he would have an excess of definitions favorable to crime. Yet, even Akers acknowledges that many of the techniques necessary for the successful commission of crime can be learned or just figured out through legitimate means. So, the ambiguity lies in whether the knowledge of techniques can be excessive in the direction of crime, and how it can be distinguished from the techniques for legal actions (Akers & Jennings 4). After attaining an understanding of the techniques necessary to commit crime, the excess of definitions becomes applicable. The acquisition and perpetuation of justifications and neutralizations is one of the essential controlling mechanisms for delinquent behavior according to this theory. These justifications and neutralizations are helpful in determining an understanding of excess definitions. Hence, when considering the definitions that Akers proposes, justifications and neutralizations seem to be most important in terms of considerations of excessiveness (Akers & Jennings 4). Justifications may also be framed in terms of exceptions to the rule. Akers uses the example of the prohibition against killing. This is generally held as a social norm. However, there are a number of circumstantial justifications for killing another person. Times of war and defense of self or others are examples of these justifications. The same types of neutralizing justifications can be found in other crimes. The criminal is a person who finds himself in circumstances that permit his behavior. The excess of definitions is present because of his situation. Therefore, a person with strongly held conventional beliefs and weak non-conforming beliefs is said to have an excess of definitions favorable to law-abiding behavior. Conversely, a person with strongly held non-conforming beliefs and weakly held conventional beliefs is said to have an excess of definitions favorable to criminal behavior and thus, is more likely to be involved in criminal behavior (Akers & Jennings 4). Imitation While Akers agrees with Sutherlands assertions that people are most influenced by emotionally close friends and family, he also extends the idea of influencing capabilities to role models (Akers “Social Learning and Social Structure” 76). This is referred to as imitation, and occurs when a person models his behavior in accordance with behavior that he witnessed a role model perform. The person being imitated probably received a reward for a certain behavior which influenced the second person to mimic the activities. This imitation is theorized to take place regardless of whether a relationship actually exists between the model and the imitator. Therefore, these models could actually be famous terrorist who perform behaviors in acting roles that receive reinforcement in a fictional setting. The imitator might mimic the behavior in an attempt to gain the same reward (Akers & Jennings 5). Akers generally refers to the increased amount of media influences in society since Sutherlands last revisions of differential association. He therefore concludes that role models from media outlets are likely to have a greater impact on impressionable youths than Sutherland had theorized. According to this point of view, the influence of media portrayals is not as strong as the influence of primary groups such as peers and family. However, the media provide additional reference groups for modeling. Moreover, the vast amount of media available to youths in modern society is likely to have a greater role in the modalities. Akers states, "The priority, duration, frequency, and perhaps intensity of exposure to patterns presented in the media for an increasing portion of the population have become so strong that they can overwhelm counteracting but less frequent, intense, and lasting primary groups" (Akers “Social Learning and Social Structure” 76). Akers also discusses inverse imitation. This variation of the imitation modality occurs when a person acts opposite of how a model would act in similar circumstances. Acting out behavior in this way could be attributable to a number of reasons. For example, a person might have an unfavorable impression of the model. Therefore, performing behavior that is opposite of the models behavior may be done out of rebellion or contempt. Furthermore, a person may act out inverse imitation if he has knowledge of the model receiving punishment for a behavior. In this case, the imitator would perform a different behavior with the hope of receiving a different reaction, reinforcement. Differential reinforcement The differential reinforcement element is used to explain the continuation of criminal behavior after it is initiated. This criminal maintenance is proposed to work under the principles of operant conditioning. Therefore, it is assumed that criminals receive some type of reward as a result of their deviant acts. This leads to a greater likelihood of future activity in crime (Akers & Jennings 4-5). These rewards can be social, such as acceptance by family members or peers who have been involved in crime, or it can be non-social, such as the money that a terrorist would gain. People in different social environments are subject to having differing behaviors reinforced. Therefore, the term differential reinforcement is used to express the varying social contexts that reward criminal behavior. Conclusion/Summary In a concise form, social learning theory presents the following ideas as the primary explanation for terrorism and criminal behavior: Behavior is learned, typically from emotionally close relationships. For people in an environment where criminal behavior is accepted and performed, the learned behavior is often, but not always, criminal behavior. This includes learning the techniques for committing the crime as well as the motivations and justifications. Furthermore, people in this environment must internalize the definitions favorable to crime in order to become involved in criminality themselves. Reinforcement increases the probability of a behavior occurring. If a behavior is reinforced, it is likely to be repeated. The reinforcement does not have to be material or monetary; it can be intangible like prestige or acceptance. Conversely, punishment decreases the probability of a behavior. A behavior which receives a negative response is not likely to be repeated. Discriminative stimuli allow an individual to associate a particular setting or situation with probabilities of punishment or reinforcement. These stimuli tell an individual when it is appropriate to act in certain ways. This includes determining whether criminal behavior will be rewarded or punished in a particular situation and social environment. Imitation and modeling allow an individual to observe the consequences of another persons behavior and pattern his/her behavior accordingly. Witnessing a person perform a behavior that is reinforced results in a greater likelihood that the witness will model that behavior, particularly if the behavior is rewarded. Or if the model receives a punishment for committing a behavior, the person may act in accordance with what Akers (1998) refers to as inverse imitation. This means that the imitator would act opposite to the behavior for which the model was punished. The combined balance of these four dimensions of social learning in essence come together to cause an individual to behave a certain way. If all of these dimension are occurring and favoring a certain behavior this behavior is more likely to occur than if just some of the dimensions are present and favoring the behavior. References Akers R. L. & Jennings W. G. Social Learning Theory. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/haganintrocrim7e/study/features/articles/HB6.4.pdf Akers, R. L. Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Roxbury Press: Los Angeles, California, 2000. Akers, R. L. Social Learning and Social Structure: A general Theory of Crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press: Boston, Massachusetts, 1998. Chappell, A. T., & Piquero, A. R. “Applying social learning theory to police misconduct.” Deviant Behavior, 25, (2004): 89-108. Schmid, Alex P. And Albert J. Jongman. Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Databases, Theories, and Literature. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1988. Read More