Presentation on Theory

Kai2001

Samplepresentation.pptx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Presentation on Theory

Understanding Risky Drinking behaviors and habitual drinking offenses

A look at differential association, social learning, and self-control theories

“theoretically speaking”

Social learning theory

Akers 1985

An individual’s probability of engaging in criminal behavior

increases when they associate with individuals with definitions favorable to those

behaviors

Differential association

Sutherland 1939,1947 – initial theory

Akers 1997, 2011 – four fundamental dimensions of learning:

Differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation

Differential association: interactions between groups & individuals and the associated norms they hold

Definitions: a person’s own attitudes and values regarding a behavior

Differential reinforcement: encouragement or discouragement of behavior through reward or punishment

Imitation: acting out a behavior observed in others

Self-control theory

Hirschi & Gottfredson 1990 – general theory of crime

Developed early in childhood, self-control is a result of parental involvement

Low self-control is evidenced by a desire for immediate desirable effect without thought of long term negative consequence

Hoyle, J., Bryan, L. M., Stogner, J. M., Posick, C., & Brenda, S. B. (2017). Analyzing predictors of drinking and driving among gender cohorts within a college sample. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, , 1-14.

Why do we need to understand?

Effective Policy is borne from understanding the ‘why’

Worldwide epidemic

Not confined to age, socioeconomic status, region – drinking kills indiscriminately

“Every day, almost 29 people in the United States die in alcohol-impaired vehicle crashes—that's one person every 50 minutes in 2016.”

“drunk-driving crashes claim more than 10,000 lives per year. In 2010, the most recent year for which cost data is available, these deaths and damages contributed to a cost of $44B per year.”

Sourced from https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

How do you study something that diverse?

Is it possible that influential factors change over the lifespan of a routine drinker?

If so, how do we create a policy that works for everyone?

………. Let’s look at some studies.

Explaining Substance Use among Puerto Rican Adolescents: A Partial Test of Social Learning Theory

Who? When?

Miller, et. al. in a two week period, April 2005

What was the question?

How do two dimensions of social learning theory (personal definitions

& differential associations (measured by peer definitions) impact substance

use?

How do one’s personal definitions of substance use impact likelihood of lifetime usage?

How do peer definitions impact this likelihood?

Miller, H. V., Jennings, W. G., Alvarez-Rivera, L. L., & Miller, J. M. (2008). Explaining Substance Use among Puerto Rican Adolescents: A Partial Test of Social Learning Theory. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(1), 261–283.

How did they do it?

Data from two municipalities of san juan, Puerto rico

305 students, 14-19 years old enrolled in public or private school – 298 surveys used

69% public school / 31% private school

Mean age of 16.24 years (public), 16.19 years (private)

48% male (public), 42% male (private)

Control variables of age and single-parent households added due to prior research findings of the impact of both on substance use in adolescents

First concept – personal definitions

Likert-scale 1-5; 1(strongly agree) / 5 (strongly disagree) to whether the behaviors drinking/smoking cigarettes, smoking marijuana are wrong

Second concept – differential association

Indicated the adolescent’s perception of their peers’ definitions towards these same behaviors

…..What did they find?

Lifetime substance use is more prevalent among private school students in all three categories

Private school students more likely to report their peers as being accepting of these behaviors

Males rated higher in substance use (public/private) vs. female counterparts

Youth personal definitions had most impact on private school males regarding alcohol consumption

Public school males and females are one and a half times more likely to use alcohol if they perceive peer approval

Younger private school females reported greater use of alcohol

Why is it useful?

Support for what theory?

Preliminary support for social learning as it relates to substance use among Hispanic adolescents

Private school students are more likely to report lifetime use of alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and smoking marijuana

Private school students are more likely to see their peers’ definitions as favorable

Lifetime alcohol use is strongly related to positive peer definitions for both public and private groups

Students who report positive personal definitions of substance use are more likely to report lifetime use for both public and private groups

anything surprising?

Negative correlation between age and substance use among all private school students – contrary to former research

Social learning observed to operate similarly for both males and females

Cautions & limitations

What can’t the study do?

Data is cross-sectional

Unclear whether private school students are more susceptible to peer influence, or if the substances are more readily available due to socioeconomic factors

Only a partial test of social learning, weighing only two factors – differential association and definition

No measure of monthly or annual substance use, only lifetime use

Does not account for occasional users / experimental activities

Sample was not randomly selected – represent only a small percentage of Puerto Rican high school students

Analyzing predictors of drinking and driving among gender cohorts within a college sample

Who? When?

Hoyle et. al. 2017

What was the question?

evaluate gender differences in motivations and correlates of DUI behavior

Are differential association and imitation, both factors associated with Social Learning Theory, significant predictors for both gender cohorts’ DUI behavior?

What part does low self-control play In motivation and correlates of dui behavior?

How did they do it?

A paper survey was administered by a research assistant in 40 classes at a public university located in the Southeastern U.S between November 2011 and March 2012

random sample was used to identify 40 eligible classes; 15 classes with 100 or more students were selected, as were 25 classes with 30 to 99 students

A total of 2,349 students completed the survey (80.4% of eligible students)

975 females and 863 males

Controls for age, race, affiliation with a fraternity or sorority, class year, and family income

Female sample: 31% self-identified as nonwhite, the average age was 19.87, 19% of respondents were members of a sorority, generally equal distribution of family income bracket

Male sample: 27% of respondents self-identified as nonwhite, the average age was 20.35, 13% were members of a fraternity, over 80% report family income of more than $50,000

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had ever participated in driving a car/ truck at various levels of intoxication

sober, 1–2 drinks, 3–4 drinks, 5 –9 drinks, 10+ drinks, high, and both drunk & high

5 or more drinks as a measure of DUI - males, 3 or more – female

Low self-control was measured using the Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev (1993) 24-item scale

6 different factors described by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) as comprising low self-control

risk taking behaviors, temper, insensitivity, impulsivity, preference for easy/simple tasks, preference for physical tasks

4-point Likert scale: strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed

Differential association measure:

how many of the respondent’s friends have driven while intoxicated (none to almost all)

Imitation measure:

how many times the respondent witnessed someone driving while intoxicated (never to too many times to count)

Definitions measure:

four-option item that asked respondents how they personally felt about driving while intoxicated (negative in all circumstances to positive in all circumstances)

differential nonsocial reinforcement measure:

how fun the respondent believed driving while intoxicated to be (not at all to extremely)

…..What did they find?

males were statistically more likely to engage in DUI - 18.9% of males / 12.6% of females

males have a larger portion of friends who have engaged in DUI, believed DUI to be fun, viewed DUI as positive, and have seen more people engage in DUI

Female sample

low self control is linked to decisions to engage in DUI

differential association and imitation were significant

exposure to those who engage in DUI predicts engagement in DUI among female respondents

Differential reinforcement, definitions, and control variables were not significant

Male sample

low self control is linked to decisions to engage in DUI

same differential association variables as were found significant in the female sample; specifically, differential association

none of the control variables reach significance.

only in the female sample did low self-control retain significance when combined with other independent variables

Why is it useful?

Support for what theory?

low self-control was a significant predictor of DUI for both men and women

Differential association and imitation variables were significant for both men and women

Policy implications focused on alternative transportation, lessening the need to drive when drunk to mediate self-control issues

prevention efforts should also incorporate peer networks, such as anti-DUI media campaigns as related to differential association / imitation factors

Cautions & limitations

What can’t the study do?

Data is Cross-sectional

Geographical differences and the use of a college sample may limit the applicability – caution should be used extrapolating these results to other college students

several cases dropped from the sample due to missing data

those reporting that they have never driven a vehicle

The influence of social factors and personality constructs on drink driving among young licenced drivers

Who? When?

Watling et. al. 2017

What was the question?

What akers’ social learning constructs are associated with drink driving?

Additional questions regarding personality constructs (not covered in this presentation)

Watling, H., Hooijer, J., Armstrong, K., & Watling, C. N. (2018). The influence of social factors and personality constructs on drink driving among young licenced drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 52, 210–221.

How did they do it?

Convenience sample of 390 participants recruited from an Australian university as well as the driving public (learner/provisional/open licenses)

Data collected via online questionnaire; recruited by email, university setting, and social media posts

Controls: sex, age, employment status, education, household income, marital status, license status, and postcode

71.54% female / 28.46% male

Age range from 18-24 years

Over half were single, and most had an income of aud 40,000 or less

Alcohol use disorders identification test (audit)

10 items, scored 0-4 on three and four point scales – total score of 40

>6 females / >7 for males = harmful alcohol use

Akers’ social learning constructs measured with seven point likert-scale – 1(strongly disagree / not at all), 7 (strongly agree / all the time)

Constructs:

Personal definition – 13 items

Ex: “it is ok to drive over the legal bac for your licence type as long as you do not get caught.”

Differential reinforcement, punishment – 9 items

Ex: “my family would be disappointed in me if I drove while over the legal bac limit for my licence type.”

Differential reinforcement, rewards – 6 items

Ex: “most of my friends would respect me for driving while over the legal bac limit for my licence type.”

Differential association, normative, friends – 2 items

Ex: “my friends think there is nothing wrong with anyone driving while over the legal bac for their licence type.”

Differential association, normative, family – 2 items

Ex: “my family think there is nothing wrong with anyone driving while over the legal bac for their licence type.”

Differential association drink driving, friends/family/other people – 1 item

“my friends drive after drinking alcohol when they might have been over the legal bac limit for their licence type.”

Imitation, friends/family/important others – 1 item

“think back to when you first started driving solo. Back then, how much did you base your decision of whether to drive after drinking alcohol or not on the behavior of your family members?”

…..What did they find?

45.38% of the sample was found to have risky drinking behaviors via the cutoff values used in the audit

Reportees of drunk driving in the last 12 months scored higher on audit

47.75% of men reported drunk driving within last 12 months, vs. 32.26% of women

A number of akers’ social learning variables correlated with drunk driving:

Personal definitions (highest impact)

Differential reinforcement, punishment (highest impact)

Differential reinforcement, rewards

Differential association, normative, friends / family

Differential association drink driving, friends / family

Imitation, friends

Differential reinforcement, punishment had the highest impact overall

Increase in the likelihood of drunk driving by 198% if the anticipated punishment was low

Associated with personal definitions – belief in the inevitability of apprehension for drunk driving leads to attitudes that drunk driving is unacceptable – maintaining that negative perception lessens the likelihood of drunk driving

Why is it useful?

Support for what theory?

Support for social learning theory - very comprehensive study encompassing each facet of the theory

Legal punishment is already incorporated into Australian policy regarding drunk driving, but would the policy benefit from incorporating social punishment?

Clear renunciation of drunk driving from friends and family should be highlighted

Anything surprising?

Over 70% of the sample was female

Could the results be even more pervasive in a male dominated study, given the finding that a higher percentage of the male respondents reported drunk driving in the last 12 months?

Cautions & limitations

What can’t the study do?

Data is Cross-sectional

Convenience sampling method, limited representativeness

Avoid applying to the broader population of young drivers

Lacking in diversity of residential areas, educational levels, and socio-economic status

Limited to participants recall ability – may be cloudy due to alcohol consumption at the time of the event

A criminological approach to explain chronic drunk driving

Who? When?

Demichele et. al. 2014

What was the question?

drunken driving offenders can be classified into various categories including limited and chronic subcategories

one strategy by itself will not reduce drunken driving

criminological and driving safety literatures have developed explanations for repeat drunk driving independent of one another – how can they be integrated?

Demichele, M., Lowe, N. C., & Payne, B. K. (2014). A criminological approach to explain chronic drunk driving. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 39(2), 292-314.

How did they do it?

Set out to test concepts from several criminological theories:

social learning (Akers & Sellers, 2009)

self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990)

general strain theory (Agnew, 1992, 2006)

social disorganization (Laub & Sampson, 2005)

dataset from the Oklahoma Department of Corrections

individuals serving a probation / parole sentence for DUI

mean age of 38 years old, 90% of the sample male, 32% married, 66% white, average LSI-R total risk score of 19.7, 30 % previously incarcerated, and 54% on community supervision prior to current sentence

independent variables:

14 items from the LSI-R / Andrews and Bonta (2004)

used to identify the relative risk of future criminal activity while on community supervision

27 items from the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS) Wanberg et. al. 2005 / 2010

demographic / criminal history indicators included as part of the administrative record

Dependent variable:

Number of prior dui arrests

Demichele, M., Lowe, N. C., & Payne, B. K. (2014). A criminological approach to explain chronic drunk driving. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 39(2), 292-314.

…..What did they find?

prior criminal histories have a threefold increase in their prior number of DUI arrests

Arrested prior to age 16, prior probation, prior incarceration

Four demographic variables uphold traditional findings:

blacks nearly 15% more prior DUI arrests than other races

for every 10 years of age, an offender’s mean prior DUI arrests decrease by nearly one DUI arrest

Being married or male did not appear to affect dui arrests

‘volatility factor’

general level of comfort or happiness and ability to deal with stress

likely related to heavy alcohol consumption and drinking outside the home

Movement up the volatility scale - expected mean frequency of prior DUI arrests are nearly three times higher than the overall mean

anti-social peers and the deviance scales are significant

opposite direction than expected

Gain of anti-social peers, expected number of DUI arrests decreases by 6.5 %

increase in the deviance scale, offenders’ expected mean of prior DUI arrests decreased by 8.0 %

Demichele, M., Lowe, N. C., & Payne, B. K. (2014). A criminological approach to explain chronic drunk driving. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 39(2), 292-314.

Why is it useful?

Support for what theory?

Most support for strain theory – volatility - inability to cope, increased drinking

Findings do not support the belief that dui arrests are a product of substance abuse

Life-course theory – prior arrests / probation indicates a higher probability of future dui arrest

Anything surprising?

Social learning theory - The negative impact of anti-social peers on prior dui arrests

Is it possible that individuals with more anti-social peers have others they can count on to drive to bars? (fewer actual drunk drivers on the street)

Demichele, M., Lowe, N. C., & Payne, B. K. (2014). A criminological approach to explain chronic drunk driving. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 39(2), 292-314.

Cautions & limitations

What can’t the study do?

Data is cross-sectional

Data collected only from those with prior arrests

Not a good indicator of the frequency of the dui event – only the times of apprehension

Demichele, M., Lowe, N. C., & Payne, B. K. (2014). A criminological approach to explain chronic drunk driving. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 39(2), 292-314.

Drunk driving and the prediction of analagous behavior: A longitudinal test of social learning and self controlled theories

Who? When?

Winfree et. al. 2007

What was the question?

Are Persons diagnosed as alcoholics distinguishable from non-alcoholics

in terms of constructs related to social learning and self-control theories?

is the level of self-reported misbehavior more indicative of self-control theory

or social learning theory?

To test the extent to which variables drawn from social learning and self-control theory can distinguish between alcoholics and non-alcoholics

is past self-reported behavior the best predictor of future misconduct?

Winfree, L. T., Jr., Giever, D. M., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2007). Drunk driving and the prediction of analagous behavior: A longitudinal test of social learning and self controlled theories. Victims & Offenders, 2(4), 327–349.

How did they do it?

Two groups, designated as either ‘alcoholics’ or ‘non-alcoholics’ by the Las Cruces, nm Municipal Court

Obtained surveys from 110 individuals at the time of sentencing

56 alcoholics / 54 non-alcoholics

Followed for between 6-18 months

Controls for gender, age, race, and level of education

Nearly 9 in 10 were males

The typical respondent was a 33-year-old Hispanic male

social learning theory: differential associations, differential definitions, and differential reinforcements

differential associations

how many of their current friends (1) none, (2) few, (3) half, or (4) most or all of them would they guess have committed a series of illegal activities

Ex: “purposefully damaging or destroying property that did not belong to them”

differential definitions

Using five levels of agreement, (5) strongly agree to (1) strongly disagree, for a series of statements that endorsed illegal or immoral behavior

Ex: “it’s okay to lie if it will keep your friends from getting into trouble with relatives, fellow workers, their employers, or the police”

differential reinforcements

series of questions that addressed whether the respondents saw any positive or negative elements to drunk driving

six separate self-control elements were measured

immediate gratification

Ex: “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think”

risk taking

Ex: “I like to test myself every now and then by doing something a little risky”

simplicity

Ex: “I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit”

physicality

Ex: “I like to get out and do things more than I like to read and think about ideas”

self-centeredness

Ex: “I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making things difficult for other people”

anger

Ex: “Often, when I’m angry at people, I feel more like hurting them than talking to them about why I am angry”

Dependent variables

classification by the court as alcoholic or non-alcoholic

self-reported measures at the time of sentencing

List of illegal / immoral activities such as: not paying for bus rides/movies, stealing, damaging property, physical violence

subsequent convictions for any offense within a six month period

…..What did they find?

with respect to status as an alcoholic and reconviction status, age and level of self-reported misbehavior are the most crucial factors

For each year older a person is, the odds of the court assigning the status of “alcoholic” to the convicted individual increases by 4%

for every self-reported act of misbehavior the odds of being classified as an alcoholic increased by 85%

those individuals with more friends who engage in misbehaviors are more likely to report committing misdeeds In the past 12 months

differential association is limited to yielding insights into self-reported misbehavior only

Influence of social learning on reconviction status is indirect, and accomplished through self-reported misdeeds

Why Is it useful?

Support for what theory?

Does not directly support social learning and social control aspects of drunk driving episodes by chronic alcoholics

Indirect support through self-reported measures of illegal acts and the correspondence between those acts and reoffending

Past illegal activity and criminal associations set one on a persistent path to reconviction

alternatives to deterrence-based programming should be considered

who is more likely to be impacted by what kind of programming?

Anything surprising?

Courts appear to rely heavily on age when determining substance abuse designation

Many other factors to consider which may not get adequate attention.

Social designation as ‘alcoholic’ has ramifications on self-worth, social standing

Cautions & limitations

What can’t the study do?

Treats self-control theory as one-dimensional construct

This study Asks more questions than it answers

More focus needed on causal relationships

To sum it up…..

Puerto Rican adolescents

Lifetime alcohol use is strongly related to positive peer definitions for both public and private groups

Students who report positive personal definitions of substance use are more likely to report lifetime use for both public and private groups

College students

low self-control was a significant predictor of DUI for both men and women

Differential association and imitation variables were significant for both men and women

Young Australian drivers

Differential reinforcement, punishment had the highest impact overall

Increase in the likelihood of drunk driving by 198% if the anticipated punishment was low

When it becomes habitual

Prior criminal history indicates higher levels of dui arrests

Prior arrests decrease when there is evidence of anti-social peer groups

Age decreases the frequency of dui arrest – change in the dynamic / reasons for drinking with age

Volatility factor significant predictor of dui arrest – inability to deal with strain without alcohol mediation

How do you create one policy to deter someone from these risky behaviors?

You don’t! Take a multi-faceted approach

Multiple policies are needed

Focus on redirection of personal definitions of risky drinking behaviors as negative over that of positive peer definitions

Focus on alternative transportation methods, social network / media outlets to influence peer opinion in opposition of risky drinking behaviors

Focus on not only differential reinforcement / punishment, but also on Clear renunciation of drunk driving from friends and family

alcoholism – causes/treatments – systemic, no longer subject to learning, now more self control theory basis / strain theory basis

One problem, a lifetime of causes

Depending on life-stage, peer influence, tendency toward dependence, lack of self-control, insufficient deterrence mechanisms, inability to adequately handle life stressors, and many other social and even biological constructs, alcohol abuse and its related risky behaviors are a multi-faceted issue with a multitude of variables.

No one theory can or likely ever will be sufficient in the understanding of such a diverse issue.

Effective policy will depend on an honest and straightforward community assessment of the most pressing issues within any municipality

Presentation on Theory

image2.png

image3.png

image4.jpg

image5.png

image6.jpg

image7.png

image8.jpeg

image9.jpg

image10.gif

image11.jpg

image12.jpg

image13.jpg

image14.png

image15.png

image16.jpg

image1.png