Module 5 Assignment
Aleramz16
SCHRAM_PPT_CH10-1.pptxChapter 10
Social process and control theories of crime
Learning theories
Assume that our attitudes and behavioral decisions are acquired via communication after we are born.
Individuals enter the world with a blank slate (tabula rasa).
Seek to explain how criminal and noncriminal behavior is learned through cultural values people internalize and the acquaintances they make.
A key feature is recognizing the influence of peers and significant others on an individual’s behavior.
Differential association theory
Sutherland
Principles of Criminology
Interested in explaining how criminal values and attitudes could be culturally transmitted from one generation to the next.
Used classical conditioning
Primarily developed by Pavlov
Learning through associations between stimuli and responses
Differential association theory
Elements of differential association theory
Criminal behavior is learned.
Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
Differential association theory
Elements of differential association theory
When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes
techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple;
the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
Differential association theory
Elements of differential association theory
A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.
Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
Differential association theory
Elements of differential association theory
The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
Differential association theory
Some research is supportive of Sutherland’s theory.
Many of Sutherland’s principles are somewhat vague and cryptic, which does not lend the theory to easy testing.
Use of classical conditioning
Concept of differential identification
Glaser
Allows for learning to take place not only through people close to us, but also through other reference groups, even distant ones such as sports heroes or movie stars whom the individual has never actually met or corresponded with.
Differential reinforcement theory
Burgess and Akers
By integrating Sutherland’s work with contributions from the field of social psychology—namely, the learning models of operant conditioning and modeling/imitation—decisions to commit criminal behavior could be more clearly understood.
Assumes humans are born with an innate capacity for rational decision making.
Used operant conditioning
Primarily developed by Skinner
How behavior is influenced by reinforcements and punishments (positive and negative reinforcements)
Differential reinforcement theory
Propositions
Criminal behavior is learned according to the principles of operant conditioning.
Criminal behavior is learned both in nonsocial situations that are reinforcing or discriminative and through that social interaction in which the behavior of other persons is reinforcing or discriminative for criminal behavior.
Differential reinforcement theory
Propositions
The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs in those groups that comprise the individual’s major source of reinforcements.
The learning of criminal behavior, including specific techniques, attitudes, and avoidance procedures, is a function of the effective and available reinforcers, and the existing reinforcement contingencies.
Differential reinforcement theory
Propositions
The specific class of behaviors that are learned and their frequency of occurrence are functions of the reinforcers that are effective and available, and the rules or norms by which these reinforcers are applied.
Criminal behavior is a function of norms that are discriminative for criminal behavior, the learning of which takes place when such behavior is more highly reinforced than noncriminal behavior.
The strength of criminal behavior is a direct function of the amount, frequency, and probability of its reinforcement.
Operant conditioning
Certain behaviors are encouraged through reward (positive reinforcement) or through avoidance of punishment (negative reinforcement).
Like different types of reinforcement, punishment comes in two forms as well.
Behavior is discouraged, or weakened, via adverse stimuli (positive punishment) or lack of reward (negative punishment).
A positive punishment would be anything that directly presents negative sensations or feelings.
Bandura’s theory of imitation/modeling
A significant amount of learning takes place absent virtually any form of conditioning or responses to a given behavior.
People learn much of their attitudes and behavior from simply observing the behavior of others.
Reaction to differential reinforcement theory
Nonsocial reinforcement can be considered self-reinforcement.
For example, if someone gets enjoyment out of abusing others, then the person can be considered “reinforced” through nonsocial means.
Differential reinforcement theory is that it appears tautological
Neutralization theory
Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization
Matza’s Drift Theory
Most criminals are still partially committed to the dominant social order.
Neutralization theory
Techniques of neutralization
Denial of responsibility
Denial of injury
Denial of the victim
Condemnation of the condemners
Appeal to higher loyalties
Neutralization theory
Studies of corporate crime have identified two additional techniques:
Defense of necessity
Metaphor of the ledger
Reaction to neutralization theory
Studies that have attempted to empirically test neutralization theory are, at best, inconclusive.
Robert Agnew argued that they are essentially two general criticisms of studies that support neutralization theory.
Control theories
Assume that all people would naturally commit crimes if it was not for restraints on the selfish tendencies that exist in every individual.
What is it about society, human interaction, and other factors that cause people not to act on their natural impulses?
Early control theories of human behavior
Hobbes
The natural state of humanity was one of greediness and self-centeredness, which led to a chaotic state of constant warfare among individuals.
People were essentially looking out for their own well-being, and without any law or order there was no way to protect themselves.
By creating a society and forming binding contracts (or laws), it would alleviate the chaos by deterring individuals from violating others’ rights.
Early control theories of human behavior
Durkheim’s idea of collective conscience
Humans have no internal mechanism to let them know when they are fulfilled.
Automatic spontaneity
Awakened reflection
Regulative force
Collective conscience
Early control theories of human behavior
Freud’s concept of the id and the superego
All individuals are born with a tendency toward inherent drives and selfishness due to the “id” domain of the psyche.
This inherent, selfish tendency must be countered by controls produced from the development of the “superego.”
Early control theories of crime
Reiss’s control theory
Delinquency was a consequence of weak controls that resulted in weak ego or superego controls.
There is no explicit motivation for delinquent activity.
The family is the primary source through which deviant predispositions are discouraged.
Individuals must be closely monitored for delinquent behavior and adequately disciplined when they break the rules.
The ability to restrain one’s impulses and delay gratification was also important to Reiss’s framework.
Early control theories of crime
Toby’s concept of “stake in conformity”
Individuals were more inclined to act on their natural inclinations when the controls on them were weak.
Stake of conformity
Prevents most people from committing crime.
Emphasis on peer influences in terms of both motivating and inhibiting antisocial behavior depending on whether most of their peers have low or high stakes in conformity
Early control theories of crime
Nye’s control theory
Proposed a relatively comprehensive control theory that placed a strong focus on the family.
There was no significant positive force that caused delinquency, because such antisocial tendencies are universal.
Three components
Internal control
Direct control
Indirect control
Early control theories of crime
Reckless’s containment theory
Emphasizes both inner containment and outer containment, which can be viewed as internal and external controls.
Identified predictive factors that push and/or pull individuals toward antisocial behavior.
Individuals can be pushed into delinquency by their social environment.
Individuals can be pulled into criminal activity by hanging out with delinquent peers, watching too much violence on television, and so forth.
Modern social control theories
Matza’s drift theory
Individuals offend at certain times in their life when social controls are weakened.
Soft determinism
Gray area between free will and determinism
When supervision is absent and ties are minimal, the majority of individuals are the most “free” to do what they want.
Individuals do not reject the conventional normative structure.
Much offending is based on neutralizing or adhering to subterranean values.
Modern social control theories
Hirschi’s social bonding theory
Most humans can be adequately socialized to become tightly bonded to conventional entities.
The stronger a person is bonded to conventional society, the less prone to engaging in crime he or she will be.
Four elements:
Attachment (most important factor)
Commitment
Involvement
Belief
Criticism
Modern social control theories
Integrated social control theories
Tittle’s control-balance theory
The amount of control to which one is subjected and the amount of control one can exercise determine the probability of deviance occurring.
This balance can also predict the type of behavior that is likely to be committed.
A person is least likely to offend when he or she has a balance of controlling and being controlled.
Integrated social control theories
Hagan’s power-control theory
Primary focus is on the level of patriarchal attitudes and structure in the household, which are influenced by parental positions in the workforce.
These balanced households will be less likely to experience gender differences in the criminal offending of their children.
In unbalanced households, assertiveness and risky activity among the males in the house will be encouraged.
This assertiveness and risky activity may be a precursor to crime.
A general theory of crime: low self-control
Gottfredson & Hirschi
Assumes that individuals are born predisposed toward selfish, self-centered activities, and that only effective child rearing and socialization can create self-control among persons.
Self-control must be established by age 10.
The general theory of crime assumes people can take a degree of control over their own decisions and, within certain limitations, “control” themselves.
This is one of the most valid theories of crime.
A general theory of crime: low self-control
Personality traits
Risk taking
Impulsiveness
Self-centeredness
Short-term orientation
Quick temper
Policy implications
One needs to emphasize positive, or prosocial, role models and avoid negative, or antisocial role models.
Head Start
Engaging youths in more conventional-type activities
