Assignment: Cognitive Aspects of Criminal Behavior

STUDENT REPLIES

STUDENT #1 Ayesha Levy

RE: Discussion - Week 2

It is understood that higher moral reasoners have an established determination of right or wrong based on their morals and sense of social obligation (Lyon & Welsh, 2017). It is theorized that this makes these individuals more adept at withstanding criminal behaviors when the opportunity arises but does not explain why people do things that they know are wrong (Lyon & Welsh, 2017). Albert Bandura theorized that individuals can self-regulate their behavior by having certain consequences depending on how well they've lived up to their moral standard (Lyon & Welsh, 2017). In theory, this should serve as a motivational factor to continue to behave in a morally correct way, but moral disengagement can be employed, allowing individuals to bypass the "psychological consequences" that occur when they violate their ethical standards (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p. 179).

Moral disengagement explains why minor and inhumane acts occur despite the universal belief that they are morally wrong (Lyon & Welsh, 2017). Through this process, individuals can either minimize how offensive the behavior is, displace the responsibility of the crime sometimes to someone of higher authority, lessen the perceived harm caused by the behavior or dehumanize or place the blame on the victim (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p. 180).

These behaviors are akin to rationalization, an immature defense mechanism where individuals can avoid guilt and retain their self-image by not addressing the reasons behind their behaviors (ICHARS, 2018). Furthermore, there are variations in how people use disengagement processes, which can also change depending on the situation (Lyon & Welsh, 2017). These variations explain why people with the same level of morals may behave differently; in other words, people who seem to be "good" with strong moral grounds may commit crimes depending on where they draw the line on violating their moral standards (Lyon & Welsh, 2017).

Given what has been learned, I do not believe I am immune from committing a crime, but I do not think I could put actions to thoughts if given the opportunity. It is essential to understand that people have varying degrees of tolerance towards behaviors they may consider unethical (Khan, 2018). Specific environmental cues, such as unethical behavior going unacknowledged or tolerance towards rule-breaking that may push an individual over a line that challenges their beliefs and moral standards (Khan, 2018). It is giving in to the temptations presented in these situations that place a person in a gray area where they compromise their moral values (Khan, 2018).

Regardless of whether I was reasonably able to support committing a crime, I do not believe I could follow through with any plan made. I would consider myself someone with strong morals that are not easily swayed by others' opinions or situations that may present favorably. But more than that, I know that I would not stop feeling guilty of my actions and that alone would stop me from acting on my thoughts.

References

Institute of Clinical Hypnosis and Related Sciences (ICHARS). (2018). Rationalization: A psychological defense mechanism. Retrieved from https://www.instituteofclinicalhypnosis.com/psychotherapy-coaching/rationalization-defense-mechanism/

Khan, R. (22 February 2018). White-collar crimes—motivations and triggers. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/roomykhan/2018/02/22/white-collar-crimes-motivations-and-triggers/?sh=76c6b6c81219

Lyon, D.R. & Welsh, A. (2017). The psychology of criminal and violent behavior. Don Mills, Canada: Oxford University Press.

STUDENT REPLIES

STUDENT REPLY #2 Jaime Des Marteau

RE: Discussion - Week 2 - Main Post

After the readings this week, especially in our required textbook, the common theme for why seemingly “good” people commits crimes had to do with a detachment or separation from the situation. For example, Bandura believed that we all can “self-regulate,” meaning we are able due to societal, moral, environmental, etc., influences know what morally acceptable behavior is and due to societal influence, behave accordingly (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p.179). Even though we can self-regulate, Bandura believed we were able to turn this off, depending on the situation, and use moral disengagement, which is a justification process we employ to not feel guilt over our actions (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p.179). One of the biggest examples of this I believe is with cyberbullying. Deindividuation plays a significant role in the ability for someone to say, spread, taunt, threat, etc., another individual, through a computer or another electronic device because of the anonymity it provides. In Milgram’s infamous study about electric shocks given by “teachers” to “learners” who did not answer questions correctly and found that even though the “teachers” were uncomfortable, 65% of the time, and with prompting, they continued to shock the “learners” (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p.191). While this experiment highlighted how, due to moral and social obligations, obedience is a behavior influenced by an individual’s community or society, providing influence, but within the right circumstances, a person who change their behavior due to compliance. What was even more interesting regarding this experiment, was that the closer the “teacher” was to the “learner” the more difficult it was for them to deliver the shock. This goes back to my earlier example of cyberbullying, focusing on the ability to morally disengage from a situation and deindividuate someone to justify our actions, even if it is completely out of character of our normal behavior.

To the question, Are you immune from committing a crime? My immediate response I wanted to give was absolutely, but if you look at the research, depending on the individual, their environment, society, etc., they do say that everyone can commit a crime. Additionally, as Bandura believed, during certain times, we as individuals can turn off the self-regulating part of our brain and just act, whether it is in the heat of the moment or what others feel is a break down or error in processing. One theory, Social Information Processing, believes that individual “input” stimuli/social cues, and then the “output” is the behaviors we exhibit based on the information we processed (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p.192). However, due to the complexity of humans and their behavior, there can be deficiencies in how our brains process information, which can lead to “poor decision-making” and “inappropriate behavior” (Lyon & Welsh, 2017, p.192). So, in answer to the question, and due to a combination of processes, environments, and societal influences, it is possible that I have the ability to commit a crime, even though I have been raised to believe that harming, steeling, etc., is wrong, given certain circumstances, I may be able to do something “bad” and provide reasoning as to why I was justified in committing the crime.

Reference

Lyon, D. R. & Welsh, A. (2017). The psychology of criminal and violent behavior. Don Mills,

Canada: Oxford University Press.