FOR A-PLUS WRITER

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

Presentation Details: Slides: 7 Duration: 00:15:55 Filename: C:\Users\PadenSL\Desktop\Social Bonds.ppt Description:

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

Slide 1 Control Theories Duration: 00:00:12 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: CONTROL THEORIES Hello. In this presentation, I’m going to give an overview of several different control theories of crime that you are reading about in this module.

Slide 2 Crime Theories: The Big 3 Duration: 00:01:43 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: CRIME THEORIES: THE BIG 3 As noted in some of the earlier modules, while there are many theories of crime, there are 3 major explanations that have dominated criminology and which offer wholly different takes on why crime occurs. Strain theories argue that crime occurs because of negative experiences and push factors that create a greater pressure toward crime. In contrast, Learning theories are considered “pull” theories of crime and argue that people are drawn into crime and led into it through the messages and associations they have.

In this module, we are going to discuss the 3 rd

family of theories – CONTROL theories.

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

Unlike the learning and strain theories, which ask whether people are pulled or pushed into crime, Control theories focus on a different question. They are trying to explain why people DON’T commit crime. This seems like a subtle difference, but it is key and makes the control theories fundamentally different than the other perspectives. The control theories argue that you don’t have to explain why people offend… it is their natural tendency. Instead we should be trying to explain what it is that keeps most people honest and keeps them from acting on these impulses, and they argue that it is due to different types of external or internal social controls.

Slide 3 Social Bond Theory Duration: 00:01:58 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: SOCIAL BOND THEORY There are a variety of different control perspectives, but one of the first control theories to gain widespread attention in criminology was Social Bond theory, developed by Travis Hirschi in his 1960 book “Causes of Delinquency.” Although there were others before his (like Walter Reckless’s Containment theory), Hirschi’s theory was very well defined and clear in its arguments. Also, Hirschi helped launch his theory by providing thorough empirical tests of his arguments to show that held up under testing with real data. Like all control theories, Hirschi is interested in explaining why people DON’T offend and why we don’t commit crime. He says the other

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

major theories of the time (learning and anomie theories) were flawed because they were trying to explain why people were motivated to offend. He said that motivation was natural and there was no need to explain offender motivation, and thus, he argued that these other theories were missing the point. He said that people were just like chickens who would take each other’s feed… crime and offending was our natural impulse. But many of us didn’t act on that impulse, which was what Hirschi wanted to explain. Why didn’t we if it was our natural tendency. He argued that it was because we had SOCIAL BONDS to society and external controls that kept us honest and kept us from offending. He said it was only when these bonds and controls were broken that we were likely to commit crime, as the quote says here.

Slide 4 4 Social Bonds Duration: 00:02:46 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: 4 SOCIAL BONDS So what were these social bonds or social controls. Hirschi said that there were 4 specific types of external social bonds that provided social control over our behavior to prevent crime. First, he described ATTACHMENT, which has received the most attention among the 4 bonds, the most testing and support, and is often considered the most important of the bonds.

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

Attachment is essentially a sensitivity to the opinions of others. Or caring about what others think of you. Usually this is focused on parents, but also teachers, friends, mentors, and peers. The ideas is that if you truly care about others opinions of you and your relationships with others, then you are less likely to act on criminal temptation and impulses for fear of disappointing these people and putting these relationships at risk (even if you don’t think they would actually find out about the crime). Tests of this theory have found strong support for this idea and have found that strong attachment to family and school are among one of the stronger predictors of conformity. The second bond he described was COMMITMENT, which are essentially investments or commitments in conventional society. These are also commonly referred to as “stakes in conformity.” These are all the things you’ve invested energy, time, money, and resources in and are afraid of losing if you committed crime. It’s everything you’ve poured into your conventional life, that you could lose with the wrong decisions, such as your job, home, reputation, possessions, kids, schooling, marriage, a spot on a sports team/club, or an ROTC scholarships, just to name a few. And they could be expected commitments, like your plans to go into law enforcement in the future, which you don’t

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

want to jeopardize with crime. In many cases, research has shown that these types of commitments can have strong effects on people’s willingness to engage in crime. We have seen that many times, the things that lead people to desist from crime (or the TURNING POINTS in criminal behavior) often occur when people develop these commitments and get good jobs, families, homes, and other investments make crime seem like it’s not worth it anymore.

Slide 5 4 Social Bonds Duration: 00:02:18 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: 4 SOCIAL BONDS The third bond Hirschi described was INVOLVEMENT, which is straightforward. He basically argues that when people are busy and tied to conventional activities, they don’t have time to get in trouble. The phrase, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop summarizes this idea.” Hirschi argues that if you are working full time, involved in community or church groups, volunteering on the weekends, raising kids, and taking classes, chances are you don’t have time or energy to get into much trouble. In contrast, if you are out of work, single, and aren’t connected to many of these conventional activities, you are much more free to act on those criminal impulses and opportunities he describes. Last, he says that BELIEF is the fourth bond. He says that we are socialized into a common

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

set of beliefs and one overarching conventional system. By saying this, he was criticizing the subcultural theories that said there are different belief systems toward crime. He simply said that some of us are more strongly tied to this belief system about the rightness of law and unacceptability of crime than others. For some of us, crime is unacceptable in all forms because we have been strongly socialized into these mainstream values. But for others, we may have quite as rigid beliefs about this and may feel that crime isn’t that big a deal in some scenarios, for example, using pot from time to time or taking something from your employer as long as no one gets hurt. As you can see, these 4 bonds are connected too. If you are committed to a job, sports team, or family, chances are you will be highly involved and build strong attachments too.

Slide 6 Critiques of Social Bond Theory Duration: 00:02:52 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: CRITIQUES OF SOCIAL BOND THEORY In general, social bond theory has received fairly strong support in research. But there have been a number of critiques of this explanation of crime that are worth noting. For example, some argue that they theory could have the causal order backwards to some degree. Maybe it isn’t that having weak bonds causes crime. It’s very likely that if you commit crime, have done time, and have a criminal record, you will have a harder time forming

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

strong attachments and commitments in the conventional world. Others have critiqued the theory by asking, what if you are bonded to crime? What if you are strongly attached to someone who is a drug dealer? Or what if you are highly invested and committed in criminal activity? They argue that this could actually lead to more crime. Hirschi denied these influences, but others (especially fans of learning theories) suggest this is very possible. Some dislike the theory because it ignores motivation and assumes that we are “like chickens taking each other’s feed” and are naturally motivated to commit crime. It assumes that motivation is constant. But other theories and evidence suggests that our motivation to commit crime can increase or decrease in different contexts. In addition, the theory doesn’t tell us why very bonded individuals would commit crime. Why would someone (like a white collar offender for instance) who has many attachments in the conventional world, has many investments and commitments they could lose, and is highly involved in conventional activities commit crime. Likewise, why is it that some people who have very weak sets of bonds are never interested in crime (if motivation is inherent, this doesn’t make as much sense).

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

Slide 7 Sykes and Matza Techniques of Neutralization Duration: 00:04:06 Advance mode: Auto

Notes: SYKES AND MATZA TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION Well, Sykes and Matza have offered some ideas to help answer this last question… “why do bonded individuals commit crime” and “why do we break the laws that we agree with.” In their research talking with offenders, they found some interesting patterns. They found that even among serious criminals, many of them held pretty conventional beliefs and had conventional ideas about the law. They often had tremendous respect for law abiding people in their lives (like their mothers) and saw some people (like priests and religious leaders) as off limits for crime, and when asked, often said that they knew what they were doing was wrong and that they didn’t think it was a good thing. Again, this went against the subcultural arguments, showing that many offenders didn’t agree with or value crime and saw it as “bad” even while they did it. So why did people who believed in the rightness of laws and had attachment and commitment to conventional people and beliefs go ahead and commit crime? Sykes and Matza said it was because they were able to develop “TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION” to free themselves from these bonds and controls and loosen their power. These are like internal dialogues that people used before commission of crime to find ways to justify crime and harms they were considering and change their mindset.

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

Essentially, they NEUTRALIZED the guilt, shame, and stigma they might experience with these justifications. For example, when considering whether to skim money from an employer, people might tell themselves “I deserve it, no one will miss it, I’ll pay it back, or it’s for my family and something more important than just dollars and cents.” They develop and rely on these messages to weaken the hold of the other controls and bonds in their life to the conventional order, so they can still feel they are a good trustworthy person who believes in the conventional, mainstream value system, even while they commit crime. Notably, Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization has often been considered as much a learning theory as it is a control theory, because these neutralizations and internal dialogues are often learned messages that people have been exposed to and use to change their mindset and weaken controls. So this theory is like a hybrid of learning and control theory concepts. In the selection you are reading by Sykes and Matza, they outline the specific types of neutralizations they suggest that people often use… such as Denial of responsibility (“I had no choice”), Denial of injury (“they’re insured and no one will even notice”), Denial of victim (“they deserved it/had it coming”), Condemning the condemners (“Other people have done a lot worse than this”), and Appealing to higher loyalty (“I need this for my family”), just to give you a few examples.

Published by Articulate® Presenter '13 www.articulate.com

In the next presentation, I’ll cover a couple final control theories known as Self Control theory and Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded theory of Control.