Week 2 - Assignment Origins of Crime: Biological, Developmental, or Situational? [WLOs: 3, 4] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4] Prior to beginning the assignment, review Chapters 4 and 5 in your textbook, where risk factors for criminal behavior are covered from a biological, developmental, and situational perspective. Keeping your own “client” in mind (that you chose for your final paper), please read the chapters and in this assignment please cover the following: • Assess the role (briefly) that all three (biological, developmental, and situational) perspectives play in influencing criminal behavior. • Choose one of the three perspectives (biological, developmental, or situational). • Evaluate the relationship between your chosen perspective and criminal behavior. • Illustrate a link between your client’s crimes and your chosen perspective based on the client you chose for your Comprehensive Case Study Report Final Paper. Be sure to use examples from the textbook and your client’s case to support your assertions. The Origins of Crime: Biological, Developmental, or Situational? paper • Must be three to four double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/apa-style) • Must include a separate title page with the following: ◦ Title of paper, ◦ Student’s name ◦ Course name and number ◦ Instructor’s name ◦ Date submitted For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/apa-formatting-word-2013) . • Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/academic-voice) resource for additional guidance. • Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper. ◦ For assistance on writing Introductions & Conclusions (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/introductions-conclusions) as well as Writing a Thesis Statement (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/writing-a-thesis) , refer to the Ashford Writing Center resources. • Must use at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed, credible source in addition to the course text. ◦ The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/e5359309-7d3c-4a21-a41044d59303ccef/1/Scholarly%20PeerReviewed%20and%20Other%20Credible%20Sources.pdf) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment. • Must document any information used from sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper (http://bpiwritingcenter.prod.acquia-sites.com/citing-within-your-paper) • Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (http://writingcenter.ashford.edu/format-your-reference-list) resource in the Ashford Writing Center for specifications. Carefully review the Grading Rubric (http://ashford.waypointoutcomes.com/assessment/22389/preview) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment. Waypoint Assignment Submission The assignments in this course will be submitted to Waypoint. Please refer to the instructions below to submit your assignment. 1. Click on the Assignment Submission button below. The Waypoint "Student Dashboard" will open in a new browser window. 2. Browse for your assignment. 3. Click Upload. 4. Confirm that your assignment was successfully submitted by viewing the appropriate week's assignment tab in Waypoint. For more detailed instructions, refer to the Waypoint Tutorial (https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/dc358708-3d2b-41a6-a000ff53b3cc3794/1/Waypoint%20Tutorial.pdf) (https://content.bridgepointeducation.com/curriculum/file/dc358708-3d2b-41a6-a000ff53b3cc3794/1/Waypoint%20Tutorial.pdf) . This tool needs to be loaded in a new browser window Load Week 2 - Assignment in a new window Learning and Situational/Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior 4 Urilux/iStock/Getty Images Plus Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to • Analyze the early theories of behavior and their influence on the study of learning and criminal behavior. • Discuss why social learning theory is fundamental to the understanding of criminal behavior. • Explain the theory of differential association. • Discuss why social cognitive theory is fundamental to understanding criminal behavior. • Summarize situational/environmental influences and their impact on behavior. Introductory Case Study: The Hillside Strangler The Hillside Strangler terrorized Los Angeles during 1977 and 1978, when at least 10 women were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered over a 4-month period. The defendants in the case were cousins Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi. Although both were psychopathic and sexually sadistic, there was also an interesting family dynamic to their relationship. Buono was nearly 20 years older than his cousin, more socially adept, and the dominant figure in their relationship. Buono had an extensive criminal history and kept women involved in prostitution and sexual slavery. He exposed his younger cousin to these behaviors, and soon their pimping and sexual appetites escalated to murder. The two quarreled after the initial police investigation, and Bianchi fled California shortly after the Los Angeles murders and committed an additional two murders in the state of Washington before finally getting arrested in 1979. Both men were sentenced to life in prison. As you read this chapter, consider the following questions regarding this case: 1. 2. 3. Do you think Bianchi would have committed these murders had it not been for Buono’s influence? Consider social learning theory with regard to Bianchi committing two more crimes without Buono. Which of the four factors of social learning theory can be applied? What situational factors do you believe may have influenced Buono and Bianchi to commit those horrible crimes? 4.1 Introduction The criminal psychology field has invested heavily in attempting to understand the causes of criminal behavior, such as the crimes committed in the Hillside Strangler example. Throughout the history of the field, theorists have asserted that human behavior reflects forces of nature or forces of nurture, depending on one’s perspective. Today it is almost universally recognized that both individual and environmental factors are important for understanding behavior, including criminal behavior. Moreover, it is largely recognized that individual and environmental factors often interact with and mutually reinforce each other. Different theoretical models describe the relationship between variables and outcomes, and researchers have concluded that there is no single path to criminal behavior. This chapter explores various theories that help us understand the influences on behavior, as well as situational/environmental influences and their relationship to criminal behavior. We will begin by discussing some of the theories of learned behavior and later will explore how situational factors may influence criminal behavior. 4.2 Theories of Behaviorism Though research on the stimuli for and consequences of behavior hasn’t focused on criminal behavior specifically, the research helps in understanding the causes of criminal behavior and why individuals learn these types of behaviors. Behaviorism is a social learning–based theory that suggests behaviors are the product of conditioning that occurs as an individual interacts with the environment. Behaviorism rejects the notion that internal, person-specific factors (e.g., emotional expression, self-regulation, intelligence) are the drivers of behavior. As a result, individual-level constructs are minimized or excluded in favor of learning from one’s environment. However, before the behaviorist school of thought was officially coined, several psychologists and criminologists developed theories of learned behavior to describe the “study of circumstances under which a response and a cue stimulus become connected” (Miller & Dollard, 1941, p. 1). These theories are crucial to understanding the basis of behavior. Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning Theory Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) is perhaps best known for his theory of classical conditioning, which is said to occur when two stimuli are linked together to produce a new learned response in a person or an animal. Pavlov conducted studies in which he measured and conditioned salivation (and other physiological responses) in dogs to respond to neutral stimuli. His work provided a basis for later behaviorists, who focused on the consequences of behavior (rather than the eliciting stimuli). Thorndike’s Law of Effect Other early studies of learning were conducted by Edward Thorndike (1874–1949), who argued that the consequences that follow behavior help learning. Thorndike developed the law of effect, which states that the consequences of behavior serve to strengthen or weaken its continuation. A baby who is fed a bottle of milk every time he or she cries (the behavior) will continue to cry when he or she feels hungry so that the parent will produce the bottle (the consequence). In other words, the consequence, because it is satisfying or pleasurable, serves to strengthen the crying behavior. To put it another way, when the response to a stimulus is positive, the connection between behavior and response is strengthened; when the response to the stimulus results in pain, the connection is weakened. Watson’s Theory of Behavior Though Pavlov and Thorndike began exploring learning theories before him, John Watson (1878– 1958) was the founder of the behaviorism school in psychology, initiating the movement in 1913. He showed that the idea of classical conditioning could be applied to humans, via the famous and controversial Little Albert experiment. Visit the following link to learn more about this experiment: https://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html#little (https:// www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html#little) . One of the most famous and frequently cited quotations in psychology comes from Watson (1930): Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (p. 82) An important legacy of behaviorism for understanding crime is a blank slate conceptualization of human behavior; Watson asserted this concept. The idea of a blank slate, or tabula rasa, which is attributed to the philosophers John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Dryden, is that people are born basically the same in terms of their innate abilities and that experience molds their behaviors. The blank slate is an optimistic worldview contrasting the idea of widespread individual variation. The implication for understanding crime is that learning-based theoretical approaches generally view the criminal offender as an innately blank slate that is then corrupted by negative or crimeinducing environmental features and personal connections. Jacek_Sopotnicki/iStock/Getty Images Plus Learning-based theories assert that we start as a blank slate when we’re born and learn negative behaviors from our environments as we develop. Skinner’s Operant Conditioning B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) was a psychologist widely known for his research on operant conditioning, a learning theory that suggests behavior is produced and modified based on the reinforcements and punishments it elicits. Over time, a particular behavior is paired with specific consequences that either strengthen or weaken the behavior. There are four types of reinforcement related to operant conditioning: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment. Positive reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that involves a behavioral response followed by a rewarding or reinforcing stimulus (also known as a “reinforcer”). The rewarding stimulus serves to strengthen the behavioral response. For instance, children who display good behavior (response) are likely to receive praise, warmth, and affection (reinforcers) from their parents, which serves to further encourage the good behavior. Negative reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that involves the strengthening of a behavioral response through the removal of an aversive stimulus. For instance, a child who receives a stern lecture from his or her parents for neglecting chores can end the lecturing (aversive stimulus) by performing the chores (response) in the first place. In positive punishment, a particular behavior or response is decreased or weakened when it is followed by an aversive stimulus. A stern stare from parents (aversive stimulus) will often immediately stop the problem behavior (response) that a child is exhibiting. In negative punishment, a behavior or response is weakened through the removal of a valued stimulus. For example, if a parent prohibits the use of a valued item (such as a smartphone) because his or her child broke curfew, the child may learn not to break curfew again. The removal of the smartphone (valued stimulus) will decrease the likelihood that the child will continue to stay out late (behavior). See Table 4.1 for further examples of reinforcement and punishment. Table 4.1: Examples of reinforcement and punishment Operant response Consequence (reinforcement or punishment) Teacher promises a sticker for good behavior in class. Student behaves well in class. Positive reinforcement. Student receives a sticker. Student is more likely to behave well in future classes. Teacher ridicules wrong answers spoken aloud. Student answers only when sure of being right. Negative reinforcement. Student is not ridiculed. Student is more likely to answer only when sure of being right. Teacher presents a lecture. Student talks to neighbor. Positive punishment. Teacher has student clean cupboards. Student is less likely to talk during a lecture. Teacher promises field trip for good behavior. Student misbehaves. Negative punishment. Privilege of going on field trip is withdrawn. Student is less likely to misbehave before a field trip. Stimulus Implications Operant conditioning played an important role in updating criminological explanations of crime that used social learning theory, particularly those relating to the role of reinforcement in perpetuating behavior. Given these basic definitions, we can see the parallels between behavioral theory and the criminal justice process. For many people who live their entire lives without an arrest, the mere potential threat of punishment is sufficient to deter criminal behavior. This is known as deterrence. For serious criminal offenders, unfortunately, the threat of punishment does little to discourage subsequent criminal acts. Skinner's Reward System Experiment At a school for troubled youth, Skinner introduced a system rewarding inmates for good behavior. Boys improved academically and improved their behavior. His work lives on in children's star charts. Skinner's Results at Prison From Title: Great Thinkers: Human, All Too Human (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx? wID=100753&xtid=47379)  Critical Thinking Questions • • What do the results of Skinner's experiment tell us about behavior? How do you see Skinner's reward system being used in your academic or professional career? 4.3 Social Learning Theory Among conventional wisdom and scholarly researchers, social learning theory is a fundamental part of understanding crime. It is so significantly related to crime that psychologists and sociologists alike made social learning theory a central part of their theoretical platforms. Few other conceptual areas can claim such universality. Foundations of Social Learning Theory Social learning theory suggests that behavior is motivated by the effects it produces and is largely based on mimicry of behaviors to which one is frequently exposed. It gives credibility to the common saying that “birds of a feather flock together,” which means that individuals generally behave like those with whom they associate. The main reason the theory is popular is that so much of childhood is based on learning. In the home, children are continuously exposed to behaviors and verbal instruction from their parents and siblings about the appropriateness of various behaviors. Although parents often do their best to intentionally inculcate prosocial behaviors and values in their children, much of this inculcation occurs in an indirect, almost subconscious way. (Remember that the terms prosocial and antisocial do not mean extroverted or introverted. Prosocial means that a person’s behavior is oriented toward making a positive contribution to society; for example, picking up litter in a local park. Antisocial means that a person’s behavior does not conform to the norms, rules, and laws of an orderly society. An example is dumping litter in the park instead of in the trash receptacle, an offense that may result in a fine or criminal prosecution, depending on what was dumped.) What this means is that much of learning occurs by observation and exposure to situational contexts. For instance, parents who work each day, prepare their clothing and lunch the night before going to work, leave early in the morning to arrive on time for work, invest their time and energy in productive labor in exchange for income and benefits, and generally invest in work as a social institution are displaying—each and every day—what it means to be a functioning member of society. Although this message may or may not be internalized by their children, because the parents are actively displaying good behavior, the children are more likely to learn. Learning occurs directly and indirectly, from observation of and interaction with role models who perform the behavior to be learned. The identical process occurs for negative behaviors. Consider parents who cannot hold down a job for more than a few weeks at a time. Being unable or unwilling to meet the responsibilities of their jobs, they either get fired or quit. Once at home, these parents vehemently critique their former boss, lament their unemployment, and engage in unhealthy, unproductive behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, drug selling, gambling) to quell their boredom and meet the financial needs of their family. Although these parents might simultaneously praise the value and importance of work, their behavior tells another story, and their children are exposed to According to social learning theory, negative behaviors that are internalized and much of learning occurs by unfortunately mimicked. This scenario can be made observation and exposure to much worse. The parents can abuse or neglect their situational contexts, including children, introduce them to drugs or alcohol, engage in influence from peers. violence within the home, or commit any combination of these crimes. These behaviors are observed, internalized, and unfortunately learned. Digital Vision/Thinkstock Parents act as socialization agents, or people who contribute to socialization—but so do teachers, coworkers, and peers, or persons of a similar status in an individual’s social environment. Whenever there is exposure to other individuals, there are opportunities to learn and imitate. Indeed, the very function of school is to instill the knowledge and skills that are needed for survival in a particular society. The preponderance of learning that occurs in our lives is positive; however, when exposure to antisocial individuals and criminogenic settings occurs, there are also opportunities to adopt certain negative behaviors. In the psychological study of crime, social learning theory is unique in that it was developed and influenced by both psychologists and sociologists. And within American criminology, the social learning approach has served as a core method of understanding and explaining crime. Even though the term social learning theory was originally coined and developed by Albert Bandura while he was researching and studying aggression (we will wait to discuss Bandura’s findings until Chapter 6), the theory has become mostly associated with Ronald Akers. Criminologists Akers and Gary Jensen (2006), two of the leading proponents of social learning theory, explain that it is a general theory that offers an explanation of the acquisition, maintenance, and change in criminal and deviant behavior that embraces social, nonsocial, and cultural factors operating both to motivate and control criminal behavior and both to promote and undermine conformity. (p. 38) Akers’s Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory Akers developed his differential association-reinforcement theory based on sociologist Edwin Sutherland’s differential theory of crime, Skinner’s operant conditioning theory, and Bandura’s social learning theory. Essentially, Akers argues that “criminal behavior is learned through both social and nonsocial reinforcements and that most learning of criminal behavior occurs in social interactions with other people” (as cited in Bernard, n.d., para. 3). Akers outlined the four core elements in his theory: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation. Differential Association Differential association refers to the varying associations or friendships and acquaintanceships that individuals directly and indirectly have with others. (Differential is a term that suggests there are differences between individuals.) Although differential association is a classic in sociological criminology, it is clearly a social learning theory. Sutherland’s work is important because it is an example of the ways that scientific disciplines borrow concepts from one another and reinvent them with different language. Subsequent social learning approaches are more rooted in psychology. Sutherland’s theory contains nine principles: 1. Delinquent behavior is learned, not inherited. 2. Delinquent behavior is learned through interaction with others by way of verbal or nonverbal communication. 3. Learning occurs in intimate groups; it is in small, face-to-face gatherings that children learn to commit crime. 4. In intimate groups, children learn techniques for committing crime, as well as the appropriate motives, attitudes, and rationalizations. The learning process involves exposure not only to the techniques of committing offenses but also to the attitudes or rationalizations that justify those acts. 5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal code as being favorable or unfavorable. (The term definitions here refers to attitudes.) 6. A juvenile becomes delinquent due to an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of law over definitions unfavorable to the violation of law. This sixth principle is the core of the theory. Definitions Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Getty Images Plus favorable to the violation of law can be learned Sutherland posited that an from both criminal and noncriminal people. individual will learn criminal 7. The tendency toward delinquency will be affected behaviors and rationalizations by the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity for such behaviors from his or of learning experiences. The longer, earlier, more her intimate groups, such as intensely, and more frequently youths are exposed close friends. to both positive and negative attitudes about delinquency, the more likely it is that they will be influenced. 8. Learning delinquent behavior involves the same mechanisms involved in any other learning. While the content of what is learned is different, the process for learning any behavior is the same. 9. Criminal behavior and noncriminal behavior are expressions of the same needs and values. In other words, the goals of delinquents and nondelinquents are similar. What differs are the means they use to pursue their goals. In the case of differential association, some individuals associate with many criminals, some associate with criminals occasionally, and some never associate with criminals. These friendships and acquaintanceships involve behaviors and the expression of values and beliefs that support the behaviors. Importantly, differential association also includes indirect identification with reference groups outside of one’s immediate contact, such as an individual’s involvement in an organization or online chat group. Although the person does not physically have access to these associates, there is nevertheless the transmission and learning of values, beliefs, and behaviors. Researchers theorize that differential association has greater effects on behavior depending on the duration, frequency, intensity, and priority of the associations (see Figure 4.1). How the duration, frequency, intensity, and priority of these associations predicts conventional or criminal behavior depends on the characteristics of the persons with whom one associates. For example, Schreck, Fisher, and Miller (2004) examined the relationship between friendship networks and violent victimization among respondents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. They found that adolescents and young adults who were popular and well connected in conventional friendship networks were very unlikely to be victims of a violent crime. A similar effect, albeit in the opposite direction, was found among those who were popular, well-connected members of antisocial friendship networks: They were more likely to be violently victimized. Figure 4.1: The parameters of differential association Relationship parameters such as duration, intensity, priority, and frequency can help determine the effect differential association will have on an individual’s behavior. See Spotlight: Research on Differential Association in the Workplace to explore how coworkers and peers can have an effect on an individual’s work ethic. Spotlight: Research on Differential Association in the Workplace Research focusing on the work setting and delinquency demonstrates the value of differential association. For instance, Gibson and Wright (2001) analyzed data from the Tri-Cities Adolescent Employment Survey, which is a survey of students from eight high schools in northeastern Tennessee. They found that workplace delinquency—which included behaviors such as lying on one’s time card about the number of hours worked, shortchanging customers, giving away goods or services for free, theft, using drugs or alcohol while on duty, and helping coworkers steal employers’ property—was predicted by coworker delinquency. On the other hand, coworkers can exert a positive influence on their colleagues. Utilizing data from the National Youth Survey, Wright and Cullen (2004) found that association with prosocial coworkers helps dismantle delinquent peer networks and results in reductions in delinquency and drug use. Taken together, these findings indicate that differential association with bad or good influences at work has important effects on whether an individual is commensurately well behaved or deviant. Definitions Definitions refer to an individual’s attitudes, orientation, and rationalizations that characterize the person’s behavior and cast him or her in moral or valuebased terms. Put simply, definitions are a person’s beliefs about or moral evaluation of his or her behavior. Consider this brief example: People who are part of a “partying” friendship network like to drink alcohol and use illegal drugs. When an individual is with these substance-abusing friends, he or she gives little thought or consideration to the moral violations inherent in illegal drug use. However, the same individual would likely not engage in these behaviors or approve of them if they were taking place around that person’s parents. The difference in these situations relates to the definitions that the individual produces about his or her behavior. iStockphoto/Thinkstock A person’s general mind-set is also known as his or her definitions. Someone who spends time around other drug users, for instance, may not give a second thought to using or worrying about the consequences of illegal drugs. There are three bases of definitions: conventional beliefs, positive beliefs, and neutralizing beliefs. Conventional beliefs are those that are unfavorable toward committing crime and favorable toward conformity. Positive beliefs are definitions by which an individual believes that committing crime is permissible. Neutralizing beliefs are definitions by which an individual justifies or provides excuses for why antisocial behavior is permissible (Akers & Jennings, 2009). It is important to note that criminals do not commit crime every second of their lives; therefore, they are not cognitively dominated by definitions that are favorable to the commission of crime. Instead, serious criminal offenders merely hold weak definitions about conventional behavior. This makes sense when one considers that serious criminal offenders also experience failures in terms of adult functioning, such as unemployment, financial insecurity, relationship discord, and imprudent behaviors like gambling, smoking, sexual promiscuity, and drug use. Their definitions about the righteousness of conventional life are so distorted that negative behaviors are enhanced. There is ample evidence that definitions are related to antisocial behavior. Drawing on data from the National Youth Survey, Mears, Ploeger, and Warr (1998) found that definitions and moral evaluations of antisocial conduct are significantly responsible for the large sex differences in crime. Mears and his colleagues found that delinquent peers were predictive of delinquency for both males and females; however, greater moral evaluations by girls buffered them from the pernicious effects of delinquent peers. In another study that used the National Youth Survey, Hochstetler, Copes, and DeLisi (2002) explored the link between respondents’ attitudes and their friends’ attitudes and involvement in three forms of crime: vandalism, theft, and assault. They found that friends’ attitudes were significantly associated with all forms of crime. In addition, these effects were found in both solo and group forms of theft, vandalism, and assault. Differential Reinforcement Differential reinforcement is the balance of reward and punishment that is produced from behavioral acts. Consistent with Akers’s theory, antisocial behavior is very costly to those who have little to no association with antisocial peers and is beneficial or rewarding to those who are enmeshed in antisocial peer networks. To prosocial people, crime brings incredible stigma, financial costs, fear, and the potential loss of liberty, employment, and other attachments. To antisocial people, crime can bring credibility and enhance one’s reputation. Gang activity is a clear example. To ascend the ranks of a gang, members will often commit major acts of violence to impress their peers or leaders in the gang hierarchy. Such criminal behaviors are highly reinforcing because they bolster one’s position within the gang. Focused research on habitual criminals demonstrates the interesting ways that involvement in criminal acts can be highly reinforcing. For example, Wood, Gove, Wilson, and Cochran (1997) surveyed more than 300 incarcerated prisoners and also conducted focus groups with 40 offenders who were career criminals. They found that serious offenders found crime to be intrinsically rewarding, reported feelings of physiological euphoria when committing crime, and felt that crime solidified their self-concept. Wood and colleagues referred to these processes as “nonsocial” reinforcement. Imitation Imitation is the repeating or mimicry of behaviors that have been directly or indirectly observed. Imitation is particularly salient during the initial exposure to behaviors that will be modeled. Over time, one’s behavior becomes habituated and is second nature; thus, there is no longer necessarily a need to imitate a behavioral role model. Bandura is an important figure in studying the factor of imitation in social learning. He demonstrated that aggression is produced from exposure to role models who display aggression and the imitation of it (Bandura, 1978). However, because his approach is directed toward aggression, we will wait to discuss it until Chapter 6. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence of the importance of imitation relates to intimate partner violence. Violence that occurs in the home produces a staggering array of immediate and enduring costs for children. In addition to exposing children to verbal, physical, and at times sexual abuse, such homes model violence for children at vital developmental stages that can set into motion learning processes that favor the use of violence during interpersonal disputes. If this occurs, these behaviors can be repeated years later. For instance, Sellers, Cochran, and Winfree (2007) surveyed nearly 1,300 university students and found that imitation significantly predicted dating or courtship violence. Moreover, separate analyses found that imitation predicted violence among both male and female students; however, the effects were more pronounced among women. 4.4 Social Cognitive Theory The social cognitive theory focuses on cognitive processes, rational thought, and cognitive expectancies as important determinants of behavior. Importantly, cognitive psychology deals not only with cognitive processes but also with the emotional processes that are related to the ways that people think. In other words, this perspective shows the connection between thinking and feeling and how both actions influence behavior. In addition, the cognitive psychology perspective is aligned with social learning theory in the sense that learning processes are involved. For clarification, social cognitive theory focuses on the situational factors that may influence our cognitions. That is, cognitive theory focuses on internal processes that influence our perceptions and thus lead to our cognitions, whereas social cognitive theory focuses on external influences. Assumptions Social cognitive theory is not a singular theory but is rather a theoretical perspective that is guided by several assumptions. • • • Cognitions include a range of constructs, such as beliefs, expectancies, attributions (what people believe about the causes of events), and memories about the self. These constructs are essential for understanding the feelings and behavior of people. Various types of psychopathology, such as crime, arise from distorted, incorrect, or maladaptive cognitions concerning the self, others, and events. For example, antisocial individuals are likely to perceive negative motives from others during normal social interaction—this is known as hostile attribution bias. This bias produces a higher likelihood of conflict and thus opportunities for crime. Maladaptive cognitions set into motion a self-fulfilling cycle of feelings and behaviors whereby persons confirm and maintain their maladaptive ways (Pervin, Cervone, & Oliver, 2005). Because antisocial individuals are partially driven by antisocial or hostile cognitions and are more likely to be aggressive, they are prone to using aggression as a means to resolve disputes. In addition, this negative cycle of feelings and behaviors commonly results in the individual associating with people with similar deficits. This provides the basis for deviant peer associations. Self-Efficacy One of the major figures in social cognitive theory is Bandura, and one of his major contributions is his work on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief that one harbors about one’s competence in a particular situation or the general sense of confidence that one holds about oneself; it is part of a larger set of selfevaluative cognitive processes that Bandura called the “self-system.” The importance of self-efficacy to crime is perhaps most clearly understood when considering KatarzynaBialasiewicz/iStock/Getty Images Plus persons who have desisted from lives of crime, such as Self-efficacy, or a person’s overall former prisoners who decided to “go straight.” sense of confidence, is often high Reformed offenders develop a general sense of among people who have “reformed” confidence, self-acceptance, and pride in themselves and quit bad behavior such as doing once they maintain employment, attach and fully drugs or committing crime. commit to their family relationships, and cease their association with bad influences, such as persons who use drugs or who are actively involved in crime. Indeed, one of the most effective forms of correctional treatment is cognitive behavioral therapy, and it is clearly informed by the social cognitive theoretical perspective. Moral Disengagement Bandura also proposed the concept of moral disengagement to explain how “good” people can sometimes engage in “bad” behaviors, which can be categorized as behaviors that go against the moral principles typically endorsed by society (see Spotlight: Why Good People Do Bad Things). More specifically, moral disengagement is a set of social cognitive mechanisms that allow individuals to justify their unethical and potentially harmful behavior in order to preserve their self-image. It is viewed as a process that enables people to engage in negative behaviors, ranging from small misdeeds to great atrocities, without believing that they are doing wrong or causing harm (Bandura, 1990, 1999). For example, when children violate their moral standards by behaving immorally, moral disengagement can be used as a strategy to justify the behavior and avoid the self-condemnation. Bandura identified eight different ways (i.e., mechanisms) by which people can disengage from their bad behaviors. To further illustrate the concept of moral disengagement and the moral disengagement mechanisms, let’s take a look at the following examples in the context of how and why someone might attempt to justify his or her unethical behavior. 1. Moral justification: I broke the rules, but it helped our team win. 2. Euphemistic labeling: I needed to get in a fight to “let off steam.” 3. Advantageous comparison: There are people in other gangs who are far more violent that I am. 4. Displacement of responsibility: I only cheated because my coach told me to. 5. Diffusion of responsibility: I heard she was being assaulted, but I assumed someone else would help her. 6. Distortion of consequences: I know I stole the money, but my parents won’t ever know. 7. Attribution of blame: I only reacted violently because he yelled at me first. 8. Dehumanization: That guy is an “animal.” He deserves whatever punishment he gets. As you can see, people can have the capacity to socially and cognitively restructure their unacceptable behaviors so that the behaviors become morally acceptable. In a sense, people can distort consequences by muddying their personal responsibility with respect to creating negative outcomes. Spotlight: Why Good People Do Bad Things Psychologist and Stanford University professor emeritus Philip Zimbardo is perhaps most renowned for his 1971 Stanford prison experiment, in which he set up a prison-like environment at the university and recruited college students to act as prison guards and prisoners. The goal of the experiment was to explore the situational effects of power, cognitive dissonance (or stress due to contradictory beliefs), and good versus evil. Though the methodology of the experiment has since been questioned, Zimbardo remains a key figure in modern psychology. In a 2008 TED Talk, he discussed moral disengagement and the psychology of evil. Watch the video at the following link: https://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg) . 4.5 Situational/Environmental Influences on Behavior By building on learning theories, we are able to better understand how individuals learn behaviors depending on their situation or environment. Situational factors and their influence on human behavior are the domain of social psychology. That is, social psychology focuses on how our behavior may be shaped by the situations in which we find ourselves. For example, we are more likely to modify our behavior at work with our supervisors than at home alone or with our family members. An interesting observation that arises time and again in the social psychological perspective is that we tend to discount, or ignore altogether, the power of situational factors in influencing our behavior. Human behavior is molded and influenced by environmental context and social situations. This is the essence of the discipline of sociology, which attempts to conceptualize human behavior using constructs outside of the individual. Just as there are risk and protective factors at the individual level, there are also environmental contexts that can either increase or decrease the likelihood that a person will commit a crime. Let’s examine major content areas in sociology that constitute key environmental influences on behavior: family effects, peer influences, neighborhood effects, and socioeconomic status. Sociological and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior Crime analyst Jaffery Vendership discusses the likelihood of people becoming victims and criminals given certain criteria such as poverty and their social environment.  0:00 / 1:18 Critical Thinking Questions • • What sociological or environmental influences do you see in your community? Do they minimize or encourage criminal behavior? Family Effects One of the most widely studied and, to the general public, most obvious correlates and potential causes of antisocial and criminal behavior centers on early life family characteristics. Family effects figure prominently in many of the leading theoretical explanations of crime. In the social learning tradition, parents and older siblings who engage in antisocial conduct serve as models of deviant behavior for younger children. For example, serial murderer Lorenzo Gilyard, who was convicted of six counts of murder in 2007 (he is believed to have murdered and raped up to 13 women from the 1970s to the 1990s), was raised in a family of violent offenders. His father had an extensive criminal career that included convictions for rape, and Gilyard’s sister and brother were both convicted of homicide (Krajicek, 2012). John Howard/Thinkstock Parents and siblings serve as the primary behavioral model for young children. Negative family situations are considered a leading cause of criminal behavior, according to social learning theory. In families in which crime is openly committed, there are numerous opportunities to learn antisocial behavior, such as drug use and interpersonal violence, and numerous reinforcements of that behavior. In an important summary work, Farrington and Welsh (2007) reviewed the literature on family factors and crime and generated six global explanations for why offending tends to run in families. 1. There is intergenerational continuity in exposure to multiple risk factors wherein offending is part of a larger cycle of deprivation and antisocial behavior. 2. There is assortment, whereby antisocial people choose partners who are similar to themselves in terms of antisocial attitudes, traits, and behaviors (just as conventional, prosocial people often choose partners who are similar to them in terms of attitudes, traits, and behaviors). 3. There is a considerable amount of social learning whereby children observe the antisocial habits and behaviors of their parents, siblings, or both and subsequently “learn” how to commit crime. 4. There is the idea that criminal parents place their children in environmental situations that are conducive to offending. 5. There is labeling that occurs, where criminal justice systems disproportionately target youths with criminal parents. 6. There is evidence that “the effect of a criminal parent on a child’s offending is mediated by genetic mechanisms” (Farrington & Welsh, 2007, p. 59). Family and Peer Influences on Criminal Behavior Michelle Lustig discusses how being raised by someone with a disorder has a relationship to children prone to juvenile delinquency. She discusses how a lack of trust with adults forces some children to adapt to a hostile world because their needs have not been met.  0:00 / 2:00 Critical Thinking Questions • • What "predictable" way might an individual whose basic needs as a child were not met react to the world around them? How can this damage be undone before it results in criminal or antisocial behavior? Peer Influences A broad finding in psychology and criminology centers on the processes whereby peers affect the behavior of individuals and facilitate their conventional or antisocial behavior. While parents are the dominant socialization agent in the first decade of life, a youth’s peers are his or her dominant socialization agent during the second decade of life. Moreover, it is during this decade, especially in the middle school and high school years, that individuals are most susceptible to the pressures to engage in delinquency (Moffitt, 1993). The developmental effects of peers on antisocial behavior are complex, and the roles of prosocial peers and antisocial peers are equally important. Also, while peer influences are most impactful in teenage years, those influences begin far earlier. Beginning in the preschool years and extending into elementary school, a signal moment in the development of antisocial behavior is peer rejection. Peer rejection characterizes children who are more disliked than liked by their peers. The primary reason that a child is rejected by peers is due to the rejected child’s high level of aggressive behavior (Coie, 1990; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Dodge, Coie, Pettit, & Price, 1990). For instance, Dodge and his colleagues (1990) found that rejected boys demonstrate the highest levels of anger, reactive aggression, and proactive or instrumental aggression. Learning is centrally related to understanding crime. Much of the social learning that relates to criminal behavior occurs in friendship networks in which delinquent peers facilitate disengagement from conventional activities—such as studying, following school rules, and complying with parental demands—in favor of antisocial activities. See Case Study: Charles Manson for a brief look at how Manson used peer influence to start a deadly cult. Case Study: Charles Manson One of the most notorious cult leaders in American history, Charles Manson formed the Manson Family cult in the late 1960s. Manson had a troubled, unstable childhood and was a juvenile delinquent; based on accounts from family members, he seemed to display psychopathic traits. He was later diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. As a young man, Manson became obsessed with the Beatles and wanted to become more famous than them. In and out of prison for most of his young adult life, Manson was released from a California prison in 1967 and soon began attracting a group of mostly female followers due to his charm and persuasion. The group called itself the Manson Family. One of the foundations of the cult was Manson’s belief that a race war was impending and his “family” would be the saviors; he named the prophecy Helter Skelter, a song by the Beatles. According to his prophecy, the cult needed to initiate the war themselves. Manson sent his followers to commit homicides against Hollywood elites. Manson’s diagnosis and his criminal behavior can best be categorized under the abnormal psychology domain. However, Manson’s charm and authoritative “leadership” were situational factors in eliciting the behavior of his “followers” in carrying out some of the most heinous murders of all time. The behavior of his followers is best conceptualized in terms of the power of situational influences (e.g., obedience to authority, peer pressure/influence, group dynamics) on human behavior, including eliciting criminal behavior. After the cult committed seven murders, the police finally traced the homicides back to the Manson Family. Manson, along with five of his followers, were sentenced to life in prison; during trial, they apparently showed no remorse for their crimes. The peer influence in this case is astounding. Individuals were drawn in by Manson’s charm and persuasion, and his antisocial characteristics were imitated. References All That’s Interesting. (2019). Charles Manson facts that reveal the man behind the monster. Retrieved from https://allthatsinteresting.com/charles-manson-facts (http s://allthatsinteresting.com/charles-manson-facts) Biography. (2019). Charles Manson biography. Retrieved from https://www.biography.c om/crime-figure/charles-manson (https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/charles-mans on) Forensics Colleges. (2019). Dangerous minds: The mental illnesses of infamous criminals. Retrieved from https://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/resources/dangerous-min ds-criminal-mental-illness (https://www.forensicscolleges.com/blog/resources/dangerousminds-criminal-mental-illness) Neighborhood Effects Instead of focusing on individual traits such as a child’s personality, race or ethnicity, or psychological conflicts, criminologists Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1929, 1942) studied the impact of the “kinds of places” (neighborhoods) that created conditions favorable to delinquency. They believed delinquency was caused by the neighborhood in which a child lived. Shaw and McKay focused on the city of Chicago, which served as a natural experiment of sorts that demonstrated the enduring importance of neighborhood characteristics on the delinquent and criminal behavior of its residents. For much of the 20th century, sociologists at the University of Chicago noticed that crime and disorder seemed to be concentrated within the same geographic areas of the city, particularly in the poorest neighborhoods close to the city center. Crime and disorder declined sharply as one moved from the city center to the suburbs. Shaw and McKay examined this transformation as it emerged and developed the theory of social disorganization. Social Disorganization Theory According to social disorganization theory, neighborhoods characterized by high residential mobility, tremendous ethnic heterogeneity, and high poverty levels will exhibit higher crime and delinquency rates. Shaw and McKay (1929, 1942) discovered that socially disorganized areas contain higher proportions of families on public assistance, less expensive rents, fewer residents owning homes, high infant mortality, and large immigrant populations. They iStockphoto/Thinkstock also noted that delinquency rates in disorganized Social disorganization theory neighborhoods were static even though their racial and suggests that structural conditions ethnic composition was quite dynamic. Crime-ridden of neighborhoods have a significant neighborhoods were “bad” whether they were effect on human development and populated by western Europeans, southern and eastern contribute to criminal behaviors. Europeans, Latin Americans, or African Americans. Shaw and McKay interpreted these findings in ecological terms and decided that the communities themselves were the key factor. Social disorganization theory has received favorable empirical support, and experts understand that the structural conditions of a disorganized neighborhood contribute to the negative behaviors of persons living there. Consistent with social disorganization theory, neighborhoods characterized by high levels of residential turnover are prone to greater levels of delinquency and victimization (Xie & McDowall, 2008). A recent study found that at the city level, places characterized by high levels of ethnic heterogeneity and economic disadvantage also have a higher number of gang members (Pyrooz, Fox, & Decker, 2010). Simple exposure to violence in the most socially disorganized of neighborhoods creates multiple negative consequences. Over time, exposure to violence sets youths on a trajectory of steadily declining parental monitoring. Because of the toxic influences of gang activity and community violence, it becomes increasingly difficult for parents to manage and monitor the activities of their children and adolescents effectively and protect them from the effects of violence. Collective Efficacy Criminologists have increasingly used the social disorganization foundation when studying the behavioral and cultural responses that occur from living in blighted, disorganized neighborhoods. A major behavioral response is that of “collective efficacy,” an idea developed by Robert Sampson and his colleagues (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Collective efficacy is a sense of mutual trust among neighbors in which there is collective investment in the common good and a willingness to intervene to help one another. Collective efficacy speaks to the traditional good deeds that make individuals “neighborly,” including monitoring and supervising children in the neighborhood even if the children are not one’s own, watching a neighbor’s house or vehicle when that person is out of town, maintaining a clean and orderly house and yard, providing emotional and perhaps financial assistance to those in need, and generally helping others. Neighborhoods with high levels of collective efficacy have more social cohesion and informal social control, and these conditions reduce the incidence of crime and disorder. Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic status (SES) is a combination of one’s educational attainment, income, and wealth that locates one on a stratification system. Sociologists use the term stratification system to divide society into relatively distinct segments, strata, or more generally, social classes. For example, low SES is characterized by low school achievement, including noncompletion of high school, low-wage manual-labor jobs, and usually renting as opposed to home ownership. Middle SES is characterized by greater educational attainment, including high school and college degrees, higher earnings, home ownership, and the accumulation of wealth. High SES typifies individuals who have very high educational attainment (e.g., MDs, PhDs, or JDs), salaried jobs paying more than $100,000 per year, and even greater wealth accumulation. See Figure 4.2 for an example of educational attainment related to SES level. Although crime is not an automatic outcome of low SES, it is more prevalent among low-SES individuals than among those with higher SES. Figure 4.2: Highest educational attainment of spring 2002 high school sophomores in 2012, by SES level This graph provides an example of the relationship between educational attainment level and SES in a select group of high school students. The higher a student’s SES, the more likely he or she is to complete high school and earn a higher degree. From “Educational Attainment Differences by Students’ Socioeconomic Status,” by the National Center for Education Statistics, 2015 (https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/educational-attai nment-differences-by-students-socioeconomic-status (https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/edu cational-attainment-differences-by-students-socioeconomic-status) ); Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (p. 51), by US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016, Washington, DC: Author. For many decades, criminologists struggled with the idea that SES was related to crime and often rejected the idea that lower SES persons were more likely than higher SES persons to offend. Yet even the most critical reviews of the research demonstrated that there is an inverse relationship between SES and crime (i.e., higher SES is associated with lower crime rates), and when criminal violence is the dependent variable of interest, this relationship is even stronger (Walsh, 2011). Although crime does occur across the stratification system, property crimes such as burglary and violent crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault are more prevalent among individuals with lower SES. Indeed, the typical socioeconomic profile of a prisoner in the United States is very bleak and often involves low educational attainment or even educational failure, such as dropping out of middle or high school; indigent status; little to no work, medical, or retirement benefits; and essentially zero wealth. Summary and Conclusion The process of learning is central to criminological thought. Understanding the earliest learning theories by Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner paves the way to understanding criminal behavior. These behaviorist learning theories provided the foundation for sociologists such as Akers to develop social learning theories, which essentially state that learning occurs by observation and exposure to situational contexts. Cognitive and social cognitive theories are a large part of criminological thought. Such theories focus on the cognitive and emotional processes related to the ways that people think in relation to influences on behavior. These perspectives align with learning theories because learning processes are involved. The discussion on learning theories provided a natural segue to situational and environmental effects on crime. Antisocial behaviors are often learned from a young age at home through the teenage years in school. In addition, socioeconomic factors may play a role in the likelihood that an individual will commit crime. There is impressive empirical support for the ideas that exposure to antisocial individuals, imitation of deviance, and viewing crime as a positive, reinforcing option are related to crime. Almost without exception, these content areas suggest that crime is most accurately understood as the interplay between the individual and situational/environmental forces. Critical Thinking Questions 1. Before you began reading this book, what was your personal theory of crime causation? Which of the theories introduced in this chapter came closest to your personal view? 2. If any given theory was able to explain 25% of all crimes committed, would you consider that theory to be successful? Why or why not? 3. Would criminal psychology look different today if all the early theories to explain criminal behavior had been developed by women? Why or why not? 4. How do the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement operate in our daily lives? Key Terms behaviorism A social learning–based theory developed by John Watson that suggests behaviors are the product of conditioning that occurs as an individual interacts with the environment. Behaviorism rejects the notion that internal, person-specific factors are the drivers of behavior. blank slate The philosophical idea that people are born basically the same in terms of their innate abilities and that experience molds their behaviors. classical conditioning A theory developed by Ivan Pavlov that is said to occur when two stimuli are linked together to produce a new learned response in a person or an animal. collective efficacy A sense of mutual trust among neighbors in which there is collective investment in the common good and willingness to help one another. conventional beliefs Beliefs that are unfavorable toward committing crime and favorable toward conformity. definitions An individual’s attitudes, orientation, and rationalizations that characterize his or her behavior and define it in moral or value-based terms. Definitions refer to the general mind-set a person has when committing a behavioral act and how the person responds to his or her behavior. deterrence A punishment philosophy that uses the threat of punishment to control behavior and prevent crime. differential association The varying or “differential” associations or friendships and acquaintanceships that individuals directly and indirectly have with others. These friendships and acquaintanceships include behaviors and the expression of values and beliefs that support the behaviors. differential association-reinforcement theory A theory developed by Ronald Akers that builds on Sutherland’s differential theory of crime, Skinner’s operant conditioning theory, and Bandura’s social learning theory. It argues that criminal behavior is learned via both social and nonsocial reinforcements. differential reinforcement The balance of reward and punishment that is produced from behavioral acts. imitation The repeating or mimicry of behaviors that have been directly or indirectly observed. Imitation is particularly salient during the initial exposure to behaviors that will be modeled. law of effect Thorndike’s theory stating that the consequences of behavior serve to strengthen or weaken its continuation. moral disengagement A set of social cognitive mechanisms that allow individuals to justify their unethical and potentially harmful behavior in order to preserve their self-image. Developed by Albert Bandura. negative punishment A deterrent that results in the removal of a valued stimulus and in a decrease in the behavior. negative reinforcement The strengthening of a behavioral response through the removal of an aversive stimulus. neutralizing beliefs Definitions by which an individual justifies or provides excuses for why his or her antisocial behavior is permissible. operant conditioning A learning theory developed by B. F. Skinner that suggests behavior is produced and modified based on the reinforcements and punishments it receives. peer rejection The rejection of a child who is more disliked than liked by his or her peers, most likely due to the child’s high level of aggressive behavior. peers Persons of a similar status in an individual’s social environment. positive beliefs Definitions by which an individual believes committing crime is permissible. positive punishment A deterrent that results in a behavior response that is decreased or weakened when it is followed by an aversive stimulus. positive reinforcement A deterrent that results in a desired behavioral response followed by a rewarding or reinforcing stimulus that strengthens the behavioral response. self-efficacy For the purposes of scientific study, the belief that one harbors about one’s competence in a particular situation. social cognitive theory A set of theories of social behavior studied by a number of social psychologists; assumes people are rational and that cognitive processes are mainly responsible for behavior, selfregulation, and the modulation of emotions. social disorganization theory A theory that asserts that neighborhoods characterized by high residential mobility, tremendous ethnic heterogeneity, and high levels of poverty will exhibit higher crime and delinquency rates. socialization agents Persons such as parents, peers, teachers, and others who contribute to socialization. social learning theory A theory originally developed by Albert Bandura and further researched and developed by Ronald Akers and Gary Jensen. It suggests that behavior is motivated by the effects it produces and is largely based on mimicry of behaviors to which one is frequently exposed. socioeconomic status (SES) A combination of a person’s educational attainment, income, and wealth that places him or her on a stratification system. stratification system A term used by sociologists to divide society into relatively distinct groupings based on social class. Choose a Study Mode  Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior 5 Andrew Brookes/Cultura Limited/SuperStock Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to • Examine the biological risk factors that are likely linked to crime. • Recognize why the study of executive functioning in criminals is important for understanding the neuropsychological causes of criminal behavior. • Discuss whether there is a genetic susceptibility to engage in criminal behavior. • Explain how temperament could affect both prosocial and antisocial behavior. • Describe how personality develops and can be linked to criminal behavior. • Explore how criminal behavior could be predicted and reinforced by a rise or change in hormones. Introductory Case Study: Phineas Gage On September 13, 1848, Phineas Gage was injured in a railroad accident when a tamping iron blasted through his face, skull, and brain and exited his head. Despite losing consciousness and suffering heavy bleeding, Gage not only survived the blast but appeared to recover quickly. However, that recovery was largely limited to his physical health. The accident caused a dramatic personality transformation in Gage. He shifted from a hardworking, responsible, intelligent, prudent, and socially well-adjusted person to an irreverent, impulsive, capricious, rowdy, irresponsible person whose life devolved into that of a drifter. This amazing case was immortalized by John Harlow in 1868 in perhaps the most interestingly titled academic paper ever: “Recovery From the Passage of an Iron Bar Through the Head.” Everett Collection/SuperStock Various views of the famous wound in the skull of railroad worker Phineas Gage and the iron rod that pierced his skull. The well-known case study of Phineas Gage is often used to demonstrate that the brain is the anatomical seat of personality as well as social and emotional functioning. In addition, the case demonstrates the intimate bond between environment and person for understanding behavior. Prior to the accident, Gage was—in the parlance of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)—a person with high self-control. As a result, he was a dependable, functioning member of society. After the accident damaged his brain, Gage was someone who epitomized the concept of low self-control; he had difficulty maintaining employment and seemed to lose his place as a contributing member of society. In 1994 neuroscientist Hanna Damasio and her colleagues resurrected the case and examined Gage’s skull with neuroimaging techniques to ascertain which brain areas affected Gage’s decision making and emotional processing. Damasio and her colleagues concluded that Gage’s injuries were consistent with those of persons with similar injuries who display similar impairments in rational decision making and emotional processing. The case shows simultaneously that self-control is a brain-based construct and that a random environmental accident can undo that same brain-based construct (Damasio, Grabowski, Frank, Galaburda, & Damasio, 1994). As you read this chapter, consider the following questions regarding this case: 1. Are criminal brains different from noncriminal brains? 2. 3. To what extent is criminal behavior learned, and to what extent is it inherited? What are the implications of the Phineas Gage case? Is it fair to say that we are all capable of engaging in similar behaviors? Phineas Gage The story of Phineas Gage illustrates some of the first medical knowledge gained on the relationship between personality and the functioning of the brain's frontal lobe. Critical Thinking Question • What does the case of Phineas Gage say about the role of the brain in behavior? 5.1 Introduction Are criminals “born,” or are criminals “made”? What is the relationship, if any, between brain deficits and criminal behavior? Do people have a genetic predisposition to commit crimes? Or is criminal behavior more likely to be influenced by social factors? As a field, criminology has historically focused on social and psychological influences that lead to criminal behavior. While research supports these factors as important predictors of crime, an increasing amount of research has demonstrated that biological factors may also contribute to the perpetration of crime. This chapter will explore how the brain, genetics, temperament, personality, and hormones might influence criminal behavior. While the research presented in this chapter is in no way exhaustive, it is intended to provide a sample of the biological influences that appear to be related to criminal behavior. It should be noted that genetic and other environmental factors are not an “excuse” for criminal behavior. Victims of crime experience no less harm if the perpetrator was predisposed toward the behavior for biological, environmental, social, or other factors. Nonetheless, it is important to continually research and attempt to understand the biological risk factors that have been linked to crime, if for no other reason than to learn how to reduce that risk. 5.2 The Brain and Criminal Behavior Similar to psychological, social, and environmental factors, there is no single biological factor that can effectively predict future criminal behavior. However, a considerable amount of research has centered on examining the differences in brain functioning between people who commit crimes and those who do not engage in criminal behavior. As a result of this literature, there is abundant evidence related to the impacts of executive functioning and neurological deficits. Executive Functioning The cognitive processes (connected with thinking or conscious mental processes) that serve to protect individuals from engaging in inappropriate or criminal behavior are broadly referred to as executive functions. Executive functions are a set of cognitive processes such as memory, attention, planning, and emotional and behavioral regulation that are essential for the cognitive control of behavior (see Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1: Executive functions Neuropsychologists have shown that executive functions are profoundly related to the social, cognitive, and behavioral skills required to regulate behavior. Neurologically, executive functioning occurs in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the frontal lobe of the brain that is involved in complex behaviors such as planning and decision making. The frontal lobe of the brain houses higher order cognitive functions that regulate the emotional stimuli that come from the limbic system, a complex system of networks and nerves in the brain involved in basic emotions and drives (see Figure 5.2). Figure 5.2: Frontal lobe, limbic system, and behavior The limbic system is a complex system of networks and nerves in the brain involved in basic emotions and drives. The frontal cortex is the brain region primarily involved in decision making and personality expression. In a way, executive functioning is similar to the adult part of the brain that must behave responsibly, prudently, and intelligently, even when more irresponsible emotions are felt. The irresponsible emotions that originate from the limbic system are the child part of the brain—imprudent and often lacking foresight. Thinking of the brain in adult and child terms is useful for understanding the development of specific brain regions (e.g., the prefrontal cortex) and the social cognitive processes that occur in those regions. Impulsivity generally diminishes with age because of protracted development of the prefrontal cortex. Because impulsivity is central to multiple behavioral disorders, it is important to determine neural commonalities and differences across disorders. Monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus The brain can be explained using the analogy of a parent and child, with the executive function taking on the rational and responsible role of a parent and the limbic system giving rise to the impulses of a child. Katya Rubia et al. (2008) conducted a study that compared brain activation of 13 boys with conduct disorder, 20 boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (a disorder defined by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity or impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development), and 20 boys without a disorder. They found that both boys with ADHD and boys with conduct disorder had distinct brain abnormality patterns during inhibitory control (i.e., times when they were asked to control automatic, or impulsive, responses). However, boys with ADHD displayed differences in prefrontal regions, whereas boys with conduct disorder had differences in the posterior temporal parietal lobe. Though we won’t go into detail about the parts of the brain here, the importance of this study is that the disorders —which are often comorbid (in other words, occurring together)—have distinct underlying neural abnormalities. Given the importance of executive functioning for behavioral regulation, it is clear that these neurocognitive processes are related to crime. In her seminal literature review, Moffitt (1990) observed: The normal functions of the frontal lobes of the brain include sustaining attention and concentration, abstract reasoning and concept formation, goal formulation, anticipation and planning, programming and initiation of purposive sequences of motor behavior, effective self-monitoring of behavior and self-awareness, and inhibition of unsuccessful, inappropriate, or impulsive behaviors, with adaptive shifting to alternative behaviors. These functions are commonly referred to as “executive functions,” and they hold consequent implications for social judgment, self-control, responsiveness to punishment, and ethical behavior. (p. 115) Indeed, recent research suggests that mainstream criminological theories—such as Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory based on self-control—are actually proxies of executive functioning. Drawing on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999, Beaver, Wright, and DeLisi (2007) found that executive functioning as measured by fine motor skills and gross motor skills was significantly related to childhood self-control even while controlling for the effects of parental involvement, parental withdrawal, parental affection, family rules, physical punishment, neighborhood disadvantage, gender, race, and prior selfcontrol. Children with poorer executive functioning had lower self-control (which is, of course, a robust predictor of antisocial conduct), which increased the risk for poor self-regulation and conduct problems. A suite of biosocial factors contributes to executive functioning. First, the assorted executive functions are strongly heritable, which means that variance in these functions is attributable to genetic factors. For example, Naomi Friedman and her colleagues at the Institute for Behavioral Genetics at the University of Colorado Boulder examined sources of variance in three executive functions: response inhibition, updating working memory representations, and set shifting (which is similar to multitasking). They found that these executive functions are influenced by a common factor that is 99% heritable, making executive functioning among the most heritable psychological constructs (Friedman, Miyake, Young, DeFries, Corley, & Hewitt, 2008). Second, early life environmental risk factors also negatively affect executive functioning. These include poor nutrition, physical abuse, unsafe home environments that may lead to accidents, and overall family dysfunction. Fortunately, these early home problems are specific targets of prevention programs that serve to forestall the development of serious criminality. Neuropsychological Deficits When executive functioning is less than optimal, psychological criminologists focus on the particular problems or deficits that are associated with antisocial conduct. Commonly referred to as neuropsychological deficits, these are brain-based deficits in social cognitive processes that are risk factors for conduct problems and related maladaptive behaviors such as problems in school. Neuropsychological deficits are importantly related to antisocial behavior both theoretically and empirically; they are the primary causal force in the severe antisocial development of offenders in Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy (i.e., classification). Syngelaki, Moore, Savage, Fairchild, and Van Goozen (2009) observed, “Violent or antisocial people often display disinhibited, impulsive, and risk-taking behaviors with little concern for the consequences of their actions. Moreover, they seem unable to learn from their mistakes (this particularly applies to individuals with psychopathic characteristics)” (p. 1203). Research from an array of studies has shown that neuropsychological deficits are associated with criminal behavior and are particularly characteristic of the social cognitive profiles of persons with behavioral disorders (Beaver, Vaughn, DeLisi, Barnes, & Boutwell, 2011; Raine et al., 2005; Se� guin, 2004; Syngelaki et al., 2009). For example, Raine and his colleagues (2005) found that neuropsychological deficits were an important causal factor, meaning that early life social cognitive functioning portends a lifetime of severe conduct problems. Morgan and Lilienfeld (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of 39 studies that encompassed 4,589 participants who had antisocial personality disorder (APD), conduct disorder, psychopathy, delinquent status, or offender status. The meta-analysis found that antisocial groups performed significantly worse on executive functioning tests than the control groups did. Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan, and Shum (2011) conducted a significantly larger meta-analysis of studies that explored the linkages between neuropsychological deficits, executive functioning, and antisocial behavior. Building on work by Morgan and Lilienfeld (2000), Ogilvie and his colleagues examined 126 studies that involved 14,784 participants. The researchers reported results indicating that antisocial individuals have greater neuropsychological deficits than their conventional peers. Overall, the researchers concluded that the relationship between executive dysfunction or neuropsychological deficits and various forms of antisocial behavior is robust. Research on Inattention An important neuropsychological deficit is inattention. Attention to one’s environment is essential across contexts but is particularly important for academic success and school functioning. This means that severely inattentive individuals are at risk for school problems that in turn often correlate with antisocial conduct. Examples of the importance of attention include being able to give close consideration to detail, sustaining focus long enough to complete a task or lesson, listening when spoken to, sustaining mental effort, and ignoring extraneous stimuli. Inattention Comstock Images/Thinkstock distinguishes children in terms of their school performance and antisocial personality traits. Individuals with attention problems have difficulty ignoring external stimuli and are much more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior than those who can remain focused. For example, a study of a community sample of more than 430 middle school students was used to explore inattention in children (DeLisi et al., 2011). About 72% of children had no attention problems and could focus appropriately. These children were prosocial and displayed little risk for delinquency. Two smaller groups displayed inattention that was consistent with ADHD predominantly inattentive type and ADHD predominantly hyperactive–impulsive type. About 10% of the sample had the greatest neuropsychological deficits, especially relating to inattention, and had traits consistent with ADHD combined type (i.e., both inattention and hyperactive–impulsive behavior was present). Moreover, the latter group had the worst school performance as evidenced by three standardized tests, was more callous and unemotional, and was the most psychopathic. Consequently, it can be assumed that this latter group would be at the greatest risk for future antisocial behavior. Research on Etiology of Neuropsychological Deficits Due to the important links between neuropsychological deficits and crime, a pressing research area focuses on the etiological processes that result in these deficits. Research findings from nationally representative, large-scale studies are illuminating. Using data from the National Survey of Children, Ratchford and Beaver (2009) found that birth complications and low birth weight were significantly associated with neuropsychological deficits (which in turn predicted low self-control). Three socialization and situational risk factors—parental punishment, family rules, and neighborhood disadvantage—were not predictive of neuropsychological deficits. In a study based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Beaver, Vaughn, DeLisi, and Higgins (2010) examined a host of biosocial causes of neuropsychological deficits and found that exposure to cigarette smoke, brief duration of breastfeeding, low maternal involvement, non-White racial status, and low household income were predictive of neuropsychological deficits. Research on Brain Lesions A final source of evidence about the importance of neuropsychological deficits to antisocial behavior stems from brain lesion studies. Persons who develop or incur brain lesions in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC; the part of the prefrontal cortex that is located behind the eye sockets) are behaviorally similar to antisocial individuals in that they are impulsive, socially inappropriate, irresponsible, unable to read others’ moods and motivations, and uninhibited. Indeed, according to Se� guin (2004): The parallels between the effects of OFC lesions on social behavior and the symptoms of antisocial disorders are striking. It is not surprising then that questions about the underpinnings of antisocial disorders have been sought through a frontal lobe account. (p. 185) The connection between brain lesions and antisocial behavior means that individuals with brain lesions are more likely to commit a crime. 5.3 Genetics Many people display very different behaviors and even achieve different life outcomes than their siblings, despite being raised by the same parents in the same home in the same neighborhood during the same period. Although there are certainly commonalities between siblings, it is also the case that their unique characteristics—whether intelligence, athletic ability, artistic ability, mental disability, or antisocial traits—launch siblings upward or downward on the social ladder. This is the essence of the interplay between individual and environmental factors and the interplay between psychological and sociological constructs. Twin Studies Due to extraordinary advances in accessibility to genetic data, psychologists, neuroscientists, and a cadre of criminologists have delved into the genetic mechanisms that contribute to the crime– family relationship. In a landmark study using participants from more than 1,000 families of 11year-old twins and their parents, several important findings were produced. Researchers discovered that parent–child resemblance in terms of criminal behavior was accounted for by a general susceptibility to externalizing disorders (e.g., aggression), and this general susceptibility was mostly genetic in origin. For example, 73% of the variance (measurement of the spread between the data points) in oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) was heritable, or attributable to genetic factors, with 24% attributable to nonshared environmental factors unique to the child and just 3% attributable to shared environmental factors within the family (see Figure 5.3). Similar effects were found for ADHD. A total of 73% of the variance was attributable to genetic factors; 27% was attributable to nonshared environmental factors, and, interestingly enough, zero variance was attributable to shared environmental factors. For conduct disorder, the most severe of these three conditions, 51% was genetic, 19% was attributable to nonshared environmental factors, and 30% was shared environmental (Bornovalova, Hicks, Iacono, & McGue, 2010). Figure 5.3: Sources of trait and behavioral variance By analyzing twin data, psychological criminologists are able to quantify how many antisocial traits and conditions originate from genetic and environmental sources. Using a nationally representative sample of twins, Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, Wright, and Boutwell (2008) explored the developmental overlap between language development and self-control. They found that four measures of language development deficits—language skills deficits, letter recognition deficits, beginning sounds deficits, and ending sounds deficits—were significantly associated with low self-control. Due to the nature of their data (i.e., twins), Beaver and his colleagues were also able to access the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors on the development of both language skills and self-control. They found that 61% of the variance in language skills and self-control was attributable to genetic effects and 39% to environmental effects for the cross-sectional model (i.e., one point in time with different samples). In a longitudinal model (i.e., several points in time with the same sample), the heritability was 76%, with environmental factors accounting for the remaining 24% of the variance. The study provided strong evidence that the etiological pathway between language and self-regulation is convergent (i.e., coming close together), and that much of the association between these constructs has a genetic basis. In yet another twin study, Kenneth Kendler and his colleagues (2007) analyzed longitudinal data from the Virginia Twin Registry to examine the effect that the environment and genes had on delinquent peer-group associations from childhood through adulthood. The results of their models revealed that genetic factors accounted for roughly 30% of the variance in peer-group deviance in childhood. Over time, however, genetic effects on delinquent peers became even stronger and accounted for approximately 50% of the variance in peer-group deviance. The study also pointed out that environmental conditions were important contributors to delinquent peer affiliations. At every time period, environmental effects accounted for approximately 50% of the variance in peer-group deviance. More recent research utilizing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that 58% to 74% of the variance in association with delinquent peers was attributable to genetic factors (Beaver, Gibson, et al., 2011). Peer effects are a critically important and multifaceted correlate of crime. Twins Separated at Birth Two twin sisters meet each other after 45 years and begin to explore similar behaviors. Twins Separated at My Genes Speak for Me: Reconciling Nature and ... (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx? Birth wID=100753&xtid=50122) From Title:  Critical Thinking Questions • • What do the twins discover about their similarities? Do the twins' similarities stem from shared or nonshared environmental factors? Genetics and Criminal Behavior For many years there was virtually no genetic research in criminology because of lack of data and ideological concerns about the implications of genetics research. Over the past few decades, however, this has changed dramatically. With the advent of data sets that include genetic measures, psychological criminologists today frequently publish research on the genetic underpinnings of crime. In this field the availability of data ushered in a new paradigm of research in criminology. For example, Moffitt (1993) theorized that cognitive problems and antisocial behavior share variance, and recent research has demonstrated that 70% of the variance in life-course-persistent offending (showing antisocial behavior from childhood into adulthood) is attributable to genetic factors (Barnes, Beaver, & Boutwell, 2011). (Moffitt’s theory, which includes life-coursepersistent offending, will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.) In fact, ADHD is a strongly heritable condition that has a Figure 5.4: Diathesisstress model The diathesis-stress model is a popular example of a conceptual framework that recognizes the interactive and mutually enforcing influences between individual-level and environmental-level constructs. mostly genetic etiology. Researchers have found that a childhood diagnosis of ADHD—a disorder that is defined by neurocognitive deficits—is among the strongest predictors of life-coursepersistent offending 20 years later (Odgers et al., 2007), especially when it co-occurs with other serious psychopathologies such as conduct disorder. Diathesis-Stress Model It is almost universally recognized that both individual and environmental factors are important for understanding behavior or—the focus of this text—criminal behavior. Moreover, it is largely recognized that individual and environmental factors often interact with and mutually reinforce each other. In the field of psychology, this type of interaction is manifested in the diathesisstress model, in which individuals who are at biological or genetic risk for some disorder or condition are most sensitive to the stressors created by environmental risk. Moreover, biological risk factors render individuals more vulnerable to environmental risks. Environmental risk factors in turn render individuals susceptible to maladaptive outcomes or antisocial behavior. It is important to note that biological risks, environmental risks, and their interactions continually affect the individual. The culmination of these interactions in the diathesis-stress model is negative behavior (see Figure 5.4). See Spotlight: Family Effects via Gene–Environment Interplay to read about how genetics and the environment can influence problem behaviors. Spotlight: Family Effects via Gene–Environment Interplay Given the compatibility between individual-level and environmental-level risk factors for crime, it is often difficult to accurately determine which factors are most responsible for explaining crime. Fortunately, the field of behavioral genetics has shed light on the interesting and often fascinating ways that genes and environments interact (Jang, 2005). Some of these mechanisms are spotlighted here. Gene–environment interaction occurs when a measured genetic factor interacts with a measured environmental factor to produce a behavioral outcome. Passive gene–environment correlation occurs because children share heredity and home Getty Images/Thinkstock If a child has parents who exhibit criminal behavior, there is a chance that genetics and environmental factors can combine to lead the child to his or her own criminal behavior later in life. environments with family members and thus passively inherit environments that are correlated with their genetic propensities. Evocative or reactive gene–environment correlation reflects the social and environmental interactions that occur due to the genetically influenced characteristics of the child. For example, a child with severe conduct disorder would have adverse interactions with parents, peers, and teachers, and it is those genetically produced traits that engender the reaction. Active gene–environment correlation occurs when individuals pick friends and social settings that are compatible with their underlying genetic propensities. This type of gene– environment correlation is also known as “niche building” or “niche picking.” The crux of criminological research using genetically informed designs is consistent with the diathesis-stress model. Genetic risk factors are most likely to contribute to criminal behavior when they are coupled with environmental risk factors. The landmark study that established this connection explored the association between variants of the MAOA gene and childhood maltreatment among a birth cohort in New Zealand. The MAOA gene encodes the MAOA enzyme that degrades neurotransmitters in the brain, including dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Those with a genetic defect in the MAOA gene who were abused as children were significantly likely to be diagnosed with conduct disorder, be convicted of a violent crime, display symptoms of APD, and have a violent disposition (Caspi et al., 2002). Similarly, another study was the first to utilize a criminal justice status as an environmental pathogen that interacts with genetic factors to produce crime. Using data from a nationally representative sample of American youth, DeLisi, Beaver, Vaughn, and Wright (2009) found that African American females with a variant of the dopamine receptor gene DRD2 who had a father who had been arrested were significantly likely to engage in serious delinquency and violent delinquency across two waves of data collection, and they were significantly likely to be arrested. These and thousands of other studies are quickly demonstrating—at the molecular genetic level—the intricate ways in which individual and environmental forces come together to produce problem behaviors. 5.4 Temperament Temperament has been defined in various ways. Famed personality researcher Gordon Allport (1961) conceptualized it as the characteristic phenomena of an individual’s nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fluctuation and intensity of mood, these being phenomena regarded as dependent on constitutional make-up, and therefore largely hereditary in origin. (p. 34) Another well-known researcher, John Bates (1989), defines temperament as the following: “Biologically rooted individual differences in behavior tendencies that are present early in life and are relatively stable across various kinds of situations and over the course of time” (p. 4). Although it has many varied definitions, temperament is broadly defined as the stable, biologically based, usual ways in which a person regulates his or her Monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus behavior and interacts with the environment. There is An individual’s behavior and general consensus that temperament refers to those interactions with his or her aspects of personality that are innate rather than environment are aspects of learned. For example, sensitivity level—or the degree to temperament. which a child is disturbed by changes in the environment—can be thought of as an aspect of temperament. A person’s mood—whether he or she has a generally happy or unhappy demeanor—is another inborn trait. Before we delve into the features of temperament and theories surrounding temperament and behavior, we first need to understand traits. A trait can be defined as a quality or characteristic that describes a person’s typical mood, behaviors, or way of being. Temperament and personality (discussed in the next section) are both trait perspectives that explain behavior by the set of characteristics an individual presents. Temperament researchers and personality researchers both utilize traits in their conceptualizations of people. Temperament has a more physiological connotation to it that describes the usual ways that a person behaves and interacts with the environment. For example, people who are relaxed and emotionally stable differ in many ways from people who are anxious and emotionally unpredictable. Temperament researchers focus on heart rate and other indicators of central nervous system functioning that are involved with a person’s overall arousal and alertness to the environment. Personality, on the other hand, has a more psychological connotation to it that describes the usual ways in which a person appears and interacts with others. Features of Temperament Over the past half century or so, several key researchers have developed their own models of temperament that, although distinct, tend to agree on the importance of a few essential constructs (Goldsmith et al., 1987; Kagan, 1998, 2010; Rothbart, 2007, 2011; Thomas & Chess, 1977; Zentner & Bates, 2008). What follows are some additional integrative pieces of information about temperament that are useful for thinking about the ways it can contribute to both prosocial and antisocial types of behavior. • • • Temperamental features embody the individual differences that can be seen across the population and span the distribution of various traits from low to high. When certain negative temperamental features are found at pathologically high levels, and when those features are comorbid—or present along with other pathologically high negative temperamental features—criminal behavior is more likely. For example, persons with high levels of negative emotionality, such as anger and poor effortful control or selfregulation, are prone to greater opportunities to commit problem behaviors. On the other hand, high levels of comorbid positive temperamental features (e.g., sociability and effortful control) facilitate conventional or prosocial behavior. Temperamental features help explain the person–environment development that is essential for understanding crime. Many negative temperamental features (e.g., high negative emotionality) are so aversive and annoying that they contribute to commensurately negative interaction patterns, which in turn can exacerbate the underlying deficits. For instance, childhood behavioral disorders (e.g., ODD, conduct disorder, and ADHD) often develop into delinquent or criminal careers in part because of the litany of negative interactions that criminals experience with their peers, teachers, parents, and other community members. Temperament is present at birth, significantly heritable (genetic in origin), and relatively stable. This means that although temperament is not absolutely stable, it is somewhat resistant to change, particularly because it includes fundamental physiological processes. (Absolute stability—the persistence of a trait at a fixed level across time—is rarely seen in psychology. Most psychological constructs are relatively stable, which means that one’s location on a distribution will be consistent across time. For example, IQ can fluctuate across the life span, but persons with very high, medium, and very low IQs will maintain that position in an IQ distribution across time.) The implication of this for understanding criminal behavior is clear. A primary reason why adult criminals with extensive histories of antisocial conduct find it so difficult to “change their ways” and desist from crime is that it is difficult for people to change who they are. Recidivism and criminal justice system noncompliance, then, are not only predictable from a temperament-based perspective but also expected for persons with pathologically difficult temperaments. Cloninger’s Theoretical Model One of the influential model...
Purchase answer to see full attachment