Prior to beginning the assignment, review Chapters 4 and 5 in your textbook (located in attachments below), where risk factors for criminal behavior are covered from a biological, developmental, and situational perspective.
Keeping your own “client” (Aileen Wuornos) in mind , please read the chapters, and in this assignment include 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).
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.
75
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Introductory Case Study: Phineas Gage
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.”
The well-known case study of Phineas Gage
is often used to demonstrate that the brain
Everett Collection/SuperStock
is the anatomical seat of personality as well
Various
views
of
the
famous
wound in the skull
as social and emotional functioning. In addition, the case demonstrates the intimate bond of railroad worker Phineas Gage and the iron
between environment and person for under- rod that pierced his skull.
standing 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 selfcontrol 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. To what extent is criminal behavior learned, and to what extent is it inherited?
3. What are the implications of the Phineas Gage case? Is it fair to say that we are all
capable of engaging in similar behaviors?
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
The Brain and Criminal Behavior
Section 5.2
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).
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.2
The Brain and Criminal Behavior
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.
Response
preservation
Emotional
regulation
Behavioral
control
Planning
Executive
functions
Decision
making
Theory of
mind-reading
of others’
intentions
Selfreflection
Moral
judgment
Organization
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).
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.2
The Brain and Criminal Behavior
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.
Frontal cortex
decision making,
self-control
Limbic system
learning, emotions
(amygdala)
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
The Brain and Criminal Behavior
Section 5.2
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 self-control. 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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.2
The Brain and Criminal Behavior
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; Séguin, 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
Comstock Images/Thinkstock
Individuals with attention problems have
difficulty ignoring external stimuli and are
much more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior
than those who can remain focused.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
The Brain and Criminal Behavior
Section 5.2
extraneous stimuli. Inattention distinguishes children in terms of their school performance
and antisocial personality traits.
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 Séguin (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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.3
Genetics
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 11-year-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).
Using a nationally representative sample of twins, Beaver, DeLisi, Vaughn, Wright, and Boutwell (2008) explored the developmental overlap between language development and selfcontrol. 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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.3
Genetics
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.
Nonshared
environment
Heritability
Shared
environment
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.
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.3
Genetics
For example, Moffitt (1993) theorized that cognitive problems and antisocial behavior
share variance, and recent research has demonstrated that 70% of the variance in lifecourse-persistent offending (showing antisocial behavior from childhood into adulthood)
is attributable to genetic factors (Barnes, Beaver, & Boutwell, 2011). (Moffitt’s theory,
which includes life-course-persistent offending, will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.) In fact, ADHD is a strongly heritable condition that has a 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-course-persistent
offending 20 years later (Odgers et al., 2007), especially when it co-occurs with other serious psychopathologies such as conduct disorder.
Diathesis-Stress Model
Figure 5.4: 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 diathesis-stress
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).
The diathesis-stress model is a popular
example of a conceptual framework that
recognizes the interactive and mutually
enforcing influences between individuallevel and environmental-level constructs.
See Spotlight: Family Effects via Gene–Environment
Interplay to read about how genetics and the environment can influence problem behaviors.
Biological
risk
Vulnerability
Environmental
risk
Susceptibility
Maladaptive
behavior
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.3
Genetics
Spotlight: Family Effects via Gene–Environment Interplay
Given the compatibility between individuallevel 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 environments with family members and thus passively inherit environments that are correlated
with their genetic propensities.
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.
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Temperament
Section 5.4
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 behavior and
Monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus
interacts with the environment. There is
An individual’s behavior and interactions
general consensus that temperament refers
with his or her environment are aspects of
to those aspects of personality that are
temperament.
innate rather than learned. For example,
sensitivity level—or the degree to 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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Temperament
Section 5.4
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
self-regulation, 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 models of temperament and personality is the biosocial approach of
Robert Cloninger and his colleagues. According to Cloninger, temperament forms the emotional core of personality and involves heritable, neurobiological dispositions to emotions
and their corresponding behavioral reactions (Cloninger, 1987; Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993). Temperamental traits are thus heritable biases in the ways that individuals
respond to danger, novelty, and reward. The brilliance of Cloninger’s theoretical model is that
temperamental constructs are explicitly linked to neurotransmitter systems.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.4
Temperament
• Novelty or sensation seeking is characterized as a heritable tendency of frequent
exploratory activity and intense feelings of joy or satisfaction in response to novel
or appetitive stimuli (those with a novelty- or sensation-seeking trait are typically
impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, and quick-tempered, as opposed to reflective, rigid, loyal, stoic, slow tempered, and frugal). Bungee jumping, roller-coaster
riding, and related “thrill” activities are examples of novelty- or sensation-seeking
behaviors.
• Harm avoidance is characterized by a heritable tendency of intense avoidant or
inhibitory responses to stimuli. Avoiding crowds, preferring to watch a sports event
at home despite an opportunity to attend the game, and frequently staying in at
night are examples of harm-avoidant behaviors. Individuals who score high on harm
avoidance are pessimistic, fearful, shy, and fatigable. Low scorers are optimistic, daring, outgoing, and energetic.
• Reward dependence involves behavioral maintenance and conditioned responses to
reward and the avoidance of punishment. Engaging in social activities and investing
in the views, opinions, and lives of other people are examples of reward-dependent
behaviors. Highly reward-dependent people are sentimental, open, warm, and
appreciative, whereas low scorers are detached, reserved, cold, and independent.
• A fourth temperamental construct, persistence, has not been assigned an underlying
neurotransmitter system. In conventional language, persistence is the level of tenacity or “stick-to-itiveness.” Individuals with high persistence scores are industrious,
determined, enthusiastic, and perfectionistic. Low scorers are inert, spoiled, underachieving, and pragmatic.
Cloninger’s temperamental model has been extensively studied and supported empirically.
His model theorizes a direct link between specific neurotransmitter systems and temperamental traits that give rise to criminal behavior (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2011). Indeed, a major
thrust of research in criminology today centers on the articulation of the specific genetic
effects that contribute to delinquent, violent, and other antisocial behaviors.
Temperament and Criminal Behavior
Overall, a host of “difficult” temperamental
characteristics—such as fearlessness, novelty or sensation seeking, low effortful control, and behavioral disinhibition—render
some youths more likely to commit delinquent and criminal behaviors as they age,
and these effects are observed during childhood, adolescence, and even into adulthood
(Kagan, 1998; Petitclerc, Boivin, Dionne,
Zoccolillo, & Tremblay, 2009).
In fact, the short-term and long-term consequences of a generally difficult temperament are grave. In a 2-year prospective
study, youth who were rated by their parents as highly irritable in early adolescence
were more than 2 times more likely than
Pixland/Thinkstock
Research has shown that children with difficult
and irritable temperaments are significantly
more likely to become depressed, have lower
educational success, and develop health
problems as adults.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.5
Personality
adolescents without a difficult temperament to develop major depressive disorder during
adulthood. In terms of behavioral disorders, highly irritable teens were nearly 2 times more
likely to be diagnosed with conduct disorder and nearly 4 times more likely to be diagnosed
with ODD (Stringaris, Cohen, Pine, & Leibenluft, 2009). Adolescents with difficult temperaments also had lower educational attainment and lower income than their peers with less difficult temperaments, which, as we learned in Chapter 4, are situational risk factors for crime.
5.5 Personality
Temperament and personality are sister concepts in the sense that both suggest there is a
coherent, consistent, unifying set of characteristics that typifies people. Some believe that
personality and temperament are essentially the same. Researchers Robert McCrae, Paul
Costa, and their colleagues (2000), for example, suggest that “personality traits, like temperaments, are endogenous dispositions that follow intrinsic paths of development essentially
independent of environmental influences” (p. 173).
Other researchers, however, posit a distinction between temperament and personality, with
temperament “as the substrate upon which the environment acts to produce personality over
time” (Kagan, 2010). In this formulation, personality is generally considered the unfolding of
temperament into adulthood; in this text, we’ll adhere to this relationship. Personality can
be defined as pattern of relatively permanent characteristics and unique traits that give both
individuality and consistency to a person’s behavior. Let’s explore how personality contributes to behavior.
Freud’s Tripartite Model of Personality
Sigmund Freud posited that the human psyche is divided into three parts: the id, the ego, and
the superego. This is considered the tripartite model of personality (see Figure 5.5).
The id, which is present at birth, consists of blind, unreasoning, instinctual desires and
motives and represents basic biological and psychological drives—it does not differentiate
between fantasy and reality. The id is antisocial and knows no rules, boundaries, or limitations. If the id is left unchecked, it will destroy the person, because it contributes to a pursuit
of primal wants.
The ego mediates between the primal desires of the id and reality; it acts according to the
reality principle, which enables an individual to defer pleasure or gratification. A child who
grabs a cookie out of another child’s hand, for example, is acting according to the id’s need to
satisfy its desires instantaneously; if the child decides instead to stop herself from grabbing
the cookie because she knows grabbing it will get her into trouble, she is being influenced by
the ego.
The superego develops from the ego and can be thought of as the moral code, norms, and
values the child has acquired. The superego is responsible for feelings of guilt and shame and
is closely aligned with the conscience. In mentally healthy children, the three parts of the personality work together. When the parts are in conflict, individuals may become maladjusted
and susceptible to antisocial behavior.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.5
Personality
Figure 5.5: Freudian model of personality
The competing desires and goals of the individual and society are captured by Freud’s model of the
personality or self.
Id
Ego
Superego
In the case of an underdeveloped superego, the socialization process has been inadequate or
incomplete because the superego is too weak to curb the impulses and drives of the id. Antisocial behavior may also be indirect. Socialization inhibits the open expression of unacceptable
urges, but that does not mean the urges disappear; they may merely become unconscious. In
this way, delinquent behavior may be a symbolic expression of unconscious impulses. That is
why, for example, an offender’s unresolved Oedipus complex, which means he has an unconscious desire for the exclusive love of his mother and a rivalry with his father, can lead him to
wish unconsciously for his father’s death (Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2009).
Sometimes delinquent behavior is the result of too much socialization, which produces an
overdeveloped superego. Impulses and urges of the id may elicit strong disapproval from the
superego. This ongoing conflict causes the ego to experience guilt and anxiety. But because
the ego knows that punishment must follow crime, the ego will lead the child to crime to minimize guilt. To ensure punishment, the ego will unconsciously leave clues. From a Freudian
perspective, when serious offenders involve themselves in the investigation of their crimes,
they are attempting to reduce their feelings of guilt; in effect, they “want” to be caught.
Erikson’s Identity Formation Theory
For Erik Erikson (1950, 1982), the ego goes through crises as it develops over the life course.
The development of the ego toward the maturation of the personality is known as identity
formation. From a psychodynamic perspective, it is useful to see the ways in which life events
can greatly affect an individual’s sense of self and how stress from these events can lead to
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.5
Personality
crime. For instance, mass murderers often “snap” and commit their murderous rampages
after a triggering event that usually involves a loss of status, such as a divorce or job loss. However, it is important to note that although triggering events seem to make an offender snap,
there is always a long, slowly brewing period of real or perceived failures that build within
the offender. The offender’s sense of self—and very identity—is so shattered that destructive
violence is presumed to be the only solution.
Take, for example, Charles Whitman, who in 1966 shot and killed 16 victims and wounded
dozens from the iconic tower at the University of Texas at Austin. The night before this incident, Whitman murdered his mother and wife—due in part to his mother having recently left
his father and to family problems within his own marriage. Those initial killings acted as a
trigger to then perpetrate the shooting at the university the next day.
Five-Factor Model of Personality
Psychologists have developed conceptual models to capture the broad dimensions of personality. These are known as structural models of personality. Although every individual
possesses a diverse constellation of personality traits, researchers have been able to provide
evidence that certain traits tend to correlate, or cluster together. Personality is therefore
“reducible” to just a few traits, or factors. For example, most structural models of personality include neuroticism, or a general tendency toward negative emotionality, as one of the
major traits of personality. Extraversion, described in its most general sense as an orientation
toward the external world, is also common across models. And, depending on the theorist,
novelty or sensation seeking may be included as a major dimension of personality as well.
McCrae and Costa (1987) developed one of the most influential models of personality, known
as the five-factor model of personality (see Figure 5.6).
The five factors considered to be the basis of personality can be remembered using the acronym OCEAN. O stands for “openness to experience” and refers to an open-mindedness to experiences, people, and intellectual pursuit. C stands for “conscientiousness,” or the achievementoriented, self-disciplined work ethic of an individual. E refers to the “extraversion–introversion
range” that characterizes people who seek social interaction and those who prefer to be by
themselves. A stands for “agreeableness,” or the general sociability and ease with which one
gets along with others. N stands for “neuroticism,” which describes the degree to which one
experiences negative emotions. Every individual can be said to possess a different measure of
each of these traits. For example, someone may be high on openness and low on conscientiousness, possessing a moderate degree of neuroticism.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.5
Personality
Figure 5.6: Five-factor model of personality
The five-factor model of personality is a set of five broad trait domains or dimensions, often referred
to as the “big five”: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism.
Openness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
In general, those who study personality and temperament are interested in the forces that
motivate a person’s ability to produce and control his or her behavior. Individuals who are
prosocial and high on agreeableness are generally able to regulate their conduct, whereas
antisocial persons (i.e., persons who regularly engage in hostile or harmful behavior toward
others) are less able to do so. These ideas are essential for understanding criminal behavior. For instance, Sarah De Pauw and Ivan Mervielde (2010) merged childhood temperament
models with the five-factor model of personality in an attempt to explain internalizing disorders (e.g., anxiety and depression) and externalizing disorders (e.g., aggression). Persons
with anxiety disorders have high scores on neuroticism, which is characterized by high levels
of fear and anxiety. They have low scores on extraversion, as evidenced by high levels of social
inhibition and low scores on conscientiousness based on low levels of attentional control. For
externalizing disorders, similar translations can be made. For example, ADHD is characterized by high extraversion based on hyperactivity levels and by low conscientiousness based
on reduced attentional control and reduced inhibitory control.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 5.5
Personality
See Spotlight: Personality Neuroscience to read about a gene that may be directly related to
some disorders and problem behaviors.
Spotlight: Personality Neuroscience
In large part, personality traits are so stable and enduring because they are heritable. YoonMi Hur and Thomas Bouchard (1997) found that 40% to 55% of assorted facets of sensation
or novelty seeking were heritable. Moreover, 55% of the variation between sensation seeking
and impulsivity had a shared genetic etiology.
A gene that has received attention for its relation to novelty or sensation seeking is the dopamine D4 receptor gene, or DRD4. There are several variants in the DRD4 gene, and these variants are differentially related to personality traits. Indeed, novelty or sensation seeking was
the first to be linked to a specific gene—the 7-repeat (7R) allele of DRD4 has been shown to be
associated with novelty- or sensation-seeking personality traits (Benjamin, Patterson, Greenberg, Murphy, & Hamer, 1996; Cloninger, Adolfsson, & Svrakic, 1996; Ebstein et al., 1996). In a
review of the first decade of research on DRD4, Hubert Van Tol—whose research was instrumental in discovering the gene—and his colleagues advised that
numerous reports of linkage or a weak association between the 7R alleles of DRD4
and novelty seeking, drug and alcohol abuse, ADHD, and Tourette syndrome may
indicate that the dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism is one of several genetic contributions to these traits or disorders. (Oak, Oldenhof, & Van Tol, 2000, p. 316)
In review a few years later, Ebstein (2006) said, “We deduce with some measure of certainty
that DRD4 indeed contributes to personality and behavioral traits related to the Novelty Seeking phenotype” (p. 435).
Molecular genetics researchers have found that the 7R allele of the DRD4 is indeed associated with high levels of the personality trait of novelty or sensation seeking. For instance,
Laucht, Becker, Blomeyer, and Schmidt (2007) used data from 303 children selected from
the Mannheim (Germany) Study of Risk Children, which is a prospective longitudinal study
of the effects of early risk factors on subsequent adolescent development. They found that
males with the 7R allele drank more alcohol per occasion of drinking and had greater lifetime
rates of heavy drinking than those without the 7R allele. Moreover, those with personalities
characterized by high levels of novelty or sensation seeking further explained the relationship
between the DRD4 7R allele and problem drinking.
The DRD4 7R allele has even been linked to novelty/sensation-seeking-oriented forms of alcohol use, such as binge drinking. Vaughn, Beaver, DeLisi, Howard, and Perron (2009) found that
the 7R allele was predictive of binge drinking among respondents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The relationship held despite controls for demographic
characteristics and low self-control.
These findings are so promising that a relatively new subfield in psychology known as personality neuroscience has been established. Its main goal is to locate the genetic and neural bases
of personality traits and thus create a fuller understanding of human behavior.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Summary and Conclusion
5.6 Hormones
Another biological explanation for crime
involves the body’s hormones, chemical substances produced in the body that
control and regulate the activity of certain
organs or cells. For example, the hormone
testosterone has been known to cause
aggression when found in the body in high
levels. Similarly, poor nutrition has been
associated with higher levels of aggression,
while the omega-3 vitamin has been linked
to lower aggression (Rivendell, 2016).
Milicad/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Studies indicate that higher levels of
Interestingly, however, results related to
testosterone combined with lower levels of
the relationship of hormones and criminal
cortisol are correlated with higher levels
behavior have been largely mixed. Glenn,
of anger.
Raine, Schug, Gao, and Granger (2011) suggest that the inconsistent results have been partially due to researchers attempting to examine single hormones in isolation. Researchers have begun exploring hormone systems in the
context of criminal behavior as interconnected, complex systems. For example, Brown et al.
(2008) studied the research findings of 15 scientific investigations that explored the role of
hormones in relation to crime. These researchers found that higher testosterone levels in
combination with lower cortisol (primary stress hormone) levels are correlated with greater
levels of anger.
Summary and Conclusion
This chapter provided a selective review of four specific biological factors—brain mechanisms, genetics, temperament, personality, and hormones. Executive functioning is crucial
for behavioral regulation; individuals with poor executive functioning may be at risk for
decreased self-regulation and increased conduct problems. Neuropsychological deficits,
which are related to antisocial behavior, also play a role in social cognitive processes that are
risk factors for conduct problems and other maladaptive behaviors.
Genetics also play a role in behavior, as we learned through twin studies—which showed
that, with specific behavior traits, most traits were more attributable to genetic effects than
they were to environmental effects (shared or nonshared).
Temperament and personality are innate characteristics that typify people. Temperament refers to the biologically determined personality tendencies shown at birth, and as
we mature, environmental factors interact with temperament to shape personality and
behavior.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Summary and Conclusion
Finally, researchers have been begun exploring hormone systems in the context of criminal
behavior as interconnected, complex systems. However, results related to this relationship
have been mixed.
There is a growing literature on biological explanations of crime, and hopefully, we will continue to learn more about how these factors interact and influence criminal behavior.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. There are some experts in fields such as psychology, law, and criminal justice who
deny that biology could have an impact on criminal behavior. What are some reasons
that this denial might exist?
2. There is a theory regarding genetics and crime that suggests the genetic makeup of
men causes them to engage in more criminal behavior than women. Do you think
this is true? Why or why not?
3. Some researchers view temperament as a unifying basis for personality and mental
or behavioral disorders. Do you agree?
Key Terms
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.
cognitive Connected with thinking or conscious mental processes.
comorbid The co-occurrence of psychological conditions.
diathesis-stress model A behavioral model
that states that those who are at biological
or genetic risk for some disorder or condition are most sensitive to the stressors created by environmental risk.
ego The part of the Freudian personality
that grows from the id. It mediates between
the primal desires of the id and reality; it
acts according to the reality principle, which
enables an individual to defer pleasure or
gratification.
executive functions A set of cognitive
processes relating to memory, attention,
planning, and emotional and behavioral
regulation that are essential for the cognitive
control of behavior.
five-factor model of personality A structural model of personality that contains five
dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness,
and neuroticism.
frontal lobe The part of the brain that
houses higher order cognitive functions that
regulate the emotional stimuli that come
from the limbic system.
heritable Describes variance in a trait
or behavior that is attributable to genetic
factors.
hormones Chemical substances produced
in the body that control and regulate the
activity of certain organs or cells.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Summary and Conclusion
id The part of the Freudian personality that is present at birth and consists of
blind, unreasoning, instinctual desires and
motives. It represents basic biological and
psychological drives—it does not differentiate between fantasy and reality.
identity formation In Erikson’s personality
model, the development of the ego toward
the maturation of the personality.
limbic system The complex system of
networks and nerves in the brain involved in
basic emotions and drives.
neuropsychological deficits Brain-based
deficits in social cognitive processes that
are risk factors for conduct problems and
related maladaptive behaviors, such as
school problems.
nonshared environmental factors Variance in a trait or behavior that is attributable to factors unique to the person.
personality A pattern of relatively permanent characteristics and unique traits that
give both individuality and consistency to a
person’s behavior.
prefrontal cortex The part of the frontal
lobe of the brain involved in complex behaviors such as planning and decision making.
shared environmental factors Variance
in a trait or behavior that is attributable to
common family factors.
structural models of personality Conceptual models that capture the main traits
embodied in personality.
superego The part of the Freudian personality that develops from the ego and contains
the moral code, norms, and values the child
has acquired.
temperament The stable, biologically
based ways in which a person regulates
his or her behavior and interacts with the
environment.
trait A quality or characteristic that
describes a person’s typical mood, behaviors, or way of being.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
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.
53
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Introduction
Section 4.1
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. Do you think Bianchi would have committed these murders had it not been for
Buono’s influence?
2. 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?
3. 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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Theories of Behaviorism
Section 4.2
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.2
Theories of Behaviorism
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, merchantchief, 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 crime-inducing 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
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
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
Stimulus
Operant response
Teacher promises
a sticker for good
behavior in class.
Student behaves well
in class.
Teacher presents a
lecture.
Student talks to
neighbor.
Teacher ridicules
wrong answers spoken
aloud.
Student answers only
when sure of being
right.
Teacher promises field
trip for good behavior.
Student misbehaves.
Consequence
(reinforcement or
punishment)
Implications
Positive
reinforcement.
Student receives a
sticker.
Student is more likely
to behave well in future
classes.
Positive punishment.
Teacher has student
clean cupboards.
Student is less likely to
talk during a lecture.
Negative
reinforcement.
Student is not ridiculed.
Negative punishment.
Privilege of going on
field trip is withdrawn.
Student is more likely
to answer only when
sure of being right.
Student is less likely
to misbehave before a
field trip.
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.
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
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 negative behaviors that
are internalized and unfortunately mimicked. This
scenario can be made much worse. The parents
can abuse or neglect their children, introduce them
to drugs or alcohol, engage in violence within the
home, or commit any combination of these crimes.
These behaviors are observed, internalized, and
Digital Vision/Thinkstock unfortunately learned.
According to social learning theory,
much of learning occurs by observation
and exposure to situational contexts,
including influence from peers.
Parents act as socialization agents, or people who
contribute to socialization—but so do teachers,
coworkers, and peers, or persons of a similar status
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Learning Theory
Section 4.3
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, non
social, 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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Learning Theory
Section 4.3
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
Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Getty Images Plus
favorable or unfavorable. (The term Sutherland posited that an individual will
definitions here refers to attitudes.) learn criminal behaviors and rationalizations
6. A juvenile becomes delinquent due
for such behaviors from his or her intimate
to an excess of definitions favorable groups, such as close friends.
to the violation of law over definitions unfavorable to the violation of law. This sixth principle is the core of the theory.
Definitions favorable to the violation of law can be learned from both criminal and
noncriminal people.
7. The tendency toward delinquency will be affected by the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of learning experiences. The longer, earlier, more intensely, and
more frequently youths are exposed 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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
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.
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.
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.
Duration
Frequency
Differential
association
Intensity
Priority
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
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 value-based 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).
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Learning Theory
Section 4.3
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Cognitive Theory
Section 4.4
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,
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Cognitive Theory
Section 4.4
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 self-evaluative cognitive processes that Bandura called the
“self-system.” The importance of self-efficacy
to crime is perhaps most clearly understood
when considering persons who have desisted
from lives of crime, such as former prisoners who decided to “go straight.” Reformed
offenders develop a general sense of confidence, self-acceptance, and pride in themselves once they maintain employment, attach
and fully commit to their family relationships,
and cease their association with bad influences, such as persons who use drugs or who
KatarzynaBialasiewicz/iStock/Getty Images Plus are actively involved in crime. Indeed, one of
the most effective forms of correctional treatSelf-efficacy, or a person’s overall sense of
ment is cognitive behavioral therapy, and it is
confidence, is often high among people who
clearly informed by the social cognitive theohave “reformed” and quit bad behavior such
retical perspective.
as doing drugs or committing crime.
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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Situational/Environmental Influences on Behavior
Section 4.5
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.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.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.5
Situational/Environmental Influences on 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 be…
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
