Prior to beginning the assignment, review Chapters 4 and 5 in your textbook, where risk factors for criminal behavior are covered from a biological, developmental, and situational perspec

53

4 Learning and Situational/ Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior

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.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

54

Section 4.1 Introduction

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 rela- tionship. 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. Through- out 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 chap- ter 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.

55

Section 4.2 Theories of Behaviorism

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 circum- stances 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.

56

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, merchant- chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (p. 82)

An important legacy of behaviorism for understand- ing 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 Rous- seau, and John Dryden, is that people are born basi- cally 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 implica- tion for understanding crime is that learning-based theoretical approaches generally view the criminal offender as an innately blank slate that is then cor- rupted by negative or crime-inducing environmen- tal features and personal connections.

Skinner’s Operant Conditioning B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) was a psychologist widely known for his research on operant con- ditioning, 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 reinforce- ment, positive punishment, and negative punishment.

Positive reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that involves a behavioral response fol- lowed 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

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.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

57

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

immediately stop the problem behavior (response) that a child is exhibiting. In negative pun- ishment, 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

Consequence (reinforcement or punishment) Implications

Teacher promises a sticker for good behavior in class.

Student behaves well in class.

Positive reinforcement. Student receives a sticker.

Student is more likely to behave well in future classes.

Teacher ridicules wrong answers spoken aloud.

Student answers only when sure of being right.

Negative reinforcement. Student is not ridiculed.

Student is more likely to answer only when sure of being right.

Teacher presents a lecture.

Student talks to neighbor.

Positive punishment. Teacher has student clean cupboards.

Student is less likely to talk during a lecture.

Teacher promises field trip for good behavior.

Student misbehaves. Negative punishment. Privilege of going on field trip is withdrawn.

Student is less likely to misbehave before a field trip.

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 fundamen- tal 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.

58

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 obser- vation 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 responsibili- ties of their jobs, they either get fired or quit. Once at home, these parents vehemently cri- tique their former boss, lament their unemployment, and engage in unhealthy, unproductive

behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, drug selling, gam- bling) 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 unfortunately learned.

Parents act as socialization agents, or people who contribute to socialization—but so do teachers, coworkers, and peers, or persons of a similar status

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

According to social learning theory, much of learning occurs by observation and exposure to situational contexts, including influence from peers.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

59

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

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 individu- als 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. Crimi- nologists 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 behav- ior 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 acquaintance- ships that individuals directly and indirectly have with others. (Differential is a term that sug- gests 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 chil-

dren learn to commit crime.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

60

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

4. In intimate groups, children learn techniques for committing crime, as well as the appropriate motives, attitudes, and rationalizations. The learning process involves expo- sure 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 defini- tions of the legal code as being favorable or unfavorable. (The term definitions here refers to attitudes.)

6. A juvenile becomes delinquent due to an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of law over defini- tions 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, prior- ity, 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 friend- ships and acquaintanceships involve behaviors and the expression of values and beliefs that support the behaviors. Importantly, differential association also includes indirect identi- fication 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.

Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Getty Images Plus

Sutherland posited that an individual will learn criminal behaviors and rationalizations for such behaviors from his or her intimate groups, such as close friends.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

61

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 friend- ship 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.

Frequency Intensity

Priority

Duration

Differential association

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

62

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

Definitions Definitions refer to an individual’s attitudes, orientation, and rationalizations that charac- terize the person’s behavior and cast him or her in moral or value-based terms. Put sim- ply, definitions are a person’s beliefs about or moral evaluation of his or her behavior. Con- sider this brief example: People who are part of a “partying” friendship network like to drink alcohol and use illegal drugs. When an indi- vidual 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 situ- ations relates to the definitions that the indi- vidual produces about his or her behavior.

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 indi- vidual justifies or provides excuses for why antisocial behavior is permissible (Akers & Jen- nings, 2009).

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 Adoles- cent 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 proso- cial coworkers helps dismantle delinquent peer networks and results in reductions in delin- quency and drug use.

Taken together, these findings indicate that differential association with bad or good influ- ences at work has important effects on whether an individual is commensurately well behaved or deviant.

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.

© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

63

Section 4.3 Social Learning Theory

It is important to note that criminals do not commit crime every second of their lives; there- fore, 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 experi- ence failures in terms of adult functioning, such as unemployment, financial insecurity, rela- tionship 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 dif- ferences 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 attach- ments. 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 behav- iors 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 pr

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.