Psychology for Dummies (64 page)
Read Psychology for Dummies Online
Authors: Adam Cash
Tags: #Psychology, #General, #Body; Mind & Spirit, #Spirituality
A powerful sociological view of criminal behavior comes from
differential association theory.
Sociological theories approach human problems from a group and societal level whereas psychological theories tend to focus on individual people. Differential association theory is not complex. It simply states that criminal behavior is learned. Criminals themselves will tell you that they learned their “trade” from watching other people commit crimes. Some critics of prisons have even argued that prisons are just schools for learning how to commit bigger and better crimes. Go see the movie
Blow;
it covers this idea.
In differential association theory, criminal behavior is a learned behavior used to meet needs that are not being met by noncriminal means. If I can’t provide for my family for example, I’ll just sell drugs or rob a liquor store. How is criminal behavior learned? Do criminals go to special vocational schools that most of us are not invited to? I wonder what your SAT score would have to be to get into that school? Actually, criminal behavior is learned through social interactions within peer groups. Sometimes, it’s even learned from the media. The young men who committed the horrible murders at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999 claimed that they got the idea for their crimes from a movie.
If a peer group sees more value in breaking the law than in obeying it, they’ll endorse crime, that is, they’ll support the breaking of the law. Criminal techniques, motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes are all part of the crime curriculum, so to speak. The specific types of crime that a group endorses depend, in part, on their view of the law, in general, and their views of specific laws, as well. For example, some subgroups endorse selling drugs but don’t allow armed robbery.
In 1986, Hirshci devised a theory that puts control of criminal impulses and urges at the center of understanding criminal acts.
Control theory
assigns a crucial role to
self-control
in this process. Criminal acts are often impulsive and performed on the spur of the moment. If I can’t delay my need for gratification, I may just go out and get what I need now, anyway that I see fit. A crucial deterrent to criminal behavior is the bond between an individual and society. When this bond is weakened or severed, delinquency or criminality is likely. The bond between an individual and society depends upon a few factors:
The degree to which an individual has internalized the norms of society in the form of a conscience. Should I always drive the speed limit or do so only when a cop is around? If I believe in the importance of speed laws for safety, I’ll obey. If not, I haven’t internalized that norm and am likely to only slow down when a cop is around.
The degree to which an individual actually cares about what other people think. If I don’t care what you think, I’ll do whatever I feel like.
The degree to which an individual is committed to normal pursuits and conventional goals in life. I may not want to graduate from high school, go to college, get a 9-to-5 job, and commute two hours a day to work and back for a measly paycheck. I may want to get my money the easy way — steal it!
One of the most powerful theories in all of psychology is the theory of operant conditioning. When I perform a behavior it is followed by some consequence, like a reward or a punishment. Learning occurs when I’ve learned that when I do A, I consequently receive B.
Jeffrey (1965) tried to explain criminal behavior by looking at what criminals get out of committing crimes. What’s the payoff? What rewards follow a criminal act that might increase the likelihood that the perpetrator will do it again? If I steal, I get some money, and money is a pretty good reward. Other rewards include peer-approval, and the thrill from committing the act itself. No matter what I get out of it, the fact that I receive some reward is enough to keep the behavior going. Remember
operant conditioning
earlier in the book? (If not, check out Chapter 9.) Rats press bars to get sugar pellets. Criminals commit crimes to get whatever “sugar pellet” they get out of the criminal act.
Another version of a learning theory comes from the
social-learning
perspective. Bandura and Walters (1963) and Bandura (1986) emphasize the role of worrying about getting socially chastised for crimes as a powerful deterrent to criminal behavior. This theory overlaps with the
control theory
(see the “Sociological theories” section earlier in this chapter), but relies more on the role of learning in terms of watching other people get punished or socially punished for their criminal behavior. Social punishment often comes in the forms of guilt and social isolation. Sometimes, being shunned can be the worse punishment of all. This theory sounds a little bit like a “Bad boys commit crimes, do you want to be a bad boy?” theory. However, some research supports this idea. Grasmick and Green found that when teenagers worry about being socially punished, they’re less likely to commit crimes.
Psychoanalytic theories come from the psychic determinism school of thought. All of our behavior is the direct consequence of or is determined by what is going on inside our
psyches
or minds. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, viewed all human beings as inherently selfish and in a state of social conflict. (You can read more about Freud in Chapter 10.) We’re all born with needs that we feel must be satisfied when and where we feel like it! There’s only one problem with this state of affairs; there are powerful forces working against us, namely, other people. Eventually we learn to rein in these desires and channel them into more socially acceptable means of satisfaction. We develop a conscience in the form of our
superego
to help keep our behavior in accordance with acceptable moral standards. For Freud and other psychoanalysts, criminal behavior is the result of a damaged or deficient superego and, perhaps, poor resolution of what Freud termed the developmental core conflicts: independence versus dependence, aggression versus its control, and sensuality versus its denial.
According to Stott, another view of criminal behavior is that it’s a way to achieve gratification and a sense of personal power in the presence of an overly demanding superego. Sometimes the superego can be too harsh, demanding and expecting perfect morality. These demands can lead to feelings of chronic anxiety and insecurity because the individual continuously feels guilty for things that he or she didn’t do. Freud felt that some criminal behavior was the physical result of a conflict between our genuine needs and our harsh superegos. We feel guilty all the time, so we seek punishment from our conscience by doing bad things. It’s almost like saying to oneself, “Well, if I’m going to feel guilty, I might as well have something to feel guilty about.”
Other psychoanalytic theorists view criminality less as a consequence of an overly harsh superego and more as a result of a weak one. In this case, the superego fails to provide enough pressure through our conscience to suppress our rebellious and selfish desires, leading people to do whatever they wish to meet their needs. This insufficient control over one’s impulses is due to failures in child development. This theory fits with a common-sense notion that criminal or delinquent behavior is the result of poor parental control and a failure to instill good moral values in children.
The final psychoanalytic view is a “like father, like son” theory. If you’re married to a career criminal, your children may say, “I want to grow up to be just like Daddy.” This statement would worry you, if you believe in the theory that criminal behavior is a consequence of a child’s identification with a criminal role model, desiring to emulate him or her when he or she gets older. Some psychoanalysts believe it. In this case, there’s an absence of guilt associated with criminal acts because “Daddy does it.” No parental or superego controls prohibit criminal behavior. In many ways, it’s like having a superego that says, “Go ahead, it’s okay!”
Developmental theories
try to account for behavior and mental processes by analyzing how they developed over a person’s life span. Lawrence Kohlberg developed a developmental theory of moral development. For many people, criminal behavior and immorality are one in the same. I realize that this is not always the case, and there are times when a person’s moral system may or may not be in accordance with the law. Some people advocate breaking the law in order to uphold what they consider to be higher moral principles. Martin Luther King Jr. and many others before him advocated civil disobedience, which resulted in violations of the law in the name of a greater good. Morality and criminality are not always the same, but there is considerable overlap.
Kohlberg’s theory is about moral thinking or reasoning. The idea is that people who commit crimes are morally underdeveloped. Their moral growth is stunted. The more sophisticated a person’s moral system, the less likely they are to commit crimes. The stages of Kohlberg’s moral developmental theory are as follows:
Level 1 — Preconventional:
Morals or rules are seen as external to oneself.
•
Stage 1:
Obedience and punishment orientation. Moral behavior is carried out because of fear of punishment. Right action is only engaged in to avoid punishment.
•
Stage 2:
Instrumental purpose and exchange. If being good serves my immediate purpose, I’ll do it. If not, forget it. I’m also motivated to get what I want as long as no one gets hurt. This argument is often used to promote the legalization of illicit drugs in the United States (I’m only hurting myself, and so on).
Level 2 — Conventional:
Moral behavior is a consequence of buying into the social norms and expectations of others.
•
Stage 3:
Interpersonal accord. I’ll do right because I’m expected to; it’s my duty!
•
Stage 4:
Social accord or system maintenance. Doing right is what’s best for society.
Level 3 — Postconventional:
Social morality is distinguished from absolute or universal standards.
•
Stage 5:
Social contract. I’ll do right because I’ve got an unwritten contract with society to do so. Not breaking the contract is the guiding principle.
•
Stage 6:
Universal ethical principles. Morality is defined by the individual’s realization of the universal principles of right and wrong. Just because society sees something as right doesn’t necessarily make it right. As long as society’s rules are consistent with these universal principles, I’ll do right. If not, I’ll go by the univesal principles.
Research seems to suggest that young criminals or delinquents demonstrate preconventional levels of moral reasoning. Don’t worry about Stage 6 though. Kohlberg reserved this category for such people as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. Do you obey the speed limit because it’s the universally right thing to do? Or is it because of that speeding ticket you got last week? Sounds kind of preconventional to me!