| concept | info | evaluation | ||||
| operant conditioning theory | positive reinforcement – receiving pleasant/desired outcome
– Increases likelihood of behaviour being repeated – E.g., earning money when stealing negative reinforcement – taking away unpleasant/undesired outcome – Increases likelihood of behaviour being repeated – E.g., killing enemy to remove threat positive punishment – receiving unpleasant/undesired outcome – Decreases likelihood of behaviour being repeated – E.g., receiving speeding ticket or being sent to prison negative punishment – taking away pleasant/desired outcome – Decreases likelihood of behaviour being repeated – Taking privileges away (like right to vote or driver’s license etc) primary reinforcer – used to satisfy biological/primary human need e.g., food or shelter secondary reinforcer – used to acquire something that meets primary need e.g., money |
strengths
– Can be applied to range of crimes, including murder – e.g., someone may commit crime to get rid of threat, example of negative reinforcement – Practical applications – explains how punishment can remove undesirable behaviours – idea is basis of sending people to prison and contributed to development of behavioural management techniques e.g., token economies weaknesses – Reductionist – ignores biological factors such as genes, or nature of personality in influencing whether we commit crimes – Doesn’t account for all possible motivations – can be reproduced in absence of punishment or reinforcement e.g., due to our emotions, how we think or different type of motivation than reward |
||||
| social learning theory | observational learning – learning through observing and modelling behaviour of role model
role model – a person who we identify with (similar characteristics and higher status) vicarious reinforcement – more likely to imitate model and reproduce the behaviour if they’re rewarded for it mediational processes – internal cognitions determining whether someone will copy behaviour observed of role model – Must pay attention – Retention – remembering what to copy – Reproduction – must be able to physically do it – Motivation – direct reinforcement, rewarded/praised |
strengths
– Research supporting – Bandura found that aggression was copied when exposing nursery children to aggressive role model, especially if role model rewarded for aggression or of same sex – Explains how children learn behaviour in absence of reinforcement – so explaining why some behaviour learnt without consequences; learnt from watching and imitating role models weaknesses – Reductionist – ignores biological factors such as genes, or nature of personality in influencing whether we commit crime – Not all criminal behaviour explained by theory – e.g., murder rarely witnessed in real life. Also unlikely that crimes like fraud learned through observing, as typically driven by financial gain |
||||
| eysenk’s biological theory | Extraverted
|
– out-going, sociable, sensation-seeking | strengths
– biological theory – useful explanation when behaviour is not result of reinforcement (operant) or imitation of role model (SLT) – research supporting – Farrington et al found criminals had higher levels of neuroticism and psychoticism weaknesses – research refuting – Farrington et al found no difference in extraversion between two groups – no useful practical applications – tells us what personality type more likely to commit crime but not how to prevent them – social desirability bias – evidence based on questionnaire answers, unreliable and lowering validity of findings as participants may lie |
|||
| Introverted
|
– reserved and quiet | |||||
| Neurotic
|
– unstable, highly emotional and overreactive in stressful situations | |||||
| Stable | – un-emotional, and unreactive in stressful situations | |||||
| Psychotic | – cold, lacks empathy, anti-social, aggressive | |||||
| criminal personality = extravert + neurotic + psychotic
– Type of nervous system we inherit determines whether we possess ‘criminal’ characteristics – Extroversion (sensation-seeking, outgoing) – nervous system with low levels of arousal; therefore, requiring external stimulation from environment to raise biological arousal levels – Neuroticism – born with highly active and volatile nervous system; prone to responding quickly and over-reactive in stressful situations |
||||||
| effects of punishment on recidivism
recidivism – when criminals reoffend after punishment rehabilitative – a programme designed to help offenders rather than punish them detention/custody – a prison sentence |
prison | – Held in custody and freedom severely limited
– Removal from society – Positive punishment – receiving undesirable outcome (restricting day-to-day activities) – Negative reinforcement – deterrent, encouraging people to follow law |
strengths
– Keeps public safe from potentially dangerous criminal – Vicariously reinforce behaviour of others – deterring others from copying their criminal behaviour weaknesses – 25% of offenders reoffend within a year – Often exposed to more dangerous criminals – can learn new criminal behaviour – Violent crime not always rational choice – so may not consider length of sentence, may be due to personality type |
|||
| community sentencing | – Non-custodial sentence
– Involves unpaid work – e.g., voluntary work, picking up litter, painting community buildings – Treatment programmes – anger management, treatments for alcohol or drug addiction |
strengths
– Chance to make up for actions – Can learn new skills – help find employment afterwards – Treatment programmes address causes of behaviour weaknesses – 30% of offenders reoffend – Soft option – may not deter criminals from reoffending |
||||
| restorative justice | – offender meets with victim
– distressing experience – can understand mistakes and how actions have harmed others – discouraging from committing crime |
strengths
– 15% reduction in recidivism – Can listen to how actions harmed others weaknesses – Distressing experience – Unlikely to prevent reoffending if behaviour stems from personality type |
||||
| treatments to rehabilitate | ||||||
| token economy programmes | – Based on operant conditioning theory
– Tokens – secondary reinforcers given when pro-social behaviour displayed – Can be exchanged for rewards e.g., food privileges, longer visits, telephone calls – Rewards must be genuinely valued by prisoners, to motivate them – Encouraging repetition of pro-social behaviour – which becomes learned and desired behaviour |
strengths
– Evidence suggesting it produces short term increase pro-social behaviour – Hobson + Holt (1976) found significant increase in pro-social behaviour (cooperating, doing chores, queueing correctly for dinner) when token economy introduced to 3 prisons weaknesses – Prison staff must be committed to programme – failure to give out tokens leading to antisocial behaviour – Ineffective for offenders committing crimes due to anger issues – anger management programme more effective in that case |
||||
| anger management programmes | – Offenders work with therapist to identify triggers causing outbursts
– Taught skills to control anger – e.g., breathing techniques – and may play role play activities to practise more pro-social behaviour – Prosocial behaviour achieved once no longer reacting to triggers |
strengths
– Dowden et al (1999) – found that high risk offenders receiving this treatment were less likely to reoffend than those who didn’t weaknesses – Relies on offender being motivated to change – Not effective for criminals whose behaviour doesn’t rely on anger – some commit violent crimes without anger, and are instead cold and calculated – Psychopaths learning techniques to hide anger – making it easier for them to commit crimes in future without being detected |
||||
| K E Y S T U D I E S | ||||||
| Bandura (1961)
aims – – To see if children will imitate aggressive and non – aggressive role model behaviour if not rewarded – To see if children are more likely to copy same-sex role models than opposite-sex role models – To see if boys are more aggressive than girls
|
sample size
– 72 (equal numbers of boys and girls) – 37 – 69 months old experimental groups – 48 (8 subgroups of 6 children) – 24 – aggressive role models
– 24 – non-aggressive role models
control group – 24 watching no role model behaviour procedure – After 10 mins with role-model, taken in another room to play for 20 mins, being observed through one-way mirror results – Children exposed to an aggressive role-model, whether male or female, reproduced more physical and verbal aggressive behaviour than those in non-aggressive groups – Boys far more likely to imitate same-sex aggressive role model, in terms of copying physical aggression, than girls – No significant difference in imitation of verbal aggression between sexes – Girls found to spend significantly more time playing with dolls and tea set, whilst boys spent more time playing with gun |
conclusions
– Children can learn through observation in absence of reinforcement – Exposure to aggressive adult role models may increase the likelihood that children will give an aggressive reaction, particularly if the model is of the same sex strengths – Standardised procedure
– Matched pairs design – groups matched on pre-test aggression levels to prevent participant variables from becoming extraneous variables weaknesses – Ethical concerns – children deliberately exposed to aggression and the long term effects on the behaviour of the children could not be predicted – Demand characteristics – children may have tried to guess aims due to unfamiliar environment – Testosterone – plays role in aggression, could explain why boys are more aggressive than girls – Lab experiment – unfamiliar, artificial environment – lacks ecological validity |
||||
| Charlton et al (2000)
aim – – To see whether the introduction of television would cause children to become more aggressive, or display more anti-social behaviours |
IV – introduction of television
DV – behaviour of children before and after TV introduced location – st Helena (pop. 5000) sample – random sample of school population (between 3-8) procedure – Behaviour recorded via video recordings – cameras located in school playground – 1994 – before intro – 2000 – after intro findings – No change in anti-social behaviour observed in playground (e.g., fighting, hitting. Kicking) after television introduced – Boys had tendency to display 4x more antisocial acts than girls – Both boys ang girls displayed twice as much prosocial behaviour compared to antisocial behaviour+ conclusions – Television had little influence on behaviour of children studied and children weren’t copying behaviour witnessed on tv – Close-knit nature of community and high levels of adult surveillance over children may explain why tv had little effect on their behaviour |
strengths
– Ecological validity – natural experiment, conducted in real life setting rather than artificial conditions – High validity – covert, children not aware they’re being observed so behaviour more natural and unaffected by observers’ presence (no demand characteristics) weaknesses – Lacks internal validity – researcher didn’t have control over what programmes people were actually watching, which would’ve determined exposure to aggressive role models – Lacks generalisability
|
||||
