To what extent do Social and Media factors influence Criminal Behaviour?

More recently the discussion into what the most likely cause of crime is has changed. From the 40’s and onwards psychologists such as Sheldon and Lambroso have tried to prove the cause of crime as being genetic and down to the nature of the person committing them. Lambroso himself suggested that “Criminals are born not made” and tried to conduct research to prove this.

However, whilst it is highly recognised that there is a general biological difference between those who commit common crimes and the ‘average citizen’, more recent research has examined closely the effect that outside causes have on people turning to crime. The discussion on criminality has changed from whether the ‘Nature’ side of a person is to blame for it or whether the ‘Nurture’ received by people is the primary reason. Since the ‘Nature’ of criminals has been looked at and respected conclusions have been drawn, more psychologists have been looking into how ‘Nurture’ has led to criminality.

One aspect that the ‘Nurture’ side of studies looks into is the social influences that people are receiving at this point in history. In the time of Sheldon and others people only socialised within their town. Since towns used to be much smaller, this used to only give them access to people within a radius of about 2 miles. But, now that there is improved travel, schooling and places of work, people socialise with a group that can range to a radius of about 25 miles. Also, with improved communication, people can speak to others who are almost anywhere on the planet.

Another aspect of whether it is the ‘Nurture’ a person receives that leads to their criminality is the current widespread effect of the media. People, it has been shown, can be influenced by what they see and hear on television (TV) and the radio. They can also be taught aggressive behaviour through violent video games, and people can access information on almost any subject, including criminality, on the Internet.

This new, wider range of influences is continually being studied to find the effect that it can have on people.

There are many social factors that affect how a person develops. Social learning theory suggests that much of what we learn is done by imitation and modelling others behaviour. Therefore the influence of other people on us is a major factor in shaping our behaviour.

It is also important to point out that there are different types of aggression, including anti-social aggression – which encompasses behaviour that intends to harm someone, physically or psychologically, who doesn’t want to be treated as such; pro-social behaviour – such as when a policeman shoots a criminal to protect people; and sanctioned aggression – such as self-defence, for example when someone causes harm to their attacker.

One influence on all types of behaviour is the self-fulfilling prophecy – which suggests that people tend to be become what is expected of them – and this can be used to explain why people turn to crime. Labelling theory ties in here as well, since it says that someone only becomes a criminal when labelled a criminal by society. It is not what the person does that matters, but how society labels what they do, because people can end up becoming their label. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) carried out one of the most well known studies into the self-fulfilling prophecy. First of all they gave students in a class an IQ test, but they selected students at random, irrespective of their IQ results. They told their teacher that they were about to ‘spurt’ and when they tested them at the end of the year they found that those “identified” had all improved. Because the teachers had expected them to improve they had given them more attention and help so that the ‘prophecy’ came true. A study by Eden (1990) used a similar method with 29 platoons of soldiers. Some platoons were told that they were above average whilst the other platoons were told nothing, though all of the platoons were at an average level. After ten weeks the soldiers’ performance was tested and the groups in the ‘informed’ platoons were found to have achieved best on both written and weapons tests. However, the self-fulfilling prophecy can work in both positive and negative ways and whilst it can be shown to help some people it can also be used as an explanation of why people would turn to crime. Social expectations, especially if people live in a criminally minded group or have low self-esteem, may encourage people to become criminals. On the other hand, it can be a positive influence if people have high expectations for others.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Family patterns, child-rearing strategies and schooling are also all factors that can be shown to have an impact on people. Firstly, within the family there are three aspects that may lead to delinquency – size, patterns of interaction and disruption. For instance, a large family can have lower organisation within, leading to deprivation for children. Also, if there are other delinquents in the family then they may play as models for younger children. Furthermore, a conflict between parents or within a family can lead to delinquency, which is why broken homes have been linked to this. Secondly, certain ways of bringing children up have been linked to crime. Hoffman (1984) identified 3 patterns of child-rearing: power assertion – including criticisms, threats, maternal deprivation and physical punishment; love withdrawal – where disapproval is shown by withholding affection; and induction – which means explaining to a child the consequences of its actions on others. McCord (1979) found that power assertion was used the most in families that had delinquents. Thirdly, schooling, a large part of growing up, can have an effect on behaviour. Delinquency can sometimes be predicted if there are problems at school or school is a bad experience. What's more, some schooling problems may not come from low intelligence but from the way a school engages students. Hargreaves (1980) discovered that schools with problems had a high staff turnover, social disadvantage, low staff commitment and tended to see pupils as having low ability. Other social influences on delinquency include concepts such as peer pressure, where a peer group can largely govern a person’s behaviour, and criminal acts in adolescents generally take place in groups, where groups live near to each other.

Berkowitz (1989) and Bandura (1965) claim aggressive behaviour is either learned from direct experience or by observing others. Learning by direct experience incorporates Skinners principles of operant condition. For instance, if a child pushes another child and then gets what they want, that behaviour will be reinforced as a good thing to them. Learning by vicarious experience incorporates Social Learning Theory (SLT), as discussed earlier, when a child sees a role model and then imitates their behaviour. Although, for the behaviour to be imitated the child must see the model be rewarded. Someone is likely to behave aggressively depending on: their previous experience of aggressive behaviour – theirs and others; the degree to which it was successful before; the current likelihood of the aggressive behaviour being rewarded or punished; plus other cognitive, social and environmental factors. One of the most well known studies into SLT is the one carried out by Bandura. In the study 66 children saw an adult attack a Bobo doll, they were then either shown the adult being rewarded for doing so, the adult being punished for doing so, or nothing happening to him at all. Those who saw him being rewarded displayed the most aggression afterwards whilst those shown him punished showed the least aggression.

One more factor that has been related as a cause for criminality is deindividuation – ‘the process whereby people lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised, often anti-social behaviours’ Hogg and Vaughan (1998). It is said that this takes place because in society there are accepted ‘norms’ against aggressive behaviour, so people do not behave as such. However, when people are in a crowd that may become a mob, their attitude may adjust to that of the whole groups. According to Zimbardo there is ‘individual behaviour’, when people are rational and conform to society, and ‘deindividuated behaviour’ where people resort to primitive urges which go against society. Being part of a crowd can diminish individuality since people can feel anonymous as a crowd so there is less sense of guilt or retribution. The larger a group, the less a fear of evaluation by others and the weaker are normal controls of guilt, shame and fear.

The media is the second category related to law breaking. Whilst it can be argued that this is a social factor, it is also a factor on its own and incorporates several influences on behaviour. Many, such as Freud, have argued that aggression is an instinct, and although sometimes it can be harmless – as in a sport – other times could lead to criminal violence. Bandura, on the other hand, argues that we learn by observing others and we need to look at where aggression is acquired. He suggests that we sometimes instigate aggression if the outcome is perceived as worthwhile, as expressed above. Bandura also suggested that high temperatures, air pollution and crowding could add to arousal and the likelihood of aggression.

Cumberbatch says that there is a strong feeling that violence on TV and in video games can be linked to real life incidents. There have also been many incidents recently of young people being attacked or killed by school friends who also play these games. A recent example of a game that is now banned after having been linked with violence is ‘Manhunt’. Cumberbatch links violence in the media with violent behaviour and looks at the extent of violence on TV and in films as well as newer mediums such as video games. Some, such as Newson, suggest that all the research that has linked violence on TV and violent behaviour means that violence on TV should be banned. But Cumberbatch points out that this is a simplistic conclusion and needs an in-depth analysis. There are a number of factors that contribute to media influence although most assume that the problem is simply caused by copying what is shown. One line of thought suggests that watching TV violence leads to disinhibition – where the power of social forces that usually prevent certain actions is reduced. Another argument is that it leads to desensitisation – where people watch so much violence that they are no longer offended by it, the act seems less bad the more people see it. Huesmann and Eron also looked at this, carrying out a longitudinal study over 22 years and watching viewing habits. They found that the more violent TV was watched, the more likely a person was to have committed a violent crime by the age of 30.

It has been shown that there is a lot of violence on TV nowadays. One study by Gerbner et al in1986 found that cartoons had an average of 20 violent acts per hour and in these the aggressor was the good guy. SLT ties in again here, since if it is the good guy that is committing violent acts and children are encouraged to be the good guy rather than the bad guy, then it may lead them to become violent. Sheehan studied middle class children between 5 and 10 years old and found a correlation between a child’s TV viewing and aggressive behaviour He also found that the correlation was stronger for boys than it was for girls. His study is also valid since it is a field study but because it wasn’t controlled a cause and effect relationship couldn’t be found. Parke et al carried out a more controlled study in an institution in 1977 where the amount of TV boys watched could be controlled. Juvenile defenders saw films that either had violent scenes in or didn’t. He found that the boys who saw films with violent scene were more aggressive in the day whilst the boys that didn’t see any violence were noticeably less violent. His also experimented by letting the boys give ‘electric shocks’ to someone (a confederate who wasn’t shocked) who provoked them. He observed that those watching violent films gave more shocks than anyone else. Comstock and Paik, in 1991, carried out a meta-analysis (analysing many studies) of 1000 studies that looked at a link between TV violence and aggression including experiments, surveys and longitudinal studies. They concluded that there was a clear short-term link and a positive correlation for long-term effects, i.e. the more they watched violent things over time, the more aggressive they became over time.

Comstock and Paik suggested 4 ‘dimensions’ that factors of TV violence, which encourage aggression, can be grouped in. Efficacy – when the media portrays aggression as a way of achieving goals. This can also include when a perpetrator goes unpunished and violence is seen as an effective form of action. Normativeness – when violence is shown but the consequences for the victim are unseen. Aggression then appears to have no consequences and can also be justified, e.g. for police. Pertinence – when the perpetrator is seen as in similar circumstances to the one the viewer is experiencing. The action may then appear applicable to their own life. Susceptibility – when the watcher is in an emotional state such as anger or pleasure. The arousal they feel inhibits their ability to analyse properly the situation. Huesmann, Eron and Berkowitz all suggest it is the way the violent information is processed that is important. Neo-associationist analysis is the idea that a thought moves from a node of memory to another node through associative pathways that can lead to action. For instance, seeing a gun can lead to thoughts of shooting.

The other source of media that people fear leads to violence is video games which have become very widespread recently. There are many games, played by both adults and children, in which the player is involved in ‘violence and crime’. The main difference between watching violence on TV and on a video game is that watching it is passive whilst playing it is active. Also, although video games show only abstract violence whilst TV shows real violence, games require more sustained attention and TV less. Studies (by Fisher (1993), Dancaster (1995), Toles (1985) and others) suggest that children can be ‘addicted’ to video games and violent games can lead to desensitisation and isolation.

It is recognised by most psychologists that a large part of how we behave is determined by how we are influenced by the world around us. There is still recognition that ‘Nature’ plays a part in how people behave, but there are few who maintain the position that we behave solely because of genes. We have seen that there are many theories as to how people influence our actions and how this is important when it comes to crime and deviance. It is also important to note the effect that the media, such as TV and games, has within this area of research, since it takes a large part in our social experience. Considering that most accept that we learn by modelling others and experiencing things for ourselves, it is fair to suggest that social factors, and media factors within that, can be questioned as being also partly responsible for criminal as well as violent behaviour. They give an impression to society of what expected behaviour in certain cases is to be like and, as such, almost give people an image to live up to. Therefore it can be argued that social and media factors play a big role in influencing criminals’ behaviour.

Word Count: 2,607 words.

References:

Brain, C. (2002) Advanced Psychology – Applications, Issues and Perspectives. CHELTENHAM: Nelson Thornes Ltd.

Cardwell, M., Clark, L. and Meldrum, C. (2004) Psychology for A2 Level. LONDON: Collins