Social Explanations of Criminal Behaviour

Labelling/Self-fulfilling Prophecy - when something is expected of an indivudal by others it becomes true. 

Labels are mainly based on stereotypes.  A group of people are grouped together out of an interest and they see another group as inferior. This creates a majority (superior group) and a minority (inferior group) negative ideas are usually linked to the inferior group. 

A behaviour is only deviant if society says that it is. By labelling a certain behaviour as deviant, authorities are maintaining their power structure. When a person has been labelled as deviant, they become stigmatised. The label will affect how others treat them and those with negative labels are more likely to have a lower self-image of themselves. They will go on to act in ways that fulfil the label and commit more criminal behaviour. 

Effects of labels/labelling:

1. They can affect an individual's self-concept (how we see ourselves) and lead to SFP.

2. They can affect the way others treat you and lead to SFP.

3. Society may label people according to the way others treat you and lead to SFP. 

Self-fulfilling Prophecy -  a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true due to positive feedback between belief and behaviour.

Prophecy is set + Expectation = Prophecy is fulfilled

The term 'self-fulfilling prophecy' was described in 1948 by Robert Merton to describe 'a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavoiur which makes the originally false conception come true' (Merton 1968:477)

Summary - when a person unknowingly causes a prediction to come true, due to the simple fact that they expect it to come true. 

The Pygmallion Effect: Our actions towards others impact others beliefs about us that then cause others actions towards us which then reinforces our beliefs about ourselves which influences our actions towards others. This circle repeats. 

The self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a prediction about another comes true simply because of the expectation (Flanagan, 2000)

Jahoda (1954) - Males born on Wednesday had a significantly higher arrest rate (22%) than those born on Monday (6%). This is self-fulfilling prophecy as boys born on Mondays are named KWADWO (considered to be mild mannered) whereas boys born on a Wednesday are names KWADKU (considered to be aggressive and short-tempered). This is valid data as it comes from crime records; however, it has not been replicated so this may just be a one off. 

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) - students labelled as bloomers had improved IQ scores and continued to thrive for the next 2 years in comparison to other students in the class. This suggests the 'prophecy' came true because the teachers responded differently to them. This study was well controlled - children were randomly allocated to each condition, however it may be due to teacher's beliefs that they were being observed and felt they needed to act on the information they were given. Also, this was an educational setting rather than crime. 

Chambliss (1973) - found the Roughnecks were more likely to be labelled deviant by the police and were more likely to have legal action taken against them, whilst the Saints were not supporting the fact labelling is part of the power structure. 

Supporting Studies

Jahoda (1954);  Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968);  Chambliss (1973);  Lement (1962)

Other Things

 Strengths - Reliability - supported by pygmalian effect

Weaknesses - Individual Differences - Too deterministic, 'just because you're labelled, you will continue your SFP'

Different Theories

Social Learning Theory (1961, 1963, 1965); Biological Explanations - brain, genetics, amygdala

Application to Real Life

Real life deviance - why people fail at school due to teachers not believing in them so treating them differently - causing them to fulfil this prophecy.

The American National Television Violence Study (1997) - 66% of children's viewing contained physical violence compared with 57% of adult viewing. 

Eron (1995) - estimated that a child entering secondary school will have seen 8,000 murders and 100,000 other violent acts on TV

Social Learning Theory explains criminal behaviour in terms of modelling through: Action, Retention, Reproduction and Motivation

A person needs to be able to observe criminal behaviour directly or indirectly (real life or via media) so it can be remembered and reproduced. According to SLT, criminal behaviour has to be observed in role models already engaged in criminal activity. The theory suggests that antisocial behaviour is modelled and imitated by observers. 

Role Models - people an individual identifies with in some way. 

If the role model is observed doing something antisocial (being aggressive) then this information will be retained by the observer. They will reproduce the behaviour in a similar situation to the one that they observed (if they have the skills and ability to imitate the behaviour). 

The individual observing must be motivated to do this (internal - doing it for the thrill; external - positive or negative reinforcement).  If the role model is praised by their peer group for getting in a fight and gaining status, this behaviour is more likely to be imitated. If someone sees another person stealing and then being admired because they have the latest iPhone, the may copy due to negative reinforcement.. 

Punishment can also apply - if the role model is seen as being punished or having a negative consequence to their actions, the individual is less likely to imitate the behaviour. 

Bandura (1977) - outlined 3 important factors which determine if we decide to imitate:

1. Vicarious Learning - not a direct reward or punishment but how an individual learns by watching others being rewarded or punished.

2. External Motivation - If a criminal act has been acquired through SLT and the behaviour is successful, it is likely to be repeated. 

3. Self-Reinforcement - the self-motivational factors associated with a crime (satisfy an internal need)

Bandura (1961) - children imitated an adult role model hitting a Bobo doll. Boys were more physically aggressive than girls who showed more verbal aggression. Both boys and girls were likely to imitate role models of the same sex as them, however girls were also likely to imitate the male role which may assume that aggression is a male characteristic. 

Anderson & Dill (2000) - to see whether people who played violent games became aggressive. A laboratory experiment was conducted where 210 psychology students were split into 2 groups and asked to either play a violent or non-violent video game. They were told the study was about motor skills (hide the aim of the study and demand characteristics). After playing for a while, they were asked to begin a competive game with an opponent which included a reaction test. The person that pressed the button fastest would give the opponent a blast of loud noise. The winner would be able to choose the volume and duration of the noise inflicted on the opponent. Findings showed that those who gave the longest and loudest blast of noise where from participants who played the violent video game. Also, that women gave greater punishments than men. Conclusion - playing violent video games increased level of aggression in participants (mainly women) and made them think in an aggressive way. Long term use could result in permanent aggressive thought patterns. 

Supporting Studies

Bandura (1961); Bandura (1963); Bandura (1965)

Other Things

Strength - Lab experiments increase reliability (standardised procedure); generalisability; objectivity

Weakness - Ecological validity and task validity (Bandura, Ross and Ross)

Different Theories

Self-fulfilling prophecy and labelling theory; Biological Explanations - genetics, the brain, amygdala

Application to Real Life

Explains criminal behaviour - why people replicate criminal acts