Explanations for Criminal Behaviour (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes

Explanations for Criminal Behaviour

Introduction

Understanding the factors that increase an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal or antisocial behaviour is essential for prevention and intervention. Psychologists examine these behaviours from biological and social perspectives to identify patterns among offending populations.

Whilst 'antisocial' and 'criminal' have distinct meanings, psychologists often use these terms interchangeably. Psychologists analyse individual circumstances to determine what changes may be needed on a case-by-case basis, looking for patterns that are more common among offending populations.

Explanations for antisocial behaviour fall into two main categories: biological factors and social factors. These are not causal factors (factors that definitively make a person act in a criminal or antisocial way) but rather factors that may influence behaviour, making offending more likely.

Biological explanations

The nature-nurture debate

The nature-nurture debate considers whether individuals are predetermined to act in particular ways due to genetics, hormones and other biological factors, or whether external influences shape future behaviour. The 'nature' position suggests that criminal behaviour results from internal factors that are difficult or impossible to change, with genetic influences being key. The 'nurture' argument proposes that individuals engage in criminal behaviour due to external, environmental influences. If genetic influences or biological make-up determine behaviour in a fixed manner, the nature argument suggests individuals may be predetermined to act in specific ways.

This debate is well researched in relation to human behaviour generally. As technology advances and scanning techniques improve, more information about the nature side of criminal behaviour becomes available.

Brain injury

Damage to the brain resulting from illness or injury may lead to offending behaviour. Traumatic brain injury occurs directly from trauma to the brain, such as involvement in a car accident, falls, head injuries or assaults. Brain injury can also result from long-term alcohol or drug use. Alcohol has toxic effects on the central nervous system (CNS) and interferes with vitamin B1 (thiamine) absorption, an important brain nutrient. Impaired balance and decision-making from alcohol consumption contributes to falls and accidents that injure the brain.

The consequences of brain injury depend on which area is damaged, as different brain regions control different skills. An individual's personality may change following brain injury, or they may begin behaving atypically. Some behaviours people engage in can be reckless or involve aggression towards others. For instance, amygdala injury may increase impulsive behaviours, irritability and aggression.

Evaluation of brain injury explanations

Kreutzer et al. (1991) could not prove or disprove a cause and effect relationship between traumatic brain injury and violence. In their investigation of 74 patients, they found that 20 per cent had been arrested pre-injury and 10 per cent post-injury. Most arrests occurred after alcohol or drug use. The study concluded that criminal behaviour might result from post-injury changes, including poor judgement. Substance abuse, traumatic brain injury and crime were interconnected, they said, but they did not conclude that brain injury causes criminality and violence. Rather, they believed that substance abuse, most common among those younger than 35 years, led to legal difficulties and traumatic brain injury. Following further research, Kreutzer et al. (1995) concluded that without a substance use history, traumatic brain injury was not a risk factor for criminal behaviour.

Amygdala

As noted previously, the amygdala may become damaged from brain injury. The amygdala is an important brain structure for human behaviour. As it controls human emotions, damage to this area can result in a person presenting as unemotional or reacting excessively to emotions they cannot reduce. Evidence using brain scanning techniques suggests that the brain of a psychopath (a personality disorder affecting how a person interacts with others) works quite differently from that of a non-psychopath. Smaller amygdalae have been found among individuals diagnosed with psychopathic personalities and those with higher aggression levels (Pardini et al., 2014). It was noted that such behaviours were evident from childhood. The conclusion from their study was that individuals with smaller amygdalae were three times more likely than those with larger amygdalae to exhibit aggression, violence and psychopathic features three years later. They therefore suggest that amygdala size can predict future violence.

Sham rage

In 1925, Cannon and Britton introduced the term 'sham rage' to describe an emotional state found in animals. They severed neural connections to the cortex of cats, creating 'decorticate cats'. The decorticate cats, when provoked, exhibited emotional behaviour normally associated with rage and aggression, such as erect hair, growling and teeth baring.

They called the behaviour 'sham rage' as it occurred without cognitive influence or inhibitory control of the cerebral cortex. After much research, the source of rage is now understood to come from the temporal region, specifically the amygdala. When this area was ablated (removed or destroyed), the animals became much more placid; if stimulated, aggression would be displayed. This has led to acceptance that the amygdala plays an important role in hostile behaviour production.

Raine study

Adrian Raine has dedicated his career to examining the brain structure of offenders. One well-known study conducted with colleagues in 1997 found substantial differences in the brain structure of murderers and control participants. They particularly noticed differences in amygdala functioning within the two populations.

Wider issues and debates: Reductionism

XYY syndrome

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, giving a total of 46 chromosomes. At conception, the embryo receives 23 chromosomes from the mother's egg and 23 chromosomes from the father's sperm. Pairs 1 to 22 are identical or nearly identical; the 23rd pair consists of the sex chromosomes, which are either X or Y. An XX pair will result in a baby being female, and an XY will result in a male.

XYY syndrome is a genetic condition that occurs when a human male has an extra male (Y) chromosome within the 23rd pair of chromosomes, instead of the usual two (XY). They therefore have a total of 47 chromosomes. This occurs in 1 in 1,000 male births. It is not an inherited condition, but occurs randomly at conception.

Many men with XYY do not even know they have an extra chromosome. Most boys with XYY have normal development, although some may grow faster and taller than usual. Some studies have shown they may have a slightly lower level of intelligence, although still within the normal range, and some may have behaviour problems and be easily distracted.

XYY syndrome has previously been thought to make men overly aggressive and lack empathy, leading to it being known as a 'super-male' syndrome.

Evaluation of XYY syndrome

Theilgaard's study shows a small presence of XYY men among a criminal population. This suggests that it cannot be the only reason for criminal behaviour among men. Other factors must also contribute to male criminality or we would expect the rate of XYY to be 100 per cent. She found that men with XYY are likely to have lower levels of intelligence. The higher than expected number of XYY men in the offender population, therefore, may be a consequence of the learning difficulties associated with the condition, rather than XYY itself.

Wider issues and debates: Psychology as a science

Some studies have shown slight evidence of a connection (for example Theilgaard, 1984, investigated the presence of XYY in the general population), but there remains much controversy about the accuracy of the argument linking XYY and aggression. Theilgaard herself attributed the aggression to lower levels of intelligence and slower learning, rather than being due to the presence of XYY syndrome.

Other genetic explanations for criminality

There are a number of other explanations that can be used to explain aggressive behaviour or criminality, involving the influence of genetics and the environment on the individual. Twin studies are an effective way to attempt to separate these influences because of the similarities in genetic information among twins.

Twin studies: Monozygotic twins (MZ) share all of their genetic information whilst dizygotic twins (DZ) share 50 per cent. If MZ twins are more alike in terms of aggressive behaviour than DZ twins, then this is likely to be due to genes rather than environment. Slutske et al. (1997) have shown there is some higher incidence of conduct disorder in twins when compared to singletons.

Adoption studies: One problem when studying twins is that twins will often be brought up together in a similar way, so it is hard to say whether the concordance rates are caused by genetic or environmental factors. Adoption studies help to determine if a change in environment results in the same behaviours. If this happens, it would suggest the behaviour is due to genetics. In 1997, Hutchings and Mednick studied male adoptees and discovered that 85.7 per cent of males with a criminal or minor offences record had a birth father with a criminal record. They also noted that young male adoptees without a criminal record had a criminal father 31.1 per cent of the time. This suggests a link between criminal behaviour and genetics.

Wider issues and debates: Nature-nurture

Comparing concordance rates between monozygotic and dizygotic twins who share the same environment indicates whether a behavioural characteristic, such as criminality, is due to nature or nurture.

If the concordance rate between MZ and DZ twins is the same for criminality, meaning they commit the same amount of crime as their twin, it would indicate that criminality is due to nurture. However, if the concordance rate is higher for MZ than DZ twins, it would suggest a genetic influence (nature).

Adoption studies provide an opportunity to explore the influence of nature and nurture on the behaviour of twins as they are raised separately.

Personality

Our personality makes us who we are as individuals. It explains our interests, how we interact with others and our overall outlook on life. Hans Eysenck has looked extensively at the personality traits of an individual; the enduring characteristics that make us who we are and influence our decisions and behaviour. He examined the dimensions of extraversion (E) and introversion (I), neuroticism (N) and stability (S), and psychoticism (P). He argued that the differences in people's personalities could be reduced to these dimensions, which related to the underlying functioning of the individual's nervous system. He also suggested that the three characteristics of psychoticism (P), extraversion (E) and neuroticism (N), which he thought were influenced by our biology, could explain criminality. He described this as the PEN personality.

Eysenck (1990) proposed the arousal theory to explain the causal roots of the three dimensions of personality. He explained extraversion in terms of cortical arousal via the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) within the brain. Activity in the ARAS stimulates the cerebral cortex, which in turn leads to higher cortical arousal. Introverts are characterised by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are more cortically aroused than extraverts. This means that introverts require less external stimulation or arousal, explaining why they are less outgoing and risk-taking. Extraverts, on the other hand, are characterised by underactive ARAS, so require greater amounts of external stimulation.

Eysenck also explained neuroticism in terms of activation thresholds in the sympathetic nervous system (limbic system). This includes the hippocampus, amygdala and hypothalamus, and is where emotional states such as fear and aggression are regulated. It is responsible for the fight-or-flight response in the face of danger. Neurotic individuals have greater activation levels and lower thresholds within the limbic system. They are easily upset in the face of very minor stresses. However, emotionally stable people are calm under such stresses because they have lesser activation levels and higher thresholds.

Eysenck provided a biological explanation for the personality trait of psychoticism in terms of hormones such as testosterone and enzymes such as monoamine oxidase (MAO). Although there has not been a great deal of research done on psychoticism in comparison with extraversion and neuroticism, the current research shows that people who show a psychotic episode have increased testosterone levels and low MAO levels.

Evaluation of personality explanations

A number of studies have supported aspects of Eysenck's theory and found individuals who reported higher levels of delinquency also scored higher on P, E and N. However, studies of 'official' delinquency, such as comparing convicted offenders with non-offenders, do not produce such consistent findings.

Rushton and Chrisjohn (1981) investigated delinquent, rather than criminal behaviour. Their study showed clear support for a relationship between high delinquency scores and high scores on both extraversion and psychoticism. They did not, however, find support for a relationship between delinquency scores and the dimension of neuroticism, leading them to suggest there are key differences between the three personality dimensions.

Boduszek et al. (2013) investigated personality traits in predicting violent offending within a sample of recidivistic (repeat offending) inmates from a high-security prison in Ireland. They found that higher levels of extraversion predicted a greater probability of committing a violent criminal act. In contrast, Farrington et al. (1982) has shown that E scores are less associated with criminal convictions than the other two personality traits.

Individual differences: Personality theories of criminality

Personality theories of criminality highlight the role of individual variation in the development of criminality or aggression. These variations are measured using psychometric tests, such as the personality tests used to measure extraversion. Not all individuals who display extraversion, psychoticism and neuroticism become criminals. They may be more likely to engage in high-risk sports or stressful, high-risk business ventures. Their interests may therefore be linked to their personality traits.

This demonstrates that individuals might have the same personality traits but their outward personalities may differ substantially.

Personality disorders

A personality disorder (PD) is when an individual's way of thinking, feeling or relating to others differs substantially from that of a person without a personality disorder. A PD is a clinical diagnosis. It reflects extremes in people's personalities. PD can be diagnosed through official classifications such as Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). These provide clear guidance for professionals to follow to ensure consistency in the diagnosis given to people with the same symptoms. Psychopathy is a personality disorder. Others include the following:

• Narcissistic: a need to be admired, thinks they are the most important and will exploit others to get what they want.
• Antisocial: often aggressive, ignore rules and does not care about others.
• Paranoid: distrust of others, suspicious, takes criticism very personally and can bear grudges.

Michael Stone (2007) undertook research to examine the relationship between certain PDs and violent crime. Using personal interviews and examining media reports of offenders convicted of such offences, he was able to assess the offenders to determine if they had a PD. He made the following findings:

• Antisocial and paranoid PDs are the most common PDs among violent offenders.
• Psychopathy was also common.
• Narcissistic traits were high though not all were severe enough to receive a diagnosis of narcissistic PD.
• Instrumental (as opposed to impulsive) murderers who killed their partners were strongly associated with narcissistic PD.
• Men committing serial sexual homicide usually show psychopathy.
• Mass murderers usually show strong paranoid traits.
• Many had more than one PD.

Evaluation of personality disorder explanations

Eysenck's explanation of personality is somewhat simplistic and fails to consider that a person's reactions or behaviour may differ depending on the situation. It does not consider the potential for biological issues such as brain injury, or contributing factors such as why an individual may be more extravert and less inhibited, or social explanations for criminality.

Personality explanations suggest that a person's personality does not change, and therefore may suggest that their behaviour cannot change. Most personality types are consistent over time, but individuals may learn techniques to manage parts of their behaviour that cause them or other people difficulties. Many people are not fully aware of their own personality traits, although they can be quite accurate in describing themselves.

Some studies have shown personality to be a contributory factor, rather than a causal factor, for aggression. Such studies also tend to give consideration to social or biological factors. These studies help to place an importance on personality, but within the context of wider influences. These studies are therefore supportive of other research that has attempted to explain criminality from alternative perspectives.

Personality disorders can sometimes be mistaken for symptoms of specific mental illness and vice versa. It is therefore important that a professional assesses personality to make sure the person can be given the correct support to manage the behaviours they present.

Taking it further: Career pathways for psychopaths

Identification and diagnosis of personality disorders is quite complex. Determining whether an offender has a PD often involves many hours of interviewing. The diagnostic tools used for this task are therefore heavily reliant on self-report information. What difficulties would this present to psychologists in terms of the reliability of their findings?

There has been recent interest in the career pathway of psychopaths, as not everyone with psychopathic traits go on to become criminals. Using the work of Babiak and Hare (2006) research the possible career choices that people with the characteristics of a psychopath may have. For example, consider which careers may be most suited to someone who experiences little fear, or likes to have high levels of stimulation in their work.

Neurotransmitters

An alternative biological explanation looks at the functioning of the brain, specifically the presence of neurotransmitters and their influence on behaviour. Neurotransmitters are chemicals that trigger a response in the brain. Examples include serotonin and dopamine, which are each thought to influence aggression in different ways.

Serotonin is considered to be the body's natural 'happy chemical'. It helps to relay messages from one part of the brain to another and can help to regulate mood. Low levels of serotonin can be linked with increased aggression. Serotonin also plays a role in inhibiting impulses, other than aggressive ones. It is therefore believed that serotonin can inhibit our impulsive response to stimuli, so low levels of serotonin may result in an over-reaction in emotional situations, which may include aggression.

Dopamine plays a key role in learning and in the brain's reward system. It is produced in response to rewarding stimuli such as food, sex and certain drugs. Couppis and Kennedy (1997) found that an increase in dopamine levels through the use of amphetamines was associated with an increase in aggressive behaviour, suggesting that higher levels of dopamine correlate with higher levels of aggression. Dopamine has also been shown to serve as positive reinforcement for aggression, that is, being aggressive generates increased dopamine in the brain, which activates the brain's reward system.

Evaluation of neurotransmitter explanations

Evidence for the role of neurotransmitters in aggression comes from correlation studies that suggest a link between serotonin and dopamine and aggression. Cleare and Bond (1997) found that even in males with no history of psychiatric problems, low serotonin levels correlated with levels of aggression and hostility. Couppis and Kennedy (2008) found that dopamine levels in mice would increase and act as a reward during an aggressive act. This could mean that the increased levels of dopamine are not a cause of aggression but a consequence of it.

Wider issues and debates: Psychology as a science

Hormones

Testosterone is a male hormone. Women produce some testosterone, but in much lower quantities than men. Elevated levels of testosterone are associated with higher levels of aggression. The age at which men are most likely to be involved in violence is between the ages of 15 and 25. It may be more than coincidence that this is also the time when men have the highest levels of testosterone. Studies have shown that individuals using anabolic steroids (synthetic variants of testosterone) are more likely to engage in violent acts (Beaver et al., 2008). As the use of steroids elevates the presence of testosterone in the body, this further supports the relationship between testosterone and aggression.

Dabbs et al. (1995) took saliva samples of adult male prisoners to test levels of testosterone. They found that those with the higher levels of testosterone had a history of violent crime, whereas those with low levels of testosterone had committed only non-violent crimes. They also found that individuals with higher testosterone levels were more likely to be involved in direct confrontations with others while in prison and were more likely to break prison rules.

Castration is a process that substantially reduces the production of testosterone. Animal studies have documented a reduction in aggressive behaviour in animals following castration. Albert et al. (1986) found this among rats, and also noted that there were fewer attempts to display social dominance among the rats that had been castrated.

Wider issues and debates: The use of psychological knowledge in society

Evaluation of hormone explanations

Males who use anabolic steroids, which are known to increase levels of testosterone, are more likely to be involved in violent crime (Skårberg, 2010). In 11 studies examining the relationship between blood and saliva testosterone levels and involvement in criminal activity, all 11 showed a positive but modest correlation in testosterone-related offences (Ellis, 2000). A study into domestic violence found that male offenders had higher levels of saliva testosterone than males with no domestic violence history (Soler et al., 2000). Elevated levels of testosterone, however, may be as much a result of violence as they are a contributor. Thus the cause and effect relationship cannot be fully established.

Developmental psychology

The biological approach provides multiple explanations for criminality, all of which result in individuals developing differently to others. XYY chromosomes inherited at conception cannot be changed and, from the outset, result in potentially differing development. Other biological explanations are the result of changes since birth, such as acquiring a brain injury, including damage to the amygdala. Throughout our lives, we are subject to hormones or neurotransmitters, the proportion of which can also result in individual differences in behaviour. This is particularly true for testosterone, which seems to have a greater influence on aggressive behaviour in adolescence and early adulthood stages.

Social explanations

Social explanations of crime cover the 'nurture' element of the 'nature-nurture' debate, suggesting that as individuals, we are influenced by factors around us, making us who we are. In the context of criminal behaviour, the nurture argument would suggest we are influenced by what we observe in the world around us, including the people and other influences to whom we are exposed, and it is these influences that steer us either towards or away from criminal behaviour.

Labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy

Social explanations in relation to criminality include labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy. Labelling occurs when general and broad terms are used to describe members of a group. This often happens when a group of people, who are grouped together by a shared interest or characteristic, see another group as inferior. This creates a majority (superior) group and a minority (inferior) group. As 'inferior' group suggests, the description often has negative connotations. Labels are often based on stereotypes (overgeneralised beliefs about someone or something typically based on limited information). Once a label has been ascribed to an individual or group of people, they may be treated according to that label.

Developmental psychology: Self-fulfilling prophecy

The self-fulfilling prophecy helps to explain the development of some individuals because it is more likely that a label will be assigned and subsequently internalised as a young person is forming their own sense of identity. At this point in development, there is a greater vulnerability to the internalisation of others' beliefs about them.

The stereotype of groups of youths acting in an antisocial way has received attention following the riots that occurred in London, Manchester, Birmingham and other areas of the UK in the summer of 2011. The young age of some of those involved dominated media reports, and any youth in the area faced suspicion. In reality, there were many other people involved in the riots, not just young people. A stereotype can influence our attitudes towards the other person or group, resulting in prejudice (dislike or unfair behaviour based on false or misguided opinion). If behaviour changes to the other group as a result of the stereotype, this is known as discrimination (the practice of treating one person or group differently from another in an unfair way).

Evaluation of self-fulfilling prophecy

The Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968 study was well controlled and helpful in explaining learning processes, but it has a number of substantial issues. It was an unethical study as it allowed some students to receive less attention than others, interfering with their education. Additionally, the teachers were deceived about details within the study. While this study is not related to criminal behaviour, it demonstrates how individuals internalise the expectations of those around them.

Jahoda (1954) provided support for the self-fulfilling prophecy and the application of labels to children in relation to antisocial behaviour. He studied the Ashanti people from Ghana, who name boys according to the day they were born. The Ashanti have expectations for the personality of the boys born on each day. For example, 'Monday' boys are considered quiet and placid, and 'Wednesday' boys are thought to be aggressive and short-tempered. After examining five years of records at a local juvenile court, Jahoda found that nearly 22 per cent of violent offences were committed by boys born on Wednesday, but only 6.9 per cent by boys born on Monday. This suggested to him that cultural expectations about the boys' natures and their explicit labels led to them being treated differently according to their day of birth (for example, the boys born on Wednesday would have been treated with greater suspicion). As a result, many have conformed to the label set by their own namesake.

Madon et al. (2004) examined self-fulfilling prophecy in a natural situation within the family home. They investigated whether parents' expectations about their child's alcohol use had any self-fulfilling effect on that child's future drinking behaviour. She found that there was a positive correlation between parents who overestimated their child's alcohol use and actual alcohol use a year later. Those children whose parents expected them to drink more alcohol did actually drink more when re-interviewed the following year. The study showed that there was a greater influence on the child's drinking behaviour when both parents overestimated their child's alcohol use. If both parents expected their child to drink alcohol, the child was more likely to do so. They did not find a similar substantial difference in outcome when either one or both parents underestimated their child's alcohol use. This suggests that negative self-fulfilling prophecies may have a greater effect on behaviour than positive ones.

The ethical and moral issues surrounding research into self-fulfilling prophecy and antisocial behaviour are so great that it prevents experiments in this area. This will make it unlikely that self-fulfilling prophecy as a cause of antisocial behaviour can be proven (or disproven). As a result, it is only possible to suggest a correlation between self-fulfilling prophecy and antisocial behaviour. There may be other variables influencing the behaviour of the individual in these cases.

Much of the research into the self-fulfilling prophecy has been in education, investigating the teacher-child relationship. Other relationships may not have the same effect. This makes the application of self-fulfilling prophecy to other behaviours, such as criminality, limited. It is also very difficult to study self-fulfilling prophecy because it is by definition a false belief. Beliefs are often studied using self-report measures, which rely on individual insight, self-disclosure and honesty.

All research undertaken demonstrates a correlation between antisocial behaviour and self-fulfilling prophecy. This link cannot be accepted as a causal link as other variables may also influence behaviour, including biological factors. Self-fulfilling prophecy fails to account for other factors that may influence an individual's behaviour. It excludes peer pressure, politics, biological factors and social or economic circumstances. These other variables may also increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in antisocial behaviour.

Self-fulfilling prophecy does not take into account how an individual learns the antisocial behaviour they are expected to carry out. An alternative theory to explain crime is that of social learning theory, which does consider the influence of observing antisocial behaviour on the individual. This suggests that the self-fulfilling prophecy explanation cannot be the only social explanation for such behaviour, and that other factors must also be present in order for an individual to engage in such behaviour.

Wider issues and debates: Nature-nurture

Social learning theory

Social learning theory is a social-cognitive theory that explains criminal behaviour as being the result of modelling such behaviour from observing it via the media or watching other people.

An individual cannot learn offending behaviour via social learning theory without observing someone commit a crime, either directly such as a peer or indirectly through watching crime-related television programmes. The individual must be motivated to reproduce the observed behaviour, which occurs as a result of vicarious (learning through the consequence of another person's behaviour) or self-reinforcement. If an individual watches a criminal getting away with an offence or reaping the rewards, this may act as vicarious reinforcement for the observer. On television, antisocial behaviour and criminality are often glamorised and violence can be committed by 'good guys'. These role models may provide vicarious reinforcement, particularly in the absence of punishment and with only the sanitised effects on the victims shown. Social learning theory highlights the importance of the cognitive thinking processes of a person; someone may choose not to commit a crime immediately after observing it; the behaviour can happen much later. If news or crime programmes document some of the negative consequences of committing an offence, this may work towards encouraging an individual not to try the offence to seek a positive outcome.

Exam tip

Developmental psychology: Social learning theory

Social learning theory is a developmental theory of criminality because it is concerned with the acquisition of antisocial behaviour (in addition to other behaviours) as part of the process of socialisation that occurs in childhood, adolescence and early adulthood. It does not pinpoint a particular age-related change associated with criminality, but describes how the values of a society or culture are internalised as a product of how someone is raised. During our development, we achieve or acquire various abilities at certain ages, such as levels of reasoning and morality. As children develop, exposure to aggressive or antisocial role models can affect how children internalise these behaviours. A persistent exposure to antisocial role models may have an accumulative effect throughout development.

Evaluation of social learning theory

The possibility of finding direct evidence for the role of social learning and antisocial behaviour in actual families is virtually impossible. Research in this area has therefore concentrated on the influence of violent media on aggressive behaviour. Studies into violent media and aggression have adopted a range of research methods to investigate its effects. Tannis MacBeth Williams (1986) used a natural experiment to investigate the introduction of television to a small community in British Columbia, Canada. Of the 16 young people that she studied, she found that after only two years of receiving television, these children were twice as aggressive as control groups studied in nearby communities who had been brought up with television in varying amounts. This might offer some evidence for social learning theory as an explanation of criminality, although Williams herself suggested that increased aggression was more likely to be a result of the increased value placed on materialistic lifestyles than the violence that they were exposed to in television programmes.

Correlations have also been conducted to establish whether there is a relationship between watching violent media and aggressive behaviour. In a meta-analysis (a research method where a researcher examines the results of several previous studies rather than conducting new research with participants) of over 200 studies, Comstock and Paik (1994) concluded that many reported a positive correlation between television violence viewed and aggressive measures of behaviour recorded, with an overall correlation coefficient of +0.19. This correlation is not particularly strong, and is substantially affected by the large sample sizes used in some of the studies. These studies which tend to make findings appear more substantial than they are not. It is also worth considering that correlations only show relationships between measured variables, therefore do not establish causality, measure other variables that could have an effect on aggression nor indicate the direction of possible causality; it could be that aggressive children seek out and prefer violent programmes.

Experimental evidence for social learning theory and aggression has focused on the behaviour and play of children following exposure to aggression (for example Bandura, 1961, 1963, 1965). Bandura found that children were more likely to copy aggressive acts if motivated vicariously by what would be regarded as a role model. This was particularly noted for boys. However, it can be argued that children are naive individuals and therefore do not fully appreciate the consequences of their behaviour. We therefore need to be cautious in applying the findings of child experiments to the decision making of non-naive adults. Experimental evidence can also be criticised for examining the short-term effects of exposure to aggressive role models as the long-term effects have not been established. Although a child may imitate the behaviour of an aggressive television character the next day at school, it is unlikely that they will grow up and continue to display aggression as a result.

Social learning theory maintains that behaviour is not copied if a negative consequence for the criminal is observed. The high number of repeat offenders is not supported by this theory. Repeat offending may be better explained by the frustration-aggression theory in which frustration at not being able to achieve a goal is likely to result in aggression.

What we can conclude from the research into social learning theory and antisocial behaviour is that there is no convincing evidence that criminality is a result of observational learning, particularly as a result of observing violent media. Despite a phenomenal amount of research conducted using a range of research methods, there is no unequivocal evidence that links exposure to violence with aggression or antisocial behaviour. All the research indicates is that the relationship between exposure to violence and aggression is neither simple nor straightforward.

Wider issues and debates: Comparisons between ways of explaining behaviour using different themes

Taking it further

Conduct your own Internet search for evidence for social learning theory and criminality. There are many studies that investigate the influence of media violence and antisocial behaviour using a variety of research methods, such as cross-sectional, longitudinal studies, laboratory, field and natural experiments, observations and surveys. Consider the weaknesses of these research methods and apply this knowledge to criticising the conclusions drawn from such research.

Remember!