Theoretical Analysis of Beware the Slenderman Throughout the years, criminological theories have been shown to explain an individual’s criminal behavior. These theories are generally conducted methodically, and over time, theorists have conducted research studies, which then try to prove their findings. The film Beware the Slenderman will be connected to two criminological theories, which will analyze and explain how the theories correlate to the film. The two theories connected to the film Beware the Slenderman are the differential identification theory and Hirschi’s social bonding theory. Hirschi’s social bonding theory and the differential identification theory are connected to the film because both theories discuss how an individual may …show more content…
190). For example, the element of attachment suggests that if there is a bond between an individual and their loved ones, there is a likelihood that the individual will not get involved in criminal activities (Tibbetts & Piquero, 2021, p. 190). Hirschi also proposed that if an individual does not create a healthy attachment at an early age, then there is a probability that “acting inappropriately increases” (Tibbetts & Piquero, 2021, p. 190). The other three elements of the social bonding theory also suggest that an individual who creates a strong connection with one or more elements has a higher likelihood of avoiding criminal deviance. Subsequently, Hirschi’s social bonding theory developed criticism; for example, studies that were conducted on the element of attachment have found that if an individual has an attachment to “delinquent peers, it is a strong predictor of criminal activity” (Tibbetts & Piquero, 2021, p. 191). On the other hand, some evidence proves that Hirschi’s social bonding theory explains why an individual may begin to offend rather than avoid criminal …show more content…
In a case study that was conducted in Turkey, it was found that “good” friends decrease deviant behaviors, whereas delinquent friends increase deviant behaviors (zbay & zcan, 2008). The research that was conducted concluded that if an individual is supervised by their family, they have a higher likelihood of parental indirect control (zbay & zcan, 2008). But if we refer back to Weier and Gyser’s case, they both had parental supervision, but the girls both suffered from a mental illness and their belief that “Slenderman” would hurt their families if they did not kill their Leutner. In another study conducted, Table 2 gives explanations of why juvenile delinquents commit crimes. In this instance, many juveniles commit crimes because they lack conformity and do not have any form of respect for the law because they believe that there is nothing left for them to look up to (Heide, 2020). The study consisted of individuals who were interviewed, and 40% of them were white (Heide,
The two theories that are being analyzed in this paper are Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory. Hirschi's social bonding theory is one of many control theories which all take on the task of explaining the core cause of crime; however, this particular theory seems to be the most popular and able to stand the test of time. The Social Bond theory contains four elements that explain what criminals lack that causes them to be more prone to illegal activity, these elements are attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. On the other end of the spectrum is Akers’ Social Learning Theory, which attempts to explain the correlation between and individual's social environment and their behavior depending on what is praised or punished in an individual's specific social organization. (Walsh & Hemmens)
Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Referring to the contact an individual must have with proponents of criminal behavior; this principle suggests that there is a varying, but direct, relationship that affects how often, for what length of time, how important, and how intense deviant behavior
The two theories I have decided to merge are Agnew’s General Strain Theory and Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory. I picked General Strain Theory because it does a good job at discussing some of the things that can trigger the release of a person’s negative emotions which in turn may lead to deviant behavior. I also decided to write about Social Bond Theory because it describes some of the factors that keep people from committing crime. Both of the theories have strengths and weaknesses individually, but when merged they help fill in each other’s gaps. (Agnew, 2011; Hirschi, 2011) +1 (888) 295-7904
The Social Bond Theory is concerned with the functions that social relationships play in people’s lives and the bonds they develop with others and institutions to avoid criminal behavior (Walsh 81). There are four elements to the Social Bond Theory. The first is attachment. This is the emotional bond that is developed with social environments and individuals like your family, friends, and school. Attachment leads people to feel they are appreciated, accepted, and loved.
One possible explanation for criminal behavior within society is Travis Hirschi’s theory of social bonding. Instead of asking “who commits crime?” he believes we should be asking “who doesn’t commit crime?” In his theory, Hirschi explains that all people naturally break laws and, therefore, everyone is equally prone to do bad things.
Brogaard, Berit. "The Making of a Serial Killer." Psychology Today. Sussex Directories, Inc., 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 03 May 2014.
High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that individuals commit crime through their association with or exposure to others. According to Akers, people learn how to be offenders based on their observations around them and their association with peers. Theorist Akers states that for one, “people can become involved in crime through imitation—that is by modeling criminal conduct. Second, and most significant, Akers contended that definition and imitation are most instrumental in determining initial forays into crime” (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 2011:57). Although Akers’ theory has been linked to juvenile delinquency in the past, it has also been tested as a possible cause of crime overall. Individuals learn from observation that criminal behavior is justifiable in certain circumstances. In connection with juvenile delinquency and crime, peers and intimate groups have the most effect on individuals when associated with criminal behavior. One is more likely to mimic the behavior of someone who they have close ties with, whether the behavior is justifiable or...
This paper explores three criminological theories as to why Jeffrey Dahmer committed his crimes. Although these approaches vary in terms of defining the cause of crime, one thing is certain, there is no single cause of crime; the crime is rooted in a diversity of causes and takes a variety of forms depending on the situation in which the crimes occur. However, the published articles vary in their definitions and uses of Criminological Theory. Rawlins (2005) suggest that the criminal phenomenon is too complex to be explained by a single theory. Other theories suggest differently and; therefore, have varying explanations. This paper examines the Psychological, Biochemical, and Social Process theories to slightly explain Jeffrey Dahmer’s actions.
In criminology, researchers have constantly tried to explain why people commit crime and engage in juvenile delinquency. Many theories have emerged for over a century about why people commit these deviant behaviors. Macro-level theories focus on social structures and the effects of those structures on the human behavior. Basically, macro-level theories explains aggregate crime. Micro-level theories focuses on individuals and their interactions with various groups of people. For example, the relationship between family members, friends, and groups, that individuals interact with every-day, which explains individual criminal behavior. These interactions affect their attitudes, beliefs, and what seems normal for people. One of the most interesting theories that that tries to explain this, is Hirschi’s social bonding theory, which is based on how crime is the result of weakened bonds to society and is considered a micro-level theory.
An integrated theory is a combination of 2 or 3 theories that offers many explanations on why crime is occurring, compared to a traditional criminal theory that just focus on one type of aspect (Lilly et al.2010). The purpose of integrated theories is to help explain many aspects into what causes criminal behavior and why one becomes delinquent. From this an argument arises can integrated theories be used to explain all criminal behavior. Integrated theories are successful in explaining certain aspects of crime on what causes one to become deviant; however one theory alone cannot explain why an individual engages in crime. This paper will examine three integrated theories and look in-depth how these theories can explain different aspects on why criminal behavior occurs and the weakness of each theory. The three integrated theories that will be discussed in this paper are Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity theory, Robert Agnew General Strain theory, and lastly Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond theory.
Travis Hirschi presented a social bonding theory in 1969. The main idea of the social bonding theory is that each and every individual has a drive to act in selfish and even aggressive ways that might possibly lead to criminal behavior. Social bonding theory is somewhat have similarities with the Durkheim theory that “we are all animals, and thus naturally capable of committing criminal acts” (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 162). However, the stronger a person is bonded to the conventional society, for example, family, schools, communities, the less prone a person is to be involved in criminal activity. The great example of this would be the serial killer Nannie Doss. Since early age she did not have any bonds either to her family with an abusive father or to community she lived in. Most of the time during her childhood she was isolated from any social interactions with her schoolmates or friends.
The theory can be tested and it gives explanations for reducing crime. This theory does not mention the negative attachments, involvements, commitments, or beliefs that one may have. The theory could be extended a step further to looking negative impacts of the four elements to examine if they impact the chances of individuals committing more crimes. Social bond theory is applied to minor offenses; this theory would be more efficient if it would be applied to all offenses (Brown, Esbensen, and Geis, 2013).
In conclusion, Social Bond Theory has been around for many years and has stood the test of time. The four bonds, attachment, involvement, commitment and belief are all held by individuals and play a major part in determining criminality. While it does not describe deviance perfectly, it does match what is believed to be the basic human view of why people become criminals. The view of Social Bond Theory is that all humans are basically evil and that deviance is a natural process. It is just a matter of how weak or strong these bonds are that either promotes, or deters deviance.
This theory is also known as social bond theory because it elaborates that instead of some natural inclinations toward crime, the individuals are deter from committing criminal activities due to strong social bonds. However, if the social bond of an individual is weak, the probability of involvement in a crime of increases. It is analysed from the research study of Warkentin and Willison (2009) that as per this theory individuals have natural tendency towards committing crimes if there are no social bonds. Moreover, it is also noticed that social bonds have positive influence on the reduction of criminal behaviour. This means that criminal activities within organisation can be controlled by emphasising on social bonds. The inhibitors of unwanted behaviour are divided into four types, which include belief, commitment, attachment, and
A finding that emerges very strongly and consistently is that delinquents have very poor relationships with their parents” (Gove 303-304). The teens who commit crimes often lack a parental figure in their lives. These teens are not strictly overseen by their parents, and their parents rarely know what they are up to or what they are doing (Gove 303). “Poor parent-child relationships, lack of parental control, and erratic behavior of parents could be a product of juvenile misbehavior and the juvenile’s hostility towards his or her parents” (Gove 304). Teens that do not have a close relationship with their parents often resort to delinquency as a form of resentment. “The family as an institution plays a critical role in the socialization of children; as a consequence, parents presumably play a critical role in whether their children misbehave” (Gove 315). Parents play the biggest role in a child’s life because the parents have been with the child since birth. Parents shape, mold, and provide the foundation that a teen needs to make hard decisions and to live by a good m...