More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing and contrasting criminological theories
Chemical bonding quizlet
Comparing and contrasting criminological theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparing and contrasting criminological theories
In the field of criminology, there are many different theorists who come up with many different theories in an effort to understand and explain why people commit criminal acts and what causes an individual to take place in those criminal acts. Two of these theories are the social learning theory and the bonding theory. The social learning theory was thou up by Ronald Akner. It looks at the mechanisms that influence an individual to either remain involved in delinquency or cause in individual to desist from delinquency. Akner believes that this theory explains the link between social structure and individual behavior. (Walsh & Hemmens 2008 p. 203) Travis Hirschi introduced social bond theory that primarily means that once a bond is broken, one may go to crime. This could be considered a symptom of when someone leaves. …show more content…
For starters, they both typically start with a young adolescent, still figuring out who they are and still learning from those individuals and the components that surround them. Social learning theory deals with children learning from those who are around them and acting based upon what they are seeing day in and day out. It deals with the bonding a young person has to another. As it was touched on earlier, a child learns from the people they have bonded with. If their mother is a good person who does plays a good role model, then the child will most likely grow up to be a good person as well. However, if they mother is a bad influence and does drugs and drinks around her child, then the child will most likely end up doing criminal things as well. Social bonding theory also deals with the bonds a young person might have towards their superiors and people around them. They learn from those they bond to, just as those of social learning theory. However, this theory deals more with when a bond is broken and how that will influence an adolescent to begin a life of criminal
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)
Social behavior responds to a complicated network of rewards and punishments. The more a behavior is rewarded, the more likely it is to continue. On the flip side of this, the more a behavior is met with negative consequences, the more it is likely to stop. In any given social situation, whether someone commits a crime is largely dependent on his past behavior, or whether someone has received a positive reinforcement to a that crime. According to Social Learning Theory, crime is a direct response to this reinforcement. So in other words, if rewards are greater than punishments, the crime will be committed. Social Learning Theory is meant to operate as a general theory of crime.
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
Social learning theory was first developed by Robert L. Burgess and Ronald L Akers in 1966 (Social Learning theory, 2016). In 1973, Akers wrote a book entitled Deviant Behaviour: A Social Learning Approach, which discussed Aker’s conception of the social learning theory. He developed social learning theory by extending Sutherland’s theory of differential association (Cochran & Sellers, 2017). Social learning theory is based on the principles of Pavlov’s operant and classical conditioning. Akers believes that crime is like any other social behavior because it is learned through social interaction (Social Learning theory, 2016). Social learning theory states that the probability of an individual committing a crime or engaging in criminal behaviour is increased when they differentially associate with others who commit criminal behavior (Cochran & Sellers, 2017). Social learning theory is classified as a general theory of crime, and has been used to explain many types of criminal behaviour (Social Learning theory, 2016). Furthermore, social learning theory is one of the most tested contemporary theories of crime. There are four fundamental components of social learning theory; differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement and imitation (Social Learning theory,
Through Social Learning Theory, an individual can be studied based on the behavior acquired by a role model. Verbal conditioning procedures and observation influences the response to an individual’s personality. Environment factors contribute to the Social Learning Theory. Antisocial model is a major contribute to crime, which influences negative characteristics. The Social Leaning Theory has three core social concepts the must be followed: observational learning, intrinsic reinforcement and modeling process.
generalizable to the population because the social bonds solely emphasized on typical white families. However, the psychodynamic theory managed to address the weaknesses of the social bond theory because it’s generalizable towards the population to a greater extent. For instance, psychodynamic theory interventions were tested on the African population in Nigeria who were adolescents from the lower class as these psychodynamic interventions were easy to conduct among populations in order to draw inferences (Taiwo & Osinowo, 2011, pp. 627-629).
The entire theory and sub theories focus on how the social conflict between the upper and lower class has given rise to crime. Meanwhile the Developmental theory is multidimensional since it has more layers and depth to it. The Developmental theory looks at the onset, the continuity, and the termination of a criminal career. The Developmental theory also resembles the game snakes and ladders in that both represent a life journey where the upward progression is complicated by ladders (virtues) and snakes (vices). All in all the morality of the game and that of the Developmental theory is that snakes and ladders rob a player of the chance to take their time and enjoy the game (journey). Another difference aside from the focus is the attitude that both theories undertake. With the Social Conflict theory you get a pessimistic and resign feeling, which makes things seem either black or white with nothing in-between. Individuals either belong to the wealthy or poor. And have to ultimately acknowledge that, “those who hold power will create laws that benefit themselves and keep rivals in check” (p.200). That is why Social Conflict theorist argue that “true crime” is the one done by those in power not by helpless whose crimes receive harsher sanctions. Meanwhile the Developmental theory gives an uncertain attitude in that the propensity for crimes remains fairly constant while the opportunity to commit crimes
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...
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.
Social learning theory is the theory that people learn from other people. That people will learn by what they see, imitate, and model after. For example, if a person who sees drug dealers their entire life will more than likely be a drug dealer themselves. Labeling theory differs in that people are labeled or stereotyped as a deviant person and therefore engage
According to Krohn (1986) bridged together theoretical propositions from the delinquency-enhancing effects of differential association and the delinquency-constraining effects of social bonds, as these interact with social learning and social control. His network theory maintains that the lower the network density in relationship to population density, the weaker the constraints against nonconformity, and the higher rates of
The definition of the social learning theory is People learn through observing others’ behavior, attitudes, and outcomes of those behaviors. “Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” (Learning Theories Knowledgebase ). Most people learn through watching other. As a child, we learn by mocking what we have observed repeatedly. This is how we learn to walk, talk, speak, and to feed ourselves. We also learn social skills from the people around us. We learn right from wrong, we learn what is acceptable in our everyday lives. We also learn societal norms. Most children learn social norms from the family structure. If the family structure is broken or not complete it may cause problems for the children. If the family has only one parent then the family unit suffers. If the child is part of a family that has deviant problems then the child learns that these problems are the norm. This could lead to the child to think that drinking or drugs are normal. It is also a factor if the child observes crime in the family unit. The child learns that crime is normal until they run up against society who states otherwise.
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.