Criminal Behavior Conditioning Essays

Criminal Behavior Conditioning Essays Criminal Behavior Conditioning Essay Criminal Behavior Conditioning Essay Dr. Terrie Moffitt provides consent to the detection and early intervention concept for developmental/behavioral issues. Since 1993, Dr. Moffitt has focused on two youth types- both developmental in nature- that lead to delinquency. Dr. Moffitt defined these problematic individuals as either life-course-persistent (LCP) offenders, or adolescent-limited (AL) offenders. Where the AL offenders exhibit shorter cycles of delinquency that begin and usually end within his/her adolescent years, the LCP offenders begin at much earlier age and continues into the adolescent years. Researchers agreed with Dr. Moffitt that high-risk youth can be identified at an early age with great accuracy (Dodge Pettit, 2003; Hill, Lochman, Coie, Greenberg, 2004; Lochman Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1995). But an important factor to note, is that they begin to parallel influence/cause during his/her adolescent years of delinquency. It is not enough to simply review statistics or parental accounts because it may confuse anyone trying to identify the two types of offenders (Moffitt, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, Stanton, 1996). Since Dr. Moffitt first standardized her developmental theory, she also brought forth the significance of many different but interwoven variables including: genetics, social pressure, observation, and parental nurturing (Moffitt et al, 1993, 1996; Moffitt, 1995, 2005). Another comparable theory also contends that younger offenders are at greater risk of more serious criminal offending (Gerald Patterson 1982, 1986). This (Coercion Developmental) theory cites parental involvement as major factor in psychosocial related delinquency. In addition, negative transitions or inconsistent monitoring of the child will contribute to the onset of delinquency (Brennan et al. , 2003; Patterson, 1982). A child may use temperamental actions to gain control. This behavioral pattern continues until the adolescent develops a consistent interpersonal approach of coercion. Whatever the root cause of delinquency, finality comes in the form of treatment or incarceration. However, more restraining measures for the serious offender- out-of-home treatment or incarceration- are not as effective and are extremely expensive (Henggeler, 1996). Indeed, data show that incarceration may not even serve a community protection function (Henggeler 1996, p. 139). † One theory is that prevention programs or treatment that only focuses on one risk factor â€Å"is unlikely to lead to long-lasting change in delinquency because multiple other forces act to support anti- social development (Dodge Pettit, 2003). † Alternately, selective pre vention (or incarceration) is designed to corral these â€Å"at risk† youth. The principle with selective prevention/incarceration is that ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The programs may range from family involvement to exterior intervention; regimented treatment to outdoor activities. However, it is important to begin the selective prevention/incarceration early in the child’s life and cross-examine multiple influential factors. Then, continue the same preventive measures to ensure new influences do not create new risks (Tremblay and Craig, 1995; Dodge Pettit, 2003). Dr Moffitt encourages programs designed at identifying the â€Å"at risk† youth before defining the subsequent delinquency. A similar theory involving multiple planes of identification is multi-systemic therapy (Henggeler Borduin, 1990; Henggeler, Melton, Smith, 1992; Scherer, Brondino, Henggeler, Melton, Hanley, 1994). When interpreting this therapy approach, multiple major factors come into play- school, family, counselors. Based on Dr. Moffitt’s developmental theories and mindset, I believe that she would have the same opinion of some researchers- utilize every social and genetic variable and create selective prevention/incarceration as a (best practice) approach to early detection of potential delinquency. In my freshman opinion, I feel that it requires a multitude of data to determine exact cause and effect. If you combine the following: National Crime Victimization Survey; broad-spectrum interviews of delinquents; Census interviews; marital patterns; religious or faith data; medical-intervention records; and psychosocial observation in the form of treatment, one may be able to create a better understanding in the patterns of delinquency. Unfortunately, research-to-date is small in comparison to the magnitude of influence. The relationship between parenting (disciplinary practice) and family (background) with delinquency is far too in-depth for a few hundred words to define. Parental styles, genetics, social interaction, socio-economic factors, religion, academic standards- the list goes on, and on- all factor into the potential to become an offender. Simply stated, exposure is the common denominator. While many factors can be a major, let us first address parental styles. There are four types of parental styles: authoritarian; permissive; authoritative; and neglecting (Diana Baumrind 1991a). While one parent chooses to control child’s life, another parent may be permissive and render no control. Even as a parent tries to be rational and reasonable, a different style is neglecting and detached from the child. Alone, no style is without imperfections. Other factors combine with the parenting style to create a more complex behavioral pattern. Coercive, easier methods of parenting require less administrative energy when compared with a style that emphasizes emotional interaction and patience. A pattern of too much corporal punishment to maintain control promotes a negative self-concept in the child or may carry the cycle of violence to another victim. Nonetheless, it is not easy to assume which styles provide more â€Å"at risk† factors than others without additional rationale. Parental practices that involve consistent interaction are additional strategies employed by some. A child may be pushed to achieve specific academic, social, or athletic goals across different contexts and situations (Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, McNeilly-Choque, 1998). A child may receive monetary gratuity designed to teach him/her to manage money. Some children thrive in other event-specific interaction- reading, attendance to sports or arts events, or giving time to school rooms and/or activities. Herein, lies factors that produce the advent of self-esteem and results may vary. Studies also reveal that observation has a responsive affect and often leads to social competence, peer acceptance, and less antisocial behavior (Hart et al. ,1998). An inviting parent that elevates care and affection or one that encourages higher educational are examples of styles hat promotes rather than demotes development. Secondly, a child’s socio-economic situation may hinder development into a non-offender. While the parent can deter negative behavior and reinforce positive outlook, the child may nevertheless fall prey to social environmental factors. Observation of deviant behaviors may possibly encourage the same. The nation’s economic crisis of 2009 resulted in many parents assuming second jobs- such as low-paying part-time work on weekends- to keep the family financially afloat (Bartol, 2008, 2011). This may necessitate â€Å"juggling† child care duties among day-care centers, relatives, babysitters, and neighbors. Likewise, caregiver styles and practices can escalate negative results. The early relationship between an infant and a caregiver largely determines the quality of social relationships later in life (Bowlby, 1969). Similar to the notion that â€Å"it takes a village to raise a child,† interaction with perceived models of authority and care can mold a child into positive results or into patterned delinquency. In addition, impoverished parents (or family), may create internal stresses and possibly abuse- both physical and mental. Further, the child’s development may digress into inadequate social, self-regulation, or temperament skill sets. Stress caused by poverty in urban settings is believed to diminish parents’ capacity for supportive and consistent parenting (Dodge, Greenberg, Malone, and Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2008; Hammond Yung, 1994). If anti-social peers reject someone who is already struggling, then there may be a compounded risk factor. As Terrie Moffitt (2005) provided, we know certain risk factors are closely linked to delinquency and criminal behavior, but how or why they are linked is largely unknown. Thirdly, depending on the definition of â€Å"family,† the structure necessitates the parenting style. It is estimated that over 12 million American families with children are maintained by only one parent (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2001). Early studies based on official data found that delinquents were more likely than non delinquents to come from homes where parents were divorced r separated (Eaton Polk, 1961; Glueck Glueck, 1950; Monahan, 1957; Rodman Grams, 1967). This led to conclusions that the single-parent home- or the â€Å"broken home† as it was called- could be blamed for much delinquency and thus could be considered a risk factor (Bartol, 2011). More recently, researchers examine associated factors such as the quality of the relationship, economic status, and levels of emotional suppo rt provided to the family by other modeling adults- extended family members or community agents. However, there is definitive results that single-parent homes that are conflict-free produce children from that are less likely to be delinquent than those shaped in highly conflicted, but â€Å"intact† homes (Gove Crutchfield, 1982). A family of different origin, has become a normal part of today’s society. Many researchers agree to also define a family as persons related by blood or by legal arrangements- adoptions, legal guardianships, civil unions. Researchers also point out that long-term committed relationships- either as friends or as sexual partners- are also considered as family. No matter the style of the living arrangement, blood-relative, or single-parent family, the structure becomes the focal point. As Flynn (1983, p. 13) asserts, â€Å"One point is indisputably clear in the literature: A stable, secure, and mutually supportive family is exceedingly important in delinquency prevention. † Parental alcoholism elevates risk for a variety of negative child outcomes, including behavioral difficulties, antisocial behavior, and subsequent alcoholism (Loukas, Zucker, Fitzgerald, Krull, 2003; Zucker et al. , 2000). Interestingly, Loukas and her colleagues (2003) found that the presence of paternal alcoholism in the family may be more important than maternal alcoholism in contributing to a son’s antisocial behavior and maladjustment. The aggressive behavior that is demonstrated in domestic violence is clearly a form of parental psychopathology. Lastly, related to parental styles is the parental supervision or monitoring of children. In parental monitoring, â€Å"refers to parents’ awareness of their child’s peer associates, free-time activities, and physical whereabouts, when outside the home† (Snyder Patterson, 1987, pp. 25–26). Just as a â€Å"structured† or â€Å"broken† home dictates, so too is the amount and quality of parental monitoring is influenced by a number of things- divorce, finances, job loss, parental psychological disorders, substance abuse, or death. Monitoring appears to be especially important from about age nine to mid-adoles cence, an observation that has received substantial support from several studies (Laird, Pettit, Bates, Dodge, 2003). Will a Substantially-Recruited High School Football Player Alter His Tackling Style By Observing His Favorite NFL Player Doing the Same? In recent months, the National Football League (NFL) has mandated various penalties to players for purposely making violent tackles on unsuspecting opposing players. The penalties were usually a monetary fine imposed; growing by each offense. However, the rash of career-ending and life-threatening injuries was not subsiding. In fact, Rodney Harrison, a former NFL player and NBC Analyst who was penalized for illegal hits at several points in his career was quoted, â€Å"that the NFL has to do more than fine offenders if it really wants to change the big-hitting culture.. Harrison further added, Ive had plenty of hits like this and fining me $5 or $10 grand really didnt affect me. But I got to a point where they suspended me and I knew the effect on my teammates, the disappointment of me not being out there; not the $100,000 that got taken away from me, but the fact that I wasnt out there. Thats what they are going to have to do if they want to change the nature of these hits. You hav e to suspend guys. † The NFL is currently utilizing other methods of penalty- suspension- as a method of deterrence. Will a substantially-recruited high school football player model himself and alter his tackling style by simply observing his favorite NFL player doing the same? If not, what if he met both the victim of a violent tackle and the offender? The independent variables are equally the favorite NFL players that give violent hits, and ones that received violent (and injury resultant) hits. The dependent variables are talented defensive players (decisions) about to leave high school and are being heavily recruited into college. Both Ordinal and Ratio data will be collected. To determine a level of persuasion, Ordinal data will be necessary (influenced more severe tackling, same/unchanged tackling; influenced less severe tackling); for both observation from afar, and actual/perceived interaction with victim and offender. Ratio data will be collected to determine the percentages of players that felt their respective play (influenced/uninfluenced) somehow altered their ability to be recruited. The hypothetical result is to segment how violence may be altered when measured through observation of others and through social interaction with participants. This may be able to translate how offenders may be able to recant their violent tendencies if a â€Å"role model† also recants. Operant conditioning is fundamental to some criminal behavior. It is present in all humans and probably less-focused as a pre-cursor to progressive criminal behavior. Do this, get response; do that, get a different response. Now, which response was â€Å"better or worse† in the offender’s opinion? And, if for the worse, how bad and is the offender prepared? Unfortunately, smaller crimes or even lawful activities can often lead to greater severity of deviant behavior. For instance, a male interprets the â€Å"mixed† sexual signals of a female during intercourse as â€Å"okay† this time. In fact, without knowing, is reinforcing the mixed signal by continually giving positive overall feedback without focusing on the things that are not okay. Then, the male continues this activity(s) to other partners until someone finally signals the behavior as improper or deviant. The reaction up to this point may not replicate the reaction in the instant- rejection. The eventual offender reacts in an emotional manner now considered criminal- an aggravated assault. Somewhere the operant conditioning has misaligned the offender to think that it was always â€Å"okay. † Now, it is not okay and the offender is not prepared for the response. On another angle, the victim is married to the offender. He/she has typically submitted to the behaviors and finally decides the behavior to be deviant. He/she has continually obliged due to conditioned reasons and pre-conceived consequences. Hopefully, the offender will see the reasoning, understand, and agree to dismiss harmful aggression. However, he/she may not and now operant conditioning is present for both sides. Sutherland’s (1939) position of differential association theory centers a neutrality of initial human behavior. The criminal tendency is learned through association with other, â€Å"bad company. † Likewise, good behavior can be attributed to the association with positive influences of other’s actions. Over the course of observation of others within a group, a subject is more likely to duplicate the consensus of behavior- good or bad. This is due, in part, to the conceived definition of what may be right or wrong because others are doing the same. While a valued approach, this theory did not break down the types of learning from other’s actions. By simply boiler-plating that all will do as the majority does, leaves many influences on the table. Differential Association-Reinforcement (DAR) theory gives greater detail into the interactions with others. In especially deviant behaviors, a subject would also need to observe other factors- strength, frequency, reinforcements (positive and negative) all packaged in a stimuli. In other words, a subject may run with a â€Å"bad company,† but if they receive other positive reinforcements for other aspects, then he/she is not pre-destined to become deviant. The physiological factors associated with aggression have great range- from genetics that some researchers parallel with animal instincts to cognitive reasoning for choosing how to deal with the aggression. The genetic and animal approach can easily be identified by observation of humans. Humans can be territorially aggressive in protection mode, as well as, in social matters. This trait is â€Å"built-in† through years of development and remains unchanged. I believe it may also be defined as impulsive- stimuli will invoke a reaction. However, humans have also developed a â€Å"knack† for deciding what is, or is not, appropriate behavior. Through social interaction and learned behaviors, humans as a whole can discern if aggression is necessary and to what level it should or should not be levied. Equally important is the ability to observe punishment and negative consequences in order to draw conclusion on appropriate (aggressive) behavior. Medicinal and medically-invasive measure may also be taken in order to subside aggressions. Later it was proposed (Zillmann, 1988) that arousal carries substantial weight in factoring situational aggression. These factors may include sexual, negative excitement, or other stimuli that combine to create an aggressive behavior. Pre-existing conditions can intertwine with real-time observations and carryout immediate aggression. Other recent researchers add that skill-sets and gender help determine the aggressor’s initial reaction. Once the arousal is recognized, the person may react with reflexive response and/or cognitively think before reacting. The research is varied when relying on simple factors such as, driving (road rage), video games, and peer rejection. Social observation (socialization) also factors into the potential aggressor’s reaction. Therein, I believe genders have an internal â€Å"triage† that quickly determines the most valuable return on behavioral investment. In addition, if aggression becomes favor with the person, he/she must then determine the types of overt aggression are pointed threats of bodily harm, physical assault, rape, murder, or road rage and can be linked to childhood tendencies of similar behaviors. Covert aggression is indirect and most often, unders of covert aggression are passive-aggressive exchanges, disguised theft or fraud, internet or electronic hassle. Social and aggressive behavior is managed largely through daily experiences by cognitive scripts. â€Å"A script suggests what events are to happen in the environment, how the person should behave in response to these events, and what the likely outcome of those behaviors would be†(Huesmann, 1988, p. 15). Scripts may be learned through direct experience or observing significant others (Bushman Anderson, 2001). Once learned and established, the script is usually adhered becomes resistant to change into adulthood. However, each script is different and unique to each person, and to become established must be practiced from time to time (Bartol, 2011) Furthermore, an important role in determining which scripts are stored in memory is the â€Å"evaluation of the appropriateness. † (Huesmann, 1988, p. 19). Conflicting scripts that intrude someone’s personal standards are unlikely to be stored or utilized. According to Blackman, chronic criminality can be understood as â€Å"an attempt to maintain status or mastery of a social environment from which they feel alienated† (1998, p. 174). The well-rehearsed cognitive script of persistent, lifelong offenders, therefore, is to dominate- often in a hostile manner- social environments they perceive as hostile. The other model has been developed by Kenneth Dodge and his colleagues (Dodge, 1986; Dodge Coie,1987), and is called the hostile attribution model. Insomuch, there is a bias because youth (and adults) prone toward violence are more likely to interpret unsuspecting actions as hostile and threatening than are their less aggressive counterparts (Dodge, 1993b). People described as having hostile attribution bias â€Å"tend to view the world through blood-red tinted glasses. † (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, Deuser, 1997). Children with a hostile attribution bias are much more likely than the average child to misinterpret actions from others as aggression (Hubbard et al. , 2001). Also, the bias is present in both boys and girls (Vitale, Newman, Serin, Bolt, 2005). Similarly, Serin and Preston (2001, p. 259) conclude, â€Å"Aggressive juvenile offenders have been found to be deficient in social problems of reactive aggression include: anger expressions; temper tantrums; and vengeful hostility- â€Å"hot-blooded† aggressive acts. Reactive aggression appears to be a reaction to frustration and is associated with a lack of control due to high states of arousal. In general, reactive aggression is a hostile act displayed in response to a perceived threat or provocation. However, proactive aggression includes: bullying; domination; teasing; name-calling; and coercive acts- more â€Å"cold-blooded† aggressive actions. (Dodge, et al. 1997). In difference, proactive aggression is less emotional, and hopeful of rewards. In theory, the basis of proactive aggression is found in social learning that is controlled and maintained by reinforcement.