1. Psychoanalytic Theory and Crime

2. Aichorn Aichorn was one of the first researchers to use psychoanalytical concepts to explain criminal behaviour. Aichorn was a teacher working with disturbed and delinquent children and he concluded that environmental factors alone could not account for crime. He claimed an underlying predisposition known as latent delinquency psychologically (partially innate and also determined by the child’s relationships) prepares the child for crime.

3. Aichorn A first the child is asocial: not social and operates according to what Freud termed the pleasure principle the child is only concerned with his/her own comfort and well-being. Socialised: the emergence of the ego and the reality principle. Dissocial: socialisation process goes wrong allowing the latent delinquency to take over and the child becomes dissocial.

4. Aichorn Childhood is central to the psychoanalytic theory of crime. Emphasises the importance of childhood and inner processes.

5. Maternal Deprivation and Crime: John Bowlby (1944; 1946). World Health Organisation (1949) became concerned about the number of homeless children or children who were growing up in institutions as a result of the war years. Many women put children into day nurseries provided by the government so they could go out to work and assist in the war effort.

6. Maternal Deprivation and Crime: John Bowlby (1944; 1946). Bowlby was asked to examine this matter. In 1951 he produced a report which had a great influence of health care officials, social workers and parents. His findings became controversial. Bowlby believed that: Children need a warm, close and unbroken relationship with the mother or primary caregiver: essential for good mental health. If the relationship with the mother is disrupted the child could become: Intellectually retarded Delinquent An affectionless psychopath who has little regard for the feelings of other people or the consequences of their actions. He concluded that maternal deprivation caused damage in young people leading to delinquency. Maternal deprivation was related to anti-social behaviour.

7. Is there evidence for Bowlby’s Claims? Bowlby’s 44 Thieves study was used to support the claims: Two groups 44 participants in each One group: juvenile thieves Other group: consisted of adolescents who were emotionally disturbed but have no criminal involvement. Findings! More than half of the juvenile thieves had been separated from the mothers for longer than 6 months during their first 5 years, but in the adolescent group only 2 had such a separation. 14 of the juvenile thieves were classified as ‘affectionless’ (i.e. they felt no emotions.) Conclusion! Reason for the anti-social behaviour in the juvenile thieves was due to separation from their mothers

8. Criticisms of Bowlby’s Research Can you think of any criticisms of Bowlby’s theory? Morgan (1975) highlighted the faults in Bowlby’s research: Samples used were unrepresentative and the control group was poorly matched with the research group Many children who experience separation do not turn out to be delinquent and there are cases of children raised in warm and continuous care who become delinquent. The type of delinquent with which Bowlby was concerned forms only a small part of the delinquent population. Family influences are more complex than simply maternal deprivation alone.

9. Criticisms of Bowlby’s Research Clarke and Clarke suggest a need to address the quality of upbringing rather than just maternal separation and childhood disturbance in general. Psychoanalytic theory claims the root of crime arising from childhood and unconscious conflicts but this does not relate with the idea that criminal behaviour involves rational planning. The theory believes females will have less developed superego/conscience than males and will commit more crime BUT: This is not supported by criminal statistics. However, recent research (Furnham and Henderson, 1983; Hollin & Howell, 1987) on public explanations of crime has shown that broken homes are popularly seen as a cause of crime

10. Learning Theory Explanations of Crime Learning theory explains crime in terms of events outside the person: environment Operant Conditioning: Learning by Consequence (Skinner, 1953; 1983): This theory suggests the person learns criminal behaviour which is determined by environmental consequences. Behaviour operates on the environment to produce changes which may be reinforcing or punishing. behaviour desirable outcome increase behaviour behaviour undesirable outcome decrease behaviour Reinforced Punished

11. Learning Theory Explanations of Crime Skinner defined two types of reinforcement contingency: Positive reinforcement Rewarding outcome Negative reinforcement avoids unpleasant outcome Reinforcers both + and – strengthen the behaviour which comes before them. Skinner defined two punishment contingencies: Positive punishment Consequences are aversive Negative punishment Removal of something desirable. Punishers are used to suppress or weaken the behaviour.

12. Learning Theory Explanations of Crime Positive Reinforcer Child steals from local shop and gets away with it The goods serve as a reward for the theft Negative Reinforcer Child steals from shop, gets caught and warning from police Now avoids thieving to avoid an unpleasant outcome Positive Punishment Child steals from shop, gets caught and is physically punished by parents Child receives an outcome that is unpleasant and aversive Negative Punishment Child steals, gets caught and has privileges removed The outcome is still unpleasant because of deprivation of e.g. TV May also be “grounded”

13. The Analysis of Behaviour The A B C of behavioural theory: The antecedent conditions prompt the behaviour which in turn produces the consequences. Jeffery (1965): Crime is maintained directly by the consequences it produces for the individual concerned To understand crime it is essential to understand the consequences of the behaviour Criminal behaviour is operant behaviour

14. How does this theory explain for example stealing? Much of crime involves stealing where the consequences are material and financial gain. The gains are positively reinforcing the stealing. BUT… the gains may be negatively reinforcing the stealing as in the case where the stolen money is used to avoid the effects of poverty. As well as reinforcing outcomes, crime can have aversive consequences. Being arrested fined and sent to prison may have a punishing effect on criminal behaviour and as a result may suppress the behaviour. The balance of reinforcement and punishment in an individual’s learning history determines the presence or absence of criminal behaviour. The learning theory analysis of crime offers an explanation as to why even within similar environments there are some people who become criminal while others do not.

15. Social Learning Theory of Crime This approach is mainly associated with Albert Bandura. Social learning theory states that behaviour can also be learned at a cognitive level through observing the actions of others. Once learned the behaviour may be punished or reinforced by its consequences like any other operantly acquired behaviour. Social learning theory considers the idea of motivation. Bandura (1977) suggested three key aspects to motivation: External reinforcement Vicarious reinforcement: observation of other people’s behavirou being reinforced or punished. This usually determines whether or not the observer will copy a behaviour Self-reinforcement: refers to a sense of pride of achievement. Sel- reinforcement motivates the indiviual to behave in similar ways in the future.

16. Social Learning Theory of Crime Social learning theory suggests through observation a person leans at a cognitive level how to perform the observed behaviour. The behaviour may be practised, imitated or refined. The behaviour is then reinforced or punished both internally and externally motivating future behaviour. A social learning approach to crime suggest that observational learning takes place in 3 contexts: The family Subculture Cultural symbols Bandura suggests a range of reinforcing outcomes for crime such as tangible reward (money), social reward (peer approval) and seeing other people suffer.

17. Criticisms of Behavioural (learning) Theory of Crime. “We are all quite aware the potentially rewarding consequences of property offences; however, few of us steal.” (Nieztel, 1979). “More than a few of us appear to be stealing.” (Hollins, 1994). Self- report studies suggest that for some age groups stealing is the norm rather than the exception. Rutter & Giller (1983) suggest few that learning theories avoid problems of sex differences, age changes and developmental factors. Learning theory lacks specificity on the acquisition of anti- social behaviour and individual differences. Hollins (1994) counteracts these statements by suggesting that the theories go into great detail to attempt for the way all behaviour is learned. The behavioural model ignores the role of “private events”. More recent studies are beginning to pay attention to the role of cognition.

18. Next Lesson… Mental Health and Crime and begin Task two in assignment booklet.