individualistic theories - exam questions

Question 1

describe how one INDIVIDUALISTIC THEORY accounts for criminality (6 MARKS)

Answer 1

• banduras social learning theory suggests children live vicariously through their role models and learn or are discouraged from behaviour by observing their role models perform that behaviour
• SLT suggests that if a child sees their role model be rewarded for a behaviour, it is more likely the child will copy that behaviour and learn through vicarious reinforcement, compared to if the role model was punished, the child will be less likely to copy
• SLT can be applied to criminal behaviour
• if an individual observes a role model getting rewarded for committing crime and being praised, SLT predicts the individual will be more likely to imitate the behaviour

Question 2

evaluate the effectiveness of two INDIVIDUALISTIC THEORIES in explaining the causes of criminality (9 MARKS)

Answer 2

BANDURA’S SLT
- bandura’s social learning theory is effective at explaining crime as it makes sense that if we see our role models doing something, we will think to follow their behaviour if theyre being rewarded for that behaviour
- we can also see our role models showing good behaviour and imitate that behaviour so SLT doesnt only apply to why people commit crime
- SLT also provides treatment policies for crime including token economy and the buddy system
- however, not everyone will imitate their role models as each individual is different and may know the right from wrong more than someone else and might not be as influenced by others
- bandura’s study was also replicated many times and the results were similar

BOWLBY’S MDT
- bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory suggests if a child has a broken relationship with their mother as a toddler, this can lead to antisocial and criminal behaviour
- bowlby’s MDT is relatively effective at explaining causes of crime as his research shwoed that 39% of his 44 juvenile delinquents suffered maternal deprivation compared to 5% of non delinquents
- however, bowlby overestimates how far early childhood experiences have a permanent effect on later behaviour
- bowlby also only studied 88 people which is a small sample size so his study isnt a good overview of the population
- he also found that 39% of the deliquents he studied suffered maternal deprivation which is only a small percentage
- it also doesnt take into account other factors like biological or social factors so maternal deprivation cant be the only factor affecting criminal behaviour