Social learning theory Crime Flashcards
SLT CRIME
PENNINGTON 1986 3 variables that affected imatation
pennington 1986
• 1 characteristics of the role common such as gender, age and status
• 2 characteristics of the Observer, self-esteem, self efficacy
• 3 the consequences of the behaviour for the model, are they rewarded punished
SLT
what need for it to work
Self concept: knowing who you are as a person (if poor = up crime)
Self efficacy: beleif in ability to immitate
(need to beleve u can immitate b4 u do)
SLT
ATTENTION, RETENTION, IMMITATION AND MOTIVATION
attention
• pay attention to model
• e.g. witness a robbery (watch robber)
RETENTION
• retain the models behaviour (use mental rehersal)
• e.g. reherese in head what robber said and did
IMMITATION
• need low self esteem = more likley to immitate
• need self efficacy so have skill to immitate
• repeat the models behaviour
• e.g. now you rob a store like the robber did
MOTIVATION
• Vicarious (if punished less likley to repeat but if rewarded more likley to repeat) e.g l. sees robber isnt punished and got to keep all the stuff she took
External ( physical reward) e.g. money
Internal (feelings and self motivation) the frill and excitment of larceny
SLT CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE +
BANDORA 1961,3,5
Bandura 1961,3,5
Support the theory that social learning theory causes criminal behaviour
• as it shows children intake people showing aggression (models) two Bobo dolls
• it was also found that there was an increase of aggression when imitating the same sex model
• therefore it’s supports SLT showing behaviors can be imitated from a model that they admire therefore it supports the explanation that social learning theory causes criminal behavior
SLT CRIMINAL
HOW GOOD RESEARCH -
BANDORA 1961,3,5
bandora 1961,3, 5
This theory is bad evidence to support the explanation as it was only monitored in short term therefore it only showed that SLT could work on children in the short term
• we do not know if the Imitation was or could have been repeated again in the future as the experiment did not look into this
• the study consisting of Only Children therefore we do not know if slt works on adults
• therefore due to the Research not showing if imitation last long-term or if social learning theory can be applied to adults this makes this study bad research to support the explanation that social learning theory causes criminal behavior
SLT CRIM
EVIDENCE -
Charlton 1995
Charlton 1995 opposes the explenation that Slt causes aggression and criminal behaviour
the study was a covert observation of 3-8 year olds in St Helena in 1995
it took place before and after tv was introduced, tv aggression was the same as uk
• the children didnt change from before till after nor 5 years later
therefore opposing SLT as the children didnt immitaite the violence on tv from the moment it was introduced and 5 years later
due to opposing SLT as a concept
it also therefore opposes the explenation that SLT causes criminal behaviour
SLT CRIM
HOW GOOD RESEARCH +
CHARLTON 1995
ECO
Charlton 1995
• good evidence to oppose social learning theory as it was a covert observation of real score children in St Helena therefore it results are not just likely to occur in real life they did occur in real life therefore giving this study high ecological validity making it good evidence to oppose social learning theory causing aggression and criminal behavior
SLT CRIM VS TBI
+gen -eco
————
• compared to SLT, brain injury is a better explanation of why people have criminal behavior due to a lot of research into brain injury is field research based on people with traumatic brain injuries
• therefore the majority of evidence supporting brain injury causing criminal behavior has high ecological validity as the results are represented and can be applied to real life as they are from real life
• wall the majority of evidence for SLT is land-based and therefore highly artificial and controlled meaning that they have lower ecological validity as due to the artificial setting and control the results of the studies are less likely to occur in real life giving them low ecological validity
• this therefore means that brain injury is a better explanation of criminal behaviour than social learning theory as the majority of research done on brain injury has high ecological validity while the majority of research done on SLT does not
Meaning the results that support brain injury causing criminal behaviour a more likely to occur in real life
++++++
SLT is better than brain injury at explaining criminal behaviour due to SLT being able to be applied to more people
• in bandora’s 1961, 3, 5 studys he found that children would imitate aggression towards a bobo doll
• aggression may lead to criminal behaviour
• this research was done on children
• this highlights a weakness in brain injuries explanation as the only explains criminals who have brain injuries whereas SLT can be applied to all criminals therefore explaining all crimes therefore making it a better explanation of criminal behaviour the brain injuries
SLT CRIM
CONCLUSION + APP
In conclusion social learning theory has evidence supporting it suggests that theoretically it could be cause of criminal behavior if criminal behavior is imitated this is highly plausible due to the supporting evidence of bandora’s original studies being due to aggression which is very similar to criminal behavior anyway therefore overall SLT is an explanation of criminal behavior
An application of social learning theory is the watershed implication where at 9 pm on the telly violent slash mature content can be shown as children are either in bed or supervised by adults so they don’t attempt to imitate the inappropriate behavior this therefore decreases the chances of children becoming criminals because they’ve watched for example a Train Robbery
