Description
*PLEASE NOTE: MY CLIENT IS LEE MALVO OF THE DC SNIPER CASE*
************************************************************************************************************
Keeping your own “client” in mind (that you chose for your final paper), please read the chapters, and in this assignment include the following:
Assess the role (briefly) that all three (biological, developmental, and situational) perspectives play in influencing criminal behavior.
Choose one of the three perspectives (biological, developmental, or situational).
Evaluate the relationship between your chosen perspective and criminal behavior.
Illustrate a link between your client’s crimes and your chosen perspective based on the client you chose for your Comprehensive Case Study Report final paper.
Be sure to use examples from the textbook and your client’s case to support your assertions.
The Origins of Crime: Biological, Developmental, or Situational paper
Must be three to four double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA Style.
Must include a separate title page with the following:
Title of paper
Student’s name
Course name and number
Instructor’s name
Date submitted
Must utilize academic voice.
Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.
Must use at least one scholarly, peer-reviewed, credible source in addition to the course text.
Must document any information used from sources in APA Style.
Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA Style.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Learning and Situational/
Environmental Influences
on Criminal Behavior
4
Urilux/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
• Analyze the early theories of behavior and their influence on the study of learning and criminal
behavior.
• Discuss why social learning theory is fundamental to the understanding of criminal behavior.
• Explain the theory of differential association.
• Discuss why social cognitive theory is fundamental to understanding criminal behavior.
• Summarize situational/environmental influences and their impact on behavior.
53
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Introduction
Section 4.1
Introductory Case Study: The Hillside Strangler
The Hillside Strangler terrorized Los Angeles during 1977 and 1978, when at least 10 women
were kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered over a 4-month period. The defendants in the
case were cousins Angelo Buono and Kenneth Bianchi. Although both were psychopathic and
sexually sadistic, there was also an interesting family dynamic to their relationship. Buono was
nearly 20 years older than his cousin, more socially adept, and the dominant figure in their relationship. Buono had an extensive criminal history and kept women involved in prostitution and
sexual slavery. He exposed his younger cousin to these behaviors, and soon their pimping and
sexual appetites escalated to murder. The two quarreled after the initial police investigation,
and Bianchi fled California shortly after the Los Angeles murders and committed an additional
two murders in the state of Washington before finally getting arrested in 1979. Both men were
sentenced to life in prison.
As you read this chapter, consider the following questions regarding this case:
1. Do you think Bianchi would have committed these murders had it not been for
Buono’s influence?
2. Consider social learning theory with regard to Bianchi committing two more crimes
without Buono. Which of the four factors of social learning theory can be applied?
3. What situational factors do you believe may have influenced Buono and Bianchi to
commit those horrible crimes?
4.1 Introduction
The criminal psychology field has invested heavily in attempting to understand the causes of
criminal behavior, such as the crimes committed in the Hillside Strangler example. Throughout the history of the field, theorists have asserted that human behavior reflects forces of
nature or forces of nurture, depending on one’s perspective. Today it is almost universally
recognized that both individual and environmental factors are important for understanding
behavior, including criminal behavior. Moreover, it is largely recognized that individual and
environmental factors often interact with and mutually reinforce each other.
Different theoretical models describe the relationship between variables and outcomes,
and researchers have concluded that there is no single path to criminal behavior. This chapter explores various theories that help us understand the influences on behavior, as well as
situational/environmental influences and their relationship to criminal behavior. We will
begin by discussing some of the theories of learned behavior and later will explore how
situational factors may influence criminal behavior.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Theories of Behaviorism
Section 4.2
4.2 Theories of Behaviorism
Though research on the stimuli for and consequences of behavior hasn’t focused on criminal
behavior specifically, the research helps in understanding the causes of criminal behavior
and why individuals learn these types of behaviors. Behaviorism is a social learning–based
theory that suggests behaviors are the product of conditioning that occurs as an individual
interacts with the environment. Behaviorism rejects the notion that internal, person-specific
factors (e.g., emotional expression, self-regulation, intelligence) are the drivers of behavior.
As a result, individual-level constructs are minimized or excluded in favor of learning from
one’s environment.
However, before the behaviorist school of thought was officially coined, several psychologists
and criminologists developed theories of learned behavior to describe the “study of circumstances under which a response and a cue stimulus become connected” (Miller & Dollard,
1941, p. 1). These theories are crucial to understanding the basis of behavior.
Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning Theory
Ivan Pavlov (1849–1936) is perhaps best known for his theory of classical conditioning,
which is said to occur when two stimuli are linked together to produce a new learned response
in a person or an animal. Pavlov conducted studies in which he measured and conditioned
salivation (and other physiological responses) in dogs to respond to neutral stimuli. His work
provided a basis for later behaviorists, who focused on the consequences of behavior (rather
than the eliciting stimuli).
Thorndike’s Law of Effect
Other early studies of learning were conducted by Edward Thorndike (1874–1949), who
argued that the consequences that follow behavior help learning. Thorndike developed the
law of effect, which states that the consequences of behavior serve to strengthen or weaken
its continuation. A baby who is fed a bottle of milk every time he or she cries (the behavior)
will continue to cry when he or she feels hungry so that the parent will produce the bottle (the
consequence). In other words, the consequence, because it is satisfying or pleasurable, serves
to strengthen the crying behavior. To put it another way, when the response to a stimulus is
positive, the connection between behavior and response is strengthened; when the response
to the stimulus results in pain, the connection is weakened.
Watson’s Theory of Behavior
Though Pavlov and Thorndike began exploring learning theories before him, John Watson
(1878–1958) was the founder of the behaviorism school in psychology, initiating the movement
in 1913. He showed that the idea of classical conditioning could be applied to humans, via the
famous and controversial Little Albert experiment. Visit the following link to learn more about
this experiment: https://www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html#little.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.2
Theories of Behaviorism
One of the most famous and frequently cited quotations in psychology comes from Watson
(1930):
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to
bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to
become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchantchief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants,
tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (p. 82)
An important legacy of behaviorism for understanding crime is a blank slate conceptualization of human
behavior; Watson asserted this concept. The idea of
a blank slate, or tabula rasa, which is attributed to
the philosophers John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Dryden, is that people are born basically the same in terms of their innate abilities and
that experience molds their behaviors. The blank
slate is an optimistic worldview contrasting the idea
of widespread individual variation. The implication for understanding crime is that learning-based
theoretical approaches generally view the criminal
offender as an innately blank slate that is then corrupted by negative or crime-inducing environmental features and personal connections.
Jacek_Sopotnicki/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Learning-based theories assert that we
start as a blank slate when we’re born
and learn negative behaviors from our
environments as we develop.
Skinner’s Operant Conditioning
B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) was a psychologist widely known for his research on operant conditioning, a learning theory that suggests behavior is produced and modified based on the
reinforcements and punishments it elicits. Over time, a particular behavior is paired with
specific consequences that either strengthen or weaken the behavior. There are four types
of reinforcement related to operant conditioning: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment, and negative punishment.
Positive reinforcement is a type of reinforcement that involves a behavioral response followed by a rewarding or reinforcing stimulus (also known as a “reinforcer”). The rewarding
stimulus serves to strengthen the behavioral response. For instance, children who display
good behavior (response) are likely to receive praise, warmth, and affection (reinforcers) from
their parents, which serves to further encourage the good behavior. Negative reinforcement
is a type of reinforcement that involves the strengthening of a behavioral response through
the removal of an aversive stimulus. For instance, a child who receives a stern lecture from his
or her parents for neglecting chores can end the lecturing (aversive stimulus) by performing
the chores (response) in the first place.
In positive punishment, a particular behavior or response is decreased or weakened when it
is followed by an aversive stimulus. A stern stare from parents (aversive stimulus) will often
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
immediately stop the problem behavior (response) that a child is exhibiting. In negative punishment, a behavior or response is weakened through the removal of a valued stimulus. For
example, if a parent prohibits the use of a valued item (such as a smartphone) because his
or her child broke curfew, the child may learn not to break curfew again. The removal of the
smartphone (valued stimulus) will decrease the likelihood that the child will continue to stay
out late (behavior). See Table 4.1 for further examples of reinforcement and punishment.
Table 4.1: Examples of reinforcement and punishment
Stimulus
Operant response
Teacher promises
a sticker for good
behavior in class.
Student behaves well
in class.
Teacher presents a
lecture.
Student talks to
neighbor.
Teacher ridicules
wrong answers spoken
aloud.
Student answers only
when sure of being
right.
Teacher promises field
trip for good behavior.
Student misbehaves.
Consequence
(reinforcement or
punishment)
Implications
Positive
reinforcement.
Student receives a
sticker.
Student is more likely
to behave well in future
classes.
Positive punishment.
Teacher has student
clean cupboards.
Student is less likely to
talk during a lecture.
Negative
reinforcement.
Student is not ridiculed.
Negative punishment.
Privilege of going on
field trip is withdrawn.
Student is more likely
to answer only when
sure of being right.
Student is less likely
to misbehave before a
field trip.
Operant conditioning played an important role in updating criminological explanations of
crime that used social learning theory, particularly those relating to the role of reinforcement
in perpetuating behavior.
Given these basic definitions, we can see the parallels between behavioral theory and the
criminal justice process. For many people who live their entire lives without an arrest, the
mere potential threat of punishment is sufficient to deter criminal behavior. This is known
as deterrence. For serious criminal offenders, unfortunately, the threat of punishment does
little to discourage subsequent criminal acts.
4.3 Social Learning Theory
Among conventional wisdom and scholarly researchers, social learning theory is a fundamental part of understanding crime. It is so significantly related to crime that psychologists and
sociologists alike made social learning theory a central part of their theoretical platforms.
Few other conceptual areas can claim such universality.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
Foundations of Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory suggests that behavior is motivated by the effects it produces and is
largely based on mimicry of behaviors to which one is frequently exposed. It gives credibility
to the common saying that “birds of a feather flock together,” which means that individuals
generally behave like those with whom they associate.
The main reason the theory is popular is that so much of childhood is based on learning.
In the home, children are continuously exposed to behaviors and verbal instruction from
their parents and siblings about the appropriateness of various behaviors. Although parents
often do their best to intentionally inculcate prosocial behaviors and values in their children,
much of this inculcation occurs in an indirect, almost subconscious way. (Remember that the
terms prosocial and antisocial do not mean extroverted or introverted. Prosocial means that a
person’s behavior is oriented toward making a positive contribution to society; for example,
picking up litter in a local park. Antisocial means that a person’s behavior does not conform
to the norms, rules, and laws of an orderly society. An example is dumping litter in the park
instead of in the trash receptacle, an offense that may result in a fine or criminal prosecution,
depending on what was dumped.) What this means is that much of learning occurs by observation and exposure to situational contexts.
For instance, parents who work each day, prepare their clothing and lunch the night before
going to work, leave early in the morning to arrive on time for work, invest their time and
energy in productive labor in exchange for income and benefits, and generally invest in work
as a social institution are displaying—each and every day—what it means to be a functioning
member of society. Although this message may or may not be internalized by their children,
because the parents are actively displaying good behavior, the children are more likely to
learn. Learning occurs directly and indirectly, from observation of and interaction with role
models who perform the behavior to be learned.
The identical process occurs for negative behaviors. Consider parents who cannot hold down
a job for more than a few weeks at a time. Being unable or unwilling to meet the responsibilities of their jobs, they either get fired or quit. Once at home, these parents vehemently critique their former boss, lament their unemployment, and engage in unhealthy, unproductive
behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, drug selling, gambling) to quell their boredom and meet the financial
needs of their family. Although these parents might
simultaneously praise the value and importance of
work, their behavior tells another story, and their
children are exposed to negative behaviors that
are internalized and unfortunately mimicked. This
scenario can be made much worse. The parents
can abuse or neglect their children, introduce them
to drugs or alcohol, engage in violence within the
home, or commit any combination of these crimes.
These behaviors are observed, internalized, and
Digital Vision/Thinkstock unfortunately learned.
According to social learning theory,
much of learning occurs by observation
and exposure to situational contexts,
including influence from peers.
Parents act as socialization agents, or people who
contribute to socialization—but so do teachers,
coworkers, and peers, or persons of a similar status
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Learning Theory
Section 4.3
in an individual’s social environment. Whenever there is exposure to other individuals, there
are opportunities to learn and imitate. Indeed, the very function of school is to instill the
knowledge and skills that are needed for survival in a particular society. The preponderance
of learning that occurs in our lives is positive; however, when exposure to antisocial individuals and criminogenic settings occurs, there are also opportunities to adopt certain negative
behaviors.
In the psychological study of crime, social learning theory is unique in that it was developed
and influenced by both psychologists and sociologists. And within American criminology, the
social learning approach has served as a core method of understanding and explaining crime.
Even though the term social learning theory was originally coined and developed by Albert
Bandura while he was researching and studying aggression (we will wait to discuss Bandura’s
findings until Chapter 6), the theory has become mostly associated with Ronald Akers. Criminologists Akers and Gary Jensen (2006), two of the leading proponents of social learning
theory, explain that it is
a general theory that offers an explanation of the acquisition, maintenance,
and change in criminal and deviant behavior that embraces social, non
social, and cultural factors operating both to motivate and control criminal
behavior and both to promote and undermine conformity. (p. 38)
Akers’s Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory
Akers developed his differential association-reinforcement theory based on sociologist
Edwin Sutherland’s differential theory of crime, Skinner’s operant conditioning theory, and
Bandura’s social learning theory. Essentially, Akers argues that “criminal behavior is learned
through both social and nonsocial reinforcements and that most learning of criminal behavior occurs in social interactions with other people” (as cited in Bernard, n.d., para. 3). Akers
outlined the four core elements in his theory: differential association, definitions, differential
reinforcement, and imitation.
Differential Association
Differential association refers to the varying associations or friendships and acquaintanceships that individuals directly and indirectly have with others. (Differential is a term that suggests there are differences between individuals.)
Although differential association is a classic in sociological criminology, it is clearly a social
learning theory. Sutherland’s work is important because it is an example of the ways that
scientific disciplines borrow concepts from one another and reinvent them with different
language. Subsequent social learning approaches are more rooted in psychology.
Sutherland’s theory contains nine principles:
1. Delinquent behavior is learned, not inherited.
2. Delinquent behavior is learned through interaction with others by way of verbal or
nonverbal communication.
3. Learning occurs in intimate groups; it is in small, face-to-face gatherings that children learn to commit crime.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Learning Theory
Section 4.3
4. In intimate groups, children learn
techniques for committing crime,
as well as the appropriate motives,
attitudes, and rationalizations. The
learning process involves exposure not only to the techniques of
committing offenses but also to the
attitudes or rationalizations that
justify those acts.
5. The specific direction of motives
and drives is learned from definitions of the legal code as being
Jupiterimages/liquidlibrary/Getty Images Plus
favorable or unfavorable. (The term Sutherland posited that an individual will
definitions here refers to attitudes.) learn criminal behaviors and rationalizations
6. A juvenile becomes delinquent due
for such behaviors from his or her intimate
to an excess of definitions favorable groups, such as close friends.
to the violation of law over definitions unfavorable to the violation of law. This sixth principle is the core of the theory.
Definitions favorable to the violation of law can be learned from both criminal and
noncriminal people.
7. The tendency toward delinquency will be affected by the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of learning experiences. The longer, earlier, more intensely, and
more frequently youths are exposed to both positive and negative attitudes about
delinquency, the more likely it is that they will be influenced.
8. Learning delinquent behavior involves the same mechanisms involved in any other
learning. While the content of what is learned is different, the process for learning
any behavior is the same.
9. Criminal behavior and noncriminal behavior are expressions of the same needs and
values. In other words, the goals of delinquents and nondelinquents are similar. What
differs are the means they use to pursue their goals.
In the case of differential association, some individuals associate with many criminals, some
associate with criminals occasionally, and some never associate with criminals. These friendships and acquaintanceships involve behaviors and the expression of values and beliefs that
support the behaviors. Importantly, differential association also includes indirect identification with reference groups outside of one’s immediate contact, such as an individual’s
involvement in an organization or online chat group. Although the person does not physically
have access to these associates, there is nevertheless the transmission and learning of values,
beliefs, and behaviors.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
Researchers theorize that differential association has greater effects on behavior depending
on the duration, frequency, intensity, and priority of the associations (see Figure 4.1). How
the duration, frequency, intensity, and priority of these associations predicts conventional or
criminal behavior depends on the characteristics of the persons with whom one associates.
For example, Schreck, Fisher, and Miller (2004) examined the relationship between friendship networks and violent victimization among respondents from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. They found that adolescents and young adults who were popular
and well connected in conventional friendship networks were very unlikely to be victims of
a violent crime. A similar effect, albeit in the opposite direction, was found among those who
were popular, well-connected members of antisocial friendship networks: They were more
likely to be violently victimized.
See Spotlight: Research on Differential Association in the Workplace to explore how coworkers
and peers can have an effect on an individual’s work ethic.
Figure 4.1: The parameters of differential association
Relationship parameters such as duration, intensity, priority, and frequency can help determine the
effect differential association will have on an individual’s behavior.
Duration
Frequency
Differential
association
Intensity
Priority
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Section 4.3
Social Learning Theory
Spotlight: Research on Differential Association in the Workplace
Research focusing on the work setting and delinquency demonstrates the value of differential
association. For instance, Gibson and Wright (2001) analyzed data from the Tri-Cities Adolescent Employment Survey, which is a survey of students from eight high schools in northeastern
Tennessee. They found that workplace delinquency—which included behaviors such as lying
on one’s time card about the number of hours worked, shortchanging customers, giving away
goods or services for free, theft, using drugs or alcohol while on duty, and helping coworkers
steal employers’ property—was predicted by coworker delinquency.
On the other hand, coworkers can exert a positive influence on their colleagues. Utilizing data
from the National Youth Survey, Wright and Cullen (2004) found that association with prosocial coworkers helps dismantle delinquent peer networks and results in reductions in delinquency and drug use.
Taken together, these findings indicate that differential association with bad or good influences at work has important effects on whether an individual is commensurately well behaved
or deviant.
Definitions
Definitions refer to an individual’s attitudes,
orientation, and rationalizations that characterize the person’s behavior and cast him or
her in moral or value-based terms. Put simply, definitions are a person’s beliefs about or
moral evaluation of his or her behavior. Consider this brief example: People who are part
of a “partying” friendship network like to drink
alcohol and use illegal drugs. When an individual is with these substance-abusing friends,
he or she gives little thought or consideration
to the moral violations inherent in illegal drug
use. However, the same individual would likely
not engage in these behaviors or approve of
them if they were taking place around that
person’s parents. The difference in these situations relates to the definitions that the individual produces about his or her behavior.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
A person’s general mind-set is also known as
his or her definitions. Someone who spends
time around other drug users, for instance,
may not give a second thought to using or
worrying about the consequences of illegal
drugs.
There are three bases of definitions: conventional beliefs, positive beliefs, and neutralizing
beliefs. Conventional beliefs are those that are unfavorable toward committing crime and
favorable toward conformity. Positive beliefs are definitions by which an individual believes
that committing crime is permissible. Neutralizing beliefs are definitions by which an individual justifies or provides excuses for why antisocial behavior is permissible (Akers & Jennings, 2009).
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Learning Theory
Section 4.3
It is important to note that criminals do not commit crime every second of their lives; therefore, they are not cognitively dominated by definitions that are favorable to the commission
of crime. Instead, serious criminal offenders merely hold weak definitions about conventional
behavior. This makes sense when one considers that serious criminal offenders also experience failures in terms of adult functioning, such as unemployment, financial insecurity, relationship discord, and imprudent behaviors like gambling, smoking, sexual promiscuity, and
drug use. Their definitions about the righteousness of conventional life are so distorted that
negative behaviors are enhanced.
There is ample evidence that definitions are related to antisocial behavior. Drawing on data
from the National Youth Survey, Mears, Ploeger, and Warr (1998) found that definitions and
moral evaluations of antisocial conduct are significantly responsible for the large sex differences in crime. Mears and his colleagues found that delinquent peers were predictive of
delinquency for both males and females; however, greater moral evaluations by girls buffered
them from the pernicious effects of delinquent peers. In another study that used the National
Youth Survey, Hochstetler, Copes, and DeLisi (2002) explored the link between respondents’
attitudes and their friends’ attitudes and involvement in three forms of crime: vandalism,
theft, and assault. They found that friends’ attitudes were significantly associated with all
forms of crime. In addition, these effects were found in both solo and group forms of theft,
vandalism, and assault.
Differential Reinforcement
Differential reinforcement is the balance of reward and punishment that is produced from
behavioral acts. Consistent with Akers’s theory, antisocial behavior is very costly to those
who have little to no association with antisocial peers and is beneficial or rewarding to those
who are enmeshed in antisocial peer networks. To prosocial people, crime brings incredible
stigma, financial costs, fear, and the potential loss of liberty, employment, and other attachments. To antisocial people, crime can bring credibility and enhance one’s reputation. Gang
activity is a clear example. To ascend the ranks of a gang, members will often commit major
acts of violence to impress their peers or leaders in the gang hierarchy. Such criminal behaviors are highly reinforcing because they bolster one’s position within the gang.
Focused research on habitual criminals demonstrates the interesting ways that involvement
in criminal acts can be highly reinforcing. For example, Wood, Gove, Wilson, and Cochran
(1997) surveyed more than 300 incarcerated prisoners and also conducted focus groups with
40 offenders who were career criminals. They found that serious offenders found crime to be
intrinsically rewarding, reported feelings of physiological euphoria when committing crime,
and felt that crime solidified their self-concept. Wood and colleagues referred to these processes as “nonsocial” reinforcement.
Imitation
Imitation is the repeating or mimicry of behaviors that have been directly or indirectly
observed. Imitation is particularly salient during the initial exposure to behaviors that will be
modeled. Over time, one’s behavior becomes habituated and is second nature; thus, there is
no longer necessarily a need to imitate a behavioral role model.
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Cognitive Theory
Section 4.4
Bandura is an important figure in studying the factor of imitation in social learning. He demonstrated that aggression is produced from exposure to role models who display aggression
and the imitation of it (Bandura, 1978). However, because his approach is directed toward
aggression, we will wait to discuss it until Chapter 6.
One of the most powerful pieces of evidence of the importance of imitation relates to intimate
partner violence. Violence that occurs in the home produces a staggering array of immediate
and enduring costs for children. In addition to exposing children to verbal, physical, and at
times sexual abuse, such homes model violence for children at vital developmental stages
that can set into motion learning processes that favor the use of violence during interpersonal disputes. If this occurs, these behaviors can be repeated years later. For instance, Sellers, Cochran, and Winfree (2007) surveyed nearly 1,300 university students and found that
imitation significantly predicted dating or courtship violence. Moreover, separate analyses
found that imitation predicted violence among both male and female students; however, the
effects were more pronounced among women.
4.4 Social Cognitive Theory
The social cognitive theory focuses on cognitive processes, rational thought, and cognitive
expectancies as important determinants of behavior. Importantly, cognitive psychology deals
not only with cognitive processes but also with the emotional processes that are related to the
ways that people think. In other words, this perspective shows the connection between thinking and feeling and how both actions influence behavior. In addition, the cognitive psychology
perspective is aligned with social learning theory in the sense that learning processes are
involved. For clarification, social cognitive theory focuses on the situational factors that may
influence our cognitions. That is, cognitive theory focuses on internal processes that influence
our perceptions and thus lead to our cognitions, whereas social cognitive theory focuses on
external influences.
Assumptions
Social cognitive theory is not a singular theory but is rather a theoretical perspective that is
guided by several assumptions.
• Cognitions include a range of constructs, such as beliefs, expectancies, attributions (what people believe about the causes of events), and memories about the
self. These constructs are essential for understanding the feelings and behavior of
people.
• Various types of psychopathology, such as crime, arise from distorted, incorrect, or
maladaptive cognitions concerning the self, others, and events. For example, antisocial individuals are likely to perceive negative motives from others during normal
social interaction—this is known as hostile attribution bias. This bias produces a
higher likelihood of conflict and thus opportunities for crime.
• Maladaptive cognitions set into motion a self-fulfilling cycle of feelings and behaviors whereby persons confirm and maintain their maladaptive ways (Pervin,
© 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
Social Cognitive Theory
Section 4.4
Cervone, & Oliver, 2005). Because antisocial individuals are partially driven by
antisocial or hostile cognitions and are more likely to be aggressive, they are prone
to using aggression as a means to resolve disputes. In addition, this negative cycle of
feelings and behaviors commonly results in the individual associating with people
with similar deficits. This provides the basis for deviant peer associations.
Self-Efficacy
One of the major figures in social cognitive theory is Bandura, and one of his major contributions is his work on self-
