criminal psychology

• How does operant conditioning theory state criminal behaviour is learned?

  It is learned when criminal behaviour is reinforced (rewarded) or when non-criminal behaviour is punished.
• What's the difference between reinforcement and punishment?

  Reinforcement of a behaviour encourages someone to repeat the behaviour, punishment of a behaviour discourages them from repeating it.
• What's the difference between positive and negative reinforcement?

  PR involves someone receiving a desired outcome, which encourages them to repeat a behaviour, whereas NR involves someone having an unpleasant outcome removed, which encourages them to repeat the behaviour.
• What's the difference between positive and negative punishment?

  PP involves someone receiving an undesired outcome, which discorages them from repeating the behaviour, whereas NP involves someone having a desirable outcome removed, discouraging them from repeating the behaviour.
• What is the difference between a primary and secondary reinforcer?

  A primary reinforcer allows a person to satisfy a basic biological need, such as food or shelter. A secondary reinforcer is one which someone can use to then acquire something that meets a basic need, e.g. money.
• Explain two strengths of the operant conditioning theory of criminality.

  The theory has useful practical applications. It can explain how punishment can remove an undesirable behaviour - this idea is the basis of sending people to prison as a form of punishment. It has also contributed to the development of behaviour management techniques, such as token economies (rewarding good behaviour for tokens that are exchanged for treats), aimed at reforming criminals.
• Explain two weaknesses of the operant conditioning theory of criminality.

  It is a reductionist explanation and ignores how biological factors, such as genes, or the nature of our personality, can influence whether we commit crimes. It doesn't account for all possible motivations behind committing a crime. Criminal behaviour may be committed due to how we think, our emotions, or a different type of motivation than a reward.
• How does Social learning Theory suggest criminal behaviour can be learned?

  People can learn criminal behaviour by observing and imitating criminal role models.
• What is meant by the term role model?

  Those people we may decide to base our own behaviour on. They are likely to be people with whom we identify want to be like them, and someone with a high status and with similar characteristics to ours.
• What is meant by the term modelling?

  Basing one's behaviour on, and imitating, the behaviour of a role model.
• What is meant by the term identification?

  Identification refers to when we see a role model, identify with them and 'want to be like them'.
• What is meant by the term vicarious reinforcement?

  How we are more likely to imitate the behaviour we see performed by a role model if we see them rewarded for this behaviour, and less likely to repeat it if we see this behaviour be punished.
• Explain two strengths of the SLT explanation of criminality.

  Bandura's experiments provide support for SLT. He exposed children to an aggressive role models and found that aggression was copied, especially if the role model was of the same sex. It can explain how children learn new behaviour in the absence of reinforcement / consequences - it can be learned from watching and imitating role models.
• Explain two weaknesses of the SLT explanation of criminality.

  Some criminal behaviour cannot be explained by SLT - e.g. murder is rarely witnessed in real life. Research like Bandura's can only measure the short-term effect of learning from role models in a lab setting - we cannot presume aggressive behaviour is learned in the same way in real-life situations.
• What were the three aims of Bandura's study?

  To see if (1) children will imitate aggressive and non-aggressive role model behaviour, even if they are not rewarded for it, (2) if children would be more likely to copy same-sex role models than opposite-sex role models, (3) if boys would be more aggressive than girls.
• What was the total sample size? How many of each sex?

  72 children (36 boys and 36 girls).
• What were the two main 'experimental groups'?

  Group 1: watched an aggressive role model. Group 2: watched a non-aggressive role model.
• Why were the children rated for aggression before they took part in the study?

  So any differences between the behaviour of the groups could not be explained by pre-existing differences between the children within them.
• What sorts of behaviour did (a) the non-aggressive and (b) the aggressive role models display?

  The aggressive models played aggressively, hitting the Bobo doll with a mallet and pushing it down, sitting on it, punching it, throwing it in the air. The non-aggressive models played with other toys and not the doll.
• What happened to the children after they had watched the role model?

  They were taken to another room to play and were observed through a one-way mirror.
• What type of role model was found to lead to increased aggression amongst children?

  The aggressive role model.
• Which children were far more likely to imitate aggression?

  Males / boys.
• In what type of aggression was no difference found?

  Verbal aggression.
• Were children more likely to imitate the aggressive behaviour of a same-sex or opposite-sex role model?


  Same-sex.
• What things were girls more likely to play with?

  Dolls and a tea set (boys were more likely to play with a toy gun).
• Explain two strengths of the study.

  The research had good test-re-test reliability. Bandura used a standardised procedure, meaning the research could easily be replicated to check the consistency of findings. It also had a standardised procedure which helped to ensure that all children experienced the exact same conditions. This boosts the internal validity of the research.
• Explain two weaknesses of the study.

  This was a laboratory experiment, and the children were tested in an unfamiliar and artificial environment. The findings may therefore lack ecological validity. Testosterone plays a role in aggressive behaviour and could explain why both boys were fighting rather it being explained by social learning theory (SLT).
• What is meant by a 'natural experiment'?

  An experiment whereby the independent variable is a nturally occuring change, rather than being something manipulated by the researcher (e.g. the introduction of TV in St. Helena).
• What was the aim of Charlton et al's study?

  To see whether the introduction of television would cause children to become more aggressive (or display more anti-social behaviours).
• What was the IV and DV in this natural experiment?

  IV: introduction of TV (before TV / after TV). DV: behaviour of children before and after TV's introduction.
• Where did the research take place? What is the population?

  St. Helena - approx. 5000
• Who were the sample?

  Approx. 160 school children.
• How, where, and when was their behaviour recorded?

  Via video recordings, with cameras set up in the school playground, in 1994 before the introduction of TV and then in 2000, after TV was introduced.
• What was the overall finding on the impact of TV on levels of anti-social behaviour?

  TV had little influence on the behaviour of the children, and did not lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour.
• To what extent were boys found to display more anti-social behaviour than girls?

  Boys were found to display 4x as much anti-social behaviour as girls.
• For both boys and girls, at what ratio did they display pro-social and anti-social behaviour?

  2:1 (twice as much pro-social behaviour).
• What did Charlton et al conclude?

  TV had little influence on the behaviour of the children studied, and that the children were not copying the aggression that they had witnessed on television.
• How did they explain this conclusion?

  The close-knit nature of the community and the high levels of adult surveillance over the children may have explained why television had little effect on the children's behaviour.
• Why might this research be high in ecological validity?


  Being a nautral experiment, it took place in a real-life setting.
• Why was it a strength that the children did not know they were being recorded?

  This means they were unlikely to display demand characteristics, strengthening the validity of the findings.