By: Dr. Peter A. Barone, Esq.
A question that is asked constantly in today’s society by much of society to psychologist, sociologists, criminologists and to just about anyone who will stop and listen is “why do people act the way they do today and how did some of the people who are committing crimes and heinous crimes today learn to act the way they do; what caused this to occur?” and the answer to this is not that difficult. At the moment of birth we begin to be socialized and this process teaches us how to act and respond to various events that we are exposed to in our lives. If one takes the time to look at thirty, forty or sixty years ago it is obvious that the values, norms, and mores were very different at that time. The issue here is that society has developed and made major achievements and progress in rights and the dignity of many groups of people in society. The problem is that some people can handle certain rights and some people become somewhat drunk with the new found rights and decide to take things too far and create a negative environment. It has been this way throughout history and it is evidenced by the fact that there have been and always will be individuals in society that will break the law due to them not having a well-functioning inner governor on their actions and ignore the outer governors that exist in society to assist in maintaining social control and stability in society. Once negative behavior has been learned and then reinforced the rationale decision making now is skewed and the results are egotistical and narcissistic self- satiation and instant gratification at others expenses. Power and control are two of the methods sought out in one’s quest in obtaining this self-satisfaction.
People learn behavior via observation, acting out the behavior, and then being rewarded by successfully accomplishing the reenactment of the behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2001). When learned behavior is positively reinforced, whether it is socially acceptable or unacceptable, it is something that will continue until the individual feels it is no longer a benefit to them or it stops being reinforced by those around them who value their recognition. The more value a person places on the approval of their actions the more solidified the learning becomes and the stronger the desire and need becomes to perform that learned behavior. Learning theories tend to follow the lead of Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association, developed in 1947, although ideas about imitation or modeling go back to 1890. Often oversimplified as "peer group" theories, learning is much more than that, and involves the analysis of what is positively and negatively rewarding (reinforcing) for individuals (Williams & McShane, 1998). This type of learning is directly applicable to all types of learning to include positive activities such as learning how to prosecute. This was demonstrated in a study by Barone (2013) wherein he demonstrated that new female prosecutors learned how to prosecute by observing other prosecutors due to the fact that there are no courses in Florida for new prosecutors to learn their tradecraft.
Social learning theory (Bandura, 1963, 1997, 2011), Rotter (1981, 1982), and Differential Association created by Sutherland (1974) were created and geared toward the explanation of the commission of crimes by youth which supports what is posited by Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher (1986) and Baker (1998) and relates directly to school violence which is perpetrated by children of varying ages. These theorists advised that males are more likely to commit crimes than females, and this is especially true when discussing serious crimes. These authors also advised that the commission of crime is pre-eminently a preoccupation of the young, whether male or female, which is also borne out by the findings of the two studies conducted for this research from both law enforcement agencies. Hirschi (1969) advised that crime is overwhelmingly committed by people in the age range 15-24 and with this information we would expect crime to increase with the number of people in this population age range which has been demonstrated in the past decade with the various types of school violence which has transpired.
When performing research in the area of violence there are a number of theories which deal with aggression resulting in the manifestation of violence. The use of social learning theory, which is a component of social process theory, to explain and help to understand the violent behaviors of children perpetrating school violence will assist in providing an explanation for aggressive behavior. Social learning theory can also be used to provide an understanding of why children commit school shootings and even serial killings. It can be used to examine thoroughly the child’s childhood experiences and what they have been exposed to during those formative years which in the majority of cases holds the answers to the manifestation of their inner frustrations and to strike out in an attempt to regain their power, control and legitimization (Bandura, 1973). Special attention should be given by those investigating and also researching violent events by children to childhood experiences with specified attention being paid to evidence of victimization or the witnessing of violent behavior. The behavior being looked for would be similar to that which is being exhibited by the child. Bandura and Walters (1959, 1963) advised that boys who were demonstrating particularly aggressive behavior and who were also acting in an antagonistic and hostile manner had experienced feelings of rejection by their fathers during their childhood. In a study performed by Brown (1984) expressed that abuse and emotional neglectwere correlated with various forms of reported delinquency. In her book Sins of Fathers (1978), Ruth Inglis notes that there is a strong relationship between children who are or have been abused and subsequent violent behavior Inglis (1978). In keeping with the foundations of social learning theory it must be understood and remembered that a child does not have to have been a victim of violence and abuse; they can also be an observer and learn the behavior from that exposure (Hickey, 2013).
References
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.Rondal Press.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent Aggression. New York NY: Ronald Press.
Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Colt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Barone, P.A. (2013). Plea Bargaining: The Lived Experience of Female Prosecutorial Discretion and Decision Making. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession Order No. AAT 3411606)
Blumstein, A.J., Cohen, J., Roth, and Visher, C.A. (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals”. Washington, DC: National Academy Pres.
Hickey, E. W. (2013). Serial murders and their victims. 6th ed. Belmont, CA; Wadsworth.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkley CA: University of California Press.
Inglis, R. (1978). Sins of Father: A study of the Physical and Emotional Abuse of Children. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1981). The psychological situation in social learning theory. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rotter, J. B. (1982). The development and applications of social learning theory. New York:
Praeger.
Sutherland, E.H. (1974). Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company.
Williams, H. and McShane, M. D. (2010). Criminological Theory 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
