University of Luzon

Graduate School
Dagupan City, Pangasinan

Subject:
CrimEd 603 (Psychological Factors of Crime)

Submitted To:
Dr. Ma. Charisse B. Vedaña

Submitted By:
John Patrick B. De Jesus
Doctor of Philosophy in Criminal Justice with specialization in Criminology
Student
Introduction
Social work theories can be borrowed from numerous disciplines such as
criminology, law, education, politics, sociology, and psychology. Individually,
each discipline strives to explain human behavior within its field of study.
While social learning theory originated in psychology, its concepts apply
equally well to the study of social work.

1. Social Learning Theories

What is Social Learning Theory?
Social learning theory suggests that social behavior is learned by
observing and imitating the behavior of others. Psychologist Albert Bandura
developed the social learning theory External link as an alternative to the
earlier work of fellow psychologist (Burrhus Frederic) B.F. Skinner, known for
his influence on behaviorism. While behavioral psychology focuses on how the
environment and reinforcement affect behavior, Bandura put forth those
individuals can learn behavior through observation.

The social learning theory External link has four mediational processes
that help determine whether a new behavior is acquired:
1. Attention: The degree to which we notice the behavior. A behavior must
grab our attention before it can be imitated. Considering the number of
behaviors, we observe and do not imitate daily indicates attention is
crucial in whether a behavior influences imitation.
2. Retention: How well we remember the behavior. We cannot perform the
behavior if we do not remember the behavior. So, while a behavior may
be noticed, unless a memory is formed, the observer will not perform the
behavior. And, because social learning is not immediate, retention is vital
to behavior modeling.
3. Reproduction: The ability to perform the behavior. This is the ability to
reproduce a behavior we observe. It influences our decision about
 whether to try performing the behavior. Even when we wish to imitate an
observed behavior, we are limited by our physical abilities.
4. Motivation: The will to emulate the behavior. This mediational process is
referred to as vicarious reinforcement. It involves learning through
observing the consequences of actions for other people, rather than
through direct experience.

In addition to the behavior, rewards and punishment that follow will be

studied by the observer. If the observer perceives the rewards to be greater
than the costs (punishment) then they will most likely imitate the behavior. If,
however, the vicarious reinforcement is not valued enough by the observer,
they will not model the behavior.

History of Social Learning Theory

In 1961 and 1963, Albert Bandura External link conducted a series of
experiments to determine whether social behaviors (aggression) could be
accrued by observation and imitation. The research that entailed children
observing a model punch an inflatable doll looked to support the idea that
children emulate their behavior by watching others. These experiments were
collectively known as the Bobo doll experiments.
Supported by his findings in the Bobo doll experiments, Bandura
developed the social learning theory in 1977. The theory later evolved into the
social cognitive theory in 1986 which postulates that learning takes place in a
social framework with an ever-changing and shared interaction between the
person, environment and behavior.

Assumptions of Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory is grounded by several key assumptions External
link:
  People learn through observation. Learners can acquire new behavior
and knowledge by merely observing a model.
 Reinforcement and punishment have indirect effects on behavior
and learning. People form expectations about the potential
consequences of future responses based on how current responses are
reinforced or punished.
 Mediational processes influence our behavior. Cognitive factors that
contribute to whether a behavior is acquired or not.
 Learning does not necessarily lead to change. Just because a person
learns something does not mean they will have a change in behavior.
Social Learning Theory Examples
Social learning theory examples in everyday life are common, with one of
the most evident being the behaviors of children, as they imitate family
members, friends, famous figures and even television characters. If a child
perceives there is a meaningful reward for such behavior, they will perform it at
some point.
Social media presents plenty of social learning examples with people
imitating others whether acting a movie scene, copying dance moves from a
music video, and not the least, the many social media challenges people
attempt. This frenzied behavior is typically spurred by the desire to be socially
accepted or liked.
New employees in the workplace may imitate the behavior of their peers
in an effort to conform to the work culture. Or, they may model coworkers’
behavior to help earn a good standing with a superior.
Students may emulate fellow students, celebrities and mentors as a
means to fit in or garner attention. While positive behaviors are imitated,
problematic behaviors are modeled as well.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Learning Theory

  One of the primary strengths of social learning theory is its flexibility in
explaining the differences in a person’s behavior or learning, i.e., when
there is a change in a person’s environment, the person’s behavior may
change.
 An additional strength of the social learning theory is that it allows for
different ways of learning. A person can learn through observation or
direct experiences.
 Where the theory falls short is where it neglects the importance of
accountability in one’s actions. By placing greater weight on the
environment, the theory assumes one’s behavior and actions are
determined by society, not by how a person handles or processes
information.
 The social learning theory further ignores ordinary developmental
milestones. Although children do not mature at identical rates, some
normal milestones may still occur irrespective of the environmental
setting.
 The theory further fails to account for all behavior, more specifically in
the case when there is no apparent role model for the observer to
emulate.

How Does Social Learning Theory Apply to Social Work?

Social learning theory posits that people emulate the behavior they
observe in their environment, especially if that behavior is reinforced in others.
For example, if a child observes their parent going to work every day,
volunteering at a local community center and helping their significant other
with tasks around the home, the child is likely to mimic those behaviors. If
rewarded, these behaviors become reinforced and most likely repeated by the
individual.
This premise applies to troublesome behaviors as well. A person who
observes someone treating others poorly and being rewarded for it may follow
suit. Social workers can use social learning theory to identify the behavioral
models a client may be emulating and use that information to help correct
negative behavior, such as underage drinking, drug use or unprotected sex.

Applications of Social Learning Theory

Two areas of application of social learning theory in social work include
research and intervention. Researchers can use the theory to understand how
aggressiveness and violence can be transferred through observational learning
External link. The theory can further be used to investigate how positive role
models can foster desirable behaviors and promote social change.
As an intervention tool, a social worker can implement social learning
theory to influence positive new behaviors by altering the reinforcement
External link, whether positive or negative, associated with the source of the
issue. It is important to note that to effectively apply social learning theory
principles as an intervention, it is essential a social worker includes the use of
other methods of work such as symbolic coding, stress management and
vicarious reinforcement.
If you are a current student in a social work program you will discover
additional applications of social learning theory along with how to incorporate
it with other social work theories, practices and techniques.

Criticism of Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory explains complex behavior by acknowledging
cognitive factors and the role they play in deciding whether to imitate behavior.
However, it does not account for how we develop a wide range of behavior
based on thoughts and feelings. We have a significant amount of control over
our behavior and, as such, we don’t necessarily reproduce poor behavior, like
violence, merely because we experience it.
 Modifying and renaming social learning theory External link to social
cognitive learning in 1986, Bandura offered a more fitting framework for how
we learn from our social experiences.
Social learning theory disregards the influence of biological factors
External link, such as hormones and genetics, on behavior. This limits a
person’s behavior to either nature or nurture, rather than recognizing that
behavior is the interaction of both one’s biology and environment.

a. Differential Association theory

Differential association theory proposes that people learn values,
attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior through their
interactions with others. It is a learning theory of deviance that was initially
proposed by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in 1939 and revised in 1947. The
theory has continued to be enormously important to the field of criminology
ever since.

Origins
Before Sutherland introduced his theory of differential association, the
explanations for criminal behavior were varied and inconsistent. Seeing this as
a weakness, law professor Jerome Michael and philosopher Mortimer J. Adler
published a critique of the field that argued that criminology hadn’t produced
any scientifically-backed theories for criminal activity. Sutherland saw this as a
call to arms and used rigorous scientific methods to develop differential
association theory.
Sutherland’s thinking was influenced by the Chicago School of
sociologists. In particular, he took cues from three sources: the work of Shaw
and McKay, which investigated the way delinquency in Chicago was distributed
geographically; the work of Sellin, Wirth, and Sutherland himself, which found
that crime in modern societies was the result of conflicts between different
cultures; and Sutherland's own work on professional thieves, which found that
in order to become a professional thief, one must become a member of a group
of professional thieves and learn through them.
Sutherland initially outlined his theory in 1939 in the third edition of his
book Principles of Criminology. He then revised the theory for the fourth edition
of the book in 1947. Since then, differential association theory has remained
popular in the field of criminology and has sparked a great deal of research.
One of the reasons for the theory’s continued pertinence is its broad ability to
explain all kinds of criminal activity, from juvenile delinquency to white collar
crime.

Nine Propositions of Differential Association Theory

Sutherland’s theory doesn’t account for why an individual becomes a
criminal but how it happens. He summarized the principles of differential
association theory with nine propositions:
 All criminal behavior is learned.
 Criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others via a
process of communication.
 Most learning about criminal behavior happens in intimate personal
groups and relationships.
 The process of learning criminal behavior may include learning about
techniques to carry out the behavior as well as the motives and
rationalizations that would justify criminal activity and the attitudes
necessary to orient an individual towards such activity.
 The direction of motives and drives towards criminal behavior is
learned through the interpretation of legal codes in one’s geographical
area as favorable or unfavorable.
 When the number of favorable interpretations that support violating
the law outweigh the unfavorable interpretations that don’t, an
individual will choose to become a criminal.
  All differential associations aren’t equal. They can vary in frequency,
intensity, priority, and duration.
 The process of learning criminal behaviors through interactions with
others relies on the same mechanisms that are used in learning about
any other behavior.
 Criminal behavior could be an expression of generalized needs and
values, but they don’t explain the behavior because non-criminal
behavior expresses the same needs and values.

Understanding the Approach

Differential association takes a social psychological approach to explain
how an individual becomes a criminal. The theory posits that an individual will
engage in criminal behavior when the definitions that favor violating the law
exceed those that don’t. Definitions in favor of violating the law could be
specific. For example, “This store is insured. If I steal these items, it’s a
victimless crime.” Definitions can also be more general, as in “This is public
land, so I have the right to do whatever I want on it.” These definitions motivate
and justify criminal activity. Meanwhile, definitions unfavorable to violating the
law push back against these notions. Such definitions can include, “Stealing is
immoral” or “Violating the law is always wrong.”
The individual is also likely to put different weight on the definitions they
are presented in their environment. These differences depend on the frequency
with which a given definition is encountered, how early in life a definition was
first presented, and how much one values the relationship with the individual
presenting the definition.
While the individual is most likely to be influenced by definitions
provided by friends and family members, learning can also occur at school or
through the media. For example, the media often romanticize criminals. If an
individual favors stories of mafia kingpins, such as the TV show The Sopranos
and The Godfather films, the exposure to this media may impact the
individual’s learning because it includes some messages that favor breaking
the law. If an individual focuses on those messages, they could contribute to an
individual’s choice to engage in criminal behavior.
In addition, even if an individual has the inclination to commit a crime,
they must have the skills necessary to do so. These skills could be complex and
more challenging to learn, like those involved in computer hacking, or more
easily accessible, like stealing goods from stores.

Critiques
Differential association theory was a game-changer in the field of
criminology. However, the theory has been criticized for failing to take
individual differences into account. Personality traits may interact with one’s
environment to create outcomes that differential association theory cannot
explain. For example, people can change their environment to ensure it better
suits their perspectives. They may also be surrounded by influences that don’t
espouse the value of criminal activity and choose to rebel by becoming a
criminal anyway. People are independent, individually motivated beings. As a
result, they may not learn to become criminals in the ways differential
association predicts.

Strength and weakness of Differential Association Theory

A strength of this theory is that it emphasizes the critical role of
connections in establishing an individual's perception of what constitutes
acceptable behavior or activity. A drawback of the Differential Association
theory, on the other hand, is the extent to which these associations are
thought to imprint on an individual.
b. Differential Reinforcement Theory
What is Meant by Differential Reinforcement in the Context of Applied
Behavior Analysis?
Differential reinforcement is a strategy used in applied behavior analysis
(ABA) to address challenging or undesirable behavior, usually in children.
While there are a number of techniques used in differential reinforcement, the
goal is always the same: to encourage appropriate behavior by giving or
withholding reinforcement.
The theory behind differential reinforcement is that people tend to repeat
behaviors that are reinforced or rewarded and are less likely to continue
behaviors that aren’t reinforced.
Differential reinforcement consists of two components:

 Reinforcing the appropriate behavior

 Withholding reinforcement of the inappropriate behavior

‘Appropriate’ behavior in differential reinforcement may be recognized as: (1)

not behaving inappropriately; or (2) choosing a positive response over a
negative one.
Think of differential reinforcement as the opposite of traditional
discipline, which would be: Child displays a negative behavior and adult
implements a punishment to discourage the behavior. Using differential
reinforcement, the adult would not discourage the child’s negative behavior,
only encourage the child’s positive behavior. By withholding reinforcement of
the child’s negative behavior, the negative behavior fades away.

What Does Withholding Reinforcement Mean?

Withholding reinforcement when using differential reinforcement
essentially means ignoring inappropriate behavior. In most cases, this means
not making eye contact, remaining silent, and moving away. Withholding
reinforcement often causes the behavior to escalate before it begins to improve,
so implementing it requires consistency and patience.

To achieve the most success, the adult must also immediately implement
positive reinforcement when the child performed the desired behavior.

How is Differential Reinforcement Used?

There are small nuances in the way differential reinforcement can be
implemented:

 Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI)

o DRI involves reinforcing behavior that can’t occur at the same time
as the inappropriate behavior. For example, a teacher wants the
child to remain in his seat. Each time the student leaves his seat,
the behavior is ignored. However, when the child remains seated,
the teacher rewards him with a sticker.
 Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA)
o DRA involves reinforcing a behavior that serves as an alternative to
the inappropriate behavior. A good example of this would be a
child who demands food from his parents. Each time the child
makes a demand, his parents would ignore him. Only when the
child asks politely do the parents turn, acknowledge him, and
satisfy his request.
 Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)
o DRO involves rewarding the child when the inappropriate behavior
does not occur during a specific amount of time. An example of
this type of differential reinforcement would be a child who
repeatedly leaves his seat during dinnertime. The parent would set
a timer for ten minutes. If the child does not leave his seat during
this time, he is rewarded with television time following dinner.
 Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates (DRL)
 o DRL involves encouraging the child to reduce the frequency of a
behavior. The behavior itself is not inappropriate, but the
frequency in which the child engages in it is inappropriate. A good
example of this type of differential reinforcement is a child who
repeatedly washes his hands before lunch. In this case, the teacher
wants the child to wash his hands, but not more than once before
lunch. Using DRL, the teacher would reward the child by allowing
him to be first in line to lunch if he avoids washing his hands more
than once.

When is Differential Reinforcement Used?

Differential reinforcement is most often used with children, although it

can also be used successfully with other populations and in many other
settings.

For example, consider a human resources manager who implements

specific rules regarding interoffice communication. Namely, that all employees
must use email when they have questions. If an employee chooses not to follow
this rule and instead leaves a voicemail with a question regarding his pay, the
human resources manager would ignore his request until the employee sends
the request in an email.

Strength and weakness of DRT

The strength of Criminal behavior depends on the frequency and
probability of its reinforcement (Burgess, Akers 1966: 144). •The main
components include the amount of reinforcement, the frequency of
reinforcement, and the probability of reinforcement.
Though Akers and Burgess may have had some high points in their
theory there are still some issues that were not addressed. The theory does not
apply the significance of individual differences among people. The theory does
not take into account that individual difference may be biological,
psychological, and sometimes physical. These differences may affect the groups
and individual attitudes.
Akers fails to explain the fact that we are all different and the causes of
why some people may absorb criminal behavior and others will not. One factor
he could have addressed was how our home life and beliefs can affect the
outcome of participation in criminal behavior. Our genetic makeup and family
relations could alter our views on life and the people around us. Some people
are slower than others and others are just gullible. Other factors could be the
lack of love and affection that one receives on a daily basis.
Aker also fails to explain how some people who have never came in
contact with any criminal behavior still manage to commit criminal activities.
For example, say a child who has not started school yet and is about three
years old and steals a cookie from the cookie jar after their mother told him not
to. This child is committing a criminal behavior by stealing the cookie and
hiding so they can eat it before their mother comes back. Where did this child
pick up this criminal activity if they have never come in contact with children
their age or a person that engages in criminal behavior? Could this be natural
instinct? Empirical Study

c. Containment Theory
Containment Theory Though interdisciplinary in nature, containment
theory is considered one of the earliest control theories because it is focused on
what stops people from engaging in crime or rather, what “contains” people
(contains or containment essentially being used in place of the term controls).
As noted by Richard Dodder and Janet Long, containment theory enjoyed
much of its popularity in the 1950s and 1960s and has become a staple in the
field of criminological theory.
While, according to some scholars, the theory has gone out of vogue in
recent years, containment theory has kept its foundational place in
criminological theory. The first conceptions of the theory were birthed when
Reckless was exploring the shortcomings of other approaches meant to explain
delinquency and crime. Early criminological theories were understood in terms
of “pushing” and/or “pulling” individuals toward deviance (e.g., differential
association theory was recognized as a pull theory; Albert Cohen's subcultural
theory represents a combination push and pull theory).
In addition, according to Reckless, the problem with these approaches
was that they failed to account for those youths that did not engage in
delinquency in spite of being confronted with pushes and/or pulls toward
delinquent ways. This also was the case with the approach promoted by
Reckless's mentors, social disorganization theory. Reckless acknowledged that
social disorganization approaches to the study of delinquency and crime
enjoyed popularity for a generation. He believed, however, that there was a
fundamental oversight with this approach. Although he did believe there was
merit to social disorganization theory, Reckless claimed that social
disorganization alone was insufficient to completely address the issue of
delinquency and crime.
He asserted that the largest proportion of people in disorganized or
instable areas do not turn out to be delinquent or criminal at all. In fact, most
of these people lead lives of relative conformity. This meant that social
disorganization approaches, as well as other theories relying on push and/or
pull orientations, needed something more if they were to add further to
explanations of crime and delinquency.
It was this understanding that brought Reckless to the fundamental
questions that gave rise to containment theory: “Why do some persons break
through the tottering (social) controls and others do not? Why do rare cases in
well-integrated society break through the lines of strong controls?”. Reckless
believed that it was the interplay between inner self-controls and outer social
controls that was in part responsible for whether or not an individual would
engage in delinquency and criminality.
 Further, contrary to some other theorists, Reckless thought social
disorganization was not about the stress related to social and economic
pressures directly. Instead, he believed that where social disorganization
played a causal role in delinquency and crime was when social disorganization
led specifically to a breakdown in social controls. Important to his line of
reasoning was Reckless's prior observations of religious sects. Reckless's
observations of these closed and highly controlled groups also contributed to
and solidified his beliefs that the community served the express function of
external social control.
The Foundation for Containment Theory As stated above, Reckless relied
upon a collection of earlier observations from his solo and collaborative
research in formulating containment theory. Some of this research focused
upon the notion of self-concept wherein it was observed that a good self-
concept provided a youth with a protective shield and/or insulation against
delinquency. A poor self-concept had the opposite effect, rendering an
individual susceptible to delinquency. This observation apparently held over
time, leading Reckless to assume that good and poor self-concept is a reflection
of the internalization of favorable and unfavorable socialization and in that way
an important internal buffer against delinquency. Similar to many theorists,
Reckless also looked to the observations of others when formulating his new
explanation of delinquency and, in doing so, weaved together the central tenets
of containment theory. Reckless expressly mentioned the work of researchers
Albert J. Reiss, F. Ivan Nye, and Fritz Redl when walking readers through the
logic of containment theory.
Reiss discussed the predictive value of personal and social controls on
delinquent behavior in his influential work with Chicago juveniles. Reiss's
observation and assessment of the different dimensions of control were not lost
on Reckless. Reckless would incorporate this understanding into his own work,
particularly the observation that personal controls were more influential than
social controls on recidivism. Also, Reiss's notion of personal controls, such as
self-control, would essentially mirror what Reckless would call inner
containment. Nye's research further illuminated the ways in which controls are
important to regulating personal behavior. Nye's research specifically
highlighted four types of control factors that were discussed by Reckless: direct
control, internalized control, indirect control, and the availability of alternative
means to goals.
All had a place in restraining delinquent behavior. Reckless states that,
according to Nye, punishment and discipline are among the features of direct
control. Inner control is essentially self-control, and indirect control is a result
of not wanting to disappoint meaningful others by deviant behavior. Of course,
individuals must have an alternative to deviant behavior, which explains the
fourth aspect of control identified by Nye. Hence, Reckless's and Nye's
explanations share similar features. Both are similar in scope in that they are
only meant to explain general deviance. Also, Nye's notion of direct control can
be likened to Reckless's outer containment concept. Internalized control can be
seen as mirroring Reckless's concept of inner containment. Redl and
Wineman's formulation of the “behavior control system” was also relied on by
Reckless as offering support for containment theory.
Redl's work considered inner psychological processes thought to be
involved in whether or not an individual would engage in delinquency and
crime. Specifically, the concepts identified by Redl were the ego (and its
accompanying 22 ego functions) and the superego, which were thought to be
central to inner control. The ego functions were seen by Redl as important in
managing life situations and included things such as frustration tolerance,
temptation resistance, learning from experience, and taking care of
possessions. The superego is seen as one's conscience and the incorporation of
parental values that serve to regulate behavior. Reckless ultimately included
the ego and a well-developed superego as potentially important elements to his
concept of inner containment. Reckless's inclusion of these concepts, however,
seemed to be as much about a concern over attracting scholars in other
disciplines to use and possibly specify containment theory.
According to Reckless, “It is important to incorporate Redl's thinking on
the ego and superego as the behavior control system within the person, so as
to indicate that the components of containment theory can be specified by
psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychoanalysts just as readily by sociologists”
(1961a, p. 354). Inner and Outer Containment As is the tradition of control
theories, containment theory assumes that people are very prone to getting in
trouble. The idea is that individuals must be controlled or contained from
committing delinquent and criminal acts. The core of the theory is containment
— that is, personal and social safeguards that shield the individual from
committing deviancy.
Containment rests on the principles of control. According to Reckless,
containment theory “seeks to ferret out more specifically the inner and outer
controls over normative behavior”. To do this, Reckless consolidated the
particular characteristics identified in his and others’ research into exclusive
themes of inner and outer containment. Containment theory, in essence, is
Reckless's attempt to ascertain what controls work best at which level to
regulate conduct and therefore delinquency and crime. The principal social
control concepts of containment theory are inner and outer containment. Inner
containment involves the personal, social controls over behavior. Reckless
believed that this included self-control, a good self-concept, ego strength, and
so on. In essence, these are the qualities that serve as inner regulators against
delinquent behavior.
According to Reckless, outer containment dealt with the structural
buffers in the youth's proximal, social environment that served to restrain
them. These immediate social constraints included such things as “a
consistent moral front to the person, institutional reinforcement of his norms,
goals, expectations, the existence of a reasonable set of social expectations,
effective supervision and discipline (social controls), provision for reasonable
scope of activity (including limits and responsibilities) as well as alternatives
and safety valves, opportunity for acceptance, belongingness”. To Reckless,
these structural factors around the individual served to “contain” the youth
against delinquency and crime.
To Err is Human: “Pulls” and “Pushes” toward Delinquency According to
Reckless, environmental pressures can exact influence over people to the
extent that they are not contained and/or protected. In that regard, inner and
outer containment serve as a buffer from these external conditions.
Environmental conditions that may steer individuals toward deviancy may take
various forms, such as poverty or deprivations, conflict and discord, external
restraint, minority group status, and limited access to success in an
opportunity structure. Reckless further elaborated upon these environmental
pressures in describing them as environmental “pulls.” Pulls represent the
features of the environment that may serve to attract some individuals toward
deviancy.
According to Reckless, pulls might be environmental distractions,
attractions, temptations, carriers of delinquent and criminal patterns, and
subcultures. Reckless also observed what he considered to be “ordinary”
pushes. Pushes are based in individual psychology and are considered to be
internal motivators toward deviancy. Pushes may include internal drives and
frustrations, feelings of restlessness, disappointments, hostility, inferiority, and
rebellion. Reckless acknowledged that there are some extreme internal
motivations (pushes) that cannot be contained such as those derived from
mental illness (i.e., compulsions). According to Reckless, such pathological
compulsions were beyond the abilities of normal, ordinary containment. Again,
containment theory posits that normative behavior is brought about by
“resisting” deviancy and directing youth toward legitimate social expectations.
According to Reckless, both inner and outer containment are core between the
pressures and pulls of the external environment and inner drives and pushes.
 Scope of Containment Theory As stated earlier, Reckless argues that
containment theory is a general theory of crime, explaining the wide range of
behaviors between the extremes of deviancy. According to Reckless, at one end
of the continuum is individual pathology. This group includes behaviors
caused by mental illness, among other things (e.g., compulsions; behavior as
the result of organic brain damage). The opposite extreme of behaviors, though
deviant, would essentially be considered “normal” given the circumstances and
fall beyond those behaviors that containment theory means to explain.
Individuals at this extreme, explains Reckless, have been socialized by family
or some affiliate and/ or marginalized group to behave as societal deviants
(e.g., criminal tribes of India, gypsies).
The Recognized Limitations and Validity of Containment Theory to
Reckless, one of the strengths of containment theory was the ability to tailor
the theory to the different disciplines that engage in the study of deviancy.
Arguably, containment theory can be used by psychiatrists, psychologists,
sociologists, and practitioners equally, as the theory reportedly explains
delinquency from an interdisciplinary perspective. According to Reckless, “All of
these experts look for dimensions of inner and outer strength and can specify
these strengths in their terms”. However, there are problems with containment
theory specifically and control theories generally. Richard Dodder and Janet
Long have observed that there is a general lack of testable statements in
relation to containment and the proposed relationship with deviant behavior.
Ironically, one could argue that this in part was intended by Reckless when
making his statement of the theory.
Reckless offered that research would have to identify the “one or two”
essential elements of inner and outer containment that act as the regulators of
normative behavior. He further states that research, ultimately, would have to
sort out which of the inner and outer regulatory systems operated together.
Problematically, a theory written in this way may lead to more speculation than
answers. Dodder and long further scrutinize the limited ability of containment
theory to explain female deviance, considering socialization processes arguably
differ between the sexes in respect to self-concept. Recall that, according to
containment theory, a good self-concept is supposed to insulate individuals
from deviancy. If the processes are different depending on sex, one would
expect that containment theory might not apply to females.
This criticism is reasonable, particularly since Reckless relied on
observations of boys for his theory. Another criticism of containment theory is
recognized by Thomas Kelley and rests in the idea that many of the inner
motivations and environmental conditions identified by Reckless tend to be
highly transient even over short time periods. Given that many of these
conditions are evanescent, it is difficult to isolate the mechanisms identified by
containment theory leading to deviancy. Reckless and Dinitz tested elements of
containment theory with little success. As noted by Randy Martin and his
colleagues, these studies have been referred to collectively as “the Good Boy–
Bad Boy” series and ran from circa 1956 to 1972. Although failing to initially
support containment theory, others, such as Don Gibbons and Marvin Krohn,
have noted methodological flaws that would give pause to these initial results.
It also has been observed by these scholars that later empirical assessments
found more varied results beyond what could be accounted for by the theory.
There is still contention as to whether containment theory, whether original,
revised, or specified, can be revived.

Strength and weakness of Containment theory

Containment theory is a form of control theory proposed by Walter
Reckless in the 1940s–1960s. The theory contends that a series of external
social factors and internal qualities effectively insulate certain individuals from
criminal involvement even when ecological variables induce others to engage in
crime. Although initially promising, the theory was criticized by some
criminologists for various weaknesses. However, the theory has been subjected
to very few empirical tests and therefore the relative strengths of its various
propositions have never been properly established.

2. Intelligence Theory

What Is Intelligence?
It might seem useless to define such a simple word. After all, we have all
heard this word hundreds of times and probably have a general understanding
of its meaning. However, the concept of intelligence has been a widely debated
topic among members of the psychology community for decades.

Intelligence has been defined in many ways: higher level abilities (such
as abstract reasoning, mental representation, problem solving, and decision
making), the ability to learn, emotional knowledge, creativity, and adaptation to
meet the demands of the environment effectively.

Psychologist Robert Sternberg defined intelligence as "the mental abilities

necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any
environmental context.

A Brief History of Intelligence

The study of human intelligence dates back to the late 1800s when Sir
Francis Galton (the cousin of Charles Darwin) became one of the first people to
study intelligence.

Galton was interested in the concept of a gifted individual, so he created

a lab to measure reaction times and other physical characteristics to test his
hypothesis that intelligence is a general mental ability that is a produce of
biological evolution (hello, Darwin!).
Theories of Intelligence
Some researchers argue that intelligence is a general ability, whereas
others make the assertion that intelligence comprises specific skills and
talents. Psychologists contend that intelligence is genetic, or inherited, and
others claim that it is largely influenced by the surrounding environment.
As a result, psychologists have developed several contrasting theories of
intelligence as well as individual tests that attempt to measure this very
concept.
Galton theorized that because quickness and other physical attributes
were evolutionarily advantageous, they would also provide a good indication of
general mental ability (Jensen, 1982).
Thus, Galton operationalized intelligence as reaction time.
Operationalization is an important process in research that involves
defining an unmeasurable phenomenon (such as intelligence) in measurable
terms (such as reaction time), allowing the concept to be studied empirically
(Crowthre-Heyck, 2005).
Galton’s study of intelligence in the laboratory setting and his
theorization of the heritability of intelligence paved the way for decades of
future research and debate in this field.

Spearman’s General Intelligence (g)

General intelligence, also known as g factor, refers to a general mental
ability that, according to Spearman, underlies multiple specific skills, including
verbal, spatial, numerical and mechanical.
Charles Spearman, an English psychologist, established the two-factor
theory of intelligence back in 1904 (Spearman, 1904). To arrive at this theory,
Spearman used a technique known as factor analysis.
 Factor analysis is a procedure through which the correlation of related
variables is evaluated to find an underlying factor that explains this
correlation.
In the case of intelligence, Spearman noticed that those who did well in
one area of intelligence tests (for example, mathematics), also did well in other
areas (such as distinguishing pitch; Kalat, 2014).
In other words, there was a strong correlation between performing well in
math and music, and Spearman then attributed this relationship to a central
factor, that of general intelligence (g). Together, these two main factors compose
Spearman’s two-factor theory.

Spearman concluded that there is a single g-factor which represents an

individual’s general intelligence across multiple abilities, and that a second
factor, s, refers to an individual’s specific ability in one particular area

Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities

Thurstone (1938) challenged the concept of a g-factor. After analyzing
data from 56 different tests of mental abilities, he identified a number of
primary mental abilities that comprise intelligence, as opposed to one general
factor.

The seven primary mental abilities in Thurstone's model are verbal

comprehension, verbal fluency, number facility, spatial visualization,
perceptual speed, memory, and inductive reasoning (Thurstone, as cited in
Sternberg, 2003).

Mental Ability Description

Word Fluency Ability to use words quickly and fluency in

 Mental Ability Description

performing such tasks as rhyming, solving anagrams,

and doing crossword puzzles.

Verbal Comprehension Ability to understand the meaning of words,

concepts, and ideas.

Numerical Ability Ability to use numbers to quickly computer answers

to problems.

Spatial Visualization Ability to visualize and manipulate patters and forms

in space.

Perceptual Speed Ability to grasp perceptual details quickly and

accurately and to determine similarities and
differences between stimuli.

Memory Ability to recall information such as lists or words,

mathematical formulas, and definitions.

Inductive Reasoning Ability to derive general rules and principles from

presented information.

Although Thurstone did not reject Spearman’s idea of general intelligence

altogether, he instead theorized that intelligence consists of both general ability
and a number of specific abilities, paving the way for future research that
examined the different forms of intelligence.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Following the work of Thurstone, American psychologist Howard Gardner
built off the idea that there are multiple forms of intelligence.
He proposed that there is no single intelligence, but rather distinct,
independent multiple intelligences exist, each representing unique skills and
talents relevant to a certain category.
Gardner (1983, 1987) initially proposed seven multiple intelligences:
linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal, and he has since added naturalist
intelligence.
Gardner holds that most activities (such as dancing) will involve a
combination of these multiple intelligences (such as spatial and bodily-
kinesthetic intelligences). He also suggests that these multiple intelligences can
help us understand concepts beyond intelligence, such as creativity and
leadership.
And although this theory has widely captured the attention of the
psychology community and greater public, it does have its faults.
There have been few empirical studies that actually test this theory, and
this theory does not account for other types of intelligence beyond the ones
Gardner lists (Sternberg, 2003).

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Just two years later, in 1985, Robert Sternberg proposed a three-
category theory of intelligence, integrating components that were lacking in
Gardner’s theory. This theory is based on the definition of intelligence as the
ability to achieve success based on your personal standards and your
sociocultural context.
According to the triarchic theory, intelligence has three aspects:
analytical, creative, and practical (Sternberg, 1985).
Analytical intelligence, also referred to as componential intelligence,
refers to intelligence that is applied to analyze or evaluate problems and arrive
at solutions. This is what a traditional IQ test measure.
Creative intelligence is the ability to go beyond what is given to create
novel and interesting ideas. This type of intelligence involves imagination,
innovation and problem-solving.
Practical intelligence is the ability that individuals use to solve problems
faced in daily life, when a person finds the best fit between themselves and the
demands of the environment. Adapting to the demands environment involves
either utilizing knowledge gained from experience to purposefully change
oneself to suit the environment (adaptation), changing the environment to suit
oneself (shaping), or finding a new environment in which to work (selection).

Other Types of Intelligence

After examining the popular competing theories of intelligence, it
becomes clear that there are many different forms of this seemingly simple
concept.
On one hand, Spearman claims that intelligence is generalizable across
many different areas of life, and on the other hand, psychologists such as
Thurstone, Gardener, and Sternberg hold that intelligence is like a tree with
many different branches, each representing a specific form of intelligence.
To make matters even more interesting, let’s throw a few more types of
intelligence into the mix!

Emotional Intelligence
 Emotional Intelligence is the “ability to monitor one’s own and other
people’s emotions, to discriminate between different emotions and label them
appropriately, and to use emotional information to guide thinking and
behavior” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990).

Emotional intelligence is important in our everyday lives, seeing as we

experience one emotion or another nearly every second of our lives. You may
not associate emotions and intelligence with one another, but in reality, they
are very related.
Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize the meanings of
emotions and to reason and problem-solve on the basis of them (Mayer,
Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). The four key components of emotional Intelligence
are (i) self-awareness, (ii) self-management, (iii) social awareness, and (iv)
relationship management.
In other words, if you are high in emotional intelligence, you can
accurately perceive emotions in yourself and others (such as reading facial
expressions), use emotions to help facilitate thinking, understand the meaning
behind your emotions (why are you feeling this way?), and know how to
manage your emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).
Raymond Cattell (1963) first proposed the concepts of fluid and
crystallized intelligence and further developed the theory with John Horn.
Fluid intelligence is the ability to problem solve in novel situations
without referencing prior knowledge, but rather through the use of logic and
abstract thinking. Fluid intelligence can be applied to any novel problem
because no specific prior knowledge is required (Cattell, 1963). As you grow
older fluid increases and then starts to decrease in the late 20s.
Crystallized intelligence refers to the use of previously-acquired
knowledge, such as specific facts learned in school or specific motor skills or
muscle memory (Cattell, 1963). As you grow older and accumulate knowledge,
crystallized intelligence increases.
IQ and Delinquency

The Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

IQ is an acronym for Intelligence Quotient. So what is IQ? The IQ is a
measurement of your intelligence and is expressed in a number.
A person's IQ can be calculated by having the person take an intelligence
test. The average IQ is 100. If you achieve a score higher than 100, you are
smarter than the average person, and a lower score means you are (somewhat)
less smart.

An IQ tells you what your score is on a particular intelligence test, often

compared to your age-group. The test has a mean score of 100 points and a
standard deviation of 15 points. What does this standard deviation mean? It
means that 68 percent of the population score an IQ within the interval 85-
115. And that 95 percent of the population scores within the interval 70-130.
The study of the relationship. of intelligence and delinquency began with
the early 19th. century neo-classical criminal justice doctrine that since crime
was a rational choice of conduct, mental defectives in common with infants and
the insane, were not legally responsible for their actions. While the medical
differentiation of mental defectives from the insane was accomplished during
the early part of the 19th century, it was not until the late 19th century that
scientific standards were established for the measurement of degrees of mental
ability and for the determination of mental defect, despite man's observation
since time immemorial of the individual variability in mental ability. These were
tests for general intelligence, the product of research by a whole school of
psychologists, but attributable directly to the researches of Alfred Binet, of
France.
The application of these early crude intelligence tests to samplings of
institutionalized offenders in prisons, reformatories and juvenile training
schools and the finding that a very large proportion of those tested could be
diagnosed as mental deficient, led to the single-factor theory of mental
deficiency as the greatest cause of delinquent conduct. Thus Harry H.
Goddard, one of America's most distinguished adherents of the psychological
school of crime causation, was impelled to state, as late as 1919, that "It is no
longer to be denied that the greatest single cause of delinquency and crime is
low-grade mentality, much of. it within the limits of feeble-mindedness." A
similar declaration was made by Dr. William Healy, while Dr. Charles Goring,
the English investigator into Lombroso's claims, declared more conservatively
that defective intelligence was a vital constitutional factor in the etiology of
crime.'
While there was substantial agreement as to the facts, there was
considerable divergence as to the interpretation of the test findings, leading to
such theories as:
(1) the mental defective is a type of "born criminal," i.e., the "moral idiot";
(2) feeble-mindedness is a hereditary unit-character following Mendel's
law, accounting for the preponderance of male defective offenders;
(3) the feeble-minded characteristically commit dangerous crimes of
assault and sex assault;
(4) feeble-minded individuals commit crimes, in the absence of inhibiting
social factors, because they lack the capacity to grasp the social values of
their culture, including its social and legal definitions of right and wrong;
(5) the feeble-minded cannot foresee the consequences of their actions,
hence cannot be deterred by the threat of punishment laid down for
crimes;
(6) feeble-minded are suggestible, and so respond to the criminal
leadership of brighter persons; (
7) feeble-mindedness in individuals reared in families and neighborhoods
where delinquent example is common, leads to delinquency.
 Thus, the elaborations of proponents of this single-factor theory ranged
from the biological to the bio-social. The biological concept of the mental
defective as a moral idiot or a Mendelian criminal type preceded in historical
sequence the bio-social view of the mentally deficient offender as a product of
social interaction. During the early decades of the 20th century there was still
a predisposition to think fatalistically of mental deficiency, delinquency and
dependency as inevitably associated phenomena. Even Sumner, in his brilliant
source-book on the Folkways, published in 1906, was willing to associate these
three groups as the submerged tenth at the bottom of the social class ladder.
Today, the concept that mental deficiency is necessarily a product of a tainted
heredity is no longer accepted as wholly true.
Evidence exists that perhaps one-half of all mental deficiency is the effect
of non-germinal toxic and mechanical damage during the intra-uterine period
and at birth. Mental deficient are found among all social classes and in every
parental occupational and educational level. Nor is the concept any longer
accepted that mental deficient must necessarily be behavior risks. Together
with the awareness that mental deficiency occurs in all levels of the population,
it has been discovered that under proper conditions of child rearing and
supervision, the mental defective may become a docile and obedient
personality, with useful occupational potentialities. A perhaps contrary trend of
thought is seen, however, in the growth in many American jurisdictions, of the
practice of voluntary sterilization of defective delinquents, and in the spread of
legislation authorizing this practice.
Despite a changing outlook upon the relationship between mental defect
and delinquency there remain a number of questions regarding which it is
essential to have scientific evidence, such as:
(1) The proportion of mental defectives among delinquents compared to
the general population; (
2) significant differences in general mental ability between delinquents
and the general population;
 (3) criminal patterns and tendencies toward recidivism among defectives
compared to non-defective offenders;
(4) the relationship between level of intelligence and treatability. We will
consider these matters in the following sections. First, however, we shall seek a
somewhat clearer view of the nature of general intelligence, of mental
deficiency, and of the concepts and procedures involved in their measurement.

THE TESTING OF GENERAL INTELLIGENCE

Whereas no adequate concept of the nature of intelligence has yet been
constructed, owing to a conflict among psychologists as to the priority of
general intelligence or of specific intelligences (such as social, mechanical,
musical intelligence, etc.) there is agreement that general intelligence is the
capacity to learn from experience. Binet constructed a scale to test the growth
in this ability, based on the observation that in childhood and youth growth in
learning ability parallels physical growth. In the absence of any objective
criteria for the measurement of learning growth, Binet depended upon
empirical trial and error, devoting fifteen years to the discovery of a scale of
mental tests of increasing difficulty, correlated with the chronological age of his
subjects. Out of this experimentation came the year-level general intelligence
scale.
Tests were assigned to a year-level when 75 percent of the subjects in an
age-group successfully performed the tests. By assigning a given number of
sub-tests to each year-level, and a given amount of year-level credit to each
sub-test, it became possible to establish a mental age, consisting of the basal
mental age below which all tests were passed, plus year-level credit for all
succeeding tests passed. By comparing the mental age with the chronological
age of the child and multiplying this ratio by 100, it became possible to
establish an intelligence quotient, or IQ.
Thus, a child of 12 years, chronological age, with a mental age of nine
years, had an IQ of 9/12 x 100 or 75, while a child of the same age with a
mental age of 15 years, had an IQ of 15/12x 100 or 125. Successive tests of
child population samplings by other psychologists disclosed that tested general
intelligence assumed a normal or bellshaped curve, with half of the IQ's falling
within the range of 90 and 110, the remainder being almost equally divided
above and below this range. Terman classified intelligence ratings into the
following mental ability levels: Above 140, "near" genius or genius; 120-140,
very superior; 110-120, superior; 90-110, normal or average; 80-90, dull; 70-
80, borderline mental deficiency; below 70, mental deficiency.

PROBLEMS IN THE TESTING OF INTELLIGENCE

Despite the proliferation of individually applied verbal tests for general
intelligence, their standardization in nearly every tongue and their application
to millions of school children, certain fundamental problems in intelligence
testing remain unsolved.
Among these are:
(a) the nature of the normal learning curve,
(b) the constancy of the IQ and
(c) the nature of the mental functions which the tests presume to
measure.

The form of the learning curve is related both to the constancy of the IQ
and to the determination of a mental growth cessation point, to serve as the
enumerator of the equation for the determining of the IQ among children above
that chronological age.
The determination of that point is of very real significance in the
diagnosis of mental defect, especially when mental deficiency must be
established as a legal entity for purposes of differentiated social treatment.
There is evidence that the growth curve in learning ability reaches its
maximum somewhere between the fourteenth and sixteenth year, and then
declines sharply. Thus, examiners have variously taken chronological ages
between 14 and 16 to represent adulthood, for intelligence testing purposes. As
a result, a given mental age will fluctuate in IQ according to the adult year level
chosen. Until there is arbitrary uniformity in defining this mental growth
cessation point, the percentages of mental deficiency established for either
general populations or delinquent samplings will be non-comparable.
It was suggested by many psychologists that 15 years be arbitrarily set to
represent adulthood for mental growth purposes, and the majority of child
guidance clinics now adhere to this standard. The labeling of children as to
their mental ability by means of the IQ assumes the constancy of the IQ; that
is, that the future mental growth of a child is predictable in terms of his rate of
mental growth up to the time of testing. The evidence to date is that within a
probable error of perhaps 2.5 points in either direction, under conditions of
constant cultural stimulation, the IQ does not vary with age. But such factors
as serious illness, or irregularity in exposure to learning situations, or other
factors that affect opportunity for learning, do appear to affect the learning
growth rate, and the IQ. Thus, there is evidence that children transferred from
inferior to superior cultural environments appreciate in their learning rate, and
gain in IQ, and that children returned from superior to inferior cultural
environments tend to regress in learning rate and in IQ to the level previously
established in the inferior social environment.
The product of learning growth known as "native" general intelligence is
thus not alone dependent upon nature, but on nature and nurture. As a result,
general intelligence must be viewed as a product of biosocial interaction. This
introduces the problem of the significance of cultural differences in the
determination of intelligence levels. This factor is of significance for the relation
between intelligence and delinquency.
Since the accurate measurement of general intelligence is dependent
upon constancy of cultural stimulation, factors tending to differentiate the
cultural background levels of delinquents and non-delinquents would. lead to
the under-estimation or over-estimation of the intelligence of one group or the
other. Thus, a finding as to the relative mental status of delinquents and non-
delinquents requires holding constant the factor of cultural stimulation. Since
this has not usually been done, a finding that delinquents are inferior in tested
general intelligence to non-delinquents does not necessarily prove that
intelligence and delinquency are causally related but only that the same
antecedent factors that contributed an inferior nurture to the group from which
the preponderance of delinquents were drawn, also led to the preponderance of
that culture level in juvenile court arraignments. The desirability of
disentangling the functions of nurture and nature in learning potential, so that
"native" potential may be measured, has led to the suggestion that culture-free
mental tests be devised.
Whether culture-free tests, if they could be devised, would successfully
elicit the full measurement of intelligence potential is questionable. Motivation
has ordinarily strong cultural reference, and especially for delinquents, the
necessity of arousing full response to an intellectual situation probably involves
the utilization of culturally familiar motivations, since among delinquents there
is a disproportion of emotionally disturbed children.
A final comment on the role of culture in the testing of general
intelligence must stress the desirability of the homogeneity of culture
backgrounds among delinquents compared with non-delinquents for mental
status. Since delinquents are drawn disproportionately from urban areas, from
among industrial groupings that include disproportionate numbers of children
of ill-educated, bilingual and low-socio-economic status parentage, they should
be compared in general intelligence, not to the whole child population, nor even
to the total urban child population, but to samplings drawn from the same
races, ethnic origins, socioeconomic levels, and residence areas. These
fundamental needs must be kept in mind in evaluating the available evidence
on the intelligence of delinquents.

Strength and weakness of Intelligence theory

General Intelligence
Strength
 Studies have shown that those who score high in one area, like verbal
intelligence, also tend to score highly in other areas, like special
reasoning.
Weakness
 Human abilities are incredibly diverse.
 One single factor couldn’t account for all factors.

Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities

Strength
 It seems more accurate to have a break down.
 Good inductive reasoning skills while maybe not having high verbal
comprehension.
Weakness
 Those who do well on one of these factors also tend to do well on the
others, which suggest an underlying single intelligence factor.
 This theory has another limitation, it tends to focus primarily on what we
would consider to be book smarts.
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
Strength
 It includes more than just book smarts.
 It takes lots of other human abilities into account.
Weakness
 Intelligence’s term is not recommended to use instead it refers to ability
or talents.
 It depends on whether or not there’s any repercussion to labelling them
in intelligence versus a talent.
  There is isn’t a lot of evidence to support it, and this partially has to do
with the fact that theirs is real way to test it. It is not supported by
research.
Triarchic Theory of Intelligence
Strength
 We can reliably measure things along these 3 lines because it’s fairly
easy to define, it’s so easy to test.
Weakness
 Has fall back on the initial one, which that research has shown that
individuals who score highly on one of these intelligences tend to score
highly on the others as well.

References:
1. What is Social Learning Theory? Social Work Theories and Approaches
(onlinemswprograms.com)
2. Reckless,_Walter_C._-_Containment_Theory.pdf (sagepub.com)
3. https://www.simplypsychology.org/intelligence.html#:~:text=Theories
%20of%20intelligence%20range%20from%20having%20one
%20general,and%20used%20measure%20for%20determining%20an
%20individual%E2%80%99s%20intelligence.
4. https://www.123test.com/what-is-iq-what-is-intelligence/
5. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3857&context=jclc