Learning Theories of Criminality
Learning Theories of Criminality
Why do some people commit crime while others do not? One explanation is that criminal behaviour is learned, in the same way any other behaviour is learned. Two theories dominate this explanation: operant conditioning and social learning theory. Both argue that nobody is born a criminal — criminal behaviour is picked up from the environment around them.
Operant Conditioning (Skinner, 1938)
B.F. Skinner argued that behaviour is shaped by its consequences. If a behaviour is followed by something pleasant, it becomes more likely to happen again. If it is followed by something unpleasant, it becomes less likely to happen again. This applies directly to crime: if offending brings a reward, it will continue; if it brings a punishment, it may stop.
Reinforcement makes a behaviour more likely to happen again. Positive reinforcement means gaining a reward, such as money gained from theft. Negative reinforcement means escaping something unwanted, such as avoiding bullying by joining a gang that offends together.
Punishment makes a behaviour less likely to happen again. Positive punishment means receiving something unwanted, such as a prison sentence. Negative punishment means losing something wanted, such as losing a driving licence.
Reinforcement increases a behaviour; punishment decreases it. ‘Positive’ means adding something; ‘negative’ means removing something. This gives four combinations: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, positive punishment and negative punishment.
Skinner also distinguished reinforcers. A primary reinforcer satisfies a basic need directly, such as money spent on food after a theft. A secondary reinforcer has learned value, such as praise or status gained from other gang members. For many young offenders, approval from a peer group acts as a powerful secondary reinforcer that keeps criminal behaviour going.
Strength: the theory is supported by controlled research showing reinforcement genuinely changes behaviour, and it has real-world application in reward-based rehabilitation, such as token economy programmes used in prisons.
Weakness: the theory ignores biological and cognitive factors, such as personality, and cannot easily explain crimes with no obvious reward, such as impulsive violence. It also cannot explain why two people with the same reinforcement history do not both turn to crime.
Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977)
Albert Bandura argued that people also learn behaviour simply by watching others, without needing to be reinforced themselves. People are especially likely to imitate role models who are similar to them, high in status, or attractive. When a role model performs a behaviour, this is called modelling.
The observer often experiences identification with the role model, wanting to be like them. Learning a new behaviour purely through watching, without needing to practise it first, is called observational learning.
Whether the observer actually copies the behaviour often depends on vicarious reinforcement. If a younger sibling sees an older sibling praised for shoplifting, they are more likely to copy the crime themselves — they do not need to be rewarded personally, only to see someone else rewarded.
Social learning theory says behaviour is learned by watching role models (modelling), wanting to be like them (identification), and seeing them rewarded (vicarious reinforcement) — imitation does not require personal reinforcement.
Strength: supported by experimental evidence (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1961) showing behaviour genuinely is imitated after observation, and it explains why crime often runs in families or friendship groups, since role models are usually close to the observer.
Weakness: not everyone who watches a criminal role model goes on to commit crime, so the theory struggles to explain individual differences, and it may underestimate the influence of biology and personality on criminal behaviour.
The Study: Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961)
Bandura, Ross and Ross carried out a laboratory experiment to test whether children would imitate aggressive behaviour after observing an adult role model — a study often referred to as the Bobo doll study.
Aim: to investigate whether children would imitate aggressive behaviour they had observed in an adult model, and whether the imitation would still occur once the model was no longer present.
Procedure: children were shown an adult model behaving either aggressively or non-aggressively towards a large inflatable Bobo doll. The children were then observed alone in a room containing the doll and other toys, without the model present, and their behaviour was recorded.
Results: children who had watched the aggressive model showed significantly more imitative aggressive acts towards the Bobo doll than children who had watched the non-aggressive model or no model at all.
Conclusion: children learn aggressive behaviour through observation and imitation of a role model, supporting social learning theory as an explanation of how aggressive and criminal behaviour can be learned.
Strength: the laboratory setting allowed careful control of variables, so a cause-and-effect link between observing aggression and imitating it could be established with confidence. Weakness: the artificial setting and use of a doll, rather than a real victim, means the findings may lack validity when generalised to real aggressive or criminal behaviour outside the laboratory.