Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Law and Justice Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Law and Justice Presentation

861

Published on

Presentation of a study concerning criminal behavior and influencing social environments.

Presentation of a study concerning criminal behavior and influencing social environments.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
861
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Learning to be bad: Adverse Social conditions, social schemas, and crime<br />Created and Presented<br />By,<br />Leslie Jacobsen and Justin Head<br />LAJ 511<br />10/6/2011<br />
  • 2. Review<br />Title: Learning To Be Bad: Adverse Social Conditions, Social Schemas, and Crime<br />Authors: Ronald Simons and Callie Burt<br />Source: The Journal of Criminology Vol. 49(2), p. 553-598, 2011.<br />
  • 3. Theoretical Foundation<br />The authors set out to find an explanation of crime that took into account learned social behaviors and circumstances.<br />The authors used previous theory and studies to come up with their own encompassing theory of social factors that lead to the creation of criminal worldviews. <br />Numerous theories suggest that social schemas serve as links between past experience and future behavior.<br />
  • 4. Theory<br />Offenders are more likely to experience difficulties and challenges relating to:<br />Community disadvantage<br />Inept parenting<br />Discrimination<br />Affiliation with deviant peers<br />Family, peer, and community disadvantages increase criminal activity through a common mechanism, teaching sets of lessons that are internalized as social schemas which justify crime.<br />The Social Schemas include:<br />A hostile view of relationships<br />Concern for immediate gratification<br />A cynical view of conduct norms.<br />The three schema form a criminogenic knowledge structure (CKS) that results in situational interpretations legitimizing criminal behavior.<br />
  • 5. Hostile View of Relationships<br />Studies have found that holding a hostile views of others leads to actions of aggression, referred to as “Code of the Street” (Anderson, 1999).<br />Hostile views lead to a hypersensitivity to disrespect.<br />Causes:<br />Studies have shown that persistent exposure to harsh parenting fosters a hostile view of relationships (Dodge et al., 1990).<br />Research shows that racial discrimination foments a hostile view of relationships (Simon et al, 2006)<br />Persistent exposure to deviant peers is related to a hostile view of others (Granic & Dishion, 2003). <br />Living where crime and victimization are high promotes a hostile view to others (Anderson, 1999).<br />
  • 6. Immediate Gratification<br />Self Control is an important predictor in crime (Pratt & Cullen, 2000).<br />Socially excluded individuals show a reduction in self-control when they are led to believe that their actions will have no impact on future acceptance (Waal, 2008).<br />Research shows that self-control is influence by social experiences and events such as:<br />Parenting<br />Peers<br />Community Characteristics<br />
  • 7. Cynical view of conventional norms<br />Studies have shown that a disparaging view of conventional norms increases the probability of engaging in criminal behavior (Akers, 1998).<br />Conventional Norms include (sexual promiscuity, fighting, substance use and abuse, cheating on tests, and vandalism).<br />Causes:<br />Affiliation with deviant peers and distant parenting decrease commitment to conventional norms.<br />Hostile view of relationships leads to lack of trust and respect for authority figures and social institutions.<br />Neighborhood crime and discrimination convey the message that social norms are unimportant.<br />
  • 8. Social schematic model of crime<br />Hostile View of Relationships<br />Immediate Gratification<br />Low Commitment to Social Conventions<br />Criminogenic Knowledge Structure<br />Definition of the Situation<br />Socio-Environmental Factors:<br /><ul><li>Parenting Practices
  • 9. Community Crime
  • 10. Collective Efficacy
  • 11. Racial Discrimination</li></ul>Criminal<br />Behavior<br />Deviant Peers<br />
  • 12. hypotheses<br />The three schemas will be inter-correlated and it is through their combination that indicates a CKS.<br />The social factors influence the formation of the CKS increasing the likelihood of criminal activity.<br />Association between sex and crime is due to evolved sex differences between males and females in the formation of the CKS:<br />Women’s concern with safety and security will reduce the probability that they will adopt a hostile view of relationships.<br />Women are more likely to endorse conventional norms. <br />The authors expect to find sex differences in self control.<br />
  • 13. Methodology<br />Data: Data was used from the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS).<br />Sample: 700 African American Adolescents from four metropolitan cities in Georgia (Athens & Atlanta) and Iowa (Waterloo & Des Moines).<br />The study is longitudinal occurring between occurring in four waves:<br />Wave One 1997, ages 10-11<br />Wave Two 1999-2000, ages 12-13<br />Wave Three 2001-2002, ages 14-15<br />Wave Four 2004-2005, ages 17-18.<br />The model was measured using self reports and a test on the conduct disorder section of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, V. 4 (DISC-IV). <br />The DISC-IV contains questions regarding how often the respondent engaged in 26 antisocial acts (e.g. shoplifting, assault, vandalism, arson, burglary, robbery, ect.)<br />Data obtained was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling.<br />
  • 14. findings<br />The three schemas were highly inter-correlated and when combined formed a latent construct that strongly predicted increases in criminal activity.<br />Social-environmental variables are significantly related to social schemas in expected direction with once exception, collective efficacy is not related to hostile views.<br />Twenty percent of the variance in three schemas is explained in the models.<br />Social Schemas:<br />Hostile View of Relationships: Found to consist of a cynical view of others’ intentions and a belief in the need for an aggressive attitude to avoid exploitation.<br />Immediate Gratification: (alpha coeffcient.76 at Wave IV.<br />Low Commitment to Social Conventions: (Mean scale of deviant norms alpha coefficient .77 at Wave IV)<br />Wave IV (DISC-IV)<br />20% of the sample contained the variance in the three different schemas.<br />Roughly 33% of sample did not commit any acts.<br />43% committed between 1-4 acts.<br />24% committed 5 or more acts. <br />Sex Differences:<br />Males are more likely to commit acts.<br />Being male is significantly related to crime, tough reputation, and low commitment to social conventions.<br />No significant association found between being male and immediate gratification.<br />
  • 15. scope<br />Attempt to identify the causal relationship between the development of certain social schemas that increase a likelihood of criminality.<br />The study found little causal support of their predicted three schemas forming a CKS that predicted antisocial acts in metropolitan African American teenagers. <br />The results of the study shows the scope to demonstrate that the three social schemas play a role in the development in the socialization of deviant behavior, but how large a role is inconclusive.<br />
  • 16. Parsimony<br />The relationship is Spurious, there does not appear to be a certain causal connection of a formation of a CKS and it resulting in criminality and antisocial behavior in African American inner-city youth.<br />The confirming evidence the authors obtained from their study, seems to prove their schemas are related to social factors which contribute to criminality, as established by other theories within the other fields. <br />
  • 17. limitations<br />The methodology could not test the idea that situational definitions mediate the relationship between the CKS and occurrence of criminal behavior. <br />The length of the intervals between waves precluded the ability to provide a rigid test of causal order.<br />The homogeneity of the sample (All respondents were African American youth from metropolitan areas).<br />Other factors may have been left out of the formation of the CKS.<br />
  • 18. Future Research<br />The social schematic framework presented is a fresh way of thinking about theoretical integration.<br />What is needed is an approach that facilitates the important constructs from these theories into a more comprehensive perspective (Greater scope).<br />The findings suggest that the integration might be achieved by focusing on lessons communicated by recurrent social circumstances and social schemas that result from those lessons. <br />

×