Cognition and Crime

Kristopher ProctorKirk R. Williams

Nancy G. Guerra

University of California, Riverside

The Differential Association TraditionThe differential association tradition (Akers 1985, 2009; Burgess and Akers 1966; Matsueda 1992; Sutherland 1947; Sutherland, Cressey, Luckenbill 1992) has long focused on providing a “genetic” or “life history” explanation of criminal behavior

These theories explain how an individual develops the skills, attitudes, motivations, rationalizations, etc, which will predispose the person to criminal behavior

Criminal behavior occurs when an individual is confronted with a situation conducive to criminal behavior

Basic Learning Theory Model

Cognitive Elements

See Handout

Knowledge of Others

Knowledge of Cause and Effect

Knowledge of Self

SkillsAttitudes, Morals, and Neutralizations

Empirical Assessment

Learning theories tend to be successful in explaining the formation of cognitions relevant to criminal behavior

• They tend to be less successful in accounting for situational factors (Matsueda 1982, Matsueda and Heimer 1987; Warr and Stafford 1991)

• Theoretical elaborations have focused on:

• Expanding the number of cognitions associated with criminal behavior

• Specifying macro-level forces which structure the development of particular cognitions

Empirical Assessment

Rather than elaborating the theory in terms of macro-dynamics or expanded cognitions, the explanatory power of learning theories can be increased by specifying not only the content of knowledge, but also how knowledge is processed within a given situation

Doing so can shed light on how cognitions and situations interact to produce behavioral outcomes

• This requires a re-examination of “The Black Box” and a “mechanistic” theory of social behavior

“Person and Situation are not factors exclusive of each other, for the situation which is important is the situation as defined by the person who is involved. The tendencies and inhibitions at the moment of the criminal behavior are, to be sure, largely a product of the earlier history of the individual, but the expression of these tendencies and inhibitions is a reaction to his immediate situation as defined by the person.”

(Sutherland 1947: 5)

Social Information Processing Theory

(Crick and Dodge 1994; Dodge 1986)

Database

A database consists of stocks of knowledge

An individuals stocks of knowledge are organized as latent mental structures

Schemata - Categories, rules of membership, causality

Scripts - Event Schemata

Personae or Stereotypes

Working Models - Cognitive understandings of environments & relationships

Cues

Cues are simply stimuli

They can be either external or internal

Encoding

Encoding

In order for a cue to be relevant, one must encode it

Encoding requires the individual to mentally represent stimuli

Much behavior does not occur simply because an individual fails to encoded relevant stimuli

Interpretation

Interpretation

Schemata

Facilitate the interpretation of stimuli

Schemata allow individuals to process information efficiently

People follow rules for categorical and causal classification

Interpretation

Schemata related biases

Causal attribution bias

Hostile attribution bias (Biases inferring intent)

Clarification of Goals

Goals are seen as arousal states

Goals maybe internal or external

Individuals in constant state of arousal and goals may change depending on immediate stimuli

Goals are derived from

Feelings

Temperament

Social sources

Response Access

Individuals draw and construct potential goal-relevant acts from memory

Three important aspects of access

The number of responses generated

Content of response

Order in which responses are generated

Response Decision/Behavior

Individuals evaluate generated response prior to action

Evaluations relate to:

Morals

Outcome expectations

Self-efficacy evaluations

Individuals select the most positively valued response

Behavior occurs

Methodological Implications

Significance of Knowledge

Knowledge acquired over the life course is important

But the relationship between knowledge and behavioral outcome depends upon how knowledge is used in situations

Methodological Implications

The stages of processing suggest methodologies for assessing mental structures

Encoding/Interpretation -

Does a person encode a cue

Does a person infer a cue

Goal Clarification - What emotions are aroused by a stimuli?

Methodological Implications

Response Access

How many responses are generated?

Is the content criminal/non-criminal

How are responses ordered

Response Decisions

Does the participant see a response as immoral?

Is criminal behavior expected to result in favorable outcomes?

Does the participant belief he or she can successfully engage in the act?

Conclusion•What does SIP Theory contribute to the differential association tradition?

•The "person-situation complex" views an "act" as an emergent property of cognition and circumstance

•The distribution/presence of situational cues are important

•The stage of processing in which a cognition is relevant is also important

•A person's stocks of knowledge create situations (both intentionally and unintentionally)

•SIP provides a framework and methodology for examining "cognition in context" and moves away from global attitude measures