Psychological Process Theory

In this chapter, we focus on Psychological process theories by reviewing social cognitive

and deindividuation theories. We will explore how these psychological theories are relevant to
understanding certain types of behaviour. An important stating place is the difference between
hard and soft determinism (Bandura, 1986). The biological and psychological positivist
approaches introduced in previous chapters are associated with hard determinism. This is the
idea that behaviour is the result biological and psychological abnormalities or antisocial traits.
Psychological process theories assume that whatever individual traits a person may possess,
these traits are shaped through environmental influences. This influences may include the
family, school, peers, or even the social circumstances or situation.

“The seven steps of criminological thinking”

Know the history
The social cognitive and DE individuation theories have a long and overlapping history in
the discipline of psychology.The origin of these theories can be traced back to work on crowd
behavior carried out French social psychologist Gustav Le Bon (1895/1960).The focus of Le
Bon’s (1895) pioneering work,The Crowd was to explain how identification with a group could
override individuals will.According to Le Bon (1895), this process work in conjunction with each
other’s to extinguish one’s individual personality and replace it with a crowd mindset or so called
mob mentality.

Le Bon’s work led to a more formal theory of imitation formulated by another French
social psychologist named Gabriel Tarde (1903) in his work The Law of Imitation. Tarde was
specifically interested in criminal behavior and was quite critical of Lombroso’s work on the
atavistic criminal. Tarde claimed there were three laws of imitation: the law of close contact, the
law of imitation of superiors, and the law of insertion. The law of close contact states thatthe
level of intimacy we share with the role models influences our behavior. In other words, if the
model happens to be a person we have a close relationship with; the impact of the observed
behavior will be greater. The law of imitation of superiors by inferiors simply suggests that
we model our behavior on those who have higher position or more experience than we do. The
law of insertion contends that the new behaviors will either reinforce or replace already
established behaviors.

Assumptions of psychological process theory

Both social cognitive and deindividuation theories assume that humans are blank slates
and that personality is shaped largely in response to one’s environment (Agnew 2011; Bandura,
1986, 2001; Zimbardo, 2007).The major theorists in this area attest to the plasticity of human
nature and our capacity for both good and bad-natured behavior.

In other words, people capable of good and evil, and evolution has programmed us to
change with different situations and environments to allow us to adapt and survive.Some
psychological process theorists also appear to embrace a conflict assumption regarding the
nature of society. Unlike the psychological positivists, psychological process theorists do not
see the law as the ultimate determinant of right and wrong or normal and abnormal. Instead,
they acknowledge that laws and norms change over time and even from situation.
Problem focus, scope, and level of explanation of psychological
process theory
The problem focus of these theories is criminal behavior and, in particular, crime that
occurs in the context of the group and in response to influence of the group.

These theories are applicable to certain forms of white collar and corporate crime that
depend on a group dynamics and influence (Bandura, 1997). Psychological process theories
are posed at the micro level since they primarily consider how group influences affect individual
behavior.

Key terms and concepts in psychological process theory

Social cognitive theory or social learning theory
Albert Bandura

• Born: December 4, 1925, Mundare, Alberta, Canada.

• Canadian-American Psychologist

• Known for social cognitive theory or social learning theory

View that people learn techniques and attitudes is from close relationship and peers. It
posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and modelling.

Bandura also suggested that the effects of this vicarious reinforcement would depend on the
characteristic of both the observer and model being observed.

Bandura determined that modelling can occur in three different ways:

1stlive model – which simply means a person observing someone to know performing a behavior

2nd verbal modelling – or modelling that can be accomplished through verbal instruction.

3rd symbolic modelling – which occurs through various forms of media example in books, TV,
and movies.

Self-efficacy is another important mechanism in social cognitive theory and is one of the key
self-regulatory processes that affect behavior.

Mechanism of moral disengagement according to Bandura (1990):

In this theory, identifies a number of mechanisms that allow an otherwise normal or
“good” person commit bad acts.

1st Moral justification –this refers to when people justify their action by redefining the nature of
the behavior.

2nd Displacement of responsibility – in many cases, a person can avoid moral culpability of a
bad act by claiming that he or she just follows orders of a higher authority.
3rd Diffusion of responsibility – this occurs when the culpability for the morally problematic act is
diffused among a number of people, often through some bureaucratic process.

4th Distorting the consequences of an action – this involves ignoring, minimizing, distorting, or
disbelieving the negative consequences of one’s behavior.

5th Dehumanizing the victim – refers to the practices designed to remove perpetrators empathy
by depicting the victims as lower animals or subhuman. This can be achieved through
comparisons to lower animals.

Deindividuation theory
Philip Zimbardo Leon Festinger

• Born: march 23,1933 • Born: May 8,1919

• American Psychologist • American Social Psychologist

They are known for Deindividuation Theory with Pepitone and Newcomb

Note that Festinger and his colleagues coined the term Deindividuation. It describes the
process that occurs in groups in which a person losses his or her individuality and becomes
enmeshed in the collective interest in the group. The theory suggests that “under conditions
where the member is not individuated in the group, there is likely to occur for the member
reduction of inner restraints against doing various things” (Festinger et al., 1952, p.382).

Zimbardo goes on to suggest that deindividuated states cause people to violate social
norms and behave in emotional, irrational, and impulsive ways. It is a concept is social
psychology that generally thought of as the loss of self-awareness in group, although this is a
matter of contention.

Behaviorism theory
John Broadus Watson

• Born: January 9, 1878

• American Psychologist who established the psychological school of behaviorism

• Known for Behaviorism Theory

John Broadus Watson coined the term behaviourism. Studied how a certain stimuli led
organisms to make Reponses and believed psychology was only an objective observation of
behavior.Behaviorism also known as behavioral psychology, theory of learning based on the
idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning.

-Conditioning occurs through interact interaction with the environment. Behaviorist believes
that our responses to environment stimuli shape our actions.
 Types of conditioning
 Classical Conditioning by Ivan Pavlov

Classical conditioning is a process by which we learn to associate events, or stimuli, that

frequently happen together; as a result of this, we learn to anticipate events. Ivan Pavlov
conducted a famous study involving dogs in which he trained (or conditioned) the dogs to
associate the sound of a bell with the presence of a piece of meat. The conditioning is achieved
when the sound of the bell on its own makes the dog salivate in anticipation for the meat.

 Operant Conditioning by Burrhus Frederic Skinner commonly known as B. F.

Skinner

Operant conditioning is the learning process by which behaviors are reinforced or punished,
thus strengthening or extinguishing a response. Edward Thorndike coined the term “law of
effect,” in which behaviors that are followed by consequences that are satisfying to the organism
are more likely to be repeated, and behaviors that are followed by unpleasant consequences
are less likely to be repeated. B. F. Skinner researched operant conditioning by conducting
experiments with rats in what he called a “Skinner box.” Over time, the rats learned that
stepping on the lever directly caused the release of food, demonstrating that behavior can be
influenced by rewards or punishments. He differentiated between positive and negative
reinforcement, and also explored the concept of extinction.

The Lucifer effect theory

Philip Zimbardo

• Born: march 23,1933

• American Psychologist

• Founder of Lucifer Effect Theory a 2007 book

-Understanding how good people turn evil

-In a compelling story of his own life's journey, Philip Zimbardo juxtaposes his famous Stanford
Prison Experiment (SPE) and the e quality Milgram Experiment on obedience to authority
with the scandalous events at the Abu Ghraib prison during war in Iraq.
Early learning theories and criminalities
Edward Lee Thorndike Clark Leonard Hull

 Born: August 31, 1874  Born: May 24, 1884

 American psychology  American psychologist
Founder of Early learning theories and criminalities

These theories stressed that behavior can also be learned from the consequences of
behavior as opposed to simple conditioning based on external factors.Focus on the notion that
behavior of the consequence of another behavior.It means that a person's behavior is thought to
be the results of other surrounding behavior.

There are 5 key concepts to further understand the theory:

1st Aggression is the consequence of frustration- Aggression: the effect of frustration. But it does
not mean that every frustrated person becomes aggressive because these emotions can be
controlled.

2nd Instigator is basically a broader version of stimulus and serves to motivate behavior - .
Aggression comes from the instigator. The instigator motivates the person to be aggressive.An
instigator can sometimes be confused with a stimulus since both can result to behavior. But
there is a difference stimulus is energy from the environment that can be pucked up by the
senses only.But an instigator can result to aggressive behavior and can come from any
situation. Instigators are wider and more various than stimuli.

3rd Goal response is any behaviorthat terminates the instigator - The goal of the aggressive
behavior is to remove the instigator in order to achieve a state of normality

4th Reinforcing effect refers to the recollection of successful goal responses initiating a learning
process- Reinforcing Effects can be lessons that a person can apply to their behavior in order
to achieve goals.

5th Frustration defined as the denial of a goal responses arising from either - . Frustration:
comes when goals are far out of reach or when a person receives a consequence and they
can't do anything about it.But, according to Dollard, frustration and aggression alone does not
result to criminality. It is the increase of frustration, and the decrease of the awareness of
consequences that results to crime.
There are 4 key factors important to understanding this theory. Miller and
Dollard developed 4 factors that they thought could explain the roots of
behavior:
1st Drive is the motivation to act or strong stimulus- Drives: they motivate the person to take
action. It can be an instigator or a stimulus.

2 types of drives
 Primary drives are innate and arise in response to frustration, pain, fatigue, hunger,
thirst, cold, and sex.
 Secondary drives are acquired and are learned in response to social conventions.
2ndResponse refers to learned behavior that is the result of drives-. Response: this comes from
the drives. It refers on how the person could react to a Drive.

3rdCues elicit response and determine when responses occur-. Cues: determines on how a
person should respond to a drive. This determines the person on what appropriate action to
take.

4thRewards increase response rates through learning-Rewards: these are the results to
responses and can help the person to do more responses that result to rewards.

There are 4 instigators:

1. Aversive- Threat, insult, and assault
2. Incentive- Reward money and praise
3. Modelling- Idolizing or imitating a person
4. Delusional- Wrong beliefs and lack of perception

Crowd theory
Charles-Marie Gustave Le Bon
• Born: May 7,1841
• French polymath whose areas of interest include anthropology, psychology, sociology,
medicine, invention, and physics.
• He best known for his 1895 work ;
• The Crowd: A study of the popular mind, which is considered one of the seminal works
of crowd psychology
Explain how identification with group could override individual will. A study of the population
mind, attributed crowd behaviour to the collective racial unconscious of the mob overtaking
individual’s sense of self and personality and personal responsibility.The theory suggests that
crowds exert a sort of hypnotic influence on their members.

The Mob
When an acting crowd starts to engage in destructive and sometimes violent behavior,
they become a mob. A mob is a crowd that is easily persuaded to take aggressive or violent
action in order to gain attention or solve their problem. Mobs are dangerous because they often
lead to behavior that an individual would not normally engage in and cause a lot of damage to
physical property and others. We better get out of here. It looks like this crowd has turned into
an angry mob!

Three major theories that explain crowd behavior

 Contagion theory
Le Bon also formulated the contagion theory, which argues that crowds cause
people to act in a certain way. The theory suggests that crowds exert a sort of hypnotic
influence on their members. The hypnotic influence combined with the anonymity of
belonging to a large group of people, even just for that moment, results in irrational,
emotionally charged behavior. Or, as the name implies, the frenzy of the crowd is
somehow contagious, like a disease, and the contagion feeds upon itself, growing with
time. In the end, the crowd has assumed a life of its own, stirring up emotions and
driving people toward irrational, even violent action

 Convergence theory
Whereas the contagion theory states that crowds cause people to act in a certain
way, convergence theory says the opposite. People who want to act in a certain way
intentionally come together to form crowds. Convergence theory was formulated by
many leading sociologists, and it assumes that when a critical mass of individuals with
the same desire to effect change come together, collective action occurs almost
automatically.

 Emergent norm theory

Emergent norm theory states that crowd behavior is guided by unique social
norms, which are established by members of the crowd.
The emergent norm theory combines the above two theories, arguing that it is a
combination of likeminded individuals, anonymity, and shared emotion that leads to
crowd behavior. It argues that people come together with specific expectations and
social norms, but in the interactions that follow the development of the crowd, new
expectations and norms can emerge. This allows for behavior that normally would not
take place.

There are four different types of crowds:

1. Casual Crowd

This crowd probably formed as a casual crowd. That person holding the sign and
standing on the platform over there probably prompted people to stop and listen. Casual crowds
are loosely organized and emerge spontaneously. The people forming the crowd have very little
interaction at first and usually are not familiar with each other.

2. Conventional Crowd
 Conventional crowds result from more deliberate planning with norms that are defined
and acted upon according to the situation. See, this crowd is starting to form a circle around the
man on the platform. They have decided that this is the appropriate action to take.

3. Expressive Crowds

Expressive crowds form around an event that has an emotional appeal. It seems the
man on the platform is talking about the recent tax hike that the city council approved. That may
be why this crowd has become engaged and is growing.

4. Acting Crowd

An acting crowd refers to a crowd where the members are actively and enthusiastically
involved in doing something that is directly related to their goal. This crowd is now chanting
loudly, 'Lower our taxes now!'

As we have seen, crowds can change types.

Respect the research

Stanley Milgram (1963, 1974) conducted a famous experiment design to access blind
obedience. They were then told by the experimenter that they were completing a task on
learning and that they were to read a list of word pairs to a “learner” and then test the learner on
accuracy. The participant was to administer a shock to the learner via a nearby fake control
panel (the learners were part of the experiment, and the shock was not real). After each wrong
answer, the intensity of the shock increased. The participant was instructed by the experimenter
to continue to administer the shocks, stating that it was their duty. As the voltage increased, the
learner would begin to complain of pain, yell out in discomfort, and eventually scream that the
pain was too much. In the study, 65% of experiment participants administered the experiment’s
final, and most severe, 450-volt shock.

This shown most of the participants were good, average people, not evil individuals.
They obey under the coercion. In general, more submission was elicited from the participant
when (1) the authority figure was in close proximity, (2) participants felt they could pass on
responsibility to others, and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected
organization. Theparticipant, covered by the veil of anonymity, was able to be more aggressive
in this situation than they possibly would have normal setting.
Theory/practice problem
In his discussion of antisocial aggression, Bandura (1973) argued that the approach to
corrections embraced by our criminal justice is antiquated.Further, he contended that the most
correctional practices meant to reform are unable to effect meaningful changes in personality.

Bandura (1973) offered several alternative practices based on social cognitive theory.
Some of these include institutional remedial system based on rewards rather than punishments;
competency training that offers opportunities to improve intellectual, educational, and/ or
vocational skills; the development of self-regulatory functions by involving inmates in treatment
programs, and encouraging inmates to change their association preferences from antisocial to
prosocial groups.

Haney (1982, 2002) forcefully argues that our modern system of criminal justice
embraces an outdated view informed by individualistic psychology and ignores important
psychological research and findings. Deindividualistic theorists appeared particularly displeased
with the change in criminal justice policy that took place in the 1980s. This change involved
increased incarceration and a shift away from the rehabilitative approach to severe punishment.
Other problems include a racial disparity in sentencing and excessive instances of incarceration
of nonviolent drug offenders (Haney &Zimbardo, 1998).
Mapping

Group 1
Topic:

Psychological Process
Theory
Members:
Capacio, Jayson
Adao, John Ver
Lat, Kim Jayson
Mascariñas, Earl John
Sanghilan, John Hendrick