Terms in this set (97)

Uniform Crime Reports
FBI data on crimes known to police
Started in 1930s
Took time to be credible
About 17,000 city, county, and state law enforcement agencies (95% of the total population) that give data to the UCR
Arrest does not have to be made for it to be inputted in the UCR. Police must verify crime was committed

UCR Offenses: Divided into two parts:
Part 1: Index Crimes (more serious)
Criminal Homicide
Forcible Rape
Aggravated Assault
Motor Vehicle Theft
Part II Crimes
Simple Assaults
Weapons offenses
Drug Violations
Disorderly Conduct
Etc. (21 Total)
Process of Crime Being Recorded as Part of UCR
1. Citizen detects the offense
- Someone has to see it
2. Citizen decides to report the offense to police (and actually does so)
Common place for process to break down
Factors That Influence This Step (Citizen Reporting to Police)
- Seriousness
- Perceived Seriousness
- Act perceived as a crime
Have to know that its criminal
3. Police officer interprets the recorded offense
4. Police officer decides to record offense as an official crime
Factors That Influence This Step (Police Recording a Crime)
- Does evidence indicate that a crime occurred?
- Does victim prefer to treat matter informally?
- Seriousness
- Professionalism of police department
Less professional in that don't have clear guidelines
More professionalism more reports
5. Offense recorded under UCR category and reported to the FBI
If process breaks down at any stage, the crime will not be recorded in the UCR, affecting validity!
What type of crime is more likely to be reported to the police?
For which offense does the UCR have the best validity?
Part I crimes more validity (have more obvious victims and more serious)
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) data provide valid measures of the index crimes, and in some cases, measures more valid than those provided by victimization surveys
(The class questionnaire was a self-report crime survey)
What is the advantage of self-report crime surveys?
Overall, 3.2 self reported offenders for every convicted offender
For drug use, 20.3 self reported offenders, for every convicted offender
Get out "The Dark Figure of Crime"
Unknown to the police

Looking at class answers: Where do we draw the line? Who do we define as a criminal?
Criminality as a continuum in our class
Unclear who is and isn't a criminal
Point of activity: We are all criminals and engage in some level of criminal so its hard to draw the line and say some are and some aren't criminals - very arbitrary

Advantages of Self-Report Crime Instruments
1. Does not just measure crime that has come to the attention of the police
2. Some groups are more likely to be arrested than others
Bad neighborhood with strong police presence more likely to be arrested than if you were in a good neighborhood
Measure everybody's criminality regardless of how LIKELY they are of getting caught
3. Captures less serious criminality - We are all criminals!!

Threats to Validity of Self-Report Crime Surveys
1. Memory Problems
2. Failure to disclose criminal acts
3. Often do not include more serious crimes
- Wouldn't really ask if you killed someone etc
4. Potentially biased samples
- Those who choose not to fill out self-report crime survey may have good reason not to!

• Self report studies have shown drastically higher rates of unofficial delinquency and much weaker correlations by class and race than are disclosed by official statistics
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
- Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Justice Statistics
- Started in 1973 (hasn't existed for as long as UCR)
- Asks respondents from national sample of approximately 43,000 households (80,000 people)
- Researchers visit houses
- Houses remain in sample for 3 years
- Ask about number of incidents of victimization over a specific time period
• Includes all Part I offenses (except homicide and arson)
• Does not include Part II offenses

1. Advantages
- Give information about the "dark figure of crime"
2. Disadvantages
- Memory
• People forget
- Differing perceptions of criminality
- Discrete events versus continuous processes
• Hard to count crimes that happen over and over again
- Interviewer effects
• some people are better than others
- Telescoping
• Move events that occurred before the study period to the study period

• Victimization surveys indicate that the majority of crimes are not reported to the police
• The vast majority of crime goes unrecorded and the large number of unreported crimes called dark figure of crime is used to call into question the validity of official statistics
• Also argued that the victimization surveys and the UCR appear to be measuring different things

• Victimization Surveys:
• Can be seen as an attempt to estimate the amount of criminal behavior using techniques that are entirely independent of the process that leads to officially recorded crime
• Discrete incidents with a beginning and an end which are sharply bounded in time and space
• Resemble enduring conditions
• Operationalizing victimizations implies that crimes can be understood apart from their social context, that they are discrete events which are bounded in time and space, and that crimes are knowable as discrete individual incidents

• Criminality is not strictly defined in terms of behavior: ie the UCR definitions of aggravated assault
• Definition: an unlawaful attack by one person against another for the purpose of inflicting severe bodily injury, usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or other means likely to produce death or severe bodily harm
• Confusions:
o Attack doesn't need to produce injury since definition says attempts
o Issue of intent is crucial
o Whether an attack is "unlawful" is hard for the average citizen to determine
o Victimization surveys don't determine who is the aggressor and who is the victim
o What is a severe injury
o Most common reason for not reporting a crime: "it was not a police matter" suggesting that the victim did not wish to treat it as a crime. Nevertheless, these incidents are reported as crimes in the surveys

• Discrete events vs. Continuous Processes
• Child abuse, spouse abuse, robberies of children at school are viewed as ongoing processes
• Father comes home drunk and beats family regularly: crime surveys refer to it as series offenses
• Series offenses: incidents that are so frequent, similar in character, or otherwise difficult to separate that the victim cannot disentangle them during the interview into concrete events occurring at specific times
o 100 series incidents recorded every month
o make up about 3% of all incident reports
o disproportionately violent crimes
• Reliance on victims definition of criminal acts
• The surveys rely on the report of the victims so the data may be distorted depending on how they define crime
• Key issue with assaultive behavior
o Education is positively associated with victimization by assault
• 1976: person with college degree recalled three times as many assaults as those with only an elementary education
• two competing explanations:
educated persons are better respondents and give more complete information
lower-class environment may see a certain act as a normal aspect of daily life, while persons who have had very little contact with physically assaultive behavior may see the same act as a brush with criminal violence
• subcultural differences in the salience of aggressive behavior may also explain some of the perplexing racial differences
1. THEORY: New policing tactics led to the "great crime decline"
- "Broken Windows Policing"
• Instituted IN NYC during Giuliana era by William Bratton
• Aggressive policing of quality of life crimes (loitering, vandalism, sneaking onto subway, etc.) will lead to a decline in more serious crimes like violence
* Arrest people for minor offenses (like getting rid of graffiti) will signify to people that this is an orderly society and people need to follow the laws
* NYC has a huge decline in property crimes and violent crimes
- Problems with it:
• Crime declined before policing changed so makes people question if crime is responsible for the decline
* Crime had already been dropping in NYC since the 1980's (before new policing tactics were implemented)
- More problems:
•Crime was dropping in US as a whole, not just NYC where policing tactics changed

2. Theory #2: Crime declined because of changes in US lead exposure
- Lead exposure is linked to declines in cognitive abilities
• Lead exposure particularly problematic when it occurs before age 3 (Rick Nevin)
- Lead exposure most commonly occurred through lead paint (almost all homes in the 1900s) and leaded gasoline (mid 1960s-1970s)
- Lead and gasoline parallels crimes
•Happened after cuz if youre exposed at three you wont hurt anyone so you want to look at a person years after being exposed
• Blood lead level during early childhood (before age 6 years) linked to violet crime in adulthood
- Don't have that pattern in the other graph so not entirely conclusive as it appeared in first chart

3. The Great American Crime Decline - Franklin E. Zimring
- The crime decline was caused by multiple forces. No one force caused the entire decline.
1. Changes in Demographic Conditions
- Percentage of the population in the high-risk ages of 15-29 dropped from 27.4% of the population in 1980 to 20.9% in 2000
2. Improvement in Economic Conditions
- Economy expanded consistently after 1992
3. Increase in Incarceration Rate
- Incarceration reached all time high
4. Increase in the number of police
- Zimring: Some of these theories are unpersuasive:
• Canada also had a similar crime decline but mass imprisonment, policing changes, and economic boom did not happen there
• One shared trend: Decline in the relative size of the youth population
- African Americans represent 12% of population
• But represent 63% of those arrested for burglary
• African Americans also more likely to be victimized
- African American men have 1 in 20 chance of being murdered in their lifetime (LaFree et al., 1992)
- Blacks are overrepresented amongst those with low SES
• Effect of race is greatly reduced when SES taken into account
• More of an SES issue than a race issue

Alternative Explanation: American Legal Policies Disproportionately affect African Americans "The War on Drugs"
- Declared by Richard Nixon in 1971
- "Public enemy number one in the United States."
• Huge backlash against drug use
- Increased law enforcement and regulation of drugs
- Mandatory Sentencing Laws
- 400% increase between 1980s and 1990s in the chance that a drug arrest would lead to prison sentence
- Affect of policies on African Americans:
• Police were more likely to enhance policing and drug arrests in disadvantaged, minority neighborhoods (Bobo & Thompson, 2006)
• By 2004, black males made up 43.3% of males in prison in US
• Black males in 1990s faced 1 in 3 odds of incarceration in their lifetime (Blumstein, 2001)
• Mandatory sentencing laws with harsher penalties for crack cocaine
* In 1990's 5 grams of crack and 500 grams of powder cocaine resulted in same 5 year mandatory prison term
* Most convicted of crack offenses were black, low-level drug dealers
* Sentencing laws for crack cocaine are much harsher than for powder cocaine
- Crack cocaine more common in black neighborhoods than white
- People thought this was a policy that was racist
- Led to a lot of black dealers being arrested

The New Jim Crow:
- White people also use drugs, but they are not as likely to be arrested and punished
• Uneven enforcement of drug laws
• We do see evidence of this:
* 1991: 12% us population were drug users and use drugs slightly more than the national average (very slight - not really using drugs at much higher rate) but the percentage of drug arrests for black people is much higher even though they don't do drugs statistically higher rate. Drug convictions and prison sentences even higher too

Alternative Explanation:
- Bias against African Americans in the criminal justice system may lead to greater crime rates
• Earl Sampson arrested 62 times for "trespassing" at the store where he works
• Earl Sampson is a case study
• Can systematically study racial bias in police stops
* Every time they stop somebody they need to file a report so we know how successful it was etc
- "Stop and Frisk" in NYC
• Only 6% lead to an arrest and only 1% has a weapon
• The lawful practice of "temporarily detaining, questioning, and, at times, searching civilians on the street"
• Requires "reasonable suspicion"
1. Bulge in pocket
2. Walking away from police
1. Weapons (including waistband bulge)
2. Suspicious behavior in a crime area
3. Fitting a BOLO (be on the look out) description

Gelman et al. 2007
- Analyzed NYPD stop records from January 1998-March 1999 (about 175,00 stops total)
- Blacks made up 51% of stops (only made up 26% of the population)
• Doesn't suggest racial bias because they could've just gone to bad black neighborhoods
- Stops of blacks were less likely to lead to arrest than stops of whites (lower "hit rates")
• Whites more likely to be arrested upon stops - suggests blacks are being stopped for less of a reason than white people

Overlap between race and social class may mean that race and ethnic differences are the product of socioeconomic status rather than race per se
The Age Crime Curve
- Crime tends to peak in late adolescence/early adulthood and then see steep dramatic declines as people get older
- Age is very strong correlation to crime
- A Key Take Away from Age-Crime Curve
• Almost everyone who is criminal as an adult was an antisocial adolescent, but most antisocial adolescents will not become criminal adults

- The Age-Crime Curve Over Time
• Adolphe Quetelet (19th century criminologist) already found evidence for the age-crime curve
• Some argue that the age-crime curve is invariant across time and place (Hirschi)
• BUT, there do seem to be some differences
* Steffensmeier et al.
• Flatter age crime curves (older peak age) found in 3 circumstances
1. Cultures in which youth have greater access to legitimate opportunities
2. Populations for whom legitimate opportunities and integration into adult society do not increase much with age
• These occur more often in preindustrial societies where youth started working at a young age and contributed to society early in life
- Life doesn't change as much from child to adult
- Flatter age crime curves
• When do we see flatter age crime curves?
3. Types of crimes for which illegitimate opportunities increase with age
• Difficult to be a white collar criminal if you don't have a job
• Crimes like embezzlement, stock fraud, and bribery tend to peak at older ages

- Age-Crime Curve Variations for Other Offense Types
• Offenses with youngest peaks include:
* Vandalism, petty theft, robbery arson, liquor law violations
• Personal crimes have older age distributions (peaks in late 20's)
* Aggravated assault and homicide
- Can the Age-Crime Curve Help Explain the Crime Decline in the US?
• Changes in the composition of the US: Baby boom generation led to increases in the most crime-prone age group during the 1960's and 1970's
Crime peaks in adolescence or young adulthood and then declines
- Average age of offenders is between 25 and 30
Crimes that don't decline with age:
- Gambling

Age affecting crime:
- Younger one is at the onset of criminal activity, more likely to pursue crime in later life and more likely to be involved in serious crime
- Older a person is when released from prison, less likely he/she will return to crime
- Offenders outgrow crime:
• Aging criminals apply a cost-benefit analysis and as one gets older the cost outweighs the benefits
• Older better at delaying gratification and considering future consequences
• Older decrease in speed, physical stamina, and other physical characteristics
Elderly crimes:
• Drunk and disorderly
• Body exposure
• Larcency theft
• Lack strong bonds to conventional adult institutions, such as work and family
• Teens faced with strong potential rewards for offending: money, status, power, autonomy, identity claims, strong sensate experiences stemming from sex, natural adrenaline, highs from drugs, respect from peers
• Dependent status as juveniles insulates teens from many of the social and legal costs of illegitimate activities
• Certain amount of misbehavior is seen as natural to youth and a part of growing up
• Contemporary teenagers in industrialized nations are subject to greater status anxiety than in previous periods of history and that the transition from adolescence to adulthood is more turbulent now than in the past
• Structure of illegitimate opportunities increases rather than disappears with age (fraud)
• Aging out of crime
- Requires bonds to conventional adult individuals and institutions
• Job (shifts attention from present to future)
• Involvement in religion, sports, hobbies etc
- Fear of dying alone in prison
• Older criminals
- First time offenders: situational stress and lack of alternative opportunities
- Older offenders: criminal underworld; successful in their criminal activities or are extensively integrated into subcultural or family criminal enterprises
• Unlikely to see many meaningful opportunities for themselves in the conventional or law abiding world
• Downward tends in crime rates
- Maybe because of the strong economy and low unemployment of the 1990s
- Sex is one of the strongest correlates of crime.
- Males more criminal than females
- Men also more likely to be victims of crime (with the exception of rape) than females
- Age-crime curves similar for males and females
• BUT crime tends to peak earlier for females. Why?
* Correlation between sex and crime does not depend on how you measure crime:
- Same results for official police statistics, self-report, and victimization surveys
- "Gender demands attention in the search for the origins of crime" - Wilson and Hernstein
* Testosterone
- Testosterone linked to social dominance which may take the form of criminal behavior
- Violent prison inmates had higher testosterone levels (Aromaki et al., 1999)
- Testosterone levels higher in men convicted of premeditated homicide (Dabbs et al., 2001)
* Higher levels of empathy in females (Bebeau & Brabek)
* Differential socialization of men and women
- Society values "manhood"
- Aggression seen as means of achieving manhood (Bosson & Vandello, 2011)
* Another Possibility: Delinquent Peers
- Males have more delinquent peers than females & more likely to be influenced by them (Mears et al., 1998)
- Girls that spend time in mixed-sex groups more likely to be delinquent (Giordano)
- Girls who go through puberty early are more likely to be friends with older males and also more likely to be delinquent (Stattin & Magnunsson)
- Girls in same sex schools less delinquent (Caspi et al.)

• Age differences between sexes exist
- Lower peak ages of offending among females because of their earlier physical maturity and the likelihood that young adolescent females might date and associate with older delinquent male peers
2. Classical Criminology (mid 18th century)
- Crime is a decision - choice people make; crime as a choice
- Beccaria:
• Utilitarianism: People in their behavior want to maximize pleasure and avoid pain
• Crimes occur when the potential pleasure and reward from illegal acts outweigh the pains of punishment
* Outweigh the cost/pains of punishment
• Crime is a rational decision
- Weigh cost-benefits; it's a decision
• Lady justice statue
- Wearing a blindfold
- Individual characteristics didn't matter at all; anyone can make this cost-benefit analysis
- Crime is all about a decision you make

Saw criminal as a rational person who acts as a result of free will on a pleasure-seeking basis

Speed and certainty of punishment, rather than its severity are the most critical factors in deterrence.
Criminal penalties should prescribe a degree of punishment (pain) just sufficient to offset the potential gains (pleasure) of criminal behavior, so that the net result (negative utility) would be deterrence
Would-be criminal could be deterred by threat of punishment if that punishment was swift, certain, appropriate for the offense and sufficiently unpleasant to offset any potential gains to be realized by committing the act

• Factors could operate to impair ones reason and thereby mitigate personal responsibility to an extent
• A particular sentence could have different effects on different offenders and an awareness that the prison environment could affect the future criminality of the offeneder
3. Biological Positivism (19th century)
- Positivism = Human behavior is a function of external forces beyond an individual's control
• Outside of our control
• Forces we cant control that lead us to be criminal
• Use of the scientific method to study human behavior
* Important that they used scientific method; want to study it in a scientific method
- Early positivistic thinkers in criminology were interested in the biological basis of crime
1. Lombroso (1835-1909)
• Physical traits that distinguish criminals from noncriminals
• Biological basis of crime
• Abnormal ears; big pouty lips; petruding chin; forehead
• Biological throwbacks
- More similar to our ancestors; apelike; haven't evolved like we have
- Atavistic features
* By evolutionary throwbacks
2. Phrenology: Founded by Franz Gall (1758-1828) not a positivist cuz he didn't use scientific method but Lombroso referenced him
• Could tell which faculties are largest based on bumps on the skull
• Criminals → people who have bumps on the skull at the location designated for criminals
• Different parts of the brain represent different personalities
• Biological basis

born criminal" who was discernibly different from noncriminals in physical ways
bore bodily stigmata which marked them as a separate class of people
had no fully evolved - were inferior organisms reminsiscent of apelike, preprimitive man, incapable of adapting to modern civilization
atavistic - criminal was physically characteristic of a lower phylogenetic level
physical and nonphysical anomalies
ultimately accepted environmental and other factors as equally valid contributing causes of crime
- Purpose is to estimate the degree of heritability of a behavior
• Identify genetic vs. environmental influences
• Two types: Adoption and twin studies

- Adoption studies examine the outcomes of children reared away from their biological parents
• If child more similar to biological parents than adoptive parents, we can conclude that genetics plays some role in explaining the behavior
• Mednick et al. (1984) Analyzed conviction records of 14,427 adoptees in Denmark (1927-1947)
- Wanted to see if kids were more like biological or adoptive parents
- 20% if adoptive parents are non-criminal but born to criminal parents - still ending up being more criminal; can conclude theres something biological
- 24.5% if adoptive and biological parents are criminal
- some genetic basis to criminal behavior
• Nonadditive Effects
- 862 Swedish men adopted before age 3 years
- Parents classified according to risk status (occupational status, criminal behavior, alcohol abuse)
- Both genetic and social risk disproportionally increases risk of antisocial behavior

- Twin studies
• Identical (monozygotic twins) share 100% genes
• Fraternal (dizygotic twins) share 50% genes
• If genes play a role in explaining a particular behavior, we would expect that the behavior of identical twins would be more similar than the behavior of fraternal twins.
* A = additive genetic
- Genetics
* C = common environment
* E = nonshared environment (+ error)
• Rhee & Waldman (2002): Meta-analysis of 42 twin samples
* 45% antisocial behavior was explained by genetics; can be explained by genes (45%)
- antisocial behavior is more aggression and bad behavior
* 12% common environment
* 43% nonshared environment
• MZ Twins Reared Apart
- The Jim Twins
* Same height and weight
* Both married and divorced a Linda, then married a Betty
* Both named their dog Toy
* Named their first sons James Allen
* Both drank Miller Lite, liked beach holidays in the same place, smoked Salem cigarettes, and suffered from Migraines
* Used the same rare Swedish toothpaste
* Drove the same model and color Chevy
* Similarities because of genetics
- Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart
* Age at separation ranged from birth-4.5 years (median = 0.2 years)
* Separation until first contact ranged from 0-64 years (median 33.8 years)
* Tellegen et al. (1988) measured aggression with the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
- Similarities probably due to genetics cuz they grew up in different environments
- Tellegan et al. (1988) Intraclass Correlations for the MPQ
• Fraternal twins reared together- aggression not similar (.14)
• Identical twins reared together - aggression more similar (.43)
• Identical twins who haven't met each other are more similar than twins who happen to live in the same household who just don't share all of their genes (.46)
- Once heritability is established, we then search for the specific genes involved.
- We often begin this search by identifying genes involved in biological systems that influence antisocial behavior
- Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA)
• Brunnner et al. 1993: Analyzed 4 generations of males in a Dutch family who were aggressive and had borderline mental retardation
* Males had a defective gene that encodes for MAOA
* Mutation resulted in no functional MAOA in the males
* MAOA metabolizes neurotransmitters involved in impulse control, including dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine
- (Things that we imagine affect criminal behavior)
• Gene x Environment Interaction (GxE)
- Caspi et al. (2002): no direct effect of MAOA on antisocial behavior
* Didn't have direct affect on antisocial behavior
* Low MAOA and severe antisocial behavior
* Measured childhood maltreatment and then measured antisocial behavior (aggression, temper tantrums)
* High MAOA doesn't matter if you were maltreated level of antisocial behavior is relatively low
* Severely maltreated and high MAOA results in increase in likelihood kids will show antisocial behavior
- Replications of Caspi et al. (2002)
* Some results have been mixed
• GxE interaction in white, but not nonwhite subjects (Widom & Brzustowicz, 2006)
• Results are inconsistent in females
* Overall, a meta-analysis revealed a significant GxE interaction in males (Byrd & Manuck, 2013)
- Ladan and Laleh
* Born conjoined at the head- shared 100% of genetic influences
* But, there were differences between them:
• Laleh liked computer games, which Ladan couldn't stand them
• Ladan left handed, Laleh right handed
• Ladan wanted to be a lawyer, Laleh a journalist
• Ladan was extroverted, Laleh an introvert
* How is this possible when they shared identical genes and environment?
- Epigenetics
• Any process that alters gene activity without changing the DNA sequence
• Epigenetic modifications affect the ability of the gene to be read and translated into proteins
* Make gene expression more or less likely
• Epigenetic modifications can be influenced by the external physical and social environment
* Weaver et al. (2004):
- Anxious mothers have anxious pups
- Is this genetic
• Rats adopted by low-anxious mothers become low- anxious themselves, regardless of their biological mother
• Rats adopted by high-anxious mothers became high- anxious regardless of their biological mothers
• Do we conclude nurture?
* Suggests nurture
• What about epigenetics?
* Could be playing a role too
* Licking and grooming affect gene expression. These changes in gene expression affect the pup's behavior.
- high licking and grooming increase gr expression low cortisone levels, low anxiety, high licking or grooming
- low licking and grooming decrease gr expression high cortisone levels, high anxiety, low licking or grooming
• Behavior of mother is affecting gene expression and affect the pup's behavior
• Should we even be asking "nature or nurture?"
* This q doesn't really makes sense because of changes in gene expression
* Outside environment can change gene expression
* Kinda outdated q
* Wanna think how nature and nurture interact and influence each other

- Low MAOA to some extent is associated with violent and aggressive behavior
- Jean and her research team were investigating the effects of knocking out the MAOA gene in mice. You can knock out or deac- tivate a gene in mice by replacing it with an artificial DNA sequence. Once in a whlleJean's team would come into their lab in the morning and notice a dead mouse. It did not take them long to work out that mice with deletion of the MAOA gene had become ferociously aggres- sive and were attacking other mice.
- Especially related to antisocial behavior in those with a history of abuse
- "warrior gene"
• Maori recognized as fearless warriors - evolutionary forces may have resulted in the doubling of the frequency of the low-MAOA gene
• May have conferred a "survival of the fearsome" advantage
- Important in predisposing people to hot-blooded, emotional, and impulsive forms of aggression-rather than cold-blooded, regulated aggression
- UCLA study - showed greater interpersonal hypersensitivity (feelings more easily hurt); greater brain response to being socially excluded (more easily upset by personal slights)
- Low IQ is well replicated risk factor for crime and violence
Ronald Akers (1994)
- Intended to be an extension of Sutherland's differential association
• Sutherland's 8th proposition: The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves the same mechanisms involved in other learning
• Akers attempts to explain this proposition
- Social learning theory explains these mechanisms
- Combines aspects of Differential Association Theory with principles of psychologically based learning theories
- Four Major concepts:
1. Differential association provides the social content in which behaviors and beliefs are presented
• Groups with whom a person differentially associates exposes him to definitions, models to imitate, and differential reinforcement for conforming or criminal behavior
• Primary groups: family and friends
• Secondary groups: neighbors, churches, teachers, mass media
• Greatest effect on behavior occurs through associations that occur earlier (priority), last longer (duration), take place most often (frequency) and involved others with whom a person has closest relationship (intensity)
2. Definitions: attitudes and meanings that one attaches to a given behavior
• Rationalizations and moral attitudes that define behavior as right or wrong
• Definitions can be specific:
* Example: It is morally wrong to steal and theft laws should be obeyed but there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana and it is all right to violate drug possession laws
• Definitions developed through imitation and differential reinforcement
3. Differential reinforcement - the balance of the actual or anticipated consequences of a given behavior
• Whether individuals will commit a crime depends on the past, present, and anticipated future rewards and punishment for their actions
• Crime is more likely if in the past it resulted in reward (approval, money, etc)
• Most learning is result of social exchange and social reinforcement
• Definitions are developed through differential reinforcement
4. Imitation: engaging in behavior after observing it in others
• Likelihood of imitation depends on the observed consequences of the behavior
• More important in acquisition (development) of novel behavior
* Matters less and less the more one participates in the activity
- Social Structure and Social Learning Model
* Social Structure:
• I. Differential Social Organization
• II. Differential Location in Social Structure
• III. Theoretically Defined Structural Variables
• IV. Differential Social Location in Groups
* → Social Learning
• Differential Association
• Differential Reinforcement
• Definitions Imitation
* → Criminal Behavior or Conforming Behavior
- Macrolevel social structure → microlevel social learning → criminal behavior?
- Criticisms of Aker's Theory
• It is very well established that delinquent adolescents are more likely to have delinquent peers
* BUT: do delinquent peers cause an adolescent to become delinquent?
* Known as CONTAGION
• "Birds of a feather flock together"
* Does having delinquent friends precede the onset of delinquent behavior?
* If you're delinquent, you are more likely to select into delinquent friend groups
• Which comes first? Delinquent friends or delinquency?
* Akers argues that delinquent peers cause you to be delinquent
- Gordon et. al. (2004)
• Analyzed data from 858 boys in Pittsburgh Youth Study
• Boys who joined gangs had higher levels of violence and property delinquency before joining the gang than those who never joined a gang (SELECTION)
• Delinquency by gang members was higher during their time spent as active gang members than prior to becoming members. Nondrug related delinquency returned to pregang levels upon exit from group (CONTAGION)
• Akers: Reciprocal relationship between a person's own behavior and peer's behavior
* "Social learning admits that birds of a feather do flock together, but it also admits that if the birds are humans, they also will influence one another's behavior in both conforming and deviant directions"
* Delinquent friends → <-- delinquency
- Paik & Comstok (1994)
• In surveys, preference for violent television and frequency of violent television viewing are associated with aggression
• Effects are stronger for males than females
• Effects are strongest for young children (under age 5) and collegeaged students (1821 years)
• But does violent television viewing CAUSE violence? Experimental designs help us answer this question
* Groups of subjects exposed to media stimulus and behavior before and after is compared
• Bandura: Children randomly assigned to watch 1 of 3 films
1. Boy who attacked another boy and toys was rewarded
2. Boy who attacked another boy and toys was punished
3. Nothing happened to boy who attacked another boy and toys
* Boys who watched the boy get rewarded carried out 2x as much imitative aggression as other groups (but no more nonimitative aggression)
- Aggression was only like what they saw in the video, imitative
- (increased aggression after violent movie vs control movie)
* Results of other experimental studies: Paik & Comstok (1994)
• Most studies show some effect of viewing violence
• Effects diminish over time
• Effects are small
• What determines the size of the effect (Livingstone, 1996)
- Realism
- Violence seen as justified
- Violence rewarded
- Identification with the perpetrator
* "For some children under some conditions some television is harmful. For other children under the same conditions or for the same children under other conditions it may be beneficial. For most children under most conditions, most television is probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial. This may seem unduly cautious, or full of weasel words, or, perhaps, academic gobbledygook to cover up something inherently simple (...). We wish it were. Effects are not that simple" (Schramm, Lyle, & Parker, 1961, p. 3)
- 97% of US adolescents play video games
- 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence
- American Psychological Association convened the "Task Force on Violent Media" to conduct a comprehensive review of all studies examining violent video games and aggression
- APA Task Force Conclusions (2015)
• Consistent relationship between violent video game use and aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions, and reduced prosocial behavior
• The research converges across multiple methods and multiple samples
• The recent research demonstrated that these effects hold over at least some time spans. This body of research includes laboratory experiments examining effects over short time spans immediately following experimental manipulations and observational longitudinal studies
• Laboratory experiments have generally found a significant impact of exposure to violent video game use on aggressive outcomes
- APA Policy Resolution on Violent Video Games
• APA campaign to increase public awareness for parents, teachers, judges on effects of video games
• Development of interventions to inform parents and youth about the harmful effects of violent video games
• Engineer Software Rating Board (ESRB) should include a rating for violence, not just a global rating
- Criticism of the APA task force review
• Video game use at an alltime high but violence in the US is at a low
• Do laboratory measures of aggression generalize to reallife behavior? (Ecological validity?)
Step 1: The Middle Class Measuring Rod
- Lower class families cannot socialize their children in a way that prepares them to enter the middle class
• Poor communication skills
• Lack of commitment to education
• Inability to delay gratification (want immediate rewards)
- Schools particularly problematic
• Middle class teachers evaluate lower-class children on the basis of the "middle class measuring rod."
- these kids can't meet these teacher's

Middle-Class Measuring Rod:
* Based on middle class values
- Self-reliance
- Good manners
- Respect for property
- Long-range planning
* Lower class children fall short of these standards
* Frustration from this failure leads them to adopt one of 3 roles:
1. Corner boy, 2. college boy, or 3. delinquent boy

Step 2: Adoption of Corner Boy, College Boy, or Delinquent Boy Role
- Corner Boy (most common):
• Tries to make the best of a bad situation
• Hangs out in the neighborhood with his peer group
• Receives support from peers and is loyal to them
• Eventually gets menial jobs and live a conventional (non-criminal) lifestyle
- College Boys (Least Common)
• Continually strive to live up to middle-class standards
• Chances are limited because of academic and social handicaps
- Delinquent Boys
• Form a subculture that defines status in ways that seem attainable for them
• BUT they still have internalized the norms of the middle-class and feel anxious when they go against those norms
• REACTION FORMATION: rejecting with abnormal intensity what you cannot attain
* Mechanism for relieving this anxiety
* Make it is right in their subculture exactly what is wrong in mainstream culture
- mainstream culture - wrong to commit crime
- extreme reaction because delinquent boys are unable to maintain middle class values
• Delinquent acts serve no useful purpose
• Random acts of violence and property damage
• Short-run hedonism
• Little planning, not goal-oriented
• Loyalty is most important value

Evaluation of Cohen's Theory

- Explains why some youth living in the same neighborhoods become delinquent when others do not

- Are youth simply out looking for fun and not goal- motivated when they commit crimes?
- Difficult to tests concepts of reaction formation and internalization of middle-class values
- Does not explain why most people eventually age out of crime (given that social status is relatively fixed)
- What about middle-class crime? Can only explain lower class crime
- Elijah Anderson's The Code of the Street (1994)
• Ethnography of black neighborhoods in Philadelphia
• Violence is pervasive part of the daily lives of poor, inner city black Americans
• Violence stems from circumstance of ghetto life: the lack of jobs that pay living wage, stigma of race, drug use, alienation, lack of hope

- Decent vs. Street Families
• Decent families remain committed to middle class values despite these challenges
• Alienation and distrust of the police has also generated an oppositional subculture:
* "Street" Subculture: norms consciously opposed to those of conventional society
• Decent and street orientations socially organize the community
• Youth growing up in the ghetto have to navigate the "street" even though most are decent

- The Code of the Street
• Set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior
• Regulate the use of violence so that people can participate in violence in an approved way
• Rules established and enforced by the street oriented but even decent people must have knowledge of the code of the street
• Respect is at the heart of the code
Constant struggle to earn and maintain respect
Needed to avoid being "bothered" in public
Requires constant attention (eye contact, clothing, demeanor)

- Decent vs. Street Families, cont.
• Decent Families:
Accept mainstream values and try to instill them in their children
"working poor"
Value hard work and have more hope for the future
Extremely strict parenting because of awareness of dangerous environment
- Obsessive concern with their children avoiding trouble
Will at times adopt street behavior to fit into the culture of their neighborhood
Know what the risks are for kids in neighborhood
• Street Families
More invested in the code of the street
Cannot reconcile demands of their own lives with demands of parenting
Aggressive with children
- Little explanation following verbal or physical punishment
- Violence is a random act in their life but common act
Children "come up hard"
- Often fend for themselves
- Learn to fight at an early age
- Mothers may be completely absent (crack addiction)
Children from street homes start spending time on the streets at an early age.
- Allowed to "rip and run"
Watch disputes resolved through verbal fighting or aggression
- The winner is given respect by onlookers
Street-oriented adults verbalize importance of respect
- "Watch your back"
- "Protect yourself"
- Punishments for children who don't defend themselves

- "Juice" or respect
Seen as zero-sum: Extent to which a person can increase respect depends on how well they can diminish another person
- Increase in your status by bringing someone else down
- Increase in respect for someone causes decrease in respect for someone else
Objects have value
- Expensive clothes are necessary for status but also make a person a target (girlfriend)
Cannot appear as if transgressions will be tolerated
- Must retaliate
- Even if small. Signals youre someone who can be messed with
Death is preferable to being "dissed"
• Even small disputes become contests for reputation and social status
• Subculture of honor is common among white, southern males
• Why did a culture of honor form in the South?
- Herding Economy
- Need to defend property (law enforcement not easily available)
- Need to establish reputation of toughness (even when it comes to seemingly trivial matters)
- Herding economy became less important, but culture of honor norms persisted
* Cohen & Nisbett (1994): Southerns more likely to approve of violence used for self-protection, to respond to an insult, or to socialize children
* Southerners NOT more likely to approve of violence in general
* "A man has the right to kill to protect his house" vs. "Many people only learn through violence"

- Experimental Test of the Culture of Honor Theory: Cohen et al., 1996
• Sample of undergraduate students from the North and South
• Randomly assigned to control or provocation condition
• 2X2Design
• Provocation Condition:
Students asked to fill out questionnaire and to take it to a table at the end of a long narrow hallway
Confederate walks into hallway and opens file drawer
Has to close drawer to allow student to pass
On student's way back down the hall, confederate slams file drawer shut, bumps into student, and calls student at an *******
Do Southern students in the provocation condition express higher levels of hostility?

• Scenario Completion Task
It had only been about 20 minutes since they had arrived at the party when Jill pulled Steve aside, obviously bothered about something. "What's wrong?" asked Steve. "It's Larry. I mean, he knows that you and I are engaged but he's already made two passes at me tonight." Jill walked back into the crowd and Steve decided to keep his eye on Larry. Sure enough, within five minutes, Larry was reaching over trying to kiss Jill.
Percent who completed scenario with violence or threatened violence (provocative condition - 75% southerners vs 41%)
Suggests that Southerners may be more likely to respond with violence when they feel that their honor has been threatened

- Experiment # 2
Same 2 X2 design but measured physiological responses in the participants before and after experimental manipulation
Testosterone = associated with social dominance - Increases before competitions
Cortisol = associated with higher levels of stress
Do Southerners experience higher increases in testosterone and cortisol levels after being provoked?
Cortisol and testosterone results suggest that Southerners are more upset by the insult and more primed for aggression; primed for aggression and competition after honor has been threatened; cortisol goes up suggests theyre more affected by insult
Sampson et al. (1997)
-argues that collective efficacy explains why low SES and residentially unstable neighborhoods have higher rates of violence
-collective efficacy: mutual trust and willingness to intervene for the common good
* lack of this will lead to more crime and violence

Analysis of Chicago Neighborhoods:
-concentrated disadvantage
1. below poverty line
2. public assistance
3. female headed family (single parent families)
4. unemployed
5. younger than age 18 (more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior)
6. black
-immigration concentration
1. latino
2. foreing born
-residential stability
1. same house as in 1985
2. owner-occupied house

Measures of Collective Effeciacy
1. informal social control
a. how likely could neighbors be counted on to intervene if children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, spray painting graffiti, disrespecting an adult, etc.
2. social cohesion and trust
a. how strongly do you agree that people around here are willing to help their neighbors? This is a close-knit neighborhood? People in this can neighborhood can be trusted

-how often has each of the following occurred in the past 6 monthgs
-figh with weapons, violent argument between neighbors, gang fight, etc
-personal victimization: how often has anyone used violence against you
-official homicide data (most accurate)

-neighborhoods with high concentrated disadvantage, high immigration concentration and high residential instability had lower levels of collective efficacy (informal social control and social cohesion/trust)
-neighborhood with lower levels of collective efficacy had higher levels of violence

Theoretical Model
Concentrated disadvantage, immigration, residential instability —> reduced collective efficacy —> violence
* broken windows theory
-minor form of public disorder (like graffiti) lead to serious crime (wilson and kelling, 1982)
-results in zero-tolerance policies that crackdown on minor offenses
* visual cues of disorder attract criminals who assume neighborhood residents are indifferent to what goes on in the neighborhood
-graffitti, public intoxication, garbage on streets, abandoned cars
- however, do visual cues of disorder lead to higher rates of crime?
* Zimbardo Car Study
-abandoned cars in the Bronx and palo alto
a) removed license plates raised hoods slightly
-within 10 minutes the Bronx car was vandalized
b) battery, radiator, tires, seats, etc. stolen
-in palo alto no vandalism over 5 day period
a) when car removed by researchers residents called to say car was being stollen
* Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999
-project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods
-systematic social observation to measure disorder
-trained observers drove down blocks and counted signs of:
a) physical disorder: garbage on streets, graffiti, needles and syringes, abandoned cars
b) social disorder: loitering, public alcohol consumption, public intoxication, presumed drug sales
* Results
-neighborhood with low levels of collective efficacy had higher levels of social and physical disorder
a) areas where people didn't trust neighbors and a lack of good social control
-poor, immigrant neighborhoods had higher levels of disorder
-but the relationship between disorder and crime was not strong
-suggest that disorder does not CAUSE crime
-instead disorder and crime LIKELY share a common cause
a) Poverty could cause both crime and physical/social disorder
b) Overall: there is a link between disorder and crime, but disorder does NOT necessarily cause crime
- Disorder does not equal crime. LIKE ICE CREAM EXAMPLE!
Immigration in the US
- Pew estimates 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants living in US in 2014
○ 38% lived with their US born children
- In 2013, over 13 million lawful permanent residents

- Sampson et al.
○ Analyzed whites, blacks, and hispanics (Mostly Mexican Americans) who lived in 180 neighborhoods that varied from highly segregated to very integrated
○ lower levels of violence in Hispanics than whites or blacks
○ first generation immigrants 45% less likely to commit violence than 3rd generation Americans (adjusting for background)
a) second generation immigrants 22% less likely to commit violence
b) so 1st generation immigrants are less criminal than the other generations
○ Neighborhoods with more immigrants had lower levels of violence (adjusting for other factors)
a) not what most politicians believe today

- Latino Paradox
○ hispanic americans are less violent than one would expect given their level of socioeconomic disadvantage in the US
○ do better in other areas too: longer life expectancy, fewer chronic diseases

Historical Trends
○ today it does not appear that immigration leads to increase rates of crime
○ in the early 20th century when social disorganization theories originated, crime was increasing and immigration was increasing
○ now immigration is increasing but crime is declining
-cities with high levels of immigration are also experiencing reductions in crime: LA, san jose, dallas, and san diego

Theory of Selective Migration
-hypothesized that immigrants selectively migrate to the US
-those with traits that make them less likely to commit crime are the most likely to migrate
-motivation to work

Do immigrants makes their neighborhoods safer?
- Estimated probability of violence by third generation males in Chicago neighborhoods
a) rates of violence by 3rd generation American males higher in high-risk neighborhoods without immigrants than in high risk neighborhoods with high immigrant concentrations

-US is a high violence society
-code of the street
* when immigrants come in, they are less likely to get caught up in the code of the street because they are outsiders
-culture of honor
-outsiders may be less likely to get caught up in these subcultures
-immigrants may bring non-violent values that then diffuse into the larger culture
-a crime can only occur when these 3 elements converge in space and time
-motivated offender, suitable target, lack of capable guardian
-absense of either a motivated offender, suitable target, or a capable guardian and a crime will not occur
-minimal elements of crime
-routine activities=any recurrent and prevalent activities that provide for basic or individual needs (food, shelter, leisure, socialization)
-"routine activities" play a role in determining the location, type, and quantity of illegal acts occurring in a particular community
-daily activities affect the location of targets in visible and accessible places at particular times
-daily work activities separate people from their property

Cohen and Felson's Test of Hypotheses Stemming from Routine:
Hypothesis: target suitability influences the occurrence of direct contact predatory violations

Fidnings: expensive and movable goods (like vehicles and electronic appliances) have the highest risk of theft

UCR and Merchandising Week Data from 1976
-small electronic applicances are a suitable target
-more value per pound
*Consumer reports (1975)
○ Panasonic Car tape player: $30/lb
○ refrigerators and washing machines: only $1-3/lb
○ Today laptops, iphones, etc would be suitable target

hypothesis: people living in single adult households and those employed outside the home are less obligated to spend time at within theirhouseholds and therefore should have higher rates of victimizaiton

- USDJ: burglary and robbery victimization rates 2x as high for people living in single adult households
-but people who are unemployed experience higher rates of victimization

could this still be consistent with routine activities theory?
case study: the robert taylor homes. Described in American project (venkatesh, 2000)
-attempt to provide decent affordable housing for chicago's overcrowded black population
-push by reformers to promote urban housing that was far from mass transit an dhad open space for recreation
-resulted in building up high rises to allow for more open space

Design of Robert Tayrlor Homes:
-28, 16-story high rises in groups of 2 or 3
-physical structrues covered only 7% of the 96 acres
-2 parks other areas dead space
-NIMBY: rejected by white neighborhoods
-developed on state st (largest contiguous slum in the US) in S side of Chicago
-completed in 1961 over 70 million $$$

Results of Failed Design
-elevators, stairwells, lobbies, hallways, laundry rooms become "playgrounds" for kids
-by 1970 ¾ of elevators nonfunctional
-grafffitti in hallways
-gangs occupied vacant apartments
-children fell to their deaths because of poorly built barriers in outdoor hallways
- Police beats that included Robert Taylor Homers were most violent in Chicago
-physiclaly cut off from social services
-demolishment began in 1998

Criticisms of Situational Crime Prevention
-does not focus on individual offenders
-may not be able to prevent non-instrumental crime (like reactive violence)
-"fortress society"
-situational crime prevention does not address the "root cause of crime" and situational crime prevention strategies will lead to displacement
-idea that situational crime prevention will just move crime somewhere else but will not eliminate it entirely
a) first implemented in 1994 in NYC by William bratton
b) timely analysis of crime data and spatial patterns
c) rapid deployment of resource to hot spots of crimes
d) increases guardianship in these hot spots

do these types of programs move crime around the corner?

Weisburd et al (2005)
-implemented an intensive policing intervention in target area with a high violent/drug crime rate in jersey city
-also studied the areas immediately surrounding the target site
-used several methods to measure crime, including systematic observations
-if displacement occurs, crime rates should increase in areas surroudnging target area
- crime rates did go down in the targeted areas
○ however in the two areas outside of target areas,
crime rates went down as well
○ evidence of NO DISPLACEMENT
○ evidence of benefits diffusing to other areas
• Usually when I get in my car and drive around I'm thinking, I don't have any money so what is my means for gettin' money? All of a sudden I'll just take a glance and say, "There it is! There's the house"... Then I get that feeling', that right moment, im movin' them
• I done got lazy... I don't even want to work eight hours. I figure I can do maybe only one hour [committing a burglary] and get paid as much I would if I worked a full day.
- Benefits outweigh costs
• If I get caught on burglary, I know I'm guaranteed four years. I get caught with drugs, I'm a do thirty [years]. So see, I got away from drugs and fell with the number one [offense, burglary]
- Costs of drugs too high - better off being burglars

• Are all decisions rational?
- You ever had an urge before? Maybe a cigarette urge or a good urge, where you eat that and you got to have more and more? That's how crack is... I'll smoke that sixteenth up and get through, it's like I never had none. I got to have more. Therefore, I gots to do another burglary and gets some more money.
• Once addicted, might not be making a rational decision each time; more of a visceral need
- I guess the reason why I stick to burglary is because it makes me a lot of money.. I guess you could say why I just do [burglary] is because I've been doing it for a while and I'm kind of stuck with it
• Develop habits and do things without thinking
- Maybe not all decisions are purely rational in that they are made by weighing costs and benefits
Piquero & Tibbets (1996)
- Sample: 349 male and 293 female undergraduates
- Vignette Method:
• Subjects shown scenarios (shoplifting and drunk driving) and asked to estimate the probability they would commit the given act in the situation described (0-10 scale)
- Example of a Low Risk Drunk Driving Scenario
• It's about two o'clock in the morning and Mark has spent most of Thursday night drinking with his friends at the "Vous." He decides to leave the Vous and go home to his off-campus apartment, which is about 10 miles away. Mark has had a great deal to drink. He feels drunk and wonders if he may be over the legal limit and perhaps he should not drive himself home. He knows people who have driven home drunk before, and none of them have ever gotten caught. Mark also knows that no one else will find out that he drove home drunk because only he knows how much he drank. In addition, Mark realizes that if he gets a ride home, he will have to take a bus back to the Vous in the morning to pick up his car. Mark decides to drive himself home
• Estimates of perceived costs
* Shame:
a) What is the chance and how much of a problem would loss of self-esteem be if he or she were to do what the actor in the scenario did, even if no one else found out
* Perceived External Sanctions:
b) Subjects estimated the chance of arrest, the chance that others would find out if they were arrested, and the probability that discovery of arrest would result in dismissal from the university, loss of respect by close friends, loss of respect by relatives, and diminished job prospects. These variables combined to create aggregate measure of perceived external sanctions
• Estimates of Perceived Benefits
* Perceived Pleasure
a) How much fun would it be to commit the drunk driving and shoplifting described in the scenario
• Costs high - unlikely to drive drunk or shoplift
• Results:
* Perceived shame reduced the likelihood of shoplifting and drunk driving, while perceived pleasure increased the likelihood.
* Perceived sanctions had no effect on shoplifting, but did affect drunk driving.
* Strong moral beliefs were associated with reduced perceived pleasure of shoplifting and drunk driving and increased perceptions of shame and sanctions
* Low self control associated with increased perceptions of pleasure and reduced perceptions of shame
- Sub theory within rational choice theory
- Deterrence Theory only looks up at official sanctions; rational choice theory includes anything as a potential cost; Key difference is that deterrence theory only takes into account formal, legal punishment as a potential cost
a) Rational choice takes into account other potential costs of crime (e.g. shame, harm to inter-personal relationships)

- Key Predictions of Deterrence Theory
o The increased severity, certainty, or swiftness (celerity) of punishment will be associated with a decreased likelihood of crime.

- Support for Deterrence Theory?
o In general, modest support for the effects of certainty on offending. Little evidence that severity of punishment affects offending decisions (Pratt et al., 2006)
• How severe a punishment doesn't have an affect on deterrence
o But, most studies are not methodologically rigorous. What have we learned from experiments?

Deterrence Study: Criminal Law Education and Research Center at NYU
o 3 types of warning stickers attached to parking meters in comparable areas:
o 1. $50 fine for use of "slugs" in parking meters
o 2. $250 fine and 3 months imprisonment
o 3. $1000 fine and 1 year in prison
o Which area had the largest reductions in slug use?
• Area number 1 had largest reduction in slug use
• Area with most realistic punishment: Severity does not seem to matter as much as perceived certainty
• 3 is unrealistic - unlikely to happen
• 50 dollar fine - more realistic; greater certainty
• certainty matters more than severity

Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment
o Randomized Controlled Trial
o Applied to all simple (misdemeanor) domestic assaults where both the subject and victim were present when the police arrived
• In this situation, police officers were allowed, but not required to make an arrest
• Random assignment to 3 groups:
o Arrest
o Separation (ordering the offender from the premises)
o Advice (could include mediation)
o Since random we can see if arrest deters people from committing crime
• 6 month interview and official record follow up

• Results
o Official Police Data:
• 13% of those arrested committed a repeat assault
• 26% of those separated committed a repeat assault
• (might not call police on husband if he was arrested last time)
o Victim-Report:
• 19% of those arrested committed a repeat assault
• 37% given advice committed a repeat assault
o Results suggest that arrest may have had a deterrent effect.

bc this is official law statement problem bc if last time husband is arrested, will be less likely to call cops in future
being arrested has deterrent effect on domestic violence

Replications of the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment
• Study resulted in widespread changes in the policing of domestic violence
• But, replications in follow-up studies in other cities were often inconsistent
• Mandatory arrest for this type of call; police don't have discretion
• Follow-up studies didn't find since deterrence effect
Refers to the way in which children process and respond to social cues when making decisions

1. Encoding Social Clues:
- Child selectively attends to external and internal cues 2. Interpretation:
- Inferences about the perspectives of others (including their intent)
- Relevant knowledge gained through prior experience is recalled from memory
3. Clarification or Selection of Goal
- Child selects desired outcome of the situation (e.g. stay out of trouble, get even)
4. Response Access or Construction
- Children access possible responses to the situation from their memory
- If situation is novel, construct new behavioral options in response to immediate social cues
- Evaluation of potential responses may be based on the expected outcome of the response and the child's perceived ability to carry out the response successfully (self-efficacy)
5. Behavioral Enactment
- Chosen response is enacted

Social Information Processing and Aggression
Interpretation of Social Cues
Hostile Attribution Bias Dodge(1980):Aggressivechildren50%morelikelythannon- aggressive children to attribute hostile intent to hypothetical peer provocation situations (e.g. "a peer spilling a lunch tray on your back while you are not looking")
Impulsive and Biased Interpretations of Intent
- Aggressive children biased toward using the most recently present cue, even if more than half of the prior social cues suggested a different interpretation.

response access or construction
access: aggressive children may have difficulties accessing non-aggressive responses
outcome expectations: aggressive children expect more favorable outcomes for aggressive behaviors and less favorable outcomes for submissive or prosocial behaviors
self-efficacy: aggressive children may not feel confident enacting socially acceptable behaviors or may feel confident enacting aggressive behaviors