Criminals are made or born Essay

An understanding of immoral deportment has been attempted by psychologists by dint of many different theories. The tercet theories I will discuss atomic number 18 the biologic guess, the psychological possibility and the social theory of abominable offence. Each theory tenders a thorough explanation of wherefore people carry protrude wrong behaviour, however, which theory offers the better explanation? Are criminals born or made? The biological theory of crime suggests that it is precise likely that biological factors play a signifi adviset role in fault repayable to the fact that criminal behaviour tends to run in families.Adoption studies propose psychologists with the information required in order for them to discover whether criminal behaviour patterns ar the result of the childs genes or their surrounding environment. For example, if a childs behaviour resembles that of their adoptive p arnts then this could suggest that criminality is a product of the environm ent. Mednick et al. (1987) studied the criminal convictions of over 14,000 people who had been adopted and ground greater evidence to suggest that biology had more work over their behaviour.To further support this theory, Bohman (1996) replicated Mednick at als field of operations by comparing the percentages of sons with a biological parent with a criminal record to boys with an adoptive parent with a criminal record. Bohman also found that genetic factors were more significant compared to environmental influences. The psychological theory of crime suggests that negative expectations cause certain individuals to behave towards others in a criminal way because their stereotypes alter their social interactions (self-fulfilling prophecy).This theory was supported by Jahodas (1954) study of names. Jahoda studied Ashanti people who give boys soul names when they are born which supposedly alters their characters. For example, boys born on a Wednesday are called Kwaku and are expected to behave in an aggressive, violent way. Jahoda discovered that 13. 5% of boys referred to coquet had Wednesday names, yet they were responsible for 22% of violent crime. This implies that expectations of the boys behaviours callable to stereotypes caused differentialtreatment and therefore they fulfilled the expectations caused by their names. The social theory of crime suggests that learning occurs when an individual (the learner) observes and copies another person (the model). Motivation to chuck what the learner has observed from the model must be internal or orthogonal. Internal motivation may come from identification with the model, or external motivation can be obtained from direct or vicarious reinforcement.Children with criminal parents or who have other surrounding role models are very likely to be internally or externally motivated to retroflex behaviour, i. e. carry out criminal acts. Evidence to support this theory can be found using correlational data about pict ure show to media models and criminal acts. Eron et al. (1972) discovered a positive correlation between the ferocity level in television programmes watched by 7-8 years olds and their level of aggression.This effect was shown to progress (especially within males) as they became older. In my opinion, all three theories provide a valid approach and each are supported through and through evidence. I do not believe that one theory provides a significantly better argument than others, therefore, a combination (if possible) of each of the three theories would perhaps provide a more thorough answer to why people participate in criminal behaviour.