Sociologists develop theories to explain social phenomena.

A theory is a proposed relationship

between two or more concepts. In other words, a theory is explanation for why or how a
phenomenon occurs. An example of a sociological theory is the work of Robert Putnam on the
decline of civic engagement.[1] Putnam found that Americans involvement in civic life (e.g.,
community organizations, clubs, voting, religious participation, etc.) has declined over the last 40
to 60 years. While there are a number of factors that contribute to this decline (Putnam's theory
is quite complex), one of the prominent factors is the increased consumption of television as a
form entertainment. Putnam's theory proposes:
The more television people watch, the lower their involvement in civic life will be.
This element of Putnam's theory clearly illustrates the basic purpose of sociological theory: it
proposes a relationship between two or more concepts. In this case, the concepts are civic
engagement and television watching. The relationship is an inverse one - as one goes up,
the other goes down. What's more, it is an explanation of one phenomenon with another:
part of the reason why civic engagement has declined over the last several decades is
because people are watching more television. In short, Putnam's theory clearly encapsulates
the key ideas of a sociological theory.
Sociological theory is developed at multiple levels, ranging from grand theory to highly
contextualized and specific micro-range theories. There are many middle-range and microrange theories in sociology. Because such theories are dependent on context and specific to
certain situations, it is beyond the scope of this text to explore each of those theories. The
purpose of this chapter is to introduce some of the more well-known and most commonly
used grand and middle-range theories in sociology.

Importance of Theory[edit]
In the theory proposed above, the astute reader will notice that the theory includes two
components: The data, in this case the findings that civic engagement has declined and TV
watching has increased, and the proposed relationship, that the increase in television
viewing has contributed to the decline in civic engagement. Data alone are not particularly
informative. If Putnam had not proposed a relationship between the two elements of social
life, we may not have realized that television viewing does, in fact, reduce people's desire to
and time for participating in civic life. In order to understand the social world around us, it is
necessary to employ theory to draw the connections between seemingly disparate concepts.
Another example of sociological theorizing illustrates this point. In his now classic
work, Suicide,[2] Emile Durkheim was interested in explaining a social phenomenon, suicide,
and employed both data and theory to offer an explanation. By aggregating data for large
groups of people in Europe, Durkheim was able to discern patterns in suicide rates and
connect those patterns with another concept (or variable): religious affiliation. Durkheim
found that Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than were Catholics. At this point,
Durkheim's analysis was still in the data stage; he had not proposed an explanation for the
different suicide rates of the two groups. It was when Durkheim introduced the ideas

of anomie and social solidarity that he began to explain the difference in suicide rates.
Durkheim argued that the looser social ties found in Protestant religions lead to weaker
social cohesion and reduced social solidarity. The higher suicide rates were the result of
weakening social bonds among Protestants.
While Durkheim's findings have since been criticized, his study is a classic example of the
use of theory to explain the relationship between two concepts. Durkheim's work also
illustrates the importance of theory: without theories to explain the relationship between
concepts, we would not be able to hypothesize cause and effect relationships in social life or
outline processes whereby social events and patterns occur. And to propose cause and
effect relationships and / or outline processes in social experience are the major components
of sociological theory.

Prominent Sociological Theories[edit]

As noted above, there are many theories in sociology. However, there are several broad
theoretical perspectives that are prominent in the field (they are arguably paradigms). These
theories are prominent because they are quite good at explaining social life. They are not
without their problems, but these theories remain widely used and cited precisely because
they have withstood a great deal of criticism.
As the dominant theories in sociology are discussed below, you might be inclined to ask,
"Which of these theories is the best?" As is often the case in sociology (as in other scientific
disciplines), just because things are different doesn't mean one is better than another. In fact,
it is probably more useful and informative to view these theories ascomplementary. One
theory may explain one element of society better than another. Or, both may be useful for
explaining social life. In short, all of the theories are correct in the sense that they offer
compelling explanations for social phenomena.

Structural-Functionalism[edit]
Structural-Functionalism is a sociological theory that originally attempted to explain social
institutions as collective means to meet individual biological needs (originally
justfunctionalism). Later it came to focus on the ways social institutions meet social needs
(structural-functionalism).
Structural-functionalism draws its inspiration primarily from the ideas of Emile Durkheim.
[3]

Durkheim was concerned with the question of how societies maintain internal stability and

survive over time. He sought to explain social cohesion and stability through the concept
of solidarity. In more "primitive" societies it was mechanical solidarity, everyone performing
similar tasks, that held society together. Durkheim proposed that such societies tend to be
segmentary, being composed of equivalent parts that are held together by shared values,
common symbols, or systems of exchanges. In modern, complex societies members perform
very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence between individuals. Based on the
metaphor of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole,

Durkheim argued that modern complex societies are held together by organic solidarity (think
interdependent organs).
The central concern of structural-functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of
explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion of societies that are necessary to
ensure their continued existence over time. Many functionalists argue that social institutions
are functionally integrated to form a stable system and that a change in one institution will
precipitate a change in other institutions. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and
fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts
(social institutions) working together to maintain and reproduce them. The various parts of
society are assumed to work in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion towards the
maintenance of the overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore
seen as being functional in the sense of working together to achieve this state and are
effectively deemed to have a life of their own. These components are then primarily analysed
in terms of the function they play. In other words, to understand a component of society, one
can ask the question, "What is the function of this institution?" A function, in this sense, is the
contribution made by a phenomenon to a larger system of which the phenomenon is a part. [4]
Thus, one can ask of education, "What is the function of education for society?" The answer
is actually quite complex and requires a detailed analysis of the history of education(see, for
instance, this article on the history of education), but one obvious answer is that education
prepares individuals to enter the workforce.[5][6] By delineating the functions of elements of
society, of the social structure, we can better understand social life.
Durkheim's strongly sociological perspective of society was continued by Radcliffe-Brown.
[7]

Following Auguste Comte, Radcliffe-Brown believed that the social constituted a

separate level of reality distinct from both the biological and the inorganic (here non-living).
Explanations of social phenomena therefore had to be constructed within this social level,
with individuals merely being transient occupants of comparatively stable social roles. Thus,
in structural-functionalist thought, individuals are not significant in and of themselves but only
in terms of their social status: their position in patterns of social relations. The social structure
is therefore a network of statuses connected by associated roles.[8]
Structural-functionalism was the dominant perspective of sociology between World War II
and the Vietnam War.

Limitations[edit]
Structural-functionalism has been criticized for being unable to account for social change
because it focuses so intently on social order and equilibrium in society. For instance, in the
late 19th Century, higher education transitioned from a training center for clergy and the elite
to a center for the conduct of science and the general education of the masses. [5][6] In other
words, education did not always serve the function of preparing individuals for the labor force
(with the exception of the ministry and the elite). As structural-functionalism thinks about
elements of social life in relation to their present function and not their past functions,

structural-functionalism has a difficult time explaining why a function of some element of

society might change or how such change occurs. However, structural-functionalism could, in
fact, offer an explanation in this case. Also occurring in the 19th Century (though begun in
the 18th) was the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution, facilitated by capitalism, was
increasingly demanding technological advances to increase profit. Technological advances
and advanced industry both required more educated workforces. Thus, as one aspect of
society changed - the economy and production - it required a comparable change in the
educational system, bringing social life back into equilibrium.
Another philosophical problem with the structural-functional approach is
the ontological argument that society does not have needs as a human being does; and
even if society does have needs they need not be met. The idea that society has needs like
humans do is not a tenable position because society is only alive in the sense that it is made
up of living individuals. Thus, society cannot have wants and/or needs like humans do.
What's more, just because a society has some element in it at the present that does not
mean that it must necessarily have that element. For instance, in the United Kingdom,
religious service attendance has declined precipitously over the last 100 years. Today, less
than 1 in 10 British attend religious service in a given week.[9] Thus, while one might argue
that religion has certain functions in British society, it is becoming apparent that it is not
necessary for British society to function.
Another criticism often leveled at structural-functionalist theory is that it supports the status
quo. According to some opponents, structural-functionalism paints conflict and challenge to
the status quo as harmful to society, and therefore tends to be the prominent view
among conservative thinkers.

Manifest and Latent Functions[edit]

Merton (1957) proposed a distinction between manifest and latent functions.
[10]

Manifest functions are the intended functions of a phenomenon in a social

system. Latentfunctions are the unintended functions of a phenomenon in a social system.

An example of manifest and latent functions is education. The manifest purpose of public
education is to increase the knowledge and abilities of the citizenry to prepare them to
contribute in the workforce. A latent function of the public education system is the
development of a hierarchy of the learned. The most learned are often also the most affluent.
Thus, while education's manifest function is to empower all individuals to contribute to the
workforce and society, it also limits some people by creating boundaries of entry into
occupations.

Conflict Theory[edit]
A prominent sociological theory that is often contrasted with structural-functionalism
is conflict theory. Conflict theory argues that society is not best understood as a complex
system striving for equilibrium but rather as a competition. Society is made up of individuals

competing for limited resources (e.g., money, leisure, sexual partners, etc.). Broader social
structures and organizations (e.g., religions, government, etc.) reflect the competition for
resources in their inherent inequalities; some people and organizations have more resources
(i.e., power and influence) and use those resources to maintain their positions of power in
society.
Conflict theory was developed in part to illustrate the limitations of structural-functionalism.
The structural-functionalist approach argued that society tends toward equilibrium, focusing
on stability at the expense of social change. This is contrasted with the conflict approach,
which argues that society is constantly in conflict over resources. One of the primary
contributions conflict theory presents over the structural-functional approach is that it is
ideally suited for explaining social change, a significant problem in the structural-functional
approach.

The following are three primary assumptions of modern conflict theory:

Competition over scarce resources is at the heart of all social relationships. Competition
rather than consensus is characteristic of human relationships.

Inequalities in power and reward are built into all social structures. Individuals and groups
that benefit from any particular structure strive to see it maintained.

Change occurs as a result of conflict between competing interests rather than through
adaptation. Change is often abrupt and revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

A heuristic device to help you think about society from a conflict perspective is to ask, "Who
benefits from this element of society?" Using the same example as we did above, we can
ask, "Who benefits from the current higher educational system in the U.S.?" The answer, of
course, is the wealthy. Why? Because higher education in the U.S. is not free. Thus, the
educational system often screens out poorer individuals not because they are unable to
compete academically but because they cannot afford to pay for their education. Because
the poor are unable to obtain higher education, this means they are also generally unable to
get higher paying jobs which means they remain poor. This can easily translate into a vicious
cycle of poverty. Thus, while the function of education is to educate the workforce, it also has
built into it an element of conflict and inequality, favoring one group (the wealthy) over other
groups (the poor). Thinking about education this way helps illustrate why both structuralfunctionalist and conflict theories are helpful in understanding how society works.
Conflict theory was elaborated in the United Kingdom by Max Gluckman and John Rex, in
the United States by Lewis A. Coser and Randall Collins, and in Germany by Ralf
Dahrendorf, all of whom were influenced by Karl Marx, Ludwig Gumplovicz, Vilfredo
Pareto, Georg Simmel, and other founders of European sociology.

Limitations[edit]

Not surprisingly, the primary limitation of the social-conflict perspective is that it overlooks the
stability of societies. While societies are in a constant state of change, much of the change is
minor. Many of the broader elements of societies remain remarkably stable over time,
indicating the structural-functional perspective has a great deal of merit.
As noted above, sociological theory is often complementary. This is particularly true of
structural-functionalism and social-conflict theories. Structural-functionalism focuses on
equilibrium and solidarity; conflict-theory focuses on change and conflict. Keep in mind that
neither is better than the other; when combined, the two approaches offer a broader and
more comprehensive view of society.

Symbolic Interactionism[edit]
In contrast to the rather broad approach toward society of structural-functionalism and
conflict theory, Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical approach to understanding the
relationship between humans and society. The basic notion of symbolic interactionism is that
human action and interaction are understandable only through the exchange of meaningful
communication or symbols. In this approach, humans are portrayed as acting as opposed to
being acted upon.[11]
The main principles of symbolic interactionism are:[12]
1. human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that things have for
them
2. these meanings arise from ongoing processes of social interaction and interpretation
3. social action results from a "joint action", or the fitting together of individual lines of
action
This approach stands in contrast to the strict behaviorism of psychological theories prevalent
at the time it was first formulated (in the 1920s and 1930s). According to Symbolic
Interactionism, humans are distinct from infrahumans (lower animals) because infrahumans
simply respond to their environment (i.e., a stimulus evokes a response or stimulus ->
response) whereas humans have the ability to interrupt that process (i.e., stimulus ->
cognition -> response). Additionally, infrahumans are unable to conceive of alternative
responses to gestures. Humans, however, can. This understanding should not be taken to
indicate that humans never behave in a strict stimulus -> response fashion, but rather that
humans have the capability of not responding in that fashion (and do so much of the time).

This drawing illustrates the idea of the "looking-glass self" by illustrating that we can internalize
how other people view us and then reflect upon those external appraisals without having to
actually converse with others.

This perspective is also rooted in phenomenological thought (see social

constructionism and phenomenology). According to symbolic interactionism, the objective
world has no reality for humans, only subjectively-defined objects have meaning. Meanings
are not entities that are bestowed on humans and learned by habituation. Instead, meanings
can be altered through the creative capabilities of humans, and individuals may influence the
many meanings that form their society.[11] Human society, therefore, is a social product.
Neurological evidence based on EEGs supports the idea that humans have a "social brain,"
that is, there are components of the human brain that govern social interaction. [13] These
parts of the brain begin developing in early childhood (the preschool years) and aid humans
in understanding how other people think.[13] In symbolic interactionism, this is known as
"reflected appraisals" or "the looking glass self" and refers to our ability to think about how
other people will think about us. A good example of this is when people try on clothes before
going out with friends. Some people may not think much about how others will think about
their clothing choices, but others can spend quite a bit of time considering what they are
going to wear. And while they are deciding, the dialogue that is taking place inside their mind
is usually a dialogue between their "self" (that portion of their identity that calls itself "I") and
that person's internalized understanding of their friends and society (a "generalized other"
called the "me"). An indicator of mature socialization is when an individual quite accurately
predicts how other people think about him/her. Such an individual has incorporated the
"social" into the "self" and will thus experience the world through an ongoing internal
communication process that seeks to determine "if I do this, what will be thought of me."
It should also be noted that symbolic interactionists advocate a particular methodology.
Because they see meaning as the fundamental component of human and society interaction,
studying human and society interaction requires getting at that meaning. Thus, symbolic
interaction tends to take two distinct, but related methodological paths. Processual Symbolic
Interaction seeks to uncover the elaboration and experience of meanings in natural settings
of social interaction through primarily qualitative methods (e.g., examining the process
whereby people become and signify selves) while Structural Symbolic Interaction seeks to

map the contours of the self through primarily quantitativemethods (e.g., examining the
structure of the self by asking who people believe themselves and others to be).
Symbolic Interaction arose through the integration of Structural Functionalism and Conflict
Theories. Specifically, Symbolic Interaction seeks to uncover the ways "meanings" are
deployed within interactions and embedded within larger social structures to facilitate social
cohesion (Structural Functionalism) and social change (Conflict Theories). To use the case
above, Symbolic Interaction may be used to explain the distinction between Conflict and
Structural Functionalist approaches to education. If people act toward education based on
the meaning they have for it, for example, then people that believe (or are taught to believe)
that education serves an important function for all of society (e.g., Structural Functionalism)
will be hesitant to change this social structure. On the other hand, if people believe (or are
taught to believe) that education transmits social inequalities from generation to generation
(e.g., Conflict Theory), then they will be more likely to attempt to change this structure over
time. In either case, societies (and the people that form them) will move towards cohesion
(Structural Functionalism) or conflict (Conflict Theory) concerning educational structures
based upon the meanings these people have for the current educational structure. Symbolic
Interaction thus often focuses on elaborating the multitude of ways that micro patterns of
interaction and interpretation justify, sustain, and / or change large scale social structures
and patterns of activity within the world.
Central to Symbolic Interaction is the notion that selves and societies exist in an ongoing
reciprocal relationship wherein each acts back upon the other. Stated another way, Symbolic
Interactionism argues that people become selves by learning and internalizing the symbolic
materials of the social and historical context and culture they are born into and raised within
(e.g., the individual is formed by the society), and then act back upon and alter societies
(e.g., norms, cultures and structures) by deploying the symbolic resources at their disposal
throughout the course of their ongoing lives (e.g., the society is formed by the joint action of
individuals). As a result, Symbolic Interactionists argue against the division of society into
micro, meso, and macro forms, and instead focus on the ways that interconnected people
continuously construct, alter, signify, and affirm themselves and others in ways that create,
sustain, and change existing social structures. They thus argue that society is always an
ongoing information exchange between individuals, groups, and social structures that each
depend on the other for their meaning and by extension their existence and survival.

Limitations[edit]
The most significant limitations of symbolic interactionism relate to its primary contribution: it
focuses on the ongoing construction and contestation of meanings in society (e.g., norms,
rules, cultures, and interpersonal experiences), which can only be grasped via examination
of small groups or individual beings. As a result, Symbolic Interactionism typically focuses on
"how" things are done (e.g., the ways people accomplish things that can be observed in real
time and in the natural world) rather than "why" things are done (e.g., hypotheses that can
only be examined within mathematical and / or experimental settings disconnected from the

natural world). As a result, Symbolic Interaction is more adequately suited to explaining how
the world is, but is unable to demonstrate and document predictions about how the world
might be under certain circumstances.

Role Theory[edit]
Another more micro-oriented approach to understanding social life that also incorporates the
more structural elements of society is Role Theory.[14] Role theory emerged from the
integration of Structural and Processual Symbolic Interactionist insights, and often draws
heavily upon both of these theoretical traditions (see also dramaturgy). Role theory posits
that human behavior is guided by expectations held both by the individual and by other
people. The expectations correspond to different roles individuals perform or enactin their
daily lives, such as secretary, father, or friend. For instance, most people hold pre-conceived
notions of the role expectations of a secretary, which might include: answering phones,
making and managing appointments, filing paperwork, and typing memos. These role
expectations would not be expected of a professional soccer player.
Individuals generally have and manage many roles. Roles consist of a set of rules or norms
that function as plans or blueprints to guide behavior. Roles specify what goals should be
pursued, what tasks must be accomplished, and what performances are required in a given
scenario or situation. Role theory holds that a substantial proportion of observable, day-today social behavior is simply persons carrying out their roles, much as actors carry out their
roles on the stage or ballplayers theirs on the field. Role theory is, in fact, predictive. It
implies that if we have information about the role expectations for a specified status (e.g.,
sister, fireman, prostitute), a significant portion of the behavior of the persons occupying that
position can be predicted.
What's more, role theory also argues that in order to change behavior it is necessary to
change roles; roles correspond to behaviors and vice versa. In addition to heavily influencing
behavior, roles influence beliefs and attitudes; individuals will change their beliefs and
attitudes to correspond with their roles. For instance, someone over-looked for a promotion
to a managerial position in a company may change their beliefs about the benefits of
management by convincing him/herself that they didn't want the additional responsibility that
would have accompanied the position.
Many role theorists see Role Theory as one of the most compelling theories bridging
individual behavior and social structure. Roles, which are in part dictated by social structure
and in part by social interactions, guide the behavior of the individual. The individual, in turn,
influences the norms, expectations, and behaviors associated with roles. The understanding
is reciprocal.
Role Theory includes the following propositions:

1. people spend much of their lives participating as members of groups and

organizations
2. within these groups, people occupy distinct positions
3. each of these positions entails a role, which is a set of functions performed by the
person for the group
4. groups often formalize role expectations as norms or even codified rules, which
include what rewards will result when roles are successfully performed and what
punishments will result when roles are not successfully performed
5. individuals usually carry out their roles and perform in accordance with prevailing
norms; in other words, role theory assumes that people are primarily conformists
who try to live up to the norms that accompany their roles
6. group members check each individual's performance to determine whether it
conforms with the norms; the anticipation that others will apply sanctions ensures
role performance

Limitations[edit]
Role theory has a hard time explaining social deviance when it does not correspond to a prespecified role. For instance, the behavior of someone who adopts the role of bank robber can
be predicted - she will rob banks. But if a bank teller simply begins handing out cash to
random people, role theory would be unable to explain why (though role conflict could be one
possible answer; the secretary may also be a Marxist-Communist who believes the means of
production should belong to the masses and not the bourgeoisie).
Another limitation of role theory is that it does not and cannot explain how role expectations
came to be what they are. Role theory has no explanation for why it is expected of male
soldiers to cut their hair short, but it could predict with a high degree of accuracy that if
someone is a male soldier they will have short hair. Additionally, role theory does not explain
when and how role expectations change. As a result, role theorists typically draw upon
insights from Symbolic Interaction Theory and Historical Comparative analyses to address
these questions.

Impression Management[edit]
An extension of role theory, impression management is both a theory and process. The
theory argues that people are constantly engaged in controlling how others perceive them.
The process refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious effort to influence the
perceptions of other people by regulating and controlling information in social interaction. If a
person tries to influence the perception of her or his own image, this activity is called selfpresentation.

Erving Goffman (1959), the person most often credited with formally developing impression
management theory, cast the idea in a dramaturgical framework.[15][16] The basic idea is that
individuals in face-to-face situations are like actors on a stage performing roles (see role
theory above). Aware of how they are being perceived by their audience, actors manage
their behavior so as to create specific impressions in the minds of the audience. Strategic
interpersonal behavior to shape or influence impressions formed by an audience is not a new
idea. Plato spoke of the "great stage of human life" and Shakespeare noted that "All the
world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players".

Social Constructionism[edit]
Social constructionism is a school of thought introduced into sociology by Peter L.
Berger and Thomas Luckmann with their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality.
[17]

Drawing on Symbolic Interactionist insights about the ongoing production and affirmation

of meaning, social constructionism aims to discover the ways that individuals and groups
create their perceived reality. Social constructionism focuses on the description of institutions
and actions and not on analyzing cause and effect. Socially constructed reality is seen as an
on-going dynamic process; reality is re-produced by people acting on their interpretations of
what they perceive to be the world external to them. Berger and Luckmann argue that social
construction describes both subjective and objective reality - that is that no reality exists
outside what is produced and reproduced in social interactions.
A clear example of social constructionist thought is, following Sigmund Freud[18] and mile
Durkheim,[19] religion. Religion is seen as a socially constructed concept, the basis for which
is rooted in either our psyche (Freud) or man's need to see some purpose in life or worship a
higher presence. One of the key theorists of social constructionism, Peter Berger, explored
this concept extensively in his book, The Sacred Canopy.[20]
Social constructionism is often seen as a source of the postmodern movement, and has
been influential in the field of cultural studies.

Feminist Theory[edit]
Although women were primarily ignored, barred, and/or disenfranchised within most scientific
communities prior to the women's rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's (for a notable
exception in Sociology, see Dorothy Swaine Thomas), women have contributed to scientific
disciplines, methods, and theories since at least the 1830's. Following the establishment of
women's academic conferences and coordinated protests of the American Sociological
Association's annual meetings during the 1970's, women made significant inroads into
Sociology. For example, women such as Dorothy E. Smith, Joan Acker, Myra Marx
Ferree, Patricia Yancey Martin, and bell hooks were all pioneers in Sociology who developed
insights and empirical findings that challenged much of existing sociological practice,
knowledge, and methods. These early scholars also founded women's academic
organizations like Sociologists for Women in Society to lobby for the admittance and

inclusion of minority people and perspectives within scientific disciplines. The theoretical
perspectives these and subsequent scholars developed is broadly referred to as Feminist
Theory. The name derives from the ties many of these individuals had and continue to have
with women's movement organizations, the promotion of minority perspectives, their
experience in relation to the subjective nature of scientific practice, and commitment to
principles of social justice. Feminist Theory uncovered a vast "herstory" of women's (and
other minority) academic thinking, writing, and activism, and integrated insights from these
essays and studies into the scientific enterprise. In so doing, these scholars uncovered many
ways that Feminist theorists from as far back as the 1830's had already introduced insights such as Social Constructionism, Intersectionality, and the subjective nature and critical
possibilities of scientific work - that have become crucial to scientific research and theorizing
across disciplines.
Further, historical research into the history of Feminist Thought has uncovered a litany of
social theorists - including but not limited to early abolitionists and women's rights
proponents like Maria W. Stewart, Elisbabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony; the first
woman pastor of the African Methodist Episcopal Church Jarena Lee; early abolitionist
writers and activists like Anna J. Cooper, Harriet Tubman, and one of the first African
American women to earn a college degree, Mary Church Terrell; early black feminist writers
promoting gender and sexual equality like Zora Neale Hurston, Langston Hughes,
and Richard Bruce Nugent; early 20th Century writers and activists that sought racial civil
rights, women's suffrage, and prison reform like Ida B. Wells, Alice Paul, Amy Jacques
Garvey, and Lucy Burns; and mid 20th Century writers and activists that challenged unequal
labor practices, racial discrimination, women's oppression, and homophobia like Bayard
Rustin, Betty Friedan, Alice Walker, Angela Davis, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan. Many
of these individiauls were disenfranchised, ignored, and/or silenced by the scientific
communities of their time due to racism, sexism, and heterosexism. Feminist scholars across
disciplines have continuously sought to expand scientific "facts" beyond their initial (and
often continuing) white, male, heterosexual biases and assumptions while seeking
knowledge as an entryway into a more just social world.
Similar to the other theories outlined in this chapter, Feminist Theory is far more expansive
than can adequately be explored within one textbook, let alone within a single chapter in a
textbook. Feminist theorists and methods, for example, can be found in wide ranging fields
beyond sociology including biology, genetics, chemistry, literature, history, political science,
fine arts, religious studies, psychology, anthropology, and public health. Feminist Theory
often dramatically influences scientific theory and practice within such fields. Below we offer
summaries of the major conceptual approaches within Feminist Theory. It is important to
note, however, that while we outline these perspectives under distinct headings and within
specific orders for the purposes of clarity and introduction, contemporary Feminist theorists
and researchers across disciplines often draw upon more than one of these perspectives in
practice and continually seek ways to refine and integrate each of these approaches. Before

presenting this outline, however, it is important to be aware of three basic premises or

foundational ideas within and between contemporary Feminist Theories. [21]

Scientific practice is subjective: If one admits that social experience and environment
influence individual and collective perceptions, then one cannot form a question without
expressing - implicitly or explicitly - a socially influenced perspective. As long as people
are the "doers" of research, all research will ultimately be subjective and open to debate
or refinement on some level. Feminist theorists thus argue that understanding the social
or natural world also requires interrogating our own conscious or unconscious bias,
perspective, beliefs, and values, and our own positions within systems of racial, class,
gender, sexual, political, and scientific social systems.

The personal is political: Experiences we consider personal are generally shaped by our
social locations within existing systems of oppression and privilege. As a result, every
personal decision or action ultimately reproduces and/or challenges systems of social
inequality. Feminist theorists therefore argue that understanding and/or changing largescale systems of oppression and privilege requires examining the ways people think,
feel, and act in all aspects of life since all such endeavors will ultimately influence the
social and natural worlds they experience.

Everything is more than one thing: Rather than simple one to one relationships or
isolated causal patterns, all social and natural systems are interlocked systems that may
only be understood, reproduced or challenged in relation to the other systems they
depend on. If one examines women's oppression, for example, one must also explore
the ways of thinking and feeling that produce scientific categorization systems, the
system of categorization that simplifies the world into only two sexes or genders, the
social construction of the term "woman" within historical and contextual power relations,
and the other systems that make up a given "woman". For example, in order to
understand the experience of one woman requires examining the ways her position
within racial, classed, sexual, religious, political, scientific, and other systems create the
definition of what it means for her to be a "woman". Feminist theorists therefore argue
that the social and natural worlds cannot be understood via the isolation or control of
various parts of social and/or natural experience. As a result, scientific inquiries require
attending to the whole entity, system, and/or structure in relation to other entities,
systems, and/or structures in the world at that time.

With these foundational ideas in mind, we now present the primary Feminist theoretical
perspectives.

Liberal Feminism[edit]

Liberal feminists believe that men and women both are disadvantaged by societys gender
expectations. They advocate working within institutions to level the playing field through
changing laws, education, and socialization to bring about gender equality.

Marxist and Socialist Feminism[edit]

Marxist feminists believe that the oppression of women stems primarily from capitalism,
which exploits womens labor and is upheld through womens unpaid domestic labor. They
believe that economic inequalities are the most central form of inequality. Therefore,
eliminating capitalism would get rid of gender inequalities.
Socialist feminists believe that womens oppression is inseparable from class oppression.
Therefore, to bring about gender equality, we must work to eliminate both capitalism and
patriarchy in all social and natural fields of knowledge and experience.

Radical, Separatist, and Cultural Feminism[edit]

Radical feminists believe that women are oppressed by our patriarchal society. They do not
believe that men are oppressed. They seek a fundamental reorganization of society because
our existing political, scientific, religious, and social organization is inherently patriarchal.
Separatist feminists, like radical feminists, believe that women are oppressed by our
patriarchal society. They, however, believe that we cant get rid of this problem if women and
men are together. In order to achieve equality, women need to separate themselves from
men. Some believe this is a temporary stage while others see this as a permanent goal.
Cultural feminists, like radical feminists, believe that women are oppressed by our patriarchal
society. They, however, focus on empowering women through valuing, emphasizing, and
encouraging the positive qualities traditionally associated with women, such as nurturing,
caring, cooperation, relationships with others, childbirth, morality, peace, pureness, and
womens connection to nature and the earth.

Black Feminist Thought and Queer Feminism[edit]

Black feminists believe that many inequalities are important in society today, not only gender.
In addition to gender inequalities, they focus on race, ethnicity, and class and sometimes
also add sexuality, nationality, age, disability, and others. They believe that people
experience gender differently depending on their location in socially constructed cultural,
political, and biological structures of race, ethnicity and class. Therefore, there is no universal
female experience. This perspective is sometimes referred to as multicultural feminism,
multiracial feminism, or womanism.
Queer feminists - sometimes referred to as Postmodern Feminists - believe that gender and
sex (as well as other social locations and systems of social and natural organization and
categorization) are multiple, constantly changing, and performed by individuals and groups
within situated social, historical, scientific, and political contexts. There are many (i.e., more
than two) genders and sexes, and variations (biologically and socially) within other

"accepted" or "normalized" categorizations. They focus on creating social change through

challenging the existence and blurring the boundaries of these categories. This perspective
shares many ideas with Queer Theory.

Integration Theory[edit]
Recently, some sociologists have been taking a different approach to sociological theory by
employing an integrationist approach - combining micro- and macro-level theories to provide
a comprehensive understanding of human social behavior (while these studies rarely cite
Symbolic Interaction Theory, most of their models are based heavily uponHerbert Blumer's
initial elaboration of Symbolic Interaction in relation to social institutions [22][23]). Numerous
models could be presented in this vein. George Ritzer's [24] Integration Model is a good
example.
Ritzer proposes four highly interdependent elements in his sociological model: a macroobjective component (e.g., society, law, bureaucracy), a micro-objective component (e.g.,
patterns of behavior and human interaction), a macro-subjective component (e.g., culture,
norms, and values), and a micro-subjective component (e.g., perceptions, beliefs). This
model is of particular use in understanding society because it uses two axes: one ranging
from objective (society) to subjective (culture and cultural interpretation); the other ranging
from the macro-level (norms) to the micro-level (individual level beliefs).

The integration approach is particularly useful for explaining social phenomenon because it
shows how the different components of social life work together to influence society and
behavior.
If used for understanding a specific cultural phenomenon, like the displaying of abstract art in
one's home,[25] the integration model depicts the different influences on the decision. For
instance, the model depicts that cultural norms can influence individual behavior. The model
also shows that individual level values, beliefs, and behaviors influence macro-level culture.
This is, in fact, part of what David Halle finds: while there are art consumption differences
based on class, they are not predicted solely by class. Displayers of abstract art tend not
only to belong to the upper-class, but also are employed in art-production occupations. This
would indicate that there are multiple levels of influence involved in art tastes both broad
cultural norms and smaller level occupational norms in addition to personal preferences.

Additional Reading[edit]
Durkheim, Emile. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Edited with an introduction by George
Simpson. Translated by John A. Spaulding & George Simpson. New York: The Free Press.
ISBN: 978-0684836324.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons.
Introduction by Anthony Giddens. New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978- 0415084345.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN:
978-0385094023.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN: 978-0-385-05898-8.
Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism.
New York: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415951500.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan
Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN: 978-0679752554.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press. Mills, C.
Wright. The Power Elite.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the
1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
Smith, Dorothy. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic. Boston: Northeastern University.
Smith, Dorothy. 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power.
Warner, Michael. 1999. The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life.
New York: Free Press.
hooks, bell. 1981. Aint I a Woman?: Black Women and Feminism. ISBN 0-89608-129-X
Dubois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro.
DuBois, W.E.B., The Souls of Black Folk
Durkheim, Emile. 1912. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life.
Foucault, Michel. 1990 [1978]. The History of Sexuality, An Introduction. New York: Vintage
Books.

Discussion Questions[edit]

Why do sociologists need theories?

How does sociological theory complement data?

What is the difference between sociological theorizing and philosophy?

References[edit]
1.

Jump up Putnam, Robert D. 2001. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. 1st ed. Simon & Schuster.

2.

Jump up Durkheim, Emile. 1997. Suicide. Free Press.

3.

Jump up Durkheim, Emile, and Lewis A. Coser. 1997. The Division of Labor in Society. Free
Press.

4.

Jump up Hoult, Thomas Ford (1969). Dictionary of Modern Sociology. p. 139.

5.

Jump up to:a b Marsden, George M. 1996. The Soul of the American University: From Protestant
Establishment to Established Nonbelief. Oxford University Press, USA.

6.

Jump up to:a b Smith, Christian. 2003. The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in
the Secularization of American Public Life. 1st ed. University of California Press.

7.

Jump up Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1965. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. illustrated
edition. Free Press.

8.

Jump up Layton, R. 1997. An Introduction to Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. pp. 37-38. ISBN 0521629829

9.

Jump up Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Wiley-Blackwell.

10. Jump up Merton, Robert (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure, revised and enlarged.
London: The Free Press of Glencoe.
11. Jump up to:a b Herman, Nancy J. and Reynolds, Larry T. 1994. Symbolic Interaction: An
Introduction to Social Psychology. Altamira Press. ISBN 1882289226
12. Jump up Blumer, H. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of
California Press. ISBN 0520056760
13. Jump up to:a b Sabbagh, Mark A., Lindsay C. Bowman, Lyndsay E. Evraire, and Jennie M. B. Ito.
2009. Neurodevelopmental Correlates of Theory of Mind in Preschool Children. Child
Development 80:1147-1162.
14. Jump up Ebaugh, Helen Rose Fuchs. 1988. Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. 1st
ed. University Of Chicago Press.
15. Jump up Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor
Books. ISBN 0385094027
16. Jump up Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction.
MacMillan Publishing Co. ISBN 0023445602
17. Jump up Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality:
A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. First Thus. Anchor.
18. Jump up Freud, Sigmund. 2009. The Future of An Illusion. CreateSpace.
19. Jump up Durkheim, Emile. 2008. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. abridged edition.
Oxford University Press, USA.
20. Jump up Berger, Peter L. 1990. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of
Religion. Anchor.
21. Jump up Kleinman, Sherryl. 2007. Feminist Fieldwork Analysis. Thousand Oaks, Sage.
22. Jump up Blumer, Herber. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.
University of California Press

23. Jump up Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press
24. Jump up Ritzer, George, and Douglas J. Goodman. 2003. Sociological Theory. 6th ed.
McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. P. 357.
25. Jump up Halle, David. 1996. Inside Culture: Art and Class in the American Home. University
Of Chicago Press.

External links[edit]

Dramaturgy

Social Psychology

social constructionism
Chapter 8 Social Disorganization Theory: Social Structure,

Communities, and Crime Terms Chicago Area Projects. This was the first largescale urban delinquency prevention program. Started by Shaw and McKay in the
1930s, it used their social disorganization theory as a core. Collective Efficacy.
This refers to the actual or perceived ability of the residents of a given
neighborhood to maintain informal social control over the criminal or deviant
behavior of other residents. This would have the effect of keeping crime rates
lower. Concentrated Disadvantage. This looks at a variety of factors including
percent of families below the poverty level, percent of female headed
households, the percent of families on welfare, percent black, percent
unemployed, and the percent under 18. Concentric Zone Theory. Refers to the
work of Burgess. Looks at a city with the graph of a target depicting a series of
concentric zones. The zones and their occupants are used to understand crime in
a city. Social Capital. This refers to investment in the community, and looks at
things like club and organization membership, volunteer activities, political
activities, and general community engagement. Social Disorganization. Social
disorganization refers to the breakdown in traditional social control and
organization in the society, community, neighborhood, or family so that deviant
and criminal activity result. It is most often applied to urban crime. Structural
Theories. This refers to macro-level theories that account for differences in crime
rates across communities by looking at variations in structural characteristics
and conditions of each community. Urban Ecology. A theory that views a city as
analogous to the natural ecological community of plants and animals. This
relationship is understood through the use of concentric zones that spread from
the center to the outer regions of a city. This work done by Park and Burgess
influenced the social disorganization theory developed by Shaw and McKay. Key
Concepts 1. Social disorganization is a macro theory looking across different
communities or neighborhoods. 2. The theory was developed by Shaw and
McKay, who demonstrated that juvenile 28 offenders followed a very consistent
pattern over several decades, with the highest rates of deviance concentrated in
the inner city and diminishing outward from the core of the city. 3. This suggests

that forces are at work beyond the individual delinquents. Those larger forces
may be found in the structure or organization of the city itself. 4. Factors in a city
that have been examined by others include the poverty rate, unemployment
rate, percentage of female-headed households, percentage of those under the
age of 18, and various measures of community involvement. Chapter
Review/Keeping Tabs The theories examined in Chapters 2 through 7 have looked
primarily at the processes that generate criminal behavior within an individual.
Chapter 8 looks at features of society that may produce higher rates of crime
within neighborhoods or other large groups. Social disorganization theory is a
macro approach developed by Shaw and McKay. Some theorists believe that
neighborhoods characterized by constant change and deterioration are more
likely to be crime-ridden because they are less likely to be successful in
controlling the behavior of their residents. Crime rates in inner-city urban areas
remain high over time, and the belief is that the structure of the city is in part
responsible. Other theorists have looked at the concentration of unemployment,
welfare, community engagement, political activity, and volunteer work as a
gauge of the relative health of a community. Questions 1. Describe how the
macro approach of social disorganization differs from a micro approach of looking
at an individual delinquent. 2. Describe and explain the five zones as explained
by Burgess. 3. Could we solve the problem of social disorganization simply
through investing large sums of money in a community? Why or why not? 4.
Compare and contrast collective efficacy with social capital. 5. Discuss the
results of the Chicago Area Projects. Notable Individuals Ohlin, Lloyd:
Collaborated with Cloward to form a theory of opportunity and coauthored
Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) with Cloward. Park, Robert Ezra: (1864
1944) Associated with the Chicago School, collaborated with Sutherland and
Burgess. Shaw, Clifford R.: Sociologist, collaborated with McKay on the social
disorganization theory.
Chapter 6 Social Bonding and Control Theories Terms Containment Theory. A
control theory in which the inner and outer pushes and pulls on an individual will
produce delinquency unless they are constrained or counteracted by inner and
outer containment measures. Control Theories. A classification of theories that
claim to ask not why do people commit criminal acts, but why do they not
commit criminal acts? These theories assume everyone has the desire to commit
criminal and deviant acts, and seeks to answer why some people refrain from
doing so. Delinquent Subculture. A group of delinquent peers who may influence
an individual to commit criminal acts in order to receive approval from the group.
This concept works in conjunction with control theory and may pull an individual
toward delinquency. Drift Theory. This theory states that people can drift or
float back and forth between obeying and breaking the law. People can use
techniques of neutralization as excuses to break the law when other forms of
social control are weak. When social control is stronger, the offender will drift or
float back to law-abiding behavior. External Control. A concept in control theory
in which agents outside the control of the individual are responsible for keeping
that individual from committing criminal or deviant acts. These agents include
parents, teachers, or members of law enforcement. Internal Control. A concept in

control theory that explains why a person will not commit a criminal act by
reference to the person internally monitoring and controlling his or her own
behavior. This includes such things as feelings of guilt and not wanting to
disappoint others. Natural Motivation. This refers to the belief in control theories
that the desire to commit criminal acts is uniform and spread evenly across
society. Self-Control Theory. A specific type of control theory developed by
Gottfredson and Hirschi in which self-control is the key factor in understanding
criminal and deviant acts. Self-Concept. An element of containment theory
thought to be responsible for insulating an individual from criminal activity.
Similar to self-esteem. Social Bonding Theory. A control theory that states that
individuals will commit criminal or delinquent acts when their ties (bonds) to
society are weakened or have broken. There are four types of bonds: attachment,
commitment, involvement, and belief. When the bonds are strong, an individual
will refrain from criminal activity. Social Control. Under a control theory
perspective, social control refers to those elements that keep an individual from
committing a criminal or deviant act. Examples 22 include the family, church,
and school. Key Concepts 1. Social bonding and control theories are
nontraditional criminological perspectives because they seek to explain why
individuals conform to societal norms, and not why they commit crime. 2. Travis
Hirschis theory has many policy implications and can be used to reduce
delinquency. His theory can be seen in policies such as curfew laws, after-school
programs, parenting classes, and job placement programs. 3. Hirschi utilized
theory construction, conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical testing
to develop a perspective that still stands as a criminological model today. 4. The
Social Development Model (SDM) has supported bonding and learning theories
and has demonstrated success in areas of commitment and attachment. Chapter
Review/Keeping Tabs Why is a person not a criminal? That is the central question
asked by control theorists. Instead of asking why people break the law, this
perspective wants to know why people do not break the law. Instead of focusing
on choice, body type, the mind, or the learning process, control theorists look at
how people are controlled by society. Has the individual bonded with society, and
if so, how strong are those bonds? This perspective seeks the same basic
answers to the crime problem, but asks a slightly different question. Weak to
moderate support has been found for control and selfcontrol theories. Questions
1. Identify Hirschis four elements of social bonding. How does his social bonding
theory differ from his self-control theory? 2. Assuming Walter Recklesss
containment theory is true, does the uniform policy in public schools alleviate
some pressure that pushes youth toward delinquency? 3. Explain the
similarities between Reisss and Nyes ideas of social control. 4. Belief is a
component of the social bonding theory. Could the increase in juvenile
delinquency be attributed to the religious policy in public school? 5. If juveniles
conform to norms of the culture and are still labeled delinquent, is there an
explanation or excuse for their behavior? 6. Discuss the revisions to the definition
of self-control made by Hirschi. Discuss the new definition, and explain whether
or not it addresses the tautology problem associated with the theory of low selfcontrol. 23 7. Does an individuals self-control remain stable, or does it change
over time? How does the answer to this question affect the theory itself, as well

as any policy implications? Notable Individuals Gottfredson, Michael: Coauthored

A General Theory of Crime (1990) with Travis Hirschi. Hirschi, Travis:
Criminologist, developed the social bond theory, wrote The Causes of
Delinquency (1969), coauthored A General Theory of Crime (1990) w

Chapter 5 Social Learning Theory Terms Behavior Theory. Burgess and Akers
expanded differential association and included elements of behavior theory and
behavior modification. This expansion allowed them to identify the learning
process, and included elements such as operant behavior, respondent
conditioning, discriminative stimuli, and schedules of reinforcement. Definitions.
One of the four main concepts of Akerss social learning theory. The process
through which an individual rationalizes, evaluates, and assigns right and wrong.
Definitions of the law may be general or specific. One may have the general view
that the law needs to be obeyed, but a specific view that a 20-year-old who can
fight in a war should be allowed to drink a beer. This person may follow the law in
general, but violate the liquor law. Differential Association. A theory of crime and
delinquency developed by Sutherland. This is a social learning theory presented
in nine steps. Criminality is basically the result of engaging in inappropriate
behaviors exhibited by those with whom we interact. Also, one of the four main
concepts of Akerss social learning theory. Akers retains the process of
differential association, and expands upon it in his theory. Differential
Identification. A modification of differential association theory. In this view,
people commit criminal or delinquent acts if they believe that it will lead to
acceptance by and approval of these important people in their lives. Differential
Reinforcement. One of the four main concepts of Akerss social learning theory.
The concept refers to the potential rewards and punishments for committing or
not committing a criminal or deviant act. This process includes a consideration of
punishments and rewards that have been received in the past, as well as present
and future rewards and punishments. Discriminative Stimuli. Internal or external
factors or cues that aid an individual in determining an appropriate response to a
given situation. Imitation. One of the four main concepts of Akerss social
learning theory. Behavior modeled by others for an individual may be copied by
that individual. Impressions of the individual doing the modeling, along with
perceived risks and rewards, will factor into the imitation decision. Negative
Reinforcement. This refers to an individual escaping something painful such as a
punishment or reprimand by committing a certain act. Neutralizing Definitions.
This type of definition helps a person justify committing a crime by making it
seem that although the act itself might be wrong, under certain conditions it is
all right. Operant Conditioning. The view that voluntary actions and decisions
made by an 18 individual are influenced and shaped by punishments and
rewards found in the external world. Positive Reinforcement. This refers to an
individual receiving something of value for committing a certain act. This may
include things such as money, food, or approval. Retroflexive Reformation. This
process is based upon differential association and often takes place in a group

setting working with both offenders and non-offenders. This concept suggests
that the offenders in such groups who join on the side of the non-offenders in
attempting to get the other offenders to change their definitions favorable to law
violation, actually wind up reducing their own definitions favorable to crime. SelfReinforcement. The exercise of self-control used by an individual to reinforce his
or her own behavior, by seeing that behavior through the eyes of another. Social
Learning Theory. In general, social learning theory proposes that both criminal
and conforming behaviors are acquired, maintained, or changed by the same
process of interaction with others. The difference lies in the conforming or
deviant direction or balance of the social influences such as reinforcement,
values and attitudes, and imitation. Social Reinforcement. This refers to the
actual, perceived, expected, tangible, or intangible rewards or punishments
conveyed upon an individual by society or a subset of society. Social Structure
and Social Learning Model. A model proposed by Akers in which social structural
factors have an indirect effect on an individuals actions through the social
learning process. Symbolic Interactionism. The process by which two or more
individuals share a commonly understood language or set of symbols. All
individuals have the ability to incorporate other peoples reactions into their own
behavior and use those reactions as part of their own understanding of
themselves. Example: You want to know how you look in a new outfit. Part of
your understanding of how you look is going to be based upon how others
respond to you. You have the ability to understand other peoples facial
reactions, body language, and verbal language in understanding how they view
you. You then use this information when deciding if you look good in the outfit.
Key Concepts 1. As a general concept, social learning theory has been applied to
the fields of sociology, psychology, criminal justice, and criminology in an
attempt to explain how criminal values, ideas, techniques, and expressions are
transmitted from one individual to another. 2. Differential association theory,
developed by Sutherland, is a learning theory that concentrates on ones
associates and the normative definitions one learns from them. 3. Akers
identified four dimensions of the social structure that can possibly be integrated
with social learning: differential social organization, differential location in the
social 19 structure, theoretically defined structural variables, and differential
social location. 4. Learning theorists believe that deviant behavior can be
eliminated or modified by taking away the reward of the behavior, increasing the
negative consequences of the behavior, or changing the balance of
reward/punishment for the behavior. 5. Just as positive behaviors reinforce
positive behaviors, deviant behaviors also reinforce deviant behaviors. Deviant
peers who reinforce one anothers behaviors can form fast bonds of friendship.
The effects of such a relationship subjects all of the individuals involved to higher
rates of future substance abuse and criminal activity. Chapter Review/Keeping
Tabs If crime is not the result of choice, biology, or psychology, then how can it
be explained? The theorists in Chapter 5 believe that crime is learned through
interaction with others in ones social environment. Social learning theorists of
criminology state that criminal behavior, like other behaviors in life, are a learned
activity. Social learning theorists seek to understand and explain how a person
learns to become criminal, and then to develop strategies and programs that

model appropriate behavior. Questions 1. Can any present-day policy

implications be drawn from the Highfields project or the Provo experiments? 2.
Although it has been demonstrated that diversion programs have had moderate
success, creating a positive peer culture to prevent delinquency has
disadvantages. What disadvantages come from using positive peer culture
techniques, and why? 3. What significant contributions did Burgess and Akers
make to Sutherlands differential association theory? Was it necessary that
Sutherlands theory be elaborated upon to better explain crime as it is today? 4.
What programs are the most effective in preventing delinquencythose that aim
at juvenile delinquency, or those that involve children and their families
(regardless of delinquency status)? 5. ATP focuses on at-risk youth. Would it be
appropriate to extend Pattersons program to all pre-teen adolescents as part of
an academic curriculum? 6. Discuss the OSCL training program and how is has
worked with foster parents and in school activities. Notable Individuals Akers,
Ronald: Sociologist and criminologist, collaborated with Robert Burgess to
develop the differential reinforcement theory, wrote Deviant Behavior: A Social

Chapter 4 Psychological Theories Terms California Psychological Inventory (CPI).

A test designed to measure personality traits such as dominance, tolerance, and
sociability. Ego. One of the three components of Freudian personality
development. The ego is referred to as the executive or rational part of the
personality, and it acts to keep the id in check. Electra Complex. This occurs at
the beginning of the phallic stage (around ages 3 to 6) in which a girl develops a
desire to possess her father and a hatred and fear of her mother. Freudian. This
view of behavior focuses on early childhood development. It claims that criminal
activity is the result of a conflict between the id, ego, and superego, which can
be traced back to a conflict in early childhood. Id. One of the three components
of Freudian personality development. The id contains basic instincts and drives,
such as the need for food, water, sex, and pleasure. Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI). A test designed to use different scales of questions
to measure abnormal personality traits, such as depression, hysteria, paranoia,
psychopathology, and compulsiveness. Oedipus Complex. This occurs at the
beginning of the phallic stage (around ages 3 to 6) in which a boy develops a
desire to possess his mother and a hatred and fear of his father. Personality
Theory. This theory believes that criminal activity is the result of a defective,
deviant, or inadequate personality. Examples of deviant personality traits include
hostility, impulsiveness, aggression, and sensation-seeking. Psychoanalytic
Theory. A general perspective stating that the causes of criminal behavior can be
found in the mind of the individual. Psychological Counseling. The process by
which an underlying mental issue can be addressed. The assumptions are that
only by treating an individual who has committed a criminal act as someone who
is sick and in need of treatment can the problem truly be addressed; punishing

the criminal act without addressing the root mental cause is of little or no value;
and counseling is the only way in which the root mental cause can be dealt with
adequately. Psychological Theory. A general perspective that looks to the
psychological functioning, development, and adjustment of an individual in
explaining criminal or deviant acts. Under this approach, the criminal act itself is
important only in that it highlights an underlying mental issue. 15 Psychopathic.
A general term referring to a variety of antisocial personality disorders.
Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) Developed by Hare, this is a tool comprised of a
checklist that is designed to measure the feeling and relationships of an
individual, along with the social deviance of an individual. This tool is the main
one used in the measurement of a psychopathic personality. Superego. One of
the three components of Freudian personality development. This part of the
personality contains the conscience of the individual. Key Concepts 1.
Psychoanalytic theorists believe that criminal behavior is the result of a mental
disturbance. From a Freudian perspective, this may have been caused by a
conflict between the id, ego, and superego, or it may be the result of an improper
fixation during a stage of emotional development. 2. Personality theorists believe
that criminal behavior is the result of an improper or defective personality or
personality traits. Instead of developing a conforming appropriate-social
personality, the criminal has developed a personality based upon conflict,
impulsiveness, and aggression. The criminal does not have the ability to feel
empathy, remorse, or guilt for his or her actions, and has not developed a sense
of right and wrong. 3. Under both of these approaches, the criminal act is not
important, in that it is only one of many symptoms of the underlying
psychological or personality disorder. Both approaches recommend various forms
of therapy and treatment to fix the disorder. When the underlying psychological
or personality disorder is addressed, the criminal and deviant acts should cease.
4. Psychological theories are difficult if not impossible to test. One cannot see,
identify, or measure the id, ego, or superego. As a result, testing these theories
becomes virtually impossible. Similar difficulties are faced when trying to test
personality theories, and tautological issues remain a problem. 5. Programs that
offer therapy and counseling in attempts to reduce delinquency have not been
shown to be particularly effective. While the role of psychology in criminal justice
and criminology is indeed important, we have not yet reached a place where the
key concepts of psychological and personality theories, along with their
recommended treatments, have had a measured impact on criminal activity.
Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs Chapters 2, 3, and 4 all focus on characteristics
and processes within the individual that produce individual criminal behavior. In
Chapter 4, crime is viewed not as a choice or a biological defect, but rather as a
problem deep in the offenders mind. Problems in early childhood development,
or in the personality of the offender, are viewed as responsible for deviant
activity. Criminal activity is seen not as the core problem, but rather as a
symptom of the underlying mental issue. According to this theory, crime and
deviant activity can be prevented through counseling, treatment, or modification
of an individuals personality. Indeed, this approach is used most often in the
juvenile justice system, but the results of this technique cast doubt on the ability
16 of counseling alone to reduce criminal activity. It is also doubted that the true

psychopath can benefit from any type of counseling or treatment. Questions 1.

What impact does Freudian theory have on the criminal justice system today? 2.
If psychological theories have validity problems, why are psychiatrists so often
called upon to testify in court? If the theories are so tautological, how can we
ever be sure a person is truly insane? 3. Is personality an innate quality or a
socially developed phenomenon? Regardless of your answer, how would you go
about changing another persons personality? Can you change your own
personality? 4. What can be learned from projects like the Wayne County Clinic
and the CambridgeSomerville Youth Study? 5. How would you develop a longterm psychiatric treatment program for delinquent or antisocial boys? Would the
program differ for delinquent or antisocial girls? 6. According to the research,
what are the prospects of successfully rehabilitating a psychopath? Notable
Individuals Freud, Sigmund: (18561939) Psychologist, pioneer of psychoanalysis
and psychological theory, theorized the Oedipus complex and the Electra
complex, coined the terms id, superego, ego, sex drive, and libido. Friedlander,
Kate: Wrote The Psychoanalytic Approach to Juvenile Delinquency (1947).

Reply

Share

o
o

sandy 3 years ago

There are many different reasons a person can fall down the wrong path. A
path of crime, and destruction that at a glance one can judge and simply cast
off as another criminal, but it is when we stop and take a look that we can
find out who that person is and why they have ended up as criminals. In the
documentary film Bus 174 we watched they events that happened on June
12,2000 which took place in Brazil Rio De Janiero. A street kid named Sandro
Do Nascimento got into a bus to rob the passengers but what was suppose to
be a simple robbery turned into a hostage situation and it quickly spun out of
control. They police had no control of the situation, the News reporters were
everywhere and they were all focused and televising the face of a monster,
the Hijacker who had passengers terrorized, but what led this man to do this?
What had made Sandro done this criminal road?

If we take a closer look at Sandros life we can see why this little boy turned
into that Hijacker that day. Anyone that has lived such a hard life like
Sandros can be expected to turn into a criminal. It is early in hi life that we
see a factor that contributed to his choice of life and that is the Trauma
caused by him witnessing his mothers murder. He was a little boy whose
mother had just been stabbed in front of him and he could do nothing about
it. According to the article Children Exposed to Violence: Criminal Justice
Resources They are more likely to become involved in criminal and drugrelated offenses later in life than children who have grown up in peaceful,
nonviolent surroundings. They are also more susceptible to physical and
psychological problems and consequences. Sandro not only witnessed the
death of his mother, but he as well witnessed the death of his friends at the
hands of police officers all these events caused such pain and a trauma that
built up inside Sandro. There was no one there to help Sandro, no one to give
him a helping hand to deal with all the violence and murder he had
witnessed. Because of his lack of resources and his poverty he did not have
access to any sort of treatment that here in the United States children have.
Like a psychologist or social worker that helps victim of crime deal with their
problems. Sandro had no one and had to find way to deal with it on his own.
Sandro was in the streets, he became part of this underground phenomenon
on that are thee street kids in Brazil, children who turn to the streets for
shelter, food, and some sort of survival. In the streets they not only find
friends who struggle like them but they find drugs as well. They cheapest
drug for these kids is glue; crazy as it sounds glue is sniffed by these children
to get them high and to suppress they enormous hunger they have. Sandro
was addicted to cocaine, this drug addiction was also a factor that
contributed to his fall, to him hijacking the bus. Drug addiction is a sickness
that is very hard to deal with. According to the website drugabuse.gov the
addict becomes completely dependent on the drug, and without it feel
hopeless. It was wanting to support this addiction, wanting to get high,
wanting to have that feeling, that drug in him that made him go down a
criminal path. He needed money to support his drug addiction, and by
mugging people on the street, by committing crime he was able to do so. This
was such a strong factor that led him down that road. I believe Sandro would
have lived a different life had he had his mother with him, Sandro really had
no one to help him deal with all the pain he felt inside, with all the pain he
had suffered and endured his whole life. It would be easy to say that he was
just another criminal, but Sandro carried a pain in him that pushed him to
this, and with no helping hand to save him from this life Sandro drowned.
1) National Institute of Drug Addiction (December
2012), http:/www.drugabuse.gov.
2) Helen Connelly, (June 1999) Children Exposed to Violence: Criminal Justice
Resources www.ovc.gov.

o
o

Reply

Share

o
o

Jason 3 years ago

In the film documentary Bus 174 the main character Sandro do Nascimento,,
shares a profile of the characters Batman and Dexter. In the fictional story of
Batman when he was a child, his real persona Bruce Wayne witnessed the
death of both his parents as they were gunned down in cold-blood. When a
child witnesses such a horrible scene, there is no doubt that they will be
affected, take for instance another character Dexter who went on to be a
serial killer. In the book first Darkly Dreaming Dexter and then the TV series.
Dexters mother was killed and tortured as he and his brother sit in their
mothers blood witnessing it all. Both Bruce Wayne and Dexter went on to be
dark individuals who merged with modern society in the day time, but at
night took on different personas one a dark figure that goes after bad guys,
the other murders people who he knows are guilty but walk free. Sandro do
Nasciemento also gradually became a darker person, and in his own way he
became a super hero, a vindicator for the weaker and the lifeless. Losing his
mother was the psychological factor that led to him going down a criminal
path, which with his death made him a martyr of sorts.
In the film 174 which is a documentation of an actual event that happened in
July of 2000. Sandro do Nascimento went on a bus in the attempt to rob the
passengers, the altercation resulted in him taking 11 passengers hostage,
armed with a gun and four bullets, he was surrounded to by police and
members of the press. There he decided to threaten the lives of the
passenger, but also use the media to showcase some of the wrong doings the
police have done. He referenced the murders that happened in what is called
the Candelria massacre. The massacre took place on July 23, 1993 in
which a group of young people who were mostly vagrants were killed by
grown men which most were suspected to be members of the police force.
In an article in the wall street journal:
Its a common story. Gary Jahnke, 31, of Hastings, Minn., was 13 when his
mother died of cancer. I gave up on my good grades and dropped out of high

school, he says. I didnt do anything except drink, do drugs and be

depressed. I was confused and angry, and adults didnt know how to help me.
(Zaslow, 2010)
This quote shows the fact that without the proper coping mechanisms a
person first will get addicted to drugs. Which Nascimento according to the
Film Bus 174, loved to do cocaine and blow glue. What results from being
hooked on drugs is then the need to support the habit. Without a job and
access to cash people have no other choice but get a job which they usually
cant so they steal and rob. In the film, the police reports said, Nasciemento
mugged people but never harmed them physically. What that says is he
never really had a violent temper or an interest in doing anyone harm. He
was just basically looking to feed his habit as it is seen he is hurting and
without the resources to therapist. He had to find his own solutions.
Nascimento was a street kid who had an aunt, a sister, and even a surrogate
mother who wanted to care for him and help him grow. Each of them loved
him and wanted to give him a future. What neither of them could have
offered was a way of accepting his moms violent death and then move on.
That takes years of therapy and also inner strength. Even then he might
never be the same. What did Nascimento get instead? He found himself
doing drugs and winding up in prison and once in prison, there was no chance
of reform. He only became worse.
"Unless a prisoner receives adequate treatment, drug addiction and
dependence and their attendant dangers persist after the prisoner's release
into the community and are associated with a high rate of overdose and other
harms" (Stover & Michels, 2010).
What happened to Nascimento was first the loss of his mom caused him to
have a hard time entering society with that experience on his shoulders. Then
to cope with it he found drugs. Using drugs -- lead to him in prison which was
filled with abuse and being degraded by prison guards. Life on the streets
came with the loss of his friends which eventually caused him to have a
break-down as he entered the bus that day. Was he a bad person? One could
look at his actions and think so, however judging by his past one can think
otherwise. In the overall picture Nascimento helped to shed the light on that
fact that if the needs of people who require proper mental and health care
arent met. The result can become more of cost and a detriment to society
than the cost of offering the programs.
Reference list
Heino Stve and Ingo I Michels, 2010: Drug use and opioid substitution
treatment for prisoners. Harm Reduction Journal 2010, 7:17
Zaslow Jeffery , 2010 : Families With a Missing Piece: A New Look at How a
Parent's Early Death Can Reverberate Decades Later.
Wall Street Journal June 2, 2010.

Producer, Zazen Producoes, & Director, Jos Padilha. October, 2002. Bus 174.
Brazil: Zazen Producoes
see more
o
o

Reply

Share

o
o

pam 3 years ago

lit 284
prof.leibman
In the film Bus 174 is documentary about a youth named Sandro Rosa do
Nascimento.The psychological aspect of Sandros life can be answered by
observing the traumatic events that plagued his childhood. Sandro has lived
a rough life in Rio de Janeiro. This film showed a demonic force in Rio
Hoovering over Sandro and engulfed him into area which most adults would
be afraid of such events such as prison, drugs, homelessness and criminal
activities. Sandro suffered multiple losses in his early child development. He
witnesses the death of his mother at the age of 6. He chose drugs that will
eventually take over his soul and he lost his sense of identity to the streets of
Rio. The drugs that Sandro was using transformed his mind to become
reprobated, and a reprobated mind has no sense of direction.
Sandro believed the system had failed him, and maybe it did thats why he
lost hope and this is why he became enraged. Sandro had two positive people
who demonstrated role molding to make a change in his life, first his aunt
who continued to stick by him and attempted to encourage him to change his
ways. The second role model in his life was his foster mother who had given
him a home ,cooked for him, counseling and his own bed, that he chose not
to sleep on. Sandro should have enhanced the little light he had and turned
into a testimony to encourage others to better their lives, instead he
embraced the dark side.
In addition to this along the way he discovered new friends, normal activities
for example playing marbles and dancing with new peers, he even had a look
of peace in him at that time. Sandro relapsed and engaged into more serious
crimes including hijacking a bus full of innocent people, because of this life he

was a custom to ,and chose to live a life of criminality. Sandro had no reason
or motivation to change his behavior in response to this he fell deeper in the
rabbit hole of crime .Sandro did not want to change his life. I agree with
professor Leibman, he stated in class today in so many words, since we are
creatures of habit we all fall down , but we all have to get back up .I have two
friends in law enforcement one is in the police department. Long before she
became an officer she was homeless eating out of the garbage cans to
survive. My other friend works in Manhattan criminal court another officer has
witnessed the shooting of her mother by her father . Sandro is not alone he is
not the first nor will he be the last to witness traumatic events.
The biggest sociological aspect in my point of view is, just because Sandro
grew up in an invisible system with few positive role models and no male role
models, poverty stricken neighborhood police brutality does not mean he is
justified for criminal behavior. His predicament is the fault of many but mostly
the fault of his absent father and the government of his people. Sandro was
also ignored by society due to the fact that he was "pestilence or a sickness
to the streets.
Although he was terrified by his mothers untimely demise however it caused
him to become enraged. He was crying out for attention and maybe some
answers .He used this hostage situation to have 10 minutes of fame to get
acknowledge .He wanted to see if anyone would hear his voice. Sandros rage
was in fact understandable but not justified. When Sandro landed in jail, his
psychological paralleled with sociology aspect of his life. The penal system in
Brazil was supposed to help to Sandro woes in fact it worsened however he
had sense enough to blend in with other categories of his peers.
The penal system is supposed to rehabilitate the prisoner and not use it as a
form of punishment. Therefore when he was released from prison the crime
increased to another level. I do not feel sorry for Sandros afflictions however
I do pity his ignorance for not taking the chance he was given. Sandro was
given many chances through his foster mother however he rejected every
chance she gave him.
(2002)Jos Padilha(director)
Felipe Lacerda (co-director)
Jos Padilha
Brulio Mantovani (written by)
o
o

Reply

Share

o
o

rosario 3 years ago

Rosario Barrera
Professor Leibman
Literature 284: Film & Society
January 9, 2013
Witnessing the death of a loved one can be difficult for any person. However
it can be particularly difficult if the person in question is a young child,
without the ability to process and grieve the event. Unfortunately, this is
might be the case with several children as it was with Sandro. When Sandro
was a young boy, his mother was stabbed multiple times to death in front of
him by a couple of thieves. This event catapulted Sandro into the path that
would later become his criminal life. Shortly after witnessing his mothers
death, Sandros aunt Yvonne recalls how Sandro not only reacted to her
asking him whether he was going to attend his mothers funeral, but his
disappearance shortly after. Yvonne states she asks him if he was going to
join his family at the funeral service, instead Sandro simply tells her that he
wants to play with marbles. Sandros reaction is possibly normal for a child
who has just been witness to a horrendous crime of a close relative. Since he
is not mentally mature to know how to process such an event, Sandro does
not know how to grieve his mother in order to move on and have some
closure. He experiences psychological trauma once again in the Summer of
1993 when his friends are murdered by the Brazilian police. Sandro was lucky
to be able to escape and was not harmed by the police; however, he lost
several friends the night of the 23 of July simply because they were street
kids like him.
The street kids of Brazil are often overlooked by the rest of the country
because many believe that they should not be there. In the film Bus 174, it
is mentioned that several individuals believed the police were correct in
murdering the street kids on the night of July 23. That event was viewed by
those citizens as a way of the police to cleanse their streets. The street kids
are completely misunderstood by everyone. Normally these kids live in
favelas, otherwise known as Brazilian slums. According to Claudia Fonseca
(2002), in these favelas, there is no access to a better life, especially not for
the poor. Individuals view the favelas as a stigma for their society. Fonseca
(2002) notes that in her research conduced not even state representatives
wish to associate themselves with these communities, Poor people lived in

informally segregated residential areas, from which they made daily forays
into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, whether as workers or beggars;
however, aside from an occasional nun doubling as a social worker, I seldom
saw representatives of the state entering these zones (401). This is one of
the issues briefly discussed by the street kids themselves in the film as well.
At one point the film maker includes short interviews of other street kids and
their opinions of the way they are viewed as by the rest of the citizens. The
street kids are evidently displaced in Brazil, the state representatives, police
officials, and individuals do not care for the poor people of the favelas, much
less for the street kids that inhabit them and the streets of their country.
Unfortunately, the incident of Bus 174, as Sandros case came to be known to
the citizens of Brazil, did not change the attitude of public towards the
favelas or the street kids. There has still been no help extended towards the
poor in the favelas in order to prevent future cases like Sandros erupting
onto the scene. Marta Peixoto (2007) also discusses the disadvantages that
inhabitants of the favelas face, as well as the crime that takes place there,
The retail end of the drug business often takes place in poor neighborhoods,
or favelas (170). The drug business that taken place in the favelas is
detrimental towards the youth that inhabit these poor neighborhoods. The
street kids become addicted to the drugs and lead a criminal path mostly to
support that addiction rather than as a way to live. Peixoto (2007) notes that
unfortunately, there seems to be no better future ahead for the people of the
favelas, In Rio--a city of six and a half million inhabitants, or over ten million
if the entire metropolitan area is counted--there are currently some six
hundred favelas and low-income projects, which continue to receive new rural
migrants. They house about a third of the urban population and have been
growing at a faster rate than the middle- and upper-class areas (170). The
drug industry destroys any positive opportunity that the street kids could
obtain, as it was the case with Sandro. By becoming addicted to drugs Sandro
did whatever he could in order support his addiction, as stated by some of his
friends -- also street kids. The incident of Bus 174 was initially for Sandro an
attempt to rob the passengers for money for his addiction, but unfortunately
escalated into something much more bigger than a robbery.
The situation for the children in the favelas is not the best. It is sad to see the
issues that the poor have to face and the lack of assistance offered by
officials in order to make living better for them. It is for this reason that
Sandro, as well as other street kids of Brazil, feel as if they are not viewed or
considered as valuable members of their society both by the police and the
citizens. Sandro is catapulted into a life of crime because of the hardships he
had to face in his early life: the death of his mother and lack of justice, and
the death of his friends from the Candelaria neighborhood. The filmmaker of
Bus 174 is able to not only highlight these events of Sandros life as a

reason for his life of crime, but also able to present Sandro as what he truly
is: a damaged individual who could have benefited from much needed
support to better his future. Jose Padilha is able to present to the viewers of
his film the history of Sandro that the public would have otherwise not met.
Despite the issues that Sandro had faced, which led him down the path of a
criminal life, Jose Padilha is able to transform Sandro in his film. Sandro ends
up making a small impact on the world by exposing the slums of Brazil and
the issues its disadvantaged youth faces to the rest of the world.
Cited Sources
Fonseca, C. (2002). Inequality near and far: Adoption as seen from the
brazilian favelas. Law & Society Review, 36(1), 397-432. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/15...
Peixoto, M. M. (2007). Rio's favelas in recent fiction and film: Commonplaces
of urban segregation. PMLA, 122(1), 170-178. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25...
o

Reply

Share

o
o

larryjung 3 years ago

Lawrence Jung
LIT 284 - Prof Leibman
After reviewing the story and documentary about Sandro Rosa do
Nascimento, Ive concluded that the greatest psychological or sociological
factor that led Sandro into a path of criminality was the overwhelming
sequence of traumatic events that have occurred in his childhood. I believe
that those traumatic events were the genesis, the seed which sprouted and
grew into a rather unpleasant, tragic, and reflective event: the Bus 174
Hostage Crisis of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In this article, I will discuss how
childhood trauma in Sandro's life as well as the consequences from these
traumatic events led Sandro into a path of criminality.

At the age of six, Sandro had witnessed a heart wrenching experience, where
robbers came to his familys store, plundered their cash, and brutally stabbed
his mother to death in front of him. After the death of Sandros mother, he
had decided to leave and become a wanderer, a nomad. The reason why he
decided to run away is not certain, but one can assume that he needed to
subconsciously escape from this brutally traumatic experience, to get away
from anything that reminded him about his mothers death. This can be
supported by idea that Sandro blatantly avoided questions from his Aunt
whenever she tried to ask him questions about his mother.
Sandro eventually found a temporary residence amongst the Candelaria
church of Rio de Janeiro. Kids from the slums as well as other victims of
poverty often situated themselves around this area where they had lived
their daily lives in the public domain, where peers of similar experiences and
backgrounds became friends and interacted with one another. During this
time was when Sandro witnessed open discrimination, animosity, and
intolerance towards the less fortunate from the general public of Brazil. These
forms of hatred towards people of poverty were often physical. They were
treated with the utmost lack of respect, and had often endured brutality from
both the general population as well as those who served in the justice
department of Brazil. In addition to these traumatizing circumstances that
Sandro was living in, Sandro would witness yet another brutally traumatic
experience. At age fifteen, Sandro witness the Candelaria massacre on July
23 1993. On the morning of that day, a group of kids have been throwing
stones at a police car. The police told the kids that theyll be back, but the
kids not take it too seriously, for theyve been warned with empty threats
many times before, for various incidents of disorderly conduct. But on this
particular day, the police returned at midnight and shot at the kids. Many of
the children were wounded, eight of them were killed.
Now that it is clear and undeniable that Sandro had undergone a sequence of
severely traumatic experiences throughout his childhood, our next question is
to figure out how this had affected Sandros direction towards a criminal path.
It is my belief that the trauma had left a permanent mark in Sandros psyche.
I believe that his past has haunted him to the point where he felt that he
needed to self-medicate himself, in order to cope with the psychological and
emotional pain. Usage, abuse, and dependence of drugs are a very universal
problem for those who have endured traumatic events or have suffered from
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Psychological research have indicated
that among the common psychological legacies of childhood trauma is
PTSD, the symptoms of which often lead abuse victims to seek relief through
self-medication, the consumption of mind-altering drugs and alcohol that
deaden feeling, alleviate fears and anxieties, and provide temporary states of
artificial euphoria (Lisak, D. & Miller, P., 2003). To further support this notion,

the drug of choice that Sandro had used (cocaine) was found to be a very
significant aspect. Research on substance abuse and its correlation with PTSD
had discovered that when substance dependence was taken into account,
only cocaine dependence showed a significant additive relationship with
childhood trauma in predicting PTSD severity. It was also the cocainedependent group that scored significantly higher in PTSD scores across all
clusters (Khoury L., Tang, Y. L., Bradley, B., Cubells, J. F., & Ressler, K. J.,
2010). The empirical suggestions of correlations between PTSD and cocaine
use highly matches with Sandros profile. In addition to these sources of
empirical evidence, my personal experiences can further support the notion
that childhood trauma can highly correlate with substance abuse. My former
friend (let us say his name is Blanco) who came from a fairly suburban
background had also turned to self-medication, due to the fact that his
mother was not involved in his upbringing. His mother was a drug abuser who
chose to neglect Blanco. To cope with the emotional response, Blanco had
turned to cocaine for relief, which unfortunately led him to experience with
other drugs such as crack cocaine. These consequences eventually led him to
a life of crime.
While the various cases of empirical evidence and personal experience can
sufficiently support the notion that Sandro had turned to self-medication as a
coping defense mechanism for his traumatic memories, I also confidently
believe that this process of self-medication had a significant step in Sandros
direction towards a criminal path. Sandros cocaine dependence can be
identified as a potential link between his childhood trauma and the criminal
path that he chose.
Recalling the incident of Bus 174, it is evident that Sandro was initially going
to rob the passengers of the bus, but the robbery turned into a hostage
situation after the police had arrived at the scene. But why did he commit
this robbery? Was it merely based on his thirst for violence or was it
something else? Based on the empirical suggestions that Im going to
present, my assertion is that Sandro decided to rob this bus in the intention
of trying to get some quick money for his living expenses as well as to
support his cocaine habit. Various studies have often shown that drug
dependence often leads to crime and violence. Experimenters have stated
that [Prior experiments] found evidence for three dimensions of drug-related
violence: (a) direct psychopharmacological effects, (b) violence in the pursuit
of money to secure drugs, and(c) violence related to the sale and distribution
of drugs (Lisak D. & Miller P., 2003). To further support this thesis,
experimenters Lisak and Miller (2003) have also suggested that abusers
frequently become involved in the violent drug subculture. They are likely to
deteriorate in their ability to function [harmoniously with society] and thus
are driven increasingly into criminal acts to obtain the money they need for

survival and the continued use of substances. In addition to this notion, it is

clear from watching the documentary that Sandro was not a violent or a
sociopathic person at heart and did not intend to harm the victims during his
robberies. The criminal element was vividly present in his actions, but his
intentions were solely based on monetary aspects. It was also mentioned in
the documentary that Sandro had an introverted personality. Based on these
empirical statistics and evidence from the documentary, one can confidently
argue that Sandro did not enjoy robbing people, but had to resort to such
behavior due to his poverty and drug dependence.
Although Ive emphasized throughout this paper that Sandros childhood
trauma and his consequential drug use led to him to a path of criminality, to
claim that only these factors were solely responsible for the occurrence of the
Bus 174 Crisis would be a shallow theory. To dig deeper, we must also
incorporate the living conditions, judicial system, culture, traditions, and
history of Brazil: the macro perspective, the big picture of Brazilian society.
My purpose of discussing Sandros childhood trauma and its interconnection
to his drug dependence and crime was to direct attention and investigation
towards how people of poverty were treated in Brazil. The cases of childhood
trauma that Sandro experienced were imposed upon him by society, it was
not his fault that he experienced such horrible events in his life. If society
hadnt treated these people of poverty with such apathy and hatred, the Bus
174 Crisis probably wouldnt have even emerged in the first place. I feel that
the intolerance towards children and helpless people always comes back to
bite society in the long run. To prevent such consequences from occurring in
the future, I believe that people of Brazil as well as every other nation must
create more effort towards reconsidering their ethical views towards people
of poverty and the less fortunate.
Sources Cited:
Lisak, D. & Miller, P. (2003). Childhood trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder,
substance abuse, and violence. Trauma and substance abuse: Causes,
consequences, and treatment of comorbid disorders. 4, 73-88.
Khoury L., Tang, Y. L., Bradley, B., Cubells, J. F., & Ressler, K. J., (2010).
Substance use, childhood traumatic experience, and Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder in an urban civilian population. Depression and anxiety. 12, 1077
1086.
o
o

Reply

Share

o
o

leonmoore 3 years ago

Leon Moore
Professor, Leibman
Lit 284
1/ 10/ 2013
Bus 174; Sandros Criminal Path
Bus 174 is a powerful documentary, which reveals to the viewer the
correlation between society and individuals. This relationship between the
two components is something all human beings are subjected to; there is no
free will or choice involved. The way in which this relationship shapes up can
have a tremendous impact on all of our lives. The main character in the
documentary is a street kid by the name of Sandro. In Brazil there is a huge
epidemic of children becoming street kids, the terms of which they are
subjected to, due to reasons such as poverty, lack of social support and lack
of government assistance programs. These three factors are extremely
important in the formation and ultimate creation of oppressive conditions,
which lead children in Brazil to become street kids.
Poverty and psychological devastation led Sandro down a criminal path. The
lack of an economical or sociological presence plagued Sandro, and is directly
linked to his early childhood of juvenile delinquency. Brazil has dealt with a
large amount of criminal activities by juveniles, mainly street kids. In order to
help reduce this massive epidemic it is essential to understand what leads
children down this path and find solutions. The Brazilian government has
asserted their three major factors, poverty, inequality and social exclusion
(Veloso 2008). In order to resolve some of the big problems, in 1990 Brazil
passed one of the worlds most advanced pieces of legislature concerning
children and youth, the legislature would become known as child rights and
citizenship(Veloso 2008). The law was passed to help cover some primary
concerns such as child abuse, poverty and a childs citizenship. The part that
really hit home with me was the citizenship part, because I was wondering
what the children were considered before that. The proposition that all
children are to be universally seen as rights-bearing citizens is a complicated
issue. Children especially the youngest, are not the autonomous beings
presumed by the liberal notion of citizenship.(Veloso 2008). Watching the

documentary really caused me to question what the Brazilian government

and lawmakers understood citizenship to mean. Street kids like Sandro were
technically considered citizens through this law making process, however an
argument could be made that they were not literally citizens. The topic is up
for discussion, due to the government and societys failure to attempt to
come up with programs and rehabs for children with such need. Another
bothering aspect of the documentary was the response of the community to
the brutality that the police implemented upon the street kids, the society
supported it, due to their opinions of the street kids as hazards and
invaluable beings. The Brazilian people basically devalued and dehumanized
the street kids within their society.
During the hostage-taking incident on the bus, there is a scene where Sandro
begins to tell reporters his side of the story. Sandro speaks of two specific
incidents, the brutal murder of his mother in the Favelas and the mass
murdering of some of the other street kids who slept right where Sandro did,
at the hands of the police officers. The way Sandro sounded when speaking
of the incidents, was particularly alarming, he sounded frustrated, and one
could see Sandro was psychological traumatized. There is conclusive
evidence that suggest children, who are subjected to violent conditions as
youth are far more likely to become criminals when they grow up.(Kramer
2000). The fact that Sandro had come into direct contact with violent
situations pushed him closer to the path of juvenile delinquency. Children who
grow up around violence develop a fighters mentality for basic survival.
When Sandro got into contact with the juvenile system he was also abused
there and subjected to even more violence. Those between 12 and 18
cannot be sent to adult prisons; they are instead placed in special socioeducative facilities until they are 21. It is widely knows that such facilities are
anything but havens of protection, instead abuse and violence against
inmates have been widely reported.(Veloso 2008). During the documentary
when Sandros aunt goes to visit him, he tells her stories of how the prison
officers would beat the children, and another unknown street kid says he
remembers witnessing such conditions. What is important to realize is that
afterwards the inmate says, There is no attempt to rehab, inmates come out
more violent.
After Sandros mother passes away he refuses to go to her funeral and he
then runs away from home. In the documentary it is also said that Sandro
never knew his father. The lack of a support system forces Sandro to live life
as a street child because of lack of access to resources. There were days
when Street kids could not get food to eat. The tourist that came down to Rio
at times refused to help assist the street kids. To cope with the lifestyle of
being homeless and hungry at times the kids did drugs, mainly blowing glue.
Sandro became dependent on the drugs, which also included cocaine, and
caused the decrease in his health both physically and mentally. Watching Bus
174 the hardest thing for me to watch was the changing of Sandros

appearance from his childhood days until his death. The face Sandro
developed is a story of the life he lived, constantly filled with struggle and
stress. The society also took it into their hands to dish out more punishment
upon the children; sometimes killing street kids with crushing blows to the
head. During the documentary there was no mention of legal action handed
to the individuals who participated in this activity. Maybe the reason there
was nothing done was because the government looked at the street kids as a
non-factors. The perception of them as non-factors would only help to further
the problem of social exclusion, which contributes directly to individuals
becoming violent. People who are isolated become violent, because they take
up, the me against the world , and in retaliation looked down upon other
people as well. Hence we have a dangerous cycle upon our hands.
Deprivation and social exclusion are related to the high rates of violence
found here in America (Kramer 2000). It is critical to point out that even here
in America we deal with the same issue, maybe not to the extent of Brazil but
it does exist. This is important as to make sure we as American living people
are not insensitive to the conditions depicted in Bus 174.
All individuals have need for basics such as social support, food and
social/political identity. It is only through the experience of recognition that
any of us become constituted as socially viable beings. (Veloso 2008). When
individuals believe their path to obtain these very basic humanistic rights are
being hindered, the likely outcome is social deviance. One of the forms of
social deviance is criminal behavior. After watching the documentary I
became sympathetic not only to Sandro, but to all people who go through the
same struggle to obtain the very essential rights of being a human being.
This film was powerful and will open the eyes of everyone who watches
because it sweeps some of societys most fundamental flaws from right under
the rug. The thing that is most alarming to me is not the actual conditions
that Sandro and people like him are subjected to, but instead the insensitivity
of people who do not endure those same conditions. As human beings we all
have ability to go through all the emotions and there is no telling who could
be the next Sandro

Newwwwwwww

Home

Blog

Browse

Login

Sign Up Free

CRJ 308 Ent

CRJ 308 Entire Course: Psychology of Criminal Behavior

CRJ 308 Entire Course: Psychology of Criminal Behavior

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-entire-coursepsychology-of-criminal-behavior/

CRJ 308 Week 1 DQ 1 Causes of Criminal Behavior

CRJ 308 Week 1 DQ 2 Development of Criminal Behavior

CRJ 308 Week 1 Assignment Final Case Study Topic and Outline
CRJ 308 Week 1 Journal Psychological and Sociological Influences of
PsychopathicBehavior
CRJ 308 Week 2 Assignment Personality Disorders and Criminal Behavior
CRJ 308 Week 2 DQ 1 A Genetic or Biological Link?
CRJ 308 Week 2 DQ 2 Biological Approach Versus the Personality Approach
CRJ 308 Week 3 Assignment Brain Dysfunction in Criminal Behavior
CRJ 308 Week 3 DQ 1 Social Reinforcers and Punishers
CRJ 308 Week 3 DQ 2 What Motivates Offenders to Commit Crime?
CRJ 308 Week 4 Journal Reflection on Theories of Crime
CRJ 308 Week 4 DQ 1 Id, Ego, and Superego
CRJ 308 Week 4 DQ 2 Humanist and Interactionist Theories
CRJ 308 Week 5 DQ 1 Traits of a Psychopath
CRJ 308 Week 5 DQ 2 Serial, Spree, and Mass Murders
CRJ 308 Week 5 Assignment Final Case Study

CRJ 308 Week 1 Assignment Final Case Study Topic and Outline

CRJ 308 Week 1 Assignment Final Case Study Topic and Outline

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-1-assignmentfinal-case-study-topic-and-outline/

Final Case Study Topic and Outline For your Final Case Study, due in Week
Five, you will explore, in depth, one well-known criminal case. You may select
your own case, or select from one of the following: Jeffery McDonald, Andrea
Yates, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Aileen Wournos, John Wayne Gacy, Philip
Markoff (the Craigslist killer), Scott Peterson, Anthony Sowell, or Dennis
Rader (BTK strangler). For this assignment, select a well-known criminal case
and locate at least three scholarly articles from the Ashford Library that
discusses the case, or provides support for certain aspects of the case, such
as a particular psychological theory explaining behavior, a link between a
personality disorder and criminal behavior, etc. You may also use websites to
explore your criminal case. Provide an outline of your final case study, in
addition to the title page and References page. Each topic or step of the
outline should include two to three sentences regarding what will be discussed
in that section. This should be a detailed outline with specific information
regarding the case that you have selected. The paper must be one to two
pages in length and formatted according to APA style. You must use at least
three scholarly resources from the Ashford University Library other than the
textbook to support your claims. Cite your sources within the text of your
paper and on the reference page. For information regarding APA, including
samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the
Learning Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar.

CRJ 308 Week 1 DQ 1 Causes of Criminal Behavior

CRJ 308 Week 1 DQ 1 Causes of Criminal Behavior

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-1-dq-1-causesof-criminal-behavior/

Week 1 DQ 1 Causes of Criminal Behavior

Chapter 1 discusses several theoretical perspectives on the causes and

explanations for crime causation. After reviewing the various theories and
theoretical perspectives, discuss your personal view regarding what causes
criminal behavior. Which theory or theories do you feel are most accurate and
why? Most inaccurate, and why? Be sure to explain whether you believe that
one theory or a combination of theories best explains the causes of criminal
behavior and why.

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates

posts by Day 7. Share which theory or theories you feel are most accurate
and discuss why you agree or disagree with the theories your peers support.

CRJ 308 Week 1 DQ 2 Development of Criminal Behavior

CRJ 308 Week 1 DQ 2 Development of Criminal Behavior

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-1-dq-2development-of-criminal-behavior/

Some researchers and theorists believe that an interaction of both

psychological factors (such as biology, personality, and cognitive) and
sociological factors can explain criminal behavior. Which psychological and
sociological factors do you believe have the most influence on the
development of criminal behavior, and why? Do you believe that psychological
factors or sociological factors have more of an influence over behavior, or is it
a combination of the two? Please be sure to provide an example of a criminal
case to support your discussion.

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7. Be sure to include what psychological and sociological factors

you feel have the most influence on behavior, and whether you agree with
your peers views.

CRJ 308 Week 2 Assignment Personality Disorders and Criminal

Behavior

CRJ 308 Week 2 Assignment Personality Disorders and Criminal Behavior

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-2-assignmentpersonality-disorders-and-criminal-behavior/

Personality Disorders and Criminal Behavior Select one of the personality

disorders discussed in Chapter 4 (i.e., Odd or Eccentric Personality Disorders,
Dramatic Personality Disorders, Anxious or Fearful Personality Disorders, or
Antisocial Personality Disorder) and locate two to three scholarly articles in the
Ashford Library that discusses a link between that personality disorder and the
development of criminal behavior. In your paper, discuss the diagnostic
characteristics of the personality disorder, the etiology of the disorder (the
causes of the disorder, when it first manifests, etc.), and how characteristics of
the disorder have been linked to future criminal behavior. Discuss early
warning signs, assessment methods, and treatments that can be used to
manage the disorder. Is it possible to treat the disorder before criminal
tendencies develop? The paper must be two to three pages in length and
formatted according to APA style. You must use at least two to three scholarly

resources from the Ashford University Library, other than the textbook, to
support your claims. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the
reference page. For information regarding APA, including samples and
tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning
Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar. Carefully review the Grading
Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

CRJ 308 Week 2 DQ 1 A Genetic or Biological Link?

CRJ 308 Week 2 DQ 1 A Genetic or Biological Link?

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-2-dq-1-a-geneticor-biological-link/

Considering that factors such as eye color, hair color, facial features, body
figures, and personality characteristics are passed down from generation to
generation, could criminal behavior or criminal tendencies also be passed
down? Thus, is there a genetic or biological link to understanding criminal
behavior? Explain how temperament (which is determined largely by genetic
or biological influences) and environmental experiences can influence the
development of problematic and aggressive behavior. Watch Jon Ronson:
Strange Answers to the Psychopath Test and consider your own temperament
as a child and explain how it fits with your personality today.

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7.

CRJ 308 Week 2 DQ 2 Biological Approach Versus the Personality

Approach

CRJ 308 Week 2 DQ 2 Biological Approach Versus the Personality Approach

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-2-dq-2-biologicalapproach-versus-the-personality-approach/

Week 2 DQ 2 Biological Approach Versus the Personality Approach

Compare and contrast the temperament and biological approach versus the
personality approach with respect to development, causes of behavior, and
influences on criminal behavior. Which approach do you feel has more of an
influence on developing criminal characteristics?

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7. Discuss why you agree or disagree with the approach your
peer has selected.
CRJ 308 Week 3 Assignment Brain Dysfunction in Criminal Behavior

CRJ 308 Week 3 Assignment Brain Dysfunction in Criminal Behavior

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-3-assignmentbrain-dysfunction-in-criminal-behavior/

Watch the video, The Brain and Violence: Secrets of Your Mind. In your paper,
discuss the role that brain damage, abnormalities in brain structure, and
disturbances in brain chemistry may play in criminal behavior. Support your
discussion with at least two to three scholarly articles from the Ashford
University Library that discuss the role of brain dysfunction and
neuropsychological deficits in criminal behavior. Could criminal behavior be
solely the result of brain dysfunction, or could other factors such as hereditary
also play a role? The paper must be two to three pages in length and
formatted according to APA style. You must use at least two to three scholarly
resources from the Ashford University Library, other than the textbook, to
support your claims. Cite your sources within the text of your paper and on the
reference page. For information regarding APA, including samples and
tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center, located within the Learning
Resources tab on the left navigation toolbar.

CRJ 308 Week 3 DQ 1 Social Reinforcers and Punishers

CRJ 308 Week 3 DQ 1 Social Reinforcers and Punishers

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-3-dq-1-socialreinforcers-and-punishers/

Gangs and gang violence persist as a significant concern for criminal justice
and society at large. Considering the social learning theory and the links to
antisocial behavior, describe how social reinforcers and punishers, and
differential associations may be linked to gang involvement and gang-related
delinquency. What involvement might peer-rejection play in the onset of
delinquency and in the decision to join a gang? Locate at least one scholarly
article to support your discussion.
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7.
CRJ 308 Week 3 DQ 2 What Motivates Offenders to Commit Crime?

CRJ 308 Week 3 DQ 2 What Motivates Offenders to Commit Crime?

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-3-dq-2-whatmotivates-offenders-to-commit-crime/

Week 3 DQ 2 What Motivates Offenders to Commit Crime?

Discuss at least three social-cognitive factors that motivate offenders to

commit crime. Select one of the prevention and treatment programs discussed
in Chapter 7, and discuss how that program can be used to treat the three
factors you selected. Please be sure to locate at least one scholarly reference
from the Ashford University Library to further explore the program you
selected.

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7.

CRJ 308 Week 4 DQ 1 Id, Ego, and Superego

CRJ 308 Week 4 DQ 1 Id, Ego, and Superego

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-4-dq-1-id-egoand-superego/

Select two of the humanist and interactionist theories in Chapter 8 and

compare and contrast them with respect to the features of the theory, as well
as the causes and influences of criminal behavior. Discuss the pros and cons
of each theory. Which theory do you believe is most valid and why?
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7. Select one of the theories your peer discussed and provide at
least one additional pro and con regarding that theory. Support your
discussion with an example.

CRJ 308 Week 4 DQ 2 Humanist and Interactionist Theories

CRJ 308 Week 4 DQ 2 Humanist and Interactionist Theories

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-4-dq-2-humanistand-interactionist-theories/

Select two of the humanist and interactionist theories in Chapter 8 and

compare and contrast them with respect to the features of the theory, as well
as the causes and influences of criminal behavior. Discuss the pros and cons
of each theory. Which theory do you believe is most valid and why?
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7. Select one of the theories your peer discussed and provide at
least one additional pro and con regarding that theory. Support your
discussion with an example.

CRJ 308 Week 5 Assignment Final Case Study

CRJ 308 Week 5 Assignment Final Case Study

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-5-assignmentfinal-case-study/

Final Case Study Explore, in depth, one well-known criminal case. You may
select your own case, or select from one of the following: Jeffery McDonald,
Andrea Yates, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Aileen Wournos, John Wayne

Gacy, Philip Markoff (the Craigslist killer), Scott Peterson, Anthony Sowell, or
Dennis Rader (BTK strangler). Your case study should focus on the following:
1.

Summarize the case, including a description of the offense(s), the

investigation, and the outcome (such as the trial and sentencing).

2.

Analyze the psychological history or path that took the criminal to

commit his or her crime(s). Describe the psychological, behavioral,
environmental, and cognitive factors that you believe led to the offenders
criminality. Consider the various theories we have discussed in class
including the Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic Theory, the
Behaviorist/Social Learning Theory, the Cognitive/Social Cognitive Theory,
and the humanist and interactionist theories, and provide examples. The
goal here is to provide an analysis of the psychological history or path that
took the criminal to commit his or her crime(s). Explain the impact of social,
psychological, and biological theories of aggression on your chosen
criminals behavior.

3.

Describe the crime typology. Did the offender have a personality

disorder that might have played a role in the criminal behavior? If so,
explain and provide examples and supporting references. Discuss the laws
that are in place for protecting individuals with mental disorders.

4.

Describe whether your case study was a homicide offender or sexual

offender. Discuss the typology (i.e., single murderer, serial murderer, spree
murderer, mass murderer, child molester, or rapist).

5.

If applicable, discuss whether your offender was given a competence to

stand trial evaluation, or was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
Examine the ethical issues concerning evaluation and treatment of
competence to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity cases.

6.

Discuss the ethical issues surrounding the case.

7.

Support the outcome of the case with your analysis or provide support
of the alternative.

The paper must be eight to ten pages in length and formatted according to
APA style. You must use at least five to eight scholarly resources from the
Ashford Online Library, other than the textbook, to support your claims. Cite
your sources within the text of your paper and on the reference page. For
information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford
Writing Center, located within the Learning Resources tab on the left
navigation toolbar.

CRJ 308 Week 5 DQ 1 Traits of a Psychopath

CRJ 308 Week 5 DQ 1 Traits of a Psychopath

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-5-dq-1-traits-of-apsychopath/

Watch The PCL-R Checklist: A measure of evil. Discuss the characteristics

and traits of a psychopath and how the PCL-R Checklist can be used to
diagnose psychopathy. Using the textbook, video, and other outside scholarly
sources, discuss the validity of the PCL-R Checklist, the ethical considerations
of diagnosing a psychopath, and the legal implications of such diagnoses. Do
you believe that such assessments as the PCL-R Checklist can provide

accurate predictions of an individuals behavior? Based on the video and your

readings, what do you think the prospects are of successfully rehabilitating a
psychopath?
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7. Share your beliefs on the legal implications of utilizing
assessments to predict psychopathic behavior. Discuss any rights that
criminals may have with respect to such assessments.

CRJ 308 Week 5 DQ 2 Serial, Spree, and Mass Murders

CRJ 308 Week 5 DQ 2 Serial, Spree, and Mass Murders

http://www.homeworkguidance.info/downloads/crj-308-week-5-dq-2-serialspree-and-mass-murders/

Differentiating between serial murders, spree murders, and mass murders can
be difficult, as some individuals fit into two or more categories. Compare and
contrast the characteristics of a serial murderer, spree murderer, and mass
murderer. Using web resources, provide a criminal example of each one and
discuss the motivations behind the crime(s). Are the motivations similar or

different across the three? Do you think psychopathy plays a role in all
murders?

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims
with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources,
and properly cite any references. Respond to at least two of your classmates
posts by Day 7.

Contact
Feedback
Submit
Subscribe
Keyword, Author, or DOI

Advanced Search

GO

Skip to main page content

CURRENT ISSUE
ARCHIVE
NEWS & MULTIMEDIA
AUTHORS
ABOUT
COLLECTED ARTICLES
NONRESEARCH ARTICLES ARE GROUPED BELOW BY CATEGORY

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

100TH ANNIVERSARY
COLLOQUIUM PAPERS
COMMENTARIES
CORE CONCEPTS
COZZARELLI PRIZE
EDITORIALS
FEATURE ARTICLES
FRONT MATTER
INAUGURAL ARTICLES
IN THIS ISSUE
INNER WORKINGS
LETTERS AND REPLIES
NEWS FEATURES
OPINIONS
PERSPECTIVES
PNAS CLASSICS
PNAS PLUS
PNAS PORTALS
PROFILES
QNAS
RETROSPECTIVES
SCIENCE AND CULTURE
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTS
SPECIAL FEATURES
SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
BROWSE BY TOPIC
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
ANTHROPOLOGY
APPLIED BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
APPLIED MATHEMATICS
APPLIED PHYSICAL SCIENCES
ASTRONOMY
BIOCHEMISTRY
BIOPHYSICS AND COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
CELL BIOLOGY
CHEMISTRY
COMPUTER SCIENCES
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
EARTH, ATMOSPHERIC, AND PLANETARY SCIENCES
ECOLOGY
ECONOMIC SCIENCES
ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O
O

EVOLUTION
GENETICS
GEOLOGY
GEOPHYSICS
IMMUNOLOGY AND INFLAMMATION
MATHEMATICS
MEDICAL SCIENCES
MICROBIOLOGY
NEUROSCIENCE
PHARMACOLOGY
PHYSICS
PHYSIOLOGY
PLANT BIOLOGY
POLITICAL SCIENCES
POPULATION BIOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES
SOCIAL SCIENCES
STATISTICS
SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
EARLY EDITION
ALL EARLY EDITION
HIGHLIGHTS FROM EARLY EDITION
FRONT MATTER
> Current Issue
> vol. 109 no. 11
> Paul K. Piff, 40864091, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1118373109

Higher social class predicts increased unethical

behavior
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Paul K. Piffa,1,
Daniel M. Stancatoa,
Stphane Ctb,
Rodolfo Mendoza-Dentona, and
Dacher Keltnera
Author Affiliations

1.

Edited* by Richard E. Nisbett, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved January
26, 2012 (received for review November 8, 2011)

1.

Abstract

2.
3.

Full Text
Authors & Info

4.

Figures

5.

SI

6.

Metrics

7.

PDF

8.

PDF + SI

Next Section

Abstract
Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class
individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2,
upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to
lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were
more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued
goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their
chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study
7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated
that upper-class individuals unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their
more favorable attitudes toward greed.

socioeconomic status

immoral action

ethical judgment

self-interest
Which social class is the more likely provenance of unethical behavior, the upper
class or the lower class? Examining how social class is associated with unethical
behavior, or actions that harm others and are illegal or morally objectionable to one's
community (1), would shed light on behaviors such as cheating, deception, or
breaking the law that have important consequences for society. On the one hand,
lower-class individuals live in environments defined by fewer resources, greater
threat, and more uncertainty (2, 3). It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class
individuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to increase their resources
or overcome their disadvantage.
A second line of reasoning, however, suggests the opposite prediction: namely, that
the upper class may be more disposed to the unethical. Greater resources, freedom,
and independence from others among the upper class give rise to self-focused socialcognitive tendencies (37), which we predict will facilitate unethical behavior.

Historical observation lends credence to this idea. For example, the recent economic
crisis has been attributed in part to the unethical actions of the wealthy (8). Religious
teachings extol the poor and admonish the rich with claims like, It will be hard for a
rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven (9). Building upon past findings, in the
present investigation we tested whether upper-class individualsrelative to lowerclass individualsare more likely to engage in unethical behavior, and whether their
attitudes toward greed might help explain this tendency.
Social class, or socioeconomic status (SES), refers to an individual's rank vis--vis
others in society in terms of wealth, occupational prestige, and education (2, 3).
Abundant resources and elevated rank allow upper-class individuals increased
freedom and independence (4), giving rise to self-focused patterns of social cognition
and behavior (3). Relative to lower-class individuals, upper-class individuals have
been shown to be less cognizant of others (4) and worse at identifying the emotions
that others feel (5). Furthermore, upper-class individuals are more disengaged during
social interactionsfor example, checking their cell phones or doodling on a
questionnairecompared with their lower-class peers (6).
Individuals from upper-class backgrounds are also less generous and altruistic. In one
study, upper-class individuals proved more selfish in an economic game, keeping
significantly more laboratory creditswhich they believed would later be exchanged
for cashthan did lower-class participants, who shared more of their credits with a
stranger (7). These results parallel nationwide survey data showing that upper-class
households donate a smaller proportion of their incomes to charity than do lowerclass households (10). These findings suggest that upper-class individuals are
particularly likely to value their own welfare over the welfare of others and, thus,
may hold more positive attitudes toward greed.
Greed, in turn, is a robust determinant of unethical behavior. Plato and Aristotle
deemed greed to be at the root of personal immorality, arguing that greed drives
desires for material gain at the expense of ethical standards (11, 12). Research finds
that individuals motivated by greed tend to abandon moral principles in their pursuit
of self-interest (13). In one study, a financial incentive caused people to be more
willing to deceive and cheat others for personal gain (14). In another study, the mere
presence of money led individuals to be more likely to cheat in an anagram task to
receive a larger financial reward (1). Greed leads to reduced concern for how one's
behavior affects others and motivates greater unethical action.
We reason that increased resources and independence from others cause people to
prioritize self-interest over others welfare and perceive greed as positive and
beneficial, which in turn gives rise to increased unethical behavior. We predict that,
given their abundant resources and increased independence, upper-class individuals
should demonstrate greater unethical behavior and that one important reason for
this tendency is that upper-class individuals hold more favorable attitudes toward
greed.
We conducted seven studies using university, community, and nationwide samples
to test this general prediction. Throughout this research, we sought to generalize our
results across operationalizations of social class, using both self-report and objective

assessments of unethical behavior, and while controlling for alternative explanations

of the results concerned with characteristics related to social class (e.g., age,
ethnicity, religiosity). In studies 13, we tested whether higher social class is linked
to more unethical behaviors in naturalistic settings (behavior while driving) and
unethical responding to various ethical judgments. In study 4, we extended our
research by examining whether experimentally primed higher and lower social-class
mindsets cause different levels of unethical judgment and behavior. In studies 57,
we examined whether more positive attitudes toward greed help explain why higher
social class relates to greater unethicality.
Previous SectionNext Section

Results

Studies 1 and 2.

Our first two studies were naturalistic field studies, and examined whether upperclass individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals while driving.
In study 1, we investigated whether upper-class drivers were more likely to cut off
other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection with stop signs on all sides. As vehicles
are reliable indicators of a person's social rank and wealth (15), we used observers
codes of vehicle status (make, age, and appearance) to index drivers social class.
Observers stood near the intersection, coded the status of approaching vehicles, and
recorded whether the driver cut off other vehicles by crossing the intersection before
waiting their turn, a behavior that defies the California Vehicle Code. In the present
study, 12.4% of drivers cut in front of other vehicles. A binary logistic regression
indicated that upper-class drivers were the most likely to cut off other vehicles at the
intersection, even when controlling for time of day, driver's perceived sex and age,
and amount of traffic, b = 0.36, SE b= 0.18, P < 0.05. Percentages of cars that cut
off other vehicles as a function of vehicle status are shown inFig. 1A.

In a new window

Download PPT

Fig. 1.
Percentage of cars that cut off (i) other vehicles at the four-way intersection (from
study 1) (A) or (ii) the pedestrian at the crosswalk (from study 2) (B), as a function of
vehicle status (1 = lowest status, 5 = highest status).
In study 2, we tested whether upper-class drivers are more likely to cut off
pedestrians at a crosswalk. An observer positioned him- or herself out of plain sight
at a marked crosswalk, coded the status of a vehicle, and recorded whether the
driver cut off a pedestrian (a confederate of the study) attempting to cross the
intersection. Cutting off a pedestrian violates California Vehicle Code. In this study,
34.9% of drivers failed to yield to the pedestrian. A binary logistic regression with
time of day, driver's perceived age and sex, and confederate sex entered as
covariates indicated that upper-class drivers were significantly more likely to drive
through the crosswalk without yielding to the waiting pedestrian, b = 0.39, SE b =
0.19, P < 0.05. Percentages of cars that cut off the pedestrian as a function of
vehicle status are shown in Fig. 1B.

Study 3.

Study 3 extended these findings by using a more direct measure of social class and
assessing tendencies toward a variety of unethical decisions. Participants read eight
different scenarios that implicated an actor in unrightfully taking or benefiting from
something, and reported the likelihood that they would engage in the behavior
described (16). Participants also reported their social class using the MacArthur scale
of subjective SES (2). This measure parallels objective, resource-based measures of
social class in its relationship to health (2), social cognition (4), and interpersonal
behavior (7). As hypothesized, social class positively predicted unethical decisionmaking tendencies, even after controlling for ethnicity, sex, and age,b = 0.13,
SE b = 0.06, t(103) = 2.05, P < 0.04. These results suggest that upper-class
individuals are more likely to exhibit tendencies to act unethically compared with
lower-class individuals.

Study 4.

Study 4 sought to provide experimental evidence that the experience of higher social
class has a causal effect on unethical decision-making and behavior. We adopted a
paradigm used in past research to activate higher or lower social-class mindsets and
examine their effects on behavior (5, 7). Participants experienced either a low or
high relative social-class rank by comparing themselves to people with the most
(least) money, most (least) education, and most (least) respected jobs. Participants
also rated their position in the socioeconomic hierarchy relative to people at the very
top or bottom. This induction primes subjective perceptions of relatively high or low
social-class rank. In this prior research, as expected, manipulations of perceived
social-class rank influenced generosity (7) and the ability to identify others emotions
(5). Participants completed a series of filler measures, which included the measure of
unethical decision-making tendencies used in study 3 (16). Our main dependent
variable was a behavioral measure of unethical tendencies. Specifically, at the end of
the study, the experimenter presented participants with a jar of individually wrapped
candies, ostensibly for children in a nearby laboratory, but informed them that they
could take some if they wanted. This task was adapted from prior research on
entitlement (17) and served as our measure of unethical behavior because taking
candy would reduce the amount that would otherwise be given to children.
Participants completed unrelated tasks and then reported the number of candies
they had taken.
The manipulation of social-class rank was successful: Participants in the upper-class
rank condition (M = 6.96) reported a social-class rank significantly above participants
in the lower-class rank condition (M = 6.00), t(127) = 3.51, P < 0.01, d = 0.62.
Central to our hypothesis, participants in the upper-class rank condition took more
candy that would otherwise go to children (M = 1.17) than did those in the lowerrank condition (M = 0.60), t(124) = 3.18, P < 0.01, d = 0.57. Furthermore, replicating
the findings from study 3, those in the upper-rank condition also reported increased
unethical decision-making tendencies (M = 4.29) than participants in the lower-class
rank condition (M = 3.90), t(125) = 2.31, P < 0.03, d = 0.41. These results extend
the findings of studies 13 by suggesting that the experience of higher social class
has a causal relationship to unethical decision-making and behavior.

Study 5.

Study 5 focused on positive attitudes toward greed as one mediating mechanism to

explain why people from upper-class backgrounds behave in a more unethical
fashion. Participants took part in a hypothetical negotiation, assuming the role of an
employer tasked with negotiating a salary with a job candidate seeking long-term
employment (14). Participants were given several pieces of information, including
the fact that the job would soon be eliminated. Participants reported the percentage
chance they would tell the job candidate the truth about job stability. Participants
also reported their social class using the MacArthur scale (2) and completed a
measure of the extent to which they believed it is justified and moral to be greedy
(18).
We first tested the associations between social class, attitudes toward greed, and
probability of telling the job candidate the truth, while accounting for participant age,
sex, and ethnicity, as well as religiosity and political orientation, variables that can
influence unethical behavior (19). Social class negatively predicted probability of
telling the truth, b = 4.55, SE b = 1.90, t(103) = 2.39, P < 0.02, and positively
predicted favorable attitudes toward greed, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.04, t(103) = 3.54, P <
0.01. In addition, favorable attitudes toward greed negatively predicted probability of
telling the truth, b = 12.29, SE b = 3.93, t(100) = 3.12, P < 0.01. Testing our
mediational model, when social class and attitudes toward greed were entered into a
linear regression model predicting probability of telling the job candidate the truth,
social class was no longer significant, b = 2.43, SE b = 1.87; t(101) = 1.30, P =
0.20, whereas attitudes toward greed were a significant predictor, b = 11.41,
SE b = 3.81; t(101) = 3.00, P < 0.01. Using the bootstrapping method (with 10,000
iterations) recommended by Preacher and Hayes (20), we tested the significance of
the indirect effect of social class on probability of telling the truth through attitudes
toward greed. The 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect did not include zero
(range: 3.7356 to 0.6405), suggesting that upper-class individuals are prone to
deception in part because they view greed in a more positive light.

Study 6.

Study 6 extended these findings to actual cheating behavior. Participants played a

game of chance, in which the computer presented them with one side of a sixsided die, ostensibly randomly, on five separate rolls. Participants were told that
higher rolls would increase their chances of winning a cash prize and were asked to
report their total score at the end of the game. In fact, die rolls were predetermined
to sum up to 12. The extent to which participants reported a total exceeding 12
served as a direct behavioral measure of cheating. Participants also completed the
measures of social class (2) and attitudes toward greed (18) that we used in study 5.
Controlling for participant age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, and political orientation,
social class positively predicted cheating, b = 0.22, SE b = 0.11, t(181) = 1.98, P <

0.05, and more favorable attitudes toward greed, b = 0.06, SE b = 0.03, t(186) =
2.22, P < 0.03. In addition, attitudes toward greed predicted cheating behavior, b =
0.61, SE b = 0.29, t(180) = 2.36, P < 0.02. When social class and attitudes toward
greed were entered into a linear-regression model predicting cheating behavior,
social class was no longer a significant predictor, b = 0.16, SE b = 0.11, t(185) =
1.50, P = 0.14, whereas attitudes toward greed significantly predicted cheating, b =
0.68, SE b = 0.27, t(185) = 2.50, P < 0.02. The Preacher and Hayes (20)
bootstrapping technique (with 10,000 iterations) produced a 95% confidence interval
for the indirect effect that did not include zero (range: 0.00050.3821). These results
further suggest that more favorable attitudes toward greed among members of the
upper class explain, in part, their unethical tendencies.

Study 7.

To further understand why upper-class individuals act more unethically, study 7

examined whether encouraging positive attitudes toward greed increases the
unethical tendencies of lower-class individuals to match those of their upper-class
counterparts. When the benefits of greed were not mentioned, we expected that
upper-class individuals would display increased unethical tendencies compared with
lower-class individuals, as in the previous studies. However, when the benefits of
greed were emphasized, we expected lower-class individuals to be as prone to
unethical behavior as upper-class individuals. These findings would reveal that one
reason why lower-class individuals tend to act more ethically is that they hold
relatively unfavorable attitudes toward greed (and, conversely, that one reason why
upper-class individuals tend to act more unethically is that they hold relatively
favorable attitudes toward greed).
Participants listed either three things about their day (neutral prime) or three
benefits of greed (greed-is-good prime). Participants then responded to a
manipulation check assessing their attitudes toward greed before completing a
measure of their propensity to engage in unethical behaviors at work, such as
stealing cash, receiving bribes, and overcharging customers (21). Participants also
reported their social class using the previously described MacArthur measure (2).
As expected, participants primed with positive features of greed expressed more
favorable attitudes toward greed (M = 3.12) compared with participants in the
neutral-prime condition (M = 2.42), t(87) = 2.72, P < 0.01, d = 0.58. Our central
prediction was that the manipulation of attitudes toward greed would moderate the
relationship between social class and unethical behavior. To test this theory, we
regressed the measure of unethical behavior on social class, the greed manipulation,
and their interaction, while controlling for age, ethnicity, sex, religiosity, and political
orientation. Results yielded a significant effect for social class, such that upper-class
participants reported more unethical behavior than lower-class participants, b =
0.13, SE b= 0.07, t(84) = 2.00, P < 0.05, and a significant effect for the greed
manipulation, such that participants primed with positive features of greed reported
more unethical behavior than neutral-primed participants, b= 0.38, SE b =
0.18, t(84) = 2.18, P < 0.04. These effects were qualified by the predicted significant

interaction between social class and the greed manipulation, b = 0.24, SE b =

0.18, t(84) = 2.34, P < 0.03. As shown in Fig. 2, in the neutral-prime condition,
upper-class participants reported significantly more unethical behavior relative to
lower-class participants, t(45) = 2.04, P < 0.05. However, when participants were
primed with positive aspects of greed, lower-class participants exhibited high levels
of unethical behavior comparable to their upper-class counterparts, t(38) =
1.42, P = 0.17.

In a new window

Download PPT

Fig. 2.
The relationship between social class and propensity for unethical behavior,
moderated by the greed-is-good prime (from study 7).
Together, the findings we observed in study 7 indicate that priming the positive
features of greed moderates class-based differences in unethical behavior.
Importantly, lower-class individuals were as unethical as upper-class individuals
when instructed to think of greed's benefits, suggesting that upper- and lower-class
individuals do not necessarily differ in terms of their capacity for unethical behavior
but rather in terms of their default tendencies toward it.
Previous SectionNext Section

Discussion
The results of these seven studies provide an answer to the question that initiated
this investigation: Is society's nobility in fact its most noble actors? Relative to lowerclass individuals, individuals from upper-class backgrounds behaved more
unethically in both naturalistic and laboratory settings. Our confidence in these
findings is bolstered by their consistency across operationalizations of social class,

including a material symbol of social class identity (one's vehicle), assessments of

subjective SES, and a manipulation of relative social-class rank, results that point to
a psychological dimension to higher social class that gives rise to unethical action.
Moreover, findings generalized across self-report and objective assessments of
unethical behavior and in both university and nationwide samples.
Why are upper-class individuals more prone to unethical behavior, from violating
traffic codes to taking public goods to lying? This finding is likely to be a multiply
determined effect involving both structural and psychological factors. Upper-class
individuals relative independence from others and increased privacy in their
professions (3) may provide fewer structural constraints and decreased perceptions
of risk associated with committing unethical acts (8). The availability of resources to
deal with the downstream costs of unethical behavior may increase the likelihood of
such acts among the upper class. In addition, independent self-construals among the
upper class (22) may shape feelings of entitlement and inattention to the
consequences of one's actions on others (23). A reduced concern for others
evaluations (24) and increased goal-focus (25) could further instigate unethical
tendencies among upper-class individuals. Together, these factors may give rise to a
set of culturally shared norms among upper-class individuals that facilitates unethical
behavior.
In the present research we focused on a values account, documenting how upperclass individuals more favorable attitudes toward greed can help explain their
propensity toward unethical behavior. Such attitudes among the upper class are
likely to be themselves multiply determined as well. Our prior work shows that
increased resources and reduced dependency on others shape self-focused socialcognitive tendencies (3,57), which may give rise to social values that emphasize
greed as positive. Furthermore, economics education, with its focus on self-interest
maximization, may lead people to view greed as positive and beneficial (26, 27).
Upper-class individuals, who may be more likely to serve as leaders in their
organizations (2), may also be more likely to have received economics-oriented
training and to work in settings that hone self-interest. These factors may promote
values among the upper class that justify and even moralize positive beliefs about
greed.
The current findings should be interpreted within the confines of certain caveats and
with suggested directions for future research. Importantly, there are likely to be
exceptions to the trends we document in the current investigation. There are notable
cases of ethical action among upper-class individuals that greatly benefited the
greater good. Examples include whistle-blowing by Cynthia Cooper and Sherron
Watkins, former Vice Presidents at Worldcom and Enron, respectively, and the
significant philanthropy displayed by such individuals as Bill Gates and Warren
Buffet. There are also likely to be instances of lower-class individuals exhibiting
unethical tendencies, as research on the relationship between concentrations of
poverty and violent crime indicates (28). These observations suggest that the
association between social class and unethicality is neither categorical nor essential,
and point to important boundary conditions to our findings that should be examined
in future investigations.

From the top to the bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused, Durkheim famously
wrote (29). Although greed may indeed be a motivation all people have felt at points
in their lives, we argue that greed motives are not equally prevalent across all social
strata. As our findings suggest, the pursuit of self-interest is a more fundamental
motive among society's elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth
and status can promote wrongdoing. Unethical behavior in the service of self-interest
that enhances the individual's wealth and rank may be a self-perpetuating dynamic
that further exacerbates economic disparities in society, a fruitful topic for the future
study of social class.
Previous SectionNext Section

Methods

Study 1.
Participants.

The behavior of 274 drivers of vehicles at a busy four-way intersection in the San
Francisco Bay Area yielded the data for study 1.

Procedure.

Coding of driving behavior took place at a four-way intersection, with stop signs on
all sides, on two consecutive Fridays in June 2011, from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Two separate
teams of two coders (blind to the hypotheses of the study) stationed themselves out of drivers sight
at opposite corners of the intersection. From their respective highways, each coding
team selected an approaching vehicle in a quasirandom fashion and coded the
characteristics of the vehicle and driver before it reached the stop sign (a photo of
the intersection is presented in Fig. 3). Coders rated each vehicle's status (1 = low
status, 5 = high status) by taking into account its make (e.g., Mercedes, Toyota),
age, and physical appearance (M = 3.16, SD = 1.07). A breakdown of the vehicles in
the current study by vehicle status is presented in Table S1. Coders also noted the
vehicle driver's perceived sex (0 = male, 1 = female; 175 female, 99 male) and age
(1 = 1635 y, 2 = 3655 y, 3 = 56 y and up; M = 1.70, SD = 0.59), the time of day
(M = 3:40 PM, SD = 38 min), andto index the amount of trafficthe number of
highways in the intersection with vehicles already stopped in them when the target
vehicle arrived at the intersection. A maximum of three other highways could be
coded as having cars in them (M = 2.69, SD = 0.50). Procedures for assessing the
reliability of codes are presented in SI Text. Once the target vehicle came to a
complete stop, coders observed whether or not the vehicle's driver cut in front of
other vehicles at the intersection (0 = no cut, 1 = cut). California Vehicle Code states
that vehicles approaching an intersection should yield the right-of-way to any vehicle
that has already arrived at the intersection from a different highway (30). To reduce
coding demands, each team produced one set of agreed-upon codes. The number of
vehicles that did and did not cut off other vehicles as a function of vehicle status is

presented in the left hand columns of Table S1. Zero-order and partial correlations
between vehicle status and cutting off other vehicles are shown in Table S2.

In a new window

Download PPT

Fig. 3.
Aerial view of four-way intersection (from study 1). White arrows depict highways
used by coders to code driver behavior at the intersection (image courtesy of
2011 Google Maps).

Study 2.
Participants.

The behavior of 152 drivers of vehicles that approached a pedestrian crosswalk of a

busy throughway in the San Francisco Bay Area provided the data for study 2.

Procedure.

Coding took place from 2:00 PM to 5:00 PM on three weekdays in June 2011, at an unprotected but
marked crosswalk of a busy one-way road. A coder (blind to the hypotheses of the study) positioned him-

or herself near the crosswalk, beyond drivers direct line of sight, and recorded whether an
approaching vehicle yielded for a pedestriana confederate of the studywho was
waiting to cross (a photo series depicting the procedure is presented in Fig. 4). Sex of
the confederate was alternated. Paralleling study 1, the coder rated the perceived
status of an approaching vehicle using its make, age, and physical appearance (1 =
low status, 5 = high status; M = 3.22, SD = 0.96). A breakdown of the vehicles in the
current study by vehicle status is presented in Table S1. Coders also noted the
vehicle driver's sex (0 = male, 1 = female; 72 female, 80 male) and age (1 = 1635
y, 2 = 3655 y, 3 = 56 y and up; M = 1.66, SD = 0.69); the time of day (M = 3:12
PM, SD = 49 min); whether the driver indicated having seen the pedestrian by
directing his or her gaze toward the pedestrian or briefly decelerating (all drivers
were coded as having seen the pedestrian); and the sex of the confederate (0 =
male, 1 = female; 49 female, 103 male). Finally, coders observed whether the driver
yielded the right-of-way or cut off the pedestrian (0 = yield, 1 = cut). According to
California Vehicle Code, a driver must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing
the roadway within any marked crosswalk (30). We also held constant several factors
that might otherwise confound the results. First, we only coded vehicles in the lane
closest to the pedestrian. Second, only vehicles that approached the crosswalk when
the confederate was the sole pedestrian were coded. Third, only after a vehicle
crossed a designated point on the road 15 m from the crosswalk did the pedestrian enter the
beginning of the crosswalk and look toward the oncoming vehicle, thereby signaling his or her intent to
cross. Fourth, a vehicle was only coded if there were no other vehicles in front of it when
it passed the designated point on the road. The number of vehicles that did and did
not yield for the pedestrian as a function of vehicle status is presented in the right
hand columns of Table S1. Zero-order and partial correlations between vehicle status
and cutting off the pedestrian are shown in Table S3.

In a new window

Download PPT

Fig. 4.
Photo series depicting crosswalk from study 2 with confederate posing as a
pedestrian approaching (Top) and standing at crosswalk (Middle) as target vehicle
fails to yield (Bottom).

Study 3.
Participants.

One-hundred five University of California at Berkeley undergraduates (43 female;

age 1836 y, M = 20.33, SD = 2.52) provided informed consent and completed a
survey in the laboratory in exchange for course credit. Of these, 37 participants
selected European American as comprising their ethnic background, 4 selected
African American, 15 selected Latino, 50 selected Asian American, 2 selected Native
American, and 11 selected Other. The sum of these values exceeds 105 because
participants could select multiple categories (this was also true in studies 47). Given
that European Americans were the largest represented ethnic category in the
majority of the current studies (studies 57), and to parallel precedent in prior socialclass research (4, 7), in study 3, as in subsequent studies, ethnicity was coded as 1

= European-American and 0 = non-European American. We repeated the analyses

with two different coding schemes, one contrasting Asians to non-Asians (1 = Asian
and 0 = non-Asian), and one with a dummy code for each ethnic category
represented (with European-American as the comparison category); the results in
study 3 and subsequent studies were virtually the same.

Procedure.

Participants accessed the study via a private computer terminal and completed filler
measures and the measure of unethical decision-making tendencies (16).
Participants were presented with eight hypothetical scenarios describing an unethical
behavior and rated how likely they would be to engage in the behavior described (1
= not at all likely, 7 = highly likely; M = 4.39, SD = 1.08, = 0.68). The items and
information regarding the validity of this measure is presented in SI Text. Participants
also completed demographics, including the measure of social class: the MacArthur
Scale of subjective SES (2, 7). In this measure, participants are presented with a
figure of a ladder containing 10 rungs representing people with different levels of
education, income, and occupational prestige. Participants are asked to think of
people at the top of the ladder as those who are the best off, have the most money,
most education, and best jobs, whereas the people at the bottom of the ladder are
those who are the worst off, have the least money, least education, and worst jobs
or no job. Participants then select a rung that represents where they perceive they
stand relative to others (M = 6.30, SD = 1.72). This measure predicts patterns in
health (2), social cognition (4), and interpersonal behavior (7), consistent with
objective, resource based measures of social class (e.g., wealth, educational
attainment). Zero-order and partial correlations between social class and unethical
decision making are shown in Table S4.

Study 4.
Participants.

One-hundred twenty-nine University of California at Berkeley undergraduates (85

female; age 1827, M = 20.07, SD = 1.67) completed a study in the laboratory in
exchange for course credit. Of these, 34 participants selected European American as
comprising their ethnic background, four selected African American, 16 selected
Latino, 73 selected Asian American, 1 selected Native American, and 12 selected
Other (one unreported).

Procedure.

Participants accessed the survey via a private computer terminal and completed the
manipulation of social-class rank. Participants were shown an image of a ladder with
10 rungs representing where people stand socioeconomically in the United States.
Participants were then randomly assigned to compare themselves to those at the
very bottom or top of the ladder by indicating where they stand economically

relative to these people, and to write a brief description of how an interaction with
one of these individuals might go (for complete instructions see SI Text). After the
manipulation, participants completed a filler task, which was followed by the
measure of unethical decision-making tendencies used in study 3 (M = 4.11, SD =
0.97, = 0.66) (16). Participants then completed demographics before notifying the
experimenter. The experimenter (blind to condition) asked the participants to wait in
the hall as the experimenter purportedly set up the second part of the study. At this
time, the experimenter presented participants with a jar of individually wrapped
candies that, participants were told, were intended for children participating in
studies in a nearby laboratory (17). The experimenter told participants that they
could take some if they wanted. The jar contained 40 pieces of candy and was labeled with
a note stating that it was to be taken to a specific child-research laboratory. The experimenter
then left the participants alone with the candy jar for 30 s to set up the second part of the
study. Participants then reentered the laboratory and completed some unrelated tasks on the computer
before reporting how many pieces of candy they had taken (M = 0.91, SD = 1.05).

Study 5.
Participants.

One-hundred eight adults (61 female, 1 unreported; age 1882, M = 35.87, SD =

13.62) completed an online study via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a Web site
that features a nationwide participant pool for online data collection. Of these, 80
participants selected European American as comprising their ethnic background, 6
selected African American, 9 selected Latino, 14 selected Asian American, 6 selected
Native American, and 4 selected Other.

Procedure.

Participants accessed the study via a survey link and were presented with
instructions for a hypothetical negotiation (14). Participants were asked to imagine
that they were an employer tasked with negotiating a low salary with a job
candidate. Participants were told that the position was certain to be eliminated in 6
mo but that the candidate, who desired to maintain the job for at least 2 y, was not
aware of this (complete instructions are presented in SI Text). Participants were then
asked, What is the percentage chance that you will tell the job candidate that the
position is certain to be eliminated in 6 months if she/he specifically asks about job
security? (14). Participants responded by clicking and dragging a slider to a value
between 0% and 100% (M = 62.30, SD = 31.03). Next, participants completed
demographics, including measures of religiosity (1 = not at all religious, 7 = deeply
religious; M = 3.45, SD = 2.09) and political orientation (1 = extremely liberal, 7 =
extremely conservative; M = 3.76, SD = 1.69), and the MacArthur Scale of subjective
SES to index social class (M = 5.35, SD = 1.65) (2). Finally, participants rated their
agreement with seven items that assessed the extent to which they endorsed beliefs
that greed is justified, beneficial, and moral (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly
agree; M = 3.67, SD = 0.80, = 0.61) (18). The complete list of items is presented

in SI Text. Zero-order and partial correlations between social class, attitudes toward
greed, and probability of telling the truth are shown in Table S5.

Study 6.
Participants.

One-hundred ninety-five adults (129 female, 6 unreported; age 1872, M = 33.82, SD

= 13.26) responded to an advertisement on Craigslist, an online community forum,
and received an invitation to complete an on-line study for a chance to win a $50 gift
certificate toward an online retailer. Of these, 141 participants selected European
American as comprising their ethnic background, 11 selected African American, 12
selected Latino, 17 selected Asian American, 21 selected Native American, and 19
selected Other (two unreported).

Design and procedure.

Participants took part in a game of chance in which they were told that the survey
software would roll a die for them five times by randomly displaying one side of a
six-sided die. Participants were informed that for every five points rolled, they would
be awarded a credit (in addition to the one received for their participation) toward
the $50 prize drawing, and that remaining points would be rounded up or down to
the nearest multiple of five. Participants were also told that because the
experimenters had no way of ascertaining their individual rolls, they would be asked
to report their total for all five rolls at the end of the game. In fact, the rolling of the
die was predetermined such that all participants received a 3 on their first roll, a 1 on
their second, a 2 on their third, a 2 on their fourth, and a 4 on their fifth (totaling a
score of 12, or two extra credits, with two leftover points). Our measure of cheating
was the extent to which a participant's reported total exceeded 12. In the present
study, 31 participants reported total rolls exceeding 12. The average amount of
cheating was M = 0.85 (SD = 2.78). Participants then completed various self-report
measures, including measures of religiosity (1 = not at all religious, 7 = deeply
religious; M = 3.41, SD = 2.00) and political orientation (1 = extremely liberal, 7 =
extremely conservative; M = 3.14, SD = 1.54), the MacArthur Scale of subjective SES
(M = 5.70, SD = 1.91) (2), and the measure of attitudes toward greed used in study
5 (M = 3.59, SD = 0.74, = 0.52) (18). Zero-order and partial correlations between
social class, attitudes toward greed, and cheating behavior are shown in Table S6.

Study 7.
Participants.

Ninety participants (53 female, 1 unreported; age 1579, M = 34.97, SD = 13.58)

completed an on-line study via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Seventy
participants selected European American as comprising their ethnic background, five

selected African American, three selected Latino, seven selected Asian American, six
selected Native American, and six selected Other.

Procedure.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two priming conditions. In the greedis-good priming condition, participants were instructed to think about and list three
ways in which greed could be beneficial. In the neutral-prime condition, participants
were instructed to think about and list three activities they did during an average
day (complete instructions for the manipulation are shown in SI Text). Participants
then answered five items assessing their positive beliefs about greed (1 = strongly
disagree, 7 = strongly agree; M = 2.74, SD = 1.26, = 0.92; the list of items is
shown in SI Text). Participants then responded to a 12-item subset of the Propensity
to Engage in Unethical Behavior scale (21), indicating how likely they would be to
engage in a variety of unethical behaviors at work (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very
likely; M= 2.26, SD = 0.97, = 0.89; all items are presented in SI Text). Participants
then completed demographics, including measures of religiosity (1 = not at all
religious, 7 = deeply religious; M = 3.56, SD = 1.09) and political orientation (1 =
extremely liberal, 7 = extremely conservative; M = 3.48, SD = 1.73), and the
MacArthur scale of subjective SES to index social class (M = 5.40, SD = 1.77).
Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments
We thank Pia Dietze, Nicholas Durant, Mikhaella Hodges, Sharon Hou, Nadine LuerasTramma, Matthew Lupoli, and Stacy Zhong for their help with data collection. P.K.P.
was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
Previous SectionNext Section