The relationship between types ofchildhood victimisation and

The relationship between types of
childhood victimisation and young
adulthood criminality
KATHRYN H. HOWELL1, ÅSA K. CATER2, LAURA E.
MILLER-GRAFF3,
LAURA E. SCHWARTZ1 AND SANDRA A. GRAHAM-
BERMANN4
1Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, 356
Psychology Building,
Memphis, TN 38152-3230, USA; 2Örebro University, 701 82
Örebro,
Sweden; 3University of Notre Dame, 107 Haggar Hall, Notre
Dame, IN
46556, USA; 4Department of Psychology, University of
Michigan, 530
Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043, USA
ABSTRACT
Background Previous research suggests that some types of
childhood abuse and neglect
are related to an increased likelihood of perpetrating criminal
behaviour in adulthood.
Little research, however, has examined associations between
multiple different types
of childhood victimisation and adult criminal behaviour.
Aims We sought to examine the contribution of multiple and
diverse childhood
victimisations on adult criminal behaviour. Our central
hypothesis was that, after

controlling for gender, substance use and psychopathy, each
type of childhood
victimisation – specifically experience of property offences,
physical violence, verbal
abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and witnessed violence – would be
positively and
independently related to criminal behaviour in young adults.
Methods We examined data from a large, nationally
representative sample of 2244
young Swedish adults who reported at least one form of
victimisation, using hierarchical
regression analysis to also account for gender, substance use
and psychopathy.
Results Experiences of physical assaults, neglect and witnessing
violence as a child
were significantly associated with adult criminal behaviour, but
not experiences of
property, verbal or sexual victimizations.
Conclusions Our findings help to identify those forms of harm
to children that are
most likely to be associated with later criminality. Even after
accounting for gender,
substance misuse and psychopathology, childhood experience of
violence – directly or
as a witness – carries risk for adulthood criminal behaviour, so
such children need
targeted support and treatment. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 27: 341–353 (2017)
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health

27: 341–353 (2017)
Published online 22 April 2016 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2002
Traumatic experiences during childhood are known to be
associated with mental
health problems, aggressive behaviour and criminality in
adulthood (e.g. Eitle
and Turner, 2002; Fagan, 2005; Miller et al., 2014; Widom and
Maxfield,
2001; Whitfield et al., 2003). Such adverse childhood
experiences are not
uncommon; the prevalence of victimisation by a parent or
caretaker is between
25% and 29% in the USA and European countries (Centers for
Disease Control,
2014; Gilbert et al., 2009; Hussey et al., 2006; May-Chahal and
Cawson, 2005).
In Sweden specifically, the prevalence of parental abuse during
childhood is
about 15–22% (Annerbäck et al., 2010; Janson et al., 2011).
While parental
abuse is well documented, many children are exposed to other
forms of
victimisation (Cater et al., 2014; Finkelhor et al., 2005), each of
which may have
unique effects on developmental psychopathology. Types of
childhood
victimisation include physical harm, witnessing violence,
exposure to community
violence, peer/sibling victimisation, sexual assault and property
offences such as
robbery. To date, this broad array of experiences have not been
evaluated

simultaneously to allow for interactions and determine specific
relationships with
adult criminality.
Previous research has typically focused on the assessment of
single forms of
victimisation in isolation (e.g. child maltreatment). Such
research indicates that
victims of child abuse and neglect are significantly more likely
than non-victims
to become one-time or recurring criminal offenders (Fagan,
2005; Thornberry
et al., 2001; Widom and Maxfield, 2001). They are also more
likely to be arrested
at earlier ages (Widom and Maxfield, 2001) and to have a
history of drug-related
offences (Ireland and Widom, 1994; Thornberry et al., 2001;
Widom and
Maxfield, 2001). Mersky and Reynolds (2007) evaluated the
effects of childhood
neglect and physical abuse on criminality and found that each
experience was
independently associated with an elevated rate of violent and
nonviolent
offending. In contrast, Yun et al. (2011) found that sexual abuse
and neglect,
but not physical abuse, predicted violent deviancy in adulthood.
Finally, English
et al. (2002) reported that, of the 79 victims of sexual abuse
within their study,
16.5% were arrested for a violent crime, compared to 32.1% of
the 78 victims
of emotional abuse.
Although these studies have made important contributions to
our

understanding of how specific types of child maltreatment may
place individ-
uals at risk for deviant and criminal behaviours, they tend to be
confined to
subtypes of child abuse and neglect and do not include the full
variety of
children’s victim experiences. Eitle and Turner’s study (Eitle
and Turner,
2002) is one of the few exceptions. They found that childhood
witnessing of
community violence significantly predicted future criminal
behaviour, whereas
witnessing intimate partner violence did not. This study,
however, only
examined criminality as a binary outcome and did not control
for substance
use or mental health problems, both of which have also been
linked to
criminal behaviour.
342 Howell et al.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
In studies of the relationship between childhood victimisation
and crimi-
nal outcomes, researchers often use a distinct theoretical
framework referred
to as the ‘Intergenerational Transmission of Family Violence’
(Widom,
1995, 1996; Widom and Maxfield, 2001). In this model, it is
proposed that
pro-violence norms may increase the likelihood of violence-

exposed children
becoming violence-perpetrating adults. Although the arrest rate
among
maltreated children is high (27% arrested as juveniles: 17% of
non-exposed
children; 42% arrested as adults: 33% of non-exposed children),
it is impor-
tant to note that many children exposed to violence do not
become violence
perpetrators as adults (Widom and Maxfield, 2001). Thus, it is
essential to
identify other contributing factors to this relationship. One such
variable con-
sistently linked to criminality is gender. Many studies have
indicated that
males are more likely to behave in a criminal manner than
females (Herrera
and McCloskey, 2001; Jung et al., 2015). Substance misuse is
another poten-
tially important mediator (Grann and Fazel, 2004). Alcohol is
particularly
likely to be associated with repeated violent offences (Bohman,
1996), while
mental health problems offer another important link (e.g.
Goethals et al.,
2008). Hare (2003) and Hart and Hare (1997) have argued that
psychopathy
may be a primary catalyst through which childhood
victimisation contributes
to adulthood criminality.
In sum, the extant literature suggests strong links between
childhood
victimisation and adult criminality. There are, however, gaps in
knowledge and
understanding. First, few studies have simultaneously examined

multiple types
of childhood victimisation, although children may be exposed to
a wide variety
of it, so it is unclear which types of victimisation are most
potent in predicting
future criminality. In addition, many studies of childhood
victimisation and
criminality do not include robust controls for other variables
known to
contribute to criminality, such as gender, substance use and
mental health. For
these reasons, it is unclear whether there are simple, direct
effects of victimisation
on criminality or whether this relationship is affected by other
environmental
and intrapersonal influences.
Aims and hypothesis
Our aim was to explore the relationship between multiple types
of trauma in
childhood and adult criminality, allowing for relevant
contextual variables.
Our hypotheses were that: (1) male gender, substance use, and
psychopathy will
be significantly associated with adult criminal behaviour and
(2) after controlling
for these effects, each different type of childhood victimisation,
including
property offences, physical violence, verbal abuse, sexual
abuse, neglect and
witnessed violence, will be positively and independently related
to criminal
behaviour in young adults.
Childhood victimisation and adulthood criminality 343

DOI: 10.1002/cbm
Methods
Participants
Participants included 2244 Swedish young adults between the
ages of 20 and
24years (mean age 22.16, standard deviation (SD) 1.39) from
the Retrospective
Study of Young Men’s and Women’s Experiences project (Cater
et al., 2014) who
endorsed experiencing, while under the age of 18, at least one
form of childhood
victimisation of any type, including: physical assaults, serious
property offences
such as a robbery at home, verbal abuse, witnessed/indirect
violence, sexual abuse
or neglect; just over half of the sample was female. Thus,
participants were asked
to recall victimisation experiences that may have taken place up
to 20years or
more previously. The sample was identified from the Swedish
national inhabitant
register based on proportional draws from different geographic
regions, and was
nationally representative.
Procedure
This study was approved by the regional ethical review board in
Uppsala, Sweden

and all participants gave informed consent.
Potential participants were contacted via telephone by a survey
company
whose employees were trained in the interviewing protocol by
the research team.
This company was responsible for all participant recruitment
and measure admin-
istration. The survey staff collecting the data were selected for
their previous
experience with interviews of a sensitive nature, and all
interviewers were at least
30years old. Participants were scheduled for an interview that
took place at a
time and location of their choosing, typically at their home or in
a public place,
such as a library. All data were collected in 2011.
Basic demographic information was gathered in a brief
structured interview.
Participants then completed an electronically administered
survey about their
history of victimisation and current psychosocial functioning.
This self-report
questionnaire was completed in about 1hour. Interviewers were
present through-
out administration to answer any questions. At the conclusion of
the assessment,
participants were debriefed and provided with information about
mental health
services; completers were also given a voucher for 400 Swedish
Kronor.
Measures
Criminality

Participants reported on 19 items about any criminal behaviour
on their part
during the year prior to interview. These items have been used
in several studies
on Swedish young adults (e.g. Andershed et al., 2002; Cater et
al., 2014).
Responses were on a 5 point scale with options from (1) no that
has not happened
344 Howell et al.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
to (5) has happened more than 10 times. Items were summed to
create a total
criminality score.
Substance use
Participants’ alcohol misuse was examined using the Alcohol
Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT; Allen et al., 1997). This 10 item
self-rating measure
quantifies alcohol consumed and its consequences over the year
before interview
(e.g. ‘How often during the last year have you failed to do what
was normally
expected of you because of your drinking?’). Items were rated
on a 5-point scale
(0) never, (1) less than monthly, (2) monthly, (3) weekly, (4)
daily/almost daily.
Higher total scores indicate more alcohol-related concerns.
With regard to drug
use, participants responded to four questions about the

frequency of their lifetime
drug use, including ‘Have you ever sniffed?’, ‘Have you ever
used testosterone,
anabolic steroids or any similar growth hormone which is not
prescribed by a
doctor?’, ‘Have you ever tried marijuana?’ and ‘Have you ever
used drugs other
than marijuana?’. Items were rated on a 7-point scale (1) Never,
(2) 1 time, (3)
2–4 times, (4) 5–10 times, (5) 11–20 times, (6) 21–50 times, (7)
>50 times. Higher
total scores indicate more substance use.
Psychopathic traits
Personality traits were measured with the Youth Psychopathic
Traits Inventory-
Short version (YPI-S; van Baardewijk et al., 2010; Colins &
Andershed, 2015).
The YPI-S consists of 18 items with a response scale from (1)
does not apply at all
to (4) applies very well. It includes subscales measuring three
dimensions of
psychopathology including Interpersonal (6 items related to
grandiosity and
manipulation), Affective (6 items related to callous and
unemotional affect) and
Behavioural (6 items related to impulsivity and
irresponsibility).
Childhood victimisation
Participants completed 33 items asking them to retrospectively
report on their
childhood victimisation experiences. Items were drawn from
either the Juvenile
Victimisation Questionnaire (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Hamby et
al., 2004) or from

violence prevalence studies conducted in Europe (Janson et al.,
2011;
May-Chahal and Cawson, 2005). Items were summed within six
domains of
childhood victimisation, including physical assaults, such as
being attacked with
a weapon, burned or chocked; verbal assaults, including insults
and name calling;
property crimes, such as having their childhood home robbed or
having property
destroyed; sexual abuse, including threatened or forced sexual
contact; neglect,
such as abandonment or lack of food and safe living conditions;
and witnessed/in-
direct violence exposure, including seeing or hearing about
others being harmed.
Each item was rated on a 4-point scale from (0) not at all to (3)
occurred five times
or more. Items were averaged within each domain to create a
mean score for each
form of victimisation.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
Data analysis
Study hypotheses were examined using hierarchical linear
regression analyses in
SPSS version 22.0. In all analytical models, adult criminal
behaviour was the
dependent variable. Gender was entered as the sole independent

variable in
Model 1. Alcohol misuse, drug use and psychopathy were added
as independent
variables in Model 2. Last, physical assaults, property offences,
verbal abuse,
witnessed/indirect violence, sexual abuse and neglect were
added separately in
the third and final model, which also controlled for gender,
substance use and
psychopathy simultaneously.
Results
Physical assaults were the most commonly experienced form of
childhood
victimisation (mean 2.65 per person; SD=2.13, range 0–3),
followed by property
offences (mean 1.72 per person; SD=1.04, range 0–3). Table 1
shows further
details. Intercorrelations among the offending (dependent)
variable and the
continuous (independent) variables ranged from r=0.04 to 0.46,
as shown in
Table 2. Table 2 also illustrates that criminality was
significantly correlated with
each type of victimisation, with the strongest correlation to
childhood physical
victimisation and the weakest correlation with childhood verbal
victimisation.
Table 3 presents results of the hierarchical linear regression
models. Model 1,
with gender as the sole independent variable, showed a
significant association
between adult criminality and gender (F(1, 2052)=139.27;
p<0.001). This

model accounted for 6.4% of the total variance in criminality.
Male participants
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of key study variables
M(SD) Range
Criminality 0.63(1.08) 0–6
Substance use
Alcohol misuse 7.60(4.64) 1–31
Drug use 5.80(3.20) 4–25
Psychopathy
Interpersonal 1.77(0.61) 1–4
Affective 1.46(0.48) 1–4
Behavioural 2.03(0.55) 1–4
Victimisation
Physical assaults 2.05(0.84) 0–3
Property offences 1.72(1.04) 0–3
Witnessed/indirect exposure 1.63(0.90) 0–3
Verbal abuse 1.51(1.03) 0–3
Neglect 0.39(0.30) 0–3
Sexual abuse 0.18(0.32) 0–3
346 Howell et al.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
T
ab
le
2:
C

or
re
la
ti
on
s
be
tw
ee
n
co
n
ti
n
uo
us
st
ud
y
va
ri
ab
le
s
1
2
3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
1.
C
ri
m
in
al
it
y
1.
00
2.
A
lc
oh
ol
0.
40
**
1.
00
3.
D

ru
g
U
se
0.
46
**
0.
40
**
1.
00
4.
Y
P
I-
I
0.
24
**
0.
25
**
0.
24
**
1.
00

5.
Y
P
I-
A
0.
18
**
0.
19
**
0.
13
**
0.
46
**
1.
00
6.
Y
P
I-
B
0.
30
**

0.
29
**
0.
32
**
0.
40
**
0.
30
**
1.
00
7.
C
V
P
ro
pe
rt
y
0.
20
**
0.
14
**

0.
18
**
0.
15
**
0.
10
**
0.
18
**
1.
00
8.
C
V
P
h
ys
ic
al
0.
31
**
0.
21

**
0.
25
**
0.
22
**
0.
19
**
0.
23
**
0.
35
**
1.
00
9.
C
V
W
it
n
es
s
0.

27
**
0.
22
**
0.
26
**
0.
20
**
0.
15
**
0.
18
**
0.
22
**
0.
34
**
1.
00
10
.

C
V
S
ex
ua
l
0.
05
**
0.
06
**
0.
12
**
0.
06
**
�0
.0
1
0.
10
**
0.
12
**

0.
14
**
0.
11
**
1.
00
11
.
C
V
V
er
ba
l
0.
04
*
0.
02
0.
05
*
0.
04
*

0.
01
0.
13
**
0.
18
**
0.
25
**
0.
12
**
0.
24
**
1.
00
12
.
C
V
N
eg
le
ct

0.
10
**
0.
06
**
0.
08
**
0.
09
**
0.
10
**
0.
15
**
0.
19
**
0.
17
**
0.
16
**

0.
23
**
0.
24
**
1.
00
*p
<
0.
05
.
**
p
<
0.
01
.
Y
P
I-
I=
Y
ou
th
P
sy
ch

op
at
h
ic
T
ra
it
s
In
ve
n
to
ry
In
te
rp
er
so
n
al
;Y
P
I-
A
=
Y
ou
th
P
sy
ch
op
at

h
ic
T
ra
it
s
In
ve
n
to
ry
A
ff
ec
ti
ve
;Y
P
I-
B
=
Y
ou
th
P
sy
ch
op
at
h
ic
T
ra

it
s
In
-
ve
n
to
ry
B
eh
av
io
ur
al
;
C
V
=
C
h
il
dh
oo
d
V
ic
ti
m
is
at
io
n
.

DOI: 10.1002/cbm
reported significantly higher rates of criminality in young
adulthood than did
female participants (β =�0.25; p<0.001). When alcohol misuse,
drug use and
psychopathy were added into Model 2, the model was also
significant (F(6,
2047)=149.85; p<0.001), and a substantial increase in the
amount of variance
was explained (R2 =0.305; ΔR2 =0.241). Here, alcohol misuse
in young
adulthood was related to higher levels of criminality (β =0.20;
p<0.001), as
was current drug use (β =0.31; p<0.001) and the behavioural
subscale of the
Youth Psychopathic Inventory (β =0.11; p<0.001).
When each type of childhood victimisation was separately
entered into the
final model, the overall model was significant (F(12,
2041)=83.79; p<0.001),
Table 3: Summary of hierarchical regression analysis predicting
to adulthood criminality
Criminality
Β t R2 ΔR2 F

Model 1 0.064 — 139.27**
Gender �0.252 �11.80**
Model 2 0.305 0.241 149.85**
Gender �0.147 �7.49**
Alcohol misuse 0.202 9.71**
Drug use 0.313 15.17**
YPI-B 0.114 5.34**
YPI-I 0.025 1.11
YPI-A 0.023 1.09
Model 3 0.330 0.025 83.79**
Gender �0.121 �5.71**
Alcohol misuse 0.185 8.99**
Drug use 0.281 13.51**
YPI-B 0.094 4.45**
YPI-I 0.010 0.46
YPI-A 0.010 0.48
CV property 0.033 1.65
CV physical 0.111 5.17**
CV witnessed 0.075 3.75**
CV sexual 0.000 �0.016
CV verbal �0.022 �1.11
CV neglect 0.043 2.05*
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.001.
Male = 1 Female = 2. YPI-B = Youth Psychopathic Traits
Inventory Behavioural; YPI-I = Youth
Psychopathic Traits Inventory Interpersonal; YPI-A = Youth
Psychopathic Traits Inventory
Affective; CV = Childhood Victimisation.
Criminality and substance use variables exhibited significant
skew, so analyses were run with both
non-transformed and transformed variables. The direction and
significance of effects were the same

in both sets of analyses. Thus, results presented reflect analyses
conducted without variable
transformation.
348 Howell et al.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
and significantly more of the variance was explained (R2
=0.330; ΔR2 =0.025).
In this model, multiple forms of childhood victimisation
emerged as significantly
related to young adulthood criminality, including experiencing
physical violence
(β =0.11; p<0.001), witnessing violence (β =0.08; p<0.001) and
neglect
(β =0.04; p=0.047). The other forms of childhood victimisation,
including
sexual abuse, verbal abuse and property offences, were not
significantly associated
with young adulthood criminality (p>0.05). Thus, after
controlling for gender,
alcohol misuse, drug use and psychopathy, we found that higher
levels of physical
violence, witnessing violence and neglect during childhood
were each
significantly associated with higher levels of criminal behaviour
during young
adulthood. Multicollinearity diagnostics were examined using
the variance
inflation factor (VIF), and all values fell within an acceptable
range (VIF<3).

Discussion
We identified unique relationships between specific forms of
childhood
victimisation and young adulthood criminality. By using a
hierarchical
modelling approach, we were able to identify the relative,
independent contri-
butions of each type of childhood victimisation after controlling
for gender,
substance use and psychopathy. Among young Swedish adults,
criminality
was significantly associated with childhood experiences of
physical violence,
witnessed violence and neglect, but not with being the victim of
property
crimes, verbal abuse or sexual abuse. These findings are largely
consistent with
other research in child populations on types of violence
exposure and
aggressive behaviour during childhood (Miller et al., 2012;
O’Keefe, 1997).
In fact, witnessing intimate partner violence (e.g. Miller et al.,
2012) and
experiencing physical abuse (e.g. Petrenko et al., 2012) have
both been
linked with aggressive, delinquent or externalising behaviours
during
childhood and adolescence. The present study extends these
findings into
both a new developmental period – young adulthood – and a
geographic
region not previously studied in this way (Sweden).
Given that previous studies have identified an association
between

childhood sexual abuse and later aggressive behaviour (e.g.
Lewis et al.,
2007), the lack of a relationship with criminality in our study
was
unexpected. Other studies that specifically assess sexual abuse
have found that
it relates to sexually maladaptive behaviour, juvenile sexual
offending, adult
sex crimes and prostitution (Briere and Runtz, 1990; DeLisi et
al., 2014).
We examined criminality more generally and did not include
items assessing
a range of specific sex crimes, which may explain the lack of an
association
between childhood sexual victimisation and criminality.
Further, sexual
victimisation in the current sample was infrequently endorsed
by males (only
6% reported childhood sexual abuse), who were more likely
than females to
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
commit criminal acts during young adulthood, so the lack of an
association
may simply be an artifact of our methods and participant pool.
The absence of an association between criminality and
childhood property
victimisation or childhood verbal abuse also warrants additional
exploration.

Property crimes were the only type of childhood victimisation
that did not have
an interpersonal component. All other victimisations involved
experiencing or
directly witnessing assault. It may be that future criminality is
related to
experiencing harm at the hands of another person in the form of
an interpersonal
violation, rather than having items stolen or property damaged.
With regard to
verbal assault, this form of victimisation did not significantly
impact criminality
once more severe forms of victimisation were accounted for
separately in the
model. Thus, verbal victimisation, which included being yelled
at or demeaned,
did not uniquely impact adulthood criminality once other forms
of victimisation
were accounted for in the modelling. While this cross-sectional
and retrospective
data precludes any causal associations, these findings call
attention to the
importance of examining specific forms of childhood
victimisation when
evaluating criminality among young adults.
Clinical implications
This study provides promising implications for clinical work
with both victimised
children and adults displaying criminal behaviour. First, given
the pernicious,
long-term impact of childhood victimisation, findings
underscore the importance
of early identification and intervention with children who are
experiencing any

form of victimisation. Further, findings indicate that future
problematic
functioning may arise not only if children experience direct
victimisation, but
also if they witness others being victimised. Therefore,
victimisation should be
defined and evaluated broadly to include both personal as saults
as well as indirect
exposure to violence. These findings also highlight the potential
utility of
appropriate assessment and screening tools that clinicians could
utilise with
adults who have committed criminal acts. Such materials might
assess their
history of specific forms of victimisation, current substance use,
and current
symptoms of psychopathy. Such a thorough assessment will
help clinicians
develop tailored intervention strategies for perpetrators that
may more effectively
address future criminality and recidivism. The relationships
between behavioural
aspects of psychopathy, substance use, and criminality
illuminate potentially
important areas of intervention with adult offenders. Beyond a
thorough
assessment for violence exposure, if possible, it would be
critical for intervention
paradigms to intervene on these specific risk factors for
criminality as a way of
reducing recidivism.
350 Howell et al.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm

Limitations
We used a nationally representative sample of young Swedish
adults to examine
unique associations between type of childhood victimisation and
adult criminal-
ity, but there were nevertheless limitations to be considered
when interpreting
results. First, the cross-sectional design precludes causal
inferences. Second, the
retrospective design may lead to recall biases of childhood
experiences. Third,
we relied entirely on self-report measures and did not include
symptom ratings
completed by other important life figures, or police records.
Although all
questionnaires were completed privately and participants were
assured of
personal confidentiality, it is possible that responses were
biased by individuals
who felt a need to ‘fake good’ with respect to criminal
behaviour, psychopathic
traits or substance use. Finally, we did not have access to
information about
socioeconomic factors and other family dysfunction variables
that could be
related to criminal behaviour. Given the well-established
relationship between
socioeconomic status and criminality, it is of utmost importance
that future
studies account for this factor when evaluating victimisation
and criminal
behaviours.

Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by the National Board of
Health and
Welfare in Sweden. The findings and conclusions in this
manuscript are those
of the authors only.
References
Allen JP, Litten RZ, Fertig JB, Babor T (1997) A review of
research on the Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT). Alcoholism: Clinical and
Experimental Research 21: 613–619.
Andershed HA, Kerr M, Stattin H, Levander S (2002)
Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: a
new assessment tool. In Blaauw E, Sheridan L (eds)
Psychopaths: Current International
Perspectives. The Hague: Elsevier pp. 131–158.
Annerbäck EM, Wingren G, Svedin CG, Gustafsson PA (2010)
Prevalence and characteristics of
child physical abuse in Sweden—findings from a population-
based youth survey. Acta
Paediatrica 99: 1229–1236.
Bohman M (1996) Predisposition to criminality: Swedish
adoption studies in retrospect. Genetics of
Criminal and Antisocial Behaviour 194: 99–114.
Briere J, Runtz M (1990) Differential adult symptomatology
associated with three types of child
abuse histories. Child Abuse & Neglect 14: 357–364.

Cater AK, Andershed AK, Andershed H (2014) Youth
victimization in Sweden: prevalence,
characteristics and relation to mental health and behavioral
problems in young adulthood.
Child Abuse & Neglect 38: 1290–1302.
Centers for Disease Control. (2014) Adverse Childhood
Experiences (ACE) Study: data and
statistics. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov.
DOI: 10.1002/cbm
Colins OF, Andershed H (2015) The Youth Psychopathic Traits
Inventory-Short Version in a
General Population Sample of Emerging Adults. Psychological
Assessment. DOI:10.1037/
pas0000189.
DeLisi M, Kosloski AE, Vaughn MG, Caudill JW, Trulson CR
(2014) Does childhood sexual abuse
victimization translate into juvenile sexual offending? New
evidence. Violence and Victims 29:
620–635.
Eitle D, Turner RJ (2002) Exposure to community violence and
young adult crime: the effects of
witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other stressful
life …

READING MATERIAL ONLY
OCTOBER 22, 2018
When kids choose a profession, they tend to follow in their
parents’ footsteps: Doctors’ children often
become doctors, lawyers produce lawyers, and plumbers beget
plumbers. So, after 15 years of covering
crime and criminal justice for The New York Times, I was
fascinated by studies—conducted in cities
across the United States and in London, England, with near-
identical results—showing that crime, too,
can run in families. In the most famous study, researchers
followed 411 boys from South London from
1961 to 2001 and found that half of the convicted kids were
accounted for by 6 percent of all families;
two-thirds of them came from 10 percent of the families.
This intergenerational transmission of violence was first
documented in the 1940s when a husband-and-
wife team at Harvard Law School found that two-thirds of boys
in the Boston area sent by a court to a
reformatory had a father who had been arrested; 45 percent also
had a mother who had been arrested.
And, in 2007, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics concluded that half of the roughly
800,000 parents behind bars have a close relative who has
previously been incarcerated.
Read: Why children with parents in prison are especially
burdened
Yet, despite the abundance of evidence showing the role of
family in crime, criminologists and

policymakers have largely neglected this factor—as the
University of Maryland criminologist John Laub
told me, it’s because any suggestion of a possible biological or
genetic basis for crime could be
misconstrued as racism. Instead, researchers have looked at
other well-known risk causes like poverty,
deviant peers at school, drugs, and gangs. Of course, these are
real issues. But a child’s life begins at
home with the family even before the neighborhood, friends, or
classmates can lead them astray.
I met the Bogles through an official at the Oregon Department
of Corrections, who called me to say he
knew of a family with what he thought were six members in
prison. Little did I know that, after 10 years
of reporting, the real number of people in the Bogle clan I found
who have been incarcerated or placed
on probation or parole would turn out to be 60.
RECOMMENDED READING
Why Children with Parents in Prison Are Especially Burdened
AMY ALEXANDER, CONTRIBUTOR AND NATIONAL
JOURNAL
When a Sibling Goes to Prison
JULEYKA LANTIGUA-WILLIAMS

Is Juvenile Justice Beyond Repair?
JULEYKA LANTIGUA-WILLIAMS
The Bogles had a story to tell about what happens in a criminal
family. “What you are raised with, you
grow to become,” says Tracey Bogle, who served a 16-year
prison sentence for kidnapping, armed
robbery, assault, car theft, and sexual assault. “There is no
escape from our criminal contagion.”
While Tracey’s father, Rooster, was the most malevolent
member of the bunch, the family’s history of
criminality stretches back to 1920, when Rooster’s mother and
father made and sold moonshine during
Prohibition. Since then, members of the family have committed
crimes including burglaries, armed
robberies, kidnapping, and murder.
“Rooster hated toys and sports, and the only fun thing to him
was stealing,” Tracey told me, “So he took
us out with him to burglarize our neighbors’ homes, or steal
their cows and chickens, or take their Social
Security checks out of their mailboxes.” Not surprisingly, the
fun thing to do in the Bogle household
when Tracey was growing up was stealing. He learned by
imitating his father and his older brothers and
his uncles, all of whom eventually went to prison. Unwittingly,
Tracey was describing what criminologists
call “the social learning theory” of what makes some people
turn into criminals—emulating the
behaviors of those around them.

Rooster would take his sons to peek at the local prison on the
edge of Salem, Oregon, where they lived.
“Look carefully,” he instructed them. “When you grow up, this
is where you are going to live.” The boys
took this not as a warning, but as a dare, and Rooster’s
prophecy came to pass: All of his children, seven
sons and three girls, were incarcerated at one point or another.
When you come to realize the importance of family in crime,
the $182-billion-a-year U.S. criminal-justice
system seems fundamentally misguided. Mass incarceration has
created a giant churn: The more people
we lock up now, the more people we will have to lock up in the
future. As Judge Albin Norblad, who
presided over many of the Bogles criminal trials in Oregon,
said, “When the courts try to deal with
families like the Bogles, we always lose.” Norblad, a law -and-
order Republican not averse to dishing out
lengthy sentences, had almost given up sentencing any of the
Bogles to long prison terms as a waste of
taxpayer money. “We need another solution,” he told me,
“Something to separate Bogle family
members so they will not keep reinfecting themselves.”
Norblad, who died in 2014, did not know how to do that. But in
recent years, criminologists are starting
to figure it out—paving the way for possible solutions that are
more humane and cost-effective than
prison.

One such program came about by accident. After Hurricane
Katrina hammered New Orleans in 2005 and
pulverized large chunks of the city’s housing, the Oxford
University criminologist David Kirk saw amid
the wreckage an opportunity for a potentially once-in-a-lifetime
study. Many recently released prisoners
living in New Orleans couldn’t return to their homes, and a
large number of them ended up moving to
Texas. Several years after their release, the former prisoners
who left for Texas had lower rates of
recidivism than did those who stayed behind in New Orleans,
because they had broken their social
networks. Based on his findings, Kirk created a volunteer
program for prisoners in Baltimore to receive
housing allowances from the state of Maryland on the condition
that they move to another part of the
state after their release. The early results are encouraging, Kirk
says, and the cost per inmate is $1,230 a
month, a fraction of the cost of prison.
Another innovative program known as multisystemic therapy,
developed by the Medical University of
South Carolina professor Scott Henggeler, focuses on helping
young delinquents by treating their whole
family. In graduate school, Henggeler worked with children who
had been reprimanded by a court but
were seemingly stuck in their criminal ways. One day, he
decided to visit them in their homes. “It took
me 15 to 20 seconds to realize how incredibly stupid my
brilliant treatment plans were,” he says. He
realized he needed to treat the children in the full context of
their lives, to see them with their families
in their homes. His central insight was to take therapy to the

adolescents instead of taking the
adolescents to therapy. This kind of approach is especially
important with a family like the Bogles,
Henggeler told me: They are like a giant rogue iceberg, with
most of the dangers hidden below the
waterline and only a small portion visible to outsiders.
The stunning transmission of criminality from parents to kids
doesn’t mean that some families are
cursed to an eternity of crime: There’s no immutable “crime
gene” that’s passed down from generation
to generation. Indeed, one Bogle happily stopped the cycle,
earning all A’s in high school, graduating
from college in 2016, and landing a job as a medical-records
technician. Ashley, a granddaughter of
Rooster, had it set in her mind that the Bogle criminal contagion
would not apply to her. Still, Ashley
can’t completely escape from her family: Her daily commute to
work takes her directly past the Oregon
State Correctional Institution, where her grandfather and so
many other Bogles served, and continue to
serve, their prison sentences.
DIRECT BULLYING: CRIMINAL ACT OR
MIMICKING WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED?
LISA GARBY
Bullying has been around for ages, but in the past decade it has
been
in the spotlight because of stiicidal deaths and a push for
legislation to

put these bullies behind bars. Numerous national surveys report
that
a large percentage of bullying in schools is a form of direct
btülying.
Recently all but one state has now enacted harsher anti -bullying
laws
with zero tolerance policies in school districts. There is no
doubt that
bullying is occurring and changes need to be made, but do the
btillies
belong in jail or are they just mimicking behaviors they have
learned?
The suicidal deaths of Phoebe Prince, Jon
Carmichael, Jamey Rodemeyer, Eric Mohat,
Kenneth Weishuhn, Jr. and Jessica Logan
caught the nation's attention between the years
2007-2012. The common cause in all of these
cases; each young person was bullied by their
peers. Jon Carmichael endured being stripped,
tied and placed upside down in a trash can as
well as having his head placed in the toilet
bowl as it was fiushed numerous times; all be-
cause he was small in size. Phoebe Prince was
followed, taunted, had cans thrown at her and
harassed online; all because of a boy she dat-
ed. Jessica Logan was harassed relentlessly by
hundreds of girls; all because an ex-boyfiiend
sent nude photos of her through his phone. In
all of these cases, only Phoebe Prince's result-
ed in local authorities bringing charges against
those involved. Should individuals who direct-
ly bully people be charged as criminals or are
they victims as well?
When a person is subjected to physical vio-

lence such as kicking, slapphig, and/ or punch-
ing, or subjected to threats and name calling
they are being directly bullied. (Carpenter &
Ferguson, n.d., para. 1) If an adult uses phys-
ical violence or makes threats against another
human being they can be charged by law with
assault or battery of varying degrees. Assault
is defined as threatening someone with harm
while battery is the actual physical violence
against a person ("Assault and battery," n.d..
para.l). Even legislation includes bullying
imder the terms harassment or assault with
25 states defining bullying together with
harassment and/or intimidation (as cited in
Brubacher, Fondacaro, Brank, Brown & Mill-
er, 2009). Using these definitions it seems the
logical step would be to charge a child who
directly bullies as a criminal.
Schools seem to be agreeing with this
mindset. Recently all states except Montana
have taken steps to enforce anti-bullying laws.
Of these, eighteen states provide a means for
the victim to seek legal ramifications and nine
states mandate that schools report bullying in-
cidents to the police (Toppo, 2012). In 2011
New Jersey passed what is being touted as
the toughest anti-bullying law in the nation.
The "Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights" requires
students to be expelled or suspended, places
responsibility on administrators and employ-
ees to report all incidences whether they oc-
cin- in school or not or face discipline issues
as drastic as losing their license, mandates a
"school safety team" in all schools, requires

superintendents to report detailed incidents
to the state twice a year and the State Edu-
cation Department posts grades on how each
school is doing (Freidman, 2011). More and
more zero tolerance laws are being enforced
in schools, but what would that look like
statistically?
448
Direct Bullying: Criminal Act or Mimicking What Has Been
Learned? / 449
The U.S. Government Accountability
Office recently analyzed four federal surveys
on bullying and created the report School
Bullying: Extent of Legal Protections for
Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be More FuUy
Assessed. Analysis of HBSC 2005/2006: Es-
timates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors show
that 31.5 % of students were made fim of,
called mean names and/or teased; 13.1% were
called mean names because of their race or
color; 8.5% were called mean names because
of their religion; and 12.8% were physically
hurt or locked indoors (GOA, 2012). Based
on these statistics, it seems that a lai^e per-
centage of students in at least eighteen states
would have a population of students in juve-
nile detention or jail.
Not all anti-buUying advocates believe this
is the answer. While it is true that bullying is

an issue, jail is not necessarily the answer nor
is it necessarily the child who should be held
responsible. Russlyn Ali, assistant secretary
for civil rights for the Department of Educa-
tion believes tbat reporting bullying incidents
to the police should really be thought out by
school officials because of the harm it might
bring to tbe scbool culture (as cited in Toppo,
2012). Eliza Byard, head of Gay, Lesbian and
Straigbt Education Network (GLSEN) be-
lieves tbat if society locks tbese direct bullies
up, adults are failing the children (as cited in
Toppo, 2012). Taking it even fiirther Rosalind
Wiseman, author of Queen Bees & Wannabes,
places the blame on adults creating a culture
of bullying and Jeannie Cbambers, motber of
Kenneth Weishuhn Jr., states that the parents
of bullies need to be held responsible for their
children's behavior because sbe believes they
leam the behavior at home (Toppo, 2012). If
this is the case then the students are not crim-
inals as some believe, but mimicking what
they have leamed.
According to a report by Brubacher, et
al. (2009), tbe messages parents send to
their children about the faimess of confiict
resolution could lead to bullying. Statistics
show that 60% of bullies in middle school
will incur at least one criminal conviction by
the age of 24 and a staggering 40% will incur
three or more (as cited in Bmbacher, et al.,
2009). Research fiuther shows child behav-
iors are based in parental conduct; if parents
bully then the child will likely bully. Bullies

are also twice as likely to have been exposed
to domestic violence (as cited in Brubacher,
et al., 2009). Parents that are inconsistent in
resolving coûfiicts, that use corporal punish-
ment or punish their children when they are
angry and with emotional outbursts, or that
maltreat their children tend to have children
who bully. The children in these homes are
witnessing and experiencing poor confiict
resolution and feel that they are being treated
unfairly. These feelings become intemalized
and in tum they tend to deal with confiict
with behaviors consistent with direct bullying
(Brubacher, et al., 2009).
Further adding support to this perspective
is a study conducted by Teisl, Rogosch, Oshri
& Cicchetti (2012). The authors examined 470
children fi'om high-risk neighborhoods aged
6-13 of whom almost half were exposed to
some form of maltreatment. They concluded
that children who were maltreated were more
likely to be identified as bullies and tend to
be confi-ontational when dealing with conflict.
Bullying programs have been implement-
ed nationwide, but with recent statistics prov-
ing there is no dramatic change, something
more needs to be done. Bullying is not just a
scbool issue; it extends past the school walls
into the community and might begin in the
home. A possible answer to deciding wbether
these young people are criminals or are just
mimickiag leamed behaviors Ues in design-
ing, implementing and evaluating a program
that encompasses not just the students, but

the entire community. This dilemma calls for
fiirther research to be conducted with a focus
450 / Education Vol. 133 No. 4
on the direct bullying. Although personal
interviews have limitations, these along with
self-disclosure stirveys and statistics fi-om
schools taken before and after an intervention
program has been put in place might just pro-
vide the answer.
References
Assault and battery, (n.d.) Retrieved from http:/Avww.
criminal defenselavvyer.com/assaul tAndBattery.cfrn
Bmbacher, M. R., Fondacaro, M. R., Brank, E. M.,
Brown, V. E., & Miller, S. A. (2009). Procedural
justice in resolving family disputes: Implications for
childhood bullying. Psychology, Public Policy, And
Law, 15(3), 149-167. doi:10.1037/a0016839
Carpenter, D. & Ferguson, C.J. .(n.d.) Direct bullying
versus indirect bullying. Retrieved from http://www.
netplaces.com/deal ing-with-bullies/types-of-bully-
ing/direct-bullying-versus-indirect-bullying.htm)
Friedman, M. (2011, January 7). N.J. Gov. Christie
approves toughest anti-bullying law in the country.
Retrieved from http://www.nj.com/news/index.
ssC2011/01 /nj_gov_ehHstie_approves_tough.html
Teisl, M., Rogosch, F. A., Oshri, A., & Ciccbetti, D.

(2012). Differential expression of social dominance
as a function of age and maltreatment experi-
ence. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 575-588.
doi:10.1037/a0024888
The U.S. Government Accountability OfBcc (GOA).
(2012). School bullying: Extent of legal protec-
tions for vulnerable groups needs to be more fully
assessed. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/as-
sets/600/591202.pdf
Toppo, G. (2012, June 13). Bullies as criminals?. USA
Today, pp. lA, 2A.
Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation,
Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.
THE CRIMINAL MIND
THE KEEN FAMILY
Instructions
Throughout this course, you will apply criminal behavior
concepts and theories to the Keen
family, a fictious family in which criminal behavior is multi -

generational and pervasive.
To learn more about the Keen family, read the profile of each
family member.
Then select the Map button to read the crime scenes in which
specific family members were
involved.
As you do so, consider the social, behavioral, cognitive,
psychological, biological, and genetic
factors that account for the criminal behavior of each family
member.
Mom: Sandra Keen
AGE: 46 years old
FAMILY: Sandra is married to Joseph Keen with whom she has
two children: Shawn (17 years
old) and Tracey (22 years old). She drank heavily during both
pregnancies, and her children
display some symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome. As a parent,
Sandra is emotionally
unavailable and has ignored her children for much of their lives,
except when they supply her
with drugs and/or alcohol.
EMPLOYMENT: Sandra’s employment in the human resources
(HR) department of a local

hospital was recently terminated. As a result, Sandra receives
assistance from the state for
housing and food. She also currently works part-time as an
evening custodian at a local school.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Sandra has been addicted to opiates for
the past 5 years and has been an
alcoholic for most of her adult life.
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: Sandra is currently on probation after
colluding with a nurse to steal
opiates from the hospital to “manage her pain” from a car
accident that occurred 5 years ago.
The Criminal Mind
Father Joseph Keen
AGE: 53 years old
FAMILY: Joseph has been married multiple times and is
currently married to Sandra Keen.
HEALTH: Joseph is prone to severe mood swings and periods of
impulsivity and irrational
behavior; however, he refuses to see a mental health
professional for help.

EMPLOYMENT: Joseph is currently unemployed because he is
in prison. He used to be a long-
haul truck driver and spent long periods of time away from his
family.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Joseph is an alcoholic who becomes
very violent when he has been
drinking. Prior to being put in prison, Joseph often frequented
bars—where he picked up women
whom he ultimately conned, manipulated, and physically
intimidated to give him money to
support his drinking habit. Joseph frequently brags to his fellow
prisoners about how much
money he has conned out of women, remarking that it is not his
fault that the women are “dumb
enough” to give him money.
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: After a long night of drinking and
fighting with Sandra, Joseph
attempted to strangle her. As a result, he was sentenced to 3
years in prison. He does not think
the attempted strangulation is a “big deal” and often jokes that,
if he were not so drunk that night,
he could have “finished the job.”

The Criminal Mind
Son Shawn Keen
AGE: 17 years old
FAMILY: Shawn is fiercely loyal to this family and feels that
he is the protector of his mother
and sister, in the absence of his father.
SCHOOL: Shawn is an average student but refuses to follow
directions or rules. He becomes
very combative when asked to do so. He has also been
suspended from school multiple times for
fighting. The most recent suspension occurred when Shawn
punched a classmate in the face after
the classmate accidently bumped into him in the hallway. When
asked why he is aggressive with
his peers, Shawn replied that his peers are conspiring against
him and intentionally provoking
him to get him into trouble. Shawn regularly skips school to be
with friends. Despite receiving
multiple phone calls about Shawn’s absences from school,
Sandra does not attempt to discipline
Shawn.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Shawn drinks with his mother and uses
marijuana with his friends—a
few of whom sell drugs.

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: Shawn is a member of a local gang
whose crimes are petty,
including shoplifting and vandalism. In most cases, Shawn has
not gotten caught for these crimes
and does not have any remorse for committing them because,
technically, he is “not physically
hurting anyone.” Currently, Shawn is on probation for truancy
and theft.
The Criminal Mind
Sister Tracey Keen
AGE: 22 years old
HEALTH: Tracey has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She
currently takes medication and
sees a mental health counselor at the community clinic one to
two (1–2) times weekly to manage
her symptoms.
FAMILY: Tracey currently lives with her mother and brother.

She also has a 3-year-old
daughter from a previous relationship. Tracey’s boyfriend,
Victor, is “self-employed” (i.e., sells
drugs). Victor often beats Tracey with his fists or a belt when
he has been drinking or when she
“provokes him.” Tracey often waits for Victor to pass out and
steals opiates to supply her
mother’s drug habit.
SCHOOL: Tracey dropped out of high school during her junior
year, after being expelled for
attacking a teacher.
EMPLOYMENT: Tracey is receiving disability payments due to
her bipolar disorder. She also
receives state assistance for childcare.
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: Tracey is currently on probation for
writing bad checks to banks.
She initially engaged in this behavior because she believed it
was the only viable way to make
enough money to support her daughter—asserting that state
assistance is “not enough.” She also
argues that the banks “won’t miss the money” and that banks
“steal money from people all the
time.”
Take Test: Quiz - Week 1
PLEASE RESEARCH THESE QUIZ QUESTIONS FOR THE
CORRECT ANSWER FOR THE BEST GRADE I CAN ONLY
MISS 1 TO PASS THIS PLEASE MARK IN RED…THANKS

QUESTION 1
Match the parenting style with the accurate example.
-
Permissive
-
Authoritarian
-
Neglecting
-
Authoritative
A.
Brad characterizes his relationship with his parents as “up and
down.” He knows his parents love him but finds it annoying that
he has to give up his phone for a whole weekend for earning a D
on a math test.
B.
Jeanne has a close relationship with her mother, often referring
to her as “my best friend.” Jeanne is graduating from high
school in 2 weeks, and her mother has agreed to supply alcohol
for the graduation party.
C.

Tyler has a strained relationship with his father. His father
always expects excellence and recently berated Tyler for
missing his curfew by 10 minutes. Tyler works hard in school
and earns As and Bs, but his father does not seem to notice.
D.
Ana is in fifth grade. Each morning she makes her breakfast and
packs her lunch for school. After school, she completes her
homework, makes dinner, and puts herself to bed. Ana rarely
sees her mother, who spends most of her time working as a
bartender or staying at her new boyfriend’s house.
QUESTION 2
Which of the following terms refers to the science of a
criminal’s behavior and emotional and mental processes?
A.
Psychiatric criminology
B.
Developmental criminology
C.
Sociological criminology
D.
Psychological criminology

3 points
QUESTION 3
Which theory would best apply to the following scenario?
Reggie is 15 years old and lives with his mother and father,
Janet, and Rick. Reggie has repeatedly witnessed Rick
physically abuse Janet since he was a small child. Rick becomes
violent after Janet refuses to comply with his demands.
Afterwards, Janet usually complies for a few weeks to avoid any
further physical abuse. Reggie has just begun dating a 14-year-
old girl. When the girl refuses to give into Reggie’s demands
for sex and attempts to leave his house, he blocks the exit and
slaps
A.
Coercion theory
B.
Observational learning

C.
Operant conditioning
D.
Classical learning
QUESTION 4
Aaron is the bookkeeper for a small plumbing company. Over
the past 10 years, Aaron has stolen $15,000 from the company
in small increments every few weeks. Aaron has a strong
interest in technology and has used the stolen money to buy the
latest technological gadgets.
The owner of the company has very little patience for
accounting and completely trusts Aaron to manage the finances.
Therefore, Aaron has never been caught and continues to steal
money from the company.
A.
Classical conditioning
B.
C.
D.
Coercion theory

QUESTION 5
Sarah is 19 years old and has been addicted to heroin for
approximately one year. She began using heroin in the backyard
of a vacant house in her neighborhood. The yard is overgrown
with weeds and a large patch of honeysuckle. Sarah recently
completed a 30-day rehabilitation program. On her way home
from work one day, she rolled down the window and smelled
honeysuckle that was growing near the side of the road. Sarah
was immediately overcome with an intense urge to use heroin.
A.
B.
Classical conditioning
C.
Coercion theory
D.

Apply social and behavioral concepts and theories to explain the
criminal behavior of Keen
family members.
—and to what extent—the following factors
account for criminal
behavior in the case study:
o Parenting styles and practices
o Peer influences
o Conditioning and reinforcement
Support your response with specific examples from the case
study, theories from the
Learning Resources, and relevant professional experience.
Week One Discussion Two - Social and Behavioral Aspects of
Criminal Behavior: The
Keen Family
Hello Everyone,
The risk factors that had the most concern in our readings are
social, family, and
psychological interactions that are thought to increase the
likelihood that a person will
participate in ongoing criminal activity (Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
Social learning theory argues that
we participate in either criminal or noncriminal activity based
on the social environment around
us, and that is influenced by how other people reward or model
behavior. This theory argues

that criminal actions are acquired and therefore could be
counteracted by building a good social
environment in which there is no acceptable form of criminal
activity (Kent State University,
2018).
Parenting Styles and Practices
How parents or caregivers interact with their children is
related to parenting styles and
behaviors. Parental styles apply to parent-child relationships
marked by parental behavior
towards the child and the parent-child relationship's emotional
environment. Parental practices
are techniques used by parents in various ways and
circumstances to accomplish academic,
social, or athletic goals. Joseph and Sandra Keen have not
seemed to set the best example for
their children starting with before they were born. Sandra drank
during her pregnancies and
throughout her children’s lives, she has been neglectful. She not
only displays her unhealthy
bad habits of substance abuse but supplies her children with
drugs and alcohol also. Joseph
has not presented the best example for the two children to
follow either. He has an impulsive,
violent personality, a belittling view of women, and is currently
in prison (Laureate Education,
2019).
It is possible to trace criminal activity in adults to their
childhoods. Each person follows a
developmental pathway, the patterns of which can often be
recognized at a young age (Bartol &
Bartol, 2017). With regards to 17-year-old Shawn, the general
aggression model can be applied.

This is a theoretical framework of aggressive and violent
behavior it shows the connection
between biological, personality development, social processes,
basic cognitive processes,
short-term and long-term processes, and decision processes. It
explains the need for a
nurturing, loving home environment, and witnessing violence or
aggressive behavior at a young
age can cause antisocial and aggressive, violent behavior later
in life (Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from
CourseHero.com on 10-09-2021 14:29:04 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/78934529/WK1Dis2Criminal -
Minddocx/
Th
is
stu
dy
re
so
ur
ce
w
as
sh
ar
ed

v
ia
C
ou
rs
eH
er
o.
co
m
Shawn witnessing his father’s violent outburst could explain
Shawn’s fights in school. It can also
apply to Tracey and her attacking her teacher in her junior year
of high school.
There are reactive and proactive forms of aggression Shawn
and Tracey both display
reactive forms of aggression. This consists of anger
expressions, temper tantrums, vengeful
hostility, and just “hot-blooded” aggressive acts (Bartol &
Bartol, 2017).
Peer Influences
There is an increase in susceptibility to peer influence during
adolescence and a decrease in
susceptibility to parental influence. Although acknowledging
the value of successful, supportive

parenting, the developmental cascade model often strongly
stresses the importance of
developing cognitive competence and resilience with peers as
adolescents, particularly with
boys (Bartol & Bartol, 2017). Shawn hanging out with other
adolescents that participate in illegal
and antisocial activities rather than his peers that are more
positive and help to contribute to
constructive behavior is most likely a result of learning to
handle life's stressful situations in an
unhealthy way.
Conditioning and Reinforcement
Tracey and Shawn seem to be displaying Operant
Conditioning. This is a learning theory
focused on cause and effect (Bartol & Bartol, 2017). By Tracey
witnessing her mother be
demeaned, undervalued, and treated “less than” by her father it
has conditioned her to allow
men to treat her the same way. By Sandra not stopping Joseph’s
violent behavior in front of the
children and by Joseph exposing his violent actions in front of
his children it only shows the
now-adult children that this behavior is acceptable. Therefore,
operant conditioning has
occurred, Shawn mimicking his father's violent, aggressive way
of handling situations. While
Tracey observing her mother rewarding the behavior of her
father by not correcting it or
removing the children from it, she has taught them that this
repetitive negative behavior is okay.
References
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2017). Criminal behavior: A

psychological approach (11th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Kent State University. (2018, October 31). Major criminology
theories and how they affect policy.
Retrieved from
https://onlinedegrees.kent.edu/sociology/criminal-
justice/community/criminal-
behavior-theories
Laureate Education (Producer). (2019). The Keen family [Web
site]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Retrieved from https://mym.cdn.laureate-
media.com/2dett4d/Walden/CRJS/4102/profiles/index.html
Minddocx/
Th
is
stu
dy
re
so
ur
ce
w
as

sh
ar
ed
v
ia
C
ou
rs
eH
er
o.
co
m
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
For this Discussion, you consider the degree to which criminal
behavior is learned and
whether the current criminal justice system is equipped to help
offenders “unlearn.”
To prepare:
which there is
information about the offender’s background and motives.

Post a response that addresses the following:
you think the crime
was the result of learned behavior?
offenders “unlearn”
criminal behavior, such as that involved in this crime?
Week One Discussion One: Is Crime a Learned Behavior?
Hello Everyone,
The social learning theory suggests that when it comes to
some criminal behavior, is learned
by imitating or mimicking the behaviors of those around you.
For instance, the Bogle family who
has had a history of criminal behavior dated back to the 1920s
having 60 members of their
family either being incarcerated or on probation or parole
(Butterfield, 2018). The first thing that
came to mind for this discussion is not a recent news story but
one that did receive nationwide
news for many years.
The Crime
In December of 2009, Susan Cox Powell of West Valley City,
Utah a town right outside of Salt
Lake City was reported missing, and neither she nor her body
has ever been found. Her
husband Joshua Powell was the main suspect police were
investigating for her disappearance.
Many friends and the family members of Susan believed was not

just responsible for her
disappearance but that he killed her. In 2012, Susan’s parents
were awarded custody of their
two young boys who were two and four at the time she went
missing and this resulted in Joshua
Powell blowing up and killing the two children and himself.
According to ABC News, Joshua
Powell took a hatchet to his two boys then set off a “gas-fueled
explosion” killing all three of
them (McBride, 2019).
Why Would Joshua Commit These Crimes?
What I could find about why maybe Susan disappeared and
some believe was murdered is
she was a member of the Mormon church (LDS) and brought
their two boys with her avidly.
Even though Joshua was raised LDS he did not practice the
religion and did not approve of his
children attending. His father was a member of the church when
he grew up but in the 1980s
began to denounce the religion (Finn, 2019). This may be where
Joshua’s issues with the
church stemmed from. Joshua’s way of handling his issue with
his wife over the boys going to
the church may also stem from his father. Joshua’s parents’
divorce papers state both of their
concerns about Joshua's behavior and include his father
accusing his mother of witchcraft in the
Mormon church and accuse his father of teaching his boys to
view women in a solely sexual
and demeaning way (Seattle Times staff, 2012).

https://www.coursehero.com/file/78934039/WK1Dis1Criminal-
Minddocx/
Th
is
stu
dy
re
so
ur
ce
w
as
sh
ar
ed
v
ia
C
ou
rs
eH
er
o.
co

m
Was This Behavior Learned?
When Joshua became the main suspect for his wife’s
disappearance, he moved him and his
two children from Utah to Washington where they lived with his
father Steven Powell. During a
search of the home over of the custody battle for the two boys
with Susan’s parents, a
warranted search discovered that Joshua’s father Steven had
many files on his computer that
contained child pornography, some of them even contained
photos of Susan before the age of
18 and he was convicted and served time. His father Steven was
in prison over these charges
when Joshua killed his boys and himself and Joshua’s younger
brother Michael killed himself by
jumping off a building after being denied the insurance money
from the death of Joshua (Nye,
2013). His mother Terrica Powell put in the divorce papers with
his father that she believed he
had developed a disparaging or derogatory way of looking at
women. It also states that Joshua
tried to commit suicide as a teen by hanging himself and that
when he was younger, he killed
his pet gerbils, and even threatened his mother with a butcher
knife when she asked him to do
the dishes. They also claim that his father Steven disciplined
Joshua harshly and was mentally
unfit to raise children because of his views on pornography,
polygamy (Seattle Times staff,
2012).

Can This Behavior be “Unlearned”?
I think had the courts paid attention to Joshua’s parent's
divorce papers and their concern
with regards to him this may have been preventable. He needed
counseling or a psychological
evaluation and treatment at a young age if he was killing his
pets and things of that nature.
According to Criminal Behavior and Mental Health (2017), a
study was done about the effects of
childhood victimization. Many believed that childhood abuse
and neglect are related to criminal
activity once they are an adult, but this study focuses on gender,
substance abuse, and
psychopathy (mental illness). Many factors contribute to
criminal behavior from the environment,
home life to mental illness (Howell, et al., 2017) If these things
are noticed and help is given at a
young age a future crime is preventable in certain cases. Joshua
needed mental help long
before the disappearance of his wife and the murder of his two
sons and himself.
References
Butterfield, F. (2018, October 22). When crime is a family
affair. The Atlantic. Received from
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/crime-runs-
family/573394/
Finn, N. (2019, May 04). The details surrounding Susan Cox
Powell’s unsolved disappearance
and the death of her sons don’t get more chilling than this.
EOnline. Retrieved from
https://www.eonline.com/news/1038120/the-details-
surrounding-susan-cox-powell-s-unsolved-

disappearance-and-the-death-of-her-sons-don-t-get-more-
chilling-than-this
Howell, K. H., Cater, A. K., Miller-Graff, L. E., Schwartz, L.
E., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2017).
The relationship between types of childhood victimization and
young adulthood criminality.
Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 27(4), 341-353.
Retrieved from https://doi-
org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1002/cbm.2002
McBride, J. (2019, October 04). Steve Powell death: How did
Josh Powell’s father die? Heavy.
Retrieved from https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/10/steve-
powell-death-now-today/
Minddocx/
Th
is
stu
dy
re
so
ur
ce
w
as

sh
ar
ed
v
ia
C
ou
rs
eH
er
o.
co
m
Nye, J. (2013, February 13). Brother of killer dad Josh Powell
commits suicide after losing battle
for $1.5 million insurance payout over deaths of his family in
fire horror. Daily Mail. Retrieved
from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
2278078/Brother-killer-dad-Josh-Powell-commits-
suicide-losing-battle-1-5million-insurance-payout-deaths-
family-horror.html
Seattle Times staff. (2012, February 11). Powell’s story:
Cruelty, abuse from an early age.
Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/powells-story-cruelty-abuse-from-an-

early-age/
Minddocx/
Th
is
stu
dy
re
so
ur
ce
w
as
sh
ar
ed
v
ia
C
ou
rs
eH

er
o.
co
m
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
HELLO THERE, ARE 2 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS FOR
WEEK 1 ASSIGNMENTS I HAVE LABELED THEM BOTH
BELOW ALONG WITH 2 OTHER ATTACHED PAPERS TO
HELP GUIDE YOU ALONG THE WAY I WILL ALSO
ATTACH THE READING MATERIAL TO HELP YOU IF
NEEDED AND YOU CAN USE OUTSIDE REFERENCES TO
COMPLETE THE WORK ALSO BOTH ASSIGNMENTS HAVE
TO BE EXLEAST 250 WORD COUNT EACH THANKS…...
Discussion 1: Is Crime a Learned Behavior?
According to the social and behavioral theories addressed in
this week’s Learning Resources, behavior is learned through
experience, observation, and the administration of punishment
and rewards. For example, a child may avoid a hot stove after
being burned, an adolescent may mimic his or her favorite
recording artist, and an adult may drive slowly through a school
zone after receiving a speeding ticket the week before. The
majority of learned behavior is considered to be acceptable and
falls within the confines of social norms. However, poor
behavior can also be learned and reinforced through the same
mechanisms as good behavior.
For this Discussion, you consider the degree to which criminal
behavior is learned and whether the current criminal justice
system is equipped to help offenders “unlearn.”
To prepare:

Identify a recent crime that received news coverage and for
which there is information about the offender’s background and
motives.
By Day 3
Summarize the crime you have identified.
Why did the offender commit the crime? To what extent do you
think the crime was the result of learned behavior?
Is the current criminal justice system equipped to help offenders
“unlearn” criminal behavior, such as that involved in this
crime?
Discussion 2: Social and Behavioral Aspects of Criminal
Behavior
In this Discussion, and in the Assignments that follow in Weeks
2–5, you will apply concepts and theories of criminal behavior
to the Keen family. The Keen family is a fictitious family that
is not unlike many real families in which criminal behavior is
multi-generational and pervasive. You can learn more about the
Keen family by viewing this week’s media resource.
Given that this is the first time you will be applying concepts
and theories to the Keen family, this activity is designed as a
Discussion so that you have the benefit of peer and Instructor
guidance and feedback. As mentioned above, the subsequent
application of concepts and theories in Weeks 2–5 will be in the
form of papers.
In this Discussion, you apply social and behavioral concepts
and theories to explain the criminal behavior of Keen family
members.

Explain how—and to what extent—the following factors
account for criminal behavior in the case study:
Parenting styles and practices
Peer influences
Conditioning and reinforcement
Support your response with specific examples from the case
study, theories from the Learning Resources, and relevant
professional experience.

The relationship between types ofchildhood victimisation and

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to The relationship between types ofchildhood victimisation and

More from ojas18

Recently uploaded

The relationship between types ofchildhood victimisation and