Chapter 4: Assessment in Forensic Setting:

Personality assessment in personal injury litigation &

Conducting personal injury evaluation:

A forensic psychologist assesses clients who have suffered due to negligence or malevolence. They
provide opinions on the psychological suffering, consequences, and impact on the client's ability to
work, including physical injury, loss of amenity, unemployment, and financial difficulties.

The claimant's psychological injuries, treatment, and long-term effects of the accident are all crucial
aspects to consider, with psychologists occasionally offering expert opinions on negligence allegations.

In civil actions like personal injury claims, the claimant's case is won or lost based on the balance of
probabilities, unlike criminal cases where prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In England and Wales, courts can now direct evidence to a single expert, jointly appointed by both
parties, a change from the adversarial arrangement where experts' opinions may be biased. This
imposes a greater responsibility on the expert to be balanced and objective.

The Psychologist's Report Issues and Problems

Much of the psychologist's report will consist of information - in expanded form - exemplified by the
above. This information is usually derived from an interview with the claimant and often a separate
interview with a confidante such as a spouse

The validity of information given at interview

How valid is this information likely to be?

The claimant seeks financial compensation and is angry with the person she blames for her misfortunes.
Her spouse or informant may confirm her account, but they may have discussed her problems.
Consequently she may be inclined to commit errors of attribution, overstating the role of the accident
when attempting to account for any difficulties post-dating it.

Reference to existing records and reports

A possible solution to this problem is to check for consistency between the claimant's account at
interview and any other reports. As is known, however, while validity depends on reliability, the reverse
is not the case. The claimant's accounts will become reliable (i.e. consistent) with repeated rehearsal.
Her general medical practitioner's records are perhaps one of the best independent sources of
confirmation, although illegibility of written entries presents real problems. Unfortunately, any paucity
of consultations relating to psychological problems may reflects the patient's unwillingness to be open
about them for fear of being designated a 'psychiatric case' or because of the belief that they are not
problems with which her doctor can be of assistance.
Despite this, medical records can provide a useful check on some aspects of validity. For example, a
claimant assessed by the author lost his job after an accident and became depressed and sexually
impotent. His doctor's records verified his account of his depressed state of mind, but it was clear that
his impotence predated the accident and was due to a prostate condition and its treatment. In another
case a claimant also described how she had become depressed after her accident, and her doctor
referred her to the practice counsellor. The medical records confirmed this but made clear that her
depressed mood was associated with family problems and difficulties in acculturation. Her accident was
not mentioned in the correspondence. Of course it may be that in both of these cases the accident
compounded the claimants' problems, but it is very difficult for the expert to give a balance-of-
probabilities opinion with due confidence in such instances

Validity and the use of psychometric scales

Some psychometric tests have checks for malingering or exaggeration of symptoms. Many of these
measure cognitive abilities (see the review by Rogers et al., 1993), so a question arises as to how well
they can represent exaggeration of symptoms associated with traumatic stress, such as hyper-arousal,
mood disturbances and avoidant behaviours. Doubts may also be expressed about instruments such as
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), which have checks for symptom
exaggeration as well as understating symptoms (Berry et al., 1991).

Use of psychophysiological methods

The use of psychophysiological methods such as heart rate and galvanic skin response in the presence of
reminders of an RTA (ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS) has been investigated by Blanchard et al. (1999) and
Neal et al. (1999). Unfortunately this work has only been aimed at finding a way of corroborating a
diagnosis of PTSD, and while the results are in the expected direction (greater arousal in those subjects
so diagnosed), the scope for misclassification of a single claimant is high. This is not surprising in view of
the known modest correlation between the physiological, cognitive and behavioural components of
anxiety (Eysenck, 1997).

The implication of exaggeration of physical symptoms

Suspicions of exaggeration of psychological dysfunction may be raised where there are good indications
that this is happening in the case of physical injuries, particularly when this is evident during a medical
examination. Even so, the generalisation is not inevitable, and psychological suffering may magnify
physical suffering such as pain and disability, owing to fear of further injury. Covert video surveillance
occasionally reveals that a claimant is significantly less physically restricted in daily activities than he or
she has claimed. This kind of evidence tends to compromise any formulation that relates the claimant's
reported depressed mood to the impositions placed upon him or her by residual physical injuries.

Providing a diagnosis

In many reports, the psychologist or psychiatrist is required to provide a diagnosis for the claimant's
psychological problems.
These are recognised as mental disorders and defined in the two commonly used diagnostic guides,
namely the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric
Association (DSM-IV) (1994) and the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders
(ICD-10) (1992). There are a number of important factors that impinge on the provision of a diagnosis in
the report and these will be considered now.

Prognosis

In order to provide a reliable prognosis, the psychologist must be able to draw on available evidence
from follow-up studies of personal injury patients (unless he or she has evidence from his or her own
practice). In reality there is not a great deal to go on. In the case of RTAs, claimants assessed after a
period of several years may still be complaining of travel anxiety and other symptoms of post-traumatic
stress. Some useful long-term follow-up data have been provided for RTA victims (those with PTSD and
'sub-syndrome PTSD') by Blanchard & Hickling (1999).

The psychological effects of litigation

Does the process of litigation itself encourage disability and compromise recovery? An affirmative
answer so far as physical injuries are concerned (notably 'whiplash' and low back pain) is provided by
studies of the incidence and outcome of these conditions when compensation is and is not available
(Balla, 1982; Schrader et al, 1996) or has been eliminated by legislative changes (Carron, DeGood & Tait
1985; Cassidy et al., 2000; Mills & Horne, 1986).

The Litigation Stress Scale by Koch and colleagues investigates the psychological impact of the litigation
process on claimants' psychological presentation. They found a relationship between items on the scale
and treatment outcome, but adopted a broad definition of 'litigation stress', with items like slow
physical recovery and pre-accident hours working negatively correlated with treatment response.

There is limited evidence that claimants' progress and treatment response are affected by litigation
progress, with exceptions. Studies show that dropouts from treatment often express greater
dissatisfaction with their insurance claim (Taylor et al.,1999). There are no significant differences in
clinical presentation or treatment outcomes(Mayou, 1997). (see also Bryant et al., 1997; Hickling et al,
1998).

Claimants may exaggerate symptoms or face financial uncertainty during litigation, potentially leading to
malingering or exaggeration. The Litigation Stress Scale reveals a negative correlation with treatment
response, particularly in the number of healthcare appointments.

Forensic psychologists often observe litigants over-assessed and receive too many treatments without
benefit, causing them to spend excessive time and energy on health appointments, potentially
impacting insurance policies and suggesting that more healthcare isn't always beneficial.

Recommendations for Treatment

The aforementioned has an important bearing on another task of the expert, namely to give an opinion
on whether or not the claimant requires treatment for the residual psychological problems.

Once more, the decision to recommend treatment is rather random, depending on whether the residual
psychological problems are sufficient to warrant this, whether they qualify as a disorder, whether they
will remit in time without treatment, and whether they will indeed respond to treatment.

Chapter 7

 Perpetrators and Victim

 Factors contributing to crime (causes, consequences and prevention)

 Individuals and communities must address root causes of crime to prevent it. Understanding the
root causes of crime, which stem from adverse social, economic, cultural, and family conditions,
is crucial for promoting healthy development and respecting fellow citizens

 These are complex and interrelated, but can be summarized in three main categories:

 • Economic Factors/Poverty

 • Social Environment

 • Family Structures

 Economic Factors/Poverty

 In addition to lack of financial resources, poverty manifests itself in a lack of educational

opportunities, lack of meaningful employment options, poor housing, lack of hope and the
prejudice against persons living in poverty

 Social Environment

 Our social structure mirrors to citizens and communities what we value and how we set

 priorities. Social root causes of crime are: inequality, not sharing power, lack of support to
families and neighbourhoods, real or perceived inaccessibility to services, lack of leadership in
communities, low value placed on children and individual well-being, the overexposure to
television as a means of recreation.

 Family Structures

 Families are uniquely placed in contributing to raising healthy responsible members of society.
But the task of putting children first goes well beyond the family to include communities and
society. Dysfunctional family conditions contribute to future delinquency.

 These conditions include:

 • Parental inadequacy

 • Parental conflict

 • Parental criminality

 • Lack of communication (both in quality and quantity)

 • Lack of respect and responsibility

 • Abuse and neglect of children

 • Family violence

 Crime prevention must focus on improvements in all three areas.

 From Reaction to Prevention

 Crime is linked to children's community conditions, with reducing risk and building resilience
reducing crime. Addressing social, political, and economic issues within families is crucial for
children's long-term well-being and development into independent, healthy adults.

 The offender of tomorrow is often the vulnerable child of today.

 Vulnerable children are those at risk for significant and enduring social, emotional, or
behavioural problems. These children are more likely to be dependent on public resources over
the course of their development, particularly through the child welfare, social assistance,
corrections, or mental health service systems. All children are potentially vulnerable and may
develop emotional or behavioural problems when their own physical or emotional resources are
unable to meet the challenges of their social and physical environment.

 There are three levels of prevention:

 1. Primary Prevention

 Primary prevention efforts try to ensure the health of the community as a whole by attempting
to stop adverse conditions from developing in the first place. Programs which address parenting,
family support, adequate housing, etc. could all be considered primary prevention if they are
universally accessible and offered before any difficulties are identified.

 Primary prevention can be the most cost-effective method of dealing with a problem because it
can reduce costs in many different areas over the long term. Universal programs are only ever as
effective as their ability to include and support populations at risk.

 2. Secondary Prevention
 Secondary prevention attempts to stop a crime from occurring after certain "warning signs"
have appeared. An example might be programs, which focus on a specific problem or problem
group.

 Anti-social or delinquent behaviour (e.g., disrespect for school staff; spray-painting slogans on
buildings) can often be stopped through early intervention in problem situations before

 they become more serious and lead to a life of crime or victimization.

 3. Tertiary Prevention

 Sentencing a person to prison ensures that they will not commit a crime while serving their
sentence. This is crime prevention after the fact because the person is known to the community
and has already broken the law. While these measures ensure (for a time) that an offender
cannot commit another

 offense they cannot reverse the effects of the original crime.

 Fundamental to prevention is a commitment to the essentials of adequate care for all children.

 Preventative efforts strive to achieve the following goals:

 • Reduce the incidence of serious, long-term emotional and behavioural problems in all

 children.

 • Promote the optimal social, emotional, behavioural and cognitive development in children at
highest risk.

 • Strengthen the ability of communities to respond effectively to children and their families in
social and economic need.

 Successful prevention programs share many of the following characteristics:

 • Enhance children's mental health and promote a healthier environment for children.

 • Are freely accessible to all children

 • Do not single out or stigmatize individuals, families or communities

 • Focus on education, building competence and skills

 • Actively include families and communities in development and implementation

 Maximize the likelihood of positive outcomes and produce cost-savings when compared to

 Treatment

 Risk Factors
 Combining multiple risk factors increases crime probability. "Root cause" is not accurate, as a
cause-effect mindset makes it easy to assume risk factors lead to criminality. Poverty is often
linked to criminal behavior, but many don't. The data is supported by life-cycle studies in other
disciplines including health, education and social science. Research from studies in Europe,
Canada and the U.S. examined personal characteristics of convicted offenders, relationships
with family and peers, self reporting data, neighbourhood characteristics and other data to
come to four major conclusions:

 Occasional and Persistent Delinquents

 We need to distinguish between occasional and persistent offenders. For example, 81% of

 adolescents commit a criminal offence at some time during their adolescence (e.g. self-harm,
experimentation with drugs, shoplifting, etc.); 9% of adolescent offenders commit serious
offenses. In economically disadvantaged areas, 7% of men are responsible for over 50% of all

 offenses. Persistent offenders engage in criminal behaviour earlier and continue longer

 High Crime Areas

 Crime rates differ markedly within cities as well as different areas across Canada. For example,

 northern communities in Canada have substantially higher violent and property crimes than the
national average. Police forces everywhere can point to neighbourhoods and urban areas which
experience higher crime rates.

 The Criminal Justice System

 There are many regional and area differences: dismissal of charges, reporting criteria for crime,

 media attention to certain crimes are not consistent across Canada. In Pakistan, it can also be
difficult to obtain an accurate picture of crime because many criminal offenses are not reported.

 Conversely, policies of zero tolerance in schools can significantly "increase" reported crime

 statistics, and public perception of the problem.

 Multiple Factors

 Risk factors combine to make the probability of criminal behaviour more likely. No one variable
should be considered in isolation. Following are the major risk factors supported in research.
Many persistent offenders begin their involvement in anti-social activities before and during

 adolescence. Age alone is not a risk factor. It must be looked at in context of poverty, racism,
family violence, parental and community neglect and problems at school. Research into
persistent offending has emphasized the need to focus prevention efforts on early childhood
 years. Birth to age 5 is the most critical time for healthy social and emotional development.

 Gender

 While crime rates for females have increased in recent years, males are much more likely to be
involved in crime. The research points out that crime usually involves aggression, risk taking an
destructive behaviour.

 Social and Economic Disadvantage

 In Canada, aboriginals represent a disproportionate number of those incarcerated. This

situation, in reality, is the consequence of people being kept at a social and economic
disadvantage. These factors combined, greatly increase the risk of turning to crime.

 POOR FAMILY INCOME AND HOUSING often lead to poor parental supervision, marital
disharmony, inconsistent care, poor nutrition, chronic health issues, poor school performance,
and psychological disorders. Pregnancy stress negatively impacts development, neurological
problems, and behavior disturbances.

 Persistent Unemployment

 Many studies find that a high number of youth and adults admitted to correctional facilities are
unemployed. Persistent unemployment often creates a sense of despair, particularly amongst
youth and can provoke angry expression including theft, substance and alcohol abuse, as well as
child and family violence. Similarly, unemployed men released after terms of incarceration are
more likely to re-offend. Failure in school and an unstable job situation can combine to continue
an individual's involvement in crime.

 Home Environment

 There is a direct link between the abuse of women and child abuse and future delinquent

 behaviour. This link is well researched and documented and shows that over 50% of violent
young offenders witnessed wife abuse in the home. Physically abused children are five times
more likely to be violent adults. Sexually abused children are eight times more likely to be
sexually violent as adults.

 PHYSICAL OR SEXUAL ABUSE

 It has been estimated that up to 80% of incarcerated males have experienced some form of
physical or sexual abuse as a child.

 Lack of parental supervision, parental rejection and lack of parent-child involvement are
consistent indicators of delinquent behaviour.

 INEFFECTIVE PARENTING
  encourages youth to associate with peers who are involved in criminal activities. At the risk of
oversimplifying a complex problem, research suggests that there is a direct link between
dysfunctional parenting and the tendency for the youth to associate with delinquent peers.

 TRUANCY AND LOW ATTENDANCE

 As children, offenders are less successful in school, have lower attendance rates and are more
likely to leave school early than their peers. Early school leavers experience many difficulties, the
most obvious being unemployment or under-employment. Canadian studies show that 40%

 of federal inmates have a learning disability which remained undetected throughout their

 childhood.

Substance Abuse:

 Alcohol and substance abuse are often associated with criminal behaviour. Many offenders are
under the influence of drugs or alcohol when offenses are committed. Regular alcohol use
during adolescence can lead to higher conviction rates in adulthood. To a lesser extent, research
speaks of the influence of television and other multi-media on the behaviour of children. There
is also some evidence that there are links between diet and violent behaviour.

Chapter 8

 Juvenile Delinquency

 Juvenile delinquency refers to youths between 11 to 18 years having contact with police and
court officials for law-violating behaviour.

 The large and rather scattered body of research has identified different variables that place
individual at risk factors for delinquency. Individual delinquent behaviour during adolescence
and adulthood can be predicted from both family characteristics and environmental
characteristics.

 It is suggested that ineffective and poor parental supervision is a key risk factor among family
characteristics, whereas association with delinquent peers is a common risk factor among
environmental characteristics. When both parents and peers are supportive, adolescents
perform best. However, studies suggest that peer influence is four times more potent than
parental influence on substance use. Similarly, studies have consistently reported that rates of
delinquency and substance use are all higher within adolescents than among adults and during
adolescence, serious delinquency reaches a peak and is more frequent among males than
females.

 Theories Related to Juvenile Delinquency

 It has been suggested that each theory of delinquency has focused on a limited set of factors;
therefore, there is no adequate theory of delinquency. Recently, a number of developmental
theories and models have been suggested, based on the knowledge accumulated by
longitudinal, cross-sectional and experimental studies of antisocial behaviour.

 Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime

 Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory is held up as the first type of developmental theory of
delinquency, and it proposes that people have different capacities to resist temptation. It
explains that why not all boys who face the same opportunity for deviant behaviour become
delinquent. Self- control is the central concept of the theory. According to the theory, poor self-
control is the product of poor and inappropriate child-rearing practices. The theory proposes
that those individuals who have strong self-control they resists criminal opportunities more
often than those who have weak self-control. The theory further suggests that those individuals
who have strong self-control resist criminal opportunities more often than those who have weak
self-control.

 Developmental pathways model by Loeber (1988, 1990, and 1991)

 Loeber’s Developmental pathways model (1988, 1990, and 1991) is the second type of theory
suggesting different paths leading to different types of criminal behaviour in adolescence and
adulthood. He identified three types of adult offenders: versatile, exclusive property offenders
and exclusive substance abusers. He further suggested that these offenders can be
differentiated based on the type of behavioural problems they faced in their childhood; the
onset age of these behavioural problems; the progression rate towards criminal behaviour and
the probability of desisting from criminal behaviour. Moffitt (1993) and Patterson et al. (1989)
suggested similar models. These developmental path models emphasize different risk factors, at
different ages, depending upon which developmental path a child assumed to be following.

 Cumulative risk model (Coie and Jacobs, 1993; Yoshikawa, 1994)

 The third type of theoretical framework focused on the cumulative risk factors model for diverse
disorders is the Cumulative risk model Based on the findings of longitudinal studies
(emphasizing more than one risk factor), this model suggests complex interaction among early
risk factors, among later disorders and between risk factors and disorders.

 According to this model, careful study is essential to understand and prevent criminal behaviour
in terms of determining the role of external forces that are important in promoting the
individual’s willingness to break the law.

 The above theorists suggested that multiple factors such as social class, broken homes, age,
race, and urban or rural location are responsible for an individual’s criminal behaviour.
Sociologist theorists are criticized by other theorists, in that they are reluctant to acknowledge
 biological factors and individual traits in explaining crime. However, theorists who excessively
emphasize environmental factors are also criticized by many criminologists.

 Social learning perspective to understand criminal behaviour

 Sociological learning theories dominated criminology by the middle of the twentieth century
and remain dominant to date. These theories emphasize the importance of environmental
factors (to which individuals are exposed) in understanding criminal behaviour rather than
individual differences. These theories stated that multiple social factors such as family, school,
peer groups and community are conducive to crime and increase the likelihood of crime. These
theories have little or no emphasis on the individual differences concerning criminal behaviour
(Cullen & Agnew 1999).

 Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (1939)

 Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory argued that individuals become delinquent due to
their interaction with criminal others. Therefore, such associations may be used as indicators of
the basic causes of criminal behaviour. His theory further argued that an excessively favourable
definition of law-breaking is responsible for criminal behaviour.

 Differential Association theory is usually tested by examining the association between

delinquency and the delinquent’s peers. It is suggested that delinquent friends are the major
source of involvement in criminal behaviour. Studies such as those of examined adolescents
over time and suggested that association with delinquent peers has a causal effect on
delinquency and peer delinquency increases the likelihood of criminal behaviour. Although data
from different studies provided some support for the present theory. Differential Association
theory is criticized for insufficient definitions of favourable and unfavourable attitudes to crime.

 Another criticism is that Differential Association theory fails to explain the process by which
crime is learned and simply states that individuals learn criminal behaviour through developing a
definition favourable to crime by association with criminal others.

 Later on Aker (1966) comprehensively described the process by which individuals learn to be
involved in criminal behaviour (Cullen & Agnew 1999).

 Neutralization Theory (Sykes & Matza, 1957)

 Sykes and Matza (1957) postulated that individual learn both the techniques of committing
crime and ways to rationalize and justify their criminal acts. They further argued that crime is
influenced by multiple factors such as social class, race and broken homes and these factors
ultimately influence the individual to associate with others who present definitions favourable
to crime. An individual exposed to definitions favourable to crime in his early life more
frequently, for a long period of time, and from sources he likes and respects, is more likely to
engage in criminal behaviour.
 Most criminals try to neutralize their criminal acts by perceiving themselves as conventional
rather than criminal. Delinquents believe that delinquency is bad, but they justify their
delinquent acts by employing neutralization techniques. Those criminals who accept more
neutralization usually engage in more frequent delinquent acts because such rationalization
protects them from self-blame and help them to inflict their blame on others, afters committing
criminal acts. Consequently, by learning these neutralization techniques they become more
delinquent. Sykes and Matza explained five methods, offenders commonly used to justify or
excuse their criminal behaviour. These five techniques are: the denial of responsibility, the
denial of injury, the denial of victim, the condemnation of the condemners, and the appeal to
higher loyalties.

1. The denial of responsibility

Individuals justify their criminal acts by denying responsibility and claiming that the criminal act
was accidental. They may assert that the criminal act was due to the external forces and beyond
of their control, for reasons such as unloving parents, bad companions and slum
neighbourhood. Thus through denial of responsibility, individuals deflect the self-blame onto
others.
2. The denial of victim
The individual, despite accepting his responsibility for his deviant action, and admitting that his
deviant action involved injury and/or hurt, insists that the injury was not wrong in the light of
the circumstances, to neutralize the moral indignation of himself self and others. He claims that
the injury was not really an injury or similarly neutralizes his act by considering that his act was
deserved in term of retaliation and punishment. Thus, the delinquent transform himself into a
position of avenger and the victim is altered into a wrong-doer, for example vandalism as
revenge on an unfair teacher, or theft from the store owner, all might be hurts inflicted on a
transgressor, in the eyes of the offender.

3. The denial of injury

The second technique of neutralization focuses on the harm and injury involved in the
delinquent act. The individual uses this technique to neutralize the guilt, by rationalising that his
criminal act did not really cause any great harm. Thus the individual, by denial of injury, breaks
the link between his criminal act and its consequences.
4. The condemnation of the condemners
Delinquents use this technique to shift the focus of attention, from his own criminal act, towards
the motives and behaviour of those who disapprove of his violence. For example, an individual
justifies his blame stating that the police are corrupt, the teacher always shows favouritism, or
that society is the real criminal. However, the individual tries to resolve the conflict between his
own deviant desires and the reactions of others by attacking the others, and in this way tries to
neutralize his act by suppressing the immorality of his own behaviour.
5. The appeal to higher loyalties
By the logic of the last technique, an individual who commits illegitimate acts justifies his actions
by turning off his inner protest against that act. He neutralizes his act in terms of sacrificing the
demands of the larger society for the demands of smaller societies such as siblings, peers, and
the gang. Thus delinquent neutralizes his criminal act by employing these statements for
example, “I didn’t do it for myself”, “I couldn’t let my friend down”
Differential Association Theory (Akers, 1985)
Differential Association Theory (Akers, 1985) postulates that individual learn criminal behaviour
through criminal associations. This theory has been found to be well-fitting in the field of
criminology because it adequately explains the process of decision-making involved in the
establishment of cognitive, behavioural and motivational techniques that are important in the
commitment of criminal acts (Akers et al., 1979; Cullen & Agnew 1999). Akers suggested four
techniques: differential association, definition, differential reinforcement and imitation to
explain individual involvement in criminal behaviour.
1. Differential Association
Differential association refers to the process by which an individual is exposed to the different
circumstances that are favourable or unfavourable to legal or antisocial behaviour. Differential
association has both an interactional dimension and a normative dimension. Interactional
dimension refers to the direct association with others who engage in criminal behaviour. The
normative dimension refers to different patterns of norms and values to which the individual is
exposed through this association. The group to which the individual is exposed and from whom
he or she learns criminal behaviour are both primary and secondary. Primary groups include
family and friends, whereas secondary groups include those in the neighbourhood, churches,
and school. These have varying degrees of effect on the individual’s propensity to criminal and
delinquent behaviour
2. Definition
Definition refers to the individual’s own attitude or meanings attached to the given behaviour
and are consisted of individual’s own values, belief, and orientation that help individual to make
differentiation between good and evil, legal or illegal, moral or immoral (Cullen & Agnew 1999).
According to this, definitions can be both general and specific. General belief includes religious,
moral and other conventional values and norms that are favourable to society values and norms
and unfavourable to committing criminal acts. Specific definitions refer to an individual’s
particular acts or series of acts (Cullen & Agnew 1999). Thus the individual may believe that
stealing is morally bad and that he should obey the laws against stealing, but at the same time,
he violates the law against drug-taking and smoking marijuana, and perceives his act little wrong
by rationalizing that it is not that much bad to smoke marijuana.
The Differential Association theory further postulates that those individuals who have strong
attitudes and beliefs disapproving of anti-social acts are less likely to be involved in criminal
behaviour (Cullen & Agnew 1999). Conversely, the more one’s own attitude approves of anti-
social behaviour, the greater the chance of becoming involved in criminal behaviour.
Neutralization definitions favour the commission of criminal behaviour by justifying or excusing
it.
The Differential Association theory further postulates that those individuals who have strong
attitudes and beliefs disapproving of anti-social acts are less likely to be involved in criminal
behaviour (Cullen & Agnew 1999). Conversely, the more one’s own attitude approves of anti-
social behaviour, the greater the chance of becoming involved in criminal behaviour.
Neutralization definitions favour the commission of criminal behaviour by justifying or excusing
it.
3. Differential reinforcement
Differential reinforcement refers to the idea that people commence antisocial behaviour by
differential association with criminal friends and then they learn through differential
reinforcement how to attain rewards and avoid punishment as the actual or anticipated
consequences of particular criminal acts (Cullen & Agnew 1999).
4.Imitation
Imitation refers to the engagement in specific behaviour after observing similar behaviour in
others. Differential Association theory suggests that individuals learn criminal behaviour by
imitation.
Differential association (interaction and identity with different group) occurs first. Then these
groups provide a social environment in which the individual learns definitions through imitation
and thus he learns use of and abstinence from any substance. Therefore, these definitions are
learned by imitating other group members with whom the individual is associated. Furthermore,
the individual’s behaviour is reinforced by those other members of the group and once learning
take place, these definitions serve as discriminative stimuli for use of or abstinence from
substances.
Therefore, deviant behaviour can be expected to the extent that has been differentially
reinforced over conforming or of other deviant behaviour and is defined as desirable or
neutralized. Thus, the extent to which a given pattern is sustained by the combination or
reinforcing effect of the substance with social reinforcement; exposure to the model; definition
through association with drug-using peers; and by the degree to which it is not discouraged
through bad effects of the substance or disapproval by peers, parents and the law can
determine the progression from more frequent use into abuse

Spending Time with Delinquents and Criminal Behaviour

Spending time with delinquents is another important risk factor for delinquency. It is proposed
that adolescents, who have delinquent friends, spend a great deal of time with delinquent
friends, are more attached to them and have increased risk of engaging in delinquency.
Research has suggested that during adolescence, adolescents spend much time with their
friends and attribute great importance towards them. People are more likely to be influenced by
their friends during adolescence than at any other time in their lives.
This research has emphasized that spending time with delinquent friends is conducive to
delinquency. Moreover, when individuals spend more time with delinquent peers, they are
more reinforced by the group. Thus attachment to peer delinquents is important and enhances
the value of reinforcement by the group, consequently increasing the likelihood of imitating the
group behaviour.