2.2.2: Cognitive & Cognitive-Behavioral Theories of Criminal Behavior

Cognitive theories explain criminal behavior by examining faulty thinking patterns and decision-making processes. Rather than focusing on personality alone, cognitive theories emphasize how thought patterns shape behavior.

The behavioral component of cognitive-behavioral psychology focuses on how rewards and punishment shape behavior—a process called conditioning. Reinforcement conditions through rewards/relief: positive reinforcement occurs through receiving a positive stimulus, while negative reinforcement is the removal a negative stimulus. Consistent reinforcement should result in an increase in the reinforced behavior. Punishment is the opposite: positive punishment occurs through receiving a negative stimulus, while negative punishment involves having a positive stimulus taken away. Consistent punishment should result in a decrease in the punished behavior (See Table below for some examples).

Positive and Negative Conditioning	Positive and Negative Conditioning	Positive and Negative Conditioning
	Add Stimulus	Remove Stimulus
More	Positive Reinforcement	Negative Reinforcement
Likelihood behavior will repeat	A stimulus is added to increase a desired behavior (e.g., a candy) – I am more likely to do this behavior again.	A stimulus is removed to increase a desired behavior (e.g., my parents take away my electronic device at the dinner table so that I eat my dinner) – I am more likely to do this behavior again.
Less	Positive Punishment A stimulus is added to decrease an undesired behavior (e.g., spanking) – I am less likely to do this behavior again.	Negative Punishment A stimulus is removed to decrease an undesired behavior (e.g., losing electronic privileges) – I am less likely to do this behavior again.

Criminal behavior is more likely to re-occur when crime leads to a positive outcome (e.g., cash, drugs) or removes a current negative stimulus (e.g., the stress of not being able to feed your family). Punishment is meant to reduce criminal behavior by administering a negative stimulus (e.g., incarceration in an unpleasant space) or removing a positive stimulus (e.g., loss of access to friends and family).

In real life, perfectly consistent reinforcement and punishment is rarely achievable. Intermittent conditioning occurs when the same behavior has unpredictable results. For example, the behavior “attempt to rob a corner store” will be repeated many times if experience tells the individual there is a higher chance of a reward than a punishment and that most of the time there is a neutral outcome. Behaviors that are reinforced intermittently are the hardest to eliminate (Skinner, 1963).

The cognitive aspect of cognitive-behavioral psychology examines how reinforcement and punishment turn into thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes that maintain and justify behavior. Our thoughts are impacted by witnessing what happens to others as well as our own experiences.

If antisocial/criminal behavior provides reliable or intermittent rewards and/or relief, a person can develop rationalized antisocial attitudes. Bonta and Andrews (2017) summarize key links between antisocial attitudes and antisocial behavior. First, offenders rationalize their actions using techniques of neutralization, which involve minimizing the consequences of their actions, denying responsibility for their actions, disparaging or blaming the victim, or claiming their actions were justified (Sykes & Matza, 1957; Ward, 2000). Antisocial attitudes are more likely to be acted upon when individuals are surrounded by others with similar perspectives and with whom they identify. In other words, associating with others that have similar antisocial attitudes makes acting on these attitudes more likely. Finally, there is a rejection of convention. Conventions are the typical values of a particular society, such as valuing work, education, and legal institutions (e.g., the police and the courts).

Many of the principles of cognitive-behavioral psychology have been established through WEIRD research—exclusively drawing research participants from university students from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic societies (Henrich et al., 2010). As a result, it remains to be seen if findings can be generalized to the wider population and across cultures. Similarly, in Canadian psychological criminology studies, participants are often White offenders, raising doubts about findings’ applicability to female offenders, Indigenous offenders, and other diverse groups (Hart, 2016).

Both individual and cognitive-behavioral approaches assume that pro-social, conventional behavior is the preferred and rational path forward for people, leading to a successful and law-abiding life. Theorists assign personality traits and values such as adaptive or maladaptive and rational or irrational. The assumption that behavior that upholds the status quo is adaptive and rational ignores findings indicating that the behavior of individuals from marginalized groups has significantly different positive and negative conditioning than groups that have easier access to wealth, education, and opportunity. For individuals who have experienced surveillance by police, are threatened and powerless during police encounters, and are significantly more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for minor crimes, negative perceptions of police and the justice system may make the rejection of convention a rational decision (Nordberg et al., 2018).