Running Head: LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER

Learning Theory and Serial Murder:

Focusing on Aker’s Differential Association Theory

Marijeanne Santina

California State Monterey Bay University

Introduction:
LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 1

Learning Theory & Serial Murder

Understanding criminal behavior is a multidisciplinary challenge which has produced

many theories in hopes of gaining insight into individual's criminal behavior.Tittle finds that

there are six major micro-level theory categories: learning, personal defects, rational choice,

identity, strain, and control.There is no ultimate approach to understanding deviant behavior all

six major divisions of micro level crime theory provide insight and understanding on criminality.

When examining the pathway to serial murder, learning theory can be used to explain the events

that lead to serial killings. Serial murders are viewed as the most heinous crimes a person can

commit in American society and is considered deviant because of the brutality that is usually

linked to serial murder.

The research by B.F. Skinner on operant conditioning has a major influence on social

learning theory. Learning theory originates with Sutherland’s theory in 1939 on differential

association he first started this theory in 1939 and it was refined in 1943 in the book Principles of

Criminology. Sutherland focuses on the criminality on the micro level although the division

between macro analysis and micro is ambiguous in his early work, “Differential social

organization should explain the crime rate, while differential association should explain the

criminal behavior of the person”(Sutherland pp.101). The book also establishes that differential

association theory has many critics and is difficult to support empirically. Sutherlands original

theory has been extended by Ronald Akers who was able to study reinforcement and operant

conditioning as a means of understanding criminal behavior. Behaviors are reinforced through

consequences and reactions. If a behavior is reinforced negatively then the frequency of the

behavior will drop, if the behavior is rewarded then that behavior will increase for the subject to

get the reward.In the 20th Century it appears that research from this perspective is at a standstill
LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 2

with progress stopping at Aker’s expansion of Sutherland’s theory. Ronald Akers contemporary

theory expands on the punishment and rewards system by stating that people can anticipate

future rewards and reactions.

Social Policy:

The formal requirements for being classified as a serial killer is more than three kills,with

the same method of killing by the murder(s). In the United States there is now a requirement for

serial murders to be identified by the implementation of the requirement varies from state to

state. In the article, Serial Murder, written by the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit established a

common list of motives for serial homicide which are: anger, financial gain, sexual, power,

ideology, and psychosis. Even with these established motives it is important to make it clear that

a person commits serial murder because they want to. Media is enforcer of acceptable social

behavior in the cases of serial murders, the killers are often dehumanized and labeled as

monsters. This reaction shows societal disapproval and shunning of the killers behavior. In the

31 states with a death penalty it is a common response to serial murders, and has been the fate of

many convicted serial killers. There is no behavior reform programs offered in United States

social policy for serial murder, the most common step taken by law is to hold the murder

accountable for their crimes. After thorough research there is no reform or support for serial

killers they are viewed as human horrors that society rather destroy than attempt to recover their

humanity.

Discussion & Analysis:

In the1960’s youth were rebelling, marching for civil rights, and social revolution was

occurring but the Manson murders ended an era and scared many people. Charles Manson was a

standard psychopath who had followers who followed his path by learning from his behaviors
LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 3

and ideals. Labeling theory, general strain theory, and social learning theory are used in the

article to explain the social environments that contributed to individual’s deviant behavior and

fellowship of Manson. The method in this article is a case study of the murders, there are

positive to this type of study it’s not artificial or contrived and goes around ethics. But there are

also negative aspects to this method since it cannot be replicated, there are limited primary

sources and accounts. The article focuses on Manson and three of his followers Watson,

Fromme, and Van Houten, who were chosen because of their documented childhood, and their

willingness to kill for Manson. “Social learning theory is a reformulation of Sutherland’s

differential association theory that is more amenable to empirical verification.” (Atchison &

Heide pp.784). In Aker’s theory there are four principal themes: Differential association,

differential reinforcement/punishment, definitions, and imitation. A person’s willingness to

engage in deviant behavior depends on the association a individual has with crime. Many believe

they will be rewarded at a higher level for committing a crime than they will be punished for.

People are influenced by role models, or appreciation towards people that act deviantly. In the

specific case of Manson learning theory can be used to understand his pathway to crime. He was

influenced at a young age by living at the Gibault Home for Boys who taught him deviance. His

peers didn’t conform to societies authority and praised each other for deviant behavior. He had

no family, no structure, no authority that could hold him responsible. After he escaped his boys

home he stayed with a friend and his uncle who paid the boys to commit “jobs” for him, usually

they were all illegal, criminal jobs. The act of economically rewarding a child for committing

crimes lends a bigger positive association of crime for children, in this case Charles Manson.

Due to Manson’s criminally infused life once he had the farm with Family members living there

full time they were normalized to the rejection of authority and praise of criminality. Atchison’s
LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 4

and Heidi's article shows a real account of serial murder examined under the lense of learning

theory.

In Tittle, Antonaccio, and Botchkovar article, a cross cultural experiment is formulated to

test learning theory and crime in Greece, Ukraine, and Russia. Akers’ is a main theorist used to

understand the results from the experiment.Social learning tends to have an affect on whether a

person engages in deviant behavior, in many ways it depends on whether they have a cognitive

definition of consequences to their actions. Results support Akers’ theory because of the,

“specific degrees of reinforcement are found to have similar consequences in producing crime-

favorable definitions in all three sites”(Tittle, Antonaccio, & Botchkovar,pp.881). Although this

article does not directly address serial murder, it is still a relevant article because it is an example

of empirical research using Aker's theory on criminal deviance. One of the questions in the self-

report survey is,“If tomorrow you were to [commit each offense], how likely is it that you would

suffer some negative consequences besides reactions from friends and family or legal penalties

(such as losing your job,suffering retaliation from a victim, or getting in an accident)?” (Tittle,

Antonaccio, & Botchkovar.pp.890) If this question was asked to a serial killer the answer would

be an extremely low chance of negative consequence. Serial killers have a history of favorably

characterizing criminal behavior because of their continuous exposure to it. The cross-cultural

examination of attitudes towards criminality introduces a complex question, why does the United

States have a higher recorded amount of serial killers than other countries. There is not enough

research on the topic of serial killers that accurately answer that question but with greater

empirical research,like this article, an answer could be found.

The Knight’s article it focuses is a interdispicipanry approach to analyzing serial killer

behaviors.Object relations theories focusing on the self-esteem of individuals and the role
LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 5

narcissism plays in serial murder is the major theoretical framework of this article. Although it is

said that these theories have not been used in empirical research on the subject of serial killing.

Society views serial murders as the maximum capacity of inhumanity the behaviors displayed

are beyond normal rational concepts of humanity and society. Many theorized that such behavior

is due to a predisposition to violence whether that is biologically, environmentally or is an

individual's’ personality. The article has a main section on sexually motivated serial killers who

have a history of childhood crime and violence. They often come from an abusive family or a

shattered home, which leads them towards violent acts on others.

Knight heavily focuses on the role of a caretaker has on the development of a child.It is

important to note that most serial killers are not suffering from a psychotic break. Instead, they

are escalating their childhood deviant behaviors into adulthood. This article uses psychological

theories to describe the pathway to serial killing as Aker’s theory can be applied too. The article

states that serial killers imitate their past abusers, which follows Akers’ theory, and they treat

their victims in the same way they were treated during a point of their life. Serial murderers

know the difference between right and wrong but their urges overpower their morals.

In conclusion the societal reaction is very harsh to serial murderers, but there is also a

sense of wonder when names like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and John Wayne Gacy come up

in conversation. Most people can not understand the behaviors of serial killers and although they

are disgusted by the crimes there is a fascinatin in the deviance. Using Akers’ theory to examine

the act of serial murder makes me want to focus not on the reaction to the killings but to the

adolescent system of rewards and punishments that is assisting in forming these killers. The

articles all agree that positive role models such as, having a healthy home life, and not engaging

in deviant behavior as a child are positive effects for the development of a child. Laws and social
LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 6

policies don’t need to change according to the articles and Aker it is the way we raise our

children.The value of children and attitude towards having children in the U.S. is what needs

social reform. All three articles show evidence that stresses the importance of positive

reinforcement of behaviors by society and can be further researched to completely understand

the life an individual leads that results in serial murder.

References

Atchison, A. J., & Heide, K. M. (2010). Charles Manson and the Family. International Journal

of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,55(5), 771-798.

LEARNING THEORY AND SERIAL MURDER 7

Akers, Ronald L.1998. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and

Deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit 2. (2005). Serial Murder. United States. FBI

Burgess, R., & Akers, R. (1966). A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal

Behavior. Social Problems,14(2), 128-147. doi:10.2307/798612

Jones, S.(2013). Criminology Fifth Edition. Oxford: United Kingdom.Oxford University Press.

Knight, Zelda. (2006). Some thought on Psychological Roots of the Behavior of Serial Killers as

Narcissists. Social Behavior and Personality,34(10), 1189-1206.

Sutherland, E.(1992).The Principles of Criminology. Maryland: United States. General Hall

Publishing.

Tittle, C. R., Antonaccio, O., & Botchkovar, E. (2012). Social Learning, Reinforcement and

Crime: Evidence from Three European Cities. Social Forces, 90(3), 863-890.