The Psychology of Criminal Conduct
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (PCC) is a social learning approach to criminal behavior that posits that
criminal behavior is a combination of personality, social learning, and situational factors. This approach
assumes that although the causes of crime cannot be scientifically pinpointed, they may be inferred by
examining the correlates of criminal behavior. PCC regards the major correlates of criminal behavior as 1)
antisocial attitudes, 2) antisocial associates, 3) history of antisocial behavior, and 4) personality factors. These
correlates are known as “the big four.” They are used by criminologists and forensic psychology professionals
when conducting risk assessments. These assessments are used to identify individuals likely to commit
crimes. Evaluating risk is one of the major focuses of PCC, along with the treatment of high-risk offenders.
Post an evaluation of whether or not the psychology of criminal conduct (PCC) is useful for understanding and
explaining criminal behavior. Justify your position using specific examples and concepts from the resources or
your research.
Reference
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. (2017). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Chapter 4, “Origins of Criminal Behavior: Learning and Situational Factors” (pp. 83-110)
nds causally on the existence of other beings (e.g., our parents), God’s existence does not depend causally on the existence of any other being. Further, on Malcolm’s view, the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. Here is his argument for this important claim. Either an unlimited being exists at world W or it doesn’t exist at world W; there are no other possibilities. If an unlimited being does not exist in W, then its nonexistence cannot be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature of W; accordingly, there is no contingent feature of W that explains why that being doesn’t exist. Now suppose, per reductio, an unlimited being exists in some other world W’. If so, then it must be some contingent feature f of W’ that explains why that being exists in that world. But this entails that the nonexistence of an unlimited being in W can be explained by the absence of f in W; and this contradicts the claim that its nonexistence in W can’t be explained by reference to any causally contingent feature. Thus, if God doesn’t exist at W, then God doesn’t exist in any logically possible world. A very similar argument can be given for the claim that an unlimited being exists in every logically possible world if it exists in some possible world W; the details are left for the interested reader. Since there are only two possibilities with respect to W and one entails the impossibility of an unlimited being and the other entails the necessity of an unlimited being, it follows that the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. All that is left, then, to complete Malcolm’s elegant version of the proof is the premise that the existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible – and this seems plausible enough. The existence of an unlimited being is logically impossible only if the concept of an unlimited being is self-contradictory. Since we have no reason, on Malcolm’s view to think the existence of an unlimited being is self-contradictory, it follows that an unlimited being, i.e., God, exists. Here’s the argument reduced to its basic elements: God is, as a conceptual matter (that is, as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary. Notice that Malcolm’s version of the argument does not turn on the claim that necessary existence is a great-making property. Rather, as we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there are only two possibilities with respect to the existence of an unlimited being: either it is necessary or it is impo