Intermittent reinforcement and criminality.

Abstract

The learning theory concept of intermittent reinforcement was the focus of this investigation. It seemed reasonable that even though the offender was apprehended and punished, the criminal experiences his antisocial behavior relatively more rewarding than punishing. That is, a criminal's ratio of successfully completed crimes versus arrests might be fairly high. For the past four years at the conclusion of each research study this author has interviewed each inmate S in an attempt to determine the ratio of actual offenses that he has committed as compared to the number for which he has been arrested. The results of the interview, of course, were contingent upon the veracity of S. The questions concerning the extent of S's criminality were couched in the midst of a general personal history. If S's answers did not concur with his history in his record file, his ratio of criminaliry was not included. There were 169 Ss: 12 from the Chillicothe study (Persons, 1965), 41 from Fairfield School for Boys (Persons, 1966). SO from Training Institute of Central Ohio (Persons, 1968), and 36 from the Florida State Penitentiary. For 6 Ss interview replies did not coincide with their records, hence they were excluded. The small number of falsifications may be due to the fact that a large number of Ss had been psychotherapy patients of the author. Of the remaining 163 Ss only 14 claimed that they had not committed any offenses with which they had not been officially charged. That is, only 8.6% stated they had committed no more crimes than those for which they had been apprehended, while 91.4% admitted to violations for which they had not been caught. Each S's ratio was the number of stated actual crimes compared with his number of recorded arrests. The mean ratio of actual offenses to arrests for each institution was: Chillicothe 5 :1, Fairfield 11:1, TIC0 8:1, Florida 6:l. Thus, the admitted schedule of reinforcement was quite high. The higher mean ratio for the Fairfield sample probably can be accounted for by two factors: the bravado of the younger Ss and because most of them were arrested for car theft, which is a more repeatable offense. These 163 Ss from four different institutions, both state and federal, have experienced a greater amount of success than failure for their criminal behavior. Even if each of the samples contains a certain amount of exaggeration and mis-estimation, the applicability of intermittent reinforcement can still be argued because the ratio represents S's perceived success in criminal activity.