On Modeling Theory

In response to this lengthy and good article on Combat Training, Autopilot: "You honestly don't know you're doing it" by the esteemed Lt. Col. Dave Grossman...  

I think that there is much to be said for Modeling Theory, though I disagree with Lt. Col. Dave Grossman about laying the blame at "psychological conditioning" of video games.  Since before the Roman circuses, we have had violent games and displays, and children have played some antagonist/protagonist game of violence (Cops vs. Robbers, Cowboys vs. Indians, Empire vs. Jedi) for thousands of years.  I do not think that creating more realistic games necessarily creates a breakdown in reality that would cause someone to no longer be able to determine reality and to murder.

I don't find it that surprising, as Lt. Col. Grossman did, that a 14-yr old could score 8 hits with a .22 pistol, since there is virtually no recoil on a .22, and they can be very accurate, particularly at man-sized targets at room distance.

What I find more compelling is the explanation offered by Tarde of learned behavior, particularly imitation and suggestion, though I would modify his second law of imitation.  Where Tarde stated that imitation moves from the top down, I would think it more accurately is stated that imitation models the behavior of people we respect and would like to be.  That may not always be the bigger or wealthier, it could be the bad-boy rebel or goth, particularly in youth who discard the model of parents and seek rebellious peers to imitate.  I think Tarde's statement of replacement is spot-on, since every generation believes they invented sex, despite their own existence providing evidence to the contrary.  Behavior theory, as espoused by Skinner, also explains much about criminality, and is closely tied to the attachment theory of Bowlby, as both are related to positive reinforcements. I have a need, I reach a crisis of need, the need is met, and I feel love.  Or, the need is not met, and I feel unloved by that person.

Truthfully, I believe that you have all three theories operating and active in the formative years of a child.  The parent models behavior that demonstrate appropriate behavior (c.f. Bobo Doll experiment of Bandura).  The child learns hostility and aggression, or positive traits like sharing, showing affection, and good manners by modeling their parent.  They also will have the behavior theory of rewards and punishments, regardless if they are raised by parents that use discipline or parents that do not.  All children will be raised in an environment where they will observe the interaction with an authority figure, and the keeping or breaking of rules, and then the consequences of that behavior.  Finally, attachment to an authority figure that meets a need creates a bond of love and affection and feelings of security (where provided).  From that bond of affection will come deeper meaning to modeling theory and behavior theory of rewards and punishments, reinforcing both.  Where attachment is broken, and an attachment disorder is created, that will create a lack of empathy and violence as the child (and later adult) seeks unusual and atypical ways of gaining acceptance or meeting their needs.  They may suppress success, shun attachments, and punish those seeking attachments, creating cycles of violence.

I think you cannot divorce those 3 theories, because they are inextricably linked through child development that will teach someone patterns that I think are significant in the creation (or prevention) of criminal behavior.