American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 392–409 | Cite as

Cause or Catalyst: The Interaction of Real World and Media Crime Models

  • Ray SuretteEmail author


The effect of exposure to media content containing criminal models is unresolved with two perspectives currently competing. One perspective perceives media provided models of crime functioning as direct causes of criminality or as crime triggers; the other sees media crime models serving as crime forming catalysts or as crime rudders. A study of copycat crime provided an opportunity to simultaneously weigh evidence for both models by examining the comparative roles of real world versus media provided crime models. Data obtained from the anonymous surveys of 574 male and female correctional inmates was employed. Results show that individual offenders, particularly young males, exposed to both real world and media crime model sources were at higher risk for copying criminal behaviors. While both real world and media sources contributed to predicting past inmate copycat behaviors, they also interacted significantly. With the additional enhancement of real world models, the media appear to form crime by providing instructional models to inclined individuals. The results did not support strong direct media exposure effects and the model of media as stylistic catalysts for crime was more supported. The media remains best perceived as a rudder for crime more than as a trigger.


Copycat crime Crime models Interaction effects Media catalyst Criminogenic media 


  1. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Athens, GA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. (2006). The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 37–76). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, D., & Bland, M. (2003). Interaction revisited: The difference between two estimates. British Medical Journal, 326, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C., Gentile, D., & Buckley, K. (2007). Violent video game effects on children: Theory, research, and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Surette, R. (2002). Self-reported copycat crime among a population of serious and violent juvenile offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 46–69.Google Scholar
  6. Surette, R. (2011). Media, crime, and criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Surette, R. (2012). Estimating copycat crime prevalence: A research note. Orlando, Fl: University of Central Florida Department of Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Beaver, K., Shutt, J., Boutwell, B., Ratchford, M., Roberts, K., & Barnes, J. (2009). Genetic and environmental influences on levels of self-control and delinquent peer affiliation: results from a longitudinal sample of adolescent twins. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown v. VMA. (2011). retrieved 6/13/2012 from:
  11. Bruinsma, G. (1989). Scaling and reliability problems in self-reported property crime. In M. Klein (Ed.), Cross-National Research in Self-Reported Crime and Delinquency (pp. 131–151). Boston: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruinsma, B. (1992). Differential association theory reconsidered: An extension and its empirical test. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callanan, V., & Rosenberger, J. (2011). Media and public perceptions of the police: Examining the impact of race and personal experience. Policing and Society, 21, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, A. (1999, May 31) “Criminals As Copycats” N.Y.: Time.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, C. J. (2009). Media violence effects: Confirmed truth, or just another X-File? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9(2), 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferguson, C. J., & Dyck, D. (2012). Paradigm change in aggression research: The time has come to retire the General Aggression Model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., & Smith, S. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Garza, A., & Jerabeck, J. (2012). A longitudinal test of video game violence effects on dating violence, aggression and bullying: A 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46, 141–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The influence of family, peers, depression and media violence. Journal of Pediatrics, 155(6), 904–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The Public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154(5), 759–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisch, S. (2002). Vast wasteland or vast opportunity? Effects of educational television on children’s academic knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 397–426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Freedman, J. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 96(2), 227–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.96.2.227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression.: Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving experiences: Understanding television’s influences and effects. Luton: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  25. Grimes, T., Anderson, J., & Bergen, L. (2008). Media violence and aggression: Science and ideology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Haridakis, P. (2002). Viewer characteristics, exposure to television violence, and aggression. Media Psychology, 4, 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heller, M., & Polsky, S. (1976). Studies in violence and television. New York: American Broadcasting Company.Google Scholar
  28. Hendrick, G. (1977). When TV is a school for criminals. TV Guide, January 29, 10-14.Google Scholar
  29. Junger-Tas, J., & Marshall, I. (1999). The self-report methodology in crime research. Crime and Justice, 25, 291–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazur, J. M. (2006). Learning and behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Newburn, T. (1994). Young offenders and the media: Viewing habits and preferences. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Nizza, M. (April 18, 2007, 9:05 am). Updates on Virginia Tech. downloaded 5.30.2012 from
  33. Park, J., Essex, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., Armstrong, J., Klein, M., & Goldsmith, H. (2005). Relational and overt aggression in middle childhood: early child and family risk factors. Early Educational Development, 16, 233–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pease, S., & Love, C. (1984). The Prisoner’s Perspective of Copycat Crime. Cincinnati, Ohio: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology.Google Scholar
  35. Perez-Pena, R. (1995). How-to Film May Have Inspired Subway Attack. New York Times ServiceGoogle Scholar
  36. Pratt, T., Cullen, F., Sellers, C., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T., Daigle, L., Fearn, N., & Gau, J. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 765–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rowe, D., & Farrington, D. (1997). The familial transmission of criminal convictions. Criminology, 35, 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rubin, A. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Savage, D. (2011, June 28). Supreme Court strikes down California video game law. Los Angeles Times, Retrieved 6/02/2012 from:
  41. Savage, J. (2004). Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? A methodological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99–128.Google Scholar
  42. Savage, J. (2008). The role of exposure to media violence in the etiology of violent behavior: A criminologist weighs in. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 1123–1136.Google Scholar
  43. Sutherland, E. (1947). Principles of criminology. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  44. Tarde, G. (1903). The laws of imitation. translated by Elsie Clews parsons. N.Y. Henry Holt and Company reprint 1962.Google Scholar
  45. Tarde, G. (1912). Penal philosophy. Translated by Rapelje Howell (1912 by Little, Brown, and Co.). Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith reprint 1968.Google Scholar
  46. Thornberry, T., & Krohn, M. (2000). The Self-Report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (pp. 33–83). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice (182411).Google Scholar
  47. Walters, L. (2011). Illinois and Louisiana Video Game Laws ruled Unconstitutional. Retrieved 6/02/2012 from
  48. Warr, M. (1993). Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology, 31, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations