The Development Of Criminal Social Identity Essay
The development of societal individuality has been a beginning of great involvement to psychologists, nevertheless much research has been directed at the development of the societal ego, that is, the ego defined by one ‘s rank of societal groups such as gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, faith, and sub-cultural groups. The purpose of this paper is to see development of condemnable societal individuality looking from psycho-social position, the ego defined by rank of anti-social or condemnable groups such as packs or little non-organized condemnable groups. The article starts with an account of the significance and function of individuality as societal psychological construct introduced by Social Identity Theory ( Tajfel and Turner, 1979 ) and Self-Categorization Theory ( Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987 ) , bespeaking its multidimensional nature. The staying parts of the article are organized around the application of Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory to development of condemnable societal individuality, bespeaking indispensable function of dysfunctional household, anti-social equals and stored representations of condemnable important others in memory. Finally, the last portion describes multiple societal individualities stressing pack rank and the procedure of how condemnable behavior may switch as societal context and societal individuality displacement.
Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theory
One theoretical attack in which societal comparings occupy a indispensable topographic point is Social Identity Theory ( Tajfel and Turner, 1979 ) , and its more updated account, Self-Categorization Theory ( Turner et al. , 1987 ) . Harmonizing to Social Identity Theory, persons ‘ perceptual experiences of, and attitudes toward, in-group and out-group members finally develop from their demand to individuality with and belong to groups that are comparatively superior, as agencies of heightening their degree of self-esteem. The consequence of these procedures is that persons perceive other group members to be similar to themselves and demo penchant in their attitudes and behaviors toward them, whereas out-group members are perceived to be dissimilar from in-group members and to posses less favorable qualities, and therefore they can be discriminated against.
Turner ‘s ( 1982 ) differentiation between personal and societal individuality illustrates the beginning of Self-Categorization Theory. Personal individuality is defined as self-definition of alone single in footings of interpersonal or intra-group distinctions ( “ I ” or “ me ” versus “ you ” ) , whereas societal individuality means self-definition as a similar group member in footings of in-group – out-group distinctions ( “ we ” or “ us ” versus “ they ” or “ them ” ) . The theory was so developed in greater item by Turner et Al. ( 1987 ) who pointed out that Social Categorization Theory specifies the ancestors and effects of both personal and societal individuality. Therefore, it can offer accounts for both single behavior as guided by personal individuality and group behavior guided by societal individuality.
Harmonizing to Self-Categorization Theory, both personal and societal individuality develop from self-categorizations, which are:
“ cognitive groupings of oneself and some category of stimulation as the same… in contrast to some other category of stimulation ” ( Turner et al. , 1987, p. 44 ) .
The theory suggests that individuality saliency is a combined map of persons ‘ preparedness to follow a peculiar individuality and the grade to which that individuality is accommodated as a important self-definition within a specified societal model. Readiness to follow a specific individuality depends on persons ‘ universal rules, altering motivations, currant aims, former experiences and so forth. For illustration, a former experience of being ignored because of peculiar group rank likely lessening person ‘s preparedness to sort oneself in footings of the corresponding societal individuality, if single wants to get away from farther mistreatment. However, if one ‘s present purpose was to pull public attending to peculiar mistreatment, preparedness for such self-definition should increase. Furthermore, preparedness to follow a specific individuality can be influenced by the comparative strengths of one ‘s demands for assimilation or distinction ( Brewer, 1991 ) . For illustration, striplings in big anon. vicinity may wish to fall in a local felon group to accomplish a noticeable individuality, whereas in condemnable group new member may wish to absorb and intermix in with the remainder in order non to go an foreigner.
The saliency of personal individuality is constructed in the same manner as a combined map of preparedness ( e.g. , a high demand for peculiarity ) and tantrum. However, the important differentiation lies in the effects of personal versus societal individuality saliency. The outstanding personal individuality should stress the perceptual experience of single differences and intra-individual similarity or consistence. A outstanding societal individuality, nevertheless, is supposed to better the perceptual experience of ego as similar to, or even indistinguishable with, other in-group members and as diverse from out-group members, who are perceived as extremely similar to each other.
It is the mechanism of depersonalisation, related to a outstanding societal individuality, or personalization, associated with a outstanding personal individuality, that is responsible for group behaviour or individualistic behavior, correspondingly. This procedure of depersonalisation specifies a displacement from personal to societal individuality which should non be confused with a loss of individuality – a province that has been referred to as deindividuation ( Zimbardo, 1970 ) . This procedure non merely depersonalizes self-perception but besides transforms self-conception and assimilates all facets of one ‘s attitudes, feelings, and behaviors to the in-group theoretical account ; it changes what persons think, feel, and do ( Hogg, 2001 ) . Depersonalization is the cardinal procedure underlying group phenomena ; it perceptually distinguishes groups and provides with perceptual experiences, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that are stereotyped and group normative.
Multidimensional Aspect of Social Identity
Literature reappraisal on societal designation suggested that cognitive procedures, emotional dealingss, and mutuality between group members are all important features of the societal designation procedure ( Deaux, 1996 ) . A figure of research workers look intoing the nature of societal designation concluded their research with empirical grounds for the multidimensional construction of societal designation ( Cameron and Lalonde, 2001 ; Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk, 1999 ; Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, and Crook, 1989 ; Jackson, 2002 ; Jackson and Smith, 1999 ) . Karasawa ( 1991 ) differentiated between designation with the group members and designation with group. Hinkle and co-workers ( 1989 ) found empirical support for three facets of designation: an affect facet, a cognitive facet and a group kineticss aspect. Further probe conducted by Ellemers and collegues ( 1999 ) reported findings bespeaking three dimensions of societal designation ; group self esteem, self classification, and committedness to the group. Findingss similar to those presented by Cameron ( 2004 ) were reported by Jackson ( 2002 ) who suggested three dimensionality of societal designation in relation to self classification ( a cognitive factor ) , rating of the group ( an affectional factor ) and perceptual experiences of solidarity ( in-group ties factor ) . Although the factor construction of societal designation does vary across these research, the impression of multidimensionality consistent with Tajfel ‘s ( 1978 ) definition of the concept, which explains societal individuality as arising from acquaintance of group rank, and the value and emotional significance attached to that rank.
Cameron ( 2004 ) , in his recent probes referred to Deaux ‘s ( 1996 ) three factorial nature of societal individuality and devised his ain multidimensional graduated table which measures three facets of societal individuality. First, Cognitive centrality which is referred to the cognitive importance of a given group rank, and is correspondent to the self classification factors which appeared in Ellmers et Al ‘s ( 1999 ) and Jackson ‘s ( 2002 ) surveies. Second, In-group affect, refers to the emotional rating of that group rank, sum uping the emotional dimension which has emerged in old research ( e.g. Ellmers et al. , 1999 ; Jackson, 2002 ; Hinkle et al. , 1989 ) . Finally, In-group ties, is referred to the perceptual experience of resemblance and bonds with other members of given group, which once more has been suggested in old probes ( e.g. Ellmers et al, 1999 ; Jackson, 2002 ; Hinkle et al. , 1989 ; Karasawa, 1991 ) .
Research suggests that people belong to legion societal groups ; however these ranks are non likely to be of matching psychological significance or finding the behavior at a given clip ( e.g. , Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, and Ethier, 1995 ) . The principle is based on contextual factors, such as the saliency of a specific societal classification, which occupy a important map in conveying the relevant individuality to the cognitive foreground. This procedure is referred to in footings of switching self-categorizations ( Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, and Wetherell, 1987 ) , or brief alterations in the self-concept that accordingly direct societal perceptual experience and behavior. Another account for the comparative psychological primacy of a given societal class, nevertheless, is its go oning ( i.e. , cross-situational ) cognitive importance within construction of the ego construct ; that is, some persons are inveterate readier to comprehend and move in footings of given class than others ( Oakes, 1987 ; Gurin and Markus, 1989 ) . Therefore, the societal designation for these persons may be comparatively cardinal. Having said that centrality is manifested in the cognitive handiness of a societal individuality, the operationalization of this phenomenon is the frequence with which rank in a peculiar group ”comes to mind. ” . However, an extra associated method in which centrality has been conceptualized is related to personal significance for the ego ( Hutnik, 1991 ; Rosenberg, 1979 ; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, and Smith, 1997 ; Stryker and Serpe, 1994 ) .
Research proposes that the emotional quality of group rank occupies a important function in societal individuality theory ( Tajfel, 1978 ; Tajfel and Turner, 1979 ) , which hypothesizes that a negative societal individuality, ensuing from intergroup societal comparings, stimulates efforts to accomplish a more positive individuality by prosecuting in peculiar schemes such as battle in more constructive societal comparing, disputing the intergroup position hierarchy or go forthing group constructions. Most graduated tables mensurating societal designation include at least a few points that reveal the rating of group rank ( e.g. , Brown et al. , 1986 ; Ellemers et al. , 1999 ; Hinkle et al. , 1989 ; Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992 ; Crocker, 1992 ; Phinney, 1992 ; Sellers et al. , 1997 ) . In the Cameron ‘s ( 2004 ) theoretical account, this facet of societal individuality is referred to as in-group affect, given that mensural points reflect peculiar emotions ( e.g. , being glad or sorry ) that occur from group rank.
A 3rd characteristic of societal designation reflects the psychological ties that connect the ego to the group. Allport ( 1979 ) explained the nature of designation as an ”emotional meeting of ego with others ” ( p. 293 ) , which corresponds to Freud ‘s ( 1967 ) construct in which the libidinal ties between members of peculiar group reflects those ties that are between parents and kids. This nature of designation as emotional bond between group members is incorporated in a figure of graduated tables of societal individuality ( Phinney, 1992 ; Hinkle et al. , 1989 ; Brown et al. , 1986 ; Cameron and Lalonde, 2001 ) . Furthermore, a great sum of the related theoretical and empirical surveies refering in-group ties is associated with the literature on group coherence. Although coherence has been conceptualized and evaluated in many ways ( see Dion, 2000 ; Hogg, 1992 ) , one important difference is between graduated tables that incorporate a group-level attack and those aimed at capturing individual-level perceptual experiences of the grade to which one feels bound to the peculiar group. Consistent with the latter attack, in-group ties are defined here as the grade to which ”group members feel ‘stuck to, ‘ or portion of, peculiar societal groups ” ( Bollen and Hoyle, 1990, p. 482 ) .
The Development of the Criminal Social Identity
Harmonizing to Erikson ‘s ( 1963 ; 1968 ) and Marcia ‘s ( 1967 ) theory of self-importance individuality formation, the development of one ‘s individuality arises out of the individuality crisis that occurs during adolescence when equal relationships play an of import function ( Waterman, 1985 ) . In order to cover with psychosocial crisis, person has to prosecute in the procedure of geographic expedition of different individualities and functions, finally emerging in pro-social or antisocial individualities. It is suggested that the demand for societal comparing additions during adolescence, where equal influence plays an of import function in individuality development. Goethals and Darley ( 1987 ) maintain that the school scene is one that supports strong societal comparing, particularly in footings of academic accomplishment. Such comparing procedures involve societal classification, as the two are strongly linked, and have deductions for the self-concept ( Turner, 1985 ) . Self-categorization ‘s meta-contrast rule clarifies how persons who engage in these comparings achieve their group individuality. This depends on:
“ the grade that two or more people come to comprehend and specify themselves in footings of some shared in-group – out-group classification ” . ( Turner, et Al. 1987 ; p. 51 )
Therefore, it is the sensed comparative resemblance and differentiation that consequences in designation and psychological group development. Membership in peculiar group is “ psychological ” when the societal individuality of the group members, incorporated into their self-concept, can go salient without the physical presence of persons of given group. As a effect of societal comparing and classification procedures, it can be suggested that two groups are distinguished within the higher degree class of the individual individuality ; the successful and the failures when the measuring of comparing is rational and societal abilities, and the conforming and the non-conforming, when the comparing is measured by attitudes towards authorization ( see Lynam, et Al. 1993 ; Tremblay, et Al. 1992 ; Zingraff, et Al. 1994 ) .
The more successful persons, under certain fortunes when their societal individuality is outstanding, be given to place themselves as members of peculiar group. This procedure is influenced by higher position and increased impermeable boundaries of the group ( Ellemers, 1993 ) and provides a socially protective intent. In add-on, the group designation of the failures and non-conforming persons is expected to be facilitated by the low position, high stableness and sensed impermeableness of group boundaries ( Ellemers, 1993 ) . It is anticipated that for these people, there is merely little chance of reassigning to a higher position group, as this is significantly influenced by single rational and societal abilities, which is relatively changeless. Over clip, group boundaries are likely to go strong and changeless, one time classification and labelling followed by rejection between groups takes topographic point. The failures and non conforming group would exhibit significantly higher degree of out-group favoritism. The designation of the failures and non conforming persons as a group fulfils the emotional map of supplying its members with an alternate societal individuality and an increased self-pride, as hypothesized by societal individuality theory.
Persons, who have failed in their societal functions and exhibited non-conforming behavior on a personal degree, would see themselves as inconsistent in relation to higher degree individuality. Higgins ( 1987 ) suggested that they would see a sense of disagreement in footings of their existent and ideal egos which is associated with depression or sense of agitation. This statement corresponds with Agnew ‘s ( 1993 ) Strain Theory which suggests that inability to make of import ends consequences in defeat and choler.
These unconstructive feelings of self-derogation, choler, defeat, green-eyed monster, antipathy and ill will ( Salovey and Rodin, 1984 ) may be aggravated by external household factors, including the deficiency of tenderness, parental rejection or inappropriate parenting manner ( Shaw and Scott, 1991 ; Patterson, et Al. 1989 ; Simon, et Al. 1991 ) . The deficiency of parental tenderness and fondness can keep the development of empathy and guilt ( Baumeister, et Al. 1994 ) , by emotional, psychological and physical isolation persons from their parents, which makes a negative impact on the bonds of societal control ( Hirschi, 1969 ) and cut down any motive to do every attempt for pro-social achievement or to conform to the authorization. An empirical support conducted by Downs and Rose ( 1991 ) suggests that equal groups are aberrant in footings of un-involvement with pro-social activities and non-conforming behaviors. Members of this group are rejected by the other pro-social groups and manifest more psychosocial jobs than persons from the other groups bespeaking, at the same clip, lower degree of self-esteem. Therefore, it can be suggested that these dimensions influence development of negative or condemnable individuality.
The function of equal relationships has a important influence in development of condemnable individuality. Parker and Asher ( 1987 ) followed by Juvonen ( 1991 ) have suggested that the effects of equal rejection are reported by persons ‘ low self-prides, violent inclinations, an increased hazard of dropping out of school or societal activities and development of condemnable behaviors. Rejection by equals, whether existent or perceived, is so an extra beginning for classification into groups which reciprocally reject one another. Having said that, rejection can be perceived as the cause or the merchandise of self-categorization. Therefore, the negative individuality that consequences in being self-discrepant or inconsistent, pertains non merely to single group member who systematically fails in his/her societal undertakings and is non-conforming in pro-social attitudes and behavior, but applies as a whole to group of members, which besides face the quandary of a lower societal position in society compared to the group of successful and conformist persons.
In the procedure of designation with others and organizing a subgroup within the higher degree societal individuality, non-conforming and less successful persons adopt the strategy of “ societal creativeness ” and harmonizing to societal individuality theory, they achieve increased degree of self-esteem ( Oakes and Turner, 1980 ; Lemrye and Smith, 1985 ) through their positive peculiarity, which is characterized by rejection and reversal of pro-social norms, in other words, what is considered constructive, positive and valued in society is redefined as unconstructive, negative and derogated ( Cohen, 1955 ) . Having said that, non-conforming behaviors associated with condemnable individuality, such as aggressiveness or any facet of anti-social behavior, would be perceived as a desirable trait.
Condemnable designation creates common understanding among members who have likewise as a group, rejected conventional theoretical account of societal norms. McGarty et Al. ( 1993 ) have suggested that this has the consequence of uncertainness decrease and is likely to be a beginning of self- sweetening ( Kaplan, 1978, 1980 ; Kaplan et al. 1986, 1987 ) . Therefore, this group of persons tend to prosecute in condemnable behaviors in malice of their sense of self-derogation ( Fischer and Bersani, 1979 ) , in contrast to those people who maintain strong psycho-social bonds with the household and the society, who tend to exhibit low self-pride after battle in condemnable behavior ( McCarthy and Hoge, 1984 ) .
Campbell ‘s ( 1987 ) research conducted on Puerto Rican female pack members has supported construct of individuality formation through rejection and repute. This survey has discovered that the pack rank is a manifestation of a jilted individuality. She concluded that pack members perceive themselves as dissimilar from their equals.
“ Their association with the pack is a public announcement of their rejection of the life style which the community expects from them ” ( p. 463 ) .
Their condemnable individuality or condemnable self-image derives from the procedure of rejection and putting-down those equals who are non associated with their anti-social norms. Therefore, they frequently define themselves by features of what they are non to others.
Once the condemnable societal individuality with reversed ( condemnable ) norms becomes established, members of condemnable group so achieve a sense of self-consistency by a manifestation of their new individuality in footings of condemnable behavior. This has been suggested by Breakwell ( 1986 ) who emphasized the significance of relationship between individuality and behavior:
“ Action is the societal look of individuality. The lone path of entree to the individuality of another is through his or her action, whether verbal or non. Since individuality comprises emotions, beliefs, and attitudes it is a premier incentive of action. Identity directs action. ” ( p. 43 )
Development of condemnable individuality can be better understood from Interpersonal Social-Cognitive Theory of Self proposed by Andersen, Chen and Miranda ( 2002 ) . It suggests that mental representations of important others are stored in memory and that:
“ transference reflects basic social-cognitive procedures – viz. , the activation of the percipient ‘s mental representation of important other in an brush with a new individual, taking the percipient to construe and retrieve the individual in footings of the activated representation, and to react emotionally, motivationally, and behaviourally to the individual in representation-derived ways ” ( p. 160 ) .
It further postulates that important others ‘ ( condemnable others in this peculiar instance ) mental representations are significantly influential because they loaded with affect and because they describe the mode in which 1 ‘s anticipations, affects, motivations and behaviors in relation to other persons arise. Furthermore, it assumes that significant-other representations are connected to knowledge meaning the ego one is in relation to important others. The presence of such connexion entails that the activation of significant-other representation should widen to characteristics of the ego and individuality that are related to particular other. However, as suggested by Linville and Carlson ( 1994 ) , the thought that one ‘s whole pool of self-knowledge is likely to be working at one time is obscure. It is positioned that merely a subset is in working memory at given minute. Therefore, the contextual cues determine the peculiar elements of self-knowledge that are entered into working memory, proposing that the ego and individuality is basically created instead in each context. In Andersen et Al. ‘s ( 2002 ) sentiment:
“ when contextual cues activate a significant-other representation, the working self-concept displacements toward the ego one is with the important other ” ( p. 161 ) .
Once the condemnable societal individuality become outstanding, members tend to expose behaviors that are model of the condemnable group theoretical account and may take part with other in-group members to show their conformance ( Turner, 1982 ; Thornberry et Al. 1993 ) . Presentation of over-conformity to condemnable criterions and behavior would so be positively encouraged and reinforced by other in-group felons, accordingly taking to an addition of condemnable behavior, or an change of non-criminal Acts of the Apostless to criminal one. Therefore, condemnable group members do non hold to use persuasion in order to do an impact on others anti-social attitudes or perpetrate a offense because it occurs through the procedure of designation and self-categorization.
The probe conducted by of Klein and Crawford ( 1968 ) and that of Pabon et Al. ( 1992 ) suggested that the condemnable group members are characterized by a sense of belongingness, which is an inter-group instead than inter-personal characteristic. Klein and Crawford ( 1968 ) found that the coherence of the condemnable group is due to external instead than internal facets, and Pabon et Al. ( 1992 ) established in their empirical research that members of condemnable groups tend to miss familiarity and fondness in respects to their relationships.
Multiple Social Identities and Their Change
Societies, in general, produce assorted moral rules for different scenes and state of affairss, such as for behavior in the place, in the community, or on the streets. Moral behavior is non merely context-specific, but besides formed by the societal individualities that occupy an of import function in a given fortunes. Particular societal individualities represent peculiar beliefs and values about what is morally appropriate or inappropriate, and when they become important in a precise context, they are likely to pattern single behavior. Subsequently, aggressive patterns which take topographic point in the state of affairs of the averment of a peculiar societal individuality do non needfully transport over into another state of affairs within which a different individuality, with diverse moral criterions, prevails. Therefore, as suggested by Dawes ( 1992 ) , moral behavior may switch as societal context and societal individuality displacement.
It has been postulated in the Situational Theory of Delinquency ( Sykes and Matza, 1957 ; Matza, 1964 ) that felons tend to float in and out of non-conforming or anti-social behavior. Under certain fortunes, such as company of condemnable group, persons can be expected to believe and act along with non-conventional norms. Therefore, anti-social behavior is manifested merely when the condemnable individuality is outstanding. Persons are expected to be more delinquent in the presence of condemnable in-group others, although the physical company is non indispensable for saliency to take topographic point. What matters most is the psychological designation with the condemnable in-group members. In other words, it is suggested that those persons in their personal individuality as members of their household tend to hold less anti-authority attitudes than when they are in the societal individuality as felons among condemnable in-group members. It has been besides noticed by Cohen ( 1990 ) that in the committedness of condemnable activities, felons act as interchangeable units of a collectivity, therefore, any abuse caused to one member of condemnable group is perceived abuse to all members who portion the same individuality.
Strocka ( 2008 ) , in her research in Latin America, reported a grade to which gang members ‘ behaviors changed across different societal contextual state of affairss which made her to recognize of the multiple societal individualities that immature people held apart from their pack rank. She observed that a figure of gang members were for good intoxicated and involved in condemnable violent behavior, nevertheless during the clip they worked in their rural communities they wholly abstained from intoxicant and force. Furthermore, two ex-gang leaders, whose constabulary records indicated that they had no consciences to extinguish their challengers, revealed deficiency of violent inclinations towards their kids or married womans. Both pack leaders had been physically abused by their parents when they were kids and did non desire to copy that behavior in their households. Therefore, Strocka ( 2008 ) suggested that the young person pack members were non by and large and inherently violent because they merely showed violent and condemnable behavior in context of their societal individuality as pack members, that is, at joint actions with their equal group and brushs with opposing pack group. In these state of affairss, single condemnable behavior is more likely to be directed by the norms and values of the condemnable group, harmonizing to which force is a desirable when comes to support the pack ‘s honor and district. However, youth gang members appeal to different moral behavior and concluding when they identify with different societal functions such as a male parent, hubby or twenty-four hours worker.
Youth pack rank is limited to a certain period of the life rhythm ( Rodgers, 1999 ) . The inquiry, so, arises ; what happens to gang members when they grow older? Harmonizing to Strocka ( 2008 ) the prevailing premise in public treatment is that most young person pack members either are being killed before they reach maturity or will stop up as “ professional felons ” with relentless violent inclinations. In other words, it is believed that pack members when they grow up, they either adopt societal individualities with similarity or even more negative features ( professional felons ) , or carry over the harmful behaviors related to gang rank to other societal individualities, for illustration, it is assumed that a ex-gang member will go an opprobrious hubby and male parent.
The place of civilizations of opposition and accommodation is imperative in theories of the visual aspect and confirmation of condemnable individuality and was incorporated in the Clemmer ‘s ( 1961 ) construct of “ prisonization ” , a signifier of secondary socialization in which wrongdoers learn how to accommodate to prison life manner. These versions have been documented along the scope from backdown to continual rebellion. Cohen and Taylor ( 1972 ) argued that such probes do non seek to place what these versions imply to inmates themselves. They agree to the importance of the “ inmate codification ” and offender subculture ( Sykes and Messinger, 1960 ) in assisting captives to acquire by, nevertheless they want to emphasize
“ the witting, originative nature of the subculture ” and “ the positive nature of the tenet, mythologies, beliefs, manners of version and feeling which are portion of twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours experience of people who find themselves in utmost state of affairss ” ( Cohen and Taylor, 1972 ; p. 58 ) .
The intent of this paper was to show the application of societal individuality and self-categorization theories to development of condemnable societal individuality. It is suggested that persons become felons because of a relentless felon individuality which has its beginning in societal comparing procedures. Negative societal comparing of persons who have failed in their societal functions and exhibited non-conforming behavior on a personal degree, aggravated by contextual factors such as dysfunctional household and the function of condemnable equals, contribute to the development of negative individuality suggested by strain and societal control theories. This construct was supplemented by interpersonal social-cognitive theory of ego which proposes that development of condemnable individuality might be influenced by representations of condemnable others stored in memory, and is activated based on contextual cues. This is besides consistent with the impression that persons have multiple societal individualities which may switch as societal context displacements. Therefore, it can be hypothetically suggested that the procedure of re-socialization of felons should be based on pro-social context instead than penal one in order to alter their condemnable individuality into pro-social individuality and avoid version of harmful behaviors associated with condemnable group rank to other societal individualities such as version of aggressive behavior in household environment as male parent or hubby.