new_page_4.htm (original page)

Introduction

Welcome to my page on Psychological Explanations for Criminality/Criminal Behaviour! This page is for those of you who have an interest in both psychology and sociology and are interested in how psychology has influenced and tried to explain criminal behaviour. Criminology has traditionally been looked at as a strictly sociological enterprise, but sociology alone has not been able to account for crime and other explanations have cropped up. Psychological explanations are one group of such explanations. I believe it is a worthwhile enterprise for students of psychology and sociology alike to see the links between psychology and criminology and have fashioned this page with that idea in mind.

Please keep in mind that this is a general overview and does not go into explicit detail or a critique of the various theories. The main point is to present the theories and how they aim to explain the phenomenon of crime, not to teach you all about the theories themselves. Therefore, it would be beneficial for you to have a basic knowledge of the various psychological theories that will be discussed. If you would like more detail, please see the references and/or do a little digging through the stacks of your local library

Brief Review of Sociological Explanations for Crime

Classical Theory

The person generally considered responsible for the school of classical theory on crime is the Italian Cesare Beccaria. In 1764 when he was only 26 years old, he wrote an essay called “On Crimes and Punishment” which has been proclaimed a masterpiece and the foundation of the classical school of criminological thought.

Painting of Cesare Beccaria

From his essay, four general principles can be identified that embody the classical doctrine:

Equality - All should be treated equally under the law.
Liberty - We have the right to be protected from the potential abuses of power by the state. The law cannot be applied retroactively and there can be no punishment without law.
Utilitarianism – Because the major goal of the sovereign should be the greatest happiness for the greatest number, justice should entail utility rather than retaliation and retribution.

Punishment should be viewed as a deterrent. Deterrence will be ensured by three basic conditions:

i. Certainty of punishment

ii. Swiftness of justice

iii. Severity of punishment.

Humanitarianism – Punishment should not only be fair but humane.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 105 - 110

Neoclassical Theory

The neoclassical school of thought was first incorporated into the French Code of 1791 and remained the cornerstone of criminal justice policy, but did not receive much attention until the 1980s and 1990s. It experienced a resurgence of popularity in response due to the failure of rehabilitation and a public outcry for a return to harsher punishment: longer prison sentences, a return to corporal punishment, and even a reinstatement of capital punishment. The demand was for the punishment to fit the crime – a concept that keeps in line with the classical school. Neoclassical theory can be thought of as a ‘just desserts’ model.

While endorsing the major principles of classical theory, the neoclassical perspective entails two major exceptions:

Rejection of the rigidity of the classical system of punishment
A degree of subjectivity, or discretion, when assessing criminal responsibility.

Neoclassical perspective assumes that individuals choose to commit crime after calculation whether crime’s potential rewards outweigh its potential risks.

The plea bargain is characteristic of a neoclassical approach because it provides an opportunity for the defence and Crown (or State) to reach an agreement in which the accused agrees to plead guilty for certain considerations.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 113 - 116

Positivist Theory

In criminology, the positivist perspective was first embraced by the “holy three of criminology”: Cesare Lombroso (1835 – 1909), Raffaelo Garofalo (1852 – 1934), and Enrico Ferri (1856 – 1929), but it was Lombroso’s ideas that had the greatest influence.

Cesare Lombroso Enrico Ferri

Lombroso developed a biological deterministic theory of criminality based on the concept of atavism, a biological condition that allegedly renders the recipient incapable of living within the social norms of a society. He thought people with atavism had physical malformations such as an asymmetric face, excessive jaw, eye defects, large nose, large ears, receding forehead, long arms, and swollen lips to name a few. He believed that the cause of these physical anomalies could be inherited or indirectly revealed because of insanity, syphilis, epilepsy, or alcoholism. Lombroso believed the idea that being a criminal is genetic and that we could separate the criminals from the non-criminals.

References: Winderdyk, 2000, pp. 117 - 121.

Emerging Theories

The previous theories were fairly strictly sociological. Current theories are now integrating personal and biological factors into their structure, recognizing that there are a multitude of things that go into producing criminal behaviour. Because the focus of this project is psychological explanations for criminality, these emerging theories will only be mentioned by name and a brief description here:

Routine Activities Theory – Views crime as a predictable function of normal activities of daily living. Target suitability is identified based on their lack of guardianship.
Social Conflict-Based Theories – An approach that is based on the premise that people are more different than they are alike. The conflict over differences can evolve around issues of power, money, and control.
Left-Realism – Argues that crime is really a problem and that we must look at the reality behind the appearances and take crime control seriously. Also says that we must be realistic in looking at the circumstances of both the offender and the victim, realistic about policing, and realistic about the problem of crime in the present period.
General Theory of Crime – Asserts criminal behaviour is a product of defective socialization processes that make it difficult for a potential offender to exercised self-control.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 247 - 288.

Psychological Explanations for Criminality/Criminal Behaviour

Beginnings and Emergence

The oldest known explanatory model of behaviour is that of demonology. It used to be thought that criminal behaviour was the result of a possessed mind and/or body and the only way to exorcise the evil was usually by some torturous means. The key was a focus on the individual rather than his or her environment or any social forces.

Interest in psychological and psychiatric facets of crime surfaced in the middle to late 1800s. There are three men who were instrumental in this interest.

Three Essential Individuals

Gustav Aschaffenburg (1866 – 1944) was a pioneer of psychiatric criminology. He thought that we are less influenced by heredity than by our social environment. His ideas were important because they raised the notion that, from a psychological perspective, criminal behaviour is not a mental pathology, but a form of socially maladaptive behaviour.

Henry Maudesly (1835 – 1918) was a gifted medical doctor who thought that criminals were the product of a lack of moral development. He paved the way for the ideas of Piaget and Kohlberg (to be discussed later).

Isaac Ray (1807 – 1881) is known as the “father” of the American Psychological Association. He was a very prominent psychiatrist who penned much on the topic of “moral insanity” which he considered a disease that was never established by a single diagnostic symptom.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 185, 203.

Freudian Theory

All pictures of Sigmund Freud

A quick reminder of Freud’s three levels of consciousness, the id, ego, and superego, is necessary first:

Id – Also known as the “pleasure principle”, the id consists of the basic unconscious biological urges and desires for immediate gratification and satisfaction. It includes desires for food, sex, and survival.
Ego – The “I” or “reality principle,” it represents an adaptive outgrowth of our id. Based on early childhood experiences, the ego learns to act as a control mechanism of sorts; leaning to weigh the consequences of acting on the impulses of the id within the limitations of society.
Superego – The superego, a sort of “psychic police officer,” develops from the relationship between our early life experiences and the moral value of our parents and the community. The development of the superego is and indicator of our socialization process.

Freud proposed that much deviance resulted from an excessive sense of guilt as a result of an overdeveloped superego. Persons with overdeveloped superegos feel guilty for no reason and wish to be punished in order to relieve this guilt they are feeling and committing crimes is a method of obtaining such desired punishment and relieving guilt. In effect, a person commits the crime so that they can get punished and thus relieve guilt – the guilt comes before the crime. According to this view, crime is not the result of a criminal personality, but of a poorly integrated psyche.

References: Holman & Quinn, 1992, pp. 104 - 106; Toch, 1979, pp. 172; Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 186 - 190, Yochelson & Samenow, 1976, pp. 80 - 81.

Neo-Freudian Theory

The basic distinction between Freud’s original work and that of his followers is in the role assigned to the id, ego, and superego. Freud, as you have just read, thought that the desire for punishment was the result of an overly powerful superego. The neo-Freudians, on the other hand, believed that crime was the result of a too-powerful id.

August Aichorn is probably the best known neo-Freudian in criminology. Aichorn felt that there were three predisposing traits that had to be present before the emergence of a life of crime:

The desire for immediate gratification.
Placing greater desire on one’s personal desires over the ability to have good relationships with other people.
A lack of guilt over one’s actions.

Aichorn assumed that people with damaged or very weak egos might become so dominated by the id that they cannot conform to social rules and will end up committing crimes. These crimes may provide them with a method of achieving self-esteem and other requirements that cannot by readily met otherwise and the crimes allow failure to be rationalized as having been caused by the acts of the mainstream society.

References: Holman & Quinn, 1992, pp. 106 - 107.

Cognitive Theories

Frustration/Aggression Model

The concept of criminality due to frustration and aggression that we have today has five basic premises:

1. Aggression is always a consequence of frustration. Frustration results from an aversive state of arousal towards a valued goal-response. There are two types of aggression:

· Hostile Aggression – refers to expressive or acting out behaviour (i.e. insults and physical attacks)

· Instrumental Aggression – occurs when the “offender” weighs their options in order to achieve their goal; using just enough intimidation, physical or verbal, to gain another person’s submission.

2. The risk of aggression increases with the degree of outside intrusion, frequency of frustrating incidents, and intensity of the event that prompted the frustration.

3. The greater the risk and perception of punishment resulting from an aggressive act, the greater the likelihood the act will not be committed.

4. If the “victim” perceives that the cost of directing aggression toward the “offender” could result in more harm, then they will likely redirect their aggression.

5. Once a person has vented their aggression, there is a temporary reduction in the desire to act out (a.k.a. “catharsis”).

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 191 - 194.

Social Learning Theory

According to Albert Bandura’s theory, delinquent and criminal behaviour is learned via the same psychological processes as any other behaviour: through learned and repeated exposure to rewards (reinforcements) that support the behaviour. On the flip side, behaviours that received no support or negative reactions are not learned and therefore will not recur.

     Albert Bandura

People observe others’ behaviors and decide whether or not to adopt them. Influencing a person’s choice to adopt or not adopt a behaviour are a few factors:

1.     Modeling (Observational Learning) – Learning based on observation. The observer copies behaviour they identify with.

2.     Response Stimulation – Basically like a “monkey see, monkey do” concept. Behaviour is basically copied from what is seen (different from modeling because they do not necessarily have to identify with the behaviour).

3.     How the Model is Seen - How we view a model affects our attitude. If we admire or respect someone and see their conduct pay off, we are more likely to emulate them. We tend to identify with winners, not losers.

Social learning theory argues that most types of aggression in young people are based on emotional arousal that is learned and based on certain environmental cues. It is a causal model that sees socially maladaptive behaviour as resultant from contingencies in the person’s environment that make such behaviour productive for them.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, p. 193; Toch, 1979, pp. 173 - 174.

Moral Development Theory

There are many theories of moral development, but a principal theme to all of them is that to understand criminality, we much understand the manner in which individuals develop a sense of morality and responsibility.

Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget (1896 – 1980), a Swiss psychologist, was the founder of the mental and moral development theory. Piaget proposed that children go through a series of developmental stages through which they eventually become less and less egocentric. Basically, at each stage, a child achieves a greater sensitivity to the perspectives of others. Responsible actions (those meeting a person’s needs without impeding the needs of others) will consequently increase along with cognitive development.   Implied in this theory is that the higher degree of cognitive development there is, the less the likelihood of criminality.

    Lawrence Kohlberg

Piaget did not directly apply his theory to delinquency or criminality, but Lawrence Kohlberg did. Kohlberg built on Piaget’s ideas, predicting the following six stages of moral development:

Kohlberg theorized that not everyone goes through all the stages of moral development or progresses at the same rate. Based on this idea, he reasoned that incomplete moral development was a major reason for criminal and deviant behaviour.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 195 - 197; Holman & Quinn, 1992, pp. 101 - 102; Toch, 1979, p 172.

Behavioural Theory: Operant Conditioning

Though John B. Watson (1878 – 1958) is often recognized as the father of behaviourism, Burrhus Frederick (B.F.) Skinner has been one of, if not the most influential, behaviourists in North America.

B.F. Skinner, from young to old

On the merit of punishment, he thought that the difficulty lay in the fact that when we punish someone for a crime or behaving badly, we leave it up to the person to discover how to behave well.

For Skinner, all behaviour is situational, deterministic, and void of independent thinking. Thus, behaviour and therefore crime is not based on free will, but is instead viewed as the result of identifiable chains of stimuli and responses. Criminals have learned to be as they are through these chains of stimuli and response. Skinner thought that through behaviour modification, we could therefore teach criminals how to behave well.

The key to initiating any change in behaviour is dependent on the discriminative stimuli which, when present, can bring about the desired change. The discriminative stimuli can be either positive reinforcement (resulting in increases/rewards behaviour) or negative reinforcement (either reduces, eliminates, or causes the avoidance of undesirable behaviour).

For example, one common form of positive reinforcement used in many correctional facilities is the use of a ‘token economy.’ Tokens, such as poker chips or stamps are symbolic rewards that are given whenever the desired response occurs. The tokens can then be exchanged for something of value to the inmate (i.e. buying food or watching a favourite television show). Negative or aversive reinforcement could be something such as a fine, lock-down, or loss of certain privileges.

Through behavioural theory, Skinner believed that we could identify the chains of stimuli and responses as to why someone commits crime and then correct the behaviour, or ‘show’ them how to behave well, through behaviour modification.

References: Winterdyk, 2000, pp. 200 - 203.

Biosocial Theory

Hans J. Eysenck argues that certain biologically based personality features that are inherited are more prone to antisocial behaviour when they interact with various socialization processes. He further posited that combined with our autonomic and central nervous system characteristics, these biological factors affect our responsiveness to punishment and predisposition for antisocial outcomes.

Hans J. Eysenck, earlier and later in life

Eysenck posited three major dimensions of personality: Extraversion/Introversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism. Eysenck was careful to note that in all three of these dimensions, it is a continuum we are dealing with and that the majority of people will not be at the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. Eysenck also noted that all three factors tend to decline with age.

The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has a number of friends, likes talking to people, and does not like having “alone time.” Extraverts crave excitement, takes risks, acts on the spur of the moment, and is, in general, fairly impulsive. Introverts on the other hand are quiet and retiring, fonder of books than people. They have fewer friends, but deeper relationships. They are somewhat serious and like a well-ordered life.

Neuroticism, or instability, is made up of a number of traits such as anxiousness, depression, feelings of guilt, low self-esteem, tenseness, irrationality, being shy and moody, and emotional. Stability, then is the absence of these traits. Eysenck found that women tend to have higher Neuroticism scores than men.

People with high levels of psychoticism are characterized by aggression, coldness, egocentricity, an impersonal attitude, impulsivity, antisocial behaviour, lack of empathy, creativity, and a tough-minded attitude. Those with low levels of psychoticism are empathic, unselfish, altruistic, warm, peaceful, pleasant, though they can be less socially decisive. Eysenck says that men score much higher in psychoticism than do women.

Eysenck theorized that criminality and antisocial behaviour are both positively and causally related to high levels of psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism. The theory says that biologically determined low degrees of arousal and arousability in extraverts and possibly also in persons high on the psychoticism scale lead to impulsive, risk-taking, sensation-seeking behaviours that increase the cortical level of arousal to a more acceptable amount. Eysenck did indeed find that extraverts experience cortical under-arousal, prefer higher levels of stimulation, and are less responsive to punishment and therefore do not condition well with the use of disciplinary action (see graph).

The relation between level of stimulation and hedonic tone (pleasantness-unpleasantness). Extraverts are shown to prefer higher levels of stimulation, and introverts a lower level (as compared to the general population). From Eysenck, 1964, p. 96.

However, these impulsive risk-taking behaviours do not necessarily have to lead to crime, they may also lead to other types of arousal-producing activities such as extreme sports or adventure of some kind. The mitigation factor is high levels of neuroticism. Neuroticism acts a drive that multiplies with the learned behaviour patterns based on this biological foundation and in such a way that increases antisocial behaviour produced by high psychoticism and extraversion.

References: Eysenck, 1964, pp. 35 - 36, 40 - 41, 89, 97 - 99; Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989, pp. 43 - 45, 55; Winterdyk, 2000, p. 286.

Personality Disorders Approach

Personality disorders are enduring, maladaptive, and rigid personality traits that impair functioning in a variety of social contexts and are harmful to both those afflicted with the disorder and those with whom they come into contact. Some examples that are most closely associated with criminal behaviour are paranoid, schizotypal, antisocial, and borderline personality disorders. People with a personality disorder are sane in a legal sense, but chronically exhibit problem behaviour.

Two common personality disorders are:

· Paranoid-personality Disorder – Also known as ‘paranoiacs’, people with this type of disorder have an unfounded, yet prevailing, tendency to interpret the actions of others as threatening to one’s self. Paranoiacs perceive reality correctly but assign erroneous meanings to these perceptions. For example, a husband may be under the impression that his wife is unfaithful to him, and as a result of his pathological jealously, physically assaults her or kills her.
· Antisocial-personality Disorder – This is also known as psychopathy or sociopathy and is typified by a striking lack of moral or ethical development. They are extremely skilled manipulators of others and usually appear to be very charming, aggressive, and carefree upon first meeting someone, and many have very high IQs. They convince themselves they are superior to those they victimize and have extremely underdeveloped consciences that lead them to experience little to no remorse, guilt, or anxiety over their actions. They appear to be incapable of experiencing any truly deep emotions. Many serial killers, Ted Bundy for example, are thought to have antisocial-personality disorder.

One of the assumptions of the personality disorders approach is that personality disorders are less severe than psychotic disorders as they do not affect an individual’s ability to grasp reality. Another assumption is that these disorders may result from many sources, be they genetic, environmental, or otherwise. A final assumption is that personality disorders might result in patterns of perception and conduct that are criminal in nature.

References: Holman & Quinn, 1992, pp. 107 - 109.

Yochelson & Samenow’s Criminal Personality Approach

Samuel Yochelson Stanton E. Samenow

Yochelson & Samenow’s theory rejects the determinism that is present in other theories and approaches. They arrive at conclusions similar to the personality-disorders and moral development theorists, but their view of the causes of these criminal traits are more grounded in the idea of free will of the individual.

The five basic assumptions of this theory are:

1.      The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their decisions.

2.      Criminals think and act differently than other people, even from a very young age.

3.      Criminals are, by nature, irresponsible, impulsive, self-centered, and driven by fear and anger.

4.      Deterministic explanations of crime result from believing the criminal who is seeking sympathy.

5.      Crime occurs because the criminal wills it or chooses it, and it is this choice they make that rehabilitation must deal with.

References: Holman & Quinn, 1992, pp. 115 - 118.

References

Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Crime and personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company.

Eysenck, H. J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). The causes and cures of criminality.

New York: Plenum Press.

Holman, J. E., & Quinn, J. F. (1992). Criminology: Applying theory. St. Paul:

West Publishing Company.

Kohlberg, L. (1986). The just community approach to corrections. Journal of

Correctional Education, 37, 54 – 58.

Toch, H. (Ed.) (1979). Psychology of crime and criminal justice. New York: Holt,

Rinehard and Winston.