causal models of crime

Question 1

biological explanations

Answer 1

• Criminals are biologically different to non-criminals – either from birth or brain injury
• Biological differences lead to inability to learn and follow rules, which leads to criminal behaviour
• Growing body of evidence that suggests a link between predisposition to offend and genetic, hormonal or neurobiological factors (Beech et al., 2018)
  Neurological differences, genetic differences, hormonal differences effect ability to follow rules of society and learn within the social structure

Question 2

neural explanations

Answer 2

• Activation of brain areas associated with emotional regulation differ between criminals and non-criminals (Hofhansel et al., 2020). Conduct disordered males show reduced activity in left amygdalae when viewing negative pictures (Kleinschmidt & Poustka, 2005).
• Neuropsychological deficits - executive dysfunction (Moffitt, 1993) and lower verbal IQ (Brennan et al., 2003), with individuals with higher verbal IQ more likely to avoid arrest (Boccio et al., 2018).
• Increased delinquent behaviour in youths with history of traumatic brain injury - executive functioning and impulse control (Carswell et al., 2004).
• Amygdala related to emotional control, prefrontal cortex to do with impulse control and higher order cognitive functions (rational thinking) differ in criminals
• Research also highlights learning deficits in offender populations e.g. executive dysfunction- ability to regulate actions
• Lower verbal IQ- less able to articulate problems through verbal reasoning
• High verbal IQ also more likely to avoid arrest- ability to problem solve and talk themselves out of a situation
• Findings indicate that offenders are:
  
  • Less sensitive to punishment and more sensitive to possible rewards.
  • Less able to plan, act in a rationally self-interested manner, control impulses or respond flexibly to problems encountered in daily life.
• However…
  
  • Participants are mostly male, and sample sizes are small.
    Offender populations – possible neurological differences between offenders who are caught and those who evade detection?

Question 3

genetic explanations

Answer 3

• Meta-analysis of 100+ behavioural genetic studies - 40-50% of variance in antisocial behaviour due to genetic inheritance (Rhee & Waldman, 2002).
• Study of 862 Swedish male adoptees - genetic influences are the most significant contributor to later criminal behaviour (Cloninger et al., 1982)
• However…
  
  • Growing evidence to suggest gene/environment interaction, e.g., ‘warrior gene’ (MAO-A) has no overall effect on antisocial behaviour but low MAO-A activity + childhood abuse = increased adult aggression (Frazzetto et al., 2007; Fritz et al., 2021).
    MAO-A gene controls hormones and in turn effects how much anxiety we have in these situations which could cause antisocial behaviour
• Also, similar biological predispositions can be associated with very different behavioural outcomes.
  E.g., Both bomb disposal experts and those with a capacity to violence (males and females) have lower resting heart rates – suggesting physiological under arousal (Raine, 2013).

Question 4

personality theory

Answer 4

• Links with biological explanations - underlying mechanisms that contribute toward personality believed to be biological (impulse control).
• Offending is natural and rational as humans are hedonistic, seek pleasure and avoid pain (Eysenck, 1996).
  
  • Delinquent acts essentially pleasurable and beneficial for the offender - e.g. theft, violence, vandalism.
• Most people do not offend because of their conscience (conditioned fear response that opposes hedonistic tendencies).
  
  • Developed in childhood through punishment for disapproved acts – classical conditioning.
• Offenders have not developed strong consciences due to poor conditionality. More likely in people:
• High on extraversion due to low cortical arousal (stops punishment from having as big an impact as rewards)- participate in extreme behaviours to improve arousal
• High on neuroticism as high resting levels of anxiety interfere with conditioning, and reinforce existing behavioural tendencies
• High on psychoticism (low empathy, impulsive, emotionally cold, hostile, egocentric) - more likely to offend because these traits are typical of criminals
• Neuroticism related to official offending; high extraversion related to self-reported offending. High psychoticism related to both official and self-reported offending (Farrington et al., 1982)
• Impulsiveness appears to be strongest personality trait predictor of offending (Blackburn, 1993; Jollliffe & Farrington, 2009)
  
  • Similar to biological approaches, implicates impulse control but suggests that this causes offending by preventing development of a conscience – give in to primal, hedonistic desires.
• However..
  Problems with ‘impulsiveness’ being poorly defined and operationalized (Farrington & Ttofi, 2018)

Question 5

mentally disordered offender

Answer 5

• Increased prevalence of mental disorders amongst criminal populations compared to general population, and higher levels of offending (Steadman et al., 2009).
• Mental disorders can include:
  
  • Illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression
  • Intellectual disabilities
  • Personality disorders
• However…
  
  • Questions raised as to whether disorders cause offending or association caused by other factors (Van Dorn et al., 2012).
    Studies conducted with convicted offenders – difference between convicted and non-convicted?

Question 6

psychopathy

Answer 6

• A severe personality disorder strongly linked with antisocial behaviour - callous disregard for others, lack of behavioural controls
• Suggestion that psychopathy be viewed as a dimension rather than taxonomy as psychopathic traits can be observed in the general population (Hare & Neumann, 2008).
• CU (callous unemotional) traits in children are stable through to adolescence, and predictive of psychopathy in adulthood (Burke et al., 2007).
• Argument - limited ability to learn when actions are causing distress in childhood compromises early moral socialisation, resulting in greater aggressive behaviour and crime in later life (Gao et al., 2010).
• Inability to detect facial expressions that signal distress in others leaves psychopaths open to repeatedly behaving in fear inducing ways (Blair, 2001).
  Evidence that psychopaths have compromised ability to make aversive conditioned associations, related to abnormal amygdala functioning (Birbaumer et al., 2005).
• Estimated prevalence of psychopathy in the UK is 0.6% but approx. 7-8% in UK prison populations (Coid et al., 2009).
• Psychopathy associated with high levels of general, violent and sexual recidivism (Hemphill et al., 1998).
• Psychopathy in adults (Blair, 2001) and CU in children (Frick et al., 2003) associated with instrumental aggression to achieve a goal (rather than reactive).
  Majority of murders committed by psychopaths were for instrumental reasons (Woodworth et al., 2003).

Question 7

learning theories- attachment

Answer 7

• Primary attachment figure acts as a secure base for exploring the world (mother viewed to be key) (Bowlby, 1969).
• Attachment relationship leads to development of an internal working model for understanding the world, self, others.
• This influences contact with others and evaluation of these interactions.
  
  • Model of others as being trustworthy
  • Model of the self as valuable
  • Model of the self as effective when interacting with others
• Disrupting primary attachment relationship for a prolonged period is likely to have irreversible negative effects on cognition, social interactions and emotions.
• Long-term consequences could include:
  
  • Delinquency
  • Reduced intelligence
  • Increased aggression
  • Depression
  • Affectionless psychopathy - acting on impulse with little regard for others, lack of guilt, inability to form meaningful and lasting relationships
• Comparison of 44 juvenile thieves / 44 controls (Bowlby, 1951)
• Almost 40% of juvenile thieves separated from mothers for 6+ months during first 5 years compared with 4.5% of control
• 1/3 had affectionless character compared to 0 controls
• However…
  
  • Recall data – memories may not be accurate
  • Potential experimenter bias
  • Bowlby concluded that maternal deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy – correlational data
• Other external variables not measured may have affected behaviour, e.g. family conflict, income, education etc.
• Loss of mother a stronger predictor of delinquency than loss of father (Juby & Farrington, 2001).
• History of abuse and disturbed attachment associated with lack of empathy and violent criminality (Saltaris, 2002).
• However…
  
  • Separation from either biological parent during first 5 years linked to higher levels of offending (Kolvin et al., 1988).
  • Not just a broken home, parental conflict also a factor.
• Offending higher for boys from broken homes with affectionless mothers (62%) and unbroken homes with conflict (52%).
  Lower for unbroken homes without conflict (26%) and broken homes with affectionate mothers (22%) (McCord, 1982).

Question 8

social learning theories

Answer 8

• Criminal behaviour is learned. Attitudes that support offending and behaviours for committing crimes learned in the family or peer group.
  
  • 40% of sons with criminal fathers also had criminal conviction by age 18 compared to 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers (Osborne & West, 1979).
    Juvenile delinquents more likely to report having peers who engage in criminal activity than non-delinquents.

Question 9

Pattersons SLT

Answer 9

• Parents of antisocial children demonstrate deficiencies in child rearing practices (Patterson et al., 1992).
  
  • Fail to tell children how they are expected to behave, monitor behaviour, or enforce rules at appropriate time and unambiguously with appropriate rewards and sanctions.
  • Parents use more punishment but inconsistently and do not make it contingent on child’s behaviour.
• Children raised in coercive families learn to use coercive behaviour
• Parent shouts at/threatens child, child shouts back, parent stops being coercive. Child learns to use hostile reactions to end hostile situations.
• Skilful parents use rewards for positive behaviours and ignore or use time out for undesirable behaviours.
• Consistent and contingent parental reactions + careful monitoring of children’s behaviour prevent delinquency (Snyder et al., 2003).
• Poor parental supervision a strong predictor of offending (Smith & Stern, 1997).
• Parental reinforcement also a predictor.
  
  • Physical punishment at age 7 and 11 predicted later convictions – 40% offenders smacked/beaten at age 11 vs. 14% non-offenders (Newson & Newson, 1989).
  • Harsh or erratic parental discipline and cruel, passive or neglecting attitudes predicted convictions for original sample and their sons – 2 successive generations of males (Farrington et al., 2015).
• However…
  
  • Much of the supporting evidence is based on self-reflections of childhood – accuracy of memory?
  • Not all offenders recall parental upbringing as problematic, and not all children raised with poorer parental practices end up committing offences.
• For SLT in general, patterns linking parent and peer influences to offending tend to be for petty acts (e.g., vandalism).
  Data tends to be correlational – problems inferring causality.

Question 10

Integrated cognitive antisocial potential theory- Farmington’s Cambridge study

Answer 10

• 411 South London boys
• Prospective longitudinal methods
  
  • Personal interviews from age 8-46
  • Tests of individual characteristics, intelligence, attainment, personality and impulsivity
  • Parental details of background, child rearing practices
  • Teachers and CBR checks
• By age 40, 40% convicted – commonly for theft, burglary, vehicle theft.
  Peak age of offending 17; peak age for prevalence of offending 14; peak age for decreased offending 23.

Question 11

ICAP

Answer 11

• ICAP theory influenced by results of Cambridge study – looking at risk factors for crime.
• Designed to explain offending by lower class males.
• Integrates aspects of several theories – strain, control, learning, labelling and rational choice (Cote, 2002).
• Key construct is antisocial potential (AP) – potential to commit anti-social acts.
• Transferring from antisocial potential to behaviour depends on cognitive processes that consider opportunities and victims – decisions to turn the potential into reality.
• People can be placed on a continuum from low to high AP.
• Few people have high AP, but those that do are more likely to commit crimes.
• Primary factors that influence high AP are desire for material gain, peer status, excitement and sexual satisfaction.
• Whether factors influence behaviour depends on if the person can use legitimate means to satisfy them.
  
  • Males from low-income families with low academic attainment who are unemployed are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour and crime.
• Long-term (LT) between-individual and short-term (ST) within-individual variations in AP.
  
  • LT –poorer families, socially impulsive and sensation seeking, poorly socialised and have a low IQ.
• Ordering of people tends to be consistent over time but levels vary with age – peak in teenage years due to changes in factors that influence LT AP (e.g. increased importance of peers, decreased importance of parents).
• ST – situational factors such as frustration, anger, boredom or alcohol
  
  • Whether a crime is committed depends on cognitive processes - considering subjective benefits, costs and probabilities of different outcomes.
• Immediate situational factors – material goods that could be stolen, likelihood and consequences of being caught.
• Social factors – disapproval by parents or partner, encouragement and reinforcement from peers.
• Stored behavioural repertoires/scripts (Huesmann, 1997).
• Also focuses on preventative factors – individual and social.
• People get less impulsive and frustrated with age.
• Life events such as marriage, steady employment, moving home – shifts in interactions from peers to partner and children.
• Decreased offending opportunities (e.g. less drinking with male peers).
• Increased informal controls (e.g. family and work responsibilities).
• Changes decision making by reducing subjective rewards of offending – risk of getting caught higher (e.g. disapproval from partner, incarceration and losing family).
• Identifies different factors that could influence future offending and antisocial behaviour, both in the short and long term.
• Findings of Cambridge study have been very influential in the development of programmes to try to reduce offending.
• However…
  
  • Research also shows that many people with these risk factors do not go on to offend (Webster et al., 2006).
  • Focuses on risk factors related to family, parenting and peer groups – ignores wider issues such as the neighbourhood (Webster et al., 2006).
    Most of research focuses on working class males – explanations for females, those from middle and upper classes, rural areas who offend?

Question 12

summary

Answer 12

• Theories address various types of crimes in different populations using different scientific backgrounds to explain crime.
• No single-factor theory provides a complete explanation for all crime.
• However, findings from across theories pose policy implications:
  
  • Worst offenders start early, have long criminal careers
  • Offending often preceded by other antisocial behaviour
  • Children at risk can be identified with reasonable accuracy from early age
    Early intervention important for preventing later escalation

Question 13

desistance

Answer 13

“Desistance is the process of abstaining from crime amongst those who previously had engaged in a sustained pattern of offending” (HMI Probation, May 2016, p.4)

Question 14

YOS practice is evidenced based

Answer 14

• Researchers find the evidence
• Academics shape the theory and the practitioners’ tools
• ASSET and ASSET Plus are YOS assessment tools based on latest research evidence
• ASSET originally looked at criminogenic and protective factors
  ASSET Plus assesses desistance factors