Download Psychosocail Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavoir and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
PSYCHOSOCIAL
THEORIES:
INDIVIDUAL TRAITS
AND CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOR
L
ittle Jimmy Caine, a pug-nosed third-generation Irish American, is an emotionless, guiltless, walking id, all 5’ 5” and 130 pounds of him. By the time he was 26, Jimmy had accumulated one of the worst criminal records the police in Toledo, Ohio, had ever seen: burglary, aggravated assault, robbery, rape—name it, Jimmy had probably done it. This little tear- away had been arrested for the brutal rape of a 45-year-old barmaid. Jimmy entered an unlocked bar after closing time to find the lone barmaid attending to some cleaning chores. Putting a knife to the terrified woman’s throat, he forced her to strip and proceeded to rape her. Because she was not sexually responsive, Jimmy became angry and placed her head over the kitchen sink and tried to decapitate her. His knife was a dull as his conscience, which only increased his anger, so he picked up a bottle of liquor and smashed it over her head. While the woman lay moaning at his feet, he poured more liquor over her, screaming, “I’m going to burn you up, bitch!” The noisy approach of the bar’s owner sent Jimmy scurrying away. He was arrested 45 minutes later while casually eating a hamburger at a fast-food restaurant. Jimmy didn’t fit the demographic profile of individuals who engage in this type of crime. Although he had a slightly below-average IQ, he came from a fairly normal, intact middle-class home. However, Jimmy had been in trouble since his earliest days and had been examined by a variety of psychiatrists and psychologists. Psychiatrists diagnosed him with something called
169
C H A P T E R
conduct disorder as an 8-year-old and as having antisocial personality disorder at 18. Jimmy’s case reminds us that we have to go beyond factors such as age, race, gender, and socioeconomic sta- tus to explain why individuals commit criminal acts. In this chapter, we look at many of the traits that psychologists and psychiatrists have examined to explain individual criminality. These expla- nations do not compete with sociological explanation; rather, they strengthen and complete them.
Psychological theories of criminal behavior were in vogue before sociology got into the picture and were more interested in individual differences in the propensity to commit crimes than in environmental conditions assumed to facilitate it. These theories looked at how cer- tain personality traits were conducive to criminal behavior, with emphasis placed strongly on intelligence and temperament. The assumption was that low intelligence hampers the ability to properly calculate the pleasures and pains involved in undertaking criminal activity and that certain types of temperament tend to make the person impulsive and difficult to social- ize. As with all other individual characteristics, low IQ should be considered a single risk factor among many others and as neither a necessary or sufficient cause of criminal behavior. One of the earliest works emphasizing low intelligence was Richard Dugdale’s “ The Jukes”: A Study of Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity.^1 Dugdale studied the lineage of a rural upstate New York family known for its criminal activity, to which he gave the fictitious name of “Jukes.” He traced the family lineage to a colonial-era character named “Max.” Generations of Max’s descendents remained in relative isolation and largely propagated themselves through intermarriage. Dugdale eventually traced 1,200 of Max’s descendents, among whom he found numerous cases of crime, pauperism, illegitimacy, feeblemindedness, disease, sexual promiscuity, and prostitution. Dugdale’s work was widely interpreted as further evidence of the hereditary nature of criminal behavior, although Dugdale himself was a firm believer that moral education could override biological propensities. Another early study was conducted by Henry Goddard and published in a book titled The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-mindedness.^2 This study traced two family lineages of a Revolutionary War soldier named “Martin Kallikak Sr,” who dallied with a fee- bleminded tavern girl with whom he fathered an illegitimate, feebleminded son. From this lin- eage there issued a variety of individuals of unsavory character. Martin produced another line of descendants with a woman from a good Quaker family, from whose lineage there emerged a number of prominent people and very few of unsavory character. From these two families with a common male ancestor and two female ancestors, one “defective” and the other “respectable,” Goddard concluded that “degeneracy” was the result of “bad blood.”^3
y Modern Psychology and Intelligence
The root word of intelligence is intelligo, which means “to select among.” Thus, intelligence is the ability to select from among a variety of elements and analyze, synthesize, and arrange them in ways that provide satisfactory and sometimes novel solutions to problems the ele- ments pose. David Wechsler (who devised many of the IQ tests in use today) defined intelli- gence as “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his [or her] environment.”^4 Intelligence is arguably the trait that most sharply separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom and, as such, has to be of tremendous importance in all manner of human affairs.
170 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
hides the magnitude of IQ differences between nonoffenders and serious offenders if the latter have lower IQs than the former. Casual and less serious offenders differ from nonoffenders by about 1 point, while serious persistent offenders differ from nonoffenders by about 17 points.^17
Intellectual Imbalance
Intellectual imbalance refers to a significant difference between verbal and performance IQ scores. IQ scores are typically given in terms of a full-scale score, obtained by averaging the scores on verbal (VIQ) and performance (PIQ) IQ subscales. Most people have VIQ and PIQ scores that closely match, with a population average of 100 on each subscale. People who have either VIQ or PIQ subscale scores 12 or more points greater than the other (VIQ > PIQ or PIQ > VIQ) are con- sidered intellectually imbalanced. Offender populations are almost always found to have signifi- cantly lower VIQ scores, but not lower PIQ scores, than nonoffenders. As Miller remarks, “This PIQ>VIQ relationship was found across studies, despite variations in age, sex, race, setting, and form of the Wechsler [IQ] scale administered, as well as in differences in criteria for delinquency.”^18 Averaged across a number of studies, VIQ > PIQ boys are underrepresented in delinquent populations by a factor of about 2.6, and PIQ > VIQ boys are overrepresented by a factor of about 2.2.^19 A VIQ > PIQ profile appears to be a major predictor of prosocial behavior, espe- cially among adults, given the finding that only 0.9% of 1,792 prison inmates had a VIQ > PIQ profile compared to 18% of the general male population, a ratio of 20:1. 20 The research on intellectual imbalance provides another example of how the role of IQ in understanding criminal behavior may be underestimated if we rely solely on full-scale IQ.
Explaining the IQ-Offending Relationship
There are a number of different routes by which IQ may be related to offending. Perhaps high-IQ people are just as likely to break the law as low-IQ people, but only the less intelligent get caught. If this is the case, low IQ is related to criminal offending only insofar as it leads to a greater probability of detection. This argument is known as the differential detection hypothesis. A test of this hypothesis, based on a large birth cohort, found no support for it. 21 Subjects were asked to self-report delinquent activity, which was compared with official police records. This provided three distinct groups: (1) self-reported delinquents with a police record, (2) self-reported delinquents with no police record, and (3) nondelinquents, as assessed both by self-reports and police records. Comparing IQ scores among the groups, it was found that the full-scale, verbal, and performance IQ means of Groups 1 and 2 did not significantly differ from one another, meaning that undetected delinquents were no brighter than their less fortunate detected peers. Both groups had significantly lower full-scale and VIQ means, but not lower PIQ means, than nondelinquents. Another argument is that crime rates fluctuate greatly while IQ averages do not. If crime rises irrespective of IQ changes, something other than IQ must be responsible for the rise. This is true; low IQ is simply a risk factor differentially expressed under different social conditions. A generation or two ago, when most families were intact, when there was a higher level of moral conformity, and when entry into the workforce demanded less academic preparation, people with relatively low IQs were more insulated from crime by social control mechanisms. Social conditions are different today, and low-IQ individuals are less insulated from crime. This is an example of individuals with different risk factors crossing the crime threshold boundary according to shifting social conditions (see Figure 1.3).
172 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Others argue that the link between IQ and criminality simply reflects the links between SES, IQ, and criminality—that is, low SES causes low IQ and crime, and thus the IQ- criminality relationship is simply a consequence of the SES-criminality relationship. SES does affect the relative contributions of genes and environments, but when SES is completely controlled by examining the relationship between IQ and crime within families, we find that criminal siblings average 10 IQ points lower than their noncriminal full siblings.^22
IQ and School Performance
The most usual explanation is that low IQ leads to antisocial behavior via poor school performance. 23 That is, low IQ sets individuals on a trajectory, beginning with poor school performance, which results in a number of negative interactions with other people in the school environment, leading them to drop out of school and associate with delinquent peers. The notion that IQ influences offending via its influences on school performance has much to commend it. Ellis and Walsh’s review 24 of 158 studies linking IQ to criminal and delinquent behavior found that 89% based on official statistics and 77.7% based on self-reports found a significant link. On the other hand, all 46 studies exploring the link between grade point average (GPA) and antisocial behavior did so. Actual performance measures of academic achievement such as GPA are thus probably better predictors of antisocial behavior than IQ. Academic achievement is a measure of intelligence plus many other personal and situational characteristics, such as conscientious study habits and supportive parents. Finally, it would be a mistake to regard IQ as an indicator of social worth rather than as representing a limited set of cognitive traits. High-IQ miscreants can do much more damage than their low-IQ counterparts due to the greater deviousness made possible by high IQ. The IQs of Nazi war criminals remind us not to confuse IQ with worth. Herman Goring, Franz von Papen, and Albert Speer had IQ scores of 138, 134, and 128, respectively. 25 We have no record of Hitler’s IQ, but he has been repeatedly described as an evil genius. 26 Many serial killers such as Ted Bundy (124) and Edward Kemper (136) score high on IQ as well. 27
Chapter 7 Psychosocial Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavior 173
F O C U S O N...
I
Q is related to a wide range of life outcomes that are themselves related to criminal and antisocial behavior such as poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. The data presented below come from 12,686 White males and females in the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY). This study began in 1979, when subjects were 14 to 17 years old; the data were collected in 1989, when the subjects were 24 to 27 years old. The bottom 20% on IQ had scores of 87 and below; the top 20% had scores 113 and above. Note the large ratios between the two groups on all outcomes. For instance, 31 low-IQ subjects were ever interviewed in jail or prison for every 1 high-IQ subject ever interviewed in jail or prison. Low IQ thus affects many areas of life that increase the probability of offending.
The Impact of High and Low IQ on Life Outcomes
(Continued)
governing physiological arousal patterns. 31 The genetic underpinning of temperament ensures that it will be reasonably stable across the life course, although environmental input can strengthen or weaken innate propensities. Different temperamental components emerge at different junctures as arousal systems are fine-tuned by experience.^32 Temperamental differences in children make them variably responsive to socialization. Some children are easy to socialize; others are difficult. A child’s unresponsiveness to social- ization is made worse by the fact that the temperaments of parents and children are usually similar; that is, warm, happy, and easygoing children tend to have warm, happy, and easygo- ing parents, and cold, melancholic, and difficult children tend to have parents who share those same traits. Children with difficult temperaments tend to have parents who are poor discipli- narians, irritable, impatient, and unstable, just the opposite of what is required to adequately socialize difficult children. Temperamentally difficult children are thus typically (but not always) saddled with both a genetic and an environmental liability. 33, Children who throw temper tantrums, react negatively to new situations and people, and who reject warm overtures from others may adversely affect the quality of parent-infant inter- actions regardless of their parents’ temperaments, thus leading to poor parent-child attachment and all the negative consequences that result. Numerous studies have shown that parents, teach- ers, and peers respond to children with disinhibited and irritable temperaments negatively, and such children find acceptance only in association with others with similar dispositions.^35
Personality: In the Beginning Was Freud
Personality is the relatively enduring, distinctive, integrated, and functional set of psychological characteristics that result from people’s temperaments interacting with their cultural and devel- opmental experiences. There are many different components of personality that psychologists call traits , some of which are associated with the probability of committing antisocial acts. No discussion of personality can proceed without acknowledging the role of the father of psychoanalysis and the grandfather of positivist psychology, Austrian physician Sigmund Freud. Freud offered a broad, sweeping theory of personality, and although he wrote little about crime, his ideas stimulated many criminologists. Early psychological theories never labored over what mental processes might intervene between the assumed cause and criminal behavior. Just how does “feeblemindedness,” “atavism,” or any other assumed cause influence persons to commit criminal acts? If all people are hedonistic, why do only some commit crimes? If criminals are feebleminded, why don’t all low-IQ people commit crimes? The psychological answer to such questions is that individ- uals possess different personalities, and these different personalities lead them to respond differently to identical situations. According to Freud, the basic human personality is a composite of three interacting components, each having separate purposes: the id, ego, and superego. The id is the biological raw material of our temperament and personality; it represents our drives and instincts for acquiring life-sustaining necessities and life’s pleasures. Like a spoiled child, the id demands instant gratification of its desires and cares not whether the means used to satisfy them are appropriate or injurious to self or to others. The id obeys the pleasure principle, but since it lacks the ability to engage in the hedonistic calculus, it is often dangerous to itself. The selfish, immoral, uncaring, antisocial id is the only aspect of the personality we are born with, so in a Freudian sense, we might say that we are all Lombroso’s “born criminals.”
Chapter 7 Psychosocial Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavior 175
The ego and the superego are formed from the raw material of the id in the process of socialization. With the correct moral training, energy from the id is appropriated to form the ego, or the aspect of the personality we think of as “me” or “I.” The ego obeys the reality principle; it realizes that the desires and demands of the id, although necessary, must be satis- fied in socially appropriate ways if one is to avoid negative consequences. It is the ego that performs the hedonistic calculus; it does not deny the pleasure principle but simply adjusts it to the demands of reality. Freud analogized the interaction of the ego and the id in terms of a rider and a horse. The horse (the id) supplies the raw locomotive power, while the rider (the ego) supplies the goals and the direction. 36 The superego strives for the ideal and is thus just as irrational as the id. It represents all the moral and social prescriptions and proscriptions (the “dos and don’ts”) internalized by the person during the process of socialization and may be summed up as the human conscience. The superego tries to suppress all the normal urges arising from the id by generating guilt because many urges have been defined as wrong or sinful. It is the ego’s function to sort out the conflict between the antisocial demands of the id and the overly conformist demands of the censorious superego. The normal personality is one in which the ego is successful in working out compro- mises between its irrational partners. An abnormal personality results when either the id or the superego overwhelms the ego, resulting in psychic energy being drained from the weaker components to strengthen the stronger component. If the id is “in command” of the person- ality, the result is a conscienceless and impulsive individual who seeks to satisfy personal needs regardless of the expense to others.
Personality Traits Associated With Criminal Behavior
We will now briefly examine personality traits that have consistently been associated with crimi- nal behavior. Keep in mind that all of these traits are the result of different kinds of temperaments meeting different kinds of developmental experiences and that they are continuous, not dichoto- mous. That is, people differ only on the strength of these traits; they are not characteristics that some people possess and others do not. Impulsiveness refers to people’s varying tendencies to act on matters without giving much thought to the consequences (not looking before you leap). Impulsiveness varies from person to person according to the circumstances involved, and one can be impulsive without ever crossing the noncrime/crime threshold. Nevertheless, impulsive individuals are found more often among criminal populations than among the population at large. Not surprisingly, impulsive people also have elevated probabilities of being diagnosed with psychopathy. 37 A review of 80 studies examining the relationship between impulsivity and criminal behavior found that 78 of them (97.5%) were positive, and the remaining 2 were nonsignificant. 38 Although impulsiveness is a potent risk factor for criminality in its own right, it becomes more potent if negative emotionality is added to the mix. 39 Negative emotionality (or negative affect ) is a personality trait that refers to the tendency to experience many situations as aversive and to react to them with irritation and anger more readily than with positive affective states.^40 Caspi and his colleagues^41 contend that criminality is defined (at a minimum) by both low self-control (which they call low constrain t) and nega- tive emotionality. Constraint is inversely related to negative emotionality; that is, people who are low on constraint tend to be high on negative emotionality. Individuals high on negative emotionality but also high on self-control are able to hold their anger and irritability in check.
176 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
to above-normal IQs and who are properly socialized will probably want to work as firefighters, police officers, or any other job that provides physical activity, variety, and excitement. Low- IQ and unsocialized individuals do not have those legitimate options available to them. Ellis and Walsh’s review 45 found that 58 of 59 (98.4%) studies reported a statistically significant relationship between sensation seeking and various kinds of antisocial behavior. The more impulsive a person is, the more sensation seeking he or she tends to be. A Canadian study found that measures of impulsivity and sensation seeking in male preschool- ers are the best available predictors of delinquency at age 13. 46 A longitudinal study using both physiological and psychological measures of sensation seeking that looked at high and low sensation seekers who were and were not seriously involved in delinquency found some interesting results. 47 High sensation-seeking delinquents were significantly more impulsive, had significantly lower IQs, and were lower in socioeconomic status than high sensation- seeking control subjects. Among the low sensation seekers, only low IQ differentiated delin- quents (average IQ = 85.5) from nondelinquents (average IQ = 102.8). However, 33% of the serious delinquents were low sensation seekers—low sensation seekers can be seriously involved in delinquency, too. The fact that 54% of the nondelinquents were high sensation seekers shows that high sensation seeking requires the addition of other factors (high impul- sivity, low IQ, and low SES in this study) to result in serious delinquent behavior. Criminal behavior is almost always the result of a constellation of risk factors rather than of any one single factor. Conscientiousness is a primary trait composed of several secondary traits such as well organized, disciplined, scrupulous, responsible, and reliable at one pole and disorganized, careless, unreliable, irresponsible, and unscrupulous at the other. It is easy to see from this list how conscientiousness could be directly related to crime, but it might be a more useful discussion to tie it to Merton’s anomie theory. Recall that Merton tells us that all Americans are exhorted to strive for the American Dream, but some of us are denied access to attaining it legitimately. Isn’t it just as possible that those who do not pursue the dream legitimately cannot do so because they lack the requisite qualities for occupational success? Vold, Bernard, and Snipes thought so when they wrote, “It is not merely a matter of talented individuals confronted with inferior schools and discriminatory hiring practices. Rather, a good deal of research indicates that many delinquents and criminals are untalented individuals who cannot compete effectively in complex industrial societies.” 48 Conscientiousness is highly associated with upward social mobility, and employers obvi- ously favor high levels of conscientiousness in their employees.^49 In a study that followed subjects from early childhood to retirement, Judge and his colleagues 50 found that conscien- tiousness predicted occupational success better than any other factor they examined. In other words, it may be that persons with certain kinds of temperament do not develop the personal qualities needed to apply themselves to the long and arduous task of achieving financial suc- cess legitimately and, as a consequence, may attempt to obtain it illegitimately through crime. A review of the genetic literature indicated that genes account for an average of about 66% of the difference in conscientiousness among individuals. 51 Empathy is the emotional and cognitive ability to understand the feelings and distress of others as if they were your own—to be able to “walk in another’s shoes.” The emotional com- ponent of empathy allows you to “feel” the other person’s pain, and the cognitive component allows you to understand that person’s pain and why he or she is feeling it. Individuals differ in their ability to empathize, with some people shouldering the pains of the world at one end
178 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
of the continuum and others caring less about even their closest relatives at the other. Most criminals will fall closer to the latter than to the former for obvious reasons—you are less likely to victimize someone if you have a tendency to feel and understand what the conse- quences may be for them. A number of studies show that offenders are significantly less empa- thetic than nonoffenders.^52 Baron and Byrne 53 cite evidence that genetic factors account for about one third of the difference among people in empathy. Altruism can be thought of as the action component of empathy; if you feel empathy for someone, you will probably feel motivated to take some sort of action to alleviate that person’s distress if you are able. Altruism may thus be defined as an active concern for the well-being of others, and in many ways, it is a synonym for prosocial behavior. Thus we have another con- tinuum, with extremely altruistic individuals at one end and extremely selfish people at the other. There are no prizes for guessing on which side of the line most criminals will fall. In fact, the lack of empathy and altruism is considered one of the most salient characteristics of psychopaths, the worst of the worst among criminals.^54 A review of 24 studies of those traits found that 23 of them were statistically significant in the predicted direction; that is, the lower the level of empathy/altruism, the more antisocial the behavior. 55 Moral reasoning is another personal characteristic that psychologists find to be linked to antisocial behavior. Studies have repeatedly shown that a strong relationship exists between moral reasoning and the ability and/or inclination to empathize with and come to the aid of others.^56 Not all immoral behavior is criminal, of course, but they do have certain things in common. Both forms of behavior violate social expectations and ignore the obligations we all have toward one another. To measure moral reasoning, subjects are read a series of scenarios containing moral dilemmas to which they are asked to verbally respond. Most of these dilemmas involve the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes (empathy) and to devise a course of action to help that person (altruism). Ten studies assessing the link between moral reasoning and empathy and altruism revealed that the higher the empathy and altruism, the greater the moral reasoning.^57 The same reviewers also found that 16 of 17 studies found IQ to be positively related to moral reasoning level.^58 Moral reasoning is thus a function of empathy and altruism, as well as knowledge and understanding of, and agreement with, culturally defined standards of right and proper behavior. Consciousness of one’s own moral standards and conduct, as well as the feeling of obligation to live up to those standards, is the stuff of conscience.
Classical Conditioning and Conscience
Ever since human groups first established rules, people have been tempted to violate them. Many of us have been prevented from doing so by fear of punishment and by the bite of our consciences. Conscience is a complex mix of emotional and cognitive mechanisms that we acquire by internalizing the moral rules of our social group in the ongoing socialization process. Those of us with strong consciences will feel guilt, shame, stress, and anxiety when we violate, or even contemplate violating, these rules. In other words, we have emotional reac- tions that vary from person to person based on innate physiological arousal patterns and how they have been molded by experience. Differences in the emotional component of conscience are observed as early as 18 months, long before children are able to cognitively reflect on their behavior as morally right or wrong. These differences reflect variation in autonomic nervous system arousal
Chapter 7 Psychosocial Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavior 179
rather because his internal response system (the emotional component of his conscience) strongly discourages it by generating unpleasant feelings. People differ greatly in the responsiveness of their ANSs. Individuals with a readily aroused ANS are easily socialized—they learn their moral lessons well. They do so because ANS arousal (“butterflies in the stomach”) is subjectively experienced as fear and anxiety. We soon learn that when we behave ourselves, we do not incur the wrath of our socializers, and fear and anxiety do not appear. A hyperresponsive ANS (one that is easily aroused and generates high levels of fear and anxiety) is a protective factor against antisocial behavior. Studies have shown that males with hyper arousable ANSs living in environments that put them at high risk for antisocial behavior were less involved with antisocial behavior than males living in low-risk communities with hypo arousable (slow to arouse) ANSs.^61 This constitutes yet another example of how per- sonal characteristics interact with environments to mold behavior. Individuals with relatively unresponsive ANSs are difficult to condition (to socialize) and are relatively fearless. These individuals experience little fear, shame, guilt, or embar- rassment when they transgress, even when discovered and punished, and thus have no built- in visceral restraints against further transgressions. Various measures of ANS underarousal (electroencephalographic activity, resting heart rate, and skin conductance) in childhood enable researchers to correctly classify about three quarters of their subjects as “criminals” or “noncriminals” in adulthood. 62 In other words, across a wide variety of subjects and settings, it is consistently found that antisocial individuals evidence relatively unresponsive ANSs, and the reason for this is that hypoarousable ANSs do not allow for adequate conditioning of the social emotions. Having knowledge of what is right or wrong without that knowledge being paired with emotional arousal is rather like knowing the words to a song but not the music.
Chapter 7 Psychosocial Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavior 181
Figure 7.1 Illustrating Classical Conditioning
BEFORE CONDITIONING Unconditioned →→ Unconditioned Stimulus Response (food) (salivation)
Unconditioned stimulus produces an unconditioned response.
CONDITIONING PROCESS Unconditioned →→ Unconditioned Stimulus (food) Response
- Neutral (salivation) Stimulus (bell)
Unconditioned stimulus paired with neutral stimulus produces an unconditioned response.
BEFORE CONDITIONING Neutral →→ No Response Stimulus (bell)
Neutral stimulus produces no response.
AFTER CONDITIONING Conditioned →→ Conditioned Stimulus Response (bell) (salivation)
Neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus that now produces a conditioned response.
y Modern Psychosocial Theories
Arousal Theory
Arousal theory (sometimes called suboptimal arousal theory ) focuses on central nervous system (brain) arousal rather than peripheral system (ANS) arousal. The theory is rooted in the commonsense observation that people vary greatly in their sensitivities and preferences for environmental stimulation and on established psychological findings that different levels of physiological arousal correlate with different personality and behavioral patterns. In identical environmental situations, some people are underaroused and other people are overaroused, and both levels are psychologically uncomfortable. Arousal levels are normally (bell curve shaped) distributed with very few people being extremely under- or overaroused, with most people being optimally aroused under the normal range of environmental conditions (neither too constant nor too varied). What is an optimal level of environmental stimulation for most of us will be stressful for some and boring for others. If you’ve ever taken your grandpa to a punk rock concert or he has taken you to a chamber music recital, you’ll know what we mean. The regulator of neurological arousal (sleep, wakefulness, attention) is the reticular activating system (RAS). The RAS is a little finger-size bundle of brain cells situated at the top of the spinal cord and can be thought of as the brain’s filter system determining what incoming stimuli the higher brain centers will pay attention to. Some individuals possess an RAS that is highly sensi- tive to incoming stimuli (more information is taken in and processed), and others possess an RAS that is unusually insensitive. We call the former augmenters and the latter reducers. There is no conscious attempt to augment or reduce incoming stimuli; as is the reactivity of the ANS, augmentation or reduction is solely a function of differential physiology. RAS augmenters tend to be the people with hyperactive ANSs, and reducers tend to be people with hypoactive ANSs. Underarousal of the ANS is associated with fearlessness, and underarousal of the RAS is associ- ated with sensation seeking. We can readily appreciate that sensation seeking and fearlessness are correlated since sensation seeking is aided by fearlessness.^63 Augmenters prefer more constancy than variety in their world and seek to tone down envi- ronmental stimuli that most people find to be “just right.” Such people quickly learn to avoid engaging in behavior that raises the intensity of stimuli to levels they find unpleasant and are rarely found in criminal populations. Reducers are easily bored with “just right” levels of stimu- lation and continually seek to boost stimuli to what are for them more comfortable levels. They also require a high level of punishing stimuli before learning to avoid the behavior that provokes it. According to arousal theory, the latter are the individuals who are unusually prone to crimi- nal behavior. A number of studies have shown that relative to the general population, criminals, especially those with the most serious records, are chronically underaroused, as determined by electroencephalography (EEG) brainwave patterns, resting heart rate, and skin conductance. 64 EEG brainwaves reflect the electrical “chatter” of billions of our brain cells. Clinicians rec- ognize four bands to classify EEG brainwaves: alpha, beta, theta, and delta. Beta waves followed by alpha waves are the most rapid, and they signal when a person is alert and focused. Theta waves are emitted when the person is in a drowsy mental state, and delta waves are the slow- est of them all and signal deep sleep. Most studies (about 75%) show that EEG readouts of criminals reveal that their brains are less often in the alert and focused range than are the brains of people in general. 65 Resting heart rate and skin conductivity are more measures of ANS than RAS arousal. Resting heart rates measured during childhood has emerged as a very good predictor of
182 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Wilson and Herrnstein’s Net Advantage Theory
James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein’s net advantage theory^69 is based on reinforcement and conditioning principles and adds rational choice and individual differences into the theoretical mix. Net advantage refers to the fact that any choice we make rests on the cognitive and emotional calculations we make before deciding on a course of action relating to the possible positive and negative consequences that may result from choices such as what to do when we see unlocked cars with keys in the ignition. If our calculations of the costs and benefits of a given behavior point to a net advantage for us, we will make the choice in favor of engaging in that behavior; if our calculations point to a negative outcome, we will not. Unlike differential association and social learning theories, this theory goes a step beyond to identify individual differences in the likelihood of understanding and appreciating the long-term consequences of a chosen course of behavior. According to Wilson and Herrnstein, there is little difference among people in their ability to appreciate the immediate short-term positive or negative consequences of their behavior, but there is a difference in the ability to appreciate long-term consequences because people differ in the tendency to discount the negative consequences of their behavior to themselves and to others. People who discount negative consequences have a greater probability of antisocial behavior being experienced as reinforcing. Net advantage theory is anchored in the constrained vision camp in its assumption that crime is inherently rewarding to human beings (because it usually means getting something for little or no cost) and that most of us would commit crime if we were not externally and internally restrained from doing so. External restraints consist of the kinds of social controls present because of the social bonds we enjoy with others, as well as the more formal controls represented by law enforcement. Individuals with a tendency to discount the negative conse- quences of their behavior do so because their inhibitions are weak, and their inhibitions are weak because they are impulsive, have learning difficulties, are present rather than future ori- ented, and lack the bite of conscience. Such people are reinforced by the immediate rewards of criminal activity rather than the more distant rewards of a noncriminal lifestyle. They also fail to take into account the punitive consequences of their behavior, and/or they do not fear those consequences. Net advantage theory adds valuable insights into Akers’s theory because it takes into account how the learning process (what is reinforcing and what is not and what serves as discriminative stimuli) is influenced by individual traits and characteristics. Another interest- ing fact about this theory is that it takes into consideration both classical and operant condi- tioning, as well as almost every personality trait and characteristic that psychologists have identified as risk factors for criminal behavior. The theory is illustrated diagrammatically in Figure 7.2.
Glen Walters’s Lifestyle Theory
Lifestyle theory was formulated by Glen Walters,^70 a senior psychologist at the U.S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, a position that has provided him with a great deal of insight into the criminal mind. The term lifestyle implies that Walters believes that crimi- nal behavior is a general criminal pattern of life. Lifestyle criminals are characterized by
184 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
irresponsibility, impulsiveness, self-indulgence, negative interpersonal relationships, and the chronic willingness to violate society’s rules. Walters views criminal behavior as a choice con- ditioned by the interaction of individual traits and environmental circumstances. The main distinguishing features of Walters’s theory are (1) it is a theory that concentrates on criminal thinking patterns rather than on how those patterns developed, and (2) it was designed more to guide counselors in their efforts to change criminal thinking rather than to add to the body of criminological knowledge. Lifestyle theory contains three key concepts: conditions, choice, and cognition. A crimi- nal lifestyle is the result of choices criminals make, although Walters acknowledges that these choices are made “within the limits established by our early and current biologic/ environmental conditions. ”^71 Thus, various biological and environmental conditions lay the foundation of future choices. In common with the long psychological tradition, Walters stresses impulsiveness and low IQ as the most important choice biasing conditions at the individual level and attachment to significant others as the most important environmental condition. The third concept, cognition, refers to cognitive styles that people develop as a conse- quence of their biological/environmental conditions and the pattern of the choices they have made in response to them. According to this theory, lifestyle criminals display eight major cognitive features or thinking errors that make them what they are. 72,73^ Examples of criminal thinking errors are cutoff (the ability to discount the suffering of their victims), entitlement (the world owes them a living), power orientation (viewing the world in terms of weakness and strength), cognitive indolence (orientation to the present; concrete in thinking), and discontinuity (the inability to integrate thinking patterns). According to Walters, little can be done to change criminal behavior until criminals change their pattern of thinking. These thinking errors lead to four interrelated behavioral patterns or styles that almost guarantee criminality: rule breaking, interpersonal intrusiveness (intruding into the lives of others when not wanted), self-indulgence, and irresponsibility. Criminality is thus the result of irrational behavior patterns (all of which are antisocial but not necessarily criminal). These behavioral pat- terns are the result of faulty thinking patterns, which arise from the consequences (reward and punishment) of choices in early life, which are themselves influenced by biological and early environmental conditions.
Chapter 7 Psychosocial Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavior 185
Figure 7.2 Diagrammatic Presentation of Net Advantage Theory
Temperamental and → Impulsiveness, low → Inability to calculate → CRIME cognitive deficiencies IQ, weak conscience. long-term render socialization Negative interactions consequences difficult; also, lack with prosocial others of behavior of attachment to discounting punitive prosocial others consequences
Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD)
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is described in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM-IV ) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.” 76 APD is an umbrella term applied to the various antisocial types mentioned above. It is a clinical/legal label that psychi- atrists apply to someone if he or she consistently shows three or more of the following behav- ioral patterns since reaching the age of 15:
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
- deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
- impulsivity or failing to plan ahead;
- irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
- reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
- consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
- lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
The individual must also be at least 18 years old, must have been diagnosed with conduct disorder prior to age 15, and his or her antisocial behavior must not occur exclusively during a schizophrenic or manic episode. Astute readers may have noted that you would have to search a long time to find any criminal that didn’t consistently evidence three or more of these criteria, although the require- ment that the person must have been diagnosed with conduct disorder as a child prevents APD from being synonymous with criminal behavior. Having to be at least 18 years old is also problematic because it leaves out thousands of teenage murderers, rapists, and robbers (the age criterion is more for legal than clinical reasons). Finally, the diagnosis is made purely on the basis of behavior. Criminologists generally want to define individuals according to crite- ria that are independent of their behavior and then determine in what ways those so defined differ from individuals not so defined. The most widely used measure of psychopathy is the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R), which was devised by Robert Hare, the leading expert in psychopathy in the world today. 77 With this checklist, clinicians rate patients as either having or not having each of 20 behavior/personality traits such as those listed earlier. The ratings for each trait are made on a 3-point scale, with 0 meaning subjects lack the particular trait, 1 meaning that they have it to some degree, and 2 meaning that they have it to an extreme degree. Persons who receive a total score of 30 or higher are given a diagnosis of psychopathy, and people scoring in the 20s receive a diagnosis of “borderline psychopathy.”^78 It is thus convenient to refer to the former
Chapter 7 Psychosocial Theories: Individual Traits and Criminal Behavior 187
as primary psychopaths and the latter as secondary psychopaths while at the same time remembering that we are actually referring to a continuum ranging from 0 to 40.
What Causes Psychopathy?
Recall that primary psychopaths are said constitute a relatively stable portion of any popula- tion and can be from any social/environmental background. They can be successful entrepre- neurs, CEOs, lawyers, cult leaders, or politicians who, while they may exploit and manipulate others, may never commit any violation of the penal code. The stability of the prevalence of psychopathy over time, as well as its existence across class lines, has led to the virtual dismissal of social or developmental causal explanations of primary psychopathy by psychopathy researchers.79–81^ As Robert Hare remarks, “I can find no convincing evidence that psychopathy is the direct result of early social or environmental factors.”^82 Cesare Lombroso probably had psychopaths in mind with his “morally insane” born criminals (i.e., those “who appear normal in physique and intelligence but cannot distinguish good from evil”).^83 Researchers who believed that primary psychopaths are “born that way” have come full circle to evolutionary explanations, but with the advantage of more than a cen- tury’s worth of research behind us, our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is much more sophisticated than Lombroso’s. We no longer talk of criminals as evolutionary throw- backs whose behavior is “unnatural.” Rather, many scientists view psychopaths as behaving exactly as they were designed by natural selection to behave. 84,85^ This does not mean that their behavior is acceptable or that we cannot consider it morally pathological and punish it accord- ingly; the naturalistic fallacy warns us that the fact that something is natural (i.e., designed by nature) does not make it acceptable or morally right.
Psychopathy and the Social Emotions
If psychopathy is a strategy forged by natural selection, there must be a number of identifiable markers that distinguish psychopaths from the rest of us. One of the most consistent physio- logical findings about psychopaths is their inability to “tie” the brain’s cognitive and emotional networks together, which translates into the inability (or, at least, the greatly reduced ability) to experience the social emotions of shame, embarrassment, guilt, empathy, and love.86,87^ The social emotions are distinguished from the primary emotions such as anger, joy, and happi- ness, all of which psychopaths experience as strongly as other people. The social emotions have evolved as integral parts of our social lives that serve to provide clues about the kinds of relationships (cooperative vs. uncooperative) that we are likely to have with others.^88 Social emotions focus and modify brain activity in ways that lead us to choose certain responses over others. Feelings of guilt, shame, embarrassment, and empathy prevent us from doing things that might be to our immediate advantage (steal, lie, cheat) but would cost us in reputation and future positive relationships if discovered. Thus, the positive and negative feelings we experience when we survey the possible consequences of our actions keep most of us on the straight and narrow most of the time. The weaker we feel them, the more likely we are to exploit others; the stronger we feel them, the less likely we are to exploit others. This is the emotional component of our consciences coming into play. Emotional responses are typically studied using EEG data reflecting the brain’s arousal levels in response to the person’s thoughts and emotions. The example presented in Figure 7.
188 CRIMINOLOGY: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
