Positivist school: Biological explanation

Biological theories within the field of criminology attempt to explain behaviors contrary to societal
expectations through examination of individual characteristics. These theories are categorized within a
paradigm called positivism (also known as determinism), which asserts that behaviors, including law-
violating behaviors, are determined by factors largely beyond individual control. Positivist theories
contrast with classical theories, which argue that people generally choose their behaviors in rational
processes of logical decision making, and with critical theories, which critique lawmaking, social
stratification, and the unequal distribution of power and wealth.

1. Physical trait theories

The belief that one can determine a person’s character, moral disposition, or behavior by observing his
or her physical characteristics is ancient. Pythagoras, a philosopher, mathematician, and scientist who
lived during the period around 500 BCE, may have been one of the first to advocate this practice, known
as physiognomy.

i. Physiognomy

The term physiognomy comes from the Greek words physis, meaning “nature,” and gnomon, meaning
“to judge or to interpret.” It refers to the evaluation of a person’s personality or character (i.e., his or
her nature) through an examination of that person’s outward appearance. Early physiognomy
concentrated on characteristics of the face through which to judge the person’s nature. Aristotle, a
Greek philosopher who lived from 384 to 322 BCE, was a proponent of physiognomy, as were many
other ancient Greeks. The practice flourished in many areas of the world and was taught in universities
throughout England until it was banned by Henry VIII in 1531

ii. Phrenology

Phrenology, from the Greek words phren, meaning “mind,” and logos, meaning “knowledge,” is based
on the belief that human behavior originated in the brain. This was a major departure from earlier
beliefs that focused on the four humors as the source of emotions and behaviors:

(1) Sanguine (blood), seated in the liver and associated with courage and love

(2) Choleric (yellow bile), seated in the gall bladder and associated with anger and bad temper

(3) Melancholic (black bile), seated in the spleen and associated with depression, sadness, and irritability

(4) Phlegmatic (phlegm), seated in the brain and lungs and associated with calmness and lack of
excitability.

Theoretically and practically relocating responsibility for behavior from various organs to the brain
represented a major step in the development of the scientific study of behavior and in the development
of biological explanations of crime and criminality.
2. Atavistic criminal behavior approach (born criminal approach)

In the 19th Century, Italian prison psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso drew on the ideas of Charles Darwin and
suggested that criminals were atavistic: essentially ‘evolutionary throwbacks’. Based upon such
principles, the author outlines the features of an “ideal-type” of “born criminal”, that is, someone
biologically predisposed for criminal activities.

Lombroso performed autopsies on 66 male criminals and found that these have some physical
characteristics similar to primitive humans. He also studied some non-criminal and lunatic males and
females.

Among the physical traits listed by Lombroso we can find the “abnormal” shape or size of the skullcap
and face, thick eye-brows, prominent molars, big, deformed ears, bodily dissymmetry and large size of
arms, hands and feet. In terms of behavior and personality traits, Lombroso argues that these
individuals are characterized by reduced sensibility to pain, cruelty, recklessness, aversion to work,
instability, vanity, penchant for superstition and sexual precociousness. This way, Lombroso sketches a
general portrait for criminals anchored in implicit and explicit assumptions about biological traits that
are conceived as being independent of specific historical, social or political context. In so doing,
Lombroso suggested that involvement in crime was a product of biology and biological characteristics:
criminals were born that way. Lombroso’s theory is essentially a theory of biological positivism.

Lombroso’s work has long since fallen out of favor. However, biological theories have continued to
develop. Rather than measuring physical features of the body, contemporary approaches focus on:

Biochemical conditions (e.g. linked to poor diet or hormone imbalance)

Neurophysiological conditions (e.g. learning disabilities caused by brain damage)

Genetic inheritance and/or abnormality

Intelligence

These attempts to locate the causes of crime within the individual suggest that there are identifiable
differences between offenders and non-offenders. In other words, the criminal is ‘other’: in some way
different or abnormal to everyone else.

3. Charles Goring’s work (a response to Lombroso’s theory)

Beginning in 1901, in England, Charles Goring published his study in 1913. It was to some extent was a
response to the Lombroso’s work. Goring’s study was strictly a comparison between a group of persons
convicted of crimes and a group of non-criminals including university undergraduates, officers, hospital
patients and men of British Army units. No attempt was made to distinguish between born criminals and
normal people. Lombroso asserted that criminals had certain physical features but Goring found no
protrusions or other anomalies. He also compared other features as eye color, hair color nasal contour
and left-handedness but found no significant differences. He also compared different groups of criminals
but found only a general exception that the criminals were one to two inches shorter than non-
criminals. They also were weighed three to seven pounds less than non-criminals.

Goring has been criticized for being too anxious to disprove Lombroso’s theories. It was because Goring
considered Lombroso’s work unscientific and criticized Lombroso’s willingness to declare the people
‘criminal’, who were never involved in any criminal activity, solely on the basis of their appearance.

3. Body physique and criminal behavior

William Sheldon

Constitutional Psychology was the name attached to the biological approach developed by William
Sheldon in Varieties of Delinquent Youth (1949), a study of 200 young men referred to a Boston
rehabilitation facility. Sheldon argued that the body is really “an objectification, a tangible record, of the
most long-standing and most deeply established habits that have been laid down during a long
succession of generations.”

Endomorphic Body Type:

 soft body
 underdeveloped muscles
 round shaped
 over-developed digestive system

Associated personality traits:

 love of food
 tolerant
 evenness of emotions
 love of comfort
 sociable
 good humored
 relaxed
 need for affection

Mesomorphic Body Type:

 hard, muscular body

 overly mature appearance
 rectangular shaped
 thick skin
 upright posture

Associated personality traits:

 adventurous
 desire for power and dominance
  courageous
 indifference to what others think or want
 assertive, bold
 zest for physical activity
 competitive
 love of risk and chance

Ectomorphic Body Type:

 thin
 flat chest
 delicate build
 young appearance
 tall
 lightly muscled
 stoop-shouldered
 large brain

Associated personality traits:

 self-conscious
 preference for privacy
 introverted
 inhibited
 socially anxious
 artistic
 mentally intense
 emotionally restrained

In subsequent studies of juvenile delinquency, Sheldon argued that mesomorphic types were more likely
to engage in crime, ectomorphs were more likely to commit suicide, and endomorphs were more likely
to be mentally ill. Although Sheldon linked physical and psychological characteristics and concluded that
both were the result of heredity, he failed to support that conclusion with valid statistical methods.

Sheldon Glueck

Sheldon Glueck, a Polish-American criminologist, found an association between mesomorphy and

delinquency. He compared two groups of 500 delinquents and 500 on-delinquents. Both the groups
were compared in terms of age, general intelligence, ethnic-racial derivation and residence in
underprivileged areas. The photos of the boys were mixed and visually assessed for predominant body
type and by this method 61% of delinquents but only 38% of non-delinquents were mesomorphs. The
Glueck found that the mesomorphs, in general were more highly characterized by traits suitable to the
commission of acts of aggression. Glueck also found that the mesomorphs who became delinquents
were characterized to have traits that were not found in mesomorphs normally. These were
susceptibility of contagious disease in childhood, feeling of inadequacy, destructiveness, emotional
instability and emotional conflicts.
Cortes

The Glueck’s study was criticized because there was no control for the rapid body changes occurring in
adolescence as the study included only visual assessment. To overcome this problem, Cortes used
precise measurements to somatotype 100 delinquents. He also 100 private high school seniors who had
no record of any delinquency. He found that 57% of delinquents were high in mesomorphy in
comparison to 19% in non-delinquents. To determine the association of temperament with body type,
Cortes had 73 boys classified in clear body types. The results showed that there was a strong tendency
for boys with mesomorphic physiques to describe their temperaments in terms that Sheldon called
somotonics. Similarly boys with endomorphic physiques used viscerotonic terms and the boys with
ectomorphic physiques used cerebrotonic terms to describe their temperaments. Finally using
McClelland’s test for ‘Need for Achievement’, Cortes concluded that mesomorphy was associated with
the need for the achievement and need for power.

Biological explanations for behavior lost much of their popularity during the 1960s with the belief that
their inherent implication of inferiority often was misused to justify prejudice and discrimination. In
addition, the 1950s and 1960s brought significant advances in the natural sciences and in the social and
behavioral sciences. Once again, criminologists and other scientists turned to evaluating the internal
components and processes of the human body.

4. Inheritance and criminal behavior

In 1992, a conference related to the Human Genome Project at the University of Maryland had its
federal funding withdrawn for attempting to discuss any particular linkage between genes and violence
(Murphy & Lappé, 1994). Objections by groups who believed that any such research would be used to
oppress poor and minority populations overpowered the quest for knowledge.

Although genetic research began with Mendel’s laws of inheritance, our understanding of how genes
influence our behaviors is still evolving.

Discovery of the genetic code in the mid-1950s took us beyond recognizing that genes were involved in
heredity to a greater understanding of the process through which hereditary traits are passed from one
generation to another.

1. Chromosomes

Human cells normally have 22 pairs of chromosomes, plus a pair of chromosomes that determines sex,
for a total of 46. Sex chromosomes are termed X and Y. Females carry a combination of XX, and males
carry a combination of XY. During conception, the male’s sperm carries genetic material to the female’s
egg. If the sperm that fertilizes a female egg is carrying a Y chromosome, the resulting embryo will
develop into a male fetus (XY). If the sperm is carrying an X chromosome, the resulting embryo will
develop into a female fetus (XX).

During this process, however, things can develop abnormally. For example, during the process, some
men are left with an extra Y chromosome (XYY). Erroneously termed XYY syndrome, a “supermale”
carrying this chromosomal pattern usually has a normal appearance and will probably never know that
he carries an extra Y chromosome, unless he is genetically tested for some other reason. Given the Y
chromosome’s association with the male sex and with increased production in testosterone, many
claims have been made in the research literature that XYY males are more aggressive and more violent.
This supposition has not been supported with scientifically valid research.

Although scholars are reluctant to associate criminal behavior with any specific gene, researchers
continue to investigate the inheritability of behavioral traits. Some of the most promising work involves
the study of twins and adoptees.

2. Twin studies

Since Galton’s work with twins, twin studies have become more sophisticated and have attempted to
respond to methodological criticisms. Distinctions between fraternal (dizygotic [DZ]) and identical
(monozygotic [MZ]) twins have contributed to the sophistication of this type of research. DZ twins
develop from two eggs and share about half of their genetic material, whereas MZ twins develop from a
single egg and share all of their genetic material.

Twin studies attempt to control for the impact of the social environment, hypothesizing that these
environments are similar for twins. Twins generally are raised in the same social environment, so the
impact of the social environment is considered to be equal and consistent (and thus controlled).
Therefore, any greater similarity between identical twins than between fraternal twins would provide
evidence for a genetic link.

In 1974, Karl O. Christiansen evaluated the criminal behavior of 3,586 twin pairs born in Denmark
between 1881 and 1910. He found that the chance of one twin engaging in criminal behavior when the
other twin was criminal was 50% among the MZ twin pairs but only 20% among the DZ twin pairs. The
correlation between the genetic closeness of the biological relationship and crime was especially true
for serious violent crime and for more lengthy criminal careers.

Although twin studies have provided some support for a genetic component to behavior, it is difficult to
separate the influence of genetics from the influence of social factors. There also are theoretical
problems with the assumption that twins raised in the same home are subject to the same treatment
and the same social environment. Even scholars who study the link between criminal behavior and
genetics are cautious with their conclusions, arguing that these types of studies reveal only that the
similarities between twins have some impact on behavior. Whether these similarities are genetic, social,
or some combination of the two is still open for debate.

3. Adoption

In adoption studies, the behavior of adoptees is compared with the outcomes of their adopted and
biological parents. The aim is to separate out the impact of the environment from the influence of
heredity. This research asks whether a child will exhibit traits of the adopted parents or of the biological
parents.
A meta-analysis of adoption studies, conducted by Walters and White (1989), reinforced the importance
of adoption studies as the best way to determine the impact of both environment and genetics on
criminal behavior but also emphasized the theoretical and methodological difficulties inherent to this
approach. Knowing, for example, whether an adoptive parent has a criminal history provides no
information on the social environment provided in the adoptive parent’s home. The definitions of crime
and criminality also widely vary in these studies and can be challenged. For example, one study may
consider as criminal behaviors perhaps best classified as antisocial (e.g., using bad language, adultery).
Furthermore, these studies do not account for the quantity or quality of social interactions experienced
within the various settings (adoptive vs. biological). Finally, the determination that someone is a criminal
simply on the basis of a conviction or incarceration is problematic and does not consider undetected
criminal behaviors.

Conclusion

According to researchers who worked on the Human Genome Project, however, twin and adoption
studies are the best source for evaluating individual differences in human behavior.

Two primary conclusions have been derived from the recent studies:

(1) Nearly all of the most frequently studied behaviors, characteristics, and conditions (e.g., cognitive
abilities, personality, aggressive behavior) are moderately to highly heritable

(2) Non-shared environments play a more important role than shared environments and tend to make
people different from, instead of similar to, their relatives

Most biological scholars now cautiously conclude that there may be a genetic predisposition toward
criminal behavior but that the manifestation of these predispositions is dependent on social and
environmental factors.

5. Intelligence level and criminal behavior

Criminologists have suggested for centuries that there exists a link between intelligence and crime
(Dabney, 2004). Some common beliefs are that criminals and delinquents possess low intelligence and
that this low intelligence causes criminality. The ideology or concept of IQ and crime has crystallized into
the nature-versus-nurture debate

Nature versus Nurture debate on the relation of low IQ and criminal behavior

The nature-versus-nurture debate is a psychological argument that is related to whether the

environment or heredity impacts the psychological development of individuals (Messner & Rosenfield,
2007). Science recognizes that we share our parents’ DNA. To illustrate, some people have short fingers
like their mother and brown eyes like their father. However, the question remains: Where do individuals
get their love of sports, literature, and humor? The nature-versus-nurture debate addresses this issue.

Nature perspective
With respect to the nature side, research on the prison population has consistently shown that inmates
typically score low on IQ tests (Schmalleger, 2008). In the early decades of the 20th century, researchers
administered IQ tests to delinquent male children. The results indicated that close to 40% had below-
average intelligence (Siegal, 2008). On the basis of these data and other studies, some scholars argue
that the role of nature is prevalent. However, can researchers assume a priori that heredity determines
IQ, which in turn influences an individual’s criminal behavior? One criticism of this perspective is the
failure to account for free will. Many individuals in our society believe in the ability to make choices.
Last, there are many individuals who have a low IQ but refrain from committing crime.

Nurture perspective

With respect to nurture theory, advocates ground themselves on the premise that intelligence is not
inherited. There is some recognition of the role of heredity; however, emphasis is placed on the role of
society (i.e., environment). To demonstrate, parents are a major influence on their children’s behavior.
At an early age, parents read books; play music; and engage their children in art, museum, and sporting
events. Some parents spend no quality time with their children, and these children are believed to
perform poorly on intelligence test. Other groups important in a child’s nurturing are friends, relatives,
and teachers. Ultimately, the child who has no friends or relatives and drops out of school is destined for
difficult times. Research has demonstrated that the more education a person has, the higher his or her
IQ.

Conclusion

The nature-versus-nurture debate will continue. The debate has peaks and valleys. For years, the debate
subsides, and this is followed by years of scrutiny and a great deal of attention.

The Bell Curve

The IQ controversy recently reignited by the publication of The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray.
These authors argue that:

a) Intelligence measured by IQ test is quite important for functioning in the modern world.
b) There are large differences in intelligence among individuals.
c) These differences are largely inherited.
d) Attempts to raise IQ of low IQ persons through education largely have failed.
e) High IQ people control the economy and the larger society but they tend to have less
children and have them at older age. So they are shrinking as a proportion of
population.
f) Low IQ people have more children and have them at earlier age. So their proportion of
population is increasing.
g) The result is American society that is ‘dumbing down’ and is becoming polarized in two
very different groups.
 The American Psychological Association appointed a task force to examine these assertions. The task
force concluded that Herrnstein and Murray’s book was a comprehensive review and discussion on
the subject on the topic to date but its major conclusions were wrong. In particular, they pointed
that if they were right, then average IQ scores in the society should be declining over time and race
and class differences in the IQ scores must be increasing. But average IQ scores in US have increased
slightly by since 1930s. Which is opposite to the dumbing down hypothesis. In addition, the
difference between African-American and European-Americans IQ scores has shrunk, although the
data on racial IQ score only goes back to 1970s. This probably reflects the changes in education
associated to the desegregation of schools and increased African-American attendance in colleges.

6. Other medical factors

i. Autonomic nervous system

In addition to Central Nervous System, there is a separate part of nervous system called as autonomic
nervous system which controls involuntary actions of the body such as heart rate, intestinal activity and
blood pressure. This system is modulated by limbic system in the brain such as hypothalamus that
controls motivation, mood, reproductive and sexual behavior. The ANS is active in “fight or flight”
situation, when it prepares the body for increased efficiency by increasing heart rate, dilating pupils and
directing the blood from stomach to muscles. Lie detectors also detect the involuntary actions in the
criminals to assess whether the subject is telling a lie. The theory is that the children, in the anticipation
of punishment, tell a lie to their parents. The anxiety reaction in anticipation of punishment often leads
them to avoid such situations in future. Thus it is primary agent in socializing for children. Eysenck was
the first to examine this question and based his research on Jung’s concept of introversion and
extroversion.

The introvert is oriented towards inner world and is more quiet, serious, pessimistic, cautious,
controlled and reliable.

The extrovert is oriented towards outer world and is more sociable, carefree, impulsive, optimistic and
aggressive.

Eysenck also used Pavlov’s concept of excitation and inhibition.

Excitation means a stimulus that was presented to the organism was successfully passed through the
ANS to be registered in the cortex.

Pavlov believed that something like brain fatigue also occurs after a period of excitation. Conditioning
was found to slow down after a period of time, but would resume at a higher level after a period of rest.
Pavlov called this as inhibition.

Eysenck hypothesized that these two sets of concepts were related and that introverts that introverts
were characterized by higher levels of excitation and low levels of inhibitions whereas extroverts are
characterized by the opposite. Because extroverts experience lower levels of stimulus coming to the
cortex, they face a ‘stimulus hunger’ whereas the introverts’ brain experiences a high level of stimulus
for longer periods of time, will be oriented towards ‘stimulus avoidance’. Therefore the possibility of
punishment is much more threatening for introverts, they experience high anxiety reactions and tend to
avoid it. On the other hand anxiety reactions are less in extroverts because they are less sensitive to pain
and readily seek out prohibited activities in their search for stimulation. Eysenck concluded that the
psychopaths are extreme extroverts.

In more recent studies, it was revealed that the ANS functioning is involved measuring the same
peripheral functions that are monitored by a lie detector. Mednick maintained that the skin
conductance rate SCR (the time between when the skin conducts current at its peak amplitude and
when it returns to it normal level) can be taken to measure the general rate of recovery in ANS. It is the
measure of the rate at which anxiety reaction in anticipation of the potential punishment is dissipated
following the removal of threat situation and the conditioning (the process of training or accustoming a
person or animal to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances) is more likely to occur.
Mednick argues that the rate at which anxiety dissipates is crucial, since fear reduction is the most
powerful reinforce known to psychology.

Raine reviewed the studies on conditioning using skin conductance responses and concluded that “these
data provide a good support for Eysenck’s conditioning theory of crime.” Raine also reviewed the studies
that relate the skin conductance to the antisocial behavior. Overall findings are mixed but it seems
possible that ANS does play some role in antisocial behavior.

ii. Testosterone levels

Testosterone, the main hormone that produces male secondary sex characteristics, has been frequently
studied in regard to criminal violence; individual differences in testosterone levels are known to be
heritable. Reiss and Roth (1993) report that such studies find a high prevalence of elevated testosterone
levels in violent male sex offenders, but that the correlation is often confounded by alcohol abuse, which
modifies testosterone levels in complex ways and is also associated with violent behavior. One of the
best known sources of excessive testosterone is associated with the use of anabolic steroids by
competitive athletes seeking every edge to enhance their strength and endurance. There is a sizable
body of scientific evidence that these steroids, a synthetic derivative of testosterone, have a host of
deleterious side-effects. Relevant are the mood swings and aggressiveness that are manifested in what
is popularly termed “steroid rage.” An array of anecdotal cases also suggest that such artificial boosts in
testosterone lead to violent outbursts, in some cases culminating in murders perpetrated by young men
who did not have a history of violence.

iii. Nutrition

Just as some learning theorists maintain that our behaviors are a reflection of our learning experiences,
nutritionists often warn that “you are what you eat.” Evidence, in fact, has accumulated to support the
importance of diet as a variable to help explain behavior, including deviant and criminal acts. All of us
find that our moods are affected by hunger, increasing aggression and the likelihood of poor judgment,
for example. Per-sons suffering from hypoglycemia or low blood sugar levels are more likely to evidence
behavioral responses ranging from inattentiveness to impulsivity and violence. It has been suggested
that the sugar present in junk foods can trigger reactive hypoglycemia, contributing to violent behavior.
We now know that ADHD is a widespread disorder among youth and that it is strongly linked to
substance abuse and adult criminality (Gordon and Moore, 2005). The first, and often only necessary,
step in controlling hyperactivity is regulation of dietary intake. Evidence of the power of diet in
alleviating misconduct was generated in an experiment undertaken by Stephen J. Schoenthaler (1991) in
a juvenile institution. The sugar served to an experimental group was covertly reduced, resulting in 45
percent fewer incidents of reported violence in the next three months, even though the staff did not
know who had the reduced sugar diet.