Theories of Crime Causation2020

Theories of Crime Causation 3
Theories of Crime Causation

First Edition
Philippine Copyright, 2020

By: ChapterHouse Publishing Incorporated
All Rights Reserved.

The text of this book or any part hereof, may not be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including copying, recording, storage in any
informational retrieval system, or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher.
Any unauthorized copying, reproduction, or dissemination
of any portion of this book shall be prosecuted
in accordance with the law.
Published and Distributed by:

ChapterHouse Publishing Incorporated
0927-156-2290 /0918-487-4559 /(02) 7987-1356
Novaliches, Quezon City
inquiry.chp@gmail.com
fb.com/chapterhouse
Edited by:
The English Factor
fb.com/englishfactor
“Providing international-quality
editorial services at reasonable costs.”
ISBN: 978-971-9647-36-2
DEDICATION
To our beloved children:
Eunice Mae A. Lagumen
Hazel Faye A. Lagumen
Dennis A. Lagumen Jr.

PREFACE
The study of crimes and causation has engaged the

interest of many academic disciplines in order to provide
answers to the time-old question - “why crime exist?”
Based on the foundation of early century philosophical
debates and experimentations, on crime causation,
various philosophical theories emerged. These major
theories have come from sociology, psychology, and
psychiatry, etc.
The study of crimes and crime causations varies
through history. The inquiry about what is crime,
what causes criminal behavior in the past was strongly
influenced by social condition of the current times.
For example, there are times in the United States that
sodomy is crime, however, the United States Supreme
Court invalidated the law in the case Lawrence vs
Texas in 2003. Similarly, several decades ago, same
sex marriage is considered immoral. However, in
recent years there are many countries accepting same
sex marriage. Even in Philippine legal system, mere
membership to any subversive groups is considered
a crime under the anti-subversion law. However, the
law was repealed in 1992 under President Ramos
administration.
If what constitute a crime differs across time and
place, how can criminologists hope to agree upon a
scientific explanation for crime and criminal behavior?
But all criminologists and other behavior scientists
agree that crime is a social phenomenon and is ever
changing. Our outlook on crimes must also be based on
the current needs of the time to address it accordingly.
There many explanations to crime causation; and this
book is intended to explore all of the theories of crime
causation to enlighten our thoughts and understanding.
This book is divided into four (4) chapters, each
dealing with a particular type of crime causation. It
is hoped that through this division in explaining crime
causation, the readers will be able to best explain crimes
and crime causation based on their circumstances.
Chapter One - Biological Theories. This deals

with inclusive theories of crime. Meaning, the source
of the behavior is within the individual. This consists
of theories like physiological, biochemical, neurological,
and genetics. The importance of biological theories in
explaining criminal behavior cannot be belittled. For
the last fifteen years, many studies have shown that
criminal etiology can best be understood when genetics
and biological factors are taken into consideration.
Chapter Two – Psychological Theories. This
chapter focuses in the three most important concepts
of criminal behavior, (a) psychodynamic theory, (b)
behavioral theory, (c) cognitive theory. This chapter will
explain the association among intelligence, personality,
learning and criminal behavior.
Chapter Three – Sociological Theories. The social
structure theories of crime causation are considered
“macro theories” that explore the behavior effects of how
society is “structured” to influence criminal behavior.
This chapter focuses on how culture, neighbourhood
and social conditions contribute to crimes and criminal
behavior. Social process theories are “micro” theories of
crime that explore how individuals personally perceive
crime and how it influenced them. In these theories,
not all individuals react to the same situations. This
chapter focuses on the influence of small social group
in behavior and view of crime.
Chapter Four – Developmental Theories.
Developmental theories combine various sciences like,
biology, psychology, and sociology together to provide a
better explanation of crime and crime causation.
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Dedication...................................................................................4
Preface .......................................................................................5
CHAPTER ONE
BIOLOGICAL CAUSES OF CRIME..............................................10
Principles of Biological Theories.............................................13
Types of Biological Theories....................................................15
Early Positivism.....................................................................15
Constitutional Theories..........................................................19
Hormones and Body Chemistry..............................................21
Sociobiology...........................................................................25
Biosocial Perspective..............................................................27
Influence of Genetics and Environment..................................29
Reward Dominance and Prefrontal Dysfunction Theories........39
Concept Summary of Biosocial Perspective and Theories........41
Competency Assessment No. 1...............................................44
CHAPTER TWO
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF CRIMES.....................................49
Cognitive Approach................................................................52
Biological or Neurological Approach........................................53
Developmental Approach........................................................53
Psychological and Psychiatric
Foundations of Criminal Behavior...................................55
Psychoanalytic/Psychodynamic Theory..................................55
Personality Theory.................................................................60
Dynamics of Personality.........................................................64
Dimensions of Personality......................................................67
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis.........................................75
Psychiatric Criminology..........................................................76
Moral Development theory......................................................77
Behavior Theory.....................................................................79
Cognitive Theory....................................................................80
Self-Control Theory................................................................83
Attachment Theory.................................................................85
Concept summary of Psychological Theories...........................87
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIOLOGICAL CAUSES OF CRIMES........................................93
Social Process Theories..........................................................94
Social Learning Theories........................................................97
Differential Association Theory...............................................103
Differential Reinforcement Theory..........................................107
Neutralization Theory.............................................................110
Social Control Theories..........................................................113
Containment theory...............................................................114
Social Bond and Self Control Theory......................................116
Labeling Theory......................................................................118
Social Structure Theories.......................................................119
Social Disorganization Theory................................................120
Strain Theories......................................................................129
Anomie..................................................................................129
Relative Deprivation Theory....................................................131
General Strain Theory............................................................132
Concept Summary of Strain Theories.....................................138
Cultural Deviance Theory or Culture Conflict Theory..............140
CHAPTER FOUR
DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES...................................................148
Foundations of Developmental Theories.................................149
Life Course Theory.................................................................150
Age Graded Theory.................................................................151
Interactional Theory...............................................................153
General Theory or Super Traits Theory...................................153
Latent Trait Theory................................................................154
General Theory of Crime.........................................................156
Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential Theory.....................157
Trajectory Theory...................................................................157
Concept Summary of Three Developmental Theories...............159
LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................166
10
Chapter One
Biological Causes of Crime
A. Topic Description: 3. Types of Biological theories

This chapter discusses the a. Early positivism
early explanation of the cause
of crime and criminal behavior. b. Constitutional Theories
Early philosophers viewed crime c. Hormones and body
as supernatural origin, meaning chemistry
that the demon possess an
individual to commit a crime. d. Sociobiology
Others believed, like Lombroso e. Biosocial perspective
that criminals are evolutionary
throwbacks of primitive men that
do not follow the laws. Aside from
looking at a criminal as primitive, C. Topic Objectives:
other philosophers began to study 1. Identify the importance of
the criminal heredity and other biological causes of crime to
biological reasons for developing the explanation of criminal
criminal behavior. Further studies behavior.
conducted among convicted
criminals lead to the conclusion 2. Discuss the different principles
that they are suffering from some of biological theories.
form of an abnormality due to 3. Identify different types of
the genes, chromosomes, family biological theories
influence and the community as
well. 4. Differentiate biosociology
from sociobiology
5. Analyze the strength and
B. Scope: weakness of behavior
1. General concept involved and molecular genetics,
in biological explanation of evolutional psychology
crimes. perspective. Neuroscience,
reward dominance theory,
2. Principles of biological and prefrontal dysfunction.
theories
CHAPTER ONE
Biological Causes of Crime
One of the oldest scientific approaches in criminology theory

emphasizes physical and biological abnormality as the distinguishing
mark of the criminal. As emphasized by Schmalleger (2011), biological
theories focus on the mind as the center of the personality and the
major determinants in controlling human behavior. This is different
from the classical and neo-classical traditions, which consider free
will and external forces as the cause of behavior. On the other hand,
biological theories look into internal sources, including genetic and
physical makeup as sources of criminal behavior. Indeed, scientists
under this theory viewed criminals as somehow different, abnormal,
defective, and therefore inferior biologically. It is believed that criminals
are biological inferior.
According to Chamberlain (2015), although the origin of biological
theory of crime stretch back much further, historical development
of modern form of biological criminology from the beginning of the
nineteenth century onwards overlaps with the emergence of classical
criminology from the eighteenth century as well as psychological
criminology at the turn of the twentieth century. Furthermore,
Chamberlain stated that biological theory spurred on by the achievement
of natural and social scientists during the nineteenth century including
Charles Darwin, Auguste Comte. This theory emerged in the form of
“Lombrosian project”, which built on the modern scientific principles
of careful observation and experiments.
From this assumption, criminals produce certain physical
characteristics that distinguish them from that of non-criminals. These
theories adhere to the principle that the basic determinants of human
behavior, including criminality, are constitutionally or physiologically
based and often inherited. Early biological theories in criminology
view that structure determines function – that is, individuals behave
differently because of the fundamental fact that they are somehow
structurally different (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Parts of the brain that controls personality and other bodily functions.
Schmalleger (2011) argued that early biological theorists focused

on physical features and heredity as the source of criminal behavior.
They considered such physical traits as facial features, body type, and
shape of the skull as causes of criminality. Several theorists proposed
that criminality ran in families and could be inherited, being passed
down from one generation to another. Contemporary theorists have
looked at other internal sources of behavior, including diet, hormonal
issues, environmental contaminants, and neuro-physical conditions.
Followers of this theory view the criminal as a person whose
behavior is controlled by biological conditions determined at birth,
modern biological trait theorists believe that physical, environmental
and social conditions work in concert to produce human behavior.
They assume that environmental forces can either “trigger” antisocial
behavior in people biologically predisposed to deviance or conversely,
if conditions are right, help mediate or offset the effects of biological
predisposition.
A good example of how the brain functioning can influence behavior
is the case of Antonio Bustamante. Bustamante is a well-behaved
teenager who suddenly at the age of 22 became a career criminal.
His crimes included theft, breaking and entering, drug offenses, and
robbery. In 1990 Bustamante was charged with a homicide for brutally
beat an elderly man to death during a sloppy, impulsive robbery.
Bustamante was not exactly a born criminal, however. Even through
his teenage years he was quite well behaved. But at age 20 he suffered
a “very significant” head injury from a crowbar, and not long after that
he was in a serious car accident that caused more injuries to his head.
From then on he was in constant trouble with the law as can be seen
in figure 2 (http://thepenngazette.com/the-anatomist-of-crime/).
Figure 2. Scans of a normal brain, left, beside that of murderer Antonio Bustamante,
who was spared the death penalty after a jury was shown these pictures.
PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL THEORIES

As emphasized by Schmalleger (2011), biological theory supports
the concept that the mind is the center of one’s personality and the
major determinant in controlling human behavior. The different
biological theories are focused to internal sources of behavior,
including the genetic and physical attributes of an individual. Theorists
presented physical attributes and genetics as sources of criminal
behavior (Figure 3).
Biological theories of crime causation make certain fundamental
assumptions. Among them are:
a) The brain is the organ of the mind and the locus of personality
in the words of the well-known biocriminologists Clarence
Ray Jeffrey “the brain is the organ of behavior; no theory of
behavior can ignore neurology and neurochemistry.”
b) The basic determinants of human behavior, including
criminal tendencies, are, to a considerable degree,
constitutionally or genetically based.
c) Observed gender and racial differences in rates and types of
criminality may be at least partially the result of biological
differences between the sexes and or between racially
distinct groups.
Personal Personal
Characteristics Characteristics
Make each Person Make each Person
Unique Unique
• Biochemical Traits Environment • Biochemical
make-up make-up
• Genetic code • Genetic code
• Neurological • Neurological
condition condition
Ability to learn and achieve
Human Behavior
Conformity Crime
Figure 3. Biosocial perspective on criminality
d) The basic determinants of human behavior, including

criminality may be passed on from generation to generation.
In other words, a penchant for crime may be inherited.
e) Much of human conduct is fundamentally rooted in
instinctive behavioral response characteristics of biological
organisms everywhere. Territoriality, condemnation of
adultery, and acquisitiveness are but three examples of
behavior, which may be instinctive to human beings.
f) The biological roots of human conduct have become
increasingly disguised, as modern symbolic forms of
indirect expressive behavior have replaced more primitive
and direct ones.
g) At least some human behavior is the result of biological
propensities inherited from more primitive developmental
stages in the evolutionary process. In other words, some
human beings may be further along the evolutionary ladder

than, and their behavior may reflect it.
h) The interplay between heredity, biology, and the
social environment provides the sexes for any realistic
consideration of crime causation.
TYPES OF BIOLOGICAL THEORIES
1. EARLY POSITIVISM (1880 – 1930)

These biological approaches built upon evolutionary principles
and were the first to apply scientific techniques to the study of crime
and criminals. Early positivistic theories view criminals as throwbacks
to earlier evolutionary epochs.
PHYSIOGNOMY/PHRENOLOGY
OR CRANIOLOGY
In the early days of
explaining criminal behavior,
many theories at the time
believed that crime tendencies
can be determined through their
physical appearance. Two (2) of
the most popular theories are
physiognomy and phrenology.
Physiognomy
According to Vold and
Snipes (2000), physiognomy
deals with making judgment
about people’s character form
appearance of their faces. In
1775, Johan Caspar Lavater
(1741-1801), a Swiss scholar
a theologian published a book
“Physiognomical Fragments”
which received nearly favorable
attention (Figure 4). In the work Figure 4. Lavater Physiognomical
Fragments.
of Lavater, he systematized man popular observation and made man

extravagant claims about the alleged relation between facial features
and human conduct. For example, beardlessness and its opposite,
shifty eye, a weak chin, an arrogant nose, etc. were considered in
determining behavior (Figure 4). However, in modern times, these
facial features are of little or no importance in modern times. The only
significance of physiognomy lies in the impetus it gave to the better-
organized and logically more impressive view that came to be known
as “Phrenology.”
Phrenology
According to Hagan
(2017), phrenology is
a pseudoscience that
claim to determine
personality and
intelligence on the basis
of the size and shape
of a person’s skull and
was popular from the
mid – 1700s to the mid
– 1800s. In other words,
this theory focused on
the external shape of
the skull instead of the
appearance of the face.
Phrenologist assumed
that the exterior of the
skull conformed to its
interior and therefore Figure 5. Phrenology head chart
to the shape of the brain.
Different faculties or functions of the mind were assumed associated
with different parts of the brain. Therefore, the exterior shape of the
skull would indicate how the mind functioned (Figure 5).
The Austrian physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758 – 1828) was its
major proponent. Gall thought that three major regions of the brain
each govern one type of behavior and personality characteristics:
intellectual, moral, and lower. The lower type was associated with
criminal behavior and would be largest in criminals. Since phrenologists
could not directly measure the size of the three brain regions, they
reasoned that the size and shape of the skull corresponds to the brain’s
size and shape. They thus thought that skull dimensions provided
good evidence of criminal tendencies. Gall’s approach contained the

following (Schmalleger, 2011):
1. The brain is the organ of the mind.
2. Particular aspects of personality are associated with
specific locations in the brain.
3. Portions of the brain that are well developed will cause
personality characteristics associated with them to be
more prominent in the individual under study, while
poorly developed brain areas lead to a lack of associated
personality characteristics.
4. The shape of a person’s skull corresponds to the shape
of the underlying brain and is therefore indicative of the
personality.
Closely allied of Gall (Schmalleger, 2011) in the development of
phrenology was his student and one – time collaborator, John Gaspar
Spurzheim (1776 – 1832). It was Spurzheim rather than Gall who
carried their doctrines to England and America, lecturing before
scientific meetings and stimulating interest in their ideas.
However, according to Vold and Snipes (2000), the obvious
scientific criticism of phrenology theory of crime was that no one
was able to observe the physiological “organs” of the mind or their
relation to particular type of behavior. The most serious obstacle to
its acceptance by the public, however, was the deterministic nature of
its analysis. In other words, if human conduct were there result of the
organ of the mind, then people’s fate was in the hands of anatomy and
physiology. This view was rejected by teachers, preachers, judges, and
other people who influenced public opinion because it contradicted
one of their most cherished ideas – humans are masters of their own
conduct and capable of making themselves what they will.
Atavism
As discussed by Siegel (2019), atavism came from a Latin word
“avatus” which means ancestor, it is a concept used by Cesare
Lombroso (1835 – 1909), an Italian Physician, who thought criminals
were atavists, or throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution, and view
criminality as the result of atavism. According to him the atavistic
individual was essentially a throwback to a more primitive biological
state. That, such an individual by virtue of possessing a relatively
undeveloped brain is incapable of conforming his behavior to the rules
and expectations of modern

complex society. He believed
that criminals resembled lower,
more “ape-like” ancestors.
Examples of physical
characteristics that supposedly
reflected this atavistic type of
individual were an asymmetrical
face, a twisted nose, unusually
large ears, fleshy lips, and long
arms (Figure 6).
However, as argued
by Burke (2019), Lombroso
made little reference to female
offenders and considered their
criminality to be predominantly
restricted to prostitution and
abortion, and observed that a
man was invariably responsible
to instigating their involvement
in these crimes.
Following in Lombroso’s
positivistic footstep, around the Figure 6. Early concept of
criminal physical features.
turn of the twentieth century
was an English physician
Charles Buckman Goring (1870 – 1919). Using newly developed
but advanced mathematical techniques to measure the degree the
correlation between physiological features and criminal history.
Goring assumed that the frequency and length of imprisonment
could measure the seriousness of criminality. He therefore attempted
to find out what physical, mental, and moral factors were correlated
with that measure. Goring found that those with frequent and lengthy
imprisonments were physically smaller than other people do and were
mentally inferior (Siegel 2019).
Earnest A. Hooton (1887 – 1954), a professor of anthropology
at Harvard University, conducted a similar study between the
years 1927 – 1939. In 1939 Hooton published Crime and the Man.
Hooton distinguished between region s of the country, saying that
“state have favorite crimes, just as they favorite sons”. In his classic
study of thousands of criminals and non-criminals, he uncovered a
“significant difference between criminals and civilians,” and indicated
that “criminals are inferior to civilians in nearly all their bodily
measurements.” Hooton said, prisoners tended to have, among other
things, low foreheads, crooked noses, narrow jaws, small ears, long
necks, and stooped shoulders. Hooton labeled criminals ‘organically
inferior” and “low - grade human organism” and conclude that the
“primary cause of crime is biological inferiority (Siegel, 2019).
Figure 7. Physical Stigmata
Hooton further concluded that body shapes of the criminals

influenced the types of crime they committed. Hooton believes in
the biological inferior of criminals, which led him to advocate that
the government reduce crime by undertaking “the extirpation of the
physically, mentally, and morally unfit, or their complete segregation
in a socially aseptic environment. This is illustrated in Figure 7 (as
cited in Schmalleger, 2011).
2. CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES
Constitutional theories are those that explain criminality by
reference to offender’s body types, genetics or external observable
physical characteristics.
a. BODY TYPES OR SOMATOTYPING

This refers to classification of human beings into types
according to body build and other physical characteristics.
This perspective was primarily associated with the work of
Ernst Kretschmer a professor of psychiatry at the German

University of Tubingen and William Herbert Sheldon.

Kretsschmer’s Three Basic Mental Categories
According to Schmalleger (2011), Ernst Kretschmer proposed
a relationship between body build and personality type and created
a rather detailed “biopsychological constitutional typology” that
describe a particular relationship between body build and personality
type:
a. Cycloid (cyclothymes) – associated with a heavy-set, soft
type of body, vacillated between normality and abnormality.
Were said to be lack of spontaneity and sophistication, and
were thought to commit mostly nonviolent property types
of offenses.
b. Schizoids (schizothymes) – who tended to possess athletic,
muscular bodies but, it could also be thin and leans, were
seen as more likely to be schizophrenic and to commit
violent types of offenses.
c. Displastic – were said to be mixed group described as
highly emotional and often unable to control themselves.
They were thought to commit mostly sexual offenses and
other crime of passion.
Sheldon’s Personality Types

According to Hagan (2017), William Sheldon utilized measurement
techniques to connect body types with personality (Figure 8):
• Endomorphs – heavy with short arms and legs; they tend
to be relaxed and extroverted, and relatively noncriminal.
• Mesomorphs – are athletic and muscular; they tend to be
aggressive and particularly likely to commit violent crimes
and other crimes requiring strength and speed.
• Ectomorphs – are thin, introverted, and overly sensitive,
introverts, sensitive and subject to worrying.
Figure 8. Sheldon’s body type
3. HORMONES AND BODY CHEMISTRY

As stressed by Siegel (2019), the human body is filled with many
kinds of substances that act as “chemical messengers” to help its various
parts perform their functions. Since these functions include behavior,
biologists have tried to determine the role chemical substances might
play in crime. It utilized chemical influences, including hormones, food
additives, allergies, vitamins and other chemical substances to explain
criminal behavior.
a. 47:XYY “Supermale” Syndrome

(Chromosomal Abnormalities)
As you might remember from your biology classes in high school
and college, each person normally has 23 pairs of chromosomes, or
46 chromosomes altogether. The twenty third pair determines the sex
of the child at the moment of conception. Two X chromosomes (XX)
mean the fetus will be female, while one X chromosome and one Y
chromosome (XY) mean it will be male. The pattern that most interests
some criminologists is XYY, which was discovered in 1961 and is found
in fewer than 1 of every 1,000 men. Compared to normal, XY men, XYY
men are more likely to be tall with long arms and severe acne and to
have low intelligence (Hagan, 2017).
Boys with XYY syndrome typically have normal intelligence,
although, on average, IQ is 10 to 15 points lower than siblings. Affected
boys may exhibit mild delays in reaching developmental milestones.
Learning disabilities have been reported in up to 50 percent of cases,
most commonly speech delays and language problems. Reading

difficulties are common due to an increased incidence of dyslexia
(https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/xyy-syndrome/)
The first well–known British researcher, Patricia A. Jacobs
(Schmalleger 2011), undertook study of this type. They believe that
the XYY chromosomal complement may be associated with criminal
behavior. Several researchers study heredity and biological factors of
crime have attempted to demonstrate that the existence of an extra
Y – chromosome in men (XYY pattern leads to excessively aggressive
behavior). In turn, it is theorized that such aggressiveness leads to the
predisposition to various types of antisocial behavior particularly to
crime against person.
Interest in the XYY anomaly and other syndromes in which an
extra chromosome is found, was triggered when it was found out
that there appear to be larger number of XYY men in prison that the
population incidence would predict. The problem here is, of course, to
establish a causal link and such individual are not necessarily linked
to violent crime. XYY syndrome may provide the circumstance for
aggressive behavior, but it is more likely that social circumstances in
combination with the anomaly determine how behavior manifest itself
(Gavin, 2019).
Today, most scientists, psychologists and criminologists don’t
place any value on this outdated research, but the myth of a “supermale”
with an extra Y chromosome still lives on in popular culture (https://
www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8103965/genetics-crime-xyy).
Heredity
As explained by Siegel (2019), heredity is the transmission of
traits and characteristics from parents to offspring? Biologists and
medical researchers have long noticed that crime tends to “run in
families” and naturally assume that criminal tendencies are inherited.
To these researchers, crime is analogous to disease and illness. Just as
many cancers, high cholesterol and heart disease, and other medical
problems are often genetically transmitted, so, they say, is crime and,
for that matter, other behavioral problems such as alcoholism and
schizophrenia. Like the common household expression: “It is in the
blood” and “like father like son” are commonly heard whenever several
members in the family became criminals.
Dietary Factors
Many people discount the importance of nutritional and dietary
factors on human behavior. Other, however, are very much aware of the
impact one’s diet has on behavior, including delinquency or criminal
behavior. Caretakers of children and researchers in the dietary fields
have reported significant differences in behavior resulting from food
components that people eat (Siegel, 2018).
Hypoglycemia
A condition characterized by low blood sugar produced by too
much insulin in the blood or by near – starvation diets, was said to
reduce the mind’s capacity to effectively reason, or to judge the long-
term consequences of behavior. Hypoglycemia occurs when glucose
(sugar) in the blood falls below levels necessary for normal and efficient
brain functioning. The brain is sensitive to the lack of blood sugar
because it is the only organ that obtains its energy solely from the
combustion of carbohydrates. Thus, when the brain is deprived of
blood sugar, it has no alternate food supply to call upon, and brain
metabolism slows down, impairing function. Symptoms of hypoglycemia
include irritability, anxiety, depression, crying spells, headaches, and
confusion (Schmalleger, 2011).
Hormonal Influence
Criminologist James Q. Wilson concludes that hormones,
enzymes, and neurotransmitters may be the key to understanding
human behavior. According to Wilson, they help explain gender
differences in the crime rate. Males, according to him, are biologically
and naturally more aggressive than females, whereas women are
more nurturing toward the young and are important for survival of
the species. Biosocial theorists are evaluating the association between
violent behavior episodes and hormone levels, and the findings suggest
that abnormal levels of male sex hormones (androgens) do in fact
produce aggressive behavior (Schmalleger, 2011).
Moreover, several biological researches have studied the
relationship between hormonal levels and aggressive as well as
criminal behavior. Studies have linked androgens, male sex hormones
and testosterone levels to antisocial, aggressive and violent behavior.
Studies have confirmed that male with higher level of testosterone
exhibits higher levels of aggressions and violence. Another area
of concern has been testosterone, the most abundant androgen,
which controls secondary sex characteristics, such as facial hair

and voice timbre. Boys who were prenatally exposed to steroids
that decrease androgens levels displayed decreased aggressiveness
(Schmalleger, 2011).
Premenstrual Cycle (PMS)

One final hormonal explanation of criminality focuses on women.
In some women, hormonal changes in the days before menstruation
appear to be linked to increased stress, tension, lethargy, and other
problems. These women are said to suffer from premenstrual syndrome,
or PMS. Thinking this emotional condition might lead to aggression
and other offending, some researchers study whether crime by women
tends to occur in their premenstrual phase (Siegel 2018).
The leading researcher in this field was Katharina Dalton.
She attributed criminality to the emotional condition and increased
lethargy (laziness) and clumsiness during this time: there emotional
condition prompted them to commit crimes, and their lethargy and
clumsiness made it more difficult for them to avoid detection and
arrest. To support her view of women’s physical ineptitude, Dalton
noted that half of women drivers involved in serious auto accidents are
also in the eight – day premenstrual – menstrual phase. Some women
are very regular and can remember the dates of their menstruation but
others cannot. More important, it is well known that stress and other
problems can disrupt women’s cycle, with menstruation occurring
either sooner or later than expected. Apparently, fluctuations in the
level of female hormones may also bear some relationship to law
violation. An example of this was the case of Christine English who
was exonerated from murder case. Dr. Katharina Dalton testified in
court that PMS caused Christine to be irritable and confused with loss
of self-control (Schmalleger, 2011).
Diana Fishbein, a noted expert on biosocial theory, concludes
that there is in fact an association between elevated levels of female
aggression and menstruation. She argues:
a. That a significantly number of incarcerated females
committed their crimes during the premenstrual
phase and,
b. That at least a small percentage of women appear
vulnerable to cyclical hormonal changes, which makes
them more prone to anxiety and hostility.
Allergies
According to Siegel (2019), allergy is defined as an unusual or
excessive reaction of the body to foreign substances. Cerebral allergies
cause an excessive reaction in the brain, whereas neuroallergies
affect the nervous system. Neuroallergies and cerebral allergies are
believed to cause the allergic person to produce enzymes that attacks
wholesome foods as if they were dangerous to the body. They may
also cause swelling of the brain and produce sensitivity in the central
nervous system, conditions linked to mental, emotional, and behavioral
problems. Research indicates a connection between allergies and hyper
emotionality, depression, aggressiveness, and violent behavior.
4. SOCIOBIOLOGY
Sociobiology is a theoretical perspective according to Schmalleger
(2011), was developed by Edward O. Wilson in 1975. It is defined as a
systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior, sociobiology
tells us that certain traits such as territoriality are common to both
animals and humans. It asserts that the reason why a person commits
crime is that because of tribalism meaning his inter-group responses
are still crude and primitive. Sociobiology view biology, environment,
and learning as mutually interdependent factors. Problems in one area
can be altered by efforts in other.
In his book, Wilson defined sociobiology as “the systematic study
of the biological basis of all social behavior” and as “a branch of
evolutionary biology and particularly of modern population biology”.
Wilson focused on altruism (selfless, helping behavior) and found
that, contrary to the beliefs of some evolutionary biologists, helping
behavior facilitates the continuity of the gene pool found among
altruistic individuals. Wilson major focus was to show that the
primary determinant of behavior, including human behavior, was the
need to ensure the survival and continuity of genetic material from
one generation to the next. Corollary to this, Siegel (2019) stressed
that the view that human behavior is motivated by inborn biological
urges to survive and preserve the species. He further emphasized that
sociobiology stresses the following principles:
• Behavioral traits are shaped by both inherited traits
and the environment.
• Biological and genetic conditions affect how social
behaviors are learned and perceived.
• Behavior is determined by the need to ensure survival

of offspring and replenishment of the gene pool.
• Biology, environment and learning are mutually
interdependent factors
To simply put it, Siegel (2019) further explained that sociobiology

assumes that while social behavior is genetically transmitted; it adapts
to and is shaped by existing environmental conditions. This view
revived interest in finding a biological or psychological basis for crime
and delinquency. It prompted some criminologists to conclude that
personal traits must be what separate the deviant members of society
from the non-deviant.
Processing these traits may help explain why, when faced with the
same life situation as expounded by Burke (2019), one person commits
crimes whereas another obeys the law. Living in a disadvantaged
neighborhood will not cause a well-adjusted person to commit crime,
and living in an affluent area will not stop a maladapted person from
offending. All people may be aware of and even fear the sanctioning
power of the law, but their behavior is controlled by traits that are
present at birth or developed soon afterwards. Possession of these
traits does not guarantee that their bearer will commit crime, but given
equivalent environmental conditions those who possess the suspect
traits will be more likely to employ deviant or outlawed behavior to
attain their life goals and desires.
Apparently, sociobiology differs from earlier theories of behavior
(Schmalleger, 2011) in that it stresses that biological and genetic
conditions affect how social behavior are learned and perceived.
These perceptions, in turn, are linked to existing environmental
structures. Sociobiologists view the genes as the ultimate unit of life
that controls all human destinies. Although they believe environment
and experience also have an impact on behavior, their main premise
is that most actions are controlled by a person’s “biological machine.”
Most important, people are controlled by the instinctive need to have
their genetic material survive and dominate others. Consequently,
they do everything in their power to ensure their own survival and that
of others who share their gene pool. Even when they come to the aid
of others, which is called reciprocal altruism, people are motivated
by the belief that their actions will be reciprocated and that their gene
survival capability will be enhanced.
Critiques of Sociobiology
As sociobiology began to receive expanded recognition from
American investigators, Schmalleger (2011) stated that some social
scientists, believing the basic tenets of their profession to be challenged
by the movement, began to treat it as “criminology’s anti-discipline.
Contemporary criminologist John Madison Memory writes, by the
early 1980s sociobiology and presented such a significant threat to
American criminology that it could no longer be ignored. Criticisms
were quick to come. Memory identifies many such critiques, including
these charges:
1. Sociobiology fails to convey the overwhelming significance
of culture, social learning, and individual experiences in
shaping the behavior of individuals and groups.
2. Sociobiology is fundamentally wrong in its depiction of the
basic nature of humans; there is no credible evidence of
genetically based or determined tendencies to act in certain
ways,
3. Sociobiology is just another empirically unsupported
rationale for the authoritative labeling and stigmatization
of despised, threatening, powerless minorities.
4. Humans are so thoroughly different from other animal
species, even other primates, that there is no rational basis
for the application to humans of findings from animal
studies.
BIOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE
Biosocial theories as stated by Walsh and Hemmens (2014), have
not been popular with mainstream social scientists until fairly recently
because they were interpreted as implying a Lombrosian biological
inferiority of criminals. This kind of thinking is rarer today because
social scientists have become more sophisticated in their thinking
about the interaction of biology and environment. Biosocial theory is
defined by Siegel (2019), an approach to criminology that focuses on
the interaction between biological and social factors as they relate to
crime.
Today we find leading criminologists such as John Paul Wright
and Francis Cullen (2012) claiming that “biosocial criminology can
lead to a criminology that is rooted more in science and empirical
observations than in ideology and . . . can link criminology to a diverse
array of other disciplines and research methodologies. According to

Lilly, Cullen and Ball (2015), biosocial is not “a” theory but a category
that covers many perspectives.
Biosocial criminologists believe according to Walsh (2012), that
because humans have brains, genes, hormones, and an evolutionary
history, they should integrate insights from the disciplines that
study these things into their theories and dismiss naive nature
versus nurture arguments in favor of nature via nurture. Any trait,
characteristic, or behavior of any living thing is always the result of
biological factors interacting with environmental factors (Cartwright,
2000), which is why we call modern biologically informed criminology
biosocial rather than biological. In many ways, the early positivists
were biosocial in approach because they explicitly envisioned
biological and environmental interaction. Their ideas and methods
were primitive by today’s standards, but then, so were the ideas and
methods of most sciences in the nineteenth century. Evolutionary ideas
about the behavior of all animals (especially the human animal) were
poorly understood; genes were unheard of, and the brain was still a
mysterious locked black box. This has all changed with the sequencing
of the human genome and with the advent of machines that enable us
to see what is going on in the brain as we think and act. For these and
other reasons, biosocial research into criminality is proceeding at an
explosive pace.
Biosocial criminology is beginning to uncover the various ways
in which genes, physiology and environment combine to produce
behavior. Even though science and technology has advanced to the
place where it can begin to uncover the connection between body and
environment, it is far from a place where it can identify all the genes
responsible for behavior, how these genes interact with one another
and environment, and how those genes are activated or deactivated by
environmental factors. Despite difficulties in biosocial research, many
recent findings have reaffirmed the importance of this approach based
on the following (Posick, 2018):
First, the role of the prefrontal cortex in antisocial
behavior has been supported across a wide variety of
study.
Second, physiological factors such as heart rate
and skin conductance have proven to be important in
the etiology of antisocial behavior.
Third, gene by environment interaction predict
certain behaviors that are important to criminologists.
Influence of Genetics and Environment

Family Studies
The most notable family studies according to Tibbetts and
Hemmens (2014), were done in the early 1900s by Dugdale, in his study
of the Lukes family, and the previously discussed researcher Goddard,
who studied the Kallikak family. These studies were supposed to test
the proposition that criminality is more likely to be found in certain
families, which would indicate that crime is inherited. Due to the
similarity of the results, we will focus here on Goddard’s work on the
Kallikak family.
This study showed that a much higher proportion of children
from the Kallikak family became criminal. Furthermore, Goddard
thought that many of the individuals (often children) from the Kallikak
family actually looked like criminals, which fit Lombr0so’s theory of
stigmata. In fact, Goddard had photographs made of many members of
this family to back up these claims. However, follow—up investigations
of Goddard’s research have shown that many of these photographs
were actually altered to make the subjects appear more sinister or
evil (fitting Lombrosos stigmata) by altering their facial features, most
notably their eyes?
Despite the despicable methodological problems with Goddard’s
data and subsequent findings, Tibbetts and Hemmens (2014), stressed
two important conclusions can be made from the family studies that
were done in the early 1900s.
1. Criminality is indeed more common in some families; in
fact, no study has ever shown otherwise. However, this
tendency cannot be shown to be a product of heredity or
genetics. After all, individuals from the same family are also
products of similar environment—often a bad one—so this
conclusion from the family studies does little to advance
knowledge regarding the relative influence of nature versus
nurture in terms of predicting criminality.
2. Family studies were more insightful and interesting.
Specifically, they showed that criminality by the mother (or
head female caretaker) had a much stronger influence on
the future criminality of the children than did the father’s
criminality. This is likely due to two factors. The first is
that the father is often absent most of the time while the
children are being raised. Perhaps more important is that
it takes much more for a woman to transgress social norms
and become a convicted offender, which indicates that the
mother is highly antisocial; this gives some (albeit limited)

credence to the argument that criminality is somewhat
inherited.
Despite these conclusions, it should be apparent from the
weaknesses in the methodology of family studies that these findings
did not hold much weight in the nature-versus-nurture debate. Thus,
a new wave of research soon emerged that did a better job of measuring
the influence of genetics versus environment, which was twin studies.
Twin Studies
After family studies, Tibbetts and Hemmens (2014), stressed
that the next wave of tests done to determine the relative influence
on criminality between nature and nurture involved twin studies,
the examination of identical twin pairs versus fraternal twin pairs.
Identical twins are also known as monozygotic twins because they
come from a single (hence mono) egg (zygote); they are typically referred
to in scientific literature as MZ (monozygotic) twins. Such twins share
100% of their genotype, meaning they are identical in terms of genetic
makeup.
Keep in mind that everyone shares approximately 99% of the
human genetic makeup, leaving about 1% that can vary over the entire
species. On the other hand, fraternal twins are typically referred to as
dizygotic twins because they come from two (hence di) separate eggs;
they are known in the scientific literature as DZ (dizygotic) twins. Such
DZ twins share 50% of genes that can vary, which is the same amount
that any siblings from the same two parents share. DZ twins can be of
different genders and may look and behave quite differently, as many
readers have probably observed (Tibbetts and Hemmens, 2014).
The goal of the twin studies was to examine the concordance
rates between MZ twin pairs and DZ twin pairs regarding delinquency.
Concordance is a count based on whether two people (or a twin pair)
share a certain trait (or lack of the trait); for our purposes, the trait is
criminal offending. Regarding a count of concordance, if one twin is
an offender, then we look to see if the other is also an offender. If that
person is, then we say there is concordance given the fact that the
first twin was a criminal offender. Also, if neither of the two twins is
an offender that also is concordant, because they both lack the trait.
However, if one twin is a criminal offender and the other twin of the
pair is not an offender, then this would be discordant, in the sense that
one has a trait that the other does not (Tibbetts and Hemmens (2014).
Thus, the twin studies focused on comparing the concordance

rates of MZ twin pairs versus those of DZ twin pairs, with the
assumption that any significant difference in concordance could be
attributed to the similarity of the genetic makeup of the MZ twins
(which is 100%) versus the DZ twins (which is significantly less, that
is, 50%). If genetics plays a major role in determining the criminality
of individuals, then it would be expected that MZ twins would have
a significantly higher concordance rate for being criminal offenders
than would DZ twins. In these studies, it was assumed that each twin
in each MZ or DZ twin pair had been raised in more or less the same
environment as the other twin, since each pair had been brought up in
the same family at the same time.
A number of studies were performed in the early and mid-1900s
that examined the concordance rates between MZ and DZ twin pairs.
These studies clearly showed that identical twins had far higher
concordance rates than did fraternal twins, with most studies showing
twice as much concordance or more for MZ twins, even for serious
criminality.
However, the studies regarding the comparisons between the
twins were strongly criticized for reasons that many readers readily
see. Specifically, identical twins, who look almost exactly alike, are
typically dressed the same by their parents and treated the same by
the public. In addition, they are generally expected to behave the same
way. Nonetheless, this is not true for fraternal twins, who often look
very different and quite often are of different genders (Tibbetts and
Hemmens, 2014).
Behavior Genetics
Behavior genetics is a branch of genetics that studies the
relative contributions of heredity and environment to behavioral and
personality characteristics. Genes and environments work in tandem
to develop any trait—height, weight, IQ, impulsiveness, blood sugar
levels, blood pressure, and so on—the sum of which constitutes the
person. Behavior geneticists stress that genes do not cause us to behave
or feel; they simply facilitate tendencies or dispositions to respond
to the environment in one way rather than in another. There are no
genes “for” criminal behavior, but there are genes that manufacture
proteins that lead to particular traits—such as low empathy, low IQ,
and impulsiveness—that increase the probability of criminal behavior
when combined with the right environment (Walsh and Hemmens,
2014).
Biosocial criminologists use twin and adoption studies to

disentangle the relative influences of genes and environments, and
they tell us that genes and environments are always jointly responsible
for any human characteristic. To ask whether genes or environment
is most important for a given trait is just as nonsensical as asking
whether height or width is most important to the area of a rectangle-—
without both we just have two straight lines. Gene expression always
depends on the environment to some extent (Wash and Hemmens,
2014).
Furthermore, he argued that biosocial theory strongly agree that
this new biological criminology is not simply neo-Lombrosian and
has been highly critical of those criminological theories which have
ignored or rejected biological components. In contrast, he has argued
that biological, psychology, and sociological characteristics should be
seen as interacting together in a systems model to produce criminal
behavior. Central to his argument is the notion that individuals
are born particular biological and psychological characteristics or
propensities which may not only predispose them to, but also may
actually cause, certain forms of behavior. This criminal ‘nature
nevertheless is independent of the socialization process present in the
social environment. There is, nonetheless, a good deal of interaction
between nature and nurture through the physical environment and
the feedback mechanisms that exist in human biochemical systems.
Gene—Environment Interaction and Correlation

Gene—environment interaction and gene—environment
correlation describes people’s active transactions with their
environment. Gene—environment interaction (GXE) involves the
commonsense notion that people are differentially sensitive to identical
environmental influences and will thus respond in different ways to
them. For instance, a relatively fearless and impulsive person is more
likely to seize opportunities to engage in antisocial behavior than is a
fearful and constrained person. Gene—environment correlation (rGE)
means that genotypes and environments are related. All living things
are designed to be responsive to their environments, and GXE and rGE
help us to understand how by showing the indirect way that genes
help to determine what aspects of the environment will and will not
be important to us. In addition to furthering our understanding of the
role of genes, advances in genetics have yielded enormous benefits to
our understanding of the environments role in shaping behavior; as
Baker, Bezdjian, and Raine (2006) put it, “the more we know about
genetics of behavior, the more important the environment appears to
be. There are three types of G-E correlation: passive, evocative, and
active (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014).
Passive rGE is the positive association between genes and their
environments that exists because biological parents provide children
with genes linked to certain traits and an environment favorable for their
expression. Children born to intellectually gifted parents, for instance,
are likely to receive genes that lead to above-average intelligence and an
environment in which intellectual behavior is modeled and reinforced,
thus setting them on a trajectory that is independent (passively) of
their actions.
Evocative rGE according to Walsh (2012), refers to the way
others react to the individual on the basis of his or her behavior.
Children bring traits with them to situations that increase or decrease
the probability of evoking certain kinds of responses from others. A
pleasant and well-mannered child will evoke different reactions than
will a bad-tempered and ill-mannered child. Some children may be so
resistant to socialization that parents may resort to coercive parenting
or simply give up, either of which may worsen any antisocial tendencies
and drive them to seek environments where their behavior is accepted.
Evocative rGE thus serves to magnify phenotypic differences by
funneling individuals into like-minded peer groups (“birds of a feather
flock together”).
Active rGE refers to the active seeking of environments compatible
with our genetic dispositions. Active rGE becomes more pertinent as
we mature and acquire the ability to take greater control of our lives
because within the range of possibilities available in our cultures, our
genes help to determine what features of the environment will and
will not be attractive to us. Active rGE assures us that our minds and
personalities are not simply products of external forces, and that our
choices are not just passive responses to social forces and situations.
We are active agents who create our own environments just as they
help to create us. Genes imply human self-determination because,
after all, our genes are our genes. As Colin Badcock (2000) put it,
“Genes don’t deny human freedom; they positively guarantee it. Genes
are constantly at our beck and call, extracting information from the
environment and manufacturing the substances we need to navigate
it. They are also what make us uniquely ourselves and thus resistant
to environmental influences that grate against our natures. In short,
genes do not constrain us; they enable us. This view of humanity is
more respectful of human dignity than the blank slate view that we are
putty in the hands of the environmental winds (Walsh and Hemmens,
2014).
Behavior Genetics and Criminal Behavior

Although there are no genetic theories of criminal behavior per
se, behavior genetic studies help us to better understand traditional
criminological theories. For instance, large behavior genetic studies
conducted in the United States have shown that genetic factors play a
large part in sorting individuals into different family structures (broken
vs. intact homes), a variable often linked to antisocial behavior. In
both these studies, families consisting of a divorced or never-married
mother with children fathered by different men are the most at-risk
family type for anti-social behavior, and families with full siblings with
both biological parent’s present were least at risk. Genes, of course
contribute to the choices people make, as well as make people easy or
difficult to live with.
One of those genetic factors is almost certainly low self-control.
Gottfredson and Hirschi attributed low self-control exclusively to
parental treatment. However, there are now well over 100 studies that
have shown rather strong links between low self-control and low levels
of the neurotransmitter serotonin. In other words, while we all have to
be taught to control our impulses, some of us are naturally easier to
teach than others. Levels of serotonin are governed both by genes and
by the environment. That is, genes govern the base levels of serotonin
a person has, but what is going on in the environment results in
serotonin levels increasing and decreasing (Walsh, 2012).
Molecular Genetics
Heritability estimates according to Walsh (2012) only tell us that
genes are contributing to a trait, but they do not tell us which genes;
only molecular genetics can tell us this. Fortunately, we can now go
straight to the DNA (DNA is the acid in the nucleus of our cells that
contains the instructions for particular genes, which in turn directs
the manufacture of the substances we all need to survive and function)
by genotyping the individuals with a simple cheek swab. We can then
do an analysis of the effects of certain genes on individuals who have
them and compare it with people who do not. Molecular genetic studies
are being conducted with increasing frequency in criminology, with the
huge National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (ADD Health)
study being one yielding some very important genetic findings. It is
important to emphasize that any individual gene accounts only for a
miniscule proportion of the variance in criminal behavior, and that
it contributes to a trait linked to criminality, not to criminality itself,
which you remember is a composite of many different traits. Genes
always have indirect effects on behavior via the effects of the proteins
they make on human traits and abilities.
All people in the world have the same genes that make them
human, but we all have slight variations of them that make us all
different (except for identical twins). If we didn’t have these differences,
the police in all those crime scene investigation shows would not be
able to identify suspects by the bodily fluids left behind at crime scenes.
For instance, although we all have genes that make blood, we have
different blood types. Differences among individuals in behavioral traits
are partially the result of what geneticists call genetic polymorphisms.
Polymorphisms are differences in DNA sequences that code for the
same gene, but which may make more or less of the substance (say, low
serotonin), which leads to slightly different functional or physical traits
among individuals. Let us return to Mobley’s “my MAOA gene made
me do it argument in the opening vignette to illustrate how geneticists
study the effects of these gene variants (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014).
A major longitudinal study of maltreatment looking at the role of
the MAOA gene showed why only about one half of abused/neglected
children become violent adults. The MAOA gene comes in variants that
genetics call “high” and “low” activity. For a variety of reasons, we cannot
get into here, the low-activity version is a risk factor for a number of
behavioral problems, and the high-activity version is a protective factor.
Neither the genetic risk nor environmental risk factors by themselves
had much effect on antisocial behavior. When combined, however,
the odds of having a verified arrest for a violent crime for those with
both genetic (the low variant of the MAOA gene) and environmental
(maltreatment) risk factors were found to be 9.8 times greater than the
odds for subjects with neither the genetic nor the environmental risk.
Furthermore, although the low MAOA + maltreatment subjects were
only 12% of the cohort, they were responsible for 44% of its criminal
convictions (Walsh, 2012).
The overall conclusion arrived at by a meta-analysis of the MAOA/
maltreatment research was that their interaction is a significant
predictor of antisocial behavior across all studies. However, a study
by Widom and Brzustowicz (2006) found that while the high-activity
MAOA allele (an alternate form of a gene at the same location on a
chromosome) buffered whites from the effects of childhood abuse and
neglect as it relates to antisocial behavior later in life, it did not protect
nonwhites. The authors suggest that other environmental stressors,
such as the high density of antisocial others in the neighborhood, may
have negated the protective power of the high-activity polymorphism
among nonwhites in the study. These studies all point to the importance
of studying GxE interactions – how the environment modifies the
effects of genes, and how genes modify the effects of the environment
(Walsh, 2012).
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary psychology as stressed by Walsh and Hemmens
explores human behavior using a theoretical framework and seeks to
explain it with reference to human evolutionary history. Criminologists
operating within the evolutionary framework explore how certain
behaviors society now calls criminal may have been adaptive (such as
useful in the pursuit of reproductive success, the ultimate goal of all
living things) in ancestral environments.
Evolutionary psychology complements genetics because it informs
us how the genes of interest came to be present in the human gene
pool in the first place. While genetics looks for what makes people
different, evolutionary psychology focuses on what makes us all the
same. Another basic difference is that evolutionary psychology looks
at ultimate-level “why” questions (What evolutionary problem did
this behavioral mechanism evolve to solve?), and geneticists look at
proximate-level “how” questions (To what extent is this behavioral
mechanism influenced by genes in this population at this time?).
Ultimate causes are thus those that occurred in the past that are
ultimately responsible for something, whereas a proximate cause is
one that is most immediately responsible for causing some observed
behavioral outcome (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014).
Evolutionary psychologists agree with most criminologists that
although it is morally regrettable, crime is normal behavior for which
we all have the potential. Evolutionary logic tells us that if criminal
behavior is normal, it must have provided some evolutionary advantage
for our distant ancestors. However, because modern environments
are so radically different from the hunter/gatherer environments in
which we evolved many of our most human traits, many traits selected
for their adaptive value at the time may not be adaptive today. It is
important to realize that it is the traits underlying criminal behavior
that are the alleged adaptations, not the specific acts we call crimes
(Walsh, 2012).
Criminal behavior is a way to acquire resources illegitimately.
Evolutionary psychologists refer to such behavior (whether it is
defined as criminal or not) as cheating, and think of individual traits
associated with it such as impulsiveness and aggression in terms of
adaptive traits all humans share, but which also vary considerably
among them. Whether exploitation occurs depends on environmental
triggers interacting with individual differences and with environmental
constraints. Although we all have the potential to exploit and deceive
others, we are a highly social and cooperative species with minds
forged by evolution to form cooperative relationships built on trust.
Cooperation is typically contingent on the reciprocal cooperation of

others, and is thus a tit-for-tat strategy favored by natural selection
because of the benefits it confers. We cooperate with our fellows because
we feel good when we do, and because it identifies us as reliable and
trustworthy, which confers valued social status on us.
Because cooperation according to Walsh occurs among groups
of other cooperators, it creates niches for non-cooperators to exploit
others by signaling their cooperation and then failing to follow through).
Criminal behavior may thus be viewed as an extreme form of defaulting
on the rules of cooperation. But cheating comes at a cost, so before
deciding to do so the individual must weigh the costs and benefits of
cooperating versus defaulting. Cheating is rational (not to be confused
with moral) when the benefits outweigh the costs. But if cheating is
so rational, how did cooperation come to be predominant in social
species? The answer is that cheating is only rational in circumstances
of limited interaction and communication. Frequent interaction and
communication breeds trust and bonding, and cheating becomes a
less rational strategy because cooperators remember and retaliate
against those who have cheated them. Ultimately, cooperation is the
most rational strategy in any social species because each player reaps
in the future what he or she has sown in the past.
Yet, we continue to see cheating behavior despite threats of
exposure and retaliation as explained by Walsh (2012). We do so
because exposure and retaliation are threats only if cheats must
operate within the same environment in which their reputations
are known. Cheats can move from location to location, meeting and
cheating a series of others who are unaware of their reputation. This
is the pattern of many career criminals who move from place to place,
job to job, and relationship to relationship, leaving a trail of misery
behind them before their reputation catches up. This is why cheats are
more likely to prosper in large cities in modern societies than in small
traditional communities where the threat of exposure and retaliation
is great.
Of course, the stability of the group and cultural dynamics must
be considered. In communities where a “badass” reputation is valued by
males more than anything else, criminal behavior is almost a constant
thing. Even in these unstable communities containing large numbers
of chronic cheats, there must be a certain level of group loyalty and
cooperation.
Neuroscience
No matter the source of human behavior, it is necessarily
funneled through the brain, arguably the most awe-inspiring structure
in the universe. Although the brain is only about 2% of body mass,
it consumes 20% of the body’s energy as it perceives, evaluates, and
responds to its environment. This three-pound marvel of evolutionary
design is the CEO of all that we think, feel, and do. Powerful brain
imaging technologies such as PET, MRI, and IMRI have resulted in
an explosion of information on the brain over the past two decades.
Although we are a long way from fully understanding the brain, we
cannot ignore what is known about it that is relevant to criminology.
Moreover, any theory of behavior is logically incomplete if it does not
discuss the role of the brain. The insights criminologists can derive
from the neurosciences will not only buttress our theories, but may
also strengthen our claims for preventative environmental intervention.
Neuroscience, sometimes referred to as Neural Science, is the
study of the human nervous system, how the nervous systems works,
how it is structured and how it develops. Scientists who dedicate
themselves to the study of neuroscience are known as Neuroscientists.
The large majority of neuroscientists focus their research on the brain
and how it influences cognitive function and behavior. Neuroscience
not only seeks to understand how the nervous system functions under
normal circumstances but also how the nervous system functions
in individual suffering from neurological, neurodevelopmental and
psychiatric disorders (https://www.psychologycareercenter.org/what-
is-neuroscience.html).
Three main goals of Neuroscience:
1. Understand the human brain and how it functions;
2. Understand and describe how the central nervous
system (CNS) develops, matures, and maintains itself’
3. Analyze and understand neurological and
psychiatric disorders, and discover methods to
prevent or cure them.
All our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and behavior are the results
of communication networks of brain cells called neurons. The more
“primitive” networks that control vital functions such as breathing and
heart rate come “hardwired” at birth, but development of the higher
brain areas depends a lot on environmental “software” downloaded
by the brain after birth in response to its experiences. The message
neuroscience has for us is that the experiences we encounter largely
determine the patterns of our neuronal connections and thus our
ability to successfully navigate our lives (Walsh, 2012).
Reward Dominance and Prefrontal

Dysfunction Theories
Reward Dominance
Reward dominance theory is a neurological theory based on the
proposition that behavior is regulated by two opposing mechanisms, the
behavioral activating system (BAS) and the behavioral inhibition system
(BIS). The BAS is associated with the neurotransmitter dopamine and
with pleasure areas in the brain. The BIS is associated with serotonin
and with brain structures that govern memory. Neurotransmitters
such as dopamine and serotonin are the chemical messengers that
shunt information between neural networks. Dopamine facilitates
goal-directed behavior, and serotonin generally modulates behavior
(Walsh, 2012).
The BAS is sensitive to reward and can be likened to an accelerator
motivating a person to seek rewarding stimuli. The BIS is sensitive
to threats of punishment and can be likened to a brake that stops
a person from going too far too fast. The BAS motivates us to seek
whatever affords us pleasure, and the BIS tell us when we have had
enough for our own good. A normal BAS combined with faulty BIS,
or vice versa, may lead to a very impulsive person with a “craving
brain” that can lead him or her into all sorts of physical, social, moral,
and legal difficulties, by becoming addicted to pleasures such as food,
gambling, sex, alcohol, and drugs.
While most of us are more or less equally sensitive to both
reward and punishment (BAS/ BIS balance) as stressed by Walsh
and Hemmens (2014), in some people, one might dominate the other
most of the time). The theory asserts that criminals, especially chronic
criminals, have a dominant BAS, which tends to make them overly
sensitive to reward cues and relatively insensitive to punishment cues.
Reward dominance theory provides us with hard physical evidence
relating to the concepts of sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and
low self-control we have previously discussed because each of these

traits is underlain by either a sticky accelerator or faulty brakes (low
serotonin).
A third system of behavior control is the flight/fight system (FPS)
chemically controlled by epinephrine (adrenaline). The FPS is that
part of the autonomic nervous system that pumps out epinephrine
to mobilize the body for vigorous action in response to threats. Fear
and anxiety at the chemical level is epinephrine shouting its warning,
“Attention, danger ahead; take action to avoid!” Having a weak PPS
that whispers rather than shouts combined with a BAS that keeps
shouting “Go get it!” and a BIS too feeble to object is obviously very
useful when pursuing all kinds of antisocial activities.
Note how close reward dominance theory is to Freud’s model of
approach and avoidance behavior. The BAS is like the id, motivating us
to satisfy natural pleasurable urges, while the BIS and FPS operated
like a superego telling us when we have gone too far (Walsh, 2012).
Prefrontal Dysfunction Theory

Another neurologically specific theory of criminal behavior is
prefrontal dysfunction theory. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) sits in the
area just above the eyes and is responsible for a number of human
attributes such as making moral judgments, planning, analyzing,
synthesizing, and modulating emotions. The PFC provides us with
knowledge about how other people see and think about us, thus
moving us to adjust our behavior to consider their needs, concerns,
and expectations of us. These PFC functions are collectively referred to
as executive functions and are clearly involved in prosocial behavior. If
these functions are compromised in some way via damage to the PFC,
the result is often antisocial behavior (Tibbetts and Hemmens, 2014).
Positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) studies consistently find links between PFC
activity and impulsive criminal behavior. A PET study comparing
impulsive murderers with murderers, whose crimes were planned,
found that the former showed significantly lower PFC and higher limbic
system activity (indicative of emotional arousal) than the latter and
other control subjects. Scientists combined reward dominance and PFC
dysfunction theories in a large-scale study of incarcerated and non-
incarcerated youths in California and found that seriously delinquent
offenders have slower resting heart rates and performed poorly relative
to non-delinquents on various cognitive functions mediated by the PFC
(Tibbetts and Hemmens, 2014). In the course of the study, Jana Bufkin
and Vickie Lettrell’s review of 17 neuroimaging studies in Reading 18

shows conclusively that impulsive violent behaviors are associated
with PFC deficits. They interpret the findings in terms of problems with
the PFC’s regulation of negative emotionality.
Concept Summary of Biosocial Perspective and Theories

(Walsh and Hemmens, 2014)
Theory Key Concepts Strength Weakness
Behavior and Genes affect Looms at both Requires
Molecular behavior in the genetic and samples of
Genetic interaction with environmental twins and/
environmental risk factors or adoptees,
influences. for criminal which are
Heritability behavior. difficult to
estimates Understanding come by.
the relative genetics However,
contribution of contributions technology
genetics and also now enables
environmental identifies the us to eliminate
traits affecting complementary the need
criminality. contributions of for special
All individual environmental samples and
traits are at factors. go straight
least modestly to the DNA
influenced by in molecular
genes. genetics.
Evolutionary Human behavior Ties criminology Gives some

psychology is rooted in to evolutionary the impression
perspective evolutionary biology. Mating that because
history. Natural efforts helps crime is
selection to explain why considered
has favored males are more “normal.” It
victimizing criminal that is justified
tendencies females and why for excused.
in humans, criminals tend to Makes
especially be more sexually assumptions
males. These promiscuous about human
tendencies arose that person nature that
to facilitate in general. may or
mating efforts Emphasizes may not be
but are useful that crime is true. While
in pursuing biologically recognizing
criminal “normal” that vulture is
behavior as (although important. It
well. Criminals regrettable), tends to ignore
emphasize rather than it.
mating effort pathological.
over parenting
effort more
than males in
general.
Neuroscience Whatever its Shows how High cost of
perspective origin, all environmental neuroimaging
stimuli are experiences studies. Very
channeled are physically small samples
through the “captured” of known crim-
brain before by the brain. inals as used,
given expression Emphasizes this limiting
in behavior. The the importance generaliza-
development of nurturing tions. Linking
of the brain for optimal specific brain
Is strongly development of areas to specif-
influenced the brain. Uses ic behaviors is
by early sophisticated problematic.
environmental technology
experience’s and provides
especially “harder”
those involving evidence.
nurturance and
attachment.
Reward Behavioral Explains who The

Dominance activating low serotonin neurological
theory system (BAS) is related to underpinning
and behavioral offending (low of the BAS
inhibiting serotonin = low and Ibid have
system (BIS) self- control). been difficult
are dopamine Explains why to precisely
and serotonin criminality is identify.
driven, persistent in Studies
respectively. some offenders difficult and
Among because they expensive to
criminals, the develop a taste conduct.
BAS tends to for the thrill-of-it
be dominant all.
over the BIS.
This BIS/BAS
imbalance can
lead to addiction
to many things
including crime.
Prefrontal Prefrontal lobes Explains why Dysfunction of
Dysfunction control long- moral reasoning the prefrontal
of the term planning is inversely lobes remains
Biological and temper, related to difficult to
Perspective emotions, involvement measure, even
and their in persistent with fMRI
expressions. criminality. scans. Same
Criminals Explains why sampling
have frontal criminality has difficulties
lobes that fail been liked to noted for the
to function frontal lobe neurosciences
as they do in damage and to in general.
most people, abnormal brain
especially waves.
in terms of
inhibiting
actions that
harm others.
COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT NO. 1
Name Rating
Section Date
1. This Austrian physician is the one who study phrenology and

thought that there are three major regions of the brain.
a. Franz Joseph Gall c. Jeremy Bentham
b. John Spurzheim d. James Q. Wilson
2. One of the approaches of biological theory built upon evolutionary

principles and was the first to apply scientific techniques to the
study of crimes and criminals.
a. body chemistry c. atavism
b. early positivism d. phrenology
3. What is the meaning of atavism?

a. Thinking in the future
b. Throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution
c. Normlessness
d. Lack of empathy to other
4. It is the systematic study of the biological basis of all behavior

and as a branch of evolutionary biology and particularly of
modern population biology.
a. tribalism c. AD/HD
b. sociobiology d. psychosocial
5. It is a condition characterized by low blood sugar.

a. XYY Chromosomes c. hypoglycemia
b. heredity d. sociobiology
6. It is considered as one of the earliest biological explanations of

crime which concerned in the size and shape of the skull as the
cause of criminal behavior.
a. atavism c. criminaloids
b. positivism d. phrenology
7. It is the classification of human beings into types according to

body built and other physical characteristics.
a. endomorph c. cycloids
b. displastic d. somatotyping
8. This theory supports that behavior is regulated by behavioral

activating inhibition systems that are two opposing mechanism
a. reward dominance theory
b. behavior theory
c. differential association theory
d. psychological theory
9. It investigates human behavior in complement with genetics to

determine what make people the same.
a. evolutionary psychology c. sociobiology
b. biosociology d. psychology
10. In general, it is not a theory but a category that covers many

perspective regarding the interaction between biological and
social factors as they relate to crime.
a. Sociobiology c. Genetics
b. Evolutionary psychology d. Biosocial theory
11. The stud of the relative contribution of heredity and environment

to behavior and personality is called _____.
a. Behavior genetics c.
Neuroscience
b. Molecular genetics d.
Evolutionary psychology
12. A neurological theory that proposes that behavior is regulated
by two opposing mechanisms, behavior activating system and
behavior inhibition system.
a. Biological theory c. Reward dominance theory
b. Biosocial theory d. Molecular genetics
13. It is sensitive to reward and can be likened to an accelerator

motivating a person to seek rewarding stimuli.
a. Motive
b. Behavioral inhibition system
c. Behavioral activating system
d. Neuroscience
14. It is the study of the human nervous system, how the nervous
systems work, how it is structured and how it develops.
a. Biology c. Psychology
b. Neuroscience d. Psychiatry
15. This part of the brain, sits in the area just above the eyes
and is responsible for a number of human attributes such as
making moral judgments, planning, analyzing, synthesizing, and
modulating emotions.
a. Cortex medulla c. Prefrontal Cortex
b. Spinal Column d. rGE
Name Rating
Section Date
CASE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF THEORY

ON BIOLOGICAL CAUSES OF CRIME
Source : YouTube
Video clip : Crime and violence: The biological behind
murder by CBS news.
Link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcaDSJ1LplQ
Instruction : Use the link above and log-on to YouTube. Watch the
video clip on “Crime and violence: The biological behind murder.”
Write a reflection based from what you have learned.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
49
Chapter Two
Psychological Causes of Crime
A. Topic Description: • Dimensions of Personality
Chapter two presents • Reciprocal Determinism

different psychological explan- c. Frustration-Aggression
ations in the development of Hypothesis
deviant and criminal behavior of
a person. This chapter will help d. Psychiatric Criminology
the students to fully understand e. Moral Development Theory
the various psychological theories
that explain human intellectual • Kohlberg’s 3 Levels
and emotional development of Moral Judgment
Development
that directly and indirectly
affect human behavior. This will f. Behavior Theory
somehow enlighten the students
g. Cognitive Theory
on how the views, thoughts,
intentions, actions and reactions h. Self-Control Theory
of a particular person might lead
i. Attachment Theory
to criminal behavior.
C. Topic Objectives:
B. Scope:
1. Identify the different theories
1. Categories of Psychological
that help explain the
Theories
psychological aspects of
2. Focus of Psychological criminal behavior.
Criminology
2. Discuss how the psychological
3. Psychological and Psychiatric dimension of individuals that
Foundations of Criminal affect their behavior leading
Behavior to deviant and criminal
behavior.
a. Psychoanalytic/
Psychodynamic Theory 3. Compare and contrast the
• Types of Offenders in parameters of psychological
Psychoanalytic Theory and psychiatric foundations
of criminal behavior.
b. Personality Theory
4. Summarize the basis of
• Levels of Mental Life/ arguments of the different
Human Awareness
theories pertaining to
• Dynamics of Personality psychology of crimes.
CHAPTER TWO
PSYCHOLOGICAL CAUSES OF CRIMES
Psychological theories are those derived from the behavioral

sciences and which focus on the individual as the unit of analysis.
They place the locus of crime causation within the personality of the
individual offender. In contrast to biological and hereditary theories,
there are variety of psychological explanations for crime that emphasize
the importance of personality and its role in criminal and delinquent
behavior. Psychologists have considered a variety of possibilities
to account for individual differences such as defective conscience,
emotional immaturity, inadequate childhood socialization, maternal
deprivation, poor moral development. They study how aggression is
learned, which situations promote violent or delinquent reactions, how
crime is related to personality factors, and the association between
various mental disorders and criminality.
In contrast to biological and hereditary theories, there are a variety
of psychological explanations to crime that emphasize the importance
of personality and its role in criminal and delinquent behavior. Some
psychological theories stress the importance of mental processes,
childhood experiences, and unconscious thoughts. Other stresses the
importance of social learning perception.
Similarly, Siegel (2019) mentioned that the psychological aspect of
crime is the second branch of trait theory that includes the associations
among following:
a. intelligence
b. personality
c. learning
d. criminal behavior
Siegel further emphasized that among nineteenth-century pioneers

in this area were Charles Goring and Gabriel Tarde. Apparently, in
their quest to understand and treat all varieties of abnormal mental
conditions, psychologists have encountered clients whose behavior
falls within the categories that society has labeled criminal, deviant,
violent and antisocial. While according to Schmalleger (2011), the
psychological determinants of deviant or criminal behavior may be

expressed in terms the following:
a. manipulative personality characteristics
b. poor impulse control
c. emotional provocation
d. immature personality
It was further stressed by Schmalleger (2011) that to account

for criminal motivations in people, criminologists have used various
psychological theories that attempt to explain human intellectual
and emotional development. These theories can be divided into three
categories:
• Moral Development Theories describe a sequence of
developmental stages that people pass through when
acquiring the capacity to make moral judgments. According
to this theory, this development process may or may not be
completed, and people who remain unable to recognize right
from wrong will be more likely to engage in inappropriate,
deviant, or even criminal behavior.
• Social Learning Theories emphasize the process of
learning and internalizing moral codes. Learning theories
note different patterns of rewards and sanctions that affect
this process.
• Personality Theories assume a set of enduring perceptions
and predisposition (tendencies) that each individual
develops through early socialization. These theories propose
that certain predisposition or personality traits, such as
impulsiveness or extroversion, increase the chances of
criminal behavior.
Most psychological theories of crime causation according to

Schmalleger (2011) make certain fundamental assumptions. Among
them are:
• The individual is the primary unit of analysis.
• Personality is the major motivational element within
individuals, because it is the seat of drives and the sources
of motive.
• Crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or

inappropriate mental processes within the personality.
• Criminal behavior, while condemned by the social group,
may be purposeful for the individual insofar as it addresses
certain felt needs.
• Normality is generally defined by social consensus – that
is, what the majority of people in any social group agree is
“real”, appropriate, or typical.
• Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a
variety of causes, including
-- A disease mind
-- Inappropriate learning or improper conditioning
-- The emulation of inappropriate role models
-- Adjustment to inner conflicts.
In the psychology of crime, both social and personality influences

on criminal behavior are considered, along with the mental processes
that mediate the behavior. Personality refers to all the biological
influences, psychological traits and cognitive features of the human
being that psychologists have identified as important in the mediation
and control of behavior (Bartol & Bartol, 2017). They emphasized that
though interest in personality differences among offenders continues,
psychological criminology has shifted its focus in the following ways:
1. It has taken a more cognitive approach to studying
criminal behavior.
2. It has paid more attention to biological and
neuropsychological factors.
3. It has adopted a developmental approach to studying
criminal behavior among individuals and groups.
Cognitive Approach
This approach refers to the attitudes, beliefs, values and thoughts
that people hold about the social environment, interrelations, human
nature, and themselves. In serious criminal offenders, these cognitions
are often distorted. Beliefs that children must be severely physically
disciplined or that victims are not really hurt by fraud or burglary are
good examples of cognitions that may lead to criminal activity. Prejudice

is also a cognition that involves distortion of social reality. They include
erroneous generalizations and over implication about others. Hate or
bias crimes are generally rooted in prejudice and cognitive distortions
held by perpetrators. Many serial rapists also distort social reality
to the point where they may assault only victims who they perceive
deserve it. Some sex offenders even persuade themselves that they are
not harming their victims, and white collar offenders sometimes justify
their crimes as what they have to do in order to stay in business.
Biological or Neurological Approach

According to Wright and Boisvert in 2009 (as cited in Bartol &
Bartol, 2017), criminologists who identify themselves as psychologists
and sociologists recognized that the advances in the broad biological
sciences are finding links between biology, including neuropsychology,
and human behavior. They mentioned that biological approach often
focuses on aggression and violent behavior. For example, neurologist
interested in criminology study to what extent damage, deficits,
or abnormality of the brain may be related to antisocial behavior,
particularly in violent behavior. A traumatic brain injury (TBI), such
as one that might occur in traffic accident, may produce personality
changes including increased aggressive behavior.
Developmental Approach
This approach examines the changes and influences across a
person’s lifetime that may contribute to the formation of antisocial
and criminal behavior. These are usually called risk factors. Examples
are poor nutrition, the loss of a parent, early school failure, or
substandard housing. However, the developmental approach also
searches for protective factors, or influence that provides individuals
with a defense against the risk factors. A caring adult mentor and good
social skills are examples of protective factors. Apparently, invaluable
information about how to prevent and change delinquent and criminal
behavior may be gained if changes and influences that occur across
the developmental pathways of life were able to identify at early stage.
These changes are those that divert a person from becoming caring
sensitive and prosocial, as well as those that steer a person away from
a life of persistent and serious antisocial behavior (Bartol & Bartol,
2017).
It was emphasized by Gavin (2019) that when applied to

crime, psychodynamic theory suggests that the internal structure
of personality, coupled with environmental influences, can lead to
unconscious conflict that causes damage, resulting in a weakened
superego.
Psychologists have long linked criminality to abnormal mental
states produced by early childhood trauma. For example, Alfred Adler,
the founder of individual psychology, coined the term inferiority
complex to describe persons who have feelings of inferiority and
compensate for reduce personal inadequacy. While Erik Erickson
described the identity crisis as a period of serious personal questioning
people undertake in an effort to determine their own values and sense
of direction. Adolescents undergoing an identity crisis might exhibit
out of control behavior and experiment with drugs and other forms
of deviance (cited in Siegel, 2018). As further stressed by Erickson
(Gavin, 2019), identity crisis results from the inner imbalance.
Furthermore, Siegel (2018) mentioned that August Aichorn was the
psychoanalyst whose work is most closely associated with criminality.
Accordingly, Aichorn conducted an examination of many delinquent
youths, and concluded that societal stress, though damaging, could
not alone result in life of crime unless a predisposition existed that
psychologically prepared youths for antisocial acts. This mental
state is labeled by Aichorn as latent delinquency. This was found
in youngsters whose personality requires them to act in the following
ways:
-- Seek immediate gratification (to act impulsively)
-- Consider satisfying their personal needs more important
than relating to others
-- Satisfy instinctive urges considering right and wrong (that
is, they lack guilt)
It was concluded that psychodynamic model of criminal offender

depicts an aggressive, frustrated person dominated by events that
occurred early in childhood. Perhaps they may have suffered unhappy
experience in childhood or had families that could not provide proper
love and care, criminals suffer from weak or damaged egos that make
them unable to cope with conventional society.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC

FOUNDATIONS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
A. PSYCHOANALYTIC/ PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY

From the point of view of psychoanalysis, criminal behavior
is “maladaptive or the product of inadequacies in the offender’s
personality” (Schmalleger, 2011). This is a psychiatric approach
developed by the Viennese psychologist Sigmund Freud. Freud coined
the term psychoanalysis in 1896 and based entire theory of human
behavior upon it. It is the theory of human psychology on the concepts
of the unconscious, resistance, repression, sexuality, and Oedipus
complex. According to the psychodynamic perspective, people who
experience feelings of mental anguish and are afraid are losing control
of their personalities and are said to be suffering from a form of neurosis
and therefore referred to as neurotics. Those people who have lost
total control and who are dominated by their primitive “id” are said to
suffer from psychosis and are referred to as psychotics. The behavior
may be marked by bizarre episodes, hallucinations, and inappropriate
responses. According to the psychodynamic view, the most serious
types of antisocial behavior such as murder might be motivated by
psychosis, while neurotic feelings would be responsible for less serious
delinquent acts and status offenses such as petty theft (Siegel, 2018).
This theory has remained a prominent segment of psychological
approach and Freud believed that people carry the residue of the most
significant emotional attachments of their childhood, which then guide
their future interpersonal relationship (Siegel, 2019).
Apparently, criminality is a result of a strong id coupled to a weak
superego; hence the demand for immediate gratification of urges is
not inhibited (Gavin, 2019). August Aichorn (cited in Gavin, 2019)
suggested that the contemporary treatment for delinquent youth, which
involved harsh discipline, was ineffective because it simply encourage
physical violence as a response to the world. Weak development of
the superego could lead to behavior that could be term psychopathic.
If there is id, ego or superego imbalance due to conflict with social
norms, then this could be painful and would be pushed into the
unconscious. This results to defense mechanism as coping strategy;
and problematic personality traits and problematic behavior such as
deviant or criminal behavior.
According to Freud, the personality is comprised of three
components, the id, the ego, and the superego (Butcher, Mineka, &
Hooley, 2011).
ID
At the core of personality and completely unconscious to the
individual is the psychical region called the ‘Id’. The ‘id’ has no contact
with reality, yet it strives constantly to reduce tension by satisfying
instinctual desires. Because its sole function is to seek pleasure,
the id operates based on the pleasure principles. The pleasure
principle is a reference to the motivation of the ‘id’ to seek immediate
reduction of tension through the gratification of instinctual drives.
Besides being unrealistic and pleasure seeking, the ‘id’ is illogical and
can simultaneously entertain incompatible ideas (Butcher, Mineka,
& Hooley, 2011). The id is the primitive part of the person’s mental
makeup, which is present at birth and represents unconscious
biological drives for foods, sex and other life-sustaining necessities.
It seeks instant gratification without concern for the rights of others
(Siegel, 2019).
For example, a woman may have an unconscious wish for the
death of her husband because of another man, while at the same time
desiring sex with him. Or she may consciously love her mother while
simultaneously wishing to destroy her. Another characteristic of the
‘id’ is lack of morality. Because the ‘id’ cannot make value judgment or
distinguish between good and evil, it is not immoral, merely amoral. All
of the ‘id’s’ energy is spent for one purpose, to seek pleasure without
regard for what is proper or just.
EGO
The ego is the region of the mind in contact with reality. It grows
out of the ‘id’ during infancy and becomes a person’s only source of
communication with the external world. It is governed by the reality
principles, which tries to substitute for the pleasure principle of the
‘id’. As the sole region of the mind in contact with the external world, the
ego becomes the decision-making or executive branch of personality.
However, because it is partly conscious, partly preconscious, the
partly unconscious, the ego can make decisions on each of these three
levels because this is the part of the personality that compensates for
the demands of the id by helping the individuals keep his/her actions
within the boundaries of social convention (Siege, 2019). For instance,
a woman’s ego may consciously motivate her to choose excessively
neat, well-tailored clothes because she feels comfortable when well
dressed. At the same time, she may be unaware or only dimly aware
that she has been previously rewarded for choosing nice clothes or
she may have no awareness or understanding that her excessive
neatness relates to early childhood experiences with toilet training.
Thus, her decision to wear neat clothes takes place in all three levels
of mental life.
When performing its cognitive and intellectual functions, the ego
must take into consideration the incompatible but equally unrealistic
demands of the ‘id’ and the superego. In addition to these two tyrants,
the ego must serve a third master, the external world. Thus, the ego
constantly tries to reconcile the blind, irrational claims of the id and
the superego with the realistic demands of the external world. Finding
itself surrounded on three sides by divergent and hostile forces, the
ego reacts in a predictable manner and becomes anxious. It then uses
repression and other defense mechanism to defend itself against this
anxiety. Weak egos are associated with immaturity, poor social skills,
and excessive dependence on others. Hence, people with weak egos
may be led into crime by antisocial peers and drug abuse.
SUPEREGO
The superego represents the moral and ideal aspects of personality
and is guided by the moralistic and idealistic principles. The superego
grows out of the ego, and likens the ego; it has no energy of its own.
However, the superego differs from the ego in one important respect;
it has no contact with the outside world and therefore is unrealistic
in its demand for perfection. The superego develops as a result of
incorporating within the personality the moral standards and values
of parents, community and significant others. It is the moral aspect of
persons’ personality; it judges their own behavior (Siegel, 2019).
The superego has two subsystems, the conscience and ego-
ideal. The conscience results from the experience with punishment
for improper behavior and tells us what we should not do; whereas
the ego-ideal develops from experiences with rewards for proper
behavior and tells us what we should do. A well-developed superego
acts to control sexual and aggressive impulses through the process of
repression. It cannot produce repression by itself, but it can order the
ego to do so. The superego watches closely over the ego, judging its
actions and intentions. Guilt is the result when the ego acts, or even
intends to act, contrary to the moral standards of the superego. Feeling
of inferiority arises when the ego is unable to meet the superego’s
standards of perfection. Guilt then is a function of the conscience,
whereas inferiority feelings stem from the ego-ideal.
Figure 9. Freud’s Structure of the mind.

(Source: https://slideplayer.com/slide/12682613/)
The superego is not concerned with the happiness of the ego. It

strives blindly and unrealistically toward perfection. It is unrealistic
in the sense that it does not take into consideration the difficulties
or impossibilities faced by the ego in carrying out its orders. The
superego, however, is like the id in that it is completely ignorant of,
and unconcerned with, the practicability of its requirements.
Types of Offenders in Psychoanalytic Theory

1. The Weak Superego is described by Hervey Cleckley to have
the following characteristics: superficial charm, good intelligence,
absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking, absence
of nervousness, unreliability, untruthfulness and insincerity, lack
of remorse or shame, inadequately motivated antisocial behavior,
poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological
egocentricity and incapability for love, and general poverty in major
affective relations. This type is also determined by the following
indicators:
• Reckless disregard for conventional rules and procedures;
• Antisocial cognitions/pro-criminal sentiments (lack of
conscience);
• Little evidence of a life plan and weak conventional ambition
(lack of ego-ideal);
• Little evidence of guilt;
• The early appearance of persistent and generalized conduct

problems (the superego is supposedly formed by age 8);
• Expression of bravado, flirtatiousness and exhibitionism;
• Conflict with authority figures; and
• Basic separateness from other people that reflects essential
isolation, loveliness and a desperate loneliness.
2. The Weak Ego Type implies immaturity, poorly developed

social skills, poor reality testing, gullibility and excessive dependence.
In psychoanalytic terms, the weak ego types are less under the control
of superego than of the id and the immediate environment. For weak
ego types, criminal behavior may represent stumbling into trouble
misreading the external environment, having a temper tantrum.
3. The Normal Antisocial Offenders have progressed through the

psychosexual stages of development without any particular problems.
Psychologically, they match the ideal of the full-functioning mature
adult. However, a mismatch with the ego-ideal is evident. The superego
is pro-criminal as a result of identification with a criminal parent, and
the ego has incorporated a mastery of criminal skills.
4. The Neurotic Offenders. Freudian theory suggests a number of

ways in which neurotic conflicts may translate into criminal behavior.
The “criminal from a sense of guilt” is the most interesting, though
perhaps not the most frequent. This type is driven by an unconscious
desire to be punished for past crimes. An overactive superego may be
seeking punishment for prior sins that, even if not actually committed,
were either contemplated or the focus of a wish-fulfilling fantasy.
Frequently represented in samples of neurotic offenders are people
who use criminal acts as a means of managing specific frustrations or
emotional disturbances, or as a way of impacting on family disturbed
relations. For example, some neurotics may use criminal activity to
gain the attention of, or to punish their parents (See Figure 10 on the
next page).
Figure 10. Types of Offenders in Psychoanalytic Theory
B. PERSONALITY THEORY
Personality can be defined as the reasonably stable pattern of
behavior, including thoughts and emotions that distinguish one person
from another. The personality of persons reflects their characteristic
way of adapting to life’s demands and problems. The way they behave
is a function of how their personality enables them to interpret life
events and make appropriate behavioral choices. Personal feelings and
emotions have been found to help shape behavior. Take for instance
feeling of regret. People who are remorseful and feel bad about their
prior undesirable acts are less likely to recidivate than those who neither
contrite nor apologetic (Siegel, 2019). In other words, personality is the
totality of somebody’s behavioral patterns, attitude, interest, emotional
responses that endure over long periods of time. Psychologist Hans
Eysenck (Siegel (2018) linked personality to crime when he identified
two traits that he associated with antisocial behavior such as the
extroversion-introversion and stability-instability. Extreme introverts
are over aroused and avoid sources of stimulation; in contrast, extreme
extroverts are unaroused and seek sensation. Introverts are slow to
learn and be conditioned; extroverts are impulsive individuals who
lack the ability to examine their own motives and behaviors. Those
who are unstable (a condition of neuroticism) are anxious, tense and
emotionally unstable. Apparently, people who are both neurotic and
extrovert lack self-insight and are impulsive and emotionally unstable;
they are unlikely to have reasoned judgments of life events. While
extrovert neurotics may act self-destructively like abusing drugs, more
stable people will be able to reason that such behavior is ultimately
harmful and life threatening. These are further discussed under the
dimensions of personality.
Levels of Mental Life/Human Awareness

According to Cherry (2019), Freud’s greatest contribution to
personality theory is his exploration of the unconscious and his
persistence that people are motivated primarily by instinctual forces of
which they have little or no awareness. To feud, mental life is divided
into two levels, the unconscious and the conscious. The unconscious,
in turn has two different levels, the unconscious proper and
the preconscious.
a. Unconscious
The unconscious according to Ciccarelli (2010),
contains all the drives, urges, or instinct that are beyond our
awareness but that nevertheless motivate most of our words,
feelings, and actions. According to Freud, the unconscious is
the explanation for the meaning behind dreams, slips of the
tongue, neurotic symptoms, and certain kinds of forgetting,
called repression.
Unconscious processes often enter into consciousness
but only after being disguise or distorted enough to elude
censorship. Freud used the analogy of a guardian or
censor blocking the passage between the unconscious and
preconscious and preventing undesirable anxiety-producing
memories from entering awareness. To enter the conscious
level of the mind, these unconscious images first must be
sufficiently disguised to slip past the primary censor, and then
they must elude a final censor that watches the passageway
between the preconscious and the conscious.
By this time these memories enter our conscious mind,
we no longer recognize them for what they are; instead, we
see them as relatively pleasant, non-threatening experiences.
In most cases, these images have strong sexual or aggressive
motifs, because childhood sexual and aggressive behaviors
are frequently punished or suppressed. Punishment and
suppression often create a feeling of anxiety, and the anxiety
in turn stimulates repression, that is, the forcing of unwanted
anxiety-ridden experiences into the unconscious as a defense
against the pain of that anxiety (Ciccarelli, 2010).
Unconscious drives may appear in consciousness, but
only after undergoing certain transformations. A person may
express either erotic or hostile urges, for example, by teasing
or joking with another person. The original instinct is thus

disguised and hidden from the conscious minds of both
persons. The unconscious of the first person, however, has
directly influenced the unconscious of the second. Both people
gain some satisfaction or either sexual or aggressive urges,
but neither is conscious of the underlying motive behind the
teasing or joking.
Furthermore, Ciccarelli stressed that unconscious,
of course, does not mean inactive or dormant, Instincts in
the unconscious constantly strive to become conscious, and
many of them succeed, although they may no longer appear
in their original from. For example, a son’s hostility towards
his father may masquerade itself in the form of ostentatious
affection. In an undisguised from, the hostility would create
too much anxiety for the son. His unconscious mind,
therefore, motivates him to express his hostility indirectly
through an exaggerated show of love and flattery. Because the
disguise must successfully deceive the person, it often takes
an opposite form the original feelings, but it is almost always
overblown and ostentatious.
b. Preconscious
The preconscious level of the mind contains all those
elements that are not conscious but can become so quite
readily. The contents of the preconscious come from two
sources, the first of which is conscious perception. What a
person perceives is conscious for only a transitory period. It
quickly passes into the preconscious when the focus of the
attention shifts to another idea. These ideas that alternate
easily between being conscious and preconscious are largely
free from anxiety and in reality are much more similar to the
conscious and preconscious images than to unconscious urges
(http://freudhistoryandconcepts.blogspot.com/2008/04/3-
levels-of-awareness.html).
The second source of preconscious images ss stated by
Ciccarelli (2010), is the unconscious. Freud believed that
ideas can slip past the vigilant censor and enter into the
preconscious in a disguised form. Some of these images never
become conscious because if we recognized them as derivatives
of the unconscious, we would experience increased levels of
anxiety. Therefore, our final censor represses these anxiety-
loaded images back into the unconscious. Other images
from the unconscious do gain admission to consciousness,

but only because their true nature is cleverly disguised
through the dream process, a slip of a tongue, or an elaborate
defensive measure.
c. Conscious
Consciousness, which plays a relatively minor role
in psychoanalytic theory, can be defined as those mental
elements in awareness at any given point in time. It is the only
level of mental life directly available to us. Ideas can reach
consciousness from two different directions. The first is from
the perceptual conscious system, which is turned toward the
outer world and acts as a medium for the perception of external
stimuli. In other words, what we perceive though our sense
organs, if not too threatening, enters into the consciousness
(http://freudhistoryandconcepts.blogspot.com/2008/04/3-
levels-of-awareness.htm).
The second source of conscious elements is from within
the mental structure and includes non-threatening ideas
from the preconscious as well as menacing but well-disguised
images from the unconscious. As already explain, these
menacing images escaped the primary censor. Once in the
preconscious, they avoid a final censor and come under the
eye of consciousness. By the time they reach the conscious
system, these images are greatly distorted and camouflaged,
often taking the form of neurotic symptoms or dream elements.
Figure 11. Representation of conscious, pre-conscious and unconscious mind

Dynamics of Personality
Levels of mental life and provinces of the mind refer to the structure
or composition of personality; but personalities also do something.
Thus Freud postulates a dynamic or motivational principle to explain
the driving forces behind people’s action or behavior. According to
Freud, people are motivated to seek pleasure and to reduce tension
and anxiety. This motivation is derived from physical and psychical
energy that spring from the instincts.
An instinct is an internal drive or impulse that operates as a
constant motivational force. As an internal stimulus it differs from
the external stimulus in that it cannot be avoided through flight.
Instinct originated from the Id, but they come under the control of the
ego. Instinct as described by Freud is divided into two: life instinct,
sometimes called “Eros” or sexual instinct; and death instinct,
sometimes called destruction or aggression instinct.
Every instinct is characterized by an impetus, a source, an aim,
and an object. An instinct’s impetus is the amount of force it exerts;
its source is the region of the body in a state of excitation or tension;
its aim is to seek pleasure by removing that excitation or reducing the
tension; and its object is the person or thing that serves as the means
through which the aim is satisfied.
a. The Sexual Instinct

The aim of the sexual instinct is to bring about pleasure within
a person by removing the state of sexual excitation. This pleasure,
however, is not limited to genital pleasure. Freud believed that the
entire body is invested with libido. The ultimate goal of the sexual
instinct (reduction of sexual tension) cannot be changed, but the path
by which the aim is reached can be varied. It can take either an active
or a passive form, or it can be temporarily or permanently inhibited.
Because the path is flexible and because sexual pleasure stems from
the organs other than the genitals, much behavior originally motivated
by “Eros” is difficult to recognize as sexual behavior. All pleasurable
activity is traceable to the sexual instinct. The sexual instinct can take
many forms, including narcissism, love, sadism and masochism.
Narcissism
Narcissism refers to love of oneself or self-centeredness, with their
libido invested almost exclusively on their ego. This condition, which
is universal, is known as primary narcissism. As the ego develops,
children usually give up much of their primary narcissism and develop

a greater interest in other people. In Freud’s language, adolescent
often redirect their libido back to the ego and become preoccupied
with personal appearance and other self-interests. This pronounces
secondary narcissism is not universal, but a moderate degree of self-
love is common to nearly everyone.
Love
A second manifestation of “Eros” is love, which develops when
people invest their libido on an object or person other than themselves.
Children’s first sexual interest is the person who cares for them,
generally the mother. Overt sexual love for members of one’s family,
however, ordinarily is repressed, which brings a second type of love,
called l aim-inhibited. Love aim-inhibited because the origin aim is
reducing sexual tension is inhibited or repressed. The kind of love
people feel for their siblings or parents is generally aim-inhibited.
Obviously, love and narcissism are closely interrelated. Narcissism,
of course involves love of self, whereas love is often accompanied by
narcissistic tendencies, as when people love someone who serves as an
ideal or model of what they would like to be.
Sadism
Sadism is the need for sexual pleasure by inflicting pain and
humiliation on another person. Carried to an extreme, it is considered
sexual perversion, but in moderate, sadism is a common need and
exists to some extent in all sexual relationships. It is perverted when
the sexual aim of erotic pleasure becomes secondary to the destructive
aim.
Masochism
Masochism is a condition characterized by the reception of sexual
pleasure from suffering pain and humiliation inflicted either by self
or others. Like sadism, masochism is a common need, but it becomes
a perversion when “Eros” becomes subservient to the destructive
instinct. Sadism and masochism serve as cornerstone to the two-
instinct theory. They demonstrate the working of the sexual instinct
and the destructive instinct in combination.
b. The destructive Instinct

According to Freud, the aim of the destructive instinct is to return
the organism to an inorganic state. Because the ultimate inorganic
condition is death, the final aim of the death instinct is self-destruction.
As with the life instinct, the death instinct is flexible and the object of
destruction is generally transformed from the self to others. It then
goes under pseudonym – aggression.
The aggressive tendency is present in everyone and is the
explanation for wars, atrocities, religious persecution and murder as
well as malicious gossip, sarcasm, and humiliation. The death instinct
also explains the need for the barriers that people have erected to check
aggression. For example, the commandments like “love thy neighbor
as thyself” are necessary, Freud believed; to inhibit the strong, though
usually unconscious, drive to inflict injury to others. These precepts
are actually “reaction formations.” They involve the repression of
strong hostile impulses and the overt and obvious expression of the
opposite tendency.
Throughout our lifetime, life and death instinct constantly struggle
against one another for ascendancy, but at the same time, both must
bow to the reality principle, which represents the claims of the outer
world. These demands of the real world prevent a direct, covert and
unopposed fulfillment of either sex or aggression. They frequently
create, anxiety, which relegates many sexual and aggressive desires to
the realm of the unconscious.
Anxiety
Instincts share the center of Freudian dynamic theory, with
the concept of anxiety. Anxiety is a felt, affective, unpleasant state
accompanied by a physical sensation that warns the person against
impending danger. The unpleasantness is often vague and hard to
pinpoint, but the anxiety itself is always felt.
Only the ego can produce or feel anxiety, but the id, superego and
external world each are involved in one of three kinds of anxiety. The
ego’s dependence on the id results in neurotic anxiety; its dependence
on the superego produces moral anxiety; and its dependence on the
outer world leads to realistic anxiety.
Neurotic anxiety is an apprehension about an unknown danger.
The feeling itself exists in the ego, but it originates from the id impulses.
People may experience neurotic anxiety in the presence of a teacher,
employer, or some other authority figure because they previously
experience unconscious feelings of destructiveness against one or

both parents. During childhood, these feelings of hostility are often
accompanied by fear of punishment, and this fear becomes generalized
into unconscious neurotic anxiety.
Moral anxiety stems from the conflict between the ego and the
superego. After a person establish his superego, usually by the age
of 5 or 6, a person may experience anxiety as an outgrowth of the
conflict between our realistic needs and the dictates of our superego.
For example, morally anxiety would result if we believe that yielding
to temptation is morally wrong, It may also result from the failure to
behave consistently with what we regard as morally right, for example,
failing to care for our aging parents or adequately supporting our
children.
Realistic anxiety, also known as objective anxiety, bears a close
resemblance to fear. Realistic anxiety is an unpleasant, nonspecific
feeling involving a possible danger. For example, we may experience
realistic anxiety while driving in heavy, fast-moving traffic in an
unfamiliar city.
Anxiety serves as an ego-preserving mechanism because it signals
us that some danger is at hand. Anxiety allows the constantly vigilant
ego to be alert for signs of threat and danger. The signal of impeding
danger stimulates us to mobilize for either flight or fight.
Anxiety is also self-regulating because it precipitates repression,
which in turn reduces the pain of anxiety. If the ego had no recourse
to defensive behavior; the anxiety would become intolerable. Defensive
behaviors, therefore serve a useful function by protecting the ego
against the pain of anxiety.
Dimensions of Personality
Hans Eysenck a noted British psychologist has developed theory
of how personality characteristics are related to criminal behavior.
Eysenck claimed that children will naturally engage in such acts and
only refrain from doing so if they are punished. His theory is based
on classical conditioning. Accordingly, each time a child is punished,
he or she may experience pain and fear. This pain and fear may be
associated with the act itself (Linden, 2020).
His theory explains the criminal personality as resulting from
the interaction between three psychological traits or the personality
dimensions such as neuroticism (N), extroversion (E), and psychoticism
(P). Accordingly, a neurotic can be loosely defined as a person suffering
from anxiety and appears nervous and moody. However, the manner
in which neurotics are defined by Eysenck’s theory is not the strict
clinical disorder. Perhaps the most integral part of this explanation of
criminal personality is the dimension known as introvert to extrovert.
Generally, introvert persons are described as quiet, withdrawn. They
are characterized by traits opposite those of extraverts. They can be
described as quiet, passive, unsociable, careful, reserved, thoughtful,
pessimistic, peaceful, sober, and controlled. Conversely, extroverts
are outgoing and impulsive. Extraverts are characterized primarily by
sociability and impulsiveness but also by jocularity, liveliness, quick-
wittedness, optimism, and other traits indicative of people who are
rewarded for their association with others (Chamberlain, 2015).
Extroversion is a personality characteristic of highly sociable,
impulsive, and aggressive people. According to Eysenck, however, the
principal differences between extraversion and introversion are not
behavioral but rather biological and genetic in nature. Explanations
for this vary, but from within Eysenck’s theory cortical or brain
stimulation is important, which is a physiological condition that is
largely inherited rather than learned. Extroverts have low cortical
arousal and seek excitement to maintain levels of stimulation. They
have higher sensory threshold and thus lesser reactions to sensory
stimulation. Introverts however, however, are overstimulated and
avoid stirring situations to avoid becoming over-aroused. Hence,
introverts avoid such activities as wild social events, downhill skiing,
skydiving, competitive sports, leading a fraternity or sorority, or
playing practical jokes. Finally, psychoticism, which is similar to the
modern day term of psychopath or sociopath describes persons whose
personality is characterized by poor emotions, sensation seeking
behavior and a general lack of empathy for others. For Eysenck,
the relationship between these three personality dimensions is the
essence of the criminal personality. Specially, the interplay between
these three variables is assumed to limit severely the ability of an
individual to be conditioned or socialized into a non-criminal way of
thinking and behaving. Conversely, people who were introverted and
scored low on neuroticism and psychoticism were seen as ideal for
social conditioning and less likely therefore to be involved in criminal
activity. Interestingly, Eysenck reports little in his research in the way
of gender differences and that young offenders were more likely to be
highly extroverted than adult offenders (Chamberlain, 2015).
Neuroticism and psychoticism are not limited to pathological
individuals, although disturbed people tend to score higher than normal
people on scales measuring these factors. Eysenck regarded all three
factors as part of normal personality structures. All three are bipolar,
with extraversion being at one end of Factor E and introversion

occupying the opposite pole. Similarly, Factor N includes neuroticism
at one pole and stability at the other, and Factor P has psychoticism
at one pole and the superego function at the other. The bipolarity of
Eysenck’s factors does not imply that most people are at one end or the
other of the three main poles. Each factor is unimodally rather than
bimodally distributed. Extraversion, for example, is fairly normally
distributed in much the same fashion as intelligence or height. Most
people are near the center of a bell-shaped distribution, which means
that Eysenck did not believe that people can be neatly divided into
mutually exclusive personality types (Figure 12).
Sensation-
Sociable Lively Active Assertive
seeking
Venture-
Carefree Dominant Surgent
some
Figure 12. Characteristics of a person who score high on E.

(Source: www.flandershealth.us/personality-2/dimensionof personality.html)
Neuroticism [N]
Neuroticism is linked to the psychiatric concept of neurosis. People
who are high on this dimension are characterized by symptoms such
as anxiety, restlessness and other emotional responses. The opposite
extreme of neuroticism is referred to as stability and is characterized
by a relatively unreactive nervous system (Linden, 2020).
Factor N has a strong hereditary component. People who score
high on neuroticism often have a tendency to overreact emotionally and
to have difficulty returning to a normal state after emotional arousal.
They frequently complain of physical symptoms such as headache
and backache and of vague psychological problems such as worries
and anxieties. Neuroticism, however, does not necessarily suggest
a neurosis in the traditional meaning of that term (See Figure 13
on page 62).
Guilt Low Self-

Anxious Depression Tense
feelings esteem
Irrational Shy Moody Emotional
Figure 13. Characteristics of a person who score high on N

(www.flandershealth.us/personality-2/dimension of personality.html)
Diathesis-stress model
This was created to describe factors that may contribute to many
forms of antisocial behavior. According to this model, individuals vary
considerably with respect to their biological strengths and weakness.
Biological and genetic weaknesses are referred to as a “vulnerability”
or disadvantage and can include traits that people are born with or
that develop in response to their environment. These vulnerabilities
influence the degree to which the individual is at risk for antisocial
behavior. Rather than acting alone, however, these biological
features operate by setting the stage for how adaptively an individual
will respond to stressful experiences. In other words, a stressful
environment is more likely to contribute to some form of behavioral or
psychological problem when the individual experiencing it possesses a
biological system that is somehow compromised. Learning disability,
brain damage or functional irregularity, drug exposure, genetic
predisposition to temperamental disturbances, and other biological
disadvantages lay the groundwork for a pathological response to
stress. Learning experiences contribute further by either increasing or
decreasing the risk.
Although the probability of a pathological response is a function of
the number of these risk factors present, the probability is even greater
in the presence of an adverse environment with severe stressors (e.g.,
poverty, unemployment, crime and drug infestation, poor parenting,
lack of education, abuse/neglect, social immobility).
For Example: Hyperactive children may function well given
appropriate intervention. In the presence of family instability,
alcoholism, absence of educational programs, and a delinquent peer
group, however, the child may be more prone to antisocial behavior,

possibly resulting in criminal acts.
Thus, environmental factors can lead to the expression of antisocial
behavior in vulnerable persons. Environmental factors may be even
more influential in contributing to antisocial behavior than strictly
biological vulnerabilities when the environment is unusually harsh or
conducive to such behavior, as well may readily observe in some of our
inner cities. Once again, however, not all inner – city residents engage
in antisocial behavior; that outcome remains somewhat dependent
on individual vulnerability. The reverse may also apply – even in the
presence of a protective environment; a biological disadvantage may be
so severe as to overwhelm the positive environmental influence.
For Example: May be seen in fetal alcohol syndrome, when the
biological odds of having poorly regulated behavior due to prenatal
alcohol exposure frequently outweigh prosocial influences.
Psychoticism [P]
Like extraversion and neuroticism, P is a bipolar factor, with
psychoticism on one pole and superego on the other. High P scorers are
often egocentric, cold, nonconforming, impulsive, hostile, aggressive,
suspicious, psychopathic, lacking in sympathy, unfriendly and
antisocial. They are unemotional and unhelpful with paranoid ideas
that people are against them (Linden, 2020). People low on psychoticism
(in the direction of superego function) tends to be altruistic, highly
socialized, empathic, caring, cooperative, conforming, and conventional
people high on the psychoticism variable are not necessarily suffering
from a psychosis, but they do have a high “predisposition to succumb
to stress and develop a psychotic illness (Figure 14).
Aggressive Cold Egocentric Impersonal Impulsive
Un- Tough-
Anti-social Creative
empathic minded
Figure 14. Characteristics of a person who score high on P

(www.flandershealth.us/personality-2/dimension of personality.html)
According to Ciccarelli (2010), Albert Bandurra believes that three

factors Influence one another in determining behavior: (a) environment,
(b) behavior itself; (c) and personal or cognitive factors that the person
brings into the situation from earlier experiences. These three factors
each affect the other two in a reciprocal, or give-and-take, relationship.
Bandura calls this relationship “reciprocal determinism (Figure 15).
COGNITION
Personal Factor
• Expectation
• Attitudes
• Feelings
ENVIRONMENT
Environmental Factor
BEHAVIOR Reciprocal • Social Norms
Behavioral Factor Determination • Condition of
• Skills neighborhood
• Self-efficacy • Situation in
• Poor performance the family
Figure 15. Albert Bandura’s Reciprocal
It was emphasized by Ciccarelli (2010) that in this theory, the

environment includes the actual physical surroundings, the other who
may or may not be present, and the potential for reinforcement in
those surroundings. The intensity and frequency of the behavior will
not only be influences by the environment but will also have an impact
on that environment. The person brings into the situation previously
reinforced responses (personality, in other words) and mental processes
such as thinking and anticipating.
For clarity Ciccrelli (2010) further elucidated, let say Ricard
walks into a classroom filled with other students, but no teacher is
present at this time (This is the environment). Part of Richard’s person
characteristics includes the desire to have attention from other people
by talking loudly and telling jokes, which has been very rewarding to
him in the past (past reinforcements are part of his cognitive processes,
or expectancies of future rewards for his behavior). Also in the past,
he has found that he gets more attention when an authority figure is
not present. His behavior will most likely to start talking and telling
jokes, which will continue if he gets the reaction he expects from his
fellow students. If the teacher walks in (the environment changes),
his behavior will change. In the future Richard might be less likely
to behave in the same way because his expectations for reward (a
cognitive element of his person variables) are different (Figure 16).
COGNITION
a d
Reciprocal
Determination
c e
b
BEHAVIOR ENVIRONMENT
d
Figure 16. Reciprocal Determinism relationship
a. Hostile thinking leads to hostile behavior

b. Hostile behavior creates hostile environment
c. Hostile behavior produces hostile thoughts
d. Being in a hostile environment causes more hostile
behaviors and thoughts
e. Thoughts can alter perceptions of the environment,
making it seem more hostile
Name Rating
Section Date

ON RECIPROCAL DETERMINISM
Source : YouTube
Video clip : Dangers of Social Media by Coby Persin
Link : https://www.youtube.com
watch?v=c4sHoDW8QU4&t=198s
Instruction : Use the link above and log-on to YouTube. Watch the
video clip on “Dangers of Social Media”. Based on what you have
learned from the discussion of reciprocal determinism, answer the
following:
1. What are the three factors of reciprocal determinism from a social

experiment about behavior? 10 pts.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
2. How do these three factors interact to produce the observed

behavior in the video clip? 10 pts.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
C. FRUSTRATION – AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS (F-A)

As argued by Bartol and Bartol (2017), behavioral and social
scientists have debated for over a half a century whether humans
are born aggressive and naturally violent, or born relatively free of
aggressive tendencies. Several theories have been developed that try
to provide some answers. One perspective of aggression assumes that
humans are programmed aggressive to defend themselves, family, and
territory from intruders. Another perspective believed human become
violent by acquiring aggressive models of actions from society. Based
from this discussion, aggression is behavior perpetuated or attempted
with the intention of harming one or more individuals physically or
psychologically or to destroy an object.
As for Burke (2019), there appears to be a relationship between
violent and aggressive behavior and malfunctioning of the limbic system,
which is part of the brain concerned with mediating the expression of
a broad range of emotional and vegetative behavior such as hunger,
pleasure, fear, sex and anger. Various studies have shown that it is
possible, by electrical stimulation of the brain to induce aggressive
behavior in otherwise placid subjects and removing or burning out
that part of the brain that appears to be responsible for aggression can
also control it.
Burke further stated that in a study of unprovoked abnormal
killer by Satfford Clark and Taylor in 1949, found out that 73 percent
had abnormal EEG readings and among “clearly insane” murderers,
the incidence is 86 percent. Electroencephalogram (EEG) is a record of
the rhythmical waves of electrical potential occurring in the vertebrate
brain mainly in the central cortex.
According to Bartol and Bartol (2017), around the time of Freud’s
death in 1939, a group of psychologists at Yale University proposed
that aggression is a direct result of frustration (Dollard, Doob, Milller,
Mowrer and Sears, 1939). According to their study, people who are
frustrated, thwarted annoyed, or threatened will behave aggressively,
since aggression is a natural and almost automatic response to
frustrating circumstances. Aggression is always a consequence
of frustration. As Burke (2019) exemplify, frustration-aggression
hypothesis proposed that every frustration leads to some form of
aggression and every aggressive act relieves frustration to some extent.
In the realm of intergroup relations, the frustration-aggression
hypothesis was used to shed light on the dynamics of stereotyping, prej-
udice, and out-group hostility. The theory of scapegoating is probably
the most well-known application of the frustration-aggression hypoth-
esis to the study of prejudice. Drawing in part on Freudian concepts of
displacement, projection, and catharsis, the scapegoating theory held

that once frustration and the impetus for aggressive behavior have
occurred, it makes relatively little difference who receives the brunt
of the violence. In some cases, aggression naturally takes the form
of retaliation against the initial source of frustration. In other cases,
situational constraints can prevent a person from being able to react
against the actual source of frustration (such as when the frustration
was caused by a very powerful person or group). In still other cases,
such as natural disasters, there may be no one to blame, but the frus-
tration can still produce aggressive inclinations (https://www.britan-
nica.com/science/frustration-aggression-hypothesis).
The study of Bollard and his collogues drew interest by other
behavioral scientists and conducted their own research on aggression
and frustration. One of the criticism of the F-A hypothesis after several
studies, it is difficult to decide was frustration was, but also determine
how it could be measured accurately. Researchers also learned that
aggression was more complex phenomenon.
D. PSYCHIATRIC CRIMINOLOGY (FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY)

As stated by Siegel (2018), psychiatric theories form the basis
of psychiatric criminology. While forensic psychiatry is that branch
of psychiatry having to do with the study of crime and criminality.
David Abrahamsen, a psychiatrist explains crime “antisocial behavior
is a direct expression of an aggression or may be a direct or indirect
manifestation of a distorted erotic drive.”
Psychopath or Sociopath
A psychopath is a person with a personality disorder, especially
one who manifests aggressive antisocial behavior. It often said to be
the result of a poorly developed superego. The psychopath, also called
a sociopath, is viewed as perversely cruel (often without thought or
feeling for his or her victims).
It was fully developed by Hervey Cleckley who described the
psychopath as a “moral idiot” or as one who does not feel empathy
with others, even though he or she may be fully cognizant of what is
objectively happening around. The central defining characteristics of a
psychopath are poverty of affect or the inability to accurately imagine
how others think and feel (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2010).
Characteristics of the Psychopathic Personality

• An absence of delusions, hallucinations, or
other signs of psychosis.
• The inability to feel guilt or shame
• Unreliability
• Chronic lying
• Superficial charm
• Above – average intelligence
• Ongoing antisocial behavior
• Inability to learn from experience
• Self – centered ness
According to Cleckley (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, 2010), psychopathic
indicators appear early in life, often in the teenage years. They include
lying, fighting, stealing, and vandalism. Even earlier signs may be
found, according to some authors, in bedwetting, cruelty to animals,
sleep – walking, and fire–setting.
Antisocial or Asocial Personality

This refers to individuals who are basically unsocialized and
whose behavior brings them repeatedly into conflict with society. They
are incapable of significant loyalty to individuals, groups, or social
values. They are grossly selfish, callous, irresponsible, impulsive,
and unable to feel guilt or to learn from experience and punishment.
Frustration tolerance is low. They tend to blame others or offer plausible
rationalization for their behavior (Siegel, 2018).
E. MORAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY

This refers generally to theories of individual psychology that
investigate how moral reasoning emerges in the individual and
develops as the individual matures. According to moral development
theorists, to understand criminal and delinquent behavior there is a
need to determine how the individuals develop or fail to develop a sense
of morality and responsibility. One of the first contemporary moral
development theorists was the French psychologist Jean Piaget, whose
research was focused on the moral lives of children. To determine
how children developed their ideas about right and wrong, Piaget
studied how children developed the rules to the games they played.
He concluded that moral reasoning develops in stages. The thinking of
the children is characterized by egocentrism. That is, they project their
own thoughts and wishes onto others because they are unable to take
the perspective of those others. Through their interactions with others,
by the ages 11 or 12, children normally have progressed to the stage
of cooperation with others. Based on this research Piaget concluded
that schools should teach moral reasoning by allowing students to
work out the rules through problem-solving in the classroom. This
was expanded by Lawrence Kohlberg and has hypothesized that
there are 6 stages of moral development. The stages are age-related,
and progression through the stages occurs as “the developing child
becomes better able to understand and integrate diverse point of
view on a moral-conflict situation and to take more of the relevant
situational factors into account.” Kohlberg believes that all individuals
go through the same sequence of stages though the pace may vary and
some individuals may never progress beyond the few stages. Kohlberg
categorized the 6 stages into 3 levels of moral judgment development,
each with two stages of moral reasoning (Linden, 2020). These are the
following:
1. Pre-conventional level is the characteristics of children
under age 11 and of many adolescent and adult offenders.
At this level, society’s morals and values are understood as
“do’s” and “don’ts” and are associated with punishment.
The pre-conventional person is one for whom roles and
social expectations are something external to the self.
2. Conventional level reflects the average adolescent and
adult in the society and others. He or she understands,
accepts and attempts to uphold the values and rules of
society. For a conventional person, the self is identified with
or has internalized the rules and expectations of others,
especially those authorities.
3. Post-conventional level is the one at which customs are
critically examined with regards to universal rights, duties
and moral principles. It is characteristic of a minority of
adults after the age of 20. The post-conventional person has
differentiated his or her self from the rules and expectations
of others and has defined his or her values by means of self-
chosen principles.
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development

Level Stage Description
1. Punishment Egocentric
Pre-
I 2. Instrumental (What happens
conventional
hedonism to me?)
3. Approval of others Social expecta-
tions (What do
II Conventional 4. Authority maintaining others expect
morality me?)
Democratically Universality
Post- accepted law
III (What is best for
Conventional
Principles of conscience all?)
F. BEHAVIOR THEORY
Psychological behavior theory maintains that human actions are
developed through learning. Rather than focusing on unconscious
personality traits or cognitive development patterns produced early
in childhood. The behavior theorists are concerned with the actual
behaviors people engage in during the course of their daily lives. The
major premise of behavior theory is that people alter their behavior
according to the reactions it receives from others. It is a psychological
perspective asserting that individual behavior, which is rewarded,
will increase; while one that is punished will decrease. Criminal
behavior including aggressive and violent behavior is viewed as
learned responses to social conditions and life situations. Behavior
is supported by rewards and extinguished by negative reactions or
punishments. With respect to criminal activity, the behaviorist views
crimes, especially violent acts, as learned response to life situations
that do not necessarily represent psychologically abnormal response
(Siegel, 2018).
As stated by Sigel (2019), behavior has sometimes been called the
stimulus response approach to human behavior. When an individual’s
behavior results in rewards or feedback that the individual regard
as pleasurable and desirable, then it is likely that the behavior will
become more frequent.
Under such circumstances, the behavior in question is reinforced.
Conversely, when the punishment follows behavior, chances are
that the frequency of that behavior will decrease. The individual’s
responses are termed operant behavior because a person’s behavioral
choices effectively operate on the surrounding environment to produce
consequences for the individual. Similarly, stimuli provided by the

environment become behavioral cues that elicit conditioned responses
from the individual. Responses are said to be conditioned according
to the individual’s past experiences, wherein behavioral consequences
effectively defined some forms of behavior as desirable and other as
undesirable. This theory is often used by parents seeking to control
children through reward and punishment, which are believe to help in
shaping behavior (Schmalleger, 2011).
G. COGNITIVE THEORY
One area of psychology that has received increasing recognition
in recent years is cognitive theory. According to Siegel (2018),
cognitive theory is the study of the perception of reality and of the
mental processes required to understand the world. Psychologists
with a cognitive perspective focus on mental processes on how people
perceive and mentally represent the world around them and solve
problems. The pioneers of this school were Wilhelm Wundt, Edward
Titchener and William James. Today the cognitive area includes
several sub disciplines. The moral development branch is concerned
with how people morally represent and reason about the world.
Humanistic psychology stresses self-awareness and getting in touch
with feelings. Cognitive theorists explain antisocial behavior in terms of
mental perception and how people use information to understand their
environment. When people make decisions, they engage in a sequence
of cognitive thought processes, such as the following (Siegel 2019).
1. They encode information so that it can be interpreted;
2. They search for a proper response and decide on the most
appropriate action; and
3. They act on their decisions.
Hence, Wundt, Tichener and James further emphasized crime-

prone people may have cognitive deficits and use information incorrectly
when they make decisions. They view crime as an appropriate means
to satisfy their immediate personal needs, which take precedence
over more social needs such as obedience to the law. They are not
deterred by the threat of legal punishments because when they try
to calculate the costs and consequences of an action, when they are
deciding whether to commit a crime, they make mistakes because
they are imperfect processors of information. As a result of their faulty
calculation, they pursue behaviors that they perceive as beneficial and
satisfying but that turn out to be harmful and detrimental. People with
inadequate cognitive processing perceive the world as stacked against
them; they believe they have little control over the negative events in
their life. They find it difficult to understand or sympathize with other
people’s feelings and emotions, which lead them to blame their victims
for their problems. Thus, the sexual offender believes his target led
him on or secretly wanted the forcible sex to occur and would justify
that “She was asking for it” (Siegel, 2019). Generally, law violators may
have the following characteristics:
1. Law violators may be sensation seekers who are
constantly looking for novel experiences
2. others lack deliberation and rarely think through
problems
3. others maintain inappropriate attitudes and beliefs
4. they are thrill-seeking
5. manipulative
6. callous
7. deceptive and hold rule-breaking attitude
8. some may give up easily
9. whereas others act without thinking when they get upset
Apparently, the following are the perceptions of people with

inadequate cognitive processing:
1. They perceive the world as stacked against them.
2. They believe they have little control over the negative
events in their life.
3. They find it difficult to understand or sympathize with
other peoples’ feelings and emotions, which lead them to
blame their victims for their problems.
One reason for this faulty reasoning is that people may be relying
on mental scripts learned in childhood that tell them how to interpret
events, what to expect, how they should react, and what should be the
outcome of the interaction. Some may have learned improper scripts
because as children they had early, prolonged exposure to violence
like child abuse, which increased their sensitivity to maltreatment.
Violence becomes a stable behavior because the scripts that emphasize
aggressive responses are repeatedly rehearsed as the child matures.
These errors in cognitive and information processing have been used
to explain the behavior of pedophiles. They may perceive children as
being able to and wanting to engage in sexual activity with adults and
also as not harmed by such sexual contacts.
According to this cognitive approach, antisocial behavior is best
able to be avoided by:
• people use information properly
• those who are better conditioned to make reasoned
judgments
• and who can make quick and reasoned decision
when facing emotion-laden events.
It was further emphasized by Siegel (2018) that:

• The major premise of the cognitive theory is that
individual reasoning processes influence behavior.
Reasoning is influenced by the way people perceive
their environment.
• The strengths of the theory are that it shows why
criminal behavior patterns change over time as people
mature and develop their reasoning powers. It may
explain the aging-out process.
• The research focuses of the theory are perception and
recognition
H. SELF CONTROL THEORY

According to Hagan (2017), self-control refers to a person’s ability
to alter his/her own states of responses. Many psychologists suggest
that the capacity to override and alter the self’s responses is a vital
characteristic that sets human beings apart from other species. Micheal
R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi introduced different perspective of
self-control as part of their general theory of crime. They defined self-
control as the degree to which a person is vulnerable to temptations
of the moment. They proposed that self-control is required early in life
and that low self-control is the premier individual-level cause of crime.
According to them, self-control is developed by the end of childhood
and is fostered through parental emotional investment in the child,
which includes monitoring the child’s behavior, recognizing deviance
when it occurs and punishing the child.
Gottfredson and Hirschi recognized the sociological dimensions
of criminality by noting that “the link between self-control and crime
depends substantially upon criminal opportunity, which in itself is a
function of the structural or situational circumstances encountered
by the person. Thus, this theory suggests that the link between self-
control and crime is not deterministic but probabilistic, affected by
opportunities and other constraints. Recent research appears to
show that low self-control tends to lead to peer rejection and isolation
especially among juveniles. Consequently, young people with low self-
control tend to associate with their deviant peers, meaning those with
low levels of self-control are essentially self-selected into groups of
people who share their characteristics” (Schmalleger, 2011).
From the work of Gottfredson and Hirschi, Harold G. Grasmick
identifies some characteristics of individuals with low levels of self-
control. According to him such people are impulsive and seek
immediate gratification. On the other hand, those with higher levels
of self-control are more inclined to deter gratification in favor of long-
term gains. People with less self-control lack diligence, tenacity and
persistence and prefer simple tasks and want money without work
(Schmalleger, 2011).
THEORY CAUSE
Intrapsychic Processes
• Unconscious conflict
PSYCHODYNAMIC
• Defenses
(psychoanalytic)
• Tendencies
• Anger
• Sexuality
Learning Processes
• Past experiences
BEHAVIORAL • Stimulus
• Rewards and
punishment
Information Processes
• Thinking
• Planning
COGNITIVE
• Memory
• Perspective
• Ethical Values
TRAIT CAUSE
Personality Processes
• Anti-social personality
• Sociopath/psychopath
PERSONALITY
temperament
• Abnormal affect, lack of
emotional depth
Intellectual Processes
• Low IQ
INTELLIGENCE
• Poor school performance
• Bad decision making
Figure 17. Psychological perspective of criminality

I. ATTACHMENT THEORY
According to psychologists John Bowlby’s attachment theory, the
ability to form an emotional bond to another person has important
psychological implications that follow people across the life span.
Apparently, attachments are formed soon after birth, when infants
bond with their mothers. Babies will become frantic, crying and clinging
to prevent separation or to re-establish contact a missing parent.
Attachment figures, especially the mother, must provide support and
care, and without attachment an infant would be helpless and could
not survive. Failure to develop proper attachment may result to any of
the following (cited in Siegel, 2019):
a. It may cause people to fall prey to a number of psychological
disorders, some of which resemble attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
b. Some individuals may be impulsive and have difficulty
concentrating and consequently experience difficulty in
school.
c. As adults, they often have difficulty initiating and sustaining
relationships with others and find it difficult to sustain
romantic relationships.
Accordingly, meta-analysis of existing research finds that lack
of attachment predicts involvement in a broad spectrum of criminal
activity (Ogilvie, Newman, Todd and Peck, 2014). Relative to this,
criminologists have linked people who have detachment problems with
a variety of antisocial behaviors, including sexual assaults and child
abuse. It has been suggested that boys disproportionately experience
disrupted attachment and these disruptions are causally related to
disproportionate rates of male offending (Fagan, Horn, Hawkins &
Jaki, 2013).
According to John Bowlby, the early relationship between an infant
and a caregiver largely determines the quality of social relationship
later in life. Bowlby’s attachment theory has been discussed
extensively in the psychological aspect and may be extended to the
study of criminal behavior. Apparently, some infants when placed in
a strange and unfamiliar environment show secure attachment. They
play comfortably in their parents’ presence and demonstrate curiosity
about their new and challenging environment. When the parents leave,
the child become distressed but when parents return, the child beams
with delight. These infants use their parents or caregiver as a secure
base from which to explore. Other infants may show an insecure
attachment, which is often divided into two attachments styles:

anxious/ambivalent and avoidant (cited in Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
The anxious/ambivalent attached child becomes intensely
distressed and anxious by separation, and in new environments, they
often cling anxiously to their parents without much exploration. When
the parents return after separation, they may become indifferent and
even hostile. These infants may push the returning parents away,
stiffen up, or cry when picked up. The avoidant attachment style
is characterized by little distress on the part of the infant, whether
the parents are present or not. They rarely cry during separation or
reunion. Avoidant attachment in infancy and childhood is associated
with dismissing attachment in adulthood.
Problems with attachment apparently are related to deficiencies in
caregiving by adults in the child’s life. The DSM-5 (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013) includes diagnoses of reactive attachment disorder
and disinhibited social engagement disorder, both of which are
precipitated by the absence of adequate caregiving during infancy or
early childhood. In case of reactive attachment disorder, the social
neglect results in the child demonstrating a consistent pattern of
inhibited, emotionally withdrawn behavior toward adult caregiver.
It was observed that caregivers who are sensitive, affectionate,
and responsive, and who create in their babies a basic trust of the
world, typically have securely attached infants. Children with secure
attachment base usually develop into psychologically healthy people.
As adults, they form good relationships, emphasize with others, and
generally show good self-regulation. Later on, they emerge as more
competent and more sympathetic in interaction with peers (cited in
Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
In the other hand, infants with avoidant attachment style often
have parents who are aloof, distant, and prefer to avoid intimacy
with their children. Consequently, these children as adults have
difficulty forming intimate relationship. Infants with anxious/
ambivalent attachment usually have parents who are overbearing and
inconsistent in their affection and intimacy. These infants never know
when and how their parents will respond to their needs. As adults,
they want to have close relationships but continually worry about
their partners and relationships returning the affection. They tend to
become obsessive and preoccupied with their relationship, especially
spouses and intimate partners. Ward, T & Hudson, S. M. hypothesize
that many sex offenders probably had parents who were inconsistently
affectionate and poor at identifying their child’s needs. In essence, the
sex offenders demonstrate the dismissing (avoidant) attachment style
in their adult relationships. In the study of Gwen Adshead, she reported

evidence for insecure attachment of violent offenders. She noted that
many victims of interpersonal violence are part of the violent offender’s
attachment network (a child, a parent, a partner or ex-partner). Fear
of loss or separation can generate strong feelings of anxiety and rage
in the offender, often resulting in violent actions. It was revealed that
majority of offenders showed a dismissing attachment style, suggesting
a dismissed capacity for empathy toward their victims or relationships
(cited in Bartol & Bartol, 2017).
Concept Summary of Psychological Theories

by Siegel (2019) and Linden (2020):
THEORY Theorists MAJOR PREMISE/ STRENGTHS/
KEY ELEMENTS
Psycho- Sigmund The development of the unconscious
dynamic Freud personality early in childhood influences
Theory behavior for the rest of a person’s life.
Criminals have weak egos and damaged
personalities. Explains the onset of
crime and why crime and drug abuse
cut across class lines. Crime results
when the ego and superego cannot
control the antisocial instinct of .the id.
This occurs because the individual has
not been adequately socialized in early
childhood
Behavioral Burrhus People commit crime when they model
Theory Frederic their behavior after others they see being
Skinner rewarded for similar acts. Behavior is
shaped or reinforced by rewards and
extinguished by punishment. It explains
the role of significant others in the crime
process; it shows how the media can
influence crime and violence
Cognitive Wilhelm Individual reasoning processes influence
Theory Wundt and behavior. Reasoning is influenced by the
Edward way people perceive their environment.
Titchener It shows why criminal behavior patterns
William change over time as people mature and
James develop their reasoning powers. It may
explain the aging-out process.
Personality Hans Law abiding people must develop

Theory Eysenck conditioned fear of deviance. Those who
become delinquents and criminals do
not develop this fear because of poor
conditioning by parents or because they
are less susceptible to conditioning.
Moral Jean Piaget Each individual must go through a
Develop- Lawrence sequence of moral development. Those
ment Kohlberg with a high level of moral development
Theory will be more likely to make responsible
choices when faced with the opportunity
to get involved in criminal behavior.
Attachment John The early relationship between an infant
Theory Bowlby and a caregiver largely determines the
quality of social relationship later in life.
Self-Control Micheal R. Determines the degree to which a person
Theory Gottfredson is vulnerable to temptations.
Travis People with low levels of self-control
Hirschi are impulsive and seek immediate
gratification. Those with higher levels of
self-control are more inclined to deter
gratification in favor of long-term gains.
Name Rating
Section Date
1. The psychological determinants of deviant or criminal behavior

may be expressed in terms the following, except _____.
a. manipulative personality characteristics
b. poor impulse control
c. emotional provocation
d. matured personality
2. He explains that antisocial behavior may be a direct or indirect

manifestation of a distorted erotic drive.
a. Hervey Cleckley c. David Abrahamsen
b. Albert Bandura d. Hans Eysenck
3. Due to good academic performance of his son, Mr. Santos is no

longer requiring his son to fetch water every 7:30 in the evening.
He is hoping that by this way, his son can sustain or even
surpass his previous ratings in his classes. This is a form of . . .
a. positive punishments c. positive rewards
b. negative punishments d. negative rewards
4. David failed to pay his tuition fees because the money intended
for it was used for extravagant life style. He was afraid to tell the
truth to his parents, so he decided to take the allowance of his
board mate by destroying the lock of his cabinet. However, when
the money amounting to Php 7,000.00 were already on his hands
he hesitated and changed his mind. He thought that if he would be
caught he has to face charges and might be incarcerated. In this

situation David realized that what he would do is against the law
and unfair to his board mate. This signifies that . . .
a. David has strong id and weak ego
b. David had strong ego and with superego
c. David has strong ego but without superego
d. David has weak id and strong ego
5. A person with a personality disorder, especially one manifested

in aggressively antisocial behavior, which is often said to be the
result of a poorly developed superego.
a. Psychotic c. neurotic
b. Psychopath or Sociopath d. mentally retarded
5. Give the three categories of theories that explain intellectual and

emotional development that account for criminal motivation of an
individual.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
6. A person who committed an offense with weak ego depicts the

following, except one.
a. immature
b. with poorly developed social skills
c. poor reality testing
d. has the ability to discern the situation
7. Which of the following is indicative that Juan a sociopath?

a. ability to feel guilt
b. ability to learn from experience
c. superficial charm
d. reliable
8. Laura is 15-year-old who is known by her family and friends to

be impulsive who always seeks for immediate gratification. This
statement indicates that Laura has . . .
a. strong personality c. low level of self-control
b. high level of self-control d. weak personality
9. A child who failed to develop strong attachment to the family may

result to any of the following, except one.
a. He or she may fall prey to a number of psychological
disorders
b. He or she may be impulsive and have difficulty
concentrating and consequently experience difficulty
in school.
c. He or she may often have difficulty initiating and
sustaining relationships with others.
d. He or she may find and to sustain romantic
relationships.
10. This is the study of the perception of reality and of the mental
processes, which is concerned with how people morally represent
and reason about the world.
a. cognitive theory c. personality theory
b. attachment theory d. self-control theory
11. A level of the mind that contains all the drives, urges, or instinct
that are beyond our awareness but that nevertheless motivate
most of our words, feelings, and actions.
a. conscious c. preconscious
b. unconscious d. psyche
12. A type of conscious which is turned into the outer world and acts
as a medium for the perception of external stimuli.
a. conscious proper c. perceptual conscious
b. mental structure d. consciousness
13. A type of conscious which is turned into the outer world and acts
as a medium for the perception of external stimuli.
a. conscious proper c. perceptual conscious
b. mental structure d. consciousness
14. Attachments _______ are formed soon after birth, when infants
bond with their mothers. Babies will become frantic, crying and
clinging to prevent separation or to re-establish contact a missing
parent.
a. Bond c. Relationship
b. Attachments d. All of these
15. Individual reasoning processes influence behavior. Reasoning is

influenced by the way people perceive their environment. It shows
why criminal behavior patterns change over time as people mature
and develop their reasoning powers.
a. Social Bond
b. Moral development theory
c. Cognitive Theory
d. Self-control theory
93
Chapter Three
Sociological Causes of Crime
A. Topic Description: 2. Social structure theory

Sociological philosophers a. Social disorganization
focused their attention on theory
the contribution of society,
environment and social b. Strain theory
interaction in the development of c. Culture Deviance
anti-social behavior. This chapter theory
was divided primary between
social structure theories and social
process theories. Social process C. Topic Objectives:
theories center the discussion on
the contribution of social learning 1. Identify the specific
theory, social control theory, and contribution of
social reaction/labelling theory on sociological factors in
the behavior of potential criminals. criminal behavior.
The second part deals with 2. Compare and contrast
social structure theory. These differential association
theories consider crimes as caused theory from differential
by poverty and income inequality. reinforcement theory.
More specifically, this theory
explains crime by examining the 3. Analyze the impact of
structure of society, the suffering control theories on the
experienced by the lower class. behavior of individuals.
4. Analyze how labelling
of individuals lead the
B. Scope: development of anti-
social behavior.
1. Social process theories
5. Summarize the inter-
a. Social Learning relationship of social
theories disorganization theory,
b. Social Control theories strain theory and culture
deviance theory in
c. Labelling theory explanation the develop
of appropriate measure.
CHAPTER THREE
SOCIOLOGICAL CAUSES OF CRIMES
The different sociological theories according Schmalleger (2011),

analyze institutional arrangement with society (social structure),
and the interaction among social institutions, individuals and groups
(social process) as they affect socialization and have an impact on social
behavior (social life). It is the main objective of sociological theories
to examine the nature of existing power relationships between social
groups and focus on the influences that various social phenomena
bring to bear on the types of behavior that tends to characterize groups
of people. Hence, it is not the concern of sociological approaches to
predict the behavior of specific individuals; rather its concern is on a
“macro” perspective, stressing the type of behavior likely to exhibit by
the group members.
Sociology encompasses a very wide range of theoretical
perspectives, but generally regards crime as a social phenomenon,
and emphasizes the cultural and social elements of criminal behavior.
Some sociological theories emphasize the relationship between social
structures, such as language, ethnicity and class, and criminal
behavior. Other theories emphasize the effect of social conditions on
an individual’s propensity to become involved in crime. Theories of
this type often focus on the relationship between crime and factors
such as social inequality; the influence of peers; social disorganization
in a community; the consequences for an individual of being unable
to achieve social success; and the role of criminal sub-cultures,
including gangs. Sociological theories are often criticized for not being
able to provide strong evidence for the causal relationships they posit.
Nevertheless, they are important because they complement the more
individually-focused biological and psychological theories (www.
justice.govt.hz/crime/spb-theories).
SOCIAL PROCESS THEORIES

Social process theories are focused on how behavior is learned
through social interaction and transmitted among individuals. These
theories (Tibbets & Hemmens, 2010) assume that individuals learn why
and how to commit and avoid committing crimes through a process
of socialization. It is not the social structure but the socialization
that determines life chances. The more social problems encountered
during the socialization process, the greater the likelihood those
youths will encounter difficulties and obstacles as they mature, such

as being unemployed or becoming a teenage parent (Siegel, 2013, p.
236). Social process theories also claim that people learn crime like
they learn any behavior, such as riding a bike or playing basketball.
They learn this behavior from significant others, such as from family,
peers, teachers or coworkers. The theories examine how individuals
interact with other individuals and groups and how the learning that
takes place leads to a propensity toward criminal activity. These are
also referred as interactionist perspective because they depend on
the process of interaction between the individuals and society. Social
process criminologists operate from a sociological perspective known
as symbolic interactionism. This focuses on how people interpret and
define their social reality and the meanings they attach to it in the
process of interacting with one another via language. Social process
theorists believe that if we wish to understand social behavior we have
to understand how individuals subjectively perceive their social reality
and how they interact with others to create, sustain and change it.
The processes most stressed are socialization and cultural conflict;
that is, they seek to describe criminal and delinquent socialization and
how social conflict pressures individuals into committing antisocial
acts. Some process theories focus on the reverse process of learning
prosocial attitudes and behavior in the face of temptations to do
otherwise. All social process theories represent the joining of sociology
and psychology to varying extents.
Barkan (2006) emphasized that neither a social process nor
structural approach can adequately explain crime by itself. According
to him, social process theories cannot easily account for structural
variation in criminality, and structural theories cannot easily account
for individual variation in crime among people living in similar
structural conditions. A more comprehensive understanding of crime
might be achieved by integrating social process and structural factors.
In other words, social process theories take up where social structural
theories leave off. The latter cannot explain why some individuals
living in criminogenic structural circumstances are led to committing
crime, whereas most individuals in these same circumstances remain
law-abiding citizens.
Social process theories of crime causation assume that everyone
has the potential to violate the law and that criminality is not an innate
human characteristic. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction
with other, and the socialization process that occurs as the result
of group membership is seen as the primary route through which
learning occurs. Among the most important groups contributing to the
process of socialization are family, peers, work groups and reference
groups with which one identifies (Schmalleger, 2011). Theorists who

believe that an individual’s socialization determines the likelihood of
criminality adopt the social process approach to human behavior. The
social process approach has several independent branches or types.
The first is social learning theory, which suggests that people learn the
techniques and attitudes of crime from close and intimate relationships
with criminal peers and that crime is a learned behavior. Second is
social control theory, which maintains that everyone has the potential
to become a criminal, but that most people are controlled by their
bonds to society. Accordingly, crime occurs when the forces that bind
people to society are weakened or broken. The third is social reaction
theory or the so called labeling theory, this theory assumes that people
become criminals when significant members of society label them as
such, and they accept those labels as a personal identity (figure 18).
SOCIAL
LEARNING THEORIES
The criminal behavior is learned
through interaction.
SOCIAL
SOCIAL PROCESS SOCIAL
CONTROL REACTION THEORY/
THEORIES
THEORIES LABELING THEORY
The human behavior is People who were given
controlled through close negative labels by authority
association with institutions figures accept those labels as
a personal identity, setting up
and individuals.
a self fulfilling prophecy
Figure 18. Types of Social Process Theories

I. SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

According Copes & Topalli (2013),
Bandura emphasized that a person is not
born with the ability to behave violently. These
theories assume that people are born with no
tendency to commit crimes but that they learn
to be aggressive through their life experiences.
These experiences include personally observing
others acting aggressively to achieve some goal
or watching people being rewarded for violent
act on television or in movies. People learn to
act aggressively when, as children they model
their behavior after the violent acts of adults.
Accordingly, Schmallenger (2011), criminal
behavior is a product of the social environment Albert Bandura
and not innate characteristics of a person.
Bandura’s Social Learning Theory suggests that people learn from
one another, via observation, imitation, and modeling. The theory has
often been called a bridge between behaviorist and cognitive learning
theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation.
According to him, people learned aggressiveness through their life
experiences. Hence, people learn the techniques and attitudes of
crimes from close and intimate relationships with criminal peers.
Social learning theorists view violence as something learned
through aggressive acts called behavior modeling. In modern society,
aggressive acts are usually modeled after three principal sources. The
most prominent models are family members. According to Bandura,
children who use aggressive tactics have parents who use similar
behaviors when dealing with others (Copes & Topalli, 2013).
The second influence on the social learning of violence is provided
by environmental experience. People who reside in areas in which
violence is a daily occurrence are more likely to act violently then
those who dwell in low-crime areas where norms stress conventional
behavior (Copes & Topalli, 2013).
The mass media provides a third source of behavior modeling. Film
and televisions shows commonly depict violence graphically. Moreover,
violence is often portrayed as an acceptable behavior, especially for
heroes who never have to face legal consequences for their actions.
In summary, social learning theorists have said that the following

four factors help produce violence and aggression:
• An event that heightens arousal, such as being frustrated
or provoked through physical assault or verbal abuse.
• Aggressive skills learned aggressive responses picked up
from observing others, either personally or through the
mass media.
• Expected outcomes, the belief that aggression will somehow
be rewarded. Reward can come in the form of reduced
tension or anger, some financial reward, enhanced self-
esteem, or the praise from others.
• Consistency of behavior with values, the belief gained from
observing others, the aggression is justified and appropriate,
given the circumstances of the current situation.
In other words, social learning theory assumes people are born

good and learn to be become criminal. On the other hand, social control
theory assumes people are born bad and must be controlled in order
to be good; social reaction theory assumes that, whether good or bad,
people are controlled by the reactions of others.
Based on modeling process, not all observed behaviors are
effectively learned. Factors involving both the model and the learner
can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain
requirements and steps must also be followed. An important factor
of Bandura’s social learning theory is the emphasis on reciprocal
determinism. This notion states that an individual’s behavior is
influenced by the environment and characteristics of the person. In
other words, a person’s behavior, environment, and personal qualities
all reciprocally influence each other.
According to Copes & Topalli, Bandura proposed that the modeling
and observational learning process involves several steps.
1. Attention
In order for an individual to learn something, he must pay
attention to the features of the modeled behavior. He needs to
pay attention because anything that detracts his attention is
going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the
model interesting or there is a novel aspect to the situation,
an individual is far more likely to dedicate his full attention to
learning. Accordingly, there are various factors that increase
or decrease the amount of attention paid by a person. These

are distinctiveness, affective valence, prevalence, complexity,
functional value. One’s characteristics like sensory capacities,
arousal level, perceptual set, past reinforcement affect attention.
2. Retention
Humans need to be able to remember details of the behavior
in order to learn and later reproduce the behavior. The ability
to store information is also an important part of the learning
process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but
the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital
to observational learning. Remembering what an individual
paid attention to, may include symbolic coding, mental images,
cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal.
3. Reproduction
In reproducing a behavior, an individual must organize
his or her responses in accordance with the model behavior.
This ability can improve with practice. Once an individual has
paid attention to the model and retained the information, it
is time to actually perform the behavior he observed. Further
practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and
skill advancement reproducing the image including physical
capabilities, and self-observation of reproduction.
4. Motivation
Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful,
a person has to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has
been modeled. There must be an incentive or motivation driving
the individual’s reproduction of the behavior. Even if all of the
above factors are present, the person will not engage in the
behavior without motivation. Reinforcement and punishment
play an important role in motivation. For example, if a person
sees another student rewarded with extra credit for being
to class on time, he might start to show up a few minutes
early each day. Having a good reason to imitate may include
motives such as Â past (i.e. traditional behaviorism), promised
(imagined incentives) and vicarious (seeing and recalling the
reinforced model).
General Principles of Social Learning Theory

Since it is a general explanation of crime and deviance of all kinds,
social learning is not simply a theory about how novel criminal behavior
is learned or a theory only of the positive causes of that behavior. It
embraces variables that operate to both motivate and control delinquent
and criminal behavior, to both promote and undermine conformity. The
probability of criminal or conforming behavior occurring is a function
of the variable operating in the underlying social learning process. The
main concept/variables and their respective empirical indicators have
been identified and measured, but they can be viewed as indicators
of a general latent construct, for which additional indicators can be
devised (Walsh and Hemmens, 2008).
Social learning accounts for the individual becoming prone to
deviant or criminal behavior and for stability or change in the propensity.
Therefore, the theory is capable of accounting for the development of
stable individual differences, as well as changes in the individual’s
behavioral patterns or tendencies to commit deviant and criminal
acts, overtime and in different situations. The social learning process
operates in each individual’s learning history and in the immediate
situation in which the opportunity for a crime occurs.
Walsh and Hemmens further stated that deviant and criminal
behavior is learned and modified (acquired, performed, repeated,
maintained and changed) through all of the same cognitive and
behavioral mechanisms as conforming behavior. They differ in the
direction, content and outcome of the behavioral learned. Therefore,
it is inaccurate to state, for instance, that peer influence does not
explain adolescent deviant behavior since conforming behavior is also
peer influence in adolescence. The theory expects peer influences to be
implicated in both; it is the content and direction of the influence that
is the key.
The primary learning mechanisms are differential reinforcement
(instrumental conditioning), in which behavior is a function of the
frequency, amount, and probability of experienced and perceived
contingent rewards and punishments, and imitation, in which the
behavior of others and its consequences are observed and modeled.
The process of stimulus discrimination/generalization is another

important mechanism; here, overt and covert stimuli, verbal and
cognitive, act as cues or signals for behavior to occur. As I point out
below, there are other behavioral mechanisms in the learning process,
but these are not as important and are usually left implied rather than
explicated in the theory.
The content of the learning achieved by these mechanisms
includes the simple and complex behavioral sequences and the
definitions (beliefs, attitudes, justifications, orientations) that in turn
become discriminative for engaging in deviant and criminal behavior.
The probability that conforming or norm-violative behavior is learned
and performed and the frequency with which it is committed are a
function of the past, present and anticipated differential reinforcement
for the behavior and the deviant or non-deviant direction of the learned
definitions and other discriminative stimuli present in a given situation
(Walsh and Hemmens, 2008).
These learning mechanisms operate in a process of differential
association – direct and indirect, verbal and nonverbal communication,
interaction and identification with others. The relative frequency,
intensity, duration and priority of associations affect the relative
amount, frequency, and probability of reinforcement of conforming or
deviant behavior and exposure of individuals to deviant or conforming
norms and behavioral models. To the extent that the individual can
control with whom he or she associates, the frequency, intensity and
duration of those associations are themselves affected by how rewarding
or aversive they are. The principal learning is through differential
association with those persons and groups (primary secondary,
reference and symbolic) that comprise or control the individual’s major
sources of reinforcement, most salient behavioral models, and most
effective definitions and other discriminative stimuli for committing and
repeating behavior. The reinforcement and discriminative are mainly
social (such as socially valued rewards and punishers contingent
on the behavior), but they are also nonsocial such as unconditioned
physiological reactions to environmental stimuli and physical effects
of ingested substances and the physical environment (Walsh and
Hemmens, 2008).
Sequence and Reciprocal Effects in the Social Learning Process

Behavioral feedback effects are built into the concept of differential
reinforcement – actual or perceived changes in the environment
produced by the behavior feedback on that behavior to affect its
repetition or extinction, and both prior and anticipated rewards and
punishments influence present behavior. Reciprocal effects between
the individual’s behavior and definition or differential association are
also reflected in the social learning process. This process is one in which
the probability of both the initiation and the repetition of a deviant
or criminal act; or the conforming acts is a function of the learning
history of the individual and the set of reinforcement contingencies
and discriminative stimuli in a given situation.
According to social learning theory, models are an important
source for learning new behaviors and for achieving behavioral change
in institutionalized settings. Social learning theory (Schmallenger,
2011) is derived from the work of Albert Bandura which proposed that
observational learning can occur in relation to three models. The three
models are illustrated below (Figure 19).
Figure 19. Bandura’s Models for Observational Learning

TYPES OF SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

A. DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY
Edwin H. Sutherland introduced this
theory in the late 1930’s. He was one of the
first to state that criminal behavior was the
result of normal social process, resulting when
individuals associated with the wrong type of
people, often by no fault on their part. According
to him, by associating with crime-oriented
people, whether they are parents or peers, an
individual will inevitably choose to engage in
criminal behavior because that is what he or
she has learned. He proposed a theoretical
framework that explained how criminal values
could be culturally transmitted to individuals
from their significant others. Apparently, the
most important of Sutherland’s principles and certainly the most
revealing one, was “A person becomes delinquent because of an excess
of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable
to violation of law” (Tibbets & Hemmens, 2010).
The final version (Siegel, 2019) of
differential association theory appeared in 1947.
Then when Sutherland died in 1950, Donald
Cressey continued his work. Cressey was so
successful in explaining and popularizing his
mentor’s efforts that differential association
remains one of the most enduring explanations
of criminal behavior.
Sutherland’s researches led him to
dispute the notion that crime was a function
of the inadequacy of people in the lower class.
Criminality stemmed neither from individual
traits nor from socioeconomic position; instead,
it is a function of a learning process that could affect any individual
in any culture. Sutherland use the dominant psychological theory of
learning of his era as the basis for his theory of differential association.
This model was classical conditioning, which was primarily developed
by Ivan Pavlov. Classical conditioning assumes that animals, as well
as and respond people, learn through associations between stimuli
and response. Organisms, animals or people are somewhat passive
actor’s inn this process, meaning that they simply receive in natural
way to various forms of stimuli; over time, they learn to associate
certain stimuli with certain responses (Tibbets & Hemmens, 2010).
Figure 20. Graphical illustration of Differential Association Theory
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY

The previous nine principles of differential association theory
were cut down by Siegel (2019) into seven as follows:
1. Criminal Behavior is learned.

Sutherland declared that criminal behavior is not
inherited biologically nor otherwise the result of any biological
traits. This statement differentiates Sutherland’s theory from
prior attempts to classify criminal behavior as an inherent
characteristic. By suggesting that delinquent and criminal
behavior is learned, Sutherland implied that it can be classified
in the same manner as any other learned behavior, such as
writing, painting or reading.
2. Learning is a by-product of interaction.

There is definite interaction through a process of
communication; hence learning criminal behavior occurs
through interpersonal interaction. Sutherland believed
individuals do not start violating the law simply by living
in a criminogenic environment or by manifesting personal
characteristics, such as low IQ or family problems, associated
with criminality. Family, friends and peers have the greatest
influence on the deviant behavior and attitude development.
Relationships with these influential individual’s color and
control the way people interpret everyday events.
3. Criminal Techniques are learned.

Learning criminal behavior involves acquiring the
techniques of committing the crimes, which are sometimes very
complicated and very simple. This requires learning the specific
direction of motives, drives, rationalization and attitudes. Some
kids may meet and associate how to be successful criminals
and gain the greatest benefits from their criminal activities.
4. Perceptions of legal code influence motives and drives.

Gaining knowledge of criminal behavior also involves
learning whether to define laws as worthy of obedience or
deserving of violation. The specific direction of motives and drives
is learned from perceptions of various aspects of the legal code
as being favorable or unfavorable. The reaction to social rules
and laws is not uniform across society, and people constantly
come into contact with others who maintain different views on
the utility of obeying the legal code. Some people they admire
may openly disdain or flout the law or ignore its substance.
People experience what Sutherland calls culture conflict when
they are exposed to different and opposing attitudes toward
what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. The conflict of
social attitudes and culture norms is the basis for the concept
of differential association.
5. Differential associations may vary in frequency,

duration, priority and intensity.
Associations will likely have the greatest impact on one’s
views if they are of high frequency and duration, take place
early in life, and involve people whose views and friendship one
values highly. Whether a person learns to obey the law or to
disregard it is influenced by the quality of social interactions.
Those of lasting duration have greater influence than those
that are brief. Similarly, frequent contacts have greater effect
than rare and haphazard contacts.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess

of definitions favorable to the violations of law over
definitions unfavorable to the violation of law.
This is the heart of Sutherland’s differential association
theory. People will break the law if they develop more law-
breaking attitudes than law-abiding attitudes. Weighing the
two attitudes is illustrated in the next page.
7. The process of learning criminal behavior by association

with criminal involves all of the mechanisms involved
in any other learning process.
This suggests that learning criminal behavior patterns is
similar to learning nearly all other patterns and is not a matter
of mere imitation.
In sum, Siegel (2019) argued that differential association
theory holds that people learn criminal attitudes and behavior
while in their adolescence from close and trusted friends and/
or relatives. A criminal career develops if learned antisocial
values and behaviors are not at least matched or exceed by
conventional attitudes and behaviors. Criminal behavior is
then learned in a process that is similar to learning any other
human behavior (Figure 21).
Differential Associations
Play
fair Cheating
Don’t be a is okay.
bully
Forgive and The end
forget justifies the means.
Turn the other cheek I don’t get mad, I get
Evil is always punished even. Don’t let anyone push
Honesty is the best policy you around. People should take
drugs if they want to.
Ideas that prohibit crime Ideas that justify crime
Figure 21. Differential association theory assumes that criminal behavior will occur
when the definitions for crime outweigh the definitions against crime
B. DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT THEORY

According to Siegel (2018), Ronald Akers
is a renowned sociologist, who is most known
for his work with social learning theory. Akers
and Burgess presented in 1966 an article “A
Differential Association-Reinforcement
Theory of Criminal Behavior.” To look at
the mechanisms that lead individuals to
either continue or desist from getting involved
in delinquency, Aker’s learning theory goes
beyond looking solely at learned “definitions
favorable.” This theory is defined as the
balance of anticipated or actual rewards and
punishments that follow or are consequences
of behavior. This perspective assumes people are born with a blank
state and thus, must be socialized and taught how to behave through
modeling and various forms of conditioning like operant and classical
conditioning. Accordingly, behavior is strengthened or encouraged
through reward as positive reinforcement and avoidance of punishment

as negative reinforcement. People neither learn to be “all deviant” or
“all conforming” but rather strike a balance between the two opposing
poles of behavior. The balance is usually stable but can undergo
revision over time.
Akers’s theory posits that the principle influence on behavior
is from “those groups, which control individuals’ major sources of
reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models
and normative definitions. The important groups are the one with
which a person is in differential association, peers and friendship
groups, school, churches, and similar institution. Within the contest
of these critical groups, “deviant behavior can be expected to the extent
that it has been differentially reinforced over alternative behavior, and
is defined as desirable or justified. Once people are initiated into crime,
their behavior can be reinforced by exposure to deviant behavior models,
associations with deviant peers, and lack of negative sanctions from
parents or peers. It is possible that differential reinforcements help
establish criminal careers and are a key factor in explaining persistent
criminality (Siegel, 2018)
In some ways, differential reinforcement theory may appear to
be no different than rational choice theory. To an extent this is true
because both models focus on reinforcements and punishments that
occur after an individual offends. However, differential reinforcement
theory can be distinguished from rational theory perspective. The latter
assume that humans are born with the capacity for rational decision
making whereas the differential reinforcement perspective assumes
people are born with a blank slate and, thus, must be socialized and
taught how to behave through various forms of conditioning (Tibbets
& Hemmens, 2010).
As emphasized by Tibbets and Hemmens (2010), differential
reinforcement incorporates the elements of modeling and classical
conditioning learning model in its framework. The first statement
clearly states that the essential learning mechanism in social
behavior is the operant conditioning, so it is important to understand
what operant conditioning is and how it is evident throughout life.
Operant conditioning is concerned with how behavior is influenced by
reinforcements and punishments. Furthermore, operant conditioning
assumes that the animal or human being is a proactive player
in seeking out rewards, and not just a passive entity that receives
stimuli as classical conditioning assumes. Behavior is strengthened or
encouraged through rewards as positive reinforcement and avoidance
of punishment as negative reinforcement (Figure 17).
Related to the study of differential reinforcement theory is the

concept of “Operant Psychology”. According to Walsh (2010), Operant
psychology is a theory of learning that asserts behavior is governed by its
consequences. When people behave, they receive feedback from others
that we interpret in terms of the positive or negative consequences they
have on us. Behavior has two (2) general consequences; (a) it reinforces
or (b) it is punished. Behavior that has the positive consequences for
the actor is said to reinforce that behavior, making it more likely that
the behavior will be repeated in similar situations. Behavior that is
punished is less likely to be repeated and may even be extinguished.
Walsh further explained that Reinforcement is either positive
or negative. For instance, the loot from a robbery and status achieved
by facing down rivals are examples of positive reinforcement. Negative
reinforcement occurs when some aversive condition is avoided or
removed, such as the removal of a street reputation as a “punk”
following some act of “bravado.” Both types of reinforcement strengthen
the criminal behavior and thus in its amplification.
Punishment which leads to the weakening or eliminating of
the behavior preceding it, can also be positive or negative. Positive
punishment is the application of something undesirable, such as
a prison term. Negative punishment is the removal of a pleasant
stimulus, such as the loss of status in a street gang (Figure 22).
Positive Negative
Applies Stimulus Removes Stimulus
Reinforcement
Increases the
Positive Negative
frequency of
Reinforcement Reinforcement
desirable behavior
Punishment
Decreases the Positive Negative
frequency of Punishment Punishment
undesirable
behavior
Figure 22. Differential Reinforcement Theory
As stressed by Siegel (2018), people learn evaluate their own

behavior through their interactions with significant others and
groups in their lives. These groups control sources and patterns
of reinforcement, defined behavior as right or wrong, and provide
behaviors that can be modeled through observational learning. The
more individual learn to define their behavior as good or at least as
justified, rather than as undesirable, the more likely they are to engage
in it. Adolescent who join a drug-abusing peer group whose members
value drug and alcohol, encourage their use, and provide opportunities
to observe people abusing substances will be encouraged, through this
social learning experience, to use drugs themselves.
C. NEUTRALIZATION THEORY
As stated by Siegel (2018), David
Matza & Gresham Syke view the process of
becoming a criminal as a learning experience
in which potential delinquents and criminals
master techniques. This enables them to
counterbalance or neutralize conventional
values due to subterranean values. They
maintain that most delinquents and criminals
hold conventional values and attributes
but master techniques that enable them to
neutralize these values and “drift’ back and
forth between illegitimate and conventional
behavior.
David Matza
They observed the following theoretical
models of neutralization theory (Siegel 2018):
1. Criminals sometimes voice a sense of
guilt over their illegal acts. If stable
criminal value system existed in
opposition to generally held values
and rules, it would be unlikely that
criminals would exhibit any remorse
for their acts, other than of regret at
being apprehended.
Gresham Syke
2. Offenders frequently respect and admire honest, law

abiding people.
Really honest people are often revered/admired, and if for
some reasons such people are accused of misbehavior, the
criminal are quick to defend their integrity.
3. Criminals draw a line between those whom they can
victimize and those whom they cannot. Members of similar
ethnic groups, churches or neighborhood are often off
limits. This practice implies that criminals are aware of
wrongfulness of their acts.
4. Criminals are not immune to the demands of conformity.
Mot criminals frequently participate in many of the same
social functions as law-abiding people; for example, in
school, church and family activities.
Matza argues that even the most committed criminals and

delinquents are not involved in criminality all the time; they also
attend schools, family functions, and religious services. This process
which they ‘drift” refers to the movement from one extreme of behavior
to another, resulting in behavior that is sometimes unconventional,
free, or deviant and at other times constrained and sober. Learning
techniques of neutralization allows a person to temporarily “drift away”
from conventional behavior and get involved in more subterranean
values and behaviors, including crime and drug abuse.
According to Hagan (2017), Sykes and Matza in 1957 introduced
different techniques of neutralization or rationalization of excuses
that juvenile use to neutralize responsibility for deviant behavior:
• Denial of Responsibility
• Denial of harm/injury to anyone
• Denial of harm to Victim
• Condemnation of the condemners
• Appeal of higher loyalties
1. Deny responsibility
Young offenders sometimes claim their unlawful acts
were simply not their fault. Criminal acts resulted from forces
beyond their control or were accidents.
2. Denial of harm/injury to anyone

By denying the wrongful acts, criminals are able to
neutralize illegal behavior. Ex. Stealing is viewed as borrowing;
vandalism is considered mischief that has gotten out of hand.
3. Denial the harm to the victim

Criminals sometimes neutralize wrongdoing by
maintaining that the victim of crime has it coming. Vandalism
may be directed against a disliked teacher or neighbor;
homosexual may be beaten up by a gang because their behavior
is considered offensive. Ignoring the right of absent victim, like
stealing from the unseen owner of department store.
4. Condemn condemners
An offender may view the world as a corrupt place with a
dog-eat-dog code. By shifting the blame, the blame to others
criminal are able to repress the feeling that their own acts are
wrong.
5. Appeal to higher authorities/loyalties

Novice criminals often argue that they are caught in the
dilemma of being loyal to their own peer group while at the
same time attempting to abide the rules of the larger group.
The needs of the group take precedence over the rules of the
society because the demands of the former are immediate and
localized.
In summary, the theory of neutralization presupposes
a condition that allows people to neutralize unconventional
norms and values by using such slogans as “I didn’t mean to
do it.” “I didn’t really hurt anybody.” “They had it coming to
them.” “Everybody is picking on me.” And “I didn’t do it for
myself.” These excuses allow people to drift into criminal modes

of behavior (Siege, 2013).
Figure 23. Techniques of Neutralization
II. SOCIAL CONTROL THEORIES

Social control theories maintain that all people have the
potential to violate the law and that modern societies presents many
opportunities for illegal activities. These theories view crime as taking
place when social control or bonds to society break down (Hagan,
2017). Criminal activities such as drug abuse and car theft are often
exciting pastimes that hold the promise of immediate reward and
gratification. Considering the attraction of crimes, the question control
theories pose is: Why do people obey the rules of society?
A choice theorist would respond that it is the fear of punishment;
structural theorists would say that obedience is a function of having
access to legitimate opportunities; learning theorists would explain
that obedience is acquired through contact with law-abiding parents
and peers. In contrast, social control theorists argue that people obey
the law because behavior and passions are being controlled by internal
and external forces. Because they have been properly socialized, most
people have developed a strong moral sense, which renders them
incapable of hurting others and violating social norms. They have
developed a commitment to conformity, which requires that they obey
the rules of society. Properly socialized people believe that getting
caught at criminal activity will hurt a dearly loved parent or jeopardize
their chance at a college scholarship, or perhaps they feel that their job
will be forfeited if they get in trouble with the law (Siegel, 2018).
In other words, people’s behavior, including criminal activity,
is controlled by their attachment and commitment to conventional
institution, individuals and processes. On the other hand, those who
have not been properly socialized, who lack a commitment to others or
themselves, are free to violate the law and engage in deviant behavior.
Those who are uncommitted are not deterred by the threat of legal
punishments because they have little to lose.
A. CONTAINMENT THEORY
Walter Reckless containment theory
sought to explain why despite the various push
and pull factors that may tempt individuals
into criminal behavior, most people resist the
pressures and remain law-abiding citizens.
He argued that a strong self-image insulates
a youth from the pressures and pulls of
criminogenic influences in the environment
if they have sufficiently positive self-esteem.
In a series of studies conducted within the
school setting, Reckless and his colleagues
found that non-delinquent youths are able to
maintain a positive self-image in the face of
environmental pressures toward delinquency.
Reckless called an individual’s ability to resist criminal inducements
“containments,” the most important of which are a positive self-image
and “ego strength.” Kids with these traits can resist crime producing
“pushes and pulls.” He noted some of the crime-producing forces that
a strong self-image counteracts (Hagan, 2017):
• Internal pushes – this includes personal factors as

restlessness, discontent, hostility, rebellion, mental conflict,
anxieties, and need for immediate gratification.
• External pressures – this includes adverse living conditions
that influence deviant behavior; relative deprivation,
poverty, unemployment, insecurity, minority status, limited
opportunity and inequalities.
• External pulls – these are represented by deviant
companions, membership in criminal subcultures or other
deviant groups.
FACTORS OF EXTERNAL CONTAINMENT:

1. Reasonable limits and expectation
2. Meaningful roles and activities
3. Several complementary variables:
-- sense of belongingness and identity
-- supportive relationships
-- adequate discipline
External pressures push an individual toward criminality.
Variables impinging on an individual include poor living conditions,
adverse economic conditions, minority group membership, and the lack
of legitimate opportunities. Likewise, external pulls draw individuals
away from social norms; while internal pressures push an individual
toward criminality; they include personality contingencies such inner
tensions, feelings of inferiority or inadequacy, mental conflict, and
organic defects.
FACTORS OF INTERNAL CONTAINMENT:

1. Strong and favorable self-concept
2. Goal orientation
3. Frustration tolerance
4. Norm retention
Inner containments refer to the internationalization of conventional

behavioral values and the development of personality characteristics
that enable one to resist pressures. Strong self-concept, identity, and
strong resistance to frustration serve as examples.
B. SOCIAL BOND AND SELF CONTROL THEORY

Travis Hirschi emphasized that
social control is about the role of the social
relationships that bind people to the social
order and prevent antisocial behavior. He links
the onset of criminality to the weakening of
the ties that bind people to society. He further
assumes that all individuals are potential
law violators, but they are kept under control
because they fear that illegal behavior will
damage their relationship with friends, parents,
neighbors, teachers and employees. Without
these social ties or bonds, and in the absence
of sensitivity to and interest in others, a person
is free to commit criminal acts. Hirschi does
not view society as containing competing sub-cultures with unique
value system. Most people are aware of the prevailing moral and legal
codes. He suggests, however, that in all elements of society people vary
in how they respond to conventional social rules and values. Among all
ethnic, religious, racial and social groups, people whose bond to society
is weak may fall prey to criminogenic behavior patterns (Siegel, 2018).
Like Reckless’s containment theory and Matza’s delinquency and drift,
Hirschi social bond theory combines elements of determinism and free
will individual choice still enters the equation
Hirschi argues further that the social bond a person maintains
with society is divided into four main elements (Figure 24):
Figure 24. Elements of Social Bond
• Attachment refers to a bond to others such as family

and peers, and important institution like churches and
schools. Weak attachment to parents and family may
impair personality development, and poor relationships
with the school are viewed as particularly instrumental in
delinquency.
• Commitment involves the degree to which an individual
maintains a vested interest in the social and economic
system. If an individual has much to lose in terms of status,
job, community standing, he or she is less likely to violate
the law. Adults, for instance have many more commitment
than do juveniles.
• Involvement entails engagement in legitimate social and
recreational activities that either leaves too little time to get
into trouble or binds one’s status yet another important
groups whose esteem one wishes to maintain.
• Belief in the conventional norms and value system and the
law acts as a bond to society.
Figure 25. Hirschi’s Integration of Social and Self Control Theories
III. LABELING THEORY

The so called labeling theory (Walsh, 2012) takes the power of
bad labels to stigmatize an individual and by doing so, to evoke the
very behavior the label signifies. This theory explains criminal career
formation in terms of destructive social interactions and encounters.
Its roots are in the symbolic interaction theory of Charles Herbert
Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead. Symbolic interaction theory
holds that people communicate via symbols, gestures, signs, words, or
images that stand for or represents something else. People interpret
symbolic gestures from others and incorporate them into their self-
image.
Labeling theory picks up on these concepts of interaction and
interpretation. Throughout their lives, people are given a variety of
symbolic symbols labels in their interactions with others. These symbols
imply a variety of behaviors and attitudes; labels thus help define not
just one trait but also the whole person. For example, people labeled
“insane” are also assumed to be dangerous, dishonest, unstable,
and violent. Value labels including “smart,” “honest” suggests overall
competence, can improve self-image and social standing.
Research shows that people who are labeled with one positive
trait, such as being physically attractive, are assumed to maintain
others, such as intelligence and competence. In contrast, negative
labels, including “troublemaker,” “mentally ill” and “stupid” help
stigmatize their targets and reduce their self-image. If a devalued
status is conferred by a significant people, like teacher, police officer,
parent, valued peer the negative label may cause permanent harm
to the target. The degree to which a person is perceived as a “social
deviant” may affect his or her treatment at home, at work, at school or
at other social institution.
As such, labeled person may find themselves turning to others
similarly stigmatize for support and companion. Isolated from
conventional society, they may identify themselves as members of an
outcast group and become locked into a deviant career. Criminologists
even argues that rather than reducing deviant behavior, labeling them
as criminals, offenders, and deviant as is commonly happening today
actually help and maintain and amplify criminal behavior.
Criminologists are more concerned with two effects of labeling,
the creation of stigma and effects on self-image. Labels are believed to
produce stigma. The labeled deviant becomes a social outcast who may
be prevented from enjoying higher education, well-paying jobs, and
other social benefits.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE THEORIES

As argued by Siegel (2019), the problems caused by poverty and
income inequality are not lost on criminologists. They recognize that
the various sources of crime data show that crime rates are highest in
neighborhoods characterized by poverty and social disorder. Although
members of the middle and upper classes sometimes engage in crime,
these are generally nonviolent acts, such as embezzlement and fraud,
which present little danger to the general public.
Social structure theories explain crimes by examining the structure
of society, which are one of the three major sociological approaches to
crime causation. Considering the deprivations suffered by the lower
class, it is not surprising that a disadvantaged economic class position
has been viewed by many criminologists as a primary cause of crime.
As emphasized by Siegel, social structure theories suggest that the
forces operating in deteriorated lower-class areas push many of their
residents into criminal behavior patterns. These theories consider the
existence of unsupervised teenage gangs, high crime rates, and social
disorder in slum areas as major social problem.
As further explained by Schmalleger (2011), crime in reference

social structure theories emphasize relationships among social
institutions and describe the types of behavior that tend to characterize
groups of people rather than individuals. Most social structure theories
focus on the law-violating behavior of youth. They suggest that the
social forces that caused crime begin to affect the people while they are
relatively young and continue to influence them throughout their life.
Social structure theorists challenge those who would suggest
that crime is an expression of psychological imbalance, biological
trait, insensitivity to social control, personal choice, or any other
individual-level factor. They argue that people living in equivalent
social environments seem to behave in a similar predictable fashion.
If the environment did not influence human behaviors, crime rates
would be distributed equally across the social structure, which they
are not. Crime rates are higher in lower-class urban centers than in
middle-class suburbs, social forces must be operating in urban slums
that influence or control human behavior (Sigel, 2013).
There are three independent yet overlapping branches within
the social structure theory namely (a) social disorganization theory;
(b) strain theory; (c) culture conflict theory. Although each of these
theories is distinct in critical aspects, each approach has at its core the
view that socially isolated people, living in disorganized neighborhoods,
are the ones most likely to experience crime-producing social forces
(Siegel, 2019):
1. Social Disorganization Theory

According to Siegel (2013), this theory focuses on the condition
within the urban environment that affects crime rates. A disorganized
area is one in which institutions of social control, such as family,
commercial establishments; schools have broken down and can no
longer carry out their expected or stated functions. Indicators of social
disorganization include high unemployment and school dropout rates,
deteriorated housing, low income levels, and large numbers of single-
parent households. Residents in these areas experience conflict and
despair; and antisocial behavior flourishes.
In essence, Siegel emphasized (2019), social disorganization theory
links crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Crime
rates are highest in transient, mixed-use and changing neighborhood
in which the fabric of social life has become frayed. When these failing
communities are numerous, contiguous, or in close proximity the
criminogenic effect may multiply. Youths living in one disorganized area
who visit friends and family in adjoining communities discover that

these areas are equally dangerous and deteriorated. They may begin
to feel helpless and hopeless. These localities are unable to provide
essential services, such as education, health care, and proper housing,
and as a result, the experience significant levels of unemployment,
single-parent families, and families on government welfare.
Because social institution is frayed or absent, law-violating youth
groups and gangs form and are free to recruit neighborhood youth.
Both boys and girls who feel detached and alienated from their social
world are at risk to become gang members.
Social Disorganization
Theory
-- Deteriorated
neighborhood
-- Inadequate social
control Culture Conflict
-- Law-violating gangs Theory
and groups -- Development
-- Conflicting social of subcultures
values as a result of
disorganization
and stress
-- Subculture
values in
Strain Theory opposition to
-- Unequal distribution conventional
of wealth and power values
-- Frustration
-- Alternative methods
of achievement
Figure 26. Three branches of social structure theory.

The social disorganization theory has the following basic

components:
Poverty
• Development of isolated slums
• Lack of conventional social opportunity
• Racial and ethnic discrimination
Social Disorganization
• Breakdown of social institutions and organization
• Lack of informal social control
Breakdown of Social Control

• Development of gangs, groups
• Peer group replaces family and social institutions
Criminal Areas
• Neighborhood becomes crime-prone
• Stable pockets of delinquency
• Lack of external support and investment
Cultural Transmission
• Older youth pass norms (focal concerns) to younger
• Generation, creating stable slum culture
Criminal Careers
• Most youthful gang members “age out” but some
continue as adult criminals
Chicago School
According to Sigel (2019), the foundation of social disorganization
theory was popularized by the work two Chicago sociologists Clifford
Shaw and Henry Mckay who linked life in the transitional slum areas
to the inclination to commit crime. Shaw and Mckay began their
pioneering work on Chicago crime during the early 1920s, while
working as researchers for a State-supported social service agency.
Siegel further discussed that Shaw and Mckay explained crime
and delinquency within the context of the changing urban environment
and ecological development of the city. They saw that Chicago had
developed into district neighborhood, some affluent and others wracked
by extreme poverty. These poverty-ridden transitional neighborhoods
suffered high rates of population turnover and were incapable of
inducing residents to remain and defend the neighborhood against
criminal groups.
As stated by Hagan (2017), Shaw and Mckay made extensive use
of the maps and officials statistics to plot the ecological distribution
of forms in their social disorganization theory such as juvenile
delinquency. Using E.W. Burgess concentric zone theory, they were
able to document the ecological impact on human behavior.
Transitional Neighborhood
According to Siegel (2018), while it was then popular to view crime
as the property of inferior racial and ethnic groups, Shaw and McKay
instead focused on the context of the changing urban environment
an ecological development of the city. They saw that Chicago has
developed into district neighborhoods (natural areas) some affluent and
others wracked by extreme poverty. These poverty-ridden, transitional
neighborhoods suffered high rates of population turnover, those
who remained were incapabe of defending the neighborhood against
criminal groups (See Figure 27 on the next page).
Such areas breed criminogenic influences that predispose
occupants to crime and social disorganization. Imposing concentric
circles on mapped areas of Chicago on which crime rates of truancy,
crime, delinquency, and recidivism in zone II (area of transition),
and such declined as one moved farther out from the rings. Criminal
attitudes and social pathology were viewed as culturally transmitted
within the social environment (Siegel, 2019).
The Concentric Model Zone

1. Central Business District
2. Transitional Zone
-- Deteriorated Housing
-- Factories
-- Abandoned Buildings
3. Working Class Zone
-- Single Family Tenements
4. Residential Zone
-- Single Family House
-- Yards / Garages
5. Commuter Zone
-- Suburbs
Figure 27. Burgess Concentric Zone Model
Social disorganization concept according to Siegel (2018), have

remained a prominent fixture of criminological scholars for more than
75 years. The most important elements of their findings still hold-up
today:
• Crime rates are sensitive to the destructive social forces
operating in lower-class urban neighborhoods.
• Environmental factors, rather than individual differences,
are the root cause of crime.
• Crime is a constant fixture in distressed areas regardless of
racial or ethnic make-up.
• Neighborhood disorganization weakens formal and informal
social control, the primary cause of criminal behavior.
• Community values, norms, and cohesiveness affect
individual behavior choices.
Social/Human Ecology School

Social or human ecology as stated by Hagan (2017), is the study
of the interrelationship between human organisms and the physical
environment. In the study R.E. Park in 1952, he saw the freedom
from group constraints often entailed freedom from group supports.
Park used the notion of individualization due to mobility. Park’s
theory was based on human ecology – looking at humans and the
environment and, more specifically, at the urban ecology, viewing
the city as growing organism, heavily employing analogies from plant
ecology. Park further stated that the heterogeneous contact of racial

groups in the city often leads to competition for status and space,
as well as conflict, accommodation, acculturation, assimilation, or
amalgamation. One of Park’s key notions was that of “natural areas,”
sub-communities that emerge to serve specific, specialized functions.
They are called “natural” because they are unplanned and serve to
order the functions and needs of diverse populations within the city.
Natural areas provide institutions and organizations places to socialize
its inhabitants and to provide for social control. Such natural areas
include ports of embarkations, Burgess’s (1925) zone of transition,
ghettos, bohemians, hobohemias, and the like.
Contemporary social disorganization theory as further discussed
by Siegel (2018), seeks to identify the ecological conditions-—poverty,
disorganization, instability, incivility, economy—that produce high
crime rates and While so doing formulate strategies to bring these
community-level crime rates down. Referred to as the social ecology
school, what has been developed is a purer form of structural theory
that emphasizes the association of community deterioration and
economic decline with criminality but places less emphasis on value
conflict. The following sections discuss some of the more recent social-
ecological research.
Community Disorder
Contemporary social ecologists as emphasized by Siegel, believe
that crime rates are associated with community deterioration: disorder,
poverty, alienation, disassociation, and fear of crime. “Even in rural
areas, which normally have low crime rates, increased levels of crime
and violence are associated with indicators of social disorgani7.ation
such as residential instability (a large number of people moving in and
out), family disruption, and changing ethnic composition.
The larger cities, neighborhoods with a high percentage of deserted
houses and apartments experience high crime rates; abandoned
buildings serve as a “magnet for crime. One reason is that criminals
target neighborhoods that are near and similar to where they live
themselves, especially if they are highly disadvantaged or disorganized.
They look for characteristics such as residential instability and
disadvantage, because these neighborhoods are the ones with lower
social control and a correspondingly lower risk of detection (Siegel,
2019).
Community Fear
In neighborhoods where people help each other, residents are
less likely to fear crime or to be afraid of becoming a crime victim. In
disorganized neighborhoods that suffer social and physical incivilities,
residents experience unruly youths, trash and litter, graffiti, abandoned
storefronts, burned-out buildings, littered lots, strangers, drunks,
vagabonds, loiterers, prostitutes, noise, congestion, angry Words,
dirt, and stench. Having parks and playgrounds where teens hang out
and loiter may contribute to fear. And as fear increases, quality of life
deteriorates. Fear is often based on experience: people living in areas
with especially high crime rates are the ones most likely to experience
fear. Residents who have already been victimized or know someone
who has are more fearful of the future than those have escaped. The
presence of such civilities, especially when accompanied by relatively
high crime rates, convinces residents that their neighborhood is
dangerous; becoming a crime victim seems inevitable (Siegel, 2019).
Siege Mentality
People who lived in neighborhood and experience the high levels
of crime and civil disorder become suspicions and mistrusting. The
develop sense of powerlessness, which increases levels of mistrust.
Some residents become so suspicious of authority that they directly
develop a “siege mentality,” in which the outside world is considered
an enemy bent on their destruction.
Siege mentality often results in an expanding mistrust of social
institutions, including law enforcement, business, government, and
schools. Government officials seem arrogant and haughty. The police
are believed to ignore crime in minority communities and, when they
do take action, they use excessive force (Siegel, 2019).
Community Change
Change, not stability, is the hallmark of inner-city areas in
the social ecology perspective. A neighborhood’s residents, wealth,
density, and purpose are constantly evolving. Even disorganized
neighborhoods acquire new identifying features. Some areas become
stable and family-oriented whereas in others, mobile, never-married
people predominate. Urban areas undergoing rapid structural changes
in racial and economic composition also seem to experience the
greatest change in crime rates. In contrast, stable neighborhood, even
those with a high rate of poverty, experience relatively low crime rates
and have the strength to restrict substance abuse and criminal activity
(Siegel, 2019).
Poverty Concentration
One aspect of community change may be the concentration of
poverty in deteriorated urban neighborhoods.” Working- and middle-
class families flee inner-city areas where poverty is pervasive, resulting
in a poverty concentration effect in which the most disadvantaged
population is consolidated in the most disorganized urban
neighborhoods. Poverty concentration has been associated with income
and wealth disparities, nonexistent employment opportunities, inferior
housing patterns, and unequal access to health care.” Urban areas
marked by concentrated poverty become isolated and insulated from
the social mainstream and more prone to criminal activity, violence,
and homicide.” Young men growing up in neighborhood characterized
by poverty concentration are the most likely to engage in risk taking
and delinquency, especially those who perceive few opportunities for
legitimate success (Siegel, 2019).
As the working and middle classes move out to the suburbs, they
take with them their financial and institutional resources and support.
The people left behind have an even tougher time coping with urban
decay and conflict and controlling youth gangs and groups; after all,
the most successful people in the community have left for “greener
pastures. Businesses are disinclined to locate in poverty-stricken
areas; banks become reluctant to lend money for new housing or
businesses.” Unemployment rates skyrocket, destabilizing households,
and unstable families are likely to produce children who use violence
and aggression to deal with limited opportunity. Large groups or
cohorts of people of the same age are forced to compete for relatively
scarce resources.
Collective Efficacy
Cohesive communities with high levels of social control and social
integration, where people know one another and develop interpersonal
ties, develop collective efficacy: a sense of mutual trust, a Willingness
to intervene in the supervision of children, and the maintenance of
public order.” Cohesion among neighborhood residents, combined
with shared expectations for informal social control of public space,
promotes collective efficacy. Residents in these areas enjoy a better
life because the fruits of cohesiveness can be better education, health
care, and housing opportunities.
In contrast, in socially disorganized neighborhoods, Where the

population is transient, and interpersonal relationships remain
superficial and non-supportive, efforts at social control are weak and
attenuate-d.85 In these unstable neighborhoods, residents find that
the social support they need to live a conventional life is absent or
lacking. The resulting lack of social cohesion produces an atmosphere
where antisocial behavior becomes normative. As the number of
people who have a stake in the community (i.e., they are homeowners)
increases, crime rates drop. These more cohesive neighborhoods report
less disorder than less-unified communities
Concept Summary of Social Disorganization Theories (Siegel, 2019)

Theory Major Premise Strength Research
Focus
Shaw and Crime is a product Identifies why Poverty;
McKay’s of transitional crime rates disorganization
Concentric neighborhoods are highest in
Zones that manifest slum areas.
Theory social Points out the
disorganization factors that
and value conflict produce crime.
Suggests
programs to
help reduce
crime.
Social/ The conflicts Accounts for Social control;
Human and problems of urban crime fear; efficacy,
Ecology urban social life rates and unemployment
Theory and communities trends.
(including fear,
unemployment,
deterioration, and
siege mentality)
influence crime
rates.
2. Strain Theories
As argued by Siegel (2013), strain theorists believe that most
people share similar values and goals. They want to earn money, have
a nice home, drive a great car, and wear stylish clothes. They also want
to care for their families and educate their children. Unfortunately, the
ability to achieve these personal goals is stratified by socioeconomic
class. While the affluent may live out the American Dream, the poor
are shut out from achieving their goals. Because they can’t always get
what they want, they begin to feel frustrated and angry, a condition
that is referred to as strain.
Siegel (2019) stated that this theory holds that crime is a function
of the conflict between the goals people have and the means they can
use to legally obtain goals. Strain theorist argues that while social
and economic goals are common to people in all economic strata, the
ability to obtain these goals is class-dependent. Most people desire
wealth, material possessions, power, prestige, and other life comforts.
Members of the lower class are unable to achieve the symbols of success
through convention means. Consequently, they feel anger, frustration,
and resentment, which are referred to as “strain.”
Anomie Theory
As stated by Siegel (2018), the roots of the strain theories can
be traced to Emile Durkheim’s notion of “anomie”, a French word for
“normlessness”. The word anomie can from a Greek word “nomos”
which means “without norms”. As explained by Durkheim, an anomic
society is one in which rules of behavior (i.e. values, customs, and
norms) have broken down or become inoperative during periods of
rapid social change or social crisis such as war, or famine. Anomie is
mostly to occur in societies that are moving from pre-industrial society,
which is held together by traditions, shared values and unquestionable
beliefs to a post-industrial social system which is highly developed and
dependent upon the division of labor. In this modern society, people
are connected by their interdependent needs for one another’s services
and production. In essence, if a division occurs between what the
population expects and what the economic and productive forces of
society can realistically deliver, a crisis situation develops that can
manifest itself in normless or anomie.
For Schmalleger (2011), anomie came from a disjunction
between socially approved means to success and legitimate goals.
He maintained that legitimate goals, involving such things as wealth,
status, and personal happiness are generally portrayed as desirable
for everyone. The widely acceptable means to these goals, however,

including education, hard work, financial savings, and so on, are not
equally available to all members of society. As a consequence, crime
and deviance tend to arise as alternative means to success when
individuals feel the strain of being pressed to succeed in socially
approved ways but find that the tools necessary for such success are
not available to them.
As stated by Walsh and Hemmens (2015), Robert Merton
expanded anomie theory to develop an explanation of crime that has
cone to be known as Strain Theory. Whereas social disorganization
theory assumes that the rejection of conventional middle class values
via the intergenerational transmission of deviant value was productive
of crime, Merton argued that it was the acceptance of middle-class
values that generated crime by placing too much emphasis on financial
success. The central feature of Mertons’ theory is that American culture
defines monetary success as the predominant cultural goal to which
all its citizen should aspire. At the same time, this culture restricts
certain segments of the population from attaining monetary success
by legitimate means. The disjunction between cultural goals and the
structural impediments to achieving them is the anomic gap in which
crime is bred.
Walsh and Hemmens further stated that being unable to culturally
defined wants legitimately invites frustration, and may result in efforts
to obtain them illegitimately. Merton claimed that American culture
and social structure actually exert pressure on some people to engage
in non-conforming behavior rather than conforming behavior. Thus,
society is the cause of anomie, not the victim of it.
Merton identified five (5) modes of adaptation that people adopt
in response to this societal pressure all of which, with the exception of
conformity are deviant (Walsh and Hemmens, 2015):
a. Conformity is the most common mode of adaptation because
most people have at their disposal the means to legally
attain cultural goals. Conformists accept the success goals
of American society and the prescribed means of attaining
them (hard work, education, persistence, dedication).
b. Ritualism is the adaptation of the nine-to-five slugger
who has given up on ever achieving material success but
who, nevertheless, continues to work within legitimate
boundaries because he or she accepts the legitimacy of the
opportunity structure.
c. Innovation is the adaptation of the criminal who accepts

the cultural goals of monetary success but rejects legitimate
means of attaining them. Innovation is the mode of
adaptation most associated with crime. For Merton, crime
is an innovative avenue to success—a method by which
deprived people (the not-so-deprived also) get what they
have been taught by their culture to want.
d. Retreatism is adopted by those who reject both the cultural
goals and the institutionalized means of attaining them.
Retreatists drop out of society and often take refuge in
drugs, alcohol, and transience and are frequently in trouble
with the law.
e. Rebellion is the adaptation of those who reject both the
goals and the means of American society but wish to
substitute alternative legitimate goals and alternative
legitimate means. Rebels may be committed to some form
of sociopolitical ideal, such as socialism.
Relative Deprivation Theory

There is ample evidence that neighborhood-level income inequality
as argued by Siegel (2019) is a significant predictor of neighborhood
crime rates.” Sharp divisions between the rich and the poor create
an atmosphere of envy and mistrust. Criminal motivation is fueled
both by perceived humiliation and by the perceived right to humiliate
a victim in return. Psychologists Warn that under these circumstances
young males will begin to fear and envy “Winners” Who are doing very
Well at their expense. If they fail to use risky aggressive tactics, they
are surely going to lose out in social competition and have little chance
of future success. These generalized feelings of relative deprivation are
precursors to high crime rates?
The concept of relative deprivation was proposed by sociologists
Judith Blau and Peter Blau, who combined concepts from anomie
theory with those derived from social disorganization models”
According to the Blaus, lower-class people may feel both deprived and
embittered when they compare their life circumstances to those of
the more affluent. People who feel deprived because of their race or
economic class eventually develop a sense of injustice and discontent.
The less fortunate begin to distrust the society that has nurtured social
inequality and reduced their chances of progressing by legitimate
means. The constant frustration that results from these feelings of
inadequacy produces pent-up aggression and hostility, eventually
leading to violence and crime. The effect of inequality may be greatest

when the impoverished believe that they are becoming less able to
compete in a society whose balance of economic and social power is
shifting further toward the already affluent. Under these conditions,
the relatively poor are increasingly likely to choose illegitimate life
enhancing activities? Research studies using national data sets do
show a strong positive association between income inequality and
violent crime, a finding that supports the relative deprivation concept.
In sum, according to the relative deprivation concept, people who
perceive themselves as economically deprived relative to people they
know, as well as to society in general may begin to form negative self-
feelings and hostility, which motivate them to engage in deviant and
criminal behaviors (Siegel, 2019).
General Strain Theory

Strain theory points to a lack of fit between socially approved
success goals and the availability of socially approve means to achieve
those goals. As a consequence, according to the perspective of strain
theory, individuals who are unable to succeed through legitimate means
turn to other avenues that promise economic and social recognition
(Siegel, 2013).
Strain theory (Schmalleger, 2012) depicts delinquency as a form
of adaptive, problem solving behavior, usually committed in response
to problems involving frustrating and undesirable social environments.
This theory sees crimes and delinquency as a result of the anger and
frustration of a person due to his inability to achieve his dream. The
pressures and frustration experienced by the person in this situation
are often such severity as to cause serious strain and lead or induce
them into deviant or criminal behavior.
Schmalleger further stated that this theory was developed by
Robert K. Merton. He contended that an interpersonal state of anomie
is produced whenever there are discrepancies between the goals that
societies create for people and the acceptable means that societies
provide for achieving those goals. These goals may be of any sort,
but are most often of an economic character, particularly in modern
industrial societies.
The effects of inequality may be greater when the impoverished
population believes they are becoming less able to compete in a society
where the balance of economic and social power is shifting further
toward the already affluent. Under these conditions, the likelihood that
the poor will choose illegitimate life-enhancing activities increases.

Strain theory come in two distinct formulations:
• Structural Strain
Using a sociological lens, structural strain suggests that
economic and social sources of strain shape collective
human behaviors.
• Individual Strain
Using a psychological reference, individual strain theory
suggests that individual life experiences cause some people
to suffer pain and misery, feelings that are then translated
into antisocial behaviors.
As stated by Schmalleger (2011), in 1992 strain theory was

reformulated by Robert Agnew and others who molded it into a
comprehensive perspective called General Strain Theory (GST). GST
sees lawbreaking behavior as a coping mechanism that enables those
who engage in it to deal with the socioemotional problems generated
by negative social relations.
According to Burke (2019), General strain theory is distinguished
from other criminological theories by the central role given to negative
emotions in explaining offending and the emphasis placed on particular
strains, principally those involving negative social relation.
As contended by Siegel (2019), criminality is the direct result
of negative affective states—the anger, frustration, and adverse
emotions that emerge in the wake of negative and destructive social
relationships. He finds that negative affective states are produced by a
variety of sources of strain:
a. Failure to achieve positively valued goals. This category
of strain, similar to what Merton speaks of in his theory of
anomie, is a result of the disjunction between aspirations
and expectations. This type of strain occurs when people
aspire for wealth and fame, but, lacking financial and
educational resources, assume that such goals are
impossible to achieve. These people, wracked by despair,
who feel few opportunities for success, are at risk for crime
(Siegel, 2019).
b. Disjunction of expectations and achievements. Strain
can also be produced when there is a disjunction between
expectations and achievements. When people compare

themselves to peers who seem to be doing a lot better
financially or socially (such as making more money or
getting better grades), even those doing relatively well feel
strain. For example, when a high school senior is accepted
at a good college but not a “prestige school” like some of her
friends, she will feel strain. Perhaps she is not being treated
fairly because the “playing field” is tilted against her; “other
kids have connections,” she may say. Perceiving inequity
may result in adverse reactions, ranging from running away
from its source to lowering the benefits of others through
physical attacks or vandalizing their property (Siegel, 2019).
c. Removal of positively valued stimuli. Strain may occur
because of the actual or anticipated removal or loss of a
positively valued stimulus from the individual. Divorce can
produce strain, as can the death of a loved one, moving
to a new neighborhood, or getting a new job. The loss of
positive stimuli may lead to criminality when a person tries
to prevent the loss, retrieve what has been lost, obtain
substitutes, or seek revenge against those responsible for
the loss. The effect of removal of positive stimuli may be
class bound. Middle-class people are less able to cope with
the removal of positive stimuli. When you are expected
to succeed because of your class position, failure may be
harder to swallow; those who have limited opportunities
and lower expectations may be able to take failure in stride
(Siegel, 2019).
d. Presentation of negative stimuli. While the GST recognizes
that the removal of positive stimuli produces strain, it relies
more heavily on the effects of negative or noxious stimuli.
Included within this category are such pain-inducing social
interactions as child abuse and neglect, crime victimization,
physical punishment, family and peer conflict, school
failure, and interaction with stressful life events ranging
from family breakup, unemployment, moving, feelings of
dissatisfaction with friends and school to verbal threats
and air pollution. Becoming the target of racism and dis-
crimination may also trigger the anger and aggression
predicted by Agnew (Siegel, 2019).
Another important source of negative stimuli is to
experience violent crime firsthand. Agnew himself found
evidence that the strain associated with becoming a crime
victim and anticipating future victimization may cause
people to embrace antisocial behavior.179 People who are

victims of violent crimes may develop angry emotionality
that translates into anger and subsequent antisocial
behaviors.
The effect of negative stimuli is not always a one-
shot deal but may be ongoing. Some people who feel
constantly picked on and maltreated by others will become
detached and sullen. And even though they are angry and
disengaged, they may be forced to interact with the source
of strain, such as their boss, on a regular basis. Because
this is unpleasant, they get angry and frustrated and plan
corrective action: they can assault or seek revenge against
the source of their strain or even self-medicate by using
drugs and alcohol (Siegel, 2019).
Siegel further emphasized that According to Agnew, the
greater the intensity and frequency of strain experiences,
the greater their impact and the more likely they are to
cause criminality.
Each type of strain will increase the likelihood of
experiencing such negative emotions as disappointment,
depression, fear, and, most important, anger. Anger
increases perceptions of being wronged and produces a
desire for revenge, energizes individuals to take action, and
lowers inhibitions. Violence and aggression seem justified
if you have been wronged and are righteously angry (Siegel,
2019).
Figure 28. Elements of general strain theory

In addition, according to Adler,Mueller & Laufer ( 2010) unrealized

desires for status and wealth explain most crime. Almost everyone learns
the importance of being able to make a good living as a fundamental
basis on which people’s worth is based. Those who are reared in a
typical middle or upper status home and regularly attend good schools
usually acquire the skills necessary to achieve an acceptable standard
of living by the time they reach adulthood. However, some do not learn
these skills; these are the individuals who are most likely to engage in
delinquency and crime (Figure 22).
Coping with Strain

It was emphasized by Siegel (2019) that not all people who
experience strain fall into a life of crime and eventually resort to
criminality. Some are able to marshal their emotional, mental, and
behavioral resources to cope with the anger and frustration produced
by strain. Coping ability may be a function of both individual traits and
personal experiences over the life course. Personal temperament, prior
learning of antisocial attitudes and behaviors, and association with
criminal peers who reinforce anger are among other factors affecting
the ability to cope. People who are impulsive and lack attachments
to others are less able to cope than those who are bonded to others
and maintain higher levels of self-control. Those high in negative
emotionality and low in constraint will be more likely to react to strain
with antisocial behaviors.192 In contrast, those people who can call on
family, friends, and social institutions for help and support are better
able to cope with strain
Some defenses are cognitive; individuals may be able to rationalize
frustrating circumstances. Not getting the career they desire is “just not
that important”; they may be poor, but the “next guy is worse off”; and
if things didn’t work out, then they “got what they deserved.” Others
seek behavioral solutions: they run away from adverse conditions or
seek revenge against those who caused the strain. Others will try to
regain emotional equilibrium with techniques ranging from physical
exercise to drug abuse.
To summarize, Strain theory has the following components:
Poverty
• Development of isolated slums
• Lack of conventional social opportunity
• Racial and ethnic discrimination
Maintenance of Conventional Rules and Norms

• Lower-class slum-dwellers remain loyal to
conventional values and rules of dominant
middle-class culture
Strain
• Lack of opportunity coupled with desire for
conventional success produces strain and
frustration
Formation of gangs and groups

• Youths form law-violating groups to seek
alternative means of achieving success
Crime and Delinquency

• Methods of groups - theft, violence,
substance abuse are defined as illegal by
dominant culture
Criminal Careers
• Most youthful gang members “age out” but
some continue as adult criminals
Concepts Summary of Strain Theories (Siegel, 2019)

MAJOR RESEARCH
THEORY STRENGTH
PREMISE FOCUS
Anomie People who adopt Points out how Frustration;
Theory the goals of competition for anomie; effects
society but lack success creates of failure to
the means to conflict and achieve goals.
attain them seek crime. Suggests
alternatives, such that social
as crime, conditions, and
not personality,
can account for
crime. Explains
high-lower-
class crimes
areas.
Institutional Materials Explains why Frustration;
anomie goods pervade crimes rates effects of
theory all aspects of are so high materialism.
American life. in American
culture
Relative Crime occurs Explains high Relative
deprivation when the wealthy crime rates in deprivation
theory and the poor deteriorated
live close to one inner-city areas
another. located near
more affluent
neighborhood.
General Strain has Identifies the Strain;
strain a variety of complexities inequality;
theory sources. Strain of strain in negative
causes crime in modern society. affective states;
the absence of Expands on influence
adequate coping anomie theory. of negative
mechanisms. Shows the and positive
influence of stimuli.
social events on
behavior over
the life course.
Explains
middle-class
crimes.
Name Rating
Section Date
:
ON POVERTY AND CRIME
Source : YouTube
Video clip : Poverty and crime by Liss mendez
Link : https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=-G5-8_xbaXA
Instruction : Use the link above and log-on to YouTube.
Watch the video clip on “Poverty and crime.” Write a reflection
based from what you have learned.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
3. Cultural Deviance Theory or Culture Conflict Theory

According to Siegel (2018), the third branch of social structure
theory combines elements of both strain and social disorganization.
According to this view, because of strain and social isolation, unique
lower-class cultures develop in disorganized neighborhoods. These
independent subcultures maintain a unique set of values and beliefs
that are in conflict with conventional social norms.
Schmalleger (2011), stated that culture conflict theory (also called
culture deviance theory) suggests that the root cause of criminality can
be found in a clash of values between differently socialized groups over
what is acceptable or proper behavior. The culture conflict concept is
inherent in ecological criminology and its belief that zones of transition,
because they tend to be in flux, harboring groups of people whose
values are often at odds with those of the larger, surrounding society.
Furthermore, Schmalleger emphasized that in Thorsten Sellin
book entitled “Culture conflict and Crime, the root cause of crime
could be found in the different values about what is acceptable or
proper behavior. Accordingly, conduct norm or expectations for
human behavior within a social group are acquired early in life
through childhood socialization. The clash of norms between variously
socialized groups result in crime.
From this standpoint, the argument of Siegel (2019) is valid.
He stated that people living in deteriorated neighborhoods react
to social isolation and economic deprivation. Because their lifestyle
is draining, frustrating, and dispiriting, members of the lower class
create an independent subculture with its own set of rules and
value. Middle-class culture stresses hard work, delayed gratification,
formal education, and being cautions; the lower-class subcultures
stresses excitement, toughness, risk taking, fearlessness, immediate
gratification, and “street smarts.”
By the same token, Linden (2020) stated that in more complex
societies characterized by cultural heterogeneity, urbanization, and
industrialization, an overall societal consensus is less likely, and it is
more likely that there will be conflict between the “conduct norms” of
different cultural groups. In other words, the more complex a society
becomes, the greater the probability of culture conflict (Figure 23).
Similarly, Schmalleger (2011) stated that criminal behavior is
an expression of conformity to lower-class sub-cultural values and
traditions and not a rebellion against conventional society. Sub-
cultural values are handed down from one generation to the next in a
process called “cultural transmission.”
SUBCULTURE
Blocked
opportunities
SOCIALIZATION
POVERTY prompt
Slum youths socialized
• Lack of opportunity formation of
to value middle-class
• Feeling of oppression groups with
goals and ideas
alternative
lifestyle and
values
CRIMINAL CAREERS SUCCESS

Some gang boys can GOAL
parlay their status into Gangs
criminal careers; others provide
become drug users or alternative
violent assaulters. methods of
CRIME AND DELINQUENCY
gaining success
New methods of gaining success
for some,
involve law-violating behavior
venting anger
for others
Figure 29. Elements of Cultural Deviance Theory
Cultural Deviance Theories

a. Culture Conflict
According to Thorsten Sellin, culture conflict occurs when
the rules expressed in the criminal law clash with the demands
of group norms. In other words, the root cause of crime and
criminality can be found in a clash of values between various
socialized groups and the lower class over what is acceptable or
proper conduct (Siegel 2018).
b. Focal Concern
Walter Miller identifies this concept as unique values
system of the lower class culture. Obedience to this focal
concern dominates life among the lower class. Focal concern
does not necessarily represent a rebellion against middle-
class values; rather these values have evolved specifically to
fit conditions in slum areas. According to Miller, clinging to
lower-class focal concern promotes behavior that often runs
afoul of the law. Toughness is one of the common focal concern
like displaying fighting prowess; street smart attitude may lead
to drug dealing; excitement my result in drinking, gambling,
or drug abuse. These sub-cultural values are handed down
from one generation to the next in a process called cultural
transmission (Siegel 2018). Miller’s further explained various
lower-class focal concerns:
• Trouble - in lower-class communities, people are
evaluated by their actual or potential involvement
in making trouble. Getting into trouble includes
such behavior as fighting, drinking, and sexual
misconduct. Dealing with trouble can confer
prestige—for example, when a man establishes a
reputation for being able to handle himself well in a
fight. Not being able to handle trouble, and having
to pay the consequences, can make a person look
foolish and incompetent.
• Toughness - lower-class males want local recognition
of their physical and spiritual toughness. They
refuse to be sentimental or soft and instead value
physical strength, fighting ability, and athletic skill.
Those who cannot meet these standards risk getting
a reputation for being weak, inept, and effeminate.
• Smartness - members of the lower-class culture
want to maintain an image of being streetwise and
savvy, using their street smarts, and having the
ability to outfox and out-con the opponent. Though
formal education is not admired, knowing essential
survival techniques, such as gambling, conning,
and outsmarting the law, is a requirement.
• Excitement - members of the lower class search

for fun and excitement to enliven an otherwise
drab existence. The search for excitement may lead
to gambling, fighting, getting drunk, and sexual
adventures. In between, the lower-class citizen may
simply “hang out” and “be cool.”
• Fate - lower-class citizens believe their lives are
in the hands of strong spiritual forces that guide
their destinies. Getting lucky, finding good fortune,
and hitting the jackpot are all slum dwellers’ daily
dreams.
• Autonomy – being independent of authority
figures, such as the police, teachers, and parents,
is required. Losing control is an unacceptable
weakness, incompatible with toughness.
c. Status Frustration
Status frustration according to Siegel (2018), is a concept
of lower class wherein they are unable to achieve success
legitimately; as a result, many of them join in gangs and engage
in behavior that is “non-utilitarian, malicious, and negativistic.”
This conditions leads to status frustration especially on juvenile.
Albert Cohen viewed the delinquency gang as a separate
subculture, possessing a value system directly opposed to that
of the larger society.
Cohen described the subculture as one that “takes its
norms from the larger culture, but turns them upside down. The
delinquent conduct is right by the standards of his subculture
precisely because it is wrong by the norms of the larger
culture. He further stated that the development of delinquent
subculture is a consequence of socialization practices found in
the ghetto or inner-city environment. These children lack the
basic skills necessary to achieve social and economic success
in the demanding larger society. They also lack the proper
education and therefore do not have the skills upon which is
build a knowledge or socialization foundation Siegel (2018).
Name Rating
Section Date
1. Lorna is the younger daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Flores. She was
always being compared to her elder sister because of her inability
to perform well in academics and non-academic activities. As a
result, she became rebellious and get into troubles as an outlet of
her frustration. Which of the following theories can best support
the situation?
a. anomie theory c. strain theory
b. subculture theory d. differential theory
2. This theory explains that criminal behavior is learned through

interaction with other people; that the greater the duration,
frequency and intensity of association with individuals with
criminal behavior, the greater the likelihood that a person will
violate the law.
a. Tarde’s Law of Imitation
b. differential association theory
c. psychological assumption
d. culture conflict theory
3. The two socialized groups in a particular have disagreement due

to the different point of views over what is acceptable or proper
behavior that resulted to a brawl among the members. Which of
the following theories supports the situation?
a. anomie theory c. subculture theory
b. culture conflict theory d. differential association theory
4. Salve has been involved with a group with promiscuous activities.

Her parents observed that she is gradually changing from an
innocent person into somewhat vulgar and indecent person. Which
of the following best supports the changes in Salve’s behavior?
a. differential association theory
b. subculture theory
c. culture conflict theory
d. anomie theory
5. Carlo grew up in slum area wherein he has direct association with

people who have criminal values. As a result, when he reached
teenage life he had already acquired criminal behavior. Which of the
following explains why Carlo Sanchez developed criminal behavior?
a. differential association theory
b. subculture theory
c. culture conflict theory
d. anomie theory
6. David suffered from frustration for failure to pass his two subjects
and became angry and aggressive. As a result of his experience, he
always entangle into trouble and brawls. What specific theory can
explain the causes of his criminal behavior?
a. anomie theory c. strain theory
b. subculture theory d. differential theory
7. Accordingly, behavior is strengthened or encouraged through

rewards as positive reinforcement and avoidance of punishment as
negative reinforcement. Which of the following best supports the
statement?
a. differential reinforcement theory
b. social control theory
c. differential association theory
d. neutralization theory
8. Since childhood Edgar idolized his father. He dreamed of

becoming a top ranking police officer like his father. However,
he did not qualify due to health problem. As a result, he turned
his frustration by joining a gang that influenced him to develop
antisocial behavior. This is supported by . . .
a. anomie theory
b. differential association theory
c. labeling theory
d. strain theory
9. This theory sees crime and delinquency as a result of the anger and
frustration of a person due to his inability to achieve his dream.
a. labeling theory c. strain theory
b. anomie Theory d. stress Theory
10. You get involved with antisocial group but you decided to avoid
your group members because of your family. You do not want to
bring pain and embarrassment to your parents because you love
them. Based on social bond theory, this indicate that you have
strong . . .
a. commitment c. involvement
b. attachment d. love
11. A particular university in Manila is facing a problem between two

fraternities whose members usually end up to a fight. This situation
happens due to clash of values between the two groups over what
is acceptable or proper behavior. This situation is supported by. . .
a. anomie theory
b. culture conflict theory
c. Subculture theory
d. differential association theory
12. This is a concept of lower class wherein they are unable to achieve
success legitimately; as a result, many of them join in gangs and
engage in behavior that is usually malicious, and negativistic
a. toughness c. status frustration
b. culture deviance d. autonomy
13. The effect of _____ is not always a one-shot deal but may be ongoing.
Some people who feel constantly picked on and maltreated by
others will become detached and sullen
a. victimization c. criminal behavior
b. negative stimuli d. Strain
14. It is a mode of adaptation wherein the person drops out of society

and often take refuge in drugs, alcohol, and transience and are
frequently in trouble with the law.
a. retreatism c. innovation
b. rebellion d. toughness
15. A theory that study the interrelationship between human

organisms and the physical environment.
a. Strain c. Human ecology
b. Culture deviance d. Differential Association
148
Chapter Four
Developmental Theories
A. Topic Description: 3. Trajectory Theory

This chapter will help the 3.1 Three Distinct paths of
students understand how the a Criminal Career
life experience affects the total
behavior of individuals. This will also 3.1.1 Authority
cover the pathways of criminal Conflict
career of a person. According Pathway
developmental philosophers, 3.1.2 Covert
there are several subgroups Pathway
within a criminal population
that follow distinctively different 3.1.3 Overt Pathway
developmental trajectories that
lead them toward a criminal
career. C. Topic Objectives:
1. Analyze the contribution life’s
changing conditions and its
B. Scope: impact on the development
1. Life Course Theory of criminal behavior over the
life course.
1.1 Age-Graded Theory
2. Analyze the causal
1.2 Interactional Theory association between early
1.3 General Theory or delinquent offending and
Super Traits Theory later adult deviant behavior.
2. Latent Trait Theory 3. Evaluate the impact of

the integration of social
2.1 General Theory of control and social learning in
Crime (GTC) explaining criminal behavior.
2.2 Integrated Cognitive 4. Analyze the contribution
Antisocial Potential of personal attributes that
(ICAP) control an individual’s
inclination to commit crimes.
CHAPTER FOUR
DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES
FOUNDATIONS OF DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES

Current researchers on developmental theories (Siegel, 2018)
were conducted by Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, hence they
are considered founders of the developmental branch of criminological
theory. Developmental criminology is a view of criminal behavior that
places emphasis on the changes people go through over the life course.
It presents a career as a dynamic process involving onset, continuity,
persistence, acceleration, and eventual desistance from criminal
behavior, controlled by individual level of traits and conditions.
These theories are dynamic (Walsh, 2012) because they emphasize
that individual develop along different pathways. As they develop, the
factor that is previously meaningful to them (acceptance by antisocial
peers) is no longer meaningful; and those factors that previously meant
little (marriage and career) become meaningful. The development
theories are actually concerned with the onset, acceleration and
deceleration of offending and finally desisting altogether.
As emphasized by Siegel (2018), Gluecks’ research focused on
early of delinquency as forerunner of a criminal career. The deeper
the roots of childhood maladjustment, the smaller the chance of adult
adjustment. The research also noted the stability of offending careers:
children who are anti-social early in life are the most likely to continue
their offending careers into adulthood. The identified a number of
personal and social factors related persistent offending, the most
important of which was family relations. This factor was considered
in terms of quality of discipline and emotional ties with parents. The
following are some of the revelation of the couple’s series of longitudinal
research studies by following the career of known delinquents to
determine the characteristics that predicted persistent offending:
1. The adolescent raised in a large, single-parent family of limited
economic means and educational achievements was the most
vulnerable to delinquency.
2. The physical and mental factors (body type, intelligence and
personality) also played a role in determining behavior.
3. Children with low intelligence, who had a background of mental
disease and who had a powerful physique (mesomorph) were the
most likely to become persistent offenders,
Integrating biological, social and psychological elements, the

Gluecks’ research suggested that the initiation and continuity of a
criminal career was a developmental process influenced by both internal
and external situations, conditions and circumstances. Their work was
heavily criticized by several sociologists, but they were rediscovered
when Robert Sampson and John Laub found their original data and
used modern statistical techniques to reanalyze their carefully drawn
empirical measurements. The findings of Sampson and Laub were
published in a series of books and articles, which fueled the popularity
of what is now referred as developmental criminology. This is a view
of criminal behavior that places emphasis on the changes people go
through over the life course. It presents a criminal career as a dynamic
process involving onset, continuity, persistence, acceleration, and
eventual desistance from criminal behavior, controlled by individual
level traits and conditions (Siegel, 2018).
The scholarly advances in the in the study of criminology resulted
criminologists to focus more on criminal career research. As research
on criminal careers has evolved, three independent yet interrelated
viewpoints have taken shape: life course view, latent trait/propensity
view and trajectory view (Siegel, 2019).
1. Life Course Theory
This theory views criminality as a dynamic process,
influenced by multitude of individual characteristics, traits
and social experiences. As people travel through the life course,
they are constantly bombarded by changing perceptions and
experiences. As a result, their behavior will change directions,
sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. This
theory supports that the seeds of a criminal career are planted
early in life, and the early onset of antisocial behavior strongly
predicts later more criminality. According to Siegel (2018), a
view of a crime has emerged that incorporates personal change
and growth. Apparently, the factors that produce crime and
delinquency at one point in the life cycle may not be relevant
at another. It can be said that as people get mature, the social,
physical and environmental influences on their behavior are
transformed. There are some people who may show a propensity
to offend early in their lives; however, the nature and frequency
of their respective activities are often affected by forces beyond
their control, which elevate and sustain their criminal activity.
As explained by Siegel (2018), in life course theory, even
as toddlers’ people begin relationships and behavior that will
determine their adult life course. At first they must learn to
conform to social rules and function effectively in society.

Then later, they are expected to begin to think about careers,
leave their parental homes, find permanent relationships and
eventually marry and begin their own lives. These transitions
are expected to take place in order to get matured. Disruption
in life’s transitions can be destructive and ultimately promote
criminality. Those who are already at risk because of
socioeconomic problems or family dysfunction are the most
susceptible during this awkward transition. The cumulative
impact of this disruption sustains criminality from childhood
into adulthood.
However, some individuals are incapable of maturing in a
reasonable and timely fashion because of family, environmental
or personal problems. In some cases, transitions occur too early
or may occur too late. Because transition from one stage of life
to another can be a bumpy ride, the propensity to commit crime
is neither stable nor constant; it is a developmental process.
A positive life experience may help some criminal desist from
crime for a while, whereas a negative one may cause them to
resume their criminal activities. Criminal careers are said to be
developmental because people are influenced by the behavior
of those around them; and in turn they also influence other’s
behavior.
People who get into trouble in early life, especially those
who are arrested and given an official criminal label may find
it difficult to shake the criminal way of life as they mature.
Life course theory suggests that while most people age out of
crime, small segments are not removed from a criminal path
and continue crimes into adulthood. They may escalate the
seriousness of their acts as they mature.
Age-graded theory
This theory was presented by Robert Sampson and John Laub,
which is an informal social control to formulate life course view of
crime. This is the state dependence theory that assumes that the
causal association between early delinquent offending and later adult
deviant behavior involves the quality of relationships encountered at
different times in human development. Some of the principles of age-
graded theory are the following (Siegel, 2019):
1. Individual traits and childhood experiences are

important to understand the onset of delinquency and
criminal behavior. But these alone cannot explain the
continuity of crime into adulthood.
2. Experiences in young adulthood and beyond can
redirect criminal transitions or paths. In some cases,
people can be turned in a positive direction, whereas
in others negative life experiences can harmful and
injurious.
3. Repeated negative experiences create a condition
called cumulative disadvantage. Serious problems
in adolescence undermine life chances and reduce
employability and social relations. People who increase
their cumulative disadvantage risk continued offending.
4. Positive life experiences and relationships can help a
person become reattached to society and allow him or
her to cut criminal career path.
5. Positive life experiences such as gaining employment,
getting married or joining the military create informal
social control mechanisms that limit criminal behavior
opportunities. These elements of informal control are
called turning points in crime.
6. Two critical elements of informal social control/turning
points are marriage and career. Adolescents that are at
risk for crime can live conventional lives if they can find
good jobs, achieve successful military or enter into a
successful marriage. Turning points may be coincidence
and unexpected.
7. Another vital feature that helps people desist from
crime is human agency or the purposeful execution of
choice and free will. Former delinquents may choose to
go straight and develop a new sense of self and identity.
They can choose to desist from crime and become family
men and hard workers.
8. While some people persist in crime simply because
they find it lucrative or perhaps because it serves as an
outlet for their frustration. While others choose not to
participate because as human beings they find a more
conventional path, more beneficial and rewarding.
Interactional Theory
This theory was proposed by Terence Thornberry (Schmalleger,
2011), which integrates social control and social learning explanations of
delinquency. This theory views crime as a consequence of interpersonal
relationship and of what those relationship mean. Hence, weakening
of a person’s bond to conventional society is the fundamental cause of
delinquency according to this theory. Interactional theory assumes that
important variables within the model possess reciprocal or feedback
effects. It places the emphasis on the developmental nature of the
etiology of delinquency and crimes. In other words, this is a theory
which explains the onset, persistence and desistence of delinquency
and alters the importance of the concepts at these various stages of
the life course. Although parental attachments or social bonds are
important in the explanation of the onset of delinquency early in the life
course, these concepts become relatively weaker in the explanation of
the persistence in delinquency as individuals navigate the adolescent
period of development (Burke, 2019). That is why Thornberry pointed
out that adolescents who are strongly attached to their parents and
family and who strive to achieve within the context of approved social
arrangement rarely turn to serious delinquency.
General Theory or Super Traits Theory

In his general or super traits theory, Robert Agnew (Agnew of
general strain theory) identified five life domains that contain possible
crime-generating factors such as (Walsh & Hemmens, 2014):
1. Personality
2. Family
3. School
4. Peers
5. Work
This is considered as developmental theory because these
domains interact and feedback on one another across the life span.
Agnew suggests that personality traits set individuals on a particular
developmental trajectory that influences how other people in the
family, school, peer group and work domains react to them. In other
words, personality variables condition the effects of social variables on
crime. Agnew identifies the latent (underlying) traits of low self-control
and irritability as super traits that encompass many of the traits like
sensation seeking, impulsivity, inattentiveness and low empathy. People
troubled with low self-control and irritable temperaments are likely

to evoke negative responses from family members, school teachers,
peers and workmates that feedback and aggravate those tendencies.
Accordingly, the biological factors have a direct effect on irritability/
low self-control and an indirect effect on the other life domains through
the effects of irritability/low self-control. The irritability mentioned
by Agnew is analogous to the trait most psychologists call negative
emotionality. The theory can explain gender, racial and age effects in
criminality and can account for the differences between individual who
limit their offending to the adolescent years and those who offend across
the life course. In terms of gender differences, males are more likely
to inherit irritability/low self-control than females probably because
these traits have aided male reproductive success by enhancing male
aggressiveness and competitiveness. In terms of race differences,
blacks are more likely to be poor and receive discriminatory treatment,
that with other factors may significantly increase irritability, and that
perceptions of poor job prospects may also lead to the adoption of an
impulsive live for the day lifestyle. Agnew noted that the immaturity of
adolescent behavior is tied to the immaturity of the adolescent brain,
and adolescents tend to become more irritable because their brains are
undergoing a period of intense remodeling (Walsh & Hemmens, 2014).
2. Latent Trait Theory

This theory holds that human development is controlled
by a stable propensity or master trait that is present at birth
or soon after that remains stable and unchanging throughout
a person’s lifetime. As people travel through their life course,
this trait/propensity is always present, directing their behavior
and shaping the course of their life. Since this hidden trait
is enduring, the flow of criminal behavior is shaped less by
personal change and more by the impact of external forces such
as interpersonal interactions in the environment and criminal
opportunity; though people don’t change, their opportunities
and experiences definitely change from time to time. Criminality
may increase upon joining a gang, a status that provides more
opportunities to steal, take drugs and attack others. Put another
way: the propensity to commit criminal acts is constant, but
the opportunity to commit them is constantly fluctuating.
The concept of latent trait theory was proposed by David
Rowe, D. Wayne Osgood and W. Alan Nicewander to explain
the flow of crime over life cycle. Their model assumes that a
number of people in the population have a personal attribute
or characteristics that control their inclination or propensity

to commit crimes. These latent traits may be present at birth
or may be established early in life and can remain stable over
time. Suspected latent traits include the following:
• Defective intelligence
• Damaged or impulsive personality
• Genetic abnormalities
• Physical-chemical functioning of the brain
• Environmental influences on brain function
like drugs chemicals and injuries
Some latent trait theorists maintain that this master trait is

inflexible, stable and unchanging throughout a person’s lifetime,
whereas others recognize under some circumstances a latent trait
can be altered, influenced or changed by experience and interactions.
Regardless of gender or environment, those who possess one or more
of these latent traits may be at risk to crime and in danger of becoming
career criminals; those who lack the propensity to commit crime have
a much lower risk. Simply because the propensity to commit crime is
stable over the life course, people who are antisocial during adolescence
are the most likely to develop criminal careers. The positive association
between past and future criminality of career criminals reflects the
presence of this underlying stable criminal propensity. That is, if an
impulsive personality contributes to delinquency in childhood, it should
also cause the same people to offend as adults because personality
traits remain stable over the life span.
However, two prominent social scientists, James Q. Wilson and
Richard Herrnstein, suggested that personal traits such as genetic
makeup, intelligence and body build may outweigh the importance of
social variables as predictors of criminal activity. According to them, all
human behavior including criminality are determined by its perceived
consequences. A criminal incident occurs when an individual chooses
criminal over conventional behavior after weighing the potential gains
and losses of each: “The larger the ratio net rewards of crime to the net
rewards of non-crime, the greater the tendency to commit the crime”
(Siegel, 2018).
General Theory of Crime (GTC)

The most prominent latent trait theory is Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s general theory of crime (cited in Siegel, 2018), which links
the propensity to commit crime to two latent traits such as impulsive
personality and lack of self-control. According to Michael Gottfredson
and Travis Hirschi the general theory of crime and delinquency is a
development theory that modifies social control theory by integrating
concepts from biosocial, psychological, routine activities and rational
choice theories. This theory links the propensity to commit crime to
two latent traits such as impulsive personality and lack of self-control.
Gottfredson and Hirschi attributed the tendency to commit crimes to
a person’s level of self-control. Accordingly, people with limited self-
control have the following characteristics:
1. tend to be impulsive
2. they are insensitive to other people’s feeling
3. risk takers
4. shortsighted and nonverbal
5. physical rather than mental
6. have a here-and-now orientation
7. refuse to work for distant goals
8. they lack diligence, tenacity and persistence
9. tend to be adventuresome, active and self-centered
10. As they mature, they often have unstable marriages,

jobs and friendship.
11. They are less likely to feel shame if they engage in deviant
acts and are more likely to find them pleasurable
12. They are more likely to engage in dangerous activities

such as drinking, smoking, gambling, reckless driving,
and illicit sexuality
All of the above characteristics are associated with criminality

according to Gottfredson and Hirschi because those with low self-
control enjoy risky, exciting or thrilling behaviors with immediate
gratification. They are more likely to enjoy criminal acts, which require
stealth, agility, speed and power than conventional acts, which demand
long term study with cognitive and verbal skills. Apparently, children
will have low self-control if they have poor relationships with their
parents or if their parents do not have good parenting skills. Those
who fail to develop self-control in childhood will be more likely to be
involved in crime throughout their lives; thus the impact of poor early
socialization may persist for many years.
Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential (ICAP) Theory

This theory of David Farrington (cited in Walsh & Hemmen,
2014) is based on longitudinal cohort study of boys in deprived areas
of London. The antisocial potential (AP) and cognition are the key
concepts of this theory. AP is a person’s risk or propensity to engage
in crime and cognition is the thinking or decision-making process
that turns potential into actual behavior. This is also interested in the
process of desisting from offending, which occurs for both social and
individual reasons and occurs at different rates according to a person’s
level of AP. As people get older, they tend to become less impulsive and
less easily frustrated.
3. Trajectory Theory
This third view suggests that there are multiple independent
paths to a criminal career and that there are different types
and classes of offenders. It combines the elements of latent
trait and life course theories. Its basic premise is that there
is more than one path to crime and more than one class of
offenders; there are different trajectories in criminal career. All
people are different, and one model cannot hope to describe
every person’s journey through life. Some people are social and
have a large peer group, whereas others are loners who make
decisions on their own. The reality is that there may be different
paths or trajectories to a criminal career. People offend at a
different pace, commit different kinds of crimes and influenced
by different external forces. For example, people who commit
violent crimes may be different from non-violent offenders and
may maintain a unique set of personality traits and problem

behavior. This would contradict the GTC vision that a single
factor causes delinquency and that there is a single class of
offender.
Accordingly, there are several subgroups within a criminal
population that follow distinctively different developmental
trajectories that lead them toward a criminal career. Some
people may begin antisocial activities early and demonstrate
a propensity for crime, whereas others begin later and are
influenced by life circumstances. Some specialize in particular
offenses; while others are generalists who commit a variety of
crimes.
Trajectory theory recognizes that criminals may travel more
than single road. Some may specialize in violence and extortion;
some may be involved in theft and fraud; others may engage in
a variety of criminal acts. Some of the most important research
on delinquent paths or trajectories has been conducted by Rolf
Loeber and his associates. Using data from longitudinal study
of Pittsburg youths, Loeber has identified three distinct paths
to a criminal career.
1. The authority conflict pathway begins at an early

age with stubborn behavior. This leads to defiance
like doing things one’s own way and disobedience;
and then to authority avoidance like staying out
late, truancy and running away.
2. The covert pathway begins with minor,

underhanded behavior like lying shoplifting that
leads to prop0erty damage. This behavior eventually
escalates to more serious forms of criminality.
3. The overt pathway escalates to aggressive acts

beginning with aggression like annoying others and
bullying leading to physical fighting and then to
violence like attacking someone and robbery.
Figure 24. Loeber’s pathways to crime.
Concept Summary of Three Developmental Theories (Siegel, 2019)

MAJOR PREMISES/
THEORY
STRENGTHS/KEY ELEMENTS
Life Course As people go through the life course, social and
Theory personal traits undergo change and influence
behavior.
The social and personal factors that shape human
behavior change over the life course influenced by
the human interaction such as the family, peers
or in the job. It identifies critical moments in a
person’s life course that produce one.
Interactional Criminals go through lifestyle changes during

Theory their offending career. Crime influences lifestyle,
and changing lifestyle influences crime. It
combines sociological and psychological theories
that identify crime-producing interpersonal
interactions and their reciprocal effects.
Age-Graded As people mature, the factors that influence their
Theory propensity to commit crime change. In childhood,
family factors are critical; in adulthood, marital
and job factors are key to show how crime is a
developmental process that shifts in direction
over the life course. This theory identifies critical
points in the life course that produce crime.
Analyze the association between social capital
and crime.
Latent Trait As people develop, a master trait influences
Theory their behavior, guiding and controlling behavior
choices. People do not change, but criminal
opportunities change. Early social control and
proper parenting can reduce criminal propensity.
The theory assumes that physical or psychological
master trait makes some people crime prone over
the life course. This explains the continuity of
crime and chronic offending that identify master
trait that produces crime.
Integrated People with antisocial potential (AP) are at risk to
Cognitive commit antisocial acts. AP can be viewed as both
Antisocial a long-and short-term phenomenon. This theory
Potentials identifies different types of criminal propensities
(ICAP) Theory and shows how they may influence behavior in
both short and long term.
General Theory Crime and criminality are separate concepts.
of Crime People choose to commit crime when they lack
self-control. People lacking in self-control will seize
criminal opportunities. This integrates choice and
social control concepts that identify the difference
between crime and criminality. Likewise, this
measures associations among impulsivity, low
self-control and criminal behavior.
Differential Individuals exposed to coercive environments

Coercion develop social-psychological deficits that enhance
Theory their probability of engaging in criminal behavior.
This explains why a feeling of coercion is a master
trait that determines behavior.
Control Balance A person’s control ratio influences his or her
Theory behavior. This theory explains how the ability to
control one’s environment is a master trait
Trajectory There is more than one path to a criminal career.
Theory This explain the existence of different types and
classes of criminals different types of offenders
and offending.
Life Course People begin their criminal activities at different
Persistent/ points in their lives. This theory explains why most
Adolescent adolescent misbehavior is limited to youthful;
Limited misadventures.
Name Rating
Section Date
1. An individual begin relationships and behavior that will determine

his adult life. At first, he must learn to conform to social rules and
function effectively in society. Then later, he is expected to begin
to think about careers, leaves his parental home, finds permanent
relationships and eventually marry and begin his own life. Which
of the following developmental theories best applies this situation?
a. life course theory c. latent trait theory
b. trajectory theory d. lateral theory
2. Which path to a criminal career begins at an early age with

stubborn behavior that leads to defiance like doing thongs one’s
own way and disobedience?
a. authority conflict pathway c. covert pathway
b. overt pathway d. direct pathway
3. Which pathway to a criminal career escalates to aggressive acts

beginning with aggression like annoying others and bullying
leading to physical fighting and then to violence like attacking
someone and robbery?
a. authority conflict pathway c. right pathway
b. overt pathway d. covert pathway
4. Which of the following theories asserts that experiences in young

adulthood and beyond can redirect criminal transition paths?
According to this theory, in some cases people can be turned in a
positive direction, whereas in others negative life experiences can
be harmful and injurious.
a. life course theory c. age-graded theory
b. trajectory theory d. trajectory theory
5. Gluecks’ research focused on early of delinquency as forerunner of

a criminal career. The deeper the roots of childhood maladjustment,
the smaller the chance of adult adjustment. This is referring to
_____.
a. Life-course theory
b. Developmental theories
c. Interactional theory
d. Antisocial behavior theory
6. This theory identifies critical points in the life course that produce
crime; in childhood, family factors are critical; in adulthood, marital
and job factors are key to show how crime is a developmental
process that shifts in direction over the life course.
a. Interactional theory c. Latent trait theory
b. Age-graded theory d. Life course theory
7. A person’s risk or propensity to engage in crime and cognition is

the thinking process that turns potential into actual behavior.
a. Criminal tendency c. Antisocial behavior
b. Antisocial potential d. Antisocial propensity
8. Of the following, which is NOT a characteristic of people with

limited self-control?
a. risk taker
c. social climber
b. Shortsighted and narrow minded
d. tend to be impulsive
9. A theory that explain propensity to commit crime is stable over the

life course, people who are antisocial during adolescence are the
most likely to develop criminal careers.
a. General theory of crime c. Age-graded theory
b. Latent trait theory d. Developmental theory
10. Robert Agnew identified five life domains that contain possible
crime-generating factors, EXCEPT:
a. personality c. behavior
b. peers d. work
11. Repeated negative experiences create a condition called _______.

a. repressive behavior c. turning point in crime
b. antisocial potential d. cumulative disadvantage
12. This theory suggests that while most people age out of crime, small
segments are not removed from a criminal path and continue
crimes into adulthood.
a. Developmental theories
b. Life-course theory
c. General theory of crime
d. Latent Trait theory
13. As explained by Siegel, criminal careers are said to be developmental

because people are influenced by the behavior of those around
them; and in turn they also influence other’s behavior.
a. Age-graded theory c. Life-course theory
b. Latent trait theory d. General theory of crime
14.
This theory views crime as a consequence of interpersonal
relationship and of what those relationship mean. Hence, weakening
of a person’s bond to conventional society is the fundamental cause
of delinquency.
a. Interactional theory
b. Developmental theories
c. Life-course theory
d. Age-graded theory
15. Agnew identifies the latent (underlying) traits of low self-control

and irritability as ______ that encompass many of the traits like
sensation seeking, impulsivity, inattentiveness and low empathy.
a. cumulative disadvantage c. super traits
b. indispensable factor d. aggravating factors.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Adler, F., Mueller, G. O. W., & Laufer, W. S. (2010). Criminology (7th

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Barkan, S. E. (2006). Criminology: A sociological understanding.

New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Barlow, D. H. (2012). Abnormal psychology: An integrated approach.

Philippines: MG Reprographics.
Bartol, C. R. & Bartol, A. M. (2017). Criminal behavior a psychological

approach, Eleventh Edition. Malaysia: Pearson Education
Limited.
Burke, R. H. (2019). An introduction to criminological theory, 5th

Edition. UK: Willan Publishing.
Butcher, J. N., Mineka, S., & Hooley, J. M. (2011). Abnormal psychology:

Core concepts (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
CBS News. (2013, May 6). Crime and violence: The biological behind
murder [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=EcaDSJ1LplQ
Ciccarelli, S. K. (2010). Understanding psychology. New Jersey:

Person Prentice Hall.
Cherry, K. (2019). The preconscious, conscious, and unconscious

mind. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/the-
conscious-and-unconscious-mind-2795946
Coby Persin. (2015, September 6). Dangers of Social Media

[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=c4sHoDW8QU4&t=198s
Copes, H. & Topalli, V. (2013). Criminological theory readings and

retrospectives. New York: McGraw Hill Companies.
DeLisi, M. & Beaver, K. M. (2011). Criminological theory a life course

approach. USA: Jones and Barlett Publishers.
Doerner, W. G. and Lab, S. P. (2012). Victimology. USA: Elsevier
Fagan, A. A., Horn, M. L.V. Horn, Hawkins, J. D. and Jaki, T.

(2013). Differential Effects of Parental Controls on Adolescent
Substance Use: For Whom Is the Family Most Important?
Journal of Qualitative Criminology 20 (2013):347-368.
Gavin, H. (2019). Criminological and forensic psychology. United

Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.
Retrieved from http://freudhistoryandconcepts.blogspot.

com/2008/04/3-levels-of-awareness.html
Hagan, F. E. (2010). Crime types and criminals. USA: SAGE

Publications, Inc.
Hagan, F. E. (2017). Introduction to criminology: Theories, methods,

and criminal behavior. USA: SAGE Publications, Inc
Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/

ferri-enrico.html#ixzz31VBxaCpr).
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/xyy-syndrome/
Linden, R. 2020. Criminology: A Canadian perspective, 9th ed. USA:

Nelson education Ltd.
Liss Mendez. (2017, February 16). Poverty and crime [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G5-8_
xbaXA
Ogilvie, C., Newman, E., Todd, L. & Peck, D. (2014). Attachment

and violent offending: A meta analysis. Aggression and violent
behavior 19 (2014): 322-339)
Posick, C. (2018). The development of criminological thought context,

theory and policy. New York: Routledge.
Reyes, L. B. (2017). Revised penal code book one. Manila: Rex Book
Store.
Schmalleger, F. (2011). Criminology A Brief Introduction. USA:

Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L. J. (2019). Criminology the core 7th ed. USA: Wadsworth

Cengage Learning.
Siegel, L. J. (2018). Criminology: Theories, patterns and typologies

13th ed. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Siegel, L. J. (2013). Criminology. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Tibbetts, S. G. & Hemmens, C. (2010). Criminological theory a text

reader. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Vold, G.B. and Snipes, J.B. 2000. Theoretical criminology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Walsh, A. & Hemmens, C. (2014). Introduction to criminology a text

reader. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Walsh, A. (2012). Criminology the essentials. Los Angeles: SAGE

Publications, Inc.
Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminology)
Retrieved from www.flandershealth.us/personality-2/dimension of

personality.html)
Retrieved from www.justice.govt.hz/crime/spb-theories.
Retrieved from www.vox.com/2015/2/25/8103965/genetics-crime-

xyy

Theories of Crime Causation2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Theories of Crime Causation2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories of Crime Causation2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theories of Crime Causation 3

Theories of Crime Causation

Philippine Copyright, 2020

All Rights Reserved.

Published and Distributed by:

To our beloved children:

Eunice Mae A. Lagumen

Hazel Faye A. Lagumen

Dennis A. Lagumen Jr.

The study of crimes and causation has engaged the

Chapter One - Biological Theories. This deals

A. Topic Description: 3. Types of Biological theories

One of the oldest scientific approaches in criminology theory

Schmalleger (2011) argued that early biological theorists focused

PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL THEORIES

Ability to learn and achieve

Figure 3. Biosocial perspective on criminality

d) The basic determinants of human behavior, including

human beings may be further along the evolutionary ladder

TYPES OF BIOLOGICAL THEORIES

1. EARLY POSITIVISM (1880 – 1930)

of Lavater, he systematized man popular observation and made man

good evidence of criminal tendencies. Gall’s approach contained the

and expectations of modern

Figure 7. Physical Stigmata

Hooton further concluded that body shapes of the criminals

a. BODY TYPES OR SOMATOTYPING

Ernst Kretschmer a professor of psychiatry at the German

Sheldon’s Personality Types

Figure 8. Sheldon’s body type

3. HORMONES AND BODY CHEMISTRY

a. 47:XYY “Supermale” Syndrome

most commonly speech delays and language problems. Reading

which controls secondary sex characteristics, such as facial hair

Premenstrual Cycle (PMS)

• Behavior is determined by the need to ensure survival

To simply put it, Siegel (2019) further explained that sociobiology

array of other disciplines and research methodologies. According to

Influence of Genetics and Environment

mother is highly antisocial; this gives some (albeit limited)

Thus, the twin studies focused on comparing the concordance

Biosocial criminologists use twin and adoption studies to

Gene—Environment Interaction and Correlation

Behavior Genetics and Criminal Behavior

Cooperation is typically contingent on the reciprocal cooperation of

Reward Dominance and Prefrontal

low self-control we have previously discussed because each of these

Prefrontal Dysfunction Theory

and Vickie Lettrell’s review of 17 neuroimaging studies in Reading 18

Concept Summary of Biosocial Perspective and Theories

Evolutionary Human behavior Ties criminology Gives some

Reward Behavioral Explains who The

COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT NO. 1

1. This Austrian physician is the one who study phrenology and

2. One of the approaches of biological theory built upon evolutionary

3. What is the meaning of atavism?

4. It is the systematic study of the biological basis of all behavior

5. It is a condition characterized by low blood sugar.