Explanations of Criminal Behaviour
Why do criminals become criminals? Is it biological factors, environmental factors, or
maybe a combination of the both? It is important for us to consider the explanations
of criminal behaviour because if we can identify the causes of their behaviour we
could possibly implement training or treatment programs to prevent them.
One thing that you might want to bare-in-mind throughout this topic however is: what
is criminal behaviour? There are many definitions of this from the breaking of a law
set by parliament to a socially constructed set of moral values (or is it just anything
that a ‘chav’ does on a Saturday night?).
Without a clear definition of what
‘Criminal Behaviour’ is understanding the motivations and explanations becomes
problematic.
Explanations is split into the following three topics:



Theories of criminal behaviour
Individual and cultural differences in criminal behaviour
Social psychology of the criminal
This topic we will be mostly looking at the following theories and studies: Sheldon;
Bandura; Eysenck & Eysenck, Rushton; and Farrington.
Theories of Criminal Behaviour
This first area of Explanations is looking at the different types of theories surrounding
criminal behaviour. This sub-topic follows the same argument as the ‘nature-nurture’
debate as we are looking to see if criminal behaviour is affected by biological factors
(body shape) or environmental factors (social learning theory). It’s important to
remember that these theories are not mutually exclusive – it could be interplay
between the two theories, or other factors that finally help us explain criminal
behaviour.
Sheldon 1949 – Physical appearance and criminality
The idea that personality is linked to body type is not a new one. Sheldon is one a
many psychologists who have investigated the relationship between body type (or
somatotype) and criminality. Through his research he identified three somatotypes:
endomorphs, ectomorphs, and mesomorphs and attributed certain personality traits to
each body type.
Body Type
Endomorph
Description
Personality Traits
Fat and soft (think Marshmallow man Comfort loving, sociable
from Ghost Busters)
and relaxed
Ectomorph
Thin and fragile (just like Mark?!)
Sensitive, intellectual and
solitary
Mesomorph
Muscular and hard
Aggressive, dominant and
risk-takers.
Summary of the three body types (Sheldon, 1949).
Sheldon claimed that as a result of the personality traits presented by mesomorphs this
might lead them to being more likely to be involved in criminal activity.
Pictures to illustrate the ‘pure’ somatotypes.
The above diagram shows a general illustration of the ‘pure’ versions of each of the
somatotypes, however, Sheldon stated that it was very rare to find people who fitted
into a perfect category. As a result somatotypes are rated on the three spectrums on a
scale of 1-to-7 so each persons somatotype will be a number in the form of x-x-x.
To investigate his theory that the more mesomorphic you are the more likely you are
to be a criminal Sheldon used a sample of 200 male college students (assumed not to
be delinquent – obviously never been outside the college Union at kicking out time) –
and 200 male delinquents. The 200 delinquents were further divided into two groups
based on their level of naughtiness: delinquent and criminal delinquent. Sheldon took
photographs of each of the 400 participants and rated each one of them for
mesomorphy (on the scale of 1-7, 7 being the highest). He found that the higher the
delinquency, the higher the average mesomorphy rating.
Somatotype
Students
Delinquents
Criminal Delinquents
Endomorph
3.2
3.5
3.4
Ectomorph
3.4
2.7
1.8
Mesomorph
3.8
4.6
5.4
The average scores for each group of participants on the three dimensions of
somatotypes.
From the results it is possible to conclude that the more delinquent a participant was
the higher their mesomorphy score was. There is one thing though... Sheldon was the
only one who rated the pictures for their mesomorphy scores – no wonder he found
the results he did! A further methodological problem that was highlighted about the
Sheldon study was the use of the term ‘delinquent’ which had no clear legal
definition. When his results were re-analysed using legal criteria the relationship
between mesomorphy and criminality disappeared (Sutherland, 1951).
Even though there could be issues surrounding the reliability of Sheldon’s study other
researchers have found results that seem to support, at least in part, his initial theory.
Glueck & Glueck (1956) found that in a sample of delinquents 60% were
mesomorphs while in a non-delinquent sample only 31% were.
Evaluation
Strengths
Sample: A good-sized sample was used
and importantly, Sheldon had a control
condition of non-offenders (students) to
compare the results to.
Weaknesses
Reliability: Sheldon was the only one to
rate the photographs.
Correlational Analysis: cannot infer
cause-and-effect.
Reductionist: Sheldon’s theory states that
it’s only body shape (biological factors)
that influence criminality.
Deterministic:
if
you
have
a
mesomorphic body – you’re a criminal
(look around the room!)
Bandura 1961 – Social learning theory and crime
Social learning theory (SLT) is a concept
that you came across in the first year in
relation to children and learned aggression.
We can apply the same theory to
criminality as well. In the Bandura, Ross,
and Ross study it was found that boys
would imitate an aggressive act of a male
role model showing physical aggression
towards an inflatable ‘Bobo’ doll. The
SLT simply states that a person will imitate the behaviour of a role model, and this
behaviour will continue if they receive positive reinforcement of that behaviour.
Applying this to criminality, we can ignore all of the more complex arguments that
would have us believe that criminality is down to biology, genes, neurotransmitters or
such else – it’s simply a learned behaviour, imitated from role models. When a
person sees a role model performing a behaviour and then receives positive feedback
this is remembered. If that person has the chance to imitate this behaviour they will.
If they then get positive reinforcement for this imitation then the chance of them
repeating this behaviour is increased.
Social Learning Theory in Action
Although this theory does seem to account for many people becoming a criminal,
especially petty crime and nuisance offences, it doesn’t take into account those people
who become offenders without any apparent poor role models.
Evaluation
Strengths
Control: Bandura’s study is a Lab study
so there’s loads of control – we can infer
cause-and-effect.
Useful: we can use the findings and
ensure that people have positive role
models (like us teachers) not negative
ones.
It works: it seems to explain why people
would go ‘off the rails’ – peer pressure
and wanting social acceptance.
Weaknesses
Generalisations: only children used in the
Bandura study – can we generalise to
adolescents and adults?
Reductionist: only takes into account
learned behaviour – no other motivations
are looked at.
Does it work? Determinism: Not every
child who has a poor role model goes on
to imitate the poor behaviour.
Individual and Cultural Differences in Criminal Behaviour
With something as complex as criminality it is problematic coming up with a theory
of criminality which takes into account all individual differences. As a result we are
going to look at two studies here that attempt to look at criminality from an individual
basis. The two areas we will be looking at are personality and its affect on crime and
cultural differences.
Eysenck & Eysenck 1970 – Personality and Crime
Looking at personality as a variable that influences criminality seems a common
scence approach to researching individual differences. Eyseck developed a
psychometric test to measure an individuals introversion-extroversion and
neuroticism-stability.
Extroversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and
obtaining gratification from what is outside the self". Extraverts tend to enjoy human
interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative,
assertive, and gregarious. They take pleasure
in activities that involve large social
gatherings, such as parties, community
activities, public demonstrations, and business
or political groups. An extraverted person is
likely to enjoy time spent with people and find
less reward in time spent alone.
As a result extroverts are always looking for arousal in the environment around them.
This theory of personality can be applied to crime and Eysenck & Eysenck did this in
1970. They found that criminals had high scores on extroversion and neuroticism
scales. High scores on both of these dimensions are thought to increase the
probability of offending behavior and resistance to socialisation. Their high cores on
the extroversion scale means that they are under aroused, impulsive sensasation
seakers. High neuroticism scores are thought to be linked with moodiness, anxiety
and depression, which produces a resistance to social conditioning and an inability to
learn from mistakes.
Eysenck later added a third dimension to the scale – psychotocism. This assesses
traites such as aggression, sensation seeking and a lack of feeling for others
(empathy). It is believed that high scores on this trait determine the more violent,
bruital criminals.
Evaluation
Strengths
Psychometrics: the EPI is both reliable
(especially on the E score) and valid.
Applications: could use findings of E
and N scores to predict and prevent
people turning to crime.
Weaknesses
Deterministic: states that we have no
freewill over our actions.
Demand Characteristics: participants may
answer the EPI in a socially desirable
way.
Feldman 1993 – Disproportionate Arrest Rates Between Cultures
More black pupils are excluded from school and this leads to the assumption that
black people, particularly young black men, are
disproportionately involved in crime. This view
is often supported by media coverage of crime.
Official crime figures from 1999-2000 show that
the total number of ‘non-white’ arrests was 12%
of the total arrests. This figure is over four times
what would be expected by the relative
representation of cultures in the UK.
Feldman, in a meta-analysis of the data available suggests that the data is not as clearcut as it would first seem and that there are lots of factors that could influence this
distorted figure. The first finding was that white offenders tend to be perpetual
offenders – they continue to offend over-and-over again. The non-white offenders are
more likely to commit one offence, possibly causal offences. Therefore, even though
white offenders commit the majority of offences, the crime figures don’t reflect this,
as it’s the same people being arrested over again.
Consequently, it is problematic looking at the differences between cultures when
trying to explain criminality and doing so is both reductionist and deterministic.
There are many other variables which are much more influential such as education
and home life.
More recent studies around cultural differences in criminality are highlighting the
biases within the police system – how the police actually decide who is a suspect and
how this could be distorting the data.
Evaluation
Strengths
Methodology: meta-analysis tend to be
reliable as they are taking results from
several studies and researchers.
Weaknesses
Reductionism: saying that culture is the
only variable affecting criminality is
reductionist.
Deterministic: saying that non-whites are
more likely to be offenders because of
their culture.
Social Psychology of Criminality
Social Psychology of the Criminal takes the view that it’s environmental factors that
have the most profound effect on criminality. This subtopic is firmly in the ‘nurture’
camp: behaviour is learned or taught throughout life. There are many differing
arguments as to what factor is the most influential. Some possible factors could be
family (poor role models or no family so instutionalised), friends and peers, education
levels, opportunities given, social class etc.
Farrington 2002 – Longitudinal study of London boys
One of the most notable studies investigating the social psychology of the criminal
was a longitudinal (conducted over many years following the participants up at
regular intervals) study conducted by Farrington. The idea behind the study was to
investigate the idea that ‘problem families produce problem children’.
Farrington started his longitudinal
study in 1961 with 411 London
boys with the aim of seeing if
delinquent behaviour could be
predicted and to explain why it
happens in the first place. The
sample of children who were the
focus of the study was mostly
white, urban, working class boys from South London. The children were asked
questions on several different variables that could be related to the social psychology
of the criminal; also, parents and teachers were asked about the children.
The children were asked about:






Drinking and drug use
Living circumstances
Personal relationships
Fighting and offending behaviour
Employment
Illness and injuries
Parents and teachers were asked about the child’s personality, behaviour, family
income, size and academic performance. On top of this criminal records were
searched to provide more evidence about criminal behaviour.
There were many results, so here are a few to try and remember:




40% were convicted of a criminal offence before they were 40 (compared to
31% national average).
Offending increased until age 17 and then began to decrease, although the
earlier they started, the more persistent their career in crime was.
Reasons given for offending included hedonistic (for enjoyment) or utilitarian
(material gain).
The worst offenders were from large, multi-problem families.
From the findings of the study Farrington attempted to identify some factors that
increased the risk (at least in his participants) for offending behaviour. Here are some
of the risk factors that he identified.



Poor families, low standard housing,
physical neglect from parents.
Family members with convictions
(parents and siblings).
Harsh or erratic child-rearing styles.



Low intelligence and school
achievement.
Broken homes, or separation from
parents.
Below average height and weight.
This suggests that there are many
environmental factors that can predict
criminal, or delinquent, behaviour.
Children from poorer families are more
likely to offend because, due to poor
school attainment, they are less able to
achieve their goals legally. Impulsive
children cannot see the consequences of
their actions and desire immediate
gratification. Children from criminal
families develop anti-establishment
attitudes and a belief that it is justifiable
to offend. This research demonstrates that problem children grow into problem adults
who in turn produce problem children. It’s a vicious circle!
Evaluation
Strengths
Reductionism: lots of different variables
were taken into consideration so this
study is not reductionist.
Methodology: longitudinal studies are
good as they allow us to compare the
same children over a long time to see
how they develop.
Sample; large sample used (411)
Weaknesses
Difficult to infer cause and effect: can
only suggest what factors make you at
high risk of offending. Also, difficult to
separate nature from nurture – effect of
role models in families may be genetic,
rather than environmental.
Sample: mainly white males so
unrepresentative. Also, with longitudinal
studies there is the problem of attrition
(people dropping out).
Past Exam Question
Section A
a) Describe evidence that suggests there are individual and/or cultural differences in
explaining criminal behaviour. [6]
b) Evaluate methods use to investigate individual and/or cultural differences in
explaining criminal behaviour. [10]
Section B
a) Describe explanations of criminal behaviour. [10]
b) Evaluate explanations of criminal behaviour. [16]
c) Using your knowledge of explanations of criminal behaviour, suggest why criminal
behaviour seems to run in families. Give reasons for your answer. [8]