Freud’s theory was just that a theory, there were no experiments conducted to back it up.
As there is no physical evidence to back up Freud’s theory it cannot be proved but it can be applied to crime and to the traits of people in general. Freud’s theory cannot be disproved and many psychologists have based a lot of Freud’s work on their own to construct very similar theories. Therefore Freud’s work must have some substance to it.
Another personality theory was proposed by Eysenck (1977). Eysenck attempted to give some insight to why some people are more likely to disobey rules based on their personality.
Eysenck’s theory looks at the subtle differences in the central and autonomic nervous systems of individuals. He argued that personality is determined by inherited biological constitution. Eysenck stated that what is inherited are certain peculiarities of the brain and the nervous system that interrelates with certain environmental factors and therefore increases the possibility that a person may act in a particular antisocial way in some situations. Eysenck proposed that personalities can be measured by three individual dimensions. Extraversion – Introversion, Neuroticism – Stability and Psychoticism – Normality.
Extraverts are known to be thrill seekers who enjoy variety and change. They are impulsive, aggressive and unreliable. These characteristics make the extraverts more likely to be involved in criminal activity as they are constantly seeking excitement.
Introverts are reserved and cautious. They keep themselves to themselves and dislike change and noisy environments. They are reliable and non-aggressive. The characteristics of an Introvert make them much less likely to commit a crime as they do not take risks in the search for excitement.
The neurotic – stableness is related to moodiness versus even-temperedness. Neuroticism refers to an individual’s tendency to become upset or emotional, while stability refers to the tendency to remain emotionally constant.
The third dimension of Eysenck’s theory is known as pyschoticism. This grouping of people seems to encompass what is commonly termed 'social misfit'. These people are often found to be cruel, insensitive, manipulative, and have no care for other people's feelings or existence.
The Extraversion – Introversion and the Neuroticism – Stability are independent personality dimensions. It is therefore possible for a person to have a different combination such as Neurotic and Extravert, Neurotic and Introvert, Stable and Extravert and Stable and Introvert.
The person most likely to commit crime would be the Neurotic - Extravert. This is due to the neurotic side of the personality being emotional and they are more highly motivated to reduce tension by action. The Extravert side of the personality is more likely to take risks to boost their otherwise sluggish system.
Eysenck’s theory recognizes the importance of the effects that both biology and environment have in shaping all behavior including criminal. Zuckerman et al (1988) found that thrill seeking could be a reaction to an excitable Central Nervous System as opposed to Extravert personality, the findings by Zuckerman et al considered other biological factors as to why people seek excitement. Eysenck considered that the environment may affect the behavior of a person, but his experiments were mainly based on biology, this could be seen as being slightly biased as his results could be manipulated to suit his theory.
Bowlby (1969, 1988) hypothesized that both infants and mothers have evolved a biological need to stay in contact with each other. Bowlby believed a child has an innate need to attach to their biological mother. He believed that this attachment is different from any other attachments. He called this bond monotropy.
Bowlby further argued that the long term consequences of maternal deprivation could cause delinquency, reduced intelligence, increased aggression, depression and affectionless psychopathy. But to prevent this, a child should receive the continuous care of this single most important attachment figure for approximately the first two years of life. This period is otherwise known as the critical period.
Bowlby claimed that mothering is almost useless if delayed until after two and a half to three years and, for most children, if delayed till after twelve months. To support his hypothesis, Bowlby studied forty four adolescent juvenile delinquents in a child guidance clinic. His aim was to see if those who had experienced maternal deprivation went on to commit crime.
Bowlby then selected another group of forty four children to act as controls. The control group, were individuals referred to clinic because of emotional problems, but who had not yet committed any crimes. He asked the children from both groups to state whether they had suffered maternal deprivation and for how long.
Bowlby found that more than half of the juvenile thieves had been separated from their mothers for longer than six months during their first five years. In the control group only two had had such a separation. He also found several of the young thieves showed affectionless psychopathy. None of the control group showed signs of being affectionless psychopaths.
Although Bowlby’s theory is one that can be applied generally, some areas of it produce doubt. His experiment did not take into consideration those who had been adopted at birth or those conceived through surrogacy. A lot of children are placed into day care during the working week and these children have grown to live crime free lives. When Bowlby constructed his study, the end of the war was nearing. The government had paid Bowlby to construct this study. It could be argued that this experiment was bias. The government wanted the women back in the homes looking after the families and giving the men their jobs back.
Kohlberg (1964) believed that people commit crime due to dysfunctional thinking. This theory was constructed when Kohlberg related morality with crime and suggested that these people have a delay in their moral development, thinking and reasoning.
Kohlberg tested his theory by constructing a questionnaire that contained ten moral dilemmas that society deemed unacceptable. Each dilemma had two options of action. This was to determine whether there were any consistent patterns of moral behavior. Kohlberg found evidence to suggest there were six qualitatively different stages of moral development and three levels of moral reasoning.
Level one of the six stages consists of two parts and is known as the pre-conventional morality level. Stage one is punishment and disobedience orientation. This stage is when a child has no moral standards but has a desire to avoid punishment. Stage two is instrumental relativist and naïve hedonistic orientation. This stage is when the child has no consideration for other people but only a desire to maximize the rewards for themselves.
Level two is known as the Conventional morality stage. This level consists of stages three and four. Stage three is good boy, nice girl orientation. This stage is where the child’s main desire is to win approval from others. Stage four is law and order orientation. In this stage the person will be motivated by doing what is right within’ the law and to carry out their duty.
Level three is known as Post convention morality. In this level are stages five and six. Stage five is the social contract legalistic orientation. This stage is when the person wants to do the greatest of good for the greatest number of people. Stage six is universal principles of convenience. With this stage the person would have decided to choose ethical standards based on equality and respect for others, and the person will practice those ethical standards.
Kohlberg further linked his theory to crime by explaining that it is possible for a person to become fixated within a stage.
If a person never moves on from stage two then they will always put their own needs first irrespective of what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This could then lead to crimes being committed to satisfy the needs of that person.
If a person was to become fixated in stage three then they would do all they could to make others approve of them. Fixation in this stage could be a valuable explanation for gang related crimes. As each member is acting in a particular way to win approval from their peers and the ‘gang leader’.
Kohlberg’s theory contributes greatly to our understanding of criminal behavior and the ways that people develop into criminals through dysfunctional thinking. However Kohlberg does not appear to consider that moral reasoning and moral thinking are different to moral behavior. Many people think about doing one thing but consequently do the opposite. Also Kohlberg’s questionnaire that contained ten moral dilemmas did not consider that people may believe they will act in a certain way if they were put in a situation, but when they are put in the situation they may act altogether differently to how they believed they would.
All of the theories mentioned in this essay can contribute to our understanding of criminality. Although they may have some faults and some may have more evidence to back up their theories, they are all as equally insightful and broaden the way society looks at criminal behavior.