Dysfunctional and Functional impulsivity
Eysneck (1994) suggests that the use of the word impulsivity should be confined to dysfunctional impulsivity and functional impulsivity should be thought of as spontaneity. Dysfunctional impulsivity is associated disorderliness; procrastination, low self esteem and a disregard for hard facts (Dickman, 1990), whereas functional impulsivity is associated with adventure and enthusiasm (Dickman, 1990). Basically functional impulsive results in behaviours that are beneficial to the individual and dysfunctional impulses result in behaviour that is not beneficial to the individual. Further evidence suggests that functional and dysfunctional impulsive people perform differently on cognitive tasks. Whereas functional impulsivity is associated with speed of information processing (Dickman. l990), dysfunctional impulsives do not process information particularly rapidly and may be differentially susceptible to interference on some cognitive tasks (Dickman, 1990; Brunas-Wagstaff, Bergquist & Wagstaff, 1994). Dysfunctional and functional impulsivity are obviously two quite different constructs, for a study to analyse impulsivity as a factor in criminal behaviour one would think it would be quite prevalent to include this information.
Impulsivity and criminal behavior
Impulsivity as defined above is quite a complex construct or combination of constructs. So when using impulsivity to explain criminal behaviour the type of impulsivity being tested must be clearly defined. It seems quite fitting that a criminal impulsive may be driven by dysfunctional impulses and that a non-criminal mind may be driven by functional impulses. Though crimes and the mental state required to commit them are as broad in (if not broader) definition than impulsivity.
Criminal behaviour
Law in our society is defined by social and legal institutions, not in biology (Morley & Hall, 2003).
The above quote is an important point to be aware of when discussing the psychology behind crime. I.e. the law is instated by people and all people may not agree with certain aspects of the law, pending on circumstance and situation. Four broad definitions of criminal behaviour come from Andrews and Bonta (1998); they are legal criminal behaviour, moral criminal behaviour, social criminal behaviour and psychological criminal behaviour. Though in their own right each is an important area, this review will concentrate on illegal criminal behaviour in particular violence. To begin with, the ability to predict adult crime through childhood impulsivity will be reviewed. The relationship between violent crimes and impulsivity and the differences between genders will then be reviewed. Finally neighbourhood impulsivity will be reviewed followed by a conclusion
Childhood Impulsivity as a predictor of crime
The aim of all criminal research is to study crime in order to ascertain information which may help capture future criminals or prevent further crimes. Impulsivity/ c studies are no different though generally they focus on adult impulsivity levels and their affinity to crime. Instead of directly attributing adult impulsivity to crime Babinski et al (1999) attempted to relate childhood impulsivity to adult criminal activity. To be more specific the study used early childhood problems as a predictor of adult criminal activity. They followed 75 females and 230 males from an average age of 9years to an average age of 26years they found that impulsivity among other childhood problems predicted a greater likelihood of having an arrest record in males, though not in females. They also found that in male subjects with 10 or more self reported crimes impulsivity was a significant predictor.
Although a seemingly good study with significant results, it has a few discrepancies. To begin with the methodology, although not extensively flawed, a factor to consider is that to an extent the experimenters’ may be measuring impulsivity twice, specifically the area of the study where they find that multiple repeat offenders are significantly predicted by their impulsivity. The more impulsive people may have answered the self-report questionnaires on impulse with less or a “lack of ” (A factor in Lynam & Whiteside’s, 2001. 4 factor model of impulsivity) in comparison with their less impulsive compatriots. Their less impulsive compatriots may have been less willing to openly admit to their crimes. If impulsive people are more likely to disclose this information then the some of results attained would obviously be contaminated. The study should also attempt to identify the type of impulsivity they are testing; it may be that they are testing both dysfunctional impulsivity and functional impulsivity and that testing one or the other would yield a more conclusive result.
Types of criminal behaviour
Though the study above has indicated that childhood impulsivity is a predictor criminal activity in the future it does not differentiate between the types of criminal behaviour or the behaviours circumstance, surely to relate impulsivity to crime, circumstance has to be incorporated also.
Violence and impulsivity.
A study conducted by apter plutchik and and van pragg 1993. Found that in an inpatient psychiatric ward, impulsive patients are more likely to engage in violence with other patients and staff. An alternative study found that they also direct violence at themselves; Apter et al 1993; This study although not directly criminally linked focuses on a criminal activity which is deemed by the law as illegal (assault). Violence itself in this case can be seen as an impulsive crime, in the study patients are assessed when engaging in violence and the violence is generally spontaneous. So although violence is linked with impulsivity, would impulsivity correlate with more premeditated violence?
With this in mind Cherek et al (2002) conducted a study into impulsivity levels and their relationship to violent and non-violent crimes. They found that when violent participants were faced with an impulsive and a non impulsive option, they chose the former more often than the latter in contrast with the non violent participants. This study promotes the idea that impulsivity is a key factor of violent crimes and maybe not as key t o non-violent crimes. Though it is possible to determine between premeditated violence and spontaneous violence, there are quite few studies that incorporate premeditated violence.
Crime Gender differences and impulsivity:
A majority of journals and studies into crime and criminal behaviour are studies of males. Quite a few studies do not include females; this is obviously quite strange as it is well known that females can also be criminals. In studies outside criminality such an oversight would be met with great indignation. The few studies that do incorporate females, either by themselves or in comparison to males does reveal some interesting results. In particular a study by Booker et al (2007) found that impulsivity was associated with personality psychopathology and aggressive and antisocial behaviour. Participants did not demonstrate higher levels of impulsivity than non-violent offenders. This is an interesting finding as it contradicts Cherek et al (2002) study cited earlier in this text which found that violent participants demonstrated a significant amount of impulsivity in comparison to their non-violent counterparts. However it does not mean that impulsivity does not have a key part to play as a factor in criminal behaviour or violence, the findings of this study could shine a light on the glaring differences between the male and female psyche. The problem with the comparison of both studies is that both have differing methodologies, Booker et al use a Structured Clinical Interview with questionnaire, whereas Cherek et al use a practical real life test. It is hard to choose the most valid test of impulsivity and both are easily emulated. However before it is possible to conclusively state that female violence is less impulsively reliant than male violence, it is necessary to use one or both of the impulsivity tests on both male and female populations. It is further necessary to form a common understanding of what type of impulsivity is being tested.
A lot of the more recent studies (post 200) incorporate females.
Group impulsivity
Most of the studies reviewed in this text concentrate on impulsivity and its relationship to crime (especially violence) on a personal level. However in a study by Vazsonyi (2006) whole neighbourhoods levels of impulsivity are taken into account. They found that levels of deviance and impulsivity vary by neighbourhood disadvantage but the relationship between impulsivity and deviance does not differ. This shows that impulsivity has ground as factor of other crimes also. This could mean that crime may be affected by differing impulsive climates. This study for me is inconclusive, to analyse this further an experimenter should analyse the differing types of crimes that occur in the differing neighbourhoods. If the relationship between violence and impulsivity is as significant as the studies in this review show, then surely the higher the neighbourhood impulsivity the higher the rate of violence will be.
Conclusion
The major problem with a majority of the more modern studies is their eagerness to use varying techniques to test impulsivity. With the differing types of impulsivity (dysfunctional and functional) it is necessary to find a test or testing mechanism that takes in to account both types of impulsivity and the other key factors of impulsivity on a common ground. The aim of most of these studies is to shed light on an area so that it may be used to capture future criminals or understand their motives. Not all criminals are caught not all crimes are solved. Maybe there are differences between the criminals that get away and their counterparts that do. Could a criminal who “gets away” with a certain crime be described as functionally impulsive and a criminal who get caught be described as functionally impulsive, for although they committed a crime they may have foreseen their ability to beat the law.
Reference:
Andrew, D., & Bonta, J. (1998). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. San Francisco Matthew Bender & Co. 5, 311.
Apter, A., Plutchik, R., & van Pragg, H. (1993). Anxiety, impulsiviy and depressed mood in relation to suicide and violent behaviour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia [Electronic source], 87, 1-5.
Babinski, L., Hartsough, S and Lambert, M. (1999). Childhood Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity-impulsivity and Inattention as predictors of adult criminal activity. The journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry and allied disciplines.[Electronic source] 40 : 347-355
Booker, A., Komarovskaya, I. and Warren, J. (2007) The role of impulsivity in antisocial and violent behaviour and personality disorders among incarcerated women. Criminal Justice and Behaviour [Electronic Source], 34, 11, 1499-1515
Brunas-Wagstaff, J., Bergquist, A. and Wagstaff, G. (1994) Cognitive correlates of functional and dysfunctional impulsivity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 289-292.
Cherek, D., Doughrty, D., Moeller, F. And Rhoades, H. (2003). Studies of violent and nonviolent male parolees: II. Laboratory and psychometric measurements of impulsivity . Biological Psychiatry [Electronic Version]. 41, 5, 523-529
Corsini, R. (1999). The dictionary of psychology. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis Group. 32, 476
Dickman, S. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity: Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of personaility and social psychology, 58, 95-102
Evenden, J. (1999) Psychopharmacology. . [Electronic Source] 146, 4
Feldman, R. (1996). The psychology of Adversity. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 12, 372-399
Harrington Cleveland, H., Wiebe, R., Vazsonyi, A. (2006) Does the Effect of Impulsivity on Delinquency Vary by Level of Neighborhood Disadvantage? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 4, 511-541
Lynam, D., and Whiteside, S. (2001). The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity [Electronic source]. Personal and individual differences. 30: 669-89