The Major Contributions of Psychological Theories to Our Understanding of the Causes of Crime.
The Development of Criminological Theory
The Major Contributions of Psychological Theories to Our Understanding of the Causes
of Crime.
In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century criminological thought was centred around the work of the classical school and the work of Beccaria and Bentham. Their work mainly focused on the idea of crime being the result of free will and the effectiveness of punishment in reducing crime. In the late nineteenth century the positivist school was founded by Lombroso, and criminology was established as a new science. Lombroso believed that you could distinguish a criminal by their physical features. His work led to the emergence of psychological theories. (Garland, 1997).
The first significant psychological theory that helps us understand the causes of crime is Freud's psychoanalytic model. Freud (1856-1939) states that the human personality has three sets of interacting forces: the id, the superego and the ego. (Hopkins Burke, 2001). The id contains the basic biological urges. The superego or the conscience is the part of our personality which produces feelings of guilt to punish us when we have done something wrong. (Gross, 1987). And the ego controls the individual by making decisions. (Lilly, Cullen and Ball, 1989). Freud's model was criticised as it was untestable. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000).
Both Freud and Aichorn (1936) believed that the cause of crime and delinquency was due to the underdevelopment or disturbed development of the superego. This occurred as a result of unloving or cruel parents, or from the absence of parents in childhood. (Akers, 1997). Other sociologists such as Glover (1949) believed that crime was a result of an overdeveloped super-ego. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000:352).
Hewitt and Jenkins (1946) studied 500 juveniles and found that they could be divided into three groups. Firstly there was those who had an underdeveloped super-ego, this group were the most likely to take part in criminal activities; they tended to be aggressive and unsociable. Secondly there was those who had an overdeveloped super-ego, they tended to be shy and reserved, and were not likely to be involved in criminal activities. And Finally the third group had a double super-ego. Those in this group had not been successfully socialized to conform to the morals that society holds, however they had been socialized to conform to the morals of a delinquent gang. Therefore they believed criminal behaviour to be morally acceptable and were very likely to be involved in criminal activities. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000).
Another important psychological theory is John Bowlby's maternal deprivation. He explained crime in terms of a child's early socialisation. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). In 1944 he studied 44 juvenile thieves who had been referred to a child guidance clinic. He compared these juvenile thieves with a control group of children who had also been referred to the clinic, but had not been reported for theft. (Coleman and Norris, 2000). The results of the study showed that 17 children in the 'thieving' group had been separated from their mothers for a period of 6 months or more in the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another important psychological theory is John Bowlby's maternal deprivation. He explained crime in terms of a child's early socialisation. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). In 1944 he studied 44 juvenile thieves who had been referred to a child guidance clinic. He compared these juvenile thieves with a control group of children who had also been referred to the clinic, but had not been reported for theft. (Coleman and Norris, 2000). The results of the study showed that 17 children in the 'thieving' group had been separated from their mothers for a period of 6 months or more in the first five years of their lives, compared to just 2 from the control group. (Hopkins Burke, 2001). From these findings Bowlby stated that an affectionate and constant relationship with a mother or a permanent mother replacement was vital for mental health, and that a separation of this kind was responsible for many of the serious cases of delinquency. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
However Bowlby's theory came under fire when a larger study carried out by Bowlby et al (1956) failed to find evidence to prove the theory. It was criticised for having unrepresentative samples, a poorly matched comparison group and observer bias. (Coleman and Norris, 2000). Wooten (1959) and Morgan (1975) had similar criticisms and questioned the effects of separation on methodological and conceptual grounds. (Blackburn, 1993). Morgan (1975) discovered that the control group were not checked appropriately for 'the presence of criminal elements.' (Hopkins Burke, 2001:80). A study by Rutter (1981) proposed that the stability of the relationship between the child and mother is more important than the absence of the mother. We can conclude from the majority of studies that the absence of a mother figure for a child is not significant in envisaging criminal behaviour. (Hopkins Burke, 2001).
Psychological learning theories have had a significant influence on the explanations of crime. (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). In 1939 Sutherland developed a theory of criminal behaviour called differential association that suggested like many other actions, crime is a product of learning. (Hopkins Burke, 2001). The differential association theory alleged that criminal behaviour is learnt from interacting with other people. Attitudes, values and beliefs are adopted, as well as the methods of how to actually commit crimes. (Coleman and Norris, 2000). Bandura (1977) supported this notion with his social learning theory and his Bobo doll study. Sutherland argued that criminal behaviour will take place when individuals have obtained sufficient sentiments in favour of law violation to outweigh their non criminal tendencies. (Gibbons, 1979).
Sutherland claimed that he had 'formulated a general explanation that could be applied to very divergent types of illegal activity.' (Lilly, Cullen and Ball, 1989:58). He supported his claim by studying 'slum youths' and white collar crime, which both showed that differential association was a critical factor on determining criminal behaviour. (Lilly, Cullen and Ball, 1989). However Coleman and Norris (2000) found that many criminologists and sociologists have criticised the theory on the grounds that it is 'vague and untestable' and 'therefore not a scientific theory.' Hopkins Burke (2001) stated that the theory ignores personality traits and is unable to explain 'spontaneous crimes of passion'.
Hans Eysenck's (1977) theory focused on crime and personality. He argued that there is a connection between genetically based personality traits and criminal behaviour. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000). This idea can be illustrated by 3 scales; introversion-extroversion, neuroticism -stability and psychoticism. Extroverts tend to be active, sociable, lively and crave excitement, whereas introverts tend to be careful, reliable and passive. (Coleman and Norris, 2000). Extroverts have a much lower level of arousal compared to introverts and are much less susceptible to pain. (Blackburn, 1993). Neurotic personalities tend to be depressive, moody and have low levels of self esteem, whereas those at the other end of this scale are emotionally stable. (Carver and Scheier, 2000). Most people lie in between the two extremes of introversion-extroversion and neuroticism-stability. A person who is high on the psychotic scale would show characteristics such as aggression, cruelty and insensitivity. (Coleman and Norris, 2000).
Eysenck and Gudjonsson (1989) discovered that 'those with low arousability are less likely to learn prosocial behaviour and more likely to learn criminal and deviant behavioural patterns.' Therefore they concluded that the criminal is a neurotic extrovert. (Akers, 1997:46).
Kohlberg's (1987) theory proposed three levels of moral reasoning, each level consisting of two stages. Each level symbolizes three forms of relationships between a person and the rules of society. Progression through the stages is reliant on suitable levels of cognitive development and social perception, which 'are necessary, though not sufficient prerequisites for a shift in reasoning'. (Blackburn, 1993:126). Kohlberg viewed criminal behaviour as part of a malfunction in moral development, and so criminals tend to move more slowly up the scale and tend not to reach the higher stages. (Blackburn, 1993).
Many psychologists found the theory to have problems on ideological and empirical grounds. The theory was criticised by Bandura (1986), he viewed that the 'level of moral reasoning varies across domains of content, and that people are selective in their use of the moral principles they understand'. (Blackburn, 1993:130). Thornton (1987) found that although people who attain higher moral stages are less likely to take part in criminal behaviour, explanations for illegal conduct can be found at all stages in the theory. However considerable support for the validity of the theory has been gathered. For instance, Blackburn (1993) found that on average delinquents show developmental delay in the form of lower maturity levels more than non-delinquents. (Blackburn, 1993).
In conclusion we can see that the first significant psychological theory of crime was Freud's psychoanalysis theory, since then many other researchers have discovered important theories such as Bowlby's maternal deprivation, Eysenck's crime and personality, Sutherland's differential association and Kohlberg's moral reasoning. These theories are all relevant to our understanding of the causes of crime.
General criticisms of these psychological theories are: They fail to take into account social and cultural factors when explaining crime. Many of the studies have questionable methodological issues, such as how can we measure personality traits and what constitutes as mental health? And numerous sociologists are dubious about studies regarding childhood experiences as most neglect influential social factors. (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000).
Bibliography
Akers, R. L. (1997) Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (2nd Edition) California: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Blackburn, R. (1993) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
Carver, C & Scheier, M. (2000) Perspectives on Personality. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Coleman, C. & Norris, C. (2000) Introducing Criminology. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Garland, D. (1997) 'Of Crimes and Criminals: The Development of Criminology in Britain' in Maguire, M. Morgan, R. & Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibbons, D. C. (1997) The Criminological Enterprise. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gottfredson, M. R. & Hirschi, T. (1990) A General Theory of Crime. California: Stanford University Press.
Gross, R. D. (1987) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Edward Arnold.
Haralambos, M. Holborn, M. & Heald, R. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (5th Edition) . London: Collins.
Hopkins Burke, R. (2001) An Introduction to Criminological Theory. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Lilly, J. R. Cullen, F. T. & Ball, R. A. (1989) Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. London: Sage.
MARK: 60%
Claire Barker - 1 -
Social Policy & Criminology
