Lecture Material: Biological and Psychological Theories

Although we are not terribly behind, I decided to go ahead and post the remainder of my lecture notes on the biological and psychological theories, especially since I don't claim any real expertise in these fields. This will allow me to begin to talk about the main sociological theories tomorrow.

I left off by noting how in 1939 E.A. Hooten resurrected a theory of criminal behavior reminiscent of Lombroso in which he argued that criminals are basically "organically inferior." (And, indeed, Edwin Sutherland, the father of American criminology, developed his theory of Differential Association in part as a critical response to Hooten. As we'll see, Sutherland also pioneered the field of white collar crime, whereas Hooten and other biological theorists had studied only street criminals.)

6. By the 1950s, biological theories in criminology had pretty much been discredited. Sociological theories were coming into vogue. But biological theories did not die but were resurrected and have become more sophisticated due to our increasingly sophisticated understanding of human physiology and genetics.

a. For example, in the 1960s biological explanations got a short-lived boost from the "XYY super-male criminal theory" -- that an additional Y chromosome makes men more volatile and aggressive. But, among other problems, it was found that only a small proportion of XYY males commit crimes of any kind, and there is no evidence that the XYY syndrome is the specific cause of any criminal behavior. And, of course, what about female criminals?

7. Modern biological theories of crime and delinquency, often based on new advances in genetics, neurology, biochemistry, are considered more respectable, despite some methodological problems. They are more sophisticated than the early, simplistic BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM of people like Lombroso. These modern theorists do acknowledge the role of other social factors, and they largely relegate biological factors to the role of PROPENSITIES or PREDISPOSITIONS, which I would argue is the most that can be claimed for any biological theory.

a. In a commentary entitled, "Elementary, Dr. Watson. The Neurotransmiters Did It.", science correspondent for the New York Times, Natalie Angier, examined some recent biological theories. She quoted a neurobiologist at Harvard University, Evan S. Balaban, who noted that part of what is driving this interest in biological theories is people want a simple answer to crime -- "that perhaps a lot of criminals really are just born defective."

Then toward the end of this commentary, Ms. Angier notes that at best theories such as low serotonin levels in the brain being linked to violence and aggression may have identified a PREDISPOSITION to violent criminal behavior, but that social environmental factors such as easy access to guns, poor schools, few jobs, etc. must also be considered part of the equation. And that to intervene to prevent criminal violence will take more than just putting everyone on Prozac, if that were even feasible or acceptable.

8. Policy Implications of Biological Theories

a. Older, more deterministic theories would lead to more drastic measures. Criminals really could only be changed through some medical or surgical intervention, or through selective breeding (which Hooten actually suggested), or completely isolating these born criminals from society through incapacitation in prison or execution.

b. Contemporary biological theorists support such interventions as dietary therapy, genetic counseling, drug therapies, but they would also support changes in the social environment.

1. In this context, you would have to deal with the problem of "false positives" -- people who may have some of these biological characteristics but will not go on to commit crimes. Often talking about 50% or more (not just a few)-- the question being: would early (preventative) intervention with some drug therapy be justified if half of those receiving it really did not need it?


Psychological Theories: I want to address briefly TWO broad categories of such theories, recognizing that this is far from exhaustive or adequate.

1. One type of psychological theory that was more popular some years ago was the psychoanalytic theory based on the Freudian view of the psyche, consisting of the id, ego, and superego.

a. Without getting very specific, one could say that the psychoanalytic explanation relies heavily on irrational, unconscious motivations (emanating from the id) not being properly handled by other aspects of the psyche -- the ego and superego (repressed sexuality, guilt, or abnormal maturation or control of instincts).

b. It is difficult to assess the empirical validity of psychoanalytic theories because they rely on a careful examination of individual cases by a trained psychoanalyst, and however compelling they may seem, you cannot extrapolate to the larger population. Which is also to say, it is difficult to replicate or independently verify the psychoanalysts' diagnosis.

2. Then you have what could be called personality theories. Here you are dealing with more conscious, observable (measurable) aspects of personality. The basic proposition being that criminals have abnormal, inadequate or specifically criminal personalities or personality traits that set them apart from law-abiding people.

a. This would include traits such as aggressiveness, impulsiveness, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, etc. (although we should acknowledge that these traits do NOT necessarily manifest themselves in criminal behavior.)

b. Apparently, (according to Prof. Akers) research results on the causative effects of such personality traits on criminal and deviant behavior have been inconsistent.

c. You also run into the problem of TAUTOLOGY (that is, a circular argument or true by definition and so incapable of being disproven). For example, a psychopathic personality being measured in part by a prior history of criminal and deviant behavior would make the argument that such a personality leads to criminal behavior true by definition, which is a TAUTOLOGY.

3. Psychological counseling of various kinds is widely employed in delinquency prevention and treatment programs. Such counseling is also found in virtually every residential and non-residential facility for treating criminal offenders. But the effectiveness of these programs has not been demonstrated, which would suggest that perhaps the theory behind it is not very good.


I would like to conclude this obviously superficial treatment of biological and psychological theories with what I believe is a valid overall criticism:

I believe that neither theory by itself, or even in combination, can offer a completely adequate explanation for criminal and deviant behavior for the basic reason that: THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT BIOLOGICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL BEING. THE INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO A SOCIAL AND CULTURAL BEING. That is to say, the individual is really a system of relations which includes the biological, psychological, and especially the SOCIAL. So any explanation of any aspect of human behavior which ignores the social dimension of who we are is necessarily inadequate. Indeed, I believe most biological and psychological theorists would concede this point.

So, lets then turn our attention to the main sociological theories of criminal and deviant behavior.


That's all for now. I may address a few of the points brought out above in class tomorrow, but I also plan to move on quickly to the sociological theories. As I mentioned in the blog post on Friday, I will also have a write-up of your first out-of-class essay to hand out.