2 Developmental and Psychological Theories of OffendingDAVID P. FARRINGTON AND MARIA M. TTOFI

C H A P T E R O U T L I N E

K E Y T E R M S

prospective longitudinal surveys ! Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development ! developmental propensity theory ! adolescent-limited offending ! life-course-persistent offending ! interactional theory ! social control theory ! family bonding ! social learning theory ! lifestyle theory ! integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory! situational factors

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES 38

Lahey and Waldman: Developmental propensity theory 38

Moffi tt: Adolescence-limited versus life-course-persistent offending 39

Thornberry and Krohn: Interactional theory 40

Sampson and Laub: Age-graded informal social control theory 40

CASE STUDIES: THE CAMBRIDGE STUDY IN DELINQUENT DEVELOPMENT 41

PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES 43

Bowlby: Attachment theory 43

Eysenck: Personality theory 44

Patterson: Social learning theory 46

Walters: Lifestyle theory 47

THE ICAP THEORY 48

Long-term risk factors 48

Explaining the commission of crimes 50

CONCLUSIONS 50

SUMMARY 51

ESSAY/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 51

REFERENCES 51

ANNOTATED READING LIST 54

c02.indd 37c02.indd 37 09/11/11 2:24 PM09/11/11 2:24 PM

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY38

In this chapter, we will fi rst review four developmental theories of offending: the developmental pro-pensity theory of Lahey and Waldman (2005), the adolescence-limited/life-course-persistent theory of Moffi tt (1993), the inter-actional theory of Thornberry and Krohn (2005), and the age-graded informal social control theory of Sampson and Laub (2009). (For more details about these theo-ries, see Farrington, 2005a.) Then we will review four psychological theories: the attachment theory of Bowlby (1969), the personal-ity theory of Eysenck (1996), the social learning theory of Patterson (1982) and the lifestyle theory of Walters (2006). Finally, we will review the integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory (Farrington, 2005b).

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORIES

Developmental and life-course criminology (DLC) is concerned mainly with three topics: (a) the development of offending and antisocial behaviour from the womb to the tomb; (b) the infl u-ence of risk and protective fac-tors at different ages; and (c) the effects of life events on the course of development. Whereas tra-ditional criminological theories aimed to explain between-indi-vidual differences in offending, such as why lower-class boys com-mit more offences than upper-class boys, DLC theories aim to explain within-individual changes in offending over time (Farrington et al., 2002).

In conducting research on development, risk and protec-tive factors, life events and DLC theories, it is essential to carry out prospective longitudinal surveys. I

have directed the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, which is a prospective longitudinal sur-vey of over 400 London males from age 8 to age 48 (Farrington et al., 2006; Farrington, Coid et al., 2009). The main reason why developmental and life-course criminology became important during the 1990s was because of the enormous volume and sig-nifi cance of longitudinal research on offending that was published during this decade. Particularly infl uential were the three ‘causes and correlates’ studies originally mounted by the US Offi ce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Denver, Pittsburgh and Rochester (Huizinga et al., 2003; Loeber et al., 2003; Thorn-berry et al., 2003). Other important longitudinal projects that came to prominence in the 1990s were the Seattle Social Develop-ment Project (Hawkins et al., 2003), the Dunedin study in New Zealand (Moffi tt et al., 2001) the Montreal longitudinal-experimental study (Tremblay et al., 2003), and the further analyses by Laub and Sampson (2003) of the classic study by Glueck and Glueck (1950).

Lahey and Waldman: Developmental propensity theoryLahey and Waldman (2005) aimed to explain the devel-opment of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency, focusing particularly on childhood and adolescence. Their developmental propensity theory is infl uenced by data collected in the Developmental Trends Study (Loeber et al., 2000). Lahey and Waldman do not address adult life events or attempt to explain desistance in the adult years. They assume that it is desirable to distinguish different types of people, but they propose a continuum of developmental trajectories rather than only two cat-egories of adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent offenders, for example.

Their key construct is antisocial propensity, which tends to persist over time and has a wide variety of behavioural manifestations, refl ecting the versatility and comorbidity of antisocial behaviour. The most impor-tant factors that contribute to antisocial propensity are

developmental pro-pensity theory a theory that aims to explain the factors in development that lead certain individuals to develop an underlying propensity for conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency.

interactional theory a theory that focuses on the factors that encour-age antisocial behaviour at different ages and assume bidirectional effects (e.g. poor paren-tal supervision causes antisocial behaviour and antisocial behaviour causes poor parental supervision).

social control theory a theory proposing that people are inhibited from offending accord-ing to the strength of their bonding to society.

social learning theory suggests that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation, and rein-forcement. The theory has been described as a bridge between behaviourist and cogni-tive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and motivation.

prospective longitu-dinal surveys studies that follow a group of individuals (a cohort) over time, with repeated measures.

Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development A pro-spective longitudinal survey of 411 South London males fi rst studied at age 8 in 1961, with the aim of advanc-ing knowledge about conviction careers up to age 50 and life success up to age 48.

lifestyle theory seeks to redress the problems created by psychology’s dependence on theo-retical mini-models by offering an overarching conceptual framework that combines the insights of yesterday’s grand theories with the methodological rigour of today’s mini-models. It assumes that delin-quency is part of a char-acteristic life style.

integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory a theory primarily designed to explain offending by lower class males, and infl uenced by the results obtained in the Cambridge Study (see Chapter 2).

c02.indd 38c02.indd 38 09/11/11 2:24 PM09/11/11 2:24 PM

DEVELOPMENTAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF OFFENDING 39

low cognitive ability (especially verbal ability), and three dispositional dimensions: prosociality (including sym-pathy and empathy, as opposed to callous-unemotional traits); daring (uninhibited or poorly controlled); and negative emotionality (e.g. easily frustrated, bored, or annoyed). These four factors are said to have a genetic basis, and Lahey and Waldman discuss gene-environ-ment interactions.

In an important empirical test of this theory, Lahey et al. (2006) analysed data collected in the Pittsburgh Youth Study and found that prosociality (negatively), daring and negative emotionality at age 7 independently predicted self-reported delinquency between ages 11 and 17. Furthermore, these predictions held up after controlling for major demographic predictors of delin-quency such as family income, the mother’s education and ethnicity. In a later test, Lahey et al. (2008) developed the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale (CADS) to measure the three dimensions and showed that these predicted conduct disorder in three samples in Georgia, Chicago and Pittsburgh.

Moffi tt: Adolescence-limited versus life-course-persistent offending Moffi tt (1993) proposed that there are two qualitatively different categories of antisocial people (differing in kind

rather than in degree), namely life-course-persistent (LCP) and adolescence-limited (AL) offend-ers (adolescent-limited offending and life-course-persistent offend-ing). As indicated by these terms, the LCPs start offending at an early age and persist beyond their twen-ties, while the ALs have a short criminal career largely limited to their teenage years. The LCPs commit a wide range of offences including violence, whereas the ALs commit predominantly ‘rebel-lious’ non-violent offences such as

vandalism. This theory aims to explain fi ndings in the Dunedin longitudinal study (Moffi tt et al., 2001).

The main factors that encourage offending by the LCPs are cognitive defi cits, an undercontrolled temper-ament, hyperactivity, poor parenting, disrupted fami-lies, teenage parents, poverty and low socio-economic status (SES). Genetic and biological factors, such as a low heart rate, are important. There is not much dis-cussion of neighbourhood factors, but it is proposed that the neuropsychological risk of the LCPs interacts

multiplicatively with a disadvantaged environment. The theory does not propose that neuropsychologi-cal defi cits and a disadvantaged environment infl uence an underlying construct such as antisocial propensity; rather, it suggests that neuropsychological and environ-mental factors are the key constructs underlying antiso-cial behaviour.

The main factors that encourage offending by the ALs are the ‘maturity gap’ (their inability to achieve adult rewards such as material goods during their teen-age years) and peer infl uence (especially from the LCPs). Consequently, the ALs stop offending when they enter legitimate adult roles and can achieve their desires legally. The ALs can easily stop because they have few neuropsychological defi cits. The theory assumes that there can be labelling effects of ‘snares’ such as a crimi-nal record, incarceration, drug or alcohol addiction and (for girls) unwanted pregnancy, especially for the ALs. However, the observed continuity in offending over time is largely driven by the LCPs. The theory focuses mainly on the development of offenders and does not attempt to explain why offences are committed. However, it sug-gests that the presence of delinquent peers is an impor-tant situational infl uence on ALs, and that LCPs seek out opportunities and victims.

Decision-making in criminal opportunities is supposed to be rational for the ALs (who weigh likely costs against likely benefi ts) but not for the LCPs (who largely follow well-learned ‘automatic’ behavioural repertoires without thinking). However, the LCPs are mainly infl u enced by utilitarian motives, whereas the ALs are infl uenced by teenage boredom. Adult life events such as getting a job or getting married are hypothesised to be of little importance, because the LCPs are too committed to an antisocial lifestyle and the ALs desist naturally as they age into adult roles.

Possibly because it is arguably the earliest and most famous DLC theory, there has been more empiri-cal research on this theory than on any others. Moffi tt (2006) published a very impressive review of 10 years of research on her theory. While many of the predic-tions were confi rmed, she discussed the need for addi-tional categories of individuals: abstainers (who were overcontrolled, fearful, sexually timid and unpopular), low-level chronics (who were undercontrolled like the LCPs, with family adversity, parental psychopathology and low intelligence) and adult-onset offenders (whose existence was doubtful according to Moffi tt). She argued that the abstainers in adolescence did not become adult-onset offenders, but Zara and Farrington (2009) found that adult-onset offenders in the Cambridge study tended to be nervous and to have few friends at age 8–10, as well as still being sexual virgins at age 18.

adolescent-limited offending describes delinquent/antisocial behaviour that occurs during an individual’s teen years, but ceases when they become adults.

life-course-persistent offending) describes delinquent/antisocial behaviour that persists throughout an individu-als’ lifetime, often start-ing in childhood.

c02.indd 39c02.indd 39 09/11/11 2:24 PM09/11/11 2:24 PM

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY40

Thornberry and Krohn: Interactional theoryThe interactional theory of Thornberry and Krohn (2005) particularly focuses on factors encouraging anti-social behaviour at different ages. It is infl uenced by fi ndings in the Rochester Youth Development Study (Thornberry et al., 2003).Thornberry and Krohn do not propose types of offenders but suggest that the causes of antisocial behaviour vary for children who start at different ages. At the earliest ages (birth to 6), the three most important factors are neuropsychological defi cit and diffi cult temperament (e.g. impulsiveness, negative emotionality, fearlessness, poor emotion regulation), parenting defi cits (e.g. poor monitoring, low affective ties, inconsistent discipline, physical punishment) and structural adversity (e.g. poverty, unemployment, wel-fare dependency, a disorganised neighbourhood). They also suggest that structural adversity might cause poor parenting.

Neuropsychological defi cits are less important for children who start antisocial behaviour at older ages. At ages 6–12, neighbourhood and family factors are particu-larly salient, while at ages 12–18 school and peer factors dominate (Figure 2.1). Thornberry and Krohn also suggest that deviant opportunities, gangs and deviant social networks are important for onset at ages 12–18. They propose that late starters (ages 18–25) have cog-nitive defi cits such as low intelligence and poor school performance but that they have been protected from antisocial behaviour at earlier ages by a supportive fam-ily and school environment. At ages 18–25, they fi nd it hard to make a successful transition to adult roles such as employment and marriage.

The most distinctive feature of this interactional the-ory is its emphasis on reciprocal causation. For example, it is proposed that the child’s antisocial behaviour elicits coercive responses from parents and rejection by peers, and makes antisocial behaviour more likely in the future. The theory does not postulate a single key construct underlying offending but suggests that children who start early tend to continue because of the persistence of neuropsychological and parenting defi cits and structural adversity. Interestingly, Thornberry and Krohn predict that late starters (ages 18–25) will show more continu-ity over time than earlier starters (ages 12–18) because the late starters have more cognitive defi cits. In an ear-

lier exposition of the theory, Thornberry & Krohn (2001) pro-posed that desistance was caused by changing social infl uences (e.g. stronger family bonding), protective factors (e.g. high intel-ligence and school success) and

intervention programmes. Hence, they think that crimi-nal justice processing has an effect on future offending.

Thornberry (2005) has also extended this theory to explain the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behaviour. He suggested that the parent’s prosocial or antisocial bonding, structural adversity, stressors and ineffective parenting mediated the link between the parent’s antisocial behaviour and the child’s antisocial behaviour. Thornberry et al. (2009) tested these ideas in the Rochester Intergenerational Study and concluded that parental stress and ineffective parenting were the most important mediating factors.

Sampson and Laub: Age-graded informal social control theoryThe key construct in Sampson and Laub’s (2005) theory is age-graded informal social control, which means the strength of bonding to family, peers, schools and, later, adult social institutions such as marriages and jobs. Sampson and Laub primarily aimed to explain why people do not commit offences, on the assumption that why peo-ple want to offend is unproblematic (presumably caused by hedonistic desires) and that offending is inhibited by

family bonding activi-ties that keep parents and children in har-mony, ensuring they share the same goals and attitudes within the family.

FIGURE 2.1 At ages 6-12, neighbourhood and family factors are particularly salient, while at ages 12–18 school and peer factors dominate.

Source: Shutterstock/ Elena Rostunova ref: 33496333.AQ1

c02.indd 40c02.indd 40 09/11/11 2:24 PM09/11/11 2:24 PM