The importance of developmental experiences in the onset of criminal behaviour

 👮It has long been debated why some individuals develop criminal behaviour. Researchers investigate various factors that would help to prevent future crimes. Most researchers agree that developmental experiences are crucial for future well-being. In other words, what we experience during childhood can influence what person we will become later. Developmental perspective has become one of influential theories in explaining criminal behaviour. Theories suggest that criminal behaviour is influenced by early experiences. The following essay will explore the role of developmental experiences in the onset of criminal behaviour.

Epistemological belief is that we, humans are born with no inbuilt knowledge and all is delivered by experiences or senses, allude to blank state or tabula rasa. Newborns are dependent on parents providing care. Parents also provide shelter from stress and regulate behaviour (Hofer, 2006). If parents do not protect children from stressors or fail to regulate them, children become vulnerable and often suffer from problematic consequences. Studies show that there is a correlation between the child’s upbringing environment and future behaviour.

Learning theories suggest that the behaviour is caused by the environment. The Social Ecological Model by Bronfenbrenner (1979) identifies five environmental systems that influence psychological development. The closest to the child within the microsystem are the closest family members, including parents or caregivers. Next is the mesosystem that includes peers, school. At the exosystem, a child can be influenced by a parent’s work despite not being directly involved. This model suggests that many factors, such as community and family, have an influence on a child.

Firstly it is important to define criminal behaviour. Andrew and Bonta (1998) suggest that criminal behaviour is an act prohibited by law and punished by the state, violation of norms of society and an act causing stress to a victim. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (1950) were the first to investigate the development of criminal behaviour.

There are many reasons to commit a crime. A criminal behaviour such as stealing can produce money, killing a disappearance of enemy (Sutherland, 1939). Criminal behaviour is the composite of antisocial behaviour and aggression and inability to conform to social rules (Israel & Ebstein, 2010).

According to Freud (1930) aggression is a basic drive that must be expressed. He believed that aggression is a result of initial instinct that he called Thanatos. Freud suggested that individuals experience ongoing conflict between Thanatos, an innate drive for aggression and decomposition aimed against the self, and Eros, the drive for life and love.

Studies found that exposure to television and movie violence increases aggression and violence (Black & Bevan ,1992; Huesmann et al., 2003). Exposure to violent video games increases aggressive behaviour, reduces prosocial behaviour and empathy (Anderson et al, 2010). However, the belief that violent video games or exposure to television violence promotes aggression was criticised for lacking ecological validity. Ferguson (2011) suggested that such findings failed to control other factors such as family relationships.

There are several theories that explore the factors why individuals commit crimes

The principles of operant conditioning are often used to explain criminal behaviour (Brain, 2002). The main idea of operant conditioning is that behaviour that has positive consequences is likely to happen again. Behaviour can be either reinforced or punished. Although punishment decreases the behaviour, it is less effective than reinforcement. Jeffrey (1965) proposed that if the criminal experiences no negative consequences, then criminal behaviour will be repeatedly enhanced.

Social learning theory suggests that individuals involve in crime activity because they associate with other who engage in criminal activity. Social learning theory combines four divisions that include differential association, differential reinforcement, imitation and definitions (Akers and Sellers, 2004).

Differential association theory (Sutherland, 1939) suggests that criminal behaviour is learnt by associations. Differential association explains deviant behaviour as direct and indirect associations with others. According Akers and Sellers (2004), behaviour is influenced by childhood associations with others and family relationships. Differential Reinforcement theory suggests that individuals are born with a blank state and must be properly socialized through classical and operant conditioning (Schramm & Tibbetts,    ).Definitions include individual values and beliefs of acceptable behaviour and norms (Akers & Sellers, 2004). Imitations include involving in behaviour that was witnessed. In other words individuals witnessing the behaviour of others can influence participation in conforming or non -conforming behaviour (Donnerstein and Linz, 1995).

Sutherland (1939) proposed that becoming criminal and individual needs to discover values and attitudes of criminal behaviour. Individuals learn from the closest family members and peers about their attitude towards the crime and law. In other words a child learns from parents if that is acceptable to obey the law. For example, parents might teach children that stealing is wrong, but if parents contradict it by behaviour such as, not returning wallet they found, set up an example for children. That means that caregivers play an important role in introducing values and attitudes in child’s future behaviour. Research supports the notion that children are more likely to become criminals if their parents are criminals. Probability of having criminal record for male is 67 % if both parents are criminals and 43% for females (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011).

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that childhood experiences are important. Bandura emphasizes observational learning from the environment. According to bandura individuals learn from others. In other words a child can learn to become a criminal by observing others. Bandura (1963) demonstrated children’s obtaining aggressive behaviour from imitating adults in “Bobo doll” experiment.

Labelling theory is a well- known social theory of criminal behaviour, suggests that individuals often demonstrate behaviour that lives up to expectations. Individuals from lower social background or even ethnic background are often labelled by society as criminals. It was found that most of prison inmates are from the lower class indicating class-crime connection (Siegel, 2013).

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) proposed a theory of low self-control that suggests that absence of self -control predicts criminal behaviour. They suggest that individuals are born being self-centered, selfish and lacking self-control. Low self-control that can be identified before age 10, predicts criminal offending. Level of self-control is influenced by child developmental experiences. Bad childhood experiences such as emotional abuse, neglect or inconsistent discipline can form low self-control (Tibbetts, 2012. p.612).

Researchers agree that deficient self-control is the most influential factor in understanding criminal behaviour (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Individuals commit crimes because they cannot control their antisocial impulses.

Although Douglas (1996) did not agree that criminals are driven by impulses. He investigated many crimes by different criminals and noticed that no such crime was ever committed in the presence of police officers.

It is important to notice that some notorious serial killers had families, were married for decades and even had children. Gary Ridgway, the American serial killer convicted of 48 murders, was married for 13 years, and his wife was unaware of her husband’s criminal acts. A Canadian convicted murderer and rapist Russell Williams was married for 19 years.

Such findings indicate that even serial killers can control their behaviour at some level. Ted Bundy and Russell Williams had good jobs and were well respected in the community. That contradicts the notion that criminals cannot resist impulses . However, there might be other factors involved.

Social learning theory and social control models were incorporated in Thornberry’s Interactional Model of Offending (1987). The model uses five constructs including attachment, school, belief in conventional values, associations with criminal friends and criminal values.

Sampson and Laub proposed a developmental model of offending that was mostly based on data collected in 1940 by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. They found that early antisocial behaviour, social structure and delinquent friends or family increased the likelihood of developing criminal behaviour.

Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy (1993) characterized two types of offenders. The first group, adolescence-limited offenders, are those who committed offenses when they were teenagers and was mostly provoked by association with peers. Another group is life-course persistent offenders, which include individuals involved in violent crimes and murder.

Psychodynamic theories propose that the behaviour is caused by unconscious conflicts and drives. Freudian theorists argue that criminal behaviour originate from unsolved childhood fixations or conflicts. According to Bowly (1953) criminal behaviour is an outcome of failed relationship between mother and child.

Biological theories propose that criminal behaviour is determined by genetic factors. Previous studies indicate the importance of genetics in the explanation of criminal behaviour (Millar, 1999; Tiihonen et al, 2015).

The amygdala is a part of the brain that is involved in aggression and fear. A neuroimaging study by Pardin et al. (2013) suggests that amygdala functioning in males is correlated with increased risk in future aggressive and violent behaviour and early psychopathic traits.

Amygdala dysfunction is associated with poor fear conditioning. Study by Gao et al (2009) conducted a study of a large cohort of 1,795 children to investigate if poor fear conditioning in childhood predicts committing a crime in the future. Electrodermal (EDA) fear conditioning was evaluated in children at age 3 and then they were evaluated at age 23 on their registration for criminal offending. They found that those children with lower electrodermal fear conditioning at age 3 committed crimes at age 23. In other words they showed no fear compared to other noncriminal participants. That suggests that poor fear conditioning involved by deficits in the amygdala at age 3 increases the risk of committing a crime at age 23.

The first years of life are crucial for the development of the amygdala that can be affected by early adversity (Chareyron et al., 2012). Outcome of poor amygdala development includes emotional disturbance, anxiety and aggression (Gao et al, 2009; Tottenham et al., 2009).

A recent study (Aharoni et al, 2012) found that inmates with lower anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activity were twice as likely to reoffend after they left prison compared to offenders with high activity in this region.

For years researchers speculated whether level of testosterone is linked to violence (Boyd, 2000). A recent study led by Justin Carre in 2014 investigated the effects of testosterone on the brain’s threat response in males. They found that increasing levels of testosterone can have an extensive effect on brain circuits that are involved in human aggression. However, the study contained 16 male participants, a relatively small sample size. Although these findings are interesting still remain suggestive, and further research is needed.

A well-known prison study in 1960 investigated the relationship between blood testosterone levels and aggression. They found that prisoners who were violent during adolescence had higher testosterone levels compared to those who had no record of violence during adolescence (Kreuz & Rose, 1972).

Another prison study in 1990 with a large sample of over 4000 inmates found that high levels of testosterone were positively correlated with promiscuity, misbehaviour and substance abuse (Dabbs & Morris, 1990).

A relationship between high levels of testosterone and violence was also found in female inmates (Dabbs et al, 1988). That debunks the view that testosterone is considered a male hormone.

Neuroscience suggests that antisocial behaviour can occur after brain damage. Phineas Gage suffered brain damage (1848) to the frontal lobe. Damage to the area is associated with deficits in planning, moral insight and reasoning. After the accident, Gage showed changes in his personality, became antisocial and impulsive (Morris & Tarassenko, 2006. p.155.).

One of the influential arguments in the nurture-nature debate is twin studies. It was found that children are 4 times more likely to become criminals if their biological parents were criminals and twice if their adoptive parents were criminals (Cloninger et al, 1982). The probability of having a criminal record for male is 67 % if both parents are criminals and 43% for females (Australian Institute of Criminology). Mednick et al (1984) found that the criminal behaviour of biological parents had more influence than adoptive parents.

One of most valuable of evidence predicting criminal behaviour also comes from longitudinal studies (Hollin, 1999). Longitudinal studies allow us to investigate the predictors of criminal behaviour and improve our understanding of the relationship between developmental experiences and criminal conduct. One such study by Loeber et al (1995) followed 177 males for six years. It was found that low socio-economic status, parental substance abuse and resistance to discipline were the main predictors.

One of best-known longitudinal study is the Cambridge study in Delinquent development (Farrington and West, 1990; Farrington, 1995; Farrington et al, 2006), which followed up 411 male participants for over 40 years. It was found that poverty, antisocial behaviour, low intelligence, ADHD, family criminal records, parental deficit, authoritarian parenting, poor supervision, aggression were the main predictors of future offending. Studies find that the majority of crimes are committed by males (Ioannou & Vettor, 2008).

According to Thornberry (1994) attachment to caregivers is one of the most powerful predictors of future criminal behaviour. Hirschi (1969) emphasized that attachment teaches children the norms of society. Neglected children or those with poor relationships with family commonly develop prosocial or criminal behaviour later in life (Holmes et al, 2001; Smith et al, 2005). Bowlby (1944) studied 44 juvenile and found a relationship between maternal deprivation in infancy and later criminal behaviour in adolescence.  

Most world-known serial killers experienced neglect or poor family relationships during childhood. Serial killer Ed Gein’s mother has been described as abusive and very dominating; she convinced her son that all females were evil. Ed was convicted of the brutal murders of women later in life. Andrei Chikatilo grew up in war thorn Ukraine village and witnessed many violent acts, including cannibalism. Later in life, Andrei was convicted of murdering at least 50 people and even admitted to being a cannibal.

Such studies suggest that most serial killers experience severe neglect or trauma during childhood, which perhaps influences future criminal acts. Most serial killers are remembered as being strange or quiet in their childhood. They often showed interest in strange obsessions and were often rejected by peers. However, it is unclear whether or not they developed strange behaviour after peer rejection or whether they were rejected for strange behaviour. Serial killers often show hatred towards society, which could be promoted by previous social rejection.

Peer rejection is identified as a factor predicting delinquency (Bagwell et al., 2000).

Psychoanalytic approach suggests that criminal behaviour can evolve from over permissive parenting (Brain, 2002). Parental authority is important in in the development of personality and development of superego that balances the impulsive drives of the id. The superego may not develop and fail to control antisocial impulses if caregivers are too permissive.

Wilson (2004) emphasized the importance of family, parenting and education in the development of criminal behaviour.  

In addition, there are many other factors that can influence criminal behaviour. Sociological theories suggest that particular classes of individuals are more vulnerable to commit crimes and the aim is to gain material success. That suggests that crimes such as robbery often affected by economic situation.

However, it is known from research that children are malleable. Studies show that children, even after experiencing calamity during childhood not always develop negative outcomes later in life. Children rescued from concentration camps after World War Two, who witnessed many terrifying events including death, despite the traumatic events developed healthy. Studies found that the main aspect for children that helped them to recover was relationships and social support (Feuerstein, 1921; Freud & Burlingham, 1944).

Studies that investigate childhood experiences often ask participants to recall events. However, retrospective designs may be potentially biased as recall of childhood experiences can be affected by different factors (Offer et al., 2000).

It is believed that developmental experiences can predict future criminal behaviour. However, biological theories indicate genetic factors. If it is not a matter of choice, then the question emerges of whether or not individuals can be blamed for their criminal behaviour.  

The literature is often limited in criminal behaviour research. As suggested, longitudinal studies are the most valuable in such research future studies should observe all the factors including economic, genetic, social interactions and the impact of culture.