Sociology Plus
Psychological Theories of Crime Definition
Psychological theories of crime posit that criminal behaviour arises from internal mental factors and conflicts existing at the individual level. Unlike biological explanations that focus on observable phenomena such as brain abnormalities, psychological approaches associate offending with abstract constructs like mental illness, intelligence, personality traits, and cognitive processes. These theories are crucial for understanding criminal responsibility within legal frameworks, as mental states are used to determine culpability, distinguishing between different levels of responsibility (e.g., murder versus manslaughter). While the historical search for the psychological origins of crime is relatively recent, contemporary research continues to explore how internal psychological mechanisms contribute to criminal behaviour and social interaction.
Historical Foundations and Legal Context
The link between mental states and legal accountability has existed since ancient law, but the specific investigation into the psychological roots of crime emerged more recently. Nineteenth-century thinkers, such as Philippe Pinel and Benjamin Rush, initially linked criminal conduct to forms of insanity. Henry Maudsley further proposed that crime and madness were equivalent, suggesting criminals experienced a form of mental derangement. More modern efforts have focused on various psychological explanations, including psychodynamic conflicts, cognitive deficits, personality traits, and the influence of mental illness. In criminal law, an individual must possess mens rea (criminal intent) in addition to committing the actus reus (the criminal act) to be found guilty; mental states are therefore essential for assessing varying degrees of responsibility.
Psychodynamic Perspectives
The psychoanalytic psychology developed by Sigmund Freud has provided a significant framework for understanding criminal behaviour. August Aichorn, in his work Wayward Youth (1935), applied these theories to delinquency, suggesting that crime stems from ‘latent delinquency’ shaped by early relationships and faulty socialisation, leading individuals to seek immediate gratification without regard for moral consequence. Freud’s structural model of the psyche—comprising the id (primitive drives), the ego (reality mediation), and the superego (moral conscience)—is central to this view. Psychoanalysts often theorised that criminals are characterised by an id-dominated state, where the individual fails to regulate pleasure-seeking drives according to reality principles.
Cognitive Deficits and Intelligence
Researchers focusing on cognitive deficits have linked criminal behaviour to intellectual capacity and information processing. Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of moral reasoning based on six stages, suggesting that criminal tendencies may correlate with lower levels of moral development. He posited that individuals in earlier stages (pre-moral reasoning) define right as obedience or self-interest, whereas those in later stages (post-conventional reasoning) recognise universal ethical principles. Kohlberg suggested that criminals are more likely to operate within concrete, pre-moral frameworks, while non-criminals exhibit conventional or post-conventional reasoning.
The relationship between intelligence and crime has been a subject of debate; early work, such as Charles Goring’s conclusion in The English Convict (1913), suggested defective intelligence rather than physical differences as the differentiator between prisoners and non-prisoners. Later research, including studies by Henry Herbert Goddard and Lewis Terman, linked feeblemindedness to crime. While some early criminologists questioned this correlation, contemporary research, such as that of Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang (1977), suggests a robust correlation between lower intelligence and delinquency, noting that offenders typically have IQ scores around 92. Furthermore, deficits in information processing are implicated; individuals may fail to accurately assess costs and benefits, leading them to pursue immediate rewards over long-term goals due to time discounting.
Personality Traits and Self-Control
A significant body of research links specific personality traits to antisocial behaviour. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (1950) identified numerous traits associated with antisocial conduct in youth, including impulsiveness, destructiveness, lack of trust in authority, and poor social skills. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1990) proposed that low self-control is essential to understanding crime, arguing that individuals lacking this trait are impulsive risk-takers who fail to pursue distant goals or exercise discipline.
Hans Eysenck developed a tripartite model of personality based on psychoticism (P), extraversion (E), and neuroticism (N). He suggested that high scores in extraversion and neuroticism impede social conditioning, increasing the likelihood of criminal behaviour. This framework relates closely to the concept of antisocial personality disorder, which describes individuals who lack feelings of guilt or remorse and persistently violate the rights of others. Research by Robert Hare (1980) further identified five factors describing psychopaths, including an inability to form empathic relationships and weak behavioural control.
Mental Illness and Offending
The relationship between mental illness and crime remains equivocal in contemporary research. While individuals diagnosed with mental illness are often arrested at disproportionate rates, studies do not conclusively prove that mental illness is the direct cause of criminal acts. Research indicates that rates of mental disorder within prison populations are higher than in the general population, particularly for conditions like schizophrenia and depression. Explanations for this disparity include differential detection rates, differences in custodial experience, or the impact of institutional deprivation. Future research aims to disentangle correlation from causation by carefully separating these variables.
Contemporary Directions
The field continues to evolve as psychological and biological explanations converge. Modern psychological criminologists are working to integrate individual-level factors with interpersonal dynamics, exploring how personality traits influence social bonds (as in social control theory) or how intelligence shapes a criminal life course. Current research is increasingly focused on the neurological underpinnings of these psychological phenomena, seeking to clarify the mechanisms by which individual causes manifest as criminal behaviour.