Introduction

Everyone wonders if criminals think differently than ‘regular’ people. What separates them from the rest of us? Understanding why crime occurs requires an appreciation for the complexity of human behavior. Behavior is not determined by one factor but rather influenced by a host of interrelated factors (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982). Researchers have been trying to answer that question for ages and still haven’t come to a final conclusion. They have conducted various studies and produced theories in order to try and explain criminal behavior. These theories involve psychology, sociology, and criminology. This study aims to explore the explanations for criminal behavior and to answer the research question.   

Research question

Do criminals think differently than non-criminals?

Literature review

There are many different variables that must be taken into account in order to truly define and obtain a thorough understanding of the concept. What is criminal behavior? “A criminal act occurs when there is a motive, a means, and an opportunity. Criminal behaviors that lead offenders to recidivate are often called “risk factors” or “criminogenic needs” (National Institution of Corrections & Services). One of the ways to attempt to understand criminal behavior is to gain comprehension and knowledge of criminogenic needs. These needs are traits associated with criminal thinking and behavior. It has also been dynamically defined as “crime-producing factors that are strongly associated with risk” (Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2005). There are several factors related to increased risk and criminality related to individuals exhibiting criminogenic traits; however, there is an identified beginning to criminal behavior, and it starts with biology and genetics. There are two major categories of theories: biological and trait theories. Biological factors include brain functioning (Séguin, Pinsonneault, & Parent, 2015), neurotransmitters, physiological arousal, neurotoxins, genetic influences, and gene-environment interactions (Beaver, Schwartz, & Gajos, 2015). Raine (2013) proposed that genes influence brain structure and brain structures influence violence. According to Loeber and Pardini (2008), the relationship between biological factors and violence is not always direct. These authors suggest that the impact of biological factors on violence is mediated by personality traits, such as anger and impulsivity (e.g., Blair, 2012).

The trait approach to offending postulates that individual differences originate in childhood, that there is relatively a high stability of behaviors over time and that individual differences are fairly stable over time. According to Loeber, Byrd, and Farrington (2015), individual differences in violence may be initially modest, then increase and later decline over time. What is less clear is the extent of decline along the age-crime trajectory, whether the decline reflects the influence of other factors, such as the growth of internal controls and the decrease of impulsivity and sensation seeking, and how these changes are associated to changes in brain function. According to Loeber and Farrington (2012), changes in internal controls across time can be attributed to more mature judgment, better decision making, better executive functioning, reasoned abstract thinking and planning, better impulse control and consideration of legal consequences, better emotion and self-regulation, less susceptibility to peer influences, and avoidance of self-harm. Monahan, Steinberg, and Cauffman (2009) suggested that the increase of self-control during adolescence may explain resistance from delinquent behavior. Desistence from offending cannot be explained solely on a biological basis (Kazemian, 2015a).

Biological risk factors can be defined as “anything that impinges on the child from conception to birth” (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2010). Many people would be surprised to hear that criminal behavior can be broken down and identified as early as conception. However, if we consider the fact that parents genetically pass on their prior behavior, we can try to begin to understand that parents who may have possessed criminogenic needs, could potentially pass on those traits that lead to criminal behavior. “Genes even help shape the environment. Genes influence how parents bring up their children; genes affect the responses that children evoke from their families and the others around them; and, as children grow older, genes sway their choice of companions and surroundings” (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2010). Genes can define an individual’s ability to control temperament, impulsivity, low self-esteem, and a lack of empathy.

One of the easiest topics to discuss as it relates to how biological factors can contribute to criminal behavior would be substance abuse. “When the faces of sisters and brothers in a family resemble those of their parents, physical inheritance has clearly played a role in the clustering of physical characteristics within the family” (Miller & Carroll, 2006). If physical characteristics are passed on from generation to generation, it is certainly possible for psychological characteristics to be passed on as well. Some of those psychological characteristics include genes that are directly associated with substance abuse, which can often lead to increased negative criminal behavior.

As mentioned earlier, these are traits that a person possesses that can lead to criminal behavior. There are a few schools of thought on this matter.  One study found a person could possess up to eight traits, while others identified that a person can possess up to six. Anti-social values: This is also known as criminal thinking. It includes criminal rationalization or the belief that their criminal behavior was justified. Individuals possessing this trait often blame others for their negative behavior and show a lack of remorse.

Criminal Peers: Individuals with this trait often have peers that are associated with criminal activities. Most are often involved with substance abuse including drugs or alcohol. Peer influence often persuades the individual to engage in criminal behavior. They will also typically present with a lack of pro-social community involvement.

Anti-social personality: These traits often include atypical behavior conducted prior to the age of fifteen and can include, running away, skipping school, fighting, possessing weapons, lying, stealing and damage to either animals or property.

Dysfunctional family: One of the most common traits includes a lack of family support, both emotionally and otherwise. An individual’s family lacks the ability to problem solve and often is unable to communicate effectively. Family members often don’t possess the ability to express emotions in an appropriate manner. More often than not, they are also involved in criminal activity.

Low self-control: This involves one’s ability to control temperament and impulsivity. People that carry this trait often do things that they didn’t plan and will fail to think before acting. The mindset is of the here and now, and not on the consequences of the behavior.

Substance abuse: The use of drugs or alcohol that significantly affect one’s ability to engage in a successful and productive lifestyle. There is often an increased tolerance to substances, in addition to an inability to stop use.

Findings from an experiment in which they compared brain scans, showed people with antisocial personality disorder, when compared to a controlled group of individuals without any mental disorders, showed on average an 18-percent reduction in the volume of the brain's middle frontal gyrus, and a 9 percent reduction in the volume of the orbital frontal gyrus – two sections in the brain's frontal lobe. Another brain study, published in the September 2009 Archives of General Psychiatry, compared 27 psychopaths — people with a severe antisocial personality disorder — to 32 non-psychopaths. In the psychopaths, the researchers observed deformations in another part of the brain called the amygdala, with the psychopaths showing a thinning of the outer layer of that region called the cortex and, on average, an 18-percent volume reduction in this part of the brain. Criminologist Nathalie Fontaine of Indiana University studies the tendency toward being callous and unemotional (CU) in children between 7 and 12 years old. Children with these traits have been shown to have a higher risk of becoming psychopaths as adults. Persons suffering from personality disorders, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder, aggression, depression, adjustment disorders, and sexual disorders such as paraphilias are prone to criminal behavior, according to “Psychiatric Illness Associated with Criminality,” by William H. Wilson, MD, and Kathleen A. Trott, MD. Illegal conduct can also stem from drug- or alcohol-induced psychosis or conditions caused by traumatic brain injury.

Conclusion  

While crime occurs for many reasons, researchers over the past several hundred years have made attempts to gain answers to identify the root cause of the criminal mindset. Some research leads us to believe social learning theory and environmental factors are the only contributing reasons for why an individual elects to exhibit criminal behavior.

On the other hand, just as many research projects have taken an even deeper look and claim that while social skills and the environment do play a major role, the fact remains that the environment is a doorway to unlocking genetic traits that are instilled in people from conception. While the social landscape is vital in raising a child with proper morals, values and a positive belief system, it is not the only contributing factor in the causation of criminal activity within an individual. It is a combination of both biological factors in addition to our social environment that molds each of us into who are today.

References  

Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. (2010, October 25). Biological Risk Factors for Challenging Behavior. Retrieved November 3, 2013, from Education.

Latessa, E. J., & Lowenkamp, C. (2005). Community Corrections: Research and Best Practices. Cincinnati, OH: Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati.

Miller, W., & Carroll, K. (2006). Rethinking Substance Abuse. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

National Institution of Corrections, U. D., & Services, M. D. (n.d.). tools of the trade, a guide to incorporating science into practice.

Brain Scans Reveal Criminal Brains our Different than Ours.

Moskowitz, C. (2011, March 04). Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal. Personality correlates of criminals

Sinha, S. (2019). Personality correlates of criminals: A comparative study between normal controls and criminals. [online] 

What Makes a Criminal’s Mind Different?

Dixon, M. (2019). What makes a criminal’s mind different? | SiOWfa16: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy. [online]