Chapter 2: Theoretical Explanations of Deviance - Biological and Psychological

Learning Objectives

• Explain biological influences on behavior
• Describe genetic and environmental interactions
• Identify major psychological theories of deviance
• Understand cognitive and behavioral explanations of crime

Key Terms

• Biological Theories
• Genetic Predisposition
• Gene–Environment Interaction (GxE)
• Epigenetics
• Neurotransmitters
• Brain Structure
• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
• Psychological Theories
• Personality Traits
• Cognitive Theory
• Cognitive-Behavioral Theory
• Self-Control
• Social Learning
• Reinforcement

Summary

This chapter examines individual-level explanations of crime, focusing on biological and psychological perspectives. It explores how genetic predispositions, brain processes, and environmental factors interact. Psychological theories emphasize personality, cognition, and development. Together, these perspectives highlight the complexity of individual behavior.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Functionalists believe that deviance plays an important role in society and can be used to challenge people’s views. Protesters, such as these PETA members, often use this method to draw attention to their cause. Photo: David Shankbone/flickr)

If we want to reduce violent crime and other serious forms of deviance, we must first understand why they occur. Many theories attempt to explain deviance, and no single theory alone provides a complete explanation. Together they help answer the questions posed earlier: why rates of deviance differ within social categories and across locations, why some behaviors are more likely than others to be considered deviant, and why some kinds of people are more likely than others to be considered deviant and to be punished for deviant behavior.

A theory is a framework used to explain observations about the world (Burke, et al., 2019). Researchers test hypotheses to build theories that explain social phenomena. According to Paternoster and Bachman (2001), theories should attempt to portray the world accurately and must “fit the facts.” Among the many theoretical approaches, biological and psychological perspectives focus on individual-level factors that may contribute to criminal behavior. These perspectives emphasize environmental and societal influences rather than individual biological or psychological traits.

Numerous theories coming from different perspectives (Psychology, Sociology, Criminology, or a combination) attempt to explain why people commit a crime. What makes one better than another? How do we judge theories against each other? The natural and physical sciences mostly agree on the knowledge of their disciplines. However, psychology, sociology, criminology is interdisciplinary, and many may not agree on what causes criminal behavior. For instance, Cooper, Walsh, and Ellis (2010) have looked at the political ideology of criminologists and their preferred or favored theories. Even one’s political leanings can influence a person’s set of beliefs about the causes of crime.

We must apply the scientific criteria to test our theories. Akers and Sellers (2013) have established a set of criteria to judge criminological theories: logical consistency, scope, parsimony, testability, empirical validity, and usefulness. Logical consistency is the foundation of any theory; it refers to whether the theory is internally coherent and makes sense. Is it logical? Is it internally consistent? A theory’s scope refers to its range of explanations. Does it explain crimes committed by males and females? Does it explain ALL crimes or just property crimes? Does it explain the crime committed by ALL ages or just juveniles? Better theories will have a wider scope or a larger range of explanations.

A parsimonious theory is simple and concise. There are not too many constructs or hypotheses. Simply put, parsimony refers to a theory’s “simplicity”. A good scientific theory needs to be testable too. It must be open to possible falsification. “Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation than others; they take, as it were, greater risks…One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability” (Popper, 1965, pp. 36-37).

After many tests and different research approaches, those theories supported by evidence have empirical validity. Thus, according to Gibbs (1990), the verification or repudiation of a given theory through empirical research is the most important principle in judging a theory.

Finally, all theories will suggest how to control, prevent, or reduce crime through policy or programs. The premise of a particular theory will guide policymakers. For example, if a theory suggests that juveniles learn how to commit crimes through a network of delinquent peers, policymakers will try to identify juveniles at risk for joining delinquent subcultures. While multiple approaches explain deviance, we must recognize that no single perspective is sufficient. A multi-perspective approach is necessary.