2.2.1: Individual Psychology

The earliest and most persistent explanations of criminal behavior locate the flaw in the individual. From the “original sin” in Christian theology to antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the concept of bad people doing bad things has been a universal starting place for our approach to criminality (American Psychological Association, 2013).

The key question stemming from this approach is: What differentiates individuals who commit crimes from those who do not? Many psychological theories of criminal behavior focus on identifying personality traits, characteristics, and developmental pathways believed to be shared by people who commit crimes. Some theories focus on the temperament, and personality people are born with (nature), while others focus on how life experiences shape people’s behaviors and attitudes (nurture).

Nature

Research shows that early childhood temperament differences can persist into adulthood. Tang et al. (2020) found that behavioral inhibition in infancy predicts shyness and introversion in adults thirty years later, suggesting that early temperament persists through the life span. Two traits associated with criminal behavior include:

• High sensation-seeking with low self-control
• Negative emotionality

High sensation-seeking combined with low self-control, which leads to impulsive risk-taking while negative emotionality, leads to increased hostility and, if combined with callous emotional traits, increased cruelty (Delisi & Vaughn, 2014; Bonta & Andrews, 2017). Of these aspects of temperament, low self-control and impulsivity have received the most research attention and are considered major contributing factors in violent crime (Garofalo et al., 2018; Gilbert & Daffern, 2010; Kuin, et al., 2015; Gottfredson & Hirshi, 1990).

Researchers have long engaged in classifying humans into different categories of personality to predict differences in individual behavior. The Myers-Brigg personality type indicator, rooted in the work of Carl Jung, divides people along four continuums: introversion or extraversion (E/I), sensing or intuition (S/N), thinking or feeling (T/F), and judging or perceiving (J/P), resulting in 16 main personality types (Myers, 1962). This theory suggests that differences in behavior are largely due to basic differences in the ways individuals perceive and judge the world around them.

Myers-Briggs Personality Types (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2021)
ISTJ Quiet, serious, logical, loyal	ISFJ Quiet, friendly, responsible, conscientious	INFJ Connected, insightful, values-driven, decisive	INTJ Creative, driven, visionary, independent
ISTP Tolerant, flexible, solution-oriented, efficient	ISFP Quiet, friendly, sensitive, kind, conflict-averse	INFP Idealistic, values-driven, curious, adaptable	INTP Logical, abstract, quiet, analytical
ESTP Pragmatic, energetic, spontaneous, active	ESFP Outgoing, accepting, realistic, adaptable	ENFP Warm, imaginative, Appreciative	ENTP Quick, ingenious, resourceful, outspoken
ESTJ Practical, decisive, organized, systematic	ESFJ Warmhearted, harmonious, loyal, helpful	ENFJ Empathic, responsible, sociable, facilitative	ENTJ Frank, decisive, well-informed, leader

Another common current personality measure is the five-factor model of higher-order traits: extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Research applying the five-factor model to antisocial behavior has typically found that antisocial behavior is associated with lower agreeableness (less altruism, tendermindedness, compliance and straightforwardness) and lower conscientiousness (less self-discipline, deliberation and dutifulness) (Jones et al., 2011). Overall, the core of the “nature” focus is the assumption that people behave consistently across time and situations, and this consistency allows us to predict future behavior, including criminal behavior (McCrae et al., 2000).

Five-Factor Model of Personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992)
Personality Trait	Low Scorer	High Scorer
Openness	Favors conservative values; judges in conventional terms; uncomfortable with complexities; moralistic	Values intellectual matters; rebellious, non-conforming; has an unusual thought process; introspective
Conscientiousness	Unable to deny gratification; self-indulgent; engages in daydreams	Behaves ethically; dependable, responsible; productive; has high aspiration level
Extraversion	Emotionally bland; avoids close relationships; over-control of impulses; submissive	Talkative; gregarious; socially poised; behaves assertively
Agreeableness	Critical, skeptical; behavior is condescending; tries to push limits; expresses hostility directly	Sympathetic, considerate; warm, compassionate; likeable; behaves in a giving way
Neuroticism	Calm, relaxed; satisfied with self; clear-cut personality; prides self on objectivity	Thin-skinned; anxious; irritable; guilt-prone

Nurture

Theorists that focus on “nurture” argue that personality develops in response to childhood experiences. Sigmund Freud’s (1901, 1924, 1940, collected in Freud, 2012) psychodynamic approach was one of the first theories to chart the development of personality through childhood. Freud proposed five stages of psychosexual development, each shaping personality through early experiences: oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital. During each stage, sexual energy (libido) is expressed, and the reaction of parental figures determines whether the stage is resolved successfully or not. If stages resolve positively, the resulting adult can “love, work, and play.” If developmental stages do not resolve successfully, the result is an adult who is likely to violate ethical and moral standards.

Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development (Freud, 1940, collected in Freud, 2012)
Stage	Age	Pleasure/ Sexual Focus	Key Developmental Tasks	Fixation results in
Oral	Birth – 1 year	Mouth (chewing, sucking)	Weaning	Obsessive eating, smoking, drinking (alcoholism)
Anal	2-3 years	Anus	Toilet training	Obsession with cleanliness; sexual anxiety
Phallic	4-5 years	Genitals (masturbation)	Identifying with gender role models (Oedipus/ Electra complexes)	Difficulty with intimate relationships
Latency	6-12 years	None	Social interaction	No fixation (stage not present in all cultures)
Genital	Puberty & later	Genitals (sexual intimacy)	Intimate relationships, productivity	Previous fixation equals low sexual interest; no previous fixation equals normal sexual motivation

Erik Erikson’s psychosocial developmental theory extended Freud’s theory of psychosexual development throughout the lifespan. At each stage of life, individuals face developmental challenges on the road to self-actualization. Early stages of childhood development determine whether a child will trust or mistrust the world around them, develop autonomy or shame in their own abilities, and perceive themselves as “good” by being rewarded for their initiative or “bad” for failing to live up to the expectations of parental figures. Later stages focus on identity, intimacy, productivity, and satisfaction with life (Erikson, 1950).

Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages (Erikson, 1950)
	Stages	Crisis	Favorable Outcome	Unfavorable Outcome
Childhood	1st year of life	Trust vs mistrust	Faith in the environment and future events	Suspicion, fear of future events
	2nd year	Autonomy vs doubt	A sense of self-control and adequacy	Feelings of shame and self-doubt
	3 – 5 years	Initiative vs guilt	Ability to be a “self-starter,” to initiate one’s own activities	A sense of guilt and inadequacy to be on one’s own
	6 years to puberty	Industry vs inferiority	Ability to learn how things work, to understand and organize	A sense of inferiority at understanding and organizing
Transition Years	Adolescence	Identity vs confusion	Seeing oneself as a unique and integrated person	Confusion over who and what one really is
Adulthood	Early adulthood	Intimacy vs isolation	Ability to make commitments to others, to love	Inability to form affectionate relationships
	Middle age	Generativity vs self-absorption	Concern for family and society in general	Concern only for self – one’s own well-being and prosperity
	Aging years	Integrity vs despair	A sense of integrity and fulfillment; willingness to face death	Dissatisfaction with life; despair over prospect of death

Erikson’s work informs Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977). Kohlberg asked people of various ages about their views on right and wrong in moral dilemmas and found that people’s reasons for deciding right versus wrong followed a predictable path, as shown in the table below.

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977)
Pre-conventional morality	Good vs bad is defined by getting rewards and avoiding punishments. If someone can avoid punishment or not get caught, then a person at this stage deems the action acceptable.
Conventional morality	Focuses on strict adherence to the concepts of right and wrong, as determined by the rules of society, and other significant people like parents and teachers.
Post-conventional morality	Right and wrong are determined by an individual’s principles of equality, justice, and respect; rules are critically evaluated against these standards. Kohlberg posited this as the most advanced level of moral development.

Kohlberg theorized that criminals would be more likely to show pre-conventional moral thinking. Research on criminal offenders has linked pre-conventional moral thinking to higher rates of recidivism, though, notably, research of this sort would not include criminals who had escaped the law (van Vugt et al., 2011). Watch Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development for more detail on Kohlberg’s theory and its three stages (each with two sub-stages) and a discussion of the famous Heinz dilemma.

Under “nurture” explanations of behavior, parenting (usually mothering) is a major early shaping factor on the development of personality and morality. Two dimensions appear particularly important: support and control (Hoeve et al., 2009; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Baumrind (1991) created a typology of parenting styles differentiated by support and control, as shown in the table below:

Baumrind’s Parenting Styles (Baumrind, 1991)
Authoritative	High warmth and high behavioral control, characterized by firm rules, but open communication and rational discussion about those rules, coupled with emotional support.
Authoritarian	Low warmth and high/harsh control. It is characterized by rigid rules, the expectation that those rules are followed, with no questions asked, and low support and a reliance on punishment to enforce rules.
Permissive	High warmth and low control, with few rules or expectations. Parents generally are warm and tolerant of their children’s behavior but with few boundaries.
Rejecting-neglecting	Low on both warmth and control. The parent is uninvolved and if the neglect is severe, it becomes abusive.

Research indicates that an authoritative style fosters higher levels of self-control, which is a protective factor against criminal behavior. Rejecting-neglecting parenting is most linked to violent behavior (Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Steinberg et al., 1994; Chung et al., 2006).

Parental monitoring, which can be supportive or controlling, has also been linked to criminal outcomes. Recent research indicates that harsh control (physical/verbal punishment and intrusiveness), low warmth and low monitoring are particularly related to criminal and violent behavior (Pinquart, 2017; Odgers et al., 2012).

Research supports the view that parenting involving warmth, active parental monitoring and consistent rules/expectations may protect against violent behavior in youth (Fosco et al., 2012). Discipline that emphasizes positive reinforcement over punishment appears to be the most effective (Halgunseth et al., 2013; Surjadi et al., 2013).

Although parents clearly influence their children, children also influence their parents. Gerald Patterson (1995) developed coercion theory to describe an escalation pattern of parents and children negatively influencing each other. If a parent gives in to escalating demands from their child, the child learns that they will get what they want if they intensify their anger and resistance; therefore, the child will use this tactic the next time they want something. If the parent increases their hostility in response, they effectively increase the level of demand their child must reach to succeed, thereby feeding a coercive cycle. Children also learn that coercive actions are effective in achieving one’s goals and may emulate this behavior with others. Children engaged in frequent coercive interactions with their parents are more likely to have aggressive and oppositional behavior (Patterson et al., 1992; Shaw et al., 1994; Shaw et al., 1998).

One challenge in parenting research is establishing unbiased ratings of parent and child behavior (Pinquart, 2017). When rating themselves, parents will often respond in a socially desirable way, intentionally or not. Similarly, children’s behavior ratings are potentially biased, depending on who is rating them. When ratings are given by researchers, it usually involves artificial settings that affect the behavior of both parents and children. Finally, research on parenting relies on correlation because experiments cannot ethically expose children to different kinds of parenting. Correlation cannot determine causality; it can only identify a relationship between two variables, but it cannot determine which variable caused which or whether a third variable influenced both.

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982) focuses on the quality of a child’s early connection to their primary caregiver and how it affects adult emotional and relationship functioning. Bowlby’s attachment theory posits that early caregivers must provide security: infants are completely dependent on their caregivers and must feel protected and trust they can rely on their caregiver to meet their needs. When that trust is strained or broken, a child forms a dysfunctional attachment towards their parents. Instead of security, they experience ambivalence, fear, or anger towards their caregiver, which leads to clingy preoccupation or dismissive rejection of caregivers. Early disrupted attachments translate into an inability to trust and rely on others in adult intimate relationships and may contribute to violence in intimate relationships (Dutton, 2007). Insecure attachments also affect how positively or negatively we view others, which can increase or decrease the likelihood of offending against others. Building on broader psychological explanations, cognitive and cognitive-behavioral theories focus more specifically on how thought patterns, beliefs, and learned behaviors shape criminal actions. These theoretical insights are not purely abstract; they have practical implications for how criminal behavior is understood and addressed within the justice system, particularly in areas such as law enforcement decision-making and intervention strategies.