Integrating Biological and Social Factors

Introduction

Biosocial theories in criminology have developed since the work of E.O. Wilson (1975) in the field of biological thinking within social sciences became prominent. Wilson was able to resurrect the interest of social science researchers in understanding biological factors for explaining human behaviour whereas social sciences researchers had generally shunned biology based research enquiries into development of criminal or delinquent behaviour. Contrary to the strictly divided domains of social science criminologists and those having biological orientation, biosocial criminologists consider that both biological (genetic) and environmental (social) factors are relevant to explaining criminal behaviour in an individual and that biological factors alone or social factors alone cannot explain or predict criminal behaviour in individuals. Empirical research studies undertaken with biosocial orientation in the recent time have strengthened the claim of biosocial theorists that a combination of biological and social factors as grouping variables and the antisocial behaviour outcome can present a situation where the two risk factors increase the rates of antisocial behaviour. Due to an increase in such research involving both biological and social factors, biosocial criminology has become relevant and more acceptable.

This essay argues that biosocial theories in criminology are worth considering because these can help close the gaps in existing criminology theories that are predominantly sociological in nature. Approaches to exploring criminal behaviour that are either steeped in biological factors or sociological factors are reductionist in nature because these are limited to considering either biological or social factors but fail to explore how a combination of these factors can explain criminal behaviour or delinquency in individuals. Biosocial theories are more appropriate because these are able to explore the combination of these factors and also be broad enough to encompass multidisciplinary data and methodologies. The essay first presents an overview of the biosocial theory in criminology, and then goes on to critically assess the theory.

Overview of the theory

Criminological studies in the contemporary period have largely been undertaken by two kinds of researchers, that is, those who are sociological researchers and others who are biological researchers. This is why there have been some conflicts of understanding between sociological and biological criminology researchers as they come from divergent fields and have divergent approaches to understanding criminal behaviour. Sociological criminology has been focussed on exploring the environmental factors that may lead to criminal behaviour whereas biological criminology has been focussed on the biological and genetic explanations of criminal behaviour. Neither of these approaches have been completely able to explain criminal behaviour and both are reductionist in nature.

Biosocial criminology, which is a relatively newer field in criminology research combines the two divergent fields of sociology and biology by using methodologies and theories that are derived from both fields. Therefore, biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field of criminology which recognises the potential contributions of diverse fields, which include genetics, evolutionary psychology, and neuropsychology, to name a few. Like other criminology theories, biosocial criminology also seeks to explain the factors that lead to the development of delinquent or antisocial behaviours. However, unlike sociological theories that have dominated contemporary criminology, biosocial criminology does not limit itself to social factors for explaining criminal behaviour; rather it allows multidisciplinary considerations to be taken into account. These multidisciplinary considerations can take on a variety of fields including but not limited to neuroscience, biology, sociology, and psychology. There are three approaches within biosocial criminology theories that are used in general to explain criminal behaviour, these being, genetic, evolutionary, and neurobiological approaches. Although these approaches are different in some respects, an important point of commonality in these different approaches is that they all utilise both the environmental as well as biological factors for exploring criminal behaviour. In other words, the approaches are all multidisciplinary in nature.

The value of biosocial criminology research is that it is able to respond to the gaps that have been noted in both sociological and biological criminology research approaches. The sociological approach and a purely biological approach have not been this broad in their scope and have been rather narrow in how they approached exploration of factors that lead to criminal behaviour. Biosocial theories have not only been able to broaden the scope of inquiry into how criminal behaviour can be explained, these have also been able to close the gaps or correct the incorrect assumptions in the field of criminology that were made under other theoretical approaches.

For example, earlier biological theory approach proposed what is known as the ‘chromosomal’ theory of crime, which argued that men with an extra Y chromosome were more likely to commit crimes as the extra Y chromosome was a ‘supermale’ chromosome that led to criminal behaviour in some men. As the research into this chromosomal theory was done through samples taken from inmates, which indicated that 1 to 3 percent of inmates had an extra Y chromosome, the biological theory sought to argue that such supermale chromosomes were responsible for a certain kind of criminal behaviour. The flaws in this reasoning were pointed out by other research studies that indicated that most of the inmates with the extra Y chromosome were not likely to be serving time for a violent crime and that more than prisoners, prison officers had higher incidence of the extra Y chromosome. Clearly, the biological theory was unable to explain criminal behaviour simply on the basis of biological or genetic factors and in fact led to assumptions being made about individual criminal behaviour prediction on the basis of biological or genetic factors. Such assumptions can also lead to oppressive and prejudicial approaches to those who fit the biological factors identified as causing criminalisation in individuals.

While biological factors alone may not be able to predict criminal behaviour as is posited by biosocial researchers who claim that a combination of biological and social factors need to be considered for understanding criminal behaviour, these factors cannot be completely ignored as is done by conventional sociological oriented criminologists. Different studies have been able to link certain biological conditions with criminal behaviour. One of the areas where such research is conducted is in the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), which shows a link between criminal behaviour and the ADHD condition. Another area where biological research has been sought to be done to explain criminal behaviour is with respect to serial killers; for instance, LaBrode has argued that serial killers share striking similarities in their personalities, crimes, and histories, even when “they are totally different people, born and raised by different parents, have had different life experiences, and are from different places and different times.” Hormones have also been revealed to be causal agents in criminality. At the same time, only biological factors cannot be used to explain criminal behaviour because the link between biology and criminal behaviour is not as linear as it may be reciprocal, which is why biosocial criminology becomes more relevant to understanding criminal behaviour.

Broad critique of the theory

Biosocial criminology seeks to fill the gaps in other theories which are unable to explain the development of criminal or delinquent behaviour in people by using a broader approach. This broader approach is based on two factors: first, there is an examination of a broader array of variables; and second there is an effort to link existing knowledge to other disciplines. Biosocial criminologists are not only interested in exploring the environmental factors related to crime but also biological and genetic factors that may be relevant to understanding how criminal and delinquent behaviour is developed over time. In some ways, biosocial criminology is considered to be revolutionary and controversial, in that it makes a departure from the existing approaches within criminology by adopting an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the development of criminal behaviour. Criminologists who are not from this field have therefore viewed biosocial criminology with concern on the grounds of being oppressive and dangerous as using biological or genetic markers to predict potential criminal behaviour in someone may lead to their incarceration.

On the other hand, it is argued that the reason why some criminologists are vary of biosocial criminology is not because of the apparent flaws in the theory itself but because of the fact of orientation of most criminologists being from a sociology education background, which makes them view biological explanations for criminal behaviour with disfavour. It is argued that criminologists who are opposed to use of biological theories to understand criminal behaviour are simply not in a position to make that argument because of their ignorance of biology. It has also been said that criminology has its heritage of being ‘child of sociology’ and has been openly hostile to biology. On the other hand, biosocial approaches seek to integrate biology within criminology research so as to broaden the scope of research into criminal behaviour by going beyond environmental factors or purely biological factors. In other words, in response to the argument that biological markers may be used to oppress those who fit the markers, it may be said that purely biological markers are not used in biosocial criminology to explain criminal behaviour, rather environmental factors are considered along with the biological influences that may possible lead to criminalisation.

One of the reasons that some criminologists may be opposed to use of biological factors to understand crime is linked to the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate, which divided development theorists into two groups taking opposing views on whether development was influenced by nature or the upbringing. The nature versus nurture debate divided approaches exploring behaviour and psychology into biological and behaviourist approaches, with the most important difference between the two being the former’s emphasis on nature or biology, and the latter’s emphasis on environment and upbringing. Behaviourists have argued that individual behaviour is impacted by social factors and that individuals are born without any predetermined behavioural patterns and only develop such patterns due to an interaction with social environment. On the other hand, biological approaches emphasises on genetics, DNA, and biological features which are thought to influence individual behaviour. The fundamental premise of these two approaches is different and opposed to each other but they are both reductionist in nature.

For instance, a biological approach will seek to reduce complex human behaviour to a simple biological explanation which does not take into account environmental factors. On the other hand, a behaviourist will try to explain complex human behaviour through environmental factors, but will ignore biological or cognitive factors, which is also reductionist approach to understanding human behaviour, including criminal or deviant behaviour. The biosocial theory takes an approach that is different to both these reductionist approaches by exploring both environmental as well as biological factors that may be responsible for development of criminal behaviour in individuals. Therefore, the gaps in existing criminological theories that may make the approaches to be reductionist because they are only informed by sociology, are sought to be filled by biosocial theories. For this reason, biosocial perspective is not seen as an approach that is rooted in what is now the outdated nature versus nurture debate, but is actually an approach that combines nature and nurture approaches within the same paradigm.

It may be mentioned that the biosocial paradigm has already found acceptance in other fields like psychiatry and psychology, although its acceptance in criminology has taken more time. Within criminology now there is greater acceptance of biosocial approach as well increase in a number of criminologists undertaking research that takes into account both environmental and biological factors for exploring the reasons why criminal behaviour is developed in individuals. There are also a number of empirical research studies that have been undertaken by researchers under biosocial research paradigms. These developments within criminology research suggests that there is now development of biosocial paradigm to studying criminal behaviour. Earlier approaches to studying criminal behaviour were either sociological in nature, which was the dominant paradigm, or biological in nature. The development of biosocial criminology marks a shift from such positions towards an approach that combines the traditions of both biological and social approaches to create a paradigm that is broader than either of these approaches and responds to the gaps in these approaches.

One of the key oppositions to biosocial theory in criminology is that if the link between genetics and criminal behaviour is accepted, then there is a potential for development of new eugenics movement which is feared for its oppressive tendencies. Mainstream criminologists are opposed to biosocial theory because of their concern about the impact of genetic research on sentencing decisions within the criminal justice system. Another concern is that a potential link between genetics and criminal behaviour will expose some people to long term incarceration based on the fears that they have criminal tendencies based on their genetics. If this fear is based on well founded grounds, then indeed this would present one of the key critiques to biosocial theory in criminology. However, some of these fears in conventional criminology are misplaced as is demonstrated in recent research, which goes to show how the interdisciplinary approach to exploring criminal behaviour has actually helped in dispel some of the misconceptions in earlier biological research into criminal behaviour; in essence, the newer research utilises both social and biological factors to show how genetics alone cannot predict criminal behaviour and that criminal behaviour can be explained by exploring both genetic and environmental factors.

Some examples of application of biosocial theories of criminology to empirical research can help strengthen the argument that there is a scope for application of the theory in the field of criminology. Empirical studies applying biosocial theories have employed quantitative methods increasingly as opposed to the earlier approaches that were more focussed on theoretical arguments. The availability to the criminologists of the longitudinal samples including genetic and biological markers has made it possible for the criminologists today to conduct quantitative research involving biosocial theories. Biosocial theories apply behavioural genetics to conduct research, wherein one of two research methodologies may be utilised to understand the influences of genetic and environmental factors on certain behaviours. These methodologies may be either adoption studies or twin studies. Adoption studies allow examination of genetic and environmental influences on a phenotype where the study compares analyses of adopted individual and a first degree relative who lives in a different environment and an adopted individual and an unrelated person in the same environment. Then the study explores the observed differences between the adoptees and biological relatives and the others as the differences themselves can be attributed to the environmental influences because while the adoptees and the biological relatives share genetics, they live in different environments. Because the biosocial criminology researchers are open to exploring both genetic and social influences, they attribute any differences in behaviour between people sharing genes to environmental factors. The limitations of such adoption studies are they fail to account for the tendency of adoption agencies to place children with socially similar homes, which may explain how even when children are placed away from their natural parents but placed with parents with similar social background, environmental factors may remain similar enough to discount the genetic influences.

Twin studies are used by biosocial researchers with twin siblings as they share genetic as well as environmental influences when they are raised in the same family. Monozygotic twins share 100 percent of their genetic material because they are fertilised from a single egg, whereas dizygotic twins share 50 percent of their genetic material because they are fertilised from two separate eggs at the same time. When there is greater behavioural similarity between monozygotic twins with reference to a specific trait, it signifies genetic influence leading to the specific trait. One of the early studies utilising this method was conducted by Mednick and Christiansen which involved a sample of 3568 pairs of twins in Denmark. He found that 50 percent of the identical (Monozygotic) twins in the sample had the same degree of officially recorded criminal activity as compared to 22 percent of same degree of officially recorded criminal activity recorded for fraternal (Dizygotic) twins. Since then other studies have concluded similar findings. A study by Burt and Neiderheiser utilised longitudinal data on measures of delinquency in a sample of adolescent sibling pairs and found that genetic influence for delinquency behaviour increased with age while the impact of shared environmental influences decreased with age. Another study by Tuvblad, Eley, and Lichtenstein also revealed how genetic and environmental influences can influence delinquent behaviour in girls but not in boys, with these influences increasing with age. These studies suggest that biological and social factors combined influence the criminal behaviour of individuals and that these factors can be explored through similar studies. However, one limitation of such studies is that these are usually reliant on official crime statistics and conviction records and also involve unreliable methods of determination of monozygosity; such studies are also not able to explain why majority of twin partners of criminal twins are in themselves not criminal.

Lanier writes that biosocial theory for explaining crime deserve serious attention because this is based on a multidisciplinary insights from various fields like genetics, biochemistry, endocrinology, and neuroscience among others. Research shows the relevance of the biological factors that can act as mediators in peer affiliation with delinquents because there is much research that shows the impact of affiliation with delinquent peers on the delinquent behaviour of young individuals, but it is only recently that research is indicating how biological factors can moderate behaviour despite such affiliation.

Future prospects

Biosocial theory has the potential to be used in other fields within criminal justice system, for instance offender rehabilitation as noted by Vaske, Galyean, and Cullen who have demonstrated in their research the value of biosocial theory for developing rehabilitation strategies and interventions using cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). CBT has gained a lot from neuropsychological research as the use of brain imaging and other similar methods have make it possible to explore the role of brain development and functioning in criminal behaviour as well as possible interventions for correcting or rehabilitating offenders. Therefore, one area where future research can be done is in exploring possible interventions based on biosocial research.

Another area where potential development of biosocial criminology can be done is in the development of criminology through evidence based research because biosocial criminology can lead to criminology which is more rooted in science and empirical observation based on a diverse array of disciplines and research methodologies. This is also aligned to pragmatism oriented research, which is more focussed on deriving solutions to problems using any methods of research that are able to help the researcher achieve practical solutions or increase in knowledge. Therefore, one of the areas of possible research in future is in pragmatic traditions of research, where the researcher is able to increase knowledge on causes of crimes and criminal behaviour using methodologies drawn from different fields.

Conclusion

Biosocial criminology brings a combination of different approaches to studying criminal behaviour. As different approaches and fields have increasingly shown evidence of varied influences on development of criminal behaviour, such as, genetics, environment, and biology, it makes sense to consider the range of methodologies and approaches in a combined sense in order to derive more holistic and accurate linkages between criminal behaviour and different factors. Other approaches are reductionist, in that they either only focus on the biological factors or on the sociological factors without considering how a combination of these factors can also be significant to understanding development of criminal behaviour. Therefore, it is important to consider biosocial approaches in order to develop a more well-rounded approach to studying crime. Those who oppose biosocial theory may do so because of lack of understanding about biology or an overreliance on environmental factors. However, development and acceptance of biological research into criminology may prove to be a pragmatic approach to criminology research, which is able to consider different factors in tandem. This would be essential to the further development of biosocial criminology because at present the dominant methodologies of biosocial criminology, these involving adoption studies and twin studies, also suffer from some limitations. More research and development of sound methodologies is needed within biosocial criminology research. At the same time, it is important to consider biosocial criminology with some seriousness because empirical research in this field has also revealed how both biological and environmental factors may be significant influences in development of criminal behaviour.

Bibliography

Books

Beaver KM, and Walsh A, ‘Biosocial Criminology’ in Anthony Walsh and Kevin M. Beaver, The Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime (Ashgate 2011).

Cioni G and Sganndura G, ‘Normal Psychomotor Development’ in Olivier Dulac, Maryse Lassonde and Harvey B. Sarnat (eds.), Pediatric Neurology, Part 1 (Amsterdam: Newnes 2013).

Dilalla LF, and Gheyara S, ‘The genetics of criminality and delinquency’ in Anthony Walsh and Kevin M. Beaver (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime (Ashgate 2011).

Eysenck MW, Psychology: A Student's Handbook (Oxon: Routledge 2000).

Lanier MM, Essential criminology (Routledge 2018).

Mednick SA and Christiansen KO, Biosocial bases of criminal behavior (New York: Gardner Press 1977).

Plomin R, Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture (London: Sage Publications 1994).

Stangor C and Walinga J, Introduction to psychology (Irvington: Flat World Knowledge 2013).

Walsh A, Biology and criminology: The biosocial synthesis (Routledge 2010).

Journals

Barnes JC, Beaver KM, and Boutwell BB, ‘Examining the Genetic Underpinnings to Moffitt's Developmental Taxonomy: A Behavior Genetic Analysis’ (2011) 49 (4) Criminology 923.

Burt SA and Neiderhiser JM, ‘Aggressive versus nonaggressive antisocial behavior: Distinctive etiological moderation by age’ (2009) 45 (4) Developmental psychology 1164.

Gibson AH, ‘Edward O. Wilson and the organicist tradition’ (2013) 46 (4) Journal of the History of Biology 599.

LaBrode RT, ‘Etiology of the psychopathic serial killer: An analysis of antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, and serial killer personality and crime scene characteristics’ (2007) 7 (2) Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 151.

Rocque M, Welsh BC, and Raine A, ‘Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention’ (2012) 40 (4) Journal of Criminal Justice 306.

Rutter M, ‘Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained’ (2006) 5 (3) Genes Brain and Behavior 303.

Tuvblad C, Eley TH and Lichtenstein P, ‘The development of antisocial behaviour from childhood to adolescence’ (2005) 14 (4) European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 216.

Vaske J, Galyean K and Cullen FT, ‘Toward a biosocial theory of offender rehabilitation: Why does cognitive-behavioral therapy work?’ (2011) 39 (1) Journal of Criminal Justice 90.

Watts SJ and McNulty TL, ‘Delinquent peers and offending: Integrating social learning and biosocial theory’ (2015) 13 (2) Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 190.

Wright JP and Cullen FT, ‘The future of biosocial criminology: Beyond scholars’ professional ideology’ (2012) 28 (3) Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 237.