Week 1 Help

wright-boisvert-2009-what-biosocial-criminology-offers-criminology2.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Week 1 Help

1228

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to John Paul Wright, e-mail: john.wright@fuse.net.

WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY

JOHN PAUL WRIGHT University of Cincinnati

DANIELLE BOISVERT Penn State Harrisburg

Criminology has historically maligned biological perspectives despite the scientific rigor of the biological sciences. In recent years, however, a growing number of criminologists are incorporating biological, neurological, genetic, and neu- ropsychological constructs along with environmental measures into their research. This review explores the relevance of biosocial criminology to the parent discipline of criminology by focusing on its scientific discovery, advanced methodolo- gies, increased theoretical specificity, acknowledgement and illumination of individual differences, and promise of effective policy based on knowledge of human development. In sum, biosocial criminology is a potential fruitful paradigm shift in the scientific study of crime.

Keywords: biosocial criminology; criminology; paradigm; philosophy of science; life course

“New methods, new questions, more research, better careers.” Such an advertisement could read as enticing scholars to join the ranks of a new research paradigm. Of

course, scholars are rarely moved by such grandiose statements, and to date, no paradigm has actively recruited researchers. But in thinking about what biosocial criminology has to offer criminology, we were drawn immediately to these possibilities. Imagine criminology not wholly reliant on secondary data; on survey methodology; or on the multitude of tired, worn-out theories. Imagine criminology where a reliance on abstraction was replaced by a reliance on the measurement of directly observable phenomena. Imagine criminology where replication was valued and where research findings were translated into practical, concrete policy applications. Imagine criminology as a truly interdisciplinary science.

Sound impossible? Given the institutionalization of many of our theories and methods, it may be, but it does not have to be so. Paradigm shifts occur when a critical mass of scholars alter their thinking (Kuhn, 1962). These shifts can emerge out of recent discoveries but more frequently emerge when scholars, recognizing the limitations and contradictions of the current paradigm, become attracted to the excitement of ideas offered by a new or evolving paradigm. We believe the time is ripe for a paradigm shift in criminology and, hence, take the unusual step of publically recruiting criminologists into a different way of thinking about research into criminal behavior. In so doing, we run the risk of alienating those whose ideas we disagree with, those firmly grounded in traditional disciplinary perspectives, and those who remain uninformed about biology. These are the risks, also outlined by Kuhn (1962), that disciplines must undertake if they are to remain intellectually vibrant and rel- evant. It is time, at least in our minds, to create the tension necessary to stimulate a broader debate concerning the vibrancy, legitimacy, and relevancy of traditional criminology.

Wright, Boisvert / WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY 1229

So, what does a biosocial paradigm offer criminology? In the following pages we enu- merate several offerings associated with biosocial criminology, including intellectual excite- ment, new methodological techniques, increased theoretical specificity, a renewed look at individual differences, and suggestions for effective policies based on the scientific research on healthy human development.

DISCOVERY IS EXCITING

The first offering, and likely the most important, is intellectual excitement. As the name implies, the biosocial paradigm integrates, where appropriate, scientific findings from various hard sciences that fall under the broader umbrella of biology. These sciences may include neurology, psychiatry, genetics, and evolutionary psychology, to name only a few. Anyone who has read contemporary biological and genetic accounts of human behavior understands that a revolution in science is occurring in these fields. Almost daily, new dis- coveries are reported, discoveries in the truest sense of the word, linking some aspect of human biology to behavior. Sophisticated imaging devices, genome-wide scans of genetic architecture, and highly precise measurements of physiological functioning have shed new light on human traits, capacities, and behaviors. It is exciting to be part of a scientific move- ment and equally exciting to discover aspects of human functioning.

We maintain that this aspect of biosocial research is one of the most important, even if it is one of the least scientific, reasons to advance a biosocial paradigm. From a utilitarian viewpoint, scientific careers are built around publishing research. Criminology is no different. Yet, it is our view and the view of other criminologists that too much of criminology is derivative if not entirely redundant. On a personal level, it is difficult to remain excited about publishing another study on an outdated theory, or reading yet another study on Hirschi’s (1969) four social bonds, or reading another debate on the causal nature of delin- quent peer networks. Whereas the reasons are likely numerous, we suggest that few schol- ars remain active researchers over the courses of their careers in part because standard sociological criminology is boring.

Scholars, by their very nature, love puzzles. They love to figure out complex relation- ships and discover how processes work. Biosocial criminology provides a new and unique set of puzzles and thus can encourage new and exciting ideas. Take, for example, research on maternal smoking and its association with antisocial behavior. Criminologists have known for some time that there is a significant link between the two (Brennan, Grekin, & Mednick, 1999; Fergusson, Woodward, & Horwood, 1998; Rasanen et al., 1999). However, studies also clearly reveal that not all fetuses are uniformly harmed by exposure to cigarette smoke (Pratt, McGloin, & Fearn, 2006). How can this be?

Because the biosocial paradigm incorporates findings and methodologies from a number of sciences, answers to these puzzles emerge. A recent study by Maughan, Taylor, Caspi, and Moffitt (2004) found that approximately 50% of the effects of maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy on child conduct problems at ages 5 and 7 years old were accounted for by shared genetic factors. Not surprisingly, antisocial women were far more likely to smoke during pregnancy and were significantly more likely to produce antisocial offspring (Gibson & Tibbetts, 1998). The deleterious effect of maternal cigarette smoking, however, was not fully accounted for by shared genetic factors, suggesting that in utero exposure to cigarette

1230 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

smoke plays some type of causal role in compounding the risk for future misbehavior of the child (Pratt et al., 2006). Further studies, however, have revealed that genes that control the metabolism of drugs, genes that control the removal of foreign particles from our bodies (glutathione S transferase), and genes involved in neurotransmission strongly modify the effects of in utero exposure to cigarette smoke (Wakschlag et al., 2009).

Part of solving the puzzle involved the incorporation of findings from the genetic sci- ences. Genetic variation makes children either more or less at risk when exposed to maternal cigarette smoke. Individuals with allelic combinations considered to be risk alleles and who are exposed in utero to cigarette smoke are more strongly affected than are those without the risk alleles (Kahn, Khoury, Nichols, & Lanphear, 2003). In part because of the concilience of knowledge, research on the link between maternal cigarette smoking and offspring devel- opment has advanced rapidly. In short order, it may be possible to identify mothers and their offspring most at risk for the deleterious effects associated with cigarette smoking and to intervene to help both. Had these researchers not been versed in biology, human develop- ment, and sociology, their questions, methods, and findings may not have borne fruit.

BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY INCORPORATES ADVANCED METHODOLOGIES

Standard social scientific methodologies (SSSM) are the norm in criminological research. As applied to the study of families, SSSMs usually involve assessing one child per family and one parent—almost always the mother. Criminologists then correlate the information garnered from these two sources, inferring similar patterns of covariances between other children and their parents within the home. This methodology has led to broad, sweeping statements about the effects parents have on their children. Parents, for example, who are “warm and restrictive” are said to produce children who are better behaved and who have fewer psychological problems than parents who are “authoritarian” or “permissive” (Patterson, 1976).

Unfortunately, when other children within the same home are examined, the validity of these broad statements falls flat. Further research has found tremendous behavioral varia- bility between children within the same home exposed to the same parenting styles. Constants, of course, cannot predict variability. Clearly, something is amiss with SSSMs. That “something” is genes. Numerous behavioral genetic studies have shown that aggres- sive behaviors are highly heritable, with heritability estimates hovering between 50% and 85% (Coccaro, Bergeman, Kavoussi, & Seroczynski, 1997; Dionne, Tremblay, Boivin, Laplante, & Perusse, 2003; Eley, Lichtenstein, & Stevenson, 1999; Finkel & McGue, 1997; Hudziak, Rudiger, Neale, Heath, & Todd, 2000; Vernon, McCarthy, Johnson, Jang, & Harris, 1999). Research designs that exclude genetic influences cannot recognize the substantial across-individual variability within homes and thus may have led to many erroneous conclu- sions about the influence parents have on the development of their children.

No research design is perfect, but designs that systematically skew results should be called into question. In this illustration, we point out that these designs systematically exclude the potential influence of genetic factors. A common type of research design in behavioral genetics, however, involves the use of twins and is referred to as the classical twin design. This type of design allows for the estimation of environmental and genetic influences and has been employed extensively in a variety of disciplines.

Wright, Boisvert / WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY 1231

Behavioral genetic methodologies capitalize on variation within and across genetically related individuals. Because of this, behavioral genetic designs allow for the estimation of genetic, shared, and nonshared environmental effects. Genetic influences are reflected in heritability estimates. These estimates quantify the degree to which variation in a trait or behavior is accounted for by genetic factors. Hundreds of studies have revealed that genetic influences are omnipotent—that is, genes are entangled in virtually every aspect of human development and behavior (Plomin, 1990).

Shared environmental influences are those that make children growing up in the same family more alike. These types of influences, such as socioeconomic status and neighbor- hood conditions, are believed to exert the same effect on children living within the home. These effects promote behavioral similarities between individuals within families while highlighting the differences between individuals across families. Nonshared environmen- tal influences include experiences and life events unique to each individual within the home, such as different peer networks, different extracurricular activities, and different parental treatment. These influences make individuals from the same home different from one another (Neale & Cardon, 1992). Research has shown that nonshared environmental factors play a more important role in explaining variation in antisocial and criminal behav- iors compared to shared experiences between siblings. A meta-analysis conducted by Rhee and Waldman (2002) looked at 51 twin and adoption studies to estimate the degree to which genetic and environmental factors influence antisocial behavior. Their results revealed that the 42%, 16%, and 42% of the variance in antisocial behavior was attributed to genetics (i.e., additive and nonadditive), shared environmental factors, and nonshared environmental factors, respectively. Although measurement error is tangled up in the esti- mate of nonshared environment (Eaves, 1982; Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997), it is apparent that nonshared experiences have a larger impact on behavior compared to shared environmental factors. As Plomin (1990) stated, small differences in experiences can have large effects on behavior.

Behavioral genetic research designs are one way to study antisocial behavior from a biosocial perspective. Another research technique often used in biosocial criminology involves the examination of specific genetic and environmental conditions that interact to increase the likelihood of antisocial behavioral expression. Biosocial criminologists are often interested in examining how genes interact with an environment to produce behavior. Let’s go back to our example of physical maltreatment and later aggressive behaviors. Whereas research shows a correlation between these two variables, not all children who have been abused go on to display antisocial behaviors later in life (Stevenson, 1999). Why do some individuals who experience maltreatment grow up to display antisocial behaviors and others do not? Biosocial criminology is the perfect framework in which to answer these types of questions.

One of the first criminological studies to provide evidence for gene–environment inter- actions was published by Caspi and his colleagues (2002). They found that a functional polymorphism in the metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) interacted with physical maltreatment to produce antisocial behavior. Specifically, individuals with low MAOA activity who experienced maltreatment were more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors compared to those individuals with high levels of MAOA activity who experi- enced maltreatment. Their study provided graphic evidence that experience, such as physi- cal maltreatment, is genetically modified. With the continued methodological advancements

1232 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

made in behavioral genetics, several new and exciting research questions on the effects of genes and environment on antisocial behavior are waiting to be answered.

BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS INCREASED THEORETICAL SPECIFICITY

Students of criminal conduct face a daunting task. Unfortunately, we speak not of under- standing the etiology of antisocial behavior but of the wading through of the multiple theo- ries of crime. There are control, strain, conflict, feminist, peacemaking, radical, structural, process, integrated, life-course, learning, rational choice, and even convict theories of cri- minal behavior—to name just a few. Indeed, a quick perusal of several introductory crimi- nology textbooks documents easily the coverage of 60 or more theories of criminal conduct (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2007). With this much theoretical baggage, it is difficult to make an argument that the science of criminology is advancing in any clear direction.

Walsh and Ellis (2004) argued that theoretical excess is an indicator of several discipli- nary problems. First, theoretical excess is a sign of an immature discipline—that is, a discipline that has not gained enough scientific data to make firm statements as to underly- ing etiological processes. Criminology, for example, remains unable to explain its core correlates of crime, such as sex and age. Many of the explanations for these correlates, especially being male, border on the ludicrous. Second, excessive, fragmented theorizing tends to emerge when the disciplined thinking required of scientific pursuit has not been valued or prioritized. Without scientific reasoning as the core value, “theoretical imagina- tion” is allowed to run amok. This has clearly been the case with several “perspectives” that have conjured up explanations of criminal involvement that simply cannot be true. Feminist and postmodern “perspectives,” for example, have pushed criminology even fur- ther from strict scientific reasoning, and their advocates have trumpeted this with adula- tion. Finally, a quasi-science can say little about how to effectively reduce or to manage antisocial conduct, and what little it can say has to be suspect.

Biosocial criminology, if embraced, offers a paradigm shift that could fundamentally alter the study of criminal conduct. The focus is not on theory construction but on the accumulation of reproducible knowledge through systematic hypothesis testing. The scientific enterprise typically involves rejecting unsupported hypotheses and the theories that bind them. Moreover, repeated tests of core postulates under varying conditions allows for the construction, over time, of a body of knowledge. Certainly, as patterns emerge, theories are likely to develop and the overall way that researchers study criminal behavior would undoubtedly change. This could be accomplished in at least four ways: First, because biosocial criminology draws on a large body of advanced, technical knowledge about human genetics and biological processes, it could provide the bench- marks necessary to finally reject theories that deviate from known mechanical processes. As an illustration, we again point to the incontrovertible evidence linking male sex status with a range of externalizing symptoms and disorders. Research in sex differences in brain functioning and structure, in hormone regulation, and in neurotransmission has uncovered a range of sex difference that have the potential to explain differential behav- ioral adaptations, cognitive orientations and abilities, and emotional dynamics not shared equally between males and females (Geary, 1998; Rhodes & Rubin, 1999). At a mini- mum, these findings should dispel the myth that males and females are the same. Beyond

Wright, Boisvert / WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY 1233

the obvious, however, it is exactly these types of “hard science” findings that could be used as a benchmark for increasing theoretical validity.

Second, and just as important, criminological theories that currently enjoy a modicum of empirical support could be better specified if they incorporated knowledge from the biological sciences (Walsh, 2002; Wright & Beaver, 2005). Obvious examples include Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) theory of low self-control, Akers’s (1985) social learning theory, and Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory. Each of these theories could benefit from being linked the underlying core theoretical constructs—self control, learning, and respon- sivity to stress and strain—to their obvious biological substrates. Self-control, for example, is known to be housed in the frontal cortex of the brain and to be part of a larger constel- lation of “executive functions.” Learning, by definition, is a biochemical process involving the storage and retrieval of information encoded throughout the brain but especially in the hippocampus. And individually variable responses to stress and negative life events have been studied meticulously through animal models, through experimental designs, and through complex brain imaging.

Third, a biosocial paradigm offers researchers the ability to fill in the gaps. Take, for example, studies that reveal a net reduction in antisocial behavior after criminally involved males marry conforming females (Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998; Warr, 1998). The causal mechanisms responsible for the reduction in male offending have been subject to much speculation and depend wholly on the theoretical orientation of the researchers. The marriage–crime reduction effect has been blamed on reductions in peer associations (Warr, 1998) and reductions in criminal opportunities (Laub & Sampson, 2003), or conversely it has been blamed on increases in social support (Cullen, 1994) and increases in informal social control (Laub et al., 1998; Sampson & Laub, 1993).

The biosocial paradigm helps to answer important gaps in these studies. The fact that most criminal males do not marry prosocial females when they do marry earns a mere footnote in most studies, but it is revealing from a biosocial framework. Assortative mating and sexual selection have strong evolutionary overtones and has been subject to numerous cross-cultural investigations. First, assortative mating means that rather than randomly choosing a mate individuals tend to choose sexual partners that are similar to themselves on a variety of physical, cognitive, and personality traits. This is also referred to as active gene–environment interactions, and studies have found that individuals tend to self-select themselves into particular environments. For example, antisocial males tend to gravitate toward other antisocial females and vice versa (Caspi & Herbener, 1990; Quinton, Pickles, Maughan, & Rutter, 1993), thereby promoting the expression of their antisocial behaviors. Second, there is a special form of natural selection, referred to as sexual selection, that ensures the survival of certain characteristics over time. As we have already pointed out, men commit more crimes, especially violent acts, than women do. From an evolutionary perspective, female mating preferences may help to explain this relationship. According to Ellis’s (2003) neuroandrogenic evolutionary theory, women are more likely to mate with men who are able to compete for resources for them and their children. For males, this has the effect of encouraging them to aggressively compete with other males to procure resources and increase their chances of being chosen by a female as a sexual partner. This aggressive form of competitiveness is then passed on in future generations, thereby increas- ingly its prevalence in the male population.

1234 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Similarly, behavioral genetic research has revealed moderate to substantial genetic influences on the likelihood to marry. A recent study by Johnson, McGue, Krueger, and Bouchard (2004) examined the genetic influence on marriage and found heritability esti- mates of 0.72 and 0.66 for women and men, respectively. Molecular genetic studies have found that specific genes interact with marriage to further reduce offending. For example, Beaver et al. (2008a) found that interactions between marriage and three genetic polymor- phisms (i.e., DRD2, DRD4, and MAO) predicted desistance from delinquent activities in a sample of men. Moreover, marriage to a nondeviant spouse has also been linked to reduc- tions in male testosterone levels and has been found to reduce genetic proclivities toward antisocial behavior (Booth & Dabbs, 1993). In this illustration, the biosocial paradigm replaces speculation about social processes with knowledge of how social events differen- tially affect human males.

Finally, many theories of criminal conduct make broad, sweeping statements about the causes of crime. This is in part because of a focus on aggregate or between-group differ- ences. As an illustration, consider research on neighborhoods, a concept full of definitional ambiguity. Theoretically, neighborhoods affect criminal behavior because they structure exposure to criminogenic risk factors. Exactly how these processes function and which variables are prioritized over others is a matter of theoretical detail not necessary here. What is important is the idea that some neighborhoods contain more risk factors than others do and hence have higher crime rates. Although this level of explanation may be suitable for aggregate studies of crime rates, inevitably the question to be asked next is why some individuals in those neighborhoods, indeed maybe even a majority of individuals, who were exposed to the full battery of risk factors, did not turn to crime.

A biosocial paradigm that vertically integrates knowledge from progressively broader levels can replace this theoretical silence. A core problem with between-neighborhood, between-family, or between-class studies is that they overlook human variation. In bioso- cial criminology, however, human variation in response to similar environmental stimuli is the rule, not the exception. Known as reactive gene–environment interactions, individuals exposed to the same environment, indeed the same environmental event, cognitively proc- ess the event differentially, emotionally process the event differentially, and store informa- tion from the event differentially. Say, for example, two individuals are bumped into at a party; one interprets the event as an accident and reacts with understanding, but the other perceives the act as intentional and disrespectful and subsequently reacts with aggression. It is the story of the three blind men touching different parts of the same elephant and com- ing to varying conclusions retold.

Brain imaging research into empathic responses in conduct disordered (CD) adolescents is revealing in this regard. Decety and his colleagues (2008) displayed visual images of individuals in painful and nonpainful situations to CD youth and to a matched control group. They also displayed images of painful situations caused by another person or that were accidental. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure regional brain activation. In each test, the brains of CD youth responded differently than the brains of control youth. When viewing someone in pain, regions in the brains of CD youth associated with pleasure were activated, and when viewing images of a person whose pain was intentionally inflicted by another person, the brains of CD youth again showed substantially different patterns of activation compared to controls. When pain was intentionally

Wright, Boisvert / WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY 1235

inflicted, strong connections between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex materialized in control youth, indicative of a normative empathic response. These connections did not materialize in CD youth. The moral of the study is that CD youth neurologically respond in an atypical way to images of others in pain and to images of others in pain intentionally inflicted by another.

Going back to the neighborhood example, it is clear from ethnographic evidence that certain people in “bad” neighborhoods are attracted to the violence offered by street cul- ture. These individuals report little empathy for their victims, relish the control and torment they exert over others, and generally lead highly chaotic and highly antisocial lives (Copes, Hochstetler, & Williams, 2008; Wright & Decker, 1997). Still, others in the same neighbor- hood are repulsed by the violence and by the human degradation they encounter (Anderson, 1999; Shover, 1996). Incorporating an understanding of Decety et al.’s (2008) research specifically, and biosocial research generally, helps to explain varying reactions to human suffering and better specifies how contextual events differentially affect individuals in high-crime neighborhoods.

BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY ACKNOWLEDGES AND ILLUMINATES INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Scholars who study intervention programs consistently emphasize the importance of the black box of correctional programming (Latessa, Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002). The black box refers to those intraintervention program variables that tend to have substantial effects on the overall operation of the program and, ultimately, on intervention outcomes. These influences, such as the quality and motivation of staff and the actual amount of time dedi- cated to service delivery, are at the heart of program integrity and appear to be the primary stumbling blocks to cross-site reproduction of effective programs (Latessa & Holsinger, 1998; Matthews, Hubbard, & Latessa, 2001).

To carry the analogy forward, purely social theories of criminal behavior frequently do not account for, or in most cases even recognize, the black box within individuals (DeLisi, Wright, Vaughn, & Beaver, 2009). This has been a matter of much debate in sociology where critics have rightfully pointed out that many social theories rely on an oversocialized conception of man (Wrong, 1961). Criminology, with its roots firmly embedded in sociol- ogy, suffers many of the same fundamental problems. Many criminologists still, despite tremendous evidence to the contrary, deny the pathology of offenders and simply overlook or ignore the individual characteristics that differentiate offenders from nonoffenders. This naturally leads to questionable policy initiatives, such as deincarceration (Clear, 2007).

Looking at the data, however, is revealing. One of the most consistent and least recognized findings in criminology has to do with the distribution of criminal behavior across individu- als. In dataset after dataset, the distribution of involvement in serious criminal behavior is skewed heavily to the right. This distribution conveys important information. First, the dis- tribution of offending shows that the vast majority of individuals, usually more than 90% of a sample, report never engaging in a serious criminal act. Given this, it seems reasonable to believe that the base rate for serious offending in the population approximates zero. In other words, prosocial behavior, or at least the absence of criminal behavior, is normative.

1236 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Second, the distribution of offending reveals that individuals who depart substantially from zero are rare but account for the majority of all part one and part two index offenses (DeLisi, 2005; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). Data from the Cincinnati Violence Reduction Initiative, a project modeled after the well-known Boston Gun Project, is instruc- tive. Engel and her colleagues (2008), with the assistance of criminal justice professionals, identified 748 highly active offenders. Their analyses of this group found that less than 1% of the population of citizens living in Cincinnati were responsible for 74% of all homicides, that the average active offender generated 35 juvenile and adult charges, that the average active offender had 7.4 felony arrest charges, that 91% had prior arrests for felony charges, and that one third had 10 or more felony arrest charges. All of these offenders were free on the streets.

Clearly, these individuals depart significantly from normative behavioral trajectories. Aside from their extensive arrest histories, these individuals likely differ in fundamental ways from normal individuals. They are, for example, significantly more likely to have limited impulse control (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993), more likely to have a below-average IQ (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977), more likely to see the world as a hostile and negative place (Walters, 2006), and more likely to employ a range of criminal thinking errors that justify their behavior and help to maintain their criminal lifestyle (Samenow, 1984). These individual differences and many others have powerful effects on the life- course opportunities of individuals. Moreover, many of these individual differences have strong genetic underpinnings. Self-control, IQ, and antisocial behaviors, for example, have been found to be some of the most heritable human characteristics studied to date (Beaver, Wright, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008b; Plomin & Rende, 1991; Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Other human traits that distinguish offenders from nonoffenders or that distinguish recidivistic offenders from temporally limited offenders have also been found to have substantial genetic influences (Rutter, 2008).

The point is that human differences are at the heart of the biosocial paradigm. Under- standing first and foremost the origins of human differences presents criminologists with many research opportunities. Beyond this, understanding how individual differences play out in context—that is, in the daily interactions between people and social institutions— presents many more important questions in need of answers. In essence, relaxing the view of the oversocialized man necessarily draws attention to the distributional aspects of human traits and behaviors and calls for research that incorporates the vertical integration of indi- vidual and environmental sources of variance.

BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS EFFECTIVE POLICY BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Criminologists have long bemoaned their limited political and policy influence (Clear, 2007), and many critics of biosocial criminology are quick to assume that policies based on biosocial research would lead to harsh and unsettling intervention techniques. It is our view and that of other biosocial criminologists that the policy recommendations derived from biosocial research have the potential of substantially reducing antisocial behaviors because they are based on the scientific research on healthy human development. These policies focus on the environment and on individuals at different stages of development.

Wright, Boisvert / WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY 1237

At the neighborhood level, for example, findings from biosocial criminology would sup- port policies to remove environmental toxins. For example, lead absorption has been found to adversely affect the healthy development of the brain and is associated with lower IQ (Barth et al., 2002; Dietrich, Succop, Berger, Hammond, & Bornschein, 1991), problems with self-regulation (Needleman, McFarland, Ness, Fienberg, & Tobin, 2002), psychopathy (Wright, Boisvert, & Vaske, 2009), delinquency in adolescence (Bellinger, Leviton, Alfred, & Rabinowitz, 1994; Mendelsohn et al., 1998; Needleman, Riess, Tobin, Biesecker, & Greenhouse, 1996; Needleman et al., 2002), and criminality in adulthood (Wright, Dietrich, Ris, Hornung, & Wessel, 2008). Lead exposure is highly concentrated in the inner cities where the buildings are old, rundown, and replete with lead-based paint. Initiatives that limit lead exposure in inner cities have the potential to reduce harm.

Prenatal intervention programs also emerge as important mechanisms founded on an understanding of healthy human development. Pregnant women who smoke, drink, or use other forms of drugs can cause irreversible damage to their children. Some women are sim- ply unaware of the harmful effects that they are imposing on their child by ingesting these substances. Studies have shown that simply educating pregnant women about these adverse effects can effectively reduce their rate of use (Gebauer, Kwo, Haynes, & Wewers, 1998).

One effective prevention program that targets biosocial-related risk factors is the Nursing Family Partnership program. This program aids unmarried pregnant teens living in poverty by providing them with prenatal and perinatal care. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the program revealed that during the pregnancy Nursing Family Partnership participants smoked fewer cigarettes, had better diets, had fewer kidney infections, and after the baby was born, they were less likely to abuse and neglect their child compared to the control group. In turn, the children of Nursing Family Partnership mothers were less likely to run away; were less involved in cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and drug use; had fewer sexual partners; and had fewer arrests and convictions compared to the control group’s children (Eckenrode et al., 2000; Olds et al., 1998, 1999). Overall, by targeting the known risk factors derived from biosocial research, children of unmarried teens living in poverty were better adjusted behaviorally.

After the child is born, there should be continued care provided to at-risk families. These services might include continued medical care, mental health screening, parenting classes, drug counseling, or any other program focused on healthy child development such as uni- versal preschool. The Perry Preschool Project, for example, has been shown to be an effec- tive early intervention program that targets biosocial risk factors. This program offered children from lower socioeconomic status, with IQ scores ranging from 60 to 88, the oppor- tunity to receive 2 years of intensive preschool. A review of the program revealed that children who received 2 years of preschool had fewer arrests and were more likely to be employed during adolescence compared to youths with the same IQ who did not attend preschool. Whereas IQ was marginally affected by the program, it was the child’s level of educational achievement that was the most important factor related to later delinquency in adolescence (Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barrett, Epstein, & Weikart, 1984).

Biosocial criminology can also influence how the system treats offenders. For example, Beaver (2009) proposed that treatment programs not only consider an offender’s crimino- genic risk factors but also their level of genetic risk. As mentioned, several genetic poly- morphisms are considered risk factors for a variety of behavioral problems. Knowing an individual’s levels of genetic risk would help to create an individualized treatment plan that

1238 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

could increase the offenders’ chances of living a productive and prosocial life. A recent study by Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. (2008) examined whether children respond differ- ently to an intervention program based on genetic differences. Their results reveal that par- enting classes aimed at improving maternal sensitivity and discipline lead to decreased levels of externalizing behaviors only in children with the 7R allele for DRD4. This study provides evidence that genetic factors may influence the effectiveness of treatment efforts.

In conclusion, we believe that it is time for a paradigm shift in criminology, and we are confident that a biosocial perspective is the answer. Biosocial criminology not only offers new methods, new questions, and new opportunities for scientific research, but it also pro- vides the necessary framework in which to create policies targeted at changing both the environment and the individual. This growing segment of criminology has the potential of substantially changing the way people think about and study criminal behavior. For the discipline to advance, researchers must use a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates knowledge and research from other scientific disciplines such as psychiatry, neurology, genetics, and evolutionary psychology. These fields of study are equally concerned with healthy human development and offer insight on how to avoid the development and con- tinuance of antisocial behaviors. We encourage all graduate students, faculty, and crimi- nologists who are curious about the nature of antisocial behavior to consider the endless possibilities that biosocial criminology has to offer criminology. Together, we can advance criminology from a budding perspective into a scientific discipline with the real potential of reducing criminality across the life course.

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-66. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Pijlman, F. T. A., Mesman, J., & Juffer, F. (2008). Experimental evi-

dence for differential susceptibility: Dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism (DRD4 VNTR) moderates intervention effects on toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 44, 293-300.

Barth, A., Schaffer, A. W., Osterode, W., Winker, R., Konnaris, C., Valic, E., et al. (2002). Reduced cognitive abilities in lead-exposed men. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 75, 394-398.

Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008a). Desistance from delinquency: The marriage effect revis-

ited and extended. Social Science Research, 37, 736-752. Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2008b). Genetic influences on the stability of low self-control:

Results from a longitudinal sample of twins. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 478-485. Bellinger, D., Leviton, A., Alfred, E., & Rabinowitz, M. (1994). Pre- and postnatal lead exposure and behavior problems in

school-age children. Environmental Research, 66, 12-30. Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barrett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects

of the Perry preschool program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Foundation. Booth, A., & Dabbs, J. M., Jr. (1993). Testosterone and men’s marriages. Social Forces, 72, 463-477. Brennan, P. A., Grekin, E. R., & Mednick, S. A. (1999). Maternal smoking during pregnancy and adult male criminal out-

comes. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 215-219. Caspi, A., & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adult-

hood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250-258. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence

in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851-854. Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse.

New York: Oxford University Press. Coccaro, E. F., Bergeman, C. S., Kavoussi, R. J., & Seroczynski, A. D. (1997). Heritability of aggression and irritability: A

twin study of the Buss-Durkee aggression scales in adult male subjects. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 273-284.

Wright, Boisvert / WHAT BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY OFFERS CRIMINOLOGY 1239

Copes, H., Hochstetler, A., & Williams, J. P. (2008). “We weren’t like no regular dope fiends”: Negotiating hustler and crackhead identities. Social Problems, 55, 254-270.

Cullen, F. T. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Quarterly, 11, 527-559.

Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., Akitsuki, Y., & Lahey, B. B. (2009). Atypical empathic responses in adolescents with aggressive conduct disorder: A functional MRI investigation. Biological Psychology, 80, 203-211.

DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeLisi, M., Wright, J. P., Vaughn, M. G., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Copernican criminology. The Criminologist, 34, 14-16. Dietrich, K. N., Succop, P. A., Berger, O. G., Hammond, P. B., & Bornschein, R. L. (1991). Lead exposure and the cognitive

development of urban preschool children: The Cincinnati lead study cohort at age 4 years. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 13, 203-211.

Dionne, G., Tremblay, R., Boivin, M., Laplante, D., & Perusse, D. (2003). Physical aggression and expressive vocabulary in 19-month-old twins. Developmental Psychology, 39, 261-273.

Eaves, L. J. (1982). The utility of twins. In V. E. Anderson, W. A. Hauser, J. K. Penry, & C. F. Sing (Eds.), Genetic basis of the epilepsies (pp. 249-276). New York: Raven.

Eckenrode, J., Ganzel, B., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Smith, E., Olds, D. L., Powers, J., et al. (2000). Preventing child abuse and neglect with a program of nurse home visitation: The limiting effects of domestic violence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 1385-1391.

Eley, T. C., Lichtenstein, P., & Stevenson, J. (1999). Sex differences in the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antiso- cial behavior: Results from two twin studies. Child Development, 70, 155-168.

Ellis, L. (2003). Biosocial theorizing and criminal justice policy. In A. Somit & S. A. Peterson (Eds.), Human nature and public policy: An evolutionary approach (pp. 97-120). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Engel, R. S., Baker, S. G., Skubak Tillyer, M., Eck, J., Dunham, J. (2008). Implementation of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV): Year 1 report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Policing Institute.

Fergusson, D. M., Woodward, L. J., & Horwood, L. J. (1998). Maternal smoking during pregnancy and psychiatric adjust- ment in late adolescence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 721-727.

Finkel, D., & McGue, M. (1997). Sex differences and nonadditivity in heritability of the multidimensional personality ques- tionnaire scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 929-938.

Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gebauer, C., Kwo, C. Y., Haynes, E. F., & Wewers, M. E. (1998). A nurse-managed smoking cessation intervention during pregnancy. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 27, 47-53.

Gibson, C. L., & Tibbetts, S. G. (1998). Interaction between maternal cigarette smoking and Apgar scores in predicting offending behavior. Psychological Reports, 83, 579-586.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson

and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M. J. (1977). Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist review. Sociological Review, 42, 571-587. Hudziak, J. J., Rudiger, L. P., Neale, M. C., Heath, A. C., & Todd, R. D. (2000). A twin study of inattentive, aggressive, and

anxious/depressed behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 469-476. Johnson, W., McGue, M., Krueger, R. F., & Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Marriage and personality: A genetic analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 285-294. Kahn, R. S., Khoury, J., Nichols, W. C., & Lanphear, B. P. (2003). Role of dopamine transporter genotype and maternal prenatal

smoking in childhood hyperactive-impulsive, inattentive, and oppositional behaviors. Journal of Pediatrics, 143, 104-110. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery—Professionalism and the possibility of

effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 43-49. Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality.

Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22-29. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the

desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225-238. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J., & Latessa, E. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve cor-

rectional programming. Prison Journal, 81, 454-472. Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2004). Prenatal smoking and early childhood conduct problems testing

genetic and environmental explanations of the association. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 836-843. Mendelsohn, A. L., Dreyer, B. P., Fierman, A. H., Rosen, C. M., Legano, L. A., Kruger, H. A., et al. (1998). Low-level lead

exposure and behavior in early childhood. Pediatrics, 101, e10.

1240 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Neale, M. C., & Cardon, L. R. (1992). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Dordrecht the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Needleman, H. L., McFarland, C., Ness, R. B., Fienberg, S. E., & Tobin, M. J. (2002). Bone lead levels in adjudicated delin- quents: A case control study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 24(6), 711-717.

Needleman, H. L., Riess, J. A., Tobin, M. J., Biesecker, G. E., & Greenhouse, J. B. (1996). Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 363-369.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., et al. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse home visitation on children’s criminal and antisocial behavior 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1238-1244.

Olds, D. L., Henderson, C. R., Jr., Kitzman, H. J., Eckenrode, J. J., Cole, R. E., & Tatelbaum, R. C. (1999). Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses: Recent findings. The Future of Children, 9, 44-65.

Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system? In E. J. Mash, L. A. Hammerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp. 267-316). New York: Brunner-Maazel.

Plomin, R. (1990). Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behavioral genetics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & Rutter, M. (1997). Behavioral genetics (3rd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman. Plomin, R., & Rende, R. (1991). Human behavioral genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 161-190. Pratt, T. C., McGloin, J. M., & Fearn, N. E. (2006). Maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and criminal/deviant

behavior: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 672-690. Quinton, D., Pickles, A., Maughan, B., & Rutter, M. (1993). Partners, peers, and pathways: Assortative pairing and conti-

nuities in conduct disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 763-783. Rasanen, P., Hakko, H., Isohanni, M., Hodgins, S., Jarvelin, M. R., & Tiihonen, J. (1999). Maternal smoking during preg-

nancy and risk of criminal behavior among adult male offspring in the northern Finland 1966 birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 857-862.

Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 490-529.

Rhodes, M. E., & Rubin, R. T. (1999). Functional sex differences (sexual diergism) of central nervous system cholinergic systems, vasopressin, and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity in mammals: A selective review. Brain Research Reviews, 30, 135-152.

Rutter, M. (2008). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Samenow, S. E. (1984). Inside the criminal mind. New York: Times Books. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview. Stevenson, J. (1999). The treatment of the long-term sequelae of child abuse. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry

and Allied Disciplines, 40, 89-111. Vernon, P. A., McCarthy, J. M., Johnson, A. M., Jang, K. L., & Harris, J. A. (1999). Individual differences in multiple dimen-

sions of aggression: A univariate and multivariate genetic analysis. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 2, 16-21. Wakschlag, L. S., Kistner, E. O., Pine, D. S., Biesecker, G., Pickett, K. E., Skol, A. D., et al. (in press). Interaction of prena-

tal exposure to cigarettes and MAOA genotype in pathways to youth antisocial behavior. Molecular Psychiatry. Walsh, A. (2002). Biosocial criminology: Introduction and integration. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2004). Ideology: Criminology’s Achilles’ heel. Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 27, 1-25. Walters, G. D. (2006). Appraising, researching and conceptualizing criminal thinking: A personal view. Criminal Behaviour

and Mental Health, 16, 87-99. Warr, M. (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36, 183-216. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, J. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2005). Do parents matter in creating self-control in their children? A genetically informed test

of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control. Criminology, 43, 1169-1202. Wright, J. P., Boisvert, D., & Vaske, J. (2009). Blood lead levels in early childhood predict adulthood psychopathy. Youth

Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 208-222. Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed robbers in action: Stickups and street culture. Boston, MA: Northeastern

University Press. Wright, J. P., Dietrich, K. N., Ris, M. D., Hornung, R. W., & Wessel, S. D. (2008). Association of prenatal and childhood

blood lead concentrations with criminal arrests in early adulthood. PLoS Medicine, 5, 732-740. Wrong, D. H. (1961). The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology. American Sociological Review, 26, 183-193.

John Paul Wright is an associate professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on biological and genetic influences on aggression and violence.

Danielle Boisvert, PhD, is an assistant professor of criminal justice in the School of Public Affairs at Penn State Harrisburg. Her areas of interests include biosocial criminology, life course criminology, behavioral genetics, and early intervention. Much of her research focuses on the effects of genetic and environmental factors on antisocial behaviors.