Theories on Personality, Social Disorganisation and Genetics for Crime Causation

Criminologists, as well as other social scientists, look at many theories when trying to work out what causes people to deviate from social and group norms with regards to their criminal behaviour. The social environment, personality, gender and genetics are all explanations of the causes of crime. Personality, the traits that form a person’s character, may incline certain individuals to break the law. Criminologists have defined certain personality traits and disorders that lead to antisocial behaviour. Some traits occur genetically. Others develop in an unhealthy family or social environments. Either way, deviant or defective personality types have been identified as indicators of criminal tendencies.

Sigmund Freud's ID, EGO, SUPEREGO theory, Macrae and Costas (1990) Five Factor Model (FFM) and Hans Eysenck (1977) ENP model are some examples that explain personality types, however Eysenck's personality theory for offending has attracted more research than any other theory and is the only theory that has tried to link together genetic factors, environment and personality in one general theory (McLaughlin E).

Eysenck proposed that individuals have different personality types, (E) extroverts, (I) introverts, (N) neuroticism and (P) psychoticism and had traits associated with each personality type. Eysenck argued that extroverts with high scores are more likely to be involved in criminal behaviour because they are carefree, sociable, sensation-seeking and lively so they are more likely to seek crime in order to gain excitement.
Those high in psychoticism are egocentric, aggressive, impulsive, impersonal, cold, lacking in empathy and concern for others, and generally unconcerned about the rights and welfare of other people.
The ENP personality scale can be easily measured through a simple questionnaire. Eysenck believed these three types could be difficult to condition to follow rules using classical and operant conditioning where punishment/reward systems are used in family and society. As a result, certain situations would lead to criminal behaviour (Lilly Robert J et al).

However, Eysenck system does not explain how certain personality traits lead people to commit specific crimes. For instance, Eysenck does not explain how neuroticism inclines a subject to steal as opposed to murder.
The participants taking part in the personality questionnaires could be giving socially desirable and dishonest answers. There are factors where mood and situation can cause criminal behaviour, for example introverts, said to be quite, shy and have low self-esteem can build up emotions that can trigger criminal behaviour. Personalities can change over time as we mature and age however Eysenck argues that personality traits seldom change due to their biological inheritance.

Chicago School ecologists studying the social and environmental factors of crime led to the conclusion that neighbourhood ecological conditions shape crime rates over and above the characteristics of individual residents.
Clifford X. Shaw and Henry W. McKay (1942) studied the local crime and delinquency and discovered that high delinquency rates persisted in certain Chicago neighbourhoods for long periods of time despite changes in the racial and ethnic groups of these communities (McLaughlin E, et al).

Shaw and McKay developed Social Disorganisation theory after Ernest Burgess hypothesised that urban development is patterned socially and that cities grow in a series of concentric zones. The concentric zone model has five zones. Zone one being the central business district and zone five was the suburbs which are the outer fringes of the city. The closer one lived to the central business zone the higher the crime rates. This was clear for zone two, the transition zone which consisted of factories, deteriorating housing, abandoned buildings and high immigrant population. Shaw and McKay suggested disorganized communities cause crime because informal social controls break down and criminal cultures emerge (Lilly Robert J, et al 2007)
.
Social disorganisation can be seen as a cause and effect of crime where disorganisation causes high crime rates which in turn causes disorganisation and the effects of disorganisation causes crime.
This according to Robert Merton’s Strain Theory (1938), explains deviance within society as a result of the culture and structure of society itself. The pressure and strain from society to achieve financial success actively pushes individuals to commit crimes, for example, pursuit of the American Dream emphasize such goals as money, status, and power, while the means to obtain such success are not equally distributed. As a result of blocked opportunities many among the disadvantaged resort to illegal means, which are more readily available (McLaughlin E, et al).

German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies theory of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft was particularly influential with the Chicago School ecologists. Gemienschaft is small scale societies which have a strong community ties and strong social bonds, this is associated with rural areas and Gesellschaft is large scale societies where social bonds are less strong and there is a lack of community. This is associated with urban areas. Crime is less likely to occur due to strong social bonds associated with Gemeinschaft areas whereas Gesellschaft areas are likely to have higher crime rates as social relationships are not as strong and individuals are more selfish.

Another theory of criminal behaviour is gender. Crime is mostly seen to be caused by men especially violent crimes such as murder and armed robbery, however, there is an increase in female criminality such as theft and assault.
Men offend at much higher rates than women for all crime categories except prostitution. The gender gap in crime is greatest for serious crime and least for mild forms of lawbreaking such as minor property crimes (Lilly Robert J et al 2007).
Women are not seen in the same way as men when it comes to crime. The legal system is gender stereotyped, for example men are more likely to go to prison than women. Men are more likely to be arrested for assault and domestic violence even if the violence has been committed by the female. It is stereotyped that domestic violence is committed by men but men who are victims may not report such crimes due of embarrassment. Males are typically more openly aggressive than females which violent crime statistics support, but women tend to show their aggression in less overt, less physical ways. For example, females may display more verbal aggression.
Women are socialised to be more feminine and passive and men are more masculine and assertive. From childhood gender roles are learned which continues into education to prepare us for adulthood, however over the years socialisation within the family unit has become less structured with increase in single parents, unemployment and criminality within family members. (Haralambos 2010).

The opportunity structure for women to commit crimes depends on the risk and their situation. Crime is shaped by the different social experiences by men and women. Women who are mothers are more likely to stay at home looking after the children where fathers have a more sociable life due to employment and peers. The opportunity is greater for men to commit crime than women due to their social environments however it does not mean that women would not take the opportunity to commit a crime. Crimes such as shoplifting and drug abuse are closely linked to both male and females which suggest that each have opportunities to commit these types of crimes.

Lyng (2008) suggests the risk involved in committing a crime is a form of escape from daily life and is rewarded by psychological and sociological rewards such as overcoming fear, being in control and survival from extreme situations. The cause of crime may also be connected to the different genetic makeup of men and women.

The genetics of criminal behaviour dates back at least to 1870, with Cesare Lombroso’s notion of avatistism and Sheldon (1949) somataypes. Eysenck personality theory that traits are genetically inherited and the study of twins and adoptees are used to support the genetic basis to criminal behaviour. The most convincing studies come from Denmark, where researchers have access to extensive data on over 3,500 twin pairs. One such study from the 1930’s found an average concordance rate of 75% for identical (MZ) and 24% for non identical (DZ) twins on criminal behaviour. Although there seems to be evidence that genetics can cause criminal behaviour it is possible that identical (MZ) twins have the same environmental, social interactions and behavioural styles than fraternal (DZ) twins.

As theories of causation of crime develop, crime also develops. Society changes and with more opportunities and technology the more advanced criminal behaviour becomes. Crime is part of society and understanding the behaviour will not stop the action. (Source 2)

References
Haralambos and Holburn. (2010)Sociology Themes and Perspectives 7th Ed, Hollards, London,
Lilly Robert J, Cullen T F & Ball A R, (2007) Criminological Theory Context and Consequences 4thed, Sage Publications. London.
McLaughlin E, Muncie J, Hughes G.(2003) Criminological Perspectives 2nd Ed, Sage Publications, London.
Source 1 [accessed 2016]
Source 2[accessed 2017]