This paper examines the longstanding criminological debate over whether criminal behavior is innate or environmentally produced. Drawing on biological, psychological, and sociological perspectives, the paper surveys genetic evidence from adoption and twin studies, the roles of neurochemistry and hormones, and environmental influences such as family structure, peer groups, and media exposure. It then analyzes two key psychological theories — Hans Eysenck's Personality Theory, which bridges genetic and environmental forces through dimensions of psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism, and John Bowlby's Attachment Theory, which links early caregiver bonding to later criminal conduct. The paper concludes that while biological factors contribute meaningfully to criminality, environmental influences bear substantial responsibility for producing criminal behavior in society.
Since the construction of the first civil society, behavioral rules distinguishing what is acceptable and what is criminal have existed. Even though individuals typically have a concept of conventional moral behavior, criminal conduct is represented in every society and culture. Criminal deviance is not a novel construct, and has long been the subject of inquiry among researchers, philosophers, and theorists seeking to determine criminal motivation and link the relationship between individuals and the execution of criminal acts.
One central argument that has evolved in the realm of criminality is the nature vs. nurture debate, which questions whether criminals are born or made. Biological, psychological, and sociological disciplines each offer theories into the origin of criminality to explain whether criminal behavior is a consequence of genetics or a matter of the environment in which one is raised (Jones). The biologist introduces genetic evidence and explains the effects of varying biochemistry; the psychologist applies personality and behavioral theories; and the sociologist describes the influence of social interaction and social context, often exploring the social learning theory. Several theorists also cite environmental factors such as family and media influences as impacts on moral development, ultimately contributing to criminality.
Two theories aiming to define psychological causes of criminality are the Personality Theory and the Attachment Theory. The Personality Theory, as described by Hans Eysenck, attempts to psychologically bridge genetic and environmental forces as factors for criminality. The Attachment Theory, presented by psychologist John Bowlby, signifies the importance of infants developing a healthy relationship with their primary caregiver in order to attain healthy social and emotional processes (Helfgott 233). In the nature vs. nurture debate, the biological elements cannot be ignored when considering criminality; however, environmental influences bear adequate responsibility for the production of criminals in society.
The presence of criminal behavior is not new to any existing society, and researchers have long argued about the root of criminality within the nature vs. nurture debate. The "nature" side of the argument suggests that criminal behavior is genetically inherited from parent to offspring. The question of nature was first introduced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the notion of genetics became better understood (Jones). From this biological perspective, criminality is passed through the generations in the same fashion as some psychological illnesses. The concept that criminal behavior is genetically linked raises several questions and uncertainties. For example, if the nature argument is correct, how can a society lower crime rates? The question implies that the number of criminals in a society could decrease if reproductive capabilities were limited for individuals who suffer from psychological illness and exhibit criminal behavior.
Over recent decades, twin, adoption, and family studies have been conducted to examine the role of genetics in antisocial and criminal behavior. Adoption studies appear to be the most critical, as they analyze the presence of criminal behavior in children whose biological parents have criminal histories but who were raised in adoptive homes. Several studies showed that children who were born to incarcerated women and then adopted by non-relative families exhibited a greater incidence of criminal behavior in adulthood (Jones). The research into the genetic contribution of criminality, as viewed in adoptive cases, is sufficient to acknowledge the nature component of the debate as a partial source of criminal behavior.
Additional biological components that researchers believe contribute to criminality include blood chemistry, hormone levels, and brain function. Blood chemistry, hormones, and the action of neurotransmitters play a vital role in mood, behavior, and performance (Helfgott 53–58). Lower levels of the serotonin neurotransmitter have been linked to violent behavior as well as personality traits such as depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder (Jones). Varying levels of dopamine are linked to the abuse of drugs and alcohol, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and aggression (Jones). Activity levels of the monoamine oxidase enzyme have also been related to antisocial behavior — more precisely, they can contribute to impulsivity and aggression (Jones). The impacts of these neurochemicals, enzymes, and biochemical processes have a notable influence on the biological shaping of personality and resultant behaviors. The role of biology and its influence on behavior cannot be dismissed as a factor in the origin of criminality, as genetic information and body biochemistry are attributed to a variety of physical and mental traits.
The "nurture" argument explains criminal behavior as a result of the environment in which one is raised. Many researchers agree that environmental components such as family, peers, and community impact the development of personality and ultimately influence criminal behavior. One of the most influential of these components is the family unit, which is among the most studied factors linking environmental influence and criminality. The family structure is the smallest subunit in any culture and can be examined from several research disciplines, including economic, psychological, and social perspectives (Akers and Sellers). Risk factors stemming from familial circumstances include low socioeconomic status and poverty, antisocial parents, harsh or inconsistent discipline, abusive or neglectful parenting, and poor parent-child relationships (Jones).
The family environment provides an opportunity to nurture structure and moral balance, and serves as a platform for social interaction. The exchanges within a family have the power to significantly impact the behaviors of children, who can eventually become juvenile or adult offenders. Poor communication and weak bonds within a family have been shown to correlate with aggressive and criminal behavior (Jones). Peer groups are also regarded as having significant influence on the development of criminality. Risk factors originating from peer relationships include having weak social ties, associating with antisocial or delinquent peers, and gang membership (Sampson and Laub 100).
"Social learning theory and media influence on deviance"
"Psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism as crime predictors"
"Infant caregiver bonding and later criminal conduct"
The prevalence of criminal behavior in every society continues to fuel research into the cause of criminality. The central argument in the debate on the origin of criminal behavior is the nature vs. nurture conundrum, which questions whether criminals are born or are a product of their environment. A range of disciplines is responsible for shaping theories that describe each perspective on the genesis of criminal behavior. Biologists emphasize the nature component, supporting genetic inheritance and body biochemistry as indicators of criminality. Psychologists often attribute personality traits and intelligence to behavioral models, while sociologists examine social interaction and context.
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.