2.4.4 Walters: Lifestyle Theory
Walters (2006) proposed a theory that mainly aimed to explain the development of a criminal lifestyle and subsequent change and desistance processes. He defined the principal features of a criminal lifestyle as including social rule-breaking (e.g. offending), irresponsibility (e.g. in jobs and relationships), self-indulgence (e.g. substance abuse, tattoos) and interpersonal intrusiveness (e.g. violence). This lifestyle was linked to certain cognitions, self-beliefs and thinking styles (Walters, 2002). His functional model explained how this lifestyle developed, focussing on hedonistic motivation, excitement-seeking, a desire for personal advantage, and constructive or defensive reactions to fears and threats. Defensive reactions include aggression, withdrawal, immobilisation and appeasement. Finally, his change model explained how people gave up the criminal lifestyle, focussing on changes in self-concept, taking responsibility, increases in self-confidence, and understanding the impact of a person’s action on other people.
Walters (1995) particularly emphasised the importance of criminal thinking, and he developed the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS). Walters and Lowenkamp (2016) showed that criminal thinking styles predicted recidivism among offenders on probation. The most important predictors were acting impulsively or with no regard for the consequences and failing to carry tasks through to completion. Walters (2015) also found that criminal thinking mediated the relationship between past and future offending in two large community and prisoner samples.
Much research suggests that offending is one element of a larger constellation of social problems of males, termed “the delinquent way of life” by West and Farrington (1977). They concluded (p. 78):
Judging by their own accounts, delinquents are less conforming and less socially restrained than non-delinquents, and this difference shows up in all aspects of their lives. They are more immoderate in their smoking, drinking, gambling and sexual habits. They more often become violent after drinking. They drive more recklessly and are more likely to sustain injuries. They are more often spendthrifts. They show little interest in reading or in further education. Their work records are much less stable. They earn more per week, but are in jobs with poor prospects. They mix more with all-male groups of the kind that gets into trouble. They spend more of their leisure time away from home, and indulge more often in seemingly aimless “hanging about”. They more often take prohibited drugs. They express more pro-aggressive and anti-establishment sentiments in response to an attitude questionnaire. They are more often in conflict with or alienated from their parental home. They are readier to adopt the dress styles and ornaments, notably tattoos, associated with anti-establishment attitudes. [Also] delinquents are more aggressive than non-delinquents in behaviour as well as in verbally expressed attitudes.
Much research on desistance is concordant with the Walters lifestyle theory (Kazemian & Farrington, 2015). For example, according to Gove (1985), desistance from crime is a result of five key internal changes: shifting from self-centredness to consideration for others; developing prosocial values and behaviour; increasing ease in social interactions; greater consideration for other members of the community; and a growing concern for the “meaning of life”. Giordano, Cernkovich and Rudolph (2002) discussed the theory of cognitive transformation, which specifies cognitive shifts that promote the process of desistance. They described four processes of cognitive transformations. First, the offender must be open to change. Second, through a process of self-selection, individuals expose themselves to prosocial experiences that will further promote desistance (e.g., employment, marriage, etc.). Third, the individual adheres to a new prosocial and noncriminal identity. Finally, there is a shift in the perception of the criminal lifestyle, so that the negative consequences of offending become obvious.
2.5 THE ICAP THEORY
This “Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential” (or ICAP) theory was primarily designed to explain offending by lower class males, and it was influenced by results obtained in the CSDD (Farrington, 2005b). It integrates ideas from many other theories, including strain, control, learning, labelling and rational choice approaches (see Cote, 2002); its key construct is antisocial potential (AP); and it assumes that the translation from antisocial potential to antisocial behaviour depends on cognitive (thinking and decision-making) processes that take account of opportunities and victims. Figure 2.1 is deliberately simplified in order to show the key elements of the ICAP theory on one page; for example, it does not show how the processes operate differently for onset compared with desistance or at different ages.
FIGURE 2.1 The Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential (ICAP) theory
The key construct underlying offending is antisocial potential (AP), which refers to the potential to commit antisocial acts. “Offending” refers to the most common crimes of theft, burglary, robbery, violence, vandalism, minor fraud and drug use, and to behaviour that in principle might lead to a conviction in Western industrialised societies such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Long-term persisting between-individual differences in AP are distinguished from short-term within-individual variations in AP. Long-term AP depends on impulsiveness, on strain, modelling and socialisation processes, and on life events, while short-term variations in AP depend on motivating and situational factors.
Regarding long-term AP, people can be ordered on a continuum from low to high. The distribution of AP in the population at any age is highly skewed; relatively few people have relatively high levels of AP. People with high AP are more likely to commit many different types of antisocial acts including different types of offences. Therefore, offending and antisocial behaviour are versatile rather than specialised. The relative ordering of people on AP (long-term between-individual variation) tends to be consistent over time, but absolute levels of AP vary with age, peaking in the teenage years, because of changes within individuals in the factors that influence long-term AP (e.g. from childhood to adolescence, the increasing importance of peers and decreasing importance of parents).
In the interests of simplification, Figure 2.1 makes the ICAP theory appear static rather than dynamic. For example, it does not explain changes in offending at different ages. Since it might be expected that different factors would be important at different ages or life stages, it seems likely that different models would be needed at different ages. Perhaps parents are more important in influencing children, peers are more important in influencing adolescents, and spouses and partners are more important in influencing adults.
2.5.1 Long-term Risk Factors
A great deal is known about risk factors that predict long-term persisting between- individual differences in antisocial potential. For example, in the CSDD, the most important childhood risk factors for later offending were hyperactivity-impulsivity- attention deficit, low intelligence or low school attainment, family criminality, family poverty, large family size, poor child-rearing and disrupted families (Farrington, 2003). Figure 2.1 shows how risk factors are hypothesised to influence long-term AP. This figure could be expanded to specify protective factors and study different influences on onset, persistence, escalation, de-escalation and desistance.
Following strain theory, the main energising factors that potentially lead to high long-term AP are desires for material goods, status among intimates, excitement and sexual satisfaction. However, these motivations only lead to high AP if antisocial methods of satisfying them are habitually chosen. Antisocial methods tend to be chosen by people who find it difficult to satisfy their needs legitimately, such as people with low income, unemployed people, and those who fail at school. However, the methods chosen also depend on physical capabilities and behavioural skills; for example, a 5-year-old would have difficulty in stealing a car. For simplicity, energising and directing processes and capabilities are shown in one box in Figure 2.1.
Long-term AP also depends on attachment and socialisation processes. AP will be low if parents consistently and c
ontingently reward good behaviour and punish bad behaviour. (Withdrawal of love may be a more effective method of socialisation than hitting children.) Children with low anxiety will be less well socialised, because they care less about parental punishment. AP will be high if children are not attached to (prosocial) parents, for example if parents are cold and rejecting. Disrupted families (broken homes) may impair both attachment and socialisation processes.
Long-term AP will also be high if people are exposed to and influenced by antisocial models, such as criminal parents, delinquent siblings and delinquent peers, for example in high crime schools and neighbourhoods. Long-term AP will also be high for impulsive people, because they tend to act without thinking about the consequences. Also, life events affect AP; it decreases (at least for males) after people get married or move out of high crime areas, and it increases after separation from a partner.
2.5.2 Explaining the Commission of Crimes
According to the ICAP theory, the commission of offences and other types of antisocial acts depends on the interaction between the individual (with his immediate level of AP) and the social environment (especially criminal opportunities and victims). Short-term AP varies within individuals according to short-term energising factors such as being bored, angry, drunk or frustrated, or being encouraged by male peers. Criminal opportunities and the availability of victims depend on routine activities. Encountering a tempting opportunity or victim may cause a short-term increase in AP, just as a short-term increase in AP may motivate a person to seek out criminal opportunities and victims.
Whether a person with a certain level of AP commits a crime in a given situation depends on cognitive processes, including considering the subjective benefits, costs and probabilities of the different outcomes and stored behavioural repertoires or scripts (Huesmann, 1997). The subjective benefits and costs include immediate situational factors such as the material goods that can be stolen and the likelihood and consequences of being caught by the police. They also include social factors such as likely disapproval by parents or female partners, and encouragement or reinforcement from peers. In general, people tend to make decisions that seem rational to them, but those with low levels of AP will not commit offences even when (on the basis of subjective expected utilities) it appears rational to do so. Equally, high short-term levels of AP (e.g. caused by anger or drunkenness) may induce people to commit offences when it is not rational for them to do so.
The consequences of offending may, as a result of a learning process, lead to changes in long-term AP and in future cognitive decision-making processes. This is especially likely if the consequences are reinforcing (e.g. gaining material goods or peer approval) or punishing (e.g. receiving legal sanctions or parental disapproval). Also, if the consequences involve labelling or stigmatising the offender, this may make it more difficult for him to achieve his aims legally, and therefore may lead to an increase in AP (Farrington & Murray, 2014). It is difficult to show these feedback effects in Figure 2.1 without making it very complex.
2.5.3 Testing the Theory
The first independent test of the ICAP theory was carried out by Van Der Laan, Blom, and Kleemans (2009) in The Netherlands. Nearly 1,500 youths aged 10–17 completed a survey that enquired about long-term and short-term (situational) risk factors for delinquency. Nearly 300 of these young people were asked questions about the circumstances of their last offence. In agreement with the ICAP theory, Van Der Laan and his colleagues found that long-term individual, family and school factors correlated with serious delinquency, and the probability of serious delinquency increased with the number of factors. However, after controlling for long-term factors, short-term situational factors, such as the absence of tangible guardians and using alcohol or drugs prior to the offence, were still important.
Farrington and McGee (2017) tested the ICAP theory using CSDD data. AP was operationally defined and measured by an antisocial attitude scale. Scores on this were relatively stable from age 18 to age 48, and they predicted later convictions. The independent predictors at age 8–10 of antisocial attitude at age 18 included high daring, low popularity, large family size, poor parental supervision and low junior school attainment. However, parental criminality and low family income were less important in predicting antisocial attitude than in predicting convictions, suggesting that these factors might have influenced the probability of being convicted rather than AP.
2.6 CONCLUSIONS
The main problem with many of these theories is that they are difficult to test or disprove, because they do not make exact quantitative predictions. More efforts should be made to compare and contrast different theories point-by-point in regard to their predictions and their agreement with empirical results (Farrington, 2006). For example, Farrington et al. (2009b) studied the development of adolescence-limited, late-onset and persistent offenders from age 8 to age 48 in the CSDD. They found that, contrary to Moffitt’s (1993) theory, adolescence-limited offenders had several of the same risk factors as persistent offenders. Contrary to Sampson and Laub’s (2005) theory, early risk factors were important in predicting which offenders would persist or desist after age 21.
Developmental and psychological theories have many policy implications for the reduction of crime. First, it is clear that children at risk can be identified with reasonable accuracy at an early age. The worst offenders tend to start early and have long criminal careers. Often, offending is preceded by earlier types of antisocial behaviour in a developmental sequence, including cruelty to animals, bullying, truancy and disruptive school behaviour. It is desirable to intervene early to prevent the later escalation into chronic or life-course-persistent offending. For example, programmes to prevent bullying in schools are generally effective (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). It is desirable to develop risk-needs assessment devices to identify children at risk of becoming chronic offenders, who are usually children with specific needs. These devices could be implemented soon after school entry, at ages 6–8.
It would be desirable to derive implications for intervention from these theories, and to test these in randomised experiments. In principle, conclusions about causes can be drawn more convincingly in experimental research than in non-experimental longitudinal studies. The results summarised here have clear implications for intervention (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). The main idea of risk-focussed prevention is to identify key risk factors for antisocial behaviour and implement prevention methods designed to counteract them. In addition, attempts should be made to enhance key protective factors.
The fact that offenders tend to be antisocial in many aspects of their lives means that any measure that succeeds in reducing offending will probably have wide-ranging benefits in reducing, for example, accommodation problems, relationship problems, employment problems, alcohol and drug problems, and aggressive behaviour. Consequently, it is very likely that the financial benefits of successful programmes will greatly outweigh their financial costs. The time is ripe to mount a new programme of research to compare, contrast and test predictions from different developmental and psychological theories, in the interests of developing more valid theories and more effective policies.
2.7 SUMMARY
Developmental theories aim to explain the development of offending from childhood to adulthood.
Psychological theories aim to explain why some individuals, rather than others, become offenders.
Psychological theories focus especially on individual and family factors, including personality, impulsiveness, child-rearing methods and broken homes.
Many theories try to explain why there is continuity in antisocial behaviour from childhood to adulthood, and why offenders are versatile rather than specialised in their antisocial behaviour.
Some theories (e.g. Moffitt) suggest that different explanations are needed for different types of offenders.
Many theories identify early risk factors for offending that can be targeted by prevention techniques.
ESSAY/DISCUSSIO
N QUESTIONS
Compare and contrast the Moffitt theory with the Sampson and Laub theory on the development of delinquency.
What are the main policy implications of developmental and psychological theories for the prevention of offending?
Review any ONE psychological theory of the causes of offending and consider what findings might prove or disprove it.
Does the continuity in antisocial behaviour over time reflect continuity in the individual or in the environment?
ANNOTATED READING LIST
Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.) (2010). Encyclopedia of criminological theory (2 vols.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. This exhaustive encyclopaedia includes entries on social learning theory, rational choice theory, crime and personality, the ICAP theory, biosocial theory, self-control theory, psychopathy, moral development theory, developmental propensity theory, developmental pathways, adolescence- limited versus life-course-persistent offending, age-graded informal social control, lifestyle theory, situational action theory and many other topics. It is hard to think of any criminological theory that is not described here!
Forensic Psychology Page 14