Description
Throughout this course we have covered a large body of material concerning life course theories of criminology, trajectories, turning points, the influence of biological and environmental factors on life trajectories, early onset of antisocial behavior, and several other topics related to antisocial involvement across the life course.For this assignment, pick a topic we have covered in this course and write a research paper exploring this topic. In the paper you should 1) thoroughly explain the topic you are covering, 2) discuss the previous research in this area giving attention to evidence for empirical or support (or lack thereof), 3) discuss how this topic may have relevance for crime and criminal justice related policy, and 4) discuss avenues for future research.For this assignment it is expected that you will draw from several of the readings from this course and several readings from outside sources. This assignment is Due on Canvas on March 26th at 6pm. Please type your assignment using a word processing program and use Times New Roman size 12 font and 1 inch margins. Assignments should be approximately 8 to 10 pages double spaced. Please include page numbers on all of the pages of your assignment.APA in-text citation format should be used to denote where all unoriginal ideas come from. For example (Adams, 2014) or (Jones et al., 2018). In addition, include a References page to list all sources cited in your paper. Not doing this, or plagiarizing in another way will be addressed and dealt with according to university polic
Unformatted Attachment Preview
CRJ 6103 – Life Course Criminology – Spring 2024
Writing Assignment
Due March 26th @ 6pm on Canvas
Throughout this course we have covered a large body of material concerning life course theories
of criminology, trajectories, turning points, the influence of biological and environmental factors
on life trajectories, early onset of antisocial behavior, and several other topics related to
antisocial involvement across the life course.
For this assignment, pick a topic we have covered in this course and write a 8 to 10 page research
paper exploring this topic. In the paper you should 1) thoroughly explain the topic you are
covering, 2) discuss the previous research in this area giving attention to evidence for empirical
or support (or lack thereof), 3) discuss how this topic may have relevance for crime and criminal
justice related policy, and 4) discuss avenues for future research.
For this assignment it is expected that you will draw from several of the readings from this
course and several readings from outside sources.
This assignment is Due on Canvas on March 26th at 6pm. Please type your assignment using a
word processing program and use Times New Roman size 12 font and 1 inch margins.
Assignments should be approximately 8 to 10 pages double spaced. Please include page numbers
on all of the pages of your assignment.
APA in-text citation format should be used to denote where all unoriginal ideas come from. For
example (Adams, 2014) or (Jones et al., 2018). In addition, include a References page to list all
sources cited in your paper. Not doing this, or plagiarizing in another way will be addressed and
dealt with according to university policy.
Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children
Author(s): Avshalom Caspi, Joseph McClay, Terrie E. Moffitt, Jonathan Mill, Judy
Martin, Ian W. Craig, Alan Taylor and Richie Poulton
Source: Science , Aug. 2, 2002, New Series, Vol. 297, No. 5582 (Aug. 2, 2002), pp. 851-854
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3832002
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Science
This content downloaded from
129.115.103.38 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:59:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from
129.115.103.38 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:59:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from
129.115.103.38 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:59:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from
129.115.103.38 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:59:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from
129.115.103.38 on Tue, 07 Jun 2022 17:59:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
5
The Biosocial Perspective: A Brief
Overview and Potential
Contributions to Criminological
Theory
Joseph A. Schwartz, Anthony Walsh
and Kevin M. Beaver
three goals. First, this chapter “takes stock” of
the current criminological landscape through a
biosocial lens in an effort to better document
the progress that has been made and what
areas would benefit from additional attention
in future research. Second, this chapter is
intended to serve as an introductory primer for
criminologists who are interested in the
biosocial perspective but have yet to identify
other, more expansive introductory texts (e.g.,
Beaver, 2016). Third and finally, this chapter
provides specific examples of the ways in
which mainstream criminological theories or
concepts can be augmented via biosocial
integration.
Abstract
Over the past century or so, biology has fallen
in and out of favor among criminologists. The
development of efficient and cost-effective
neuro- and genetic imaging techniques, the
availability of data containing biological measures, and the increasing motivation for truly
interdisciplinary research has sparked a biological resurgence of sorts, in which researchers are devoting equal attention to both
biological and social influences on behavior.
Integrative efforts aimed at nesting mainstream criminological questions, theories,
and concepts within the biosocial perspective
have grown exponentially over recent years,
but still remain “fringe” compared to more
mainstream perspectives. In light of these
developments, this chapter aims to accomplish
Introduction
J. A. Schwartz (&)
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
University of Nebraska at Omaha, 218 CPACS,
6001 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE 68182-0149, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Walsh
Department of Criminal Justice, Boise State
University, Boise, ID 83725, USA
K. M. Beaver
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
32306-1127, USA
Center for Social and Humanities Research, King
Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
In the previous edition of this chapter, we drew
attention to Moir and Jessel’s (1995, p. 10)
observation that “the evidence that biology is a
central factor in crime, interacting with cultural,
social, and economic factors, is so strong…that to
ignore it is perverse.” But biology was ignored
more often than not, and few criminologists
considered themselves “perverse” for doing so.
Now we are offered a vantage point that allows us
to reevaluate this observation. While there are still
criminologists who are still “militantly and
proudly ignorant” (van den Berghe, 1990, p. 177)
of biology and how it contributes to our
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
M. D. Krohn et al. (eds.), Handbook on Crime and Deviance,
Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_5
89
90
understanding of human behavior, their numbers
have dwindled. In fact, it is probably safe to
assume that the majority of criminologists now
believe that human behavior is the result of a
combination of biological and social influences,
working both interactively and independently to
shape individual differences in behavior. This
shift in thinking is a result of the overwhelming
evidence that has been brought to the attention of
criminologists over the past decade. Convincing
sociologically oriented criminologists of the
utility of the biosocial perspective becomes easier
when the evidence reaches a level that renders
most stock refutations futile. We have come a
long way from the textbook fare of phrenology,
atavism, and the XYY syndrome, but they still
occupy space in most modern criminological
theory textbooks. The past two decades have
brought with it tremendous scientific progress in
understanding how nature and nurture work collectively to shape individual differences.
This shift in thinking among criminologists
does not necessarily mean that all, or even a
majority, of those criminologists who acknowledge the role of biology in the etiological
development of behavior incorporate biosocial
concepts, methods, or theories into their work.
Granted, the number of criminologists working
under the biosocial umbrella has grown in the
past decade, but such work is almost exclusively
carried out by “biosocial criminologists” (or
sometimes “bio-criminologists” or, for those who
would rather forego brevity, “biopsychosocial
criminologists,” among others), the label applied
to those who work within the biosocial perspective. This differentiation between “criminology” and “biosocial criminology” speaks to the
fact that the biosocial perspective still remains
somewhat “fringe” within mainstream criminology. In our opinion, there are at least two
explanations for this divide.
First, some criminologists who do not question the validity of biosocial findings question the
implications flowing from them. Some have
argued that to invite the demon biology to the
ball is to invite racism, fascism, sexism, and
eugenics. We understand this argument and fully
agree with the intentions of those who employ
J. A. Schwartz et al.
such an argument, but we also tend to agree with
Vila, in that “[f]indings can be used for racist or
eugenic ends only if we allow perpetuation of the
ignorance that underlies these arguments” (1994,
p. 329). With regard to eugenics, we agree with
Ridley’s observation that “[w]hat is wrong with
eugenics is not the science, but the coercion”
(1999, p. 297), meaning that scientific findings
can be twisted and bastardized to fit the agenda
of the state regardless of the type of research
from which such findings stem.
Second, even those who are generally supportive of the biosocial perspective, do not integrate findings from this perspective into their
own work. Whether this reluctance stems from a
lack of sufficient training (Wright et al., 2008),
lack of access to appropriate datasets, or the fear
of being labeled a “biosocial criminologist”
remains unknown, but the implications of such
oversight is costly. As has been demonstrated
multiple times in the existing literature, failing to
consider the role of both biological and environmental influences simultaneously, results in a
significant threat to internal validity (Harden,
Mendle, Hill, Turkheimer, & Emery, 2008;
Johnson, Turkheimer, Gottesman, & Bouchard,
2009), as both sets of influences are expected to
play an important, and, at least typically, equal,
role in the development of behavioral phenotypes
(Polderman et al., 2015; Turkheimer, 2000).
With the recent proliferation of datasets containing biologically-relevant information that are
of interest to criminologists, failing to consider
both sources of influence is unjustified. For
example, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health
and Development Study (Caspi et al., 2002), the
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to
Adult Health Study (Add Health; Harris, 2013),
and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
(Bureau of Labor Statistics & U.S. Department of
Labor, 2015) all contain biological information
as well as measures that directly tap concepts
central to mainstream criminological theories and
perspectives. In addition, genotyping and neuroimaging costs continue to plummet as technology advances and becomes more accessible,
making original data collection feasible. Along
these same lines, minimally invasive biomarkers
5
The Biosocial Perspective: A Brief Overview and Potential …
(e.g., salivary biomarkers) tapping biological and
physiological processes directly relevant to
behavioral researchers are also becoming more
readily available and cost effective.
With these observations in mind, we provide a
more cutting-edge overview of the perspective
than what is typically provided in the “biological
theories” chapter of most criminology textbooks,
which tend to rely on outdated, and often factually incorrect information presented regarding
the role of biological influences in the development of behavioral differences between humans.
The majority of the existing work surrounding
biosocial criminology is focused on etiology, but
this represents just one avenue for integration, as
the biosocial perspective can also supplement
multiple domains of criminal justice research
while also providing a more nuanced understanding of other issues within criminology such
as exposure to violence, victimization, and
structural disadvantage. In this way, we hope
these efforts also dispel the myth that the biosocial perspective is overly “biocentric.” As Baker
et al. (2006, p. 44) pointed out, “the more we
know about the genetics of behavior, the more
important the environment appears to be.” In line
with these objectives, we offer a brief overview
of some of the key concepts within the biosocial
perspective with some specific examples of the
integrative processes discussed above.
Genetics and Crime
No geneticist claims that there are genes “for”
criminal behavior. Genes are for making proteins, some of which facilitate (not cause) our
behavior and feelings. Genes produce tendencies
to respond to the environment one way rather
than another, but the genome is not a blueprint
containing deterministic instructions for constructing certain types of brains that then produce
certain types of behavior. There are, however,
genetic variations (polymorphisms) that lead to
extreme values on certain phenotypic traits that
increase the probability of offending when combined with other traits and with the right kind of
environment. The genetics of criminal behavior
91
is explored by behavior genetics, molecular
genetics, and epigenetics.
Behavior Genetics
Behavior geneticists assess the variance in a
phenotypic trait attributable to genes using heritability coefficients (h2) that range between zero
and 1.00. Heritability coefficients for most traits
related to antisocial behavior are in the .20 to .80
range, and for antisocial behavior itself they are
in the .40 to .58 range (Ferguson, 2010; Miles &
Carey, 1997; Rhee & Waldman, 2002), with h2
being higher in adult than in juvenile populations
because of the high base rate of juvenile
offending. The remaining variance left unexplained by genetic influence is attributed to social
or environmental influences. Sources of
non-genetic, or environmental, influences are
divided into two subtypes: shared environmental
influences and nonshared environmental influences. The former includes all sources of influence that work to make siblings or twins from the
same family more similar to one another while
the latter includes all sources of influence that
make siblings or twins from the same household
different from one another (as well as measurement error and other sources of variance). Since,
roughly, 50% of the variance in antisocial
behaviors is explained by genetic influences, the
remaining, 50%, of the variance is explained by a
combination of shared and nonshared environmental influences. Most studies indicate that
compared to shared environmental influences,
nonshared environmental influences explain a
greater proportion of overall variance in antisocial behaviors, particularly in adulthood (Ferguson, 2010; Miles & Carey, 1997). However,
some studies focusing on behavior in early
childhood have noted more substantive shared
environmental influences (Brendgen et al., 2005).
These findings have become so consistent that
Turkheimer (2000) developed the three laws of
behavior genetics reflecting them more directly.
The results of a recent study synthesizing the
results of twin studies published in the past
50 years also aligned with this overall pattern
92
and revealed that genetic and environmental
influences explain roughly half of the overall
variance, respectively, in virtually all measurable
traits (Polderman et al., 2015).
Continuing to deny genetic influences on
antisocial behavior is fruitless. The evidence is
clear, not only does such a link exist, genetic
influences are just as important as environmental
influences in the development of individual differences in antisocial behavior. The implications
of this are that just about any combination of
independent and dependent variables examined
by criminologists are, most likely, influenced by
both genes and environments. Failing to account
for the fact that genetic influences may simultaneously impact the examined independent and
dependent variables may result in severe bias,
resulting in the over- or underestimation of a
given association (Barnes, Boutwell, Beaver,
Gibson, & Wright, 2014). For example, Armour
and Haynie (2007) examined the association
between age of sexual debut and delinquency
among a sample of adolescents from the Add
Health. The results of their study indicated that
those youth with an earlier age of sexual debut
engaged in greater levels of delinquency relative
to their peers who were older during their first
sexual experience. In a follow-up study, Harden
et al. (2008) examined the same association with
the same sample, but also included controls for
genetic influences. The results were vastly different. Not only was the association observed by
Armour and Haynie no longer significant, the
direction of the association switched. Rather than
engaging in more delinquency, those youth with
earlier sexual debut actually engaged in less
delinquency than their peers. Similarly, Wright
and Beaver (2005) examined Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s (1990) assumption that parents are
primarily responsible for the development of
their children’s self-control. A modest relationship between parental practices and children’s
self-control was found but disappeared after
controlling for genetic influences. These examples illustrate a larger point that is directly relevant for criminologists: failing to account for
genetic influences alongside environmental
J. A. Schwartz et al.
influences may seriously bias results, even to the
extent of reporting associations in the wrong
direction.
Molecular Genetics
Behavior genetic studies show only that “something genetic” is operating, not the specific genes
involved. Molecular genetics is the next step in
the bottom-up search for the genetic contribution
to the causes of behavior because it is where we
may find the actual genes. After sampling DNA
from individuals, researchers may correlate gene
variants already identified with a trait, or search
for multiple candidate genes that may be associated with a quantitative trait via quantitative
trait loci (QTL) mapping. A QTL is a locus of
closely linked polymorphic genes the alleles of
which are thought to affect variance in targeted
quantitative traits. Each QTL may have small
effect sizes, but multiple QTLs may be identified
and combined into a “QTL set” as genetic risk
factors (Plomin & Asbury, 2005). For instance, a
Stallings et al. (2005) found 29 genetic markers
out of 374 examined for the comorbidity of
conduct disorder and vulnerability to substance
dependence.
Researchers also examine gene gene (G
G) interactions in the etiology of antisocial
behavior. Carrasco et al. (2006) examined two
genes responsible for the functioning of the
neurotransmitter dopamine—the DRD4 and
DAT1 genes. To grossly simplify, dopamine is
the major “motivating/reward” neurotransmitter,
DRD4 is a highly polymorphic dopamine
receptor gene that comes in a variety of “repeat”
forms, and DAT1 is a dopamine transporter gene
that also comes in a variety of repeats. Carrasco
et al. found no independent effects of two genetic
polymorphisms, but individuals who possessed
both the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 and the
10-repeat allele of the DAT1 were significantly
more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD (odds
ratio = 12.7) than subjects possessing neither or
only one of these alleles. Similarly, Beaver et al.
(2007) found no significant main effects for
5
The Biosocial Perspective: A Brief Overview and Potential …
either the DRD2 or DRD4 polymorphisms on
conduct disorder or antisocial behavior, but the
G G interaction had significant effects on
both.
More recently, researchers have moved away
from a “candidate” gene approach, in which one
(or a handful) of genetic variants are used to
predict variability in a given phenotype. This
change has been largely spurred by findings from
behavior genetics, population genetics, and
genomics indicating that any one genetic variant
is only likely to explain less than 1% of the
overall variance in a complex phenotype (e.g.,
criminal behavior). Rather, it is expected that
many genetic variants all explain an extremely
small proportion of the overall variance and the
collective, additive influence of such variants
will approximate the h2 estimates from behavior
genetic research studies. In addition, recent
studies have pointed to a number of methodological issues that are common within existing
candidate gene studies that may bias results
flowing from this literature including (but not
limited to): (1) insufficient statistical power; (2) a
lack of appropriate statistical controls; (3) an
inability to account for gene-environment correlations; (4) inappropriate transformation practices; and (5) an overreliance on a small group of
selected genetic variants (Christ, Schwartz,
Stoltenberg, Brauer, & Savolainen, 2018; Dick
et al., 2015). For these reasons, studies have
moved away from examining one, or even several, genetic variant(s) and have started examining the entire genome.
These studies are referred to as genome-wide
association studies (GWAS). GWAS examines
the association between segments of the genome
that vary within the general population with a
given phenotype (Hirschhorn & Daly, 2005).
Since such studies examine so many comparisons between each of the examined genetic
variants (often in excess of hundreds of thousands) and the examined phenotype, it is necessary to “adjust” the employed alpha level to
reflect the fact that some associations will “appear” to be significant simply by chance. This
adjustment is extremely stringent, resulting in a
limited number of variants that actually reach
93
“genome-wide” levels of significance. As time
has passed and GWAS techniques have been
continually refined, researchers have noticed that
this lack of “hits” is not a reflection of a lack of
significant genetic influence, but rather, a result
of insufficient statistical power (Sham & Purcell,
2014). In order to address this limitation, massive
samples have been employed (many times,
exceeding hundreds of thousands of participants)
and the number of hits has increased significantly. Each hit only explains an extremely small
proportion of the variance in a given phenotypes
(often a fraction of one percent), but when
summed, these hits can explain a much larger
proportion. To be clear, overall genome-wide
heritability estimates still do not match heritability estimates from other techniques (e.g.,
twin studies), but as GWAS techniques continue
to be refined, the gap between the two estimates
continues to close.
Epigenetics
Epigenetics is an exciting and relatively new way
of looking at how the genome interacts with the
environment, and is defined as: “any process that
alters gene activity without changing the DNA
sequence” (Weinhold, 2006, p. 163). Genes are
switched on and off by signals from the organism’s internal chemical environment and/or by its
external physical and social environment
according to the challenges it faces. There are
some genes that may be so strongly shaped by
protracted environmental events that they are
permanently turned on or off by less than the
normal environmental instigation required to do
so, or even in the absence of such instigation.
The regulation of genetic activity is accomplished by two main processes: methylation and
acetylation, the most common of which is
methylation (Lopez-Rangel & Lewis, 2006).
Methylation involves the attachment of a group
of methyl atoms to a cytosine nucleotide base
(one of the four “letters” of DNA) thus preventing the translation of DNA into mRNA, and
hence the protein the gene codes for is not
manufactured (Corwin, 2004).
94
There are a few quite suggestive lines of
evidence from epigenetic research that may open
up whole new vistas for criminologists. For
instance, a number of mental health researchers
have been looking into the epigenetic regulation
of serotonin and dopamine receptors in the etiology of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
(Petronis & Gottesman, 2000). However, the
most important line of research for us may be in
the epigenetics of nurturing. There has been a lot
of experimental research with lab animals
examining the epigenetic consequences of high
and low levels of nurturing. Major findings are
that highly nurtured animals show reduced
methylation of genes that determine the number
of glucocorticoid receptor (GRs) an animal will
have in the hippocampus (area of the brain
responsible for memory). High levels of GRs
means the animal will have greater control of its
stress responses, and because GRs modulate the
expression of a variety of neuronal genes and are
vital to neuronal homeostasis, they are vital for
mental health as well (Weaver et al., 2004).
A number of epigenetic scientists believe that
the field may have profound meaning for human
development and behavior. Michael Meaney, for
instance, states that: “We’re beginning to draw
cause-and-effect arrows between social and
economic macrovariables down to the level of
the child’s brain” (in Watters, 2006, p. 75).
Epigenetics is in its infancy, but the possibilities
for this area of research are quite exciting.
However, it is important to keep in mind that
epigenetic processes are, themselves, also influenced by genetic structure (Bell & Spector,
2012; Mill & Heijmans, 2013). This observation
is important, as any association between environmental influences and epigenetic processes
are, at least potentially, both influenced by a
common set of genetic influences, possibly
biasing these associations (Moffitt & Beckley,
2015). For these reasons, it is suggested that
studies aimed at examining epigenetic processes
in humans also account for genetic structure,
which is most commonly done with twin studies
or GWAS.
J. A. Schwartz et al.
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary psychology is interested in the
common nature possessed by all humans rather
than individual differences in phenotypic traits,
and in ultimate “why” questions rather than
proximate “how” questions of genetics. For
instance, while neurohormonal scientists may
explain sex differences in dominance and
aggression by pointing to different testosterone
levels and how testosterone operates, evolutionary scientists would want to know why these sex
differences exist in the first place; i.e., what the
selection pressures were that led to them.
The behavior of Homo sapiens is subject to
the same explanatory framework as the behavior
of any other animal; after all, there is no scientifically viable alternative explanation to evolution by natural and sexual selection for the basic
behavioral design of any animal. This is not to
say that culture is irrelevant to understanding
human behavior. Evolved behavioral adaptations
require evolutionarily-relevant triggers from the
environment both to develop and activate them,
and these triggers differ in thresholds, permissions, and constraints in different cultural contexts. Recognizing this Jerome Barkow (1989)
assures us that we will always need the social
sciences to help us understand these triggers, but
he also implores us not to forget that “psychology underlies culture and society, and biological
evolution underlies psychology” (p. 635).
The Evolution of Traits Related
to Criminal Behavior
Because evolution has shaped human psychology and behavior, it has shaped morally undesirable human traits such as egoism, deception,
and violence. Whenever an evolutionary biologist studies any behavior of any species, the first
question asked is “What is the adaptive significance of this behavior?” Surviving traits and
behaviors owe their existence to the fact that they
were useful to the reproductive success of the
5
The Biosocial Perspective: A Brief Overview and Potential …
species’ distant ancestors, whether they be
morally repugnant or whether they be positive
traits and behaviors such as altruism, empathy,
and nurturance. Needless to say, humans do not
display evolved patterns of behavior motivated
by the desire to maximize reproductive success.
“Evolutionary psychology is not a theory of
motivation. Fitness consequences are invoked
not as goals in themselves, but rather to explain
why certain goals have come to control behavior
at all, and why they are calibrated in one particular way rather than another” (Daly & Wilson,
1988, p. 7). Parents nurture their children not
because of a conscious desire to push their genes
into the future, but rather because ancestral parents who nurtured their children saw more of
them grow to reproductive age and pass on
nurturing traits down the genetic line. Parents
who were poor nurturers compromised their
children’s viability, and thus reduced the probability of their own genes being represented in
future generations. This is the ultimate (evolutionary) reason why nurturance of offspring is the
species norm while abuse and neglect is aberrant.
Evolutionary psychologists consider behavior
which is defined as criminal today to be morally
regrettable but biologically normal. A behavior
or trait is biologically “normal” if it can be
shown that every member of a species has a
potential for it under a variety of circumstances
and the behavior occurs frequently across time
and culture (Kanazawa, 2003). Of course,
specific criminal behaviors are not themselves
adaptations: “Genes do not code themselves for
jimmying a lock or stealing a car…the genome
does not waste precious DNA encoding the
specifics” (Rowe, 1996, p. 285). Criminal
behavior is a way of acquiring valued resources
by force or fraud; i.e., by exploiting others, and
the possession of resources however they are
acquired is useful in the ultimate goal of all living things—survival and reproductive success.
Evolutionary biologists refer to exploitive and
deceptive behavior as cheating, whether or not it
has been culturally defined as criminal. We all
have the potential to exploit and deceive others,
but few of us ever do so to a criminal extent
because we are a highly social and cooperative
95
species with minds forged by evolution to form
cooperative relationships built on reciprocal trust.
We cooperate with others because we feel good
when we do, and because it identifies us as
reliable and trustworthy, attributes that confer
valued social status on us. In short, cooperation
and reciprocal altruism are in the best interests of
every member of a social species. Again, cooperation and altruism are not engaged in so that
the actor can feel good, nor because he or she is
consciously motivated by the desire for status.
Social organisms do so, and are neurologically
rewarded when they do, because their distant
ancestors who behaved this way enjoyed greater
reproductive success than those who did not, thus
passing on the genes for the brain structures and
neurotransmitters that presumably underlie the
propensity (Barkow, 1997).
All evolutionary theories of criminal and
antisocial behavior focus on reproductive strategies and the behavioral tactics that flow from
them (see Walsh, 2006, for a discussion of these
theories). The reproductive strategies of any
species can be apportioned according to the time
and energy devoted to parenting versus mating
effort. At one extreme are species that devote all
their resources to mating and none at all to parenting (e.g., oysters who lay many thousands of
eggs) and at the other we have species such as
Homo sapiens who devote a huge proportion of
resources on parenting effort. Reproductive
strategies are underlain by a suite of evolved
traits that facilitate their pursuit. Among humans,
the suite of traits useful for focusing on mating
effort include deceitfulness, impulsiveness,
sensation-seeking, and aggression; traits useful
for focusing on parenting effort include empathy,
conscientiousness, and altruism.
The evolved traits useful for mating versus
parenting effort can be co-opted for other forms
of behavior: “crime can be identified with the
behaviors that tend to promote mating effort and
noncrime with those that tend to promote parenting effort” (Rowe, 1996, p. 270). A reproductive strategy emphasizing mating effort is thus
similar to criminal behavior in that direct and
immediate methods are used to procure resources
illegitimately. Parenting effort, on the other hand,
96
is embedded in a prosocial lifestyle in which
resource procurement relies on the accumulation
of social and occupational skills (the ability to
delay gratification) that are attractive to females.
The strength of the traits associated with the
two reproductive strategies is arrayed on a continuum dispersed around an adaptive mean, they
are not traits one has or has not. Nor are mating
strategies fixed; most people expended resources
primarily on mating effort at some points of the
life course and on parenting effort at other points
as reward contingencies shift. There are some
people, however, who are so deceitful, impulsive, aggressive, and sensation-seeking that they
are not constitutionally suited to anything
requiring long-term commitment, including
commitments to marriage and parenting or to
prosocial activ
