Review of the Roots of Youth Violence:

Literature Reviews
Volume 5, Chapter 2:
Psychological Theories
The issue of human violence is also a major topic within the academic discipline of
psychology. As biosocial theorists do, psychologists focus on how individual
characteristics may interact with the social environment to produce a violent event.
However, rather than focus on the biological basis of crime, psychologists focus on how
mental processes impact individual propensities for violence. Psychologists are often
interested in the association between learning, intelligence, and personality and
aggressive behaviour. In this section of the report, we briefly review some of the major
psychological perspectives that have attempted to explain violent behaviour. These
perspectives include the psychodynamic perspective, behavioural theory, cognitive
theory and personality theory. We will also explore the possible relationship between
mental illness and violence.

The Psychodynamic Perspective

The psychodynamic perspective is largely based on the groundbreaking ideas of Sigmund

Freud. A detailed discussion of Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis is beyond the scope of
this report. It is sufficient to note that Freud thought that human behaviour, including
violent behaviour, was the product of “unconscious” forces operating within a person’s
mind. Freud also felt that early childhood experiences had a profound impact on
adolescent and adult behaviour. Freud, for example, believed that conflicts that occur at
various psychosexual stages of development might impact an individual’s ability to
operate normally as an adult (Bartol, 2002). For Freud, aggression was thus a basic
(idbased) human impulse that is repressed in well-adjusted people who have
experienced a normal childhood. However, if the aggressive impulse is not controlled, or
is repressed to an unusual degree, some aggression can “leak out” of the unconscious
and a person can engage in random acts of violence. Freud referred to this as “displaced
aggression” (see Englander, 2007; Bartol, 2002).

It is interesting to note that Freud himself did not theorize much about crime or violence.
The psychoanalyst who is perhaps most closely associated with the study of criminality is
August Aichorn. Unlike many of the sociologists of his day, Aichorn felt that exposure to
stressful social environments did not automatically produce crime or violence. After all,
most people are exposed to extreme stress and do not engage in serious forms of
criminality. Aichorn felt that stress only produced crime in those who had a particular
mental state known as latent delinquency. Latent delinquency, according to Aichorn,
results from inadequate childhood socialization and manifests itself in the need for
immediate gratification (impulsivity), a lack of empathy for others, and the inability to
feel guilt (Aichorn, 1935).

Since Aichorn’s early work, psychoanalysts have come to view violent criminals as
“iddominated” individuals who are unable to control their impulsive, pleasure-seeking
drives (Toch, 1979). Often because of childhood neglect or abuse, violence-prone
individuals suffer from weak or damaged “egos” that render them unable to deal with
stressful circumstances within conventional society. It is also argued that youth with
weak egos are immature and easily led into crime and violence by deviant peers
(Andrews and Bonta, 1994). In their most extreme form, underdeveloped egos (or
superegos) can lead to “psychosis” and the inability to feel sympathy for the victims of
crime (see DiNapoli, 2002; Seigel and McCormick, 2006). In sum, psychodynamic
theories depict the violent offender as an impulsive, easily frustrated person who is
dominated by events or issues that occurred in early childhood.

The most significant criticism of the psychoanalytic perspective is that it is based on

information derived from therapists’ subjective interpretations of interviews with a very
small number of patients (see Englander, 2007). In other words, the theory has not yet
been subject to rigorous scientific verification. Nonetheless, it is important to stress that
basic psychodynamic principles have had a major impact on the subsequent
development of criminological thought. For example, many other theories of violence
have come to stress the importance of the family and early childhood experiences.
Similarly, a number of sociological and criminological theories stress that violent
criminals are impulsive and lack empathy for others (see the discussion of self-control
theory below). Many of these theories are discussed in upcoming sections of this report.

Behavioural Theories

Behaviour theory maintains that all human behaviour – including violent behaviour – is
learned through interaction with the social environment. Behaviourists argue that people
are not born with a violent disposition. Rather, they learn to think and act violently as a
result of their day-to-day experiences (Bandura, 1977). These experiences, proponents
of the behaviourist tradition maintain, might include observing friends or family being
rewarded for violent behaviour, or even observing the glorification of violence in the
media. Studies of family life, for example, show that aggressive children often model the
violent behaviours of their parents. Studies have also found that people who live in
violent communities learn to model the aggressive behaviour of their neighbours (Bartol,
2002).

Behavioural theorists have argued that the following four factors help produce violence:
1) a stressful event or stimulus – like a threat, challenge or assault – that heightens
arousal; 2) aggressive skills or techniques learned through observing others; 3) a belief
that aggression or violence will be socially rewarded (by, for example, reducing
frustration, enhancing self-esteem, providing material goods or earning the praise of
other people); and 4) a value system that condones violent acts within certain social
contexts. Early empirical tests of these four principles were promising (Bartol, 2002). As
a result, behavioural theory directly contributed to the development of social learning
theories of deviance (differential association theory, sub-cultural theory, neutralization
theory, etc.). These theories, among the most important and influential of all
criminological theories, are subject to a detailed discussion in the section of this report
entitled Social Learning and Violence (see below).

Cognitive Development and Violence

Cognitive theorists focus on how people perceive their social environment and learn to
solve problems. The moral and intellectual development perspective is the branch of
cognitive theory that is most associated with the study of crime and violence. Piaget
(1932) was one of the first psychologists to argue that people’s reasoning abilities
develop in an orderly and logical fashion. He argued that, during the first stage of
development (the sensor-motor stage), children respond to their social environment in a
simple fashion by focusing their attention on interesting objects and developing their
motor skills. By the final stage of the development (the formal operations stage),
children have developed into mature adults who are capable of complex reasoning and
abstract thought.

Kohlberg (1969) applied the concept of moral development to the study of criminal
behaviour. He argued that all people travel through six different stages of moral
development. At the first stage, people only obey the law because they are afraid of
punishment. By the sixth stage, however, people obey the law because it is an assumed
obligation and because they believe in the universal principles of justice, equity, and
respect for others. In his research, Kohlberg found that violent youth were significantly
lower in their moral development than non-violent youth – even after controlling for
social background (Kohlberg et al., 1973). Since his pioneering efforts, studies have
consistently found that people who obey the law simply to avoid punishment (i.e., out of
self-interest) are more likely to commit acts of violence than are people who recognize
and sympathize with the fundamental rights of others. Higher levels of moral reasoning,
on the other hand, are associated with acts of altruism, generosity and non-violence
(Veneziano and Veneziano, 1992). In sum, the weight of the evidence suggests that
people with lower levels of moral reasoning will engage in crime and violence when they
think they can get away with it. On the other hand, even when presented with the
opportunity, people with higher levels of moral reasoning will refrain from criminal
behaviour because they think it is wrong.

Another area of cognitive theory that has received considerable attention from violence
researchers involves the study of information processing. Psychological research
suggests that when people make decisions, they engage in a series of complex thought
processes. First they encode and interpret the information or stimuli they are presented
with, then they search for a proper response or appropriate action, and finally, they act
on their decision (Dodge, 1986). According to information processing theorists, violent
individuals may be using information incorrectly when they make their decisions.
Violence-prone youth, for example, may see people as more threatening or aggressive
than they actually are. This may cause some youth to react with violence at the slightest
provocation. According to this perspective, aggressive children are more vigilant and
suspicious than normal youth are – a factor that greatly increases their likelihood of
engaging in violent behaviour. Consistent with this perspective, research suggests that
some youth who engage in violent attacks on others actually believe that they are
defending themselves, even when they have totally misinterpreted the level of threat
(Lochman, 1987). Recent research also indicates that male rapists often have little
sympathy for their own victims, but do in fact empathize with the female victims of other
sexual offenders. This finding suggests that, because of information processing issues,
some offenders can’t recognize the harm they are doing to others (Langton and Marshall,
2001; Lipton et al., 1987).

Personality and Violence

The psychological concept of “personality” has been defined as stable patterns of

behaviour, thoughts or actions that distinguish one person from another (see Seigel and
McCormick, 2006: 180). A number of early criminologists argued that certain personality
types are more prone to criminal behaviour. The Gluecks (Glueck and Glueck, 1950), for
example, identified a number of personality traits that they felt were associated with
violence, including self-assertiveness, defiance, extroversion, narcissism and suspicion.
More recently, researchers have linked violent behaviours to traits such as hostility,
egoism, self-centredness, spitefulness, jealousy, and indifference to or lack of empathy
for others. Criminals have also been found to lack ambition and perseverance, to have
difficulty controlling their tempers and other impulses, and to be more likely than
conventional people are to hold unconventional beliefs (see Atkins, 2007; Capara et al.,
2007; Costello and Dunaway 2003; Johnson et al., 2000; Sutherland and Shepard,
2002; Miller and Lynam, 2001).

The Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Multidimensional Personality

Questionnaire (MPQ) have frequently been used to assess the personality characteristics
of young people. The use of these scales has consistently produced a statistically
significant relationship between certain personality characteristics and criminal
behaviour. Adolescents who are prone to violence typically respond to frustrating events
or situations with strong negative emotions. They often feel stressed, anxious and
irritable in the face of adverse social conditions. Psychological testing also suggests that
crime-prone youth are also impulsive, paranoid, aggressive, hostile, and quick to take
action against perceived threats (Avshalom et al., 1994).

There is considerable debate about the causal direction of the personality-violence

association. On the one hand, some scholars have argued that there is a direct causal
link between certain personality traits and criminal behaviour. However, others maintain
that personality characteristics interact with other factors to produce crime and violence.
For example, defiant, impulsive youth often have less-than-stellar educational and work
histories. Poor education and employment histories subsequently block opportunities for
economic success. These blocked opportunities, in turn, lead to frustration, deprivation,
and ultimately, criminal activity (Miller and Lynam, 2001).

Psychopathy and Violence

Research suggests that some serious violent offenders may have a serious personality
defect commonly known as psychopathy, sociopathy or anti-social personality disorder.
Psychopaths are impulsive, have low levels of guilt and frequently violate the rights of
others. They have been described as egocentric, manipulative, cold-hearted, forceful,
and incapable of feeling anxiety or remorse over their violent actions. Psychopaths are
also said to be able to justify their actions to themselves so that they always appear to
be reasonable and justified.

Considering these negative personality traits, it is perhaps not surprising that recent
studies show that psychopaths are significantly more prone to violence compared with
the normal population. Furthermore, the research evidence also suggests that
psychopaths often continue with their criminal careers long after others have aged out of
crime. It has been estimated that approximately 30 per cent of all prison inmates in the
United States are psychopaths. More recent projections, however, place this estimate
closer to ten per cent. However, psychopaths are particularly over-represented among
chronic offenders. Indeed, it is estimated that up to 80 per cent of chronic offenders
exhibit psychopathic personalities. In sum, research suggests that psychopaths have a
significantly higher likelihood of violence than others do. However, experts also stress
that not all psychopaths become violent. In fact, the majority of people convicted of
violent crimes in Canada and the US do not have a psychopathic personality (see reviews
in Edens et al., 2001; Lykken, 1996).

A recent meta-analysis conducted by Edens and his colleagues (2007) summarizes

juvenile recidivism data in relation to psychopathology. The authors searched and coded
both published and unpublished studies completed between 1990 and 2005. The studies
they reviewed include an even split between American and Canadian samples (with one
additional sample from Sweden). The results of their ambitious project reveal that a
juvenile diagnosis for psychopathy is a strong predictor of future violence in adulthood.
The findings further demonstrate that psychopathy is significantly related to both general
and violent recidivism, but only weakly associated with sexual recidivism. Interestingly,
the data also reveal that psychopathy is a weaker predictor of violent recidivism among
more racially diverse samples.

Psychologists think that a number of early childhood factors might contribute to the
development of a psychopathic or sociopathic personality. These factors include having
an emotionally unstable parent, parental rejection, lack of love during childhood and
inconsistent discipline. Young children – in the first three years of life – who do not have
the opportunity to emotionally bond with their mothers, experience a sudden separation
from their mothers, or see changes in their mother figures are at particularly high risk of
developing a psychopathic personality.

Intelligence and Violence

Another major area of psychological inquiry involves the possible relationship between
intelligence and crime. Criminologists working in the early 20  century often argued that
th

intelligence is strongly associated with criminal behaviour. People with low intelligence,
they argued, were much more likely to engage in crime and violence than people with
high intelligence were. Support for this hypothesis was garnered from studies that
directly compared the IQ scores of adolescents with IQ scores derived from the general
population. In general, these pioneering studies reported that the IQ scores of
delinquents were significantly lower than the IQ scores of normal controls (Goddard,
1920; Healy and Bronner, 1926).

Simplistic notions that low intelligence causes crime and delinquency often led to
disastrous results. For example, in the 1920s, the governments of British Columbia and
Alberta passed “negative eugenics” laws that called for the sterilization of people thought
to possess low intelligence or other negative psychological characteristics. It is important
note that, but for the disapproval of the Catholic church, such sterilization laws would
also have come into effect in both Ontario and Quebec. Under such laws, which remained
in effect until the 1970s, over 5,000 people in Canada were approved for sterilization.
Most of these people were arbitrarily diagnosed as having “mental defects.” Finally, in
1999, the courts decided that the Alberta and BC governments had acted falsely and
victims subsequently agreed to an $82 million settlement (see Seigel and McCormick,
2006: 183).

The Nature-Nurture Debate

Much of the early work on the link between IQ and crime has been dismissed as overly
simplistic and as unsubstantiated owing to poor research designs. However, the issue of
a possible association between intelligence and violence has persisted into this century.
Much of the contemporary debate centres on whether intelligence is biologically based or
the product of environmental conditions. Nature theory holds that intelligence is
genetically determined and that low IQ directly causes violent and criminal behaviour.
Nurture theorists, on the other hand, argue that intelligence is determined by the quality
of the social environment – particularly during childhood – and is not a product of
genetic inheritance. Intelligence, they maintain, is largely determined by the quality of
the parental bond, the level of intellectual stimulation received during early childhood,
the nature of local peer-group relations, and the quality of neighbourhood schools.
Therefore, nature theorists argue that, if IQ scores are indeed lower among violent
criminals, this likely reflects differences in environmental or cultural background, not
differences in biological makeup (Rogers et al., 2000).

Nature theory also came under attack in the late 1920s and early 1930s when new
studies determined that the IQ-crime relationship was not as strong as initially expected.
For example, Slawson (1926) found that although adolescent offenders tended to score
lower on verbal intelligence tests, they had normal scores on measures of nonverbal
intelligence. These results highlighted the possibility that IQ tests may be culturally
biased. Similarly, Edwin Sutherland, one of the founding fathers of modern criminology,
provided evidence that observed differences in IQ scores often stemmed from problems
with testing methods rather than actual differences in intelligence (Sutherland, 1931).
After being condemned by Sutherland as an unproductive line of inquiry, research on the
IQ-crime relationship disappeared from the criminological literature for several decades.

The Re-emergence of the IQ-Violence Debate

In a controversial article that appeared in the late 1970s, Travis Hirschi and Michael
Hindelang reviewed existing data on the intelligence-crime relationship and concluded
that IQ is a stronger predictor of crime and violence than many other demographic
characteristics are – including social class (see Hirschi and Hindelang, 1997). Since the
appearance of this article, a large number of other international studies have emerged
that the support the existence of the IQ-violence relationship (Piquero, 2000; Lynam et
al., 1993; Denno, 1985). Many of these studies, however, suggest that the IQ-crime
relationship is quite weak. For example, an extensive review by the American
Psychological Association found only a small relationship between intelligence and
criminal behaviour. By contrast, in The Bell Curve, James Q. Wilson and Charles Murray
(1994) conclude, after an extensive review of the research evidence, that there is a very
strong correlation between IQ and crime and that people with low IQs are more likely to
commit crimes, get caught, and be sent to prison. Similarly, a recent study by Piquero
(2000) found that low scores on intelligence tests were among the strongest predictors
of violent behaviour and could be used to distinguish between violent and non-violent
offenders.

While some scholars maintain that there is a direct link between intelligence and
criminality, others believe that there is only an indirect association. Some argue, for
example, that low intelligence leads to poor school performance. Poor school
performance, in turn, directly contributes to criminal behaviour. Wilson and Hernstein
summarize this argument when they state that “[a] child who chronically loses standing
in the competition of the classroom may feel justified in settling the score outside, by
violence, theft and other forms of defiant illegality” (Wilson and Herstein, 1985: 148).
Critics have responded to this position by maintaining that there are many other factors,
besides intelligence, that contribute to success in school. These factors include family
support for academic achievement, the quality of teachers and the school environment,
the nature of the curriculum, and the degree of student engagement.

The debate over the exact nature of the intelligence-crime relationship is nowhere near
to being solved. Most experts agree, for example, that the measurement of IQ is
extremely problematic. Furthermore, the distinct possibility that IQ tests are both
culturally biased and class-biased greatly undermines the validity of previous research.
Finally, even if we accept previous research results at face value, intelligence-based
explanations cannot begin to explain major patterns of criminal behaviour. IQ scores, for
example, do not come close to explaining why men are much more violent than women.
Similarly, people do not become more intelligent as they age. Thus, IQ-based theories
cannot account for the fact that most offenders age out of crime and violence (see Seigel
and McCormick, 2006).

Mental Illness and Violence

A recent survey of more than 6,000 respondents from 14 countries found that
approximately ten per cent of the adult population suffers from some form of mental
illness – ranging from depression to schizophrenia (Seigel and McCormick, 2006). Rates
of mental illness may be even higher among youth. For example, one study found that
one in five children and adolescents residing in Ontario suffer from a significant mental
health disorder.  Leschied (2007) notes that cross-national research has also
1

documented a 20 per cent mental illness rate among children between zero and 16 years
of age. The most common disorders among youth include depression, substance abuse
and conduct disorder (Osenblatt, 2001). Research also suggests that mental health
issues may put young people at risk of engaging in violent behaviour. For example, after
an extensive review of the literature, Monohan (2000: 112) noted that “[n]o matter how
many social and demographic factors are statistically taken into account, there appears
to be a greater than chance relationship between mental disorder and violent behaviour.
Mental disorder is a statistically significant risk factor for the occurrence of violence.”

Research suggests that depression, a relatively common disorder among youth, may be
related to aggression. For example, one recent study documented that affective
disorders are related to aggression at both home and school. This study is important
because other studies have found a link between depression and both property crime
and substance use, but not violence (see Englander, 2007). However, the authors of this
study do note that they only focused on minor forms of aggression, not serious violence
(Pliszka et al., 2000). Interestingly, a number of studies have found that while minor
depression is related to an increased probability of minor criminality, major bipolar
depression is not at all related to serious violent behaviour. Indeed, major depression
may be too crippling a disorder to permit someone to form intent and act out in a violent
manner (see Modestin et al., 1997). Similarly, some experts have suggested that youth
suffering from affective disorders are actually more likely to withdraw and harm
themselves than to act violently towards others (Hillbrand, 1994).

Additional research suggests that particular types of mental illness – including

schizophrenia – are more associated with violent behaviour than others are (see
Lescheid, 2007). For example, people who suffer from paranoid delusions that others are
trying to harm them, or feel that their minds are being controlled by outside forces, are
more vulnerable to periodic episodes of rage and violence than are those who do not
have these symptoms (Monahan, 1996; Berenbaun and Fujita, 1994). Studies have also
found that up to 75 of juvenile murderers suffer from some form of mental illness –
including psychopathy and schizophrenia (Rosner, 1979; Sorrells, 1977). Another study
followed 1,000 English children from birth to their 21st birthday and found that only two
per cent of the sample met the DSM-III diagnostic criteria for mental illness. However,
this two per cent was responsible for 50 per cent of the violent incidents that were
documented during the study period (see Arsenault et al., 2000).

In sum, research gives tentative support for the idea that mental disturbance or illness
may be a root or underlying cause of violent behaviour. It is extremely important to
note, however, that some scholars suggest that this relationship may be spurious. In
other words, the same social conditions that produce violent behaviour – including
parental neglect, child abuse, violent victimization, racism, peer pressure and poverty –
may also cause mental illness (for discussions about the co-morbidity of violence and
mental illness see Durant et al., 2007; Leischied, 2007). Studies also suggest that most
people with severe mental illnesses do not engage in serious violence or criminality
(Cirincione et al., 1991). It is also interesting to observe that, at the societal level, rates
of violent crime have actually decreased at the same time that mentally ill populations
have been de-institutionalized.

A Note on Substance Abuse and Violence

Substance abuse – including alcoholism – has now been formally recognized as a mental
illness. Research has also established that there is a strong positive correlation between
levels of substance abuse and violence. For example, a Corrections Canada survey of
over 6,000 inmates, many of them violent offenders, found that 48 per cent admitted to
using illegal drugs at the time of their offence (Seigel and McCormick, 2006). Similarly, a
recent US study found that over 80 per cent of people arrested for violent crimes tested
positive for illegal drugs at the time of their apprehension (Feutcht, 1996). Furthermore,
numerous cross-national surveys of prison inmates reveal that the vast majority were
under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of their offence (Innes, 1988).

It is hypothesized that alcohol and drugs can impact violence in three ways. First of all,
alcohol and drugs may have psychopharmacological effects that impair cognition and
subsequently increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviour. Many have argued, for
example, that the physiological impact of substance use serves to reduce social
inhibitions and thus frees or enables people to act on their violent impulses. Others,
however, have argued that this “disinhibition effect” is culturally specific. Anthropologists
have shown, for example, that the social effects of alcohol vary dramatically from
country to country. In some nations, alcohol intoxication is related to violence, in others
it is not. Is it possible that the effect of alcohol and drugs are socially defined? In some
societies, people may come to believe that there is a strong relationship between
intoxication and violence. If so, some people may come to use alcohol and drugs as an
excuse or justification for their violent behaviour. Studies do suggest that people are
more forgiving of people who engage in violent acts while intoxicated and are less
forgiving of people who engage in violence while sober (see review in White, 2004).

A second way that substance abuse may increase violence is by increasing economic
need. Many drug addicts, for example, engage in violent crimes (including robbery) in
order to gain enough money to support their habits. Violence is also related to
competition between drug traffickers. Indeed, any lucrative drug trade may attract
ruthless individuals and gangs who are willing to resort to violence in order to control
markets (territories) or ensure the repayment of drug debts. Drug traffickers may also
draw the attention of other predatory criminals who specifically target them for robbery
because they carry large volumes of cash (and drugs) and cannot report their
victimization to the police (Wortley and Tanner, 2007).

Policy Implications

Over the past 100 years, psychological perspectives on violence have had a major
impact on crime control and crime prevention policy. Primary prevention programs that
employ psychological principles include strategies that seek to identify and treat personal
problems and disorders before they translate into criminal behaviour. Organizations
involved in such primary prevention efforts include family therapy centres, mental health
associations, school counselling programs and substance abuse clinics. School
administrators, teachers, social workers, youth courts and employers frequently make
referrals to these programs. Many argue that the expansion of such psychological
services will ultimately reduce the level of violent crime in society (Seigel and
McCormick, 2006).

Secondary prevention efforts, on the other hand, provide psychological treatment after a
crime has been committed and the offender has become involved in the criminal justice
system. Many of these programs are based on social learning principles. Judges often
recommend them at the sentencing stage. Furthermore, once inmates enter a
correctional facility, they are likely to be subjected to intense psychological assessment
to determine their treatment needs. Attendance at such programs may also be a
mandatory requirement of probation or parole. Examples of popular psychologically
based rehabilitation strategies in Canada include treatment programs for substance
abuse, sex offender treatment, anger management training and programs designed to
improve cognitive skills (Griffiths and Cunningham, 2000). Over the past few decades,
considerable debate has emerged with respect to the relative effectiveness of
rehabilitative efforts within corrections. In fact, some critics maintain that “nothing
works” with respect to the rehabilitation of chronic offenders (Griffiths and Cunningham,
2000). This issue is subject to a detailed discussion in another report commissioned by
the Review of the Roots of Youth Violence.

In sum, as with biosocial theories of crime causation, psychological theories focus on the
identification and treatment of individual traits that may predispose people to violent
behaviour. As such, psychological theorists have been charged with ignoring larger social
forces – including poverty, social inequality, neighbourhood disorganization and racism –
that may have a strong impact on violent behaviour. Such factors, however, have been
considered by a wide variety of sociological and criminological perspectives on crime. We
begin our discussion of these theories in the next section of this report.

References