Part One Prediction and Explanation of Criminal Behavior

Introduction FRIEDRICH LOSEL

Models that predict and explain criminal behavior have a more or less direct influence on nearly all the procedures and decisions in the criminal justice system. According to the logic of science, the problems of explanation and prediction can be differentiated through the following structure: in the case of explanation, the explanandum - a fact of crime or criminality - is given. A search is made for the antecedent conditions and a deterministic or pro­babilistic scientific law from which the problematic issue can be derived as a special case. In prediction, the antecedent condition is given, and a search is made for a scientific law from which future facts can be derived. For criminal predictions, whether they are individual or collective predictions, no explicit theories of criminality are necessary. A substantial, repeatable empirical cor­relation between predictors and criterion is sufficient. However, the selection of predictors is to some extent already implicitly codetermined by theoretical assumptions, that is, there is no observation that is free of theory. And, vice versa, a valid prediction is the strongest methodological support for the utility of a theory. Models of explanation and prediction in criminology should there­fore, on the one hand, be differentiated according to their logic and content, while, on the other hand, they cannot be strictly separated from one another.

In criminology, there is a great number of explanations of criminal behavior which are only loosely interrelated. It can be seen that there is no single psychological perspective for the explanation of crime, but a great num­ber of hypotheses that are derived from very different theories, such as (1) bio­psychological theories, (2) trait theories from personality psychology, (3) (cognitive-social) learning theories, (4) theories of informal social control, (5) action and decision-making theories, (6) theories of moral development, and (7) self-concept and attribution theories.

In many explanations, several fields of theory are integrated, as in, for ex­ample, the hypotheses from Eysenck (1977) and Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) that are derived from personality psychology, learning theory, and (partially) physiology; or the assumptions regarding interpersonal bonds, learning pro­cesses, and informal social control in Hirschi (1969) and Elliott, Huizinga, and

18 F. LOsel

Ageton (1985). However, otherwise the theories only partially compete with one another. The situation is far more that each theory appears to be either more or less suitable for different phenomena of criminality (cf. Warren & Hindelang, 1979).

In the same way that there is a general overlap in the areas studied by the human sciences, there are also ties, overlaps, and complements between the psychological explanations of crime and those from other disciplines. This particularly applies for sociology. In comparison to the sociological explana­tions, the psychological ones tend to relate more strongly to levels of analysis that cover the criminal, his or her crime, and interactions in small groups (family, peers). Less attention is paid to historical and societal or macro-level aspects of criminality. However, this does not reflect a basic "blindness" in psychology, but rather a necessary and traditional division of labor. The ques­tion whether, for example, sociological explanations can be reduced to psychological ones, and these back to psychophysiological ones, cannot be answered at this time. For neither are the theoretical relations between different levels of analysis sufficiently elaborated, nor are integrative empirical data available. Putting aside the problem of reductionism, the way in which the ex­periencing subject interrelates and interacts with his or her environment - that is, the topic of psychological research (Traxe11976) - in any case takes an in­tervening position. Following this path, there are very promising approaches to the integration of micro- and macro-level criminological theories (e.g., Pear­son & Weiner, 1985).

The supporters of the labeling approach or the social reaction perspective have particularly spoken out against the focus on the crime and the criminal in explanations of criminality. For example, criticism is directed against the medical model of deviance, in which criminality is regarded as an expression of psychological deficits, traits, conflicts, disorders, or a "criminal personali­ty". In contrast, the social science model of deviance stresses that "crime" is not a category that is intrinsic to the respective activity, but is historically and societally attributed in a relatively variable way within the frameworks of in­teraction processes (for a recent discussion of the related "language problems" see Wilkins, 1987). The decision-making, selection, and stigmatization pro­cesses from the institutions of social control are of particular significance for the social construction of crime.

To what extent the dichotomy between the "medical" and the "social science" model of deviance is actually suitable for the majority of empirical research is an open question. Assumptions about the different nature of criminals, which are rightly criticized by, for example, Sarbin (1979) when he refers to the "criminal type", are often more differentiated, even in those theories that are close to the medical concept of sociopathy [cf., e.g., Trasler's model (1962), which is a development of Eysenck's personality theory]. Never­theless, the labeling approach has contributed to an important broadening of perspectives in criminal psychology. Thus, recent research, for example, pays more attention to attributions and decisions within the framework of the

Introduction 19

criminal justice system or is methodologically more critical of the traditional comparisons between official criminals and noncriminal contrast groups. How­ever, it must be remembered that the labeling approach, even in the conceptions of its fundamental authors (e.g., Lemert, 1967), cannot replace crime- and crimi­nal-related explanations. It is mainly an interpretation framework for the reaction of society to primary deviance, which is by no means equally distributed. In addi­tion, the selection and stigmatization processes of official social control that con­tribute to secondary deviance have not been as empirically consistent as has sometimes been postulated (cf. Gove, 1980). Despite these differences in perspec­tive, from today's viewpoint it would appear to be meaningful to conceive of research into crimes and criminals and research into social definitions and reac­tions less as opposites but more as complementary approaches. For example, such integrations can be operationalized empirically according to MacNaughton­Smith's (1968) concept of the primary and secondary code (LOsel, 1978).

While the labeling perspective had a strong influence on the discussion of criminological theory during the 1960s and 1970s (cf. Kaiser, 1985), recent developments are less unified. Nevertheless, some general trends can be seen. For example, there is more differentiation than before between various types of crime, and there is a clear separation between the explanation of long-term and serious crime compared to casual and petty crime (cf. Wilson & Herrn­stein, 1985). There is also a movement to work out more or less homogeneous crime structures (e.g., Chaiken & Chaiken, 1984) that transcend the former at­tempts to develop psychological typologies of criminals. As far as research into the socialization background of (persistent) criminals is concerned, character­istics of the multiproblem milieu in particular still retain great significance for explanation and prediction (cf. Farrington, Ohlin, & Wilson, 1985; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; LOsel, 1982). However, less emphasis is now placed on relatively static causal chains in which characteristics of socialization lead to fixed per­sonality characteristics that, in turn, are responsible for a disposition to criminal activity. The individual is now seen more as an active participant in the shaping of his or her own relatively flexible development [see, e.g., concepts such as effective coping, invulnerability, or resilience (LOsel, Bliesener, & KOferl, in press; Rutter, 1985; Werner, in press)]. In accordance with this perspective, it is on the one hand accepted - as longitudinal studies show -that there is a certain consistency and stability of problem behavior in the field of delinquency (Farrington, 1986; Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). On the other hand, even relatively persistent offenders and career criminals can only be predicted in a rather limited way (Petersilia, 1980), though at the same time persistent dispositions can be most readily assumed in that small circle of of­fenders who are apportioned a disproportionately large number of all crimes (for a controversial discussion of the concepts of "career criminals, criminal careers, selective incapacitation;' etc., see Blumstein, Cohen, & Farrington, 1988 a, b; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1986, 1987).

In accordance with the general theoretical development in personality psychology, in recent times criminal behavior has also increasingly been seen

20 F. LOsel

from the perspective of the actual interaction between person and situation. In this field, we can mention, for example, the research into the "reasoning criminal;' the structure of crime opportunities, or victimology (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Schneider, 1987). Likewise, more attention is also being paid to context characteristics and victim situations in prediction and prevention (Uisel, 1987; Monahan, 1981). However, personality dispositions for subareas of criminality must also not be neglected in an interactional perspective, but can be integrated with situation-related psychological constructs. This is shown, for example, in the cognitive social learning reconceptualization from Mischel (1973). Mischel stresses that cognitive and behavioral construction competences, encoding strategies and personal constructs, behavior-outcome and stimulus-outcome expectancies, subjective stimulus values, and self­regulatory systems and plans also have to be taken into account (when applied to criminal behavior, see Uisel, 1985).

The contributions in the first part of this volume represent essential aspects of the recent developments sketched above. In the first chapter, Dave Farring­ton reports new findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Develop­ment. This prospective longitudinal survey in Great Britain has, together with the work of Glueck and Glueck (1950) among others, and the cohort study from Wolfgang et al. (1972), become one of the most significant and most cited empirical investigations in criminology. In the present chapter, Dave Far­rington deals with the long-term prediction of adult offending, social failure, and other life outcomes. The predictors are data from the 8th to the 12th years of life. The findings show that, on the one hand, there is a striking continuity between ages 8 and 32, but, on the other hand, many boys from criminogenic backgrounds go against the prediction. Additionally, there are differences in the structures of the relationships in juvenile delinquency and in adult offen­ding, so that different theories are required to explain early versus later, or the beginning versus the persistence of offending. This differentiated finding posts many challenges to researchers and policy-makers, regarding, for example, the effect of protective factors or the scientific background of selective incapacita­tion.

Whereas Dave Farrington deals with the early prediction of offenders, the chapter from John Monahan addresses the prediction of violence or dangerousness within the framework of US criminal law and civil law. Although the commitment to mental hospitals and release from prison are organized differently in all countries, and there are also differences regarding sentences of unspecified duration, the scientific problem is rather similar. John Monahan describes several phases in the approach to the problem: After an initial phase of naive trust in the clinical predictions of psychiatrists and psychologists, a "first generation" of research in the 1970s seriously question­ed the validity of these expert predictions. In a still young, third phase of "pragmatic resurgence;' there is a stronger attempt to include actuarial or sta­tistical devices. Account should be taken of both the seriousness of the per­son's offences in the past and the probability that he or she will commit

Introduction 21

another crime in the future. John Monahan presents empirically founded deci­sion algorithms and analyzes case examples. He also gives research perspec­tives: For example, in the group of mentally disordered persons, it is necessary to differentiate according to subgroups so that the focus can be placed on the potential victims as well as on the offenders.

In the third chapter, Egon Stephan deals with prediction in offenders with drunken driving offences in the Federal Republic of Germany. Here, too, the question of the prediction of recidivism is closely tied to that of prevention. Egon Stephan briefly explains the legal treatment of drunken driving offences in West Germany, and compares it with that in other countries. He uses his own studies to show that the majority of the population in this offence area is probably more norm-conforming than is frequently supposed. The drivers who have been caught and particularly those who are recidivists in no way ap­pear to be the more or less randomly caught "tip of the iceberg;' but a sub­population with a particularly high undetected offence rate and frequent alcoholism. The empirical data suggest that the normal legal reaction is not sufficient for this particular high risk group. While, for example, the normal or, if need be, an increased density of control and corresponding sanctions are a suitable means of prevention for the sections of the population who are not threatened with alcoholism, it would appear that a more exact psychological diagnosis of the problem, treatment measures, or a restrictive policy in the returning of driving licenses is required for this high risk group.

The chapter from John Dussich addresses the explanation of juvenile delin­quency. He first undertakes a critical analysis of the concept of juvenile delin­quency in the United States and the problem of the status offender. The situa­tion in West Germany, for example, where, as with adults, only offences against criminal law are regarded as delinquency, appears to be criminologically less ambiguous. The theoretical approach presented by John Dussich is tied to Hirschi's (1969) control theory. This theory and its further developments (e.g., Elliott et aI., 1985) belong to the most promising interdisciplinary explanations of juvenile delinquency. John Dussich's concept of significant spacerounds stresses the quality of the bonds and relationships to others involving both dif­ferent social institutions (family, peers, school, work, community) and also various interaction characteristics (participation, exchange, control). As in coping theories, the individual takes a relatively active role in his or her rela­tionship to the environment. John Dussich has also made an international test of his approach, for example, with subjects in West Germany who were on pro­bation. If this approach holds up to further empirical investigation, the conse­quence for crime policy would be not to apply preventive measures in an isolated way, but, in the sense of spaceround integration, to apply them to several locations in the adolescents' networks of relationships.

The chapter from Robert Goldsmith, Gunilla Throjast, and Par-Eric Nilsson concerns adolescent delinquency. The authors attempt to provide a theoretical explanation for the decisions to carry out delinquent acts, by testing the effect of moral goals, moral reasoning, and personal constructs. The previ-

22 F. LOse!

ous applications of Kohlberg's theory of moral development (1984) among others, to the field of delinquency have been subject to controversial discus­sion. The present work clearly goes beyond this controversy by including various other theoretically important factors. In a comparison of delinquents with officially nondelinquent Swedish adolescents, and with the help of self­reports on delinquency, the authors show that the moral development level is only tied to delinquency in an indirect way (over goal priorities and evalua­tions). It is more the case that the willingness to perform delinquent acts ap­pears to depend not only on other cognitive personality constructs but especially on situative and offence-specific factors. In contrast to the studies by Yochelson and Samenow (1976) on typical criminovalent thinking patterns of serious criminals, . Robert Goldsmith, Gunilla Throfast, and Par-Eric Nilsson suggest a more individualized approach to the field of adolescent delinquency. The authors also deal with methodological problems involved in moral development research.

The chapter from Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke contains an applica­tion of rational choice theory to problems in criminality. This is one of the most important perspectives in recent criminology (cf. Cornish & Clarke, 1986). The focus of the explanation is particularly guided toward variables of the opportunities, costs, and benefits which are also the basis of theories of deterrence (cf. Beylefeld, 1979; Lattimore & Witte, 1986). Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke not only present general characteristics of the rational choice approach, but also tackle the problems of crime specialization and crime displacement that are of great practical significance. The question of specialization, which has been dismissed at least for adolescents under the slogan "cafeteria style delinquency" (Klein, 1984), is, among others, signifi­cant for the detection of criminals through their modus operandi (cf. Oever­mann, Schuster, & Simm, 1985). The question of displacement particularly arises for the long-term locational and temporal effectivity of measures of situational prevention (cf. LOsel, 1987). Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke of­fer answers to both problems that go beyond the usual conceptions. They show that only "deeper" psychological analyses of decision-making structures can provide a suitable answer to the questions of displacement and specialization.

While Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke address the basic theoretical ques­tions in the decision to commit deviant behavior, Ingrid Deusinger reports an empirical study into a specific field of application. Her study investigates whether and, if this is the case, which features of homes are perceived to be particularly favorable crime opportunities for burglaries (low risk, high spoils, etc.). Ingrid Deusinger systematically varied features of homes, which were then judged by imprisoned burglars, police officers, and a sample from the normal population. Thus, in contrast to the original concept of defensible space (Newman, 1972), direct and offence-specific ecological factors were studied. The study is closer in context to the investigations into crime oppor­tunities for shoplifting (Carroll & Weaver, 1986) or bank robberies (Servay & Rehm, 1986). Ingrid Deusinger's findings show that offenders have clear con-

Introduction 23

cepts of favorable offence opportunities. Their estimations differ in their "ex­pert knowledge" from those of the normal population, but are closer to those of the police officers. This pragmatically designed study points to concrete starting points for prevention by using the knowledge of "cooperative" persons from the other side. Nevertheless, as in all crime policy, single approaches should not be overrated. Flexible offenders, for example, can use feedback to adjust their perception of offence opportunities in line with publicly recognizable prevention strategies.

Such considerations on the dynamics of crime phenomena do not just app­ly to the field of prevention. In that, crime is essentially constituted by social conditions that are subject to cultural and historical change, models of ex­planation and prediction should not only be conceived of as quasinaturallaws, but as attempts to explicate time- and context-specific regularities.

References

Beylefeld, D. (1979). Identifying, explaining and predicting deterrence. British Journal of Criminology, 19, 205 - 224.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988 a). Criminal career research: Its value for criminology. Criminology, 26, 1- 35.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, 1., & Farrington, D.P. (1988b). Longitudinal and criminal research: Further clarifications. Criminology, 26, 57 -74.

Carroll, 1., & Weaver, F. (1986). Shoplifter's perception of crime opportunities: A process­tracing study. In D. B. Cornish, & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal. (pp. 19-38). New York: Springer.

Chaiken, M. R., & Chaiken, 1. M. (1984). Offender types and public policy. Crime and Delin­quency, 30, 195-226.

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal. Rational choice perspectives of offending. New York: Springer.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, 0., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Eysenck, H.1. (1977). Crime and personality (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice:

An annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 190-250). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, D. P., Ohlin, L. E., & Wilson, J. Q. (1985). Understanding and controlling crime: Toward a new research strategy. New York: Springer.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1986). The true value of lambda would appear to be zero: An essay on career criminals, criminal careers, selective incapacitation, cohort studies and related topics. Criminology, 24, 213 - 234.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research on crime. Criminology, 25, 581-614.

Gove, W. R. (Ed.). (1980). The labeling of deviance. Evaluating a perspective (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.

24 F. LOse!

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kaiser, G. (1985). Kriminologie (7th ed.). Heidelberg: MUller, C. F. Klein, M. W. (1984). Offence specialisation and versatility among juveniles. British Journal

of Criminology, 24, 185 - 194. Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral devel­

opment. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Lattimore, P., & Witte, A. (1986). Models of decision making under uncertainty: The

criminal choice. In D. B., Cornish, & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal (pp. 129 -155). New York: Springer.

Lemert, E. M. (1967). The concept of secondary deviation. In E. M. Lemert (Ed.), Human deviance, social problems and social control (pp. 40-64). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice­Hall.

Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.

Losel, F. (1978). Uber elementare Konzepte sozialer Devianz und ihre Beziehung - Ein Beitrag zur Explikation und ein empirischer PrUfversuch. Zeitschrijtfiir Sozialpsycholo­gie, 9, 2-18.

LOsel, F. (1982). Prognose und Priivention von Delinquenzproblemen. In J. Brandtstiidter & A. von Eye (Eds.), Psychologische Priivention (pp. 197 - 239). Bern: Huber.

LOsel, F. (1985). Tiiterpersonlichkeit. In G. Kaiser, H.-J. Kerner, F. Sack & H. Schellhoss (Eds.), Kleines kriminologisches Worterbuch (2nd ed., pp. 471-479). Heidelberg: MUller, C. F.

LOsel, F. (1987). Psychological crime prevention: Concepts, evaluations, and perspectives. In K. Hurrelmann; F.-x. Kaufmann & F. LOsel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 289 - 313). Berlin: de Gruyter.

LOsel, F., Bliesener, F., & Kaferl, P. (in press). On the concept of "invulnerability": Evalua­tion and first results of the Bielefeld Project. In M. Brambring, F. LOsel, & H. Skowronek (Eds.), Children at risk: Assessment and longitudinal research. Berlin: de Gruyter.

MacNaughton-Smith, P. (1968). The second code. Toward (or away from) an empiric theory of crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 5, 189-197.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting violent behaviour. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Macmillan. Oevermann, u., Schuster, L., & Simm, A. (Eds.). (1985). Zum Problem der Perseveranz in

Delikttyp und modus operandi (pp. 129-188). Wiesbaden. Bundeskriminalamt. Pearson, F., & Weiner, N. A. (1985). Toward an integration of criminological theories. Jour­

nal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 116-150. Petersilia, J. (1980). Criminal career research: A review of recent evidence. In N. Morris &

M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research (Vol. 2, pp. 321-379). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.

Sarbin, T.R. (1979). The myth of the criminal type. In T.R. Sarbin (Ed.), Challenges to the criminal justice system: The perspectives of community psychology (pp. 1 - 27). New York: Human Science.

Schneider, H.-J. (1987). Kriminologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Introduction 25

Servay, w., & Rehm, 1. (1986). Bankraub aus der Sicht der Tiiter. Wiesbaden: Bundeskrimi­nalamt.

Trasler, G. (1962). The explanation oj criminality. London: Routledge, & Kegan Paul. Traxel, W. (1976). Der Gegenstand der Psychologie als Produkt und Problem des

psychologischen Denkens. In G. Eberlein, & R. Pieper (Eds.), Psychologie -WissenschaJt ohne Gegenstand? (pp. 105 -139). Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

Warren, M. Q., & Hindelang, M. J. (1979). Current explanations of offender behaviour. In H. Toch (Ed.), Psychology oj crime and criminal justice (pp. 166 -182). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Werner, E. E. (in press). Vulnerability and resiliency: A longitudinal perspective. In M. Bram­bring, F. LOsel, & H. Skowronek (Eds.), Children at risk: Assessment and longitudinal research. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Wilkins, L. T. (1987). Making criminology policy relevant? In M. R. Gottfredson, & T. Hirschi (Eds.), Positive criminology (pp. 154-172). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wilson, J., & Herrnstein, R.1. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon, & Schuster.

Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University Press.

Yochelson, S., & Samenow, S.E. (1976). The criminal personality: Vol. I. A projile jor change. New York: Aronson, 1.