Why This Matters
Criminal behavior doesn't emerge from a single cause—it develops through a complex web of biological, psychological, and social influences that accumulate across a person's lifespan. Understanding risk factors is central to the Crime and Human Development framework because it reveals how developmental trajectories, social learning, strain theory, and biosocial interactions combine to increase or decrease the likelihood of offending. You're being tested on your ability to identify not just what these risk factors are, but how they operate and interact with each other.
Don't just memorize a list of risk factors—know what theoretical mechanism each one illustrates. Can you explain why poverty increases crime risk through multiple pathways? Can you distinguish between factors that operate at the individual level versus the environmental level? These are the kinds of analytical connections that separate strong exam responses from weak ones. Master the "why" behind each factor, and you'll be ready for any FRQ that asks you to apply criminological theory to real-world scenarios.
Individual-Level Factors: The Person
These risk factors operate within the individual—whether biological, psychological, or behavioral. Self-control theory and biosocial criminology help explain why some people are more vulnerable to criminal behavior regardless of their environment.
Impulsivity and Poor Self-Control
- Low self-control is one of the strongest predictors of criminal behavior—individuals act on immediate desires without weighing long-term consequences
- Emotional dysregulation leads to conflicts escalating into aggression, particularly in high-stress situations
- Gottfredson and Hirschi's self-control theory argues this trait, established early in childhood, remains relatively stable and predicts offending across the life course
Genetic Predisposition
- Heritability studies suggest 40-60% of variance in antisocial behavior has genetic components—but genes are not destiny
- Inherited traits like aggression and sensation-seeking interact with environmental triggers, illustrating the gene-environment interaction model
- MAOA gene variants (sometimes called the "warrior gene") show increased risk only when combined with childhood maltreatment, demonstrating biosocial complexity
Low Intelligence or Cognitive Deficits
- IQ scores correlate modestly with offending—cognitive limitations can impair understanding of consequences and social cues
- Executive function deficits reduce ability to plan, inhibit impulses, and consider alternative actions
- Educational frustration stemming from cognitive challenges can trigger strain and alienation from conventional institutions
Mental Health Issues
- Untreated conditions like conduct disorder, ADHD, and antisocial personality disorder significantly elevate risk, particularly when combined with substance use
- Stigma and inadequate mental health access create barriers to treatment, allowing symptoms to escalate
- Co-occurring disorders (comorbidity) multiply risk—substance abuse combined with mental illness is especially predictive of offending
Compare: Impulsivity vs. Cognitive Deficits—both are individual-level factors, but impulsivity reflects self-control theory while cognitive deficits align more with developmental criminology. If an FRQ asks about biosocial approaches, genetic predisposition and cognitive deficits are your strongest examples.
Family and Early Childhood Factors
The family is the primary socializing agent in early life. Social learning theory, attachment theory, and developmental criminology all emphasize how early experiences shape later behavior through modeling, bonding, and trauma.
Family Dysfunction and Poor Parenting
- Inconsistent discipline, low supervision, and harsh punishment are among the most replicated predictors of juvenile delinquency
- Social learning occurs within families—children model parental conflict resolution strategies, including aggression
- Weak parent-child attachment fails to create the social bond that Hirschi argues restrains deviant behavior
Childhood Abuse or Neglect
- Early trauma disrupts healthy brain development, particularly in areas governing emotional regulation and stress response
- Cycle of violence hypothesis suggests victims of abuse are more likely to become perpetrators—though most abuse victims do not become offenders
- Insecure attachment patterns formed through neglect increase vulnerability to negative peer influence later in adolescence
Early Onset of Antisocial Behavior
- Age of onset is a critical predictor—children showing aggression before age 10 are at highest risk for chronic offending
- Moffitt's developmental taxonomy distinguishes life-course-persistent offenders (early onset) from adolescence-limited offenders (later onset, better prognosis)
- Early intervention programs like nurse home visits and preschool enrichment show the strongest crime-reduction effects when targeting this window
Compare: Family Dysfunction vs. Childhood Abuse—both are family-level factors, but dysfunction emphasizes inadequate socialization while abuse emphasizes trauma and its neurological effects. FRQs often ask you to distinguish between social learning and developmental trauma explanations.
Social and Peer Influences
As children age, peers become increasingly influential. Differential association theory and social learning theory explain how criminal attitudes and techniques are transmitted through social networks.
Peer Influence and Association with Delinquent Peers
- Sutherland's differential association theory holds that criminal behavior is learned through intimate personal groups—attitudes, techniques, and rationalizations
- Peer selection vs. peer influence is a key debate—do delinquent youth seek each other out, or do peers cause delinquency? Evidence supports both processes
- Adolescence represents peak vulnerability to peer influence due to developmental changes in reward sensitivity and social orientation
Lack of Social Support
- Absence of prosocial bonds leaves individuals without the informal social controls that discourage offending
- Isolation increases susceptibility to recruitment by delinquent peers or criminal organizations offering belonging
- Sampson and Laub's age-graded theory emphasizes that positive relationships (turning points) can redirect criminal trajectories at any age
Gender (Males at Higher Risk)
- Males account for approximately 80% of arrests across most crime categories, with the gap widest for violent offenses
- Socialization differences encourage risk-taking and physical aggression in boys while discouraging these behaviors in girls
- Testosterone and evolutionary psychology offer partial biological explanations, but gender role theory emphasizes learned expectations
Compare: Peer Influence vs. Lack of Social Support—peer influence is about who you associate with (differential association), while lack of support is about absence of prosocial bonds (social control theory). Both are social factors, but they represent different theoretical mechanisms.
Structural and Environmental Factors
These factors operate at the neighborhood and societal level. Social disorganization theory, strain theory, and routine activities theory explain how place and economic conditions shape crime patterns.
Poverty and Low Socioeconomic Status
- Economic deprivation creates strain—Merton's anomie theory explains crime as an adaptation when legitimate means to success are blocked
- Multiple pathways connect poverty to crime: reduced supervision, family stress, limited opportunities, and concentration in high-crime areas
- Relative deprivation (perceived inequality) may matter more than absolute poverty—feeling left behind fuels frustration and resentment
Neighborhood Disadvantage and High Crime Rates
- Social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay) links crime to neighborhoods with high poverty, residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity
- Collective efficacy—mutual trust and willingness to intervene—is lower in disadvantaged areas, reducing informal social control
- Exposure to violence normalizes aggression and creates trauma, perpetuating cycles across generations
Exposure to Violence
- Witnessing violence is itself traumatic, producing PTSD symptoms, hypervigilance, and desensitization to aggression
- Code of the street (Anderson) describes how violent environments create cultural adaptations emphasizing respect and retaliation
- Routine activities theory explains how living in high-crime areas increases exposure to motivated offenders and reduces guardianship
Compare: Poverty vs. Neighborhood Disadvantage—poverty is an individual/family economic condition, while neighborhood disadvantage describes place-based characteristics. A wealthy person in a disorganized neighborhood still faces elevated risk from environmental exposure; a poor person in a stable neighborhood has some protection.
Cumulative and Compounding Factors
Risk factors rarely operate in isolation. Cumulative risk models show that the number of risk factors matters more than any single factor, and certain combinations create multiplicative effects.
Substance Abuse
- Intoxication impairs judgment and lowers inhibitions, directly increasing likelihood of impulsive criminal acts
- Addiction creates instrumental motivation—property crimes and drug dealing often fund continued use
- Substance abuse compounds other risk factors—it worsens mental health, strains relationships, and reduces employment prospects
Low Educational Attainment
- School failure reduces legitimate opportunities, increasing strain and the relative attractiveness of criminal alternatives
- Labeling theory suggests academic tracking and disciplinary exclusion can create self-fulfilling prophecies of deviance
- Schools serve as protective institutions—structured time, prosocial peers, and adult supervision reduce opportunities for offending
Compare: Substance Abuse vs. Low Educational Attainment—both are cumulative factors that compound other risks, but substance abuse operates through impaired decision-making and addiction, while low education operates through blocked opportunities and institutional disconnection. Both illustrate how risk factors interact rather than operate independently.
Quick Reference Table
|
| Self-Control Theory | Impulsivity, Poor Self-Control, Early Onset of Antisocial Behavior |
| Biosocial Factors | Genetic Predisposition, Cognitive Deficits, Gender |
| Social Learning Theory | Family Dysfunction, Peer Influence, Exposure to Violence |
| Social Control/Bond Theory | Lack of Social Support, Poor Parenting, Low Educational Attainment |
| Strain Theory | Poverty, Low Educational Attainment, Neighborhood Disadvantage |
| Social Disorganization | Neighborhood Disadvantage, Exposure to Violence, Lack of Social Support |
| Developmental Criminology | Early Onset, Childhood Abuse/Neglect, Family Dysfunction |
| Cumulative Risk | Substance Abuse, Mental Health Issues, Multiple Co-occurring Factors |
Self-Check Questions
-
Which two risk factors best illustrate biosocial interaction—the idea that biology and environment combine to influence behavior? Explain how they work together.
-
Compare and contrast peer influence and family dysfunction as risk factors. What theoretical perspective best explains each, and at what developmental stage is each most influential?
-
An FRQ asks you to explain why poverty increases crime risk. Identify at least three distinct pathways or mechanisms through which economic disadvantage leads to offending.
-
Using Moffitt's developmental taxonomy, explain why early onset of antisocial behavior is a stronger predictor of chronic offending than antisocial behavior that begins in adolescence.
-
A student argues that genetic predisposition proves crime is inevitable for some people. How would you use the concept of gene-environment interaction to challenge this deterministic view?