Developing an integrated biosocial theory to understand juvenile delinquency: from the social, cognitive, affective, and moral (SCAM) perspectives

Yu Du

doi:10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20190751

Authors

Yu Du Department of Sociology, Criminology and Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-3291.ijcp20190751

Keywords:

Biosocial criminology, Juvenile delinquency, Prevention, Theoretical integration

Abstract

Biosocial theory has made considerable progress in explaining juvenile delinquency and making explicit references for juvenile justice policy during the past decades. However, because biosocial theory aims to identify multiple risk factors, it makes juvenile justice practice and develop delinquency prevention programs difficult. This paper proposes an integrated biosocial theory from the social, cognitive, affective, and moral (SCAM) perspectives to understand juvenile delinquency and facilitate the development and improvement of prevention and intervention programs. The article briefly summarizes the background and the key concepts of the chosen criminological theories and the logic of theoretical integration. Then it articulates the four aspects of the integrated biosocial theory and how it can contribute to criminology in details. Lastly, the paper identifies its potential limitations and provides practical implications.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Schwartz JA. Biosocial prevention science: synthesis of two interrelated perspectives. Criminol Public Policy. 2016;15(3):677-81.

DeLisi M, Vaughn MG. Foundation for a temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. J Criminal Justice. 2014;42(1):10-25.

Raine A. The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. Vintage; 2014.

Akers RL, Jennings WG. The social learning theory of crime and deviance. In: Handbook on crime and deviance. Springer: New York, NY; 2009:103-120.

Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T. A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press; 1990.

Agnew R. Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. J Res Crime Delinquency. 2001;38(4):319-61.

Baron SW. General strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew's revised theory. Criminol. 2004;42(2):457-84.

Hay C. Parenting, self‐control, and delinquency: A test of self‐control theory. Criminol. 2001;39(3):707-36.

Burt CH, Simons RL, Simons LG. A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self‐control: negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminol. 2006;44(2):353-96.

Wright JP, Beaver KM. Do parents matter in creating self‐control in their children? A genetically informed test of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of low self‐control. Criminol. 2005;43(4):1169-202.

DeLisi M, Wright JP, Beaver K, Vaughn MG. Teaching biosocial criminology i: understanding endophenotypes using Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self‐control construct. J Criminal Justice Education. 2011;22(3):360-76.

Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Sellers CS, Thomas Winfree Jr L, Madensen TD, Daigle LE, et al. The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta‐analysis. Justice Quarterly. 2010;27(6):765-802.

Nicholson J, Higgins GE. Social structure social learning theory: preventing crime and violence. In: Preventing Crime and Violence. Springer: Cham; 2017:11-20.

Warr M. Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press; 2002.

Merton RK. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review. 1938;3(5):672-82.

Elliott DS, Ageton SS, Canter RJ. An integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent behavior. J Res Crime Delinquency. 1979;16(1):3-27.

Agnew R. Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory; 2007.

Steinberg L. Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2014.

Blair RJ. Considering anger from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2012;3(1):65-74.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). Celebrating the era of the brain. Available at: https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/v22i6/celebrating-the-era-of-the-brain.

Casey BJ. Beyond simple models of self-control to circuit-based accounts of adolescent behavior. Annual Review Psychol. 2015;66:295-319.

Van Gelder JL. Beyond rational choice: The hot/cool perspective of criminal decision making. Psychol Crime Law. 2013;19(9):745-63.

Watts SJ. Gene-environment interactions and criminological theory (Doctoral dissertation, uga); 2013.

Boardman JD, Domingue BW, Fletcher JM. How social and genetic factors predict friendship networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(43):17377-81.

Lösel F, Farrington DP. Direct protective and buffering protective factors in the development of youth violence. Am J Preventive Med. 2012;43(2):S8-23.

Stevens J, May D, Rice N, Jarjoura GR. Nonsocial versus social reinforcers: contrasting theoretical perspectives on repetitive serious delinquency and drug use. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice. 2011;9(4):295-312.

Joiner J, Piva M, Turrin C, Chang SW. Social learning through prediction error in the brain. NPJ Sci Learning. 2017;2(1):8.

Glenn AL, Raine A, Schug RA, Young L, Hauser M. Increased DLPFC activity during moral decision-making in psychopathy. Molecular Psychiatry. 2009;14(10):909.

Tassy S, Oullier O, Cermolacce M, Wicker B. Do psychopathic patients use their DLPFC when making decisions in moral dilemmas?. Molecular Psychiatry. 2009;14(10):908.

Ahmed SP, Bittencourt-Hewitt A, Sebastian CL. Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence. Developmental Cognitive Neurosci. 2015;15:11-25.

Decety J, Michalska KJ, Kinzler KD. The contribution of emotion and cognition to moral sensitivity: a neurodevelopmental study. Cerebral Cortex. 2011;22(1):209-20.

Van Gelder JL, De Vries RE. Traits and states: Integrating personality and affect into a model of criminal decision making. Criminol. 2012;50(3):637-71.

Allgaier K, Zettler I, Wagner W, Püttmann S, Trautwein U. Honesty–humility in school: Exploring main and interaction effects on secondary school students' antisocial and prosocial behavior. Learning Individual Differences. 2015;43:211-7.

Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. InHandbook of moral behavior and development. Psychology Press; 2014:69-128.

Haidt J, Graham J. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research. 2007;20(1):98-116.

Pond Jr RS, DeWall CN, Lambert NM, Deckman T, Bonser IM, Fincham FD. Repulsed by violence: Disgust sensitivity buffers trait, behavioral, and daily aggression. J Personality Soc Psychol. 2012;102(1):175.

Rocque M, Welsh BC, Raine A. Policy implications of biosocial criminology: Crime prevention and offender rehabilitation. The nurture versus biosocial debate in criminology: On the origins of criminal behavior and criminality. 2015:431-66.

Diamond A, Lee K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science. 2011;333(6045):959-64.

Krettenauer T, Eichler D. Adolescents' self‐attributed moral emotions following a moral transgression: Relations with delinquency, confidence in moral judgment and age. Brit J Developm Psychol. 2006;24(3):489-506.