Criminal Psychology

Posted by permission of Dr. Thomas O’Connor. Copyright by T. O’Connor.

 

“How a person behaves is determined largely by how he thinks, and criminals think differently.” Stanton Samenow

The most common definition of criminal psychology is “the branch of psychology which investigates the psychology of crime with particular reference to the personality factors of the criminal.” However, as Bartol & Bartol (2004) point out, recent years (at least since the early 1990s) have seen a movement away from a focus on personality factors and more of a move toward “developmental” factors. Developmental theory is a subfield of criminology (Loeber & LeBlanc 1990) and a subfield of psychology (Manaster 1977) sometimes known as “child” or “adolescent” psychology. Developmental theory is about normal human development, or growing up. It looks for the causes of crime in the complex mix, or interaction, of various childhood cognitive deficits (e.g., low IQ, attention deficit disorder, conduct problems, cognitive “scripts”) with various situational, or contextual, handicaps (e.g., school failure, peer rejection, parental abuse or neglect, and gender/ethnic discrimination). Within the field of criminology, developmental theory is closely related to an effort called “general” theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990), although the difference is that general theory implies a policy of selective incapacitation (wicked people exist, and all you can do is lock them away) while developmental theory looks for intervention opportunities (e.g., tipping and turning points, desistence, life-course changes, pathways). The appeal of criminal psychology, as it is presently dominated by the developmental perspective, has the same appeal as most psychodynamic psychology in that it seems to offer all the answers — that any criminal, no matter how bad, can be rehabilitated or reformed — and that any delinquent, no matter how bad, can be saved from a lifetime of crime.

This doesn’t mean that personality and temperament are not important. Indeed, there are those who might argue that “juvenile psychopaths” exist as a personality type (Seagrave & Grisso 2002), but there are others who say differently, including many government officials and the American Psychological Association who only tolerate a DSM-IV diagnosis of “Conduct Disorder” (CD) for the phenomena of juvenile delinquency. It should be noted that the APA tolerates the term “antisocial behavior” for serious, habitual misbehavior, prohibits slapping the label of “antisocial personality disorder” on anyone under age 18, and allows practitioners to use the alternative DSM-IV diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). It may well be that ODD provides the personality or temperament components for CD, and that “difficult temperament” which is detectable in infancy (difficult infant) may very well provide the components for ODD. However, it should be said that de-emphasizing the personality components (as most developmental theories do) has resulted in good headway toward “theory-driven, culture-sensitive, and gender-related” interventions, and that is no small feat, considering that forensic psychologists who work in criminal psychology often have to face significant multicultural and multiethnic challenges. First, however, it is important to understand why theory is important in criminal psychology.

THEORIES AND TYPOLOGIES

Sooner or later, any forensic psychologist testifying in court is going to be asked to explain their ideas in the context of theory. In fact, it’s a common lawyer tactic to attack expert witnesses by “getting theoretical” the more specialized a witness is (and vice-versa for other witnesses). For example, a medical neurologist can easily be made to look foolish by asking them to explain the leading criminological theories of the day, and a criminologist can easily be made to look foolish by asking them to explain neuro-synaptic uptake. Ramsland (2002) discusses these and a few other “dirty tricks” in her book, as do a number of other career guides for becoming a forensic psychologist. Therefore, there are credibility reasons to be concerned with theories, but there are other, more significant reasons why theory is important.

A theory represents the pinnacle of scientific progress because it logically summarizes or arranges all that is known about the causes of a phenomenon at any given point in history. However, a theory goes further than just arranging the facts because it consists of principles or statements which, within certain boundaries, are capable of generalizing beyond the known facts (Kaplan 1964). This doesn’t mean that theories consist of speculations, hunches, or educated guesses. There are certainly many speculative notions to be found in theories, but those are called “constructs” and exist more in the mind of the theorist who came up with the theory than in the “extant literature” where the scientifically-agreed upon “concepts” come from. Concepts are testable while constructs are not. You test a theory by using one or more ways to measure the concepts, and any scientific disagreement, if it occurs, is usually a matter of disagreement over how something was measured. Sure, some theories contradict one another, and it seems like it should be that if one is right, the other one must be wrong, but that’s not how it works. Anything that achieves the status of “theory” in science continues to exist because it continuously keeps providing more questions than answers, more puzzles to work on, and more ways to measure something. Theories, no matter if we like them or not, provide convenient starting points (so we don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel) because they take on certain, specific “directions” or “approaches” to a wide variety of fundamental questions like the nature of human nature, how society is possible, and the principles of causation (what causes what), to name a few. Theories drive research, and theories drive policy, but most importantly, they explain and predict at the same time. Some of the fundamental questions that theory in criminal psychology is concerned with are listed below, and you can plainly see how if a theory takes some “initial position” on these, it keeps you from having to start all over again from scratch.

A typology, on the other hand, is a scientific device for classifying a wide assortment of facts and speculations about a phenomenon into a more manageable set of brief descriptions (Bartol & Bartol 2004). In criminal psychology, one uses a typology when theory is weak or non-existent to suggest factors that might be implicated with causes (Roebuck 1966). Newly emerging fields of study, like profiling, for example, tend to have many typologies and few, if any, theories. A typology is created by either “lumping” or “splitting” things together or apart until you think you have the essential, underlying “features” or “facets” of a phenomenon that are (1) independent of one another, or mutually exclusive; (2) presumably lead to distinctly different outcomes, although there may be room for some interaction; and (3) leave nothing out, or in other words, have no “left over” variables to think about when you’re done constructing your typology. Typologies are not really supposed to be tested (like theories), but ever since the 1970s, statistical techniques (like factor analysis and discriminant or latent structure analysis) have been invented which allow the refinement of typologies, and a regular growth industry has evolved among some academics in this regard. The DSM IV method of mental classification in psychology is a kind of typology called a “taxonomy,” or more precisely, a “nosological (disease) taxonomy.” A taxonomy, as opposed to a typology, strives for validity and reliability, and it makes predictive validity especially important. Hence, that is why the field of psychology so heavily emphasizes the experimental method (with control groups) because predictive and other higher-order types of validity are best accomplished that way, by comparing a criterion group (who has the disorder) with a control group (similar in all respects except for the disorder) with a research group (the group you manipulate the independent variable with). As with theories, it is important in working with taxonomies not to confuse correlation (hanging together) or covariation (changing together) with causation, although the word “syndrome” sometimes refers to this, where clusters of signs or symptoms tend to be co-occurring. Diagnosis theory in psychology, however, is based on the concept of syndrome, which at best, usually only has inter-rater reliability. There are three ways to construct a good taxonomy, as follows:

THE DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH TO FACTORS AND CAUSES

Two or three assumptions make up the factual foundations for developmental approaches to crime and delinquency. One, it is a fact that the spectrum of what we call criminal behavior is extremely wide, with a range of behavior that varies from very minor offenses to very serious offenses. Either because criminal behavior is so wide-ranging, because forms of it are so easy to do, or because crime is so prevalent in our society, almost all socioeconomic groups, rich and poor alike, engage in crime, and some of what we call delinquency may very well be a normal part of adolescent development. Two, even though sociological, psychological, and legal definitions of crime may seem different at times, there is considerable overlap between all the definitional approaches, and the overlap or common ground is that the most troublesome, inappropriate, offensive, or “signature” criminals are those who seem to be following a lifelong career at crime, despite society’s best efforts at informal and formal control. There is therefore some value in looking at crime and delinquency from a lifespan, life course, lifelong, career, pathway, or developmental perspective.

In most cases, the causes of crime are likely to be multiple and complex, involving mysterious “interaction effects” which are combinations of relatively minor influences by themselves. For example, the impact of being male (gender) and being exposed to violent entertainment on TV (exposure) may both, by themselves, be relatively minor influences, but when combined (gender multiplied by exposure), the two in combination (gender x exposure) may produce something mentalistic we barely understand which we might call a “male-dominated, media-driven” violence fantasy. There are hundreds of those kinds of interaction effects possible.

A forensic psychologist is most likely to tread these grounds at one of two points in the criminal justice system — thefront end, during prosecution — and the back end, during sentencing. There are some crimes, which in order to be successfully prosecuted, require proving that a person must have known what they were doing at the time, and this phrase “must have known what they were doing at the time” is known as the concept of intent, or in legal circles as the concept of mens rea, in sociological circles as the concept of responsibility, or in criminal justice circles as the concept of culpability. Forensic psychologists are expected to be experts at mens rea, or the guiltiness of various states of mind. This is a big challenge, but no more demanding that what forensic psychologists are often called upon to do at the back end of the justice system, which in reality is to make an assessment of the “redeemability” or rehabilitation potential for a defendant who most likely faces the death penalty because some characterization of them as a “psychopath” or the like has evidenced itself among the aggravating factors at their sentencing hearing. As Bartol & Bartol (2004) put it, a diagnosis of psychopathy is the “kiss of death” at capital sentencing.

The question thus arises as to whether the developmental perspective “allows” for redeemability or rehabilitation potential. “Is it ever too late to change?” might be the way to word this question. And, there is no clear answer to this question since the criminological literature is inconclusive on the subject. On the one hand, there are so-called general theories of crime(Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990), sometimes referred to as “persistent heterogeneity” theses or paradigms (Nagin & Farrington 1992), which postulate that certain personality characteristics (such as lack of self-control) are so enduring and stable over time that some people are practically “destined” to a life of crime without hope of reformation. On the other hand, there are age-graded life-course theories (Sampson & Laub 1993), sometimes referred to as “state dependence” or “desistence” models or paradigms (Nagin & Paternoster 1991; Tracy & Kempf-Leonard 1996) which postulate that certain turning points in life or changes in circumstances (such as a job or marriage) sometimes lead to exiting, or desisting, from a career in crime. Regarding whether or not any form of known treatment or intervention works to turn people away from a life of crime, the consensus of at least the clinical psychology literature is that untreatability statements are unwarranted (Salekin 2002), and that tough customers, like psychopaths, may simply need bigger “doses” of treatment.

In order to overcome the deadlocked status of competition (e.g., Paternoster & Brame 1997) between pessimistic and optimistic theories of crime, many scholars have embraced what Moffit (1993) calls the “dual-pathway” hypothesis, or the idea that developmental theory should try to explain both types of criminal offenders — those who habitually persist in a life of crime — and those who, for one reason or another, seem to stop leading a life of crime. Moffit’s (1993; 1997; 2002) developmental theory is a bit more complex than putting it this way, and as Bartol & Bartol (2004) put it , the Moffit theory is one of the dominant theories in criminal psychology today.

THE MOFFIT DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY OF CRIME

University of Wisconsin psychology professor Terrie Moffitt’s developmental theory (Moffitt 1993) begins with empirical research indicating that signs of persistent antisocial behavior can be detected early in life, as early as the preschool years, and extends to the idea that adolescent deviant behavior is greatly influenced by the behavior of peer groups even after parental variables are taken into account. The theory states that two groups of antisocial youth can be distinguished based on their ages of onset and trajectories of conduct problems. These two groups differ enough to require separate causal explanations. It might be helpful to illustrate some of the distinctions between these two groups in the following table:

During the teenage years, the two types are indistinguishable, and no existing paper-and-pencil test for antisocial tendencies or psychopathy will be able to discriminate the two types. That’s because many of the “late starters” will “begin” with rather serious delinquency, and many of the “early starters” will be just “escalating” into serious delinquent behavior at about the same time. Because many of the “late starters” may only be engaging in symbolic adolescent rebellion (perhaps because something is forbidden), have usually maintained empathy and avoided peer rejection, and are smart enough to see the rewards in more socially approved behavior, they usually “dropout” or desist from any pathway toward crime. Not so with the “early starters” (the most frequently studied group) who may only be precociously escalating into serious offenses as a way of expanding the versatility of their antisocial ways across all kinds of conditions and situations. In fact, a trajectory toward versatility might be apparent with early starters at a very young age. The research indicates that increasingly higher levels of early conduct problems are associated with increasingly higher levels of late conduct problems (Lahey, Moffitt & Caspi 2003). Tremblay’s (2003) research also shows that the best predictors of early starters are: having a target (sibling); parental separation before birth; and low income.

Although the number of early starters in the population of interest may only amount to 5-10% of the total, such children and adolescents usually account for more than 50% of referrals to authorities and mental health services. Their behavior is disruptive not only to authorities, but to their peers, and for this reason, they experience significant amounts of peer rejection. Not only does this limit their chances for “getting ahead” on the basis of normal, lasting relationships, but their poor interpersonal or social skills are combined with three other prominent features, as follows, and discussed in separate paragraphs below:

• hyperactive-impulsive-attention problems

• conduct problems

• below-average intelligence or low-IQ

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), according to Bartol & Bartol (2004), refers to a complex set of behaviors characterized by three central features: (1) excessive motor activity (cannot sit still, fidgets, runs about, is talkative and noisy); (2) impulsivity (acts before thinking, shifts quickly from one activity to another, interrupts others, does not consider consequences of behavior); and (3) inattention (does not seem to listen, is easily distracted, loses things necessary for essential tasks). ADHS should not be confused with ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) which has the following cluster of symptoms: (1) arguing with adults; (2) refusing adults’ requests; (3) deliberately trying to annoy others; (4) blaming others for mistakes; and (5) being spiteful or vindictive (Kosson et. al. 2002). ADHS afflicts as many as 20% of American school-age children, boys more than girls (by a ratio of 9:1), and blacks more than other ethnic groups, for debatable reasons ranging from speculations about genetic predisposition to the possibility of exposure to hazardous toxins in black communities (Root & Resnick 2003). Many people afflicted with ADHD never “outgrow” it, and theories about the continuity of learning disabilities into adulthood are also controversial. The most common treatment is methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, but it has mixed effects, and a successful treatment regimen for ADHD has yet to be found.

Conduct problems refer to the variety of symptoms found in the diagnostic category of Conduct Disorder (CD), and among delinquent youth, these are usually “co-occurring psychopathologies” that exist between one or more of these symptoms and ADHD symptoms. In fact, Bartol & Bartol (2004) report on research indicating that as many as 50% of disruptive children exhibit having the symptoms of CD half the time and the symptoms of ADHD the other half of the time. According to the APA, the central feature of CD is a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior that violates the rights of others, and early-onset CD generally begins before age 10. Symptoms of CD include stealing, fire setting, running away, truancy, destroying property, fighting, telling lies on a frequent basis, and being cruel to animals and people. It is the consensus of scholars that conduct disorder (CD) is roughly the juvenile equivalent of adult antisocial personality disorder (Lahey et. al. 2002). Conduct disorder typically gets worse as the child gets older, and it is often misdiagnosed as a learning disability (because there are frequent problems with school assignments) whereas someone with a “true” learning disability may not be conduct-disordered. CD afflicts about 16% of the male population and about 9% of the female population (Bartol & Bartol 2004).

Below-average intelligence or low IQ refers to a lower cognitive ability and slow language development that, at times, is called by other names, such as “neuropsychological dysfunction” or impairment of “executive functioning.” Low IQ is strongly associated with an early age of onset for Conduct Disorder (CD) and has a relationship to delinquency which holds even when socioeconomic status (SES) is controlled for (Hirschi & Hindelang 1977). An 8 to 10 point difference is usually found on any standard intelligence test comparing delinquents with nondelinquents. There are some interesting findings regarding ethnic differences in how low-IQ is related to delinquency, as low-IQ whites tend to follow a “susceptibility” pathway to the typical personality disorders, and low-IQ minorities (blacks, Latinos, and Asians) tend to follow a “school failure” (being held back) pathway to lower “emotional intelligence” which results in decreased empathy and violent misreading of emotional cues from others.

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY

Psychologists sometimes use the term “antisocial personality disorder” as equivalent to the term “psychopath,” but the two terms are very different. A psychopath may have no history of serious antisocial behavior, and may or may not engage in criminal behavior. An antisocial personality is almost always going to be in trouble with the law, and this adult disorder is likely to have begun with a childhood pattern of disregard for the rights of others. In other words, “early starters” and those with ADHD, CD, ODD, and/or LD or low-IQ are at risk to “grow into” antisocial personality disorder. They don’t come out of nowhere, and psychopathy in childhood and adolescence looks much like psychopathy in adulthood. It’s conservatively estimated that 75% of adult incarcerated criminals have antisocial personality disorder (compared to 4% of the general population), and psychopaths are rare, found in perhaps 25% of inmates and 1% of the general population.

To get a better grasp on what personality disorders consist of and their symptomatic relationship to crime, it is strongly recommended the following Lecture Notes (from another course) be looked over. The one on Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy, & Psychopathy should be considered required reading, along with a related Lecture Note entitled Checklist of Psychopathy Indicators. These personality disorder lecture notes are listed below:

• The Paranoid-Narcissistic Personality Spectrum

• The Antisocial Personality Disorder and Psychopathy

• Borderline Personalities and Obsessive Compulsiveness

Despite the rarity of its occurrence,psychopathy has attracted a great deal of research attention, and Professor Robert Hare (1996; 1999) has been at the forefront of most research efforts to better measure the phenomenon. Several interesting things are known about psychopaths. For example, they are usually brutal and sadistic in their sexual relations, have no qualms about using cold-blooded, dispassionate violence, and routinely defy attempts at treatment for their condition. There are only a few known differences between male and female, and white and black, psychopaths. According to research reported in Bartol & Bartol (2004), female psychopaths tend to be less aggressive (lying and promiscuous sex is relied upon more), and black psychopaths tend to be less impulsive and thrill-seeking than white psychopaths (who generally are drawn to death-defying things like extreme sports and stunts). Some popular instruments for measuring psychopathy (with the PCL-R being the most popular) are contained in the table below:

Most instruments have been extensively tested and have good validity and reliability, but others are fairly new and will need to have more research done on them. In general, administration consists of twenty questions (worth two points each) where the answers are scored based upon the impressions of a trained clinician or psychometrician. One thing that has clearly emerged from the psychometric research on the PCL and its variants is that psychopathy is multidimensional, and most likely has two dimensions — Factor 1: which reflects an interpersonal/affective dimension and taps into things like superficial charm, grandiosity, dishonesty, and callousness — and Factor 2: which reflects a behavioral or lifestyle dimension, and taps into things like impulsiveness, irresponsibility, and lack of goals. Dr. Frick’s research, however, shows that there might be a third dimension (split off from Factor 1) which we might call — Factor 3: a callousness dimension, which taps into insincere positive emotions and lack of empathy. Dr. Lynam’s research uses a five-factor model of personality and zeroes in on things such as impulsiveness and sensation seeking. Dr. Welner’s research goes straight to the heart of the matter in attempting to be of service to the courts when they are considering psychopathy as an aggravating factor in sentencing. In other words, it attempts to directly measure what is, by law, behavior patterns which are “especially heinous,” “outrageously vile,” “wanton,” “cruel,” “atrocious,” or “horrible.”

REFERENCES

Arrigo, B. (2000). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Issues and Controversies in Crime and Justice. NY: Academic Press.

Bartol, C. & Bartol, A. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. & Visher, C. (1986). Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Borum, R. & Grisso, T. (1995). “Psychological Tests Used in Criminal Forensic Evaluations.” Professional Psychology: Research & Practice 26:465-473.

Clinard, M. & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology. NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Farrington, D. & Hawkins, D. (1991). “Predicting Participation, Early Onset and Later Persistence in Officially Recorded Offending.” Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 1:1-33.

Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

Hare, R. (1996). “Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct whose Time has Come.” Criminal Justice & Behavior 23:25-54.

Hare, R. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among us. NY: Guilford Press.

Hasselt, V. & Hersen, M. (Eds.) (2000). Aggression and Violence: An Introductory Text. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hirschi, T. & Hindelang, M. (1977). “Intelligence and Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 42:571-587.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.

Kosson, D., Cyterski, T., Steuerwald, B., Neuman, C. & Walker-Matthes, S. (2002). “The Reliability and Validity of the Psychopathy Checklist Youth Version in Nonincarcerated Adolescent Males.” Psychological Assessment 14:97-109.

Lahey, B., Loeber, R., Hart, E., Frick, P., Applegate, B., & Zhang, Q. et. al. (1995). “Four-Year Longitudinal Study of Conduct Disorder in Boys: Patterns and Predictors of Persistence.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104-83-93.

Lahey, B., Moffitt, T. & Caspi, A. (Eds.) (2003). Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency. NY: Guilford.

Loeber, R. & Farrington, D. (Eds.) (1998). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Loeber, R. & LeBlanc, M. (1990). “Towards a Developmental Criminology.” In M.Tonry & N. Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice. Vol. 12. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen, W. (1998). Antisocial Behavior and Mental Health Problems: Explanatory Factors in Childhood and Adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Manaster, G. (1977). Adolescent Development and the Life Tasks. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Moffit, T. (1993). “Adolescent-limited and Life-course-persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100:674-701.

Moffitt, T. (1997). “Adolescent-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Offending: A Complementary Pair of Developmental Theories,” Pp. 11-54 in T. Thornberry (ed.)Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, Advances in Criminological Theory. Newark, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Moffit, T., Caspi, A., Harrington, H. & Milne, B. (2002). “Males on the Life-course-persistent and Adolescence-limited Antisocial Pathways: Follow-up at Age 26 Years.” Development and Psychopathology 14:179-207.

Nagin, D. & Paternoster, R. (1991). “On the Relationship of Past to Future Participation in Delinquency.” Criminology 29:163-189.

Nagin, D. & Farrington, D. (1992). “The Onset and Persistence of Offending.” Criminology 30:501-528.

Pallone, N. (1990). Rehabilitating Criminal Sexual Psychopaths: Legislative Mandates, Clinical Quandries. Newark, NJ: Transaction.

Paternoster, R. & Brame, R. (1997). “Multiple Routes to Delinquency: A Test of Developmental and General Theories of Crime.” Criminology 35:49-84.

Ramsland, K. (2002). The Criminal Mind: A Writer’s Guide to Forensic Psychology. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books.

Reid, J., Patterson, G., & Snyder, J. (2002). Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Roebuck, J. (1966). Criminal Typology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Root, R. & Resnick, R. (2003). “An Update on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 34:34-41.

Salekin, R. (2002). “Psychopathy and Therapeutic Pessimism: Clinical Lore or Clinical Reality?” Clinical Psychology Review 22:79-112.

Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1991). “Crime and Deviance Over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds.” American Sociological Review 55:608-627.

Sampson, R. & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Seagrave, D. & Grisso, T. (2002). “Adolescent Development and Measurement of Juvenile Psychopathy.” Law and Human Behavior 26:219-239.

Towl, G. & D. Crighton. (1996). The Handbook of Psychology for Forensic Practitioners. NY: Routledge.

Tracy, P. & Kempf-Leonard, K. (1996). Continuity and Discontinuity in Criminal Careers. NY: Plenum.

Tremblay, R. (2003). “Why Socialization Fails?” Pp. 182-224 in B. Lahey, T. Moffitt & E. Caspi (eds.) Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency. NY: Guilford.

Walker, L. & Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Clinical and Social Psychological Perspectives. NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Widom, C. (1989). “Child Abuse, Neglect, and Violent Criminal Behavior.” Criminology 27:251-271.

Wrightsman, L., M. Taflinger & M. Linsenman. (2000). Forensic Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Online Resources