Mental Deficiency and Crime

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

 

“Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Oliver Wendell Holmes

Next to physical deformity, mental deficiency has been the secondmost popular explanation of crime. Although few criminologistsadhere to the belief that the only explanation of crime is low intelligence, theidea remains popular among the general public and the media as something believed in and entertaining. Somepeople view intelligence along demonological lines much like the idea that ugly is evil (forphysical deformity), the parallel being that mental slowness or dullness must be acurse of God (for mental deficiency). People with low intelligence areoften seen as not knowing any better. They are seen as not appreciating the reasons for theexistence of law. It is believed they are too easily turned into accomplices or”dupes” by criminals. Zeleny (1933) identified at least four ways a person oflow intelligence could commit crime: (1) by being duped; (2) by sheer folly; (3)by inability to understand; and (4) by attempting to provide for self. While it may be true that foolish people do foolish things (and stupid is as stupid does), there are certain patterns to FOLLY that deserve study in their own right. Perkins (2002) claims that there are three basic patterns to folly: (1) mistuning, (2) entrenchment, and (3) undermanagement, explained as follows:

A Note on Foolishness and Self-Inflicted Stupidity

Mistuning is a problem in people with low intelligence that occurs when something is obviously wrong with the timing and intensity of their buildup toward an emotion. Take anger, for example, as you often see stupid people loose their temper too early and/or too strongly. This is not a sociological “definition of the situation” but instead is their low intelligence causing them to prematurely quit processing information about something. (2) Entrenchment occurs among the mentally deficient when they get too absorbed in attempting to complete a task. Psychologists call this the “Zeigarnik effect,” named after a German psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik (1927), where unfinished cognitive tasks tend to linger and take up valuable space in our memory until those tasks are resolved. (3) Undermanagement is a failure to manage the moment, or a failure to adapt, that is brought on by being caught up in one’s own momentum or excitement as carried over from situation to situation. Such a person would be acting like a “fool” because they haven’t calmed down yet from a previous situation. Everybody has a bit of foolishness in them, and lots of other things that quite frequently make people stupid, such as procrastination (putting something off for another day), backsliding (force of habit), vacillation (can’t make up their mind), overcommitment (taking on too much responsibility), indulgence (laziness or wallowing in excess), self-handicapping (under achievement), and rationalization (the “leaky roof” syndrome – you can’t fix the roof while it’s raining and there’s no need to fix it when it’s not raining).

Lest my note above give the wrong impression that all stupidity is self-inflicted, let me just say that “stupid people exist” who don’t need to inflict anything upon themselves, and in cases of diagnosed mental retardation, such people have an organic disorder and cannot really be held accountable for their actions. Instead, my focus is upon those of average or slightly sub-average intelligence (who happen to make up the bulk of the criminal population). These people (say, with an IQ above 75) CAN be held accountable at law. Their willpower is regarded as mature enough to merit the examination of intelligence-related explanations for their “dumb” criminal behavior. I’m sure most criminals of this type think they’re smart and are capable of formulating their own thoughts and intentions, so with that in mind, let’s explore the idea that mental deficiency helps explain their involvement in crime.

It might help at the start here to review exactly what we’retalking about by mental deficiency. “Intelligence” generallyconsists of different abilities, such as the ability to reason, solve problems, think abstractly, learn and understand new material, adapt to novel situationsquickly, grasp complex relationships, and profit from past experience (MSN Encarta 2003). In other words, intelligence is “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. IQ is probably best thought of as a measure of brightness, or what intelligence tests measure. There are different types of intelligence tests, with some using words or numbers and requiring cultural knowledge (like vocabulary), and others using shapes, designs, and only requiring simple, universal concepts (like up/down). Some intelligence tests are among the most accurate of all psychological tests and assessments. The brain processes underlying intelligence are becoming more understood, and current research is looking at speed of neural transmission, glucose (energy) uptake, and electrical activity of the brain. Some theories of intelligence look at the efficiency of information processing, and other theoretical models look at general adaptability.

IQ comparespeople to others of the same age, and is calculated by multiplying 100 times thequotient of mental age over chronological age. Mental age is determined by ascore on a test. The first intelligence quotient (IQ) test was invented by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in 1905 (the Simon-Binetscale, consisting of 54 questions, revised in 1908 and 1911).They advocated its use for assessing teachability and prediction of academic achievement. Overall, it accomplished these purposes. In 1912, Lewis Termanof Stanford University made some revisions to the test, and it became known as theStanford-Binet scale (consisting of 90 questions), which produced a score called the intelligence quotient, or IQ. One of the things aboutscales is that they predict future behavior (or effects),as opposed to indexes which collect symptoms (describe causes). Terman advocated its usefor career counselingpurposes. The meaning of IQ is as follows, although modern tests no longer use the IQ terminology, but instead a quintile score that reflects deviation from the average of others who are the same age:

INTERPRETATION OF TABLE: Most people cluster around the average (IQ 100), with about 3% of Americans regularly scoring above IQ 130 (the threshold for “gifted”), and about 3% regularly scoring below IQ 70 (the threshold for “retarded”).Ashkenazi Jews and certain East Asian ethnic groups regularly score higher than non-Hispanic whites, and nobody knows why. People at the lowest two levels, profoundly and severely retarded, have to be institutionalized. The moderately or mildly retarded can stay with family or friends, although the amount of care required would be burdensome. Slow learners are a large, diverse group. People in the low range (71-80) of this group have been variously called “idiots”, “morons”, “stooges”, or “sixth-graders” while people in the high range (81-90) have usually been called “challenged” or “disabled”. The average range is also a large, diverse group, and some studies indicate that daily variation in IQ (rather than a fixed score) is the norm once you reach this level. IQ tests like the Stanford-Binet are only good at measuring up to the “superior” level; i.e., up to an IQ of 140. After that, you would need to take a special test, like one constructed by the Mensa society, to see if your IQ measured in the “very superior”, “gifted”, or “genius” ranges. Also, full mental age is reached at the chronological age of 16, so giving a person under the age of 16 an IQ test is normally not appropriate, although some instruments claim to assess childhood IQ, like the Wunderlich or Werschler tests.

During World War I, the United States Army started using intelligence tests, and there were two types. The Alpha test was used for literate recruits, and the Beta test was used for illiterate recruits. The Beta test consisted of mazes, completion of pictures with missing pieces, and other pattern-solving exercises. The Alpha test evolved into the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT, by 1926. The most widely used modern tests of intelligence today are the SAT, the Stanford-Binet, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (Kaufman-ABC). There are at least 10 subtests or subscales on each of these. Most of them measure vocabulary, similarities and differences, memory, knowledge of common events, object assembly, mazes, and simple arithmetic. Those tests that are called achievement tests measure what a person has already learned, and those tests called aptitude tests predict future performance or potential for learning. Achievement and aptitude tests give much greater weight to knowledge, vocabulary, and arithmetic. Well-known tests that are called achievement or aptitude tests include the SAT, the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), the California Achievement test, the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Intelligence tests are the most reliable of all psychological tests.

Psychologists literally have a monopoly over the study ofintelligence. Sociologists ignore it because it’s a “kind of people”explanation that is seen as non-sociological. Geneticists are somewhatinterested in it, but only in the context of how it sheds light on researchquestions in hereditary science. In fact, the heredity-environmentdebate is largely unsettled and still a matter of debate among scientists.Well-known figures in the 1960s included WilliamShockley (who founded a sperm bank for geniuses) and Arthur Jensen, made the case that IQ is largely genetic,with Jensen claiming that environment can onlyaffect 20% of intelligence at most. Other studies have noted that encouragement from parents and peers, as well as interest and motivation, can overcome genetically-endowed low intelligence.

THE RACIAL BIAS CONTROVERSY

Another controversy is the intelligence-raceconnection. African Americans (as well as some other minority groups), onaverage, score about 15 points below those of European ancestry on intelligencetests. Many studies have consistently found (and there’s no getting around the fact) that the average IQ of an African American is 85 while the average IQ of a white American is 100, and that one in five African Americans have an average IQ of 75 (Seligman 1992). Another way that this is often reported is to say that a 17-year old African American performs at the reading, math, and science level of a 13-year old white. High school proficiency testing mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act has confirmed this, that African American high school graduates can usually only perform academically at the eighth grade level. This consistent finding of a 15 point difference has led many critics to question whether IQ really measuresintelligence or some sort of “test-taking” skill, whether or notthe content of IQ test questions are “culturally biased,” or whether or not predominantly African American high schools are doing their job. The vast majority of psychologists flatly deny that intelligence tests are culturally biased against African Americans or any other minority, but will admit that individuals who do not understand English well can have a hard time on intelligence tests. Another group of “egalitarian race theorists” (e.g., Montagu 2002) argue that since neither “race” nor “IQ” are well-defined, neither race nor IQ probably exist. However, most studies concur that the biggestgap between whites and other groups is on a subset of IQ tests that measures verbalintelligence.Verbal intelligence is usually regarded as the first (and perhaps mostimportant) subset of IQ test questions, the other subsets being: quantitativeability, spatial ability, perceptual ability, memory, reasoning, and wordfluency. Low verbal intelligence is related to the failure to develophigher-order cognitive processes such as moral reasoning, empathy, and problemsolving. Other types of intelligence are sometimes called”performance IQ” where no significant differences usually show upbetween people.

You may have also heard about a controversial book in the1990s, TheBell Curve, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. In it, they arguethat forces are at work in American society to lower the collective IQ.This is called the “dumbing down hypothesis” andit blames the problem on the fact that high-IQ people produce little or nooffspring while low-IQ people have more children and have them at younger ages.Intermarriage doesn’t occur much among people with different IQs (a processknown as assortative mating). Some criminologists, like Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang, have agreed, inprinciple, with Herrnstein’s thesis. They make a strong case for theargument that IQ is a betterpredictor of criminality than social class; e.g. there’s at least an 8-point difference in IQeven when controlling for social factors. In psychology, the notion that people are getting smarter or dumber is known as the Flynn effect (named after a New Zealand philosopher called James Flynn). Research on the Flynn effect has shown, that overall, people are getting smarter, and on average, the world population is increasing 15 points in intelligence every 50 years. This increase, however, is only selective. People are getting smarter primarily with visual-spatial reasoning. Vocabulary and verbal intelligence are showing little to no change.

Genetic disorders (diabetes, poor vision, and phenal detonuria) as well as unlucky childhood experiences (injuries, exposure to poisons, severe neglect, and some diseases) all affect intelligence, but by and large, the consensus of scholars is that IQ is highly heritable (caused by heredity, but not completely by heredity). Most African Americans have white ancestors – the white admixture is about 20%, on average – but studies on mixed ancestry populations does not seem to help explain IQ differences or prove the heritability thesis. The only way to truly test the notion that IQ is 100% inherited is to make environments equal for everyone. Science does not yet know how to do this, and scientists also do not know how to raise IQ permanently. Inter-racial differences in IQ also do not seem to be affected by social class. For example, African Americans from prosperous families do tend to score higher than African Americans from poorer families (intra-racial differences), but still tend to score lower than whites, even whites from poor families (inter-racial differences). There is clearly a need for more research on heredity and environmental factors.

The issue of bias with intelligence testing arises from a concern for the long known fact that ethnic and racial groups have always differed in their test scores. All psychologists admit that African Americans consistently score 15 points lower than whites on IQ tests. Hispanics also tend to do poorly, falling somewhere between the average for whites and African Americans. Asians tend to have an IQ that is 3-7 points higher than whites. The first attack on IQ tests came in the 1960s, and critics said the test items and questions themselves were biased. Research on the issue of item bias has found no specific cultural bias in any test questions. In other words, there are no inherent flaws in the tests. It may be however, that poor performance reflects social and educational disadvantages experienced by some ethnic groups. In the 1970s (as with the 1979 California case of Larry P. v. Wilson Riles), the second attack on IQ tests involved challenging the placement of black children in special education classes. This case, and a similar one in Chicago (PASE v. Hanon), did not prove in court that IQ tests were biased, but judges have ordered school systems to find ways to eliminate disproportionate minority placement in special education.

THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

An interesting contemporary controversy is the debate over single versus multiple intelligence. Followers of a line of work started by a psychologist namedSpearman argue that intelligence is a single, overriding factor (called theg-factor), and sometimes referred to as “native” intelligence. The g-factor represents all intellectual and mental abilities. Spearman found that people who score high on any one of the subtests tend to do well on all others. Given this view, intelligence is horizontal, largely nonlearned, and cuts across allother abilities. Biologists believe the g-factor measures some sort of mental “energy” or power, and may be related to neural capacity, neural speed, or other property of the brain. Spearman invented a correlation coefficient statistic to prove the existence of an underlying factor, and his method evolved into what we now call factor analysis.

Followers of a line of work started by a psychologistnamed Thurstone and also drawing upon the work of Piaget (like Howard Gardner -a 1990s proponent of the idea of multiple intelligences) argue that intelligenceis vertical, that there are different ways a person could be intelligent.An “idiot savant” (like in the movie Rain Man), for example, couldhave very strong mathematical abilities, but be very poor at verbal abilities. From an analysis of 56 different subtests, Thurstone identified seven primary mental abilities, as he called them. According to Gardner’s (1983) schema, the complete list of multiple intelligence(s)and typical occupations where found isas follows:

• Linguistic — reading, writing, talking; journalists, politicians, lawyers

• Logico-math — categorizing, classifying, calculating; technicians, scientists, computers

• Spatial — visualization, drawing, orienting; architects, artists, pilots

• Body-kinesthetic — coordination, handiness, expressiveness; dancers, actors, crafts

• Musical — listening, perception, sensitivity; musician, singer, therapist

• Interpersonal — influential, sociological, ability to pick up cues; no specific profession

• Intrapersonal — disciplined, awareness, self-knowledge; teacher, clergy, psychologist

Critics of the multiple intelligence approach note that the studies conducted have primarily been on college students and adults, while the studies conducted on the g-factor have primarily been with children. College educators have indeed actively embraced Gardner’s ideas, mostly because it resonates well with active learning and other pedagogies of teaching. Sophisticated cluster and factor analysis comparing the two approaches have largely produced the finding that both approaches are measuring the same thing, i.e., that the battery of tests used in the multiple intelligence approach, when taken together, measure a g-factor.

There is also some controversy over what is called fluid versus crystallized intelligence. In the 1960’s, psychologists Raymond Cattell and John Horn discovered this difference. Fluid intelligence presumably measures the biological basis, and crystallized intelligence presumably measures knowledge and skills learned through experience. Fluid intelligence remains stable throughout the lifetime, and crystallized intelligence can increase indefinitely. Vocabulary and verbal intelligence, in this schema, are regarded as part of crystallized intelligence. Cattell’s ideas for improvement in IQ are related to what he calls “investment,” which is a vague term referring to how much effort a person puts out in making use of their biologically-given intelligence.

In the 1980’s, yet another theory of intelligence emerged, this time by the Yale psychologist Robert Sternberg (1985), and called the Triarchic theory of intelligence. In this view, IQ consists of three parts: analytic intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence. These parts are not seen as separate, but as interconnected parts of a single system. Analytic intelligence involves skills at reasoning, analyzing, evaluating, judging, and comparing. Creative intelligence involves the ability to combine seemingly unrelated facts to form new ideas. Practical intelligence involves the ability to adapt, select, and shape the real-world environment. In Sternberg’s schema, people are aware of which areas they are strong and weak at, and they try to capitalize on their strengths as well as compensate for their weaknesses. Research on these ideas is emerging, and full support has yet to be achieved for the idea of practical intelligence since there are so many contexts in which to test the theory.

In the 1990’s, the notion of emotional intelligence was raised by the psychologists Peter Salovey and John Mayer (Mayer & Salovey 1993). People with this kind of IQ tend to have abilities to perceive, understand, express, and regulation emotions. They use their emotions to guide thoughts and behavior, and also generally have the ability to accurately read others’ emotions. This conception is very similar to the notion of social competence, which has found a small place in the criminological literature. Research on emotional intelligence is far from conclusive, although it does seem plausible that for people with low intelligence, sometimes a strong emotion will overrule their common sense and make them do foolish things, although others regard the idea of emotional flooding over intelligence as a kind of folk psychology.

INTELLIGENCE AND CRIME

The earliest group of criminologists who looked atintelligence and crime comprise what are known as the “pedigree“studies. Pedigree study is the process of tracing the family tree ofcriminals to see if the genealogy contains examples of family ancestors with lowintelligence. Richard Dugdale, in 1877, went back200 years to trace the ancestry of a family known as The Jukes. Hefound that not only were it current members always in trouble with the law, butthat the family history extensively included pauperism, prostitution,fornication, illegitimacy, and degeneracy. His work was so influentialthat by 1899, Americans were clamoring for something to be done about the”Three Ds” in society: the Dangerous (mentally ill) class; theDelinquent (criminal) class; and the Defective (mentally retarded) class.Americans saw welfare, public assistance, and philanthropy programs as futileabout this time. An influential book at the time was written in 1901 byCharles Henderson, entitled The Dependent,Defective, and Delinquent Classes.

In 1912, another “pedigree” researcher, H.H. Goddard,of the New Jersey Training School for the Feeble Minded at Vineland, studied afamily known as The Kallikaks. He traced this criminal family’shistory back six generations to the illegitimate offspring of a”feebleminded” barmaid. He popularized the idea of feeblemindedness as an alternative for the words “moron”,”imbecile”, and “idiot” (anyone with an IQ of around75). Feeblemindedness is hereditary, passed on in a 3:1 ratio according toMendelian Law through a recessive gene to what are called simplex cases in thesecond generation. If simplex marries simplex, all the offspring areguaranteed to be feebleminded. Goddard saw feeblemindedness as thebreeding ground for crime. At that time in society, 97% of all femaleprostitutes, 80% of truants, and 50% of paupers were feebleminded. Goddard didextensive mental testing in jails and prisons, finding that 70%of criminals were feebleminded (even today, incarcerated criminalsnormally score 20 points less on IQ tests thannoncriminals).

The American government quickly accepted the idea that allfeebleminded people were potential criminals and put Goddard in charge ofImmigration and Naturalization at Ellis Island until 1928. From thatposition, he trained a group of clinicians to look for certain signs offeeblemindedness among the immigrants coming off the boats. Sometimes theyjust sized a person up, and sometimes they would take people aside, show them adrawing, and ask them to draw it from memory. The trainingwasn’t all that sophisticated (and Goddard, according to Gould, later admitted to doctoring photos ofwhat the feebleminded were supposed to look like), and included things likelooking for immigrants with glassy eyes that recede into eye sockets.Goddard, you see, also believed that masturbation and/or overindulgence in sexcaused this (the eyes to recede into eye sockets); hence the popular warningAmerican mothers used for years when they suspected their sons were masturbating(“Stop that Johnny, or you’ll go blind”).

Goddard also convinced the U.S. military to initiate IQtesting along the same lines as this feeblemindedness profiling (being able topick em out by sight). The Army tests were called the “Beta”tests, and they led to a diagnosis of feeblemindedness among 37% of the Whitesand 89% of the Blacks. Subsequent tests by the military have shown that drafteestend to have an average IQ of 75 (slightly above the feeblemindednessrange). Even today, the military relies upon intelligence to screen outvolunteers. Ironically, dynamometer and other tests show that a largepercentage of people with low intelligence have excessive strength, tallness,broad shoulders, a heavy thick-set build, primitive digestive system that isn’tupset by swallowing anything, wounds that heal fast, resistance to certaindiseases, and dullness to pain. Goddard also convinced the prison systemsof 24 states that at least 50% of their inmates were feebleminded.Together with his team, and a doctor named Harry Sharp, they proceeded toperform mandatory vasectomies on delinquents and inmates throughout these prisonsystems. Many state prison systems had compulsory sterilization policiesup until 1960.

Another colorful character in history was Charles Benedict Davenport, a doctor who ran the Station for Experimental Evolution in Cold Spring Harbor, NY from 1904 until the 1930s with funding from the Carnegie Institute. Black (2003) writes about Davenport as being the leader of the American Eugenics Movement. For three decades, the Cold Spring Harbor station was believed to be the command-and-control headquarters of the eugenics movement, and people sent there with allegedly inheritable moral failings (such as criminality, alcoholism, promiscuity, and pauperism) were involuntarily sterilized so they couldn’t have offspring. The Carnegie Institute pulled the plug on their funding for such activities in 1939.

A Focus on the American Eugenics Movement (1907-1939)

The main years for the American Eugenics Movement lastedfrom 1907-1939. Eugenics (a word meaning “good in birth”) is the name for attempts at purifying the humanrace by the elimination or sterilization of “unfit” humanbeings. A majority of states (31) passed mandatory sterilization laws(known by a variety of names; miscegenation laws; sexual psychopath laws,registration laws, etc.). Indiana was the first state to legalize forced sterilization in 1907, but most of the other states followed after Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous proclamation in the Buck v. Bell case of 1927 which involved Virginia’s law (below). These laws essentially rounded up welfaremothers, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, the insane, epileptics, sexperverts, and moral degenerates. They were taken to hospitals and giveneuthanasia (mercy killing) if they were too bad off, but most people, againsttheir will or talked into it (by genetic counselors), were sterilized bycastration, vasectomy, or hysterectomy. When Adolf Hitler came to power inGermany, he claimed his idea of genocide against the Jews was inspired by theAmerican Eugenics Movement, but other than the Holocaust, Hitler got away with killing 250,000 mentally disabled Germans between 1939 and 1945 with no complaints. Most people who administered the sterilization laws in America were WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) who also had a distaste for foreigners, so the Johnson-Lodge Immigration Act was passed in 1924 to formalize the practice of sterilizing vast numbers of immigrants who were uncharitably called PIGS (Polish, Italian, Greek, and Slavic) or CIA (Catholic Irish Alcoholics). A number of Blacks were also caught up in sterilization campaigns, but the Irish suffered the most in terms of the numbers affected (estimates range from 150,000-750,000+ sterilized). Records were poorly kept, and some estimates of the numbers are much lower, for example, such as Black’s (2003) estimates of 6,000 by 1927, 36,000 by 1940, and 70,000 by 1970. Activities past 1939 were funded by Planned Parenthood and the birth control movement started by Margaret Sanger, an early American feminist. In the 1990s and beyond, scientists sometimes refer to the legacy of these ideas as euthanasia, the new eugenics, “newgenics,” or transhumanism (Dowbiggin 2003).

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for an 8-1 majority in Buck v. Bell (1927)

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence … The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

CONCLUSIONS AND CONTEMPORARY INTELLIGENCE STUDIES

The generally accepted wisdom, according to a number offairly well-done studies, is that the average(nonincarcerated) criminal IQ is 90 (92 or 93,depending upon who’s study you use), but conventional wisdom holds that there isusually a ten point gap (90 v. 100) between criminals and the average for therest of the population. The incarcerated criminals who have gotten caught tend to have much lower IQs, often around 85 or so, which triggers status as a mentally “disabled” inmate or one with a “learning disability.” Contemporary researchers like E. Wilson (who wrotethe first textbook on Sociobiology) and C. Ray Jeffrey (a Florida Statecriminologist) have tried to sort out the reasons for why criminals have at least an seven or eight-point gap. Some claimit’s a neurotransmitter problem, others the inability to interact with theenvironment, and others the effect of alienating labeling in school. Somepsychopaths and those with certain mental conditions (like paranoia) have highIQ, but these cases are rare. Be advised that even though a seven (7), eight (8), or ten (10) point difference in IQ may not look like much, and indeed, many researchers will dismiss such differences as being within the “normal” range of variation, more detailed research (Goodman 1995) will almost always find A FEW POINTS MATTER, and even differences of six (6) points will be associated with more lying, cheating, stealing, and conduct disorders.

Genetic Endowment Research

The twin and adoption studies have been informative, especiallyby what this group of researchers call their “concordance”studies. Concordance is the likelihood that one individual (an identicaltwin, for example) will have the same or similar characteristics (intelligence,criminality) as a biological relative. In theory at least, the idea of concordance is the notion that there is some genetic input or determinism in the risk of becoming involved in crime. There’s a 77% concordance rate foridentical twins (even when living apart), and a 20% concordance rate foradoptees (with criminal biological parents and noncriminal adoptive parents). A strong genetic influence is suggested, particularly for property crime and particularly when low intelligence is involved (Mednick et al. 1987).

Sex Difference Research

Sex differences are also a contemporary area of study, and only slight differences between men and women have been found. Men, however, tend to dominate the extremes of IQ; the upper levels of genius and the bottom levels of retardation. Men are overrepresented among the ranks of the mentally retarded. Men perform better at spatial ability testing, and women perform better at reading comprehension, writing, perceptual speed, and certain memory tasks. There are few gender differences in math ability.

Race Difference Research

Most recent developments in this area have focused on ways to measure internal bias in mental testing, such as the use of techniques known as Differential Item Functioning (DIF) which can sort through databases and presumably detect manifest and latent bias. Minority affairs officers are usually mandated to be knowledgeable of such techniques. There is a difference between external bias (such as if the test had some political agenda to discriminate) and internal bias (which is the research question of whether a test has any systematic error in measurement). Bias, then, is a technical, not a political matter anymore.

Learning Disability Research

An area of study known as the LD-JD connection (Learning Disabilities – Juvenile Delinquency) started in the 1950s with the discovery of Thorazine (and later Ritalin) to control what was regarded as America’s number one problem: hyperactive children. By the 1990s, several other names were developed for hyperactivity, the most common one being attention deficit disorder. Although learning disabilities come in a variety of forms, and speculation abounds about various connections between specific disabilities and crime, attention deficit disorder is the most widely studied disability.

Theoretically, a learning disability is a discrepancy between ability andachievement. Given this view, learning disabled people are eitherunderachievers or overachievers. A learning disability is always, however,an intelligence problem. There’s a problem with receiving information,processing information, or communicating information. There are twoapproaches within criminology regarding the causes of crime among the learningdisabled:

Schooling is obviously an important factor that affects intelligence. Attendance is the primary variable here, and regardless of debates over the quality of schooling, research has consistently shown that students who skip school on a relatively frequent or intermittent basis suffer from lower IQ. When parents move a child to a better school, there may be a small, measurable increase in IQ, but it is just as likely that there will be no change in IQ. Most research in this area has been directed at the effectiveness of early intervention programs, like Head Start, and the results are promising. Such pre-Kindergarten programs produce enormous boosts in IQ, as much as 15 points compared to control groups. However, there is an unfortunate thing called the “fade-out” effect, which happens when Head Starters graduate and enter regular school. Their IQ tends to decline down to the level found in the regular school.

Family Factor Research

Families are obviously important factors. Besides motivating children toward intelligence via encouragement, coaching, and modeling, other things families can do is be informed about the effects of family size and birth order. Studies have consistently shown that smaller families (with less children) tend to produce higher-IQ children. Also, first-born children are usually the smartest, with IQ decreasing as one moves down the birth order. Prenatal care for expectant mothers is very important, and there is a condition known as fetal alcohol syndrome (low IQ and behavioral problems) which happens if the mother drinks large amounts of alcohol. Low IQ is also produced when infants eat chips of lead-based paint or are exposed to lead contamination in the atmosphere. Prolonged malnutrition during infancy also produces low IQ.

Personality Disorder Research

The susceptibility of those with low intelligence toward development of a personality disorder (such as antisocial personality disorder) is also a contemporary area of research that needs to have more attention drawn to it. It is generally agreed in criminology that high intelligence “insulates” a person against maladaptive behavior that gets them in trouble with the law, but there is little research on exactly what personality traits or attributes account for this. Austin and Deary (2002) suggest that high emotional intelligence, the trait of Openness, and low Neuroticism play a role in helping keep people out of trouble, and that Angry Temperment is mostly likely the link between mental deficiency and personality disordered criminals.

APPENDIX: A TYPICAL IQ TEST (quickie, Readers-Digest-type version)

1. These words can be arranged to form a sentence. Is the sentence True orFalse? (one in is number than more cars car)
A. True
B. False

2. What number is as much more than 10 as it is less than one-half of what30 is 10 less than?
Answer: ___

3. George gets twice as large a share of profits as any of his threepartners. The three partners share equally. What fraction of the entire profitsis George’s?
Answer: ___

4. Birds can only fly and hop, but worms can crawl; therefore:
A. Birds eat worms
B. Birds don’t crawl
C. Birds sometimes crawl

5. Stockings always have:
A. Holes
B. Weight
C. Seams
D. Garters

6. When Carol makes soup, she puts in 1 bean for each 2 peas. If her soupcontains a total of 300 peas and beans, how many peas are there?
Answer: ___

7. Pique is most similar in meaning to:
A. Choice
B. Decoration
C. Dwarf
D. Resentment
E. Sorrow

8. In this series, what number comes next? (2 A 9 B 6 C 13 D)
Answer: ___

9. In this series, what number comes next? (2 9 6 7 18 5)
Answer: ___

10. Which letter does not belong in this series? (Z Y X B W V)
Answer: ___

11. Botanist is to sociology as plant is to:
A. men
B. train
C. society
D. headache

12. If all men have shoes, then big men have:
A. big shoes
B. old shoes
C. shoes
D. green shoes

13. How many miles can a dog run in 3 minutes if the dog runs half as fastas a car going 40mph?
Answer: ___

14. In this group, which object does not belong?
A. Radio
B. Clock
C. Football
D. Battery

15. In this group, which word does not belong?
A. Builder
B. Bricklayer
C. Architect
D. Dentist

Answers:

1 (F), 2 (15), 3 (2/5), 4 (B), 5 (B), 6 (200), 7 (D), 8 (10), 9(54), 10 (B), 11 (C), 12 (C), 13 (1), 14 (C), 15 (D)

Perfect score: 121-140 Superior intelligence
One wrong: 111-120 Above average
Two wrong: 91-110 Average
Three wrong: 71-90 Slow learner
Four wrong: 51-70 Mildly retarded

REFERENCES

Austin, E. & Deary, I. (2002). “Personality Dispositions,” Pp. 187-211 inR. Sternberg (Ed.) Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Black, E. (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. NY: Four Walls Eight Windows Press.

Dowbiggin, I. (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

Dugdale, R. (1877/1988). The Jukes. NY: Putnam.

Eysenck, H. (2000). Intelligence: A New Look. NJ: Transaction Books.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goddard, H. (1912). The Kallikak Family. NY: Macmillan.

Goddard, H. (1914). Feeblemindedness. NY: Macmillan.

Goddard, H. (1915). The Criminal Imbecile. NY: Macmillan.

Goodman, R. (1995). “The relationship between normal variation in IQ and common childhood psychopathology,” European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 4(3): 187-96.

Gould, S. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. NY: Norton.

Hirschi, T. & Hindelang, M. (1977). “Intelligence and Delinquency” AmericanSociological Review 42:572-87.

Jeffery, C.R. (1980). “Taboos in criminology,” Sage research in criminology volume 15 by E. Sagarin (Ed.) Beverly Hills: Sage.

Jencks, C. & Phillips, M. (1998). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute.

Jensen, A. & Miele, F. (2002). Intelligence, Race, and Genetics. Los Angeles: Westview Press.

Mayer, J. & Salovey, P. (1993). “The Intelligence of Emotional Intelligence,” Intelligence 17: 433-442.

Mednick, S., T. Moffitt & S. Stack. (1987). The Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Miele, F. (2004). Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur Jensen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Moffitt, T., Gabrielli, W. & Mednick, S. (1981). “Socioeconomic Status, IQ, and Delinquency,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 90: 152-56.

Montagu, A. (Ed.) (2002). Race and IQ. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

Perkins, D. (2002). “The Engine of Folly,” Pp. 64-85 in R. Sternberg (Ed.) Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate. NY: Viking Press.

Rafter, N. (1997). Creating Born Criminals. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Seligman, D. (Ed.) (1992). A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America. NY: Birch Books.

Siglar, R. & Culliver, C. (1991). “The Relationship between Learning Disability and Juvenile Delinquency.” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 3: 117-128.

Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Sternberg, R. (ed.) (2002). Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Sutherland, E. (1931). “Mental Deficiency and Crime” in SocialAttitudes ed. by K. Young. NY: Holt.

Wilson, E. (2000). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.

Wilson, J. & Herrnstein, R.. (1985). Crime and Human Nature. NY: Simon& Schuster.

Zeigarnik, B. (1927). “Uber das Behalten von Erledigten und Unerledigten,” Handlungen Psychologisches Forschung 9:1-85.

Zeleny, L. (1933). “Feeblemindedness and Criminal Conduct” AmericanJournal of Sociology 38:564-76.

Online Resources