DEVELOPMENTAL/MULTIFACTOR/INTEGRATED THEORY (1930)

The multiple crime causation theory in criminology grew out of the discrepancies and arguments
attending the single factor (or single set of like factors) approaches of the early days. Ferri and
many other early criminologists envisaged the shortcomings of the single factor approach and
identified several criminogenic factors in their own work. But the multifactor approach gained its
momentum from the research efforts of Williniam Healy, Cyril Burt, the Gluecks, Matza etc.

Multifactor theories of crime represent an attempt to bridge the ideological differences that exist
among various older theories of crime by integrating variables from disparate theoretical
approaches. A multifactor approach recognizes that crime is a complex, multidimensional
phenomenon with multiple causes. By integrating a variety of ecological, socialization,
psychological, biological, and economic factors into a coherent structure, such theories overcome
the shortcomings of older theories that may be criticized on the grounds of reductionism. That is,
many older theories of crime argue that one causal variable is predominantly important as a
cause of crime. A problem with such an approach is that not all persons exposed to that variable
(for example, poverty) commit crime. Multifactor theories recognize that multiple social and
individual factors interact to result in the eventual behaviour of individuals, and that we must
consider the constellation of factors in an individual’s life in order to understand his or her
behaviour.

Multi-Factor Thoeries

The Social Development Model

Multi-factor theories integrate a range of variables into a cohesive explanation of criminality.

The first of these to be discussed is the social development model (Hawkins and Weis, 1985;
Catalano and Hawkins, 1996; Hawkins and Catalano, 1987). The social development model
developed by Catalano and Hawkins examines delinquency as the result of acquired anti-social
and pro-social behaviours brought on by certain risk and protective factors. These factors
encompass a wide range of biological, psychological, and social variables considered in previous
theory and research. Most notably, the social development model synthesizes control, social
learning, and differential association theory, while acknowledging other associated factors not
accounted for by these theories, such as position in the social structure, acquired skills, and
constitutional (biological) factors. In addition, the theory more adequately accounts for
interactional effects between variables not generally acknowledged by previous theories.

The social development model hypothesizes that during the elementary school developmental
period, children learn patterns of behaviour, whether pro-social or antisocial, primarily from the
socializing units of the family and school, with peers and neighbourhood influences playing an
increasing role as children progress through the elementary school years.

According to the social development model, children are socialized through processes involving
four constructs: (1) perceived opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with
others, (2) the degree of involvement in activities and interactions, (3) the skills to participate in
this involvement and interaction, and (4) the reinforcement they perceive from this involvement
and interaction. These constructs are hypothesized to be ordered causally, with more perceived
opportunities for involvement leading to more actual involvement, which in turn leads to more
rewards and recognition. Skills are also hypothesized to affect the amount of reward and
recognition a child receives. When these socializing processes are consistent, a social bond of
attachment and commitment develops between the individual and the socializing unit. Once
established, the social bond inhibits behaviours inconsistent with the beliefs held and behaviours
practised by the socialization unit through establishment of an individual’s stake in conforming
to the norms, values, and behaviours of the socializing unit to which he or she is bonded. It is
hypothesized that the behaviour of the individual will be pro-social or anti-social, depending on
the predominant behaviours, norms, and values held by those individuals or institutions to which
the individual is bonded.

In sum, the social development model provides an integrative, developmental, and interactive
perspective on the nature and causes of delinquency. Whereas theoretical “traditions” have
emerged among the various perspectives on delinquency, resulting in opposing camps dedicated
solely to a particular framework from which to study, the social development model offers an
avenue for integrative exploration.

The usefulness of the social development model has been demonstrated by its ability to explain
variations in delinquency, violence and drinking in late adolescence (Ayers et al., 1999; Catalano
et al., 1996; Herrenkohl et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2001), as well as problem behaviour among
elementary-school-age children (Catalano et al., 1999). It has also been used to guide
interventions that have demonstrated effects on positive youth development and preventing
problem behaviour (Haggerty et al., 1998; Hawkins et al., 1999; Kosterman et al., 1997).

Elliott’s Integrated Theory

The second multi-factor theory that will be examined is Elliott’s integrated theory (Elliott,
Ageton and Canter, 1979). This theory combines the principles of strain, control and social
learning theories into a single theoretical framework. This theory specifies a causal pathway in
which strain leads to the weakening of social bonds with conventional others and institutions,
leading to greater association with deviant peers and the subsequent learning of anti-social and
delinquent values. Specifically, adolescents who live in socially disorganized neighbourhoods or
who are improperly socialized have an increased risk of perceiving strain. The perceptions of
strain can lead to the weakening of bonds with conventional groups, activities and norms. Such
weakened bonds, in conjunction with high levels of strain, lead to the rejection of conventional
values and encourage youths to seek out deviant peer groups. Such deviant associations create
the environment for the social learning and reinforcement of anti-social values and behaviour.
This essentially increases delinquent and criminal behaviour.

Life Course Theories:

Life course theories represent an integrated approach to explaining criminality, and accept that
multiple social, personal, economic, and other factors influence crime. Life course theories
further argue that in order to understand criminality, one must consider these multiple causal
factors over the life course, and that different factors may be more or less important at varying
stages within the life course and may serve to initiate, reinforce, or even reduce criminal activity.
As people make important transitions in their lives, from childhood to adolescence, from
adolescence to adulthood, from unmarried to married, or from unemployed to employed for
example, the nature of their social interactions change, and so too does the importance of various
causal influences on criminality. As a consequence, levels of criminal activity also change. This
section will focus on the following life course theories of criminality: Moffitt’s theory of
delinquency, Farrington’s theory of delinquent development, interactional theory, and Sampson
and Laub’s age-graded theory.

Moffitt’s Theory of Delinquency

Moffitt (1993) proposes that there are two primary hypothetical prototypes that explain
delinquent behaviour and the onset of criminality: life-course-persistent offenders, whose anti-
social behaviour begins in childhood and continues to worsen thereafter, and adolescence-limited
offenders, whose anti-social behaviour begins in adolescence and desists in young adulthood.
Life-course-persistent anti-socials are few, persistent, and pathological, whereas adolescent-
limited anti-socials are common, relatively temporary, and near normative. This developmental
typology hypothesizes that childhood-onset and adolescent-onset conduct problems have
different etiologies.

This theory argues that life-course-persistent anti-social behaviour originates early in life, when
the difficult behaviour of a high-risk young child is exacerbated by a high-risk environment.
According to the theory, the child’s risk emerges from inherited or acquired neuropsychological
variation, initially manifested in subtle cognitive deficits, difficult temperament, or hyperactivity.
The environment’s risk comprises factors such as inadequate parenting, disrupted family bonds
and poverty. The environmental risk domain expands beyond the family, as the child ages, to
include poor relations with people such as peers and teachers, and later, with partners and
employers. Over the first two decades of development, transactions between individual and
environment gradually construct a disordered personality with hallmark features of physical
aggression and antisocial behaviour persisting to mid-life. Moffitt argues that the personality
characteristics associated with life-course-persistent anti-social behaviour, such as aggression,
may have been more adaptive for males compared with females in the evolutionary environment
of humans. As such, more males than females possess such personality characteristics, putting
them at greater risk than females of serious criminality.

In contrast, adolescent-limited anti-social behaviour emerges with puberty, when otherwise

healthy youths experience dysphoria during the relatively roleless years between their biological
maturation and their access to mature privileges and responsibilities, a period called “the
maturity gap.” While adolescents are in this gap, it is virtually normative for them to find the
life-course-persistent anti-socials’ delinquent lifestyle appealing, and to mimic it as a way to
demonstrate autonomy from parents, win affiliation with peers, and hasten social maturation.
However, because their pre-delinquent development was normal and healthy, most young people
who become adolescent-limited delinquents are able to desist from crime once they age into real
adult roles, turning gradually to a more conventional lifestyle. This recovery may be delayed if
the adolescent-limited delinquent encounter “snares,” such as a criminal record, incarceration,
addiction, truncated education, or other such factors that may hinder the transition to a
conventional lifestyle.

In summary, Moffitt argues that there are two distinct developmental pathways to delinquency:
life-course-persistent anti-social development and adolescent-limited antisocial development.
Moffitt estimates the prevalence of life-course-persistent anti-socials at five per cent, though they
account for a much larger proportion of delinquent acts and criminality. The genesis of this
pattern of anti-social behaviour resides in neuropsychological defects, poor parenting, lower IQ,
and heritable personality traits such as negative emotionality and impulsivity. This represents
pathological behaviour, is lifelong, and may be treatment resistant. In contrast, adolescence-
limited delinquency (the majority of adolescents) is non-pathological, and can be attributed to
learning (imitation of the life-course-persistents) and to a maturity gap between biological and
social age. Moffitt demonstrates how such imitated behaviour is adaptive to the social and
historical context of adolescent development. This model additionally accounts for the often-
noted decline in anti-social behaviour, in the majority of adolescents, once they attain adulthood.
Drawing on evolutionary psychology, this model also accounts for gender disparities in crime.

Farrington’s Theory of Delinquent Development

Farrington’s theory of delinquent development derived from research conducted as part of a

Cambridge study of delinquent development, which followed the offending careers of 411
London boys born in 1953. This study used self-report and interview data, as well as
psychological testing, and collected data from the subjects at eight times over a 24-year period,
beginning when subjects were eight years old. This study, in agreement with previously
developed life course theories, found the existence of chronic offenders, the continuity of
offending, and the presence of early onset leading to persistent criminality. Farrington found that
the chronic criminal is typically male, and is born into low-income large families, which have
parents and siblings with criminal records or prior offending and in which parents are likely to be
separated or divorced. It was found that parenting was an important factor predicting future
criminality. The future criminal receives poor parental supervision, including the use of harsh or
erratic punishment. The signs of later criminal behaviour were manifest as early as age eight,
when such persons already exhibited anti-social behaviour, including dishonesty and
aggressiveness. At school, such individuals had low educational achievement and were described
as restless, troublesome, hyperactive, impulsive, and truant. It was also found that the chronic
offender associated with friends who also exhibited anti-social behaviour. The study also found
that the typical offender provided the same kind of deprived and disrupted family life for his own
children, and thus the social conditions and experiences that produce delinquency are transmitted
from one generation to the next.

An important aspect of Farrington’s research is that it identified factors that predicted

discontinuity from criminal offending. That is, there are individuals who have a background that
puts them at risk of criminal behaviour, and yet they manage to either remain non-offenders, or
begin a criminal career but successfully desist after a while. Factors that protect at-risk youth
from even beginning a criminal career include a shy personality, a non-deviant family, and being
highly regarded by the mother. Other factors were found to influence successful desistance from
criminality. These include having a relatively good job and being married, except where the
person’s spouse is also engaged in criminal activity. Residential relocation was also found to
influence desistance, since relocation allowed for the severing of ties and associations with co-
offenders.

At the theoretical level, Farrington’s research contributes a number of ideas to understanding the
genesis, maintenance and desistance from criminal behaviour. These are as follows: 1)
Childhood factors predict a continuity of adolescent and adult antisocial and criminal behaviour;
2) economic deprivation, poor parenting, an anti-social or criminal family, and personalities
marked by impulsivity, hyperactivity, and attention deficit all increase the risk of anti-social
behaviour in children; 3) adolescents are motivated to engage in criminogenic behaviour because
of the desire for material goods, excitement and status with peers; 4) effective childrearing and
consistent discipline, coupled with close parental supervision, reduces the risk of childhood and
subsequent delinquent and anti-social behaviour; and 5) in adulthood, having a good job, being
married, and residential relocation can encourage desistance from criminality.