There is a lack of consensus on the issue of behavioural consistency and mixed evidence for the existence or non-existence of it. Sullivan et al (2006) propose that the lack of evidence for consistency in criminal actions may be due to the way the various studies describe and categorise offence types as well as the variety of statistical procedures used to investigate it. Authors such as Fisher & Ross (2006), Olczac et al (1983), and Luengo et al (1994) have all pointed out that there needs to be a clear categorizing and labelling of offences when examining consistency in offending behaviour.
However, Canter & Youngs (2009) have pointed out that crime is a socio-legal concept, an act is defined as a crime by society, and if we are to understand criminal actions it is not appropriate to examine these using the legal definitions of these acts. Canter & Youngs (2009) suggest that any investigation into behavioural consistency needs to be based on well-grounded psychological theories. Canter & Youngs also suggest that criminal activity needs to be examined in terms of modes of interactions and are carried out to achieve many different objectives. They suggest that there is a need to develop meaningful ways to distinguish between criminal activities.
Youngs (2001) investigates behavioural consistency by defining criminal acts in terms of the type of gain they produce. Youngs posits that it is possible to differentiate offending behaviours using principals proposed by Bandura (1986) in his Social Cognitive Theory. Youngs proposes that whether a particular behaviour occurs or not is determined by whether there is any incentive for the individual to perform it. Bandura (1986) identifies seven fundamental incentives which drive human behaviour and Youngs suggests that three of them are relevant to criminal behaviours. Youngs suggests that the fundamental incentives of Monetary, Power and status, and Sensory can be applied to all types of criminal activities.
Youngs (2001) suggests that the Monetary incentive may be relevant to offending behaviour where the monetary gain is unlawfully taken from others. Youngs proposes that this desire for monetary gain can be extended to the desire for material goods, as such Youngs labels this as Material gains. Offences such as burglary, robbery and fraud could all be defined as having a Material gain. The Power and status incentive refers to the desire to control other people. Youngs labels this as Power gains and suggests this could represent various forms of violent crime. Finally, Youngs proposes that Sensory incentives are based on the desire for pleasurable experiences and the avoidance of aversive experiences, including boredom. Crimes such as drug taking behaviours could be described as having a Sensory gain.
Youngs (2001) asked incarcerated males to report their level of involvement in 42 contextualised criminal and deviant acts on a scale called the D42. The items on the D42 were constructed to represent the three types of incentives which she proposed were relevant to offending behaviour.
The findings of her study revealed that participants reported consistently committing offences which produce Material, Power or Sensory type gains. The results also found that there were individual differences in the level of these gains; the gains are reported to produce either high or low level of gain. Furthermore, Youngs identified that specialisation was defined in terms of Material, Power or Sensory gains, but only when there was a high level of the particular gain. It is possible that these three gain types could encompass the whole range of criminal actions.
The study by Youngs (2001) supports the view that offending behaviour should be based on well-grounded psychological theories. As highlighted above, Canter & Youngs suggest that criminal activity needs to be examined in terms of modes of interactions and are carried out to achieve many different objectives. The study by Youngs shows that these objectives can be measured by examining the types of gains various crimes commit. However, defining crimes in terms of producing higher or lower level of particular gain types does not allow consideration of any behavioural components which may be evident.
Can specialisation be measured in terms of proactive or reactive behaviours?
Walters (1995) developed the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles to identify thinking styles which maintain offending. Walters (2007) suggests that the PICTS can effectively identify and predict proactive and reactive aspects of criminal behaviours. The terms Proactive and Reactive were initially proposed as forms of aggression that children displayed (Dodge, 1991; Crick &Dodge, 1987). Dodge investigated theories on aggression by examining two areas within the literature; the Frustration-Aggression model (Dollard et al, 1939, later refined by Berkowitz 1962, 1978) and Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1978, 1983). The Frustration-Aggression model suggests that aggression is a hostile angry reaction to perceived frustration or provocation. Whereas Bandura suggests aggression is a learned behaviour which is mediated by external rewards. Dodge subsequently re -labelled these Proactive and reactive forms of aggression.
Reactive aggression has been associated with a tendency to view ambiguous behaviours as hostile or threatening (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Day et al 1992; Dodge & Coie, 1987; Dodge et al, 1990; Hubbard et al, 2001). Proactive aggression has been associated with a tendency to see aggressive behaviour as an effective way to attain external rewards, and unlikely to result in being punished (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Dodge et al, 1997; Schwartz et al, 1998). Walters (2007) extends this theory to criminal actions and has suggested two factors on his PICTS that predict criminal thinking styles. The Problem avoidance factor predicts reactive criminal thinking which is associated with hostile attribution bias. The Self-assertion/deception factor predicts proactive criminal thinking which is associated with positive outcome expectancies. Walters (2005, 2006) suggests that proactive criminal thinking has been associated with offences such as robbery and burglary, whereas reactive criminal thinking has been associated with offences such as assault & violence. It is proposed that these Proactive and Reactive thinking styles can be extended to include modes of interaction during criminal actions.
It has been suggested that proactive and reactive aggression can be displayed by the same individual, perhaps even during one event, this complicates the matter of differentiating between offenders and non-offenders or between different types of offender (Walters, 2005; Dodge, 2013; Marsee & Frick, 2007). Although this literature furthers our understanding of the factors that maintain offending, this literature cannot explain why some stop offending.
Thurman (1984) proposes a link between morality and neutralisation, suggesting that when moral commitment is low, neutralisation is an effective method for reducing guilt.
