Can we improve security risk assessments by understanding why people commit crime? Part Two.

Part Two: Biological, Psychological, and Social Positivism

The story so far…

• Last week I asked: why do people commit crime? Is it because we’re obsessed with pleasure?

• To answer this, I launched a 5-week series that reviews key sociological and criminological theories. I will launch one post per week, starting with Classicism.

• Classicism was and is a dominant criminological theory, which was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries.

• It says that people are rational and self-serving and therefore commit crime to maximize their pleasure.

• It’s closely associated with deterrence theory and helps security professionals by providing a practical approach to security risk management that suggests that we can reduce crime/security incidents by elevating costs to doing that which we don’t want people to do.

• If you missed last week’s post, you can find it here.

Why do people commit crimes?

Is it because of factors outside of their control?

If it is, it’s known as positivism. Positivism (in its various forms) is a broad term that describes how social scientists, like criminologists and sociologists, study the world around us. It emphasizes data over reason. In that way, it means that researchers must become more like scientists and less like philosophers. So, only that which has been empirically proven carries weight in the public eye.

Last week, I wrote about ‘classicism’, which was developed through human reason, not evidence.

Like me, you may have read that and quickly thought that positivism is therefore the ‘better’ option. Before you draw that conclusion, though, take some time to read about alternative options (i.e. pragmatism and interpretivism).¹ Approach this topic like an academic and you may just find that ‘what works’ isn’t always ‘what works’.

Let’s dive into a few specific types of positivism.

Biological Positivism

Biological positivism asserts that some people are simply born criminals.² Historically, scholars like Cesare Lombroso theorized that you could tell who a criminal was simply by their facial features or body types.³ As you might imagine, this has gross potential for abuse. In fact, historical biological positivism gave birth to the eugenics movement, which was widely adopted by Nazi Germany to prevent the birthing of criminally disposed individuals.⁴

Thankfully, contemporary biological positivism has broken from that route. Now, scholars in this field look more to me like neuroscientists. One example, which I think is quite neat, and has super practical solutions come from a professor by the name of Adrian Raine. Raine argues that children who don’t receive enough nutrition during pregnancy may be predisposed to “antisocial behavior” due to the damage caused to the brain.⁵ Best part: he argues that a healthy dose of Omega-3 (think fish) can make a world of difference.⁶

Key point: biological positivism asserts that people commit crimes because of a biological issue.

Psychological Positivism

Do people learn to commit crime?

When I was young, my parents enrolled me in soccer and piano. I’ll be the first to admit that I was horrible at soccer. So bad that I only ever scored one goal - and I only scored it because it bounced off my leg and went into the net!

Needless to say, I wasn’t an athlete. Instead, I clung to music. I loved how lyrics provided words for me during my darkest times. When I simply didn’t know how to express myself. But something happened which really surprised me. As I performed, my parents noticed that when I sang Australian, Irish, or English songs, I sounded just like an Australian, Irish, or English person.

Without knowing it, I was mimicking the artists that I was listening to.

One of the theories of psychological positivism is social learning theory. It says “that humans learn through social interactions and tend to mimic other people’s behaviour”.⁷

Psychologist Albert Bandura made this very argument by way of a very simple experiment.

Bandura placed:

• one group of kids with an adult who used a mallet to beat up a large doll

• one group of kids with an adult who did not show any aggression, just simply played with the doll

• and one group of kids without an adult to play with a doll

After injecting a little negative stimulus and then taking away the doll, Bandura placed the kids back into rooms with dolls and mallets. Can you guess what happened next?

The kids that saw the adult beat up the doll also beat up the doll. Whereas, the kids that did not see the aggression, did not show any aggression to the dolls.

This led Bandura to argue that all behaviour is learned.⁸

Key point: psychological positivism asserts that people commit crimes because of a psychological issue.

Sociological Positivism

Do people commit crimes because their social environment encourages it?

Sociological positivism argues that social and economic issues (think poverty and broken social bonds) cause crime.⁹

Like biological and psychological positivism, sociological positivism has many theories that try to explain why people commit crimes. But one in particular that I find interesting is the Chicago School.¹⁰

19th century criminologists, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, suggested that certain areas in a city, which they call zones, tended to have greater crime rates. However, the crime rates were not caused by the environment, but by the disintegration of “social controls” in those areas.¹¹ Controls like:

• a breakdown in social institutions like police, schools, and church

• a breakdown in everyday relationships

• no common value system.¹²

In other words, we are influenced by the people we spend time with. My wife always says that we are the products of our 5 closest friends.

Sociological positivism is a really helpful approach to make sense of crime because it suggests that we ask questions like:

• at what point is there too much difference in our system?

• to what degree to shared values prevent criminality?

• how might the decreasing religious and educational institutions influence societal breakdown?

• how might we leverage events (sport games) or institutions (churches, mosques, etc.) to bring us together?

Key point: sociological positivism asserts that people commit crimes because of the societies that they live in breaking down.

What do I like about these theories?

First, they remind me that how I treat my neighbours and my colleagues matters. No duh, right? But hear me out. Take some time to read brilliant scholars like Adam Grant, Simon Sinek, and Bob Sutton and compare their thoughts on organizational leadership to contemporary management. You will find a very large gap.

Without any evidence to speak of, I would postulate that a great deal of insider risks are materialized through atrocious leadership - among other factors that biological and psychological positivism could speak to.

Second, they suggest that preventing crime cannot be done exclusively through traditional security controls (video surveillance, access control, intrusion detection, guard, etc.) or traditional deterrence-based mechanisms.

Reducing crime means that serious work needs to happen on our societal structures (read: the industrial-consumerist bubble that defines the ‘western’ work environment) If you have no idea what I’m talking about, check out my post from a couple of months ago.

Third, they help us have empathy for those who have been marginalized, discriminated against, and harmed by an unsustainable socio-economic system.¹³

What do I think about these theories?

First, they have the same limitation that classicism has. While classicism says that people commit crimes due to internal factors (hedonism), positivism says that people commit crimes due to external factors (learned behavior, poverty, broken social bonds). As I’ll argue next week, it’s a little more complicated than that.

Second, positivism is highly reductionist. It tries to take complex phenomena and boil it down into two variables: an independent variable and a dependent variable. That may work in a lab, which is wonderful for medicine, but is not as helpful when we can’t really control extraneous variables in society.

Don’t get me wrong, I love an evidence base as much as the next person. I also think that positivism still has tremendous value. I just caution against putting all of the eggs in that basket.

Third, they allow us to make more informed decisions on the likelihood of a risk occurring by not only considering historical incidents or asset attractiveness, but also through socioeconomic booms and busts.

Fourth, they provide alternative opportunities for security professionals to reduce crime in the long term by focusing on how they can change the social environment, perhaps more cost-effectively. For example, in line with Social Learning Theory, a recent Public Safety Canada report found that employees are less likely to commit corruption if such behavior is modelled by management.¹⁴

Alternatively, what if we, security professionals, championed other means of enhancing formal and informal social controls like relationships, sports, and spiritual growth. Imagine the doubt on your CEO’s face if you propose a soccer game as a means of preventing insider risk.¹⁵ At the same time, imagine your CFO’s relief!

In conclusion,

The theories discussed to date suggest that crime is caused by many factors. If we only focus on one or the other, we will miss an invaluable opportunity to not only prevent crime from happening, but also transform a system that seems bent against far too many people. Or, the 99% that don’t own the means of production!

Next week, I’m looking at right and left realism. Two theories that I think bring the best of classicism and positivism together with a dash of a political theory.

I hope this post provides some food for thought, especially if you are new to security and trying to make sense of everything.

Don’t forget, the academic world is producing some wonderful research that we can leverage to protect our friends and colleagues. We just have to fight through the jargon.

Thank you for reading.

Shawn

1. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 670.

2. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) (2019) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 4th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 33.

3. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 480.

4. Jones, S. (2021) Criminology. 7th edn. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 276.

5. Raine, A. et al. (2015) ‘Reduction in behaviour problems with omega-3 supplementation in children aged 8-16 years: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified, parallel-group trial’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(5), pp. 509-520.

6. Raine, A. et al. (2015) ‘Reduction in behaviour problems with omega-3 supplementation in children aged 8-16 years: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified, parallel-group trial’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(5), pp. 509-520.

7. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 503.

8. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 503.

9. McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) (2019) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology. 4th edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 513.

10. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 536.

11. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 537.

12. Case, S. et al. (2021) The Oxford textbook on criminology. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 537.

13. Senge, P. (2008) The Necessary Revolution: how individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. New York: Doubleday.

14. Suave, B. et al. (2023) Methods of Preventing Corruption: A Review and Analysis of Select Approaches. Available at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2023-r010/2023-r010-en.pdf (Accessed: 28 April 2025).

15. Copus, R. and Laqueur, H. (2019) ‘Entertainment as Crime Prevention: Evidence From Chicago Sports Games’, Journal of Sports Economics, 20(3), pp. 344-370.