Why Do People Commit Crimes? What Psychology Actually Shows
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
People commit crimes for different reasons, and those reasons change across situations, forms of offending, social environments, and stages of life. Psychological research connects offending with learning, decision-making, emotion regulation, perceived rewards, social relationships, developmental experiences, and opportunities. Criminology also examines economic conditions, institutions, neighborhood environments, and the laws that define and regulate behavior. No single psychological characteristic explains criminal behavior in general.
A person may commit an offense to obtain money, gain status, respond to a perceived threat, conform to a group, satisfy an immediate desire, exercise control, or pursue a calculated advantage. These descriptions identify possible motivations, not verdicts about any particular defendant. Whether an act constitutes a crime is a legal question determined by the relevant jurisdiction and facts. Why an act occurred is an empirical question that may require more than one kind of evidence.
The central finding of modern research is that criminal behavior develops through interactions among individuals and environments. A systematic review of 14 meta-analyses of longitudinal predictors found that family and parenting variables were among the more substantial developmental correlates of later offending, while peer, school, employment, family, and substance-related factors were relevant to persistence. Those relationships identify population-level patterns. They do not establish that a specific childhood experience caused a specific adult offense.
What counts as criminal behavior in psychology?
Criminal behavior refers to conduct that violates a criminal law applicable in a given time and jurisdiction. Psychologists commonly study related constructs such as aggression, antisocial behavior, rule-breaking, impulsivity, deception, coercion, and moral decision-making. Those constructs overlap with some offenses but are not interchangeable with legal definitions. Aggression may occur without a crime, while a regulatory, financial, cyber, or nonviolent property offense may involve no physical aggression.
A criminal charge is an allegation; an arrest is an official event; a conviction is a legal outcome. A self-reported illegal act is another kind of observation. Official criminal records are influenced by detection, reporting, policing, prosecutorial choices, legal rules, and access to legal resources. Consequently, research on convictions cannot automatically be generalized to every person who has committed an illegal act.
Crime also includes profoundly different behaviors. A street robbery, an assault during an argument, a tax offense, corruption, intimate partner coercion, illicit online activity, and an offense committed during a psychiatric crisis can involve different decision processes and social conditions. Researchers must specify the conduct and outcome being studied before discussing an explanation.
The correct unit of explanation may be an individual decision, a recurring behavioral pattern, a group interaction, a neighborhood distribution, or a population trend. An explanation at one level does not automatically explain another.
The short answer: Why do people commit crimes?
A useful way to organize the evidence is to examine four interacting questions. What makes the offense possible? What immediate goal, emotion, or perceived benefit is relevant? What prior experiences and current social conditions influence the choice? What constraints, protections, and alternatives are available?
An illegal act can arise when an opportunity encounters an immediate incentive, social pressure, or emotional state. Prior learning may make that response more likely, while weak guardianship, substance intoxication, acute conflict, or access to vulnerable targets may increase exposure to the situation. Supportive relationships, self-regulation, access to legitimate options, and effective prevention may interrupt the pathway.
These are explanatory dimensions, not a diagnostic checklist. Many people encounter adversity, anger, peer pressure, poverty, or substance use without committing crimes. Others offend without the conventional risk factors that dominate research on street crime. Psychology explains differences in probability and mechanisms while preserving the importance of actual behavior and evidence.
1. Motivation, rewards, and immediate decisions
Instrumental offenses and anticipated gain
Some offenses are undertaken to obtain a benefit: property, money, control, advantage, access, or status. The relevant psychological process is how a person perceives the likely payoff, alternatives, effort, and consequences. The reward may be immediate and concrete; it may also be symbolic, such as recognition within a peer group.
This framework is especially useful for examining theft, fraud, certain organized offenses, and planned forms of coercion, although individual incidents can involve mixed motives. Researchers must avoid assuming every offender performs an accurate cost-benefit calculation. Decision-making can be constrained by limited information, stress, habit, impulsivity, or mistaken expectations.
Reactive offenses and emotional escalation
Other offenses occur during conflict, fear, humiliation, jealousy, perceived provocation, or acute anger. A person may interpret ambiguous behavior as hostile, respond rapidly, or fail to shift from confrontation to a safer course of action. These mechanisms are relevant to some interpersonal assaults but cannot be inferred simply from the seriousness of an injury.
Emotional arousal can narrow attention and influence decisions, yet anger is common and violence is comparatively unusual. Anger alone is therefore a poor explanation for why one particular person became violent. The situation, prior patterns, access to weapons, substance effects, relationship dynamics, and available alternatives still matter.
Status, belonging, and group expectations
People sometimes offend to gain standing, avoid humiliation, demonstrate loyalty, or comply with group expectations. Social reinforcement may make an act seem desirable or necessary within a particular setting. Group-based offending also raises questions about leadership, coercion, power, fear, and unequal responsibility.
An individual can participate in collective wrongdoing while recognizing its consequences. Group influence is a mechanism to investigate, not an automatic excuse or a psychological determination of criminal responsibility.
2. Learning, peers, and social norms
Behavior is shaped by observing others, receiving rewards or sanctions, rehearsing responses, and developing expectations about what peers approve. An individual repeatedly exposed to rule-breaking within a social network may encounter more opportunities, models, justifications, and incentives for similar conduct. Equally, pro-social peers and meaningful commitments may support lawful choices.
Longitudinal research supports the relevance of peer relationships, particularly for persistent offending. The 2022 review of developmental predictors identifies delinquent peers among correlates of persistence, alongside education, employment, and family variables. But selection also matters: people with existing rule-breaking tendencies may seek out similar peers. Observing that peers and crime occur together does not tell us how much is social influence versus shared circumstances and prior behavior.
Learning-based explanations help answer how offending becomes familiar or normalized. They should not be translated into claims that a particular neighborhood, friendship, culture, or social group causes criminality in its members.
3. Development, childhood experiences, and the life course
Early development influences how people learn emotion regulation, social expectations, problem-solving, trust, and responses to conflict. Research investigates caregiving instability, harsh or inconsistent discipline, school difficulties, peer rejection, deprivation, and exposure to violence as possible contributors to later offending. These experiences can interact and accumulate, but no childhood profile guarantees a criminal future.
In a systematic review of longitudinal meta-analyses, family and parenting characteristics were prominent among measured developmental correlates. The research does not justify blaming parents as a universal explanation: family variables also reflect structural pressures, selection, measurement limitations, and reciprocal dynamics between children and caregivers.
Childhood adversity is a risk context, not a destiny
A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of youth justice samples found associations between cumulative adverse childhood experiences and later youth reoffending. The estimates concern groups already involved in justice systems and should not be used to classify an individual child as a future offender. The review also reported that different adverse-experience categories did not have identical associations with recidivism.
Trauma exposure may influence stress responses, behavioral adjustment, access to support, and vulnerability, but many survivors show resilience and never engage in crime. A trauma history warrants care and contextual understanding, rather than suspicion.
Why adolescence matters
Rule-breaking and some forms of offending become more common during adolescence and tend to decline with increasing age. Developmental research examines immediate reward sensitivity, peer influence, autonomy, future-oriented decision-making, and changes in self-regulation. The National Research Council's developmental review of juvenile justice describes how normal adolescent developmental processes can affect decisions.
Terrie Moffitt's influential developmental taxonomy distinguished adolescence-limited from life-course-persistent patterns of antisocial behavior. It remains a major theoretical framework, and later research has identified more heterogeneous trajectories than a rigid two-category system. A single youthful offense cannot reliably establish a permanent identity or lifetime course.
Onset, persistence, and desistance
Researchers distinguish first onset of offending, repeated or persistent offending, and desistance—the process by which offending decreases or ends. Life trajectories are shaped by changes in work, relationships, routines, social support, substance use, health, opportunities, and intervention. Different pathways can lead to the same offense, and similar early risk factors can lead to different adult outcomes.
This article provides the overview. The separate EN-58 canonical articles on developmental pathways, criminal careers, recidivism, and desistance will address those independently searchable questions in depth.
4. Self-control, impulsivity, and decision-making
Self-regulation involves delaying gratification, managing impulses, shifting attention, and considering consequences. Some offending occurs when a person prioritizes an immediate reward or reaction over more distant costs. Such processes are frequently examined in developmental and behavioral research, but impulsivity is not a criminal diagnosis and does not uniquely distinguish offenders from everyone else.
An important distinction is between acts that are impulsive and patterns that are practiced, strategic, or carefully planned. Financial manipulation and organized wrongdoing may involve patience, planning, and considerable self-control in the service of harmful objectives. Explaining crime entirely by poor impulse control would fail to account for these cases.
Researchers also examine hostile interpretations of social cues, short-term thinking, rationalization, moral disengagement, and beliefs that minimize consequences. These may influence particular behavioral patterns, but psychological interviews and questionnaires do not permit a reliable reconstruction of every past thought that preceded an alleged offense.
5. Social inequality, neighborhoods, and institutions
Crime is situated within unequal environments. Housing instability, concentrated disadvantage, limited legitimate opportunities, violence exposure, neighborhood disorganization, and weak access to services may shape exposure to risks and resources. These are population and context variables, not personality traits.
In a major multilevel study of Chicago neighborhoods, Sampson and colleagues found that collective efficacy—social cohesion together with residents' willingness to act for the common good—was inversely associated with neighborhood violence after accounting for several measured factors. This research supports attention to local relationships and institutions while leaving questions of causality and transfer to other settings open.
Poverty is not equivalent to criminality. Most people living with economic hardship do not offend, and financial and organizational crimes can be committed by powerful, economically secure actors. Differences in arrest and conviction rates can also reflect the distribution of enforcement and legal processing, as well as underlying conduct.
The National Research Council's report on incarceration documents the importance of distinguishing actual offending, criminal justice practices, and policy choices when interpreting punishment and incarceration trends. A society's recorded crime patterns depend partly on what it criminalizes and how its institutions operate.
6. Opportunity and the immediate environment
An offense often requires a practical opportunity: a target, access, a setting, insufficient safeguards, or a particular convergence of people and activities. Opportunity-focused criminology asks why illegal behavior happens at one time or place rather than another, even when a person's broader motivations remain stable.
For prevention, this can lead to environmental design, better guardianship, improved procedures, fraud controls, or conflict reduction. The opportunity explanation is complementary to developmental and motivational explanations. It does not imply that a victim or target bears responsibility for an offender's actions.
The same logic applies to cybercrime and white-collar wrongdoing. Organizational permissions, weak controls, financial incentives, and technological access can shape opportunity; psychological vulnerability or childhood adversity need not be central to every offense.
7. Deterrence, punishment, and perceived consequences
Some people consider the likelihood of apprehension when deciding whether to offend. Deterrence research distinguishes the perceived certainty of detection from the severity and swiftness of punishment. What matters psychologically is often what someone believes will happen, not merely the penalty written in a statute.
The US National Institute of Justice's synthesis of deterrence research reports that certainty of being caught has stronger deterrent evidence than simply increasing punishment severity. This finding challenges the assumption that ever-longer sentences are the primary way to reduce crime.
Deterrence is not uniform. Some acts occur under intoxication, perceived threat, emotional urgency, powerful group pressure, or distorted expectations. Furthermore, punishment systems have broader effects on families, opportunities, and communities. The National Research Council concluded that incremental crime-prevention benefits from extending already lengthy prison terms are modest at best. Legal penalties and sentencing rules vary across jurisdictions, and empirical deterrence findings are not themselves a legal sentencing standard.
8. Substance use, intoxication, and offending
Alcohol or other substance use may contribute to offending through intoxication, impaired judgment, disinhibition, social circumstances, dependence-related pressures, or involvement in illegal markets. These pathways differ substantially across substances, individuals, and offense types.
Substance use can co-occur with other vulnerabilities, making causal attribution difficult. It is inaccurate to infer that an individual committed a crime because they have a substance use disorder. Substance-related risk factors and treatment needs require evidence specific to the person and context. The developmental meta-review identifies substance problems among correlates of persistence, not as a universal explanation for offending.
A legally significant intoxication defense, where one exists, is a matter of jurisdiction-specific law. The existence of intoxication, dependence, or a diagnostic label does not by itself establish or remove criminal responsibility.
9. Biology, genetics, and the limits of prediction
Genetically informed research examines how inherited differences and environmental experiences contribute to variation in antisocial behavior. A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies found contributions from genetic and environmental sources, while a 2025 Annual Review of Psychology synthesis emphasizes gene–environment interplay and the diversity of behaviors grouped under antisocial behavior.
Heritability estimates describe variation within a studied population and environment. They do not mean that a given percentage of a person's criminal act was caused by genes, nor do they establish an inherited criminal identity. Such results depend on measurement, population structure, developmental period, and assumptions of the study design.
Aggression and nonaggressive rule-breaking also have partly distinct patterns of influence. A meta-analysis by Burt found differences between these behavioral dimensions, supporting the need to avoid treating all antisocial conduct as one biological outcome.
Brain imaging, physiological measures, genetic markers, and psychological test scores have serious limits for forensic attribution. A statistical association with a broad behavioral phenotype cannot establish that an identified person committed a particular offense or predict a unique future action.
10. Mental illness and crime: What the evidence actually means
Mental disorders are clinical diagnoses defined by diagnostic criteria. Criminal responsibility, legal guilt, and dangerousness are separate legal and forensic questions. A person can experience psychosis, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or another condition and never commit a crime. The presence of a diagnosis does not explain an offense.
Some psychiatric conditions and clinical circumstances have been investigated in relation to particular violent outcomes, with complex confounding and substantial variation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of schizophrenia and violence highlighted the importance of substance misuse and differences across study samples. These findings concern group-level associations and do not support assuming that an individual with schizophrenia is violent.
People living with mental illness can themselves be at elevated risk of victimization, as demonstrated by a Danish national registry study. Responsible interpretation examines both safety and vulnerability rather than equating diagnosis with threat.
When mental state becomes relevant in a criminal case, legal questions may include competency to stand trial, capacity, intent, or a jurisdiction's insanity-defense standard. Psychological expertise may inform those proceedings, but the court applies the governing law. Neither diagnosis nor a risk instrument produces a legal finding by itself.
11. Why different crimes require different explanations
Interpersonal violence
Some violent offenses are related to conflict escalation, perceived threats, coercive control, retaliatory motives, or group disputes. Others are planned or instrumental. The relevant context may include an existing relationship, a history of threats, situational access, or substance use. Violence cannot be reduced to one personality type or one psychological trigger.
Property crime and theft
Some property offenses involve financial incentives and opportunity; others occur under peer pressure, urgent need, or habitual patterns. Broad conclusions about poverty or impulsivity are particularly weak when researchers combine distinct forms of theft and fraud.
White-collar and organizational offenses
Financial misconduct can involve incentives, authority structures, concealment, organizational culture, and rationalization. Some perpetrators have social prestige, economic resources, and strategic capacities. Offending therefore cannot be identified with educational disadvantage, poor planning, or obvious psychological disturbance.
Organized and group offending
Group contexts create opportunities for shared norms, recruitment, hierarchy, coercion, diffusion of responsibility, and access to resources. The psychology of participation differs between leaders, coerced participants, and peripheral members, and must be established through case-specific evidence.
Cybercrime
Online offenses depend partly on technology, perceived anonymity, distance from victims, access controls, and incentives. Those features can influence choices, but cybercrime is too broad to have a single psychological cause. An online fraud and a technology-facilitated threat can have very different motivations and harms.
Sexual offenses and domestic abuse
These involve specialized research on behavior, coercion, relational control, situational factors, and distinct risk contexts. General crime theories can contribute useful background, but they cannot replace offense-specific evidence and careful legal definitions. This overview does not assign an explanatory label to victims or speculate about motives in individual cases.
12. What protects people from offending?
Protective processes can operate at several levels. In childhood and adolescence, reliable supportive relationships, effective and nonviolent caregiving, safe schools, positive peer connections, and opportunities to develop regulation and problem-solving skills can matter. In adulthood, meaningful social bonds, lawful opportunities, stable resources, treatment when indicated, and changes in daily routines may help reduce risk.
Protective factors are not simple opposites of every risk factor, and their effects vary by developmental period, culture, and circumstance. Some apparent protections may be markers for broader advantages, while others are plausible intervention targets. The systematic review of psychosocial risk and protective factors in childhood describes how influences are distributed across individual, interpersonal, and contextual levels.
Desistance is often gradual. People may change their roles, relationships, aspirations, environments, and expectations over time. Supportive social conditions can create opportunities for lasting change, while repeated exclusion may hinder it.
13. Can psychological intervention prevent or reduce crime?
Crime prevention can target immediate opportunities, developmental vulnerabilities, social conditions, and established patterns of offending. Each strategy requires outcomes appropriate to its mechanism. A program that improves emotional well-being is valuable, but improvement in well-being does not automatically establish a reduction in crime.
For justice-involved populations, cognitive-behavioral approaches have an evidence base for reducing some forms of reoffending. A Campbell systematic review reported an average reduction in recidivism among studied general offender samples, with considerable variation across programs and implementation quality. Such findings are not guarantees for any one person, offense class, or setting.
Approaches informed by risk, needs, and responsivity attempt to match service intensity and targets to assessed circumstances. The model is influential in corrections, but a category or score from an instrument must remain separate from guilt, blameworthiness, or an individualized legal judgment. The US Office of Justice Programs' discussion of the risk–need–responsivity model outlines its theoretical role in rehabilitation.
Effective practice also requires lawful procedures, fairness, humane conditions, appropriate clinical care, and opportunities to participate in society. Prevention cannot be evaluated solely by the number of arrests or convictions because those records reflect justice-system processes as well as conduct.
14. How do researchers know why people commit crimes?
A credible explanation draws on several research designs and considers what each can establish. Longitudinal cohort studies examine whether exposures precede later outcomes. Meta-analyses combine evidence across samples but inherit differences in measurement and design. Experiments and quasi-experiments can sometimes strengthen causal inference. Interviews and qualitative studies illuminate lived experience and motivation, but a person's account may be incomplete or strategically presented.
Self-reported offending can capture conduct outside official records, although recall and honesty are limitations. Arrest, conviction, and incarceration data are important administrative measures but reflect enforcement, detection, prosecutorial decisions, and legal procedures. Crime victimization studies provide another perspective, again with their own coverage and reporting limits.
A cross-sectional association between peer behavior and offending may reflect influence, selection, or unobserved conditions. A risk factor measured years before an outcome may improve average prediction without being an operative cause in a particular incident. A randomized prevention trial may demonstrate changes under specific conditions without proving the same effect in all communities.
Prediction, calibration, and false positives
Prediction asks about the probability of a defined future outcome over a defined period. Explanation asks why an outcome occurs. An assessment instrument may show discrimination between higher- and lower-risk groups while still being poorly calibrated for another population or setting. A false positive classifies someone as likely to reoffend when the defined outcome does not occur; a false negative fails to identify someone who does reoffend.
Base rates, follow-up length, sample selection, age, local law, and changes in intervention all affect practical prediction. Instruments can perform differently across cultural groups and justice systems. Even a well-validated risk score is neither proof of past guilt nor certainty about future behavior. This topic has its own EN-58 article on violence risk assessment and predictive limits.
Explanation in an individual legal case
A forensic evaluation must distinguish observed behavior, reported symptoms, standardized assessment results, collateral records, and reasoned professional opinions. A diagnosis does not establish motive or a mental state at the time of an alleged offense. A statistical association does not decide culpability. Courts determine the applicable legal standards, admissibility, responsibility, and findings according to jurisdiction.
The purpose of psychologically informed legal analysis is to make relevant evidence clearer, with uncertainty proportionate to the available information.
15. Common misconceptions about criminal psychology
"People commit crimes because they are born criminals."
Genetic influences on broad antisocial traits and behaviors have been studied, but no genetic result identifies a person as destined to commit crimes. Environment, development, choice, opportunity, and the distinction between antisocial behavior and legal offending remain fundamental.
"Everyone who commits a crime is mentally ill."
Criminal conduct and clinical diagnosis are different categories. Many offenses occur without psychiatric illness, and most people with mental disorders are not offenders. The type of offense and individual circumstances require investigation rather than assumptions.
"One traumatic event explains the crime."
Adversity can be relevant to some developmental pathways, but trauma exposure neither guarantees offending nor proves causation. A person with a difficult childhood may develop many different life trajectories.
"Longer sentences always reduce crime."
Deterrence research makes the certainty of apprehension important, while evidence for additional deterrence from increasing already severe sanctions is limited. Punishment also has institutional and social consequences that must be examined.
"A psychological profile reveals why a suspect acted."
Motivation may be reconstructed from interviews, records, actions, and contextual evidence with varying confidence. Broad personality stereotypes and popular-media profiling claims cannot replace a rigorous evidentiary investigation.
"A risk score tells us whether someone is guilty."
Risk assessment concerns estimated future outcomes in specified conditions. Criminal guilt depends on the applicable legal standard and admissible evidence about alleged conduct. Confusing these questions undermines forensic reasoning.
What the evidence supports—and what remains unresolved
There is strong evidence that offending varies by development, circumstances, and type of conduct; that social and family conditions matter in longitudinal research; and that some prevention and rehabilitation approaches can change outcomes. There is also substantial evidence that group averages are limited guides to the behavior of any particular individual.
Important open questions concern the causal contributions of interacting risks, mechanisms for different offense types, the generalizability of findings across countries and legal systems, and how to design culturally fair assessment and prevention. Much classic research comes from selected Western or justice-involved samples. Those samples cannot stand for everyone who violates a law.
A scientifically responsible account treats criminal behavior as a human behavior arising within legal and social systems. It investigates mechanisms, opportunities, history, and institutional context with evidence appropriate to the specific question.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main psychological reason people commit crimes?
There is no single main reason across all offenses. Psychological mechanisms include perceived reward, social learning, immediate emotional reactions, self-regulation, beliefs, and social influence. Their relevance depends on the person, situation, offense, and evidence.
Is criminal behavior learned or inherited?
Both genetic and environmental influences have been studied for broad antisocial behaviors. Learning and circumstances contribute to behavior, while genetic associations do not determine whether an individual will commit a specific crime. Legal offending is not a direct genetic phenotype.
Does poverty cause people to commit crimes?
Economic conditions can affect opportunities and environments, but poverty is not sufficient or necessary for crime. Most people facing poverty do not offend. Financially privileged individuals may commit fraud, corruption, and other serious offenses.
Why do teenagers commit more crimes?
Adolescent peer influence, reward sensitivity, changing independence, and self-regulation can contribute to certain forms of offending. Not all young people offend, and adolescent behavior does not reliably predict permanent criminality.
Can trauma turn someone into a criminal?
Traumatic experiences can be risk factors in some developmental contexts. Trauma alone neither creates a criminal identity nor provides a causal explanation for an individual offense.
Do people with mental illness commit more crimes?
Associations vary by diagnosis, outcome, substance misuse, social context, and other factors. Diagnosis alone is an inadequate indicator of a person's criminal behavior or dangerousness. People with mental illness also face heightened risks of victimization in some studies.
Are people who commit crimes always impulsive?
No. Some offenses are impulsive or reactive; others are planned, repeated, or strategically organized. The underlying decision processes differ.
Is there a criminal personality type?
There is no single personality profile common to all forms of criminal behavior. Researchers may examine traits associated with specific outcomes, but traits do not establish guilt or a unique behavioral destiny.
Do harsher punishments stop crime?
Evidence summarized by the National Institute of Justice supports the importance of perceived certainty of apprehension more strongly than simply increasing severity. Actual effects depend on design, context, and what outcome is measured.
Why do some people stop committing crimes?
Desistance can follow developmental change, new responsibilities, supportive relationships, employment, reduced opportunities to offend, changed aspirations, and effective interventions. It is often a process, rather than a single event.
Can psychologists predict who will commit a crime?
Psychologists and other specialists can estimate probabilities for defined outcomes using validated methods in appropriate populations. Prediction is limited by base rates, calibration, bias, data quality, and uncertainty. It cannot establish that a particular individual will commit a specific future crime.
Does having a motive mean someone is legally guilty?
No. A psychological hypothesis about motive is distinct from evidence of a legally defined offense. A legal finding requires the applicable legal procedures and evidentiary standards.
What is the difference between criminal psychology and forensic psychology?
Criminal psychology generally focuses on psychological questions concerning offending and offenders. Forensic psychology encompasses the application of psychological expertise to legal questions across criminal, civil, and other proceedings, including assessment, expert testimony, and professional practice.
For broader context, see Forensic Psychology: What It Is and What Forensic Psychologists Do.
Related Articles
References
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the Good Lives Model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735–755. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/risk-need-responsivity-rnr-model-does-adding-good-lives-model
Astridge, B., Li, W. W., McDermott, B., & Longhitano, C. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis on adverse childhood experiences: Prevalence in youth offenders and their effects on youth recidivism. Child Abuse & Neglect, 140, 106055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106055
Basto-Pereira, M., & Farrington, D. P. (2022). Developmental predictors of offending and persistence in crime: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 65, 101761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101761
Burt, S. A. (2009). Are there meaningful etiological differences within antisocial behavior? Results of a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.12.004
Dean, K., Laursen, T. M., Pedersen, C. B., Webb, R. T., Mortensen, P. B., & Agerbo, E. (2018). Risk of being subjected to crime, including violent crime, after onset of mental illness: A Danish national registry study using police data. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(7), 689–696. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0534
Fazel, S., Gulati, G., Linsell, L., Geddes, J. R., & Grann, M. (2009). Schizophrenia and violence: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 6(8), e1000120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000120
Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2007.6
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8255953/
National Institute of Justice. (2016). Five things about deterrence. US Department of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
National Research Council. (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/14685/reforming-juvenile-justice-a-developmental-approach
National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes
Pezzoli, P., McCrory, E. J., & Viding, E. (2025). Shedding light on antisocial behavior through genetically informed research. Annual Review of Psychology, 76, 797–819. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-021524-043650
Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 490–529. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12002699/
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
Ukrainian Psychological Hub. (2026). Editorial policy of the Ukrainian Psychological Hub. https://www.psykholoh.com/en/post/editorial-policy-of-the-ukrainian-psychological-hub
Zúñiga, D., Carretta, F., Contreras, M., Cornejo, E., Gallardo, C., Guichapani, I., & Muñoz, C. (2024). Systematic review of psychosocial risk and protective factors in children reported from developmental criminology. Children, 11(8), 974. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080974