Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kn6lq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T05:50:54.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why the CLASH model is an unconvincing evolutionary theory of crime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2017

Brian B. Boutwell  and
Bo Winegard
Brian B. Boutwell
Affiliation:
Criminology and Criminal Justice, School of Social Work, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103 boutwellb@slu.edu http://www.slu.edu/college-for-public-health-and-social-justice/contact-us/brian-boutwell-phd Department of Epidemiology, College for Public Health and Social Justice Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63104
Bo Winegard
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. winegard@psy.fsu.edu https://psy.fsu.edu/~baumeisterticelab/winegard.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The CLASH model is not convincing for two reasons. First, it ignores prior research proposing very similar ideas in a more compelling fashion. Second, it dismisses the role of genetic factors in shaping criminal propensities across population groups, opting for a facultative view of life history evolution that does not seem to square with current evidence.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e78
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barnes, J. C., Boutwell, B. B., Miller, J. M., DeShay, R. A., Beaver, K. M. & White, N. (2016) Exposure to pre-and perinatal risk factors partially explains mean differences in self-regulation between races. PLoS One 11:e0141954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchamp, J. (2016) Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113:7774–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaver, K. M. & Wright, J. P. (2011) The association between county-level IQ and county-level crime rates. Intelligence 39:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., Haynes, R. D., Nedelec, J. L. & Gibson, C. L. (2015) A unified crime theory: The evolutionary taxonomy. Aggression and Violent Behavior 25:343–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, G. & Harpending, H. (2009) The 10,000-year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ellis, L. (1988) Criminal behavior and r/K selection: An extension of gene-based evolutionary theory. Personality and Individual Differences 9:697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B. H. & Schneider, S. M. R. (2004) The heritability of life history strategy: The K-factor, covitality, and personality. Social Biology 51:121–43.Google Scholar
Penke, L., Denissen, J. J. & Miller, G. F. (2007) The evolutionary genetics of personality. European Journal of Personality 21:549–87.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (1985a) Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Personality and Individual Differences 6:441–52.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (1985b) Differential K theory and race differences in E and N. Personality and Individual Differences 6:769–70.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P. (2000b) Race, evolution, and behavior: A life history perspective, 3rd edition. Charles Darwin Research Institute.Google Scholar