Using Biosocial Criminology to Understand and Improve Treatment Outcomes

• Author: Jamie C. Vaske
• Published date: 01 August 2017
• Date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817716484
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817716484

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2017, Vol. 44, No. 8, August 2017, 1050 –1072.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854817716484

© 2017 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1050

USING BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY TO

UNDERSTAND AND IMPROVE TREATMENT

OUTCOMES

JAMIE C. VASKE

Western Carolina University

Research has extensively cataloged the types of interventions that prevent and treat antisocial behavior across the life course.

Despite our knowledge of which interventions “work,” there is a limited understanding of why these practices are effective

and who does (or does not) benefit from traditional evidence-based practices (EBPs). The current study reviews the literature

on the biopsychological mechanisms and moderators of EBPs across the life course, and it provides recommendations to

clinicians and program developers based on these findings. The literature typically shows that EBPs may reduce antisocial

behavior because these programs alter clients’ biological systems responsible for stress response and self-regulation.

Similarly, individuals who receive fewer benefits from EBPs have weaker stress responses, difficulty processing punishment,

increased reward sensitivity, and problems with attention, self-regulation, and cognitive flexibility. The implications of these

findings are discussed for each stage of the life course.

Keywords: evidence-based practices; biosocial criminology; neurocriminology; mechanisms; moderators

A

substantial amount of attention has been devoted to identifying evidence-based preven-

tion and intervention programs across the life course. For children, interventions such

as prenatal programs, nutrition programs, nurse home visitation programs, enriched pre-

schools, and parent training programs have been shown to have long-term impacts on crimi-

nal behavior, substance use, employment outcomes, academic achievements, and mental

health problems (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh, Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009; Rocque, Welsh,

& Raine, 2012). During adolescence, programming often is broadened to include family

risk factors, individual risk factors, peer interventions, and wrap-around services, such as

individual cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), multisystemic therapy, and functional fam-

ily therapy (Benson, 2013). For adults, the most widely cited evidence-based treatment for

antisocial behavior is CBT (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007).

Despite the effectiveness of these programs, questions still remain as to why these interven-

tions are effective and why they are effective for only a subset of participants. To partially

address these questions, this article reviews the literature on the biopsychological mechanisms

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author would like to thank the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) at the

Ministry of Security and Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands for providing the motivation and platform for

this work. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jamie C. Vaske, Department of

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Western Carolina University, 410F Belk, Cullowhee, NC 28723; e-mail:

jvaske@email.wcu.edu.

716484CJBXXX10.1177/0093854817716484Criminal Justice and BehaviorVaske / Biosocial Explanations for Treatment Outcomes

research-article2017

Vaske / BIOSOCIAL EXPLANATIONS FOR TREATMENT OUTCOMES 1051

and moderators of evidence-based practices (EBPs) across the life course. There are a number

of reasons why it is important to consider the biopsychological mechanisms and moderators

of EBPs. First, understanding the biopsychological mechanisms of EBPs can help clinicians

and program developers further enhance the effectiveness of interventions. For instance,

despite CBT being one of the best rehabilitation approaches, there is a limited understanding

of how it changes behavior and why it is effective in reducing recidivism (Bickle, 2013;

Cornet, 2015; Golden, Gatchel, & Cahill, 2006; McGlynn, Hahn, & Hagan, 2013; Ross, 2012;

Vaske, Galyean, & Cullen, 2011). A lack of understanding of how “deep” the treatment effects

go may lead to superficial changes in individuals. That is, we may see changes in one’s behav-

ior, but these may be only surface-level changes, and they may not be long-lasting. Interventions

that affect individuals on a neurobiological level may lead to longer lasting changes that

extend to a variety of domains, compared with interventions that merely change one’s behav-

ior. Further, program developers may harness information on the neurobiological changes that

result from treatment to build more effective interventions.

In addition to knowing why a treatment is effective, it is important to understand who

does not benefit from EBPs so that adjustments to treatment can be made for individuals

who need additional support. Following the responsivity principle, it is known that each

individual is neurobiologically unique and responds to environmental cues in different

ways. Approximately 15% to 50% of individuals do poorly in EBPs (Henning & Frueh,

1996; Lewis et al., 2008; Raine, Mellingen, Liu, Venables, & Mednick, 2003; R. R. Ross,

Fabiano, & Ewles, 1988; Shenk et al., 2012); they do not complete treatment, derive less

benefit from treatment, and reoffend or relapse while in or after treatment. The reasons

underlying these poor treatment outcomes are vast, but one such reason may be individuals’

biopsychology. For instance, individuals with a certain biopsychological profile tend to

perform poorly in interventions that are punishment based, but they respond well to inter-

ventions that are incentive based. With this information in hand, practitioners can readjust

their treatment approach for such individuals to increase the chances the client will stay in

treatment and benefit from the intervention.

In light of these considerations, the following sections discuss the biopsychological

mechanisms and moderators of EBPs across the life course. The EBPs discussed begin with

prenatal interventions and extend into adulthood. The biopsychological moderators and

mechanisms included in this review are genetic factors, neurotransmitters and hormones,

brain structure and functioning, and common psychological tasks that have been linked to

brain functioning. At the end of each subsection, the article reviews the findings for EBPs

for that stage of life, and provides recommendations for clinicians and program developers

that align with the current biopsychological research. While Liza Cornet and colleagues

have provided reviews of the literature in a number of places (Cornet, 2015a; Cornet, de

Kogel, Nijman, Raine, & Laan, 2015; Cornet, de Kogel, Nijman, Raine, & van der Laan,

2014), this article extends upon the work of Cornet by organizing the EBPs across the life

course and providing recommendations for clinicians based on the literature.

LITERATURE REVIEW

BIOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF EBPS IN INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

Treatment and prevention programs are believed to affect antisocial behavior by reduc-

ing the number and severity of risk factors and/or increasing individuals’ protective factors.