Wilson and Herrnstein's integrative theory attempts to identify the factors that work together to control individual behavior. Their theory is called "integrative" because it draws on several theoretical frameworks, including the sociobiological, psychological, and rational-opportunity perspectives. For example, from the rational-opportunity perspective, Wilson and Herrnstein's theory takes the notion that individuals are always considering the reward-cost ratio of various behaviors and choosing the behavior that appears most favorable, even if it is criminal. From sociobiology, their theory incorporates the concept of innate temperaments that account for way some people are exceptionally aggressive or impulsive. Finally, from psychology, their theory incorporates the behaviorist notion of conditioning, noting that individuals' perception of probable rewards and costs are based largely on past experiences. One major shortcoming of the integrative theory is that Wilson and Herrnstein only intended it to account for serious street crime like murder, robbery, and rape. A truly general theory should account for crimes of all types, and by this standard, Wilson and Herrnstein's theory fails. Critics of the theory also claim that it is too closely aligned with conservative criminology: it puts too much emphasis on an individual's "free will" to commit crime and too little emphasis on environmental factors (such as social disorganization) that influence the behavior of entire populations of people. The validity of these criticisms notwithstanding, Wilson and Herrnstein's attempt to consolidate ideas from various perspectives is noteworthy. As will be revealed in the following answers, many contemporary researchers have begun to adopt an integrative