Component 3- criminal behaviour Flashcards
Describe early genetic theories of criminality
LOMBROSO:
- Lombroso (‘father of criminology’)
- Cesare Lombroso stated criminals had primitive physical characteristics and they represented an atavistic form. He stated that the particular inherited physical ‘stigmata’ explains the individual’s criminality.
- Outlined stigmata as asymmetry in face, hooked nose, high cheekbones, thick lips, wrinkled skin, protruding ears, long arms.
- Criminals cannot be blamed, as their criminality is inherited and therefore not their fault and out of their control (ignores free will, criminality is determined).
Describe the genetic explanation for criminality
- Criminals have particular genes that predispose them to certain behavioural characteristics that may lead to criminality, such as aggression or impulsivity.
- Twin studies have been conducted, MZ and DZ twins are compared for concordance rate for criminality. Adrian Raine (1993) reviewed research on delinquent behaviour of twins and found 52% concordance rate for MZ twins compared with 21% for DZ twins. Family studies investigate concordance rate of criminal behaviour between members of same family and researchers have been particularly interested in By: this regards to fathers and sons. Osborn and West (1979) found 13% of sons with non criminal fathers had criminal records, while 20% sons of criminal fathers had records. Adoption studies investigate the concordance rate of criminal behaviour between adopted children and their biological parents, in comparison to adopted children and their adopted parents. Mednick et al (1987) studied over 14,000 adoptees and found 13% sons had a criminal record when bio parents had no record, 20% when only bio parents had a record, 14.7% when only adoptive parents had record and 24.5% when both sets of parents had records.
- Certain genes predispose people to criminality as they may cause certain behaviours. Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) and Cadherin 13 (CDH13) have been linked to criminality. Han Brunner et al (1993) analysed DNA of 28 male members of a Dutch family with a history of impulsive and violent criminal behaviours (rape, attempted murder). They all had the MAOA gene leading to abnormally low levels of MAOA.
- More modern theories of criminality take into account both nature and nurture (genetics and environment). Diathesis stress model takes into account epigenetics, where genes are switched on or off, which is affected by environmental factors. An environmental factor may be maltreatment in childhood. Caspi et al (2002) used data from the longitudinal Dunedin study that has followed 1000 people from when they were babies in 1970s. Antisocial behaviour assessed at age 26 and found 12% men with low MAOA gene experienced maltreatment in childhood but responsible for 44% of violent convictions.
- Particular genes linked to criminality may cause differences in areas if brain or the neurotransmitters. Adrian Raine (2004) cited 71 brain scans studies showing that murderers, psychopaths, and violent individuals have reduced activity in prefrontal cortex. This regulates emotion, controlling and moral behaviour. Lowered activity associated with impulsiveness and loss of control. Researchers suggest low levels of serotonin may predispose individuals to impulsive aggression and criminal behaviour, partly because serotonin inhibits the prefrontal cortex. Dopamine hyperactivity may enhance this effect.
Does this explanation argue nature or nurture causes criminality?
Nature
Evaluate the genetic explanation of criminal behaviour: strengths
there is research that supports this explanation. Brunner et al. (1993) studied a Dutch family, who included many aggressive family members. They had a mutation in the MAOA gene, causing an abnormal lack of serotonin, which may be the cause of their criminal behaviour. Research supports argument that criminality is inherited and so can be explained by genetics, not by the role of the environment. This is a strength, as it increases the validity of the theory.
Evaluate the genetic explanation of criminal behaviour: weaknesses
It’s possible the brain differences seen in criminals are caused by the environment, rather than genetics. If genes were to cause criminal behaviour, they must be linked to a physical or psychological effect. Adrian Raine (2004) conducted 71 brain imaging studies, which concluded that murderers, psychopaths and violent Individuals had lowered activity in the prefrontal cortex, which causes these individuals to lack the ability to regulate emotions, control behaviour and behave morally, meaning they were impulsive and lost control easily. it’s well reported that many criminals have had brain injuries, as proven with statistics; 8.5% of the US population have a brain injury, which is significantly lower than that of prisons, with 60% of individuals with a brain injury in US prisons. (Harmon 2012). this shows that it’s not possible to show that brain differences are due to genetics and so cause criminality, when the environment may cause a brain injury and have the same impact.
- Secondly, the genetic explanation is deterministic, as it states that individuals born with particular genetic traits are determined to commit crime. There is evidence to suggest that criminality cannot be fully explained by genetics. Raine (1993) reviewed past Twins studies and found an average concordance rate of 52% in monozygotic (MZ) twins and 21% in dizygotic (DZ) twins. This does not prove genetics predisposes a person to criminality, but only shows a relationship. If this was the sole cause, then the concordance rate for MZ twins would be 100%.
the research supporting this explanation does not consider non-violent crimes, only the association between crime and violent and aggressive behaviour. This means that the inherited criminality may only account for violent crimes and psychopathy, which is when someone lacks empathy and so there is an increased chance this person will commit crime. Lynn Findlay (2011) argues that crime is socially constructed and includes non-violent crimes as well as violent ones, so genetics cannot explain a concept that has been created by society, especially when a large proportion of crimes are non-violent such as fraud.
Evaluate the genetic explanation for criminal behaviour: methodology
there are problems when conducting research into criminals. family studies use case studies, which are specific to the small sample involved. This means that the results from the case studies cannot be generalised to the wider population to show a cause for criminality. adoption studies require adopted children to use as a sample. The children involved within these studies have had traumatic experiences, which children who have not been adopted will not have experienced. adopted children have been separated from their biological parents or handed in, which may have been due to tragic or difficult circumstances. Bowlby (1944) argues that children who are separated from their mothers during the critical period in infancy, may later develop affectionless psychopathy which entails the inability to feel empathy for others, leading to criminality. This means that the results from an adoption study, to suggest criminality is inherited cannot be generalised to non-adopted children, as their circumstances are not the same. if the findings from an adoption study suggest criminality is inherited from the biological parents, it could still be argued that the environment led to criminality, due to maternal deprivation causing affectionless psychopathy.
Evaluate the genetic explanation for criminal behaviour: Cultural issues
reductionist. The surrounding theories all ignore the roles other factors play in causing an individual to resort to criminality, such as society and culture. Criminals all have different socioeconomic backgrounds and levels of education, however they the studies on criminals carried out to provide evidence that certain genes predispose people to crime all assess criminals in the same way. There are many causes of crime and reducing the explanation down to one factor is a weakness because it means the other issues are ignored. Instead, an interactionist approach should be taken, which includes all the factors that may contribute to criminality, such as genes, society, upbringing and personality. Another cultural issue is that the definition of crime differs depending on culture, time and place. This displays the issue with the questionable amount of research that has been conducted previously on criminals, when it’s known that what is defined as a crime is socially constructed. For example, it’s not possible to conduct studies on people who have committed adultery in one country where it’s considered illegal, but not in another where it’s not. This reduces the validity of the results from the study, and so is a weakness of this explanation.
Evaluate the genetic explanation for criminality: social issues
Issues regarding gender. Some would say that these theories have a gender bias, due to the research involved. Much of the research has focussed solely on men and women have largely been ignored, or the results from men have been generalised to them. Family studies often focus on men, as researchers are interested between the concordance of criminal behaviour between fathers and sons, however the relationship between mother and son or father and daughter have been rarely investigated. For example, Osborn and West (1979) found that 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers had criminal records, but 20% of sons of criminal fathers had records. Due to the futile attempt to research criminality in women, it cannot be assumed that the cause for committing crime is the same as men. Ultimately, this reduces the reliability of the results, as the gender bias means the same results may not be obtained from both men and women.
Another social issue within the theories surrounding this explanation for criminal behaviour is that not all groups of people are investigated. For example, there are no studies investigating criminality in people within the LGBTQ+ community.
Evaluate the genetic explanation for criminal behaviour: ethical issues
It may be argued that once a study is conducted on an individual and it’s found out that they have a certain genetic predisposition such as the MAOA gene, this may be used against them in court to prosecute them. This places an issue on this explanation, as by doing this, it suggests that having the particular gene automatically means someone will commit crime. However, this is not true, and many individuals may have the MAOA gene mutation and not commit any crimes. This is an ethical issue as it may drive the jury to a guilty verdict of an innocent person. Additionally, the use of conducted studies on criminals to prove genetic predisposition of criminality, the blame is completely lifted from society and the government. The explanation completely places the blame on the criminal and their genetics, when it’s argued that the main causes of crime are poverty and social inequality. This reduces the validity of the explanation, as it ignores the real reasons for crime. Furthermore, by placing all blame on the criminal, this may create more crime. This is because the individual may believe that there is nothing they can do to stop committing crime, as their genetic makeup has caused it, which they have no control over it. This may cause them to commit more crimes due to the label that has been placed onto them, ‘criminal’.
Describe the structure and function of the amygdala
located in the medial temporal lobe and is a part of the limbic system. One amygdalae per hemisphere. Linked to hypothalamus, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex etc, so has widespread influence on brain functioning and behaviours associated with emotion, motivation and social interaction. plays role in assessment and response to environmental threats. Controls how we respond to fear stimuli.
how is the amygdala linked to aggression?
Emil Coccaro et al (2007) investigated effects of amygdala on aggression by studying those with intermittent explosive disorder (IED). Common symptom- outbursts of reactive aggression. Participants viewed images of faces, whilst having fMRI scan. IED participants had high levels of amygdala activity when viewing angry faces- demonstrates association between amygdala activity and processing angry emotions.
how is the amygdala involved in fear conditioning?
-Yu Gao and colleagues (2010) state humans learn as children to inhibit antisocial and aggressive behaviours through fear conditioning. Fear conditioning involved learning aggressive behaviour leads to punishment.
- Amygdala involved in processing fear info and fear conditioning.
- amygdala dysfunction causes child to not be able to identify social cues indicating threat (angry faces etc) so does not link punishment to aggressive beh. Fear conditioning disrupted, so person seems fearless, aggressive and antisocial.
- The researchers demonstrated this in longitudinal study of 1795 participants who were tested for fear conditioning at 3 years . Measure used was physiological arousal (sweating) in resposnse to a painful noise. 20 years later researchers found those who committed crime at 23 years showed no fear conditioning at 3 years old. This suggests casual relationship between amygdala dysfunction and antisocial/criminal behaviour.
describe the link between the amygdala and psychopathy and criminal behaviour
- psychopath (manipulative, emotionless, cunning, deceitful, lacking empathy)
- research shows amygdala dysfunction is a central deficit in psychopathy.
- Glenn et al (2009) studied 17 participants with various degrees of psychopathy, who all had fMRI scan whilst making judgements on dilemmas such as ‘Should you smother your crying baby to save yourself hiding from terrorists?’.
-Researchers found association between psychopathy and reduced amygdala activity in other people-normal activity inhibits antisocial behaviour. distress normally stops aggressive behaviour. BUT amygdala dysfunction in psychopaths differs as the inhibitory mechanism is disrupted so they make impulsive decisions, behave aggressively, become involved in criminal behaviour without guilt/remorse.
evaluate the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviour- strengths
research support. For instance, Derntl et al (2009) investigated the effects of testosterone on the activity i the amygdala in healthy male participants, using MRI scans. The findings showed that higher levels of testosterone improved the ability to process stimuli in the form of threats (angry, scared facial expressions), in the amygdala. As biological males have a higher level of testosterone than biological females, this study may account for why
males commit more violent crimes. Thus, this is a weakness as it provides supporting evidence that the amygdala plays a role, biologically in the cause of criminal behaviour. Secondly, there are longitudinal studies which support that additionally support this view. To name just one, Pardini et al (2014) selected 503 males twenty years after they’d taken part in another study at the age of six or seven. A subgroup was found of 56 men who had performed aggressive behaviour since they were children, such as violent crimes including rape and gang fighting. The amygdala volume of the participants was measured, using fMRI scans. This showed low amygdala volumes were associated with high aggression levels over the twenty years. A follow up was completed 3 years later, in which the results showed the same association. Confounding variables such as IQ, age and race were controlled, along with earlier levels of aggression. This is significant, as these factors therefore cannot explain the results found in the study. This study provides strong evidence of the role the amygdala plays in criminal behaviour and shows differences in the amygdala volume may be the reason for further criminality. This is a strength as the study further provides reason to believe the theories surrounding this biological explanation.
evaluate the amygdala explanation for criminal behaviour- weaknesses
it may be said that the effects of the amygdala are indirect. Elaborating on this further, the amygdala helps to regulate behaviours related to fear and anxiety, including the physiological arousal that occurs in the fight or flight response. If the amygdala is damaged, the brain cannot process fear, so one may have reduced empathy and a decreased ability to understand other people’s emotions. However, this doesn’t make aggressive behaviour inevitable, only more likely. This means that dysfunction in the amygdala doesn’t directly cause aggression but may make individuals at risk of it. Thus, this is a weakness of the explanation as it shows other biological and environmental factors cause criminality and so therefore the amygdala explanation is far too simplistic to explain a matter so complex and diverse as criminality. Secondly, there are other areas of the brain which have greater importance than the amygdalae. The amygdala is a part of the limbic system within the brain. It functions with the orbitofrontal cortex in the prefrontal cortex, which is said to influence self-control and stop impulsive actions and aggression. A study conducted by Raine and co-workers (1997) studied murderers who had shown an extremely high level of aggression in the crimes they committed. It was found these individuals had increased activity in amygdala and lower activity in the prefrontal cortex, including the orbitofrontal cortex. This shows that many areas of the brain may account for aggressive behaviour, not just the amygdala. This is a weakness as the explanation is just far too simplistic. Criminality is complex and may be influenced by the neural pathways between multiple structures within the brain, meaning reducing the cause completely down to just the amygdala is not enough.
evaluate the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviour- methodology
the definition of crime is an ever-changing social construct and depends upon the culture, time and place it occurred in. Acts considered to be crimes in present day may not have always been crimes and may not be in the future. This means that a biological explanation for criminality such as the role of the amygdala is not an effective explanation as criminality is socially defined and is not the same across cultures and countries. A crime cannot be explained by the amygdala in one country where it is legal, when the same act is legal in another. However, it may be argued that acts such as murder, which is considered a crime everywhere, can be explained by the role of the amygdala. Overall, this is a weakness as a biological explanation cannot account for a concept that differs depending on place, time and culture. Secondly, the research surrounding the amygdala explanation uses case studies. Case studies focus on just one person or just one family etc., so the results cannot be generalised to the wider population, as the sample size is not large enough and so doesn’t represent many different groups of people. This is a weakness as this reduces the validity of the explanation. Another methodological issue is that within the research, the studies often used self-report methods. These methods involve a participant themselves reporting on what they’re asked to. Social desirability bias is possible to come from self-report methods, which causes participants to lie about their experiences. Thus, this is an issue as the results obtained are not as accurate, so cannot be used to support the view that the amygdala is the cause of criminality. Lastly, the research often focusses on specific groups of criminals. These groups are often murderers, which ultimately means that other types of crime cannot be explained using the results from the research into murderers.
evaluate the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviour- cultural issues
crime is constantly changing by definition and what is considered a crime. This is dependent on the time, place and culture an individual resides in. This is an issue, as a biological explanation
cannot explain one act, which is considered a crime in one culture/place/country and not in another. Secondly, the theory is reductionist, ignoring the roles of society and culture. It ignores the education or socioeconomic background of the offender, when assessing them, when these factors may have caused their criminality, not their amygdala. Therefore, an interactionist approach should be undertaken, which all factors including genes, society, education, upbringing and personality as causes for criminality.
evaluate the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviour
crime is constantly changing by definition and what is considered a crime. This is dependent on the time, place and culture an individual resides in. This is an issue, as a biological explanation
cannot explain one act, which is considered a crime in one culture/place/country and not in another. Secondly, the theory is reductionist, ignoring the roles of society and culture. It ignores the education or socioeconomic background of the offender, when assessing them, when these factors may have caused their criminality, not their amygdala. Therefore, an interactionist approach should be undertaken, which all factors including genes, society, education, upbringing and personality as causes for criminality.
evaluate the amygdala explanation for criminal behaviour- social issues
it’s clear that it ignores other factors that may influence criminal behaviour, such as society, culture, socioeconomic background and education. This is a problem, as the explanation is reductionist, stating that only the amygdala plays a role in causing criminality. Another social issue is that the research surrounding this explanation has a gender bias. A lot of it has focussed on cis gendered (CG) men, ignoring other genders or applying the conclusions made from the results found in men to other genders. Other communities have been ignored, such as the Trans community and those who identify as gender fluid or non-binary. Therefore, assumptions should not be made that state that other genders become criminals in the same way as CG men, as no research has been carried out on other communities, nor has there been any attempt to do so. This theory has fallen for a beta bias, as it ignores the other genders and has a focus on CG men.
evaluate the amygdala explanation of criminal behaviour- ethical issues
if an individual who has been charged with a crime is on trial, evidence showing that they have a dysfunction in their amygdala could be used against them. This means that the individual may be wrongfully convicted of a crime, as this evidence may sway a jury into believing they committed the crime. This is ethically wrong, as amygdala dysfunction does not automatically mean someone will commit a crime, many other factors play a role in their behaviour and all these need to be considered. Furthermore, it may be argued that by explaining criminality with biological reasoning, it removes any blame from other factors. To elaborate, society and the government may have contributed to an individual’s behaviour, however this theory soley places the blame on the offender themselves. Many state that crime is mostly caused by social inequality and poverty, and so by not considering the roles that society plays in causing this, the real reasons are left ignored. This is an issue, as crime may never be fully kept under control, if the real reasons are not addressed and the offenders themselves are the only people blamed.
Individual differences: Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality
- states that certain characteristics predispose people to criminility
- an individual’s personality traits can be explained in terms of 3 dimensions (neuroticism/stability, extraversion/introversion and psychoticism/normality)
- dimensions have genetic basis and theory states crime is caused by biology and learning experiences.
- personality questionnaire- assesses personality in terms of 3 dimensions.
how does Eysenck’s theory link to criminal behaviour?
- criminality is determined by arousal
- higher extraversion score means indidual seeks more arousal so may commit dangerous activities.
- higher neuroticism score means more unstable so may over react to threat, explaining some criminal behaviour.
- higher psychoticism linked to crime, due to aggression and lack of empathy.
- crime may be as a result of biologically determined personality and socialisation. (born with personality traits but environment further develops criminality.)
- operant conditioning means typical people conditioned to associate negative behaviour with punishment, so avoid punishment by not behaving negatively.
BUT high scores of neuroticism and extraversion less easily conditioned, so don’t learn to avoid antisocial behaviour, like introverts do.
Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality: the 3 dimensions
-Extraversion: outgoing, sociable, lively. determined by level of arousal in nervous system. Extraverts seek more stimulation to increase arousal.
- Introverts: quiet, unsociable, reserved, pessimistic, anxious. Seek less stimulation as are over aroused.
Neuroticism: experience negative emotional states like anger, anxiety, depression. Determined by level of stability, measured by reactivity in sympathetic nervous system (how reactive to threats, activating fight/flight response). Unstable, reacts/gets upset easily
Stability: more unreactive nervous system, calm under pressure.
Psychoticism/normality: egocentric, aggressive, impulsive, lacking empathy. Related to higher levels of testosterone, so CG men more likely to score higher in this.
Cognitive explanation of criminal behaviours
argues thinking affects behaviour and criminals may have different thinking patterns, cognitive distortions and different levels of moral reasoning.
Cognitive distortions
- criminals suffer from cognitive distortions (abnormal ways of thinking, which do no reflect reality)
- examples: Hostile attribution, minimalisation.
Cognitive distortions: Hostile attribution
- attempting to make causal explanations for our own behaviour and behaviour of others.
- Internal (dispositional) attribution: the behaviour is due to a personality trait
- External (situational) attribution: the behaviour is due to factors in environment.
- Hostile attribution bias: when someone has a leaning towards always thinking the worst. EG, someone may smile at you but you think the person is thinking about you negatively- negative interpretation leads to more aggressive behaviour.
- likely to be linked to increased aggression levels.
- Gudjonson (1984): the Blame Attribution Inventory (BAI): EXTERNAL ATTRIBUTION (criminals more likely to blame their criminal behaviour on external factors such as society or their social circumstances or the victim themselves. MENTAL-ELEMENT ATTRIBUTION (criminals may blame their crimes on mental illness/lack of control. GUILT-FEELING ATTRIBUTION: feelings of regret or remorse for committing their crimes.
- Gudjonsson and Singh (1988): different types of offenders are likely to make different attributions about their own behaviour: Sex offenders- more likely to experience guilt-feeling attributions. Violent offenders more likely to demonstrate mental-element attributions.
- research by Gudjonsson and Singh found criminals who made external attributions had much higher levels of psychoticism (links to Eysenck’s personality theory)
Cognitive Distortions: Minimization
minimalisation and magnification refer to our perception of consequences of situations.
- minimilistion means that an individual under-exaggerates the consequences of a situation.
- offender may reduce any negative interpretation before/after a crime has been committed, to help person accept the consequences of their won behaviour and reduce negative emotions.
Example: A burglar might think when planning crime, stealing a few things from a wealthy family has little impact and because of minimalisation, they don’t feel as bad about committing the crime.
Level of moral reasoning
- Kohlberg’s theory of moral reasoning: each stage is a more advanced form of moral understanding. 3 levels, each divided into 2 stages- people progress through stages as consequences of biological maturity.
- PRE-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL: stage 1 and 2- children accept rules of authority and judge actions by consequences.
- CONVENTIONAL LEVEL: stage 3 and 4- people continue to believe that conformity to social rules is desirable, but not out of self interest. Maintaining current social system ensures positive human relationships and social order.
- POST-CONVENTIONAL LEVEL: stage 5 and 6- people move to the norms of the social system. Person now defines morality in terms of abstract moral principles that apply to all societies and situations.
- Hollin et al (2002) found justifications were common at each stage:
- Preconventional: breaking the law is justified if punishment can be avoided or if the rewards outweigh the costs.
- Conventional: breaking the law is justified if it helps to maintain relationships or society.
- Postconventional: breaking the law is justified if it helps to maintain human rights or further social justice.
- Hollin found crimes are more likely to be committed by those at a lower age of moral development, so offenders are characteristically less mature with regard to their moral reasoning than non-offenders.
Cognitive explanation EVALUATION: strengths
research support (hostile attribution bias)- Schonenberg and Justye (2014) showed emotionally ambiguous faces to 55 antisocial violent offenders in prison and compared responses to matched control typical participants. offedners more likely to interpret angry pictures as an expression of aggression. Concluded these misinterpretations of non verbal cues like facial expressions may party explain aggressive/impulsive behaviour.
- Research support (minimalisation): Kennedy and Grubin (1992) found sex offenders’ accounts of their crimes often downplayed their behaviour. the offenders suggested the victim’s behaviour contributed to the crime and some denied the crime had been committed. Maruna and Mann (2006) argued this is part of a fairly ‘normal’ behaviour where all people try to blame events on external sources to protect themselves.
Cognitive Explanation: EVALUATION: weaknesses
- limitations of Kohlberg’s theory: Concerns moral thinking rather than behaviour. Krebs and Denton 2005 argued moral principles are only 1 factor in moral behaviour and may be overridden by practical factors (e.g. financial gains). Found when analysing real life moral decisions, the moral principles were used to justify behaviour after doing it. BUT, research only used male samples (gender bias- social issue).
- Ignores biological factors (reductionist). bio and social factors may be more important factors in explaining violent behaviour than distorted thinking. Caspi (2002) found 12% men w/ low MAOA responsible for 44% violent convictions and experienced maltreatment. Means cognitive explanation may not be a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.
