Component 3- criminal behaviour Flashcards
Criminal Characteristics: What is crime/criminal behaviour?
- no characterised as a mental illness like schizophrenia or depression SO no set characteristics of criminals
- crime is more of a social issue. Crime is seen as outcome of any mental illnesses criminals may have, rather than an illness in its own right.
- what is considered crime differs depending on culture and time.
- Farr and Gibbons (1990) proposed classification system of crimes
Criminal Characteristics: Farr and Gibbons (1990)
- Property predatory crime (e.g. car theft): attempting/actually taking the personal property of another person w/ out permission
- Property fraudulent crime (e.g. fraud): deceit/manipulation w/ purpose of converting property/ services of others to their own use
- Interpersonal Violence general (e.g. murder): actions that threaten or cause actual personal harm
- Interpersonal violence sexual (e.g. rape): actions that threaten or cause actual personal harm sexually
- Transactional vice (e.g. prostitution): ‘victimless’ crimes where goods/services exchanged
- Order Disruption (e.g. loitering, rioting): actions with no direct victim, but concern raised about potential victims
- Folk/mundane crime: persons involved in actions from minor rule violating to more serious violations
Criminal Characteristics: Data on crime
-public can access data on crimes committed in local area on www.police.uk.
- In September 2016 in England and Wales 106,835 violent crimes were recorded
- crime data does not state total crime being committed, only reported crimes. Walker et al (2006) found 42% of all UK crimes reported
- Dark figure of crime includes all crimes not reported and/or recorded by police, such as cases of sex work and honour crimes. Victims may not report crimes due to fear of reprisal from offender or because the crime was culturally bound.
- Victim surveys aims to record all crimes including those not reported to police. random sample of 50,000 people who have been victims, witnesses, or know a victim interviewed about crime experiences. Provides insight of dark figure of crime
- Offender surveys give insight into crime from their perspective, but may have a sample bias as can only survey criminals who have been caught. They may differ from criminals who do get caught, uncaught criminals will be untruthful about crimes to avoid conviction and those who have been acight will exaggerate crimes to seem cool and build reputation with other criminals. They will have a bad outlok of police as they have been caught.
Criminal Characteristics: Issues of defining crime
- crime is a social construct: what is considered a crime is dependent on culture. Rape, murder, theft generally universal crimes. Crime can change over time
- Same sex marriage legal in UK but illegal in Saudi Arabia.
- those in LGBTQ+ community legal in UK, but in 1950s was illegal.
- meaningful research may not be able to be conducted if definition of crime is a constantly shifting target. Research may go out of date quickly, or not be generalisable to other cultures.
- crimes change to keep up with society, such as cybercrime became a crime when technology developed
- legal system needs to develop laws that are relevant to current society to be effective
- may not be possible for one theory to explain whole variety of crimes.
- crime may depend on context.
- most people have committed a crime without realising, but many say these people are not criminals.
- crime may be beneficial, if laws are unjust. Protesting or breaking these laws may be more moral than obeying them. Apartheid in South Africa was legal, but Nelson Mandela was branded as a criminal for fighting against racism.
Inherited Criminality: specific genes
- Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) and cadherin 13 (CDH13) linked to criminal behaviour
- Brunner et al. (1993) analysed DNA of 28 male members of a Dutch family with history of impulsive violent criminal behaviour. Found men shared gene that led to abnormally low levels of MAOA.
Inherited Criminality: Diathesis stress model and epigenetics
- epigenetics is of current thinking that more than one or a few genes on their own cause criminal behaviour. States genes are switched on/off by epigenomes that are affected by environmental factors (diathesis stress), such as maltreatment in childhood
- Caspi et al. 2002 used data from longitudinal study that has followed around 1000 people from when babies in 1970s. Assessed antisocial behaviour at 26 and found 12% low MAOA gene had experienced maltreatment in childhood but were responsible for 44% convictions.
Inherited criminality: Differences in the brain
- certain genes may cause differences in areas of brain/neurotransmitters. e.g. Seo et al (2008) found low level of serotonin could predispose people to impulsive aggression and criminal behaviour, partly because serotonin inhibits the prefrontal cortex (involved in regulating emotions and controlling behaviour and morality).
Inherited Criminality: Inherited personality
- Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality proposed some people inherit types of behaviour that predispose them to criminality.
Inherited Criminality: Evaluation: strengths
- research support from adoption studies: Crowe (1972) found adopted children who had a biological parent with a criminal record had a 38% greater risk of having a criminal record by age 18, but adopted children whose mother’s did not have a criminal record only had 6% risk.
- Explaining non violent crime: most research only explains violent behaviour. Bio explanations may only account for crimes involving violence/psychopathy (lack empathy, more likely to commit crime). Blonigen et al (2005) found support for a genetic basis looking at over 600 male and female twins that psychopathy is inherited.
Inherited criminality: Evaluation: weaknesses
- Explaining non violent crime: does not explain theft, fraud, drug use etc (non violent crimes). Findlay (2011) suggests crime is socially constructed which includes many types of crime. Difficult to argue the behaviour can be explained by genetics and environment.
- brain differences- cause or effect?: for genes to cause criminal behaviour, they must be linked to a physical/psychological effect. As discovered by Raine (1997) criminals may have brain differences BUT criminals also report having a head injury. 8.5% of US general population have had a brain injury compared to 60% of US prison population (Harmon 2012). ALSO brain differences may be due to nurture rather than nature
Inherited criminality: Evaluation: Methodological issues
- using case study methods: limited participants, results cannot be generalised to wider pop
- defining crime: crime is a social construct and dependant on context in which it occurs. Laws change over time, so what is considered criminal today may not be in future.
Inherited criminality: Evaluation: social issues
- Gender bias: much of reasearch focussed solely on CG men, mostly ignoring women. completely ignored the Trans community and those identifying as gender fluid and non binary. Little attempt made to investigate criminality in other genders, and may not be appropriate to assume reasons for criminality in CG people is the same in all genders.
- reductionist: ignores environmental factors such as the media and poverty
Inherited Criminality: Evaluation: cultural issues
Definition of crime is a constantly shifting target: what is considered crime depends upon culture and time period in which it occurred.
Inherited Criminality: Evaluation: Ethical issues
- questions raised about what should happen to those found to have genes that supposedly predispose people to criminality. Identifying the gene may allow psychologists to stage interventions early in life to alter a child’s behaviour so they do not commit crime later in life. BUT the evidence of the gene could be misused, such as evidence used against them in court.
- may be argued cannot hold individual responsible for actions if their criminality is caused by biological factors, beyond their control. Are they punishable?
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: Genetic factors
- one or more genes predisposes someone to commit crime
- twin studies where MZ and DZ twins are compared to e.g. Raine (1993) conducted research into delinquent behaviour of twins and found 52% concordance for MZ twins compared to 21% for DZ twins.
Does this explanation argue nature or nurture causes criminality?
Nature
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.
Cognitive explanation. EVALUATION. methodology
- Defining crime. Crime is a social construct and is dependent on the context in which it occurs. Laws change over time, so what is considered criminal today may not be in future.
- Research that uses self report methods open to social desirability bias (lie about experiences)
- Researching a specific group, i.e. violent/ aggressive offenders, does not provide insight into criminals in general e.g. white collar crime or shoplifters.
Cognitive Explanation. EVALUATION. Social issues.
- Reductionist. ignores other issues such as society, culture, socioeconomic background and education as causes of crime. These issues are often the main causes of crime. This gives a limited explanation.
- Gender bias. Lot of research focussed solely on CG men, ignoring or applying the same theories to other genders. Ignores trans community + gender fluid and non binary. Little attempt made to investigate criminality in these genders and not appropriate to assume reasons for CG male criminality is the same for all genders. This theory falls for a beta bias.
Cognitive explanation. EVALUATION. Cultural issues.
- Reductionist. ignores role of society and culture. All criminals assessed equally, regardless of socioeconomic background or education. The real causes of crime are varied and complicated. Interactionist approach should be taken, seeing genes, society, upbringing and personality all interacting to cause criminality.
- definition of crime is a constantly shifting target. What is considered a crime depends upon a person’s culture and time period in which they live.
Cognitive explanation. EVALUATION. ethical issues
- May not be possible to blame criminals for their actions if they have cognitive distortions, different levels of moral reasoning. May be said criminals cannot control the way they think, so cannot be blamed for their actions.
- The blame is placed on the offender. This absolved society and government from any responsibility. Argued the main reason for crime is social inequality and poverty. By placing blame within the criminal, it ignores real reasons for crime.
Cognitive explanation. EVALUATION. conclusion
Incomplete theory as it cannot account for all criminal behaviour. Only provides explanation for violent/aggressive/impulsive behaviour. Non violent crimes such as white collar or shoplifting not covered. Not all criminals have cognitive distortions, thinking patterns or different levels of moral reasoning and non criminals may also have these cognitive issues too.
Eysenck’s criminal personality theory: EVALUATION- Strengths
- Takes into account both nature and nurture. biological theories (genes and amygdala) ignore nurture or at least downplay it. This theory argues biological predispositions towards certain personality traits combined with conditioning and socialisation during childhood create personality. Interactionist approach more valid than bio or environmental theory alone. Links to diathesis stress model of behaviour (a biological predisposition and environmental trigger causes certain criminal behaviour.)
- support for link between personality and criminal behaviour. Research by Dunlop et al. (2012) comparing criminal and non criminal personalities, demonstrated extraversion, psychoticism and lie scales were a good predictor of delinquency. All participants students and their friends age 15-75. Delinquency was assemssment of minor offences in last 12 months theft, traffic offences and armed robbery. BUT Dam et al (2007) showed only small group of male offenders in a juvenile detention centre had high score on all 3 of Eysenck’s dimensions (variables).
Eysenck’s criminal personality: EVALUATION: weaknesses
- personality may not be consistent. assumes personality consistent. e.g. that a person who is anxious, is anxious all the time. Many psychologists support a situational perspective suggesting consistency for similar situations, but not all situations, such as someone who is relaxed at home but anxious at work. Mischel and Peake (1982) supported this situational theory. They asked family, friends and strangers to rate 63 students in different situations and found almost no correlation between traits.
- Cause and effect is not clear. Personality may lead to criminality or criminality may lead to personality. Theory argues personality determined by biological and environmental factors and personality leads to criminal behaviour. BUT a lot of research comes from criminal participants and little longitudinal research assessing personality type and following participants over time to see if they become criminals. HOWEVER it may be that extraversion and psychoticism found more often in criminals due to lifestyle causing changes to personality. Cochrane (1974) found reviews of prisoners suggest they score highly on psychoticism and neuroticism but not necessarily on extraversion. Research partially supports Eysenck’s theory. BUT, being in prison may cause higher rates of neuroticism and psychoticism, rather than being caused by it.
Eysenck’s criminal personality: EVALUATION: methodology
- problems with methodology. all personality theories have the issue that the score/label given to participant depends on their answers in questionnaire. Participant is responding to demands of questionnaire, when answering. For example, when asked to select traits that apply to them, their responses may not reflect reality. People may also give socially desirable answers, that are not truthful. This can be stooped by lie scales in questionnaires, which are a set of questions and if participant says yes/no consistently to lie scale questions, they are probably dishonest in the whole questionnaire, so data discarded.
- sample bias. criminals used in research only reflect a specific group of criminals (those who have been caught). Those who have not been caught may have different personalities compared to those who have been. May be argued that criminals who have been arrested may score higher extraversion and psychoticism than those not caught. High extraversion and psychoticism may make individual prone to angry outbursts, impulsivity and reduced ability to plan and assess the outcome of their behaviour. Criminals who do not get caught may score lower on extraversion, so behaviour is more calculated and rational.
Eysenck’s criminal personality theory: EVALUATION: social issues
- reductionist. states criminals are for instance, neurotic and extraverted BUT does not state why they are criminals (e.g. poverty). explanation limited.
- gender bias. much research focussed soley on CG men, either ignoring other genders or applying same theories to all genders. Research also ignores trans community and those who are gender fluid or non binary. Little attempt to investigate criminality in other genders and may not be appropriate to assume other genders become criminals in same way as CG men. Theory falls for a beta bias (ignore/minimise sex/gender differences and assume findings from studies using CG males can apply equally to CG females).
Eysenck’s criminal personality theory: EVALUATION: Cultural issues
- definition of crime is a constantly shifting target. What is considered criminal depends upon an individual’s culture and the time period in which they live.
Eysenck’s criminal personality theory: EVALUATION: ethical issues
- self report bias- EPQ is a self report measure, which may lea to inaccurate results. People may respond in ways that they think are socially desirable, or they may not be aware enough of themselves to answer accurately.
- Destruction of papers. Eysenck’s papers were destroyed months after his death, which may make it impossible to fully explain the findings from his research.
- Categorising people. some say attempting to definitively categorize people is useless because people have personality traits from across all of his identified dimensions, which change over time.
Social explanation: Differential Association
- Sutherland (1939) differential association theory
- If individual experiences repeated attitudes, positively associated with crime, rather than negatively, then more likely to commit crime.
- learned attitudes and imitation of crime leads to criminal behaviour.
- Criminal behaviour learned from interactions and experiences with family, peers, media etc.
How is the degree of influence determined?
frequency, length and meaningfulness of interactions. Those that have the greatest influence on criminals are those who:
- They see the most often (frequency)
- With which they spend the most time (length)
- Where the interaction is significant (meaningfulness)
parents, family and peer groups have the biggest effect as they meet these criteria. Learning may also occur through operant conditioning and social learning from role models.
Sutherland’s 9 key principles to explain DA:
- criminal behaviour is learned rather than inherited
- Criminal behaviour is learned through association (interaction and communication) with others
- Association is within intimate personal groups
- What is learned are techniques, motives, drives, rationalisations and attitudes.
- The learning is directional- either for or against crimes
- If the number of favourable attitudes outweighs unfavourable ones then a person becomes an offender.
- The learning experiences (DAs) may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity for each individual.
- Criminal behaviour is learned through the same processes as any other behaviour.
- General ‘need’ (e.g. for money) is not sufficient explanation for crime because not everyone with those needs turn to crime.
How can differential association theory be applied in real-life scenarios?
- understanding the causes of delinquent behaviour in youth, designing effective interventions for individuals who have been involved in crime and developing strategies to prevent crime by targeting high risk groups.
DA: Evaluation: Strengths
- Major Contribution: changed society view on origins of criminal behaviour. Theory stopped blaming individual factors and highlighted social factors. Theory suggests crime does not need to be explained by personality, but social experiences. Before this theory, most theories gave biological causes for crime and may be argued to be racist and prejudice. Sutherland suggested that certain minority groups not inherently criminal, but the social circumstances of an individual cause them to commit crime. If DA correct, then interventions can be put in place to prevent the transmission of crime.
- Can explain a variety of crime: can explain white collar crimes and organised crime. Can be generalised to most types of crime. Regardless of wealth, education or socioeconomic status all people have a social circle which influences behaviour and views. These social circles can hold procrime or anticrime views. Theoru can explain why criminal behaviour runs in families. Osborn and West (1979) found that 13% of sons with non criminal father had criminal records and 20% of sons of criminal fathers had records.
DA: Evaluation: Weaknesses
- Does not take biological factors into account. Raine (1993) reviewed the literature comparing the delinquent behaviour of twins and the average concordance rate was higher for MZ twins (52%) than DZ twins (21%)
- Free will: Criminal behaviour is determined by your socialisation and peer groups. This theory could imply that people all follow each other and are moulded by the environment with no free will to make own decisions. This raises the ethical issue of accountability. If criminal behaviour is due to their socialisation, can they be held accountable for their crimes?
DA: Evaluation: Methodology
- Researching a specific group: Research that focusses on a specific group of criminals, such as murderers, may not provide insight into criminals in general
- Using self report methods: open to social desirability bias, where participants lie about their experiences
- The data collected are correlational, which does not explain cause and effect. In terms of peer influence it could be that criminals seek out other criminals and this would explain why criminals are likely to have criminal peers. Cox et al (2014) argue this theory is not testable. This issue is about how one measures the effect of number and strength of association on subsequent attitudes. It’s not clear what ratio of favourable to unfavourable influences would tip the balance.
DA: Evaluation: Social Issues
- Reductionist. Ignores biological factors such as genetics and brain differences
- Gender bias: research focussed on CG men and theories have ither ignored other genders or applied the same theories to them as CG men. Also ignores the trans community and those who identify as non binary or gender fluid. Little attempt to investigate criminality in other genders and may not be appropriate to assume reasons for criminality in CG men is the same in all genders. Theory could be falling for a beta bias.
DA; Evaluation: Cultural issues
- Definition of crime is a constantly shifting target: What is considered crime depends upon a person’s culture and the time period they live in.
DA: Evaluation: Ethical issues
If circumstances in which someone is socialised cause criminal behaviour, it may be argued that it is unethical to blame individual for their criminality.
Cannot blame someone for their crimes if they have no free will and it may be said they should not go to prison for this reason.
DA: Evaluation: Conclusion
DA remains an incomplete theory as it cannot account for all crimes. Not all criminals socialise with other criminals.
Gender Socialisation-1: Patterns of socialisation
Gender identity learned through socialisation within a culture. Male and female behaviour is observed, imitated and reinforced much in the same way that Sutherland argues that criminal behaviour is. Sutherland argues that the different patterns of socialisation experienced by boys and girls reinforces behaviour that may encourage criminality in boys, and discourage in it girls.
Sex role theory: this theory argues that boys and girls are socialized differently, therefore resulting in boys becoming more delinquent. There are different versions of this theory. Edwin Sutherland (1949) stated that there are clear gender differences when it comes to socialization. Firstly, girls are more supervised and more strictly controlled. Secondly, boys are encouraged to take risks and to be tough and aggressive. Therefore, boys have more of an opportunity and an inclination to commit crime.
Gender Socialisation: 2) Role Models
The influence of gender socialisation can also be explained using Social Learning Theory. This theory, first proposed by Bandura (1977), argues that all people (but especially children) learn their behaviour by observing and imitating role models. Role models are more likely to be observed and imitated if they share characteristics with the observer, such as being the same age or older, being likable, and being of the same gender. Children therefore will learn their gender behaviour mainly from their parents, with boys imitating their fathers, and girls imitating their mothers.
Girls have a readily available female role model at home (their mother) whereas boys have less access to their male role model as traditionally the father was out at work for most of the time. Boys will be socialized largely by their mother and will tend to reject behaviour that is seen as feminine as they compulsively pursue masculinity. Because of the emphasis on toughness and aggression this encourages anti-social behaviour and delinquency. Albert Cohen (1955) believed that if boys don’t have that readily available role model, socialization can be a difficult process. Boys can experience anxiety about their identity as a young man and a solution for this is all male peer groups or street gangs. In these social contexts, aspects of masculinity can be expressed and rewarded. The idea of being tough and breaking rules can help to conform to the idea of masculinity.
Gender Socialisation: 3) Differences in social control
There is also the argument that girls are socialised away from criminal behaviour. The feminist perspectives on who is involved in crime starts from the view that society is patriarchal and woman can only be understood under male dominance. Pat Carlen (1990) stated that a woman’s crimes can be known as ‘the crimes of the powerless’ as many woman who commit crimes are powerless in some way. For example, they live in poverty with little power to change the situation; as children they may have been badly treated and looked after, perhaps being abused by fathers. As adults they have often lived under the dominance of male partners who asserted control – perhaps in the form of violence. Also, as well as having fewer opportunities for committing crime as men, when women do commit crime, their rationale tends to be different.
After interviews with 39 woman aged 15 to 46 convicted of various offences, Carlen drew on the control theory – saying that woman turn to crime when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. It appeared that the interviewed women turned to crime as a rational choice. Low paid work and unemployment had not led to the standard of living they hoped for, and living an unhappy life as children and as adults was very unfulfilling. Unrewarded by family and the workplace and with little power to change the situation, crime was a rational alternative. However, critics of Carlen claim that her sample of woman was too small to make generalized statements. Her research also suggests that conformity to social norms tends to break down when the rewards for doing so are absent
Gender socialisation: EVALUATION: strengths
The Chivalry thesis/Chivalry hypothesis
The chivalry thesis suggests CG women commit more crimes than official statistics suggest. Police, magistrates and judges tend to men - men who have been socialised to act in chivalrous manner towards women. Otto Pollack(1950) suggested that men in the criminal justice system tend to be protective towards CG females and as a result mean women are less likely to be arrested or charged, prosecuted and convicted compared to CG men. This suggests it is not only the gender of the criminal but also the gender of the criminal justice system, which may be responsible for the lower levels females seen in crime statistics.
Strength 2-Men are less likely to be punished
Though fewer females are prosecuted for criminal behaviour, the Criminal Justice System may be biased against women. Carlen(1997) reported that when women were considered, ‘good mothers’, they were less likely to be imprisoned than women who had children in the foster care system, therefore arguing tat it is the assessment of the women’s character in relation to traditional gender roles, rather than the severity of the crime which is on trial. Males may commit more violent offences but, ‘get off,’ comparatively lightly as they are only, ‘overstepping’, the expectations for gender.
Gender Socialisation: EVALUATION: Weaknesses
Weakness 1-Hormones in males
The gender differences in crime can be explained in terms of biology rather than social factors. One way in which CG Males and CG females differ lies within the production and levels of hormones. Testosterone is a hormone that although is found in both CG men and CG women, is shown to be secreted by men at a much higher level. Testosterone has been linked to aggressive behaviour in many studies, including those within prison populations. For example, Dabbs et al (1987) found 9 out of 11 inmates with the lowest testosterone concentrations had committed nonviolent crimes, whereas 10 out of 11 inmates with the highest testosterone concentrations had committed violent crimes. This suggests that testosterone is related to increased aggression and that differences in socialisation and social control may not be the only differences that are responsible for the criminal behaviour of CG males and CG females.
Weakness 3-Outdated
Another issue with this theory is that it could be argued that it is out of date. Back in 1949 when Sutherland proposed gender socialisation as an explanation, male and female roles were clearly defined. Men went out to work, women stayed at home. Men were strong and dominant, women were weak and subservient. Men were inventive, women were nurturing. This is no longer the case.
Gender Socialisation: EVALUATION: methodology
Correlational research-Some of the research studies above are correlational, which does not tell us what is cause and what is effect.
Researching a specific group-Research that focuses on a specific group of criminals, such as violent offenders, may not provide insight into criminals in general.
Gender Socialisation: EVALUATION: Social Issues
Reductionist. It ignores biological factors such as genetics and brain differences
Gender Bias. The gender socialization theory is based solely on CG men and CG women, and does not take other genders into account. Research has also ignored the Trans Community as well as those who identify as gender fluid and non-binary. There has been little attempt to investigate criminality in other genders, other than cisgender and it may not be appropriate to assume that the reasons other genders become criminals is the same as those who are cisgender.
Gender Socialisation: EVALUATION: Cultural Issues
Cultural Issues
Definition of crime is a constantly shifting target .What is considered to be a crime depends upon a person’s culture, and the time period in which they live.
Research conducted in western countries-this research cannot be generalised to other cultures
Gender Socialisation: EVALUATION: Ethical Issues
Ethical Issues
Free will-The idea that people have free will and could have acted differently is a basis for blame and retribution. However, if actions are influenced by biological makeup, environment, or randomness, then people may not be fully responsible for their actions
Gender Socialisation: EVALUATION: Conclusion
Incomplete theory
Methods of Modifying behaviour: Anger Management (AM)
- type of CBT
- argued that a lot of criminal behaviour stems from anger issues, as anger can cause someone to make poor decisions, lose control of behaviour and inability to judge consequences of actions accurately. Anger can lead to harmful criminal behaviour
- Aim of AM is to reduce an emotional response of anger by reconceptualising the emotion using range of cognitive behavioural skills.
How does AM link to Hostile Attribution Bias?
- criminals have a tendency towards an irrational way of thinking, such as having a hostile attribution bias. This means criminals tend to think about situations in the most negative light, such as if someone were to smile at the individual, they would believe the person is thinking bad thoughts about them.
- These negative interpretations lead to increased anger.
How does minimisation link to AM?
- Criminals may not fully understand the consequences of their anger, and the long term negative effects (injury, imprisonment) that may result from it.
Key aims of AM
- aims to change the way a person handles anger and aggression (change the way the individual thinks about a situation and thus changing their behaviour, as the situation itself cannot be changed).
- Novaco (2011) identified 3 key aims for any AM programme:
1. cognitive restructuring- greater self awareness and control over cognitive dimensions of anger.
2. regulation of arousal- learning to control the physiological state
3. Behavioural strategies- such as problem solving skills, strategic withdrawal and assertiveness.
Anger Management: Stress Inoculation Model
- Novaco (1975 and 1977) carried out work and created a model which drew on inoculation training (form of CBT).
- Stress Inoculation aims to stop angry outbursts and stop future occurences.
- therapy tends to be conducted with a group of offenders either inside or outside prison (e.g. during probation)
- three key steps:
1. Conceptualisation: initial phase. clients learn about their anger, how it can be useful and non useful. Analyse own patterns of anger and identify situations which cause them to be angry.
2. Skill acquisition (and rehearsal): clients taught AM skills such as regulation, cognitive flexibility and relaxation. Taught communication skills to resolve conflicts without anger
3. Application (and follow through): clients apply the skills initially in controlled, non threatening situations such as role plays of previous situations that made them angry. Receive feedback from therapist. Later clients can try out new skills in real world settings.
What is CALM (controlling anger and learning to manage it programme)?
- often used in prisons, designed for male offenders
- teaches males to monitor and understand emotions to prevent and control anger.
- consists of 24 sessions tat teach participants skills to reduce frequency, intensity and duration of anger to lessen likelihood of aggression.
CALM programme also addresses management of other strong emotions and concerns such as jealousy, anxiety and depression. - CALM sessions practical, structured, sequential and designed for adolescent and sult males at risk of violent behaviour and criminal recidivism.
- Modelling, role play, teamwork and self and peer evaluation are used to teach and promote lasting change of inappropriate and unproductive thought and behaviour patterns
- suitable for males with poor literacy skills and limited eductaion due to the level the workbooks are written at.
Give an example of an AM programme with offenders
- Trimble et al. (2015): reported on an AM programme with 105 offenders on probation in northern Ireland. Included those with history of anger and aggressive behaviour and those with poor emotional control that predisposed them to offend
- programme reduced anger and amount of anger experienced among offenders compared to pre-treatment scores.
AM: Evaluation: Strengths
Effectiveness: In general Anger Management programmes are successful in reducing anger, for example, Taylor and Novaco (2006) found a 75% improvement rates based on 6 meta-analyses of research.
Cost-effective: Anger Management can be cost-effective because it can lead to quick change.
AM: Evaluation: Weaknesses
Time-consuming: Anger Management can be time-consuming compared to other therapies such as drug therapy.
Ignores other factors: Anger Management may overemphasize the role of cognitions and ignore other factors (such as a person’s biology or social factors) that might contribute to a person’s criminal behaviour
AM: Evaluation: Methodology
Social desirability bias: Participants may give the answer they think is more socially acceptable, rather than being truthful.
Memory biases: Participants may forget or distort past experiences.
AM: Evaluation: Social issues
Benefits for prison environment. Anger Management Programmes have benefits for prison staff and other prisoners when used in prison environments. They have potential to reduce aggression and violence - if we accept that anger and aggression are linked. Even without a link to aggression and violence, anger on its own creates a hostile atmosphere.
The majority of the schemes are designed for CG male offenders, and nearly all the research into its effectiveness is carried out on CG men. On the one hand, we could argue that this just reflects the fact that CGmen are genuinely more aggressive and prone to anger than CG women, Trans Men, Trans women and those who identify as gender fluid and non-binary. The statistics show that the clear majority of violent crime is committed by CGmen. However, this means that there are limited options for those of other genders who
offend because of anger issues. It may be that the causes and treatment for other gendered anger is different to that for CGmen’s anger. Traditional CGmale-focused anger management may therefore be an inappropriate treatment choice for others.
AM: Evaluation: Cultural issues
These theories and research are based on western countries, so cannot be generalised to other parts of the world.
AM: Evaluation: Ethical Issues
Therapist conflict. Therapeutic interventions are intended to help client. When these interventions are used in prisons there’s conflicts for a therapist as they have a duty to the institution and to their clients. For example, a client might tell their therapist information that could threaten security of the prison or may confess details of the crime committed. Breaching any therapeutic confidence is only acceptable in most serious situations, but it does pose dilemma for therapist and would damage the client’s trust in authority.
Lack of voluntary consent .In many cases, offenders are required to take part in an anger management program, for example as a condition of probation. This participation is against ethical code of therapists, although the Anger Management and Domestic Violence Professionals ethical code does say, ‘based, when appropriate, on valid informed consent.’ Ethical issues are balanced between costs and benefits, so the cost to valid consent could be weighed up against benefits for the person and society through anger reduction.
Methods of modifying behaviour: What is Restorative Justice (RJ)
- most formal sanctions for crime focus on the offender, but RJ focusses on both victim and offender
- usually involves communication between victim and offender. Offender may just give victim payment, or may write them a letter to have a meeting with an impartial facilitator.
- may substitute a prison sentence if victim agrees, or will be alongside a prison sentence.
What are the main aims of RJ?
- Rehabilitation of offenders: victims explains impact of crime so offender understands effects on victim. Offenders learn to take other perspectives to increase empathy and reduce reoffending. Offender encouraged to take responsibility for crime to have an impact on future behaviour and attitudes.
- Atonement for wrongdoing: may offer money or show feelings of guilt and show understanding of the effects of their actions. Victim can express distress and offender can develop empathy.
How is RJ different from Custodial sentences?
- RJ focusses on rehabilitation, where as it’s clear that custodial sentences are not effective for this, e.g. for violent offenders who are surrounded by other violent offenders daily, are not going to rehabilitate.
- RJ focusses on victim and offender, where as custodial sentences only focus on offender.
Outline Wachtel and McCold (2003) theory of RJ
- focusses on healing the harm to people and their relationships caused by crime, through justice. theory recognises that the wider community, victim and offender are necessary for RJ. Victim seeks reparation, offender must take responsibility and wider community aim to achieve reconciliation for a healthy society. If only one stakeholder involved or only 2 then RJ does not fully work.
Restorative Justice: Evaluation: Strengths
- beneficial for victims. The UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) reports 85% satisfaction for victims of a variety of crimes from theft to violent crime, in face-to-face meetings w/ offenders
- reduce reoffending. The UK restorative Justice Council report an overall figure of 37% reoffending.
Restorative Justice: Evaluation: Weaknesses
- not applicable to all victims and all offenders. The offender needs to have admitted to doing the crime, though Howard Zehr (2002) claims RJ can take place without an offender’s presence. Victims may decline the offer. May not be useful for some crimes such as rape and domestic abuse, as this would cause mental trauma for victims.
Restorative Justice: Evaluation: methodological issues
- researching a specific group (criminals) is not generalisable to those criminals who have not been caught
- research proves correlation not cause
Restorative Justice: Evaluation: Social issues
- Financial implications: reduced reoffending means £8 is saved for every £1 spent on RJ (reduced custodial costs, court costs, police time)
Restorative Justice: Evaluation: Cultural issues
- Western practice, so cannot be generalised to other parts of the world
Restorative Justice: Evaluation: Ethical Issues
- psychological harm to victim e.g. if criminal shows no empathy so victim feels harmed again and loses self esteem. If criminal does not appear to take process seriously, victim may feel taken advantage of if RJ offered instead of custodial sentence.
- abuse of power. Victims may gang up on offender, especially if the offender is a child. Victims may try to shame offender which is not the intention of the process.
