Crime Theories Flashcards
Neuropsychological perspective crime
-Miller 1999
-some anatomical & neurobiological factors b/w criminals & non-criminals.
Miller 1999- reviewed evidence on neuropsych offending.
- EEG- showed higher rates abnormal electrical activity in Frontal & Left Temporal Lobes in agg/violent offenders.
- PET- decreased blood flow in Left Temporal Lobe & decreased glucose metabolism in Frontal & Left Temporal Lobe in some criminals.
neuropsychological Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
- Williams et al 2010
- Kim 2002
over represented in offenders.
Williams et al 2010- self-rep Questionnaire (N=196) 60%+ reported head injury.
- those TBI increased likely reoffend & arrested when younger & been in prison longer.
- brain dmg effects LT planning= disagreeable behaviour etc…
- drugs/alcohol affects decision making in similar ways.
- brain injury could come those who fight- not the cause??
Kim 2002- TBI freq complicated by disinhibition & agg often profound changes in personality & present obstacles to rehabilitative treatments leading to increased reoffending.
Biological-
- MAOA
- Brunner et al 1993
- Cases et al 1995
- McDermott et al 2009
- Caspi et al 2002
- Evolutionary
- Daly et al 1996
- Eval
- Fishbein 2017
Warrior gene- Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA)- breaks down monoamines.
Brunner et al 1993- Brunner syndrome- genetic disorder, mutation MAOA, lower avg IQ, impulsive behaviour (problematic):
–arson, hypersexuality, violence, sleep disorders & mood swings.
-male relatives with defective MAOA showed impulsive violence & agg.
Cases et al 1995- when MAOA in mice inhibited- increases agg.
McDermott et al 2009- low MAOA associated with increased agg in lab & sig predicts behaviour in high provocation situation (admin of hot sauce).
Caspi et al 2002- low MAOA associated with ASPD symptoms & violence BUT only maltreated children.
Genotype moderately sensitive to enviro.
Evolutionary- use violence to survive therefore should be passed on- why we not violent now??
Daly et al 1996- step-father most dangerous person to step-child no genetic investment resource drainer.
Eval- not all offenders have neurological diffs & not all are offenders.
- not straightforward causal link= Risk Factors
- Psychological changes matter & these can vary widely.
- genetics interesting- but genes are expressed within an enviro.
- practically how do we treat these?
- studies tend use most extreme populations & often very small- can’t generalise.
Fishbein 2017- bio is good but also need alongside sociological & political perspectives.
Eysenck’s Biological Theory of Crime
- Cloniger
- 3 major facets personality
- socialisation
- Center & Kemp 2002
- Goldsmith 1981
- genetic factors contribute greatly but are moderated by enviro & social factors.
- -Cloniger- MZ 0.7, DZ 0.4.
3 major facets of personality
1- Extraversion (need cortical stim).
2- Psychoticism (how selfish or care for others).
3- Neuroticism (emotional stability, rep behaviour).
–high lvls all 3 increases criminality.
Socialisation & conditioning that occurs through socialisation leads child away from crime- certain personality types more resistant to normal socialisation
–therefore less effective.
Center & Kemp 2002- eval- sig role Psychoticism & Lie Scale used to index social conformity in role in antisocial & criminal behaviour.
Goldsmith 1981- not take into account criminal behaviour largely culturally defined rather then solely based on individuals behaviour.
Big 5 & Crime
- 5
- Jones et al 2011
- eval
- Akee et al 2010
- Roberts et al 2017
-much research suggesting link b/w most of big 5 personality characteristics & crime.
Agreeableness- increased A = decreased crime
–Jones et al 2011
Conscientiousness- increased= decreased crime
–Jones et al 2011
Neuroticism- subsets (anger & hostility) increase = increased crime.
–Jones et al 2011
Openness- no link
Extraversion- mixed, may be more important in Males.
-self-report evidence is stronger then arrest evidence.
Eval
- personality studies all have very small effect size- usually due more proximate causes therefore need huge sample size.
- self-control? or intelligence?
- circular logic= hurting ppl & increases crime.
- not explain crime variance.
- treatment? types of crime?
- theory combines number diff perspectives- genetics, social factors & personality.
is personality fixed??
Akee et al 2010- more slow/hard to change.
Roberts et al 2017- marked change personality trait measures avg time 24 weeks due intervention & persisted after end of treatment.
Bowlby Theory of Crime 1946/69
- 44 thieves
- Farrington, Coid & Murray 2009
- Farrington et al 1990
- Wells & Rakin 1991
- McCard 1982
- Parental attachment & criminality.
- attachment to Primary Caregiver (usually mother) is extremely important.
- Maternal deprivation leads delinquency via becoming affectionless.
44 thieves + 44 controls with emotional disturbances
- almost 40% thieves sep from mother more than 6 months during first 5 years of life v 5% of controls.
- many brought up in institutions.
- however didn’t factor institutions in which often poor conditions etc…
Eval-
Farrington, Coid & Murray 2009- 60% boys sep from parent by 10th birthday were convicted to the age of 50 v 36% of remainder.
-sep from parent mostly due father’s imprisonment = divorce.
Farrington et al 1990- delinquency explained by lack family supp + peer deviance & increased amount of early experiences= increased risk incarceration during adolescence.
Wells & Rankin 1991- broken home due divorce more likely result in delinquency than broken home due to death- which has no link.
McCard 1982- broken home only increases delinquency when left with unaffectionate mothers.
- affectionate single parents no diff to happy couple.
- also increased when parents stay together but conflict a lot.
Social Learning Theory- Bandura 1977
- what
- bobo dolls- B, R, R 1961
- Shuttleworth 2008
- B, R, R 1963
- child imitates model they can id with- humans are info processors- think about relationship b/w observed behaviour & consequences
- Reinforcement- key (internal & external)- actions are rewarded increased likely to repeat- actions punished less likely.
- but these actions no longer need to be personally experienced.
Bobo dolls- Bandura, Ross & Ross 1961- children aged 3-6 y/o placed 1 of 3 cons.
1- agg model
2- non-agg model
3- control
-observed adult in room with toy.
-agg model- child increased aggressive to toy.
-suggests child learns from single instance of observation.
Eval
LT? ethical- criminal babies? EV? immediate observations only, priming/novelty? -findings not replicated with child with no prior bobo doll experience.
-even if effect- violent video games- so minor in grand scheme- won’t make a diff.
Shuttleworth 2008- repeated & most of predictions not fully proven + due bobo dolls springing back up= not real therefore seen as game??
Bandura, Ross & Ross 1963- repeated with violence via videos= much less defined response.
SLT Modernish
- Patterson et al 1992
- parental training programme
- Smith & Stern 1997
- Sweden
Patterson et al 1992- systematic observations of interactions b/w parents & their children.
- focus on Parent’s Response to Their Child’s Misbehaviour.
- parents’ of antisocial children more often failed tell child how are expected to behave, failed to monitor child behaviour & failed enforce rules promptly/clearly/consistently.
Patterson deved- Parental Training Programme
-claimed were effective lowering childhood aggression
Smith & Stern 1997- research indicates poor parental supervision often found to be strongest predictor of offending.
Sweden ban of spankings= prosocial benefit.
Eval-
acknowledges cog processes influences input from enviro.
-doesn’t explain why some behaviour is learnt/imitated & some not.
-or explain cases were child has come from families no apparent observation of agg.
-fails incorporate other factors: personality etc…
General Strain Theory- Agnew 1992, 2001 -what -2 types strain -3 major categories -strain manifest -3 major categories adaption -situations lead deviancy certain stypes strain -Froggio 2017
- many versions but this most comprehensive
- tries bring in individual social & societal factors.
- if ppl treated badly (or perceive) consequent distress leads to respond with deviant behaviours including agg/crime.
2 types strain:
1- Objective (most ppl find stressful- lack food).
2- Subjective (esp stressful to individual).
3 major categories:
1- Prevention of Goal Achievement
–(result low self-esteem, confrontation).
2- Removal Something in Person’s Life
–(loss relationship, Prospect Theory- as good as something is feels worse when taken away).
3- Negatively Valued Stimuli
–(abuse).
Strain Manifest number of ways:
- sadness, grief, depression.
- fear & anxiety.
- anger- leads desire to rectify situation.
3 major categories of adaption:
1- Cognitive- better off without them- reduced cognitive dissonance.
2- Emotional- ice cream, exercise, drink/drugs- deal with feelings associated with stressor.
3- Behavioural- delete them from FB or murder them.
–directly deal with stressor.
Agnew proposed strain most likely lead deviancy in situations where:
- event is perceived UNJUST- anger about justice.
- strain is EXTREME & RECENT- eventually get over the stressor esp minor (differs individually).
- person experiencing the strain is LACKING IN SOCIAL CONTROLS- if hate job, why care if losing it?
- person been exposed to MODELS OF DEVIANT COPING STYLES- learning/competing with deviant peers.
Certain types strain likely lead to crime:
-child abuse, discrimination, homelessness, abusive peers, rejection, unemployment, poor educational performance.
Eval
Froggio 2017- research indicating link b/w neg life experiences, anger & delinquency.
-not as much research, not many hard crimes, not mature theory.
-fairly comprehensive- is it falsifiable?
-large emphasis on external events- what implications working with offenders.
-hedonistic crimes?
-useful as practitioner not much as psychologist.
Evaluating theories
predictive accuracy & scope
can it account existing findings?
Internal coherence & external consistency.
Falsified?
Consistent other background theories- unifying power.
-Heuristic value?
Comparing theories
likely no single theory captures all aspects
- case-by-case pick relevant theory
- key to Formulation is appropriate combination of theories.
- theories can coexist.
Common probs theories discussed
- based flawed/ambiguous research
- only 1 aspect e.g. bio.
- not always helpful for Forensic better in regard treatment.
- have implications for assessment & treatment of offenders.
- answers, may integrated theories of crime (multi-factorial approach).
