Criminal Behaviour - Individual

Question 1

What are the two individualistic theories of criminal behaviour?

Answer 1

Personality and Cognitive Factors

Question 2

Who’s theories does the theory of personality centre around and what did they believe?

Answer 2

This theory centres around Eysenck. Who believes that our personality is split up into three different dimensions being Neuroticism, Psychoticism and Extraversion

Eysenck suggests that some personality types are more predisposed towards Criminal Behaviour than others.
On top of this, he claims these personalities are formed from both our genetics and our environment. Meaning this theory is interactionist as it considers the effects of both nature and nurture.

Question 3

What are the traits associated with each personality type in low and high?

Answer 3

Psychoticism:
High: Aggressive, selfish, lack of empathy or remorse.
Low: Warm and very aware of others.

Neuroticism:
High: Tense, anxious, irrational
Low: Calm and relaxed

Extraversion:
High: Sociable sensation Seeking
Low: Unsociable, overly cautious

Question 4

What is Extraversions biological link to criminality

Answer 4

Extraverts are sociable people; this is because they need stimulation. Other things they will do to fill this stimulation often includes risk taking behaviours. This is because they inherit an under-aroused nervous system so need stimulation to restore the optimum level of cortical arousal.
While on the other end, introverts are already over-aroused so shun extra stimulation

Question 5

What is Neuroticisms biological link to criminality

Answer 5

Neuroticism is biologically determined by the reactivity of someones sympathetic nervous system. This makes them highly unstable under pressure and prone to overreacting to stimuli resulting them getting quickly upset or angry - which could then result in criminal behaviour.

Question 6

What is Psychoticism’s biological link to criminality

Answer 6

Psychoticism is linked to high levels of testosterone. Many studies have found direct links between testosterone and aggressive behaviours. This also explains why Men commit more violent offences than woman as they have far higher levels of testosterone.

Question 7

What is Extraversions Environmental link to criminality

Answer 7

Suggests that we learn through operant conditioning to not repeat acts that result in punishment.

Introverts learn quickly through conditioning, but extraverts are far less easily conditioned.

This means they find it much harder to learn society’s rules and social norms and don’t respond well to punishment, increasing the likelihood of them engaging in criminal behaviour.

Question 8

Describe the study using EPQ in support of personality theory?

Answer 8

Dunlop et al (2012)
Used Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire to measure the three traits in students aged 15-75 years old.
Results found that both extroversion and neuroticism were strong signs of delinquency

Question 9

Describe the twin study in support of personality theory?

Answer 9

Zuckerman (1987)
Twin study that found:
Neuroticism: 52% MZ correlation – 24% DZ correlation.
Extroversion: 51% MZ correlation = 12% DZ correlation.

Question 10

What are two strengths of Eysenck’s personality theory?

Answer 10

Strength 1) Application to methods of modification
One strength of Eysenck’s personality theory is that it could be reverse-engineered to help prevent crime. This is because the personality theory suggests that the underlying tendencies we have, such as of anger or impulsiveness can eventually manifest themselves as criminal behaviour that are detectable during childhood.

This is a strength as it means that it may be possible to modify socialization experiences of high-risk individuals who show many of these traits, so they don’t develop into offenders. This could lead to interventions for parenting for treating and dealing with early signs of delinquency to reduce criminal behaviour.

Strength 2) - Reductionist
Another strength of Eysenck’s personality theory is that it can be considered less reductionist than other theories explaining criminal behaviour. This is because it takes an interactionist approach and argues that a criminal personality is based on both biological predispositions as well as conditioning and socialisation, especially during childhood. This could make the approach more valid and complete than a biological or environmental theory alone

Question 11

Name as many of the weaknesses of personality as you can (4 possible)

Answer 11

Weakness 1)
On the other hand, it could be considered reductionist as some critics may argue that the explanation oversimplifies human personality and that the three dimensions of just extroversion, neuroticism and psychoticism are not enough to explain the full range of human personality traits that can be associated with criminal behaviour

Weakness 2)
Another weakness of Eysenck’s Personality is a lack of cause and effect, for instance we don’t know if personality leads us to criminal behaviour or if criminal behaviour leads us to develop a certain personality type.
Eysenck’s theory argues that we develop a personality from both our biology and surroundings and that personality determines if we later go onto commit crime. However, there is little longitudinal research into assessing someone’s personality type and later seeing if they became criminal.

Weakness 3)
Eysenck’s personality theory and studies that use it such as Dunlop et al lack internal validity, this is because EPQ uses a self-report method to gather data meaning we have no way to know if the responses are truthful, often people will alter their responses to be more favourable towards themselves which can become a confounding variable when using that data in research studies.

Weakness 4)
Criminals who are studied are only those who have been caught. The personality traits of criminals who get caught could be very different from those who remain free. Criminals who have been arrested may score higher on extraversion and psychoticism than those who do not get captured.
High extraversion and psychoticism may make an individual prone to impulsivity, and a reduced ability to plan and assess their behaviour. Criminals who do not get caught on the other hand may score lower on extraversion meaning that their behaviour is more calculated and rational.

Question 12

What are Cognitive Factors and how do they lead to criminal thinking?

Answer 12

Cognitive Factors think about how our thinking patterns can affect our behaviour. The main cognitive theory is that our mind works like a computer in terms of inputs and output responses. This can even be applied to criminal behaviour in that cognitive psychologists argue criminal behaviour is an output of faulty thinking processes.

Question 13

What is meant by a ‘cognitive distortion’ and name the two cognitive distortions involved in criminality.

Answer 13

Cognitive distortions are a form of irrational thinking where someone’s reality becomes distorted. This results in someone’s perception of events being wrong, but they think that its accurate.

This is used a lot in criminal behaviour as it is how offenders to rationalise their behaviour.

The main two used in criminality are Hostile Attribution Bias and Minimization

Question 14

What is the ‘Hostile Attribution Bias’ Cognitive distortion?

Answer 14

Hostile attribution bias is when someone automatically draws negative inferences from things, aka always thinking the worst about someone / something. An example could be that you hear someone laughing in a pub and you automatically think they’re laughing at you. This links to criminal behaviour as if you interpret aggression you’re likely to respond back with aggression.

Question 15

What key study supports the existence of a ‘Hostile Attribution Bias’

Answer 15

Key Study: Schoenberg et al (2014)
This study is done on 55 violent offenders in prison as an experimental group matched to a control group of non-offenders.
Both these groups were shown emotionally ambiguous faces (e.g happy, angry or fearful)

They found the violent offenders were more likely to interpret any picture that had some expression of anger as an expression of aggression.
This can help explain aggressive/impulsive behaviour in criminals.

Question 16

What is the ‘Minimalization’ Cognitive distortion?

Answer 16

Minimalization is a method used by people to justify immoral behaviours such as criminal behaviours.
It involves under-exaggerating consequences of a situation to make it seem less serious. For example, ‘I robbed them but they’re wealthy, so it won’t affect them much!’

Question 17

What study established the three levels of moral reasoning?

Answer 17

Key Study: Kohlberg

Found criminals operated at the pre-conventional level in that they found braking law to be justified if they considered the reward to outweigh the cost.

Longitudinal Study involving 75 American Boys aged 10-16 and 22-28.
It was cross cultural and other countries included, Taiwan, Mexico, Great Britain, Turkey and Canada.
The boys were re-irnterviewed every 3 years with moral dilemmas in order to assess their moral reasoning. Link To Criminal Behaviour

Found 3 levels of morality:

Pre-Conventional: Actions judged by consequence, actions that result in punishment bad and result of rewards are good. Breaking Law is justified if reward it outweighs cost

Conventional: Abide by social rules but not out of self-interest but instead to maintain positive relationships. May break a law to protect family member / loved one.

Post Conventional: The idea you can do punishable behaviour if it result in a greater good for society as laws can be changed.

Question 18

Name and describe the key study supports the existence of a ‘Minimalization’

Answer 18

Key Study: Gudjonsson (2007)
Study that involved 128 juvenile offenders where they were given a questionnaire on why they committed the crimes that they did.
They found 38% did not even consider the consequences.
36% were confident they wouldn’t be caught.
These suggest these criminals were at a pre-conventional level of moral reasoning and supports a relationship between moral reasoning and criminal behaviour.

Question 19

Evaluate Schoenberg et al.
(one strength one weakness)

Answer 19

One strength of Schonberg is that is has high ecological validity, we see this as the task given to the offenders is observing different facial expressions, something we all do hundreds of times every day. This is a strength of the study as it means the findings can be better applied to real world criminality and why it happens.

One weakness of Schoenberg is that it lacks population validity, this is because the study is only based on 55 violent offenders, this is an extremely small sample size in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of violent offenders across the globe and many would argue 55 participants is not nearly enough to be able to generalise globally to all violent offenders and whether they have hostile attribution bias.

Question 20

Evaluate Gudjonsson et al.
(one strength one weakness)

Answer 20

One strength of Gudjonsson is that the findings are reliable as they are consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions about offenders being classified at the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning based on Kohlberg’s own 6-year study on moral reasoning.

One weakness of Gudjonsson is the use of a biased sample, this is because the sample only includes criminals who have been caught and uses that sample to assess the level of moral reasoning of all individuals who engage in criminal activity when it is highly likely the criminals who get caught may get caught because of their low reasoning and criminals with high levels of moral reasoning are also smarter and therefore more meticulous and skilled at evading the consequences meaning the sample is likely not representative of all individuals who engage in crime.

Question 21

What are two strengths of the Cognitive explanation of criminal behaviour

Answer 21

Strength 1)
Cognitive factors can be linked to a therapy to modify / rectify criminal behaviour in individuals. This is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) which encourages offenders to face up to what they have done and establish a less distorted viewpoint on their actions and how it affected the victim.
This is a strength of this approach as it can help prevent crime to day-to-day life showing external validity, studies have suggested that it results in reduced incidents of denial and minimalizations and has also been heavily linked with reduced risk of reoffending. If changing offenders’ thoughts can help to reduce reoffending risk, it suggests that cognitive distortions may have played a role in their offending initially.

Strength 2)
Another strength of cognitive factors is that it has research evidence to support the theories. For example, with the cognitive distortion of hostile attribution bias, studies such as Schoenberg (2014) where 55 violent juvenile offenders were presented with images of emotionally ambiguous faces and found that when matched to a control group of non-offenders. The offenders were far more likely to judge faces showing any sort of aggression as angry or hostile. This suggests that these misinterpretations of non-verbal cues may be able to partly explain aggressive and impulsive behaviour in susceptible individuals and so supports the validity of cognitive distortions as an explanation of offending.

Question 22

What are two weaknesses of the Cognitive explanation of criminal behaviour

Answer 22

One Weakness of cognitive factors is that it can be considered reductionist, for example the cognitive approach assumes that the mind works like a computer which helps to explain criminal behaviour as an output of faulty thinking processes. This is an example of mechanistic reductionism as it seeks to understand a complex psychological phenomena of why people commit crime by reducing it down to smaller parts like faulty thinking processes in the brain. This is a weakness as it oversimplifies it for the sake of understanding and could also be considered determinist and lead to people disregarding the importance of free will and personal responsibility.

Another Weakness of the study is that it can viewed as descriptive rather than explanatory approach to criminal behaviour,, this is because they are essentially ‘after the fact theories’ in that we can establish that these distortions exist through studies, but the approach provides no insight into why these cognitive distortions appear in the first place.
This is a weakness of the approach as it questions its internal validity as a proper cause and effect cannot be established, it could be instead that the violent crime is what gave them hostile attribution bias instead of that bias causing the violent behaviour. This has further social implications as if we don’t understand why these distortions occur, it means society cannot do anything but wait for these individuals to commit crime before we can even attempt to rectify these distortions.