Criminal Psychology

Question 1

Describe brain injury as a biological explanation for crime.

Answer 1

Brain injury can be caused by accident or illness. Traumatic brain injury can occur as a result of direct trauma. A third way that brain injury can occur is through long term alcohol or drug abuse.

Parietal lobe- responsible for memory impulse control, planning and social decision making. Damage to this area could lead to reduce abilities to make decisions and increase spontanaity.

Phineas Gage- a kind, helpful man who had an accident where a metal pole went through his face causing damage to the frontol lobe. His personality changed causing him to be aggressive. this shows the role of the frontal lobe on emotion and personality.

Raine et al- aimed to show evidence of brain dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex of murders. He found lower level of activity in the frontal lobe which impacted upon decision making and impulsivity. There was also abnormal activity in the limbic system resulting in a lack of fear.

Research by Blumer et al (1975) shows how case studies show anti-social personalty disorder as arising following frontal lobe injury. Damage results in outbursts, impulsivity and issues with decision making.

The effect of gender can be shown by Elbogen. It was found that males found that males have a greater risk for showing violence. This could be due to the fact that males are more prone to brain injury as they take more risks and engage in more fights.

Williams et al (2010) found that 60% of the 196 prisoners they investiated had recieved some traumatic brain injury due to falling, car accidents and sport.

Question 2

Evaluate brain injury as a biological explanation for crime in terms of supporting evidence

Answer 2

There is a range of supporting evidence for the idea that brain injury can lead to criminality. For example, Blumer et al (1975) shows how case studies show anti-social personality disorder arising following a frontal lobe injury. This demonstrates how frontal lobe brain injury is related to problematic behviour and this finding does seem consistant across research studies.

Question 3

Evaluate brain injury as a biological explanation for crime in terms of criticisms of the supporting evidence.

Answer 3

Evidence from case studies and brain scanning is highly valid. This is because scientific and measureable scanning techniques are used to look for damage to brain structure. Therefore we can be sure that we are measuring brain functioning, making the results credible.

Issues with cause and effect. Although studies may show an association between brain damage and aggression case studies tend to only look at the individual after they’ve been aggressive. Therefore, we can’t be sure that the brain damage caused the criminality.

Question 4

Evaluate brain injury as a biological explanation for crime in terms of a different theory.

Answer 4

There may be alternative explanations for criminality. There are many other factors linked to criminality such as self fullfilling phrophecy and labelling. Therefore it would be reductionist to assume that only brain injury leads to criminality.

Question 5

Evaluate brain injury as a biological explanation for crime in terms of applications.

Answer 5

Application is limited becasue brain abnormality is fixed. You can’t do anything about it even if we have established this link.

Question 6

Evaluate brain injury as a biological explanation for crime in terms of other points.

Answer 6

Issues with individual differences. Every person studied will have a different level of brain damage to a slightly different area of the brain. This means we are unable to generalise to the wider population.

Question 7

Describe the amygdala as an explanation for crime.

Answer 7

Damage to the amygdala causes a reduction in automatic arousal which could lead to reduced emotional responses and fearlessness. Responsible for the fight or flight response.

Raine found lower glucose metabolism in the left side (reward) and higher glucose metabolism in the right side (emotion). Imbalance of activity.

Yang (2009) used MRI scans to measure amygdala differences in psychopaths and a control group. People with psychopathy had volume reductions on both left and right amygdalae compared to controls. Correlations were found between reduced volumes and the psychopathy scores. A smaller volume means more anti-social behaviour.

Charles Witman had a brain tumour on the amygdala. He went on to shoot and kill 16 people suggesting that the amygdala had a role in his aggression.

Gender. Shirtcliff et al (2009) gives evidence for gender differences in empathy and conduct disorders. Empathy is higher in girls whilst conduct disorders are more prevalent in boys. Such emotional differences are thought to come from the amygdala.

Question 8

Evaluate the amygdala as an explanation for crime in terms of supporting research.

Answer 8

There is a range of research evidence includin Raine et al (1997). They found lower glucose metabolism in the left side (reward) and higher in right side (emotions). This shows how damage to the amygdala affects personality.

Question 9

Evaluate the amygdala as an explanation for crime in terms of criticisms of supporting research.

Answer 9

Evidence from scanning techniques is highly reliable and objective meaning that the theory is supported by credible and scientific research.

Cause and effect. Although studies may show an association between the amygdala and aggression we can’t be sure that the amygdala damage causes aggression. This shows that this explanation is reductionist and so we can’t establish cause and effect.

Question 10

Evaluate the amygdala as an explanation for crime in terms of criticisms of a different theory.

Answer 10

Other factors have been implicated in criminal behaviour. Other brian areas, genes and social explanations are also thought to lead to aggression.

Question 11

Evaluate the amygdala as an explanation for crime in terms of criticisms of applications.

Answer 11

Application is limited becasue brain abnormality is fixed. You can’t do anything about it even if we have established this link.

Question 12

Evaluate the amygdala as an explanation for crime in terms of criticisms of other points.

Answer 12

James Fallon used MRI scans to investigate several brains and developed the ability to identify which of the brains belonged to psychopathic individuals.

In 2006, he correctly identified his own brain as being psychopathic which shows taht it is possible to have brain differences without psychopathic behaviour.

Question 13

Describe XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime.

Answer 13

Humans should normally have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The 23rd pair determines gender, XX is female and XY is male. The female eggs always contain X and the male sperm contains both X and Y.

XYY syndrome occurs when a human male has an extra Y chromosome. It occurs in 1 in 1000 male births and isn’t inherited but a random occurrence at conception.

Most boys with XYY syndrome have normal development. Some are said to grow taller or faster than other boys and there is some evidence that their intelligence may be slightly less than other boys or that they may suffer from behavioural problems. However, many of them will be unaware that they even have the condition.

Jacobs et al (1965) found that there was an over-representation of XYY men in the prison population. 15 in every 1000 prisoners. However, as it is very difficult to determine who has the syndrome, 75% of cases are not detected.

Question 14

Evaluate XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime in terms of supporting research.

Answer 14

Reseach support comes from Stockhol (2012). He compared XYY with XXY and found that a significantly higher number of convictions in those with XYY.

Question 15

Evaluate XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime in terms of criticisms of the supporting research.

Answer 15

It was found taht when social variables (environmental factors, social class etc) are controlled, there is no higher risk of conviction in XYY. This shows that maybe the research isn’t as reliable as first thought.

Question 16

Evaluate XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime in terms of opposing research.

Answer 16

Theilgaard (1984) found that XYY males had lower levels of intelligence and argued that increased levels of crime may be due to learning difficulties rather than XYY syndrome itself.

Question 17

Evaluate XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime in terms of a different theory.

Answer 17

Not everyone with XYY goes on to commit a crime. This suggests that there must be other factors that effect the likelihood of someone becoming a criminal.

Question 18

Evaluate XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime in terms of applications.

Answer 18

If the syndrome is found early (around 25% are found before birth) issues associated with the syndrome can be addressed. This would then prevent the labelling and reduce the link with stigmatisation.

Question 19

Evaluate XYY syndrome as a biological explanation of crime in terms of other points.

Answer 19

The explanation can’t account fro all crime as it doesn’t explain why there are women criminals.

Question 20

Describe personality as an explanation for crime.

Answer 20

Certain personality traits are more likely to engage in crime and other anti-social behaviour. We are born with some key differences and that criminal behaviour results from a failure to learn how to conntrol immature tendencies.

Eysenck’s (1977) theory of personality has three deensions. The first is extraversion. A typical extravert is sociable, aggressive, carefree and easy going whilst a typical introvert is quiet, reserved, serious and plans ahead. The second is neuroticism. Someone high on the N scale often worries, is overemotional and has mood swings whilst someone low on the N scale has slow reactions, is even tempered and is not emotional. The third is psychoticism. Someone who displays this is often solitary, doesn’t care for others, is aggressive, has a disregard for danger and is hostile.

Eyesenk proposed an explanation for crime. Certain personality types lend themselves to antisocial behaviour. If brought up in an environment that nurtures crime, it increases the liklihood of antisocial behaviour. Someone who is an extrovert requires more stimulation so is morre likely to engage in criminal behaviour. Someone who is neurotic reacts more strongly to emotional situations.

He also proposed a biological theory. Eysenck linked neuroticism to the sympathetic nervous system which is responsible for the fight or flight response. A person who has a high N score reacts strongly to stressful situations compared to more stable people.

The ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) part of the CNS, balances excitation and inhibits processes to maintain optimum levels of arousal. In extroverts the ARAS is biased towards inhibition and so reduces the intensity of sensory stimulation.

Question 21

Evaluate Eysenck’s personality theory in terms of supporting research.

Answer 21

Eysenck (1977) found that criminals scored higher on E, N and P on the EPQ than non-criminals. The sample consisted of White European Criminals, convicted of property crime. This suggests that a person who is an extrovert, neurotic and psychotic is more likely to be a criminal showing the link between personality and crime.

Rushton et al (1981) looked at delinquent behaviour and found a relationship between delinquency and E, P. Therefore a link can be established between their personality and liklihood of becoming a criminal.

Question 22

Evaluate Eysenck’s personality theory in terms of criticisms of the supporting research.

Answer 22

There are problems with the reserach as the research method is a self report questionnaire. This has the potential to lead to social desireability bias meaning low levels of validity.

Question 23

Evaluate Eysenck’s personality theory in terms of opposing research.

Answer 23

Rushton (1981) did a study and did not find support for a relationship between delinquency and neuroticism which suggests that there are key differences between the three personality dimensions.

Question 24

Evaluate Eysenck’s personality theory in terms of a different theory.

Answer 24

Brain structure is a different theory for criminality.

Question 25

Evaluate Eysenck’s personality theory in terms of applications.

Answer 25

You can detect certain behaviours early on and try to help them to change their behaviour states. If teachers were aware of these personality dimensions they could help children to change their personality to avoid criminality.

Question 26

Describe labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime.

Answer 26

Labelling involves the majority considering the minority as inferior and using inferior terms when talking about them, the labels don’t have to be true. There is often a negative connotation to being labelled but it could be positive, e.g bright.

Retrospective labelling: interpreting someone’s past in light of some present deviance

Projective labelling: using a deviant identity to predict future actions.

There are five stages of self fulfilling prophecy. First of all, we treat others differently and then as a result, an individuals self concept is determined. The third stage is where the label gets internalised by the individual and so their own actions are affected. Finally the individual may immerse themselves in the criminal subculture which in turn would affect the way we treat them.

Gender. Boys and girls experience different socialisation when growing up. Girls are encouraged to be more controlled, patient and calm whilst boys are encouraged to be strong, aggressive and competitive. Carlen (1990) found evidence that males and females may be labelled differently. They interviewed 39 convicted female offenders and found evidence that women turn to crime when it makes sense to do so rather than going against social norms.

Question 27

Evaluate labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime in terms of supporting research.

Answer 27

Support is from Jahoda (2004). He looked at Ashanti tribes in Africa where they believed that the day you are born on is reflected in temperment. Boys born on a Monday were suppoed to be placid whilst boys born on a Wednesday were supposed to be violent and aggressive. Jahoda looked at court records over a five year period. 22% of violent offenders by Wednesday boys. 6.9% of violent offences were done by Monday boys.

Further support from Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). They showed that teacher expectations influence student performance. Children completed an IQ test and then teachers overheard conversations about 20 random children saying they’re ‘about to spurt’. Teachers then spent extra time and effort with those 20 leading to improved IQ scores despite actually beiing no different to the others. Their IQ remained higher even after two years.

Question 28

Evaluate labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime in terms of criticisms of the supporting research.

Answer 28

Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) conducted their experiment in a school environment. This makes it considerably less useful as it doesnt show criminal behaviour. It can be further criticised for being very unethical as it meant that one group were given more attention and education than the other. This could have had a serious impact on the future of the students that weren’t selected.

Jahoda (2004) was good as it used objective court records to investgate violence. This means that the research is therefore credible which means that the theory is more trustworthy.

Question 29

Evaluate labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime in terms of opposing research.

Answer 29

Fuller (1984) found that black girls in a London comprehensive school were stereotyped and labelled as likely to fail. The students resented this and proved it wrong. Therefore self fulfilling phrophecy doesn’t always apply, it is dependent on the mentality of the individual.

Question 30

Evaluate labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime in terms of a different theory.

Answer 30

A different theory is the SLT which suggests that we learn our behaviours through our role models. This helps to explain why criminality can be seen to run in families.

Question 31

Evaluate labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime in terms of applications.

Answer 31

People who are in a position to be able to cause self fulfilling prophecy need to be aware of it in order to avoid it. This includes teachers, police, youth group leaders and many more.

Question 32

Evaluate labelling and self fulfilling prophecy as a social explanation for crime in terms of other points.

Answer 32

Difficult to study self fulfilling prophecy in relation to crime. It is too difficult with ethics. You can’t try to make a person a criminal by testing out self fulfilling prophecy. This makes it difficult to separate out all other factors.

Question 33

Describe Social Learning Theroy as an explanation for crime.

Answer 33

Social learning theory explains criminal behaviour as being the result of modelling such behaviour from observing it via the media including real life news reports and fictional TV dramas.

If an individual observes someone committing a crime, either directly or indirectly, they may then immitate the behaviour if they see the criminal as a role model. This could be a criminal parent or older sibling.

Firstly the individual must pay attention to the criminal behaviour. The observed behaviour must then be retained so that the criminal behaviour and consequence can be remembered. The next step is to reporduce the behaviour which can only happen if the crime is seen as manageable. If the individual observing the crime is motivated enough to reproduce the behaviour, they will in the hope of recieving the same reward as their role model, either fame, money or an object.

Question 34

Evaluate social learning theory in terms of supporting research.

Answer 34

There is support from Bandura. This study found that young children would immitate and reproduce behaviour seen by their role models regarding a bobo doll. For example, exact phrases were copied including ‘sock it to him in the nose’. This demonstrates that behaviour can be learnt through vicarious reinforcement.

Support from Huesmann & Eron (1986). They carried out a longitudinal study following people’s viewing habits over 22 years. They found that the more violence people watched on television, the more likely they were to have committed a criminal act by age 30. This demonstrates the role of media violence on real life violence.

Question 35

Evaluate social learning theory in terms of criticisms of the supporting research.

Answer 35

Huesmann and Eron used a correlational design. Therefore it can’t establish a cause and effect relationship. There may be other factors that have an effect.

Question 36

Evaluate social learning theory in terms of opposing research.

Answer 36

Opposing research comes from Charlton (2000). This study observed children on St Helena before and after the introduction of TV. No significant differences were found suggesting that SLT did not have an effect.

Question 37

Evaluate social learning theory in terms of applications.

Answer 37

The theory has useful application. It suggets that as criminality can be learnt through observation and imitation, it could easily be learnt through watching violence on tv. Therefore, it has led to the introduction of the watershed.