Criminological Psychology Flashcards
Brain injury as an explanation of crime
Evidence suggests a link between brain injury and offending (particularly if sustained during childhood)
Williams et al. (2010) ~ analysed data from 196 inmates from UK prison - 60% had a history of one or more brain injuries
Connection between brain injury and offending
Incidents resulting in brain injury referred to as acquired brain injuries (ABIs) - causes the developing brain to misfire
Brain is not fully mature until mid-20s, cognitive abilities like impulse control and forward planning are the last aspects of the brain to develop
ABI can potentially disrupt development, making the individual exhibit more reckless behaviour
Injured brains - may destabilise mood, concentration, decision making, making offending behaviour more likely
Amygdala and aggression
Structure located in temporal lobe in both hemispheres
Important feature of the limbic system which directs how we react to threatening situations
Abnormalities in size, structure and activity was found to correlate with increased aggression, making criminal behaviour more likely
Evidence supporting amygdala as cause of aggression - Raine
Raine et al. 1997
Found reduced metabolic activity in several brain areas of psychopathic murderers, including the left amygdala
Raine and colleagues (GAO et al. 2010)
Investigated fear response in 1,795 three-year-olds. Played distinct tones followed by a loud unpleasant sound - 2 decades later, children who went on to commit crime were more likely to not have shown a fear response to the first tone
Due to the abnormal functioning of the amygdala, illustrated by the lack of fear at 3-years-old
Evidence supporting amygdala as a cause of aggression - Pardini
Pardini et al (2014)
Conducted neuroimaging scans on a group of 26-year-old-men - divided on whether they have a normal-sized amygdala or a reduced amygdala volume
3 years later - reduced amygdala group were 3x more likely to be aggressive, violent and show psychopathic traits
XYY syndrome as an explanation of crime
1 in 1000 males are born with an additional Y chromosome - XYY syndrome
They may have physical and behavioural differences - generally taller than average, have lower intelligence, can be impulsive and experience behavioural difficulties
Evidence supporting XYY syndrome as an explanation of crime
Jacobs et al. (1965)
Conducted a chromosome survey of male patients at a state hospital in Lanarkshire, Scotland
Found that men with the XYY chromosomal pattern were over-represented in this prison population (9/315) compared to general population (1/315)
Support for brain injury explanation for crime - Fazel
Fazel et al. (2011)
Examined the association between traumatic brain injury and convictions for violent crime, including murder, sexual offences, robbery and assault
Of those who experienced an ABI, 8.8% had committed a violent crime compared to 3% in a matched control group of similar size
Suggests that physical trauma to the brain may be precursor to violent crime
Competing argument to support for brain injury
Relationship between brain injury and offending is not necessarily causal - other variables may have an influence
Those with ABIs are also more likely to experience mental illnesses, or be alcohol- or drug-abusers
These factors may create the predisposition to offend, rather than the brain injury itself
Weakness - complex relationship between the amygdala and crime
Other brain areas are implicated
Research suggests that the amygdala does not operate alone but is heavily influenced by the orbits frontal cortex (OFC) which is thought to regulate self-control and its reduced functioning is associated with increased aggression and violent outbursts
This suggests that the influence of the amygdala (and all brain areas) on aggression and crime is difficult to disentangle
XYY syndrome and offending are unrelated
XYY as an explanation of crime has a lack of evidence
Re and Birkhoff (2015) considered 50 years of evidence, concluded that there is no link between XYY and offending behaviour
Although there are more XYY males within prison populations, could also be said that XYY characteristics may be influenced by social factors
XYY is therefore not a credible explanation of crime
Application of biological explanations of crime
May lead to new ways to assess criminal culpability
Williams et al. Argued for increased awareness of brain injuries throughout the criminal justice system, including the screening of people when they first offend
Neural injury should be viewed in the same way as mental health is in court, should be taken into account as part of their sentencing
Extra version-introversion and crime
Extraverts crave excitment and stimulation, prone to engage in dangerous, risk-taking behaviour
Tend not to condition easily - do not learn from their mistakes
Extraverts may not be affected by the consequences of crime
Neuroticism-stability as an explanation for crime
Neurotic individuals are nervy and anxious , general instability means that they are difficult to predict
Eysenck’s typical criminal personality
Extravert-neurotic
Biological basis for Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality
Essentially biological in nature
Personality traits we develop are explained by the type of nervous system we inherit
Constant need for excitement that Extraverts crave is attributed to an under active nervous system which requires unusually high levels of arousal
Individuals who score high on neuroticism scales are volatile and react strongly to situations others would find less stressful, or even neutral
Eysenck’s third dimension to the criminal type
Psychoticism - seen in individuals who are self-centred, cold and lack empathy for other people
Standardised way to access criminal personality in individuals
Eysenck’s developed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
Places respondents along the E, N and P dimensions to determine personality type
The socialisation process - personality
In most people, this process in childhood will determine whether a person becomes law-abiding or not
But it remained that extravert-neurotics are still more likely to behave anti-socially as they are less receptive to operant conditioning and have difficulty learning things like laws
Strength for personality - empirical basis
Boduszek et al. (2013)
Investigated the prevalence of Eysenck’s personality traits among recividists
133 violent and 179 non-violent male prisoners studied
Found that the criminal thinking ‘style’ correlates with high levels of psychoticism, extroversion and neuroticism
Suggests that Eysenck’s theory has validity as the personality types he identified are associated with repeat offending
Competing argument for support for personality - empirical basis
Farmington et al. (1982)
Found very little evidence that Eysenck’s questionnaire (the EPQ) was an adequate measure for predicting offending in juveniles or adults.
Suggests that Eysenck’s original ideas about the nature of the criminal personality may lack validity
Weakness of personality - more than one criminal type
The idea that there is only one type of criminal personality
Other models of personality challenged Eysenck’s model - five-factor model (Digman 1990) accepts extra version and introversion, but also adds on openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness
Low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to offending
Others also suggest impulsivity is also a good predictor
Suggests that criminal personality may be more complicated than what Eysenck suggested
Biological support for personality
Raine et al. (1990)
Took physiological measures from participants aged 15 years and related these to later criminal status
Those with a criminal record 24 years later recorded more signs of under—arousal in nervous system at 15 like lower resting heart rate
Does suggest a link between biological factors and offending, although the researchers pointed out that there are also likely some social factors involved in predicting criminal behaviour
Application of personality to prevent early crime
Suggests that criminal tendencies such as lack of response to conditioning and inability to learn from mistakes can be identified in early childhood
If intervention takes place early, then it may be possible to modify socialisation experiences of high-risk individuals to prevent them from becoming offenders
Labelling as an explanation of crime
People can be labelled as ‘criminal’ or ‘deviant’ - this would define them and how society behaves towards them
Becker (1963) - argues that powerful groups in society create deviance by making up rules and plying them to people they see as ‘outsiders’
Criminal behaviour is only considered so when labelled by others - crime is a social construct
Self-fulfilling prophecy as an explanation of crime
The ‘deviant’ as labelled by society comes to see themselves in this way because of the stereotyped response of others towards their label, making deviant behaviour more likely
Stigmatised and isolated from society, the offender would seek support from deviant groups and subcultures, draws the individual further into crime, confirming their criminal identity and deviant status
Social learning theory as an explanation of crime
Observational learning: criminal behaviour learned indirectly through observing and imitating actions, the observer must have the skill and capacity to perform such behaviour, also must be motivated to produce behaviour
Vicarious reinforcement: to be imitated, it must be seen to be rewarded (e.g. money, increased status, etc.)
Role models: young offenders may be susceptible to the influence of role models, e.g. they may look up to a gang leader, encouraging them to continue this behaviour
evidence supporting the self-fulfilling prophecy
Jahoda (1964)
Studied boys in Ghana where they are named after the day they are born
Found that ‘Kwadku’ those born on a Wednesday are labelled as more aggressive and volatile, found that ‘Kwadku’ are more likely to be involved in violent crimes than ‘Kwadwo’ who are more even-tempered
Competing argument for self-fulfilling prophecy
Zebrowitz et al. (1998)
Found that boys with a ‘baby face’ were more likely than their mature-faced peers to be delinquent and involved in crime
May be overcompensating for the perception that they may be ‘weak’ or ‘childlike’ rather than fulfilling their label
Labelling theory weakness - simple explanation
Only a partial explanation of offending
Implies that without labelling, crime would not exist - also seems to suggest that those who committed an offence but aren’t label aren’t criminals
Suggests that labelling theory is too simple to be a single explanation of crime
Labelling theory weakness - lack of evidence
Though many studies support labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy, mostly confined to educational settings
These may not be generalisable to the context of crime
There are also many factors that may affect the relationship between labelling and crime
Application of social explanations of crime
Knowledge of labelling may help reduce the negative effects of labelling
Braithwaite (1989)
Claimed that societies have lower crime rates and reoffending rates if they community shame about crime effectively
If the offender receives support and is helped back into society with guidance from the family and prison staff, they are less likely to continue offending
Suggests how offenders are labelled may affect how well they retake their place in society
Definition of eye-witness testimony
An account of an event or crime that was seen by an observer ‘first hand’
Although these are useful to the police, they may also be unreliable, and affected by factors such as anxiety and post-event information
Post-event information
Any information after the event that may affect or distort an eye-witness’ memory of what happened
As human memory is reconstructive, schemas may be influenced on post-event information
Leading questions
A form of post-event information and may trigger schemas
The way questions are phrased and when the witness is asked to recall the event
E.g. Loftus and Palmer, changed the critical word (‘bumped’, ‘touched’, ‘smashed’) with different verbs
Found that participants would over- or under- estimate depending on the word they got
This may lead to the witness incorrectly guessing the information
Influence of anxiety on EWT
Dramatic events are likely to be stressful for a witness, may affect their ability to recall events
Deffenbacher (1983) conducted a review of 21 studies and concluded that moderate levels of anxiety are actually helpful to memory
However, if an eye-witness’ anxiety continues to rise, and becomes too extreme, this may lead to a decline in recall
Weapon focus
Violent crimes where the perpetrator is carrying a weapon, the brain may only focus on that as a source of stress
Means that recall may leave out important details
Explained by tunnel theory - noticing a weapon produces a form of selective attention which excludes or ignores any other competing bits of information
Strength for leading questions
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
When participants were shown video clips of car accidents, their estimate of how fast the cars were travelling was related to the form of question they were asked
‘Smashed’ as critical word gave higher estimates, while alternatives like ‘contacted’ gave lower estimates
Shows that post-event information may lead to inaccurate recall of memory
Weakness of weapon focus, leading questions and anxiety
Yuille and Cutshall (1986)
Interviewed witnesses to a real-life shooting in Canada
13 witnesses interviewed by police after event, then re-interviewed by researchers 5 months later
Produced accurate accounts of event despite deliberate misleading questions
Self-reported anxiety was also high
Suggests leading questions, weapon focus may be less pronounced in real life events
Strength of weapon focus
Johnson and Scott (1976)
Group A: overheard conversation in another room, man then walked out carrying a pen
Group B: overheard argument in another room, man then walks out with a bloody knife
Found 49% of group A correctly identified man, while 33% of group B identified man
Suggests that group B mainly focused on the weapon
Competing argument to weapon focus strength
Pickel (1998)
Similar effect when a man pulled out a raw chicken or Pillsbury Dough Boy to pay a Cheshire rather than presenting his wallet
‘Weapon focus’ may be more related to surprise than anxiety
Application of factors influencing EWT to court cases
Caused changes in the legal system
Introduction of social framework evidence - psychological evidence may be introduced to demonstrate the unreliability of testimonies
Legal cases also recognises the fallibility of human memory to reduce miscarriages of justice
