Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > For. 1 Turning to Crime > Flashcards

For. 1 Turning to Crime Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Farrington - BACKGROUND?

Disrupted families

A

Children require close and continuous relationship with mother
If disrupted the child may have difficulties forming meaningful relationships - long term damage to superego
Can become affectionless psychopaths
Maternal deprivation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Farrington - AIM?

Disrupted families

A

Investigate influence of family life events on likelihood of criminal behaviour
Identify risk and protective factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Farrington - SAMPLE?

Disrupted families

A 
411 boys (age 8-9)
6 East London state schools
7% left by end (attrition)
Mostly white working class
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Farrington - METHOD?

Disrupted families

A

Longitudinal study (40 years)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Farrington - RESULTS?

Disrupted families

A

Offences peak at 17
7% were chronic offenders (50% of crime)
Often had convicted parents, delinquent sibling, young mother, disrupted family, large family
48% with convicted father had conviction (vs 19% with normal dad) - similar story for mothers
Worst offenders - large, multi-problem families

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Farrington - PROCEDURE?

Disrupted families

A

Interviewing:
-children (criminal activity, aggressive behaviour)
-parents (family size, income)
-teachers (aggressive behaviour, achievements, truancy)
(triangulation)
Data from criminal records office gains information on convictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Farrington - CONCLUSIONS?

Disrupted families

A

Offending ‘tends’ to be concentrated in families - intergenerational transmission (occurrence of similar behaviour through successive generations of the same family)
Offenders tend to be deviant in many aspects of their lives - early prevention could reduce problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sutherland - Through what is criminal behaviour learned?

Learning from others

A

Social interactions and exposure to criminal norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Sutherland - differential association?

Learning from others

A

Ratio of favourable to non-favourable definitions (attitudes) to crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sutherland - largest influence?

Learning from others

A

Intimate personal groups (social learning)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Sutherland - influence ignored?

Learning from others

A

Media (considered impersonal)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sutherland - What else is learned as a result of learning criminal behaviour?
(Learning from others)

A

Techniques for committing the crime (eg how to pick a lock) and the attitudes/excuses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sutherland - MAIN FACTORS?

Learning from others

A

Who they associate with
How long for
How frequently
How personally meaningful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Wikstrom - BACKGROUND?

Poverty

A

Disadvantaged 5% - 100x more likely to have multiple problems (eg mood disorders and cannabis use) than advantaged 50%
Crime highest in areas where levels of inequality were highest
Social Capitol (how well people interact with community)
Higher inequality = lower social capital - higher crime rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Wikstrom - AIM?

Poverty

A

Test what factors - most significant predictors of criminal behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wikstrom - SAMPLE?

Poverty

A

2000 children (14-15)
13 state schools in Peterborough
83% responded (questionnaire)
20% interviewed more in depth about week’s activities (random sample)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Wikstrom - RESULTS?

Poverty

A

Most youths have strong pro-social values (know crime is wrong)
38% committed crime (once +)
7% committed serious crime
High frequency offenders commit range of crimes
Offenders more likely to drink excessively and use drugs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Wikstrom - CONCLUSIONS?

Poverty

A

Individual characteristics (poor self control etc) - most important
Risk factors (weak family and morality)
Social disadvantage - not a strong predictor but those of low social class more at risk
3 groups:
1. Propensity induced (personality to offend with many risk factors)
2. Lifestyle dependent (with peers in public settings)
3. Situationally limited (occasionally offend if their lifestyle exposes them to risky situation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Wikstrom - 3 GROUPS?

Poverty

A
  1. Propensity induced (personality to offend with many risk factors)
  2. Lifestyle dependent (with peers in public settings)
  3. Situationally limited (occasionally offend if their lifestyle exposes them to risky situation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - BACKGROUND?

Criminal thinking

A

Cognition: internal mental processes influence our actions/beliefs/feelings (assumes we can explain why people turn to crime by looking at how they think)
Criminals think differently to non-criminals
Consistent thinking errors = criminal behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - AIM?

Criminal thinking

A

Understand make up of a criminal’s personality

Establish techniques - alter personality disorders (resulting in crime) = prevent criminal behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - SAMPLE?

Criminal thinking

A

255 male offenders (USA)
Half in psychiatric hospital - judged not guilty (insanity) or incompetent to stand trial
NO control group
Most dropped out - 30 completed (9 changed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - METHOD?

Criminal thinking

A

Un-standardised interviews (several years)

Published in authors’ book

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - PROCEDURE?

Criminal thinking

A

Freudian based therapy - find cause of criminality (from past)
Criminal discovered and faced cause = improved their behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - RESULTS?

Criminal thinking

A

Consistently angry and irritable
Reject authority
Set themselves apart from others
Lack empathy
Poor decision making
52 thinking errors:
1. Criminal thinking patterns: need for power
2. Automatic thinking errors: lack of empathy and failure to accept obligations
3. Crime related thinking errors: optimistic fantasising about criminal acts with no regard for deterrent factors

26
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - CONCLUSIONS?

Criminal thinking

A

Thinking errors not unique to criminals (more pronounced)
Have distinct unique thinking errors
Criminals in control of lives - poor choices = criminality
Parental influence shape thinking patterns
Criminals plan and fantasise their actions (aren’t necessarily impulsive)
Thinking patterns need to be confronted in treatment
No control group - can’t be sure non-criminals show different thinking patterns

27
Q

Kohlberg - BACKGROUND?

Moral development

A

Morals: beliefs and values shared by society - judge right from wrong
Assumed criminal behaviour is the result of poor morals or moral development
3 levels of moral development: pre-, conventional and post-conventional morality
Moral development influenced by:
-cognitive development
-ability to understand others’ perspectives
-social experiences

28
Q

Kohlberg - AIM?

Moral development

A

To find evidence of progression through stages of moral development

29
Q

Kohlberg - SAMPLE?

Moral development

A

58 boys
Chicago
Age: 7-16

30
Q

Kohlberg - METHOD?

Moral development

A

Longitudinal interviews
Presenting hypothetical moral dilemmas - eg ‘Heinz dilemma’ (if a man whose wife is suffering from cancer should steal the medicine)

31
Q

Kohlberg - PROCEDURE?

Moral development

A

2 hour interview of 10 moral dilemmas (eg Heinz dilemma)
Interested in how they justified their decision (not the decision itself)
Some had follow up interviews every 3 years
Studied UK, Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, USA, Yucatan

32
Q

Kohlberg - RESULTS?

Moral development

A

Younger boys: pre-morality (level 1) - punishment
Older boys: conventional morality (level 2) - duty
Supports morality development in stages
Constant in cross cultural studies (progression slower in non-industrialised societies)
Little support for post-conventional morality (level 3) - conscience

33
Q

Kohlberg - CONCLUSIONS?

Moral development

A

Support across cultures of stage theory of morals

Hypothetical dilemmas lack validity

34
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - BACKGROUND?

Social cognition

A

Criminals often have external locus of control (blame circumstances) - don’t take responsibility
Attribution theory: working out cause of our behaviour (internal or external)
Hostile attributional bias: ambiguous event (stepping on foot) interpreted as deliberate (counter aggression justifiable)
Self serving attributional bias: attributed success to internal factors (themselves) and failure to external factors (circumstances) - blame victim (reduced guilt)

35
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - AIM?

Social cognition

A

Examine relationship between type of offence and attributions offenders made about their criminal acts

36
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - SAMPLE?

Social cognition

A

80 criminals in Northern Ireland
3 groups:
Violent, sexual, property

37
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - METHOD?

Social cognition

A

Quasi

38
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - PROCEDURE?

Social cognition

A

42 item Blame Attribution Inventory - measures offender’s attribution of blame
3 dimensions:
-internal / external attributions (internal = within yourself, external = social or environment factors)
-mental element (mental state)
-guilt

39
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - CONCLUSION?

Social cognition

A

Different kinds of offenders give different kinds of attributions

40
Q

Raine - BACKGROUND?

Brain dysfunction

A 
Brain dysfunction causes:
-brain tumours
-brain damage - accidents (crash) or chemical poisoning (drugs)
-hormone imbalances 
-malnutrition 
Phineas Gage:
-quiet railway worker 
-damage (bolt through head) to pre-frontal lobe (moderates violent behaviour)
-became violent (pre-frontal cortex )
Charles Whitman:
-well behaved
-tumour in brain (emotion) = killed 14 in school shooting
41
Q

Raine - AIM?

Brain dysfunction

A

To see if there are brain abnormalities in murderers (not guilty by reason of insanity)

42
Q

Raine - SAMPLE?

Brain dysfunction

A

41 charged with murder (plead NGRI)
39 men and 2 women
Matched by age and sex to a control group

43
Q

Raine - METHOD?

Brain dysfunction

A

Quasi lab

Matched pairs

44
Q

Raine - PROCEDURE?

Brain dysfunction

A

All participants in custody and medication free for 2 weeks
Injected with glucose tracer
Monitored (with PET scan) for 30 minutes doing performance task (measured target recognition accuracy)
Active areas light up on PET scan (high blood flow) - correlate with brain activity
Predicted that murderers (NRGI) would have dysfunction in specific regions of the brain linked to violence (pre-frontal cortex) - control would not

45
Q

Raine - RESULTS?

Brain dysfunction

A

Reduced glucose metabolism (pre-frontal cortex and corpus callosum) = reduced activity (compared to controls) - involved in regulation of aggressive behaviour
Abnormal asymmetries of activity - lower activity in left side of brain than right side (in amygdola, thalamus, hippocampus)

46
Q

Raine - INTERPRETATION?

Brain dysfunction

A 
Impulsive
Loss of self control
Inability to modify behaviour 
Aggressive behaviour 
= More likely that they would commit a crime - constraints people have don't exist
47
Q

Raine - CONCLUSIONS?

Brain dysfunction

A

Murderers pleading NGRI have different brain activity patterns than non-murderers - may predispose them towards violence
Neural processes involved in violent behaviour are complex - several processes involved (no single biological mechanism)

48
Q

Brunner - BACKGROUND?

Genes

A

Serotonin (neurotransmitter) regulates impulsive behaviour (responding with hostility to frustration)
Less serotonin = less inhibition of amygdala (becomes more active) = increased aggression

49
Q

Brunner - AIM?

Genes

A

Explain violent behaviour of large family in the Netherlands

50
Q

Brunner - SAMPLE?

Genes

A

5 males from family

Affected by syndrome of borderline mental retardation and abnormal violent behaviour

51
Q

Brunner - METHOD?

Genes

A

Case study

52
Q

Brunner - PROCEDURE?

Genes

A

Urine sample analysis (over 24 hours)

IQ tests

53
Q

Brunner - RESULTS?

Genes

A

Urine tests: lacked the enzyme MAOA
IQ test: mental retardation (IQ 85)
1 completed primary education
Unaffected males all attended school - now employed
DNA analysis - mutation in X chromosome (gene responsible for production of MAOA)
MAOA responsible for serotonin production (inhibits amygdala - stops aggression)

54
Q

Brunner - CONCLUSIONS?

Genes

A

Gene mutation responsible for aggressive behaviour - lead to criminal behaviour

55
Q

Brunner - EVALUATION?

Genes

A

No cause and effect (quasi) - genes and crime
Not all males in family were affected by violent behaviour (even though they had mental retardation part of syndrome)
Rare condition - not possible to generalise (upbringing may have contributed)

56
Q

Wilson and Daly - BACKGROUND?

Gender

A

More males involved in crime (80% offenders male)
Peak at 17 year old (male age crime curve)
Evolutionary explanations:
-male hunted and protected (aggression useful for survival) - females cared for young
-status competition (showing off) attractive to females (male prepared to take risks) - don’t want to ‘lose face’ in front of potential female partners

57
Q

Wilson and Daly - AIM?

Gender

A

Examine gender and age patterns in violent crimes

58
Q

Wilson and Daly - METHOD?

Gender

A

Analysis of police crime records (snapshot)

59
Q

Wilson and Daly - PROCEDURE?

Gender

A

Reviewed homicide crimes in Detroit (1972)
Age and sex of offender and victim analysed
Data categorised into tables

60
Q

Wilson and Daly - RESULTS?

Gender

A

Total homicides - 422 vs 90
Social conflict homicide - 256 vs 83 (m vs f)
Criminals and victims mainly young, unmarried males
Most homicides were social conflict (retaliation, jealousy)
Young males likely to make trivial altercation worse when there is potential for ‘loss of face’
Risk taking = male focused

61
Q

Gudjohnsson and Bownes - RESULTS

Social cognition

A

External attributions:
Violent offenders = external attributions
Sexual offenders = internal attributions

Mental element:
Violent and sexual = most likely to attribute crime to their mental element
Property = least likely

Guilt:
Sexual = most remorse
Property = least remorse

62
Q

Wilson and Daly - CONCLUSIONS?

Gender

A

Support status competition
Seems to support evolutionary explanation for higher levels of crime in males than females
Supports biblical explanation:
-males (leaders of family) and females (carers for the family)
-equal in dignity and value - different roles

Psychology (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions