Forensic Psychology Flashcards
Offender profiling: Top down approach AO1
Offender profiling narrows list of suspects
US Top down - match offender to pre existing templates
Organised and disorganised types based on certain ways of working
Organised - targets victim, controlled, higher iq
Disorganised - impulsive, low planning, lower iq
FBI profile construction:
1. data assimilation of evidence
2. crime scene classification whether organised/disorganise
3. crime reconstruction generating hypothesis of events
4. profile generation generating hypothesis of offender
Offender profiling: Top down approach AO3
-top down profiling only applies to certain crimes - best suited to scenes that reveal imporant details of suspect, common offences like burglary dont tend to reveal much about offender - limited approach to identify offender
-outdated models of personality - typology classification system based on assumption that offenders’ behaviour consistent across situations but alison et al argues its based on outdated personality models that see behaviour driven by dispositional traits rather than constantly changing cos of external factors - poor validity
-low support for disorganised - canter et al used smallest space analysis of 100 murders in us and each case examined against 39 characteristics typical of organised and disorganised - findings show evidence of distinct organised type but not disorganised undermining classification - but its still used as a model for professional profilers
Offender profiling: Bottom up approach AO1
Investigative psychology -
british bottom up approach - offender profile emerges based on data
Statistical analysis of behaviour coexisting across crime scene to create database acting as a baseline for comparison
Analysis on psychological concepts - interpersonal coherence way an offender behaves at scene reflects everyday behaviour
Geographical profiling
Inferences about offender based on crime scene location - crime mapping to create hypotheses and offenders way of working
Marauder - operates close to home
Commuter - operates distance away from usual residence
Circle theory - canter and larkin suggest pattern of locations form circle around offenders residence, spatial decision making provides insight into nature of offence
Offender profiling: Bottom up approach AO3
+research support for investigative psychology - Canter et al did smallest space analysis of sexual assault cases and found several characteristics commonly identified leads to understanding how offedners behaviour changes or seeing whether 2 or more crimes committed by same person - supports investigative psychology as it shows statistical analysis techniques being useful
+scientific basis - canter argues bottom up is more objective and scientific than top down which is more psychological theory - geographical biographical psychological data to quickly produce data - investigative psych also includes suspect interviewing and examination of court presented material supporting its use in judicial process
+wider application - wider range of offences than top down, techniques like smallest space analysis and spatial consistency used in range of crimes meaning it is more valuable approach as an investigative technique
-mixed results for profiling - significant failures and mixed effectiveness despite successes e.g. copson surveyed police forces and profiling useful in 83% cases but led to accuracte identification of offender in just 3% cases - questions effectivness
Biological explanations: Atavistic form AO1
Lombroso theory of atavistic form tho now discredited laid foundation for modern offender profiling
Offenders lack evolutionary development - impossible to adjust to civilised society and so turn to crime - criminal not at fault as it was innate tendancy
Atavistic features biologically determined - diff head and face features
Skull cranial features and emotinal features such as facial assymmetry, dark skin, insensitivity to pain
Diff types of criminals have diff physical characteristics e.g. murderers with curly hair bloodshot eyes
Lombroso’s research found 40% criminal acts accounted for by atavistic characteristics
Biological explanations: Atavistic form AO3
+large contribution to criminology - lombroso hailed as father of modern criminology in shifting emphasis in research away from moralistic discourse to scientific (evolution) - certain types of ppl committing certain crimes so lombroso heralded beginning of profiling - contribution to science of criminology
-racial undertones - many features of atavistic form such as curly hair and dark skin occur in ppl of african descent and his description of primitive savage lends support to eugenic philiosophies e.g. certain groups not allowed to breed - these undertones uncomfortable and controversial
-lombroso didnt compare his criminal sample with non criminal control group and if he did the differencecs in atavistic form may have disappeared and didnt account for other variables ie many he studied had history of psychologixcal disorders - cnfounding variahles - serious flaws
-causation - even if criminals who have atavistic elements doesnt mean this is the cause - facial cranial differences may be due to other factors like poor diet rather than due to delayed evolutionary devlopment but later acknowledged criminals could be made as well as born!!!!
Biological explanations: Genetic and neural explanations AO1
Genetic explanations
Twin studies - lange studied 13 mz and 17 dz twins and ten of mz had co twin also in prison whilst dz only had 2, christiansen studied mz and dz twins and found concordance of 33% for mz and 12% for dz showing offending has genetic component
Candidate genes - MAOA gene controls serotonin and dopamine linked to aggression, CDH13 linked to substance abuse and adhd
Diathesis stress model - if genes have influence, partly moderated by environment, genetic predisposition diathesis and trigger or stressor
Neural explanations -
antisocial personality disorder - associated with lack of empathy suffered by criminals
Less activity in prefrontal cortex of those with apd = less emotional regulation
Keysers found only when criminals asked to empathise did they show empathy controlled by mirror neurons - apd individuals experience empathy but might not always be turned on
Biological explanations: Genetic and neural explanations AO3
-methodological problems with twin studies - langes reseach poor control e.g. judgements of whether twin pairs were mz or dz based on appearance not dna testing and many reared in same env so concordance rates due to shared upbring - confounding variable - lack validity
-methodological problems with adoption studies - many children experience late adoption so spend more time with biological parents and many maintain contact with them so difficult to assess role of nurture and impact of nature the biological parents might have had
-biologically reductionist - criminality = complex so genetic neural explanations ignore high level explanations ie crime runs in families but so does poverty - hard to separate genetic neural explanations from other factors - in isolation too simplistic
-biologically determinist - criminal gene is moral dilemma - legal system bases criminals on personal and moral responsibility of crimes only in exteme cases can e.g. mental illnesses can someone claim they were not acting entirely of own free will - ethics of what society does with ppl with crimnal genes who dont have a choice
Psychological explanations: Eysenck’s Theory AO1
Criminal personality theory - 3 personality dimensions
Introversion - extraversion - e
Neuroticism - stability - n
Psychoticism - socialisation - p
Innate, biological basis for personality types based on nervous system - extraverts have underactive nervous system so take risks, neurotic have high level of reactivity in sympathetic nervous system so jumpy nervous unpredictable behaviour, psychotic - high levels of testosterone - aggressive
Criminal personality = neurotic extravert and high psychoticism
Criminal behaviour concerned with immediate gratification - cant wait for things
High E and N scorers lack ability to learn and be conditioned due to difficult nervous systems
Personality measured using eysencks personality inventory epi.
Psychological explanations: Eysenck’s Theory AO3
+fits other biological approaches - personality may have genetic basis, apd due to brain structure may be why eysenck linked it to nervous system - suffers from same limitations of genetic and neural explanations - biologically determinist and reductionist
-cultural bias - bartol et al studied african american offenders in a prison and divided them into groups based on criminal history - all 6 were less extravert than non criminal control group due to diff cultural group to eysencks questioning generalisability
-mismeasurement of personality - eysenck’s theory assumes u can measure personality however we cant reduce it to a score from epi - some say personality isnt stable and we adopt diff personalities in diff contexts - undermines stable measureable criminal PERSONALITY!!!
Psychological explanations: Cognitive explanations AO1
Levels of moral reasoning - kohlberg proposed ppls decisions of right and wrong identified in his stage theory or moral development - higher the stage the more sophisticated the reasoning
Criminals at preconventional level where there is need to avoid punishment and gain rewards, and immature child like reasoning
Offenders more egocentric and show less sympathy
Cognitive distortions -
faulty and biased thinking helps criminals justify behaviour
Hostile attribution bias - justye found violent offenders more likely than non offenders to perceive ambiguous cues as angry and hostile triggering violent response
Minimalisation - reduces persons sense of guilt ie burglars saying theyre supporting family downplaying significance of crime
Psychological explanations: Cognitive explanations AO3
+applications of cognitive distortions research - understanding these distortions helps treat criminals with cbt to face up to behaviour with less distorted thougts - reducing denial and minimalisation in therapy correlates with less reoffending - acceptance is key in anger management and so supports rehabilitiation techniques
-individual differences in levels of moral reasoning - thornton et al found those commiting crime for financial gain more likely to show preconventional than impulsive crimes - preconventinal associated with offenders believing they can evade punishment - emphasis on moral reasoning may lack validity
-cognitive explanations are descriptive BUT not explanatory: while it is good at describing their mind it doesnt rlly explain it - after the fact theories useful when predicting offending but little insight into why crime was commited in first place - dont rlly provide us with underlying cause!!!!
Psychological explanations: Differential association AO1
Sutherland (1924) developed set of scientific principles to explain offending - clear cause and effect between background of criminals
Crime learnt through interactions w significant others - differential association how much person associates with individuals
Crime occurs if exposure to pro-crime values outweights anti-crime values when person socialised into group
Mathematical prediction on likelihood of committing crime based on knowledge frequency intensity and duration of individuals exposure to deviant and non deviant values
Criminal attudies and techniques are learnt
Reoffending can be due to socialisation in prison - exposure to pro crime values and techniques they can use
Psychological explanations: Differential association AO3
+sutherlands contribution to criminology - moved away from emphasis of early biological accounts and those that pointed to individual weakness/morality - differential association draws attention to dysfunctional social circumstances more to blame than dysfuntional ppl - more desirable as its more realistic solution instead of eugenics
-hard to test - dk how we can measure numbers of pro or anti criminal values someone exposed to so when do we know offending is triggered - doesnt provide solution to these issues undermining its scientific creditibility even with its mathematical framework
-alternative explanations - family attitudes crucial supported by studies of criminality running in families but dk if its genetic or environmental infuence - hard to draw conclusion
-overly determinist - not everyone exposed to criminal influences commit crime so differential association theory may stereotype ppl - exposure to procriminal values is enough to offend but ignores that ppl can still choose not to - environmentally determinist
Psychological explanations: Psychodynamic explanations AO1
Freud’s psychoanalytic theory - inadequate superego (morality principle) leads to immoral behaviour, blackburn argued then id must be given free rein (pleasure principle) so criminal behaviour inevitable
Weak superego - absence of same sex parent so cant internalise fully formed superego as u cant identify so criminal behaviour more likely
Deviant superego - child internalises same-sex parents moral attitudes to form superego and if these are deviant then offending later in life likely to occur
Overharsh superego - superego is unforgiving and strict so criminal acts in order to satisfy superegos need for punishment
Loss of attachment leads to affectionless psychopathy - bowlby - warm relationship w mother crucial to future relationships but maternal deprivation leads to affectionless psychopathy bowlbys 44 thieves study, 14 showed affectionless psychopathy 12 out of 14 had experienced maternal deprivation, 2 hadnt, so concluded effects of maternal deprivation causes affectionless psychopathy!!!
