Forensic Psychology

Question 1

Offender profiling

• B|T
• What is offender profiling?
• What is the main aim of offender profiling?
• What methods are used in offender profiling?
• What is offender profiling used for?
• What are the two approaches to profiling?

Answer 1

• This is an investigative tool used by police when solving crimes
• Main aim of OP is to narrow likely suspects, professional profilers often called to work with police especially in high profile murder cases
• Methods include careful scrutiny of crime scene, analysis of other evidence including witness reports
• Used to generate hypotheses about probable characteristics (charac) of offender
• This includes potential age, background, occupation etc
• Two approaches to profiling, top-down approach and bottom-up approach

Question 2

The top-down approach

• Where did this approach originate from?
• What did the FBI conclude?
• What does each category contain?
• How is this used by offender profilers?

Answer 2

• Originated from US, as a result of work done by FBI in 1970s
• FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit drew upon data collected from in-depth interviews with 36 sexually-motivated murderers (includes Ted Bundy and Charles Mason)
• Concluded data could be categorised, organised or disorganised crimes/murders
• Each category has certain charac, if data from crime scene matches with some charac of a category, we can predict other charac that may be likely
• This therefore can be used to find the offender
• Offender profiler’s using this method would collect data about murder (charac of murderer, crime scene etc), then decide category the data best fits in

Question 3

Types of offender

• O|D
• What are the two types of offender?
• How are the two different?
• What does this generally correlate to?

Answer 3

• Two types off offender, organised and disorganised
• Distinction based on idea that serious offenders have certain signature (“ways of working”, referred to as modus operandi)
• These generally correlate with set of social and psych charac that relate to individual

Question 4

Organised offenders

• Describe the characteristics and behaviours of this type of offender

Answer 4

• Show evidence of having planned crime in advance, victim deliberately targeted, suggests individual has “type” of victim they seek out
• Maintain high degree of control during crime, operate with almost surgical precision, little evidence/clues left at crime scene
• Above-average intelligence, in a skilled, professional occupation, socially and sexually competent (skilled), usually married may even have children
• Remember they tend to be like this, not always like this

Question 5

Disorganised offenders

• Describe the characteristics and behaviours of this type of offender

Answer 5

• Show little evidence of planning, suggests offences may be spontaneous (spur-of-the-moment acts)
• Crime scene tends to reflect impulsive nature of the attack, body usually still at the scene
• Appears to have been very little control from offender, usually have lower-than-average intelligence, usually in unskilled work or unemployed
• Often have history of sexual dysfunction, failed relationships, tend to live alone, relatively close to where offence took place

Question 6

Constructing an FBI profile

• D|C|C|P
• What are the four main stages in the construction of an FBI profile?
• Describe each of these stages

Answer 6

• Four main stages, data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction and profile generation
• Data assimilation, profiler reviews evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports, witness reports etc)
• Crime scene classification, organised or disorganised
• Crime reconstruction, hypotheses of sequence of events, behv of victim etc
• Profile generation, hypotheses related to likely offender (demographic background, physical charac, behv etc)

Question 7

Evaluation of top-down approach

• C|CP|M|FE|NAC

Answer 7

• Research support (Canter et al 2004)
• Counterpoint (Godwin 2002)
• Wider application (Meketa 2017)
• Flawed evidence (Canter et al)
• Not applicable to all crime (Mischel 1968)

Question 8

Research support (Canter et al 2004)

Answer 8

• Strength, support for distinct organised categories of offenders
• Canter et al (2004) conducted analysis of 100 US murders committed by different serial killers
• Smallest space analysis used; stats technique identifies correlations across different samples of behaviour
• Used in this case to assess co-occurrence off 39 aspects of serial killings
• Included following, whether torture or restraints used, whether there was an attempt to conceal the body, the murder weapon used, and the cause of death
• Analysis revealed there seems to be a subset of features of many serial killings that matched FBI’s typology for organised offenders
• Suggests key component of FBI typology approach has some validity

Question 9

Counterpoint (Godwin 2002)

Answer 9

• Many studies suggest organised and disorganised types are not mutually exclusive (can be mix of both)
• Variety of combos that occur at any murder scene
• Godwin (2002) argues in reality it’s difficult to classify killers as one type or the other
• Killer can have multiple contrasting charac (high intelligence and sexual competence, spontaneous murder leaving victim’s body at crime scene)
• Suggests organised-disorganised typology is more likely to be a continuum rather than one or the other

Question 10

Wider application (Meketa 2017)

Answer 10

• Strength, approach can be adapted to other kinds of crime such as burglary
• Critics claimed technique only useful for limited number of crimes such as sexual-motivated murder
• Meketa (2017) reported 85% rise in solve cases in three US states when top-down profiling was applied to burglary
• Method used retained organised-disorganised, also introduced other categories
• Interpersonal (offender knows victim, steals something significant) and opportunistic (generally inexperienced young offender)
• Suggest top-down profiling has wider application than originally assumed

Question 11

Flawed evidence (Canter et al)

Answer 11

• Limitation, evidence it’s based on
• FBI profiling developed using interviews from 36 murderers
• Canter et al argued sample poor, not random, not large sample, did not include different kinds of offenders
• No standard set of questions, interviews different, not really comparable
• Suggests top-down profiling does not have a good, scientific basis

Question 12

Not applicable to all crime (Mischel 1968)

Answer 12

• Top-down approach based on principle of behavioural consistency
• Offenders have charac ways of working (their modus operandi)
• Situationist psychologist such as Mischel (1969) questioned behavioural consistency
• Argued behv more driven by situation than personality
• Suggests people not always aggressive, just aggressive in certain situations
• Suggests top-down approach may not always lead to successful identification of the offender

Question 13

The bottom-up approach

• What is the bottom-up approach, what is its aim?
• How is a profile made?
• How does the approach differ to the top-down approach?

Answer 13

• Aim of approach is to generate picture of offender (likely charac, routine behv, social background)
• Obtained through systematic analysis of evidence at crime scene
• Profile is “data-driven”, obtained as investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of details of offence
• Approach is more grounded in psych theory than top-down approach

Question 14

Investigative psychology

• What is investigative psychology?
• What does it attempt to do, what is its aim?
• What concept is central to this approach?
• What other variable is key?
• What is forensic awareness?

Answer 14

• A form of bottom-up profiling that matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behv patterns based on psych theory
• Attempts to apply stat procedures with psych theory to analysis of crime scene evidence
• Aims to establish patterns of behv likely to occur or coexist across crime scenes
• This is used to develop a statistical database that acts as a baseline for comparison
• Specific details of offence can be matched against the databases to reveal important details about offender (personal history, family background etc)
• May also determine if series of offences are linked (likely to be committed by same person)
• Central to approach is concept of interpersonal coherence (way offender behaves at scene, includes how they “interact” with victim, may reflect behv of offender in everyday situations)
• Dwyer (2001), some rapists like to humiliate victims and maintain max control, others more apologetic (could tell police how offender relates to women more generally)
• Significance of time and place, key variable, may indicate where offender is living
• Forensic awareness, individuals have been interrogated by police before, their behv may denote how mindful they are of “covering their tracks”

Question 15

Geographical profiling

• What is geographical profiling?
• How is it used?
• What principle is it based on?
• Explain what this principle is
• What assumption is made when using this approach?
• What is Canter’s and Larkin (1993) circle theory?
• What is a marauder, what is a commuter?
• What gives investigators an insight of the nature of the offence?
• What other things are revealed?

Answer 15

• Form of bottom-up profiling, based on principle of spatial consistency, offender’s operational base and possible future offences revealed by geo location of their previous crimes
• Uses info of location of linked crime scenes to make inferences of home or operational base of offender, known as crime mapping
• Based on principle of spatial consistency (ppl commit crime within a limited geo space)
• Used with psych theory to create hypotheses about how offender thinks and their modus operandi
• Assumption made that serial offenders restrict crimes to geo areas they are familiar with
• Understanding spatial pattern of their behv provides investigators “centre of gravity”, likely to include offender’s base (usually in middle of spatial pattern)
• This is the basis of Canter’s and Larkin (1993) circle theory because pattern of offending forms circle around offender’s home base
• Distribution of offences leads us to describe offender in two ways, marauder or commuter
• The marauder operates in close proximity to their home base
• The commuter is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence
• Such spatial decision-making offers investigators insight of nature of offence (planned or opportunistic)
• Also reveals offenders “mental maps”, mode of transport, employment status, approximate age etc

Question 16

Evaluation for bottom-up approach

• C|CP|E|I|MR

Answer 16

• Evidence for investigative psychology (Canter and Heritage 1990)
• Counterpoint (Circular argument)
• Evidence for geographical profiling (Lundrigan and Canter 2001)
• Geographical information insufficient (Ainsworth 2001)
• Mixed results (Copson 1995, Kocsis et al 2002)

Question 17

Evidence for investigative psychology (Canter and Heritage 1990)

Answer 17

• Strength, evidence supports use of investigative psychology
• Canter and Heritage (1990), analysis of 66 sexual assault cases, data examined using smallest space analysis
• Several behvs identified as common in different samples of behv such as use of impersonal language and lack of reaction to victim
• Each individual displayed charac pattern of such behvs, this can help establish whether 2+ offences committed by same person (referred to as “case linkage”)
• Supports one of the basic principles of investigative psychology and the bottom-up approach, people consistent in their behv

Question 18

Counterpoint (Circular argument)

Answer 18

• Case linkage depends on database that only consists of historical crimes that are solved
• Fact crimes were solved may be because it was straightforward to link crimes together, makes this a circular argument
• Suggests investigative psychology tells us little about crimes that have few links between them (unsolved)

Question 19

Evidence for geographical profiling (Lundrigan and Canter 2001)

Answer 19

• Strength, evidence supporting geo profiling
• Lundrigan and Canter (2001), gathered info from 120 murder cases involving serial killers in US
• Smallest space analysis reveals spatial consistency in behv of killers
• Location of each body disposal site created “centre of gravity”
• Assumed this happens because, when offender starts from home base, they go in different direction each time they dispose a body, creates circular effect around home base
• Offender bases consistently located in centre of the pattern; effect more noticeable for marauders (offenders travel short distance from home base)
• Supports view that geo info can be used to identify an offender

Question 20

Geographical information insufficient (Ainsworth 2001)

Answer 20

• Limitation, geo profiling may not be sufficient on its own
• Success of geo profiling (as well as investigative psychology) may be reliant on quality of data that police can provide
• Recording crime not always accurate, can vary between police forces, estimated 75% crimes not even reported (“dark figure of crime”)
• Questions value of approach that relies on accuracy of geo data, even if info correct
• Ainsworth (2001), critics claim other factors just as important in creating profile such as time of offence and age and experience of offender
• Suggests geo info alone may not always lead to successful capture of an offender

Question 21

Mixed results (Copson 1995, Kocsis et al 2002)

Answer 21

• Copson (1995), surveyed 48 police departments, found advice provided by profiler judged “useful” in 83% of cases, suggests it’s a valid investigative tool
• However, only 3% of cases lead to accurate identification of offender
• Nickell case, real killer (Robert Napper) ruled out, too tall to fit police profile officers were given
• Kocsis et al (2002), chemistry students produce more accurate offender profiles on solved murder case than experience senior detectives
• Suggests offender profiling may have little practical value when it comes to solving cases
• May focus police investigations, offer new lines of enquiry, falls short on what its designed to do (lead to identification of the offender)

Question 22

Biological explanations of offending behaviour- Historical approach

• What did Lombroso’s book in 1876 suggest?
• What is atavistic form?
• How is this viewed in today’s standard?

Answer 22

• Lombroso (1876), Italian physician wrote a book translated “the criminal man”
• Suggested that criminals were “genetic throwback”, a primitive subspecies that were biologically different from non-criminals, ill-suited to conforming to rules of modern society (Atavistic form)
• In today’s standard his theory is seen as speculative and naïve

Question 23

A biological approach

• What do offenders lack according to Lombroso?
• Describe the nature of an offender according to Lombroso
• How did he view offending behaviour?
• What did Lombroso propose at the time?

Answer 23

• Offenders seen by L as lacking evolutionary development
• Savage and untamed nature meant they found it impossible to adjust to demands off civilised society, inevitably turn to crime
• L saw offending behv as a natural tendency rooted into the genes of offenders
• L proposed a new perspective at the time he was writing, offending behv was innate, offender not to blame for actions
• In this way his ideas were revolutionary

Question 24

Atavistic form

• What did Lombroso argue about offenders?
• Where were these features mainly located?
• Give examples of these features
• Give examples of other aspects of born offenders

Answer 24

• L argued offender subtype could be identified using particular physiological “markers” that were linked to particular types of offence
• Offenders would possess these “markers”, these are bio determined “atavistic” charac
• Mainly features of face and head (atavism did include other features), make offenders physically different from rest of us
• In terms of cranial (skull) charac, atavistic form included narrow, sloping brow, strong prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial symmetry
• Other markers included dark skin, existence of extra toes, nipples or fingers
• L also suggested other aspects of born offender including insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos and unemployment

Question 25

Offender types

• How did Lombroso categorise types of offender?
• What characteristics do murderers possess?
• What characteristics do sexual deviants possess?
• What characteristics do fraudsters possess?

Answer 25

• L categorised particular types of offender in terms of their physical and facial charac
• Murderers described as having bloodshot eyes, curly hair and long ears
• Sexual deviants had glinting eyes, swollen, fleshy lips and projecting ears
• Fraudsters lips were thin and “reedy”

Question 26

Lombroso’s research

• Outline his procedure and findings

Answer 26

• L meticulously examined facial and cranial features of hundreds of Italian convicts (living and dead)
• Concluded there was an “atavistic form”, these features were key indicators of criminality
• L examined skulls of 383 dead convicts, 3839 living ones, concluded 40% criminal acts committed by people with atavistic characteristics

Question 27

Evaluation for Atavistic form

• L|CP|CE|PC|NN

Answer 27

• Lombroso’s legacy (Hollin 1989)
• Counterpoint (Racist, DeLisi 2012)
• Contradictory evidence (Goring 1913)
• Poor control (Lombroso 1876, Hay and Forest 2009)
• Nature or Nurture

Question 28

Lombroso’s legacy (Hollin 1989)

Answer 28

• Strength, his work changed the face off the study of crime
• Hailed “father of modern criminology”, he coined the term “criminology” (Hollin 1989)
• Credited for shifting emphasis in crime research away from moralistic discourse (offenders judged as being wicked and weak-minded)
• Shift towards more scientific position, evolutionary influences and genetics, individual not to blame
• By attempting to describe particular types of people likely to commit particular crime, heralded the beginning of offender profiling
• Suggests L made major contribution to science of criminology

Question 29

Counterpoint (Racist, DeLisi 2012)

Answer 29

• Critics including DeLisi (2012) questioned if L legacy entirely positive
• Attention drawn to racist undertones of L’s work; features identified as atavistic (curly hair, dark skin) most likely found in ppl of African descent
• Basically, suggesting Africans more likely to be offenders, view fitted 19th century eugenic attitudes
• Suggests some aspects of theory highly subjective not objective, influenced by racial prejudices of the time

Question 30

Contradictory evidence (Goring 1913)

Answer 30

• Limitation, evidence that contradicts link between atavism and crime
• Goring (1913), wanted to establish whether anything physically atypical about offenders
• Compared 3000 offenders and 3000 non offenders, concluded no evidence that offenders are distinct group with unusual facial and cranial charac
• However, he did suggest offenders have lower-than-average intelligence
• Challenges idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from rest of population, therefore unlikely to be a subspecies

Question 31

Poor control (Lombroso 1876, Hay and Forest 2009)

Answer 31

• Limitation, L’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled
• Did not have control of important variables, did not compare offender sample with non-offender control group, this control could have dealt with confounding variables
• Hay and Forrest (2009) demonstrated links between crime and social condition such as poverty and poor educational outcomes
• These links could explain why offenders more likely to be unemployed for example
• Suggests L’s research does not meet modern scientific standards

Question 32

Nature or Nurture

Answer 32

• L’s work raises question of whether criminals are born or made
• Atavistic form suggests crime has bio cause, genetic throwbacks who are further back on evolutionary chain than the law-abiding majority
• Facial and cranial features may be influenced by other factors such as poverty of poor diet (nurture) rather than being inherited
• Goring’s replication of L’s investigations demonstrated the distinction L proposed was not present
• Suggests criminal are both born and made, nature and nurture interact where crime is concerned
• Evolutionary argument flawed, no reason to believe atavism would be naturally selected

Question 33

Biological explanations of offending behaviour- Genetic explanations

• What does this explanation suggest?

Answer 33

Suggest would-be-offenders inherit a gene or combo of genes that predispose them to commit a crime

Question 34

Twin and adoption studies (Christiansen 1977, Crowe 1972)

• Describe Christiansen’s (1977) study and findings
• What do the findings suggest?
• Describe Crowe’s (1972) findings
• What do the findings suggest?

Answer 34

• Christiansen (1977) over 3500 twin pairs in Denmark, concordance rates for offending behv 35% in MZ male twins, 13% DZ male twins (slightly lower rates for females)
• Included all twins born between 1880 and 1910 in region of Denmark
• Offender behv checked against Danish police records
• Data indicates not just behv that may be inherited but the underlying predisposing traits
• Crowe (1972), adopted children whose bio mom has criminal record had 50% risk of having criminal record by 18
• Adopted children whose bio mom had no criminal record had 5% risk of having criminal record by 18

Question 35

Candidate genes (Tiihonen et al 2015)

• Describe Tiihonen et al’s (2015) analysis and findings
• What do the findings suggest?
• What does (1) gene do?
• What does (2) gene do?

Answer 35

• Tiihonen et al (2015), genetic analysis almost 800 Finnish offenders
• Suggested two genes (MAOA and CDH13) may be associated with violent crime
• MAOA gene regulates serotonin and dopamine in the brain, linked to aggressive behv
• CDH13 gene linked to substance abuse and ADHD
• Analysis found 5-10% off all severe violent crime in Finland attributable to MAOA and CDH13 genotypes

Question 36

Diathesis-stress model

• Where does the tendency to commit offending behaviour come from?
• Give an example of this

Answer 36

• If genetics do have some influence on offending, likely that this is at least partly moderated by effects of the environment
• Tendency towards offending behv may come through combo of genetic predisposition and bio or psych trigger
• Example, being raised in dysfunctional environment, having criminal role models

Question 37

Evaluation for Genetic explanation

• I|S|NN

Answer 37

• Issues with twin evidence
• Support for diathesis-stress (Mednick et al 1984)
• Nature and nurture

Question 38

Issues with twin evidence

Answer 38

• Limitation, assumption of equal environments
• “Shared environment assumption” may apply more to MZ twins than DZ twins because MZ identical, people (especially parents) treat them more similarly
• This in turn affects their behv, higher concordance rate for MZ may simply be because they are treated more similarly than DZ twins

Question 39

Support for diathesis-stress (Mednick et al 1984)

Answer 39

• Strength, support for diathesis-stress model of offending
• Mednick et al (1984), 13,000 Danish adoptees
• Neither bio or adoptive parents had convictions, percentage of adoptees that did was 13.5% (quite high)
• Figure rose to 20% when either bio or adoptive parents had convictions
• 24,5% when both bio and adoptive parents had convictions
• Shows genetic inheritance plays important role, and so does environmental influence, provides support for diathesis-stress model of crime

Question 40

Nature and nurture

Answer 40

• It is presumed that adoption studies are a good way of separating nature and nurture
• However, this is complicated by fact that many adoptions take place when children older
• Spent several years with bio parents in early and arguably most influential years
• Many adoptees also encouraged to maintain contact with bio family, environmental influence may still be felt
• Suggests adoption studies offer some insight into genetic influences, should be treated with caution
• Other issues mean socialisation processes between adopted children and bio parents may still be taking place

Question 41

Biological explanations of offending behaviour- Neural explanations

• What does this explanation suggest?
• What is APD, what is it associated with?

Answer 41

• Neural difference in brains of offenders and non-offenders
• Evidence in this area involved individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (APD)
• APD associated with reduced emotional responses, lack of empathy for feelings of others
• APD is a condition that characterises many convicted offenders

Question 42

Prefrontal cortex (Raine and colleagues 2000)

• What did Raine conduct studies on, what were his findings?
• What does the prefrontal cortex regulate?
• Describe Raine and colleagues (2000) findings

Answer 42

• Raine conducted studies of APD brain, reported several dozen brain-imaging studies demonstrating individuals with antisocial personalities had reduced activity in prefrontal cortex
• Prefrontal cortex regulates emotional behaviour
• Raine and colleagues (2000) found 11% reduction in volume of grey matter in prefrontal cortex of people with APD compared to controls

Question 43

Mirror neurons (Keysers 2011)

• What does recent research suggest about APD?
• What did Keysers (2011) discover/find?
• What does this suggest about people/individuals with APD?

Answer 43

• Recent research suggests offenders with APD can experience empathy, do so more infrequently than rest of us
• Keysers (2011), found only when offenders asked to empathise with person in film experiencing pain, did their empathy reaction (controlled by mirror neurons) activate
• Suggests APD individuals not totally without empathy, may have neural “switch” that can be turned on and off, unlike rest of us where empathy switch permanently on

Question 44

Evaluation for Neural explanations

• BE|F|BD

Answer 44

• Brain evidence (Kandel and Freed 1989)
• Intervening variables (Farrington 2006, Rauch et al 2006)
• Biological determinism

Question 45

Brain evidence (Kandel and Freed 1989)

Answer 45

• Strength, support for link between crime and frontal lobe
• Kandel and Freed (1989), reviewed evidence of frontal lobe damage and antisocial behv
• People with frontal lobe damage tended to show impulsive behv, emotional instability and inability to learn from mistakes
• Frontal lobe associated with planning behv, supports idea that brain damage may be causal factor in offending behv

Question 46

Intervening variables (Farrington 2006, Rauch et al 2006)

Answer 46

• Limitation, link between neural differences and APD may be complex
• Other factors may contribute to APD, and ultimately to offending
• Farrington et al (2006), studied men who score high on psychopathy (APD)
• Individuals experiences various risk factors during childhood, raised by convicted parents, physically neglected
• Could be that early childhood experiences caused APD, some neural differences associated with it such as reduced activity in frontal lobe due to trauma (Rauch et al 2006)
• Suggests relationship between neural differences, APD and offending is complex, may be other intervening variables that have an impact

Question 47

Biological determinism

Answer 47

• Bio approach to crime suggests criminal behv determined by genetic/neural factors that cannot be controlled by the person
• Person does not choose genetic make-up or structural abnormalities in brain
• If they make person more likely to commit crime, suggests crime not entirely act of free will
• Therefore, person should not be held responsible for a crime they may commit
• However, justice system based on notion that we all have responsibility for our actions
• Only in extreme circumstances (mental disorders) is the individual judge to lack responsibility
• Suggests we should excuse some people; this is not possible though because no one would have responsibility resulting in no real justice being served when a crime is committed
• Implies that bio criminals may require different. Less severe form of punishment due to the fact that they cannot take full responsibility for their actions
• Also implies bio criminals will never be fully rehabilitated if their actions are not a matter of choice

Question 48

Psychological explanations of offending behaviour- Eysenck’s theory (Theory of the criminal personality)

• What did Eysenck’s (1946) personality theory propose about behaviour?
• What forms personality characteristics or traits?
• What did Eysenck later add?

Answer 48

• Eysenck important figure in personality and intelligence research during middle 20th century
• Eysenck (1946) proposed behv could be represented along two dimensions, introversion-extraversion (E) and neuroticism-stability (N)
• Two dimensions combine to form variety of personality charac or traits
• Eysenck later added third dimension, psychoticism-sociability (P)

Question 49

Biological basis

• What is the origin of personality traits?
• What determines our personality, what does this suggest?
• What are E?
• What are N individuals?
• What are P individuals?

Answer 49

• According to Eysenck, personality traits are biological in origin, come about through types of nervous system we inherit (all personality types have innate, bio basis)
• Extraverts, underactive NS, means they constantly seek excitement, stimulation, likely to engage in risk-taking behvs, tend not to condition easily therefore do not learn from their mistakes
• Neurotic individuals, high level of reactivity in sympathetic NS, respond quick to situations of threat (Fight or Flight)
• Tend to be nervous, jumpy, overanxious, general instability means their behv often difficult to predict
• Psychotic individuals, suggested to have higher levels of testosterone, unemotional and prone to aggression

Question 50

The criminal personality

• What is the criminal personality type?
• What are Ns like?
• What are Es like?
• What are Ps like?

Answer 50

• Criminal personality type is neurotic-extravert-psychotic
• Neurotics are unstable, therefore prone to overreact to situations of threat
• Extraverts seek more arousal, thus engage in dangerous activities
• Psychotics are aggressive and lack empathy

Question 51

The role of socialisation

• What links personality and offending behaviour according to Eysenck’s theory?
• How did Eysenck view offending behaviour?
• What is the process of socialisation?
• What does Eysenck suggest about offenders according to socialisation?
• Why is this the case for offenders?
• What are the consequences of this?

Answer 51

• Eysenck’s theory suggests personality linked to offending behv via socialisation processes
• Eysenck saw offending behv as developmentally immature, it is selfish and concerned with immediate gratification (offender impatient, cannot wait for things)
• Process of socialisation, children taught to become more able to delay gratification, more socially oriented
• Eysenck believed people with high E and N scores had NS that made them difficult to condition, resulting in them being less likely to learn anxiety responses to antisocial impulses
• This basically means they don’t learn fear and guilt as a response the body produces when committing crimes
• Consequently, more likely to act antisocially in situations where opportunity present itself (they are more likely to break the law when they can)

Question 52

Measuring the criminal personality

• What is one of the central points of Eysenck’s theory?
• What is EPQ, what is the purpose of it?
• Why is the measurement of personality important to Eysenck’s theory?

Answer 52

• Notion that personality can be measured is central to Eysenck’s theory
• He developed Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), form of psych test, locates respondents along the E, N and P dimensions to determine their personality type
• If individual scores high on E, N and P they are considered to have a criminal personality type
• Measurement of personality important part of Eysenck’s theory, enables him to conduct research relating personality variables to other behvs such as criminality

Question 53

Evaluation for Eysenck’s Theory

• RS|CP|TS|CF|MP

Answer 53

• Research support (Eysenck and Eysenck 1977)
• Counterpoint (Farrington et al 1982, Küssner 2017)
• Too simplistic (Moffitt 1993)
• Cultural factors (Bartol and Holanchock 1979)
• Measuring personality

Question 54

Research support (Eysenck and Eysenck 1977)

Answer 54

• Strength, evidence to support criminal personality
• Eysenck and Eysenck (1977), compared 2070 prisoner scores on EPQ with 2422 controls
• One measure of E, N and P, across all age groups that were sampled, prisoners record higher than average scores than controls
• Agrees with predictions of the theory, offenders’ rate higher than average across three dimensions Eysenck identified

Question 55

Counterpoint (Farrington et al 1982, Küssner 2017)

Answer 55

• Farrington et al (1982) conducted meta-analysis of relevant studies, reported offenders tended to score high on measure of P but not for E and N
• Also, inconsistent evidence of differences on EEG measures (used to measure cortical arousal) between extraverts and introverts (Küssner 2017)
• Casts doubts on physiological basis of Eysenck’s theory
• This means some central assumptions of criminal personality have been challenged

Question 56

Too simplistic (Moffitt 1993)

Answer 56

• Limitation, idea all offending behv can be explained by personality traits alone
• Moffitt (1993), drew distinction between offending behv that occurs only in adolescence (adolescence-limited) and that continues into adulthood (life-course-persistent)
• Argued personality traits alone poor predictor of how long offending behv would go on for, sense of if someone likely to become “career offender”
• Considered persistence in offending behv was a result of reciprocal process between individual personality traits on one hand and environmental reactions to these traits on the other
• Presents more complex picture than Eysenck suggested, that course of offending behv determined by interaction between personality and environment

Question 57

Cultural factors (Bartol and Holanchock 1979)

Answer 57

• Limitation, cultural factors not taken into account
• Criminal personality could vary according to culture
• Bartol and Holanchock (1979) studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in prison in New York
• Offenders divided into six groups based on offending history and the nature of their offences
• Found all six groups less extravert than non-offender control group
• Eysenck would expect offenders to be more extravert
• B and H suggested this was because sample used was very culturally different compared to the one investigated by Eysenck
• Questions how far criminal personality can be generalised, suggests it may be a culturally relative concept (imposed etic)

Question 58

Measuring personality

Answer 58

• Eysenck’s theory built on premise that it is possible to measure personality through psych tests (EPQ)
• Usefulness of EPQ based on its potential for real-world application, able to see how criminal personality differs from rest of population across different dimensions
• Early criminal traits could be recognised in the young, steps may be taken to deal with this, by changing socialisation process for example
• However, critics suggest personality type not reducible to “score”
• Suggests personality is too complex and dynamic to be quantified
• People may be different moods and personalities all at once, EPQ not tapping into person’s essence or revealing stable criminal traits
• May undermine claims made by Eysenck about being able to identify “natural” criminal using EPQ as personality may not be static

Question 59

Psychological explanations of offending behaviour- Cognitive explanations

• What are the two cognitive explanations for offending behaviour?

Answer 59

• Two cognitive explanations for offending behaviour
• Level of moral reasoning and Cognitive distortions

Question 60

Level of moral reasoning- Moral development

• What concept did Kohlberg (1968) apply to offending behaviour?
• What did Kohlberg propose?
• What did Kohlberg base his theory on?
• What do studies suggest about levels of moral reasoning?
• Describe the procedure and findings of Kohlberg et al (1973)

Answer 60

• Kohlberg (1968) first researcher to apply concept of moral reasoning to offending behv
• K proposed ppls decisions and judgements on issues of right and wrong can be summarised in a stage theory of moral reasoning (on next flashcard)
• The higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning of an individual and vice versa
• K based theory on ppls responses to series of moral dilemmas such as Heinz dilemma (on another flashcard)
• Studies suggest offenders tend to show low level of MR than non-offenders
• Kohlberg et al (1973) used moral dilemmas, found group of violent youths at significantly lower level of MR than non-violent youths even after controlling for social backgrounds

Question 61

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

• What are the levels of the stages of moral development?
• What does each level consist of?
• How many stages are there in this model?
• Describe each stage and what level they are at

Answer 61

• Pre-conventional morality is level 1, it consists of Stages 1 and 2
• Stage 1 is Punishment orientation, Rules obeyed to avoid punishment
• Stage 2 is Instrumental orientation or personal gain, Rules obeyed for personal gain
• Conventional morality is level 2, it consists of Stages 3 and 4
• Stage 3 is “Good boy” or “Good girl” orientation, Rules obeyed for approval
• Stage 4 is Maintenance of the social order, Rules obeyed to maintain social order
• Post-conventional morality is level 3, it consists of Stage 5 and 6
• Stage 5 is Morality of contract and individual rights, Rules challenged if they infringe on rights of others
• Stage 6 is Morality of conscience, Individuals have personal set of ethical principles

Question 62

The Heinz dilemma

• Describe the Heinz dilemma
• What questions where people asked about this?

Answer 62

• One of moral dilemmas K used in his research
• Woman near death from special kind of cancer, one drug that might save her
• Drug expensive to make, druggist charged 10x more than it costs to make drug (Paid $400 to make drug, charging $4000)
• Heinz (Woman’s husband) borrowed money from everyone he knew, made up $2000
• Asked druggist to sell it cheaper or let him pay later, druggist refused
• “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it”
• Heinz desperate, considered breaking into store and stealing drug for his wife
• Ppts asked various questions, “Should he steal it?”, “Why?”, “Why not?”, “Does druggist have right to charge what he likes?”, “What if woman were a stranger, should he steal the drug?”

Question 63

Link with criminality

• What are offenders classified as on Kohlberg’s model?
• What are non-offenders classified as on Kohlberg’s model?
• What is the pre-conventional level characterised by?
• What may adults and adolescents who reason at this level do?
• How does Chandler (1973) support this?
• What do people who reason at higher levels tend to do?

Answer 63

• Offenders more likely to be classified as pre-conventional level of K’s model
• Non-offenders generally progressed to conventional level and beyond
• Pre-conventional level characterised by need to avoid punishment, gain rewards, associated with less mature, childlike reasoning
• Adults and adolescents that reason at this level may commit crime if they can get away with it or gain rewards in form of money, increased respect etc
• Supported by studies that suggests offenders often more egocentric, display poorer social perspective-taking skills than non-offender peers (Chandler 1973)
• Ppl who reason at higher levels tend to sympathise more with rights of others, exhibit more conventional behvs (honesty, generosity and non-violence)

Question 64

Evaluation for level of moral reasoning

• RS|TOO|TVB

Answer 64

• Research support (Palmer and Hollin 1998)
• Type of offence (Thornton and Reid 1982)
• Thinking versus behaviour (Krebs and Denton 1995)

Question 65

Research support (Palmer and Hollin 1998)

Answer 65

• Strength, evidence for link between LOMR and crime
• Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared MR in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using SRM-SF (contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions)
• Questions included not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a friend
• Offender group showed less mature MR than non-offender group, this is consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions

Question 66

Type of offence (Thornton and Reid 1982)

Answer 66

• Limitation, LOMR may depend on offence
• Thornton and Reid (1982) found ppl who committed crimes for financial gain (robbery) more likely to show pre-conventional MR than ppl convicted of impulsive crimes (assault)
• Pre-conventional MR tends to be associated with crimes where offender believes they have a good chance of evading punishment
• Kohlberg would expect every crime to have an offender associated with pre-conventional MR, he would not expect them to have a higher LOMR
• Suggests Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime

Question 67

Thinking versus behaviour (Krebs and Denton 1995)

Answer 67

• K’s theory useful, provides insight into mechanics of criminal mind (offenders more childlike and egocentric when it comes to making moral judgements compared to law-abiding majority)
• Offender may struggle to take perspective of others, may explain lack of empathy that drives them to commit crime
• However moral thinking is not the same as moral behv, critics of K suggest moral dilemma technique poor predictor of real-life behv
• Heinz dilemma for example, hypothetical, may not reflect moral decisions that someone would exercise in real life
• Technique therefore low in external validity
• Moral reasoning in kind K interested in, more likely used to justify behv after it has happened than before (Krebs and Denton 1995)
• Suggests understanding moral behv more useful, not everyone who has criminal thoughts acts on them

Question 68

Cognitive distortions

• H|M
• What are cognitive distortions?
• Give examples of how we demonstrate this?
• What has research linked this to
• Give two examples of cognitive distortions

Answer 68

• Errors or biases in ppls info processing system, characterised by faulty thinking
• Faulty, biased, irrational ways of thinking, we perceive ourselves, other people and world inaccurately and usually negatively
• Occasionally we show evidence of this when explaining our own behv, especially if behv was unexpected or out of character
• Research linked this to way offenders interpret other ppls behvs and justify their own actions
• Two examples of cognitive distortions, hostile attribution bias and minimalization

Question 69

Hostile attribution bias

• What is hostile attribution bias?
• Describe Schönenberg and Jusyte’s (2014) procedure and findings
• What may be the root of hostile attribution bias?
• Describe Dodge and Frame’s (1982) procedure and findings

Answer 69

• When individual assumes others are being confrontational when they are not
• Offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (being “looked at”), may trigger disproportionate and often violent response
• Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014), 55 violent offenders viewed images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions
• Compared to non-aggressive matched control group, violent offenders significantly more likely to perceive images as angry and hostile
• Roots of this behv may be apparent in childhood
• Dodge and Frame (1982) showed children video clip of “ambiguous provocation” (intention neither clearly hostile nor clearly accidental)
• Children that were identified as “aggressive” and “rejected” prior to study interpreted situation as more hostile than those classed as “non-aggressive” and “accepted”

Question 70

Minimalization

• What is minimalization?
• What do studies suggest about sexual offenders?
• Describe Barbaree’s (1991) findings

Answer 70

• Offender attempts to deny or downplay seriousness of offence, referred to as application of a “euphemistic label” for behv (Bandura 1973)
• For instance, burglars may describe themselves as “doing a job” or “supporting my family” as a way to minimise seriousness of their offences
• Studies suggest individuals who committed sexual offence particularly prone to minimization
• Barbaree (1991), among 26 incarcerated rapists, 5% denied they committed offence at all, further 40% minimised harm they caused to the victim

Question 71

Evaluation for cognitive distortions

• RWA|TOO|DOE

Answer 71

• Real-world application (Harkins et al 2010)
• Type of offence
• Descriptive or explanatory

Question 72

Real-world application (Harkins et al 2010)

Answer 72

• Strength, application to therapy
• CBT aims to challenge irrational thinking, offenders encouraged to “face up” to their crimes, establish less distorted view of their actions
• Harkins et al (2010) suggests reduced incidence of denial and minimalization in therapy is highly associated with reduced risk of reoffending
• Acceptance of one’s crimes is thought to be an important aspect of rehabilitation
• Suggests theory of cognitive distortions has practical value

Question 73

Type of offence

Answer 73

• Limitation, level of cognitive distortion depends on type of offence
• Howitt and Sheldon (2007) gathered questionnaire responses from sexual offenders
• Found non-contact sex offenders (accessed sexual images on internet) used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders (physically abused children)
• Those with previous history of offending, more likely to use distortions as justification
• Suggest distortions not used in same way by all offenders

Question 74

Descriptive or explanatory

Answer 74

• Cognitive theories of offending good at describing the criminal mind, retrospectively cognitive concepts used to explain offending behv
• For example, grievous bodily harm may have occurred due to attacker misinterpreting neutral facial expression or gesture as hostile
• May also help reduce reoffending in long term, understanding how offenders minimalize their crimes may be useful starting point in therapy
• However, cognitive theories do not explain or help predict future offender behv, tending to distorted thinking does not inevitably mean they will become an offender
• Large body of evidence that suggests attitudes or beliefs are weakly correlated with actual behv
• We need to understand rather than describe the causes of someone’s behv in order to predict whether someone will go on to offend
• Suggests explanation may be more important than description in terms of devising strategies to prevent reoffending

Question 75

Psychological explanations of offending behaviour- Differential association theory (SLT)

• What did Sutherland propose?
• What has the theory accomplished?

Answer 75

• Sutherlands theory of differential association
• Proposes that ppl learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behv through association and interaction with different people
• Individual may associate with people who have negative attitudes towards crime where as another individual may be exposed to positive attitudes towards crime
• Theory has stood the test of time and is still an influential theory to this day

Question 76

Scientific basis

• What did Sutherland want to develop?
• What did Sutherland (1942) state?
• What is the theory designed to do?

Answer 76

• Sutherland wanted to develop a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending
• Conditions said to cause crime, present when crime present, absent when crime absent (Sutherland 1924)
• Theory designed to discriminate offenders and non-offenders regardless of social class or ethnic background

Question 77

Offending as a learned behaviour

• How is offending behaviour acquired?
• What does differential association suggest is possible?
• What is needed to do this?
• What two factors does offending arise from?

Answer 77

• Offending behv acquired same way as any other behv, through process of learning
• Learning occurs through interactions with significant others that child values most and spends most time with (family, peer group)
• Differential association suggest it is possible to mathematically predict how likely individual is to commit crime
• Frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values must be known to do this
• According to S, offending arises from two factors, learned attitudes towards offending and the learning of specific offending acts/techniques

Question 78

Learning attitudes vs Learning techniques

• What is learning attitudes?
• What does Sutherland argue will cause an individual to go on to offend?
• What is learning techniques?

Answer 78

• Learning attitudes, person exposed to values and attitudes towards law when socialising with a group, some values pro-crime some anti-crime
• S argues if number of pro-crime attitudes acquired outweighs number of anti-crime attitudes acquired, individual will go on to offend
• Learning process same for everything
• Learning techniques, would-be offender may learn particular techniques for committing offences (learn to break into house with locked windows, disable a car stereo before stealing)

Question 79

Socialisation in prison

• What can Sutherlands theory account for?
• Justify how it accounts for this

Answer 79

• S’s theory can account for why convicts reoffend
• Reasonable to assume inmates inside prison will learn specific techniques of offending from other, more experience offenders may put this into practice upon release
• Learn through observational learning and imitation or direct tuition from offending peers

Question 80

Evaluation for differential association theory

• SOF|CP|WR|DT|NN

Answer 80

• Shift of focus
• Counterpoint
• Wide reach
• Difficulty testing
• Nurture or nature

Question 81

Shift of focus

Answer 81

• Strength, at the time it changed the focus of offending explanations
• S successful in moving emphasis away from early bio accounts of offending (Lombroso’s atavistic theory) and other theories that claimed offending product of ppls weakness and immorality
• DAT draw attention to deviants’ social circumstances and environment, suggests its more to blame for offending than the deviant people
• Approach more desirable, more realistic solution to problem of offending instead of eugenics (bio solution) or punishment (morality solution)

Question 82

Counterpoint

Answer 82

• Risk of stereotyping individuals from impoverished, crim-ridden backgrounds as “unavoidably offenders”
• S took great care to point out offending should be considered on individual cases-by-case basis
• However, theory tends to suggest exposure to pro-crime values sufficient to produce offending in those exposed to it
• Ignores fact ppl may choose not to offend despite influences, not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes go on to offend

Question 83

Wide reach

Answer 83

• Strength, account for offending within all sectors of society
• S recognised some types of offence like burglary clustered within inner-city and working-class communities
• He also acknowledged some offenders clustered amongst more affluent/wealthy groups in society
• S particularly interested in “white-collar” or corporate offences (S coined term white-collar crime in a speech in 1939)
• Interested in how this may be a feature of middle-class social groups who share deviant norms and values
• Shows not just “lower-class” that commits offences, principles of differential association can be used to explain all offences

Question 84

Difficulty testing

Answer 84

• Limitation, difficult to test predictions of differential association
• S aimed to provide scientific, mathematical framework, future offending behv could be predicted, predictions must be testable
• Concepts not testable because they cannot be operationalised, hard to see how num of pro-crime attitudes ppl exposed to could be measured
• Theory built on assumption that offending behv will occur when pro-crime values outweigh anti-crime ones, no way of measuring this means we cannot predict offending behv
• Unable to know at what point urge to offend is realised, offending career triggered
• Theory therefore does not have scientific credibility

Question 85

Nurture or nature

Answer 85

• S suggested response of family is crucial in determining if individual is likely to be engaging in offending
• Family supports offending activity, makes it seem legitimate and reasonable, major influence on child’s value system
• Exposed to more pro-offending attitudes than anti-crime attitudes, desire to embark on criminal career triggered
• Farrington et al (2006), family criminality was a key feature of the findings
• Observed crime flourished within dysfunctional family environments, supports S’s theory
• However, fact offending behv “runs in family” can be interpreted as supporting other explanation such as bio theories
• Particular combo of genes or innate neural abnormality that predisposes person to commit crime may be inherited from family
• Shared tendency for offending demonstrated in studies involving MZ and DZ twins
• Solution may be these explanations may differ depending on type of crime
• Impulsive crimes or violent/aggressive crimes may stem from some inherited predisposition that affect impulse control (bio explanation, nature)
• Drug-taking or dealing may arise through shared attitudes towards illegality within family or social group (psych explanation, nurture)

Question 86

Psychological explanations of offending behaviour- Psychodynamic explanations of offending

• BIS|BTOMD
• What are the two psychodynamic explanations of offending that we look at
• What do these explanations give/describe?

Answer 86

We look at two psychodynamic explanations, Blackburn’s idea of the inadequate Superego and Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory, these explanations give a perspective that describes different forces (dynamics), most of which are unconscious, that operate on the mind and direct human behv and experience

Question 87

The inadequate Superego

• D|O|W
• What is the Superego, when does it form?
• What did Blackburn argue?
• What are the three types of inadequate Superego?

Answer 87

• Formed at end of phallic stage when children resolve Oedipus complex or Electra complex
• Superego works on morality principle, exerts influence by punishing Ego through guilt for wrongdoing, rewarding Ego with pride for good moral behv
• Blackburn (1993) argued if Superego is deficient or inadequate then offending behv is inevitable because the Id is given “free rein” and not properly controlled
• Three types of inadequate Superego that have been proposed, the weak Superego, the deviant Superego and the over-harsh Superego

Question 88

Types of inadequate Superego

• D|O|W
• Describe the three types of inadequate Superego

Answer 88

• The weak Superego, if same-gender parent absent during phallic stage, child cannot internalise a fully-formed Superego due to no opportunity for identification, makes immoral or offending behv more likely
• The deviant Superego, if Superego that child internalises has immoral or deviant values, leads to offending behv, boy raised by criminal father not likely to associate guilt with wrongdoing
• The over-harsh Superego, healthy Superego based on identification with parent who has firm rules but forgives transgressions, exclusively punitive or overly harsh parenting style leads to child with this Superego
• Crippled by guilt and anxiety, may unconsciously drive individual to perform criminal acts in order to satisfy Superego’s overwhelming need for punishment

Question 89

The role of emotion

• What effects does an inadequate Superego have on the individual?
• What does this approach acknowledge in the development of offending behaviour?
• What is relevant to the understanding of offending behv in this approach?

Answer 89

• Effect of an inadequate Superego allows primitive, emotional demands to become uppermost in guiding moral behv, key feature of psychodynamic approach
• This approach deals with emotional life of the individual, acknowledges role off anxiety and guilt in development of offending behv
• Lack of guilt relevant to understanding offending behv (in the case of maternal deprivation theory that’s looked at in another flashcard)

Question 90

Theory of maternal deprivation

• What is Bowlby’s Theory of maternal denervation?
• What consequences can occur from this?
• Describe the procedure and findings of Bowlby’s 44 juvenile thieves (1944)

Answer 90

• Bowlby’s (1944) theory of maternal deprivation, argued ability to form meaningful relationships in adulthood dependent upon child forming good relationship with mother-figure in early years of life
• If this is not provided, one consequence that may develop is a personality type known as affectionless psychopathy, characterised by lack of guilt, empathy and feeling for others
• Ppl with this personality type are likely to engage in acts of delinquency and cannot develop close relationships with others
• Bowlby’s 44 juvenile thieves (1944) supports his theory of maternal deprivation where he concluded the effects of maternal desperation caused affectionless and delinquent behv among juvenile thieves

Question 91

Evaluation for psychodynamic explanations

• RS|CP|GB|OF|C

Answer 91

• Research support (Goreta 1991)
• Counterpoint (Central principles not supported)
• Gender bias (Hoffman 1975)
• Other factors (Lewis 1954)
• Contribution

Question 92

Research support (Goreta 1991)

Answer 92

• Strength, support for link between offending and the Superego
• Goreta (1991) conducted Freudian-style analysis of ten offenders referred for psychiatric treatment
• Disturbances in Superego diagnosed in all those assessed, each offender experienced unconscious feelings of guilt and the need for self-punishment
• Goreta explained this is a consequence of an over-harsh Superego, the need for punishment manifesting itself as desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend
• Evidence supports role off psychic conflicts and an over-harsh Superego as a basis of offending

Question 93

Counterpoint (Central principles not supported)

Answer 93

• Generally, the central principles of inadequate Superego theory are not supported
• If theory were correct, we would expect harsh, punitive parents to raise children who constantly experience guilt and anxiety, evidence suggests the opposite is true
• Parents who rely on harsher forms of discipline tend to raise children who are rebellious and rarely express feelings of guilt
• Questions relationship between strong punitive internal parent and excessive feelings of guilt within the child

Question 94

Gender bias (Hoffman 1975)

Answer 94

• Limitation of Freudian theory, gender-biased
• Implicit association within Freud’s theory, girls develop weaker Superego
• Implication of this is that women should be more prone to offending behv than men, opposite more likely to be true (in UK 20 times more men in prison than women)
• Hoffman (1975), study where children resist temptation, very little gender difference found but when present little girls tended to be more moral than little boys
• Suggests there is alpha bias at heart of Freud’s theory, may not be appropriate as an explanation off offending behv as a result

Question 95

Other factors (Lewis 1954)

Answer 95

• Limitation, Bowlby’s theory is only based on association between maternal deprivation and offending
• Lewis (1954) analysed data drawn from interviews with 500 young people
• Found maternal deprivation was poor predictor of future offending and ability to form close relationships in adolescence
• Even if link between frequent and prolonged separation from mothers and offending in later life, not necessarily a causal relationship
• Countless other reasons, maternal deprivation may be due to growing up in poverty for example, may then explain later offending
• Suggests maternal deprivation may be on of the reason for later offending but not the only reason

Question 96

Contribution

Answer 96

• Psychodynamic explanations some of first to link childhood experiences to moral behv and offending, now regarded as common sense in modern day criminology
• Relationship parents central to this theory in the formation of the Superego
• Draws attention to emotional basis of offending, largely ignored by other explanations (cog and bio)
• More emphasis on role of guilt and anxiety in development of criminal career
• However, unconscious concepts not open to empirical testing, absence of supporting evidence
• Means arguments like inadequate Superego can only be judged from face value
• Psychodynamics core principles do not meet the scientific criterion of falsifiability (cannot be proved to be true or false), practical value (prevention of crime strategies) limited
• Suggests it’s a useful contribution to the debate but has the issue of lacking a credible scientific basis

Question 97

Dealing with offending behaviour

• CS|BM|AM|RJ
• What is the most common form of punishment?
• What schemes form part of the custodial sentence?
• What is restorative justice?

Answer 97

• Many ways that societies deal with offending behaviour
• Most common form of punishment is custodial sentencing (prison)
• Behaviour modification is one of many schemes that form part of the custodial sentence
• Anger management is another scheme that forms part of the custodial sentence
• Restorative justice is a system which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims (survivors)

Question 98

Custodial sentencing

• What is custodial sentencing?

Answer 98

Convicted offender spends time in prison or other closed institution (young offender’s institute, psychiatric hospital)

Question 99

Aims of custodial sentencing

• R|I|D|R
• What are the four main reasons/objectives for using custodial sentencing?

Answer 99

• Four main reasons/objectives for custodial sentencing being used
• Deterrence, Incapacitation, Retribution, Rehabilitation

Question 100

Deterrence

• What is deterrence?
• What are the two levels of deterrence?
• What idea is this view based on?

Answer 100

• Deterrence, unpleasant prison experience, puts off ppl or society from engaging in offending behv
• Two levels, general deterrence and individual deterrence
• General deterrence aims to send broad message to society that crime will not be tolerated
• Individual deterrence should prevent individual from repeating same offences in light of their experience
• View based on behv idea of conditioning through vicarious punishment

Question 101

Incapacitation

• What is Incapacitation?
• Is this always necessary?

Answer 101

• Offender taken out of society, prevent reoffending as a means of protecting public
• Need for it depends on severity of offence and nature of offender
• For example, society requires more protection from serial murderer or rapist compared to an elderly person who does not pay their council tax

Question 102

Retribution

• What is Retribution?

Answer 102

• Society enacting revenge for offence, making offender sufferer, level of suffering proportionate to seriousness of offence
• Based on biblical notion “eye for an eye”, offender should pay for their actions
• Many see prison as best possible option in this sense
• Alternatives to prison often criticised as soft options

Question 103

Rehabilitation

• What is Rehabilitation?
• What does this suggest prison should provide for prisoners?

Answer 103

• Many people may see objective of prison to not purely punish, but to reform the offender
• Offenders should leave prison better adjusted, ready to take their place back in society
• Prison should provide opportunities to develop skills and training, provide access to treatment programmes (drug addiction or anger)
• Should give offender chance to reflect on their offence

Question 104

Psychological effects of custodial sentencing

• What are the three psychological effects of custodial sentencing?

Answer 104

• Stress and depression, suicide rates higher in prison compared to general population, as well as self-mutilation and self-harm incidents
• Stress of prison experience may increase risk of developing psych disorders following release
• Institutionalisation, adapted to norms and routine of prison life, inmates so accustomed to this they are no longer able to function on the outside
• Prisonisation, refers to way prisoners socialised into adopting “inmate code”, behv may be considered unacceptable on outside, may be encouraged and rewarded inside walls off institution

Question 105

The problem of recidivism

• What is recidivism?
• Why is it difficult to obtain clear recidivism rate figures?
• What may cause recidivism rates to vary?
• What are the figures of this in the UK?
• What are the figures of this in the US?
• What are the figures of this in Australia?
• What are the figures of this in Denmark?
• What are the figures of this in Norway?
• Why is this significant?

Answer 105

• Recidivism (R) refers to reoffending, R rates in ex-prisoners tells us extent prison acts as effective deterrent
• Difficult to obtain clear figures for R rates, depends on if you’re looking within year of release or longer
• In UK, Ministry of Justice reports proven figures within one year of release (“proven” means person caught)
• UK figure 45% according to Yukhnenko et al (2019), based on Ministry of Justice figures
• R rates vary with time period after release, age of offender crime committed and country
• In US, Australia and Denmark, R rates regularly recorded at excess of 60%
• Norway, could be as low as 20% (Yukhnenko et al), significant because Norway has less emphasis on incarceration and greater emphasis on rehabilitation and skills development than elsewhere

Question 106

Evaluation of custodial sentencing

• PE|CP|TAT|SFC|POP

Answer 106

• Psychological effects (Bartol 1995, Prison Reform Trust (2014))
• Counterpoint (Figures do not include something)
• Training and treatment (Shirley 2019)
• School for crime
• The purpose of prison (Onepoll 2015)

Question 107

Psychological effects (Bartol 1995, Prison Reform Trust (2014))

Answer 107

• Limitation, negative psych effect on prisoners
• Bartol (1995) suggested prison can be “brutal, demeaning and generally devastating”
• 119 people killed themselves in prison in England and Wales 2016
• Increase of 29 (32%) from the previous year according to The Guardian 2017
• Prison Reform Trust (2014) found 25% women, 15% men report symptoms of psychosis (Sz for example)
• Supports view that oppressive prison regimes may be detrimental to psych health which could impact rehabilitation

Question 108

Counterpoint (Figures do not include something)

Answer 108

• Figures in Prison Reform Trust study do not include inmates who had psychotic symptoms pre incarceration
• Many could have had pre-existing psych and emotional difficulties when they were convicted
• Could explain the offending behv in the first place
• Importation model argues prisoners import psych problems, we do not know if the problem is with prison regime or something else as a result
• Trauma of being locked away for example may be the cause of psych problems regardless of what prison is like
• Suggests there are confounding variables that influence link between prison and psych effects

Question 109

Training and treatment (Shirley 2019)

Answer 109

• Strength, provides opportunity for training and treatment
• Offenders may become better people during time in prison, improve their character
• Able to lead crime-free life when back in society, offered education and training
• Increases possibility of finding employment upon release
• Vera Institute of Justice (Shirley 2019) claims offenders who take part in college education programmes are 43% less likely to reoffend following release
• Also prisons who offer these programmes report fewer incidents of violence
• Suggests prison may be worthwhile experience assuming offenders are able to access these programmes

Question 110

School for crime

Answer 110

• Limitation, offenders may learn to become better offenders
• Younger inmates may learn the “tricks of the trade” from more experience prisoners
• Offenders may acquire criminal contacts whilst in prison, they may follow them up after release
• This may undermine attempts to rehabilitate prisoners, consequently makes reoffending more likely

Question 111

The purpose of prison (Onepoll 2015)

Answer 111

• Onepoll (2015), survey found 47% respondents saw primary purpose of prison as being to punish offenders for wrong doing
• Believe current prison regimes “too soft”, akin to holiday camp, would not deter existing or would-be offenders
• Deterrence only works if offenders see prison as punishment according to operant conditioning (law-abiding behv to avoid unpleasant consequence will be negatively reinforced)
• Similar number of respondents (40%) viewed that prison’s main emphasis should be on reform and rehabilitation
• Barriers to this was seen as overcrowding and lack of funding for training and treatment
• Norway adopts this stance, recidivism rates amongst the lowest in Europe there
• Suggests custodial sentencing must be sufficiently tough to punish and deter offenders but also offer a “second chance” through training and treatment

Question 112

Behaviour modification in custody

• What is behaviour modification?

Answer 112

Behaviour modification is one of many schemes that form part of the custodial sentence

Question 113

Behaviourist principles

• What do behaviourist suggest about behaviour?
• What does this suggest may be possible?
• What are behaviour modification programmes?
• What is the aim of behaviour modification programmes?

Answer 113

• All human behv is learnt, this include offending behv, may be possible to encourage the unlearning of behv
• Behaviour modification is a behaviourist approach to treatment of offending behv
• BM programmes aims to reinforce obedient behv in offenders whilst punishing disobedience in the hopes the former continues and the latter dies out (becomes extinct)

Question 114

Token economy

• What is a token economy?
• How are they used in prisons?
• Describe key details of token economies

Answer 114

• Based on operant conditioning
• Desirable behv in prison could be avoiding confrontation, cleaning cells following rules etc
• Tokens given when desirable behvs performed, this is made clear to prisoners before the programme is implemented
• Also emphasised that non-compliance or disobedience leads to punishment (tokens being withheld or removed)
• Tokens are secondary reinforcers (indirectly rewarding) when associated to rewards which are the primary reinforcers (directly rewarding)
• Primary reinforcers in this context may include phone calls to loved ones, cigarettes, extra food, gym time etc

Question 115

Designing and using a token economy

• OTB|SS|TS
• What three things must be considered/implemented?

Answer 115

Three things must be taken into consideration/implemented, operationalise target behaviours, a scoring system and train staff

Question 116

Operationalise target behaviours

• Describe what this entails

Answer 116

• Target behv operationalised, broken down into components,
• For example, target behv of improving interaction with other prisoners, broken down to no touching prisoners when passing them, speaking politely to others etc
• Components/units of behv must be measurable, observable and objective, also agreed upon with prison staff and inmates in advance

Question 117

Scoring system

• Describe what this entails

Answer 117

• Staff and prisoners made aware of scoring system, and how much each behv is “worth”
• Behvs are hierarchical, some more demanding than others, receive greater rewards
• Award more tokens when working well in group task compared to not swearing for example
• Tokens either directly rewarded or points received that are converted to tokens
• Gendreau et al (2011) recommended that reinforcements should outnumber punishments by a ratio of 4:1

Question 118

Train staff

• Describe what this entails

Answer 118

• Important that prison staff are given full training in order to implement token economy successfully
• Training may be several hours over a few weeks, aim of this is to standardise procedures so all prison staff are rewarding the same behvs in the same way
• Staff must record when they reward tokens so progress of individual prisoners can be assessed

Question 119

Evaluation for behaviour modification in custody

• RS|CP|E|RV|EI

Answer 119

• Research support (Hobbs and Holt 1976, Field et al 2004)
• Counterpoint (Basset and Blanchard 1977)
• Easy to implement
• Little rehabilitative value (Blackburn 1993)
• Ethical issues

Question 120

Research support (Hobbs and Holt 1976, Field et al 2004)

Answer 120

• Strength, evidence to support it
• Hobbs and Holt (1976), used TE programme with young offenders group in three behavioural units
• Observed significant difference in positive behv in TE group compared to non-TE group
• Field et al (2004), found TE with young people with behv problems was generally effective, however some still did not respond
• Later these youths place on special programme, rewards more immediate more frequent, results were more positive
• Suggest token economies do work

Question 121

Counterpoint (Basset and Blanchard 1977)

Answer 121

• Success dependent on consistent approach from staff
• Basset and Blanchard (1977), found benefits were lost if staff applied techniques inconsistently
• Researchers suggest this is due to lack of appropriate staff training or high staff turnover (latter particularly in UK prisons)
• Suggest BMS must ensure full and consistent staff participation if they are to work

Question 122

Easy to implement

Answer 122

• Strength, BMS straightforward to set up in custody
• Ease of administration, no need for specialist professionals to be involved that are required in anger management
• TE designed to be implemented by virtually anyone in any institution, cost-effective and easy to follow once workable methods of reinforcement have been established
• Suggest BM techniques can be established in most prisons and accessed by most prisoners

Question 123

Little rehabilitative value (Blackburn 1993)

Answer 123

• Limitation, may not affect long-term behaviour
• Blackburn (1993) stated that BM has “little rehabilitative value”, any positive changes may occur while in prison but may be quickly lost when prisoner released
• Anger-management more likely to be permeant behavioural change, requires offender to understand the cause of their offending, take responsibility for own rehabilitation
• Offenders can fairly easily play along with TE in contrast to access rewards, little change to their overall character
• May explain why once TE discontinued, offender may quickly regress to former behv

Question 124

Ethical issues

Answer 124

• BM programmes associated with decreased conflict in penial institutions, more successful management of prison population
• Prison inmates more motivated to achieve rewards, likely to lead to positive behavioural change
• Reduces pressure and stress of prison staff, prison can be a hostile and difficult environment
• However, critics claim BM is manipulative and dehumanising (Moya and Achtenberg 1974)
• Participation obligatory not optional, human rights campaigners suggest this withdrawal of privileges is unethical, should at least expect access to food without needing to be well-behaved
• Questions whether BM successful, prison staff benefit heavily from BM due to prison running smoothly and being easier to manage
• Whereas prisoners “lose out” if they do not strictly adhere to programme

Question 125

Anger management

• What is anger management?

Answer 125

Anger management is another scheme that forms part of the custodial sentence

Question 126

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT)

• What did Novaco (1975) suggest?
• What was his argument?
• Explain this in behaviourist terms
• What are anger management programmes a form of?
• How does anger management programmes help the individual?
• What does an anger management programme achieve?

Answer 126

• Novaco (1975) suggest cog factors trigger emotional arousal that generally precedes aggressive acts
• His argument, in some people anger quick to surface especially in situations perceived to be anxiety-inducing or threatening
• In behaviourist terms, becoming angry reinforced by individuals feeling of control in that situation
• AM programmes, form of CBT, individual taught how to recognise cog factors that trigger their anger and loss of control, encourage to develop techniques that bring resolution to conflict without violence
• Encourages self-awareness and facilitates rehabilitation

Question 127

Three stages of anger management

• C|S|A
• What are the three stages of anger management?

Answer 127

The three stages of anger management are cognitive preparation, skills acquisition and application practice

Question 128

Cognitive preparation

• Describe this stage

Answer 128

• Offender reflects on past experience, consider typical pattern of their anger
• Learns to identify those situations that trigger anger, if way offender interprets this is irrational, therapist’s role to make this clear
• For example, offender may view someone looking at them or their partner as act of confrontation
• By redefining situation as non-threatening, therapist attempts to break what could be an automatic response for the offender

Question 129

Skills acquisition

• Describe this stage

Answer 129

• Offenders introduced to range of techniques and skills to help deal with anger more rationally and effectively
• May include the following approaches to deal with the anger
• Cognitive, positive self-talk to encourage calmness (counting to ten)
• Behavioural, assertiveness training in how to communicate more effectively, becomes automatic response if practiced regularly
• Physiological, deal with physical reaction to anger using relaxation techniques or meditation, aims to control one’s emotions rather than being controlled by them

Question 130

Application practice

• Describe this stage

Answer 130

• Final phase, offender given opportunity to practice skills within carefully controlled environment
• Role play involves offender and therapist re-enacting scenarios that may have escalated feelings of anger and acts of violence in past
• Requires commitment from offender, must see scenario as real
• Requires some bravery from therapist, they are “winding up” offender
• If offender deals with situation successfully within role play, positive reinforcement given by therapist

Question 131

Positive outcome with young offenders

• What did Keen et al (2000) study?
• Who developed the National Anger Management Package?
• What does it consist of?
• How did the programme perform initially?
• What did the offenders report?

Answer 131

• Keen et al (2000) studied progress with young offenders (aged 17-21), took part in nationally recognised anger management programme
• National Anger Management Package developed by England and Wales Prison Service
• Course contains 8 2-hour sessions, first seven over 3-week period, last session month afterwards
• Initial issues (offenders not taking part seriously, forgetting routines like bringing diary), final outcomes generally positive
• Offenders reported increased awareness in their anger management difficulties, increase capacity to exercise self-control

Question 132

Evaluation for anger management

• B|CP|ID|E|AAO

Answer 132

• Better than behaviour modification
• Counterpoint (Follow ups don’t support AM)
• Individual differences (Howells et al 2005)
• Expensive
• Anger and offending

Question 133

Better than behaviour modification

Answer 133

• Strength, benefits outlast those of BM
• AM tackles a cause of offending (cog processes that trigger anger) and ultimately offending behv
• BM deals with surface behv, not processes that drive such behv
• Experience of AM may give some offenders new insight into cause of their criminality, allow them to discover ways they can manage themselves outside the prison setting
• Suggests AM more likely than BM to lead to permanent behv change

Question 134

Counterpoint (Follow ups don’t support AM)

Answer 134

• Follow up studies of AM tend to not support this assumption
• Blackburn (1993) points out while AM may have noticeable effect on offender in short term, very little evidence that it reduces recidivism in long term
• Could be because application phase still relies on role play, may not properly reflect all possible triggers in a real-world situation
• Suggests AM may not reduce reoffending

Question 135

Individual differences (Howells et al 2005)

Answer 135

• Limitation, success may depend on individual factors
• Howells et al (2005), investigation on Australian offenders, found AM had little overall impact when compared to a control group receiving not treatment
• However, not true for all offenders, some had significant progress, offenders with intense levels of anger before the programme or open to change with high motivation experienced this
• Suggests AM may only benefit offenders who fit a certain profile, cannot be generalised

Question 136

Expensive

Answer 136

• Limitation, expensive option, requires highly-trained specialists who are used to dealing with offenders
• Many prisons don’t have the resources to fund AM programmes
• Success of AM based on commitment of those participating, problem if prisoners are uncooperative and apathetic
• Changes take time adding to the expense off delivering expensive programmes
• Suggests effective AM programmes are probably not going to work in most prisons

Question 137

Anger and offending

Answer 137

• AM suggests straightforward relationship between anger and offending, so when managed it provides an indirect way of reducing offending and recidivism
• However, this assumption may be false, Loza-Famous (1999) found no differences in levels of anger between offenders classed as violent and offender classed as non-violent
• Unlikely that may offences (financial crime for example) are fuelled by anger
• Also know from top-down approach that organised offender remains calm and detached at crime scene
• Further suggested that AM programmes may be misguided as they provide offenders justification for their behv
• Suggests if anger is not a feature of many crimes, programmes that deal with it may be unnecessary and unhelpful when it comes to tackling crime

Question 138

Restorative justice programmes

• What is a restorative justice programme?

Answer 138

Restorative justice is a system which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims (survivors)

Question 139

Changing the emphasis

• What does restorative justice programmes switch emphasis to?
• What does this method of treatment seek to be?
• What did Braithwaite (2004) say?
• What is this method mostly about and vice versa?
• What are the two main focuses of restorative justice?

Answer 139

• RJ programmes switch emphasis from needs of state (enforce law and punish) to the needs of the victim/survivor (feel compensated, come to terms with the crime)
• This method of treatment seeks to be a healing process, Braithwaite (2004) said “crime hurts, justice should heal”
• Less about retribution (punishing offender) more about reparation (repair harm offender caused)
• RJ focuses on two things, the victim/survivor and their recovery, the offender and their recovery/rehabilitation process
• Enables offender to see impact of their crime and serves to empower survivors by giving them a “voice”

Question 140

Key features of the programme

• TM|NCS|FOR|CO|AI|FOPO|RCM
• List and describe the key features of the programme

Answer 140

• RJ programmes have the following key features
• Trained mediator supervises the meeting
• Non-courtroom setting, offenders voluntarily meet with suvirvor(s)
• Can be face-to-face or done remotely (video call)
• Survivor given opportunity to confront offender, explain how incident affected them enable offender to comprehend consequences of their actions including emotional distress caused
• Important that there is active involvement of all parties in the process wherever possible
• Focus on positive outcomes for both survivors and offenders
• Other relevant community members may have a role in the process (neighbours, family, friends etc), may all wish to explain the effects of the crime

Question 141

Sentencing and restitution

• When may restorative justice be administered?
• What may the offender offer?
• What is the idea of restitution?

Answer 141

• RJ may occur pre-trial (offender’s involvement may be considered during sentencing), alongside prison sentence or an alternative to prison (especially for young offenders)
• Could function as an incentive to reduce the length of a sentence
• In its traditional sense, restitution acts as monetary payment by an offender to survivor for the harm of the offence
• Offender may make a financial restitution that may reflect the psychological or actual physical damage caused by the incident
• Other variations of the scheme may involve offender repairing damaged property themselves
• Idea of restitution, pay back in a more emotional sense, offender can support healing process by repairing and rebuilding the survivor’s confidence or self-esteem

Question 142

Restorative Justice Council

• What is the RJC?
• Who do they support?
• What do they advocate?

Answer 142

• RJC, independent body, role to establish clear standards for use of RJ (restorative practice as RJC refers to it)
• RJC also supports survivors and special professionals in the field
• RJC advocates used of restorative practice beyond dealing with crime, can be used in preventing and managing conflict in schools, children’s services, workplaces, hospitals and communities

Question 143

Evaluation for restorative justice

• NOS|CP|R|ATS|DV

Answer 143

• Needs of the survivor (Shapland et al 2008)
• Counterpoint (Not all research positive, Wood and Suzuki 2016)
• Recidivism (Strang et al 2013, Bain 2012)
• Abusing the system (Gijseghem 2003)
• Domestic violence

Question 144

Needs of the survivor (Shapland et al 2008)

Answer 144

• Strength, evidence suggests it has positive outcomes
• RJC, Shapland et al (2008) reported results of major seven-year research project
• 85% survivors satisfied with meeting offender face-to-face, 78% recommended it to other people in similar situation, 60% felt the process made them feel better about the incident
• This enabled them to feel closure and “move on”, only 2% said it made them feel worse
• Suggests RJ achieves some of its aims, helping survivors cope with the aftermath of the incident

Question 145

Counterpoint (Not all research positive, Wood and Suzuki 2016)

Answer 145

• Not all research is overwhelmingly positive, Wood and Suzuki (2016) argue restorative process not survivor focused as often reported in satisfaction surveys
• Researchers say restorative processes can become distorted; survivors “used” to help rehabilitate offenders rather than being helped themselves
• Suggests needs of the survivor in RH may be secondary to the need to rehabilitate offenders

Question 146

Recidivism (Strang et al 2013, Bain 2012)

Answer 146

• Strength, leads to decreased rates of reoffending (recidivism)
• Strang et al (2013) meta-analysis of ten studies compared offenders who experience face-to-face RJ with offenders who just experienced custodial sentencing
• RJ group significantly less likely to reoffend, reduction larger in offenders convicted for vilent crim than crimes against property
• Bain (2012) review of 24 published studies found lowered recidivism rates with adult offenders, especially when one-to-one contact used rather than general community involvement
• Suggests RJ has positive impact on reoffending, maybe more so for some types of offence than others and some approaches

Question 147

Abusing the system (Gijseghem 2003)

Answer 147

• Limitation, offenders may abuse the system
• Success of RJ hinges on offenders’ intentions being honourable, genuinely regret the hurt they cause and want to make amends
• Gijseghem (2003) suggests offenders may use RJ for many reasons, avoid punishment, play down their faults, take pride in relationship with survivor using direct contact (face-to-face or in writing)
• This explains why not all offenders benefit from RJ and go on to offend

Question 148

Domestic violence

Answer 148

• While RJ permitted for DV, National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) policy does not support RJ use in this context
• Liebman (2016) argues concern is that power imbalance between abuser and abused may place pressure on survivors who may fear the worst if they do not go along with partners suggestions during mediation
• Therefore, RJ may do more harm then good in DV cases, feminist groups called for legislative ban on use of RJ in this context
• However, others argue pre-trial mediation in DV cases produces positive result for survivors (Lünnemann and Wolthuis 2015)
• Meeting prior to trial may make prospect of an individual facing their abuser in court less daunting
• Sen et al (2018), RJ particularly useful in cases of intimate partner violence, couple choose to remain together
• They can address harm caused and plan for future
• Likely that majority of abused not considering continuing relationship with abuser
• May therefore only account for small number of cases