forensic psychology Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO1 universal levels of moral reasoning point

A
  • Kohlberg suggested that there are three universal levels of moral reasoning:
    -pre-conventional (punishment orientation)
    -conventional (maintenance of the social order)
    -post-conventional (morality of contract and individual rights)
  • criminals are likely to be at the pre-conventional level - what is acceptable is defined by ones own needs (Hollin et al. 2002)
  • they believe that breaking the law is justified if the rewards outweigh the costs or if punishment can be avoided
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO1 cognitive distortions point

A
  • cognitive distortions are a form of irrational thinking in which the perceptions of a person do not match reality. for example:
  • hostile attributation bias - when a person automatically attributes malicious intentions to another. the negative interpretations lead to more aggressive behaviour. hostile attributation bias has been linked to increased levels of aggression
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 moral thinking rather than behaviour point

A
  • Kohlbergs theory concerns moral thinking rather than behaviour
  • Krebs and Denton (2005) suggest that moral principles are only one factor in moral behaviour and may be overridden by more practical factors, such as making financial gains
  • they also found that in real-life moral decisions
  • Kohlbergs reseach was based only on males and therefore has a gender bias
  • Carol Giligan suggested that the theory is focused on a male perspective - one of justice rather than caring
  • this means the theory is limited in its ability to explain causes of offending behaviour, particularly in relation to women
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 real-world application point

A
  • Kohlberg identified at least one benefitial real-world application of his theory
  • he observed that children raised on Israei Kibbutzim were more morally advanced than those who weren’t
  • he suggested that belonging to a democratic group and being involved in making moral judgements facilitated moral development
  • with Carol Giligan, he set up a number of cluster schools/’jusr’ communities where members had the power to define and resolve disputes within the group, encouraging moral development
  • this is a good example of putting theories into practice concerning how to develop moral reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 support for hostile attributation bias point

A
  • studies of violent offenders have provided support for hostile attributation bias
  • Schönenberg and Aiste (2014) showed emotionally ambiguous faces to 55 violent offenders in prison and compared their responses to matched control ‘normal’ participants
  • the faces showed happy, angry, or fearful emotions in varying levels of intensity
  • the offenders were more likely to interpret any picture that had some expression of anger as an expression of aggression
  • this suggests that misinterpretation of non-verbal cues may at least partially explain aggressive-impulsive behaviours in susceptible individuals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 cognitive distortions in treatment

A
  • understanding cognitive distortions can be used in treatment
  • Heller et al (2013) worked with a group of young men who were mainly from disadvantaged groups in Chicago
  • they used cognitive behavioural techniques to reduce judgement and cognitive errors
  • those who attended 13 one-hour sessoins had a 44% reduction in arrests compared to a control group
  • this suggest that CBT can be effective in helping top rehabilitate people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO1 token economies point

A
  • token economies are systems based upon operant conditioning
  • within this, prisoners are given tokens when they perform desirable behaviours, e.g. obeying orders
  • the token is a secondary reinforcer and is swapped for a reward (the primary reinforcer) e.g. tobacco or food
  • this positive reinforcement means the offender is more likely to repeat the desirable behaviours
  • target behaviours must be clearly specified and primary reinforcers must also be clearly defined at the outset
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO1 key study + effectiveness point

A
  • the effectiveness of token economy systems was demonstrated by Hobbs and Holt (1976) who studied 125 criminal male juvenile
  • the staff were given extensive training to identify target behaviours, discuss methods of observing and recording data, and work our logistical problems
  • the baseline mean percentages for social behaviour increased post-tokens by an average of 27% with the highest, with one cottage going from 47% to 81%
  • therefore, token ecconomy systems can be used to improve the running of prisons
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 clearly defined point

A
  • the appeal of token economy is clearly defined and easy to implement
  • prison staff can think about what behaviours are desirable and increase such behaviours, improving the prison environment for staff and prisoners
  • it can be implemented without psychologists and provides a means of controlling unmanageable behaviour
  • pre-planning is needed for a successful token economy, alongside consistency from staff in how they give out tokens
  • in one study - Bassett and Blanchard (1977) - a failing token economy system was improved by re-establishing consistency
  • therefore, as long as the token economy is clear and consistent, it can provide a simple and cost-effective way of improving prison life
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 response to operant conditioning point

A
  • some people respond better to operant conditioning than others
  • for example, programmes with young delinquents have been reasonably successful, but programmes with violent offenders have been less successful
  • Cohen and Filipczak (1971) found that juvenile delinquents who had been trained with a token economy system were less likely to reoffend after one year
  • in contrast, Rice et al (1990) studied 92 men in a Canadian maximumm security psychiatric hospital and found that 50% of men treated this way reoffended
  • this suggests that token economy programmes are more effective when used with young offenders than with other groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 less successful with prison populations point

A
  • generally, the token economy approach has been less successful with prison populations
  • in the 1970’s, it became popular in the US and was being used in nearly all states
  • research like Milan and Mckee (1976) showed that socially approved behaviours were enhanced and criminal behaviours diminished
  • however, it fell out of favour after this time since the good results didn’t persist
  • use in the UK was limited to young offenders’ institutions, like in Cullen and Seddon (1981)
  • the approach has had some success, such as for schools and dealing with people with autism, demonstrated by Tarbox et al (2006)
  • therefore, although the approach has fallen out of favour in prisons, it’s still used successfully elsewhere
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 violation of human rights point

A
  • token economy systems are a violation of human rights because individuals behaviour is being manipulated, not always with their agreement
  • Hall (1979) suggests that this can be overcome with procedures and goals being agreed upon by prisoners, officers, and administrators, and having them periodically reviewed
  • objections still remain about basic needs like food or visiting rights being conditional on good behaviour
  • some prisoners are unable to control their behaviour and can’t earn tokens
  • some establishments use punishment as a part of token economy, which is unethical and counter to the goals of rehabilitation
  • Nietzel (1979) suggests that this practice led to the collapse of using such systems
  • all these ethical issues contributed to the loss of popularity of token economy in prisons
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO1

A
  • Eysenck developed a theory of personality based on the idea that character traits like moodiness or talkativeness tend to cluster along three dimensions
  • for example, extraversion-introversion. extraverts are characterised as outgoing and having positive emotions, but may get bored easily
  • around 68% of any population should fall within one standard deviation from the mean
  • suggested each trait has a biological basis, which is mainly inate (67% of the variance in traits is due to genetic factors
  • for example, extraversion is determined by the level of arousal in a persons nervous system. under-aroused require more stimulation and are therefore extraverts. introverts are inately under-aroused amd seek to reduce or avoid stimulation
  • link to criminal behaviour - criminals are extraverted, psychotic, and neurotic. extraverts seek more arousal and thus engage in dangerous activities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO3 personality isn’t consistent point

A
  • some psychologists believe personality theories are wrong in suggesting that personality is consistent
  • people may be consistent in similar situations, but not across situations e.g. someone may be relaxed and calm at home but quite neurotic at work
  • Micheal and Peake (1982) asked family, friends, and strangers to rate 63 students in a variety of situations and found almost no correlations between traits displayed
  • any regularity in behaviour is likely to be due to the fact that we often tend to be in similar situations
  • therefore the notion of a criminal personality is flawed as people don’t simply have ‘one’ personality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO3 link between personality traits and criminal behaviour point

A
  • there’s been research comparing the personalities of criminals and non-criminals in order to identify the link between personality traits and criminal behaviour
  • Dunlop et al. 2010 found that both extraversion and psychoticism as well as lie scales were good predictors of delinquency
  • however in this study, all participants were students and friends (age 15-75) and delinquency was an assessment of minor offences in the previous 12 months (e.g. theft, traffic offences, but armed robbery was also included)
  • this therefore doesnt account for violent crimes and the study may be innacurate due to people lying
  • therefore, there’s some support for a link between personality traits and criminal behaviour, but it’s inconsistent and limited
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO3 validity point

A
  • research methodology depends on self-report, which raises issues of validity
  • the score/label given depends on the answers they provide on a personality questionnaire and their responses may not represent ‘reality’
  • e.g. the question ‘are you rather lively?’ would usually be answered with ‘somewhat’ by most people, but the questionnaire forces them to pick yes or no
  • people may also tend towards a more socially acceptable answer, so their answers aren’t useful
  • this means we should treat the evidence with caution
17
Q

O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO3 some applications point

A
  • it’s valuable as a way of identifying criminals or in offering some treatment to reduce their criminal tendencies
  • the three traits are useful in predicting delinquency, but probably not close enough to use as a means of detecting who is most likely to become an offender
  • it’s nomothetic - makes generalisations
  • however, it may provide useful ideas of how to prevent criminal behaviour, e.g. modelling the socialisation experiences of children who have the potential to become offenders
  • this suggests the theory could have some applications in preventing or treating offending behaviour
18
Q

O&E neural explanations of offending - AO1 regions of the brain point

A

prefrontal cortex
- Raine (2004) cited 71 brain imaging studies showing murderers, psychopaths, and violent individuals have reduced functioning in the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for regulating emotion and controlling moral behaviour
- serotonin is in partial control of the PFC so abnormal levels of it can cause the reduced functioning
limbic system
- a set of subcortical structures (e.g. thalamus and amygdala) linked to emotion and motivation
- Raine et al. (1997) studied murderers NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity), and compared with matched controls they found abnormal asymmetries in the limbic systems of the murderers
- serotonin and noradrenaline help in the regulation of the limbic system - abnormal levels of both will contribute to the asymmetries

19
Q

O&E neural explanations of offending - AO1 neurotransmitters point

A

serotonin
- Seo etal. (2008) suggests low levels of serotonin may predispose individuals to impulsive aggression and criminal behaviour
- low levels mean a lack of inhibition by the prefrontal cortex
- dopamine hyperactivity may enhance this effect
noradrenaline
- very high and very low levels have been associated with aggression, violence, and criminality - Wright et al. (2015)
- high levels are associated with activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the fight-or-flight response, and therefore linked with aggression

20
Q

O&E neural explanations of offending - AO3 determinism point

A
  • the neural explanation can be labelled deterministic
  • for example, whether abnormalities in regions of the brain or neurotransmitters are the causes of offending behaviour, the result of it, or just an intervening variable
  • research only highlights a correlation between head injuries and later criminality
  • it could just be a spurious relationship, for example a child in a violent household may be more likely to suffer a head injury - therefore the link between the head injury and offending could be the violent childhood
  • therefore, neural explanations may only highlight an association and not a causal link with crime
21
Q

O&E neural explanations of offending - AO3 could lead to treatment point

A
  • research on neural abnormalities could lead to possible methods of treatment
  • e.g. if low levels of serotonin are related to increased aggressiveness in criminals, then people in prisons could be given diets to enhance thier serotonin levels and potentially decrease aggression levels
  • artificial sweetners are an example of a food that makes production of serotonin difficult due to the chemical composition of them
  • this suggests that drugs and/or changes in diet could be used to help some individuals
22
Q

O&E neural explanations of offending - AO3 aggressiveness rather than criminality point

A
  • in much of the research on neurotransmitters, aggressiveness is studied rather than criminality, which raises issues of validity
  • studies in this area often use non-human animals e.g. Curran and Renzetti (2001)
  • this undermines the potential relevance of the informaiton for understanding offending behaviour
  • furthermore, there isnt 100% correspondence with ant area of the brain or a neurotransmitter
  • this means the data cannot be used to predict who might become an offender and it cannot be generalised to non-violent crimes