Forensic Psychology Flashcards
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Outline what is meant by offender profiling.
offender profiling: main aim is to narrow the field of enquiry and list of likely suspects
- professional profilers called upon to work alongside police, esp. in high profile murder cases
- helps to generate hypotheses about probable characteristics
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
What is meant by the top-down approach to offender profiling?
top-down approach: starting with profiles and matching evidence base to it
- originated from in-depth FBI interviews with convicted sexually-motivated serial killers (Ted Bundy)
- data gathered led to two categories which had certain characteristics, with the main distinction being “way of working” (modus operandi) (psychological characteristics)
- profilers using this method will match data from pre-existing template that the FBI created, which can be used to predict other likely characteristics
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Outline the organised offender profile.
- evidence of having planned crime in advance
- deliberately targeted victims
- offender maintains high degree of control during crime scene
- little evidence/clues left behind
- tend to be of above-average intelligence in a skilled, professional occupation
- socially and sexually competent
- usually married, may even have children
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Outline the disorganised offender profile.
- little evidence of planning, suggesting their offences may be spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment acts
- crime scene reflects impulsive nature of attacks; body usually still at the scene and there appears to have been very little control on the part of the offender
- tend to have lower-than-average intelligence, in an unskilled occupation or unemployed
- often have a history of sexual dysfunctional and failed relationships
- tend to live alone and often relatively close to where the offence took place
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Outline one strength of the top-down approach to offender profiling, regarding research support.
P: research support
E: Canter et al (2004) analysis of 100 US murders each committed by a different serial killer; small space analysis used (statistical technique that identifies correlations across different samples of behaviour), to assess the co-occurrence of 39 aspects of serial killings (torture, restraint, attempts to conceal the body, form of murder weapon, cause of death); analysis revealed a subset of features which matched an organised offender profile
E: increased validity of organised offender profile, can be seen across real crimes
E: BUT organised and disorganised are not mutually exclusive, variety of different combinations that could occur at any given murder scene (may be both intelligent and sexually competent but commit a spontaneous murder and leave body at scene). PLUS no evidence for disorganised, top-down approach only partially credible
L: increased credibility to an extent (caution)
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Outline one limitation of the top-down approach to offender profiling, regarding the theory being based on flawed evidence.
P: based on flawed evidence
E: developed from interviews with 36 sexually-motivated American serial killers; not random sample, all same type of offender,
E: no standardisation of questions in interview; unrepresentative sample, not the same as petty crime, => low eco validity
E: PLUS implications for application, inaccurate method (flawed evidence base) so possibility of incorrect convictions and could lead to miscarriage of justice; moral and economic implications
L: credibility of top-town approach is limited due to being based on flawed evidence
OFFENDER PROFILING: TOP-DOWN APPROACH
Outline one strength of the top-down approach to offender profiling, regarding the application of a range of crimes.
P: application to a range of crimes
E: originally applied to a limited number of crimes (sexually-motivated serial killers) but Meketa (2017) reports that it can be applied to burglary too, led to a 85% rise in solved cases in three US states
E: highlights usefulness for wide range of crimes beyond what was initially thought
E: BUT Meketa’s methods edited the approach (added interpersonal and opportunistic categories); original organised vs disorganised distinction wasn’t suitable to be applied without being updated first?
L: top-down approach has wider application and is a useful starting point but needs to be adapted before use
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline what is meant by the bottom-up approach.
bottom-up approach: aims to generate a picture of the offender through systematic analysis of the evidence at the crime scene
- doesn’t begin with fixed typologies
- profile is data-driven, emerges as investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of the details of the offence, based on psychological theory
- two approaches within bottom-up approach: investigative psychology and geographical profiling
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline the 5 factor model about offenders as outlined by Canter (2004) in the investigative psychology approach.
1) forensic awareness - offenders show an understanding of the police investigation and are likely to have had previous encounters with the criminal justice system
2) interpersonal coherence - there is a consistency between the way offenders interact with their victims and with others in their everyday lives
3) villain’s characteristics - how the crime has been committed suggests aspects of the offender’s characteristics, based on evidence from previous criminal studies
4) early career - crimes tend to be committed in a similar fashion by offenders and can provide an indication of how their criminal activity will develop; helps us to understand how the crimes may change due to the criminal becoming more experienced
5) space and time - time and location of an offender’s crime will communicate something about their own place of residence/employment
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline the 4 stages of the bottom-up approach.
1) data gathered from crime scene
2) data from crime scene compared with statistical databases of previous similar cases
3) assumptions made using the 5 factor model (investigative psychology)
4) profile generated from these assumptions
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline the geographical profiling approach within the bottom-up approach.
geographical profiling: used to make assumptions about where an offender is likely to live (their operational base) (aka crime mapping)
- Canter and Youngs (2008) identified that there are a number of telling clues regarding the place crimes committed in relation to the offender
- can be used alongside investigative psychology
- the expectation is that serial offenders will restrict their crimes to areas that they are familiar with and therefore paying attention to the location could suggest where the offender might be based
- the more offences there are, the more apparent a circle is likely to follow around their residence
- this can help investigators make predictions about where the killers are likely to strike next, which is known as Jeopardy surface
- geographical profiling can also give important insight into important factors about the offender (mode of transport, employment, status, approximate age)
Canter devised a theory known as Circle Theory as the pattern of offending forms a circle. offenders are seen as one of the following:
- marauder model: commits crimes within a criminal range from their own home
- commuter model: travels from their home to a familiar area then commits crimes within a criminal range of that area
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline one strength of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling, regarding research support.
P: research support
E: Canter and Heritage (1990) analysed data from 66 sexual assault cases using small space analysis; several common characteristics (use of impersonal language, lack of reaction to the victim); case linkage (each case displayed a characteristic pattern of such behaviours, could be used to determine whether two or more offences were committed by the same person) (use of investigative psychology)
E: investigative psychology is a valid technique to use as an approach for offender profiling PLUS use of computer databases and previous research makes this approach a more vali approach to offender profiling than the top-down approach, less room for human error or bias
E: PLUS support for geographical profiling: Lundrigan and Canter (2001) collated info from 120 serial killer cases in USA; the location of each body disposal site was in a different direction from the previous, creating a ‘centre of gravity’; the offenders’ base was invariably located in the centre of the pattern (effect more noticeable for marauders); therefore geo profiling is a valid approach
L: bottom-up approach is valid and has a strong evidence base for both of its main techniques.
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline one weakness of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling, regarding ethical implications.
P: ethical implications
E: Paul Britton’s misleading profile in the hunt for the killer of Rachel Nickell (stabbed 47 times and sexually assaulted, all witnessed by her 2 year old son); honeytrap investigation set up to incriminate Colin Stagg of the murder; real killer (Robert Napper) was ruled out early on in the investigation due to being a few inches too tall to fit the profile
E: over-use of bottom-up profiling could lead to miscarriage of justice; police can be blinded to other possibilities; ppl could be wrongly-accused because they meet the profile more than someone else; significant ethical implications for the individual concerned (false labels they may carry for the rest of their life)
E: PLUS honeytrap operations (like for Colin Stagg) = significant waste of taxpayer money, inappropriate use of offender profiling + serious economic implications
L: reduced credibility for bottom-up approach to offender profiling
OFFENDER PROFILING: THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH
Outline one weakness of the bottom-up approach to offender profiling, regarding it being insufficient on its own.
P: insufficient on its own
E: investigative psychology and geographical profiling rely on the quality of the data provided by the police; recording of crime isn’t always accurate, can vary between police forces; 75% crimes not reported at all (the dark figure of crime)
E: bottom-up approach is “data-driven” but the data it relies on may be incomplete or biased so it may not be sufficient as a stand-alone method to use when profiling
E: PLUS mixed evidence on accuracy of bottom-up profiling; Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police departments, found advice from profiler was useful in 83% cases (so a valid tool); but same study revealed the profile led to an accurate identification of offender in 3% of cases => offender profiling may actually have little practical value for solving cases (may focus police investigations + offer new lines of enquiry, but for its purpose (identifying the offender) it may fall short)
L: caution needed when using bottom-up approach as a stand-alone technique, should instead rely on multiple techniques to ensure success
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: A HISTORICAL APPROACH
Fill in the gaps:
In 1876, Cesare [ ], an Italian physician, wrote a book called L’Uomo Delinquente (roughly translated as ‘the criminal man’) in which he suggested that criminals were ‘[ ] [ ]’ - a primitive subspecies who were [ ] different from non- criminals.
According to [ ], offenders lacked [ ] development, their [ ] and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would [ ] turn to crime. As such, he saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency, rooted in the [ ] of those who engage in it, therefore his approach is seen as an early [ ] approach.
0/10 = 1
3/10 = 2
5/10 = 3
8/10 = 4
10/10 = 5
In 1876, Cesare Lombroso, an Italian physician, wrote a book called L’Uomo Delinquente (roughly translated as ‘the criminal man’) in which he suggested that criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ - a primitive subspecies who were biologically different from non- criminals.
According to Lombroso offenders lacked evolutionary development, their savage and untamed nature meant that they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime. As such, Lombroso saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency, rooted in the genes of those who engage in it, therefore his approach is seen as an early biological approach.
0/10 = 1
3/10 = 2
5/10 = 3
8/10 = 4
10/10 = 5
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: A HISTORICAL APPROACH
Outline Lombroso’s research on the atavistic form.
- examined skulls of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living ones
- concluded there were similar facial and cranial features in the offender group
- referred to these features together as the atavistic form
- these features were key indicators of criminality, suggested that 40% criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic characteristics
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: A HISTORICAL APPROACH
Outline Lombroso’s atavistic form. According to his theory, how do murderers, sexual deviants and fraudsters differ physically?
- a narrow, sloping brow
- strong prominent jaw
- high cheekbones
- facial asymmetry
- dark skin
- extra toes, nipples or fingers
- besides physical traits: insensitivity to pain, use of slang, tattoos and unemployment
- murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
- sexual deviants: glinting eyes, swollen + fleshy lips, projecting ears
- fraudsters: thin + ‘reedy’ lips
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: A HISTORICAL APPROACH
Outline one strength of Lombroso’s research into the atavistic form, regarding it having changed the study of crime.
P: changed the study of crime
E: focus on ‘scientific’ and objective measures (facial features) moved the discipline of criminology away from a moral discourse that those who had committed crimes were simply evil and weak.
E: contributes to psychology’s claim to being a science, led the way for more scientific theories to emerge
E: BUT theory is scientifically racist; atavistic characteristics typically found in ethnic minorities (curly hair, dark skin); theory could be seen as contributing to eugenics => reduces applicability of his work in modern psychology
L: credibility of historical approach is questionable
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: A HISTORICAL APPROACH
Outline one limitation of Lombroso’s research into the atavistic form, regarding contradictory evidence.
P: contradictory evidence
E: Goring (1913) did comparison of 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders, found no evidence that offenders had a distinct set of facial and cranial features
E: Goring’s research suggests the key differences between offenders and non-offenders identified by Lombroso is not a reliable or valid measure of criminality
E: PLUS Goring is more scientific than Lombroso because he had a valid control group (Lombroso did not, therefore failed to control confounding variables that could better explain offending behaviour) => Lombroso’s research doesn’t meet modern day standards for scientific research
L: reduced cred for scientific approach
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: A HISTORICAL APPROACH
Outline one limitation of Lombroso’s research into the atavistic form, regarding biological determinism.
P: biological determinism
E: Lombroso suggests crime is genetically determined and beyond the control of the individual; criminals are ‘genetic throwbacks’ who are further back in the evolutionary chain than the law-abiding majority
E: significant implications for legal system; if crime is genetically determined, should we punish individuals in the same way? (criminal justice system is based on the assumption of free-will, which contradicts Lombroso
E: BUT even atavistic form (if indeed present in criminals) may not determine their offending; may be influenced by environmental factors (poverty, poor diet)
L: would be more credible to recognise the interaction of biological and environmental factors
BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following genetic explanation of offending behaviour:
Twin and adoption studies
- Christiansen (1977) studied over 3500 twin pairs in Denmark
- found concordance rates for offending behaviour of 35% in MZ males and 13% for DZ males (slightly lower rates for females)
- included all twins born between 1880 and 1910 in a region of Denmark
- offending behaviour checked against Danish police records
- this data indicates that it’s not just the behaviour that is inherited but the underlying predisposing traits
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following genetic explanation of offending behaviour:
Family studies
Crowe (1972) found that adopted children whose biological mother had a criminal record had a 50% risk of having a criminal record by the age of 18, whereas adopted children whose biological mother didn’t have a criminal record only had a 5% risk
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following genetic explanation of offending behaviour:
Candidate genes
- Tiihonen et al (2015) conducted genetic analysis of almost 800 Finnish offenders
- suggested two genes (MAOA (regulates serotonin + linked to aggression) and CDH13 (linked to substance abuse and ADHD) may be associated with violent crime
- analysis found 5-10% of all severe violent crime in Finland is attributable to MAOA and CDH13 genotypes
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following genetic explanation of offending behaviour:
Diathesis-stress model
tendency towards offending behaviour may come about through a combo of genetic predisposition and biological or psychological triggers
e.g.) being raised in a dysfunctional env or having criminal role models
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following neural explanation for offending behaviour:
Brain structure
Raine et al (1997)
- investigated brains of 41 murderers (2 female) who had been charged with manslaughter or murder and had not pleaded guilty by reason of insanity
- researchers used PET scan to highlight areas of brain activity and these results were compared to an age and gender matched control group
- found reduced activity in prefrontal cortex in offender group
- indicates that violent offenders have abnormal brain functioning due to reduced activity, suggesting their brains are slowed and perhaps unable to make the swift decisions to react appropriately in certain situations
- e.g.) frontal lobes associated with planning behaviour => decreased prefrontal cortex activity could mean offenders are unable to consider the consequences of their actions and control their behaviour
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following neural explanation for offending behaviour:
Neurotransmitters
serotonin: linked to mood and impulsiveness
- Moir and Jessel (1995) cite a number of human and animal studies which suggest a link between low levels of serotonin and aggression (linked to criminal behaviour)
- Scerbo and Raine (1993) conducted a meta-analysis on 29 pieces of research into anti-social adults and children, finding low serotonin in all cases
dopamine: identified as having link to dopaminergic pathways (result in pleasure, rewarding feeling and a desire to repeat certain behaviours), linked to substance abuse
- Buitelaar (2003) found juvenile delinquents given dopamine antagonists (reduce dopamine) showed decreased aggressive behaviour
- Couppis (2008) argues that some individuals who engage in certain criminal behaviours ,ay experience an increase in dopamine => seek out such experiences again due to reward feeling
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline the following neural explanation for offending behaviour:
Mirror neurons
mirror neuron: type of brain cell that fires both when you do an action and when you watch someone else doing an action; helps us interpret the actions of others
- Keysers (2011) found that only when offenders were asked to empathise (when watching a film depicting pain) did their empathy reaction activate
- offenders are not totally without empathy but may have a neural switch that can be turned on and off (i.e. empathy isn’t an automatic response for offenders)
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of biological (genetic) explanations to explaining offending behaviour, regarding issues with twin and adoption studies.
P: issues with twin and adoption studies
E: it’s assumed in twin studies that because MZ and DZ twins are raised together, their env is controlled but research suggests that MZ twins are much more likely to be treated more similarly because they’re identical
E: assumption of “shared env” is flawed, difficult to establish whether increased concordance in offending behaviour in MZ twins is due to greater genetic similarity or shared env when compared with DZ
E: PLUS many adoptions take place when child is older, so have spent a significant amount of time with biological parents; and many adoption practices encourage (where possible) contact between bio parents and child => twin and adoption studies don’t appear to separate influences of nature and nurture as well as they claim
L: difficult to ascertain how much of offending behaviour is attributed to nature vs nurture
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of biological (genetic) explanations to explaining offending behaviour, regarding support for diathesis-stress model.
P: research support for DSM
E: Mednick et al (1884) studies 13,000 Danish adoptees looking at petty crime; when neither biological nor adopted parents had convictions, 13.5% adoptees had convictions; rose to 20% when either of bio parents had convictions; 24.5% when adoptive and biological both had convictions
E: highest rate of offending behaviour was when child had both biological vulnerability (both bio parents convicted) and env stressor (adoptive parents convicted), as DSM would predict
E: BUT not 100% (less than a quarter) so DSM is insufficient as a stand-alone explanation for all offending behaviour; reduced validity
L: DSM not necessarily most useful as explanation for offending behaviour
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of biological (either genetic or neural) explanations to explaining offending behaviour, regarding biological determinism.
P: biological determinism
E: genetic: argues a person born with candidate genes (CDH13 or MAOA) will go on to offend//reduced activity in prefrontal cortex or low serotonin or high dopamine
E: ignores free will, judiciary system is based upon idea that people have chosen to commit their crimes - if false then serious implications for validity of the system
E: PLUS ethical implications, not fair to punish someone with additional risk of offending behaviour (carrying MAOA or CHD13 gene // reduced activity in prefrontal cortex) the same as someone who had more control, such as Steven Mobley (sentence not reduced even after claims of biological predisposition and was killed by lethal injection as punishment); miscarriage of justice
L: more realistic stance would be soft determinism
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of biological (neural) explanations to explaining offending behaviour, regarding brain evidence.
P: research support for link between crime and frontal lobe
E: Kandel and Freed (1989) reviewed evidence of frontal lobe damage (incl. prefrontal cortex) and antisocial behaviour; people with such damage tended to show impulsive behaviour, emotional instability and inability to learn from their mistakes
E: frontal lobe associated with planning behaviour, supports link between brain and offending behaviour
E: biological explanations support psychology’s claim to being a science - objective methods such as brain scans, increased validity of bio explanations for offending behaviour
L: increased cred of neural explanation to extent
OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: GENETIC AND NEURAL EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of biological (neural) explanations to explaining offending behaviour, regarding intervening variables (reductionism).
P: biological reductionism
E: neurochemical explanations take lowest level of explanation and break complex behaviour of offending to levels of neurotransmitters (low serotonin, high dopamine)
E: neglects other factors; Farrington et al (2006) studies group of men scoring high on psychopathy; these individuals experienced various risk factors during childhood (raised by convict parent, physically neglected); could be these early childhood experiences interacted with biological vulnerabilities, contributing to offending behaviour
E: BUT genetic explanations do appreciate DSM which increases credibility of biological explanations
L: relationship between neural differences and offending is complex and there may be other intervening variables that have an impact
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality (as if a 1 or 2 mark question). What 3 aspects do we need to include (besides the three personality traits) to ace a question on the criminal personality?
- an individual with a criminal personality scores highly in measures of psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism (PEN)
- they cannot be easily conditioned, they are cold, unfeeling and likely to engage in offending behaviour
when explaining criminal personality: 1) outline the trait, 2) outline the biology, 3) link to criminal behaviour
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline the psychoticism aspect to Eysenck’s criminal personality.
PSYCHOTICISM (PEN)
- over-sensitive, impulsive, lack empathy
chemical imbalance:
- high DA levels => behaviour is unpredictable
- high testosterone => prone to aggressive outbursts
- poor metabolism of serotonin => mood not well-regulated
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline the extraversion aspect to Eysenck’s criminal personality.
EXTRAVERSION (PEN)
- outgoing, sociable, seek stimulation, engage in risk-taking behaviour, hard to condition
underactive reticular activating system (RAS) (controls flow of info into brain)
- underactive => restricts flow of info to brain => extraverts crave stimulation (want to ‘make up for’ reduced of stimulation) => carry out risk-taking behaviour as a way of increasing stimulation
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline the neuroticism aspect to Eysenck’ criminal personality.
NEUROTICISM (PEN)
- emotional unstable, very reactive
overactive limbic system (which regulates emotion)
- overactive => neurotic people react to a stimulus very quickly (e.g. extremely angry, leading to violent outbursts)
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
How do we measure the criminal personality?
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (/Inventory) (EPQ (/EPI))
- form of psychological test which locates respondents along the ENP dimensions (circular spectrum)
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
What was it that Eysenck believed made individuals with a criminal personality hard to condition?
(hint: socialisation)
socialisation: children taught to become more able to delay gratification and be more socially orientated
- Eysenck believed that people with high PEN scores had nervous systems that made them harder to condition => more likely to be antisocial in situations where the opportunity presents itself
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline one strength of Eysenck’s criminal personality, regarding supportive evidence.
P: supportive evidence
E: Hans and Cybil Eysenck compared 2070 male prisoners’ scores on EPQ with 2422 male control group; groups subdivided into age, ranging from 16-69yrs; prisoner group scored higher on each aspect of PEN than control group
E: prisoners have higher scores on PEN => fit criminal behaviour (more than control) => increased validity of theory for identifying criminals
E: BUT bet bias in research (all male sample) => underestimates the criminal personality in women => reduced validity for research, assumes men and women both equally fit into Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality
L: empirical evidence but take with caution
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline one limitation of Eysenck’s criminal personality, regarding it being too simplistic.
P: too simplistic
E: Moffit claimed that personality alone is a poor predictor of how long offending behaviour would go on for; differences in adolescents’ offending behaviour and that which continues into adulthood; she argued behaviour best understood as a “reciprocal process” between individual personality traits and environmental reactions to those traits
E: ignores environmental factors affecting personality => reductionist (breaks down complex idea of personality into biology, fails to recognise differences between petty crime in adolescence and more serious crimes in adulthood
E: PLUS EPQ is also too simplistic, not in depth, closed Qs requiring fixed answers, can’t elaborate
L: reduced credibility, reductionist
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: EYSENCK’S THEORY OF CRIMINAL PERSONALITY
Outline one limitation of Eysenck’s criminal personality, regarding contradictory evidence.
P: contradictory evidence
E: Farrington did meta-analysis of relevant studies and found that offenders tended to score higher on measures of psychoticism but not extraversion and neuroticism
E: theory says criminal personality needs high scores on all three (PEN) but Farrington contradicts => theory is unreliable
E: PLUS meta-analysis strengthens Farrington’s study, large sample => reliable => more credible study than Eysenck’s
L: reduced cred for Eysenck (contradictory evidence is stronger than the original evidence)
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline Kohlberg’s theory of Levels of Moral Reasoning as a cognitive explanation for offending behaviour.
KOHLBERG’S LEVEL OF MORAL REASONING
theory:
- moral reasoning = ways people think about and perceive right or wrong
- developmental theory that looks at how individuals grow in their understanding of moral decision-making and behaviour
- staged process, moral reasoning becomes more complex and abstract as the child ages
- 6 stages (3 levels): pre-conventional level (moral reasoning is based on reward and punishment), then conventional (moral reasoning based on external ethics), then post-conventional (moral reasoning based on personal ethics)
link to offending behaviour:
- Kohlberg et al (1973), using moral dilemmas, found that a group of violent youths were at a significantly lower level of moral reasoning than non-violent youths (even after controlling for social background
- offenders more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level (stages 1 and 2) whereas non-offenders have generally progressed to conventional and beyond
- pre-conventional level characterised by a need to avoid punishment and gain rewards and is associated with less mature, childlike reasoning
- thus, adults and adolescents who reason at this level may commit crimes if they can get away with it or gain rewards in the form of money/increased respect etc
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB) as an example of a cognitive distortion as a cognitive explanation of offending behaviour.
hostile attribution bias (HAB)
- people misinterpret the actions of others, assuming the other to be confrontational when they’re not
- offenders may misread non-aggressive cues (such as being ‘looked at’) which may trigger a disproportionate, often violent, response
- Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with ambiguous facial expressions; when compared with non-aggressive matched control group, violent offenders were significantly more likely to to perceive the images as angry and hostile
- Dodge and Frae (1982) showed children a video of an ‘ambiguous provocation’ (where the intention was neither clearly hostile nor clearly accidental); children who had been identified as ‘aggressive’ prior to study interpreted the situation as more hostile than the ‘non-aggressive’ children
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline minimalisation(/minimisation) as an example of a cognitive distortion as an explanation of offending behaviour.
minimalisation:
- an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence
- burglars may describe themselves as ‘supporting my family’ as a way of minimising the seriousness of their offences
- studies suggest that individuals who commit sexual offences are particularly prone to minimalisation
- Barabeen (1991) found among 26 incarcerated rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all and a further 40% minimised the harm they had caused to the victim
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of moral reasoning as an explanation of offending behaviour, regarding research support.
P: research support
E: Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning in 332 non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form (SRM-SF) (contains 11 moral dilemma questions, e.g. keeping a promise to a friend or not taking things that aren’t yours); offender group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-offender group
E: supports Kohlberg’s idea that offenders show a lower, pre-conventional level of moral reasoning than non-offenders => increased validity of theory
E: BUT method used to obtain results is questionnaire (self-report) => issue of social desirability bias (want to appear at a high level of moral reasoning so might lie in responses) => not valid ‘supportive evidence’ so might not increase the validity of Kohlberg’s theory after all
L: increased cred of moral reasoning theory but needs to be taken with caution
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of moral reasoning as an explanation of offending behaviour, regarding it not being applicable to all offences.
P: not applicable to all offences
E: Thornton and Reed (1982): ppl committing crimes for financial gain (robbery) more likely to show preconventional level of moral reasoning than those convicted of impulsive crimes (assault)
E: insufficient explanation for all offending behaviour; theory doesn’t apply to all crimes (e.g. impulsive ones)
E: BUT: study has low temporal validity; crime is constantly changing; new crimes have emerged in recent years (cybercrime); do these claims still apply today?
L: reduced credibility of theory of moral reasoning but to an extent due to low temporal validity of contradictory research
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of cognitive distortions as an explanation of offending behaviour, regarding real-world application.
P: real world application
E: CBT aims to challenge irrational thinking, e.g. criminals encouraged to own up to their crimes and establish less distorted view of their actions; less denial and less minimalisation is associated with a reduced chance of reoffending
E: CBT effectively reduces reoffending behaviour due to reduced minimalisation => less justification of their actions and so they take more responsibility => increased validity of cognitive distortions theory (due to real-world application)
E: BUT CBT doesn’t reduce chance of reoffending for everyone (individual differences in the extent to which cognitive distortions are present, as well as the different cognitive distortions used); insufficient explanation for all criminals => reduced reliability of theory
L: increased credibility of cognitive distortion theory due to real-world application but must be cautious due to low external validity
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: COGNITIVE EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of cognitive distortions as an explanation of offending behaviour, regarding it not being applicable to all crimes.
P: not applicable to all crimes
E: Howitt and Sheldon: questionnaire of contact (assault or rape) vs non-contact (images online) sex-offenders; contact used more cognitive distortions than non-contact offenders
E: theory of CDs isn’t generalisable to all offences => theory has low population validity
E: PLUS using CDs is a nomothetic approach to explaining criminality; general laws neglect individuality/individual differences
L: reduced credibility for CD theory, we need to understand + appreciate individual differences
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY (DAT)
Outline Sutherland’s (1939) 9 stages of differential association, as appears in his fourth edition of Principles of Criminology.
1) learned not inherited: criminal behaviour is learned, not inherited (direct contrast to bio explanations)
2) interaction and communication: criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other people through communication (mainly verbal communication (storytelling) but can include attitudes/techniques/gestures)
3) direct through intimate groups: principal part of learning criminal behaviour occurs within intimate, personal groups; indirect communications (tv, books etc) are not nearly as important in learning criminal behaviour
4) techniques and reasons: learning includes techniques of committing the crime and the reasons and attitudes to favour criminal actions
5) laws are good or bad: specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable (i.e. some laws are good and others are bad)
6) should I commit a crime? yes»_space; no: delinquency starts when our rationale for breaking the law outweighs our rationale for respecting it; criminality is due to contact with criminal patterns AND lack of contact with anti-criminal patterns
7) vary in frequency, duration, intensity and priority: differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, intensity and priority
8) learning crime = learning anything else: processes of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal anti-criminal patterns involve all the same mechanisms as any other learning (operant and classical conditioning, modelling, imitation, etc - behaviourist and SLT)
9) expression of needs, not explained by needs: while criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of these things too (to make money, some turn to crime and others work hard honestly)
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY (DAT)
Outline one strength of Sutherland’s (1939) 9 stages of differential association, regarding it offering a more realistic solution to crime.
P: offers a more realistic solution to crime
E: Sutherland was successful in moving emphasis away from early bio explanations of crime (atavistic form) as well as those explaining through individual weakness or immorality; DAT draws attention to idea that deviant env may be more to blame than deviant individuals
E: more realistic solution than eugenics (biological solution (selective breeding)) or punishment (morality solution); instead emphasises need for intervention in social groups and intimate relationships where criminal techniques and attitudes may be passed on
E: BUT DAT risks stereotyping individuals from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidable offenders’; could lead to self-fulfilling prophecy (individuals act in the way they have been treated)
L: increased credibility for DAT but must handle social sensitivity carefully (could lead to ethical implications)
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY (DAT)
Outline one strength of Sutherland’s (1939) 9 stages of differential association, regarding it being applicable to all crimes.
P: theory applicable to all crimes
E: he established the idea of ‘white collar crimes” (financially motivated, non-violent or non-directly violent crime committed by individuals, businesses and government professionals/people of a higher social class) FINISH
E: shows it’s not just the ‘lower classes’ who commit offences; principles of DAT can be used to explain crimes across all social groups; ppl who join the mafia generally grow up inside its culture; having family members already involved in its structure functions as a potent invitation to potential members
E: BUT places great emphasis on nurture over nature; Farrington et al (2006) conducted Cambridge Study in Delinquency Development (longitudinal study which tracked delinquency development in boys from age 8 into adulthood), found that one of biggest risk factors associated with criminality was family criminality; this stat is often cited as evidence to support Sutherland and the role of DAs but could also be explained through genetic inheritance (nature)
L: DAT is highly applicable but neglects nature; more interactions approach to explaining crime and deviance would be more credible
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY (DAT)
Outline one limitation of Sutherland’s (1939) 9 stages of differential association, regarding untestable concepts.
P: relies on untestable concepts
E: concepts cannot be operationalised => untestable (e.g. hard to see/measure the number of pro-crime attitudes a person has or has been exposed to); theory built on assumption that criminal behaviour will occur when pro-crime values outnumber anti-crime ones
E: without being able to measure these concepts, we can’t know the point at which the urge to offend is realised and the offending career is triggered
E: PLUS theory lacks falsification, necessary criterion for psychology to be considered a science => by accepting DAT we are weakening our claim to being a science
L: DAT lacks scientific credibility
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline Blackburn’s (1993) idea of an inadequate superego (don’t need to give details of the 3 types yet).
- superego is formed at the end of the phallic stage of development when children resolve the Oedipus complex (or Electra for girls)
- superego works on morality principle and exerts its influence by punishing the ego through guilt for wrongdoing whilst rewarding it with pride for moral behaviour
- Blackburn argued that if the superego is somehow deficient or inadequate then criminal behaviour is inevitable because the id is given ‘free rein’ and not properly controlled
- he also identified three types of inadequate superego: weak, deviant and over-harsh
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline what Blackburn meant by a weak superego and how this would lead to offending behaviour.
WEAK SUPEREGO:
- if same-gender parent is absent during phallic stage, a child cannot internalise a fully-formed superego as there is no opportunity for identification (with this same-gender parent, which is what is needed to resolve the Oedipus/Electra complex and develop a superego)
- this would make immoral or offending behaviour more likely because the child doesn’t develop a sense of right and wrong
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline what Blackburn meant by a deviant superego and how this would lead to offending behaviour.
DEVIANT SUPEREGO:
- is the superego that a child internalises has immoral or deviant values, this would lead to offending behaviour
- e.g.) a boy raised by a criminal father is not likely to associate guilt with wrongdoing => offending behaviour is more likely due to hang an ‘inverted’ moral code
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline what Blackburn meant by an over-harsh superego and how this would lead to offending behaviour.
OVER-HARSH SUPEREGO:
- healthy superego is based on identification with parent who has firm rules but forgives transgressions
- but excessively punitive/over-harsh parenting style leads to a child having deep-seated guilt, and then craves punishment as a release from these feelings
- this would make them engage in impulsive or immoral offending behaviour in order to be punished
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline how Bowlby’s (1944) maternal deprivation theory explains offending behaviour.
MATERNAL DEPIRVATION THEORY:
- failure to establish warm, continuous relationship with mother-figure, where the doesn’t/cannot give the emotional care the child needs, within the first 2.5 years of life leads to maternal deprivation
- irreversible, long-term consequences in later life
- one consequence is affectionless psychopathy: child is unfeeling towards others, lacks empathy and guilt
=> likely to engage in offending behaviour
- supported by his 44 thieves study: interviewed 44 young thieves and their families, found 14 were affectionless psychopaths and 12 of these had experienced maternal deprivation
- he concluded that the maternal deprivation had caused the affectionless delinquency
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of psychodynamic explanations (could apply to both), regarding abstract/untestable concepts.
P: untestable/abstract concepts
E: concepts within unconscious mind are by nature untestable => no (supportive) evidence; arguments like inadequate superego can only be judged at face value rather than their scientific credibility
E: core principles of psychodynamic approach don’t meet scientific criterion of falsification => weakens psychology’s scientific claim; theories’ practical value in relation to strategies to prevent crime is reduced;
E: BUT psychodynamic explanations were some of the first to link early childhood experiences to moral behaviour and offending (nowadays regarded as common sense); psychodynamic explanations also drew attention to emotional basis (anxiety, guilt) of offending (neglected by other explanations )
L: influential in understanding criminal behaviour but lack of evidence base => lack credibility
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of psychodynamic explanations (maternal deprivation), regarding correlation not causation.
P: link between maternal deprivation and offending behaviour is only correlational.
E: Bowlby’s (1944) 44 thieves: he didn’t manipulate the experience of deprivation and then monitor the effects on offending behaviour, he only measured the affectionless psychopathy (AP) and reported retrospectively on maternal deprivation
E: cannot claim that maternal deprivation led to AP and ultimately offending behaviour; could have been other variables that better explain the relationship between these two variables
E: PLUS Lewis (1954) analysed data from 500 young people, found maternal deprivation to be a poor indicator of future offending behaviour; even if there is a link between children who experience frequent or prolonged separation from their mothers and offending later in life, it’s not necessarily a causal relationship (may be countless other explanations, e.g. poverty)
L: credibility of psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour is reduced
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline one limitation of psychodynamic explanations (inadequate superego), regarding gender bias.
P: gender biased explanation
E: Freud’s theory says girls develop a weaker superego than boys because identification with the same-gender parent isn’t as strong (girls don’t experience intense emotion associated with castration anxiety => under less pressure to identify with their mothers than boys are with their fathers); therefore girls’ superego (=> sense of morality) is less fully realised; implication of this is that women should be more prone to offending than men are
E: weakness because opposite is true since 20x more men than woomen are in prisons
E: PLUS in a study where children were required to resist tempattion, Hoffman (1975) found hardly nay evidence of gender differences and when there was, littel girls tended to be more mooral than little boys; suggests psychodynamic explanations of offeding behaviour suffer from alpha bias (exaggerated difference in male and female offending behaviour, in the wrong direction)
L: reduced cred for psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHVAIOUR: PSYCHODYNAMIC EXPLANATIONS
Outline one strength of psychodynamic explanations (inadequate superego), regarding research support.
P: research support
E: Goreta (1991): freudian-style analysis of 10 offenders referred for psychiatric treatment; disturbances in superego formation diagnosed in all 10; each experiened unconscius guilt and need for self-punishment; Goreta explained this as consequence of over-harsh superego (need for puishment manifesting itself as a desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend)
E: supports role of psychic conflicts and an over-harsh superego as a basis for offending
E: BUT: central principles of inadequate superego theory aren’t supported; if theory were correct, we’d expect harsh, punitive parents to raise children who constantly experience feelings of guilt and anxiety; but evidence suggests opposite is true (parents who rely on harsher discipline tend to raise children who are rebellious and rarely express guilt or self-criticism)
L: relationship between strong, punitive parenting and excessive guilt wihin child has mixed evidence
DEALING WITH OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
Define custodial sentencing.
custodial sentencing refers to when a convited offender spends time in prison or another closed institution such as young offenders institution or psychiatric hospital
DEALING WITH OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
Outline the following aim of custodial sentencing:
Deterrence
DEALING WITH OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
Outline the following aim of custodial sentencing:
Incapacitation
DEALING WITH OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
Outline the following aim of custodial sentencing:
Retribution
DEALING WITH OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: CUSTODIAL SENTENCING
Outline the following aim of custodial sentencing:
Rehabilitation
