Forensic psychology ao3

Question 1

Top down approach evaluation

Answer 1

– only applies to certain crimes, murder, torture, when the crime reveals a lot about the offender
– Based on outdated models, the idea that behaviour remains consistent throughout the different crimes is wrong
– Canter et al. study on murderers and only found distinct organised killers, no disorganised killers
– Too simple, behaviours of organised and disorganised aren’t mutually exclusive

Question 2

Bottom up approach evaluation

Answer 2

+ Evidence support, statistical techniques can be applied, smallest space statistical technique is used to identify common characteristics
+ Support for geographical profiling, research into serial killers in the US using smallest space analysis, found that the centre was where the location of the killers were
+ Scientific basis, statistical analysis of crimes
+ Wider application, used for all offences, spatial consistency is for all offences

Question 3

Eysenck evaluation

Answer 3

+ Supporting evidence, Eysenck compared male prisoner scores on the EPI and found higher levels of P E and N
–Idea of a single personality type is wrong, all criminals aren’t extroverted
–Cultural bias, study done on Hispanic and African Americans and found them to be less extroverted than control criminal group
–Theory is based on the idea that personality can be measured with a psychological test, personality can change on the situation

Question 4

Cognitive explanation evaluation

Answer 4

+ Evidence for level of moral reasoning, delinquent group less mature moral reasoning
–Alternative theories, Gibbs proposed two levels (mature and immature) supported by Piaget’s theory of child-like self centred reasoning
+ Application - used in rehabilitation, getting criminals to admit to their crimes reduces chances of reoffending
– Individual differences, level of moral reasoning can change based on the type of crime

Question 5

Differential association evaluation

Answer 5

+ Explanatory power, ability to account for crime in all sectors of society
+ Shift of focus away from lomborso atavistic theory, more realistic and doesn’t promote eugenics
– Difficult to test, hard to measure amount of pro-crime attitudes a person has been exposed too, undermining scientific credibility
– Doesn’t account for individual differences, not everyone exposed to pro crime attitudes goes on to commit crime

Question 6

Psychodynamic explanation evaluation

Answer 6

– Gender bias, females have inadequate superego as didn’t have fear of castration not supported by ratio of male to female prisoners
–Contradictory evidence, little evidence of children raised by same sex parent going on to commit crime, also deviant parent having a deviant child may be due to genetics not superego
– Unconscious concepts, can’t be tested
– Bias in Bowlby’s study he decided if juveniles were Affectionless psychopaths