Forensic Psychology (paper 3)

Question 1

What is offender profiling? What are the types?

Answer 1

Investigative tool employed by police when solving crimes with aim to naroow field of enquiry&list of likely suspects

Methods vary but compiling of profile will usualy inv careful scrutiny of crime scene&analysis of evidence to generate hypotheses about proabale characteristics of offender eg/age, occupation, background etc

1 TOP DOWN APPROACH (AMERICAN)
profilers start with pre-established typology&work down in order to assign offenders to 1 of 2 categories based on witness accounts&evidence from crime scene
2 BOTTOM UP APPROACH (BRITISH)
profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesis about likely characteristics, motivations&social background of offender (investigative&geographical)

Question 2

What is the top down approach to offender profiling?

Answer 2

Originated by FBI in America which used in-depth interviews with 36 sexually motivated killers
Profilers start with pre-established typology&work down in order to assign offenders to 1 of 2 categories based on witness accounts&evidence from crime scene

Based on idea serious offenders have signature ways of working (modus operandi) that generally correlates with particular set of social&psychological characteristics-based on evidence offender classified as organised/disorganised (classifications based on pre-existing templates FBI developed&informs police investigation)

ORGANISED=shows evidence of planning (high degree of cotntrol&leave little evidence), targets victim (so have type)&tends to be socially&sexuallly competent (likely married with kids) with higher than average intelligence, operates with detached&surgical precision, in skilled job

DISORGANISED=shows little evidence of planning (little control&reflects impulsive), leaves clues&tends to be socially&sexually incompetent (history of sexual dysfunction&failed relationships) with lower than average intelligence (likely to live alone&relatively close to offence-spontaneous nature), in unskilled job/unemployed

Question 3

What are the 4 steps to constructing an FBI profile?

Answer 3

1 DATA ASSIMILATION
profiler reviews evidence (crime scene photographs, pathology reports etc)

2 CRIME SCENE CLASSIFICATION
as organised/disorganised

3 CRIME RECONSTRCUTION
hypotheses in terms of sequence of events, behaviour of victim etc

4 PROFILE GENERATION
hypotheses related to likely offender (demographic background, physical characteristics, behaviour etc)

Question 4

The top down approach to offender profiling is when profilers start with a pre-established typology&work down in order to assign offenders to 1 of 2 categories based on witness accounts&evidence from crime scene

Give 5 criticisms of the this approach

Answer 4

+/- Canter found evidence of distinct organised type but fails to support distinct disorganised offender
Analysed data from 100 USA murders using smallest space analysis where details of each case examined with reference to 39 characteristics thought to be typical of organised&disorganised killers
Provides some support for top down profiling approach
CA wasn’t case for disorganised offender where was no evidence for distinct disorganised type which undermines classification system as whole bc it questions validity

• Sample used to create top down profiling=too small&unrepresntative
  Was developed using interviews with 36 killers in US-24=serial killers, other 11 single/double murderers
  Critics suggested its not sensible to rely on self-report data with convicted killers when constructing classification system bc info they provide could be inaccurate leading to invalid classification system
• Top down profiling only applies to particular crimes, particularly crime scenes revealing important details about suspect like rape, arson&cult killings
  This method of profiling doesn’t help when crimes=more common eg/burglary&destruction of property where crime scenes reveal little info about offender
  Reduces ability for this method of profiling to be used to identify criminal
• Top downs based on idea behaviour remains same across situations&contexts
  Eg/personality drives behviour&isn’t impacted by external factors-several critics argue this is incorrect&behaviours driven by aspects other than personality which=more changeable
  Reduces validity of top down profiling as might not be possible to “predict” offenders next move
• Top down=too simplistic as behaviours describing organised&disorganised aren’t mutually exclusive
  Eg/crime scene can have combo of organised&disorganised characteristics
  Suggests top down may not be valid way to categorise offenders, has led to other researchers to propose more detailed typological models such as Holmes who said there’s 4 types of serial killer

Question 5

What is the bottom up approach to offender profiling?

Answer 5

British model
Generate picture of offender (profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesis about likely characteristics, motivations&social background of offender=no fixed typologies)

Profile=data driven&emerges as investigator engages in deeper&more rigorous scrutiny of details of offences=more grounded in psych theory than TD

2 TECHNIQUES

1 INVESTIGATIVE PSYCOLOGY
-matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory

2 GEOGRAPHICAL PROFILING

• based on principle of spatial consistency (offenders operational base&possible future offences revealed by geographical location of previous crimes)
• can be used in conjunction with psychological theory to create hypothesis about how offenders thinking as well as their modus operandi

Question 6

The bottom up approach is where profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesis about likely characteristics, motivations&social background of offender. There’s 2 techniques used in the bottom up approach to offender profiling, what’s included in investigative profiling as 1 of the techniques?

Answer 6

• matches details from crime scene with statistical analysis of typical offender behaviour patterns based on psychological theory
• aims to establish patterns f behaviour likely to occur across crime scenes, helping develop statistical data base which then acts as baseline for comparison (specific details about offence/related offences then matched against to reveal important details about offender, personality, history, family background etc which may reveal whether series if offences are linked in that they’re likely to’ve been committed by same person)

3 main features of this approach

• Interpersonal coherence (way offender behaves at scene inc. how they interact with victim, may reflect behaviour in more everyday situations)
• Time&place (may indicate where offenders living/working)
• Forensic awareness (certain behaviours might reveal awareness of police techniques&past experience)

Question 7

The bottom up approach is where profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesis about likely characteristics, motivations&social background of offender.

There’s 2 techniques used in the bottom up approach to offender profiling, what’s included in geographical profiling as 1 of the techniques?

Answer 7

• based on principle of spatial consistency (offenders operational base&possible future offences revealed by geographical location of previous crimes)
• can be used in conjunction with psychological theory to create hypothesis about how offenders thinking as well as their modus operandi
• assumption=repeat offenders will restrict “work” to geographical areas they’re familiar with so understanding spatial pattern of behaviour provides “centre of gravity” likely to inc. offender’s base&”jeopardy surface” aka where next likely to strike

Canters circle theory proposed 2 models of offender behaviour:

• Marauder (operates in close proximity to home base)
• Commuter (likely to’ve travelled distance away from usual residence)
• Spatial decision making of offender can offer investigative team important insight into nature of offence (planned/opportunistic)&features like mode of transport, employment etc

Question 8

The bottom up approach is where profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesis about likely characteristics, motivations&social background of offender.

Outline 3 advantages

Points could also be used to compare bottom up and top down approach to profiling

Answer 8

+ Evidence to support geographical profiling
Ludrigan&Canter collated info from 120 murder cases involving serial killers, location of each body disposal site was diff direction from previous, creating “centre of gravity”, indicating offenders base
Supports Canters claim spatial info=key factor in determining base of an offender
Could therefore be assumed this=valid method of offender profiling

+ Bottom up approach=more scientific&objective than top down
Due to advances in artificial intelligence, investigators can manipulate geographical, biographical&psycholgical data quickly to produce insights that assist in investigation
Meaning bottom up=more grounded in evidence&psychologial theory&less driven by speculations&”hunches”
Impact of this should be offenders=more quickly&accurately identified in investigations

+ Bottom up can be applied to wide range of offences
Eg/can be used in burglary&theft as well as more serious offences like murder&rape
Meaning its better than top down which can only explain limited no. crimes like rape, arson&cult killings
As result, bottom up profiling may be a more effective method of offender profiling

Question 9

List 3 similarities and 2 differences between top down and bottom up approach to offender profiling

Answer 9

SIMILARITIES
1 Use info from crime scene to make profile
2 Both used to narrow field of suspects
3 Both assume pattern in offenders behaviour, which isn’t always the case

DIFFERENCES
1 Bottom up=more scientific&objective (relies on statistical data) &doesn’t rely on intution&hunches like top down so is more accurate
2 Bottom up originated in Britain by Duffy, top down originated in America by FBI

Question 10

The bottom up approach is where profilers work up from evidence collected from crime scene to develop hypothesis about likely characteristics, motivations&social background of offender.

Outline 2 disadvantages

Points could also be used to compare bottom up and top down approach to profiling

Answer 10

• Is some problems with offender profiling
  In case of Rachel Nickells death, original suspect had been ruled out of enquiry at early stage bc was several inches taller than profile created based on bottom up approach to offender profiling
  Suggests profiling may lead investigation in wrong direction if considered too literally
  Therefore bottom up offender profiling may only be appropriate in helping narrow down list of potential offenders, rather than actually identifying assailant
• Studies examining effectiveness of offender profiling have produced mixed results
  Copson surveyed 48 police forces&found advice provided by profiler was judged to be “useful” in 83% of cases, but only led to accurate identification of offender in 3%
  Means there’s more significant issues with reliabiity&accuracy of bottom up offender profiling
  As result, may not be appropriate tool to use when identifying offenders

Question 11

In the cognitive explanation as 1/4 psycholgiacl explanatioons for offending behaviour, theres level of moral reasoning by Kohlberg

Outline the 3 levels in Kohelbergs model

Answer 11

LEVEL 1 = PRE CONVENTIONAL MORALITY
Stage 1 Punishemnt orientation (rules obeyed to avoid punishment)
Stage 2 Personal gain (rules obeyed for personal gain)

LEVEL 2 = CONVENTIONAL MORALITY
Stage 3 Good boy/Good girl orientation (rules obeyed for approval)
Stage 4 Maintenance of social order (rules obeyed to maintain social order)

LEVEL 3 POST CONVENTIONAL MORALITY
Stage 5 Morality of contract&individual rights (rules challenged if they infringe on rights of others)
Stage 6 Morality of conscience (individuals have personal set of ethical principles)

Question 12

As 1/4 psychological explantions for offending, explain who developed the differential association theory and on what basis

Answer 12

Proposes individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques&motives for offending through association&interction with diff people eg/person might associated with people whove very neg ttitudes to crime/other mayve been exposed to moe poitive attitudes

SCIENTIFIC BASIS (Sutherland set self task of developing set of scienific principles that could explain all types of offending aka conditions said to cause crime should be present when crime=presen&absent when crime=absent, theory was&is designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders&those who dont, wahtever social/ethnic background)

OFFENDING AS LEARNED BEHAVIOUR

SOCIALISATION IN PRISON

Question 13

As 1/4 psychological explantions for offending, the DA theory proposes individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques&motives for offending through association&interction with diff people eg/person might associated with people whove very neg ttitudes to crime/other mayve been exposed to moe poitive attitudes

Explain whats isnvolved in the differential association theory

Answer 13

OFFENDING AS LEARNED BEHAVIOUR (OB may be acquired in same way as any other behaviour where learning occurs through interactions with signif others who child values most&spends most time with
So should be possible to predict how likely it is individual will commit offences, to do this, need to know frequency, intensity&duration of exposure to deviant&non-deviant norms&values

Offending arises from 2 factors:
LEARNING ATTITUDES (when persons socialised into group theyll be exposed to values&attitudes to law=pro crime&anti crime, Sutherland argues if no. pro criminal attitudes persoanl acquires outweighs no. anti, will go on to offend)
LEARNING TECHNIQUES (offender may also learn particular techniques for committing offences, might inc how to break law etc)

Question 14

DA is 1/4 psychological explanations for offening

Outline a study which supports the differential association theory as a psychological explanation of offending behaviour

Answer 14

FARRINGTON ET AL
- Longitudinal survey of development of offending&antisocial behaviour in 411 boys
- Study began when boys=8 in 1961&all livig in deprived inner city area of south London
- Of sampled, 41% convicted of at least 1 offence between age of 10-50 (avg convicted career lasting from 19-28&inc 5 convictions)
-Most important childhood risk factors at age 8-10 for later offending were measures of family criminality, risk taking, low school attainment, poverty&poor parenting
Small prop of participants were efined as chronc offenders bc accounted for about half of all officially recorded offences in this study

Sutherland suggested response of family=crucial in determining whether indvidual=likely to engage in offending, if familys seen to support offending activity, making it seem legitimate&reasonable then this becomes major influence on childs value system
But fact offending behaviour often seems to run in families could also be interpreted as supporting other explanations eg/biological theories eg/particualr combo of genes prediposes person to offend=inherited

Question 15

The DA theory proposes individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques&motives for offending through association&interction with diff people eg/person might associated with people whove very neg ttitudes to crime/other mayve been exposed to moe poitive attitudes

Evaluate this explanation
2 advantages

Answer 15

+ DA theory was able to shift focus of offending explanations
Successful in moving emphasis from early biological accounts of offending eg/Lombrosos atavistic&from theories explaining offendnig as being product of individual weakness, DA draws attention to fact deviant social circumstances&enviros may be more to blame for offending than deviant people
This approach=more desirable bc it offers more realistic solution to problem of offending instead of biological solution/punishment
CA it runs risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime ridden backgrounds as unavoidably offenders eventhough S took great care to point out that offending should be considered on individual casebycase bias but theory tends to suggests exposure to pro crime vaules=sufficient to produce offending in those exposed to it
So ignores fact people may choose not to offend despite such influences

+ Good explanataory power as can acount for offending within all sectors of society
While Sutherland recognised some types of offence eg/burglary, may be clustered within cerain inner city WC communities, its also case some offences=clustered amongst affluent groups in society, S was esp interested in white collar crime&how this may be feature of MC social groups who share eviant norms&values
Shows that its not just lower classes who commit offences&principles of DA can be used to explain all offences

Question 16

The DA theory proposes individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques&motives for offending through association&interction with diff people eg/person might associated with people whove very neg ttitudes to crime/other mayve been exposed to moe poitive attitudes

Give 3 disadvantages

Answer 16

• Limitation=difficult to test predictions of DA
  Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be preicted so predictions should be made testable but problem=many of concepts arent tested bc cant be operationalised eg/hard to see how no. pro criminal attitudes person has/has been exposed to could be measured&theorys built on assumption offending behaviour will occur when pro crime values outno. anti crime 1s, without being able to measure these cant know at what point urge to offend=realised&offending career triggered
  Means theory doesnt have scientific credibility
• Suggests response of family=crucial in deteringing if perosn liekly to engage in offending
  If family seen to support criminal activty, making it seem legitimate&reasonable, then it ecome major influce on childs value system eg/in Farrington et als study intergenerataional crime was key fetaure of findings
• Theres individual diffs as not all exposed to criminal influences go on to commit even S took care to point cases should be studied individually as theres danger of stereotyping individuals who come from impoversihed, crime ridden backgrounds as “unab=voidably criminal”
  Suggests exposure=sufficent to prouce offedning, igneoing choice not to offend despite influences

Question 17

Explain the psychodynamic explanations as 1/4 psychological explanations for offending

Explain the structure of personailty

Answer 17

Belief unconscious conflicts rooted in early childhood&interactions wiht parents drive future/crimina behaviour
Id, ego&supergo makeup triparite structure of personality

INADEQUATE SUPEREGO (superego=formed at end of phallic stage when children resolve oedipus/electra complex)
Superego works on morality principle&exerts influence by punishing ego through guilt for wrongdoing whilst rewarding it with pride for moral behaviour

Blackburn argued if superego=somehow deficient/adequate then offending behaviour=inevitable bc ID is given free rein&not properly controlled, 3 types of inadequte superego=proposed:
1 Weak superego (if same sex parent=absent during phallic stage, child cant internalise fully formed superego as theres no opp for identification so would make immoral/criminal behaviour more likely)
2 Deviant superego (if superego child internalises has immoral/deviant values would to lead to offending eg/boy has criina father=less likley to associate guilt wiht wrongdoing)
3 Overharsh superego (healthy ego=kind but firm internal parent with rules but forgiving of transgressions CONTRASTING=overly harsh meaning persons crippled by guilt&anxiety which may unconsciously drive indiviudal to perform criminal acts to satisfy superegos overhwelming need for punishment)

Question 18

Explain the psychodynamic explanations as 1/4 psychological explanations for offending

Explain the maternal deprivaion theory

Answer 18

Bowlby argued abilliy to form meaniingful relationships in adulthood was dependent upon child forming warm continuous relationship with mother figure (maternal bond=unique, superior&vital to wellbeing&development)

Failure to establish during 1st few years of life means childs likely to experience no. damaging&irrevesible consequences in later life eg/ development of personailty type of affectionless psychopathy harcterised by lack of guilt&empathy&likely to engage in acts of delinquency&cant develop close relationships with others as alck necessary early experience to do so

44 Juvenile Thieves
B found through interviews with thieves&their families, 14 were affectionless psychopaths where 12 had experienced prolonged separartion from mothers during infancy (during first 2 years)
In non criminal group only 2 had experienced similar early separation
B concluded effects of maternal dep had caused affcetionless psychopthay&deliquency among juvenile thieves

Question 19

In relation to explanations for offending behaviour, what makes the psychodynamic approach (under psychological explanations) different from other explanations?

Answer 19

Considers the role of emotion

Effect of inadequate superego is to allow primitive emotional demands to become uppermost in guiding moral behaviour which=key feature of psychodynammic approach&marks it out as diff from other explanations of crime, approach deals with emotional life of individual eg/acknowledge role of anxiety&guilt in development of offending behaviour as in case of maternal dep

Question 20

The psychodnamic approach is 1/4 psychological explanations for offending behaviour

Evaluate this psychological explanation for offending behaviour

2 advantages

Answer 20

+ Research support for link between offending&superego
Goreta conducted Freudian style analysis of 10 offenders referred for psychatric treatment, in all those assessed, disturbances in superego formation were diagnosed, each offender experienced unconscious feelngs of guilt&need for self punishment which Goreta explained as consequence of over harsh superego, a need for punishment manifesting itself as desire to commit acts of wrongdoing&offend
This evidence seems to support role of psychic conflicts&overharsh superego as basis for offending
CA generally central principles of inadequate superego theory=not supported bc if correct wed expact harsh parents to raise children who constantly experience guilt&anxiety but evidence suggests opposite=true where harsh parents raise rebellious children with no guilt so calls into question relationship between strong punitive internal parent&excessive feeling of guilt in child

+ Contribute to field of psych
Was 1 of 1st to link early experince to moral behaviour&offending, something now considered common sense in contemporary criminology but also drew attention to emotional basis of offedning
CA many unconscious concepts not open to empirical testing so concepts like superego can only be judged by face value rather than scientific worth

Question 21

The psychodnamic approach is 1/4 psychological explanations for offending behaviour

Evaluate this psychological explanation for offending behaviour

2 disadvantages

Answer 21

• Sufffers unfalsifiability due to unconscious concepts
  Means application to crimes arent open to empiricial testing so in absence of supporting evidence agruments like inadequate superego can only be judged on face value rather than scientific worth so explanaions are regarded as pseudscientific&may contribute little to understanding of crime&how to prevent it
  CA Bowlby did however provde research (44T) but has been critcised on methodological grounds eg/accused of researcher bias&fails to draw dinstinction between deprivation&privation where critics argue privation may be more more damaging than deprovation
• Bowlbys theory=only based on association between maternal dep&offending
  Lewis analysed data drawn from intterviews with 50 young people&found maternal dep=poor predictor of future offending&ability to form close relationships in adolescence, even if theres a linnk between children whove experienced frequent/prolonged separation from mothers&offending, this isnt necessarily causal relationship as could be countless other reasons for such apparent link eg/maternal dep due to growing up in poverty
  Suggests maternal dep may be 1 of reasons for later offending behaviour but not only reason

Question 22

What are the 4 psycholgoical explanations for offending behaviour?

Answer 22

Eysencks theory

Cog explanations

Differential association theory

Psychodynamic explaanations

Question 23

Eysencks theory (psychological) for offending suggests a criminal personailty exists

Explain the basis of it

Answer 23

Theory of criminal persoanilty

Proposed behaviour could be presented along 2 dimensions=introversion/extraversion & neuroticism/stability (combine to form variety of personality traits) &psychoticisim later added

Personality traits=bio in origin&come about through type of nervous system we inherit (thus CP=innate)

• Extraverts likely to have underactive so constantly seek excitement, stimulation&enegage in risk taking behaviours, dont condition easy/learn from mistakes
• Neurotics=nervous, jumpy, overanxious&general instability means theyre difficult to predict

CP=neurotic-extravert (combo of above)&will score high on psychoticism (cold, unemotional&prone to aggression)

Question 24

Eysencks theory (psychological) theory for offneding suggests a criminal personailty exists

Explain how it develops

Answer 24

Personality=linked to criminal behaviour via socialisation processes
CB=developmentally immature in that its selfish&concerned with immediaate gratification (impateint)
Process of socialisation is where childern taught to become more able to delay gratification&more socially orientated but people with high E&N scores had nervous systems making them diff to condition so wouldnt easily respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety so more likely to act antiscoially in situtaions where the opp represented itself

Notion it can be measured=central to Es theory
Devloped eysencks personailty inventory (EPI)=form of psychological test locating respondents along E&N dimensions to determine personality type
Later scale introdcued to measre psycoticism

Question 25

Evaluate eysencks criminal personailty theory

2 advanatges

Answer 25

+ Evidence supporting
Eysenck&Eysenck comapred 2070 male prisoners scores on epi with 2422 male controls, groups subdivided into age groups (16-69) on measures of P, E&N prisoners scored higher than controls which accords to predctionsof theory
CA Farrington et al reviewed no. studies&reported offenders scored high on Pmeasures but not E/N&also very little evidence of consistent difffreneces in EEG measures of extra&introverts, casting doubt on psych basis of Es theory

+acknowledges bio influence&basis

Question 26

Evaluate eysencks criminal personailty theory

3 diasdavnatges

Answer 26

• heavily critcised or assuming is single personaily type
  Moffitt propposed no. distinct type of adult male offender based on timing of 1st offence&how long offending persists&arguably out of step with modern theories which propose additional diemions as well as E&N
  So multiple combos available thus high E&N dont show offending as inevitable
• Cultural bias
  Bartol&Holanchock studied hispanic&african american offenders in max security prison in NY, divided into 6 groups based on criminal history&nature of offence=all found to be less extravert than control
  Suggested bc sample was ver diff cultural group than investgate by E thus questions gernalisability of CP
• Mismeasureent of CP
  Es theory built on idea its possible to measure CP using psych test but argued it may not be reducible to a ascore in this way&some argue no such thing as personality but atble entity where plays many diff parts on daily basis&personaility may change dependeing on who were with&situation inv thus no fixed true self directing behaviour, criminal/otherwise

Question 27

Cognitive explanations are 1 of the 4 psychological explanations for offending

Explain who why&how suggested criminals offend

Answer 27

KOHLBERG
Proposed peoples decisions&judgements on issues of irght&wrong can be summarised in stage theory of moral development (higher stage=more sophisticated level of reasoning - 3 levels)
Based his theory on series of moral dilemmas eg/Heinz dilemma=women near death&only drug that could save was very expensive, particpants asked if husband should steal drug why/why not, does druggist have righ to charge, should he still steal if sying person=stranger
Mnay studies show crimnials tend to have lower level of moral reasoning, K found uding his dilemma tehcnique grou pf violent youths=signif lower than non even after controlling for social background

Question 28

List whats included in eysecnks cp theory as a psychologoical eexplanation for offending?

Answer 28

Personality theory

Bio basis

CP

Role of socialisation

Measuring CP

Question 29

Cognitive explanations are 1 of the 4 psychological explanations for offending

Where do criminals fit in Kohlbergs model

Answer 29

Likely to be classified at pre conventional level (charactersied by neeed to avoid punishment&gin rewards&assocaited with less mature, childlike reasoning so those reasoning at this level may comit if can get away with it/gain rewards in form of money/respect etc)
Whereas non criminals progress to conventional&beyond

Assumpotion supported by no. studies suggesting offenders=often more egocentric (self centred)&display poorer social perspective taking skills than non offending peers
Individualas at higher levels sympathise more with rights of others&exhibit more conventional behaviours eg/honesty, generosity, non-violence

Question 30

Cognitive explanations are 1 of the 4 psychological explanations for offending

Explain cog distortions

Answer 30

CD=errors in peoples info processing system chracterised by faulty thinking (all occassionaly show evidence of when explaining own behvaiour esp if unexpected/out of character but has been linked to criminals interpert othes behaviour&justify own actions)

2 examples of CD
1 HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS (evidence suggests tendency for violence=often associated with tendency yto misinterpret actions of others aka assume theyre confrontational when not)

2 MINIMALISATION (attempt to deny/downplay seriuosness of offence)

Question 31

Cognitive explanations are 1 of the 4 psychological explanations for offending

What is hostile attribution bias as 1/2 cog distortions

Answer 31

Evidence suggests tendency for violence=often associated with tendency yto misinterpret actions of others aka assume theyre confrontational when not
Offenders misread non aggressive cues eg/being looked at which triggers disproportionate, violent response
Shonenberg&Jutsye presented 55 violent offneders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions, when comapred with control, offenders signif more likely to perceove images as hostile

Roots of this behaviour lie in childhood=Dodge&Frame showed children video clip of an “ambiguous provocation” where when inention clealry not hostile/accidental, childern identified as agressive&rejected pror to study interpreted situaion s more hostile than those classed nonaggressive&accepted

Question 32

Cognitive explanations are 1 of the 4 psychological explanations for offending

What is minimalisation as 1/2 cog distortions

Answer 32

Attempt to deny/downplay seriuosness of offence

Eg/burglars describe selves as doing job/suporting family as way of minimisning seriousness of offences

Studies suggest those who commit sexual offences=particulary prone to minimse

• Barbaree found among 26 incarccerated rapists 54% denied had committed offence&40%minimsed harm theyd caused
• Pollock&Hashmall reported 35% of sample of child molesters argued their crime was non sexual “just being affectionate”&36% stated victim had consented

Question 33

Evaluate the cognitive explanation for offending as 1/4 psychologiacl explanations for offending

2 advantges

Answer 33

+ Evidence for leveel of moral reasoning
Palmer&Hollin comapred MR between 210 female non offenders&122 male non offenders&126 conviced offenders using SRM-SF containing 11 dilemma questions eg/keeping promise to friend, delinquesnt group showed less mature moral reasoning than delinquent group which is consistent eith Ks predictions
Blackburn suggests delinquents show poor moral development bc of lack of role playing opp in childhood so opp should be provided

+ Undersasning nature of CD proven beneficial in treatmnet of criinal behaviour
Dominant appraoch in rehabilitation of sex offenders=CBT encouraging offenders to face up tp what theyve done&establish less distorted view of actions, studies suggest reduced incidence of denial&minimalisation in therapy=hihly correlated with reduced risk of reofffending&is key feature of anger managemnet

Question 34

Evaluate the cognitive explanation for offending as 1/4 psychologiacl explanations for offending

Give 3 disadvantages

Answer 34

• Gibbs proposed alt theory of MR to K compromsising 2 levels of reasoning:mature&immature
  He was in agreement with charactersitsaion of the pre&conventional lebels bbut argued Ks post conventional should be abandoned bc is culturally biased to western culture&didnt represset natural maturatin stage of cog development
  Gibbs view=supported by Piagets theoyr of mmoral development suggesting child like (criminal) reasoning is self centred&egocentric which gives way to empathy&concern for needs of others as children get older
• Individual diff where level of MR may depend on type of offence
  Thornton&Reid found those committing crime for financial gain eg/robbery=more likley to show pre conventional reasonig than those convivted of impulsive crimes eg/assault where reasoning of any kind tended not be evident, pre conventional MR=assocaite with crime which offenders believe have good chance of evadng punishment
  Langdon suggested intelligence may be better predictor of criminality than MR eg/can explain finding that groups with very low intelligence=actually less likely to commit despite lower levels of MR
• Descriptive not explanatory
  Good at describing criminal mind but les as explaingin it-cog explanations go after fact&may help predict reoffending but dont give much insight to why offender comitted crime in first place

Question 35

Differential assocation theory is 1/4 psychological explanations ofr offendig behaviour

How is it abl to explain reoffending

Answer 35

SOCIALISATION IN PRISON
Ss theory can also account for why so many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend as its reasonable to assume whilst inside, learn speciifc technques to offending from other, more experienced offender that may b put into practice uppon release, such learning occurs through observational learning&imitation/direct tuition from offending peers

Question 36

The psychodynamic appraovh is 1/4 psychologca explanations for offending

Give 2 limiations of the inadequate supergo part of explaantion

Answer 36

• Freudian theory=gender biased
  Holds mplicit assumption girls develop weaker superego bc identification with same gender parent isnt as strong as girls dont experience intense emotion associated with castraion anxiety thus under less pressure to identify with mothers so according to F their superego thus sense of morality=less fully realised, implication=women should be more prone to offending but imprisonment rates show opposite to be true
  Suggets alpha bias at heart of Fs theory&means it may not be appropriate as explanation of offendng behaviour
• Conradictory evidence
  Little to show childern raised iwhtout sam sex parent=less law abiding as adults so constrasts Blackburns weak superego argument&if children raised by parents with pro crime atitudes go on to commit could be influeunce of gentics/socalisation not formation of devaint superego or may not commit crime

Question 37

Psychodynamic xplanation is 1/4 psychological explantions for offending

What parts are inclkuded in the psychodynamic approach

Answer 37

Inadequate superego

Maternal depriation theory

Question 38

Differenial assocaition theoryy is 1/4 psychological explantions for offending

What parts are included

Answer 38

Scientific basis

Crime is learned beahviour
Pro criminal attitudes
Learning criminal acts (reoffending)

Question 39

Differenial assocaition theoryy is 1/4 psychological explantions for offending

What parts are included

Answer 39

Level of moral reasoning
Kohlberg

Cog distortions