Forensic Psychology - Psychological Explanations of criminal behaviour

Question 1

Psychological explanation 1) Personality

Answer 1

• Generally split into different traits
• The level and combination of traits gives a personality type
• There are 16 personality types according to the MBTI personality type (extraversion, neuroticism, decision making, psychopathy)
• This is a simplistic method of explaining personality and quite reductionist

Eysenck’s Personality Theory (1960s) - 100 question personality test (extraversion, neuroticism and psychopathy)
- Believed that there were 2 main ways / features of personality
- Extraversion (inverse is introversion) - sociable, impulsive and risk-taking
- Neuroticism (inverse is stable) - nervous, anxious and obsessive
- Both traits are measured on a scale based on original research on 100 servicemen
- In the 1970s, Eysenck added the psychopathic trait to be measured after research on schizophrenics - psychoticism (insensitive, unconventional and no conscience)

Question 2

What else did Eysenck suggest?

Answer 2

• He suggested that there are personality types, and that these provide a predisposition for an offending personality
• He stated that offenders are often extroverted, neurotic and psychopathic
• However, self-report often contradicts the personality tests and it is also difficult to establish responsibility for crimes if the cause of personality exists (deterministic)

Question 3

The trait of extraversion in criminal behaviour

Answer 3

The RAS - Reticular Activating System as a biological predisposition to crime:
- Modulates levels of activation and is found in the brain stem
- Some neurons in this area fire too much or barely at all
- For extroverts, they have too little activity in the RAS and so they have to seek external stimulation from the environment to bring them back to normal levels - increase external stimulation
- Introverts in contrast have too much activity in the RAS, and so they tend to socially withdraw in order to limit the activity in the RAS and bring activation down to normal levels - decrease external stimulation
- Brain stem - medulla -> RAS -> Pons -> Hypothalamus -> Thalamus

Question 4

The trait of neuroticism in criminal behaviour

Answer 4

Autonomic Nervous System -
- The nervous system response to stress whether heightened or level
- Those who are neurotic will respond swiftly and out of proportion to stress, causing criminal behaviour
- Neurotic - emotion-focused people
- Stable - problem-focused people

Question 5

Evidence for Eysenck’s Theory:

Answer 5

1) Furnham - UK non-delinquents tests for personality. Best predictor was psychoticism, neuroticism then anomie and extraversion

2) Farrington - measure for level of offending important. Convictions show high neuroticism but self report show low neuroticism - agreed psychopathic to be the most important trait

3) Heaven - psychoticism is best predictor of delinquency

Question 6

Evaluation of Eysenck

Answer 6

• Research does not support all 3 traits - agree that psychoticism is important, but the others are disputed; external validity is questioned
• Measuring tool can influence; outcome - lacks internal reliability
• Inheriting personality has implications for the judicial system. Are they culpable for their crimes? - unethical
• Eysenck’s original sample did not cover a wide enough range of people - not generalisable
• Case studies on serial killers / criminals have not shown consistency in traits - Ted Bundy was extroverted and stable, but Leonarda Cianciulli was introverted and neurotic (both were psychopathic) - contrast (John Gacy, Elizabeth Holmes and James Porter also)

Question 7

Cognitive explanations - Moral Reasoning / Development Theory

Answer 7

• Key figures in developmental research suggest that the age of moral understanding is around 9-10
• It becomes more in depth and sophisticated as you get older
• Kohlberg’s research goes against this view

Kohlberg’s stages of development:
1) Preconventional morality (young children)
- Punishment stage; basic reasoning - will I be punished? (if answer is yes, offending is less likely)
- Reward stage; what will I gain from this behaviour? (if they gain, they will offend)

2) Conventional morality - teenagers
- Good boy/ good girl; what will other people think of this behaviour? (if they think badly, offending is less likely)
- Law and order; is this behaviour going to be breaking the law? (if it does, offending is less likely)

3) Post-conventional morality - adults
- Social contract - Do the laws actually apply in this situation? (No = offending)
- Ethical principles - moral code is embedded within (makes you less likely to offend)

Question 8

Research in support of moral reasoning theory

Answer 8

• Hollin - offenders are at a lower moral level than non offenders
• Palmer - specifically it is moral reasoning which is the issue and so there are practical applications
• Ashkar - moral reasoning varies with context of the offence

Question 9

Evaluation of moral reasoning theory

Answer 9

• Moral dilemma scenarios are low in predictive validity
• Gender biased as only based on boys
• Gilligan suggests that moral reasoning is different in genders and this accounts for differences in offending
• Can account for higher incidences of anti social behaviour in young adults
• It can account of individual differences

Question 10

Cognitive explanations; Hostile Attribution Bias - cognitive distortions

Answer 10

• Attribution theory is a branch of cognitive psychology where people consider reasons for behaviour
• You either make internal or external attributions
• There is a relationship between hostile attribution and aggressive acts
• The link is between some, but not all types of aggressive acts
• Premeditated or goal based acts are unaffected by hostile attribution bias
• HAB is a tendency to interpret the actions of others as hostile when environmental cues show a clear intent and the role of biased interpretation of social cues in aggressive behaviour is explained through a social processing model
• Social processing model - encoding of cues, interpretation of cues, classification of goals, response access or construction, response decision and behavioural enactment
• Aggressive children frequently misinterpret cues and respond maladaptively and research has shown a clear link between aggression and HAB in both hypothetical and actual situations

Question 11

Subtypes of aggressors in HAB

Answer 11

• Impulsive (reactive) aggressors involve frequent outbursts in which the person is emotionally agitated and loses control of their behaviour, and this agitation is typically not warranted by the situation and occurs because of a perceived provocation; tend to have executive functional deficits, low prefrontal cortex operation and low serotonin and are more prone to HAB
• Premeditated or proactive (instrumental) aggression is marked by goal-directed aggressive acts carried out for the purposes of social gain or dominance in a controlled manner - use aggression to get what they want and are immune to the influence of a social situation on their aggression
• Hostile behaviour is perceived in the behaviour of others, and the individual may feel their violence is justified because they have simply retaliated rather than instigated - research has shown that the highest levels of aggression happened in intentional transgressions, and lower levels in unintentional situations
• However, in ambiguous situations, HAB occurs because there is a lack of objective evidence of interpretation - in aggressive groups, they act aggressively in ambiguous scenarios and were more likely than controls to act in this manner
• HAB is evident in both groups, but more evident in the impulsive aggressors - more research is needed

Question 12

Cognitive distortion - Blame Attribution Inventory

Answer 12

Gudjonsson - assesses how offenders apportion blame from crimes

Ways blame is attributed -
1) Circumstances or environment
2) Mental illness or lack of self control
3) Feelings of guilt or remorse

• The type of crime is the biggest indication of blame apportion

Question 13

Supporting evidence for cognitive distortion theories

Answer 13

• Crick and Dodge - relationship also found in children and adolescents in hypothetical and actual situations
• Epps and Kendall - high anger scores correlate with high hostile attribution, even in benign situations
• Schonenberg and Aiste - offenders often misinterpret situations and personal interactions
• Holtzworth-Monroe - domestic violence offenders were more likely to attribute blame to the wife

Question 14

Evaluation of cognitive distortion theories

Answer 14

• Research has given a sound basis for using HAB as a precursor to offending
• Lacks predictive validity (hypothetical)
• Cannot explain all offending behaviour

Question 15

Cognitive explanations - Minimalisation

Answer 15

• Downplaying their own criminal behaviour
• Trivialising, attributing blame and rationalising will help to reduce guilt
• Research shows link
• A coping strategy
• Relationship to certain types of crime

HOWEVER - cognitive explanations in general are overly simplistic in their explanations of behaviour, much how the biological approach is overly reductionist

Question 16

Differential Association Theory - Sutherland

Answer 16

• A bridge between cognitive and biological explanations, which suggests a biological predisposition is enabled by environmental factors
• Differing causes of offending are combined into one theory
• Predominantly crime is learnt, but the motivations, attitudes and drives behind the learning and offending differ
• Favourable diferentations - what in the criminal’s past has affected their choice of criminal behaviour?
• Sutherland suggested people learn criminal behaviour by associating with criminals, and that people learn specific methods and motivations behind the crimes

Question 17

Sutherland’s general principles of differential association

Answer 17

1) Criminal behaviour is a learned behaviour, coming from social interaction and communication with other people, and is more likely to be learned in a small group of individuals rather than a large group, as individuals have more influence in a smaller group
2) Motivation and intent are learned alongside the actual techniques and methods of the crime itself - criminals decide whether an action or behaviour is favourable or unfavourable to them, whereas the law states what is legal or illegal
3) The more a person is exposed to criminal behaviour, the more likely they are to commit a criminal behaviour - this is particularly true if the crime has a favourable outcome
4) The intensity, frequency, priority and duration of the interactions between criminal and learner affects how likely it is criminal behaviour will develop - priority being how early in life the interaction occurs
5) People learn behaviour through association (classical or operant conditioning) and this is the same for criminals, and so anyone has the potential to become a criminal despite sex, wealth, age, background or ethnicity

Question 18

Evaluation of Differential Association Theory - strengths

Answer 18

1) This theory explains recidivism (how likely it is for the person to commit another crime) as people who commit minor offences are more likely to reoffend by spending time with other criminals, and learn of more serious crimes if they spend time in prison
2) The theory is generalisable, as it can explain why anyone can commit criminal behaviour, as all types of people commit crime which the theory accounts for - comparatively, other theories tend to examine only young people and those of low socio-economic backgrounds
3) Research support - Short (1955) studied 176 school aged children and found a positive correlation between delinquent behaviour and association with delinquent individuals

Question 19

Evaluation of differential association theory - weaknesses

Answer 19

1) Individual differences are not taken into account - for example, it does not explain why some siblings are criminal and some are not even if they have the same ‘criminal learning environment’
2) Testing - the theory is challenging to test as there are differences in the attitudes towards crime and law, and crime is difficult to define in general, making the theory hard to examine