Genetic and Neural explanations - AO3

Question 1

What is a limitation for genetic explanations?

Answer 1

• P: Limitation of twin studies = assuming equal environments
• E:Often assumed that environmental factors are the same for MZ and DZ twins
• E: Because MZ twins look identical, people tend to treat them more similarly which affects their behaviour
• L: Higher concordance rates for MZs may be because they are treated more similarlly than DZs suggesting coonclusions lack validity

Question 2

What is a strength of genetic explanations?

Answer 2

• P: Strength = support for diathesis stress model of offending
• E: Mednick et al. (1984): studied 13,00 Danish adoptees having at least one court conviction
• E: Conviction rates 13.5% (biological or adoptive parents no conviction), 20% (one biological parent) 24.5% (both adoptive and biological parents
• L: Both genetic inheritance and environmental influence criminality, supporting the diathesis stress model of crime

Question 3

What is a strength of neural explanations?

Answer 3

• P: Strength = support for the link between crime and the frontal lobe
• E: Kandel and Freed (1989): researched people with frontal lobe damage, including pre-frontal cortex
• E: They found evidence of impulsive behaviour, emotional instability and inability to learn from mistakes
• L: Supports idea that structural abnormalities in the brain are a causal factor in offending behaviour

Question 4

What is a limitation of neural explanations?

Answer 4

• P: Limitation = link between neural difference and antisocial personality disorder is complex
• E: Farrington et al. (1981) studied adults males with high antisocial personality disorder scores. Raised by a convicted parent and physically neglected
• E: Early experiences may have caused APD and associated neural differences e.g reduced activity in the frontal lobe due to trauma
• L: This suggests that the relationship between neural differences, APD and offending is complex and there may be intervening variables