individual differences - criminal behaviour

Question 1

Individual differences - Eysencks personality theory

Answer 1

Extroversion = sociable lively and optimistic
Neurocitism = high levels of anxiety, moody and irritable
Psychoticm = impulsive, impatient, aggressive and creative

Question 2

Describe eysencks personality theory of criminal behaviour - individual differences (10)

Answer 2

Intro- theory has 3 dimensions

P1- extroversion - introversion
-sociable,lively and optimistc
biological link = they have an under aroused nervous system so seek stimulation to restore optimal stimulation
Crime = more arousal needed so seeks out dangerous situations - more impulsive actions e.g theft

P2- neuroticism - stable
-high anxiety, moody and irritable
Biological link = their nervous system in more unstable and prone to over react to stimuli so may be quick to anger or fear
Crime = more likley to lead to unplanned criminal behaviour that come from an escalated event e.g assault after an argument

P3-psychoticism - self control
-impulsive, impatient, aggressive and creative
Biological link = related to high levels of testosterone whereas low levels relate to more normal balanced behaviour
Crime= aggressive, impulsive, lack of empathy could result in crimes like murder or planned violent offences

Question 3

Evaluate eysencks personality theory - individual differences

Answer 3

P1- supporting research
S- strength
E- Eysenck and eysenck research compared male prisoners to controls finding prisoners to score higher on PEN scale = shared personality type among criminals
C- research supports his own theory so may be subject to researcher bias
W-despite research to support we still remain critical about validity

P2- considers nature and nurture
S-strength = interactionalist
E- Eysenck explained that criminal behaviour is based on a combination of innate personality traits and socialisation
E- and under aroiused NS is expressed through an extroversion personality e.g lively and sociable so go and seek out dangerous situations for arousal
W- strengths as it gives a mire complete explanation for criminal behaviour

P3- personality may not be consistent - may be situational
S-weakness
E-peoples personality may be consistent in similar situations but differ in different situations e.g someone may be stable at home but neurotic at work
E- study on 63 p’s showed no correlation between traits showed in varied situations
W-weakness as the notion of criminal personality is flawed as people don’t simply have ‘one personality’

Conclusion=
-it is not a complete explanation
-more suitable that biological as it does consider environment
-more useful explanation for a lot more variety of crime e.g robbery not just violent crimes like biological explanations show

Question 4

describe cognitive factors of criminal behaviour - individual difference (10)

Answer 4

p1- moral reasoning
different stages:
pre conventional - if the reward outweighs the cost (theft/fraud)
conventional - breaking laws to maintain a relationship ( assault/speeding)
post conventional - if you think it will help wider society (protesting)
research suggests more advanced moral reasoning = less likely to engage in violent crimes

p2- cognitive distortions:
-hostile attribution bias= what we think when we observe someone’s actions e.g if someone smiles at you you think they’re being mean leading to assault
-minimalization = perception of the consequence so underreacting removing the guilt e.g robbing a rich person because they have enough
money

Question 5

evaluate cognitive factors - individual differences (10)

Answer 5

p1- weakness
s- weakness is sample
e-only male sample = androcentric/male bias
e-theory is based on male perspective one of justice rather than caring
w- cant be generalised/applied to women =low validity

p2-
s-research to support hostile attribution bias
e-55 violent offenders shown images of ambiguous facial expressions and were more likely to interpret threat than controls
e-= hostile attribution bias as they automatically perceive negatively
w- more valid

conclusion - reasonable explanation along side biological - explores more of a variety of crime but cannot explain why it originates