paper 3 2020 Flashcards
‘Methods of modifying addictive behaviours are often controversial yet always
effective.’
With reference to this statement evaluate aversion therapy as a method of
modifying addictive behaviours. (15)
Credit could be given for AO2:
Reference to the statement through comments made:
* Candidates illustrating the ‘controversial’ and ‘effective’ nature of
aversion therapy through reference to strengths of such a method of
modification.
* Candidates illustrating the ‘controversial’ yet ‘ineffective’ aspects of
aversion therapy through reference to weaknesses of such a method of
modification.
* Assessment of the statement in the light of research / conclusions
drawn from work within aversion therapy or alternative methods of
modification for addictive behaviours.
* Any other appropriate reference.
Credit could be given for:
Aversion Therapy
* Examples of supporting evidence: Staffen (2003) effectiveness of
antabuse. Jorgensen et al (2011). Financial Saving in the long term
(Alcohol Concern, 2008). Positive social implications (Centre for Social
Justice, 2013) avoiding many of the financial and social costs that
addiction normally brings.
* Examples of refuting evidence: Limited long-term studies of the
effectiveness of aversive drugs such as antabuse. Few if any studies
comparatively looking at benefits of Aversion Therapy over other
treatments (Ellis, 2013). Undoubted ethical implications.
* Examples of ethical implications: Issue of consent and whether the
technique is fully understood by the patient or those consenting on behalf
of them. The potential of the risk of harm – through either mixture of
alcohol and medication, as well as the very unpleasant impacts
(pain/sickness) that this therapy can entail. The issue that it is not entirely
clear how the therapy fundamentally works (aversive or inhibitive).
* Studies that are used to support other forms of modification can be used
as evidence against Aversion Therapy (e.g. Van den brink et. al., 2006;
Lahti et. al., 2010).
* Any other relevant points of evaluation.
Describe one individual differences explanation of addictive behaviours. (10)
Credit could be given for:
The likely focus in responses here will be structured by those found in the
specification:
* Cognitive biases
* Field dependence
* Lang’s addictive personality traits
Cognitive biases
* Addiction has been suggested to be the outcome of problems in
internal mental processing of information. Heuristics, such as
representativeness and availability, can and have been applied to
explain addictive behaviour such as gambling. While such deviation
from logical thinking can be helpful in some respects – it can lead also
provide a basis upon which addictive behaviours can be explained.
Field dependence
* The view that addictive behaviour such as alcoholism is significantly
related to other key attributes. For example, the strong relationship that
exists between degree of perceived anxiety and degree of alcohol
dependence. Field dependence as a term and explanation in addictive
behaviour suggests that as a cognitive style those that are ‘field
dependent’ rely on information and stimuli provided by the world around
them. The subsequent behaviours shown is heavily dependent on this.
Lang’s addictive personality traits
* Lang identified ‘significant personality factors’ that he considered risk
factors for addiction. Such factors were:
Ø Behaving impulsively and seeking instant gratification.
Ø Valuing nonconformity over the accepted values of society.
Ø Experiencing heightened stress and lacking coping skills.
Ø Tolerating deviance and feeling socially isolated.
* Eysenck similarly applied his theory of personality to addiction,
reporting that drug addicts for example have high psychoticism and
neuroticism scores but lower extraversion scores.
* Any other appropriate content.
‘Individual differences explanations are perhaps the least useful in explaining
criminal behaviours.’
With reference to the statement, evaluate individual differences explanations
of criminal behaviours. (15)
Credit could be given for:
* Though developing commentary that illustrates application of research
to the statement by either showing how such explanations are or are
not useful in explaining criminal behaviours.
* Assessment of the statement the light of research / conclusions drawn
from investigations or alternative explanations of criminal behaviours.
* Any other appropriate reference.
Credit could be given for:
Eysenck’s criminal personality
* Examples of supporting evidence: Supporting the essential link
between personality-based factors and criminal behaviour: Eysenck,
(1967, 1978), Dunlop et. al. (2012), Zuckerman (1987).
* Examples of refuting evidence: The very real concern over lack of
consistency in an individual’s personality over time (Mischel et. al.,
1982) and the myriad of factors affecting this. Limited reliability of
personality tests themselves, and the methodological flaws that
questionnaires often entail (social desirability /mood).
Intelligence factors
* Examples of supporting evidence: Kohlberg, (1969, 1972), Colby et. al.
(1983), Schonenberg et. al. (2014), Kennedy et. al. (1992), Gudjonsson
et. al. (2007), Chien-An Chen et. al. (2007)
* Examples of refuting evidence: Krebs et. al. (2005) emphasising the
importance of examining cognitive / moral based decisions on real life
situations. Furthermore, the importance of biological factors that might
underpin criminal behaviour (e.g. Crowe, 1972) being underwritten by
cognitive factors. Gilligan (1982), Denton (2005) further adding
methodological critiques.
Psychopathic personality
* Examples of supporting evidence: There is a demonstrable link
between Psychopathic personality (psychopathy) and criminal
behaviour e.g. Hare, 1996; Hart 1998; Hemphill et al (1998) and
Vaughn and Howard (2005).
* Examples of refuting evidence: Lack of reliability of personality tests
Borreli (2017). Lack of a singular personality explanation (Mischel et. al.
(1982).
Generally
* Negative evaluation of individual differences explanations can also be
achieved by reference to supporting studies of other approaches. In
particular the ignorance of important social psychological factors found
in the work of Sutherland (1939) – Differential Association theory;
Pollak (1950) in gender socialisation. Also, biological explanations of
criminal behaviours such as the role of the amygdala (Gospice et. al.
2011) and research on criminality (adoption studies) may be used as
refuting evidence.
* Any other relevant evaluation points.
Briefly describe one biological explanation of criminal behaviours. (5)
Credit could be given for:
The likely focus in responses here will be structured by those found in the
specification:
* Disinhibition hypothesis
* Inherited criminality
* Role of the amygdala
Disinhibition hypothesis
* The view that criminal behaviour can be attributed to the impulsivity of
behaviour affecting motor, emotional, instinctual with symptoms similar to
mania. Criminal behaviour such as aggressive outbursts could indicate
disinhibited instinctual drives (Graffman et. al., 2002).
Inherited criminality
* The view that criminal behaviour could be attributed more to nature than
nurture. The focus of this view dates back to the work of Lombroso but has
in later years developed into a focus on specific genetic mechanisms that
might explain/underlie the inheritance of criminal traits. Specific genes
(candidate genes, Tiihonen, 2015), possible epi-genetic factors (Caspi
(2002), or genetic factors that could lead to differences in brain structure /
function.
Role of the amygdala
* The view that criminal behaviour can be attributed to the functioning of /
damage to the Amygdala, a small cluster of 13 nuclei one in each
hemisphere, which clear neural connections to hypothalamus, hippocampus
and pre-frontal cortex. Glenn (2009) showed that amygdala dysfunction is a
key aspect in understanding psychopathy.
* Credit could be given for any other biological explanation.
Briefly describe one method of modification for criminal behaviours. (5)
Credit could be given for:
Anger Management
* Put forward by Ray Novaco. It was his view that anger had biological,
cognitive and behavioural aspects / elements to it.
* There are many different examples of anger management techniques, a
British example would be CALM (Controlling Anger and Learning to
Manage it). Most systems have is a focus on teaching relaxation
techniques with the aim of reducing the biological changes / response to
anger. Cognitive restructuring is used to deal with problematic thought
patterns. To deal with the behavioural element, assertiveness training is
used.
* While different techniques of anger management might have varying
numbers of stages, the principles remain the same. (1) Cognitive
preparation, (2) Skills acquisition and (3) Application practice.
* Any other appropriate description.
Restorative Justice
* Based upon the principle of putting right their wrong, and according to
current Home Office data restorative justice is now a central method in
the attempt to reduce recidivism.
* Based upon key aims of: rehabilitation of offenders and atonement of
wrong doing,
* This form of modification is the only method that does allow the victim of
crime a voice, and a sense of power in the criminal process. The best
models of restorative justice involve three parts: the criminal, the victim
and the wider community.
* Any other appropriate description.
