paper 3 2021 Flashcards
Describe one biological explanation of addictive behaviours. (10)
Credit could be given for:
Candidates are likely to choose from those identified by the specification.
Addiction Genes:
* Focus has been on the role of the D2 dopamine receptor (DRD2) and in
particular the A1 variant of this gene.
* Those who are more closely related to an individual with addictive
behaviours often show similar traits (Goldman, 2005).
* A difference noted between different stimuli (for example hallucinogens
compared to cocaine) provides a strong argument for heritability.
Dopamine:
* Description will involve the mesolimbic pathway. A behaviour or
substance that is addictive encourages the release of dopamine in the
VTA (Ventral Tegmental Area) of the brain.
* Such action leads to pleasure experienced in the NAc (Nucleus
accumbens – reward pathway).
* For addicts the systems appear to respond to negative maladaptive
behaviours – ones that can harm us – rather than the behaviours that
are good for us. Volkow suggests that the dopamine reward pathway
clearly helps initially to develop the addiction which is further
strengthened by changes in the frontal cortex.
Disease of the brain:
* NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) introduced the idea of addiction
being a brain disease, as it is tied to changes in brain structure and
function.
* The individual with the addictive behaviour is a victim of it.
* It is estimated that between 25%-50% of people with substance use
problems appear to have a severe, chronic disorder.
* Any other appropriate biological explanation.
‘Social psychological explanations are ineffective in providing a clear
explanation for addictive behaviours.’
With reference to this statement, evaluate social psychological explanations
of addictive behaviours. (15)
Credit could be given for AO2:
Reference to the statement through comments made:
* Candidates illustrating the ‘effectiveness’ of social psychological
explanations of addictive behaviours through reference to strengths of
these explanations.
* Candidates illustrating the ‘ineffectiveness’ of social psychological
explanations of addictive behaviours through reference to weaknesses
of such these explanations.
* Assessment of the statement in the light of research / conclusions
drawn from social psychological investigations or alternative
explanations into addictive behaviours.
* Any other appropriate reference.
Credit could be awarded for:
Candidates are likely to choose from those identified by the specification:
* Co-morbidity with mental illness
* Peer pressure
* Role of the media
Co-Morbidity with mental illness
* Examples of supporting evidence: Magidson et. al. (2012), Conway et.
al. (2006).
* Examples of refuting evidence: Difficulties of accurate diagnosis leading
to often missed diagnoses (NIDA, 2008).
Peer pressure
* Examples of supporting evidence: Simons-Morton et. al. (2010);
Maxwell, (2002); Neighbours et. al. (2007).
* Examples of refuting evidence: Ennett et. al. (1994); Kobus (2003).
Role of the media
* Examples of supporting evidence: Pechmann et. al. (1999).
* Examples of refuting evidence: Methodological issues of research into
role of the media – given that most is correlational. In addiction most
research in this area lacks population validity.
Generally
* It is very possible that students may bring in supporting studies from
other explanations of addictive behaviour as a way of illustrating
weakness in these social psychological explanations.
* Evaluation could also be extended by the failure of social psychological
explanations to consider other plausible factors that underpin the
behaviour (e.g. biological factors e.g. dopamine or addiction genes).
Failure to consider individual differences (cognitive biases, field
dependence, Lang’s addictive personality traits) which might equally
have a profound influence on the showing of addictive behaviours.
* Any other appropriate evaluation.
N.B. Methodological criticisms of studies that are used to support
explanations is a valid form of evaluation – only if the evaluation is linked
back to its impact on the validity of the explanation.
Describe the characteristics of criminal behaviours. (10)
Credit could be given for:
* Andrews and Bonta (1998) offer an insight into what criminal behaviour
is and includes: An act prohibited by law and punished by the state. An
action considered to be a violation of moral or religious code. An action
that violates norms of society. An action that causes serious
psychological stress and damage to a victim.
* Chase (2016) suggests common characteristics of career criminals
include: rationalisation, entitlement, asocial value system,
sentimentality, impulsivity, family dysfunction, invincibility, power centric,
easily distracted, cognitively lazy.
* Gibbons (1990)
* ONS definition
* Characteristics of identified criminals.
* Any other appropriate characteristic of criminal behaviours.
It is important for examiners to assess the degree to which the candidate
actually provides characteristics of criminal behaviours or ‘criminals’, rather
than just characteristics of crime more generally.
‘Criminal behaviour is so varied that no one explanation can fully explain it.’
With reference to this statement, evaluate one explanation of criminal
behaviours. (15)
Credit could be given for:
Reference to the statement through comments made:
* Candidates illustrating the statement that ‘no one explanation can fully
explain’ criminal behaviours through reference to weaknesses of the
explanation examined.
* Candidates illustrating the ‘plausibility’ of explaining criminal behaviour
through one explanation of criminal behaviours through reference to
strengths of the explanation examined.
* Assessment of the statement in the light of research / conclusions
drawn from investigations or alternative explanations into criminal
behaviours.
* Any other appropriate reference
Credit could be given for AO3:
The likely focus in responses here will be structured by those found in the
specification:
Biological
* Disinhibition hypothesis.
* Inherited criminality.
* Role of the amygdala.
Individual Differences
* Eysenck’s criminal personality.
* Intelligence factors.
* Psychopathic personality.
Social Psychological
* Differential association theory.
* Gender socialisation.
* Normalisation theory.
There are a range of ways in which evaluation could be effectively constructed:
Biological
* Examples of supporting evidence: Raine (1993; 2004), Tiihonen et. al.
(2015), Crowe (1972), Mednick et. al. (1987) (inherited criminality). Coccaro
et. al. (2007), Gospic et. al. (2011), Pardini et. al. (2014) (Amygdala).
* Examples of refuting evidence: Lack of ability to explain full range of crimes
(Findlay, 2011). Deterministic nature of biological explanations. Problems of
cause and effect. Reductionism – reducing criminal behaviour down to role
of amygdala – ignorance of the important role of orbitofrontal cortex.
Individual Differences
* Examples of supporting evidence: Eysenck, (1967, 1978), Dunlop et. al.
(2012), Zuckerman (1987) – Eysenck’s criminal personality; 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) -
intelligence / cognitive factors.
* Examples of refuting evidence: Gilligan (1982), Denton (2005) – cognitive /
intelligence factors; Lack of a singular personality (Mischel et. al. (1982).
Lack of reliability of personality tests Borreli (2017) – Eysenck’s criminal
personality / psychopathic personality.
Social Psychological
* Examples of supporting evidence: Osbourne et. al. (1979), Akers et. al.
(1979) (differential association). Sutherland (1949), Heidensohn (1985),
Dabbs (1987) (gender socialisation).
* Examples of refuting evidence: Cox et. al. (2014) differential association theory not testable, in addition to not being able to explain all forms of
criminal behaviour. Ignorance of important hormonal differences between
males and females and subsequent influence on the showing of aggressive
(criminal) behaviours.
Generally
* Negative evaluation of any explanations can also be achieved by reference
to supporting studies of other approaches or comparisons between them to
emphasise difference or ignorance of specific causes.
* Any other relevant evaluation points.
