Paper 3: Forensic Psychology

Question 1

What is the American Approach to offender profiling?

Answer 1

The Top-down approach.

Question 2

Who detailed the FBIs 4 criteria and what are they?

Answer 2

Douglas et al
Assimilation
Classification
Reconstruction
Profile generation

Question 3

What are the two types of Offenders in the American approach of offender profiling?

Answer 3

Organised and Disorganised.

Question 4

What are the steps after dividing the two types of offenders in the American approach?

Answer 4

The police will attempt to reconstruct the crime before generating a profile of the criminal with specific characteristics.

Question 5

What are the strengths of the top-down approach to offender profiling?

Answer 5

McCary and Grant successfully used the approach to accurately identify a murderer.
The FBI used 36 real murderers to create the profiling system.

Question 6

What are the weaknesses of the top-down approach to offender profiling?

Answer 6

Conflicting evidence, Pinizzotto and Finkel found that profiles of sexual assault cases were no more accurate from professionals than a control group.
Only useful for certain types of crimes eg murder and not for burglaries.
Overly simplistic, only two profiles to be divided, some criminals have characteristics that fit into both.

Question 7

What approach of criminal profiling do the British use and how does it work?

Answer 7

The bottom-up approach.
Use of investigative psychology to solve crimes.
Canter - Interpersonal coherence, the way a criminal behaves when committing a crime is reflected in their normal behaviour.
Statistical Analysis is used to identify themes in their behaviour to identify several characteristics.
Geographical profiling is used, believing a serial killer will live in the circle of their crimes.
Also differentiates between marauders (those who kill in their area) and commuters (those who travel).

Question 8

Strengths of the Bottom up approach?

Answer 8

Research by Canter and Larkin found 87% of serial killers lived within the circle of murder.
Canter used the profile to find the ‘railway rapist’
Can be used for a wide range of crimes, not just rape and murder.
More scientific using measurable data.

Question 9

What % of offender profiles were found to be accurate in the bottoms up approach?

Answer 9

Just 3%

Question 10

What are the 3 biological explanations of offending behaviour?

Answer 10

Atavistic form
Genetics
Neural factors

Question 11

Who proposed the atavistic form and what were 3 features of it?
What was the further explaination?

Answer 11

Lombroso, heavy brow, strong jaw, extra fingers/nipples
That different types of criminals had different features eg murders had curly hair.

Question 12

Strengths of the atavistic form theory?

Answer 12

Historical importance, advanced the study of criminology and forensic psychology.

Question 13

Weaknesses of the atavistic form theory?

Answer 13

Methodological concerns, didn’t compare to a control group.
Alternative explanations, someone ‘ugly’ may be a criminal due to societal treatment.
Ethical concerns, socially sensitive research

Question 14

What were the two studies conducted looking at the genetic components of crime?

Answer 14

Christiansen found a 35% concordance rate for identical twins and a 12% concordance rate for non-identical twins for males.
Lange found 77% of identical twins had both gone to jail compared to 12% non-identical twins.

Question 15

Who looked at adoption studies when researching the genetic component to crime?

Answer 15

Mednick found a child has a likelier chance of being a criminal with a criminal biological parent than a criminal adoptive parent.

Question 16

What genes have been seen to affect criminality?

Answer 16

MAOA-Lis linked with aggressive behaviour and therefore criminal behaviour. Brunner et al studied a family with aggressive and criminal behaviour and found all the males shared the gene.

Question 17

What are the weaknesses of the genetic factors for criminality?

Answer 17

Concordance rates, if criminality was down to genetics, it should have a 100% concordance rate with identical twins.
Methodological issues, Mednick’s adoptees were often raised by biological parents before being adopted.
Deterministic, it restricts a persons free will. Also raises legal and moral issues.

Question 18

What are the two neural factors that affect behaviour?

Answer 18

Brain structure and neurotransmitters.

Question 19

Who conducted the brain scan studies and what were the results?

Answer 19

Raine et al (1997) compared brain scans conducted on 41 convicted murderers and with brain scans conducted on 41 control participants. The researchers observed that the murderers had reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, the superior parietal gyrus, left angular gyrus, and the corpus callosum compared to the control group.

Question 20

Who researched the link between genes and neurotransmitters?

Answer 20

Brunner believed certain genes are responsible for the release of certain neurotransmitters eg serotonin and dopamine.

Question 21

Weaknesses of Neural explanations?

Answer 21

Small sample sizes: Studies linking criminal behaviour with neural factors often use small sample sizes.
Ethical issues: An implication of Raine’s research is that brain scans in childhood could be used to identify potentially violent criminals of the future.
Deterministic: Neural explanations are biologically deterministic because they say that neural factors are what cause criminal behaviour, not free will.

Question 22

Who came up with the theory of personality for psychological explanations for criminal behaviour and what were the 3 personality traits?

Answer 22

Eyesenck
Extrovert vs. introvert:
An extrovert is someone who is sociable, talkative, more impulsive and risk-taking.
In contrast, an introvert is someone who prefers to spend time alone and is less impulsive and less inclined to take risks.
Neurotic vs. stable:
A neurotic person is someone who is prone to strong negative emotions such as anxiety, worry, nervousness, and jealousy.
In contrast, a stable person is (as the name suggests) more emotionally stable and calm.
Psychotic vs. non-psychotic: This third trait was added to the theory of personality in Eysenck (1966).
A psychotic person lacks empathy, does not feel guilt, and is aggressive and unconventional.
In contrast, the majority of people are non-psychotic – they have a conscience and feel empathy and guilt.

Question 23

Why were Eyesenck’s personality traits causing crime?

Answer 23

A highly extroverted person is more likely to commit crime because they are more likely to take risks and act impulsively. Extroverts are also thrill-seekers, so the excitement of criminal behaviour is more likely to be appealing.
A highly neurotic person feels negative emotions more strongly, which increases the likelihood of them committing a criminal act in the heat of the moment.
A highly psychotic person is more likely to commit a crime because they are not put off by feelings of guilt or empathy for a potential victim. High psychoticism is also associated with increased aggression, increasing the likelihood of violent criminal behaviour

Question 24

What are the strengths of Eyesenck’s research?

Answer 24

upporting evidence: Several studies support a link between the personality traits Eysenck describes above and criminality – in particular psychoticism. For example, Furnham (1984) tested 210 subjects using Eysenck’s personality theory, a social skills test, and a test of anomie (which basically means moral values). Of these 3 tests, the results of Eysenck’s personality theory were the most accurate predictors of criminal behaviour, which supports the criminal personality theory explanation of criminal behaviour.

Question 25

Weaknesses of Eyesenck’s research?

Answer 25

Relative importance of different factors: Although there is some evidence supporting a link between Eysenck’s 3 personality traits and criminal behaviour, the links are stronger for some personality traits more than others. For example, the correlation between being highly psychotic and criminal behaviour is much stronger than the correlation between being highly neurotic and criminal behaviour.
Methodological concerns: Much of the research linking criminality with personality type determines personality type using self-report methods such as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. However, self-report techniques are often unreliable as the answer the participant gives varies depending on their mood. Self-report techniques are also often invalid as participants lie (e.g. to make themselves sound better).
Other factors: There are many people who score highly for neuroticism, extroversion, and even psychoticism who do not engage in criminal behaviour. Conversely, there are many stable, introverted, and non-psychotic people who do engage in criminal behaviour. This suggests that other factors (e.g. biology or learning approaches) are needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.

Question 26

Who studied Level of Moral Reasoning in Cognitive explanations and what were the 3 levels?

Answer 26

Kohlberg
Pre-conventional morality Bad = An action that gets punished.
Good = An action that gets rewarded. Actions are chosen according to self-interest
(e.g. if I don’t get caught/punished it’s OK to steal).
Conventional morality
Bad = An action that makes other people think negatively of you.
Good = An action that makes other people think negatively of you. Actions are chosen according to wider societal interests
(e.g. I shouldn’t steal because it’s against the law to steal and my family would look down on me).
Post-conventional morality
Bad = An action that violates abstract moral principles.
Good = An action in accordance with abstract moral principles. Actions are chosen according to abstract moral principles
(e.g. Even though it’s against the law, it’s OK to steal in situations where stealing results in a greater good).

Question 27

What are the strengths of the Moral Levels?

Answer 27

Supporting evidence: Several studies suggest that criminal offenders have less developed moral reasoning than non-criminal controls. For example, Palmer and Hollin (1998) used questionnaires to compare the moral reasoning abilities of 126 male convicted offenders with 122 male non-offenders. The researchers found that the male offenders had significantly poorer moral reasoning compared to the male non-offenders, which supports the idea that underdeveloped moral reasoning contributes to criminal behaviour.
Explanatory power: Differences in moral reasoning can explain why one person might commit a crime when another person may not. A person who commits a crime does not have the belief that what they are doing is wrong, so this means they are free to do so. In contrast, if someone has a belief that a criminal action is morally wrong, this is likely to prevent them from doing it. These differences in moral reasoning explain their different actions.

Question 28

What are the weaknesses of Moral levels?

Answer 28

Limited applications: Level of moral reasoning is able to explain some types of criminal behaviour better than others. For example, Thornton and Reid (1982) found criminals convicted of robbery were more likely to be at the pre-conventional morality stage than criminals convicted of assault.
Methodological concerns: Kohlberg’s stages of moral development was based entirely on data from boys, with no girls included in his research. As such, the theory may suffer from gender bias (beta bias) and the results may not be valid when applied to female criminal behaviour.
Other factors: There are examples of criminals of all stages of moral reasoning, which suggests that other factors besides pre-conventional moral reasoning (e.g. biological factors or learning approaches) are needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.

Question 29

What are the two main types of cognitive distortions and how do they work?

Answer 29

Hostile attribution bias, believe people are being hostile when they aren’t
Minimisation, downplays how bad their behaviour really is, common in sexual assault.

Question 30

Strengths of cognitive distortions?

Answer 30

Supporting evidence: Several studies support a link between criminal behaviour and cognitive distortions. For example:
Hostile attribution bias: Schönenberg and Jusyte (2013) showed pictures of ’emotionally ambiguous’ faces to 55 violent offenders and 55 matched control subjects. The researchers found that the violent offenders were more likely to interpret these ambiguous stimuli as aggressive than the controls were, which supports the explanation that hostile attribution bias may explain (violent) criminal behaviour.
Minimalisation: Pollock and Hashmall (1991) conducted a content analysis of the clinical records of 86 child molesters. They found the records often contained attempts to minimise the seriousness of their crimes Excuses including denying their actions were sexual (35%) and arguing that the actions were consensual (36%).
Practical applications: Understanding the cognitive distortions that cause criminality could yield effective ways to reduce criminal behaviour and prevent recidivism. For example, cognitive behavioural therapy could reduce minimalisation by helping offenders understand how serious their actions are, or reduce hostile attribution bias by challenging the thought processes that lead offenders to misinterpret innocent actions as hostile.

Question 31

Weaknesses of cognitive distortions?

Answer 31

Limited applications: There are many types of crime that cognitive distortions don’t explain well. For example, it’s easy to see how hostile attribution bias could lead to impulsive violence (e.g. the offender misinterprets an innocent look from someone and assaults them) but it’s hard to see how this bias could explain planned violence (e.g. a pre-meditated murder). This suggests that cognitive biases may only explain some types of crime and not others.
Other factors: There are examples of criminals who don’t exhibit either hostile attribution bias or minimalisation, which suggests that other factors (e.g. biology or learning approaches) are needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.

Question 32

What psychological criminal explanation was theorised by Sutherland and what approach does it follow?

Answer 32

The Differential Association Theory follows the learning theory approach, believing criminality is learnt by associating with people who commit crimes. Sutherland argued the intensity, proximity ect could mathematically determine your criminality.

Question 33

Strengths of the Differential Association Theory?

Answer 33

Supporting evidence: Alarid et al (2000) applied differential association theory to 1,153 newly-imprisoned criminals and found that it could accurately explain their criminal behaviour (e.g. which crimes they committed) in many cases. Because of this, the authors conclude that differential association theory is a good ‘general theory’ of crime and that it can be used to predict the likelihood that a person will engage in criminal behaviour.
Explanatory power: Differential association theory is able to explain why rates of recidivism (reoffending after prison) are so high: People who are sent to prison will be surrounded by people who have positive attitudes towards crime and who will have knowledge of the methods involved in crime. These differential associations will further teach and encourage criminal behaviour, making a person sent to prison highly likely to reoffend.

Question 34

Weaknesses of differential association theory?

Answer 34

Exceptions: There are many examples of people raised around criminals (i.e. people with favourable differential associations for crime) who do not go on to commit a crime. Similarly, there are examples of people raised in environments with very limited or no exposure to criminals who go on to commit crimes. These examples weaken support for the theory and suggest that other factors (e.g. biological factors) are also needed for a complete explanation of criminal behaviour.
Limited applications: Although differential association may explain certain types of crime (e.g. burglary or drug dealing), there are many criminal acts that are individualistic in nature and so don’t fit with the theory. For example, serial killers are not typically raised in environments among other serial killers, so differential association theory is not able to explain such criminal behaviour.

Question 35

Who was the main theorist behind the psychodynamic approach to criminal behaviour?

Answer 35

Freud’s psychoanalystic theory and Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory.

Question 36

Who used Freud’s theory and how did they explain criminal behaviour?

Answer 36

Blackburn described 3 ways in which the super ego can lead to criminal behaviour.
Underdeveloped superego- Less likely to feel guilt and therefore more likely to give into the impulses of the id.
Overdeveloped superego- Excessive guilt and an unconscious desire to be caught and punished
Deviant superego- The child’s superego reflects the same-sex parent, but the same sex parent is a criminal, leaving the super ego to develop characteristics of criminality.

Question 37

Who argued an extended point using Frued’s psychoanalytic theory?

Answer 37

Englander argued the displacement defence mechanism that mediates the id, ego and superego is the cause of violent behaviour.

Question 38

How does maternal deprivation factor into the psychodynamic approach to criminal behaviour?

Answer 38

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study found 39 % had been separated from their mothers before age 2.
Maternal deprivation causes difficulties in forming relationships later in life which can manifest in aggression and depression.

Question 39

Weaknesses of the psychodynamic approach?

Answer 39

Methodological concerns with Bowlby’s study, he conducted the interviews and decided the attachment type of the children.
Conflicting evidence, while Freud believes women’s superegos are weaker than men, causing them to commit more crimes, the opposite is true, men commit more crimes.
Unscientific, many of Freud’s theories are unfalsifiable.

Question 40

What are the 4 types of restorative justice?

Answer 40

Custodial sentencing, behaviour modification, restorative justice and anger management.

Question 41

What are the 4 aims of custodial sentencing?

Answer 41

Deterrence, deterring others from committing crimes
Retribution, evening out the punishment from the victim to the criminal.
Rehabilitation, stopping the criminal from committing future crimes.
Protection, saving the public from crime.

Question 42

What are the 3 effects of custodial sentencing?

Answer 42

Institutionalisation, may come to adapt to prison life, eg a homeless person, and will commit crimes to return to it.
Mental health issues, as demonstrated by the Stanford Prison Experiment
May reinforce criminal behaviour due to proximity with criminals

Question 43

What are the rates of recidivism and how does it vary with custodial lengths?

Answer 43

25% commit another crime within a year.
Offenders with a sentence longer than 10 years reoffend 10% of the time.
Offenders with a sentence shorter than 6 months reoffend 60% of the time.

Question 44

What are the strengths of custodial sentencing?

Answer 44

Rehabilitation schemes within prison can help improve the offenders life eg Timpsons.
Complements the other approaches, can be used alongside behavioural modification or anger management.

Question 45

What are the weaknesses of custodial sentencing?

Answer 45

Negative psychological effects eg Fazel et al, suicide rates in prison are 3 times higher than outside of prison.
Isn’t effective, custodial sentencing aims to decrease crimes but can lead to an increase in reoffending.

Question 46

How does behaviour modification work?

Answer 46

Uses the principles of operant conditioning, such as with a token economy, to reinforce positive behaviours.
Originally used to treat mental illness but now transferred towards prison use.

Question 47

What are the strengths of behaviour modification?

Answer 47

Milan and Mckee found it was more effective at improving behaviour than other methods such as direct orders.
Low Costs, easy to implement and doesn’t require a trained professional.

Question 48

What are the weaknesses of behaviour modification?

Answer 48

Not effective long term, Kirigin et al found the improvements only lasted as long as the programme.
Ethical concerns, may be dehumanising to manipulate and control prisoners.
May have better alternatives, Anger management is more effective for rehabilitating violent behaviour.

Question 49

What is anger management based off?

Answer 49

The cognitive approach and uses anger management specific CBT.

Question 50

What are the 3 stages of anger management?

Answer 50

Cognitive preparation: The therapist will help the offender reflect back on times when they have been angry in the past and identify potential triggers that make them angry.
Skill acquisition: The therapist teaches the offender skills to help manage anger in anger-inducing situations. For example, the offender may be taught relaxation techniques (e.g. breathing, meditation) and/or social skills (e.g. how to communicate more clearly and avoid misunderstandings).
Application practice: The therapist and the offender practice using the newly-learned skills in situations that may require them. For example, if the offender punched their boss in anger, the therapist and offender may re-enact that scenario and the offender will use the skills they have been taught to stay calm.

Question 51

Strengths of anger management?

Answer 51

Supported by research, Ireland 2004 compared anger levels of an anger management group as compared to a control and found a greater drop in anger levels than the control group.

Question 52

Weaknesses of anger management?

Answer 52

Conflicting evidence: Howells et al (2005) studied anger levels in Australian offenders before and after an anger management program. Although the offenders receiving anger management therapy demonstrated reduced anger levels after therapy compared to a control group who did not receive anger management, the difference was not statistically significant. This suggests that anger management programs do not significantly reduce anger levels and so are unlikely to prevent recidivism.
Not effective long-term: Blackburn (1993) argues that, although anger management therapy demonstrates benefits in the short-term, there is little evidence to suggest anger management reduces recidivism in the long-term.
Limited applications: Anger management will only be an effective way to deal with criminal behaviours caused by anger, such as assault. For criminal behaviours that are not caused by anger (e.g. burglary, drug dealing, etc.), anger management is likely to have little rehabilitative benefit.

Question 53

How does restorative justice work?

Answer 53

Both victim and criminal consent to being in the programme. The offender takes responsibility for their crime and may also have to fix what they broke or to apologise fully to the victim.

Question 54

Strength of restorative justice?

Answer 54

Supporting evidence: A meta-analysis by Latimer et al (2005) found restorative justice programs resulted in greater victim satisfaction, greater offender satisfaction, and lower rates of recidivism compared to traditional criminal justice responses such as custodial sentencing and probation.
Lower costs: Restorative justice is typically much less expensive than alternative methods of dealing with criminal behaviour, such as custodial sentencing or anger management.

Question 55

Weaknesses of restorative justice?

Answer 55

Methodological concerns: Restorative justice programs are voluntary, so there will always be a self-selection bias for participants who are motivated to change their ways (as Latimer et al (2005) acknowledge). In other words, the kinds of offenders who volunteer for restorative justice programs may be less likely to reoffend anyway. This makes it difficult to say whether restorative justice programs actually cause lower rates of recidivism, or whether they are just correlated.
Limited applications: The voluntary nature of restorative justice programs also means their applications are limited. For example, restorative justice can’t work if either the offender or the victim doesn’t consent to take part. Similarly, if the offender doesn’t take responsibility for their actions, restorative justice isn’t an option. This limits the potential applications of restorative justice.
Soft option: There is a common perception that restorative justice is a soft option in that it doesn’t sufficiently punish offenders for their crimes. As such, there is often greater support for harsher approaches to dealing with crime, such as custodial sentencing.