Paper 3: Forensic Psychology Flashcards
What is the purpose of offender profiling?
Offender profiling:
The police use offender profiling to identify the characteristics of a criminal, and narrow down the possible suspects. There are 2 approaches to this: the top-down approach and the bottom-up approach.
what is the top-down approach to offender profiling?
The top-down approach (used in the US) starts with pre-defined criminal profiles, based on experience. It works out which of these the criminal fits into. Douglass describes the sequence of the FBI top-down approach.
Assimilation - data from the scene is gathered and examined.
Classification - this data is then classified into one of 2 profiles: organised or disorganised offender.
Organised = higher IQ, planned crime, no evidence left behind, skilled/employed, socially competent, may follow media coverage of crime.
Disorganised = lower IQ, little/no planning, evidence left behind, unkilled/unemployed, socially incompetent, generally will not follow media coverage of crime.
Reconstruction - this involves identifying the timeline of the crime, and trying to reconstruct the behaviour of the offence.
Profile generation - this involves physical/psychological characteristics, beyond those described in organised/disorganised classification.
evaluation for the top-down approach to offender profiling?
Evaluation:
-based on evidence. organised/disorganised offender profiles were developed by the FBI from 36 US murderers, including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson.
-Limited application. Only works for some types of crime. Eg rapists/murderers tend to have a particular way of committing the crime, in which a bottom-up approach may be more useful.
-overly simplistic. Binary organised/disorganised offender. Many offenders do not fit neatly into either category. Eg high IQ individual could commit a spontaneous murder in a fit of rage.
what is the bottom-up approach to offender profiling?
The bottom-up approach.
In the bottom-up approach, the specific details of the crime are addressed first, then the general profile comes second. This is used in Britain.
Investigative psychology is the use of scientific psychology to solve crimes or identify criminals.
A key concept within IP is interpersonal coherence. This means the way in which a criminal behaves when they commit a crime, will be consistent with how they behave in everyday life. Eg an aggressive murderer is likely to be aggressive in everyday life.
Statistical analysis is also used in IP to identify themes or patterns of behaviour. Because of interpersonal coherence, this might also provide details about the criminal and narrow down the range of suspects.
Statistical analysis can also be used to provide info about the offender’s location through geographical profiling, which you use statistical analysis to make inferences about the criminal’s geographical location.
The circle hypothesis suggests that criminals will carry out crimes within a geographical circle, and also predicts that their home will be within this circle.
One study tested the circle hypothesis - locations of sexual assaults were recorded by 45 offenders. They found that 39 of the 45 lived within the circle predicted by the hypothesis. This suggests the hypothesis is generally valid.
The commuter/circle model vs the marauder model.
The circle model = the marauder model. Suggests the offender lives inside the crime circle.
The commuter model suggests criminals will commute to a circle in which the crimes are committed.
evaluation for the bottom-up approach to offender profiling?
Evaluation:
Gives a much wider range of applications. Top-down only works with a particular modus operandi - eg burglaries, rape, murder etc. Bottom up approach can be applied to a far wider range of crimes.
The bottom up approach is more scientific - this is bc it relies on objective, measurable data, eg plotting geographic locations of crimes. Also uses mathematical tools like statistical analysis, whereas top down relies on intuition, or “gut feeling”.
Contrasting evidence: Copson surveyed UK police officers who use the bottom up approach. Only 3% of the profiles resulted in identification of the offender.
what is the ativistic form explanation of criminal behaviour?
biological explanation.
The ativistic form explanation
Lombroso proposed that criminals are biologically different from other humans, and that criminals have more in common with our evolutionary ancestors. His idea is that they are more savage, prehuman species like the neanderthals. He argued that ativism therefore results in having distinctive facial features: eg strong jaw, heavy brow, extra fingers/toes.
He said that different types of criminal may have different types of facial features.
Ativism - ativism is when an ancestral, genetic trait that has disappeared, reappears.
evaluation for the ativistic form explanation of criminal behaviour?
Evaluation:
Widely dismissed by modern day scientists. It is often described as a historical approach, rather than a biological approach.
There are alternative explanations: even if it were true that criminals had different facial structures, the reason for this may be that being considered “ugly” could lead to social discrimination, followed by criminal behaviour. This would have been particularly true at the time Lombroso was designing his theory of criminality.
This idea raises ethical concerns - socially sensitive, as it can lead to stereotyping and discrimination based on the way someone looks. Can be used to justify racial discrimination.
what is the genetic explanation of criminal behaviour?
biological explanation.
The genetic explanation
Several genes have been linked with criminal behaviour: MAOA-L (L stands for low) gene is linked with aggressive behaviour, and therefore with criminal behaviour. The reason for this is bc the MAOA-L gene affects how neurotransmitters like serotonin are processed in the brain. Low version of the gene, means that less MAOA is produced overall, leading to less regulated neurotransmitters.
If a question asks for “genetic explanations” then you can only talk about twin studies
or the MAOA gene but if a question asks for “neural explanations “then you can use the
MAOA gene AS LONG AS your focus is on the high levels of serotonin, which is neural.
evaluation for the genetic explanation of criminal behaviour?
supporting evidence:
There is evidence that supports genetic explanation.
twin/adoption studies: these are a good way to work out whether a psychological condition is caused by genes or not. There has been research done by Christianson. He looked at concordance rates in criminal convictions, from over 3500 pairs of twins. He found that among males, CC rates were 35% among MZ twins, 12% for DZ twins. females 21% MZ 8% DZ.
This shows that the CC rates in criminal behaviour is higher in identical twins who share all their genes, who share all their genes, compared to non-identical twins, who share half their genes.
Mednick - looked at 14k adopted children, and compared the likelihood that they would grow up to engage in crime activity, if they had a criminal vs non-criminal adopted parent. Also looked at whether they had a crim/non-crim biological parent. They found that having a crim bio parent makes it more likely that the child will become crim, vs whether they have a crim adopted parent. Supports the idea that genetics explain crim behaviour.
Weaknesses: if crim behaviour was entirely determined by genes, CC rates would be 100% in MZ twins.
Also methodological issues w twin studies - it is likely MZ twins have been treated similarly, so environment can play a role.
Similar environment for all twins can play a role in CC rates.
what is the neural explanation of criminal behaviour?
biological explanation.
The neural explanation
Brain structures:
Raine compared the brain scans of convicted murderers, with control participants. He found that the murdered had reduced activity in prefrontal cortex among other brain areas, compartment to the control group. many of the criminals also had less brain matter in this area. The
role of the prefrontal cortex includes regulation of emotional behaviour, and so
lower activation or a dysfunction can lead to impulsiveness and lack of selfcontrol which makes a person at increased risk of offending.
Amygdala: The amygdala, found in the limbic system, is a part of the brain
involved in fear, aggression and social interactions and has been implicated in offending. The
activation of the amygdala has been linked to offending with lower levels of serotonin thought to
inhibit the amygdala activity. This lower activation of the amygdala means a person may recognize
a person is afraid but may not feel concern or empathy or really care that they are. These lower
levels of serotonin are also linked to aggression so the combination of lack of empathy and
aggression again increases the risk of offending.
Neurotransmitters: NTs like dopamine and serotonin may explain crim behaviour. This is supported by the MAOA theory - could link to genetic exp.
evaluation for the neural explanation of criminal behaviour?
Evaluation of the neural explanations:
Raine - supporting evidence
Huge ethical issues with this research. Using brain scans to identify potentially violent people is socially sensitive - could lead to discrimination against people with certain brain structures, before they have committed a crime.
Very deterministic - if neural factors are what causes crim behaviour rather than freewill, it may seem unfair to hold people morally/legally responsible for crim activity. Throws judicial system out of the window.
what is eyesnck’s theory of personality as an explanation of criminal behaviour?
Eyesnck’s theory of the criminal personality
Eyesnck suggested that all personality types including criminality are innate, and have a biological basis. He believed the personality types linked to offending were nerotic, extravert and psychotic.
Definitions:
Extraversion – determined by overall level of arousal in a person’s CNS and ANS. High extraversion scorers have an underactive nervous system, so need more stimulation. This leads to sensation-seeking behaviour, which often involves risk-taking. The thrill of committing a crime may lead extraverts to offending behaviour.
Neuroticism – determined by high levels of reactivity in the SNS which means they respond quickly and strongly to threats. This general instability means behaviour is less predictable. Neurotics also experience high levels of emotion, meaning they are more likely to commit a crime in an emotionally charged situation.
Psychoticism – E suggested this personality type after the previous two. He said that psychoticism was influenced by biological factors such as high levels of testosterone. Psychotics are less likely to feel guilt, so concern for other people is less likely to prevent them from committing a crime. Therefore he believed that extraverts and neurotics were less susceptible to this form of condition, which means that they do not easily learn to respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety.
Conditioning – as well as biological factors, E suggested that personality is linked to socialisation processes and how children are taught. For example when children act in immature ways they are punished, so associate anxiety, or other unpleasant emotions, with antisocial behaviour
evaluation of eyesnck’s theory?
Evaluation of eyesnck’s theory.
Application – crime prevention. He suggests that underlying tendencies are detectable in childhood and also linked to the quality of conditioning and socialisation that a child receives. Therefore interventions could be possible for early treatment of delinquency, to reduce the likelihood of offending behaciour later on.
Issues/debates – takes an interactionist approach to the nature/nurture debate. While Eyesnck did believe that personality types were innate due to biology, he did not think that the consequences of these personality types (eg criminality) were inevitable, as this depends on the quality and nature of conditioning in childhood.
Supporting research – prisoners scored substantially higher than a control on all 3 personality types. Suggests there is at least a link between personality type and offending behaviour.
what is kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning theory?
cognitive explanation.
Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning theory
K proposed a stage theory of moral development (do not NEED to know all the stages, just how it is linked to offending)
In relation to offending behaviour, research has shown that criminals are more likely to reason at the pre-conventional level of the model, whereas non-criminals have generally progressed to the conventional or post-conventional levels.
The pre-conventional level is associated with less mature and more childlike reasining. For example punishment orientation is common – moral reasoning is based on whether or not the act will lead to punishment, and so the offender may commit a crime if they believe that they can get away with it.
Those at stage 2 use reward orientation. This is moral reasoning based on what is to be gained, and so at this level they may commit a crime if they gain rewards in the form of money, possessions, respect, etc.
Stages 1 and 2 are both part of LEVEL 1 – pre-conventional morality.
evaluation for kohlberg’s theory?
Supporting research – ashkar and Kenny found that sexual and non-sexual offenders in a maximum security prison in australia all used a pre-conventional level of moral reasoning when talking about their own offenders. This supports the moral reasoning theory, indicating that Kohlberg’s theory had some validity.
However – A and K also found that when discussing hypothetical unrelated crimes with these offenders, they were able to use a conventional level of moral reasoning, damaging Kohlberg’s explanation and suggesting there may be other factors at play.
Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning suffer from beta bias – levels were based on interviews with 58 boys/man. Assumes women would have the same levels of moral reasoning, at the same ages.
Applications - One strength of the cognitive explanations of offending is the implications for treatment. If faulty/disordered thinking leads to offending, then by changing this thinking using CBT it should reduce crime. The police use cognitive restructuring-a process of learning that guides offenders to see their behaviours as a direct result of the choices they make thus avoiding minimalisation and treatment programmes in prisons could incorporate ways to increase offenders’ level of moral reasoning which may help to reduce reoffending. The fact that these ways of reducing offending use the cognitive explanations further support the explanations.
