PAPER 3 - FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY - psychological explanations of offending behaviour (Eysenck, Cognitive explanations, differential association theory, psychodynamic explanations) Flashcards
What is personality?
- A mix of biological tendencies combined with learning experiences
- Eysenck proposed that criminals have a specific mix that causes otterains benaviour, therefore criminality can be explained by specific personality traits
What are the 3 diversions that Eysenck believed contributed to criminality?
- extraversion
- neuroticism
- psychoticism
What is extraversion?
- opposite of intraversion
- extraverts are characterised by outgoing, having positive emotions but may get bored easily, they enjoy risk and danger
what are extraverts biologically determined by?
- overall level of arousal in a persons nervous system
- extraverts have less innate cortical arousal so seek external stimulation
why does extraversion suggest criminal behaviour?
- less likely to be affected by negative outcomes e.g. punishment
- seek external stimuli e.g. crime, for arousal
- get bored easily and take risks so could risk committing a crime
what is neuroticism?
- opposite of stability
- when an individual experiences more negative emotions
what is neuroticism biologically determined by?
- sympathetic NS
- tendency to overreact in situations of threat
why does neuroticism suggest criminal behaviour?
making rash decisions so individual is more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening
what is psychoticism?
- opposite of normality
- high levels of testosterone (so more prevalent in men)
what is psychoticism biologically determined by?
hormones
why does psychoticism suggest criminal behaviour?
- lack of empathy and conscience
- aggression
- impulsivity
- leads to offending behaviour
what is the role of socialisation in offending behaviour?
- socialisation is something children are taught to become more able to delay gratification and be more socially oriented
- Eysenck suggested those with high E and N scores had a NS that made them difficult to condition
- therefore they’re less likely to learn anxiety responses to antisocial behaviour and act more antisocial
what research support is there for Eysenck’s theory?
- study compared 2070 male prisoners’ scores on Eysenck’s personality questionnaire, with 2422 controls
- prisoners scored higher average scores than controls
- therefore aggress with predictions from the theory that prisoners score higher in all 3 dimensions
HOWEVER - Farrigton conducted a meta-analysis of relevant studies and reported that offenders tended to score high on measures of psychoticism, but not extraversion and neuroticism
- there’s also inconsistent evidence for differences on EEG measures between extraverts and intraverts which causes doubts for Eysenck’s theory
what is the limitations of ‘too simplistic’ of Eysenck’s personality theory?
- proposes that all offending behaviour can be explained through personality alone
- Moffitt drew distinction between offending behaviour that only occurs in adolescence and that continues into adulthood
- argued personality alone was a poor predictor of how long offending behaviour would go on for, in the sense of whether someone is likely to become a ‘career offender’
- thought personality traits as well as environmental factors influence offending behaviour
how are cultural factors a limitation of Eysenck’s theory?
- criminal personality may vary according to culture
- researchers studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a maximum security prison in New York, and divided them into groups based on offending history and nature of offences
- found that in all groups there were less extraverts than non-offender control group whereas Eysenck would expect them to be more extravert
- suggested this was because sample was a very different cultural group investigated by Eysenck
- may lack generalisability
how is ‘measuring personality’ a limitation of Eysenck’s theory?
personality may not be able to be ‘scored’ as in the EPQ and suggests personality is too complex and dynamic to be quantified
what was the study by McGurk and McDougal?
- AIM: to investigate link between personality type and criminality
- 100 students classed as delinquents and 100 non delinquents completed EPQ and calculated scores
- results: significant differences in scores of all 3 dimensions between both groups, delinquent group had combination of high P, E and N scores
what can be concluded from McGurk and McDougal’s study?
there is a relationship between personality (E, N and P) and delinquent behaviour
what are the evaluation points of McGurk and McDougal’s study?
SAMPLE:
✔ use of control group
X only 100 students
X student sample
METHOD:
X correlation
X self report
OTHER POINTS:
X reductionist (only looks at personality explaining offending behaviour)
X deterministic
what are the 2 cognitive explanations for offending behaviour?
- cognitive distortions
- levels of moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1969)
what are cognitive distortions?
- forms of irrational thinking means individual has distorted perception of reality which often reinforces negative thoughts and emotions
- offenders interpret behaviour of others and justify their own actions
how do cognitive distortions explain offending behaviour?
cognitive distortions can allow an offender to perceive their behaviour as non-criminal, by denying or rationalising their crimes
what are 2 exampled of cognitive disortions?
- hostile attribution bias
- minimalisation
what is hostile attribution bias?
- individual perceives everything as hostile/ the worst
- negative interpretations
- interpretations lead to hostile behaviour
LINK TO OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: aggression in offenders
what is minimalisation?
- reduces effects/interpretation of consequences to offending behaviour both before and after crime
- individual can then accept those consequences and reduce negative actions
LINK TO OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: lack negative emotions towards negative actions e.g. robbing wealthy household
what is Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning?
- Kohlberg constructed a stage theory of moral development which suggests children’s cognition develops in stages
- each stage is more sophisticated and represents a more advanced form of moral understanding
- people progress through the stages as a result of social learning and biological maturity
STAGES: pre-conventional level, conventional level, post-conventional level,
what is in the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning?
(actions judged by consequences)
STAGE 1 - punishment and obedience: doing what is right due to fear of punishment, rules kept to avoid punishment
STAGE 2 - instrumental purpose: ‘right’ behaviour is what brings rewards
what is the conventional level of moral reasoning?
STAGE 3 - good boy/girl: doing what is right according to what others expect, good behaviour is what pleases others
STAGE 4 - doing what is right because it is your duty and helps society, obeying laws is important
what is the post-conventional level of moral reasoning?
STAGE 5 - social contract: doing what is morally right even if it is against the law
STAGE 6 - universal ethical principles: doing what is right because of inner conscience/self-chosen principles
what did Kohlberg suggest about who reached what level of moral reasoning?
suggested 10% of adults reach post-conventional so most reach conventional level
what is the research support for hostile attribution bias to offending behaviour (cognitive distortions)?
- researchers found offenders were more likely to interpret a picture of a face that looked slightly angry as an expression of aggression (example of hostile attribution bias)
- researchers concluded misrepresentation of non-verbal cues could explain aggressive, impulsive behaviour and therefore criminality
HOWEVER - sample of many supporting studied mostly consists of males so may not generalise to women
how is ‘real world application’ a strength for cognitive distortions?
- Heller used behavioural techniques to reduce cognitive distortions in young men from disadvantaged groups in chicago
- those who attended 13 one-hour sessions had a 44% reduction in arrests compared to control group
- findings suggest that understanding of cognitive distortions allows for successful treatment and reduces criminal behaviour
how is Kohlberg’s sample a limitation of his theory?
- only used male participants
- Gilligan suggested this caused stages to reflect a male perspective focused on justice rather than female principles of caring and compassion
- may represent male definition of morality
how is the fact that Kohlberg’s theory only considers moral thinking rather than behaviour, a limitation?
- Krebs and Denton suggested moral principles are only one factor in moral behaviour and may be overridden by more practical factors e.g. personal financial gains
- also found principles were only used to justify behaviour after it had been performed
what is differential association (DA) theory (Sutherland, 1939)?
- explains criminal behaviour in terms of social learning
- mathematically predicts likelihood of offending, depending on frequency and intensity of interactions with others who view crime as favourable/unfavourable
- is a social approach. shows how behaviour can be passed on through observation and reinforcement
what is learned in DA theory?
- types of acceptable and desirable crimes
- pro-crime attitudes
- methods of carrying out the crime (techniques)
who is DA learned from and how is it learned?
- family, friends, community
- occurs through relationships and associations with others
- pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime attitudes
- direct & indirect operant conditioning (praised for doing crime/observing role models)
what was the study by Farrington et al on the DA theory?
- 411 8 year olds in longitudinal study from 1961 in deprived area in London
- 41% went on to be convicted of at least one offence between 10 and 50
- most important childhood risk factors at age 8-10 for later offending were family criminality, risk-taking, low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting
how can Farrington’s study be used to support DA theory?
due to deprived area, many have favourable attitudes to offending behaviour compared to unfavourable attitudes
what were Sutherland’s 9 key principles? (don’t need to learn all 9)
- behaviour is learned
- learning through association with others
- association with intimate personal groups
- techniques, attitudes & motivations learned
- learning is directional (for/against crime)
- if favourable crime attitudes outweigh unfavourable, individual becomes an offender
- individual’s learning varies in frequency & intensity
- criminal behaviour is learned in same way as behaviour
- just ‘need’ (eg money) not enough to explain crime as most need but dont become a criminal
what is the real world application of Sutherland’s work? (DA theory)
- changed peoples views about origins of criminal behaviour
- shifted from blaming individual factors to pointing to social factors
- introduced ‘white collar crimes’ e.g. fraud suggesting criminals can come from any background
- shows learning environment can change but genes cannot be changed
what supportive evidence was there on DA theory from Osborne & West?
- found that when a father has a criminal conviction, 40% the sons had also committed a crime by 18 compared to 13% from non-criminal fathers
- supports DA theory but effects of genetics cannot be disentangled
what are the methodological problems of DA theory?
- data is correlational
- critics argue data is not testable due to difficult separating learned and observed influences
- cant establish causality, so cannot test experimentally (validity unclear)
what is a limitation of the applicability of DA theory to types of crime?
- social learning influences are probably confined to smaller crimes rather than violent and impulsive crimes
- e.g. in England and Wales, there were 500 homicides but 400,000 burglaries (2014)
what is psychodynamic theory to explaining offending behaviour?
- Freud’s psychodynamic theory
- relating to offending behaviour didnt come from him, came from Blackburn
- 2 areas used: maternal deprivation theory, the superego
how can MDH be used to explain offending behaviour?
- theory suggested frequent/prolonged separations between infant and carer during critical period (0-2.5/5 years) results in latter emotional maladjustment
- based on 44 thieves study (study suggested children diagnosed with affectionless psychopathy had developed condition due to lack of consistent care)
what is the Id, ego and superego?
ID - innate, pleasure principle, basic instincts & wants, demands instant gratification
EGO - mediates between demands of Id and Superego, reality principle, anchored in real world
SUPEREGO - morality principle, selfless, gives feelings of guilt, determines acceptable behaviour
how does an underdeveloped superego contribute to offending behaviour?
WEAK/UNDERDEVELOPED - lack of resolution in phallic stage of development when children go though Oedipus (boys)/Electa (girls) complex = lack of morality & behaviour driven by Id
how does an overdeveloped superego contribute to offending behaviour?
HARSH/OVERDEVELOPED - strong identification with same-sex parent leads to excessive guilt and anxiety so commits crime to get caught and be punished
how does a deviant superego contribute to offending behaviour?
DEVIANT - identification with criminal parent means child takes on deviant attitude of parent
what are the strengths of the psychodynamic explanation for offending?
considers emotional factors in offending behaviour
- cognitive explanations miss out how emotions affect behaviour, psychodynamic addresses issue of anxiety &/or rejection contributing to offending
- also recognises role of biological influences & early childhood experiences moulding adult personality
real world application - Bowlby suggested preventative measures
- Bowlby suggested it’s preferable to try prevent the problem of threatening emotional problems in young delinquents by avoiding early separations
- demonstrated that key was emotional separation rather than physical, suggested children coped relatively well with separations of emotional care was provided
what are the limitations of the psychodynamic approach for offending?
can’t assume causal relationship in 44 thieves study
- separation wasn’t manipulated, only demonstrated association between separation and emotional problems
- affectionless character may have caused separations of vice versa
research shows delinquency can be due to complex set of factors e
- e.g. poverty, bad housing & lack of emotional facilities
- Farrington found importance of risk factors e.g. family history, risk taking, low school attainment, poverty etc.
vulnerable to alpha bias in gender
- exaggerates differences between men and women
- Freud proposed women should develop weaker superego as they don’t identify as strongly to same sex parent as boys
- may be due to resolution of electra complex being less satisfactory or that women were of a lower status so people didnt idenfity with them
