Psychodynamic Explanations Of Offending Behaviour

Question 1

Who’s theory is this explanation based on and what does the theory suggest

Answer 1

Based on Frauds theory
-Suggests that unconscious motivations are developed during childhood that are responsible for criminal tendencies.
-focuses on the super-ego (morality principle) as explanations to offending

Question 2

Who’s explanation is this and what do they suggest about the super-ego

Answer 2

Blackburn
If super-ego is deficient then criminality is inevitable as ID (pleasure principle) is not controlled.

Question 3

What are the three reasons your super-ego may be deficient

Answer 3

Weak super ego
Harsh super ego
Devient super ego

Question 4

1- weak super ego

Answer 4

Happens if same-sex parent is absent as they can’t identify with that parent.
So superego can’t be formed as they can’t internalise the moral values of the same sex parent.

Question 5

Harsh (strong) superego

Answer 5

Developed if same sex parent is too strict
Feel you’re unable to live up to parents standards
So feel guilty all the time so commits crime to satisfy the superego’s need to be punished.

Question 6

3- deviant superego

Answer 6

The superego the child internalises from their parent is devient/ immoral = offending behaviour

Question 7

This theory can be supported by bowlbys maternal deprivation theory

Answer 7

Disruption of attachment with primary caregiver and child in early childhood leads to affectionless psychopaths - lack of guilt and empathy
- so become less caring and empathetic towards other people so don’t mind hurting them = offending.

Question 8

Evaluation of psychodynamic explanation to offending

Answer 8

✅- real life application -improvement in foster care and social services as shows negative impact on kids if isn’t good quality.
✅- only theory that takes emotions into account

❌- too deterministic - not a people who don’t have same sex parent go into a life of crime
❌44 thieves study only on boys- beta bias
❌ only have face validity - no scientific impirical evidence so theory lacks validity