Psychological explanations Flashcards
Outline Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality
Three dimensions: introversion-extraversion (E), neuroticism-stability (N), psychoticism-sociability (P). All combine to form a variety of personality characteristics/traits.
- Extraverts have an underactive nervous system. Constantly seek stimulation, excitement, likely to engage in risk taking.
- Neurotic people have high reactivity in the sympathetic nervous system - respond quickly to threatening situations. Nervous, jumpy, overanxious. Instability means behaviour is difficult to predict.
- Psychotic - higher levels of testosterone, and prone to aggression.
Describe the role of socialisation (Eysenck’s theory)
Criminal behaviour is developmentally immature (selfish and concerned with immediate gratification) and, criminal type (E and N) are difficult to condition. Because of this, they are less likely to learn anxiety responses to antisocial impulses and are more likely to act antisocially in situations where the opportunity presents itself.
Strengths of Eysenck’s Theory
- Research support - strength - evidence to support the criminal personality. Prisoners were high on E, N, P levels compared to controls. HOWEVER, Meta-analysis of similar studies showed offenders were high on E, but not N or P. Also, inconsistent evidence of differences on EEG measures, used to measure cortical arousal, between extraverts and introverts.
Limitations of Eysenck’s Theory
- Too simplistic - limitation is the idea that all offending behaviour can be explained by personality traits alone. Adolescents (adolescent limited) are different from adults (life-course-persistent). Persistence in offending behaviour is the result of a reciprocal process between individual personality traits and environment.
- Cultural factors - limitation - cultural factors are not taken into account. Study of Hispanic/Black offenders in New York maximum security prison showed lower levels of E, where they were expected to score highly. This questions how far the criminal personality can be generalised.
Describe levels of moral reasoning as a cognitive explanation for offending behaviour (Cognitive)
Level I - Pre-conventional morality
Stage 1: Rules obeyed to avoid punishment.
Stage 2: Rules obeyed for personal gain.
Level II - Conventional morality
Stage 3: Rules obeyed for approval.
Stage 4: Rules obeyed to maintain social order.
Level III - Post-conventional morality
Stage 5: Rules challenged if they infringe on the rights of others.
Stage 6: Individuals have a personal set of ethical principles.
Studies have suggested offenders show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-offenders.
Offenders likely to be classified at the pre-conventional stage (characterised by a need to avoid punishment, and gain rewards - less mature, childlike reasoning), where non offenders progress to the conventional stage adn beyond. This assumption is supported by studies that suggest offenders are often more egocentric.
List and describe 2 examples of cognitive distortions (Cognitive)
Cognitive Distortions: Errors/biases in how we explain our own, and others’ behaviour.
Hostile attribution bia: Offenders see ambiguous facial expressions as hostile (assume others are being confrontational when they are not). Schonenburg and Jusyte presented 55 offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions, violent offenders were more likely to interpret situation as hostile, compared to the non-aggressive control group.
Minimalisation: An attempt to downplay or deny the seriousness of an offence and has elsewhere been referred to as the application of of a ‘euphemistic label’ for behaviour (Bandura 1973). e.g. burglars may say they are ‘supporting their family’. Sexual offenders more prone to minimalisation.
Give one strength and one limitation of levels of moral reasonining (Cognitive)
- Research support - strength - evidence for link between level of moral reasoning and crime. 332 non-offenders compared with 126 offenders using socio moral reflection measure short form (SRM-SF). Offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders.
- Type of offence - limitation - level of moral reasoning may depend on offence. Crimes for financial gain more likely to show pre-conventional reasoning, than those convicted of impulsive crimes (e.g assault). Pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associated with crimes where offenders believe they have a good chance of evading punishment. Suggests Kohlberg’s theory may not apply to all forms of crime.
Give one strength and one limitation of cognitive distortions (Cognitive)
- Real world application - strength - application to therapy. CBT aims to reduce cognitive distortions, and offenders are encouraged to ‘face up to what they have done’. Positive correlation between denial/minimalisation and reoffending. Less distortions = less reoffending.
- Type of offence - limitation - level of cognitive distortion depends on the type of offence. Non-contact sex offenders used more cognitive distortions than contact sex offenders. This suggests that distortions are not used in the same way by all offenders.
Describe Differential Association Theory (DAT) as a psychological explanation for offending behaviour
Proposes that individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people.
Learning occurs through interactions with significant others. The theory suggests that we should be able to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences. We need to know the frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure to deviant, and non-deviant norms and values.
Learning attitudes - Offending occurs if exposure to pro-crime norms and values outweigh the anti-crime attitudes, once socialised into a group.
Learning techniques - May also learn particular techniques for committing offences e.g. learning to break into a house through a locked window.
Explain the role of socialisation in prison (DAT)
Learning opportunities from more experienced offenders explain why so many prisoners go on to reoffend.
Strengths of DAT
- Shift of focus - strength - it changed the focus of offending explanations. Away from biological accounts (Lombroso) or accounts of weakness and immorality. Draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances/environments are more to blame for offending than deviant people. Offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending rather than eugenics (biology) or punishment (morality). HOWEVER, it risks stereotyping people from pro-crime backgrounds, and impoverished backgrounds and ignores individual differences and decision making.
- Wide reach - strength - theory can account for offending in all sectors of society. Can account for both working class and ‘white collar crime’ - a feature of middle-class social groups who share deviant norms and values. This shows it is not just the ‘lower’ class who commit offences and the principles of DAT can be used to explain all offences.
Limitations of DAT
- Difficulty testing - limitation - difficult to test predictions of differential association. The concepts are hard to operationalise e.g. measure pro-crime attitudes a person is exposed to. Without being able to measure these, we can’t know at what point the urge to reoffend is. This means the theory does not have scientific credibility.
Describe the Psychodynamic explanation for offending behaviour: The Inadequate Superego
The Superego is formed at the end of the phallic stage of development when children resolve the Oedipus complex. The Superego works on the morality principle and exerts its influence by punishing the Ego through guilt for wrongdoing, whilst rewarding it with pride for good behaviour.
Ronald Blackburn (1993) - Argued that if the superego is deficient, then offending behaviour is inevitable because the ‘Id’ is given free reign and not properly controlled.
- The Weak Superego - If same gender parent is absent during phallic stage, a child cannot internalise a fully formed superego, because there is no opportunity for identification - Makes immoral or offending behaviour more likely.
- The Deviant Superego - If the superego that a child internalises has immoral or deviant values this would lead to offending behaviour.
- The over-harsh Superego - Excessively harsh parenting style leads to a child with an over-harsh Superego who is crippled by guilt and anxiety, which may unconsciously drive individuals to perform criminal acts to satisfy the Superego Is overwhelming need for punishment.
Describe the Psychodynamic explanation for offending behaviour: Maternal Deprivation
Affectionless Psychopathy - Characterised by a lack of guilt, empathy and feeling for others. These individuals are maternally deprived and are likely to engage in acts of delinquency and cannot develop close relationships with others.
44 Juvenile Thieves Study - Bowlby (1944) - supported his claims with his own investigation of 44 juvenile thieves. Through interviews, with the thieves and families, that 14 of the sample he studied showed personality and behavioural characteristics that could be classified as affectionless psychopathy. Of the 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers during infancy.
Strengths of the Psychodynamic explanations for offending behaviour
- Research Support - Goreta (1991) - Freudian style analysis of 10 offenders showed disturbances in superego formation and the need for self-punishment. This supports the role of psychic conflicts and an over-harsh superego as a basis for offending. HOWEVER, the principles of the inadequate superego are generally not supported. Kochanska et al (2001) found harsher parenting styles usually led to rebellious children who rarely expressed guilt or feelings of self-criticism
