Criminal Thinking Patterns



Explanations of Criminal Behaviour

Why do criminals become criminals? Is it biological factors, environmental factors, or maybe a combination of the both? It is important for us to consider the explanations of criminal behaviour because if we can identify the causes of their behaviour we could possibly implement training or treatment programs to prevent them.

One thing that you might want to bare-in-mind throughout this topic however is: what is criminal behaviour? There are many definitions of this from the breaking of a law set by parliament to a socially constructed set of moral values (or is it just anything that a ‘chav’ does on a Saturday night?). Without a clear definition of what ‘Criminal Behaviour’ is understanding the motivations and explanations becomes problematic.

Explanations is split into the following three topics:

• Theories of criminal behaviour

• Individual and cultural differences in criminal behaviour

• Social psychology of the criminal

This topic we will be mostly looking at the following theories and studies: Sheldon; Bandura; Eysenck & Eysenck, Rushton; and Farrington.

Theories of Criminal Behaviour

This first area of Explanations is looking at the different types of theories surrounding criminal behaviour. This sub-topic follows the same argument as the ‘nature-nurture’ debate as we are looking to see if criminal behaviour is affected by biological factors (body shape) or environmental factors (social learning theory). It’s important to remember that these theories are not mutually exclusive – it could be interplay between the two theories, or other factors that finally help us explain criminal behaviour.

Sheldon 1949 – Physical appearance and criminality

The idea that personality is linked to body type is not a new one. Sheldon is one a many psychologists who have investigated the relationship between body type (or somatotype) and criminality. Through his research he identified three somatotypes: endomorphs, ectomorphs, and mesomorphs and attributed certain personality traits to each body type.

|Body Type |Description |Personality Traits |

|Endomorph |Fat and soft (think Marshmallow man from Ghost Busters) |Comfort loving, sociable and relaxed |

|Ectomorph |Thin and fragile (just like Mark?!) |Sensitive, intellectual and solitary |

|Mesomorph |Muscular and hard |Aggressive, dominant and risk-takers. |

Summary of the three body types (Sheldon, 1949).

Sheldon claimed that as a result of the personality traits presented by mesomorphs this might lead them to being more likely to be involved in criminal activity.

[pic]

Pictures to illustrate the ‘pure’ somatotypes.

The above diagram shows a general illustration of the ‘pure’ versions of each of the somatotypes, however, Sheldon stated that it was very rare to find people who fitted into a perfect category. As a result somatotypes are rated on the three spectrums on a scale of 1-to-7 so each persons somatotype will be a number in the form of x-x-x.

To investigate his theory that the more mesomorphic you are the more likely you are to be a criminal Sheldon used a sample of 200 male college students (assumed not to be delinquent – obviously never been outside the college Union at kicking out time) – and 200 male delinquents. The 200 delinquents were further divided into two groups based on their level of naughtiness: delinquent and criminal delinquent. Sheldon took photographs of each of the 400 participants and rated each one of them for mesomorphy (on the scale of 1-7, 7 being the highest). He found that the higher the delinquency, the higher the average mesomorphy rating.

|Somatotype |Students |Delinquents |Criminal Delinquents |

|Endomorph |3.2 |3.5 |3.4 |

|Ectomorph |3.4 |2.7 |1.8 |

|Mesomorph |3.8 |4.6 |5.4 |

The average scores for each group of participants on the three dimensions of somatotypes.

From the results it is possible to conclude that the more delinquent a participant was the higher their mesomorphy score was. There is one thing though... Sheldon was the only one who rated the pictures for their mesomorphy scores – no wonder he found the results he did! A further methodological problem that was highlighted about the Sheldon study was the use of the term ‘delinquent’ which had no clear legal definition. When his results were re-analysed using legal criteria the relationship between mesomorphy and criminality disappeared (Sutherland, 1951).

Even though there could be issues surrounding the reliability of Sheldon’s study other researchers have found results that seem to support, at least in part, his initial theory. Glueck & Glueck (1956) found that in a sample of delinquents 60% were mesomorphs while in a non-delinquent sample only 31% were.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Sample: A good-sized sample was used and importantly, Sheldon|Reliability: Sheldon was the only one to rate the photographs.|

|had a control condition of non-offenders (students) to |Correlational Analysis: cannot infer cause-and-effect. |

|compare the results to. |Reductionist: Sheldon’s theory states that it’s only body |

| |shape (biological factors) that influence criminality. |

| |Deterministic: if you have a mesomorphic body – you’re a |

| |criminal (look around the room!) |

Bandura 1961 – Social learning theory and crime

Social learning theory (SLT) is a concept that you came across in the first year in relation to children and learned aggression. We can apply the same theory to criminality as well. In the Bandura, Ross, and Ross study it was found that boys would imitate an aggressive act of a male role model showing physical aggression towards an inflatable ‘Bobo’ doll. The SLT simply states that a person will imitate the behaviour of a role model, and this behaviour will continue if they receive positive reinforcement of that behaviour.

Applying this to criminality, we can ignore all of the more complex arguments that would have us believe that criminality is down to biology, genes, neurotransmitters or such else – it’s simply a learned behaviour, imitated from role models. When a person sees a role model performing a behaviour and then receives positive feedback this is remembered. If that person has the chance to imitate this behaviour they will. If they then get positive reinforcement for this imitation then the chance of them repeating this behaviour is increased.

Social Learning Theory in Action

[pic]

Although this theory does seem to account for many people becoming a criminal, especially petty crime and nuisance offences, it doesn’t take into account those people who become offenders without any apparent poor role models.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Control: Bandura’s study is a Lab study so there’s loads of |Generalisations: only children used in the Bandura study – can|

|control – we can infer cause-and-effect. |we generalise to adolescents and adults? |

|Useful: we can use the findings and ensure that people have |Reductionist: only takes into account learned behaviour – no |

|positive role models (like us teachers) not negative ones. |other motivations are looked at. |

|It works: it seems to explain why people would go ‘off the |Does it work? Determinism: Not every child who has a poor role|

|rails’ – peer pressure and wanting social acceptance. |model goes on to imitate the poor behaviour. |

Individual and Cultural Differences in Criminal Behaviour

With something as complex as criminality it is problematic coming up with a theory of criminality which takes into account all individual differences. As a result we are going to look at two studies here that attempt to look at criminality from an individual basis. The two areas we will be looking at are personality and its affect on crime and cultural differences.

Eysenck & Eysenck 1970 – Personality and Crime

Looking at personality as a variable that influences criminality seems a common scence approach to researching individual differences. Eyseck developed a psychometric test to measure an individuals introversion-extroversion and neuroticism-stability.

Extroversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self". Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone.

As a result extroverts are always looking for arousal in the environment around them. This theory of personality can be applied to crime and Eysenck & Eysenck did this in 1970. They found that criminals had high scores on extroversion and neuroticism scales. High scores on both of these dimensions are thought to increase the probability of offending behavior and resistance to socialisation. Their high cores on the extroversion scale means that they are under aroused, impulsive sensasation seakers. High neuroticism scores are thought to be linked with moodiness, anxiety and depression, which produces a resistance to social conditioning and an inability to learn from mistakes.

Eysenck later added a third dimension to the scale – psychotocism. This assesses traites such as aggression, sensation seeking and a lack of feeling for others (empathy). It is believed that high scores on this trait determine the more violent, bruital criminals.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Psychometrics: the EPI is both reliable (especially on the E |Deterministic: states that we have no freewill over our |

|score) and valid. |actions. |

|Applications: could use findings of E and N scores to predict|Demand Characteristics: participants may answer the EPI in a |

|and prevent people turning to crime. |socially desirable way. |

Feldman 1993 – Disproportionate Arrest Rates Between Cultures

More black pupils are excluded from school and this leads to the assumption that black people, particularly young black men, are disproportionately involved in crime. This view is often supported by media coverage of crime. Official crime figures from 1999-2000 show that the total number of ‘non-white’ arrests was 12% of the total arrests. This figure is over four times what would be expected by the relative representation of cultures in the UK.

Feldman, in a meta-analysis of the data available suggests that the data is not as clear-cut as it would first seem and that there are lots of factors that could influence this distorted figure. The first finding was that white offenders tend to be perpetual offenders – they continue to offend over-and-over again. The non-white offenders are more likely to commit one offence, possibly causal offences. Therefore, even though white offenders commit the majority of offences, the crime figures don’t reflect this, as it’s the same people being arrested over again.

Consequently, it is problematic looking at the differences between cultures when trying to explain criminality and doing so is both reductionist and deterministic. There are many other variables which are much more influential such as education and home life.

More recent studies around cultural differences in criminality are highlighting the biases within the police system – how the police actually decide who is a suspect and how this could be distorting the data.

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Methodology: meta-analysis tend to be reliable as they are |Reductionism: saying that culture is the only variable |

|taking results from several studies and researchers. |affecting criminality is reductionist. |

| |Deterministic: saying that non-whites are more likely to be |

| |offenders because of their culture. |

Social Psychology of Criminality

Social Psychology of the Criminal takes the view that it’s environmental factors that have the most profound effect on criminality. This subtopic is firmly in the ‘nurture’ camp: behaviour is learned or taught throughout life. There are many differing arguments as to what factor is the most influential. Some possible factors could be family (poor role models or no family so instutionalised), friends and peers, education levels, opportunities given, social class etc.

Farrington 2002 – Longitudinal study of London boys

One of the most notable studies investigating the social psychology of the criminal was a longitudinal (conducted over many years following the participants up at regular intervals) study conducted by Farrington. The idea behind the study was to investigate the idea that ‘problem families produce problem children’.

Farrington started his longitudinal study in 1961 with 411 London boys with the aim of seeing if delinquent behaviour could be predicted and to explain why it happens in the first place. The sample of children who were the focus of the study was mostly white, urban, working class boys from South London. The children were asked questions on several different variables that could be related to the social psychology of the criminal; also, parents and teachers were asked about the children.

The children were asked about:

|Drinking and drug use |Fighting and offending behaviour |

|Living circumstances |Employment |

|Personal relationships |Illness and injuries |

Parents and teachers were asked about the child’s personality, behaviour, family income, size and academic performance. On top of this criminal records were searched to provide more evidence about criminal behaviour.

There were many results, so here are a few to try and remember:

• 40% were convicted of a criminal offence before they were 40 (compared to 31% national average).

• Offending increased until age 17 and then began to decrease, although the earlier they started, the more persistent their career in crime was.

• Reasons given for offending included hedonistic (for enjoyment) or utilitarian (material gain).

• The worst offenders were from large, multi-problem families.

From the findings of the study Farrington attempted to identify some factors that increased the risk (at least in his participants) for offending behaviour. Here are some of the risk factors that he identified.

|Poor families, low standard housing, physical neglect from |Low intelligence and school achievement. |

|parents. |Broken homes, or separation from parents. |

|Family members with convictions (parents and siblings). |Below average height and weight. |

|Harsh or erratic child-rearing styles. | |

This suggests that there are many environmental factors that can predict criminal, or delinquent, behaviour. Children from poorer families are more likely to offend because, due to poor school attainment, they are less able to achieve their goals legally. Impulsive children cannot see the consequences of their actions and desire immediate gratification. Children from criminal families develop anti-establishment attitudes and a belief that it is justifiable to offend. This research demonstrates that problem children grow into problem adults who in turn produce problem children. It’s a vicious circle!

Evaluation

|Strengths |Weaknesses |

|Reductionism: lots of different variables were taken into |Difficult to infer cause and effect: can only suggest what |

|consideration so this study is not reductionist. |factors make you at high risk of offending. Also, difficult to|

|Methodology: longitudinal studies are good as they allow us |separate nature from nurture – effect of role models in |

|to compare the same children over a long time to see how they|families may be genetic, rather than environmental. |

|develop. |Sample: mainly white males so unrepresentative. Also, with |

|Sample; large sample used (411) |longitudinal studies there is the problem of attrition (people|

| |dropping out). |

Past Exam Question

Section A

a) Describe evidence that suggests there are individual and/or cultural differences in explaining criminal behaviour. [6]

b) Evaluate methods use to investigate individual and/or cultural differences in explaining criminal behaviour. [10]

Section B

a) Describe explanations of criminal behaviour. [10]

b) Evaluate explanations of criminal behaviour. [16]

c) Using your knowledge of explanations of criminal behaviour, suggest why criminal behaviour seems to run in families. Give reasons for your answer. [8]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download