Waimea College psychology



Explanations of Criminal BehaviourPsychology is clearly not the only contributor to explanations of criminal behaviour, although in the past it has tended to be viewed as a rather simplistic and conservative contributor. This may be due to its emphasis on individual pathology, i.e. a search for deficits within the individual, and an apparent neglect of social factors in the construction of criminal careers. More recent developments in psychology, and particularly in the applied field of forensic psychology, however, have made a considerable impact on the contribution psychology as a discipline can make to our understanding of crime.Before attempting an overview of the input of psychology, we need to take a step back and consider the problematic concept of crime itself. The question, what is crime? sounds as if it should have obvious answers, and certainly there would probably be widespread agreement that some acts, such as personal violence or theft, constitute crimes the world over. However, there might be disagreement about whether these acts are still seen as crimes if the rule of law is challenged, for instance in wartime. It was only in 2001 that the mass rape of Muslim women during the Bosnian conflict of 1992-95 was first deemed to be a crime against humanity, with three of its perpetrators receiving lengthy prison sentences at the Hague War Tribunal. Prior to this, wartime rape and the provision of kidnapped 'comfort women' for soldiers had been regarded simply as a by-product of war.While legal sanctions hold, there is reasonable understanding about what constitutes crime, but this understanding tends to vary according to historical, cultural and power dimensions which may rule different behaviours as criminal at different times. Obvious examples of this are when laws change, so for example attempting suicide was regarded as a criminal offence until 1961, while incest was not classed as a crime until 1908. Similarly, female circumcision is acceptable in some cultures though not in the UK, while in contrast male circumcision has never been against the law, though in both cases genital mutilation occurs without the consent of the individual concerned. Age and mental state also influence whether someone is regarded as having committed a crime. The age of criminal responsibility varies considerably from country to country, so in the UK it is 10 while in Norway it is 15. The murder of two small children by other children in both countries in 1993 and 1994 highlights the very different views taken of similar crimes. In 1993, two-year-old James Bulger was taken away from his mother in a Liverpool shopping centre by two boys aged ten who subsequently beat and murdered him. Both boys were charged with murder and appeared in an adult court more than a year later, when they were ordered to serve a minimum sentence of eight years. This was subsequently increased to ten and then fifteen years in response to public and media outrage, though this action was later deemed unlawful. During their time on remand they did not receive any psychiatric help because of their not guilty pleas, prompting one of the jurors to remark five years later:The trial was about retribution ... It was apparent that in the dock were two children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings; distressed by those parts they did understand; subject to trial as if they were aware adults; unaccountably branded as 'evil' by the judge. (The Guardian, 5th November 1999, Letters).Mentally ill offenders are not normally held responsible for their crimes unless it can be demonstrated that they intended to break the law. However, in many trials the distinction between offenders being presented as 'mad' or 'bad' has proved controversial and moved beyond simple psychiatric diagnosis into the realms of moral responsibility. For instance, Peter Sutcliffe murdered 13 women in the 1970s and his defence claimed diminished responsibility on the grounds that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes. The jury, however, decided that Sutcliffe was not sufficiently mentally ill to be absolved of responsibility for the murders; he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Three years later he was transferred to a special hospital because of his mental illness. Similarly Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered and cannibalised 17 young men in the 1980s, was found not to be suffering from the personality disorder and necrophilia his defence described, and was sent to prison, where he was murdered by another inmate in 1994. In both cases there was clear evidence of dysfunctional behaviour with psychiatric symptoms, and yet the horrific nature of the crimes seems to have demanded some form of public accountability and retribution.241304318000Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer makes his initial court appearance in Milwaukee County Court with his lawyer, 25 July 1991. Dahmer is wearing the shirt of one of his 17 victims(Psychology in Practice – Crime; Julie Harrower 2011)Criminal Behaviours – Biological Introduction 478146676025000Are criminals born or made? This question is one that early theorists of criminal behaviour tried to address. The earliest theories of crime were mostly based on the idea that criminals were somehow biologically different from non-criminals. The father of criminology Cesare Lombroso in the 1870s argued that criminals were a throwback to an earlier evolutionary state. Criminals, he argued, could be identified by facial features that expressed their criminal tendencies. He called this the “atavistic form” (you can read more about this theory in the blue box on pg 90). A later theory posed by Sheldon (1940) argued that criminal behaviour came about due to various body types. Sheldon claimed that the muscular build of mesomorphs made them more self-assertive and thus more likely to engage in criminal activity than thin, self-conscious ectomorphs or fat sociable, comfort loving endomorphs.However, while these two biological theories have largely been debunked, the surge in research suggesting a genetic basis for behaviours in other areas of psychology has caused some to look for a genetic basis for criminal behaviour. Crime might not initially seem to lend itself to a genetic cause. As we examined in the previous topic, crime can be an imprecise term, susceptible to cultural differences and changes over time. Such a shifting phenomenon may cause problems for a genetic theory. However, we also argued that there are some things that are considered criminal almost universally. Perhaps genetics can provide a good explanation for these particular crimes.Few modern proponents of a hereditary basis for criminal behaviour claim that there are “genes for crime.” There is not for instance a “murderer” gene or a “burglar” gene. What Hollin (1992) amongst others suggested was that some people inherit a biological predisposition to commit crime. It can also be argued that people inherit predispositions for personalities that make them more likely to commit crime. According to Goldsmith and Gottesman (1996):“Notions such as “genes for crime” are nonsense, but the following notion is reasonable: There may be partially genetically influenced predispositions for basic behavioural tendencies, such as impulsivity, that in certain experiential contexts make the probability of committing certain crimes higher than for individuals who possess lesser degrees of such behavioural tendencies.”6084570000left62484000Before looking at the research into the genetic basis of criminal behaviour, what is your opinion? Do you think criminal behaviour can be explained by genes? How would we know? Can you anticipate any methodological issues that research in this area might face? Could there be any social or ethical implications if it were found that criminal behaviour was genetic?NOTE: When we learned about genetic theories for schizophrenia, we looked at twin, family and adoption studies. The same types of heritability studies have been used here to investigate the genetic basis of criminal behaviour. When evaluating, you should refer back to this factsheet for information.Twin Studiesleft35941000What is a twin study? What are the two types of twin? What do they tell us about the genetic basis of a behaviour? If criminal behaviour is genetic, what should we find in a twin study?5027930134029200One of the earliest twin studies into criminal behaviour was Rosanoff et al (1934). He studied 97 twin pairs, finding male concordance rates of 22/33 MZ (67%) and 3/23 DZ (13%). Raine (1993), whose brain scan research you learned about in component 1, reviewed the literature comparing the delinquent behaviour of twins, and it was found that the average concordance rate was higher for MZ twins (52%) than DZ twins (21%). A later meta-analysis by Ishikawa and Raine (2002) found a concordance rate for criminality of 44% for MZ twins and 21.6% for DZ twinsleft16002000What do these studies seem to suggest and why?However, not all twin studies support the view that crime is genetic. Dalgard and Kringlen (1976) studied 49 male MZ and 89 same-sex male DZ pairs, finding no statistically significant concordance rate difference using either a “broad” or “strict” definition of crime. The MZ twin concordance rate for broadly defined crime was 22%, and 26% for strictly defined crime. On the basis of these results and of the more similar environments experienced by identical twins, the authors concluded, “These findings support the view that hereditary factors are of no significant importance in the aetiology (cause) of common crime.”left32131000While twin studies give psychologists the opportunity to investigate the genetic basis of a behaviour, they have several weaknesses. Using the Factsheet, apply the weaknesses of twin studies to the research here. 50431451016000Family StudiesA number of studies have been done with regards to investigating the concordance of criminal behaviour between members of the same family. One relationship that is often investigated is that between fathers and sons. Osborn and West (1979) found that 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers had criminal records, while 20% of sons of criminal fathers had records.Similarly, Farrington (2002) investigated the concentration of criminal behaviour in families by looking at three generations of relatives, including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. It was found that if one relative had been arrested, there was a high probability that another relative had also been arrested. The most important relative was the father; if the father had been arrested, there was a high chance of sons being arrested too. While this would initially seem to suggest that genes may play a part, we cannot rule out the effect of the shared environment. Another finding from Farrington was that having a young mother and living in a bad neighbourhood added to the probability of fathers and sons being arrested. This again confuses the issue of genes and environment-9715517716500Using the Factsheet, apply the weaknesses of family studies to the research here. -9779030670500Can you think of another reason why being the child of a criminal may mean you are more likely to be arrested?Adoption studiescenter132792300-6858018415000What advantage do adoption studies have over twin and family studies?If a behaviour is genetic, what should we find when we use an adoption study? Mednick et al (1987) studied over 14,000 adoptees and found the relationships in the table below.Parents with a criminal record% of sons with a criminal record?None13.5Biological only20.0Adoptive only14.7Biological and adoptive24.5left19050000How could we use this data to argue that crime is genetic?left132842000How could we use this data to argue that the environment has an effect?Interestingly, even when adoptive parents know that their adopted child’s family history of criminality, this has no effect on their later criminal behaviour (Bohman 1996). 4508530861000Using the Factsheet, apply the weaknesses of adoption studies to the research here. Which genes?If there is a genetic basis for criminal behaviour, then genes should be able to be identified which lead to that behaviour. The gene would have some sort of effect on the body, which would in turn lead to the behaviour such as impulsiveness or aggression that would lead to a higher risk of criminal behaviour. There have been a number of potential genes for criminal behaviour proposed.Retz et al (2004) found an association between one variant of the 5-HTTLPR gene and violent behaviour. Reif et al (2009) similarly found links between the NOS1 gene and aggression in animals, which led him to investigate links between the NOS1 gene and impulsivity in humans. 513334056515000One gene that is of particular interest is the gene for monoamine oxidase type-A (MAOA), which helps to recycle the neurotransmitter serotonin. Seo et al (2008) proposed that low levels of serotonin may predispose individuals to impulsive and aggressive behaviour. Brunner et al (1993) studied a Dutch family, many of whom were highly aggressive. Their behaviour was linked to a mutation in the MAOA gene, meaning that they had abnormally low levels of serotonin. This could possibly account for their aggressive behaviour. This is supported by other studies that have found a link between a mutation in this genes and criminal behaviour (Tiihonen et al, 2015)right24320500REVISION TIME!!!! Neurotransmitters However, simply identifying potential genes is not enough. We need to identify exactly what the genes does in the body or brain in order to create the criminal behaviour. As we have seen above, mutation in the MAOA gene may affect levels of serotonin, altering behaviour. Another possible explanation may be that these genes cause changes in the brain.STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES49618901651000Let’s look at the work of Raine (1997). What differences did he find between the brains of controls and NGRI murderers.WATCH CLIP ON JIMMY FALLONleft0TASKTWO GENES LINKED WITH VIOLENT CRIME – read article on website by Melissa Hogenboom (2014)Let’s check out the work of Terrie E. Moffitt and the Dunedin Report00TASKTWO GENES LINKED WITH VIOLENT CRIME – read article on website by Melissa Hogenboom (2014)Let’s check out the work of Terrie E. Moffitt and the Dunedin ReportIt might also be the case that these genes cause criminals to inherit a different type of personality, one that predisposes them towards crime. We will look at Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality in a later.Diathesis-Stress and Epigenetics40546246183800What is the diathesis-stress model? What is epigenetics? How could this be applied to criminal behaviour? How could the findings of Caspi et al (2002) provide evidence for this explanation? Why might this be a better explanation than genes alone? Evaluation-1333549657000Before we look at the evaluation points, what are your initial thoughts about the theory that criminal behaviour is genetic? Are there any strengths? Any weaknesses? Can you spot any ethical or social issues? How could we use this information?Evaluation of the genetic explanation of criminal behaviourAlthough results from adoption studies have consistently revealed a relationship between biological parents and children and criminal behaviour, the relationship is strongest for minor crimes such as property vandalism and minor offences rather than for violent crime. This is at odds with a large bulk of genetic research which suggests that the main effect of genes is on levels of aggression. Again, this suggests that the relationship between genes and crime is more complicated that it seems. left23050500Why can genes not provide a full explanation of criminal behaviour It may be the case that in the future, we will be able to identify more genes for criminal behaviour. If criminality is due to genes, it is likely to be due to the interaction of a large number of genes rather than just one or two. It is therefore likely to be polygenic. Much of the research that this theory is based on is heritability studies. As you have seen, these studies have a number of methodological issues. They are also non-experimental, therefore cause and effect relationships cannot be drawnThe theory could be argued to be reductionist. Genetic explanations ignore the role of society and culture. All criminals are assessed equally regardless of socioeconomic background or education. Is it necessarily appropriate to say that the causes of crime are the same for a poorly educated working class person with a limited education as a successful, well-educated businessman? The real causes of crime are varied, and complicated. It is probably better to take an interactionist approach, seeing genes, society, upbringing and personality all interacting to cause criminal behaviour. Another problem, and one that we investigated in the last topic, was that the definition of crime is a constantly shifting target. What is considered to be a crime depends upon your culture, and the time period in which you live. Genes change slowly, over thousands of years, while cultural views on what is criminal can change within a decade. It therefore may be difficult to argue that crime is genetic. Methodologically, there is a big problem when conducting research into criminals: - Cultural and gender bias.560006555816500It could be argued that these theories have a gender bias. A lot of the research has focused solely on men, and theories have either ignored women, or applied the same theories to them as to men. There has been little attempt to investigate criminality in women, and it may not be appropriate to assume that the reasons women become criminals is the same as men. The genetic theory of crime therefore could be falling for a beta biasEthical issues.As with other biological explanations, a number of ethical issues are raised. If there are genes identified for criminal behaviour, then what happens to people who are found to carry this gene? On the one hand, identifying the gene may allow psychologists to stage interventions early in life to alter a child’s behaviour so that they do not turn to criminal behaviour late in life. On the other hand, this evidence could be misused; could the fact that an individual carries a gene for criminal behaviour be used as evidence against them in court?Another ethical issue, is if criminal behaviour is caused by biological factors such as genes, can we hold people responsible for their actions? Should be punish criminals if their behaviour was caused by physiological forces beyond their control?Another ethical issue is that all of these theories place the blame for offending inside the offender. It could be argued that by doing this it absolves society and the government of any responsibility. It has been argued that the main reason for crime is social inequality and poverty. By placing the blame within the criminal, it is ignoring the real reasons for crime. When people read about an alleged genetic link to crime, they are apt to conclude that “crime is genetic.” This leads to a belief that criminality is the result of genetic makeup—and not of racism, poverty, and other oppressive social conditions—thereby influencing public attitudes toward ethnic groups having a relatively high conviction/incarceration rate. Therefore, such research may be argued to be socially sensitive. As certain ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than others, it may lead to the belief that these groups are genetically inferior. One extreme consequence of a belief that criminality is genetic can lead to is the attempt to eradicate criminal genes from the population. In the past, it has been official government policy that criminals were forcibly sterilised so as to prevent them passing their genes on to the next generation. This is called eugenics. The following text comes from The Gene Illusion by Jay Joseph:What are your views on free will / determinism? – 470090513481300There were frequent calls for the sterilization of criminals on eugenic grounds during this period. Vasectomy was proposed in the late nineteenth century by A. J. Ochsner as a “humane” alternative to castration. Ochsner justified this procedure on the grounds that it was “demonstrated beyond a doubt that that a very large proportion of all criminals, degenerates and perverts have come from parents similarly afflicted.” He believed that a large-scale sterilization of criminals “would do away with hereditary criminals from the father’s side,” and recommended the same treatment for “chronic inebriates, imbeciles, perverts and paupers.” In 1907, Indiana became the first of many U.S. states to pass a law permitting compulsory eugenic sterilization. The law sanctioned sterilization “to prevent procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists” residing in a state institution, and who had been judged as “unimprovable” by a panel of physicians. A prison physician, Harry Sharp, had performed vasectomies on inmates in Indiana since 1899. According to Sharp, “There is no disputing the fact that mental as well as physical defects are transmitted to the offspring. . . . The decidedly defective individual is very easily recognized, as the mental abnormality is usually accompanied with prominent physical defects, described by Lombroso.”TASK: okay what do you think? Should repeat offenders not be allowed to reproduce?DEBATE…… Eysenck’s Criminal Personality WHAT ARE THE THEORIES OF PERSONALITY?Introduction This theory argues that criminals have a particular personality type. Criminals and non-criminals differ on certain aspects of personality. Eysenck argues that these differences in personality have a biological basis, but are also moderated by our environment. Therefore, this theory may be able to bridge the gap between biological and psychological explanations of criminality. left47117000What personality traits would you expect criminals to have? Why? How would these traits lead to criminal behaviour? Would you expect all criminals to have the same personality type, or would it differ between different types of criminal? What do you think could be the cause of these personality differences?Eysenck’s theory of personality Eysenck did not initially develop his personality theory for criminals. He intended on creating a universal test of personality that could be applied to all people. The test measures three aspects of personality. Extraversion: this is how outgoing and sociable you are. Extraverts enjoy the company of others, and gain pleasure from socialising. People who score low in extraversion are introverts.Neuroticism: this is about how emotional you are. High scores in neuroticism mean someone ay be a worrier, and prone to anxiety and depression. Low scores of neuroticism show that someone has emotional stability.Psychoticism: this is about the willingness to break rules and being non-conforming, being toughminded, inconsiderate, reckless, hostile and impulsive. People low in psychoticism show normality.The following table describes the traits that are associated with the three dimensions in Eysenck's model of personality:PsychoticismExtraversionNeuroticismAggressiveSociableAnxiousAssertiveIrresponsibleDepressedEgocentricDominantGuilt FeelingsUnsympatheticLack of reflectionLow self-esteemManipulativeSensation-seekingTenseAchievement-orientedImpulsiveMoodyDogmaticRisk-takingHypochondriacMasculineExpressiveLack of autonomyTough-mindedActiveObsessiveleft321310Extroversion (sociability)________%Neuroticism (emotionality)________%Psychoticism (rebelliousness)________%00Extroversion (sociability)________%Neuroticism (emotionality)________%Psychoticism (rebelliousness)________%Visit the website and have a go at the Eysenck personality quiz (there is also a version in the textbook). Record your score below. Summarise what the test says about your personalityDo you feel that the test was accurate? Explain why or why not. Can you anticipate any problems with this test of personality?Before looking at the theory of the criminal personality in more detail, what type of personality might criminals have according to Eysenck? Explain why. Biological basisEysenck proposed a theory of personality based on biological factors, arguing that individuals inherit a type of nervous system that affects their ability to learn and adapt to the environment. He argues that humans are essentially pleasure seeking (hedonistic) and that theft and violence are pleasurable to the person doing it. However, Eysenck also argues that we have a conscience which opposes this hedonistic tendency. He viewed this as a conditioned fear response, and those who become criminals have not been able to build up a good conscience through conditioning as they inherited a nervous system which was resistant to conditioning. Eysenck argued therefore that these differences in personality were rooted in biology. Each aspect of personality (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) could be traced back to a different biological cause.Extraversion/introversion: Extraverts are typically outgoing, sociable people who seek stimulation. They are more likely to take risks and be thrill seekers. Eysenck argues that this is because they inherit an under aroused nervous system and so seek stimulation to restore the level of optimum stimulation. Introverts on the other hand lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused and shun sensation and stimulation. Neuroticism/stability: A person’s level of neuroticism is determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system. A stable person’s nervous system will generally be less reactive to stressful situations, remaining calm and level headed. Someone high in neuroticism on the other hand will be much more unstable, and prone to overreacting to stimuli and may be quick to anger or fear.Psychoticism/normality: this has been related to high levels of testosterone. The higher the testosterone, the higher the level of psychoticism, with low levels related to more normal balanced behaviour.Link to criminal behaviour55143401270000Eysenck argues that criminal behaviour is brought about by a failure in socialisation. We learn through operant conditioning. Acts which are punished are less likely to be repeated. However, our ability to learn from conditioning and therefore be socialised is influenced by the three dimensions of personality. Introverts learn quickly through conditioning (as they are fear averse) while extraverts condition much more slowly. This lack of conditioning results in poor socialisation and increases the likelihood of criminal behaviour. Eysenck also argued that high scores in neuroticism increase the strength of the other aspects of personality. This means that high scores in neuroticism will increase the extent to which someone is extraverted or introverted.Eysenck argues that people who score high on extraversion and neuroticism do not condition well. This means that they do not learn society’s rules and social norms easily and they do not respond well to punishment. Therefore these personality types would be more common in criminal populations.The final element of personality, psychoticism is probably the easiest of the three aspects to related to crime. There is a well-documented relationship between crime and psychosis (aggression, rule breaking, impulsivity etc. )On the graph below, label where a criminal personality lies. Add the results from your test. Are you a criminal?115951047625ExtraversionIntroversionStabilityNeuroticism00ExtraversionIntroversionStabilityNeuroticism4580255-7620000-6921535687000How could this theory link with the research into the amygdala and fear we looked at in the last topic?Evaluation4785360952500McGurk and McDougall (1981) found some evidence to support the notion of a criminal personality. They used a personality questionnaire based on Eysenck’s theory and administered it to 100 college students that they had identified as “delinquent” and 100 students who were not delinquent. They found significant differences between the two groups. Within the delinquent student sample there was a cluster of students with both high neuroticism and high extraversion, as well as a sub group who scored high on neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism. In the non-delinquent group however, there were a significant percentage of individuals with low neuroticism and extraversion scores. -5969017589500Evaluate the study above.center204978000What did Dunlop et al (2001) do and find? What limitations does this study have?4649470161417000One good element of Eysenck’s theory is that it takes into account both nature and nurture. The two biological theories we looked at (genes and the amygdala) ignore -or at least downplay- the importance of the environment in the development of criminal behaviour. Eysenck’s theory argues strongly that biological predispositions towards certain personality traits combined with conditioning and socialisation during childhood in order to create our personality. This interactionist approach may therefore be much more valid than either a biological or environmental theory alone. It also links nicely with the diathesis stress model of behaviour which argues for a biological predisposition combining with a environmental trigger for a particular behaviour. 034417000How can Eysenck’s theory explain why MZ twins do not have a 100% concordance rate with regards to criminal behaviour?A big potential issue with Eysenck’s theory is the validity of both his theory of personality, and the test that is used to assess personality. How valid is the questionnaire method of gathering data? Does this bring into question the validity of Eysnecks’ research?left47371000center236982000Is the idea of a fixed personality a valid one? If not, what implications might this have for Eysenck’s theory?Another issue with Eysenck’s theory is that cause and effect is not completely clear cut. It may be that personality leads to criminal behaviour, or it may be that criminal behaviour leads you to develop a certain type of personality. Eysenck’s theory argues that the personality is determined by a combination of biological and environmental factors, and it is the personality that leads to the criminal behaviour. However, much of the evidence comes from criminal populations. There is little longitudinal research that assesses personality type and then follows participants over time to see whether they become criminals. Perhaps traits such as extraversion and psychoticism may be found more often in criminal populations because a criminal lifestyle causes changes to personality. For example, reviews of prisoners do seem to suggest that they score highly on psychoticism and neuroticism, but not necessarily on extraversion (Cochrane, 1974). This provides partial support for Eysenck’s theory. However, an alternative explanation for this could be that being in prison causes the higher rates of neuroticism and psychoticism, rather than being caused by it.514032512827000A related issue is that there is by definition a sample bias inherent when conducting studies on convicted criminals. These criminals reflect only a specific subset of all criminals; those who have been caught. The personality traits of criminals who have failed to evade police capture may be very different from those who remain at a large. It is plausible to argue that criminals who have been arrested may score higher on extraversion and psychoticism than those who do not get captured. High extraversion and psychoticism may make an individual prone to angry outburst, impulsivity and a reduced ability to plan and assess the outcome of their behaviour. Criminals who do not get caught on the other hand may score lower on extraversion meaning that their behaviour is more calculated and rational. Therefore, it could be argued that Eysenck’s theory could be renamed “The Unsuccessful Criminal Personality”. Can Eysenck’s theory be applied to all types of criminals and crimes equally? If not, why not, and why is this an issue?Some of the evaluation points from the biological explanations of crime can be adapted to this theory. For each of the following, complete the point, first from memory, and then by referring to the handouts from the biological explanations. -5969020383500The theory could be argued to be reductionist.-59690178689000The definition of crime is constantly shifting and varies by culture and over time. -59690162623500There may be a gender bias-59690164973000There may be a culture bias38989018161000There are ethical issues raised by this theory.4255135169862500-1670019710500The blame for the criminal behaviour is placed within the criminal. Read the Psycholtron article “Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality”. In ONENOTE CONTENT LIBRARYWhat additional research is there that supports Eysenck’s theory?What additional research is there that opposes Eysenck’s theory?What additional evaluation points are there that have not been covered in lessons? Social learning theory and aggressionleft436880[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]00[Grab your reader’s attention with a great quote from the document or use this space to emphasize a key point. To place this text box anywhere on the page, just drag it.]REVISION – What can you remember about Albert Bandura and his experiment? Which approach does his theory come under?26035347980What does the research say about observation and criminal behaviours?00What does the research say about observation and criminal behaviours?Go to one note content library. – let’s go over the researchDifferential Association TheoryPeople do not exist in a vacuum, and reluctant as we may be to sometimes admit it, our beliefs and attitudes can be heavily influenced by the people with which we socialise, and the circles in which we run.3175007302500 Differential Association (DA) theory therefore is very different from our previous theories of crime. Criminal behaviour and attitudes are seen as being products of socialisation. We inherit the views, behaviour and attitudes of the people around us. If those people are criminals, we will become criminals too. It could be therefore argued that this theory is very much on the nurture side of the nature/nurture debate.Differential Association Theory5215003635000Think honestly about your own views, attitudes and behaviour. Can you think of any examples of how you have been shaped by your peer/social groups or by your upbringing? Do you think you would still hold the same views and beliefs if born into a different family, social class or culture? Is having your attitudes shaped by your peer groups necessarily a bad thing?left4864300-3619518161000Differential association theory (DA) was first proposed by Sutherland (1939). He argued against the idea that criminals are somehow “born” criminal, or that criminals were somehow biologically different from non-criminals. He argued instead that criminal behaviour came from how a person was socialised. If someone was socialised around people who held pro-crime attitudes, they would accept these attitudes as the norm and would then take on these same attitudes and views. This socialisation, he argued, comes mainly from the family environment and peer groups. The term “differential association” refers to the fact that people vary the frequency with which they socialise with various groups. If you mix more with people who hold positive views towards crime, the more likely you are to develop pro-criminal views.817868112251From the moment an individual is born they are being conditioned to the norms of society. They learn gender roles through their interactions with their parents and observations of gender specific characteristics. Interaction and observations are the same methods of communication through which criminals learn their deviance. Criminal behaviour, Differential Association theory argues, is more prevalent in individuals who associate and interact with individuals who exhibit criminal mind sets and behaviours. An individuals’ behaviour is primarily influenced by their family, since that is the first group interaction they receive. Additionally an individual’s behaviour is influenced by their peer group (through direct and indirect interaction) and through their intimate relationships with other individuals. A person becomes a criminal when there is an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law. If an individual associates with more members of a group who favour deviance, than with members of a group who favour societal norms, that individual is more inclined to act defiantly.Adapted from -11385617653000The individual will also learn about which types of crime are considered to be acceptable. As we have discussed in previous topics, there is not a universal agreement on what crime is, and how serious breaking certain laws is. We have also discussed the fact that most people break some laws almost daily. We can use DA to explain these attitudes as well. A person may see smoking cannabis as an acceptable behaviour if they socialise often with people who smoke it regularly. However, someone who never encounters cannabis smokers or those who hold pro-drug views are unlikely to see it as acceptable. Which laws do you think many people would see as acceptable to occasionally break?center511600527939031940500Sutherland also proposed that it is not only attitudes and values that are learned. Specific criminal behaviours are also learned. For example, an older brother might teach a younger sibling how to most effectively shop lift or burgle a house.Watch the video clip from “The Wire”. How does this demonstrate an aspect of DA?-70653720430Could we connect the learning shown in DA to cognitive distortions shown by criminals?-69215781060As for the actual process by which the learning occurs, Sutherland suggested that degree of influence is determined by the frequency, length and meaningfulness of the interactions. In other words, those that have the greatest influence on criminals are those who they see the most often (frequency) with which they spend the most time (length), and where the interaction is significant (meaningfulness). Therefore, it is easy to see how parents, family and peer groups have the biggest effect as they meet all three criteria. Learning may also takes place through the usual methods of operant conditioning and social learning from role models.Explain how social learning through role models and operant conditioning can encourage criminal behaviour. Use the Psychlotron handout to help you. ( might be useful to remind yourself about operant conditioning!)-69215749300Sutherland identified 9 key principles to explain DA. These are:179513591900Criminal behaviour is learned.Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups.When criminal behaviour is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of the law.Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values. . EvaluationOne of the good things about DA theory is that it can explain why criminal behaviour seems to run in families. Below are some of the studies we learned about when we studied “Inherited criminality”Osborn and West (1979) found that 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers had criminal records, while 20% of sons of criminal fathers had records.Farrington (2002) investigated the concentration of criminal behaviour in families by looking at three generations of relatives, including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. It was found that if one relative had been arrested, there was a high probability that another relative had also been arrested. The most important relative was the father; if the father had been arrested, there was a high chance of sons being arrested too.-5016615684500How could the studies above be used to support DA theory?However, on the other hand, we could argue that one of its weaknesses is that it does not take biological factors into account. The following studies are also from “Inherited Criminality”Parents with a criminal record% of sons with a criminal record?None13.5Biological only20.0Adoptive only14.7Biological and adoptive24.5Raine (1993), whose brain scan research you learned about in component 1, reviewed the literature comparing the delinquent behaviour of twins, and it was found that the average concordance rate was higher for MZ twins (52%) than DZ twins (21%). A later meta-analysis by Ishikawa and Raine (2002) found a concordance rate for criminality of 44% for MZ twins and 21.6% for DZ twinsMednick et al (1987) studied over 14,000 adoptees and found the relationships in the table (right).-526501572320How are the findings of the studies above incompatible with DA theory?-526501631400What did Ackers et al (1979) do and find? How does it support DA theory?Another issue with DA theory is that it is very hard to test. Sutherland aimed to be able to come up with a mathematical model where an individual’s likelihood of becoming a criminal could be calculated from the variables measured (such as time spent with criminal role models etc.). However, these variables are notoriously hard to quantify and as such, the theory has yet to be shown to have any meaningful predicative validity. It is only in hindsight when criminal behaviour has already taken place that we can identify the factors in an individual’s socialisation that may have contributed to their behaviour. However DA is an important theory when we look at the history of criminology. The majority of theories that came before Sutherland sought a biological cause for crime. Such theories readily lend themselves to racism and prejudice. Sutherland suggested instead that rather than particular minority groups being inherently criminal, it was a case of the circumstances in which someone was socialised that caused their behaviour. This was an important turning point for the understanding of crime, and also how it can be prevented. If DA is correct, and criminal behaviour is learned through socialisation with criminals, interventions can be put into place to prevent the transmission of criminal behaviour. 53722203746500Watch the “Coffee vs Gangs” advert. According to DA, how will this scheme prevent criminal behaviour. How successful do you think this would be?-5265022930-528981049100Another strength of this theory, and one that gives it an advantage over the other theories that we have looked at is that it does not place the blame for crime inside the criminal. Society (some would argue quite rightly) needs to take part of the responsibility for criminal behaviour. 4475177955200Sutherland didn’t just use his theory to explain crime in those of a low socio-economic status. He was particularly interested in the factors that can explain white collar crime such as fraud, tax evasion or embezzlement, and organised crime. One of the benefits of DA theory is that is can be generalised to most types of crime. Regardless of wealth, education or socioeconomic status, all people have a social circle which influences their behaviour and views. These social circles can hold pro-crime or anti-crime views. For example, a rich business man may develop criminal views and behaviour from a social circle of corrupt businessmen, much in the same way that a poor inner-city teen can develop criminal behaviour from his social group of delinquents. On the other hand, explain why DA cannot account for all types of crime ?However, there are some issues with DA theory. Firstly, Sutherland makes the assumption that associating and interacting with criminals was enough to cause criminal behaviour. This is clearly not true. Not everyone who grows up surrounded with criminals will necessarily become one. Likewise, not all people who commit crime have been socialised in a criminal environment. There must be other factors at play to explain why the former do not become criminals and the latter do. Perhaps personality or genes also make a contribution. Therefore, while DA probably is a contributing factor towards criminal behaviour, it cannot be a complete theory of crime. The theory also has issues with the notion of free will. Criminal behaviour is determined by your socialisation and peer groups. This theory could imply that people are essentially sheep, moulded by the environment with no agency or free will to make their own decisions. If this were true, then it raises the important ethical issue of accountability. If someone’s criminal behaviour is due to the socialisation they have experienced, can we hold them accountable for their criminal actions?55814702238600Explain why cause and effect is an issue within this theory.center615960-11684014224000There is also a possible logical flaw in DA theory. If all crime is learned from socialisation with criminals, and they likewise would have learned it from other criminals, then where did criminal behaviour originally come from? 49084951455000Another issue with this theory is that it may be out of date. Perhaps before the rise of mass media and the internet (in particular social media) DA theory was a good explanation for crime. However, the world is a very different place than it was in 1939, and Sutherland’s theory may not be a good fit for our modern technologically advanced society. Explain how the internet and/or social media may mean that DA is outdated. -526502293047410207012700center1733830Does this theory have a gender bias? Explain your answer.54862621686900center1733830Does this theory have a culture bias? Explain your answer.center1733830How could the diathesis stress model be integrated into DA theory? 3738245762000Cognitive FactorsIntroduction Theories and concepts from the cognitive approach can be applied to explain criminal behaviour. We learned about the cognitive approach in C1 and we also looked at it when we examined cognitive explanations of schizophrenia. The cognitive approach likens the mind to a computer. The brain is the hardware, and the internal mental processes are the software. Crime therefore, is seen as a product of these processes going wrong. Using your knowledge of cognitive ideas, give some possible cognitive explanations of criminal behaviour. How good do you think these explanations might be?left4508500Cognitive distortionsOne cognitive explanation of crime is that criminals suffer from several cognitive distortions. These are patterns of thinking that do not reflect reality, and may account for some of the behaviour of criminals. Some possible cognitive distortions that may explain some criminal behaviour are errors in attribution (including hostile attribution bias), minimisation a poorly working Theory of Mind and miscellaneous cognitive deficits.Errors in attributionAttribution is the “process by which an individual attempts to construct causal explanations for his or her behaviour and the behaviour of others” (Gudjonsson and Singh, 1988). Attribution is the process of explaining the behaviour of other people as well as ourselves. When we observe other people’s behaviour, we unconsciously try to find explanations for it. In attribution theory there are generally two possible explanations that we give for our behaviour and the behaviour of others.Internal (dispositional) attribution: the behaviour is due to personality traitExternal (situational) attributions: the behaviour is due to factors in the environment. For example: Completely unprompted, your friend gives you some money. How do you interpret their behaviour?center609600059143905016500Was the attribution you made about their behaviour internal or external? What factors might have effected your decision?center609600046561311277200We are constantly making attributions about the behaviour of other people, and we often will fall into similar errors. For example, the Fundamental Attribution Error identified by Heider (1958) argued that we are predisposed to attribute behaviour to internal rather than external causes. It is a fundamental error that most people make. For example, if we are served by a shop assistant who is rude, we are more likely to assume that she is a rude person (dispositional), rather than that she has had a bad day (situational). What attribution errors might you expect to be common in criminals?center6033700There are other attribution errors that people can make. One that may be able to explain criminal behaviour is the hostile attribution bias.Summarise what this bias is and how it might be able to explain some criminal behaviour center6096000Think back to the role of the amygdala and Eysenck’s criminal personality. How does the hostile attribution bias make sense within these biological theories?center6096000As well as errors in attributing the behaviour of others, criminals may make errors when attributing their own behaviour. Gudjonson (1984) developed the Blame Attribution Inventory (BAI) to measure the way in which offenders attribute blame for their crimes. There are three separate factors: External attribution: criminals are more likely to blame their criminal behaviour on external factors, such as society the social circumstances in which they find themselves, or even blame their victims. Mental-element attribution: Criminals may blame their crimes on mental illness or a lack of self-controlGuilt-feeling attribution: Feelings of regret or remorse for committing their crimes. 5613939000According to Gudjonsson and Singh (1988) different types of offenders are likely to make different attributions about their own behaviour. Sex offenders were more likely to experience guilt-feeling attributions, while violent offenders were more likely to demonstrate mental-element attributions. Interestingly, in their research, Gudjonsson and Singh found criminals who made external-attributions where blame for their behaviour was placed on external factors showed much higher levels of psychoticism. How does this link with Eysenck’s criminal personality?center6344000MinimalisationMagnification and minimisation refer to our perception of the consequences of the situation in which we find ourselves. These are both very common cognitive errors that nearly all people will experience in their day to day life.Example: A person parking their car in a car park accidentally hits an empty parked car and has to decide whether to leave their phone number.40995601016000Magnification response: “If I don’t leave my number, the police may come and arrest me. It will cause a lot of pain and suffering to the owner of the car if I drive off without leaving my details. It’s a big obvious mark on the car that they are bound to notice.”Minimisation response: “Nobody has seen me, so nothing bad will happen if I just drive off. The car looks pretty expensive, I bet they have loads of money and could easily afford to fix it. It’s not even that big of a dent. I bet they won’t even notice.” It has been argued that criminals are prone to minimalistic thinking. They underplay the consequences of their actions, meaning that criminal behaviour can be engaged in with minimal guilt and other negative e up with a magnification and minimisation response for the consequences of robbing a bank.center62565Magnification:Minimisation: 00Magnification:Minimisation: Theory of mind.-1397005207000552047412979200Explain how a poorly functioning ToM could explain criminal behaviour?center5934300826494180920Spenser et al (2015) AbstractPrevious research suggests a lack of pro-social skills is characteristic of an antisocial or offending personality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an inadequate understanding of another's mental state may contribute to antisocial or offending behaviour. Forty-six young-adult male offenders and a control completed measures to assess: Theory of Mind (ToM), empathic understanding (EU) and moral reasoning. Significant differences in the performance of young-adult offenders and the control group were detected in ToM, EU and moral reasoning with young-adult offenders scoring lower than the control group. A positive association was also found between ToM, EU and moral reasoning. These findings contribute to a further understanding of how individuals make sense of, and respond to, the social world around them. The ability to measure ToM, EU and moral reasoning and subsequently identify any specific deficits, as well as recognise the link between these three key skills, is not only useful for researchers but it will also allow practitioners to tailor existing (or develop new) interventions specific to the needs of an individual. This could be particularly useful in terms of recidivism when applied to those involved in antisocial or offending behaviouCognitive defecits41040538108900Finally, there are a number of specific cognitive deficits that criminals often have. Read the list of cognitive deficits commonly found in prisoners. Do any of these link with the cognitive errors above? How might they link with previous theories investigated in this topic?-156845-5715005876350000Levels of moral reasoningWe can also look at the moral reasoning used by criminals to understand the cause of their behaviour. Kohlberg (1969) TASKKohlberg’s theory can apply to criminal behaviour. The three stages of moral development produce differing justifications from criminals for their crimes. Hollin et al (2002) found the following justifications were common at each stagePreconventional: Breaking the law is justified if punishment can be avoided or if the rewards outweigh the costs. Conventional: Breaking the law is justified if it helps to maintain relationships or societyPostconventional: Breaking the law is justified if it helps maintain human rights or further social justice. Hollin also found that crimes are more likely to be committed by people at a lower level of moral development, so offenders are characteristically less mature with regard to their moral reasoning than non-offenders.On the sheet “Fictional criminal case studies” analyse each criminal with the cognitive theories above. For each one decide:Are they showing a hostile attribution bias?Are they showing an External attribution, mental-element attribution or guilt-feeling attribution?Are they showing magnification or minimisation thinking?Do they have issues with their ToM?Do they show any other cognitive deficits?What stage of moral development do you think they are at?Once you have done this for all three case studies, come up with your own case study. Deliberately include some cognitive errors. Can your partner identify what they are?EvaluationBefore we give an overall evaluation of cognitive theories of crime, there are some specific evaluation points for each of the different components.Hostile attribution bias554441316191300What did Schonenberg et al (2014) do and find? What does this suggest? How does it support the theory of hostile attribution bias?left905800How could the evidence above link to the theory of the amygdala?left1093900MinimisationWhat did Kenndy and Grubin (1992) do and find? What does this suggest? How does it support the theory of minimisation?57835801206500left1252000However, what criticism of minimisation do Maruna and Mann (2006) propose?center4107100Theory of Mind477618354220600Dolan et al (2004) found that ToM was unimpaired in participants with antisocial personality disorder (a disorder highly correlated with criminal behaviour). It was also found that these participants were also able to understand social rules and spot when they were broken. However, they showed an indifference to the consequences of the breaking of these rules. Richell et al (2003) found that psychopaths (those who score high in psychopathy) showed no impairments with ToM. As psychopathy is correlated with crime (and is an integral part of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal mind) we might expect this to go with an impaired ToM. It seems that criminals may have no impairment with understanding the thoughts and feelings of others. However, maybe they just don’t care about them! Levels of moral reasoningThink about Kohlberg’s theory and the research that supports it. Below, evaluate both the theory and his evidence. Think specifically about how this might limit its usefulness as an explanation of criminal behaviour.left835000Summarise the research findings of Gudjonsson at al (2007) and Chen et al (2007). What does it mean for Kohlberg’s explanation of criminal behaviour?left4550300 ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download