What is the historical approach to explaining offending behaviour?
How did Lombroso view offenders, AF?
What does the atavistic form include in terms of cranial characteristics?
What is the atavistic form?
How were murderers described, AF?
How were sexual deviants described, AF?
How were fraudsters described, AF?
What traits did Lombroso suggest beyond physical traits, AF?
How did Lombroso test atavistic form?
Atavistic form, +ve evaluation:
Atavistic form, -ve evaluation:
What twin study supports the genetic explanation of crime?
What is the genetic explanation for crime?
What gene study supports the genetic explanation of crime?
What is suggested by the diathesis stress model, GE?
What is the neural explanation of crime?
What brain imaging study supports the neural explanation of crime?
What empathy study supports the neural explanation of crime?
Genetic+neural explanations, -ve evaluation:
no +ve
- concordance rates in MZ twins are not high and leave plenty of room for non-genetic environmental factors
- concordance rates may be due to shared learning experiences rather than genetics
= brain scanning studies show pathology in brains of
criminal psychopaths
= but cannot conclude whether these abnormalities are genetic or signs of early abuse
- term ‘offending behaviour’ is too vague
- some specific forms of crime may be more biological than others e.g. physical aggression
= example of biological reductionism
= criminality is complex and explanations that reduce
offending behaviour to a gene or imbalanced neurotransmitter may be inappropriate and overly simplistic
= criminal behaviour does seem to run in families, but so does emotional instability, mental illness, social deprivation and
poverty
= twin studies never show 100% concordance rates in monozygotic twins
= so genetics cannot be the only explanation for criminal behaviour
- example of biological determinism
- presents us with a dilemma for our legal system
- if someone has criminal gene they cannot have personal and moral responsibility for their crime
- if this is the case it would be unethical to punish someone who does not have free will
What is Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality, PE?
What do the traits suggested by Esyneck lead to, PE?
Eysenck’s theory PE, -ve evaluation:
no +ve
- Farrington et al. reviewed several studies and reported that offenders tended to score higher on psychoticism
- but NOT on extraversion and neuroticism, when compared to non-offenders
= idea that all offending behaviour can be explained by a single personality type has been heavily criticised as being simplistic
= crime is too varied and
complex a behaviour to be due to one single personality type
= the type of individual who commits murder is likely to be very different to one who commits fraud
- out of step with modern personality theory
- Digman’s Five Factor Model of personality suggests that openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness are important personality dimensions, in
addition to extraversion and neuroticism
= Bartol and Holanchock looked into cultural differences
= studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a max security prison in New York
= divided them into six groups based on their criminal history and the nature of their offences
= all 6 groups were found to be LESS extravert than non-criminal control groups
= means Eysenck’s theory could be culturally biased
- based on the idea that it is possible to measure personality through psychological tests
- critics have argued that personality may not be reducible to a score in this way
- many psychologists believe there is no such thing as stable personality
- on a daily basis people’s personality changes depending who they are with and the situation they are in
What are the cognitive explanations to psychology?
What is moral reasoning, CE?