Criminal Behaviour - Individual Differences Explanation Flashcards Preview

Psychology Unit 3 > Criminal Behaviour - Individual Differences Explanation > Flashcards

Flashcards in Criminal Behaviour - Individual Differences Explanation Deck (25)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

What are the Two Explanations?

A
  1. Eysenck’s Criminal of Personality

2. Cognitive Factors

2
Q

Explain Eysenck’s Theory of Personality.

A
  • Developed in 1967/78
  • Based on the idea that character traits tend to cluster along 3 dimensions
    1. Extroversion/Introversion
    2. Neuoticism/Stability
    3. Psychoticism/Normality
  • The two most important dimensions are introversion/extroversion + satble/neuroticism - psychoiticism added later
  • Personality test called Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
3
Q

What is Neruoticism?

A
  • Tendency to experience negative emotional status rather than positive emotional status
4
Q

What was Eysenck’s Opinion on Biological Basis?

A
  • Each trait has a biological basis which is innate - 67% of variance for the traits is due to genetic factor
5
Q

What is the Biological Basis for Extroversion?

A
  • Determined by overall level of arousal in a person’s nervous system
  • Person who is under-aroused requires more stimulation whereas over-aroused person tends to avoid this
  • Extroverts seek external stimulation to increase cortical arousal
  • Introverts are innately over-aroused - seek to reduce/avoid stimulation
6
Q

What is the Biological Basis for Neuroticism?

A
  • Determined by the level of stability in sympathetic nervous system - how much a person responds in situations of threat (fight/flight)
  • A neurotic person is someone who’s slightly unstable reacts/gets upset easily
7
Q

What is the Biological Basis for Psychoticism?

A
  • Related to high levels of testosterone - men more likely at this end of spectrum
8
Q

How Does Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Link to Criminal Behvaiour?

A
  • Link to personality can be explained through terms of arousal - extroverts seek more arousal + therefore engages in more dangerous actions
  • Neurotics are unstable and therefore prone to over-react to stimulation of threat - explain some criminal activity
  • Psychoticism easily linked to criminality - individuals are aggressive + lack empathy
  • Criminality in terms of out come between innate personality + socialization - person born with certain personality traits but interaction with the environment is key in development of criminality - seen in conditioning - ‘normal’ person wrongdoing is avoided because of previous punishment (operant conditioning)
  • Eysenck claimed that extroverts + neurotics don’t condition as easily - don’t learn to avoid anti-social behaviour
9
Q

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Evaluation

Support for Link Between Personality + Criminal Behaviour

A

POSITIVE

  • Dunlop (2012) = extroversion + psychoticism (+lie scales) were good predictions of delinquency - however, (in this study) all participants were students + their friends (aged 15-75yrs) delinquency assessed through minor offences in previous 12 months
  • Dam (2007) = only small group of male offenders had high scores in all 3 areas
10
Q

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Evaluation

Research on the Genetic Basis of Personality

A

POSITIVE

  • Biological basis support from twin studies
  • Zuckerman (1987) = +.24 for DZ twins on neuroticism and +.52 for MZ twins - large genetic component - extroversion DZ twins scored +.12 and MZ twins scored +.51 - similar for psychoticism
  • Not as high as Eysenck claimed
11
Q

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Evaluation

Personality May Not be Consistent

A

NEGATIVE

  • Assumes personality is consistent - many psychologists support situational perspective - people may be consistent in similar situations but not across every situation
  • Example = relaxed at home + neurotic at work
  • Mischel (1982) = asked family/friends/strangers to rate 63 students in variety of situations - no correlation
  • Notion of a criminal personality is flawed - people don’t have just 1 personality
12
Q

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Evaluation

Personality Test May Not be Reliable

A

NEGATIVE

  • Score/label given is dependent on answers given on a personality questionnaire (EPQ)
  • Person is responding to demands of question - asked to select traits that apply to them but response may not be reality
  • Countered by using lie scales - if person is probably being dishonest (tending towards socially desirable answers) their data is discarded
  • Score on a personality test unlikely to ever enable the identification of criminals
13
Q

What are Cognitive Distortions?

A
  • Form of irrational thinking - reality twisted so that what is perceived is no longer representative of what is true
  • Results in person’s perception of events being wrong but they think it’s accurate
  • Offender Denys/rationalises their behaviour
14
Q

What is a Attribution?

A
  • What we think when we observe someone’s behaviour/actions and draw inference about what it means
15
Q

What is a Hostile Attribution Bias?

A
  • Always thinking the worst of someone
                         Communicating that they like you 
                           /
                         / Person Smiles 
                         \
                           \
                     Person is thinking bad thoughts about you 
  • Negative interpretations lead to more aggressive behaviour (always thinking the worst)
  • For criminal behaviour this bias if likely linked to increased levels of aggression
16
Q

What is Minimisation?

A
  • Consequences of a situation is under-exaggerated
  • For Criminal Behaviour can explain how an offender may reduce negative interpretations of their behaviour before + after Crime - helps individual to accept the consequences of behaviour - reduces negative emotions
  • Example = burglary - steals few things from a wealthy person - little effect on their life - burglar doesn’t feel bad
17
Q

What are Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning?

A
  • Kohlberg (1969) - theory of moral reasoning - interviewed males about moral decisions
  • 3 levels + 6 stages
  • each stage represents a more advanced form of moral understanding - people progress as a consequences of biological maturity + opportunity to develop their thinking
  • For Criminal Behaviour - 10% adults =. Post-conventional (longitudinal study)
18
Q

Describes Kohlberg’s Pre-conventional Level

A

Stage One
- Punishment + obedience focuses on rules enforced by punishment

Stage Two
- ‘right’ defined by person’s own need

19
Q

Describes Kohlberg’s Conventional Level

A

Stage Three
- Good Boy/Girl

Stage Four
- Social order refers to duties of each citizen

20
Q

Describes Kohlberg’s Post-Conventional Level

A

Stage Five
- Individual’s right more important than law

Stage Six
- Universal Ethical Principle

21
Q

Cognitive Factors Evaluation

Research Support for Hostile Attribution Bias

A

POSITIVE

  • Schomenberg + Justye (2014) = showed emotionally ambiguous faces to violent offenders - faces showed varying levels of intensity of anger/fear/happiness - offenders more likely to interpret any picture that had some anger as an expression of aggression
  • Partly explains Aggressive/impulsive behaviour
22
Q

Cognitive Factors Evaluation

Research Support for Minimisation

A

POSITIVE
- Kennedy + Grushin (1992) = sex offenders accounts of their crimes - downplayed their behaviour - offender stated that victim’s behaviour contributed to crime
HOWEVER
- Maruna + Mann (2006) = minimisation part of normal behaviour - all people blame events on external sources as a way of protecting themselves

23
Q

Cognitive Factors Evaluation

Research Support for Moral Reasoning

A

POSITIVE

  • Research conducted in a range of countries
  • Colby + Kohlberg (2007) = reported that the sequence of stages appeared universally - post con. reasoning skills were less common in rural areas
  • Chen + Howitt (2007) = test based on Kohlberg’s stages to assess 330 males adolescent offenders - those who showed more advanced reasoning were less likely to be involved with violence
  • Gudjonsson + Sigurdsson (2007) = offending motivation questionnaire assess 128 male juvenile offenders - 38% = didn’t consider consequences + 36% = confident they wouldn’t get caught
24
Q

Cognitive Factors Evaluation

Limitation of Kohlberg

A

NEGATIVE

  • Moral thinking rather than behaviour
  • Krebs + Renhom (2005) = Moral principles only 1 factor in moral behaviour + may be overridden by more practical factors (personal financial gain)
  • Only based on male sample - gender bias
  • Gilligan (1982) = theory is too focused on male perspective - justice rather than caring
25
Q

Applying Cognitive Factors to Modifying Criminal Behaviour: Anger Management

A
  • Based on principles of CBT
  • Controlling Anger + Learning to Manage it (CALM)
  • Designed by clinical psychologists - includes a version that can be used in correctional institutions
  • 24 teaches participants to manage + understand emotions in order to prevent + control problematic emotions - many methods (personal assignments/modelling/role play) to teach + promote lasting change of inappropriate/unproductive thoughts/behaviours patterns
  • Sessions aims to develop skills that will reduce frequency/intensity/duration of anger - lessons likelihood of aggression + Criminal Behaviour