Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > For. 1 Turning to Crime > Flashcards

For. 1 Turning to Crime Flashcards

(62 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Farrington - BACKGROUND?

Disrupted families

A

Children require close and continuous relationship with mother
If disrupted the child may have difficulties forming meaningful relationships - long term damage to superego
Can become affectionless psychopaths
Maternal deprivation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Farrington - AIM?

Disrupted families

A

Investigate influence of family life events on likelihood of criminal behaviour
Identify risk and protective factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Farrington - SAMPLE?

Disrupted families

A 
411 boys (age 8-9)
6 East London state schools
7% left by end (attrition)
Mostly white working class
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Farrington - METHOD?

Disrupted families

A

Longitudinal study (40 years)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Farrington - RESULTS?

Disrupted families

A

Offences peak at 17
7% were chronic offenders (50% of crime)
Often had convicted parents, delinquent sibling, young mother, disrupted family, large family
48% with convicted father had conviction (vs 19% with normal dad) - similar story for mothers
Worst offenders - large, multi-problem families

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Farrington - PROCEDURE?

Disrupted families

A

Interviewing:
-children (criminal activity, aggressive behaviour)
-parents (family size, income)
-teachers (aggressive behaviour, achievements, truancy)
(triangulation)
Data from criminal records office gains information on convictions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Farrington - CONCLUSIONS?

Disrupted families

A

Offending ‘tends’ to be concentrated in families - intergenerational transmission (occurrence of similar behaviour through successive generations of the same family)
Offenders tend to be deviant in many aspects of their lives - early prevention could reduce problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sutherland - Through what is criminal behaviour learned?

Learning from others

A

Social interactions and exposure to criminal norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Sutherland - differential association?

Learning from others

A

Ratio of favourable to non-favourable definitions (attitudes) to crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sutherland - largest influence?

Learning from others

A

Intimate personal groups (social learning)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Sutherland - influence ignored?

Learning from others

A

Media (considered impersonal)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sutherland - What else is learned as a result of learning criminal behaviour?
(Learning from others)

A

Techniques for committing the crime (eg how to pick a lock) and the attitudes/excuses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Sutherland - MAIN FACTORS?

Learning from others

A

Who they associate with
How long for
How frequently
How personally meaningful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Wikstrom - BACKGROUND?

Poverty

A

Disadvantaged 5% - 100x more likely to have multiple problems (eg mood disorders and cannabis use) than advantaged 50%
Crime highest in areas where levels of inequality were highest
Social Capitol (how well people interact with community)
Higher inequality = lower social capital - higher crime rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Wikstrom - AIM?

Poverty

A

Test what factors - most significant predictors of criminal behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Wikstrom - SAMPLE?

Poverty

A

2000 children (14-15)
13 state schools in Peterborough
83% responded (questionnaire)
20% interviewed more in depth about week’s activities (random sample)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Wikstrom - RESULTS?

Poverty

A

Most youths have strong pro-social values (know crime is wrong)
38% committed crime (once +)
7% committed serious crime
High frequency offenders commit range of crimes
Offenders more likely to drink excessively and use drugs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Wikstrom - CONCLUSIONS?

Poverty

A

Individual characteristics (poor self control etc) - most important
Risk factors (weak family and morality)
Social disadvantage - not a strong predictor but those of low social class more at risk
3 groups:
1. Propensity induced (personality to offend with many risk factors)
2. Lifestyle dependent (with peers in public settings)
3. Situationally limited (occasionally offend if their lifestyle exposes them to risky situation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Wikstrom - 3 GROUPS?

Poverty

A
  1. Propensity induced (personality to offend with many risk factors)
  2. Lifestyle dependent (with peers in public settings)
  3. Situationally limited (occasionally offend if their lifestyle exposes them to risky situation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - BACKGROUND?

Criminal thinking

A

Cognition: internal mental processes influence our actions/beliefs/feelings (assumes we can explain why people turn to crime by looking at how they think)
Criminals think differently to non-criminals
Consistent thinking errors = criminal behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - AIM?

Criminal thinking

A

Understand make up of a criminal’s personality

Establish techniques - alter personality disorders (resulting in crime) = prevent criminal behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - SAMPLE?

Criminal thinking

A

255 male offenders (USA)
Half in psychiatric hospital - judged not guilty (insanity) or incompetent to stand trial
NO control group
Most dropped out - 30 completed (9 changed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - METHOD?

Criminal thinking

A

Un-standardised interviews (several years)

Published in authors’ book

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Yochelson and Samenow - PROCEDURE?

Criminal thinking

A

Freudian based therapy - find cause of criminality (from past)
Criminal discovered and faced cause = improved their behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Yochelson and Samenow - RESULTS? | Criminal thinking
Consistently angry and irritable Reject authority Set themselves apart from others Lack empathy Poor decision making 52 thinking errors: 1. Criminal thinking patterns: need for power 2. Automatic thinking errors: lack of empathy and failure to accept obligations 3. Crime related thinking errors: optimistic fantasising about criminal acts with no regard for deterrent factors
26
Yochelson and Samenow - CONCLUSIONS? | Criminal thinking
Thinking errors not unique to criminals (more pronounced) Have distinct unique thinking errors Criminals in control of lives - poor choices = criminality Parental influence shape thinking patterns Criminals plan and fantasise their actions (aren't necessarily impulsive) Thinking patterns need to be confronted in treatment No control group - can't be sure non-criminals show different thinking patterns
27
Kohlberg - BACKGROUND? | Moral development
Morals: beliefs and values shared by society - judge right from wrong Assumed criminal behaviour is the result of poor morals or moral development 3 levels of moral development: pre-, conventional and post-conventional morality Moral development influenced by: -cognitive development -ability to understand others' perspectives -social experiences
28
Kohlberg - AIM? | Moral development
To find evidence of progression through stages of moral development
29
Kohlberg - SAMPLE? | Moral development
58 boys Chicago Age: 7-16
30
Kohlberg - METHOD? | Moral development
Longitudinal interviews Presenting hypothetical moral dilemmas - eg 'Heinz dilemma' (if a man whose wife is suffering from cancer should steal the medicine)
31
Kohlberg - PROCEDURE? | Moral development
2 hour interview of 10 moral dilemmas (eg Heinz dilemma) Interested in how they justified their decision (not the decision itself) Some had follow up interviews every 3 years Studied UK, Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, USA, Yucatan
32
Kohlberg - RESULTS? | Moral development
Younger boys: pre-morality (level 1) - punishment Older boys: conventional morality (level 2) - duty Supports morality development in stages Constant in cross cultural studies (progression slower in non-industrialised societies) Little support for post-conventional morality (level 3) - conscience
33
Kohlberg - CONCLUSIONS? | Moral development
Support across cultures of stage theory of morals | Hypothetical dilemmas lack validity
34
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - BACKGROUND? | Social cognition
Criminals often have external locus of control (blame circumstances) - don't take responsibility Attribution theory: working out cause of our behaviour (internal or external) Hostile attributional bias: ambiguous event (stepping on foot) interpreted as deliberate (counter aggression justifiable) Self serving attributional bias: attributed success to internal factors (themselves) and failure to external factors (circumstances) - blame victim (reduced guilt)
35
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - AIM? | Social cognition
Examine relationship between type of offence and attributions offenders made about their criminal acts
36
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - SAMPLE? | Social cognition
80 criminals in Northern Ireland 3 groups: Violent, sexual, property
37
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - METHOD? | Social cognition
Quasi
38
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - PROCEDURE? | Social cognition
42 item Blame Attribution Inventory - measures offender's attribution of blame 3 dimensions: -internal / external attributions (internal = within yourself, external = social or environment factors) -mental element (mental state) -guilt
39
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - CONCLUSION? | Social cognition
Different kinds of offenders give different kinds of attributions
40
Raine - BACKGROUND? | Brain dysfunction
``` Brain dysfunction causes: -brain tumours -brain damage - accidents (crash) or chemical poisoning (drugs) -hormone imbalances -malnutrition Phineas Gage: -quiet railway worker -damage (bolt through head) to pre-frontal lobe (moderates violent behaviour) -became violent (pre-frontal cortex ) Charles Whitman: -well behaved -tumour in brain (emotion) = killed 14 in school shooting ```
41
Raine - AIM? | Brain dysfunction
To see if there are brain abnormalities in murderers (not guilty by reason of insanity)
42
Raine - SAMPLE? | Brain dysfunction
41 charged with murder (plead NGRI) 39 men and 2 women Matched by age and sex to a control group
43
Raine - METHOD? | Brain dysfunction
Quasi lab | Matched pairs
44
Raine - PROCEDURE? | Brain dysfunction
All participants in custody and medication free for 2 weeks Injected with glucose tracer Monitored (with PET scan) for 30 minutes doing performance task (measured target recognition accuracy) Active areas light up on PET scan (high blood flow) - correlate with brain activity Predicted that murderers (NRGI) would have dysfunction in specific regions of the brain linked to violence (pre-frontal cortex) - control would not
45
Raine - RESULTS? | Brain dysfunction
Reduced glucose metabolism (pre-frontal cortex and corpus callosum) = reduced activity (compared to controls) - involved in regulation of aggressive behaviour Abnormal asymmetries of activity - lower activity in left side of brain than right side (in amygdola, thalamus, hippocampus)
46
Raine - INTERPRETATION? | Brain dysfunction
``` Impulsive Loss of self control Inability to modify behaviour Aggressive behaviour = More likely that they would commit a crime - constraints people have don't exist ```
47
Raine - CONCLUSIONS? | Brain dysfunction
Murderers pleading NGRI have different brain activity patterns than non-murderers - may predispose them towards violence Neural processes involved in violent behaviour are complex - several processes involved (no single biological mechanism)
48
Brunner - BACKGROUND? | Genes
Serotonin (neurotransmitter) regulates impulsive behaviour (responding with hostility to frustration) Less serotonin = less inhibition of amygdala (becomes more active) = increased aggression
49
Brunner - AIM? | Genes
Explain violent behaviour of large family in the Netherlands
50
Brunner - SAMPLE? | Genes
5 males from family | Affected by syndrome of borderline mental retardation and abnormal violent behaviour
51
Brunner - METHOD? | Genes
Case study
52
Brunner - PROCEDURE? | Genes
Urine sample analysis (over 24 hours) | IQ tests
53
Brunner - RESULTS? | Genes
Urine tests: lacked the enzyme MAOA IQ test: mental retardation (IQ 85) 1 completed primary education Unaffected males all attended school - now employed DNA analysis - mutation in X chromosome (gene responsible for production of MAOA) MAOA responsible for serotonin production (inhibits amygdala - stops aggression)
54
Brunner - CONCLUSIONS? | Genes
Gene mutation responsible for aggressive behaviour - lead to criminal behaviour
55
Brunner - EVALUATION? | Genes
No cause and effect (quasi) - genes and crime Not all males in family were affected by violent behaviour (even though they had mental retardation part of syndrome) Rare condition - not possible to generalise (upbringing may have contributed)
56
Wilson and Daly - BACKGROUND? | Gender
More males involved in crime (80% offenders male) Peak at 17 year old (male age crime curve) Evolutionary explanations: -male hunted and protected (aggression useful for survival) - females cared for young -status competition (showing off) attractive to females (male prepared to take risks) - don't want to 'lose face' in front of potential female partners
57
Wilson and Daly - AIM? | Gender
Examine gender and age patterns in violent crimes
58
Wilson and Daly - METHOD? | Gender
Analysis of police crime records (snapshot)
59
Wilson and Daly - PROCEDURE? | Gender
Reviewed homicide crimes in Detroit (1972) Age and sex of offender and victim analysed Data categorised into tables
60
Wilson and Daly - RESULTS? | Gender
Total homicides - 422 vs 90 Social conflict homicide - 256 vs 83 (m vs f) Criminals and victims mainly young, unmarried males Most homicides were social conflict (retaliation, jealousy) Young males likely to make trivial altercation worse when there is potential for 'loss of face' Risk taking = male focused
61
Gudjohnsson and Bownes - RESULTS | Social cognition
External attributions: Violent offenders = external attributions Sexual offenders = internal attributions Mental element: Violent and sexual = most likely to attribute crime to their mental element Property = least likely Guilt: Sexual = most remorse Property = least remorse
62
Wilson and Daly - CONCLUSIONS? | Gender
Support status competition Seems to support evolutionary explanation for higher levels of crime in males than females Supports biblical explanation: -males (leaders of family) and females (carers for the family) -equal in dignity and value - different roles

Psychology (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions