Forensic psychology 2 Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is the cognitive approach to explaining offending behaviour?
The cognitive approach suggests that criminal behaviour results from faulty or biased thinking processes. Offenders may misinterpret situations, minimise guilt, or reason using immature moral frameworks. These distorted cognitive styles increase the likelihood of engaging in antisocial behaviour, particularly when individuals fail to evaluate the consequences of their actions rationally.
What is meant by ‘level of moral reasoning’ and how does it relate to offending?
According to Kohlberg (1969), moral reasoning develops through three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Offenders are more likely to reason at the pre-conventional level, which focuses on avoiding punishment and gaining rewards. This ‘childlike’ reasoning style prioritises self-interest over moral values and is commonly observed in individuals who commit crimes for personal gain.
What evidence supports the link between moral reasoning and criminal behaviour?
Palmer and Hollin (1998) found that 126 convicted offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than a control group of 332 non-offenders when responding to moral dilemmas. This supports Kohlberg’s theory, as it indicates that criminals often operate at a lower moral stage, explaining their willingness to break laws for personal benefit.
What is hostile attribution bias (HAB) and how is it linked to offending behaviour?
Hostile attribution bias is the tendency to interpret ambiguous actions or expressions as threatening or aggressive. Offenders with HAB often assume hostility in others, leading to disproportionate or violent responses. Justye et al. (2014) found that violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive neutral facial expressions as hostile compared to non-aggressive individuals.
What is minimisation and how does it contribute to criminal behaviour?
Minimisation is a cognitive distortion where the offender downplays the seriousness or impact of their crime, reducing feelings of guilt. It can serve as a coping mechanism. For example, Pollock and Hashmall (1991) found that 35% of child sex offenders justified their behaviour as non-malicious, and 36% denied that a crime had occurred, believing the child had consented.
How do cognitive distortions and moral reasoning interact to explain offending?
Offenders often combine immature moral reasoning (pre-conventional level) with biased cognitive styles like HAB and minimisation. This makes them more likely to justify antisocial behaviour and respond aggressively to perceived threats. Such patterns may develop from past experiences of rejection or trauma, reinforcing dysfunctional thinking and reducing accountability.
What is Differential Association Theory and how does it explain criminal behaviour?
Proposed by Sutherland (1939), Differential Association Theory suggests that offending behaviour is learned through interaction with others. Individuals acquire values, attitudes, motives, and techniques that support criminality. When a person is exposed to more pro-criminal than anti-criminal attitudes, they are more likely to engage in offending behaviour.
What is the scientific basis of Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory?
Sutherland aimed to create a scientific model of criminal behaviour that could explain all types of crime, regardless of background. He believed that crime should be predictable and observable, and proposed that understanding the frequency, intensity, duration, and priority of social interactions could help predict offending.
How is offending learned through association, according to this theory?
Criminal behaviour is learned in the same way as any other behaviour — through interactions with ‘significant others’ (family, peers). This includes learning both the techniques for committing crimes and the justifications or values that support them. Offending is more likely when criminal attitudes outweigh law-abiding ones.
What role do learning techniques and attitudes play in criminal development?
Offenders learn both the skills needed to carry out crime (e.g. how to break into a car) and the attitudes that normalise it (e.g. “everyone does it”). These are acquired through direct tuition or observation. Such learning enables the person to commit crime effectively and without guilt, reinforcing the behaviour.
How does Differential Association Theory differ from biological explanations?
Unlike biological theories, DAT does not assume criminals are born different. Instead, it sees criminality as a result of socialisation. It emphasises nurture over nature, suggesting that even individuals from ‘good’ backgrounds can become criminals if surrounded by the right influences.
Why is Differential Association Theory important for understanding white-collar and corporate crime?
Sutherland developed DAT partly to explain non-violent crimes like fraud or embezzlement, which biological theories struggle to account for. He argued that these crimes are also learned through association — for example, in workplaces where unethical practices are normalised — making DAT applicable beyond working-class or street crime.
What is the psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour?
The psychodynamic explanation, rooted in Freud’s theory, suggests that criminal behaviour arises from unconscious conflicts formed during early childhood. These include a dysfunctional Superego and consequences of maternal deprivation. Offending occurs when these internal processes disrupt normal moral development or emotional regulation.
What is Freud’s tripartite theory of personality and its link to offending?
Freud proposed that personality is made up of the Id (instinctual drives), Ego (rational mediator), and Superego (moral conscience). The Superego develops during the phallic stage (around age 5) through identification with the same-sex parent. If the Superego is underdeveloped or dysfunctional, the Id dominates, leading to selfish, antisocial, and potentially criminal behaviour.
What are the three types of inadequate Superego, according to Blackburn (1993)?
Blackburn identified three dysfunctional Superego types:
Weak Superego – Develops if the same-sex parent is absent; the child cannot internalise moral values, increasing risk of immoral behaviour.
Deviant Superego – Arises when a child internalises immoral values from a criminal parent, normalising crime.
Over-harsh Superego – Leads to unconscious guilt and a compulsion to be punished, resulting in criminal behaviour as a form of self-punishment.
What role does emotion play in the psychodynamic explanation of offending?
The psychodynamic approach uniquely incorporates emotional factors such as guilt, anxiety, and repression. It suggests that unresolved unconscious conflicts or harsh parental treatment can create emotional turmoil, which may drive individuals toward antisocial behaviour to alleviate or express their distress.
What is Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation, and how does it relate to offending?
Bowlby (1944) argued that a warm, continuous relationship with a mother-figure during the first 2 years of life is critical for healthy psychological development. Disruption of this bond can lead to affectionless psychopathy — a lack of empathy, guilt, or concern for others — which increases the likelihood of delinquency and criminal behaviour.
How are the Superego and maternal deprivation theories integrated in explaining offending behaviour?
Both theories suggest that early childhood experiences shape the unconscious mind and moral development. A dysfunctional Superego may result from poor identification with a parent (Freud), while maternal deprivation leads to emotional detachment (Bowlby). In both cases, the individual may develop antisocial tendencies due to underdeveloped conscience or impaired emotional regulation.
What is custodial sentencing, and how does it relate to recidivism?
Custodial sentencing is when a court orders an offender to serve time in custody — such as a prison, psychiatric hospital, or other closed institution. It aims to punish and/or rehabilitate the offender. Recidivism refers to reoffending after release; high recidivism rates raise concerns about how effective prison is in deterring future crime.
What are the four key aims of custodial sentencing?
Deterrence – to prevent crime via threat of punishment (general: to society; individual: to the offender).
Incapacitation – to protect the public by removing dangerous offenders.
Retribution – punishment as a form of societal revenge (“eye for an eye”), proportionate to the crime.
Rehabilitation – reforming the offender through treatment, education, or therapy to reduce future offending.
What are the psychological effects of custodial sentencing?
Stress and Depression – Suicide and self-harm rates are higher in prison; inmates face poor mental health, including depression and anxiety.
Institutionalisation – Prisoners may become so accustomed to the structure of prison life that they struggle to function independently after release.
Prisonisation – Offenders may adopt a criminal ‘inmate code,’ reinforcing antisocial values that are incompatible with societal norms.
How does institutionalisation impact offenders post-release?
Long-term inmates may struggle to reintegrate into society after adapting to the rigid structure of prison life. This disconnection from social norms can lead to anxiety, dependency, and increased risk of reoffending, as everyday life becomes overwhelming.
What are recidivism rates in the UK and how do they compare to Norway?
According to the UK Ministry of Justice, 57% of offenders reoffend within one year of release. In contrast, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in Europe. This may be due to Norway’s focus on rehabilitation and social reintegration, rather than harsh punishment.
What criticism is there of retributive-focused custodial sentencing in the UK?
Emphasising punishment over rehabilitation may worsen recidivism. The routine, isolated nature of prison life can lead to depression, lack of skills, and further social disconnection, making reintegration harder and offending more likely. Countries like Norway highlight the success of reform-based systems.
