Forensics - Psychological explanations Flashcards
(40 cards)
What are the 4 psychological explanations for offending behaviour?
- Eysenck’s criminal personality theory
- Cognitive explanations: moral reasoning and cognitive distortions
- Differential association theory
- Psychodynamic explanations
What is Eysenck’s general personality theory?
Behaviour could be represented along two dimensions: introversion/extraversion (E) and neuroticism/stability (N). They combine to form a variety of personality traits.
What 3 features did Ersenck say together made up the criminal personality?
Neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism.
What are the biological nervous systems of extraverts and neurotics like?
Extraverts: Have an underactive nervous system, so constantly seek excitement, stimulation and are likely to engage in risk-taking behaviours and do not learn from their mistakes.
Neurotics: Tend to be nervous, jumpy and over-anxious and their general instability means their behaviour is often difficult to predict.
What is the role of socialisation that Ersenck theorised?
The type of nervous system a person develops can make them hard to condition so they never become properly socialised.
In what way is criminal behaviour immature?
Selfish and concerned with immediate gratification - impatient.
In the usual process of socialisation in a child, they are taught to be able to delay gratification and be more socially orientated.
What scale tests somebody’s personality?
Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI)
‘E’ score measures how extravert you are
‘N’ score measures how neurotic you are
‘Lie’ score measures how socially desirable you are
What are the strengths of Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory?
- The methodology of the EPI questionnaire
- Research support for the explanation
Why is the methodology of the EPI questionnaire a strength?
- Lie scale reveals when a person is responding to with social desirability bias
- Full, clear instructions so answers from participants are correct
- Questions are mixed up so this reduces demand characteristics
- Forced choice answer options give more useful data, no ‘I don’t knows’
- Questions are in both directions so balances out acquiescence bias (agreeing to something even if it’s not true)
These mean that internal validity is high for the EPI and the theory
What research supports Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory as an explanation of offending behaviour?
- Eysenck and Eysenck
- Studied over 2000 male prisoners and over 2000 male controls
- They measured them on E, N and P
- Found that criminals were higher on all 3
- This suggests the theory is valid
- However, Farrington reviewed several studies and found criminals were higher on only P
What are the limitations of Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory?
- The inventory is based on the assumptions that ‘personality’ is stable and measurable
- The explanation may be oversimplified
Why is EPI being based on the assumptions that ‘personality’ is stable and measurable a limitation?
- Mischel argues ‘personality’ does not exist - we change the way we behave according to the situation and from day to day.
- By self-report, bias will affect accuracy (lie scale will detect this but then that data isn’t useful). Also, the scores are ordinal level data as the points on the scale are not mathematically related.
Why is EPI being based on the assumptions that ‘personality’ is stable and measurable a limitation?
- Mischel argues ‘personality’ does not exist - we change the way we behave according to the situation and from day to day.
- By self-report, bias will affect accuracy (lie scale will detect this but then that data isn’t useful). Also, the scores are ordinal level data as the points on the scale are not mathematically related.
Why may the explanation of Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory for offending behaviour be oversimplified?
Digman says there are at least 5 personality factors including extraversion and neuroticism, as well as agreeableness (altruism, nurturing), conscientiousness and openness to new ideas.
So high E and N alone will not necessarily result in offending.
What is level of moral reasoning?
Idea that offenders may be different to non-offenders in terms of their moral development.
Explain Kohlberg’s study on level of moral reasoning.
- 72 Chicago boys (7-16) were interviewed, some were followed up to 3-yearly intervals for 20 years
- Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the 10 dilemmas
- Kohlberg was mainly interested in the reasons for the decisions, and the reasons tended to change as the children got older
- The theory is that people can only pass through these levels in the order listed at a biologically appropriate time. Kohlberg believed not everyone would achieve all the stages
- Kohlberg found that criminals usually do no progress beyond pre-conventional morality. This explains why someone would offend because they will be motivated to offend for selfish reasons and with no thought for how others might be affected
What are the 3 levels of moral development?
Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality
Level 2 - Conventional morality
Level 3 - Post-conventional morality
What is pre-conventional morality?
- Most 9-year-olds and younger
- Don’t have personal code of morality
- Moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and consequences of following or breaking rules
- Obedience and punishment: the child is good in order to avoid being punished
- Personal gain: children do what is right for personal reward
What is conventional morality?
- Most adolescents and adults
- We internalise moral standards of valued adult role models
- Authority is internalised but not questioned and reasoning is based on norms of the group
- Interpersonal relationships: the individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others
- Maintaining the Social Order: the individual becomes aware of wider rules of society so judgements concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and avoid guilt
What is post-conventional morality?
- Only 10-15% of people are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for this level
- Social rules vs personal rights: the individual becomes aware that while rules might exist for the good of society, there are times when they will work against the interest of the individual
- Universal ethical principles: people at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law eg. human rights, justice and equality
What are the strengths of levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending?
- Colby and Kohlberg found the sequence of stages to be universal in a review of 45 studies in 27 countries: this supports generalising
- Palmer and Hollin used the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure based on Kohlberg’s work, but using a scale rather than dilemmas, they compared offenders and non-offenders and offender group scored lower on moral reasoning: this supports Kohlberg’s theory that the moral reasoning of offenders is lower than non-offenders
- Offending Motivation Questionnaire with offenders, 38% stated they did not consider the consequences of their actions, 36% were confident they would not be caught, this shows pre-conventional morality
What is the limitation of levels of moral reasoning as an explanation for offending?
American feminist psychologist suggested the theory focuses on a male perspective of morality - one of justice rather than caring, meaning the research is androcentric.
It is subjective that there is more to moral reasoning than an idea of law and justice.
What are the two cognitive distortions to explain offending behaviour?
- Hostile attribution bias
- Minimalisation
What is hostile attribution bias?
- Perceiving other people’s neutral or behaviour as being due to hostility
- They will assume that another person has an intention to harm them because normal behaviours are perceived as hostile and aggressive
- Hostile attribution bias may be associated with offending behaviour because they may behave aggressively in retaliation
