F.P

Question 1

Offender Profiling: Top-down Approach

Answer 1

Limited to particular crimes (e.g., serial murder), based on outdated typologies, low external validity.

Question 2

Offender Profiling: Bottom-up Approach

Answer 2

More scientific and data-driven, uses statistical analysis (Canter), supported by case success but still has subjective elements.

Question 3

Atavistic Form (Lombroso)

Answer 3

Historically significant but criticised as racist, unscientific, no control group, poor replicability.

Question 4

Genetic Explanation (MAOA gene)

Answer 4

Supported by research linking low-activity MAOA to aggression, but deterministic and reductionist.

Question 5

Neural Explanation (PFC damage, neurotransmitters)

Answer 5

Biological basis backed by brain scan studies; ignores social context, raises ethical/legal issues (e.g., criminal responsibility).

Question 6

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality Theory

Answer 6

Combines biological and psychological perspectives; evidence is mixed, culturally biased, deterministic.

Question 7

Differential Association Theory (Sutherland)

Answer 7

Useful in explaining white-collar crime and social learning; hard to test and may ignore free will.

Question 8

Psychodynamic Explanation of Crime

Answer 8

Emphasises early childhood and unconscious drives; lacks empirical support and is considered unscientific.

Question 9

Canter et al. (John Duffy case)

Answer 9

Support for bottom-up profiling; showed practical application of investigative psychology.

Question 10

Lombroso (Atavistic Form)

Answer 10

Unscientific method, no control group, findings not replicated; legacy remains controversial.

Question 11

Raine et al. (Brain scans of murderers)

Answer 11

PET scans showed reduced PFC activity; supports neural explanation but causation unclear.

Question 12

Brunner et al. (MAOA gene in Dutch family)

Answer 12

Supports genetic influence on aggression; small sample, lacks generalisability.

Question 13

Eysenck’s personality study (1957)

Answer 13

Supports link between high neuroticism/extroversion and crime; questionnaire method criticised for bias.

Question 14

Farrington et al. (Cambridge Study)

Answer 14

Longitudinal, strong methodology; supports role of disrupted families, but hard to separate cause/effect.

Question 15

Bowlby (44 Thieves)

Answer 15

Early support for maternal deprivation and antisocial behaviour; flawed methodology, bias.

Question 16

Blackburn (Superego theory)

Answer 16

Freudian basis, no empirical evidence; theory not testable or falsifiable.