Raine Et Al AO3 Flashcards
(8 cards)
METHODOLOGY: FOR: OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF MEASURE
Point:
Raine et al.’s use of PET scans with a glucose tracer (flurodeoxyglucose) adds strength to the study.
Evidence:
The tracer shows which brain areas are active by tracking glucose use during a task.
Explanation:
This gives an objective, scientific measure of brain activity, helping to show a stronger causal link between brain function and violent behaviour. Better than relying on self-reports or observations alone.
Link:
So, it supports the biological explanation with clear, reliable, quantifiable data.
METHODOLOGY: AGAINST: CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP
Point:
With the method used, it is not possible to fully state a cause-and-effect relationship.
Evidence:
As Raine pointed out, findings don’t show that violence is due to biology alone. Other
factors such as upbringing must influence violence.
Explain:
For example, some of the NGRI participants may have had a home environment
that accepted violence, or they could have been part of a peer group that encouraged it;
therefore, this would be a social influence and not a biological one.
Link:
Therefore, although the methodology does go some way to hinting at a relationship
between murder and brain localisation, further research with the NGRI participants
would need to be carried out to discover more about their home life and upbringing.
PROCEDURES: FOR: RELIABILITY
Point:
Raine did have strict procedures in place for the research.
Evidence:
For example, all NGRI’s were matched with a control, no participants were on
medication, everyone completed the same CPT task and the same PET scanner was used.
Explain:
Such high levels of control make it easier to determine a cause-and-effect relationship
between variables, and it means that the research can be easily replicated by others.
Link:
Therefore, if findings can be replicated and the reliability of Raine’s research can be
checked for consistency, it makes for more valued and trusted research. It also means that
validity can be considered, especially over time.
PROCEDURES: AGAINST: EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Point:
A weakness of Raine et al.’s study is the limited sample.
Evidence:
The sample only included murderers who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
Explanation:
This means the findings can’t be generalised to all criminals, other violent offenders, or the wider population, reducing external validity.
Link:
So, the study’s results may only apply to a very specific group, limiting its usefulness.
ETHICAL ISSUE: FOR: CONFIDENTIALITY
Point:
Raine et al.’s study upheld the ethical principle of confidentiality.
Evidence:
Participants’ names, places of residency, and other identifying details were not released or made public.
Explanation:
This protects participants from stigma or public judgment, especially important given the sensitive nature of their mental health and criminal history.
Link:
So, by keeping personal information private, the researchers respected participants’ dignity and privacy, helping the study remain ethically sound in this area.
ETHICAL ISSUE: AGAINST: LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT
Point:
A key ethical issue in Raine et al.’s study is the potential lack of fully informed consent.
Evidence:
Many participants had serious mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, or brain injuries, and some had not taken their medication for two weeks before the scan.
Explanation:
This means they may not have been in the right mental state to fully understand the procedure or give voluntary consent, especially if they felt pressured or unable to make clear decisions due to their condition.
Link:
So, although the study aimed to be scientific, it raises concerns about ethical standards and participant protection.
SOCIAL ISSUE FOR:
Point:
A positive social implication of Raine et al.’s research is that identifying a neurological pattern linked to violent behaviour could lead to early preventative measures.
Evidence:
If certain brain structures are associated with a higher risk of criminal behaviour, institutions like schools or healthcare services could use this information to implement supportive interventions.
Explanation:
For example, if a child shows similar brain activity, parents, carers, or teachers could create enriched environments, increase positive experiences, and offer psychological support to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behaviour.
Link:
This approach could help prevent criminal behaviour from developing, leading to more positive social outcomes.
SOCIAL ISSUE AGAINST:
Point:
A major social implication of Raine et al.’s study is the risk of misinterpreting PET scan data as proving a causal relationship between brain structure and violent behaviour.
Evidence:
Although the study shows differences in brain activity, it doesn’t prove that these abnormalities directly cause aggression—yet it may lead the public or legal system to believe in a clear-cut “criminal brain.”
Explanation:
This can result in harmful labelling, such as branding someone as having a “psychopath brain,” which may increase societal stigma and even lead to discrimination or unfair treatment, especially in the criminal justice system. It could cause bias in court decisions, where brain scans are seen as evidence of future risk, leading to potential miscarriages of justice. Such views can also be ableist, reinforcing stereotypes and putting individuals at risk of psychological or physical harm.
Link:
So, while the research has scientific value, its misuse or misinterpretation poses ethical and societal dangers, especially if brain structure is used to justify prejudice or unequal treatment.
