Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Criminal Behaviour full (sakshi)

Terms in this set (76)

Bio expla > role of the amygdala > amygdala + psychopathy (Glenn)
Amyg dysunc= cental deficit in psychopathy. Glenn studied partici w varying levels of psychopathy. fMRI scans of brains taken while faced w moral dilemmas, found link b/w psychopathy+reduced amyg activity during decision-making. Normal amyg func inhibits aggression, amyg dysfunc= inhibition disrupted so become involved in crim behav.
Bio explan > inherited criminality > genetic factors (raine)
1 or more genes may predispose to criminal behaviour. Raine: reviewed twin studies for delinquent behaviour + found 52% concordance MZ 21% DZ (suggests genetic component)
Bio explan > inherited criminality > search for candidate genes (Brunner + Tiihonen)
MAOA + CDH13 linked to criminal behaviour. Brunner: males in family with history of criminal behaviour shared gene for low MAOA levels. Tiihonen: low MAOA + CDH13 activity in 900 offenders (estimated 5-10% of all crimes in Finland due to abnormalities in 2 genes)
Bio explan > inherited criminality > diathesis-stress (caspi)
Modern view is that epigenetics has a role (genes switched off and on due to environmental factors). Maltreatment in childhood could be environmental factor. Caspi used longitudinal data and studied antisocial behaviour at 26 , found 12% with low MAOA experiences maltreatment + were responsible for 44% of violent crimes in study
Bio explan > inherited criminality > differences in brain (Wright, Seo, Raine)
Wright: linked v high + v low levels of noradrenaline to aggression, violence and criminality (noradrenaline used for reacting to threats so low levels reduce ability). Seo: serotonin may predispose to criminal behaviour because it inhibits the prefrontal cortex. Raine: reduced functioning in prefrontal cortex of violent people (associated with impulsiveness + loss of control)
Bio explan > inherited criminality > atavistic form (Lombroso)
Atavistic = tendency to revert back to ancestral type. Lombroso: criminals similar to lower primates. Thought of around time of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Believed in less harsh treatment + more humane view of criminals
Bio explan > inherited criminality evaluation > research support from adoption studies (Crowe, Mednick)
Crowe: adopted children with biological parent with a criminal record had 38% greater risk vs 6% without. Mednick: 15% sons adopted into criminal family became criminals vs 20% whose biological parent is a criminal (suggests interested genes are not significant than environmental factors)
Bio explan > inherited criminality evaluation > explaining non-violent crimes (Blonigen, Findlay)
Can only explain non-violent crimes. Blonigen: found in 600 males and females that personality traits are inherited but criminal behaviour includes non-violent crimes
Bio explan > inherited criminality evaluation > problems with determinist explanations (Tiihonen)
This explanation suggests that genes determine later behaviour. Tiihonen: those with defected MAOA + CDH13 13x more likely to have violent behaviour (means not EVERYONE with gene becomes a criminal). But law doesn't think cause of behaviour is out of a person's control. Biology + environment may make it harder for some to avoid criminal behaviour, determinist view cannot be ruled out
Bio explan > inherited criminality evaluation > brain differences: cause or effect (Harmon)
For genes to cause criminal behaviour, they must be linked to a physical or psychological effect. But a common observation is that criminals report brain injury. Harmon: 8.5% in general population report brain injury vs 60% in prisons (so brain differences are due to nature)
Applying inherited criminality to modifying criminal behaviour: Genetic Engineering
When someone's DNA is altered so undefinable traits are eliminated. Eugenic movement advocates sterilisation of criminals. Now seen as unethical after Nazis gave support.
Bio explan > role of the amygdala > structure and function of the amygdala
Amygdala=cluster of 13 nuclei in medial temporal lobe (part of limbic system). Highly connected to other regions of the brain so has big influence on brain functioning. Plays major role on how we assess+respond to threats (hence determines aggressive behav)
Bio explan > role of the amygdala > amygdala+aggression (Coccaro)
Coccaro Investigated effects of amygdala on aggression by studying those w IED, each partici viewed images of faces (fMRI), found that w IED higher amyg activity when viewing angry faces compared to non IED controls (shows link b/w amyg activity and processing of aggressive emotions). High realism shown in study b/c angry faces are everyday signal of threat.
Bio explan > role of the amygdala > amygdala + fear conditioning (Gao)
Gao children learn to inhibit aggressive behavs thru fear conditioning (agg behav=punishment). Dysfuc amyg means child can't identify social cues that indicate threat, means fear conditioning is disrupted so person is fearless and aggressive. Gao longitudinal, 3y/o fear conditioning tested how much sweat in response to painful noise. Those who committed crime by 23 had no fear conditioning when 3. Sugg causal relationship b/w amyg dysfunc + crim behav
Bio explan > role of the amygdala evaluation > supporting research evidence (Gospic)
Gospic: ultimatum game used to measure aggressive behaviour (proposer offers to split money in fair or unfair way, unfair offer = threat, rejection of offer = agg behav), fMRI of responders showed when rejecting offer amyg activity was heightened, strong evidence for link b/w reactive aggression + increased amyg activity
Bio explan > role of the amygdala evaluation > support from longitudinal studies (Pardini)
Pardini: tester 6-7y/o for aggression showed lower amyg volumes than those w/o high agg levels (found in follow up study 3 years later too), finding cannot be explained by CV because all controlled, this is strong evidence for role of amyg in agg behav (shows differences in amyg volume may predict future)
Bio explan > role of the amygdala evaluation > other brain areas are important (Raine)
Amy's doesn't operate on its own to determine criminal behaviour. Amyg funcs w orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), OFC influences self-control+inhibits aggression. Raine: studies murderers who had reactive (hot blooded) aggression in their crimes, they had high activity in amygdala but low activity in prefrontal cortex (shows more than 1 structure involved in regulating agg behav: amyg, ofc, neural connection b/w them). Idea that only amyg too simplistic
Bio explan > role of the amygdala evaluation > effects of amygdala are indirect
Damage to amyg affects ability to process fear+anxiety related behavs which affects social functioning. Amyg dysunc not direct cause of agg behav but is risk factor instead
Bio explan > role of the amygdala evaluation > changing neurobiology
If crim behav due to biology there's little hope for change. Must find a way of reducing amyg dysfunc. Gesch double blind study on 231 prisoners, some given omega-3 capsules others given placebo, after 2 weeks active intervention group 35% less disciplinary offences than before and 26% less offences than placebo controls, shows bio not necessarily destiny and can be changed if needed
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality
Eysenck theory= traits cluster along 3 innate dimensions. Extroversion= outgoing/get bored easily (introversion). Neuroticism= tend to experience neg emo states rather than positive ones (stability). Psychoticism= aggressive, impulsive, lacking in empathy (normality). Eysenck's personality questionnaire (EPQ) used to assess what type of personality they have
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality > biological basis
Eysenck each trait has bio basis (67% variance in traits due to genetic factors). Extroversion determined by level of arousal in nervous system, under aroused requires more stim vs. over aroused who avoids stim. Neuroticism= level of stability in sympathetic nervous system, neurotic=slightly unstable+easily reacts. Psychoticism= high levels of testosterone (mostly seen in men)
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality > link to criminal behaviour
Extroverts need more arousal so engage in dangerous activities. Neurotics are unstable so overreact in situations of threat. Psychotics are aggressive+lack in empathy. Eysenck criminality=outcome b/w innate personality+socialisation (born w traits but interaction w environ causes development of criminality). Seen in conditioning (wrongdoing=punishment so avoidance of that behav). High in extroversion+neuroticism less easily conditioned so don't learn to avoid antisocial behav.
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality evaluation > support for link b/w personality + criminal behaviour (Dunlop, van Dam)
Dunlop: extroversion, psychoticism+lie scales= good predictors of delinquency. BUT in his study partici wereall students+their friends and he was assessing minor offences so dimensions not truly being measured. Coleta van Dam: only small group of offenders had high scores on all 3 of Eysenck's variables
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality evaluation > research on genetic basis of personality (Zuckerman)
Bio basis supp by twin studies. Zuckerman: +0.52 correlation MZ for neuroticism +0.24 DZ (shows large genetic component), extroversion= +0.51 MZ +0.12 DZ, similar results for psychoticism. Research supp claim of genetic component but not as high as Eysenck claimed. Results may be inflamed b/c MZ treated more similarly
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality evaluation > personality may not be consistent (Feake)
Theory is based on personality but personality is not consistent (personality is consistent but not across all situ). Situational theory supp by Mischel+Feake asked friends, fam, strangers to rate students in situ, found no correlation b/w traits. Sugg idea of crim personality=flawed b/c people don't have 'one' personality
Individual Differences > Eysenck's criminal personality evaluation > personality tests may not be reliable
Label given depends on answers partici provide on EPQ (they are responding to demands of questionnaire). Ppl may give socially desirable answers not truthful, this is countered by lie scales (consistently answering yes on lie scale= dishonest so data is discarded). Personality tests may be good at predicting delinquency but cannot be used to determine who will become a crim
Individual differences > cognitive factors > cognitive distortions
-Form of irrational thinking e.g hostile attribution bias, minimalisation. Results in perception being wrong but person thinks it's accurate.
-Hostile attribution bias leaning towards always thinking the worst e.g. smiles interpreted as smugness, neg interpretations= more aggressive behaviour
-Minimalisation consequences of situ under-exaggerated, explains how offender may reduce neg intepretations after committing crime (leads to not feeling bad abt actions)
Individual differences > cognitive factors > level of moral reasoning (Kohlberg,Hollin)
-Kohlberg interviewed males abt reasons for their moral decisions+made stage theory (people progress thru stages as they mature biologically).
-Linking to crim behav Hollin most criminals at pre-conventional level (breaking law is justified if punishment is avoided or a reward is received. Idea of being at pre-con level fits age of crim responsibility as under 10s cannot be charged b/c don't understand moral responsibility- Kohlberg found 20% age 10 at stage 1 60% at stage 2
Applying cog factors to modify criminal behaviour: Anger Management (CALM)
Based on principles of CBT (change irrational thinking patterns). CALM teaches to monitor+understanding emotions to control anger (assignments, modelling role play used to change thought+behav patterns). Held over 24 session (sessions aim to develop skills that reduce freq+intensity of angering emotions to lessen aggression). One person can deliver to many so reduces costs of delivering programme
Individual differences > cognitive factors evaluation > research support for hostile attribution bias (Schoenberg+Justye)
Schoenberg+Justye ambiguous faces to 55 violent offenders + compared them to controls (non-offenders), offenders more likely to interpret any picture w some anger as an expression of aggression. Misinterpretation may explain aggressive-impulsive behav.
Individual differences > cognitive factors evaluation > research support for minimalisation (Kennedy, Mann)
Kennedy+Grubin sex offenders' accounts downplayed their behav e.g victim contributed to crime, some denied crime. BUT Maruna+Mann say it's normal to blame external sources to protect yourself
Individual differences > cognitive factors evaluation > research support for level of moral reasoning (Kohlberg, Gudjonsson+Sigurdsson)
Colby+Kohlberg sequence of stages is universal (found after carrying it out in different countries). LINK TO CRIM BEHAV Gudjonsson+Sigurdsson used questionnaire to assess 128 male offenders, 38% didn't consider consequences, 36% confident they wouldn't be caught- sugg offenders at pre-con level
Individual differences > cognitive factors evaluation > limitations of Kohlberg's theory (Krebs+Denton, Kohlberg, Gilligan)
The theory considers moral THINKING not behav. Krebs+Denton moral principles might be overridden by prac factors. Kohlberg research only based on male samples. Gilligan sugg theory focused on male perspective (justice rather than caring)
Social psychological > differential association (Sutherland)
Sutherland crim behav can be explained by social learning. Is a sociological theory because sugg ppl are socialised into a life of crime. Idea of theory= ppl vary how much they associate w ppl who have pos or neg attitudes towards crime. Mix w ppl who have favourable attitudes towards crime=will be influenced+have pos attitudes towards crime vs mix w those w less favourable attitudes= will have neg attitude towards crime
Social psychological > differential association > what is learned?
Potential crim has learned pro-crim attitudes (crime is desirable). Type of desirable crime e.g. burglary. Specific methods for crime
Social psychological > differential association > who is it learned from?
Personal groups e.g. fam or peer group. Learned from wider neighbourhood (how much local community supp or opp). Groups May not be crims themselves but may hold an attitude towards criminality
Social psychological > differential association > how is it learned? (Sutherland)
Sutherland freq+length of associations determine how much influence. Sutherland didn't specify mode of learning but likely to be operant (direct or indirect), direct= thru praise+punishment, indirect= copying role models. Social groups have norms to define behav (creates sense of what is normal for ppl to do)
Social psychological > differential association evaluation > role of biological factors (Bowlby)
Bio factors combine w diff association to form a diathesis-stress model e.g. genetic vulnerability predispose so more affected by social environ e.g. early experiences may act as vulnerability. Bowlby emo probs in make child vulnerable to influences in childhood. Social approach on its own may be an insufficient explan
Social psychological > differential association evaluation > major contribution
The theory changed views abt crim behav by highlighting social factors (sugg crime can be explained by social experiences not personality). Has real world implications b/c learning environs can be changed. White collar crimes carried out by middle class-can be best explained by diff association.
Social psychological > differential association evaluation > supporting evidence (Osborn and West, Akers)
Criminality runs in fams. Osborn and West when father has crim conviction, 40%sons committed crime by 18 vs 3%of those w/o crim fathers. Akers biggest drinking+drug influence is from peers (found diff association,diff reinforcement+imitation were the causes of 68% of variance in marijuana use + 55% for alcohol consumption.
Social psychological > differential association evaluation > methodological issues (Cox)
Data collected is correlational so no cause and effect can be seen (could be crims seek out other crims- explaining why crims likely to have crim peers). Cox said the theory isn't testable e.g. how many favourable influences are needed to cause criminality
Social psychological > differential association evaluation > can't account for all types of crime (ONS, Newburn)
Social learning influences only account for smaller crimes not violent ones so diff association only partial account ofcriminality. BUT smaller crimes happen more often e.g. ONS ENG+WAL 500 homicides vs 400k burglaries in 2014. Theory can't explain why crimes are committed by young people. Newburn 40% offences committed by ppl under 21. HOWEVER Eysenck theory has explan for this (younger ppl have bigger desire for risk taking)
Social psychological > gender socialisation > patterns of socialisation (Sutherland)
Socialisation=where you learn norms and skills for participating in society. Sutherland claimed that during socialisation boys are encouraged to be risk takers whereas girls are not. These differences lead to more young men becoming crims b/c more opportunity to commit crime
Social psychological > gender socialisation > role models (Cohen, Oakley)
Learn abt gender behavs thru observation of role models. Key role models for boys=dad vs. for girls=mum. Cohen more difficult for boys b/c less access to fathers so they rebel against socialisation offered by their mothers + they seek out peers that demonstrate masculine behavs (these behavs lead to crim behav). Oakley thin line b/w masculinity+criminality
Social psychological > gender socialisation > differences in social control (Heidensohn)
Patriarchal societies have graeter control over women so reduces the opps for women to commit crime. Heidensohn women controlled at home, work and in public e.g daughters not able to stay out as late so develop socialising opps at home e.g. sleepovers. In workplace, 'glass ceiling' prevents women rising to higher positions so fewer opps. Media reports crimes that increase female fear to be out of home so they stay at home (so less opps to commit).
Social psychological > gender socialisation > feminism creates social control (Adler)
Adler Liberation Thesis- as women become more liberated female crime should increase. Although small rise in female crime, still big diff in numbers b/w male and female crime (this challenges idea that social control could explain gender diffs
Applying explanation to modify criminal behaviour: Man Up Project
Males could be socialised differently to reduce crim behav (males could be exposed to more female strategies of socialisation). Man Up Project aims to challenges attitudes of men as a result of needing to fulfil stereotypes. Nop credible research to back up but anecdotal reports have been pos.
Social psychological > gender socialisation evaluation > chivalry hypothesis (Pollak)
Women commit more than stats suggest. Those in crim justice system tend to be men who have been socialised to act in a chivalrous way towards women. Pollak men have protective attitude towards women so women less likely to be prosecuted. Gender of crim justice system responsible for levels of females in crime stats.
Social psychological > gender socialisation evaluation > men are less likely to be punished (Carlen)
Justice system biased AGAINST women. Carlen assessment of character in relation to gender roles rather than severity of crime is what determines their sentence. Males commit more severe crimes but are let off lightly as they're only breaking expectations for their gender whereas females are breaking expected gender roles. Challenges chivalry hypothesis and differences in numbers of males and females in prisons is greater than rates suggests
Social psychological > gender socialisation evaluation > hormones in males (Dabbs)
Gender difference explained by bio rather than social factors. Testosterone (linked to aggression) found in men at higher level so men more agg. Dabbs inmates w lower testosterone levels had committed non-violent crimes vs high testosterone= violent crimes- sugg testosterone linked to increased aggression + differences in socialisation not only factors for crim behav of males and females
Social psychological > gender socialisation evaluation > hormones in females (Eriksson)
Females less likely to demo crim behav b/c higher levels of hormones that promote social behav. Oestradiol (promotes empathy which is lacking in crims) found in higher levels in females. Eriksson found neg correlation/w oestradiol levels + testosterone-related violent aggression. Sugg male+female hormones have role in crim behavs- in men hormones increase crim behav but in females hormones reduce crim behav.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management > anger in prisoners
Criminals tend to think in irrational ways (e.g. hostile attribution bias), neg interpretations= increased anger+increased likelihood of crim behav.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management > key aims (Novaco)
To change the way a person handles anger and aggression (can change way they think about situ thus change behav). Novaco 3 key aims of prog: 1)cog restructuring (greater awareness+control over neg thoughts) 2)regulation of arousal 3)behavioural strategies to help control anger e.g. withdrawal
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management > stress inoculation model (Novaco)
Produced by Novaco, is a form of CBT. Aims to prevent agg thoughts that elad to violent behav. 3 steps: 1)Conceptualisationclients learn abt anger+identify possible triggers) 2)Skill acquisition taught skills to help manage anger, taught how to comm more effectively 3)Application apply skills thru role play (later in real world)
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management > examples of anger management programmes with offenders (Ireland, Trimble)
Ireland assessed effectiveness of anger management in 87 male offenders. 50 out of 87 given therapy+were compared to controls, 92% w treatment had improved no change in controls. Trimble reported on prog w 105 offenders on probation+ found prog reduced expression of anger+amount of anger experienced
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > success of anger management programmes (Taylor+Novaco, Lipsey, Howells)
Taylor+Novaco 75% improvement rates (based on 6 meta-analyses). Lipsey CBT thatfocused on anger management significantly improved effectiveness of therapy. BUT Howells cites 5 meta analyses that show only moderate benefits of prog.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > limitations of anger management programmes (Blacker)
CBT not for everyone (some offenders don't like to reflect on their thinking style so may drop out). Blacker drama-based courses that are less reliant on verbal ability more effective. Research shows that way to crop w dropout rate is to assess 'readiness to change' before prog. Might be that anger management progs better as part of wider therapeutic approach
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > relationship b/w anger, agg and crime (Loza-Fanous)
If anger doesn't contribute to aggression then anger management=irrelevant. Loza-Fanous no diff b/w violent+non-violent offenders in terms of anger. Research linking anger+crime based on lab studies w poor validity. Due to prog, offenders may attribute behavs to anger not taking responsibility. Violence can occur w/o anger so targeting anger won't reduce criminality
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > ethical implications > therapist conflict
Conflict b/w therapist's duty of confidentiality to client and their duty to law. Client may reveal info that should be reported but would damage trust b/w therapist+client
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > ethical implications > no voluntary consent
In many cases offenders are required to take part in prog as condition of probation. Cost to valid consent should be weighed against benefits to society
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > social implications > financial implications
Recidivism costs £9.5 billion per year, therapy may reduce recidivism (obvious economic benefits).
Methods of modifying behaviour > Anger management evaluation > social implications > benefits for prison environment
Reducing anger levels in prisons will make them a less hostile atmosphere
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice
Involves comm w victim (writing letter or face to face). Offenders offered restorative justice as alt to prison sentence if victim has agreed.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice > aims of RJ
Rehabilitation of offenders victim can explain real impact of crime, offender may learn to take perspective of others, offender encouraged to take responsibility, requires crim's active participation so may change their attitude towards crime. Atonement for wrongdoing offender may show understanding of effects of their offence (develop empathy), offender may offer compensation.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice > victim's perspective
Can reduce sense of victimisation. No longer powerless+has a voice. May develop greater understanding of offender (reduces victim's sense of being harmed)
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice > a theory of RJ (McCold)
Wachtel+McCold focus of RJ should be on relationships not punishment =. Early model of RJ only focused on victim offender whereas recent ideas focus on effect on wider community. 3 'stakeholders' must be involved for successful RJ: victim (seeks REPARATION), offender (must take RESPONSIBILITY), community (aims to achieve RECONCILIATION). 1 stakeholder= partly restorative, 2=mostly, 3=full restoration
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice > differences between RJ and custodial sentencing
RJ= less emphasis on punishment or deterring criminality (more on building relationships+understanding), more emphasis on reintroduction of offenders back into society rather than removal of them, to address failure of custodial sentencing to reduce recidivism
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > victim's perspective (UK RJ Council, Somerset, Dignan)
Evidence for RJ being beneficial. UK RJ Council 65% satisfaction from victims in face-to-face meetings w their offenders. Somerset 92.5% satisfaction rate for victims of a violent crime. Dignan victims claim greater satisfaction than going thru mainstream courts.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > reduced offending (Sherman+Strong)
Goal of reducing crime rates+helping victims recover achieved. Sherman+Strong reviewed 20 meetings (all indicated lower reoffending rates). Reoffending rates of face-to-face RJ=11% vs matched imprisoned group=37%
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > which offenders + which victims (Zehr)
RJ can't be used on all offenders. Offender must admit the crime BUT Zehr claims RJ can take place w/o the offender. Some kinds of crime may not be suitable. Some victims may decline the offer. Therefore cannot be a global solution to dealing w crim behav
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > social implications > financial implications (UK RJ Council)
Aim of RJ= to reduce prison popu. UK RJ Council reduced reoffending means £8 saved for every £1 spent on restorative process.
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > social implications > wider approach in community
RJ should include the wider community. 'Peace Circles' have been developed to welcome victim into circle of mutual understanding- everyone sits in circle, talking piece handed around so can speak uninterrupted, community offers supp to victim
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > ethical implications > offender's perspective
Offender also feels 'understood.' RJ needs to be balanced+ensure benefit to both victim+offender+avoidance of harm Victims may try to shame offender (not intention of process)-intended to provide mutual benefits so
Methods of modifying behaviour > Restorative justice evaluation > ethical implications > victim's perspective
Psychological harm could occur. Victim may feel no justice was served and crim is taking advantage of the system to avoid sentence. Victim may feel embarrassed.
Bio expla > role of the amygdala evaluation > effects of amyg are indirect
Damage to amyg effects ability to process fear + anxiety related behavs which affects social functioning. Amyg dysfunc not direct cause of agg behav but is risk factor instead
Bio expla > role of the amygdala evaluation > changing neurobiology (Gesch)
If criminal behaviour due to biology there's little hope for change. Must find a way of reducing amyg dysfunc. Gesch: double blind study on 231 prisoners, some given omega 3 capsules others given placebo, after 2 weeks active intervention group 35% less disciplinary offences than before and 26% less offences than placebo controls, shows biology not necessarily destiny
Sets found in the same folder