Criminal Psychology PDF

Criminal Psychology Defining criminal behaviour Criminal behaviour is defined as an act which is against the law. However, there are many laws and many different types of crimes. Psychologists are more interested in more serious crimes, where the offender is different from law abiding people. Ac...

Criminal Psychology Defining criminal behaviour Criminal behaviour is defined as an act which is against the law. However, there are many laws and many different types of crimes. Psychologists are more interested in more serious crimes, where the offender is different from law abiding people. Acquisitive Taking money/belongings without Theft consent/knowledge of owners fraud Anti Social Causing harassment/distress to people who are Drunk and not part of family disorderly Smoking in public Drug related Trading or use of illegal substances Supplying/buying drugs Sexual Making someone else submit to a sexual act Rape against their consent Child porn Violent Causing physical harm/death to others Physical assault murder There are two arguments to crime - biological (nature) and social (environmental/nurture) Some people believe that criminal behaviour is subjective rather than objective - it is a social construct meaning society determines what is considered criminal. E.g. euthanasia in UK is illegal, legal in the US Age of consent varies across countries - 13 in Japan, 16 in UK - legal for 13 year old to have sex in Japan but not UK Distinction of acceptable behaviour is based on norms (acceptable standards of behaviour). Deviation from norms can be labelled as a crime, e.g. walking around naked is indecent exposure Norms are based on what the majority of people do - drug dealing breaks norms as only a minority do it, therefore illegal. Abortion was illegal in the UK until late 1960s - society became more tolerant. Shows the role of culture in defining anti-social behaviour - more anti smoking laws in UK compared to the past, and new use of technology creates new laws - copyright law against pirating 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️ SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY This theory proposes the idea that we learn all our behaviour from others, this can be used to explain criminal behaviour Theory states that there are people we identify as role models in our lives (e.g. batman) These are people we look up to and respect (batmann my hero) - family, peers, people/characters in media). We go through a process of identification where we want to become the person (I AM BATMAN), we watch and try to copy them. These processes are called observation and imitation SLT states that vicarious reinforcement plays a role in criminal behaviour - when we observe others being rewarded for their behaviour, we will imitate their behaviour because we think it will reward us too, as we have an incentive. However, we may not always be rewarded when we imitate the behaviour, we may be caught and punished - this consequence acts as a deterrent If the behaviour is copied and followed by a reward, this is called direct reinforcement. It is likely we will repeat this behaviour so we can be rewarded repeatedly. This is how a behaviour becomes established. Behaviour can be strengthened through continual reinforcement, if this is established as a habit then the behaviour becomes internalised meaning it has become part of the person's behaviour - it is habitual. This means people engage in criminal activities regardless of the consequences REMEMBER TO CONTEXTUALISE TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR Criticisms of the SLT SLT only focuses on the role of nurture, and ignores the role of nature in explaining criminal behaviour Some argue that there may be a biological tendency to commit crime The theory does not explain how criminal behaviour started in the first place SLT does not tell us the origins of criminal behaviour and how people came to commit crimes The theory does not account for people who turn to crime even though they have not been exposed to criminal role models Evidence suggests there are individuals with good upbringings that commit crime If SLT is true then it should be easy to reduce crime Criminal behaviour should be reduced by receiving punishment as it acts as a deterrent, however, many still reoffend despite this suggesting that it is in their nature to be criminal Nature/nurture The theories in criminal psychology topic contrast each other - SLT focuses on the biological side, Eysenck focuses on the environmental side. Nature states that our behaviour and personality are inherited Nurture states that we are born as a blank slate and all of our behaviour and personality characteristics are developed through our interactions with the environment However, it is now accepted that they do not work independently of each other → Genetic Predispositions Require Environmental Triggers – A person may have a genetic tendency for high intelligence, but without proper education and stimulation, they may not reach their full potential. ​ Epigenetics – Environmental factors (e.g., diet, stress, upbringing) can switch genes on or off, influencing how inherited traits are expressed. ​ Sensitive Periods in Development – Some traits (like language acquisition) are biological but depend on early exposure and learning experiences. ​ Social and Cultural Influences – While genetics may influence personality traits like extroversion or introversion, social interactions, culture, and upbringing influence these traits Basically, use list above to support 13 marker if asking you to compare criminal psych to theory/study linked to nature/nurture Core study — Cooper and Mackie- study into transmission of aggression through video games (1986) Background ​ Study was investigating whether video games encourage aggressive behaviour in children during when they were relatively new ​ Also investigating whether videogames had more of an effect on violent behaviour as they were more active ​ Investigated gender differences in the effects of violent behaviour ​ Effect of watching someone else playing a videogame rather than playing it yourself Hypothesis Predicted that playing an aggressive videogame compared to other types of games would lead to increased aggression in children (directional hypothesis) Method >Design Researchers used a lab experiment (highly controlled, standardised, consistent, reliable) using an independent measures design. IV is what type of game is being played/observed and DV measured aggression levels after playing/watching game Sample 84 nine to eleven year olds from the suburbs of New Jersey USA. Parents had provided consent to take part (no ethical issues) Materials, procedure Chidlren were put into pairs of same sex&age. One would play game while other would observer, and then they would switch Violent video games Missile command was the aggressive video game played (high validity as rated to be aggressive by other group of children) in the CONDITION 1 Non violent video games Pac man was the non aggressive videogame as other group of children has given it a low rating, played in CONDITION 2 Paper and Pen maze games Star Wars / Tron was played in CONDITION 3. This acted as the CONTROL CONDITION All participants had 2 minutes to familiarise and 8 minutes to play with the game. One of each pair was taken to either the playroom or test room (controls extraneous variables) Playroom Aggressive, active, skill and quiet toy in playroom - which one child played with was recorded by researcher in room Test room Children performed 2 buzzer pressing tests - longer they pressed buzzer the longer a hypothetical badly behaving child would be punished for / well behaving child would be rewarded This measured their interpersonal aggression levels - difference in duration of punishment and reward After both observations children were swapped around - counterbalancing Results 61% of participants reported to having videogames at home prior to study - more boys than girls ​ Participants in the aggressive video game condition spent more time playing with the aggressive toy than participants of other 2 conditions. Affects more girls than boys. ​ Boys spent more time playing with aggressive toy overall but this was not affected by game played ​ Type of game played has no effect on interpersonal aggression (buzzer punishment pressing) ​ Some children showed higher levels of aggression playing than observing game ​ Boys performed better in violent game compared to girls and enjoyed it more.` ​ Conclusion Playing/watching aggressive video games being played has an impact on aggressive behaviour of girls - due to imitation + they had less exposure to violent video games so reacted with greater arousal. Playing aggressive games led to disinhibition effects as they felt more socially acceptable to play with aggressive toy Aggressive videogames had no impact on personal aggression - aggression towards objects in games and aggression towards people were different (children knew difference between fiction and reality) Overall supported SLT as imitation of aggression Criticisms Sample was biased so it is hard to make generalisations Age bias as only 9-11 year olds, culturally biased as only in USA Low ecological validity The study does not mirror playing games leisurely, as it is under an artificial setting with strict time conditons. This could be improved by being conducted in an arcade where the aggression levels may be stronger or weaker, as ecological validity increases Low construct validity There were two different measures of aggression - one in video games and one not in games. By taking a broader measure of aggression over a longer duration of time, this improves construct validity There were a number of extraneous variables within the experiment E.g. did not control experience of children in game, children may have had different levels of engagement Only the immediate effects of aggressive videogames were tested Games may influence aggression over time, it may take time for aggressive behaviour to be imitated and internalised (SLT terms) Eysenck’s Criminal personality theory → biological basis Eysenck’s CPT (imma abbreviate to this dont do in exam) views criminal behaviour as more fixed, and people are born with the impulse to behave criminally. (fixed behaviour) He developed Eysenck Personality Questionnaire This is used to measure for 3 personality traits Criminal personality = high on all 3 scales Any references to brain in criminal personality MUST be linked to Eysencks CPT 3 personality traits Extraversion People who score highly on extraversion are outgoing, sociable and confident. Often thrill seekers/seek stimulation from environment which can be found through criminal activity The RAS (reticular activation system) is a key part of the CNS (central nervous system). It is part of the brainstem that link the brain and spinal cord and regulates stimuli to the cerebral cortex (responsible for higher level cognitive functions like decision making) People high on extraversion have a lower baseline of stimuli in the RAS so their cerebral cortex is underaroused, so they seek external stimulation through criminal behaviour - small stimulus for large response They also have a more active dopamine reward system so will positively reinforce criminal behaviour as it is more desirable Neuroticism People who score highly on neuroticism have a higher tendency to experience negative emotions like anxiousness/anger. They are less emotionally stable Neurotics seek criminal behaviours as they provide immediate relief for high anxiety levels - this reinforces the behaviour and creates a pattern The ANS (autonomic nervous system) regulates the limbic system (responsible for emotions and feelings). People with neuroticism have a more reactive ANS so they respond strongly to stressors, leading to heightened emotional responses causing a feedback loop. With intense negative emotions, this can lead to hostile and violent behaviour. Psychoticism People who score highly on psychoticism are impulsive, antisocial (aggressive+selfish) and are hard to condition. People with these characteristics are much more likely to commit crimes as they struggle to fit into society Psychoticism is associated with an excess of dopaminergic neurons in the brain, resulting in an overproduction of dopamine in the nervous system. This excess dopamine reduces impulse inhibition by the prefrontal cortex during synaptic transmission, making individuals more prone to acting on impulse leading to criminal behaviour Conditioning Individuals with high levels of extraversion and neuroticism (neurotic extroverts) are more difficult to condition, as they struggle to form negative associations between criminal behaviour and its consequences. This reduced sensitivity to punishment makes them less likely to learn from past experiences, increasing impulsivity and risk-taking. As a result, they may be more resistant to early socialisation and the development of prosocial behaviours. However, having these traits only increase the chances of becoming a criminal, they do not cause. Criticisms Eysenck’s theory ignores individual differences. He views all criminals as having the same personality type, this is an overgeneralization. They may have different reasons for turning to crime, so may share different personalities Eysenck’s theory is too deterministic He states to criminal personality is mostly genetic, however evidence suggest that criminals can be rehabilitated, so criminals can be in control of their actions Critics argue that the concept of psychoticism is limited in usefulness, Eysenck suggests it directly causes criminal behaviour. This may contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where individuals labelled as high in psychoticism internalise this expectation Although Eysenck considers both nature and nurture, there is not enough explanation on nurture To prevent neurotic extroverts from turning to crime, greater emphasis should be placed on developing effective conditioning strategies Heaven CPT research into delinquency, extraversion, psychoticism and self esteem (1996) Background Heaven recognised there was an association between Eysenck’s 3 traits and criminal behaviour and explored it further. High N low E were officially convicted, High E low N self reported high levels of crime Hypothesis Measures of extraversion, psychoticism and self esteem would be significant predictions for self reported delinquency Design Carried out a longitudinal study to investigate whether P, E and SE were significant predictors of self reported delinquency between span of 2 years (Time 1 and Time 2) Self esteem rather than neuroticism was investigated due to higher credibility as there were doubt on how well neuroticism could predict criminal behaviour Sample 282 adolescents (146 female 136 male) from 2 independent CATHOLIC schools in New South Wales Australia. 13-15 years old when study began, modal age was 14. Had right to withdraw Materials Questions from EPQ Self esteem questionnaire Self reported delinquency likert scale questionnaire Procedure All 3 questionnaires were checked for internal reliability and scored well apart from psychoticism Participants followed up after 2 years, 20% attrition rate (REDUCES VALIDITY + DIVERSITY OF SAMPLE) Completed questionnaires in class time, assured of confidentiality and individual responses will not be seen by school authorities Results ​ There was a positive correlation between psychoticism and delinquency in Time 1 and 2, this supports data from previous studies —> psychoticism is the best predictor of delinquency ​ Extraversion had a weal [positive correlation with delinquency in time 2 ​ There was no significant correlation between self esteem and delinquency ​ Males had higher delinquency scores at Time 1 and 2 of study Conclusion Heaven concluded that 3 personality traits only partially explained variance in delinquency, evidence for their influence was quite weak Psychological factors (nurture) e.g. peer pressure from classmates, parents disciplinary style could influence delinquency Nurture has a stronger influence than nature on whether an individual will become a delinquent. Criticisms The sample was biased Sample only consistent of children from Roman Catholic schools in Australia, patterns may only be seen in this religion and Australian population. Results may also have been affected by age bias as only conducted research on adolescents, delinquency starts at earlier age than that 20% attrition rate may have biased the results The ones that have dropped out may represent particular types of people more than others, e.g. already engaged in criminal behaviour. This affects the validity of the results The use of self report can lead to invalid data There may have been social desirability bias as people may not trust the confidentiality of the questionnaire to be honest about their delinquency The use of closed questions can be criticised for lack of construct validity It does not give an overview of results as all data is quantitative, focus is too narrow to explain complex behaviour like link between criminal personality and delinquency Application If the true cause of criminal and antisocial behaviour is established, it can be reduced Punishments and deterrents SLT states that criminal behaviour is reinforced because it is rewarding, so if it is punished it is associated with a negative outcome so it acts as a deterrent Prisons act as a deterrent as they take away the freedom, rights and privileges of the criminal as they live in poor conditions, this discourages them from committing criminal behaviour in the future. Fines are used for minor crimes, money is an incentive so the risk of losing it acts as a deterrent Community sentences are a more recent form of punishment. Offenders make a payment back to society by giving up their time to contribute. It is made obvious to the public so offenders feel shame and guilt All if these are based on SLT → people will not want to commit crimes as there are deterrents, this acts as vicarious reinforcement against crime Rehabilitation The concept of rehabilitation is to reeducate offenders so they unlearn their criminal ways and act pro socially instead. Restorative justice is a practice where an offender is given the opportunity to meet with the victim of their crime, allowing them to understand the impact of their actions and potentially take responsibility to repair the harm caused, aiming for reconciliation rather than just punishment. Both sides (victim + offender) have to agree to this. This brings them into the community rather than isolating them (e.g. prison) Positive role models are individuals who exhibit prosocial behaviors and values, offenders observe this and find the behaviour rewarding (e.g. respect/trust from society) and believe that they can be good citizens in society. Used alongside punishment in prisons to reform criminals —> e.g. in training programmes where they are taught social skills