Evaluation points for Turning to Crime

I may be posting more of these, so keep checking back. If you have any other suggestions for the blog, leave a comment! 

S = strength, W =weakness

? = potentially

UPBRINGING

-          Situational perspective (S=useful for government, W=reductionist)

-          Nurture perspective (S=easier to change than biology, W=ignores biology)

-          Determinist explanation (S=follows scientific laws as in physics, may encourage rehabilitation rather than punishment, W=ignores freewill, how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)

-          Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic of relationship between factors, may not be valid)

-          Runs in families; not necessarily upbringing (S=easier to change environment than biology, W=may not have face validity)

-          For maximum validity, studies testing this explanation need to be longitudinal (S=more in-depth, track development, W=attrition, observer bias, ethics)

COGNITION

-          Dispositional perspective (S=suggests therapy may be useful, W=reductionist)

-          Doesn’t specify nature or nurture; could be both (S=holistic, W=unknown cause?)

-          Soft deterministic as it suggests that cognitions determine behaviour but we have some freewill over our cognitions (S=more holistic, W=to what extent can we blame the individual?)

-          Cognitions aren’t observable (S=more complex than behaviourist approach, accepts that people have individual differences, W=subjective, non-scientific, may be invalid)

-          Somewhat more holistic as cognition can be influenced by situation as well as nature and nurture (S=likely to be valid as it looks at a variety of factors, W=still reductionist in that biology and upbringing tend to be overlooked, may not enable causality so may be less useful)

-          Relies on self-report (S=allows for attitudes and cognitions to be accessed, qualitative and quantitative data, W=validity may be poor due to demand characteristics, lying, and misinterpretation etc.)

BIOLOGY

-          Deterministic (S= follows scientific laws as in physics, may encourage treatment rather than punishment, W=ignores freewill, how can we punish people for something they didn’t choose)

-          Reliance on correlation (S=more ethical than manipulating biology, W=causality; how do we know whether brain dysfunction/genes/serotonin is a cause or result of criminal behaviour?)

-          Reductionist (S=easier to understand, helps us to determine causality and importance of individual factors, W=ignores dynamic of relationship between factors, may not be valid)

-          Nature approach (S=more scientific, observable, objective, W=harder to rehabilitate, reductionist)

All the studies and theories for G543 (the ones I'm using)

Some people have been asking how many studies I've learnt, so I've put them all down here. It's also a bit of a reference point to see whether you're familiar with them or if you need to revise some sections more than others.

Forensic Psychology

Turning to crime

Upbringing - disrupted families [Juby and Farrington], differential association theory (learning from others) [Akers], poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods [Wikstrom and Tafel]

Cognition – criminal thinking patterns, [Yochelson and Samenow] moral development, social cognition (attribution) [both use Palmer and Hollin]

Biology – brain dysfunction [Raine], genes and serotonin [Brunner], gender [Daly and Wilson]

Making a case

Interviewing witnesses – recognising faces [Bruce], influencing factors (weapon focus)[Loftus] , cognitive interview [Fisher]

Interviewing suspects – detecting lies [Mann], interrogation techniques [Inbau], false confessions [Gudjonsson]

Creating a profile – top down [Mokros and Alison], bottom up [Copson], case study of John Duffy [Canter]

After a Guilty Verdict

Imprisonment – Planned behaviours [Gillis and Nafekh], depression/suicide risk [Dooley], prison situation and roles [Haney and Zimbardo]

Alternatives to imprisonment – probation [Mair and May], restorative justice [Sherman and Strang], looking death worthy [Eberhardt]

Treatment programmes – cognitive skills [Friendship], anger management [Ireland] and ear acupuncture [Wheatley]

Health and Clinical Psychology

Stress

Causes of stress – work [Johansson], hassles [Kanner], lack of control [Geer and Maisel]

Measures of stress – self report [Kanner], physiological [Geer and Maisel], combined approach [Johansson]

Managing stress – stress inoculation therapy [Meichenbaum], biofeedback [Budzynski], social support [Waxler-Morrison]

Dysfunctional behaviour/Disorders

Diagnosing dysfunctional behaviour – definitions [Rosenhan and Seligman], DSM, gender bias [Ford and Widiger]

Explanations of dysfunctional behaviour/disorders – faulty thinking (cognitive) [Beck], learned/positive reinforcements (behavioural) [Lewinson], serotonin and genes (biological) [Wender]

Treatments of dysfunctional behaviour/disorders – rational emotive therapy (cognitive) [Beck], CBT/behavioural activation (behavioural) [Lewinson], drug therapy (biological) [Karp and Frank]

Note that the two Beck studies and two Lewinson studies are different studies. The explanations one refers to studies where Beck interviewed patients with depression to see what cognitive distortions they shared, and Lewinson looked at positive reinforcements in the lives of depressed participants. In the treatments studies, Beck compares drug therapy and cognitive therapies, whilst Lewinson sees whether a "coping with depression" course coupled with parents being taught how to reinforce good behaviour is studied. 

Gender as a cause of crime

Evolutionary psychology, a branch of biological psychology, attempts to explain our behaviour in terms of evolved survival instincts, often revolving around reproduction.

Daly and Wilson were the first to refer to evolution as an explanation for why some turn to crime. They found that most murders are of young males and committed by young males, and explained this in terms of it being the result of extreme competition for women and status between young, unmarried and unemployed men; they were competing for survival. They claimed this explained why this demographic formed a disproportionate amount of the prison population, especially for violent crimes – that males committed more crimes because their ancestors’ role of hunter and protector predisposes them to more risky behaviour than females. 

Study: Daly and Wilson conducted a study, based on their initial findings and theories, which aimed to investigate the link between homicide rates and life expectancy in different areas of Chicago. They conducted a cross-sectional correlation study using data from police records, government records, school records and local demographic records. Daly and Wilson found much variation between homicide rates in different areas of Chicago, with a strong negative correlation between life expectancy and homicide rates. Another key finding was that school absenteeism also negatively correlated with life expectancy, and thus Daly and Wilson concluded that young men from disadvantaged neighbourhoods were expected to live shorter lives, and thus became more likely to engage in risky behaviour such as crime.

Genes and Serotonin

Crime has been found to run in families, but this does not necessarily mean that nurture is responsible for crime. 

One biological explanation of crime is that some people may be predisposed to crime as they differ in terms of genes and serotonin levels. Low levels of serotonin have been associated with mood disorders and aggressive impulsive acts, as serotonin is involved in brain development, whilst some psychologists have claimed that inheriting certain genes or combinations may predispose someone to crime. 


Study: Brunner et al. conducted a case study of a Dutch family upon request of females in the family who were concerned about the behaviour of the males.

5 affected males were involved in the case study, all of whom were affected by borderline mental retardation and tendencies of abnormal violent behaviour including attempted rape and arson.  Urine samples were taken and analysed from the sample, from which Brunner et al found disturbed monoamine metabolism associated with a deficit of MAO A. A mutation in the X chromosome was also identified, which explained why no females were affected as the XX genetic make-up counteracted the mutation. 

MAO A is involved in serotonin metabolism, and thus Brunner et al concluded that the impairment of this gene was the cause of the mental retardation as well as their aggressive behaviour. 

Brain dysfunction theory

The brain dysfunction theory of why people turn to crime emphasises the role of brain dysfunction. 

Much of the behaviour that makes us "civilised", such as self-control and maturity, are controlled by the pre-frontal cortex area of the frontal lobe. Damage to this area is thought to  result in dysfunctional behaviour such as crime. 

Various research has shown that poor functioning in the temporal lobe, such as in the hippocampus, can lead to people not learning from experience, whilst poor functioning in the amygdala has been associated with altered emotionality and outbursts of negative emotion such as anger. There has been significant association between brain dysfunction and murderers, though it is not known if there is a causality between the two and in which direction this might be. 

Study: Raine et al.

41 murderers who'd been referred to the researchers pending their NGRI pleas were involved in this study. They had a range of mental disorders including schizophrenia. There were also 41 age, gender and mental health matched controls.

Participants were injected with a tracer which attached itself to a glucose molecule to enable a PET scan to determine levels of activity in different areas of the brain. Participants were then asked to complete a 32 minute task involving concentrating on targets. 

The results showed reduced glucose metabolism in the pre-frontal cortex of the murderers' brains. The pre-frontal cortex has been associated with impulsivity, and could explain this aspect of criminality. There were also abnormal asymmetries in the limbic area. Two key areas of difference were the amygdala (which is responsible for the managing of emotions) and hippocampus (responsible for learning), which could further enhance our understanding of why some people kill whilst others do not. 

Turning to Crime: COGNITION

There's three sections to the Cognition explanation of turning to crime, but they can be illustrated with just two studies:

- Criminal thinking patterns (Yochelson and Samenow)
- Moral development (Palmer and Hollin)
- Social cognition: Attribution theory (Palmer and Hollin)

Criminal thinking patterns
Yochelson and Samenow propose that criminals offend because it's an attribute of their personality. They believe that they have over forty distinct and erroneous thinking errors that distinguish them from non-offenders, characterised by fear and a distorted self-image. They denied that criminals act impulsively, and proposed that they made rational decisions, but that these were biased by the criminal thinking patterns which resulted in their crimes. They also emphasized that personality develops over a lifetime, but that parent-child interaction was an important influential factor on criminality. 

Yochelson and Samenow
255 male offenders judged NGRI who were residing in a psychiatric hospital in the US were interviewed using a Freudian therapeutic style interview. Though attrition was high, Yochelson and Samenow concluded that criminals did display erroneous thought patterns which could explain their criminal behaviour. They separated the thinking errors into three categories. The first was "criminal thinking patterns" which were characterised by fear, which included errors such as a need for power and control. The second was "automatic thinking errors", which included denial of responsibility or guilt. The final error identified was "crime-related thinking errors", such as optimistic fantasies of criminal acts. It was concluded that they act rationally, but their distorted self-image and thinking errors cause distortions in judgement and criminal behaviour. 

Moral development
One theory of why some people turn to crime emphasizes the role of moral development. Kohlberg devised a stage theory of moral development, based on the Piaget's work. It outlined that there are three levels to moral development, each containing two stages. The first level is pre-conventional morality, which is where children tend to be at. Their morality is driven by reward, punishment and self-interest. "Conventional" level is where most people fall into; their morals are driven by society, law and conformity. Post-conventional level is seen as potentially an ideal that many do not reach, consisting of universal laws which supersede actual laws. Some have argued that criminals offend due to only being in stage 1 or 2 and thus driven by self-interest, and avoiding being punished.

Social cognition: Attribution theory
Social cognition refers to how we think about others around us, and a key part of this is attribution theory. Cognitive psychologists believe that we attribute our own behaviour to the situation, but others' behaviour to their disposition, particularly when they are negative or undesirable. For example, if we are in a bad mood, we may blame someone else, or the weather, but if someone else is in a bad mood, we assume they are being hostile or are generally grouchy. Attribution theory might explain criminal behaviour in terms of criminals incorrectly attributing more hostile behaviours to disposition, and thus they feel like they can justify being anti-social and committing offences because they feel victimized or an outcast anyway.

Both of these theories could be used with:

Palmer and Hollin
Palmer and Hollin aimed to investigate the relationships between moral reasoning, attribution theory and other cognitive processes amongst young male offenders and non-offenders. Their sample consisted of 97 convicted male offenders aged between 13 and 21 and 77 non-offenders aged between 12 and 24; all were from the Midlands area. Data was collected psychometric tests. The sociomoral reflection measure tested moral reasoning by asking questions such as to the importance of promises, which gave the participants a level and stage of moral reasoning according to Kohlberg’s theory. Participants were also given scenarios where they were to attribute intent to others' behaviour. The other psychometric tests assessed perceptions of parenting including rejection and an SRD checklist of 46 offences. One of the key findings was that offenders were more likely to have less mature moral reasoning, whilst there was also a common theme of perceiving parental, particularly paternal, rejection, as well as criminals making more incorrect attributions of hostility. The researchers argued the latter two to be significant predictors for SRD scores.

Poverty and Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods

Government records have shown that the most disadvantaged 5% of society are 100 times more likely to have multiple problems, including police contact and substance abuse, than the most advantaged 50% in society.

Thus, one explanation of why some people turn to crime is that it's due to upbringing in poverty or a disadvantaged neighbourhood.

This theory is most often associated with crimes such as theft, violence and anti-social behaviour. Theft is probably best explained with this theory, because those who are in poverty may need to steal to have money to buy necessities. 

Study: Wikstrom and Tafel conducted a cross-sectional study of 2000 Year 10 students (aged 14-15) from Peterborough. It was a self-report study using questionnaires and criminal records to see why people might offend. The research found that 45% of males and 30.6% of females in the study had committed at least one of the following crimes: vandalism, shoplifting, violence, car theft and burglary. Other findings included that victims of crime were also more likely to be offenders, especially where violence was concerned, and that there are considered to be 3 types of offenders:

1. Propensity-induced (commit because they want to)
2. Lifestyle-dependent (commit because they feel they have to)
3. Situationally-limited (commit very rarely)

Differential Association theory (Learning from others)

Edwin H. Sutherland proposed "differential association theory" as one explanation as to why people turn to crime. 

Differential association is a behaviourist theory, which is also referred to as a "learning from others" theory as it is closely associated with Bandura's social learning theory. 

Essentially, the theory works on the principle that if someone is exposed to more "pro-criminal" attitudes than "pro-social" attitudes then they will exhibit criminality.

Sutherland suggested that criminality is learnt through significant exposure to criminal norms from intimate peer groups and the family environment, rather than through television or neighbourhoods in general. "Exposure to criminal norms" encompasses not only knowing criminals and being taught their techniques, but merely being exposed to pro-criminal attitudes, which could come in the form of parents complaining about the government and inequality, or friends breaking school rules or smoking under-age. 

Study: Akers et al. attempted to test differential association, and look at the most important factors in determining why some teenagers abuse alcohol and marijuana, and why some don't. It was a cross-sectional study of 2500 13-18 year olds, and used self-report to gather data; largely in the form of questionnaires. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyse the data. Aspects of differential association theory accounted for 68% of the variance in marijuana taking behaviour, and 55% of the variance in drinking behaviour. Two main factors which appeared to be significantly linked with drinking and marijuana behaviour were differential peer association and imitation index. 

Disrupted Families

David Farrington proposed an upbringing theory of why some people turn to crime by explaining the role of "disrupted families". 

He explains that essentially, socialisation in a family that has been significantly disrupted in some way, due to occurrences such as long-term unemployment, divorce, imprisonment or parental death, can lead somebody to commit crimes. In other words, he believes that "problem families" create "problem children". 

Furthermore he proposed that criminality was an aspect of a large anti-social behaviour syndrome, which is also the result of upbringing in a disrupted family. 

Study: Juby and Farrington 

Juby and Farrington conducted a longitudinal study on 411 boys from South London from the age of 8 to 46. It used a variety of research methods, including interviews, questionnaires, government and criminal records - measures were taken at various intervals. 

On their fifteenth birthdays, boys from disrupted families had committed considerably more crimes than those who were from intact families (29% to 18%). Boys from high conflict intact families had similar delinquency rates to those from disrupted families, whilst boys who lived solely with their mothers had similar rates to those in intact families. Other notable findings included that parental disharmony (i.e. absence due to divorce) was more of an indicator of delinquency than parental death and boys who'd lost their mother were more likely to offend than those who'd lost their father. 

Evaluation issues: reductionist theory, situational approach, nurture explanation, deterministic, doesn't account for why most boys in disrupted families didn't offend, useful as it suggests individuals who are more prone to offend