Forensic Psychology

Paper 3

What is offender profiling?

A behavioural and analytical tool that helps investigators accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown offenders. Criminals often operate in a similar way and this reflects their personality - this is the core assumption of profiling

What is the top-down approach to profiling offenders?

Profilers match information about the offender to a pre-existing template. It is about the experience and intuition of the profiler based on police experience). Qualitative, subjective. Only really works on extreme unusual crimes (rape/murder)

Murderers of rape crimes put into one of two categories based on idea that they have certain ways of working

• Organised offender. Offender shows evidence of planning, deliberately victim targeted with control, little evidence at crime scene, above average intelligence/high IQ, socially/sexually competent, may be married with children, controls conversation (all modus operandi) 

• Disorganised offender. Little evidence of planning, spontaneous, lower IQ, lots of evidence at crime scene e.g. body and blood, unskilled/unemployed, sexual dysfunction/failed relationships, tend to live alone, live close to where crime took pace, avoids conversation (modus operandi)

A problem with classifying people into only 2 categories is it only fits extreme crimes, not smaller crimes like theft from a shop, or there could be overlap between the categories

What does modus operandi mean?

The particular way or method of the criminal i.e how they commit the crime, why they chose the situation

Crime scene detail and behaviour towards victim is the modus operandi, whereas characteristics/background of the offender are gathered from interviews 

The four main stages in the construction of an FBI profile

1. Data assimilation - profiler reviews evidence such as crime scene photographs & pathology reports 

2.  Crime scene classification - organised or disorganised

   
   

3. Crime reconstruction - hypothesis are sequences of events, behaviour of the victim

4. Profile generation - hypotheses of offender e.g. likely offender eg demographic background,  physical characteristics,  behaviour 

Evaluation for top-down approach

✅ Research support: Arthur Shawcross case study

• FBI profilers McCrary and Grant visited the crime scenes and created a top-down profile:

  • White male

  • Previous offender

  • Drove a cheap car

  • Married

  • In his late 20s

👮 Outcome

• Police found one of the bodies before Shawcross could dismember it → caught at scene

• Profile was accurate in all aspects except age (he was 10 years older)

🧠 What this shows

• Demonstrates that top-down profiling can be highly accurate, guiding investigations effectively.

• Especially useful in serious, serial offences where behavioural patterns can be analysed.

⚠ Limitation

• This is a single case study, so while it supports the method, it cannot generalise to all cases.

.

❌ Limitation: Oversimplified offender categories in the top-down approach

• The approach relies on just two categories: organised and disorganised offenders.

• This binary classification is too simplistic and does not reflect the complexity of human behaviour.

• In reality, criminals may not fit neatly into one category, as their actions can be influenced by:

  • Situational factors (e.g., level of planning possible)

  • Psychological states (e.g., emotional instability, stress)

⚠ Consequences of this rigid system:

• Criminals may show traits from both categories → leads to overlap and ambiguity.

• This reduces the predictive accuracy of profiles.

• May result in misleading leads or the wrong type of suspect being pursued

.

✅ Comparison

Bottom-Up Approach

• ✅ More scientific and objective (data-driven, Canter).

• ✅ Works for more crimes (e.g. burglary, murder).

• ✅ Uses tools like spatial analysis.

• ❌ Slower, more complex.

---

Top-Down Approach

• ✅ Quicker at narrowing suspects.

• ❌ Based on intuition and experience → less reliable.

• ❌ Only works well for certain crimes (e.g. rape, murder).

• ❌ Relies on fixed types (organised/disorganised) → too simplistic.

What is the bottom-up approach?

 In the UK, profilers use evidence collected from the crime scene to generate a picture of the offender - their likely characteristics, motivations, routine behaviour and social background

• Through systematic analysis of evidence at the crime scene

• Unlike the top down approach the bottom up doesn’t begin with fixed typologies

• Instead the profile is data driven and emerges as the investigator engages in deeper and more rigorous scrutiny of the details of the offence

What are the 2 forms of the bottom-up approach?

Investigative psychology

Matches details crime scene w statistical analysis of statistical database including typical offender behaviour patterns - base of comparison

5 assumptions to underpin the crime

1) Interpersonal coherence: way a criminal behaves at the scene / interact with the victim = reveals how act daily life

2) Significance of time and place: indicate where living

3) Forensic awareness: focus on who police have investigated before

4) Criminal characteristics: placing into categories

5) Criminal career: how far into criminal exp, how pattern of crime may progress

Geographical profiling

Rossmo - offender’s operational base of possible future offences revealed by geo loc of previous crimes.

.

Concerned with where rather than who

.

Assumes offenders more likely commit crime near where live as less effort

.

Canter and Larkin - Circle Theory. People operate in a limited spatial mindset that creates imagined boundaries in which crimes are likely to be committed.

The Marauder: the offender operates in close proximity to their home base

The Commuters: the offender is likely to have travelled a distance away from their usual residence 

Evaluation for the bottom-up approach

• ✅ Lundrigan & Canter studied 120 U.S. serial killer cases.

• ✅ Used smallest space analysis (SSA) to find spatial patterns.

• ✅ Found killers dispose of bodies in patterns → creates a ‘centre of gravity’.

• ✅ Supports Canter’s idea that spatial info reveals offender’s base location.

• ❌ Works best for marauders (offend near home), not commuters (travel far).

• ✅ Shows bottom-up profiling (e.g. geographical profiling) can help narrow search area

.

• ✅ Canter & Heritage: Content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases

• ✅ Used smallest space analysis (SSA) to spot behaviour patterns.

• ✅ Found common traits (e.g. impersonal language, lack of victim reaction).

• ✅ Patterns helped track how an offender’s behaviour changes over time, or link multiple crimes e.g. if the same behaviour shows up in different attacks).

• ✅ Shows investigative psychology is scientific, reliable, and useful.

• ✅ Supports bottom-up profiling as a more accurate and evidence-based method

.

✅ Comparison

Bottom-Up Approach

• ✅ More scientific and objective (data-driven, Canter).

• ✅ Works for more crimes (e.g. burglary, murder).

• ✅ Uses tools like spatial analysis.

• ❌ Slower, more complex.

---

Top-Down Approach

• ✅ Quicker at narrowing suspects.

• ❌ Based on intuition and experience → less reliable.

• ❌ Only works well for certain crimes (e.g. rape, murder).

• ❌ Relies on fixed types (organised/disorganised) → too simplistic.

Similarities between top down and bottom up

• Look for patterns in offender behaviour 

• Both use crime scene evidence

• Both aim to reduce pool of suspects

Explanations for offending behaviour - biological explanation - historical approach - what is the atavistic form?

Lombroso's Theory

• Criminals are genetic throwbacks who cannot conform to modern society

• Distinguishable by atavistic facial and cranial characteristics

Physical Characteristics

• Narrow sloping brow, high cheekbones, facial asymmetry

• Murderers: bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears

• Fraudsters: thin lips

• Sexual deviants: glinting eyes

Research

• Studied 383 dead criminals and 3,839 living ones

• Concluded 40% of criminal acts explained by physical features

• Later studied 50,000 dead bodies

Criticisms

• No control group (non-criminals)

• Cultural bias (only Italians studied)

• Post-mortem study problems - cannot determine cause/effect from dead facial expressions

• Oversimplifies behavior and stereotypes based on appearance

What is eugenics?

Genetically ‘unfit’ people should be prevented from breeding

How Lombroso's Ideas paved the way for offender profiling?

By suggesting that certain physical traits could indicate a predisposition to criminality, he introduced the idea that offenders might share common traits, which could help identify or profile them.

Why this propelled criminology into a scientific sphere?

• He used measurements, observations, and data collection to study offenders, introducing a scientific methodology to the field

• Focus on causes and patterns

Evaluation

• Links to Eugenics and Scientific Racism

• ❌ Lombroso’s atavistic theory claimed criminals have biological traits (e.g. large jaws, sloping foreheads).

• 🔁 This supported eugenic ideas — that some people are “genetically unfit” and should be prevented from reproducing.

• ⚠ Led to discriminatory practices (e.g. forced sterilisation, segregation).

• ❌ Associated with scientific racism — linked criminal traits to racial/ethnic stereotypes.

• 💬 Reinforced harmful views that some groups were naturally criminal, legitimising prejudice and inequality.

• 🚫 Criticised today for being ethically wrong, reductionist, and unsupported by modern science

.

• ❌ Lombroso’s theory lacks scientific rigor by ignoring environmental factors

• 🧬 He attributed “criminal traits” solely to biological predispositions.

• 🚗 External factors like car crashes or malnutrition can change a person’s appearance, affecting facial features.

• 🍂 Substance abuse and physical injuries (e.g., from fights or prison) can cause physical changes resembling Lombroso’s “atavistic” traits.

• ⚠ These environmental influences were wrongly seen as innate criminal characteristics.

• 🔍 Ignoring biology-environment interaction makes the theory scientifically flawed

.

• ❌ Method issues. Lombroso’s research lacked a control group of non-criminals for comparison

• 🤔 Without this, it’s impossible to know if traits like a prominent jaw are unique to criminals or common in the general population.

• 📉 This absence reduces the scientific reliability and validity of his conclusions.

• 🌍 His sample was culturally biased, focusing only on Italians.

• ⚠ This limits how generalizable his findings are to other populations and undermines their overall validity.

Explanations - biological explanation - genetic - what does it include? (5)

Genetics

Epigenetics

Candidate genes

DSM

Twin studies

What is genetics and epigenetics? (genetic)

• Genetics: consist of DNA strands, which provide instructions for the general physical features (eye colour) and specific physical features (neurotransmitter levels)

• Epigenetics: refers to the material in each cell of the body that acts like a set of “switches” to turn genes on or off

What are candidate genes and research for it (genetic)

Candidate genes: a gene that is associated with a particular trait

.

🧪 Tiihonen et al. (2014) – Genetic Study on Violent Offenders

• Sample: 900 Finnish offenders

• Found two candidate genes linked to violent crime:

  1. MAOA gene:

     • Linked to aggressive behaviour

  2. CDH13 gene:

     • Linked to attention deficit disorder (ADD) and impulsivity

📊 Key Finding:

• Individuals with both gene abnormalities were 13 times more likely to have a history of violent behaviour.

What is the diathesis stress model + a study (genetic)

✅ DSM of Offending - Key Concepts:

• Suggests criminal behaviour is the result of an interaction between:

  • A genetic vulnerability (the “diathesis”)

  • An environmental trigger (the “stress”)

• You need both genes and environmental influence for the criminal trait to be expressed.

• A person may carry a vulnerability gene but only commit crime if exposed to a triggering environment.

---

📊 Mednick et al. (1984) – Danish Adoptee Study

• Sample: Over 13,000 Danish adoptees

• Definition of criminality: Having at least one court conviction (based on official police records)

👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Key Findings:

• 13.5%: criminal with no criminal parents (baseline group)

• 14.7%: criminal with at least one criminal adoptive parent (environmental influence)

• 20%: criminal with at least one criminal biological parent (genetic influence)

• 24.5%: criminal with both a criminal biological and adoptive parent (genetic + environment)

📌 Conclusion:

• Highest rate of criminality in those with both biological and adoptive criminal parents.

• Supports the diathesis-stress model: genetic vulnerability + environmental stress = highest risk of offending.

What are twin studies for the genetic explanation?

✅ Lange (1930) – Twin Study on Offending Behaviour👯‍♂ Study Aim:

• To investigate whether genetic factors influence criminal behaviour.

🧪 Sample:

• 13 monozygotic (MZ) twins (identical – share 100% of genes)

• 17 dizygotic (DZ) twins (non-identical – share ~50% of genes)

• In each pair, one twin had spent time in prison

📊 Key Findings:

• 10 out of 13 MZ twins → both twins had been in prison

• Only 2 out of 17 DZ twins → both twins had been in prison

📌 Conclusion:

• Higher concordance rate for MZ twins suggests a genetic influence on offending behaviour.

Explanations for offending behaviour - biological explanation - neural

Prefrontal cortex (Raine)

Mirror neurones

PFC Raine (neural)

✅ Raine et al. – Brain Structure and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD)🎯 Aim:

• To investigate differences in grey matter volume in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) between criminals with APD and non-criminal controls.

🧪 Sample & Method:

• 21 participants with APD

• 21 control participants (no APD)

• Brain structure measured using MRI scans

• ANS activity measured (heart rate + skin conductance)

• Participants placed in a stressful situation: asked to talk about their faults on video

📊 Key Findings:

• APD group had 11% less grey matter in the PFC than controls

• APD group showed reduced autonomic response during stress (e.g. lower heart rate and skin conductance)

📌 Conclusion:

• There is a correlation between reduced prefrontal grey matter and antisocial/criminal behaviour

• Suggests the PFC plays a key role in regulating behaviour and emotional responses, which may influence criminal tendencies

Mirror neurones (neural)

What They Are

• Brain cells that fire when you perform an action AND when you watch someone else do the same action

• Create an empathy reaction that helps us understand others' actions

.

How They Work

• Help us interpret and understand what others are doing

• Allow us to recognize when we hurt someone through their actions/response

• Enable sympathy and emotional understanding

.

People with APD (Antisocial Personality Disorder)

• Do have mirror neurons but lack the "switch" to turn them on

• Cannot automatically recognize when they're hurting someone

• Need to be explicitly told when they cause harm

• Do not experience sympathy

Evaluation genetic + neural explanation

• 🧬 Biological determinism raises ethical concerns — suggesting people with “criminal genes” might be punished before committing crimes.

• 🚫 This could lead to denying reproductive rights, like in the eugenics movement, to prevent passing on these genes.

• 🧑‍⚖ If someone can’t “control” their criminal behavior due to biology, should they ever be released?

• ⚖ These ideas promote discrimination and harsh punishments based on speculative science.

• 🔒 Could lead to lifelong imprisonment and undermine rehabilitation efforts.

• ❗ Raises serious ethical questions about justice, fairness, and human rights

.

• RS Raine

.

• 🧬🧠 Nature vs Nurture: Biological Explanation vs Differential Association Theory (DAT)

• DAT = Nurture: Explains offending as a learned behavior through interaction with criminals or pro-crime values.

• Biological = Nature: Attributes crime to genetic factors or brain abnormalities.

• ❌ Neither explanation alone is sufficient to fully explain criminality.

• ✅ Diathesis-stress model offers a better understanding – biological predispositions (e.g., impulsivity) interact with environmental triggers.

• 🧠💬 This means people with genetic vulnerabilities may be more affected by criminal environments.

• 🔄 Suggests that a combined nature + nurture approach gives a more complete and accurate picture of offending behavior.

According to Eysenck, what is the criminal personality?

The criminal personality type is highly neurotic-extravert-psychotic “An individual who scores highly in measures of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism

.

They cannot be easily conditioned and are cold, unfeeling and likely to engage in offending behaviour

.

• Criminality is down to personality. Neuroticism, extraversion and psychoticism are criminal personality traits  

• Neurotics = unstable, overreact, easily triggered/upset, anxiety, obsessiveness. OVERACTIVE NS

• Extraverts = outgoing, seek attention due to UNDERACTIVE NS. Engage dangerous activities

• Psychotics = aggressive, lack empathy, insensitive

• Esynck leans quite heavily on biology. Personality types = biological basis + depend on type of nervous system we inherit

Issue with his theory

An issue with this is that it is contradictory. He states that to have Esynck’s Personality, you must be high in extravert and neuroticism. Extraverts must have an underactive nervous system whereas neurotics must have an overactive nervous system. Well, one person can’t have an over and underactive nervous system, so how can they be high in extravert and neuroticism

Role of socialisation in this

• Esyenck said criminal behaviour is concerned with immediate gratification/reward

• Children are normally taught delayed gratification. E.g. “you can have sweets after you eat dinner”

• Criminals have not been taught this because extraversion and neuroticism are hard to condition

• Criminals are not able to respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety and so act antisocially in situations where the opportunity arises.

His methods

Esyenck and his wife assessed 2070 male prisoners who were compared to a control group. E, N and P, prisoners recorded higher scores than the control group which aligns with the prediction of the theory.

Evaluation Eysenck’s Theory

✅ Strength: Supporting Evidence for Eysenck's Criminal Personality Theory

• 🧠 Eysenck & Eysenck: Compared 2070 prisoners to 2422 controls using the EPQ (Eysenck Personality Questionnaire).

• 📈 Prisoners scored higher on extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, supporting Eysenck’s idea of a distinct “criminal personality.”

• ✔ This supports the theory’s prediction that offenders score higher on all three personality traits.

• Contradictory Evidence Weakens Reliability

• 🔍 Farrington et al. (1982): Found that offenders only scored higher on psychoticism, not on extraversion or neuroticism.

• 📉 Farrington repeated Eysenck’s work and found different results → suggests the theory lacks reliability.

• 🤔 Calls into question the assumption of a single, consistent criminal personality

.

❌ Limitation: Too Simplistic – Ignores Different Types of Offenders

• 🧩 Eysenck’s theory = overly simplistic, relying only on personality traits to explain crime.

• 👩‍🏫 Moffitt (1993): Argued that not all offenders are the same – some offend only in adolescence, others into adulthood.

• ⚖ Personality can’t fully predict long-term offending.

🌍 Importance of Environmental Influences

• 🔄 Moffitt suggested criminal behavior is shaped by a mix of personality + environment.

• 👥 Example: An impulsive person might only keep offending if their environment encourages it (e.g., peer approval, no consequences).

• 🚫 Eysenck’s theory ignores social factors like upbringing, peer influence, and life experiences.

• 💡 Suggests criminality is more complex than personality alone – needs a wider approach.

……………..

🌍 Limitation: Cultural Bias in Eysenck’s Theory

• 📉 Eysenck’s theory doesn’t consider cultural differences in personality or behaviour.

• 🔬 Bartol & Holanchock studied Hispanic & African American offenders in a NY prison.

• 📊 Found all 6 offender groups were less extraverted than non-offenders – the opposite of what Eysenck predicted.

• 🌐 Suggests that Eysenck’s idea of a “criminal personality” may not apply across cultures.

• ❗ Highlights that his theory may be culturally biased and not generalisable to everyone

Psychological explanations - cognitive - level of moral reasoning - what is Kohlberg’s theory and define moral reasoning

• K theory = people progress through stages of moral development.

• Some individuals don’t progress past certain levels, increasing likelihood of crime.

• Violent youths found to have lower moral development than non-violent youths.

• Theory based on responses to moral dilemmas.

• Offenders tend to be at preconventional level (stages 1 & 2).

• Non-offenders usually at conventional level or higher.

Moral reasoning - the way a person thinks about right or wrong. Such thinking applies to moral behaviour. The higher the level, the higher the behaviour is driven by what is right.

Kohlberg’s research

✅ Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development and Crime

🎯 Aim and Method:

Conducted a *longitudinal study** interviewing boys and men about their moral decision-making.

Developed a *stage theory of moral development**:

* 3 levels, each divided into 2 stages

Progression depends on *biological and psychological maturity**

---

🧠 Levels of Moral Reasoning:

1. Pre-conventional level (child-like reasoning)

Morality based on *avoiding punishment** and seeking rewards

* Criminals tend to reason at this level

Offenders break laws if they believe they can *avoid punishment** or gain rewards

2. Conventional level (most common in adults)

Morality based on *maintaining relationships** and social order

* Law-breaking may be justified to protect family or society (e.g., to help others)

3. Post-conventional level (only \~10% of adults)

Morality based on *abstract principles and ethical reasoning**

* Highest, most mature level of moral understanding

---

📌 Implications for Crime:

* Criminals tend to have lower levels of moral reasoning (pre-conventional)

* Non-criminals usually reason at conventional or post-conventional levels

They show concern for *others’ rights**, honesty, generosity, and non-violence

His findings

Level 1 preconventional morality	Stage 1  Punishment Orientation Rules are obeyed to avoid punishment	Stage 2   Personal gain Rules are obeyed for personal gain
Level; 2 conventional morality	Stage 3 Rules are obeyed for approval	Stage 4   Maintenance of the social order
Level 3 postconventional morality	Stage 5   Morality of contract and individual rights Rules are obeyed if they are impartial; democratic rules are challenged if the infringe on the rights of others	Stage 6   Morality of conscience The individual establishes his or her own rules in accordance with a personal set of ethical principles

Evaluation for levels or moral reasoning (2)

🚀 Real-World Applications of Kohlberg’s Theory

• 👦👧 Kohlberg found children in Israeli kibbutzim showed higher moral development.

• 🤝 Being in a democratic group and making moral decisions helped their moral growth.

• 🏫 Kohlberg and Gilligan created "Cluster Schools" or "Just Communities" in schools and a prison.

• ⚖ In these communities, members resolve disputes together and practice moral reasoning.

• 🌱 This promotes ethical behaviour and moral development in real life.

• 🚫 Aim: to reduce delinquency and crime by encouraging better moral thinking.

• ✔ Shows Kohlberg’s theory can be applied in education and rehabilitation to prevent crime

.

Methodological issues

• Used hypothetical dilemmas → SD meant poss didn’t answer honestly

• Gen to IRL offences limited

• Used an all make sample -→ beta bias → assumed would apply to women

• When women tested = lower morality, but doesn't match the fact that men make up most the prison population → low gen of K theory

.

🧠 Cognitive vs. Psychodynamic Explanation: Nature, Nurture & Determinism

• 🌱 Nurture:

  • Cognitive: Social experiences shape moral reasoning and cause criminal behaviour.

  • Psychodynamic: Childhood experiences cause unconscious conflicts influencing behaviour.

• 👶 Both say early experiences affect:

  • Cognitive: Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB) learned from environment.

  • Psychodynamic: Superego develops from childhood relationships.

• 🎯 Determinism:

  • Cognitive: Soft determinism — cognitive biases influence behaviour, but free will exists (e.g., CBT can change behaviour).

  • Psychodynamic: Psychic determinism — unconscious childhood experiences control behaviour, little control over actions.

• 💡 Treatment:

  • Both use CBT since they are psychological explanations.

  • Psychodynamic may also use psychoanalysis.

Psychological explanations - cognitive - cognitive distortions

Cognitive distortions - faulty, biassed and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, other people, and the world inaccurately and negatively. Errors or biases in people’s info processing characterised by faulty thinking. Two types are hostile attribution bias and minimalisation

• Hostile attribution bias: Violence is caused by the perception that other people’s acts are aggressive. People may be perceived as being confrontational when they are not. E.g. “he was giving me a funny look” as a reason for attacking someone, when no such look had happened. They assume someone is being aggressive for example or has a bad attitude, so this gives them a reason for their violent crime

• Minimalisation: downplaying the seriousness of an offence. ‘Euphemistic labelling’, e.g. burglars are just “doing a job” or “supporting their family”.Some will underplay their offence, e.g. paedophiles may claim they were “just being affectionate or friendly” or fraudsters may claim “it wasn’t that much money compared to the company’s worth”

Evaluation for cognitive distortions (2)

🔍 Evidence for Minimalisation in Criminal Behaviour

• 📊 Barbaree (1991):

  • Studied 26 convicted rapists

  • 🔹 54% denied committing the offence

  • 🔹 40% minimised the harm caused to the victim

• 📊 Pollock and Hashmall (1991):

  • Studied child molesters

  • 🔹 35% said their crime was non-sexual

  • 🔹 36% said the victim had consented

• ✅ Conclusion:

  • These findings show offenders minimise or deny their actions

  • 🧠 This helps them justify behaviour and reduce guilt (cognitive dissonance)

  • 🔄 Supports the role of minimalisation as a cognitive distortion in criminal behaviour

.

🧠 Cognitive vs Psychodynamic Explanation (Nature/Nurture & Determinism)

• 🌱 Both are nurture-based:

  • 🧠 Cognitive explanation: Social experiences shape moral reasoning (e.g., hostile attribution bias is learned).

  • 💭 Psychodynamic explanation: Childhood experiences create unconscious conflict (e.g., an overactive superego).

• 🔄 Both shaped by early relationships:

  • HAB and the superego can both stem from early life experiences.

• 🔓 Different types of determinism:

  • Cognitive = soft determinism

    • Cognitive distortions influence behaviour

    • But free will still possible via therapy (e.g. CBT)

  • Psychodynamic = psychic determinism

    • Unconscious conflicts from childhood predetermine behaviour

    • Suggests little control over actions

• 💡 Treatment overlap:

  • Both may use CBT to treat distortions

  • But psychodynamic might also use psychoanalysis

Psychological explanations - differential association theory

🧠 DAT (Sutherland)

• 👶 Criminal behaviour is learned, not inherited (nurture not nature)

• 🗣 We learn crime through interacting with others, especially close people like family and friends

• 💭 We pick up attitudes, values, and techniques for crime from them

• ⚖ If we learn more positive views about crime than negative ones, we’re more likely to become criminals

• 🔁 Crime is learned in the same way as any other behaviour (like language or habits)

• 👨‍👦 Explains why crime can run in families – not because of genes, but because of learning from parents

• 🔢 In theory, we could predict who will offend if we know:

  • How often they hear criminal ideas

  • How strong those ideas are

  • How long they're exposed to them

• 🧩 Two things are learned:

  1. Why to commit crime (attitudes)

  2. How to commit crime (techniques)

What is learned, who from and how

WHAT IS LEARNED	WHO IS IT LEARNED FROM	HOW IS IT LEARNED
Attitudes - desirable/undesirable  Types of crime acceptable/desirable Methods	Family  Peers Community (what’s accepted)	Frequency Duration Intensity of interactions  Direct/ indirect operant conditioning  Reinforcement, rewards

How does DAS show a scientific basis?

Cause and effect

• Sutherland set himself the task of developing a set of scientific principles/laws that could explain all types of offending - ‘the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and absent when crime is absent’. 

• For example, if exposure to criminal values is a cause of crime, then people exposed to these values should commit crimes, and people who are not exposed should not.

• This means that he thinks crime is learned through the people you surround yourself with. His theory is designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who don’t, despite their social class or ethnic background. 

• This theory explains why two people from the same background may have different behaviors - one may learn criminal tendencies from their environment, while the other learns lawful behavior. 

It is scientific because it focuses on a cause and effect, if you associate yourself with people who encourage crime, they are more likely to commit crime. It is measurable because you can measure whether they are exposed to more pro-criminal or anti-criminal influence

Evaluation for DAS

📊 Farrington et al. (2006) – Longitudinal Study on Offending Behaviour

👦 Sample: 411 males, tracked from age 8 to 50, all from a deprived area in London

📅 Longitudinal design

-

🔍 Key Findings:

⚖ *41%** had been convicted of at least one offence between ages 10–50

🚨 *7%** were chronic offenders, responsible for 50% of recorded offences

-

⚠ Risk Factors Identified:

* 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Family criminality

* 💸 Poverty

* 🧑‍🏫 Poor parenting

* 📉 Low school achievement

* 🎲 Risk-taking behaviour

-

✅ Supports Sutherland’s DAT:

👥 Shows *how criminal behaviour is learned** through:

* Delinquent role models

* Reinforcement of antisocial behaviour

🔄 Offending can stem from maladaptive socialisation

.

✅ Strength of DAT: Real-World Applications

• 🧠 DAT says criminal behaviour is learned through social influences – this helps us know where to intervene

• ⚠ Raises the question: How can society stop this learning of crime?

• 📚 Farrington’s research shows risk factors for offending (e.g. poor parenting, low school engagement)

• 👨‍👩‍👧 Parenting programmes can help carers teach better discipline and emotional support

• 🏫 Schools can step in early with support to stop kids from disengaging or turning to crime

• 🗣 CBT can help offenders unlearn bad habits and build prosocial behaviour

• 🌱 DAT shows the importance of nurture, so this theory leads to helpful solutions

• 🔁 If we address social influences, we can reduce reoffending (recidivism)

• 🎯 This makes DAT practically useful for tackling crime

.

🧬🧠 Nature vs Nurture: Biological Explanation vs Differential Association Theory (DAT)

• DAT = Nurture: Explains offending as a learned behavior through interaction with criminals or pro-crime values.

• Biological = Nature: Attributes crime to genetic factors or brain abnormalities.

• ❌ Neither explanation alone is sufficient to fully explain criminality.

• ✅ Diathesis-stress model offers a better understanding – biological predispositions (e.g., impulsivity) interact with environmental triggers.

• 🧠💬 This means people with genetic vulnerabilities may be more affected by criminal environments.

• 🔄 Suggests that a combined nature + nurture approach gives a more complete and accurate picture of offending behavior.

Psychodynamic Explanation - what does it suggest?

🧠 Psychodynamic Explanation of Offending

A perspective that describes the different unconscious forces in the mind that influence behaviour.

---

⚖ The Superego (Moral part of personality):

• 🧒 Develops between ages 3 to 6

• Acts as the conscience — gives us a sense of right and wrong

• Based on the morality principle

• Strives for ideal behaviour and punishes the ego with guilt when we act wrongly

• E.g. choosing not to eat a treat because you want to stay disciplined for the gym

---

🔁 Superego vs. Id:

• Id = impulsive, seeks pleasure

• Superego = restrains the id with moral reasoning

---

❗ Blackburn (1993):

• Suggested that a deficient superego means the id isn’t controlled, so:

  “Offending behaviour becomes inevitable”

3 types of inadequate superego

1⃣ Weak Superego

• 💭 Cause: Same-sex parent is absent during the phallic stage (3–6 years)

• 🧠 No opportunity for identification, so child can’t internalise morals

• ⚠ Less guilt, weaker conscience, and poor control over the id’s impulses

• ➡ More likely to offend

---

2⃣ Deviant Superego

• 💭 Cause: Child internalises immoral values from criminal role models

• 👨‍👦 E.g. boy raised by a criminal father

• ❌ Learns that wrongdoing is acceptable, so feels no guilt for offences

• ➡ Offending becomes part of moral code

---

3⃣ Over-Harsh Superego

• 💭 Cause: Extremely strict or punitive parenting style

• 😰 Child develops a superego that produces intense guilt and anxiety

• ⚖ Commits crimes unconsciously to be punished and relieve guilt

• ➡ Driven to offend due to internalised need for punishment

Role of emotion and the maternal deprivation theory

Inadequate Superego & Guilt in Crime

• A weak superego means less guilt and more chance of offending.

• Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory (MDT) links lack of early mother care to affectionless psychopathy (no guilt).

• Bowlby’s study: 12/14 affectionless psychopaths had maternal deprivation.

• Lack of guilt from poor early bonds can lead to crime.

three defence mechanisms which are implicated in offending behaviour

Displacement - when the focus of strong emotion is shifted from its actual target to a neutral target

Sublimation - when a strong id impulse is expressed in a more socially accepted way, but not entirely just more diluted

Rationalisation - explaining behaviour in a rational and acceptable way when it is actually very negative. Offenders use this defence mechanism to justify their crime

Evaluation psychodynamic explanation

✅ Strength: Research Support (Goreta)

• Goreta studied 10 offenders using Freudian methods.

• All had problems with their Superego (part of the mind that controls guilt).

• They felt unconscious guilt and a need to punish themselves.

• Offending was seen as a way to get punished and reduce guilt.

• ✅ This supports the idea that an over-harsh Superego can lead to crime.

.

✅ Strength: Includes Emotions and Childhood Experiences

• The psychodynamic approach is one of the only ones to include emotions (like anxiety, guilt, and rejection) in explaining crime.

• Other explanations (e.g. cognitive ones) often ignore emotion.

• It also considers:

  • Biological influences

  • The impact of early childhood experiences on adult behaviour

• ✅ This is a strength because it looks at multiple causes of offending, not just one.

• 🔍 It gives useful insights into how childhood and emotions shape criminal behaviour later in life

.

🧠 Cognitive vs Psychodynamic Explanation (Nature/Nurture & Determinism)

• 🌱 Both are nurture-based:

  • 🧠 Cognitive explanation: Social experiences shape moral reasoning (e.g., hostile attribution bias is learned).

  • 💭 Psychodynamic explanation: Childhood experiences create unconscious conflict (e.g., an overactive superego).

• 🔄 Both shaped by early relationships:

  • HAB and the superego can both stem from early life experiences.

• 🔓 Different types of determinism:

  • Cognitive = soft determinism

    • Cognitive distortions influence behaviour

    • But free will still possible via therapy (e.g. CBT)

  • Psychodynamic = psychic determinism

    • Unconscious conflicts from childhood predetermine behaviour

    • Suggests little control over actions

• 💡 Treatment overlap:

  • Both may use CBT to treat distortions

  • But psychodynamic might also use psychoanalysis

What are the 4 ways for dealing with offending behaviour?

Custodial sentencing

Anger management 

Behaviour modification in custody 

Restorative justice

What is custodial sentencing?

Custodial sentencing basically means prison sentencing. A decision made by a court that punishment for a crime should involve time being in custody (prison) or in some other closed therapeutic/educational institution e.g. psychiatric hospital

What are its aims?

1. Deterrence. Prison to stop people - both the individual and the public - from committing crimes again, based on learning through punishment.

2. Incapacitation. The offender is taken out of society to prevent reoffending to protect the members of society. 

3. Retribution. Society is enacting revenge for the offence by making the offender suffer, and the level of suffering should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime

4. Rehabilitation. On release, offenders should be better adjusted and ready to take their place back in society. Prison should provide opportunities to develop skills or access to treatment programmes. And give a chance to reflect on their offence

Psychological effects of custodial sentencing

• Stress & depression

• Institutionalisation: Some inmates struggle to cope with life outside after becoming used to prison routines.

• Prisonisation: Prisoners learn a new ‘inmate code’ where bad behaviour might be rewarded, unlike in society.

• Effects on family: Families, especially children, suffer emotionally and financially when a parent is in prison.

• Overcrowding: Too many inmates in small spaces leads to more stress, aggression, and illness.

Recidivism

Reoffending, a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behaviour. In the context of crime, a convicted offender who reoffends, usually repeatedly.

• Recidivism rates tell us what extent prison is effective as a deterrent

• It's obviously hard to get exact figures, like whether you're looking at within a year or longer

• Recently in the UK< it has been around 45% but this varies with time period after release, age of offender, crime, and country. The US and Australia recorded rates over 60%, but Norway is as low as 20%

Evaluation for custodial sentencing

Strong evidence of psychological harm: Bartol (1995) said prison can be “brutal” and emotionally damaging.

• ⚠ High suicide rates: Prisoners are 15 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population.

• 🚨 Highest risk group: Young, single men within 24 hours of being imprisoned are at greatest risk.

• 🧠 Poor mental health: Prison Reform Trust (2014) found 25% of women and 15% of men in prison showed signs of psychosis.

• 🔁 Risk of reoffending: Mental harm in prison may reduce chances of successful rehabilitation.

• 💡 Alternative needed: This suggests community-based support may be better for some offenders.

❗ Individual differences: Not all offenders respond the same way to prison

• 🧩 Many influencing factors: Sentence length, type of prison, reason for imprisonment, and past prison experience all affect outcomes.

• 😟 First-time offenders may struggle more than repeat offenders in lower-security prisons.

• 🧠 Pre-existing mental health issues: Some prisoners already have conditions like depression or anxiety.

• 🤷 Hard to know the cause: It’s unclear if prison causes distress or just makes existing issues worse.

• ⚠ Overgeneralisation: Assuming all prisoners are affected the same way oversimplifies the psychological impact of prison.

A strength of research into custodial sentencing is that it highlights the need for alternative forms of punishment that avoid the psychological harm associated with imprisonment

• ✅ Promotes alternatives: Research shows prison can harm mental health, so other punishments may be better.

• 🔄 Examples: Community service, probation, and rehab programs avoid prison’s negative effects.

• 🙍‍♂ Better for some: First-time or non-violent offenders benefit more from non-custodial sentences.

• 🏢 Reduces overcrowding: Fewer people in prison lowers stress, suicide rates, and reoffending.

• 💡 Focus on rehab: Non-custodial options support change and help people return to society.

• 📉 Less reoffending: These methods may be more effective in stopping future crimes.

Anger Management

An application of the cognitive approach to treat offenders based on the way they think. A therapeutic programme that involves identifying the signs that trigger anger as well as learning techniques to calm down and deal with the situation in a positive way. It aims not to prevent anger but to recognise and manage it. Offered in prison to encourage self-awareness and help rehabilitation

Anger management programmes are a form of CBT and is done in 3 stages…

1. Cognitive preparation: reflect on past experiences and consider a typical pattern of their anger. Which situations trigger anger, and if this is interpreted as irrational, the therapist makes that clear

2. Skill acquisition: introduced to many techniques and skills to help deal with anger provoking situations more rationally and effectively. Techniques include cognitive, positive self talk for calmness. Behavioural, training the automatic response of communicating effectively by assertiveness training. Physiological, relaxation or meditation to deal with physical reaction to anger. Control the emotions instead of letting them control you

3. Application practice: chance to practice skills in a carefully controlled environment. Such roleplay includes offednor and client re-enacting situations that would typically cause anger and violence. Therapist ‘winds up’ offender in order to see their progress. If good, positive reinforcement given 

Evaluation for anger management

❌ Low ecological validity: Role-plays don’t reflect real-life anger situations

• 🎭 Artificial behaviour: Offenders may act differently in therapy as they know they’re being watched.

• 🧪 Low mundane realism: Scenarios are staged, not like real high-stress situations.

• ❓ Questionable real-world impact: Skills may not transfer outside therapy.

• 🔁 Low generalisability: Research often based on small, specific groups of offenders.

• ⏳ Lacks long-term evidence: Many studies only show short-term change, not lasting behaviour improvement.

RS: Keen et al.'s study

• 👥 Studied young offenders (17–21) in a recognised anger management programme.

• 📚 8 sessions: first 7 over 3 weeks, final session a month later.

• 🧠 Covered cognitive preparation, skill learning, and practising techniques.

• 📈 Positive outcomes: improved self-awareness and better self-control.

• 👮 Officers reported behaviour improvements.

Comparison to Restorative Justice

🔁 Anger Management:

• Helps offenders control anger.

• Teaches coping skills.

• Focuses on the individual.

• Doesn’t involve the victim.

• May not stop future crimes long-term.

🤝 Restorative Justice:

• Involves both offender and victim.

• Builds empathy and responsibility.

• Helps victims feel better.

• Often leads to less reoffending.

• Focuses on emotional and moral change.

✅ Overall:

• Anger management is useful for violent offenders.

• Restorative justice is better for long-term change

Behaviour modification in custody 

An application of the behaviourist approach treatment. Based on operant conditioning. Aims to replace undesirable behaviour with more desirable ones through the selective use of positive or negative reinforcement (as in token economies) and punishing disobedience. This is in the hope that desirable behaviours continue and the latter dies

Behaviour modification programme - token economies 

• Desirable behaviours include keeping the cell tidy, following prison rules and avoid confrontation

• Prisoners given a token  every time do a positive behaviour 

• Disobedience results in tokens being taken away or withheld 

• Tokens are not rewarding in themselves but derive their value with association with a reward and are thus secondary reinforcers

• They could be exchanged for a phone call with a loved one, time in the gym or cigarettes (primary reinforcers as directly rewarding)

Designing and using a token economy

• Operationalise target behaviours: breaking down a target behaviour into components. E.g. if the target is to improve interaction with inmates, broken down into not touching another inmate as they pass them, and speaking politely to others. These ‘units’ of behaviour should be objective and measurable 

• Scoring system: staff/prisoners made aware of how much each behaviour is ‘worth’. Behaviours are hierarchical so some are more demanded so get greater rewards. Reinforcements should outnumber punishments in a 4:1 ratio 

• Train staff: full training so token economies implemented successfully. Several hours for many weeks. Aim to standardise the procedure so that staff reward the same behaviours in the same way. They have to record when they’ve awarded tokens so prisoner progress can be tracked

Evaluation for behaviour modification programme

❌ Limited Real-Life Application of Token Economies:

• Work well inside prison but not after release.

• Blackburn (1993): says they have “little rehabilitative value.”

• Behaviour change often doesn’t last in the real world.

• Outside prison, there’s no reward system like tokens.

• Society doesn’t reward good behaviour consistently.

• Criminal activity can still offer rewards (money, status).

• Doesn’t deal with deep causes of crime.

• Helps short-term, but not long-term rehabilitation.

Hobbs and Holt (1976) investigated the effectiveness of token economies:

• Hobbs & Holt (1976): tested token economies in 3 youth prison units, with 1 control group.

• Found a big increase in positive behaviour in the token groups.

• Allyon (1979) found similar results in adult prisons.

• Shows token economies work for different age groups.

• Help create a structured, controlled system that rewards good behaviour.

• Leads to better behaviour and easier prison management.

❌ Limitation – Ethical Issues with Token Economies:

• Seen as dehumanising and controlling – behaviour is shaped by rewards, not true change.

• Focus is on obedience, not personal growth or moral development.

• Can make prisoners feel manipulated or helpless, leading to resentment.

• May worsen power imbalance between prisoners and staff.

• If seen as unfair, could increase hostility instead of improving behaviour.

• Once released, prisoners may distrust authority and feel manipulated.

• This could lead to higher reoffending, especially if they turn to criminal groups for respect.

Restorative justice

A system for dealing with offending behaviour which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims (survivors). This allows the criminal to see the impact of their crime and helps empower victims by giving them a voice

This idea changes the emphasis from the needs of the state/law to the needs of the victim - to feel compensated and come to terms with the crime). It’s less about punishing the criminal and more about reparation (repairing the harm they’ve caused). 2 key focuses are victim’s recovery and offender’s rehab process

Key features of the programme

• Trained mediator supervises the meeting

• Non courtroom setting

• Victim confronts criminal and explains how its affected them   

• Active involvement of both parties

• Focus on positive outcomes for both rather than creating more hostility 

• Other family members/people can be there and talk too

Sentencing and Restitution 

• Can occur before their trial, during their sentence, or as an alternative to prison if young

• Resitution means paying back or restoring something. Could be a payment to the victim to reflect psych/physical damage, or offenders repairing damage themselves 

Restorative Justice Council

Restorative Justice council are an independent body who establish clear standards for the use of restorative Justice, and to support survivors/specialist professionals in the field. They also look to prevent and manage conflict in schools, workplaces, and hospitals 

Evaluation for restorative justice

✅ Research Support – Positive Outcomes of Restorative Justice:

• Restorative Justice Council (7-year study):

  • 85% of survivors were satisfied with the meeting process.

  • 78% would recommend it to others.

  • 60% felt better and could move on.

  • Only 2% felt worse after.

  • Suggests restorative justice helps survivors cope and recover.

❌ However – Criticism by Wood:

• Argued it’s not always survivor-focused.

• Survivors can be used as tools to help rehabilitate offenders.

• This may put offender needs above survivor needs.

❌ Limitation – Offenders May Abuse the System:

• Some offenders join restorative justice just to avoid harsher punishments like prison.

• They may pretend to be sorry but don’t truly feel remorse.

• Offenders can manipulate victims to get forgiveness and look better legally.

• This insincere participation hurts the process and reduces its effectiveness.

• Explains why not all offenders improve or stop reoffending after restorative justice

Comparison to Restorative Justice

🔁 Anger Management:

• Helps offenders control anger.

• Teaches coping skills.

• Focuses on the individual.

• Doesn’t involve the victim.

• May not stop future crimes long-term.

🤝 Restorative Justice:

• Involves both offender and victim.

• Builds empathy and responsibility.

• Helps victims feel better.

• Often leads to less reoffending.

• Focuses on emotional and moral change.

✅ Overall:

• Anger management is useful for violent offenders.

• Restorative justice is better for long-term change.