Paper 3

Research Support (Clarke and Hatefield 1989)

Sexual Selection (positive)

Hip to waist ratio (Singh 2002)

Sexual Selection (positive)

Can’t explain same sex

Sexual Selection (negative)

Gender bias

Sexual Selection

Research Support (Cooper and Sportalori 1997)

Self-Disclosure (positive)

Cultural Differences (Tang 2010)

Self-Disclosure (negative)

Correlation studies

Self-Disclosure (negative)

Research Against (Walster 1966)

Physical Attraction (negative)

Research Support (Feingold 1988)

Physical Attraction (positive)

Subjective ratings

Physical Attraction (negative)

Research against (Taylor 2011)

Physical Attraction (negative)

Research against (Markey and Markey 2013)

Filter Theory (negative)

Proximity not important anymore

Filter Theory (negative)

Reductionist

Filter Theory (negative)

Research Support (Kurdek and Schmitt 1986)

Social Exchange Theory (positive)

Limited theory (Argyle)

Social Exchange Theory (negative)

Subjective scale

Social Exchange Theory (negative)

Cannot explain abusive relationships

Social Exchange Theory (negative)

Research Support (Utne 1984)

Equity Theory (positive)

Research against (Berg and McQuinn 1986)

Equity Theory (negative)

Cultural differences (Aumer-Ryan 2007)

Equity Theory (negative)

Culturally generalisable (Lin and Van Lange)

Investment Model (positive)

Explain abusive relationships

Investment Model (positive)

Generalisable to all types (Rusbult)

Investment Model (positive)

Retrospective data

Relationship Breakdown (negative)

Research Support (Lefebreve 2012)

Relationship Breakdown (positive)

Culturally bias

Relationship Breakdown (negative)

Hard to differentiate (Lenhart and Duggan 2014)

Virtual Relationships (negative)

Individual differences (Hollenbough and Everett 2013)

Virtual Relationships (negative)

Low temporal validity

Virtual Relationships (negative)

Research Support (Maltby 2005)

Parasocial Relationships (positive)

Research Support (Kienlen 1997)

Parasocial Relationship (positive)

Methodological issues

Parasocial Relationships (negative)

Simplistic classification

Top-Down (negative)

Small original study sample

Top Down (negative)

Evidence against (Canter 2004)

Top-Down (negative)

Not for all crimes

Top-Down (negative)

Research support (Lundrigan and Canter 2001)

Bottom-Up (positive)

Scientific

Bottom-Up (positive)

More types of crimes

Bottom-Up (positive)

Poor control in initial study

Atavistic Form (negative)

Scientifically racist

Atavistic Form (negative)

Research against (Goring 1913)

Atavistic Form (negative)

Contribution to criminology

Atavistic Form (positive)

Biologically reductionist

Genetic and Neural Explanation (negative)

Biologically deterministic

Genetic and Neural Explanation (negative)

Research support (Mednick 1984)

Genetic and Neural Explanation (positive)

Research Support (Eysenck 1971)

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality (positive)

Single criminal type

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality (negative)

Culturally bias (Bartol and Hollanchok 1979)

Eysenck’s Criminal Personality (negative)

Practical application

Cognitive Explanations (positive)

Individual differences

Cognitive Explanations (negative)

Alternative theory (Gibbs 1979)

Cognitive Explanations (negative)

Ignores biological factors (Mednick 1984)

Differential Association Theory (negative)

Socially sensitive

Differential Association Theory (negative)

Research support (Farrington 2006)

Differential Association Theory (positive)

Lacks falsifiability

Psychodynamic Explanations (negative)

Research against (Hoffman 1975)

Psychodynamic Explanations (negative)

Original study criticised

Psychodynamic Explanations (negative)

Individual differences

Custodial Sentencing (negative)

Universities for crime

Custodial Sentencing (negative)

Oppurtunity for rehabilitation

Custodial Sentencing (positive)

Expensive and requires commitment

Anger Management (negative)

Evidence against (Loza 1999)

Anger Management (negative)

Changes cause

Anger Management (positive)

Expensive (Shapland)

Restorative Justice (negative)

Diverse schemes

Restorative Justice (positive)

Seen as soft

Restorative Justice (negative)

Easy to implement

Behavioural Modification (positive)

Superficial behaviour

Behavioural Modification (negative)

Research Support (Rice 1990)

Behavioural Modification (positive)

Gender bias (Fisher and Buchanan 2017)

Issues with Diagnosing and Classifying

Co-morbidity (Buckley 2009)

Issues with Diagnosing and Classifying

Symptom overlap (Ellason and Ross 1995)

Issues with Diagnosing and Classifying

Ignores psychological factors

Biological Explanations (negative)

Research Support (Tienari 2004)

Biological Explanations (positive)

Correlation studies

Biological Explanation (negative)

Ignores biology

Psychological Explanations (negative)

Causality

Psychological Explanations (negative)

Research Support (Read 2005)

Psychological Explanations (positive)

Initial increase

Biological Treatments (negative)

Research Support (Thornley)

Biological Treatments (positive)

Side effects

Biological Treatments (negative)

Research Support (Jahour 2014)

Psychological Treatments (positive)

Doesn’t cure

Psychological Treatments (negative)

Ethical issues

Psychological Treatments (negative)

Research Support (Tienari 2004)

Interactionist Explanation (positive)

Simplistic model

Interactionist Explanation (negative)

Not fully understood

Interactionist Explanation (negative)

Research Support (Tarrier 2004)

Interactionist Treatment (positive)

Treatment/causation issue

Interactionist Treatment (negative)

Good for economy

Interactionist Treatment (positive)