Forensic Psychology - AO3

Top-down Approach - assumes offenders display consistent behaviours and motivations across situations (limitation)

P: The typology classification system assumes offenders display consistent behavior and motivation across different situations.

E: Critics, such as Alison et al. (2002), argue this approach is outdated, as it relies on the belief that behavior is driven by stable personality traits, ignoring the influence of changing external factors.

C: The top-down approach is less valid for identifying suspects or predicting behavior since it fails to account for situational influences on behavior.

H: It provided a template for other researchers to develop.

I/D: Uses a nomothetic approach (organised vs disorganised) but should adopt an ideographic approach (individual situational factors affecting offending)

Top-down approach - too simplistic classifications as behaviours can overlap (limitation)

P: The classification of offenders into organized or disorganized types is too simplistic, as behaviors are not mutually exclusive and can overlap in any given crime scene.

E: Godwin (2002) questions how a killer with high intelligence and sexual competence who commits a spontaneous murder could be classified within these rigid categories.

C: The top-down approach oversimplifies criminal behavior, making it difficult to classify all offenders accurately as either organized or disorganized.

F: Future research, such as by Keppel & Walter (1999), proposes more detailed models focusing on the motivations of killers rather than forcing them into specific categories.

I/D: Nomothetic approach - tries to establish general laws about crime, ignoring individual motivations and how past events may have influenced them (these are specific to offenders and cannot be classified.)

Bottom-up approach - evidence supports investigative psychology, especially smallest space analysis (strength)

P: Evidence supports investigative psychology, particularly through statistical techniques like smallest space analysis.

E: Canter & Heritage (1990) analyzed 66 sexual assault cases and identified common characteristics (e.g., impersonal language, lack of reaction to the victim) that could vary across offenders but still reveal behavioral patterns.

C: This demonstrates how statistical techniques can track behavioral changes across offenses, supporting the bottom-up approach by helping link offenses to the same offender.

F: Statistical techniques add scientific credibility to research - it’s objective and replicable, meaning that different profilers would be able to link offences to the same offender - adds validity.

H: They used content analysis - only describes behavioural patterns, rather than explaining why offenders may possess such characteristics, making it less scientific as it doesn’t give causal explanations.

Bottom-up approach - inconsistent effectiveness with mixed results (limitation)

P: While the bottom-up approach has had successes, its effectiveness is inconsistent, with studies showing mixed results.

E: Copson (1995) surveyed 48 police forces and found that while profiling advice was deemed ‘useful’ in 83% of cases, it only led to accurate offender identification in 3%.

C: This suggests that although the bottom-up approach can provide valuable insights, it does not always result in correctly identifying the offender, limiting its practical reliability.

H: However, profiling is meant to support traditional police work, rather than replacing it. Officers can use profiling to assist things like DNA evidence, rather than relying on it to find offenders. Also, it was deemed useful in a large amount of cases, suggesting it is still helpful.

I/D: This suggests that offender profiling may not be that effective in helping the police to solve crimes, implying that the psychological research isn’t as useful in real-life applications, which is the point of it. It’s unreliable - dangerous in real-life investigations.

Lombroso - racist (limitation)

P: A major criticism of Lombroso’s atavistic form theory is that it has clear racist undertones.

E: DeLisi (2012) highlights that many of the features Lombroso associated with criminality, such as curly hair and dark skin, are more commonly found in people of African descent. Additionally, his description of criminals as ‘uncivilized, primitive, and savage’ aligns with the eugenic ideologies of his time.

C: This suggests that Lombroso’s work was influenced by racial bias, making it not only scientifically flawed but also ethically problematic.

H: However, some argue his work reflected the time period he was in and that we shouldn’t judge his entire theory by modern standards. His work did contribute to advancing criminology scientifically, being the ‘father of modern criminology (Holin,1989.)

I/D: Nevertheless, this is a socially sensitive issue as the theory reinforces harmful stereotypes and can be seen as justifying a sort of scientific racism that discriminates against certain ethnic groups.

Lombroso - contradictory evidence

P: Goring's study challenges Lombroso’s theory by showing no evidence of physical or mental abnormalities in criminals.

E: Goring (1913) compared 3,000 criminals with 3,000 non-criminals and found no distinct differences in facial or cranial characteristics. While he noted that criminals tend to have lower-than-average intelligence, he did not support Lombroso's idea of a "distinct criminal sub-species."

C: This weakens Lombroso’s theory, particularly the idea that criminals can be identified by physical traits, although it still offers some limited support for his claim about intelligence.

F: Goring’s research used a much larger sample than Lombroso, increasing the generalisability and reliability of his contradictory findings, adding external validity to how criminals cannot be identified by their physical traits. This contrasts with Lombroso’s theory, which may have been impacted by his limited sample size.

I/D: His research supports the serious limitation of Lombroso’s reductionist approach to criminality, solely using physical characteristics and IQ to predict offending, ignoring how upbringing and other socio-cultural factors may increase the likelihood of someone becoming criminal.

Genetic and Neural Ex - Support for the diathesis-stress model (strength)

P: The diathesis-stress model is supported by research showing that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to criminal behavior.

E: Mednick et al. (1984) studied over 13,000 Danish adoptees and found that 13.5% of adoptees had criminal convictions when neither biological nor adoptive parents had convictions. This increased to 24.5% when both sets of parents had criminal convictions.

C: This suggests that both genetic inheritance (diathesis) and environmental factors (stress) play a role in criminal behavior, supporting the diathesis-stress model.

H: However, the sample only included Danish adoptees, meaning that the findings may have been due to the Danish cultural upbringing of the adopted kids, rather than because they were adopted. Mednick et al. may have been focusing on the wrong environmental factor, which could introduce cultural bias to their findings.

I/D: Nevertheless, the holistic nature of the interactionist approach adds validity to the study and approach overall. Rather than focusing on only genes and neural correlates, or on environmental factors, such as being brought up with pro-criminal attitudes, the approach combines both to provide a well-rounded view of offending.

Genetic and Neural Ex - Biologically reductionist - criminality is complex (limitation)

P: Biological explanations of crime may oversimplify the complex nature of criminality by focusing solely on genetic and neural factors.

E: Katz et al. (2007) argue that crime runs in families along with other factors such as emotional instability, mental illness, and poverty, making it difficult to isolate the role of genetics or neural influences.

C: This suggests that biological explanations may be overly simplistic and fail to account for the broader range of social and environmental factors that contribute to criminality.

F: Furthermore, MZ twins, who share identical genetics, do not show 100% concordance in criminal behavior, further challenging biological reductionism. The twin studies have significantly low concordance rates, which suggests that environmental factors affect criminality, such as peer groups and parental treatment. Therefore, adopting an interactionist approach may be more beneficial.

I/D: Biological reductionism risks biological determinism as the notion of a ‘criminal gene’ may be used to legally claim someone was not acting under their own free will and instead, for example, because of a mental illness (i.e. the Mobley defense.) This can have implications on sentencing, since our legal system is based on criminals having moral responsibility for their crimes.

Eysenck - Assumes personality can be measured, which many dispute (limitation)

P: A key limitation of Eysenck’s theory is that it assumes personality is a stable, measurable trait, which many psychologists dispute.

E: Critics argue that personality cannot be reduced to a simple numerical score. Mischel (1988) suggests that personality is fluid, changing based on social context rather than being a fixed entity. If this is true, it undermines Eysenck’s claim that personality traits can reliably predict criminal behavior.

C: This challenges the validity of using the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) to identify ‘natural’ offenders, as personality may not be static or measurable in the way Eysenck proposed.

I/D: May be more appropriate to use an ideographic approach to measure individual personalities and how they impact criminality likelihood - Eysenck attempted a nomothetic approach.

H: Often use questionnaires/interviews to measure personality - risk of lying/ social desirability bias as people may want to appear to have a more ‘desirable’ personality, which may cause them to lie about being extraverted or about being anxious, for example.

Eysenck - The idea of 1 criminal personality is reductionist (limitation)

P: Eysenck’s theory has been criticized for oversimplifying criminal behavior by assuming a single personality type can explain all offending.

E: Moffitt (1993) identified multiple types of offenders based on when they start offending and how long they continue. Additionally, Digman’s (1990) Five Factor Model suggests personality is more complex than Eysenck proposed, with traits like openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness playing a role.

C: This suggests that Eysenck’s theory is too simplistic and reductionist, failing to account for the interaction between personality and environmental influences.

I/D: Should adopt a holistic approach - consider how socio-environmental factors, as as personality traits, may influence offending - e.g. poverty may make someone more likely to offend. Socio-environmental factors may even affect personality traits - e.g. poverty may make someone more neurotic by making them more impulsive and influence utalitarian crime.

H: Theory still holds some value - provided foundation to develop as high extraversion and neuroticism, for example, may predispose people to crime. However, we must state how this interacts with other factors. Nevertheless, it is a good starting point and holds some usefulness.

Kholberg -Research support (strength)

P: Research supports Kohlberg’s theory that offenders have lower levels of moral reasoning compared to non-offenders.

E: Palmer & Hollin (1998) found that 126 convicted offenders had less mature moral reasoning than 332 non-offenders when assessed using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF).

C: This supports the idea that moral reasoning plays a role in criminal behavior and that offenders may have failed to develop more advanced moral reasoning skills.

H: Palmer and Hollin used questionnaire to assess this, which may risk social desirability bias. For example, offenders may have wanted to demonstrated lower levels of moral reasoning on purpose, to align with stereotypes of what a criminal should be like - i.e. less remorseful. Doesn’t reflect true moral reasoning levels - reduces internal validity.

I/D: Even if the offenders’ moral reasoning levels were correct, a question is raised of whether offenders have free will in their actions, or is it driven by their moral reasoning level, over which they have no control. Impacts legal system, which is based on offenders having personal responsibility for their actions.

Kohlberg - Individual differences means moral reasoning cannot explain all types of offending (limitation)

P: Cognitive theories of moral reasoning may not explain all types of offending behavior - there are individual differences.

E: Langdon (2010) suggested that intelligence may be a better predictor of criminality than moral reasoning, as people with very low intelligence—despite lower moral reasoning—are actually less likely to commit crimes.

C: This suggests that moral reasoning alone cannot fully explain criminal behavior, as different crimes may be influenced by different cognitive and situational factors.

F: Cognitive theories can be seen as reductionist because they refuse to account for biological influences on criminality. Langdon’s research highlights the importance of taking into account factors like IQ and how these may affect the likelihood of someone becoming a criminal.

I/D: It may be more appropriate to take an ideographic approach , assessing criminals individually to understand their different cognitive reasonings, as supported by research by Thornton & Reid (1982,) found that offenders who committed financial crimes were more likely to show pre-conventional moral reasoning, whereas those who committed impulsive crimes often showed little moral reasoning at all.

Differential Association Theory - family environment is supported by evidence (strength)

P: Sutherland's focus on the family environment as a key influence on offending behavior is supported by evidence.

E: Sutherland suggested that if a family supports criminal behavior, it becomes a major influence on a child’s value system, which is supported by studies like Farrington et al., which found intergenerational crime. Mednick et al. (1984) also found that boys with criminal adoptive parents were more likely to offend, even when their biological parents were non-criminal, suggesting that family environment plays a significant role.

C: Therefore, this supports how family environment may contribute to a child’s future offending behaviour.

H: However, Sutherland’s theory may overlook the role of genetic or unconscious factors in the transmission of criminal behavior across generations, which the biological and psychodynamic theories emphasize.

I/D: This connects to the hole I’m vs reductionism debate. Sutherland's emphasis on the social environment may underestimate the impact of genetic or early childhood psychological factors, which could also contribute significantly to criminal behavior.

Differential Association Theory - may lead to stereotyping (limitation)

P: Differential association theory may lead to stereotyping.
E: It implies that individuals from disadvantaged or crime-heavy environments are more likely to become offenders due to exposure to pro-criminal attitudes.
C: This suggests a form of environmental determinism, where individuals are seen as products of their environment, potentially removing personal responsibility.
H: However, the theory does not claim everyone exposed to crime will offend — it acknowledges learning is a process and may vary in intensity and frequency.
I/D: Socially Sensitive Research – The theory has ethical implications, as it risks reinforcing negative stereotypes about working-class or minority communities, which could influence policy and public attitudes unfairly.

Psychodynamic Ex - Correlation, not causation (limitation)

P: Correlation, not causation.

E: Lewis (1954) found that maternal deprivation was a poor predictor of future offending and relationship difficulties. In his study of 500 young people, Lewis discovered that while there was some link between maternal deprivation and future crime, it was not a strong or reliable predictor. Other factors such as genetics or peer influences may play a significant role in criminal behavior.

C: This challenges the idea that maternal deprivation directly causes criminality, suggesting that other factors must also be considered in understanding offending behavior.

H: However, maternal deprivation could still contribute to criminal behavior in certain cases, but it is unlikely to be the sole or primary cause.

I/D: This relates to the determinism vs. free will debate. Does the experience of maternal deprivation deterministically lead to criminality, or do individuals still have the free will to overcome these early experiences and make their own choices?

Psychodynamic Ex - Lack of scientific credibility (unconscious concepts)

P: A major limitation of psychodynamic explanations is their lack of scientific credibility.
E: Key ideas, such as the inadequate superego, rely on unconscious processes which cannot be empirically observed, measured, or falsified.
C: This makes the theory pseudoscientific, meaning it lacks the scientific rigour needed to contribute meaningfully to our understanding or prevention of criminal behaviour.
H: However, some psychodynamic ideas, such as Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis, have inspired testable research — even if the supporting evidence (e.g. 44 thieves study) has methodological flaws.
I/D: Idiographic vs Nomothetic – The psychodynamic approach attempts to take a nomothetic stance by offering a general explanation of criminality, but this is undermined by its reliance on untestable, unfalsifiable concepts, weakening its scientific credibility as a general theory.

Custodial sentencing - negative/brutal effects (limitation)

P: Negative effects of custodial sentencing

E: Bartol (1995) suggested that imprisonment can be brutal, demeaning, and devastating for many offenders. Studies show high suicide rates among prisoners, with young single men particularly at risk in the first 24 hours of confinement. A study by the Prison Reform Trust (2014) found that 25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis, suggesting that prison environments can trigger psychological disorders, especially in vulnerable individuals.

C: These findings suggest that custodial sentencing may have harmful psychological effects, which could hinder offenders' chances of rehabilitation.

H: However, some argue that the harsh conditions of prisons may serve as a deterrent and that tougher regimes are necessary for maintaining order.

I/D: This relates to the social sensitivity and implications of research. Does highlighting the negative psychological effects of imprisonment affect public perception of punishment, and should policymakers reconsider the use of custodial sentencing given these consequences?

Custodial sentencing - rehabilitation model suggests offenders can improve in prison (strength)

P: The rehabilitation model suggests offenders can improve during their time in prison and lead crime-free lives upon release.

E: Many prisoners access education and training, which increases their chances of finding employment. Additionally, treatment programs such as anger management and social skills training help offenders understand and manage their behavior, potentially reducing recidivism.

C: This suggests that prison can offer meaningful rehabilitation, provided offenders have access to appropriate programs and resources.

H: However, the success of these programs may be limited by factors such as the offender's commitment to change or the lack of long-term support upon release.

I/D: This relates to the determinism vs. free will debate. To what extent are offenders able to change their behavior through prison programs, or are they determined by prior circumstances and personal history?

Behaviour Modification - ethical issues (limitation)

P: Ethical issues

E: Behaviour modification programs, such as token economies, have been criticized for being manipulative and dehumanising (Moya and Achtenberg, 1974). Participation in these schemes is mandatory for all offenders, and the withdrawal of privileges, such as exercise or contact with loved ones, may raise concerns about the ethical implications of controlling offenders’ basic rights.

C: This suggests that while behavior modification can be effective, the ethical concerns surrounding the deprivation of personal freedoms may undermine its moral legitimacy.

H: However, some argue that the use of token economies may be justified if it helps offenders improve their behavior and prepares them for reintegration into society.

I/D: This links to the human rights issue in the social sensitivity and implications of research debate. To what extent is it ethical to manipulate individuals’ behavior through punishment, especially when it involves withdrawal of personal privileges that may affect their well-being?

Behaviour Modification - easy to implement (strength)

P: Token economy systems are easy to implement as they do not require specialist professionals, unlike other treatments such as anger management.

E: These systems are cost-effective and straightforward to apply once the reinforcement methods are established, making them appealing for use in institutions.

C: This makes token economy systems an attractive option for institutions due to their simplicity and low cost.

H: However, their effectiveness depends on the consistency of implementation, as seen in the study by Bassett & Blanchard (1977), which found that inconsistent application of the techniques led to the loss of any benefits.

I/D: This relates to the reductionism vs holism debate. Does simplifying complex behavioral issues to just reinforcement undermine the need for more comprehensive, holistic approaches to rehabilitation, or is it an efficient way to address behavior in the short term?

Anger Management - Anger may not cause offending (limitation)

P: Anger may not cause offending

E: Theories linking anger to offending, such as those proposed by Novaco, assume a direct cause-and-effect relationship between anger and reoffending. However, Loza and Fanous (1999) found no significant difference in anger levels between violent and non-violent offenders, suggesting that anger may not be the primary cause of offending behavior.

C: This indicates that anger management programs may not be effective for all offenders, particularly those whose crimes are not driven by anger, such as financial crimes like fraud.

H: However, while anger management may not be suitable for all crimes, it may still be beneficial for offenders whose criminal behavior is linked to impulsivity or emotional regulation issues.

I/D: This ties into the reductionism vs. holism debate. By focusing solely on anger as a cause of offending, anger management may oversimplify the complexity of criminal behavior, potentially ignoring other factors such as socio-economic circumstances, upbringing, and mental health.

Anger Management - Unlike behaviour modification, anger management tries to tackle one of the causes of offending (strength)

P: Unlike behaviour modification, anger management tries to tackle one of the causes of offending rather than focusing on the superficial surface behavior, addressing the underlying thought processes.

E: Experience of treatment programs may give offenders new insight into the cause of their criminality, enabling them to self-discover ways of managing themselves outside the prison setting.

C: From this perspective, anger management is more likely to lead to permanent behavioral change and lower rates of recidivism than behaviour modification, which only changes surface-level behaviors.

H: However, while anger management may address underlying causes, it could be argued that changing observable behavior first, as in behavior modification, is more practical and offers immediate results in reducing recidivism.

I/D: This is connected to the nature vs. nurture debate. Anger management programs often address internal emotional states (nature), while behaviour modification focuses on changing external behavior (nurture), raising the question of which factor plays a more critical role in shaping criminal behavior.

Restorative Justice - it may not be cost-effective/ it’s expensive (limitation)

P: A limitation of restorative justice is that it may not be practical or cost-effective.
E: Meetings between offender and victim are emotionally intense and require trained mediators, who are expensive and scarce. Dropout rates are also high, as participants often withdraw before the session.
C: This reduces the effectiveness and feasibility of restorative justice as a large-scale solution.

H: However, research by Shapland et al. (2007) found that for every £1 spent on restorative justice, £8 could be saved in reduced reoffending, suggesting it may be a worthwhile long-term investment despite upfront costs.

I/D: Determinism vs Free Will – Restorative justice assumes offenders have the free will to take responsibility and change. The success reported by Shapland et al. supports this, challenging deterministic views of offending behaviour.

Restorative Justice - feminists argue it’s unsuitable for domestic abuse (limitation)

P: Feminists argue that restorative justice is unsuitable for crimes like domestic abuse, where power imbalances exist. Women’s Aid has even called for a ban on its use in such cases.

E: Offenders may manipulate the process to intimidate victims, while community involvement risks victim-blaming rather than support.

C: This suggests restorative justice is not universally appropriate and could do more harm than good.

H: However, some argue it empowers victims by giving them a voice—if conducted in a safe, controlled environment.

I/D: This relates to social sensitivity, as applying restorative justice in domestic abuse cases could unintentionally retraumatize victims.