Crime topic - A-level EDUQAS Psychology

Crime types, explanations and methods of modifying.

Folk / mundane crime

A broad category whereby persons are involved in actions like fishing without a license

Order disruption

Theres no direct victim but concern is raised about potential victims like loitering or resisting arrest

Transactional vice

Victimless offence that involve the exchange of illegal goods or services, such as drug dealing or prostitution.

Interpersonal sexual violence

Refers to sexual violence that occurs between individuals. This includes acts such as rape or sexual assault.

Interpersonal violence general

Refers to violence that occurs between individuals, such as murder.

Property crime

Involved in deceit or manipulation with the purpose of converting property to their own such as fraud.

Property predatory crime

Where persons attempt or actually take personal properties of others without permission such as burglary.

Victim based crime examples:

Includes robbery, murder, and domestic violence.

Crimes against society examples:

Includes terrorism, tax evasion and hate crimes.

3 reasons crime data on crime isnt reliable.

• victim surveys

• offender surveys

• stats

Crime.

Cant really be defined - differs between time and place eg. homosexuality is legal in some countries but not others.

Who is a criminal?

A person who commits acts that violate laws set by society, often resulting in legal punishment.

is criminal behavior always wrong?

No. For example, homosexuality. And, some crimes in society are accepted such as pirating.

BE 1: Inherited criminality. (genes).

Inherited criminality refers to the idea that certain genetic factors, such as the MAOA and CDH13 genes, may predispose individuals to engage in criminal behavior. These genetic influences are often associated with increased aggression, which can help explain tendencies toward violent crime.

BE 1: Inherited criminality. (Raine).

• Prefrontal cortex - less of this glucose activity, meaning they can’t make rational decisions and have impulsive behavior.

• Amygdala - less activity on left side of the brain and more on the right side of the brain, means people don’t really think before their actions leading to impulsivity.

• Hippocampus - less of this glucose activity, meaning that people may not learn right from wrong, so they make the same mistakes.

Evaluate BE 1: Inherited criminality.

• Strength: RTS: Brunner et al - Analysed DNA from 28 men in dutch family, found they shared a gene linked to low levels of MAOA. So shows it could be linked to criminality

• Weakness: Research based solely on one family so could be due to the environment they grew up in realistically. Lacks population validity.

• Weakness: Not 100% concordance rates in monozygotic twins. Shows that it cannot only be due to genetics. (Gottesman = 87%)

• Weakness: cause and effect.

BE2: The role of the amygdala.

• Amygdala is located near the hypothalamus, and the hippocampus.

• While other parts of the brain have influence on aggression, the amygdala does the most.

• Phineas Gage. Before accident = kind, relaxed. After = aggressive. His amygdala was damaged. BUT HE DIDNT COMMITT A CRIME?!

• Fear conditioning. Brain doesn’t link the aggression to negative consequence like prison so they arent scared.

Evaluate BE2: The role of the amygdala.

• Strength: RTS: Coccaro et al - ppts with IED had high levels of amygdala activity. High mundane realism - angry faces.

• Strength: RTS: Gospic et al - ppts played ultimatum game, watched clips and had to decide if they would accept or deny proposals, when rejected them, amygdala activity was high. Shows correlation NOT causation though.

• Weakness: Gospic was a lab experiment and wasnt very high in mundane realism either.

• Weakness: RTC: Raine - other areas of brain too ignored, meaning it re

ID: Eysenck’s personality. Explain extraversion.

Typically outgoing, sociable people who live for thrill and stimulation. They have an under aroused nervous system so will seek stimulation - hence being more impulsive in comparison to introverts who are quiet and over aroused.

ID: Eysenck’s personality. Explain neuroticism.

Determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system. High in neuroticism will be more unstable so man be prone to overrating to stimuli, leading to fear or anger reactions in comparison to stability who would remain level headed and calm.

ID: Eysenck’s personality. Explain psychoticism.

Related to high levels of testosterone. Lower levels leads to more normal balanced behavior.

Evaluate ID: Eysenck’s personality.

• Strength: RTS: Dunlop et al - assessed personality of students 15-17 and compared to people with minor offences and extraversion and psychoticism predicted delinquencies. personality affect whether you will go on to commit a crime.

• Weakness: RTC: Zuckerman - assessed personality of twins. Not fully concordant so some is biological, some isnt?!

• Weakness: 33% of personality isn’t fixed, majority is fixed so we can still change some of our personality.

• Weakness: Cannot establish cause/ effect. Link between PEN and criminal behavior. Which came first?

ID: Cognitive factors. Hostile attribution bias.

• what we infer when we view someone’s actions.

• people with HAB will always assume the worst, so if a person smiles at you they would think the person doesn’t like them - linking to perceiving threats.

ID: Cognitive factors. Minimalization.

• consequences are under exaggerated.

• Help the criminal to accept the consequences for their actions and reduce negative emotions.

• non criminals will magnify the situation and consequence, meaning they are less likely to commit the crime.

Evaluate ID: Cognitive factors.

• Strength: Kennedy and Grubin: sex offenders minimalize their behavior, some even denied committing a crime.

• Strength: We can change our perspective on committing crime with M of M so its nurture.

• Weakness: Isn’t our Minimalization or magnification built into us - determinism?! So can we really change our outlook with M of M?

SE: Differential association theory. DA

• Edwin Sunderland - nurture - people are around others with pro-crime behavior they’ll think its normal and take it on.

• ‘differential association’ - people vary the frequency they hang out with different groups of people - more pro crime means they’re more likely to also be pro-crime.

• Laws acceptable of breaking is pirating, speeding.

• Laws unacceptable of breaking is murder, rape.

SE: Differential association theory. 9 Principles.

1. criminal behavior is learnt.

2. its learnt via interaction with others - communication.

3. learning of it occurs in intimate personal groups.

4. the learning is techniques of committing the crime - which can be complicated, the directions of motives or drives.

5. the motives are learnt from the definitions of laws being favorable or not.

6. people believe that the excess of definitions favorable to violating the law.

7. differential associations vary.

8. learning criminal behavior is by association like other things are learnt.

9. expression of general needs and values but not explained by them.

Evaluate SE: Differential association theory.

• Strength: RTS: Osbourne and West- when father is criminal, 40% sons committed crime by age 18. 13% in non- criminal fathers. (But they share genes so could be MAOA gene?)

• Weakness: RTC: Ronald akers et al- found a correlation between substance abuse and crime. Correlation isn’t causation.

• Weakness: Only really explains small crimes so cannot be applied to all types of crime.

• Weakness: assumes nuclear family, what about same sex couples - outdated, nomothetic. Not useful.

SE: Gender socialization. Men.

• 95.5% men in the prison population.

• men commit more violent crimes.

• but stereotyping because women still commit crimes.

• Women underestimated?

• Women commit crimes when they need to eg. theft.

SE: Gender socialization. Men. link to ES

• Edwin Sunderland

• socialization - girls brought up more controlled and supervised - boys were encouraged to be risk takers.

• girls play with princesses - be polite etc.

• boys play with action man - be quick and reactive etc.

SE: Gender socialization. Men. link to role models.

• girl - mother is role model and is around so easy access to feminine traits.

• boy - dad is role model and isn’t always around so will rebel against mother and seek masculine groups.

Evaluate SE: Gender socialization.

• Strength: RTS: Bandura - when children saw adults being aggressive with the bobo doll, they were more violent then. But, how do we define aggressive behavior - subjective.

• Weakness: Children were used - may be demand characteristics may just think they need to copy what the adult does or there could be consequences.

• Strength: RTS: Carlen- interviewed women in prison and people committed crime due to their low paid work and unemployment etc.

• Weakness: nurture - ignores inherited criminality.

M of M: Anger management. WHY USED?

• punishment alone isn’t effective, need to be rehabilitated with treatment.

M of M: Anger management. 3 aims

1. Cognitive restructuring - self awareness and control over their cognitive dimensions of anger (thoughts).

2. regulation of arousal - learning to control the physiological state (fight/ flight).

3. behavioral strategies - problem solving skilled to remove themself from situation before they get aggressive.

M of M: Anger management. Novaco’s 3 principles.

1. conceptualization - identify the cause of the anger to then overcome it.

2. Skill acquisition - coping mechanisms - mindfulness, problem solving, 54321 breathing.

3. Application - apply to real life scenarios/ situations.

Evaluate M of M: Anger management.

• Strength: RTS: Taylor and Novaco - based on 6 meta analyses found a 75% improvement in reducing anger of people in program.

• Weakness: RTC: Howells et al only moderate benefits to anger management and not as successful as thought.

• Weakness: Anger doesn’t mean aggression. People can be angry and not commit crimes.

• Weakness: Doesn’t work for everyone - what about the offenders who do not want to think back on what they have done and would just prefer to serve their time and not break laws again.

M of M: Anger management. Implications. (CDCDWP). Ethical/ social.

• Consent/ freewill. Could be forced upon them as part of their sentencing.

• Not appropriate for all offenders - thinking back may cause psychological harm.

• Only benefits the prison system not the prisoner. But makes it safe??

• Crimes cost the UK £124 billion yearly. May then reduce this.

• Only treating symptoms not cause of the anger - society - unemployment or deprived upbringing etc.

• CALM isn’t by specialist staff - is it even effective then?? SIT is by specialists.