1. 16 marker Eysenck – happy to mark…
Recap last week: in pairs….
Whiteboards:
1 whiteboard: All key terms associated with biological explanations
The other whiteboard: 5 bullet points relating to Eysenck… cant use the word personality!

2. Bio
Eysenck
personality is innate - personality varies along three dimensions – neurotic – stable, extravert – introvert with the typical criminal type is the neurotic-extravert;
neuroticism leads to unstable, unpredictable behaviour
extraverts do not condition easily and do not learn from mistakes
C: Alternatives to the idea of a unitary type, eg Moffitt (1993) proposed four distinct types;
A: incompatibility with modern personality theory, eg the 5 factor model (Digman,1990) which emphasises role of other dimensions, eg conscientiousness and agreeableness, it is possible to have a high E and N score and still not offend;
S: McGurk and McDougall, (1981) Farrington et al. (1982).
T: link to the EPI and how we can test the theory…but weakness come from the questionnaire method
L: Eysenck’s theory in the historical context as anti-liberal;
I & D: determinism, reductionism and the need to consider wider influences, eg society;
Genetic explanations, focusing on ‘criminal’ genes such as the MAOA gene (which controls levels of brain serotonin) linked to criminal aggression
Brain pathology explanations, possibly liked to genes and/or early abuse; examples include the relationship between psychopathy and abnormalities of frontal lobe and amygdala function
S – Farrington - offending strongly focused in families and is demonstrated from one generation to the next
L - Causality is an issue e.g. Krakowski, 2003
S - Brain scanning studies that show pathology in brains of criminal psychopaths (Raine et al)
I & D: Reductionist
Determinist
Nature

3. Lesson Objectives
To describe the cognitive explanation for offending behaviour
Apply Kohlberg’s theory to Heinz dilemma
Use CASTLE to evaluate the theory
Outline (max 50 words) the cognitive distortions involved in criminal behaviour
Evaluate the explanation using research evidence
Apply to 16 marker by planning answer ready for next lesson

4. Which expression is the angry expression?

5. Psychological explanations for Offender Behaviour: Cognitive Explanations.
Aim: to explain and evaluate the cognitive explanations for offender behaviour
Keywords:
Moral development refers to the set of values that we learn and internalise during our development. These values become internalised or inbuilt and we develop our own sense of right and wrong
Cognitive Distortions: faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, the world or others negatively.

6. Thoughts on a whiteboard
Lawrence Kohlberg:
Asked about moral issues and thought that our reasoning develops as we get older.
In his original study he used a sample of 58 working and middle class boys from Chicago. They were aged 7, 10, 13 & 15
He presented the boys with 10 moral dilemmas and asked them to discuss what they would do and why in response to each dilemma.
Kohlberg concluded that it was possible to assess the maturity of a person’s moral development by analysing their responses to the dilemma and their answers to a series of open-ended questions
Criminals have a lower level of moral reasoning than others.
Criminals do not progress from the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning – they seek to avoid punishment and gain rewards. They have child-like reasoning.
Non-criminals tend to reason at higher levels and sympathise with the rights of others, exhibiting honesty, generosity and non-violence (post-conventional moral reasoning)
Does this remind you of Freud? Why?
How might the justice system deal with this?
Is there a real world application?
Thoughts on a whiteboard

7. Pre-conventional morality
Post-conventional morality

8. Watch the Heinz Dilemma video in groups of three and decide your course of action!!

9. 1. Hostile attribution bias:
Cognitive Distortions
Using your text books, make some notes on the different types of cognitive distortions and any research that has explored them:
1. Hostile attribution bias:
When we judge ambiguous situations or the actions of others as aggressive and / or threatening
How can this link to crime?
2. Minimalisation
When the individual downplays the significance of the event or emotion – common with feelings of guilt
How can this link to crime?

10. 1. Hostile attribution bias:
Research to support cognitive distortions
1. Hostile attribution bias:
2. Minimalisation
Schonenberg and Justye (2014) 55 violent offenders were presented with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a control group, offenders were more likely than non-violent PPs to perceive the images as angry/hostile.
Dodge and Frame (1982): children were showed an “ambiguous provocation” where the intention was neither clearly hostile or accidental. Prior to the study, children who has been judged as aggressive were more likely to perceive the situation as hostile.
Barbaree (1991): amongst 26 convicted rapists, 54% denied they had committed an offence at all at 40% minimised the harm that they had caused the victim. Pollock and Hashmall (1991): 35% of a sample of child molesters said that the crime they committed was non-sexual. 36% said that the victims had consented.

11. Strength or limitation – CASTLE?
C: Gibbs (1979) proposed two levels of moral reasoning – mature and immature. Gibbs maintained that Kohlberg’s post-conventional stage should be abandoned since it contains a Western cultural bias. This supports Piaget’s theory that suggests that child-like (criminal) moral reasoning is self-centred and ego-centric which gives way to empathy and a concern for the needs of others as children mature.
Use your text books to develop CASTLE
bullet points for this explanation
S: Palmer and Hollin (1998): compared moral reasoning between 210 female non-offenders 112 male non-offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure (SRM) which contains moral-dilemma related questions such as not taking things and keeping a promise to a friend. The offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent groups.
Blackburn (1993) suggests this is due to their childhood lacking moral role-play opportunities which may have helped mature moral reasoning to develop.
Suggest a real world application of this study.
L: Thornton and Reid (1982): pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associate with crimes such as robbery, whereas impulsive crimes such as assault did not pertain to any type of reasoning. Pre-conventional reasoning tended to be evident in crimes where the offender thought they might have had a good chance at evading punishment. Therefore, the level of moral reasoning may depend on the kind of offence committed.
Why might this approach be less effective than the biological approach?
The cognitive approach is descriptive rather than explanatory…why?

12. A02: apply it! – paper and pen at the ready….
When questioned by police, Max claimed he punched the man in the bar because “he looked at me funny.” In court, defending his actions – Max told the judge that the man he punched “wasn’t even hurt that bad” and “what was I supposed to do? I was just taking care of business.” With reference to the above, explain what is meant by cognitive distortions (4marks) – 4 mins…

13. Could this answer be improved? What would you give it?
Max is displaying faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking about the incident in the bar. He is using cognitive distortions to justify his actions. Max is downplaying the severity of his actions. Max has also misinterpreted the situation as he justifies his actions are due to the man who “looked at me funny”. These distortions view the world and the situation at the bar in a different way.

14. Specify the cog distortion
Max is displaying faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking about the incident in the bar. He is using the cognitive distortion of minimalisation to justify his actions. By stating that the man “wasn’t even hurt that bad” Max is downplaying the severity of his actions. Max is also displaying hostile attribution bias as he has misinterpreted the situation as he justifies his actions are due to the man who “looked at me funny”. These distortions view the world and the situation at the bar in a negative way.
Use egs
Be specific

15. Differential Association Theory
Sutherland (1939) – Learning Theory of criminal behaviour – see handout
The theory is based on the behaviorist ideas about learning principles explaining criminality:
Criminal behaviour is learned- Not result of biology- so crime can only be invented by influence of others
Criminal behaviour learned from others in a process of communication- usually verbal form or gestures from others, not independent of others.
Learning criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups- intimate personal groups have largest influence on learning criminal behaviour, not impersonal agencies such as media
Learning criminal behaviour by association with criminals is the same as any other learning-nothing ‘special’ or ‘abnormal’ about criminal beh- not biological or pathological reasons for criminal beh.
Learning criminal behaviour includes techniques of committing crime, rationalisations and attitudes- learning the ‘trade’ from someone and attitudes taken and excuses made for behaving in a criminal fashion.
Motives & drives are learned from defining legal codes as favourable or unfavourable- Some laws seen as pointless or discriminatory so people feel they can flaunt them e.g. underage drinking.
Delinquency occurs by learning definitions in favour of violation of law rather than lack of violation- Individuals become criminal due to repeated contacts with criminal activity and lack of contact with non-criminal activity
Differential associations (contacts with criminals over non-criminals) vary in frequency, duration, priority & intensity- precise description of criminal behr is possible in quantitative form by analysing the no. of contacts with criminals (appropriate formula for this not yet developed!).
Criminal behr is an expression of needs & values, but it is not explained by those general needs and values-stealing to obtain money is no different to needs of an honest worker, so this NEED in itself can not explain theft.

16. Only need a short evaluation for DAT
L: too general and although similar to SLT, no details as to the cognitive thought processes that underpin (e.g. ARRM)
Is it outdated?
1939 – very influential of the time where deviance and delinquency was high and unexplained… not necessarily the same today
Any supporting research?
L: Is it too simplistic?
Alarid et al – found the theory a good general explanation especially in men
L: Is it a detailed explanation for all crimes?
L: any crime that is individual (embezzlement) it can not account for as these crimes are not influences by others
Any I & D you could link to this explanation?
Reductionist
Deterministic
Nurture
Nomothetic
Does it allow for explanation of crimes within 1 particular area?
THINK ABOUT:
Nature – nurture
Determinism v Free Will
Reductionism v multiple causation
Crime is ‘socially constructed’?
Theory considers behaviour from social-psychological perspective…..this means?
Perhaps in certain neighbourhoods it could be applied but again not to all areas… high crime usually in urban areas – this theory allows the understanding of how crime becomes so widespread in these areas

17. Homework: plan an answer to the following question
Describe and discuss cognitive explanations for offending. Refer to at least one other explanation of offending in your answer (16marks)
Starter of next lesson will be a timed exam question… this question!! Make sure you bring your plan to the lesson and hand in with your answer.

18. Biological explanations
an historical approach (atavistic form)
Genetic explanations
Neural explanations
Psychological explanations
Cognitive explanations
Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality
Psychodynamic explanations
Differential association theory
cognitive distortions, including hostile attribution bias and minimalisation
level of moral reasoning