1. Week 3: evaluating explanations of offending behaviour
Forensic psychology
Week 3: evaluating explanations of offending behaviour

2. Explanations of offending
Biological –
atavistic form
genetics
neural
Psychological –
Eysenck’s criminal personality
Cognitive explanations –Kohlberg moral reasoning & cognitive distortions-minimisation, HAB
DAT
Psychodynamic-superego, defence mechanisms

3. Evaluation Evidence – supporting/challenging Issues and debates
We will be considering the following evaluation points for the explanations of offending behaviour:
Evidence – supporting/challenging
Issues and debates
General strengths and weaknesses (e.g. practical applications, ‘fails to explain’, ‘explains well’)

4. evidence
For each of studies on the next slide, work in pairs and write on a MWB: Which explanation does it link to? Does it support or challenge? Pay attention as you will be writing this up on your own after!

5. evidence
Mednick et al (1984) found, from an investigation of 13,000 Danish adoptees, that when neither biological or adoptive parents had convictions, the percentage of adoptees that did was 13.5%. This figure rose to 20% when either of the biological parents had convictions and 24.5% when both adoptive and biological parents had convictions.
Schonenberg & Justye (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a matched control group of non-aggressive participants, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile.
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between offenders and non-offenders finding that the delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent group.
Farrington et al (1982) reviewed several studies and reported that offenders tended to score high on P measures but not for E & N.

6. answers
Mednick et al (1984) found, from an investigation of 13,000 Danish adoptees, that when neither biological or adoptive parents had convictions, the percentage of adoptees that did was 13.5%. This figure rose to 20% when either of the biological parents had convictions and 24.5% when both adoptive and biological parents had convictions – Genes - challenge
Schonenberg & Justye (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a matched control group of non-aggressive participants, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile. - cognitive distortions – HAB - support
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between offenders and non-offenders finding that the delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent group. - Kohlberg levels of moral reasoning - support
Farrington et al (1982) reviewed several studies and reported that offenders tended to score high on P measures but not for E & N. – Eysenck's criminal personality - challenge

7. evidence
Now, on your MWBs, write why or how it supports/challenges the explanation.
E.G:
Hasmall (1991) reported 35% of a sample of child molesters argued that the crime they had committed was non-sexual ('they were just being affectionate') and 36% stated the victim had consented.
These findings support the idea that offenders downplay the seriousness of the offence committed thus supporting minimalisation as an explanation of offending

8. Why or How does it support/ challenge?
Mednick et al (1984) found, from an investigation of 13,000 Danish adoptees, that when neither biological or adoptive parents had convictions, the percentage of adoptees that did was 13.5%. This figure rose to 20% when either of the biological parents had convictions and 24.5% when both adoptive and biological parents had convictions – Genes –support and challenge
Schonenberg & Justye (2014) presented 55 violent offenders with images of emotionally ambiguous facial expressions. When compared with a matched control group of non-aggressive participants, the violent offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the images as angry and hostile. - cognitive distortions – HAB - support
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between offenders and non-offenders finding that the delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent group. - Kohlberg levels of moral reasoning - support
Farrington et al (1982) reviewed several studies and reported that offenders tended to score high on P measures but not for E & N. – Eysenck's criminal personality - challenge

9. Suggested answers
This suggests that although genetic inheritance plays an important role in offending, environmental influence cannot be disregarded which supports the diathesis-stress model as an explanation for crime. genes
This supports the notion that offending behaviour, particularly violent behaviour, can be linked to faulty information processing cognitive distortions HAB
These findings are consistent with Kohlberg's predictions and suggest that offenders are more likely to reason at a lower level. Kohlberg moral reasoning
These findings suggests that psychoticism is the most important trait linked to offending behaviour and therefore does not fully support Eysenck's theory that high measures of all three traits are important. Eysenck

10. Evidence – activity sheet
Complete the sheet on your own in silence.
You have no longer than 5mins!

11. Problems with research evidence
This activity is designed to get you to consider the problems with the research evidence as well as practice key evaluation/exam skills.
Complete the activities on the sheet.

12. Issues and debates
Go back to your A01 explanations sheet and for each explanation write down at least one issue and debate you could use. Can you remember them? Reductionism holism Determinism freewill Nature nurture Nomothetic ideographic Gender bias Cultural bias Ethics, socially sensitive

13. The Warrior Gene
Watch the following clip and then, in pairs, write a statement about how it links to the free will/determinism debate.

14. The genetic "warrior gene" maoa explanation of offending behaviour is biologically determinist.
It is determinist because it says that those who inherit the genetic mutation when under stress are predisposed to become aggressive and therefore criminal behaviour.
The big problem with using this as a sole explanation of criminal behaviour is that it effectively saying that these people will be aggressive and commit crime and when they are then it is not their responsibility or in fact their fault. This is clearly not a totally logical explanation to use at it has been shown that people with the gene don't display this aggression and criminal behaviour and that criminal behaviour is also displayed by those not carrying the gene.
It also doesn’t fit with our justice system as if a person for had this gene did committ a criminal act they would still be held responsible which reduces the usefulness of the explanation
Wider evaluation
More alarming than the determinism of this explanation though is the socially sensitive nature of drawing a determinist conclusion. If it is believed, then there's potential to possibly eliminate this gene in society and prevent women carrying this gene from having children in order to reduce aggression and violence. Or in fact we could test and label those that have it! This is socially sensitive to these women involved and to those boys and men and women already carrying the gene and has an impact on the usefulness of this explanation of aggression. ,

15. Everyone in your group must be prepared to feedback!
Issues and debates
Each group will be given one of the following explanations and will need to think about and discuss:
How the issue or debate links to the explanation.
Why it is important to consider this issue or debate when using this particular explanation to explain offending behaviour.
Everyone in your group must be prepared to feedback!
Biological –
atavistic form – social sensitivity
genetics & neural – biological reductionism
Psychological –
Eysenck’s criminal personality – culture bias
SEE pack
Cognitive explanations: moral reasoning – gender bias (additional info)
Kohlberg’s theory was based on an all-male sample. According to Gilligan (1977), because of this, the stages reflect a male definition of morality (it’s androcentric). Mens' morality is based on abstract principles of law and justice, while womens’ is based on principles of compassion and care.
Cognitive explanations: cognitive distortions – psychology as a science (additional info)
DAT – environmental determinism
Psychodynamic – gender bias or psychic determinism

16. Issues and debates
This task will get you thinking about how to use the issues and debates to evaluate each of the explanations for offending behaviour.
It is also designed to get you to practice your P.E.S skills.
(P) Think - is this a positive or negative evaluation of the explanation? Then write a nice, clear point
(The……..explanation could be seen to be adding to the nature vs nurture debate;
The ……….explanation could be criticised for adopting a biologically reductionist explanation of offending behaviour)
(E).Think, then explain why this issue or debate links to the explanation Think,
(S) say whether adopting this particular viewpoint is a POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE and WHY explaining criminality like this MATTERS
(e.g. This is problematic as the explanation does not take into consideration all the complex factors that are likely to be involved in why someone may turn to crime e.g. upbringing and socioeconomic status, therefore a more holistic explanation would be more suitable)
Give out summary sheet after they have completed this task.

17. Starter
On BWB- Match the correct issues and debates to the correct explanations and briefly state why. Some can be used more than once.
Gender bias, cultural bias, determinism, reductionism, socially sensitive.
atavistic form
genetics
neural
Eysenck’s criminal personality
Kohlberg-moral reasoning
DAT
Psychodynamic-superego, defence mechanisms

18. Writing a quality issues and debates point. Now mark your classmates.
So what? Determinism- removes blame for a crime but not in line with our legal system as you will be convicted (less likely to seek help (if for a mental illness)) Reductionism-limited explanation, for something as complex as crime is inappropriate. Crime may run in families but so does poverty and social deprivation. (that can lead to potentially limited treatments if talking about mental illness) Socially sensitive- must say why it can lead to wider implications for social groups so here the suggestion of criminals having darker skin have racial undertones and the knock on suggestion to certain cultural groups is huge. Culture- Have they mentioned type of bias i.e. ethnocentric? Also what does that mean for the explanation that it is biased? gender bias- Must mention the type of bias, why it is an the implications Psychology as a science – As direct observations of behaviour cannot be made research relies on inferences of cognition this limits the scientific credibility of the research.

19. General strengths and weaknesses – contributions made and usefulness/practical applications
Atavistic form: Contributions made to criminal psychology
Despite the issues with Lombroso’s research – it has helped to shift the emphasis in crime research away from a simple form of moral explanation (offenders judged as wicked and weak-minded) to a more scientific and credible view (evolutionary and genetic).
Also, in trying to describe how particular types of people are likely to commit particular crimes, Lombroso's theory, could be seen as the beginning of criminal profiling.
Your turn – think about and discuss in pairs the extent to which the following explanations can be seen as useful:
Eysenck’s criminal personality
Genetics & neural
Cognitive explanations- DAT and cognitive distortions
DAT

20. examples
Eysenck’s criminal personality - traits linked to criminal behaviour are innate so may be detectable in childhood - may be possible to modify the socialisation experiences of high-risk individuals so that they do not develop into offenders – could lead to interventions based on parenting or early treatment for delinquency may be of benefit in reducing criminal behaviour Genetics & neural - Not really that useful in terms of preventing crime – there is little that can be done to change a criminals biological make-up and even if we could is it ethical/moral to do so. Cognitive explanations – strategies for dealing with offenders and preventing further crimes - altering faulty cognitions through CBT DAT - crime prevention strategies, particularly in young offenders – using positive role models to encourage young individuals so they can learn positive behaviour/anti-crime attitudes instead of deviant behaviour/pro-crime attitudes - DAT can be also be seen as useful as it provides an explanation for offending behaviour in different sectors of society and offers an explanation for ‘white-collar’ crimes unlike other explanations e.g. biological

21. Linking to the exam
Now you have 3 quality evaluation points for each explanation you can write ANY essay.
I will give you an essay title and you must plan/write it. You must only write very brief ao1. You will work in 2’s or 3’s and will present to class and hand in to make a essay planning revision pack.
Discuss biological explanations of offending behaviour (16 marks)
Discuss cognitive explanations of offending behaviour (16 marks)
Discuss the differential association theory of offending behaviour. Ref to at least one other explanation in your answer (16 marks)
Davina has just been arrested for fighting in the street with a stranger who she said “looked at her funny”. There is a family history of violence as both her mum and auntie have also been arrested for similar incidences.
Outline and evaluate 2 explanations of offending behaviour. Ref to Davina in your answer (16 marks)
5. Outline and evaluate the psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour (16 marks)
6. Outline and compare two explanations for offending. (Total 16 marks)

22. Monday 30 April Friday 4 May Friday 11th May Monday 14th May Wednesday 16 May