Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Theories of Offending
Unit Title: Psychology A: History and Development of
Psychology
Unit No: FK8D 34
Lynn Findlay
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
1
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Contents
Psychodynamic Theories of Offending ........................................................ 3
Megargee’s ‘overcontrolled’ violent offender ............................................ 4
Bowlby’s ‘affectionless psychopath’ ......................................................... 4
Evaluation of the psychodynamic approach............................................. 5
Evaluating psychology using the scientific method ...................................... 6
Physiological Theories of Offending ............................................................ 7
Lombroso’s ‘atavistic form’ theory ........................................................... 7
Sheldon’s theory of somatotypes ............................................................. 8
The ‘Extra Y’ Hypothesis ......................................................................... 9
Learning theories of offending ................................................................... 10
Differential association theory................................................................ 10
Social learning theory ............................................................................ 11
Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality .............................................. 13
Some items from the EPI ....................................................................... 16
Biological theories of offending ................................................................. 18
The Biological Perspective: Aggression and Free Will ........................... 21
Theories of offending and key debates in psychology ............................... 27
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
2
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Psychodynamic Theories of Offending
Freud’s theory of the psyche
In Freud’s psychodynamic theory, personality (or the psyche) has three
distinct components: the id, representing primitive desires and the need for
gratification, the ego, representing moral and social constraint and the need
for gratification, the superego, representing moral and social constraints, and
the ego, representing reality and the ability to delay gratification. Within this
framework, it is the role of the ego to strike a balance between the demands
of the id and the constraints imposed by the superego. This is primarily
achieved through the use of defence mechanisms that allow the id’s desires
to be satisfied in ways that the superego finds acceptable. To a Freudian,
then, behavior that lies outside what society regards as acceptable – be it
‘abnormal’ or ‘criminal’ – is the result of abnormal development of the psyche.
Since, in classical Freudian theory, the structure of the psyche is determined
in the first five years of life, it follows that the roots of offending are also found
in this period, especially in the relationship between the developing child and
its parents. The Freudian framework implies a number of possible causes for
later criminal behaviour.
A weak superego
The superego is the moral regulator of behaviour. It develops at the end of
the phallic stage (about 5 years) as the child internalises its same-sex parent
in order to resolve the Oedipus complex. The superego continues to act as a
parent within the psyche. It punishes the ego with anxiety when an immoral
act is contemplated and with guilt if the act is carried out. A weak superego,
developed as a result of abnormal relationships within the family, would result
in a person with few if any of the usual inhibitions against antisocial
behaviour. They would act in ways that gratified their id, regardless of the
social restraints on doing so.
A deviant superego
Alternatively, a child might develop a superego in the normal way, but the
superego in the normal way, but the superego itself has deviant values. The
superego is an internalisation of the same sex parent so as a moral regulator
it threatens and punishes those behaviours that the parent would find
unacceptable. Consequently, a son raised normally in family with a criminal
father might develop a superego that does not react to criminal acts that the
father would engage in.
A strong superego
It seems counterintuitive that a strong superego could increase a person’s
risk of offending when the superego is the regulator of moral behaviour but
there are at lest two ways in which this might happen. An excessively
powerful superego would render a person anxious and guilty much of the
time, since every time they acted on the id’s desires – however innocuously –
their superego would punish them for it. This could result in a person
committing crimes in order to get caught and punished to assuage the guilt
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
3
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
imposed by their own superego. Alternatively, an excessively strong
superego might prevent the person from expressing any of the antisocial
impulses that inevitably build up in their unconscious. Normally, they would
express these impulses harmlessly through defence mechanisms (e.g. by
sublimating their aggression into sport). If the superego prevents this from
happening, the aggression or sexual desire could build up over time until it
becomes strong enough to overwhelm the ego and is expressed suddenly
and violently as murder or rape.
Megargee’s ‘overcontrolled’ violent offender
Megargee (1966) documented a series of cases of violence carried out by
people who were regarded as passive and harmless. For example, an 11year-old boy who stabbed his brother 34 times with a steak knife was
described as polite and softly spoken with no history of aggression (Gross,
1996). Megargee argued that such cases represent a distinct sub-group of
violent offenders whose shared characteristic is an apparent inability to
express their anger in normal ways and who eventually ‘explode’ and release
all their anger and aggression at once, often in response to a seemingly trivial
provocation. Freudian formulations like Megargee’s are unfashionable
nowadays and more research attention is given to the majority of violent
offenders, whose problem is generally a lack of inhibition of their anger, rather
than too much inhibition. Nonetheless, there is evidence that a subset of
violent offenders follow the pattern described by Megargee. Blackburn
(1971), for example, found that people convicted of extremely violent assaults
tended to have fewer previous convictions and scored lower on measures of
hostility than those convicted of moderately violent assaults. However, the
existence of such a group does not in itself show that Megargee was correct
about the underlying mechanisms responsible. In particular, Megargee’s
approach does not adequately distinguish whether such offenders do not
experience anger normally (as the psychodynamic approach would suggest)
or whether they experience it but do not express it (Blackburn, 1993).
Bowlby’s ‘affectionless psychopath’
Another psychodynamically inspired explanation of offending comes from
Bowlby (1951) although Bowlby was also influenced by ethology and
evolutionary theory. Bowlby proposed that the ability to form meaningful
social relationships in adulthood was dependent on a close, warm and
continuous relationship with the mother in the first few years. Since this
relationship acts as the prototype for all future relationships, its disruption
would impair the person’s ability to relate to others. This could result in a
condition that Bowlby called ‘affectionless psychopathy’. Bowlby presented
evidence that early maternal deprivation was related to later criminal
behaviour, notably through his famous ’44 Thieves’ study in which he
reported that 39 per cent of a group of juvenile delinquents has experienced
significant disruption to their attachments, compared to only 5 per cent of a
non-delinquent group. Such evidence notwithstanding, it is no longer widely
accepted that research has been criticised for unrepresentative sampling and
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
4
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
poor control group matching. Later theorists, particularly Rutter (1971), have
pointed out his failure to distinguish between deprivation, privation and the
distortion of attachments, each of which may have different effects. Overall,
he is now regarded to have overestimated the impact of early life experiences
on later offending.
Evaluation of the psychodynamic approach
Psychodynamic theories of offending are no longer widely accepted by
psychologists, for a number of reasons. First, there is the difficulty
associated with testing some of the concepts. Psychodynamic theories rely
heavily on concepts like the unconscious mind, whose existence is difficult if
not impossible to prove. Second, there is a tendency for psychodynamic
theories to be able to explain any behaviour, but only after it has happened.
As a result, these theories are regarded by many as unprincipled and, since
they are incapable of being proved wrong, unscientific. Third,
psychodynamic researchers rely heavily on qualitative case studies in which
the participants’ behaviour is interpreted in symbolic terms. This is a highly
subjective process: two different analysts may draw very different conclusions
from the same set of observations. This type of evidence makes scientists,
who prefer quantifiability and objectivity, rather uneasy. Fourth,
psychodynamic therapies that have attempted to treat offending have not
been successful (Howitt, 2009), besides being extremely time consuming.
It is important not to overlook the positive contributions that psychodynamic
theories have made to criminological psychology. Psychodynamic
researchers have pointed to the importance of childhood experiences and
parent-child relationships as an influence on offending (Blackburn, 1993) and
have identified many important variables relating to delinquent behaviour in
adolescence (Hollin, 1989). So, whilst its theoretical explanations have fallen
out of favour, the psychodynamic tradition should be credited with pointing in
some useful directions for later researchers to follow.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
5
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Evaluating psychology using the scientific method
You are learning how to…
 Critically evaluate
psychological theories
 Assess the extent to which
psychology is scientific
In the context of…
 Psychodynamic theories of
offending
What is science?
In the context of the debate about whether psychology (or any approach to
psychology) is scientific, science can mean several things. It is possible to
distinguish between science as a type of knowledge and science as a
method for obtaining knowledge. If you wish to use an approach’s
scientific status as a way of evaluating it, you need to distinguish between
these two aspects.
As a type of knowledge, scientific theories must…
 Be based on empirical evidence
 Be logically constructed and internally consistent
 Be capable of being proven wrong, so they can be modified as the
evidence dictates.
As a method for obtaining knowledge, scientific research must…
 Test hypotheses derived from theory
 Be empirical (i.e. gathered through the senses)
 Be objective (i.e. researchers must agree on what they have observed)
and unbiased
 Use rigorous, repeatable methods
 Be conducted in a systematic way
 Be open to public scrutiny of methods and data
Evaluating psychodynamic theories
Students often evaluate psychodynamic theories very sloppily. Frequently
they make statements like ‘there is no evidence for Freud’s theories’ or
‘psychodynamic theories are unscientific’. This is poor evaluation in the first
case because it’s simply not true and in the second place because without
any further elaboration this is an unsubstantiated and rather sweeping
statement. When evaluating any theory;



Explain the nature of your criticism.
Don’t make sweeping statements, especially if they aren’t true.
Play the ball, not the man.
Write an evaluation of the psychodynamic approach to offending, using
the criteria above. Make sure that each of your points is fully explained
and elaborated.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
6
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Physiological Theories of Offending
What do we mean by a physiological theory?
Before the 19th Century, discussion of crime and criminals was conducted
entirely in moral and philosophical terms. It was only in 1876 when the
Italian anthropologist Cesare Lombroso started a tradition of physiological
theories of criminality. These have in common a focus on the person’s
physical form as a marker of criminality.
Lombroso’s ‘atavistic form’ theory
Lombroso (1876) claimed that criminality was heritable. He suggested that
there was a distinct biological class of people that were prone to criminality.
These people exhibited ‘atavistic’ (i.e. primitive) features; Lombroso
suggested that they were ‘throwbacks’ who had biological characteristics from
an earlier stage of human development that manifested as a tendency to
commit crimes. Lombroso claimed that criminal types were distinguishable
from the general population because they looked different. The principle
markers of criminality were a strong jaw and a heavy brow. However, he
also suggested that different types of criminal had different features, so
murderers had bloodshot eyes and curly hair, whilst sex offenders had thick
lips and protruding ears.
One hundred
years or so later,
Lombroso’s
theory appears
faintly ridiculous
to most of us, and
there is no doubt
that it is deeply
flawed. First,
Lombroso did not
use any noncriminal control
groups to
establish whether
the ‘atavistic’
www.crimeculture.com
features he identified were confined to the criminal population. Second, his
sample is likely to have contained a large number of people with
psychological disorders and chromosomal abnormalities, so he has not
distinguished adequately between criminality and pathology. Third, crime is
neither a natural nor a homogenous category of behaviour; it is a social
construction, which makes the argument that criminal behaviour as such is
inherited is hard to sustain. Fourth, our current understanding of genetic
influences on behaviour does not support the idea that complex behaviours
(like most criminal activities) are controlled by single genes.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
7
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
To be fair to Lombroso, he modified his theories quite extensively over the
course of his career. He eventually came to believe that only about a third of
criminality was directly attributable to atavistic features. The majority of
criminal behaviour in his later theories was the result of environmental factors
such as poverty and poor education. Although Lombroso’s theories are no
longer taken seriously by criminological psychologists, it is important to
appreciate that he made several important contributions to the discipline.
Specifically, Lombroso (1) shifted the study of criminal behaviour from a moral
basis to an empirical one; and (2) argued for the interaction of biological,
psychological and social factors in causing criminal behaviour. As a result,
he is regarded by many as the ‘father of modern criminology’ (Shafer, 1976).
Sheldon’s theory of somatotypes
Sheldon (1949) advanced a theory that shares with Lombroso’s the idea that
criminal behaviour is linked to a person’s physical form. Sheldon
distinguished between three basic types of bodily build: ectomorph (thin),
endomorph (fat) and mesomorph (muscular). Sheldon believed that bodily
build was linked to personality and temperament so ectomorphs were solitary
and restrained, endomorphs relaxed and hedonistic and mesomorphs
energetic and adventurous. Pure somatotypes are rare, and most people
represent a blending of different types. Sheldon’s principle claim was that
mesomorphs are more prone to criminal activity than the other two types.
Consequently, his theory predicts that there should be a relationship between
how mesomorphic a person is and their degree of criminality.
Sheldon assessed the somatotypes of samples of college students and
delinquents from photographs. Each photo was rated for mesomorphy on a
scale from 1(low) to 7 (high). It emerged that the delinquents had a higher
mean mesomorphy rating than the college students (4.6 vs. 3.8), supporting
Sheldon’s claims about the link between body type and criminality. A
reanalysis by Hartl et al. (1982) found that the most seriously delinquent of
Sheldon’s sample had a mean mesomorphy rating of 5, adding further
support to the theory. Although Sutherland claimed that Sheldon’s method
for distinguishing delinquents from non-delinquents was not valid, a number
of other studies have confirmed that there is a small association between
bodily build and criminality (Putwain & Sammons, 2001). It is not clear why,
but several possibilities suggest themselves. It might be that a mesomorphic
build reflects high testosterone levels, which may result in higher levels of
aggressiveness. Alternatively, it could be that people react to mesomorphs
in ways that increase their risk of criminal behaviour. Because of the
stereotypes people hold about mesomorphs, they may be drawn into
delinquent activities by their peer groups. Alternatively, the judicial system
may treat them more harshly, increasing the likelihood that they will officially
be labeled as criminal (Blackburn, 1993).
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
8
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
The ‘Extra Y’ Hypothesis
A slightly later physiological theory suggested that some crime might be
attributable to a chromosomal abnormality. Sex is determined by the pattern
of a person’s sex chromosomes: XX in a woman, XY in a man. It is a Y
chromosome that makes a person male. It is well known that atypical
chromosomal combinations can result in atypical sexual development. For
example, in Klinefelter’s Syndrome, the combination XXY results in a male
form with some female characteristics. Since an ‘extra X’ appears to
feminise men, some theorists speculated that an additional Y chromosome
might ‘hyper masculinise’ men who had it. Since men are more aggressive
than women, it might be that men who have XYY chromosomes might be
more aggressive than other men and hence more likely to commit violent
crimes.
The idea was advanced that offender populations in prisons and hospitals
would be likely to contain large numbers of XYY men. Some claims were
made that high profile, prolific offenders, such as the American serial killer
Arthur Shawcross, had the XYY pattern. It was eventually established that
XYY men are rare in the general population but more common in the offender
population (Howitt, 2009). Whilst this is as expected, the problem is that
XYY men tend to commit non violent crime, not violent crime as the XYY
hypothesis predicts (Epps, 1995). Why might this be? Testosterone levels
amongst XYY men are no different from XY men, and they are no more
aggressive than the general population. However, they are at a substantially
increased risk of developmental delay and learning difficulties (Graham et al.,
2007). There is a small association between learning difficulties and criminal
behaviour. IQ scores amongst convicted offenders are marginally lower than
the general population (Hollin, 1992) and there is a slightly higher prevalence
of mild learning difficulties amongst offender groups (Lund, 1990). It might
therefore be the case that the higher than expected number of XYY men in
the offender population is a consequence of the learning difficulties
associated with the condition.
Conclusions
Whilst there is evidence that some physiological factors are associated with
an increased risk of criminal behaviour, it is clear that there is no one
physiological abnormality that causes people to commit crimes. Given the
diversity and complexity of the range of behaviours encompassed by the term
‘crime’, this is not really surprising. Even if we were to focus on one category
of criminal behaviour, for example, violent crime, it seems unlikely that a
single pathological factor would be able to account for all examples. As
Lombroso realised, a satisfactory explanation of a crime is likely to require
consideration of biological, psychological, environmental and social factors.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
9
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Learning theories of offending
Is criminality learned?
Learning theories of offending are based on the assumption that offending is
a set of behaviours that are learned in the same way as other behaviours.
Two examples of learning theories are Sutherland’s (1939) differential
association theory and Bandura’s (1973) social learning theory. These types
of theory emphasise the family and the peer group as a potential source of
criminal behaviours. Social learning theory also raises the possibility that
some types of antisocial behaviour may be learned from media sources like
television, films and videogames.
Differential association theory
Sutherland (1939) suggested that there were two prerequisites for a person to
develop into an offender. They need to learn a set of values and attitudes
that support offending, and the need to learn specific behaviours for
committing crimes. These are all learned within the family and peer group.
The people that surround a developing child will demonstrate a range of
attitudes towards the law and crime, some favourable and some
unfavourable. Sutherland argued that if the child acquires more attitudes that
are favourable to crime than unfavourable ones, the result will be that they
regard criminal behaviour as acceptable. They may also learn specific
methods for committing crimes from those around them. The types of crime
the person then goes on to commit will depend heavily on the precise nature
of the deviant attitudes they have learned. For example, they might regard it
as unacceptable to rob someone, but acceptable to falsify one’s tax returns.
Evidence for differential association theory
The basic prediction of differential association theory is that people who
become offenders will have been socialised in families and groups where
there are some pro-criminal norms. There should therefore be evidence of
pro-criminal norms and probably criminal activity in the families and peer
groups of offenders. This is indeed the case. A certain amount of evidence
suggests that criminal behaviour tends to run in families. Whilst this is
frequently offered in support of a genetic contribution to offending some of the
evidence is equally consistent with differential association theory. For
example, Osborne and West (1982) found that where the father had a
criminal conviction, 40% of sons also acquired one by the age of 18,
compared with only 13% of the sons of non-criminal fathers. A great deal of
research suggests that criminality is concentrated in a small number of
families. Walmsley et al found that a third of UK prisoners claimed to have a
family member also in prison. Matthews (1968) also found that juvenile
delinquents are more likely than non-delinquents to report having peers who
engage in criminal activity.
Evaluation of differential association theory
Whilst all of this is consistent with differential association theory, Blackburn
(1993) raises two problems. First, this pattern seems confined to petty acts
of criminality such as vandalism. Second, because the data are correlational
© Banff and Buchan College
10
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
it is equally likely that adolescents with deviant tendencies seek out deviant
peers. A further problem with differential association theory is that some of
its constructs are rather vaguely specified. It is difficult to see, for example,
how the number of pro-criminal attitudes a person acquires could be
measured with any precision, and Sutherland does not specify by how much
pro-criminal attitudes must outnumber pro-law ones in order for the person to
become an offender. Like many general theories of criminality, differential
association theory runs into problems when required to explain criminal
behaviour on an individual level. For example, it is not clear why some
people raised in persistent contact with ‘criminogenic’ influences do not go on
to commit offences. A final problem for differential association theory is that
it does not adequately explain the developmental pattern of offending.
Criminal behaviour in adolescence is relatively common: 40% of offences are
committed by people under 21 years and about half of males and a third of
females report having committed at last one offence before the age of 25
(Newburn, 2002).
Social learning theory
Bandura’s social learning theory (SLR) suggests that behaviour of all kinds is
learned through the observation of models. Models are selected on the basis
of a range of characteristics including attractiveness, status and perceived
similarity with the observer. Whether or not a model’s behaviour is imitated
depends on the observed consequences of their actions. If the model is
observed to be reinforced (and the reinforcement has value for the observer)
then imitation becomes likely. If the model is punished then imitation
becomes less likely (although the behaviour may still have been learned, it is
its expression that observed punishment inhibits). In SLT, criminal behaviour
is regarded as qualitatively no different from any other behaviour. In this
respect, SLT shares many ideas with differential association theory.
However, it is rather more precisely specified, lacking many of the vaguer
concepts of differential association.
Evidence for social learning theory
The most compelling evidence for social learning theory comes from a series
of classic laboratory studies carried out by Bandura and his colleagues in the
1960s. These studies focused on children’s acquisition of aggressive
responses from adult models. For example, Bandura et al (1963) showed
children an adult model behaving aggressively towards an inflatable ‘bobo’
doll. The model was either reinforced (rewarded with sweets) or punished
(told off) for her behaviour. A control group saw the model behave
aggressively but with no consequences, good or bad. When the children
were allowed to play in a room that contained a bobo doll, those who had
seen the model punished were significantly less likely to imitate her actions.
An alternate source of evidence for the social learning of aggression is
research into the effects of media aggression on behaviour. A natural
experiment by Williams (1986) examined children’s levels of aggression
before and after the introduction of television into an isolated community.
Williams found that over a two year period, aggression in this community’s
children rose steadily whilst in a similar community where there already was
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
11
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
television there was no increase. One possible interpretation of this is that
the children learned to behave aggressively from models in the TV
programmes they watched.
Evaluation of social learning theory
There is a large body of research that shows that children can learn
behaviour through observation and that their willingness to imitate these
behaviours is affected by the observed consequences of a model’s actions.
However, there is a substantial difference between children hitting a bobo doll
in a lab and people committing criminal offences in the real world. Social
learning theorists have largely neglected naturalistic research (Blackburn,
1993) and this means we should be cautious about assuming that the
processes demonstrated in the laboratory apply in the same way outside it.
In the absence of evidence that criminality is 100% genetic it is fairly obvious
that learning plays a role in offending. But SLT has little to say about the
conditions under which violence and criminality are learned. It also
underplays the role of cognition in criminal behaviour. For example, it is well
known in our society that criminals are frequently caught and imprisoned, a
fairly salient observed punishment. It is also the case that most people work
in legitimate employment to acquire reinforcements such as money and
status, another very obvious set of models and observed majority of models
and reinforcements should promote non-criminal behaviour (Howitt, 2009).
Clearly, there is more to offending than SLT would imply.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
12
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality
What do we mean by ‘personality’?
The term ‘personality’ is generally used to refer to relatively stable
characteristics of a person that make their behaviour consistent across
situations (but many other definitions are possible, depending on the
approach being taken). Hans Eysenck (1964) put forward a theory of criminal
behaviour
based on a
Eysenck’s personality theory
very influential
Responses to
theory of
Social
socialisation
personality he
(reinforcement
Behaviour in
& punishment)
had earlier
situations
devised and
where criminal
behaviour is a
Stable
which he
possible
psychological
Psychological
continued to
outcome.
traits
develop
throughout his
Functioning of
career.
the nervous
Biological
Although this
system
theory is
usually
referred to as
a personality theory of offending, it is important to appreciate that Eysenck’s
theory conceives of criminal
behaviour as the outcome of interactions between processes occurring at
several different levels of explanation.
Extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism
Eysenck originally argued that the great variation between people’s
personalities could be reduced to just two dimensions, which related to the
underlying functioning of the individual’s nervous system. A person’s level of
extraversion (E), neuroticism (N) can be measured using simple pencil-andpaper questionnaires such as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
People with High E scores are sociable, active, lively and sensation seeking.
E is determined by the overall level of arousal in the person’s CNS and ANS.
High E-scorers have a low level of arousal and therefore need more
stimulation from their environment. People with high N scores are anxious,
depressed and react very strongly to aversive stimuli. N is determined by the
overall level of lability in the person’s CNS. Where N is low, the person has a
stable, relatively unreactive nervous system whereas a high N score results in
a high degree of instability.
Eysenck later added a third dimension of personality, psychoticism (P).
People who score high on P are aggressive, antisocial, cold and egocentric.
Eysenck was less clear on how P related to the functioning of the nervous
system. According to Eysenck, E, N and P are determined largely by
genetics. Each trait is normally distributed in the population. That is, most
people have moderate E, N and P scores. Extreme scores are rarer and the
more extreme a score, the rarer it is.
© Banff and Buchan College
13
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
E, N, P and criminal behaviour
In Eysenck’s theory, personality is linked to criminal behaviour via
socialisation processes. Eysenck viewed criminal behaviour as
developmentally immature in that it is selfish and concerned with immediate
gratification. The process of socialisation is one in which children are taught
to become more able to delay gratification and more socially oriented. This is
accomplished primarily through conditioning. When children act in immature
ways they are punished. Consequently, they come to associate anxiety with
antisocial behaviour. Where this process is successful, even thinking about
behaving antisocially produces anxiety, so the person avoids doing it.
Eysenck believed that people with high E and N scores had nervous systems
that made them difficult to condition. As a result, they would not learn easily to
respond to antisocial impulses with anxiety. Consequently, they would be
more likely to act antisocially in situations where the opportunity presented
itself.
Evidence for Eysenck’s theory
Eysenck’s theory covers a great deal of ground and there are aspects of it
that are not easy to test. However, it does make the basic prediction that
compared with non-offenders, offender populations should have higher E, N
and P scores. It should be fairly straightforward to test this prediction.
Rushton and Christjohn (1981) compared E, N and P scores with self-reports
of delinquency in schoolchildren and students. They found that those who
reported higher levels of delinquency also scored higher on E, P and N.
These correlations are consistent with Eysenck’s prediction.
However, studies of ‘official’ delinquency (e.g. comparing convicted offenders
with non-offenders) do not produce such clear cut results. Farrington et al
(1982) reviewed 16 studies of the relationship between E, N and P measures
with criminal convictions. They found that in the majority of cases offenders
scored higher on P and N but not on E. Hollin (1989) notes a similar pattern of
findings: offenders generally show higher P and N scores but not necessarily
higher E scores. It is not clear why the relationship between E and offending
is so inconsistent. One possibility is that E scales actually measure two
things, sociability and impulsiveness and that criminality is associated with the
latter but not the former (Putwain & Sammons, 2002).
Evaluation of Eysenck’s theory
There is some empirical support for Eysenck’s theory, but a number of critics
have argued that the data are flawed. Research in this area relies heavily on
the self-report measures of personality devised by Eysenck and colleagues.
Some (including Farrington et al) have suggested that these scales are
subject to response bias. There is also the issue that research has made
heavy use of comparisons between convicted offenders and the general
population. Such research inevitably excludes those who commit crimes and
are not caught and convicted. Consequently, many of these studies may only
be telling us about the personality characteristics of ‘unsuccessful’ offenders.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
14
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Leaving aside the issues of sampling and response bias there is an argument
that the theory itself is somewhat circular. Take the example of the
psychoticism scale. To measure P, respondents answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a
series of statements about whether they act aggressively and selfishly.
Their scores on such scales are then used to ‘explain’ why high P-scorers act
aggressively and antisocially. This is rather unsatisfactory and P remains a
significant weakness of Eysenck’s theory since it is far from clear what (if
anything) it measures.
A further issue arises from the way Eysenck conceived of personality as a set
of stable traits which cause people to behave consistently across situations.
As noted above, this is just one of a range of possible approaches to
personality. Situationist theories of personality suggest that no such
consistency really exists. Mischel (1968), for example, argues that the
apparent consistency in people’s behaviour is an illusion that arises from the
fact that we typically observe people in similar situations. If we accept this line
of argument then we must question the existence of the stable
personality traits on which Eysenck’s theory rests.
Howitt (2009) explores a number of problems with Eysenck’s theory. Whilst
applauding its attempt to integrate different levels of theorising (genetic,
biological, psychological and social) Howitt notes that the broad sweep of
Eysenck’s theory actually addresses few of the real concerns of forensic
psychologists, who are more interested in questions about specific types of
crime. Eysenck’s theory tells us that rapists and child abusers are extravert,
neurotic and psychotic, but it does not tell us why they rape or abuse children.
This criticism could equally be levelled at any of the theories of general
criminality that have been put forward since Lombroso.
On the other hand, Eysenck’s theory may point in some useful directions
where it comes to preventing crime. His theory suggests that the underlying
tendencies that eventually manifest themselves as criminal behaviour are
detectable in childhood and that it may be possible to modify the socialisation
experiences of high-risk individuals so that they do not develop into offenders.
This could lead to interventions based on parenting or early treatment for
delinquency and hence may be of great practical benefit in reducing criminal
behaviour.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
15
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
BBC
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
Some items from the EPI
Here are some questions about how you think, feel and act. After each
question is a space for answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Decide whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ represents your usual way of thinking, feeling or
acting, and then circle the appropriate answer.
Don’t spend too much time on any question; go with your first reaction, rather
than thinking for a long time about how you want to respond. This isn’t a test
of intelligence or ability, just a measure of how you behave.
Do you like plenty of excitement and bustle around you?
Yes
No
Do you like working alone?
Yes
No
When you get annoyed do you need someone friendly to talk to
about it?
Are you often ‘lost in thought’?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Do you sometimes feel happy, sometimes sad, for no real
reason?
Are you moody?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Have you often lost sleep over your worries?
Yes
No
Have you sometimes told lies in your life?
Yes
No
Do you sometimes laugh at a dirty joke?
Yes
No
E:
N:
L:
NB: this is not a full version of the EPI and does not produce valid
psychometric measurements. It has been reproduced for
educational/illustrative purposes only and should not be used for any
other purpose.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
16
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Eysenck’s personality theory
You are learning how to…
 Comment on psychological
evidence
 Evaluate psychological theories
In the context of…
 Eysenck’s theory of the criminal
personality
Turn these statements and observations into criticisms
Rushton and Christjohn (1981) compared E, N and P scores with self-reports
of delinquency in schoolchildren and students. They found that those who
reported higher levels of delinquency also scored higher on E, P and N.
Farington et al (1982) reviewed 16 studies of the relationship between E, N
and P measures with criminal convictions. They found that in the majority of
cases offenders scored higher on P and N but not on E. Hollin (1989) notes
a similar pattern of findings: offenders generally show higher P and N scores
but not necessarily higher E scores.
Research in this area relies heavily on the self-report measures of personality
devised by Eysenck and colleagues.
Research in this area has made heavy use of comparisons between
convicted offenders and the general population.
To measure P, respondents answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a series of statements
about whether they act aggressively and selfishly. Their scores on such
scales are then used to ‘explain’ why high P – scorers act aggressively and
antisocially.
Mischel (1968) argues that the apparent consistency in people’s behaviour is
an illusion that arises from the fact that we typically observe people in similar
situations.
Eysenck’s theory tells us that rapist and child abusers are extravert, neurotic
and psychotic, but it does not tell us why they rape or abuse children.
Eysenck’s theory suggests that the underlying tendencies that eventually
manifest themselves as criminal behaviour are detectable in childhood.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
17
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Biological theories of offending
Is there a gene for crime?
There is no gene for crime. Modern behavioural genetics has advanced far
beyond the simplistic ‘single defective gene’ ideas associated with Lombroso
and others. Any serious attempt to link criminal behaviour with genetic
inheritance will start from the view that the nervous system is the organ that
determines our behaviour. Each of as has a nervous system whose structure
and functioning determines how we learn from and respond to our
environment. Since the organisation of our nervous system is dependent to
some extent on our genetic inheritance it follows that our behaviour, including
criminal behaviour, may be influenced by our genes.
This view is a long way from the Lombrosian one and embodies very different
ideas about how genes may affect behaviour. First, there is an assumption
that any particular behaviour is affected by many different genes (i.e. is
polygenetically influenced). Second, it is assumed that genes must interact
with the environment. They represent a potential to develop in particular ways
but different behavioural potentials will only be fulfilled with the operation of a
suitable environmental trigger. Third, there is no assumption that crime is
caused by a defective genetic inheritance; rather, the genetic influences
which may lead to crime are regarded as part of the normal genetic variability
within our species. So genes do not cause crime. Under particular
environmental influences they may give rise to certain ways of behaving that
are criminal under some circumstances. Hollin (1992) identifies two important
questions in relation to this area: (1) is there evidence for a genetic influence
on crime; and (2) if so, how does it operate? The first question may be
addressed by using the usual tools of genetic research in psychology: family
history, twin and adoption studies.
Family history studies
Criminal behaviour has a tendency to run in families. Osborne and West
(1982) compared the sons of criminal and non-criminal fathers. They found
that 13 per cent of the sons of the non criminal fathers had criminal
convictions, compared with 40 per cent of the sons of criminal fathers. This is
a reliable finding. Clearly, this is consistent with a genetic influence on
offending but it can hardly be regarded as conclusive evidence for the same.
It is equally consistent with the idea that criminal behaviour is learned within
the family or that a third variable, such as poverty, accounts for criminal
behaviour in both fathers and sons (Hollin, 1989). Even if we accept that the
higher rate of criminality in the sons of criminal fathers is attributable to
genetics, it is still necessary to explain why 60 per cent of them did not go on
to commit crimes and why 13 per cent of the sons of noncriminal fathers did
(Ainsworth, 2000).
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
18
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Twin studies
Twin studies, in which the similarity of mono- and dizygotic twins in respect to
particular traits is compared, go some way to addressing the weaknesses of
family history studies. Early twin studies generally found higher concordance
for criminality amongst MZ than DZ twins, which would support the
suggestion of a genetic influence. However, much of the early research was
flawed by a combination of small samples and poor methods for determining
zygocity (i.e. whether a particular twin pair was MZ or DZ). Better, more
recent studies have addressed these issues and it is noteworthy that they
have generally produced lower estimates for the heritability of criminal
tendencies than the early research (Putwain & Sammons, 2002). The most
convincing studies come from Denmark, where researchers have access to
extensive data on over 3,500 twin pairs.
Christiansen (1977) found MZ concordance rates of 35 per cent, compared
with 13 per cent for DZ twins. Dalgard and Kringlen (1976), in Norway, found
similar results: MZ 26 per cent, DZ 15 per cent.
As with the family history data, these results are consistent with a genetic
influence on criminal behaviour. However, several points should be stressed.
First, though the MZ concordances are higher than the DZ they are not
especially high, suggesting that any genetic influence on criminality is likely to
be slight. Second, since MZ twins are usually treated more similarly than DZ
twins, and because DZ twins may be a boy and a girl, the increased
concordances for MZ twins may still be attributable to environmental
influences.
Adoption studies
In an adoption study, the similarities between adopted children and their
biological and adoptive offspring are compared. Where the similarity is
greatest with the adoptive parents an environmental influence can be
assumed on the characteristic in question. Conversely, where there is greater
similarity with the biological parents this may indicate a genetic influence.
Several such studies suggest a genetic influence on criminality. Crowe (1972)
found that where the biological mother had a criminal record, the child ran a
50 per cent risk of acquiring one by the age of 18, compared with only a 5 per
cent risk where the biological mother did not have a criminal conviction.
Hutchings and Mednick (1975) found that where neither biological nor
adoptive father had a criminal record, the son went on to get one about 10 per
cent of the time. This rose to 11 per cent where only the adoptive father had a
criminal record, 21 per cent where only the biological father had one and 36
per cent where both had a criminal record. More recently, Mednick et al
(1994) found no relationship between the number of criminal convictions of
adoptive parents and their adopted children but a significant correlation
between the number of criminal convictions of the biological parents and their
offspring (although only for property crimes, not violent crimes).
Once again, these findings are consistent with the idea that there is a genetic
influence on criminal behaviour. Several limitations should, however, be
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
19
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
mentioned. First, it may not be criminality per se that is being inherited. For
example, there appears to be heritable predisposition towards alcoholism
(Bohman et al, 1982). Since alcohol abuse is associated with violent crime,
this may be where the genetic link comes from. Second, similarities between
biological parents and their offspring need not be genetic. Criminal
convictions are associated with poverty and low socioeconomic status. Both
of these are stressful. Maternal stress during pregnancy can lead to
developmental problems in the offspring, including behaviour disorders which
might lead to criminal convictions later in life. Third, many adopted children
are not adopted at birth and their life experiences prior to adoption may
significantly affect their later development.
What is being inherited?
If we accept that the evidence shows a genetic influence on criminal
behaviour, there remains the issue of how this influence operates. Hollin
(1992) discusses a number of possibilities:

Abnormalities in the CNS, especially the brain. These might lead to
poorer cognitive functioning (e.g. lower IQ) or problems regulating
behaviour (e.g. ADHD) which might impair decision making and
learning, leading in some way to criminal behaviour.

Abnormalities in the ANS. An abnormally unresponsive ANS would
mean that the individual only reacted to strong stimuli. This might
impair learning (as above) or possibly lead to a greater than usual
tendency for stimulation seeking.

Abnormalities in the endocrine system. Atypical hormonal activity might
conceivably be connected with certain types of offence. For example,
testosterone may play a role in sexual and violent crimes.
The problem, as Hollin points out, is that even considered in isolation each of
these systems is enormously complex and the relationship of their functioning
with behaviour remains in many respects poorly understood. They also
interact with each other in complex ways. Consequently, whilst there are
many studies that have identified biological correlates of offending, none of
these can be taken as evidence for biological causes.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
20
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
The Biological Perspective: Aggression and Free Will
Is aggression part of human nature?
Cases derived from ‘Mind Machine: The Violent Mind’ (BBC, 1988)
Is Aggression Part of Human Nature?
Aggression is certainly part of human life. Apart from everyday reports of
violent crime we are a pretty warlike species. Since the end of World War II
there have been about 30 days on which a war was not taking place
somewhere on the planet. Many have argued that the machinery of
aggression has been built into our brains by evolutionary processes. It
is certainly the case that we are not alone in being an aggressive species.
Other animals with which we share a common ancestry, such as
chimpanzees, have also been observed to engage in intergroup aggression
that looks a great deal like warfare.
So it could be argued that aggression and violent behaviour are an inevitable
fact of life, over which we have no control. However, when we talk about
each other and ourselves this idea is rarely given houseroom. Rather, we
talk about ourselves as if we had the capacity to choose our actions: free will.
Often, when we view examples of aggression and violence we hold the
person that carried them out morally responsible for the harm that arises from
their actions.
Free Will, Moral Responsibility and Psychology
The ideas of free will and moral responsibility are built into our legal system.
Generally, the law says that, on order for a crime to have been committed
there must be actus reus – the guilty act – and mens rea – the guilty mind. In
other words, in law, moral responsibility is generally predicated on intent.
At this point, Psychology and the law tend to part company. The law is
predicated on the notion of free will. As we have seen over the past few
weeks, Psychology frequently is not. Although for different reasons, most
schools of psychological thought take the model of the physical sciences,
where all effects have physical and mechanistic causes. Consequently, most
psychological perspectives deny the existence of free will. For example, the
behaviourists believe that our behaviour is determined by our conditioning
and history of reinforcement. The Freudians believe that our behaviour is
determined by unconscious processes. The biological approach is
deterministic in a similar way. When explaining human behaviour, biological
psychologists use biological concepts. Their theories tend to emphasise:

Genetics, and the possibility that certain behavioural tendencies are
inherited.

The nervous system, and the way that certain behaviours are linked to
the functioning of particular parts of the brain.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
21
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)

BBC
Chemical influences, and the way that substances such as
neurotransmitters and hormones (and their analogues, drugs and
toxins) can alter the functioning of the brain.
What these have in common is that they are governed by physical processes
that follow the laws of physics. In other words, from the point of view of a
biological psychologist, the brain, which causes all of our behaviour, is a
machine. An incredibly complex machine, but a machine nonetheless. And
machines do not have free will. Their behaviour unfolds in a predictable way
according to knowable laws and principles. So, aggression and violence are
behaviours produced by the brain, and the brain operates in a mechanistic
way. This type of deterministic and reductionist view precludes the
idea of choice or agency and, consequently, makes the idea of moral
responsibility irrelevant.
Nonetheless, we carry on (biological psychologists included) as if people do
make choices about their actions and can be held responsible for the
consequences. However, there are circumstances where we (and the law)
accept that biological processes have overridden ‘free will’, and that a person
should not be held liable for the consequences of their actions.
Case 1 – Dawn
Dawn has episodes of erratic behaviour, and occasionally has violent
fantasies. For example, she reports that on one occasion, whilst preparing
dinner for her family, she started to experience great feelings of resentment
against her husband. She was using a knife at the time and started to
fantasise about stabbing him. On other occasions she has behaved in ways
that, whilst not aggressive, are certainly bizarre. For example, she has been
known to remove all her clothing and wander off into the garden in the middle
of the night.
Discussion question: what immediate assumptions might we make about
Dawn’s behaviour? If Dawn had stabbed her husband, would we hold her
responsible?
Dawn is diabetic. Under some circumstances, her blood-glucose level can
drop dangerously low, and she becomes hypoglycaemic. This state is
dangerous for the person, as it can lead to coma and ultimately, death. In
Dawn’s case it can also lead to abnormalities of psychological functioning. In
her words, ‘It feels as if I’m moving through a tunnel…everything disintegrates
but at the same time becomes intensely vivid…it’s lethal…your own body
behaves on its own…your mind goes absent’.
As Dawn’s blood-glucose level drops, her cerebral cortex, the part of the
brain responsible for planning, reasoning and ‘rational’ behaviour starts to
shut down. However, her limbic system, a more primitive part of the brain
involved with responding to threats and aggressive behaviour, carries on
functioning. Its aggressive impulses can no longer be controlled by the
cerebral cortex
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
22
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Discussion question: most people agree that, if Dawn did commit a violent
act whilst hypoglycaemic, she should not be held morally responsible.
However, consumption of a large amount of alcohol can have very similar
effects on the brain to hypoglycaemia: impaired cortical functioning leading to
uninhibited behaviour. Much violent crime is alcohol related. If Dawn attacked
her husband whilst drunk would we draw the same conclusion? After all, the
biological processes are very similar.
Cases 2 and 3 – Arthur and Colin
Arthur has recurring dreams about being attacked. The dreams are
accompanied by feelings of terror and great anger. Sometimes he has
woken up from such dreams to find that he has assaulted his wife. He has hit
and kicked her and once tried to strangle her, apparently whilst asleep. Colin
also suffered from recurring violent dreams following a head injury he
sustained in a car accident. He awoke one day to find he actually had killed
his wife.
Discussion question: if someone claims to have committed a criminal act,
such as homicide, whilst asleep, is it our first instinct to believe them? How
could we test their claim?
Frontal cortex (thinking, planning, rational behaviour) is inhibited whilst the
person sleeps. At times, sensory and motor cortex (areas associated with
movement and sensation) are highly stimulated, leading to the experience of
dreaming. The limbic system (emotion) is often activated whilst we dream.
The pons paralyses us to stop us from acting out our dreams. Psychologists
who examined both Arthur and Colin agreed that both were suffering from
sleep disorders. In Arthur’s case, he suffers from night terrors. In this
disorder, people tend to have very strong negative emotions whilst asleep, on
which they are inclined to act. They may lash out in their sleep and are
sometimes violent, but often have no recollection of this when they wake up.
In Colin’s case, it was decided that he was suffering from REM behaviour
disorder. This is rarer and often more dangerous than night terrors. If
generally occurs when the pons is damaged. The pons paralyses us when we
go into REM sleep, and this stops us from acting out our dreams. If the pons
is damaged, then people can engage in complex – and occasionally violent –
behaviour, whilst asleep.
In Colin’s case, he attacked and killed his wife. REM behaviour disorder
sufferers are not usually dangerous to anyone but themselves. There have
been a number of cases where sufferers have injured themselves whilst
acting out elements of their dreams. The following case description is fairly
typical:
A Patient came to a local sleep laboratory because he was keeping his family
awake all night with shouting and acting out his dreams. His wife was forced
to sleep in a different room not only so she could get some sleep, but also
because she feared for her own safety. The patient managed to fall out of bed
on a nightly basis, often injuring himself in the process. He was a war veteran
and would often dream he was trying to avoid enemy attack. Thinking that it
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
23
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
would help, he purchased a hospital bed with railings. Still he managed to
climb out over top of the railings and fall to the floor. The patient then had to
resort to sleeping on a mattress on the floor. When he was monitored in the
sleep lab during overnight testing, and he entered REM sleep, muscle tone
activity was detected when it should have been absent. Talking, laughing,
shouting, flailing of the arms and kicking of the legs were all observed. He
nearly fell head first out of the bed on several occasions. The patient has
been prescribed a medication which will make his muscles relax during REM
sleep so that he will no longer act out his dreams. To update, the patient is
now doing fine and is sleeping in his own bed again. (Orr, 2003)
The court accepted Colin’s defence that he was not acting of his own free will
when he killed his wife, and he was acquitted.
Case 4 – David
David was a gardener with a reputation for being a very passive and mild
mannered person. Over a very short period of time his behaviour changed
markedly. He became very bad tempered and lashed out at family members,
something they describe as being completely out of character for him. Whilst
working at a client’s house he got into an argument with her and beat her to
death. The prosecution argued that he had lost his temper and murdered her
in a fit of rage.
The jury believed the prosecution and he was sentenced to life in prison.
Discussion question: how significant is it that David was reported to be
acting ‘out of character’ in the days immediately prior to the murder?
At his trial, David’s defence argued that his behaviour had not been under his
control. Shortly before his behaviour changed, David had accidentally been
exposed to a high concentration of an organophosphate pesticide called
carbaryl. Carbaryl is a substance that can have an effect on the nervous
system. In fact, it behaves similarly to many nerve gasses (chemical weapons
that exert their effect by impairing the functioning of the NS). Carbaryl works
by affecting the way that brain cells communicate with each other. This
communication occurs at synapses, little gaps at the junctions of nerve cells.
Neurones (nerve cells) release chemicals to send signals across the gap.
These chemicals are called neurotransmitters. After it has been released,
the neurotransmitter is broken down to prevent it from stimulating the postsynaptic neurone for any longer than necessary. Carbaryl prevents the
breakdown of a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine (ACh). Exposure to
high doses of carbaryl causes ACh to build up in the brain and other parts of
the nervous system.
One of the many parts of the brain that uses ACh is a structure called the
hypothalamus. This structure is important in a huge range of behaviours
including eating, drinking, sex and aggression. Electrical stimulation of
specific parts of the hypothalamus can cause a rat to show signs of rage and
attack behaviour.
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
24
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
David’s Defence argued that the carbaryl to which he had been exposed had
affected the functioning of his hypothalamus. A small provocation would have
started the parts of the hypothalamus associated with attack behaviours to
start firing. However, because of the carbaryl, they would not have been able
to stop, leading to uncontrolled rage and aggression.
Case 5 – Sandie
Sandie came from a very stable background and seemed quite normal whilst
growing up. However, around the age of 15 years her behaviour started to
become erratic and violent. Her aggressive acts were quite unusual. For
example, she once threw a bottle through a police station window, then
waited around outside for the police to come and arrest her. Her extremely
violent behaviour brought her to the attention of psychiatrists, who declared
that she was untreatable.
Eventually, Sandie found herself accused of stabbing a co-worker seventeen
times. She had no recollection whatsoever of doing this.
Discussion question: do we view violent women differently to violent men?
Whilst examining her history when preparing her defence, her defence team
noticed that her violent outbursts seemed to occur at regular monthly
intervals. Further examination revealed that her aggressive acts almost
invariably coincided with her menstruation.
One possible explanation for this concerns the effect of progesterone on the
limbic system. Progesterone is a hormone that is released during pregnancy
and also just prior to menstruation. As we have already seen, the limbic
system plays a role in threat and attack behaviour. Progesterone seems to
have a calming effect on the limbic system. It is possible that Sandie’s
aggressive behaviour stemmed form the fact that she released too little
progesterone during the relevant phase of her menstrual cycle. What is
certain is that when she was treated with drugs to increase her progesterone
levels, Sandie became markedly less aggressive. Rather than being
imprisoned, she was given a probation order conditional on continued
treatment.
Discussion question: psychologists are divided on the question of whether
pre-menstrual syndrome is a useful construct. Apart from the ambiguous
nature of some of the evidence, some have argued that it paints a picture of
women as ‘inherently pathological entities’ who are slaves to their biology.
What do you think of this view?
Case 6 – Julie
Julie had a normal childhood, but in adolescence started to experience
absence seizures, a form of epileptic fit. These got worse as she got older
and she started to have full-blown seizures. Often, these were accompanied
by intense feelings of panic and dread. Sometimes, Julie would start running,
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
25
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
as if to escape from something or someone. In her teens she started to carry
a knife, just in case she found herself in a dangerous part of town after one of
her ‘running attacks’.
On one occasion she went to see a film with her father, and had a panic
seizure during the film. She ran off to the toilet to hide, and whilst in there
started to have a hallucinatory episode in which her body became distorted.
Unfortunately, in the middle of this attack another woman came into the toilet
and accidentally brushed against her. In the grip of a terrible panic, Julie
stabbed her in the heart and ran off (the woman survived, thanks to first aid
administered by Julie’s father).
Julie was hospitalised rather than arrested, and the medical team treating her
thought that her aggressive outburst and her epilepsy might be related. They
implanted electrodes in different parts of her brain to try and find out more
about her seizures. They discovered that she had an epileptic focus very
close to her amygdale, part of the limbic system. Experimentally, they
stimulated the area electrically. Julie suddenly entered into an absence
seizure. Following on from this her face started to twitch as if she was very
angry, and she suddenly flew into a frenzy of attack behaviour.
A surgeon operated on her brain to remove the focus from her amygdale.
Since then she has experienced no further aggressive outbursts or attacks of
rage.
Discussion question: what are the issues raised by treating aggressive
behaviour by operating on people brains?
What might be the pros and cons of such an approach?
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
26
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Theories of offending and key debates in psychology
Are criminals born or made? And, how can we detect them? This question
has baffled psychologists, sociologists and criminologists for many years, and
is the very essence of trying to establish the nature of criminality. The born or
made argument, known as the “NATURE VERSUS NURTURE” debate, asks
whether criminality is due to genetic factors (NATURE), and therefore
unavoidable, or whether it is the product of social situationalism,
environmental surroundings and other external factors (NURTURE).
Theories that explain offending in terms of only one factor are
REDUCTIONIST, because they reduce complex human behaviour down to
one explanation without considering the interaction of the many factors that
can influence a person to become an offender (and more often than not the
complex interaction between nature and nurture). In direct contrast, those
which consider many factors are HOLISTIC.
Some explanations of offending imply that offenders do not have any choice
in becoming such- their behaviour is caused by factors beyond their own
control. These theories are criticised on the grounds that they are
DETERMINISTIC, and bring into question the role of personal responsibility; if
behaviour is beyond a person’s control, should they be held responsible for
their actions? Those theories which suggest that behaviour is a product of the
decisions and choices of each individual advocate FREEWILL.
Definition
Approaches
NATURE
NURTURE
FREEWILL
DETERMINISM
REDUCTIONISM
HOLISM
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
27
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)
Psychology B: Explanation and Research of Psychological Topics (FK8E 34)
BBC
Index
ADHD, 20
affectionless psychopathy, 4
ANS, 13, 20
atavistic, 7, 8
Bandura, 10, 11
Bowlby, 4
criminogenic, 11
defence mechanisms, 3, 4
deterministic, 21, 22
differential association, 10, 11
ectomorph, 8
ego, 3, 4
endomorph, 8
extraversion, 13
Eysenck, 13, 14, 15, 17
free will, 21, 22, 24
genetics, 13, 18
id, 3
Klinefelter’s Syndrome, 9
Lombroso, 7, 8, 9, 15, 18
© Banff and Buchan College
Author Code (S44/Finl1)
media, 10, 11
Megargee, 4
mesomorph, 8
Mischel, 15, 17
nervous system, 13, 18, 21, 24
neuroticism, 13
Oedipus complex, 3
personality, 3, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17
psychodynamic, 3, 4, 5, 6
psychoticism, 13, 15
Rutter, 5
Sheldon, 8
single defective gene, 18
social learning theory, 10, 11, 12
socialisation, 14, 15
somatotypes, 8
superego, 3
Sutherland, 8, 10, 11
XYY, 9
28
Date of Production/Revision 12/30/2011
File :n:\(file ref.)