Forensic Psychology: Offender Profiling, Biological/Eysenck/Differential Association & Treatment

1

Offender Profiling: Top-Down (FBI) vs Bottom-Up (Canter)

1. Top-down (American FBI Approach: Hazelwood & Douglas 1980): Developed from interviews with 36 convicted US serial killers (including Ted Bundy and Charles Manson), profilers match crime scene details against pre-existing typologies mainly for extreme crimes (murder/rape) to classify offenders as either: ORGANISED (planned crime, victim is a targeted stranger, high control, weapon brought and removed, body hidden, offender has above-average IQ, skilled job, socially/sexually competent, often married); or disorganised (impulsive/spontaneous crime, minimal control, weapon left at scene, body not hidden, offender has lower IQ, unskilled/unemployed, history of mental illness or abuse, lives alone very close to crime scene). 2. Bottom-UP (British Approach: David Canter 2004): Rejects rigid FBI typologies and instead uses statistical analysis of large police databases (Smallest Space Analysis) to generate hypotheses from the specific evidence up: Investigative Psychology: focuses on interpersonal coherence (how the offender interacts with the victim mirrors their everyday life), significance of time/place, and forensic awareness. Geographical Profiling (Rossmo 1997 / Canter & Larkin's 1993 Circle Theory): distinguishes 'Marauders' (who commit crimes in a circle around their home base) from 'Commuters' (who travel to a separate area to offend).

Save

2

Biological Explanations: Lombroso's Atavistic Form, Genetics & Neural

1. Atavistic form (Cesare Lombroso 1876): The 'father of modern criminology' proposed that criminals are 'genetic throwbacks' - a primitive subspecies lacking evolutionary moral development who can be identified by physical cranial and facial stigmata (sloping brow, prominent jaw, high cheekbones, asymmetrical face, extra toes/nipples, insensitivity to pain; murderers have bloodshot eyes and curly hair, fraudsters have thin reedy lips). Examined 383 dead and 3,839 living Italian prisoners; refuted by Goring (1913, comparing 3,000 criminals and 3,000 non-criminals) and criticized for scientific racism/eugenics, though Lombroso shifted criminology toward empirical observation. 2. Genetic explanations: Crowe (1972) found a 50% adoption concordance for criminality when the biological mother had a criminal record vs 5% control; Tiihonen et al. (2015) studied 900 Finnish offenders and identified two candidate genes associated with a 13x higher rate of violent crime: MAOA-L (the 'warrior gene' regulating serotonin/dopamine breakdown) and CDH13 (linked to substance abuse and ADHD). 3. Neural explanations (Antisocial Personality Disorder - APD): Raine et al. (2000) found an 11% reduction in prefrontal cortex grey matter in APD individuals (impairing impulse control and empathy) and Pardini et al. (2014) found reduced amygdala volume in 26-year-old violent men; Keysers et al. (2011) showed criminals only activate their mirror neuron empathy switch when intentionally instructed to empathise.

Save

3

Eysenck's (1964) Theory of the Criminal Personality

Hans Eysenck argued that personality is biologically determined by the innate reactivity of the nervous system and sits along three dimensions measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): 1. EXTRAVERSION (E) vs Introversion: Extraverts have a chronically under-aroused Ascending Reticular Activating System (ARAS), causing them to constantly seek external stimulation, excitement, and risk-taking. 2. NEUROTICISM (N) vs Stability: Neurotics have an unstable, over-reactive Sympathetic Nervous System (ANS), making them emotionally volatile, anxious, and quick to react aggressively under stress. 3. PSYCHOTICISM (P, added in 1976): Linked to high testosterone and dopamine; high-P individuals are cold, unemotional, solitary, and lack empathy. Psychological Link to Socialisation: A high-E, high-N, high-P ('PEN') biological temperament makes it difficult for a child to learn conditioned anxiety responses when punished by parents, so they fail to internalise societal rules and remain developmentally immature/selfish. Evaluation: Farrington et al. (1982) found offenders scored high on P and N but not E; Bartol & Holanchock (1979) found cultural/subtypes differences among Hispanic and African-American prisoners.

Save

4

Cognitive Explanations: Moral Reasoning (Kohlberg) & Cognitive Distortions

1. KOHLBERG'S (1969) stages OF moral reasoning: Based on responses to hypothetical moral dilemmas (such as the Heinz dilemma), moral development progresses through three levels: Pre-Conventional Level (Stages 1 & 2 - characteristic of young children and offenders): Morality is purely ego-centric and externally controlled, actions are judged by whether they avoid punishment (Stage 1) or bring personal reward/self-interest ('what's in it for me?' - Stage 2). Conventional Level (Stages 3 & 4 - most law-abiding adults): Seeking social approval and upholding the law and social order. Post-Conventional Level (Stages 5 & 6): Abstract universal ethical principles and human rights. Palmer and Hollin (1998) confirmed convicted offenders showed significantly less mature (pre-conventional) moral reasoning than non-offenders. 2. Cognitive distortions: Irrational, biased ways of interpreting others' actions that rationalise offending: Hostile Attribution Bias (Schönenberg & Jusyte 2014): misinterpreting ambiguous or neutral facial expressions as aggressive/hostile ('he looked at me funny, so I hit him'). Minimalisation (Barbaree 1991, Pollock & Hashmall 1991): downplaying the severity or harm of one's crime ('I only stole from a rich company with insurance', or sex offenders claiming the victim 'consented').

Save

5

Sutherland's (1939) Differential Association Theory & Psychodynamic Explanations

1. Differential association theory (Edwin Sutherland 1939): A sociological/social learning theory stating that crime is learned through everyday social interaction with intimate personal groups (family, peers) in the exact same way as any law-abiding behaviour. When a person is exposed to an excess of pro-criminal attitudes over anti-criminal attitudes (Varying in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity), they learn both the values justifying crime and the specific practical techniques for committing offences (e.g., how to hotwire a car or break into a house). Explains why crime runs in families (Farrington et al. 2006 Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development: 40% of sons with a convicted father were convicted vs 13% without) and why prisons acts as 'universities of crime', as well as white-collar corporate crime. 2. Psychodynamic explanations (Blackburn 1993): An inadequate Superego fails to restrain the selfish Id in three ways: Weak Superego (absent same-sex parent during Phallic stage prevents internalising moral rules). Deviant Superego (child internalises the immoral values of a criminal same-sex parent). Over-Harsh Superego (crippling unconscious guilt drives the individual to commit crimes with the unconscious desire to get caught and punished). Bowlby's (1944) '44 Juvenile Thieves' also linked maternal deprivation to affectionless psychopathy.

Save

6

Dealing with Offending: Custodial Sentencing, Anger Management & Restorative Justice

1. Custodial sentencing (Prison): Aims are Deterrence (general and individual), Incapacitation (public protection), Retribution ('an eye for an eye'), and Rehabilitation. Psychological effects include depression/suicide (15x higher than general population), institutionalisation, and prisonisation, with high recidivism rates (~57% in the UK reoffend within a year, compared to ~20% in Norway's rehabilitation-focused prisons). 2. Anger management (Novaco 1975 CBT): Recognises cognitive factors trigger emotional arousal leading to aggressive acts; delivered in three stages: Stage 1: Cognitive Preparation (identifying personal anger triggers and how anger is counterproductive). Stage 2: Skill Acquisition (learning cognitive positive self-talk and physiological relaxation/breathing techniques). Stage 3: Application Practice (role-playing provoking scenarios with the therapist and receiving positive reinforcement). 3. Restorative justice (Braithwaite 1989 - 'reintegrative shaming'): A supervised face-to-face meeting or mediation between the offender and the victim (focusing on active accountability, repairing harm, and victim healing; Shapland et al. 2007 found a 14% reduction in reoffending and £8 saved for every £1 spent, though unsafe/unsuitable for domestic violence).

Save

1. Q1

   Outline and evaluate the top-down and bottom-up approaches to offender profiling. (8 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. [AO1 - 4 marks] The American Top-Down (FBI) approach (Hazelwood & Douglas 1980) classifies extreme violent/sexual offenders into pre-existing typologies: Organised (planned, high IQ, socially competent, hides body/weapon) vs Disorganised (impulsive, low IQ, lives near scene, leaves clues): based on interviews with 36 serial killers. In contrast, the British Bottom-Up approach (Canter 2004) is data-driven and free of pre-set typologies, using Investigative Psychology (Smallest Space Analysis of police databases examining interpersonal coherence and forensic awareness) and Geographical Profiling (Canter & Larkin's 1993 Circle Theory distinguishing home-based 'Marauders' from travelling 'Commuters'). 2. [AO3 Evaluation of Top-Down - 2 marks] The FBI approach is built on a tiny, unrepresentative self-report sample of 36 convicted serial killers, only applies to extreme murder/rape, and Canter and Heritage's (1990) analysis of 66 sexual assaults found no evidence for a distinct 'Disorganised' type. 3. [AO3 Evaluation of Bottom-Up - 2 marks] Bottom-Up profiling is more scientific and objective (grounded in statistical database algorithms and Environmental Criminology) and applies to volume crimes like burglary and theft (Canter & Larkin 1993 found 87% of 45 rapists operated as Marauders within a circle around their home), though its success still depends on the accuracy of police crime recording.

2. Q2

   Discuss biological explanations of offending behaviour, including genetic and neural explanations. (8 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. [AO1 - 4 marks] Modern biological explanations focus on genetic vulnerabilities and brain abnormalities in Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Twin and adoption studies (Crowe 1972: 50% vs 5% concordance) support heritability, and Tiihonen et al. (2015) found Finnish violent offenders were 13x more likely to carry the low-activity MAOA-L ('warrior') gene and CDH13 gene. Neurally, Raine et al. (2000) found an 11% reduction in prefrontal cortex grey matter in APD individuals (reducing impulse control and foresight), while Pardini et al. (2014) found reduced amygdala volume (impairing fear conditioning and empathy). 2. [AO3 Strength: Empirical brain imaging and diathesis-stress interaction - 2 marks] Objective PET/MRI scans (Raine et al. 1997 on 41 NGRI murderers) provide replicable evidence of prefrontal and limbic dysfunction; furthermore, Caspi et al. (2002) demonstrated a powerful gene-environment interaction (diathesis-stress): men with the low-activity MAOA-L gene only developed antisocial violent behaviour if they had also suffered severe childhood maltreatment. 3. [AO3 Limitation: Biological determinism & legal implications - 2 marks] Claiming crime is determined by genes and brain structure is biologically deterministic, contradicting the legal system's principle of free will and moral responsibility (and raises ethical risks of genetic screening stigma).

3. Q3

   Compare Eysenck's theory of the criminal personality and Sutherland's Differential Association Theory as explanations of offending. (6 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. Nature vs Nurture / Biological vs Social: Eysenck (1964) proposes a biological-temperament explanation, offenders inherit an under-aroused ARAS (high Extraversion), an unstable ANS (high Neuroticism), and high Psychoticism, which impedes classical conditioning during childhood socialisation. In contrast, Sutherland (1939) proposes a purely environmental social-learning explanation, crime is learned in intimate groups when exposure to pro-criminal attitudes outweighs anti-criminal attitudes, alongside learning specific criminal techniques [2 marks]. 2. Explaining Different Crime Types (Violent vs White-Collar): Eysenck's PEN model focuses on impulsive, sensation-seeking street offences and cannot easily explain calculated white-collar corporate fraud committed by stable, introverted executives; conversely, Sutherland's Differential Association explicitly explains white-collar crime through workplace subcultures that normalise rule-breaking [2 marks]. 3. Research Support & Measurement Issues: Farrington et al. (1982) found inconsistent support for Eysenck (offenders scored high on P and N, but not E), whereas Farrington's (2006) longitudinal Cambridge study strongly supported Sutherland's intergenerational transmission of crime (though Sutherland's theory is hard to operationalise mathematically because we cannot count the exact ratio of pro- vs anti-criminal attitudes a person has heard) [2 marks].

4. Q4

   Evaluate the use of Anger Management (CBT) and Restorative Justice in dealing with offending behaviour. (6 marks)

   Check Mark Scheme

   Click “Check Mark Scheme” to compare your answer, 1. Anger Management (Novaco 1975) Strengths: Unlike behaviourist token economies that only produce temporary compliance inside prison, CBT Anger Management tackles the root cognitive triggers (hostile attribution bias) and equips offenders with lifelong self-regulation skills (supported by Ireland 2000, who found 92% of young offenders showed improvement on at least one anger measure compared to a waiting-list control) [2 marks]. 2. Anger Management Limitations: Not all violent crimes are motivated by anger (Loza & Loza-Fanous 1999 found no difference in anger levels between violent and non-violent offenders, as much violence is cold and instrumental), and sociopathic offenders may use CBT programmes to learn how to manipulate others [2 marks]. 3. Restorative Justice Evaluation: Shapland et al.'s (2007) 7-year UK government evaluation found 85% victim satisfaction and a 14% drop in recidivism (saving £8 in justice costs per £1 spent), but its effectiveness relies on the offender feeling genuine remorse rather than signing up solely to get a lighter sentence [2 marks].

Related study guides