Psychological explanations of offending behaviour

• what did Eysenck propose ?

  That the criminal personality is inate (ie. we are born with it it is not learned). This is because it is proposed to result from the type of nervous system we inherit
• according to Eysenck's theory of the criminal personality the typical criminal is...

  a Neurotic extravert
• Neuroticism

  Neurotic individuals tend to be more anxious and irrational which leads to unpredictable behaviour. This can be seen in impulsive crimes of violence that are driven by paranoia
• Extraversion

  Extreverted individuals have an under-aroused nervous system. This means they are more likely to engage in sensation seeking and risk-taking behaviours to arouse their nervous system.

  As a result, this makes them more likely to engage in offending behaviours suchas theft.

  Exraverted individuals are also not conditioned easily, meaning they do not respond to punishment. This makes then more likely to engage in punishable behaviour such as crime.
• why did Eysenck later add psychoticism to his theory of criminal personality?

  This is because because high psychoticism can be seen in the cold, heartless offenders such as psychopathic criminals
• Evaluation of Eysenck's theory of the criminal personality

  • supporting evidence from the EPI
  • personality may not be a stable (fixed entity
  • cannot establish cause + effect
  • Results for extraversion are mixed
  • The biological determinism of a ari chiral personality has implications for the legal system
• what does moral reasoning refer to?

  the process by which an individual judges whether an action is morally right or wrong.
• what did kohlberg propose by peoples Moral reasoning?

  Based on interviews with males about the reasoning behind their decision making in hypothetical moral dilemmas, kohlberg proposed that people'sjudgements of right and wrong can be summarised in stages. The higher the stage, the more sophisticated the reasoning
• what are the 3 levels of Rohlberg's level of moral reasoning as a cognitive explaination for offending behaviour?

  Level 1 : Preconventional morality

  Level 2: Conventional morality

  Level 3: Post conventional morality
• Describe Kohlberg's level 1 of moral reasoning

  Preconventional morality - at this stage of moral development, people's perception of what is right and wrong is based on how it will affect themselves. This childlike and selfish reasoning means they will weigh up the potential rewards and punishments they may receive for their actions
• Describe kohlberg's level 2 of moral reasoning

  Conventional morality - at this stage of moral development, people's perception O of what is right and wrong considers society and the laco. Ths means they will start to think about what other people think and what is illegal.
• Describe kohlberg's level 3 of moral reasoning

  Post conventional morality - at this stage of moral development, people consider their ethical principles are are largely driven by their conscience.
• Explain what research has shown of moral reasoning

  Research has shown that offenders lend to show a lower level of moral reasoning than non-offenders. They are therefore more likely to be at the pre-conventional stage of moral development. This means that people who reason at this love way colint crime if they can get away with it (avoid punishment) and gain rewards (e.g. in the form of money, respect, etc).
• In contrast to the research of moral reasoning

  people at a conventional level are less likely to commit crimes because they consider other peoples' perceptions of what is wrong and also consider the law. This means they would not commit the crime as other people would not view it positively and it would be illegal thens increasing the risk of being arrested. Indvideeds at the post-conventional level are even less likely to comchit cirises because they consider the ethical implications of their actions and their conscience will Make them feel guilty.
• Evaluation of Kohlberg's level of moral reasoning

  • supporting evidence from sexual and non -sexual offenders
  • The levels of moral reasoning are gender biased
  • Hypothetical moral dilemmas may not generalise to real life
  • Not all offending behaviour is associated with pre-conventional moral reasoning
  • fails to explain why offenders show pre-conventional moral reasoning