1
Capita Selecta Forensic Psychology | The Literature
Week 1 | Causes of Crime
Chapter 1 | Psychological Approached to Understanding Crime
Psychological theories
Moral reasoning theory
Moral reasoning refers to
how individuals reason about and
justify their behaviour with
respect to moral issues. By far the
best-known approach to moral
reasoning within psychology is
the cognitive-developmental
approach initially proposed by
Piaget and subsequently
developed by Kohlberg. This
theory was revised by Gibbs into
a theory of “sociomoral reasoning” in which the roles of social perspective-taking and
empathy are given a greater emphasis.
Gibbs’ theory focuses only on the first four stages of Kohlberg’s theory. The first two
stages represent “immature moral reasoning”, during which time reasoning is superficial and
egocentric. Stages 3 and 4 are “mature moral reasoning” and show an understanding of
interpersonal relationships and other people’s needs and at stage 4, societal needs.
Within the moral reasoning theory framework, offending behaviour is seen as a result
of sociomoral developmental delay beyond childhood, accompanied by an egocentric bias.
The secondary cognitive distortions then allow individuals to disengage from taking
responsibility for their behaviour on a moral level.
Social Information-Processing Theory
Models of social information-processing theories have been applied to explain
aggression and delinquent behaviour in order to examine individual differences in why one
individual will respond to a certain situation aggressively whereas another will not. Although
a number of such theories exist, an influential one in this area is that of Crick and Dodge. This
model is a six-step model of social information-processing that describes how individuals
perceive their social world and process information about it, and the influence of previous
experience on these processes. The six steps in the model are:
1. Encoding of social cues
2. Interpretation and mental representation of the situation
3. Clarification of goals/outcomes for the situation
4. Access or construction of responses for the situation
5. Choice of response
6. Performance of chosen response.
Social information-processing and criminal behaviour
There is now a large body of research showing that aggressive and delinquent
individuals show distinct patterns of social information-processing across the six step.
At the first two steps, research suggests aggressive individuals experience a range of
problems in encoding and interpreting social cues, leading to an inaccurate representation of a
, 2
situation. Aggressive individuals appear to perceive fewer social cues, take more notice of
aggressive cues and pay more attention to cues at the end of interactions. Furthermore,
aggressive people rely more on internal schema when interpreting situations, with these
schema tending to be aggressive in content.
A number of studies have reported that aggressive individuals have a hostile
attributional style, and so often misinterpret situations as hostile. Research also shows that
aggressive people attribute greater blame to external factors.
At the third step, research has found that aggressive individuals tend to have
dominance and revenge-based goals, rather than prosocial goals.
When generating responses at the fourth step, aggressive individuals generate fewer
responses than non-aggressive people, suggesting they have a limited repertoire from which to
draw.
At the fifth step aggressive individuals also evaluate responses by different criteria,
rating aggressive responses more positively than prosocial responses and having more
positive outcome expectancies and perceptions of self-efficacy for aggression.
Finally, social skills are important at step six, and there is some evidence that
aggressive individuals have poor social skills.
Theories, evidence, and crime
Interpersonal violence
A range of crimes is included under the label of “violence”, including murder,
manslaughter and robbery. Domestic violence is gaining recognition as a serious problem and
will also be considered here.
As noted by Polaschek (2006), research into violent offenders’ criminal behaviour has
revealed that they tend not to be specialists, but commit a wide range of offences. Indeed
specialist violent offenders are quite rare.
Social factors and violence
A range of social factors have been shown to predict violent offending, many of which
are similar to those associated with general offending.
o the role played by family structure and parenting style
o a clear link between violence and severe abuse in childhood and witnessing family
violence. This association appears to be mediated through the impact of abuse on
children’s psychological functioning, such as problem-solving and coping abilities.
Cognitive-behavioural theory and violence
Cognitive-behavioural approaches focus on the role of cognitive appraisal and other
internal processes in violence. As outlined above, aggressive individuals show a range of
distinctive processing patterns across these steps. The hostile attributional bias is one of the
strongest findings. Empathy is another important factor. Emotional arousal can also impact on
cognitive processes, with anger playing a significant role in understanding violence.
Neuropsychological factors and violence
There is some evidence that violence is associated with brain damage or dysfunction.
Electroencephalogram (EEG) and neuroimaging studies have provided evidence that there is
an increased level of brain abnormality among violent offenders. Research suggests that
damage and malfunctioning of the frontal and temporal lobes is most associated with
violence. Together, these characteristics are often referred to as disinhibition. If individuals
with frontal lobe lesions are both more irritable and likely to be disinhibited, they are more
likely to be aggressive when irritated or provoked, which may include criminal violence. It
, 3
also possible that the relationship between brain injury and violence is bidirectional: that is, a
brain injury may be a consequence of violence, rather than an antecedent.
Domestic violence
Domestic violence – or intimate partner violence (IPV) – is an increasingly recognised
issue. A number of explanations have been suggested for IPV, although most have focused on
male perpetrated/female victim domestic violence. First are feminist theories, which propose
that society is patriarchal, with an implicit assumption that men control the lives of women
and children, both within the family and through social institutions. It is argued that men seek
to maintain women’s subordination through physical violence, as well as psychological and
economic coercion.
Sexual Offending
The term “sexual offences” covers a number of crimes, including rape, unlawful
sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, and gross indecency with a child.
Other non-sexual offences can also sometimes have a sexual element, such as sexually
motivated murder.
There are six major theories of sexual offending, three of which cover child sexual
abuse, one that relates to rape, and two that attempt to explain all types of sexual offending.
Finkelhor’s (1984) “Four Preconditions” model proposes that there are four pre-
conditions that a child molester must pass through prior to an offence. First, there must be a
motivation to sexually abuse, such as sexual arousal to a child, emotional congruence with a
child, or blockage of sexual expression with an adult. Second, internal inhibitions against
offending must be overcome. Third, external factors must be overcome to allow the abuse to
occur, for example gaining the trust of the child and their family, or the child being left alone.
Fourth, the child’s resistance must be overcome, through using force or grooming techniques.
A second theory of child sexual abuse is Hall and Hirschmann’s (1992) quadripartite
model. Like Finkelhor’s model this proposes there are four components necessary for an
offence to take place: sexual arousal to children; attitudes and beliefs (cognitions) that justify
child abuse; poor self-regulation; and personality problems. This theory suggests that
vulnerability to committing child sexual abuse is caused by personality problems.
The third theory is the “Pathways Model” set out by Ward and Siegert (2002), which
proposes four separate but interacting psychological mechanisms are involved in child sexual
abuse. These are: intimacy/social deficits; distorted sexual scripts; cog- nitive distortions; and
emotional dysregulation. The four components are involved in all sexual offences, but one
component dominates each pathway into offending. Offenders with multiple dysfunctional
mechanisms form a fifth pathway, hypothe- sised to be the “pure paedophiles”.
Turning to theories of rape, an interaction model of sexual aggression was pro- posed
by Malamuth, Heavey, and Linz (1993). Specifically, this model proposes that sexual
aggression is the result of the interaction of two “paths”: the hostile masculinity path and the
sexual promiscuity path. The hostile masculinity path emphasises the role of aggressive
intimate relationships and sexual conquest in the concept of masculinity, along with valuing
power, risk-taking, dominance and competitiveness. The sexual promiscuity path focuses on
the role of sexual behaviours in maintaining self-esteem and peer status, and the appeal of
impersonal sex.
Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) integrated theory covers all types of sexual offending.
This approach takes account of biological, developmental, socio-cultural and situational
variables that lead to psychological vulnerabilities.
A weakness of Marshall and Barbaree’s theory is its breadth, meaning that it does not
provide explanations for why different types of sexual offending occur.
, 4
Ward and Beech (2006) developed an Integrated Theory of Sexual Offending, which
includes biological, neuropsychological, and ecological factors. This theory proposes that
sexual offending results from “vulnerabilities” that predispose an individual to sexual
offending. According to Ward and Beech (2006) these vulnerabilities arise from the influence
of genetics, evolutionary processes and neurobiological processes on brain development. The
interaction between these systems and social learning is proposed to lead to the characteristics
of sex offenders – deviant sexual arousal, cognitive distortions, and emotional dysregulation.
Research into the characteristics of sexual offenders has provided further
understanding of their offences. Characteristics commonly found among rapists include:
sexual preoccupation; sexual interest in rape/violence against women; sexual entitlement;
hostile masculinity and controlling sexual beliefs; distrust of women; lack of emotional
intimacy with other adults; grievance schema; poor problem-solving; poor emotional control;
and lifestyle impulsiveness. Research with child sexual abusers has revealed some overlaps
with these characteristics, including: sexual preoccupation; sexual interest or preference for
children; sexual entitlement; beliefs supportive of child sexual abuse; lack of emotional
intimacy with adults; emotional congruence with children; poor problem-solving; and
personal inadequacy, such as poor self-esteem, emotional loneliness and personal distress.
Arson
Arson refers to deliberate setting of fire to property, whereas the term firesetting is a
broader term often used when referring to young children, and does not necessarily imply
intent. Four categories of arson are proposed: arson associated with mental disorders; arson
associated with medical or biological disorders; juvenile fire-play or firesetting; and arson not
associated with any psychobiological factors.
Adult arsonists
Research with psychiatric populations suggests arson may be associated with a
number of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, personality disorders, depression, and
bipolar affective disorders and mood disorders. Gannon and colleagues have studied
firesetting/ arson in mentally disordered offenders, finding three pathways into firesetters: fire
interest-childhood mental health; no fire interest-adult mental health; and fire interest-adult
mental health. There is also a small amount of evidence for an association between arson and
developmental disorders and learning disabilities.
Canter and his colleagues have attempted to understand the behavioural pat- terns of
firesetting and arson. Canter and Fritzon (1998) used two facets to categorise arson: person-
oriented vs. object-oriented arsons; and expressive vs. instrumental arsons. They argued that
these two facets interact to give four types of arson: expressive person-oriented; expressive
other-oriented; instrumental person-oriented; and instrumental other-oriented.
Juvenile firesetters
Young firesetters are more likely to be male. Firesetting in children is often associated
with a range of other externalising behaviours. These include aggression, extreme antisocial
behaviour, and conduct disorder. A range of psychological factors has been associated with
firesetting in children and adolescents. These include poor interpersonal skills, such as
impulsivity, poor assertion skills, and inability to resolve conflicts. Parental and family
functioning have also been implicated in firesetting. Factors include poor child rearing
practices, such as a lack of supervision and lax or inconsistent discipline. Child abuse,
maltreatment and neglect are also prevalent among young firesetters.
Mentally disordered offenders
