Edexcel Psychology for A Level Yr 2 Revision Guide

Explanations of crime and anti-social behaviour: Personality Check it 1. Compare personality with one other biological explanation for crime and/or anti-social behaviour. (4) 2. Explain one strength of personality as an explanation for crime and/or anti-social behaviour. (2) 3. Standard essay: Evaluate personality as an explanation for crime and/or anti-social behaviour. (8) or (16) 4. Methods essay: When studying crime, psychologists are interested in the links between personality and anti-social behaviour. Evaluate the validity and reliability of research in this area. (8) or (16) Revision booster The details on the specification for ‘personality’ are not very prescriptive compared with the other biological explanations on the previous spread. You still need to know a range of information thoroughly, but you cannot be asked specific questions about, for example, personality types, although you could be asked about gender differences. A strength is empirical evidence supporting the existence of a criminal type. Boduszek et al . (2013) investigated Eysenck’s personality traits in repeat offenders (133 violent and 179 non-violent males in a high-security prison). A criminal thinking ‘style’ correlated with high psychoticism, neuroticism and extraversion (also linked to criminal friends and criminal identity). This suggests that Eysenck’s theory has validity as the personality types he identi ed are associated with repeat offending. CA However, evidence for the criminal personality is not conclusive. Farrington et al . (1982) found little evidence that Eysenck’s questionnaire (EPQ) was an adequate measure for predicting offending, in juveniles or adults. This suggests that Eysenck’s original ideas about the nature of the criminal personality may lack validity. A weakness is that there is not just one single criminal personality type. The five-factor model of personality accepts Eysenck’s concepts of extraversion and introversion, but adds openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness (= OCEAN). Low levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness are related to offending. Also Lipsey and Derzon (1998) claim impulsivity is a better predictor of anti-social behaviour. This research suggests that the criminal personality may be more complicated than Eysenck suggested. Another strength is support for the biological basis of criminal personality. Raine et al . (1990) took physiological measures from participants aged 15 years and related these to later criminal status. 24 years later those who had a criminal record had shown more signs of nervous system under- arousal when aged 15 than non-criminals (e.g. lower resting heart rate). This suggests a link between biological factors and offending, but the researchers pointed out that there are also social variables that in uence criminal behaviour. Application: Eysenck’s theory may help with early crime prevention. The theory argues that criminal tendencies (e.g. lack of response to conditioning and inability to learn from mistakes) can be identi ed in early childhood. Early intervention could modify the socialisation experiences of high-risk people to prevent them becoming offenders (in school or at home with support). This would suggest that early interventions for vulnerable individuals, based on Eysenck’s theory, may be bene cial. I&D extra: Eysenck’s theory integrates different ways of explaining behaviour. It acknowledges genetic and physiological factors as well as individual differences in personality, and early socialisation. This is a more integrated and interactionist approach than some of the other explanations discussed in this chapter. This recognises that crime is a complex social activity that is likely to have different in uences. Unusually for him, Crooked Stan had decided honesty was the best policy. 103 AO3 Evaluation A small range of exam-style questions to help you understand how the subtopic will be assessed – and so you can practise writing good answers. Always time yourself when writing exam answers. Aim for about 1 1 / 3 minutes per mark, which includes planning/thinking time. You should also aim to write about 20–25 words per minute. Questions 1 and 2 are short answer questions (SAQ). Question 3 is a standard essay (ERQ) on the subtopic. This is the most basic question possible and is a useful platform from which to develop your answers to more complex questions. Question 4 is a standard plus essay – which combines the standard essay with something else. It might focus on methods or have a prompt (see essay types on page 9). We haven’t included a balanced conclusion at the end, even though it is an important part of a good essay. You can write your own or read them in our Year 1 and 2 Student books! This I&D evaluation is an extra – you already have three or even four points which is plenty for an 8-mark essay. Higher tariff questions (12, 16 and 20 marks) tend to combine subtopics so you will have enough AO3. I&D essays : These I&D points will also be helpful in the Issues and debates essays on Papers 1 and 3. On the right-hand page of each spread the AO3 evaluation of the subtopic is covered. Each evaluative chain of reasoning is divided into three segments – PET : P: Making the Point . E: Elaboration using an Example , Evidence and/or Explanation . T: And finally end with ‘ This means that …’ (if you start a sentence with ‘ This shows/suggests/means’ or ‘ Therefore ’ – you are writing conclusion and linking the point back to the beginning). CA stands for competing argument . Use these in an essay to try to provide counterarguments for some of your points (‘On the other hand’). This even applies in a ‘Discuss’ essay with no AO3. A handy tip to improve your exam performance . 5