You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Psychological explanations of offending focus on how personality, cognition, learning and early developmental experience contribute to criminal behaviour. Where biological explanations emphasise innate factors, psychological explanations examine how individuals' mental processes, learned behaviours, social environments and childhood relationships shape the likelihood of offending. The AQA specification requires four explanations: Eysenck's criminal personality theory; cognitive explanations (levels of moral reasoning, and cognitive distortions such as hostile attribution bias and minimalisation); differential association theory (Sutherland); and the psychodynamic explanation (the inadequate superego, and Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation). These differ sharply in their assumptions — from Eysenck's biologically anchored trait theory, through the behaviourist account of crime as learned, to the psychodynamic emphasis on unconscious conflict and early attachment — and evaluating them therefore also means comparing whole approaches to psychology. Offending is treated throughout as a scientific phenomenon.
Key Definition: Cognitive distortions are irrational or biased patterns of thinking that allow offenders to justify, rationalise or minimise their criminal behaviour.
This lesson addresses the following points from the AQA A-Level Psychology (7182) specification, Paper 3, Section D — Forensic Psychology:
It develops each named explanation for AO1 and prepares a comparative AO3 evaluation. Questions are usually split AO1/AO3 only, with no AO2 unless a scenario stem is provided (where it is, application of the relevant explanation to the stem is required); this lesson flags that distinction.
Hans Eysenck (1964) proposed that criminal behaviour can be explained by personality type, itself rooted in biological predisposition and shaped through socialisation. Using factor analysis, Eysenck identified dimensions of personality measured by the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
| Dimension | Description | Proposed biological basis |
|---|---|---|
| Extraversion (E) | Sociable, sensation-seeking, impulsive | Chronically low cortical arousal, so the person seeks stimulation to reach an optimal level |
| Neuroticism (N) | Anxious, moody, emotionally unstable, over-reactive | A highly reactive autonomic nervous system, producing strong, rapid fight-or-flight responses |
| Psychoticism (P) | Cold, aggressive, impulsive, lacking empathy, egocentric | Associated with higher testosterone and dysregulated neurotransmitters |
Eysenck argued that the typical offender scores high on all three dimensions (high E, high N, high P):
Crucially, Eysenck linked personality to conscience via learning. He argued that socialisation is a process of classical (and operant) conditioning: in normal development, children repeatedly experience anxiety when antisocial impulses are punished, until the mere anticipation of wrongdoing triggers a conditioned anxiety response that functions as a conscience and inhibits offending. People high in extraversion (and high in neuroticism) condition poorly — extraverts because their under-arousal makes the punishing stimulus less impactful, neurotics because their high baseline anxiety interferes with learning the specific association. The result is a weak conditioned conscience and a greater readiness to offend. This is the theory's distinctive move: it ties a biological trait to a learning deficit to a behavioural outcome.
graph TD
A[High Extraversion] --> B[Low Cortical Arousal]
B --> C[Poor Conditionability]
C --> D[Weak Conscience Development]
D --> E[Failure to Internalise Social Norms]
E --> F[Offending Behaviour]
G[High Neuroticism] --> H[Emotional Instability / High Anxiety]
H --> C
I[High Psychoticism] --> J[Lack of Empathy / Aggression]
J --> F
Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared the EPQ scores of male prisoners with controls and found prisoners scored higher on P and N. Support for the E dimension, however, has been inconsistent across studies — a serious problem given that E is central to the conditioning mechanism. Some researchers have suggested that the two components of extraversion (sociability and impulsivity) should be separated, with only the impulsivity component reliably linked to offending.
It is worth noting how Eysenck's theory blends nature and nurture, because this is frequently misunderstood. The personality dimensions are held to be biologically based and largely inherited (an individual is born with a particular level of cortical arousal and autonomic reactivity), but whether that temperament leads to offending depends on socialisation — specifically on whether conditioning successfully installs a conscience. A high-E child raised in an environment with consistent, well-timed discipline might still learn adequate self-control, whereas the same child in a chaotic environment might not. In this sense Eysenck's theory is already implicitly interactionist: biology supplies a vulnerability, and the social environment determines whether that vulnerability is expressed. This nuance is a strength to acknowledge in evaluation, because the theory is sometimes unfairly caricatured as crude biological determinism.
Exam Tip: The strongest single evaluative point on Eysenck is the weak and inconsistent evidence for the E dimension, since E carries the theory's causal mechanism (poor conditioning). Most reliable support is for P and N.
Kohlberg (1969) proposed that moral reasoning develops through three levels, each containing two stages, assessed by how people justify moral decisions rather than what they decide:
| Level | Stage | Orientation | Guiding question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-conventional | 1 | Punishment avoidance | "Will I be punished?" |
| 2 | Self-interest / instrumental | "What's in it for me?" | |
| Conventional | 3 | Interpersonal / "good person" | "Will others approve?" |
| 4 | Law and order | "What do the rules require?" | |
| Post-conventional | 5 | Social contract | "What is fair and best for society?" |
| 6 | Universal ethical principles | "What is morally right in principle?" |
Kohlberg argued that offenders tend to reason at the pre-conventional level, making decisions on the basis of avoiding punishment (stage 1) or self-interest (stage 2) rather than social approval, rule-following or abstract principle. The implication is that an offender may be less inhibited by the kinds of moral consideration that restrain others, and more focused on personal gain and the avoidance of getting caught.
Kohlberg's account is developmental and cognitive: he proposed that moral reasoning matures in a fixed sequence as cognitive abilities grow, and that some individuals' moral development becomes arrested at an immature stage. An offender stuck at the pre-conventional level has, in effect, the moral reasoning of a younger child — preoccupied with personal consequences rather than the rights and feelings of others or the value of social rules for their own sake. This is important because it implies that offending is linked not to being immoral in some global sense but to a specific cognitive immaturity in how moral problems are processed, which in turn suggests that interventions might aim to advance moral reasoning rather than simply punish.
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared the moral reasoning of 126 convicted offenders with 332 non-offenders using a moral-dilemma measure. Findings: offenders showed significantly less mature moral reasoning, consistent with Kohlberg's claim, although the effect was clearer for some kinds of offence (e.g. those involving direct interpersonal harm) than others. Conclusion: immature, pre-conventional moral reasoning is statistically associated with offending. It is worth adding that the link is probabilistic and uneven — many offences (for instance, impulsive or opportunistic ones) may owe more to faulty processing in the moment than to a settled low level of moral reasoning, which is one reason cognitive distortions are studied alongside moral-reasoning level.
Cognitive distortions are irrational, biased patterns of thinking that allow offenders to justify, rationalise or minimise their behaviour. Two are specified.
This is the tendency to interpret ambiguous cues as hostile — reading a neutral glance or an accidental knock as a deliberate provocation — which makes an aggressive response more likely. Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) presented emotionally ambiguous facial expressions to violent offenders and non-violent controls and found the offenders were significantly more likely to perceive the faces as angry and hostile, providing experimental support for the bias. The roots of such a bias may lie in earlier experience, including exposure to aggression in childhood.
This is the tendency to downplay the seriousness of an offence or its consequences ("it wasn't that serious," "no real harm was done," "they were partly to blame"). By reducing the apparent gravity of their actions, offenders lessen the cognitive dissonance between their behaviour and their self-concept, preserving a more positive self-image. Minimalisation is especially well documented in studies of offenders who deny or reframe the impact of their crimes on victims, and it overlaps with related distortions such as denial (refusing to accept that an offence occurred or caused harm) and dehumanisation (reframing the victim as less deserving of consideration). The common thread is that these distortions function to neutralise guilt and remove the internal barriers that would otherwise inhibit offending — which is precisely why they are a central target of treatment, since challenging them aims to restore an accurate appreciation of the harm done.
It is useful to distinguish the level of moral reasoning (Kohlberg) from these distortions of processing, because they capture different things. Moral-reasoning level concerns the relatively stable sophistication of a person's moral thinking; cognitive distortions concern biased, often automatic interpretations and justifications that can operate even in someone whose general reasoning is not especially immature. Together they give a fuller cognitive picture: an offender may both reason at a less mature level and deploy in-the-moment distortions that license a particular offence.
Key Definition: Hostile attribution bias is the tendency to interpret ambiguous situations or behaviours as deliberately hostile, increasing the likelihood of an aggressive response; minimalisation is the downplaying of the seriousness or consequences of an offence.
Edwin Sutherland (1939) offered a sociological–behaviourist account in which offending is learned, in exactly the same way as any other behaviour, through interaction with others. Sutherland set out to identify conditions that could explain offending across all social groups, and proposed that an individual becomes an offender when they are exposed to an excess of attitudes favourable to law-breaking over attitudes unfavourable to it. Two things are learned through differential association with others (especially intimate personal groups):
If the frequency, duration, intensity and priority of associations favouring crime outweigh those opposing it, offending becomes likely. The theory therefore predicts that crime will run in families and neighbourhoods not (mainly) for genetic reasons but because pro-criminal norms are socially transmitted. It also predicts that an individual exposed to pro-criminal norms — for example, in prison — may become more likely to offend, providing a learning-theory rationale for the "university of crime" effect discussed in the custodial-sentencing lesson.
Sutherland's ambition was to put the explanation of crime on a scientific footing that applied to all offenders, rich and poor alike — a deliberate move away from explanations (such as Lombroso's) that pathologised the individual or focused only on the lower classes. By framing offending as a normal product of normal learning processes, the theory normalises and de-individualises crime: the offender is not biologically or morally defective but has simply been socialised into different norms. This has the attractive implication that crime is, in principle, preventable and reversible through changing the social environment and the balance of attitudes a person is exposed to, rather than fixed by biology. The theory can also accommodate the observation that offending often desists in adulthood, as people's associations shift (through employment, relationships or moving away) towards more conventional norms.
Key Definition: Differential association theory holds that offending is learned through social interaction, specifically through exposure to an excess of pro-criminal over anti-criminal attitudes, along with the techniques of committing crime.
The psychodynamic approach locates the roots of offending in unconscious conflict and early childhood experience, drawing on Freud's structural model of the mind (id, ego, superego).
In Freudian theory the superego — the moral component of personality, formed around age 5 through identification with the same-sex parent at the resolution of the Oedipus/Electra complex — restrains the pleasure-seeking id. Blackburn (1993) argued that offending can result when the superego is deficient or abnormal, allowing the id to dominate. Three forms are described:
Bowlby's (1944) theory of maternal deprivation holds that a continuous, warm relationship with a primary attachment figure in the first few years is essential for healthy emotional development, and that prolonged disruption during this critical period can have lasting effects, including an inability to form close relationships and a lack of guilt or empathy — what Bowlby termed affectionless psychopathy. The proposed mechanism connects to Bowlby's wider attachment theory: the first relationship provides an internal working model — a template for later relationships — and a foundation for conscience and empathy, so its disruption can leave the individual emotionally detached and indifferent to the consequences of harming others.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.