Utilising Learning theories, critically evaluate any 2 biological explanations for criminal behaviour".
Psychology Assignment 1
Task: “Utilising Learning theories, critically evaluate any 2 biological explanations for criminal behaviour”.
Are criminals born or are criminals made? This is a question that many psychologists have researched into to try and come to a conclusive answer. However, they are divided into two; one side believing in the nurture approach (made criminals) and the other believing in the nature approach (born criminals). The biological psychologists have looked into various biological reasons for why people commit crimes. When imaging the type of criminals that were used for research, it is important to note that psychologists mainly focused on criminals who had committed crimes involving, aggression, violence and sex. Lombroso’s work of 1876 and the twin studies of Bartol (1999), have contributed research to support their theory that there are biological reasons for why people commit crimes e.g genetics. In contrast psychologists who believe in the ‘nuture’ theory have contributed equally as much research, in the form of Pavlov’s works of 1927 and 1955, and Skinner’s work of 1953. It is necessary to look at the individual studies to be able to determine which research may be considered most solid and viable to determine what really influences criminal behaviour.
Lombroso’s research focused on the physical aspects of criminals, such as the face and body, he believed that the physical shape of the head and face determined the ‘born criminal’. He named those who he deemed to be criminal as, The Atavists, and described them as, primitive genetic forms who cannot adapt to modern morality. From his research he stated that the physical aspects that were evidence to express criminal behaviour, were large jaws, high cheekbones, large ears, extra nipples, toes, or fingers. Questionably, Lombroso’s samples included people with severe learning difficulties and also people who came from poverty; he ignored the fact that their disability, living in poverty, or both may have been the factor that caused the physical defects rather than criminality. He also ignores the fact that social expectations could have been the cause for criminal behaviour; the fact that the individual was unattractive may have meant that they were victim of rejection, this, and the mockery may have caused them to become marginalised. In this situation they may then have carried out criminal behaviour for acceptance within their sub-culture. These were all important factors that Lombroso indentifiably overlooked. Goring (1913) later mirrored Lombroso’s experiment and found no support for Lombroso’s work. However, Kurkberg et al (1998) found that those offenders in the USA that received plastic surgery before release from prison, faired better on release than those who had not received surgery. Again this suggests that the decrease in poverty could have accounted for Gorings findings and that physical appearance (although it may contribute, socially, to individuals committing crime) does not have solid grounds to conclude on the biological reasons for individuals committing crime.
