Psychology Unit 2 (core theories and studies)

     Criminal Behaviour: Core TheoryThe biological theory argues that criminal behaviour is inherited. This theory argues that if an individual's parent is a  criminal, then that individual would have a higher chance of becoming a criminal themselves. It is argues that criminal genes have an effect on brain development and that the brains of criminals are dysfunctional. The amygdala is a specific part that controls emotions and research has shown that it does not function properly in psychopaths. The limbic system is the part of the brain that controls sexual and aggressive behaviour, scans show criminals can have increased activity in this area. The facial features associated with criminals are glassy eyes, large ears, lots of hair, and strong jaws.                          Limitations.1.  It ignores social influence - The fact that crime seems to run in families could be explained because children could learn their criminal beahviour from their parents. 2. There cannot be one criminal gene that accounts for all criminal behaviour.  -  It is difficult to believe that the same gene is responsible for violent crimes such as rape and intellectual crime such as fraud.3. The argument that criminals have a set of facial features is not well supported by evidence. - Society may be prejudiced against certain looks and this is why certain types of people end up turning to crime.               

        Criminal Behaviour: Core StudyAim: To investigate the origins of criminal behaviour. Procedure: Carried out an adoption study in Denmark. They accessed the criminal record of 4000 males. They then compared these to the records of their biological and adoptive parents.Results: If a person's biological parents had been convicted of a crime, then they were twice as likely to be convicted of a crime themselves compare to adoptees whose biological parents had not been convicted. Even when an adopted parent committed a crime, this had less influence on adopted children than their actual biological parents committing a crime. Conclusion: There is a strong genetic component to criminal behaviour. However, environment cannot be completely ruled out because adoptees with both criminal biological and criminal adoptive parents had the the highest chance of committing a crime. The effect of the environment added to the effect of the genes.                            Limitations.1. The study relied on records of criminal convictions that may have been unreliable.- Some of the parents or adoptees may have committed crimes but may not have been caught so the statistics may have been inaccurate.2. Most adopted children spend some time with their biological parents before being removed or given up or adoption. - Many spent some of their early lives with their biological parents. This is known as the contamination effect, a number of psychologists believe that the experiences we have very early on in our lives are crucial to our development. 3. The sample was gender biased.- They were all male so the findings cannot be generalised to females. 

        CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR

         Perception: Core TheoryConstructivist theory supports the idea of top-down processing of information. This means that your past experiences, thoughts and expectations affect your perception. For example, we recognise the people we share a classroom with  because we expect them to be there every day. What is already in your mind affects what you see. A term associated with this idea is perceptual set, a tendency to perceive a scene, situation or object on the basis of what you except to see.  Also, how we are feeling can affect what we see.This is called Motivation. Research showed that hungry and thirsty people saw pictures of food and drink as brighter than pictures of other objects.                                   Limitations: 1. If perception requires experience, then how do we explain the newborn baby's ability to perceive their world? - Babies as young as two months appear to recognise faces and complex patterns, and six month olds will not crawl over an imaginary cliff edge despite their limited experience of the environment. 2. The effect of illusions actually questions rather than supports the theory.- If we think about it logically, then we should not fall for the same illusion time and time again. If perception is about experience, then we should learn not to be fooled by an illusion the second time around.

      Cognitive Development: Core TheoryPiaget believed that children go through different stages. 1. Sensori-motor stage: 0-2 years- The infant recognises that it exists physically e.g. it can recognise itself in a photograph or mirror. This is called Body schema. 2. The pre-operational stage: 2-7 years- Children at this stage treat inanimate objects as if they are too alive just like themselves (e.g. they talk to and about their teddy bear as if it can hear them) 3. The concrete operational stage: 7-11 years. - The drop animism and also has the ability to to put things in rank order (e.g. smallest to largest) 4. The formal operational stage:11+- By this stage, adolescents develop the ability to think about, and solve sophisticated abstract problems. They develop to the ability to solve problems logically e.g. debates at school about abortion)                             Limitations:1. Thinking does not develop in the same way for children everywhere.- Aboriginal children, for example, develop concrete operational thinking, which is useful for physical survival, earlier than European children.2. Piaget ignored different kinds of thinking.- Not all thinking is an exercise in logic or problem-solving. There is a different kind of thinking, for example creative thinking.3. Piaget only describes the kind of thinking a child can and cannot do, he does not explain how the changes in thinking occur. - Some critics would say that this does not make it a proper theory as theories should offer reasons for why things happen. 

        Cognitive Development: Core StudyAim: To see if the Piaget’s stages were correct by testing out his theory.Procedure:  Piaget used a cross-sectional study in his experiment on conservation. In other words, he compared children of different ages. Children were shown, one at a time, two identical parallel rows or counters, with the counters opposite and facing each other one to one. The researcher then changed the layout of the counters as each child watched, stretching one row out but not removing or adding any counters to either row. The children were then asked one at a time which if the two rows had more counters. Results: Children at the pre-operational stage of development tended to say that the rearranged or stretched row had more counters because it was longer because they were not able to conserve. However, children in the concrete operational stage did largely get it right. They reported that both lines had the same number of counters despite the difference in length of the line. This is because children at this stage could conserve. Conclusion: It is only at the 'concrete operations phase' that children can conserve quality of substance and state that the lines are the same.                           Limitations 1. Piaget asked the same question twice it may have suggested to the children they should change their answer. It has been pointed out that in normal circumstances, children are only asked the same question twice if they have got the first answer wrong.   2. It did not have much meaning for children. Another reeserch included a naughty toy, when they did this, pre

Non- verbal communication: Core theory

Non- verbal communication: Core study

     The Self: Core theory

     The Self: Core Study

New Page

New Page

New Page

New Page

New Page