Criminal Behaviour

Characteristics:
What is crime?
Crime is a social construct. It consists of any act or lack of action that violates the law and results in
punishment by the state. An act only classes as a crime if a law is broken, otherwise, it is simply
wrongdoing. Crime is dependent upon the laws in each society and the context in which the
behaviour takes place.
Example of crime varying based on context:
Playing loud music in an apartment building may be seen as a crime, but playing the same volume of
music when you have no neighbours for 2 miles would not be.
Example of crime varying based on society:
Being homosexual is legal in the UK (as of 1976), but is still illegal in Saudi Arabia. In the 17th
century, stealing a sheep would have resulted in hanging.
3 main ways that data on crime is collected:
Official statistics
Statistics on crime that are produced by the government. The UK has been publishing this
information since 1805. This information is based on incidents reported to the police, or offences
that the police have discovered. They include crimes such as robbery, driving offences, and sexual
offences.
Victim surveys
Where people are interviewed and questioned on whether or not they have been the victim of a
crime. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) has been repeated every year and interviews
people from 50,000 households. The sample is randomly selected from postal addresses. Everyone
over 16 is interviewed, and a smaller sample of those aged 10-15 are interviewed. Questions include
'What are the major causes of crime in Britain?' and 'Have you had your car stolen in the last 12
months?'
Offender surveys
Members of the public are questioned on crimes they may have committed. For example, the OCJS
questioned people between 10-65 on whether or not they had committed certain crimes.
The dark figure
Not all crimes are reported or recorded. This is due to many factors such as victims being scared or
oblivious that a crime has been committed, or the police not taking an event seriously. Therefore,
crime statistics may not be accurate or representative. Statistics are social constructions.
Farr and Gibbons' (1990) categories of criminal behaviour:
1. Property predatory crime - This is where someone may attempt to/ succeed in taking
someone's personal property e.g., robbery or car theft.
2. Property fraudulent crime - This is where someone may lie or manipulate to get other
people's money or possessions for themselves e.g., fraud and embezzlement.
3. Interpersonal violence general - Where someone may cause personal harm to someone else
e.g., murder, assault.
4. Interpersonal violence sexual - Where someone may threaten to cause harm that contains a
sexual nature e.g., rape, incest.
5. Transactional vice - Victimless crimes where there is a willing exchange of goods or services
e.g., prostitution, drug sales.
6. Order disruption - Where there is no direct victim, but concerns are raised about potential
victims e.g., resisting arrest, loitering.
7. Folk/mundane crime - A broad category that can range from minor to major crimes that the
public does not take seriously e.g., fishing without a license or breaking loading regulations.
There is an element of normality to crime:
Most of us have committed at least one crime, and this is especially true of the folk/mundane crime
category.
Muncie and McLaughlin (1996):
Found that most people consider themselves to be law-abiding citizens. However, if convicted of
each crime they had committed, they would serve 6.5 years in jail, and be fined £61,000.
Situations where criminal behaviour is seen as morally right:
Sometimes people break the law to highlight a problem with it, such as the actions of individuals or
groups within the civil rights movement. E.g., Nelson Mandela was punished for his behaviour, but
was seen by many as an innocent man who should be freed. Should psychologists restrict their
research to those who have committed, been caught, charged, and punished for their crimes?
Individual Differences Explanations:
Eysenck’s Criminal Personality
Eysenck's theory of personality
Personality can be described in terms of 3 dimensions and these dimensions have a genetic basis. An
individual's adult personality is a mix of biological tendencies combined with learning experiences.
This mix can be used to explain why some people commit crimes.
Eysenck developed a theory of personality based on the idea that character traits tend to cluster
along 3 dimensions. Extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism.
 Extroversion/introversion – Extroverts are characterised as outgoing, have positive emotions,
but may get bored easily. An introvert is the opposite of this.
 Neuroticism/stability – The tendency to experience the negative emotional states such as
anger, anxiety, and depression, rather than positive emotional states. Stability is the
opposite of this.
 Psychoticism/normality – Psychotic people are egocentric, aggressive, impulsive, impersonal
and lack empathy. They generally are not concerned about the welfare of other people.
Normality is the opposite.
Biological basis
Eysenck (1982) suggested that each trait has a biological basis which is mainly innate; he claimed
that 67% of the variance for the traits is due to genetic factors Extraversion is determined by the
overall level of arousal in a person's nervous system. A person who is under-aroused requires more
stimulation whereas an over-aroused person avoids this.
 Extraverts seek external stimulation to increase their cortical (brain) arousal. Introverts are
innately over-aroused and thus seek to reduce or avoid stimulation.
 Neuroticism is determined by the level of stability (i.e., amount of reactivity) in the
sympathetic nervous system - how much a person responds in situations of threat (fight-or-
flight). A neurotic person is someone who is slightly unstable and reacts/gets easily upset. At
the opposite end of this dimension, the 'stable personality has a more unreactive nervous
system. They are calm under pressure.
 Psychoticism has been related to levels of higher levels of testosterone, which means that
men (who have higher levels of testosterone than women) are more likely to be found at
this end of the spectrum.
Link to criminal behaviour
The link between personality and criminal behaviour can be explained in terms of arousal:
 Extraverts seek more arousal and thus engage in dangerous activities.
 Neurotics are unstable and therefore prone to over-react to situations of threat, which
would explain some criminal activity.
 Psychoticism can be easily linked to criminality because individuals are aggressive and
lacking empathy.
Eysenck also explained criminality in terms of the outcome between innate (biologically determined)
personality and socialisation. A person is born with certain personality traits, but interaction with
environment is key in the development of criminality.
This can be seen particularly in conditioning. In a 'normal person wrongdoing is avoided because of
previous punishment - when a person does something wrong they are punished (operant
conditioning). This results in future avoidance of that behaviour, However Eysenck claimed that
people who were high in extraversion and neuroticism were less easily conditioned and therefore
they do not learn to avoid antisocial behaviour.
Evaluation:
Eysenck’s Criminal Personality
Support for the link between personality and criminal behaviour
Research comparing the personalities of criminals and non-criminals such as Dunlop et al. (2012)
found both extraversion and psychoticism, as well as lie scales, were good predictors of delinquency.
Participants were all students and their friends aged 15-75 years old, and delinquency was an
assessment of minor offences in the previous 12 months. For example, theft, traffic offences
(although armed robbery was included). Dam et al. (2007) found only a small group of male
offenders in a juvenile detention centre had high scores on all 3 Eysenck variables.
Research on the genetic basis of personality
A key element of Eysenck's theory is that personality types have a biological basis. Support for this
comes from twin studies. For example, Zuckerman (1987) found a +.52 correlation for identical (MZ)
twins on neuroticism compared with +.24 for non-identical (DZ) twins. This shows a large genetic
component. For extraversion, the figures were +.51 and +.12 respectively. Zuckerman provided
similar data for psychoticism in 1982. Even though this shows there is a considerable genetic
component, it is not as high as high as Eysenck claimed. +.50 correlation means 40% of the variance
in these traits is due to genes this figure may be slightly inflated as MZ twins are treated more
similarly.
Personality may not be consistent
Any theory based on personality assumes that personality is consistent. However, a number of
psychologists support a situational perspective, suggesting people may be relaxed and calm at home,
but neurotic at work for example. Mischel and Peake (1982) asked family, friends, strangers to rate
63 students in a variety of situations and found almost no correlation between traits displayed. Any
regularity of behaviour is likely to be due to the fact they tend to be in similar situations. This means
the notion of a criminal personality is flawed, as people do not have only 1 personality.
Personality tests may not be reliable
The score or label given to a person depends on the answers they provide on the questionnaire.
Their answers may not be accurate as they may be likely to give answers that are socially desirable.
This is countered by the use of lie scales in these questionnaires (this is a set of questions where, if
the person answers yes to all of them, they are likely dishonest). Scores on a personality test are
unlikely to ever enable the identification of criminals. Even though the 3 traits are good predictors,
it's not close enough to use as a means of detecting and preventing criminal behaviour.
Cognitive Factors
Cognitive Distortions
Cognitive distortion is a form of irrational thinking. Reality has become twisted so that a persons'
perception of events is wrong, but they think it is accurate. In the context of criminal behaviour,
distortions allow an offender to deny or rationalise behaviour.
There are a number of specific cognitive deficits that criminals often have:
 Self-control - Problems with impulsive behaviour.
 Cognitive style - Individuals may lack empathy or have difficulty with abstract social concepts
so it is hard for them to achieve social harmony or understand principles of justice.
 Social perspective taking - Egocentric prisoners may be unable to see other people's
perspective or fail to understand that they should consider other people.
 values - Prisoners typically have poor moral reasoning skills, e.g., they may be unable to see
 there is a mismatch between their actions and the beliefs.
 Critical reasoning - Prisoners' thinking is often irrational and illogical and they avoid self-
analysis.
This allows them to justify what they do by blaming others rather than accepting that they are
responsible for their own behaviour.
Hostile attribution bias
Attribution is what we think when we observe someone's actions and draw an inference about what
it means. For example, if a person smiles at you, you may infer they are communication they like
you. Hostile attribution bias is when someone has a leaning towards always thinking the worst. For
example, if someone were to smile at them, they think the other person is thinking negative
thoughts about them. Negative interpretations can lead to aggressive behaviour.
Minimalisation and magnification
Minimisation and magnification are cognitive distortions where the consequences of a situation are
over or under exaggerated. In criminal behaviour, minimalisation can explain how an offender could
reduce negative interpretations of their behaviour before and/or after a crime has been committed.
This helps an individual accept their behaviour and reduce negative emotion. For example, a burglar
may think that stealing a few things from a wealthy family has little effect on their lives, so he
doesn't feel bad about committing the crime.
Theory of Mind (ToM)
ToM is the ability to attribute mental states to ourselves and others. A poorly functioning ToM would
mean that an individual would be unable to predict and interpret the behaviour of others. They
won’t understand the concept of right and wrong.
Levels of moral reasoning
In Kohlberg's study, he interviewed boys and men about reasons for their moral decisions and
constructed a stage theory of moral development. Each stage represents a more advanced form of
moral understanding, resulting in a more logically consistent and morally mature form of
understanding.
There are 3 levels, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each level is divided into
2 stages of 1-6. People progress through these stages as a consequence of biological maturity and
opportunity to develop their thinking. For example, learning to take the perspective of another
person.
Kohlberg's theory can apply to criminal behaviour. The three stages of moral development produce
differing justifications from criminals for their crimes. Hollin et al (2002) found the following
justifications were
common at each stage
 Preconventional: Breaking the law is justified if punishment can be avoided or if the rewards
outweigh the costs.
 Conventional: Breaking the law is justified if it helps to maintain relationships or society
 Postconventional: Breaking the law is justified if it helps maintain human rights or further
social justice.
Hollin also found that crimes are more likely to be committed by people at a lower level of moral
development, so offenders are characteristically less mature with regard to their moral reasoning
than non-offenders.
The link to offending behaviour
In a longitudinal study, it was found that 10% of adults reach the post-conventional level, which
means that the most common level is the conventional level of moral reasoning. Adults at this stage
who break the law would feel their behaviour was justified if the rewards outweigh the costs or if
punishment can be avoided. Under 20% of children at age 10 were stage 1 and 60% were stage 2.
Age of criminal responsibility
In England and Wales, children under 1- cannot be charged with a crime because it is believed they
don't understand the idea of moral responsibility. I.E., they are thought to be at the pre-
conventional level where they judge right and wrong in terms of consequences, rather than
principles of morality.
Evaluation:
 Cognitive Factors
Research support for hostile attribution bias
Schoenburg and Justye showed emotionally ambiguous faces to 55 anti-social violent offenders in
prison. Their responses were compared to matched control participants. The faces showed happy,
angry, or fearful in varying levels of intensity. Offenders were more likely to interpret that some
expression of anger as an expression of aggression. Therefore, the researchers concluded
misinterpretation of nonverbal cues may, at least party, explain aggressive-impulsive behaviour.
Research support for minimalisation
Kennedy and Grubin found that sex offenders accounts of their crimes often downplayed behaviour.
For example, they often implied the victim's behaviour contributed to their actions in some way, and
some even deny that a crime has been committed. Maruna and Mann suggest that this is part of a
normal behaviour where people try to blame external sources to protect the self. This is not
especially deviant behaviour.
Support for the levels of moral reasoning
Colby and Kohlberg reported that the sequence of stages appear to be universal, though post-
conventional reasoning was less common in rural communities (Snarey (1985)). Links with offending
behaviour are supported by Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson's offending motivation questionnaire. Out of
128 juvenile offenders, 38% did not consider the consequences of what they were doing, 36% were
confident they would not be caught. This suggests juvenile offenders were at the pre-conventional
level of moral reasoning, supporting the relationship between moral reasoning and offender
behaviour. Chen and Howitt used a test based on Kohlberg's stages to assess 330 male offenders
ages 12-18 in Taiwan. Offenders who showed more advanced reasoning were less likely to be
involved in violent crimes.
Limitations of the levels of moral reasoning
This theory concerns moral thinking rather than behaviour. Krebs and Denton suggest moral
principles are only one factor in moral behaviour and may be overridden by more practical factors
I.E., making personal financial gains. They found when analysing real-life moral decisions that moral
principles were used to justify behaviour after it had been performed. There was also a gender bias
in Kohlberg's research as the participants were completely male. Gilligan suggested the theory is on
a male perspective of justice rather than caring.
Social Psychological Explanation:
Differential Association Theory
DAT focuses entirely on the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate. It focuses on the influence of
learning, particularly how people you associate with influence the behaviour you acquire. Sutherland
(1939) argued that offending behaviour is explicable in terms of social learning e.g., observation and
limitation. They say that people are socialised into a life of crime, and therefore this is a sociological
theory.
Criminal behaviours
DAT may be used to explain how criminal behaviours may be passed from fathers to sons. Not
through genetics but through observation and reinforcement.
The concept of differential association
People vary in the frequency with which they associate with others who have more or less
favourable attitudes towards crime. These attitudes inevitably influence their own attitudes and
behaviour. If you mix with people with positive attitudes to crime, they will influence you to be
positive and vice versa. Sutherland believed it may be possible to develop a mathematical formula
which could be used to predict whether or not someone would turn to crime based on the frequency
duration and intensity of their social contacts.
What is learned?
A child learns attitudes toward crime such as is it desirable or not. They will also learn which
particular types of crime are desirable e.g., burglary (not violent). Attitudes and behaviours are
learned from intimate personal groups e.g., family and peer groups and the wider neighbourhood.
The degree to which their local community supports or opposes criminal involvement determines
the differences in crime rates from one area to another. Individuals may not be criminal themselves,
but they may be accepting of them. Sutherland suggested that the frequency, length, and personal
meaning of such associations will determine the degree of influence.
Who is it learned from?
Attitudes and behaviours are learned from intimate personal groups, such as family and/or peer
group. They are also learned also from the wider neighbourhood. The degree to which the local
community supports or opposes criminal involvement (differential social organisation) determines
the differences in crime rates from one area to another. The individuals or social groups may not be
criminals themselves, but they may still hold deviant attitudes or an acceptance of such attitudes.
How is it learned?
Sutherland suggested that the frequency, length, and personal meaning of such associations will
determine the degree of influence.
Sutherland did not specify the actual mode of learning, but it is likely to be both direct and indirect
operant conditioning. A child may be directly reinforced for deviant behaviours through praise, or
may be punished for such behaviour by family and peers. Both are examples of direct operant
conditioning. Role models would provide opportunities to model behaviours and, if the role models
are successful themselves in criminal activities, this would provide indirect (vicarious reinforcement.
Social groups also establish social norms by which we define behaviour - the social groups creates a
sense of what is 'normal' for people to do.
Evaluation:
Differential Association Theory
Major contribution
It changed people's views about the origins of criminal behaviour. It marked a change from blaming
individual factors to social factors. Crime does not need to be explained in terms of personality, it
could be explained in terms of social experience. This means this appropriate has important, real-
world implications because learning environments may be changed. Sutherland also referred to
'white collar crime'. Transgressions against the law, committed by people who would normally be
seen as respectable and middle-class citizens. Non-violent crimes e.g., fraud, bribery, copyright
infringement etc. are committed by businesses and government professionals, and may be best
explained in terms of differential association.
Supporting evidence
The fact that crime appears to run in families lends support. Osborn and West (1979) looked at
fathers and sons. Where a father had a criminal conviction, 40% of the sons had committed a crime
by age 18, compared to 13% with non-criminal fathers. It must be remembered that genetic
inheritance may also offer an explanation. Nature and nurture. Akers et al. (1979) surveyed 2.5k
male and female adolescents in the Us to investigate drinking and d drug behaviour. Findings
showed the most influence on this form of deviant behaviour was from peers. Differential
association, differential reinforcement and imitation combined to account for 68% of the variance in
marijuana use and around 40% in alcohol use.
Methodological issues
The data is only correlational, not causal. In terms of peer influences it could be argued criminals
seek out other criminals and this would explain why peers are likely to have peers who are also
criminals. According to Cox et al. the theory is not testable. There is an issue about how one
measures the effect of number and strength of associations on subsequent attitudes. It is not clear
what ratio.
Cannot account for all kinds of crime
DAT is contained to smaller crimes rather than violent and impulsive offences e.g., rape and murder.
This kind of smaller crime accounts for a larger percentage of crimes committed rather than violent
and impulsive offences. In England and Wales in 2014, there were about 500 homicides but more
than 400,000 burglaries. The theory cannot explain why most crime is committed by younger people.
Newburn (2002) 40% of offences were committed by people under 21, but Eysenck’s personality
theory can explain high crime rates in younger people in terms of desire for risk-taking as an element
of criminal behaviour. Gudjonsson and Sigurdson found desire for risk was a key factor in crime.
The role of biological factors
Easy to see how biological factors could be combined with differential association theory following
the diathesis-stress model. A genetic vulnerability may predispose an individual to be more affected
by theory social environment and early experiences may act as a vulnerability.
Gender Socialisation
Gender socialisation
Socialisation is the process by which we learn the norms, customs, and skills to participate in our
society. It has long been conserved by sociologists to be a major reason for gender differences seen
in criminal behaviour. Sutherland (1949) claimed that during socialisation, boys are encouraged to
be risk-takers, tough etc. whereas girls are not. Girls are more closely supervised and controlled than
boys and our society expects girls to be more conforming. These differences become ingrained and
lead to more young men becoming criminals as they have both the inclination and opportunity to
commit more crime.
Gender role models
Social learning theory suggests we learn about gender behaviour through observation and limitation
of role models. For girls, the key role model is the mother, and for boys it is the father.
Cohen (1955) suggested this is a more difficult process for boys than girls. Girls have easy access to
their mothers, whereas traditionally fathers have been elusive role models as they are less
frequently available for their sons. Boys rebel against the socialisation offered by their mother as a
result, especially if that socialisation leads to any typically feminine traits. Boys pursue any
opportunities that offer them the chance to develop their masculinity. Boys and young men seek out
all-male peer groups. These groups may reward masculine behaviours such as aggression,
toughness, risk-taking and rule breaking. All behaviours which may lead to deviant and ultimately
criminal behaviour
Oakley (1972) notes 'the dividing line between that is masculine and what is criminal may at times
be a thin one.'
Differences in social control
Patriarchal societies are those where men and fathers dominate. These societies impose greater
control over women this reduces the opportunity that women have to commit crimes.
According to Heidensohn (1985), women are controlled at home, work and in public. In the home as
daughters, girls are dependent on the care/provision from their parents especially their father.
Daughters are not able to stay out as late as sons are required to do more housework than sons, and
as a result, girls learn to develop socialising opportunities which involve the home such as
sleepovers. As adults, women have fewer opportunities to commit crime because of the greater
crime and movement restrictions placed on them by their domestic roles such as caring for young
children.
The glass ceiling
In the workplace, the glass ceiling prevents women from rising to senior positions and having fewer
opportunities to commit white-collar crime.
Influence of the media
The way the media reports on crimes such as rape also controls women, by increasing the fear they
have for being out in public, especially alone at night. This fear causes women to stay at home and
have fewer opportunities to commit a crime. The manner in which the media reports on female
criminals is also controlling. Women who commit crimes are rising double jeopardy, not only by
rejecting societies norms and values, but are also rejecting their own femininity.
Evaluation:
Gender Socialisation
Chivalry hypothesis
Suggests women commit more crimes than the official statistics suggest. Police, magistrates, and
judges tend to be men, and men have been socialised to act in a more chivalrous manner towards
women. Pollak (1950) claimed men in the criminal justice system tended to have a protective
attitude towards women, and as a result, women were less likely to be arrested, charged,
prosecuted, and convicted. This suggests that it is not only the gender of the person demonstrating,
the criminal behaviour, but also the gender of the criminal justice system which may be responsible
for the lower levels of females seen in crime statistics.
Men are less likely to be punished
Some claim that although there may be fewer females being prosecuted for criminal behaviour, the
criminal justice system is actually biased against females. Carlen (1977) reports that when a woman
was perceived as a good mother, she was less likely to be imprisoned than a woman who had
children in the care system. Therefore, it is argued that this is often the assessment of the character
of the women in relation to traditional gender roles, rather than the severity of the offence, that
determines the sentence handed out. Though males may commit more violent and severe offences
they get let off comparative lightly as they are only overstepping the expectations set for their
gender. Females who commit crimes are breaking their expected gender role. This is another aspect
of gender difference in relation to crime which challenges the chivalry hypothesis and also suggests
the difference between men and women in terms of criminality, is even greater than imprisoning
rates suggest.
Hormones in males
There is a difference in hormones between men and women. Testosterone is found in higher levels
in men. It has been linked to aggressive behaviour. Dabbs et al. (1987) found 9/11 inmates with the
lowest testosterone concentrations had committed nonviolent crimes whereas 10/11 inmates with
the highest testosterone levels had committed violent crimes. This suggests testosterone is related
to increased aggression and that differences in socialisation and social control may not be the only
differences that are responsible for the criminal behaviour of males and females.
Hormones in females
Women have lower levels of testosterone. The female hormone oestradiol is found in both males
and females but in higher levels in females. It is thought to promote empathy, a characteristic
lacking in some criminals. Eriksson et al. (2003) compared the hormone levels of males who had a
history of alcohol-related aggression with a control group of 44 men with no such behavioural
history. The men with alcohol related aggression showed a negative correlation between oestradiol
levels and testosterone related physical violent aggression. This research suggests that both male
and female hormones play a role in at least some criminal behaviours. In men, the hormones may
promote such behaviour whereas in females they reduce behaviours.
Methods of modifying behaviour
Anger management:
The use of anger management with prisoners has two aims.
• The short-term aim is to reduce anger and aggression in prisons where it is a serious issue.
Raymond Novaco (2013) describes prisons as ‘efficient anger factories’ due to the social
climate (violent inmates, overcrowding).
• The longer-term aim of rehabilitation and reduction of recidivism. This is especially the case
for violent prisoners.
Anger in prisoners:
Criminals have a tendency towards irrational ways of thinking, such as having a hostile attribution
bias. ‘Attribution’ refers to what we think when we observe someone’s actions and draw an
inference about what it means. For example, if a person smiles at you, you might infer they are
communicating that they like you. A hostile attribution bias is when someone has a leaning towards
always thinking the worst. For example someone smiles at you but you think that the person is
actually thinking bad thoughts about you. Such negative interpretations then lead to increased
anger.
Key aims:
As this is a cognitive approach the aim is to change the way a person handles anger and aggression –
the situation itself may not be changeable but a person can change the way they think about it and
thus change their behaviour. The therapy is one of ‘management’. Novaco (2011) has identified
three key aims for any anger management programme:
• Cognitive restructuring – greater self-awareness and control over cognitive dimensions of
anger.
• Regulation of arousal – learning to control the physiological state.
• Behavioural strategies – such as problem-solving skills, strategic withdrawal and
assertiveness.
Stress inoculation model:
Most anger management programmes used with offenders are based on work by Novaco (1975,
1977). His model drew on stress inoculation training, a form of CBT (see page 152) – stress
inoculation aims to provide a kind of vaccination against future ‘infections’. The therapy tends to be
conducted with a group of offenders either inside prison or outside, for example during probation.
The three key steps are:
1. Conceptualisation In the initial phase, clients learn about anger generally, how it can be both
adaptive and non-adaptive. They analyse their own patterns of anger and identify situations
which provoke anger in them.
2. Skill acquisition (and rehearsal) In the second phase, clients are taught various skills to help
manage their anger, such as self-regulation, cognitive flexibility and relaxation. They are also
taught better communication skills so they can resolve conflicts assertively without being
angry.
3. Application (and follow through) Clients apply the skills initially in controlled and non-
threatening situations such as role plays of situations that previously made them angry. They
receive extensive feedback from the therapist and other group members. Later clients can
try out their skills in real world settings.
Evaluation
Effectiveness:
Success of anger management programmes
In general, anger management programmes are successful in reducing anger, for example John
Taylor and Raymond Novaco (2006) report 75% improvement rates (based on six meta-analyses).
Nana Landenberger and Mark Lipsey (2005) analysed 58 studies using CBT with offenders, 20 of
these studies looked at therapies where anger control was a key component. The researchers found
that having an anger control element was significantly related to amount of improvement.
Not all studies have been so positive. For example Kevin Howells et al. (2005) cite five meta-analyses
which showed only moderate benefits of anger management programmes and in one study only one
person improved (Law, 1997).
Limitations of anger management programmes:
CBT in general isn’t for everyone; some offenders don’t like to reflect on their style of thinking. Such
individuals may well drop out of voluntary anger management programmes for offenders. One
alternative is the use of drama-based courses which are less reliant on verbal ability and more
engaging. A number of such courses with offenders (e.g. Blacker et al., 2008) have proved successful.
Research has also shown that one way to cope with dropout is to assess ‘readiness to change’ before
the start of an anger management programme rather than waste time with individuals who won’t
benefit (Howells and Day, 2003). There are scales to measure readiness to change such as the Anger
Readiness to Change Questionnaire.
It is also probably true that anger management programmes are best as part of a wider therapeutic
approach.
Relationship between anger, aggression and crime:
One final issue to consider is whether anger and aggression are related – ultimately it is aggression
(and crime) that we are trying to reduce. If anger doesn’t contribute to aggression then anger
management may be irrelevant. Wagdy Loza and Amel Loza-Fanous (1999) claim that research that
has linked anger and crime is based on laboratory studies using students. In their own study of
almost 300 males in prison they found no differences between violent and non-violent offenders in
terms of anger. However this may be because violent individuals mask their anger. Loza and Loza-
Fanous further suggest that one danger with anger management programmes is that such
programmes can be harmful because offenders attribute their violent behaviour to anger rather than
taking personal responsibility.
Howells et al. (2005) concluded that ‘anger is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for
aggression and violent crime’ (p. 296). Much violence can take place without anger acting as a
prominent antecedent.
Ethical Implications:
Lack of voluntary consent
In many cases, offenders are required to take part in an anger management programme (e.g. a
condition of probation). Such participation is against the ethical code of therapists, though the Anger
Management and Domestic Violence Professionals ethical code does say ‘based, when appropriate,
on valid informed consent’. Ethical issues are also a balance between costs and benefits so the cost
to valid consent could be weighed against the benefits for individuals and society through anger
reduction.
Therapist conflict:
Therapeutic interventions are intended to help the client. When such interventions are used within
prisons there are conflicts for a therapist because they have a duty to the institution and to their
client. For example, a client might tell the therapist information that could threaten the security of
the prison or may confess details of crimes he has committed. Breaching any therapeutic confidence
is only acceptable in the most serious of situations – but it does pose a dilemma for the therapist
and would damage the client’s trust in authority.
Social Implications:
Benefits for prison environment:
Anger management programmes have benefits for prison staff and other prisoners when used in
prison environments. They have the potential to reduce aggression and violence – if we accept that
anger and aggression are linked (see discussion on left). Even without the link to aggression and
violence, anger on its own creates a hostile atmosphere.
Financial implications:
The cost to the economy of reoffending (recidivism) is at least £9.5 billion per year. Any method that
may reduce even a small amount of offending or reoffending must offer benefits to society. If
offenders learn to control their anger better once they are released from prison this may prevent
them committing further crimes. For example, reducing a hostile attribution bias would mean that
negative emotions are less likely to escalate.
Methods of modifying behaviour
Restorative Justice:
Restorative justice usually (but not always) involves communication with the
victim. An offender may simply give payment as reparation (no
communication) but, more often, an offender may write a letter to a victim
or there may be an interaction between offender and victim, for example
video conferencing or a face-to-face meeting between victim and offender
in the presence of an impartial
facilitator.
Offenders are often offered restorative justice as an alternative to a prison
sentence if the victim has agreed.
Aims of restorative justice:
Restorative justice has the potential to address two key aims of custodial sentencing: rehabilitation
of offenders so they do not reoffend and atonement for wrongdoing.
Rehabilitation of offenders:
The victim has an opportunity to explain the real impact of the crime, and this enables the offender
to understand the effects on the victim. Offenders may learn to take the perspective of others,
which reduces the possibility of reoffending.
In particular, the offender is encouraged to take responsibility for the crime, and this is hoped to
have an effect on their future behaviour. Being punished is a passive process but rehabilitative
justice requires the criminal’s active participation which may therefore change their attitudes
towards crime and their behaviour.
Atonement for wrongdoing:
Offenders may offer concrete compensation for the crime (money or doing unpaid community
work). Most importantly the ‘atonement’ is psychological by simply showing their feelings of guilt.
The offender can also show an understanding of the effects of their action. The victim has the
opportunity to express their distress, and this provides the offender with a chance to develop
empathy by taking the perspective of the victim.
Victim’s perspective:
From the victim’s perspective restorative justice can reduce their sense of victimisation because they
are no longer powerless and have a voice. Furthermore a victim may develop a greater
understanding of the offender by listening to their account which, in turn, reduces the victim’s sense
of being harmed.
A theory of restorative justice:
Wachtel and McCold (2003) propose a theoretical framework. Their starting point is that focus
should be on relationships rather than punishment. Crime harms people and their relationships, and
justice requires that harm to be healed as much as possible.
Early models of restorative justice focused on the offender and victim only, but more recent ideas
recognise the effect on the wider community. The involvement of three ‘stakeholders’ is necessary
for successful restorative justice – the victim seeks reparation; the offender must take responsibility
and the community aims to achieve reconciliation to maintain a healthy society (see diagram on
facing page). If only one stakeholder is involved the process is only partly restorative e.g. if
the government pays financial compensation. If two stakeholders are involved then it is mostly
restorative, e.g. if offender receives therapy. Full restoration involves all three stakeholders.
Evaluation
Effectiveness:
Effectiveness from the victim’s perspective:
There is good evidence that victims who have taken part in restorative justice schemes feel it was
beneficial. The UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) reports 85% satisfaction from victims in face-to-
face meetings with their offender(s). These reports of victim satisfaction covered a large range of
different crimes from theft to violent crime. One police force, Avon and Somerset, reported 92.5%
victim satisfaction when victims had been the subject of a violent crime.
Victims also claim a greater sense of satisfaction than when cases go through mainstream courts
(Dignan, 2005).
Effectiveness in terms of reduced offending:
Restorative justice not only seeks to help victims recover from the effects of crime but also to reduce
reoffending and thus reduce crime rates. Research indicates this aim has been achieved. For
example Lawrence Sherman and Heather Strang (2007) reviewed 20 studies of face-to-face meetings
between offender and victim in the US, UK and Australia. All studies showed reduced reoffending,
and none were linked to higher reoffending. In one of the studies (142 males convicted of violence
and property offences) there were lower reoffending rates (11%) as compared with a matched
control group who served a short prison sentence (37% reoffending).
The UK Restorative Justice Council (2015) report an overall figure of 37% reoffending.
Selecting which offenders and which victims:
The system will never be able to apply to all offenders and all victims. First of all, an offender who
has admitted the crime is needed, though Howard Zehr (2002) claims that restorative justice can
take place without an offender’s presence. Second, some kinds of crime may not be suitable though,
in fact, the process is used for every crime imaginable.
Finally, some victims may decline the offer. This means that restorative justice can’t be a global
solution to dealing with offending behaviour.
Ethical Implications:
From the victim’s perspective:
One of the major ethical concerns is what happens if the victim actually feels worse afterwards.
Psychological harm is a key ethical issue and there are many ways in which this might happen. For
example, the victim may feel that the criminal showed no empathy for the harm caused, and feel
‘injured’ for a second time, leading to a loss of self-esteem. The victim may feel taken advantage of if
the criminal was offered restorative justice as opposed to a custodial sentence, especially if the
criminal doesn’t appear to be taking the procedure seriously. Or the victim may feel very
embarrassed by the proceedings.
From the offender’s perspective:
Making people face up to their wrongdoing can lead to abuses of power, for example victims can
gang up on an offender especially where the offender is a child. Victims may also try to shame the
offender which is not the intention of the process. The process is intended to provide mutual
benefits so that it is important that an offender also feels ‘understood’.
Restorative justice programmes need to be carefully balanced and ensure benefit to both victim and
offender and avoidance of harm.
Social Implications:
Financial implications:
The UK has a very large prison population, greater than in other European countries. One of the key
aims of restorative justice is to reduce prison populations by reducing reoffending. In addition,
Howard Zehr (2002) reminds us that another reason for restorative justice is that the traditional
penal system did not address the needs of victims, nor did it promote offender accountability. The
UK Restorative Justice Council claims that reduced reoffending means that £8 is saved for every £1
spent on the restorative process (e.g. reduced custodial costs, court costs, police time etc.).
Additionally the cost of restorative justice is sometimes funded by fines paid by offenders. Thus
restorative justice may have substantial financial benefits for the community.
Wider approach in the community:
A fully functioning restorative justice programme should go beyond the offender and victim to
include the wider community. ‘Peace circles’ are an example of the kind of community programme
that has been developed in communities where violence and crime levels are high. The ‘circles’ aim
to foster an environment of respect so that the community offers support to victims of crime and
also welcomes the offender into the circle to enable mutual understanding.
Everyone sits in chairs placed in a circle. A ‘talking piece’ is passed from one person to another
around the circle so that a person can speak uninterrupted. There is a ‘keeper’ whose task is to
maintain at atmosphere of respect and articulate constructive solutions (Pranis et al., 2003).
There are other kinds of ‘circles of support’ that have developed with the aim of giving community
support to offenders to prevent reoffending instead of excluding them (Wilson et al., 2007).