Document comments: Created by the \'abHTML to RTF .Net\'bb 5.8.2.9

Q1.
Which two of the following statements about Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality are TRUE? Write the two correct letters in your answer book.
A   The criminal personality avoids sensation-seeking situations
B   The criminal personality cannot be conditioned easily
C   The criminal personality has a high level of introversion
D   The criminal personality has an over-aroused nervous system
E   The criminal personality scores highly on neuroticism
(Total 2 marks)
Q2.
Describe and evaluate cognitive explanations for offending.
(Total 16 marks)
Q3.
Outline one cognitive distortion shown by offenders who attempt to justify their crime.
(Total 2 marks)
Q4.
Briefly outline differential association theory as an explanation for offending.
(2)
Briefly explain one limitation of this theory.
(2)
(Total 4 marks)
Q5.
Discuss psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour.
(Total 8 marks)
Q6.
Discuss Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. Refer to evidence in your answer.
(Total 16 marks)
Q7.
Outline and compare two explanations for offending. Refer to evidence in your answer.
(Total 16 marks)
Q8.
Outline Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality.
(Total 2 marks)
Q9.
Briefly discuss two criticisms of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality.
(Total 4 marks)

Mark schemes
Q1.
[AO1 = 2]
1 mark for each correct letter: 
B
E
[2]
Q2.
[AO1 = 6 AO3 = 10]
 
Level | Marks | Description
4 | 13 – 16 | Knowledge of cognitive explanations for offending is accurate and generally well detailed. Evaluation is thorough and effective. Minor detail and/or expansion of argument is sometimes lacking. The answer is clear, coherent and focused. Specialist terminology is used effectively.
3 | 9 – 12 | Knowledge of cognitive explanations for offending is evident but there are occasional inaccuracies/omissions. Evaluation is mostly effective. The answer is mostly clear and organised but occasionally lacks focus. Specialist terminology is used appropriately.
2 | 5 – 8 | Limited knowledge of cognitive explanations for offending is present. Focus is mainly on description. Any evaluation is of limited effectiveness. The answer lacks clarity, accuracy and organisation in places. Specialist terminology is used inappropriately on occasions.
1 | 1 – 4 | Knowledge of cognitive explanations for offending is very limited. Evaluation is limited, poorly focused or absent. The answer as a whole lacks clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised. Specialist terminology is either absent or inappropriately used.
| 0 | No relevant content.
Possible content:
•        role of level of moral reasoning (Kohlberg) with focus on pre-conventional level (punishment orientation and reward orientation)
•        punishment orientation – reasoning based on whether or not the act will lead to punishment
•        reward orientation – reasoning based on what is to be gained
•        cognitive distortions – hostile attribution bias – misinterpretation / misreading of other people’s actions/words/expressions as aggressive/provocative
•        cognitive distortion – minimalisation – belief in triviality of own offence, minimising the importance of the act.
Possible evaluation:
•        use of evidence to support/contradict the cognitive explanation, eg studies supporting Kohlberg’s pre-conventional reasoning in offending populations, eg Ashkar and Kenny 2007, Hollin and Palmer 1998
•        sampling issues and generalisation – Kohlberg’s focus on males
•        hypothetical nature of Kohlberg’s dilemma evidence – generalisability to real-life offences
•        cultural bias (Kohlberg’s Western bias) and alternative theories – Gibbs’ mature and immature levels
•        cognitive distortions serve to justify offending behaviour – use of examples to illustrate
•        cognitive theory explains thinking but not the primary source of the offending (nature or nurture?)
•        implications: for treating offenders using cognitive therapy to change thinking/understanding; of psychological research into offending for the economy
•        broader issues and debates – eg holism v reductionism
•        comparison with other explanations.
Credit other relevant material.
Q3.
[AO1 = 2]
Possible cognitive distortions:
•        minimisation explaining the consequences as less significant / damaging than they really are
•        hostile attribution bias blaming other factors for behaviour, eg blaming the victim.
Credit other relevant cognitive distortions.
Q4.
(a)     [AO1 = 2]
Possible content:
•        Notion that offending depends on the norms/values of the offender’s social group
•        Offending is more likely to occur where social group values deviant behaviour
2 marks for a clear and coherent outline
1 mark for a vague/muddled outline
(b)     [AO3 = 2]
Possible limitation:
•        Only evidence in correlational
•        Findings could also be explained through heritability
•        Offenders may seek out people with criminal values
2 marks for a clear and coherent outline
1 mark for a vague/muddled outline
Q5.
[AO1 = 3 AO3 = 5]
 
Level | Marks | Description
4 | 7 – 8 | Knowledge of psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour is accurate and generally well detailed. Discussion is effective. The answer is clear, coherent and focused. Specialist terminology is used effectively. Minor detail and/or expansion of argument sometimes lacking.
3 | 5 – 6 | Knowledge of psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour is evident. There are occasional inaccuracies. There is some effective discussion. The answer is mostly clear and organised. Specialist terminology mostly used effectively.
2 | 3 – 4 | Knowledge of psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour is present. Focus is mainly on description. Any discussion is of limited effectiveness. The answer lacks clarity, accuracy and organisation in places. Specialist terminology used inappropriately on occasions.
1 | 1 – 2 | Knowledge of psychodynamic explanations of offending behaviour is limited. Discussion is limited, poorly focused or absent. The answer as a whole lacks clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised. Specialist terminology either absent or inappropriately used.
| 0 | No relevant content.
Possible content:
Relevant psychoanalytic concepts include:
•   Freud’s instinct theory and a focus on Thanatos and displacement in relation to aggressive offenders
•   Freudian psychosexual model of development and the oedipal stage leading to development of the superego/conscience
•   Tension between id, ego and superego, especially where superego is under- or over-developed
Possible discussion points
•   Little research support for psychodynamic ideas
•   Freud’s view that females should show less superego development and so be more vulnerable to offending is not supported by offending statistics
•   Some evidence that antisocial behaviour in children/adolescents is linked to inadequate parenting – Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis; this can be linked to Freudian ideas of psychosexual development and the superego
•   Comparison with alternative explanations for offending behaviour; social learning, genetics etc.
Note that general evaluation of Freudian ideas is not creditworthy unless explicitly linked to the discussion of offending behaviour.
Credit other relevant material.
Q6.
Marks for this question: AO1 = 6, AO3 = 10
 
Level | Marks | Description
4 | 13 – 16 | Knowledge is accurate and generally well detailed. Evidence is clear. Discussion / evaluation / application is thorough and effective. The answer is clear, coherent and focused. Specialist terminology is used effectively. Minor detail and / or expansion of argument sometimes lacking.
3 | 9 – 12 | Knowledge is evident. There are occasional inaccuracies. Evidence is present. Discussion / evaluation / application is apparent and mostly effective. The answer is mostly clear and organised. Specialist terminology is mostly used effectively. Lacks focus in places.
2 | 5 – 8 | Some knowledge is present. Focus is mainly on description. Any discussion / evaluation / application is only partly effective. The answer lacks clarity, accuracy and organisation in places. Specialist terminology is used inappropriately on occasions.
1 | 1 – 4 | Knowledge is limited. Discussion / evaluation / application is limited, poorly focused or absent. The answer as a whole lacks clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised. Specialist terminology either absent or inappropriately used.
| 0 | No relevant content.
Please note that although the content for this mark scheme remains the same, on most mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) content appears as a bulleted list.
AO1
Marks for knowledge of Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality. Credit any of the following: personality is innate; we inherit a type of nervous system that predisposes us to offending; personality varies along three dimensions – neurotic – stable, extravert – introvert, psychoticism; typical criminal type is the neurotic-extravert; neuroticism leads to unstable, unpredictable behaviour; extraversion is due to chronically under-aroused nervous system which leads to sensation seeking; extraverts do not condition easily and do not learn from mistakes; high psychoticism – cold, heartless offender; high NE scores in delinquent population, eg McGurk and McDougall (1981).
AO3
Marks for discussion / analysis / evaluation. Likely discussion points include: alternative explanations used to evaluate Eysenck’s theory, eg how biological explanations in part support Eysenck’s theory about neurological differences between offenders and controls; alternatives to the idea of a unitary type, eg Moffitt (1993) proposed four distinct types; incompatibility with modern personality theory, eg the 5 factor model (Digman,1990) which emphasises role of other dimensions, eg conscientiousness and agreeableness, it is possible to have a high E and N score and still not offend; basis for the model is in the EPI; reliability and validity issues re EPI; inability to infer cause and effect; determinism and the implications of Eysenck’s emphasis on heritability and inevitability; reductionism and the need to consider wider influences, eg society; Eysenck’s theory in the historical context as anti-liberal; relevance to eugenic ideal; links between Eysencks’ traits and other explanations for offending, eg psychoticism and brain structure / function. Credit evaluation of evidence where used to discuss theory.
Credit use of relevant evidence, eg (McGurk and McDougall, 1981), (Farrington et al. 1982).
Q7.
Marks for this question: AO1 = 6, AO3 = 10
 
Level | Marks | Description
4 | 13 – 16 | Knowledge is accurate and generally well detailed. Comparison is thorough and effective. The answer is clear, coherent and focused. Specialist terminology is used effectively. Minor detail and / or expansion of argument sometimes lacking.
3 | 9 – 12 | Knowledge is evident. There are occasional inaccuracies. Comparison is apparent and mostly effective. The answer is mostly clear and organised. Specialist terminology is mostly used effectively. Lacks focus in places.
2 | 5 – 8 | Some knowledge is present. Focus is mainly on description. Any comparison is only partly effective. The answer lacks clarity, accuracy and organisation in places. Specialist terminology is used inappropriately on occasions.
1 | 1 – 4 | Knowledge is limited. Comparison is limited, poorly focused or absent. The answer as a whole lacks clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised. Specialist terminology either absent or inappropriately used.
| 0 | No relevant content.
Please note that although the content for this mark scheme remains the same, on most mark schemes for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) content appears as a bulleted list.
AO1
Marks for outline of two explanations (can have two explanations from within one category eg two biological).
Likely content:
Biological explanations – genetics; twin / adoption evidence; neurological mechanisms eg amygdala, frontal lobe volume / activity, brain maturation retardation hypothesis (APD); chromosomal XYY; credit also early theories such as atavistic form and somatotype. Eysenck: combination of high neuroticism and high extraversion; psychoticism. Psychodynamic: role of the superego; types of criminal superego (Blackburn 1993); maternal deprivation (Bowlby 1951); role of defence mechanisms.
Social learning theory: modelling; vicarious reinforcement; observation; imitation; differential association theory (Sutherland 1939).
AO3
Marks for comparison of the two explanations. Points will depend on the explanations chosen but might include: determinism – biological versus environmental determinism; reductionism; relative ability to explain certain types of crime better than others; role of parents and wider society; implications eg blame and opportunities for reform; quality of evidence for each explanation; theoretical foundations.
Credit use of evidence where relevant to explanations.
Q8.
[AO1 = 2]
Up to 2 marks for relevant description of Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. 
1 mark for noting that the criminal personality is the neurotic-extravert type. 
Plus 1 further mark for any valid point eg type of nervous system that pre-disposes us to offend is inherited; trait of psychoticism (cold, unfeeling) was a later addition; neurotic = unstable and extravert = sensation-seeking / outgoing; extroverts have chronically under-aroused nervous system; extraverts do not condition easily.
Q9.
Please note that the AOs for the new AQA Specification (Sept 2015 onwards) have changed. Under the new Specification the following system of AOs applies:
•        AO1 knowledge and understanding
•        AO2 application (of psychological knowledge)
•        AO3 evaluation, analysis, interpretation.
[AO2 = 4]
Up to 2 marks for each criticism explained. 1 mark for a brief point, 2 marks for a point that is elaborated / fully explained. 
Likely criticisms: oversimplification to say all offenders are of the same type - may be more than one type – Moffitt proposes at least 4 types of offender eg adolescent limited, adult starter etc; emphasises the importance of just two personality factors which conflicts with recent personality theory eg 5 factor model; inconsistent evidence that offenders have high E scores; high psychoticism not often correlated with high E and N scores; implications or saying criminality is innate.

Examiner reports
Q1.
Most students gained at least one mark for this question. 
Q2.
This straightforward question clearly posed a problem for many students. Most could give some descriptive account of appropriate material, such as theory of moral reasoning, hostile attribution bias and minimalisation. Unfortunately, there was often insufficient focus on offending, where students presented long accounts of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, with details of stages and the Heinz dilemma, but with no mention of offending. Better answers focused primarily on the pre-conventional level and explanation of how reasoning at this level might lead to offending behaviour. Similarly, hostile attribution bias was outlined, but relatively infrequently did students explain how it might lead to offending. With minimalisation, it was not often clear how it operates to enable the offender to justify the offending act to him or herself and thus avoid feelings of guilt. A significant number of students tried to use Eysenck, differential association or psychodynamic theory to answer this question. Unless some cognitive element was obvious, these answers gained no credit.
Q6.
This question was probably the worst answered question on the whole paper and it was quite evident that many students knew little at all about Eysenck’s theory as it relates to offending. There was widespread confusion over traits and types, explanations of the key traits neuroticism and extroversion were often very limited and sometimes quite wrong. A substantial number of students could not even identify the criminal personality as someone with a high E and high N score. Discussions were generally very weak and mostly focused on problems with the EPI without any link back to implications for Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality. Knowledge of the inherited aspect of the personality and links to the nervous system were rare, with the consequence that the attempted discussion point, ‘Eysenck ignores biology’, misfired completely. Even allowing for the fact that this was the last question answered by many students, it is evident that Eysenck’s theory or the criminal personality needs to be better addressed.
Q7.
The majority of students could offer useful outlines for this question, however, little effective comparison was in evidence. More usually each explanation was evaluated separately in turn. As a consequence, many students who ought to have done better were limited to a maximum of six marks.
Q8.
Eysenck is clearly not a favoured area for some students.
Q9.
Eysenck is clearly not a favoured area for some students, with the result that answers to this question were sometimes poorly done. Some students confused Eysenck with other theorists altogether, most usually with either Lombroso or Sheldon, and occasionally students wrote about organised and disorganised types, as in offender profiling.

Page  of