Component 3: Criminal behaviours — Eduqas A-Level Psychology

Component 3: Criminal Behaviours requires students to investigate the complex aetiology of offending and the practical methods used to modify such behaviour. The specification explores biological perspectives (genetic inheritance, brain abnormalities), individual differences (Eysenck's personality dimensions, cognitive biases, moral development), and social-psychological models (Sutherland's differential association, gender socialisation).

Beyond theoretical frameworks, the topic evaluates real-world interventions including anger management, behaviour modification in custodial settings, and restorative justice. Mastery of this module enables learners to weigh deterministic explanations against agency, appreciate methodological challenges like self-report validity, and contribute to contemporary debates in penal policy and forensic rehabilitation.

• →Biological mechanisms: Candidate genes (MAOA, CDH13), brain structures (prefrontal cortex, amygdala dysregulation studied by Raine et al.), and neurochemical imbalances (dopamine, serotonin).
• →Psychological explanations: Eysenck's dimensional model (cortical arousal, neuroticism, psychoticism), Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, and cognitive distortions (hostile attribution bias and minimalisation).
• →Sutherland's Differential Association Theory: Offending as a socially learned behaviour acquired through exposure to pro-criminal attitudes, specific skills, and reinforcement frequencies.
• →Rehabilitative interventions: Cognitive restructuring via Novaco's anger management (conceptualisation, skill acquisition, application), token economies using operant principles, and restorative justice mediation.

• Outlines the disinhibition hypothesis as the weakening of normal behavioural restraints, often by substances, leading to impulsive or aggressive acts.
• Outlines inherited criminality as a genetic contribution to offending, evidenced by family, twin or adoption comparisons.
• Outlines the role of the amygdala as a brain structure linked to emotion and fear processing whose atypical function is associated with offending.
• States at least two biological explanations, meeting the specification's minimum of two.
• Explains the proposed mechanism linking each biological factor to criminal behaviour rather than only naming it.
• Names at least two individual differences explanations from Eysenck's criminal personality, intelligence factors and psychopathic personality.
• Explains the mechanism of Eysenck's theory, linking extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism to conditionability and arousal.
• Describes how intelligence factors are associated with offending while noting that correlation does not establish that low ability causes crime.
• Outlines psychopathic personality traits such as callousness, reduced empathy and impulsivity and links them to offending risk.
• Evaluates the explanations by weighing evidence, confounding social factors and the problem of measuring personality or intelligence.
• Names at least two social psychological explanations from differential association theory, gender socialisation and normalisation theory.
• Explains how differential association theory treats offending as learned through the balance of definitions encountered in close relationships.
• Describes how gender socialisation transmits different norms and expectations to boys and girls and links this to patterns of offending.
• Outlines how normalisation theory explains offending becoming accepted as ordinary within a group or community.
• Evaluates the explanations by weighing evidence, cultural and historical variation and the interplay between social learning and individual factors.
• Identifies anger management as a cognitive-behavioural method that targets the offender's aggressive thinking and teaches coping strategies such as self-talk and relaxation.
• Identifies restorative justice as a method that brings offender and victim together so the offender acknowledges the harm and agrees reparation.
• Distinguishes anger management, which works on the individual's cognition and behaviour, from restorative justice, which works through the offender's encounter with the victim and community.
• States a plausible rationale or evaluation point for each method, such as reduced reoffending or the emotional demands placed on the victim.

• 💡Prepare a short mechanism statement and one piece of supporting evidence for each of the three named explanations.
• 💡Keep the three explanations distinct so you can select two clearly under exam pressure.
• 💡Use precise terminology such as disinhibition, heritability and amygdala function.
• 💡Read the question stem to check whether it asks you to identify, describe or evaluate before you choose an option.
• 💡Eliminate options that confuse correlation with causation or that overstate what a personality or IQ score can show.
• 💡Keep the named explanations distinct so that each option you select maps to one clear mechanism.
• 💡Check whether the stem asks for identification, description or evaluation before selecting an option.
• 💡Reject options that present a social explanation as a complete or single cause of crime.
• 💡Match each option to one named theory so that the mechanism stays clear.
• 💡Read the stem carefully to see whether it asks for a description, a distinction or an evaluation before choosing an option.
• 💡Eliminate options that describe a different method, such as token economy or custodial sentencing, when the stem names anger management or restorative justice.
• 💡Link each method to its underlying rationale so you can reject options that misrepresent how the method is supposed to work.
• 💡Always contextualise evaluation points using specific forensic scenarios (e.g. violent crime vs. white-collar crime) when assessing whether an explanation possesses broad explanatory power.
• 💡When evaluating interventions like anger management or token economies, evaluate short-term institutional compliance separately from long-term post-release recidivism.
• 💡Use accurate terminology when discussing Raine's PET scan research; avoid claiming brain abnormalities cause murder, as Raine specifically investigated individuals pleading not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).

• Names a biological explanation without stating the mechanism; add how the factor is proposed to lead to offending.
• Treats inherited criminality as proof that a single gene causes crime; present it as a contributory genetic influence.
• Describes the amygdala only as a 'violence centre'; explain its role in emotion and fear processing.
• Treats a correlation between low intelligence scores and offending as proof of cause; explain instead that social and educational factors may mediate the link.
• Describes Eysenck's theory as claiming that extraverts are automatically criminals; state instead that the theory proposes a predisposition shaped by arousal and conditioning.
• Confuses psychopathic personality with a diagnosis of mental illness; describe it instead as a set of traits such as callousness and reduced empathy.
• Treats differential association theory as claiming that any contact with an offender causes crime; explain instead that the balance of learned definitions matters.
• Assumes gender socialisation means biology plays no part; state instead that social learning offers one explanation alongside other influences.
• Describes normalisation theory as claiming that everyone in a community offends; explain instead that shared norms make offending seem ordinary for some members.
• Confuses anger management with a purely punitive sanction; correct this by describing it as a cognitive-behavioural programme that builds self-control skills.
• Treats restorative justice as simply a lenient sentence; correct this by explaining that it requires the offender to face the victim, accept responsibility and make reparation.
• Names only one method when the question asks for at least two; correct this by preparing both anger management and restorative justice with a clear description of each.
• Believing that Differential Association Theory claims crime is learned only through direct imitation of acts; Sutherland emphasised that the acquisition of values, attitudes, and rationalisations favourable to law violation is the primary driver.
• Assuming restorative justice focuses primarily on punishing the offender through public shaming; its core tenet is reparative dialogue and empathy development, with high emphasis on victim psychological recovery.
• Equating low physiological arousal in extraversion with being hyperactive; extraverts have an under-active central nervous system (specifically the ascending reticular activating system), driving them to seek sensation and external stimulation to reach optimal cortical arousal.

1. 1Week 1 (Days 1-3): Systematically review biological explanations (genes, neuroanatomy, Raine et al.) and practice distinguishing diathesis-stress interactions from biological determinism.
2. 2Week 1 (Days 4-7): Master individual differences (Eysenck, Kohlberg, cognitive distortions) and differential association; construct comparative summary tables outlining AO1 definitions and AO3 evaluation.
3. 3Week 2 (Days 1-4): Detail all three methods of modification (anger management, token economies, restorative justice), mapping their theoretical roots, efficacy data, and cost-benefit trade-offs.
4. 4Week 2 (Days 5-7): Complete timed essay plans and full past-paper questions focusing on 10-mark and 15-mark evaluative structures from Eduqas Component 3 papers.

• 📋Short-answer conceptual questions (2-4 marks): Assessing precise recall of definitions, such as defining 'minimalisation' or explaining one role of the MAOA gene.
• 📋Evaluation-focused questions (6-8 marks): Requiring balanced analysis of a specific theory (e.g. Eysenck's theory) or intervention without extensive description.
• 📋Extended evaluative essays (10-15 marks): Requiring detailed description (AO1) and comprehensive, evidence-grounded evaluation (AO3) comparing multiple explanations or evaluating methods of modifying criminal behaviour.