Bushra Bibi
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#1
Guys I want to start a thread of general answers to questions.
Would anyone be interested just because it will be revision.
I’m going to start with general component 1 notes xxx
1
reply
Bushra Bibi
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#2
(Original post by Bushra Bibi)
Guys I want to start a thread of general answers to questions.
Would anyone be interested just because it will be revision.
I’m going to start with general component 1 notes xxx

(Btwwww if anyone wants to add, they can definitely do it -it would acc be appreciated-)
Assumption 1: behaviour can be explained by Neurons and Neurotransmitters.
− Transfer messages from one neuron to another:
− Works:
1. Receiving end = dendrites (finger-like structures) = surrounding cell body + has nucleus.
2. Cell body = long extension called = axon = axon terminals
3. Between axon terminal and dendrite = synapse
4. Dendrites = receive neurotransmitter = nerve impulse = sent down axon
5. Moved to axon terminal = release vesicles into synapse.
Link: schizophrenia
− Excess Dopamine: Gilly (2002) = drug L-dopa (treat Parkinson's) = increases dopamine = produces schizophrenic symptoms in individuals with no history of it
− Dopamine receptors D1-D5: Davidson & Neale (2001) = schizophrenics have twice as many D2 receptors and D2 receptors are oversensitive.
Link: Criminal
− Role of Serotonin: serotonin = normal quantities = calming effect, reduction = impulsive + aggressive behaviour.
− Briken & Kafka (2007) = SSRI’s = effective in reducing repeat offenses in sex offenders + reducing impulsive violence.
Link: addiction
− Dopamine hypothesis: Boileau et al (2003) = alcohol increases dopamine in brain.
− Tolerance & withdrawal: engaging in behaviour = more about avoiding withdrawal symptoms than experiencing initial pleasure.

Assumption 2: Localisation of Brain Function
− Each part of the brain is separated into different lobes, these each have different functions in terms of behaviour.
− Frontal lobe = forehead = involved in thinking + creativity and linked to personality.
− Parietal lobe = top back of the brain = receives sensory information such as temperature, touch, taste and pain.
− Temporal lobe = either side of brain = processing memory and auditory information.
− Occipital lobe = back of brain = visual processing + information directly from eyes.
− ‘Broca’s area’ = associated with speech production = posterior portion of frontal lobe.
− ‘Wernicke’s area’ = posterior portion of left temporal lobe = patients were unable to understand language.
Link: schizophrenia
− Enlarged ventricles: Andreason (1988) = MRI scans found those with schizophrenia = ventricles 20% - 50% larger than controls.
− Cortical Atrophy: Vita et al (1988) = CAT scans = found 33% of schizophrenics showed moderate to severe atrophy.
Link: Criminal
− Limbic System = controls range of emotional behaviours such as fear and mood = associated with aggressive behaviour
− Amygdala + fear conditioning: Gao et al (2010) = children learn to inhibit aggressive behaviour through fear conditioning = an action leading to punishment.
Link: addiction
− Wang et al (1999) = addicts show increased activity in frontal cortex when exposed to the drug or cues associated with it.
Assumption 3: inheritance/ Genetics
− Family studies = inherit 50% of our genes from parents.
− Adoption studies = no genes shared so separates genetics from environment.
− Twin studies = Mz twins share 100% genes, Dz share 50% genes.
Link: schizophrenia
− Gottesmann (1991) = Mz 48% concordance & Dz = 17%
Link: Criminal
− Raine (1993) = researched delinquent behaviour of twins = found Mz twins 52% concordance and Dz 21%
Link: addiction
− Genes: Goldman et al (2005) = addictions were ‘moderately to highly heritable’ = heritability range = +0.39 for hallucinogenic to +0.72 for cocaine.
THERAPY: Drug Therapy
Anti- psychotic drugs
Link to assumption: neurotransmitters
− Schizophrenia can be explained by being caused by an excess of neurotransmitter dopamine.
− This suggests = drugs which alter levels of neurotransmitters = effective in reducing symptoms.
− Drugs = treat disturbing form of psychotic illnesses e.g. schizophrenia = antipsychotics
First Generation Antipsychotics:
− Combat positive symptoms of schizophrenia.
− Block action of neurotransmitter dopamine in brain by binding to dopamine receptors
− Chlorpromazine: blocks dopamine = particularly D2 = partially blocks D1, D3, D4 and D5.
− Haloperidol: same way as chlorpromazine but more potent.
Second generation antipsychotics:
− Temporarily occupy dopamine receptors then rapidly detach to allow normal dopamine transition.
− Have lower side effects.
− Clozapine: most effective = especially for those who haven’t responded well to other medications.
− Olanzapine: used in early stages = long term treatment = high risk of obesity and diabetes.
Evaluation:
✓ Cole et al (1964) = 75% given a conventional antipsychotic = ‘much improved’ compared to 25% given placebo.
✓ Before antipsychotics = 50% patients stayed in hospital for lifetime = now 3% schizophrenics in hospital for only a few weeks.
✗ Ross & Read (2004) = figures are misleading = 45% given placebo had no relapse.
✗ Kahn et al (2008) = antipsychotics were effective for at least one year = atypical drugs weren’t any better than typical.
Methodological issues:
− Assessing effectiveness of antipsychotics = schizophrenics don’t believe they have a problem so don’t require medication = non-compliance
Ethical implication:
− Side effects = tic-like movement + low white blood cells + parkinsonism + seizures.
− Develop tolerance level towards the medication

Types of Drugs:
Agonist & Antagonist substitutions
Link: neurotransmitters
− Mimic or block the effects of substances in the brain = impacting levels of neurotransmitters
Agonist: Methadone
− Binds to postsynaptic receptors to produce a response. Mimic actions
− Treat: heroin
− Use = part of Maintenace treatment
− Aim = reduced overtime until individual stops using it completely
− Dosage = NICE = given orally (green liquid), tablet, injection. Doctor/nurse/ pharmacist sees patient everyday = make sure dosage is right. given alongside psychosocial support.
Antagonist substitution: Naltrexone
− Blocks usual function of a substance.
− Alcohol addiction
− Uses = NICE = those who have stopped using opioid + highly motivated to stay drug free. Oral medication or implant = injection only available in USA and Russia
− Offered alongside psychological intervention = used after withdrawal from alcohol.
Effectiveness for methadone and Naltrexone:
− Van Den Brink & Haasen (2006) = one meta-analysis of effectiveness of a range of treatments = as long as dosage is adequate then methadone is effective as maintenance treatment.
− Charity drug scope = disputed the claim made in the report, saying overestimated the cost of prescribing methadone.
− National Audit Office = drug treatment = good value for money for the taxpayer = people taking methadone become able to function in society = makes addiction more manageable.
− Lahti et al (2010) = tested naltrexone on small sample of gamblers = take before gambling or felt urge to = found significant decrease in gambling levels.
Ethical implications: Methadone
− Cause respiratory problems = methadone may interact with other drugs such as alcohol + antidepressants
− Overdose = if addict combines methadone with drugs
Naltrexone:
− Greater risk of overdose = if individual returns to drug then they need more of it to feel the same effect = overdose
− Withdrawal symptoms = if still opioid dependent = naltrexone can displace the opioid still in system.

STRENGTH of biological approach
1. Scientific nature = clear variables that can be measured = can conduct scientific research.
2. Successfully applied to the real world = large amounts of research conducted on levels of stress and wound recovery = applied to hospital setting to reduce stress and anxiety.
3. Deterministic = we know what ‘predetermines’ the behaviour = more likely to treat it. Provides explanation about the causes of behaviour so that we can use such understanding to improve people’s lives.
WEAKNESS:
1. Ignores individual differences = makes generalisations about people and find similarities = ignores individual differences e.g. when stressed, some people produce higher levels of adrenaline.
2. Reductionist = focuses on simple biological factors that influence behaviours. Most blue-collar crimes = working class people = if biological explanation correct that will mean biological abnormalities only work on working class people.
Last edited by Bushra Bibi; 8 months ago
0
reply
Bushra Bibi
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#3
(Original post by Bushra Bibi)
Assumption 1: behaviour can be explained by Neurons and Neurotransmitters.
− Transfer messages from one neuron to another:
− Works:
1. Receiving end = dendrites (finger-like structures) = surrounding cell body + has nucleus.
2. Cell body = long extension called = axon = axon terminals
3. Between axon terminal and dendrite = synapse
4. Dendrites = receive neurotransmitter = nerve impulse = sent down axon
5. Moved to axon terminal = release vesicles into synapse.
Link: schizophrenia
− Excess Dopamine: Gilly (2002) = drug L-dopa (treat Parkinson's) = increases dopamine = produces schizophrenic symptoms in individuals with no history of it
− Dopamine receptors D1-D5: Davidson & Neale (2001) = schizophrenics have twice as many D2 receptors and D2 receptors are oversensitive.
Link: Criminal
− Role of Serotonin: serotonin = normal quantities = calming effect, reduction = impulsive + aggressive behaviour.
− Briken & Kafka (2007) = SSRI’s = effective in reducing repeat offenses in sex offenders + reducing impulsive violence.
Link: addiction
− Dopamine hypothesis: Boileau et al (2003) = alcohol increases dopamine in brain.
− Tolerance & withdrawal: engaging in behaviour = more about avoiding withdrawal symptoms than experiencing initial pleasure.

Assumption 2: Localisation of Brain Function
− Each part of the brain is separated into different lobes, these each have different functions in terms of behaviour.
− Frontal lobe = forehead = involved in thinking + creativity and linked to personality.
− Parietal lobe = top back of the brain = receives sensory information such as temperature, touch, taste and pain.
− Temporal lobe = either side of brain = processing memory and auditory information.
− Occipital lobe = back of brain = visual processing + information directly from eyes.
− ‘Broca’s area’ = associated with speech production = posterior portion of frontal lobe.
− ‘Wernicke’s area’ = posterior portion of left temporal lobe = patients were unable to understand language.
Link: schizophrenia
− Enlarged ventricles: Andreason (1988) = MRI scans found those with schizophrenia = ventricles 20% - 50% larger than controls.
− Cortical Atrophy: Vita et al (1988) = CAT scans = found 33% of schizophrenics showed moderate to severe atrophy.
Link: Criminal
− Limbic System = controls range of emotional behaviours such as fear and mood = associated with aggressive behaviour
− Amygdala + fear conditioning: Gao et al (2010) = children learn to inhibit aggressive behaviour through fear conditioning = an action leading to punishment.
Link: addiction
− Wang et al (1999) = addicts show increased activity in frontal cortex when exposed to the drug or cues associated with it.
Assumption 3: inheritance/ Genetics
− Family studies = inherit 50% of our genes from parents.
− Adoption studies = no genes shared so separates genetics from environment.
− Twin studies = Mz twins share 100% genes, Dz share 50% genes.
Link: schizophrenia
− Gottesmann (1991) = Mz 48% concordance & Dz = 17%
Link: Criminal
− Raine (1993) = researched delinquent behaviour of twins = found Mz twins 52% concordance and Dz 21%
Link: addiction
− Genes: Goldman et al (2005) = addictions were ‘moderately to highly heritable’ = heritability range = +0.39 for hallucinogenic to +0.72 for cocaine.
THERAPY: Drug Therapy
Anti- psychotic drugs
Link to assumption: neurotransmitters
− Schizophrenia can be explained by being caused by an excess of neurotransmitter dopamine.
− This suggests = drugs which alter levels of neurotransmitters = effective in reducing symptoms.
− Drugs = treat disturbing form of psychotic illnesses e.g. schizophrenia = antipsychotics
First Generation Antipsychotics:
− Combat positive symptoms of schizophrenia.
− Block action of neurotransmitter dopamine in brain by binding to dopamine receptors
− Chlorpromazine: blocks dopamine = particularly D2 = partially blocks D1, D3, D4 and D5.
− Haloperidol: same way as chlorpromazine but more potent.
Second generation antipsychotics:
− Temporarily occupy dopamine receptors then rapidly detach to allow normal dopamine transition.
− Have lower side effects.
− Clozapine: most effective = especially for those who haven’t responded well to other medications.
− Olanzapine: used in early stages = long term treatment = high risk of obesity and diabetes.
Evaluation:
✓ Cole et al (1964) = 75% given a conventional antipsychotic = ‘much improved’ compared to 25% given placebo.
✓ Before antipsychotics = 50% patients stayed in hospital for lifetime = now 3% schizophrenics in hospital for only a few weeks.
✗ Ross & Read (2004) = figures are misleading = 45% given placebo had no relapse.
✗ Kahn et al (2008) = antipsychotics were effective for at least one year = atypical drugs weren’t any better than typical.
Methodological issues:
− Assessing effectiveness of antipsychotics = schizophrenics don’t believe they have a problem so don’t require medication = non-compliance
Ethical implication:
− Side effects = tic-like movement + low white blood cells + parkinsonism + seizures.
− Develop tolerance level towards the medication

Types of Drugs:
Agonist & Antagonist substitutions
Link: neurotransmitters
− Mimic or block the effects of substances in the brain = impacting levels of neurotransmitters
Agonist: Methadone
− Binds to postsynaptic receptors to produce a response. Mimic actions
− Treat: heroin
− Use = part of Maintenace treatment
− Aim = reduced overtime until individual stops using it completely
− Dosage = NICE = given orally (green liquid), tablet, injection. Doctor/nurse/ pharmacist sees patient everyday = make sure dosage is right. given alongside psychosocial support.
Antagonist substitution: Naltrexone
− Blocks usual function of a substance.
− Alcohol addiction
− Uses = NICE = those who have stopped using opioid + highly motivated to stay drug free. Oral medication or implant = injection only available in USA and Russia
− Offered alongside psychological intervention = used after withdrawal from alcohol.
Effectiveness for methadone and Naltrexone:
− Van Den Brink & Haasen (2006) = one meta-analysis of effectiveness of a range of treatments = as long as dosage is adequate then methadone is effective as maintenance treatment.
− Charity drug scope = disputed the claim made in the report, saying overestimated the cost of prescribing methadone.
− National Audit Office = drug treatment = good value for money for the taxpayer = people taking methadone become able to function in society = makes addiction more manageable.
− Lahti et al (2010) = tested naltrexone on small sample of gamblers = take before gambling or felt urge to = found significant decrease in gambling levels.
Ethical implications: Methadone
− Cause respiratory problems = methadone may interact with other drugs such as alcohol + antidepressants
− Overdose = if addict combines methadone with drugs
Naltrexone:
− Greater risk of overdose = if individual returns to drug then they need more of it to feel the same effect = overdose
− Withdrawal symptoms = if still opioid dependent = naltrexone can displace the opioid still in system.

STRENGTH of biological approach
1. Scientific nature = clear variables that can be measured = can conduct scientific research.
2. Successfully applied to the real world = large amounts of research conducted on levels of stress and wound recovery = applied to hospital setting to reduce stress and anxiety.
3. Deterministic = we know what ‘predetermines’ the behaviour = more likely to treat it. Provides explanation about the causes of behaviour so that we can use such understanding to improve people’s lives.
WEAKNESS:
1. Ignores individual differences = makes generalisations about people and find similarities = ignores individual differences e.g. when stressed, some people produce higher levels of adrenaline.
2. Reductionist = focuses on simple biological factors that influence behaviours. Most blue-collar crimes = working class people = if biological explanation correct that will mean biological abnormalities only work on working class people.
The debate:

DEBATE: The Ethics of Neuroscience
FOR: Understanding Consciousness:
− Crick & Koch (1998) = claustrum = thin sheet of neurons found in centre of the brain = where consciousness lies.
− Koubeissi et al (2014) = 54-year-old woman with severe epilepsy = electrode placed near claustrum was electrically stimulated = stopped responding = when stimulation stopped, she regained consciousness.
AGAINST:
− Whether individuals in vegetative state should have life support withdrawn or not = just because a person has currently lost consciousness
− Evidence = ‘abnormal’ brain = woman with severe epilepsy
FOR: Treat Criminal Behaviour:
− Quirk (1995) = neurofeedback treatment on 77 dangerous offenders with deep-brain epileptic activity = reduction in their criminal recidivism.
− Evans (2006) = neurofeedback in correctional settings has been suggested as an innovative approach = lessens criminal behaviour + violence.
− Miller (2009) = information on defendant's’ brain function has increasingly been introduced = neuroscience can also play role in assessing dangerousness and risk of recidivism.
AGAINST:
− Farah (2004) = courts use neurological interventions = denial of individual’s freedom = something even prisoners have not been denied.
− Farahany & Coleman (2006) = aggravating factor that can increase punishment in any legal system.
− Neuroscience used to benefit of mentally ill offenders = replace punishment = safe?
FOR: enhance Neurological function:
− Neuroscience can be used to improve the abilities of ‘normal’ individuals = improved performance on academic tasks.
− Kodosh (2012) = TDCS = improvement in problem solving and mathematical abilities, language and memory.
− Neuroenhancements = not a new thing = students already do that by using caffeine-based drinks = make themselves more alert during revision
AGAINST:
− TDCS = no training or licencing rules for practioners = lead to poor qualified clinicians = ineffective treatments = could cause brain damage.
− TDCS = not available to everyone = won’t be fair to let certain people to benefit from it and others to not.
− Consider banning the use of neuroenhancing technologies the same way as performance-enhancing drugs.
FOR: Improve marketing techniques:
− Lewis & Bridger (2005) = EEG, fMRI = advanced techniques for measuring brain activity = widely used tools in market research.
− Research = packaging, design, price, brand identity, celebrity spokesman effect consumer apart from product itself. = brain imaging
− Social desirability bias can be avoided using eye tracking equipment which provides objective evidence = what really catches the eyes when shopping or watching adverts.
AGAINST:
− Wilson et al (2008) = neuromarketing research allows adverts to give individualised messages = our free will is potentially manipulated by big brands.
− Nelson (2008) = 5% of brain scans recorded by marketing firms produced accidental findings e.g. brain tumour = they aren’t ‘board-certified’ so can’t advice the person about their findings.
− Luna & Macklin (2012) = boundaries must be set to protect all participants especially unprotected groups like children.
Social and Economic Implications:
− Improving marketing techniques = aids economy by stimulating sales and profits.
− Neuroscientists who help treat disorders = could save UK economy billions of pounds.
− Neuroscientists = responsibility that the society knows implications of their work.
Conclusion:
− Offered us insight into understanding how out brain works = explanations of both normal and abnormal behaviour.
− Primary concern = protection of patients and research volunteers, especially those who are vulnerable.
0
reply
Bushra Bibi
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 8 months ago
#4
Raine et al (1997) – Brain Abnormalities in Murderers
Aim

The aim of Raine et al. (1997) study was to build on previous research. Two hypotheses were tested:

1. Seriously violent individuals pleading NGRI have relatively localised brain dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex, angular gyrus, amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus and corpus callosum (areas of the brain previously linked empirically or conceptually to violence).
2. Seriously violent individuals pleading NGRI show no dysfunction in other brain areas i.e. caudate, putamen, Globus pallidus, midbrain, cerebellum) which have been implicated in other psychiatric conditions, but which have not been related to violence.
Method and Design

Quasi Experiment.

The Independent Variable was whether the participants were a ‘normal’ non-murderer or a murderer who had plead ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.

The dependent variable was whether the participant showed evidence of brain dysfunction in their prefrontal cortex and other areas such as the angular gyrus, amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus and corpus callosum

The experiment is considered quasi because the experimenters could not manipulate the independent variable as it was naturally occurring; a person was a murderer, or they were not a murderer.

The study used a matched participants design. Participants were matched on age and gender and the six schizophrenics in the experimental group were matched with six schizophrenic controls (‘normal’, non-murderers) who had not committed murder.

Sample and Sampling Method

Murderers

The experimental group was composed of 41 individuals (39 males and 2 females) who had been tried in California for either murder or manslaughter (These were all labelled as ‘murderers’ by the researchers). They had a mean age of 34.3.

They were referred to the University of California, Irvine (UCI) imaging centre for the following reasons:

1. To obtain evidence as to whether they were NGRI.
2. To find out if they were competent to understand the judicial process.
3. To see if there was any evidence of diminished mental capacity which may affect the nature of the sentence they received.
They were individually referred for the following reasons:

▪ 6 had schizophrenia.
▪ 23 had head injuries or organic brain damage.
▪ 3 had a history of psychoactive drug abuse.
▪ 2 had affective disorders.
▪ 2 had epilepsy.
▪ 3 had a history of hyperactivity and learning disability.
▪ 2 had personality disorders (passive-aggressive or paranoid personality disorder).
Within in the preceding individuals, 7 were surrounded by unusual circumstances which suggested some mental impairment.

The control group of non-murderers was composed of 41 individuals (39 males and 2 females) were matched with the murderers by age and gender and had a mean age of 31.7 years which was considered not significantly different to the experimental group. Excluding the 6 schizophrenics in the control group, all of the control participants were screen for any history of mental illness.

The non-murderers in the sample were ‘normal’, not taking any medication, and they did not have a history of mental or medical illness. However, six non-murderers were schizophrenics. They were included in the sample because Raine et al. (1997) could match them with six schizophrenic murderers in the sample.

Materials

▪ Thermoplastic head holder, individually modelled / moulded, to hold the participant’s head still while being scanned.
▪ PET machine to image brain functioning.
▪ Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) tracer injected to trace brain metabolism.
▪ A degraded stimulus version of a continuous performance task (CPT) which required participants to detect target signals for 32 minutes, a task which had been shown to make the frontal lobes work especially hard, together with the right temporal and parietal lobes, so investigators could see how the different areas functioned.
Procedure

All the participants participated under protocols and consent forms approved by the Human Subjects Committee of University of California, Irvine.

All of the murderers were kept in custody and were medication free for two weeks prior to the brain scanning. All of the non-murderers were not taking any medication. This is a control measure.

Ten minutes before receiving the FDG injection, participants were given practice trials on the CPT. This is another control.

30 seconds before the FDG injection, participants started the actual CPT so that the initial novelty wouldn’t be FDG labelled and to get their brains ’working’. This is another control.

32 minutes after the FDG injection, the participant was transferred to an adjacent PET scanner room. An individually moulded, thermosetting plastic head holder was used to hold the head still during the scan. 10 slices (pictures) at 10 mm intervals parallel to the canthomeatal line were recorded which provided details in relation to differences in brain metabolism in both six main cortical areas (the outside of the brain) and eight sub-cortical areas (inside the brain). This detail was precise so that the study could be replicated.

The canthomeatal line is a horizontal line drawn from the eye to the ear.

Results

14 murderers were non-white, but when they were compared on PET Measures with the white control participants, there was no significant difference between them.

23 of the murderers had a history of head injury, but they showed no significant difference between non-head injured murderers except in the functioning of their corpus callosum, and the authors accepted that this may have contributed towards a reduction in the murderers’ brain activity.

No significant differences were found for performance on the CPT or handedness (except left-handed murderers had significantly less abnormal amygdala asymmetry than right-handed murderers).

Summary of Murderers results

Reduced activity (i.e. reduced glucose metabolism) in some areas, notably the areas previously linked to violence (e.g. the prefrontal cortex, left angular gyrus and corpus callosum).

Abnormal asymmetries: reduced activity on the left, greater activity on the right. This applied to some of the areas identified in the hypothesis as being linked to violence (e.g. the amygdala, thalamus and hippocampus).

No differences in some areas, notably those structures that were associated with mental illness but not violence (e.g. the caudate, putamen, midbrain and cerebellum).

Conclusions

Murderers pleading NGRI have significant differences in the metabolism of glucose in a number of brain areas compared to non-murderers.

Raine et al. (1997) identifies some specific physiological processes which may predispose some criminals to violent behaviour. Reduced activity in the prefrontal, parietal, and callosal regions of the brain, together with asymmetries of activity in the amygdala, thalamus, and medial temporal lobe including the hippocampus, may be one of many predispositions towards violence in murderers pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. This reduced activity in the prefrontal areas may explain impulsive behaviour, a loss of self-control, evidence of immaturity, altered emotionality and the inability to modify behaviour. All of these may make it easier to carry out different kinds of aggressive acts because the normal constraints on behaviour may be reduced.

The neural processes which underlie violent behaviour can’t simply be reduced to a single brain mechanism that causes violence. It seems there are several processes involved and if there are deficits in a number of these processes, the likelihood of violent behaviour occurring is much greater.

The results do NOT show that violent behaviour is determined by biology alone. There are a number of other factors which must be considered. Social experiences, situational factors, psychological predispositions and learned responses will all have their part to play and perhaps the physiological elements may only produce predispositions to extreme forms of violent behaviour rather than being a cause in themselves. One should therefore be cautious about attributing the reason why individuals commit murder simply to the fact that they are found to have mental disorders.

Results do NOT show that murderers pleading NGRI are not responsible for their actions, nor that PET scans can be used as a means of diagnosing violent individuals.

Results do NOT show that brain dysfunction CAUSES violence. It may even be that brain dysfunction is an effect of violence.

Results do NOT show that all violent offenders have such brain dysfunctions; the study can only draw conclusions about this kind of violent offender i.e. murderers pleading NGRI.

Violence CANNOT be explained by the results; the results relate merely to the criminal behaviour of individuals who commit murder and then plead NGRI

Evaluation

+ Ethics – The participants participated under protocols and consent forms approved by the Human Subjects Committee of University of California, Irvine, meaning that participants were protected from harm and gave informed consent.

+ Internal Validity – the use of a matched control group increases the internal validity of Raine et al. (1997).

– Generalisability – the participants were all from California which means it may be difficult to generalise the results to the wider population and murderers who have plead not guilty by reason of insanity in different geographic areas because there may be something specific about Californians which caused the results.

+ Predictive Validity – the statistical significance of the results and the high number of controls use in this study suggests that the results may be used to predict individuals which may be predisposed to commit murder and then plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

+ Psychology as a science – Raine et al. (1997) provides support for the debate psychology as a science. This is because it is a highly controlled, nomothetic laboratory study, which has falsifiable measures.

– Socially Sensitive Research – because this study by Raine, has used Murderers who have plead not guilty by reason of insanity, this study may be considered socially sensitive.





And that’s everythinggggg on BIOLOGICAL approach
0
reply
student4953
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
Just a quick question, what bout the evaluation of the positive approach because i cant really find much and i'm trying to read ahead. I want to know how is its scientific, holistic, nature/ nurture etc.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (102)
13.4%
I'm not sure (32)
4.2%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (237)
31.14%
I have already dropped out (18)
2.37%
I'm not a current university student (372)
48.88%

Watched Threads

View All