Psychodynamic approach to offender behaviour

ID: Pleasure Principle

Ego: Mediates between the two- reality principle

Superego: Embodies our conscious and senses of right of wrong

The superego is in the phallic stage when a child resovles the Oedipus or Electra complex. Blackburn argued if the superego is somehow deficient then criminal behaviour is inevitable as the id will take control.

Weak, underactive Superego:

According to Freud this develops around 4, as an outcome of the Oedipus or Electra complete. A child who does not identify with their sex parent develops a weak superego. The consequences of this is the person has little control over anti-social behaviours and is likely to act in a way that gratifies impulses (id).

Harsh, overdeveloped superego:

The other extreme is a child who has a very strong identification with a strict parent. The consequences are excessive feelings of guilt and anxiety. The individual here would commit a crime with a wish to be caught and then punishment would reduce their feelings of guilt.

Deviant Superego:

Normal identification with the same sex parent means a child takes on their moral attitudes. If the parents show deviant behaviours, then the child adopts the same view.

Harsh, overdeveloped superego:

The other extreme is a child who has a very strong identification with a strict parent. The consequences are excessive feelings of guilt and anxiety. The individual here would commit a crime with a wish to be caught and then punishment would reduce their feelings of guilt.

Deviant Superego:

Normal identification with the same sex parent means a child takes on their moral attitudes. If the parents show deviant behaviours, then the child adopts the same view.

Strength:

This is the only approach which considers the role of emotional factors. A key criticism made in approaches like the cognitive explanations is that they overlook the consideration of how emotion affects behaviour which is the key in offender behaviour. The approach addresses this issue and includes the role on anxiety and guilt as contributing factors to offender behaviour.

Weakness:

The psychodynamic explanation is limited due to a lack of falsification. The concepts described including the id, ego and superego are unconscious and therefore cannot be empirically tested. In the absence of supperting evidence the superego cannot be scientifically judged. Hence, why the psychodynamic explanation is referred to as pseudoscientific and may contribute very little to our understanding of crime or how to prevent it.

Weaknesses:

There is an element of gender bias in Freud's explanations whereby he suggests women have a weaker superego than men as they do not identify with their same sex parents. This is partly due to the resolution of the electra complex is less satisfactory as Freud didnt understand why some women would need to identify with a women due to their lower status. Such views are alpha bias and mean that Freud would suggest more women would be criminals due to their weaker superego but that is not the case, limiting the approach

Bowlby acknowledged how there are a range of factors which could potentially may play a role in development of offender behaviour. Farrington et al conducted a 40 year longitudinal study using 400 boys from London. They concluded that the most important risk factors; between the ages of 8-10 to offender behaviour were genetics, risk taking (Eysenck) low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting (psychodynamic). This therefore shows different explanations can be combined to give a clearer picture of the origins of offender behaviour.

Bowlby proposed that prolonged separations between a mother and child would have long term consequences before the age of 3. One impact of thus separation is affectionless psychopathy, a lack of normal affection, shame or sense of responsibility. Hence, finding it easier to commit a crime.

Bowlby's 44 Juvenile thieves:

Bowlby compared 44 thieves to a control group of 44 patients. He found none of the control group experienced early separation whereas 39% of the thieves had experienced early separation. Furthermore those who displayed affectionless psychopathy characteristics experienced frequent separations 86% of the thieves compared to only 17% of the control group.

Bowlby's research into the juvenile thieves does not show cause and effect. Separation was not manipulated, all the study suggested was there is an association between separation and emotional problems. Other variables may have played a role to cause these problems. Therefore the approach is limited in terms of the research to support its approach to offender beaviour as there could be a range of factors which play an important role.