Outline and evaluate psychodynamic explanations of offending (16 marks)
The psychodynamic explanations looks at three different superegos as explanations for
offending.
Firstly, it is important to mention that Freud’s psychodynamic approach suggests that the
Superego is guided by the morality principle leading to feelings of guilt for wrongdoing.
Blackburn argued that if the Superego is inadequate (weak, deviant, or over-harsh) then the
Id (governed by the pleasure principle) is given ‘free-rein’ – an uncontrolled Id means that
offending behaviour is inevitable.
Firstly, one type of Superego is the weak superego which is caused by the absence of the
same-sex parent. During the phallic stage the Superego is formed through the resolution of
the Oedipus complex (or Electra complex). If the same-sex parent is absent during this stage
a child cannot internalise a fully-formed Superego as there is no opportunity for
identification. This makes offending behaviour more likely.
Then there is the deviant Superego where the child internalises deviant values. A child
internalises the same-sex parent’s moral attitudes to form their Superego. If these
internalised moral attitudes are deviant, this would lead toa deviant Superego and to
offending behaviour.
Lastly, there is the over-harsh Superego where committing crimes satisfies need for
punishment. Harsh parents can cause a child to have an over-harsh Superego and the child
is crippled by guilt and anxiety. This may (unconsciously) drive the individual to perform
criminal acts in order to satisfy the Superego’s overwhelming need for punishment.
Finally, it is important to mention that emotion plays a role in guiding moral behaviour and
maternal deprivation can lead to affectionless psychopathy and an increased likelihood of
delinquency. Also, Bowlby found that 14 of 44 thieves showed signs of affectionless
psychopathy and 12 of these had prolonged separation from their mothers in infancy, and in
a control group, only two ‘thieves’ had experienced prolonged separation (maternal
deprivation).
One strength of the psychodynamic explanation is that there is research support for the link
to the Superego. Goreta conducted a Freudian-style analysis of ten offenders referred for
psychiatric treatment. In all those, assessed, disturbances in Superego formation were
diagnosed. Each offender experienced the need for punishment manifesting itself as a
desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend (possibly due to an over-harsh Superego).
However, one limitation of Freudian theory is that it is gender-biased. The psychodynamic
theory assumes girls develop a weaker Superego than boys – they do not experience
castration anxiety, so have less need to identify with their mothers. However there are 20
times more men than women in prison and Hoffman found no gender differences in
children’s moral behaviour. This suggests there is alpha bias at the heart of Freud’s theory
and means it may not be appropriate as an explanation of offending behaviour.
The psychodynamic explanations looks at three different superegos as explanations for
offending.
Firstly, it is important to mention that Freud’s psychodynamic approach suggests that the
Superego is guided by the morality principle leading to feelings of guilt for wrongdoing.
Blackburn argued that if the Superego is inadequate (weak, deviant, or over-harsh) then the
Id (governed by the pleasure principle) is given ‘free-rein’ – an uncontrolled Id means that
offending behaviour is inevitable.
Firstly, one type of Superego is the weak superego which is caused by the absence of the
same-sex parent. During the phallic stage the Superego is formed through the resolution of
the Oedipus complex (or Electra complex). If the same-sex parent is absent during this stage
a child cannot internalise a fully-formed Superego as there is no opportunity for
identification. This makes offending behaviour more likely.
Then there is the deviant Superego where the child internalises deviant values. A child
internalises the same-sex parent’s moral attitudes to form their Superego. If these
internalised moral attitudes are deviant, this would lead toa deviant Superego and to
offending behaviour.
Lastly, there is the over-harsh Superego where committing crimes satisfies need for
punishment. Harsh parents can cause a child to have an over-harsh Superego and the child
is crippled by guilt and anxiety. This may (unconsciously) drive the individual to perform
criminal acts in order to satisfy the Superego’s overwhelming need for punishment.
Finally, it is important to mention that emotion plays a role in guiding moral behaviour and
maternal deprivation can lead to affectionless psychopathy and an increased likelihood of
delinquency. Also, Bowlby found that 14 of 44 thieves showed signs of affectionless
psychopathy and 12 of these had prolonged separation from their mothers in infancy, and in
a control group, only two ‘thieves’ had experienced prolonged separation (maternal
deprivation).
One strength of the psychodynamic explanation is that there is research support for the link
to the Superego. Goreta conducted a Freudian-style analysis of ten offenders referred for
psychiatric treatment. In all those, assessed, disturbances in Superego formation were
diagnosed. Each offender experienced the need for punishment manifesting itself as a
desire to commit acts of wrongdoing and offend (possibly due to an over-harsh Superego).
However, one limitation of Freudian theory is that it is gender-biased. The psychodynamic
theory assumes girls develop a weaker Superego than boys – they do not experience
castration anxiety, so have less need to identify with their mothers. However there are 20
times more men than women in prison and Hoffman found no gender differences in
children’s moral behaviour. This suggests there is alpha bias at the heart of Freud’s theory
and means it may not be appropriate as an explanation of offending behaviour.
