AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Forensic Psychology – Revision Notes

For full explanations and worked paragraphs, start with the Forensic Psychology study guide.

These notes cover Forensic Psychology for AQA A-level Psychology (7182), from the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. The content is section 4.3.9, topic 16 in Option 3. It is assessed in Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology, where Section D is “one topic from option 3, 15–17 above, multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks”. Paper 3 is a 2-hour written exam, 96 marks in total, 33.3% of A-level.

Practise with the Forensic Psychology practice questions. See the whole course on the 7182 course hub and tick off topics on the 7182 checklist.

Paper 3 rules in one box

• Compulsory: content 8, Issues and debates in Psychology.
• Optional, as printed: “one from option 1, 9–11, one from option 2, 12–14, one from option 3, 15–17”.
• Option 3 is Aggression (15), Forensic Psychology (16), Addiction (17). Forensic Psychology goes in Section D.
• Your teacher will confirm which option your school takes.

What the specification lists (4.3.9)

1. Offender profiling: the typology approach, including organised and disorganised types; the data-driven approach, including investigative Psychology; geographical profiling.
2. Biological explanations of offending behaviour: genetics and neural explanations.
3. Psychological explanations of offending behaviour: Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality; cognitive explanations; level of moral reasoning and cognitive distortions, including hostile attribution bias and minimalisation; differential association theory.
4. Dealing with offending behaviour: the aims of custodial sentencing and the psychological effects of custodial sentencing. Behaviour modification in custody. Anger management and restorative justice programmes.

Key terms

Term	Definition
Offender profiling	Using crime-scene and case evidence to infer the likely characteristics of an unknown offender
Typology (top-down) approach	Matching a crime scene to a pre-existing offender type (organised or disorganised)
Organised offender	Plans the crime, controls the victim, leaves few clues; socially competent
Disorganised offender	Little planning, spontaneous scene, evidence left behind; often lives alone, near the scene
Data-driven (bottom-up) approach	Building a profile from statistical patterns in databases of past crimes
Investigative psychology	Canter’s statistical approach, using ideas such as interpersonal coherence and forensic awareness
Interpersonal coherence	Behaviour towards the victim reflects behaviour in everyday life
Forensic awareness	Signs the offender knows police methods, such as hiding evidence
Geographical profiling	Using crime locations to predict the offender’s home or work base
Marauder / commuter	Offends near home (inside the circle) / travels away from home to offend
Concordance	The extent to which both twins in a pair share a characteristic
Diathesis-stress	A genetic vulnerability leads to offending only with an environmental trigger
Prefrontal cortex	Brain area involved in impulse control and emotional regulation
EPQ	Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, measuring E, N and P
Pre-conventional morality	Kohlberg’s lowest level: reasoning based on punishment and reward
Hostile attribution bias	Interpreting ambiguous behaviour of others as hostile
Minimalisation	Downplaying the seriousness or harm of one’s own offence
Differential association	Offending is learned through attitudes and techniques from close groups
Institutionalisation	Losing the ability to cope with life outside prison
Prisonisation	Adopting the norms and values of prison culture
Token economy	Operant conditioning: tokens for target behaviours, exchanged for privileges
Restorative justice	Offender and victim meet with a mediator; the offender takes responsibility

Theories and studies at a glance

Who	What	Finding	One evaluation point
Ressler, Burgess and Douglas (1988)	Interviews with 36 sexually motivated murderers	Basis of organised/disorganised typology	Small, self-report sample
Canter et al. (2004)	Analysis of 100 US serial murders	Organised features common; no distinct disorganised type	Challenges the two-type model
Copson (1995)	Survey of UK police	Profiles often judged useful, rarely led to identification	Questions practical value
Canter and Larkin (1993)	Circle theory	Marauder and commuter patterns	Location alone does not name the offender
Lundrigan and Canter (2001)	Body-disposal sites in serial murders	Home often near centre of sites	Supports geographical profiling
Christiansen (1977)	Over 3,500 Danish twin pairs	Higher concordance for MZ than DZ	MZ twins share more similar environments
Mednick et al. (1984)	14,427 Danish adoptees	Conviction rate 13.5% (no parent) to 24.5% (both)	Selective placement may confound
Raine et al. (1997)	PET scans, 41 murderers, 41 controls	Lower prefrontal activity	Correlational; murderers pleading insanity are a special group
Raine et al. (2000)	MRI scans, community volunteers with antisocial personality disorder	About 11% less prefrontal grey matter	Cause or effect unclear
Eysenck	E, N, P criminal personality	Poor conditioning leads to poor socialisation	Farrington et al. (1982): P consistently high, E not
Bartol and Holanchock (1979)	Offenders in a New York prison	Less extraverted than controls	Suggests cultural bias in Eysenck
Palmer and Hollin (1998)	Moral reasoning measure	Offenders less mature	Reasoning does not always predict behaviour
Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014)	Ambiguous facial expressions	Violent offenders saw more anger	Supports hostile attribution bias
Osborn and West (1979)	Conviction records of fathers and sons	Sons of convicted fathers more often convicted than sons of non-criminal fathers	Shared genes could explain it
Hobbs and Holt (1976)	Token economy, young offenders	Improved behaviour	Gains may not last after release
Sherman and Strang (2007)	Review of restorative justice	Reduced reoffending for some; more consistent for violent than property crime	Needs offender and victim consent

Must-know distinctions

• Top-down vs bottom-up. Top-down starts from FBI types; bottom-up starts from data.
• Organised vs disorganised. Planning and control vs spontaneity and evidence left behind.
• Marauder vs commuter. Inside vs outside the circle drawn through the two furthest crimes.
• Genetic vs neural. Inherited risk vs brain structure and activity.
• Hostile attribution bias vs minimalisation. About others’ intentions vs about one’s own crime.
• Eysenck vs differential association. Personality with a biological basis vs learning from close groups.
• Aims vs effects of custody. What prison is for vs what it does to the person.
• Token economy vs anger management. Changes behaviour through reinforcement vs changes thinking and coping.

Mini essay plan

Discuss two psychological explanations of offending behaviour. Adapt this plan to the exact question. The specification’s approximate Paper 3 weightings are 9–12% of the A-level for AO1 and 15–17% for AO3, so evaluation should take up most of your answer.

1. AO1, brief and accurate. Outline Eysenck (E, N, P; biological basis; poor conditioning) and cognitive distortions (hostile attribution bias, minimalisation). Keep it accurate and brief.
2. AO3 point 1. Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) support; Farrington et al. (1982) shows only P is consistently high; E is not.
3. AO3 point 2. Bartol and Holanchock (1979): cultural bias.
4. AO3 point 3. Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) support hostile attribution bias.
5. AO3 point 4. Practical value: CBT programmes target distortions.
6. Issues and debates. Eysenck is more biologically determinist; cognitive explanations allow change. Interactionist view: combine with biological explanations. See the Issues and debates guide.
7. Conclusion. A balanced judgement backed by the evidence above.

Quick self-test

1. What are the four stages of the FBI top-down approach?
2. Name two features of an organised offender.
3. What does “forensic awareness” suggest about an offender?
4. In circle theory, what is a commuter?
5. What did Mednick et al. (1984) find when both biological and adoptive parents had convictions?
6. Which brain area showed lower activity in Raine et al. (1997)?
7. What are Eysenck’s three dimensions?
8. At which Kohlberg level are offenders thought more likely to reason?
9. Give an example of minimalisation.
10. Name the four aims of custodial sentencing.
11. What are the three stages of anger management in Novaco’s model?

Answers

1. Data assimilation, crime scene classification, crime reconstruction, profile generation.
2. Any two: plans the crime; selects a victim; controls the scene; leaves few clues; socially competent.
3. They may have been through the justice system before.
4. An offender who travels away from home to commit crimes.
5. 24.5% of adoptees had a conviction.
6. The prefrontal cortex.
7. Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism.
8. Pre-conventional.
9. Calling a burglary “borrowing”, or saying a victim “wasn’t really hurt”.
10. Deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation.
11. Cognitive preparation, skill acquisition, application practice.

Where marks are usually lost

• Describing the typology without naming organised and disorganised features.
• Calling investigative psychology “top-down”.
• Stating that twin studies “prove” offending is genetic.
• Forgetting that brain-scan research is correlational.
• Writing about MAOA in depth here when it belongs mainly to Aggression; keep it brief.
• Defining cognitive distortions but not linking them to the offender in the scenario.
• Confusing institutionalisation with prisonisation.
• Evaluating restorative justice only as “good for victims”, with no evidence or limitation.
• Writing long AO1 in an extended answer and leaving little room for AO3.

Next steps

Revise the learning and biological approaches in the Approaches revision notes. Then try the practice questions.

Official syllabus

These notes follow the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025, section 4.3.9 Forensic Psychology and the Paper 3 assessment structure.