Atavistic Form (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Atavistic Form
Historical development
The atavistic form represents an early biological approach to understanding criminal behaviour, developed in the 1870s by Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. This theory suggested that criminals possessed distinguishing physical characteristics that originated from a more primitive evolutionary stage of development.
Lombroso proposed that offenders were less evolved than law-abiding citizens and shared more characteristics with early evolutionary ancestors than people living in the late 1800s. He viewed these individuals as 'wilder' and unsuited to the culture and society of his time, describing their features as atavistic - representing throwbacks to an earlier evolutionary period.
This theory emerged during the late 19th century when evolutionary theory was gaining prominence following Darwin's work. Lombroso's approach represented one of the first attempts to apply scientific principles to criminology, though it reflected the scientific limitations and social prejudices of its time.
Lombroso's theory and findings
Physical characteristics identified
Lombroso based his conclusions on measurements from nearly 4,000 criminals and examined the skulls of approximately 400 deceased criminals. Through these examinations, he identified specific atavistic features that he believed distinguished criminals from non-criminals:
- Heavy brow - pronounced forehead ridges
- Large strong jaw - prominent jawline structure
- Large ears - ears that protruded or were unusually sized
- Extra nipples or fingers/toes - additional body parts suggesting primitive development
Key arguments
Lombroso argued that criminals should not be held responsible for their criminal activities because their behaviour was determined by their physiology rather than personal choice. This perspective had significant implications for the criminal justice system, as it challenged the legal assumption that individuals consciously chose their criminal behaviour.
The theory suggested that criminal behaviour was biologically determined, representing an inherent characteristic rather than a learned or chosen response to environmental factors. This challenged fundamental assumptions about free will and moral responsibility in criminal law.
Research evidence
Goring (1913)
Research Study: Goring's Challenge to Lombroso
Aim: To test Lombroso's proposed atavistic features by comparing criminals with non-criminals.
Method: Goring compared 2,348 London convicts with a control group of non-criminals, examining the physical characteristics that Lombroso had identified.
Findings: Goring failed to replicate Lombroso's original findings and concluded that criminal behaviour was not linked to physical appearance in the way Lombroso had suggested.
Hooton (1939)
Research Study: Hooton's Large-Scale Investigation
Aim: To investigate whether physical differences existed between criminals and non-criminals using a large-scale study.
Method: Hooton conducted a 12-year study comparing 13,873 male prisoners across 10 US states with a control group of 3,023 non-criminal men.
Findings: While Hooton argued that criminal behaviour was due to biological inferiority and 'degeneration', the physical characteristics he identified differed from Lombroso's original findings. These included sloping foreheads, protruding ears, and narrow jaws - characteristics that contradicted Lombroso's specific atavistic features.
Evaluation
Strengths
- The theory represented an early attempt to apply scientific methodology to understanding criminal behaviour, moving away from purely religious or supernatural explanations
- Lombroso's work helped establish criminology as a scientific discipline by encouraging empirical investigation
- The theory considered biological factors that might influence behaviour, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of criminality
Weaknesses
- Methodological flaws: Lombroso's original research lacked proper control groups, making it difficult to draw valid conclusions about the distinguishing features of criminals versus non-criminals
- Lack of replication: Subsequent research by Goring and others failed to support Lombroso's specific findings, questioning the validity of the atavistic features identified
- Sampling issues: Lombroso's sample may have included individuals with learning difficulties, which could have affected facial features and skewed the measurements
- Stereotyping concerns: The theory may have contributed to harmful stereotyping by suggesting that certain physical features are associated with criminal behaviour
- Historical context limitations: The theory should be considered within its historical context, as it lacked the scientific rigour expected in contemporary research
- Oversimplification: The theory fails to account for the complex social, psychological, and environmental factors that contribute to criminal behaviour
Critical Limitation: The atavistic form theory has been largely discredited due to its methodological weaknesses and failure to replicate findings. Modern criminology recognises that criminal behaviour results from complex interactions between biological, psychological, and social factors rather than simple physical characteristics.
Key Points to Remember:
- Atavistic form is Lombroso's theory suggesting criminals have primitive physical features indicating less evolved development
- The four main atavistic features identified were: heavy brow, large strong jaw, large ears, and extra nipples/fingers/toes
- Goring (1913) failed to replicate Lombroso's findings when comparing London convicts with non-criminals
- Hooton (1939) found some physical differences in criminals but these differed from Lombroso's original characteristics
- The theory has been criticised for methodological flaws, lack of control groups, and potential for promoting harmful stereotypes about physical appearance and criminality