Science for Everybody

Bullet-point answer points

• Atavistic offenders are described as evolutionary throwbacks.
• They supposedly possess primitive biological characteristics.
• These characteristics are claimed to predispose them towards offending.

Model answer

The atavistic form is the idea that some offenders are evolutionary throwbacks who possess primitive biological characteristics associated with earlier human ancestors. Lombroso argued that these inherited characteristics created a natural predisposition towards offending.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not simply write that offenders “look different”. The definition must include the idea of an evolutionary throwback and a biological predisposition towards offending.

Bullet-point answer points

• Lombroso proposed distinctive physical stigmata.
• Examples include a prominent jaw.
• High cheekbones or facial asymmetry.
• Low or sloping forehead.
• Large ears or unusually long arms.
• These supposedly reflected primitive evolutionary development.

Model answer

Lombroso argued that born criminals displayed distinctive physical stigmata. These included features such as a prominent jaw, high cheekbones, facial asymmetry, a sloping forehead and unusually large ears. He believed these characteristics represented an earlier stage of evolutionary development and therefore indicated an atavistic criminal type.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Avoid simply listing facial characteristics. Explain what Lombroso believed those characteristics represented.

Do not state that psychologists today believe these features identify criminals. They were Lombroso’s historical claims.

Bullet-point answer points

• Lombroso investigated convicted offenders.
• His work was published from 1876 in L’Uomo Delinquente.
• He studied facial and cranial characteristics.
• Research included 383 deceased criminals.
• Measurements or observations were gathered from 3,839 living criminals.
• He reported physical abnormalities or stigmata.
• He interpreted these as evidence of a born criminal type.
• He concluded that some offenders represented evolutionary throwbacks.

Model answer

Lombroso developed the atavistic explanation in work published from 1876. He examined the physical characteristics of convicted offenders and studied features of their faces and skulls. His research included the crania of 383 deceased criminals and observations or measurements involving around 3,839 living criminals.

Lombroso reported characteristics such as prominent jaws, facial asymmetry and other physical abnormalities. He interpreted these features as atavistic stigmata. Lombroso concluded that some offenders were evolutionary throwbacks whose biology had not developed to the same level as the supposedly civilised population. He therefore described these individuals as born criminals with an innate tendency towards offending.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not turn the answer into evaluation when the command word is explain.

Include both Lombroso’s method and the conclusion he drew from it.

Bullet-point answer points

• The claim resembles Lombroso’s atavistic theory.
• Lombroso attempted to connect physical appearance with offending.
• The theory lacks adequate empirical support.
• Physical appearance does not establish causation.
• Goring found no distinct physical criminal type.
• Such a policy could produce stereotyping and discrimination.
• Ethnic differences in physical features could create racial or cultural bias.
• Innocent people could be classified as dangerous because of appearance.

Model answer

The researcher’s proposal resembles Lombroso’s atavistic explanation because it assumes that criminality can be identified through physical appearance.

One problem is that the relationship lacks convincing scientific evidence. For example, Goring’s 1913 research compared offenders with non-offenders and found no distinctive physical criminal type corresponding to Lombroso’s theory. Therefore, having a particular facial characteristic cannot reliably demonstrate that somebody is likely to offend.

There would also be serious ethical consequences if the police used this idea. Physical characteristics vary between individuals and populations, meaning that some ethnic groups could be disproportionately labelled as dangerous. Innocent people might therefore face additional surveillance because of their appearance rather than their behaviour. As a result, using atavistic reasoning in contemporary policing would lack scientific validity and create a serious risk of discrimination.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Make direct reference to the scenario. Do not write a generic paragraph about Lombroso without addressing the proposed use of photographs.

Develop one or two criticisms fully rather than producing a long list of undeveloped points.

Bullet-point answer points

AO1

• Offenders described as evolutionary throwbacks.
• Born criminals possess physical stigmata.
• Lombroso studied convicted offenders and cranial characteristics.

AO3

• Historically encouraged scientific investigation of crime.
• Limited or inadequate control procedures.
• Goring failed to support a distinctive physical criminal type.
• Biological determinism ignores environmental influences.
• Cultural and racial bias.
• Ethical implications of stereotyping people according to appearance.

Model answer

Lombroso argued that some offenders were atavistic, meaning they were evolutionary throwbacks who possessed primitive biological characteristics. He believed that these “born criminals” could be identified through physical stigmata including a prominent jaw, facial asymmetry and a sloping forehead.

One strength of Lombroso’s work was its historical contribution to the scientific study of crime. Rather than assuming offenders were simply immoral, Lombroso attempted to collect physical evidence and identify causes of offending. Therefore, his work contributed to the development of criminology as an empirical field.

However, the scientific quality of his evidence was poor. Lombroso often lacked adequate control groups, making it difficult to establish whether his supposed criminal characteristics occurred more frequently among offenders than non-offenders. This problem is highlighted by Goring’s 1913 study, which found no convincing evidence for a distinct physical criminal type.

The explanation is also biologically deterministic because it treats offending as the result of innate characteristics. This underestimates environmental influences such as childhood experiences, poverty and social learning.

Finally, Lombroso’s theory contains serious cultural and ethical problems. Physical differences associated with ethnicity could be incorrectly interpreted as signs of criminality. This creates the possibility of stereotyping and discrimination. Therefore, although Lombroso played an important role in the history of criminology, his atavistic explanation has little scientific credibility today.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not spend most of the answer describing facial features. An evaluate question requires developed AO3.

Link each criticism directly back to the validity or usefulness of the theory.

Bullet-point answer points

AO1 knowledge

• Lombroso developed the theory during the nineteenth century.
• L’Uomo Delinquente published from 1876.
• Some offenders described as evolutionary throwbacks.
• Concept of the born criminal.
• Physical stigmata supposedly identify criminality.
• Examples include prominent jaw, high cheekbones and facial asymmetry.
• Research involved 383 deceased and around 3,839 living criminals.
• Strong biological determinism.

AO3 evaluation

• Helped move criminology towards scientific investigation.
• Attempted systematic observation and measurement.
• Weak control procedures reduce validity.
• Goring’s 1913 findings contradicted the criminal-type hypothesis.
• Correlation does not demonstrate causation.
• Prison samples may not represent all offenders.
• Environment and social learning are underestimated.
• Strongly deterministic.
• Cultural and racial bias.
• Ethical implications include stereotyping and discrimination.
• Very limited temporal validity.
• Modern biosocial approaches support interaction rather than simple biological destiny.

Model answer

The atavistic form was developed by Cesare Lombroso during the nineteenth century. Lombroso argued that some offenders represented an earlier stage of human evolution and could therefore be described as evolutionary throwbacks. These individuals were supposedly biologically different from non-offenders and naturally predisposed towards criminal behaviour.

Lombroso described these people as born criminals. He suggested that their biological nature could be recognised through physical characteristics or stigmata. These included features such as a prominent jaw, high cheekbones, facial asymmetry, a sloping forehead and unusually large ears. He also attempted to associate particular physical characteristics with different forms of offending.

Lombroso based his explanation partly on observations and measurements of convicted offenders. His research included the crania of approximately 383 deceased criminals and measurements or observations involving 3,839 living criminals. Lombroso interpreted physical abnormalities within these samples as evidence that some offenders possessed atavistic characteristics.

One strength of Lombroso’s work is its historical contribution to criminology. Crime had frequently been explained in moral or religious terms. Lombroso instead attempted to identify measurable causes of offending. Consequently, his work encouraged researchers to treat criminal behaviour as something that could be investigated scientifically. Modern biological research into genetics and neural functioning follows the general principle that biological influences on behaviour can be studied scientifically, although it does not accept Lombroso’s physical criminal type.

However, Lombroso’s evidence lacked adequate scientific controls. Observing a feature among convicted offenders does not demonstrate that the characteristic is more common among offenders unless an appropriate non-offender comparison group is also examined. This considerably weakens Lombroso’s claim that his physical stigmata distinguished criminals from the general population.

Evidence from Goring (1913) provides further criticism. Goring investigated around 3,000 English convicts using more systematic statistical comparisons. He concluded that there was no distinctive anthropological criminal type corresponding to Lombroso’s claims. This directly weakens the validity of the atavistic explanation.

Lombroso’s research also suffers from sample bias. People in prison represent individuals who have been caught, prosecuted and convicted. They do not necessarily represent everyone who commits crime. Factors such as poverty, ethnicity and social class may influence the likelihood of contact with the criminal justice system. Therefore, characteristics observed in prisoners cannot automatically be treated as characteristics of offenders generally.

A further criticism is that the theory is biologically deterministic. If somebody is a born criminal whose behaviour results from evolutionary biology, environmental influences appear relatively unimportant. However, offending is likely to result from multiple interacting influences. Childhood experiences, peer groups, socioeconomic circumstances and learning may all affect behaviour. An interactionist approach is therefore more convincing than claiming that biology produces an inevitable criminal type.

Lombroso’s explanation also presents serious problems of cultural bias. His understanding of human development relied upon nineteenth-century European ideas about supposedly primitive and civilised populations. Some characteristics he associated with criminality overlapped with racial and ethnic differences. Therefore, his theory could provide apparently scientific justification for prejudice and discriminatory treatment.

This creates major ethical implications. If people were judged as likely criminals from their appearance, individuals could face surveillance or discrimination despite never committing an offence. The theory therefore demonstrates the danger of treating correlations between biological characteristics and behaviour as evidence of biological destiny.

Overall, Lombroso’s atavistic form has very limited scientific validity. His methods lacked adequate controls, later research failed to identify the criminal type he proposed, and the theory underestimated environmental influences. Nevertheless, Lombroso remains historically important because he contributed to the movement towards investigating the causes of offending scientifically. His work is therefore more valuable for understanding the development of criminology than as a valid contemporary explanation of offending behaviour.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not produce six marks of AO1 followed by disconnected evaluation points.

Instead, use a clear structure:

Claim → Evidence → Explanation → Link back to the theory.

Avoid saying simply that Lombroso was “wrong”. Explain why the evidence lacks validity.

Use Goring as empirical evidence rather than merely naming the researcher.

Distinguish Lombroso’s specific theory from modern biological explanations. Rejecting atavistic form does not mean that biology has no influence on offending.