Unit 3 - Criminal Psychology

• study of the mind and behaviour applied to criminals
• provides a psychological explanation for crime
• looks at problems with EWT
• suggests treatments for offenders

• Crime = behaviour that violates moral values, religious beliefs and legal boundaries (changes with time and  culture)
• Anti-social behaviour = behaviour likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress to public
• Recidivism = rate of criminal reoffending
• Stereotyping = classifying members of social group as if all the same and treating individuals like no other characteristic is important
• Token economy = treatment involving giving tokens for desired behaviour which can be exchanged for rewards
• Modelling = way of learning behaviour by observation and imitation of role models
• Eye witness testimony = statement given by witness about event or crime experienced

Lab. experiment

• tightly controlled envrionment
• IV directly manipulated by researcher
• e.g. Loftus and Palmer
•  control extraneous variables = results reliable and repeat= find cause-effect relationship
• standardised procedure= easy repeat= more reliable
• artificial enviro and task= artificial behaviour = low ecological validity= increased risk of demand characteristics and experimenter effects

Field experiment

• natural environment
• IV directly manipulated by researcher
• e.g. Yuille and Cutshall
• high ecological validity = natural enviro = natural behaviour
• less demand characteristics = participants unaware
• less control= more influence of etraneous variables = less repeatable= less reliable
• ethical issues = consent, deception, privacy

Social learning theory

• learning approach - Bandura
• observation and imitation of role model = modelling
• role model - same sex, influential to individual, higher authority and status (e.g. parents, celebs, teacher)
• Attention - to role model in media / person
• Retention - remember behaviour and store it
• Reproduction- imitate (copy) behaviour
• Motivation - why? - vicarious learning (punishment) - self reinforcemnt (internal/ psychological) - extrinsic (physical reward)

Strengths

+ lot of experimental evidence to support SLT- e.g. bobo doll studies influence of role model

+ theory has practical applications  - real crimes  - e.g. Columbine High School Massacre wher eHitler was role model - rehabilitation -  give offenders good role models to copy

+ Young children copy what they see through media -  influenced by media icons - e.g. films with superhero moves

+ SLT theory has support from research into media effects - Bartlett found those who played videogame mortal combat longer and with high blood content were most agressive

Weaknesses

- SLT ignores indiviual differences - ignores social factors behind crime - lack of money and oppurtunities  - ignores biological explanation - genetic (MAOA), hormones (testosterone), brain structure / damage (Raine et al), neurotransmitters ( low serotonin)

- Ignores possibility that watching agression is theraputic (cathortic) according to Freud - total opposite of SLT - at odds with SLT which says if watch agression, copy it 

- Can't explain oppurtunistic crime - SLt good to explain agression but not serious crime (murder)

- can't easily prove learning is cause of criminal behaviour - copy behaviour any time after observed behaviour

- ignores social approach - SFP - crime result of being labelled by others

• social approach
• labels can be result of stereotyping

1. phropecy set = label given to you by others

2. expectations of behaviour to fit with label

3. phropecy fulfilled = behaviour meets expectations of others

Strengths

• Range of supporting studies
  • Jahoda - boys named after day born - Wed. agressive, Mon calm - Wed. child higher juvenile convcition rate (22%) - label 'agressive led to change in behaviour (crime) to fit label
  • Madon et al - mother's expectation of childs use of alcohol - overestimation led to those having drinking problem - label "drinker" affected later behaviour and so fit label
  • Flouri and Hawkes - mother's expectation of child's education - mums predicted daughter stay in schooll longer did - prediction was label 'academic' which affected behaviour
  • Rosenthal and Jacobson - primary school teachers told one group( although random) would be late bloomers other standard - comparitive IQ test at end showed bloomers improve IQ because teachers more attention- change in behaviour result of label attached

Weaknesses

• only very limited number of studies on SFP and crime - e.g. Jahoda
• Ignores other social factors causing crime - e.g. child rearing style, peer pressure, family environment discord/problems
• ignores individual differences of specific person - e.g tempermant and personality
• Can't explain why some commit crimes and others don't - e.g. individual differences/ impulsive crime/ chance
• SFP only works if label creator and labelee don't know each other - weak - e.g paedophillia
• reductionist (reduce behaviour to one simple cause) and determinist (ignores free will) - says behaviour set by others (pre-set) and no individual control

• link to context of question - crime
• explain modelling and ARRM  and SLT 

Strength

• Rideout - kids aged 2 to 7 estimate 25+hrs week TV - more liekly to copy because more oppurtunity
• Bandura- bobo doll study shows imitation of agressive acts from rol 
• Children high likely to copy recreate poses/ actions of superheros - seen in media
• Anderson and Dill - compared violent games kids to non by giving punishment to actor - violent game kids more punishment and more severe 
• Bartlett- mortal combat game with higher graphic blood content kids judged more agressive model

NO

• Lovelace et al - media pro-social effect - US Mr. Rogers neighbourhood

Similarites

• both explain criminal behaviour - either learnign or labelling
• both ignore biological explanations - crime caused genes (MAOA), hormones (testosterone), brain damage/ structure (Raine) and neurotransmitters (serotonin)
• both range of supporting studies - SFP: jahoda, rosenthal and jacobson ... - SLT: Bandura, Bartlett...
• both ignore psychodynamic explanation - crime commited because watching agression theraputic - personality types
• both have stages - SFP: 3 stages (set, expectation, fulfillment) and SLT: ARRM
• both reductionist  reduce criminal behaviour to one single cause (label or learnt)
• both ignore influences of individual - temperment, personality or discord in family enviro

Weaknesses

• different approaches - SFP: social - SLT: learning
• different what causes crime - SFP: fulfill expectation - SLT: observe and imitate role model (ARRM)
• use of media - SFP: no media - SLT: media gives role models to copy
• difference who shapes behaviour - SFP: label given by others (determinist) - SLT: observe and imitate (personal choice -motivation)
• different methods - SFP: correlation - SLT: observation (Bandura)
• more studies for explain crime for SLT - SLT: Bartlett, Anderson and Dill - SFP: Jahoda only

LOFTUS AND PALMER

AIM:

• how EWT affected by schemas (previosu knowledge/experiences)
• if leading questions influence estimated speed of vehicle by witnesses 

METHOD:

• 2 lab experiments
• independent measures design 
• I.V-  verb    D.V - estimated speed / glass

PROCEDURE 1

• 45p. watch 7 video clips  of different car accidents played in different orders
• in questionnaire asked estimate speed of car
•  different verbs (each 9p.) hit, bumped, collided, contacted, smashed

RESULTS 1

• high - smashed - mean 40 mph
• low - contacted - mea 31mph
• overall difference 9mph

CONCLUSION 1

• verb altered memory of witness
• p. didn't know answer so relied on judgement

PROCEDURE 2 

• 150 p. shown 1 min clip of accidents (4 sec. each)
• describe film and answer questionnaire - 3 conditions (50p. each) hit, smashed or not asked
• 1 week later return and watch again
• answer 10 questions - one broken glass - film no glass

RESULTS 2

• all conditon p. answer correct - no broken glass = 121 p.
• smashed higher incorrect (yes glass) compared to hit = 16:9

CONCLUSION 

• leading questions do influence EWT
• imply specific response which alters witness recall

GENERALISABILTIY

• small sample size - 195- not represent wider population of US
• ethnocentric - all from USA

RELIABILTY

• lab - control enviro. - less demand characteristics- standardised procedure (same film and question types) - repeat
• experiment 1 and 2 similar findings
• independent measures design - individual differences

APPLICATION

• contribute to EWT reliability debate - changes in legal system - Devlin report (3+ witnesses for sole conviction)- change to interview techniques to avoid leading questions

VALIDITY

• low ecological - environment and task artificial - film and lab - lacks realism
• lacks consequentiality - Furster found if outcome effect current case then higher accuracy

ETHICS

• no informed consent - decpetion 
• limited debrief - ethic guidelines new
• no protection - mental distress - but not real witness accident
• no right to withdraw
• confidentiality

YUILLE AND CUTSHALL

BACKGROUND

• recall of witnesses toshooting in Canada after  gun shop robbery
• owner tied up in robbery, robber goes to get away vehicle and owner unties and chases after to get plates
• robber turns around and fires at owner, owner returns fire six times and kills robber in daylight in front of witnesses

AIM

• record and evaluate witness accounts
• examine accounts word for word - check accuracy and errors
• examine issues raised by lab research (Loftus)

METHOD

• field experiment
• independent measures design

PROCEDURE 1

• 13 out of 21 witnesses agreed to take part
• Police interview - describe event own words and asked series of questions
• 4 to 6 months later Y+C interview included 2 leading questions:
  • a broken headlight v. the broken headlight
  • a yellow quarter panel v. the yellow quarter panel
• witnesses also had to rate stress during on 7 point likert scale with 1 being calm
• answers categorsied into action details, person details or object details

RESULTS 1

• more accurate memory than Police interview = 650 vs. 1056
• this is because researchers asked questions of no nterest to police (e.g. blanket colour)
• variability in witness accounts because saw different amounts of incident

PROCEDURE/ RESULTS

• 7 central witnesses and 6 periphial 
• central 80% vs periphial 79% -  both equally accurate
• 10/13 answered correctly as no or did not remember

CONCLUSION

• EWT reliable- leading questions little effect - Lab and Loftus wrong 
• research metods influence results
• flashbulb memory - specific and relevant memeory remebered in detail

GENERALISABILTIY 

• very small sample size - 13 - not representative of population of Canada
• ethnocentric- Canada - not representative of world

RELIABILITY

• quantitative data - objective - no interpretation
• precise scoring system - can repeat to find similar results
• field - unique situation - can't deliberatley be repeated
• different result to Loftus
• real crime - media coverage could of improved witness recall

APPLICATION

• EWT debate - is reliable - showed Police interview lower recall - change in interview techniques to avoid leading questions

VALIDITY

• field - natural environment - not artfical - more realism
• no consquentiality - case closed before Y+C interview to not interfear
• low experimental validity - lack of I.V control
• life or death situation not everyday - not applicable to all crimes 

ETHICS

• distress - emotional - real memories
• deception - leading question
• competence
• right to withdraw - 13/21 took part

PICKEL

BACKGROUND

• weapons focus - Loftus- focus on weapon (threat) using core vision, more than the person/ surroundings using periphial vision 
• this is why remember more detail about weapon
• Pickel extends Loftus' research (agrees)

AIM

• is weapons focus due to weapon unusual or threat?
• is poor witness recall due to high stress (threat) or look longer (unusual)

METHOD 

• lab experiment
• independent measures design

PROCEDURE 1

• 230 p. (psych. students) watched 2 min reconstruction of hair salon robbery; man walks upto receptionist, gets money and leaves in get-away vehicle
• p. were randomly allocated 1 of 5 condition : ht + lu = scissors, lt + lu= wallet, ht + hu = gun,      lt + hu + raw chicken, control = no weapon
• 10 min filler task
• p. then answer questionnaire on details, receptionist, man and what he was holding

RESULTS 1

• poor recall = lt + hu = raw chicken = mean 7.2
• best recall = lt + lu= wallet = mean 8.5

PROCEDURE 2

• same except: 256p,setting electric repair shop and 5 contions - ht+lu = screwdriver, ht + hu= knife, lt+lu= sunglasses, lt+hu = doughboy figure, control = no weapon

RESULTS 2

• poor recall = lt + hu = doughboy iigure = mean 6.7
• best recall = lt + lu = sunglasses = mean 7.8

CONCLUSION

• recall lowered by unusualness of weapon
• weapon focus diminishes EWT detail - narrow attention on out of context item

GENERALISABILITY

• large sized sample - 400+ p.
• ethnocentric - all students, from same Uni and from US

RELIABILITY

• lab - control of enviro - standardised procedure - footage
• independent researhcers scored questionnaire - inter rater reliability - objective

APPLICATION

• extends Loftus research on weapon focus which contributes to EWT reliability- high unusualness of weapon means poor EWT of offender

VALIDITY

• lab - artificial envrio and task  - lacks realism and lacks consequentiality
• demand charactersitics - psych students - understood experimetn more or paid more attention to footage

ETHICS

• confidentiality 
• limited distress  protection from harm- video not real life
• no informed consent - deception
• no right to withdraw

LOFTUS & PALMER VS. YUILLE & CUTSHALL

SIMILARITIES

• sample - small compared to wider population - ethnocentric
• method - I.V on leading questions - independent measures design
• generalisability - small sample size - ethnocentric
• application - contribution to EWT reliability debate
• validity - low population validity - no consequentiality
• ethics - limited/ no informed consent - deception - confidentiality kept - protection from physical harm 

DIFFERENCES

• sample - LP psych students YC anyone - size LP 195 YC 13
• method- LP lab YC field
• results - LP EWT unreliable YC EWT reliable - LP leading questions do have effect YC leading questions no effect
• generalisability - LP high (195) YC low (13)
• reliability- unconsistent results because studies disagree - LP other supporting research YC no supporting research
• validity - LP artifical (lab) YC real crime (field)
• ethics - LP no right withdraw YC right withdraw - LP less distress (video) YC more distress (memory of real event)

TOKEN ECONOMY

DEFINITION

• system of behaviour modification
• based on principles of operant conditioning - desired behaviour reward (token) - undesired behaviour punished
• token is secondary reinforcer which exchange for primary reinforcer (basic human need)

• control behaviour not solution to crime - back home revert to normal beahviour because no monitor, no consistent reward and desired beahviour not immediatley recognised
• not rehabilitation - doesn't tackel cause of behaviour
• up side down traingle 

STRENGTH

• change psychiatric behaviour - Milby found success in psych. hospital - TEPs can change behaviour
• treat behavioural issues in young - Field et al found success b group work - TEPs help range of ages
• change antisocial behaviour - Dickerson et al found success treat antisocial in schizophrenics- TEPs positive impact on mental illness
• tokens given consistently - Basset and Blanchard - success in prison when consistent - criminal behaviour change when desired associaited with reward
• reduce youth recidivism - Hobbs and Holt found sucess reduce r. rates than other treatments  - works better on males
• permanently change adult criminal behaviour - Jenkins et al reduced r.rates after 18 month release- best method for long lasting results
• training provided - Project START no training prison officers use unreasonable control - training essential
• encourage self - controlled behaviour - prisoners oppurtunity to change behaviour for reward - change quicker with cooperation

WEAKNESSES

•  not only method - Girrodo and Morales found all behaviour change programmes reduced recidivism - TEPs not allways suitable
• not best for reducing recidivism - Pearson et al found cognitive behaviooural therapies more successful - CALM should be used instead
• shoort lived - Rice found psych. patients revert old behaviur after release and TEP end - real world desired behaviour expected as norm
• only change small aspects of behaviour- Quinsey and Starbet found only some bbehaviour (co-operation) changed - TEPs no significant impact to be worthwhile
• need to be changed to improve effectiveness - Kazdin said tailor tokens to individual values and allow tasters of rewards (exchange tokens for) - motivate more prisoners to change behaviour
• only work if prisoners buy into it -users commited and believe - reinforces Kazdin point
• only change behaviour when run - rarely real world substantial rewards - after TEP revert old behaviour 
• only based on learning approach - ignore cognitive and social influences - no solutioon like restorative justice or AMTs

ANGER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

DEFINITION

• cognitive approach - cognitive behavioural technique
• creatd by Ray Novaco
• anger is strong emotion - physiological (hot, sweaty, heavy breathing) , cognitive (thought process, perception) and behavioural (actions, comments)
• technique to reduce physiological changes by cognitve restructuring and adapting behaviour

1. COGNITIVE PREPARTION - with therapist identify  situation make angry and when likely - challenge way of thinking (cognitive restructuring) - think of negative consequences

2. SKILLS ACQUISITION - learn relaxation techniques to reduce physiological changes (self count, stop and think, progressive muscle relaxation) - anger and relax not exist same time - assertiveness training

3. APPLICATION PRACTISE - role play previous angry situation with therapist - only after sucess use in real life

• British example is CALM
• Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it
• group programmes of 24 sessions
• uses six stages 
• stage 6 is identifying risky situations and either preapring for them or avoiding them

Strengths:

• reduce anger levels - Ireland found offenders less anger than control groupp after 10 wks - AMPs more effective than nothinh
• work in prisons - McDougall et al found AMPs reduced recidivism after completion - prison AMPs work better in small groups
• reduce anger related recidivism - Goldstein found only 15% reoffend - although don't completely stop recidivism it better than doing nothing
• represent real life- self-report data from prisoners- valid because come from those directly effected
• work with high risk offenders-Downdon et al found they reduce recidivism with high risk offenders - effectiveness varies for different level offenders

Weaknesses:

• less effective than restorative justice - Losel found oonly reduce recidivism by 10% comapred to  r. justice (50%) - AMPs not most effective
• don't help violent offenders - Watt et al found no difference with violent inmates - AMPs only effective with emotional anger not physical
• extent of lowering anger questionable - Towl and Dexter found drop in aner whereas Siz found extreme drop - results from studies unrelaible as not same
• only effective in one setting- sucess in prisons- AMPs may not be transferable to other environments
• not proven to reduce recidivism - lots studies not long enough - data based on short unreliable studies
• don't include victim peerception - restorative justice lets offenders llisten to victim so increases morality - AMPs not  as effective at reducing recidivism as others
• ignore influences learning approach - based largely on cognitive approach - ingores other treatments llike token economy
• create other problematic behaviour - turns physical into verbal or emotional abuse - don't stop recidivism just change type of behaviour
• self- report data - untrue if prisoners make selves look good- invalid and not real life

Similarities:

• both reduce recidivism - aim of both treatments
• both long set-up time and long completion time - can't be done quickly -> cost implication
• both tailored to individual - AMP (cognitve prep- what makes angry) TEP (rewards personalised)
• both try to control behaviour - aim to reduce criminal behaviour
• both can be seen ineffective - some studies question effectiveness
• both have studies to support - some evidence of effectiveness
• behaviour changeafter end of programme - long term effectiveness not always good

Differences:

• different approaches - TEP (learning and operant) AMP (cognitive)
• effectiveness of applications to real life outside institution - TEP (not use real llife) AMP (use real life)
• AMPs not use reward systems to change behaviour - AMPs use relaation techniques
• TEP staff need limited training - AMPs need highlly trained therapists (cognitive prep and application practise)
• AMPs use stage based theory - TEPs not stage based
• TEPs don't identify cause of behaviour - AMPs more likely to identify cause of behaviour

AIM: 

• investigate key issue of effectiveness and reliability of EWT
• reason why key issue is if unreliable can cause miscarriages of justice

METHOD:

• researched and selected 2 articles from Innocence Project website on cases of Ron Cotton and Orlando Boquete
• both individuals wrongfully convicted of crimes they not commit because of issues with EWT
• read both articles before re-reading and hilghting facts and important details
• used hilighted sections to create summary of each article
• summaries used to make conclusion on relaibility of EWT

Article 1 - Orlando Boquete

• two men broke into apartment, one sexually assulted victim
• soon officer stopped group of LAtinos inc. Orlando match description no hair no tshirt
• victim postively I.D Boquete from 20ft away and edit desription to add moustache
• convicted of sexual battery and burglary
• conviction based on analyst testimony about blood type samples but fail mention evidence that could of excluded Boquete as offender
• after appeal semen tested and discovered Boquete not offender
• after 12 years in prison convction overturned

Article 2 - Ron Cotton

• two appartments broken and had items stolen and victims sexually assulted
• Ron Cotton arrested an convicted of one account of each before convcition of two accounts of both **** and burglary
• failings include photo i.d by one victim before line-up
• judge also refused accpet another inamtes confession
• defense later requested DNA testing of swabs and showed not Cotton
• samples sent to databse of violent offenders where inamte who confessed showed positive match
• after serving 10.5 yrs of sentence cleared of all charges

Overall

• EWT is unreliable

Schemas

• Cotton- previous convctions led to an expectation
• Boquete - N/A 

Leading questions

• Cotton - questions about photo before line up could influnced memory
• Boquete - way suspect presented to witness (victim) 20ft away then w. add detail about moustache could influenced memory

Weapons focus

• Cotton - tools for breaking and entering viewed as weapon so effect recall
• Boquete - victim never saw other who broke in

Emotional factors (Yerkes-Dodson)

• Cotton-  high stress of situation could of resulted in poor recall of memory
• Boquete - high stress of situation could of resulted in poor recall of memory

Race 

• Cotton - cultural expectation (Afro- Carribean)
• Boquete - cultural expectation (Latino/ Hispanic)

Retrieval cues

• Cotton - witness interview took place at station - different location - less cues - poorer recall
• Boquete - N/A