Forensic Psychology- Making a Case

HideShow resource information
Mann et al.: Aim?
To test police officers ability to detect truths and lies during interviews with suspects.
1 of 43
Mann et al.: Sample?
99 (75 male and 24 female) police officers from Kent
2 of 43
Mann et al.: Procedure?
Participants watch 54 clips from real police interviews. Then filled out a questionnaire about their experience detecting lies and decide if the clip was a lie or the truth and make a list of cues that helped them decide.
3 of 43
Mann et al.: Results?
66.2% accuracy on lies and 63.6% accuracy on truths. Most frequently mentioned cues were; gaze, movements and vagueness.
4 of 43
Mann et al.: Conclusions?
The more experience the police officer had, the better they were at detecting lies. Good lie detectors relied on story cues instead of other factors like body language.
5 of 43
Inbau et al.: First 5 of the 9 steps of interrogation?
1) Direct Confrontation. 2) Chance to shift the blame. 3) Never allowing the suspect to deny guilt. 4) Ignoring excuses. 5) Reinforce sincerity.
6 of 43
Inbau et al.: Last 4 of the 9 steps of interrogation?
6) If person cries-infer guilt. 7) Pose an alternative question. 8) Suspect admits guilt in front of a witness. 9) Signed document of confession.
7 of 43
Gudjohnsson et al.: Aim?
To document a case of false confession of a boy who was distressed and susceptible to interrogation pressures when he confessed.
8 of 43
Gudjohnsson et al.: Sample?
17 year old boy (FC) accused of two murders- average intelligence and had no history of mental illness
9 of 43
Gudjohnsson et al.: Procedure?
FC was accused of murdering, robbing and sexually assaulting two elderly women, arrested because of increased spending and inconsistencies in his movement. Not allowed a lawyer and no real evidence against him.
10 of 43
Gudjohnsson et al.: Procedure?
FC was interviewed for 14 hours without a break. Retracted his confession the next day. Cleared a year late after another man was found guilty.
11 of 43
Gudjohnsson et al.: Conclusions?
FC gave a confession to escape the pressure of the interview. Shows that in certain conditions anyone can give a false confession.
12 of 43
Bruce et al.: Aim?
To investigate the relative recognisability of internal and external features in facial recognition.
13 of 43
Bruce et al.: Sample?
30 staff and students at Stirling University, 15 male 15 female average of of 30.
14 of 43
Bruce et al.: Procedure?
Participants were given 10 pictures of celebrities and asked to match the correct composite to the celebrity from 40 composites. Group 1-complete composite. Group 2- internal features only. Group 3- External features only.
15 of 43
Bruce et al.: Findings?
Whole composite and external features only were better matched. Only 19.5% correct matched for internal features only.
16 of 43
Bruce et al.:Conclusions?
External features are more recognisable than internal for facial recognition.
17 of 43
Loftus et al.: Aim?
To provide support for the weapon focus effect.
18 of 43
Loftus et al.: Sample?
36 students (18-31) from the University of Washington. Half were psychology students volunteering for extra credit, other half from an advert pain $3.50.
19 of 43
Loftus et al.: Procedure?
Participants were shown 18 slides of events happening in a restaurant. Both groups shown the same slides apart from one where the man had a gun. Participants filled in a 20 item multiple choice questionnaire, eye fixation was also measured.
20 of 43
Loftus et al.: Results?
Participants answers on the questionnaire weren't too different. Correct identification of the man; gun -11.1% and cheque-39%
21 of 43
Loftus et al.:Conclusions?
Participants spent longer looking at the weapon so found it harder to identify the man.
22 of 43
Fisher et al.: Aim?
To test cognitive interviews in the field.
23 of 43
Fisher et al.: Sample?
16 detectives from the robbery division at Dade County. All had minimum 5 years experience.
24 of 43
Fisher et al.: Procedure- Phase 1?
All detectives were asked to record interviews using standard interview techniques. Collected 88 over 4 months.
25 of 43
Fisher et al.: Procedure- Phase 2?
Detectives were divided into two groups; 7 detectives were trained in cognitive interviews. Recorded cognitive interviews and SIT's over the next 7 months. Recordings were compared at the University of California.
26 of 43
Fisher et al.: Results?
CI detectives gained 47% more information than before-63% more than SIT. CI didn't take significantly longer.
27 of 43
Fisher et al.: Conclusions?
CI techniques do work and allow for more accurate information to be collected without losing accuracy.
28 of 43
Ressler et al.: What is the Top Down Approach to profiling?
It is the American approach developed by the FBI. It takes established typologies and applies them to new crimes. Relies on subjective individual interpretation.
29 of 43
Ressler et al.: Aim?
To identify the major personality characteristics of serious offenders and how they differ from non-offenders
30 of 43
Ressler et al.: Sample?
Opportunity sample of 36 convicted serial killers and sex murderers. 25 were serial.
31 of 43
Ressler et al.: Procedure?
Unstructured interviews conducted between 1979 and 1983.
32 of 43
Ressler et al.: Results?
The crimes were either pre-meditated or sudden. Offenders were split between organised and disorganised- 24 organised and 12 disorganised.
33 of 43
Ressler et al.: Conclusions?
Crime scenes can be used like a fingerprint- it is different for each crime but tells us a lot about the perpetrator.
34 of 43
Canter et al.: What is the Bottom Up Approach to profiling?
British Approach that is more scientific. Starts with the available evidence then links and associations are made. 5 characteristics; location, convictions, social and personal characteristics and occupational & educational background.
35 of 43
Canter et al.: Aim?
To identify a behaviour pattern from similarities between offenders.
36 of 43
Canter et al.: Procedure?
Content analysis of 66 sexual assault cases from different police forces.- committed by 27 offenders.
37 of 43
Canter et al.: Results?
Attack was impersonal. 5 characteristics found in all 66 cases- vaginal intercourse, no reaction to the victim, impersonal language, surprise attack, and victims clothing was disturbed.
38 of 43
Canter et al.: Conclusions?
Can help police conclude if one offender was responsible for multiple crimes.
39 of 43
Case Study-John Duffy: Why did Duffy seem non-threatening?
He was 5ft 4 with acne
40 of 43
Case Study-John Duffy: How did his job relate to the crimes?
Duffy was a travelling carpenter who worked for British Rail, he tied his victims with complicated carpenter knots and knew the blind spots on the trains.
41 of 43
Case Study-John Duffy: What was Duffy's sentence?
Convicted in 1988 for two murders and 4 rapes, given minimum 30 years. Convicted of 17 more rapes when Maclahy was convicted.
42 of 43
Case Study-John Duffy: Duffy's Accomplice?
Duffy didn't reveal his accomplice until 1997, DNA tests proved Maclahy's involvement. Was convicted of 3 murders and 7 rapes, was given 3 life sentences.
43 of 43

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Mann et al.: Sample?

Back

99 (75 male and 24 female) police officers from Kent

Card 3

Front

Mann et al.: Procedure?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Mann et al.: Results?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Mann et al.: Conclusions?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Criminological and Forensic Psychology resources »