Criminological Psych Notes

Flashcards from notes

Crime

An action or omission which constitutes an offense and is punishable by law

Antisocial

Acting in a way that causes harassment, alarm or distress to others

Harassment

Acting in an aggressive or intimidating manner to another person

Criminal

Someone who has committed a crime

Offender

A person who commits an illegal act

Deviance

Any behaviour that violates social norms, and is usually if sufficient severity to warrant disapproval from the majority of society

Recidivism

The act of committing another crime or coming into conflict with the criminal justice system (CJS) again

Self Fulfilling Prophecy

The process through which an originally false expectation (stereotype) leads to its own confirmation (act in the manner of the stereotype)

Explain what the Self Fulfilling Prophecy is

A person commits an act is considered criminal/antisocial and they become labelled as such. Based on this label, the individual becomes treated differently by those around them. The label will become internalised by the individual, in particular if more than one person agrees with the label and if the label is not far from the individual’s normal behaviour. This makes the individual feel there is no opportunity to change and thus fulfils the prophecy of them being a criminal by acting the way the label suggests.

Labelling Theory

Labelling theory, a key concept associated with the SFP, argues that when individuals are labelled as criminals, they may adopt the criminal identity and engage in criminal activities. This theory is supported by studies that show how individuals who are labelled as delinquents or criminals are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour

Pygmalion Effect

Demonstrated the power expectations have in shaping behaviour. This effect occurs because we tend to internalize the labels others place upon us, We try to conform to those labels, whether positive or negative.

The Pygmalion effect is another supporting concept, where individuals perform better or worse based on the expectations others have of them. In the context of crime, this suggests that if authorities expect someone to engage in criminal behaviour, their behaviour may change accordingly.

Social Learning theory explanations for crime

SLT is a theory that explains criminals’ behaviours as being the result of modelling such behaviours from observing it via the media or watching other people, especially role models they identify with

If a role model exhibits antisocial actions like aggression, the observer may retain and replicate that behaviour if they have the necessary skills. The observer's motivation, either internal (for the thrill) or external (based on reinforcement), plays a crucial role. If a role model gains praise or status for antisocial acts, it's likely to be imitated, while punishment or negative consequences can deter imitation.

Desensitization

Desensitization refers to the process by which repeated exposure to violent or anti-social behaviour in the media can reduce an individual's emotional response to such content. This can lead to a decreased sensitivity to violence and an increased tolerance for aggressive actions

Attention, Retention, Reproduction and Motivation

According to social learning theory, individuals first need to pay attention to the behaviours they want to learn. They must also be able to retain and reproduce these behaviours, which they've observed in the media. Lastly, they need motivation to engage in these behaviours. The media can play a significant role in all of these aspects. For instance, a person who watches a TV show or movie that glorifies criminal behaviour may pay close attention, remember the actions, and feel motivated to imitate them.

Vicarious Reinforcement

Vicarious reinforcement involves individuals learning from the consequences experienced by others. For example, if individuals observe that a person who engaged in criminal behaviour received praise or rewards, they may be more likely to imitate that behaviour. 

In the context of the Columbine massacre, the attention and infamy garnered by the perpetrators could be seen as a form of vicarious reinforcement for potential copycats.

DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS: Self fulfilling prophecy says it is due to the effects of labelling that may lead to antisocial behaviour. This suggests it is the way someone is treated which may affect behaviour. Also it may be biological factors such as personality. People who score high on extrovert, neuroticism and psychoticism have been associated with criminal behaviours

OPPOSING EVIDENCE:  However evidence such as Bandura is based in a lab where some children may experience demand characteristics. children may have been brought up to follow the orders of adults, so if they see an adult behaving like that to the Bobo doll they feel that this is expected of them. It also did not measure whether the effects lasted outside of the lab, and therefore we cannot draw full conclusions from this. Just because someone witnesses a crime they may not copy it. There are a number of factors involved such as upbringing and personal experience which may affect whether or not behaviour is imitated.

APPLICATION:  This theory suggests that by introducing positive role models and using reinforcement can help to rehabilitate offenders. It also could contribute to the watershed and rating certificates on film and video games.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:  Bandura found that children imitate an adult role model hitting a Bobo doll. In particular, boys were more physically aggressive than girls who showed more verbal aggression. Both boys and girls were likely to imitate role models of the same sex as them, however girls were also likely to imitate the male role which may be based on the assumption that aggression is a male characteristic.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)

ASPD, also known as Dyssocial Personality Disorder, is a mental illness associated with criminal behaviour and antisocial conduct. This disorder provides a contrast to social explanations for crime. 

What are the characteristics of ASPD

• Disregard for social norms

  • Individuals with ASPD typically exhibit a persistent pattern of behaviour that involves a disregard for societal rules and expectations

  • They often violate laws and regulations without feeling remorse or guilt. This may include criminal activities, deception, and a lack of respect for the rights of others.

  • This disregard for social norms can lead to various legal and interpersonal problems

• Impulsive behaviour

  • People with ASPD tend to act without thinking about the potential consequences of their actions. They act on their immediate desires, emotions, or urges

  • Impulsive behaviour can result in reckless actions such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviours, and aggressive outbursts

• Inability to experience guilt

  • One of the defining characteristics of ASPD is the absence of guilt or remorse

  • ASPD individuals are often indifferent to the harm they may cause to others and typically do not feel regret for their actions

  • This lack of guilt can lead to a cycle of repetitive antisocial behaviours, as they do not learn from past mistakes

Nature vs Nurture Debate

“Nature” says that some individuals might be biologically predisposed to antisocial behaviour due to conditions like ASPD

“Nurture” argues that environmental factors, family, peers, and learned behaviours play a significant role in whether someone engages in criminal or antisocial actions

Nature (ASPD)

• This perspective suggests that some people might have a natural predisposition or "nature" to engage in criminal or antisocial behaviour. In this case, we're talking about Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). 

• It emphasises that certain biological factors, like genetics and brain chemistry, could make someone more likely to commit crimes or exhibit antisocial behaviour

• The "nature" perspective implies that individuals with ASPD may have an inborn tendency to act in ways that break social rules, and this can contribute to their criminal behaviour

Nurture (SFP and SLT)

• The "nurture" perspective focuses on the idea that social and environmental factors, rather than biological ones, shape a person's behaviour. In this case, we're talking about Social Control Theory (SFP) and Social Learning Theory (SLT)

• It suggests that people learn criminal or antisocial behaviours through their interactions with others and their environment.

• Social Control Theory (SFP) highlights the importance of social bonds and the role of family, school, and community in preventing criminal behaviour. When these bonds are weak, individuals might be more likely to engage in criminal acts.

• Social Learning Theory (SLT) says that people learn from observing and imitating the behaviour of those around them. If they are exposed to criminal or antisocial role models, they might be more inclined to act the same way.

How offenders are understood and how treatments, therapies and punishments may differ based on nature vs nurture debate

	Nature (ASPD)	Nurture (SFP and SLT)
Understanding Offenders	If we understand offenders through the lens of ASPD, we might see them as individuals who have a mental health condition that contributes to their criminal behaviour. This understanding emphasises the need for psychiatric evaluation and treatment	From the nurture perspective, offenders are seen as products of their environment and social influences. This view may lead to a focus on social interventions, addressing external factors, and potentially rehabilitating them through programs aimed at improving their environment and social bonds
Treatments & Therapies	When considering ASPD as a primary factor, treatments often revolve around psychiatric intervention and therapy. Medication and counselling may be used to address the underlying mental health issues contributing to criminal behaviour	For those influenced by social and environmental factors, treatments may involve various therapies such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, anger management, and substance abuse treatment. These interventions aim to modify learned behaviours and provide individuals with better coping strategies
Punishments	Understanding offenders with ASPD can influence the criminal justice system to focus on rehabilitation and addressing the underlying mental health condition. Punishments may include court-ordered treatment, psychiatric care, and closely monitored reintegration into society	The nurture perspective often emphasises rehabilitation over punitive measures. Punishments may involve community service, educational programs, or vocational training aimed at reducing the influence of negative environmental factors and fostering positive social bonds.
Conclusion	emphasises the role of innate factors and psychiatric intervention	focuses on environmental and social influences, leading to more rehabilitative and community-oriented interventions

Cognitive Interview (CI)

The cognitive interview (CI) is a method of interviewing eyewitnesses about what they can recall from a crime scene or event. It helps enhance recall and thus lead to more accurate conviction of the perpetrator.

Explain the method of CI

1. Reinstate the context

• Encouraging witnesses to recall specific cues and details, such as how they felt, the weather, smells, time of day etc. 

• This is a method of context-dependent recall which may enhance the accuracy of memory

2. Recall & Report everything

• Witnesses are asked to recall as much detail as they can, however trivial it might seem, without interruption. 

• A seemingly unimportant detail might trigger a useful memory

• There is then scope for the interviewer to ask further questions to clarify significant moments in turn for more details. 

3. Recall the events in reverse order 

• Witnesses are asked to recall the event using different chronologies

(that is; start from the end or the middle).

• Changing the order means witnesses cannot rely on schemas or prior knowledge to influence them and their memory recall

• This is because we tend to remember situations in the order in which it happened, we are more likely to reconstruct a story and draw on existing schemas, hence recalling in reverse order can avoid this. 

Change the Perspective

• The witness is asked to view the event from someone else’s viewpoint. Eg: the perpetrator, another witness. 

• Changing the perspective should ensure that schemas are not activated so that preconceived ideas do not influence the memory. 

Example: “I was in a cafe and this is what usually happens in a cafe”

+and- of CI

STRENGTHS	WEAKNESSES
Fisher et al. (1990) found that witnesses reported greater detail in their accounts of crimes when American detectives had been trained to use the technique. Fisher (1999) - the CI was found to produce 46% more detail and was 90% accurate than standard police interviews	Koehnken et al. (1999) found that witnesses recalled more incorrect information when interviewed with the cognitive interview compared to the standard interview technique, perhaps because more detailed recall increases the chances of making mistakes.
The technique is more structured than the standard technique, and it seems appropriate for crime-related interviews to be very thorough in order to gather the detail required for a useful testimony.	Fisher (1999) - the CI requires specially trained officers to conduct it which makes it expensive plus it is more time-consuming than traditional methods

Psychological formulation

A way of making sense of a person’s difficulties by looking at their relationships, biological and social circumstances, life events, and how they have interpreted the events that have happened to them. 
Psychologists might undertake a psychological formulation to assess what influenced an offender’s behaviour and to be able to ensure the chance of future similar offending is minimal

How is case formulation done?

Case formulation is done by a clinical, counselling or forensic psychologist. 

They look at the criminogenic state and attitudes.

1. Causes: what may contribute to the behaviour.

2. Core beliefs: fundamental thoughts 

3. Triggers: What was the preceding event 

4. Situation: was it provoked

5. Maintenance cycle: thoughts, feelings, physical symptoms and behaviour. 

+and- of Case formulation

Realistic  Useful way of explaining to the offender themselves what led them to committing the offence and helps offenders understand how to manage future situations and support them to make changes to their behaviour and thought patterns. It also acts as a practical tool used to inform the development of treatment and therapy programs for offenders.	Subjective & Biases  Data may lack validity as it is often self report data and so relies on the offender reporting honestly. Therefore, there may be social desirability bias where the participants give false answers to make themselves look better to society. conclusions made will be based on the psychologist's subjective interpretation of the information they have been told.
Predictive Validity Support from McKnight et al (1984). Found that case formulations were able to predict which treatments would and wouldn’t be effective. This suggests that case formulations can have predictive validity	Other Factors  Formulation may be limited. Offenders may have a disorder that is unknown to them and goes unreported, which may be influencing their behaviour. Hence, the psychologist has limited access to information.
Inter-rater Reliability  The case formulation can be developed by more than one practitioner. Other psychologists could evaluate them to see if they agree with the findings. Therefore there can be good inter-rater reliability	Ineffective for Treatment  Treatment may not be accepted by an offender. They may disagree with some of the judgements that are made about them. hence this may make them less willing to comply with treatment plans & programs.

What are the factors influencing the reliability if eye witness memory

post even information: Eyewitness memory can be influenced by information encountered after the event. Loftus and Palmer (1974) demonstrated how the wording of questions in an interview can alter a witness's memory. For example, using the word "smashed" instead of "hit" in a question about a car accident led to participants recalling more severe damage. The more extreme the verb, the faster participants estimated the car’s speed. This illustrates the malleability of memory and the potential for leading questions to create false memories. Gabbert et al. (2003) studied the effect of post-event conversations on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. 71% of the co-witness group remembered information they had not seen in the video. Moreover, in the co-witness group, 60% of the participants who had not seen the girl commit a crime said that the girl was guilt There were no differences in memory distortion between old and young.The results show that post-event discussions can distort memory. The information participants in the co-witness groups had heard from others influenced their memory. This information was then incorporated into their original memory

Weapon focus: When a weapon is present during a crime, witnesses tend to focus on the weapon itself rather than the features of the perpetrator. This can lead to a reduced ability to accurately identify the offender. Loftus et al. (1987) showed participants a series of slides of a customer in a restaurant.  In one version, the customer was holding a gun, in the other the same customer held a checkbook. Participants who saw the gun version tended to focus on the gun.  As a result, they were less likely to identify the customer in an identity parade those who had seen the checkbook version

'other race' effect: Wells and Olson (2001) found that people are generally better at identifying individuals of their own race than individuals of another race. This has significant implications for cross-racial identification in diverse societies. It suggests that witnesses are more likely to misidentify individuals of a different racial background, leading to potential misidentification.

stress and trauma: Stress and trauma can impair the accuracy of eyewitness memory. High-stress situations can lead to a phenomenon known as weapon focus (as mentioned earlier) and also affect a witness's ability to recall details accurately. Traumatic events can lead to memory fragmentation and emotional biases in recollection. This factor highlights the need to consider the psychological state of the witness when assessing the reliability of their testimony. Valentine and Mesout (2009)’s study examines the accuracy of eyewitness identification under different levels of stress. They found that the witnesses who experienced more anxiety were able to remember fewer correct descriptors than those who were less anxious.The findings of this study can be used to reinforce the impact of stress on eyewitness memory and its potential role in misidentifications.

Process of jury decision making

• Twelve adult jury members will be allocated for one criminal case. 

• Strict rules have to be followed to ensure that the case is confidential.

• Rules are given to protect the jury members from being influenced on their judgement based on media interest, if the case has been reported in the news. 

• This ensures that jury decisions are based solely on the facts presented in court. 

• Jury’s main role is to decide, as a group, if they believe the defendant is guilty of the crime they have been charged with or not. 

• A judge cannot decide if someone is guilty, nor can they tell the judge what to decide, so the judge relies entirely on the jury

Factors influencing jury decision making

Pre-trial publicity 

Members of the general public, including potential jury members may form an opinion of the case and any identified suspects long before the trial due to the information provided on online platforms and social media. 

Juries who are exposed to pre-trial information will be influenced, as they try to make sense of the information using their own schema. During the trial, the Jury member’s schemas can alter their perception of the evidence presented at court. 

Pre-trial publicity comes in two types: factual and emotional. Factual includes incriminating details about the case, while emotional aims to evoke negative emotions without necessarily providing incriminating information. Emotional publicity has a more lasting impact on jurors compared to factual information, which can be addressed during the trial with additional context.

Steblay et al. (1999) investigated the effect of pre-trial publicity on juror verdicts by undertaking a meta-analysis of 44 empirical tests representing 5,755 subjects. They found that ‘jurors’ exposed to negative pre-trial publicity were significantly more likely to judge the defendant guilty compared to those exposed to less or no negative pre-trial publicity. 

Ogloff and Vidmar (1994) studied how TV coverage before a trial affects potential jurors, focusing on a real child abuse case with a lot of pre-trial publicity. They discovered that when there was negative publicity, potential jurors showed a bias against the accused. Importantly, these jurors weren't aware of their biases.

Kovera (2002) found that media exposure can impact a jury's decision-making in different ways. In a study using two rape cases, some media coverage supported the defense, some supported the prosecution, and some was neutral. Jurors who saw a pro-defense trial felt they needed more evidence to convict compared to those who saw a pro-prosecution trial. 

Characteristics of the Defendant 

Race: Common findings show that white jurors in mock trials demonstrate negative bias to black defendants during sentence decisions, giving them harsher sentences compared to white defendants. 

Bradbury and William’s (2013) study found that black defendants are less likely to be convicted by juries composed of a higher proportion of black jurors and are more likely to be convicted by juries composed of a higher proportion of white and Hispanic jurors. 

Skolnick and Shaw (1997) however, found that while jury members of the same ethnic race as the defendant were less likely to find the defendant guilty, white jurors were more likely to find a black defendant not guilty than guilty. The Same effect was not found if the jury was black and the defendant white, they summarised that a black defendant always received fewer guilty verdicts, irrespective of the race of the jury. This was speculated to be due to the white jury members being fearful of being accused as racist. 

Attractiveness: Defendants are instructed when going to court to present themselves in a smart and tidy fashion, even if this is not how they typically dress. This is to reduce any negative stereotypes the jury may have against the defendant based on a more casual appearance which in turn can influence whether the jury finds the defendant guilty. 

Abwender & Hough’s study showed that female jurors were found to be harsher to an attractive defendant than they were to an attractive one, but male jurors showed the opposite effect. 

Saladin et. al. (1988) study findings were that the unattractive men were considered more likely to have committed either crime (armed robbery/ murder)  than the attractive men. This could be called an “attractiveness effect”. It is most evident with serious but non-fatal crimes, such as burglary, and when females are being judged (Quigley et al. 1995).

Evaluation of the influence of race and attractiveness

Research investigating the influence of race and attractiveness has typically been undertaken in controlled settings and laboratories. These do not create a realistic jury setting, hence lack ecological validity. Real juries may react differently in real life settings. 

There are other factors besides the characteristics of the defendant, that influence the jury member’s decision making and create biases.

• Juries own past experiences of victimisation for a similar offence. 

• Defendant reminds the jury of someone they know, hence changing views. 

• Jury influenced by members when uncertain about the defendant's guilt. 

It is not always possible to establish cause and effect. Experimental research can isolate variables, but does not account for the fact that actual jury members are subject to a range of factors that can influence their decision making, unlike in laboratory settings, hence why cause and effect cannot be established.

Research into expert testimony including Penrod and Cutler (1989) Eyewitness Expert Testimony and Jury Decision Making.

Aim: To investigate whether the presence of an expert witness would affect the juror’s decision making ability.

Method and Design: Laboratory experiment using a videotaped mock trial of a robbery.

Participants: 538 undergraduates 

Procedure: The participants were divided into groups of 2-8 and were then shown a videotape of a robbery.

There were four independent variables: 

• Witness Identifying Conditions (Good/Poor)

• Witness Confidence (Good/Poor)

• Expert Opinion Expressed (High/Low)

• Form of Expert Testimony (Descriptive/Statistical)

Then the participants completed a questionnaire alone. This questionnaire contained the dependant variables:

• Dependent Variable 1: Guilty or not guilty?

• Dependent Variable 2: How confident are you in your verdict?

• Dependent Variable 3: Memory of the trial and the expert Psychologists testimony

Findings: 

Jurors gave more guilty verdicts when Witness Identification Conditions were good. This increased if the Psychologist used simple descriptive language.

Juror confidence was more in the good Witness Identification Conditions. Jurors also expressed more confidence when the eyewitness claimed to be 100% confidence in their identification of the robber.

85% of jurors remembered the trial accurately and memory of the Psychologist's testimony was also good. They recalled correctly what the expert had said about weapons focus, disguises and delays in identification.

Conclusion:The expert testimony improved the juror’s knowledge of factors that might affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and made them pay more attention to the Witness Identification condition.

+and- of the research into expert testimony

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

Quantitative Data The quantitative data is easy to compare and analyse, which makes it easy to establish valid cause and effect conclusions through statistical significance. Reliability The study used good controls such as using a videotaped robbery as the trial the mock jurors watched, thus it can easily be replicated to check for reliability

Generalizability  The jury was composed entirely of Psychology students, who are not representative of a jury in real life, which would have a wider range of people and ages.   Ethnocentrism The study only used American Psychology students. This is not a representative sample and therefore cannot be generalised to other countries or even the legal system in the USA. Ecological Validity  The participants were divided into groups of 2-8. This is not representative of a real jury of 12. Furthermore the jury saw the crimes on video, which would not happen in a regular trial

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy CBT

• Aims to identify and alter negative beliefs and expectations (cognitive) and alter dysfunctional behaviours (behavioural). 

• CBT is a widely recognized therapeutic approach that focuses on changing the negative thought patterns and behaviours of individuals.

Using CBT as a therapy for offenders

• Sessions are about 50 minutes long, with a minimum of 6 sessions and a final review.

• Each session follows a structured agenda where clients discuss themselves to help the therapist understand their perspective.

• The downward arrow technique is used to uncover deeper beliefs and meanings.

• Cognitive biases are identified and worked on to break negative thought cycles.

• Therapists help clients find pleasurable activities and overcome obstacles (behaviour activation).

• Graded homework assignments are used to engage and reward clients.

• Clients record their thoughts and feelings, and these are challenged for growth

CBT targets distorted thoughts and behaviours. It helps offenders change their thought patterns and behaviours. Focuses on risk assessment and management.  Addresses issues like anger management and social skills:  Aims to prevent relapse into criminal behaviour. Promotes empathy and victim awareness. Tailored to individual needs. Effectiveness varies, influenced by motivation and support. Ethical considerations are crucial. May need to be combined with other therapies. Legal and policy implications are important. Continuous research and improvement are essential.

Effectiveness of CBT as a therapy for offenders

• Cognitive Distortions:

• CBT for offenders often begins by addressing cognitive distortions, which are irrational or biassed thought patterns that can lead to criminal behaviour.

• Offenders may have distorted beliefs about themselves, others, or their environment that contribute to criminal actions.

• Behavioural Interventions:

  • aim to modify maladaptive behaviours and reinforce positive ones.

  • Offenders may learn strategies to replace criminal behaviours with more socially acceptable alternatives.

• Risk Assessment & Anger Management:

  • CBT analyses offender's risk of reoffending where CBT techniques identify and address factors that contribute to reoffending, 

  • CBT helps Offenders struggling with anger issues to recognize triggers, control their anger, and find healthier ways to cope with emotions.

• Social Skills Training for Rehab:

  • CBT teaches communication skills, conflict resolution,empathy, and victim awareness/perspective to offenders that lack social skills. 

• Relapse Prevention:

  • CBT is used to develop relapse prevention plans. 

  • These plans help offenders anticipate situations that may lead to reoffending and learn strategies to avoid or cope with these triggers.

• Individualised Treatment:

  • CBT is tailored to the specific needs of each offender. Where the therapists assess the unique cognitive & behavioural patterns to develop a personalised treatment plan.

• Effectiveness and Outcomes:

  • Research on the effectiveness of CBT for offenders varies. 

  • Success may depend on factors like the individual's motivation, the quality of the therapist-offender relationship, and the presence of support systems post-release.

• Ethical Considerations: 

  • Issues of consent, confidentiality, and the balance between rehabilitation and punishment.

• Challenges and Criticisms: 

  • CBT alone may not address the complex factors contributing to criminal behaviour, such as substance abuse, or personality disorders.

• Integration with Other Therapies:

  • In order to address the multifaceted needs of offenders, therapy should be integrated. 

  • For example, it can be combined with substance abuse treatment or vocational training.

MS Summary AO1 and AO3 of effectiveness of CBT

MS SUMMARY (A01 points) 

• Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) aims to change thought processes that underpin behaviour and actions of offenders.  

• Cognitive behavioural therapy for offenders aims to restructure biased and distorted thinking and to build cognitive skills. 

• CBT requires commitment by the offender to complete the tasks such as homework and reflective diaries about their thoughts.  

• CBT is a therapy that can be continued by the offender once the therapy sessions are complete giving them self-help strategies.  

• During therapy the offenders may undertake role play to act out scenarios where they could offend in order to find alternative ways to manage a situation. 

• CBT can be used in residential settings for adolescents as a treatment for antisocial behaviour. 

• CBT programmes vary in terms of the quality of the implementation of the treatment for offenders. 

MS SUMMARY (A03 points) 

• Changing thought processes may not be effective where the cause of offending behaviour is antisocial personality disorder.  

• Offenders may want to change their behaviour to rehabilitate themselves and prevent recidivism, so CBT would be an effective therapy.  

• Lipsey (2009) analysed 548 studies and found CBT was more effective in reducing further criminal behaviour than other interventions.  

• Howells et al. (2005) found CBT did not significantly reduce aggression in offenders, so it may not be effective for violent crimes like assault. 

• Re-offending may be reduced using CBT as offenders are taught to understand thinking processes that immediately precede their criminal behaviour so it may stop them acting in a criminal way. 

• Armelius and Andreassen (2007) reported that CBT was effective for the first year of release but there was no evidence of more long term effects so it may not be helpful in reducing recidivism in the long-term. 6c

• Lipsey et al. (2007) suggests that recidivism can be reduced by 25% in the 12 months following effective CBT intervention, so this has long term benefits in reducing re-offending. 

• If offenders lack commitment or have been forced to undertake the CBT programme, there may be attrition and they would drop out so it would not be helpful as they will not have learned the skills to prevent them re-offending

• Wilson et al. (2005) found in their meta-analysis that CBT reduced recidivism by up to 30% when compared to non-treatment groups (1).  

• Levy et al. (2014) found that it was important to deal with the underlying problems such as joblessness and poverty, which CBT does not change (1). 

Experiment 1 of Loftus and Palmer 1974

To see if the phrasing of a question would affect estimates of speed, applying these findings to the idea of leading questions in court.

PROCEDURE

• 45 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Washington. 

• Participants were put into 5 groups and were shown 7 clips of different car accidents and were asked to estimate the speeds. 

• They were then given a questionnaire about the clips which included the critical question – “How fast were the cars going when they__each other” 

• The verb used varied among 5 groups of 9 people, where the word was either “hit, smashed, collided, bumped, or contacted” 

RESULTS 

• The use of the verb “smashed” gave the highest mean estimate of speed and “contacted” the lowest, proving that leading questions affect recall. 

CONCLUSION 

• Perhaps the participant is uncertain in judging speeds, for example between 30 and 40 mph, so he or she uses the word in the question to help.

• It is possible that the question changes the memory of the accident so the participant sees the accident as more severe if the word “smashed” is used. If this is the case, we might expect participants to “remember” other details that did not actually occur.

Experiment 2 of Loftus and Palmer 1974

AIM 

• The second experiment was designed to provide additional insights into the origin of the differential speed estimates

PROCEDURE 

• 150 undergraduate psychology students from the University of Washington. 

• Participants watched a one minute clip of a multiple car collision. 

• They were asked to describe the film and answer a questionnaire which had a critical question regarding speed in 3 conditions. 

  • 50 participants critical question included the verb “hit” 

  • 50 participants critical question included the verb “smashed” 

  • 50 participants in control condition - No critical question was asked.

• 1 week later (clip was not shown again) they were asked a critical question: “did you see broken glass?” None was actually shown in the clip.

• It was thought that the word “smashed” used in the question the week before would lead to more broken glass being “remembered” by those participants. 

RESULTS 

Table 2 shows the number of participants that answered yes or no to the question of ‘Did you see any broken glass’.

CONCLUSION

• In the smashed condition 16 pp’s reported broken glass compared to 7 in the hit condition (6 in the control group)

• Asking "how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" resulted in higher speed estimates compared to the same question with "hit" instead of "smashed," affecting answers even a week later.

• Loftus and Palmer suggested that memory contains two types of information: one from the initial perception of an event and the other from external information provided afterward. These sources of information blend, making it difficult to discern the origin of specific details, resulting in a single, consolidated memory.

Evaluation of Loftus and Palmer 1974

EVALUATION OF LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974)
Standardised procedures & Validity High level of control as it took place in a lab where extraneous variables can be controlled– can be sure the IV of question caused the estimate of speed.  all participants experienced the same e.g. watching videos of the same clip. Hence can be replicated.	Generalizability  Undergraduate students used may not be generalizable to other population groups. e.g.  age, driving experience, educational experience – (i.e. they may be used to paying attention and being tested?) hence, the results is not representative of the wider population.
Standardised procedures & Reliable Questions were carefully worded to ensure no demand characteristics. Loftus & Zanni found the use of the word ‘the’ or ‘a’ for if participants had seen a broken headlight was higher if the word  ‘the’ was used. Which therefore makes Loftus's experiment reliable & accurate.	Ecological Validity  One limitation of the research is its lack of ecological validity/ Mundane realism as participants watched video clips instead of experiencing real-life accidents. Lab settings differ from real-life situations in terms of emotional impact and attentiveness when people are surprised.
Ethical  while participants were deceived over the aim, it was not harmful to them. Opportunity sampling was used, they were able to withdraw from the study.	Low Ecological Validity Participants may have responded to demand characteristics by using the verbs to guess speeds rather than it definitely being a leading question.
Objectivity & Reliability  The use of estimates of speed in both experiments and the ‘yes’/’no’ question of the second experiment yielded quantitative data which meant there was no subjective interpretation of the data – therefore it can be said that the experiments have objectivity.

Bradbury MD and Willaim MR 2013

AIM 

• To investigate whether the racial makeup of a jury affects its decision making. 

• Investigate if black defendants will be more likely to be convicted by juries composed of a higher number of white jurors and or hispanic jurors. 

PROCEDURE 

• Data collected for trials held in 2000 and 2001 to compare juries that convicted defendants with juries that deadlocked. 

• Data collected from Real trials in four American States. The cases were ones in which there was a “hung jury” where the jury could not agree on whether the defendant was guilty or not. Only trials that included black defendants were examined. 

• The control variable data included type of charge, sentence, jury decision, demographic characteristics of defendants and victims, jury selection, trial evidence and procedures, and jury deliberations. 

• Bradbury and Willians selected trails with only black defendants, as they comprised approximately 60% of all defendants across the jurisdictions. 

• The dependent variable was a conviction or not.

• The independent variable was the racial makeup of the jury, measured by the percent black, white, and hispanic groups serving on the jury. 

• Since conviction is more likely when the prosecutor’s case is relatively strong, the strength of the prosecutor's case was measured by the quantity of evidence and witnesses the prosecutor presented during the trial. 

RESULTS 

• Juries comprising a higher percentage of White or Hispanic jurors are more likely to convict Black defendants.

• Juries were less likely to convict Black defendants of violent crimes when compared with drug crimes.

CONCLUSION

• Jury panels should reflect the diversity of the community to ensure a fair decision-making process. As the results have shown that if a black person has a black juror, they have a better chance of being found not guilty. 

• Public participation in jury service should make careful consideration of which members of the public are, and are not, participating, as this may influence the deliberative process and/or result.

• The conclusion highlights a consistent trend where Black individuals are more often convicted of drug crimes than violent crimes, raising concerns about potential racial bias in the criminal justice system. It emphasises that diversity in the jury pool significantly influences decision-making, suggesting that the selection process for juries can impact trial outcomes.

Evaluation of Bradbury MD and Williams MR 2013

EVALUATION OF BRADBURY M D AND WILLIAMS M R (2013)
Validity & Content Analysis  There were many control variables to ensure the researchers were only investigating the racial composition of the jurors. Content analysis, quantitative and qualitative data were used to minimise subjectivity and increase objectivity. The data type (type of charge, sentence, jury decision, demographic characteristics of defendants and victims, jury selection, trial evidence and procedures, and jury deliberations) shows the depth of the controls taken to increase study validity.	Generalisability & Population Validity Data was collected from real trials across 4 US states. Therefore can only be generalised to other cases for similar crimes within those areas. Applies to USA and jurors comprising Hispanic, white and black jurors. Only cases where there was a black defendant were analysed, therefore the findings don't apply to defendants of other races. Further research is required into all the ethnic groups before it is possible to determine if the effects found within the current research is applicable to all races.
Ecological Validity  The data represents the characteristics of actual jury trials as opposed to mock jury trials so this therefore is providing more reliable data regarding actual jury decision-making than an experiment undertaken in a laboratory hence findings are more ecologically valid than other research.	Reliability  It is difficult to get data from real trials and therefore it is difficult to know whether the same results would be found again if further research were to be conducted. Hence not replicable to test for reliability and accuracy.

Ruva, McEvoy and Bryant 2007

AIM 

• Investigate the effects of exposure to pre-trial publicity (PTP) and jury deliberation on juror memory and decision making. 

PROCEDURE 

• Sample: 558 university students (128 males and 430 females) aged 18 to 25 years (mean age 20.6 years) 

• 354 Caucasian, 86 African American, 36 Asian or Pacific Islander, 73 Hispanic, 2 Native Americans, and 2 fell in the other category. 

• Groups consisted of: 

  • 138 participants in collaborating groups
    (randomly assigned to collaborative or nominal).

  • 140 in the nominal exposed groups.

  • 142 in the nominal non-exposed groups.

• There were 25 groups (juries) per condition. This experiment consisted of two phases, which were 4–7 days apart.

PHASE 1: Exposure to Pre-Trial Publicity (PTP) conditions. 

• Participants grouped in 16 or fewer, assigned to PTP conditions.

• Exposed jurors received negative PTP about the defendant, non-exposed jurors read unrelated crime articles.

• PTP-exposed received modified news stories about the trial, including biassed information.

• Non-exposed received packets with unrelated crime articles, matched in length and content to exposed conditions.

PHASE 2: Post-Exposure Trial and Decision Making 

• Four days after exposure, participants viewed a 30-minute videotaped criminal trial.

• Informed not to use prior information, only evidence from the trial.

• Trial depicted a man accused of murdering his wife; PTP written information provided to experimental groups.

• After the trial, jurors completed a verdict form (not guilty, hung, guilty), confidence scores, and suggested prison sentence.

• Nominal groups recalled trial facts individually, identifying the most influential facts in their decision.

• Collaborating groups deliberated for 30 minutes to reach a unanimous verdict; recorded as hung if no unanimity.

• Due to logistical constraints, 4-6 person juries used instead of 12-person juries.

POST TRIAL ASSESSMENT 

• Participants in both conditions took a source monitoring test to identify statements from trials or articles.

• Confidence levels in each answer were indicated by participants.

RESULTS 

• Jurors were less likely to find the defendant guilty in post-source monitoring compared to pre-deliberation measures. This trend was observed specifically in collaborating conditions.

• Jurors exposed to negative PTP were more likely than non-exposed jurors to attribute information solely from PTP to the trial or both the trial and PTP.

• Collaborating jurors were more confident than nominal jurors in both accurate and inaccurate source memory judgments related to the trial items.

• Collaboration had a significant effect on the perceived credibility of the defendant. Nominal jurors perceived the defendant as more credible than collaborating jurors.

• The study suggests a connection between exposure to negative PTP, critical source memory errors, and the perceived credibility of the defendant. It also hints at a link between PTP exposure and jurors' guilt ratings.

CONCLUSION 

• Negative pre-trial publicity significantly biases juror decision-making.

• Group deliberation can reduce bias associated with negative PTP, termed a 'leniency shift.'  Deliberation increases bias when jurors perceive the defendant as less credible, irrespective of PTP exposure.

• Collaborating jurors show more accurate source memory (SM) responses, supporting the benefits of juries in catching memory errors.

• Exposed jurors are more likely to misattribute information between PTP and trial evidence. SM errors for exposed jurors involve attributing information to both the trial and PTP, indicating a challenge in separating the two sources.

• Those exposed to negative PTP perceive the defendant as less credible than non-exposed jurors, suggesting a negative impact on juror impressions.

• High levels of negative pre-trial publicity may hinder the possibility of a fair trial. Jurors may struggle to follow instructions not to use PTP information due to source memory errors or pre-formed negative impressions about the defendant.

Evaluation of Ruva, McEvoy and Bryant 2007

EVALUATION OF RUVA, MCEVOY AND BRYANT (2007)
Reliability & Replicability  The study has high level of controls where articles in both conditions were matched for the # and length of the article resulting in the EV being controlled hence study is replicable.  Also, the videotaped criminal trial has been used in prior research (Pritchard & Keenan, 1999, 2003 and Hope et al., 2004) therefore the study has high test-retest reliability.	Generalizability & Ethnocentric  Sample is very biassed to university students from Florida & Caucasians.  Participants gained credits for taking part, whereas in real life eye witnesses do not get anything for their statements. Hence has low generalizability and is ethnocentric as findings are not representative of real life situations and cannot be generalised to other racial groups.
Objectivity & Content Analysis Findings are quantitative asd it was a decision on guilty or not guilty. Hence data is objective and not subjective to opinions, and has no researcher bias in interpreting participants answers. As a result, findings are easy to analyse and compare with other research.	Ecological Validity  Study used MJT (Moral Judgement Test) therefore data may not reflect valid measurement of day to day JDM (Judgement & Decision Making).  Mock Jury in this study consists of only 4 to 6 jurors instead of 12 jurors in real trials.hence study is not authentic.