Criminal Psychology

What is criminal psychology?

Investigating explanations for crime and antisocial behavior. Also considers various therapies aimed at reducing recidivism rates.

Recidivism

re-offending

Anti soical behavior

behavior that can affect others negatively e.g. hitting/swearing at someone.

self fuffiling prophecy

Known as pygmalion effect - psychological phenomenon high expectations lead to improved performance in a given area and low expectations lead to worse performance.

labeling

- General terms used to describe members of a group

- group/person often seen as inferior 

- Labels may be used on a stereotype e.g. someone born in a rough neighbourhood

- Over generalised beliefs about a group are often based on limited information 

- Effects labeled persons schemas and your own schemas.

labeling process

 Labelling + internalising + self esteem → self fulfilling prophecy 

- Once a label has been given to a group they are treated according to that label.

- Once a label is given they (person/group receiving label)  begin to internalize it. (more likely to work on people with low self esteem)

- Once a label has been given to a group or person,we begin to treat them according to that label, we expect them to behave like the label.

- So if we label someone as a criminal, we treat them as one and expect them to behave as such.

- Then they may begin to behave as one so they are living up to the label they have been given which is known as a self fulfilling prophecy.

- Once a label has been given to a group or person,we begin to treat them according to that label, we expect them to behave like the label.

- if we label someone as a criminal, we treat them as one and expect them to behave as such.

- Criminals may be influenced by the environment around them. 

- Includes upbringing, peer influence, education level and poverty

Social explanations: Labelling and Self-fulfilling prophecy: Individual differences - evaluation 

• Suggests that the explanation is deterministic of a criminal behaviour,if you are labeled negatively you live up to that label → result self fulfilling prophecy
  
  

• Not everyone lives up to the label given to them, especially if those have a high self esteem and less regard for others opinions. E.g. a child who has been raised in a criminal household may not turn to crime. However if they have a low self esteem they are more likely to believe that they can't do anything about their situation. More people are likely to label them as criminals. Makes them more likely to commit criminal acts
  
  

• Shows individual differences, not everyone who's been given a label will behave according to it.

Rosenthal + Jacobson 

Pre experiment IQ tests: at the start of the year primary students were IQ tested then randomly allocated into 2 label groups: Bloomers and Non-bloomers

Bloomers Vs Non-bloomers : the class teachers were told the children in the bloomers group were due to hit a surge in development and intelligence.

Post experimental IQ tests: 

• ALl children were IQ tested a year later

• The Bloomers had leapt ahead of the Non-bloomers 

• Teachers supported the students differently (supported the bloomers more) 

 

Self fulfilling prophecy evaluation - strengths Jahoda

• Studied ashanti tribe in ghana 

• Named boys depending on the day they were born 

• Found children that were born on wednesday (thought to be aggressive) 22% committed violent crimes

• Those born on monday (thought to be placid and quiet) committed 6.9% of the same crimes

• Suggests that labeling leads to SFP in the boys - they conform to the labels given to them.

Self fulfilling prophecy evaluation - strengths

real life application

• Adults can ensure that they don't label children negatively who may behave antisocially, instead encouraging them to act in a more prosocial way ensuring the children know they can behave better.

 

Self fulfilling prophecy evaluation - negatives

• Most of the research was conducted in a educational setting, may not apply to criminality

• A Lot of the research relies on self reports (questionnaires or interviews). SDB issues especially because this is about criminality (socially sensitive research) 

• Ethical and moral issues prevent experiments, so cause and effect cant be established. May be other variables that influence the behavior in these cases 

• Recidivism rates are around 30% → 70% do not continue to live up to label.

Self fulfilling prophecy evaluation - negatives

Zebrowitz 

• Labels work in reverse

• Boys with a babyface appear to be more delinquent and involved in crime 

• Compared to those with a “mature face” 

• Concluded that baby-faced boys overcompensate that they may be weak or child like rather than living up to the innocent/baby label. 

• SLT suggests people can learn criminal and antisocial behaviors by observing others. - friends, family or media

Role model

Do not deliberately teach behavior, their actions may influence others. We are more likely to imitate role models that are similar to us. (Age, gender or background)

Identification

Process when you want to be like a role model so you are more likely to imitate/copy them. E.g. teenager may identify with a tv character who commits crime but its shown as powerful so they may copy them. a t

Vicarious reinforcement.

We don’t copy everyone, we think about whether we will be rewarded or punished for our behavior.

• if a role model benefits from crime. (Like a friend stealing and getting to keep the item) the observer is more likely to imitate them.

• If the role model is punished (e.g. arrested or embarrassed) the observer is less likely to imitate them.

Media e.g. - crimes often shown without full impact on victims or criminals may escape punishment. Makes behavior more appealing to viewers increasing imitation chances.

Mediational process

Bandura explained certain thought processes happen between seeing behavior and imitating it.

• attention - notice the behavior (watching your friend steal from a shop)

• Retention - remembering the behavior (recalls how they hid the item)

• Reproduction - Imitation, wondering if they can steal without being caught.

• Motivation - Want to imitate. Depends on whether the role model was punished or rewarded.

SLT - crim Supporting evidence bandura.

Point - supporting research

Evidence - bandura. Children are more likely to imitate aggression if they observe a role mode demonstrating the behavior. Also found that Holden are more likely to imitate same gender.

Evidence - shows behavior such as aggression is learnt through observation. Supports identification by showing that imitation is more likely to occur if there are shared characteristics.

Link- increase validity of SLT as an explanation of crime

SLT - crim correlation evidence is weak.

Point - weakness is that the evidence is correlational

Example - comstock et al conducted meta analysis of correlational studies, investigate the relationship between watching violent media and aggressive behavior +0.19 correlation coefficient.

Evidence - weakness, weak positive correlation suggests relationship is not strong. Correlation data does not establish cause and effect - more violent media may cause increased aggression. Or people are already aggressive and they choose to expose themselves to violent media.

Link - reduces validity of SLT as an explanatioN

What is ASPD

When an individual shows persistent disregard for the rights of others. To be diagnosed an individual has to display three or more of these traits:

Ignoring rules and laws

Impulsivity

Aggression or irritability e.g. fighting.

Reckless with their safety and others

Little or no remorse to causing harm

Irresponsible behavior e.g. fails to meet financial obligations.

ASPD causes

Both genetic and environmental - more common if there is a first degree relative with the disorder.

Common in individuals from low socioeconomic background and those living in urban areas.

ASPD related to crime

More likely to break the law or be arrested, get into fights, steal or threaten others.

ASPD diagnosis

• cannot be diagnosed before the age of 18. Evidence of conduct issues should appeare before age of 15

Offenses are often grouped into four categories

• aggression towards people or animals

• Property offenses

• Theft or deceit

• Serious rule violations

Individuals may appear charming but are often exploitative and fail to take care of others. (E.g. their children)

Is meant to effect between 1 and 4% of population - rates are higher in prisons.

More common in men. However may be under diagnosed in women.

Can co -occur with other conditions: anxiety, depression, ADHD or substance misuse.

Supporting evidence for biological cause of ASPD

Point - a strength of ASPD as an explanation for crime - there is supporting evidence for biological cause.

Evidence - twin studies (Ferguson ) show that genetics explain 40-56% of antisocial behavior. Brain scan research (yang and raine) found people with antisocial behavior, reduced activity in pre-frontal cortex (controls aggression) and differences in amygdala and temporal lobe.

Explanation - suggest people may be born with biological vulnerability, makes them more likely to show aggression and antisocial behavior - brain injury may also worsen this.

Link - genetic and brain imaging studies provides strong support

Determinism explanation

Point - linking ASPD to crime can be deterministic

Evidence - not everyone with the disorder commits crimes. Risk depends on other factors not just having the disorder e.g. substance misuse, ADHD, how severe the symptoms are and upbringing.

Explanation - weakness, is to simplistic ASPD does not mean u will commit crimes. Ignores free will and the role of environment.

Link - biological explanations may exaggerate. Fails to explain why people with ASPD can avoid criminal behavior.

Case formulation

Helps psychologists understand hwy someone offends. Gather information about offenders past experiences, thoughts and behaviors to explain their crime. Helps decide on treatment like rehabilitation, and how to prevent them from re offending.

and behaviors

Offense analysis

Look at patterns in offending and compare it with other commen criminogenic factors. (Things that increase risk: substance

abuse and poverty) Shows what may trigger their behavior

The four Ps

Predisposing factors - early experiences that may create vulnerability - upbringing or being bullied

Precipitating- specific triggers. May act as a catalyst for the offending behavior. - close family death or loud noises

Perpetuating- long lasting patterns act as a barrier to change - mental health issues

Protective - factors that could help recovery

Include also - functional purpose of behavior - why?

Any theories that could explain this behavior.

Different theories that c an be applied

Behavioral theories - offending is reinforced (e.g. stealing gives financial reward)

Cognitive theories - thinking errors/ schema distortion

Psychodynamic theories - unresolved early childhood experiences that may shape behavior

Why case formulation matters

• understanding offenders motivation

• Reduces likelihood of reoffending. Protects public

• Provides professional reports and evidence in court or parole meetings

• Develops rehabilitation stratifies tailored to the individual

Evaluation case formulation - positive

Point - provided holistic understanding of offending behavior

Evidence - information gathered from a range of sources: parole officers, police, forensic psychologists.

Explanation - getting multiple perspectives can make more accurate delicious about offender management and rehabilitation. Prevents offender form re-offending.

Link - important as they support rehabilitation.

Case formulation negative evaluation

Point - data may be flawed as it relies on accuracy of information provided

Evidence - much of the data comes from interviews. Where the individual recalls past crimes or childhood experiences

Explanation - data is retrospective ( the offender has to think back on their past and they may forget or add things) also risk of SDB may alter their answers based on what they think the psychologist wants to hear. Also interpreted by psychologists where the information may be effected by their own SDB.

Link - may not always be valid as it can be effected by bias.

Post event information

After an event occurs, witnesses may be influenced by new information. This could change/ distort their memory of what happened. This could be due to speaking to other witnesses, police interviews, or watching media coverage. The more the time between court and the event the more the memory can be altered.

Reconstructive memory EWT

We don’t remember events exactly as they happened. Our brain pieces together the main ideas, which may be inaccurate.

Our memories can also be shaped by cultural expectations or by what makes most sense to us.

Our mem

Leading questions

A leading question is a question that suggests a certain answer, which may alter the witnesses memory. Police and

lawyers may accidentally use these accidentally, which would lead to inaccurate testimonies in court. E.g. did the man have a hat? Instead of what was the man wearing?

Supporting evidence - leading questions

Point - strength of leading questions as a explanation of a factor effecting reliability of EWT is there is supporting evidence

Evidence - loftus and palmer. When participants watched a car crash. Their speed estimates changed based on the verb used in the question (smashed 40.8mph) (contacted 31.8)

Explanation - strength. Suggests memory is not always accurate and can be influenced by the wording of the question. Leading questions can cause witnesses to recall differently leads to false or distorted testimonies supports EWT being unreliable.

link - therefore leading questions can effect reliability of EWT.

Eveide

Supporting evidence - post event discussion

Point - strength of post event discussion is there is supporting evidence.

Evidence - grabbers et al. Found when participants discussed a crime video with each other 71% recalled details they had not actually seen but had picked up from the other witnesses. And in a control group with no discussion 0% did this.

Explanation - demonstrates how PED can distort EWT as people may conform to others memories. To gain social approval or cause they doubt their own memory.

Link - EWT can be unreliable as its easily influenced by external information

Supporting evidence may be flawed

Point - weakness of research supporting post event discussion information is that is often conducted in labs using artificial tasks.

Evidence - loftus used a video of a car accident

Explanation - does not reflect the same emotions of watching a car accident IRL. It is difficult to reproduce real life EWT conditions in a lab setting.

Link - may not be able to apply to real life events as they take place unexpectedly earning they may be recalled differently to laboratory settings.

Real life research - post event information

Point - limitation of research into post event information is that there is contradictory real life research

Evidence - yuille and cutshall studied a real life situation of a shooting outside a gun shop in Canada. They examined witnesses recall of the event five months later and asked them two leading questions. Found the leading questions did not affect accuracy of their recall.

Explanation - this is a problem as the theory states leading questions should distort witnesses recollection. But in this case it didn’t.

Link - decreases the validity of our understanding of leading questions and their effect on EWT.

Loftus and palmer aim

Experiment 1 - to investigate wether leading questions would influences eye witness estimates on the speed of a veichal

after a traffic accident.

Experiment 2 - to test whether the verb used effected the participants response bias or their memory of the accident.

Loftus and palmer sample

E1 - 45 students from America

E2 - 150 students from america

E2

Loftus and palmer procedure

E 1- participants watched short films of car accidents, they were asked to describe what had happened and answer a

questionnaire. The critical question was “about how fast were the cars going when they _ each other”. The blank was filled with five verbs: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.

E2- participants watched film of a multiple car crash. (Less than a minute accident lasting four seconds). They were split into three groups:

G1 - “how fast were they going when they smashed into eachother”

G2- “how fast were the cars going when they hit eachother”

G3 - not asked about speed

A week later the same participants were asked if they saw any broken glass (there was none)

Loftus and palmer result

E1 - speed was effected by the verb that was used.

Smashed 40.8 mph

Contacted 31.8 mph

E2- “smashed” group more likely to report broken glass 32%

Hit (14%)

Controll group (12%)

Loftus and palmer conclusion

E1- wording in a question can influence eyewitnesses memory recall. Suggests leading questions can distort memory of an event

E2- leading questions can distort memory. Can distort their recollection as well as cause some to recall false memory’s.

E2

Loftu and palmer - replicability

Point - highly replicable

Evidence - the study was conducted in a lab environment. Means high control over variables.

Explanation - strength because allowed development of standardized procedure. E.g showing participants the same film, and same critical question with only the verb changing. Consistency means other researchers can replicate the study. Loftus and Zanni proving that leading questions can distort eye witness recollection.

Link - more reliable findings as the results can be checked for consistency.

Loftus and palmer - ecological validity

Point - weakness, lacks ecological validity

Evidience - research was conducted in a lab environment + standardized procedure + artificial tasks. E.g.

Explanation - issue because participants may act differently in the study compared to in real life they may show demand characteristics due to artificial setting. This is not how an EWT would occur in everyday life, witnessing real car accidents causes high stress and a lot of emotion, which could distort their recollection.

Link - reduces validity of the study.

E

Loftus and palmer - generalizability

Point- study is not generalizable

Evidence - loftus and palmer used a sample of 45 American students from a university.

Explanation - problem due to the sample not being representative to general population. Findings cannot be applied to other groups e.g. older adults or people from different cultural backgrounds (we don’t know how they would behave when estimating the speed of a car) restricts our understanding cause we do not know the effect of misleading questions.

Link - decreases validity of loftus and palmer research into EWT

What is the other race effect

• when people find it easier to recognize faces of their own race compared to the faces of a different one

• Important because eyewitness identification plays a big role in criminal trials. If witnesses are less accurate when identifying someone of another race. Can lead to false convictions.

Real life example - Ronald cotton

• white women was attacked by a black man

• Mistakingly identified Ronald cotton as her attacker even though he was innocent.

• He then spent over 10 years in prison before DNA evidence proved his innocence

Why does other race effect happen

• experience based encoding

-we learn to spot small differences in faces of other races - usually of our own race. Less common in other races

-doesn’t explain why the effect still happens even if someone has a lot of experience with other race faces

• in group vs out group theory

-we quickly sort people into groups: in group (people like us) out groups (people unlike us). We pay attention to the in group faces we see them as individuals.

• out groups faces are processed more generally (“just another member of that group”)

Other race effect strength

Point - supporting evidence

Evidence - smith et al. Showed 161 white participants a video of a theft where the thief was either black or white. Found participants were more accurate when recalling the identity of the white thief.

Explination - supports the other race effect theory. Shows how people are less accurate and less reliable when identifying individuals of another race. EWT can be biased and unreliable. Issue in legal settings where accurate identification is crucial.

Link - increases validity of the other race effect as a factor effecting reliability.

Other race effect weakness - lab based

Point - majority of the evidence comes from lab studies which may lack ecological validity.

Evidence - many cross race effect studies use isolated photographs of faces in controlled lab conditions rather than real life crimes.

Explanation - tasks do not reflect the same emotional intensity ,stress or context of real life situations. In real life witnesses can often experience high stress which can not be replicated in a lab environment, findings from lab based research only tell us little about how other race effect influences reliability of EWT.

Link - weakens results, not able to generalize to real world eye witness identifications.

Yekes Dodson law

Memory is at its best when it’s at a moderate level. If stress is to low we may not focus properly, and if stresss is too high memory can become worse

Attention and memory - stress and trauma

High stress can make it harder to store and recall details. Easterbrook hypothesis - suggest when emotions are high

people focus more on central details (like weapons) and ignore other information (like what is happening around them). Means witnesses may have vivid memories of some parts but forget other details.

Traumatic events - stress and trauma

Very traumatic events - like violent crimes can damage memory further.

Hans and crombag et.al. Found 60% of people remembered seeing tv footage of a plane crash in Amsterdam (there was no footage) traumatic memories can be unreliable.

Memory - stress and trauma

Cortisol production increases under high stress environments. This enhances attention to details (tunnel vision) but

distrusts hippocampus activitie which makes it harder to encode memory fully.

Stress and trauma - supporting lab based evidence.

Point - supporting lab based evidence

Evidence - loftus and burns carried a controlled study where participants watched a film of a stimulated robbery. One group saw a non violent version, the other so a violent version where a boy was shot in the face. When questioned afterwords those who watched the violent film recalled fewer details to those who watched the non violent version

Explanation - strength. Suggests the shock of the violent event increased arousal levels that distrusted memory storage for surrounding details. Shows traumatic events can impact eye witness memory highlighting the unreliability in EWT with cases including violence.

Link - increases validity of our understanding

Stress and trauma - refuting real life evidence

Point - control tray evidence from real life research

Evidence - yuille and cutshall studied a real life situation (shooting outside a gun shop in Canada) they examined the witness testimonies of the vent five moths later and asked how stressed they were during the event on a 7 point scale.found those who rated themselves as more stressed had more accurate recal.

Explanation - weakness as findings contradict the lab based evidence as well as our own understanding. Shows stress does not necessarily distort the accuracy of our recall. Especially when the memory is a real life event (has real life consequences)

Link - validity of research and understanding is reduced.

Weapon focus effect

Can effect the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies in 2 ways: stress and attention

Stress

-Yerkes - Dodson, stress affects memory. When a weapon is present the stress and arousal may reduce how much memory we retain from the event. Weapon = stress = interference with memory storage.

Attention

-attention is drawn to the weapon. Other details are filtered out so they do not encode or recall other information about the crime.