Criminal Psychology

Definitions
1. Crime
  1. Actions deemed punishable which are against the written criminal law
2. Antisocial behaviour
  1. Behaviours which are considered socially unacceptable, of which society doesn't approve of
    1. Not necessarily against law
  2. E.g. Intimitatding behaviour
3. Recidivism
  1. Repeating a crime/ behaviour that you have already been punished/ treated for
4. Eyewitness Testimony
  1. A statement given by someone who witnessed a criminal incident
5. Stereotyping
  1. Classifying a whole group of people as sharing a certain common characteristic, which may be based on direct evidence or due to others with no evidence - may be true or false
6. Modelling
  1. Way of learning whereby behaviours are learned when rewarding that behaviour is observed of others
7. Token Economy
  1. System of behaviour modification based on operant conditioning techniques
Eye Witness Testomonies
1. Research Methods
  1. Lab Experiments
    1. Description
      1. Controlled, artificial environment
        Manipulation of IV to record effect on DV
        Measures cause & effect
      2. standardised procedure
    2. E.g.
      1. Loftus & Palmer
    3. Strenghts
      1. High controls and precise DV measures
        ensures p's treated same way
        = repeatable
        = reliable
        Loftus reliable evidence provides labs value
        e.g. second L&P study
      2. Independent groups = lowers DC as they can't guess aim
      3. Consent
    4. Weaknesses
      1. Unrealistic
        Artificial
        lacks ecological vailidity
      2. Deception
        Harms ability to withdraw
  2. Field Experiments
    1. Description
      1. provides cause & effect in a natural environment via an artificial task
        e.g. observing children in a playground
    2. E.g.
      1. Yarmey
    3. Strengths
      1. can test people memories of real life events
        comparable with the type of memory accessed during EWT
      2. can control Iv
        Increasing reliability and validity
      3. Ecological Validity
    4. Weaknesse
      1. Lack control over situational variables
        Decreasing reliability
      2. Deception
        but lowers DC
        Consent
  3. Field Studies
    1. Decription
      1. Gathers data from a real life event in a natural enviornment
    2. E.g.
      1. Yuille and Cutshall
    3. Strengths
      1. task + enviornment = natural
        = more valid as more true to life and holistic
    4. Weaknesses
      1. Not replicable
        Can't be tested for reliability
      2. Lose control of variables, consistency and focus
        can = incomparable, incomplete info
2. Loftus & Palmer 1974
  1. Eval
    1. Strengths
      1. clear controls = rep = reli
        Reliable with 2nd experiment
      2. Estimation of speed and y/n to glass = quantitative
        = no interpretation
        = objective
      3. Practical Applications
        Courts & CJS
    2. Weakness
      1. Video = not same emotional strain etc of actual witness
        = less valid
      2. Not gen as only students used - not representative sample
      3. DC
        may have figured out aim and answered accordingly
  2. Experiment One
    1. Aim
      1. whether phrasing of a Q would affect estimates of speed;
        Applying findings to leading Q in court
    2. Procedure
      1. 45 students, 5 groups
      2. Shown 7 films of traffic accidents
        between 5 and 30 sec long
        after every film = questionnaire
      3. Had to give account of accident too
      4. Main Q = speed
        Each group asked
        how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?
        Contacted
        Bumped
        Smashed
        Collided
        Hit
    3. Findings
      1. Mean Speed Estimates
        Contacted - 31.8
        Hit - 34
        Bumped - 38.1
        Collided - 39.3
        Smashed - 40.8
    4. Conclusion
      1. Form of Q can effect W. answer
      2. word used could help judge speed when unsure
        or affect/alter memory and severity
  3. Experiment Two
    1. Procedure
      1. 150 p's
      2. Film = multiple car accidents
      3. Describe incident in own words then answer Q
        Some asked Q about speed with word hit
        others smashed
        others =control as not asked about speed
      4. Week later (without film again)
        asked if saw broken glass (there was none)
    2. Results
      1. Estimate speed between smashed & hit had a difference of 2.46mph
      2. Smahed = 16/50 yes to glass
      3. Hit = 7/50
      4. Control = 6/50
    3. Conclusion
      1. way Q asked can = effect on answer
      2. memory = fed by event
        and external info afterwards
        these integrate over time = single memory
3. Yarmey 2004
  1. Description
    1. Aim
      1. Effects of being part of a filed experiment related to eyewitness recall and photo identification
        how disguise would affect retrieval
      2. whether instructions given before recall would affect identification
      3. whether 4 hour time gap affects
    2. Procedure
      1. 215 males, 375 females
        18-70
        only white to avoid race bais
      2. randomly assigned to conditions
        Being prepared (told would be witness)
        A disguise (baseball cap & sunglasses)
        Retrieval instructions enhanced or not
        Tested immediately or 4hours
        Gender of witness
        target present in line up or not
      3. Two white women =targets to be identified
      4. P's approached in public
        asked to help look for jewellery or directions
        after 2 mins = other woman ask if be part of study
        Questionnaire
        8 Q = physical charac, 8= clothing
        rated confidence on 7point scale
      5. 6 photos, 1/2 time she was present
        told may not be present, shown photo once, then debriefing
  2. Eval
    1. Strenghts
      1. natural = ecological v
      2. Control over conditions
        replicable = reliable
      3. Range of ages/gender = representative + gen
    2. Weaknesses
      1. photo line isn't same as real life
        doesn't offer buid/body language etc = lacks v itself
      2. P's met and spoke to target - isn't always case in real life
      3. not valid as not crime
  3. Results
    1. when present 49% identified her
      1. 62% correctly said when she wasnt
    2. Those prepared for test = better at recall not identification
    3. Conclusion
      1. 50% witness makes a correct identification when present
        = doubt on assumption that EWT and identification =accurate
4. Yuille & Cutshall 1986
  1. Desciption
    1. Aim
      1. Compare interviews immediately at the time, carried out by police, with those carried out by researchers
        researchers incorporated misleading Q
      2. Record and eval witness accouts
        look at accuracy and errors made in accounts
    2. Procedure
      1. 20/20 contacted who saw shooting
        13 took part
      2. Verbatim (wforw) police interview reports
        p's described events in own words
        police asked Q to amplify what said
        interviews recorded by hand
      3. 4/5months later
        p's were interviewed (recorded and transcribed
        gave account and answered Q
        2 Q = misleading
        1 = broken head light
        (not broken)
        yellow quarter panel
        (was blue)
        asked 7 scale degree of stress
        emotional state before and problems afterwards (e.g. sleeplessness)
      4. careful scoring
        divided into
        action details
        description
        object
        person
        was some difficuties
    3. Results
      1. police gained more action and person details
        researchers gained more object
        as asked things = no interest to police
      2. Variation in what witnesses reported as seen different amounts of incident
        7 central
        in police 84.56%
        6 peripheral
        79.31%
        both equally accurate
      3. months late errors were relatively rare and accuracy = high
      4. misleading Q = little effec
        10/13 said no broken headlight/ yellow
        or didn't see
    4. Conclusion
      1. may be investigating flashbulb memory
        specific & relevant event is recorded in memory in great deatil
        Direct involvement = remembered more
        doesn't happen in lab
      2. Misleading Q = not effect
        goes against lab
      3. stress didn't negatively effect
  2. Eval
    1. Weaknesses
      1. not easy to gen
        13 p's
        unique event
      2. problems with scoring
      3. field = difficult to replicate
    2. Strengths
      1. shows EWT can be accurate - goes against lab results
        maybe cause so unique
      2. field study
        = real environment + situation
        validity
      3. care was taken to make sure testimonies never altered
        = finings seem reliable
  3. first ever investigation in EWT to use real witnesses of real incident

Next up

Criminal Psychology

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by harriet colquhoun about 10 years ago