what do i need to learn criminal psychology

7/30/2019 What Do I Need to Learn Criminal Psychology

1/20

1 | P e n s b y H i g h S c h o o l


2/20


Course Content Page Number Done Needs more

WorkKey Terms:

Define criminological psychology Crime Recidivism Token economy Anti-social behaviour Stereotyping Modelling Eyewitness testimony.Research Methods Natural, Lab and field experiments and their use

in Criminological Psychology

Evaluate experiments in terms ofo Reliabilityo Validityo Their use in criminological Psychology

Content

Explanations of Criminal/ anti-social behaviouro Social Learning Theoryo Self-fulfilling prophecy

Ways of treating offenderso Token Economieso Anger Management

Studies in Detail

Describe and evaluate

Loftus and Palmer, (1947) Yarmey, (2004) Pickel, (1998) Charlton et al, (2000)

Key Issue and Practical

The reliability of EWT and summary of twoarticles


3/20


What is Criminological Psychology?

Criminological psychology is the application of psychological knowledge and methods to enrich ourunderstanding of crime and criminal behaviour. This includes defining crime and suggesting possible

explanations for criminal behaviour; it also focuses upon thejudgement of criminals by studying courtroom

procedures and eyewitness techniques. A further aspect of criminological psychology is identifying

offenders and predicting future crimes using profiling techniques. Finally, an important part of criminological

psychology is to suggest ways oftreating offenders in an attempt to rehabilitate them.

Crime:

A crime is an act that is against the law or more specifically is a behaviour that violates social norms, moralvalues, religious beliefs or legal boundaries. Such acts break the law and are therefore subject to punishment.For example, The Childrens Act 2004 has made smacking an offence similar to assault.

However, criminological psychology also focuses upon anti-social behaviour which is not an actual crime butmay have a negative effect on people in society and could potentially become crime at some stage.

Anti-Social Behaviour:

Anti-social behaviour is likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress tomembers of the public. Examples of anti-social behaviour include

excessive noise, abusive language and drunken behaviour.

To tackle such anti-social behaviour ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders)were introduced in 1998.

Recidivism

Recidivism is repeat offending and is used in reference to an offender who repeats a crime or a behaviour forwhich they have been punished or received treatment for. It means returning to and repeating behaviour

that should have been extinguished.

Token Economy

Token economy programmes are a form of behaviour modification based onthe principles of operant conditioning; specifically reinforcement. Such

programmes are used in prisons to encourage pro-social behaviour and

involve awarding tokens to offenders if a desired behaviour is performed. The

tokens may then be exchanged for various rewards. The aim is for the desired

behaviour to be repeated.

Stereotyping

Stereotypes are standardised and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions. Thereis a tendency to think of a whole group as having certain characteristics based upon evidence from one

member of the group and assuming that the same is true of all group members. For example, we maystereotype an individual who is wearing a hoody as being somebody who challenges authority and makes

trouble.


4/20


Modelling

Modelling is a way of learning by imitating the behaviour of others. An individual will observe criminalbehaviour being demonstrated (modelled) in others around them or via the media; the individual will

remember this behaviour and will reproduce it if there is motivation to do so. For example, in Banduras

study children saw an adult modelling aggressive behaviour towards a Bobo doll.

Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony is an account people give of an incident they have witnessed. In criminologicalpsychology, an eyewitness will provide police with a statement about a crime they have witnessed.

Social Learning Theory An explanation based on the Learning Approach

* Note you could read your notes from AS for a more in depth description of SLT

One explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour is observationallearning. An individual will learn criminal behaviour by observing role

models and imitating their behaviour. Role models who tend to be

imitated will often be the same gender, similar age or have high

status. Criminal behaviour will be observed in role models who are

engaging in criminal activity. These role models may be family

members, friends and peers but can also be role models in the media.

According to Bandura, modelling will occur when the observer paysattention, retains the information and reproduces what they have observed and when they are motivatedto do so. This motivation is affected by vicarious learning, external motivation and self-reinforcement.

Motivation:

If a behaviour is punished it is less likely to be repeated and, if rewarded, more likely to be repeated.Vicarious learning is not direct reward or punishment but is how an individual learns by watching others

being rewarded or punished. Observing a successful criminal who is getting away with it will provide an

individual with more motivation to imitate their behaviour.

External motivation will arise once a criminal act has been observed and imitated by an individual. If the actis rewarded (was successful) it is likely to be repeated. The individual likes the reward and will want to

experience it again. Self-reinforcement refers to self-motivational factors associated with a crime. Behaviour is more motivating

if some internal need is satisfied such as excitement.

Role Models:

Bandura (1961) showed that children imitated an adult modelthat was aggressive. Boys imitated physical aggression more

than girls who showed more verbal aggression. The findings of

this research illustrate the potential risk for children exposed to

antisocial models in their everyday lives such as those displaying

aggressive behaviours. This would include models in the media.


5/20


ARRM!!!!

The role of the media in modelling antisocial behaviour:

Opportunities to witness criminal/antisocial behaviour in everyday lifemay be limited, however opportunities to witness violence and crime in the

media is less restricted. According to social learning theory, children who are

exposed to violence and antisocial behaviour in television programmes, DVDs and

computer games may be more likely to use violence themselves or show

aggression towards others. The focus is upon the types of role models in the

media who are modelling antisocial behaviour. Behaviour acquired by

social learning involves four

processes: attention, retention, reproduction and

reinforcement. Watching TV involves paying attention to

the storyline, if there is violence in the storyline which is distinctive this is

likely to be retained. Viewers may be impressed by the violence used,

motivating them to reproduce it later. This is particularly true if the model

on TV is rewarded for their actions (vicarious reinforcement for the viewer).

Furthermore, characters on TV tend to be powerful role models since they

have high social status and may be viewed as clever, attractive and strong.

Young viewers may identify with these characters making imitation evenmore likely.

For example: A person may observe a criminal act such as burglary and byobserving this behaviour they are paying attention to it. There may be

obvious rewards such as the material rewards that are associated with

burglary which would motivate a person to copy the behaviour they may have observed. There is an element

of choice in this, which adds a cognitive component to the explanation.

Evaluation of Social Learning Theory as an explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour:

Strengths

There is a vast quantity of experimental evidence to show that behaviour is imitated, including aggressivebehaviour. For example, Bandura Ross and Ross 1961 showed that children will imitate aggression when

they see it modelled by an adult, especially when the model is the same sex as them. Further research by

Bandura (1965) showed the importance of vicarious reinforcement. Children shown a film of a model acting

aggressively to a Bobo doll saw one of 3 endings; model rewarded; model ignored or model punished. The

least amount of spontaneous aggression was shown when children saw the model punished. Lab based

research like this is likely to be high in reliability but low in ecological validity. Due to the controls in this

study a cause and effect relationship can be established.

The theory has a practical application and may be used to rehabilitate offenders by using suitable rolemodels to help them learn appropriate behaviour in conjunction with reinforcement. Volunteers will enter

prisons and will act as a role model for offenders, be a positive influence on them, assist them in gainingconfidence and achieving their goals.

Some individuals may have a predisposition to anti-social/criminal behaviour and are maybe more likely toseek out media violence. This would explain why not all individuals who observe media violence will imitate

what they see; it is only those who already have such violent tendencies as a result of their disposition. Such

individuals may be more likely to be affected by the media and to imitate violent acts without questioning

whether it is morally acceptable to display such behaviour.

Weaknesses

The theory is reductionist focusing only on how an individual is influenced by social factors and does notconsider biological explanations of why an individual might turn to crime. The theory fails to take intoaccount individual differences in important factors such as moral development and whether the individual


6/20


has a natural predisposition to anti-social behaviour due to their personality. Social learning theory seems to

start with the assumption that all individuals learn aggression if they are exposed to media violence and

ignores the existence of individual differences.

There is some refuting evidence to suggest that social learning theory cannot explain criminal/antisocialbehaviour. For example, quasi experiments like Charlton (2000) found no effect of the introduction of TV on

the amount of aggression shown by young children even when the children were exposed to media violence.

However, although quasi experiments allow us to ethically investigate a phenomenon such as increased

exposure to TV, there is a lack of control. For example, the representativeness of the sample of participants

is decided by natural occurrence rather than experimenter control. Furthermore, for some research it isdifficult to establish a link between observational learning and criminal behaviour because there is a lack of

control over the experience of viewing anti-social behaviour and the time lapse possible before the

behaviour is displayed.

The theory does not explain all types of crime, for example it does not account for criminal behaviour thatis opportunistic and has not been observed first it tends to account more for stealing, aggression and other

crimes that are easily observed in society rather than murder for example.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy An explanation based on the Social Approach

Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy go together as an explanation of crime and antisocial behaviour, theperson is first labelled and then becomes the label.

When applied to crime, labelling means referring to someone as a criminal for example and usually startswhen someone stereotypes someone else and the label comes from the stereotype. Stereotyping is the

tendency to apply commonly believed, oversimplified views to all members of a group. For example,

expecting anti-social behaviour from someone wearing a hoody. From this the observer will label the

observed for example, labelling a hoody as trouble. The label may create a false first impression of the

observed, and the observer may ignore any pro-social behaviour and focus on anti-social behaviour.

Eventually the observed may then act in the way expected of the label which reinforces the label therefore a

self-fulfilling prophecy has occurred.

In a classic study, Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1968) informed teachers about the academic potential of theirstudents. Some were said to be bloomers who would excel in education, others were said to have reached

their potential (the students were randomally assigned to the groups). This information affected the way

the teachers treated the students and the bloomers IQ scores rose while the non-bloomers fell.

Self-fulfilling prophecy may therefore be described as a prediction, that may be false or only a possibility thatis made true as a result of an individuals actions.

Youths who are labeled as criminals or delinquents may hold these as self-fulfilling prophecies believingthe labels that others assign to them, thereby acting as the labels. A youth who succumbs to a label may

then proceed to act as a criminal or act as delinquent, abandoning social norms because he or she believes

that he or she is a bad person and that this is what bad people are supposed to do.

The 4 stages of a self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP):

1. Labelling2.

Treating the person according to the label3. The person reacts by acting according to the label

Prophecy is set:

A teacher believes a

student is a low achiever

Expectation:

The teacher does not

stretch the student

Prophecy is fulfilled:

Student does not ward

hard and does not

achieve


7/20


4. The persons behaviour fulfils the expectations which confirm the label. A self-fulfilling prophecy hasoccurred.

An Example of self-fulfilling prophecy and crime:

Jahoda (1954) studied the Ashanti tribe of West Africawhere boys and girls are named after the day of the week

they are born. The Ashantis believe that the day of the

week a child is born brings personal qualities orcharacteristics that will be seen throughout their life. An

Ashanti boy born on a Monday will be called Kwadwo and is

considered to be mild mannered whereas a boy born on a

Wednesday will be called Kwaku and is considered to be

aggressive and short-tempered. Jahoda studied police

arrest records and found that males born on Wednesday

had a significantly higher arrest rate (22%) than males born

on a Monday (6.9%). This finding can be interpreted using self-fulfilling prophecy as children bearing the

name Kwaku were expected to be violent and were treated with greater suspicion than the mild mannered

Kwadwo thus demonstrating the SFP.

Evaluation of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy as an explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour:

Strengths

Empirical evidence one strength of labelling and SFP as an explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour isthat it is supported by evidence from research. Jahodas research shows how labelling children according to

the day of the week they were born on seemed to show that the children who were born on Wednesday and

labelled as aggressive acted up to their label committing more crimes (as shown in court records) and

therefore a SFP had occurred.

Practical application is that labelling and SFP can explain recidivism among former criminals. If the criminalreturns to the community where they live, then other members of the community may only see them interms of their criminality they are labelled as criminal. A SFP may occur, and further crimes are committed.

This is supported by evidence from Ageton & Elliott (1974) who suggested that treatment of youth offenders

by the police and courts could lead to further deviance. This may be explained by the boys being exposed to

the negative responses of their families, the police or in court. Such responses from others would have led

the boys to exhibit more behaviour in line with their criminal label.

Weaknesses

Individual differences one weakness of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy as an explanation for criminalbehaviour is that as a theory it does not account for individual differences in behaviour for example, not

everyone acts according to the label they are given. For example, a hoody who is labelled as aggressive maydeliberately act non-aggressively to disprove the label. It is suggested that individuals with a low self-concept

are more likely to be affected by a negative expectation of them and therefore are more likely to accept

their label and in turn behave in that way resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Incomplete explanation for criminal behaviour a further weakness is that not everyone acting aggressivelyor anti-socially has been labelled beforehand. For example, someone who attacks another person may not

have been labelled as aggressive before they attacked the other person. This is something that labelling and

self-fulfilling prophecy cant explain and therefore it cannot be a complete explanation of crime. The

explanation ignores other stronger influences on behaviour such as education, economic and cultural

factors.


8/20


Token Economy:

Token economy programmes are a form of behaviour modification based on the principles of operantconditioning; specifically reinforcement. Such programmes are used in prisons to encourage pro-social

behaviour and involve awarding tokens to offenders if a desired behaviour is performed. The tokens maythen be exchanged for various rewards. The aim is for the desired behaviour to be repeated.

As a treatment for offenders it would involve settingout a range of desirable or target behaviours the

institution want the offender to display and

reinforcing the offender whenever the behaviour is

displayed. Target behaviours would focus upon non-

aggressive behaviours such as helping, being polite

and following the prison rules. The expectation is

that the target behaviour will become learned and

automatic.

Positive reinforcers come in the shape of tokensasecondary reinforcer, which can be exchanged for something of positive material value to the offender suchas soft drinks, sweets, cigarettes or privileges (primary reinforcers). The offender would have to collect

enough tokens in order to get the thing that they want. Negative reinforcement comes with the threat of

removal of tokens and prisoners change their behaviour to avoid this consequence. A token economy

system uses the process of shaping which involves gradually altering behaviour through selective

reinforcement of behaviour that approximates the desired outcome.

This works because the behaviour of the offender is being constantly monitored and recorded in order toaward the tokens. It therefore is limited to institutions like a prison or young offenders institute.

Evaluation of token economy as a method of treating offenders:

Strengths:

Immediate reinforcement the behaviours are rewarded instantly, unlike other treatments which reinforcebehaviours long after they occur. This means that the prisoner knows exactly which behaviour is being

positively reinforced, and thus the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated is increased. For example, a

prisoner who displays non-aggressive behaviour is rewarded for this behaviour immediately, and they

therefore understand that the non-aggressive behaviour is the desired behaviour.

Less individual differences as all prisoners have to take part in the programme, no single prisoner can havean ulterior motive for participating. This is in contrast to other programmes such as anger management,

where prisoners may take part in the programme for longer parole.

Supporting evidence Hobbs and Holt (1976) measured the effect of introducing a token economy on asample of young delinquents across 3 institutions (with one further institution being used as a control forcomparison). Target behaviours included doing chores, cooperation and obeying rules. Tokens were

awarded to those in the experimental groups whenever target behaviour was displayed. These were

swapped for positive primary reinforcers such as soft drinks, sweets, leisure activities, cigarettes and passes

home. There was a significant (28%) increase in the target behaviours in the experimental groups compared

to the controls. This shows that the token economy was an effective and cost effective (less than $8 per

month per boy) way to control the behaviour of criminals whilst in prison.

Weaknesses:

Recidivism- may occur when the prisoners leave the programme. This is because they may come to rely onthe primary and secondary reinforcers, and they are not available to them outside of the token economy


9/20


programme. As a result of this, the offenders may re-offend in order to gain the rewards that they would

have obtained when in the token economy programme.

Lack of controla black market may occur within the system, where prisoners can buy and sell their tokensfor rewards which they would have obtained for non-aggressive behaviour. This means that they are being

positively reinforced for engaging in the black market, instead of behaving non-aggressively. Furthermore,

there may be a lack of consistency from prison staff in the way that they run the system of awarding the

tokens.

Refuting evidence Ross & McKay (1976) studied the use of a token economy programme with delinquentgirls. This was ineffective at reducing their behavioural problems when directed at either reducing antisocialbehaviour or increasing social acts.

Anger Management

Anger management is another treatment aimed to prevent crime. It can be used in prisons, and participantsmay take part voluntarily or as part of their sentence. The aim is to identify triggers which may cause

aggressive outbursts. By preventing aggression, the likelihood of

crimes being committed is lessened.

The treatment usually takes place in group settings andoccurs about twice a week. A trained practitioner runs the group, and

usually acts as a facilitator. The offenders usually begin by talking

about their day, describing their feelings or discussing their progress.

Conversations usually turn to what factors make them feel angry and

thus trigger aggressive outbursts. Once this trigger has been

identified, strategies can be taught which lessen the anger which a

person experiences. Typically, the trigger is turned around so its

viewed in a positive light. After the offender is seen as making

progress, the length of time between sessions is gradually increased,

so the support of the group is reduced over time.

An anger management programme will be based around 3 key stages; cognitive preparation, skillsacquisition and application practice.

1. Cognitive Preparation This involves analysing past aggression and discovering patterns. For example the trainer will look for

recurring triggers or environmental situations that regularly precede a loss of temper in the offender.

The offender must also examine the consequences of this aggression both in the long and short term andthen must recognise that they need to change this behaviour.

2. Skills Acquisition

Offenders are taught techniques that help them to manage their behavioural response to triggers in a moreproductive way. Cognitive skillsaimed at changing thoughts and perceptions of the situation in order to damp down the

emotional response. E.g. thought stopping techniques like counting to 10 or self-instructional techniques

like be calm, be calm. They should also learn to reappraise the situation so as it does not feel threatening.

Behavioural skillsaimed at reducing the physiological fight or flight response and giving options for dealingwith the situation E.g. relaxation training to try and damp down the release of hormones and assertiveness

training to help the client maintain their view without resorting to violence.

3. Application Practice

This allows the offender to test their skills in a range of situations. Often the programmes are run as grouptherapy and therefore the other group members can role play situations that reflect the triggers of a

particular member and allow them to practice dealing with it in a non-aggressive way.


10/20


This is then reinforced by the group and the good behaviour will serve as a model for others in the group.One specific anger management programme used by the prison service in England and Wales is The National Anger

Management Package. The programme is based on eight 2-hour sessions, seven of which are given over two to three

weeks and the final session a month later. The aims of the course are to raise offenders awareness of how they

become angry and to educate them in how to control their anger.

Evaluation of anger management as a method of treating offenders:

Strengths:

Effectiveness offenders can take part voluntarily. This increases the programmes effectiveness, asoffenders who take part voluntarily are usually more committed to the programmes success. This is in

contrast to other treatments, such as token economy, which are often enforced over an entire prison system

meaning that it may not be successful in all cases.

Low recidivism the chances of recidivism occurring after the treatment are relatively low. This is becausethe techniques which are taught can be used outside of the prison system, and that the treatment is

gradually reduced over time. Again this is in contrast to other treatments (token economy, for example)

which are not effective outside of a prison system and which end suddenly.

Experimental evidence Ireland (2000) compared 50 young offenders on an AM programme with 37 on thewaiting list for AM. Pre and post treatment scores were taken on level of aggression shown (as reported by

prison officers and by the prisoners themselves through self-report). 92% of the treatment group showed

some drop in aggression with 48% showing major decreases. 8% showed deterioration. This evidence

shows strong support of AM programmes as a way to control aggression in prison.

Weaknesses:

Social control some people have to take part as part of their sentence. This provides an ulterior motive andalthough the offender may appear to have made progress, this could be false and the issue of anger is not

actually being addressed. This means that anger management may not be effective for everyone.

Reductionist often, only triggers to physical aggression are addressed. This means that other forms ofaggression, such as verbal aggression and emotional abuse are not addressed. Therefore, anger

management programmes are not able to solve all aggressive acts. Furthermore, anger management only

focuses upon cognitive and behavioural aspects of anger and ignores the possible role that physical factors

such as an excessive amount of testosterone may have upon the individual.

Refuting evidence - Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999) studied Canadian offenders classified as violent or non-violent and measured them for anger. They found no difference between the groups concluding that anger

is not necessary for aggression to occur therefore treatments aimed at changing anger will have minimal

impact on violent behaviour. They also stated that by giving credence to the belief that anger and violence

are linked could be harmful as it allows the violent offender to blame his/her nature for their behaviour

rather than take responsibility for their actions.


11/20


NAME: Loftus & Palmer (1974) A Laboratory Experiment into Eyewitness Testimony:

Loftus & Palmers research consisted of two separate experiments experiment one and experiment two.

Experiment one

AIM:

The AIM of this study was to see if the phrasing of a questionwould affect estimates of speed, applying these findings to

the idea of leading questions in court. A leading question is

one that suggests to the witness what answer is desired or

leads him or her to the desired answer.

METHOD:

The PROCEDURE involved 45 students being put into 5 different groups. Seven films were shown, eachinvolving a traffic accident, with each film lasting between 5 and 30 seconds. After every film the participants

had a questionnaire to fill in. First they were required to give an account of the accident, and then had to

answer specific questions.

The critical question was the one asking about the speed of the vehicles. The first group of nine participantswere asked about how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? and the other groups

were asked the same critical question but with the word smashed replaced by collided, bumped, hit or

contacted. The same procedure was followed for each film.

This study is an example of a laboratory experiment because the procedure is controlled for all participantsand the IV (which is the verb in the critical question) is deliberately manipulated whilst trying to keep all

other variables constant. The effect of the IV is then measured on the DV which in this case is the estimate ofspeed in mph given by participants.

RESULTS:

The RESULTS showed that the verb smashed produced the highest mean estimate of speed and that theverb contacted produced the lowest mean estimate.

Table to show estimated speeds according to which verb was used in the question.

Verb used Mean speed estimated (mph)

Smashed 40.8

Collided 39.3

Bumped 38.1

Hit 34.0

Contacted 31.8

Collided, bumped and hit had speed estimates that were fairly well spaced and decreased according to theperceived severity of the verb.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CONCLUSIONwas that the wording of a question can affect a witnesss answer. Loftus and Palmer gavetwo interpretations/explanations for the findings of their 1st experiment.


12/20


1. Firstly, they argued that the results could be due to a distortion in the memory of the participant. The

memory of how fast the cars were travelling could have been distorted by the verbal label which had been

used to characterise the intensity of the crash.

2. Secondly, they argue that the results could be due to response-bias factors, in which case the participant

is not sure of the exact speed and therefore adjusts his or her estimate to fit in with the expectations of the

questioner. (This is also an example of a demand characteristic).

Experiment two

AIM:

The AIM of this experiment was again to determine whether leading questions would influence the responseof an eyewitness.

METHOD:

A similar PROCEDURE to the first experiment was used whereby 150 student participants viewed a short(one minute) film which contained a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned

about it. There were three conditions and the independent variable was manipulated by the wording of the

question.

o 50 of the participants were asked how fast were the cars going when they hiteach other?o 50 of the participants were asked How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each

other?

o 50 of the participants were not interrogated about the speed of the vehicles. One week later, the participants returned and, without viewing the film again,

they answered a series of questions about the accident. The critical question

was Did you see any broken glass? The critical question was part of a longer

series of questions and was placed in a random position on each participants

question paper. There was in fact no broken glass in the film.

RESULTS:

The RESULTScollected in response to the question Did yousee any broken glass? are noted in the tablebelow:

Response Smashed Hit Control

Yes 16 7 6

No 34 43 44

These results show a significant effect of the verb in the question on the mis-perception of glass in the film.Those participants that heard the word smashed were more than twice as likely to recall seeing broken glass.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CONCLUSION outlined tries to account for the results of the second experiment. Loftus and Palmerdeveloped the following explanation called the reconstructive hypothesis:

They argue that two kinds of information go into a persons memory of an event. The first is th e informationobtained from perceiving an event (e.g. witnessing a video of a car accident), and the second is the other

information supplied to us after the event (e.g. the question containing hit or smashed). Over time, the

information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which

source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one memory.


13/20


For example in Loftus and Palmers 2nd experiment, the participants first form some memory of the videothey have witnessed. The experimenter then, while asking, About how fast were the cars going when they

smashed into each other? supplies a piece of external information, namely, that the cars did indeed smash

into each other. When these two pieces of information are integrated, the participant has a memory of an

accident that was more severe than in fact it was. Since broken glass corresponds to a severe accident, the

participant is more likely to think that broken glass was present.

Evaluation of Loftus & Palmers Study:

Strengths:

Reliability this study was well controlled meaning that the study is replicable which increases the reliabilityof the findings. For example, all participants watched the same film and were asked identical questions

except for one word change (the IV).

Objective data by using estimates of speed, the researchers gathered quantitative data and therefore nointerpretation of the data was needed making their study more objective. It also allows the researchers to

carry out statistical analysis of the data to determine if the results are significant and furthermore,

comparisons can be made by drawing up charts and graphs of the results.

Less demand characteristicsthe aim of the study was disguised by hiding the leading question amongstothers. This meant the participants would be less likely to guess the aim of the study therefore helping toreduce demand characteristics (behaving in a way that attempts to meet the demands of the situation).

Weaknesses:

Ecological validity this study is low in ecological validity because the experiment used a situation whichwas not like real life. The participants would not experience the same emotional strain whilst watching a film

clip as they would if they had been witness to a real car accident. Therefore the results may not be

generalisable to real life eye witness accounts. However, although the task lacked mundane realism in many

ways; by having week long gap between seeing the incident and recalling it made the situation more

realistic, as witnesses are unlikely to record what they have seen immediately.

Sample using students as participants it might be said that the findings are not generalizable to the wholepopulation. Students memories may be different to other age groups and people with different

occupations. Furthermore, the sample tested was relatively small so again may not be representative of all

eye witnesses.

Validity the validity of the situation the participants were put into is questionable. The experimentersclaimed to be measuring the effect of leading questions on witness recall however the task used to test this

was memory of a film clip. Eyewitnesses to actual crimes do not see them on a video but as an on-going part

of day-to-day events. Participants in the experiment may pay more attention than a witness would and have

fewer distractions. Also, participants in the experiment are likely to be less motivated and aroused than

eyewitnesses seeing a real car accident and their reactions may not be representative, especially as

emotional state is known to affect recall.

NAME: Yuille & Cutshall (1986) A Field Study/Case Study.

A gun shop in Canada was robbed in broad daylight.As the thief was escaping, the shop owner followed

him on to the street. Both had guns. The thief fired

twice and the shop owner fired 6 times, the thief was

killed.

There were many witnesses to the event and all had aclear view so the police were able to get a detailed

account because the witnesses could corroborate each

others accounts which could then be linked to


14/20


forensic evidence about the event.

AIM:

The AIM of the study was to look at the problems of laboratory research in studying eyewitness testimony,to look at the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and to compare eyewitness accounts taken straight after an

incident with those taken four to five months after. Another aim was to see how eyewitness memory could

be affected by leading questions.

METHOD:

The PROCEDURE involved asking 21 witnesses to a gun shooting which had taken place four to five monthsbefore to take part in research. 13 agreed to take part in the research. Directly after the gun shooting, all 21

witnesses were interviewed by police. Four to five months after the initial interviews, the 13 participants

were interviewed by researchers. The interviews followed the same style as the police interviews: the

participants were asked to describe the event and were then asked questions about it. Two leading

questions were added to the interviews, one asking about the thiefs car headlight (did you see the broken

headlight?) and another asking about the car quarter panel (did you see the yellow quarter panel?). The

headlight was not broken, and the quarter panel was blue. Half of the participants were asked these leading

questions, and the other half were asked non-leading variants (did you see a broken headlight and did

you see a yellow quarter panel?). The participants were asked about their emotional state and stress levels

before and after the incident, and were also asked whether they had any problems afterwards. These results

were recorded on a 7 point scale 1 being perfectly calm and 7 being extremely anxious.

The scoring procedure was very precise, so the police and research interviews could be compared. Thecontent of the witnesses reports were scored for the number of accurate action, person and object

descriptions.

Action descriptions related to things such as movements or gunshots. Person descriptions related to thingssuch as age, height, hair colour and clothing. Object descriptions related to items in the crime such as

money or the gun.

RESULTS:

Table showing the accuracy of person descriptions.

Detail Police interview Research interview

Hair colour 77 80

Clothing colour 66 59

Weight, height, age 50 51

Details excluding weight,

height, age

82 80

The RESULTS showed that the researchers recorded more total details than the police: the police recorded649 total details and the researchers recorded 1056 total details. The researchers recorded half action, half

descriptive details, whereas the police recorded more action details than descriptive details. This was largely

due to the fact that the researchers asked more about descriptive details than the police.

The witnesses were split into peripheral and central witnesses, and this accounted for the variation in whatwas reported. 7 of the witnesses were central, and 6 were peripheral. Both of these groups were equally

accurate in their accounts, with 84% of central witnesses were accurate, and 79% of peripheral witnesses

were accurate. Leading questions did not affect the witnesss memories of the incident.


15/20


CONCLUSIONS:

The CONCLUSION was that eyewitness statement is remarkably accurate more accurate than labexperiments would suggest. Central witnesses were more accurate in their accounts, although both groups

were fairly equal. This is something else a lab experiment cannot capture.

Evaluation of Yuille & Cutshalls Study:

Strengths:

Ecological validity this study possesses a very high level of ecological validity. This is because it followed afield study design, and assessed the testimony of real witnesses to a real crime, instead of assessing

participants in an artificial situation.

Reliability the findings are reliable. This is because of the precise scoring procedure. If this procedure wereto be repeated, then the study is likely to produce the same results. Also, the data produced were

quantitative, and so researcher bias is limited and is unlikely to affect the findings.

Challenge to laboratory findings the accuracy of Yuille & Cutshalls witnesses and the lack of effect thatthe leading questions had upon recall supports the criticism that laboratory studies lack ecological validity

since the findings of such studies appear not to generalise to witnesses of real crimes.

Weaknesses:

Sample it may not be generalisable, and it would be unfair to criticise lab experiments with the evidencefrom this study. This is because the study assessed real witnesses from a very small sample of people. The

researchers themselves said they were investigating flashbulb memory, which is completely different from

what is studied in the lab.

Subjectivity the scoring system was sometimes inaccurate. This means that the results may be inaccurate.For example, the statement He looks as if he was in his early twenties was recorded as incorrect as the

thief was actually 35 regardless of whether the thief did look in his twenties. The type of scoring used

converted qualitative data into quantitative data, and so a degree of subjectivity may also be present.

Validity of the task although the researchers aimed to measure eyewitness memory, they acknowledgethat they may in fact have been testing flashbulb memory instead. Flashbulb memory is particularly vivid and

accurate memories associated with key emotional events.

NAME: Charlton et al (2000) The St. Helena study

A recent study was in St. Helena, a British Colony in theSouth Atlantic Ocean, which received television for the first time in

1995.

Despite expectations that the introduction of televisionwould produce an increase in anti-social behaviour, the researchersconcluded that very little changed following televisions arrival.

AIM:

The AIM of this study was to investigate the effects oftelevision on childrens behaviour, in particular whether TV affected

pro-social and anti-social behaviour.

METHOD:

The PROCEDURE involved studying the playground behaviour of 3-8 yr. old children before and after theintroduction of TV. This study is a quasi/naturalistic experiment because there is a clear IV and DV but the IV


16/20


(Before TV and after TV) occurred naturally as a result of the island introducing TV. The IV was not

deliberately manipulated by the researchers, it occurred naturally.

To collect data video recorders were set up in 2 schools 4 months prior to the introduction of TV in Mar 95and again 5 years later. The childrens free play during break times was recorded for a 2 week period both in

1995 and again 5 years later. Findings were compared to establish if behaviour had changed.

Eight playground behaviours were categorised as follows:

Pro Social Anti-social

1. Pro-social gestures or verbal commentsmade

2. Sharing, turn taking or helping3. Displaying affection or consoling others4. Holding hands, arm in arm

5. Anti-social gestures or verbal comments6. Kicking, punching, hitting7. Seizing or damaging property8. Non-compliant holding or forcing

Independent researchers in the UK watched the video footage and tallied how many times the children or agroup of children displayed these behaviours. Two researchers watched the same video footage and only

agreed tallied behaviours were recorded in the results. This is called inter-rater reliability.

RESULTS:

The RESULTS were based upon 64 comparisons made between the behaviour of children in 1995 and 2000. Only 9 of

the results were statistically significant:

2 Showed decreases in anti-social behaviour amongst boys 5 showed increases in pro-social behaviour in boys and girls 2 showed decreases in pro-social behaviour in boys Boys displayed less hitting and pushing after TV was introduced

Boys less willing to help or show affection Both boys and girls showed significant increases in pro-social behaviour overall.

CONCLUSION:

In CONCLUSION the introduction of TV had no negative effect on childrens behaviour (quite the opposite) this contradicts most laboratory research.

Evaluation of Charltons Study:

Strengths:

Reliability the use of videos means recorded behaviours can be checked and verified by independentobservers and eliminates subjective interpretation and bias. This makes the research more objective and

scientific. However, it is difficult to say if a change in behaviour was an effect of watching TV due to a lack of

control over extraneous variables.

Ecological Validity very good because the study looks at how actual TV programmes have an effect on realculture which has never experienced TV before. Children were observed in their natural setting of a

playground where they would normally engage in social behaviour and are not constrained by rules.

Ethics ethically this was a suitable way to investigate the role of the media on young childrens behavioursince it did not involve any direct manipulation by the researchers since the variables were naturallyoccurring.


17/20


Weaknesses:

Generalisability - St Helens is a close-knit community with a culture of close supervision and parental controlmeaning it is more difficult to generalise the results to more urbanised and modern cultures that we live in

since the children are not a representative sample of all cultures.

Validity was low because the television viewed was not similar to mainland TV programmes. Popularchildrens programmes involving aggression such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Power Rangers were

not broadcast.

Research methods used to study witness effectiveness:

Eyewitness testimony is an account people give of an incident they have witnessed. In criminologicalpsychology, an eyewitness will provide police with a statement about a crime they have witnessed.

Psychologists have questioned the effectiveness of witness testimony as many factors can affect a witness

including how they are questioned by the police. Therefore, psychologists have carried out research to study

the effectiveness of witnesses using a range of research methods. The two main ones are laboratory

experiments and field experiments.

Laboratory Experiments

Laboratory experiments used to examine witness effectiveness are conducted in artificial environmentswhere a researcher manipulates the independent variable and measures its effect on the dependent

variable.

They test a hypothesis that is generated from a theory and then the theory is amended or confirmedaccording to the results of the experiment.

A laboratory experiment is set up rather than occurring naturally and allows psychologists to makestatements about cause and effect.

A typical experiment on EWT will involve

o Gather participants to take part in a studyo Show participants a video or photographs of an incidento Gather the participants to recall it later in a memory test

One example of a laboratory experiment set up to examine witness effectiveness is by Loftus & Palmer(1974).

Strengths and weaknesses of using laboratory experiments to study witness effectiveness:

Strengths Weaknesses

Reliability Validity Quantitative data Sample Ethical issues Ethical issues

Strengths:

Reliability refers to the consistency of the findings of research. High reliability is established by usingexperimental controls and being able to replicate research. Laboratory experiments have high reliability

because it is possible to control many factors so that only one (the independent variable) is being studied

directly. For example, in Loftus & Palmers laboratory experiment of eyewitness testimony she had a high


18/20


level of control over participant and situational variables and showed participants the same video of a car

accident.

Quantitative data is numerical and potentially very reliable. Quantitative data allows statistical tests to beconducted on results; this means the likelihood of any effects being real or due to chance can be estimated

quite accurately. For example, in Loftus & Palmers laboratory experiment of eyewitness testimony she

collected quantitative data in the form of speed estimates.

Ethical issues can often be easier to address in a laboratory experiment. Protection of the participants ispossible if the procedure involves showing participants videos of crimes or incidents. Participants will be

informed of their right to withdraw from the experiment should they find the images upsetting. It is alsopossible to obtain the participants consent since they are aware of the fact they are participating in an

experiment.

Weaknesses:

Validity refers to how well a study measures what it is supposed to. Specifically, laboratory experiments ofeyewitness testimony lack ecological validity because they are conducted in artificial surroundings that do

not recreate the situation experienced by a real witness. For example, in Loftus & Palmers laboratory

experiment witnesses are prepared to view and recall from video footage. Under these conditions it is

unlikely they will experience the same distress as they will be aware that what they are witnessing is staged.

Also, the witnesses were not interviewed by the police but rather through the use of a questionnaire. Sample size is often a weakness when carrying out laboratory experiments of eyewitness testimony. Due to

the high levels of control needed to carry out the laboratory experiment in the same environment this is

often done at the expense of a large sample. This may mean that the sample lacks generalisability.

Furthermore, samples often consist of students as participants meaning that the population validity is low.

For example, Loftus & Palmer used a small sample of 45 students from the university where the research

was conducted. One problem with this is that the findings might not be generalisable to the whole

population; this is because students may have different motivation when carrying out the study.

Ethical issues can sometimes be a problem, namely deception and informed consent. In order to improvethe validity of the laboratory experiment and to avoid demand characteristics the researcher may choose to

deceive the participants. Such deception may result in participants feeling distressed or embarrassed which

in turn becomes a protection issue. Furthermore, the use of deception will inevitably mean that theinformed consent of participants was not obtained meaning that they were not fully aware of the nature and

consequences of the research.

Field Experiments and Field Studies:

Field experiments are also used to test witness effectiveness and also have control over the independentvariable whilst measuring the dependent variable.

However, field experiments are conducted in a more natural setting using real situations. Participants maywitness a live reenactment of a crime and then be asked questions about this crime later. Participants may

be people in that setting at that time and not people who have volunteered to take part in a study.

Field studies differ as there is no control over the independent variable and dependent variable. Oneexample of a field study is Yuille and Cutshall (1986) because they collected data using interviews and did

not have control over variables.

Strengths and weaknesses of using field experiments to study witness effectiveness:

Strengths Weaknesses

Less demand characteristics Reliability Ecological validity Validity of tasks Ethical issues Ethical issues


19/20


Strengths:

Less demand characteristics are associated with field experiments. There is little chance of the participantsworking out the aims of the experiment because they are usually unaware that they are taking part in

psychological research. This would mean that participants do not alter their behaviour in response to the

demands of the situation. For example, in Yarmeys (2004) field experiment on eyewitness recall and photo

identification participants were not aware they were taking part in a study so did not alter their behaviour in

response to the situation by paying special attention to the female who approached them.

Ecological validity refers to whether the task used in the research is something that would be encounteredin real life (mundane realism). Field experiments have good ecological validity because participants in the

research are essentially experiencing the conditions as a real eye witness. Furthermore, the research takes

place in the participants natural setting and it is likely that the results will generalise from the experiment to

real life. For example, in Yarmeys study witnesses were approached by female asking for help in a public

place which is a realistic environment for this situation to occur. It has mundane realism because it is

something that could happen in everyday life.

Ethical issues such as consent and the right to withdraw may be largely avoided in field experiments. If anincident is staged that a person might experience in their everyday lives, there is less need for consent.

Similarly, a right to withdraw may not be a significant issue if participants are likely to encounter the

situation in everyday life.

Weaknesses:

Reliability refers to the consistency of the findings of research. High reliability is established by usingexperimental controls and being able to replicate research. Field experiments have relatively low reliability

compared to laboratory experiments because such experiments are hard to replicate due to a lack of control

over variables. Extraneous variables such as situational variables may occur in a natural setting and these

variables may affect the findings of the experiment leading to inconsistent results and low reliability. For

example, in Yarmeys study there was a lack of control over the situational variables that may have affected

witnesses during the incident. The witness may not have been paying attention or may not have been able

to offer help therefore spending less time with the female than some other participants.

Validity of tasks may be low. For example, a line-up that has been set up is not the same as identifying areal-life criminal. It may simply involve guessing.

Ethical issues may arise when conducting field experiments. For example, protection of the participantsmust be carefully considered because they will believe the incident they are witnessing is a real-life event.

The researcher would need to weigh up the nature of the incident they are intending to stage to make sure

it does not cause excessive distress to the participants.

* Note, below is meant as a summary. You need to use the information produced in class and the summary of your

practical for revision.

Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable?

An Eye Witness is someone who witnessed an event and is later asked to recount the event from memory.This account is used in a criminal justice setting and is often the corner-stone of the prosecution case.

Research has found that juries pay particular attention to eye witness testimony in reaching a verdict.

Eyewitness testimony refers to an account given by people of an event they have witnessed. For example,they may be required to give a description of a robbery or a road accident someone has seen. This may

include identification of perpetrators, details of the crime scene and so on.

Elizabeth Loftus has argued that eye witness testimonies should be treated with caution and demonstratedthrough numerous studies that memory could easily be distorted by leading questions.


20/20


The Devlin Committee was set up to investigate the use of eye witness testimony in court. It found thatmany people have been convicted of serious crimes by eyewitness testimony alone. For example 82% of

suspects chosen from an identification parade were convicted and 74% of cases where eye witness

testimony was the only evidence were judged guilty.

The Devlin Report recommended that the trial judge be required to instruct the jury that it is not safe toconvict on a single eyewitness testimony alone, except in

exceptional circumstances or when there is substantial

corroborative evidence.

Whilst there is considerable evidence which supports thefindings that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, not all research

supports the findings of this argument. For example, in a study by

Yuille and Cutshall (1986) that looked at a real life crime it was

found that the reports of the crime were extremely reliable with

most witnesses giving accurate information. When the researchers

asked leading questions these had little effect.

Loftus developed the theory called the reconstructive hypothesis to explain how memory can be distortedand therefore why we should not trust eyewitness testimonies. She argues that two kinds of information go

into a persons memory of an event. The first is the information obtained from perceiving an event, and the

second is the other information supplied to us after the event (e.g. the question containing hit or smashed).

Over time, the information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable totell from which source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one memory.

Other information that you have learnt during this course may also explain why memory is not alwaysreliable and be used to improve the reliability of eye witness testimony.

Cue dependent memory can be used to help increase the amount of accurate detail recalled by an eyewitness. Police reconstructions reactivate context cues that were present at encoding to help trigger recall

of the events. By putting the witness back into the context in which the event happened they will recall more

detail. This assumes the original memory is available but not accessible without the right cues.

This may also be true of state cueswitnesses to crimes make be stressed and anxious. If left too longbefore being interviewed this state will change possibly affecting their ability to recall. By interviewing the

witness as soon as possible this effect will be minimised. Immediate interview might also help to avoid trace

decay affecting the memory of the event, as if left too long without recalling the event this theory suggeststhat the memory trace will fade away and be unavailable.

what do i need to learn criminal psychology

Documents