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