Criminal Psychology

Mind Map by harrietcolquhoun, updated more than 1 year ago
Created by harrietcolquhoun about 5 years ago


Mind Map on Criminal Psychology, created by harrietcolquhoun on 11/28/2014.

Resource summary

Criminal Psychology
1 Definitions
1.1 Crime
1.1.1 Actions deemed punishable which are against the written criminal law
1.2 Antisocial behaviour
1.2.1 Behaviours which are considered socially unacceptable, of which society doesn't approve of Not necessarily against law
1.2.2 E.g. Intimitatding behaviour
1.3 Recidivism
1.3.1 Repeating a crime/ behaviour that you have already been punished/ treated for
1.4 Eyewitness Testimony
1.4.1 A statement given by someone who witnessed a criminal incident
1.5 Stereotyping
1.5.1 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
1.6 Modelling
1.6.1 Way of learning whereby behaviours are learned when rewarding that behaviour is observed of others
1.7 Token Economy
1.7.1 System of behaviour modification based on operant conditioning techniques
2 Eye Witness Testomonies
2.1 Research Methods
2.1.1 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
2.1.2 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
2.1.3 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
2.2 Loftus & Palmer 1974
2.2.1 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
2.2.2 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
2.2.3 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
2.3 Yarmey 2004
2.3.1 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
2.3.2 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
2.3.3 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
2.4 Yuille & Cutshall 1986
2.4.1 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
2.4.2 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
2.4.3 first ever investigation in EWT to use real witnesses of real incident
Show full summary Hide full summary


Understanding the offender
Alice Storr
Criminal Psychology
Kirralee West
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Emma Lloyd
Factors Affecting Jury Decision Making
Emma Lloyd
GCSE Chemistry C1.1 - Fundamental Ideas in Chemistry
Input and Output Devices
Jess Peason
Eleanor Monk
AQA AS Biology Unit 2 DNA and Meiosis
Laura Louise
NCEA Guide to Studying
Kerrin _
1PR101 2.test - Část 2.
Nikola Truong