Criminal Psychology

harrietcolquhoun
Mind Map by harrietcolquhoun, updated more than 1 year ago
harrietcolquhoun
Created by harrietcolquhoun about 5 years ago
51
2

Description

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
1.2.1.1 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
2.1.1.1 Description
2.1.1.1.1 Controlled, artificial environment
2.1.1.1.1.1 Manipulation of IV to record effect on DV
2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Measures cause & effect
2.1.1.1.2 standardised procedure
2.1.1.2 E.g.
2.1.1.2.1 Loftus & Palmer
2.1.1.3 Strenghts
2.1.1.3.1 High controls and precise DV measures
2.1.1.3.1.1 ensures p's treated same way
2.1.1.3.1.1.1 = repeatable
2.1.1.3.1.1.1.1 = reliable
2.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1 Loftus reliable evidence provides labs value
2.1.1.3.1.1.1.2 e.g. second L&P study
2.1.1.3.2 Independent groups = lowers DC as they can't guess aim
2.1.1.3.3 Consent
2.1.1.4 Weaknesses
2.1.1.4.1 Unrealistic
2.1.1.4.1.1 Artificial
2.1.1.4.1.1.1 lacks ecological vailidity
2.1.1.4.2 Deception
2.1.1.4.2.1 Harms ability to withdraw
2.1.2 Field Experiments
2.1.2.1 Description
2.1.2.1.1 provides cause & effect in a natural environment via an artificial task
2.1.2.1.1.1 e.g. observing children in a playground
2.1.2.2 E.g.
2.1.2.2.1 Yarmey
2.1.2.3 Strengths
2.1.2.3.1 can test people memories of real life events
2.1.2.3.1.1 comparable with the type of memory accessed during EWT
2.1.2.3.2 can control Iv
2.1.2.3.2.1 Increasing reliability and validity
2.1.2.3.3 Ecological Validity
2.1.2.4 Weaknesse
2.1.2.4.1 Lack control over situational variables
2.1.2.4.1.1 Decreasing reliability
2.1.2.4.2 Deception
2.1.2.4.2.1 but lowers DC
2.1.2.4.2.2 Consent
2.1.3 Field Studies
2.1.3.1 Decription
2.1.3.1.1 Gathers data from a real life event in a natural enviornment
2.1.3.2 E.g.
2.1.3.2.1 Yuille and Cutshall
2.1.3.3 Strengths
2.1.3.3.1 task + enviornment = natural
2.1.3.3.1.1 = more valid as more true to life and holistic
2.1.3.4 Weaknesses
2.1.3.4.1 Not replicable
2.1.3.4.1.1 Can't be tested for reliability
2.1.3.4.2 Lose control of variables, consistency and focus
2.1.3.4.2.1 can = incomparable, incomplete info
2.2 Loftus & Palmer 1974
2.2.1 Eval
2.2.1.1 Strengths
2.2.1.1.1 clear controls = rep = reli
2.2.1.1.1.1 Reliable with 2nd experiment
2.2.1.1.2 Estimation of speed and y/n to glass = quantitative
2.2.1.1.2.1 = no interpretation
2.2.1.1.2.1.1 = objective
2.2.1.1.3 Practical Applications
2.2.1.1.3.1 Courts & CJS
2.2.1.2 Weakness
2.2.1.2.1 Video = not same emotional strain etc of actual witness
2.2.1.2.1.1 = less valid
2.2.1.2.2 Not gen as only students used - not representative sample
2.2.1.2.3 DC
2.2.1.2.3.1 may have figured out aim and answered accordingly
2.2.2 Experiment One
2.2.2.1 Aim
2.2.2.1.1 whether phrasing of a Q would affect estimates of speed;
2.2.2.1.1.1 Applying findings to leading Q in court
2.2.2.2 Procedure
2.2.2.2.1 45 students, 5 groups
2.2.2.2.2 Shown 7 films of traffic accidents
2.2.2.2.2.1 between 5 and 30 sec long
2.2.2.2.2.2 after every film = questionnaire
2.2.2.2.3 Had to give account of accident too
2.2.2.2.4 Main Q = speed
2.2.2.2.4.1 Each group asked
2.2.2.2.4.1.1 how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?
2.2.2.2.4.1.1.1 Contacted
2.2.2.2.4.1.1.2 Bumped
2.2.2.2.4.1.1.3 Smashed
2.2.2.2.4.1.1.4 Collided
2.2.2.2.4.1.1.5 Hit
2.2.2.3 Findings
2.2.2.3.1 Mean Speed Estimates
2.2.2.3.1.1 Contacted - 31.8
2.2.2.3.1.2 Hit - 34
2.2.2.3.1.3 Bumped - 38.1
2.2.2.3.1.4 Collided - 39.3
2.2.2.3.1.5 Smashed - 40.8
2.2.2.4 Conclusion
2.2.2.4.1 Form of Q can effect W. answer
2.2.2.4.2 word used could help judge speed when unsure
2.2.2.4.2.1 or affect/alter memory and severity
2.2.3 Experiment Two
2.2.3.1 Procedure
2.2.3.1.1 150 p's
2.2.3.1.2 Film = multiple car accidents
2.2.3.1.3 Describe incident in own words then answer Q
2.2.3.1.3.1 Some asked Q about speed with word hit
2.2.3.1.3.1.1 others smashed
2.2.3.1.3.1.2 others =control as not asked about speed
2.2.3.1.4 Week later (without film again)
2.2.3.1.4.1 asked if saw broken glass (there was none)
2.2.3.2 Results
2.2.3.2.1 Estimate speed between smashed & hit had a difference of 2.46mph
2.2.3.2.2 Smahed = 16/50 yes to glass
2.2.3.2.3 Hit = 7/50
2.2.3.2.4 Control = 6/50
2.2.3.3 Conclusion
2.2.3.3.1 way Q asked can = effect on answer
2.2.3.3.2 memory = fed by event
2.2.3.3.2.1 and external info afterwards
2.2.3.3.2.1.1 these integrate over time = single memory
2.3 Yarmey 2004
2.3.1 Description
2.3.1.1 Aim
2.3.1.1.1 Effects of being part of a filed experiment related to eyewitness recall and photo identification
2.3.1.1.1.1 how disguise would affect retrieval
2.3.1.1.2 whether instructions given before recall would affect identification
2.3.1.1.3 whether 4 hour time gap affects
2.3.1.2 Procedure
2.3.1.2.1 215 males, 375 females
2.3.1.2.1.1 18-70
2.3.1.2.1.2 only white to avoid race bais
2.3.1.2.2 randomly assigned to conditions
2.3.1.2.2.1 Being prepared (told would be witness)
2.3.1.2.2.2 A disguise (baseball cap & sunglasses)
2.3.1.2.2.3 Retrieval instructions enhanced or not
2.3.1.2.2.4 Tested immediately or 4hours
2.3.1.2.2.5 Gender of witness
2.3.1.2.2.6 target present in line up or not
2.3.1.2.3 Two white women =targets to be identified
2.3.1.2.4 P's approached in public
2.3.1.2.4.1 asked to help look for jewellery or directions
2.3.1.2.4.1.1 after 2 mins = other woman ask if be part of study
2.3.1.2.4.1.1.1 Questionnaire
2.3.1.2.4.1.1.1.1 8 Q = physical charac, 8= clothing
2.3.1.2.4.1.1.1.1.1 rated confidence on 7point scale
2.3.1.2.5 6 photos, 1/2 time she was present
2.3.1.2.5.1 told may not be present, shown photo once, then debriefing
2.3.2 Eval
2.3.2.1 Strenghts
2.3.2.1.1 natural = ecological v
2.3.2.1.2 Control over conditions
2.3.2.1.2.1 replicable = reliable
2.3.2.1.3 Range of ages/gender = representative + gen
2.3.2.2 Weaknesses
2.3.2.2.1 photo line isn't same as real life
2.3.2.2.1.1 doesn't offer buid/body language etc = lacks v itself
2.3.2.2.2 P's met and spoke to target - isn't always case in real life
2.3.2.2.3 not valid as not crime
2.3.3 Results
2.3.3.1 when present 49% identified her
2.3.3.1.1 62% correctly said when she wasnt
2.3.3.2 Those prepared for test = better at recall not identification
2.3.3.3 Conclusion
2.3.3.3.1 50% witness makes a correct identification when present
2.3.3.3.1.1 = doubt on assumption that EWT and identification =accurate
2.4 Yuille & Cutshall 1986
2.4.1 Desciption
2.4.1.1 Aim
2.4.1.1.1 Compare interviews immediately at the time, carried out by police, with those carried out by researchers
2.4.1.1.1.1 researchers incorporated misleading Q
2.4.1.1.2 Record and eval witness accouts
2.4.1.1.2.1 look at accuracy and errors made in accounts
2.4.1.2 Procedure
2.4.1.2.1 20/20 contacted who saw shooting
2.4.1.2.1.1 13 took part
2.4.1.2.2 Verbatim (wforw) police interview reports
2.4.1.2.2.1 p's described events in own words
2.4.1.2.2.1.1 police asked Q to amplify what said
2.4.1.2.2.1.1.1 interviews recorded by hand
2.4.1.2.3 4/5months later
2.4.1.2.3.1 p's were interviewed (recorded and transcribed
2.4.1.2.3.2 gave account and answered Q
2.4.1.2.3.2.1 2 Q = misleading
2.4.1.2.3.2.1.1 1 = broken head light
2.4.1.2.3.2.1.1.1 (not broken)
2.4.1.2.3.2.1.2 yellow quarter panel
2.4.1.2.3.2.1.2.1 (was blue)
2.4.1.2.3.2.2 asked 7 scale degree of stress
2.4.1.2.3.2.2.1 emotional state before and problems afterwards (e.g. sleeplessness)
2.4.1.2.4 careful scoring
2.4.1.2.4.1 divided into
2.4.1.2.4.1.1 action details
2.4.1.2.4.1.2 description
2.4.1.2.4.1.2.1 object
2.4.1.2.4.1.2.2 person
2.4.1.2.4.2 was some difficuties
2.4.1.3 Results
2.4.1.3.1 police gained more action and person details
2.4.1.3.1.1 researchers gained more object
2.4.1.3.1.1.1 as asked things = no interest to police
2.4.1.3.2 Variation in what witnesses reported as seen different amounts of incident
2.4.1.3.2.1 7 central
2.4.1.3.2.1.1 in police 84.56%
2.4.1.3.2.2 6 peripheral
2.4.1.3.2.2.1 79.31%
2.4.1.3.2.3 both equally accurate
2.4.1.3.3 months late errors were relatively rare and accuracy = high
2.4.1.3.4 misleading Q = little effec
2.4.1.3.4.1 10/13 said no broken headlight/ yellow
2.4.1.3.4.1.1 or didn't see
2.4.1.4 Conclusion
2.4.1.4.1 may be investigating flashbulb memory
2.4.1.4.1.1 specific & relevant event is recorded in memory in great deatil
2.4.1.4.1.1.1 Direct involvement = remembered more
2.4.1.4.1.1.1.1 doesn't happen in lab
2.4.1.4.2 Misleading Q = not effect
2.4.1.4.2.1 goes against lab
2.4.1.4.3 stress didn't negatively effect
2.4.2 Eval
2.4.2.1 Weaknesses
2.4.2.1.1 not easy to gen
2.4.2.1.1.1 13 p's
2.4.2.1.1.2 unique event
2.4.2.1.2 problems with scoring
2.4.2.1.3 field = difficult to replicate
2.4.2.2 Strengths
2.4.2.2.1 shows EWT can be accurate - goes against lab results
2.4.2.2.1.1 maybe cause so unique
2.4.2.2.2 field study
2.4.2.2.2.1 = real environment + situation
2.4.2.2.2.1.1 validity
2.4.2.2.3 care was taken to make sure testimonies never altered
2.4.2.2.3.1 = finings seem reliable
2.4.3 first ever investigation in EWT to use real witnesses of real incident
Show full summary Hide full summary

Similar

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
chancice.branscombe
Input and Output Devices
Jess Peason
Rivers GCSE WJEC
Eleanor Monk
AQA AS Biology Unit 2 DNA and Meiosis
elliedee
Psychopathology
Laura Louise
NCEA Guide to Studying
Kerrin _
1PR101 2.test - Část 2.
Nikola Truong