Flashcards
Sem título
Flashcards do conjunto (66)
- 1Aim of the Piliavin studyPiliavin et al. set out to investigate how the nature of the situation would affect the helping behaviour of those present.
- 2IV's1.The TYPE of victim (drunk / ill with a cane)
2.The RACE of the victim (black / white)
3.The effect of the MODEL (how would the others respond when one person offered assistance either 70 or 150 sec)
4.The relationship between GROUP SIZE and HELPING BEHAVIOUR (testing DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY) - 3DV's1.Speed and frequency of help given
2.Race and sex of the helper
3.Movement out of critical area
4.Verbal comments from bystanders - 4Research methodField exp. using participant observation
- 5Participants: The confederatesTHE CONFEDERATES: 16 columbia general studies students. Split into 4 teams of 4 (2 M,2F). 1=vicim(male) 2=helper(male) 3+4=observers(female)
- 6Participants: Real4450 male and female traveling on NY subway (Harlem to the Bronx) between 11 am and 3pm on weekdays between 15th April and 26th June (apx. 2 months). Opportunity sample.
- 7The trials7.5 min journey. 103 trials over 2 months. team of four students boarded via different doors. Each exp. used different parts of the train. F confederates sat outside the critical area and observed, while the M confederates stood.
- 8The trialsThe victim always stood next to a pole in the centre of the c. area. once the train had passed the first station the victim would collapse. remained motionless on the floor looking at the ceiling. if he received no help by the time the train stopped the model helped him to his feet.
- 9The four victimsall male aged (26-35) 3 white, 1 black, all identically dressed; Eisenhower jackets, old sacks and no tie. on 38 of the trails they smelt of alcohol and held a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a brown bag(drunk). 65 trials appeared sober and carried a black cane.
- 10Modelswhite males aged (24-26) all casually but not identically dressed. the model helped the victim to a sitting position and stayed with them.
- 11critical area - earlythe model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the fourth station before he helped the victim (apx 70 s after collapse)
- 12critical area - latethe model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the sixth station before he helped the victim (apx 150 s after collapse)
- 13adjacent area - earlythe model would stand in the adjacent area and wait until passing the 4th station before he helped
- 14adjacent area - latethe model would stand in the adjacent area and waited until passing the 6th station before he helped
- 15data collection - 1st observernoted the race, sex and location of every passenger in the critical area. the latency period (time it took the first helper). in the model condition - how long it took someone else to help after the model had started to help. both: noted comments
- 16Data collection - 2nd observernoted the race, sex and location of every passenger in the adjacent area. the latency period (time it took the first helper). in the model condition - how long it took someone else to help after the model had started to help.
both: noted comments - 17Results - the effect of the modelhelping behaviour was very high, much higher than in the lad studies. therefore it wasn't possible to investigate the effects as people helped before the model acted
- 18Results - who helped90% 1st helpers were males. 64% of first helpers were white. help was offered more quickly in the cane condition (5s) - drunk (109s). black victims received help less quickly. in the drunk condition there was slight same race effect
- 19Results - diffusion of responsibility60% of trials with help saw multiple good samaritans. most model conditions weren't used due to spontaneous help being given first. quickest spontaneous help game from the largest group.
- 20Qualitative datafemale passengers: "it's for men to help", "I wish I could help him - i'm not strong enough", "I never saw this kind of thing before - I don't know where to look", "you feel so bad that you don't know what to do"
- 21Learning from others introDifferential association theory was proposed by Sutherland and states that criminal behaviour is a learned response. If individuals are socialised (raised) around criminal activity they will observe and then imitate that behaviour. This is a social learning explanation for turning to crime and Bandura showed that negative behaviours (aggression)can be learned in this way.
- 22Learning from others Key study/techniqueBandura (1961)
Aim = to demonstrate that if children are exposed to an aggressive adult role model they will imitate that behaviour.
Method = 72 children aged 3-5 years from Stanford University nursery took part in a lab experiment. They were matched for levels of aggression and placed into one of the 3 conditions - aggressive role model (room 1 = novel acts of aggression towards Bobo doll), non-aggressive role model (room 1 = ignored Bobo doll and played with toys), and a control group (no model). Children were then frustrated before being taken to the observation room, where their own aggressive/non-aggressive behaviour was measured.
Findings = The children who observed the aggressive model displayed the novel aggressive acts they had seen in room 1. They also displayed more non-imitated aggressive acts than the other children. - 23Learning from others ConclusionThis study demonstrates that children can learn to behave aggressively through observing others which suggests that if a young person is exposed to criminal behaviour in role models it is likely they will imitate it. It supports Sutherland's proposal that if a child is raised in an environment where the social norms are favourable towards criminal activities then the young person will consider crime to be acceptable and may be drawn into a life of crime. This was further supported by Matthews (1968) who found that juvenile delinquents are more likely than non-delinquents to report having friends who also engage in criminal activity.
- 24Learning from others Issues/Debates :)ab experiment is well controlled and easily replicated so has high internal validity and reliability
Useful as it suggests a cause of crime and could be used to develop interventions (practical applications) such as young children having more positive role models.
Provides evidence to support the 'nurture' side of the nature versus nurture debate - 25Learning from others Issues/Debates :(Bandura's study is a snapshot study so we do not know the long term effects of being exposed to the aggressive model
Lacks ecological validity as the model was a strange adult who gave no explanation for their behaviour – this would not reflect real life
Deterministic explanation as suggests child has no free will regarding who/what to observe and imitate
Reductionist explanation as only considers environmental influences and ignores biological factors
Mostly Quantitative data – little insight - 26Disrupted families introCriminal behaviour is often seen to run in families and it may be that problematic behaviour in the parents leads to problematic behaviour in the children. This was identified by Johnson (2004) who found in a New York study that problematic parental behaviour (e.g. inconsistent enforcement of rules, use of guilt to control child's behaviour, problems in controlling anger with the child) was strongly associated with anti-social behaviour of the child.
- 27Disrupted families Key study/techniqueFarrington (2006) conducted the Cambridge study in Delinquent Development.
Aim = to see whether delinquent and criminal behaviour can be predicted, why it starts and why it often ends in 20s.
Method = 411 white, working class South London males from 6 primary schools studied longitudinally. At age 48, 93% of sample interviewed. Boys interviewed at school, home and a work once older. Mothers and teachers also interviewed. Criminal records searched.
Findings = at 48, 161 of sample had convictions. Started between 10-13 years and 91% reconvicted at least once. 7% chronic offenders and all shared similar childhood characteristics. - convicted parent, delinquent sibling, young mother, large family size (4 or more children). Distinguished between 'persisters' (convicted before and after age 20) and 'desisters' (committed crime only up to age 20). Found the 'desisters' were no different from those who had never been convicted. - 28Disrupted families ConclusionFarrington's study supports the idea that family influences are very important and that problem families produce problem children so that crime follows from one generation to the next. This may be because parents and other siblings can act as role models (as in Sutherland's differential association theory), but it could also be that young parents/large families offer scope for delinquent children to 'slip through the net' due to being difficult to control. Also some children may be rebelling against harsh parenting styles.
- 29Disrupted families Issues/Debates :)Longitudinal study so tracks the development of criminal behaviour over 42 years so can see why it developed in some but not others
Collects both qualitative (behaviour, living circumstances, relationships) and quantitative data (number of offences)
Useful as it suggests a cause of crime and could be used to develop interventions (practical applications) such as extra support for 'problem families'
Provides evidence to support the 'nurture' side of the nature versus nurture debate - 30Disrupted families Issues/Debates :(Participant attrition may affect the validity of the data collected as 7% dropped out and we don't know what happened to them.
Self-report method – validity may be affected by social desirability bias
Deterministic explanation as suggests child has no free will regarding what kind of family they grow up in
Reductionist explanation as only considers environmental influences and ignores biological factors
Low population validity as all white working class males from South London - 31Poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods introA traditional assumption in criminology is that people from low socio-economic groups are more likely to engage in criminal behaviours because they live in communities which fail to control their members.
- 32Poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods Key study/techniqueWilkstrom et al (2002-7) conducted the Peterborough Adolescent Development Study (PADS)
Aim = to identify individual and environmental factors which encourage/discourage offending during adolescence
Method = 700 year 7 children randomly selected in Peterborough in 2002 and data was collected every year until 2007 (age 12/13 to 15/16) through a parents questionnaire, psychometric testing, young person's questionnaire covering family life, school experiences, offending and use of substances, 1 to 1 interviews on participants exposure to environments. Environmental data was collected through postal surveys.
Findings = Exposure to environments that provided opportunities for crime was linked to offending. Neighbourhood disadvantage was linked with the presence of environments providing opportunities for crime. Weak morality and self-control also predicted participants offending, but it was noted that these were affected by family and school variables e.g level of parental nurturing. - 33Poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods conclusionWilkstrom concluded that the findings suggest it is not the fact that someone lives in a disadvantaged area which leads to offending, but rather than someone is exposed to environments where crime or opportunities for crime are high, due to poorer security, accepted norms etc. He also suggested that this can lead to a better understanding of how to predict offending and target interventions more effectively . It could be that people choose to interact in such environments for the opportunity to commit crimes and we need to address how and why these neighbourhoods provide circumstances that allow crime to be committed more easily than in other areas.
- 34Poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods Issues/Debates :)Longitudinal study so tracks the development of criminal behaviour over 5 years so can see why it developed in some but not others
Collects both qualitative (family life, school experiences etc.) and quantitative data (e.g. psychometric tests on memory, emotion, level of morality etc.)
Useful as it suggests a cause of crime and could be used to develop interventions (practical applications) such as initiatives to improve neighbourhoods
Provides evidence to support the 'nurture' side of the nature versus nurture debate - 35Poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods Issues/Debates :(Participant attrition may affect the validity of the data collected
Self-report method – validity may be affected by social desirability bias
Low population validity as all children from Peterborough area
Slightly less Deterministic explanation as although it suggests child has no free will regarding what kind of neighbourhood they grow up in, Wilkstrom suggests people can choose whether to socialise in certain neighbourhoods or not.
Reductionist explanation as only considers environmental influences and ignores biology - 36Brain dysfunction introIt has been suggested that certain brain areas might be directly involved in lawful/criminal behaviours. One area is the pre-frontal cortex which has been linked with morality and conscience. Another is the amygdala (part of limbic system) which regulates emotion. Someone with dysfunction in these areas may be more likely to offend because they are more likely to lose control of their emotions and see nothing wrong in lashing out because they do not see that it is the wrong thing to do.
- 37Brain dysfunction Key study/techniqueRaine et al (1977)
Aim = to investigate brain functioning using PET scans in a group of murderers who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Method = Quasi experiment, 41 ppts NGRI (39m and 2F) and 41 controls. Groups matched on age and gender., 6 NGRIs matched with 6 controls with Sz. All ppts had no meds for 2 weeks before brain scanning. Glucose tracer injected and Ppts did target recognition task for 32 mins. Compared to controls on level of activity (glucose metabolism) in right and left hemispheres in 14 selected area.
Findings = NGRIs less activity in prefrontal, parietal areas. Amygdala and hippocampus more activity in right hemisphere than left. - 38Brain dysfunction ConclusionStudy supports the idea that brain dysfunction may cause crime. Activity in the amygdala controls emotional responses such as fear so a low response may mean a lack of fear which could cause aggression. A low level of response in the prefrontal cortex could mean that criminals fail to see that their behaviour is unacceptable and don't feel any guilt or remorse that their behaviour is harming others. Therefore, differing levels of activity in these areas could explain why some people turn to crime.
- 39Brain dysfunction Issues/Debates :)Quasi experiment is conducted in lab - well controlled and easily replicated so has high internal validity and reliability.
Ethical as no manipulation of behaviour
Collects very objective and scientific quantitative data.
Provides evidence to support the 'nature' side of the nature versus nurture debate - 40Brain dysfunction Issues/Debates :(Level of brain dysfunction is not controlled due to it being a quasi experiment. More difficult to assess cause and effect.
Raine's study is a snapshot study so we do not know whether there were any changes in brain function over time
Poor population validity as the sample is gender biased – only two females
Lacks ecological validity as the participants were performing tasks while being scanned
Deterministic explanation as suggests criminal behaviour is pre-determined and people are not responsible for their crimes.
Reductionist explanation as only considers biological influences and ignores environmental factors - 41Genes and serotonin intoCriminal behaviour is recognised to run in families and researchers have investigated whether this might be due to genetic abnormality. Genes influence the production of neurotransmitters such as serotonin - a chemical produced by the brain that governs mood and emotion. An imbalance in serotonin levels in the brain has been proposed as a significant cause of aggressive behaviour which could explain why some people commit violent crimes.
- 42Genes and serotonin Key study/techniqueBrunner et al (1993) aim = to carry out an investigation of one family in Holland where there was a history of borderline mental retardation and abnormal violent behaviour.
Method =5 affected males had urine samples taken over a 24 hour period.
Findings = In each of the 5 males a mutation was found on the X chromosome of the gene responsible for the production of MAOA, an enzyme that breaks down serotonin. This meant that the affected family members did not produce enough MAOA which led to build ups of serotonin which could have caused their violent behaviour. - 43Genes and serotonin conclusionWhile this study does not identify a specific 'criminal gene' it does highlight a link between genetic defects and violent behaviour. This suggests that some people may be predisposed to commit violent crimes due to their genetic make-up – the so-called 'warrior gene'. This would account for individuals following in their parent's footsteps as the parent has passed on a genetic tendency towards that behaviour rather than it being learned.
- 44Genes and serotonin Issues/Debates :)Ethical as no manipulation of behaviour
Collects very objective and scientific quantitative data.
Useful as it suggests a cause of crime and could be used to develop drug treatments to stop the build up of serotonin.
Provides evidence to support the 'nurture' side of the nature versus nurture debate - 45Genes and serotonin Issues/Debates :(Snapshot study – only tested over 24 hour period so we do not know whether there were any changes over time
Low population validity as only case study of 5 participants
Deterministic explanation as suggests that if people have this genetic defect they have no control over their criminal behaviour
Reductionist explanation as only considers biological influences and ignores environmental factors. Further research has shown the MAOA gene only seems to have a negative effect when combined with abuse in childhood - 46Gender introMales are more likely to commit crimes than females and evolutionary psychology has attempted to explain why. Daly and Wilson proposed a socio-biological explanation which suggests that males show more risk taking and impulsive behaviour as they are under pressure to reproduce and ensure their genes are passed to the next generation. In order to do this they have to attract a female which creates intra-sexual competition as they have to compete with other males. Daly and Wilson suggest this can lead to a high level of violence amongst males and can explain the high numbers of murders between males (compared to between females)
- 47Gender Key study/techniqueDaly and Wison (1985) aim = to investigate gender patterns in violent crime
Method = reviewed police records in 1972 from Detroit to analyse the age and sex of both the perpetrator and victim of reported crime.
Findings = The majority of homicides were committed by men – 422 compared to 90 by females. In 348 of the homicides committed by makes, the victim was also male. Reasons for the crimes by males were jealousy, showing off and retaliation. For the small number of murders committed by females the reason tended to be self defence. - 48Genes conclusionThis study clearly highlights that there are gender differences in violent crimes and this could be due to males engaging in risk taking and aggressive behaviour in order to compete for females to reproduce and pass on their genes. Daly and Wison suggest that dangerous and confrontational behaviour is not unique to humans and is shown in the animal kingdom. This study highlights that males fight each other to reduce the competition and also to show off in order to gain status. This would serve to warn off other men and also attract females.
- 49Genes Issues/Debates :)Collects both qualitative (reasons for murders) and quantitative data (number of male/female perpetrators, number of male/female victims.)
Reliable – easy to replicate in other places
Useful as helps to explain gender differences in crime.
Provides evidence to support the 'nurture' side of the nature versus nurture debate - 50Genes Issues/Debates :(Snapshot study – only looked at criminal records at one point in time.
Low population validity as sample from one city in one country
Deterministic explanation as it suggests males have no control over their behaviour and cannot help being impulsive, risk-taking, aggressive
Reductionist explanation as only considers biological influences and ignores environmental factors - 51Criminal Thinking Patterns introThe concept is if criminals display more errors in thinking than non criminals and if criminals think differently about the world around them then we could start to understand why they chose to engage in such behaviour. If we are to investigate whether or not criminals do indeed think in a different way than non-criminals, we need to know what they are thinking.
- 52Criminal Thinking Patterns Key study/techniqueYochelson and Samenow 1976: The Criminal Personality
Aim: To identify the criminal personality by looking at the roles of errors and biases in the thinking patterns of criminals. Participants: The study used 255 males of both black and white descent, from various backgrounds including inner city, suburban, wealthy and poor. All were convicted offenders serving time in the Washington DC area. Roughly half the sample was considered to have some form of insanity and these individuals were found to be incapable of being held responsible due to their illness. The other half were not considered to have diminished responsibility. Method: A series of interviews was conducted with participants over a 14 year period. Their therapy consisted of Freudian based sessions designed to find the root cause of their criminal behaviour and help them to face it. The criminals were then expected to improve their behaviour by stopping the following; lying, abusing drugs and stealing hospital supplies. Results: In total 52 thinking patterns or ‘errors’ were found. For example, ‘closed thinking’ not - 53Criminal Thinking Patterns ConclusionThis shows that there are criminal thinking patterns and that the more of them you have, the more likely you are to be a criminal. Overall it is seen that criminals actively distance themselves from others, and will justify any actions that benefit themselves, regardless of any cost to others. Their thought patterns revolve around themselves and they think more of how people can be of benefit rather than any impact their actions may have on others
- 54Criminal Thinking Patterns Issues/Debates :)Usefulness – 9 participants showed a change in their thinking patterns after the therapy sessions which suggests that this method can be used to prevent offenders committing crimes in the future.
Type of data – Both – Quant is gathered in terms of the number of thinking errors identified (52), Enables comparisons to be made.
Qual gathered in terms of the thinking errors themselves, so we know how they think.
Methods- Self reports - Allows access to the minds of offenders so that we can see what motivates them to offend and how they process information generally. - 55Criminal Thinking Patterns Issues/Debates :(Lack of controls – Lack of control group allows no confirmation that these thinking patterns exist only in offenders.
Validity – Interviews with criminals may lead to socially desirable answers.
Sample/Usefulness – Only 30/255 participants completed the study therefore it cannot be confidently concluded that the therapy worked to change thinking patterns.
Self report method – validity may be affected by social desirability bias - 56Moral Development and Crime introMoral development represents the process of becoming aware of right and wrong in society. In the UK it is believed that children know right from wrong by the age of 10 years. This means that 10 year olds can be sentenced to imprisonment in a young offenders’ institution. The murder of James Bulger was one such example. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson admitted they knew what they did was wrong so they were held responsible. They were found guilty at the age of 11.
- 57Moral Development and Crime Key study/techniquePalmer & Hollin (1998): A comparison of patterns of moral development in young offenders and non-offenders
Aim: To investigate differences in levels of moral reasoning between male offenders and non-offenders. Participants: A control group of 332 non-offenders, 122 male and 210 female aged 13-22, was compared with a group of male offenders aged 13-21 in the UK. Method: A self report study was carried out that identified socio-economic status, level of moral reasoning and actual offending levels. Respondents were assured that the questionnaires were entirely confidential Results: The offenders admitted to more acts of criminality than the non-offenders. It was also found that the male offenders tended to operate at the pre-conventional level and non-offenders at the conventional level of moral reasoning. Overall, the group with the highest level of moral reasoning were female non-offenders. - 58Moral Development and Crime ConclusionThis supports the idea that low levels of morality could be a cause of criminal behaviour. Some people unfortunately develop a lack of moral reasoning and these people don’t care very much about breaking the rules of the law and tend to be impulsive and short-sighted, leaving them more vulnerable to the temptations of crime – they are ‘crime-prone’. This development (or lack of) moral reasoning occurs in early life, and is seen to be a key factor in understanding criminality.
- 59Moral Development and Crime Issues/Debates :)Population Validity – Large sample size of males and females between 13-22 years in the UK.
Usefulness – Can create interventions to ensure children/young adults progress through the moral development stages as illustrated by Kohlberg. - 60Moral Development and Crime Issues/Debates :(Internal Validity - Self reports so open to social desirability bias.
Reductionism – Argues that criminals lack of moral development is a reason for their actions whilst failing to mention other factors e.g. biology.
Population Validity – Culturally bias as participants are all from the UK so cannot generalise the morality of criminals in other countries. - 61Social Cognition introSocial cognition refers to how people make sense of the social world. One of the key concepts in the area of social cognition is Attribution. Attribution simply means ‘explanation of behaviour’. An internal attribution means a person may explain their own behaviour as being a result of something to do with themselves. A situational attribution is when a person explain their behaviour as the result of a factor outside of their control. A specific type of attribution error is a persons’ tendency to attribute their successes to themselves and their failings to something else, known as a self serving bias. Criminals are more likely to make situational attributions as they excuse their criminal behaviour as a result of poor parenting, peer pressure etc.
- 62Social Cognition Key study/techniqueScully and Marolla (1984):
Aim: To investigate the attributions made by rapists for their criminal behaviour and the result on their reported self image.
Participants: 114 convicted rapists
Method: Interviews were carried out to find out how the rapists justified or explained their actions.
Results: 40% of offenders blamed the victim, portraying her as a willing seductress. The remaining 60% blamed alcohol or drugs for their actions. Either way, the offenders were making attributions that shifted blame away from themselves and onto external factors. Therefore, they were making situational attributions. - 63Social Cognition ConclusionIt seems that the self serving bias enabled the rapists to maintain a positive self image. Making a situational attribution for their criminal behaviour allowed the offenders to view themselves in a positive way in spite of the fact that they had been convicted of rape. The self serving bias allows for excuses and ‘justifications’ of criminal behaviour, and while providing a positive self image it is hoped by the criminal that others will feel sympathy and show an understanding of their behaviour
- 64Social Cognition Issues/Debates :)Validity - Allows access to the minds of offenders so that we can see what motivates them to offend and how they process information generally.
Type of data – Qualitative – responses from the interviews allows us to gain insight into reasons why the rapists commited the crimes.
Also collected quantitative data such as 40% of offenders blamed the victim, portraying her as a willing seductress. The remaining 60% blamed alcohol or drugs for their actions. Can draw clear conclusions. - 65Social Cognition Issues/Debates :(Validity - Strong risk of social desirability bias. Convicted offenders are unlikely to admit fault if in their own mind it could harm their chances of release. Also unlikely to admit guilt is it makes them seem a horrible person. In Scully and Marolla, rapists maintained a positive self-image by blaming their crime on drugs/alcohol or the victim.
Population Validity – Limited as only looks at the attributions made by rapists, cannot generalise to all criminals.
Self report method – validity may be affected by social desirability bias - 66—
Informações
- Descrição
- FlashCards sobre Sem título, criado por abigailjdavies em 06-02-2015.
- Criado por
- abigailjdavies
- Visualizações
- 0
- Avaliação