Psychology Unit 3 Revision PowerPoint

1. Psychology Unit 3 Revision PowerPoint Criminological Psychology

2. Defining The Approach • In this section, you need to be able to define 7 key terms, plus the approach itself. • The definitions for these are on the following slides.

3. Criminological Psychology • Define Criminological Psychology: • Criminological Psychology looks at the explanations and causes of crime, features of crime and antisocial behaviour, and also treatments for crime and antisocial behaviour. Forensic psychologists are also concerned with identifying criminals, the processes involved in court procedures, and rehabilitation. A key issue in criminological psychology is the Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony.

4. Define: Crime An act that is against the law. Criminal acts are behaviours which are against the law in a specific society or culture and carry with them a punishment or consequence.

5. Define:Recidivism • This is the term used to describe the act of reoffending. This means that a person who has committed a crime and been punished or treated for it, then goes and does it again.

6. Define: Token Economy • A scheme to manage behaviour through rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour. This is achieved through tokens that can be redeemed for luxury items. This scheme originates from the learning approach with its principles in operant conditioning. • It is an 8 step programme (See AS Brain). Key terms are primary and secondary reinforcers

7. Define: Anti-Social Behaviour • Behaviour that is not necessarily against the law, but causes upset and distress to other members of the public. E.g. Talking loudly outside someone’s house in the early hours of the morning.

8. Define: Stereotyping • This is the prejudged view of groups of people, that are transferred to all members of that group. These views are not always true or factual and can be offensive to members of the specific groups. E.g. All students are lazy.

9. Define: Modelling • This refers to the process of observing role models (someone who you look up to) and remembering their behaviour and therefore replicating it. For this to occur ARRM must take place (according to Bandura).

10. Define: Eyewitness Testimony • The process by which someone who is present at a crime or incident, gives their own account of what they believed to have happened.

11. Methodology • In this section of the specification, you need to be able to Describe 2 Research Methods used to assess witness effectiveness. • You also need to be able to evaluate these 2 research methods in terms of their use in Criminological Psychology and Reliability, Validity and Ethical Issues.

12. Methodology • How are Laboratory Experiments used to assess witness effectiveness? Laboratory experiments are conducted in artificial environments where a researcher manipulates the independent variable and measures or records the dependent variable. The experiment is set up rather than occurring naturally and it looks for cause and effect relationships between the two variables. • Laboratory experiments have been used to isolate the factors that might influence a witness and study the effect on their testimony. • E.g. Elizabeth Loftus is a pioneer in eyewitness testimony research and many of her studies are laboratory experiments that investigate the influence of leading questions on recall by manipulating the type of question asked. E.g. Loftus and Palmer (1974).

13. Methodology • How useful are laboratory experiments in studying witness effectiveness? • Everything can be controlled, so researchers can claim that the IV is the only thing affecting the DV. • They are scientific, and a case study, observation or questionnaire would not have given this information about a cause and effect relationship. • There is a lack of validity because lab experiments are not like real life. So applying the findings to real eyewitnesses may not always be appropriate.

14. Methodology • Evaluate Laboratory Experiments in terms of their Reliability. • Laboratory Experiments are reliable because they have lots of experimental controls in place, which makes the research replicable. This makes it reliable because it can be repeated again and again and get the same results every time. • Loftus’ lab experiments are a good example of high reliability because of the level of control over ppt and situational variables. She showed ppts the same video of a car accident and they all recalled using the same technique. Her studies have been replicated many times and have consistently found that, for example, leading questions do affect witness recall.

15. Methodology • Evaluate Laboratory Experiments in terms of their Validity. • Due to the strong experimental controls in place, lab experiments tend to lack validity. It has no relevance to a real life situation and therefore cannot be applied in this way. In particular, lab experiments lack ecological validity because they do not take place in the ppt’s natural setting.

16. Methodology • Are there any other strengths or weaknesses of lab experiments? • Laboratory experiments use scientific methodology, such as forming a hypothesis from a theory and controlling all aspects except the IV.

17. Methodology • Evaluate lab experiments in terms of their ethical issues. • Lab experiments often involve showing videos to ppts instead of real incidents as this would be unethical and may make the ppt distressed. • However, if the ppt has witnessed something like this before in their lives then they may find this kind of footage upsetting. • Deception may also be necessary for lab experiments so that the ppts do not show demand characteristics. However, it can lead to the ppt feeling embarrassed, especially if they were a poor witness. • Lab experiments almost always offer the right to withdraw, as ppts are aware of being experimental subjects and so usually give informed consent.

18. Methodology • How are Field Experiments used to assess witness effectiveness? • Field experiments are similar to laboratory experiments in that they both have independent and dependent variables, but they are conducted in a more natural setting. Researchers will set up the experiment in an environment where the phenomenon being studied would naturally occur. • Field experiments are better at gathering qualitative data, and give researchers a much better insight into how effective witnesses are. • An example of a field experiment used to investigate witness effectiveness is Yuille and Cutshall (1986).

19. Methodology • How useful are field experiments in studying witness effectiveness? • Field experiments can reassure practitioners in police forces that findings about eyewitness memory are important, and that the guidance the police are asked to implement is sound. For field experiments to be seen as valid, double blind techniques and random assignment to groups are used to help rule out confounding variables. • Field experiments can be very useful, as they can be well controlled and carefully planned which gives them the reliability and scientific status of laboratory experiments, while also having validity because of using a real life situation to the ppts.

20. Methodology • Evaluate Field Experiments in terms of their Reliability. • Field experiments are usually unreliable, due to the difficulties found when trying to replicate the procedure. This is because situational variables may occur in the natural setting, such as distractions from other people. These type of variables are called extraneous variables and can affect the findings of the experiment. NOTE: however, some clever field experiments can control variables, and still take place in a natural setting which increases its reliability.

21. Methodology • Evaluate Field Experiments in terms of their Validity. • Field experiments are valid in terms of the setting and this is known as ecological validity. This is because they occur in the ppts natural setting or a setting that could be natural for the incident (or both). • Researches do try and use realistic tasks even if they are set up. This still means that field experiments are more valid than lab experiments. • However, the task is still manipulated and so the task itself may not be valid.

22. Methodology • Evaluate field experiments in terms of their ethical issues. • In field experiments, ppts are decieved as they believe they are witnessing a real life incident. This can cause excessive distress and concern to the ppt. • The ppt is unlikely to have given consent, otherwise they would know that they were in an experiment and may show demand characteristics. This also means that these ppts may have had no right to withdraw.

23. Methodology • Compare field and lab experiments in terms of their ethics. • One main difference that makes field experiments less ethical than lab experiments is that ppts in some field experiments cannot be asked for consent at all, let alone informed consent. This is because ppts are found in the field and in public places, so they are often not prepared beforehand to let them know they are in a study. Ppts could be asked for their consent afterwards, but this could be seen as less ethical than lab experiments, where ppts usually know they are in a study.

24. Content • In this section you will need to describe and evaluate 2 explanations of crime from different approaches. These are Social Learning Theory and Self Fulfilling Prophecy. • You will need to describe and evaluate 2 ways of treating offenders. These are: • Token Economy Programmes • Anger Management • Also, you will need to describe and evaluate 3 studies into eyewitness testimony. These are: • Loftus and Palmer 1974 • Yuille and Cutshall 1986 • Pickel 1998

25. Content • Describe Social Learning Theory: • SLT explains criminal behaviour in terms of modelling behaviour seen through watching others or via the media. Criminal behaviour is learnt through Attention, Retention, Motivation and Reproduction (ARMR). • The link between observing the behaviour and reproducing the behaviour can sometimes be hard to prove. • In 1977 Bandura outlined 3 important factors which determine whether we choose to copy the behaviour or not. These are: • Vicarious Learning (learning through others’ mistakes) • External Motivation (operant conditioning principles) • Self Reinforcement (is some internal need satisfied?)

26. Content • Criminal behaviour has to be observed before it can be copied. We can observe it in role models, family, friends etc. We are more likely to copy models with a social status. • The media plays a big role in SLT, as we dont usually get to witness criminal behaviour in our everyday lives. However, on the TV 70-80% of programmes contain acts of aggression (rideout et al 1999). Bandura 1961 also predicted that boys are much more likely to copy violence from role models, especially if viewing a male model. • In addition, there is more motivation to copy from the media. This is because; • Criminal behaviour is not likely to be punished on a video game • Popular music bands have lyrics about criminal behaviour that can be taken literally • Killing and aggression is rewarded in video games.

27. Content Strengths Weaknesses Only a handful of incidents have been linked to media violence. Watching criminal behaviour on TV is maybe more likely to make us fear being a victim than produce criminal behaviour. Individuals may have a predisposition to criminal behaviour, which may make them more likely to copy. There is only a correlatory link between these two variables. Punishment should act as a deterrent, but there is still high recidivism rates. • Bandura’s 1961 lab experiment provided causal evidence that children copy violent behaviour. • Bandura’s 1961 study suggests that individuals, particularly boys, copy anti-social behaviour from watching adult role models.

28. Content • Describe Self Fulfilling Prophecy: • SFP is a concept drawn from social psychology that refers to the process of something coming true because it was predicted to happen. It was created by Robert Merton in 1949. He said that a self fulfilling prophecy iis a prediction, that may be false or only a possibility, that is made true as a result of an individual’s actions. • SFP can be linked with the concept of stereotyping. • Rosenthal and Jacobsen 1968: • Madon 2004 also found that the SFP was stronger if more than one person held the same expectation.

29. Content Strengths Weaknesses The expectations held of an individual can only have an effec if they are not too dissimilar from the way the ppt feels themselves. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove SFP. Correlational studies show a link between the two variables but we cannot accept the link as causal. There are stronger influences on behaviour other than a SFP. SLT explains criiminal behaviour in an equally robust way. • Research such as Madon’s 2004 study, highlights the strong influence of negative emotions. SFP may be stronger for negative expectations than positive ones.

30. Content • Describe Loftus and Palmer 1974 AIM: To see whether leading questions would have an effect on the estimates of speed. PROCEDURE:[Experiment 1] 45 ppts, 7 video clips, asked to judge speed of car. Then they did a questionnaire, with one critical question. Groups of 9 ppts were given the question ‘How fast were the cars going when they...each other?’. The ... Was a verb that changed for each group, from Hit, Smashed, Contacted, Collided and Bumped. [Experiment 2] 150 ppts shown a 1 minute film clip of a multiple car collision. Then they gave a description of the film and answered a questionnaire, with a critical question. Split into 3 groups, with hit, smashed and no critical question as the variables. After 1 week the ppts came back and answered some more questions on the film clip. Critical : ‘did you see any broken glass?’.

31. Content RESULTS: CONCLUSION: [Experiment 1] The results could be due to one of two factors. Either the verb used in the question altered ppts memory of the film. Or the ppts did not know the answer, so relied on the verb to make their judgement. [Experiment 2] Leading questions do have an influence on eyewitness testimony. They imply a specific response and may alter witness memory of an incident.

32. Content Strengths Weaknesses We cannot be sure that witness memory was actually altered by the questions asked. It was conducted in a lab setting , so can be criticised for lacking ecological validity. Real witnesses would not be prepared for the incident or subsequent recall. No real consequences for the decision making of these ppts. • The lab experiments had a high level of control over the procedures. E.g. The critical questions were all randomly hidden so as not to encourage demand characteristics. • The actual speed of the car was known to the researchers and they analysed whether actual speeds could have an effect on ppts estimates. This control ensured that the verb used, and not the actual speed, had an effect of ppt estimates. • There is support from other studies e.g. Loftus and Zanni (1975). • It has a useful application for the police and justice system , as the police need to avoid leading questions when interviewing a witness.

33. Content • Describe Yuille and Cutshall 1986 AIM: To record and evaluate witness accounts. To examine issues raised by lab research. PROCEDURE: 21 witnesses to a gun shooting were interviewed by police after the incident. 13 agreed to the research interview. The researchers interviewed them 4-5 months after the event, and were recorded and transcribed. 2 misleading questions were added, one about a broken headlight, and one about a quarter panel of the car. A careful scoring procedure was used. RESULTS: CONCLUSION: This was the first investigation of eyewitness testimony that involved a real incident and real witnesses. With only 13 witnesses and a unique event, it is hard to generalise the findings. Their findings show that eyewitnesses are not incorrect in their accounts, as was suggested by the lab studies. Most of the witnesses were extremely accurate and remained so up to 5 months after the interview. It is possible that it was because the memory was memorable and unusual. The researchers could have been investigating flashbulb memory. The effort to mislead the witnesses did not work.

34. Strengths Weaknesses It is hard to generalise the findings due to the small sample size (13) and unique event. This could be a case of flashbulb memory. There were some inaccuracies noticed in the scoring of the interviews. • This is a field study that looks at a real incident with real witnesses. It has validity that lab experiments do not have. • Great care was taken when counting details from the real incident to make sure that witness testimonies did not alter what really happened. This enables the findings to be seen as reliable.