Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Forensic Psych - Coggle Diagram
Forensic Psych
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Angler Management
Novaco (1975) - AM focuses on identifying and dealing with the emotions which precede anger, as opposed to preventing anger in the first place. This is an 'eclectic' approach in the sense that offenders are taught skills from a variety of different approaches in psychology, such as communication skills and 'positive self-talk'
There are three stages in AM, where the aim is to increase the offender's self-awareness of their anger and to also increase their self-efficacy in dealing with this anger.
Cognitive preparation - takes cognitive approach, offenders identify and rationale the patterns of emotion which occurs before, during and after aggression. This helps them to understand and predict why and when they are likely to become angry
Skills acquisition - therapist teaches offender techniques which can be used to manage their anger, and prevent them from spiralling out of control. Can include breathing techniques, the use of meditation and positive self-talk. This is a form of direct learning - therapist demonstrates the techniques and offender copies
Offender applies skills learnt to real-life situations which may normally trigger anger (role play). Behaviour, is techniques are implemented properly, is positively reinforced by the therapist
Limitations:
AM may be guilty of making incorrect assumption that violent offences are caused by an inability to control anger - Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999). There may be few or no differences between violent and non-violent offenders in terms of their anger, which draws questions over the validity of the use of AM for the majority of violent offenders. Use could be exploited by offenders in return for rewards or a more lenient prison sentence
Blackburn - AM is likely to have little effect on controlling anger in real-life. Therapist won't be present to positively reinforce desirable behaviour, prisoner may find themselves surrounded by stimuli/cues which trigger such anger. Therapies best reserved for improving prisoners conduct within prisons (rehab) as opposed to providing a long-term solution to offending
Effectiveness of such programmes demonstrated by Keen et al (2000) - majority of prisoners who'd partaken in the National Anger Management Package were able to control their anger to a greater extent and were more aware of such anger, compared to the beginning of therapy
Strengths:
Incorporates behavioural theories and skills from a variety of different psychological approaches. E.g. cognitive preparation focuses on cognitive basis of aggression, application focuses on behaviourist principles of operant conditioning and positive reinforcement. - AM recognises variety of triggers and bases of aggressive behaviour
Defining and Measuring Crime
Defining Crime:
Crime = any illegal act which is punishable by incarceration or another type of punishment, after consideration by a judge and jury in a legal trial
Historical issues with defining 'crime' - what was considered a crime at one point may not be according to modern standards e.g. homosexuality being illegalised in the UK in 1967, through the Sexual Offences Act of 1967
Cultural issues - e.g. smacking a child in one culture may be seen as acceptable or encouraged as a form of 'tough love' , not in the UK - now punishable by law according to the 2004 Child's Protection Act
Measuring Crime:
3 main methods: Officials Stats, Victim Surveys and Offender Surveys
Official Stats - describe the number of crimes reported to and recorded by police, which have been processed and published by the Home Office on an annual basis
Victim surveys - 50,000 randomly selected households to self-report the number and types of crimes which have been committed against them during the past year, is published by the Crime Survey for England and Wales annually
Offender surveys - randomly selected cohort of criminals, give details of types and frequency of crimes they have committed across a set period of time, recorded by the Offender Crime and Justice Survey - particularly useful for gov organisations as a view of the patterns and risk factors for crime at a national scale, can be used to inform crime prevention/management strategies
Limitations:
Official stats have susceptibility to concealing the 'dark figure' - i.e. 75% of crime goes unreported. Lack of standardisation of police recording policies in relation to crime, as well as the victim fearing revenge/retribution or feeling untrustworthy of the police. Effects of indiscrepancies demonstrated by Farrington and Dowds (1985) - sudden increases in incidence rates of theft could be explained by change in police recording policies, where thefts under £10 were recorded - may be inaccurate representation of crime
Victim surveys suffer from methodological problems associated with self-report techniques - idea of 'telescoping' may mistakenly believe a crime committed against them was more recent due to trauma and distress associated with it
Data collected from Offender Surveys may be distorted or biased as collected from offenders - may over-exaggerate = accomplishment or under-exaggerate = diminish responsibility - too much reliance cannot be placed upon honesty and integrity of offenders in self-report measures
Strengths:
Victim surveys have the advantage over official stats - 'dark figure' of crime is less likely to be concealed or evident due to the self-report technique - may feel there's less repercussions for their actions
Offender surveys useful in crime prevention and management strategies - showing patterns and risk factors of offending behaviour - real-life practical application
Biological Explanations: Genetic and Neural Explanations:
Genetic explanations focus on heritability and role of candidate genes in development of criminal behaviour
Christiansen et al (1977) - concordance rates of 33% for identical (87 MZ) twins but only 12% for non-identical twins (147 DZ). Since MZ share 100% of genetic info whilst DZ = 50%, suggests there's moderate genetic or heritable basis of criminal behaviour
However, concordance rates of MZ isn't 100% - interaction between environment and genetics together produces outcome of criminality - Mednick et al (1984) - traditional diathesis stress model can be used
Candidate genes each represent slight genetic variations which increase the risk of developing criminal behaviour, in this case, suggested by Tiihonen et al (2014). Abnormalities in MAOA and CDH-13 genes, which both code for neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine and are implicated in the development of ADHD, increases the likelihood of becoming criminal by 13-fold - role of genetic diathesis on criminal development
Neural explanations mainly focus on individuals with antisocial personality disorder (APD), common amongst criminals e.g. Raine et al (2000) found criminals have a lower volume and activity level (11% reduction) in the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for logical thinking and decision making. Supports idea that criminals may have difficulties in regulating their emotions and so make irrational decisions
Neural abnormalities associated with criminality supported by Keysers et al (2011), criminals appear to have a 'neural switch' that they can turn their capacities for empathy on or off - may explain how criminals lack empathy towards victims
Strengths: - Support use of diathesis stress model in explaining criminality - Mednick et al (1984) - after analysing court convictions of 14,427 adoptees with adoptive and biological parents = 'siblings adopted separately into different homes tended to be concordant for convictions, especially if the shared biological father also had a record of criminal behaviour' - criminality only likely to be outcome if genetic susceptibility is paired with environmental stressors
Limitations:
Use of twin studies as means of investigating the genetic basis of behaviour - assumes only difference between twins is the amount of genetic info they share - would be better addressed through interactionist approach. E.g. fact MZ twins are likely to share same environment as opposed to normal siblings may explain why MZ concordance rates are higher, despite both sharing 50% of genes - causal conclusions about genetic basis of criminality have been incorrectly reached
Focus on the role of genetics and neural activities as a means of explaining criminal behaviour suffers from the problem of biological reductionism - Katz et al (2007). Although it appears criminality runs in the family, so do other risk factors associated with criminality e.g. high frequency and intensity of exposure to pro-criminal attitudes (Sutherland's Differential Association Theory), lack educational opportunities, economic deprivation etc - important not to stereotype children from criminal families - self-fulfilling prophecies
Cognitive Explanations for Offending Behaviour
Kohlberg suggested there are 3 universal levels of moral reasoning, characterised by a certain logic. These include the pre-conventional level (punishment orientation), the conventional level (maintenance of the social order) and the post-conventional level (morality of contract and individual rights)
Kohlberg proposed that criminals have a childlike, immature sense of reasoning and reason at the pre-conventional level, non-criminals at post or conventional = more civilised and empathetic behaviours (Chandler, 1973)
Cognitive distortions = examples of dysfunctional thought processing where we show errors in out logic. Two main types attributed to criminality are hostile attribution bias (HAB) and minimalisation
HAB - tendency for offenders to view emotionally ambiguous or non-threatening situations as hostile and threatening, automatic reaction to novel situations (Schonenberg and Justye, 2014) - 55 violent offenders were exposed to pictures of facial expressions which were neither clearly hostile or neural, overwhelming majority viewed images as aggressive or hostile. May be the result of being 'rejected' and 'aggressive' child (Dodge and Frame, 1982)
Minimalisation common among sex offenders, used as a coping mechanism for guilt or regret - offenders under-exaggerate the significance of their crimes and the emotional consequences suffered by their victims (Pollock and Hasmall, 1991) - in sample, 35% child molesters attempted to justify their crimes as non-malicious and simply being a way of showing affection, 36% didn't accept committing crimes at all as they perceived the child was consenting
Limitations:
May not explain all examples of offending behaviour and not all types of crimes. E.g. impulsive crimes appear to be carried out by offenders with no reasoning at all, whilst MC financially-driven crimes are more frequently carried out by offenders who display pre-conventional reasoning (Thornton and R.L.Rein, 1982). Langdon (2010) - intelligence may be more important factor in determining the likelihood of someone committing a crime, more quantifiable and objective characteristic compared to levels of moral reasoning - cognitive explanation - only explain specific types of crime
Although three stages are comprehensive, other researchers suggested different method of organisation and naming these stages. Gibbs (1979) - ideas of mature and immature reasoning are similar (immature = pre, mature = conventional), 'culturally biased' post was removed. - Theoretical basis of Kohlberg's ideas were sound but modern update on organisation increases validity.
Strengths: - Improved understanding of cognitive biases and their relationship to specific crimes and criminals has real-life practical application, particularly with sex offenders. Since offenders are susceptible to using minimalisation to justify their crimes, cognitive therapies (CBT) may help tackle the problem and result in reduced recidivism rates - alternative or addition to traditional morality solution to criminality (lengthy incarceration with few opportunities for learning and rehab)
Offender Profiling: The Bottom-Up Approach
Doesn't use pre-established typology but develops a profile as the crime scene and eyewitness testimonies are increasingly analysed. Two hallmarks = investigative psychology and geographical profiling
Investigative Psychology - process where each crime is recorded onto a database, details of each new crime are matched with this database to develop a hypotheses about likely characteristics, social demographic and motivations - greater emphasis on scientific methods of investigation and statistical analysis
Investigative psychology emphasises importance of time and place as well as the idea of 'interpersonal coherence', which suggets that the manner in which the offender treats the victim reflects their interpersonal functioning/understanding in real life
Geographical profiling - each offender has an operational base, can be inferred from mapping locations of previous crimes - should form a circular shape, where operational base or 'centre of gravity' is at the centre, can be used to predict future crimes through analysis of a jeopardy surface
Based on the assumption that the way and signature of offenders in carrying out their crimes are constant i.e. they have the same 'modus operandi'. Offenders can be classified as marauders or commuters, according to Canter and Larkin (1993)
Limitations:
Doesn't always lead to the correct identification of the offender - Copson et al (1995). Info from an offender profile only led to the successful identification of the offender in 3% of cases, but was useful 83% of the time - offender profiling is best reserved for simply narrowing the field of enquiry rather than as a chief means of offender identification
Strengths:
Reliance of scientific methods of enquiry and use of statistical analysis - many supporting studies have used the method of smallest space analysis to establish correlations between two variables or offender characteristics - more scientific and based on psychological theory compared to top-down which is over-simplistic
Evidence to support smallest space analysis in geographical profiling - narrowing field of enquiry and identifying offenders as marauders or commuters, Lundrigan and Canter (2001). Following the smallest space analysis of 120 serial murder cases, able to identify characteristic traits of spatial consistency, such as presence of a jeopardy surface as well as the centre of gravity - useful in establishing the modus operandi of the offender
Biological Explanations: Atavistic Form
Historical approach to offender profiling proposed by Lombroso - criminals were 'genetic throwbacks' who weren't accustomed to the social norms of normal, civilised society and so were more suited for crime. Could be identified by signature atavistic characteristics i.e. specific facial and cranial features
Atavistic features included long ears, dark skin, extra toes and nipples, and curly hair
Certain features were associated with certain crimes e.g. murderers = bloodshot eyes, fraudsters = reedy lips, sexual deviants = glinting eyes. Many modern criminologists consider as foundation of offender profiling and criminology
Lombroso based theory on studying cranial features of 383 dead and 3839 alive criminals, approx 40% of crime could be explained using offender profiles based upon certain atavistic characteristics
Limitations:
Many modern researchers (DeLisi (2012), branded theory as racist - because individual has certain characteristics doesn't mean they're or are destined to become criminal - following this logic certain races appear to be more likely to become criminal e.g. African Americans, amongst those whom have curly hair in common. This mas have lended itself to giving 'scientific justification' for discriminatory practices and eugencies e.g. William Shockley's Voluntary Sterilisation Bonus Plan
Considered unscientific - dated methodology adopted by Lombroso didn't use statistical analysis or a control group from another culture. Since the entire sample was Italian, don't know whether findings of atavistic characteristics are significant and if so to what level of confidence. Comparisons with a control group are needed to establish statistical significance, particularly through use of random allocation
Strengths:
Lombroso may be considered as 'the father of criminology' - suggested by Hollin (1989) - as methods of attributing certain atavistic features or cranial features to certain types of criminals with specific traits was the basis from which modern criminal profiling was developed. Although not entirely scientific due to lack of control group and no statistical analysis, Lombroso's conclusions can be considered credible considering large sample size.
Psychological Explanations: Differential Association Theory
Sutherland's (1924) DAT - crime is a learned behaviour and can be explained using the principles of SLT where the 'role models' are criminal peers or a 'criminal university' (prison). Scientific emphasis on this theory suggests it is possible to accurately predict the likelihood that an individual with become criminal, based on their exposure to pro-criminal and anti-criminal attitudes
Observers/individuals learn general attitudes towards crime as well as the skills and knowledge required to carry out specific crimes. If the frequency and intensity of an individual's exposure to pro-criminal attitudes is greater than their exposure to anti-criminal attitudes - likely individual will become criminal
Limitations:
Frequency and intensity of exposure to criminal attitudes is very difficult to objectively and reliably measure - conclusions or predictors drawn about likelihood individual will become criminal is likely to lack validity - even if such a measure was created it'd likely be a self-report measure which doesn't avoid problems of retrospective research and memory decay
Incorrect to assume that because an individual has been exposed to more pro-criminal attitudes compared to anti they'll become criminal - determinist approach may lead to increased crime through SFP or may lead to 'scientific justification' for discrimination an justification
Strengths:
Refreshing approach to explaining crime - environment is blamed. Extreme policies of eugenics (the solution for criminality from a bio perspective) are rightfully not an option for dealing with offending behaviour. Theory provides fair and realistic explanation of crime, doesn't hold individual entirely accountable
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Custodial Sentencing
Aims = deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation
Effects include stress, depression, institutionalisation and prisonisation. Institutionalisation is a problem because the monotonous and constant rhythm of prison life may impair the offender's ability to adjust to normal life beyond prison. Constantino et al (2016) - 7.5% of women and 6.3% of men in prison suffer from depression
Emphasis on retribution and the monotony of prison life within Britain has contributed towards some of the highest recidivism rates in Europe e.g. 57% will reoffend within a year after release - Ministry of Justice. Norway has one of the lowest European recidivism rates but greater focus on rehabilitation rather than traditional punishment
Strengths:
Prisoners are surrounded by opportunities for learning and training. e.g. sex offenders may partake in compulsory CBT schemes to reduce effects of their minimalisation and reduce likelihood of recidivism. Violent offenders can partake in anger management schemes, whilst others may opt for token economy systems or restorative justice in return for a more lenient prison sentence - prison is a useful method of dealing with offending behaviour
Limitations:
Prison doesn't affect each individual the same e.g. extent of effects will depend on dispositional traits of the convict, length of sentence, any previous experience in prisons and they type of prison in which they served previous sentences and the number/gender of prison officers. Custodial sentences can be more or less effective for certain individuals - not universally effective
Use and favourability may be affected by political motives - Davis and Raymond (2000). Majority of public favours custodial sentencing as society typically wants to see the criminal suffer and be remorseful for their actions. May lead to political parties focusing of toughening up prisons and sentences to please the public and appear 'tough on crime' - still produces high recidivism rates and isn't as effective as it's portrayed
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Behaviour Modification in Custody
Largely features token economies - systems based upon operant conditioning principles and reinforcement
Reinforcement increases the likelihood of a desired behaviour being repeated. Context of custody - selected socially desirable behaviours are more likely to be repeated by offenders
Every time the desired behaviour is carried out they receive a token. Acts as a secondary reinforcer because its value is derived from being able to be swapped for a 'privilege' or reward = primary reinforcer. Rewards may include exercise time outside, access to favourite TV show. Through positive reinforcement offender more likely to repeat desirable behaviour as they're motivated to achieve the reward
Effectiveness of token economy systems - Hobbs and Holt (1976) who studied 125 criminal male juveniles in the Alabama Boys Industrial School. Found across 14 months significant increase in the displaying of desirable behaviours for the majority of the boys (all 3 cottages) - suggests token economies can be used to improve running of prisons by decreasing violence and conflicts within the setting
Strengths:
They are flexible and easy to implement e.g. token economy systems used in psychiatric hospitals may be very different from those used in maximum-security prisons, and so as long as the implementation of the rules and tokens is consistent (Bassett and Blanchard, 1977) a significant improvement in prisoner conduct is likely to be seen
Limitations:
Can only be seen as treating the proximal cause of offending (AM address distal cause of offending) e.g. BM only temporarily improves the behaviour of offenders as long as they are motivated by rewards and these rewards are given immediately after displayed behaviour. However, same rewards may not be present outside prison, citizens expected to abide by social norms and rules without being rewarded directly - BM may be short-term solution to offending behaviour
Questioned ethical basis of the use of token economy systems - Moya and Achtenburg, 1974. Researchers took particular concern with the idea that participation in schemes is compulsory in many prisons and failure to do so would mean prisoners are denied certain 'rewards' which may be seen as rights by many others e.g. opportunity to call home or have family visits. Important to conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess utility of token economy systems
Dealing with Offending Behaviour: Restorative Justice
Braithwaite (2004) - RJ programmes take on a different perspective/emphasis compared to other methods. RJ places emphasis on 'giving the survivor a voice' and showing the offender the emotional consequences of their behaviour. Focus is placed on positive outcomes, and mediated discussions between the offender and 'survivor', don't need to occur in traditional courtroom setting
In order for offender to show remorse for their actions, apologies can be made and they can also pay for any damages to the survivor's property or fix it themselves. Guidelines as to what survivors, offenders and mediators are advised to do are set by the Restorative Justice Council
Effectiveness of RJ schemes demonstrated by Latimer et al (2005) - RJ was significantly more effective than traditional nonrestorative approaches in terms of increasing victim and offender satisfaction, restitution compliance and reducing recidivism
Limitations:
May take naive approach to dealing with offending behaviour because they assume the offender and survivor will always show remorse when participating. Offender may receive a shorter sentence or more rewards for participating, survivors may want revenge (physical/verbal abuse). May not be useful in real life but useful in theory
Feminists criticise in domestic abuse or violence cases. RJ doesn't place offender and victim in equal power balance, victim will seem accusatory to offender. RJ schemes fail to adequately place blame on offender, traumatic and distressing for survivor. - cannot be used to deal with all crimes, limited utility
Strengths:
Flexible and easy to implement. Can be modified for prisons, psych institutions and schools, according to specific problems faced. Increasing use of RJ may encourage methods of conflict resolution other than violence and aggression as offender is made aware of consequences of their actions first-hand
Offender Profiling: The Top-Down Approach
Uses a pre-established typology and the FBI method of profile generation to assign offenders to one of two categories: organised or disorganised offenders
Profile generation includes 4 steps: crime scene classification, crime reconstruction, data assimilation and profile generation
Organised offenders = socially and sexually competent, show evidence of planning and are unlikely to leave clues. Tend to have a specific 'type' of victim and appear to carry out the attack in a surgical manner
Disorganised = no evidence of planning, attacks appear random, no specific target and more likely to occur close to their own home or operational base, socially and sexually incompetent, often live alone and unemployed
All in line with the aims of offender profiling - be reducing the list of suspects, police can investigate a narrower field of enquiry and increase likelihood case will be solved
Limitations:
Can only be used to describe crimes that have obvious, visible characteristics - unlikely to be effective in identifying criminals responsible for burglary or MC crimes. May only be effective in profiling 'blue-collar' crimes
Unlikely all offenders can be identified as organised or disorganised - oversimplification of classification system it may be more useful to study the motives each criminal has, as suggested by Keppel and Walter (1999) - seemingly contradictory crimes can still be explained
Evidence to support existence of organised offender but not disorganised - suggested by Canter et al (2004) - researchers used the statistical technique of smallest space analysis to analyse data from 100 murders in the US, with comparisons of each made to 39 typical traits of both offender types - disorganised cannot be identified as distinctly different from organised offenders = system lacks validity and breadth
Psychological Explanations: Eysenck's Theory
Suggested that there was a specific criminal personality (neurotic-extrovert) which could be measured across two dimensions initially (neurotic-stable and extravert-introvert), third dimensions of psychoticism being added later
Criminal personality theory has considerable links with biological explanations of criminality - theory views criminal behaviour as being due to the activity of the nervous system, which attributed to specific personalities. e.g. extraverts have an underactive ns and so are continuously looking for new stimulation - may explain their nervous and impulsive behaviour
Type of personality a person has and the activity of the ns which they inherit, both affect the extent to which the individual is affected by socialisation, which occurs in childhood and aims to teach children essential social communication skills and the value of delayed gratification. Those with criminal neurotic-extravert personalities are unable to perceive antisocial behaviour as negative or undesirable, so act accordingly
Personality can be measured across 3 dimensions using the EPI i.e. Eysenck's personality inventory
Limitations:
EPI takes a reductionist approach to assessing and measuring personality - Mischel (1988). Personality traits are unlikely to be accounted for using only 3 dimensions and measured by being assigned a single number, traits likely to change depending on who we interact with and under what circumstances - not accurate account of personality
Theory may suffer cultural bias - largely Western culture sample - Bartol and Holanchock (1979). E.g. researchers found a group of Hispanic convicts were less extravert compared to non-criminals (control group) - theory isn't universal and lacks generalisability
Oversimplification of classification of criminals - unlikely there is only one type of criminal personality type - Digman's Five Factor Model suggests additional dimensions which personality can be measured (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neauroticism, openness to experience)
Psychological Explanations: Psychodynamic Explanation
Blackburn (1993) - 3 types of inadequate superegos (formed at the end of the phallic stage and containing the child's internalised sense of right and wrong from their same-sex parent, Freud) associated with criminality
Deviant superego - child will internalise abnormal moral standards from their criminal parents
Weak superego - due to lack of identification with same-sex parent during phallic stage, could've been absent
Over-harsh superego - craves punishment due to being accustomed to such feeling because of over-harsh parents
Dysfunctional superego - id is able to exercise control and be selfish/demand instant gratification = selfish and impulsive characteristics of criminals
Idea of inadequate superego based on Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation - absence of mother figure or mother substitute during critical period of attachment formation (first 2 years) = irreversible emotional and intellectual consequences, affectionless psychopathy and mental retardation - 44 thieves
Limitations:
Contradictory evidence to 44 thieves study - Lewis (1959) - maternal deprivation not indicative or a reliable predictor of likelihood of becoming criminal, nor were they at a disadvantage in terms of forming close relationships during adulthood - decrease Blackburn validity
Suffer gender bias - Hoffman (1975) - in line with Freud's theory. girls should be at greater risk of becoming criminal as they suffer from penis envy instead of castration anxiety = superego internalised to a smaller extent. However, statistical evidence doesn't support - girls within phallic stage display greater appreciation of value of delayed gratification compared to boys
Lack scientific rigour - superego/internalised sense of right and wrong is embedded within unconscious part of tripartite personality - cannot be objectively and empirically measured. Superego concept cannot be proven wrong, according to Popper's criterion of falisification, it is unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific - little to increase scientific credibility of psychology