criminal methods Flashcards
describe lab experiments and with example
Describe (A01)
Laboratory experiments for eyewitness testimony involve artificially controlled environments in which the IV causes the change in the DV.
Example - If all participants who watch the same film, for example, are in the same situation and have many other similarities (such as being students), and then half of them are given information about a stop sign and half are not (after viewing a give way sign), then if more participants remember a stop sign in that group, it could be claimed that the misinformation caused the ‘memory’.
How useful/effective are eyewitness laboratory experiments in studying eye-witness testimony?
Strengths - Laboratory experiments since the 1970s have been the main way of studying witness effectiveness as everything is controlled so we can see if the IV affects the DV. A case study, questionnaire or observation would not give this as a cause and effect outcome, therefore reducing the accuracy and credibility of the results in explaining witness testimony.
Weakness – the lack of ecological validity in witness laboratory experiments is important when trying to apply the findings of such studies to real life witness cases – as laboratory experiments on witness effectives are not completely like real life.
evaluate lab experiments
S:
· Witness testimony laboratory experiments are easy to replicate as the controls for example distractions of the environment such as daylight/nighttime being removed as a possible extraneous variable influencing the participants recall in their witness statements so making the final results of what influence witness recall more reliable.
· Witness laboratory experiments follow standardised procedures for example showing participants the same car crash, same questions eg, “How fast was the car going?”, so we can be sure that it is the verb being used (IV) that affects the DV (estimated speed the car was going) and not another variable such as different car crash videos so maintaining reliability.
w:
· There is a lack of ecological validity in witness laboratory experiments because the setting for the students in many of Loftus’s experiments for example were not natural and realistic of real life criminal witness events eg, participants might suffer stress and anxiety during the incident, particularly if it is violent or traumatic which cannot be replicated realistically in a laboratory.
· Many of the tasks used in witness laboratory experiments are low in task validity as showing someone a film of a car accident is not valid because none of the emotion attached to this particular event is present which could also be a contributing factor to eyewitness recall.
describe field experiments + example/application
Describe (A01)
Another way in which witness reliability is tested is to use field experiments, because these are based in real life, natural situations such an act of theft or real car accident. Still manipulate the IV to see an effect on the DV In eye-witness research – aim for cause-and-effect but in the participants natural environment.
Application/examples from criminal Psychology
YARMEY (2004)
In 2004 Yarmey carried out an experiment in a public place, which makes it a field experiment. A young woman approached people individually and they spoke to her for about 15 seconds. Then, either 2 minutes or 4 hours later, they were questioned about the woman an asked to identify her in a photo. When the woman was seen, she either had dark glasses and a baseball cap or she did not, and some witnesses were warned they would be tested, and others were not. There were therefore a number of different conditions.
Mass and Kohnken (1989) used 86 non-psychology students in a field setting in which a women approached them holding a pen or a syringe. When asked to identify her in a line up, details were of the face were quite poor as in the principles of weapon focus and in addition those who were approached with the syringe focused more on it than those approached with the pen.
How useful/effective are eyewitness field experiments in studying eye-witness testimony?
After years of laboratory experiments there has been a move towards field experiments i.e. Yarmey with the main idea of improving the validity of the research. Many are completed on police forces finding out about eyewitness memory therefore they can reassure practitioners in police forces that guidance given is of sound research.
evaluate field experiments
Strengths
· Field experiments are replicable to an extent because of strong controls so can be tested for reliability as supported by Yarmey (2014) used a lot of different IVs, such as the time before someone was asked about the target person (the person they had met), and the controlled all variables as much as possible, for example, if the two people who separately approached the participants were both white and a similar age.
· Field experiments are ecologically valid because they usually take part in the participants natural environment for example, Valentine and Mesout (2009) used participants who were going on the London Dungeon tour anyway and the manipulation happened during the tour.
· Participants in criminal field experiments do not suffer from demand characteristics because they are usually unaware that they are part of the field experiment as it is in their own natural environment so will not change their answers.
Weaknesses
· Field experiments in criminal psychology cannot control for all extraneous variables due to a lack of control over the setting with reduced reliability as found by Yarmey (2004) who could not control what others were doing in the vicinity when the target woman approached the participants.
· Field experiments may not always have task validity in criminal psychology for example, a line-up that has been set-up to identify a criminal such as Yarmey (2004) who used an artificial line-up therefore reducing the validity of the results as this is not comparable to a real criminal identification line-up.
· Ethically there may be an element of stress involved in criminal field experiments, especially if participants are involved in criminal identification line-ups that may upset them or trigger past memories.
describe case studies and use examples
Describe (A01)
As well as laboratory and field experiments, you also have to cover the use of the case study research method in criminological psychology. You will look at case studies as a research method in clinical psychology and at case studies of brain-damaged patients in cognitive psychology and also some examples in biological psychology, so you can draw on that understanding when looking at case studies used in criminological psychology.
You do not have to focus just on researching eyewitness effectiveness this time, just on aspects of criminological psychology.
● Case studies can help to shed light on a situation because they go into depth and detail.
● They can help as examples to highlight something specific, such as the result of specific brain damage.
● They can help to describe a technique, such as the process of assessing, doing a formulation and treating an offender.
● They can be used to show gaps in knowledge and to give in-depth understanding in a particular area from which hypotheses can then be generated to test them using other research methods, such as the experiment.
Application/examples from criminal Psychology
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) weapon focus case study focused on witnesses to a specific crime.
Kirsch (2010) proposes the usefulness of case studies should not be ignored. She mentions Phineas Gage and HM, as well as Freud’s case studies. Kirsch gives the example of Murphy (2010), who discussed an individual with an autistic spectrum disorder to look into his violent behaviour.
Mart and Connelly (2010) carried out a case study to look at how seizures can relate to criminal behaviour and lack of control over violence.
Barnao et al. (2010) presented an in-depth discussion about a treatment model relating to three patients. They used case examples to discuss a model they put forward for treatment of patient offenders.
Blagden et al. (2012) carried out a case study to look at the practical usefulness of using repertory grids with sexual offenders who are in denial about their offending. Repertory grids are ways of uncovering personal constructs, which are ways people see and understand the world, and they are used in various treatment situations.
Blagden et al. (2012) used a ‘single case study design’ with an individual to uncover their personal constructs, which are their ways of understanding others. The case study focused on Bryan, who was 54 years old and was convicted on two counts of rape. He denied the accusations and saw the criminal justice system as unfair, having a skeptical approach to treatment and to psychologists because of previous experiences.
Damasio et al. (1994) The Return of Phineas Gage: Clues About the Brain from the Skull of a Famous Patient
Case studies are useful for getting in-depth and detailed data regarding the uniqueness of one person or a small group, or one situation. By getting such detailed information, they can help with planning a treatment, for example, and can aid case formulation to help to ensure that a treatment plan will be effective for an offender. They have a practical application, which is a strength.
evaluate case studies
Evaluate (A03)
Strengths
· Case studies are good for getting in-depth and detailed data regarding the unique person/small group/situation for the criminal or witness. This detail can be used to inform applications, for example, for case formulation to help to ensure that a treatment plan will be effective for an offender.
· The novel situations of case studies are unique for example, working out how to help a sexual offender who is in denial, the detail can help therapists to unpack what the underlying issues, in which there is not theory to support the diagnosis and treatment.
Weaknesses
· The case study method has difficulty generalizing from the study of a unique individual or small group and it takes an idiographic approach which means it is not about generating general laws of behaviour. For example, Blagden et al. (2012) mention this limitation when they did not generalise using a repertory grid with sex offenders in denial to others.
· There might be subjectivity in the way a case study is carried out, which can affect the data gathered and there might be subjectivity in the analysis of the study, such as choosing which data to include in a report of results about an offender/witness.
case study and experiment (field and lab.) differences
Data Collection
Case Studies: Gather qualitative data through interviews and questionnaires, focusing on detailed personal perspectives.
Experiments: Collect quantitative data using statistics and careful measurement to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Data Analysis
Case Studies: Data is written like a story and analyzed for key themes.
Experiments: Use numerical data to apply inferential statistics for scientific conclusions.
Sample Size & Generalisability
Case Studies: Small sample sizes (one or a few individuals), limiting generalisability.
Experiments: Larger sample sizes, improving representativeness of findings.
Validity
Case Studies: Higher validity as they reflect real-life experiences.
Experiments: Lower validity due to artificial or manipulated environments.
Reliability
Case Studies: Hard to replicate due to unique events and conditions.
Experiments: High reliability due to strict controls allowing replication.
Approach
Case Studies: Holistic and subjective, using multiple variables to explain behavior.
Experiments: Reductionist and objective, focusing on measurable variables (IV & DV).
reliability of lab experiments
Reliability Laboratory experiments Laboratory experiments are replicable because of the strong controls. They are replicable because they are clearly detailed and someone else can repeat them exactly. They are usually repeated (test-retest) by the researchers to test the findings for reliability, and they may also be repeated by others. Researchers such as Loftus and her students have carried out so many studies that have come up with similar findings that their work appears to be reliable. If the results are scientifically gathered and reliable, they have greater weight. This is even more important if the results are going to be used in real situations, as Loftus’s results have been. In Loftus et al. (1987), when they looked at weapon focus, they did two experiments in the same study, which showed reliability. Experiments on witness testimony have the intention of narrowing what is being measured to independent and dependent variables and controlling any extraneous variables. Experiments reduce what is being studied to small parts eg, type of weapon used, so that there can be objectivity and cause-and- effect conclusions. Experiments are reductionist and this is so there can be reliability, objectivity, and credibility. For example, Erickson et al. (2014) used three different ‘object’ conditions in their study of eyewitness identification. They used a glass, chicken, and a gun to represent a neutral, novel and threatening object. This was reducing witness situations to something measurable, and some realism would be lost in the process. There are pros and cons about using a reductionist approach, as the case study and experimental methods illustrate.
reliability of field experiments
Reliability field experiments
Field experiments are reliable if the procedures are carefully controlled and planned when testing witness testimony. If they are repeated,
they tend to get the same results and are as reliable as laboratory experiments. However, because they take place in the field ie, criminal
home or place of work, in some ways this is an uncontrolled environment, which could mean there are confounding variables, making the
findings unreliable.
reliability of case studies
Reliability of Cases studies
Case studies tend not to be repeated and indeed it would be hard, if not impossible, to repeat them as situations rarely arise again in terms of
the specific criminal behaviour. There might be a similar case study done at some stage, so there can be comparisons, but that is unlikely. In
general, it is hard to show reliability with regard to criminal case studies. If different research methods are used and there are similar findings,
that does show some reliability.
Case studies of people with brain damage can show reliability because they use testing, such as recall, and there can be repli
case studies of people with brain damage mostly do not come directly into criminological psychology, they do discuss aggression and evidence from them can be used to explain crime and anti-social behaviour. For example, they can show how the prefrontal lobe is for decision-making and control and having damage to that brain region might explain someone’s lack of control. There might be subjectivity in the way a case study is carried out, which can affect the data gathered, and there might be subjectivity in the analysis of the study, such as choosing which data to include in a report of the results. Subjectivity might mean that there is bias in the data and any interpretation needs to be logged in a reflexive journal and reported with the findings so a judgement can be made about possible bias. Bias is a weakness in a study, such as one looking at reasons for offending because it means validity can be questioned
validity of lab exp.
Validity Laboratory experiments Laboratory experiments are, however, not usually valid with regard to the criminal setting, because of the strong controls in place. This means they lack ecological validity of the environment of a crime. The very controlled situation – watching a film, being asked questions, the film possibly having no relevance to the participant, and using students as participants – means that ecological validity is likely to be low. The whole set-up is not like a ‘real’ car accident or a ‘real’ situation that is witnessed. Experiments can have internal validity. When discussing the validity of experiments in eyewitness testimony, there is validity in the variables that are tested as people can be made to feel anxious if watching slides of someone using a gun.
validity of field experiments
Validity field experiments
Field experiments are valid with regard to the setting, which means they have ecological validity, because they occur in the participants’
natural setting or a setting that could be natural for the task (or both). However, the task is still manipulated to see the effect of different
conditions on the DV, so the task itself might not be valid. Usually, researchers try to use a task that is realistic even if set up.
Therefore, field experiments have more validity than laboratory experiments. Having said that, laboratory experiments looking at eyewitness
testimony try to use realistic scenarios, such as Erickson et al. (2014) having people sitting at a bar and Loftus et al. (1987) having a gun or a
cheque pointed at a cashier in a restaurant. These scenarios were on slides; however, they were realistic scenarios.
validity of case studies
Validity of case studies
Case studies gather rich, detailed information about one person or a small group of criminals and often involve gathering a lot of data
examining different aspects of the person’s or group’s life. They can involve different research methods as well, such as observing, interviewing, and examining documents. If the same data are arrived at using different methods, there can be triangulation, which means using different sources to verify what has been found about the crime, and this would mean data are likely to be ecologically valid. Case studies can be used to explore a particular aspect of people or a criminal situation because of the focus on depth in the data and the use of different methods to uncover good detail. They can describe a situation or someone’s criminal life experiences rather than look for cause-and-effect conclusions. However, case studies can also look for explanations of a crime, such as case studies of brain- damaged patients, which are looking for an explanation of behaviour. This often makes case studies more subjective than experimental methods as there is more interpretation required. While that may reduce objectivity, it instead increases the richness of the data, making the explanation of a crime a plausible one, although only for the individual for whom the case study is about. As in other areas, the case study research method has difficulty with generalising from the study of a unique criminal individual (or small group), and it takes an idiographic approach, which means it is not about generating general laws of behaviour. It is not easy to generalise from studying a unique person or criminal situation. Blagden et al. (2012) mention this limitation in their case study. They can only use their material with Bryan, though they do suggest that the idea of using a repertory grid with sex offenders ‘in denial’ might be generalised.
Criminal methodology of laboratory experiments, field experiments. Randomized trails, scanning techniques (used in laboratories) and animal laboratory experiments lead to scientific objectivity in criminal research. They are generally reliable, aiming for a cause-and-effect conclusion. There is a reduction in experimenter bias, employ careful planning and control of variables. This can be seen in Loftus research with the careful controls in her experiments.
objectivity in case studies
Criminal case studies tend to be more subjective as researchers are working with one person/small group which means they get close to them
which leads to rich, valid data but prone to bias eg, Blagden et al (2012) – data can be interpreted either when a choice is made about whether
to include them or when analysis is carried out, such as thematic analysis.
credibility of experiments
Credibility refers to the accurate controls and objectivity of the research so there is no bias in the results so that the data can be used to build a body of knowledge. This means the research has been carried out in a trustworthiness way with clear expertise. Therefore, subjectivity can lower credibility. Experiments lend themselves to credibility moreso than most methods. But credibility is about more than just controlled methodology for example, it could be said that they lack credibility if validity is low as the research finding although may be controlled are not realistic of real life so may have lower credibility. Loftus experiments need to be looked at individuals, for example, did they use randomized trials so to avoid subjective bias and ensure some credibility. But this may not be possible or true of all studies, but it may not mean they are not credible as they may be objective on other areas ie, who selected the participants.
credibility of case studies
Credibility of case studies
Case studies can be done competently and objectively which is important as many assume that only experiments are credible.
describe hcpc guidelines
Psychologists who practice in the field of psychology, known as practitioner psychologist – forensic psychologists and others with protected title, also have to follow additional guidance from their legal governing body: The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC). Practitioner psychologists who do not follow the guidelines can be “disbarred” from the council and are no longer allowed to practice as psychologist. Psychologists registered with the BPS can also be removed from the register if they act in an unethical manner. The ethical guidance must therefore be taken very seriously. As many practitioner psychologists are often registered with both the BPS and HCPC, it is best practice to follow both guidelines when conducting psychological research.
ethics of lab. and field experiments
The participants in criminal research should be told as much as possible so that he or she can give informed consent. Any deceit must be kept to a minimum. However, there will almost certainly be some deceit involved, because the manipulated variable will have to be kept secret so that participants do not deliberately change their behaviour in the criminal situation. Any change in behaviour needs to be shown to be because of the IV rather than an awareness of the criminal investigation. Both criminal laboratory and field experiments are likely to require some level of deceit, so there is unlikely to be fully informed consent. Loftus and Palmer (1974) did not tell participants (students) that there was a verb difference in the questions they were asked. Yarmey (2004) did not tell participants that the woman asking for help was part of a psychology study. There are more examples of deceit in what you have covered in the study of eyewitness testimony because the situation someone is to witness tends to have to be secret. Participants are not supposed to be unduly distressed or have harm caused to them. They should leave a study in the same emotional state as that in which they started. This is about respect and responsibility. This can be problematic when testing eyewitness reliability because you would not be able to fully expose participants to the type of stress they may actually experience when they witness a real-life crime. Many experiments use students, and this adds the potential for additional pressure – principle of responsibility. This seems harsher if it is part of their course for example and they might have been unable to exert their right to withdraw. Valentine and Mesout (2009) could not explain (informed consent) to their participants that the “scary person” they met in the labyrinth was part of a study but they did explain as soon as they could in their field study. The informed consent was achieved in another part of the study when they got heart rate. Debriefing ensured participants were fully aware of the study and implications and deceit was kept to a minimum.
ethics of case studies
When there is a novel situation or something hard to study, such as working out how to help a sexual offender ‘in denial’, a case study of such
a person can help to unpack causes for the denial and is a way of getting data in a novel situation. These are complex situations that cannot
be artificially constructed for experimental purposes due to the sensitivity of the subject, of which many areas in criminal psychology are, in
these cases a case study can be considered ethical.
However, there are the ethical considerations of power and social control. The participant in any case study in criminal psychology is most likely an offender or victim, and as a result both individuals are most likely to be in positions of vulnerability and susceptibility to the authority of professionals. It is therefore essential to establish clear ethical boundaries for research, for example the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009), and also for practice, for example Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) principles for undertaking psychological, formulation and intervention.
describe what a risk assessment is
This involves making sure participants are safe and well as researchers and other people involved in the study. For example, Valentine and Mesout (2009) carried out their research in London Dungeon so could reply on the London Dungeon risk management procedures when participants did the tour, thought the researchers needed to be careful with the intervention they introduced, which was a “scary person” stepping out and blacking the participants path in the labyrinth as that was in addition to the usual tour.
describe the process for hcpc
The main source of information is the HCPC Standards of proficiency document, which lists 15 standards, and within those gives some guidance that is specifically for forensic psychologists. (page 257).
HCPC Standards of proficiency
Being able to practice safely and effectively.
Being able to practice within the legal and ethical boundaries of the profession.
Being able to maintain fitness to practice.
being able to practice in an autonomous way and to use professional judgement.
Being aware of the impact of culture, equality and diversity on practice.
Being able to practice in a non-discriminatory manner.
Understanding the importance of confidentiality.
Being able to communicate effectively.
Being able to work appropriately with others.
Being able to maintain records appropriately.
Being able to reflect on and revie practice.
Being able to assure the quality of their practice.
Understanding the key concepts of the profession’s knowledge base.
Drawing on knowledge and skills to inform practice.
Understanding the need to establish and maintain safe practice.
describe random sampling and evaluate it
Random Sampling
This occurs when every member of the target population has an equal
chance of being selected. Each individual is chosen entirely by chance.
For example, putting names of every member of the target population into
a hat and pulling a sample out without looking.
strengths:
Random sampling (in large numbers) provides the best chance of an unbiased sample of a target population as everyone in the target population has a chance of being selected.
weaknesses: The sample may not be representative of the target population as the participants may not be matched for ability, gender, socio-economic background and so on, increasing the chance of anomalies.
