forensic psychology Flashcards
1
Q
O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO1 universal levels of moral reasoning point
A
- Kohlberg suggested that there are three universal levels of moral reasoning:
-pre-conventional (punishment orientation)
-conventional (maintenance of the social order)
-post-conventional (morality of contract and individual rights) - criminals are likely to be at the pre-conventional level - what is acceptable is defined by ones own needs (Hollin et al. 2002)
- they believe that breaking the law is justified if the rewards outweigh the costs or if punishment can be avoided
2
Q
O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO1 cognitive distortions point
A
- cognitive distortions are a form of irrational thinking in which the perceptions of a person do not match reality. for example:
- hostile attributation bias - when a person automatically attributes malicious intentions to another. the negative interpretations lead to more aggressive behaviour. hostile attributation bias has been linked to increased levels of aggression
3
Q
O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 moral thinking rather than behaviour point
A
- Kohlbergs theory concerns moral thinking rather than behaviour
- Krebs and Denton (2005) suggest that moral principles are only one factor in moral behaviour and may be overridden by more practical factors, such as making financial gains
- they also found that in real-life moral decisions
- Kohlbergs reseach was based only on males and therefore has a gender bias
- Carol Giligan suggested that the theory is focused on a male perspective - one of justice rather than caring
- this means the theory is limited in its ability to explain causes of offending behaviour, particularly in relation to women
4
Q
O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 real-world application point
A
- Kohlberg identified at least one benefitial real-world application of his theory
- he observed that children raised on Israei Kibbutzim were more morally advanced than those who weren’t
- he suggested that belonging to a democratic group and being involved in making moral judgements facilitated moral development
- with Carol Giligan, he set up a number of cluster schools/’jusr’ communities where members had the power to define and resolve disputes within the group, encouraging moral development
- this is a good example of putting theories into practice concerning how to develop moral reasoning
5
Q
O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 support for hostile attributation bias point
A
- studies of violent offenders have provided support for hostile attributation bias
- Schönenberg and Aiste (2014) showed emotionally ambiguous faces to 55 violent offenders in prison and compared their responses to matched control ‘normal’ participants
- the faces showed happy, angry, or fearful emotions in varying levels of intensity
- the offenders were more likely to interpret any picture that had some expression of anger as an expression of aggression
- this suggests that misinterpretation of non-verbal cues may at least partially explain aggressive-impulsive behaviours in susceptible individuals
6
Q
O&E cognitive explanations for offending - AO3 cognitive distortions in treatment
A
- understanding cognitive distortions can be used in treatment
- Heller et al (2013) worked with a group of young men who were mainly from disadvantaged groups in Chicago
- they used cognitive behavioural techniques to reduce judgement and cognitive errors
- those who attended 13 one-hour sessoins had a 44% reduction in arrests compared to a control group
- this suggest that CBT can be effective in helping top rehabilitate people
7
Q
O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO1 token economies point
A
- token economies are systems based upon operant conditioning
- within this, prisoners are given tokens when they perform desirable behaviours, e.g. obeying orders
- the token is a secondary reinforcer and is swapped for a reward (the primary reinforcer) e.g. tobacco or food
- this positive reinforcement means the offender is more likely to repeat the desirable behaviours
- target behaviours must be clearly specified and primary reinforcers must also be clearly defined at the outset
8
Q
O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO1 key study + effectiveness point
A
- the effectiveness of token economy systems was demonstrated by Hobbs and Holt (1976) who studied 125 criminal male juvenile
- the staff were given extensive training to identify target behaviours, discuss methods of observing and recording data, and work our logistical problems
- the baseline mean percentages for social behaviour increased post-tokens by an average of 27% with the highest, with one cottage going from 47% to 81%
- therefore, token ecconomy systems can be used to improve the running of prisons
9
Q
O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 clearly defined point
A
- the appeal of token economy is clearly defined and easy to implement
- prison staff can think about what behaviours are desirable and increase such behaviours, improving the prison environment for staff and prisoners
- it can be implemented without psychologists and provides a means of controlling unmanageable behaviour
- pre-planning is needed for a successful token economy, alongside consistency from staff in how they give out tokens
- in one study - Bassett and Blanchard (1977) - a failing token economy system was improved by re-establishing consistency
- therefore, as long as the token economy is clear and consistent, it can provide a simple and cost-effective way of improving prison life
10
Q
O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 response to operant conditioning point
A
- some people respond better to operant conditioning than others
- for example, programmes with young delinquents have been reasonably successful, but programmes with violent offenders have been less successful
- Cohen and Filipczak (1971) found that juvenile delinquents who had been trained with a token economy system were less likely to reoffend after one year
- in contrast, Rice et al (1990) studied 92 men in a Canadian maximumm security psychiatric hospital and found that 50% of men treated this way reoffended
- this suggests that token economy programmes are more effective when used with young offenders than with other groups
11
Q
O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 less successful with prison populations point
A
- generally, the token economy approach has been less successful with prison populations
- in the 1970’s, it became popular in the US and was being used in nearly all states
- research like Milan and Mckee (1976) showed that socially approved behaviours were enhanced and criminal behaviours diminished
- however, it fell out of favour after this time since the good results didn’t persist
- use in the UK was limited to young offenders’ institutions, like in Cullen and Seddon (1981)
- the approach has had some success, such as for schools and dealing with people with autism, demonstrated by Tarbox et al (2006)
- therefore, although the approach has fallen out of favour in prisons, it’s still used successfully elsewhere
12
Q
O&E behaviour modification in custody - AO3 violation of human rights point
A
- token economy systems are a violation of human rights because individuals behaviour is being manipulated, not always with their agreement
- Hall (1979) suggests that this can be overcome with procedures and goals being agreed upon by prisoners, officers, and administrators, and having them periodically reviewed
- objections still remain about basic needs like food or visiting rights being conditional on good behaviour
- some prisoners are unable to control their behaviour and can’t earn tokens
- some establishments use punishment as a part of token economy, which is unethical and counter to the goals of rehabilitation
- Nietzel (1979) suggests that this practice led to the collapse of using such systems
- all these ethical issues contributed to the loss of popularity of token economy in prisons
13
Q
O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO1
A
- Eysenck developed a theory of personality based on the idea that character traits like moodiness or talkativeness tend to cluster along three dimensions
- for example, extraversion-introversion. extraverts are characterised as outgoing and having positive emotions, but may get bored easily
- around 68% of any population should fall within one standard deviation from the mean
- suggested each trait has a biological basis, which is mainly inate (67% of the variance in traits is due to genetic factors
- for example, extraversion is determined by the level of arousal in a persons nervous system. under-aroused require more stimulation and are therefore extraverts. introverts are inately under-aroused amd seek to reduce or avoid stimulation
- link to criminal behaviour - criminals are extraverted, psychotic, and neurotic. extraverts seek more arousal and thus engage in dangerous activities
14
Q
O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO3 personality isn’t consistent point
A
- some psychologists believe personality theories are wrong in suggesting that personality is consistent
- people may be consistent in similar situations, but not across situations e.g. someone may be relaxed and calm at home but quite neurotic at work
- Micheal and Peake (1982) asked family, friends, and strangers to rate 63 students in a variety of situations and found almost no correlations between traits displayed
- any regularity in behaviour is likely to be due to the fact that we often tend to be in similar situations
- therefore the notion of a criminal personality is flawed as people don’t simply have ‘one’ personality
15
Q
O&E Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality - AO3 link between personality traits and criminal behaviour point
A
- there’s been research comparing the personalities of criminals and non-criminals in order to identify the link between personality traits and criminal behaviour
- Dunlop et al. 2010 found that both extraversion and psychoticism as well as lie scales were good predictors of delinquency
- however in this study, all participants were students and friends (age 15-75) and delinquency was an assessment of minor offences in the previous 12 months (e.g. theft, traffic offences, but armed robbery was also included)
- this therefore doesnt account for violent crimes and the study may be innacurate due to people lying
- therefore, there’s some support for a link between personality traits and criminal behaviour, but it’s inconsistent and limited
