Turning To Crime - Cognition

Question 0

What were the aims of Yochelson and Samenow’s study?

Answer 0

1. To understand the makeup of the criminal personality
2. To establish techniques that could be used to alter the personality disorders that produce crime
3. To encourage an understanding of legal responsibility
4. To establish techniques that can be effective in preventing criminal behaviour

Question 1

What was the study on criminal thinking patterns?

Answer 1

Yochelson and Samenow, a study on thinking patterns in criminals

Question 2

Who were the participants in Yochelson and Samenow’s study?

Answer 2

255 males from various backgrounds (black/white/from inner city/from suburbs/wealthy/poor)
Confined to a hospital as found guilty but their insanity was considered more suited to indefinite secure treatment, considered incapable of guilt even though they had committed a crime.
No control group on non-criminals to see if they also had these thinking patterns.

Question 3

What was the method of Yochelson and Samenow’s study?

Answer 3

A series of interviews were conducted with participants over a period of several years.

Question 4

What were the selected findings of Yochelson and Samenow’s study?

Answer 4

Criminals set themselves apart from others, they feel no obligation to anyone or anything apart from themselves. They want to live a life of excitement, are angry, restless and lack empathy. They set themselves apart from others and are poor at decision making.
Only 30 participants completed the programme of interviews and 9 genuinely changed.
It was acknowledged that patients lied and gave answers they thought would help their situations improve.

Question 5

What were the conclusions of Yochelson and Samenow’s study?

Answer 5

52 thinking patterns were distinguishable in the criminal personality. These were considered ‘errors’ in thinking and although not specific to criminals they were thought to be displayed more by criminals.

Question 6

What was the study on moral development and crime?

Answer 6

Kohlburg, moral development in children

Question 7

What was the aim of Kohlburg’s study?

Answer 7

To find evidence in support of a progression through stages of moral development.

Question 8

Who were the participants in Kohlburg’s study?

Answer 8

58 boys from Chicago, of working and middle class, aged 7, 10, 13 and 16 in 1963.

Question 9

What was the method of Kohlburg’s study?

Answer 9

A 2-hour interview with 10 dilemmas that they had to solve (Heinz dilemma). Some of the boys were followed up at 3-yearly intervals up to age 30-36, making this a longitudinal study.
In 1969 Kohlburg also studied children in the UK, Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, the USA and Yucatan.

Question 10

What were the results of Kohlburg’s study?

Answer 10

Younger boys tended to perform at stages 1 and 2 with older boys at stages 3 and 4 suggesting support for development through the stages. These patterns were consistent in the criss-cultural studies, although progression was slower in the less industrialised societies. No support was found for stage 6.

Question 11

What was level 1 of Kohlburg’s theory of moral development?

Answer 11

Pre-morality
Stage 1 - doing what it right because of fear of punishment.
Stage 2 - doing what is right for personal gain, perhaps a reward

Question 12

What was level 2 of Kohlburg’s theory orpf moral development?

Answer 12

Conventional morality
Stage 3 - doing what is right according to the majority in order to be considered good
Stage 4 - doing what is right because it’s your duty and helps society, laws must be obeyed for the common good

Question 13

What is level 3 of Kohlburg’s theory of moral development?

Answer 13

Post-conventional morality
Stage 5 - doing what is right even if it’s against the law because the law is too restrictive
Stage 6 - doing what is right because of our inner conscience which has absorbed the principles of justice, equality and sacredness of human life

Question 14

What is the study on social cognition?

Answer 14

Gudjohnsson and Bownes, the attribution of blame and type of crime committed

Question 15

What was the aim of Gudjohnsson and Bownes’ study?

Answer 15

To examine the relationship between the type of offence and then attributions offenders make about their criminal act and then cross-validate on previous research done on an English sample

Question 16

What was the method of Gudjohnsson and Bownes’ study?

Answer 16

To use the Gudjohnsson and Singh 42 item ‘Blame Attribution Inventory’ (GBAI) to measure the offender’s type of offence and attribution of blame on the three dimensions: internal/external, mental element and guilt.

Question 17

Who were the participants in Gudjohnsson and Bownes’ study?

Answer 17

80 criminals who were serving sentences in Northern Ireland who were divided into 3 groups. The first group of 20 subjects had committed violent offences including homicide and grievous bodily harm. The second group of 40 sex offenders included rapists, paedophiles and those who had committed sexual assault. The final group of 20 had committed property offences including theft and burglary.

Question 18

What were the results of Gudjohnsson and Bownes’ study?

Answer 18

Those who had committed sexual offences showed the most remote about their behaviour, followed by those who had committed violent acts. Very little difference was found for the mental element scores for all offenders and the highest scores for external attribution were found for violent offenders and the lowest for sex offenders.
In comparison with the English findings, violent Irish prisoners showed lower mental element, lower guilt and higher external attribution scores.

Question 19

What were the conclusions for Gudjohnsson and Bownes’ study?

Answer 19

The findings show strong consistency with earlier findings across the offender groups, which suggests there is a strong consistency in the way offenders attribute blame for their crimes across the two countries. The only real difference was for violent prisoners, which may be a result of the violence prevalent in Northern Ireland at the time of the ‘troubles’.