by CrimePsych | Sep 2, 2019 | Blog
There are several disciplines which have proposed the reasons for crime and criminality; these include Sociology, Criminology, and Psychology. Even within these disciplines, there are a variety of theories of crime. Whether or not an act is defined as a crime is dependent upon context and location. For example, if a man takes another man’s life during an act of warfare it is expected; however, if this is because of an altercation on the street it is a crime.
Crime is viewed as a deviation from the social norms within a society. There have been multiple proposals of why some people break the law while others do not. Factors such as age, personality, moral development, gender, attitude, adolescent, personality disorders and upbringing have all shown that they can influence a person’s behaviour.
These can be classed into three broad explanations of crime: Biological; Psychological; and Social.
Biological explanations of crime propose that there is some genetic reason for criminality. Some suggest that there are evolutionary factors that predispose some (especially males) to be violent. Other biological explanations will suggest some hormonal or brain function factors. Critics of the biological explanations of crime have argued that humans have agency and control over their actions and to reduce actions to a simple biological explanation is a very reductionist view.
Psychological explanations of crime propose that a person’s thought processes and characteristic ways of dealing with the world can better explain criminality. One area which is often drawn on to explain violent behaviour is psychopathy, personality or mental illness. However, this does not explain non-violent crime. Examining styles and characteristic ways of interacting and problem solving have proved useful in exploring reasons for deviancy.
Social theories of crime suggest that a person’s activity is shaped by experience and interactions with others. Social theories of crime highlight that our behaviour is learned through either family or peers. We copy what we see and learn a set of attitudes towards various behaviours, including crime.
Taken individually, these theories of why people commit crime cannot fully explain all types of crime and criminality. It is generally accepted that the environment, our biological makeup, and psychological factors all have a part to play in criminal behaviour.
by CrimePsych | Aug 26, 2019 | Blog
Those who are suspected of taking part in crime will often lie. A suspect will rarely admit to their part in a crime when they are first interviewed. Police officers are trained in interviewing techniques which help to draw as much information out of the suspect as possible. These interviewing techniques also help to identify when suspects are lying.
When interviewing suspects, it is important to acknowledge that they may not always be telling the truth. Interview methods such as the Cognitive Interview and PEACE framework can help in getting as much information as possible. It is suggested that officers be as open and honest as possible with any evidence they have against a suspect as this makes them more likely to confess.
In the past, detectives have used polygraphs, or lie detectors, to detect deception. These work by measuring physiological arousal, in other words, their level of physical arousal in response to a question. The person being interviewed is fitted with a device on their finger to measure sweat rates. They also have a blood pressure cuff and two rubber straps around the chest and abdomen to measure breathing.
However, some studies have found these to be unreliable and not 100% accurate. Although this didn’t seem to bother Jeremy Kyle much! The polygraph measures physiological responses to questions but there are no proven physiological responses associated with liars. The machine is measuring stress levels. It is believed that when people are lying it causes more stress and as such can be detected by the machine.
You might think that police officers and detectives are much better at telling when people are lying than the rest of us. However, several studies have found that law enforcement officials are no better at spotting liars than everyone else. There is about a 50/50 chance of getting it right and spotting a liar.
As a result of numerous studies within psychology, an interview technique was developed called the cognitive interview. This interview technique was primarily developed to interview witnesses and victims of crime. The interview technique uses several different types of retrieval cues and encourages the interviewee to remember all the events that occurred.
Cognitive interviews reliably enhance the process of memory retrieval and have been found to elicit memories without generating inaccurate accounts. Further research has established that this interview technique allows those who are lying to be identified more easily.
The Cognitive Interview is grounded within psychology and contains several important factors within an interview. The interviewer should establish rapport and listen actively to what the person is saying. The interviewer should encourage spontaneous recall of information and ask open-ended questions. They should ensure that they leave a pause after each response and should avoid interrupting. The interviewer should also request detailed descriptions and encourage intense concentration throughout the interview. The use of imagery should be encouraged and the person should also be encouraged to recreate the original context in their mind. Questions should be asked from the perspective of the person remembering the information and compatible questions should be asked throughout. Finally, multiple retrieval attempts of the information should be encouraged.
For the cognitive interview to be adopted into everyday policing practices, the main components of the cognitive interview were summarized and as a result, the PEACE interview was developed. This interview technique is a conversational approach to gathering information rather than confrontational.
PEACE is an acronym where all of the letters stand for something to be done. This P stands for Planning and preparation. The interviewer should know who they are interviewing and have a set of questions already prepared. The E stands for Engage and explains the purpose of the interview and process. The interviewer should explain what information they need and why they need it. The person being interviewed should be treated like a person rather than a suspect and the language should be kept simple. A stands for Account – the interviewer should allow free recall. Open-ended questions will allow for more information to be obtained. The C stands for Clarify challenge and conclude. The interviewer should explain what happens next and check that they have all the information they need. Finally, the E stands for Evaluate. The interviewer should evaluate their performance. They should evaluate what information was gathered and decide whether any actions need to be taken.
By using these principles during an interview, both the quantity and quality of information is enhanced. It has been found that the PEACE interview helps those giving truthful accounts of an event to remember all of the relevant information. The technique also makes it much more difficult for a liar to continue to lie. By asking about all aspects of the event in several different ways, the liar is much more likely to contradict themselves.
by CrimePsych | Aug 19, 2019 | Blog
An eyewitness is considered to be someone who has seen or hear a crime being committed. When the police are investigating a criminal act, they interview everyone who was in the area at the time to determine whether they saw or heard anything which may be of use in securing a prosecution.
Witnessing a crime can be a distressing event for some people, especially if it is violent or involves a weapon. Plus, psychological studies into memory show that we recall different types of information in different ways and this can cause inaccuracies and biases. People can make mistakes when trying to remember specific pieces of information. It is possible to remember whole events that did not happen.
The person who witnessed the event is likely to be interviewed several times. They can be interviewed by police, prosecution lawyers, def3ence lawyers at various times throughout the investigation. Sometimes these interviews can be conducted several months after the original event. Eyewitness accounts are often seen as very valuable by police officers and juries. However, the quality and quantity of information a person recalls can be greatly affected by several psychological factors.
Numerous studies show how inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be. Any mistakes that they eyewitnesses make will lead to a wrongful conviction. One particular study by Garrett (2011) found that some people were exonerated after their conviction because of DNA evidence. One-third of those convicted had been found guilty based on the evidence of eyewitness testimony alone.
There are several high profile cases where victims of crime have incorrectly identified the culprit. For example, Ronald Cotton was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. DNA evidence proved that he was not the perpetrator and was released. Thankfully, the real rapist was then found. However, the testimony from the victim, Jennifer Thompson, caused an innocent man to spend 10 years behind bars.
We have developed a very good understanding of how people construct and recall memory. This has led to improvements in interviewing and gathering information from eyewitnesses. These changes have drastically reduced the number of errors that people make when recalling information.
One of the leading pioneers into the psychology of eyewitness testimony is Elizabeth Loftus. In one of her earliest studies she found that by giving people misinformation, they were able to change the memories people recalled. In their study, students watched a small red car hit a pedestrian. They were then asked misleading questions such as ‘how fast was the car travelling when it went through the give way sign?’ (it was a stop sign). Others were asked about the stop sign. When they were late presented with two pictures, one containing a give way sign and the other a stop sign, students who were misled were more likely to choose the picture with the give way sign. This and many other studies have shown it is possible to change a person’s memory by giving them misleading information.
Other aspects such as social conformity can affect the accuracy of the information that eyewitnesses recall. Some studies have been designed so that a group watch a video and then discuss the information contained in it. The majority of participants in the group were fake and only a few genuine participants. It was found that when the fake members of the group said that something occurred, the genuine participants agreed and also said that it had. Therefore, it is possible to change our memory of events to ‘fit in’ with other people’s accounts.
There is also a phenomenon known as ‘schema’ which is based on what we would normally expect to find or come across in various contexts. For example, we would expect to come across shelves and books at a library and therefore we do not put any effort into remembering the details of these. Our attention would be directed towards other aspects of the scene. We have a limited ability to take in all of the information in our surroundings and so tend to use a set of ‘short cuts’.
We can create memories in our mind that we can 100% believe are genuine but have never happened. We can also completely forget about other things that have happened. Sometimes a victim of a violent crime can completely forget that the crime occurred, this is called a repressed memory. Often, these memories are not recalled until years after the original event.
When the police are interviewing a suspect, they can create false memories. This was proven in a major study by Crombag and colleagues (1996). They conducted a study about details of a crash involving a Boeing 747 into a residential area of Amsterdam. At the time the news incident was being reported, there were no pictures or video of the crash available. However, when participants were interviewed they were misled into thinking they had seen such images. Their recollection included details that they could not have seen.
Some eyewitnesses can be very confident about the information that they are recalling and others can be very unsure. Several studies have found that confidence is not linked to accuracy. Just because a person is very confident in what they are saying does not mean it is more likely to be true. Similarly, just because someone is unsure whether or not they are recalling things accurately doesn’t mean it is unreliable.
It is not all bad news when it comes to eyewitness testimony though. We do know that certain kinds of information can be accurately recalled. Things such as gender, eye shape, face shape, and hair colour are usually highly accurate. The timing of recalling the information is also of great importance. The sooner the information is recalled and collected, the more accurate it is likely to be.
When eyewitnesses are asked to pick the offender out of an identity parade, they may feel pressured to pick a person out even though they may not be 100% sure they have chosen the correct suspect. They may pick someone out because they assume the offender must be in the line-up.
By putting in stringent frameworks it is possible to reduce the number of incorrect identifications. Several procedures have been put into everyday practice by police to reduce the possibility of incorrect identification of a suspect. Measures, such as the officer not knowing who the suspect is so as not to influence the witness, the witness being told the offender may not be in the line-up, having similar looking people used in lineups, and no feedback to be given to the witness, can all help to reduce inaccurate information by eyewitnesses.
Both the quantity and quality of information drawn out from witnesses and suspects is of great importance. Therefore, a comprehensive semi-structured interview technique has been proven to improve the quantity and quality of information from both suspects and eyewitnesses. The Cognitive Interview is grounded within psychology and contains several important factors within an interview: establish rapport; listen actively; encourage spontaneous recall; ask open-ended questions; pause after responses; avoid interrupting; request detailed descriptions; encourage intense concentration;, encourage the use of imagery; recreate the original context; adopt the rememberers perspective; ask compatible questions; and encourage multiple retrieval attempts.
In an attempt to make this simpler so it could be adopted into everyday policing practices, the PEACE interview was developed. PEACE is an acronym where all of the letters stand for something to be done. This summarizes the main components of the cognitive interview to Planning and preparation; Engage and explain the purpose of interview and process; Account – free recall; Clarify challenge and conclude; Evaluate – and new lines of enquiry. By using these principles during an interview, both the quantity and quality of information is enhanced.
In conclusion, several factors can affect the quality and quantity of information that people remember. It is possible to ask questions in a way that can create false memories. Therefore, stringent and well-regulated frameworks are put into practice to avoid this happening.
by CrimePsych | Aug 13, 2019 | Blog
The law abiding citizens amongst you might argue that there is no excuse for breaking the law and committing a crime. Whenever I talk to people about crime and offending people often ask me why they do it. It seems such a natural question to ask and one that should have a fairly straight forward answer. Why did that man shoot another person? Why did someone break into my home and steal from me? Why did that person steal something from a shop?
I have spoken to many criminals over the years and all of them will have a reason for committing the crime. When a person stands trial their defence lawyer will often say what circumstances led their client to become involved in the crime. They might try to get a reduced sentence for their client by arguing that they were coerced into the act or felt they had no other options available. Some offenders might even admit their wrongdoing and say how sorry they are for the offence; however, it will often be accompanied by some kind of justification.
The specific justification will depend on the individual and will vary greatly. Some people may feel that their actions were completely justified. For example, one offender I have spoken to told me that they felt they had to do the crime. He was involved in a gang and wanted to stay under the protection of that gang and so was involved in violence towards rival gangs. He felt that he had no choice other than to do what the other gang members asked him to.
Another young man told me that he didn’t intend to commit the crime. He had been involved in a fight during a night out and punched someone. That punch led to a bleed on the brain which killed the person. The offender appeared to be very remorseful of his actions and said that cocaine was a major factor in him being so violent. However, other murderers such as Fred West intended to kill. He had prepared a way of dispatching the victim before he had come into contact with a victim, and showed little remorse afterwards.
Other offenders will say that they commit crime to pay for drugs. People become so addicted to various substances that they are willing to go to any lengths to get more. They will steal money or items to sell on or trade. Those who steal because of addiction often take from their friends and family members.
As you can see, how people justify their criminal activity will vary depending on the crime and the circumstances. The non-offenders amongst us may think that there are no excuses for crime. However, a few months ago I was reading an online news article about a sex offender who had been released from prison and re-offended again shortly after. Almost every comment I read was suggesting that he should have his private parts removed and how they would willingly do it for free. Some people were saying that if they ever saw him they would beat him. Others, especially females, were commenting that if it had happened to their child they would kill him with their bare hands.
These normally law abiding citizens felt that their actions would be justified because of the circumstances. They would feel justified to carry out actual bodily harm, torture, and even murder. I have no doubt that any parent would feel as strongly as this if someone hurt their child. The point that I am trying to make is that every single person who commits a crime has some kind of justification for doing so.
Two researchers called Sykes and Matza suggested that these justifications could be classified into a limited number of groups. Sykes and Matza developed Neutralisation theory. Neutralisation theory suggests that all offending behaviour is justified by the individual; this may even precede the offending behaviour. These justifications, or rationalisations, are generally given in defence in court and are believed by the individual, thus protecting him or her from self-blame and the blame of others.
The first of these techniques is ‘Denial of responsibility’. This technique allows offenders to use external factors to explain their behaviours, for example unloving parents or other factors beyond the control of the individual. When an offender employs this technique they believe they are helplessly propelled into the situation and view themselves as more acted upon than acting.
The second of the neutralisation techniques is ‘Denial of injury’. This technique allows the individual to feel that nobody was hurt or harmed in the offence, for example acts of shoplifting do not cause any physical harm towards another person.
The third technique is ‘Denial of the victim’. In this technique the individual may still acknowledge that an offence has occurred and that a person may have actually been hurt or harmed, however, they believe that the injury is not wrong in light of the circumstances. In this technique, the injury inflicted is seen as a justified form of retaliation or punishment. Sykes and Matza suggest that the victim sees himself as an avenger and the victim is the wrong-doer, for example, attacks on homosexuals because of their sexual orientation.
The fourth neutralisation technique is ‘Condemnation of the condemners’. In this technique, the offender shifts the focus of attention away from their own behaviours to those who disapprove. For example, Sykes and Matza suggest that individuals may believe that ‘Police, are corrupt, stupid, and brutal. Teachers always show favouritism and parents always “take it out” on their children’ when employing this technique (pg 668). In adopting this viewpoint, the wrongfulness of the offenders behaviour is more easily disguised or lost.
The fifth and final neutralisation technique is ‘Appeal to the higher loyalties’. Throughout this technique individuals are able to neutralise social controls by ‘sacrificing the demands of the larger society for the demands of the smaller social group to which the delinquent belongs’ (p669). While an offender may recognise the norms and laws of society, other norms and beliefs are seen as more important to him or her.
There has been much support for Neutralisation theory, for example Professor Topalli (2006) used Neutralization theory to explain behaviours of hard-core street offenders, saying ‘guilt is not an issue at all because their crimes are not only considered acceptable, but attractive and desirable with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend’(p475). Mitchel & Doctors (1984) lend general support to Neutralisation theory and report that there is a significant correlation between techniques of neutralisation and different types of delinquency.
In conclusion, offenders will have a variety of reasons for committing their crimes. Everybody uses justifications for their behaviour. When we feel that our actions are justified we are much more likely to act. This also means that we feel less guilty for our behaviour.
by CrimePsych | Jul 30, 2019 | Blog
There are a wide range of studies examining the psychology of crime and criminal behaviour. Not all of these relate directly to the criminal. Studies explore a variety of stages in the criminal process, such as: why people commit various crimes; how police may investigate crime; the courts and trial system; imprisonment and reform structures.
To study the psychology of crime, it is important to have a clear idea of what crime is and how it can be studied. Crime is simply a behaviour which is deemed to be against the law. The law is formed within a society and is a generally accepted set of rules that all must follow. Therefore, an act may be considered acceptable in one context but criminal in another. Taking another person’s life is one example. If a soldier were to take a life during warfare it is not a crime; however, if he had an altercation in a bar which resulted in death it is murder.
Criminal psychologists ask questions such as – what types of people do which types of things and how can we prevent or reform their behaviour? To answer questions such as this, it is important to consider the complexity of human behaviour. Humans are complex social beings and numerous factors can influence our behaviour. We may have characteristic ways of dealing with others but there may be small variations based on context and types of interaction.
To examine which factors have an impact on whether people offend, we must first gather a lot of information. Careful consideration must be given to how and where that information is collected from.
Many studies which examine the psychology of crime use data from police sources. This can be arrest or conviction data from various areas. However, is this data representative? Crime may not be reported to police for a variety of reasons. Police may have reports of offences but never arrest a suspect. Even if a person is arrested, they are not always prosecuted or convicted. Therefore, the official statistics do not represent all crimes and criminals. It could be argued that criminal psychologists should use self-report data. However, people are not always willing to participate in such research. Even if they are willing to participate, it cannot be guaranteed they are being truthful. This data may be incomplete or inaccurate.
It must also be noted that when police collect data about a crime or an offender, their primary purpose of gathering that data is to secure a conviction. Police do not generally consider how else such data may be used. Therefore it is best to consider a variety of research methods taken over a longer period.
In summary, numerous stages of crime and criminality are examined by criminal, forensic, and investigative psychologists. It is a vast area of study that explores the process of crime, the actions of the criminal, characteristics of the offender, the judicial and investigation process, incarceration, and rehabilitation.
by CrimePsych | Jul 22, 2019 | Blog
There are many different areas of research within Forensic, Criminal, and Investigative psychology. Each area of research may require a slightly different approach to study and investigate further. However, when we wish to study any aspect of offending behaviour the basic fundamentals will be the same. Every research project begins with a question or set of questions. There may even be some problem which requires a solution. I am going to give you a general overview of how we study one aspect of the psychology of offending.
You may very well have heard the famous saying by Sir Isaac Newton ‘standing on the shoulders of giants.’ What this means for academics that develop theories of behaviour, is that there will already be some evidence of a phenomenon that already exists and is then build upon. I will use the theory that I developed for my PhD as an example. I wanted to investigate which factors increased a person’s propensity to offend, in other words, what would make a person more likely to offend.
Other psychologists before me had discovered that some people followed the norms, laws and rules within society better than others because of their level of morality. A famous psychologist called Piaget had found that morals are learned throughout childhood and influenced a person’s thoughts and behaviour. After this, another psychologist called Kohlberg built upon this theory and suggested that there were 3 stages in the development of morality. Later, other psychologists investigated this further and found that criminals were all within one particular stage of moral development while non-offenders were further developed. And as you can start to see already, over a number of decades a phenomenon is identified, then it is further tested by others who might make small advances and develop the theory a little more.
Today, we understand that the behaviour of human beings in complex societies is can be influenced by a number of factors. A person does not always become a criminal because of any one particular thing. A person’s personality can have an influence on whether or not they offend. And of course, there are different levels and types of crime. Some people might think that it is ok to steal from a shop to feed their family, or ok to beat a rapist for retribution but would never kill a man. Others might think that it is ok to kill someone if they stole from you, or maybe not that bad to sell drugs but they would never rape someone. Every person has a different set of standards, morals, attitude towards different crimes, and different personalities.
Therefore, when I wanted an answer to the question ‘what makes a person more likely to offend’ I needed to look at several areas of psychology that could work together to explain why. After extensive research, one of the things I decided to investigate was attitude towards offending. People’s attitude towards offending is influenced by their upbringing, by their learned behaviours and what they experience and find acceptable on a day to day basis. But as I have just mentioned there are different types of crimes and some people might think one thing is not that bad, and others as abhorrent. That led me to design a questionnaire that had several different types of crime and various justifications for doing them. As we know, whenever anyone gets caught committing a crime they have a reason or justification for doing so. This is commonly thought of as their motive.
There have also been a number of psychologists who have found that an individual’s personality has an impact on whether or not they offend. Therefore, I wanted to find out if personality had an influence on attitude towards offending. That led me to my next problem – which theory of personality should I use? There are multiple theories of personality. I understood that crime occurs within society and is a form of social interaction. There is an interaction between the perpetrator and the victim. Sometimes this is a direct interaction where they come face to face in sometimes violent ways, or it can be an indirect one where the two never see each other such as fraud or burglary. Therefore, I decided that a theory of personality that measured social interactions was most appropriate.
So I was standing on the shoulders of several giants. I had drawn on previous research on morality, thinking styles, learning theories, attitude, and personality theories. I had developed a questionnaire that incorporated several factors. I had a questionnaire to measure interpersonal personality. Then I started thinking about who my participants should be for this study. The most obvious choice for a criminal psychologist is to investigate criminals. However, if I did that, all of the participants would have a favourable attitude towards some types of crimes.
Therefore, I decided to use members of the general public as participants. I also included a questionnaire that asked about any criminal or deviant behaviour they have previously engaged in. I wanted to look at how their previous involvement in these types of acts influenced their attitude towards the various crimes. Overall I was investigating the relationship between attitude, personality, and reported offending. I believed that by examining all three it would give a more accurate representation of the multi-factor influences of offending.
The results showed that members of the general public had been involved in a vast range of criminal and deviant acts. Rather than being involved in specific crimes, it was found that people showed a preference towards offences that were either carried out for some external gain such as money or goods, or an internal gain such as power or enjoyment. Level of involvement was also depended on how serious an offence was. For example, some people were only involved in minor crimes such as petty theft or other deeds that would not normally result in imprisonment. Others were more likely to be involved in more serious crimes that would result in imprisonment such as gang crime, involvement in drugs of stealing cars.
I found that a person’s attitude and personality type was related to the level of crime they reported involvement in. I also found that when a person showed a positive attitude towards crimes that have an external gain and are higher risk and had the type of personality where they felt other people control them, their level of reported offending was highest.
As many of you will have experienced, attitudes can change over time. Therefore, this research shows that it would be possible to reduce the level of offending by changing attitudes. Any programs designed to change attitudes could be delivered to those with the identified personality and be much more effective.
In conclusion then, for a psychological theory to be developed it would start with a question or some kind of problem that needed a solution. Researchers would then look at what evidence exists relating to this question. As our understanding of psychology has grown, researchers often investigate several previous explanations for the phenomenon and combine them. Existing research doesn’t always need to be directly related to offending. We can take various aspects of everyday psychology and build upon them to relate to offending. Within investigative psychology, theories can be taken from clinical psychology, social psychology, criminology, sociology, the psychology of place and how we interact with our surroundings, or even neuropsychology and the study of brain damage.
Large research projects are undertaken which often take years to complete. The way a phenomenon is investigated is crucial for getting applicable results. We can look for patterns in police records, interview offenders at length on their experiences, give them questionnaires to fill in, or even look at members of the general public. People have a tendency to think that an offender is a unique creature who is somehow different from the public. But these offenders are members of the public. They are someone’s Son or Daughter. They are someone’s Mother or Father, Brother or sister. Those individuals who are in jail only represent the ones that have been caught and sent to prison. There are many more who are never caught or who have already served a sentence.
Once we have the background evidence of existing theories and the data in whatever format we have chosen to collect it, complex statistical methods are applied to rigorously test the patterns. The findings of the study are then written in the form of a journal article which is carefully examined by other experts in the field. Usually, other researchers in different areas try to recreate your findings with different populations. These are also published as journal articles. And this is how psychological theories of offending are developed.
