Welcome to Topic F: Criminological Psychology!
Hello future forensic psychologists! This chapter is one of the most exciting applications of psychology, showing how our understanding of the mind can directly impact the criminal justice system—from investigating crimes to deciding guilt in a courtroom and even helping offenders turn their lives around.
We will be looking at how human behavior, memory, and social influence play crucial roles in real-world legal situations. Don't worry if some concepts seem complex; we will break them down using clear examples and helpful tricks!
Key Takeaway: Criminological psychology applies psychological theories to understand, prevent, and manage criminal behavior and improve the functioning of the legal system.
Section 1: The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony (EWT)
One of the most critical pieces of evidence in a court case is often the memory of a witness. But how reliable is that memory? Psychology shows us that EWT is surprisingly fragile.
What is Eyewitness Testimony?
Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) refers to the verbal account given by an individual of an event they witnessed, typically a crime. We rely on EWT because we assume our memories work like perfect video recorders. Psychology tells us they absolutely do not!
Factors Affecting EWT Accuracy
Memory is a reconstructive process, meaning we don't recall events perfectly; we actively build the memory each time we retrieve it, filling in gaps with what seems logical (our schemas).
1. Leading Questions and Post-Event Information
The information received *after* the event can contaminate the original memory. The way a question is phrased can suggest an answer, altering the memory.
Key Study Connection: Loftus and Palmer (1974)
The Car Crash Experiment: Loftus showed participants footage of a car accident and then asked them questions about the speed of the cars. They used different verbs in the critical question:
- Question: "How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?"
- Result: Participants who heard "smashed" estimated significantly higher speeds than those who heard "hit," "bumped," or "contacted."
Did you know? A week later, participants who heard "smashed" were also more likely to falsely report seeing broken glass, even though there was none in the footage. This is strong evidence of Post-Event Contamination.
2. Anxiety and Arousal
High levels of stress or anxiety during a crime can affect the accuracy of memory, though the relationship is complex.
- The Yerkes-Dodson Law Analogy: This law suggests performance (including memory recall) increases with arousal up to an optimal point, but then declines rapidly if arousal becomes too high (panic).
- Weapon Focus Effect: If a weapon is present (high threat, high arousal), the witness focuses intensely on the weapon, drawing attention away from the appearance of the perpetrator. This reduces the accuracy of facial identification.
Memory Aid: Remember W.A.L.L.: Weapon, Anxiety, Loftus (leading questions), Limited focus.
Quick Review: Improving EWT (The Cognitive Interview)
Since memory can be flawed, psychologists developed the Cognitive Interview (CI) to maximize accurate recall. The CI involves techniques like:
- Reporting everything (even trivial details).
- Reinstating the context (mentally returning to the scene).
- Recalling events in a different order (backward or from the middle).
- Recalling from a changed perspective (e.g., what another witness might have seen).
The goal is to provide multiple paths to access the memory, bypassing potential contamination.
Section 2: Psychology Applied to Jury Decision Making (JDM)
Juries are tasked with the crucial decision of guilt or innocence, often relying on complex evidence and emotional testimony. However, jurors are human, and their decisions can be influenced by psychological factors that have nothing to do with the facts of the case.
Factors Influencing Jury Decisions
1. Defendant Characteristics
Studies show that non-evidentiary factors about the accused can unconsciously sway a jury.
- Attractiveness: Physically attractive defendants are often perceived as less likely to be guilty, particularly for crimes unrelated to their appearance (e.g., theft, not fraud). This bias is sometimes called the "halo effect."
- Race and Social Background: Juries may show bias against defendants from certain ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds, especially if the crime aligns with negative stereotypes.
- Similarity to Juror: Jurors tend to be more lenient towards defendants they perceive as being similar to themselves (in background, age, or attitude).
Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't assume bias is always conscious. Most biases operate subconsciously (implicit bias).
2. Juror and Jury Process Factors
The way the jury discusses and deliberates can significantly change the outcome.
- Pre-Trial Publicity (PTP): If a case has heavy media coverage, potential jurors might arrive with pre-existing opinions (schemas) about the defendant's guilt, making a fair trial difficult.
- Group Polarisation: This occurs during deliberation. The group's final decision often becomes more extreme than the initial opinions of the individual members. If the majority slightly favours conviction initially, the group discussion tends to pull the verdict even more strongly towards conviction.
- The Majority Influence: Jurors who hold a minority view (e.g., a single "not guilty" vote among 11 "guilty" votes) often feel immense social pressure to conform to the majority view, even if they doubt the defendant's guilt. This relates back to social psychological concepts like Asch’s conformity studies.
Key Takeaway: JDM is not purely rational; it is subject to implicit bias, cognitive shortcuts (like the halo effect), and powerful social influence dynamics within the deliberation room.
Section 3: Applications in Offender Rehabilitation
Criminological psychology doesn't just focus on solving crimes; a large part of it involves rehabilitating offenders to reduce recidivism (re-offending).
Token Economies (TE): A Behavioural Approach
One of the most well-established systems for managing and modifying behaviour in institutional settings (like prisons or psychiatric hospitals) is the Token Economy.
What are Token Economies?
Token economies are based on principles of Operant Conditioning (developed by Skinner). They use positive reinforcement to encourage desirable behaviors and reduce undesirable ones.
Recap of Operant Conditioning: Behaviour is maintained or changed through consequences (rewards and punishments).
The Step-by-Step Process
Token economies rely on a clear system of rewards:
Step 1: Define Target Behaviours
- Psychologists and staff clearly define exactly what constitutes "desirable behaviour" (e.g., attending therapy sessions, cleaning their cell, showing politeness to staff, completing educational tasks).
Step 2: Immediate Reinforcement (Tokens)
- When the offender performs a target behavior, they immediately receive a token (a star, a sticker, a physical chip, or points on a card).
- Tokens are secondary reinforcers because they have no inherent value themselves.
Step 3: Exchange for Primary Reinforcers
- The accumulated tokens can be exchanged later for tangible rewards, known as primary reinforcers (things the offender actually wants).
- Examples of primary reinforcers: access to TV time, better food, visiting rights, luxury items like cigarettes or extra recreation time.
Analogy: Think of a gold star chart for a child. The star (token) is traded in later for a treat or a trip to the park (reward).
Effectiveness and Evaluation
- Strengths: Token economies are highly structured and easy to implement. They provide clear, immediate feedback, which is crucial for motivating behavior change, particularly among individuals who may struggle with abstract or future rewards.
- Limitations:
1. Dependency: The desired behavior might only occur when the tokens are being offered. When the offender returns to the real world (where there are no tokens), the positive behaviors might stop (lack of generalization).
2. Ethical Concerns: If basic necessities (like food or visiting time) are used as rewards, some argue this is unethical, as these should be rights, not privileges earned through conformity.
3. Focus on Surface Behaviour: Token economies change external behaviour but do not necessarily address the deep cognitive or emotional reasons *why* the offender committed the crime in the first place. This may lead to higher relapse rates than cognitive therapies.
Key Takeaway: Token Economies successfully apply operant conditioning to manage institutional behavior through systematic positive reinforcement, but face challenges regarding generalization and ethical implementation.
Summary and Application Checklist
To succeed in this chapter, ensure you can:
- Explain how leading questions impact EWT (using Loftus).
- List two psychological factors that bias jury decisions (e.g., attractiveness, PTP).
- Describe the process and principles of a Token Economy (operant conditioning, primary/secondary reinforcement).
Keep these applications in mind, as they show the powerful and practical impact of psychology on justice!