Criminal Behavior from a Social Psychological Perspective
LEGAL SYSTEM AND APPLIED
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
UNIT - 3
INTRODUCTION
•
This criminal acts, vicious attack raises many questions
about the
nature of criminal behavior and about people’s responses to criminal
acts that may be examined from a social psychological
perspective.
•
Moreover, beyond the particular criminal incident, social
psychological theory and research can be applied to understand and
address other aspects of the criminal justice system, including the
police investigation, the criminal trial, and
the
incarceration and
rehabilitation
of
criminal
offenders.
SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF
CRIMINAL ACTS
•
Criminal
acts
may
be
viewed
from
a
social
ecological
perspective,
that
is,
as
the
result
of an
interaction
between
the
person
and
the
environment.
•
This
notion
derives
from
Kurt
Lewin’s
famous theorem,
•
B = f(P, E),
which
states
that
behavior (B) is a function of the person (P),
the
environment
(E), and the
interaction
between
the
two.
•
With
regard
to criminal
behavior,
an
individual
may be
compelled
to
offend
only
in
the
presence
of
an
environmental
stimulus
that
acts as a sort
of
“trigger.”
CHAPTER OUTLINE(POINTS)
•
APPLICATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN LEGAL SYSTEM…..
•
1. The Crime and
the Criminal
•
- The Social Psychology
of a Crime
•
- The Origins of
Criminal Behavior from different perspectives.
•
2. The Application and Response of the Criminal Justice System
•
- The Police Investigation
•
- The Courtroom
•
- The Prison Setting
1. THE CRIME AND THE
CRIMINAL
1.
BYSTANDER’S EFFECT
2.
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY
3.
DEINDIVIDUATION
4.
SOCIAL FACILITATION
5.
FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS
1. THE CRIME AND CRIMINAL
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLGY OF A CRIME
•
Catherine “Kitty”
Genovese,
who,
in 1964,
was
killed
by
attacker in Queens, NewYork. This incident
has received considerable
attention
in both the social science
literature and the public media
because of the original reports that a number of the victim’s
neighbors were witnesses to the attack
but had failed to intervene,
although the number of such
witnesses does remain in
question.
•
Research on bystander
intervention
(Darley
&
Latané, 1968;
Latané
& Nida,
1981)
has
shown
that various
factors
influence
a person’s decision to
assist
in
an
emergency
situation,
including
the ambiguity of the situation and
the
perceived similarity of the victim to
the
potential
helper.
•
BYSTANDERS’ EFFECT - Another factor
is
the number
of
bystanders who
witness the
emergency. There
is considerable
research
evidence
of a phenomenon
known as the bystander
effect, which states that people are less likely to
help
in an
emergency
when
other
bystanders
are
present.
•
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY – One explanation for the bystander
effect is that the presence of others
lowers the individual bystander’s
sense of responsibility. Moreover, this is the diffusion of
responsibility.
DEINDIVIDUATION(DIMINISHED SENSE OF
SELF-AWARENESS )
•
Wearing balaclavas over
their
faces
provided
the
young men
with a sense of
anonymity
and
loss
of personal identity.
•
DEINDIVIDUATION - Research
on deindividuation
(i.e.,
a diminished
sense of
self-awareness) suggests
that
people, under the cover of
anonymity
in
which
their
identities are concealed,
may
deliberately
choose
to
engage
in
behavior about which
they might otherwise be
inhibited,
including
aggression.
•
For
example,
Zimbardo
(1969) demonstrated
in
a
laboratory
experiment
that
female
research
participants
wearing
Ku
Klux
Klan–type hoods
and
outfits
delivered
shocks
for
twice
as
long
to
an
experimental
confederate
as
did
other
research participants
whose
identities
were
revealed
by
large
name
tags.
SOCIAL FACILITATION
•
The
young
attackers also
were
not acting alone.
Moreover, they had
come to
the
park
prepared to
fight. The notion of social
facilitation (Zajonc, 1965) informs us
that
a person’s performance on a
well-learned task
will
be
enhanced
by the heightened
arousal
caused by
the
presence
of
others.
•
Perhaps the
aggressive behavior
of
these
young
men
was
well
learned—something
they
were
accustomed
to
doing
and,
indeed, something
they
were
primed
to
do
that
evening.
•
Within their
antisocial peer
group,
such behavior
might
even be considered “normative.”
As a
result,
the
presence of the
group
might
have heightened
the
young men’s
levels
of
arousal,
which
in
turn enhanced
their
tendencies to engage
in aggression,
resulting in
the vicious
unprovoked
attack.
•
FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS
•
According
to the
frustration–aggression
hypothesis (Berkowitz,
1989), frustration—defined
as anything that
blocks a
person
from attaining
a goal—may have been
a trigger for
their
aggressive
behavior in
the
presence of a new
set
of potential
victims.
•
A fourth factor
that
may
influence
antisocial
behavior, and
aggression
in
particular,
is
the
presence
of situational
cues
that
incite
the
behavior
•
PROXIMAL AND DISTANT VARIABLES
•
PROXIMAL VARIABLES – In fact, although deindividuation and social facilitation
are good examples of some
of the proximal variables (i.e., those occurring close
in time to the
event)
that
can influence
criminal behavior.
•
DISTANT VARIABLES – There is another set of factors that also
is important,
referred
to as distal variables (i.e., those
occurring
in the distant
past
relative to
the
event).
•
As
we will
see, a comprehensive social
psychological
theory
of criminal
behavior should include both sets
of determinants. It should be
noted that
recognition
of the
situational determinants of criminal
behavior is not meant
to imply that
an individual’s
personal responsibility for engaging in antisocial acts
should be reduced
or diminished
in
any
way.
•
Rather, it is meant to acknowledge that many factors—both situational
and
individual
differences—are needed
to
fully
explain
crime.
THE ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOUR
DIFFERENT THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
•
The
Origins
of
Criminal
Behavior Existing
theories of
criminal
behavior
implicate
a
wide
range
of variables
that
reside
within
the person,
the
person’s
immediate
environment,
and
the
broader
sociological
context. Some
of
the
major
theoretical
paradigms
from
biology, sociology,
and
social
psychology
that have
been
put
forth
to
explain
criminal
behavior.
•
1. BIOLOGICAL THEORIES.
•
2. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES
•
3. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES
•
4. GENERAL PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY.
BIOLOGICAL THEORY
•
Biologically
based
theories
view
criminal
behavior as
the result of genetics, psychophysiology, neurological
functioning,
and
biochemistry. Studies
of genetic influences,
for instance,
have
noted
a greater preponderance
of criminals among sons
whose
biological parents
also were criminals (Lytton, 1990).
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES
•
Sociological Theories
•
Some of the most enduring theories
of
crime
are
those that are
based
on
sociological
principles.
These traditional theories
(e.g., anomie,
strain,
control,
subculture),
although
widely
diverse,
attempt
to explain crime
in relation to
various
factors
in
society
such
as social class, poverty,
and
social inequity.
Thus,
a person’s socioeconomic status, determined
by
education,
occupation,
income, and neighborhood
characteristics,
explains
substantial
variability
in criminal
behavior. Lower socioeconomic status
is associated
with
a higher
rate of
crime.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES
•
Theories of criminal
behavior from
a social psychological perspective tend
to
consider the
influence of both dispositional and
situational factors. For example,
as
Hoge (2001) noted,
social
ecological
models explain crime
as
a function
of
the
interaction
among
multiple “forces operating at the
level
of
the individual, their immediate social environment, and more distal
factors with in the
larger
social environment”.
•
According to
Bandura’s (1977) social
learning theory, criminal activity represents
learned behaviors that develop through a person’s interactions and experiences with the
social
environment.
•
This
learning
takes
place
as a result
of
various
processes,
including observing
and
imitating the
criminal
behavior
of
others,
receiving positive consequences
for engaging
in
criminal
behavior (e.g.,
peer
approval), realizing
that
such
behavior
can
effectively lead
to
desired outcomes
(i.e.,
have
instrumental
value),
and developing
a high
sense
of self-efficacy
in
using antisocial
means
to
achieve
one’s
aims.
GENERAL PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL OF CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOUR(ANDREWS’ AND BONTA MODEL
2010.)
•
This
subsection
focuses
on
the
general
personality
and
social
psychological
model
of
criminal behavior
developed
by
Andrews
and
Bonta
(2010).
•
According
to
Andrews
and
Bonta,
the
likelihood that
a
person
will
engage
in
criminal
behavior
is
increased
by
the
presence
of
risk
factors
in his or
her
life. Eight
categories
of
risk
factors—some personal
and
some
environmental—are
proposed:
RISK FACTORS
•
1. An
early age of
onset
for
antisocial
behavior
•
2. Temperamental and personal characteristics that are conducive to criminal
activity (e.g.,
impulsivity, aggressive
energy,
weak
problem-solving
abilities)
•
3. Antisocial
attitudes,
values,
and
beliefs
•
4. Association
with pro-criminal peers
and
isolation from
noncriminal
associates
•
5. Negative
parenting and
family
experiences (e.g., harsh and abusive
discipline, poor parental monitoring and supervision, low family
cohesion)
•
6. Low levels
of
school
or
vocational
achievement
•
7. Poor use
of leisure
time
and
low
levels
of involvement
in
pro-social
leisure
pursuits
and
recreational activities
•
8. Abuse of
drugs
and/or
alcohol
•
TREATMENT IMPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
•
In
keeping with
the
general personality
and
social psychological
approach, the effective treatment of antisocial behavior involves targeting
the factors that support or maintain
the criminal
behavior.
•
As outlined
in the
model, this
includes targeting factors such as
antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and peer associations as
well as
family
factors.
•
For
example, treatment
programs
that
target
antisocial thinking as
one
component
of
a
rehabilitation strategy have been
shown
to
yield
positive effects in
reducing
the risk of
reoffending
or
recidivism.
•
MULTISYSTEMATIC THERAPY
•
One
successful
intervention
strategy,
the
Multisystemic
Therapy
(MST)
program
for
seriously
violent youths,
attempts
to
influence
the multiple
social
systems
in which
young
people
are
embedded
(e.g.,
family,
school, peer,
neighborhood, justice system)
to
bring
about
a
decrease
in
criminal
behavior.
•
Thus, program
staff
members intervene
in several ways and areas,
including
working
with
the
families
to modify parenting
practices
and dysfunctional
dynamics
within
the
youths’ homes,
linking
the
families
to
community
supports, diverting
the youths
from
negative
peer
associations,
providing individual
counseling,
and
providing
supports
at school.
THE RESPONSE TO THE
CRIMINAL SYSTEM
APPLICATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN
JUSTICE SYSTM
For
instance,
in
an
effort
to
bring
a
case
to its
proper
re solution,
the
police
must
identify
and
interview
witnesses
and
possible
suspects
and
must gather evidence
to
build
a
strong
case
for
the
prosecution
to
present
in
a
court
of
law.
This
section examines
several ways
in which
social psychology has
been
applied in
three
areas
of
the
criminal
justice system:
(a)
THE POLICE INVESTIGATION,
(b)
THE EVENTS IN
THE COURTROOM,
AND
(c)
THE PRISON SETTING
.
THE POLICE INVESTIGATION
•
Once the
police
determine
that
a crime has
occurred, they begin
their
investigation.
Investigation means that evidence about
the crime
should be
carefully and
systematically gathered
in an effort toward
substantiating an
allegation
against one or more suspects who, in the
face
of sufficient evidence, may
be tried in
court.
•
The
process of
conducting
an investigation
can
be extremely
complex. Eyewitnesses, victims,
and
suspects
must be properly
interviewed
and evidence must
be
gathered
in ways that are
in
keeping
with the law
(trace evidences such as hair, fingerprints, and
bodily
fluids).
•
1. THE INVESTIGATING INTERVIEW
•
2. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS
THE INVESTIGATING INTERVIEW
•
Interviewing
witnesses, victims, and
suspects
constitutes
a
significant part of a
criminal investigation. Sometimes a
distinction
is made
between interviewing a witness or victim
and
interrogating
a
suspect.
•
Although
an
objective
of
both
types
of
interviews
is
to
elicit
information
about
a crime,
a
unique
goal
of the
interrogation is
to
obtain
a
confession
from
the
suspect.
•
In
fact, police in North
America are
trained
to
conduct interrogations
only
with
individuals
who
they
believe
are guilty.
•
This
can
be
problematic
because
sometimes
a
suspect
is “determined”
by police
to
be
guilty
based
on
reliable
evidence, but
at
other
times
such
a
determination
is based
on little more
than
a
hunch.
TWO KINDS OF BIASES INVOLED
IN INVESTIGATING INTERVIEW
1.
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY
2.
SELF FULLFILING PROPHECIEC…..
BIASES IN INVESTIGATION(INTERACTIONAL
SYNCHORNY)…..
•
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHORONY
•
How
should
the
investigative
interview
be
conducted
to elicit
the
most
accurate,
complete,
and
detailed information?
•
How
might
the
social
dynamics of the
interview
context
influence
the
effectiveness
of
the interview?
It
is clear that the
way
in
which
an
interviewer
behaves
can alter the behavior
of
the interviewee.
For
instance,
Akehurst and Vrij
(1999)
demonstrated that
fidgety behavior (e.g., continuous fiddling
with
a pen) by
an
investigating
officer
can elicit fidgety
body
movements
in
an
interviewee.
•
Such parallel
behavior
is
in
keeping
with
the notion
of
interactional
synchrony,
that
is,
the tendency of
people to
coordinate
their
body
movements
during conversations.
•
SELF FULLFILING PROPHECIES
•
Therefore,
the
observers had
been
influenced
by
the
interviewer’s
expectations
but
only
in
an
indirect
way;
that
is,
the
expectations influenced
the
responses
of
the
suspects,
which
in
turn
influenced
the
judgments
of
the
observers.
This
research
nicely
demonstrates,
within
the
context
of
criminal
investigations,
the
pitfalls
of
self-
fulfilling prophecies,
that
is,
the
way
in
which
a
person’s
expectations
can
influence
his
or
her
own
and
others’ behaviors
in
a
way
that
will
confirm
the
person’s
beliefs.
APPLICATION OF SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY IN
INVESTIGATIONG INTERVIEWS
COGNITIVE INTERVIEWS
COGNITIVE INTERVIEW(CI)
•
Fortunately,
research has
determined
a
number of techniques
of
a
good
interview. One
of
the
most widely accepted
interviewing techniques
among
psychologists
is the
cognitive
interview
(CI).
•
The
CI
involves
asking
open-ended
and
non leading
questions,
and
using
strategic silence.
•
Interviewers
are
encouraged
to
use
follow-up
questions
(e.g.,
“You
said
before
that
the
person who
stabbed
the
student
looked
angry.
•
Can
you
tell
me
more
about
what
that
means
for
you?”)
and
the interviewees’
own
words
to
phrase
questions
in
order
to
convey
good
listening
skills,
facilitate
rapport,
increase
trust,
and
provide
opportunities
for
the
interviewer
to
elicit
additional
and
more
accurate
information.
•
A procedure involving
explicitly
encouraging
witnesses to describe
events
in
as
many
details as
possible
without
guessing
and
allowing
interviewees
to
tell
their
stories
with
minimal
interruption
or redirection
elicits
better
information
than
does
a
procedure
that
involves
asking
a
barrage
of
questions.
•
The
use of mnemonic
instructions
or
situational
cues may
facilitate
recall
of
events.
•
Bringing
interviewees back
to
the
scene
of
a
crime,
either physically
or
psychologically, is
a
valuable technique
that
may
trigger important
memories.
In
addition to
using
techniques
from
the
CI,
investigators
should
also continue
to
reevaluate working hypotheses in
light
of
new
information.
•
The
CI has
also proved
useful
with
people of different ages,
cognitive
abilities, and socioeconomic and educational backgrounds
WITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS
•
The identification of a
suspect by
an eyewitness represents one of
the
most
important
pieces
of
evidence
in building
a case
for
the
prosecution.
•
Given
the
importance
of
this
kind
of
information,
there
is
an
essential need
to
develop
lineup
identification
procedures
that
reduce
eyewitness
errors,
including
the
very
serious error
of
false
identifications
•
CROSS RACE EFFECT - One
other
factor
affecting
the
accuracy
of
an eyewitness is his
or
her
race
vis-à-vis
the
race of
the perpetrator of
the
crime.
The
cross-race
effect
is
a well
established
phenomenon
that
refers
to
the
tendency
for
individuals
to
be
better
at
recognizing
and identifying faces
of
their
own
race
than
faces
of
a
different
race.
•
The
conditions
under
which
participants
are
asked
to
identify
the
culprit
from
a
police
lineup
also
have been
manipulated
in
studies
to
identify
the
optimal
procedures
for
reducing
errors.
Lineups
can
vary
in terms
of
composition,
using
either
all
suspects
or
one
suspect
and
several
foils
•
LINE UP PROCESS - Finally, the
lineup
should
be
conducted by an
officer who is unaware
of
the
identity
of
the suspect so
as not to
consciously
or
unconsciously
guide the
witness.
•
Presenting
the
lineup
individuals
one
at
a
time
(sequential lineup),
rather
than
all
at
once
(simultaneous
lineup), and asking the
witness
to
state
whether
the
person is the perpetrator
may
serve
to
reduce
the
rate of
misidentifications.
•
The
reduction occurs
because
in
a
sequential
lineup
witnesses
must
compare
each lineup
member
with
the
representation
of
the
perpetrator
in
their
minds
rather
than
adopting
a
strategy
of choosing
the
lineup
member
who
most
closely
matches
this
representation.
•
Application of Social Psychology in the Courtroom
•
Their criminal trial was
conducted
according
to
the
adversarial
model of
the legal
system
that
is adopted in
North America, Britain,
and
a
few
other
countries.
•
Under
the
adversarial model,
two
sets
of
lawyers, one
for
the
defense
and
one
for
the
prosecution,
present
their arguments, question
witnesses,
and
make
their
case
before an
impartial
judge
and,
perhaps, a
jury, who
will
determine
the
guilt
or
innocence
of
the
defendant(s).
•
JURY SIZE….
•
A
jury
of
“one’s
peers”
is
composed
of individuals
from the
community-at-large
who
are
selected at random
from voter
registration
and
enumeration
lists
and are
summoned to
appear for
jury
duty.
In the United
States,
a
jury
may
be composed of
either
6 or
12
members.
•
The
smaller number
is
meant
to
be
a time- and
cost-saving
measure. In
keeping with the
British tradition, Canadian
criminal law
only
allows for
a
12-person
jury.
•
Juror
Impartiality
•
The
strength
of
the
jury,
rather
than
a
single
judge,
is
that
consideration
of
the
facts
of
the
trial
evidence are
based on
the
combined
perspectives
of 12
ordinary individuals
who
are
brought
together
to
function as
a
group to
reach a unanimous
decision.
•
As
Vidmar
and
Schuller
(2001)
explained, Because
jury
verdicts are
rendered
by
members
of
the
community,
their legal
decisions
about
guilt
or innocence
are
assumed to
have greater legitimacy
and
public
acceptance
than
decisions by
a
single judge. The
jury
also
serves
as
the
conscience
of the
community
because
it
is
drawn
precisely
from the
community
in
which
the
crime
was
committed.
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ERROR(JUROR
PREJUDICE)
•
Vidmar
and
Schuller
(2001) identified
four
types
of juror
prejudice:
•
INTEREST PREJUDICE,
•
SPECIFIC PREJUDICE,
•
GENERIC PREJUDICE AND
•
NORMATIVE PREJUDICE.
•
Interest prejudice refers
to a juror
having
a particular
interest
or
stake
in the outcome
of
a
trial.
For
example,
a
juror
might
be related to someone
who
is called
to
testify
or might know someone
who
has
been
charged with
the
same
offense.
•
Second, specific prejudice
occurs
when
the
juror
holds
attitudes or beliefs that
might
interfere
with
his
or her
ability
to
be
impartial in a particular
case. Specific
prejudice
might
arise
from
exposure
to pre-trial publicity
presented
in
the
media
that
biases
the
juror’s judgment
of
the
case.
•
Third,
generic
prejudice refers
to possessing
general
attitudes
(e.g., racist views) that
would
interfere
with
an
unbiased
evaluation of
the
evidence.
•
Finally,
normative
prejudice
refers
to
a
juror believing
that
there
is
such
strong community
sentiment
supporting
a
particular
outcome
of
the
case
that
his
or
her
ability to
decide
the
case impartially
based
on
the
evidence
becomes compromised
in
favor
of
the perceived
normative
attitude
•
There
are
several
remedies
that
may
be
invoked
to
deal
with
biased
jurors.
•
First,
as
stated,
if
a potential
juror
is
deemed
to be biased, he
or
she
can
be
removed
during the
voir dire (i.e.,
the
preliminary examination
to
determine the
competency
of
a
juror).
•
Second,
with
a
high-profile
crime,
extensive
pretrial
publicity
sometimes
can
make
it
difficult
to
select
impartial
jurors
from
the
community
in
which
the
crime
took
place.
In
such
an
instance,
the
location
of the
trial
can
be
moved
to
another
city.
•
Third,
if
during
a trial
there
is
a
risk
that
members
of
a
jury
might
become
aware
of information
that
could
bias
their judgment
(e.g.,
hearing
a
rumor,
seeing
information
in
the
media),
the
trial
can be
adjourned
until sufficient time
passes to
allow
the prejudicial
information to
become
less
salient. Vidmar and Schuller
(2001) noted
that
the latter is the
most
rarely
used
solution
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE
•
The
function
of
the
jury
is
to
reach
a decision
about
the
guilt
or
innocence
of
the
defendant
beyond a reasonable
doubt
based
solely
on
the
admissible
trial
evidence.
•
The
jury
sometimes
may
be
exposed
to evidence
that
is
determined to
be
unreliable
or
deemed
by
the
judge to
be legally
inadmissible, in
which case
the jury
members
may
be
instructed
to “disregard” what they have
just
seen
or
heard.
•
Lieberman
and
Arndt
(2000) noted that
various
social
psychological
theories,
including
belief
perseverance, the
hindsight
bias,
and reactance,
help
to
account
for the
above finings
concerning
juror
responses
to situations
involving inadmissible
evidence.
THE PRISON SETTING
THE PRISON SETTING
•
Social
Climate
of
Prisons One
way
in
which
to think
about the social
dynamics
of
a
prison
environment,
or its
social climate, is in
terms
of the
notion
of the
keeper
and the kept.
•
At the
most
basic
level,
the
role
of
the
prison
staff
members
is
to
enforce
the
rules,
and
the
role of
the
inmates
is
to
toe
the
line.
•
Moving
beyond
this simplistic
paradigm,
as
you
extend
the
concepts of
roles
and
relationships,
there
exists
a vast array of
social climates. The
notion
of
social
climate derives from various
streams
of
psychology,
including
the work
of Barker
(1968) on
the
impact
of
environments (i.e., “behavior
settings”) on
human behavior
and
Murray’s (1938) theory of
personality.
•
Murray
proposed
that
behavior
is
determined
by
the
degree
of
fit
between
the
needs of
the
individual
(e.g.,
need
to
affiliate,
need
to
achieve)
and
environmental
press
(demands),
which
entail aspects
of
the
environment
that
either
facilitate
or
impede
the
likelihood
of
the
individual
meeting
these needs.
For
example,
a
designated
study
area
in
a
student
residence
building
that
is
furnished
with
sofas,
a television,
and
a
fully
stocked
bar
fridge
might
impede
satisfaction
of
achievement
needs
but
promote
satisfaction
of
affiliation
needs.
PRISON APPROACHES TO REHABILITATION..
•
Prison Approaches
to Rehabilitation Therapeutic
communities.
At the other
end
of
the social
climate
continuum,
we
find
a more humane
prison environment known as
a
therapeutic community. Maxwell Jones
is the person most
closely associated
with therapeutic
communities.
•
Jones (1953)
developed
a number of
principles
on which the traditional
therapeutic communities
were
based,
including democratization,
communalism,
reality confrontation,
and
peer
group
influence.
•
Drawing
on
various
perspectives
within
social
psychology
and
clinical
psychology,
including
social ecological,
social
learning,
and
humanistic
theories, a therapeutic
community
is
a holistic
residential
environment
that
is
designed
to
promote the
personal growth
and
development
of
the
residents.
•
The
primary aim
is to
bring
about
changes in attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors
that
lead
to
a healthier and more
adaptive
lifestyle
on
return
to
the community than
the lifestyle
that led
the
person to be admitted into the
facility
in the
first
place (e.g.,
substance
abuse, criminality).
•
The
core
concept
is living
learning
as
the therapeutic
community
adheres
to
the
principles
of honesty, openness,
self-governance,
and
learning
from
individuals’
efforts
to live
together (Grant,
1980). The
distinguishing
feature
of the
therapeutic community,
in
contrast
to
other
therapeutic
approaches, is
the role
of
the
community,
which
is the
primary vehicle
for
promoting
social
and
psychological
change.
This unit delves into the application of social psychology in the legal system, exploring the nature of criminal behavior, responses to criminal acts, the criminal justice system, and rehabilitation. It examines the social ecological perspective of criminal acts and outlines key points related to the crime, the criminal, and bystander intervention in criminal situations.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
LEGAL SYSTEM AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIT - 3
INTRODUCTION This criminal acts, vicious attack raises many questions about the nature of criminal behavior and about people s responses to criminal acts that may be examined from a social psychological perspective. Moreover, beyond the particular criminal incident, social psychological theory and research can be applied to understand and address other aspects of the criminal justice system, including the police investigation, the criminal trial, and the rehabilitation of criminal incarceration and offenders.
SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CRIMINAL ACTS Criminal ecological perspective, that interaction between This notionderives B = f(P, E), which states that the environment (E), and the interaction Withregardto criminal compelled to offendonly environmental stimulus acts may be viewed is, person from a the and social as result of an the famous theorem, the from Kurt environment. Lewin s behavior (B) is a function of the person (P), between behavior, an individual in the presence that acts as a sort of the may be of trigger. two. an
CHAPTER OUTLINE(POINTS) APPLICATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN LEGAL SYSTEM .. 1. The Crime andthe Criminal - The Social Psychology of a Crime - The Origins of Criminal Behavior from different perspectives. 2. The Application and Response of the Criminal Justice System - The Police Investigation - The Courtroom - The Prison Setting
1. THE CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL 1. DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY 3. DEINDIVIDUATION 4. SOCIAL FACILITATION FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS BYSTANDER S EFFECT 2. 5.
1. THE CRIME AND CRIMINAL THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLGY OF A CRIME Catherine Kitty Genovese, who, in 1964, attacker in Queens, NewYork. This incident has received considerable attention in both the social scienceliterature and the public media because of the original reports that a number of the victim s neighbors were witnesses to the attack although the number of such witnesses does remain inquestion. Research on bystander intervention(Darley Latan & Nida, 1981) has influence a person s decision to situation, including the ambiguity of the situation and perceived similarity of the victim to the was killed by but had failed to intervene, & that various factors an emergency Latan , 1968; shown assist in the potential helper.
BYSTANDERS EFFECT - Another factor bystanders who witness the emergency. There is considerable research evidence of a phenomenon known as the bystander effect, which states that people are less likely to help in an emergencywhen other bystanders are DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY One explanation for the bystander effect is that the presence of others lowers the individual bystander s sense of responsibility. Moreover, this is the diffusion of responsibility. is the number of present.
DEINDIVIDUATION(DIMINISHED SENSE OF SELF-AWARENESS ) Wearing balaclavas over their faces provided with a sense of anonymity and DEINDIVIDUATION - Research on deindividuation (i.e., sense of self-awareness) suggests anonymity in which their identities are concealed, deliberatelychoose to engage they might otherwise be inhibited, For example, Zimbardo (1969) demonstrated laboratory experiment that female wearing Ku Klux Klan type hoods shocks for twice as long confederate as did other research participants identities were revealed by the young men loss of personal identity. a diminished that people, under the cover of may in behavior about which aggression. in research participants and outfitsdelivered an experimental including a to whose large name tags.
SOCIAL FACILITATION The young attackers alsowere not acting alone. come to the park facilitation (Zajonc, 1965) informs us well-learned task will caused by the presence Perhaps theaggressive behavior of learned something indeed, somethingthey Moreover, they had prepared to fight. The notion of social that be enhanced of others. these young men they were accustomed to were primed a person s performance on a by the heightened arousal was doing and, that well to do evening. Within their even be considered normative. group might have heightened arousal, which in in aggression, antisocial peer group,such behavior As a result, the the young men s levels of turn enhanced their tendencies to engage resulting in the vicious unprovoked attack. might presence of the
FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS According to thefrustration aggression 1989), frustration defined from attaining a goal may have been a trigger for their aggressive behavior in the victims. A fourth factor that may influence aggressionin particular, cuesthat incite the behavior hypothesis (Berkowitz, blocks a as anything that person presence of a new set of potential antisocial presence behavior, and of situational is the
PROXIMAL AND DISTANT VARIABLES PROXIMAL VARIABLES In fact, although deindividuation and social facilitation are good examples of someof the proximal variables (i.e., those occurring close in time to the event) that can influence criminal behavior. DISTANT VARIABLES There is another set of factors that also referred to as distal variables (i.e., those past relative to the event). As we willsee, a comprehensive social psychological theory of criminal behavior should include both sets of determinants. It should be noted that recognition of the situational determinants of criminal behavior is not meant to imply thatan individual s personal responsibility for engaging in antisocial acts should be reduced or diminished in Rather, it is meant to acknowledge that many factors both situational and individual differences are needed is important, in the distant occurring any way. to fully explaincrime.
THE ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR DIFFERENT THEORIES OF ORIGIN OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR
The Origins criminal that reside within the person, the environment, of the major theoretical and social psychology criminal behavior. 1. BIOLOGICAL THEORIES. 2. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 3. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES 4. GENERAL PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY. of Criminal implicate Behavior Existing a wide range of variables person s immediate broader sociological context. Some paradigms from biology, sociology, that have been put theories of behavior and the forth to explain
BIOLOGICAL THEORY Biologically the result of genetics, psychophysiology, neurological and biochemistry. Studies havenoteda greater preponderance of criminals among sons whose biological parents also were criminals (Lytton, 1990). basedtheories view criminal behavior as functioning, for instance, of genetic influences,
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES Sociological Theories Some of the most enduring theoriesof based on sociological principles. (e.g., anomie, strain,control, diverse, attempt factors in society social inequity. Thus, a person s socioeconomic status, determined by education, occupation, income, and neighborhood characteristics, explains substantial variability behavior. Lower socioeconomic status rate of crime. crime are These traditional theories subculture), although to explain crime in relation to such as social class, poverty, those that are widely various and in criminal is associatedwith a higher
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES Theories of criminal consider the influence of both dispositional and Hoge (2001) noted, social of the interaction the individual, their immediate social environment, and more distal largersocial environment . According to Bandura s (1977) social learning theory, criminal activity represents learned behaviors that develop through a person s interactions and experiences with the socialenvironment. This learning takes place as a result including observing and imitating the receiving positive consequences for engaging peer approval), realizing that such desired outcomes (i.e., have instrumental senseof self-efficacy in using antisocial means to behavior from a social psychological perspective tend to situational factors. For example,as models explain crime among multiple forces operating at the ecological as a function level of factors with in the of various processes, of criminalbehavior (e.g., can effectively lead to value), and developing a high achieveone s criminalbehavior in behavior others, aims.
GENERAL PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR(ANDREWS AND BONTA MODEL 2010.) This subsection focuses and social psychological developed by Andrews According to Andrews a person will engage increased by the presence her life. Eight categories and some environmental are on model and and the general of personality criminal behavior Bonta(2010). Bonta, in criminal of risk risk factors some personal proposed: the likelihood that behavior factors is in his or of
RISK FACTORS 1. Anearly age of 2. Temperamental and personal characteristics that are conducive to criminal activity (e.g.,impulsivity, aggressive abilities) 3. Antisocial attitudes, values,and 4. Association with pro-criminal peers noncriminal associates 5. Negative parenting and family experiences (e.g., harsh and abusive discipline, poor parental monitoring and supervision, low family cohesion) 6. Low levelsof school or vocational 7. Poor use of leisure time and pro-social leisure pursuits and 8. Abuse of drugs and/or alcohol onset for antisocial behavior energy,weak problem-solving beliefs and isolation from achievement levels of involvement recreational activities low in
TREATMENT IMPLICATION FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR In keeping with the general personality and approach, the effective treatment of antisocial behavior involves targeting the factors that support or maintain As outlined in the model, this includes targeting factors such as antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and peer associations as well asfamily factors. social psychological the criminal behavior. For example, treatment programs one component of to yield positive effects in or recidivism. target antisocial thinking as rehabilitation strategy have been shown reducing the risk of that a reoffending
MULTISYSTEMATIC THERAPY One successful Therapy (MST) program attempts to young people neighborhood, justice system) criminal Thus, program including working practices and dysfunctional linking the the youths from negative counseling, intervention strategy, the Multisystemic violent youths, for the multiple social systems embedded (e.g., family,school, peer, to bring about a seriously influence in which are decrease in behavior. staff members intervene in several ways and areas, with the families dynamics within the families to community peer associations, providing individual and providing supports to modify parenting youths homes, supports, diverting at school.
THE RESPONSE TO THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM
APPLICATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN JUSTICE SYSTM For properre solution, the witnesses to build a in a This section examines been applied in instance, an police must identify possible suspects strongcase for court of law. several ways in which three areas of in effort to bring a case interview to its and must gather evidence prosecution to and and the present social psychology has criminal justice system: the (a) THE POLICE INVESTIGATION, (b) THE EVENTS IN THE COURTROOM, AND (c) THE PRISON SETTING .
THE POLICE INVESTIGATION Once the theirinvestigation.Investigation means that evidence aboutthe crime should be carefully and systematically gathered substantiating an allegation against one or more suspects who, in the face of sufficient evidence, may be tried in The process of conducting an investigation complex. Eyewitnesses, victims, and interviewedand evidence must be keeping with the law (trace evidences such as hair, fingerprints, and bodily fluids). 1. THE INVESTIGATING INTERVIEW 2. WITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS police determine that a crime has occurred, they begin in an effort toward court. can must be properly in ways that are be extremely suspects gathered in
THE INVESTIGATING INTERVIEW Interviewingwitnesses, victims, and significant part of a criminal investigation. Sometimes a distinction between interviewing a witness or victim and suspects constitutes a is made suspect. interrogating a Although to interrogation is an information objective of both types of a interviews is elicit about a crime, obtain a uniquegoal from of the suspect. to confession the In only with This can is determined evidence, but on little more fact, police in North individuals be America are who trainedto believeare guilty. because to be other times such a hunch. conduct interrogations they problematic by police at than sometimes guilty based on a determinationis based a suspect reliable
TWO KINDS OF BIASES INVOLED IN INVESTIGATING INTERVIEW 1. INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY 2. SELF FULLFILING PROPHECIEC ..
BIASES IN INVESTIGATION(INTERACTIONAL SYNCHORNY) .. INTERACTIONAL SYNCHORONY How should the the most accurate, How might the influence the way in which an the interviewee. demonstrated that fidgety behavior (e.g., continuous fiddling an investigating officer can elicit fidgety an interviewee. Such parallelbehavior is interactional synchrony, coordinate their body investigative interview be detailed information? interview the interview?It behaves Akehurst and Vrij conducted to elicit complete, and social dynamics of the effectiveness of interviewer For instance, context is clear that the can alter the behaviorof (1999) with movements a pen) by in body in that movements keeping is, with the notion of the tendency of during conversations. people to
SELF FULLFILING PROPHECIES Therefore, the interviewer s indirect the responses influenced the research nicely demonstrates, criminal fulfilling prophecies, person s her own and will confirm observers had expectations way; that of judgments of been influenced by but the expectations influenced suspects, whichin the observers. withinthe context the pitfalls the way in can influence others behaviors in the person s beliefs. the an only in is, the turn This of self- investigations, that expectations of whicha his way is, or that a
APPLICATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN INVESTIGATIONG INTERVIEWS COGNITIVE INTERVIEWS
COGNITIVE INTERVIEW(CI) Fortunately, research has determined good interview. Oneof amongpsychologists is the cognitive The CI involves questions, and Interviewersare encouraged (e.g., You said the student Can you tell me and the interviewees order to conveygood increase trust, and interviewer to information. a number of techniquesof a the most widely acceptedinterviewing techniques interview asking open-ended and using strategic silence. to use follow-up before that the person who looked angry. more about what that own words to listening skills, facilitate provide opportunities for elicit additional and (CI). non leading questions stabbed means for phrase questions you? ) in rapport, the more accurate
A procedure involving events guessing with minimal informationthan barrage The use of mnemonic facilitate Bringing either physically that may techniques from the reevaluate working hypotheses in explicitly many details as allowing interruption or redirection does a procedure questions. instructions or recall of events. interviewees back or psychologically, is trigger important CI, encouraging witnesses to describe possible interviewees to tell elicits better that involves in and as without their stories asking a of situational cues may to the scene of a In a crime, valuable technique addition to memories. investigators shouldalso continueto light of using new information.
The CI hasalso proved usefulwith people of different ages, cognitive abilities, and socioeconomic and educational backgrounds
WITNESS IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECTS The identification of a suspect by an eyewitness represents one of the most important piecesof for the prosecution. Given the importance of there is an essential need identification procedures that errors, including the false identifications evidence in building a case this kind of to reduce information, develop lineup eyewitness very serious error of
CROSS RACE EFFECT - One of an eyewitness is his or the perpetrator of the established phenomenon that refers to individuals to be of their own race The conditions under which participants are the culpritfrom a studies to identify reducing errors.Lineups composition, using either all and several other factor affecting her race crime. The cross-race the the accuracy race of a well for vis- -vis effect is tendency and identifying faces different asked to have been manipulated in optimal procedures can vary in terms suspects or the better at than recognizing faces of a race. identify police lineup also the for of suspect one foils
LINE UP PROCESS - Finally, the officer who is unaware as not to consciously or Presenting the (sequential lineup), lineup), and asking the person is the perpetratormay misidentifications. The reduction occurs witnesses must compare representation than adopting who most closelymatches lineup shouldbe the identity unconsciously one rather than witness serve to conducted by an of the suspect so guide the a time once (simultaneous state whether reduce the of witness. lineup individuals at at all to the rate of because in a sequential lineup the each lineup member perpetrator in strategy of choosing the this representation. with of a the their minds rather lineup member
Application of Social Psychology in the Courtroom Their criminal trial was conducted according adversarialmodel of the legal North America, Britain, and Under the adversarial model, two for the defense and their arguments, question before an impartial judge and, perhaps, a determine the guilt or to that the is adopted in system few a other countries. sets of the prosecution,present and make their case jury, who of the defendant(s). lawyers, one one witnesses, for will innocence
JURY SIZE. A jury from the from voterregistration and summoned to a jury may be composed of The smaller number cost-savingmeasure. In keeping with the criminal law only allows for of community-at-large one speers is who are composed of individuals selected at random lists and are enumeration jury duty. In the United either6 or meant to British tradition, Canadian a 12-person appear for States, 12 be members. a time- and is jury.
JurorImpartiality The strength that considerationof based on who are reach a unanimous As Vidmar verdicts arerendered their legal decisions have greater legitimacy single judge. The jury community because community of the the jury, facts of perspectives of 12 ordinary individuals together to function as decision. Schuller (2001)explained, Because jury by members of about guilt or innocence are and public acceptance also servesas the it is drawnprecisely which the crime was rather than a trial single judge, is evidence are the the brought combined a group to and the community, assumed to decisions by a conscience from the committed. than of the in
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ERROR(JUROR PREJUDICE) Vidmar prejudice: INTEREST PREJUDICE, SPECIFIC PREJUDICE, GENERIC PREJUDICE AND NORMATIVE PREJUDICE. and Schuller (2001) identified four types of juror
Interest prejudice refers interest or example, a to testifyor might know someone who has the same offense. Second, specific prejudice attitudes or beliefs that might interfere abilityto be prejudice might arise from exposure presented in the of the case. to a juror having of a particular trial. For who is called been charged with stake in the outcome juror might be related to someone a occurs when the juror holds with his or her impartial in a particular case. Specific to pre-trial publicity juror s judgment mediathat biasesthe
Third, attitudes (e.g., racist views) that unbiased evaluation of Finally, normative that there is particular outcome ability to decide evidence becomes compromised in normative attitude generic prejudice refers to possessing wouldinterfere evidence. refers to general with an the prejudice juror believing supporting a or her basedon favor of the perceived a such strong community sentiment of the the case impartially case that his the
There to First, to be biased, he or voir dire (i.e., competency Second, publicity impartial jurors from the tookplace.In trial can be are several remedies jurors. if can that may be invoked deal with biased as stated, a potential juror is be removed deemed she preliminary examination to a juror). high-profile crime,extensive sometimes can make it community in such an instance, moved to during the determine the the of with a pretrial to difficult select crime of the whichthe location city. the another
Third, members of that could bias seeing adjourned until sufficient time information to (2001) noted if during a their judgment information in a trial there is might become (e.g., hearing the media), passes to less salient. Vidmar and Schuller the latter is the most rarely used solution a awareof information a the trial allow the prejudicial risk that jury rumor, can be become that
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE The function about beyond a reasonable trial evidence. The jury determined to judge to members may be just seen or of guilt or the jury innocence is to of reach a decision the defendant the admissible the doubtbasedsolely on sometimes may be be be legally exposed or to evidence that deemed which case the jury to disregard what they have is unreliable inadmissible, in instructed heard. by the
Liebermanand psychological hindsight bias, and reactance, above finings involving inadmissible evidence. Arndt (2000) noted that various theories, including social belief perseverance, the help to account to situations for the concerning juror responses
THE PRISON SETTING Social about the social social climate, is interms of the notionof the keeper At the most basic level, the members is to enforce the inmates is to Moving beyond this simplisticparadigm, the concepts of roles and social climates. The notionof streams of psychology, including (1968) on the impact settings ) on human behavior personality. Climate of Prisons One way of a in which to think dynamics prison environment,or its and the kept. prison staff the role the the of rules, and line. the role of toe as you extend relationships,there exists a vast array of social climate derives from various the work of environments (i.e., behavior and Murray s (1938) theory of of Barker
Murray determined by the needs of affiliate, press (demands), which environment the likelihood these needs. a student furnished with sofas, a television, fully stocked bar satisfaction of achievement satisfaction of affiliation proposed degree individual that of (e.g., need to environmental of the impede meeting behavior fit is the the achieve) entail aspects facilitate individual designated study area in building that and a between need to and that of example, residence either the or For a is fridge might impede needsbut needs. promote
PRISON APPROACHES TO REHABILITATION.. Prison Approaches to Rehabilitation Therapeuticcommunities. At the other end of the social climate continuum, prison environment known as a is the person most closely associated Jones (1953)developed a number of therapeutic communities were based, including democratization, communalism, reality confrontation, and Drawing on variousperspectives clinical psychology, including and humanistic theories, a therapeutic residential environment that is personal growth and development of we find a more humane therapeutic community. Maxwell Jones with therapeutic principles on which the traditional communities. peer group influence. within social psychology social ecological, community designed and social learning, is a holistic promote the residents. to the
The primary aim is to behaviors that lifestyle the person to be admitted into the substance abuse, criminality). The core concept community adheres self-governance, and together (Grant, therapeutic community, in approaches, is primary vehicle bring about changes in attitudes, beliefs, and to a healthier and more returnto the community thanthe lifestyle that led facilityin the first lead adaptive on place (e.g., is living to learning learning principles from individuals distinguishing contrast of the promoting social and as of honesty, openness, effortsto live feature other therapeutic community, which is the psychologicalchange. the therapeutic the 1980). The of the to the role for
