Psychology and Crime



Psychology and Crime

Criminal Thinking Patterns

[pic]

i) Morality and Crime

ii) Social Cognition and Crime

iii) Rationality and Choice

(i) Morality and Crime

|An essential approach in understanding crime is whether the people who commit offences think differently to non-offenders. |

|The belief that criminals have different morals to non-criminals or that they lack morals in some way is a basic and |

|fundamental explanation of criminal behaviour. |

|Kohlberg; Stages of Moral Reasoning |

|One of the most frequently cited researchers in the area of moral development is Kohlberg. Through the use of moral dilemmas|

|he was able to categorise peoples’ moral reasoning into three stages which are each sub-divided. The stages are passed |

|through in a developmental process. However Kohlberg did not tie them down to specific ages. The essential process of moral |

|development is this |

|Level & Stage |

|Governed by |

|Description |

| |

|Level 1 – Pre-morality |

| |

|Stage 1 |

|Punishment & obedience |

|Moral behaviour concerned with obeying authority and avoiding punishment. The consequences of actions are more important |

|than intentions. |

| |

|Stage 2 |

|Hedonism |

|Concerned with meeting one’s own needs regardless of the needs of others, except when a favour might be expected to be |

|returned. |

| |

|Level 2 – Conventional conformity |

| |

|Stage 3 |

|Interpersonal concordance |

|Concerned with general conformity to stereotypes of what is good and gaining the approval of others. Intentions become |

|relevant. |

| |

|Stage 4 |

|Law and order |

|Committed to social order for its own sake with deference to social and religious authorities, e.g. ‘Doing your duty to God |

|and the queen’. |

| |

|Level 3 – Autonomous principles |

| |

|Stage 5 |

|Social contract |

|Individual rights acknowledged along with democratically derived laws which are approved of by the whole of society. |

| |

|Stage 6 |

|Universal ethical principles |

|Justice, respect and trust may override legal dictates in making moral judgements. Abstract reasoning of the highest level, |

|which few people achieve. |

| |

| |

| |

|It is argued (not by Kohlberg but by others) that criminals will be functioning in the lower stages of moral reasoning. Is |

|this the case? |

|Arbuthnot et al (1987) in a review of studies that all used control groups concluded that - there are clear differences in |

|moral attitudes toward the acceptability of various offences. Most studies show delinquents to have attained lower stages of|

|moral development than non-delinquents. However they also note that many delinquents are found to have higher stage moral |

|reasoning. |

|Palmer and Hilling (1998) compared moral reasoning between male delinquents, and male and female non- delinquents.126 |

|convicted offenders in Young Offenders Institution, 122 male and 210 female non-offenders. All were from the Midlands, and |

|all were aged 13-22 years old. All participants were given Socio-Moral Reflection Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF), which |

|contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions (for example, not taking things that belong to others and keeping a promise to a|

|friend). The delinquent group showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-delinquent group. |

What does the study below tell us about the role of morality and crime?

Hartshorne and May (1930) Studies in the nature of character. New York

Aim: to examine whether cheating was due to personality or situational factors. The researchers predicted that moral behaviour would be consistent across situations.

Sample: 12,000 11-14 year olds.

Method: a combination of observational and psychometric methods. Children were observed in a variety of situations including school, playground, sports, parties and at home. They were also given 20 tests designed to measure moral knowledge and moral opinions.

Results: The results are surprisingly inconsistent. The researchers had expected to find a correlation between behaviour in one situation and behaviour in another situation but this was not found. For example a child who cheated in one test would not cheat in another. They therefore conclude that morality is situation specific.

(iii) Social Cognition and Crime

It is believed, and there is some evidence, that criminals think about others and their actions in different ways to non-criminals. Most of the points detailed below, and those that you will read about, apply equally to criminals and non-criminals however it may be that people who engage in criminal activities show more, or stronger, patterns of such thinking. This area of investigation is known as social cognition because the emphasis is not solely on the individuals thinking patterns but rather on how this occurs in interaction with others.

Attribution theory is a central component of social cognition. We tend to explain our own behaviour through attributing it to the situation, for example, “I am angry because I haven’t had any sleep”, whereas we tend to explain other people’s behaviour by attributing it to their personality, for example “He is angry because he is a nasty person.” Thus, hostile attributions may be made very quickly in a specific context like a pub or club and lead to aggression, while responsibility for this outcome is conveniently avoided by externally allocating intention. For example, “I just pushed you because you deliberately knocked my drink (rather than it being an accident).

Palmer and Hollin (2000) found that self-reported delinquency in young offenders was associated with increased tendencies to inaccurate attributions of hostility, especially in ambiguous situations where it may be difficult to accurately determine intentions.

Therefore, a person may consider committing a crime due to inaccurately attributing another’s behaviour due to their personality and not the situation.

Palmer, E. and Hollin, C. (2000) The interrelations of socio-moral reasoning, perceptions of own parenting and attributions of intent with self reported delinquency. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5 201-218

Aim: to consider the relationships between moral reasoning, perceptions of parenting, attribution of intent and self reported delinquency among young male offenders and non-offenders.

Sample: Two groups of participants all from the Midlands area.

Group 1: 97 convicted male offenders aged between 13 and 21. The offences were typically burglary, car theft, joyriding and assault.

Group 2: 77 non offenders aged between 12 and 24.

Method: There are several different methodologies involved in this study. The researchers are looking for correlations between moral reasoning, perceptions of parenting and attribution of intent with self reported delinquency. They are also comparing two naturally occurring groups (offenders and non-offenders). Data was collected using a number of psychometric tests which are outlined below:

Sociomoral Reflection Measure (short form). This tests moral reasoning by asking 11 questions such as whether keeping a promise is important and why. The scores show the level of moral reasoning that the individual has reached.

Extracts from the Own Perceptions of Parenting (EMBU) which was developed in Sweden. This assesses perceptions of parenting (by mother and father separately) including rejection, emotional warmth and overprotection .

Attribution of Intent. This test investigates the explanations (attributions) that people give for others behaviour. It included 12 scenarios of which four involved someone acting with hostile intent, four involved someone acting with prosocial intent and four are ambiguous. Participants have to imagine themselves in the situation and suggest reasons for why people behaved as they did. These reasons could be a. to be mean or horrible, b. to be helpful or nice or c. not sure.

Self reported delinquency checklist (SRD). This is a self report scale of 46 offences and respondents must indicate which offences they have committed and also how often they were committed.

Results: The SRD results confirm that the groups differ in terms of their offending behaviours. The modal score for the non-offender group was 6 and for the offender group it was 25. Some of the key findings included the fact that offenders were found to have less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders with the moral reasoning scores of the offender group being typically at the stage where moral decisions are made on the basis of rewards and punishments. It was also found that the offender group perceived both their fathers and their mothers as significantly more rejecting (although the effects were even stronger for paternal rejection). They also made more hostile attributions of intent when the scenarios were ambiguous. Offending scores correlated strongly with paternal rejection and incorrect attributions of hostility and the researchers argue that these two variables are significant predictors for SRD scores.

(iii)Rationality and Choice

A current topic of research into criminal behaviour is the model that criminals are rational decision makers - no different in their thinking than non-criminals but rather that such individuals are faced by certain environmental situations and triggers which will lead to a rational choice to engage in criminal behaviour to be made.

The origins of this theory come from Jeremy Bentham's work (1748-1832) and in particular his basic proposition: "The profit of the crime is the force which urges a man to delinquency. The pain of the punishment is the force employed to restrain him from it. If the first of these forces is the greater, the crime will be committed; if the second, the crime will not be committed." (quoted in Zimring and Hawkins, 1973, p75).

Cornish and Clarke (1987) stated that one needs to be crime specific when analysing criminal choices and to treat decisions as relating to varying stages of the involvement of an offender in particular crimes.

The rational choice perspective asserts that specific crimes are chosen by offenders and are committed for specific reasons. We need to understand the factors which are taken into account by offenders when they perform a basic cost-benefit analysis of a range of factors, including the incentive, or anticipated pay-off, the risk involved, and skills needed, all in relation to their goals, motives, experience, abilities, expertise, and preferences. All of these variations combine to make criminal opportunities differentially attractive to particular individuals and groups. These are called choice structuring properties.

As an example, listed below are possible choice structuring properties for crimes involving cash, as taken from Cornish and Clarke (1987) -

• Availability (number of targets, accessibility)

• Awareness of method (technical know-how)

• Likely cash yield per crime

• Expertise needed

• Planning necessary

• Resources required

• Solo versus assistants required

• Time required to commit

• Severity of punishment (if caught)

• Confrontation with victim

• Social status

• Fencing (getting rid of any goods stolen)

• Moral evaluation

Whilst this approach has certainly emphasised the role of rationality it should also be recognised that people will respond differently to equivalent criminal opportunities because they differ, for example, in their willingness to take risks, in their preference for honesty and in their evaluation of the profit from crime. Indeed both profit and pain are evaluated differently by different persons. It follows that changes in profit e.g. increase, will make crime more likely to occur, however if the pain is increased it will make crime less likely to occur. Inevitably, small changes in the probability or the severity of pain/cost will affect only those close to the point of indifference. In other words those who always undervalued the pain are more likely to commit crime and those who always overestimate the risk are less likely to. Also those who overvalue the profit are more likely to commit crime whereas those who undervalue any profit gained by such an activity are unlikely to undertake such behaviour.

Research Findings and Evaluation

A study that supports rational choice theory in explaining how criminals think comes from Rettig (1966). In this study, students were given a hypothetical scenario describing an opportunity to commit a crime. Rettig (1966) gave the students different relevant information about the crime (e.g. likely benefits, risk of detection, likely degree of punishment) and found that the degree of punishment exerted the most influence on the students’ decision to commit the crime. However, remember that this study was a simulation (lacks ecological validity) and were carried out on students. Therefore, results may not apply to real offenders. Secondly, not all criminal activity is planned – some crimes are impulsive acts (e.g. some murder cases).

A second evaluation issue is that the theory implies that in making their decisions, potential offenders have full information about the probability of detection and the level of punishment if they are detected. However it is the perceived risks not the actual ones which are critical to the decision-making process, thus the risks they perceive in committing the act are more important – this could explain individual differences in crime behaviour and provide reasons for why some are caught and others are not.

Finally we come to the issue of choice. One reading of rational choice theory would have us believe that individuals choose to commit crimes and choose not to commit crimes. It could be argued that this is a very naive way of looking at criminal behaviour. There are other factors, as we have learnt, that also are thought to contribute to crime that are deterministic, e.g. biological accounts or the result of maternal deprivation. Therefore, it would seem obvious that as one factor piles upon another, choice for the individual becomes more and more limited.

For all these reasons, RCT cannot really be regarded as a theory of how criminals think in general, but can explain how some individuals approach certain types of crime.

Yochelson, S. and Samenow, S. (1984) Inside the Criminal Mind. Random House

Aim: to examine the thinking patterns of a sample of convicted offenders.

Sample: 255 male offenders resident in a psychiatric hospital in America.

They had variously been judged not guilty by reason of insanity, incompetent to stand trial or had been referred to the authors by agencies such as the courts, probation services or social services.

Method: Interviews within a Freudian therapeutic context.

Results: The authors suggest that criminals have quite distinct and erroneous thinking patterns which differentiate them from non-criminals. They concluded that they are essentially in control of their lives and their criminality is the results of choices made from an early age. Further, they suggest that offenders have cognitive processes which lead to a distorted self image and result not only in criminal choices but also in denial of responsibility.

They describe the criminal personality as characterised by 40 thinking errors which fall into three broad categories:

Criminal thinking patterns which are characterised by fear and simultaneously a need for power and control. Other features in this category include a search for perfection, lying and inconsistencies or fragmentation of thinking and a lack of time perspective.

Automatic thinking errors which include a lack of empathy and trust, a failure to accept obligations, a secretive communication style and a perception of themselves as the victim.

Crime related thinking errors which include optimistic fantasising about specific criminal acts with no regard to deterrent factors. This also includes an unrealistic sense of invulnerability.

They are therefore suggesting that criminals are not necessarily impulsive, that they have planned and fantasised about their actions and that it is these thinking patterns which need to be confronted in treatment. Yochelson and Samenow claim high success rates in getting offenders to accept that they have a ‘‘criminal personality’ ’and changing their thinking patterns.

Criminal Thinking Patterns: Evaluation Points You Should Know

|Point 1: Problems with Kohlberg's Work. |

|Whilst there is some empirical support for the idea that criminals have lower levels of moral reasoning there are numerous |

|problems with this approach - |

|1) There are a wide variety of crimes therefore we can not expect the thinking behind each one to be the same, even in |

|regards to morality. |

|2) There is a lack of longitudinal studies to investigate moral development, it may be that lower stages of moral reasoning |

|are a consequence and not a cause of criminal behaviour. |

|3) Most studies have focused on juveniles and not adults, thus not giving us a valid picture of moral development and crime.|

|(Feldman 1993) |

|4) It may be that Kohlberg's work is male oriented and therefore not fully applicable to all offenders. Certainly Gilligan's|

|work emphasis the point that women tend to have greater moral concern for others, which places them in level two |

|[Conventional morality], but why should concern for others be seen as lesser than some abstract understanding of laws and |

|rules - unless you are a male researcher ! |

|5) There is definitely a large gap between peoples thinking and behaviour. Just because we know something is wrong it does |

|not mean to say we would not do it. Thus whilst Kohlberg's work may be useful in helping us to understand the development of|

|moral reasoning it does not aid our awareness as to how morality influences action. |

|6) Finally, it may also be that the lower levels of moral reasoning found within criminal populations is a consequence of |

|criminal behaviour not a cause of it. For example, it may be that as people engage in criminal activity one way for them to |

|justify this to themselves and others is to use lower levels of moral thinking, i.e., it's only wrong if I get caught. |

|Point 2: Reductionism. |

|The whole of this topic operates with the assumption that if we reduce thinking down to specifically testable and measurable|

|components we will understand the differences between criminal and non-criminal thinking. Thus psychologists have looked at |

|morality, rationality and social cognition as three important parts of criminal thinking. Whilst this has the advantage of |

|simplifying the issues involved, nevertheless we can question whether this is a valid approach to adopt in psychology. |

|The key problem with reductionism is that of not being able to explain emergent properties. The argument is that only |

|through understanding how the numerous factors that are involved in making human thought occur interact together to making |

|thought processes can we understand them. By taking them apart we may lose what we were looking for. It is in the |

|interaction of these factors that thought processes are created, thus we need to understand the interactions as well as the |

|factors on their own if we are to understand criminal thinking patterns. |

|Point 3: Determinism. |

|Related to the above point, we need to recognise the weakness of the deterministic approach that is apparent in this topic. |

|The cognitive approach (which both rational choice theory and social cognition are based in) usually assumes that thought |

|determines action. This is not always the case, indeed we could question whether it is ever the case. Surely there are many |

|other factors which shape our behaviour, such as habit, impulse, conformity and peer group pressure. These factors as well |

|as thought processes needed to be investigated together if we are to understand how they influence (rather than determine) |

|criminal behaviour. |

|To expand on this point. It is worth noting that the material you covered in this topic has been used to develop treatment |

|and rehabilitation programmes for offenders. Given that this is the case we need to question the usefulness of such research|

|since if it is adopting a reductionist and determinist approach to criminal thinking patterns then it will be of little use |

|when applied to helping criminals adjust their behaviour. This is because the research is giving us a partial and not fully |

|valid understanding of the topic. |

|Point 4: Control Groups. |

|If any piece of research you have mentioned in the descriptive part of your essay does not use a control group then we have |

|very significant concerns. How far can we establish that the criminal thought process is different to that of the 'norm'? |

|Further does not assuming that criminal thought patterns are different to non-criminals make them seem as a group of |

|'others' that we can distance ourselves from and label as deviant? Given that what we define as criminal is a social |

|construct then surely this is a morally dubious practice that may further the prejudice and stereotypes surrounding |

|criminality. |

Some more problems with Rational Choice Theory (Cognitive Psychology)

Limited rationality: One of the principal objections which has been made to Rational Choice Theory relates to its core assumption ; are there limits to rational calculation? Cook (1980), who was one of the first researchers to develop Rational Choice Theory, agrees that many offenders do not operate rationally, particularly if they are young and/or intoxicated, in a state of high emotional arousal, or are psychologically disturbed. These exceptions encompass a high proportion of the perpetrators of some types of crime, and Cook suggests that for such individuals it is more accurate to speak of 'limited' rather than 'full' rationality. An additional problem is that humans are invariably not totally rational when making decisions. We tend to use heuristics (rules of thumb) - these are strategies which when applied in the past have been successful so we tend to apply the same strategies to other situations even though rationally this is not the best decision to make.

Bandura (1986) also agrees with the model of limited rather than complete rationality. In particular for crimes of violence and situations in which the cognitive control of behaviour has been weakened by alcohol, drugs, or a temporary emotional state. He states "In general, people consider a few, rather than all, aspects of a crime-related situation and are more influenced by prospective pay-offs than by potential punishments if detected. Thus, criminal judgments are not all that different from the way people generally go about making decisions - they single out and overweigh a few factors and engage in only a partial examination of other options. They tend to reflect more on benefits than on punishments." (Bandura 1986, p277).

Decision Making: The second problem concerns the implication that in making their decisions potential offenders have full information about the probability of detection and the level of punishment if they are detected. However it is the perceived risks not the actual ones which are critical to the decision-making process, thus subjective appraisal, not objective reality is important. However we should also note that some offenders, especially those who consider it their profession, will hold more accurate information.

Choice: Finally we come to the issue of choice. One reading of Rational Choice Theory would have us believe that individuals choose to commit crimes and choose not to commit crimes. It could be argued that this is a very naive way of looking at criminal behaviour. For example, if an individual has a biological basis towards forms of criminal and deviant behaviour, is raised by uncaring and excessively punitive parents, is encouraged and supported by their peer group to undertake criminal activity, and has a personality which would encourage such behaviours, then how far can we talk about choice? It would seem obvious that as one factor piles upon another choice for the individual becomes more and more limited. However if supporters of Rational Choice Theory use the term choice in regards to simply the decision-making process when engaged in criminal activity, for example which house in a street to break into, then the use of this term is more appropriate.

Attribution stuff which is just for interest really

Anger and Aggression

Another area that attribution theories have been applied to is that of anger and aggression. As you are aware from the AS level study of Schachter and Singer, one theory of emotion is that once physiological arousal has occurred we need to attribute a cause to this and so given the right environmental cues we could attribute anger to our arousal, thus potentially leading to aggression. For example, Zillmann (1979) found that when P's were provoked to anger, further arousal from extraneous sources, such as exercise, heat or erotica, was misattributed and intensified aggression. Similarly Beck (1976) sees specific emotions as the consequence of specific cognitive appraisals, such that anger follows the appraisal of an unwarranted violation of ones domain.

Thus individuals who are prone to making attributions about their physiological state based on anger are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviour and therefore more likely to become criminal.

In addition to the above point, aggressive boys have been shown to be less accurate in interpreting peers' intentions in unambiguous situations, and to have a bias to perceive hostile intent in ambiguous interpersonal situations having a negative outcome (Dodge 1986). This reflects quick responding to minimal information, and selective attention to social cues, suggesting a biased expectancy to perceive malevolent intent.

Perry, Perry and Rasmussen (1986) found that aggressive children had strong self efficacy beliefs about their ability to enact aggressive responses, relative to their less aggressive peers, and also held beliefs that aggression would bring them tangible rewards and reduce aversive treatment by others towards themselves. Slaby and Guerra (1988) using incarcerated Ps found that those Ps rated as aggressive showed more positive and neutralising beliefs about the consequences of aggression, such as self-esteem enhancement and minimal suffering to the victim. Males consistently showed more of these attributions than females, suggesting a more limited consideration for interpersonal outcomes.

Domestic Violence

Whilst nearly all recorded instances of domestic violence centre on a male partner physically assaulting a female partner there is increasing reporting of 'husband battering'. What limited research that has been undertaken in this area in regards to the thinking patterns of 'wife beaters' is identified below -

Rosenbaum and O'Leary (1981) found that abusers showed more conservative attitudes to women than did controls, and were also more conservative than their wives.

Walker (1988) found that male abusers tended to hold expectations that females will protect them from harm and have unrealistic expectations of intimacy.

Dutton and Browning (1988) propose that abusers have an exaggerated need for power, combined with fears of intimacy, so that changes in the level of intimacy in their relationships are perceived as threats to their control, which instigate anger. In support for this, they found that physically abusive males reacted more strongly than controls to videotaped scenarios portraying abandonment by the female as an outcome of male-female conflict.

Child Abuse

It probably goes without saying that a person who physically molests children has some serious distortions of cognition. Below are some findings in this area -

Abel et al (1984) identified several cognitive distortions in child molesters, such as beliefs that lack of resistance by a child implies willingness, the child does not perceive genital fondling as an assault, the experience teaches the child about sex, and that society will come to accept adult-child sexual relationships.

Stermac and Segal (1989) found that child molesters compared to other sexual offenders attributed greater benefits to a child, and saw greater complicity on the part of the child in initiating sexual contact.

However whether such beliefs are a contributory factor to the determining of their offending behaviour or they are post offence rationalisations is not concluded.

| | |

| |(i) morality and crime; |

| |(study = |

| |) |

| |(ii) social cognition and crime; |

| |(study = |

|Criminal thinking patterns |) |

| |(iii) rationality and choice. |

| |(study = |

| |) |

| |1 |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |2 |

|The four studies I am going to use for my part B essay | |

| | |

| | |

| |3 |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |4 |

| | |

| |1 |

| | |

| | |

| |2 |

| | |

|The four evaluation issues I am going to use for my part B | |

|essay |3 |

| | |

| | |

| |4 |

| | |

| | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download