Essay
A level Edexcel crime psychology notes
- Institution
- PEARSON (PEARSON)
Evaluation (AO3) essays for each subtopic in Crime.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Content preview
CRIMINOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY NOTESCLASSIC STUDY- LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974)
AIM: to investigate whether leading questions would influence the estimates of the speed of a vehicle among
eyewitnesses.
PROCEDURE EXPERIMENT 1: a total of 45 students were shown 7 short film clips of a traffic accident. After
each film clip, participants were asked to give an account of the accident they had seen and were then given a
questionnaire and asked to answer specific questions about the accident. The length of the film clips ranged
from 5 to 30 seconds. All participants received the same questionnaire with the exception of one critical
question that was changed. One group of 9 participants were asked the critical question ‘about how fast were
the cars going when they hit each other?’ The remaining 4 groups of 9 participants were asked the same
question but with the verb ‘hit’ changed to ‘smashed’ ‘collided’ ‘bumped’ and ‘contacted’. Each of the 5 groups
were shown the film clips in a different order.
PROCEDURE EXPERIMENT 2: a total of 150 students watched a film showing a multiple car accident. The film
lasted less than one minute with the accident within the film lasting four seconds. They were then given a
questionnaire in which they were asked to describe the accident and then answer questions about the
accident. There was also a critical question within the questionnaire and participants were divided into three
groups of 50. One group ‘smashed’ another group ‘hit’ and final group wasn’t asked about the speed of cars at
all. A week later the participants returned to answer 10 questions about the accident without watching the
film clip again. All 150 participants were asked among other questions the following critical question ‘did you
see any broken glass?’ and asked to report yes or no. There was no broken glass in the film clip.
RESULTS EXP 1: participants with the verb ‘smashed’ estimated the fastest speed of the car before the
accident (40.8mph) whereas the verb ‘contacted’ estimated the lowest speed of the car (31.8mph). There was
a difference of almost 9mph in the estimates given for these two verbs.
RESULTS EXP 2: in all conditions most participants correctly identified that there was no broken glass seen in
the film clip. A chi-square test was carried out to see if the results were statistically significant and they were. A
significantly higher number of participants in the ‘smashed’ group reported seeing glass than in the ‘hit’ group;
32% compared to 14% and 12% in the control group. This showed that the verb in the question influenced the
participants recall of the accident, even a week after seeing the film clip.
CONCLUSION: they concluded that a change of word could significantly affect a witness’s answer to a question
so they believed that this might be due to;
1) The participants was uncertain of the speed being travelled and the verb used to describe the contact of
the cars created a bias and influenced their decision.
2) The wording of the question causes a change in the participant’s memory of the accident so they recall the
accident as being more severe than it actually was.
EVALUATION:
STRENGTH WEAKNESS
HIGH LEVELS OF CONTROL- the questions asked and film clips LOW GENERALISABILITY- the sample were students so they were
used were consistent for the groups and followed a standardised likely to have only limited experience of car speeds and so
procedure. This allows the study to be replicated in order to estimating may have resulted in the students being more
determine the reliability of the findings. influenced by the verb compared to a different more experienced
population. Therefore the results are not representative and do
not generalise to the whole population.
REDUCED DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS- the question was LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY- the participants are unlikely to have
randomly included and so participants couldn’t guess the aim of been under the same emotional strain as an eyewitness of the
the study and display DC which would have resulted in flawed real accident as they watched it in a lab. This could mean they
results. Embedding the critical question minimises the likelihood could have reacted differently and it is uncertain whether a real
that the responses given by the participants is due to the eyewitness would respond in the same way as those in an
research methodology rather than their genuine response to the artificial situation.
question.
, BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
BRAIN INJURY: the pre-frontal cortex is most risk from traumatic brain injury as it is responsible for assessing
risk and determining an appropriate response. It is also responsible for appropriate and emotional responses.
Damage to this part of the brain could lead to an aggressive / violent response to a “threat”. This could lead to
assault or social disorder offences. Damage at a young age could lead to an inability to learn appropriate,
social behaviour. Young children and teenagers may be unable learn about offences such as shop-lifting, anti-
social behaviour, vandalism. Pre-frontal cortex is also responsible for appropriate, emotional responses.
Damage here may lead to an individual being unable to interpret behaviour leading to inappropriate, sexual
behaviour.
STRENGTHS: -William et al. (2010) found that 60% of 196 prisoners investigated had received some form of TBI
due to falling, car accidents and sports activities. They noted that adults with TBI were relatively younger at
entry into prison systems than those without and reported higher rates of repeat offending. They suggested
that these injuries affect development of temperament and controls impulses. The injury may also contribute
to a greater level of risk-raking behaviour and more involved in antisocial activity.
WEAKNESSES: Kreutzer et al (1991) were unable to prove or disprove a cause and effect between traumatic
brain injury and violence. Out of 74 patients investigated, 20% had been arrested pre-injury and 10% post-
injury. They concluded that other factor like substance abuse e.g. alcohol led to legal difficulties and TBI and
that without the presence of a substance abuse history, TBI was not a risk factor of criminal behaviour.
AMYGDALA: integrative centre for emotional response and behaviour and motivation. It is also essential in
fear conditioning and positive, emotional learning. An increased activity in the right amygdala will lead to
increased impulsive violent behaviour. Damage or poor development in the amygdala leads to issues with fear
conditioning. Children will have problems with fear conditioning and will fail to learn the negative
consequences of anti-social behaviour. This could lead to criminal behaviour as they have no fear of the
consequences of being caught and will re-offend.
STRENGTHS: -Raine et al. (1997) found that significant differences in the functioning of the amygdala within
two populations, they studied 41 murderers who has pleaded NGRI. These had a range of mental illnesses and
used a matched pair design with a control group. The results showed that lower levels of glucose metabolism
in the pre-frontal cortex of the murderers’ brain- an area linked with impulsivity. They found that abnormal
functioning in the amygdala could explain why participants had committed crimes.
WEAKNESSES: -There may be others who have amygdala abnormalities yet they don’t act in a callous or
unemotional way. Therefore, brain structure cannot be the only factor that makes psychopaths who they are
or that lead to aggression and criminality.
XYY: most humans have 23 chromosomes making 46 in total. The last pair of these chromosomes determine
the gender of the baby and XX is female and XY is male. XYY syndrome occurs when a baby is born with an
extra Y sex chromosome giving them 47 chromosomes in total. This occurs in about 1 in 1000 males and is not
inherited genetically. Most men with this condition develop normally, however lower levels of intelligence have
been found in men with this condition and some problems with concentration have also been linked. XYY
syndrome was previously thought to make men aggressive and lack empathy, leading it to be known ‘super-
male syndrome’.
STRENGTHS: Jacobs (1965) found that an over-representation of males with XYY syndrome in prison; 15 XYY
males per 1000 prisoners compared to 1:1000 in the normal population. Jacobs suggested that the extra Y
chromosomes was responsible for increased criminal behaviour.
WEAKNESSES: determining the rate of XYY among a criminal population requires skilled staff and is resource
intensive. Therefore, it’s not practical to look at genetics of all male offenders to determine if they are XYY. We
are unlikely to know the true extent of the prevalence of XYY. Furthermore, women who engage in criminal
behaviour do not have Y chromosomes so XYY fails to account for criminal behaviour among women.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller seinebabbas. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £16.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
56326 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now