Lecture 1 - Introduction, Criminal Profiling and Assessment PDF

Lecture 1 – Introduction, Criminal Lecture Profiling and Assessment Forensic Psychology: Criminal Profiling: Research investigates social Physiological Assessment: Deals with all human behaviour as Identi...

Lecture 1 – Introduction, Criminal Lecture Profiling and Assessment Forensic Psychology: Criminal Profiling: Research investigates social Physiological Assessment: Deals with all human behaviour as Identifying who committed a crime influences, brain function, Using physiological reactions to it relates to law or the legal by their psychological traits development from childhood, infer psychological processes system Torres et al. (2006): 86% of MH mental disorder, drug use etc Skin Conductance Response for Work in assessment & professionals endorse criminal Assessment – Clinical Interview: arousal management of offenders, profiling as a useful tool for law Usually semi-structured; requires Pupillometry – dilate when aroused assessing facts enforcement clinical skills; opening with Burley et al. (2019): control – Clinical psychologists look for Kocisis et al. (2002): chemistry confidentiality, developing rapport dilates to positive and negative psychological problems and students consistently etc pictures; high psychopathy – no attempt treatment, though often outperformed experts in a criminal Tarrasof Liability: if there’s a dilation to negative intertwined with forensic profiling task – no relationship named victim at risk, we override Others used - heart rate, genital psychology between experience and accuracy confidentiality response, frowning etc What does a Forensic Psychologist (even an inverse relationship) Therapeutic vs Forensic Assessment: Problems of Assessment: do? Snook et al. (2008): profiling is an Both seek to understand problems Malingering and Deception One-to-One assessment, assessing extraneous and redundant & behaviours and diagnose MH Self-Report questions: risk of re-offending, suicide, self- technique unless empirical and problems understanding, ‘norming’ harm etc. reproducible evidence happens Therapeutic: treat presenting themselves, ‘reference-group Develop, implement and review Criminal Profiling Case Study / problems, client to gain, mostly effect’ (Heine et al., 2002) treatment and programmes (anger Example: confidential Malingering – Faking Bad: management, addiction, social & October 2002, Washington D.C. Forensic: report to court on Pretending to have metal illnesses cognitive skills) Consensus: white male, no military problems and consequences, for leniency Research to evaluate situations training or children, mid 20s (base client to possibly lose, not Chesterman et al. (2008): infer affecting prisoners rates) confidential malingering from symptom profile Deliver training, supporting Actual Profile: 2 men, both African Psychometric Assessment: and tests forensic staff (stress management, American, 1 was 42, 4 children, Standardised method to measure Paulhaus Deception Scale detects understanding bullying, crisis military experience; 1 was 17 capability & behavioural style faking negotiation) Why Do People Believe in Criminal Used to track changes in TOMM detects memory Expert witness testimony at court, Profiling? symptoms malingering with a ‘false difficulty’ parole boards, MH review tribunals Physician’s Fallacy: only reporting Examples: BDI-II, Paulhaus task etc predictions when they’re correct Deception Scale, RPQ Deception - Faking Good: Contribute to policy & strategy Barnum Effect: only picking Projective Tests: Hiding negatives they think development to ensure service elements from profiles that it, Infers underlying traits, often in hinders progress improvement even though they fit almost children Lie scales for ‘impression Psychopathology and Criminality: everyone Rorschach Test, Thematic management’ Massive rates of undiagnosed MH Apperception, House-Tree-Person Lie Detection:  Lecture 2 – Violence Lecture and Aggression Aggression: Milgram: shock experiments; Aggression Related Cognitions: Lozier et al. (2014): callous- Allen & Anderson (2017): doubts around usefulness as seen Implicit Theories: individuals hold unemotional traits negatively behaviour intended to harm as trivial and not ‘real-world’ theories about how world works related to amygdala activation; another who is motivated to avoid applicable Polaschek et al. (2008): analysed externalizing behaviours positively said harm Anderson & Bushman (1997): offence transcripts using grounded related Is a behaviour (thoughts are not) meta-analysed causal propositions theory procedure; identified 4 Too little activity, lack of fear, Must be deliberate / intentional in lab and real-world (playing violence-related implicit theories – proactive aggression; too much, Must aim to harm the recipient violent video game increases Beat or Be Beaten; I am the Law; reacts with anger, reactive (physical or emotional) aggression) Violence is Normal; I get out of aggression Must be towards another person Bartholow & Anderson (2002): 2 Control Neurobiology – Prefrontal Cortex Excludes self-harm etc (as they groups, video games caused Aggression and Mental Health: (PFC): aren’t avoiding harm) greater subsequent aggression – Personality disorders; Dorsolateral PFC: executive Violence: stonger in men (without cue to psychopathy, psychosis, PTSD function Subset of aggression; a severe violence, no difference in gender) (Jakupcak et al., 2007); substance Ventrolateral PFC: response form designed to cause severe Gender and Aggression: abuse (Cafferky et al., 2016); inhibition & direction of attention physical harm Homicide nearly exclusively men mood disorders (Dutton & Orbitofrontal Cortex: represent Taxonomies for Aggression and (10:1) Karakanta, 2013); autism (Kanne emotion, reward and decision Violence: Field and lab studies show: males & Mazurek, 2011); Frontal lobe making Reactive (reacting to anger, show greater physical aggression, damage (Brower & Price, 2001) Damage to PFC linked to explosive impulsive) vs proactive (for gain, no differences in verbal aggression Self-Esteem (SE) and Violence: anger & violent histories; PFC is planned) Bjorkqvist et al. (1992): females - Popular belief: low SE linked to slow to mature but quick to face Direct vs indirect more indirect aggression (at least aggression Neurobiology - Orbitofrontal Cortex Physical vs verbal when young) Baumeister et al.: argues high SE, (OFC): Domestic violence (Interpartner Drugs and Alcohol: especially narcissism or if Phineas Gage – Case Study Violence) – coercive control, Approx. 50% of recorded violence threatened is what leads to Becahara et al. (1994; 1999): Iowa violent resistance, situational involves intoxication aggression Gambling Task; patients with OFC couple violence, separation- Bushman & Cooper (1990): even Donnellan et al. (2005): three damage play worse off decks - instigated with low alcohol intake in lab, clear studies; SE is negatively correlated OFC important in using emotion How do we study Violence? effect with self-reported aggression, and (rewards and punishments) to Crime Statistics (tip of the Tends to magnify pre-existing narcissism is positively correlated guide behaviour iceberg) problems rather than cause Amad et al. (2011): low SE Somatic Marker Hypothesis: Informants (professionals, or violence itself predictive of reactive violence; Past events lay down somatic those who know them well; Pseudo-alcohol experiments (vodka high narcissism predictive of markers that can guide decision- ethical issues) round rim, people think is strong, proactive violence making Laboratory Behaviour (difficult to become violent; Polynesia Neurobiology of Aggression – Not always conscious of these  Lecture 3Lecture – Psychopathy Schneider’s Affectionless 1% of population (white collar Negative Urgency (NU): acting Historical, Clinical, Risk (HCR-20); Psychopath: psychopaths) rashly when strong –ve affect Sexual Violence Risk (SVR-20); Lacks in compassion, shame, Females can be psychopaths, but Positive Urgency (PU): acting Violence Risk Appraisal Guide honour, remorse and conscience less rashly when elated (VRAG) Personality is often sinister, cold, Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (Lack of) Premeditation Psychopathy and Recidivism: surly, brutal conduct (PCL-R): (Lack of) Perseveration Hart et al. (1988): high psych Cleckley’s Psychopath: : Hare (2003) Sensation Seeking: need for scores lot more likely to reoffend ‘the mask of sanity’ Requires extensive file info; novelty than low scores Based on clinical observations of involves interview PCL-R Criticisms: Hare et al. (2000): UK study; high patients Rates 20 items of personality & Failing test could mean spending scores on PCL-R were more violent 21 characteristics of psychopathy behaviour as 0 (absent), 1 additional years in prison Psychopathy and Crime: (later reduced to 16) (maybe), or 2 (definitely) to give Some states use score to Woodworth & Porter (2002): nearly Describes a person who has a score /40 recommend death penalty all homocides (of 125) committed semantic neuropsychiatric defect Score of 30 is cut off for Is ‘antisocial’ just a consequence by psychopaths were cold-blooded (inability to have emotions) psychopathy of other personality features? – due to factor 1 more so than See lecture notes for Checklist Requires specialist training Skeem & Cooke (2010): worry that factor 2 Assessment of Psychopathy: Hare & Neumann (2008): now PCL-R has become psychopathy, Psychopathy and Other Populations: Clinical opinion (interview) identified 4 factors – interpersonal, not just measure of it Majority of work done on adult N. Personality questionnaires (NEO, affective, lifestyle, antisocial PCL-R is hard to administer (needs American white incarcerated MMPI, PAI, TCI) See 20 items in lecture notes trained professionals, extensive males Structured diagnosis (PCL-R) Primary and Secondary Psychopathy: file info, and takes long time) Increasing evidence for same Self-Report measures (LPSP, PPI-R, Psychopathy often divided into Alternatives to PCL-R: concept in females (Gray & TriPM model) numerous flavours SRP4 (self report, based on PCL-R) Snowdon, 2016) DSM-V (confuses ASPD & PCL-R: factor 1 and 2; PPI-R: PPI-R (self report, based on factor PCL-R also seems to hold for: psychopathy) fearless dominance, self-centred analysis of many items; yields female offenders, Afro-Caribbean ASPD & Psychopathy: disinhibition, coldheartedness; two/three factors – only partial Americans, Adolescents, Non- In DSM-V: criterion for ASPD TriPM: boldness, meanness, correspondence to PCL-R Offender populations (mainly criminality); psychopathy disinhibition (Copestake et al., 2011) Genetics and Psychopathy: is not a diagnosis Yildrim & Derksen (2015): primary TriPM (self report, based on theory Viding et al. (2005): UK twin study ‘Associated Features’: describes – emotional deficiency (limbic of endophenotypes – boldness, of 3687 pairs; genes account for some traits associated with hyporesponsivity); secondary - meanness, disinhibition) 70% of individual differences in psychopathy emotional disturbance (impairment Psychopathy and Violence: callous-unemotional traits – ‘core Most clinical/forensic of frontal cortex) Salekin et al. (1996): ability of symptoms are strongly genetically psychologists measure PCL-R: factor 1 (interpersonal and PCL-R to predict violence is determined’; genetic contribution psychopathy separately from affective) – primary / classical ; unprecedentedin literature on highest when callous-unemotional  Lecture 5 – Psychopathy Lecture and the Brain Psychopathy Treatment and Psychopaths – why do we need to Psychopathy & Emotion: Brook et al. (2013): behavioural, Management: know? Pleasant reaction to unpleasant psychophysiologic, and regional Rice et al. (1992): studied More likely to commit crime if stimuli brain activation anomalies when prisoners released in Canada; released Herpertz et al. (2001): replicates, processing emotion treatment for non-psychopaths May not benefit from traditional and show other physiological Neuropsychology: decreased reconvictions, treated programmes measures to unpleasant pictures Little dysfunction on tests, though psychopaths reconvict more (learn May be responsible for disturbing (not a feature of other personality pure ASPD generally do how to manipulate people, only behaviours whilst incarcerated disorders) Lapierre et al. (1995): most tasks motivated to get out of treatment (destabilizing others) Lexical Decision Task: unaffected but GNG task, smell programme) Theories: Williamson et al. (1991): discrimination and porteus maze Psychopathy & Response to Dysfunctional Amygdala (Blair): psychopaths took longer to recall were (characterized differences as Treatment: leads to poor processing of positive and negative emotional those relying on DLPC vs OFC) Attitudes and behaviour of emotional materials, thus words than non-psychopaths Mitchell et al. (2002): psychopaths psychopaths difficult to modify insensitivity to punishment; more Response Modulation Hypothesis consistently picked high risk In UK, those scoring high aren’t recently also stressed OFC (alias (Newman): selections allowed onto certain treatment vmPFC) If attention is properly allocated, Bagshaw et al. (2014): Tower of programmes Paralimbic Dysfunction (Kiehl): there is no emotional deficit London, Hayling & Brixton tasks Only take programme as route to similar to Blair (incl. amygdala and Dadds et al. (2008): children w/ Psychopathy and the Brain: lower grade or release OFC dysfunction), leads to inability tendencies were poor at spotting Yang et al. (2006): reduced Most programmes not designed to use emotion to guide behaviour, facial expressions, failed to look at amygdala volume in psychopaths with psychopaths in mind (better poor decision-making eyes, but when forcing focus, – much greater for Factor 1 than to say they don’t respond to Response Modulation Hypothesis deficit disappeared Factor 2 traditional programmes, than they (Newman): no specific brain area, Newman et al. (2010): no effect of Decety et al. (2014): reduction in cant be treated) but VLPFC may be candidate; psychopathy when fear-focused in brain activity for response to Salekin (2002): little scientific deficit in processing secondary FPS, but reduced FPS in alternate- facial expression (also true for basis for belief that psychopathy info, so emotion may not be focus ‘face processing’ regions and is untreatable processed if not the focus Gray et al. (2022): used triarchic extended network - fusiform Psychopaths in System: Experimental Studies: model, SRP-4 and TCI; 125 males gyrus, STS, OFC, vmPFC); no Hobson et al. (2000): PCL-R score Hare et al. (1978): high in in community; reduced effect of – difference in amygdala, insula – predicts disturbing behaviours psychopathy, smaller skin ve sounds in psychopathy, and to greater response (looked at in groups, on wing and conductance responses to loud affective component of SRP, and Harenski et al. (2010): reduced during social activities in prison) noise blasts to reward dependence & co- activity in vmPFC and anterior Psychopaths often skilled at Patrick et al. (1993): lack of operativity of TCI temporal cortex manipulating their image emotional modulation of startle Psychopathy & Emotional Brain Function and Violence: Porter et al. (2009): psychopaths response driven by mainly Factor 1; Recognition:  Lecture 6 – Mental LectureIllness and Crime Public Perception of MI & Violence: Simkiss et al. (2023): RCT in Wales Bonta et al. (1998): meta-analysis, Link et al. (1998): self-report of Star (1955): vignettes depicting using ‘The Guide Cymru’, developed predictors of recidivism (general violence over past 5yrs, SR & problems (paranoid schizophrenia, new measure KAMHs & delivers 8 1- and violent) are same for MI and psychiatric interviews for mental alcoholism, compulsive phobia hr classes – found that anticipated & normal offenders; no obvious role illness – elevated rates of violence etc); very few Americans identified self-stigma were the problems, but for MI variance in prediction of and weapon use; concluded both problems as MI – public image of KAMHS causes large changes vs violence TCO symptoms are associated with MI as threatening and fearful control Violence Risk Appraisal Guide violence Nunnally (1961): MI - dangerous, Methods of Investigation: (VRAG): Applebaum et al. (2000): dirty, unpredictable, worthless Examine no. of patients w/ psychotic Actuarial measure of violence risk MacArthur Assessment Study; Phelan et al. (1991): stereotypes illness in prison & compare to Diagnosis of SZ is a protective delusions (incl. TCO) do not predict of MI is getting worse (particularly control pop - but PI may be factor – reduces VRAG score higher violence amongst recently dangerousness) overrepresented in prison Harris et al. (1993): 618 patients discharged patients Angermeyer & Matschinger Examine records of patients w/ & charged w/ violent crime, followed Ulrich et al. (2013): MacArthur (2005): increase in public’s health w/out PI to see levels of past up after discharge & found database; repeated findings of literacy will improve attitudes; violence – but violence often used to negative relationship between SZ Applebaum et al.; temporal trend since 1990 to endorse define MI & violent reoffending – formed the proximity more important in biological reasons for MI Examine community to see basis of VRAG determining whether delusions Biological reasons for MI has proportion of those who became Arseneault et al. (2000): total birth were associated with violence – produced increased desire for violent and psychotic – but overlap cohort in NZ; substance & alcohol but taking this into account social distance – more dangerous in definitions, cross-sectional (not dependence increased change of showed associations between Mental Illness Stigma: causal), social drift & substance offending, SZ-spectrum 2.5x more specific delusions and violence – 9/10 with MI have suffered stigma abuse etc likely to be violent in last 12 mths, can cause anger that leads to MI amongst least likely to find Examine patients discharged to many cases due to excessive violence work, be in steady relationships, examine rates of violent crime – but perceptions of threat Command Hallucinations: be socially included etc ethics (releasing dangerous Recent Meta-Analyses: Numerous case reports (see notes) Stigma Reduction Programmes: individuals), and effects of Fazel et al. (2009): SZ associated Pre-2000: 7 controlled studies Thornicroft et al. (2016): narrative confounds with violence (particularly found NO relationship between CH reviw on programmes, noted Possible (Probable) Confounds: homicide), largely due to and violence, 3 lit reviews found modest changes in ST attitudes, Age, gender, social class, substance use NO relationship either but little change in knowledge; but institutionalization, social problems Silverstein et al. (2015): Post-2000: two studies report quality of studies not great, & little Monahan & Steadman (1983): significantly increased risk for positive association between data on LT changes or perceived unadjusted crime rate of MI is higher violence among subgroups violent content command changes by MI than GP and unadjusted MI among Whiting et al. (2021): increased hallucinations and violence – Miller et al. (2016): tested ‘The criminals is higher than GP, both odds ratio of 2:4 McNiel et al. (2000) and Monahan Guide’ on 534 Canadian students; relationships disappear when SZ or Symptoms? et al. (2001) - however, McNiel et  Lecture 8 – Risk Assessment Lecture and Management Risk Assessment: Clinical Judgment of Future Violence: Scores range from -26 to 38, puts Avoids individual bias to some Can change person’s life; can Steadman et al. (1970; 1974; 1976): people into 9 categories extent remove freedom on basis of Baxtrom study, NY released 966 Construction sample – reliability = Contains idiographic info outcome or discharge people who ‘dangerous’ patients – only 20 later 0.9; VRAG predicted violent Time consuming & needs clinical go on to assault public or kill arrested for any violent crime; risk incidences – AUC = 0.76 (large skills themselves assessments were clearly wrong effect size), r = 0.47 HCR-20: Need to be professional, Gunn & Taylor (1993): psychiatrists Different samples (e.g,, UK, women, Historical (Past), Clinical (Present), accountable and evidenced bad at predicting future violence of etc) may have different risk factors Risk Management (Future) Expressing Risk – ROC Analysis: inmates released from institutions Snowden et al. (2007): 421 male Gray et al. (2003): most violence Receiving Operating Characteristics Monahan et al. (2001): outcome of patients in UK; VRAG good validity missed in community; most studies Hit, Miss, False Positive, Correct unstructured clinical assessment for predicting crime (AUC = 0.86); retrospective (biased by event they Rejection doesn’t work absolute rates of violence lower than are trying to predict); prospective Good prediction has lots of hits & Why is Clinical Judgment so Bad? Canadian sample study – comparisons of institutional few false positives Odeh et al. (2006): professionals Clinical vs Actuarial: violence – HCR-20 = 0.81 ROC plots hits and false positives, asked to make various risk judgments Clinicians made various arguments Recidivism Following Discharge: expressing result as area under on patient; interrater reliability very as to why comparisons aren’t fair Gray et al. (2008): UK male curve (AUC) poor Harris et al. (2002): AUC for offenders, prospective study – HCR- AUC:.5 = chance performance; 1 = Blind to their outcomes clinicians – 0.59 (small), AUC for 20 good predictor perfect Tendency to weigh bizarre or unusual VRAG = 0.8 (very large) – used HCR-20 Research Base: Pros: ROC immune to baseline factors heavily, neglect criminogenic composite scores Nichols et al. (2004): some changes (doesn’t matter if rare or factors Other Actuarials: predictive validity in women not), keeps continuous nature of Too many variables OGRS: used by UK for all offenders De Vogel & De Ruiter (2006): men assessment scale Make judgments quick and seek RM2000: used by UK for sexual AUCs range.75-.88, Cons: lose quality of event (e.g., confirming evidence offences women.52=.63, but clinical how long to reoffend) Actuarial Assessment: COVR: developed from MacArthur judgment better for women Factors Predicting Violence: Predictive factors together using pre- study Gray et al. (2007): learning disability Mental illness, mental disorders, ordained method (e.g., statistical Why Aren’t Actuarials Used? AUC =.80 – better than other prev. violence, neg. attitudes, poor formula), normally based on Clinician push back offenders (UK) temper, poor relationships, construction sample or literature Broken leg problem (person has to fit Snowden et al. (2010): similar in UK unemployment, victim of abuse Avoids individual bias, doesn’t need with sample) black vs white sample Unstructured Clinical Assessment: clinical skill, fast, lacks idiographic Tends to use static measures Gray et al. (2011): diagnosis Professional makes decision on info Based on most common violence – indicates futures violence impression, intuition & experience Doesn’t easily suggest risk but does well with rare violence too (personality disorders most Most widely used, but doesn’t work management Numbers aren’t enough – need why, dangerous) Allows idiographic analysis of Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG): when and what can be done HCR-20 Limitations:  Lecture 9 –Lecture Sexual Offending Effects of Child Abuse: Male sexual interest early in life & Grubin (2003): polygraph to get truer Measuring Sexual Deviance: Interpersonal difficulties (PDs) hard to change, women more fluid – picture of offences (child sex Major driving actor behind offences PTSD may account for difference in offenders); before polygraph – avg. Interviews, questionnaires, but Cog. Distortions deviance (90% males) 2.5 victims, during polygraph – avg. problems of self-report Emotional pain Sexual Orientation Change Efforts: 13.6 victims (500% increase); incr. SVR-20: stable pattern of deviant Avoidance highly controversial – treaters can variety of victims, 80% incr. in arousal, doesn’t have to be Impaired sense of self alter strength of drive, but not its offenders with male victims accepted by individual Sex Offending: direction Many sex. Motivated crimes don’t Assessing Sexual Deviance: Range of behaviours McPhail & Olver (2020): meta- appear so on rap sheet (abduction Don’t rely on analysis of offence Highly heterogenous group of analysis on changing paedophilic etc) history offenders attractions – interventions show Hard to give figure on sexual crime Physiological evaluations etc (Penile Sexual deviance is risk factor for moderate-large effects for reducing Risk Factors to Sexual Violence: Plesmography (PPG)): deviance offending arousal (strength not drive) Hanson & Bussiere (1998): literature defined by greater response to Rate of Deviance: Finkelhor Model – Pathway to - main prediction on individual stimuli – but ethical issues of Highly dependent on definitions Offending: already committed offence and producing deviant stimuli Deviant fantasies highly prevalent 1. Thinking stage – motivation: drive likelihood of committing another, Chivers et al. (2004): men strong in offender samples (>80%) - some and idea to offend (paraphilia or NOT prediction in general pop. category specific responses, women claim these lead to behaviour emotional congruence, often great Most important: sexual don’t – trans women same as men Rates of sexual deviance deal of denial) deviance, previous sex crimes, Blanchard et al. (2001): PPG comparable in offender vs non- 2. Overcoming internal inhibitions – early onset of offending, canidentify rapists and child offenders conscience: justification of cog. having previous male victim or molesters; under optimal Williams et al. (2009): male UG Distortions, give reasons to commit, strange victim, past criminal circumstances, AUC = ~.8; (Canada), self-report fantasies & but unsure if pre or post behaviour history problems – faking, masking, lack of behaviour – fantasies: 68% SA, 3. Overcoming external inhibitions – Not predictive: sexual abuse as standardization 13% paedophilia, 62% sadism; creating opportunity: degree of child, substance abuse, psych Implicit Association Test: much lower actual behaviour but planning, SIDS problems, treatment Snowden et al. (2008): sex-IAT in strongly correlated; psychopathic 4. Overcoming victim’s resistance – Mann et al. (2010): meta-analysis; homo & hetero men; IAT effect size traits also strong predictor for doing it and getting away with it: found promising risk factors but of 2.73, ROC analysis distinguished fantasy -> behaviour only part that’s illegal, force, threat, unsupported overall; no conclusive groups (AUC =.97) Where does Sexual Interest come drugs, grooming etc studies yet; effect sizes mainly small, Child/Sex IAT: controls – fast adult from? Rates of Offending: BUT depression, poor social skills, and sex, slow child and sex Early in life Base rate difficult to know poor victim empathy unrelated (paedophiles opposite) Kendrick et al. (1998): goats & (unreported) Predicting Sexual Violence: Brown et al. (2009): IAT predicted sheep cross-fostered at birth – Only fraction of reported crime leads Clinical prediction of re-offence is only child-sex association only in maintained species-specific to charges (3% in UK) poor paedophiles, not all child sex