3301-final-exam-notes-revised.pdf

lOMoARcPSD|10538682 3301 Final EXAM Notes Revised Psychology and Law (University of New South Wales) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Lachlan...

lOMoARcPSD|10538682 3301 Final EXAM Notes Revised Psychology and Law (University of New South Wales) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Eyewitness Memory Police rely on eyewitness memory to describe events and account the details of the event. Human memory evidence shapes every aspect of a case - Human Memory Evidence: ○ Can be critical to an investigation → especially initial evidence as perpetrator may be in vicinity to the crime ○ Can be very influential (Wells, Lindsay, & Ferguson, 1979) ○ Like other trace evidence, it is very vulnerable to contamination (distort/destroy) ○ We must handle it with care - Memory: ○ Memory is not like a video recorder/not a veridical record of an event ○ Memory of an event is affected by many factors → Common misconception that memory is an accurate record of the event. Eyewitness Testimony When/why do eyewitnesses go wrong? 1. Acquisition/Encoding = acquire information from environment and prepare it for storage → Witness’s perceptions at the time of the event 2. Storage = put information in place → Witness stores memory to avoid forgetting 3. Retrieval = find the information and pull it back → Witness retrieves information from storage when needed. ○ Natural memory processes impact how accurately we remember events at each stage. Memory = what happened from your perspective. Memory/Book analogy: Book arrives at library. Librarian encodes information about that book (what it is about, the author, key words and ideas) and stores it in the library system (ACQUISITION). Physical books are stored on shelves depending on how they are encoded (STORAGE). Using a system (dewey decimal) the book is positioned depending on that information. When you wish to retrieve that - enter details into a system that will tell where it is (RETRIEVAL). - Limitations to this analogy: Books don't change on shelves but human memory does - Better analogy: Wiki pages. → information stored will not be static, I Acquisition/encoding - We don't encode much of the information available to us i.e. we don't always see what's there - Tend to see things/perceive them in a manner consistent with our expectations - Many features of an event can influence a person’s perception ○ Exposure time ○ Lighting ○ Distance ○ Physical disguise Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 ○ Distraction ○ Expectation ○ Motivation - Inattentional Blindness - Sometimes fail to see objects despite looking (Mack 2003) ○ Dancing gorilla: People fail to spot the dancing gorilla when asked to track the ball (Simons & Chabris 1999) - Expectations affect perception - construct memories partly on what we perceived at the time and partly on our expectations, beliefs and current knowledge ○ If some aspect of the situation is never encoded, it creates hole in memory which is vulnerable to be filled by things other people say post event. Stress and memory - Common conceptions either poorly effects or increases memory - Difficult to study association between stress and memory due to practical and ethical reasons - Tunneling: focus on specific details and fail to notice other details, tightly defined memory - Flashbulb memory: ‘where were you when’ ○ Research shows that even if an experience is particularly salient or dramatic, memory operates in the same way for these events. ○ Day after 9/11 psychologists distributed surveys asking people exactly what they were doing when they first heard of the event, what television they saw it on etc. Then tested the memories at different intervals. ○ Found that those dramatic accounts change, people misremember details without being aware. Thus, the salience of dramatic events don't increase accuracy of memory, which may generally be better for a dramatic event as attention is drawn to it, but memories are not qualitatively different or operate in a different manner. Memory for Stressful Events - Emotional level (Yerkes-Dodson law 1908) → memory is best at optimum level at arousal ○ Upside down U shaped curve - peak is optimal arousal; low → high levels of arousal, low levels have poor efficiency or memory and similarity high levels have poor efficiency of memory ○ Critique: circular reasoning. Low/high levels of arousal are defined based on whether the memory is good or poor. - Easterbrook hypothesis (1959) → highly aroused witnesses have better memory for central details than peripheral details ○ Attentional narrowing occurs where attention is drawn to central details and there is difficulty in accurately reporting specific fine details. - Weapons focus effect → presence of a weapon draws attention and impairs a witness’ ability to identify a culprit (Steblay 1992) ○ Same attentional narrowing to the weapon and poor description of peripheral events such as perpetrators appearance. ○ It is more difficult to Identify a nurse if they were holding a syringe during the encounter compared to a pen as attention to the narrowing of the syringe. Memory for Traumatic Events - Not enough is known on the effects of trauma on memory as it is difficult to test for memory of traumatic events leading to PTSD - Advantages: Realism → realistic more so than lab studies - Disadvantages: Don’t usually have access to “ground truth” (exceptions like Mckinnin et al., 2014) People suffering from a trauma may find it hard to give coherent account Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 - Some indication of enhanced and some of reduced accuracy of memoryWe should be very careful when trying to assess the veracity of an account of a traumatic event. - McKinnin et al. 2014 ○ For 30 minutes a flight had grave fears for their lives before landing – Flight AT236 developed fuel leak mid-atlantic. Pilot pumped fuel from good tank into leaky tank running out of fuel. ○ Many developed PTSD Those with PTSD and those without had a good but not perfect recall of episodic details of the event Those with PTSD more likely to include irrelevant details when recounting non-traumatic and traumatic events ○ People forget things that seem memorable. We forget things about traumatic events. Memory for Repeated Events - Research on children’s memories of repeated (i.e., reoccurring) events showing that young children struggle to remember specific features of multiple events (Powell & Thompson, 1997) ○ DV abuse cases involve describing many events. Difficult to differentiate between these events. Makes witness look unreliable but in reality confused instances/muddled them together - Similarly, research with adults indicates that when repeated events follow a similar “script”, adults are incapable of remembering specific details of each event (Hudson, 1986) II Storage - Information is organised and related to pre-existing concepts and relationships → we cant always remember what we saw - What you do with the material and how you think about it affects later recall - Our memories change over time (Ebbinghaus 1885) ○ Ebbinghaus forgetting curve: Learned a list of nonword syllables learned then tested recall at repeated intervals. ○ Found rapid forgetting immediately after learning things from 100%. This forgetting slows but never stops decaying. Characteristic forgetting curve. ○ Forgetting never completely stops. Nothing remains permanently intact. Most of what you know about events you will forget very rapidly. III Retrieval - Memories are accessed via the tags they are encoded with i.e. connections during encoding - Memories can be altered through this process of recall → bringing something from memory thinking about it and exploring it actively can change it ○ Retrieval can be both beneficial and damaging for future memory - Testing effect: ○ Testing (retrieving from memory) results in better recall at a later time than does rehearsal or other types (Roediger 2006) - Recollection: ○ Best way to protect memory from the future is to get an early accurate recollection of what happened. This reduces the chance of forgetting BUT inaccurate recollection at retrieval will undermine memory and increase likelihood of remembering incorrect detail - The way witnesses are questioned can affect memory ○ Police procedures can influence retrieval - damage future memories ○ Eyewitnesses are questioned by police and lawyers, asked to view mugshots and lineups, may be asked to create a facial composite ○ This can occur soon after the crime or perhaps months later Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Post-event information “Misinformation effect” - Post-event information is information encountered after the event - But not all post-event information will be accurate, hence inaccurate post-event information is called misinformation or post-event misinformation - Misinformation effect→ exposure to incorrect information about an event after it has occurred often causes people to incorporate this misinformation into their memories during recall Ways of encouraging post-event information 1. Leading questions (e.g. during police interview) - Loftus and Palmer (1974) ○ Participants saw a picture of an accident showing a stop sign. Some Ps were given leading question suggesting it was a Give Way sign such as being asked ‘what colour was the car you saw at the give-way sign’ ○ Participants were later tested on their memories for the event. Those who were exposed to false information now believed Give Way sign as part of original accident scene ○ Follow up study: Participants watch a film of a traffic accident Participants asked “How fast were the cars going when they ‘smashed’ into each other” gave higher speed estimates than those subject to the same question with the word ‘hit’ replacing ‘smashed.’ Speed estimates increased with the word that was used: contacted → hit → bumped → collided → smashed. Further, a week later, Ps in the smashed condition were more than twice as likely to recall broken glass when in fact there was none 2. Information from the media (TV/newspaper reports/social media coverage) - Wright and Stroud, 1998 ○ Participants were shown pictures of a shoplifting incident. They then read a brief summary of the crime, which included some incorrect details. ○ When asked to recall the event participants incorporated the incorrect details from the summary into their memories - Even if you warn them to not report things they didn't see will still report 3. Information from other witnesses - Paterson & Kemp (2006a) suggest co-witness discussion may be one of the most persuasive forms of post event information. ○ Sharing information with co witness also leads to incorporation of information that was not experienced was acquire from other witness False Memories Creating false memories = remembering events that never happened - Loftus and Pickrell (1995) ○ Gave students 4 short narratives of childhood experiences and were told the stories were provided by family members. Yet only 3 of these stories were provided by family and one was completely false. First checked if recalled vague or no memories ○ After several suggestive interviews over a few days 25% reported being lost in a mall and gave rich and vivid details of the event like how they felt during that experience. ○ Limitations: Being lost as a kid in a mall is very common - could have happened and parents forgot Same results have been replicated with different scenarios like being hospitalised, accident at a family wedding, nearly drowned, being the victim of a vicious animal attack Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 - Braun et al. (2020) ○ Participants were shown a fake print advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland including that they had met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny who would not be featured at Disney as it is a Warner Brothers character. ○ Later, 16% reported meeting and shaking hands with Bugs Bunny. - Wade et al. (2002) ○ Participants shown photos of early childhood events provided by parents including a doctored picture of a hot air balloon ride that never occurred. ○ Initially could not recall event but after several interviews 50% recalled the event with many of them providing rich details of the event → photo gave event enough credibility that people begin to remember event in elaborate detail. - Brewin & Andrews (2017): Criticism of these kinds of studies ○ Reviewed studies of false Autobiographical memories of childhood events ○ Argued that these studies greatly exaggerated true incidence of these memory distortions. Differentiated three different methods being used Imagination Inflation → Complete checklist of childhood events. Experimenters pick ones rated as unlikely (e.g. stuck in tree) and then encourage participant to imagine the event before repeating checklist False Feedback → Participants report confidence that certain things occurred in childhood e.g. liked or did not like certain foods. Then provided with false feedback such as a computer which reports that they did not like boiled eggs. Re-rate confidence Memory Implantation→ Pick an event which parents confirm did not occur (e.g. riding in hot air balloon). Told parents say it happened / shown a doctored photo and encouraged over several sessions to recall the details. Measure quality of memory for the event ○ Summarised the results of studies but adopted a much stricter definition of false memories Argued that imagination inflation and false feedback studies only increase the belief that a suggested event occurred by a small amount such that events are still thought unlikely to have happened. Thus, no real evidence of a false memory - overestimating magnitude of issue and memory more reliable than suggested In memory implantation studies there is some recollective experience in about 47% of participants who think the event may have happened, but only in 15% likely to be rated as full memories ○ Conclude that Susceptibility to false memories of childhood events appears more limited than has been suggested - Nash et al., (2017): Strong criticism of exaggeration of memory distortions ○ False memories occur even after a few short and low-pressure interviews, and with each successive interview, they become richer, more compelling, and more likely to occur. ○ It is therefore dangerously misleading to claim that the scientific data provide an “upper bound” on susceptibility to memory errors.” ○ I.e. disputable how often full false memories are formed in laboratory studies, there is no disagreement that 15 - 47% of participants form such false memories. This number is still relevant as any form of misreport is damaging to investigations. Memory Wars ‘Recovered memories’ of sexual abuse may be false memories. - Debate whether repressed/recovered memories are actually false memories “memory wars” - Repression vs false memories Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 - Repressed/false memories in court ○ In 1990 George Franklin accused his daughter of killing her friend Susan Nason 20 years ago when they were 8 years old. The daughter claimed to suddenly remember when playing with her son. Franklin was convicted - first conviction in the US using repressed memory evidence. ○ Led to a wave of repressed memory cases especially of SA. - Lipton (1999) suggests the therapeutic process is like suggestive interviewing ○ Counsellors ask questions stipulating how could it have happened/can you imagine how it could ○ Individuals cant separate imagination from memory so begin to confuse imagination with real memories of the incident ○ Counsellors use the model in book courage to heal (Bass & Davis 1988)→ “many abused women don’t have memories and may never get any, this doesn’t mean they weren’t abused” - There is little solid evidence of repression of memories – especially for traumatic events - Difficult to ascertain the truth if memories are tampered with during the counselling process. - Highlighted in case of Jane Doe: ○ Loftus investigated a case study of claimed repressed memory of sexual assault of Jane Doe who claimed she had been abused by her mother. Loftus hired private detective to locate victim and reported facts not as claimed - traced it to a custody battle. ○ Jane Doe (Nicole Luemper) took legal action against Loftus and revealed her true identify in doing so but Loftus was eventually cleared (2003). Nicole Luemper has dual accounts of memories sometimes feels like has been abused sometimes not - Williams (1994) Repressed memory research ○ Interviewed 129 sexually abused women who had experienced well-documented cases of childhood sexual abuse on average about 17 years earlier. More than 1/3 did not report abuse during the interviews. ○ But contentious whether this is evidence of repressed memories - McNally and Geraerts (2009) ○ Offer an alternative to the two main perspectives (repression vs false memories) ○ Argued that some people don’t think of their abuse as traumatic at the time and they either fail to think about the abuse for years or forget their previous recollections until they spontaneously recall after encountering reminders outside of psychotherapy I.e. people don't think about abuse as they did not understand and hence did not consider it traumatic at the time but in retrospect do so. It is not repression but rather seeing the memory again for the first time. Also showed that people can remember things and forget they remembered them People do not make up false memories but re-interpret previous memories Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Co-witness Information Types of co-witness information: 1. Direct transfer → standing next to someone witness same event turn to each other and discuss 2. Indirect transfer → Police said other witness told us this is that what you saw too Anecdotal evidence of transfer: - The Oklahoma bombing (1995). ○ Staff from rental company that was hired from for the bombing gave similar account saying that two people rented truck, one matched suspect McVeigh and he was accompanied by John Doe. But John wasn't real, after police came, staff called + discussed, one person said he was accompanied so everyone’s memories were contagioned - one error propagated through group - Murder of Anna Lindh, Swedish foreign affairs minister (2003) ○ Lindh was stabbed to death in front of many witnesses ○ Witnesses were allowed to discuss events before each being interviewed ○ Several gave description of the attacker wearing a camouflage jacket but CCTV reveals her attacker was wearing a grey Nike sweatshirt Scientific evidence of co-witnesses sharing information: - Paterson and Kemp (2006) ○ Surveyed 773 students 75% of which had witnesses a serious event. Follow up survey of 60 of these found that 86% of participants discussed the event with a co-witness ○ The most frequently stated reason for discussing the event with a co-witness was “providing information” - checking immediate memory for the event. ○ 24% reported that they had been encouraged by the police to discuss the event with co- witnesses, but 14% discouraged - Paterson and Kemp (2005) ○ Surveyed 145 police officers ○ 74% of police reported receiving instructions to prevent discussion - this shows that there is some training which does not encourage discussion but not not all officers did so. ○ Police reported benefits of discussion Refresh and reinforce memory Recovery from trauma Witnesses with different stories impeded court investigation Police officers discuss with one another - write notes together so why can't witnesses ○ Police reported impracticalities of preventing it Discussion prior to arrival (same as survey) Impossible to prevent Mother and child - unethical to separate Studies of co-witness contamination Two types of designs: 1. Confederate Design ○ Observe event (live or video) with a confederate ○ Variable delay ○ Discuss event – confederate introduces Post Event Information (PEI) – accurate or inaccurate ○ Variable delay (hours, days, week) ○ Test memory of Participant after a delay ○ Observe whether participant reports information introduced by confederate Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 2. Different events ○ Two participants watch either the same (control condition) or slightly different events - in both cases believe they are watching the same video. ○ Variable delay ○ Ps discuss events either in same- video or different-video pairs ○ Test Ps’ memory - see if they report events in the alternate video. Co-witness contamination vs other PEI - Paterson and Kemp (2006) ○ Participants observed a crime video, after a 1 week delay PEI was introduced through Leading Questions Media report Indirect co-witness information (read account told from another witness) Co-witness discussion with confederate Control (no PEI) ○ After a 20 minute delay were asked to give individual recall (Free recall, short answer and recognition questionnaire) ○ Found that Co-witness information (both indirect and direct) had the greatest impact on memory. ○ This impact extends to both accurate and inaccurate memories such that when the co-witness provides accurate information it results in more accurate memory and when providing inaccurate information it results in more accurate recall of the misrepresentations. - Memory conformity: This and similar studies show that participants often report misinformation that was acquired through interactions with a co-witness during discussion i.e. “Social contagion of memory” (Roediger et al., 2001) OR “Memory conformity” (Wright, Self, & Justice, 2000) OR “memory convergence” → Memories come together/ become more similar to each other over time Decreasing negative effects of co-witness discussion on memory Several possible solutions: 1. Post-Warning → Warn witnesses that memory conformity may have occurred and to disregard 2. Pre-warn witnesses that memory conformity might occur → inform that may be exposed to PEI 3. Remember/Know judgements → observe quality of people's memory for facts that come from memory and those which must be known to be true factually e.g. what was breakfast vs capital of france 4. Source monitoring → where did they get the information Post-warning: - Paterson, Kemp and McIntyre (2012) ○ Participants discussed events with others who had either witnessed the same event, a different event or had no discussion - warning after discussion. ○ After a one week delay some participants were given a specific or general warning Specific: told some members of group may have been shown a different video so should make specific effort to disregard what they told you and rely on own memories General: told to make specific effort to disregard what others said and rely on own memories (not told that some members were shown a different video) ○ In an Individual Memory Test participants reported PEI from co-witnesses but there was no effect of warning and no difference between the types of warning. This shows that warnings are completely ineffective after the discussion → cant separate where the information came from - Warning people in advance of discussion may help Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Remember/ Know: - Paterson, Kemp and Ng (2011) ○ Participants were shown a crime video with two versions. ○ After a 20 minute delay participants engaged in discussion in the same or different video groups. After a further one week delay they were given a specific warning or no warning. ○ Asked people to give their individual memory (Individual Memory Task) ○ Participants were then asked to make remember/know judgements about their memories Remember: if recognition of item is conscious recollection then state you remember it; remember is ability to become consciously aware of it/what was experienced Know: know means you believe the item was in the video but you cannot consciously recollect anything about its occurrence or what happened or what was experienced ○ Found no effect of warning on amount of accurate or amount of inaccurate information reported ○ Found that “remember” responses were more likely to be accurate than inaccurate yet “know” responses were more likely to be inaccurate than accurate ○ Thus, Remember/Know judgements may help to distinguish accurate from inaccurate statements - can't consciously distinguish what the source of recollected information was from but can differentiate between things they remember and things they know. BUT: This is only true at a statistical level - for individual items some things that are claimed to be remembered may be inaccurate and known may be accurate so individual statements may not be reliable Source Monitoring: - Paterson, Kemp and Ng (2011) ○ Method same as above except Remember/Know judgements were replaced by source monitoring instructions. Participants asked whether they remember the information from: Video only Discussion only Both video and discussion Unsure ○ Found that source monitoring was not successful and could not distinguish accurately form contaminated memories I.e. directly asking people where they know something from does not work but making R/N judgements subtly distinguish from those two sources at statistical level PEI powerful - tortuous route it has to spread to contaminate memory Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Limitations to the studies: - Most of these studies test recall for a passively observed event (eg a video) but recall for actively experienced events likely to be better than for passive - Active participation in an event may protect us from the effects of post event information - could be the studies are inflating the issue and memory is more robust to effects of PEI - Very little evidence that co-witness discussion can influence identification decisions – or induce participants to describe someone who was not present (as in the case of John Doe #2) The Treasure Hunt Method Kemp, Heidecker, Maretti & Paterson (2008) - Phase 1 ○ Two participants form a team. ○ The team follow a series of “Treasure hunt” clues which guide them to walk around campus collecting answers to questions such as “What colour is the notice advertising a house to rent for $900 per week?” ○ While looking for the answer to a clue the team are approached by a female confederate who engages them in conversation - women would say oh i'm also looking to rent, typically participants wave her off and say they're busy doing experiment ○ At the end asked to return to lab either 7 or 14 days later booked in for second session - Phase 2: Post Event Information ○ Half of participants exposed to PEI regarding the treasure hunt (sent what they believed was a statement written by the other witnesses) either 4 or 7 days later. ○ Account contained correct and incorrect information. Half central, half peripheral ○ Incorrect PEI included suggestion that there was a man with the woman who engaged the participants in conversation ○ Participant returns and is interviewed about events of treasure hunt Free recall Asked to provide information about each location Closed questions about events at each location ○ Asked about woman who talked to the ○ Asked if they recall a man with the woman (John Doe) ○ Asked to identify John Doe from a lineup (Target Absent) - Results ○ 80.4% of participants exposed to PEI “Yield” and report at least some misinformation reported by the other witness ○ Almost 30% of responses involve reporting the misinformation ○ Thus Participants exposed to misinformation report misinformation even for an event they have actively participated in. ○ 5 Ps (10%) reported presence of John when asked if they can identify from lineup 23.5% of ○ the misinformed group attempted an ID compared to 7.5% of others i.e. possible to prompt participants to report, describe and identify a nonexistent person - Experiment 2: Comparing Active and Passive ○ Participants were paired with a confederate who filmed the treasure hunt ○ A second pair of participants + confederate watched the film recorded by the first pair (yoked) ○ The participant discussed the event with the confederate who introduced correct and incorrect PEI. Participant recalled the details of the event - Results ○ Percentage of participants who report at least one piece of misinformation: Passive condition: 92%, Active Condition: 63% Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 ○ Thus even with active involvement, majority of participants reported some misinformation although less so such that it seems to be a protective factor ○ Active participants were also: Significantly more resistance to misinformation Reported significantly less misinformation information Remembered more correct information - MacDonald and Kemp (in Prep) Police Body Worn Cameras ○ For half participants video had been edited to include new information they had not seen ○ More than 90% of participants reported at least one piece of misinformation If police review videos before statements, witnesses will not report memories of the original event but rather memories of original event + information taken from reviewing video - memory altered by video - The results suggest that earlier experiments which had lower “external validity” were reasonably good analogues of the more realistic situation - ○ Slightly weaker (but same) effect with active active BUT involvement reduces impact of co-witness misinformation ○ laboratory analogues may slightly exaggerate memory conformity effects Theoretical Implications 1. Alteration theories: the original information is “overwritten” and no longer exist in memory ○ Warnings after the misinformation have no impact ○ Source monitoring not accurate 2. Coexistence theories: the original information and misinformation coexist and are stored separately ○ Remember/Know judgement may help distinguish between original and altered memories Combating the misinformation effect People will be less susceptible to misleading postevent information if: 1. They first make a public statement about what they witnessed (Loftus, 1977) (see also Testing Effect) ○ Record what they witness early on ○ Recording something protects against subsequent information - declaring this is my memory 2. There is less time between witnessing event and presentation of misinformation (Loftus et al., 1978) ○ Memory deteriorates quickly - the longer the delay the more gaps that can be filled with misinfo, 3. The misinformation blatantly contradicts what was originally witnessed (Loftus, 1979) ○ The more bizarre the information, the harder it is for people to accept. ○ Easier to get people to add details than to take away. 4. They are forewarned that they may encounter misinformation (Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982) 5. However, warning them that they have encountered information a week after the fact, doesn’t help combat the misinformation effect. 6. They are asked to give remember/know judgments 7. Or could try to counter the effect after the fact. Anderson & Paterson (2007) show some evidence that after warning jurors can recognize situations where memory contagion may have occurred. Practically: - Separate witnesses and instruct them not to talk about the event with one another. - Ascertain whether witnesses have discussed the event - Warn witnesses about possible misinformation (before discussion), but don’t rely on warnings → ‘may in future encounter misinformation do not let it affect memories’ - Ask witnesses to make remember/know judgments. - Judges should warn juries about co-witness discussion Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Witness interviewing: Interviewing: The role of the investigative interview is to transfer as much accurate information, and as little inaccurate information as possible from witness to investigator - The purpose is the gathering of information in a structured manner, such that the information my later be considered by others as evidence, either for the prosecution or the defence (McKenzie, 1992) The Cognitive Interview - Developed by Geiselman and Fisher (1984) - Attempts to increase the amount of accurate information generated in interviews - police should make use of four mnemonics: ○ 1. Reinstate context: based on Encoding Specificity Hypoth (Tulving & Thomson, 1973) Same context physically and mentally - what did you feel/hear in that state ○ 2. Report everything: encourage to report even fragments about which have low confidence ○ 3. Change Order: helps witness encounter more retrieval cues Recount details in different order - e.g. backwards may remember different details But mentally taxing to do so, ○ 4. Change Perspective: Describe scene as seen by another witness – more retrieval cues E.g. witness bank robbery, teller asked tell me what you saw now there was a lady in the back what would she have seen. Encouraging fabrication - asking people to make up details. - Last two have been somewhat discredited - Also recommend use of other mnemonics techniques including: ○ Asking to think if suspect looked like anyone familiar ○ Anything unusual about appearance ○ Report first letter or number of letter in a TOT word or name → tip of the tongue state, when people guess at the first number/letter is above chance → Less relevant Standard Police Interviews - Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond (1987) analysed audio recordings of interviews by US cops. Found: ○ Constant interruptions ○ Excessive use of short questions ○ Inappropriate sequencing of questions → Would often not follow sequence of what witness was telling but rather some order imposed by police officer - Fisher found police interrupted witnesses every 7.5 seconds. - George (91) found untrained police (UK) asked significantly more questions per minute than trained officers → Training improves interviewing The Enhanced CI - In light of poor interviewing practice Geiselman and Fisher revised the CI ○ Reduces emphasis on “change perspective” and “change order” mnemonics and emphasises social aspects and listening skills ○ Encourages witness to make repeated efforts to recall ○ Interviewer to adopt “witness compatible questioning” - Phase 1: Greet and establish Rapport - human connection - Phase 2: Explain aims of interview - Phase 3: Initiate a free report - then question to avoid contamination/get uncontaminated report - Phase 4: Questioning - Phase 5: Varied and Extensive retrieval Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 - Phase 6: Summary - Phase 7: Closure Evaluation of the CI - Memon & Bull (1991) Reviewed realistic lab studies and reported the CI led to about 25-35% more info without increase in errors - Geiselman and Fisher (1989) found that the CI does not make witness more susceptible to leading Qs - However, some studies have shown an increase in errors with use of CI - Field Studies: ○ Fisher et al (1989) found that CI trained detectives got 63% more info from witnesses than experienced but untrained officers ○ Clifford and George (1995) compared UK officers’ real interviews before and after training finding strong support for CI ○ However, Newlands et al (2000) reanalysed Clifford and George tapes – found no evidence for increase in quality of information I.e. more information is generated in CI interviews but the information was not rated as more useful by police (when interviewing police), not more valuable/difference in quality MORE INFO but some may be iNACCURATE - not quality - Further limitations: ○ What is used as a comparison for the CI, is it standard police interview or free recall ○ Large effect sizes when comparing to deliberately bad interviews may be inaccurate police interviewing - Problems with CI ○ Several studies have shown does not work for suspect description → Visual vs episodic memory distinction ○ Can we equate quantity with quality (above) ○ CI places high cognitive demands on interviewer – Memon et al (1994) call for more training ○ Kebbell et al (1099) surveyed trained police Generally thought was it useful but that took too long to conduct a full CI Useful but unrealistic to conduct them ○ Demanding on witness – not good when witness very distressed or for children who might have problems with some mnemonics e.g. getting witnesses to enter context of SA problematic The Self Administered Interview - Testing effect and misinformation effect research suggest that completing a high quality recall task as soon as possible after the event will help protect memory from contamination. - Gabbert, Hope and Fisher (2009) developed the “Self Administered Interview” (SAI) ○ Designed to be quick and easy for witnesses to complete themselves - can be thought of as a “First Response Interview” first repondant can easily administer - Gabbert et al (2009): ○ Experiment 1: Recall using SAI was as good as CI and better than free recall. ○ Experiment 2: Ps watched video then half completed SAI. 1 week later completed free recall test. SAI participants recalled more than control. - Hope Gabbert & Fisher (2011) ○ Describe field trials with UK police – apparently successful. Esp if multiple witnesses - Hope, Gabbert, Fisher and Jamieson (2014). ○ Compared effect of SAI and free recall on subsequent recall at interview. Ps watched video, then completed SAI or Free recall or Control. One week later were interviewed with CI. SAI participants reported more correct info and were more accurate than FR and control Ps. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Evaluation of SAI - McPhee, Paterson & Kemp (2014) ○ Show that audio SAI is equivalent to spoken and is preferred by participants → rather than writing down answers can speak preferred if English second language - Kemp & Paterson (in prep) ○ Attempt to replicate Gabbert et al (2009) find that CI better than SAI, but that SAI better than free recall. CI more detailed but just not practical so SI better than nothing - Paterson Eijkemans & Kemp (2015) ○ Show that First Response Interview leads to better subsequent recall provided it occurs within about 24 hours of the original event. At longer delays the effect is lost.Timing is important - Perfect et al (2011) Eye closure ○ Showed that getting witness to close eyes improves recall accuracy - Vrederveldt & Penrod (2012) ○ Showed this was also true for live events with interviews conducted under naturalistic conditions. Suggested that police should ask witness to close eyes when initially interviewed. - Kemp, Paterson et al (2018) ○ Helped develop a first responder” interview protocol for WorkCover accident investigators. Iwitnessed - Phone app developed by Paterson, Kemp, Cowdery & van Golde (2018) - Work with some benefits of SI but make use of technology in smartphones. Any witness can download immediately after event on instructions of police officer and record all their memories and then email completed form to police officer - Designed to collect contemporaneous information form witnesses at scene of event ○ People can either speak or type responses, all responses are time location date stamped so time collected, maps photographs all combine in a report and sent to police - Nicholas Cowdery (ex NSW DPP) advised on likely court use of evidence - May be of special value in case of repeated events or events with multiple witnesses - E.g. DV, create log of details of the event - App not used as widely as thought, expensive to update Conclusions - CI is often hailed as a good example of application of psychology to real world problems - Impact of some of the mnemonics probably minor (some not a good idea at all) - Most important impact may have been that it helped highlight bad interviewing practice and presented strong case for training - increase in improvements in interviewing - Has led to other developments in interviewing – eg SAI and “first response” interview protocols such as iWitnessed. - Danger in contamination between witnesses who think they've seen the event together and can affect each others memories, protect and interviewing can build on knowledge of dangers to improve witness evidence accuracy so that investigations have good outcome. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 The nature of sex offenders Statistics Prevelance of sex offending based on conviction and re-offending is very small; and those charged are more liley to be acquited but there are an increasing number of victims which the data does not account for. - Defendants finalised in Australian Criminal Courts (2019-20) ○ Most defendants will be found guilty in 2019 86% of all defendants were found guilty ○ Sexual vs other offences, however, it is more likely those charged with sexual offences will be found not guilty (15% vs 8%); are more likely to be acquitted (9% vs 2%); and are less likely to be found guilty (43% vs 87%). - Australian offender rates (2019-2020) → Sex offending makes up small amount of all offending - 2% are sexual assault and related offences - NSW re-offending (2019) → Of those who offend sexually, only a small proportion of those tend to re-offend this reduces even further for reoffending within the same offence type - Prevelance of sex offending based on conviction rates seems very small and re-offending even smaller But looking at victim data: - Sexual Assault Victims (2019) ○ 30% increase in victim numbers ○ Sexual assault was fourth highest in number of victimes (26, 892) ○ Victimisation rate = 106 victims per 100 000 persons. ○ For victims of sexual assault in 2019: 83% were female; 5x more than male victims 1/3 were family/domestic violence related 73% reported to police within one year vs 93% for other offence types. 44% were under the age of 15 years when assaulted ○ 9 out of 10 women who experience sexual assault do not report it to the police. ○ Sexual assault victims have higher rates of repeat victimisation vs other offences. - 2017 Report: Sexual Assault/ Harassment at Australian Universities ○ 30 000+ students , 21% harassed, 45% assaulted. - Conviction records likely underestimate true sexual offending rates. Sex offending more prevalant than crime statstics show Sexual offences - Range in continuum of intrusiveness from non-contact to contact - Non contact: ○ Exhibitionsism - flashing of genitals ○ Voyeurism - ‘peeping tom’ ○ Frotteurism - rubbing genitals against someone else ○ Internet child porn ○ Snowdropping - stealing underwear and ○ Upskirting - takingn pictures up skirts - Contact: ○ Sexual touching ○ Groping ○ Child molestation sexual assault rape ○ Bestiality Sexual offenders Are a heterogeneous group - range in offence types and demographics (age, gender, sex orientation, SES) Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Offenders can be divided into 2 groups: 1. Rapists: ○ Offend against adults ○ Typically a known female victim ○ Angry and hostile ○ More violent 2. Child molesters: which are again divided into two groups: ○ Sexual Preference: ‘fixated’ Paedophiles, only sexually interested/aroused by children, typically offend against unknown victims outside their social networks ○ Opportunistic: Known victim offending within social networks, are not exclusive to children and may offend in other ways often due to strong sense of sexual entitlement feeling a right to sexual gratification. They are more responsive to treatment and reoffend less. Note: Heterogeneity and crossover offending = typologies are a continuum - May be more useful to think of categorisations as a continuum or categorise based on what will cause reoffending. Demographics: - Pre/adolescent ○ Mostly generalists ○ Non-sexual recidivism ○ 25/40% of sex offending caused by this group ○ Behaviour often minimised by authorities as ‘curiosity’ often goes unaddressed ○ Higher rates of sexual victimisation - 50-70% of them have been victims of sexual abuse themselves - Female ○ Less common around 2% (may be under-estimated) ○ Often offend in adolescence ○ Most often offending with male co-offender - severe relationship dysfunction contributing factor ○ Higher rates of victimisation ○ Higher rates of psychopathology including substance abuse, low self-esteem, self-harm, mental disorders (PTSD, Anxiety, BPD) - Male ○ Most common, range in age and gender ○ Biggest victim range ○ Those that have sexual AND violent offending are of concern - more offending, recidivism, treatment needs and responsibility, psychopathology (ASPD, severe social deficits) More serious offending, more often, less responsive to treatment requiring more specialised treatment to reduce offending ○ Those that have intellectual disabilities have 4-6x higher rates of offending. Chronological vs functional, age discrepancy, sexual naivety, grasp of sexual concepts Theories of sexual offending Note: A convincing explanation for sex offending is goign to be multifacotrial and include a number of pathways to appropriately account for it. Knowing causes of pathways is vital for treatment, prevention and management of this behaviour Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Finklehor’s Precondition Theory (1984) Specific to child sexual abuse Must overcome ALL 4 barriers for sx offending to occur: 1. MOTIVATION 2. INTERNAL BARRIERS 3. EXTERNAL BARRIERS 4. VICTIM RESISTANCE 1. Motivation Motivation to offend usually develops from: - Sexual urge, fantasy, and/or thought which might have developed from: ○ Sexual arousal from children, rape fantasy → may have come about from own experience of victimisation learn having sex with child is safe and recreate experinece to manage powerlessness and of lack of control ○ Emotional needs → may feel lonely and uncomfortable on a pathological level, power and control needs, fear of rejection ○ Blockage of normal sexual expression → intensely shy, insecure with peers, women, severe long lasting dysfunction with romantic relationships. 2. Internal barriers - Internal barriers = cognitions that prevent acting on urges to offend. - Internal barriers can be overcome by developing cognitive distortions: ○ That override fear of getting caught ○ That allows offenders to ignore victim welfare concerns ○ That allows offenders to ignore the immorality of the act - Examples of common cognitive distortions: ○ I’m just teaching him about sex; She asked me for a lift, She wanted it; I couldn't control myself; I’m just showing my love; She enjoyed it; I didn't hurt them; I just needed to release some stress - Empirical evidence for this: internal barriers are strong in those who DON'T offend despite having motivation to do so 3. External barriers - External barriers = factors preventing the act occurring - Overcome by: ○ Gaining victim access ○ Getting the victim alone - Examples include ○ Gaining trust of parents, getting them alone in a room etc 4. Victim resistance - Fourth barrier is victim resistance = victims actions to avoid victimization - Resistance can be: ○ Physical (running away, fighting back) ○ Forceful verbal (yelling for help) ○ Non forceful verbal (saying no, crying, scared) Victim selection: - Child sex offences are largely planned (fantasised about) but victim selection may be opportunistic Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 - Sex offenders select victims due to two main factors: (1) Personal appeal, (2) Safely victimised ○ Safe victimisation may be due to easily accessible, very young, emotionally insecure/isolated, low IQ, physical/intellectual disability, communication difficulties, prior victimisation - Two factors can explain higher risk of re-victimisation ○ Re-vicimtisatoin for sex offender victimis is more than double compared to other offences → finding those who can be safely victimised - also prior victimisation can be cyclic Limitations to theory: - Does not provide adequate explanation for how motivation develops in the first place - does not capture how motivation holistically develops. Integrated Theory of Sex Offending - Revised (Ward & Beech, 2016) Conceptuaise sex offending to be a reuslt of many interactive causal pathways/factors operating at different levels and different systems of human functioning - At a biological level someone has naturally higher levels of stress hormones - more likely to act impulsively. This interacts with the ecological side - insecure attachment, fear of closeness whilst being desperate for it. Influence development of neuropsychological functions (have someone understand, interact within internal/external worlds and actions) this influence adaptive functioning, clinical symptoms, see emotional/social problems arising, cognitive distortions develop and deviant sexual arousal starts to develop. Then have someone with agency to sexually offend and without interruptions in the system the sexual behaviour maintains and may escalate. - This theory tries to explain how that motivation develops from the basics of human development. - Biological aspects + social learning aspects → neuropsychological functions interlock (internal/external world interactions) → emotional/social problems arise → act of sexual offending → maintenance and escalation of that due to biological + social learning factors. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Risk factors for sexual recidivism: Likelihood of error in risk prediction as: - Accuracy of any predictions for future risk will be influenced by base rate (frequency that that behaviour occurs naturally in that population) - Comparitecly sex offending is very uncommon in general (base rate LOW) - Future behaviour that is uncommon is difficult to predict if it will occur in the future Static risk factors for sexual recidivism Unchangeable, fixed, can't treat or change. Can only get worse (historical risk factors). - Risk assessment tool for static risk factors STATIC-99R ○ Younger age ○ Single at index offence ○ Higher number of total prior offences ○ Higher number of prior sex offences ○ Stranger victims ○ Extra-familial victims ○ Male child victim ○ Diverse sexual crimes ○ Early age of onset of sexual offending ○ Adverse childhood environment or victimisation → e.g. 30% of adult male sex offenders have been victims fo childhood sexual assualt themselves. Dynamic risk factors for sexual recidivism. Changeable; fluctuate over time - Can be stable (slow) v acute (rapid) ○ E.g. someone with substance abuse problem = stable dynamic risk factor ○ But that person is high right now = acute risk factor - Risk assessment tool SVR-20, SONAR, Acute stable 2000, VRS-SO measures stages of change, someone's motivation to change on all factors (good for pre-post measure). The stable risk factors: ○ Sexual deviance *strongest predictor*. interest in children sexual preoccupation excessive porn use ○ Intimacy deficits lack/conflict in relationships emotionally identify with children insecure attachment ○ Emotional dysregulation recognising, controlling & coping with emotions ○ Attitudes/beliefs tolerating sexual offending Implicit theories Minimise, blame-shifting ○ Antisocial orientation ASPD Impulsivity Poor work history Pro criminal attitudes History of rule violations Substance abuse Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Dynamic stable factors Sexual deviance: - May be caused by a complex interaction involving: ○ Adverse childhood experiences; ○ Abnormal neurobiological development → overactive amygdala, ○ Severe social and emotional difficulties. E.g. someone experienced salient and sexually arousing experience during childhood - could become further embedded/impaired with masturbation and because of previous dysregulation of neurotransmitters (serotonin, noradrenaline, dopamine) as well as existing emotional/social issues → leads to increase in sexual appetite and subsequent behaviour. Not a clear pathway - very complex and hard to map - Has been targeted by: ○ Aversive therapy: deviant fantasy paired with negative consequence like physical shock ○ Masturbatory reconditioning: new fantasy at orgasm = arousal to new fantasy ○ Satiation: repeated masturbation to deviant fantasy till no arousal (extinction) ○ Covert sensitisation: extend deviant fantasy to include negative consequences (arrest/gaol) ○ Pharmacotherapy: antilibidinals for limiting sexual drive - Has been measured by Penile plethysmography (PPG): ○ Gauge around penis measures change in Vol./diameter in response to stimuli (images/videos) ○ Developed in 1960s Czechoslovakia = test homosexuality claims to avoid military duty mixed research regarding validity of PPG ethics? ○ Not used much in Aus/USA, sometimes in research ○ Research suggests can predict sexual recidivism for CHILD MOLESTERS ○ Limitations: Every study that used PPG showed arousal to non-preferred stimuli → error in measurement. Has consequences for getting wrong Do the ethical implications outweigh the minimal benefits - could be providing sexual services to offenders. Is it ethical to supply child pornography to offenders. Intimacy deficits: Attachment styles: sex offenders more likley to have one of two attachment styles - Childmolesters = preoccupied ○ Positive attitude of others but low self-worth ○ Sexualise security and affection needs which they satisfy through children Wanting intimacy from others to feel good about themselves but also fearing such closeness as they will have to give up control, be exposed as the inferior people they believe they are - wont cope with inevitable rejection. May project sexual needs on children as view children as safe and see them as entities they can control and are superior to - Rapists = dismissive ○ Positive view of self and negative view of others ○ Sceptical of close relationships and value independence to avoid vulnerability ○ Hostile and mistrustful to others, cold and aloof in relationships Suppressing true feelings to maintain emotional distance which they feel is necessary to avoid rejection - Often sexually aggressive Negativity about others, suppressed emotional states, lack of intimacy expressed through sexual aggression especially to women Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Emotional dysregulation: - Attachment difficulties lead to problems dealing with negative emotions - Often same developmental adversities resulting in insecure attachment affect regulation of emotion. - Increased risk of sexual offending due to: ○ Inability to deal with emotional distress, ○ Disinhibition due to strong emotional states, or using sex as a dysfunctional coping strategy - Rapists: intense anger and hostility especially to women - Internet offenders: avoid reality and gain pleasure via collecting images Implicit theories → attitudes/beleifs tolerating sex offendign - Beliefs about the self/others/world that tolerate sexual offending → can have 1 or more; and/or can be unique to their victim/offence - Often show little victim empathy ○ Victim empathy has no relationship to recidivism - ○ But treatment completers report useful element of treatment ○ How to incorporate victim empathy: related skill perspective taking when talking about victim issues, taking them to put them in victims shoes - Can be helpful to build healthy relationships and also for challenging cognitive distortions → where we see effectiveness from empathy issues - Child molesters/internet offenders: ○ Children as sexual beings: who enjoy/seek out sex with adults ○ Nature of harm: harmless if no physical abuse; or if some abuse occurs saying the child will recover quickly ○ Uncontrollability: can’t control self, urges too strong ○ Entitlement: superiority entitles using inferiors for sexual pleasure ○ Dangerous world: children are safe in hostile world; or children are part of hostile world View world as dangerous and children only safe entity within it or alternatively children are part of hostile world and therefore offending against them is justified - Rapists: ○ Women as sexual objects: sexually preoccupied/highly receptive to sexual advances ○ Women are unknowable: too different, can’t know needs/desires ○ Uncontrollability: can’t control sexual aggression, urges too strong ○ Entitlement: superiority entitles using inferiors for sexual pleasure ○ Women are dangerous: deceptive & evil, domination justified and desired Dynamic acute Acute factors often arise from environmental/interpersonal change: may not be specific predictors of sexual offending in isolation but act as warning signs that immediate action must be taken - predict/target. - Victim access e.g. poor self- management around victims, sees self as no risk - Hostility e.g. negative or angry mood - Reemergence of attitudes e.g. sexually preoccupied, victim blaming - Supervision rejection e.g. poor cooperation, disengaged, no-showing to sessions - Deterioration of mental state e.g. psychopathology, emotional collapse, medical non-compliant ○ Re-emergence of psychological symptoms, emotional disinhibited, non-compliant - Social adjustment e.g. social problems, collapse of supports ○ Could be offending past came out and lost social network as a result - Substance abuse e.g. “1 month spike” (hormonal agents) ○ Apart from drugs/alcohol also include hormonal agents, increase in sexual appetite in one month. Particular time to monitor before medication balances out. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Sex offender treatement efficacy Evolution in treatment and research looking at effectiveness of programs Nothing works - Furby et al. (1989) ○ Found that treatment did not reduce risk of recidivism for sexual offenders ○ However this study observed the effects of Psychodynamic Therapy which has been proven to be ineffective against sex offenders/not a treatement that works for this group. - Quinsey et al. (1993) ○ Showed that evaluation studies lack: ○ Control groups ○ Attrition rate measures (weren’t accounting for drop out) ○ Matched data (e.g., jurisdictions) ○ Not using sound statistical measures - comparing recidivism rates across jurisdictions What does work: - Hanson et al. (2002) ○ Meta-analysis, 43 studies, N >9000 (offenders) ○ Treatment reduced sexual recidivism (12.3% treatment v 16.8% no treatment) and general recidivism (27.9% treatment v 39.2% no treatment) ○ CBT/systemic (juveniles) = most effective ○ CBT for adults and CBT + Systemic theory for juveniles - Losel & Schmucker (2005) ○ Meta- analysis, 80 studies, N >22000 ○ Treatment reduced recidivism 6.4%(sexual),5.2%(violent), 11.1%(general) ○ More recent research in 2015 compared treatment sample of sex offenders to non-treated offenders and saw reduction in sexual recidivism to be 27% - very positive - Watworth era: ○ Some studies show child molesters respond better to treatment (lower rates of recidivism) but generally untreated populations have lower rates so not a clear result. ○ Libidinal/hormonal therapy on its own is ineffective to reduce recidivism and most effective when used an adjunct treatment to supported treatment approaches such as CBT - don't need a penis to offend sexually - Marshall & McGuire (2003) ○ Compared treatment effect sizes of sex offenders to maintstream medical treatments. Comparable or if not better than mainstream medical treatments ○ Chemo-therapy (cancer) = 0.08, Aspirin (heart attack prevention) = 0.03 ○ Non sexual = 0.10-0.66 ○ Sexual = 0.1-0.47 How does it work → Next lecture How can we make it work better - Focus on treatment Design & implementation. Resulted in the delivery of treatment programs that are consistently Manualised AND Theory and evidence- based Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Effective prison treatment Why do we put people in prison - Punishment → to deliver punishments. ○ Must be consistent, expected that it will happen, occur at close proximity of time to behaviour that is being punished in order to work (note delays in CJS) ○ Less effective than rewards - Incapacitation → protecting the public ○ Separate offenders from the public to protect them. ○ Some evidence for this but many offences occur in jail. - Deterrence → jail acts as deterrent ○ People prevented from committing crimes as scared/worried about jail - act to avoid it ○ Not good evidence that jail is a deterrent as often crimes are impulsive (if calm reasoning process then more likely to be effective) -. Rehabilitation → treat to stop re-offending ○ Bringing about changes which reduce the probability of reoffending. ○ If offenders are in custody we can work with them to help them operate in a more prosocial way Crime statistics in Australia - General impression is that crime rates are increasing exponentially BUT ○ Data suggests that crime is reducing or remaining constant depending on the type of the crime: ○ Note: crime rates are often lagging, statistics account for pre-covid data and the current environment will likely affect crime rates. - Offence types: ○ Other theft → most common, Unlawful entry with intent → high, Robbery, sexual assault, homocide → less. Over time increasing trends particularly for other theft, but rates stable or decreasing for other offences. - Victims of crime → up to 800 000 ○ Victimes over time/highest for SA. ○ For sexual assault reported rate: number of people experiencing sexual assault per 100 000 people in AUS population → controls for increasing population number, the actual SA rate is lower than 100 000 per 100 00 ○ Note all other offences are in the number of victims over time. - Victims of person crimes: ○ Shows increasing rate for SA but stable/decreasing for other offences (murder, attempted murder, mansluaghter, kidnapping/abduction) ○ Why are rates of sexual assault increasing: We dont have a good sense of rate of sexual assault in general. Rate of reported offences likely to be wild under-estimation of actual rate Difficult to know the trend for SA Offences are reported but not likely to show trend rates. People are more willing to report Changing attitudes → different impressions, - Prison population: ○ Increasing rates of prison populations for all prisoners, those who have been sentenced and unsentenced. ○ Also In QLD: Rate of imprisonment has increased 160% since 1992. ○ INCREASING rates can be explained by: Return to prison (custodial order): Looking at percentage of people convicted guilty and sent to jail who have returned to jail within 2 years Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Almost 60% in NT, NSW 50%, 40% for other states and 35% SA Large proportion of people will return to jail. Recidivism in Australia: 60% of those in custody have history of incarceration 1/2 of those arrested have reported being arrested in past 12 months 1/4 people in custody will return to custody within 2 years → specifically those who were in community corrections order not custodial order 1/3 young people in court will be convicted again before they turn 18 Overall crime rates and victim rates are decreasing but prison population rates are increasing - PEOPLE IN CJS UNDER CUSTODY ARE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE AND LIKELY TO BE THERE AGAIN ○ Revolving door prison: people once enter corrective service tend to not escape but cycling through ○ Evidence based treatment/rehabilitation is important and is not working… something is keeping people in the system. Need new strategies to interfere with this cycle. Offender rehabilitation: 100’s of interventions in place in jails to rehabilitate - Hard labour USA - Employment/vocational training programs e.g. piecework - Specialist programs, training guidance assistant dogs - Career training/vocational skills e.g. groundskeeping - Therapeutic artistic intervention programs - Even specialist bee-keeping. Don't know if all of these are effective as they have not been assessed/evaluated. - Some interventions have high face-validity e.g. vocational skills, which seems like they would encourage prosocial behavior but those skills may not translate into real world to give them opportunities which can help remove them from the cycle. - Still collateral benefits - socialising skills, entertaining preoccupying no clear evidence that these interventions are effective Key contribution from psychology = two key types of programs/therapies Psychology has contributed 2 key programs to custody based interventions as ways of reducing re-offending: 1. Behavioural 2. Cognitive behavioural Behavioural Interventions: - Based on learning theory, using operant and classical conditioning to shape people's behaviour - People trained by pairing: ○ Positive behaviours with reward ○ Negative behavior with punishment - Usually done in context of mental health/substance use treatment programs - Use contingency management. ○ Positive behaviours (remain abstinent, clean urine tests, not getting involved in altercations) are rewarded (increased privileges, having access to food, phone calls, visits to family etc). Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 ○ Negative behaviours (dirty urine, drugs on wing, relapse, not behaving) have privileges taken from them → Utilised less often as punishment is less effective than reward - Some evidence of behavioural changes - more prosocial behaviour - Limitations: ○ Ignores role of cognition → humans not pavlovian dogs, wont get huge changes in behaviour with contingencies, must engage with person for best outcome Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Thoughts → Feelings → Behaviours - Based on the idea that events in the world do not trigger uncontrollable behaviour but rather controllable thoughts do which can be restructured/reframed to generate different feelings which result in more prosocial behaviours ○ Misconception - triggering events that cause an immediate reaction (minimal gap in time) such that offenders assume there's very little they can do to change it ○ E.g. someone swears at you your reaction is to swear back automatically - CBT build on the idea that many things happen between the event and the reaction to that event - The first of those things is thoughts and interpretation ○ When event occurs you think and interpret that event ○ That process of interpretation causes feelings/emotional reactions ○ That feeling is what generates behaviour. - Example: someone drops your cake on your birthday (EVENT) ○ If the first thought is that it was an intentional evil job - will cause a range of feelings (anger, resentment, displeased) which might lead to aggressive behaviour (punching the person) ○ Can interpret the situation differently to give rise to a different outcome. E.g. think is person hurt, understand it was an accident → different feelings (epathy, concern) would respond with prosocial behaviour like lending a hand to pick them up, asking if ok - CBT key therapeutic intervention for depression, anxiety - Identifying thoughts → restructuring/reframing those thoughts so they generate different feelings and therefore different behaviors - General public + offenders find the concept of CBT challenging to understand Components of CBT: - Structured learning experiences ○ Can be one on one educational classes (or group) ○ Teach about thoughts feelings behaviours + explain what the process is - Thought monitoring ○ Train people to be more attentive to immediate thoughts they have in response to actions in the world. To identify thoughts that are happening in the first place and extend that period between things in world and behavioural reaction to that thing → attending to thoughts ○ Use thought diary - Addressing errors in thinking ○ Hear what they are thinking and identify problems with that - often negative/paranoid interpretation of world (leading to angry reactions) ○ Help offenders see alternative interpretations, might be making errors in their thinking - Reasoning about right and wrong actions ○ Choosing which behaviours to give in a circumstance - Generating alternative solutions ○ Problem solving Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 ○ Clients generally have a restricted repertoire of responses to use - used to responding in physical, angry ways - need assistance in working out what alternative exist that can give good outcome but don't lead to harm - Choosing appropriate behaviours ○ Workshopping/role play ○ Help them rehearse the behaviours - telling one person about alternative behavior (punch someone vs telling them they hurt feelings) but in moment what feels automatic is responding with aggression ○ Must practise pro-social options so they become more automatic than other ones. What is targeted with CBT: - Cognitive skills (thinking skills) - Substance abuse - Cognitive restructuring → Change way view world so it is not as negative/aggressive - Interpersonal problem solving - Social skills - Relapse prevention ○ Consider factors that contributed to the offence e.g. financial pressures, abuse problems, relationship issue ○ Prevent same pathway that occurred before - Anger control - Moral reasoning - Victim impact - Behaviour modification What does CBT achieve: Langenberger and Lipsey (2005) - CBT decreases Recidivism ○ 1.5 times less likely to reoffend compared to controls within 12 months ○ 10% percentage point decreases in reoffending compared the control group - Predictors of better CBT outcomes (not all CBT is equal) need to consider: ○ 1. The risk level of participating offenders - below ○ 2. How well the treatment was implemented (fidelity) → e.g. the closer people attend to the manual the better the outcome ○ 3. The presence and absence of treatment elements Certain treatment elements have better outcomes E.g. victim empathy not associated with good outcomes whilst aggression/anger management is RNR model - Framework for delivering the CBT treatment - Risk needs responsivity model - Way of structuring decision making around the administration of treatment that can get the best outcome from the treatment (encouraging desistance) RISK → Who should be treated (risk v level of treatment) - Need to match level of risk among clients to level of treatment - Recidivism can be reduced if the level of treatment services provided to the offender is proportional to the offender's risk of reoffending. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 ○ I.e. don't give low risk offenders high intensity treatment and don't give high risk offenders low intensity treatment ○ If you mismatch intensity and risk either increase likelihood of re-offending among low risk group of offenders (give low risk offenders high intensity treatment) or can not reduce rate of reoffending for high risk offenders (give high risk offenders low intensity treatment) Risk assessment approaches: - Trying to predict a future event → difficult to do - First generation ○ “Unstructured clinical judgement” ○ Based on past professional experience. ○ Derived from case study and individual circumstances Psychologist/psychiatrist using professional experience and training to make a guess about whether someone is high risk of re-offending. Gut feeling’ of risk. ○ Many psychological factors affect decision making which skewed estimates lessening accuracy - Second generation ○ Statistical prediction ○ Group based ○ Focus on static factors which can’t be changed ○ Based on archival case file reviews - documented ○ Produces rules for combining factors Account for x y z and combine them in particular ways ○ Scores associated with normative recidivism data Put a number on how likely it is that a person with these characteristics will go on to re-offend ○ Overview: Look at group data over number of people over a number of years - try to work about what factors statistically predict whether they are more or less likely to offend Doesn't give opportunity for rehabilitation but rather tells something about person's likelihood of reoffending in the future but not to reduce it - Third generation ○ Includes static AND dynamic risk factors ○ Dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs) Related to re-offending Conceptually justified – change must be possible Empirically justified – change must be related to recidivism risk Guide intervention strategies ○ More sophisticated in predicting future events and how to work with people based on profiles. - Fourth generation ○ Decisions guided by empirically derived static and dynamic risk factors ○ Clinician adjusts the risk assessment based on individual factors (responsivity) → return of clinical judgement E.g. can do generation 3 risk assessment but that wouldn't account for the fact that the person is locked down during covid - risk of offending, depending on offence, will be changed by the lockdown. If offence is theft - reduced risk (cant be on streets without surveillance, people at home harder to steal). If however offence is domestic violence, increased risk of offending. But standard tools wont account for this - clinical risk assessment comes into play Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 NEED → What should be treated (static/dynamic factors) - In general focus on dynamic factors as whilst static factors are relevant factors to re-offending they cant be changed/cant intervene. Assess criminogenic needs and specifically target them in treatment - Static factors = Unchangeable ‘historical facts about person - on case file’ ○ Age - if started offending at an early age more likely to re-offend but if older at time of treatment less likely to reoffend (desistance) ○ Cultural background ○ Age at first incarceration - Dynamic factors = Changeable ○ Employment ○ Education ○ Substance use problems - By focusing on these factors we can change them and reduce criminal thinking, directly relevant to someone’s re-offending risk - Key criminogenic (dynamic) needs that must be considered to meaningfully change someone’s risk of reoffending: ○ Antisocial associates ○ Antisocial cognitions/value sustaining antisocial behaviour ○ Antisocial personality ○ History of antisocial behaviour (STATIC but one of the key predictors of recidivism risk) ○ Stable Family or marital status that is supportive ○ School or work status that keeps occupied ○ Leisure or recreation activities ○ Substance abuse history RESPONSIVITY → How should treatment be provided Maximize an individual's ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to their learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths Two components to this: 1. General → based on effective cognitive social learning strategies ○ What makes a good teaching/educational/therapeutic relationship E.g. warm, respectful, collaborative working alliance will improve treatment outcomes compared to stern punishment based lecturing style therapy ○ Structuring principle: suggests you can influence change better through modelling, reinforcement and problem solving -- use in interventions with client it is better designed/delivered treatment so better outcomes 2. Specific → response to personal strength and socio-biological personality factors ○ Consider specific needs of the person you are working with, respond to individual factors ○ Need to tailor intervention to needs of client e.g. CBT rarely delivered in pure form in jail as it involves homework, thinking about thinking (cognitively effortful) many clients have poor literacy, cognitive impairment or disability - cant write in thought journal ○ Must work out different ways you can work with them to get same benefits from treatment given how they present in therapeutic interaction RNR efficacy (does it work): Studies of past interventions - Meta analysis looking at research considering risk principle (Andrews & Dowden, 2006) ○ 10% difference in recidivism for high risk individuals who have been given an RNR based intervention. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 ○ 3% difference in recidivism for low risk individuals who have been given RNR based intervention WHY? ○ If someone has low risk of offending there aren't going to be many offences to reduce in the future - never will see big return compared to high risk offenders - more opportunity to see bigger reduction - Reduction in recidivism by RNR principles adhered to (Bonta & Andrews, 2007) ○ If 0 RNR principles are adhered to in treatment for those who are in residence (custody/mental health facility) there is a 10% INCREASE in the likelihood of reoffending ○ If 3 RNR principles are adhered to there is a 17% difference in recidivism and this increases to 35% for those getting the treatment in community (parole/community supervision) - Is this efficacious: ○ Success rate = 29% compared to aspirin 3% (reducing cardiac arrest) chemo 11% avoiding breast cancer bypass surgery 15% cardiac event reduction ○ So.29 is comparable and better than many other interventions SUMMARY - Crime is decreasing/stable but recidivism rates are relatively high - Prison population is increasing → (evidence based) Intervention is important to reduce risk - Evidence-based interventions (CBT) within a sound framework like (RNR) show promise for reducing reoffending risk and are the most effective interventions that we have so far. Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 Assessment of risk and dangerousness Prediction - Psychologists have many responsibilities when undertaking forensic work including: ○ Protection of general public from dangerous individuals → identify risk someone poses ○ Protection of individuals from self-harm and suicide → in institutions ○ Protection of staff of institutions → from potentially violent people ○ Protection of other inmates - Duty of care cast widely → risk management - These require the psychologist to make predictions e.g. risk of offending or risk of offending in a particular way. Predictions = RISK + DANGEROUSNESS ○ Predicting Risk = predicting likelihood of offending ○ Predicting Dangerousness = predicting likely consequences of offending → “serious” offence - All combinations of risk and dangerousness levels are possible as they are separate variables largely independent of one another ○ For example, can predict high risk but low dangerousness. ○ Low risk (incarcerated) for dangerous act (murder) OR high risk for not dangerous act (not returning library books) Tarasoff Decision - Psychologists have an obligation to inform when it comes to risk. - Tarasoff murdered by Poddar who told staff/doctor that he wanted to kill her - he was detained but released upon ruling by psychologist that he was not to be detained. Tarasoff never told of threat. - Court ruled that mental health professionals are legally obligated by duty to inform such potential victims of threat to their safety made by clients ○ Clearly there is some threshold ○ Calculation of risk and dangerousness in deciding whether action is required - Revised in 1976 - must use reasonable care to protect potential victims (not necessarily by informing them directly) Assessing risk/dangerousness Two types of risk and dangerous assessment: 1. Clinical → judgements based on experience of clinician ○ Clinician based on experience makes estimate of dangerousness/risk 2. Statistical/actuarial assessment → based on evidence from previous cases which identify risk factors ○ Based on evidence/patterns from previous cases (known outcomes) which identify risk factors ○ Evidence that statistical assessment is more accurate than clinical Counterintuitive - may feel like clinicians who personally know individuals are better at assessing risk but potentially the objectivity of statistics overrides this Difficult to treat patients with objectivity - may under/overestimate individuals as they have a personal attachment. Clinical approaches Several models of clinical decision making regarding risk 1. Linear model → attempt to systemise clinical models using series of simple decisions ○ Is there a clear (not vague) threat? ○ Serious (not marginal) danger? ○ Specific victim (not non-identifiable) ? ○ Imminent danger? - practical way of getting to them or genuine feasible plan to carry out Downloaded by Lachlan Wang ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|10538682 2. Hypothetico-deductive model. ○ Knowledge about previous behaviour allows clinician to formulate hypotheses about likely future behaviour. ○ E.g. young man threatening violence to girlfriend.Counselor knows student has history of alcohol abuse and fighting in school. Father is overseas, mother reports cannot control her son. Drug abuse - impairs reasoning; history of violence; father (stabilizing influence) away increases the risk. Clinical methods - Blackburn (2000): provision of guidelines to help structure clinical decision making can improve performance ○ Provide guidelines for structured clinical decision making to improve accuracy/increase liability ○ Different counselors should make similar estimates. - Hollin and Palmer (1995): point out that the superior performance of actuarial methods suggests that individual differences or environmental stressors are not important in determining behavior ○ This seems very unlikely. The problem is that it is difficult to incorporate these factors into risk assessment in a reliable manner/into a reliable assessment system. ○ Should distinguish between clinical variables (should be included) and clinical judgment (unreliable) CV = stabilizing factors; CJ: baseless arguments - PCL-R includes some clinical variables such as “superficial charm” ○ Most recent generation of clinical assessment instruments are designed to include clinical variables in a structured way → often include an actuarial element with some clinical variables PCL-R some variables are clearly actuarial (can make on basis of data) others are more clinical such as superficial charm PCL-R involves training in evaluations and only judgements on a scale of 0 1 2 in attempts to increase reliability of clinical judgements. - Generally, clinical methods don't work well but can be valuable - recent work attempt to improve reliability of clinical judgments incorporating them into other judgements Clinical assessment of risk: - Many Studies Show Clinical assessments of risk to be poor - Clark (1999) reviewed studies and concluded that clinical risk assessment is weak at best, at worst totally ineffective. - Even experienced clinicians fail to predict future violence in cases with clear indicators, such as previous recidivism (e.g. clinicians would under-estimate risk posed by someone who previously offended but explains reasons why they won't anymore) Why do clinical judgments get it wrong? - Dernevik (2000) suggest; ○ Diagnostic categories are too broad (eg schizophrenia) so allocating someone to such a category is not helpful in predicting future behav