Student notes - Psycholand

thunderingaardvarkΤεχνίτη Νοημοσύνη και Ρομποτική

18 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 8 μήνες)

48 εμφανίσεις

© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
1


Making A Case













Profiling

Witness
Evidence

Suspect
Evidence

o

Top Down
-

Douglas


o

Bottom Up
-

Godwin


o

Case Study


WM3
(Turvey)


o

Faces
-

Froud


o

Weapons Focus
-

Pickel


o

Cognitive Interview
-

Geiselman


o

Lie Detection
-

Vrij



o

Interrogation
-

Inbau



o

False Confession
-

Russano



© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
2


Making A Case 1


Profiling

What you need to know
:

What is the top down method and an example of it in practice?

What is
the bottom up method and an example of it in practice?

An example of a profile

Serial Killers Exercise

Group the serial killers together with features that you consider similar
and would help us catch another killer in the future. The idea is to be
able
to make a prediction of the kind of person we might be looking for in
a new case, helping the police reduce the list of potential suspects.

In the space below give a summary of how you grouped the killers.
















© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
3


Top
-
Down profiling

This approach b
egins with what is known about existing killers and
attempts to generate a theory of killer types. This theory (the top) is
applied to the new case to suggest possible personality characteristics
that the police ought to look for whe
n identifying possible

suspects, eg
this killer is similar to Bundy so are looking for someone like him

The Key Study

Douglas, J.
E. et al. Criminal Profiling from Crime Scene Analysis.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law (1986) vol. 4 (4) pp. 401
-
421

Criminal Profile Generating
Process

1.
Profiling Inputs





2.
Decision Process
Models





3. Crime
Assessment





4. Criminal Profile





5. Investigation



6. Apprehension



Key stage
is 3 leading to 4

Key part of theory was creation of organised v disorganised killers.

How
was this done?


© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
4













© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
5



Organised

Disorganised

Victim Selection






Control of victim






Sequence of crime







The previous killers could be grouped
into these two categories according
to Douglas. Killers falling into one of other of these groups would have
certain kids of personality characteristics, which help the police reduce
the number of potential suspects.

Trait/
Characteristic

Organised

Disorga
nised

Relationships





Sexual or social
experience




Childhood





Emotion during attack





Level of intelligence






How does this fit with your classification
of serial killers
at the
beginning?

Can you reorganise them?

© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
6

Bottom Up Profiling

One the other side of the page draw a birds eye view of the school

Canter, a British psychologist, has generally been critical of the American
approach. He demonstrates that the categories of organised and
disorganised are essentially meaningless as when
you look at the crime
scene the majority of crimes look organised. The categories fail to
discriminate between criminals and so are useless in helping the police
identify a particular indiv
idual. What he suggests is that
we need a
method that ass
umes tha
t each killer is unique rather than looking for
similarities.

This is the bottom
-
up idea. The profiler needs to work from evidence at
the crime scene and using known statistical information generate a unique
picture of the criminal.

Key ideas

Behavioural
consistency






Spatial Consistency






Circle Theory


Marauder


Commuter




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
7

Key study

Godwin, M. and D. Canter (1997). "Encounter and Death: The Spatial
Behavior of US serial Killers."
Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategy and
Management

20
(1): 24
-
38.

Aim:
To test the theory of spatial consistency in relation to serial killers


Hypothesis/Research questions:

The present study, therefore, set out to explore three sets of hypotheses of serial
killers’ journey to crime:

1.

H1:

The home operates as a focus for the activities of serial killers in
apprehending their victims and leaving their bodies. The focus is
hypothesized as being the most likely centre of gravity of their actions.

2.

H2:

There will be differences in the distance
s travelled to apprehend victims
and to leave their bodies. It is proposed that the dumping of the body carries
most evidential implications and therefore is likely to be at a further distance
as well as being more likely to be shaped by buffering processe
s.

3.

H3:

The distances serial killers travel to dump the victims’ bodies are likely to
change systematically over time while the victims’ points of fatal encounter
locations are not. The counter
-
intuitive possibility that this change relates to
an increasi
ng incorporation of all his killing activities into his domestic area
will also be tested.

Background:

A study of serial rapists shows that the home can be used as a basis for defining the
area in which crimes were committed; they showed that very few o
ffenders
“commuted” like workers into areas to commit their crimes but that in 86 percent of
the cases the home was within a circle defined by the two crimes furthest from each
other. A number of other studies have also shown that criminals are apparently
reluctant to travel very far from their home base to commit their crimes (Baldwin and
Bottoms, 1976; Rhodes and Conly, 1981). However, none of these studies have
dealt with serial killers and considered both the BD and the PFE as well as
considering the po
ssibility in changes in distances travelled over time.

Method:

Statistical analysis

Materials:
Case records, Map expert

Measures:

Distances from home to PFE and BD site

Sample:


The study involved 54 male US serial murderers. All the cases were solved. Each
offender was convicted of at least ten murders, committed on different dates and in
different locations. Most of the killers were suspects in additional murders; however,
those

cases were not included in the study because the offenders were never
charged with the additional crimes. Only the first ten murder victims were considered
in the present study so that in total the details on 54 serial killers and 540 victims
were used.

Procedure:


The data were collected from various police departments throughout the USA
including, but not limited to, intelligence sources such as the Homicide Information
Tracking System (HITS), Violent Crime Apprehension Program (VICAP), and
Homicide As
sessment and Lead Tracking System (HALT). Additional data on
© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
8

Godwin, M. and D. Canter (1997). "Encounter and Death: The Spatial
Behavior of US serial Killers."
Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategy and
Management

20
(1): 24
-
38.

specific cases were obtained from court transcripts by accessing Lexus and
Westlaw, the on
-
line law databases.

Considerable effort was taken to locate and record the physical addresses of the
of
fenders’ home bases, the victims’ points of fatal encounter (PFE), and the victims’
body dump sites (BD). Throughout the study home base is defined as the location
where the offender was living during the time they were committing their crimes. In
most ins
tances the data included one offender and one home base. Point of fatal
encounter is defined as the initial contact site or last seen location of the victim. Body
dump location is defined as the final resting place where the victim’s body was
discovered.

Results:



Conclusion:

From these results write a conclusion in your own words about
geographical profiling
.












© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
9

Differences top down and bottom up

Looks for personality characteristics

For each pair of statements
identify which is top down and
which is bottom up.

Looks for behavioural characteristics

Based on statistics

Based on interviews

Generates a theory of killers

Uses existing theories of normal
people

Matches killer
to existing profiles

Generates a unique profile

Only works for serious crime

Can work for any crime



Profiling Case Study


The West Memphis Three

If you were asked in the exam to describe a case study where profiling
was used you would have to
be able to describe the following features:

1.

What are the details of the case

2.

Why was the profile put together

3.

For five features of the crime you need to be able to describe the
person the profiler thinks committed the crime, what is the
evidence for this,
and how this fits with the people currently
convicted of the crime




Case details









© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
10

Reasons for profile




Feature

Profiler
conclusion

Evidence

Fit with crime

Number
of
assailants










Reason for
attack









Arrest
history








Residence of
assailant









Skill level of
assailant









Describe each of the studies in 5 lines only

Douglas


呯瀠Tow渠


佲条湩se搯䑩s潲条湩ned
















䝯Gw楮


䉯瑴潭⁕瀠
-

Ma灰楮p





2.


3.


4.


5.


Turvey


WM3⁐牯晩re





2.


3.


4.


5.


VaGUE evaluation of
Profiling research




Claim

Evidence

Elaboration

Validity

Place

Where the activity is
done might or might
not create demand
characteristics




Tasks

The task may or may
not be

measuring what
it claims




Researcher

The researcher might
be biased




Generalisability

Places

Will the findings apply
to other places





People

Will these findings
apply to other people





Time

Will these findings still
apply in 10 years time




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
13

Usefulness

Practical

Does the research
produce a practical
application




Theory

Does the research
support or refute a
theory





Generative

Does the research
generate new research





Ethics

Participants

Can the participants be
hurt by the
research





Public

Can the public be hurt
by the research
findings





Psychology

Does the research
enhance or reduce the
reputation of
psychology




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
14

Previous Profiling Questions

Jan 2010

a)

Describe the bottom up approach to offender

profiling [10]

b)

Assess the reliability of offender profiling [15]

Jan 2011

a)

Describe
one
case study as an approach to offender profiling.
[10]

b)

Compare different approaches to creating a profile.
[15]


Making A Case 2


Interviewing Witne
sses

Recognising Faces

What is the emotion on Thatcher’s Face? Then turn the page.







Face

Recognise

Name




















© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
16

Internal and external facial features


Internal Features


External Features


Key Study


Frowd

et al. The Relative Importance of External and
Internal Features of Facial Composites. The British Journal
of Psychology (2007) vol. 98 pp. 61
-
77

Aim

To investigate the relative recognisability of internal (eyes,
brows, nose and mouth) and external (head

shape, hair and
ears) features in facial recognition.

Method

Independent measures design experiment

IV =

Complete composite


Internal features


External features

DV =

Accuracy of matching

Materials

Composites

These had been created in a previous
experiment. They had
been made by participants who had seen the face
, asked if it
was unfamiliar to them
, asked to remember it and then two days
later had to create the composite using EvoFit or some other
method
.

Participants

30 staff and students Stirl
ing University

Paid £2

15 male 15 female

Mean age 29.2

Procedure

Divided into groups

Given ten complete photos of celebrities

Given a pile of 40 composites (EvoFit) 4 for each celebrity in a
random order

Asked to turn over each composite one at a time and

match it to
a celebrity

Results

Whole composites and externals both 35% accuracy

Internal features 19.5%

Conclusion







© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
17



Interviewing witnesses


The Problem of Weapons Focus

Weapon focus

refers to the concentration of a witness’s attention
on a weapon which results in them having difficulty recalling other
details of the scene and identifying the perpetrator of the crime.

But, why does this effect occur? Possible theories:

1)
Witnesses

a
re attending to the weapon and ignoring the other
details of the scene. (this theory supported by such people as Loftus and
Kramer).

2) Witnesses are attending to all details, but demonstrate better memory for
the weapon when tested later possibly because

this memory remains strong
or because other details have deteriorated more quickly.

3) The cue
-
utilization hypothesis (Easterbrook, 1959). This theory says that
the weapon indicates a threat, which increases arousal, which makes the
witness focus on the
weapon.

4) the unusualness of the weapon is what causes weapon focus.


The Key Study

Pickel, K.L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of "weapon
focus."
Memory, 6,

277
-
295.

Aim

To test whether cue utilization or
unusualness has more effect on memory


Method

Unrelated measured design

Laboratory experiment x 2

IV in both studies


Low and high unusualness


Low or high threat

DV accuracy of description of an event
viewed on videota
pe


Materials

Videotape of a person going into either a
hairdressers or a car repair shop. In both
videos the person walks up to the
receptionist, the receptionist hand the
man some money and then he walks out.

The IV is what the man is holding in his
ha
nd.


Materials 2

Hair dressers


Low threat

High Threat

Low
Unusual



High
Unusual




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
18


Car repair shop


Low threat

High Threat

Low
Unusual



High
Unusual




Procedure

1.

Watch video

2.

10 minute filler activity

3.

questionnaire

First part focuses on
receptionist
(this was a control)

Second section on man

4.

Then had to pick man out from
line
-
up



Participants

Guess who?




How many do we need?






Results

No difference in recall between the two
low unusual conditions

Lower recall in both the high
unusual
conditions (Gun, Chicken, Knife,
Doughboy)

No effect at all on the line up


Conclusion














© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
19


The Cognitive Interview (CI)

Some background











Stages of the interview

Why they might work

1.
Context reinstatement
: It tries to
recreate the scene of the incident in the
mind of the witness, this includes the
sights, sounds and smells but also crucially
it attempts to model the emotions and
feelings of the person at the time.


This is
based on the
concept of cue
dependent
memory
.







2.
Report everything
: It encourages
witnesses to report all detail that they
can remember regardless of how trivial it
may appear



3.
Recall in reverse order
: It encourages
witnesses to recall events in different
orders, for
example starting half way
through a sequence of events and then
working backwards








4.

Recall from a different perspective
:
It encourages witnesses to view the scene
as others present may have seen it, for
example as other witnesses, the victim or
the perpetrator may have seen the
incident.







© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
20


Key Study
-

Geiselman et al. Enhancement of Eyewitness Memory with
the Cognitive Interview. The American Journal of Psychology (1986) vol.
99 (3) pp. 385
-
401

From the slide complete this description of th
e study

Aim



Method including
variables






Materials




Participants





Procedure






Results

Correctly recalled

Incorrectly recalled

Confabulated






Conclusion





Describe each of the studies in 5 lines only

Froud


䙡ce⁒ c潧o楴楯i
















P楣ke氠


Wea灯湳p䙯c畳





2.


3.


4.


5.


Geiselman


䍯杮楴楶e⁉湴e牶楥w





2.


3.


4.


5.


VaGUE evaluation of
witness interview

research




Claim

Evidence

Elaboration

Validity

Place

Where the activity is
done might or might
not create demand
characteristics




Tasks

The task may or may
not be measuring what
it claims




Researcher

The researcher might
be biased




Generalisability

Places

Will the findings apply
to other
places





People

Will these findings
apply to other people





Time

Will these findings still
apply in 10 years time




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
23

Usefulness

Practical

Does the research
produce a practical
application




Theory

Does the research
support or refute a
theory





Generative

Does the research
generate new research





Ethics

Participants

Can the participants be
hurt by the research





Public

Can the public be hurt
by the research
findings





Psychology

Does the research
enhance or reduce the
reputation
of
psychology




Previous Witness Questions

June 2011

a)

Outline one piece of research into factors which influence

the
accurate identification of a suspect [10]

b)

Assess the reliability of research into interviewing suspects
[15]

Jan 2010

a)

Describe the cognitive interview [10]

b)

Discuss qualitative and quantitative approaches to collecting
information when interviewing witnesses [15]




















Making A Case 3


Interviewing Suspects

Using the table below write down three statements about yourself that
other people in the class probably do not know about you. One of the
statements needs to be a lie and the other two true. Put them in any
order but make sure you which is which.

Number

Statements

1




2




3




As we go round the class write down the name of the person and which of
their statements you think is the lie

Name

Statement you think is a lie

Right or wrong





























































Total right Total wrong




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
26

Key Study

1


Ability to detect lies

Vrij and Mann. Who Killed My Relative? Police Officers' Ability to Detect
Real
-
Life High
-
Stake Lies. Psychology, Crime

& Law (2001)

Aim

To find out
of police officers are able to detect lies
in a real life high stakes situation



Method

A correlation


Variables


Number

of correct lies out of
five


Age of officer


Experience of officer


Confidence in decision

A Natural Experiment


IV = Gender


Materi
als

8 videotapes of relatives appealing for help to
solve the case of a missing relative. IN five of
these it has been proved that the person in the
video killed the relative. The other 3 were filler
tasks to check for
boredom. These were not used
in th
e analysis as it was not certain who killed the
relative.

A questionnaire

1)

is the person lying?

2)

How confident are you?

3)

What behavioural cues did you use to
make your decision?


Participants

52 police officers from the Netherlands

28 male 24 female

with average experience of
interviewing suspects


Procedure

Watch the video and given 25 seconds to make
their decision before shown the next video


Results

Remember that they ought to get 50% correct by
chance.

Police officers got 50% at chance

3 got
80%

Confidence levels were middle on a scale of 1 to7

Correlations none with age of experience

Cues used (which clearly do not work)

Fake emotions, gaze aversion. Believing in real
emotions was negatively correlated with accuracy


Conclusion

Being involv
ed in

an

occupation focused on
detecting lies does not improve ones ability to
detect lies. This indicates police officers need to
look at other things than the suspect to detect lies.







© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
27

Why do the police interview suspects?

Is the job of the police

to gather evidence or to get a confession?

If the police do get a confession this will save court time, however it does
mean that the police officer has made a decision about the guilt of the
suspect. Ought this decision be left to a jury?

The question i
s how far do the police go when interrogating

a suspect in
order
to get a confession.

Key Study 2


Interrogation Techniques

Inbau (1986) The Reid ‘Nine Steps’ of Interrogation

This is not a study but an approach based on psychological principles.
Inbau

considers that almost any psychological technique is acceptable in
getting a confession.

Might it cause a
false confession
















Who might be
Vulnerable















Do you think it
is justified















Step

Direct
Confrontation

Chance
to shift
blame (either to
some else or
circumstances)

Never allow the
suspect to deny
guilt

Ignore excuses

Reinforce
sincerity, eye
contact, first
names

If suspect cries,
infer guilt

Pose the
‘alternative
question’


give
two choices, one
more socially
acceptable, but
both inferring
guilt

Admit guilt in
front of witness

Document
admission




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
28

Issues with this

Problem 1

Problem 2



Problem 3

Problem 4




False Confessions

Do people make false confessions?

Who Makes False Confessions?



Variations

Comments






© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
29

Key Study 3
-

Russano et al. Investigating True and False Confessions
Within a Novel Experimental Paradigm. Psychological Science (2005) vol.
16 (6) pp. 481
-
486

Aim

To find out if the techniques of minimization and offering a deal
work to get people to make false confessions


Method

A laboratory experiment

Independent measures design

3 levels of the IV


Level 1 Guilty or Not


Level 2

Minimizing or Not


Level 3

Offering a deal or Not

DV = signing or not a confession


Materials

A police interrogation room

it was small, bare, and windowless,
containing only a table and two straight
-
backed chairs.

A set of tasks


Participants

330 undergraduates (70% female) Engli
sh University

The mean age 19.4 years.

14 were excluded because they expressed a high level of
suspicion regarding the true purpose of the study.

2 were excluded because during the interrogation they expressed
a desire to leave the experiment

18 were exc
luded because they failed to conform to the guilt
manipulation (see
procedure
)


Procedure

Participants recruited for a study on individual versus team
decision
-
making and asked to solve a series of logic problems.

A confederate
arrives

at the lab at the same time as the
participant, pair
are

greeted by

one of six male experimenters and
taken to room.

E
xperimenter t
ells

them
to

work together on ‘‘team problems,’’ but
individually and not discuss their solutions on ‘‘individual
problems’’

(the critical rule). In the guilty condition, the confederate
ask
s for help on an individual problem
, leading most participants
to provide her with an answer (those who did not help were
excluded from the analyses). In the innocent conditi
on, the
confeder
ate did not ask for help
.

After
competing the

task, the experimenter inform
s

them that there
appeared to be a problem and that he need
s

to speak to each of
them individually. The confederate
is

escorted out of the room.

5 min later, the experimenter, blin
d to the participant’s guilt or
innocence, reentered the testing room for interrogation. The
experimenter stat
s

that the participant and the confederate had
the same wrong answer on the target problem, and he
accuses

the participant of sharing answers (a t
actic known as direct
positive confrontation; Inbau et al., 2001). He said that the
professor in charge of the study had been contacted and was
annoyed and upset by the situation. The experimenter said that he
was not sure how the professor would handle th
e situation or who
else he would have to notify, and that the professor might consider
what happened a case of cheating. The experimenter then said
that the professor wanted to document what happened by having
the participant sign a statement admitting to
sharing answers on
problems that were supposed to be solved individually.

The types of interrogation techniques used were varied. In the
minimization condition, the interrogator was instructed to lessen
the seriousness of the offense by making statements t
hat
expressed sympathy and concern, offered face
-
saving excuses
(e.g., ‘‘I’m sure you didn’t realize what a big deal it was’’), and
suggested to participants that it was in their interest to cooperate
by signing the statement. In the no
-
minimization condit
ion, no
such statements were made.

In the deal condition, participants were told that if they agreed to
sign the confession, then ‘‘things could probably be settled pretty
quickly.’’ Participants were assured that they would receive their
research credit
for the day, but they would have to return for

© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
30

another session without receiving additional credit. They were also
told that if they did not agree to sign the statement, the
experimenter would have to call the professor into the laboratory,
and the profess
or would handle the situation as he saw fit, with the
strong implication being that the consequences would likely be
worse if the professor became further involved. Participants were
faced with the choice of accepting the deal, which included the
known con
sequence of having to return for another session, or
rejecting the deal and facing an angry professor and unknown, but
potentially severe, consequences. In the no
-
deal condition,
participants were told that regardless of whether they signed the
statement,
the experimenter would have to call the professor back
and find out what to do next.

If the participant agreed to sign a statement, the experimenter
handwrote a confession for the participant to sign. If the participant
denied the allegation or hesitated t
o sign, the experimenter
repeated the interrogation script up to three more times. If the
participant still refused to sign, the interrogation was terminated.

The decision to sign or not sign a confession served as our
primary dependent measure.

D
ebriefin
g. After
checking

for suspicion, the experimenter asked
participants to rate the amount of pressure they felt to sign the
confession
.
The experimenter then explained the true purpose of
the experiment. He further explained that there was no angry
professo
r and no negative consequence. Participants in the guilty
condition were told that although their conduct was portrayed as
wrong during the experiment, helping another student in need was
an admirable, benevolent, and pro
-
social act. Careful pains were
tak
en to ensure that participants understood the necessity for the
deception used and that all their questions were answered.

Results

Condition


True
confessions

False

confessions

No tactic

46%

6%

Deal

72%

14%

Minimization

81%

18%

Minimization & deal

87%

43%





Conclusion
































© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
31

Describe each of the studies in 5 lines only

Vrij


䱩L⁄ tec瑩潮
















䥮扡甠


䥮瑥I牯条瑩潮





2.


3.


4.


5.


Russano


Fa汳e⁃潮晥fs楯i





2.


3.


4.


5.


VaGUE evaluation of
suspect interview research




Claim

Evidence

Elaboration

Validity

Place

Where the activity is
done might or might
not create demand
characteristics




Tasks

The task may or may
not be measuring what
it
claims




Researcher

The researcher might
be biased




Generalisability

Places

Will the findings apply
to other places





People

Will these findings
apply to other people





Time

Will these findings still
apply in 10 years time




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
33

Usefulness

Practical

Does the research
produce a practical
application




Theory

Does the research
support or refute a
theory





Generative

Does the research
generate new research





Ethics

Participants

Can the participants be
hurt by the research





Public

Can the public be hurt
by the research
findings





Psychology

Does the research
enhance or reduce the
reputation of
psychology




© Graham Calvert The Fun Factory 2009 Page
34

Previous suspect Questions

June 2010

a)

Describe one piece of research into how lies can be
detected
when suspects are interviewed

[10]

b)

Discuss the

reliability of
information gained from suspects in
interviews

[15]