The Handbook of Psychology for Forensic Practioners

David A. Crighton, Graham J. Towl

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Topic: Psychology
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134795239
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery
• Index: Psychology

The Handbook of Psychology for Forensic Practioners discusses some of the ways in which psychological research and methods can be applied by a wide variety of professional groups working with offenders. The book concentrates on the assessment of risk in forensic settings and the interventions designed to reduce risk in violent and sexual offenders.
In three sections it looks at:what we know about offenders; the assessment of risk; and the applicationn of psychological assessment and intervention approaches.
By illustrating theoretical practice with case examples and also practical guidance The Handbook of Psychology for Forensic Practitioners develops a very practical focus throughout the text. Each chapter of the book is also designed so that it can be read in isolation and still provide useful guidance. It can be used as an aid to day to day professional practice for those working in forensic settings including probation officers, social workers, nurses, psychologists and psychiatrists.

Part I
What we know about
offenders

Chapter 1
What we know about offenders
An overview of major psychological perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Psychology is not the only discipline to be concerned with understanding criminal and delinquent behaviour. Indeed, disciplines such as social policy, sociology and criminology have traditionally been far more central to the study of this area than psychology. Historically there have sometimes been inherent tensions between these disciplines and psychological approaches. This seems to have been largely because the approaches of psychologists were seen as locating the causes of criminality within the individual, at the expense of attending to the effects of social inequalities. This is seen in much psychological research. Other disciplines, for example, sociology, have perhaps been slow to accept and address the effects of individual differences in the face of similar social conditions.

However, it seems that in recent years there has been a greater degree of overlap between psychological approaches and other social science disciplines than ever before. This is, we would argue, due to an opening up of psychological approaches to encompass real-world rather than laboratory-based problems. This has, it seems, brought psychologists much closer in some areas to the views of other social scientists. Much of the recent work in developmental and social psychology has demonstrated the very powerful influences that both social inequalities and social environments can have on people’s behaviour.

Equally some areas of study in psychology have overlapped with the biological sciences. This has led to an interest in biological differences between people and the effects of these on behaviour. A great deal of research has been undertaken into the biological correlates of offending and delinquency. We discuss these in greater detail below. It is probably fair to say that this aspect of psychological research has been extremely controversial. It is also an approach which has often antagonised other social scientists. Many have seen such approaches as being politically dangerous. Genetics-based research has often been associated with extreme right-wing political views. Concerns have been expressed about the potential dangers in such research, for example, the development of policies based on naive and simplistic ideas about biological differences (see Rose et al., 1984). Research concerned with environmental influences in contrast has often been associated with left-wing politics.

We would acknowledge these concerns fully. We review this area of research below. What seems clear from this research is that there is a very great deal of variation between people in terms of biological factors; everything from height to patterns of brain activity in fact. However, the implications of this variation are by no means fully understood. Whilst small sub-groups of offenders do appear to suffer from neurological abnormalities the vast majority do not. Even here it is not clear whether these biological differences are a cause or a consequence of their behaviour. The idea that there is any single explanation of complex behaviours is logically untenable. Crime covers a huge range of possible behaviours. Crime is also a social construct which changes over time and across cultures, in that each society will decide what behaviours should and should not be proscribed. It also seems clear that criminal justice systems appear to often work inequitably across social and economic groups.

It would be naive to assume that ‘scientific’ research in the behavioural sciences can be objective in the sense of being removed from the social and political context; sadly this is a view propounded (often implicitly) by some researchers. Below we outline a number of psychological perspectives on offending based on empirical research.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

Developmental psychology has traditionally been concerned with the development of an individual from conception to adulthood and how this relates to their psychological functioning. More recently, developmental psychology has expanded to include the notion of lifespan development. As such, developmental psychology is fundamental to an adequate understanding of criminal and delinquent behaviour. In particular we would suggest that an understanding of social, personality and intellectual development is crucial.

It seems clear from the existing research that intellectual development is greatly influenced by a child’s environment. These influences can begin well before birth in terms of effects on later intellectual functioning. In this respect, those from more economically deprived backgrounds tend to fare worse. A clear example of this is the fact that those living in economically deprived inner city areas in industrialised societies tend to be exposed to higher levels of lead pollution (mainly from petrol fumes and lead water pipes). Lead has been shown to cause neurological damage which in turn is associated with lower IQ scores (Bellinger et al., 1991). This is just one example of the damaging effects of a poor environment.

Parenting styles have also been shown to have a major impact on later behaviour. Whilst there is some evidence that children differ markedly in their behaviour at birth (Chess and Thomas, 1984) this is strongly shaped by parental behaviours. Some styles of parenting appear to be much more successful in developing good levels of selfesteem in a child, as well as characteristics such as empathy for and altruism towards others. Children who show later problem behaviours such as aggression towards others tend to come, disproportionately, from families which show inconsistent discipline, rejection and the use of harsh punishments (Eron et al, 1991).

Another area of developmental psychology which we would suggest is particularly important in understanding criminal and delinquent behaviour is the study of development during adolescence. This is an age where the frequency and severity of delinquent behaviours increases markedly. It is also when the majority of offenders will have their first contacts with the police. There is good evidence that there are consistent aspects of a person’s background which will largely predict who will get into such trouble (see Farrington, 1991). There would appear to be a variety of factors involved in why adolescence is linked to a peak in such behaviours. It is the time when children begin to mature into adults and go through the changes of puberty. Adolescents also spend more time away from their homes and families and with peer groups. A large amount of offending seen at this age appears to involve groups rather than individuals. In the United States the arrest rate for those aged between 15 and 17 years is about 11 per cent of the age group. The proportion is much higher for those living in economically deprived areas. The majority of these arrests tend to be for acts such as shoplifting, vandalism and illegal use of alcohol, although about a third related to felonies (i.e. crimes such as burglary, rape, arson and murder) (Dryfoos, 1990). The Cambridge study found similarly high rates of offending and even higher rates of self-reported delinquent behaviours (Farrington, 1991).

Another very significant aspect of developmental psychology thought to be particularly relevant to offending and delinquency has been the study of moral reasoning. This derives largely from the work of psychologists who initially began studying intellectual development in young children. The most influential work in this respect has perhaps been that of Kohlberg (1964). Kohlberg suggested that an individual’s ability to reason about moral matters develops in stages, analogous to stage theories of general intellectual development. This is an area which we develop further in Chapter 2.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Social psychology can be defined as the scientific study of social behaviour (Aronson, 1972). Social behaviour includes everything from brief interactions between two people through to complex interaction between groups of people. Since people are very much social beings, this means that social psychology covers a huge range of behaviours. Everything from interpersonal attraction and romantic love to racial hatred and violence. Clearly this means that in discussing the impact of this area of psychology to our understanding of crime and crime-related behaviours we can only summarise a few key areas of research in social psychology. There are some areas of social psychology which we would suggest have been particularly relevant and valuable in furnishing us with insights into offending and delinquent behaviour. Below we outline some of these areas.

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR

The study of attitudes in social psychology has largely focused on what people say when asked about particular subjects, and how these expressed attitudes influence their actual behaviour. Interestingly, the early research into attitudes suggested that there was a poor relationship between attitudes and behaviours. Wicker (1969) concluded that only in a minority of cases was a close relationship found between expressed attitudes and behaviour. Indeed there have been several studies which clearly showed people acting in contradiction of their expressed attitudes. An example of this was a study conducted by LaPierre in 1934 in the United States. Following a questionnaire to restaurant owners concerning their attitudes about ‘the Chinese race’, LaPierre visited these establishments. Despite the fact that nearly all those questioned had expressed anti-Chinese attitudes, none of the restaurants in fact failed to serve LaPierre and his two Chinese confederates.

The reasons for this apparent paradox between what people say and what they do seems to be due, in large part to the way these studies were conducted. In most early studies very general measures of attitudes were taken and compared with very specific measures of behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). In this early study the researchers failed to ask restaurant owners about their likely behaviours, as well as their attitudes. More recent research suggests that the decision by an individual about whether to act on the basis of an attitude will depend on a complex decision-making process. This will include both an evaluation of their own behaviour and consideration of the likely evaluations of others (Fishbein, 1967). In the example of the restaurateurs given above the views of other customers would be relevant. This complex link between attitudes and behaviours is of clear relevance to many offenders. As we will discuss in greater detail a proportion of violent offenders may evaluate their own worth in terms of their ability and willingness to be violent towards others, and similarly may value the views of their peer group who they believe (often correctly) will similarly value such behaviour. Other offenders may find ways of avoiding the likely negative evaluations of others. So, for example, child molesters often go to great lengths to keep their behaviour secret, or to associate with others who will support their attitudes.

In terms of working with offenders the research into attitudes and behaviour is important. This is not least because it draws into question the value of general measures of attitudes among offenders as predictors of behaviour. This area of research also highlights the importance of situational constraints in shaping how an individual will react.

ATTRIBUTION THEORIES

This area of research derives mainly from the work of Heider (1944; 1958). Attribution theories are concerned with how people ascribe causes to particular behaviours. Examples of this would include a wide variety of ‘personality attributions’. For example, someone might be described as being extrovert (meaning that they are confident, outgoing and sociable). Similar personality attributions are also often made in forensic settings, and terms such as ‘manipulative’ are examples of such character attributions about behaviour. The assumptions behind such an attribution are that the person is choosing to behave in this way and has the option to behave in other ways. We cover this area in greater detail when we discuss the risk of suicidal behaviour in Chapter 5.

However, there appears to be a fundamental tendency among people to consistently underestimate the impact of situational conditions; and also to overestimate the impact of dispositional factors. Heider suggested that this was because of a fundamental human tendency to focus on the behaviour observed and fail to pay enough attention to the context in which the behaviour takes place (Heider, 1958).

Kelley (1967; 1971) looked at such attributions and produced an explanatory model for how we go about making attributions about the causes of other people’s behaviour. In this model he suggested that the attributions we make depend on three main factors: firstly, how distinctive a particular behaviour is; secondly, how consistent it is over time; thirdly, the degree of consensus about how appropriate the behaviour is. So, for example, where an individual showed a very distinctive behaviour consistently over time, and there was low consensus about this behaviour, we would tend to make dispositional attributions. An example of this might be an individual who severely assaulted people whom he thought were laughing at him in the pub. Here, this is generally a distinctive behaviour in most public houses. It is being consistently shown by this person, and in this example most people would not accept the motivation as reasonable. Thus, the consensus for the behaviour is low. In this case most people would make a dispositional attribution.

One problem with this model is that it is rarely that we can make decisions on the basis of having all this information available. It also seems to be the case that people do not make the best logical use of the information available in the way suggested by the model. Certain systematic biases appear to occur in making attributions about the behaviour of others. One of the most significant systematic biases is the failure to take into account base-rate information, i.e. how often a behaviour occurs in the population. Experimental studies suggest that people will generally ignore this information in favour of systematic biases. Indeed, people are very resistant to using base-rate information under any circumstances when making judgements about others (see Kahneman and Tversky, 1973).

A second tendency is that people show a marked preference for making internal or character attributions, even when there is strong evidence to contradict such interpretations. An experimental illustration of the strength of this tendency was given by Jones and Harris (1967). In this study they gave students two essays to read, one favouring the communist revolution in Cuba, one against. Students w...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• ILLUSTRATIONS
• FOREWORD
• INTRODUCTION
• Part I: WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT OFFENDERS
• PART II: ASSESSING RISK
• PART III: ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT
• BIBLIOGRAPHY