social cognition and crime

Social Cognition and Crime

Psychology and Crime

Social Cognition of CrimeAttribution theoryLocus of Control ImpulsivityLearned HelplessnessCognitive ScriptsCommunication model

Social Cognition/Attribution Theory


Everyone is a naïve psychologist (Heider) Internal/External attributions

Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross) Actor/Observer Difference (Jones & Nisbett) Effects of Attributions (Jones, Rock et al.) Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Everyone is a naïve psychologist Internal (dispositional) attributions

personality characteristics beliefs

External (situational) attributions situational pressure/influence

Example: Student turns in papers late Internal:




Example: Student turns in papers late Internal:lazy, partying all the time




Example: Student turns in papers late Internal:lazy, partying all the time External:




Example: Student turns in papers late Internal:lazy, partying all the time External:family problems, working, girlfriend

Fundamental Attribution Error

Lee Ross: Internal attributions more likely

Actor/Observer Difference

Joe(Observer)

Bob(Actor)

Steve


Joe(Observer)

Bob(Actor)

Steve

Bob hits Steve. Why?


OBSERVER-->Internal attributionACTOR-->External attributionWhat is salient in the perceptual field?For OBSERVER: The actorFor ACTOR: Everything but the actor

(i.e., the situation)

Effects of Attributions

Jones, Rock et al. (1968) Subject is teacher; confederate is learner

I.V. Pattern of correct answers 1. Does well initially, finishes poorly (15 right) 2. Does poorly initially, finishes well (15 right) 3. Randomly gets correct and incorrect (15 right)

D.V. Intelligence ratings of learner

Effects of Attributions

Jones, Rock et al (1968) Subject is teacher; confederate is learner

I.V. Pattern of correct answers 1. Does well initially, finishes poorly HIGHEST

2. Does poorly initially, finishes well LOWEST

3. Randomly gets correct and incorrect MIDDLE

D.V. Intelligence ratings of learner Result: Primacy effect

Our initial explanations about the world can affect:Our perception of others’ behavior (as

we have seen)Also:Our perception of new informationOur perception of chance events

Initial attributions are persistent BEHAVIOR (Jones, Rock et al.) ATTITUDES (Lord, Ross, & Lepper)

Students’ attitudes on death penalty determined Favored or Opposed

Shown two “new” studies on death penalty Deterred crime or Didn’t

New opinions more extreme in initial direction CHANCE EVENTS (Langer & Roth)

Flipped coin/successful in first 10 flips or not Early success group: Higher prediction of

accuracy in next 100 flips

Why are these biases important?

We may be totally wrong (false beliefs) For example:

Fundamental Attribution Error

These beliefs persist, resist disconfirmation For example: Jones,

Rock et al. Our incorrect beliefs

may create a new reality For example: Self-

fulfilling Prophecy

Components of Self-fulfilling Prophecy

False belief (Expectation)Actions, based on that beliefNew reality created

Palmer and Hollin (2000)Palmer and Hollin (2000) found that

self-reported delinquency in young offenders was associated not only with lower levels of moral reasoning but also with increased tendencies to inaccurate attributions of hostility, especially in ambiguous situations where it may be difficult to accurately ascertain intentions.

Dodge (1986) Dodge (1986) has

argued that much violence comes from Hostile Attributional Bias. Ambiguous actions, like accidentally standing on a person's foot, are interpreted as threatening and must be countered with action.

Personal Control

Internal Locus of ControlInternal Locus of ControlYou pretty much control your own destiny

External Locus of ControlExternal Locus of ControlLuck, fate and/or powerful others control your destiny

Methods of StudyMethods of Study• Correlate feelings of control with behaviorCorrelate feelings of control with behavior• Experiment by raising/lowering people’s sense ofExperiment by raising/lowering people’s sense ofcontrol and noting effectscontrol and noting effects

Locus of Control A number of studies have shown that

offenders tend to external control, that is they explain their behaviour as being controlled by influences beyond their personal control (Beck and Ollendick 1976; Kumchy and Sayer 1980).

other studies have failed to show any difference in locus of control between offender and non-offender samples (Drasgow et al. 1974; Groh and Goldenberg 1976);

Lefcourt and Ladwig (1965) found offenders to be more internally controlled than non-offenders.

Locus of Control The varied findings are probably due to two

unfounded assumptions: that locus of control is a unitary concept, and that offenders form a homogeneous population.

a number of studies have shown that there are several dimensions to locus of control, such as belief in control over one's immediate environment as opposed to belief in control over political events (Mirels 1970).

Locus of Control locus of control within an offender

population may be a function of race (Griffith et al. 1981); type of offence, for example, violent offenders tend to external control (Hollin and Wheeler 1982); or time spent in prison (Kiessel 1966).

ImpulsivityFailure in self-controlUnable to delay rewarda failure to learn to stop and think; a failure to learn effective thinking'; a failure to generate alternative

responses;a reflection of hopelessness.

ImpulsivityStudies designed to find a link between

impulsivity and crime give mixed resultsThe difference between studies may be

due to differing definitions and measures of

impulsivity, and the heterogeneity of the offender

population.

ImpulsivityUncontrolled episodes of anger may

result from impulsivity or a tendency to follow impulses instinctively and without thought for the consequences.

It has been suggested that this is a common characteristic of most offending behaviour, i.e. the satisfaction of immediate needs.

Impulsivity Impulsivity is

strongly associated with psychopathy and anti-social personality (Blackburn, 1993)

can be measured using the Minnesota Multi-phasic Inventory (MMPI)

Cognitive-Social Learning Learned Helplessness

• Seligman (1975)• Learned helplessness

• the expectancy that one cannot escape aversive events & the motivational & learning deficits that result from the belief.

• Human depression• Explanatory style

• pessimistic explanatory style• causes of misfortune internal rather than external • stable & global

• positive illusions• Optimism

cognitive scripts (Huesmann, 1988). A script is the details of how people should

behave in a certain situation and what will happen if they behave that way.

These are learnt from the environment in direct experience and from watching others, and from the media.

But each script is unique to an individual, yet resistant to change.

cognitive scripts (Huesmann, 1988). They become more resistant with use

and rehearsal over time. For example, if insulted, a man with an ‘aggressive script' will respond violently. He will justify this behaviour by seeing the insult as aggression, and aggression must be faced by aggression.

cognitive scripts (Huesmann, 1988). During high levels of physiological

arousal, people resort to largely unthinking behaviour, and thus well-rehearsed scripts' take over.

So to teach non-aggressive scripts' will reduce violence in situations of high arousal (Zillmann (1988))

McGuire (1969) – Matrix of communication

The source – effective from another socially powerful offender

The message – agreeable information presented first. Immunisation against persuasion – weak arguments against crime easily countered – e.g. “Yes, you could be caught, but the odds in your favour are 20 to 1, and only mugs get caught”.

McGuire (1969) – Matrix of communication

The channel – face to face, in a pleasant context

The receiver – recent failure – uses cognitive rehearsal – e.g. “sleep on it”

The destination.

Incentives Primary food, drink, sex Sensory boredom, seeking new experiences

important at the beginning of a career and for person crimes

Monetary important for late in career, property crimes

Social increase in social contacts Status/power built up from a series of

successful crimes Self-evaluative professional pride.

The targetpropinquity (the targets being close to

where the criminal lives) payoff vulnerability ability to defend access to law enforcement policing,

unlikely to be reported

The risk involveddetection punishment estimation of risk over-estimated by

law-abiders

Skills and resourcesskilled in physical attack, cracking safes

Opportunity to obtain same objective by legal means relevant to acquisition stage, those at performance stage combine

legitimate and criminal activities

Criminogenic factors Alcohol/drugs, possession of firearms,

factors that increased the likelihood of a criminal act. Override rational thinking

Drugs, need to steal to pay for drugs. Alcohol, this inhibits behaviour. More

confident but less capable. Higher crime but also higher chances of being caught. Also increases helplessness in potential victims. Cohen et al (1956), bus drivers more optimistic about driving buses through small gap but were less successful.

Cognitive consequences and distortions. It is central to much of social

psychology that people try to maintain cognitive consistency between their attitudes and their actions, and that they experience a subjective sense of discomfort when there is inconsistency. It is easier to resolve this by changing one’s cognitions than one’s behaviour (Berkowitz 1969).

Moral justification. This operates on the nature of the behaviour

itself. “What is culpable can be made honourable through cognitive restructuring... reprehensible conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service of moral ends” (Bandura 1986, p. 376). As an example, Bandura points to military training: people who have been taught to deplore killing as immoral can be transformed rapidly into skilled combatants. In the criminological context moral justification is likely to be associated with political crimes.

Attribution of blame. Offenders seek to exonerate themselves by

attributing the blame for their actions to the victim.

The most obvious example is that of rape — a claim that in the past was frequently accepted by the courts.

It will be found also in other person crimes and to some extent in property crimes.

The end

social cognition and crime

Documents

rock et

student turns

internal attributions

papers lateinternal

pattern of correct answers1

teacher confederate

internal attributionactor

actorfor actor