Psychological approaches 2

Cognitive / Social Cognitive

approach

Cognitive Approach dominant paradigm Word relates to the acquisition of knowledge Approach developed during mid 20th c uses a computer analogy - Mind an information processor

Study of the mental processes used in knowledge acquisition

Perception, memory, learning, problem-solving, language acquisition and emotion

Added much to the body of knowledge about the human mind and behaviour

Cognitive Approach/Social cognition Focus: organised mental structures of experience including memory, schemas, scripts, and attributions

How we process/ use information about self and others

How stereotypes/ prejudices develop How we make attributions Justify our behaviours/ form reasons about behaviour

Ways we self regulate and monitor behaviour – adjust behaviour to attain goals

How our thinking affects behaviour How we can change thinking patterns

Cognitive Approach to criminal behaviour Focus: Information processing anomalies and erroneous thinking patterns associated with criminal behaviour

EWT

Most popular approach to the treatment of criminal behaviour - CBT

Attempt to ‘correct’ erroneous thinking patterns

Processing Information Constantly bombarded with information

How do we select some and ignore others How do we store it Interpret it Make judgments and decisions about it

Bottom up processing – driven by the external stimulus

Top down processing – role of stored memory ( see Eysenck & Keane, 1995)

Both external stimulus and internal stimuli

Expectations, interests, experiences, emotions, cultural expectations etc

Govern the process

This suggests that different people Will interpret environmental cues differently

Processing information

Commonalities Use of categorization

Tendency to categorise information we receive from environment To make sense, to prevent cognitive overload However categories culturally/ or individually specific

Processing of information affected by social rules/ norms of behaviour Own perceptions etc

Schema schemata/ social scripts Cluster of concepts involves generic knowledge

Hold all the information we have about a concept. Includes expectations

Schemas for different concepts but they often interlink

Social Scripts (Schank & Abelson 1977) – the knowledge we have about how to behave in everyday life

Knowledge we built up of stereotypical situations Knowledge about penalties if we do not conform socially

Priming Differences in perceptions suggested to be explaining partly by priming

Constant reinforcement – of values etc

Develop easily accessible constructs which influence perceptions

Knowledge is an elaborate web of associations Priming activates these E.g. suggested that watching aggressive TV primes other semantic pathways related to aggression, and makes the aggression more likely to be used later

Social Cognitive approach   People are who they are because of the way they think

Tend to have habitual thinking patterns Use categories to describe self and others

Need to make sense of environment Make justifications for behaviour Attribute causality for events/ behaviours Attempt to achieve goals Monitor performance

Attribution theory ( Heider: Weiner 1986) How we interpret events and how this relates to thinking and behaviour

Why people behave in a specific manner Internal attribution – something about the person attitude personality etc

External attribution, something about the situation Obviously complex interaction

Attributions significantly driven by our emotional and motivational drives

Blaming other people and avoiding personal blame - self-serving attributions

Make attributions to defend what we perceive as attacks on self

Blame injustice in an unfair world Just world hypothesis - Blame victims for their fate to distance ourselves from thoughts of suffering the same plight?

The Fundamental Attribution Error  Blaming internal aspects for others behaviour rather than situation

Actor-observer bias over-emphasize the role of situation in own behaviours and under-emphasize the role of internal aspects

Attributions

Monitoring own behaviour Attempt to preserve sense self Achieve goals Motivate self Fit in with society We internalise social rules Guide behaviour Differences in way individuals self monitor (Snyder, 1974)

High self monitors – highly sensitive to environmental cues

Low self monitors less sensitive

Thinking ‘errors’ Criminal behaviour results from faulty information processing

Leads to misinterpretation of social cues and inappropriate behaviour (eg aggression, date rape)

Criminal behaviour product of cognitive defects and schemas that facilitate and support these behaviours

- lack of social skills development? Rational choice ? Crime is a conscious freely chosen activity produced by thinking errors and particular cognitive style

( Helgfott, 2008) NB the criminal does not see them as errors

Large body of research – range criminal behaviours

Perpetrators invoke excuses and justifications when accounting for criminal acts

(e.g. Levi, 1981: Hollinger, 1991, Byers & Crider, 2002: Stewart & Byrne, 2000)

Seek to excuse behaviours by seeking out external, unstable and specific causes

Rather than internalizing responsibility

Neutralization techniques (Sykes &Matza,1957)

Criminal behaviour perpetuated by cognitive distortions

Range of neutralisation techniques: To rationalise/ justify behaviour Maintain positive self image Minimise feelings of guilt Denial of responsibility, Denial of injury, Denial of the victim, Condemnation of condemners Appeal to higher loyalties

Bandura (1990) Theory of moral disengagement

Use techniques for avoiding self-sanction:

Displacement of responsibility Diffusion of responsibility Distorting the consequences of an action Dehumanizing the victim Assuming the role of victim one self

Persistent offenders Crime an attempt to master social environment seen as hostile threatening and alienating ( Blackburn, 1998)

Have a well developed hostile- dominance interpersonal style

Rather than deficits in conscience or self control

Frequent criminality an attempt to dominate and control others

Cognitive approach to aggression Cognitive development brings ability to control behaviour

Planning of certain actions to make them more effective

Aggression can become more sophisticated - unless extreme emotions involved

Suggested aggression or learning of aggression developed early

Eron (1987) pro social or anti - social behaviour opposite problem solving strategies

Learn one response more than the other

Aggression may be linked to predispositions but by no means fixed – can learn different techniques to control it etc

Cognitive approach to aggression

Whilst observational learning important So are individual cognitive capacities and information processing strategies

Cognitive scripts model Huesmann et al (1997) Aggressive behaviour controlled by cognitive scripts learnt memorised and rehearsed through daily experience

Scripts resistant to change Own evaluation of the appropriateness of a script affects which scripts stored in memory and utilised

Scripts which violate own internalised standards unlikely to be stored

If we believe aggression is acceptable more likely to be aggressive thus instigate aggressive behaviour from others

Aggression Hostile attributional bias ( Dodge& Coie, 1987))

Behaviour influenced by own interpretation of events in particular attribution of motives to others

Not situation but individuals interpretation Some will attribute hostile intent to a non threatening situation Are therefore more likely to act in a more hostile manner Thus provoking in turn dislike or hostility from the other – this sets up a vicious circle

Juvenile Aggression/ violence Consistent finding ( e.g. Eron & Slaby, 1994: Serin & preston, 2001)

Violent youths: Define social problems in hostile ways Adopt hostile goals Seek fewer alternative solutions Anticipate few consequences for behaviour

Believe aggression acceptable Are deficient in problem solving skills

Sex crimes Rape product of male sex - role stereotypes ( Stermac, Segal & Gillis, 1989) Cognitive schemas used to rationalise behaviour - excuse or deny behaviour

Provides justification for behaviour to continue Excusers Suggest external blame – alcohol/ drug use Emotional problems Good guy in other areas life Deniers Women mean yes when they say no Nice girls don’t get raped Womens fault – seducing etc ( Scully & Marolla, 1984)

Rape myths (from Howitt, 2006) Often general societal tendency to blame the victim

Rape part of male domination/ control of women?

Burt ( 1980) The rape myth acceptance scale If a girl engages in necking or petting and she lets things get out of hand it is

her own fault if sex is forced on her If a woman gets drunk at a party and has sex with a man she’s just met she’s

‘fair game’ for other males at the party A woman who is stuck up and thinks she’s too good to talk to guys on the street

deserves to be taught a lesson Mosher Scale (Mosher & Anderson1986) Sexually callous attitudes towards women

You don’t ask girls to screw you tell them to screw You never know when you will meet a strange woman who will want to get laid

Malamuth’s Self reported likelihood to rape measure (Malamuth & Ceniti, 1986)

How likely do you think you would be to commit rape if you can be assured of not being caught?

Men who scored higher tended to see rape as enjoyable for the victim and blame the victim

Men who regard rape as a serious crime/ not overly sex role stereotypes tend to score lower

However others suggest no differences in scores on these measures between offenders and non offenders ( eg Overholser & Beck 1988)

No differences in attitudes to women

Cognitive distortions in paedophilia

Many offenders admit the actual behaviours and accept the seriousness of the act

But deny responsibility for them (Salter, 1988) Attribute the behaviour to alcohol Wife’s nagging or lack of interest in sex Their own problems at work Provocation by the child Excessive care and attention from the child Lack of attention and care from the world in general

Their own emotional loneliness These excuses have the cumulative effect of reducing offender responsibility

Cognitive distortions in paedophilia Abel rape index scale ( Abel et al, 1977) Having sex with a child is a good way to teach them about sex

Sex with a child causes them no emotional problems

A man ( or woman) is justified in having sex with their child if their partner does not want sex

Denial of responsibility – the victim’s fault Blaming society ( common in those who admit the offence )

Minimising amount of force used ( Barabee 1998) Attempts to portray themselves in positive light (Scully & Marolla, 1984) Nugent & Kroner, 1996)

Critique Strengths

Valid account of way we process store and retrieve environmental information Supported by much empirical research

Allows for individual agency

Proposes that thinking patterns can be changed

Explanatory power in relation to perpetuation criminal behaviour in general

CritiqueWeaknesses

Early research did not pay enough attention to how other psychological aspects interact with cognition eg emotion

Lack of acknowledgement of unconscious processes and effect on behaviour

Early lack of acknowledgement of biological factors

Although cognitive neuroscience increasing in popularity

References Abel., G.G. Barlow, D.H. Blanchard, E.B. & Guild, D.

(1977). The components of rapists’ sexual arousal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 34: 895-903.

Barbaree, H.E. (1998). Denial and minimization amongst sex offenders: assessment and treatment outcome. Sex Offender Programming, 3 (4): 1-7

Blackburn, R. (1998). On moral judgments and personality disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 114, pp 505-512.

Burt, M. (1980) Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, pp 217-30.

Dodge, k.A. & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 pp. 1146-1158

Eron, L.D. (1994). Theories of aggression: From drives to cognitions. In:L.R.Huesmann (Ed.) Aggressive Behaviour: Current Perspectives. N.Y., Plenum. Pp. 3-11.

ReferencesEron, L.D. & Slaby, R.G. (1994). Introduction. In L.D.

Eron, J.H. Gentry & P. Schlegel (Eds). Reason to Hope, A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth. Washington DC, American Psychological Association.

Eysenck. M.W. & Keane, M. T (1995). Cognitive Psychology: A student’s handbook, 3rd Ed. Hove, Psychology Press

Helfgott, J.B. (2008). Criminal Behaviour: Theories, typologies and criminal justice, Los Angeles, Sage.

Howitt, D. (2002). Introduction to Forensic and Criminal Psychology, 2nd Ed. Harlow, Pearson Longman.

Malamuth, N.M & Ceniti, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and non-violent pornography: likelyhood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive Behavior, 12, pp 129-137.

Marlina, S. and Mann, R.E. (2006). A fundamental attribution error: Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, pp 155-177

ReferencesMarkus, H & Nurius, P (1986) Possible Selves.

American Psychologist, 41, pp 954-969.Mosher, D.I. & Anderson, R.D. (1986). Macho

personality, sexual aggression and reactions to guided imagery of realistic rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 20 pp 77-94.

Perris, C. (1989). Cognitive Therapy with Schizophrenic Patients. N.Y.: Guilford Press.

Salter, A.C. (1988). Treating Child sex offenders and Victims: A practical guide. Newbury Park, CA, Sage

Samenow, S. (1984). Inside the criminal mind. New York: Crown Publishers.

Samenow, S. (1991). Correcting Errors of Thinking in the Socialization of Offenders. Journal of Correctional Education. 42(2), 56-58.

References Schank,R. C. & Abelson, R.P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and

Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Scully, D. & Marolla, J. (1984). Convicted rapists’ vocabulary of

motives: Exxcuses and justifications. Social Problems, 31 (5), pp 530-44.

Serin, R.C. & Preston, D. L. (2001). Managing and treating violent offenders. In J.B. Ashford, B.D. Sales & W.H. N DC, American Psychological Association.

Stermac, L.E. Segal, Z.V. & Gillis, R. (1989). Social and cultural factors in sexual assault. In W.L. Marshall, D.L. Laws & H.E. Barbaree, (Eds). Handbook of Sexual Assault, pp 143-159. new York, Plenum.

Sykes, G.M. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralisation: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22 pp. 664-670.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.