Forensic Psychology
Page 7
Research has provided evidence for these cognitive distortions among antisocial and delinquent adolescents (Barriga, Hawkins, & Camelia, 2008; Barriga, Landau, Stinson, Liau, & Gibbs, 2000; Helmond, Overbeek, Brugman, & Gibbs, 2015; Palmer & Hollin, 2000; Wallinius, Johansson, Lardén, & Dernevik, 2011). Therefore, within the moral reasoning theory framework, offending behaviour is seen as a result of sociomoral developmental delay beyond childhood, accompanied by an egocentric bias. The secondary cognitive distortions then allow individuals to disengage from taking responsibility for their behaviour on a moral level.
1.2.2 Social Information-Processing Theory
Models of social information-processing theories have been applied to explain aggression and delinquent behaviour in order to examine individual differences in why one individual will respond to a certain situation aggressively whereas another will not. Although a number of such theories exist, an influential one in this area is that of Crick and Dodge (1994). This model is a six-step model of social information-processing that describes how individuals perceive their social world and process information about it, and the influence of previous experience on these processes. The six steps in the model are:
Encoding of social cues
Interpretation and mental representation of the situation
Clarification of goals/outcomes for the situation
Access or construction of responses for the situation
Choice of response
Performance of chosen response.
Although these steps occur in sequence for a given situation or stimulus, Crick & Dodge (1994) suggest that individuals can simultaneously perform the different steps, allowing for feedback between processes. Therefore, the model is conceptualised as a circular, rather than a linear process. At all steps processing is influenced by social knowledge structures based on an individual’s past experiences, such as social schema and scripts.
At the first stage social cues are perceived and encoded. These are used at the second stage along with social knowledge structures to interpret the situation and provide a mental representation of it. When interpreting the situation, attributions are made about the intent of other people and the causality of events. Throughout, these processes are influenced by previous experiences in the form of social schema and scripts, to provide cognitive shortcuts to help process information quickly.
At the third stage the individual chooses their preferred goals/outcomes for the situation. This is likely to be influenced by pre-existing goal orientations, and the modification of these in line with the social cues associated with this situation.
The fourth stage requires individuals to generate a range of possible responses to the situation. This may be achieved with reference to past experience in similar situations or by creating new responses. These responses are evaluated at the fifth stage in order to choose one to perform. This step has received increased attention in recent years in the Response Evaluation and Decision (RED) model (Fontaine & Dodge, 2006; Fontaine, Yang, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2008). The RED model outlines a number of criteria used when evaluating responses, including the perceived efficacy and value (in terms of its moral/social qualities) of the response, and the perceived efficacy and value of the outcome behaviour. Finally, at stage six, the chosen response is enacted, requiring the individuals to have appropriate verbal and non-verbal social skills.
1.2.2.1 Social information-processing and criminal behaviour
There is now a large body of research showing that aggressive and delinquent individuals show distinct patterns of social information-processing across the six steps (for reviews, see Dodge, 2006; Fontaine & Dodge, 2006).
At the first two steps, research suggests aggressive individuals experience a range of problems in encoding and interpreting social cues, leading to an inaccurate representation of a situation. Aggressive individuals appear to perceive fewer social cues, take more notice of aggressive cues and pay more attention to cues at the end of interactions (Dodge & Newman, 1981; Dodge & Tomlin, 1987). Furthermore, aggressive people rely more on internal schema when interpreting situations, with these schema tending to be aggressive in content (Dodge & Tomlin, 1987).
A number of studies have reported that aggressive individuals have a hostile attributional style, and so often misinterpret situations as hostile (Dodge, 2006; Orobio de Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monschouwer, 2002). This tendency is exacerbated when individuals feel threatened or react impulsively. Research also shows that aggressive people attribute greater blame to external factors (Fondacaro & Heller, 1990).
PHOTO 1.1 Aggressive individuals generate fewer responses than non-aggressive people, suggesting they have a limited repertoire from which to draw.
Source: © Antonio Gravante/Shutterstock
At the third step, research has found that aggressive individuals tend to have dominance and revenge-based goals, rather than prosocial goals (Lochman, Wayland, & White, 1993).
When generating responses at the fourth step, aggressive individuals generate fewer responses than non-aggressive people, suggesting they have a limited repertoire from which to draw. The content of these responses is more aggressive as compared to the prosocial responses generated by non-aggressive people (Bliesener & Lösel, 2001; Lösel, Bliesener, & Bender, 2007).
At the fifth step aggressive individuals also evaluate responses by different criteria, rating aggressive responses more positively than prosocial responses and having more positive outcome expectancies and perceptions of self-efficacy for aggression (Fontaine et al., 2008). Thus, aggression is viewed as being more effective to achieve their goals.
Finally, social skills are important at step six, and there is some evidence that aggressive individuals have poor social skills (see Antonowicz & Ross, 2005). If the chosen response is successful, it will be evaluated positively and reinforced, a suggestion supported by longitudinal research (Fontaine et al., 2008; Fontaine, Yang, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2009).
Taken together, the distinctive patterns of processing that are associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour suggest that social information-processing is influential in the development of juvenile delinquency and adult offending. Further, research also shows that the more steps at which individuals exhibit problems, the greater the level of aggressive and antisocial behaviour (Lansford, Malone, Dodge, Crozier, Pettit, & Bates, 2006). There also appears to be an interaction between the hostile attributional style at step two and the response evaluation and decision process at step four (Fontaine, Tanha, Yang, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2010). These patterns have been found among quite young children and, along with research showing the mediating role of parenting, highlight the importance of early childhood experiences in the development of such behaviours.
1.3 THEORIES, EVIDENCE, AND CRIME
1.3.1 Interpersonal Violence
Media reports often give the impression that there are high levels of violent offending. However, in reality this is not the case. Recent statistics show that in the year ending December 2014 violent crime comprised about 23% of offences reported to the police and 19% of offences in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, and that the level of violent crime has remained generally stable for a number of years (Office for National Statistics, 2015). A range of crimes is included under the label of “violence”, including murder, manslaughter and robbery. Domestic violence is gaining recognition as a serious problem and will also be considered here.
As noted by Polaschek (2006), research into violent offenders’ criminal behaviour has revealed that they tend not to be specialists, but commit a wide range of offences. Indeed specialist violent offenders are quite rare. Results from meta-analyses and longitudinal studies also show violent offenders have an early onset of offending behaviour, and show considerable continuity of aggression and violence throughout their life (Molero-Samuelson, Hodgins, Larsson, Larm & Tengström, 2010; Odgers et al., 2008).
There are a number of theories that attempt to provide explana
tions of violence and violent offending, including those that focus on the role of social factors in violent offending and cognitive theories of aggression. Both of these approaches are covered in the Introduction and so will only be briefly mentioned here.
1.3.1.1 Social factors and violence
A range of social factors have been shown to predict violent offending, many of which are similar to those associated with general offending. Evidence for the importance of the role played by family structure and parenting style in the development of violent offending is also provided from longitudinal studies (e.g., Moffitt, 2003; Theobald, Farrington, & Piquero, 2013). Research also shows a clear link between violence and severe abuse in childhood and witnessing family violence (Milaniak & Widom, 2015). This association appears to be mediated through the impact of abuse on children’s psychological functioning, such as problem-solving and coping abilities.
1.3.1.2 Cognitive-behavioural theory and violence
Cognitive-behavioural approaches focus on the role of cognitive appraisal and other internal processes in violence. One way of examining these processes is through Crick and Dodge’s (1994) six-step model of social information-processing. As outlined above, aggressive individuals show a range of distinctive processing patterns across these steps. The hostile attributional bias is one of the strongest findings, with a meta-analysis of 41 studies concluding it had a very strong relationship with aggressive behaviour among children and adolescents (Dodge, 2006; Orobio de Castro et al., 2002), and more recent research showing that this relationship holds into adulthood (Petitt, Lansford, Malone, Dodge, & Bates, 2010). Empathy is another important factor, with two meta-analyses reporting a significant association between low empathy and violent offending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; van Langen, Wissink, van Vugt, Van der Stouwe, & Stams, 2014).
Emotional arousal can also impact on cognitive processes, with anger playing a significant role in understanding violence. Proponents of this approach view violence as resulting from being angry, (i.e. violent acts are “angry behaviours”, Howells, 2004, p. 190). Novaco’s work showing that there are reciprocal relationships between angry emotional arousal and cognitive processes is important here. Novaco (1975; Novaco & Welsh, 1989) proposes angry thoughts can be triggered by situational events; these angry thoughts then increase emotional arousal (including physiological and psychological components); and this arousal heightens the intensity of the angry thoughts. As this cycle continues, the level of cognition (angry thoughts) and affect increase in turn, with an increased risk of violence.
1.3.1.3 Neuropsychological factors and violence
There is some evidence that violence is associated with brain damage or dysfunction (Raine, 2002a and Chapter 4). Electroencephalogram (EEG) and neuroimaging studies have provided evidence that there is an increased level of brain abnormality among violent offenders (see Plodowski, Gregory, & Blackwood, 2009). Research suggests that damage and malfunctioning of the frontal and temporal lobes is most associated with violence. This is supported by research showing that frontal lobe lesions are associated with personality changes (Walsh, 1994), such as: apathy; a lack of foresight or taking account of the consequences of behaviour; a tendency to continue with behaviours that are unsuccessful; irritability; and grandiose and unrealistic ideas. Together, these characteristics are often referred to as disinhibition. If individuals with frontal lobe lesions are both more irritable and likely to be disinhibited, they are more likely to be aggressive when irritated or provoked, which may include criminal violence. There is evidence to support this theory (Raine, 2002b).
Blair (2009) has suggested that there may be links between structures in the temporal lobe – the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) – and violence, specifically psychopathy. He argues that dysfunction in these two brain structures leads to deficits in stimulus-reinforcement learning and the ability to respond to fearful and sad expressions in others, and impaired decision-making. There is a body of research using brain imaging (structural MRI and functional MRI) that supports these suggestions (for reviews see Blair, 2009; Umbach, Berryessa, & Raine, 2015), although it does not explain all of the characteristics of psychopathy.
It also possible that the relationship between brain injury and violence is bidirectional: that is, a brain injury may be a consequence of violence, rather than an antecedent (see Diaz, 1995). Problems in disentangling this relationship are problematic in determining the true nature of how violence and brain injury are related.
However, neuropsychological research suffers from various methodological problems. These include the need to establish cause and effect, the question of what constitutes an abnormality, inadequate control groups, and the representativeness of samples. Therefore, results should be interpreted cautiously. In recent years attention has turned to the role of neuropsychological factors in violence. This approach proposes that the development of violence results from an interaction of social, environmental, genetic and neurobiological factors (Loeber & Pardini, 2009). However, to date, there is a dearth of research that examines the role of both neurobiological factors and psychosocial variables, and the interaction between them (cf. Rutter, 2009).
1.3.1.4 Domestic violence
Domestic violence – or intimate partner violence (IPV) – is an increasingly recognised issue. While most research concerns male perpetrators and female victims, domestic violence can also occur with female perpetrators and male victims and within same-sex relationships. A number of explanations have been suggested for IPV, although most have focused on male perpetrated/female victim domestic violence (see Corvo & Johnson, 2013). First are feminist theories, which propose that society is patriarchal, with an implicit assumption that men control the lives of women and children, both within the family and through social institutions (Stewart, Hall, & Cripps, 2001). It is argued that men seek to maintain women’s subordination through physical violence, as well as psychological and economic coercion. However, the extent to which the feminist approach is evidence-based and able to provide a full explanation of IPV has been called into question (see Dutton & Corvo, 2006). Social learning theory has also been applied to domestic violence. This approach views domestic violence as a behaviour that is learnt through experiencing rewards from it and observing and modelling similar behaviour (vicarious learning), although research doesn’t really support the idea that experiencing domestic violence increases the risk of becoming a perpetrator (Corvo & Johnson, 2013). Other approaches view domestic violence as caused by psychopathology among abusers (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012). Domestic violence is discussed further in Chapter 11.
CASE STUDY 1.1 GANG VIOLENCE INVOLVING YOUNG PEOPLE
Barely a week seems to go past without mention of stabbings or worse carried out by youth gangs. Recent cases where youth gangs have been implicated in murders include those of Jessie James and Rhys Jones. Both are young people who were senselessly murdered by groups of other young people. This case study considers some factors that might be responsible for this type of violent crime.
A good place to start is by considering the social backgrounds from which young gang members are more likely to come. It is undoubtedly true that gangs proliferate in inner-city areas, with many of the media stories referring to cities such as London and Manchester. The areas within these cities that tend to be associated with gangs are usually those that are run-down and socially deprived.
The young people from these socially deprived areas often face other associated problems. For example, families living in these areas often live in poverty, with parents either in low paid jobs or unemployed, which can put pressure on family life. These problems can be increased for lone parents. For example, if a lone parent works, young children are looked after by older siblings, and teenagers are left unsupervised for periods of time.
PHOTO 1.2 Where there is a gang culture, joining one of the groups can provide some protection from being victimised.
Source: © Luis Louro/Shuttersto
ck
For some young people, this can leave them vulnerable to pressure from their friends and peers – either to take part in antisocial behaviour or commit offences. Where there is a gang culture, joining one of the groups can provide some protection from being victimised. This is illustrated by the fact that many young people admit they start carrying a knife (or other weapons) so they can defend themselves, rather than because they intend to use it. Being surrounded by a culture of violence often appears to lead to further violence through such incremental steps.
Schools in socially deprived areas are often also run-down and struggle with the behavioural and emotional problems of their pupils. Clearly, this can impact on the educational experience that students receive. Falling in with a bad group of friends can lead young people to stop valuing education – or rather, educational achievement is not seen as being “cool” and respect is gained through other, more antisocial activities. For these young people, getting an ASBO is often valued more than obtaining GCSEs.