No description available.

This PhD aimed to understand the constructs of aggression motivation and inhibition among prisoners. The research explored the role of developmental, affect, personality and socio-cognitive factors in aggression, investigating how these factors contributed to motives and inhibitors. This addressed several gaps in our knowledge and understanding of these factors among prisoners. In doing so, it contributed to the proposal of an empirically informed developmental model of aggression motivation and inhibition for prisoners, a model potentially capable of accounting for the theoretical and clinical limitations of existing explanatory models. Study one involved 206 adult men from a medium secure prison. This study specifically examined the role of aggression (using the Aggression Motivation Questionnaire, AMQ; Ireland, 2007) and offence motivation (with the Offence Motivation Questionnaire, OMQ; Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 2004) and affect (using the Multidimensional Anger Inventory, MAI; Sigel, 1989). Contrary to predictions, aggression motivation extended beyond the traditional reactive versus proactive distinction, with four core motivations identified. Further challenging the previous dichotomous distinction were findings that affect was related to all motivations and not just reactive aggression. The structure of offence motivation was consistent with previous research suggesting the validity of such motivation. Relationships found between individual offence and aggression motives supported longstanding notions in the human motivation and rationale choice literature that a limited number of motivations are capable of accounting for the diversity of human behaviour. Study one strengthens the argument to further examine and understand the factors contributing to such aggression motivations, such as cognition or developmental and life course experiences. Study two recruited 210 adult male prisoners to examine the developmental and socio-cognitive factors underpinning aggression motivations. Confirmation as to the structure of aggression motivation was also evaluated. It was predicted that differing developmental and socio-cognitive factors would relate to each motivation. Analysis supported this and thus further understanding was achieved as to the contribution of these factors. Reformulation of existing developmental models of aggression and the importance of social cognition for adult prisoners were consequently highlighted. However, attempts to confirm the four-factor solution for aggression motivation identified in Study 1 was not achieved. Exploratory factor analysis supported the extraction of a three-component solution from the AMQ, which was underpinned by ‘protection’, ‘pleasure’ and ‘positive outcomes’ motivations. This raised doubt as to the underlying structure of aggression motivation, which required further examination. Study three involved 234 prisoners from two separate prisons. All participants were adult men. This study facilitated the further exploration of maladaptive personality and affect regulation strategies in aggression motivation. Evaluation of the components of aggression inhibition was also undertaken. As expected, personality and affect regulation strategies were individually associated with aggression motives and inhibitors. This suggested that these factors had a unique contribution to aggression motivations and inhibitors. A four component structure for aggression inhibition was identified through exploratory factor analysis. The three factor structure for aggression motivation indicated by Study 2 was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. The findings gained from this study were combined with previous studies and influenced the development of the Applied Integrated Model of Aggression Motivation (AIM-AM). This new proposed integrated model of aggression is described in detail in the last Chapter of this thesis. The current research highlights the importance of considering aggression motivation and inhibition by demonstrating how valuable information to assist our understanding of aggression can be enhanced through their detailed examination. This research points towards a range of underlying factors which motivate and inhibit aggression in prisoners, including personality traits, developmental and life experiences, cognition and affect regulation. This was drawn together in the AIM-AM, which remains the first proposed aggression model developed specifically from the study of forensic populations. This applied theoretical model and underpinning research has a range of research and clinical implications for those working with prisoners, such as guiding the psychological assessment and risk evaluations of prisoners and focusing interventions to reduce their likelihood of aggression.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--New York University. / Reproduction of original from Yale Law School Library. Bibliography: p. 5-8.

No description available.

The present study was conducted in order to determine if the amount of justification for a crime and the physical attractiveness of a defendant would influence the severity of sentence imposed on the defendant by subjects who were asked to act as jurors. Subjects were 240 male and female undergraduate students who volunteered from introductory psychology classes. Forty subjects were assigned to each of six treatment conditions produced by three levels of attractiveness: attractive, unattractive, and no-picture; and by the two levels of justification: high and low. Subjects read a short vignette of a crime and were asked to determine a length of sentence. Additional, related ratings were also made. Those defendants in the high justification condition were handed less severe sentences than those in the low justification condition. However, the results did not support the second hypothesis which stated that the attractive defendant would be sentenced to fewer years imprisonment than would the unattractive defendant. The final hypothesis predicted that there would be an interaction between the attractiveness and justification variables, i.e., that the attractive defendant would be punished less severely than the unattractive defendant when justification for committing the crime was low, and for the high justification condition, the effect of the attractiveness would be attenuated. Results did not support this hypothesis. However, related findings provided by the additional scales yielded data which could be interpreted as indirect support for the main hypotheses.

This study investigated the influence of an authority figure on an eyewitness identification task. Subjects watched a staged crime and then were administered a photo lineup by either an authority or non-authority figure. Subjects who were administered a lineup by an authority figure were significantly more likely to choose someone from the lineup than subjects who were shown a lineup by a non-authority figure. Similarly, subjects who were given biased instructions were significantly more likely to choose someone from the lineup than subjects who were given unbiased instructions. These effect obtained whether the target was present or absent from the lineup. These data suggest that one way to minimize suggestibility of eyewitnesses is to replace the uniformed officer with a neutral individual. Alternatively, the effect of a police officer on a witness' choosing behavior may be eliminated by providing the witness with unbiased instructions.

The behavioral immune system (BIS) is comprised of a variety of psychological and behavioral defenses designed to protect against pathogenic threats. These processes predict various affective and behavioral responses in myriad human contexts, including putative decisions to mitigate exposure to environmental pathogens. We investigated whether the strength of BIS responses predicted jurors’ verdicts in a sexual assault trial, wherein strength of the evidence against the defendant was manipulated (ambiguous vs. strong) to determine the extent to which chronic activation of BIS predicted derogation of the defendant. Subsequent mediation analyses indicated that dispositionally activated BIS (as indexed by perceived vulnerability to disease) predicted greater likelihood of conviction by way of affective experiences of disgust, which in turn influenced participants’ cognitive appraisals of diagnostic evidence. Furthermore, such responses also elicited greater desire for social distance with the defendant. Evidence strength, however, did not moderate these effects. Findings provide preliminary evidence for how BIS responses may influence legal proceedings.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.

Under an adversarial legal system, witnesses� testimony may be challenged by the opposing lawyer during cross-examination. Cross-examination has been shown to negatively affect the accuracy of children�s event reports, but as yet, the mechanisms driving this effect are unknown. Experiment 1 aimed to tease apart the roles of question type and repeated interviewing in mediating children�s cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 82) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 103) took part in a staged event, and 1 to 2 days later they took part in a direct examination interview. Next, either 1 to 3 days or 6 months later, all children were interviewed for a second time. For half of the children, this second interview was a repeat of their direct examination interview. The remaining children were interviewed in a cross-examination format. A second interview reduced response accuracy after both short and long delays, however, cross-examination questioning impaired the accuracy of children�s reports the most. Although, overall, children have considerable difficulty answering cross-examination questions correctly, variation in their performance has been observed. Experiment 2 assessed whether individual differences in cognitive abilities mediate cross-examination performance. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 116) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 58) visited the police station and subsequently reported their experiences in direct examination and cross-examination interviews. Children�s memory, receptive language ability, expressive language ability, and intelligence were also measured. Age, intelligence, and memory predicted aspects of cross-examination performance. Overall, these cognitive factors accounted for between 16.6% and 19.5% of the variance in cross-examination outcome measures. Given the negative effect of cross-examination on children�s responding, and our inability to identify the children who are most at risk of poor performance during this interview, Experiment 3 assessed our ability to facilitate children�s responding to cross-examination questioning. Specifically, the effect of manipulating the timing of a pre-trial intervention, which gives children practice and feedback at cross-examination questioning, was investigated. Five- and 6-year-olds (N = 88) and 9- and 10-year-olds (N = 108) visited the police station. One to 3 days later they completed the direct examination interview and 6 months after the event, children were cross-examined. The timing of the preparation intervention was varied (1-day, 1-week, 1-month before cross-examination), and the children�s subsequent cross-examination performance was compared to that of children in the control group. When the preparation intervention was delivered 1 day or 1 week before the cross-examination interview, children�s cross-examination performance was significantly improved. The findings from the three experiments suggest that cross-examination is likely to pose considerable problems for children, especially younger children. Our greater understanding of factors that influence children�s responding to cross-examination questioning may guide reform of the cross-examination process for child witnesses. Bottom-up initiatives, such as pre-trial preparation, and top-down changes, including educating professionals, expert testimony, and reducing the delay to cross-examination, may improve the reliability of child witnesses� testimony during cross-examination.