CRIMINOLOGY

Unit-I- Introduction: psychology and crime

History of Criminal Psychology

Component - I - Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof(Dr) G S Bajpai Registrar

National Law University

Delhi

Paper Coordinator Dr. Navin Kumar Associate Professor, Bhim

Rao Ambedkar College,

University of Delhi

Content Writer/Author Dr. Ritu Sharma Assistant Professor &

Behavioural Skills Trainer,

Amity University, Noida

Content Reviewer Dr. Navin Kumar Associate Professor, Bhim

Rao Ambedkar College,

University of Delhi

Component - I (B) Description of Module

Description of Module

Subject Name Criminology

Paper Name Criminal Psychology

Module No. M-2

Module Name/Title History of Criminal Psychology

Pre-requisites Psychology, Research Methodology, History of

Psychology

Objectives To Study about the History of Criminal Psychology.

Keywords Criminal Psychology, Eyewitness Testimony,

Suggestibility, Criminal Profiling, Psychological

assessment, Criminal Behaviour

1. Module II

Introduction

Learning Outcome

Topic Name 1:

1. History of Criminal

Psychology

1.1 Early Research in

Criminal Psychology

Topic Name 2:

Important Historical

milestones of Criminal

Psychology

2.1 History of

Psychology

Summary

Introduction

Inception of Psychology as a science is dated back in the year 1879. And ever since then

Psychology has witnessed great diversification in terms of application. Criminal psychology

is relatively a new branch which has emerged as an applied field of Psychology. Criminal

psychology has not a very long history and can dated back in the late 19th century and in India

it’s still at the budding stage and has immense scope of growth. Many researches and

experiments conducted in earlier times in Psychology though were not directly aimed at

contributing to criminal psychology (as then it never existed as a separate field and none of

the psychologists thus identified themselves as criminal psychologists) give an explanation of

Criminal Behaviour. Thus, are considered as a part of criminal Psychology and are helpful in

understanding criminal behaviour.

Learning Outcome: Students is expected to be able to

1. Understand the emergence of Criminal Psychology as a field.

2. Remember history of Criminal Psychology.

3. Analyse relation between various studies and experiments done in Psychology leading

to an understanding of Crime.

1. History of Criminal Psychology

Early psychologists have conducted experiments to understand behaviour in social context.

Though not intended to contribute to criminal psychology literature, but later it has been

included in the literature and theory of criminal psychology. Such as Milgram’s experiment

(1960) which was conducted to understand obedience to authority fairly explains how

subject’s under pressure show behaviour which can never be expected in normal situations.

Thus, explains criminal intent and behaviour under social pressure. But Milgram was never

identified as criminal psychologist.

However, many such researchers, researches, and experiments have formed the building

blocks of many applied fields of psychology.

1.1 Early research in Criminal Psychology

Most of the literature in the field of Psychology finds its roots in America. And, some part

from Britain, Europe and Russia. Journey of Psychology in India can be traced back to the

year 1916 when the First Department of Experimental Psychology was established at Calcutta

University.

First Department of Psychology started under the guidance and Chairmanship of Professor

Narendra Nath Sen Gupta who himself was trained under the guidance of Professor Hugo

Munsterberg (Student of Wilhelm Wundt) at Harvard University.

Professor Hugo Munsterberg was amongst the pioneers of Criminal Psychology, and

contributed significantly in highlighting the role of Psychologist in Law and its application.

It is also interesting to note that Professor Narendra Nath Sen Gupta did his Ph.d work on

Anti-intellectualism.

Early research in the field of criminal psychology was more focused and related to witnesses

of the crime and victims. The explanation of what happened was the major center of attention

for criminal psychology researchers as eyewitness Testimony was a significant source of

information. At the same time suggestibility and its effects were studied by psychologists in

great detail with the help of many experiments.

In the late 19th century North America and Europe were the active centers for Psychological

Researches in the field of criminal psychology. Though as mentioned earlier, these

psychologists did not conduct a research under the specific subfield of Criminal Psychology.

But these researches form the basis of Criminal Psychology.

1.1.1 James McKeen Cattell (1895)

Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-McKeen-Cattell

Some of the first experiments were conducted in Leipzig, Germany where the first

Psychology Laboratory was established by Wilhelm Wundt. This was the first Psychology

laboratory in the world. Later, some significant experiments were conducted by James

McKeen Cattell in Columbia University at New York. Where, he made significant

contributions in the field of Psychology (Bartol & Bartol, 2006). Cattell is known for his

research and significant contribution in assessing Intelligence. Cattell was also a student of

Wilhelm Wundt.

Cattell learnt and developed his skills in human cognition while in Leipzig, after which he

conducted some of the first experiments ever conducted in North America, which contributed

significantly to the area of Eyewitness testimony later (Cattell, 1895).

In order to understand eyewitness testimony, Cattell in his experiments asked subjects to

recall and describe things that they witnessed in everyday life. The results indicate that, most

of the subjects were not able to correctly recall the events and specific things which they had

experienced or had seen during the earlier day. And, thus the information presented during

experiments was largely incorrect.

In this era due to growing interest in eyewitness testimony a number of other psychologists

had also begun studying eyewitness testimony and suggestibility (Ceci & Bruck, 1993)

1.1.2 Alfred Binet (1900)

Source: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Binet

Alfred Binet the famous French psychologist, who is majorly known for his work in the area

of intelligence, conducted a series of experiments aimed at understanding intelligence and

recall to be specific.

One of his series of experiments was aimed to understand the role of suggestibility. In this a

series of objects were presented to children for a short duration of time, after viewing the

objects, children were instructed to write about everything they saw. Another group of

children, who were also shown the same objects were, on the other hand were questioned

about the objects they saw. Some of the questions asked were closed ended and direct. While,

some questions were mildly misleading, and some others were highly misleading.

The results indicate, children when asked to write everything they saw which is free recall

without any questions resulted in the most accurate answer. While highly misleading

questions resulted in least accurate answers. The results show that testimony provided by

children is highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques (Binet, 1900).

Concluding free recall method is the best method for testimony.

1.1.3 William Stern (1910)

Source: https://geniusrevive.com/en/william-stern-founder-of-personalistic-psychology/

William Stern also during the same era conducted experiments to examine suggestibility of

witnesses (Bartol & Bartol, 2006; Ceci &Bruck, 1993). Contribution of the famous “Reality

Experiment” which is used till date to study eyewitness recall and recognition by the

researchers is attributed to Stern. In application of this paradigm, subjects are made to witness

staged events and then are asked to recall the information that they remember about the

staged events. This is conducted in the form of a free recall.

During these experiments Stern found that many factors affect eyewitness testimony. One of

such factors explained by him is emotional arousal of the observer. In one of the experiments

of staged events where participants were exposed to a staged event where an argument

between two students was shown in a classroom setting, later during the argument one of the

student pulls out a revolver (Stern, 1910). This affected the observer and thus also the

testimony provided by them. As the observer experienced extreme emotion and was shocked

to see the gun.

Stern was perhaps the first Psychologist to study the effect of emotional arousal on

eyewitness testimony. Alfred Binet and William Stern have significantly contributed to the

understanding of Observer related factors affecting Eyewitness testimony and also the

importance of free recall in eyewitness testimony.

During the same era, Psychologist in Europe had taken a step ahead in the court proceeding.

They were made to sit during the court proceedings as expert witnesses. Where, they also

witnessed the issues of inaccuracy in eyewitness testimony.

1.1.4 Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1896)

Source: http://historyforensicpsych.umwblogs.org/nature-of-testimony/

In 1896, Albert von Schrenck-Notzing was noted as the first expert to comment that pretrial

questioning of the eyewitness by the press, and coverage and presentation of the events by the

press could influence the testimony of witnesses’. He defined it as “Retroactive Memory

Falsification”.

Schrenck-Notzing was the first psychologist to state and provide evidence to show the effect

of pretrial publicity on memory (Bartol & Bartol, 2006), during the trial of a case which

involved three sexual murders which took place in Munich, Germany. This case attracted a lot

of media attention which was objected by Schrenck-Notzig as he explained that Pretrial

coverage and presentation of the case will affect the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Schrenck-Notzig explained the concept of “Retroactive memory Falsification” as a process

where information presented by the media and other sources interferes with the actual

memory of events of the witness. He provided scientific evidence for his testimony by

conducting a laboratory research on the same.

His work even when replicated today in similar type of experiments to test if pretrial publicity

affects the testimony of eyewitnesses confirms the same results (Ruva, MsEvoy, & Bryant,

2007).

1.1.5 Hugo Munsterberg (1908)

Source: http://braintour.harvard.edu/archives/portfolio-items/munsterbergs-

experiments

It was much later; studies related to Criminal Psychology were conducted in North America

to testify issues in eyewitness testimony. Though, research on many other areas had been

conducted before this also. One of the important landmarks then was a publication by Hugo

Munsterberg in 1908 on the Witness stand. Munsterberg was another student of Wilhelm

Wundt. Munsterberg is also considered as the father of Applied Psychology by many (Bartol

& Bartol, 2006).

Munsterberg after completing his studies from Germany went to Harvard University in 1892.

Where, he could soon establish himself as a significant Psychologist (Brigham, 1999). With

great enthusiasm and brilliant ideas Munsterberg through his book, this has a collection of

essays on how Psychology can significantly contribute to the field of law. He discussed how

Psychology can contribute significantly in resolving issues related to eyewitness testimony,

False confessions, Suggestibility, Crime Detection, Hypnotism and Crime Prevention. But his

work and ideas were presented in such a way that it received great deal of criticism from legal

professionals.

One of his biggest critique was John Henry Wigmore, a law professor at North-western

University of Chicago. Wigmore is known for his work in law, especially on Evidence, his

treatise on Evidence indicates and presents critical examination of law of Evidence.

However, Wigmore became more famous for being a ruthless critique of Munsterberg’s

book. He also used a series of fabricated “Transcripts” to out Munsterberg on trial, where he

was sued and was declared guilty of claiming more than he could offer (Brigham,

1999).Wigmore stated that Munsterberg’s claims are fraud as his conclusions lack support of

relevant research publications.

North American Psychologists, currently working in the field of criminal Psychology state

that, application and use of criminal Psychology was largely ignored by the legal

professionals for long period of time. However despite all forces against Munsterberg, he is

still considered as instrumental in pushing North American Psychologist into legal Arena

(Bartol & Bartol, 2006).

2. Important Historical milestones of Criminal Psychology

1893: first experiment conducted by James McKeen Cattell to understand Psychology

of testimony.

1896: Albert Von Schrenck-Notzing appeared as the first expert witness in a trial at

Munich Court, Germany

1903: Periodical relating to Psychology of Testimony released by William Stern.

1908: Munsterberg released his first book on the Witness Stand. Who is also

considered as father of Forensic Psychology.

1911: Julian Varendonck tests the reliability of testimony of Child witnesses through

his classic experiments.

1913: First time Psychological Services were offered in a Women’s reformatory in

New York, USA.

1916 : First Department of Psychology was established in Calcutta University under

the Chairmanship of Professor Narendra Nath Sen Gupta.

1917: Louis Terman introduced Psychological assessment and screening of U.S. Law

enforcement personnel.

1921: First time in America, Psychologist gave his expert comments in the cpurt

during a trial as an expert witness.

1964: Hans J. Eysenck Published his book on Crime and Personality. This was the

first comprehensive book on application of Psychology to understand crimes and

criminal behaviour.

1974: University of Nebraska, Lincoln; introduces first interdisciplinary degree in

Psychology and law.

2001: Forensic Psychology gets a global recognition as a specialized field by APA.

2.1 History of Psychology

Apart from specific history of Criminal Psychology it is important to note that history of

Psychology broadly has also contributed and will continue to do so. As Psychology is an

umbrella term. Importance & application of classic experiments of Obedience, Authority,

collaboration, competition, Learning, memory, and others (Bandura, 1959; Sherif, 1954,

1958, 1961; Milgram, 1960), in the field of criminal psychology cannot be ignored.

Albert Bandura: Social Learning theory given by bandura focuses on the meditational

aspects of learning. The famous “Bobo Doll Experiment” conducted by bandura explains the

social influences which result in human behaviour and learning. Four aspects which

contribute to understanding of human behaviour as explained by bandura are:

1. Attention: It is the amount of focus that we tend to give to an object or stimuli. It is

the how much have we noticed the behaviour which we intend to repeat. Though we

observe many behaviour and stimuli in day to day life but we tend to remember only

a few. There are many aspects that decide and define what we pay attention to.

Factors such as Novelty, Colour, Motivational and other Perceptual factors define

how much attention (Matlin, 1983) will be given to the object or behaviour.

2. Retention: the second step is retention. This is the capacity to retain information

about the behaviour. It is important for us to be able to retain memory of the

behaviour performed as based on this we will be able to perform a similar act.

Retention may be direct or indirect. A child learns social practices through

observation this may be within the family or outside.

3. Reproduction: It is the act of performing the behaviour. After Attention and Retention

the individual plans to reproduce behaviour learnt in the past. Amount of attention

and retention will decide whether our behaviour will be the exact copy of the

behaviour learnt or will there be any failure or alteration in the same. For example,

largely a bleak understanding of culture and religion today has led to the generation

being confused about the learning of culture related behaviour.

4. Motivation: The last important aspect as explained by bandura is motivation. An

individual will not reproduce the behaviour if they are not motivated to do so.

Motivation comes from reward and punishments which are associated with a

particular behaviour.

Bandura’s social learning theory helps us understand the basis of behaviour in today’s

time. And it also enables us to understand the reason behind irrational reproduction of

learnt behaviours.

Muzafer Sherif (1936): A series of experiments were conducted to understand social

behavior in context of Group Norms and Conformity. The results indicate social

groups’ strongly influence individual behavior.

Stanley Milgram(1973): conducted a series of experiments to understand

Conformity. The aim of the experiment was to understand how much people can obey

authority even when they do understand their limitations as a human. Stanley

Milgram created a Shock Generator and created groups. Every group had one

Teacher who was seated with the Experimenter and one Learner. Teacher was asked

to put questions to the Learner and if they fail to give the correct answer then shock

was given to them. The shock was labeled with descriptors which went up to Danger:

Severe Shock. But it was found in the study that just to obey authorities the Teacher

(Subject) asking question did show little or no hesitation in giving high voltage

shocks to the Learner.

Summary

1916 when the First Department of Experimental Psychology was established at

Calcutta University.

In the late 19th century North America and Europe were the active centres for

Psychological Researches in the field of criminal psychology.

Cattell learnt and developed his skills in human cognition while in Leipzig, after

which some of the first experiments ever conducted in North America, which

contributed significantly to the area of Eyewitness testimony later

Stern found that many factors affect eyewitness testimony. One of such factors

explained by him is emotional arousal of the observer.

Schrenck-Notzig explained the concept of Retroactive memory Falsification as a

process where information presented by the media and other sources interferes with

the actual memory of event of the witnesses.

Munsterberg through his book indicated which has a collection of essays on how

Psychology can significantly contribute to the field of law. He discussed how

Psychology can contribute significantly in resolving issues related to eyewitness

testimony, False confessions, Suggestibility, Crime Detection, Hypnotism and Crime

Prevention.

References:

Bartol, C.R. & Bartol, A.M. (2006) Current Perspectives in Forensic Psychology &

Criminal Justice. Sage.

Binet, A. (1900) La Suggestibilite. Paris: Schleicher.

Brigham, J.C. (1999). What is forensic Psychology, Anyway? Law and Human

behavior.Vol.23, No.3. Pg: 273-298.

Brussel, James A. (1968). Casebook of a crime psychiatrist . New York: Bernard

Geis Associates.

Bull.R. et. Al (ed.) (2006) Criminal psychology: a beginner’s guide. One World:

Oxford.

Ceci, S.J., & Bruck, M. (1993). The Suggestibility of the child witness: Ahistorical

review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-439.

Conan Doyle, Arthur. (1901). The hound of the Baskervilles . London: George

Newnes.

Cummings, Nicholas A., & O ’ Donohue, William T. (2008). Eleven blunders that

cripple psychopathy in America. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Darwin, Charles. (1859/1882). On the origin of species by means of natural selection.

London: John Murray.

Darwin, Charles. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex.

London: John Murray.

Festinger, Leon. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Frank E. Hagan (2008). Introduction to Criminology, 6th edition. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage

Gerber, Samuel M., & Saferstein, Richard. (Eds.). (1997). More chemistry and crime.

Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.

Girard, James E. (2008). Criminalistics: Forensic science and crime . Boston: Jones

and Bartlett.

Good, I. J., Mayne, A. J., & Maynard Smith, J. (Eds.). (1963). The scientist

speculates. New York: Basic Books.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. C. (1998). Forensic psychology: A guide to

practice. London: Routledge

Harris, Thomas. (1988). The silence of the lambs. New York: St. Martin ’ s Press.

Hazelwood, Roy, & Michaud, Stephen G. (2001). Dark dreams . New York: St.

Martin ’ s True Crime.

Heilbronner, Robert L. (Ed.). (2005). Forensic neuropsychology casebook . New

York: Guilford Press.

Holmes, R., & Holmes, S. (2002). Profi ling violent crimes: An investigative tool (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobs, Don. (2003). Sexual predators in the age of neuroscience . Dubuque, IA:

Kendall-Hunt.

Jacobs, Don. (2008). Sexual predators and forensic psychology. Plymouth, MI:

Hayden-McNeil.

Jacobs, Don. (2009). Psychology of deception: Analysis of sexually psychopathic

serial crime. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Joyce, Peter (2012) Criminology - A Complete Introduction. Teach Yourself

Langer, Walter. (1972). The mind of Adolf Hitler . New York: Basic Books.

Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff. (2003). The assault on the truth: Freud ’ s suppression

of the seduction theory . New York: Ballantine Books.

McDonald, J. M. (1963). The threat to kill. American Journal of Psychiatry, 120,

125–130.

Mu¨nsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime.

New York: Doubleday.

Newburn, T (2012). Criminology, 2e. Routledge

Ramsland, Katherine. (2002). The criminal mind: A writer’s guide to forensic

psychology . Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest.

Ruva,C.,McEvoy, C.,& Bryant, J.B. (2007) Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury

deliberation on juror bias and source memory errors. Applied Cognitive Psychology.

Volume 21, Issue 1, pages 45–67

Samenow, S., & Yochelson, S. (1976–1986). The criminal personality (3 vols.). New

York: J. Aronson.

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

Schuller, R.A. & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2001). An Introduction to Law and

Psychology: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fi ction about

forensic science affects public expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics,

47, 357.

Siegel, L. (2004). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, & Typologies, 8e. Belmont,

CA:Wadsworth/Thomson Learning

Stevenson, Robert Lewis. (1995). The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. New

York: Barnes & Noble.

Stirling, John. (2002). Introducing neuropsychology: Psychology focus . New York:

Wigmore, J.H. (1909). Professor Muensterberg and the psychology of testimony:

being a report of the case of Cokestone V. Muensterberg.

Wrightsman, L.S.(2001). Forensic Psychology. Stamford, CT:Wadsworth

Recommended Further readings:

1. Frank E. Hagan (2008). Introduction to Criminology, 6th edition. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage

2. Siegel, L. (2004). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, & Typologies, 8e. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning

3. Newburn, T (2012). Criminology, 2e. Routledge

4. Joyce, Peter (2012) Criminology - A Complete Introduction. Teach Yourself