Be Excellent To Each Other

Last bit of the intro;

As members of the public we put our faith and trust in the police and their colleagues such as forensic scientists.

Social influence, group pressure and majority influence are known to be precursors to attitude change in social situations, but to what extent is unknown, as there can also be many other factors. With the temptations police face today, is it possible that this could spill over into the environment of the Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) or even the laboratory worker?
Police have to deal with maintaining order in a disorderly society with a complex legal code, under-funding and lax sentencing by judges. It is believed that many feel they must go beyond the law to do their jobs but risk harsh discipline when they do, causing morale to fall and possible institutional corruption. Officers’ constant use of "the end justifies the means" rationalisations could lead them to other illegal actions that can be rationalised in the same way. For the maintenance of social relationships, attitudes must be viewed favourably by ones peers (Bowles & Garoupa, 1997).

According to Chesshyre (1990), no workers spend more time in each others company than police officers. They kill time in canteens, spend hours cooped up in cars. They are off duty together due to their shift patterns, they are provided with excellent recreational amenities for them to share, often live side by side in police housing. The concern here is that with so much time together, the societal influence may influence the attitudes of those that _who? would have been less likely to not_{double negative?} do things ‘by the book’. With attitude influencing behaviour, there is the concern that the urge to ‘do the right thing’ may lead to doing the wrong thing, such as planting evidence or falsifying lab reports. This study will be looking to see if there is a risk that this could spread to other agencies of law enforcement such as CSIs.

Also group discussion can effectively change attitudes and behaviours showing the role of informational social influence (Smith et al 2007) and (Werner et al, 2008). Of concern here is the fact that involvement has long been theoretically specified as a crucial factor determining the persuasive impact of messages (Park et al, 2007). These two factors combined could result in even negative attitude changes. Particularly when people are susceptible to influences, even more so when they have lower self control resources which they need to fend off these influences (Burkley, 2008). Time at university can be a time of extreme stress or pressure for some people; not only academically but trying to fit in socially too. As is already known, expectation of disapproval or approval can be a major incentive in persuasion, more so from reference groups, peers and social groups. For high self monitors the need to fit well into social situation, image is very important. There is still hope however; attitudes formed following majority influence can still be changed back unless they are then further reinforced (Martin et al, 2008).

Also according to Chesshyre (1990) forty years ago – only 188 graduates out of 120,000 officers in the force – today there are more than 10,000 so university students were selected to be the participants.
This study will be looking to see if the knowledge gained while studying a crime related course changes a student’s attitude towards crime or certain aspects of it.

University students studying a forensic science course were asked to fill in questionnaires relating to attitude towards and beliefs about possible causes of violent behaviour, prevention and punishment. Students from both the first and third year were tested so as to ascertain if there were any differences due to the amount of knowledge gained, or if desensitisation to the subject area may occur. Also first and third non-forensics students were tested so as not to attribute a growth of confidence while at university (Preston 2004) to the results.

The three experimental hypotheses are: The attitude towards crime between first and third year students will differ. The attitude towards crime between forensics and non-forensics students will differ. The difference to attitudes to crime between forensic and non-forensic students will differ according to year group.

Social influence, group pressure and majority influence are known to be precursors to attitude change in social situations, but the extent of this is unknown, and there can also be many other factors. With the temptations police face today, is it possible that this could spill over into the environment of the Crime Scene Investigator (CSI) or even the laboratory worker? Police have to deal with maintaining order in a disorderly society suffering from a complex legal code, under funding and lax sentencing by judges. It is believed that many feel they must go beyond the law to do their jobs, but risk harsh discipline when they do, causing morale to fall and possible institutional corruption. Officers’ constant use of end-justifies-the-means rationalisations could lead them to other illegal actions that could be rationalised in the same way. For the maintenance of social relationships, attitudes must be viewed favourably by one's peers (Bowles & Garoupa, 1997).

According to Chesshyre (1990), no workers spend more time in each others company than police officers. They kill time in canteens, spend hours couped up in cars. They are off duty together due to their shift patterns, they are provided with excellent recreational amenities for them to share and often live side by side in police housing. The concern here is that with so much time together, the societal influence may influence the attitudes of those that would have been less likely to not do things ‘by the book’. With such behaviour, there is the concern that the urge to ‘do the right thing’ may lead to doing the wrong thing, such as planting evidence or falsifying lab reports. This study will be investigating the possibility of a risk that this could spread to other agencies of law enforcement such as CSIs.

Also, group discussion can effectively change attitudes and behaviours, showing the role of informational social influence (Smith et al, 2007, and Werner et al, 2008). Of concern here is the fact that involvement has long been theoretically specified as a crucial factor determining the persuasive impact of messages (Park et al, 2007). These two factors combined could result in even negative attitude changes, particularly when people are susceptible to influences, and even more so when they have lower self control resources which they need to fend off these influences (Burkley, 2008). Time at university can be a time of extreme stress or pressure for some people, not only academically, but trying to fit in socially too. As is already known, expectation of disapproval or approval can be a major incentive in persuasion, more so from reference groups, peers and social groups. For high self monitors the need to fit well into social situation, image is very important. There is still hope however: attitudes formed following majority influence can still be changed back unless they are then further reinforced (Martin et al, 2008).

Also according to Chesshyre (1990), there were only 188 graduates out of 120,000 officers in the force forty years ago. Today, more than 10,000 university students have been selected [?] to be the participants of this study.
This study will be looking to see if the knowledge gained while studying a crime related course changes a student’s attitude towards crime or certain aspects of it.

University students studying a forensic science course were asked to fill in questionnaires relating to attitude towards and beliefs about possible causes of violent behaviour, prevention and punishment. Students from both the first and third year were tested so as to ascertain if there were any differences due to the amount of knowledge gained, or if desensitisation to the subject area may occur. Also first and third non-forensics students were tested so as not to attribute a growth of confidence while at university (Preston 2004) to the results.

The three experimental hypotheses are:
1) The attitude towards crime between first and third year students will differ.
2) The attitude towards crime between forensics and non-forensics students will differ.
3) The difference to attitudes to crime between forensic and non-forensic students will differ according to year group.