Sense about science - making sense of crime

Booklet 'Making Sense of Crime' published by registered charity 'Sense About Science'There’s always heated debate about crime in the media and a lot of political argument about how we should respond to it. But these arguments rarely provide insight into what actually causes crime, what lies behind trends over time and in different places, and how best to go about reducing it. Values inform how a society decides to deal with crime. We may decide that rehabilitation is a better principle than punishment, and this will influence how we decide what is most effective. However, we also expect these choices to be disciplined by sound evidence, because if crime policy ignores what works and what doesn’t, there are likely to be bad social consequences. And with over £10bn spent annually on tackling crime through the police, prisons, probation and courts, unless we look at evidence we can’t see how effective any of it is. Crime policy usually has twin aims – to prevent crime, and to seek justice by punishing those who commit offences. Research shows there’s only a loose link, if any, between the way offenders are punished and the number of offences committed. There is no reliable evidence for example, that capital punishment reduces serious crimes as its supporters claim. Yet politicians and commentators regularly claim that more punishments are a way to cut crime. Academic, government and community organisations have all said crime policies need to be based more on evidence, but much of the evidence available at the moment is poor or unclear. Debates about crime rarely reflect how strong the evidence behind opposing policies is, and even when politicians honestly believe they’re following the evidence, they tend to select evidence that supports their political views. This guide looks at some of the key things we do know and why it has been so difficult to make sense of crime policy. An important point throughout is that policymakers sometimes have to make decisions when things are not clear-cut. They have a better chance of making effective policies if they admit to this uncertainty – and conduct robust research to find out more. In the following pages we have shared insights from experts in violent crime, policing, crime science, psychology and the media’s influence on the crime debate. They don’t have all the answers, but we hope they leave you better-placed to hold policymakers and commentators to account and promote a more useful discussion about crime

Measuring service quality and relationship marketing in a paid membership organisation : the influence of cognitive factors

Despite the mass of research into customer behaviour and expectations, very little has focused on paid-membership contexts (in which an individual must pay to join an organisation in order to receive the benefits of being a member of that organisation). This research focuses on the measurement of customer service quality in a paid membership organisation, together with the key characteristics of the organisation, its members and the relationship between these factors. However, as a fundamental part of customer service evaluation is the effectiveness of the evaluation instrument itself - current techniques and research regarding their effectiveness are reviewed and compared. Specifically, the SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) technique is documented, and research highlighting conceptual, methodological and interpretative problems is critically reviewed in light of recent advances in service quality measurement and the cognitive psychology of survey responding. On the basis of this review, a new measurement tool is developed and its effectiveness and reliability compared to SERVQUAL. Existing research on membership organisations and relationship marketing is also critically reviewed and discussed with respect to a specific paid membership organisation. The design, development and piloting of a survey specifically designed to evaluate the customer service provision of the particular professional paid membership organisation and the nature of its relationship (and relationship marketing activities) with its members, is then detailed, culminating in a full survey of the organisation's membership. The findings of the survey are critically reviewed and are found to be highly consistent with previous research on relationship marketing in membership organisations. The main conclusions are then critically discussed, together with methodological issues. Finally, directions for further research are considered

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: a call to action for psychological science

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will: (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policy-makers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer-term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high quality, open and rigorous research standards