Forensic psych notes:

• What is Forensic Psychology?

Forensic Psychology is defined as the applica4on of psychological knowledge and theories to
all aspects of the criminal and civil jus4ce systems, including the processes and the people
involved. This encompasses a wide range of topics such as criminal inves4ga4on, profiling,
lie detec4on, eyewitness tes4mony, competency to stand trial, jury selec4on, insanity pleas,
and the treatment of offenders and risk assessment. It also includes studying the roles of
various individuals in the jus4ce system, like vic4ms, offenders, police, jurors, judges,
eyewitnesses, and expert witnesses.

Theories of crime:
Historical Theories of Crime
Historical theories of crime are rooted in various philosophical and early criminological
perspec4ves. Notable theories include:
• The Classical School of Criminology, which posits that lawbreaking occurs when
individuals, faced with a choice between right and wrong, freely choose wrongly. It
advocates that punishment should be propor4onate to the crime commiHed.
• The Posi4vist School of Criminology, which emphasizes factors determining criminal
behaviour rather than free will. It believes punishment should fit the criminal rather
than the crime, seeking to understand crime through scien4fic methods and
empirical analysis.
Early posi4vists, like Cesare Lombroso and Ernest Hooton, believed in biological
determinants of criminal behaviour, but their methods and conclusions are considered crude
and not taken seriously in modern criminology.

Sociological Theories of Crime

Sociological theories explain crime as the result of social or cultural forces that are external
to any specific individual. These theories emerge from various social structures affec4ng
large groups of people and usually deemphasize individual differences. Key sociological
theories include:
• Structural Explana-ons, which argue that dysfunc4onal social arrangements and
differen4al opportuni4es create strains leading to crime.
• Subcultural Explana-ons, which suggest that crime originates in cultural values
conflic4ng with conven4onal societal rules, such as in gangs.

Biological Theories of Crime

Biological theories stress gene4c influences, chromosomal abnormali4es, biochemical
irregulari4es, or physical factors as causes of crime, while also respec4ng social and
environmental influences. These theories include:
• Cons-tu-onal theories, like Sheldon's somatotypes theory, which correlated body
types with criminal behaviour.
• Gene-c theories, which consider the heritability of criminal behaviour. For example,
adop4on studies have shown that men with criminal biological parents are more
likely to engage in criminal behaviour themselves.
Psychological Theories of Crime
Psychological theories focus on personality aHributes of poten4al criminals and emphasize
individual differences in thinking and feeling about behaviour. These theories include:
• Psychoanaly-c theories, like Freud’s concept of a weak ego and superego failing to
restrain an4-social ins4ncts.
• Theories based on personality traits and disorders, like Eysenck’s model of
personality (extraversion, neuro4cism, and psycho4cism) and the concept of
an4social personality disorder.

Social-Psychological Theories of Crime

Social-psychological theories bridge the gap between the environmentalism of sociology and
the individualism of psychological or biological theories. They propose that crime is learned
through various processes, with key theories being:
• Control theories, which suggest that people behave an4socially unless they learn not
to offend through a combina4on of inner controls and external constraints.
• Learning theories, which propose that criminal behaviour is acquired through
different forms of learning, such as operant and social learning.
• Social-labelling theories, which argue that deviance is created by the labels society
assigns to certain acts, leading to self-fulfilling prophecies.

SBPSp

L2:
Sentencing:
The history of sentencing has evolved significantly over 4me. In ancient 4mes, the prevailing
mentality was that crime was due to sin, and thus suffering was considered the culprit's due.
This led judges to be expected to impose harsh punishments. In the late 18th to early 19th
centuries, during the Enlightenment, philosophers emphasized deterrence through ra4onal
punishment, shiXing focus to quick and certain penal4es rather than severity. The early 20th
century saw a focus on rehabilita4on, influenced by Posi4vist philosophies, while recent
thinking has emphasized the need to limit offenders' poten4al for future harm by separa4ng
them from society.
Modern sentencing prac4ces are influenced by five goals:
1. Retribu=on: This is about taking revenge upon the criminal perpetrator, ensuring
that criminals receive the punishments they deserve, appropriate to the type and
severity of the crime.
2. Incapacita=on: Using imprisonment or other means to reduce the likelihood that an
offender will be capable of commi]ng future offenses. This is aimed at protec4ng
society from poten4al harm.
3. Deterrence: Preven4ng people from commi]ng crimes by making an example of the
person sentenced. It includes specific deterrence (preven4ng the individual offender
from reoffending) and general deterrence (discouraging others from commi]ng
similar crimes).
4. Rehabilita=on: AHemp4ng to reform an offender by bringing about fundamental
changes in offenders and their behaviour to reduce future crime.
5. Restora=on: AHempts to make the vic4m "whole again," oXen through res4tu4on
payments that offenders are ordered to make to their vic4ms.
Risk Assessment:
Risk assessment in the context of criminal sentencing involves predic4ng the likelihood of
reoffending. The types of predic4on outcomes include "true posi4ves" (correctly predic4ng
re-offense), "false posi4ves" (incorrectly predic4ng re-offense), "true nega4ves" (correctly
predic4ng no re-offense), and "false nega4ves" (incorrectly predic4ng no re-offense). The
goal is to maximize true posi4ves and true nega4ves while minimizing false nega4ves and
false posi4ves.
There are three types of risk and dangerousness assessment:
1. Unstructured Clinical Judgment: Decisions based on professional discre4on without
specific guidelines or risk factors, which tend to be subjec4ve and have been shown
to be poor in predic4ng future violence.
2. Actuarial Predic=on: Decisions based on risk factors that are selected and combined
based on empirical or sta4s4cal evidence. This method is favoured over unstructured
clinical judgment.
3. Structured Professional Judgment: Decisions guided by a predetermined list of risk
factors derived from research and based on professional judgment.

Risk factors are measurable features of an individual that predict the behaviour of interest,
such as violence or psychopathology. They can be sta4c (historical and unchangeable) or
dynamic (fluctua4ng over 4me and poten4ally changeable). Examples of important risk
factors include disposi-onal factors like age and personality characteris4cs, historical factors
such as past an4social behaviour, clinical factors like substance use and mental disorders,
and contextual factors like lack of social support and easy access to weapons.
Protec=ve factors, on the other hand, reduce or mi4gate the likelihood of violence and can
help explain why some individuals with many risk factors do not become violent. In children
and youths, these include prosocial involvement, strong social support, posi-ve social
orienta-on, and strong a?achments. In adults, protec4ve factors include employment
stability, especially for high-risk individuals, and strong family connec-ons for low-risk males.

Dangerous offenders (L3)

The treatment of dangerous offenders is crucial due to several reasons:
• Risk of Serious Harm: Dangerous offenders pose a significant risk of serious harm to
the public.
• Reoffending Rates: They are more likely to reoffend, with reoffending rates being
higher for violent offenses (40%) and sexual offenses (11-14%).

Treatment frameworks for violent and sex offenders include a variety of programs tailored to
address the specific issues related to their offenses. The frameworks generally involve:
• Anger Management: To diffuse anger arousal and strengthen anger control.
However, it is cri4cized because violence is not always caused by anger.
• Cogni=ve Skills Programs: Aimed at changing maladap4ve thought paHerns, such as
poor problem-solving and moral reasoning, but may be ineffec4ve for entrenched
an4social thinking.
 • In=mate Partner Violence Programs: Focus on teaching sexual respect and
rela4onship skills, though they are cri4cized for ignoring diversity among offenders.
• Mul=modal Approaches: Involve mul4disciplinary teams and both group and
individual therapy, tailored for serious violent behaviour and high risk of recidivism.
These programs are generally resource-intensive and expensive.

The importance of correct Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR) assessment is that it ensures
treatment is matched to the offender's risk to re-offend (Risk Principle), addresses factors
related to reoffending (Need Principle), and is tailored to the learning style, mo4va4on,
abili4es, and strengths of the offender (Responsivity Principle).
Treatment challenges with dangerous offenders include:
• Denial: Many offenders are in denial about their crimes, which can impede
treatment.
• Lack of Insight or Distress: Offenders may not understand the causes of their
behaviour or feel distress about their ac4ons, making it difficult to engage them in
treatment.
• High Social Cost of Par=cipa=on: Engaging in treatment programs may have
significant social repercussions for the offender, which can be a barrier to
par4cipa4on.

In conclusion, there is no 'one size fits all' treatment for dangerous offenders. It is essen4al
to target individuals who are high-risk and consider the whole person and their individual
needs. The treatment context and having a sound theore4cal base are also vital for the
success of these programs.

Police Psychology (L4)

Some police engage in unethical behaviour due to a shiX away from the "bad apples" view
to an understanding that the system itself can support corrup4on. Factors contribu=ng to
unethical behaviour include:

• On-the-job Socializa=on: New recruits may adopt unethical prac4ces they observe in
the force.
• Peer Group Reinforcement: There can be encouragement or pressure from peers to
violate rules.
• Policing as a Brotherhood: The close-knit nature of the police force can create an
environment where unethical behaviour is protected.
• Results-Style Policing: The pressure to achieve results can lead to compromising due
process.
• Unsupervised Work: A lot of police work is conducted without direct supervision,
providing opportuni4es for unethical decisions.

Australian research on police ethics has been conducted through various studies which
include surveys and interviews of police officers across different ranks and states. These
studies have inves4gated a]tudes toward breaches of ethics, training, knowledge and
understanding of ethics in everyday policing, individual and organiza4onal influences on
ethical behaviour, and public percep4ons of professional ethics.
Police discre=on refers to the freedom that police officers oXen have in deciding what
ac4ons to take in various situa4ons. Discre4on is commonly used in situa4ons involving
youth crime, offenders with mental illness, domes4c violence, and the use of force. The
arguments for police discre4on include the inability of laws to account for every possible
scenario officer may encounter. Arguments against it concern the poten4al for abuse of
power and the lack of consistency in how laws are enforced.

Factors that influence whether or not a police officer is likely to arrest someone include the
seriousness of the crime, strength of the evidence, vic4m support for the arrest, the
rela4onship between the vic4m and offender, the degree of suspect resistance, and
demographic factors such as race, gender, and neighbourhood.

Sources of police stress include occupa4onal stressors like having to use a weapon,
organiza4onal stressors such as paperwork, criminal jus4ce stressors like frustra4ons with
the court system, and public stressors such as uncoopera4ve witnesses. The consequences
of police stress can manifest physically (e.g., cardiovascular disease), psychologically (e.g.,
depression, anxiety), and in job performance (e.g., poor morale, absenteeism).
To prevent and manage police stress, several strategies are used:

• Physical Fitness Programs: To maintain and improve physical health which is closely
linked to mental health.
• Professional Counselling Services: Offering psychological support to officers.
• Family Assistance Programs: To support the families of officers and help manage the
impact of policing on family life.
• Resiliency Training: To improve officers' ability to adapt to stress and adversity.
• Cri=cal Incident Debriefings: To provide a controlled environment for officers to
discuss trauma4c events and process their experiences.

These methods aim to improve job performance, health, and overall well-being of officers,
although the efficacy of some, like cri4cal incident stress debriefing, has been debated.

Eyewitness evidence (L5)

The differences between physical and eyewitness evidence are founda4onal to the judicial
process. Physical evidence refers to tangible items that can be observed and measured
directly by forensic scien4sts, and protocols for collec4ng, preserving, and interpre4ng this
evidence are scien4fically grounded to avoid contamina4on. This evidence is oXen
circumstan4al but can provide a direct link to the crime. Eyewitness evidence, on the other
hand, is typically collected by individuals who may not be specialists in human memory. The
protocols for handling this type of evidence have not fully incorporated scien4fic
psychological research and are thus less rigorous than those for physical evidence.
Eyewitness evidence can directly link a suspect to a crime, but it is also subject to the
fallibili4es of human memory, making it less reliable.

The misinforma)on effect is a phenomenon where a person's recall of an event becomes

less accurate due to being presented with misleading informa4on aXer the event. This can
occur through various means such as leading ques4ons, media reports, or discussions with
co-witnesses. Research has shown that exposure to incorrect post-event informa4on can
lead people to incorporate this misinforma4on into their memory of the event.

Theories explaining the misinforma4on effect include:

1. Altera=on Hypothesis: Suggests that the original memory might be altered or
overwriHen by new, incorrect informa4on. This can be broken down into:
• Vacant Slot Explana=on: Misinforma4on is accepted because the individual
failed to encode the original informa4on.
• Overwri=ng Explana=on: Post-event informa4on overwrites the original
memory.
• Blend Explana=on: Both the original and misinforma4on are encoded in the
same cogni4ve structure, resul4ng in a blend.
2. Co-Existence Hypothesis: Proposes that both the original memory and the
misinforma4on are stored and can be retrieved; however, the misinforma4on is more
accessible, perhaps due to recency effects or retroac4ve interference.

The strengths of these theories lie in their ability to explain how misinforma4on can alter
memories, supported by various experimental findings. However, they also have
weaknesses. For instance, they may not account for all instances of memory distor4on and
may not be applicable to real-world se]ngs. The prac4cal implica4ons of these theories are
significant for the legal system, as they highlight the need for careful handling of eyewitness
tes4mony to avoid the introduc4on of misleading informa4on.

Factors that influence suscep-bility to the misinforma-on effect include age (with young and
old being more suscep4ble), sugges4bility, the repe44on of misinforma4on, and whether
the misinforma4on is peripheral or central to the event. People are less suscep4ble to
misinforma4on if it blatantly contradicts their original memory, if the source of the
misinforma4on is not credible, or if they are forewarned about poten4al misinforma4on.

Limita-ons of research on the misinforma-on effect include ethical constraints that limit the
types of experiments that can be conducted and ques4ons of ecological validity, which is
how well findings from laboratory se]ngs translate to real-world situa4ons. For example,
real witnesses of a crime may not be as suscep4ble to misinforma4on as par4cipants in
laboratory experiments.

Child Eyewitnesses (L6)

The strengths and limita4ons of child witness memory include the following aspects:
Strengths:
• Rich Detailing: Children can provide rich detail about events they have witnessed,
especially if they are asked open-ended ques4ons that allow them to narrate the
incident without being led or influenced by the interviewer.
• Freshness of Memory: In some cases, children's memories may be less tainted by the
reconstruc4ve processes that can affect adults who have a larger base of experiences
and preconceived no4ons.
Limita=ons:
• Disorganized Storage: Children's memories can be more disorganized compared to
adults, which can affect how they store and retrieve memories.
• Rapid Decay: The memories of children may decay more rapidly than those of adults,
which can result in the loss of informa4on over 4me.
• Poor Retrieval Strategies: Children oXen have limited knowledge of appropriate
retrieval strategies and may need to be prompted to use them effec4vely.
• Selec=ve Retrieval: Children may not be aware of what is relevant and might
withhold informa4on either because they don't understand its importance or
because they are censoring the informa4on.
• Knowledge Limita=ons: Children's limited world knowledge may hinder both the
ini4al encoding of the memory and later retrieval.

Limita-ons in language ability can affect child witness tes4mony in several ways:
• Vocabulary and Grammar: Children's limited vocabulary and understanding of
grammar can affect how they understand ques4ons posed to them and how they
express what they witnessed.
• Comprehension of Complex Sentences: Younger children may struggle to understand
complex sentences, such as those with embedded clauses or phrases, which can lead
to confusion or misinterpreta4on when they are being interviewed.

Social and emo-onal factors that can affect child witness tes4mony include:
• Perceived Expecta=ons: Children may guess or alter their tes4mony based on what
they think the interviewer expects to hear.
• Embarrassment or Pressure: Feelings of embarrassment or pressure not to disclose
certain informa4on, especially if it's sensi4ve or distressing, can lead children to omit
details.
• Understanding of Adult Behaviour: Children's lack of knowledge about appropriate
adult behaviour can affect their ability to interpret and report on witnessed events.

Sugges-bility is a significant concern in child witness tes4mony. It can be influenced by:

• Direct Sugges=on: Children may be influenced by direct sugges4ons or leading
ques4ons, especially if repeated.
• Source Monitoring Ability: Younger children have difficulty dis4nguishing between
their memories and what they have been told, which can lead to the incorpora4on of
misinforma4on into their recall.
• Pressure by Adult Ques=oners: Children may comply with an interviewer's
sugges4ons due to explicit or implicit pressure.

The best prac-ce techniques for interviewing child witnesses include:

• Use of Free Recall: Encouraging children to narrate what they remember without
interrup4on or leading ques4ons.
• Open-Ended Ques=ons: Asking broad, open-ended ques4ons that allow children to
provide informa4on without being influenced by the specifics of the ques4on.
• Avoidance of Leading Ques=ons: Steering clear of ques4ons that suggest a par4cular
answer or that are closed (yes/no answers).
 • Suppor=ve Interview Environment: Crea4ng an interview environment where
children feel safe and supported and are reassured that it is okay to say "I don’t
know" or to correct the interviewer.
• NICHD Protocol: Following structured protocols, such as the NICHD protocol, which is
designed to maximize accuracy and minimize sugges4bility in child witness
interviews.

Repeated events (L7)

In psychology research, a "repeated event" is defined as:
• An event of the same type that has been experienced mul4ple 4mes by an individual.
• Each occurrence shares a common underlying structure or theme.
• Examples include situa4ons where an individual is repeatedly vic4mized, such as in
cases of domes4c violence, child sexual abuse, stalking, harassment, or bullying.
• These events are oXen interconnected, with each episode influencing or being
related to the others

Research Methodology:
• Witnesses are divided into groups to represent single-event, repeated-event, and
fabricated-event scenarios.
• Their recollec4ons are recorded and later evaluated by new par4cipants for
credibility.

Findings on Credibility:
• Repeated event witnesses are rated lower in honesty, cogni4ve competence, and
overall credibility compared to single-event witnesses.
• They are perceived as less honest than both single-event and fabricated-event
witnesses.
• Repeated event witnesses are seen as less cogni4vely competent than individuals
who fabricate events.

Research Implica-ons:
There is oXen scep4cism regarding the truthfulness of allega4ons from repeated event
witnesses.
Genuine vic4ms of repeated events may face challenges due to percep4ons that their
memories are less credible.
Memory research suggests that repeated event witnesses might struggle with par4cularizing
specific instances of repeated occurrences.

Improving Witness Credibility:

Implemen4ng immediate recall tools shortly aXer an event can aid memory reten4on and
accuracy.
Expert tes4mony might help to raise the perceived honesty and cogni4ve competence of
repeated-event witnesses.
Ques4oning techniques and expert witnesses can improve the accounts and percep4ons of
repeated event witnesses.
Memory for Repeated Events:
Witnesses to repeated stressful events report fewer correct details than single-event
witnesses.
They tend to make more internal intrusion errors, mixing details from different occurrences
of the repeated event.
For non-stressful events, repeated event witnesses made fewer external intrusion errors
than the single-event group.

Theories that can be used to explain memory for repeated events include:
1. Fuzzy-Trace Theory: This theory dis4nguishes between two types of memory
representa4ons: "gist" and "verba-m." Gist memory refers to the overall meaning
and paHern of events, which is thought to be preserved over longer periods.
Verba-m memory refers to the specific details and exact features of an event. The
theory suggests that as 4me passes, verba4m memory fades faster than gist
memory.
2. Source Monitoring Theory: This theory involves the process of determining the
origins of our memories. It suggests that when we remember something, we don’t
only recall the content but also where we encountered the informa4on. For repeated
events, a person may remember the details (content) across several instances but
may struggle to pinpoint the specific source of a par4cular memory detail within
these repeated events, leading to errors known as "internal intrusions."

The implica4ons of this research are profound, especially in legal contexts where
par4culariza4on of an event (i.e., recalling specific informa4on about a single instance of a
repeated event) is crucial. Compared to a single-event memory, a repeated event memory
may have:
• Fewer correct details for any given specific event
• Difficulty in accurately determining when specific details occurred
• A lower likelihood of making up random details that did not occur at all

This research challenges the credibility of witnesses recoun4ng repeated events because
their memory reports might be perceived as less reliable due to the nature of how repeated
events are encoded and remembered. These witnesses might be more vulnerable to
sugges4bility and memory distor4ons, affec4ng their perceived honesty and cogni4ve
competence.
Understanding these theories and their implica4ons can guide legal professionals and
psychologists in developing beHer techniques for interviewing witnesses and evalua4ng
their tes4mony, especially in cases of repeated events like domes4c violence, bullying, or
sexual harassment. It also underscores the need for specialized training and protocols to
accurately elicit and assess repeated event memories.

DecepKon (L8)
Decep4on is defined as:
• A successful or unsuccessful deliberate aHempt, without forewarning, to create in
another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue (Vrij, 2000).
Types of lies, reasons to lie, and frequency of lying include:
• Types of Lies: Outright lies, exaggera4ons, and subtle lies (DePaulo et al., 1996).
• Reasons to Lie: To gain a personal advantage, to avoid punishment, to make a
posi4ve impression, to protect oneself from embarrassment/disapproval, and for the
sake of a social rela4onship (Vrij, 2000).
• Frequency of Lying: College students are reported to tell 2 lies/day, while community
members tell 1 lie/day. The frequency of lying depends on the personality and
gender of the liars, the situa4on in which the lie is told, and the people to whom the
lie is told (Vrij, 2000).
Behavioural and content indicators include:
• Behavioural Indicators: These are verbal and nonverbal cues that may be more likely
to occur during decep4on, depending on the emo4on evoked, cogni4ve and content
complexity, and aHempted behavioural control. Theories behind these indicators
include Ekman’s emo4onal leakage theory and Zuckerman’s four-factor theory.
• Content Indicators: These involve examining the content of the story through
techniques like Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) and Criteria-based Content
Analysis (CBCA). The presence of certain criteria strengthens the hypothesis that the
account is based on genuine experience.

Challenges in detec4ng decep4on:

• Difficulty in Par=culariza=on: It can be difficult to isolate specific behavioural or
content indicators that reliably dis4nguish between truth and decep4on.
• Variability in Individual Behaviour: There is considerable varia4on in how individuals
express decep4on, influenced by their personality, the context, and cultural factors.
• Absence of Clear-cut Indicators: No defini4ve set of behaviours or content elements
can accurately indicate decep4on, making it challenging to develop reliable detec4on
methods.

VicKms of Crime 1- GaslighKng (L9)

VicKms of Crime 2 (L10)

Demographics of Crime Vic=ms:
• Homicide and related offences: 70% male vic4ms, 63% incidents at residen4al
loca4ons.
• Sexual assault (2021): 86% female vic4ms, 67% incidents at residen4al
loca4ons, 37% family/domes4c violence (FDV) related.
• Robbery (2021): 75% male vic4ms, 34% incidents on streets/footpaths, 48%
armed robberies.
2. Vic=ms' Fear of Crime:
• Groups at the highest risk of becoming crime vic4ms are not necessarily those
with the greatest fear.
• Elderly and women report the highest fear, while young males report the
least.
• Public ac4vi4es like catching the train are among the most feared.
 • People manage fear through increased security measures, avoiding
unpredictable strangers, going out in groups, and staying alert.
3. Historical View of Vic=ms:
• Early Middle Ages: Vic4ms or their survivors played a central role in trials and
sentencing.
• The 'Golden age' of the vic4m ended with monarchs centralizing jus4ce.
• The 1960s-1970s saw cri4cism of the government for offering liHle to no
support to vic4ms.
• The concept of "Blaming the vic4m" was recognized and popularized in the
1970s.
4. Blaming the Vic=m and Secondary Vic=miza=on:
• Fundamental AHribu4on Error: Overes4ma4ng personal disposi4on and
underes4ma4ng the situa4on's impact in analyzing behavior.
• Just-World Hypothesis: Belief in a fair world where people get what they
deserve.
• Secondary vic4miza4on occurs due to the criminal jus4ce system's failures,
like trial delays, fear of retalia4on, trauma of tes4fying, and media exposure.
5. Concerns of Vic=ms and Responses:
• Vic4ms have concerns about slow court processes, inadequate offender
punishment, and lack of vic4m care.
• Responses include compensa4on, par4cipa4on in proceedings, legisla4ve
changes for vic4m rights, and restora4ve jus4ce approaches.
6. Psychological Effects of Vic=misa=on:
• Vic4ms may develop Acute Stress Disorder (ASD) or Post-Trauma4c Stress
Disorder (PTSD).
• Stockholm Syndrome is a phenomenon where hostages develop empathy for
their captors.
• The psychological impact includes changes in arousal, behavior, and the
development of cogni4ve biases like perceiving the world as dangerous.
• Trauma-informed services aim to address these effects through safety, trust,
collabora4on, choice, empowerment, and respect for diversity.
7. Help for Vic=ms of Crime:
• Brief Cogni4ve Behavioural Interven4on (B-CBT) and other PTSD interven4ons
have been developed.
• Trauma-informed care principles focus on safety, trustworthiness, choice,
collabora4on, empowerment, and respect for diversity.