Criminal thinking, certainty of apprehension, and the decision to engage in antisocial behavior: A study of day treatment program clients.
certainty of apprehension
criminal decision-making
proactive criminal thinking
repeated measures analysis of covariance
Journal
Journal of forensic sciences
ISSN: 1556-4029
Titre abrégé: J Forensic Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375370
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2021
Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
20
09
2020
revised:
29
10
2020
accepted:
03
11
2020
pubmed:
24
11
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
23
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to determine whether criminal thinking moderates the relationship between certainty of apprehension (50%, 10%, 1%) and likelihood of engaging in three antisocial hypothetical acts (cheating on a test, property damage, and driving drunk). Proactive criminal thinking (PCT), a manifestation of the planned, calculated, amoral, and instrumental features of antisocial cognition, and reactive criminal thinking (RCT), a reflection of the impulsive, irresponsible, reckless, and emotional aspects of antisocial cognition, served as between-subjects variables in this study. A repeated measures analysis of covariance performed on 67 (43 males, 24 females) day treatment program clients revealed that the likelihood of engaging in antisocial behavior was disproportionately elevated when participants were high in PCT and low in certainty. These results indicate that as the certainty of apprehension goes down, persons with elevated levels of proactive criminal thinking are disproportionately inclined to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33227155
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14633
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
636-645Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
Beccaria C. On crimes and punishments (trans. R. Davies). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1995/1764. p. 7-113.
Bentham J. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Whithorn, Scotland: Anodos Books; 2019/1780. p. 7-63.
Nagin DS. Deterrence in the twenty-first century. In: Tonry M, editor. Crime and justice in America: 1975-2025. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2013. p. 199-264.
Paternoster R. How much do we know about criminal deterrence? J Crim Law Crim. 2010;100(3):765-823. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315258089-2.
Cornish DB, Clarke RV. Introduction. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV, editors. The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer; 1985. p. 1-16.
Cohen L, Felson M. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev. 1979;44(4):588-608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589.
De Haan W, Vos J. A crying shame: The over-rationalized conception of man in the rational choice perspective. Theor Criminol. 2003;7(1):29-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480603007001199.
Hayward K. Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Soc Policy Admin. 2007;41(3):232-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00550.x.
Honkatukia P, Nyqvist L, Poso T. Violence from within the reform school. Youth Violence Juv Justice. 2006;4:328-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006292663.
Van Gelder JL, Reynald D, Elffers H. Anticipated emotions and immediate affect in criminal decision-making: From shame to anger. In: Van Gelder JL, Elffers H, Reynald D, Nagin D, editors. Affect and cognition in criminal decision-making. London, England: Routledge; 2014. p. 161-78.
Wortley R. Rational choice and offender decision-making: Lessons from the cognitive sciences. In: Leclerc B, Wortley R, editors. Cognition and crime: Offender decision-making and script analysis. London, England: Routledge; 2014. p. 237-52.
Walters GD. Modelling the criminal lifestyle: Theorizing at the edge of chaos. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2017. p. 33-40.
Walters GD. The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles: Part I. Reliability and preliminary validity. Crim Justice Behav. 1995;22:307-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854895022004007.
Walters GD, Hagman BT, Cohn AM. Toward a hierarchical model of criminal thinking: Evidence from item response theory and confirmatory factor analysis. Psychol Assess. 2011;23:925-36. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024017.
Walters GD, Morgan RD. Certainty of punishment and criminal thinking: Do the rational and non-rational parameters of a student’s decision to cheat on an exam interact? J Crim Just Educ. 2019;30:276-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2018.1488982.
Walters GD, Morgan RD, Scanlon F. The moderating effect of criminal thinking on certainty of apprehension in decisions to engage in antisocial behavior: replication and extension. J Forensic Sci. 2019;64(3):805-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13905.
Finger MS, Rand KL. Addressing validity concerns in clinical psychology research. In: Roberts MC, Ilardi SS, editors. Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2005. p. 13-30.
Walters GD. Criminal thinking as a moderator of the perceived certainty-offending relationship: age variations. Psychol Crime Law. 2019;26(3):267-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1652749.
Walters GD. The psychological inventory of criminal thinking style (PICTS): A review and meta-analysis. Assessment. 2002;9:283-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191102009003007.
Maruna S, Copes H. What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime Justice. 2005;32:221-320. https://doi.org/10.1086/655355.
Sykes GM, Matza D. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. Am Sociol Rev. 1957;22:664-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195.
Seeler L, Freeman A, DiGiuseppe R, Mitchell D. Traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy model for antisocial patterns. In: Tafrate RC, Mitchell D, editors. Forensic CBT: A handbook for clinical practice. Chichester, England: Wiley; 2014. p. 15-42.
Pickett JT. Using behavioral economics to advance deterrence research and improve crime policy: Some illustrative experiments. Crime Delinquency. 2018;64:1636-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718763136.
Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Chalfin A, Wilson T. Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual-level panel data. Criminology. 2016;54:86-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12097.
Felson M. Routine activities and transnational crime. In: Natarajan M, editor. International and transnational crime and justice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2019. p. 229-34.
Biggam FH, Power KG. A controlled, problem-solving group-based intervention with vulnerable incarcerated young offenders. Int J Offender Ther. 2002;46:678-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x02238162.
Kazdin AE, Siegel TC, Bass D. Cognitive problem-solving skills training and parent management training in the treatment of antisocial behavior in children. J Consult Clin Psych. 1992;60:733-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.60.5.733.
Lipsey MW, Landenberger NA, Wilson SJ. Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Syst Rev. 2007;3(1):1-27. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2007.6.
Walters GD. Effect of a brief cognitive behavioural intervention on criminal thinking and prison misconduct in male inmates: Variable-oriented and person-oriented analyses. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2017;27(5):457-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2028.
Dülmer H. The factorial survey: Design selection and its impact on reliability and internal validity. Sociol Method Res. 2015;44:1-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115582269.