Decision-making under risk and theory of mind in adolescent offenders in provisional deprivation of liberty.

IF 2.1 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Rubens José Loureiro, Flavio Takemi Kataoka, Thiago Wendt Viola, Gisele Iesbich Vargas, Breno Sanvicente-Vieira, Rodrigo Grassi-Oliveira, Bruno Kluwe-Schiavon
{"title":"Decision-making under risk and theory of mind in adolescent offenders in provisional deprivation of liberty.","authors":"Rubens José Loureiro,&nbsp;Flavio Takemi Kataoka,&nbsp;Thiago Wendt Viola,&nbsp;Gisele Iesbich Vargas,&nbsp;Breno Sanvicente-Vieira,&nbsp;Rodrigo Grassi-Oliveira,&nbsp;Bruno Kluwe-Schiavon","doi":"10.47626/2237-6089-2020-0155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Delinquent behaviors are risky behaviors that increase during puberty and reach their highest peak in late adolescence. It has been proposed that poor decision-making and theory of mind (ToM) are key cognitive processes implicated with delinquency during adolescence, affecting evaluation of risks and impairing appreciation of social norms. Nevertheless, it is not yet clear whether adolescent offenders who are subjected to provisional deprivation of liberty due to conflict with the law (adolescents in conflict with the law [ACL]) might, in fact, present a specific profile with regard to these cognitive processes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess deliberative decision-making and ToM among adolescents in conflict with the law and adolescents not in conflict with the law.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The sample comprised 62 participants: ACL (n = 29) and a control group (CG) (n = 33). ToM was assessed with the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and decision-making was assessed with the Columbia Card Task (CCT). Substance use, callous-unemotional traits, childhood maltreatment, and intelligence quotient (IQ) were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ACL had more ToM errors for negative mental states in comparison to CG, but not for error rates concerning neutral and positive mental states. With regards to decision-making, our results suggest that ACL group members did not vary their behavior based on the available information and that the risk information had an opposite effect on the number of cards chosen (risk-taking behavior) when compared to CG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings have important implications for development of interventions for these adolescents, suggesting that they tend to learn little from negative outcomes and have reduced capacity to process negative emotions.</p>","PeriodicalId":46305,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy","volume":"44 ","pages":"e20200155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10039722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47626/2237-6089-2020-0155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Delinquent behaviors are risky behaviors that increase during puberty and reach their highest peak in late adolescence. It has been proposed that poor decision-making and theory of mind (ToM) are key cognitive processes implicated with delinquency during adolescence, affecting evaluation of risks and impairing appreciation of social norms. Nevertheless, it is not yet clear whether adolescent offenders who are subjected to provisional deprivation of liberty due to conflict with the law (adolescents in conflict with the law [ACL]) might, in fact, present a specific profile with regard to these cognitive processes.

Objectives: To assess deliberative decision-making and ToM among adolescents in conflict with the law and adolescents not in conflict with the law.

Methods: The sample comprised 62 participants: ACL (n = 29) and a control group (CG) (n = 33). ToM was assessed with the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and decision-making was assessed with the Columbia Card Task (CCT). Substance use, callous-unemotional traits, childhood maltreatment, and intelligence quotient (IQ) were also assessed.

Results: ACL had more ToM errors for negative mental states in comparison to CG, but not for error rates concerning neutral and positive mental states. With regards to decision-making, our results suggest that ACL group members did not vary their behavior based on the available information and that the risk information had an opposite effect on the number of cards chosen (risk-taking behavior) when compared to CG.

Conclusion: These findings have important implications for development of interventions for these adolescents, suggesting that they tend to learn little from negative outcomes and have reduced capacity to process negative emotions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

临时剥夺自由青少年罪犯的风险决策与心理理论。
青少年不良行为是一种危险性行为,在青春期增加,在青春期后期达到高峰。不良的决策和心理理论(ToM)是青少年犯罪的关键认知过程,影响风险评估和社会规范的欣赏。然而,目前尚不清楚的是,由于与法律发生冲突而被暂时剥夺自由的青少年罪犯(与法律发生冲突的青少年[ACL])实际上是否会在这些认知过程中表现出特定的特征。目的:评估违法青少年和不违法青少年的协商决策和ToM行为。方法:共62例受试者:ACL组(n = 29)和CG组(n = 33)。汤姆被评估用读心术测试(RMET)和决策评估用哥伦比亚卡任务(CCT)。药物使用、冷酷无情的特征、童年虐待和智商(IQ)也被评估。结果:ACL对消极心理状态的ToM错误率高于CG,而对中性和积极心理状态的错误率不高于CG。在决策方面,我们的研究结果表明,ACL组成员不会根据可用信息改变他们的行为,并且与CG相比,风险信息对所选卡片的数量(冒险行为)有相反的影响。结论:这些发现对这些青少年的干预措施的发展具有重要意义,表明他们倾向于从负面结果中学习很少,并且处理负面情绪的能力降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信