犯罪思维作为一个双极维度结构:测试PICTS主动和被动犯罪思维量表的风险促进状态。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-14 DOI:10.1037/pas0001277
Glenn D Walters
{"title":"犯罪思维作为一个双极维度结构:测试PICTS主动和被动犯罪思维量表的风险促进状态。","authors":"Glenn D Walters","doi":"10.1037/pas0001277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study sought to assess whether two scales from a criminal thinking inventory displayed bipolar properties such that high scores on these scales reflect a risk effect and low scores a promotive effect. To test this hypothesis, the proactive criminal thinking (PCT) and reactive criminal thinking (RCT) scales from the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) were organized into three categories-top 25% of scores (high group), the middle 50% of scores (intermediate group), and bottom 25% of scores (low group)-and crossed with preincarceration (prior convictions and age at first conviction), peri-incarceration (total and aggressive institutional infractions), and postincarceration (revocation and rearrest) outcome indicators. Participants for this study were 3,039 male inmates who completed the PICTS while confined in a medium-security federal prison. Results showed that the PCT and RCT each achieved a mixed (risk and promotive) effect for four out of six outcomes. Of the four unipolar effects, PCT achieved a promotive effect but not a risk effect for the two preincarceration outcomes, whereas RCT produced a risk but not promotive effect for the two postincarceration outcomes. These results provide support for the notion that PCT and RCT are primarily bipolar dimensional constructs in which high scores are associated with negative criminal justice outcomes and low scores with positive criminal justice outcomes, although there may be unipolar aspects to each scale as well. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criminal thinking as a bipolar dimensional construct: Testing the risk-promotive status of the PICTS proactive and reactive criminal thinking scales.\",\"authors\":\"Glenn D Walters\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study sought to assess whether two scales from a criminal thinking inventory displayed bipolar properties such that high scores on these scales reflect a risk effect and low scores a promotive effect. To test this hypothesis, the proactive criminal thinking (PCT) and reactive criminal thinking (RCT) scales from the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) were organized into three categories-top 25% of scores (high group), the middle 50% of scores (intermediate group), and bottom 25% of scores (low group)-and crossed with preincarceration (prior convictions and age at first conviction), peri-incarceration (total and aggressive institutional infractions), and postincarceration (revocation and rearrest) outcome indicators. Participants for this study were 3,039 male inmates who completed the PICTS while confined in a medium-security federal prison. Results showed that the PCT and RCT each achieved a mixed (risk and promotive) effect for four out of six outcomes. Of the four unipolar effects, PCT achieved a promotive effect but not a risk effect for the two preincarceration outcomes, whereas RCT produced a risk but not promotive effect for the two postincarceration outcomes. These results provide support for the notion that PCT and RCT are primarily bipolar dimensional constructs in which high scores are associated with negative criminal justice outcomes and low scores with positive criminal justice outcomes, although there may be unipolar aspects to each scale as well. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001277\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001277","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究试图评估犯罪思维量表的两个量表是否显示出双相特征,即在这些量表上得分高反映风险效应,得分低反映促进效应。为了验证这一假设,我们将犯罪思维方式心理量表(PICTS)中的主动性犯罪思维(PCT)和反应性犯罪思维(RCT)量表分为三类——得分最高的25%(高组)、得分中间的50%(中间组)和得分最低的25%(低组)——并与监禁前(前科和首次定罪年龄)、监禁期间(全面和侵略性的机构违规)、监禁前(监禁前)和监禁前(监禁前)相交叉。以及监禁后(撤销和再逮捕)的结果指标。这项研究的参与者是3039名男性囚犯,他们在中等安全级别的联邦监狱完成了PICTS。结果显示,PCT和RCT在6个结果中的4个结果中都达到了混合(风险和促进)效果。在四种单极效应中,PCT对监禁前的两种结果产生了促进效应,但没有风险效应,而RCT对监禁后的两种结果产生了风险效应,但没有促进效应。这些结果为PCT和RCT主要是双极性维度结构的概念提供了支持,其中高分与消极的刑事司法结果相关,低分与积极的刑事司法结果相关,尽管每个量表也可能有单极方面。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Criminal thinking as a bipolar dimensional construct: Testing the risk-promotive status of the PICTS proactive and reactive criminal thinking scales.

This study sought to assess whether two scales from a criminal thinking inventory displayed bipolar properties such that high scores on these scales reflect a risk effect and low scores a promotive effect. To test this hypothesis, the proactive criminal thinking (PCT) and reactive criminal thinking (RCT) scales from the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) were organized into three categories-top 25% of scores (high group), the middle 50% of scores (intermediate group), and bottom 25% of scores (low group)-and crossed with preincarceration (prior convictions and age at first conviction), peri-incarceration (total and aggressive institutional infractions), and postincarceration (revocation and rearrest) outcome indicators. Participants for this study were 3,039 male inmates who completed the PICTS while confined in a medium-security federal prison. Results showed that the PCT and RCT each achieved a mixed (risk and promotive) effect for four out of six outcomes. Of the four unipolar effects, PCT achieved a promotive effect but not a risk effect for the two preincarceration outcomes, whereas RCT produced a risk but not promotive effect for the two postincarceration outcomes. These results provide support for the notion that PCT and RCT are primarily bipolar dimensional constructs in which high scores are associated with negative criminal justice outcomes and low scores with positive criminal justice outcomes, although there may be unipolar aspects to each scale as well. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
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