强奸犯和虐待儿童者在执行更新方面的水平都很低,但在流动推理方面却没有

O. Herrero, Sergio Escorial, R. Colom
{"title":"强奸犯和虐待儿童者在执行更新方面的水平都很低,但在流动推理方面却没有","authors":"O. Herrero, Sergio Escorial, R. Colom","doi":"10.5093/EJPALC2018A10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research findings suggest that sex offenders worse performance than the general population in neuropsychological tests. Nevertheless, moderators such as age of the victim, use of antisocial control groups, and characteristics of administered measures have been highlighted. Here, 100 participants completed a battery of cognitive measures tapping fluid reasoning, verbal ability, and three basic executive processes (inhibition, switching, and updating). They were matched by educational level and classified in four groups: controls, non-sex offenders, rapists, and child abusers. The analyses revealed that rapists showed lower fluid reasoning scores than controls and child abusers. Furthermore, rapists and child abusers showed lower executive updating performance than controls and non-sex offenders. Importantly, child abusers did fluid reasoning scores on a par with controls (controlling for updating differences), but their executive updating performance was equivalent to the one revealed by rapists (controlling for fluid intelligence differences). Implications of these findings for the design of efficient intervention programs are discussed.","PeriodicalId":344860,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context","volume":"119 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rapists and Child Abusers Share Low Levels in Executive Updating, but Do not in Fluid Reasoning\",\"authors\":\"O. Herrero, Sergio Escorial, R. Colom\",\"doi\":\"10.5093/EJPALC2018A10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research findings suggest that sex offenders worse performance than the general population in neuropsychological tests. Nevertheless, moderators such as age of the victim, use of antisocial control groups, and characteristics of administered measures have been highlighted. Here, 100 participants completed a battery of cognitive measures tapping fluid reasoning, verbal ability, and three basic executive processes (inhibition, switching, and updating). They were matched by educational level and classified in four groups: controls, non-sex offenders, rapists, and child abusers. The analyses revealed that rapists showed lower fluid reasoning scores than controls and child abusers. Furthermore, rapists and child abusers showed lower executive updating performance than controls and non-sex offenders. Importantly, child abusers did fluid reasoning scores on a par with controls (controlling for updating differences), but their executive updating performance was equivalent to the one revealed by rapists (controlling for fluid intelligence differences). Implications of these findings for the design of efficient intervention programs are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context\",\"volume\":\"119 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5093/EJPALC2018A10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/EJPALC2018A10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

研究结果表明,性犯罪者在神经心理测试中的表现比普通人差。然而,诸如受害者的年龄、反社会控制组的使用以及管理措施的特征等调节因素已得到强调。在这里,100名参与者完成了一系列认知测量,包括流体推理、语言能力和三个基本执行过程(抑制、转换和更新)。他们按教育程度进行匹配,并分为四组:对照组、非性犯罪者、强奸犯和虐待儿童者。分析显示,强奸犯的流动推理得分低于对照组和虐待儿童者。此外,强奸犯和虐待儿童者的执行更新表现低于对照组和非性犯罪者。重要的是,虐待儿童者的流动推理得分与对照组相当(控制了更新差异),但他们的执行更新表现与强奸犯相当(控制了流动智力差异)。本文讨论了这些发现对设计有效干预方案的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rapists and Child Abusers Share Low Levels in Executive Updating, but Do not in Fluid Reasoning
Research findings suggest that sex offenders worse performance than the general population in neuropsychological tests. Nevertheless, moderators such as age of the victim, use of antisocial control groups, and characteristics of administered measures have been highlighted. Here, 100 participants completed a battery of cognitive measures tapping fluid reasoning, verbal ability, and three basic executive processes (inhibition, switching, and updating). They were matched by educational level and classified in four groups: controls, non-sex offenders, rapists, and child abusers. The analyses revealed that rapists showed lower fluid reasoning scores than controls and child abusers. Furthermore, rapists and child abusers showed lower executive updating performance than controls and non-sex offenders. Importantly, child abusers did fluid reasoning scores on a par with controls (controlling for updating differences), but their executive updating performance was equivalent to the one revealed by rapists (controlling for fluid intelligence differences). Implications of these findings for the design of efficient intervention programs are discussed.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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