Department of Criminal Justice, Kutztown University.
J Pers Assess. 2020 Mar-Apr;102(2):223-230. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2018.1508469. Epub 2018 Sep 21.
The goal of this study was to determine whether measures of proactive and reactive criminal thinking display divergent patterns of correlation with outside criteria. A sample of 3,039 male medium-security federal prisoners who completed the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) served as participants in this study. Despite being highly correlated ( = .75), the PICTS proactive and reactive scales displayed divergent patterns of correlation with the eight risk/outcome measures. As predicted, the proactive scale corresponded with lower criminal risk, older age of first conviction, and decreased odds of prior substance misuse and mental illness, whereas the reactive scale corresponded with higher criminal risk, earlier age of first conviction, greater odds of prior substance misuse and mental illness, and more evidence of subsequent arrest. Contrary to predictions, the proactive scale was associated with increased rather than decreased commission of disciplinary infractions in prison. When participants with elevated proactive scores were compared to participants with elevated reactive scores on the eight risk/outcome variables, the results revealed that the two profiles were moderately negatively correlated. Thus, although proactive criminal thinking is associated with below-average criminal risk and below-average future negative outcomes, reactive criminal thinking does just the opposite.
本研究旨在确定主动和被动犯罪思维的衡量标准与外部标准的相关性是否存在差异。该研究的参与者是 3039 名完成《犯罪思维方式心理评估》(PICTS)的男性中度安全联邦囚犯。尽管这两个量表高度相关(r=0.75),但它们与八种风险/结果测量的相关性存在差异。正如预测的那样,主动量表与较低的犯罪风险、较晚的首次定罪年龄、较少的药物滥用和精神疾病史相关,而被动量表与较高的犯罪风险、较早的首次定罪年龄、更多的药物滥用和精神疾病史、以及更多的后续逮捕证据相关。与预测相反,主动量表与监狱中纪律违规行为的增加而不是减少有关。当将高主动得分的参与者与高被动得分的参与者在八项风险/结果变量上进行比较时,结果表明这两种特征呈中度负相关。因此,尽管主动犯罪思维与平均犯罪风险和平均未来负面结果相关,但被动犯罪思维则恰恰相反。