Palmer and Hollin (2004)To test the effectiveness

of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal

Thinking Styles (PICTS) with a sample of

imprisoned young offenders.

CognitiveSelf-report

Representative population

515 male young offenders (18-22 years)

serving custodial sentences in 6 young

offender institutions in England.

Cross-sectional (snapshot) study

Palmer and Hollin (2004)

Research team of psychologists trained in administration of the

PICTS collected data by individual interview of young offenders who had a variety of

convictions (from driving offences to burglary and

violence).

The PICTS measures the thinking styles associated

with a criminal lifestyle. The scale has good levels of

reliability and validity with adult offenders. The scale

comprised 8 thinking styles measured using a 4 point

Likert scale:

Palmer and Hollin (2004)• Mollification: High scores = tendency to

externalise blame/make excuses

• Cutoff: High scores = low frustration tolerance

• Entitlement: High scores = believing one is entitled to things (can’t distinguish between wants and needs)

• Power Orientation: High scores = need for control and authority over others

• Sentimentality: High scores = unrealistic belief in self as a ‘good person’ despite criminal actions

• Superoptimism: High scores = unrealistic belief that one can avoid negative consequences of criminal behaviour

• Cognitive indolence: High scores = poor critical reasoning and tendency to seek easy answers (shortcuts)

• Discontinuity: High scores = inconsistency in thinking and behaviour

Results:No significant correlations between number of previous convictions and scores on PICTS were found. This contrasts previous research on adults where previous offending behaviour was related to the PICTS scores.Young offenders scored significantly higher than adult offenders on the PICTS scales: cutoff, superoptimism, cognitive indolence and discontinuity.

Palmer and Hollin (2004)

Results offer mixed findings with regards usefulness and

reliability of the PICTS measure of young offenders in England. It was less reliable than it had

been with adults.

Young and adult offenders have different attitudes towards their

criminal activity. The young offenders are likely to be

persistent offenders with fixed attitudes rather than the older

offenders who would have been at different stages of their

offending career.

Evaluation: Debate

Nature/nurture

If offenders have different thought patterns than those who do not break the law then we need to understand why this is the case.We could assume this to be a result of nature – that these young people have been born with a criminal personality. However, the evidence from the studies by Farrington, Akers and Wikstrom provide support for the argument that experiences and relationships with other people shape our beliefs and actions – providing evidence for the nurture side of the debate.

Palmer and Hollin (2004)

Moral development and crime

Kohlberg (1963) developed a theory of moral development that was not applied initially to criminals but which has been subsequently.His theory suggests 3 main levels of development, each with two stages of moral understanding.He believes that:• at first the young child does what is right to avoid punishment• then progresses to want to be good because right is what society expects• finally, the child does what is morally right and in a few cases, does what is right because of principles of justice, equality and sacredness of human life.

His evidence came from a study of 58 boys from Chicago, aged between 7 and 16 years, to whom he gave ten moral dilemmas in 2-hour interviews. He later tried his ideas on samples from other countries, including Britain, Mexico, Taiwan and Turkey. Kohlberg (1963) is criticised for not having girls in the samples (androcentric) and for being ethnocentric. Today, moral dilemmas are used in the treatment of prisoners to try to develop their moral reasoning.

Moral development and crime

In 1993 two-year-old James Bulger was taken from a shopping centre by two ten-year-old boys who later beat him to death. The two boys were tried at ages 11 for murder and were found guilty. During the trial the two boys were asked directly if they knew that it was wrong to take James and to hurt and kill him. This was to establish mensrea, or criminal intent. They were released after 8 years and given new identities. The case was in the news recently after one of the boys (now an adult) was re-imprisoned after being convicted of another serious offence.

Recently two brothers (aged 10 and 12) carried out a brutal attack on a pair of young boys during which they tortured, robbed and sexually assaulted their victims. The brothers were in foster care when they carried out the attack in 2009. In court the brothers admitted grievous bodily harm with intent, robbery and forcing a child to take part in sexual acts. GBH was an alternative to attempted murder, which the brothers denied. The prosecutors accepted the guilty plea to the lesser charge of GBH with intent and were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Recent cases

Do you think these cases should have been tried in the adult judicial system?

Chen and Howitt (2007)

To examine moral reasoning

development among young

offenders

Cognitive/developmental

Self-reportRepresentative sample of young male offenders –

330 aged 12-18 in juvenile correctional institutions in

Taiwan. Representative sample of normal controls – 114 non-offenders from

one junior and 2 senior high school classes.

Snapshot study

Chen and Howitt (2007)

All offender Ps completed a questionnaire about their

criminal history and as a result of the information they

provided, they were classified according to type of offence: violent; theft; drug related.

Both groups of Ps responded to a short form of the

Sociomoral Reflection Measure (SRM-SF).

The SRM-SF is based on Kohlberg’s theory, but it doesn’t use dilemma-based moral situations. The SRM-RF consists of:1. Contract and truth – The importance of

keeping promises and telling the truth2. Affiliation – Whether attachments to

people make a difference in moral decision making

3. Life – The importance of saving a life4. Property and Law – Moral judgements

about ownership5. Legal justice – Distinguishing between

legal and moral justice

Chen and Howitt (2007)

Age correlated with moral reasoning development in the control group. There was no correlation between age and moral reasoning score in the offender groups.Drug group had higher moral reasoning than the other offender groups.

The findings confirmed previous findings that moral cognitive development is less advanced in offenders than non-offenders and that less mature moral development is a risk factor for juvenile offending.Drug offenders had the highest moral reasoning of the three offender groups but it wasn’t significant when age was controlled.Those with more developed moral reasoning were less likely to be involved in criminal activity.

Offender groups and controls showed lowest development of moral reasoning for 4 and 5. Life was least developed for controls while second least developed for violent offenders and most developed for theft group and second most developed for drug group.

Evaluation: Debate

Usefulness

This study is useful because it tests a psychological measure developed in the US in a different cultural context. This enables researchers to generalise findings from studies using the SRM-SF.Moral reasoning cognitive developmental delay models were of limited usefulness in differentiating offender types but were good at differentiating offenders from non-offenders.

This research is not ethnocentric because it allows cross-cultural comparisons to be made.

Chen and Howitt (2007)

Social cognition

Social cognition is the way our thoughts are influenced by the presence of others. The dimension of internal versus external attribution can be applied to criminal behaviour. Internal attribution refers to people attributing the cause of their behaviour to factors located within them. External attribution happens when blame is shifted to social and environmental factors.Gudjonsson (2002) sees a second dimension as important – the freedom to act, which he describes as ‘mental element’ attribution.

Do you think these cases should have been tried in the adult judicial system?

Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2007)

To examine the relationship between

motivation for offending and

personality, anger problems and

attitudes towards offending

Cognitive/individual

differences

Self-report

128 males aged 15-21 from Reykjavic, Iceland, who hade been given a conditional discharge after a guilty plea. Most of the offences were property offences, followed by car crimes, assault and criminal damage.

Ps were attending sessions with probation officer after pleading guilty to an offence. Each P was asked if he wanted to take part in the study. Psychological scales were administered – Offending Motivation Questionnaire (OMQ), Gudjonsson Compliance Scale, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and EysenckImpulsivity Scale (EIS), NovacoAnger Scale and Blame Attribution Inventory.

Snapshot study

Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2007)

Measure: The Offending Motivation Questionnaire (OMQ) (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 2004): A 22 item questionnaire that measures the motivation behind offending which comprises 4 main factors:1. Compliance – Items relating to the offence being committed in order to please a

peer or because they felt pressured into it (e.g. Gave into pressure from peers)2. Excitement – Items indicating that the main motive for the offence was fun or

excitement (e.g. Did it for excitement)3. Provocation – Items involving taking revenge, losing control, and self-defence

(e.g. To take revenge on somebody)4. Financial – Items reflecting a financial or monetary need as the explanation for

the offence (e.g. in hope of financial gain)

The Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (Gudjonsson 1997): A scale comprising eagerness to please and conflict avoidance. This is a 20 item scale rated with true or false measuring the tendency to go along with requests made by others in order to avoid conflict. Higher score = more compliant.

Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2007)

Measure: The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck and Eysenck 1975): A much tested personality questionnaire that measures three main ‘super-factor’ personality dimensions (psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism).

The Eysenck Impulsivity, Venturesomeness and Empathy Scale (Eysenck and Eysenck 1991): A 54 item questionnaire included because personality traits such as impulsivity may be a better predictor of delinquency than the 3 super-factors.

The Novaco Anger Scale (Novaco, 1994): A 2-part scale measuring anger reactions. Part A contains items in 3 domains: cognitive, arousal and behavioural. Part B consist of items providing an index of anger intensity in potentially anger provoking situations.

The Blame Attribution Inventory: A 42-item inventory, with a true-false format, measuring how offenders attribute blame for a specific criminal act. It comprises 3 subscales: External Attribution (blaming provocation and society), Mental Element Attribution (blaming mental factors such as poor self-control) and Guilty Feeling.

Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2007)

Results:103 out of 120 respondents (86%) committed offence in company of others. Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson concluded that motivation for offending must consider peer influence and pressure.

Highest means scores on OMQ were for excitement and financial motives. 38% said they did not think about the consequences and 36% were very confident that they would get away with the offence.

The researchers present the argument that there are individual differences in offending motivation factors and that these relate to personality variables.

Discussion:Compliant disposition is related to claims of being pressured into crime, or trying to impress peers by committing the crime.Perceived peer pressure can encourage youths to offend.Excitement was the single most important motive for youth offending.Anger was also an important factor in offending motivation.

Class activity

Research indicates that young people sometimes seem to become involved in petty

crime because they are bored or crave excitement.

Working in pairs can you plan a scheme that could be introduced in your area that might

help people of your age channel this desire for excitement in a safer direction?