Applying CBT to the Criminal Thought Process

Walters, Glenn D.

doi:10.1002/9781118589878.ch6

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cognitive restructuring techniques utilized and published by forensic psychologists are imported from general clinical psychology and include rational reasoning techniques such as Socratic questioning, psychoeducation, thought records, pros and cons analyses (i.e., propositional level processing; Dean et al, 2007;Marshall et al, 2011: Kroner & Morgan, 2014Seeler, Freeman, DiGiuseppe, & Mitchell, 2014) as well as therapeutic approaches and techniques aimed at the deep experiential level such as role play, behavioral rehearsal (i.e., implicational level processing; Dean et al, 2007;Mann & Shingler, 2006;Marshall et al, 2011;Ross & Ross, 1995;Walters, 2014), and schema therapy (Drake, Ward, Nathan, & Lee, 2001;Keulen-de Vos, Bernstein, & Arntz, 2014;Mann & Shingler, 2006). Below, I briefly outline each of these key therapeutic approaches and strategies.…”

Section: Current Techniques For Adapting Offense-supportive Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychologists should use the behavioral experiment to facilitate cognitive change in clients who have offended

Gannon

2016

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. EnquiriesFor any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: researchsupport@kent.ac.uk If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Gannon, Theresa A. (2016) examine the BE as a treatment technique and argue that widespread implementation of the BE could significantly improve CBT-based forensic psychological practice. I examine contemporary conceptualizations of cognition within forensic psychology as well as commonly used treatment techniques for instilling cognitive change. This analysis highlights that although some experiential techniques are used in forensic psychology to facilitate cognitive change (e.g., schema therapy), there is still a key focus on rational reasoning techniques such as Socratic questioning, psychoeducation, and thought monitoring. In this paper, I argue that current methods of instigating cognitive change within offending populations neglect key strategies necessary to generate convincing cognitive change. I offer the BE as a convincing and effective technique for facilitating change in problematic offender cognition at both the rational and experiential level. I offer several recommendations for how to design and incorporate BEs into forensic practice and provide examples of BE use in forensic settings. Citation for published version

show abstract

Section: Current Techniques For Adapting Offense-supportive Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychologists should use the behavioral experiment to facilitate cognitive change in clients who have offended

Gannon

2016

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Criminal thinking is one of the “Big Four” risk factors for engaging in criminal activity (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Not surprisingly, criminal thinking has been a focus of both research and treatment among individuals involved in the criminal justice (CJ) system, as it is a dynamic factor that can be altered to reduce an individual’s criminal risk (Walters, 2014). To aid assessment and treatment efforts, Walters (1990) created the 80-item Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) to assess criminal thinking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Preliminary Investigation of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles–Layperson Edition–Short Form

Mitchell

Bartholomew

Morgan³

et al. 2017

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) is commonly used to assess criminal thinking (thoughts related to criminal behavior); however, the item wording may not be an appropriate assessment for individuals without a criminal history (laypersons) who still may be at risk of engaging in crime. Therefore, a layperson version of the PICTS may more accurately assess criminal thinking among this group. This study examined the psychometric properties of the PICTS–Layperson–Short Form (PICTS-L-SF). Participants were 619 college students without a criminal justice involvement history. Analyses of the PICTS-L-SF indicated that a bifactor model fit the data better than a one- and two-factor model (general criminal thinking; proactive and reactive criminal thinking). Results provide strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the PICTS-L-SF, suggesting it can be used with individuals who are not criminal justice involved to assess criminal thinking.

show abstract

“…Criminal thinking, both proactive and reactive, reflects the criminal thought process, and helps in exploring how the criminal lifestyle fosters crime [ 28 ]. Rather than there being a unidirectional route of influence between criminal thinking and criminal activity, the two interact back and forth, as people with criminal, quasi-criminal, or criminal-like lifestyles might be prone to develop a pattern of criminal thinking, and subsequently, criminal thinking results in a continued exposure to enactment of criminal behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proactive Criminal Thinking and Restrictive Deterrence: A Pathway to Future Offending and Sanction Avoidance

Xin

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived crime benefit and criminal thinking are essential factors in predicting future offending. However, less is known about how the interaction of the two influences individuals’ perception and cognition of crime. This study explores whether proactive criminal thinking mediates the effect of perceived crime benefit, and tests whether restrictive deterrence influences these pathways. Using a drug dealer sample that was drawn from the Second RAND Inmate Survey, this paper finds that proactive criminal thinking significantly mediates the effect of perceived crime benefit on future offending, criminal self-efficacy, and future sanction avoidance. Mediation pathways are enhanced when taking a heterogeneous crime strategy as a moderator, but only in the experienced drug dealer subsample. These results suggest that proactive criminal thinking is a route for channeling the effects of perceived crime benefit, and an amplifier for bringing restrictive deterrence into play. Both roles apply to experienced offenders rather than less-experienced offenders. Integrating restrictive deterrence with individuals’ perception and cognition of crime is a meaningful attempt to fit restrictive deterrence into a broader theoretical map.

show abstract

Applying CBT to the Criminal Thought Process

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Forensic psychologists should use the behavioral experiment to facilitate cognitive change in clients who have offended

Forensic psychologists should use the behavioral experiment to facilitate cognitive change in clients who have offended

A Preliminary Investigation of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles–Layperson Edition–Short Form

Proactive Criminal Thinking and Restrictive Deterrence: A Pathway to Future Offending and Sanction Avoidance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About