Psychopathy and Criminogenic Thinking in Adult Male Prisoners

Abstract

Crime persists in plaguing society, with most crimes committed by repeat offenders. This causes an increase in the incarcerated population and strains correctional systems. Understanding why individuals who have been incarcerated continue to recidivate remains an important focus for investigation. Psychopathic personality traits and criminogenic thinking have both been shown to predict recidivism. However, there is currently little research that focuses on the relationship between these two risk factors, and no prior research has examined this relationship specifically among incarcerated offenders. To address this gap, the present study examined psychopathy and criminogenic thinking among 399 adult males incarcerated in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Results indicated that after controlling for demographic variables, increased primary and secondary psychopathy significantly predicted increased overall and particular subtypes of criminogenic thinking. Implications for addressing psychopathic personality characteristics and criminogenic thinking conjointly in prison-based treatment programming to reduce recidivism are discussed.

Exploring the relationship between psychopathy and criminal thinking: utilising the Tri-PM within a forensic sample

“…Thus, the main aim of the present study was to determine whether the Tri-PM scale (Patrick, 2010) could successfully predict criminal thinking styles within a sample of incarcerated offenders convicted for sexual and acquisitive crimes. Based on the findings of Mandracchia et al (2015), we hypothesised that the Meanness (hypothesis 1) and Disinhibition (hypothesis 2) would significantly predict criminal thinking styles identified by Walters (2001). Because of stark differences in the criminal thinking style measurements used between the present study and Mandracchia et al (2015), we were unable to make confident predictions about each specific criminal thinking style.…”

“…Based on the findings of Mandracchia et al (2015), we hypothesised that the Meanness (hypothesis 1) and Disinhibition (hypothesis 2) would significantly predict criminal thinking styles identified by Walters (2001). Because of stark differences in the criminal thinking style measurements used between the present study and Mandracchia et al (2015), we were unable to make confident predictions about each specific criminal thinking style. As Boldness is a relatively new psychopathy measurement with no research, to the researchers’ knowledge, exploring its association with criminal thinking, no prediction was made in relation to its predictive abilities.…”

“…To date, a few studies have explored the relationship between these two constructs. Mandracchia et al (2015) examined the relationship between psychopathy and criminogenic thinking using the Measure of Offender Thinking Styles-Revised (MOTS-R, Mandracchia and Morgan, 2011) and the Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al , 1995). They found psychopathy to be a strong predictor of criminogenic thinking, with interpersonal and affective psychopathy traits (as identified as factor 1 of the PCL-R) contributing to the prediction of the Control subscale of MOTS-R, whereas psychopathic behaviours (as identified as factor 2 of the PCL-R) contributed to the prediction of Control, Cognitive Immaturity and Egocentrism subscales.…”