The Gendered Nature of Criminogenic Thinking Patterns Among Justice-Involved Clients: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Because much of our understanding of criminogenic thinking (antisocial cognitions) has been based on male justice populations, questions remain about the applicability of this construct to justice-involved women. Based on an item-level analysis of 216 justice-involved clients, results of this pilot study suggest that criminogenic thinking in women is relevant, and both overlaps with and diverges from that of men. In fact, the predictive accuracy for rearrest attained with a gender-responsive model developed for women exceeded that of the corresponding model developed for men (area under the curve [AUC] = .86 vs. AUC = .67). We recommend the creation of parsimonious criminogenic thinking instruments that optimize predictive criterion validity. Gender-responsive scales that capture the gender-specificity that exists in criminogenic thinking patterns can assist in (a) optimizing the prediction of reoffending and (b) identifying essential constellations of treatment targets among forensic populations.

Criminal Thinking in a Sample of Men and Women Attending a Multi-Site Batterer Intervention Program

“…As they stated, “[c]riminal thinking is a dynamic cognitive process malleable through an intervention that, if accurately measured, could serve as a crucial component of an individual’s treatment plan” (Sease et al, 2022, p. 145). Second, at the statistical level, studies that focus on gender differences in patterns of criminal cognitions must pay attention to gender differences in response patterns and interpretation of concepts represented in the instruments employed to provide accurate findings (Hubbard & Matthews, 2008; Jones et al, 2021; Vaske et al, 2016; Walters, 2014).…”

“…In addition, women are more likely than men to explain their behaviors within the context of dysfunctional interpersonal relationships. A recent pilot study with 216 admissions to a criminal justice day reporting center in Connecticut (Jones et al, 2021) that used the Criminogenic Thinking Profile (CTP, Mitchell & Tafrate, 2012) found no gender differences in criminal thinking patterns. However, the analysis indicated that male participants exhibited higher tendencies toward justification of criminogenic thinking patterns, while women manifested a greater propensity toward manipulative thinking (Jones et al, 2021).…”

“…This might be explained by the fact that men and women tend to interpret scale items differently, an issue known in statistics as differential item functioning (DIF, Wang, 2008), which has been previously demonstrated in the assessment of gender differences in depressive symptoms (Gelin & Zumbo, 2003) and in IPV behaviors (Wareham et al, 2022). Because of such differences in interpretation, some scholars support a gender-informed approach in the development of criminal thinking measures (Jones at al., 2021). Understanding whether men and women interpret criminal thinking concepts differently is important in survey research that aims to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs.…”

“…While research shows that women’s aggressive behavior often occurs in response to abuse and victimization and is often associated with stressors, such as mental health problems, substance abuse, or economic marginalization (Link & Oser, 2018; Miller, 2005), gender-neutral BIP protocols continue to be the mainstream legal response to domestic violence (Link & Oser, 2018), with programs employing the same curricula for both justice-involved men and women. Because BIPs that employ CBT protocols aim to influence individuals’ criminal thinking patterns, one way to examine the use of gender-neutral programs is to measure differences in criminal thinking patterns by gender (Benson & Harbinson, 2020; Dembo et al, 2007; Folk et al, 2018; Hubbard & Matthews, 2008; Jones et al, 2021; Stevenson et al, 2004; Vaske et al, 2017; Walters, 2014; Walters et al, 1998). In the literature, criminal thinking is defined as “thought content and process conducive to the initiation and maintenance of habitual lawbreaking behavior” (Walters, 2006, p. 88).…”

Changing GEARS: Development and Validation of Gendered Emerging-Adult Rehabilitative Strengths Measures

“…Poor-quality social support can be a powerful risk factor in JI women, positively associated with age of first arrest and offending severity (Staton-Tindall et al, 2007b), in which case women's internal strengths are crucial as buffers against recidivism potential. Similar variables, such as improving self-esteem (emotional appraisal of self-worth) and self-efficacy (practical appraisal of ability to complete tasks), as well as independence (avoiding reliance upon men), are also important promotive internal indicators of strength in at-risk women (Gannon et al, 2010;Hartman et al, 2009;Jones et al, 2021;Van Voorhis et al, 2010). Among protective internal strengths, sobriety is associated with desistance in JI women, especially those living in remote areas who remained in the community (n = 146) compared to those who returned to custody (n = 138; Staton et al, 2019).…”