The Psychology of Criminal Behavior

Bartol, Curt R.

doi:10.1177/0093854894021003006

Cited by 19 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Study findings of personal factors demonstrated that experiencing early physical abuse, having substance use problems, and displaying anger problems were significantly associated with increased odds of engaging in repeated acts of workplace violence. These results are consistent with our hypothesis and with findings from studies examining the developmental and personal histories of violent individuals more broadly (Bartol & Bartol, 2014; Cornell et al, 1999; Fergusson et al, 2005; Gmel & Rehm, 2003; Lansford et al, 2007; Loeber & Hay, 1997; Moffitt, 1993; Parker & Auerhahn, 1998; Quinsey, Skilling, Lalumière, & Craig, 2004; Rossow, Pape, & Wichstrøm, 1999). Among all personal factors, anger was the only personal factor that emerged as a predictor of repeated workplace violence.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Violence at work: An examination of aggressive, violent, and repeatedly violent employees.

Geck¹,

Grimbos²,

Siu³

et al. 2017

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data were examined from clinical files of 306 adult male employees referred by their employer for a mental health and risk assessment after a recent workplace altercation (the index incident) involving either an observed aggressive (e.g., verbal outburst or property damage) or violent (e.g., assault or attempted assault) act directed at a fellow employee. Personal and work-related factors were examined across two comparisons to better understand the factors that distinguished aggressive, violent, and repeatedly violent employees. The first comparison distinguished 219 (72%) employees who were aggressive from 87 (28%) who were violent during their index incident. Results showed that violent employees were more likely to be in a common-law or married relationship and more likely to have previous physical workplace incidents, but were less likely to have a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) Axis I diagnosis and a history of threats at the workplace. The second comparison distinguished 61 (67%) employees who were violent once (nonrepeaters) from 30 (33%) employees who were violent more than once (repeaters). Employees who engaged in repeated violence were found more likely to have experienced early physical abuse, have substance use problems and anger problems, and were more likely to have a DSM Axis II diagnosis. They were also more likely to have problematic workplace histories characterized by threats, intoxication, and suspensions and/or terminations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Violence at work: An examination of aggressive, violent, and repeatedly violent employees.

Geck¹,

Grimbos²,

Siu³

et al. 2017

Journal of Threat Assessment and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerning the time component, it is an issue that may cause some controversy. Researchers mostly state that ‘they range from days to weeks or months’ (Bartol, 1994; Geberth, 2006; Osborn & Salfati, 2015), others argue (Barnett et al, 1989) that they found, in relation to the intervals between crimes, classifying two types of offenders: the ‘frequent’ had a daily probability between 1 and 320 of committing a crime, while the ‘occasional’ had a 1 in 913 daily chance of committing a crime. Additionally, other studies have shown that frequent or high‐rate offenders tend to experience relatively short intervals of time before relapsing (Piquero et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning the time component, it is an issue that may cause some controversy. Researchers mostly state that 'they range from days to weeks or months' (Bartol, 1994;Geberth, 2006;Osborn & Salfati, 2015), others argue (Barnett et al, 1989) that they found, in relation to the intervals between crimes, classifying two types of offenders:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The application of Newton and Swoope's geographical profile to serial killers

Barreda

2020

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quite possibly, the first application of geographic analysis to identify and characterise the spatial behaviour of the offender concerning the crime scene was developed in 1980 by Milton Newton. Although previous studies have used Newton and Swoope's geoforensic process (Kent, 2009, Essays on the integration of anisotropic landscapes within contemporary geographic profiling models [LSU doctoral dissertations]; Leitner et al., 2007, Police Practice and Research, 8[4], 359–370) to verify the effectiveness of the algorithm, there are, to our knowledge, no investigations that have validated the procedure with cases of serial murderers. The main objective of the study is to analyse a sample of 41 serial killers with a minimum number of six crimes and to evaluate the method proposed by Newton (1988, Geographical discovery of the residence of an unknown dispersing localized serial murder). The results confirm only Newton's first assumption in which after the fifth crime in the series, the estimated ‘haven’ is close to the actual ‘haven’, ruling out that the search area becomes progressively smaller and that the ‘haven’ is located in the search area.

show abstract

“…In contrast, bomb threats in Japan were most frequently made against banks on a weekday, during the daytime. Bomb threats were mostly accompanied with actual bombings in the US and Finland (Bartol & Bartol, 2006;Häkkänen, 2006), whereas most offenders in Japan made a threat but did not actually plant a bomb. First, the circumstances differ among the countries; for example, in Japan, it is more diffi cult for offenders to get a bomb, therefore, there may be few actual bombings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%