Bridging Neuropsychology and Forensic Psychology: Executive Function Overlaps With the Central Eight Risk and Need Factors
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X18803818 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Original Manuscript
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Bridging Neuropsychology
Comparative Criminology
2019, Vol. 63(4) 558 –573
and Forensic Psychology:
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Executive Function Overlaps https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18803818
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18803818
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
With the Central Eight Risk
and Need Factors
Jeremy Cheng1, Megan E. O’Connell1,
and J. Stephen Wormith1
Abstract
Recent research expanded theoretical frameworks of criminality to include
biosocial perspectives. This article advances the biosocial integration into traditional
criminological theories by focusing on the potential contribution of executive function
(EF) to Andrews and Bonta’s risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model. EF encompasses
a collection of abilities critical to adaptive human functioning, many of which seem to
underlie criminogenic risk and need factors. Although the assessment of EF can be
elusive, research suggests that offenders with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD)
experience EF deficits. Theoretical analysis on neuropsychological and forensic
concepts suggests that unitary and discrete EF domains underlie the “Central Eight”
criminogenic factors that are related to criminal behavior and, by extension, the RNR
model of forensic assessment and treatment. Research and conceptual limitations
of the current neuropsychological and forensic literature are discussed along with
the limits of our theoretical analysis. A call for more theoretical and applied forensic
neuropsychological research is presented.
Keywords
executive function, antisocial personality disorder, risk assessment, intervention, risk-
need-responsivity
1University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Corresponding Author:
J. Stephen Wormith, Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Dr.,
Saskatchewan, Canada S7N5A5.
Email: s.wormith@usask.ca
Cheng et al.
559
The link between social-cognitive theories of criminality and biosocial perspectives is
an important consideration in forensics (Beaver, Wright, & DeLisi, 2007; Jantz &
Morley, 2018). For example, Newsome and Cullen (2017) applied “biosocial crimi-
nology” to Andrews and Bonta’s risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model, and the RNR
model is arguably the most comprehensive and empirically supported theory of the
origins, assessment, and treatment of antisocial behavior (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). In
response to Newsome and Cullen, we specifically consider the potential for neuropsy-
chological research to advance the RNR model.
Executive function (EF) is a neuropsychological construct that underlies adaptive
human behavior with degrees of impairment associated with psychopathology,
including antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Broadly, ASPD is a complex dis-
order related to a persistent behavioral pattern marked by the disregard for and vio-
lation of the rights of others. Individuals with ASPD commonly find themselves in
conflict with the law, as reflected by the elevated ASPD prevalence within correc-
tional settings (e.g., 44.1%; Beaudette, Power, & Stewart, 2015) compared with the
general North American population (e.g., 1.0%; Lenzenweger, Lane, Loranger, &
Kessler, 2007).
The Central Eight criminogenic risks and needs (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Bonta &
Andrews, 2017) offer a theoretical framework that serves to predict and manage future
criminal behavior and to link forensic assessment and treatment. This article proposes
that EF assessments of offenders with ASPD may facilitate the assessment of recidi-
vism and subsequent intervention because of the contribution of EF to criminogenic
risks and needs. The rationale for our position is derived in three ways: First, we pres-
ent a critical review on the conceptual and neurological basis of EF and the specific
deficits pertaining to those with ASPD; second, we review the Central Eight crimino-
genic risk and need factors (Bonta & Andrews, 2017) and their efficacy in predicting
recidivism for those with ASPD; and third, we analyze the theoretical overlap between
EF domains and the Central Eight risk and need factors. Our thesis does not include
the etiological pathways of EF deficits as a topic of this breadth merits several papers
(e.g., substance use, brain injury, developmental pathology, attention deficit and
hyperactivity disorder). Notably, however, meta-analyses have estimated that preva-
lence rates of brain injury were between 51% and 60% among offenders compared
with 2% to 38% in the general population (Farrer & Hedges, 2011; Shiroma, Ferguson,
& Pickelsimer, 2010). The high frequency of brain injury among offenders and its
deleterious effect on EF suggests that EF deficits are associated with criminality
(Ramos, Oddy, Liddement, & Fortescue, 2018; Schwartz, Connolly, & Brauer, 2017;
Schwartz, Connolly, & Valgardson, 2017).
Conceptual and Neurological Basis of EF
EF has been described with varying degrees of clarity regarding its conceptual defini-
tion and neuroanatomical correlates, even to the degree to which frontal lobe function-
ing subsumes EF (Alvarez & Emory, 2006). The present debate on the conceptual
nature of EF continues to be contested in the area of whether unitary control processes
560
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(4)
versus discrete brain regions comprise EF, or both (Garcia-Barrera, Kamphaus, &
Bandalos, 2011; Miyake et al., 2000). There is, however, a consensus that EF is a con-
struct that involves higher order cognitions that monitor and govern lower order pro-
cesses for the purposes of adaptive human behavior in novel situations (Alvarez &
Emory, 2006; Snyder, 2013). EF components are correlated with one another, yet still
discrete in terms of their behavioral, genetic, and neuroanatomical components
(Snyder, 2013).
Efforts to understand the best conceptual and measurement approaches to EF
spawned a profusion of EF definitions and theories for use across settings, life span
(Luna, Marek, Larsen, Tervo-Clemmens, & Chahal, 2015), and specific populations
(Garcia-Barrera et al., 2011). Miyake and colleagues found support for separate EF
domains of mental set shifting, updating and monitoring information, and inhibition
of automatic responses, but also found support for intercorrelations that suggest a
unitary general EF resource (Miyake et al., 2000). This added to the evidence for both
unitary and discrete EF domains, a finding also supported by others (e.g., Fisk &
Sharp, 2004; Friedman et al., 2008). These approaches to modeling EF, however, fail
to account for the broad array of cognitive resources required to monitor higher order
behavior in a complex world. Garcia-Barrera et al. (2011) used a sophisticated statis-
tical model to design a four-component model of EF comprised of the following:
problem solving, attentional control, behavioral control, and emotional control.
Problem solving included the capacity to plan, find solutions, make decisions, and
organize information for goal-directed behavior. Attentional control involved the
ability to focus, sustain, shift attention, and use working memory. Importantly, this
model of EF included behavioral control, which incorporated elements of behavioral
self-regulation, inhibition, and impulse control. Finally, emotional control consists of
emotional self-regulation in response to environmental and internal cues.
Concerning the neurological correlates of EF, there is an abundance of support for
both discrete and unitary neurological networks that correspond to conceptually dis-
tinct EF domains. According to Schoenberg, Marsh, and Lerner (2011), EF domains
have traditionally been described as being “housed” within three discrete regions of
the prefrontal cortex. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is connected with tasks such
as reasoning, problem solving, and persistence. The orbitofrontal region is related to
inhibition, working memory, and learning. The anterior cingulate region is implicated
in attention, motivation and initiation, and self-awareness. Although this is a helpful
neurological roadmap, it is oversimplified in that it ignores connected circuitry
throughout the brain (Jurado & Rosselli, 2007). It has been known for some time that
one must consider both the distributed neural network that underlies EF processes, and
the unique contributions of specific regions that are activated across tasks to fully
appreciate EF (Miller & Cohen, 2001; Niendam et al., 2012). To this end, a cognitive
control network whereby all EFs are buttressed by the unitary and domain-specific
activation of cortical and subcortical regions has been proposed. For example, a meta-
analysis by Niendam et al. (2012) combined results from approximately 200 func-
tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET)
studies to examine a common cognitive control network underlying traditional EFs
Cheng et al.
561
(i.e., initiation, inhibition, working memory, flexibility, planning, and vigilance) and
their respective domain-specific activations (for more, see Chan, Shum, Toulopoulou,
& Chen, 2008). In contrast to the cognitive network (sometimes referred to as “cool”
EF), the affective network (sometimes referred to as “hot” EF) encompasses the orbi-
tofrontal prefrontal cortex...
To continue reading
Request your trial