Psychopathy and Criminogenic Thinking in Adult Male Prisoners
| Author | Phillip N. Smith,Katherine L. Patterson,Jon T. Mandracchia,Rose A. Gonzalez |
| DOI | 10.1177/1043986215608472 |
| Date | 01 November 2015 |
| Published date | 01 November 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Article
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
2015, Vol. 31(4) 409 –425
Psychopathy and
© 2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Criminogenic Thinking in
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1043986215608472
ccj.sagepub.com
Adult Male Prisoners
Jon T. Mandracchia1, Rose A. Gonzalez2,
Katherine L. Patterson2, and Phillip N. Smith3
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.
Keywords
psychopathy, criminogenic thinking, recidivism, MOTS-R, offenders
1Missouri Western State University, St. Joseph, USA
2The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, USA
3The University of South Alabama, Mobile, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jon T. Mandracchia, Department of Psychology, Missouri Western State University, 4525 Downs Drive,
St. Joseph, MO 64507, USA.
Email: jmandracchia@missouriwestern.edu
410
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31(4)
In their 2002 study of 623,492 inmates in local jails, The Bureau of Justice Statistics
found that approximately 62% had previous offenses on record (James, 2002).
Recently, The Pew Center on the States (2011) found that approximately 40% of
offenders reoffended within 3 years of being released from prison. These statistics
demonstrate an alarming rate of recidivism and indicate significant costs to society,
both in terms of money spent on caring for and housing inmates as well as the finan-
cial, physical, and emotional costs associated with increased victimization.
To combat such high rates of recidivism, more resources have been allocated
toward treatment services for offenders during incarceration. Many of these programs
attempt to target factors that perpetuate criminal behavior, which are referred to as
criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs include such factors as antisocial attitudes
and values, pro-criminal associates, and impulsivity (MacKenzie, 2006). Andrews,
Zinger, et al. (1990) concluded from their landmark meta-analysis of juvenile and
adult treatment studies that when treated with appropriate services, offenders were less
likely to recidivate than if they had received no treatment or an inappropriate treat-
ment. Andrews, Zinger, et al. (1990) found these appropriate interventions were char-
acterized by (a) targeted delivery of services to those who demonstrate a higher risk of
reoffending; (b) addressing specific, dynamic criminogenic needs of offenders; and (c)
utilizing effective treatment modalities (i.e., intensive, directive, cognitive-behavioral)
while matching offenders’ need. These three core principles came to be known as risk,
need, and responsivity, respectively, thus comprising the Risk-Need-Responsivity
(RNR) model of offender rehabilitation. This model has been shown to be effective
with a variety of offender types (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, crime type, etc.), behav-
iors (i.e., violent or nonviolent), and correctional settings (i.e., residential or commu-
nity; Andrews & Bonta, 2010).
Adhering to the tenets of the RNR model has demonstrated a decrease in recidivism
and has been shown to be more effective than other treatment interventions (Andrews
& Bonta, 2010). In targeting criminogenic needs, eight central factors that place an
individual at risk for recidivism have been identified (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). The
most dominant of these eight factors are referred to as the “big four” and include his-
tory of antisocial behaviors, antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognitions, and
interaction with antisocial associates (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Much of the attention
given to the “big four” has been focused on the factor of antisocial cognitions. These
cognitions, also known as criminogenic thinking, have been described in the literature
as patterns of thought that perpetuate criminal behavior (Walters, 2009a). Research
has shown that criminogenic thinking is predictive of a spectrum of illegal and other-
wise problematic behaviors. Specifically, criminogenic thinking has been shown to be
associated with poor institutional adjustment, institutional violence, non-completion of
treatment, and recidivism (Walters, 2006, 2009b; Walters & Schlauch, 2008).
Criminogenic thinking has been identified as a promising focus in recidivism-reduction
interventions because it is a dynamic criminogenic need that may be altered via cogni-
tive-behavioral intervention.
Yochelson and Samenow (1976) were the first to explore criminogenic thinking
patterns, and posited that this problematic cognitive style persists throughout a
Mandracchia et al.
411
criminal’s career. They described three main categories of criminogenic thinking (i.e.,
criminogenic thinking patterns, automatic errors of thinking, and a problematic think-
ing process that spans from idea to execution), and these ideas have been used as the
foundation for which future research on this topic has expanded on. Using Yochelson
and Samenow’s (1976) theory as the basis for his criminal lifestyle theory, Walters
(1990) stated that recurrent criminal behavior results from individuals’ thought, social
interactions, and environmental factors. Walters (1990) used these three main influ-
ences to conceptualize eight different but corresponding criminal thinking styles (i.e.,
mollification, entitlement, superoptimism, discontinuity, cutoff, power orientation,
cognitive indolence, and sentimentality), and theorized that the interaction of these
thinking styles creates and perpetuates the criminal lifestyle. Toward an even better
understanding of criminogenic thinking, Mandracchia, Morgan, Garos, and Garland
(2007) compiled the specific thinking patterns described by Yochelson and Samenow
as well as Walters, along with more general thinking errors that perpetuate problematic
behavior described by Beck (1976) and Ellis (1974). On examining the factor structure
of these dysfunctional thinking patterns, Mandracchia et al. (2007) found three factors
of criminogenic thinking: one that reflected a need to maintain power over oneself,
others, and the environment (Control); one that characterized overly simplistic and
ineffective thinking as well as a self-pitying perspective (Cognitive Immaturity); and
one that emphasized self-importance and self-focus (Egocentrism).
Although research continues to illustrate the nature of criminogenic thinking and its
relationship to a range of other variables, little is known about how these criminogenic
thinking patterns are established, influenced, and maintained. One potential avenue to
bolster understanding in this area is investigating the relationship between criminogenic
thinking and antisocial personality characteristics, particularly given that both constructs
are included in the “big four” risk factors and that they both relate, in whole or in part, to
cognitive processes. In considering the most extreme form of antisocial personality,
examining psychopathic personalities may help explain the consistency of antisocial atti-
tudes, values, and behaviors evidenced in repeat offenders. Because psychopathic charac-
teristics are considered to be a set of personality traits, and personality is known to affect
cognitions (Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011), it stands to reason that psychopathic charac-
teristics may influence an individual’s criminogenic thinking. A better understanding of
this relationship is germane to developing and implementing effective recidivism-reducing
interventions. Although research has shown independently that psychopathy and crimino-
genic thinking are each associated with a higher risk of recidivism, a better understanding
of their interrelationship will inform whether the presence of psychopathic characteristics
is indicative of specific criminogenic cognitions (Gonsalves, Scalora, & Huss, 2009;
Morgan, Fisher, Duan, Mandracchia, & Murray, 2010).
Given that psychopathy is not a unidimensional construct, the potential relationship
between psychopathy and criminogenic thinking may be complex. Although psychopa-
thy has been conceptualized by three- (Cooke & Michie, 2001) and four-factor (Vitacco,
Neumann, & Jackson, 2005) models, psychopathy has most often been conceptualized
and assessed using a two-factor model. In the two-factor model, Factor 1 (i.e., Primary
Psychopathy) represents various maladaptive behavioral...
To continue reading
Request your trial