Do offenders think differently to non-offenders?
There is a large body of literature dedicated to understanding the way offenders think and how this manifests as criminal behaviours. Early investigations into what influences an offender to commit any type of offence have suggested that faulty thinking patterns may influence re-offending, and as such suggest that any treatment programs should target the way an offender thinks rather behaves. A researcher named Farringdon suggested that the motivation to offend is inherent within the individual and is determined in stages. Farrington identifies stages of motivation which correlate to thinking that maintains offending. Other studies have examined the way an offender interprets his or her offending behaviour and have suggested that factors such as lack of thoughtfulness and wilful hostility influence offending.
Criminal thinking literature assumes offenders are intrinsically different from non-offenders, it assumes that offenders thinking patterns are distinct from the non-offending population. However, it is possible that context and emotion can be combined to increase the likelihood that a person will offend. It is reasonable to assume that while an offender is not breaking the law they may share many of the values and behaviours that non-offenders do. This suggests that the intrinsic differences are not always evident.
Walters has dominated the criminal thinking literature with his Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS). The PICTS is a measure criminal cognition and thinking style that maintains offending, Walters established that it is a reliable predictor of re-offending when correlated with age and prior offending behaviours. Walters established that males’ scores on this scale are correlated with high problem avoidance, high masculinity, and self-deception, while females’ scores are correlated with low levels of interpersonal hostility and high levels of denial of harm.
Egan and colleagues support these findings and go further to suggest that there are individual differences in lack of thoughtfulness and wilful hostility. Johnson and colleagues also support the scale, however, points out the importance of controlling for age. The scale is reliable cross-culturally and it has been found that that this scale is not only applicable to incarcerated individuals, but also non-incarcerated individuals.
Walters further suggests that the PICTS can effectively identify and predict proactive and reactive aspects of criminal behaviours. The terms Proactive and Reactive were initially proposed as forms of aggression that children display. Dodge investigated theories on aggression and identified two key theories within the literature; the Frustration-Aggression and Social Learning Theory. The Frustration-Aggression model suggests that aggression is a hostile angry reaction to perceived frustration or provocation. Whereas Social learning theory suggests aggression is a learned behaviour which is mediated by external rewards. Dodge subsequently relabelled these Proactive and reactive forms of aggression.
Reactive aggression has been associated with a tendency to view ambiguous behaviours as hostile or threatening. Proactive aggression has been associated with a tendency to see aggressive behaviour as an effective way to attain external rewards, and unlikely to result in being punished. Walters extends the theory of proactive and reactive behaviours to criminal actions and has identified two factors on his PICTS that predict criminal thinking styles. The Problem avoidance factor identifies reactive criminal thinking which is associated with hostile attribution bias. The Self-assertion/deception factor identifies proactive criminal thinking which is associated with positive outcome expectancies. Walters has suggested that proactive criminal thinking has been associated with offences such as robbery and burglary, whereas reactive criminal thinking has been associated with offences such as assault & violence.
It has been identified that proactive and reactive aggression can be displayed by the same individual, perhaps even during one event, this complicates the matter of differentiating the behaviours of offenders and non-offenders or between different types of offender. Although this literature furthers our understanding of the factors that maintain offending, there is a lack of explanation for why many individuals cease their offending behaviour.
Other studies into what types of motivations influence a person to offend have also suggested inherent influences. Gudjohnsson & Siggurdson developed the Offence Motivation Questionnaire (OMQ), this scale investigates motivation based on Farrigton’s stage sequence. The main motivations for offending according to Gudjonsson & Siggurdson are Compliance, Provocation, Excitement, and Financial.
Most of this literature suggests that criminal thinking allows the individual to maintain offending behaviour, however, the onset of criminal behaviour is not accounted for in this literature. The literature also fails to explain why some individuals cease their offending behaviours. Furthermore, the literature treats crime as an undifferentiated construct and does not allow for that fact that some offenders may consider crimes against the person as unacceptable, and crimes against property as acceptable and vice versa.
