Search

Effective and ethical psychological practice relies on good science, and good science takes theory construction very seriously, as seriously as data collection. There is little point in developing valid research designs and sophisticated data analytic techniques if the ideas driving research are mistaken or trivial. In this paper I explore the problem of theoretical illiteracy for correctional psychological research and practice. First, I discuss why theory is important in science and the dangers of ignoring it. Second, I review the role of theory in addressing the myriad of practical problems facing human beings. Third, I outline three strategies to increase researchers and practitioners' appreciation of theory construction and development: adopting a more comprehensive model of scientific method, epistemic iteration, and promoting model pluralism. Fourth, I take an example of a core concept from correctional psychology, that of dynamic risk factors, and demonstrate how the above strategies can be used to rectify problems with this construct. Finally, I discuss the research, practice and normative implications of my approach to addressing theoretical illiteracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The explanation of offending and reoffending currently relies upon the Risk-Need-Responsivity model's concept of "criminogenic need" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2017) or dynamic risk factors (DRF). This is problematic because the DRF construct is predictive rather than explanatory, and suffers from a number of conceptual problems. Relatedly, the identification and management of DRF in individuals who have committed crimes is an overriding concern for the criminal justice system. It drives the formation of correctional policy and the funding of treatment programs in prisons, forensic hospitals, and probation services. Significant theoretical work is required in order to transform DRF into explanatory tools which are useful for research and practice. In this paper we outline problems with DRF which obstruct this process and then sketch out a possible way forward; the Risk-Causality Method, with its three phases of deconstruction, analysis, and reintegration. Highlights • In this paper we outline a novel method for researchers to utilize dynamic risk factors in the explanation of offending. • Our method integrates suggestions from recent literature throughout its phases: deconstruction, analysis, and reintegration. • The analysis phase includes the psychological mechanisms underpinning factors as well as the contexts in which they manifest. • This has the potential to encourage and guide research, and eventually influence the way practitioners formulate cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current conceptualization of “dynamic risk factors” (DRF) for criminal offending is problematic. It is generally accepted that there are significant conceptual issues in this domain, however, until recently addressing these have not been prioritized. Instead the majority of research and literature has focused on the success of DRF in predicting reoffending, and the effectiveness of treatment programmes that target DRF. Similar conceptual issues apply to “protective factors” (PF), which are frequently defined as the opposite of DRF; factors that reduce rather than increase risk of reoffending. In addition to the vagueness of these broad definitions, problems arise when researchers attempt to explain the theoretical and practical relationship between the two. Two important and challenging questions arise: 1) what exactly are these risk-related features? And 2) how do they relate to each other and criminal behavior? In this paper we argue that by building a comprehensive model of predictive agency we may be able to understand the causes of crime and desistence, and that this is crucial in improving outcomes for both those who have committed offences and the societies they live within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I present a preliminary theory of protective factors. First, I briefly discuss the concept of protective factors and associated ideas such as resilience and strengths . Second, I critically examine three recent attempts to conceptualize the role of protective factors in the explanation of offending and desistance, those by Serinet al. (2016), de Vries Robbé (2014), and MacDonald (2016). Third, I weave together concepts from evolutionary biology, psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and metaphysics to develop a tentative theory of protective factors. This theory is based on the core idea that agency is underpinned by the capacities associated with a robust first person perspective, which includes the ability to construct models of actual and possible situations and to use them to predict possible outcomes prior to acting. Fourth, I apply my theoretical ideas to the problem of dynamic risk and protective factors and review their ability to inform treatment and desistance. I also reflect on some of the research and practice implications of my conceptualization of protective factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this paper is on what role dynamic risk factors should play in the development of explanations of crime. Following a discussion of the nature of explanation we propose that in their current form dynamic risk factors should not be regarded as causes of crime because they cannot be coherently conceptualized as causal mechanisms. We then examine the issue of how best to ascertain whether risk factors are causes and a number of methodological guidelines are suggested to assist in this evaluation process. Finally, we conclude that dynamic risk factors are valuable predictors of recidivism and that, additionally, suitably reconstructed they can serve an important methodological function in identifying the causes of crime and reoffending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current preoccupation of criminal justice practitioners and policy makers with the prediction of reoffending has resulted in a conceptualization of risk as simply clusters of factors that correlate with recidivism. The reliance on these phenomena as explanations for the causes of sexual offending and as guides for treatment is a mistake, and in our view, the conceptualization of dynamic risk needs to be reexamined. This article begins with a discussion of the factors that increase and decrease risk of sexual offending; the focus is then widened to include agency, motivation, and values. These normative features are integrated with risk-related factors within the action-based Agency Model of Risk (AMR). This dynamic, interactional model highlights the importance of the relationship between the agent and context, with both proposed to contribute to the patterns of behavior resulting in an offense. The AMR is applied to a number of dynamic risk domains for sexual offenders, and its utility in explaining behavior and informing treatment discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of protective factors and allied constructs such as strengths or resilience has been the focus of increased research and practice attention within the criminal justice domain over the last ten years or so. A major reason for this interest is that assisting individuals to desist from further offending means helping them to live their lives in fulfilling and prosocial social ways. While this is a laudable aim several research problems are now apparent in the literature that threatens to undermine this goal. In this paper we focus on four of these problems and thereby set the scene for the remaining papers of this special issue. The four problems are definitional ambiguity, practitioner uncertainty, explanatory confusion, and the dual nature of protective factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Offender rehabilitation effectively reduces recidivism for treatment groups compared to control groups, but there is less evidence demonstrating that intra-individual changes are related to reductions in risk. We review and critique academic and government literature linking individual change scores to recidivism, focusing on three key treatment domains: cognition, violence, and substance misuse. Database searches identified 378 studies measuring change, but only 53 studies yielding 49 explicit tests of the relationship between intra-individual change scores and recidivism outcome. Of the 49 available tests, 26 effect sizes (53.1%) were significant, ranging from small (d =0.06) to large (d =1.48). Across all domains, change variables significantly related to recidivism included known dynamic risk factors: antisocial attitudes, antisocial beliefs, antisocial associates, antisocial personality, social support, and substance misuse. Two additional findings centered on changes in negative emotion and successful treatment process. This review further suggests there is a need to utilize better measurement strategies and more sophisticated constructs. Additional practical, theoretical, and methodological implications are discussed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

When it comes to the understanding and investigation of criminal behavior, the role of culture is often overlooked. Despite the fact that populations of individuals who offend are culturally diverse, theories, risk assessment procedures, and intervention methods in forensic psychology have been developed based on research with predominantly white, male, and Euro-American populations. In this paper we outline a preliminary model depicting hypothesized psychological processes that underpin criminal behavior, which can be applied within various cultural contexts: a perspective based on the construct of agency and its social and cultural underpinnings. The Cultural Agency-Model of Criminal Behavior (CAMCB) depicts the general processes underpinning human beings' goal-directed behavior and is intended to explain why there are variations in the relationship between dynamic risk factors and behavior across cultural contexts. In describing the model, we use a number of examples to illustrate the relationship between culture and offending related factors at the different phases of the offending action sequence. Following the depiction of the CAMCB, we discuss its research and practice implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prediction and explanation of crime currently relies predominantly upon the concept of dynamic risk factors (DRF). Evidence suggests that DRF vary across cultures with respect to their prevalence and their predictive validity (e.g., Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2014). What remains unclear is whether the observed differences can be explained by real cultural differences in the causes of crime; and if this is the case, how does culture influence this? We suggest that confusion arises due to conceptual problems with DRF and their measurement. Because DRF are vague, composite, and value-laden constructs researchers are unable to minimize or control for the occurrence of construct or item bias when scores on risk measures are compared across cultures. This makes any further interpretation and adjustment to assessment or intervention unwarranted. If we do not know whether or how DRF cause violence within the cultural context of their development, we cannot possibly hope to explain this relationship in another culture. We suggest that there is a pressing need to provide coherent theories for research, risk assessment and treatment in the future. We will discuss possible ways forward in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]