Assignment: Cognitive Aspects of Criminal Behavior

Success50

WK2READINGMATERIALONLYEMERALD_JCP_JCP56510113..24.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Assignment: Cognitive Aspects of Criminal Behavior

Psychopathy, gang membership, and moral disengagement among juvenile offenders

Katie Dhingra, Agata Debowska, Kathryn Sharratt, Philip Hyland and Susanna Kola-Palmer

Dr Katie Dhingra is a Lecturer in

Psychology, based at

Manchester Metropolitan

University, Manchester, UK.

Dr Agata Debowska is a

Lecturer in Psychology, based

at Department of Psychology,

University of Chester,

Chester, UK.

Kathryn Sharratt is a Lecturer in

Criminology, based at

University of Huddersfield,

Huddersfield, UK.

Dr Philip Hyland is a Lecturer in

Psychology, based at National

College of Ireland,

Dublin, Ireland.

Dr Susanna Kola-Palmer is a

Senior Lecturer in Psychology,

based at University of

Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of psychopathy factors and gang

membership on moral disengagement while controlling for age, ethnicity, having run away from home,

family member and/or friend arrests, substance misuse, parental physical fights, violence exposure

(victimization and witnessing), and maternal warmth and hostility.

Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on data collected from serious juvenile

offenders (n¼769) as part of the Pathways to Desistance Study. Findings – Six independent variables made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model: gang

membership, age, gender, violence exposure, and psychopathy Factors 1 and 2. Psychopathy Factor 1 was

the strongest predictor of moral disengagement.

Originality/value – Results indicate that youth with heightened psychopathic traits make greater use of

strategies to rationalize and justify their harmful behaviour against others. Implications in relation to theory

and previous studies are discussed.

Keywords Psychopathy, Gang membership, Juvenile offenders, Moral disengagement,

Pathways to Desistance, Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1999), most individuals refrain from

transgressive behaviour most of the time because they have internalized society’s standards of

conduct. Consequently, acts of harmful or aggressive behaviour risk not only external sanctions

(e.g. condemnation, rejection, punishment) but also internal moral self-sanctions for acting

against their beliefs (e.g. feelings of guilt and shame, damage to one’s self-concept). To avoid

self-censure, Bandura proposed that individuals construct rationalizations and justifications for

behaviours that violate moral standards (e.g. aggression, delinquency, crime, and violence), a

process called moral disengagement. Social cognitive theory, much like neutralization theory

(Sykes and Matza, 1957) describes eight inter-related strategies that individuals may employ to

rationalize and justify their harmful acts against others. Moral justification, euphemistic labelling,

and advantageous comparison refer to mechanisms that serve to cognitively restructure

harmful acts so that they appear less damaging. Dehumanization, distortion of consequences,

and the attribution of blame mechanisms serve to reduce or eliminate the distress one perceives

to be causing a victim. Moral disengagement has been found to influence various forms of

antisocial conduct both directly and by reducing pro-social behaviour and guilt, and by

promoting aggression (Bandura, 1999, 2002).

Intact emotional processes are seen as essential to moral reasoning, providing immediate

and salient feedback on behaviour (Blair et al., 2005; Eisenberg, 2000; Tangney et al., 2007).

DOI 10.1108/JCP-11-2014-0016 VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015, pp. 13-24, C Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 13

Extensive research indicates that individuals with heightened psychopathic traits have

difficulties in empathetic responding; showing impaired processing of distress in others

(Bate et al., 2014; Blair, 1999; Debowska et al., 2014; Dhingra and Boduszek, 2013). This

deficient ability to experience empathy among psychopaths is thought to disrupt their

capacity for normal socialization, prevent emotional connectedness to others (which is a

prerequisite to set in motion self-conscious emotions, such as guilt or shame), and interfere

with the development of conscience (DeLisi et al., 2013; Salekin and Frick, 2005) as well as

the internalization of moral standards of behaviour (Blair, 1995). In line with this, Blair et al.

(1995) found that psychopaths rated moral and conventional transgressions to be equally

impermissible (but not equally serious); while Koenigs et al. (2012) found that psychopaths

reported that they would perform actions in impersonal moral scenarios (i.e. involving

indirect or remote harm) more often than non-psychopaths. Using a sample of male

adolescent offenders, Shulman et al. (2011) reported significant associations between

callous-unemotional traits, moral disengagement, and delinquency. In addition, they found

that reductions in moral disengagement were associated with reductions in delinquency,

based on official records. Similarly, Hyde et al. (2010) found that lower empathy (i.e. higher

callousness) at age 12 predicts greater moral disengagement at age 15. Finally, DeLisi

et al. (2013) reported that moral disengagement varied by level of psychopathy in relation

to criminal onset.

Preliminary research suggest that gang members may also employ moral disengagement

strategies to cope with the negative consequence of their actions (Esbensen and Weerman,

2005; Esbensen et al., 2009). Alleyne and Wood (2010), for instance, found that moral

disengagement strategies were more prevalent among gang-involved adolescents than

their non-gang affiliated peers. Furthermore, results of Alleyne and Wood’s study indicated

that although moral disengagement as a whole did not have a significant main effect,

at an individual strategy level, gang members used more euphemisms and blamed their

victims more than non-gang youth. Thus, given these findings, further research is needed

to further explicate the relationship between gang membership and moral disengagement

strategies.

A number of demographic and psychosocial factors have also been related to the use of

strategies to rationalize and justify behaviours that violate societal rules. In terms of demographic

characteristics, previous research suggests that moral disengagement generally declines

between adolescence and early adulthood in normative samples of adolescents (Paciello et al.,

2008), whilst the limited research that exists suggests that Caucasians may exhibit greater levels

of moral disengagement than either African-Americans or Hispanics (Osofsky et al., 2005).

A differential proclivity to disengage moral self-sanctions from transgressive/injurious conduct

between boys and girls has also consistently been observed, with males making greater use

of moral disengagement strategies over the course of development than females (e.g. Bandura

et al., 1996a; Paciello et al., 2008). Furthermore, the decline in moral disengagement

over adolescence appears to lower for boys than girls (Paciello et al., 2008), which has been

suggested as an explanation for some of the observed gender differences in aggression

(Bandura, 1999).

In terms of psychosocial factors, Bandura (1991) posited that children learn the moral

standards of their environments by observing interactions around them and by interacting

with others. Consequently, if violence is common in their environment (i.e. they are exposed

to parental physical fighting), they are likely to learn: that it is not against moral standards to

use violence as a way to defend themselves, to solve problems, or to obtain goals; and

to expect positive outcomes of using aggression (Bandura, 1999; Farrington, 1991; Ng-Mak

et al., 2002). Thus, exposure to parental fighting might lead to the adoption of attitudes

and beliefs consistent with moral disengagement. Hyde et al. (2010), however, found

that parental conflict was not directly related to moral disengagement, and suggested that

inter-parental aggression/conflict itself may not be related to moral disengagement

because inter-parental conflict may not be exhibited in front of the child, or may not in itself be

salient enough to teach children that the world is a harsh and uncaring place. Hyde and colleagues

research additionally suggested that parenting style may influence moral disengagement.

PAGE 14 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015

Specifically, harsh treatment from primary caregivers (i.e. parental rejection) was found to lead to the

adoption of attitudes and beliefs consistent with moral disengagement.

Few studies have examined the relationship between violence exposure and moral disengagement.

However, it has been suggested that the correlates, consequences, and mechanisms of influence

related to direct experiences (i.e. violence victimization) and observation of violence (i.e. witnessing

violence) may differ significantly (Schwartz and Proctor, 2000). The potential impact of the

experience of violence victimization on moral disengagement is unclear. On one hand, individuals

who have experienced violence may be more sensitive towards norms of fairness and care, and

consequently less likely to use moral disengagement strategies (Turiel, 2002). On the other hand,

individuals who have been victimized might evidence a tendency towards self-blame (Graham and

Juvonen, 1998) which suggests that victims of violence may begin to think that violence is morally

right (because they or others victims did something wrong) and consequently show more morally

disengaged reasoning. Consistent with the first suggestion, Hymel et al. (2005) found that the

more victimization students experienced the fewer morally disengaged strategies they endorsed.

Similarly, Pornari and Wood (2010) found a greater number of peer victimization experiences was

associated with lower moral disengagement, when controlling for own aggressive behaviour.

By contrast, two studies found no differences between (non-aggressive) victims and non-involved

children/adolescents with respect to moral reasoning (Gini, 2006; Menesini et al., 2003). In terms

of witnessing violence, Orue et al. (2011) found that exposure to violence in eight to 12 year old

children increased later aggressive behaviour, and that this process was mediated by normative

beliefs about aggression. Similar findings were reported Guerra et al. (2003) and Musher-Eizenman

et al. (2004).

The strongest and most immediate cause of individual delinquency is involvement with a

delinquent peer group (Boduszek et al., 2014). Within delinquent peer networks, harmful acts

towards others may be modelled, encouraged, and rewarded; and justifications for disengaging

one’s moral obligation to others may be taught and reinforced. Consequently, associations with

delinquent peers (as indexed by number of friends arrested in the present research) may

facilitate moral disengagement by confirming and reinforcing antisocial beliefs (Esbensen et al.,

1993; Klein and Maxson, 2006). A similar deleterious effect on moral reasoning may also be

expected to occur if youth’s family members are arrested.

Limited research has examined the association between substance abuse and moral

disengagement. However, a study of Australian adolescents found that high moral disengagement

was associated with reports of binge drinking and having ever tried cannabis (Newton et al., 2012),

a finding consistent with studies examining the role of moral disengagement in alcohol and cannabis

use amongst younger adolescents (Barnes et al., 1999, 2005; Kiriakidis, 2008).

When youth run away from home, they become more vulnerable to becoming part of the

runaway or homeless youth community which subjects them to a peer groups already engaged

in deviant behaviours (Warr, 2002). Exposure to these delinquent peers may lead these

adolescents to become morally disengaged from mainstream values and more likely to engage

in antisocial activities to attempt to survive financially, cope with life on the street, and protect

themselves (Bender et al., 2007).

The current study

Identifying predictors of moral disengagement, given its importance as a risk factor for

antisocial behaviour in adolescents, is critical and of interest from both theoretical and

policy perspectives. If frequent acts of misbehaviour lead to morally disengaged attitudes

becoming stable (which allows further acts of delinquency and antisocial behaviour),

understanding what underpins moral disengagement may not only help in the identification of

individuals at risk for developing morally disengaged attitudes but also aid in the design

of interventions.

The aim of the current study, therefore, is to investigate the impact of psychopathy factors and

gang membership on moral disengagement while controlling for age, ethnicity, having run away

from home, family member and/or friend arrests, substance misuse, parental physical fights,

violence exposure (victimization and witnessing), and maternal warmth and hostility.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 15

Method

Sample

As described in more detail elsewhere (e.g. Schubert et al., 2004), participants were serious

adolescent offenders from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Phonenix who were interviewed

as part of the Pathways to Desistance Study. Participants were included in the study if they,

had been adjudicated guilty of a serious felony (excluding less serious property crimes),

misdemeanour weapons, or misdemeanour sexual assault offense in juvenile or adult courts in

Philadelphia or Phoenix; and were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the time of their offence.

A total of 3,807 youth met the inclusion criteria, 1,799 of whom were excluded because of

operational or design constraints. Of the youths that were located and contactable, 80 per cent

agreed to take part in the study (n¼1,355). Participants were administered a baseline interview over two days in two, two hour sessions within 75 days of their adjudication (for those in the

juvenile system) or 90 days after their decertification hearing in Philadelphia or an adult

arraignment in Phoenix (if in the adult system).

Interviewers and participants sat side-by-side facing a computer, and questions were read aloud

to avoid any potential difficulties arising from reading difficulties. Participants could answer the

questions aloud or, to maximize their privacy, enter their responses on a keypad (although in

some facilities, this option was not available). Of 1,335 participants included in the study, only

those with no missing responses on any of study variables were included in the analysis

(n¼769). The participants’ average age was 16.3 years (SD¼1.12 years) at the time of the initial interview. Most juvenile offenders were male (86.3 per cent, n¼664) and 63.2 per cent (n¼566) reported their ethnicity to be Hispanic. Around one-third of participants reported having run

away from home (35.1 per cent, n¼270) and that their parents had physical fights (27.3 per cent, n¼210), while 78.2 per cent (n¼601) of participants reported that someone in their family had been arrested. In terms of lifetime history of mental disorders, 7.7 per cent

(n¼59) reported depression, 11.7 per cent (n¼90) alcohol abuse, and 25.6 per cent (n¼197) drug abuse.

Measures

Moral disengagement. The Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996b) was

used to measure adolescent’s attitudes concerning the treatment of others. The self-report

measure contains 32 items to which participants respond on a three-point Likert scale

(1¼disagree to 3¼agree), with higher scores indicating a greater moral detachment. Mean item total scores were used as an overall scale measure of moral disengagement (a¼0.88).

Psychopathy. The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV; Forth et al., 2003) was used

to assess youths’ psychopathic traits. This 20-item rating scale is based on two sources: an

interview with the youth, and charts and collateral information. The original semi-structured

interview guide was adapted for use in this study and reviewed with the interview’s developer.

This interview was designed to assess the youth’s interpersonal style and attitudes, obtain

information on various aspects of individual functioning, and assess (through comparison

with records or collateral reports) the credibility of his/her statements. Following the interview

and a review of records/collateral information, the interviewer used a three-point ordinal scale

to indicate how well each of the 20 items applied to the youth (0¼does not apply, 1¼applies to a certain extent, and 2¼applies). A two-factor solution (Factor 1: interpersonal-affective and Factor 2: antisocial-lifestyle) to the PCL: YV was adopted in the present research, although

three- and four-factor solutions, and a bifactor model, including two general factors

(interpersonal-affective and antisocial-lifestyle), and four method factors (interpersonal,

affective, antisocial, and lifestyle) have been found to provide better model fit (see Dhingra

et al., in press b; McCuish et al., 2014) due to these researchers being unable to access all PCL:

SV item scores (see www.pathwaysstudy.pitt.edu/codebook/pcl-sb.html). Internal consistency

of Factor 1 (a¼0.76) and Factor 2 (a¼0.78) was good. Recent studies suggest that psychopathy is a dimensional rather than a categorical construct, providing an empirical basis

for studying individuals in terms of level of psychopathic traits (e.g. Dhingra et al., in press a).

PAGE 16 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015

Gang membership. Consistent with a long line of gang research, self-nomination was used to

operationalize gang membership (i.e. participants were asked if they were “ever in a gang”

(yes/no), which has been described as a “robust measure of gang membership” (Esbensen

et al., 2001, pp. 147).

Number of friends arrested. Participants were asked to report the number of friends that they

had who have been arrested (count variable).

Depression and substance abuse (alcohol and drugs). Depression and substance use problems

were assessed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), a highly structured

clinical interview based on DSM-IV and ICD-10 diagnostic criteria (Kessler and Üstün,

2004). The CIDI is a computerized assessment tool administered by non-clinical interviewers

(Kessler et al., 2004) that has good concordance with other clinician-based diagnostic

instruments (First et al., 2002). The present study only uses obtained diagnostic information on

lifetime major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse, and drug abuse. All items were coded as 0

(no diagnosis) or 1 (diagnosis).

Exposure to violence. A modified version of the Exposure to Violence Inventory (ETV;

Selner-O’Hagan et al., 1998) was used to assess the frequency of exposure to violent events.

Items from the ETV document the types of violence that individuals have both experienced

(i.e. violence victimization – six items, e.g. “Have you ever been chased where you thought you

might be seriously hurt?”; a¼0.62) and observed (i.e. violence witness – seven items, e.g. “Have you ever seen someone else being raped, an attempt made to rape someone or any other type

of sexual attack?”; a¼0.78).

Gun access. To assess the availability of guns and estimate the presence of gun

markets as part of the neighbourhood context, participants were asked, “If a young person in

this neighbourhood wants to buy a gun, he/she can” (1¼strongly agree to 5¼strongly disagree).

Parental warmth and hostility. The Quality of Parental Relationships Inventory (Conger et al.,

1994) was adapted for this study to assess the affective tone of the parental-adolescent

relationship, asked separately with regard to mother and father separately. In total, 42 items tap

parental warmth (e.g. “How often does your mother let you know she really cares about you?”)

and parental hostility (e.g. “How often does your mother get angry at you?”). For this study, we

used the maternal warmth (a¼0.92; nine items) and maternal hostility (a¼0.95; 12 items) subscales. There were too many missing values for the ratings of the parental warmth and

hostility of the father to include these subscales. Participants respond on a four-point Likert scale

ranging from “Never” to “Always”, with higher scores on each scale indicating more warmth or

more hostility, respectively.

Run away from home. Participants were asked to respond to a single item which asked,

“Have you ever run away from where you were living?” (Yes/no).

Characteristics of family. Family characteristics were assessed using two binary coded

(yes/no) items which asked “has anyone in your family been in jail or prison?” and, “did your

parents have physical fights?”.

Demographics

Respondents’ gender, ethnicity, and age were controlled to avoid model misspecification.

Gender (0¼ female, 1¼male (reference category)) and ethnicity were coded dichotomously (0¼non-Hispanic, 1¼Hispanic (reference category)), and age was a continuous variable coded in years.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table I presents the descriptive statistics for the variables measured continuously: number of

arrested friends, violence exposure (victim and witness), gun access, maternal warmth and

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 17

hostility, psychopathy (Factors 1 and 2), and moral disengagement, including means (M) and

standard deviations (SD).

Multiple regression analysis

Standard multiple linear regression was employed to determine which of the predictor variables

(gang membership, age, ethnicity, gender, having run away from home, parental physical

fights, family member arrests, friend arrests, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, violence exposure

(victimization and witnessing), maternal warmth and hostility, psychopathy (Factors 1 and 2)

could be used to predict moral disengagement. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure

no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity.

A test of the full model containing all predictor variables against the constant-only model was

statistically significant, F(16, 389)¼4.86, po 0.001, and explained 13 per cent of the variance in moral disengagement. As shown in Table II six independent variables made a unique statistically

significant contribution to the model: gang membership, age, gender, having witnessed

violence, psychopathy Factors 1 and 2. The strongest predictor of moral disengagement was

psychopathy Factor 1 (b¼0.19) which indexes the interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy. This suggests that higher Factor 1 scores contribute to the presence of higher levels of moral

disengagement within a sample of gang and non-gang involved youth offenders. Being a

member of a gang, being male, having witnessed violence and higher psychopathy Factor 2

Table II Regression analysis predicting moral disengagement

R2 Adj. R2 b B SE

Model 0.17 0.13 Gang membership 0.14** 1.64 0.56 Age �0.10* �0.56 0.27 Ethnicity 0.07 0.83 0.58 Gender 0.13** 2.55 0.97 Run away �0.05 �0.64 0.59 Parental fighting 0.03 0.39 0.61 Family arrest �0.05 �1.02 0.95 Friend arrest �0.03 �0.17 0.25 Alcohol �0.01 �0.02 0.74 Drugs 0.03 0.42 0.62 Violence Victimization �0.04 �0.16 0.22 Violence Witness 0.15** 0.52 0.20 Maternal Warm �0.01 �0.10 0.45 Maternal hostility 0.06 0.70 0.68 Psychopathy (Factor 1) 0.19*** 0.31 0.10 Psychopathy (Factor 2) 0.15* 0.25 0.10

Notes: *po 0.05; **po 0.01; ***po 0.001

Table I Descriptive statistics for continuous variables: number of arrested friends, violence

exposure, gun access, maternal warmth and hostility, psychopathy, and moral

disengagement

Scale M SD Range

Number of friends arrested 2.88 1.13 0-4 Violence victimization 1.62 1.47 0-6 Violence witness 3.57 2.48 0-7 Gun access 2.71 1.32 1-5 Maternal warmth 3.19 0.19 1-4 Maternal hostility 1.62 0.46 1-4 Psychopathy Factor 1 4.93 3.49 0-20 Psychopathy Factor 2 8.15 3.78 0-20 Moral disengagement 7.35 5.53 0-32

PAGE 18 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015

scores were also significantly related to higher levels of moral disengagement, controlling for

all other factors in the model, while increasing age was related to lower levels of moral

disengagement.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to provide a statistically robust exploration of the determinants

of moral disengagement among serious youth offenders. Six of the 16 independent variables

tested made a unique statistically significant contribution to the model, and explained 16 per

cent of variance in moral disengagement. Consistent with prior research examining the

relationship between psychopathy and moral disengagement in community samples

(e.g. Seara-Cardoso et al., 2013), psychopathy Factors 1 and 2 were related to greater moral

disengagement. However, in the present research, psychopathy Factors 1 which indexes the

interpersonal-affective traits (e.g. shallow affect, lack of empathy, manipulativeness) was the

strongest predictor of moral disengagement, a finding consistent with recent research which

indicates that empathy is the most robust predictor of moral disengagement (Hyde et al., 2010).

Replicating previous findings (e.g. Bandura et al., 1996a; Pelton et al., 2004; Sagone and Caroli,

2013), males reported higher levels of moral disengagement than females. Furthermore,

consistent with expectations, increasing age was associated with lower moral disengagement.

Being a witness to violence was also related to higher moral disengagement in our sample of

youth offenders. This suggests that exposure to episodes that directly model or expose children

to attitudes or beliefs condoning the use of antisocial behaviour, particularly in ways that

violate mainstream social norms (e.g. using violence to resolve conflict) may eventually lead

violence-exposed youth to develop more morally disengaged reasoning (Hyde et al., 2010;

Musher-Eizenman et al., 2004). Violence victimization was found to be not significantly related to

moral disengagement in the present research. This finding supports prior research suggesting

that the consequences violence victimization and witnessing of violence may differ significantly

(Schwartz and Proctor, 2000). However, whether this reflects a genuine lack of relationship is

unclear. It is plausible that for some individuals violence victimization leads to a tendency

towards self-blame (Graham and Juvonen, 1998) and the belief that violence is morally right

(because they or others victims did something wrong), while for other individuals, violence

victimization may lead to greater sensitivity towards norms of fairness and care, and consequently

less morally disengaged reasoning (Turiel, 2002). Accordingly, a careful examination of the

relationship between violence exposure and moral disengagement is an important direction for

future research.

Despite some research suggesting the possibility that exposure to parental fighting might lead

to the adoption of attitudes and beliefs consistent with moral disengagement, in the present

research, this was not the case. This finding is interesting as witnessing violence in general

was related to greater moral disengagement. However, as suggested by Hyde et al. (2010),

parental conflict may not be directly related to moral disengagement because it may not be

exhibited in front of the child, or it may not in itself be salient enough to influence a child’s

moral engagement.

Although the relationship between psychopathy and moral disengagement was as expected,

psychopath’s deficits in moral judgements, as indicated by higher moral disengagement, were

much smaller than might be expected from their morally inappropriate behaviour (i.e. murder,

sexual offending, fraud, and arson). However, results of recent imaging studies suggest that

psychopaths may not reach moral judgements in the same way as non-psychopaths, even

when they reach the same moral judgements (Glenn et al., 2009a, b; Harenski et al., 2010).

Therefore, there is a need to further research examining the psychopathy-moral disengagement

relationship.

Two distinct pathways for the development of morally disengaged attitudes have been proposed

(Shulman et al., 2011). The first is through frequent instances of disengaging internal sanctions

through justification of misbehaviour, and the second as a consequence of callous-unemotional

traits. These two processes are considered aetiologically distinct, such that morally disengaged

attitudes resulting from frequent instances of justification of misbehaviour are more likely to

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 19

develop as a result of social and environmental factors, whereas callousness/psychopathy

appears to have a biological basis (Blair et al., 2006; Bandura, 1991; Shulman et al., 2011).

Our results lend support to both pathways, in that higher scores of psychopathy, gang

membership, and witnessing violence predicted greater moral disengagement. Future research

is required to assess these pathways in greater detail, as the cross-sectional nature of the

current study does not allow causality to be established.

As moral disengagement is associated with and predictive of offending (e.g. Shulman et al.,

2011), targeting the factors which increase individuals’ morally disengaged attitudes may

enhance the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing repeat offending. As core

psychopathic traits (i.e. those indexed by Factor 1) demonstrate stability over time (Harpur and

Hare, 1994), it would make little sense to prioritise working to reduce the beliefs legitimizing

violent and antisocial behaviour among young offenders displaying psychopathic traits their as

an effective means of preventing reoffending. However, other drivers of moral disengagement

may be more amenable to attenuation through targeted projects and interventions. Youth

diversion programmes that steer youth away from gangs and boost their exposure to a wider

range of lifestyles and role models, for instance, may have some success in increasing moral

engagement (Alleyne and Wood, 2010). Indeed, Boduszek, Dhingra, and Hirschfield (under

review) speculate that the moral disengagement of young offenders from society that might be

preserved within a close-knit gang community may be challenged and potentially weakened, if

youth gang members are exposed to the cultural norms, values and behaviour of non-gang

members. Educational interventions, able to change beliefs legitimizing aggression (e.g. Guerra

and Slaby, 1990), might also hold the potential to prevent violence and antisocial behaviour,

especially among those who have grown up in violent contexts (i.e. those who have witnessed

violence).

There are some limitations of the study that need to be acknowledged. First, although

self-nomination (i.e.Do you belong to a gang?) is considered by many US researchers to

be a “particularly robust measure of gang membership, capable of distinguishing gang from

non-gang youth (Esbensen et al., 2001, p. 124), this not considered a valid indicator of gang

involvement among many European researchers (Gatti et al., 2005). Second, this was not a

longitudinal study and, therefore, it was not possible to analyse the evolution of the variables

or the direction of the relationships among them. Finally, we had to rely on total scores for many

of the measures included in the present research as not all item responses are provided within

the dataset. This prevented us from checking whether the two-factor solution to the PCL: SV

was the most appropriate factorial solution, for instance.

Despite these limitations, the present research makes a strong contribution to the literature and

indicates that gang membership, being male, witnessing violence, and higher psychopathy

Factors 1 and 2 scores contribute to higher levels of moral disengagement, while older age leads

to a decline in moral disengagement. Educational interventions and programmes that steer

youth away from gangs may, therefore, hold promise for criminal justice and social work

practitioners as a focus for their scarce resources in efforts to increase moral engagement.

References

Alleyne, E. and Wood, K. (2010), “Gang involvement: psychological and behavioral characteristics of gang

members, peripheral youth, and nongang youth”, Aggressive Behaviour, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 423-36.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1991), “Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action”, in Kurtines, W.M., Gewirtz, J. and

Lamb, J.L. (Eds), Handbook of Moral Behaviour and Development, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 364-74.

Bandura, A. (1999), “Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities”, Personality and Social

Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 193-209.

Bandura, A. (2002), “Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency”, Journal of Moral

Education, Vol. 31, pp. 101-19.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. and Pastorelli, C. (1996a), “Mechanisms of moral disengagement in

the exercise of moral agency”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2 pp. 364-74.

PAGE 20 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. and Pastorelli, C. (1996b), “Multifaceted impact of self-efficacy

beliefs on academic functioning”, Child Development, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 1206-22.

Barnes, G.M., Welte, J.W., Hoffman, J.H. and Dintcheff, B.A. (1999), “Gambling and alcohol use among

youth: influences of demographic, socialization, and individual factors”, Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 24 No. 6,

pp. 749-67.

Barnes, G.M., Welte, J.W., Hoffman, J.H. and Dintcheff, B.A. (2005), “Shared predictors of youthful

gambling, substance use, and delinquency”, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 165-74.

Bate, C., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K. and Bale, C. (2014), “Psychopathy, intelligence and emotional

responding in a non-forensic sample: a physiological investigation”, Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and

Psychology, doi:10.1080/14789949.2014.943798 (ISSN 1478-9957).

Bender, K., Thompson, S.J., McManus, H., Lantry, J. and Flynn, P.M. (2007), “Capacity for survival: exploring

strengths of homeless street youth”, Child and Youth Care Forum, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 25-42.

Blair, J., Mitchell, D. and Blair, K. (2005), The psychopath: emotion and the brain, Blackwell Publishing,

London.

Blair, R.J.R. (1995), “A cognitive developmental approach to morality: investigating the psychopath”,

Cognition, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-29.

Blair, R.J.R. (1999), “Responsiveness to distress cues in the child with psychopathic tendencies”, Personality

and individual differences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 135-45.

Blair, R.J.R., Jones, L., Clark, F. and Smith, M. (1995), “Is the Psychopath ‘morally insane’?”, Personality and

Individual Differences, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 741-52.

Blair, R.J.R., Peschardt, K.S., Budhani, S., Mitchell, D.G.V. and Pine, D.S. (2006), “The development of

psychopathy”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 47 Nos 3-4, pp. 262-76.

Boduszek, D., Adamson, G., Shevlin, M., Hyland, P. and Dhingra, K. (2014), “Psycho-sociological

investigation of criminal behaviour within a prison sample using retrospective data”, The Howard Journal of

Criminal Justice, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 31-48.

Conger, R.D., Ge, X., Elder, G.H., Lorenz, F.O. and Simons, R.L. (1994), “Economic stress, coercive family

process, and developmental problems of adolescents”, Child development, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 541-61.

Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Hyland, P. and Goodson, S. (2014), “Biological correlates of psychopathy:

a brief review”, Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 1361-9322.

DeLisi, M., Peters, D.J., Dansby, T., Vaughn, M.G., Shook, J.J. and Hochstetler, A. (2013), “Dynamics of

psychopathy and moral disengagement in the etiology of crime”, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 12

No. 4, pp. 295-314

Dhingra, K. and Boduszek, D. (2013), “Psychopathy and criminal behaviour: a psychosocial research

perspective”, Journal of Criminal Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 83-107.

Dhingra, K., Boduszek, D. and Kola-Palmer, S. (in press a), “A latent class analysis of psychopathic traits in

civil psychiatric patients”, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice.

Dhingra, K., Boduszek, D., Hyland, P. and Debowska, A. (in press b), “A bifactorial solution to the

psychopathy checklist: screening version in a sample of civil psychiatric patients”, Criminal Behaviour and

Mental Health.

Eisenberg, N. (2000), “Emotion, regulation, and moral development”, Annual review of psychology, Vol. 51

No. 1, pp. 665-97.

Esbensen, F.A., and Weerman, F.M. (2005), “Youth gangs and troublesome youth groups in the United

States and the Netherlands a cross-national comparison”, European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 2 No. 1,

pp. 5-37.

Esbensen, F.A., Huizinga, D. and Weiher, A.W. (1993), “Gang and non-gang youth: differences in explanatory

factors”, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 94-116.

Esbensen, F.A., Winfree, L.T., He, N. and Taylor, T.J. (2001), “Youth gangs and definitional issues: when is a

gang a gang, and why does it matter?”, Crime & delinquency, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 105-30.

Esbensen, F.A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T.J. and Freng, A. (2009), “Similarities and differences in risk factors for

violent offending and gang membership”, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol. 42 No. 3,

pp. 310-35.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 21

Farrington, D. (1991), “Childhood aggression and adult violence: early precursors and later life outcomes”, in

Pepler, D. and Rubin, K., (Eds), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, Lawrence A

Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 5-29.

First, M.B., Spitzer, R.L., Gibbon, M. and Williams, J.B.W. (2002), Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV

Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Nonpatient Edition SCID-I/NP, New York State Psychiatric Institute,

Biometrics Research, New York, NY.

Forth, A.E., Kosson, D.S. and Hare, R.D. (2003), Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version

(PCL : YV), MHS.

Gatti, U., Tremblay, R.E., Vitaro, F. and McDuff, P. (2005), “Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: a test

of the selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

Vol. 46 No. 11, pp. 1178-90.

Gini, G. (2006), “Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: what’s wrong?”, Aggressive Behavior,

Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 528-39.

Glenn, A.L., Raine, A. and Schug, R.A. (2009a), “The neural correlates of moral decision-making in

psychopathy”, Molecular Psychiatry, Vol. 141 No. 11, pp. 5-6.

Glenn, A.L., Raine, A., Schug, R.A., Young, L. and Hauser, M. (2009b), “Increased DLPFC activity during

moral decision-making in psychopathy”, Molecular Psychiatry, Vol. 14 No. 10, pp. 909-116.

Graham, S. and Juvonen, J. (1998), “Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: an attributional

analysis”, Developmental psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 587-95.

Guerra, N.G. and Slaby, R.G. (1990), “Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders:

II. Intervention”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 269-82.

Guerra, N.G., Rowell Huesmann, L. and Spindler, A. (2003), “Community violence exposure, social cognition,

and aggression among urban elementary school children”, Child Development, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 1561-76.

Harenski, C.L., Harenski, K.A., Shane, M.S. and Kiehl, K.A. (2010), “Aberrant neural processing of moral

violations in criminal psychopaths”, Journal of abnormal psychology, Vol. 119 No. 4, pp. 863-82.

Harpur, T.J. and Hare, R.D. (1994), “Assessment of psychopathy as a function of age”, Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 4, pp. 604-9.

Hyde, L.W., Shaw, D.S. and Moilanen, K.L. (2010), “Developmental precursors of moral disengagement and

the role of moral disengagement in the development of antisocial behaviour”, Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 197-209.

Hymel, S., Rocke-Henderson, N. and Bonanno, R.A. (2005), “Moral disengagement: a framework for

understanding bullying among adolescents”, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Kessler, R.C. and Üstün, T.B. (2004), “The world mental health (WMH) survey initiative version of the world

health organization (WHO) composite international diagnostic interview (CIDI)”, International journal of

methods in psychiatric research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 93-121.

Kessler, R.C., Abelson, J., Demler, O., Escobar, J.I., Gibbon, M., Guyer, M.E. and Zheng, H. (2004), “Clinical

calibration of DSM-IV diagnoses in the World Mental Health (WMH) version of the World Health Organization

(WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI)”, International Journal of Methods in

Psychiatric Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 122-39.

Kiriakidis, S. (2008), “Moral disengagement relation to delinquency and independence from indices of

social dysfunction”, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 52 No. 5,

pp. 571-83.

Klein, M. and Maxson, C. (2006), Gang Structures, Crime Patterns, and Police Responses, Social Science

Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J. and Newman, J.P. (2012), “Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy”,

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 708-14.

McCuish, E.C., Corrado, R., Lussier, P. and Hart, S.D. (2014), “Psychopathic traits and offending trajectories

from early adolescence to adulthood”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 66-76.

Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A. and Lo Feudo, G. (2003), “Moral emotions and

bullying: a cross-national comparison of differences between bullies, victims and outsiders”, Aggressive

Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 515-30.

PAGE 22 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015

Musher-Eizenman, D.R., Boxer, P., Danner, S., Dubow, E.F., Goldstein, S.E. and Heretick, D.M. (2004),

“Social-cognitive mediators of the relation of environmental and emotion regulation factors to children’s

aggression”, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 389-408.

Newton, N.C., Havard, A. and Teesson, M. (2012), “The association between moral disengagement,

psychological distress, resistive self-regulatory efficacy and alcohol and cannabis use among adolescents in

Sydney, Australia”, Addiction Research & Theory, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 261-9.

Ng-Mak, D.S., Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. and Stueve, A. (2002), “Normalization of violence among

inner-city youth: a formulation for research”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 72 No. 1,

pp. 92-101.

Orue, I., Bushman, B.J., Calvete, E., Thomaes, S., de Castro, B.O. and Hutteman, R. (2011), “Monkey see,

monkey do, monkey hurt: longitudinal effects of exposure to violence on children’s aggressive behaviour”,

Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 432-7.

Osofsky, M.J., Bandura, A. and Zimbardo, P.G. (2005), “The role of moral disengagement in the execution

process”, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 371-93.

Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C. and Caprara, G.V. (2008), “Stability and change of

moral disengagement and its impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence”, Child Development,

Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 1288-309.

Pelton, J., Gound, M., Forehand, R. and Brody, G. (2004), “The moral disengagement scale: extension

with an American minority sample”, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 1,

pp. 31-9.

Pornari, C.D. and Wood, J. (2010), “Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of

moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies”, Aggressive Behavior, Vol. 36

No. 2, pp. 81-94.

Sagone, E. and Caroli, M.E.D. (2013), “Personality factors and civic moral disengagement

in law and psychology university students”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 9,

pp. 158-63.

Salekin, R.T. and Frick, P.J. (2005), “Psychopathy in children and adolescents: the need for a developmental

perspective”, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 403-9.

Schubert, C.A., Mulvey, E.P., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Losoya, S.H., Hecker, T. and Knight, G.P. (2004),

“Operational lessons from the pathways to desistance project”, Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 2

No. 3, pp. 237-55.

Schwartz, D. and Proctor, L.J. (2000), “Community violence exposure and children’s social adjustment in the

school peer group: the mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition”, Journal of consulting and

clinical psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 670-83.

Seara-Cardoso, A., Dolberg, H., Neumann, C., Roiser, J.P. and Viding, E. (2013), “Empathy,

morality and psychopathic traits in women”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 55 No. 3,

pp. 328-33.

Selner-O’Hagan, M.B., Kindlon, D.J., Buka, S.L., Raudenbush, S.W. and Earls, F.J. (1998),

“Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 39 No. 2,

pp. 215-24.

Shulman, E.P., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A.R. and Fagan, J. (2011), “Moral disengagement among serious

juvenile offenders: a longitudinal study of the relations between morally disengaged attitudes and offending”,

Developmental Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 1619-32.

Sykes, G.M. and Matza, D. (1957), “Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency”, American

Sociological Review, Vol. 22, pp. 664-70.

Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J. and Mashek, D.J. (2007), “Moral emotions and moral behaviour”, Annual Review

of Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 345-72.

Turiel, E. (2002), The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Warr, M. (2002), Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

VOL. 5 NO. 1 2015 j JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY j PAGE 23