Effects of the Walters Criminal Lifestyle
Program on Offenders' Criminal Thinking Styles
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Background
To control the growing population of offenders, the United States has built prisons
and changed sentencing regulations (Garland & Sparks, 2000; Kovandzic & Vieraitis,
2006; Mauer, 2001). Chancer and McLaughlin (2007) and Garland (2001) examined
societal fear of crime as the incentive that spurred the increase in United States
sentencing policies. These changes involved “power and class shifts, capitalism increase,
familial structure breakdown, and technology increase” (Garland & Sparks, 2000, p. 15).
The U.S. federal government spends approximately $20,000 per offender per year to
maintain their imprisonment (Mauer, 2001).
Many individuals in the United States value possessions as representations of
respect, power, and worth (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Prilleltensky, 1997; Rayburn, 2004).
This value system produces inequality, competition, and meaningless lives, according to
some critics (see Bebeau, Rest, & Narvaez, 1999; Garland & Sparks, 2000). Without an
ability to cope with stress or familial values, one can choose a criminal lifestyle to
achieve an image and acquire possessions that are regarded in U.S. society as stature
building (Garland & Sparks, 2000; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Prilleltensky, 1997;
Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2000).
Outcome evaluations of correctional programs have highlighted the effectiveness
of addressing criminal attitudes, thoughts, and values in transforming criminal behavior
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al.,
2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Transformation of criminal thinking is a short-term
outcome that can spur the long-term outcome of correctional EBPs of recidivism
reduction and increase the public’s sense of safety (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et
al., 2005; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005;
Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006). Many criminality professionals have asserted that these
funds should be applied to evidence-based practices (EBP) that reduce recidivism and
prevent criminality (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Garland & Sparks,
2000; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Kovandzic & Vieraitis, 2006;
Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Mauer, 2001). EBP’s
outcomes indicate a reduction in offender criminal attitudes, thoughts, and values which
have been found to be associated with decreased recidivism and the promotion of public
safety (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen, Eck, & Lowenkamp, 2002;
Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006). Targeting criminogenic needs and criminal risks are major elements
in the principles that guide effective outcome behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue
et al., 2005; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey,
2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). Criminogenic needs include criminal thinking as one of the eight principles of
EBP (National Institute of Corrections, 2009) and is the short-term outcome of this study
as well as Walters whose study is being replicated (1990; see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Eight evidence-based principles of effective interventions integrated into
quality assurance model. Reprinted from Implementing evidence-based principles (p. 25),
United States Department of Justice, 2009, Washington D.C.: United States Department
of Justice.
Problem Statement
In 2010, the correctional population in the United States comprised 7.1 million
individuals (Glaze, 2010). In 2012, 4,781, 300 total offenders were on parole or probation
in their designated communities (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012) with a ratio of one
officer to 30 parolees and one officer to 175 probationers (Cullen, Eck, & Lowenkamp,
2002). From 1990 to 2010, 11.9 % of released offenders have been reincarcerated before
a 3-year period (Pew Center, 2010). The social problem of criminality puts millions of
children’s lives and human connectivity at risk.
There were 955, 669 reported crimes in Pennsylvania in 2009 (Pennsylvania crime
reporting system, 2011). In Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, 21, 236 crimes were reported
in 2010 (Pennsylvania crime reporting system, 2011). In the study’s Pennsylvanian city
there were 12, 233 reported crime totals in 2010. These numbers illustrate the need for
EBP implementation in correctional facilities’ programs in and outside of prisons to
discourage the continuation of criminal behavior (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et
al., 2005; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005;
Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
One of the eight EBPs of effective interventions with offenders is assessing their
criminogenic needs and risks (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Criminal
thinking was the highlighted criminogenic need of the Walters original criminal lifestyle
program (CLP; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) as it was in this
study. The assessment and modification of criminal thinking was CLP’s short term
outcome (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012), as it was one in this
study. The long-term outcome of CLP was to reduce recidivism. Statistically significant
in Walters’ work with federal prisoners whose length of stay could span many years, was
the reduction of recidivism (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Neither short nor long term outcomes have been previously measured with parolees
whose length of stay was up to 90 days (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). Criminality was the name of the shortened program derived from CLP that
addressed the different length of stays and type of offenders through its content and
duration.
To further examine outcomes for parolees with shortened lengths of stays,
archival pre and posttest data from The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking
Styles were collected from three cohort groups who participated in 5 weeks of criminality
as compared to 5 weeks of primary group programming. This data can be used to assess
main effects and interactions between treatments and cohorts. A 2x3 between groups
factorial ANCOVA assessed the effectiveness of two programs in reducing three cohorts’
criminal thinking. The independent variables were the types of treatment (criminality and
primary group) and the three cohorts. The dependent variable was the scores on the
PICTS administered following completion of intervention programs. Scores on the
PICTS administered prior to the commencement of the programs were used as a covariate
to control for individual difference.
Purpose of the Study
A modified CLP (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012) named
Criminality is a standard practice in a community correctional facility I studied.
Criminality is a modified CLP (Walters, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2012) that addresses the
extensive parolees and offenders who are sent to community correctional facilities instead
of being incarcerated due to sentencing changes and increased prison populations
(Pennsylvania State Parole, 2013). The original Walters (1999, 2005) CLP has three
sections and is used federal prisoners to evaluate its outcomes (Walters, 1999, 2002,
2005, 2012). Criminality addresses many gaps. It addressed a different population than
the federal offenders whom Walters (1999, 2002, 2005, 2012) had included.
Criminality’s sample was comprised of state parolees and county probationers. The
Walters original CLP (1999, 2005) ran up to 2 years. Each Criminality program ran 5
weeks. This modification was implemented due to offenders’ shortened length of stays
due to lack of state, federal or insurance funding. Walters (1999, 2005) used differential
sections of program dynamics and education. Criminality used CLP’s first section,
criminal thinking change, due to the time constraints placed upon parolees and
probationers in a community correctional center (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Walters, 1999,
2005, 2012). The first section’s outcomes coincided with correctional EBP’s short-term
outcomes of offenders’ alteration of criminal thinking (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et
al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004;
Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006).
In this study, the three cohorts’ groups archival pre and posttest data from The
Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) was used to assess any
main effects or interactions between treatments and cohorts. Each cohort group had 40
participants who attended two different treatment groups; 20 participants attended a
5week criminality group while 20 participants attended a primary group. Each program is
described and defined in Chapter 3. A 2x3 between group factorial assessed the
effectiveness of two treatment groups in reducing three cohorts’ criminal thinking. The
independent variables were the types of treatment (criminality, primary group) and the
three cohorts. The dependent variable was the scores on the PICTS administered
following completion of treatment programs. Scores on the PICTS administered prior to
the commencement of the programs were used as a covariate to control for individual
difference. The design and components of this study are further described in Chapter 3.
Research Question and Hypotheses
RQ1. Are there significant mean differences in post intervention criminal thinking
scores for the criminality group and the primary group, while controlling for their pretest
scores?
Ho1: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha1: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Ha3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Theoretical Foundation
Criminal lifestyle theory (CLT) evolved from diverse criminality approaches. The
approaches elucidate he diversity of criminality, its treatment approaches, moral
reasoning, and education.
Criminality
Criminality has been explored through differential association theory (Akers,
1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Costello & Vowell, 1999; Sutherland, 1947). Differential
association theory influenced Aker’s social learning and Bandura’s social cognitive
theoretical perspectives (Aker 1991, 1994, 1998; Bandura, 1999, 2002; Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, &
Regalia, 2001).
Thornberry (1987) and Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Farnworth, and Jang (1991)
promoted criminality translations and extensions which influenced Gibbs (2003) and
Walters (1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2012) to address thinking distortions within a
lifestyle framework. EBPs, principles, and outcomes designed CLT. These practices,
principles, and outcomes are documented through Walters’ focus on criminogenic needs,
recidivism reduction, and public safety (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2012).
Criminality Treatment Approaches
The new culture of crime necessitates divergent approaches to addressing the
complexity of crime (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006;
Garland, 2001; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey,
2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006; Sherman,
Farrington, Welsh, & MacKensie, 2002). Sentencing has changed; so, should
programming (Fox, 1993; ONDCP, 2011; Tolan, Guerra, & Kendall, 1995; Welsh &
Farrington, 2007; Winick, 1999). Treatment approaches that have reduced recidivism
rates, the highest of treatment outcome expectancy, are based in cognitive behavioral
foundations (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Wilson, 2007; Wilson, Bouffard, & MacKensie,
2005). Programs such as Reasoning and Rehabilitation (Tong & Farrington, 2006; Ross
& Fabiano, 1985), Moral Reconation Therapy (Little & Robinson, 1989, 2006) and
Therapeutic Communities (DeLeon, 2000, 2010; Orenstein & Hunkins, 2009) that have
been explored. Other programs are Equipping Peers to Help One Another Program
(EQUIP, Gibbs, 1991, 1995, 2003; Nas, Brugman, & Koops, 2005; Palmer, 2003), and
CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2012).
Moral Reasoning and Education
Social concerns increase regarding morality and criminal behavior has
necessitated addressing a global population of all ages through moral education (Garland,
2001; Hawkins et al., 2000; O’Mahony, 2009). Moral development evolves through
relationships with others (Nucci, 2001). Individuals grow and learn through their
interactions and relationships with their families, schools, communities, cultures,
societies, countries, and worlds that have taught them values, norms, and virtues they use
as guides in their lives (Strike, 2008). Moral education within families, schools,
communities, cultures, societies, countries, and worlds provide important curricula for the
development of social change (Pollard, Kurtines, Carlo, Dancs, & Moyock, 1991).
CLP provided the opportunity for offenders to change their thinking, values, and
behaviors through various techniques while using a multitude of tools. Moral education
used as a tool that addressed the evidence-based principles of changing antisocial
thoughts, attitudes, values, and emotions; promoting self-efficacy, responsibility, and
self-control, and developing problem solving and decision making skills (Andrews &
Bonta, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Palmer et al., 2007; Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012). Using
Walter’s CLP, varied cognitive behavioral techniques and moral educational methods
addressed offender’s thoughts (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012).
Berkowitz and Bier (2004), Lickona (1993), and Rayburn (2004) highlighted the
importance of moral and character education, value clarification, and cognitive
development in healthy development. These approaches applied to corrections as
modification of thoughts, feelings, and values (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Listwan et al.,
2006; Palmer et al., 2007; Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012). Leeman, Gibbs, and Fuller (1993)
and Nas et al. (2005) implemented moral educational programs to modify juvenile
delinquents’ cognitive distortions and basic moral values. Research participant’s
recidivism rates decreased while their skills increased. These EBP are incorporated into
CLP while using moral educational tools to focus on modifying criminal thinking errors
(DeLeon, 2000; Gibbs, 2003; Hoffman, 2000; Howard, 2000, Rayburn, 2004; Walters,
2002a). The gap in research stems from the lack of application of moral education with
adult criminals (Leeman et al., 1993; Nas et al., 2005). Chapter 2 will advance the above
theoretical frameworks and extend them to this study’s sample.
Nature of the Study
Criminality (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012) was a standard
EBP in a community correctional facility in Pennsylvania, that modified CLP’s (Walters,
1999, 2005, 2012) workbooks, role-plays, and assessment tool, PICTS (Walters, 2006).
Archival pre-and post-intervention data were collected from PICTS and investigated
through a 2x3 between group analyses of covariance. An 2x3 between group ANCOVA
was conducted to assess the effectiveness of criminality and primary treatment groups in
reducing three cohorts’ criminal thinking. The independent variables were the types of
treatment programs (criminality, primary group) and the three cohorts. The dependent
variable was the scores on the PICTS administered following completion of the treatment
programs. Scores on the PICTS administered prior to the commencement of the programs
was used as a covariate to control for individual difference.
Each cohort had 40 participants. Criminality group had 20 participants as did
primary group. Criminality was the treatment group as primary group was the control
group. The studies’ total sample was 120 offenders. Archival data were collected and
assessed from June 3, 2014 until September 30, 2014.
Definitions
Criminality: Criminality “A lifestyle characterized by a global sense of
irresponsibility, self-indulgent interests, and intrusive approach to interpersonal
relationships, and chronic violation of societal rules, laws, and mores” (Walters, 1990, p.
71). Hirschi (1969) defined crime as “an event and criminality as involvement.
Criminality is relatively stable differences among individuals in their propensity to
engage in criminal or equivalent acts” (p. 114). I do not differentiate offenders by the
criminal acts. I will use the terms criminals and offenders interchangeably.
Moral education: Moral education features the development of universally
acceptable values, ideals, virtues, and rules such as fairness, human welfare, and rights
through varied instructional techniques, dynamics, and behaviors in diverse institutions
and groups (Covell & Howe, 2001; Nucci, 2001. I will not differentiate character
education from moral education.
Moral reasoning: Moral reasoning is the “active construction of moral judgments
by individuals based on social experiences” (Palmer, 2003, p. 166). The process through
which one decides what is right and wrong (Rayburn, 2004).
Criminogenic risks: Criminogenic risk are indicators of plausibility of individual
employing criminal activity in the future (Albert & Bonta, 2006; Latessa & Lowenkamp,
2006; Ward & Stewart, 2003). The two risk types are static and dynamic (Albert &
Bonta, 2006; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Ward & Stewart, 2003). Static risks are not
changeable but dynamic is (Albert & Bonta, 2006; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Ward
& Stewart, 2003).
Criminogenic needs: Criminogenic needs are “dynamic attributes of offenders and
their circumstances that, when changed, are associated with reduced rates of recidivism”
(Ward & Stewart, 2003, p. 127).
Criminal lifestyle: A criminal lifestyle is defined by reoccurring patterns of
illegality and transgressions (Walters, 1990). A criminal lifestyle is “characterized by
four behavioral characteristics of irresponsibility, self-indulgence, interpersonal
intrusiveness, and social rule breaking” (Walters, 1990, p.71).
Criminal thinking: Criminal thinking is an idiosyncratic style of thought that
“develops to support, buttress, and reinforce one’s criminal decisions” (Walters, 1990, p.
83).
Thinking errors: Criminal thinking is composed of eight thinking errors that
maintain and preserve characteristics of irresponsibility, self-indulgence, interpersonal
intrusiveness, and social rule breaking (Walters, 1990). Thinking errors are mollification,
cutoff, entitlement, power orientation, sentimentality, superoptimism, cognitive
indolence, and discontinuity (Walters, 1990).
Assumptions
The Pennsylvania Legal System and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
assessed this sample as offenders due to their numerous violations of societal laws and
incarcerations. It was assumed that the comparison group received some similar treatment
but no Criminality programming. All participants were able to read and understand the
PICTS. It was also assumed that all participants responded honestly. It was assumed that
the treatment group received five weeks of criminality programming where the control
group received 5 weeks of primary group programming.
History could have been a threat to this study’s internal validity due to its
participants all residing together in a community correctional center where varied events
can occur. Maturation could have been another threat to this study’s internal validity due
to the nature of an institution and individual’s varied processes. Testing could have been
another internal threat due to the exposure of the pretest’s possible influence on the
outcomes of the posttest.
External validity could be threatened by the interactive effects of testing due to all
participants taking the pretest which might have affected a participant’s treatment
response. Another threat to this study’s external validity could have been the multiple
past treatments many of this study’s participants have experienced which may have
confounded the outcomes of this study’s effects.
Scope and Delimitations
There were no actual participants in this study. A purposive, nonprobability
sample of archival data were obtained from a community correctional facility designated
by the State of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Division of Corrections as an inpatient
rehabilitation center for criminality and addiction. This study generalized to other
community correctional facilities designated by the State of Pennsylvania and the
Pennsylvania Division of Corrections.
Limitations
Although this study had strengths in its methodology, there were also weaknesses.
This study’s sample was limited to males from a Pennsylvania community correctional
offenders. I was not able to control the time that participants completed homework
assignments. Another limitation was the diversity of the participants’ backgrounds.
Another limitation was the participant’s honest responses. A response bias could have
been present because the instruments was a self-report measure. The design of pre-and
posttest administration could have affected the response bias. The response biases of
positive-negative impression, random responding, or acquiescence were not controlled.
The last limitation was the assessing of archival data and the accurate recording of the
data.
I made restrictions for the study. The first was the studying of male offenders with
various violations due to lack of research on offenders with varying types of offenses
instead of just high risk offenders. The sample was only chosen from a community
correctional facility instead of all different offender facilities due to time and financial
restraints. Psychologists have used varied therapeutic approaches to address offender’s
multiple problems; I evaluated criminal thinking with a lifestyle approach. The focus of
this study was criminal thinking and was not evaluated on multiple levels of offenders’
problems.
Significance
Society’s ability to save children from crime rests in researchers who identify the
risk and need factors that contribute to the criminal developmental process (Hawkins et
al., 2000; Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 1995, 2004). Multifarious theories offer
analysis and provide evidence that can explain the criminal processes and strategies for
its prevention and reduction through EBP of thought change (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004;
Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006).
Evidence-based researchers recommend changing lifestyles, values, and thinking
distortions that reinforce criminal behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005;
Cullen et al., 2006; DeLeon, 2000; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Howard, 2000; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Walker, 2002; Walters, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). EBP stress
the use of moral and character education in modern society (Berkowitz & Bier, 2004;
Kohlberg &Wassermann, 1980; Lickona, 1993; Lickona, Schaps, & Lewis, 1996,
Rayburn, 2004). Moral education teaches and reinforces the importance of prosocial
values (Gibbs, 2003; Hoffman, 2000; Rayburn, 2004), which is an important outcome in
EBP and research. This intervention can be extended and applied to adult criminals,
whose risk factors include a lack of school involvement and high dropout rates
(Farrington et al., 2001; Garland & Sparks, 2000; Hawkins et. al., 2000; O’Mahony,
2009; Sherman et al., 1996; Thornberry et al., 2003; Thornberry et al., 1995, 2004;
Wasserman et al., 2003).
Implementation of criminal lifestyle change programs that also highlight moral
education into community correctional facilities can elevate an individual’s worth and
dignity, which can extend into peer affiliations and the community (DeLeon, 2000).
These lifestyle changes can promote a positive social change pattern within the social
structure of offenders, the community, and society.
Summary
While America spends approximately $20,000 per offender per year to maintain
their imprisonment (Mauer, 2001), criminality professionals believe this money should be
applied to EBPs that reduce recidivism and prevent criminality. The purpose of this study
was to explore the effectiveness of a program that can potentially reduce crime. Changing
an individual’s worth, value system, thinking process, and dignity can extend into peer
affiliations and the community. These lifestyle changes can promote a positive social
change in the social structure of offenders and the community.
Chapter 2 was an examination of the research literature that was relevant to this
study. These sections were reviewed literature on criminality, its treatment approaches,
moral education, and its foundation in moral development. Chapter 3 was the research
methodology, which included information of the study, its sample, intervention,
instrumentation, and archival data assessment. Chapter 4 was a delineation of the results
of the study. Chapter 5 was a discussion of the findings, their implications for social
change, and recommendations for action and further study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
In 2010, the correctional population in the United States comprised 7.1 million
individuals (Glaze, 2010). In 2012, 4,781, 300 total offenders were on parole or probation
in their designated communities (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012). This study explores
criminal lifestyle programs that address criminal behavior through cognitive
modifications. This chapter reviews this study’s search strategies, theoretical foundation,
and their applications to this study.
Literature Search Strategy
In this review, I explore the theoretical models that built CLT and the CLP. This
research review of scientific literature spanned published works from 1927 through 2011.
The early works are relevant to the nature of the study and its theories. I used electronic
databases that I accessed via Walden University Library. The databases used included
PsycINFO PsycARTICLES, Medline, Academic Search Premier, and others. Key words
used as search criteria included criminal behavior, offender behavior, moral reasoning,
moral development, and moral education. Author names were also used as key words.
Theoretical Foundation
Criminality is a multifaceted construct. Some consider criminality as a
personality, a thought, a behavior, or an emotion, its multiplicity has been well-evidenced
(Gibbs, 2010; Thornberry, 1987; Thornberry, et al., 1991; Walters 1990, 1992, 1995,
2000, 2012). Its rapid spreads throughout our world is building prisons not solutions
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Garland, 2001;
Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006; Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, &
MacKensie, 2002).
General Perspectives on Criminality
Evidence-based research, practices, and programming accentuate multifarious
theoretical foundations with diverse programming applications and techniques (Andrews
& Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin
et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters 1990,
1992, 1995, 2000, 2012). The major technique was found to be cognitive behavioral
techniques (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006).
CLT is rooted in the foundational perspectives of differential association theory
(Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland, Cressey, &
Luckenbill, 1992) and Aker’s and Bandura’s social learning and social cognitive theory
(Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1998; Bandura, 1999, 2002, 2004; Bandura, et al., 1996;
Bandura, et al., 2001; Gibbs, 2010). From these rhizomes, CLT developed (Walters,
1990, 1992, 1995, 2000, 2012). CLT are learned behaviors that form a complex lifestyle.
Differential Association
Differential association proposes that criminality is learned through nomenclature
(Akers, 1985, 1996; Andrews & Bonata, 2006; Bandura, 2004; Sutherland, 1947;
Sutherland, et al., 1992). Social interactions deem certain incidences or circumstances
appropriate for law violation through communication, vocabulary, and classifications
(Akers, 1985, 1996; Andrews & Bonata, 2006; Bandura, 2004; Sutherland, 1947;
Sutherland et al., 1992). These interactions teach criminal methodologies through
definitions that address fluctuating value systems in diverse individuals, situations,
structures, and cultures (Mears, Ploeger, & Warr, 1993; Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland et
al., 1992). Definitions are characterized through an individual’s history of experiences
with varied situations and associations (Akers & Jennings, 2009; Sutherland, 1947).
Sutherland (1947) postulated nine principles. These principles consist of the
learning aspects of crime that are endorsed through affiliation groups, which result from
individuals’ decision-making and which are promoted by definitions (Akers, 1985, 1991,
1994, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2009; Matsueda, 1982; Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland et
al., 1992). These definitions are communicated through motives, drives, rationalizations,
and attitudes (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1998; Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland et al., 1992;
Walters, 2002a).
If any of the motivations, drives, rationalizations, or attitudes that favor criminal
behavior are consistently and abidingly prioritized or exaggerated with significant
associations, then choice of that behavior is possible (Sutherland, 1947). These
quantifiers regulate all forms of learning (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1998; Sutherland,
1947; Sutherland et al., 1992). Positive outcome expectancies of criminal behavior derive
from these quantifiers. Some quantifiers can be the absorbent amount of money drug
dealers can obtain by belonging to a group or by gaining the respect of other dealers.
Sutherland (1947) stressed the point that learning can be implemented through
diverse forms, not merely through social interactions and imitations. Sutherland, in his
ninth principle, stated that criminality cannot be analyzed or interpreted by needs and
values alone. Individual and societal fluctuations transform criminal needs and values,
which in turn modifies their behaviors and laws that address them (Sutherland et al.,
1992). An example of criminal value change is how drug dealers might justify selling
drugs to a pregnant woman or child by using the rationalization that if they did not sell
the drugs their competition would.
Criminal behavior can be a result from a variation of values (Sutherland, 1947).
Sutherland and Sutherland et al. (1992) discussed the importance of these fluctuations
through varying risk factors and their influence. Sutherland’s principles are manifested in
evidenced-based researchers’ findings concerning the importance of motivation, attitudes,
criminogenic needs, and risk factor implementation in offenders’ assessments and
programs (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara
& Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2005, 2006, 2012).
Differential association roots fertilized CLT’s factors (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Differential association’s environmental and social
interactions built CLT’s templates that reinforce criminal behavioral imprints on
addressing offenders’ criminogenic needs, highlighted by their criminal thinking,
attitudes, and values. Differential association’s perspective is highlighted by the
frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of exposure to associate’s criminal definitions
and their internal manifestations that produce criminal behaviors (Akers, 1985, 1991,
1994, 1998; Alarid, Burton, & Cullen, 2000; Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland, et al., 1992).
Research on and criticism of differential association has been conflicting. Akers
(1985, 1991, 1994, 1998), Matsueda (1989), Mears et al. (1998) and Thornberry et al.
(1991, 1996) found that peers were influential in delinquency development in many ways
as addressed in Sutherland’s (1947) differential association perspectives. Differential
association perspectives applied to treatment have found different avenues for working
with offenders (Matsueda, 1988; Matsueda, & Anderson, 1998; Robinson, & Porporino,
2001; Tong & Farrington, 2006). Matsueda, Matsueda, and Anderson (1998) explored
delinquent association’s effects on individuals’ acquisition or integration of delinquent
behavior. Matsueda’s (1982) first study was completed by using Hirschi’s (1969)
Richmond youth study data. Matsueda and Anderson (1998) used the National Youth
survey. These effects, like Sutherland’s differential associations, reported how present
delinquency related to risk factors, and future delinquency.
Alarid et al. (2000) reported that the number of delinquent peers and different
definitions favorable to criminal behavior have a strong effect on type of crimes without
differentiation between males or females. Reasoning and rehabilitation addresses
differential association’s focus on group interactions (Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Tong
& Farrington, 2006) that build skills for reasoning and self-regulation (Robinson &
Porporino, 2001; Tong & Farrington, 2006). These interactions may modify attitudes and
promote open mindedness (Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Tong & Farrington, 2006).
Social Learning
Social learning and social cognitive theory have many roots in differential
association. Criminality is assumed to be a learned behavior as is assumed in CLT
(Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1998; Bandura, 1986, 1999, 2002; Marlatt, 1996; Sutherland,
1947; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012; Walters & Chlumsky,
1993; Yochelson & Samenow, 1976, 1977). Reinforcement schedules, contingencies,
imitation, and observational learning teach and communicate criminal behavior,
techniques, and competencies (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1998; Bandura, 1986, 1999,
2002; Sutherland, 1947). Akers’s (1985, 1991, 1994, 1998) and Bandura’s (1986, 1999,
2002) extensions of differential association added cognitive elements to Sutherland’s
(1947) theory. Learning’s influence on criminal behaviors emphasizes theoretical
perspectives applied within this study’s moral education class.
Akers’s social learning theory (1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings,
2009) extended Sutherland’s (1947) differential association. Sutherland had not extended
or detailed behavioral patterns of learning or definitions that were favorable or
unfavorable towards criminality. There were seven principles of Akers social learning
theory (Akers & Jennings, 2009). The first principle defined criminal behavior as learned
yet added operant conditioning to support its processes. The second principle highlighted
the possibilities of learning individually or socially. The third principle reinforced a
groups’ importance in the integration of learning. The fourth principle discussed that
criminal behavior is learned through certain methods and actions that augment and
strengthen its integration into one’s behavioral patterns. The fifth principle discussed that
the behaviors that were augmented and strengthened functioned due to their
reinforcement frequency, duration, and intensity. The sixth principle stressed the
normalizing of criminal behavior when it was reinforced as a value. The seventh principle
stressed its reinforcement schedule as its strength in integration (Akers, 1985, 1991,
1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jensen, 2006, 2009). These principles underlie SCT as well.
Social learning’s construct of differential association is delineated through
distinctive forms of interacting within an individual’s representative or nonrepresentative
situations, systems, and associates influences (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998;
Akers & Jennings, 2009; Pratt et al., 2010). Exposure to criminal or prosocial behaviors,
their rules, beliefs, thoughts, and attitudes affects individuals’ learning process (Akers,
1985, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009; Pratt et al., 2010). Evidence-based
researchers endorsed and promoted these social learning processes as a foundation from
which EBPs were engineered and treatment was formulated (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). EBP, such as
risk and need assessment, intrinsic motivation enhancement, intervention concentration,
skill training, positive reinforcement, and community support, are the focus of social
learning’s perspectives (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006;
Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). EBP and CLT stresses the learning of criminal behaviors and
their modification through cognitive restructuring, reshaping, and accommodating pro
social beliefs, thoughts, and attitudes (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005,
2006, 2012; Walters & Chlumsky, 1993).
Akers’s (1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009) social
learning theory paralleled Bandura’s (1982, 1986, 1989, 2001, 2006) social cognitive
theory by adding operant learning into its principles. Differential and vicarious
reinforcement expands differential association theory to address the learning processes of
operant conditioning (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2006,
2009; Pratt et al., 2010; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998). Differential reinforcement entailed
the prevalence and degree of rewards and punishments that reinforced or discouraged a
certain behavior. This behavior can be criminal or prosocial depending upon many
factors, one is the vicarious reinforcement of observational learning of primary, or
secondary groups and associates’ behavior (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers
& Jennings, 2006, 2009; Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1989, 2001, 2006; Matsueda & Anderson,
1998; Pratt et al., 2010). These reinforcements or consequences are based on positive or
negative reinforcement or positive or negative punishment (Akers & Jennings, 2009;
Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Pratt et al., 2010). Contingent learning teaches and inspires
motivation while configuring attitudes and beliefs (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998;
Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009; Bandura, 1982, 1986, 1989, 2001, 2006; Matsueda &
Anderson, 1998). The configuration of attitudes and beliefs rivets CLT (Walters, 1990,
1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Increasing positive reinforcement for change is
an evidence-based principle, which is addressed through Aker’s social learning constructs
(Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009).
Definitions are individuals’ beliefs about any specific behavior (Akers, 1985,
1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009). These beliefs can be influenced
by “one’s thoughts, justifications, excuses, and attitudes that consider an act right or
wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified or unjustified, appropriate or
inappropriate” (Akers & Jennings, 2009, p. 326). These beliefs are general, specific,
conventional, and positive (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers & Jennings,
2006, 2009).
General beliefs are developed from external influences such as family, school,
church, which form values and morals (Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009). Specific beliefs
are one’s internal regulators that lead one toward or away from behaviors. Observing
criminal behavior throughout one’s development normalizes it. Conventional beliefs
direct one away from criminal behaviors while positive and neutralizing beliefs justify
and gives permission to behave criminally (Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009; Bandura,
1982, 1986, 1989, 2001, 2006). Evidence-based research findings showed that targeting
criminogenic needs, such as thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and values, into criminality
programming can assist in accomplishing long-term outcome fulfillment such as reducing
recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan, Cullen, & Latessa, 2006;
Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Criticisms of the social learning theory are like differential association and include
no specification of social learning techniques, cultural deviance theory, attainment of
only unusual behavior, and only explaining reason for acquisition (Osgood & Anderson,
2004; Thornberry et al., 1994; Tittle & Paternoster, 2000). Osgood and Anderson refuted
the causal role that is portrayed in social learning between peers and culture. Tittle and
Paternoster criticized social learning’s lack of contingency, prosocial interactions, and
sanction apprehension.
The multitude of research on social learning and its variables extended from the
early 1960s through 2000s (Pratt et al., 2010). The strongest effects were found in other
societies, families, peers, and significant groups. Pratt et al. found that 31% to 68% of
adolescent substance use and abuse was explained by social learning variables. Teenage
smoking was analyzed through social learning and found to have demonstrated 54% of
cross sectional variance and 41% longitudinal variance of teenage smoking (Akers &
Jennings, 2006, 2009; Pratt et al., 2010). The prevalence of elderly drinking corresponded
with social learning mechanisms at a rate of 51% to 58% (Akers & Jennings, 2006, 2009;
Pratt et al., 2010). Rape, nonphysical coercion, drug use induced, and physically coerced
compunction corresponded with social learning mechanisms (Akers & Jennings, 2006,
2009; Pratt et al., 2010).
Social Cognitive Theory
Evidenced-based research, programs, principles, and policies were sculpted,
fabricated, and modeled from differential association, social learning, and social
cognitive foundations. Sutherland (1947) and Aker (1985, 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers
& Jennings, 2006, 2009) influenced Bandura (1982, 1986, 1989, 2001, 2006) throughout
his theoretical evolutions. Bandura’s durable constructs that defined the agentic theory of
self-regulation of moral conduct is governed by active self-sanctions that guide
selfregulation (Bandura, 1999, 2002; Bandura et al., 1996; Bandura et al., 2001; Osofsky
et al., 2005). The differential reinforcement schedules of Akers and Akers and Jennings
interplayed with Bandura’s expectancies and outcomes. The disengagement of
selfsanctions and application of diverse psychosocial justifications are employed to grant
self-permission to behave outside of one’s moral parameters (Bandura, 1999, 2002;
Bandura, et al., 1996, 2001; Osofsky et al., 2005). Walters developed CLT (1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012) from Bandura’s fundamental backbone
Observational learning. Observational learning or modeling is the basic
theoretical learning structure of the SCT (Bandura, 1986, 1997). It is composed of four
processes: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivations. Attentional processes refer
to a human’s ability to discern and discriminate amongst simultaneous objects, models, or
trains of thought (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and to obtain or process the astute information
from these models, objects, or thoughts. Value and purpose depends on conspicuousness,
prominence, accessibility, familiarity, and cultural and individual appeal. An adolescent
may watch a drug dealer on his or her street sell drugs through which the drug dealer
obtains money, status and varied material processions. For this adolescent within this
subculture, this may be a learning opportunity to aspire to this stature. An individual may
value their peers and aspire for group acceptance (Bandura, 1969, 1997, 1999; Monti,
Rohsenow, & Hutchinson, 2000; Schutte, Brennan, & Moos, 1998; Schutte, Byrne, Moss,
& Brennan, 2001; Wills & Dishion, 2004; Wills, Sandy, Yaeger, Cleary, & Shinar, 2001).
To attain acceptance, they may model their behavior, which may include criminal
behavior, especially delinquency (Thornberry et al., 1994). This continual observation of
drug use and its lifestyle patterns may be valued and modeled behaviors, which an
individual then reproduces. CLT stresses these processes in its bedrock of defining
criminal belief systems and criminal thinking groundwork (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Motivation. Motivation is a major tenet in the framework of SCT as it is in
observational learning. Motivation has many antecedents (Donovan & Rosengren, 1999).
Motivation in SCT is considered an intention, a drive that is influenced by motivators or
incentives. Outcome expectancies influence motivation and are directed by self-efficacy
beliefs (Bandura, 1989). The motivators and incentives that influence motivation are of
three major types; direct, vicarious, and self-produced (Bandura, 1997). Direct motivators
refer to having a desire or willingness to perform a behavior if it produced valued
outcomes. If a behavior results in a valued outcome, it is more likely that this behavior
will be reproduced. Walters (2003) discussed how criminal outcomes correspond with
offenders’ criminal thinking. Criminal thinking, motivation, and outcomes are major
principles in evidenced-based research (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005;
Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters,
1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Vicarious motivators refer to the recollection of the modeled behavior’s positive
or negative effects (Bandura, 1997). The model’s negative or positive experiences
influence the integration of behavior. Self-produced motivators are one’s own assessment
of their own behavior, which tends to adjust its implementation. If the behavior produces
qualities that increase self-satisfaction or worth than these behaviors are more likely
pursued. This worth can be committing crimes without getting caught, obtaining more
money than the other dealers on adjacent blocks. These behaviors increase an offender’s
distorted sense of worth and efficacy, and respect. The process of observational learning
and its influence on criminality was reviewed in the previous sections of differential
association and social learning.
Outcome expectancies. Outcome expectancies are the “subjectively assessed
probability that a given action will produce the intended consequences” (Niaura, 2000, p.
156). Outcome expectancies have a reshaping effect on personality constructs (Cooper,
Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995; Demmel, Beck, & Lammers, 2003). Another way of
defining outcome expectancies are that they are “One’s perceived ability to meet a
challenge or perform a particular task” (Bandura, 1997, p. 97).
Sensation seeking, novelty seeking, and harm avoidance are factors affected by
outcome expectancies. These factors reflect an individual who requires elevated levels of
sensation; criminality meets these needs. Outcome expectancies influence the initiation or
attempt of initiation of changing criminal behavior.
The ability of a criminal to reappraise positive outcome expectancies of criminal
behavior as negative are open to criminal desistance and its benefits (Demmel et al.,
2003; Lloyd & Serin, 2012). Lloyd and Serin demonstrated that criminals with positive
desistance beliefs and negative criminal outcome beliefs were also found to have a
stronger personal agency which enables their desistance. CLT (Walters, 2003, 2012)
discussed an offender’s cognitive sub network’s high outcome expectancies for crime.
These high outcome expectancies represent hierarchical levels of criminal thinking that
elevate the outcome expectancy and behavioral adaptation. For example, today, having
respect and money is thought to be stature building (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2012). However, when one cannot attain these goals, criminal behavior
has a high expectancy to achieve these goals (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2012). Criminal behavior can also raise self-efficacy (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the core cognitive component of human functioning,
self-regulation, motivation, and self-reflection is self-efficacy. It is defined as “people’s
judgments about their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to
attain designated types of performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Selfefficacy evolves
from varied theoretical dimensions to direct cognition, inspiration and action (Bandura,
1997).
Self-efficacy is a belief that governs and effects human functioning through its
pursuance of motivation, affective states, and resulting behaviors (Bandura, 1997).
Selfefficacy mediates, appraises, and motivates through the dynamic interplay of the
reciprocal determinism of human functioning. Its varying levels of amplitude, durability
and abstraction derive from “four principal sources of information, enactive mastery
experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and affective
states” (Bandura, 1997, p. 79). One’s past performance be it successes or failures are the
most influential mastery experience source. If someone observes a similar other
successfully performing a specific behavior, this conveys information to the observer that
he or she can also perform the behavior successfully. This is vicarious experience. Verbal
persuasion is the ability of another to convince a person that they have the capability to
perform a specific behavior. One’s affective and physiological states influence the
information cognized to affect self-efficacy.
Cognitively, self-efficacy affects ones’ thought patterns in either a “self-adding or
self-hindering manner through joint influence of motivational and informational
processing operation” (Bandura, 1989, p. 1175). If one believes or thinks that, they are
capable of coping with a certain situation, performing certain behaviors, accomplishing
specific goals, then their self-efficacy increases, as does their choice of behaviors. If
someone has self-doubt in his or her coping skills, or ability to accomplish a goal, this
self-debilitates. Walters (2012) included efficacy expectancies as a schematic subnetwork
in the lifestyle theory of criminality. Walters explained that efficacy expectancies
reinforce, preserve, and retain criminal beliefs that offenders utilize.
Resiliency not only affects thoughts but motivation, affective and physiological
states and decision-making processes. Self-efficacy beliefs and one’s outcome
expectancies affect decision-making. When applied to decision-making, low self-efficacy
is quite restrictive. It limits performance of varied behaviors and outcome possibilities
because one’s lack of belief in one’s ability. To obtain specific outcomes high
selfefficacious individuals judge, plan, control, and organize behaviors. Motivation,
selfefficacy, outcome expectancies, and skill training are deeply rooted constructs in EBP
and research (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2005, 2006, 2012). These constructs should be included when developing interventions
and programs that address short term outcomes of changing criminal thinking and values
to long term outcomes of reducing recidivism and increasing public safety (Andrews &
Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa
& Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Self-regulation. Self-regulation is the capacity of an individual to guide and direct
one’s behavior (Redding et al., 2000). Self-regulation is the intermediary between
external sources and influences (such as social or moral standards) and one’s own
personal control over one’s behavior, thoughts, feelings and motivation (Bandura, 1989).
Self-regulation guides one’s actions, delivers one’s own consequences, and ignites
motivation for action. The standards that guide and influence behavior are internally
produced through motivation and modified by self-reflection. Self-reflection is the
vehicle for self-exploration, self-evaluation, and self-change. It analyzes and if necessary
modifies thoughts, beliefs, as well as experiences to provide one a core of human
functioning. Society, its cultures, and their senses of morality and ethics produce external
standards. There are diversified codes, effecting diverse cultures, which have wide
assortments of sociodemographic characteristics with many standards modeled that are
preached and displayed (Bandura, 2006). External standards, social and moral inferences
and persuasions interact and mediate with self-regulation to form a framework of
purposeful action (Bandura, 2006). Motivational standards produce and reduce
dissonance (Bandura, 1997). These standards are outlines for the process of goal setting
and their attainments.
One sets goals, which causes instability to their self-regulatory functioning.
Behavior is then ensued which will once again balance out their regulatory functioning.
This is discrepancy production and reduction. Motivation, relating to self-efficacy,
interacts with discrepancies to either impel goal attainment or induce distress from the
inability to reach goal. Discrepancy in social modeling emerges from different
contradictory models, in varied subcultures, at various times, affecting the stability of the
formation of self-standards, and their shaping of one’s moral thoughts and agency. Many
criminals grow up watching their role models commit crimes; break laws,
confidentialities and codes of ethics. Yet these same role models address them for
displaying the same behaviors. This causes discrepancy. Moral agency evolves through
the appropriation of standards of right and wrong that supervise and manage conduct
(Bandura, 2006). Low self-regulation and low self-efficacy beliefs are both associated
criminality.
Criticisms of social cognitive theoretical perspectives are like social learning.
Some overall criticisms address the social cognitive theory for its failure to include
biological factors, internal characteristics such as emotions (Akers & Jennings, 2009;
Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Pervin & John, 2001). Other criticisms are that this
perspective’s factors are not consolidated and do not see criminal inclinations as being
constant factors (Akers & Jennings, 2009; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Pervin & John,
2001).
Lifestyle Theory
Walters (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) built on the previous
theoretical foundations to construct his criminal lifestyle approach. Lifestyle theory is
explained through four behavioral elements, which are irresponsibility, self-indulgence,
interpersonal intrusiveness, and social rule breaking (Walters, 1990, 2002, 2012). Each
element has been built upon its developmental roots, while interacting, affecting, and
hindering the next, and cycling through thoughts and attitudes.
Irresponsibility is a learned characteristic which affects all aspects of offender’s
lives in its inability to answer or meet any commitments from school attendance to
employment (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Self-indulgence is
exemplified by offender’s inability to delay gratification, exemplified in offenders’
criminal actions (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Interpersonal
intrusiveness stems from the interaction of the above elements, building interpersonal and
social intrusiveness, and rule breaking. Interpersonal intrusiveness is demonstrated by an
offender’s disregard for human rights (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). Social rule breaking, that last behavioral element, is highlighted by lack of
adherence to societal patterns and rules (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012).
The lifestyle theories’ cognitive elements range hierarchically from criminal
thoughts or schemes on the lowest level through subnetworks to five criminal belief
systems (Walters, 2002a, 2012). These cognitive patterns and interconnected belief
systems reinforce criminality’s development, its perpetuation, and maintenance through
life stages (Walters, 2002a, 2012). The developmental, perpetuation, and continuations
stages are initiation, transitional, and maintenance phases (Walters, 2002a, 2012). The
initiation phase targets the goal of existential fear (Walters, 2002a, 2012). The three
elements that cultivate and indoctrinate lifestyle initiation through existential fear are
motivation, favorable circumstances, and selection (Walters, 2002a, 2012). Motivation
for initiation factors are alliances, manipulation and domination, and prestige (Walters,
2002a, 2012). Criminal lifestyles provide expected outcomes for the above variables.
Favorable circumstances are defined as how one’s specific personality traits interact
within varied environments. Certain risk factors promote different reactions in different
environments, stressors, and socialization conditions that can reinforce criminal beliefs.
The individual’s selection of a criminal lifestyle is their responsibility, utilizing
Bandura’s self-regulatory system.
The transition phase is augmented by the strength outcome expectancies have on
the integration of criminality as a lifestyle (Walters, 2002a, 2012). The implementation of
criminality into one’s lifestyle has high outcome expectancies for a wide array of reasons.
If one cannot achieve certain financial goals, criminal behavior can achieve this.
Criminality has high outcome expectancy in achieving financial stability. If one does feel
like one belongs or feels isolated, outcome expectancy for criminality is that it will help
one belong to a group of other offenders, or gangs. This affiliation can create other
expectancies of learning the trade of offending, its skills, gaining respect, and control
(Walters, 2002a, 2012). Walters used outcome expectancies to accentuate his social
cognitive foundations and affirm EBPs importance in exploring criminality and building
programs to address change.
The maintenance phase emphasizes the layers of distortions required to preserve
criminal lifestyles and beliefs. A few of these layers include criminal thinking, emotional
dysfunction, high outcome expectancies for criminal behaviors, and impaired
relationships, to site only a few (Walters, 2002, 2012). Evidence-based research
reinforces these criminogenic needs and outcomes while adapting the constructs to
programs of change (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006;
Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters,
1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The initiation phase’s elements of motivation, favorable circumstances, and
selection highlight differential association’s perspectives on the importance of peers in
criminal initiation (Akers, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1998; Akers & Jennings, 2009; Matsueda,
1982; Sutherland, 1947; Sutherland, et al., 1992). Akers’ social learning theory (1985,
1991, 1994, 1996, 1998; Akers, & Jennings, 2009) is highlighted by CLT’s initiation
phase through the learning of criminality through affiliations. Walters’s major cognitive
aspects stem from Bandura’s (1982, 1986, 1989, 2001, 2006) social cognitive theory
throughout its development. From Walters’s criminal lifestyle phases, outcome
expectancies to his criminal thinking errors, social cognitive theory reinforces Walters’s
research.
CLT evolved through schemes (Walters, 2002a). Walters defined schemes as
“interdependent sensory, behavioral, affective, and motivational elements” (p. 49). CLT
is comprised of six schemes. These are attributions, outcome expectancies, efficacy
expectancies, goals, values, and thinking styles. These schemes have been applied to EBP
to implement interventions to address these important principles (Andrews & Bonta,
2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). Attributions have been found to reinforce criminal beliefs (Walters, 2002a, 2012).
Some attributions such as blaming others, or environments support criminal lifestyles
development and maintenance.
Criminal outcome expectancies relate to existential fear in criminal behavior’s
ability to fulfill many goals such as having money, status, respect, and control (Walters,
2002a, 2012). Walters (2012) discussed the array of efficacy beliefs that promote criminal
behavior. A few of these expectancies are low self-esteem, lack of poor social bonding,
lack of meaning and values in life, and lack of educational achievement (Walters, 2012,
p. 52).
Goals are one’s purposes that direct behaviors and choices (Walters, 2002a;
2012). Delay of gratification and self-control are two behaviors that have been found to
integrate goals of criminal lifestyles. Values are defined in CLT as “enduring beliefs that
reflect personally or socially preferred priorities” (Walters, 2002a, p. 54). Researchers
have explored prosocial as compared with antisocial value development (Carlo,
Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003; Eisenberg, Fabes, Karbon, Murphy, &
Wosinski, 1996); however, Walters (2012a) discussed how crime and values is a causal
nexus upon one another. Values will be discussed further in this literature review in the
key variable section.
Evidenced-based research is reinforced through CLT’s (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) integration of the criminogenic needs of criminal
thinking (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006). Distorted thinking
styles are the cornerstones of criminal lifestyle theory. There are eight criminal thinking
styles. These are mollification, cutoff, entitlement, power orientation, sentimentality,
superoptimism, cognitive indolence, and discontinuity (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Mollification is substantiating criminal behavior through excuses, rationalizations
and justifications (Walters, 2002a, 2012). Cutoff is erasing or ignoring anything that
undermines criminal behavior continuation discontinuity (Walters, 2002a, 2012).
Entitlement is the belief that an individual believes they deserve special considerations,
advantages, exemptions, and immunity (Walters, 2002a, 2012). Power orientation is the
use of power and control over some place or person (Walters, 2002a, 2012).
Sentimentality is the believing that one makes restitution for criminal behavior by doing
one good thing (Walters, 2002a, 2012). Superoptimism is the belief that one can avert
consequences of criminal behavior and lifestyle (Walters, 2002a, 2012). Cognitive
indolence is careless, apathetic, and lackadaisical thinking (Walters, 2002a, 2012).
Discontinuity is thinking one way yet behaving another (Walters, 2002a, 2012).
Criminal thinking styles research and the influence on criminal behavior
development is extensive (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Barriga, Hawkins, & Camelia, 2008;
Gibbs, 1991, 1995, 1996, 2003; Knight, Garner, Simpson, Morey, & Flynn, 2006;
Mandracchia, Morgan, Garos, & Garland, 2007; Nas, Brugman, & Koops, 2005, 2008;
Wallinus, Johansson, Larden, & Dernevik, 2011; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2012; Walters & Chlumsky, 1993; Yochelson & Samenow,
1976,1977). There is also as much research on its learned nature which promotes criminal
thinking styles modification (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Barriga, et al., 2008; Gibbs, 1991,
1995, 1996, 2003; Knight et al.,2006; Mandracchia, et al., 2007; Nas et al., 2008;
Wallinius et al.,2011; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012;
Walters & Chlumsky, 1993; Yochelson & Samenow, 1976,1977). Criminal thinking
styles will be discussed further in this literature review in the key variable section.
Walters’s (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012) five criminal belief
systems are self, world, past, present, and future views. Self-view includes how one
copes, compares, and presents oneself in relationship to self, and others. The world view
has four distinct views from “mechanistic-organismic, fatalistic-agentic, justiceinequality,
and malevolence-benevolence” (Walters, 2012, p. 26). Time dimensional views of past,
present, and future build an offender’s distortions through past events, present distortions
created by past effects which in turn create simple future goals
(Walters, 2002a, 2012).
Walters has extensive research. Its major components reflect research into CLP
and his instrument, The PICTS will be used in this study CLP was found to lessen one
third of institutional disciplinary reports and institutional adjustment procedures (Walters,
2005, 2012). This has been found to be correlated with future reduction in recidivism
(Walters, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Criminality Treatment Approaches
Morgan (2011) accentuated the need to treat criminality to assist in criminal
justice effects. The multiplicity of antisocial and delinquent risk factors and behavioral
outcomes emphasize society’s need for diverse intervention and prevention strategies
(Fox, 1993; ONDCP, 2011; Tolan et al., 1995; Winick, 1999). Evidence-based
researchers designed an integrated model to effect reform (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). These findings resound through the following treatment programs.
In 2009, there were 13, 687, 241 arrests in the United States (United States
Department of Justice, 2009). Palmer (2003) demonstrated the need to incorporate
numerous components due to offending’s complex multidimensionality. CBT for
offenders abound (Andrews & Bonta, 1990; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Lipsey et al.,
2007). Many programs were developed through criminal risk factors and criminogenic
needs, as were all in this study’s treatment approach review (Andrews & Bonta, 1994;
Gendreau, 1996; Morgan, Kroner, & Mills, 2006; Walters, 1999, 2005; Ward & Stewart,
2005). Below is a review of reasoning and rehabilitation (R&R, Farrington & Welsh,
2002; Lipsey & Wilson, 2002; Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Tong & Farrington, 2006;
Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Ward & Nee, 2009), and moral reconation therapy (Little &
Robinson, 1988, 1989; Little, Robinson, & Burnette, 1993). There is also a review of
therapeutic communities (DeLeon, 2000, 2010), equipping peers to help one another
program (EQUIP; Gibbs, 1991, 1995, 2003; Gibbs, Potter, & Goldstein, 1995; Nas et al.,
Palmer, 2003), and criminal lifestyles program (Walters, 1990, 2002a, 2002b, 2012).
Cognitive-behavioral programs. Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberg (2001)
reviewed 14 CBT studies finding that offenders who participated in CBT were 55 % less
likely to recidivate than the control groups. CBT varies in its curricula. Specific elements
in CBT can be building and restructuring cognitive and social skills, managing anger,
moral judgment and reasoning, victim awareness, substance, use, and modifying
behaviors, relapse prevention, and individual sessions (Landenberg & Lipsey, 2005,
p.10). CBT presumes that cognitive deficits are learned and therefore modifiable (Lipsey
et al., 2007). CBT programs are effective in achieving short and long-term outcomes
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon,
2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Criminal risk factors and criminogenic needs. The first principle of EBP is
assessing criminal risks and needs which in turn direct an offender’s treatment (Andrews
& Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009;
Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
This practice is implemented in all the reviewed programs except moral reconation
therapy (Lipsey, 2007; Little, 1989; Little & Robinson, 2006). Risk factors and
criminogenic needs have developed and constructed criminality’s efficacious programs
that address risk, responsivity, and need (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Farrington & Welsh,
2002; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Morgan et al., 2006; Palmer, 2003;
Tong & Farrington, 2004; Walters, 1995, 2002b, 2012). Andrews and Bonta (1994)
emphasized the importance of integrating criminogenic factors into an established and
substantiated treatment delivery system that extends to families, neighborhoods, and
communities. The delivery system should contain staff that has an ability to display
empathy, fairness, prosocial values, and gains of prosocial lifestyles (Andrews & Bonta,
1994).
Risk factors. The human dimensional factors of self, family, and institutional
environments of school, peers, community, neighborhood, criminal justice settings, and
society generate varied facets of cognitive, behavioral, social, cultural, economic,
physiological, and educational criminal risk factors (Farrington et al., 2001; Gendreau &
Andrews, 1990; O’Mahony, 2009; Sherman et al., 1996; Thornberry et al., 1995, 2004;
Wasserman, et al., 2003). These factors develop and interact throughout the life course
and through familial generations (Thornberry et al., 2003). The following factors are not a
complete list; however, they do demonstrate how risk factors influence the developmental
process of criminality throughout the life cycle. Andrews and Bonta’s (2006) central
eights risk factors include antisocial history, personality pattern, cognition, associates,
familial or marital, school/work, leisure/recreation, and substance abuse.
Antisocial history, personality patterns, and cognitions. Individual risk factors
for criminality are physiological, impulsivity, early onset, aggressiveness, unhealthy
value systems, correlational relationship between criminality and restlessness,
selfindulgence, irresponsibility, risk taking, sensation seeking, low intelligence, low
selfesteem and empathy, previous criminal history, and inability to delay gratification
(Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 2006; Bishopp & Hare, 2008; Hawkins et al., 2000; Jolliffe, &
Farrington, 2004; O’Mahony, 2009; Walters, 2003c,d ). Raine, Venables, and Williams
(1990a, 1990b) found a relationship between age onset, later criminality, and the central
and autonomic arousal system.
Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber (2004) explored the relationship of criminal
risk factors. Thornberry et al. explored between early onset of delinquency and future
criminal activity and arrests as teenagers and adults. There are consistent relationships
between age of onset and persistent, continual offending (Hawkins et al., 2000;
Thornberry et al., 1995, 2004). When a juvenile age 9 or younger acts criminally, there is
a 37% chance that the juvenile will become a chronic violent offender (Thornberry et al.,
1995, 2004). Developmental pathways found a consistent approach of mild aggression,
leading to physical and gang fighting then to robbery and rape (Thornberry et al., 1995,
2004).
Antisocial associates and family. Researchers documented the influential familial
risk factors (Farrington et al., 2003; Hawkins et al., 2000; O’Mahony, 2009; Thornberry
et al., 1995, 2003, 2004). Parental education, supervision, monitoring, conflict, child
maltreatment, dysfunction, low attachment, criminal, or substance abusing parents affects
the development of delinquency and later constant offending (Farrington et al., 2003;
Hawkins et. al., 2000; Hymel et al., 2005; O’Mahony, 2009; Thornberry et al., 1995,
2003, 2004). Other influential factors include family size, familial separation due to
parental criminality or abuse (Hawkins et. al., 2000; O’Mahony, 2009). Poverty,
unemployment, and living space affect a families’ ability to provide a healthy
development environment to children (Hawkins et al., 2000; O’Mahony, 2009). The
interaction of these risk factors induces biopsychosocial effects upon an individual or
group which results at times as delinquency and antisocial behavior. An association with
delinquent peers was discussed previously in both the differential association and social
control theory. Its influence is well documented (Akers & Jennings, 2009; Walters,
2012).
School and work. Low involvement resulting in lack of school attachments,
dropping out, bullying, gang involvement, and poor academic performance are risk
factors (Hawkins et al., 2000; O’Mahony, 2009).
Leisure, recreation, and substance abuse. Community disorganization,
unemployment, mobility, lack of attachment, high levels of crime, drug use, violence,
gangs, criminal peers are risk factors that interact with other risks to create a criminal
reciprocal, developmental pattern within individuals, groups and communities (Hawkins
et al., 2000; O’Mahony, 2009).
Criminogenic needs. Risk, need, responsivity principle, the third evidencedbased
principle, have major influences on the modifications and additions to evidenced based
practices and interventions (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al.,
2006; Farrington & Welsh, 2002; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990;
Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Palmer, 2003; Tong & Farrington, 2004; Walters, 1995,
2002b, 2012). Risk, need, and responsivity principles were developed as a theoretical
foundation that supported correctional programming (Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Ross
& Fabiano, 1985; Tong & Farrington, 2006; Walters, 1990, 2002a, 2002b, 2012).
Risk determines the level of the offending (Farrington, & Welsh, 2002; Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001; Tong & Farrington, 2006). Risk assessment is based upon static and
dynamic factors (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Farrington & Walsh, 2002; Ferguson, 2002;
Lipsey & Wilson, 2002; Palmer, 2003; Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Ross & Fabiano,
1985; Tong & Farrington, 2006). These static, unchangeable, factors include age, gender,
age of first crime, and length of incarcerations (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Farrington &
Welsh, 2002; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Morgan et al., 2006; Palmer,
2003; Tong & Farrington, 2004; Walters, 1995, 2002b, 2012; Ward & Stewart, 2003).
However, dynamic factors are criminogenic needs that are malleable (Andrews & Bonta,
2006; Farrington & Welsh, 2002; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Morgan
et al., 2006; Palmer, 2003; Tong & Farrington, 2004; Walters, 1995, 2002b, 2012).
Highrisk offenders have showed extensive reduction in recidivism rates when obtaining
concentrated treatment and therapy (Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005;
Cullen et al., 2006; Ferguson, 2002; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp,
2006; Palmer, 2003; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The need principle is the implementation of criminogenic needs into offender
treatment. Gendreau (1996) stated that criminogenic needs underlie treatment’s course,
which had not been previously addressed. Criminogenic needs are offenders’ dynamic yet
distinct beliefs, morals, and thoughts (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Gendreau, 1996;
Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Gendreau, Goggin, & Smith, 1999; Morgan et al., 2006;
Walters, 1999, 2005; Ward & Stewart, 2005). Andrews and Bonta, Gendreau, Morgan et
al., and Walters (2005) all stated that the criminogenic needs of offenders should be the
primary goals of any program that proclaims change. Lipsey and Cullen (2007) described
criminogenic needs as dynamic factors that can be modified such as attitudes, peer
affiliation, drug use, criminal thinking, and dysfunctional skills.
Morgan et al. (2006) discussed focusing on criminogenic needs such as
impulsivity, narcissistic impulses, and poor social skills. Walters (1999, 2005, 2006)
stated that criminogenic needs are criminal thinking errors. Ward and Stewart (2003) and
Gendreau and Andrews (1990) described criminogenic needs as criminal affiliations,
dysfunctional decision making and problem solving, offender oriented attitudes and
values, substance use, lack of vocational and educational skills, egocentricity, and anger.
Dowden and Andrews (1999) found in their meta-analysis, that programs that used the
need principle had larger mean effect sizes than those that did not.
The responsivity principle emphasizes the offender’s traits, needs, and learning
styles that are influential in an offender’s treatment response (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Gendreau et al.,
1999; Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Responsivity factors are not limited to, but can include,
deficiency in problem solving, decision making and communication skills, and inflexible
thinking. These characteristics can affect an offender’s efficacy in managing treatment
steps and short and long-term goals (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990;
Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Gendreau et al., 1999; Lipsey & Cullen,
2007).
Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program
Reasoning and rehabilitation program (R&R) has been called one of the original
offenders’ cognitive programs (Ward & Nee, 2009). Its early premises stated that
offenders’ lack of cognitive skills hindered their ability to become prosocial, however
offenders do not necessarily have cognitive development deficiencies (Hollin et al., 2008;
Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Tong & Farrington, 2006; Ward &
Nee, 2009; Wilson et al., 2005). R&R is a multidimensional program where offenders are
taught prosocial attitudes, beliefs, values, self-control, meta-cognition, assertiveness,
interpersonal, social, and negotiation skills, and emotional management (Hollin et al.,
2008; Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Tong & Farrington, 2006;
Ward & Nee, 2009; Wilson et al., 2005).
This program was 35 sessions with eight to 10 participants for 8 to 12 weeks with
a programmed curriculum using role playing, group discussions, games, workbooks, and
exercises (Hollin et al., 2008; Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Ross,
Fabiano, & Ewles, 1988; Tong & Farrington, 2006; Ward & Nee, 2009; Wilson et al.,
2005). R&R participation decreases recidivism from 70% in nonparticipants to 37 % in
participants (Robinson & Porporino, 2001; Ross & Fabiano, 1985). Another 5-year study
with 2125 participants favored the treatment conditions ability to prevent recidivism with
effect sizes ranging from .06 to .53 (Robinson, 1996). Robinson indicated that R&R was
effective in reducing future criminality. However, Wilson et al. (2005) found that R&R is
less effective than other true cognitive behavioral programs. Tong and Farmington (2006)
found that R&R was effective in criminal prevention. Gibbs and Beal (2000) refuted this
program due to its lack of individualized treatment.
Moral Reconation Therapy
Moral reconation therapy (MRT) was based upon Kohlberg’s moral stage
development and its belief in offender’s Stage 1 and 2 functioning (Lipsey, 2007; Little,
1989; Little & Robinson, 2006). Its goal was to raise offenders’ moral reasoning. This
program was structured into group and individual sessions over a 3 to 6-month period.
MRT used cognitive behavioral elements to address offender issues (Little, 1989;
Little & Robinson, 2006; Wilson et al., 2005). This programming utilized group exercise,
homework assignments and the MRT workbooks to assist in progressing through sixteen
steps that address seven treatment issues. These issues are include addressing antisocial
beliefs, values, and attitudes, addressing dysfunctional relationships, reinforcing prosocial
values, identity formation, develop higher stages of moral reasoning (Little, 1989; Little
& Robinson, 2006). This program’s goals resembled CLP
Wilson et al. (2005) discussed various MRT study’s findings. One of which was a
41% decrease in recidivism rates for program completers as compared to 56% for
noncompleters (Little et al., 1994). Wilson et al. reviewed studies and found a mean
effect size of .36. MRT found a mean effect size of .33 in decreasing recidivism as
compared to R&R’s mean effect size of .16 in decreasing recidivism.
Therapeutic Communities
DeLeon (2000) developed therapeutic communities (TCs), which were
implemented into prisons, halfway houses, and community correctional facilities
throughout America and Europe. This model stressed the whole person change that
implements multidimensional learning (DeLeon, 2000). This model of treatment was an
intricate, working curriculum that implemented behavioral, cognitive, and social
interventions that addressed lifestyle and addiction issues within a life course perspective
(De Leon, 2000, 2010). This model incorporated social learning principles that included
building self-regulation, empathy, effective role modeling, relapse prevention skills,
cognitive restructuring, criminal affiliations, dysfunctional decision making and problem
solving, offender oriented attitudes and values, substance use, and anger (DeLeon, 2000).
Community as a method has been criticized for its lack of 12-step involvement (DeLeon,
2000).
Collaborative learning, values in motivational interviewing, and learner
accountability (Wagner & Sanchez, 2002; Weimer, 2002) were used as learning
interventions while implementing this model into groups and classes. This model
provided workbooks, sheets, and breaks down an intricate process into accomplishable
steps (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). This model
was used in Pennsylvania’ Placement Criteria for insurance companies, welfare,
providers when placing and funding clients for treatment. This model has been
significantly effective and well implemented into many governmental, treatment, and
judicial settings as a standardized assessment of change. Community as method as
therapeutic interventions extend into educational pedagogies with a right living
philosophy which will be addressed later in the moral educational review in this
dissertation.
Condelli and Hubbard (1994) compared two large TC’s drug abuse reporting
program (DARP) and treatment outcome prospective study (TOPS), which consisted of 4,
361 participants. Arrest rates for DARP participants’ arrest rates went from 92% to 30%
and incarceration rates went from 61% to 31%. Arrest rates for TOPS participants’ arrest
rates went from 68% to 43% and incarceration rates went from 71% to 47%. Wexler,
Falkin, and Lipton (1990) found that participants in the therapeutic community had a
26.95 rate of arrest, which was the lowest in the different treatment approaches that were
compared in this study.
The Equipping Peers to Help One Another Program (EQUIP)
EQUIP (Gibbs, 1991, 1995, 2003; Gibbs et al., 1995; Nas et al., 2005; Palmer,
2003) used different components to address cognitive, skill, and behavioral offender
issues through a peer approach. This peer approach was also reflected in the community
as a method approach described in the past section (DeLeon, 2000, 2010). The peer
approach was used to place responsibility for change and program management upon the
participants (Gibbs, 1991, 1995, 2003; Gibbs et al., 1995; Nas et al., 2005; Palmer, 2003).
A multiple skill training element was implemented into EQUIP to address offenders’ lack
of cognitive distortions, anger management, moral reasoning, decision and problem
solving skills.
Nas, Brugman, and Koop (2005) studied EQUIP’s effects and found that cognitive
distortions were reduced after programming however no differences were found on moral
reasoning, or social skill acquisition. Leeman et al. (1993) found no increase in moral
reasoning as did Nas et al. (2005). Leeman et al. did find that program participation
decreased in institutional misbehavior. Leeman et al. also found that EQUIP completers
had 15 % recidivism rates at 6 and 12 months as compared to two control groups of 29.7
at 6 months and 40.5 at 12 months.
Criminal Lifestyle Program
CLP evolved from lifestyle theory (Walters, 1990, 1999; 2002a, 2002b, 2006,
2012). Walters (2012) added criminogenic elements into his lifestyle programming, such
as using cognitive restructuring to assist in modifying thinking errors, while emphasizing
moral teaching and reasoning. Walters addressed substance abuse through relapse
prevention, criminal affiliations, dysfunctional decision making, problem solving,
offender oriented attitudes and values, substance use, and anger.
CLP was a lifestyle program approach (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2012). This program had three goals, which were to “empower clients,
instruct basic skills, and encourage client resocialization” (Walters, 2007, p. 323). The
client and therapist explored empowerment by building self-efficacy, trust, hope,
accountability, and responsibility (Walters, 2007). Cognitive skill building, as reflected in
all other reviewed programs increased self-efficacy through communication, problem
solving, and decision making and modifying thinking errors (Walters, 2007).
Resocialization was important for the client due to the need for offenders to detach from
criminal activities, affiliations, and patterns (Walters, 2007).
The CLP had three phases. The first phase is a 10-week program that met for 1
hour a week to introduce the lifestyle concepts (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2012). This was accomplished through using workbooks, discussions,
and videos (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012). Clients
must pass an exam to move to next phase. The second phase was advanced groups who
met 1 to 2 hours per week for 20 weeks in three different groups that focus on crime,
drugs, and gambling (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012).
The third phase was relapse prevention which met once a week for an hour for 40 weeks.
This group focused on skill building, value clarification, problem solving,
communication, and creativity (Walters, 2007).
Walters’s research was extensive. CLP and the PICTS’ research is extensive
(Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012). This instrument and its
research will be reviewed in the instrument section of Chapter 3.
CLP was found to lessen one third of institutional disciplinary reports and
institutional adjustment procedures (Walters, 2005, 2012). This has been found to be
correlated with future reduction in recidivism (Walters, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2012). Walters
(2007) found that greater program exposure related to lower disciplinary reports (r = .30).
High risk offenders received a higher effect size (rpb = -.24; 95% CI = -.39 to -.09) as
compared to low risk offenders (rpb = -.17, 95% CI = -.30). Walters (2005) showed that
only 39.5 % of CLP participants as compared to 55.1% control group participants were
arrested after release. After 6 months, the pattern continued as evidenced by control
groups being reincarcerated at 18% as compared to CLP participants at 8.9% (Walters,
2005). Walters (1999, 2012) found that 291 offenders who completed one or more CLP
phases had one third as many disciplinary reports, evidence of recidivism reductions.
Gonsalves, Scalora, and Huss (2009) criticized CLP as being too focused on cognitive
measures. Gonsalves et al. also criticized CLP for its lack of behavioral measures.
Moral Reasoning and Education
Bandura’s (1991, 1999) and Bandura et al.’s (1996) interactional perspective on
human morality emphasized the bidirectionality of thought, affect, conduct,
selfregulation, and moral disengagement. Human morality reasoned and internalized
standards that directly conduct through a self-regulatory system with consequential
outcomes (Bandura, 1991, 1999, 2002; Bandura, et al. 1996). Haidt and Kesebir (2010)
discussed the same human moral system as “an interlocking set of values, virtues, norms,
practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms
that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible”
(p.800). Haidt and Kesebir and Gert (2005) defined morality as a new synthesis of values,
rules, and ideals that are universally acceptable. Offenders’ fear and low self-efficacy
contributes to their inability to achieve these values implement criminal thinking patterns
and behaviors to achieve societal goals (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005,
2006, 2007, 2012). CLT and CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006,
2007, 2012) principles emerged through moral reasoning and education (Walters, 1990,
1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012). CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2012) used moral reasoning and education to address offenders’
attitudes, values, and thinking patterns. These patterns are stressed in EBPs of treatment
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon,
2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Researchers demonstrated the need to target changing cognitive distortions, value
dysfunction, and skill deficiencies in all treatment programs (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). Without thinking skills that develop reasoning, relating to morality and values
development, these individuals remain stuck behind the bars and drugs that cage their
minds from learning another lifestyle (Gibbs, Arnold, Ahlborn, & Chessmen, 1984;
Swanson & Hill, 1993).
An individual grows and learns through their interactions and relationships with
their families, schools, communities, cultures, societies, countries, and worlds that teach
values, norms, and virtues that guide their lives (Strike, 2008). Offenders learn and grow
through their interactions within prisons however, what they learn imprints their thinking
and resounds in their criminal behavior (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005,
2006, 2012). Moral education within families, schools, communities, cultures, societies,
countries, and worlds provides important curricula for the development of social change
(Pollard et al., 1991). CLP and its moral educational tools can assist in the achievement of
evidenced-based short term outcomes of cognitive and behavioral change. Achieving
short term outcomes spurs long term evidence based outcomes of reduced recidivism,
victim satisfaction, and increasing public safety (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al.,
2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006;
Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Moral education. Haidt and Kesebir (2010) discussed the human moral system as
“interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions,
technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or
regulate selfishness and make social life possible” (p.800). Haidt and Kesebir and Gert
(2005) defined morality as a new synthesis of values, rules, and ideals that are universally
acceptable. Moral education’s goals feature the development of universally acceptable
values, ideals, virtues, and rules such as fairness, human welfare, and rights through
varied instructional techniques, dynamics, and behaviors in diverse institutions and
groups (Covell & Howe, 2001; Nucci, 2001, 2008; Nucci & Weber, 2008). Walters
(1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012), Orenstein and Hunkins (2009) and
Prilleltensky (1997) discussed the diversity in values and the challenges of moral
education. These challenges resound in the need to implement all eight EBPs to address
the diverse aspects of criminality (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et
al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006;
Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
EBP stress the importance of changing criminal thinking to restructure values and
beliefs (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Money as a value is the outcome of drug dealing.
However, drug dealers are not content with one or thousands of deals due to the method
of acquisition. Dealing is not prosocial living. It has no value. Fulfillment cannot be
gained from the gathering of possessions.
Walters (2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) used moral reasoning to extend CLT’s
roots similarly to Bandura’s (1999, 2002) extension into moral thought and education.
The promotion of moral thought and education in CLP was featured by focusing on
cognitive distortions, criminal attitudes, and dysfunctional values employing moral
educational curriculum and tools. Walters (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006,
2012) used moral educational theory, research findings, and pedagogies to propose
criminal lifestyle change.
Literature Review Related to Key Variables and/or Concepts
Criminality is a framework of cognitive patterns that translate experiences into a
lifestyle of attitudes, values, and belief systems that advocate, vindicate, and legitimize
criminal behaviors (Mandracchia et al., 2007; Walters, 1990, 2007; Yochelson &
Samenow, 1976, 1977). The key variables in this research review are criminal thinking
patterns.
Criminal Thinking
Criminal thinking’s impact on the pervasiveness of criminality was
underestimated and undervalued (Mandracchia et al., 2007). CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) evolved from Yochelson and Samenow’s (1976, 1977)
comprehensive studies on criminal thinking patterns. Walters modified the 52 errors and
eight patterns to focus concentration on conditions, free choice, and the ability to
motivate change of criminal cognitions and value dysfunction.
Life conditions that arise are appraised, evaluated, and synthesized through
cognitions. Conditions can encompass family, environment, static and dynamic risks,
response, and needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau, 1996;
Gendreau & Andrews, 1990; Gendreau et al., 1999; Hollin et al., 2008; Robinson &
Porporino, 2001; Ross & Fabiano, 1985; Ross et al., 1988; Tong & Farrington, 2006;
Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). The choices that are then made
can be the rudiment of criminal thinking (Walters, 1999).
These choices reflect cognitive patterns that reinforce irresponsibility,
selfcenteredness, immediate gratification, and a criminal lifestyle can develop (Andrews
& Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau & Andrews, 1990;
Gendreau et al., 1999; Barriga et al., 2001; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005,
2006, 2012). The preservation, securing, and sustaining of a criminal lifestyle
appropriates attributions, outcome expectancies, efficacy expectancies, goals, values, and
thinking errors as found in evidenced based research in corrections (Andrews & Bonta,
2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012).
A criminal lifestyle has a belief system that supports and furnishes rationales and
explanations for its lifestyle (Mandracchia et al., 2007; Walters, 2002a, 2002b, 2012).
Criminal values reflect choices (The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Some criminal values that reinforce its lifestyle include
dishonesty, intolerance, arrogance, irresponsibility, lack of integrity, power, revenge,
laziness, and false pride (The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2005, 2006, 2012). Walters’s (2002a) divides values to reflect “social, work, visceral, and
intellectual” (Walters, 2002a, p.55). To change these values and balance these categories,
Walters (2002a) suggests moral educational techniques of value clarification and skill
building.
Criminal Thinking Patterns
Criminal thinking patterns are affiliated with criminal behavior by various
researchers from Yochelson and Samenow’s (1976, 1977) 52 errors to Gibbs’s primary
and secondary distortions (Barriga et al., 2001; Gibbs, 1991, 1995, 2003; Gibbs et al.,
1995, 1996; Nas et al., 2005, 2008; Wallinus et al., 2011) to CLT’s eight thinking
patterns (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Criminal thinking
patterns and errors stabilized the disequilibrium of a criminal lifestyle (Gonsalves et al.,
2009). Eight criminal patterns each with a specific thinking error will be described.
Identifying subjective criminal patterns, thoughts and values are the first steps towards
changing and modifying the pattern and behavior.
The first criminal pattern is mollification with an associated error of making
excuses, blaming, and justifying. Mollification is the justification of criminal behavior
through externalization of blame to anything or anyone thereby detouring any subjective
accountability or responsibility (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Taking a victim stance, citing malfeasances as justifications for criminal behavior, and
placing responsibility and cause of crime on the victim are a few examples of these
thought patterns. Specific thinking errors could be “If I wasn’t selling drugs, someone
else would” (The change company, 2008, p.10). Another thinking error could refer to
blaming the neighborhood for criminal behavior, blaming a lawyer’s incompetence for
landing a person in prison, or decreasing crimes impact due to lack of hurt or intent to
harm (The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012).
The second criminal pattern is the cutoff with an associated error of disregarding
responsible action. The cutoff eradicates and erases any apprehension about committing
crimes. The cutoff is a basic word, thought, or behavior such as drug use that destroys the
obstacles or corrodes crime’s disincentives (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005,
2006, 2012). These disincentives such as apprehension, misgivings, and doubt about
committing a crime are eradicated when a cutoff is developed, and implemented into
one’s thinking patterns. These cutoffs become ingrained into to patterns to reinforce and
support criminal behavior. Specific internal and external cutoffs can be from getting a
case of the “fuck its” (Walters, 1990, p. 134), drug or alcohol use, or songs or parts of
songs. Specific thinking errors can be to disregard responsibility by using drugs; uncaring
thoughts about anything or anyone, saying screw it (The change company, 2008; Walters,
1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The third criminal pattern is entitlement with an associated error of sense of being
above the law. Entitlement is one of the main supporting beams of criminal behavior.
Entitlement’s three components are “ownership, uniqueness, and misidentification”
(Walters, 1990, p.136).
Entitlement claims that one is empowered by their uniqueness, and therefore
possesses the power to violate others and society’s rules (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a,
2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Claiming ownership over people and society empowers
offenders to buy into the adage that the world exists for their pleasure (Walters, 1990,
1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Entitlement confuses needs and wants (Walters,
1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). This confusion grants offenders’
permission to behave in any manner to get specific needs of entitlements such as specific
owning a Mercedes, or a home fulfilled (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). Specific thinking errors resemble a sense of “being above the law” because the
offender needs and deserves nice clothes, watches, money (The change company, 2008;
Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The fourth criminal pattern is power orientation with an associated error of
asserting power. Power orientation is the offenders’ need for dominance over others and
environments to balance the offenders’ inadequacies, inefficacies, and incompetency’s
(Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). The two constructs of power
orientation are power thrust and zero state which explains offenders’ two differential
states (Walters, 1990). Power thrust is their possession of power illustrated by their
ability to control environments and people (Walters, 1990). Zero state is when the
offenders’ inadequacies, inefficacies, and incompetency’s take over their self-perceptions
people (Walters, 1990).
Specific power orientation patterns resemble using manipulation to demonstrate
power over another individual without respect for their rights, lacking humility, using
intimidation to demonstrate power (The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Specific thinking errors would be use violence to show
self and others power, stating dominance through words, and using intimidation to
frighten others (The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005,
2006, 2012).
The fifth criminal pattern is sentimentality with an associated error of self-serving
acts of kindness. Sentimentality is the manner through which offenders look good to them
(The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Specific sentimentality patterns use self-serving acts of kindness to disguise offenders’
destructive, dishonest, self-centered selves to others and to offender (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Specific thinking errors are a person telling themselves
they are a good person because they gave money to the local soup kitchen at
Thanksgiving, or claiming dedication to family while selling drugs to support them (The
change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The sixth criminal pattern is superoptimism with an associated error of getting
away with anything. Specific superoptimism patterns believe in the efficacy of criminal
behavior (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Superoptimism
reinforces offenders’ beliefs in their abilities to get away with anything. Their ability to
sidestep and evade accountability for criminal acts reinforces their belief that
consequences happen to other offenders not to them (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2005, 2006, 2012). Specific thinking errors can be to believe that the police cannot catch
up to a person because of their criminal efficacy or belief in the last score (The change
company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The seventh criminal pattern is cognitive indolence with an associated error of
lazy thinking. Cognitive indolence defines criminality in its patterns of lazy thinking,
taking short cuts, and side stepping their responsibilities (The change company, 2008;
Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Cognitive indolence relates to an
offender’s lack of decision-making and problem solving skills. These deficits underline
the offenders’ inability to work towards or achieve goals due to their lazy thinking (The
change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Specific
thinking errors can be offenders telling themselves there is no need to labor to achieve
goals because they can start their own business or taking shortcuts to achieve impractical
goals (The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012).
The eighth criminal pattern is discontinuity with an associated error of getting
sidetracked and lack of persistence. Specific discontinuity patterns can be an offender’s
lack of commitment and responsibility to perseverance, goals, and congruity (Walters,
1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Specific thinking errors can be to make
commitments and not keep them or not following plan such as going to help someone
(The change company, 2008; Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Criminal thinking patterns build dysfunctional value systems.
Gaps in Literature
Gaps in literature included the lack of application of the criminal lifestyle
approach to state and county parolees and probationers (Walters, 2008). I addressed many
gaps. This study modified Walters CLP to address a different population than Walters’s
federal prisoners. This study’s sample was state parolees and county probationers.
Another gap addressed was the length of the program. CLP can run up to 2 years
(Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012). This study’s CLP ran 5 weeks. The last gap was that
Walters used differential sections of program dynamics and education. This study used
Walters’s first section only due to the time constraints placed upon parolees and
probationers in a community correctional center (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Walters, 1999,
2005, 2012). The first section’s outcomes coincided with correctional EBP’s short-term
outcomes of offenders’ alteration of risks of criminal thinking (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;
Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004;
Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006).
Offenders who have been incarcerated for years are expected to reintegrate into
society with a multitude of issues without getting the proper treatment (Walters, 2007).
This is an extreme concern for the country. In 2010, 708,677 sentenced state and federal
prisoners were released (The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013). There
were 9 million offenders released from jails, and 4.9 million offenders were on parole or
probation in 2013 (The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013). I evaluated
Walters’s CLP (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) with parolees and
probationers for a shorter period while using only one of CLP’s components of dynamic
criminogenic need of criminal thinking.
Summary and Conclusions
Chapter 2 was a review of literature that was prevalent to this study. Literature
was reviewed on criminality and its general approaches. Literature on offender treatment
approaches was reviewed as it will apply to the evaluation of CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Moral reasoning and education was reviewed to
support its application in CLT and CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012). The key variable of thinking distortions was explored due to its evidenced based
importance in offender rehabilitation (Andrews, & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005;
Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Latessa, & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et
al., 2006) and as an integral part of CLT and CLP (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2005, 2006, 2012). Moral development, reasoning, and education was reviewed as it
related to offender rehabilitation and as another integral part of Walters criminal lifestyle
theory and program (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
Chapter 3 is an explanation of this study’s research design, rationale, its
population, sampling and archival data procedure, and instrumentation. This chapter is
also an examination of the threats to validity and the ethical procedure.
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
A 2x3 between groups factorial ANCOVA was conducted to assess the
effectiveness of two treatment programs in reducing three cohorts’ criminal thinking. The
independent variables were the types of treatment programs (criminality, primary group)
and the three cohorts. The dependent variable were the scores on the PICTS administered
following completion of either one of the treatment programs (criminality or primary).
Scores on the PICTS administered prior to the commencement of the programs were used
as a covariate to control for individual difference. Walden University’s Institutional
Review Board approval number for this study was 11-18-16-0092746.
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate archival pre-and post-data
collected from June 3, 2014 to September 30, 2014 from three cohort groups who had
participated in either, a criminality or primary group, which constituted the study’s two
treatment conditions. Both group schedules are fully displayed in Appendix A. Each
cohort had 40 participants. Chapter 3 includes an explanation of this study’s research
design and rationale, its population, sampling, archival data procedure, and
instrumentation. In this chapter, I also discuss ethical procedures and threats to validity as
they relate to my investigation.
Research Design and Rationale
There are three elements in this investigative dissertation. The first element was
Walters’s original quasi experimental designed studies with nonequivalent groups
(Walters et al., 2002, 2011). Walters design was effective in evaluating and investigating
treatment effects and outcomes (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Creswell, 2003; Mitchell &
Jolley, 2004; Walters et al., 2002, 2011).). Walters et al. (2002, 2011) originally used two
groups of offenders (treatment and comparison groups) at two time intervals (baseline
and post CLP) across three CLPs, which encompassed three consecutive measurements
of the dependent variable, the PICTS (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006,
2012).
The second element in this dissertation was a 5-week replica of Walters’ designs,
named Criminality, which I modified to address offenders’ shortened length of stays due
to lack of funding. Criminality used Walters’s first section of CLP that accentuated the
explorations of criminal thinking. Due to the time constraints placed upon parolees and
probationers in a community correctional center, criminal thinking’s outcomes previously
coincided with correctional EBP’s short-term outcomes of offenders’ alteration of
criminal thinking (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006;
Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa &
Lowenkamp, 2006 Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012). Walters worked extensively in the
Pennsylvania’s Division of Corrections (DOC), which funded most community
correctional facility’s clients and permitted Criminality’s implementation and subsequent
assessment of its efficacy through the PICTS with Walters’s permission in 2013.
Due to changes in DOC’s personnel, treatment perspectives, length of stays, and
sentencing changes, evaluators have not examined any archival data to assess
Criminality’s efficacy. The third element is this study’s investigation was the collection
of archival data pre-and post-Criminality from three consecutive measurements of the
dependent variable, The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles from June
3, 2013 until September 30, 2014.
Archival pre-and post-data from the PICTS were collected from three cohort
groups whose members had participated in 5 weeks of the criminality program as
compared to 5 weeks of primary group programming. This data assessed any main effects
or interactions between treatment groups and cohorts. Using a 2x3 between groups
factorial ANCOVA, archival data, which had not previously been evaluated, were
analyzed to assess any treatment group or cohort differences in criminal thinking. The
pretest scores were controlled on the PICTS to control for individual differences and
assess posttest differences between treatment and primary groups and cohorts.
The independent variables were the types of treatment program (criminality and
primary group) and the three cohorts. The dependent variable was the scores on the
PICTS administered following completion of the intervention programs. Scores on the
PICTS administered prior to the commencement of the programs were used as a covariate
to control for individual differences. The data analysis sought to answer the following
research question and address the study’s three hypotheses.
RQ1. Are there significant mean differences in post intervention criminal thinking
scores for the criminality group and the primary group, while controlling for their pre-test
scores?
Ho1: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha1: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Ha3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Methodology
Population
The target population of this study consisted male offenders in a community
correctional center. There were approximately 5,000 offenders in all community
correctional facilities in Pennsylvania (A. Crush, personal communication, January 29,
2015).
Sampling and Sampling Procedures
Archival data from a basic convenience sample, between the ages of 18-60 years
old males. The participants had a mean length of stay between 60 to 90 days and were
chosen by staff at this community correctional center, where Criminality ran. A basic
convenience sample of 20 participants selected by staff attended the criminality group
due to participants’ extensive criminal involvement resulting in incarcerations. Extensive
criminal involvement was defined as having 2 or more incarcerations. A basic
convenience sample of 20 participants was selected for to attend a normal scheduled
primary group instead of Criminality due to their lack of extensive criminal involvement.
Lack of criminal involvement was defined as having less than 2 incarcerations.
Programming schedules for the control and treatment groups are presented in Appendix
A.
Criminality treatment groups of 20 offenders participated in the criminality course
for 5 hours every week for 5 weeks. The primary group did not participate in Criminality
program at all. The primary group followed only group directed discussions. The PICTS
was completed by both treatment and control groups prior to the beginning of and after
Criminality is completed. The treatment staff ran the Criminality course.
This study used archival data selected from June 3, 2013 until September 30,
2014, which used only male offenders’ data as did Walters et al. in their studies (2002,
2011). A power analysis was conducted by G power software to calculate a sample and
effect size for this study using Walters et al. study (2002) which used repeated measure
ANOVAs and the same content scales. Using alpha level .05 (p<.05), and power set
at .95, an effect size of d=.252 was found. The correlation r was .125. This analysis
revealed that 126 total participants’ archival data were necessary for a medium powered
analysis.
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection Using Archival
Data
A basic convenience sample of 20 participants was selected by staff to attend the
criminality group (treatment) due to their extensive criminal involvement resulting in
incarcerations. Extensive criminal involvement was defined as having at least 2
incarcerations or more. A basic convenience sample of 20 participants was selected for
the primary group to attend a normal scheduled primary group instead of Criminality due
to their lack of extensive criminal involvement. Lack of criminal involvement was less
than 2 incarcerations. Both schedules were presented in Appendix A.
Criminality treatment groups of 20 offenders participated in the criminality course
for 5 hours every week for five weeks. The primary group did not participate in
Criminality program at all. The control group attended a primary group that followed
only group directed discussions.
The PICTS questionnaire was completed by both criminality and primary groups
prior to the beginning of Criminality’s and primary groups as well as after Criminality
and the primary group ended. The treatment staff ran the Criminality course and the
primary group. The archival data were utilized for this study were selected from June 3,
2013 until September 30, 2014, which used only male offenders’ data.
Instrumentation and Operationalization of Constructs
PICTS, developed by Walters had three validity scales of confusion (Cf),
defensiveness (Df), and missing responses. The eight thinking style scales were
mollification (Mo), cutoff (Co), entitlement (En), power orientation (Po), sentimentality
(Sn), superoptimism (So), cognitive indolence (Ci), and discontinuity (Ds). This
inventory also had four factor scales, which were problem avoidance (PRB),
interpersonal hostility (HOS), self-assertion/deception scale (AST), and denial of harm
(DNH) (Walters, 2006). There were two general content scales named current and
historical (Walters, 2006). Only the current content scale was utilized in this study to
assess its archival data. Two composite scales were proactive (P) and reactive (R)
criminal thinking and one special scale named fear of change scale (FOC, Walters, 2006).
All scales used a 4-point Likert scale from 4 strongly agrees to 1 equaling disagree.
Walters et al. (2002, 2011), The archival data for this study used the current thinking
content scale to assess any change in criminal thinking between repeated measures.
Developed in 1989, PICTS was an 80 item self-reported measure that assesses
thinking styles that supported criminal behaviors and lifestyles (Walters, 1990, 2002a,
2002b, 2012). All eight Likert type criminal thinking scales (Mo, Co, En, Po, Sn, So, Ci,
Ds) produced raw scores which were linearly transformed to t scores with a mean of 50
and standard deviation of 10. Raw scores and t scores were both used to describe certain
features of archival data investigation. t scores were used to infer the results of the
archival data to all male offenders in community correctional centers. The top three
highest t scores on the eight criminal thinking scales were identified and compared to the
other five scales to assist in data generalization to specific criminal thoughts accented by
elevated scores that were focused upon within the course, within the sample or addressed
within the population.
The PCTS reliability tests of internal consistency found little variation in alpha
coefficients by gender (Walters, 2006). The male mean ranges were .55-.91. Females’
ranges were .54-.89. The PICTS Manual stated that “these findings suggest that PICTS
scales have moderate internal consistency” (Walters, 2006, p. 15). Test-retest reliability
had 2-week stability on all scales of .70 for males and females. The 12-week test-retest
reliability was above .50 for both males and females.
Walters (2006) stated that the PICTS’ content validity was high due to its eight
criminal thinking scales and offenders input in item content. Concurrent validity was high
on all scales (Walters, 2006). PICTS modestly correlates with two scales of criminality,
The Lifestyle Criminality Screening (Walters, White, & Denney, 1999) between -.30
to .24 (Walters, 2006). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991) correlations did
not exceed .09 (Walters, 2006). PICTS’ scales, using prison adjustment and release as
outcomes, had modest effect sizes (Walters, 2006). Walters’s meta-analysis explored six
studies which prison adjustment and release were the outcomes and found unweighted
effect sizes at a 95% confidence interval to range on the eight criminal thinking styles
from -.14 to .24. The weighted effect sizes what at a 95% confidence interval to range on
the eight criminal thinking styles from -.12 to .21. P and R scales were found to be the
most effective predictor scales of prison adjustment and release outcomes (Walters,
2006).
Walters (2006) used factor analyses on numerous occasions to establish construct
validity. Factor analyses on the PICTS sited four factors that accounted for 16.8%, 4.1%,
2.7%, and 2.3% of the variance and were labeled consecutively problem avoidance,
interpersonal hostility, self-assertion, and denial of harm (Walters, 1995). Extensive
confirmatory analyses (Walters, 2005) found above .50 correlations on these four factors
and eight thinking styles (Walters, 2006) Problem avoidance, Co, Ci, and Ds correlated
with the current criminal thinking content scale which this study investigates (Walters,
2006). This study will use the current content scale to assess its archival data.
Intervention
Criminality was the name of the program that was utilized in community
correctional facility in Pennsylvania and this study. The shortening of the Walters CLP
program was necessary due to client’s maximum 3-month length of stay in community
correctional facility as opposed to Walters’s samples, which have federal prison sentences
of years (Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012; Walters et al., 2002, 2008, 2011).
Criminality, a 5-week replica of Walters’s designs, modified only to address
offenders shortened length of stays due to lack of funding (Walters, 1999, 2005, 2012;
Walters et al., 2002, 2008, 2011). Walters design was modified by shortening his program
into a five-week program and only addressing criminal thinking errors. The following
describes how CLP was modified into Criminality. Criminality used Walters’s first
section of CLP that accentuated the explorations of criminal thinking (Walters, 1999,
2005, 2012; Walters et al., 2002, 2008, 2011). The first stage of Walters CLP addressed
criminogenic needs of criminal thinking and beliefs. This stage was used to preserve
Walter’s core change elements of responsibility, confidence, meaning, and community
(Walters, 2002) and highlighted Walters’s cognitive skills training and value clarification
importance in criminal thinking modification.
The two different programs were defined and outlined in Appendix A. Criminality
began with a baseline administration of the PICTS by the group leader to both the
criminality and primary groups. In week 1, criminality was presented with class
materials, and given the PICTS’ pre-test. In week 1, there was a group discussion on the
definition of criminality and each participants’ criminal history. During week 2, the
thinking error workbook (Walters, 2008) was completed. The thinking errors workbook
(Walters, 2008) was an interactive journal that described eight thinking errors(beliefs)
that supported criminal values. Each group participant completed the workbook to
determine which errors led him back to being irresponsible and behaving criminally.
Each group reviewed the thinking error workbook together, applied it to life experiences,
and how their lives could be if their criminality would change. Criminality also
volunteered at the food bank during week 2, stocked shelves, and delivered food to the
churches in the area. Volunteering in the food bank assisted through hands on experience
to understand the relationship between harming and helping people.
During week 3, the Criminality group went to the soup kitchen close to
community correctional facility in Pennsylvania to help feed many of the mothers,
fathers, and children whom had often been their drug customers. In week 3, the values
workbook (Walters, 2008) was also completed. The values workbook (Walters, 2008) is
an interactive journal that explored poor past choices, weighed benefits and consequences
of these past choices, and explored the values of honesty, caring, tolerance and
responsibility. The values workbook also explored future goals the participants can make
that support responsible living values. Each group participant completed the workbook to
determined bad choices, and developed a new set of values that mirrored right living.
Each group reviewed the values workbook together, applied it to life experiences, and
how their lives could be if their criminality would change. In week 4, highlighted sections
of 99 days and a get up (Rollo, 2012) are read, discussed and applied to each participants’
life. 99 days and a get up (Rollo, 2012) was a guide for offenders when they re-entered
society to prevent recidivism. A Criminality car wash (when weather permits) or
community brunch (monies donated to soup kitchen or food bank) was ran during week 4
that demonstrated the difference between offender self-centeredness and helping others.
In week 5, participants discussed the positives and negatives of the group, what they
learned and completed the PICTS’ posttest. The participants were also given completion
certificates.
The primary group began with a baseline administration of the PICTS by the
group leader to the primary group in week 1. In week 1, the participants introduced
themselves to one another, as well as explored the groups rules and purpose. The purpose
of this group was for the participants to discuss any treatment planning action steps, and
issues whether they are past or present. In week 2, the participants continued to discuss
treatment planning steps issues which was done to promote and demonstrate empathetic
understanding for group members. In week 3, the group analyzed its dynamics and
encouraged group participation by finding topics that the group was collectively
interested in exploring. In week 4, the primary group collectively explored skills that may
support positive lifestyles and discussed their identity and ways of implementation. In
week 5, primary participants discussed the group dynamic of peer feedback, its
importance in group processing and how to implement it more frequently in group. In
week 5, the primary participants completed the PICTS posttest.
Threats to Validity
History was a threat to this study’s internal validity due to its participants all
residing together in a community correctional center where varied events could have
occurred. Maturation was another threat to this study’s internal validity due to the nature
of an institution and individual’s varied processes. Testing was another internal threat due
to the exposure of the pretest possible influence on the outcomes of the posttest.
External validity could be threatened by the interactive effects of testing due to all
participants taking the pretest which might have affected a participant’s treatment
response. Another threat to this study’s external validity was the multiple past treatments
many of this study’s participants have experienced which may confound outcomes of this
study’s effects.
Ethical Procedures
Participants’ rights were protected under The Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing (8.1-8.13) and under the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and
Code of Conduct (2002), which upheld “fair and equitable treatment regarding
administration, reporting of results, intended use of scores and confidentiality of results”
(The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 1999, p. 85).
Under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Volume 1, Parts 1-399, and the
United States Code 42§290dd-2 (LAW), the community correctional facility clients and
participants of this study retained their civil liberties and rights. All records and
information of clients at the community correctional facility and participants in this study
were confidential and will not be disclosed without a participant’s consent.
All clients at the community correctional facility and participants in this study
were protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III; 1990), which
included their rights of equality and opportunity regardless of age, race, and sex as well
as the removal of all nonphysical and physical barriers. Under the State of Pennsylvania,
71 P.S. Pennsylvania Statutes § 1690.101 et.seq. - Act 63 (LAW); 4 Pa. Code § 255.1
et.seq. (Regulation); 28 Pa. Code§ 709.28 (Regulation); 35 P.S. § 7601 et.seq. -Act148
(LAW), all regulations and statues were applied and followed by the community
correctional facility. These laws and regulations of confidentiality protected all the
clients.
Summary
Chapter 3 delineated this study’s methodology, its design, its sample and
instrumentation. This chapter was also an examination of this study’s data collection and
analysis, intervention, and the participant’s rights. Chapter 4 will be a description of the
findings of this study using the data collected from the pre-and posttest scores of the
instruments utilized in this study,
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate archival pre-and post-data
collected from June 3, 2014 to September 30, 2014 from three cohort groups whose
members participated in either a treatment group which ran a criminality or primary
group. This evaluation assessed the effectiveness of two programs in reducing three
cohorts’ criminal thinking. The research question and hypotheses are restated. The
independent variables were the types of treatment (criminality and primary) and the
cohorts. The dependent variable was the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking
Styles scores (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012).
The independent variables were types of treatment and assignment to the
criminality or primary group. The other independent variable was the three cohorts. The
dependent variable was Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles scores. The
research question and hypotheses follow:
RQ1. Are there significant mean differences in post intervention criminal thinking
scores for the criminality group and the primary group, while controlling for their pre-test
scores?
Ho: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Ha3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Data Collection
This study’s archival data was collected from June 3, 2014 to September 30, 2014
from three cohort groups in either a criminality or primary group.
Demographic Findings
The sample consisted of 120 males with a mean age of 34. The total cohort sample
was 36% Caucasian, 28% African-American, 34% Hispanic, and 2% Asian. Their mean
educational level was the 10th grade. Regarding marital status, 43 % were single, 13%
were married, 33% were divorced, and 12% had never been married. Participants’ mean
sentencing length was 30 months. Their mean percentages in legal status was 21%
incarcerated, 27% on parole, 23% on probation and 29% on supervised release. Their
committing offense means were 33% for robbery or theft, 54% for drug charges, and 12%
for murder or other offenses. Cohort A, B, and C’s demographics are reported by cohort
in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographic Data for Cohorts A, B, and C
Cohort A % SD M
Race Caucasian 43
African-American 19
Hispanic 33
Asian 0
Age 1.9 35
Marital status Single 48
Married 10
Divorced 24
Never married 10
Education level 5th 2.5 10
6th 5
7th 2.5
8th 15
9th 17.5
10th 12.5
11th 22.5
12th 22.5
Legal status Incarcerated 6
Parole 8
Probation 10
Supervised release 9
Sentencing in months 41
Confining offense Robbery 10
Drugs 18
Murder 5
Cohort B % SD M
Race Caucasian 12
African-American 11
Hispanic 10
Asian 1
Age 7.6 35
Marital status Single 11
Married 6
Divorced 13
Never married 3
Education level 6th 7.5 10
8th 10
9th 20
10th 17.5
11th 20
12th 25
Legal status Incarcerated 6
Parole 8
Probation 10
Supervised release 10 (table continues)
Cohort B % SD M
Sentencing in months 41
Confining offense Robbery 10
Drugs 18
Murder 5
Cohort C % SD M
Race Caucasian 11
African-American 10
Hispanic 12
Asian 1
Age 7.4 33
Marital status Single 16
Married 2
Divorced 11
Never married 5
Education level 2nd 22.5 10
3rd 20
4th 7.5
6th 5
8th 2.5
9th 7.5
10th 10
11th 10
12th
15
Legal status
Incarcerated 8
Parole 11
Probation 5
Supervised release 10
Sentencing in months 31
Confining offense Robbery 12
Drugs 18
Murder 3
Cohort total findings are reported in Table 2.
Table 2
Demographics on all Cohorts
All Cohorts % SD M
Race Caucasian 36
African-American 28
Hispanic 34
Asian 2
Age 7.7 34
Marital status Single 43
Married 13
Divorced 33
Never married 12
Education level
2nd 7.5 10
3rd 6.7
4th 2.5
5th 8
6th 5.8
7th 8
8th 9.2
9th 15
10th 13.3
11th 17.5
12th
20.8
Legal status
Incarcerated 21
Parole 27
Probation 23
Supervised release 29
Sentencing in months 30
Confining offense Robbery 33
Drugs 54
Murder 13
Results
The data were analyzed using a 2x3 between groups factorial ANCOVA. The
independent variable was treatment group, which consisted of criminality group (n = 60),
and primary (n = 60). The dependent variable was the posttest scores on the PICTS’
current criminal scale while the covariate were the pretest scores on the PICTS’ current
criminal scale.
An exploratory data analysis indicated that both pretest and posttest PICTS score
distributions, for all cohorts x treatment conditions, met the assumption of normality
based on results of a series of Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for normality. Preliminary
analysis indicated that pre-test PICTS scores, the covariate, were significantly and very
strongly related to posttest PICTS scores (r = .976, r2 = .953, p < .0001) which accounted
for approximately 95% of the variability. In addition, the assumption of homogeneity of
regression was met in that the interactions of cohort x pretests (F (2, 110) = .66, p = .52),
treatment x pretest (F (1, 110) =2 .06, p = .154), and treatment x cohort x pretest (F (2,
110) =1.25, p = .290), were all non-significant. Levene’s test failed to detect any
violation of the assumptions of equality of variances (F (5, 114) = 1.99, p = .085). All
above assumption test results can be found in Appendix B.
Table 3 presents the pretest and posttest PICTS means and summary statistics by
cohort, treatment, and treatment x cohort. An analysis of the pretest scores indicates that,
although there were no significant differences between the pretest scores for the three
cohort groups (F (2, 114) = .56, p = .569, η2 = .01), there was a significant, and large,
difference between the two treatment groups means (F (1, 114) = 260.7, p < .0001, η2 =
.696). Specifically, the average pretest PICTS score for the criminality group (M = 69.60,
SD = 6.93, n = 60) was significantly larger than the average pretest PICTS score for the
primary group (M = 50.18, SD = 7.05, n = 60). This is an important finding which
necessitates the use of ANCOVA to statistically control for pretest PICTS score
differences between the two treatment conditions.
Table 3.
Means and Standard Deviations by Cohort Groups and Treatment Conditions.
Cohort
Treatment
Pretest
M SD
N
Post-test
M SD N
A
Primary
Criminality
52.50 67.70 5.34
7.30
20
20
51.95
64.45
5.01
7.84
20
20
Total 60.10 9.95 40 58.20 9.07 40
B
Primary
Criminality
52.30 68.80 5.69
6.61
20
20
52.10
65.25
6.13
7.15
20
20
Total 60.55 10.34 40 58.68 9.36 40
C
Primary
Criminality
45.75 72.30 7.91
6.33
20
20
45.85
68.85
8.25
8.09
20
20
Total 59.03 15.19 40 57.35 14.17 40
Total
Primary
Criminality
50.18 69.60 7.05
6.93
60
60
49.97
66.18
7.12
7.81
60
60
Total 59.89 11.98 120 58.08 11.03 120
To assess the effects for treatment, cohort, and their interaction on posttest PICTS
scores, controlling for pretest PICTS scores, a balanced design 2 (treatment condition:
primary [n = 20] v criminality [n = 20]) x 3(cohort group A [n = 40], B, [n = 40] and C [n
= 40]) factorial ANCOVA was employed. The results for the ANCOVA are shown in
Table 4. As reported in the table, no significant effect for cohort (F (2, 113) = .19, p =
.824, η2 = .003) or the interaction of cohort and treatment condition (F (2, 113) = .79, p
= .458, η2 = .014) were found. The main effect for treatment condition was found to be
statistically significant (F (1, 113) = 30.18, p < .0001, η2 = .211), and represents a large
effect size, accounting for approximately 21-percent of the variability in posttest PICTS
scores. An inspection of the adjusted posttest PICTS means appearing at the bottom of
Table 5 indicated that the mean adjusted PICTS score for the Criminality Group (M =
56.10, CI95% = 55.29 to 56.91) is significantly below the mean posttest PICTS score for
the Primary Group (M = 60.05, CI95% = 59.24 to 60.86)
Table 4.
ANCOVA Results
Source SS df MS F p η2
Pretest PICTS 5334.26 1 5334.26 1132.42 < .0001 .909
Cohort (A) 1.82 2 0.91 0.19 .824 .003
Treatment (B) 142.18 1 142.18 30.18 < .0001 .211
A x B 7.41 2 3.70 0.79 .458 .014
Error 532.29 113 4.71
Table 5:
Adjusted Post-test PICTs Means, Standard Errors, and 95% CIs by Cohort and
Treatment.
Cohort
Treatment
Adjusted
Mean SE
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
A Primary 59.63 0.54 58.56 60.69
Criminality 56.34 0.54 55.27 57.41
B Primary 59.98 0.54 58.92 61.05
Criminality 56.00 0.56 54.89 57.10
C Primary 60.54 0.65 59.24 61.83
Criminality 55.97 0.62 54.74 57.19
Total Primary 60.05 0.41 59.24 60.86
Criminality 56.10 0.41 55.29 56.91
RQ1- Are there significant mean differences in post intervention criminal thinking
scores for the criminality group and the primary group, while controlling for their pre-test
scores?
The main effect for treatment condition was found to be statistically significant (F
(1, 113) = 30.18, p < .0001, η2 = .211), and represents a large effect size, accounting for
approximately 21-percent of the variability in the posttest PICTs scores. The adjusted
posttest PICTS means for the criminality group (M = 56.10, CI95% = 55.29 to 56.91) were
significantly below the mean posttest PICTS score for the primary group (M = 60.05,
CI95% = 59.24 to 60.86).
Ho1: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha1: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
cohorts on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
H01 is retained finding no significant effects for cohorts on criminal thinking
posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Ho2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ha2: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant effects for
treatment on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal
Thinking Styles.
Ho2 is rejected due to finding a main effect for treatment condition that was
statistically significant (F (1, 113) = 30.18, p < .0001, η2 = .211), which represented a
large effect size, accounting for approximately 21-percent of the variability in the posttest
PICTS scores.
H o3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are no significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
Ha3: After controlling for pretest PICTS scores, there are significant Cohort x
Treatment interaction on criminal thinking posttest scores on the Psychological Inventory
of Criminal Thinking Styles.
H o3 was retained because no interaction of cohort and treatment conditions were
found (F (2, 113) = .79, p = .458, η2 = .014).
In the present study, the criminality group significantly reduced scores on the
PICTS posttest current criminal scale represented reductions in criminal thinking errors.
It also represented significantly lower scores on the PICTS posttest current criminal scale
as compared to the primary groups’ scores, which may represent the criminality’s
treatment program effectiveness.
Using the PICTS’ current criminal scale, the criminality group significantly lower
scores on the PICTS posttest current criminal scale as compared to the primary groups’
scores could also represent treatment program effectiveness as well as treatment groups’
criminal thinking reduction. There was evidence of mean differences between criminality
and primary posttest scores while controlling pretest scores.
These findings suggested that the criminality program influenced changing
criminal thinking. These findings extended and replicated the findings of Walters, 1990,
1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012; Walters & Chlumsky, 1993.
Summary
RQ1- Are there significant mean differences in post intervention criminal thinking
scores for the criminality group and the primary group, while controlling for their pre-test
scores?
Chapter 4 delineated findings on the evaluation of archival pre and posttest
archival data for 120 males that was collected from June 3, 2014 to September 30, 2014
from three cohort groups whom participated in either a criminality or primary group. This
evaluation used archival data from the PICTS’ current criminal scale that assessed the
effectiveness of two programs in reducing three cohorts’ criminal thinking. Using the
PICTS’ current criminal scale, the criminality group significantly lower scores on the
PICTS posttest current criminal scale as compared to the primary groups’ scores
represented treatment program effectiveness as well as treatment groups’ criminal
thinking reduction. There was evidence of mean differences between criminality and
primary posttest scores while controlling pretest scores.
The results from the 2x3 between groups factorial ANCOVA suggested that that
after controlling for group differences by using the pretest of the PICTS criminal current
scale as a covariant, treatment groups scored significantly lower after the criminality
group than after the primary group. There were reported significant differences between
the groups.
These findings suggested that the criminality program influenced changing
criminal thinking. The researcher therefore rejected the H02 and concluded that the
treatment (criminality) group decreased criminal thinking scores after holding constant
prior individual differences in criminal thinking. These findings extended and replicated
the findings of Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012; Walters &
Chlumsky, 1993.
Chapter 5 will be a discussion of the study’s findings, implications for social
change, and recommendation for action and further study. This chapter will also include
the conclusion of this dissertation.
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate archival pre and posttest data
collected from June 3, 2014 to September 30, 2014 from three cohort groups whose
members had taken part in one of two treatment conditions that were called either
criminality or primary group. Archival pre and posttest data from the PICTS were
collected from these cohort groups before and after their 5 weeks of criminality or
primary group participation. These archival pre and posttest data were analyzed to assess
any group or cohort differences in criminal thinking. I used a 2 x 3 between groups
factorial ANCOVA to assess the effectiveness of the two programs in reducing three
cohorts’ criminal thinking.
After controlling for group differences by using the pretest of the PICTS criminal
current scale as a covariant, I found that the criminality group scored significantly lower
after completion of their criminality group than the primary groups scored after
completion of their primary group. There were reported significant differences between
the groups. The criminality’s group posttest lower scores as compared to the primary
scores suggest program differences and efficacy in modifying criminal thinking. These
findings suggest that the criminality program may have influenced a change criminal
thinking. Chapter 5 discusses the study’s findings, implications for social change, and
recommendation for action and further study. This chapter will also include the
conclusion of this dissertation.
Interpretation of the Findings
I used archival data to evaluate group efficacy in changing criminal thinking.
These findings are conveyed in the summary tables in Chapter 4. I assessed posttest
PICTS scores on the current criminal scale while holding pretest scores as covariates for
120 total participants. Due to the significant mean differences found between treatment
conditions, the research question was answered. EBP (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et
al., 2005; Garland & Sparks, 2000; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al., 2004;
Kovandzic & Vieraitis, 2006; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp,
2006; Mauer, 2001) and CLT (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006,
2012; Walters & Chlumsky, 1993) emphasize the importance of criminal thinking
patterns modification as exemplified in this study’s mean pre-test scores. CLP and moral
educational programming were developed to modify criminogenic needs which include
criminal thinking, attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles (Walters, 1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2012). Walters integrated EBP into CLP (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b,
2003, 2005, 2006, 2012), as did this study, to address criminal thinking modification and
deep lifestyle changes such as values. CLP’s efficacy is well renowned (Walters,1990,
1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2012). This study achieved Criminality program
efficacy through findings that were statistically significant.
Controlling individual differences by using the PICT’s pretest as a covariate
emphasized the difference in post test scores between criminality, a modified CLP, as
compared to the primary group posttest scores. In this study, the criminality groups’
scores were lower on the PICTS current criminal scale than the primary groups’ scores
after controlling for the difference in pre-test scores. These findings suggest that the
criminality treatment program influenced the modification of current criminal thinking
processes. These findings also represent criminality’s efficacy in accomplishing criminal
thinking error reduction.
Walters studies (1990, 1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016) were
extended and replicated through this research and its findings. This study’s findings
reinforce the importance of evidenced-based research through CLT’s (Walters, 1990,
1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012) integration of the criminogenic needs of criminal
thinking (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Guevara &
Solomon, 2009; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan et al., 2006). Distorted thinking
styles have been the cornerstones of criminal lifestyle theory (Walters, 1990, 1995,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). Criminogenic needs are rooted in the fundamental
perspectives of social learning (Aker 1991, 1994, 1998; Bandura, 1999, 2002; Bandura,
Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, &
Regalia, 2001). The principles of criminality as a learned behavior which can be modified
by addressing the criminogenic need of criminal thinking errors were discussed in depth
in Chapters 1 and 2.
Changing lifestyles, values, and thinking distortions that reinforce criminal
behavior should be changed as recommended by evidence-based research findings
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; DeLeon, 2000; Guevara
& Solomon, 2009; Howard, 2000; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Walker, 2002; Walters,
2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2006, 2012). This study’s findings reinforce evidence based research
findings transformational contingencies.
My study discussed the efficacy of the treatment or criminality group, which was
a modified Walters CLP, in modifying current criminal thinking. My findings suggest
that divergent approaches address crime’s complexity (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et
al., 2005; Cullen et al., 2006; Garland, 2001; Guevara & Solomon, 2009; Joplin et al.,
2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006; Listwan, Cullen, &
Latessa, 2006; Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, & MacKensie, 2002). Due to sentencing
changes, I modified Walters’ CLP was modified to address criminality in offenders with
shorter sentences. The findings of this study reinforce the potential value of a shortened
version of Walters’ CLP efficacy in the treatment of offenders with shortened sentences.
Limitations
One of this study’s limitations is that participants were limited to male offenders
with a mean age of 34 and who residing in a community correctional facility in. The
sample makes generalizing results to a broader population difficult. There was a concern
of response bias due to pre-post testing. The limitation of assessing archival and its
acceptable recording appeared to have been done appropriately.
Recommendations
Policy development should address the alternative view of prison as a university.
Offenders’ views on prison time are not always seen as punitive and useless. Once
acclimating to the subculture, offenders begin the networking of new contacts, new skill
acquisition, and reinforce and glorify their criminality. It is no different for them as it is
for anyone cultivating their craft. Prison is where an offender can learn through social
learning, imitation, observation just as many did on the street. Creative sentencing would
benefit society by reducing the amount of money taxpayers pay to incarcerate non-violent
offenders (Walters, 2015, 2016).
Our intense, strong and diverse knowledge of criminality lacks constant
application. Transformation of criminal thinking is a short-term outcome that can spur the
long-term outcome of correctional EBPs of recidivism reduction and increase the public’s
sense of safety (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bogue et al., 2005; Guevara & Solomon, 2009;
Joplin et al., 2004; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2006).
Implementing criminality as preventative and educational tool that address the lifespan
development of criminality can be implemented with any population at any grade are
imperative for the prevention and modification of criminal thinking (Farrington et al.,
2003; Hawkins et. al., 2000; Hymel et al., 2005; O’Mahony, 2009; Thornberry et al.,
1995, 2003, 2004). The findings of these further studies can encourage social change and
benefit society by expediting early detection of these dysfunctional developmental
processes.
Implications
Society’s ability to save children from crime rests in researchers who identify the
risk and need factors that contribute to the criminal developmental process (Hawkins et
al., 2000; Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 1995, 2004). While America spends
approximately $20,000 per offender per year to maintain their imprisonment (Mauer,
2001), criminality professionals believe this money should be applied to EBPs that reduce
recidivism and prevent criminality. Implementing criminality as a method of
“cognitive mediation” into our prison systems may moderate relationships between past
and future criminality (Walters, 2015, p. 82). This in turn may help to prevent future
criminal behavior by addressing decision making skills, choices, and impulsivity
(Walters, 2015, 2016). Implementing a lifestyle change program such as criminality may
assist in the complexity of any offenders’ reentry process. This can serve as a
preventative measure in reoffending (Walters & Crawford, 2013. Walters, 2015, 2016).
The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of a program that can
potentially reduce crime. Changing an individual’s worth, value system, thinking process,
and dignity can extend into peer affiliations and the community. These lifestyle changes
can promote a positive social change in the social structure of offenders and the
community.
The implications for social change are many. This study actualized the
modification of values and characteristics of offenders through dynamic learning,
acquisition of new knowledge and competencies that change thought distortions while
instilling healthy values and beliefs. The study shaped a different understanding of
criminality by transforming lifestyles to improve balance, and aim towards right living.
The adaptation of healthy skills transfigures beliefs and values, which mitigates the
complexion of offenders and the relationship between these individuals. The organization
of this group of individuals falters if their purpose shifts from criminality to right living.
Policy development should address the alternative view of prison as a university.
Offenders’ views on prison time are not always seen as punitive and useless. Once
acclimating to the subculture, offenders begin the networking of new contacts, new skill
acquisition, and reinforce and glorify their criminality. It is no different for them as it is
for anyone cultivating their craft. Prison is where an offender can learn through social
learning, imitation, observation just as many did on the street. Creative sentencing would
benefit society by reducing the amount of money taxpayers pay to incarcerate non-violent
offenders (Walters, 2015, 2016).
Conclusion
The main purpose of this study was to evaluate archival pre-and post-data
collected offenders from June 3, 2014 to September 30, 2014, whom participated in either
a treatment group which ran a criminality group or a control group that had a primary
group. This evaluation was conducted to assess the effectiveness of two programs in
reducing offenders’ criminal thinking. Its findings revealed that criminality, a lifestyle
approached group, can influence lowering criminal thinking levels. This study actualized
the possibility of changing criminal thinking which in turn influence values and belief
systems. The application of these new value systems can help minimize reoffending,
improve lifestyles, create balances, and aim towards right living. In our present world,
full of unknowns and upheavals, our ability to focus on a small step of malleable thoughts
to affect a mass change in criminality’s complexity can create foundations in a fleeting
world of information, consistency, and communication.
