Changing Criminal Attitudes Among Incarcerated Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the effect of a criminal attitude treatment program to changes on measured criminal attitudes and postprogram recidivism. The criminal attitude program (CAP) is a standardized therapeutic curriculum consisting of 15 modules offering 44 hr of therapeutic time. It was delivered by trained facilitators to a total of 113 male offenders incarcerated in one of five state correctional institutions. Pretreatment and posttreatment comparisons were made on standardized measures of criminal attitudes, response bias, and motivation for lifestyle changes. Results found statistically significant lower criminal attitudes at posttreatment that were unaffected by response bias. There were also increases in motivation for lifestyle changes, but these did not reach statistical significance. Fifty-seven participants were released into the community following the program and were eligible for recidivism analyses. Comparisons between participants who completed the CAP and those who did not complete the CAP revealed 7% lower rearrest among CAP completers. Although preliminary, these results indicate that the CAP had a positive effect on changes to criminal attitudes and recidivism. The findings are discussed in terms of conceptual and practical considerations in the assessment and treatment of criminal attitudes among offenders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".