Criminal thinking shifts among male prisoners participating in a cognitive‐based education programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many prisoners rationalise criminal behaviour, and this type of thinking has been linked to recidivism. Correctional programmes for modifying criminal thinking can reshape how offenders view themselves and their circumstances. AIM: Our aim was to test whether participation in a cognitive-based curriculum called Steps to Economic and Personal Success (STEPS) was associated with changes in criminal thinking. METHODS: The STEPS curriculum is delivered in 15 video-based facilitated classes. A pre-intervention/post-intervention survey design was applied to 128 adult male prisoners who completed the programme. Criminal thinking was measured by the Texas Christian University Criminal Thinking Scale, a self-report instrument with the six domains: entitlement, justification, power orientation, cold heartedness, criminal rationalisation and personal irresponsibility. RESULTS: Participants had lower scores in most of the criminal thinking domains after the intervention than before, with largest reductions in justification and power orientation. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence that attitudes to crime can be changed in a correctional setting, and the programme under study shows promise as an effective intervention for changing these attitudes among prisoners. Future research should build on these findings to examine whether and how such changes are related to desistance from offending behaviours. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".