Zusammenfassung
Während klassische kriminologische Theorien dazu tendieren, entweder umweltbezogene oder persönliche Faktoren auszuklammern, betonen moderne Ansätze regelmäßig die Bedeutung von Person-Situation-Interaktionen. Spezifische und überprüfbare Interaktionsmechanismen werden jedoch selten beschrieben und wenn, greifen sie kaum auf bestehendes Wissen zu den psychologischen Prozessen der Verhaltenssteuerung zurück. Basierend auf Kuhls (2001) PSI-Theorie untersucht diese Arbeit die moderierende Rolle des Persönlichkeitsmerkmals Neurotizismus hinsichtlich der Vorhersagekraft personaler und umweltbezogener Risikofaktoren kriminellen Verhaltens. Es werden zwei Interaktionshypothesen formuliert: (a) Die Interaktionshypothese Neurotizismus × soziales Umfeld besagt, dass Neurotizismus den kriminalitätsfördernden Einfluss eines problematischen sozialen Umfeldes verstärken sollte, wohingegen (b) die Interaktionshypothese Neurotizismus × Normbindung besagt, dass Neurotizismus den kriminalitätshemmenden Einfluss einer verbindlichen Einstellung zu Recht und Gesetz abschwächen sollte. Diese Zusammenhänge wurden anhand der Rückfälligkeit Strafgefangener untersucht. Es handelt sich um eine Re-Analyse der Daten der Berliner CRIME-Studie, deren Grundstein im Jahre 1976 gelegt wurde. Für diese Arbeit konnten die Daten von N = 262 männlichen Strafgefangenen analysiert werden. Die Ergebnisse der logistischen Regressionsanalysen bestätigen die Hypothesen weitgehend. Die Studie verdeutlicht, dass die Komplexität der Prozesse krimineller Rückfälligkeit nicht allein durch Haupteffekte abgebildet werden kann.
Abstract
While classical criminological theory tends to neglect either environmental or personal causes of crime and criminality, modern approaches emphasize the importance of person-situation-interaction. However, testable interaction mechanisms are less often specified and if so, they are rarely informed by psychological knowledge on the processes of behavioral control. Based on Kuhl’s (2001) PSI theory, this study investigates the moderating role of the neuroticism personality trait on the effect of personal and environmental risk factors of criminal behavior. Two interaction hypotheses are being formulated: (a) The neuroticism × social environment interaction hypothesis predicts that neuroticism strengthens the criminogenic effect of a problematic social environment, whereas (b) the neuroticism × norm commitment interaction hypothesis states that neuroticism weakens the criminality-inhibiting effect of a committed attitude towards the law. Using the convicted offenders’ criminal recidivism as the criterion to be predicted, this work re-analyzes the data of the Berlin CRIME study that was started in 1976. The sample used in this work consisted of N = 262 male offenders. Overall, the fitting indices of the logistic regression models confirm the interaction hypotheses. The results illustrate that the complexity of the processes behind criminal recidivism might not be captured by main effects alone.
Literatur
Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.13523110.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231Search in Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. D. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. D. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health-Systems.Search in Google Scholar
Barrett, L. & Henzi, P. (2005). The social nature of primate cognition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272(1575), 1865–1875. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.320010.1098/rspb.2005.3200Search in Google Scholar
Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2003). Self-infiltration: Confusing assigned tasks as self-selected in memory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720225091610.1177/0146167202250916Search in Google Scholar
Best, T., Aebi, M. & Bessler, C. (2014). Forensisches Therapieprogramm für junge Straftäter: Das ForTiS-Manual (Therapeutische Praxis). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Bonta, J. D. & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (Sixth Edition.). London and Abingdon and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Search in Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation: Structure and measurement. New York, NY: Harcourt.Search in Google Scholar
Cima, M., Tonnaer, F. & Lobbestael, J. (2007). Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63(4), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0306107610.1007/BF03061076Search in Google Scholar
Cleckley, H. M. (1988). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality (5. Auflage). Augusta, Giorgia: Emil S. Cleckley.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, A. K. (1961). Kriminelle Jugend: Zur Soziologie des jugendlichen Bandenwesens. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Search in Google Scholar
Collins, M. D., Jackson, C. J., Walker, B. R., O’Connor, P. J. & Gardiner, E. (2016). Integrating the context-appropriate balanced attention model and reinforcement sensitivity theory: Towards a domain-general personality process model. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 91. US: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul000008210.1037/bul0000082Search in Google Scholar
Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-ISearch in Google Scholar
Dahle, K.-P. (2006). Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of criminal reoffence in a German prison sample: A comparative study of LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29(5), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.00110.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Dahle, K.-P. (2010). Psychologische Kriminalprognose. Herbolzheim: Centaurus Verlag & Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-86226-449-010.1007/978-3-86226-449-0Search in Google Scholar
Dahle, K.-P., Harwardt, F. & Schneider-Njepel, V. (2012). LSI-R: Inventar zur Einschätzung des Rückfallrisikos und des Betreuungs- und Behandlungsbedarfs von Straftätern. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Dahle, K.-P. & Schmidt, S. (2014). Prognostische Validität des Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 8(2), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-014-0256-510.1007/s11757-014-0256-5Search in Google Scholar
Deyoung, C., Quilty, L. & Peterson, J. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of personality and social psychology, 93, 880–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.88010.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880Search in Google Scholar
Dodge, K. A. & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616729016100210.1177/0146167290161002Search in Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. I. (1996). Personality and crime: Where do we stand. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316960840977310.1080/10683169608409773Search in Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J. (1960). The structure of human personality (Psychology revivals) (2. Auflage). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Fahrenberg, J. & Selg, H. (1970). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar FPI: Handanweisung für die Durchführung und Auswertung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P. (2020). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory: Past, present, and future. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 6(2), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-019-00112-910.1007/s40865-019-00112-9Search in Google Scholar
Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress. CUP Archive.Search in Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1964). Persönlichkeit. Weinheim: Beltz.Search in Google Scholar
Hare, R. D. & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.09145210.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452Search in Google Scholar
Heffernan, R., Ward, T., Vandevelde, S. & van Damme, L. (2019). Dynamic risk factors and constructing explanations of offending: The Risk-Causality Method. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 44, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.11.00910.1016/j.avb.2018.11.009Search in Google Scholar
Kazén, M., Baumann, N. & Kuhl, J. (2003). Self-infiltration vs. self-compatibility checking in dealing with unattractive tasks: The moderating influence of state vs. action orientation. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 157–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102504353079910.1023/A:1025043530799Search in Google Scholar
Kuhl, J. (1996). Who controls whom when »I control myself«? Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0701‗ 12Search in Google Scholar
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: the dynamics of personality systems and interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Hrsg.), Handbook of self-regulation (S. 111–169). San Diego: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kuhl, J. (2001). Motivation und Persönlichkeit: Interaktionen psychischer Systeme. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Kury, H. (2002). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar und sein Einsatz bei kriminologischen Fragestellungen: Das Problem der Verfälschungstendenzen. In M. Myrtek (Hrsg.), Die Person im biologischen und sozialen Kontext (S. 249–270). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Lowder, E. M., Desmarais, S. L., Rade, C. B., Johnson, K. L. & van Dorn, R. A. (2019). Reliability and validity of START and LSI-R assessments in mental health jail diversion clients. Assessment, 26(7), 1347–1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319111770450510.1177/1073191117704505Search in Google Scholar
Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L. & Douglas, K. S. (2008). Utility of the Revised Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R) in predicting recidivism after long-term incarceration. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9118-410.1007/s10979-007-9118-4Search in Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/208468610.2307/2084686Search in Google Scholar
Mills, J. F., Loza, W. & Kroner, D. G. (2003). Predictive validity despite social desirability: Evidence for the robustness of self-report among offenders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.53610.1002/cbm.536Search in Google Scholar
Ostermann, M. & Salerno, L. M. (2016). The validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised at the intersection of race and gender. The Prison Journal, 96(4), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288551665087810.1177/0032885516650878Search in Google Scholar
Peng, C.-Y. J., Lee, K. L. & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022067020959878610.1080/00220670209598786Search in Google Scholar
Rossegger, A., Laubacher, A., Vetter, S., Urbaniok, F., Kilvinger, F. & Endrass, J. (2010). Prädiktive Validität LSI-R bei entlassenen Gewalt- und Sexualstraftätern. Forensische Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 17(2), 71–82.Search in Google Scholar
Smillie, L. D. (2008). What is reinforcement sensitivity? Neuroscience paradigms for approach-avoidance process theories of personality. European Journal of Personality, 22(5), 359–384. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/per.67410.1002/per.674Search in Google Scholar
Suter, M., Pihet, S., de Ridder, J., Zimmermann, G. & Stephan, P. (2014). Implicit attitudes and self-concepts towards transgression and aggression: Differences between male community and offender adolescents, and associations with psychopathic traits. Journal of Adolescence, 37(5), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.00410.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.004Search in Google Scholar
Sutherland, E. H. & Cressey, D. R. (1970). Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.Search in Google Scholar
Tzelgov, J. & Henik, A. (1991). Suppression situations in psychological research: Definitions, implications, and applications. Psychological Bulletin, 109(3), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.52410.1037/0033-2909.109.3.524Search in Google Scholar
Vose, B., Lowenkamp, C. T., Smith, P. & Cullen, F. T. (2009). Gender and the Predictive Validity of the LSI-R. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/104398620934479710.1177/1043986209344797Search in Google Scholar
Ward, T. (2020). Why theory matters in correctional psychology: Theoretical illiteracy and therapeutic ineffectiveness. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 14(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-019-00578-910.1007/s11757-019-00578-9Search in Google Scholar
Ward, T., Hudson, S. M. & Keenan, T. (1998). A self-regulation model of the sexual offense process. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102207151664410.1023/A:1022071516644Search in Google Scholar
Wikström, P.-O. H. (2014). Situational action theory. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Hrsg.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Band 4, S. 4845–4852). New York, NY: Springer New York.Search in Google Scholar
Wikström, P.-O. H. (2015). Situational action theory. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 98(3), 177–186.10.1515/mks-2015-980302Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
