Moore, Simon Christopher ![]() |
Abstract
Although the majority of the general population decides not to offend, a significant proportion decides otherwise. The research presented in this article explores whether offenders reason in manners that are comparable with a non-offender population, or if their decision to offend may be a consequence of inappropriate reasoning strategies. Psychologists have observed systematic deviations from logical predictions of reasoningbehavior on a variety of tasks and that content specific information can have marked effects on reasoningbehavior. Established reasoning tasks were adapted for use in a crime specific context to examine whether such biases were apparent in an offender population. Moreover, given a paucity of research into gender differences, the research conducted balanced for gender in a methodologically rigorous design. Data suggested that reasoningbiases found with non-offender populations extended to an offender population and some interactions by gender and by offender group were noted. Implications of the results are discussed with suggestions on how the research may be extended and implications for policy.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Date Type: | Publication |
Status: | Published |
Schools: | Dentistry |
Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology H Social Sciences > HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare |
Publisher: | Elsevier |
ISSN: | 0047-2352 |
Last Modified: | 05 Jan 2024 02:10 |
URI: | https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/35628 |
Citation Data
Cited 1 time in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data
Actions (repository staff only)
![]() |
Edit Item |