DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37457
title: Research on Offender Decision-Making and Desistance From Crime: A Multi-Theory Assessment of Offender Cognition Change, United States, 2015-2019
title: Archival Version

description: This study is largely exploratory and observational, with the main goals to understand (a) how cognitions change across time, (b) which cognitions are related to each other, and (c) which cognition measures are related to recidivism. Employing a two-phase program of research, this study sought to answer several research questions about the relationship between cognitions and desistance from crime: What cognitions do probationers self-identify as key beliefs that motivate their desire to desist from crime?; What are the psychometric properties of newly developed standardized measures designed to assess desistance cognitions?; Do probationers differ in their crime and desistance cognitions and, on average, do these cognitions change across time? ; How are crime and desistance cognitions related to official-record assessment and outcome data? Specifically, are there associations between self-reported cognitions and risk and strength factors rated by supervision officers?; Do crime and desistance cognitions predict future revocations and arrests as hypothesized by rational choice, correctional psychology, and / or desistance theories?; Variables include offender's self-report of their personal perception on the costs and benefits of crime, costs and benefits of attempting to stay crime-free, attitudes, impulsive traits, and emotions. A demographic variable is available: participant gender.
description: Given the relevance of desistance processes for probation practice and correctional rehabilitation more broadly, the purpose of this project was to investigate decision-making and thinking styles across time toward desistance among community supervised individuals. This project integrates constructs from several theoretical frameworks into a longitudinal study of changes in offender cognition within the individual. The overarching goal of the project is to explore the relative importance of a variety of thought patterns, by investigating how these cognitions relate to risk to re-offend and actual criminal behavior.
description: To recruit participants for two studies, researchers partnered with two community corrections agencies who supervise individuals serving sentences on probation. One site was a state probation agency in Texas situated within a Hispanic-majority county. The second site was a federal probation agency in a state that neighbors Texas. The procedures of both studies were reviewed and approved by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and institutional review boards at three universities. The partner probation agencies also reviewed the proposed study procedures prior to participant recruitment. For Phase 1 of the study, researchers conducted one focus group at each site with a total of 16 probationers (9 individuals at the state agency, 7 individuals at the federal agency) to explore how individuals express their personal motivations to desist from crime. For this phase, probationers were recruited through supervision officers and specified the following inclusion criteria: (a) had remained incident-free on probation for at least 9 months, (b) was maintaining a positive relationship with their supervision officer, and (c) was fluent in English. Participants received $30 gift cards to compensate their time. For Phase 2 of the study, researchers recruited 355 offenders to self-report their personal perception on the costs and benefits of crime, costs and benefits of attempting to stay crime-free, attitudes, impulsive traits, and emotions. Because it is important to understand how changes in thinking are related to simultaneous improvements (or deterioration) in criminal behavior, each individual was asked to complete questionnaires three times at least three months apart. Participants were given a gift card each time they participated: $20 gift card at the end of their first session, a $25 gift card at the end of their second session, and a $30 gift card at the end of their third session. Demographic, criminal history, risk score, and revocation information were provided by partner agencies from official files. For the state probation agency, the most current file information was provided through May 29, 2019. For the federal probation agency, the most current file information was provided through December 31, 2018, with some updated information through August 30, 2018 for a sub-portion of a sample.
description: Variables in Phase 2 include the following self-reported measures: Expected costs and benefits of crime: negative and positive expectancy for criminal action, criminal self-efficacy, positive attitudes toward violence, entitlement attitudes, antisocial intent, positive attitudes towards antisocial associates, and negative and positive emotion.; Five facets of impulsivity: negative urgency, positive urgency, sensation seeking, lack of premeditation, and lack of perseverance; Agency for desistance: positive expectancy for desistance, negative expectancy for desistance, effort expectancy for desistance, high agency for desistance, and low agency for desistance;
description: Presence of Common Scales: Personal Outcome Expectancies for Desistance (POE-D) Questionnaire Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Agency for Desistance Questionnaire (ADQ) Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA) Criminal Self-Efficacy Scale Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation Seeking, Positive Urgency, Impulsive Behavior Scale (UPPS-P)
description: Response Rates: Not available.
description: Datasets: DS1: Phase 2: Multi-Assessment Longitudinal Study Dataset
description: on-site questionnaire
description: Federal and State Adult Probationers Smallest Geographic Unit: State
description: Researchers made an effort to recruit Federal and State probationers shortly after beginning their supervision orders to maximize retention in the longitudinal design, but specified no exclusion criteria for participation and attempted to contact all individuals who were currently supervised at the agencies. Both agencies only supervise adults and so youth were automatically excluded.