Assessing delinquent attributions and planning interventions

Assessing delinquent
attributions and planning
interventions
Neven Ricijaš, Ph.D.
Department of Behavioural Disorders
Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences
University of Zagreb

Why do juveniles commit
criminal offences?
What are the reasons for their
delinquent behaviour?

Risk/Need Factors: The Central Eight
(Andrews & Bonta, 2006)
1. History of Antisocial Behaviour
2. Antisocial Personality Pattern
3. Antisocial Cognition
4. Antisocial Associates
5. Family/Marital Circumstances
6. School/Work
7. Leisure/Recreation
8. Substance Abuse

What do juveniles think, why do
they commit criminal offences?
How do they attribute their
delinquent behaviour?
Is it important how the attribute
their delinquent behaviour?

Delinquent Attribution Scale
DAS-J
(version for Juveniles)
- Steps in scale construction -

1st step – Defining theoretical background
Weiner’s
attribution
theory
Criminogenic
risk/need
approach

Weiner’s attribution theory
• Weiner developed a theoretical framework that has
become very influential in social psychology today.
• Attribution theory assumes that people try to
determine why people do what they do, that is,
interpret causes to an event or behavior.
• A three-stage process underlies an attribution:
behavior must be observed/perceived
behavior must be determined to be intentional
behavior attributed to internal or external causes

Weiner’s attribution theory
• Attributions are classified along three causal
dimensions:
1. locus of control (two poles: internal vs. external)
2. stability (do causes change over time or not?)
3. controllability (causes one can control such as
skills vs. causes one cannot control such as luck,
others’ actions, etc.)

Weiner’s attribution theory
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
STABLE UNSTABLE STABLE UNSTABILE
HAS NO
CONTROL
HAS
CONTROL

Integration of Weiner’s attribution theory
with Criminogenic Risk/Need Theory
INTERNAL
EXTERNAL
STABLE UNSTABLE STABLE UNSTABLE
HAS NO
CONTROL
Poor selfcontrol
Impulsive
attack
Poor family
relationship
Drunkenness
HAS
CONTROL
Need for
taking risks
Boredom
Earnings
Current
financial
gains

2nd step – Generating item pool
1. Defining categories (7 internal and 7 external
categories)
2. Personal ideas (generating items)
3. Three focus groups with juvenile delinquents in
correctional institution
a) Generating items
b) Checking all 156 items
Preliminary version of the Scale has 140 items.
(1 = completely untrue; 5 = completely true)

3rd step – Conducting pilot research
N = 108 juvenile delinquents
in the city of Zagreb
a) On probation
b) In open residential facility
c) In closed correctional institution
Mage = 17,28 SDage = 1,622
(Min. 14 - Max. 21)

4th step – Item reduction steps
1. Poor distribution
2. Factor structure of each category
3. Inter-item and item-total correlations
4. Factor structure of the whole internal and
external domain

Final Research and Results

Sample
• N=335 male juvenile delinquents in the
Republic of Croatia
• 56,1% institutional treatment
• 43,9% on probation
• Mage = 17,1 (SDage = 1,85)
• Minage = 14 Maxage = 21

Delinquent Attribution Scale
• final version has 60 items
• two subscales:
internal (4 factors = 24 items)
external (8 factors = 36 itmes)

Delinquent Attribution Scale
Factors
No.
Items
%
variance
α -
Cronbach
Internal subscale 24 57,82 ,906
1. Antisocial tendencies*** 12 25,98 ,913
2. Susceptibility to peers 4 11,12 ,813
3. Thoughtlessness 4 10,65 ,733
4. Personal frustration 4 10,12 ,770
*** this factor consists of three areas: (1) delinquent identity, (2) antisocial
attitudes, (3) fun and excitement

Delinquent Attribution Scale
Factors
No.
Items
%
variance
α -
Cronbach
External subscale 36 68,96 ,923
1. Poverty and material gain 8 12,83 ,901
2. Poor family relationships 4 10,64 ,811
3. Drugs 4 9,41 ,911
4. Alcohol 4 9,36 ,908
5. Antisocial peers 4 7,60 ,811
6. Permissive parents 4 7,15 ,786
7. Situation 4 6,03 ,705
8. Over-controlling parents 4 5,94 ,802

Differences in delinquent attributions regarding the
frequency of delinquent behaviour (ANOVA)
4
3,5
3
2,5
** **
**
** **
**
** **
**
2
1,5
1
ANTISOCIAL TENDENCIES
PERSONAL FRUSTRATION
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PEERS
THOUGHTLESSNESS
POVERTY
POOR FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
DRUGS
ALCOHOL
ANTISOCIAL PEERS
PERMISIVE PARENTS
SITUATIONS
OVER-CONTROLLING PARENTS
RARELY OFTEN VERY OFTEN

Differences in delinquent attributions regarding the lenght
of delinquent behaviour (ANOVA)
4
3,5
3
2,5
** **
**
**
**
**
**
*
2
1,5
1
ANTISOCIAL TENDENCIES
PERSONAL FRUSTRATION
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PEERS
THOUGHTLESSNESS
POVERTY
POOR FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
DRUGS
ALCOHOL
ANTISOCIAL PEERS
PERMISIVE PARENTS
SITUATIONS
OVER-CONTROLLING PARENTS
1 YEAR 2 YEARS 3 YEARS 4 OR MORE YEARS

Differences in delinquent attributions regarding the
beginning of delinquent behaviour (t-test)
4
3,5
3
2,5
2
**
**
**
*
**
**
**
*
1,5
1
ANTISOCIAL TENDENCIES
PERSONAL FRUSTRATION
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PEERS
THOUGHTLESSNESS
POVERTY
POOR FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
DRUGS
ALCOHOL
ANTISOCIAL PEERS
PERMISIVE PARENTS
SITUATIONS
OVER-CONTROLLING PARENTS
EARLY-STARTERS
LATE-STARTERS

Differences between low-risk and high-risk delinquents
LOW-RISK
HIGH-RISK
ANTISOCIAL
TENDENCIES
THOUGHTLESSNESS
SITUATON
PERSONAL
FRUSTRATION
ANTISOCIAL PEERS
POVERTY AND
MATERIAL GAIN
DRUGS
ALCOHOL

LEVEL OF RISK
DELINQUENT ATTRIBUTIONS
HIGH-RISK
Commit various criminal offences,
from small delicts to serious
criminal acts (a lot of risk
behaviour, property and violence
offences and drug offences).
MODERATE-RISK
Commit small delicts, different risk
behaviours and property offences.
LOW-RISK
Commit only small delicts and risk
behaviour.
1. Drugs
2. Antisocial tendencies
3. Poverty and material gain
4. Antisocial peers
5. Alcohol
6. Personal frustration
1. Thoughtlessness
2. Antisocial tendencies
3. Antisocial peers
4. Personal frustration
5. Situation
1. Poor family relationships
2. Alcohol
3. Situation

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mean
Antisocial
tendencies
Personal
frustration
Susceptibility
to peers
Thoughtlessness
Poverty and
meterial gain
Antisocial
peers
5
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
4
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
3
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
2
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mean Drugs Alcohol
Poor family
relationships
Permisive
parents
Overcontrolling
p.
Situation
5
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
5.0
.
.
4
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
4.0
.
.
3
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
3.0
.
.
2
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.
2.0
.
.

Implications for planning interventions
DAS aims to assess the perspective of juvenile
delinquents regarding the reasons for their delinquent
behaviour
it focuses on dynamic risk factors
the structure of attributions can differentiate various types
of juvenile delinquents (low/high risk)
it could be a useful tool to gain additional information
about the status of a juvenile and his cognitive believes,
which has implications in planning interventions as well as
in expected outcomes

Thank you for your attention!