About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


49 Crim. Just. & Behavior 3 (2022)

handle is hein.journals/crmjusbhv49 and id is 1 raw text is: SELF-REPORTED CHANGE IN ANTISOCIAL ATTITUDES AND REOFFENDING AMONG A SAMPLE OF 2,337 MALES CONVICTED OF VIOLENT OFFENSES TANYIA JUAREZ University ofNew South Wales MARK V. A. HOWARD Corrective Services New South Wales Antisocial attitudes are among the strongest predictors of reoffending; however, there is little evidence to show that treatment- induced changes in antisocial attitudes correspond to changes in individuals' risk of recidivism. This study examined relation- ships between within-treatment change in antisocial attitudes derived from the Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA) and reoffending among a large sample of males convicted of violent offenses (N = 2,337). Residual change scores (RCS) and categories of clinically significant change (CSC) were used as indices of within-treatment change. A number of MCAA factor scores significantly predicted general and violent reoffending when assessed before and after treatment. RCS calculations of within-treatment change on the Violence and Antisocial Intent factors were also significantly associated with general reoffending outcomes. There was no evidence that within-treatment change on any measure had predictive validity for violent reoffending. Keywords: antisocial attitudes; within-treatment change; violence; reoffending V iolent crime is a prevalent issue that has significant ramifications for the individual and broader economic and health costs (Klepfisz et al., 2014). Accordingly, research has devoted attention to developing and evaluating programs aimed at reducing violent offend- ing. Research has shown interventions that adhere to principles ofthe Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) model can be effective in reducing reoffending among individuals convicted of gen- eral and violent offenses (Andrews, Zinger et al., 1990; Dowden & Andrews, 2000). The risk principle states that the intensity of treatment should match the risk level of the person; the responsivity principle informs how treatment should be delivered to accommodate indi- vidual learning styles, motivation, and cognitive abilities; and the need principle proposes AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors are thankful to the University of New South Wales, particularly Professor Richard Kemp, for overseeing this study. It is noted that the second author was employed by CSNSW at the time of completing this study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tanyia Juarez, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Library Walk, Kensington, NSW 2033, Australia; e-mail: z5148486@zmail.unsw edu.au. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 1, January 2022, 3-19. DOI:10.1177/00938548211013576 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions © 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology 3