ABSTRACT

This study examines the reliability and validity of proactive (cold-blooded, instrumental), reactive (hot-blooded, affective), and acquisitive (securing goods of others) crime-related attributional domains associated with specific offence-based categories. Using samples from minimum security (n = 116), medium security (n = 102) and parole (n = 116), construct validity of the Proactive, Reactive, and Acquisitive scales was assessed with response latencies, criterion validity with past offending, and predictive validity with future offending. Response latencies for endorsed items discriminated better between the Proactive and Reactive scales than between the Reactive and Acquisitive scales. The Proactive, Reactive, and Acquisitive scales had stronger relationships with their corresponding offense category that with non-corresponding scale and offence-based category. The Acquisitive scale uniquely predicted acquisitive offences. The results support a basic distinction between the Proactive, Reactive, and Acquisitive scales. Implications of the results include using skill-based intervention methods for elevated Proactive scores, affective-based interventions for elevated Reactive scores, and rational choice techniques for elevated Acquisitive scores.

摘要

这项研究检查了与基于特定犯罪类别的犯罪相关的主动相关（冷血，工具性），反应性（热血，情感性）和获取性（其他人的担保商品）犯罪归因域的可靠性和有效性。使用最低安全性（n = 116），中等安全性（n = 102）和假释（n= 116），根据反应潜伏期，过去违规的标准效度和未来违规的预测效度评估了Proactive，Reactive和Acsitive量表的结构效度。认可项目的响应等待时间在主动和反应量表之间的区分要好于在反应和获取量表之间的区分。主动，被动和习性量表与其对应的犯罪类别之间的关系更强，而与非对应的等级和基于犯罪的类别之间的关系更紧密。获取性量表唯一地预测了获取性犯罪。结果支持主动，被动和主动量表之间的基本区别。结果的含义包括使用基于技能的干预方法来提高主动得分，基于情感的干预来提高反应得分，