دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 37375
عنوان فارسی مقاله

عدم توجه، بیش فعالی/تکانشگری و اختلال شخصیت ضد اجتماعی. بهترین پیش بینی کننده اعترافات دروغین کدام است؟

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
37375 2010 5 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity and antisocial personality disorder. Which is the best predictor of false confessions?
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 6, April 2010, Pages 720–724

کلمات کلیدی
اعترافات دروغین - اختلال شخصیت ضد اجتماعی - بی توجهی - بیش فعالی / تکانشگری
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله عدم توجه، بیش فعالی/تکانشگری و اختلال شخصیت ضد اجتماعی. بهترین پیش بینی کننده اعترافات دروغین کدام است؟

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract The aim of the study was to investigate the relative importance of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in predicting a history of false confessions to police. The participants were 90 male prisoners who were interviewed within 10 days of admission to prison. They completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview and the Wender–Utah Rating Scale (WURS) and DSM-IV-TR Checklist for childhood and adult ADHD symptoms, respectively. Over half of the participants (58%) met criteria for APD, half (50%) had ADHD in childhood and of those 60% were either fully symptomatic or in partial remission of their symptoms. Twenty-two (24%) reported a history of giving false confessions during police interrogation. Adult inattention and hyperactivity symptoms were significantly more common among the false confessors than the other prisoners with high and moderate effect size (1.03 and 0.58), respectively. Binary logistic regression (‘forced entry method’) was used to determine the order of the predictor variables of false confession and the data were entered in three blocks (APD, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and inattention). Inattention was the only remaining significant predictor after controlling for APD and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The findings suggest that inattention is a more powerful predictor of false confession than hyperactivity/impulsivity and APD.

مقدمه انگلیسی

. Introduction ADHD is a childhood developmental disorder, which consists of three primary symptoms: inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The symptoms sometimes persist into adulthood (Young, 2004) and can increase the risk of poor adjustment in adult life if the person is partly or fully symptomatic for ADHD (Young and Gudjonsson, 2006 and Young and Gudjonsson, 2008). ADHD is particularly common among prisoners where approximately 50% of inmates have been screened to have childhood ADHD and of those about half retain full or partial symptoms in adulthood (e.g. Einarsson et al., 2009 and Rasmussen et al., 2001). Within the criminal justice system, people with ADHD can be psychologically vulnerable or disadvantaged at different stages of the process. This includes more frequent offending and police contact (e.g., Barkley et al., 2004 and Young, 2007), increased risk of false confession during custodial interrogation (Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Einarsson, Bragason, & Newton, 2008a), problems with fitness to plead and stand trial (Gudjonsson & Young, 2006), and being involved in more critical incidents in prison (Young et al., 2009). The purpose of the current paper is to investigate the association between ADHD symptoms (inattention versus hyperactivity/impulsivity), antisocial personality disorder and false confessions among prisoners. False confessions typically occur in three different contexts, religion, psychotherapy, and criminal law (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004). In this paper we focus on false confessions in the context of criminal law. There is evidence from many separate sources that false confessions to crimes do occur; this includes studies of actual real life cases of wrongful convictions (Drizin and Leo, 2004, Gudjonsson, 2003 and Gudjonsson, 2006), false confessions reported by prison inmates (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 1994 and Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson, 1996), suspects detained at police stations (Sigurdsson, Gudjonsson, Einarsson, & Gudjonsson, 2006), and a number of community samples (e.g., Gudjonsson, in press). False confessions are multifaceted in nature and have a variety of causes, but there is evidence that antisocial personality disorder is important in some cases (Gudjonsson, 2003). Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (1994) and Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson (1996) investigated the reporting of false confessions to police by prisoners in Iceland. A discriminant function analysis of the data from the two studies (Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 2001) showed that out of 33 predictor variables, the number of previous imprisonments and antisocial personality disorder traits, as measured by the Gough Socialization Scale (Gough, 1960), were the two best predictors of false confessions. They correctly classified 93% of the non-false confessors and 32.3% of the false confessors with an overall classification of 82.7%. The authors interpreted this finding as an indication that false confessions among prisoners were a part of their criminal life style. Gudjonsson et al. (2008a) replicated the two previous Icelandic prison studies, but included measures of childhood and adult ADHD. Out of the 90 prisoners, 22 (24%) reported a history of false confession. Out of the 27 (30%) prisoners who met childhood criteria for ADHD and were currently symptomatic for ADHD (i.e., either partially or fully symptomatic), 11 (41%) reported a history of a false confession in contrast to 11 (18%) of the 63 other prisoners. The findings suggested that adults with ADHD were more susceptible to making a false confession than other prisoners. The false confessions were mainly made to property offences (62%), drug offences (29%) and traffic violations (18%). The reasons given for making a false confession to the police were overlapping, but mainly involved wanting to leave the police station, avoid custody, or protect the real perpetrator (i.e., a peer or a friend). The purpose of the present study is to extend the analysis of the data in the Gudjonsson et al. (2008a) study to include a measure of antisocial personality disorder (i.e., Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview; Sheehan et al., 1998) and to investigate separately the effects of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. This has never been investigated previously. If Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson (2001) are correct that a history of false confessions among serious offenders is a part of their criminal life style, then it would be predicted that antisocial personality and hyperactivity/impulsivity would be better predictors of false confession than inattention. Indeed, it is the hyperactivity/impulsivity part of ADHD, which is the most direct predictor of offending and frequent police contact among young adults (Barkley et al., 2004).

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

3. Results Table 1 shows the differences in the ADHD childhood and adult scores between the 22 false confessors and the other participants. The WURS scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. Significant group differences emerged for the three DSM-IV-TR adult scores with the strongest (‘large’) effect size being for the total (0.92) and inattention (1.03) scales and ‘medium’ effect size (0.58) for hyperactivity/impulsivity (Cohen’s d; Cohen, 1988). Table 1. The differences in the ADHD scores on the Wender–Utah Scale (childhood symptoms) and the DSM-IV-TR ADHD Scale (adult symptoms) between the false confessors and non-false confessors. ADHD measures False confessors Mean (SD) (N) Non-false confessors Mean (SD) (N) t-value Effect size Wender–Utah Scale 48.3 (22.1) (22) 48.1 (22.1) (68) 0.03 0.01 DSM-IV Checklist 19.2 (6.4) (22) 12.4 (8.3) (67) 3.53⁎⁎ 0.92 Inattention 11.5 (3.9) (22) 7.0 (4.8) (67) 3.97⁎⁎ 1.03 Hyperactivity/impulsivity 7.7 (3.8) (22) 5.4 (4.1) (67) 2.33⁎ 0.58 ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.001. Table options Table 2 gives the categorical figures for APD and the two ADHD measures. Fifty-two (58%) of the participants met the criteria for APD on the MINI. The hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention scores were categorised into ‘high’ and ‘low/average’ scores by classifying those who scored more than one standard deviation above the mean on each measure as ‘high’. This resulted in a score of 10 or above on hyperactivity/impulsivity (N = 18) and 13 or above on inattention (N = 19) being categorised as ‘high’. Table 2 shows that for APD, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and impulsivity, 34.6%, 33.3% and 52.6%, respectively, had a history of false confession. The corresponding false confession percentages for those who did not meet the diagnostic criteria in the three groups were 10.5%, 22.5%, and 17.1%. The APD and inattention diagnostic criteria were significantly related to false confessions with the Odds Ratios being 1.64 and 3.38, respectively, suggesting that inattention was a better predictor of false confession than APD. No significant relationship was found between false confession and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Table 2. The relationship between a history of false confession, Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), and being symptomatic for hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention (categorical classification of all variables). APD ADHD-hyperactivity/impulsivity ADHD-inattention Yes No Yes No Yes No False confessors 18/52 (34.6%) 4/38 (10.5%) 6/18 (33.3%) 16/71 (22.5%) 10/19 (52.6%) 12/70 (17.1%) X2 = 6.90, p < 0.01 OR = 1.64, CI = 1.20–2.23 X2 = 0.90, n.s. X2 = 10.11, p < 0.001 OR = 3.38, CI = 1.58–7.24 Table options In order to investigate which of the three variables, APD, hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention, was most influential in predicting false confession a logistic regression analysis was performed. The results are shown in Table 3. The outcome variable was whether or not the participant had a history of false confession. A forced entry method was used to enter the data (Field, 2003). In order to explore the individual contribution of each of the three variables, the three variables were entered in three steps in the following order in accordance with our hypothesis: APD, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and inattention. APD was a significant predictor at step one (R2 = 0.11), hyperactivity/impulsivity did not add much to the variance in the false confession rate in step two (R2 = 0.12), and inattention added substantially to the variance (R2 = 0.19) and remained the single best predictor (Wald = 4.66, Odds Ratio 4.64). The final model correctly classified 98.5% of the non-false confessors and 31.8% of the false confessors with an overall classification of 82.0%. Table 3. Summary of the logistic (binary) regression for Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), ADHD hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention in predicting false confession. Explanatory variables B (S.E.) Wald Exp(B) CI (95%) Block 1 APD 1.47 (0.60) 5.95⁎ 4.37 1.34–14.28 Block 1 statistics: R2 = 0.11 (Nagelkerke). Block χ2 = 7.11∗∗. Model χ2 = 7.11 ⁎⁎. Overall classification 75.3% Block 2 APD 1.43 (0.61) 5.48⁎ 4.19 1.26–13.90 Hyperactivity/impulsivity 0.27 (0.60) 0.20 1.30 0.40–4.22 Block 2 statistics: R2 = 0.12 (Nagelkerke). Block χ2 = 0.19. Model χ2 = 7.30 ⁎. Overall classification 75.3% Block 3 APD 1.03 (0.65) 2.51 2.81 0.78–10.05 Hyperactivity/impulsivity −0.50 (0.74) 0.46 0.61 0.14–2.60 ADHD-inattention 1.53 (0.71) 4.66⁎ 4.64 1.15–18.67 Block 3 statistics: R2 = 0.19 (Nagelkerke). Block χ2 = 5.02 ⁎. Model χ2 = 12.32 ⁎⁎. Overall classification 82.0%, 31.8% for false confessors and 98.5% for controls ⁎ p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ p < 0.01.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.