محرومیت از خطر: اثرات مدیریت تاثیر مثبت بر ارزیابی ریسک برای بزهکاران روانی و غیرروانی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|51104||2015||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7673 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||12 روز بعد از پرداخت||690,570 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||6 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,381,140 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Volumes 42–43, September–December 2015, Pages 106–113
Risk assessments for offenders often combine past records with current clinical findings from observations, interviews, and test data. Conclusions based on these risk assessments are highly consequential, sometimes resulting in increased criminal sentences or prolonged hospitalization. Therefore, many offenders are motivated to intentionally minimize risk factors and their negative consequences. Positive impression management (PIM) is especially likely to occur in offenders with high psychopathic traits because goal-directed deception is reflected in several of psychopathy's core traits of the disorder, such as manipulativeness, glibness, and superficial charm. However, this connection appears to be based on the conceptual understanding of psychopathy, and has rarely been examined empirically for either frequency of or success at deception. The current study examined the ability of a jail sample to intentionally minimize risk factors and related criminal attributes using a repeated measures, simulation design. In general, offenders were able to effectively use PIM to lower scores on the HCR-20 and the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), while the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS), as a measure of cognitive styles, was more resistant to such minimization. Psychopathic traits, especially high Factor 1 scores (i.e., affective/interpersonal), were associated with greater PIM. Important differences in the willingness and ability to use deception were found based on the (a) mode of administration (i.e., interview vs. self-report) and (b) level of psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist — Revised (PCL-R). The important implications of this research are discussed for risk assessment procedures regarding likely areas of deception and its detection. The current research also informs the growing literature on the connection between psychopathic traits and deception.