Premium
Criminal thinking in a M iddle E astern prison sample of thieves, drug dealers, and murderers
Author(s) -
Megreya Ahmed M.,
Bindemann Markus,
Brown Anna
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
legal and criminological psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 2044-8333
pISSN - 1355-3259
DOI - 10.1111/lcrp.12029
Subject(s) - psychology , prison , cognitive style , test (biology) , optimism , cognition , scale (ratio) , social psychology , clinical psychology , criminology , psychiatry , paleontology , physics , quantum mechanics , biology
Purpose The P sychological I nventory of C riminal T hinking S tyles ( PICTS ) has been applied extensively to the study of criminal behaviour and cognition. This study aimed to explore the psychometric characteristics (factorial structure, reliability, and external validity) of an A rabic version of the PICTS , to explore cross‐cultural differences between a sample of M iddle E astern ( E gyptian) prisoners and W estern prison samples, and to examine the influence of type of crime on criminal thinking styles. Method A group of 130 E gyptian male prisoners who had been sentenced for theft, drug dealing, or murder completed the PICTS . Their scores were compared with the reported data of A merican, B ritish, and D utch prisoners. Results The A rabic PICTS showed scale reliabilities estimated by coefficient alpha comparable to the E nglish version, and reliabilities estimated as test–retest correlations were high. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the PICTS subscale scores of E gyptian prisoners best fitted a two‐factor model, in which one dimension comprised mollification, entitlement, super optimism, sentimentality, and discontinuity, and the second dimension reflected the thinking styles of power orientation, cut‐off and cognitive indolence. Observed levels of thinking styles varied by type of crime, specifically among prisoners sentenced for theft, drug dealing, and murder. Cultural differences in criminal thinking styles were also found, whereby the E gyptian prisoners recorded the highest scores in most thinking styles, while A merican, D utch, and E nglish prisoners were more comparable to each other. Conclusions This study provides one of the first investigations of criminal thinking styles in a non‐ W estern sample and suggests that cross‐cultural differences in the structure of these thinking styles exist. In addition, the results indicate that criminal thinking styles need to be understood by the type of crime for which a person has been sentenced.