Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WALTERS, G. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles

Part II: Identifying Simulated Response Sets

GLENN D. WALTERS

Federal Correctional Institution, Schuylkill, Pennsylvania

The validity scales of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS)—Confusion (Cf) and Defensiveness (Df)—were subjected to empirical analysis by contrasting inmates in three response set conditions: nonsimulation, positive simulation, and negative simulation. Relative to inmates in the nonsimulation group, inmates in the negative simulation condition attained significantly higher scores on the Cf scale and on seven of the eight PICTS thinking style scales. The Df scale, on the other hand, failed to differentiate among the three groups. The problems associated with using the Cf and Df scales to identify dissimulation on the PICTS are discussed.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 4, 437-445 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854895022004007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
K. Knight, B. R. Garner, D. D. Simpson, J. T. Morey, and P. M. Flynn
An Assessment for Criminal Thinking
Crime Delinquency, January 1, 2006; 52(1): 159 - 177.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
J. F. Mills, D. G. Kroner, and A. E. Forth
Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA): Development, Factor Structure, Reliability, and Validity
Assessment, September 1, 2002; 9(3): 240 - 253.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
G. D. Walters
The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS): A Review and Meta-Analysis
Assessment, September 1, 2002; 9(3): 278 - 291.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
D. J. Simourd and M. E. Olver
The Future of Criminal Attitudes Research and Practice
Criminal Justice and Behavior, August 1, 2002; 29(4): 427 - 446.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
M. A. Hatch-Maillette, M. J. Scalora, M. T. Huss, and J. V. Baumgartner
Criminal Thinking Patterns: Are Child Molesters Unique?
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, February 1, 2001; 45(1): 102 - 117.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
G. D. WALTERS, W. N. ELLIOTT, and D. MISCOLL
Use of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles in a Group of Female Offenders
Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 1998; 25(1): 125 - 134.
[Abstract]