SCI

Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Sciences

SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATION

www.sci-pub.com

Research of Attitudes Towards Criminal Violence

with Implicit and Explicit Measures of Cognition
Laura Simane-Vigante a,b, Irina Plotkab, Nina Blumenaub
a) Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia;
b) Baltic Psychology and Management University College,
Riga, Latvia
AbstractThe problem of criminal violence is a constant threat to a healthy society. Criminal behaviour is a result of antisocial thinking
and attitudes. To assess these attitudes mostly self report methods are used, which are not always reliable. It is necessary to create
instruments which can assess attitudes towards violence on a subliminal level. The sample of this study (N=103, all males) consisted of
two groups: convicted individuals (N = 53) and individuals without a criminal record (N = 50). Implicit measures: a specially designed
experimental procedure of Implicit Association Test (Criminal violence IAT). Self-report measures: Linguistic adaptation of Criminal
attitude towards violence scale and three independent scales of a diagnostics method of antisocial attitudes. The results showed positive
and negative attitudes for both groups on implicit and explicit levels. The designed implicit measurement instruments can be used to
assess the effectiveness of social rehabilitation programs and psychotherapy for present and ex convicts. It can also be used for
previously not convicted individuals for measuring their antisocial attitudes in job interviews and psychotherapy.
Keywords- Violence, Criminal violence, Implicit methods, Explicit methods, Implicit Association Test

I.

another, resulting in injury, death or other significant harm

(World health organization, 2007).

INTRODUCTION

Solving the problem of criminal violence is one of the main

factors in forming and sustaining a healthy society. According
to data provided by the Central Statistical Bureau database in
Latvia alone the total of recorded crimes in year 2013 were
47,561, from which 15,043 were considered as serious, thus violent. Anti-social attitudes, including attitudes towards
violence, are the main predictive factors for criminal behavior,
there for it is important to create suitable instruments for
measuring these attitudes.
In the world mostly explicit methods are used for studying
attitudes towards violence of sentenced criminals, very few
studies used implicit measurements for studying antisocial
attitudes and have paid attention to explicit and implicit levels
of compliance.
As there were no studies researching attitudes towards
violence of offenders in Latvia, we have started to conduct a
series of experiments. The present research is the third
experiment completed using implicit methods in attitudes
towards violence measurement of sentenced criminals and
previously not sentenced individuals.
A. Violence and criminal violence
There are many different kinds of violence starting from
forces of nature and ending with an outcome of emotional
states e.g., rage, anger or hate. The most widely used definition
of violence is an attempt, threat or use of physical force by a
person or a group in order to harm another person or a group
[26]. Also psychological violence is well known, which is a
persistent negative attribution to others especially those who
are emotionally close to the individual [22]. Violent behaviour
has been defined as physical force used against oneself or

It is important to note that the main thing that turns

violence in to criminal violence is the law. Without the law
violence could be immoral, demoralizing and hurtful, but it is
not a crime [22]. Violent behaviour that contravenes a related
legal code is considered a violent crime [4].
To be able to correctly form a sample for an experiment
studying criminal violence, it is necessary to define the type of
crime that falls under the category violent crime. Violent
crime is a crime in which an offender uses or threatens to use
force upon a victim [10]. The sections of the Criminal law that
falls under the category violent differs in different parts of
the world. For example, Australia includes physical assault,
robbery and sexual assault as violent crimes; Canada has stated
violent crimes to be homicide, attempted murder, sexual
assault, assault, robbery, criminal harassment, uttering threats,
and other violent violations [11]. In USA crimes are manly
placed in to two categories violent crimes and property
crimes. According to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) Program, violent crimes are defined as those offenses
which involve force or threat of force and are composed of four
offenses: murder, forcible rape, robbery, and simple and
aggravated assault [25].
According to European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal
Justice Statistics, criminal offences are criminal violations and
crimes. In Europe the main offenses include crimes that cause
bodily injuries, sexual assaults, robbery, theft of personal
property, domestic burglary and corruption. There are still
ongoing debates which criminal offenses from the mentioned
fall under the category of criminal violence, but we can
conclude that a person, who has committed a crime as an
attempt to harm a particular individual (cause bodily injuries,

- 72 6

-- Psychology --

SCI

ISSN: 1339-1488, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2, 2015

SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATION

www.sci-pub.com

sexual assault or robbery) can be classified as a violent

criminal.
B. Implicit measurement methods
It is a complex process to evaluate attitudes, views and
opinions linked to violence. Although explicit methods can in
some cases revile some not socially desirable views [13; 15],
however in situations, where it is not in the participants
interests, they can easily hide these explicit attitudes [1; 7; 14].
The popularity of self-report questionnaires in assessing
criminals is surprising, given the association between criminal
behaviour and lying especially when there are any suspicion
these measures might influence parole. Although, there is
empirical evidence that self-report data can be unreliable, some
studies assessing criminals have found that it has predictive
validity [17]. Nevertheless, deliberate lying remains the most
popular explanation when scores on self-report scales are not as
desired [20]. It has been suggested that use of methods, which
assess attitudes on subliminal level such as implicit methods
are more suitable for measurement of these concepts [5].
The term implicit can be described as constructs assessed
by a particular measurement procedures - by tasks that do not
require conscious introspection and, therefore, might reflect
psychological attributes (e.g. attitudes) that are introspectively
inaccessible [2]. Implicit measurement methods are described
as indirect, unconscious and automatic, describing the
unconscious, efficient, unintentional, or uncontrollable nature
of the assessed constructs [12].
One of the most popular implicit research methods is
Implicit Association Test (IAT) [6]. IAT is a tool that measures
the strength of relative links between pairs of concepts, which
are called categories and attributes. During filling in IAT
participants randomly classify stimuli that are included either
into categories or into attributes. These stimuli can be words,
images or symbols. IAT basic idea is that answers will be faster
and more precise if particular categories and attributes will be
linked to stronger associations e.g., insects are associated to be
bad and flowers to be good than vice versa [12].
C. Previous research of violence using implicit measurement
methods
Only two published studies have been conducted with the
use of implicit attitude measurements towards violence of
convicted individuals. The first study conducted by Snowden
and colleagues studied criminals in the USA taking in to
consideration their psychopathy measurements. The
experimenters note that the use of explicit methods is not
effective in this experiment, because psychopathy is closely
associated with pathological lying and the ability to con and
manipulate others [8]. The hypothesis of this experiment was
that convicts, who scored high in psychopathy, had abnormal
views towards violence and it could be reviled only with the
help of implicit measurements [24].
The whole sample consisted of 121 participants, from
which two groups were formed: murderers (N=30) and other
criminals (N=91). The duration of the experiment was 20
months. Firstly the personality traits that can define the
disorder of psychopathy were assessed. As explicit

measurements semantic differentials were chosen and as

implicit measurements two Implicit Association Tests
(Insect/flower and Violence/peace) were adapted for this
experiment. The results of the experiment showed no
significant difference between the groups of murderers and
other criminals neither on implicit nor explicit levels. It was
discovered that murders with high psychopathy measures had
only small negative implicit associations compared to the
criminals who scored low in psychopathy measures and had
large negative associations, although these differences were not
significant. These results were explained by the experimenters
as limitations connected with the IAT [24]. Devon Polaschek
explained that perhaps there was no significant difference
because only the degree of violence of the last criminal offense
was taken in to consideration, not the degree of violence of all
the crimes an individual has committed [20].
Devon Polaschek and colleagues are the authors of the
second research studying implicit attitudes towards violence of
convicts in New Zealand. The main aim of the research was to
assess if cognitive behavioural therapy affect attitudes towards
violence of criminals and as assessment methods a combination
of implicit and explicit measurements were used. Authors
noted that little is known about whether explicit or implicit
assessment methods are more closely related to criminal risk,
nor whether implicit or explicit cognition is more predictive of
violence. The main experimental questions were: how do
explicit and implicit measures of aggressive cognition compare
with each other, and with an estimate of violence risk in a
prison treatment program for violent men [20]?
30 men were chosen as participants of the experiment. They
were assessed before the start of cognitive behavioural therapy
and approximately 9 months later. All of the participants were
nearing the end of a prison sentence for a serious violent
offence: 44% for murder, 28% for aggravated robbery and the
rest for serious assaults. As explicit methods Criminal Attitudes
to Violence Scale (CAVS) [21] and Aggression Questionnaire
(AQ) [3] were used. As implicit methods a control (flowerinsect) IAT and two specially designed IATs measuring
attitudes towards violence and guns were applied. The results
showed that participants had pre-programme preference for the
non-violence category on both IATs. Violence IAT showed no
significance in the result comparison before and after the
therapy, however from the IAT measuring attitudes towards
guns, it was discovered that participants liked guns less after
the therapy. The explicit methods showed that after the therapy
the participants became less aggressive and their preference for
violence decreased. There was no correlation found between
results of explicit and implicit measurements, which suggest
that explicit and implicit measures of aggressive cognition are
not related, although most measures changed significantly after
the treatment [20].
In Latvia dr.psych.,prof.Irina Plotka, dr.sc.ing., as.prof.
Nina Blumenau and dr.psych. Dmitry Igonin and their team of
students and researchers started to use implicit methods in year
2006. As a result in Baltic Psychology and Management
University College (now a department under Baltic
International Academy) a Laboratory of Implicit Measurements
was founded and the experiments expanded including
researches of ethnic attitudes, attitudes towards gambling,

- 73 6

-- Psychology --

SCI

Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Sciences

SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATION

www.sci-pub.com

alcohol, consumer behaviour attitudes, resilience and selfesteem (e.g., [19]). Also we started to conduct a series of
experiments measuring attitudes towards violence with implicit
methods and studying the compliance between implicit and
explicit measurements.
The present research is the third experiment, in which we
have taken in to consideration the pros and cons of our
previous researches [23] and previously mentioned researches
in the world and adapted the best possible scenario so far for
the situation in Latvia with the aim to study the valence of
attitude towards violence with the implicit association test and
self-report procedures. The main research questions set for the
experiment: Is there compliance between attitude towards
violence measurements conducted with Implicit Association
Test and self-report procedures? Is there a difference in
attitudes towards violence, conducted with Implicit Association
Test and self-report procedures, between the Sentenced and
Not sentenced groups? Is there a link between previous
convictions, served sentences and attitudes towards violence?
II.

METHOD

A. Participants
103 participants took part in the research from which two
groups were formed: convicted individuals (group
"Sentenced") (N = 53) and individuals without a criminal
record (group "Not sentenced") (N = 50). All participants were
males aged 20-58 years (average age 35, median- 34).

Group Sentenced

The experimental group of the research was formed

choosing participants, who are serving a sentence in closed
type prison in Daugavpils, Latvia. Most of these individuals
were held criminally liable for many different crimes, however
all of them were at least once sentenced in sections involving
violent criminal offenses e.g., murder committed in
aggravating circumstances, forcible sexual assault and rape,
robbery and desecration of graves and corpses etc.

Group Not sentenced

The control group consisted of individuals, who have never

been sentenced for any criminal offenses and their daily job
does not involve violence.
It is hard to define which professions require the use of
violence the most, but it has been stated that professionals
working in police, security, correctional and fire services,
teaching, welfare, health care and social security are exposed to
violence more than professionals from other spheres [16]. This
experiment excluded professionals working in police,
correctional and fire services, security and health care.
The participation was voluntary; participants from both
groups had the right not to participate in the experiment and the
confidentiality and anonymity of their persona and provided
data was guaranteed.
B. Methodology
Implicit method

A modified version of Implicit association test Criminal

Violence IAT. The modified IAT method was created, based
on the classical seven block IAT design [6]. To assure internal
validity all main parameters e.g., between stimulus intervals,
stimulus display time, stimulus word count, shrift, chromatic
background characteristics remained constant while changes
in independent conditions occurred (during the changes in
experimental conditions).
Categories: Criminal violence (word stimuli - kill, stab etc.)
and Housekeeping (word stimuli - wash, iron etc.).
Attributes: words with positive (love, joy etc.) and negative
(hate, rage etc.) valance.

1. Linguistic adaptation of Criminal attitude towards

violence scale (CAVs) (Original: [21]).
The method of three times reverse translation was used.
The scale was translated in Latvian and Russian languages.
After previous experiment where 100 ex convicts on parole
were surveyed, the questions that caused suspicion were
overlooked and adapted to the cultural context of Latvia. This
time the internal consistency was satisfactory (=0,8) meaning
that the translations are adequate.
2. A diagnostical method of antisocial attitudes (In Russian:

) [18]. From this diagnostic method 3 independent
scales were used, which were considered to be the most
suitable for the present research:
Self-Violence scale;
Will Control of Emotional Reactions scale;
Aggression and Violence scale.
All four explicit measurement scales were specially
designed for male participants.

Apparatus:

The modified version of IAT was created on a certified

computer program E-Prime 2.

Data processing:

The data was processed using SPSS 17 As mathematical

data processing methods were selected parametrical Student tcriteria, Nonparametric Mann - Whitney U-criteria and others.
C. Procedure
Phase 1: Data collection from the group Sentenced.
The experimenter with an assistant visited the penitentiary
institution and collected the data from each participant
individually. For the experimental part of the research a laptop
was used. It was explained to each participant that the
participation was for scientific purposes only and the results
will not reflect on their sentenced time or possibility of parole.
Brief explanation was given to the participant about the aims of
the experiment and he was asked to complete the experimental
procedure on the computer reacting to the stimulus as quickly
and carefully as possible, followed with the questioners.

- 74 6

Explicit method

-- Psychology --

SCI

ISSN: 1339-1488, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2, 2015

SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATION

www.sci-pub.com

Phase 2: Data collection from the group Not sentenced:

Previously not sentenced individuals were asked to provide
details of their profession and daily job so we could assess if
their profession is associated with violence. The rest of the mail
participants were individually asked to complete the
experimental procedure on the computer and fill in the
questionnaires.
III.

RESULTS

1) Comparing implicit and explicit measures

The general compliance between implicit and explicit
measurement methods is 36,7%. The highest compliance was
observed between IAT and CAVs methods, which suggested of
existence of pronounced antisocial attitudes on both implicit
and explicit levels 30%. There was no correlation found
between implicit and explicit methods. The existence of
correlation depends on the range of the data measurements,
thus the links characteristics are more complicated than linear
or simply monotone.
A psychological profile was created for each participant
from both groups, which resulted in eight figures (e.g., Fig.4)
where visually the scores of IAT were displayed in comparison
with each of explicit measurement scales. It allows to observe,
which participants implicit and explicit measurement results
contradict themselves. In Figure 4 it is possible to note that for
example, participant No 55 shows pro-violent implicit attitude
on a subliminal level, but consciously he reports strong anti-

Figure 3. Comparison between explicit Self Violence Scale and

previous imprisonment times

violent explicit attitude.

2) Comparing the groups Sentenced and Not
sentenced
Via the Nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-criteria
statistically significant differences were discovered between
groups Sentenced and Not sentenced for variables: SelfViolence scale (SVS) and Will Control of Emotional
Reactions scale (WCER). SVS index is statistically higher for
the group Sentenced (U=820.00 p0.001) (Fig.1.), but
WCER index is significantly higher for the group Not
Sentenced (U=872.5 p0.005) (Fig.2.).
Differences for the variables D, CAVs and AVS for groups
Sentenced and Not sentenced has not been found.
3) Comparing previous convictions, served sentences and
implicit attitudes towards violence.
Unlike our first experiment [22] a correlation has not been
found between previous convictions, served sentences and
implicit attitudes towards violence,

Figure 1. Comparison between groups Sentenced and Not

Sentenced. Explicit variable Self-Violence Scale

However, a link between previous convictions, served

sentences and explicit attitudes towards violence has been
found Violence towards self increases with every following
conviction. Violence towards self increases with every
following conviction (Fig.3).

Figure 2. Comparison between groups Sentenced and Not

Sentenced. Variable Will Control of Emotional Reactions
Figure 4. Psychological profile comparing IAT D score and CAVs
measurements for each participant. Group- sentenced

- 75 6

-- Psychology --

SCI

Journal of Education, Psychology and Social Sciences

SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATION

www.sci-pub.com

IV.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

As expected, both groups of participants preferred the

positive stimulus (housekeeping) instead of the violence related
ones. The same phenomenon was reported in the experiment in
New Zeeland. Also it was noted that personalized IATs and
IATs that use images as stimuli instead of words, could
provide more detailed results of the implicit attitude especially
when it comes to a sample of violent male prisoners [20].
In regard to preference of positive stimulus, it has been
stated that in most cases when using a classic seven block IAT,
the preference will be for the first set of stimulus, presented in
blocks three and four [12]. Thus, in the next series of
experiments it is necessary to amend the implicit attitude
measurement instrument even further personalizing it or
creating another IAT with exchanged blocks of association
stimuli for comparison. Also it would be necessary to add
another implicit measure, as affective priming, not only to
detect the excising attitude, but also to be able to explain them
in terms of mental representations.
The gained compliance between implicit and explicit
measurement methods (36,7%) was expected. Previous
researches conducted in Baltic Psychology and Management
University College showed on average 40% of compliance
[19]. Also the fact that IAT and Criminal Attitude towards
Violence scale (CAVS) had the highest compliance is logical,
because both instruments directly asses attitude towards
physical violence, while other three explicit scales assessed
additional forms of antisocial thinking, such as the power of
emotion control, self- violence and aggression.
Creating psychological profiles via visualization of implicit
and explicit measurement results for each participant is a new
idea and yet to be practically applied. As the study is
anonymous, we do not have the right to report back, which
participant has what kind of attitude on conscious and
subliminal levels. Although, if these methods would be used by
a psychologist working individually with each sentenced
individual, it would help understanding if he/she provides true
information about attitudes towards violence and if the social
rehabilitation program could help, because it is almost
impossible to change an existing pro-violence attitude, but if
the attitude is implicitly set as strong anti-violence than it is
possible to rehabilitate this individual although he reports proviolence attitude in self-report measures.
It was interesting to compare the results between the groups
Sentenced and Not sentenced especially focusing on the
results of the mentioned three explicit scales of measurements
(emotional control, self violence and aggression and violence
scales). The fact that self-violence or self-harm will be more
pronounced for prisoners seems logical. Unfortunately, there is
little research of the topic that could help us to explain the
results. A study conducted in the United Kingdom stated that
self-harm and suicides are common in penitentiary institutions,
yet there is not enough information on the full extent and
characteristics of people at risk of self-harm. It was discovered
that 56% of male prisoners and 2024% of female inmates
practised some form of self-violence, thus, self-harm rates were
more than ten times higher in female prisoners than in male
inmates. The researchers explained that particularly risk of self-

harm was associated with younger age, white ethnic origin,

prison type, and a life sentence or awaiting to be sentenced for
long periods of time. Committing a violent offence against an
individual for female prisoners was also a factor [9]. In Latvia
there is a common belief that self harm in prisons is associated
with need for attention and manipulation, but suicides mostly
happen because of romantic reasons or loss of hope e.g.,
divorce, but these data need to be empirically validated.
The most unexpected discovery of the present experiment
was that sentenced individuals have statistically better ability to
control their emotions than individuals that have never been
sentenced. It can be explained that inmates have become
acquainted with being watched and judged on such level that
they are professionals of hiding their true emotions. They know
their rights and how to behave in every situation, which proves
the necessity of implicit measurement methods for discovering
socially unaccepted attitudes.
In conclusion, the designed implicit measurement
instruments can be used to assess the effectiveness of social
rehabilitation programs and psychotherapy for present and ex
convicts, monitoring their attitude change before and after the
program. The main concern is how to prevent recidivism and
return the convicts to society. Reveling and explaining the
attitude towards violence is certainly one of the essential steps
in completing this task
REFERENCES
[1]

G. G. Abel, J. V. Becker, M. Mittelman, J. L. Cunningham-Rathner,

Rouleau, and W. D. Murphy, Self-reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol.2,
pp.325, 1987.
[2] M. R. Banaji, Implicit attitudes can be measured, In H. L. Roediger, J.
S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering:
Essays in remembering Robert G. Crowder (pp. 117150). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association, 2001.
[3] H. Buss, and W. L. Warren, The aggression questionnaire. Los Angeles.
CA: Western Psychological Services, 2000.
[4] J Ferguson, Violent Crime: Clinical and Social Implications. Singapore:
SAGE Publications Ltd., 2009.
[5] B. Gawronski, Ten frequently asked questions about implicit measures
and their frequently supposed, but not entirely correct answers,
Canadian Psychology, vol. 50, pp. 141150, 2009.
[6] A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee and J. K. L. Schwartz, Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association
Test, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 74, pp. 14641480, 1998.
[7] D. Grubin, The Potential Use of Polygraphy in Forensic Psychiatry,
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12: pp.S45S53, 2002.
[8] R.D. Hare, Psychopathy and Risk for Recidivism and Violence, In:
Gray, N. S., Laing, J. and Noaks, L. (eds) Crime, Mental Health and the
Politics of Risk. London: Cavendish Press Ltd, pp. 27 47, 2001.
[9] K. Hawton, L. Linsell, A. Tunde, A. Sariaslan, and S. Fazel, Self-harm
in prisons in England and Wales: an epidemiological study of
prevalence, risk factors, clustering, and subsequent suicide, The Lancet,
Vol.383, 2014.
[10] E. Hickey, Encyclopedia of Murder and Violent Crime. Singapore:
SAGE Publications Ltd., 2003.
[11] E. G. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, and R. Lozano,
World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 2002.
[12] K. A. Lane, M. R. Banaji, B. A. Nosek. and A. G. Greenwald,
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we
know (so far) (Pp. 59102), In B. Wittenbrink & N. S. Schwarz (Eds.),

- 76 6

-- Psychology --

SCI

ISSN: 1339-1488, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2, 2015

SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATION

www.sci-pub.com

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]

[18]

[19]

Implicit measures of attitudes: Procedures and controversies. New York:

Guilford Press, 2007.
M. R. Levenson, K. A. Kiehl, and C. M. Fitzpatrick, Assessing
Psychopathic Attributes in a Noninstitutional Population, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 68, pp. 1518, 1995.
F. J. McGovern, and J. S. Nevid, Evaluation Apprehension on
Psychological Inventories in a Prison-Based Setting, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 5768, 1986.
M. G. Maxfield, B. L. Weiler, and C. S. Widom, Comparing SelfReports and Official Records of Arrest, Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, vol. 16, pp. 87110, 2000.
C. Mayhew, and D. Chappell, "An overview of occupational violence,"
Australian Nursing Journal, vol.9, pp.34-35, 2002.
J. F. Mills, W. Loza, and D. G. Kroner, Predictive validity despite
social desirability: Evidence for the robustness of self-report among
offenders, Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, vol. 13, pp. 140
150, 2003.
.N. rel, A diagnostical method of antisocial attitudes, in J.
Kleibeirg, Social psychology of deviant behaviour: textbook for
universities, 141-154, 2004 (In Russian).
I. Plotka, N. Blumenau, D. Igonin, M. Bambulaka, E. Ozola and L.
Simane, Implicit methods of attitudes research: the modern approach to
education and training of specialists in social sciences, Profesines
studijos: teorija ir praktika, vol. 8, pp. 104-110, 2011.

[20] D. L. Polaschek, R.K. Bell, S.V. Calvert and M.T. Takarangi,

Cognitive-Behavioural Rehabilitation of High-Risk Violent Offenders:
Investigating Treatment Change with Explicit and Implicit Measures of
Cognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 437-449, 2012.
[21] D. L. Polaschek, R. M. Collie, and F. H. Walkey, Criminal attitudes to
violence: Development and preliminary validation of a scale for male
prisoners, Aggressive Behavior, vol. 30, pp. 484503, 2004.
[22] M. Riedel, and W. Welsh, Criminal Violence. Patterns, Causes and
Prevention. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company., 2002.
[23] L. Simane, I. Plotka, N. Blumenau, D. Igonin, The Link Between
Implicitly Measured Antisocial Attitudes, Previous Convictions and
Number of Imprisonment for Prisoners in Latvia, Proceedings of the
2nd Virtual International Conference on Advanced Research in
Scientific Fields, 2013.
[24] R. J Snowden, N.S. Gray, J. Smith, M. Morris, & M.J. MacCulloch,
Implicit associations affective to violence in psychopatic murderers.
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, vol. 15(4), pp. 620641, 2004
[25] J. Truman., L. Langton, and M. Planty, Criminal Victimization, 2012.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2013.
[26] N. A. Weinwer, M.A. Zahn, and R.J. Sagi, Violence, Patterns, Causes,
Public policy. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1990.

- 77 6

-- Psychology --