Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor
For Recidivism
Arina Smit and Venessa Padayachee, NICRO
Open Society Foundation for South Africa
Published by the Criminal Justice Initiative of Open Society Foundation for South Africa
2nd Floor, Lobby 2, Block B, Park Lane, corner Park and Alexander roads, Pinelands 7405, South Africa
www.osf.org.za
2012 Open Society Foundation
First Published 2012
All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-1-920489-59-5
Produced by COMPRESS.dsl | www.compressdsl.com
Contents
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. The thinking behind doing (crime)

3.1 Cognitive schemas and core beliefs
3.2 Early maladaptive schemas
5
7
9
4. How schemas work

4.1 Schema perpetuation
4.2 Automatic thoughts
16
16
21
5.

22
22
24
26
29
Case examples
5.1 Profile and background of participants
5.2 Case study 1: John (pseudonym)
5.3 Case study 2: Peter (pseudonym)
5.4 Case study: Darryl (pseudonym)
6. Conclusion
30
Endnotes
33
References
34
list of tables
Table 1: Profile of participants
Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas
12
Table 3: Cognitive distortion
17
Table 4: Coping responses
19
Table 5: Child modes
20
Table 6: Maladaptive coping modes
20
Table 7: Dysfunctional parent modes
21
Table 8: Profile of participants
23
Every human has four endowments: self awareness, conscience, independent will
and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom the power
to choose, to respond, to change. Steven Covey
Abstract
This paper introduces the role of criminal cognition in recidivism. The issue of recidivism
as a measure of successful rehabilitation and reintegration has been much debated and
discussed by both local and international policymakers, practitioners, researchers and
academia. Reintegration studies have also contributed to this important topic. This paper
examines more specifically criminal cognition as a risk factor for recidivism. While
reintegration efforts have focused on employment, accommodation and family relationships,
they are not sufficient to address other complex behavioural issues that offenders struggle
with. Although predictors for recidivism are important, there is insufficient attention to
the role of cognitive schemas and behavioural and thinking patterns that contribute to
recidivism. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to the influence of cognitive
schemas in recidivism trends, and to set a policy agenda that incorporates the importance
of addressing criminal cognition into reintegration strategies.
2 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14
1.
Introduction
Crime continues to threaten the safety of communities in the country and at times evoke
responses which could according to Albertus (2010:1) erode the aspirations to live in a
state founded on human dignity, freedom and equality. As a result, the state is under
growing pressure to urgently find solutions to crime that will yield almost immediate
effects. Consequently, strategies implemented have largely included law enforcement
and criminal justice responses, and more specifically incarceration as punishment have
become one of the most frequently used and seemingly quickest ways to address crime.
Unfortunately, this has had minimal impact on the levels of crime in South Africa.
Various studies have indicated that criminal justice policy in support of offender
rehabilitation is more effective in reducing future criminal behaviour than incarceration
alone. The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders is based on the assumption that
individuals are not permanently criminal, and that it is possible to restore offenders to a
useful life in which they can contribute to themselves and to society. In essence this requires
changing behaviour that is dysfunctional on various levels and harmful to the self, others
and society to behaviour that is functional, harmless and contributory. As such, a goal of
rehabilitation and reintegration is to prevent criminal recidivism. With this in mind, both
international and local governments have embodied the philosophy of rehabilitation in their
criminal justice policies. However, due to the inherent prosecutorial and retributive nature of
the criminal justice system, keeping to and implementing rehabilitation became a challenge.
Highlighting the challenge of rehabilitation Albertus (2010:2) notes that at the end of
the criminal justice process is the correctional system, populated by thousands of inmates
whose sentences are serviced without a clear purpose. Upon release, many ex-prisoners
re-offend. The failure to assist their reintegration into society as law-abiding, productive
citizens contributes significantly to the already high crime rate. Hence the mere size of
the prison population in South Africa, combined with the growing numbers of offenders
returning to communities only to re-enter prison again, has fuelled not only an interest in
offender reintegration and rehabilitation but more so in recidivism.
Subsequently, social scientists and policymakers with an interest in the justice system and
correctional practice have increasingly turned their attention to the movement of offenders
from prison back into society upon the completion of their sentences. As the prevalence and
violent nature of crime continued to threaten societies and the pressure on governments to
be accountable and demonstrate success in the battle against crime increased, the use of
recidivism to measure correctional effectiveness became a much debated point (Albertus,
2010; Schoeman, 2003; Muntingh, 2001). Highlighting the problem of using recidivism as
an only indicator Maltz (2001:3) states that recidivism is not the only measure to be used
to evaluate correctional programmes, as reduction in offender criminality is not the only
goal of the criminal sanction. As such, some goals relate to the offender, some concern
the behaviour of society, while others refer to the conditions of confinement, and these
Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 3
cannot all be evaluated using recidivism as a measure of effectiveness. In addition, a lack

of an agreed-upon definition of recidivism in South Africa further complicates the issue of
using it as a sole indicator to measure rehabilitation and reintegration success. Adding to
the aforementioned, Rosenfield (2008:315) criticised the pre-occupation with recidivism,
arguing that the recidivism rate is an intrinsically flawed measure of system success which
in addition is not a useful measure of public safety. To this end it needs to be acknowledged
that offender rehabilitation and reintegration is a complex process and using recidivism to
demonstrate success with regards to this is not as simplistic as thought to be.
Recidivism and desistance studies, however, do play a key role in offender rehabilitation
as well as crime prevention and management as they assist in identifying predictors (or
causes) of recidivism and highlight barriers to successful reintegration. With regards to
this Mears et al. (2008:303) note that the study of recidivism and rehabilitation is of
interest for at least two reasons. Firstly, it affords an opportunity to glean insight into
the causes of crime and secondly the findings can be used to inform efforts aimed at
reducing post-release offending. To continue moving forward with informed policies, more
work is needed to find more efficient outcome variables rather than recidivism to measure
effectiveness, and to discern individual offender variables that facilitate or hinder offender
rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.
Further, although research has shown offender rehabilitation programmes to be
effective, not all approaches to rehabilitation are effective (Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau,
Goggin, Cullen; Andrews, 2000; Lipsey, 1999). Moreover, some approaches to offender
rehabilitation are largely ineffective and can increase recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990;
Aos, Miller and Drake, 2006). To this effect, a statement made by Martinson (1979), that
with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so
far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism sparked considerable controversy in the
field of corrections. Recently, however, there have been several research efforts attempting
to identify correctional programmes that are effective in reducing recidivism. Thus, over
the past two decades, researchers in the offender rehabilitation field have developed the
principles of effective intervention, providing a framework for the effective rehabilitation
of offenders. These principles take into account various theories explaining criminal
behaviour and research-proven strategies for rehabilitating offenders and reducing
recidivism, much of which is informed by research regarding behaviour change from the
field of psychology.
From the identified principles of effective intervention the Risk-Need-Responsivity
(RNR) model was developed highlighting the following:
R
ecidivism can be reduced or prevented if treatment programmes or services are
matched to the offenders risk to re-offend. High risk offenders should receive
intense services, while low risk offenders should receive less intense treatment
or services.
R
ehabilitation programmes should focus on changing the criminogenic needs of
offenders. Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that have been shown
to be associated with criminal behaviour. Eight central risk factor categories
identified by research to be the most relevant include 1) a history of antisocial
behaviour, 2) antisocial personality patterns, 3) antisocial cognition, 4)
antisocial peers, 5) family/marital dysfunction, 6) school/work dysfunction, 7)
lack of prosocial leisure, and 8) substance abuse.2
Offender intervention programmes should be behavioural in nature, focussing
specifically on cognitive strategies and techniques that work to restructure cognitive
errors in the offender and help the offender learn new prosocial cognitive skills. In
addition, programme type, treatment approach and characteristics of facilitators
needs to be matched to the learning style and characteristics of offenders.
Despite the existence of principles of effective intervention and considerable investment in
undertaking research to identify barriers to reintegration and predictors of recidivism, to date
criminal justice policies and practice in South Africa have largely ignored how individual
offender characteristics such as antisocial cognition have contributed to recidivism. In
seeking solutions, traditional recidivism and reintegration strategies have focussed on issues
of unemployment, unstable relationships, drugs and alcohol, among others. Although risk
factors and predictors are well defined in research it is still evident, that insufficient attention
is paid to the social cognition underlying offending behaviour. Hence, this paper proposes
that cognitive schemas and faulty cognitive processing have an important role to play in
the pursuit of re-offending behaviour. Through the use of case studies this article explores
cognitive constructs such as schemas, automatic thoughts and thinking errors in the lives of
three ex-offenders as they face the challenges of reintegration. The hypothesis behind this is
that, regardless of the extent of external risk factors present in the life of the offender, it is
the underlying beliefs and cognitive constructs that greatly impact on behaviour. Regarding
this, Clark (2011:2) notes that it is not suggested that cognitions cause crime, but rather that
they facilitate it by failing to protect the individual from personal, social and environmental
pressures that contribute to criminal behaviour. To this end the paper also advocates for a
consistent integration of macro and micro theoretical arguments and intervention strategies
to explain crime and intervene with offending behaviour.
2.
Methodology
For purposes of writing this paper the authors extracted literature from the works of Young
and others that provided the theoretical framework for the paper. Further, the authors
selected three cases from their case loads for discussion. These were cases of ex-offenders
currently being assisted by the authors with reintegration into society. The cases were
selected in order to maximise what can be learned from the case information. Both primary
and secondary data were gathered for purposes of writing the paper. Firstly, the case records
of sessions with the clients done over a period of a year provided secondary information.
Secondly, the authors gathered primary data specifically for the paper from interviews
conducted with the individuals.
By making use of case examples the authors attempt to illustrate the conceptual
framework of cognitive schemas and thinking as relevant to antisocial behaviour. The
aim of this paper is not to infer findings from a sample to a population, but rather to
describe patterns and linkages of theoretical and practical importance when considering
rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders. Qualitative information thus gathered for
the purposes of this paper describes the schemas and thinking driving the behaviour of
the selected individuals. The analytic strategy followed in the course of evaluating the
information gathered includes techniques of pattern-matching and explanation building.
A descriptive framework was developed around which the case samples were organised.
3.
The Thinking behind Doing (Crime)
Historically, various traditional theoretical perspectives and theories used to explain crime
and recidivism have either been strictly focussed on either the macro level or strictly micro
level (Muftic, 2009:35). According to Elliot (1985) this type of dichotomy ignores the inherent
complexity of and the multi-causal factors contributing to human and offending behaviour.
Within the macro, meso and micro levels, individual single level theories, as summarised in
Table 1, are too narrow in scope to adequately explain diverse human behaviour as it relates
to criminality.
Although all of these theories have contributed to the development of an understanding
of criminal behaviour and how to address it, Elliot (1985) highlights that individually these
theories are capable of explaining at best a 20 per cent variance in criminal behaviour. As
a collective, however, various components of these theories do provide a theoretical scope
broad enough from which to draw intervention strategies to address criminal behaviour.
Thus, due to the intricacy of human behaviour and the multi-causal factors contributing to
offending, the most appropriate way to understand and intervene with offending behaviour
and reduce recidivism is through multi-level, multi-disciplinary integration. Involving a
combination of macro and micro level theoretical explanations and intervention strategies,
this type of integration, according to Rountree, Land and Miethe, (1994:388) places causal
significance on both large scale social forces and individual level adaptations that result
in criminal events.
Table 1: Profile of Participants

Level
Objective
Theories
Macro
To explain crime as a large scale social

phenomenon
Conflict, strain, control, feminist
Macro-meso
To account for geographical variations in

crime such as urban-rural differences or
between neighbourhoods
Ecological, differential opportunity
Meso
To understand the roles of socialisation

and social influence through family,
school or peer-group
Sub cultural delinquency,

Differential association,
Social learning,
Anomie
Meso-micro
To analyse and account for patterns and

types of crime events
Routine activity,
Rational choice,
Developmental life course
Micro
To examine intra-individual factors such

as thoughts, feelings and behaviour.
Neutralisation, psychological control,

cognitive social learning, individual trait
A good example of such integration is Andrews Personal, Interpersonal and Community

Reinforcement Theory. Developed as a broad cognitive-social learning theory incorporating
elements of motivational and control theories to explain factors that increase or decrease
offending behaviour, this theory is based on the assumption that explanations of criminal
behaviour must include knowledge from biological, human and social sciences, and must
focus on behavioural and cognitive-social learning theories. In identifying eight central
risk factors for criminal conduct, Andrews and Bonta (1998) and Simourd (2004) highlight
that antisocial attitudes or antisocial thinking is an important target for intervention.
In order to then successfully achieve behaviour change in offenders and address
recidivism, one has to clearly understand the individual as an entity in the universe
in relation to itself as well as in relation to other entities. In this view, neither of the
components of the individual, nor the components of the context in which the individual
exist, can be ignored in the pursuit to change behaviour patterns that are harmful to the
self, others and society.
Regardless however of which theory one chooses to use to explain and address
criminal behaviour, one has to emphasise that behaviour does not exist in a vacuum, but
rather is an end product of cognition as influenced by various (risk/protective) factors
from the past as well as the present. With this in mind comes the realisation that it is
what individuals think that determines which behaviours are ultimately expressed. Thus,
to understand and address criminal behaviour, one must first appreciate the source of
irrational and maladaptive thinking which is at the root of the antisocial behaviour. To this
effect various theorists have posited that a robust correlation exists between offending and
thinking, highlighting that individuals with an established pattern of offending behaviour
as a group in general think different from those individuals no such established pattern
(Walters and White, 1990; Yochelson and Samenow, 1984; Maruna and Mann, 2006). In
their first conceptualisation of criminal thinking, Yochelson and Samenow (1984) note
that differential thinking processes of criminals are present throughout every aspect of
their lives. Further to this, Simons and Burt (2011), going beyond the process of thinking
to the mechanism generating the distorted thinking, posit that offenders have a cognitive
(knowledge) structure, comprised of criminogenic schemas fostered by adverse social and
environmental conditions. For purposes of this paper the authors focus on schemas as well
as distortions.
3.1 Cognitive schemas and core beliefs

Various theories in the behavioural and social sciences suggests that schemas serve as the
link between past experiences and future behaviour (Simons and Burt, 2011:2). Cognitive
schemas can be seen as the products of the emotional, social and cognitive development
of the individual, during which fundamental tools for the planning of action and for
making sense of the surrounding world are acquired. During day to day living, patterns
of action (information being received from the environment) are interpreted and habits
of thinking are instilled which act as filters for other and future aspects of experience.
From the interplay of innate temperament with everyday experiences as a child, cognitive
schemas emerge, which provide a framework for making sense of and viewing the world,
the self and their relationship (McGuire, date unknown:47).
According to Bartlett (1932), who first introduced the notion of schemas, knowledge
stored in memory is organised as a set of schemas or mental representations, each of which
incorporates all the knowledge of a given object or event that the individual has acquired
from past experience. Highlighting the central role of schemas in behaviour, Beck (1967)
indicates that schemas are important structures for screening, coding and evaluating the
stimuli that impose on the individuals existence. It is a means by which the environment
is broken down and organised into psychologically relevant facets, on which basis the
individual is able to categorise and interpret his/her experiences in a meaningful way
(Padesky, 1994:267). Thus, schemas organise knowledge about specific stimulus domains
and guide both the processing of new information and the retrieval of stored information,
in a sequence of environmental and behavioural transactions.
Schemas are effective tools for understanding the world. Through the use of schemas
most everyday situations do not require effortful processing, as automatic processing is
all that is required. As such, without conscious awareness, schemas help individuals to
make rapid decisions and to behave efficiently and appropriately in different situations
and with different people. In the pursuit of achieving personal goals, schemas guide what
individuals attend to, and how incoming information is interpreted, activating specific
cognitive, verbal and action sequences (also known as scripts), to respond to incoming
information. Humans can quickly organise new perceptions into schemas and subsequently
act effectively without effort. For example, most people have a schema about stairs and
can apply it to climb staircases they have never seen before, based on past experiences.
Schemas are thus used for the purposes of evaluation, role playing, identification and
prediction of behaviour in context (Yancy, 2005).
Individuals develop schemas for everything and these represent knowledge at all levels
from ideologies and cultural truths to knowledge about the meaning of a particular
word. Types of schema that people develop include self schemas, person schemas,
event schemas and role schemas. A self schema refers to the beliefs and ideas people
have about themselves. Being generalisations about the self as drawn from the present
situation and past experiences, these beliefs are used to guide and organise information
processing, significant to the self. Self schemas are essentially the individuals self concept,
representing perceptions about the self in terms of traits, competencies, values and selfefficacy. In general, self schemas reflect what the individual thinks about, cares about,
and spends his/her time and energy on. In addition they also activate specific cognitive,
verbal and behavioural action sequences called scripts and action plans which are
expected behaviours for a given situation. Also known as event schemas, scripts make
responses possible and functional, particularly in unknown and difficult situations. Being
behaviourally oriented, event schemas are thus ways in which individuals typically
approach tasks and problems. Person schemas organise knowledge about particular
individuals or specific types of people, usually emphasising traits or personality categories.
Within the ambit of person schemas, idealised person schemas or prototypes are ideals
that define most of the individuals perceptions of other people. In addition stereotypes are
generalisations made about people and situations that influence behaviour. Role schemas
refer to the organised knowledge about the norms and expectations associated with
particular social positions.
The schemas noted above start forming from early stages of childhood, as children begin
to develop units of knowledge about everything they experience. Metaphorically, if one
thinks of the brain as a cabinet, then childhood is when the files are opened and labeled.
As the individual continues to develop, new materials are continuously filed into these old
files until they eventually become the theories about the individuals reality. These theories
not only affect the way information is interpreted, thus affecting understanding, but also
continue to change as new information is received. Thus cognitive schemas can be seen to
start as a simple network that develops into more complex structures as humans develop.
To this effect, schemas are organised in memory in an associative network within which
similar schemas are clustered together. As these schemas in the clusters are interrelated,
multiple conflicting schemas can be applied to the same stimuli. Schemas are generally
thought to have a level of activation which can spread among related schemas. Thus,
when a particular schema is activated, related schemas may be activated as well. Schema
activation may also increase the accessibility of related schemas in the associative
network. Subsequently, the schema selected depends on factors such as current activation,
accessibility, and priming. Accessibility is how easily a schema comes to mind, and is
determined by personal experience and expertise. When a schema is more accessible this
means it can more quickly be activated and used in a particular situation. This can be used
as a cognitive shortcut, allowing the most common/preferred explanations to be chosen
for new information. With priming, a brief imperceptible stimulus temporarily provides
enough activation to a schema so that it is used for subsequent ambiguous information.
Although this may suggest the possibility of subliminal messages, the effect of priming is
so fleeting that it is difficult to detect outside laboratory conditions. Furthermore, the mere
exposure effect which requires consciousness of the stimuli is far more effective than
priming in activating schemas. When related schemas are activated, inferences beyond
the information given in a particular social situation may influence thinking and social
behaviour, regardless of whether or not those inferences are accurate. Lastly, when a
schema is activated a person may or may not be aware of it.
Although schemas can be helpful in organising information and developing strategies
when relating to others and the environment, Yancy (2005:31) points out they are also
capable of generating high levels of disruptive affect, having self-defeating consequences,
causing significant harm to others and interfering significantly with meeting core needs.
As such, individuals tend to have favourite schemas which are often used, and when
interpreting the world, the individual will try to use these first, going on to others if they
do not sufficiently fit.
As schemas are central to the individuals sense of self they can be difficult to change,
and as such hamper the uptake of new information that may challenge a belief about the
self. To this end, once formed, schemas are self-sustaining and will persist even in the face
of disconfirming evidence, serving in many cases as a powerful maintenance function
for problems. For example, a person with an I am bad self-schema will more readily
remember and focus on personal defects, flaws and errors, rather than on their strengths,
positive attributes and successes. This happens because, if information received does not
match the schema, such information, despite being contradicting evidence, is ignored.
Some schemas are thus easier to change than others, and some individuals are more open
to changing their schemas than others. As a result of schemas the individual acts in such
a way that it actually causes his/her expectations to come true.
3.2 Early maladaptive schemas

During their development, schemas are impacted and influenced by various external factors
and therefore importantly vary from individual to individual. To this effect, various authors,
including Simons and Burt (2011), Yancy (2005) and McGuire (date unknown), highlight
the importance that various factors in the environment, particularly during childhood and
adolescence, play in the development of cognitive schemas. As such, children faced with
numerous persistent difficulties and challenges in their environment are at greater risk of
developing maladaptive schemas than those exposed to fewer and less persistent risk factors
or fewer significant life events. In other words (and reverting back to the metaphor above),
if childhood was healthy then the individual may have a good filing system. However, if
childhood was marked by high numbers of significant negative life events and trauma, then
the individual will often experience struggles for the rest of their life. Regarding this, Young
et al. (2003) postulates that individuals with more complex problems generally develop one
or more early maladaptive schemas, which render them more vulnerable to emotional and
psychological distress.
According to Young, early maladaptive schemas are self-defeating core beliefs or
thinking patterns that influence behaviour and in many cases continue to be repeated
by individuals throughout their lives. These schemas are extremely stable and enduring
patterns, comprising of memories, sensations, emotions and cognitions which once
activated, result in intense emotions being experienced. The dysfunctional nature of early
maladaptive schemas usually becomes most evident only later in life when individuals
as adults continue to perpetuate their schemas in their interactions with others (Young,
2003:8-9). Early maladaptive schemas can develop from a number of destructive and
traumatic childhood experiences. According to Young et al. (2003) these schemas result
primarily from basic emotional needs that are not met during childhood. With regards to
this, Young et al. (2003) outline five core emotional needs that the developing child has
and that, if not met, increase the possibility of maladaptive schemas developing. These five
needs are:
S
ecure attachments to others, which includes aspects of safety, stability,
nurturance and acceptance;
Autonomy, competence and sense of identity;
Freedom to express valid needs and emotions;
Spontaneity and play; and
Realistic limits and self-control.
Important to note, however, is that although early maladaptive schemas are formed from
destructive experiences, not all of these experiences must have been traumatic or abusive
for early maladaptive schemas to be formed. Indeed, as highlighted by Young et al. (2003:8),
an individual can develop a maladaptive schema such as dependence/incompetence without
experiencing an instance of trauma, but rather from having been completely sheltered
and overprotected. Presenting as harmless, such extreme perceived positive experiences
that are repeated on a regular basis throughout childhood or adolescence also become
destructive, interfering with the fulfilment of core needs, and supporting the development
of early maladaptive schemas. In considering the aforementioned, one could then develop
an understanding of why offenders come in many cases from such diverse backgrounds,
dispelling myths that individuals committing crime necessarily come from poverty.
As damaging childhood experiences are the main source of unfulfilled needs, schemas
that develop the earliest and are the most resilient usually derive from experiences within
the nuclear family. To this end Young identified four types of early childhood experiences
that encourage the development of early maladaptive schemas. The first, known as toxic
frustration of needs, is when a child experiences too little of a good thing and then develops
schemas through the deficits in the environment. This type of childhood experience implies
thus that the childs environment is missing some important element such as stability or
love. The second type of childhood experiences that produce early maladaptive schemas is
traumatisation or victimisation, where the child is harmed and consequently then develops
schemas such as abuse or shame. In the third type, the child gets too much of a good thing,
as parents give too much of something that, if given in moderation, would be healthy. To this
end the child is indulged, disregarding his/her core needs to develop autonomy, realistic limits
and self-control. In these instances parents may thus be overly involved in the life of a child
or may give a child excessive freedom without limits, supporting the creation of schemas such
as grandiosity or entitlement. Finally, the fourth type of life experience contributing to the
development of early maladaptive schemas is selective internalisation or identification with
others, which involves the child taking on the emotional state of his/her parent.
Apart from the early childhood environment and significant life events, other factors
that in combination with the life experiences also play a role in the development of early
maladaptive schemas are the innate temperament of the child and cultural influences.
As such, different temperaments or cultural practices selectively expose children to
different circumstances, and render different children differentially susceptible to similar
life circumstances (Young, 2003: 11-12). For example, in the case of two children in the
same household with a violent parent, one becomes aggressive and the other passive. The
aggressive child is more likely to elicit physical abuse from the violent parent than the
passive child. Similarly the two children will, given the same parental treatment, react
differently, with the aggressive child becoming more aggressive and the passive child
becoming more withdrawn.
Different early childhood experiences result in different maladaptive schemas. In
their work Young et al. (2003) identified 18 different early maladaptive schemas based
on early experiences and classified them into five separate domains, related to the core
developmental needs of the child. Within these 18 schemas, Young et al. (2003:2223) also
differentiate between conditional and unconditional schemas. Unconditional schemas are
the ones that develop earliest, are the most rigid and are the ones in which the individual
can identify no hope that things will ever be different. In contrast, conditional schemas
are the ones that hold out hope for the individual and often develop in order to gain relief
from the unconditional schemas (Young, 2003:22-23; Rayner 2008:32). Table 2 sets out the
schema domains and outlines the relevant schemas.
As offenders are then more likely than non-offenders to have experienced difficulties
and challenges relating to disadvantage, dysfunction and discrimination, they are also
more likely to have developed maladaptive or deviant schemas that justify crime (Simons
and Burt, 2011).
Abandonment/Instability
This schema is the perceived instability of the individuals connection to significant others. An
individual holding this schema perceive his/her support system to be non-reliable as well as
unpredictable, and often fears the death or abandonment of others. Hence there is an expectation that
one will soon lose anyone with whom an emotional attachment is formed. This schema usually develops
when the parent has been inconsistent in meeting the childs needs.
Disconnection and Rejection

Individuals with schemas in this domain
are indicated to be unable to form secure
and satisfying attachments to others as they
believe that their needs for stability, love,
safety, nurturance and belonging will not be
met. Typical families of origin are emotionally
detached families, where abuse, coldness,
rejection and isolation from the outside world
are some of the main characteristics. This
domain is characteristic of an individual who
likely endured some kind of abuse during his/
her childhood and who often does not feel
supported by those who are close to them,
have a lack of empathy for others, and have
difficulties trusting others motivations.
Social isolation/Alienation
This schema refers to the belief that one is different from other people and/or does not fit into the larger
social world outside the family. A person with this schema often feels disconnected from a group or his/
her community. This belief is usually caused by early experiences in which children see that either they
or their families are different from other people.
Defectiveness/Shame
This schema refers to the belief that one is internally flawed, worthless or inferior and that, if others
get close, they will realise this and withdraw from the relationship.
Emotional Deprivation
This schema refers to the belief that ones need for normal emotional support will not be met. Three
major forms of emotional deprivation that exist are deprivation of nurturance (lack of attention,
affection and warmth), deprivation of empathy (lack of understanding and listening) and deprivation
of protection (lack of strength, direction or guidance from others).
Mistrust/Abuse
Individuals that have this schema believe that other people will intentionally take advantage of them
in some way. It is expected that others will hurt, cheat, manipulate, lie or humiliate them. This belief is
usually caused where significant others were emotionally or sexually abusive and betrayed the childs
trust.
Schemas
Schema Domain
Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas
Impaired Limits
have not acquired internal self-discipline or
an understanding of reciprocity. Individuals
present with difficulties respecting the rights
of others, co-operation, keeping commitments
and meeting long term goals. In addition,
these individuals are impulsive and seek
instant gratification.
Dependence/Incompetence
This schema refers to the belief that one is incapable of managing daily tasks competently without the
assistance of others. Presenting with pervasive passivity or helplessness, individuals with this schema
often rely on others excessively for help in areas such as decision-making and initiating new tasks.
Generally, this schema develops when parents did not encourage their children to act independently
and develop confidence in their ability to take care of themselves.
Impaired Autonomy and Performance

Autonomy refers to the ability to separate
from ones family and appropriate to age,
function independently. Individuals with
schemas in this domain generally are unable
to function independently, forge their
own identities and create their own lives.
Characteristics of such individuals include
but are not limited to: difficulty making
decisions, heavy reliance on others, difficulty
establishing boundaries and being insecure
and anxious in their styles of coping.
Entitlement/Grandiosity
This schema refers to individuals who have the assumption that they are superior to others and
therefore are entitled to special rights and privileges. Individuals with this schema believe that rules
or guidelines set forth by authority or society do not apply to them and often insist that they should
be able to do, say or have whatever they want, immediately and regardless of whether or not it hurts
others. These individuals are often very demanding and lack empathy. Parents who overindulge their
children and who do not set limits about what is socially appropriate may foster the development of
this schema. Alternatively some children develop this schema to compensate for feelings of emotional
deprivation or defectiveness.
Failure
This schema is the belief that one has either failed, will fail or is substandard when compared to others
and does not deserve to be rewarded for his/her efforts. A person holding this schema usually feels
incompetent and less successful and therefore often does not try to achieve because he/she believes
that he/she will fail. This schema may develop if children are put down and treated as if they are a
failure in school and other spheres of accomplishment. Usually parents do not give enough support,
discipline and encouragement for the child to persist and succeed in areas of achievement.
Enmeshment/Underdeveloped Self
This schema characterises a person who is emotionally overly involved or attached to a significant
other to the detriment of their own individuation and social development. This individual frequently
believes that at least one of the enmeshed individuals cannot live without the other. Individuals with
this schema often experience feelings of emptiness and no sense of purpose without the other person.
This schema is often brought on by parents who are so controlling, abusive or overprotective that the
child is discouraged from developing a separate sense of self.
Vulnerability to Harm or Illness

This schema refers to the belief and exaggerated fear that one is on the verge of a major emotional,
medical or external catastrophe and will not be able to cope. This leads to individuals taking excessive
precautions to protect themselves. Usually this schema develops when there was an extremely fearful
parent who created the idea that the world is a dangerous place.
Schemas
Schema Domain
Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas (Continued)
Other-Directedness
excessively focus on meeting the needs of
others rather than their own. In interaction
with other people these individuals lack
awareness of their own feelings and
preferences. To this end they follow the desires
of others in order to gain approval, maintain
emotional connection or avoid retaliation. The
typical family origins of these schemas are
based on conditional acceptance, where the
parents needs and wishes are worth more than
those of the child.
Schema Domain
Approval Seeking/Recognition
A person with this schema relies on attaining approval from others so he/she may identify with a
secure sense of self. To this end, this individuals self esteem is dependent on the reactions of others.
The individual with this schema is also excessively pre-occupied with social status, appearance,
money or success as a means of gaining approval or recognition, which frequently results in major
life decisions that are inauthentic and unsatisfying.
Self-Sacrifice
This Schema refers to the excessive sacrifice of ones own needs in order to help others. An individual
with this schema feels he/she needs to maintain a sense of connection with other people and feels
guilty if he/she were to do otherwise. Often individuals who self-sacrifice gain a feeling of increased
self-esteem or a sense of meaning from helping others. In childhood the person may have been made
to feel overly responsible for the well being of one or both parents. The result of this schema is the
sense that ones own needs are not adequately being met, leading to resentment.
Subjugation
This refers to the belief that one must submit to the control of others in order to avoid negative
consequences such as anger, retaliation or abandonment. The schema usually involves the perception
that ones own needs and feelings are not valid or important, which frequently presents as an excessive
compliance and eagerness to please, combined with hypersensitivity to feeling trapped. Subjugation
generally leads to a build-up of anger manifested in maladaptive symptoms like passive aggressive
behaviour, uncontrolled temper outbursts, psycho-somatic symptoms or withdrawal of affection. The
two major forms of subjugation are the subjugation of needs and the subjugation of emotions.
Insufficient Self-Control/Self-Discipline
This schema refers to the inability of an individual to exercise sufficient self-control to achieve
personal goals and to restrain expression of his/her impulses or feelings. When a lack of self-control
is extreme, criminal or addictive behaviour rule the individuals life. In a milder form, individuals with
this schema present with an exaggerated form of discomfort avoidance, for example avoiding conflict
or responsibility. Parents who do not model self-control, or who do not adequately discipline their
children, may predispose them to have this schema as adults.
Schemas
Negativity/Pessimism
This schema refers to an individuals pervasive pattern of focusing on the negative aspects of life
while minimising the positive aspects. An individual holding this schema usually has a pessimistic
attitude, and is unable to enjoy things that are going well in his/her lives as he/she is are so
concerned with negative details or potential future problems. This schema originates primarily from
the internalisation of parental pessimism and negativity or because of a childhood history of hardship
and loss.
Over-Vigilance and Inhibition

Individuals with schemas in this domain place
an excessive emphasis on suppressing their
own spontaneous feelings and impulses. They
mostly strive to meet rigid, internalised rules
and expectations about their own performance
and ethical behaviour, at the expense of
happiness, self-expression, close relationships
and relaxation. The typical family of origin
under this domain is one that was demanding,
focused on perfectionism, rules and inhibiting
emotions. To this end, self-control and selfdenial predominated over spontaneity and
pleasure. As children these individuals were
not encouraged to play and pursue happiness.
Characteristics of individuals in this domain
are pessimism and worry. They are individuals
who are likely to strictly follow the rules set
forth by society and will take great strides to
be viewed by others as confident and secure
and able to accomplish tasks with ease.
However, in actuality they are likely to feel
apprehensive with themselves and feel great
displeasure with others when their unrealistic
standards have not been met.
Punitiveness
Individuals with this schema believe that others should be harshly punished for their mistakes. They
tend to be angry and intolerant with those (including themselves) who make mistakes and do not
accept that mistakes are part of life and learning.
Emotional Inhibition
This schema is held by individuals who suppress any spontaneous actions and feelings due to the
fear of disapproval by others, and toprevent criticism and loss of control over their impulses. They
generally overemphasise their rational side. The most typical areas of inhibition are anger, positive
expressions and impulses such as joy, expressing vulnerability and expressing emotions.
Unrelenting Standards/Hyper Criticalness

This schema refers to the belief that whatever one does is not good enough and that one must always
strive harder.
Schemas
Schema Domain
4.
How Schemas Work
As noted earlier, schemas are significant belief structures or cognitive representations which
individuals hold with reference to themselves and their world, that facilitate behaviour and
interactions in the social world. All schemas, irrelevant of whether they are functional
or dysfunctional, serve similar functions of encoding new information, memory for old
information and inferences about missing information (Da Silva and Serra, 2004:35). To
this end there are two primary ways in which schemas operate. Regarding this Young et
al. (2003:30) state that every thought, feeling, behaviour and life experience relevant to
a schema can either perpetuate the schema elaborating and reinforcing it or heal the
schema thus weakening it.
4.1 Schema perpetuation

According to Young et al. (2003) schema perpetuation refers to the routine processes by
which schemas function and perpetuate themselves, including all thoughts, feelings and
behaviours that reinforce or maintain a specific schema. Primary mechanisms identified
that perpetuate schemas are cognitive distortions and patterns of self-defeating behaviour
and schema coping styles (Young et al.,2003).
4.1.1 Cognitive Distortions and Self-Defeating Behaviour

Cognitive distortions, as introduced by Beck and Ellis, can be described as errors in
thinking or fallacious reasoning that play a crucial role in the emergence of unhealthy
and destructive behaviour. As such cognitive distortions consist of negative interpretations
and predictions of life events as highlighted by the underlying schema. In other words, a
schema will exaggerate information that confirms the schema and will minimise or deny
information that contradicts it, leading to self-defeating behaviours continuing the cycle
of schema perpetuation. To this end, when thinking is distorted, the individual no longer
sees the world as it really is, as the mind convinces the individual of something that isnt
necessarily true.
Most people think in distorted ways from time to time. From the cognitive behavioural
perspective a number of general cognitive distortions have been identified that are evident
of peoples day to day thinking (Leahy, 1996; Grohol, 2012). Offenders, however, are more
prone to various types of cognitive distortions. As noted earlier, various theorists have
highlighted the connection between thinking and crime. With regards to this Yochelson
and Samenow (1984) identified no fewer than 52 thinking errors that are characteristic of
criminals, while Sykes and Matza (1957) described five cognitive techniques offenders use,
to neutralise guilt, allowing the offender to engage in behaviour he/she would otherwise
find morally reprehensible. Similarly Walters criminal lifestyle theory identifies eight
cognitive styles that sustain, reinforce and supplement an entrenched criminal lifestyle.
In addition Ross and Fabiano (1985) emphasise several social cognitive variables which
characterise offenders, such as locus of control, attribution, social perception and social
decision-making skills. Table 3 outlines the various cognitive distortions as relevant to
thinking, and more specifically criminal thinking.
Table 3: Cognitive distortions
Criminal Thinking Patterns/Cognitive Distortions

Victim stance
Good person stance
Unique person stance
Power thrust
Closed channel thinking
Lack of time perspective
Selective effort
Seek excitement first
Ownership stance
Fear of fear
Lack of trust
Cut off
Perfectionism
Fragmentation
Concrete thinking
Zero state
4.1.2 Schema Coping Styles, Modes and Responses

4.1.2.1 Coping Styles
According to Young et al. (2003) people adapt and learn to cope with schemas and early life
experiences in different ways, in order to survive and not feel the pain caused by schemas.
To this end, all organisms respond to threat in three basic ways: namely flight, fight and
freeze. Central to Youngs schema theory, these three basic responses to threat correspond to
the schema coping styles individuals use to adapt to their schemas, which include: schema
surrender (freeze), schema avoidance (flight) and schema over-compensation (fight). It is
through these three styles of coping that schemas exert their influence on behaviour and
work to ensure their own survival (perpetuation).
Schema surrender refers to ways in which the individual passively gives in to the schema,
accepting that the schema is true, and then acting in ways that confirm the schema. To this
end, for example, a young woman with an abandonment schema might choose partners
who are unable to commit to long-term relationships. She then reacts to minor signs that
could indicate abandonment (such as when her partner goes away for a short period) in an
exaggerated way, maybe coming across as possessive or emotionally needy. If the partner
then leaves because of her behaviour, the schema is perpetuated, leaving the young woman
believing that people will abandon her.
On the other hand, schema avoidance refers to the ways in which people avoid
activating their schemas. According to Bricker and Young (2004) there are three types of
schema avoidance namely: cognitive, emotional and behavioural avoidance. Cognitive
avoidance refers to either voluntary or automatic efforts that people make not to think
about traumatic events. In extreme cases of emotional trauma these are unconscious
processes which help individuals to shut out information that would be too upsetting to
confront. Emotional avoidance refers to automatic or voluntary attempts to block painful
emotion. Most common attempts to numb feelings are the abuse of alcohol and drugs.
Lastly, behavioural avoidance refers to situations where people act in such a way as to
avoid situations that trigger schemas. For example an offender with a failure schema
might avoid taking a job.
Finally schema over-compensation refers to excessive attempts by an individual to fight
the schema. As such the person behaves in a manner which appears to be the opposite
of what the schema suggests, in order to avoid activating the schema. On the surface it
might thus appear that the person over-compensating is behaving in a healthy manner
by standing up for themselves. However if over-compensation is too extreme it causes
more problems which then perpetuate the schema. For example, an offender with a failure
schema might over-compensate by presenting himself as being able to do a very complex
task with ease. When such a person then fails it perpetuates the failure schema.
Each individual uses different coping styles in different situations at different stages of
their life to cope with the same schema. Hence the coping styles for a given schema do not
necessarily remain stable over time, while the schema does. To this end, these coping styles
are usually adaptive in childhood and can be viewed as healthy survival mechanisms.
However, as the child grows older and fails to adapt to and integrate new information
into their schemas, these coping styles may become dysfunctional as they perpetuate the
maladaptive schema. Therefore maladaptive coping styles ultimately keep individuals
imprisoned in their schemas (Young et al., 2003:33).
Table 4: Coping responses
Schema Coping Style Over-compensation
Related Coping
Responses
Surrender
Aggression, Hostility
Compliance,
Dominance, Excessive
Dependence
Self-assertion RecognitionSeeking, Status-Seeking
Manipulation, Exploitation
Passive-Aggressiveness,
Rebellion Excessive
Orderliness, Obsessionality
Avoidance
Addictive, Self-Soothing,
Excessive Autonomy,
Social Withdrawal,
Excessive Autonomy
Compulsive StimulationSeeking Psychological
Withdrawal
4.1.2.2 Coping Responses

Coping responses are specific behaviours that individuals exhibit in relation to a coping style.
These include all responses to threat in an individuals behavioural repertoire for example
aggression, abusing alcohol or rebellion. Thus a coping style is a collection of coping
responses or behaviours that an individual characteristically utilises to avoid, surrender or
over-compensate. Table 4 lists examples of coping responses as related to specific coping
styles. In traditional work with offenders, interventions generally focus on changing the
maladaptive coping response (behaviour that is problematic). To this end, however, Young et
al. (2003:37) point out that changing the maladaptive coping response permanently is almost
impossible without changing the schemas that drive them. For example, an offender who
tends to use violence in conflict situations would not necessarily benefit from an intervention
that only focuses on implementing anger management techniques to control his/her violent
behaviour. To make the behaviour change permanent one would have to delve deeper into
the schema that drives the coping response and assist the offender to heal the schema.
4.1.2.3 Schema modes
According to Young et al. (2003:37), schema modes encompass many elements, including
current active schemas and coping responses as triggered by various life situations. Hence
a mode is a predominant emotional state that an individual functions in at a given point
in time. These modes can be adaptive (functional) or maladaptive (dysfunctional). All
individuals have recognisable modes in which they operate. However these modes vary from
individual to individual along several dimensions which are depicted in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Continuum of mode dimensions
Dissociated
Unacknowledged
Maladaptive
Extreme
Rigid
Pure
Integrated
Acknowledged
Adaptive
Mild
Flexible
Blended
In Youngs opinion a dysfunctional schema mode is activated when certain maladaptive

schemas and coping responses have erupted into distressing emotions, avoidance responses
or self-defeating behaviours that take over and control an individuals functioning. In
contrast, an emotionally and psychologically healthy individuals modes are less
dissociative, less rigid and more flexible and open to change than those of an individual
with more serious psychological, emotional and behavioural problems.
With regards to modes, Young et al. (2003:43-44) have identified ten schema modes that
can be grouped into the following four broad categories: Child modes, Maladaptive Coping
modes, Dysfunctional Parent modes and the Healthy Adult mode.
In the schema model it is assumed that every individual is born with the potential to
manifest all four Child modes as listed in Table 5 below. Temperament and childhood
experiences, however, may suppress or enhance certain Child modes and these can be
carried through into adulthood.
Table 5: Child modes
Child Modes
Description
Common Associated Schemas
Vulnerable Child
Experiences unhappy or anxious

emotions, especially fear, sadness
and helplessness, when in touch
with associated schemas
Abandonment, mistrust/abuse,
emotional deprivation, defectiveness,
social isolation, dependence/
incompetence, vulnerability to harm
or illness, enmeshment/undeveloped
self, negativity/pessimism
Angry Child
Vents anger directly in response to

perceived unmet core needs or
unfair treatment related to core
schemas
Abandonment, mistrust/abuse,
emotional deprivation, subjugation
(or, at times, any of the schemas
associated with the Vulnerable Child)
Impulsive/Undisciplined
Child
Impulsively acts according to

immediate desires for pleasure
without regard to limits or others
needs or feelings (not linked to core
needs)
Entitlement, insufficient self-control/

self-discipline
Happy Child
Feels loved, connected, content,

satisfied
None. Absence of activated schemas
Maladaptive Coping modes represent the individuals attempts to adapt to living with
unmet emotional needs in a harmful environment. These coping modes may well have
been adaptive in childhood, but they are likely to be maladaptive and self-defeating in
the wider adult world. The three Maladaptive Coping modes listed in Table 6 include: the
Compliant Surrenderer, the Detached Protector and the Over-compensator (Young et al,
2003). These three modes correspond with the coping styles of avoidance, surrender and
over-compensation as discussed previously. To this end all three maladaptive coping modes
perpetuate schemas.
Table 6: Maladaptive-coping modes
Maladaptive Coping Modes
Description
Compliant Surrenderer
Adopts a coping style of compliance and dependence
Detached Protector
Adopts a coping style of emotional withdrawal, disconnection,

isolation and behavioural avoidance
Over-compensator
Adopts a coping style of counterattack and control, may overcompensate through semi-adaptive means, such as workaholism
According to Young, the Dysfunctional Parent modes are internalisations of parents or

other important adults from an individuals childhood. In these modes, the person often
takes on the voice of the parent or other adult in their self-talk thinking, feeling
and acting as the adult did towards him/her when he/she was a child. Thus far, the two
dysfunctional parent modes indicated by Young are the Punitive/Critical Parent and the
Demanding Parent. Table 7 provides a further description of these modes.
Table 7: Dysfunctional Parent modes
Dysfunctional Parent Modes
Description
Common Associated Schemas
Punitive/Critical Parent
Restricts, criticises, or punishes the

self or others
Subjugation, punitiveness,
defectiveness, mistrust/abuse
(as abuser)
Demanding Parent
Sets high expectations and high

Unrelenting standards, selflevel of responsibility toward others, sacrifice
pressures the self or others to achieve
them
The Healthy Adult mode is the healthy, adult part of the self that if strengthened though
interventions helps to moderate, nurture and heal the other modes. As such the healthy adult
mode, 1) nurtures, affirms and protects the vulnerable child, 2) sets limits for the angry
child and the impulsive/undisciplined child in accordance with principles of fairness and
self-discipline, and 3) moderates the maladaptive coping and dysfunctional parent modes.
4.2 Automatic thoughts

As explained above, cognitive schemas or core beliefs are organisational systems used by
individuals to give meaning to the world and structure the individuals automatic thinking.
To this end automatic thoughts arise in relevant trigger situations, from underlying
assumptions/rules, which in turn are based on Schemas or Core Beliefs. Wright (2006:2)
notes that automatic thoughts are the autonomous, often private thoughts that flow rapidly
in the stream of everyday thinking which may or may not be carefully assessed for accuracy
or relevance. Everyone has automatic thoughts, however in certain dysfunctional states
or modes these thoughts are often riddled with errors/distortions in logic, perpetuating
maladaptive schemas triggered by events. Expectations, appraisals and attributions are
types of automatic thoughts.
Expectations are thoughts that certain behaviours will bring certain outcomes. For
example, efficacy expectancy refers to an individuals assessment of his/her ability to
successfully execute a particular behaviour in a given situation. If a person believes that
he/she can perform a particular behaviour, then most likely that individual will engage
in that behaviour. If the behaviour is performed successfully, this reinforces the efficacy
expectation. This concept is of particular importance in the treatment of offenders, as it is
perceived control. Efficacy expectations have a major effect on whether a person initiates
a coping behaviour, and how much effort will be put toward implementing that coping
behaviour (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy is reinforced if the person copes successfully over
time (Dimeff and Marlatt, 1998).
Appraisals are the cognitive processes that continually evaluate the value and meaning
of what an individual is experiencing, as well as his/her responses to those experiences
(Rosenhan and Seligman, 1995; Seligman, Walker, and Rosenhan, 2001). Often, cognitive
appraisals become distorted and result in thinking errors. Identifying and changing
thinking errors or distortions have become salient components in working with offenders.
For example, an appraisal of the offender who experiences rejection might be Im no good.
This would also be classified as a thinking error or an error in logic. Appraisals, whether
appropriate or distorted, usually precede and cause emotions. For example, the appraisal
that hes taking advantage of me usually leads to the emotion of anger, potentially
activating then the angry child mode from where the person will then function.
Attributions are the individuals explanation of why things happen or the explanation
of outcomes of certain behaviours. An important part of attribution theory is where the
individual sees the source of his/her life problems and successes (Rotter, 1966). This locus
of control might be internalised (Im responsible for the accident) or externalised (If they
had locked their doors, I wouldnt have ripped off their stereo). Attributions can also be
global or specific (Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale, 1978). For example I stole the car
because life is not fair is a global attribution whereas a specific attribution would be I hit
my wife because she yelled at me.
In the following section the authors illustrate and discuss cognition as a risk factor for
recidivism using three case examples. In each one of the case examples, the maladaptive
schemas and distinctive thinking patterns maintaining the individuals behaviours are
demonstrated. By reading through this section, the reader gains an understanding of how
these processes operate in the day to day lives of offenders faced with various reintegration
barriers. Considering the complexity the problems presented by each participant, the
discussion of the case examples will focus only on a selected two to three presenting
problems per participant.
5.
Case Examples
5.1 Profile and background of participants

As mentioned earlier, the three case examples used for purposes of this paper were drawn
from the authors case loads. The average age of the participants was 36 years, varying
between the ages of 31 and 44 years. All participants were male, of which one was white
and two were coloured. Of the three participants, two were first time offenders who had
received prison sentences ranging from 17 to 20 years for different crimes, as indicated in
the table below. The other participant is a recidivist, with a previous conviction for theft of
a motor vehicle. For this offence the participant received a three year suspended sentence.
Following his first offence this person was again arrested twice for other offences. All three
participants committed their offences at different periods in their lives.
Table 8: Profile of Participants
Participant 1
John
Participant 2
Peter
Participant 3
Darryl
Age
33 years
44 years
31 years
Race
White
Coloured
Coloured
First Time Offender/

Recidivist
First time
First time
Recidivist
Crime
Assault
Murder
Rape
Theft of motor vehicle
Type of Sentence
Prison
Prison
Suspended
Remand detainee
Length of Sentence
17 years
20 years
5 years
Sentence Served
12 years
12 years
With regards to socio-economic status, one of the participants was from a middle income
family, while the other two were of lower socio-economic backgrounds. Only one of the
participants did not complete his schooling. Although there were interruptions in their
schooling both John and Peter completed their Grade 12 exams. All participants experienced
low success in school and struggled with learning. All participants found it difficult to
establish positive relationships within their peer groups. With regards to this, two participants
can be described to have been loners. Of these two, one participant remained socially isolated,
while the other formed connections with anti-social peers around the age of 16. For purposes
of protection, the other one participant became affiliated with gangs around the age of 14.
With regards to their families, two of the participants came from rigidly disengaged
families with high levels of individual autonomy, limited attachment and rigid boundaries.
In both these families the fathers were emotionally uninvolved and strict disciplinarians, with
the mothers playing a submissive role. The other participants family can be described as a
chaotically enmeshed family with high levels of over-identification with one another. In this
family everybody got involved in solving one anothers problems, resulting in the individual
failing to take full responsibility for his own choices. Physical violence and alcohol abuse was
prevalent in one participants family of origin. During their teenage years, alcohol and drug
abuse was prevalent in the lives of all three participants. One participant became addicted to
methamphetamine and dagga, while the other two were abusing alcohol.
Currently all three participants are struggling with reintegration back into society.
Reintegration challenges presented by the participants were more cognitive emotional
problems related to employment, family and intimate relationships, social isolation, and
the strive for self actualisation than the classic practical and survival challenges of securing
accommodation, food and employment.
5.2 Case study 1: John (pseudonym)

John is a 33 year old single white male who has never been married. He is from a middle
class family, the younger of two children. Johns sister is 10 years older than him and
left the family home to go and study at the age of 18. During their childhood the family
relocated a number of times. Due to these moves, John found it difficult to establish lasting
friendships. John describes himself as being socially isolated and awkward from a young
age, with much of his time spent staying home and playing computer games.
John reports his childhood to have been relatively happy although relationships within
the family were strained. Johns family can be described as rigidly disengaged with low
levels of cohesion, adaptability and communication. With regards to this John states that
his father worked a lot. His mother and father were both emotionally uninvolved in his life.
Johns father was very strict and dismissive towards John. With regards to this John states
everything I cherished my dad dismissed and I cant remember him helping me with
anything. Johns mother was quiet and submissive. According to John his father argued a
lot with his mother. John reports that he felt embarrassed about his father and noted that
his dad is a racist. Generally John describes his childhood as repressed and sheltered. He
notes that he never received real guidance from his parents about life stating that I guess
they were not worried about me because I was at home all the time. According to John
communication in the family was mostly focussed on criticism about what he did or did
not do.
John completed his matric in prison. Prior to going to prison John attended school up to
the age of 17 years. His school career was not particularly easy, as John reported to have
always not fitted in and struggling with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD). John did not
perform well academically and reported to have been more interested in technical subjects.
In school John had difficulty establishing positive peer relationships and struggled with
peer pressure. At the age of 16 John became involved with a group of deviant peers. With
regards to this John notes that although we were not a real gang we had gang dynamics.
As a result of him looking for approval and acceptance, John participated in anti-social
behaviours with his friends such as assaulting and intimidating homeless people. At this
point John was introduced to alcohol and drugs. Consequently to this behaviour John
was arrested for murder in 1997 when John and two of his friends assaulted a homeless
man who subsequently died. John was found guilty on the charges of assault and murder
and sentenced to 17 years in prison. John started his prison sentence at the age of 19. He
served 12 years and was released on parole in 2009.
One year after his release on parole, John approached NICRO for assistance. In his initial
interview John presented with a high level of frustration and hopelessness about his life, stating
that maybe it would be better for him if he went back to prison. John requested any assistance
that could help him and found it difficult to verbalise what exactly he was expecting in terms of
assistance. Over a period of a year, John was involved in weekly counselling at NICRO. In these
sessions, John and the social worker painstakingly unpacked Johns frustrations in order to
identify and disaggregate the core of these frustrations with regards to reintegration challenges.
This then guided both the social worker and John to explore cognitive alternatives to deal with
these frustrations and challenges. Unlike many released offenders, John did not present with
the classical expected reintegration challenges. John was employed, he had a place to live
and he was able to secure himself an opportunity to study graphic design, something John
identified as a passion of his. In addition John had a relative supportive family with regards
to some financial assistance. What became evident, though, were Johns distinctive thought
patterns and core beliefs maintaining his inadequate social functioning, contributing to his
frustrations and placing him at risk of re-offending. Three problems identified by John were his
dissatisfaction with his work, his lack of a social life and his inability to cope with his studies.
Relevant to Johns dissatisfaction with his work, his life in general and his lack of
relationships, John mainly holds schemas within the first schematic domain of disconnection
and rejection. Within this domain core schemas held by John includes Abandonment/
Instability, Mistrust/Abuse, Emotional Deprivation, Defectiveness/Shame and Social
Isolation/Alienation. Generally John expects his boss and other colleagues at work to be
taking advantage of him. He tends to see his boss as exploitative and cheating him out of
money. When justifiably so held responsible at work for his time management John thinks
that they try to humiliate him and do not have his best interests at heart. With regards to
intimate relationships and friendships, John does not trust people to be honest and straight
forward. John lives a core belief of I am different. He sees the world as stereotypical
and rebels against conformity and norms. Johns automatic thoughts are riddled with
general errors in thinking, with blaming, generalisation, rationalisation, justification, and
intellectualisation being the most prominent. Typical criminal thinking patterns and errors
evident in Johns thoughts include perfectionism, closed channel thinking, super optimism,
lack of trust, victim-stance and mollification. Due to him viewing himself as different
John feels that he does not fit in, in normal social groups. John frequently states that my
brain is differently wired than those of other men my age.
When doing things as part of a group John does not really get involved, and focuses
exclusively on his differences from others (Schema surrender). At other times John tends
to become hostile about his perceived pressures to conform and becomes critical of others
(Schema overcompensation). John perpetually set up tests and gathers evidence to determine
whether other people are worthy of trust or not. Most of the time John focuses on things
people do that makes them not worthy of trust. John has very specific ideas, standards and
expectations about how other people should behave towards him. Perpetuating his schema
of Mistrust/Abuse and Defectiveness/Shame, John subconsciously chooses individuals who

would reject and/or abuse him (Schema surrender). On various occasions relationships with
such individuals have almost caused him to lose his accommodation and violate his parole
conditions. Overall John expresses intense loneliness. He frequently verbalises that no-one
is interested in helping me or no-one cares about me. Johns general cognitive emotional
state is one of resentment, where he resents his father for not being involved in his life and
feels envious of people who have emotionally intimate relationships.
Within the domain of over-vigilance and inhibition, John holds the core schemas of
Negativity/Pessimism and Unrelenting Standards/Hyper Criticalness. In general John
displays a pervasive focus on the negative aspects of his life. John complains constantly
and is indecisive. In addition John is prone to worrying and obsessively ruminating about
where he is at and his future. He has a perfectionist attitude and sets unrelenting and
unrealistic standards and rules for him and others, which he obviously cannot meet. This
results in undue pressure being placed on him and high levels of anxiety about failure,
which inevitably causes him not to be able to complete tasks.
John primarily functions from the Vulnerable Child mode, where he experiences and
reacts to feelings of unhappiness, sadness, anxiety and helplessness. Secondary to this
mode, John also operates in the Demanding Parent mode where he pressurises himself to
achieve unrealistically high expectations. Functioning as an adult within these modes and
associated schemas hold specific risks for John to fall back into anti-social behaviour as he
continues to seek meeting his emotional needs in inappropriate ways.
Following counselling with NICRO John has kept contact with the social worker. John
has taken responsibility for his life on various levels, and has managed to keep out of prison
and out of trouble for four years. John has been involved with NICRO for at least two and
a half of the four years. John still struggles with certain issues, particularly related to his
earlier childhood, and further psychological intervention would be beneficial. However
John is at present not very receptive of engaging with a psychologist. NICRO will continue
to provide psycho-social support where needed. To this end John has taken responsibility
for asking for assistance when needed. John has a fairly good relationship with his family,
but this needs to be strengthened further.
To this end the importance of family relationships as a protective factor or a risk factor
contributing to crime should not be underestimated.
5.3 Case study 2: Peter (pseudonym)

Peter is a 44 year old single coloured male, who has never been married. He grew up in a
low socio-economic environment and was one of five siblings, of which two were girls and
three were boys. Peter was the second eldest child and had a close relationship with his
youngest brother. At the age of 20 this brother was tragically killed in a car accident. Peter
at the time was 23. Growing up Peter had ill health which frustrated him a lot, resulting in
him becoming a temperamental child.
Peters family can be described as rigidly separated with very distinct parental roles.
Peters father classically took the role of the provider and disciplinarian. He was very strict,
never showing the children affection. Peter describes his father as emotionally uninvolved,
and justified his fathers actions by stating that his dad had no father figure or positive role
model and therefore did not know how to be a good father. Peter reported his mother to be
controlling and mostly focussed on her own unmet needs. Both Peters mother and father
abused alcohol, which in turn resulted in violent outbursts and physical violence in the
home. Peter reported that during these outbursts the other children would often cry, but he
would be strong. Peters parents got divorced when he was 20 years old.
At school Peter experienced limited success, as he had difficulty in some learning areas.
He did however manage to finish school and obtain a Matric certificate. Peter reports to
have been a loner at school and was unable to form close friendships. Peter described
himself as being rebellious and having strained relationships with teachers as he perceived
them to be giving him a hard time. Due to these pressures Peter dropped out of school for
three months during Grade 12, but returned to complete his schooling.
Upon leaving school Peter found it difficult to keep a stable job. With regards to this
Peter calls himself a drifter and describes experiencing feelings of restlessness. As a young
adult Peters lifestyle centred around girls, parties and alcohol, although he remained a
loner and unable to form close stable relationships. In his early thirties Peter was arrested
and convicted for rape. To this day Peter maintains that he was wrongfully accused. In
1998 Peter was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. He served 12 years and was released
on parole in 2010.
Peter approached NICRO while in prison, seeking assistance with compiling a letter
to the parole board, motivating that NICRO would offer assistance upon his release. He
also wanted to volunteer his services to NICRO upon release. During his first post-release
interview, Peter presented unlike John with some of the classic reintegration barriers of
unemployment and problematic family relationships. Although his family support on the
surface seemed appropriate, tension and conflict were problematic and contributed to
Peters frustration in coping with being released. To this end Peter stated that he would
rather return to prison than feeling imprisoned by his family. The major source of conflict
and frustration for Peter emanated from being financially and socially dependent on his
parents, creating feelings of inadequacy and low self-worth. After release Peter stayed
with his mother and stepfather. During this time the family relationships was strained,
as Peters family would not allow him to befriend people and bring them into the family
home. At this stage Peter was constantly seeking friendships but was unable to establish
stable relationships with other people. Core beliefs of I am isolated from other people and
I have no value, I am worthless are constantly perpetuated by Peters automatic negative
thoughts about himself, his family and their relationships. To this end Peter typically
behaves in an apologetic manner when engaging with individuals that he perceives as
more important than him.
Peter mainly holds schemas within the schema domains of Impaired Autonomy/
Performance, Other Directedness, Over Vigilance/Inhibition and Disconnection/Rejection.
Within these domains associated schemas held by Peter are Social Isolation/Alienation,
Failure, Self-Sacrifice and Negativity/Pessimism. Initially Peter presented with a negative
and pessimistic attitude about life and automatic thoughts related to returning to prison
were identified in Peters thinking. To this end automatic thoughts such as this is never
going to change (generalisation), my family thinks I am useless (mindreading), and if
I stay here I will never make friends (jumping to conclusions) supports and perpetuates
a thinking error of I am better off in prison. Further to this and functioning from a
self-sacrifice schema, Peter tries to maintain a sense of connection with other people by
helping others. Peter generally befriends people that can be seen as different to him,
vulnerable or in need of assistance, such as disabled or frail people. Automatic thoughts
such as I should be nice to people (should statements), if I help other people, I am a good
person perpetuates his schema of self sacrifice. A risk for Peter is that individuals can take
advantage of Peter in his endeavours to be of assistance to them.
With regards to the sex offence, Peter presents a different picture than expected, which
is a typical sex offender picture. Usually specific sex-related beliefs present in sex offenders
cognition are: Sexual fantasy is the only way I can cope with life. After a hard days
work, I deserve some pornography. The only way Ill ever get sexual satisfaction is by
masturbating or paying someone. Sex is dirty and disgusting. Sexual satisfaction is the
only way to be happy. Everyone else is doing it. None of the above presented by Peter.
Regarding modes in response to unfair treatment, Peter shifted in his behaviour
rift between the Vulnerable and Angry Child mode. He was often angry at his parents
for not treating him as an adult and being so restrictive with him, particularly in not
getting permission for friends to visit. The typical thinking errors Peter exhibited was
intellectualisation, rationalisation, justification, zero state thinking. He like John often
intellectualized matters when asked direct questions. For instance if we were to ask him
about his argumentative nature he would provide an intellectual argument about his
personality. It appears that from time to time Peter does live a core belief of I am not good
enough/important/failure, and loses motivation to improve his life.
He also has expressed time and again his frustration with the parole system, and the
reporting in. He had no complaints, though, with his parole officer. On occasion he has
taken the odd risk of deviating from his route home to stop at a shopping centre or visit a
friend. Given the obligation he has to report at a certain time for parole, there is always the
risk of recording a parole violation.
Peter does appear to have benefitted from the counselling sessions at NICRO. In 2010 he
was given a million rand from an inheritance his mom and his stepfather recently received.
Peter showed great responsibility in that much of the money was invested. He also took
the initiative to purchase a vehicle to further his dream to transfer families of offenders
to visit inmates in prison. He has applied for a PDP licence and would like to register as a
tour operator. Peter also used part of the money to rent a flat, which he now lives with his
girlfriend. From our last telephonic contact Peter was still waiting for the PDP licence. We are
not sure if having a criminal record is part of the administrative problem, and whether or not
he will be granted the licence. He is aware that the million Rand is not something he can rely
on for the rest of the year and is anxious to start his business. We shall have to wait to see if
this materialises. Peter remains in contact with NICRO, and does come in for a visit now and
again. More structured intervention and follow-up is still required to help Peter work with
his cognitive errors and schemas if he is to maintain healthy relationships and reintegrate
effectively back into society. NICROs capacity in terms of human resources to offer long term
cognitive behaviourial work to Peter is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Very recently
NICRO had to lay off a third of professional staff due to a lack of funding.
5.4 Case study 3: Darryl (pseudonym)

Darryl is 31 year old married coloured male. He is the youngest of three siblings. Darryl has
an older brother and sister. Darryl grew up in a low socio economic environment. His father
worked in the building industry and his income was seasonally bound. His mother was
unemployed. Although having little income and generally being poor, Darryls parents were
generally very supportive of their children and always provided for their basic needs. The
family observed the Islamic religion and traditions. Both Darryls parents have low levels
of education. Darryls parents were very focused on ensuring their childrens education.
Both Darryls elder brother and sister completed their schooling and are currently quite
successful individuals. With regards to Darryl, it appears that his parents spoiled him;
they appeared to be over-involved in his life, not allowing him to take responsibility for
himself. Darryl had low success in school, and in Grade 9 at the age of 15 he dropped out
of school. Part of the problem was that Darryl had become involved with a girl who was
the ex-girlfriend of a gangster. Darryl was forced to leave town, as he and his family were
threatened by the gangster and other gang members. In order to negotiate his own safety
and that of his family, Darryl became associated with a rival gang for protection. Through
this association Darryl become involved in drugs, consequently leading to addiction to
methamphetamines and dagga, and subsequently found himself involved in crime.
In his current situation Darryl is experiencing some tension in the marital relationship,
and is having difficulties securing employment. He has also another criminal case
pending and presents as anxious and unsettled. The couple is still arguing about Darryls
involvement with the wrong friends as Darryl is still involved with anti-social peers.
There is evidence that both the marital problems and his ongoing association with gang
members can act as a risk factor for recidivism.
Darryl appears to hold schemas within the schema domain of Impaired Autonomy
and Performance. Autonomy is the ability to separate from ones family and to function
independently comparable to people ones own age (Young et al. 2003:18). The associated
schema of Dependence/Incompetence schema appears dominant, and it is a classic example
in which the schema was not as a result of a childhood trauma, but possibly as a result
of being over-protected throughout his childhood. It appeared that the family boundaries
were quite enmeshed and everyone appeared to step in and help Darryl out when he
experienced challenges in his life. In this way Darryls self-confidence was undermined,
resulting in him having difficulty making decisions on his own, and in handling every day
responsibilities. He is dependent on the support of his family. Enmeshment/Underdeveloped
self is a resultant schema brought on by the over-protectiveness, and emotional overinvolvement of Darryls family of origin, which discouraged Darryl from developing a
separate identity/sense of self. Failure is another of the associated schemas within the
Impaired Autonomy and Performance domain. A core belief expressed by Darryl is that,
compared to my brother and sister I am a failure. Incompetency, helplessness and low
self-esteem are also evident. It would appear that for Daryls the core emotional need of
autonomy, competence, and a sense of identity was not met.
Darryl presented at NICRO for assistance with a current criminal case against him and
looking for work. In the past he had difficulty keeping jobs, and so worked with his father.
Before his arrest he had a job. He expressed his frustration in not being able to secure a
job and believed his criminal record is preventing this from happening. This includes the
company he used to work for which is hesitant to take him back.
While he was in remand detention there were threats of sexual violence against him.
Fortunately, through NICROs intervention he was released on bail.
In our last telephonic contact with his sister, Darryl was still unemployed. He had
since appeared in court for a previously pending case, in which he pleaded guilty and
received a suspended sentence. Darryl continues to enjoy the close support of his family.
Further structured intervention is needed with Darryl to address his schemas and cognitive
functioning. He has called in to the NICRO offices on occasion when he has a crisis. Again,
the challenge is human resource capacity to give the much needed intensive attention to
this case.
6.
CONCLUSION
This paper discussed cognitive schemas and attempted to illustrate how these may fail to
protect offenders from pressures to offend.
Schema modes from which individuals operate are not unique markers of pathology as, to
a certain degree, everybody holds several modes. Rather than reflecting distinctive entities,
modes of healthy people and offenders differ in a gradual way on several dimensions.
Firstly, healthy persons have recognisable modes but their feeling of a unified sense remains
intact, while dissociation between modes increases with the severity of dysfunction (Young
et al., 2003). Secondly, healthy people are able to simultaneously experience more than one
mode at the same time and in this way blend modes together. Movement to another mode
often occurs gradually and seamlessly. In contrast, offenders with severe problems display
more sudden shifts between modes and experience only one mode at the time, e.g., when
anger or depression takes over the offenders personality. Furthermore, healthy persons
acknowledge their modes more easily than offenders, and their modes are more adaptive,
mild and flexible. So, while offenders display a higher number and intensity of modes, they
do not generally display different modes than healthy people.
While a person is characterised by several schema modes, at a given moment in time, only
one mode is predominant and determines the current behaviour of offenders. This dominant
mode shuts off the other modes. Predominant modes can become dormant and vice versa.
This altering of modes is often experienced as a sudden and abrupt shift and is referred to
as mode switching or flipping, explaining the abrupt changes in thoughts, feelings and
behaviours often observed with offenders. These are the specific aspects that need attention
in rehabilitation services provided to offenders. Related to this, Schoeman (2002:286) in
her research also highlights that we have to break the cycles that recidivistic behavioural
patterns are rooted in and what is important in these cycles is the thinking errors.
Although CBT is the evidence-based practice of working with offenders, merely focusing
on changing distorted automatic thinking is not enough. One should look to the source
or the cognitive schemas underlying these patterns of thought. These interventions,
instead of just focusing on offence-justifying attitudes, must also focus on underlying self
understandings, motivations and implicit beliefs about the self, other people and social
situations. It is suggested that in facilitating offender responsibility, rehabilitative and
re-integrative interventions must primarily seek to assist the offender in understanding
his characteristic thinking patterns and where they may have contributed to his eventual
selection of antisocial behaviour as a response in a given situation.
At the outset evidence-based practice shows that cognitive behavioural work is a crucial
component of strategies addressing offender rehabilitation in correctional settings, yet no
mention is made of cognitivebehavioural specific work in legislation (The Correctional
Services Act 1998) or policy (The White Paper on Correctional Services, 2005). With regards
to this Chapter 4 (S 4.1.2) of the White Paper on Corrections in South Africa states that:
[the] responsibility of the Department of Correctional Services is first and foremost
to correct offending behaviour, in a secure, safe and humane environment, in
order to facilitate the achievement of rehabilitation, and avoidance of recidivism.
Similarly, Section 64(1) of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998, states that:
the court, Correctional Supervision and Parole Board or other body which has the
authority to impose treatment, development and support programmes in terms
of section 52(1) may specify what programmes the person subject to community
corrections must follow.
Although the Department have in principle embodied the philosophy of rehabilitation in

the White Paper on Corrections (2005), the inherent retributive nature of the criminal
justice system, the fragmented approach to rehabilitation as well as high levels of overcrowding have been some of the key challenges in not keeping to and implementing the
basics of creating a conducive environment for rehabilitation, let alone consider refined
and specialised treatment options.
Taking into account the aforementioned, we would like to encourage a careful
consideration of the regulation of treatment of offenders, particularly with regards to not
becoming prescriptive but supportive of evidence-based practice acknowledging the core
treatments of CBT and Schema Therapies during incarceration as well as post-release.
The incorporation of the principles for effective intervention through the Risk-NeedResponsivity (RNR) model offers a good framework for work with offenders. Further
policy directives would need to specify the state resourcing the development of cognitive
behavioural programmes in South Africa. As much as NGOs have been offering these
interventions, partnerships to resource these interventions are needed. In addition to
these interventions the programmes must be provided by highly skilled professionals
with clinical expertise and who are reflective practitioners. Where structured, manualised
programmes are used, practitioners should have a clear understanding of the behaviour
they are working with and the methods they are using to influence and change these
behaviours. Furthermore, scientific methods and evaluation of measurement need to be
applied within these interventions in order to generate evidence for practice.
In responding to crime we must acknowledge that offender rehabilitation and
reintegration is one response among several to deal with crime prevention in South Africa
(Muntingh, 2005). We have to be realistic that offender rehabilitation and reintegration
alone cannot reduce crime, and that the over-reliance on imprisonment to rehabilitate
is a fallacy. Policy needs to support comprehensive, multi-level strategies, that consider
evidence-based practice in early intervention, treatment, and post-release interventions.
Partnerships between government and civil society need to be improved in order for any
rehabilitative effort to be successful and contribute towards a reduction in recidivism.
Further co-ordinated mechanisms should address accountability and monitoring and
evaluation to achieve effective outcomes.
Lastly, policy must address the importance of early intervention in community-based
socialisation structures, namely families, schools and religious institutions (Schoeman,
2002:284). Prevention strategies should not only address structural and environmental risk
factors such as poverty, unemployment and substance addiction, but more so the personal
risk factors including psycho-social and cognitive processes and the interaction between
all of these.
Endnotes
1.
Established a century ago in 1910, NICRO is a reputable national non-governmental organisation working with individuals
in conflict with the law and those exhibiting risky behaviour that could result in imprisonment. Key outcomes of NICRO
behavioural interventions include: preventing impressionable, vulnerable young people from becoming entangled in the
downward spiral of crime; diverting young and adult offenders away from the formal criminal justice system; providing
constructive, responsible and effective alternatives to imprisonment; providing transformation and personal development
opportunities for prisoners and former offenders, facilitating their successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society;
helping families and communities support offenders to turn their lives around and make a fresh start. NICRO also offers
specialist affordable clinical services to those individuals, groups and families that need more structured, mental health
support, as well as being a training provider in restorative justice and other relevant modules as related to crime prevention,
offender reintegration, rehabilitation, criminal justice social work and professional development of professionals in the field.
NICRO also engages in advocacy and lobbying and research. NICROs remarkable one hundred year history boasts shining
examples of groundbreaking and pioneering contributions to South African society and the criminal justice system, such
as supervision of prisoners released on parole (1930s), community service (1970s), juvenile justice and diversion, and noncustodial sentences, all of which are crucial vehicles for the embodiment of restorative justice.
2.
It is acknowledged that poverty and violence in the South African context are considered to be the primary causes of
crime in the country. What is important is that, with crime causality, no single risk factor or set of risk factors is powerful
enough to predict with certainty which individuals will commit crime. Risk and protective factor theory includes many
combinations of factors, of which only some are concerned with social and educational disadvantage. These are rather remote
and speculative correlates of offending, since poverty and disadvantage in themselves have little direct connection with
criminality. These social disadvantage variables are most probably significant correlates of offending because they are linked
to highly individualised, social psychological processes such as the young persons experience of and reaction to discredited
identity, injustice and inequality. It is almost certainly the experience of inequality and relative deprivation, and not poverty
itself, which are criminogenic (Marmot, 2004; Wilkinson, 2005). Risk factors, when they are relevant, do not work together in
a simple additive way, as the general causality approaches sometimes assume. On the contrary, they interact, if they do at all,
in a highly dynamic and complex way. So, biological, psychological and social determinants may on occasion act to catalyse,
potentiate or reinforce each other, but on others to nullify, dilute or divert each other. A key insight is that particular adverse
events or processes such as poverty or physical abuse are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions for future offending, but
may actually have a reductive rather than an augmentive contributory effect.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, L., Seligman, Y. and Teasdale, M.1978. Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation. Abnormal
Psychology 87:49-74.
Albertus, C. 2010. Offender Reintegration in South Africa: A Complementary Crime Prevention Measure. Open Society
Foundation.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. 1998. The psychology of criminal conduct. (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing
Company.
Aos, S., Miller, M., and Drake, E. 2006. Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice
costs, and crime rates. (Document 06101201). Olympia, Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Bartlett, F. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, A.T.1963. Thinking and depression: Idiosyncratic content and cognitive distortions. Archives of General Psychiatry 9: 324333.
Beck, A.T. 1967. Depression: Clinical, Experimental and Theoretical Aspects, New York: Harper and Row.
Bricker, D.C. and Young, J.E. 2004. A Clients Guide to Schema Therapy. New York: Cognitive Therapy Center of New York.
Clark, M. 2011. The Role of Social Cognition in the Development of the Criminal Career. Internet Journal of Criminology.
Da Silva, C. J. and Serra, A.M. 2004. Cognitive and Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for substance abuse disorders. Rev Bras
Psiquiatr, 26 (Supl 1): 33-39.
Dimeff, L.A. and Marlatt, G.A. 1998. Preventing relapse and maintaining change in addictive behaviours. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 5(4):513525.
Elliott, D. 1985. The Assumption That Theories Can Be Combined with Increased Explanatory Power. In Theoretical Methods in
Criminology, edited by R. F. Meier. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
Ellis, A. 1962. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., and Andrews, D. A. 2001. The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on
recidivism. In Compendium of Effective Correctional Programmes (volume 1, chapter 4). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional
Service of Canada, Solicitor General of Canada.
Grohol, J. 2012. 15 Common Cognitive Distortions. Psych Central. Available online at http://psychcentral.com/lib/2009/15common-cognitive-distortions/
Leahy, R.L. 1996. Cognitive Therapy: Basic Principles and Applications. New Jersey: Northvale.
Lipsey, M. 1999. Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 564:142166.
Maltz, M. D. 1984, 2001. Recidivism. Originally published by Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Internet edition available at
http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/forr/pdf/crimjust/recidivism.pdf.
Maruna, S. and Mann, R.E. 2006. A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological
Psychology 11: 155-177.
Martinson, R. 1979. New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review 7 (Winter):
243-258.
McGuire, J. (date unknown) Cognitive Behavioural Approaches: An Introduction to theory and research. Liverpool: University of
Liverpool, Department of Clinical Psychology.
Mears, D. P., Wang, X. Hay, C. and Bales, W. D. 2008. Social Ecology and Recidivism: Implications for Prisoner Reentry.
Criminology, 46: 301-340.
Muftic, L.R. 2009. Macro-Micro Theoretical Integration: an Unexplored Theoretical Frontier. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Criminology, 1(2):33-71.
Muntingh, L.M. 2001. After prison: The case for offender reintegration, Monograph 52. Open Society Foundation.
Muntingh, L.M. 2005. CSPRI Research Paper 10. Offender Rehabilitation and Reintegration: Taking the White Paper on Corrections
forward. NICCO & Community Law Centre: Cape Town.
Padesky, A.P. 1994. Schema Change Processes in Cognitive Therapy. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 1994 1(5), 267-278,
John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Rayner, J.S. 2008. The Relationship between Patterns of Relating and Early Maladaptive Schemas. A Dissertation Presented for the
Doctor of Philosophy Degree. University of Mississippi.
Rosenfeld, R. 2008. Recidivism and its Discontents. Criminology and Public Policy, 7: 1101-1108.

Rosenhan, D.L., and Seligman, M.E.P. 1995. Abnormal Psychology. (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
Ross, R. R. and Fabiano, E. A. 1985. Time to think: a cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation.
Johnson City, Tennessee: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts.
Rotter, J. 1966. Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80,
Whole No. 609.
Rountree, P.W., Land, K.C. and Miethe, T.D. 1994. Macro Micro Integration in the Study of Victimisation: A Hierarcigal Logistical
Model Analysis across Seattle Neighbourhoods. Criminology 32:387-414.
Schoeman, M. 2003. A classification system and an inter-disciplinary action plan for the prevention and management of
recidivism. Unpublished Thesis. DPhil (Social Work). University of Pretoria.
Seligman, M.E.P., Walker, E.F., and Rosenhan, D.L. Abnormal Psychology. 2001. (4th ed.) New York: W.W. Norton and Company,
Inc.
Simons, R.L. and Burt, C.H. 2011. Learning to Be Bad: Adverse Social Conditions, Social Schemas, and Crime. Criminology, May 1:
49(2):553-598.
Simourd, D.J. 2004. Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among longterm incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice
and Behaviour, 31(3):306-323.
Sykes, G.M. and Matza, D. 1957. Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review, December
22(6):664-670. Available online at http://www.jstor.org.
Walters, G.D. and White, T. W. 1990. The Thinking Criminal: A Cognitive Model of Lifestyle Criminality. In Women Lawyers
Journal, No. 2: Winter.
Wright, J.H. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: Basic Principles and Recent Advances. Spring. American Psychiatric Association. Focus
4: 173-178.
Yancy, M.G. 2005. Exploring Cognitive-Interpersonal Pathways to Adolescent psychological Disturbance. Unpublished
Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy. University of Texas at Austin: ProQuest Information and learning Company.
Yochelson, S. and Samenow, S. 1984. Inside the Criminal Mind. Random House.
Young, J. E., Klosko, J., and Weishaar, M. E. 2003. Schema therapy: A practitioners guide. New York: Guilford Press.

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor

Arina Smit and Venessa Padayachee, NICRO

Open Society Foundation for South Africa

3. The thinking behind doing (crime)

4. How schemas work

Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas

Table 3: Cognitive distortion

Table 4: Coping responses

Table 5: Child modes

Table 6: Maladaptive coping modes

Table 7: Dysfunctional parent modes

Table 8: Profile of participants

2 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 3

cannot all be evaluated using recidivism as a measure of effectiveness. In addition, a lack

4 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 5

The Thinking behind Doing (Crime)

6 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Table 1: Profile of Participants

To explain crime as a large scale social

Conflict, strain, control, feminist

To account for geographical variations in

Ecological, differential opportunity

To understand the roles of socialisation

Sub cultural delinquency,

To analyse and account for patterns and

To examine intra-individual factors such

Neutralisation, psychological control,

A good example of such integration is Andrews Personal, Interpersonal and Community

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 7

3.1 Cognitive schemas and core beliefs

8 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 9

3.2 Early maladaptive schemas

10 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 11

Disconnection and Rejection

Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas

12 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Impaired Autonomy and Performance

Vulnerability to Harm or Illness

Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas (Continued)

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 13

Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas (Continued)

14 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Over-Vigilance and Inhibition

Unrelenting Standards/Hyper Criticalness

Table 2: Schema domains and related schemas (Continued)

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 15

16 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

How Schemas Work

4.1 Schema perpetuation

4.1.1 Cognitive Distortions and Self-Defeating Behaviour

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 17

4.1.2 Schema Coping Styles, Modes and Responses

18 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Criminal Cognition As A Risk Factor For Recidivism | 19

4.1.2.2 Coping Responses

In Youngs opinion a dysfunctional schema mode is activated when certain maladaptive

20 | criminal justice initiative occasional paper 14

Common Associated Schemas