Criminal Self-Efficacy

Brezina, Timothy; Topalli, Volkan

doi:10.1177/0093854812438345

Cited by 93 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Persistent offenders typically see themselves as "successful" at crime. In fact, 80% of participants interviewed in a study conducted by Brezina and Topalli (2012) reported that they were "highly effective at crime", despite high numbers of arrests, convictions, and prison sentences. Respondents explained their positive self-judgments as having learned from prior mistakes; that is, they refined their methods and tactics and, in their view, became more effective.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offending: Drug-related expertise and decision making

Casey

2015

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offending: Drug-related expertise and decision making

Casey

2015

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While understanding the prevalence and dynamics of self-reported dependency is important for improving equity in the criminal justice system, whether an offender self-identifies as drug dependent is also important for another reason. Identity has been shown to be a powerful mediator of antisocial behaviour, including the persistence of both criminal (Asencio, 2013;Asencio & Burke, 2011;Brezina & Topalli, 2012;Little, 1990;Rocque et al, 2016;Veysey & Rivera, 2017) and drug use behaviours separately (Dahl, 2015;Dingle et al, 2015;Mackinem & Higgins, 2008;McIntosh & McKeganey, 2001;Neale et al, 2011;Shinebourne & Smith, 2009;Vryan, Adler, & Adler, 2003), as well as the correlation between the two (DeLisi, Angton, Behnken, & Kusow, 2015;Dingle et al, 2015;Erikson, 1968;Everitt & Robbins, 2016;Howard, 2000;Mackinem & Higgins, 2008;McIntosh & McKeganey, 2001). Criminologists, for example, have long focussed on the principles of interactionism and the evolution of antisocial identities as an explanation for both criminal persistence (H Becker, 1953;HS Becker, 1963;Erikson, 1968;Lemert, 1951;Mead, 1934) and desistance (Hammersley, 2011;Maruna, Lebel, Mitchell, & Naples, 2004;Paternoster, Bachman, Bushway, Kerrison, & O'Connell, 2015;Paternoster & Bushway, 2009;Rocque, Posick, & Paternoster, 2016;Veysey & Rivera, 2017).…”

Section: Identity and Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

What factors predict the self-identification of drug dependency among criminal justice populations? Prevalence, correlates, and implications for the criminal justice system

Langfield¹,

Payne²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The drug-crime nexus has long received international interest from both drug-crime scholars and public policy experts worldwide. While there is little disagreement that more frequent drug use is linked to higher rates of crime the causal underpinnings of this relationship remain hotly contested. One area of increasing interest among criminological, social, and psychological scholars alike is the confounding influence and power of 'identity' in shaping the long-term behavioural trajectories of both drug use and crime. In this study, we explore the prevalence with which recent drug using police detainees self-identify as drug dependent and, using logistic regression, we model self-identification as a function of one's demographic, and drug use profile. We find that, after controlling for type, frequency, and longevity of drug use, being female and younger is associated with an increased odds of self-identifying as drug dependent. Further, we find that despite using drugs at the same frequency and for the same length of time, heroin and other opiate users are the most likely to self-identify. To end, the potential implications of these results are discussed, and future research avenues are explored.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, some individuals are more likely than others to believe that the strains they experience are uncontrollable through legal channels, as indicated by the research on self‐efficacy, mastery, and locus of control (e.g., Bandura, ; Gecas, ; Mirowsky and Ross, ). Individuals also differ in the belief that the strains they experience are controllable through crime, as indicated by the research on criminal self‐efficacy (Brezina and Topalli, ). It should be noted that beliefs in these areas tend to reinforce one another.…”

Section: Nature Of Crime Resistance and Susceptibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measures should focus specifically on the perceived ability to cope legally with criminogenic strains and opportunities in various life domains (Agnew, : 96–8). Also, as suggested, it is critical to distinguish conventional from criminal efficacy and support, with criminal efficacy and support increasing crime (Brezina and Topalli, ; Cullen, ).…”

Section: Key Variables In the Theory Of Crime Resistance And Susceptimentioning

confidence: 99%

A Theory of Crime Resistance and Susceptibility*

Agnew

2016

Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "causes of crime" research has up to this point focused on those events and conditions that push or pressure individuals into crime (strains), that pull or attract individuals to crime (social learning for crime), and that restrain individuals from responding to pressures and attractions with crime (controls). Work in several areas, however, has suggested that the response to the pressures for and attractions to crime is not simply a function of controls. It is also a function of the individual's resistance or susceptibility to the events and conditions described by strain and social learning theories. Those high in resistance are less likely to experience these criminogenic events and conditions as pressures for or attractions to crime, whereas those high in susceptibility are more likely. Resistance and susceptibility are a function of factors that influence the perception and interpretation of criminogenic events and conditions, the emotional reaction to them, and the behavioral inclinations prompted by them. These factors include negativity, pleasure and sensation seeking, conventional efficacy and perceived social support, and general sensitivity to the environment. With certain notable exceptions, these factors have been neglected in mainstream crime research, but they have the potential to improve the explanation and prediction of crime substantially.Three major theoretical perspectives dominate criminology (Agnew, 2005;Hirschi, 1969;Kornhauser, 1978). 1) Strain theories focus on those strains or stressors that push or pressure individuals into crime. Strains such as economic problems and discrimination contribute to a range of negative emotions, creating pressure for corrective action-with crime being one method of coping (Agnew, 2006). 2) Social learning theories focus on those factors that pull or attract individuals to crime. Individuals view crime as an attractive option because their prior crime has been reinforced, they have been exposed to models whose crime has been reinforced, and they have been taught beliefs favorable to crime (Akers, 2009). And 3) control theories focus on those factors that restrain individuals from responding to pressures and attractions with crime. These restraints include formal and informal sanctions, bonds to conventional others, investments in conventional institutions, the belief that crime is wrong, and self-control (Agnew and Brezina, 2015;Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990;Hirschi, 1969).

show abstract

Criminal Self-Efficacy

Cited by 93 publications

References 68 publications

Offending: Drug-related expertise and decision making

Offending: Drug-related expertise and decision making

What factors predict the self-identification of drug dependency among criminal justice populations? Prevalence, correlates, and implications for the criminal justice system

A Theory of Crime Resistance and Susceptibility*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About