Social control of childhood stealing in a public school: a case study

Luiselli, James K.; Pine, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/s0005-7916(99)00023-3

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Levy (1934), Menaker (1939), Tiebout (1930) and Tiebout and Kirkpatrick (1939) approached theft from a psychoanalytic standpoint while Henderson (1981), Luiselli and Pine (1999), Stumphauzer (1976) and Wetzel (1966) used behavioral techniques in an attempt to find ways to reduce it in specific cases, achieving encouraging results. Much research has also been done and several models have been developed on theft and, in general, on antiproductive work behavior, taking into account different personality characteristics (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007;Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002;Spector, 2011;Spector & Fox, 2005); to date, few studies have investigated the predictive power of the affective dimension (e.g., shallow affect, callousness, and lack of empathy/remorse) and the interpersonal dimension (e.g., grandiosity, lying) of psychopathy on future criminal behavior and, in particular, on theft (Kahn, Byrd, & Pardini, 2013;Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychopathy as a Predictor Variable of The Disposition to Steal

Cadena¹,

Valle²,

Daniel³

et al. 2017

Rev. iberoam. psicol. salud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychopathy as a Predictor Variable of The Disposition to Steal

Cadena¹,

Valle²,

Daniel³

et al. 2017

Rev. iberoam. psicol. salud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some studies had five or fewer episodes of the target behavior during baseline (e.g., Cho & Blair, 2017) or low percentages of intervals, with one average baseline level being 6% (Dejager & Filter, 2015). Three studies had Y axis numbers of 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3 for episodes of the dependent variable during one minute observations (e.g., Christensen et al, 2012;Haydon, 2012;Luiselli & Pine, 1999). It is difficult to interpret a 0.5 disruptive behavior.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness and Social Validity of FBAs for Youth At-Risk or With High Incidence Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

Maag¹

2019

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examined the effectiveness and social validity of 44 functional behavioral assessment (FBA) studies using single case research designs (SCRDs) conducted with youth displaying challenging behaviors or had high incidence disabilities. Three effect sizes were calculated: standard mean difference (SMD), Tau-U, and improvement rate difference (IRD). Fisher’s conservative dual criterion (CDC), which is a statistical aid to visual analysis, was also applied. Social validity was assessed by using indicators described by Kazdin (2010). Effect sizes were in ranges indicating moderate to large effects. Approximately 71% of AB contrasts reflected CDC systematic change. However, only 44% of studies assessed social validity. There were no significant differences in effectiveness of interventions whether or not a functional analysis was conducted nor whether the controlling function was escape or attention. Results are discussed in terms of FBA implementation issues related to social validity and the necessity for conducting a functional analysis for these youth.

show abstract

“…Social reinforcement is also suggested by reports of stealing with peer accomplices, reporting thefts to peers, and distributing stolen items to peers (Brooks & Snow, 1972; Buckle & Farrington, 1984; Miller & Klungness, 1989). Some authors have also implicated posttheft admonishments and counseling sessions (Luiselli & Pine, 1999; Stumphauzer, 1976; Wetzel, 1966). However, the extant literature offers little empirical backing for social positive reinforcement functions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Stealing Inventory: A preliminary investigation.

McCord¹,

Dixon²,

Ringdahl³

et al. 2022

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stealing that is not limited to food is often a low-rate, clandestine response (Azrin & Wesolowski, 1974; Henderson, 1981; Seymour & Epston, 1989) precluding unstructured direct observation. Therefore, a possible role for indirect assessment emerges. We examined the reliability of a new indirect assessment tool (The Stealing Inventory [TSI]), which included questions oriented toward likely stealing functions. A preliminary examination of the extent to which outcomes from the TSI would predict responding during functional analysis (FA) probes was also completed. For 42 cases, overall tool reliability was 85% and exact outcome agreement or agreement with a tie between functional categories occurred for 90.5% of cases. Four of six participants stole during one of their respective FA probes, and suggested functions matched the respective TSI outcomes for each case.

show abstract

Social control of childhood stealing in a public school: a case study

Cited by 4 publications

References 10 publications

Psychopathy as a Predictor Variable of The Disposition to Steal

Psychopathy as a Predictor Variable of The Disposition to Steal

Effectiveness and Social Validity of FBAs for Youth At-Risk or With High Incidence Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

The Stealing Inventory: A preliminary investigation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About