A Study on the Differences of Risk Factors of Recidivism Classified by Offense Types of Juvenile Delinquents -Using Risk Assessment Tool and Personality Assessment Inventory-

이남희; 이봉건

doi:10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.2.007

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

Log In/Sign Up
P-ISSN1229-0653
KCI

Home

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Prev Next

e-Submission

Vol.23 No.2

Citation Share

A Study on the Differences of Risk Factors of Recidivism Classified by Offense Types of Juvenile Delinquents -Using Risk Assessment Tool and Personality Assessment Inventory-

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;

2009, v.23 no.2, pp.127-140

https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.2.007

& (2009). A Study on the Differences of Risk Factors of Recidivism Classified by Offense Types of Juvenile Delinquents -Using Risk Assessment Tool and Personality Assessment Inventory-. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 23(2), 127-140, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2009.23.2.007

copy

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to classify the offense types of juvenile delinquents, compare the scores of the risk assessment tool and PAI among these types, and find the recidivism risk factors. First, 333 incipient juvenile criminals who had committed crime in the areas of Chungbuk and Daejeon were categorized into thief/violence/blackmailing group (the offense type) and the scores of th risk assessment tool and PAI were compared among the offense types. The results showed the significant differences among the offense types on the scores of the risk assessment tool, such as family functioning risk factor, school risk factor, delinquent risk factor, away-from-home risk factor, and personal risk factor. PAI scores among the offense types showed the significant differences on PIM (Positive Impression Management) of the validity scales, and AGG (Aggression), SUI (Suicide Ideation), ANX-C (Anxiety-Cognitive), ARD-T (Traumatic Stress), MAN-A (Activity Level), PAR-P (Persecution), and ANT-E (Egocentricity) of the treatment scales. It suggests that the risk factors and the personality traits among the offense types are distinguishable. Secondly, the juvenile recidivists among those who had been booked on the first offense were followed up to find out the relevant recidivism risk factors among the offense types. In case of thief offense group, delinquency-promoting factors, such as delinquent risk factors and away-from-home risk factors and predictor variables, in PAI, were ANX (Anxiety), SUI (Suicide Ideation), ANX-A (Anxiety-Affective), and PAR-P (Persecution). There were delinquency-enhancing factors, such as family structure risk factors, family history risk factors, school risk factors, and delinquent risk factors in case of violence group and predictor variables, in PAI scales, were DOM (Dominance), DEP-A (Depression-Affective), and PAR-P (Persecution). In case of blackmailing group, delinquent risk factors were predictor variables, in PAI, were INF (Infrequency), MAN (Mania), ANT (Antisocial Features), ANT-A (Antisocial Behaviors), STR (Stress), ARD-P (Phobias), and AGG-V (Verbal Aggression). These results as above suggest that the risk assessment tool and the PAI would predict the recidivism in juvenile delinquents.

keywords: juvenile delinquents, offense types, risk assessment tool, PAI, recidivism risk, 비행청소년, 범죄유형, 비행촉발요인조사, PAI, 재범위험성

Reference

국정브리핑 (2007). http：//new.naver.com/man/read.nhn? mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=001&oid=078&aid= 0000031032&

김영환, 박은영, 정상문, 홍상황 (2002). 수형의 PAI포르파일과 범법행위 예언지표. 한국심리학회지：임상, 21, 941-954.

김지은 (1998). 청소년의 재비행에 영향을 미치는 요인. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.

김현수, 김현실 (2001). 재범 비행청소년의 예측인자 분석. 신경정신과학, 40(2), 279-291.

박은영, 홍상황, 정상문, 김영한 (2002). 수형자의 PAI프로파일과 범법행위 예언지표. 한국심리학회지：임상, 21, 941-954.

서동혁, 정선주, 손창호, 김원석, 고승회. 함봉진, 조성진. 김영기, 이중재 (2001). 구속된 비행 청소년들의 석방 후 6개월 이내 재범의 예측요인. 신경정신의학회, 40(3), 463-476.

양종국 (2002). 비행청소년의 비행 위험요인 및 보호요인과 재비행간의 관계. 청소년상담연구, 10(2), 101- 121.

유성경, 이소래 (2001). 청소년 비행수준에 따른 위험요소 및 보호요소 분석, 한국심리학회지：상담 및 심리치료, 13, 187-205.

이동원 (2003). 소년범죄자의 재범특성에 관한 고찰：범행의 발전양상과 재범가능성을 중심으로. 형사정책, 15(2), 335-360.

10.

이성식 (1999). 비행친구와 비행과의 관계：통합론적 논의를 중심으로 한국형사정책연구원, 10(2), 193-221.

11.

이수정, 윤옥경 (2003). 범죄위험성의 평가와 활용방안. 한국심리학회지：일반, 19, 68-109.

12.

이수정, 조은경 (2004). 경찰단계에서의 소년범 위험성 평가를 위한 비행촉발요인 조사도구개발. 한국심리학회지：사회 및 성격 19(1), 27-43.

13.

한재숙 (2004). 청소년 재비행의 요인에 관한 연구. 전남대학교 석사학위논문.

14.

홍상황, 박은영, 김영환 (2001). PAI 무선반응과 인상관리의 탐지：타당성 척도의 l분할점수를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지：임상, 20, 165-177.

15.

Butcher, D. A. (2000). Preventing school failure and dropout. In R. J. Simeonsson(Ed.), Resilience, and prevention; Promoting the well-being of all children (pp.103-124). Balitimore, MD：Paul H. Brookes.

16.

Cleckley, J. (1976). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, Missouri; Mosby.

17.

Gacono, C., Meloy, J., Sheppard, K., Septh, E., & Roske, A. (1995). A clinical investigation of malingering and psychopathy in hospitalized insanity aquittees. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 23, 387-397.

18.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A Meta- analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidi- vism, Criminology, 34, 575-607.

19.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. CA; Stanford University Press.

20.

Groom, B. (1999). Handing the triple whammy; Serious mental illness, substance abuse, and criminal behav- ior. Correctious today, 61, 114-119

21.

Guerra, N. (1999). Seious and violent juvenile offenders; Gaps in knowledge and reserch priorities. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington(Eds.), Serious & Violent juvenile Offenders(pp.389-443).

22.

Hear, R. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised. Tonawanda, NY. Multi-Health Systems.

23.

Hoge, R. D., Andrew, D. A., & Leschied, A. W. (1994). Tests of three hypotheses regarding the predictors of delinquency. J Abnorm Child Psychol, 22(5), 547-559.

24.

Howell, J, C. (1998). Guide for implementing the com- prehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Wash- ington DC; US Department of Justice, OJJDP.

25.

Laub, J, H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1993). Violent criminal behavior over the life course; A review of the longitudinal and comparative reserch. Violence and Victims, 8, 235-252.

26.

May, C. (1999). Explaining reconviction following a community sentence; the role of social factors. Home Office Research Study 192, Londen; Home Office.

27.

Meloy, J. R., & Gacono, C. (1995). Assessment Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL; Psychological Assessment Resources.

28.

Morey, L. C., & Quigley, Brian D. (2002). The use of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in assessing offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(3), 333-349.

29.

Wang, E. W., Rogers, R. Giles, C. L., Diamond, P. M., Herrington-Wang, L. E., & Tylor, E. R. (1997). A pilot study of the personality Assessment Inventary (PAI) in corrections：Assessment of malingering, suicide risk, and aggression in male inmates. Behav- ioral Science and the Law, 15, 469-482.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.23 No.2

A Study on the Differences of Risk Factors of Recidivism Classified by Offense Types of Juvenile Delinquents -Using Risk Assessment Tool and Personality Assessment Inventory-

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology