Study On Affective Decision-making And Personality Characteristics In Criminals

BackgroundAffective decision-making is a kind of advanced social cognitive ability, getting a lot of attention by psychology, neuroscience, and social scientists. There were many foreign related research on affective decision-making, focusing on three aspects of the problem: rational, behavioral decision theory model and approaches of studying prisoners’behavior decision-making. But for now, affective decision-making researches about criminal is very rare m our country.Objectives1. To explore and analyze the affective decision-making in criminal.2. To explore and analyze the personality characteristics in criminal.3.To explore whether the personality characteristics can predict the affective decision-making in criminal.MethodsA prison in HeNan province was choosed as the objects of cluster, the method of random sampling was used. In total,49criminal were tested. The criminal’s average age was44.37±10.15, the degree of education was10.88±2.68. Selecting20persons as a control group, the average age was42.84±8.01, the degree of education was11.36±2.98. In this study, we used the Iowa gambling task (IGT) to test the affective decision-making of the criminal and the control group, a2x4mix design. We also used the EPQ scale to test the personality factor of these two groups. Results1. On the choice of four cards (A, K, L, S), using the repeated measurements analysis of variance:3(violent criminal, economic criminal and control group)×4(A, K, L, S), found that significant main effect of Cards, F(3,66)=6.593,P<0.001; significant interaction between cards and group, F(6,66)=2.74, P=0.014. FK(2,66)=1.25, P=0.29. Simple effect analysis found that the control group choose the "L" more than the criminal significantly, FL(2,66)=3.23, P=0.046; The control group choose the "S" less than the criminal significantly, Fs(2,66)=4.05, P=0.02.2. On the choice of advantageous cards and disadvantageous cards, using the repeated measurements analysis of variance:3(violent criminal, economic criminal and control group) x2(advantageous cards, disadvantageous cards), found that no significant main effect of cards F(1,66)=0.79, P=0.37;Significant interaction between cards and group, F(6,66)=2.74, P=0.014. Simple effect analysis found that on the choice of advantageous cards, the healthy control was significantly higher than the criminal F advantageous cards (2,66)=5.62, P=0.006; On the choice of disadvantageous cards, Criminal group is significantly higher than the healthy control F disadvantageous cards (2,66)=5.62, P=0.006.3. On the choice of high frequency punishment cards and low frequency punishment cards, using the repeated measurements analysis of variance:3(violent criminal, economic criminal and control group)×2(low frequency punishment cards, high frequency punishment cards), found significant main effect of cards, F(1,66)=16.69, P<0.001; No significant interaction between cards and group, F (2,66)=0.096, P=0.909. Simple effect analysis found that the three groups of participants were similarly more easier to chose the low-frequency punishment cards than the high-frequency punishment card.4. Analyse the score of overall IGT performance, the economic criminal’s score is-11.26, the violent criminal’s score is-15.80, the control group’s score is15.90. Using the single factor of variance to compare the scores of those three groups. The results show that significant difference between groups, F (2,66)=5.62, P=0.006, Simple effect analysis found that the control group was significantly higher than the criminal.5. Analyse the score of EPQ, using the single factor analysis of variance,found a significant difference between groups in E score, F(2,66)=5.304,.P=0.007; Simple effect analysis found that economic criminals was significantly higher than violent criminal, P=0.039, and control group was significantly higher than violent criminal, P=0.003. This analysis also found a significant difference between groups in N score, F(2,66)=4.805,P=0.011;Simple effect analysis revealed that violent criminal was significantly higher than control group, P=0.003.Conclusions1. Comparing with the control group, the criminal have some difficulty in affective decision-making, their attention is easier to focus on the highly instant rewards "S" while ignoring the long-term interests when facing choices.2.The results also showed that the criminals is easier to chose the low frequency punishment card similarly with the control group, which confirmed that the criminal had the normal sensitivity to punishment.3.The violent criminal have a more introverted character, more sensitive suspicious and easier than the control group and the economic criminals.4. Personality can’t predict a person’s affective decision-making ability.