Lifestyle Criminality Research Articles

The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

The development of a 14-item screening instrument designed to identify life-style criminality is discussed. This instrument, which is divided into four primary sections (irresponsibility, self-indulgence, interpersonal intrusiveness, and social rule breaking), is scored on the basis of information commonly found in an individual's presentence investigation report. Cutting scores were derived using a sample of 516 inmates confined in a maximum security federal penitentiary. The instrument was then validated by contrasting a group of 25 penitentiary inmates (hypothesized to contain a large percentage of life-style criminals) with a group of 25 prison camp inmates (hypothesized to contain few life-style criminals). Large differences were noted between these two groups on all four sections, regardless of whether assessed by sections or as a global measure. Even after removing items which may have been considered in originally assigning subjects to a camp or penitentiary, large group differences remained.

Predicting the Disciplinary Adjustment of Maximum and Minimum Security Prison Inmates Using the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

Using a person-environment fit paradigm it was reasoned that the lifestyle criminal adjusts best in environments which are highly structured. In the first of two studies examining this issue, it was determined that the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF), a putative measure of lifestyle criminality, successfully discriminated between disciplinary and nondisciplinary inmates in a less structured situation (minimum security) but not in a more highly structured situation (maximum security). In a second study, successively sampled inmates were organized according to their scores on the LCSF and compared as to the number of disciplinary reports received within a six-month period. Results of this second study revealed that the total LCSF score predicted disciplinary problems in the minimum security facility but not in the maximum security penitentiary. These findings tend to support the validity of the LCSF, as well as the hypothesis that lifestyle criminals may have problems functioning in environments which are less than maximally structured.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Predicting parole/probation outcome with the aid of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form.

Lifestyle Criminality and the Psychology of Disresponsibility

Lifestyle criminality is defined as a life pattern of irresponsible, self-indulgent, interpersonally intrusive, social rule breaking behavior. Disresponsibility is a process in which a person's actions and behavior are attributed to factors other than the person himself. It is argued that disresponsibility has interfered with our ability to understand and manage criminal behavior because it provides the lifestyle criminal with legitimately sounding excuses for his norm-violating actions. Strategies by which we can move from apsychology of disresponsibility to one which emphasizes personal responsibility are discussed.

Comparability of the Standard and Interview Versions of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form

An interview schedule was developed for use with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (LCSF). Results achieved through use of this interview procedure were compared with findings obtained by means of the standard version (i.e., records review) of the LCSF. Subjects were 35 successively sampled maximum security prison inmates in the process of completing an admissions and orientation program as part of their induction into the general inmate population at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth. The standard and interview versions of the LCSF were found to correspond modestly when LCSF diagnosis and several individual items were considered; moderately when the majority of individual items and section scores were examined; and moderately high in the case of one individual item (confining offense), one section score (interpersonal intrusiveness) and the total LCSF score.

Lifestyle criminality from a developmental standpoint

A theory which details the development of lifestyle criminality is discussed. The necessary (but not sufficient) early conditions for the development of later criminality involve improper resolution of three early developmental tasks which confront all children (social attachment, stimulus modulation, self-image). A child predisposed to later criminality by weak social bonding, a high need for excitement, and a negative self-image is made even more vulnerable when exposed to such additional influences as low verbal intelligence, a chaotic home environment, or antisocial peers. Despite the importance of these variables, however, it is the lifestyle choices one makes which determine later criminality.