Funding by a grant to Texas Christian University (R01DA025885, W.E.K. Lehman, Principal Investigator) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health (NIDA/NIH). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency.

CRIMINAL THINKING ANDWAYSAFE

Aaron Cherry, M.S.

INSTITUTE OF BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION• Treatment components such as

Engagement are related both to positive treatment outcomes as well as WaySafe performance

• Criminal Thinking has a negative relationship to important treatment components

• The current study evaluated the relationship of Criminal Thinking with performance in the WaySafe intervention

CRIMINAL THINKING

Cognitions and attitudes related to the initiation and maintenance of criminal

behavior

Justification Criminal Rationalization

Personal Irresponsibility

Entitlement

Power Orientation Cold Heartedness

Cognitive Distortions

Criminal Attitudes

TREATMENT COMPONENTS INFLUENCED BY CRIMINAL THINKING

Treatment Engagement refers to an individual’s active involvement in the treatment process measured by program participation and therapeutic alliances.

Engagement Scales• Treatment

Participation• Treatment

Satisfaction• Counselor Rapport• Peer Support

(-)

CURRENT STUDY

Criminal Thinking

Waysafe Performa

nce

Treatment Engagem

ent

(-)

(+)

We hypothesized that Criminal Thinking would have a negative relationship with WaySafe Performance, but that these influences would be mediated by Treatment Engagement

STUDY MEASURES

•WaySafe performance HIV Knowledge Confidence Avoiding Risky Sex Avoiding Risky Drug Use HIV Testing Awareness Risk Reduction Skills

•Criminal Thinking– Composite measure (alpha = .80)

• Treatment Engagement – Composite measure (alpha = .88)

CRIMINAL THINKING’S RELATIONSHIP TO WAYSAFE PERFORMANCE

Criminal Thinking

HIV Knowledg

e Confidenc

e

Treatment Engagem

ent

HIV Knowledge Confidence

Path C

-.173***

Path A

-.339***

Path B .200

***

Path C’ -.130**

p < .05* p < .01** p < .001***Note: Sobel test indicated significant mediation

CRIMINAL THINKING’S RELATIONSHIP TO WAYSAFE PERFORMANCE

Criminal Thinking

Avoiding Risky Sex

Treatment Engagem

ent

Avoiding Risky Sex

Path C

-.127***

Path A

-.339***

Path B .209

***

Path C’ -.057

p < .05* p < .01** p < .001***Note: Sobel test indicated significant mediation

CRIMINAL THINKING’S RELATIONSHIP TO WAYSAFE PERFORMANCE

Criminal Thinking

Avoiding Risky

Drug Use

Treatment Engagem

ent

Avoiding Risky Drug Use

Path C

-.130***

Path A

-.339***

Path B .104

**

Path C’ -.095*

p < .05* p < .01** p < .001***Note: Sobel test indicated significant mediation

CRIMINAL THINKING’S RELATIONSHIP TO WAYSAFE PERFORMANCE

Criminal Thinking

HIV Testing

Awareness

Treatment Engagem

ent

HIV Testing Awareness

Path C

-.093**

Path A

-.339***

Path B .123

***

Path C’ -.061

p < .05* p < .01** p < .001***Note: Sobel test indicated significant mediation

CRIMINAL THINKING’S RELATIONSHIP TO WAYSAFE PERFORMANCE

Criminal Thinking

Risk Reduction

Skills

Treatment Engagem

ent

Risk Reduction Skills

Path C

-.125***

Path A

-.339***

Path B .168

***

Path C’ -.075*

p < .05* p < .01** p < .001***Note: Sobel test indicated significant mediation

CONCLUSIONIndividuals higher in engagement performed better in

the WaySafe intervention.

Criminal Thinking was negatively related to WaySafe performance. This relationship was mediated partially or fully by treatment engagement.

Reducing Criminal Thinking appears to be important for a variety of treatment processes including the WaySafe Intervention.

Although women tended to score lower in Criminal Thinking, there were no gender differences in the strength or direction of the relationship between Criminal Thinking and WaySafe performance.

Future research should evaluate which Criminal Thinking dimensions are most amenable to change in order to reduce its negative influence on interventions such as WaySafe.