Elsevier

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Volume 20, January–February 2015, Pages 82-91
Aggression and Violent Behavior

Offending: Drug-related expertise and decision making

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.12.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Drug use is endemic within offender populations and, as a result, considerable heterogeneity can be found in drug-related crime. Expertise in drug-related offending covers an equally broad base from internal mental processes through skill acquisition to social interactions. This review considers decision making and expertise for crimes in the domains of direct causal effects (e.g., burglary) and non-causal relationships (e.g., apprehension avoidance, detection). Also considered is the notion of expertise as it applies to addiction, in particular the conscious and unconscious goal-directed behaviors articulated in the Selfish Goal model (Huang & Bargh, 2014) and a cool cognition/hot affect dual processing model of criminal decision making (Van Gelder, 2013). The review findings would suggest (a) the need for more focused research into whether expertise differs as a function of drug use and (b) a paradigm shift in terms of treatment for drug-using offenders.

Introduction

The pervasive link between drug use and crime has been well-documented in jurisdictions across the US, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (e.g., Bradford and Payne, 2012, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2012, Glaze and Herberman, 2013, Löbmann and Verthein, 2008, McSweeney et al., 2007, Mitchell et al., 2006, Motiuk et al., 2005, Mumola and Karberg, 2008, Neale et al., 2005, Ramsay et al., 2005). Etiological explanations for this link, including the types of drugs and crimes involved, fall into three categories: direct effects whereby one variable causes the other (i.e., drug-use-causes-crime or crime-causes-drug-use), indirect effects (i.e., drug use and crime are both caused by other variables), and non-causal or spurious relationships (i.e., a general association between crime, drug use and other problem behaviors). Until recently, attempts to qualify the strength of the drug–crime connection has produced conflicting results (e.g., Chaiken and Chaiken, 1990, Gandossy et al., 1980, Hough, 1996) although a recent meta-analysis by Bennett, Holloway, and Farrington (2008) not only provided support for a direct causal link but also revealed (a) the strength of the relationship differed as a function of drug type and (b) that specific drugs were associated with the commission of different types of offenses. There is, however, greater heterogeneity in drug-related crime than that described in Bennett et al.'s (2008) study. For example, direct effects theories also include a psychopharmacological explanation that posits drug intoxication results in impaired judgment which, in turn, leads to crime (Goode, 1997) and the notion that criminals use drugs to celebrate the successful commission of an offense (Menard, Mihalic, & Huizinga, 2001). Common-cause theories, on the other hand, highlight a range of psychological, sociological, and environmental factors as third-party variables. One such theory is that proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) who have argued that both drug use and crime are caused by low self-control. Finally, systemic or non-causal explanations include lifestyle accounts whereby drug use and crime are seen as intrinsic elements of a broader deviant lifestyle (Goldstein, 1985, Goode, 1997).

Etiological theories not only highlight the diverse range of crimes in which drugs are implicated but also the potential for different levels of expertise across and within crime genres. Unfortunately, recent empirical research focusing exclusively on expertise in drug-using offenders is lacking and a comprehensive review of the literature failed to identify any studies that examined expertise in offenders whose primary goal was to commit income-generating crime to finance an addiction. This is somewhat surprising given the involvement of drug-addicted offenders in economically-compulsive crimes such as shoplifting, theft, robbery, and burglary (see Bennett et al., 2008). The typical offending pattern here is one of repeat acquisitive crime and, in some cases, the commission of multiple crimes in quick succession in order to build a temporary “financial surplus” and extend the period between offenses (Hochstetler, 2002). That said, drug use has been identified as one of several outcomes in some studies investigating decisions to commit robbery (e.g., Jacobs & Miller, 1998) while in Clare's (2011) comparison of the perceptual and procedural skills of expert and novice burglars, drug use was found to be highly prevalent within the sample. By comparison, more attention has been paid to the role of decision making in the realm of systemic crime, in particular effective apprehension avoidance techniques (Jacobs, 1996a; Jacobs & Miller, 1998), differentiating police officers from drug clients (Jacobs, 1996b), managing retaliation (Jacobs, Topalli, & Wright, 2000), and drug smuggling (Che & Benson, 2014).

Another limitation in the research from a criminal expertise perspective is the lack of attention paid to the antecedent crime: drug use, particularly when use is associated with addiction. Cognitive processes such as automaticity, attentional bias, and implicit memory – identified as key factors in, for example, burglary expertise (e.g., Lewandowsky, Little, & Kalish, 2007; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006) – are strongly implicated in the addiction process (e.g., Baker et al., 2004, Robinson and Berridge, 2003, Waters et al., 2012). An obvious analogy is Ward & Hudson's (2000) implicit theory of sexual offending given the key elements of addictive behavior (Tiffany, 1990), self-regulation (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996), and script theory (Anderson, 1995) that underpin their model. Other factors with the potential to impact on automaticity which might also play a role in drug-related crimes with addicted offenders include affect (see Van Gelder, 2013) and the recently formulated selfish goal model (Huang & Bargh, 2014). The latter describes how inconsistencies in judgment and behavior can be understood in terms of competing conscious and unconscious goal influences.

In view of the issues raised above, the primary goals of this paper are threefold. First, decision making research conducted in the domains of direct causal effects (burglary) and non-causal relationships (apprehension avoidance, detection) will be reviewed in the context of criminal expertise and rational decision making (e.g., Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Second, expertise will be considered from the perspective of addiction and how this relates to the crime of illegal drug use with a focus on how constructs known to facilitate functional expertise (e.g., automaticity) might also be implicated in the development of dysfunctional expertise. The review will conclude with a consideration of how this body of research might inform behavior change in the field of drug-related crime and drug rehabilitation. An important frame of reference here is that of criminal expertise, which will be examined from the perspective articulated by Nee and Ward (2015--in this issue). In drawing together different strands of research, they have proposed a definition of functional expertise whereby lower level skills are a function of automatic or unintentional appraisals of the environment (Step 1) and superior automatic recognition of offense-related environmental cues (Step 2). With practice, complex cognitive schema are activated (Step 3) which then provide access to exemplars and heuristics that guide rapid responses, in the form of previously successful behavioral scripts, and relatively automatic criminal behavior (Step 4). Nee and Ward hypothesize that, depending on task complexity and the individual undertaking that task, there is the possibility that behavior may become more conscious (and thus more controllable) between steps 3 and 4. Prior to reviewing criminal expertise as it relates to causal crime links and addiction, a useful starting point is to briefly reflect on several factors that, while beyond the scope of this paper, warrant further investigation within the broader scope of understanding criminal expertise in the field of drug-related crime.

Section snippets

Specialization and criminal expertise

It is generally accepted that offenders display considerable diversity across the life course and, as such, cannot be categorized into mutually exclusive taxonomic groups (e.g., Brame et al., 2004, Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990, Lussier et al., 2005, Piquiro et al., 2003). Despite the substantial literature base to support this claim, there is empirical evidence for specialization, particularly in the short-term (e.g., Armstrong, 2008, McGloin et al., 2007, Shover, 1996, Sullivan et al., 2006).

Expertise and drug-related crime

One of the most cited bodies of research investigating offender decision-making, and by extension expertise, in drug-related systemic crime is that undertaken by Jacobs, 1996a, Jacobs, 1996b and Jacobs and Miller (1998) which focused primarily on the methods used by crack cocaine dealers to handle drugs, drug buyers, and the environments in which drug dealing occurred as a means of minimizing police surveillance and decreasing apprehension risk. Undertaken in the US, the studies involved male

Addiction and expert decision making

Although the consumption of illicit drugs is perhaps the most simplistic example of a direct causal link between drug use and crime, much less attention is paid – in the correctional context at least – to the underlying decision to initiate drug use as compared, for example, to motivating an offender to change his or her drug-using behavior. This is reflected in the content of many prison-based group treatment programs which typically focus on issues such as understanding the link between

Affect and decision making

Affect is often treated as separate from cognition but is, as Ward and Nee (2009, p. 173) point out, “central to and inextricable from” the offender's decision-making processes. Implicated in the commission of violent and sexual offenses (e.g., Ariely and Loewenstein, 2006, Davey et al., 2005, Howells and Day, 2006), drug-related offending also falls into the category of crimes where the perpetrator is likely to experience intensive feelings (e.g., as a result of craving or withdrawal) or

Conclusion

What does the preceding review say about expertise and drug-related crime? At the broadest level, it suggests a somewhat neglected area of research that warrants further investigation. Drug-related crime is a diverse area that incorporates many of the offenders and offenses covered in this special edition. Offenders who use drugs break into houses (Nee, 2015--in this issue), commit arson (Butler & Gannon, 2015--in this issue), molest children (Fortune et al., 2015--in this issue), engage in

References (129)

  • P. Lussier et al.

    The generality of criminal behavior: A confirmatory factor analysis of the criminal activity of sex offenders in adulthood

    Journal of Criminal Justice

    (2005)
  • C.N. Macrae et al.

    On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • C. Nee

    Understanding expertise in burglars: From pre-conscious scanning to action and beyond

    Aggression and Violent Behavior

    (2015)
  • C. Nee et al.

    Review of expertise and its general implications for correctional psychology and criminology

    Aggression and Violent Behavior

    (2015)
  • C. O'Ciardha

    Experts in rape: Evaluating the evidence for a novice-to-expert continuum in the offense behavior and cognition of sexual offenders

    Aggression and Violent Behavior

    (2015)
  • T.J. Ornstein et al.

    Profiles of cognitive dysfunction in chronic amphetamine and heroin abusers

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2000)
  • R.F. Abelson

    Psychological status of the script concept

    American Psychologist

    (1981)
  • J.A. Adams

    Historical review and appraisal of research on the learning, retention, and transfer of human motor skills

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1987)
  • J.R. Anderson

    Cognitive psychology and its implications

    (1995)
  • D.A. Andrews et al.

    The psychology of criminal conduct

    (2010)
  • D. Ariely et al.

    The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

    (2006)
  • T.A. Armstrong

    Are trends in specialization across arrests explained by changes in specialization occurring with age?

    Justice Quarterly

    (2008)
  • A.D. Baddeley

    Working memory: Looking back and looking forward

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience

    (2003)
  • T. Baker et al.

    What are the odds? Predicting specialization in offending over the life course

    Criminal Justice & Behavior

    (2013)
  • T.B. Baker et al.

    Addiction motivation reformulated: An affective processing model of negative reinforcement

    Psychological Review

    (2004)
  • T.T. Baldwin et al.

    Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research

    Personnel Psychology

    (1988)
  • A. Bandura

    Self-efficacy: The exercise of control

    (1997)
  • A. Bandura

    Toward a psychology of human agency

    Perspectives on Psychological Science

    (2006)
  • J.A. Bargh

    The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention, and control in social cognition

  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    Beyond behaviorism: The automaticity of higher mental processes

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2000)
  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    The automated will: Unconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • J.A. Bargh et al.

    The selfish goal: Unintended consequences of intended goal pursuits

    Social Cognition

    (2008)
  • S.M. Barnet et al.

    When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for transfer

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2002)
  • R.F. Baumeister et al.

    Self-regulation failure: An overview

    Psychological Inquiry

    (1996)
  • D. Bradford et al.

    Illicit drug use and property offending among police detainees

    Crime and Justice Bulletin, No. 157

    (2012)
  • R. Brame et al.

    Criminal offending frequency and offense switching

    Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

    (2004)
  • T. Brezina et al.

    Criminal self-efficacy: Exploring the correlates and consequences of a “successful criminal” identity

    Criminal Justice & Behavior

    (2012)
  • J. Carroll et al.

    Shoplifter's perceptions of crime opportunities: A process-tracing study

  • S. Casey et al.

    Prison substance misuse programs and offender rehabilitation

    Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

    (2014)
  • J.M. Chaiken et al.

    Drugs and predatory crime

  • S. Chaiken et al.

    Dual-process theories in social psychology

    (1999)
  • M. Chi

    Two approaches to the study of experts' characteristics

  • Y. Che et al.

    Drug trafficking wars: Enforcement versus smugglers and smugglers versus smugglers

    Journal of Drug Issues

    (2014)
  • A.K. Cho et al.

    Relevance of pharmacokinetic parameters in animal models of methamphetamine abuse

    Synapse

    (2001)
  • J. Clare

    Examination of systematic variations in burglars' domain-specific perceptual and procedural skills

    Psychology, Crime & Law

    (2011)
  • R.V. Clarke

    Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods

    (1999)
  • D.B. Cornish

    The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention

  • D.B. Cornish et al.

    The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending

    (1986)
  • European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

    Prisons and drugs in Europe: The problem and responses

  • J.St.B.T. Evans

    Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition

    Annual Review of Psychology

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text