Cited by 26Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCrime Patterns and InterventionsChild and Animal Learning Development

Deficits in theory of mind, empathic understanding and moral reasoning: a comparison between young offenders and non-offenders

Spenser, Karin A., Betts, Lucy R., Das Gupta, Mani·2015·Psychology, Crime & Law

Abstract

Previous research suggests a lack of pro-social skills is characteristic of an antisocial or offending personality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an inadequate understanding of another's mental state may contribute to antisocial or offending behaviour. Forty-six young-adult male offenders and a control completed measures to assess: Theory of Mind (ToM), empathic understanding (EU) and moral reasoning. Significant differences in the performance of young-adult offenders and the control group were detected in ToM, EU and moral reasoning with young-adult offenders scoring lower than the control group. A positive association was also found between ToM, EU and moral reasoning. These findings contribute to a further understanding of how individuals make sense of, and respond to, the social world around them. The ability to measure ToM, EU and moral reasoning and subsequently identify any specific deficits, as well as recognise the link between these three key skills, is not only useful for researchers but it will also allow practitioners to tailor existing (or develop new) interventions specific to the needs of an individual. This could be particularly useful in terms of recidivism when applied to those involved in antisocial or offending behaviour.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1068316x.2015.1028542

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spenser, K. A., Betts, L. R., & Das Gupta, M.
Affiliations
  • Nottingham Trent University (GB)
  • ,
Corresponding author
Spenser, Karin A.
Venue
Psychology, Crime & Law
Published
2015-04-09
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
632-647
ISSN
  • 1068-316X (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-2744
OpenAlex
W2082702761
Cited by
26
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychology Crime and Law (publishedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Derby Online Research Archive. (University of Derby) (submittedVersion)
  • Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
theory of mind, empathic understanding, moral reasoning, juvenile offenders, antisocial behavior, prosocial skills, recidivism, social cognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review