Introduction
Crime and delinquency constitute a significant challenge in Latin America and the Caribbean. Unfortunately, the region has established itself as one of the most globally impacted by these phenomena, with rates persistently increasing. In Colombia, various types of offenses and crimes are documented, with homicide, theft, sexual abuse, and the manufacture, possession, or trafficking of narcotics being among the most recurrent. These acts are predominantly committed by men. Socioeconomic conditions in the country play a crucial role in this issue, directly and indirectly influencing the propensity for criminal behavior. Inequality, unemployment, and poverty can contribute to engagement in illegal activities. Colombia ranks among the nations with the highest levels of socioeconomic inequality, crime, and corruption (Centro de Estudios de Justicia 2023; Policía Nacional de Colombia 2023).
Crime in general, and serious crimes in particular, are not only effects of socioeconomic conditions but also part of their causes. Theft, physical assault, damage to private property, drug use, murder, and sexual violence degrade people’s quality of life, generating distrust and social exclusion, which in turn produce more inequality and social disintegration. Additionally, all these crimes have an economic impact. The costs associated with crime prevention, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system are considerably high. Furthermore, violating the law carries immeasurable personal, familial, and community consequences.
This socioeconomic situation is exacerbated by recidivism. According to statistics from the National Penitentiary Institute of Colombia, in 2022, the recidivism rate in the perpetration of crimes reached 21.3%, up from 16.4% in 2016. Specific figures from the same source indicate that the crime with the highest recidivism rate was theft (22.5%), followed by the manufacture, possession, or trafficking of firearms (14.6%), the manufacture, possession, or trafficking of narcotics (13.4%), and homicide (10.6%). While the percentages may not seem alarming, the specific numbers tell a more concerning story; for example, 38,851 individuals who had committed homicide killed again (Centro de Estudios de Justicia 2023).
Crime is influenced by various factors. While socioeconomic factors are important, they are not always the sole determinants (Mundia et al. 2016). Individual and family factors also play a significant role in predisposing, triggering, or maintaining criminal behaviors (Besemer et al. 2017; Bonta and Andrews 2016). Impaired performance of the prefrontal cortex has been linked to an increased likelihood of engaging in criminal acts (Darby et al. 2018; Koenigs 2012). Neuropsychological functioning of this cortex is associated with criminal behavior, including difficulties in evaluating the consequences of actions, lack of impulse control, preference for immediate rewards in decision-making, difficulty in understanding others’ emotions, deficiencies in adaptive problem-solving, limited moral reasoning, and failures in executive functions such as planning, organization, self-control, and cognitive flexibility (Burgess 2020; Ogilvie et al. 2011; Shumlich et al. 2019).
In the field of forensic neuropsychology, studies commonly focus on neuropsychological analyses that differentiate inmates based on the type of crime committed (Meijers et al. 2015; Meijers et al. 2017; Seruca and Silva 2016). However, some studies do not make this distinction and treat inmates as a homogeneous population, which can mask certain findings. In addition to considering the type of crime, it is crucial to evaluate whether the prisoner is a repeat offender. Recidivism is a reliable indicator that the behavior in question results from a stable neuropsychological organization rather than transient and circumstantial cognitive dynamics. Examining the neuropsychological functioning of inmates with respect to this issue can provide valuable insights into the causes or factors associated with criminal behavior (Seruca and Silva 2015).
Studies in this area have reported that repeat offenders, in contrast to first-time offenders, exhibit executive dysfunction in behavioral regulation (Sánchez de Ribera et al. 2022). Additionally, there are reports that repeat offenders, compared to first-time offenders, have deficits in the ability to monitor previous responses, formulate strategies, learn associations between elements, and inhibit responses (Ross and Hoaken 2011). However, Seruca and Silva (2015) did not find differences in executive functioning when comparing repeat offenders with first-time offenders, but they did find differences when comparing these two groups with a control group. According to them, their results suggest that the executive functioning of repeat offenders may be characterized by deficiencies in mental flexibility, whereas the primary executive deficiency in first-time offenders appears to be limited to planning ability (Chaguendo-Quintero et al. 2023).
Research on social cognition comparing repeat offenders with first-time offenders is even more limited. Studies have primarily focused on analyzing empathy (Lauterbach and Hosser 2007) and comparing it between offenders and non-offenders (van Langen et al. 2014), or among different types of crimes (Loinaz et al. 2021). Using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Bock and Hosser (2014) found that overall empathy scores and the subscales of perspective-taking and empathic concern contributed to predicting recidivism in young adult offenders. Although social cognition is a psychological capacity that seems relevant for understanding criminal or antisocial behavior (Winter et al. 2017), studies conducted with prison populations are scarce.
Our objective was to assess whether there are differences in certain measures of executive functions and social cognition when comparing a group of first-time offenders, a group of repeat offenders, and a control group. This study will not only provide data on executive performance and social cognition in individuals who have committed crimes but also determine whether there are disparities in these mental capacities when comparing first-time offenders with those who have reoffended two or more times. The findings will expand the knowledge base in forensic neuropsychology and have additional applied value. They could inform the development of evidence-based prevention policies and programs and enable criminal justice systems to adapt their approaches to be more effective and equitable in differentiating these two groups.
Material and methods
Participants
This study was conducted with a sample of 105 inmates from a Colombian prison and a control group of 45 individuals who were not incarcerated and had no criminal history. All participants were men over 18 years old. The control group was matched for age, years of education, and IQ. The incarcerated individuals had committed crimes such as drug trafficking, homicide, sexual assault of minors under 14, or theft. The 105 inmates were classified into two groups: first-time offenders (n = 76) and repeat offenders (n = 29) (Table 1). All participants were informed about the study’s objective and nature and were asked to sign an informed consent form. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cali campus. The study adhered to the ethical principles for medical research outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Neuropsychological tests and social cognition questionnaires were administered by the principal author along with a team of first-year clinical neuropsychology master’s students. To exclude individuals with mood disorders that could negatively affect neuropsychological performance, the Beck Depression Inventory and the Beck Anxiety Inventory were administered. Only individuals without depression or anxiety were included. Additionally, the Word Accentuation Test was used to estimate participants’ IQ, and only those with normal levels were included. Emotional and intellectual screening was performed to avoid potential deleterious effects on executive functioning.
Measures
Screening tests
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI): This is a 21-item scale that measures the presence and severity of anxiety symptoms in adolescents and adults. Items are rated on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (severely), based on the last week. Scores between 0 and 7 indicate minimal anxiety, 8 to 15 indicate mild anxiety, 16 to 25 indicate moderate anxiety, and 26 to 63 indicate severe anxiety. The internal consistency of the Spanish adaptation of the BAI is high (α ≥ 0.85) (Sanz 2011).
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II): This is a 21-item instrument used to measure the severity of depressive symptoms in individuals aged 13 and older. Items are rated on a four-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (severely), based on the last two weeks. The BDI-II provides the same cut-off points as the BAI to determine the level of severity of depressive symptoms. The internal consistency of the Spanish adaptation is high (α ≥ 0.85) (Sanz and Vázquez 2011).
Word Accentuation Test (TAP): This is a simple-to-administer instrument consisting of 30 Spanish words with accents that participants must read correctly from a list provided without diacritical marks. Each correctly pronounced word earns one point. The internal consistency of this test is α = 0.841, and it has a high correlation (0.827) with IQ scores on the WAIS (Pluck et al. 2017).
<b>
Executive function tests
Modified Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (M-WCST): This test assesses problem-solving skills and the ability to shift cognitive strategies based on environmental feedback. It consists of 48 response cards and four key cards. The participant must place a response card under one of the key cards, matching them by color, shape, or number. If the strategy used is correct for six cards, the participant is asked to change the strategy. This process continues until all correct categories are completed or the response cards run out (Rivera et al. 2015).
Stroop Color and Word Test: This test evaluates inhibitory control, attention, processing speed, and cognitive flexibility. The participant is given three sheets to read within 45 seconds each. In the first sheet, they read as many of the 100 black-inked words as possible. In the second sheet, they name the color of the ink used to print “XXXX”. In the third sheet, they name the color of the ink in which words are written. The reliability of this test is 0.884 (Golden 2020).
Working Memory (WM – WAIS-IV): This subtest assesses the working memory index of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). The tasks measuring WM include digit span (maximum score 48) and letter-number sequencing (maximum score 30). In digit span, the subject is required to recall sequences of numbers first in the order they are presented and subsequently in reverse order. This task assesses the individual’s attention, concentration, and the capacity for mental manipulation of numerical information. In letter-number sequencing, subjects must rearrange and recall a series of letters and numbers in a specific order (generally, numbers in ascending order and letters in alphabetical order). This subtest challenges the ability to organize and sequence information under time pressure. The reliability coefficients for each of these WM subtests are high (α = 0.93, 0.89, 0.88) (Wechsler 2012).
Social cognition tests
Mini-SEA (Mini-Social Cognition and Emotional Assessment): This test includes two elements: an abbreviated version of the Faux-Pas test and the Facial Emotion Recognition test to evaluate the subdomains of theory of mind and facial emotion recognition, respectively. The specific subdomain used was the Facial Emotion Recognition test, requiring participants to identify emotional expressions in a series of photographs. It includes 35 faces selected from Ekman’s larger set of emotional expressions. Participants can choose from six emotions (joy, surprise, sadness, fear, disgust, and anger) or a neutral expression (Bertoux et al. 2012).
Empathy for Pain Task: This task measures participants’ empathy for pain in intentional, accidental, and neutral situations. In intentional situations, a passive subject is in a painful scenario due to the intentional action of an active actor. Accidental circumstances involve a person in pain caused accidentally by another. Neutral scenarios are control situations. Participants view 24 situations on a computer, featuring two people whose faces are not shown. For each situation, seven questions are asked about the intentionality of the action, empathic concern, discomfort, and more. Each question is answered by assigning a value on a visual analog scale with seven different pain scores (Baez et al. 2015).
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS v. 28. Summary statistics were calculated for all variables, and data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Since the data distributions did not meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance required for parametric tests, non-parametric methods were employed. The Kruskal-Wallis test (χ2) was used to determine whether there were significant differences between the three groups in mean scores, and the effect size (ε2) was calculated. A significance level of p < 0.05 was defined. Post hoc multiple comparison tests were conducted using the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner (DSCF) method to identify specific differences between groups.
Results
Table 1 presents the summary measures and percentages of participant characteristics. Overall, the three groups were relatively homogeneous across most variables. However, a few differences were noted: the control group had a younger average age, the repeat offender group had fewer years of education, the repeat offender group had the lowest mean BDI score, and the control group had the highest mean TAP score.
The results in Table 2 show the summary measures, mean comparison test, and post hoc test for the executive function tests. Statistically significant differences were found only in the WAIS Working Memory test. Both the first-time offender and repeat offender groups had lower scores compared to the control group. However, the effect sizes, indicated by ε2 values, were small.
The results in Table 3 show the summary measures, mean comparison test, and post hoc test for the social cognition tests. Both the first-time offender and repeat offender groups scored lower than the control group in the Mini SEA test (disgust, total score, and negative emotions). In the Empathy for Pain Task, the first-time offender and repeat offender groups had lower scores than the control group in the intentionality and punishment aspects of the neutral component, while the control group had lower scores in several aspects of the intentional and accidental components. However, according to the ε2 values, the effect sizes were small.
Discussion
Our principal findings are as follows: 1) the identification of significant differences in working memory, 2) the absence of significant differences in problem-solving abilities and inhibitory control, 3) the discovery of notable variations in the ability to recognize emotions in facial expressions, and 4) the detection of discrepancies in empathy towards pain. These differences were predominantly observed between the inmate groups (both first-time and repeat offenders) and the control group. Only a few statistically significant differences emerged between first-time and repeat offenders. Additionally, the observed differences, although statistically significant, were generally minimal. These results will be discussed in the order presented above.
Studies comparing working memory functioning between incarcerated individuals and controls have reported discrepant findings (Meijers et al. 2015). Seruca and Silva (2016) as well as Meijers et al. (2017) found no significant differences in working memory performance between prisoners and control groups, nor between violent and non-violent offenders. These results suggest the absence of a generalized deficit in working memory capacity across different prisoner subgroups. However, Becerra-García and Egan (2014) reported lower performance in incestuous offenders on specific working memory tests, indicating that distinct cognitive deficits may be present in subpopulations within the prison environment. Conversely, Hoaken et al. (2007) observed reduced working memory performance in prisoners compared to controls, without significant differences between violent and non-violent offenders. These findings highlight the complexity of cognitive functioning within incarcerated populations, with variations that may be contingent upon the type of offense or other individual characteristics of the offenders.
Multiple factors associated with incarceration conditions can compromise the working memory of inmates. Prisons, often lacking sufficient intellectual and social stimuli, create an impoverished environment that can weaken cognitive functions such as working memory (Meijers et al. 2015). Additionally, chronic stress resulting from constant violence, isolation, and restricted autonomy may negatively impact working memory (Lee and Goto 2015; Schoofs et al. 2008). The high prevalence of mental health issues among prisoners can also interfere with working memory capacity (Hubbard et al. 2016; Moran 2016). Moreover, poor sleep quality, frequently caused by noise and inadequate lighting in prison environments, can significantly impair cognitive functioning (Frenda and Fenn 2016).
However, it appears that these factors do not negatively influence other executive functions, such as problem-solving ability and inhibitory control. In this regard, we did not observe significant differences between the two groups of inmates or between the inmates and the control group. Therefore, these cognitive abilities do not seem to be affected by incarceration and do not represent a distinctive neuropsychological marker of this population. The findings in this field are inconsistent. Seruca and Silva (2016), using the Stroop test, found no significant differences between inmates with violent behaviors and the control group, nor between inmates in general (including non-violent offenders) and the control group. Conversely, Meijers et al. (2017) discovered that inmates convicted of violent crimes performed significantly worse on the Stop-Signal Task compared to those convicted of non-violent crimes.
In the study by Rodriguez et al. (2017), first-time inmates convicted of sexual offenses exhibited significantly poorer inhibitory response performance compared to both repeat offenders and non-sexual offenders. However, in a subsequent study by Rodriguez and Ellis (2018) using the same test, no significant differences were observed between the compared groups. Ross and Hoaken (2011) found differences only in the number of trials required to complete the first category of the WCST when comparing first-time offenders with repeat offenders. However, they did detect differences using another measure of strategy shifting (the Non-spatial Conditional Association Task), where the repeat offender group made more errors.
Research on executive functions in inmates has produced diverse and inconclusive results. It cannot be definitively established whether inmates exhibit deficiencies in skills such as inhibitory control or strategy-shifting ability. However, some studies suggest that more severe crimes might be associated with poorer performance in these functions compared to less severe crimes or non-offenders. Additionally, our studies focused on recidivism have not shown significant differences in these executive capacities, indicating the complexity of evaluating these functions and the potential influence of multiple individual and contextual factors. The absence of significant differences in executive neuropsychological functioning between inmates and non-inmates could be explained by several key factors.
Within the prison population, there is a wide range of neuropsychological and psychopathological profiles. Some inmates may have histories of neuropsychiatric disorders that impair their executive functions, while others do not exhibit such deficiencies, potentially balancing the overall comparisons with non-incarcerated individuals. Additionally, inmates often develop compensatory and adaptive strategies to cope with the demands of the prison environment. These skills could enable them to perform similarly to non-incarcerated individuals on standardized tests of executive functions, despite differing contexts of use. The selection of study participants also significantly influences the results. When groups are comparable in terms of education and socioeconomic background, differences in executive functions may not be apparent. This highlights the importance of considering individual and contextual factors when evaluating the neuropsychological functioning of inmates.
While some crimes are committed due to neuropsychological factors, in many cases, these are not sufficiently determinative to cause criminal behavior. Not all incarcerated individuals have executive dysfunctions (Herrero et al. 2010). Other psychological or psychopathological factors may be involved, but these do not necessarily affect executive functions such as inhibition, strategy shifting, or working memory, where we have found minimal differences. As mentioned, socioeconomic conditions in Colombia play a crucial role, influencing the propensity to commit crimes. The lack of economic opportunities can lead to crime out of necessity, frustration, or as the only perceived alternative. This fosters a culture of crime in disadvantaged communities, where illegal activities may be seen as viable or even normal (Anser et al. 2020).
Regarding social cognition abilities, our findings are also insufficient to conclude that inmates (both repeat and first-time offenders) differ markedly from the control group. In the facial emotion recognition test, the two groups of inmates only differed in 3 out of 10 variables, with minimal effect sizes, compared to the control group. However, this aligns with the study by Robinson et al. (2012), which reported that prisoners performed significantly worse than controls in recognizing negative facial emotions, specifically anger, fear, sadness, and disgust. A systematic review with incarcerated violent men revealed that several studies reported deficits in recognizing fear, anger, and disgust (Chapman et al. 2018).
Philipp-Wiegmann et al. (2017) also identified differences between violent offenders and controls in recognizing negative emotions such as anxiety, sadness, and disgust. Similarly, the results of the study by Zeng et al. (2022) showed that offenders, both violent and non-violent, had lower accuracy in emotional recognition compared to controls, particularly with emotions of disgust. Difficulties in recognizing negative facial emotions could be explained by early exposure to violence, a hostile attribution bias, or adaptations to environments where emotional signals are devalued (Liberzon et al. 2015; Zajenkowska et al. 2021). These factors are frequently present in settings dominated by family conflict, poverty, lack of access to basic services, discrimination, or social exclusion.
However, our analyses did not reveal notable differences between the groups when compared using the pain empathy test. According to the results, differences were found in only 7 out of 24 variables, and all had minimal effect sizes. These differences were primarily in the intentional classification of pain, in its dimensions of empathic concern, perpetrator behavior, and affective and cognitive responses. These differences indicate lower empathy towards others’ pain. This manifests as a reduced emotional response (empathic concern and affective dimension), a less negative perception of the perpetrator’s behavior, and a diminished cognitive capacity to understand and recognize others’ suffering.
Prolonged exposure to adverse social contexts, marked by poverty, instability, and stress, can have detrimental effects on individuals’ psychological development, limiting their ability to develop essential emotional and cognitive skills such as empathy, theory of mind, and emotional regulation. This, in turn, can negatively affect their interpersonal relationships and social adaptation throughout life. This impact is observed in the ability to spontaneously recognize and name emotions, known as emotional knowledge (Breaux et al. 2016; Heinze et al. 2015), and in the development of empathy (Breaux et al. 2016; Levy et al. 2019; Luke and Banerjee 2011).
The reality is that attributing the observed differences solely to impoverished social contexts is not feasible, as all three groups belonged to low socioeconomic strata. Consequently, poverty alone cannot account for these minimal differences. It is likely that other factors have a more significant impact, including food insecurity, exposure to violence, social inequality and exclusion, financial stress, limited access to resources, domestic violence, and substance abuse, among others. As has been consistently noted, multiple factors can contribute to criminal behavior. To elucidate the contribution of neuropsychological and social cognition factors to this complex interplay, it is imperative to control for a multitude of variables in these cross-sectional, non-longitudinal studies.
Most studies on empathy in incarcerated individuals have focused on those who have committed serious crimes, such as homicide or sexual offenses, or those classified as psychopaths. These studies often aim to understand the lack of empathy and the underlying psychological and neurobiological mechanisms in these populations (Díaz-Galván et al. 2015; Pfabigan et al. 2015; Yoder et al. 2022). Generally, the findings show that these populations exhibit deficiencies in aspects of social cognition. However, it is necessary to broaden the scope to include other types of offenders and to explore the different levels and types of empathy in relation to various criminal behaviors and psychological profiles.
Our primary limitation was the sample size. Although the sample size approximates that used in similar studies on this population, which is not large due to the difficulties in accessing it, a significantly larger number of participants is needed to obtain a more accurate picture of their executive functioning and social cognition skills. The second limitation, equally important, was the inclusion of both violent and non-violent offenders. The literature in this field demonstrates that the severity of the crime is a key variable in understanding the psychology and neuropsychology of this population. Along these lines, it is crucial to conduct a prior clinical psychopathological assessment to identify psychopathic traits.
Disclosures
This research received no external funding.
The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cali campus (Approval No. 20100770).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Anser MK, Yousaf Z, Nassani AA, et al. Dynamic linkages between poverty, inequality, crime, and social expenditures in a panel of 16 countries: Two-step GMM estimates. Economic Structures 2020; 9.
2.
Baez S, Herrera E, Gershanik O, et al. Impairments in negative emotion recognition and empathy for pain in Huntington’s disease families. Neuropsychologia 2015; 68: 158-167.
3.
Bertoux M, Volle E, Funkiewiez A, et al. Social Cognition and Emotional Assessment (SEA) is a marker of medial and orbital frontal functions: a voxel-based morphometry study in behavioral variant of frontotemporal degeneration. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2012; 18: 972-985.
4.
Becerra-García JA, Egan V. Neurocognitive functioning and subtypes of child molesters: poorer working memory differentiates incestuous from non-incestuous offenders. Psychiatry Psychol Law 2014; 21: 585-590.
5.
Besemer S, Ahmad SI, Hinshaw SP, Farrington DP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Aggress Violent Behav 2017; 37: 161-178.
6.
Bock EM, Hosser D. Empathy as a predictor of recidivism among young adult offenders. Psychol Crime Law 2014; 20: 101-115.
7.
Bonta J, Andrews DA. The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge 2016.
8.
Breaux RP, Harvey EA, Lugo-Candelas CI. The role of parent psychopathology in emotion socialization. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2016; 44: 731-743.
9.
Burgess J. A brief review of the relationship of executive function assessment and violence. Aggress Violent Behav 2020; 54: 101414.
10.
Chaguendo-Quintero MA, Quintero-Monjes D, Cuervo MT, Sanabria-Mazo JP. Alterations in executive functions in inmates convicted for violent behavior: a systematic review. Front Psychol 2023; 14: 1066474.
11.
Chapman H, Gillespie SM, Mitchell IJ. Facial affect processing in incarcerated violent males: A systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav 2018; 38: 123-138.
12.
Centro de Estudios de Justicia. Indicadores de justicia. 2023. https://cej.org.co/indicadores-de-justicia/
13.
Darby RR, Horn A, Cushman F, Fox MD. Lesion network localization of criminal behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
14.
2018; 115: 601-606.
15.
Díaz-Galván KX, Ostrosky-Shejet F, Romero-Rebollar C. Cognitive and affective empathy: The role in violent behavior and psychopathy. Rev Med Hosp Gen Mex 2015; 78: 27-35.
16.
Frenda SJ, Fenn KM. Sleep less, think worse: The effect of sleep deprivation on working memory. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2016; 5: 463-469.
17.
Golden C. Stroop Test de Colores y Palabras – Edición Revisada. TEA Ediciones, 2020.
18.
Heinze JE, Miller AL, Seifer R, Locke R. Emotion knowledge, loneliness, negative social experiences, and internalizing symptoms among low-income preschoolers. Soc Dev 2015; 24: 240-265.
19.
Herrero O, Escorial S, Colom R. Basic executive processes in incarcerated offenders. Pers Individ Differ 2010; 48: 133-137.
20.
Hoaken PN, Allaby DB, Earle J. Executive cognitive functioning and the recognition of facial expressions of emotion in incarcerated violent offenders, non-violent offenders, and controls. Aggress Behav 2007; 33: 412-421.
21.
Hubbard NA, Hutchison JL, Hambrick DZ, Rypma B. The en-during effects of depressive thoughts on working memory. J Affect Disord 2016; 190: 208-213.
22.
Koenigs M. The role of prefrontal cortex in psychopathy. Rev Neurosci 2012; 23: 253-262.
23.
Lauterbach O, Hosser D. Assessing empathy in prisoners – A shortened version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Swiss J Psychol 2007; 66: 91-101.
24.
Lee YA, Goto Y. Chronic stress effects on working memory: association with prefrontal cortical tyrosine hydroxylase. Behav Brain Res 2015; 286: 122-127.
25.
Levy J, Goldstein A, Feldman R. The neural development of empathy is sensitive to caregiving and early trauma. Nat Commun 2019; 10: 1905.
26.
Liberzon I, Ma ST, Okada G, et al. Childhood poverty and recruitment of adult emotion regulatory neurocircuitry. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 2015; 10: 1596-1606.
27.
Loinaz I, Sánchez LM, Vilella A. Understanding empathy, self-esteem, and adult attachment in sexual offenders and partner-violent men. J Interpers Violence 2021; 36: 2050-2073.
28.
Luke N, Banerjee R. Maltreated children’s social understanding and empathy: A preliminary exploration of foster carers’ perspectives. J Child Fam Stud 2011; 21: 237-246.
29.
Meijers J, Harte JM, Jonker FA, Meynen G. Prison brain? Executive dysfunction in prisoners. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 43.
30.
Meijers J, Harte JM, Meynen G, Cuijpers P. Differences in executive functioning between violent and non-violent offenders. Psychol Med 2017; 47: 1784-1793.
31.
Moran TP. Anxiety and working memory capacity: A meta-analysis and narrative review. Psychol Bull 2016; 142: 831-864.
32.
Mundia L, Matzin R, Mahalle S, et al. Contributions of sociodemographic factors to criminal behavior. Psychol Res Behav Manag 2016; 9: 147-156.
33.
Ogilvie JM, Stewart AL, Chan RCK, Shum DHK. Neuropsychological measures of executive function and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Criminology 2011; 49: 1063-1107.
34.
Pfabigan DM, Seidel EM, Wucherer AM, et al. Affective empathy differs in male violent offenders with high-and low-trait psychopathy. J Pers Disord 2015; 29: 42-61.
35.
Philipp-Wiegmann F, Rösler M, Retz-Junginger P, Retz W. Emotional facial recognition in proactive and reactive violent offenders. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2017; 267: 687-695.
36.
Pluck G, Almeida-Meza P, Gonzalez-Lorza A, et al. Estimación de la función cognitiva premórbida con el Test de Acentuación de Palabras. Rev Ecuat Neuro 2017; 26: 226-234.
37.
Policía Nacional de Colombia. Informe de gestión. 2023. https://www.policia.gov.co/sites/default/files/descargables/informe_de_gestion_2023_0.pdf
38.
Rivera D, Olivera S, Quijano MC, et al. Datos normativos del Test modificado de clasificación de tarjetas de Wisconsin (M-WCST) para población colombiana. In: Arango-Lasprilla JC, Rivera D (Eds.). Neuropsicología en Colombia: datos normativos, estado actual y retos futuros. Universidad Autónoma de Manizales 2015; 125-141.
39.
Robinson L, Spencer MD, Thomson LD, et al. Facial emotion recognition in Scottish prisoners. Int J Law Psychiatry 2012; 35: 57-61.
40.
Rodriguez M, Boyce P, Hodges J. A neuropsychological study of older adult first-time sex offenders. Neurocase 2017; 23: 154-161.
41.
Rodriguez M, Ellis A. The neuropsychological function of older first-time child exploitation material offenders: a pilot study. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2018; 62: 2357-2373.
42.
Ross EH, Hoaken PNS. Executive cognitive functioning abilities of male first time and return Canadian federal inmates. Can J Criminol Crim Justice 2011; 53: 377-403.
43.
Sánchez de Ribera O, Trajtenberg N, Cook S. Executive functioning among first time and recidivist inmates in Uruguay. Appl Neuropsychol Adult 2022; 29: 1242-1249.
44.
Sanz J. Inventario de Ansiedad de Beck. Adaptación Española. Pearson, 2011.
45.
Sanz J, Vázquez C. Inventario de Depresión de Beck-II. Adaptación Española. Pearson, 2011.
46.
Schoofs D, Preuss D, Wolf OT. Psychosocial stress induces working memory impairments in an n-back paradigm. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2008; 33: 643-653.
47.
Seruca T, Silva CF. Recidivist criminal behaviour and executive functions: A comparative study. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol 2015; 26: 699-717.
48.
Seruca T, Silva CF. Executive functioning in criminal behavior: Differentiating between types of crime and exploring the relation between shifting, inhibition, and anger. Int J Forensic Ment Health 2016; 15: 235-246.
49.
Shumlich EJ, Reid GJ, Hancock M, Hoaken PNS. Executive dysfunction in criminal populations: Comparing forensic psychiatric patients and correctional offenders. Int J Forensic Ment Health 2019; 18: 243-259.
50.
van Langen MAM, Wissink IB, van Vugt ES, et al. The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggress Violent Behav 2014; 19: 179-189.
51.
Wechsler D. Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para adultos – IV. Manual Técnico y de Interpretación. Pearson Educación, 2012.
52.
Winter K, Spengler S, Bermpohl F, et al. Social cognition in aggressive offenders: Impaired empathy, but intact theory of mind. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 670.
53.
Yoder KJ, Harenski CL, Kiehl KA, Decety J. Psychopathic traits modulate functional connectivity during pain perception and perspective-taking in female inmates. Neuroimage Clin 2022; 34: 102984.
54.
Zajenkowska A, Prusik M, Jasielska D, Szulawski M. Hostile attribution bias among offenders and non-offenders: Making social information processing more adequate. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 2021; 31: 241-256.
55.
Zeng Y, Liu X, Cheng L. Facial emotion perceptual tendency in violent and non-violent offenders. J Interpers Violence 2022; 37: NP15058-NP15074.
