Search results

Studies evaluating the external validity of theoretically informed (risk-need-responsivity [RNR]) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) programs have not systematically assessed antisocial personality traits as a source of variability in outcomes. The purpose of this brief report is to examine antisocial traits as a potential source of variability in outcomes.

Using longitudinal, program-evaluation data (a sample of incarcerated men who were exposed to RNR-informed CBT), the authors examined how antisocial personality traits, attitudes toward treatment and dosage impacted treatment outcomes. A linear regression assessed the relationship between antisocial personality traits and attitudes toward treatment. A latent profile analysis identified participants with elevated antisocial traits and negative attitudes toward treatment. Treatment dosage groups (0, 5, 10 and 15 weeks) were used to assess treatment response per pro-criminal attitudes, skills and rates of recidivism.

Antisocial traits predicted negative attitudes toward treatment. Elevated antisocial traits and negative treatment attitudes predicted less change in criminal attitudes among those who completed 15 weeks of treatment; higher dosage did not significantly improve rates of recidivism. Variable-centered post hoc analyses largely corroborated these findings. These results suggest RNR-informed CBT may need to be modified for justice-involved persons with elevated antisocial traits.

Few studies have empirically examined the sources of variability in treatment effects for justice-involved persons with antisocial personality traits. This brief report provides a structured examination of factors that may impact treatment outcomes in this population, and therefore aims to inform future research on the effectiveness of empirically supported interventions for people in the legal system.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has arguably exposed the failures of neoliberalism and its political agenda over the past generation. The response has seen governments resurrect neo-Keynesian policies in order to address the weaknesses in the current market system and to mitigate the worst economic downturn since the Second World War (1939–1945). This chapter contextualizes the Australian perspective and the policy responses to the economic challenges posed by COVID-19. The authors contrast that with the experience of the USA and UK with whom the country shares common institutions and culture, including a generation of neoliberal economic reforms.

By closing large sections of the economy, the Australian COVID-19 response provided extensive social welfare support and bailed out several sectors and industries. Previously unacceptable and unthinkable levels of budget deficit and country debt were incurred. This systemic state intervention into the economy raises the question of whether the pandemic signals the end of the neoliberal era and its ramifications – or whether this neo-Keynesian pause was a kneejerk response to ensure and protect its legacy.

This introductory chapter sets the overall context of global civil society in today’s global world. The authors will firstly provide a definition of civil society from social and political science perspectives. Then secondly, the authors provide a contemporary overview of global civil society debates in the current social and political environment; they also offer a short examination of COVID-19 and how this global pandemic has developed new spheres of contestation and collaboration. In the final part of the chapter, the authors present a brief overview of each chapter contributed to this volume.

For many years the operation of the internal labour market (ILM) was a topic to which economists devoted little attention. Recent years, however, have seen a plethora of research on the ILM by economists. The major theme implicit in much of this research has been the extension of concepts from mainstream neoclassical economics to the ILM. This work and associated research on labour market institutions has been termed the New Institutional Labour Economics (NILE) by some commentators.

This paper explores route‐choice patterns among motorists on a scenic road in south‐western Norway. Factor analysis is used to identify the characteristics of the types of motorists who seek particular benefits when they choose to travel along this specific route. Five factors were found: 1) experiencing landscapes and attractions; 2) outdoor recreation; 3) off the beaten track; 4) a suitable road; and 5) a variation of travel experiences. In conclusion, the paper offers an alternative framework of road choice structures.