Suçlular ve Suçsuzlar Arasında Yürütücü İşlevlerin Karşılaştırılması: Bir Meta-Analiz

Mustafa Talha Türel, Hüseyin Arslan, Esra Çeti̇nöz
{"title":"Suçlular ve Suçsuzlar Arasında Yürütücü İşlevlerin Karşılaştırılması: Bir Meta-Analiz","authors":"Mustafa Talha Türel, Hüseyin Arslan, Esra Çeti̇nöz","doi":"10.26466/opusjsr.1400525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Executive function is one of the structures that explain aggressive and violent behavior. However, the existing literature has inconsistencies regarding criminal behavior due to the division of executive functions into three constructs: inhibition, monitoring, and task shifting. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to assess the effect of executive functions on criminal behavior and the second aim is to examine the impact of executive functions on different crime types. The research is based on a meta-analysis of 17 studies which were selected upon the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis involved calculating individual effect sizes for each study and then the overall effect size was calculated by using the random effects model. Then subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the differences due to crime types and psychological assessment tools. The results revealed that offenders made more errors in tasks involving executive functions than non-offenders and the findings were consistent with the literature. Additionally, no publication bias was found in the study. It is expected that this study will lay the groundwork for future studies.The research is based on a meta-analysis of 17 studies which were selected upon the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis involved calculating individual effect sizes for each study and then the overall effect size was calculated by using the random effects model. Then subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the differences due to crime types and psychological assessment tools. The results revealed that offenders made more errors in tasks involving executive functions than non-offenders and the findings were consistent with the literature. Additionally, no publication bias was found in the study. It is expected that this study will lay the groundwork for future studies.","PeriodicalId":422780,"journal":{"name":"OPUS Journal of Society Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OPUS Journal of Society Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1400525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Executive function is one of the structures that explain aggressive and violent behavior. However, the existing literature has inconsistencies regarding criminal behavior due to the division of executive functions into three constructs: inhibition, monitoring, and task shifting. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to assess the effect of executive functions on criminal behavior and the second aim is to examine the impact of executive functions on different crime types. The research is based on a meta-analysis of 17 studies which were selected upon the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis involved calculating individual effect sizes for each study and then the overall effect size was calculated by using the random effects model. Then subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the differences due to crime types and psychological assessment tools. The results revealed that offenders made more errors in tasks involving executive functions than non-offenders and the findings were consistent with the literature. Additionally, no publication bias was found in the study. It is expected that this study will lay the groundwork for future studies.The research is based on a meta-analysis of 17 studies which were selected upon the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis involved calculating individual effect sizes for each study and then the overall effect size was calculated by using the random effects model. Then subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the differences due to crime types and psychological assessment tools. The results revealed that offenders made more errors in tasks involving executive functions than non-offenders and the findings were consistent with the literature. Additionally, no publication bias was found in the study. It is expected that this study will lay the groundwork for future studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
罪犯与非罪犯的执行功能比较:元分析
执行功能是解释攻击和暴力行为的结构之一。然而,由于将执行功能分为抑制、监控和任务转移三个结构,现有文献在犯罪行为方面存在不一致之处。因此,本研究的主要目的是评估执行功能对犯罪行为的影响,第二个目的是研究执行功能对不同犯罪类型的影响。研究基于对 17 项研究的元分析,这些研究是根据纳入和排除标准筛选出来的。荟萃分析包括计算每项研究的个体效应大小,然后使用随机效应模型计算总体效应大小。然后进行分组分析,以评估犯罪类型和心理评估工具造成的差异。结果显示,与非罪犯相比,罪犯在涉及执行功能的任务中犯的错误更多,研究结果与文献一致。此外,研究未发现出版偏差。该研究基于对 17 项研究的元分析,这些研究是根据纳入和排除标准筛选出来的。荟萃分析包括计算每项研究的个体效应大小,然后使用随机效应模型计算总体效应大小。然后进行分组分析,以评估犯罪类型和心理评估工具造成的差异。结果显示,罪犯在涉及执行功能的任务中比非罪犯犯更多错误,研究结果与文献一致。此外,研究未发现出版偏差。预计本研究将为今后的研究奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Generation Z Teachers’ Reflective Thinking Skills Investigation of Risks and Risk Management Practices in The Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Sector in Turkey with an Interview Study Suçlular ve Suçsuzlar Arasında Yürütücü İşlevlerin Karşılaştırılması: Bir Meta-Analiz "Örgütsel Farklılıklar" Kavramının Görsel Haritalama Tekniği Kullanılarak Bibliyometrik Analizi Direnişin Ritimleri: İran Ses Manzarasında Farsça Rap'in Kültürel Dinamikleri ve Duygusal Yankısı
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1