How do an Individual’s Criminogenic Needs change throughout their time with the Criminal Justice System?

Criminogenic Needs

Needs can vary greatly based on multiple influences but can determinedly be defined as static or dynamic. Static needs are rigid, uninfluential and enduring. On the other hand, dynamic needs are malleable, and can develop and dissolve throughout the lifespan. Criminogenic needs are dynamic, as they can be addressed and resolved. It is important to identify and differentiate needs as static or dynamic, as dynamic needs are those that can be addressed through interventions.

The following five factors are widely considered the main criminogenic needs (Bonta & Andrews, 2012):

• low self-control
• antisocial personality and antisocial values
• criminal peers
• dysfunctional family
• substance use

Lower levels in self-control means that person is more likely to engage in criminal activity due to their low capability of identifying potential negative consequences, acting purely on impulse due to the immediate gratifications their crime may grant. An example of this could be theft: immediate materialist gain, means someone may focus on this without determining the consequences of their offence.

Secondly, the antisociality of an individual through their personality and their norms and values render someone more likely to commit an offence; this can be shown through offensive behaviour towards others. Antisocial behaviour and values in an individual usually stem from the involvement of other deviant and antisocial peers in their life. This is because antisocial individuals influence each other’s behaviour through processes Dishion and Tipsord (2011) describe as Deviancy Training- rewarding someone’s deviant behaviour. In a 2018 study conducted in a U.S. classroom of adolescents (10-19 years old), researchers Kim and Fletcher found that increasing the proportion of peers who engage in criminal activity by 5%, subsequently increases the likelihood of another individual’s engagement in criminal activity by 3%. This evidences the notable influence of peers on someone’s deviancy and criminal activity.

Similarly, dysfunctional homelife has also been proven to increase an individual’s likelihood of offending behaviour. The Cambridge Study was a survey that took place in the 1960s assessing young men and the characteristics they shared compared to their deviant behaviour in later life (Thornberry, Krohn & Farrington, 2003). The data concluded that the most important predictors of delinquency were antisocial behaviour, impulsivity, low intelligence, family criminality, poverty and poor parental child-rearing behaviour. Recent analyses of the Cambridge Study also found that 60% of boys who were separated from a parent by their tenth birthday had offended by the age of 50. (Theobald et al, 2013). Why this is, is uncertain. However, it has been argued that individuals from broken families, in particular, single-parent families, engage in criminal activity due to financial stress, lack of parental guidance and negative role models (Boutwell & Beaver, 2010).

Finally, substance use has been cited as a criminogenic need due to its close correlation with crime statistics. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (2023) found that half of homicides and half of acquisitive crimes (crimes where the offender obtains material gain) are drug related, so a positive correlation between antisocial behaviour and drug/alcohol misuse is found. In this instance, it is desperate measures caused by desperate times: committing an offence to feed one’s addiction.

Biological Underpinning

Some research has identified genetic disposition as a criminogenic need. When discussing biological theories of crime, studies on twins are extremely useful, and because of this we must highlight that there are two types of twins; Monozygotic (MZ) who are 100% genetically alike; and Dizygotic (DZ), who share 50% of their genes. Raine (2002) found in his study that if one MZ twin participates in offending, the likelihood of the other twin offending is 70%. Additionally, Raine adds that the studies since the 1990s confirmed that there is a greater consistency for antisocial and aggressive behaviour in MZ twins than DZ twins. Therefore, what we draw from this is the argument for a correlation between genetics and offending. It is also argued by Moffitt and Beckley (2015) that twin studies are essential in determining the causation of crime and offending because it gives “criminologists a special opportunity to study what experiences reduce co-twins’ behavioural similarity”.

The theory of biology influencing criminality is strong, thanks to studies conducted on twins. Despite this, there are caveats in twin research. Grove et al (1990) found that twins who are separated at birth had a significant difference of personality traits in antisocial behaviour which endured the lifespan. This shows that perhaps external variables have a larger influence on offending than internal.

How can Criminogenic Needs Change?

Criminogenic needs can change throughout the course of one’s journey through myriad individual factors. As is evidenced in a wealth of research, it is crucial to place the person at the heart of their journey to desistance. Everyone’s experiences are different, and this will influence how they respond to their needs. Some notable individual influences are motivation, maturity, and identity shift.

Motivation

It is common knowledge that it is significantly harder to change someone that does not want to change. This is apparent in desisting from crime also, as someone must actively want to rehabilitate. More recent research evidences this through the growing popularity of restorative justice, in which the harmer is given the opportunity to liaise with the harmed, either directly or through a mediator, after the incident has taken place to apologise and seek forgiveness. Claes and Shapland (2016) found that prisoners who undertook restorative justice were more motivated to desist, especially if the meeting with the victim was positive. This shows how restorative justice increases motivation to continue on one’s journey to desistance.

Despite this, more timeless pieces of research revolve around the self-determination theory of desistance from crime (Petrich, 2020). In interviews conducted with former offenders, Petrich found that participants’ immediate cessation of offending is caused by “psychological need frustration”, which refers to one’s psychological needs being undermined, and subsequent deterrence occurs from using one’s will or accepting support from others. Psychological need frustration is regularly experienced by people in prison or on probation through a lack of autonomy and increased isolation. It is therefore sensible that regaining these basic needs will influences one’s desistance. For deterrence to be more enduring, this can come from one’s willingness to deter as well as their acceptance of help and support from people within their social network, whether personal or professional. As mentioned previously, we can see here that someone must have the will to change, and they need to be accepting of the support to do so.

Maturity

Within criminal justice, there is an ageing population. According to the UK Parliament’s prison population statistics of 2024, the percentage of prisoners has increased 11% in the past 22 years (Sturge, 2024). Price (2024) identified that this is most likely due to increased longevity. This increases the average age of prisoners, but we can acknowledge that many people may offend when they are a young person, and they may desist when they grow older. A multitude of research has found a negative correlation between maturity and offending (Doherty & O’Neill, 2021; Ward, Link & Forney, 2023). Sampson and Laub (2017) conducted a longitudinal study into trajectories of crime for boys and men between the ages of seven and seventy and found that “crime declines with age sooner or later for all offender groups”. Long-term offending is therefore difficult to predict from childhood prognoses, but it can be concluded that criminogenic needs will decline with age.

Identity shift

Identity shift refers to a change in how we view ourselves and our position in the world (Carr et al., 2021). Paternoster and Bushway (2009) developed the Identity Theory of Desistance (ITD), which details that ceasing offending is related to a change in one’s identity via external and internal factors. Such factors include dissatisfaction with the current self, cognitive and emotional changes, improved social factors, and an improved self-narrative. The underpinning argument of ITD is that desistance is achievable if individual agency is utilised, and external opportunities feel attainable. ITD is a robust theory which is still spearheading desistance to this day. Copp, Giordano, Longmore and Manning (2024) conducted more recent research, in which they explored a broader range of factors that can influence desistance. Their findings supported that of previous research, but further implicated the importance of social experiences such as parental support and peer affiliation. Overall, we can conclude that identity shift plays a role in how criminogenic needs change through internal agency and external influences.

Desistance from Criminogenic Needs

Prison, probation, and other organisations can support someone to address and diminish their criminogenic needs. In some regions, organisations do this through adopting a rehabilitative stance. One could take the average reoffending rates in Norway- a country that adapts a rehabilitative approach to life in prison, rather than a retributive one. It has been noted that Norway’s liberal approach to incarceration is why it has one of the lowest reoffending rates in Europe. Altobelli, Guergache, Galassi, Petrocelli and Marziliano (2024) conducted a cost analysis of penitentiary systems across Europe and found that Norway’s reoffending rates decreased dramatically from 70% to 20% following a substantial injection of funding into rehabilitation programmes. This shows that the support from key stakeholders such as the government and prison and probation services can largely influence criminogenic needs through adequate funding and a shift in prioritisation to recognise the importance of their role in advocating for rehabilitation over retribution.

Rehabilitative methods of supporting offenders with their criminogenic needs have been supported by theory and research. The current leading theory of offender rehabilitation is the Good Lives Model (GLM). GLM was developed by Ward and Gannon in 2006, and differed from previous risk-focused models as it centred around personal growth, strengths, and wellbeing. This model focuses on needs, but human needs rather than criminogenic needs. In the model, these are referred to as “primary goods”, and can include relationships, purpose, and happiness. The model also encourages rehabilitation plans to be individualised, strengths based, and holistic. This is to ensure that the individual at hand employs agency during their rehabilitation, views their needs in a more positive light, and is supported through all aspects of their desistance. This model relates back to ITD, as it also promotes the importance of identity change and personal development to reduce criminogenic needs. Conclusively, identifying and managing risk is still important when working with offenders, but focusing on someone’s needs, criminogenic or otherwise, will enable more people to break from the cycle of reoffending. This is crucial to enable people to lead a life they are proud of, as well as decrease crime and subsequent victims.

Desistance from Offending

So far, we have identified the striking influence criminogenic needs have on one’s rehabilitation. We have discussed important research and theory behind criminogenic needs and used this to identify how to address criminogenic needs, but we also need to link this further into desistance from crime: how can controlling criminogenic needs influence one’s proclivity to reoffend?

Protective factors

In line with GLM, it is important to factor in that desistance from offending needs to consider someone’s pre-existing strengths and purposes, so that they can become more self-sufficient in the long-term. Part of this is the consideration of implementing protective factors – factors that help someone to deal with situations and reduce the risk of negative outcomes. As an example, Catch22 delivers interventions to people on probation which focus on four protective factors: family and significant others, lifestyle and associates, social inclusion, and emotional wellbeing. Support can be offered based on which protective factors someone needs to improve the most, so the care received is individualised and person-centred, in line with the GLM.

Cognitive Approaches to Desistance

To develop maturation and cognitive development, it is important to curate interventions to appropriately address this. As mentioned previously, maturity affects criminogenic needs, but which other cognitive factors play a role?

Two key areas identified in offending are decision making and impulse control. There is a multitude of research implicating that delinquency occurs from irrational decision making (de Jesús Cardona-Isaza, Jiménez & Montoya-Castilla, 2022), negative peer influence on decisions (Hoeben & Thomas, 2019), as well as the comorbidity of offending, decision making, and mental disorder (Jones, Hewson, Sales & Khalifa, 2019). In the same vein, impulsivity can be considered as poor decision making.

Cross, Copping and Campbell (2011) identified four features of impulsivity: sensation seeking, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and urgency. They also identified how different cohorts may manifest certain features more prominently- men are more impulsive for sensation seeking, whereas women are more impulsive for urgency. However, Alford, O’Rourke, Doyle and Todd (2020) conducted a systematic review into impulsivity in forensic populations and found lacking evidence that their impulsivity differs from that of the “normal” population. It can be agreed from the evidence above that decision making is largely proven to influence desistance, but further research needs to be conducted into impulsivity and offending more specifically. Catch22 therefore provides interventions for service users that have offended around decision making and consequential thinking. However, it is important to consider more than the content of an intervention.

Intervention delivery is arguably as important as the content. Therefore, how can an intervention be delivered in the most effective way? Important approaches include restorative justice and trauma-informed approaches. As previously mentioned, restorative justice enables a meeting between the harmer and the harmed so accountability can be taken, and future conflict can be avoided. In recent years a significant amount of research has been conducted to form a robust, proven method of implementing and utilising restorative justice effectively. Marshall (2020) evaluated restorative justice from a historical and theological perspective, identifying how it has been in the past and what this means for the future. Marshall concludes that restorative justice is crucial in criminal justice to repair relationships and prioritise healing for all parties, but also recognises that restorative justice could be applied to many areas of life where promoting healthy relationships and managing conflict occurs. This shows the profound impact that restorative justice can have as it is widely applicable and an established phenomenon.

Trauma-informed care (TIC) is an approach to providing care in an environment that is conscious of one’s trauma and acts to avoid re-traumatisation when exploring difficult topics. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation published academic insights in 2020 which discussed TIC in offending services. Their conclusion was that TIC in criminal justice systems can reduce harm, increase desistance, and improve risk management. More recently, McAnallan and McGinnis (2021) conducted a systematic review on trauma informed practice in the criminal justice system. They found that a wealth of research supported TIC and highlighted its effectiveness for individuals that have offended. They noted that TIC reduces recidivism, improves rehabilitation outcomes, and enhances safer interactions between staff and service users. However, they also recognised the challenges of TIC: implementation requires intensive resource allocation, shifting to a trauma-informed approach requires a cultural change within organisations, and each response must be tailored to each individual, which is more complex than standardised treatments.

Systemic Barriers to Desistance

It is important here to also consider the hurdles someone may face when attempting to desist from crime, and how these barriers can be addressed by both the individual and the society. In 2020, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation explored research to identify general practice principles of desistance. Their conclusion was that desistance is more probable when someone has:

1. Strong family and community ties
2. Fulfilling employment
3. Recognition of their worth
4. Hope and self-efficacy
5. Meaning and purpose

We have highlighted the relationship between desistance and many of these factors already, but looking through a systemic lens will enable us to identify a more collectivist approach to supporting one’s desistance. Through looking at additional research, the barriers to these five areas include employment, housing, limited opportunities, and stigma.

Employment

Employment plays a significant role in both criminogenic needs and desistance. If someone cannot work, they cannot earn money. Without money, their criminogenic needs will increase, pushing them to offend for acquisitive purposes. Skardhamar and Savolainen (2014) produced a wealth of research around the role of employment in crime desistance, but most interestingly found in their test of the “turning point hypothesis” (key turning points in life that can decrease recidivism) that employment usually is acquired after desistance has occurred, with only 2% of 783 recidivist men identifying securing employment as their “turning point”. This interestingly propagates that “employment is best viewed as a consequence rather than as a cause of criminal desistance.”

Housing

A lack of housing can instigate reoffending for multiple reasons. More directional influences include offending to secure basic needs such as a place to sleep or food (Prison Reform Trust, 2018), exacerbated mental health issues due to stress and hardship of homelessness (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2021) or disrupted relationships due to having no fixed abode (ibid). However, the lack of housing can also indirectly perpetuate offending. Hassan, Kirk and Andersen (2022) conducted a longitudinal study into the effect of various housing arrangements for formerly incarcerated individuals across as 23-year period. Results found that living with family members significantly reduced recidivism. However, living with other people with criminal convictions, family or not, would reverse these results. This evidences that the environment between one’s four walls is going to influence criminogenic needs. Low, Latimer and Mills (2023) took this further to explore the concept of a “home” and how this influences criminogenic needs and recidivism. 16 previously incarcerated men from New Zealand identified that “home” can reduce criminogenic needs through its psychosocial benefits: increased feelings of safety, control over your environment, and establishing a non-criminal identity can all support someone in desisting from crime. This interestingly depicts both the tangible and intangible influences that housing has on criminogenic needs, highlighting the pertinence of not just a house, but a home.

Limited opportunities

The unfortunate truth is that some people re-offend because it feels like their only option. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs depicts three sets of needs that must be achieved to achieve fulfilment in life (McLeod, 2007). The first set of needs are essential for survival – physiological needs and safety needs. If these are not being obtained, desperation sets in and someone may resort to offending to secure the basic needs of food and water, warmth, and somewhere to sleep. A lack of employment and housing may also feed into limited opportunities provoking offending, as someone cannot rely on an income or stable accommodation to resettle effectively. The Queen’s Nursing Institute (n.d.) compiled an information resource on homelessness and the criminal justice system and noted that one fifth of homeless people have committed an offence to spend a night in a cell, which will guarantee them some warmth, some food, and somewhere to sleep. This unfortunately depicts that criminogenic needs are also increased on an infrastructural level, as people are offending because society cannot meet their physiological and safety needs.

Stigma

Parallel to limited opportunities, stigma is another example of how societal infrastructure influences recidivism. Moore et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review to explore “the causes and consequences of stigma among individuals involved in the criminal legal system”. After analysing 59 studies with a total of 21,738 participants, Moore et al. concluded that people involved in the criminal justice system faced severe stigmatisation, and this negatively impacted their wellbeing, reintegration, treatment adherence, and overall recidivism. This evidences that criminogenic needs increase when someone faces stigma, and highlights the need for societal shift on opinions of people that have offended in order to produce better outcomes for both parties: effective rehabilitation for the ex-offender and reduced risk of crime and victimisation for those in society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be inferred that the criminogenic needs play a significant role in someone’s journey to desistance. The main forms of criminogenic needs are supported by a wealth of research, evidencing environmental and biological underpinnings. We have also seen through theory such as the ITD and GLM that criminogenic needs can change, can be desisted from, and this desistance can consequently reduce reoffending. Robust research such as longitudinal studies, systematic reviews and cost analyses provided meaningful metrics to allow for measurement and assessment of how criminogenic needs change. Through meaningful metrics we identified the influence of internal and external factors, on a personal and social level, and the ways in which this can be controlled to reduce someone’s criminogenic needs and recidivism. We were also able to identify barriers to desistance, specifically systemic barriers, which highlights to us the importance of reflecting holistically on criminogenic needs, how they change, and how to desist from reoffending.

There is myriad research depicting robust and meaningful metrics which measure criminogenic needs and how they change, as well as the influence of this on recidivism. Empirical underpinning can support with identifying programme effectiveness, which can influence resource allocation and policy development (as seen in Norway). However, sometimes defining what makes the metric “meaningful” is complicated. Much of the research identifies reduced recidivism as success. Whilst this is true, it is simplifying this success metric – there are many other rehabilitation outcomes to be considered successful such as social reintegration or improved mental health. Future research should develop theory to define different measures of success beyond recidivism in more detail to effectively recognise the complexity of reintegrating into society following crime, and how many small factors intersect to contribute to rehabilitation. Little by little, a little becomes a lot.

References

Alford, M., O’Rourke, S., Doyle, P., & Todd, L. (2020). Examining the factors associated with impulsivity in forensic populations: A systematic review. Aggression and violent behavior, 54, 101409.

Altobelli, E., Guergache, A. K., Galassi, F., Petrocelli, R., & Marziliano, C. (2024). Cost Analysis of Penitentiary Systems and Comparison Between the Countries of the Council of Europe. Economies, 12(11), 311.

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (2023), Ten Years of PCCs Making a Difference, Addictions and Substance Misuse.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. (2012). 2 Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the lens of the risk-needs-responsivity model. In Offender Supervision (pp. 45-66). Willan.

Boutwell, B., Beaver, K.M., The Role of Broken Homes in the Development of Self-Control: A Propensity Score Matching Approach, 2010.

Carr, C. T., Kim, Y., Valov, J. J., Rosenbaum, J. E., Johnson, B. K., Hancock, J. T., & Gonzales, A. L. (2021). An explication of identity shift theory: Getting our shift together. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 33(4), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000314

Claes, B., & Shapland, J. (2016). Desistance from crime and restorative justice. Restorative Justice, 4(3), 302-322.

Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2020). Desistance from crime during the transition to adulthood: The influence of parents, peers, and shifts in identity. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 57(3), 294-332.

Cross, C. P., Copping, L. T., & Campbell, A. (2011). Sex differences in impulsivity: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 137(1), 97.

de Jesús Cardona-Isaza, A., Jiménez, S. V., & Montoya-Castilla, I. (2022). Decision-making styles in adolescent offenders and non-offenders: Effects of emotional intelligence and empathy. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 32(1), 51-60.

Dishion, T.J., Tipsord, J.M., Peer Contagion in Child and Adolescent Social and Emotional Development, 2011.

Doherty, E. E., & O’Neill, J. (2021). Examining the Within-Individual Effect of Delinquency on Psychosocial Maturity in Mid-adolescence. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7(4), 572-595.

Grove, W.M., Eckert, E.D., Heston, L., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N., Lykken, D.T., Heritability of Substance Abuse and Antisocial Behaviour: A Study of Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart, 1990.

Hassan, S., Kirk, D. S., & Andersen, L. H. (2022). The importance of living arrangements for criminal persistence and desistance: a novel test of exposure to convicted family members. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 8(4), 571-596.

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2020). Desistance. Retrieved January 3, 2025, from https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/research/the-evidence-base-probation/models-and-principles/desistance/

HM Inspectorate of Probation. (n.d.). Accommodation. HM Inspectorate of Probation. Retrieved February 13, 2025, from https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/research/the-evidence-base-probation/specific-areas-of-delivery/accommodation/

Hoeben, E. M., & Thomas, K. J. (2019). Peers and offender decision‐making. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(4), 759-784.

House of Lords Library, Crime and Rehabilitation: An Overview, 2020.

Jones, K. A., Hewson, T., Sales, C. P., & Khalifa, N. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of decision-making in offender populations with mental disorder. Neuropsychology review, 29, 244-258.

Kim, J., Fletcher, J.M., The Influence of Classmates on Adolescent Criminal Activities in the United States, 2018.

Low, G., Lindsay Latimer, C., & Mills, A. (2023). Stable housing,‘home’and desistance: Views from Aotearoa New Zealand. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17488958231210990.

Marshall, C. D. (2020). Restorative justice. Religion matters: The contemporary relevance of religion, 101-117.

McAnallen, A., & McGinnis, E. (2021). Trauma-informed practice and the criminal justice system: A systematic narrative review. Irish Probation Journal, 18, 109-129.

McCartan, K. F. (2020). Trauma-informed practice. HM Inspectorate of Probation Academic Insights: London, UK.

Moffitt, T.E., Beckley, A., Abandon Twin Research – Embrace Epigenetic Research: Premature Advice for Criminologists, 2015.

Moore, K. E., Phillips, S., Kromash, R., Siebert, S., Roberts, W., Peltier, M., … & McKee, S. A. (2024). The causes and consequences of stigma among individuals involved in the criminal legal system: A systematic review. Stigma and Health, 9(2), 224.

Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and the” feared self”: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 1103-1156.

Petrich, D. M. (2020). A self-determination theory perspective on human agency, desistance from crime, and correctional rehabilitation. Journal of developmental and life-course criminology, 6, 353-379.

Price, J. (2024). Growing Old and Dying inside: Improving the Experiences of Older People Serving Long Prison Sentences.

Prison Reform Trust. (2018). Lack of housing traps women in cycle of offending. Prison Reform Trust. https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/lack-of-housing-traps-women-in-cycle-of-offending/

Raine, A., The Biological Basis of Crime, 2002.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2017). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. In Developmental and Life-Course Criminological Theories (pp. 37-74). Routledge.

Skardhamar, T., & Savolainen, J. (2014). Changes in criminal offending around the time of job entry: A study of employment and desistance. Criminology, 52(2), 263-291.

Sturge, G. (2024). UK Prison Population Statistics. Parliament.uk; House of Commons Library. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf

The Queen’s Nursing Institute. (n.d.). Homelessness and the criminal justice system. The Queen’s Nursing Institute. Retrieved February 13, 2025, from https://qni.org.uk/resources/homelessness-criminal-justice-system-2/

Theobald, D., Farrington, D.P., Piquero, A.R., Childhood Broken Homes and Adult Violence: An Analysis of Moderators and Mediators, 2013.

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., & Farrington, D. P. (2003). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies, 137-183.

Ward, J. T., Link, N. W., & Forney, M. (2023). Mental and physical health, psychosocial maturity, and desistance in young adulthood. Journal of developmental and life-course criminology, 9(2), 331-352.

Ward, T., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001