In the world of correctional psychology, most of us are quite familiar with the construct of “criminal (or criminogenic) thinking,” pioneered by Yochelson and Samenow in the mid-1970s. It’s the idea that people who live a criminal lifestyle view themselves and the world through a certain lens—one that permits them to justify acting in ways that are irresponsible or violate the rights and well-being of others. Originally, Yochelson and Samenow (1976) identified 52 different styles of criminal thinking! Importantly, they understood that individuals who become entrenched in the criminal legal system aren’t the only ones who think in these ways; yet, they rely on these thinking errors more frequently and have greater difficulty interrupting and re-directing their thought process. The rest of us tend to fall victim to criminal thinking less often and, when we do, we’re more adept at recognizing and modifying them before causing further harm. In this way, criminal thinking can be viewed as a continuum, with infrequent and low-stakes errors on one end and frequent high-stakes errors (often leading to illegality) on the other.
Contemporarily, Glenn Walters is considered by many as the leading scholar in research on and refinement of criminal thinking (see Walters, 2023). Examples of criminal thinking errors include rationalizing or minimizing behavior by blaming someone or something else, thinking on impulse, having a false sense of ownership or privilege (or entitlement), believing a good deed makes up for a bad one, prioritizing the desire for power and control, or thinking you can get away with something because of your cleverness or smarts. Not only is criminal thinking in and of itself an empirically grounded risk factor for crime and misconduct, but it is also thought to underly many other known criminogenic risks such as substance misuse, family conflict, problems at work, or unproductive use of free time (Bonta & Andrews, 2024).
Although we must acknowledge that the development of criminal thinking as a default way of thinking may stem from biological or social determinants (e.g., deficits in executive functioning that impair emotional control, early learning of or reinforcement for inappropriate behavior), criminal thinking can be changed through intervention. From a psychological services perspective, criminal thinking is best targeted using a cognitive-behavioral framework. There are many popular programs that incorporate criminal thinking as a primary change goal. One prevalent evidence-based example in the U.S. and elsewhere is Thinking for a Change (T4C; Bush et al., 1997). The main objectives of these programs are to help correctional clients more quickly identify instances of criminal thinking and adjust their decision-making in favor of more productive behavioral choices.
The Need for Better Continuity of Care
Under the best of circumstances, incarcerated clients may spend a few hours each week engaged in formal treatment activities (1:1 counseling, brief check-ins, group). This calculates to a fraction of the time they spend doing other things—meals, socializing, job placement, etc. Outside confidential treatment settings, frontline correctional staff (namely security and unit officers) are monitoring and correcting behavior. Anyone with experience working in corrections knows responses to inappropriate behavior on the unit or block rarely mirror how similar behaviors would be talked about or corrected within the therapeutic context. This lack of consistency can impede treatment progress by not fostering opportunities for clients to practice skills they’re learning in therapy when it really counts. Perhaps more seriously, when officers respond in hostile or antagonistic ways, they increase their own risk of victimization (Ellison & Gainey, 2020). Bringing frontline staff further into the treatment fold is likely to make coming to work every day a bit safer for everyone.
Correctional officers not only spend the most time with incarcerated persons, but they are also often the first staff to respond to their needs or conflicts. These day-to-day interactions allow frontline staff to pick up on triggers and red flags for poor behavior. Thus, these staff are in an advantageous position to provide in-the-moment education and redirection to help incarcerated clients modify their criminal thinking in a way that compliments the efforts of mental health staff. In fact, experts argue that custodial staff are ideal for providing supportive counseling and skills training to incarcerated persons to supplement programming initiatives (Dvoskin & Spiers, 2004). Most treatment programs focused on reducing criminal thinking do not inherently involve correctional officers as essential change agents in their implementation.
Introducing “In the Act”: A Training for Frontline Staff
In the Act (or ITA) is a novel training program that teaches correctional staff brief and effective strategies to promptly address instances of criminal thinking that occur beyond the view of mental health providers (Batastini et al., 2025). While correctional/custodial officers are the target audience, the training may be useful for other staff with frequent and/or brief interactions with people in-custody, staff with less experience working in corrections or with limited mental health knowledge, or anyone who wants a few extra skills in their back pocket.
The overarching goals of ITA are two-fold: (1) encourage a unified responsibility across an institution to facilitate change and hold incarcerated persons accountable, while modeling dignity and respect and (2) promote greater continuity between everyday staff interactions and programs that teach clients new ways of thinking and behaving. The goal is not to turn every correctional staff person into a qualified mental health professional—at its core, ITA is an attempt to get all staff on the same page about criminal thinking (what it is, how we modify it) and give frontline staff some basic tools for calling out (in a therapeutic way, of course) behaviors that reflect criminal thinking when they happen in real life situations. Further, we recognize learning the skills in ITA will not eliminate the need for use of force or punitive sanctions to curb behavior that threatens the safety and security of an institution; rather, the skills learned may reduce the frequency and severity of harmful behavior and improve the overall culture within an institution. Even when a person’s behavior warrants serious consequences, they can still benefit from staff’s ability to address their criminal thinking therapeutically.
ITA is compartmentalized into five modules. Module 1 (Your Role in Change) is about increasing staff buy-in regarding their role in supporting the change process and why it’s unhelpful to place sole responsibility for change on mental health staff. Module 2 (What Helps) teaches staff about generally effective intervention models and techniques for reducing antisocial behavior and where criminal thinking fits within this landscape. Module 3 (Addressing Criminal Thinking) is where staff learn what criminal thinking can look like in-custody, how clients are typically taught to understand and identify criminal thinking in treatment programs, and a quick 3-step method staff can use to bring awareness to a person’s criminal thinking. Module 4 (Specific Populations) reviews special considerations for several subpopulations including those with serious mental illness, cognitive or neurological impairment, youthful clients, and women. Module 5 (Putting it to Practice) guides staff trainees through role play exercises to practice newly learned skills.
Longitudinal research is needed on ITA, but assessments of training acceptability in the U.S. and Australia leaned favorably. Among U.S. trainees (N = 15), responses to an anonymous training feedback survey (developed specifically for ITA) showed positive opinions regarding the specific learning objectives (M = 17.80 out of 20 possible), program content (M = 41.57 out of 48), the trainer (M = 48.64 out of 52), and how the training was generally administered (average = 16.54 out of 20). Ratings from the feedback survey produced similar results in Australia (N = 54): specific learning objectives (M = 16.63), program content (M = 39.94), the trainer (M = 47.84), and training administration (M = 15.42). Several trainees provided qualitative feedback, suggesting ITA may be particularly beneficial for new officers (e.g., “Very effective information session that could be useful to other officers. Especially those new in corrections, content was very relevant and engaging” and “I believe this does benefit the new officers in terms of tactical communication with the prisoners”). Feedback from these initial implementation sessions were used to revise and consolidate content prior to the publication of training materials.
The In the Act book, consisting of a trainer’s guide and implementation materials, can be purchased from the Springer International website or other online book retailers. While the training was originally developed for the U.S. context, implementation materials are accessible as modifiable documents, allowing content to be adjusted for jurisdictions outside the U.S., such as changes to commonly used institutional terminology or replacing slides from Module 4 to better reflect culturally-relevant subpopulations.
ITA Training Opportunity
The In the Act team (article featured above) has partnered with CONCEPT Continuing and Professional Studies at Palo Alto University in California to offer two webinars. The first is a complimentary 1-hour session summarizing the development and implementation of the training curriculum. This introductory session is a great way for correctional administrators and educational leaders to figure out whether ITA may be a good match for their agencies without loosening the purse strings.
The second is a two-part (3.5 CE hours per day, 7 CE hours total) train-the-trainer style session where we’ll review program goals, key learning tools, effective group facilitation skills, and practice delivering training segments in a safe and supportive environment. This session is more ideal for senior staff or educational instructors preparing to roll out In the Act after purchasing training materials.
Visit the links below to register:
Complimentary 1-hour session: August 10, 2026
1pm (PDT) | 8pm (GMT) | 4am (SGT; August 11) | 8am (NZST; August 11)
Full session (over two half-days): November 2 – 3, 2026
1pm (PDT) | 8pm (GMT) | 4am (SGT; August 11) | 8am (NZST; August 11)
For more information, interested readers are welcome to reach out to us directly via email at abatastini@swin.edu.au.
Drs. Ashley Batastini, Ashley Jones, & Kaylee Cook
References
Anthony, W. A., & Carkhuff, R. R. (1977). The Art of Health Care Trainer’s Tips. Human Resource Development Press.
Batastini, A. B., Jones, A. C. T., & Cook, K. (2025). In the Act: Training correctional officers to recognize criminal thinking. New York: Springer International.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (2024). The psychology of criminal conduct (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315677187
Bush, J., Glick, B., & Taymans, J. (1997). Thinking for a Change: Integrated Cognitive Behavioral Change Program. National Institute of Corrections.
Dvoskin, J. A. & Spiers, E. M. (2004). On the role of correctional officers in prison mental health. Psychiatric Quarterly, 75(1), 41-59.
Ellison, J. M., & Gainey, R. (2020). An opportunity model of safety risks among jail officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.101632
Walters, G. D. (2023). Criminal thinking. In P. R. Magaletta, M. Ternes, & M. Patry (Eds.), The history and future of correctional psychology (pp. 123–135). Springer Nature Switzerland AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37480-7_7
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The Criminal Personality: Volume 1. Jason Aronson, Inc. New York.
