Dynamic Factors of Sexual Aggression

Abstract

Deficits in affective and behavioral regulation have been related to several forms of criminal behavior. The aim of the present study was to evaluate how the structure of affect (positive vs. negative affect) and impulsiveness (motor/planning vs. cognitive impulsiveness) characterize specific forms of sexual violence. In all, 32 men convicted of rape, 31 men convicted of child sexual abuse (Study 1), and 37 male college students reporting sexual violence against women (Study 2) were assessed according to the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11). Results (Study 1) indicated that negative affect and motor/planning impulsiveness characterized individuals convicted of rape with regard to the control group, whereas child sexual molesters presented significantly lower positive affect than controls. On the other hand, college students reporting sexual violence against women (Study 2) presented higher motor/planning and cognitive impulsiveness than the control peers but did not differ from peers in relation to affect. Data suggest that the three forms of sexual violence (rape, child sexual abuse, and sexual coercion among college students) may be related to different etiological pathways.

Keywords

affect impulsiveness behavioral regulation rape child sexual abuse

Dynamic risk factors may contribute to the etiology and maintenance of sexual violence. Dynamic risk factors are frequently divided into two clusters: stable dynamic factors (i.e., aggressor’s persistent psychosocial characteristics) and acute dynamic factors (i.e., crime-related unstable factors, such as drug or alcohol intoxication or acute stress; Hanson & Harris, 2000). Deficient socioaffective functioning, deviant sexual interests, distorted attitudes, and poor emotional management are the main dynamic risk domains on sexual aggression (Craig, Thornton, Beech, & Browne, 2007). Studies on the dynamic risk domains have shown that rapists are characterized by a lack of empathy for women and poor assertiveness (Overholser & Beck, 1986). In a study conducted by Hanson and Harris (2000), stable factors related to sexual preoccupations, rape- and child-molestation-related attitudes, and low empathy for the victim were strongly related to sexual offense recidivism. In relation to emotional management and behavioral regulation, negative affective states such as anxiety or depression (Proulx, Pellerin, McKibben, Aubut, & Quimet, 1999) as well as deficient problem solving (Craig et al., 2007) and lifestyle impulsiveness (Prentky & Knight, 1991) have been found to be offense vulnerability factors.

In addition, the main conceptual models on sexual aggression suggest that negative affect and impulsiveness may generate sexually abusive behavior. Hall and Hirschman (1992) stated in their model (quadripartite theory of child molestation) that situational offenders are characterized by negative affective states, often acting in an impulsive, unplanned manner. More precisely, the authors proposed that child sexual molestation is related to four key etiological factors: deviant sexual arousal (sexual preference for children), distorted cognitions, lack of emotional regulation, and personality traits. Although all of these factors can interactively affect aggressive sexual behavior, only one of the factors acts prominently, determining the aggressor’s profile. For example, if deviant sexual arousal is prominent, the aggressor will most likely present a considerable number of victims, and clinical rehabilitation should focus on the deviant nature of arousal; if the aggressor is strongly characterized by high susceptibility to negative affective states and poor coping skills, the aggressor will possibly act intermittently in response to dysphoric mood states, and clinical rehabilitation should have a deep focus on emotional management (Hall & Hirschman, 1992). Ward and Siegert (2002; pathways model) also considered that deficient emotional regulation is a key vulnerability factor for sexual offending. Sexual offenders present poor emotional and behavioral regulation in that their offenses are often concerned with the relative momentary satisfaction of short-term desires and emotional needs. According to the authors, the lack of emotional regulation interacts with other factors (viz., intimacy deficits, distorted sexual scripts, and cognitive distortions) predisposing individuals to sexual offending. In the integrated theory of sexual offending, Ward and Beech (2006) stated that aggressive sexual behavior is predisposed by three interactive neurological systems: the motivational/emotional system, the control/action system, and the perception/memory system. Negative and/or positive emotions as well as the predisposition to control one’s actions and impulses are partially determined by these genetically and socially derived systems. Sexual aggression can thus be trigger by dysfunctional emotional states, and offenders may use sex as a coping strategy aimed at reducing negative or increasing positive mood states. This process entrenches the offender’s vulnerability. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) have proposed that sexual violence is partially predisposed by offenders’ early relational experiences. Aversive developmental experiences (related to family and dysfunctional attachment styles) have a negative impact on offenders’ affective, social, and sexual development, as well as on how offenders cope with negative feelings. These early experiences and their related problems prompt the individual to seek comfort in immediate rewards such as sex, as manifest in compulsive masturbation or coerced sex (Marshall, Marshall, Serran, & Fernandez, 2006).

In relation to sexual offenders’ emotional profile, Hall and Hirschman (1991) reported that states of anger and hostility precede and facilitate sexually abusive behaviors. Such states are not inhibited by feelings of guilt or empathy for the victim. Hostility was also associated with a greater number of relapses among sexual offenders, particularly among child sex molesters (Firestone, Nunes, Moulden, Broom, & Bradford, 2005). Emotional states of anger and hostility (negative-affect-related features) are often related to sexual offending. In addition to the role of negative emotions in sexual violence, Ward and Beech (2006) proposed that both negative and positive emotional states may affect sex offending. However, despite the potential role of positive affect in sexual violence, the impact of positive emotions is still less evident.

Impulsiveness and behavioral regulation have been also considered important dynamic risk factors on sexual offending (Craig et al., 2007). Impulsiveness comprises cognitive and behavioral features. Impulsive individuals show rapid and uninhibited responses to stimuli. These individuals are unable to ponder the consequences of their actions (Sims, 1988). Impulsiveness predicted serious forms of delinquency (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002) and was related to high aggressiveness among inmates (Barratt, Stanford, Kent, & Felthous, 1997; James & Seager, 2006). Non-premeditated crimes have been also related to high impulsiveness (Stanford et al., 2003). Sexual offenders are frequently described as impulsive individuals (Ward, Hudson, & Keenan, 1998). However, impulsiveness levels may depend on the offender’s typology. Paraphilic sexual offenders showed less impulsiveness in relation to nonparaphilic sex offenders. Paraphilic offenders plan their crimes to maximize their sexual experience (Leue, Brocke, & Hoyer, 2008). In addition, in a study conducted by Giotakos, Markianos, Vaidakis, and Christodoulou (2003), rapists presented more impulsiveness than did members of the control group. Regarding juvenile sexual offenders, impulsiveness was described as a recidivism risk predictor (Miner, 2002). Overall, the literature on the conceptual models of sexual offending has supported the relationship between mood and sexual violence. As stable dynamic factors, trait affect and impulsiveness may determine long-term criminal behavior in sexual offenders, partially explaining etiological pathways for sexual offending.

The aim of this study was to explore which dimensions of affect—negative and/or positive, as proposed in Watson and Tellegen’s (1985) model of affect—as well as which features of impulsiveness (motor vs. cognitive impulsiveness) characterize convicted sex offenders and nonconvicted sexual aggressors. Watson and Tellegen (circular model of affect) conceptualized human affectivity as a two-dimensional structure comprising negative affect and positive affect. Negative affect is associated with distress and irritability, characterizing an upset person, whereas positive affect is related to states of well-being, alertness, or enthusiasm. Despite its wide use in studies aimed at understanding human affectivity, the bidimensional structure of affect was not tested in the context of sexual offending. Sex offenders’ emotional management may be improved with therapeutic strategies directed at the offender’s predominant affective dimension (positive or negative). In addition, data on the relationship between cognitive versus behavioral impulsiveness and sexual aggression may contribute to the prevention of sexual crimes. Individuals convicted of rape and child sexual abuse (Study 1, convicted sex offenders) as well as male college students reporting sexual coercion of women (Study 2, nonconvicted sexual aggressors) were evaluated. It was expected that aggressors would present an affective profile characterized by higher levels of negative affect and lower levels of positive affect, thus showing a stable (trait level) lack of emotional adjustment. It was also expected that aggressors would present more impulsiveness (both cognitive and behavioral) in relation to controls.

Method

Participants

Study 1: Convicted sex offenders

A total of 32 men convicted of rape and 33 men convicted of child sexual abuse participated in Study 1. Pedophilic sexual interests (i.e., sexual attraction to prepubescent children) were assessed in men convicted of child sexual abuse. According to this evaluation (Seto & Lalumière, 2001; this screening questionnaire is described in more detail in the measures section), two individuals presented the highest scores suggesting predominant pedophilic sexual interests. These men were excluded from analysis since it was decided to keep a homogenous sample in terms of child molesters’ sexual preference. Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1:

Study 1 (convicted sex offenders): Demographics Characteristics

	Control (n = 30)	Rape (n = 32)	Child Sex Abuse (n = 31)
Age
M	31.6_a	33.8_ab	38.5_b
F(2, 88) = 4.433*, η² = .09
SD	8.26	9.34	9.61
Range	23–53	20–58	22–58
Marital status
Single (%)	51.7	64.5	32.1
χ² = 8.78, df = 8, p = .362, φ = .22
Married (%)	37.9	22.6	42.9
Divorced (%)	6.9	9.7	17.9
Widowed (%)	0.0	3.2	3.6
Living together (%)	3.4	0.0	3.6
Education
M	14.2_a	7.6_b	6.7_b
F(2, 88) = 169.152**, η² = .68
SD	1.35	2.30	2.06
Range	12-15	4-12	4-12

Note. Means marked with different subscript letters are significantly different from each other.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Study 2: Nonconvicted sexual aggressors

Study 2 was conducted with male college students. A total of 108 students, among whom 37 committed some kind of sexual abuse in the past year, participated in the study. More precisely, 91.9% reported having fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of someone’s body or to have removed some of his or her clothes without consent; 45.9% performed oral sex on someone or had someone perform oral sex on them without consent; 43.2% introduced their penis, their fingers, or objects into a woman’s vagina without consent; 35.1% introduced their penis, their fingers, or objects into someone’s anus without consent; 43.2% tried to have oral sex with someone or to force someone to have oral sex with them without consent; 43.2% tried to put their penis, their fingers, or objects into a woman’s vagina without consent; and 35.1% tried to put their penis, their fingers, or objects into someone’s anus without consent. Participants’ sociodemographics characteristics are presented in Table 2.

Table 2:

Study 2 (nonconvicted sexual aggressors/college students): Demographics Characteristics

	Nonaggressor Group (n = 71)	Aggressor Group (n = 37)
Age
M	23.6	23.9
SD	5.40	5.36
Range	19–50	18–43
Marital status
Single (%)	90	91.7
Married (%)	8.6	2.8
Divorced (%)	1.4	5.6
Widowed (%)	0.0	0.0
Living together (%)	0.0	0.0

Procedures

Study 1: Convicted sex offenders

Convicted sex offenders were recruited from seven Portuguese prisons. Ethical approval was given by the ethic committee of Direcção Geral dos Serviços Prisionais in Portugal. Participants gave written informed consent and answered the questionnaires voluntarily, in private rooms. Participants answered the questionnaires individually, under the supervision and with the help of the principal investigator. The control group (a convenience, nonrandom sample from the community, aimed at matching the offender group in terms of sociodemographics) was recruited by the researcher after the study was publicized on college campus. This specific study was addressed to nonstudent men working on campus. Participants gave written informed consent and answered the questionnaires privately at home and then returned the questionnaires to the researcher at the university. Participants answered an additional questionnaire assessing frequency of sexually abusive behaviors (Koss et al., 2007; this screening questionnaire is described in more detail in the measures section). According to this assessment, no men reported sexual coercion of women. Participants were not paid.

Study 2: Nonconvicted sexual aggressors

Students were recruited from a Portuguese university after the study was publicized in classrooms. Volunteers answered questionnaires individually and anonymously. Participants gave written informed consent and were not paid for participation.

Measures

Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI)

The SSPI (Seto & Lalumière, 2001) is a four-item categorical (present–absent) measure aimed at identifying child sex molesters’ sexual preferences. These items (“any male victims,” “more than one victim,” “any prepubescent victim,” and “any extrafamiliar victims”) were derived from child molesters’ sexual histories. Scores on the SSPI were phallometrically supported (Seto & Lalumière, 2001). According to Seto and Lalumière (2001), higher scores indicate pedophilic sexual interest. In the present study, the SSPI was completed according to the court files containing information on the victims. Participants scoring the highest value (n = 2; min = 0, max = 5, M = 1.03, SD = 1.32) were excluded since they would possibly present predominant pedophilic sexual interest (no phallometrically validated data exist). These participants were excluded since they were not numerous enough to form a comparison group.

Sexual Experiences Survey (perpetration form)

This questionnaire (Koss et al., 2007) has 7 self-response items assessing the frequency of sexually abusive behaviors as well as the strategies used. Participants are asked to number the times each experience happened in the past. Answers range from 1 time to 3/more times (scores on the frequency of coerced sex were as follows: min = 0, max = 117, M = 7.7, SD = 21.5). The original version presented good psychometric proprieties: Cronbach’s alpha = .89, test–retest reliability = .93 (Kolivas & Gross, 2007). The psychometric study, conducted with Portuguese male college students, showed acceptable psychometric proprieties: Cronbach’s alpha = .86, test–retest reliability = .70 (Carvalho, 2011). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was .97.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

The PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a self-response questionnaire aimed at assessing positive and negative affect according to a set of 20 adjectives (e.g., positive affect: interested, excited, proud; negative affect: distressed, ashamed, upset). Participants respond how they usually feel using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). In Study 1, scores on the Positive Affect subscale ranged as follows: rapists, 11–38; child molesters, 0–35; control group, 14–40; in Study 2, scores ranged as follows: students reporting a history of sexual aggression, 10–33; students without a history of sexual aggression, 11–40. In Study 1, scores on the Negative Affect subscale ranged as follows: rapists, 4–40; child molesters, 0–34; control group, 0–27; in Study 2, scores ranged as follows: students reporting a history of sexual aggression, 3–26; students without a history of sexual aggression, 0–28. Psychometric studies (original version) supported internal consistency: Cronbach’s alphas were .89 for the Positive Affect subscale and .85 for the Negative Affect subscale. Cronbach’s alphas for the Portuguese version of the PANAS were .86 for the Positive Affect subscale and .89 for the Negative Affect subscale (Galinha & Pais-Ribeiro, 2005). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .85 for the Positive Affect subscale and .88 for the Negative Affect subscale.

Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11)

The BIS-11 (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) has 30 self-response items, assessing the concept of impulsiveness. Participants respond using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (always). The original scale has three subscales: Attentional Impulsiveness (focusing on the task at hand), Motor Impulsiveness (acting on the spur of the moment), and Nonplanning Impulsiveness (planning and thinking carefully). Psychometric studies supported internal consistency: Cronbach’s alphas for the original scale were .82 in a sample of college students, .83 in a sample on psychiatric patients, and .80 in a sample of inmates. Psychometric studies conducted with a Portuguese sample of college students supported two factors: motor/planning impulsiveness (acting in the spur of the moment without considering decisions or planning actions) and cognitive impulsiveness (attentional deficits, lack of control over thoughts). Cronbach’s alphas were .80 for the first subscale and .75 for the second subscale. Test–retest reliability was .78 (Carvalho, 2011). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .80 for the Motor/Planning Impulsiveness subscale and .76 for the Cognitive Impulsiveness subscale. In addition, in Study 1, scores on the Motor/Planning Impulsiveness subscale ranged as follows: rapists, 30–66; child molesters, 28–63; control group, 25–57; in Study 2, scores ranged as follows: students reporting a history of sexual aggression, 31–63; students without a history of sexual aggression, 28–58. In Study 1, scores on the Cognitive Impulsiveness subscale ranged as follows: rapists, 8–24; child molesters, 11–24; control group, 10–26; in Study 2, scores ranged as follows: students reporting a history of sexual aggression, 12–25; students without a history of sexual aggression, 9–26.

Results

Study 1: Convicted Sex Offenders

Affect

A MANCOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of group (control group × rape group × child sexual abuse group) on the dimensions of affect. After controlling for age, Wilks’s Λ = .999, F(2, 85) = 0.027, p = .974, partial η² = .00, and education, Wilks’s Λ = .965, F(2, 85) = 1.521, p = .224, partial η² = .04, a significant main effect of group on the dimensions of affect was found, Wilks’s Λ = .751, F(4, 174) = 6.682, p < .001, partial η² = .13. Post hoc tests showed that individuals convicted of child sexual abuse presented significantly less positive affect than the control group (Hedges’s g = 1.09), whereas individuals convicted of rape presented significantly more negative affect in relation to the control group (Hedges’s g = 0.77; results of the univariate tests are presented in Table 3).

Table 3:

Study 1 (convicted sex offenders, results of univariate tests): Affect, Impulsiveness, and Sexual Aggression

	Control		Rape		Child Sex Abuse
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F(2, 88)	p	η²
Affect
Positive affect	28.34_a	1.24	24.33_ab	1.20	20.91_b	1.26	8.870	.000	.17
Negative affect	12.15_a	1.49	18.39_b	1.44	14.32_ab	1.51	4.724	.011	.10
Impulsiveness
Motor/planning impulsiveness	40.53_a	1.56	47.74_b	1.51	45.31_ab	1.59	5.631	.005	.11
Cognitive impulsiveness	16.26	0.70	17.56	0.68	18.10	0.71	1.830	.167	.04

Note. For each factor, means marked with different subscript letters are significantly different from each other.

Impulsiveness

A MANCOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of group (control group × rape group × child sexual abuse group) on impulsiveness. After controlling for age, Wilks’s Λ = .956, F(2, 85) = 1.936, p = .151, partial η² = .04, and education, Wilks’s Λ = .938, F(2, 85) = 2.831, p = .065, partial η² = .06, a significant main effect of group on impulsiveness was found, Wilks’s Λ = .869, F(4, 174) = 3.158, p < .05, partial η² = .07. Post hoc tests showed that individuals convicted of rape presented significantly more motor/planning impulsiveness than the control group (Hedges’s g = 0.84; results of univariate tests are presented in Table 3).

Study 2: Nonconvicted Sexual Aggressors

Affect

A MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of group (students reporting history of sexual aggression × students without history of sexual aggression) on the dimensions of affect. No significant main effect was found, Wilks’s Λ = .975, F(2, 105) = 1.344, p = .265, partial η² = .03 (Table 4).

Table 4:

Study 2 (nonconvicted sexual aggressors/college students): Affect, Impulsiveness, and Sexual Aggression

	Nonaggressor Group (n = 71)		Aggressor Group (n = 37)
	M	SD	M	SD	F(1, 106)	p	η²
Affect
Positive affect	26.00	0.68	24.20	0.95	2.388	.125	.02
Negative affect	11.62	0.79	12.70	1.09	0.651	.422	.01
Impulsiveness
Motor/planning impulsiveness	41.29	0.85	46.86	1.17	14.855***	.000	.12
Cognitive impulsiveness	16.24	0.42	18.08	0.58	6.678*	.011	.06

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Impulsiveness

A MANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of group (students reporting history of sexual aggression × students without history of sexual aggression) on impulsiveness. A significant main effect of group on the dimensions of impulsiveness was found, Wilks’s Λ = .863, F(2, 105) = 8.363, p < .001, partial η² = .14. Post hoc tests showed that students reporting a history of sexual aggression against women presented significantly more motor/planning (Hedges’s g = .78) and cognitive impulsiveness than their control peers (Hedges’s g = .53; results of univariate tests are presented in Table 4).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore which dimensions of trait affect and impulsiveness characterize convicted sex offenders and nonconvicted sexual aggressors. Individuals convicted of rape were characterized by higher levels of negative affect (a dimension related to irritability, distress, and hostility, common to emotional disorders such as anxiety and depression; Clark & Watson, 1991), whereas individuals convicted of child sexual abuse were characterized by lower positive affect (a dimension related to sense of joy, alertness, energy, interest, enthusiasm, and self-confidence; low levels are associated with states of depression; Clark & Watson, 1991). Hedges’s g supported large effect sizes for convicted versus control groups comparisons (Hedges, 1981). The literature often describes different profiles characterizing rapists and child molesters (e.g., Bard et al., 1987; Craissati & Beech, 2004; Ford & Linney, 1995; Ward, Hudson, & Marshall, 1996). Individuals convicted of child sexual abuse present more problems of internalization, whereas rapists are characterized by externalization related symptoms (Becker & Hunter, 1997; Lussier, Lecrerc, Cale, & Proulx, 2007). Studies on personality traits have shown that rapists present significantly higher levels of antisocial and sadistic personality traits (Eher, Rettenberger, & Schilling, 2010; Francia et al., 2010). Rapists also present significantly higher levels of aggression, assault, hostility, and verbal hostility than do child sex abusers (Shecory & Ben-David, 2005). The present findings are in line with previous data supporting rapists’ and child sex molesters’ distinct profiles. Each group of convicted sex offenders was differently characterized by one of the two affective dimensions. Previous research has focused on the role of negative affect (characterized by emotions of anger or hostility) in sexual aggression (e.g., Firestone et al., 2005; Hall & Hirschman, 1991). The present findings not only supported the role of negative affect but also suggested that positive affect may intervene as a vulnerability factor for sexual crimes, particularly against children. Findings on both dimensions of affect support Ward and Beech’s (2006) model. According to the authors, sex offenders may use sex to reduce negative emotions but also to generate and increase positive ones. The literature on the relationship between mood and sexual functioning has shown that negative affect may increase sexual arousal (e.g., Bancroft et al., 2003; Lykins, Janssen, & Graham, 2006) and that individuals may use sex to cope with negative mood states (e.g., Adams & Robison, 2001; Reid, Garos, & Carpenter, 2011). Features related to negative affect such as stress (McKibben, Proulx, & Lusignan, 1994), anxiety (Swaffer, Hollin, Beech, Beckett, & Fisher, 2000), anger (Hall & Hirschman, 1991), and hostility (Firestone et al., 2005) have consistently been found to be related to sexual crimes. Boredom (a feature of positive affect) has been found to enhance deviant sexual fantasies in sexual offenders (McKibben et al., 1994). Evidence of the relationship between positive affect and sexual coping is less evident, and further research must be conducted.

Each dimension of affect is related to specific features that can affect criminal behavior in different ways. Findings from the present study may also help to demonstrate why rapists frequently present antisocial traits in relation to child molesters (Porter et al., 2000; Rice & Harris, 1997; Seto & Barbaree, 1999). By inducing states of hostility, negative trait affect may contribute to the perpetration of psychopathic-related behavior among rapists. In addition, the combination of negative affect and high impulsiveness presented by the rapists may be related to the larger number of convictions (Rice & Harris, 1997), to the co-occurrence of nonsexual crimes, or to the highest recidivism rates characterizing rapists in relation to child molesters (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995). In terms of the offenders’ rehabilitation, data support the importance of the affective and impulsiveness regulation training. The training of adequate coping skills and emotional management is already considered on intervention protocols for sex offenders (e.g., Horley, 2008; Marshall et al., 2006). In addition, a deeper focus could be taken in relation to the particular role played by reduced positive emotions on child sexual abuse. Child molesters may benefit from strategies aimed at increasing positive emotions, whereas rapists may take advantage of anxiety or anger and behavioral impulsiveness control techniques. Impulsiveness management may be particularly important for rapists since traditional strategies of punishment are not completely effective in individuals presenting self-control deficits (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Paternoster, 2004).

In relation to students reporting sexual coercion of women, results of trait affect showed a nonsignificant main effect. Despite the relationship between dysfunctional mood and sexual violence that is often reported in the literature, its impact on students reporting sexual coercion of women was less evident. As nonconvicted individuals, students may be less exposed to emotional adjustment risk factors. In addition, college students reporting sexual coercion of women presented higher motor/planning impulsiveness (related to acting on the spur of the moment, without pondering decisions or planning actions) and higher cognitive impulsiveness (related to attention deficits and lack of control over thoughts) than peers. Hedges’s g statistics demonstrated medium to large effect sizes (Hedges, 1981) for the comparisons between aggressive/nonaggressive college students. College students are at a critical point in their psychosexual development, and cultural norms may prompt risky sexual conduct (Reece & Dodge, 2004). Preventive programs aimed at promoting noncoerced sex among this community could benefit from impulsiveness-management-related strategies.

Some limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. In relation to Study 1 (convicted sex offenders), a convenience sample was used as the control group. Participants from this sample may not be representative, limiting the results. Despite affect being assessed as a trait/stable personality variable, participants’ current conditions (convicted vs. nonconvicted) may have influenced participants’ responses to trait affect questions. We also consider that the assessment of violent sexual acts in the community sample, based on a self-report questionnaire, may not be completely accurate. In relation to Study 2, students composing the sexual offender group committed different forms of violent acts (e.g., kissing and/or introducing their penis without consent). Because of this variability, we cannot generalize results to a specific form of sexual offense (e.g., sexual contact, attempted rape, rape). To overcome this limitation, studies are now being conducted to increase the number of nondocumented sexual aggressors. Specific typologies of sexual offenses are expected to be formed and tested. In addition, future studies should focus on the relationship between development-related factors and the structures of affect and impulsiveness as well as consider the inclusion of men convicted of nonsexual crimes. Comparisons between sexual and nonsexual crimes would add information on how the affective structures and impulsiveness affect different forms of criminal behavior.

Results indicated that convicted sex offenders and nonconvicted sexual aggressors differed from the control groups in terms of trait affect and impulsiveness and that different contexts of sexual violence (rape, child sex abuse, and coerced sex among college students) may be characterized by specific profiles. Although we cannot make a direct comparison between the convicted sexual offenders and students who sexually coerced (given the different sociocultural background), results suggested that sexual offenders with adult victims (men convicted of rape and college students reporting sexual coercion of women) may present impulse regulation deficits and that convicted sexual offenders present marked dysfunctional affectivity in relation to nonconvicted sexual aggressors. Trait affect and impulsiveness may thus help to demonstrate different forms of sexual violence, guiding therapeutic strategies aimed at different sex crimes.

Footnotes

Joana Carvalho received a PhD in psychology from the University of Aveiro, Portugal, in 2011. She is a researcher at the Laboratory for Research in Human Sexuality (SexLab) at the University of Aveiro. Her current research interests include psychophysiological studies on human sexual response, vulnerability factors for sexual aggression, and conceptual models on human sexual response and behavior.

Pedro Nobre has a PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Coimbra (Portugal) and is currently professor and director of the Laboratory for Research in Human Sexuality (SexLab) at the University of Aveiro. He is also responsible for various research projects on sexual health and is past-president of the Portuguese Society of Clinical Sexology (2008–2011).

References

Adams

K. M.

Robison

D. W.

(2001). Shame reduction, affect regulation, and sexual boundary development: Essential building blocks of sexual addiction treatment. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 8, 23-44.

Bancroft

Janssen

Strong

Carnes

Vukadinovic

Long

J. S.

(2003). The relation between mood and sexuality in heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 217-230.

Bard

L. A.

Carter

D. L.

Cerce

D. D.

Knight

R. A.

Rosenberg

Schneider

(1987). A descriptive study of child molesters, development, clinical, and criminal characteristics. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 203-220.

Barratt

E. S.

Stanford

M. S.

Kent

T. A.

Felthous

(1997). Neuropsychological and cognitive psychophysiological substrates of impulsive aggression. Biological Psychiatry, 41, 1054-1061.

Becker

J. V.

Hunter

J. A.

(1997). Understanding and treating child and adolescents sexual offenders. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 177-197.

Carvalho

(2011). Vulnerability factors for sexual aggression (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316-336.

Craig

L. A.

Thornton

Beech

Browne

K. D.

(2007). The relationship of statistical and psychological risk markers to sexual reconviction in child molesters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 314-329.

Craissati

Beech

(2004). The characteristics of convicted rapists: Sexual victimization and compliance in comparison to child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 225-240.

10.

Eher

Rettenberger

Schilling

(2010). Psychiatric diagnoses of sexual offenders: An empirical investigation of 807 delinquents imprisoned for child abuse and rape. Z Sexualforsch, 23, 23-35.

11.

Firestone

Nunes

K. L.

Moulden

Broom

Bradford

J. M.

(2005). Hostility and recidivism in sexual offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 277-283.

12.

Ford

M. E.

Linney

J. A.

(1995). Comparative analysis of juvenile sexual offenders, violent non sexual offenders, and status offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 56-70.

13.

Francia

C. A.

Coolidge

F. L.

White

L. A.

Segal

D. L.

Cahill

B. S.

Estey

A. J.

(2010). Personality disorder profiles in incarcerated male rapists and child molesters. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 28, 55-68.

14.

Galinha

I. C.

Pais-Ribeiro

J. L.

(2005). Contribuição para o estudo da versão Portuguesa da Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): II—Estudo psicométrico [Study of adaptation of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule to the Portuguese population]. Análise Psicológica, 2, 219-227.

15.

Giotakos

Markianos

Vaidakis

Christodoulou

G. N.

(2003). Aggression, impulsivity, plasma sex hormones, and biogenic amine turnover in a forensic population of rapists. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 29, 215-225.

16.

Hall

G. C. N.

Hirschman

(1991). Toward a theory of sexual aggression: A quadripartite model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 643-669.

17.

Hall

G. C. N.

Hirschman

(1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual perspective of etiology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 8-23.

18.

Hanson

R. K.

Bussière

M. T.

(1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

19.

Hanson

R. K.

Harris

(2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35.

20.

Hedges

L. V.

(1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.

21.

Horley

(2008). Sexual offenders: Personal construct theory and deviant sexual behavior. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

22.

James

Seager

J. A.

(2006). Impulsivity and schemas for a hostile world: Postdictors of violent behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 47-56.

23.

Kolivas

E. D.

Gross

A. M.

(2007). Assessing sexual aggression: Addressing the gap between rape victimization and perpetration prevalence rates. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 315-328.

24.

Koss

M. P.

Abbey

Campbell

Cook

Norris

Testa

. . . White

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370.

25.

Leue

Brocke

Hoyer

(2008). Reinforcement sensitivity of sex offenders and non-sex offenders: An experimental and psychometric study of reinforcement sensitivity theory. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 361-378.

26.

Lussier

Lecrerc

Cale

Proulx

(2007). Development pathways in deviance of sexual aggressors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1441-1462.

27.

Lykins

A. D.

Janssen

Graham

C. A.

(2006). The relationship between negative mood and sexuality in heterosexual college women and men. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 136-143.

28.

Marshall

W. L.

Barbaree

H. E.

(1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In Marshall

W. L.

Laws

D. R.

Barbaree

H. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 257-275). New York, NY: Plenum.

29.

Marshall

W. L.

Marshall

L. E.

Serran

G. A.

Fernandez

Y. M.

(2006). Treating sexual offenders: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

McKibben

Proulx

Lusignan

(1994). Relationships between conflict, affect, and deviant sexual behaviors in rapists and child molesters. Behavior Research and Therapy, 32, 571-575.

31.

Miner

M. H.

(2002). Factors associated with recidivism in juveniles: An analysis of serious juvenile sex offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 421-436.

32.

Moffitt

Caspi

Harrington

Milne

B. J.

(2002). Males on the life course persistent and adolescence limited antisocial pathways: Follow up at age 26. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179-207.

33.

Overholser

J. C.

Beck

(1986). Multimethod assessment of rapists, child molesters, and three control groups on behavioural and psychological measures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 682-687.

34.

Patton

J. H.

Stanford

M. S.

Barratt

E. S.

(1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768-774.

35.

Porter

Fairweather

Drugge

Herve

Birt

Boer

D. P.

(2000). Profiles of psychopathy in incarcerated sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 216-233.

36.

Prentky

R. A.

Knight

R. A.

(1991). Identifying critical dimensions for discriminating among rapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 463-661.

37.

Proulx

Pellerin

McKibben

Aubut

Quimet

(1999). Recidivism in sexual aggressors: Static and dynamic predictors of recidivism in sexual aggressors. Sexual Abuse, 11, 117-129.

38.

Quinsey

V. L.

Rice

Harris

(1995). Predicting sexual offenses. In Campbell

(Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 114-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Reece

Dodge

(2004). Exploring indicators of sexual compulsivity among men who cruise for sex on campus. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 11, 1-27.

40.

Reid

R. C.

Garos

Carpenter

B. N.

(2011). Reliability, validity, and psychometric development of the Hypersexual Behavior Inventory in an outpatient sample of men. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 18, 30-51.

41.

Rice

Harris

(1997). Cross-validation and extension of the violence risk appraisal guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231-241.

42.

Seto

Barbaree

(1999). Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and sex offender recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1235-1248.

43.

Seto

M. C.

Lalumière

M. L.

(2001). A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests among child molesters. Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 15-25.

44.

Shecory

Ben-David

(2005). Aggression and anxiety in rapists and child molesters. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 652-661.

45.

Sims

(1988). Symptoms in the mind: An introduction to descriptive psychopathology. London, UK: Bailliere Tindal.

46.

Stanford

M. S.

Houston

R. J.

Mathias

C. W.

Villemarette-Pittman

N. R.

Helfritz

L. E.

Conkin

S. M.

(2003). Characterizing aggressive behavior. Assessment, 10, 183-190.

47.

Swaffer

Hollin

Beech

Beckett

Fisher

(2000). An exploration of child sexual abuser’s fantasies before and after treatment. Sexual Abuse, 12, 61-68.

48.

Ward

Beech

(2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 44-63.

49.

Ward

Hudson

S. M.

Keenan

(1998). A self-regulating model of the sexual offense process. Sexual Abuse, 10, 141-157.

50.

Ward

Hudson

Marshall

(1996). Attachment style in sex offenders: A preliminary study. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 17-26.

51.

Ward

Siegert

(2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory of knitting perspective. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 319-351.

52.

Watson

Clark

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

53.

Watson

Tellegen

(1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

54.

Wright

B. R. E.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Paternoster

(2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 180-213.