Elevated Psychopathy Scores Among Mixed Sexual Offenders

Abstract

Past research has revealed a relationship between sexual offending and psychopathy. Notably, offenders who sexually assault a minor as well as an adult (mixed offenders) score higher on the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) than child sex offenders, rapists, and nonsex offenders. Moreover, both PCL-R Factor 1 (interpersonal-affective traits) and PCL-R Factor 2 (impulsive-antisocial traits) scores have been implicated in explaining these higher psychopathy scores. Using data from 2,514 male prisoners, focusing on a subset of 40 mixed offenders, we attempted to replicate and clarify these findings. As predicted, mixed offenders scored higher on PCL-R total and Factor 1 than other offender groups. Given this distinctive profile, greater understanding of the association between these psychopathic traits and mixed sexual offending may be crucial for evaluating and treating sex offenders as well as for reducing victimization.

Keywords

psychopathy sex offenders personality Factor 1 stress reaction

Criminal sexual behavior comprises a wide spectrum of actions that affect diverse types of victims. Sex offenders violate the rights of these victims across a variety of situations through the use of self-gratifying tactics. However, sex offenders defy simple characterization because they are heterogeneous, both in constellation of predisposing factors and degree of severity (Hildebrand, De Ruiter, & de Vogel, 2004; Mann & Barnett, 2013).

Given the apparent heterogeneity of sex offenders, researchers have developed typologies and distinct sex offender profiles to facilitate identification of important etiological processes (Parent, Guay, & Knight, 2011, 2012; Walters, Knight, & Thornton, 2009; Woodworth et al., 2013). While recognizing the importance of refining general typologies, the goal of this study is more circumscribed. Specifically, we wish to replicate and extend previous research, which links the personality dimension of psychopathy with a sexual offender subtype whose offending includes both child and adult victims. To this end, we adopt a common sex offender typology that distinguishes child sex offenders, rapists, and mixed offenders (i.e., offenders who sexually assault both minors and adults) from nonsexual offenders (see also Porter et al., 2000).

Following others, we presume that each type reflects distinct antisocial behaviors and motivations. For example, child sex offenders are frequently characterized by low self-esteem (e.g., feelings of inadequacy) and poor social skills (Robertiello & Terry, 2007), and often use “grooming” techniques to manipulate their victims into complying with sexual abuse (Craven, Brown, & Gilchrist, 2006). According to Mann and Barnett (2013), they are also likely to view children as sexual beings and believe that their actions do not harm the victims. By contrast, research indicates that rapists are more likely to possess coercive sexual fantasies and use violence in the commission of their crimes (Marshall, Laws, & Barbaree, 1990). Rapists also tend to endorse negative views of women, such as believing that women enjoy coercive sexual advances or that they are subordinate to males (Kuznetsov, Pierson, & Harry, 1992). Furthermore, while some rapists are sexually motivated, others are motivated by anger or a desire for control and power (Robertiello & Terry, 2007). In some cases, rapists may experience intense anger and offend sexually so as to diffuse a psychologically threatening or emotionally uncomfortable state (Mann & Barnett, 2013).

Even though mixed offenders are defined by a combination of sex offenses that includes child and adult victims, their profile distinguishes them from child sex offenders and rapists. For instance, some have proposed that mixed offenders are characterized as thrill-seeking individuals who are prone to boredom and other psychopathic features (Porter, Campbell, Woodworth, & Birt, 2001; Saleh, Malin, Grudzinskas, & Vitacco, 2010). According to Cann, Friendship, and Gonza (2007), individuals who offend against a variety of age groups demonstrate a more general lack of empathy that goes beyond their treatment of women and children. Thus, although some have argued that virtually all sex offenders display empathy deficits (e.g., Mann & Barnett, 2013), the empathy deficits displayed by mixed offenders may be particularly severe and, some have suggested, rooted in a more far-reaching psychopathic style.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a range of interpersonal-affective and impulsive-antisocial symptoms that suggest a pervasive lack of empathy (Brook & Kosson, 2013; Hare & Neumann, 2009; Jonason & Krause, 2013; Roche, Shoss, Pincus, & Ménard, 2011). Individuals with psychopathy are callous and manipulative, and display a chronic failure to inhibit inappropriate actions (Cleckley, 1941; Patterson & Newman, 1993) that has been linked to defective perspective-taking (Decety, Chen, Harenski, & Kiehl, 2013; Meffert, Gazzola, den Boer, Bartels, & Keysers, 2013; Newman & Baskin-Sommers, 2011). In addition, they display a propensity for substance use, aggression, and sexual promiscuity that attests to their predilection for sensation-seeking and violating the rights of others (Hildebrand et al., 2004; Neumann & Hare, 2008). Furthermore, their global disinhibition contributes to an antisocial lifestyle that appears to increase the likelihood of committing sex offenses (Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995).

Psychopathy and Sex Offending

Substantiating the specific link between mixed sex offenders and psychopathic offenders, mixed sex offenders are more likely to demonstrate psychopathy-related traits (64%) than intrafamilial child sex offenders (i.e., offending against a relative; 6.3%), extrafamilial child sex offenders (i.e., offending against a nonrelative; 10.8%), nonsex offenders (34%), and rapists (29%-35.9%; Porter et al., 2000). Although these rates of psychopathy must be interpreted with caution owing to the relatively small sample sizes, the high prevalence of psychopathy among mixed offenders is relatively consistent (see also Porter et al., 2001) and suggests that these individuals share substantially more psychopathic features than other sex offender groups, including nonsex offenders. Furthermore, to the extent that the association between psychopathy and mixed sexual offending is a reliable one, it may help to clarify the heterogeneous risk assessment findings, recidivism rates, and treatment effects that characterize different sex offender groups (Hildebrand et al., 2004; Roche et al., 2011).

Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; 2003) is the most widely used and arguably the best-validated measure of psychopathy (Hare & Neumann, 2008) and was the measure of psychopathy employed by Porter et al. (2000) in their investigation of sex offender subtypes. PCL-R psychopathy is also a risk factor for sexual recidivism, proving especially dangerous in combination with other sexually deviant preferences, and is therefore included in many sex offender risk evaluations (Hanson & Harris, 2000; Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000; Hawes, Boccaccini, & Murrie, 2013; Hildebrand et al., 2004; Porter, Brinke, & Wilson, 2009; Woodworth et al., 2013). Despite preliminary evidence that mixed offenders score higher on the PCL-R total score than other offenders, there is a need to replicate this finding and clarify which psychopathic traits distinguish mixed offenders from other sexual and nonsexual offenders. For instance, although mixed offenders score higher on PCL-R total and Factor 1 (i.e., reflecting the affective-interpersonal components of psychopathy) than child sex offenders, it remains unclear whether these scores distinguish them from rapists and nonsex offenders (Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Skrovan, Huss, & Scalora, 2010). Similarly, despite preliminary evidence that mixed offenders score higher on Factor 2 (i.e., reflecting the impulsive-antisocial lifestyle components of psychopathy) than child sex offenders, it is unclear whether they score higher on Factor 2 than both rapists and nonsex offenders (Olver & Wong, 2006; Skrovan et al., 2010).

Current Study

The primary purpose of this study is to compare the mean PCL-R scores of mixed offenders with those of other sex offending and nonsex offending subgroups in a general prison population. In addition, we compare the Factor 1 and 2 scores of mixed offenders and other offender subgroups in an attempt to address conflicting results from previous research and determine whether particular components of psychopathy distinguishes mixed offenders and other offender subgroups. Finally, we also attempt to differentiate mixed offenders from other offender subgroups using the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982). Aside from its primary scales, the MPQ has been used to measure the two major factors of psychopathy as identified by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Because interview-based measures of psychopathy like the PCL-R and self-report measures of personality like the MPQ assess psychopathy-related traits in different ways, we use both measures to elucidate the characteristics that distinguish the mixed offenders from other offender groups. We hypothesize that, relative to other sex offender groups, the mixed offender group will display (a) higher PCL-R total scores, (b) higher PCL-R Factor 1 scores, and (c) higher scores on the MPQ equivalent of PCL-R Factor 1 (i.e., fearless dominance [FD]). In light of past results, no a priori hypotheses are specified for PCL-R Factor 2.

Method

Participants

Our sample consists of 2,514¹ male offenders, who were incarcerated in Wisconsin state prisons and assessed between the years 2000 and 2013. Participants were excluded if they were older than 45 (see Hare, Forth, & Strachan, 1992; Hare, McPherson, & Forth, 1988; Harpur & Hare, 1994), had an estimated intelligence of 70 or lower on either the Shipley Institutes of Living Scale–Revised (Zachary, 1986) or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997),² were using a prescribed antipsychotic or tricyclic medication, or were diagnosed with a psychotic disorder according to their institution file.

Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on sex offense history: child sex offenders (i.e., intra- and extrafamilial offenders charged with a sex crime[s] against a minor[s] age 17 and below; n = 211), rapists (i.e., charged with sexually assaulting an adult[s] age 18 and above; n = 468), mixed offenders (i.e., charged with a sex crime[s] against a minor[s] as well as an adult[s]; n = 40), and nonsex offenders (i.e., never charged for a sexual crime; n = 1,795). Information used to classify each offender group was gathered from institutional files and included all adult charges and convictions.

Procedure

Individuals meeting inclusion criteria were asked to participate in an ongoing study on the causes of incarceration and informed that participation was completely voluntary and would have no impact on their incarceration status. All inmates consenting to participate were asked to complete a diagnostic interview, a series of personality questionnaires, and a short measure of intelligence. Participants were paid US$15 for completing these assessments. All procedures were approved by the University of Wisconsin–Madison institutional review board.

Measures

The PCL-R

The PCL-R (Hare, 2003) is a clinical rating scale consisting of 20 items rated 0 to 2, based on the degree to which the trait is present. Items are rated using information gathered from a semistructured interview, as well as a review of institutional files. The items on the PCL-R are often divided into two factors (Hare et al., 1990; Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989), with Factor 1 representing the interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy (e.g., grandiosity, callousness, pathological lying) and Factor 2 representing the impulsive and antisocial lifestyle components of psychopathy (e.g., parasitic lifestyle, impulsivity, irresponsibility). Two of the 20 items (promiscuous sexual behavior and many short-term marital relationships) are not grouped with either factor but contribute to the total PCL-R score. The two primary factors of the PCL-R may be further disaggregated into two facets, forming a four-facet model (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Hare, 2003; Hare et al., 1990; Neumann, Hare, & Newman, 2007). Factor 1 may be subdivided into interpersonal (Facet 1) and affective (Facet 2) facets, whereas Facets 3 and 4 consist of the impulsive and antisocial features of Factor 2, respectively. Trained undergraduate students, graduate students, and professional staff completed the PCL-R interviews and ratings. All interviewers were required to complete an intensive training process that included a thorough education of the following: the construct of psychopathy, the development of the PCL-R and PCL-R manual, the Factor structure of the PCL-R, and principles of PCL-R ratings. After this education, new interviewers shadowed experienced interviewers for several months until a very high level of reliability was reached. Dual ratings for PCL-R total scores were available for 559 participants. Using interclass correlation, the interreliability for these ratings was .915.

To investigate whether the four offender groups differed in the diversity of their criminal behavior, we computed a measure of criminal versatility using information from Item 20 of the PCL-R (Criminal Versatility). This index of criminal versatility includes 15 possible crime categories: theft, robbery, drug offenses, assault, murder, weapons, sex crimes, negligence or driving offenses, fraud, escape, kidnapping, arson, obstruction of justice, crimes against the state, and miscellaneous minor crimes. For the purposes of this study, criminal versatility was estimated using the total number of crime categories endorsed for each offender and could vary from 0 to 15.

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire–Brief Form (MPQ-BF)

The MPQ-BF is a 155-item scale, requiring yes or no responses. The MPQ-BF trait scales are highly correlated with those of the full form MPQ and consistent with its higher order factors (Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002). The MPQ includes 11 trait subscales: Well-Being, Social Potency, Achievement, Social Closeness, Stress Reaction, Alienation, Aggression, Control, Harm Avoidance, Traditionalism, and Absorption (Tellegen & Waller, 2008). MPQ data were available for 1,938 of the 2,514 participants used in the primary analyses, which represents 77% of the total sample.

The MPQ-BF was also used to assess the constructs of Fearless Dominance (FD) and Impulsive Antisociality (IA), reflecting the two higher order factors derived from the PPI (see Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003). The FD factor is characterized by social dominance, fearlessness, and grandiosity, resembling features of PCL-R Factor 1. The IA factor is related to general antisociality, substance abuse, impulsivity, and aggression, capturing core features of PCL-R Factor 2 (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005). MPQ-FD and MPQ-IA scales contained 24 and 34 items, respectively. Empirical evidence suggests that the MPQ constructs of FD and IA account for a large proportion of the variance in their PPI counterparts (r = .89 and .84, respectively) and are highly similar to both their corresponding PPI and PCL-R factors (Benning et al., 2005; Benning et al., 2003; Blonigen, Hicks, Krueger, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Prior to conducting primary analyses, we examined whether the mixed offender group differed from any of the other offender groups on age, race, and IQ. Analyses revealed no differences between the mixed offenders and the other three offending groups in age, race, or IQ. Because mixed offenders by definition have multiple sex offenses (i.e., a sexual assault and molestation), we also examined the possibility that mixed offenders display greater criminal versatility than other offender subgroups. However, the mixed offenders did not commit more types of criminal behavior than the other groups, thus minimizing concerns that greater criminal versatility might inflate the PCL-R total scores of the mixed group. These and other descriptive data for the four groups are provided in Table 1.

Table 1:

Descriptive Variables

	Nonsex Offenders		Child Sex Offenders		Rapists		Mixed Offenders
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Age	30.38	7.26	31.63	7.20	31.20	7.49	31.80	7.94
Race	66% White	—	80.6% White	—	69.6% White	—	67.5% White	—
IQ	96.52	12.82	100.50	12.47	95.94	12.78	99.51	12.12
Crimes
Total crime—categories	5.13	2.00	4.68	2.35	5.03	2.32	5.05	2.16
Total sex offenses	0.00**	0.00	2.93*	4.05	1.76**	2.76	3.75	2.15
Assaults	—	—	—	—	2.04	2.69	1.73	1.34
Molestations	—	—	2.60**	3.32	—	—	1.75	1.08

Note. Significance indicates differences between the mixed offender group and the nonsex offender, child sex offender, or rapist group. There are no significant differences between mixed offenders and other offender groups in age, IQ, or number of crimes. The racial breakdown for each offender group is shown.

p < .01. **p < .001.

Primary Analyses

All statistics reported in text (including tables) are orthogonal simple contrasts computed using SPSS. Given the use of discrete groups and continuous dependent variables, Cohen’s d is reported for all simple contrast estimates of effect size (see Breaugh, 2003). One-way ANOVAs were used to assess group differences on PCL-R total, F(3, 2,510) = 11.70, p < .001, η² = .014; Factor 1, F(3, 2,512) = 9.57, p < .001, η² = .011; and Factor 2 scores, F(3, 2,417) = 10.73, p < .001, η² = .013. Given these significant findings, orthogonal contrasts were used to compare the mixed offenders with each of the other offender groups. These contrasts revealed that mixed offenders scored significantly higher PCL-R total scores than nonsex offenders (p = .007, d = .46), child sex offenders (p < .001, d = .77), and rapists (p = .04, d = .36). Mixed offenders also scored significantly higher on Factor 1 than nonsex offenders (p = .004, d = .47), child sex offenders (p < .001, d = .75), and rapists (p = .04, d = .37). In addition, mixed offenders scored significantly higher on Factor 2 than child sex offenders (p < .001, d = .58); however, inspection of the other group means revealed that this was due to the low Factor 2 scores of child sex offenders rather than the high Factor 2 scores of mixed offenders (see Table 2). As such, no further Factor 2 analyses are discussed, but see Table 2 for Facet 3 and 4 results.

Table 2:

Sex Offender Group Comparison on Measures of Psychopathy and Personality

	Nonsex Offenders		Child Sex Offenders		Rapists		Mixed Offenders
Measure	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
PCL-R total	23.65**	6.86	21.32***	7.52	24.28*	6.95	26.65	6.17
2-factor model
Factor 1	8.80**	3.43	7.90***	3.37	9.16*	3.31	10.35	3.13
Factor 2	12.77	3.82	11.17***	4.80	12.55	4.13	13.62	3.50
4-facet model
Facet 1	3.44	2.18	2.83**	2.01	3.38+	2.22	4.05	2.26
Facet 2	5.36**	1.88	5.07***	2.08	5.78+	1.73	6.30	1.56
Facet 3	6.53	2.05	5.90**	2.73	6.50	2.14	7.17	1.89
Facet 4	6.19	2.54	5.17**	2.85	5.95	2.76	6.48	2.61
MPQ
Fearless dominance	0.02	0.58	−0.02*	0.57	0.00	0.60	0.20	0.60
Stress reaction	5.09*	3.42	4.97*	3.42	5.12*	3.51	3.67	2.75
PCL-R score ≥ 30	n = 395 (22%)		n = 29 (13.7%)**		n = 119 (25.5%)		n = 13 (32.5%)

Note. Significance indicates differences between the mixed offender group and the nonsex offender, child sex offender, or rapist group. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–Revised; MPQ = Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Given that mixed offenders were differentiated from other offender groups on Factor 1 scores, we conducted similar analyses and orthogonal contrasts using PCL-R Facets 1 (interpersonal) and 2 (affective) scores in place of PCL-R Factor 1 scores to clarify which facet was responsible for the Factor 1 difference. One-way ANOVAs revealed significant group differences for both Facet 1, F(3, 2,512) = 6.20, p < .001, η² = .002, and Facet 2, F(3, 2,512) = 12.00, p < .001, η² = .005. For Facet 1, orthogonal contrasts revealed that mixed offenders scored significantly higher than child sex offenders (p = .001, d = .57), although only trend-level differences were seen for rapists (p = .06, d = .30) and nonsex offenders (p = .08, d = .27). Analyses of Facet 2 revealed that mixed offenders scored significantly higher than nonsex offenders (p = .002, d = .54) and child sex offenders (p < .001, d = .67) but differed from rapists at a trend level only (p < .1, d = .32; see Table 2).

In addition to evaluating PCL-R Factor 1 and Factor 2, we evaluated the self-report analogue of these components using the MPQ-BF. Consistent with findings using the PCL-R, we found that mixed offenders reported significantly higher levels of FD than child sex offenders (p = .05, d = .38), and trend-level differences for the comparisons involving nonsex offenders (p = .09, d = .30) and rapists (p = .07, d = .33). Paralleling the follow-up analyses conducted for Factor 1, we examined which of the three FD subscales (i.e., Social Potency, Fearlessness, Stress Reaction) differentiated the mixed offenders from the other groups. These analyses revealed statistically significant effects for Stress Reaction but not for Fearlessness or Social Potency. As shown in Table 2, mixed offenders had significantly lower Stress Reaction scores than nonsex offenders (p = .03, d = .46), child sex offenders (p = .05, d = .42), and rapists (p = .03, d = .46). Comparable analyses employing Impulsive Antisociality in place of FD yielded no significant effects (all ps > .50).

Supplemental Analyses

Although the mixed sex offender group did not differ from the other offender subgroups in criminal versatility, they did commit more sexual offenses than both child sex offenders (p = .05, d = .25) and rapists (p < .001, d = .80). This is to be expected, as categorization into the mixed offender group requires two sexual offenses (child and adult victim). In addition, we found that mixed offenders and rapists committed similar numbers of sexual assaults, but child sex offenders committed more molestations than the mixed group (p < .001, d = .34; see Table 1).

Discussion

This study aimed to replicate previous findings regarding the high PCL-R scores of mixed offenders and determine which psychopathic and other personality-related features distinguish mixed offenders from other offender subgroups. Consistent with past research (Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2000; Skrovan et al., 2010), we found that mixed offenders scored significantly higher on PCL-R total scores than the other three offender subgroups examined in this study. Moreover, this finding was mirrored in results for PCL-R Factor 1 scores, which were also significantly higher in the mixed offenders than all other groups. Although the mixed group scored higher than the other groups on both facets of PCL-R Factor 1, this pattern of significant findings for both facets highlights the importance of overall PCL-R Factor 1 scores (i.e., the two facets combined).

Combined with previous results (Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2000; Skrovan et al., 2010), our findings provide strong evidence that mixed offenders display higher levels of interpersonal and affective (Factor 1) psychopathic traits than nonsex offenders, rapists, and child sex offenders. Mixed offenders also displayed higher levels of PCL-R Factor 2 traits, including both Facet 3 (lifestyle) and Facet 4 (antisocial) traits, than child sex offenders. However, this finding appears to reflect the relatively low level of impulsive-antisocial traits in child sex offenders primarily because the Factor 2 scores of the mixed offenders did not differ from those of rapists or nonsexual offenders. Finally, as in prior studies reporting high base rates of psychopathy among mixed offenders (Porter et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2000), the rate of psychopathy was highest in the mixed offenders although it was only significantly higher than the rate of psychopathy in child sex offenders.

Additional insight into the personality profile of the mixed offender group is provided by our MPQ findings, specifically, that mixed offenders scored significantly higher on the FD dimension than the other groups. This, combined with mixed offender’s significantly lower scores on the stress reaction component of FD, indicates that mixed offenders do not fit the personality profile of the diffident, socially timid individual often associated with other groups who sexually offend against children (Robertiello & Terry, 2007). To the contrary, the personality traits associated with the mixed offender subtype (e.g., high Factor 1 scores, high FD scores) suggest a proclivity toward bold engagement in exploitative behavior (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), which may help to explain the diverse victim type of mixed offenders.

Whereas PCL-R total and Factor 1 scores differentiate mixed offenders from other offender groups, the MPQ data suggest that mixed offenders may resemble a variant of psychopathy, referred to as emotionally stable (Gray, 1987; Hicks, Markon, Patrick, Krueger, & Newman, 2004; Karpman, 1950). Emotionally stable psychopathic individuals, similar to mixed offenders, show low levels of stress reactivity. Perhaps as a result, researchers suggest that emotionally stable psychopaths are more likely to engage in risky behavior and less likely to be affected by negative life events. The distinctively low levels of stress reaction associated with mixed offenders may not only fail to deter them from perpetrating future sexual offenses but may also prompt them to diversify their sexual offending targets. In other words, mixed offenders may be able to satisfy a range of self-serving exploitative urges with less discomfort than other offenders.

The current results highlight the importance of Factor 1 psychopathic traits, such as callousness, manipulativeness, and grandiosity, in differentiating mixed offenders from nonsexual offenders and even rapists. Although recent studies have revealed Factor 1 as having little predictive utility regarding reoffense patterns of criminal offenders (see Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008), some have pointed to the importance of Factor 1 characteristics, such as manipulation and lying, as important considerations when examining the efficacy of treatment programs. Specifically, recent research has suggested that, although there is not a direct link between Factor 1 and recidivism, Factor 1 is predictive of poor compliance within treatment settings as well as treatment attrition, both of which may interfere with successful treatment outcomes (see Wong, Gordon, Gu, Lewis, & Olver, 2012). Moreover, although Factor 1 alone may not directly influence the likelihood of recidivism, researchers have suggested that the interaction of Factor 1 traits and other risk factors specific to sexual offenders (e.g., sexual deviancy) may increase the likelihood of sexual reoffense (Hildebrand et al., 2004; Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010). Such findings may have important implications for sex offender treatment in both individual and group settings as therapists and group facilitators may face unique challenges in working with psychopathic sex offenders (Hildebrand et al., 2004). Accordingly, the mixed sex offender subtype may require specialized treatment. Specifically, some have argued that the mixing of low-risk offenders with high-risk offenders in groups may actually increase the risk of recidivism for low-risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The fact that psychopathic individuals consistently show elevated rates of general and violent recidivism and are characteristically prone to violating terms of probation or parole (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991; Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998; Serin, 1996) also highlights the potential importance of specialized treatment. Thus, there is a need for more research to investigate the implications of combining high- and low-risk sex offenders in group therapy, and relatedly, to determine whether programs should be tailored for mixed offenders.

Although this study provides new insights regarding the psychopathic characteristics of mixed sexual offenders, it is important to identify its limitations. First, the child sex offender group in the current sample consisted of both intra- and extrafamilial offenders. As previous studies have illustrated that intrafamilial child sex offenders score lower on measures of psychopathy than extrafamilial child sex offenders (e.g., Rice & Harris, 2002), the level of psychopathic traits reported in the present study is likely to be influenced by the proportion of intra- versus extrafamilial offenders. Nevertheless, previous research also demonstrates that rapists and nonsex offenders score higher on the PCL-R than both intra- and extrafamilial offenders (Porter et al., 2000). In light of the fact that mixed offenders received higher PCL-R scores than both the rapists and nonsex offenders in the present study, it stands to reason that the mixed offender group would also receive higher PCL-R scores than the child sex offenders regardless of the proportion of intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders in this group. Thus, our inability to distinguish between intra- and extrafamilial offenders in the child sex offender group is unlikely to meaningfully affect conclusions regarding the elevated psychopathy scores of mixed offenders.

An additional limitation regarding the child sex offender group is that the group consisted of individuals who offended against minors (i.e., age 17 and younger), although previous studies have often used more stringent age criteria to define the child sex offender (Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2000). Such a broad definition of a child sex offender could lead to overlap in crimes, such that if an offender assaulted two victims, ages 17 and 18, he would be classified as a mixed offender, despite the similarity of his offenses. Nevertheless, the fact that our analyses revealed significant differences between mixed offenders and both rapists and child sex offenders despite the use of less stringent criteria may indicate that the use of a stricter age criterion would strengthen rather than refute the current findings.

A final concern pertains to the substantial differences in sample sizes among the four offender groups. Given the rarity of mixed offenders, this group was much smaller than the other offender groups, particularly the nonsex offender group. Nevertheless, the inclusion of 40 mixed offenders may also be viewed as a strength of the present study as previous studies have employed even smaller sample sizes (Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2000; Skrovan et al., 2010). In light of the overlapping results, particularly with respect to the higher PCL-R total scores of mixed offenders, our findings serve to bolster the generalizability of these findings and the distinctiveness of the mixed offender subgroup of sex offenders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the present study provides strong support for previous findings linking the mixed sex offender subtype to psychopathy and, in particular, highlights the relevance of the interpersonal and affective symptoms of psychopathy. As such, greater understanding of the distinctive association between mixed sexual offending and these psychopathic traits may be crucial for the assessment and treatment of sex offenders, and ultimately for reducing victimization.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank many at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for their continued support of this research. We also thank Dr. Arielle Baskin-Sommers, PhD, and Rachel Bencic, MS.

This work was supported by Grant 5R21DA030876 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Notes

Allison R. Brown prepared this manuscript while completing her undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is currently a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science. Her research interests include aggression, violence, and criminal and emotional correlates of psychopathy.

Monika A. Dargis prepared this manuscript while completing her undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is currently a graduate student in the clinical psychology program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research interests include psychopathy, childhood maltreatment, and juvenile criminal behavior.

Alexandra C. Mattern prepared this manuscript while completing her undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is currently a doctoral student in the clinical psychology program at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests include antisocial behavior, posttraumatic stress disorder, and partner violence.

Michelle A. Tsonis prepared this manuscript while completing her undergraduate degree at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is currently working in the Self-Regulation Lab at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and is a site coordinator for research projects being conducted at Oshkosh Correctional Institution. She is interested in research related to substance use and comorbid disorders.

Joseph P. Newman is a professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research focuses on clarifying psychobiological mechanisms for behavioral inhibition, reflectivity, and self-regulation, and the implications of these mechanisms for psychopathy and other forms of disinhibitory psychopathology.

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39-55. doi:10.1037/a0018362

Benning

S. D.

Patrick

C. J.

Blonigen

D. M.

Hicks

B. M.

Iacono

W. G.

(2005). Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits a step toward community epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12, 3-18. doi:10.1177/1073191104271223

Benning

S. D.

Patrick

C. J.

Hicks

B. M.

Blonigen

D. M.

Krueger

R. F.

(2003). Factor Structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340

Blonigen

D. M.

Hicks

B. M.

Krueger

R. F.

Patrick

C. J.

Iacono

W. G.

(2005). Psychopathic personality traits: Heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 637-648. doi:10.1017/S0033291704004180

Breaugh

J. A.

(2003). Effect size estimation: Factors to consider and mistakes to avoid. Journal of Management, 29, 79-97. doi:10.1177/014920630302900106

Brook

Kosson

D. S.

(2013). Impaired cognitive empathy in criminal psychopathy: Evidence from a laboratory measure of empathic accuracy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 156-166. doi:10.1037/a0030261

Cann

Friendship

Gonza

(2007). Assessing crossover in a sample of sexual offenders with multiple victims. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 149-163. doi:10.1348/135532506X112439

Cleckley

(1941). The mask of sanity (1st ed.). St. Louis, MO: The C.V. Mosby.

Cooke

D. J.

Michie

(2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171-188. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171

10.

Craven

Brown

Gilchrist

(2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12, 287-299. doi:10.1080/13552600601069414

11.

Decety

Chen

Harenski

Kiehl

K. A.

(2013). An fMRI study of affective perspective taking in individuals with psychopathy: Imagining another in pain does not evoke empathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(1), 489. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00489

12.

Gray

J. A.

(1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493-509. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(87)90036-5

13.

Hanson

R. K.

Harris

A. J. R.

(2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35. doi:10.1177/0093854800027001002

14.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

15.

Hare

R. D.

Clark

Grann

Thornton

(2000). Psychopathy and the predictive validity of the PCL-R: An international perspective. Behavioral Science & the Law, 18, 623-645. doi:10.1002/1099-0798(200010)18:5

16.

Hare

R. D.

Forth

A. E.

Strachan

K. E.

(1992). Psychopathy and crime across the lifespan. In Peters

R. D.

McMahon

R. J.

Quinsey

V. L.

(Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan (pp. 285-300). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Hare

R. D.

Harpur

T. J.

Hakstian

A. R.

Forth

A. E.

Hart

S. D.

Newman

J. P.

(1990). The revised Psychopathy Checklist: Reliability and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 338-341. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.2.3.338

18.

Hare

R. D.

McPherson

L. M.

Forth

A. E.

(1988). Male psychopaths and their criminal careers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 710-714. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.710

19.

Hare

R. D.

Neumann

C. S.

(2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452

20.

Hare

R. D.

Neumann

C. S.

(2009). Psychopathy. In Blaney

P. H.

Millon

(Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 622-650). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

21.

Harpur

T. J.

Hakstian

A. R.

Hare

R. D.

(1988). Factor structure of the Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 741-747. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.741

22.

Harpur

T. J.

Hare

R. D.

(1994). Assessment of psychopathy as a function of age. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 604-609. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.103.4.604

23.

Harpur

T. J.

Hare

R. D.

Hakstian

A. R.

(1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 6-17. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6

24.

Harris

G. T.

Rice

M. E.

Cormier

C. A.

(1991). Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 625-637. doi:10.1007/BF01065856

25.

Hawes

S. W.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Murrie

D. C.

(2013). Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Psychological Assessment, 25, 233-243. doi:10.1037/a0030391

26.

Hemphill

J. F.

Hare

R. D.

Wong

(1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 139-170. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00355.x

27.

Hicks

B. M.

Markon

K. E.

Patrick

C. J.

Krueger

R. F.

Newman

J. P.

(2004). Identifying psychopathy subtypes on the basis of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 16, 276-288. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.276

28.

Hildebrand

De Ruiter

de Vogel

(2004). Psychopathy and sexual deviance in treated rapists: Association with sexual and nonsexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 1-24. doi:10.1177/107906320401600101

29.

Jonason

P. K.

Krause

(2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 532-537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.027

30.

Karpman

(1950). The psychopathic delinquent child: Round table, 1949. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 20, 223-265. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1950.tb06037.x

31.

Kuznetsov

Pierson

T. A.

Harry

(1992). Victim age as a basis for profiling sex offenders. Federal Probation, 56(2), 34-38.

32.

Leistico

A. M. R.

Salekin

R. T.

DeCoster

Rogers

(2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28-45. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6

33.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Andrews

B. P.

(1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488-524. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3

34.

Mann

R. E.

Barnett

G. D.

(2013). Victim empathy intervention with sexual offenders rehabilitation, punishment, or correctional quackery? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 282-301. doi:10.1177/1079063212455669

35.

Marshall

W. L.

Laws

D. R.

Barbaree

H. E.

(1990). Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

36.

Meffert

Gazzola

den Boer

J. A.

Bartels

A. A.

Keysers

(2013). Reduced spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psychopathy. Brain, 136, 2550-2562. doi:10.1093/brain/awt190

37.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

(2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community sample: Links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 893-899. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893

38.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Newman

J. P.

(2007). The super-ordinate nature of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 102-117. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.102

39.

Newman

J. P.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

(2011). Early selective attention abnormalities in psychopathy: Implications for self-regulation. In Poser

(Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (2nd ed., pp. 421-440). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

40.

Olver

M. E.

Wong

S. C.

(2006). Psychopathy, sexual deviance, and recidivism among sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 65-82. doi:10.1177/107906320601800105

41.

Parent

Guay

J. P.

Knight

R. A.

(2011). An assessment of long-term risk of recidivism by adult sex offenders: One size doesn’t fit all. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 188-209. doi:10.1177/0093854810388238

42.

Parent

Guay

J. P.

Knight

R. A.

(2012). Can we do better? The assessment of risk of recidivism for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1647-1667. doi:10.1177/0093854812451680

43.

Patrick

C. J.

Curtin

J. J.

Tellegen

(2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150-163. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.150

44.

Patrick

C. J.

Fowles

D. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913-938. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000492

45.

Patterson

C. M.

Newman

J. P.

(1993). Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review, 100, 716-736. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.716

46.

Porter

Brinke

Wilson

(2009). Crime profiles and conditional release performance of psychopathic and non-psychopathic sexual offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 109-118. doi:10.1348/135532508X284310

47.

Porter

Campbell

M. A.

Woodworth

Birt

A. R.

(2001). A new psychological conceptualization of the sexual psychopath. Advances in Psychology Research, 7, 21-36.

48.

Porter

Fairweather

Drugge

Herve

Birt

Boer

D. P.

(2000). Profiles of psychopathy in incarcerated sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 216-233. doi:10.1177/0093854800027002005

49.

Quinsey

V. L.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 85-105. doi:10.1177/088626095010001006

50.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2002). Men who molest their sexually immature daughters: Is a special explanation required? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 329-339. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.2.329

51.

Robertiello

Terry

K. J.

(2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 508-518. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.010

52.

Roche

M. J.

Shoss

N. E.

Pincus

A. L.

Ménard

K. S.

(2011). Psychopathy moderates the relationship between time in treatment and levels of empathy in incarcerated male sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 171-192. doi:10.1177/1079063211403161

53.

Saleh

F. M.

Malin

H. M.

Grudzinskas

A. J.

Vitacco

M. J.

(2010). Paraphilias with co-morbid psychopathy: The clinical and legal significance to sex offender assessments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 211-223. doi:10.1002/bsl.933

54.

Serin

R. C.

(1996). Violent recidivism in criminal psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 207-217. doi:10.1007/BF01499355

55.

Skrovan

L. C.

Huss

M. T.

Scalora

M. J.

(2010). Sexual fantasies and sensation-seeking among psychopathic sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 617-629. doi:10.1080/10683160902998025

56.

Tellegen

(1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

57.

Tellegen

Waller

N. G.

(2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In Boyle

G. J.

Matthews

Saklofske

D. H.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (pp. 261-292). London, England: SAGE Publications, Ltd.

58.

Walters

G. D.

Knight

R. A.

Thornton

(2009). The latent structure of sexual violence risk: A taxometric analysis of popular sex offender actuarial risk measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 290-306. doi:10.1177/0093854808330341

59.

Wechsler

D. A.

(1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

60.

Wong

S. C.

Gordon

Lewis

Olver

M. E.

(2012). The effectiveness of violence reduction treatment for psychopathic offenders: Empirical evidence and a treatment model. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 336-349. doi:10.1080/14999013.2012.746760

61.

Woodworth

Freimuth

Hutton

E. L.

Carpenter

Agar

A. D.

Logan

(2013). High-risk sexual offenders: An examination of sexual fantasy, sexual paraphilia, psychopathy, and offence characteristics. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36, 144-156. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.01.007

62.

Yang

Wong

S. C.

Coid

(2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 740-767. doi:10.1037/a0020473

63.

Zachary

R. A.

(1986). Shipley institute of living scale: Revised manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Service.