Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Empathy and adolescent sexual offenders: A review of the literature

Tracey Varker a, Grant J. Devilly a,⁎, Tony Ward b, Anthony R. Beech c
a
Psychology Department, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
b
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
c
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A significant proportion of sexual offenses has been found to be committed by adolescent
Received 24 July 2007 offenders. Although there is overlap in the backgrounds of adolescent sexual offenders and
Received in revised form 20 March 2008 juvenile delinquents, in recent times there has been an increased effort to identify and treat
Accepted 28 March 2008
adolescent sexual offenders as a distinct population. Adolescent sexual offenders are thought to
Available online 10 April 2008
be empathy deficient, with empathy development a commonly defined treatment goal. There is
confusion, however, as to whether such empathy deficits are general in nature, are towards
Keywords:
certain groups of people, or are own victim-specific. This article provides a review of the
Adolescent sexual offenders
literature concerning empathy and adolescent sexual offenders and, based on this assessment,
Juvenile sexual offenders
Empathy recommendations are made for future research.
Treatment © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Levels
of theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
1.1. Incidence and prevalence of adolescent sexual offending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
1.2. Characteristics of adolescent sexual offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
1.3. Definition of empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
1.3.1. General empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
1.3.2. Victim empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
1.3.3. Victim-specific empathy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
2. Empathy and sexual offending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
2.1. Adult empathy deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.2. Adolescent empathy deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2.3. Problems with the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
2.4. Treatment outcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
2.5. Theories accounting for empathy deficits and future directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

It is generally believed that sexual offenders are deficient in empathy, and empathy development is a commonly defined goal of
treatment programmers (Freeman-Longo, Bird, Stevenson, & Fiske, 1995). Although a number of researchers have investigated the
empathy deficiencies of adult sexual offenders (e.g., Fernandez & Marshall, 2003; Fisher, Beech, & Browne, 1999; Marshall,

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 8344 6377; fax: +61 3 9347 6618.
E-mail address: grantjd@unimelb.edu.au (G.J. Devilly).

1359-1789/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.006
252 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260

Hamilton & Fernandez, 2001), very few studies have been conducted to examine the nature of empathy deficits, if they in fact exist
at all, in adolescent sexual offenders (Barbaree & Marshall, 2006). Furthermore, in recent times empathy deficits in adult offenders
have been conceptualized in three ways: as being general; towards a general victim; and in relation to their own specific victim.
The purpose of this review is to present an overview of the nature of adolescent sexual offender empathy deficits. In particular, we
will look at evidence which points to whether adolescent sexual offenders have generalized empathy deficits towards the
community, whether this is specific to just the targets of sexual attack, or whether this is specific to their own victim. While we will
be drawing on the adult sexual offender literature (particularly in relation to the nature of empathy and empathy deficits) this is
only in response to a paucity of research looking at adolescent sexual offenders empathy deficits.
In order to conduct this review we used the following search terms: sexual offender, empathy deficit, and we searched the
following databases: PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycInfo and Academic Search Premier. We had
46 hits of which 37 had direct relevance. Articles were considered relevant if they empirically tested for the subject matter, or
presented novel theories/concepts.

1. Levels of theory

Typically, in the few papers actually devoted to discussion of sexual offending theories, such theories tend to be classified
according to the types of source theories utilized in their construction; for example, cognitive, learning, systems, psychodynamic,
or biological theories (see Lanyon, 1991; Schwartz, 1995). In our view this is not the most promising way of categorising theories
and results in the conflation of level of generality (or focus) with type of psychological systems (e.g., behavioral, cognitive,
biological) and theoretical tradition (e.g., psychodynamic versus behavioral). Additionally, theories of the same type (e.g., learning
theories) may vary greatly in terms of their breadth and degree of detail. For example, a learning theory framework could be used
to explain one type of problem (e.g., deviant sexual arousal) or to provide a comprehensive explanation of all aspects of sexual
offending (e.g., Marshall & Barbaree, 1990).
A meta-theoretical framework for classifying theories based on their level of generality of focus, and also upon the extent to
which the relevant factors are anchored in both developmental, or contemporary, experiences and processes has been provided by
Ward and Hudson (1998). In this framework, they distinguished between level I (multi-factorial), level II (single factor), and level III
(micro-level or offense process) theories. Level I theories represent comprehensive or multi-factorial accounts of sexual offending
(e.g., Marshall & Barbaree, 1990). The aim is to take into account the core features of sexual offenders and to provide a complete
account of what causes these phenomena and how they manifest in sexually abusive actions. Level II, or middle level theories, have
been proposed to explain single factors thought to be particularly important in the generation of sexual crimes; for example,
presence of empathy deficits (Marshall, Hudson, Jones, & Fernandez, 1995). In this approach the various structures and processes
constituting the variable of interest are clearly described, and their relationship with each other specified. In a sense, level II
theories expand on the factors identified in level I theories. Level III theories are descriptive models of the offense chain or relapse
process (e.g., Pithers, 1990; Ward, Louden, Hudson, & Marshall, 1995). These micro-models typically specify the cognitive,
behavioral, motivational, and social factors associated with the commission of a sexual offense over time; they constitute temporal
or dynamic theories. The levels of theory model are meant to help researchers distinguish between different types of theory and
ultimately to facilitate their integration through a process of theory knitting. It should be noted that levels of theory framework are
only intended to function as a heuristic for locating theories according to their primary explanatory focus. Therefore, the
distinctions between the different levels of theory are not intended to be overly rigid and some theories may in fact fall somewhere
in between the three levels. Furthermore, the ultimate aim for theorists is to construct a global theory that integrates theories from
the different levels into a unified explanation of sexual offending (Ward & Hudson, 1998; Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006).
In addition to the distinction between levels of theory, Ward and Hudson also emphasized importance of taking into account
the distal–proximal distinction. Distal factors constitute vulnerability factors that emerge from both developmental experiences
(e.g., sexual abuse) and genetic inheritance (e.g., anxious temperament). These trait factors make a person vulnerable to offending
sexually once precipitating factors are present; for example, relationship conflict. Although vulnerability factors have their origins
in a person's developmental history, they are always causally implicated in onset of sexually abusive behavior. For example, deficits
in emotional regulation skills may have been acquired during a person's childhood but actively contribute to the onset of sexual
offending several years later.
Proximal factors are triggering processes or events and interact with the vulnerability factors to cause sexual offending. These
factors fall naturally into two distinct groups: psychological state factors and situational events. The state variables are
manifestation of individuals' underlying vulnerabilities and are activated by situational events such as interpersonal conflict. For
example, emotional coping deficits are likely to produce powerful negative affective states following an argument with a partner or
a stressful social event such a losing a job. The negative emotional state and loss of employment are both proximal causes that, in
conjunction with a person's longstanding difficulties in coping with emotions, directly results in a sexual offense. In this situation,
sexual activity is used as a means to reduce or modulate powerful emotions and as such, represents an inappropriate coping
response.
In our view, levels of theory model provide a useful way of arranging theories by their domain of application and focus. This is
likely to be of help in promoting a greater degree of collaborative research and theory development in the area. Essentially, our
view is that by carefully specifying the level of a theory and its explanatory focus it will be possible to engage in more fruitful
critical analysis and comparisons between competing theories. There is not much point in deciding which of two (or more)
theories is better if they belong to different levels— it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Additionally, mapping theories
 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260 253

across the three levels of the model enable researchers to notice possible areas of convergence and ultimately result in more
unified and deeper explanatory theories. For example, it may become apparent that theories of empathy deficits and cognitive
distortions can be unified by a single theory of mind approach (Ward, Keenan, & Hudson, 2000). This process of theoretical
integration is called theory knitting (Kalmar & Sternberg, 1988).
For the purposes of this paper, it is clear that theories of empathy are level II and, therefore, on their own cannot possibly
explain why individuals commit sexual offenses. Rather, the aim of such theories is to uncover the causal mechanisms implicated in
failures of empathy, one factor resulting in sexual crimes.

1.1. Incidence and prevalence of adolescent sexual offending

It is estimated that adolescent offenders are responsible for approximately one third of all cases of child sexual abuse cases (Cawson,
Wattam, Brooker & Kelly, 2000; Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Fehrenbach, Smith, Monastersky, & Deisher, 1986; Glasgow, Horne, Calam &
Cox, 1994; Kelly, Regan & Burton, 1991). It is also suggested that between 50 and 60% of male adolescent sexual offenders have
committed a previous sexual offense prior to referral for treatment for a separate second offense (Fehrenbach et al., 1986). However,
such estimates are likely to be conservative with many victims and their families reluctant to report these crimes because the offenders
are young and usually known to the victim (Groth & Loredo, 1981). Recidivism estimates for known adolescent sexual offenders
indicate that the majority do not re-offend, however a significant minority do go on to re-offend. Estimates appear to differ as a function
of the follow-up period, ranging from 0% after a 6-month follow-up period (Mazur and Michael, 1992) to 30% after a mean follow-up
period of 9.5 years (Langstrom, 2002). In a study of 400 adult sexual offenders, Abel, Mittleman, and Becker (1985) found that 58%
reported that they had committed their first sexual offense prior to the age of 18. Since studies of adult sex offenders indicate that
offending escalates in frequency and severity over time (Becker & Abel,1985), it appears that early detection and treatment of offenders
is a desired goal.

1.2. Characteristics of adolescent sexual offenders

Many studies have found that there is significant overlap in the backgrounds of adolescent sexual offenders and juvenile
delinquents. Families of both adolescent sexual offenders and violent non-sexual offenders have been found to have limited
positive communication and considerable negative communication (Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler, & Mann, 1989), and both groups
are frequently said to experience a high level of family dysfunction (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987; Puri, Lambert, & Cordess, 1995). This
includes factors such as violence, physical and/or emotional neglect, and parental separation. Both adolescent sexual offenders and
adolescent non-sexual offenders have been found to have more behavior problems, more difficulties in peer and family relations
and poorer academic performance in comparison to non-delinquent youths (Ronis & Borduin, 2007). One study found that
adolescent sexual offenders had greater exposure to serious physical abuse and to domestic violence involving weapons, and
attitudes more accepting of sexual and physical aggression than adolescent non-sexual offenders. Such dysfunction is thought to
contribute to offending, either by the adolescent learning the behavior or experiencing parental rejection which, it has been
hypothesized, causes a lowered self-esteem that the adolescent attempts to restore through sexual offending (Davis & Leitenberg,
1987).
Adolescent sexual offenders tend to be more socially isolated, more assaultive, and more resentful than other juvenile
delinquents (Chewning, 1991; Valliant & Bergeron, 1997). A survey by Van Ness (1984) revealed that 63% of incarcerated adolescent
sexual offenders scored below average on a measure of skill in controlling anger compared with 26% of non-sexual delinquents. In a
comparison study, Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler, & Mann (1989) found disturbed emotional functioning and disrupted peer relations
among adolescent sexual offenders, and adolescent sexual offenders displayed greater anxiety and estrangement and less
emotional bonding to peers than adolescent non-sexual offenders. Furthermore, sexually aggressive youths have been found to
report attitudes more accepting of physical and sexual aggression than low-violence controls. Sexually aggressive youths were
also found to be more likely to endorse beliefs that rationalized or minimized the suffering of sexual and physical aggression on
victims.
There has been an increased effort to identify and treat adolescent sexual offenders as a distinct population (Hunter & Becker,
1994), and there has been a significant increase in the number of treatment programs developed in response to a growing number
of adolescents arrested for sexual offenses (Knopp & Lane, 1991; Maguire & Pastore, 1999). A national study in the U.S. by Sapp and
Vaughn (1990) found that of 30 adolescent sexual offender programs investigated, 182 different psychological therapies and
techniques were used in treatment. Given that a scatter-gun approach to treatment is commonly employed, it is imperative that a
standard of best-practice be developed. It is important that deficits characteristic to adolescent sexual offenders be identified, so
that the diverse range of treatment therapies and techniques may be tailored to address the needs of adolescent sexual offenders in
the most effective manner possible.

1.3. Definition of empathy

A problem that has plagued empathy research is the inconsistency of the operational definitions of empathy. While the
majority of researchers has investigated the nature of general empathy deficits in sexual offenders, some researchers have
suggested that sexual offenders possess victim empathy deficits and yet others have suggested that sexual offenders possess
victim-specific empathy.
254 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260

1.3.1. General empathy

General empathy has been conceptualized by Davis (1996) as “a set of constructs having to do with the response of one
individual to the experiences of another” (p.12). Davis (1983) has suggested that empathy is a multi-component response,
involving the following four stages: (a) perspective-taking— the ability to adopt the viewpoint of another person; (b) fantasy— the
ability to transpose oneself into the feelings of a fictitious character; (c) empathic concern— feelings of concern for another person;
and (d) personal distress— self-oriented feelings of distress. In response to this conception, Marshall, Hudson, Jones, and Fernandez
(1995) suggest that stages (b) and (d) seem to be affective components of empathy, stage (a) is a cognitive component of empathy,
and stage (c) is in fact more like sympathy than empathy.
Instead, Marshall et al. (1995) conceptualize empathy as involving the following invariant sequence of stages: (a) emotional
recognition— the ability to discriminate the emotional state of another person; (b) perspective-taking— the ability to see situations
from another's perspective; (c) emotion replication— replication of the observed emotion; and (d) response decision— decision
that is based on the feelings experienced. This process therefore involves both affective and cognitive empathic responses,
requiring self-awareness and an ability to separate one's own experiences from that of the other person (More, 1996). The emotion
recognition stage requires the observer to accurately discriminate the emotional state of another individual. Empathizing is
hypothesized to prevent ongoing harmful behavior towards a person in distress, therefore failure to recognize this distress would
facilitate harmful behavior (Marshall et al., 1995). Marshall et al. (1995) do not detail theoretical reasons for their conceptualization
of stages (b), (c) and (d).
Alternatively, empathy has been conceptualized by Pithers (1994) as the ability to cognitively identify another person's
perspective, recognize an affective response within oneself, and to be motivated to respond in a compassionate way, based on these
perceptions. The key difference between this conception and that of Marshall et al. (1995) is that any one of Pithers' components
may initiate a fully empathic response. Essentially, Marshall et al. provide an account of the components of an empathic response,
that is, a fine grained description of the psychological processes involved in empathy. All are viewed as essential elements of
empathy, while Pithers emphasizes the range of psychological factors (i.e., cognition and emotional competence) associated with
empathy without presenting a detailed model. Pithers and Gray (1996) argues that this definition is superior to that of Marshall et
al. (1995), because if presented with an emergency (e.g., an unconscious person who has no emotional state to recognize or
replicate), behavior may precede complete cognitive or affective identification with another individual's perspective. Thus, at
present general agreement does not exist as to which conceptualization of empathy is best. The Pithers versus Marshall debate
reveals that sometimes the problem is that researchers are working at different levels of abstraction and therefore their theories
are not strictly comparable (see below).

1.3.2. Victim empathy

Victim empathy deficits in sexual offenders are considered to be empathy deficits for specific classes of potential victims
(e.g., women or children). For example, Finkelhor and Lewis (1988), suggest that an inability to empathize with children in
general allows child molesters to be able to sexually abuse their victims. Similarly, Barbaree, Marshall, and Lanthier (1979),
asserted a failure to recognize and feel compassion for a woman's distress reduces rapists' inhibitions, and allows rapists to
become sexually aroused during an attack.

1.3.3. Victim-specific empathy

Victim-specific empathy deficits are considered to be empathy deficits for the offenders' own specific victim. Fernandez,
Marshall, Lightbody, and O'Sullivan (1999) suggest because victim-specific empathy deficits are centered on the offenders' own
victim, that it might be better construed as a cognitive distortion. It is suggested that by engaging in this distortion the offender
protects himself from the negative judgments of himself and others, allowing him to continue offending unrestrained by sympathy
for his victim(s). Alternatively, empathy failures might proceed relatively automatically from offense supportive beliefs, such as “all
children benefit from sex.” The issue here is that the offender's tendency to interpret children's behavior in a sexual way means he
is likely to dismiss or explain away any evidence indicating distress (Ward, 2000). The primary causal mechanism is cognitive
rather than motivational.

2. Empathy and sexual offending

The development of empathy is commonly recognized as a central treatment goal for adolescent sexual offenders, with a
national U.S. survey finding that 94% of programs treating male sexual offenders included a component of empathy training
(Freeman-Longo, Bird, Stevenson, & Fiske, 1995). There is debate in the literature as to whether offenders possess general (i.e., non-
person-specific) empathy deficits, victim empathy deficits (i.e., deficits towards potential victims such as women and children) or
victim-specific empathy deficits (Fisher, Beech, & Browne, 1999; Marshall et al., 1995). Without a clear conception of the nature of
offender empathy deficits, it is extremely difficult to develop effective, useful treatment programs. Although many current
treatment programs teach sexual offenders victim empathy, at present, it has been argued that sufficient empirical support does
not exist to support victim-specific empathy training as a specific treatment process (Burke, 2001; Pithers & Gray, 1996).
It has been proposed that the adolescent sexual offender is typically deficient in general empathy (Knight & Prentky, 1993;
Lakey, 1994). Coleman and Hendry (1990) suggest that there are developmental dimensions to empathy in adolescence that could
make age a mediator of levels of empathy. Coleman (1989) developed the Focal Theory, which states that adolescents control and
pace their own development, with issues such as self-concept, relationships, education, independence from family, concerns about
 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260 255

heterosexual relationships, and fear of rejection from the peer group, each brought into focus one at one time (Kloep, 1999).
Significant stressors and a lack of social support are thought to diminish the adolescent's control over the rate of their
development, thereby disrupting the normal pattern of adolescent development (Coleman & Hendry, 1990). Such events are
frequently experienced by both adolescent sexual offenders and adolescent non-sexual offenders, and may serve as an explanation
for adolescent offender empathy deficits. Therefore, the claim is that developmental adversity may compromise the development
of empathy skills and make it much more difficult for juvenile offenders to establish satisfactory peer and intimate relationships.
This view is supported by Ellis' (1982) self-report study of general empathy in delinquents and non-delinquents. Ellis found that
empathy seemed to increase with age for the non-delinquents but remained stable at a significantly lower level in the delinquent
subgroup than the non-delinquent controls.
A common view of the relationship between empathy deficits and sexual offending is that low levels of empathy contribute to
offending by disinhibiting sexual arousal (Marshall & Barbaree, 1990). It is thought that sexual offenders have little concern for their
victims because they are either unable to understand accurately the experience of the victim or because they simply do not care
(Regehr & Glancy, 2001). Those who advocate for empathy training argue that by increasing empathy, the offender will have
difficulty denying his victim's pain (Hildebran & Pithers, 1989). The implicit assumption here is that were offenders able to feel
empathy, or greater levels of empathy, then this would inhibit their abusive behavior through cognitive or affective dissonance.
However, as already alluded to, at the time of writing there was no direct evidence linking increased recidivism, for example, to
empathy deficits (Worling & Långström, 2003).

2.1. Adult empathy deficits

While several studies have found that adult sexual offenders have empathy deficits (e.g., Farr, Brown, & Beckett, 2004;
Hildebran & Pithers, 1989; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990), a point of contention has been whether these deficits are generalized,
specific to certain groups of people, or victim-specific (Marshall et al., 1995). Three measures of general empathy are primarily used
for sexual offenders. These are the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983); the Hogan Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969); and
the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (QMME; Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972). Several studies using the IRI have found
significantly lower empathy levels in sexual offenders than normal controls (e.g., Marshall, Jones, Hudson, & McDonald, 1993;
Pithers, 1994; Pithers, Martin, & Cumming, 1989), seeming to suggest that a general empathy deficit may well exist.
When assessing empathy using the QMME, however, Langevin, Wright, and Handy (1988), failed to find differences between
sexual offenders and normal controls. In contrast, Rice, Chaplin, Harris, and Coutts (1994) used the Hogan's Empathy Scale, finding
that rapists were less empathic than a normal control group, and in a further study using this scale, Chaplin, Rice, and Harris (1995)
found child molesters to be significantly less empathic than non-offender controls. However, using both Hogan's Empathy Scale
and the QMME, Seto (1992) was unable to find any difference between rapists and normal controls. Likewise, Marshall and Maric
(1996) used the same two measures and failed to find any differences between child molesters and non-offenders. Thus, the
empirical evidence for differences in general empathy levels between sexual offenders and non-offenders appears to be equivocal.
In recent times, a shift in thinking has occurred as the result of a number of studies conducted by Marshall and colleagues
(Fernandez & Marshall, 2003; Fernandez et al., 1999; Marshall, Champagne, Brown, & Miller, 1997; Marshall, Hamilton, & Fernandez,
2001; Marshall, Jones, Hudson, & McDonald, 1993; Marshall and Maric, 1994), which found that rather than possessing general
empathy deficits, sexual offenders instead are particularly deficient in empathy for their own victim. Highlighting this point, a study by
Fernandez et al. (1999) revealed that child molesters were unable to experience emotions that matched those felt by their own victims,
however they were able to empathize with a child disfigured by a motor vehicle accident. They also displayed significantly less
empathy for their own victims than for a non-specific sexual abuse victim, providing evidence that deficits may be more person-
specific and may be better construed as a cognitive distortion (Fernandez et al., 1999).
Likewise, Fernandez and Marshall (2003) found that rapists demonstrated significant empathy deficits toward their own victim
(s). However, compared to non-sexual offenders, they actually demonstrated more empathy toward women in general and the
same degree of empathy toward a woman who has been a victim of sexual assault by another male. The authors concluded that
rapists may not suffer a generalized empathy deficit, but instead suppress empathy toward their own victim, and that this deficit
may be more appropriately considered a victim-specific cognitive distortion. It has therefore been suggested that a lack of victim-
specific empathy may function as a self-serving bias, enabling the offender to overcome any emotional disturbance or internal
inhibition he might otherwise experience (Marshall, Anderson, & Champagne, 1997).
Further support for a victim-specific empathy deficit can be derived from a British study by Fisher, Beech, and Browne (1999),
which investigated general and victim-specific empathy in 140 child molesters in comparison to a non-offender sample. It was
found that child molesters displayed victim-specific empathy deficits, but not general empathy deficits compared to non-offender
controls. The child molesters also had significantly higher levels of cognitive distortions regarding children. Additionally, it was
found that there was no correlation between general empathy and victim empathy. This study must be treated with caution,
however, since the control group was made up of 81 male prison officers, rather than a representative sample drawn from the
community.

2.2. Adolescent empathy deficits

Studies of adolescent sexual offender empathy levels have likewise provided mixed results. Several studies using the IRI have
found that adolescent sexual offenders are deficient in general empathy (e.g., Burke, 2001; Knight & Prentky, 1993; Lindsey,
256 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260

Carlozzi, & Eells, 2001). However, like the adult literature, results to the contrary have also been found. A recent Australian study by
Moriarty, Stough, Tidmarsh, Eger, and Dennison (2001), found no deficit in general empathy for adolescent sexual offenders when
compared to normal controls, using the IRI. Furthermore, in a study of adolescent sexual offenders and non-offenders, Monto,
Zgourides, Wilson, and Harris (1994) found no significant association between scores on a 4-item yes/no empathy measure and
sexual offender status. However, the 4 items which were made up by the researchers included questions such as “Do you ever
worry about homeless people?” and “Do you feel sorry for kids who are beaten up?” with the exact nature of the type of empathy
assessed remaining unclear, if in fact empathy, rather than sympathy was assessed. And in another study, Kaplan and Arbuthnot
(1985) found that juvenile delinquents do not demonstrate significant differences in tasks involving self-reported affective
empathy or role taking in comparison to normal controls.
Curwen (2003) examined empathy in 123 male adolescent sexual offenders, using the IRI to measure cognitive and
affective empathy, and therapist-rated victim empathy for a subgroup of 60 offenders. Therapists were asked to rate the
highest level of victim empathy and violence ever indicated by the offender, and to rate victim empathy on a scale ranging
from 1(‘no victim empathy'empathy’) to 10 (‘complete victim empathy'empathy’). Twenty-two percent received a second
therapist-rated victim empathy score, with inter-rater reliability established at r = .56, p b .05. Significant negative correlations
were found between victim empathy and the Empathic Concern (EC) and Perspective Taking (PT) subscales of the IRI, with
those offenders who had the highest level of victim empathy scoring lower on EC and PT. Curwen suggests that this counter-
intuitive result indicates that empathy deficits of adolescent sexual offenders may be specific to their victims or to specific
situations. Although offenders may believe they are empathic, as measured by the IRI, they are unable to respond when
questioned about their own victims' feelings. Although Curwen noted that the inter-rater reliability was poor, this study
produced valuable insights, and raises questions as to whether the results may be explained by an elevated level of
narcissism in the offenders. A narcissistic individual may believe that they are empathic and caring and as a function of this
self-perception they are able to respond accordingly (as demonstrated by the IRI scores). However, in reality the offender
may lack empathy (which is characteristic of narcissism) and find it too challenging a task to fabricate appropriate responses
when questioned by a therapist.
To our knowledge, the only study which has examined victim-specific empathy in adolescent sexual offenders is the
investigation conducted by Curwen (2003), which assessed victim empathy using therapist ratings. Unlike the adult sexual
offender literature, we could find no study that utilized an empirically validated measure of person-specific empathy with a group
of adolescent sexual offenders. It is surprising that such a gap in the research exists considering that victim empathy training is a
frequent treatment module used in adolescent sexual offender programs. Therefore, we propose that a fruitful area of research will
be to examine the three different types of empathy, i.e., general, victim, and victim-specific, in adolescent sexual offenders to
ascertain which (if any) type/s of empathy adolescent sexual offenders are deficient in. This will allow for the development of
treatment programs that specifically cater to individual offenders' needs.

2.3. Problems with the research

A major problem when assessing the literature is that many studies utilized a small sample, and very few studies replicate the
measures used by others (Vizard, Monck, & Misch, 1995). This is a perennial problem due to issues of availability, and is very
difficult to overcome. Appropriate comparison groups are also seldom used, making it impossible to tell which characteristics are
specific risk factors for sexual offenders, which are risks for delinquents in general, and which are not risk factors at all (Blaske et al.,
1989). With regard to relevance to different countries and cultures, it is also worrisome that a significant number of studies
concerning adolescent sexual offenders are from the United States. For example, the selection of samples into treatment programs
and criminal procedures differ between Australia and the United States and the U. K. (Vizard et al., 1995). Additionally, without
adequate research to demonstrate that Australian sexual offenders display the same deficits as overseas offenders, it has been
argued that treatment programs cannot be justifiably and effectively applied to Australian adolescent sexual offenders (Kenny,
Keough, Seidler, & Blaszczynski, 2000). Therefore, there is a need for more research to be conducted using samples from Australia,
the U. K. other under-represented countries.
Offenders may also possess cognitive distortions that influence their scores on empathy measures. For instance, they may not
view their offenses as harmful and consider their victims willing participants (Monto et al., 1994). When asked to describe their
offenses, sexual offenders typically provide a variety of cognitive distortions, such as ‘children as sexual beings,’ ‘uncontrollability
of sexuality,’ ‘sexual entitlement bias,’ the ‘nature of harm’ and ‘dangerous world’ implicit theories (Ward, 2000). These cognitive
distortions may be expressed by the offender through statements such as ‘the victim deserved it,’ ‘the victim was not harmed,’ or
even that ‘the victim enjoyed the experience’ (Abel, Becker, & Cunningham-Rathner, 1984). Additionally, it remains unclear
whether adolescents are capable of accurately appraising their own empathic abilities, or whether they can fully understand the
language and meaning of all of the items used in the adult questionnaires. Therefore there is a need for the development and use of
measures specifically designed for adolescents.
Studies involving matched comparison groups are almost entirely lacking. Future studies would benefit from having adolescent
non-sexual offenders, and non-offending adolescents matched for age, intelligence, and SES as comparison groups. Adolescent
sexual offenders have been found to have a high incidence of substance abuse (Dolan, Holloway, Bailey & Kroll, 1996), therefore
controlling for this factor in future studies also seems prudent. Additionally, adolescent sexual offenders may feel that they will be
judged in a negative manner according to responses to psychological measures, and suffer stress, tension or anxiety as a result. As
such, performance anxiety and social desirability should also be gauged.
 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260 257

2.4. Treatment outcome

There is some evidence to suggest that sexual offender treatment programs may be more effective for adolescent offenders than
adult offenders (Alexander, 1999; Knopp, 1985). However, although in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the
number of treatment programs for adolescent sexual offenders, the number of published studies of treatment effectiveness is still
extremely small (Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002). The majority of the literature that has been produced is merely descriptive, or
provides uncontrolled evaluations (Borduin, Henggeler, Blaske, & Stein, 1990). Since many of the targets of treatment, such as
victim empathy development and blame acceptance, do not have age appropriate standardized measures, it is extremely difficult
to assess the effectiveness of treatment programs (Vizard et al., 1995).
Many adolescent sexual offender treatment programs have been developed from adult treatment programs, but there has been
little research that conclusively indicates the superiority of one particular adolescent treatment program or intervention
(Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002). There is also very little research on the efficacy of victim-specific empathy as a treatment module.
In a study of 20 child molesters and rapists, Pithers (1994) compared scores on the IRI, the Rape Myth Acceptance scale (Burt, 1980),
and the Cognitive Distortions scale (Abel et al., 1989), both before and after victim-specific empathy training. They found that both
groups displayed significant increases on the IRI, and decreases on the two scales post-treatment. However, we could find no study
which assessed the effect of victim-specific empathy training on an Australian population.
A recent cost analysis report found that if an Australian pedophile treatment program was capable of reducing recidivism rates
by 10%, the net economic benefit from treatment of 100 offenders would range from $573,000 to $2.56 million (Shanahan &
Donato, 2001). Obviously, there are enormous economic benefits to be derived from appropriate and effective treatment programs.
Considering that many adult sexual offenders commit multiple offenses over the course of a lifetime (Abel, Osborn, & Twigg, 1993;
Sapp & Vaughn, 1990), early intervention may also drastically reduce the number of sexual abuse victims. By developing a greater
understanding of the factors that predispose an adolescent to sexually offend, effective preventative programs for schools and
community centers can also be developed (Burke, 2001). The greatest benefit to society will be obtained by the prevention of
sexual offending.

2.5. Theories accounting for empathy deficits and future directions

It is possible that empathy deficits observed by many researchers may be accounted for by a deficit in the offender's theory of
mind (Keenan & Ward, 2000). The theory of mind refers to a person's understanding that they and other people have a mind that
represents mental states (i.e., desires, intentions, emotions, and beliefs), and that they use these mental states to both predict and
explain the behavior of themselves and others. A deficit in theory of mind leads to a bias or a distortion in the way an individual
views and processes information about their own and other's mental states, and consequently the individual fails to make accurate
inferences about the desires and beliefs of other people (Keenan & Ward, 2000).
Ward, Hudson, and Marshall (1996) propose that a key factor in triggering a sexual offense is the engagement of the offender in
a cognitively deconstructed state (literally, an escape from self-evaluation and higher-level meaning), during which concrete focus
on sensation and movement leads to the suspension of appropriate self-regulation. The focus on rudimentary interpersonal and
contextual cues means that there is very little higher-level thought concerning the nature of the offender's actions and the person
(s) he is interacting with. The authors suggest that such simplistic thinking creates interpretative “voids” which offenders often fill
with distortions. Higher-level thought is often avoided, meaning that offenders seldom consider abstract concepts such as the
victims' psychological and emotional welfare. As a function of these features, when offenders are asked to describe their offenses,
they typically provide a variety of cognitive distortions and biases represented by ones such as: seeing ‘children as sexual beings;’
the ‘uncontrollability of sexuality;’ a ‘sexual entitlement bias;’ and the nature of ‘harm and dangerous world' world’ implicit
theories (Ward, 2000). These cognitive distortions can lead to the offender viewing the victim as enjoying the experience and
actively encouraging it. Information that is inconsistent with these offense supportive beliefs is simply not noticed or dismissed
because it is deemed irrelevant.
Ward (2000) further argues that sex offenders' distorted theories exist at several levels: those about their own specific victim;
those about classes of potential victims (e.g., women and children); and about how people operate in the world (e.g.,
understanding that people generally put their own needs first). It is asserted that these distorted theories most often develop in
early childhood in response to specific experiences and thus are adaptive at that time. At this early time they are more general in
form, yet as the offender begins sexual development, they go on to be applied specifically to the sexual domain.
The view that victim empathy deficits are not the result of more generalized empathy problems is supported by Marshall,
Anderson, & Fernandez (1999), who propose that offenders frequently possess normal abilities to experience empathy, however
they also possess the belief that the victim has not been harmed. Thus, apparent empathy distortions are no more than “distortion
[s] about the harmful consequences of their abuse” (p. 85).
The key implication of the above theories is that empathy deficits vary in type and may be usefully divided into those that are
trait-like versus those that are state-like in form (Hunter, Figueredo, Malamuth, & Becker, 2007). Trait empathy deficits point to
more stable features of offenders and signify problematic beliefs that predispose individuals to interpret children's behavior in
sexual terms. State empathy problems occur when the constellation of a set of factors makes it harder for offenders to employ the
relevant knowledge and skills they possess to respond empathically in specific situations (e.g., stress, anger, sexual arousal, etc.).
In our view, an adequate understanding of empathy deficits in adolescent sexual offenders will need to be multifaceted and
committed to the view that individuals lack empathy for a variety of reasons— leading to the obvious recommendation that
258 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260

intervention should include mostly individualized treatment. Factors associated with empathy problems are likely to include
cognitive, motivational, social, sexual, and emotional deficits of various kinds causing individuals to fail to appreciate other's points
of view and experiences. To take just one of these causal factors, emotional competency. Emotional competence is basically the
application of self-regulation processes to the emotional domain and consists of at least eight sets of skills (Saarni, 1999; Ward
et al., 2006). These are: (1) awareness of one's emotional state; (2) the capacity to identify other people's emotions; (3) the ability
to use the emotional vocabulary of ones culture; (4) possessing the capacity to respond sensitively to other people; (5) the ability to
adjust one's emotional presentation depending on circumstances; (6) the capacity to manage aversive emotions through a range of
adaptive strategies; (7) understanding that emotions play a critical role in establishing and maintaining intimate relationships and
being able to act on this knowledge appropriately; and (8) the capacity for emotional self-efficacy. That is, being able to experience
the kind of emotions considered appropriate in specific situations; emotional authenticity. Saarni (1999) argues that emotionally
competent people possess enhanced self-esteem and a considerable degree of resilience when confronted with particularly
difficult problems and situations. The key point is that deficits in any of the above clusters of emotional skills will make it extremely
hard for young men to cope with the interpersonal demands of adolescence.
Thus, in our view all human sexual actions are the outcome of a number of interacting psychological systems. From a social
cognitive perspective, these systems will include motivational/emotional, interpersonal, cognitive, and physiological systems
(Pennington, 2002). Every human action involves emotions or motives (e.g., setting of goals), an interpersonal context (e.g.,
broader social setting in which actions take place), cognitive interpretation and planning (e.g., implementation of goals), and
physiological arousal and activation (e.g., physical basis of actions). The different psychological systems are comprised of subsets of
casual mechanisms that interact with each other to cause human actions. From the viewpoint of a multifactor perspective, there
can be problems in any one of these general systems or their component structures and processes. However, it is important to have
a methodology of measurement when looking at such structures and processes— one where we are able to separate out the
different levels of empathy (for example), such as general empathy, victim empathy, and specific victim empathy. What this means
is that a satisfactory explanation of a complex phenomena such as sexual abuse will need to incorporate multiple levels of analysis
and specifically address its biological, social, cultural, emotional, cognitive, physiological, and interpersonal dimensions. Problems
in any one of these causal systems may result in failures to empathize at any of the levels already discussed and, ultimately,
culminate in sexual offending (for an analysis of theories of sexual offending see Ward et al., 2006).

3. Conclusion

The research literature indicates that adolescent sexual offenders are a distinct group from juvenile delinquents. Although
definitions of empathy vary, it is generally accepted that sexual offenders are empathy deficient, at least at the time of their
offense. Contradictory evidence exists as to whether such empathy deficits are general, victim, or victim-specific. Considering
most treatment programs define empathy development as a core treatment goal, this is an important issue that needs to be
resolved. Future research must be conducted to assess whether adolescent sexual offenders also exhibit person-specific
empathy deficits and inform the construction of theories of sexual offending. Such research must be conducted with measures
appropriate for adolescents, and suitable comparison groups. By increasing understanding of the factors that contribute to
sexual offending, clinicians will be able to treat offenders more effectively and subsequently reduce recidivism.

References

Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., & Cunningham-Rathner, J. (1984). Complications, consent and cognitions in sex between childrens and adults. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 7, 89−103.
Abel, G. G., Gore, D. K., Holland, C. L., Camp, N., Becker, J., & Rathner, J. (1989). The measurement of the cognitive distortions of child molesters. Annals of Sex Research, 2,135−153.
Abel, G. G., Mittleman, M. S., & Becker, J. V. (1985). Sexual offenders: Results of assessment and recommendations for treatment. In H. H. Ben-Aron, S. I. Hucker,
& C. D. Webster (Eds.), Clinical Criminology (pp. 191−205). Toronto, Canada: MM Graphics.
Abel, G. G., Osborn, C. A., & Twigg, D. A. (1993). Sexual assault through the life span: Adult offenders with juvenile histories. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall, &
S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (pp. 24−63). New York: Guilford.
Alexander, M. A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 11, 101−116.
Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (2006). An introduction to the juvenile sex offender: Terms, concepts, and definitions. In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The
juvenile sex offender (pp. 1−18). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Barbaree, H. E., Marshall, W. L., & Lanthier, R. D. (1979). Deviant sexual arousal in rapists. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17, 215−222.
Becker, J. V., & Abel, G. G. (1985). Methodological and ethical issues in evaluating and treating adolescent sex offenders. In E. M. Otey & G. D. Ryan (Eds.), Adolescent
sex offenders: Issues in research and treatment (pp. 109−129). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Blaske, D. M., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, B. J., & Mann, B. J. (1989). Individual, family, and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive offenders.
Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 846−855.
Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M., & Stein, R. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105−113.
Burke, D. M. (2001). Empathy in sexually offending & nonoffending adolescent males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(3), 222−233.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217−230.
Cawson, P., Wattam, C., Brooker, S., & Kelly, G. (2000). Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. London: NSPCC.
Chaplin, T. C., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Salient victim suffering and the sexual response of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 249−255.
Chewning, M. F. (1991). A comparison of adolescent male sex offenders with juvenile delinquents and non-referred adolescents. Unpublished PhD thesis: Virginia
Commonwealth University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, (7-(B) 3557.
Coleman, J. C. (1989). The focal theory of adolescence: A psychological perspective. In K. Hurrelmann & U. Engel (Eds.), The Social World of Adolescents; International
Perspectives (pp. 43−56). New York/Berlin: De Gruyter.
Coleman, J., & Hendry, L. (1990). The nature of adolescence. London: Routledge.
 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260 259

Curwen, T. (2003). The importance of offense characteristics, victimization history, hospitality, and social desirability in assessing empathy of male adolescent sex
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(4), 347−364.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence from a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113−126.
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Davis, G. E., & Leitenberg, H. (1987). Adolescent sex offenders. Psychological Bulletin, 101(3), 417−427.
Dolan, M., Holloway, J., Bailey, S., & Kroll, L. (1996). The psychosocial characteristics of juvenile sexual offenders referred to an adolescent forensic service in the UK.
Medicine, Science and the Law, 36(4), 343−352.
Ellis, P. L. (1982). Empathy: A factor in antisocial behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 123−134.
Farr, C., Brown, J., & Beckett, R. (2004). Ability to empathize and masculinity levels: Comparing male adolescent sex non-offenders with a normative sample of non-
offending adolescents. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10(2), 155−167.
Fehrenbach, P. A., Smith, W., Monastersky, C., & Deisher, R. (1986). Adolescent sexual offenders: Offender and offense characteristics. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 56(2), 225−233.
Fernandez, Y. M., & Marshall, W. L. (2003). Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 11−26.
Fernandez, Y. M., Marshall, W. L., Lightbody, S., & O'Sullivan, C. (1999). The child molester empathy measure: Description and examination of its reliability and
validity. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 17−31.
Finkelhor, D., & Lewis, I. A. (1988). An epidemiologic approach to the study of child molestation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 64−78.
Fisher, D., Beech, A., & Browne, K. (1999). Comparison of sex offenders to nonoffenders on selected psychological measures. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 43(4), 473−491.
Freeman-Longo, R. E., Bird, S., Stevenson, W. F., & Fiske, J. (1995). 1994 nationwide survey of treatment programmes and models: Serving abuse reactive children,
adolescent and adult sex offenders. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Programme and Press.
Glasgow, D., Horne, L., Calam, R., & Cox, A. (1994). Evidence, incidence, gender and age in sexual abuse of children perpetrated by children. Child Abuse Review, 3, 196−210.
Groth, A. N., & Loredo, C. M. (1981). Juvenile sexual offenders: Guidelines for assessment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 31−39.
Hildebran, D., & Pithers, W. D. (1989). Enhancing offender empathy for sexual-abuse victims. In D. R. Laws (Ed.), Relapse prevention with sex offenders New York: Guilford.
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307−316.
Hunter, J. A., & Becker, J. V. (1994). The role of deviant sexual arousal in juvenile sexual offending. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 21, 132−149.
Hunter, J. A., Figueredo, A. J., Malamuth, N. M., & Becker, J. V. (2007). Non-sexual delinquency in juvenile sex offenders: The mediating and moderating influences of
emotional empathy. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 43−54.
Kalmar, D. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Theory knitting: An integrative approach to theory development. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 153−170.
Kaplan, P. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (1985). Affective empathy and cognitive role taking in delinquent and nondelinquent youth. Adolescence, 20(78), 323−333.
Keenan, T., & Ward, T. (2000). A theory of mind prospective on cognitive, affective, and intimacy deficits in child sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 12, 49−60.
Kelly, L., Regan, L., & Burton, S. (1991). An exploratory study of the prevalence of sexual abuse in a sample of 16–21 year olds. London: North London Polytechnic, CSAU.
Kenny, D. T., Keough, T., Seidler, K., & Blaszczynski, A. (2000). Offense and clinical characteristics of Australian juvenile sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7(2), 212−226.
Kloep, M. (1999). Love is all you need? Focusing on adolescents’ life concerns from an ecological point of view. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 49−63.
Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1993). Exploring characteristics for classifying juvenile sex offenders. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The
juvenile sex offender (pp. 45−83). New York: Guilford.
Knopp, F. H. (1985). The youthful sex offender: the rationale and goals of early intervention and treatment. Syracuse, NY: Safer Society Press.
Knopp, F. H., & Lane, S. (1991). Programme development. In G. D. Ryan & S. L. Lane (Eds.), Juvenile sexual offending: Causes, consequences and correction (pp. 103−141).
Lakey, J. (1994). The profile and treatment of male sexual adolescent sexual offenders. Adolescence, 29, 755−761.
Langevin, R., Wright, P., & Handy, L. (1988). Empathy, assertiveness, aggressiveness and defensiveness among sex offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 533−547.
Langstrom, N. (2002). Long-term follow-up of criminal recidivism in young sex offenders: Temporal patterns and risk factors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 8, 41−58.
Lanyon, R. I. (1991). Theories of sex offending. In C. R. Hollin & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims (pp. 35−54). Chichester, UK:
John Wiley & Sons.
Lindsey, R. E., Carlozzi, A. F., & Eells, G. T. (2001). Differences in the dispositional empathy of juvenile sex offenders, non-sex offending delinquent juveniles and
nondelinquent juveniles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(6), 510−522.
Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. L. (1999). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 1988 (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics). Washington: DCL Government
Printing Office.
Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology and maintenance of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree
(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 257−275). New York: Plenum.
Marshall, W. L., Anderson, D., & Champagne, F. (1997). Self-esteem and its relationship to sexual offending. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 161−186.
Marshall, W. L., Anderson, D., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1999). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Sex Offenders. New York: Wiley.
Marshall, W. L., Champagne, F., Brown, C., & Miller, S. (1997). Empathy, intimacy, loneliness, and self-esteem in nonfamilial child molesters. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 6, 87−97.
Marshall, W. L., Hamilton, K., & Fernandez, Y. (2001). Empathy deficits and cognitive distortions in child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
13(2), 123−130.
Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., Jones, R., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 15(2), 99−113.
Marshall, W. L., Jones, R., Hudson, S. M., & McDonald, E. (1993). Generalised empathy in child molesters. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2, 61−68.
Marshall, W.L., & Maric, A. (1996). General empathy and self-esteem in sex offenders. Unpublished manuscript, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.
Mazur, T., & Michael, P. M. (1992). Outpatient treatment for adolescents with sexually inappropriate behavior: Program description and 6-month follow-up. Journal
of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 191−203.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525−543.
Monto, M., Zgourides, G., Wilson, J., & Harris, R. (1994). Empathy and adolescent male sex-offenders. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1598.
More, E. (1996). Empathy as a hermeneutic practice. Theoretical Medicine, 17, 243−254.
Moriarty, N., Stough, C., Tidmarsh, P., Eger, D., & Dennison, S. (2001). Deficits in emotional intelligence underlying adolescent sex offending. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 1−9.
Pennington, B. F. (2002). The development of psychopathology: nature and nurture. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pithers, W. D. (1990). Relapse prevention with sexual aggressors: A method for maintaining therapeutic gain and enhancing external supervision. In W. L. Marshall,
D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 343−361). New York: Plenum.
Pithers, W. D. (1994). Process evaluation of a group therapy component designed to enhance sex offenders' empathy for sexual abuse survivors. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 32, 565−570.
Pithers, W. D., & Gray, A. S. (1996). Utility of relapse prevention in treatment of sexual abusers. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(3), 223−230.
Pithers, W. D., Martin, G., & Cumming, G. F. (1989). The Vermont treatment programme for sexual aggressors. In D. R. Laws (Ed.), Relapse Prevention with Sex
Offenders (pp. 292−310). New York: Guilford.
Puri, B. K., Lambert, M. T., & Cordess, C. C. (1995). Characteristics of young offenders detained under Section 53(2) at a young offenders' institution. Medicine, Science
and the Law, 36(1), 69−76.
Regehr, C., & Glancy, G. (2001). Empathy and its influence on sexual misconduct. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 2(2), 142−154.
Rice, M. E., Chaplin, T. E., Harris, G. E., & Coutts, J. (1994). Empathy for the victim and sexual arousal among rapists. Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, Research.
Ronis, S. T., & Borduin, C. M. (2007). Individual, family, peer, and academic characteristics of male juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35,
153−163.
Saarni, C. (1999). The Development of Emotional Competence. New York: Guilford Press.
260 T. Varker et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008) 251–260

Sapp, A. D., & Vaughn, M. S. (1990). Juvenile sex offender treatment at state operated correctional institutions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 34, 131−146.
Schwartz, B. K. (1995). Theories of sexual offenses. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and legal practice (pp. 1−32). NJ: Civic
Research Institute.
Seto, M. C. (1992). Victim blame, empathy, and disinhibition of sexual arousal to rape in community males and incarcerated rapists. Unpublished Masters thesis,
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Toronto.
Shanahan, M., & Donato, R. (2001). Counting the cost: Estimating the economic benefit of pedophile treatment programmes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(4), 541−555.
Valliant, P., & Bergeron, T. (1997). Personality and criminal profile of adolescent sexual offenders, general offenders in comparison to nonoffenders. Psychological
Reports, 81, 483−489.
Van Ness, S. R. (1984). Rape as instrumental violence: A study of youth offenders. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 9, 161−170.
Veneziano, C., & Veneziano, L. (2002). Adolescent sex offenders: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 3(4), 247−260.
Vizard, E., Monck, E., & Misch, P. (1995). Child and adolescent sex abuse perpetrators: A review of the research literature. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
36(5), 731−756.
Ward, T. (2000). Sexual offenders' cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 491−507.
Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998). The construction and development of theory in the sexual offending area: A meta-theoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment, 10, 47−63.
Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1996). Attachment style in sex offenders: A preliminary study. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 17−26.
Ward, T., Keenan, T., & Hudson, S. M. (2000). Understanding cognitive, affective, and intimacy deficits in sex offenders: A developmental perspective. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 5, 41−62.
Ward, T., Louden, K., Hudson, S. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1995). A descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10,
452−472.
Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L. L., & Beech, A. R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Worling, J. R., & Långström, N. (2003). Assessment of criminal recidivism risk with adolescents who have offended sexually. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 4, 341−362.