Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(4), 306-318, 2003

2003 The Guilford Press


SEX OF FENDER
AHLMEYER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
ET AL.

PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF INCARCERATED
SEX OFFENDERS
Sean Ahlmeyer, MA, Dennis Kleinsasser, PhD,
John Stoner, PhD, and Paul Retzlaff, PhD

The psychopathology and particularly the personality disorders of sex of-


fenders were compared to general inmates of the Colorado Department of
Corrections. Using the MCMI-III (Millon, 1994, 1997), sex offenders in
general were found to have more varied types of personalities than gen-
eral population inmates. Specifically, they were more schizoid, avoidant,
depressive, dependent, self-defeating, and schizotypal. General popula-
tion inmates had the more classically criminal personality characteris-
tics of antisocial, narcissistic, and sadistic. Multivariate analysis showed
the Dependent, Narcissistic, Antisocial, and Schizotypal scales to be the
most differentiating. Sex offenders were also found to have more affective
psychopathology such as anxiety, dysthymia, PTSD, and major depres-
sion. A similar trend was found when comparing child molesters to rap-
ists. The child molesters were more neurotic, affective, and socially
impaired than the rapists. Multivariate analysis showed the Dependent
scale to be the most important in differentiating these two types of sex
offenders.

Studies that have investigated the relationship between psychopathology


and sexual offending are beginning to accumulate in the literature (Chantry
& Craig, 1994; Langevin et al., 1988; McElroy et al., 1999). Plausible rea-
sons for this paucity of research include: (1) many identified sexual offend-
ers function well in other areas of their lives; (2) uncovering a link between a
mental disorder(s) and sexual offending is perceived to mitigate offender ac-
countability; and (3) traditional sex offense treatment has focused too nar-
rowly on sexually deviant interests and arousal (sexual preference
hypothesis; Marshall, 1996), instead of more general dysfunctional inter-
personal interactions. Differentiating psychopathology among subgroups of
sexual offenders (i.e., child molesters and rapists) may give insight into the
contributing factors behind their offenses, and may also have implications
for assessment and treatment.
According to Marshall (1996), the enthusiasm for the sexual preference
hypothesis has waned due to inconsistent phallometric results, and in-
creasing observations that sexual offenders greatly suffer from deficits in so-

From the Colorado Department of Corrections (S. A., D. K., J. S.) and the University of Northern
Colorado (P. R.)
Address correspondence to Paul Retzlaff, Psychology Department, University of Northern Colo-
rado, Greeley, CO 80634; E-mail: pretzlaff@aol.com.

306
SEX OFFENDER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 307

cial/personality and cognitive functions. In a comprehensive review of the


literature, Marshall discusses diverse empirical evidence suggesting that
sexual offenders possess mild to extreme deficits in social skills (e.g., con-
versation with females; Segal & Marshall, 1985, assertiveness; Overholser &
Beck, 1986, evaluating the emotional valence of behavioral cues; Lipton,
McDonal, & McFall, 1987, solving recognized social problems; Marshall,
Barbaree & Fernandez, 1995, intimacy and loneliness; Ward, Hudson, Mar-
shall, & Siegert, 1995). In addition, Marshall identifies research suggesting
sexual offenders possess deficits in cognitive processes (cognitive distor-
tions; Segal & Stermac 1984, self-confidence; Marshall, Anderson, & Cham-
pagne, 1997, denial and minimization; Marshall, 1994, empathy for their
victim; Fernandez & Marshall, 2003). Many of these psychological deficits
are hallmark symptoms of major psychopathology and personality
disorders.
Vulnerability (i.e., susceptibility to pathological developmental outcomes
under high-risk conditions) is identified by Marshall (1993) as a critical ele-
ment in understanding the etiology of sexual offending behavior. Marshall
and Marshall (2000) lay out a well articulated theoretical developmental
model based on poor parent-child attachments producing cognitive, social,
and affective deficits. This in turn leads to a greater probability of being sex-
ually abused, being conditioned with sexual responses to the abuse, using
sex as a coping strategy, lacking inhibition to deviant sexual fantasy due to
anger, having general psychopathology, and having social isolation. This all
then culminates in the search for opportunities to sexually offend against
others. While this model suggests sexual victimization is the crossroad for
the manifestation of sexual offense behaviors, in comparison to some other
pathological behavior, lack of attachment is the central factor in the
development of psychopathology (Werner, 1989).
The relationship between psychopathology and sexual offending has been
primarily examined in the psychiatric literature using the diagnostic criteria
of the DSM-IV (APA, 1994). Kafka and Prentky (1994) found that mood dis-
orders (73%), especially dysthymia, were the most prevalent disorders
comorbid with paraphilias (i.e., exhibitionism, pedophilia, voyeurism, sa-
dism, masochism, rape, fetishism, transvestism, frotteur, & telephone
scatologia). The next most prevalent lifetime Axis I mental disorders were
anxiety disorders (47%), followed by substance abuse disorders (47%).
McElroy et al. (1999) found mood disorders, substance abuse disorders,
impulsivity disorders, and anxiety disorders, in descending order, to be the
most prevalent comorbid disorders with paraphilias in sexual offenders on
parole or probation. These findings suggest that sexual offenders manifest
severe comorbity of diverse psychopathology and sexual deviancy.
In the psychological literature, the relationship between psychopathology
and sexual offending has been primarily examined through standardized
personality inventories. Armentrout and Hauer (1978) found sexual offend-
ers (i.e., rapists, child molesters, other noncontact sexual offenders) who as-
saulted females and were administered the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI) produced different 8-4 profiles (Scale 8 is
Schizophrenia and Scale 4 is Psychopathic Deviate). Both rapists and child
molesters produced an 8-4 or 4-8 profile, respectively, where the rapists 8
308 AHLMEYER ET AL.

was much more elevated. Nonsexual offenders produced a 4-spike profile.


All three offender groups had similar elevations on 4. In general, these pro-
files suggest characterological deficits in controlling anger and impulses,
trouble with interpersonal relationships, poor judgment, and antisocial be-
havior. While Panton (1978) found the same profile patterns as Armentrout
and Hauer, rapists in his sample also showed elevations on Scale 6 (Para-
noia) and Scale 9 (Hypomania). The 4-8 profile was also found to accurately
classify juvenile sexual offenders and nonsexual juvenile offenders (Paisey,
1998).
Interestingly, Hall, Maiuro, Vitaliano, and Proctor (1986) found the 4-8 to
be the overall mean and modal profile for child molesters; however, this pro-
file was found in less than 10% of the offenders and was not significantly
more frequent than other common 2-point profiles. Of great importance was
the finding that 67% of the sample had at least 3 significantly elevated
scales. This finding shows that sexual offenders manifest severe and
comorbid psychopathology.
To date, only a few studies have used the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inven-
tory (MCMI) for measuring psychopathology in sexual offenders and all have
used the first edition of the test, the MCMI-I (Millon, 1982). Langevin et al.
(1988) compared a mixed group of sex offenders to normal community con-
trols (police trainees and community volunteers) on the MCMI-I. The child
molesters and rapists were collapsed into the single, mixed group because no
differences on the scales were observed. A greater proportion of sex offenders
had higher scores than controls on the Schizoid, Avoidant, Dependent, and
Negativistic (Passive-Aggressive) personality disorder scales as well as on the
Anxiety and Dysthymia clinical syndrome scales. However, controls demon-
strated greater elevations on the Narcissistic and Compulsive scales.
Lehne (1994) found statistical evidence and face validity that in a sample
of mixed sexual offenders administered the MCMI and the NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI) common personality factors appeared to underlie the
personality disorders. For example, Schizoid was positively related to
Neuroticism, but negatively related Extraversion, Openness to Experience,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Sexual offenders were found to
have mean scores at least one-half a standard deviation higher than the con-
trol sample on all facets of the Neuroticism factor (i.e., anxiety, hostility, de-
pression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability), but not the
other factors of the NEO-PI. These findings demonstrate the link between
personality and psychopathology in a forensic population.
Using cluster analysis, Bard and Knight (1987) found four subgroups on
the MCMI-I in a sample of incarcerated sexual offenders. These subgroups
were: (1) Avoidant, Schizoid, and Dependent, equally represented among
child molesters and rapists; (2) Narcissistic, Antisocial, and Histrionic,
mostly represented by rapists; (3) Antisocial and Negativistic (Passive-Ag-
gressive), represented by both offender types; and (4) a flat mean profile with
no elevations over 75.
Chantry and Craig (1994) compared child molesters and rapists to a con-
trol group of violent, nonsexual offenders on the MCMI-I. They found child
molesters and rapists to be higher on the Avoidant scale than the nonsexual
offenders. Specifically, child molesters were higher than nonsexual offend-
SEX OFFENDER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 309

ers on Schizoid, Dependent, Borderline, Psychotic Thinking, and Major De-


pression. Generally, both sex offense groups had more pathology than the
nonsexual offenders, and the child molesters were the more neurotic of the
two sex offender groups.
These findings reveal that there are many comorbid disorders in sex of-
fenders, and the relationship between these disorders and offender subtype
is unclear. The purpose of the present study is to further elucidate differ-
ences on measures of psychopathology between sex offenders and nonsex
offender samples. There is a particular interest in the personality disorders.
A further intent is to use the newest version of the MCMI, the MCMI-III
(Millon, 1994, 1997).

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS

A sample of 7,921 adult male inmates with valid testing was abstracted from
recent admissions to the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC). Of
the total sample, 7,226 inmates were convicted of nonsexual offenses (e.g.,
murder, robbery, drug offenses, fraud). Grouping these diverse offenses
served to provide a broad representation of a corrections population against
whom to compare the sex offenders. Of the larger sample, 695 inmates had
current felony convictions for sexual offenses. Specifically, inmates con-
victed of sexual assault are referred to as rapists (N = 223). Inmates con-
victed of sexual assault on a child, sexual assault on a child by one in a
position of trust, and habitual sexual offense against a child are referred to
as child molesters (N = 472).
For the entire group, about 45% were White, 30% were Hispanic, and 20%
were African American. The mean age was 32. Differences were found across
the subgroups. About 46% of the nonsexual offenders were white as were
about 43% of the rapists. There were, however, more whites in the child mo-
lester group with about 60%. There were similar differences in terms of age.
Nonsexual offenders had an average age of 31, rapists an average age of 33,
and child molesters were the oldest at 36 (F = 72.22, p < .001). These differ-
ences represent the natural occurrence of those convicted in the state and
are not a function of sampling.
There is always a question as to the specificity of sex offender subgroups.
These sex offender groups are believed to be relatively clean because all
prior charges and convictions were abstracted and only offenders with one
type of offense are included in these groups. Further, offenders convicted of
incest, indecent exposure, enticement of a child, pimping a child, pandering
a child, prostituting a child, and misdemeanor sexual offenses were ex-
cluded from the study because the age of the victim was not known or the of-
fense did not constitute a sexual assault.

MEASURES

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory - III (MCMI-III; Millon, 1994, 1997)
is the most current version of a widely used test of psychopathology. It is of
310 AHLMEYER ET AL.

particular interest due to its inclusion of a large number of personality dis-


order scales, as well as Axis I scales. The personality disorder scales include:
Schizoid, Avoidant, Depressive, Dependent, Histrionic, Narcissistic, Antiso-
cial, Sadistic, Compulsive, Negativistic, Self-defeating, Schizotypal, Border-
line, and Paranoid. Several of these scales have been added since the first
version of the test. These include Depressive, Sadistic, and Self-defeating.
The Axis I scales include Anxiety, Somatoform, Mania, Dysthymia, Alcohol
Abuse, Drug Abuse, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Thought Dis-
order, Major Depression, and Delusional Disorder. The PTSD scale is an ad-
dition since the MCMI-I. Base rate scores of 75 to 84 indicate the presence of
clinically significant traits. Base rate scores of 85 or greater indicate the high
probability of that clinical diagnosis.

PROCEDURE

The MCMI-III is administered to all inmates upon intake to the diagnostic


and reception center of the CDOC. Inclusion in the sample required the in-
mate to have completed a valid MCMI-III test. Cases were considered valid if
the Disclosure base rate score was from 21 to 84 and the Validity scale was
equal to 0. The Disclosure scale measures whether the inmate was forth-
coming with perception of himself and neither under- nor over- reporting
symptoms. The Validity scale is a 3 item reading scale. This method for de-
termining validity is more conservative than that recommended in the man-
ual or used by the scoring software and resulted in about 10% of initial
profiles being eliminated. As such, it should result in a more valid set of
profiles (Retzlaff, Sheehan, & Fiel, 1991).

DATA ANALYSIS

The MCMI-III can be analyzed in two ways. First, group means and standard
deviations may be examined through ANOVA and Regression techniques.
This allows for a traditional analysis and relatively robust statistics. The
second approach follows the clinical use of the test where subjects viewed as
a function of their scores falling above the usual cutscores of 74 and 84. This
approach dichotomizes the data and allows for percentage types of analyses
such as Chi-Square and Odds Ratios. It allows for a better understanding of
the prevalence of the various traits.
For the purpose of the current article, both univariate ANOVAs and Odds
Ratios will be performed. In this way both group means and percentages of
pathology will be available to the reader. Finally, some sort of multivariate
statistic is required given the large number of univariate tests conducted
and, also, because of the covariance of the MCMI-III scales. Of the many ap-
proaches, logistic regression was chosen because the final solution allows
for the calculation of a multivariate Odds Ratio. This would allow for a
clearer appreciation of the shrinkage from the univariate tests to the
multivariate test. In order to limit the effects of chance but also simulta-
neously to compare possible predictors, only those scales that were signifi-
cant in both the ANOVA and Odds Ratio analyses were included in the
SEX OFFENDER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 311

TABLE 1. MCMIIII Means, Standard Deviations, ANOVAs, and Scheffes Tests

Nonsexual Rapists Child Molesters


(N = 7,226) (N = 223) (N = 472) F

Personality Disorders
Schizoid 47(26) 49(25) 52(27) 8.866***c
Avoidant 39(31) 43(32) 50(34) 28.955***c,d
Depressive 42(32) 45(32) 54(32) 33.795***c,d
Dependent 40(26) 43(26) 52(26) 46.991***c,d
Histrionic 53(15) 51(17) 49(18) 17.663***c
Narcissistic 63(16) 58(14) 55(17) 67.227***a
Antisocial 59(21) 56(22) 54(23) 12.329***c
Sadistic 44(28) 40(26) 41(27) 3.048*e
Compulsive 54(12) 54(11) 53(12) 1.223
Negativistic 39(31) 40(31) 43(31) 3.075*e
Selfdefeating 37(30) 40(30) 45(31) 14.386***c
Schizotypal 36(29) 39(30) 44(29) 16.732***c,d
Borderline 39(25) 41(25) 41(26) 2.553
Paranoid 40(28) 39(29) 43(29) 1.948

Clinical Syndromes
Anxiety 44(35) 49(36) 54(36) 18.833***c
Somatoform 27(29) 31(29) 37(30) 27.194***c,d
Mania 49(21) 47(21) 48(22) 1.121
Dysthymia 34(31) 40(31) 46(33) 35.617***a
Alcohol Abuse 57(24) 58(26) 54(25) 2.816
Drug Abuse 59(19) 55(22) 52(21) 29.679***b,c
PTSD 32(28) 39(29) 41(30) 31.111***b,c
Thought Disorder 34(27) 33(27) 38(28) 6.678***c,d
Major Depression 26(28) 33(29) 38(30) 40.033***a
Delusional Disorder 37(28) 36(29) 35(29) 0.725

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Scheffe tests: a = all groups significantly different from one another, b =
nonsexual and rapists significantly different, c = nonsexual and child molesters significantly different, d =
rapists and child molesters significantly different, e = no groups significantly different from one another.

logistic regressions. It is understood that there are many approaches to this


type of data, and a design such as this is only one.

RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the three groups. As
well, there are ANOVA and paired comparison tests. The means and stan-
dard deviations appear well behaved. Most means are in the 40 and 50
range. The highest means are in the areas of traditional criminal personality
including the Narcissistic and Antisocial scales. Eleven of the 14 Personality
Disorder scales had significant ANOVAs. Scheffe post-hoc tests revealed
that the most commonly different groups were the nonsexual inmates and
the child molesters. The nonsexual inmates were higher on the Histrionic,
Narcissistic, and Antisocial scales.
312 AHLMEYER ET AL.

TABLE 2. Percent of Inmates with Scores >74 and Associated Odds Ratios

Nonsexual Sex Offender


(N = 7,226) (N = 695) Odds Ratio
Personality Disorders
Schizoid 10 16 1.61*
Avoidant 25 37 1.75*
Depressive 17 27 1.75*
Dependent 14 26 2.19*
Histrionic 10 10 0.93
Narcissistic 21 11 0.48*
Antisocial 29 24 0.79*
Sadistic 18 14 0.74*
Compulsive 05 05 0.96
Negativistic 21 24 1.16
Selfdefeating 09 16 1.81*
Schizotypal 03 07 2.24*
Borderline 06 07 1.32
Paranoid 06 07 1.12
Clinical Syndromes
Anxiety 37 48 1.55*
Somatoform 01 02 1.95*
Mania 03 03 1.22
Dysthymia 15 26 2.09*
Alcohol Abuse 28 28 0.98
Drug Abuse 16 12 0.72*
PTSD 06 10 1.95*
Thought Disorder 01 04 2.55*
Major Depression 02 05 2.17*
Delusional Disorder 02 02 1.70*

Note. *p < .05.

Looking at the Clinical Syndrome scales, seven of the ten scales had signif-
icant ANOVAs. Only the Drug Abuse scale had a higher mean for the
nonsexual inmates than the sex offending groups. Most often, the child mo-
lesters had the highest means on the scales. A picture develops across this
table of many differences among the groups, of the nonsexual inmates being
higher on the traditional criminal types of personality, and of the sex of-
fenders having varied, broad pathology.
Table 2 presents the prevalence of the disorders for the nonsexual offend-
ers compared to the two sex offender groups collapsed into a general sex of-
fender group. For the general population inmates, a number of scales had
20% or more with scores over 74. They include Avoidant, Narcissistic, Anti-
social, Negativistic, Anxiety, and Alcohol Abuse. The sex offenders are simi-
larly high with the exception of Narcissistic and a number of others over
20%. These ad di tional scales in clude De pres sive, De pend ent, and
Dysthymia. There appears to be a wide range of pathology using the usual
MCMI-III cutscore of 74, especially for the sex offenders.
Table 2 also provides an Odds Ratio for each scale comparing the two prev-
alence rates. The Odds Ratio is the relative risk of an offender being a sex of-
fender given that his score was elevated on that particular scale. For
SEX OFFENDER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 313

TABLE 3. Percent of Inmates with Scores 74 and Associated Odds Ratios

Rapists Child Molesters


(N = 223) (N = 472) Odds Ratio
Personality Disorders
Schizoid 12 18 1.64*
Avoidant 28 41 1.73*
Depressive 20 30 1.70*
Dependent 17 30 2.05*
Histrionic 11 09 0.79
Narcissistic 13 11 0.71
Antisocial 25 24 0.93
Sadistic 14 13 0.90
Compulsive 05 04 0.90
Negativistic 22 24 1.10
Selfdefeating 11 18 1.74*
Schizotypal 05 07 1.41
Borderline 08 07 0.83
Paranoid 06 07 1.16
Clinical Syndromes
Anxiety 44 49 1.20
Somatoform 01 02 2.64
Mania 03 03 1.27
Dysthymia 18 30 1.89*
Alcohol Dependence 35 24 0.58*
Drug Dependence 13 12 0.90
PTSD 09 11 1.23
Thought Disorder 03 04 1.43
Major Depression 02 06 2.75*
Delusional Disorder 03 02 0.67

Note. *p < .05.

example, offenders above a score of 74 on a scale (e.g., Schizoid) are a certain


degree (e.g., 1.61) as likely to be a sex offender as those offenders below a
score of 74 on that particular scale. The personality disorder scales that pre-
dict sex offender group membership are Schizoid, Avoidant, Depressive, De-
pendent, Self-defeating, and Schizotypal, and for the Axis I scales are
Anxiety, Somatoform, Dysthymia, PTSD, Thought Disorder, Major Depres-
sion, and Delusional Disorder. Scales that predict nonsexual offense group
membership are Narcissistic, Antisocial, Sadistic, and Drug Dependence.
With this analysis, it is apparent that a good percentage of inmates possess
levels of pathology above the clinical cutscore and that these specific
inmates are more likely to be in one of the pre-established groups.
Table 3 provides similar data comparing the rapists to the child molesters.
Rapists have prevalence rates of 20% or higher on Avoidant, Depressive, An-
tisocial, Negativistic, Anxiety, and Alcohol Abuse. Child molesters have ele-
vations on all of those scales, in addition to Dependent and Dysthymia.
Scales with significant Odds Ratios predicting child molester status include
Schizoid, Avoidant, Depressive, Dependent, and Self-defeating. Axis I scales
that predicted child molester status included Dysthymia and Major Depres-
sion. The only Odds Ratio that was significant in the rapist direction was Al-
314 AHLMEYER ET AL.

TABLE 4. Logistic Regression Summary for Predicting Sex Offenders

Beta Wald p

Personality Disorders
Schizoid 0.002 0.630 .428
Avoidant .003 2.097 .148
Depressive 0.004 3.116 .078
Dependent 0.007 11.715 .001**
Narcissistic .024 56.242 .001**
Antisocial .014 27.690 .001**
Sadistic .002 0.427 .514
Selfdefeating 0.002 0.717 .397
Schizotypal 0.005 4.247 .039*
Constant .756

Note. *p < .05, **p < .001.

cohol Dependence. Here, it is apparent that the two types of sex offenders
are quite different on a number of scales using the clinical cutscore
approach.
There are many approaches to the multivariate analysis of this data. There
are so many scales that it is important to guard against chance by not in-
cluding all scales in an analysis. There is also a need to compare and con-
trast scales significant at the univariate level within a multivariate analysis.
It is also reasonable to stay with an analysis consistent with either of the
univariate approaches. As such, two logistic regressions were accom-
plished. The first attempts to differentiate sex offenders in general from the
nonsexual inmates. The second attempts to model the differences between
child molesters and rapists. These regressions follow from the Odds Ratio
analyses and allow for a multivariate Odds Ratio. Rather than forcing all
variables into the equation or using a stepwise approach, only those scales
that were significant in both the ANOVA analysis and the respective Odds
Ratio analysis were included in the logistic regressions. Also, as a primary
focus of this work is personality disorders, only those scales were included.
This further serves to guard against chance result. The variables were all
entered but only those that are significant in the final summary are
interpreted.
Table 4 provides the summary information for the prediction of sex of-
fenders from the nonsexual inmates. Dependent, Narcissistic, Antisocial,
and Schizotypal are significant. The positive beta weights for Dependent and
Schizotypal indicate that high scores here are associated with being a sex of-
fender. The negative beta weights for Narcissistic and Antisocial indicate as-
sociation with nonsexual status. The Odds Ratio associated with the final
predictive matrix is 2.12.
Table 5 presents the logistic regression summary table for the differentia-
tion of child molesters from rapists. While five scales were significant in both
of the univariate analyses, only one scale, Dependent, was significant in the
final regression. Here the positive beta indicates that higher Dependent
SEX OFFENDER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 315

TABLE 5. Logistic Regression Summary for Predicting Child Molestors

Beta Wald p

Personality Disorders
Schizoid 0.209 0.587 .444
Avoidant 0.199 0.744 .388
Depressive 0.102 0.176 .675
Dependent 0.490 4.034 .045*
Selfdefeating 0.140 0.247 .619
Constant 0.496

Note. *p < .05.

scores are associated with child molester status. The Odds Ratio for the final
prediction matrix was 2.09.
As is typical with most multiscale tests, there is quite a bit of shrinkage
from univariate to multivariate analyses. Final regression analyses are the
most conservative and appropriately interpreted. Individual univariate
analyses are viewed as inconclusive. On the other hand, the multivariate
analyses can overlook important clinical information in the vacuum of
multicolinearity.

DISCUSSION
The present study establishes that sex offenders in general are different
from nonsexual offenders with regard to psychopathology. While several
scales indicate high levels of pathology in both groups, a number of scales
suggest differences between the two types of offenders. Nonsexual offenders
seem to have more classic criminal personality styles such as Antisocial,
Narcissistic, and Sadistic patterns. There is also evidence of nonsexual of-
fenders having higher rates of substance abuse. The sex offenders in general
were more broadly pathological with elevations typically associated with
more traditional mental health types of problems. These include the social
inadequacies of Schizoid, Avoidant, Dependent, and Schizotypal; the affec-
tive characteristics of Depressive, Anxiety, Dysthymia, and PTSD; as well as
the relatively severe psychopathology of Thought Disorder, Major Depres-
sion, and Delusional Disorder. Multivariately, Dependent, Narcissistic,
Antisocial, and Schizotypal are the most important.
The present data also show that child molesters are different from rapists
in terms of personality and clinical syndromes. The neurotic trend from
nonsexual offenders to sex offenders generally continues when the sex of-
fenders are differentiated into the two groups. The child molesters differ
from the rapists along the same social and affective lines. Indeed, child mo-
lesters have some very high levels of psychopathology. Forty-one percent are
high on Avoidant, 30% on each of Depressive and Dependent, 49% on Anxi-
ety, and 30% on Dysthymia. This suggests that child molesters are quite dis-
turbed from a psychopathology perspective, and Dependent is the most
important statistically. The disturbance is not classically criminal. It is also
probably as characterlogical as Axis I in nature.
316 AHLMEYER ET AL.

These findings support the empirical literature that sexual offenders man-
ifest severe comorbid psychopathology, especially affective disorders and
psychosis (e.g., McElroy et al., 1999; Armentrout & Hauer, 1978). Mar-
shalls (1993) theoretical understanding of the concept of developmental
vulnerability in sexual offenders is more recently gaining recognition as a
comprehensive model for pinpointing the etiology of sexual deviancy. While
this model leans toward sexual victimization as a critical component, lack of
attachment is the central factor in the development of psychopathology in
general (Werner, 1989). Research in fleshing out these pathways is
currently being undertaken (e.g., Simons, Wurtele, & Heil, 2002).
From a test perspective, it is interesting that not only were many of the
findings involving the MCMI-I replicated here but also that the new scales all
differentiated among the groups. The Depressive and Self-defeating scales
are significant in both comparisons. The Sadistic and PTSD scales separate
sex offenders in general from nonsex offenders.
These data also suggest that treatment might focus on the underlying so-
cial and affective disturbances of the offender in addition to the offense be-
haviors. The depth of the characterlogical disturbance shown here suggests
more than simple behavior. Treatment should address both the personality
disturbance as well as the Axis I disturbance. These profiles also suggest
that individualized treatment plans are probably warranted. While there are
many logistical and financial reasons to have fixed treatment programming,
the highly varied nature of the psychopathology found here indicates that
the best treatment success will probably be found through relatively narrow
treatment protocols.
It is important to note several of the limitations of this study. First, these
inmates represent only those in Colorado. A good cross-replication in an-
other large state would certainly be of interest. This should be increasingly
easy because a number of additional states including Illinois have adopted
the MCMI-III as an initial screening instrument. Second, the numbers of
subjects in the two sex offender groups are a bit small. Confidence would be
higher if the two groups were closer to 1,000 each. Additionally, we used as
our control group all offenders who did not commit a sex offense. An alterna-
tive is to use only those convicted of a violent crime as the control group such
as Chantry and Craig (1994) have done. The difficulty with this is that there
is some belief in corrections that offenders of any type tend to commit many
different types of crimes and as such the current conviction is inappropri-
ately narrow. Finally, we excluded about 10% of profiles as being invalid.
This is a higher exclusion rate than that suggested by the manual. Other
locations using the current findings should take that into account.
This study found that sexual offenders manifest severe psychopathology
in comparison to controls. The comorbid Axis I clinical syndromes and Axis
II personality disorders suggest adjunct therapies to traditional sex offender
treatment will be necessary for obtaining efficacious outcomes. The
MCMI-III appears to be a useful instrument for differentiating these critical
areas related to sexual offense behaviors.
SEX OFFENDER PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 317

REFERENCES
Amer i can Psy chi at ric As so ci a tion (APA) ated sex offenders. Behaviour Research
(1994). Diagnostic and statistical man- and Therapy, 32, 559564.
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Wash- Marshall, W. L. (1996). Assessment, treat-
ington, DC: Author. ment, and theorizing about sex offend-
Armentrout, J. A., & Hauer, A. L. (1978). ers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23,
MMPIs of rapists of adults, rapists of 162-199.
children, and non-rapist sex offenders. Marshall, W.L., Anderson, D., & Champagne,
Journal of Clin ical Psy chol ogy, 34, F. (1997). Selfesteem and its relation-
330-332. ship to sexual offending. Psychology,
Bard, L., & Knight, R. (1987). Sex offender Crime & Law, 3, 81106.
subtyping with the MCMI. In C. Green Marshall, W.L., Barbaree, H.E., & Fernandez,
(Ed.), Conference on the Millon invento- Y.M. (1995). Some aspects of social
ries (MCMI, MBHI, MAPI) (pp. 133-137). competence in sexual offenders. Sexual
Min ne ap o lis: Na tional Com puter Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treat-
Systems. ment, 7, 113127.
Chantry, K., & Craig, R. J. (1994). Psychologi- Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (2000). The
cal screening of sexually violent offend- origins of sexual offending. Trauma, Vi-
ers with the MCMI. Journal of Clinical olence, and Abuse, 3, 250-263.
Psychology, 50, 430-435. McElroy, S. L., Soutullo, C. A., Taylor, P., Jr.,
Fernandez, Y. M., & Marshall, W. L. (2003). N e l s o n, E . B . , Be c km a n , D. A . ,
Victim empathy, social selfesteem, Brusman, L. A., Ombaba, J. M.,
and psychopathy in rapists. Sex Abuse, Strakowski, S. M., & Keck, P. E., Jr.
15, 1126. (1999). Psychiatric features of 36 men
Hall, G. C. H., Maiuro, R. D., Vitaliano, P. P., & convicted of sexual offenses. Journal of
Proctor, W. C. (1986). The utility of the Clinical Psychiatry, 60, 414-420.
MMPI with men who have sexually as- Millon, T. (1982). Manual for the MCMI (2nd
saulted children. Journal of Consulting ed.). Minneapolis: National Computer
and Clinical Psychology, 54, 493-496. Systems.
Kafka, M. P., & Prentky, R. A. (1994). Prelimi- Millon, T. (1994). Manual for the MCMI-III.
nary observations of DSM-II-R axis I Minneapolis: National Computer Sys-
comorbidity in men with paraphilias tems.
and paraphilia-related disorders. Jour- Millon, T. (1997). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial
nal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55, 481-487. Inventory-III manual (2nd ed.). Minne-
Langevin, R., Land, R., Reynolds, R., Wright, apolis: National Computer Systems.
P., Garrels, D., Marchese, V., Handy, Overh olser , J. C. & Beck, S. ( 1986).
L., Pugh, G., & Frenzel, R. (1988). Per- Multimethod assessment of rapists,
sonality and sexual anomalies: An ex- child mo lest ers, and three con trol
am i na tion of the Millon Clin i cal groups on behavioral and psychological
Multiaxial Inventory. Annals of Sex Re- measures. Journal of Consulting and
search, 1, 13-32. Clinical Psychology, 54, 682687.
Lehne, G. K. (1994). The NEOPI and the Paisey, G. L. (1998). Use of the MMPI-A to as-
MCMI in the forensic evaluation of sex sess personality of juvenile male delin-
offenders. In Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. quents who are sex of fend ers and
A. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the nonsex offenders. Psychological Re-
fivefactor model. Washington, DC: ports, 85, 115-122.
American Psychological Association. Panton, J. H. (1978). Personality differences
Lipton, D. N., McDonel, E. C., & McFall, R. M. appearing between rapists of adults,
(1987). Heterosocial perception in rap- rapists of children and non-violent sex-
ists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical ual molesters of female children. Re-
Psychology, 55, 1721. search Communications in Psychology,
Marshall, W. L. (1993). The role of attach- Psychiatry and Behavior, 3, 385-393.
ments, intimacy, loneliness in the etiol- Retzlaff, P., Sheehan, E., & Fiel, A. (1991).
ogy and main te nance of sex ual MCMI-II report style and bias: Profile
offending. Sexual and Marital Therapy, and validity scales analysis. Journal of
8, 109-121. Personality Assessment, 56, 466-477.
Marshall, W.L. (1994). Treatment effects on Segal, Z. V., & Marshall, W. L. (1985). Hetero-
denial and minimization in incarcer- sexual social skills in a population of
318 AHLMEYER ET AL.

rapists and child molesters. Journal of Ward, T., Hudson, S.M., Marshall, W.L., &
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, Siegert, R. (1995). Attachment style
5563. and intimacy deficits in sex offenders: A
Segal, Z. V., & Stermac, L. (1984). A measure theoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A
of rapists attitudes towards women. In- Journal of Research and Treatment, 7,
ternational Journal of Law and Psychia- 317335.
try, 7, 437440. Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children in
Simons, D., Wurtele, S. K., & Heil, P. (2002). young adulthood: A longitudinal study
Childhood victimization and lack of em- from birth to 32 years. American Jour-
pathy as predictors of sexual offending nal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 72-81.
against women and children. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1291-1307.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen