Offender Empathy: Where we are now, and where we could go next

Benjamin Cuff

To give an overview of current practice (from a research point of view)

To present a new line of research that may be useful in offender empathy interventions

To present preliminary data for the influence of person specific, cognitive antecedents of empathy

Aims

Seems obvious to many that offenders lack empathy, and that this deficit must be addressed.

Introduced into SOTPs in the 1970s. Rapidly grew in prevalence, despite the lack of

empirical support.◦ Research began in the 1990s (Marshall et al., 1995)

Contained in 87-95% of US SOTPs (McGrath et al., 2010).

1/5th of time spent of empathy in England & Wales SOTPs (Mann & Barnett, 2012).

Empathy and Offender Intervention

Mixed results (Brown et al., 2013)

Most programmes have multiple components, and it is unclear which are the most successful (Marshall & Serran, 2000)

Theoretical Issues• General Deficits:• “The evidence demonstrating that sex offenders have empathy deficits…

is at best equivocal” (Brown et al., 2013)

• Victim Work:• There is no empirical evidence for the notion that developing empathy

for past victims generalizes to future situations (Barnett & Mann, 2013a)

Programme Effectiveness

Generalised treatments are likely inappropriate.◦ (With the possible exception of psychopaths.)

Victim empathy work needs a greater empirical base.◦“Victim empathy work with sexual offenders is

inconsistently articulated, poorly understood, and largely untested empirically” Mann & Barnett (2012, p.295)

A need to go back to basics in terms of our theoretical understanding of these issues.

Where we are

Examine the multiple reasons why these deficits arise, rather than target the empathy deficits themselves (Barnett & Mann, 2013a).◦ Suggested in the victim-specific deficits literature (Marshall &

Colleagues)

Marshall et al., (1995, p.109)◦ “We believe that researchers should … develop more person-specific

measures that may reveal inabilities to empathize with their victims rather than a generalized lack of empathy.” (Marshall et al., 1995)

These inabilities may result from cognitions (attitudes, justifications, denial, minimisation etc.) (Brown et al., 2013), and these cognitions should form the key targets for assessment and treatment (Barnett & Mann, 2013a).

Where we could go next

A model of the empathic process

Sex offender implicit theories (Polaschek & Ward, 2002):1. Women as Unknowable2. Women are sex objects3. Male sex drive is uncontrollable4. Entitlement5. Dangerous world

CDs can interrupt empathic responding (Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2005)

Some evidence for effectiveness of CD interventions (Watson and Stermac, 1994)

However:◦ Specific to offending◦ Persistently held

Cognitive Distortions

9 person specific cognitions that have an influence on empathy:

Literature Review

Valuing Do I value the target as a person?

Perceived Need Does the target need help?

Morality Do I find this morally wrong?

Cognitive Empathy Am I able to understand why the target reacted in that way?

Agency Am I in control of what happens?

Similarity Is the target similar to myself?

Self-Interest Do my needs take priority over the needs of the target?

Blame Do I blame the target?

Perceived Power I am a more powerful person than the target?

A model of the empathic process

“The Cognitive Antecedents of Empathic Responding Scale”

11 subscales (9 cognitions + empathy & sympathy)

177 undergraduate students Good internal reliability

◦ α = .71-.90 Good correlations with IRI (concurrent validity)

Scale Development

Cognition Description Effect on Empathy

r

Valuing Do I value the target as a person? .65**

Perceived Need

Does the target need help? .42**

Morality Do I find this morally wrong? .42**

Cognitive Empathy

Am I able to understand why the target reacted in that way?

.41**

Agency Am I in control of what happens? 37**

Similarity Is the target similar to myself? .35**

Self-Interest Do my needs take priority over the needs of the target?

-.40**

Blame Do I blame the target? -.37**

Perceived Power

I am a more powerful person than the target?

-.22**

Cuff, Brown, Taylor, Howat, & Sleath (under review)

**p < 0.01

Certain cognitions seem to be particularly important for donation behaviours:◦ Agency◦ Valuing◦ Morality◦ Blame (-)

More research is required to establish those cognitions which have the greatest impact on offending behaviour◦ (both causative and preventative)

Differential Effects? – Donating to Charity

Cuff et al. (in preparation)

Understanding how offenders see their victims as being “different” may lead to person-specific treatment approaches.

Treatments should target each individual’s specific blocks to empathy (Barnett & Mann, 2013a).

Personalizing the victim in a way that is relevant to the offender (Marshall & Marshall, 2011)◦ Find cognitive deficits (e.g., similarity) and target those

(e.g., find a way to make the victim seem more ‘similar’).

Individualised Treatments

Mann & Barnett (2012, p.287)◦ “Although (specific) victim empathy deficits may

be observable in [offenders], this alone does not constitute an argument to address them in treatment, unless these deficits also predict recidivism, or if there is evidence that addressing them reduces recidivism.”

More Research Is Needed!!

Should we include these in treatment programmes?

Mixed support for current intervention approaches

It may be fruitful to look at the antecedents of empathy, rather than empathy itself.

More research into context specific cognitions is needed◦ Interventions could target individual risk factors.

Conclusions

Barnett, G., & Mann, R. E. (2013a). Empathy deficits and sexual offending: A model of obstacles to empathy. Aggression and Violent Behavior,

Brown, S.J., Walker, K., Gannon, T.A., & Keown, K. (2013). Creating a psychologically comfortable position: The link between empathy and cognitions in sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19, 275-294

Cuff, Brown, Taylor, Howat, & Sleath (under review). The Cognitive Antecedents of Empathic Responding Scale. Psychological Assessment.

Cuff, Brown, Taylor, Howat, & Sleath (in preparation). Cognitions, empathy, and charitable donations. Hanson, R. K. (2003). Empathy deficits of sexual offenders: A conceptual model. Journal of Sexual

Aggression, 9, 13-23. Marshall, L.E., & Marshall, W.L. (2011). Empathy and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Forensic

Psychiatry & Psychology, 22, 742-759. Marshall & Serran, 2000 Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., Jones, R., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical

Psychology Review, 15, 99-113. McGrath et al., 2010 Mann, R.E., & Barnett, G.D. (2012). Victim empathy intervention with sexual offenders:

Rehabilitation, punishment, or correctional quackery? Sex Abuse, Polaschek, D., & Ward, T. (2002). The implicit theories of potential rapists: What our questionnaires

tell us. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 7, 385-406. Ward, T., Polaschek, D., & Beech, A. (2005). Theories of Sexual Offending. Chichester: Wiley. Watson, R. J., & Stermac, L. E. (1994). Cognitive group counseling for sexual offenders. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 259–269.

References

Any Questions?

ab5676@coventry.ac.uk