1 / 18

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

Offender Empathy: Where we are now, and where we could go next. Benjamin Cuff. Aims. 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

guillermo-manzanero
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Offender Empathy: Where we are now, and where we could go next Benjamin Cuff

  2. Aims • 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

  3. Empathy and Offender Intervention • 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).

  4. Programme Effectiveness • 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)

  5. Where we are • 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.

  6. Where we could go next • 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).

  7. A model of the empathic process

  8. Cognitive Distortions • Sex offender implicit theories (Polaschek & Ward, 2002): • Women as Unknowable • Women are sex objects • Male sex drive is uncontrollable • Entitlement • 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

  9. Literature Review • 9 person specific cognitions that have an influence on empathy:

  10. A model of the empathic process

  11. Scale Development • “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)

  12. Cuff, Brown, Taylor, Howat, & Sleath (under review) **p < 0.01

  13. Differential Effects? – Donating to Charity • 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) Cuffet al. (in preparation)

  14. Individualised Treatments • 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’).

  15. Should we include these in treatment programmes? • 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!!

  16. Conclusions • 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.

  17. References • 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.

  18. Any Questions? ab5676@coventry.ac.uk

More Related