|
Article Excerpt
Bridging research into practice, the authors propose a clinical model for use in the development of empathy in juvenile sex offenders. Case illustrations are provided.
**********
Empathy deficits have been identified as one of the primary etiological factors in juvenile sex-offending behaviors (Farr, Brown, & Beckett, 2004; Ferrara & McDonald, 1996; Kazdin, 1994; Lindsey, Carlozzi, & Eells, 2001; Marshall, Hudson, & Hodkinson, 1993; Miner, Siekert, & Ackland, 1997; Schram, Milloy, & Rowe, 1991; Vizard, Monck, & Misch, 1995), and, as a result, the use of affective and empathy development strategies have been identified as required components of juvenile sex offender treatment (National Adolescent Perpetrator Network, 1993). Additionally, several theorists have hypothesized about the relationship between empathy development and juvenile sex offenders (Ferrara & McDonald, 1996; Kazdin, 1994; Marshall et al., 1993; Miner et al., 1997; Schram et al., 1991; Vizard et al., 1995), and several specific clinical strategies to promote empathy development have been offered (Calley, 2007; Heinz, Gargaro, & Kelly, 1987; Lundrigan, 2001; G. P. Perry & Orchard, 1992).
Despite an enhanced understanding of the relationship among the empathy development of juvenile sex offenders, clinical strategies designed to promote empathy, and the developmental nature of empathy, these three areas have not converged toward a developmental framework from which to promote empathy in juvenile sex offenders. To address this need, in this article we focus on empathy as a developmental process and particularly on empathy development in juvenile sex offenders. We identify a progressive set of strategies designed to promote empathy development, specifically within clinical work with juvenile sex offenders. This article concludes with an exploration, through the use of case illustrations, of how each of the strategies has been successfully implemented in the context of a residential, group-based treatment milieu for adolescent male sex offenders. Suggestions and implications for clinical work and additional research are addressed.
Empathy Development and the Juvenile Sex Offender
A brief examination of the concept of empathy and the development of empathy in juvenile sex offenders is a good starting point. According to Ryan and Lane (1997), empathy may be defined as the "capacity to read the cues of others and thus imagine the experience of the other" (p. 127). The adolescent sex offender may experience difficulty in the identification and labeling of personal feelings and, as a result, may have difficulty communicating personal feelings and being empathic toward others (G. P. Perry & Orchard, 1992). This failure to develop empathy may contribute to juvenile sex-offending behaviors. Conversely, the presence of empathy may serve as a deterrent to sexual offending, because it enables the offender to understand the effect of his actions on victims and to experience remorse (Briggs, Doyle, Gooch, & Kennington, 1998). Empathy development in juvenile sex offenders is therefore a complex issue and one that requires further examination.
Several researchers have hypothesized various reasons for the lack of empathic development among juvenile sex offenders. More specifically, Kazdin (1994) and Miner et al. (1997) reported a pronounced lack of interpersonal and social skills among male juvenile sexual offenders, and Farr et al. (2004) noted a lack of empathic care in caregivers of juvenile sex offenders. Earlier, Marshall et al. (1993) and Schram et al. (1991), in their studies of male sex offenders, proposed that a maladaptive interpersonal style and possible neurological deficits might contribute to the offender's cognitive distortion related to the inability to recognize the effects of his behaviors on another. In their assessment of the neurological functioning of the juvenile sex offender, Ferrara and McDonald (1996) reported that between one quarter and one third of juvenile sex offenders have some type of neurological impairment. It should be noted that a specific understanding of the relationship between the development of empathy and neurological functioning of the juvenile sex offender remains inconclusive, and, therefore, this is an area in need of further exploration (which should involve neurological evaluations of a broad population of juvenile sex offenders to better understand the significance of these findings as well as to explore potential causes of these deficits in the population).
In addition to neurological deficits, another factor that may contribute to difficulties in empathy development among juvenile sex offenders is a history of child maltreatment (France & Hudson, 1993). The combined factors of child maltreatment and the lack of empathic care by caregivers (Farr et al., 2004) may, indeed, present unique challenges to the development of empathy among juvenile sex offenders, in particular, because these youths must cope not only with their abuse by a caregiver but also with the subsequent lack of exposure to a modeling of empathic care that might serve to teach them empathic skills.
As a result of these challenges related to early empathy development, juvenile sex offenders may experience increased difficulty recognizing or be unable to recognize appropriate emotions in others and may possess a reduced capacity for empathy. Subsequently, this reduced empathy may result in the youth's inability to form new attachments with others and may be a contributing factor related to the social isolation noted among juvenile sex offenders (Vizard et al., 1995).
Although the attempt has been made in the literature to identify potential associations between empathy development and juvenile sex offending, there remains a profound lack of research dedicated to empirically assessing this relationship. In one study that examined the differences in empathy among juvenile sex offenders, non-sex-offending delinquent juveniles, and nondelinquent juveniles, significant differences were found between the two delinquent groups on the measure of empathic concern (Lindsey et al., 2001). Whereas there were no significant differences found between the delinquent and nondelinquent juveniles, the juvenile sex offenders scored significantly lower in the area of Empathic Concern (one of the study's subscales) than did the non-sex-offending juveniles. Additionally, the offender groups scored significantly higher on the Personal Distress subscale than did the nondelinquent group. These scores indicated that juvenile offenders may react more emotionally to stressful situations than nonoffending youths. If we apply this to offending behaviors, "this tendency reflects a self-oriented perspective that may inhibit the ability of delinquents to focus on the distress of the victim" (Lindsey et al., 2001, p. 517). Furthermore, the difficulty with emotional regulation experienced by juvenile sex offenders is intricately linked with challenges in behavioral regulation. Both of these are risk factors for juvenile sex offenders and, as such, may significantly contribute to juvenile sex-offending behaviors.
In another study, Farr et al. (2004) compared juvenile sex offenders with nonoffending juveniles on the issues of empathic ability and masculinity levels. This exploratory study compared hypermasculinity levels and empathic ability, and whereas there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on the total score of the Hypermasculinity Scale, there were statistically significant differences between the groups on two of the subscales. These subscales included Callous Sexual Attitudes Towards Females and Adversarial Attitudes Towards Females and Sexual Minorities, with the juvenile sex offenders yielding higher scores on each. Additionally, the results of the empathy measure indicated that juvenile sex offenders exhibited lower levels of empathy and more difficulties with empathy than did their nonoffending counterparts. The results of the empathy measure contrasted with an earlier study by Monto, Zgourides, and Harris (1998) in which no statistically significant results were found between adolescent sex offenders and nonoffending adolescents. To account for these differences, Farr et al. attributed them to the...
|
