Understanding Empathy Deficits in Offender Interventions

Overview of current practices in offender empathy interventions reveals mixed results and challenges in addressing empathy deficits. Research suggests the need for more person-specific measures targeting cognitive antecedents of empathy rather than generalized treatments. Developing a greater empirical base for victim empathy work is crucial for effective interventions.

• Offender interventions
• Empathy deficits
• Cognitive antecedents
• Victim empathy
• Person-specific measures

savvast Follow

Uploaded on Dec 09, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Benjamin Cuff

2. 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. 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). 1/5thof time spent of empathy in England & Wales SOTPs (Mann & Barnett, 2012).

4. 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. 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. 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).

8. Sex offender implicit theories (Polaschek & Ward, 2002): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 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. 9 person specific cognitions that have an influence on empathy: Valuing Perceived Morality Cognitive Empathy that way? Agency Valuing Perceived Need Morality Cognitive Empathy Do I value the target as a person? Does the target need help? Do I find this morally wrong? Am I able to understand why the target reacted in Need Agency Am I in control of what happens? Similarity Self Similarity Self- -Interest Is the target similar to myself? Do my needs take priority over the needs of the target? Do I blame the target? I am a more powerful person than the target? Interest Blame Perceived Power Blame Perceived Power

11. The Cognitive Antecedents of Empathic Responding Scale 11 subscales (9 cognitions + empathy & sympathy) 177 undergraduate students Good internal reliability = .71-.90 Good correlations with IRI (concurrent validity)

12. Cognition Cognition Description Description Effect on Empathy Effect on Empathy r r Valuing Perceived Need Morality Cognitive Empathy Agency Similarity Self-Interest Do I value the target as a person? Does the target need help? Do I find this morally wrong? Am I able to understand why the target reacted in that way? Am I in control of what happens? Is the target similar to myself? Do my needs take priority over the needs of the target? Do I blame the target? I am a more powerful person than the target? .65** .42** .42** .41** 37** .35** -.40** Blame Perceived Power -.37** -.22** **p < 0.01

13. 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) Cuff et al. (in preparation)

14. 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. 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. 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. 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