Printer Friendly

A restorative justice approach to empathy development in sex offenders: an exploratory study.

The authors describe an exploratory study in sex offender treatment using a restorative justice approach to examine the shame, guilt, and empathy development of convicted sexual offenders. Implications for clinical practice and future research are highlighted.


Historically, the primary mode of dealing with sex offenders was incarceration (Blackwell & Cunningham, 2004). Regardless of the severity of the offense, prison sentences were usually 20 to 30 years and offered little, if any, restorative rehabilitation for the offender (Burdon & Gallagher, 2002). Zehr (1997) emphasized the need to move toward a restorative justice model for sex offenders as opposed to the traditional retribution model, which, through incarceration, simply delays the risk of reoffense. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM; 2001), many federal and state agencies have attempted to ease the burden placed on overcrowded prison systems by transitioning sex offenders back into the community using a restorative justice philosophy. CSOM reported that the efforts to reduce inmate populations have been overwhelmingly successful as measured by restorative guidelines such as (a) the increased support for sex offender "reentry" or inclusion into the community, (b) improved confidence in public safety, and (c) a significant increase in sex offenders' contributions to the workforce. Nevertheless, one area not well studied within the restorative justice literature is the notion of simultaneously addressing victim and community needs for safety, reparation, and healing, which are vital to the efficacy of the restorative justice process (Eisnaugle, 2003).

The literature is deficient in providing clinicians, who work primarily with individuals who sexually offend, the practical, focused, and ethical restorative justice interventions aimed at cultivating empathy development. This article (a) briefly reviews the historical trends of sex offender treatment, highlighting empathy development as the cornerstone of sex offender treatment; (b) discusses shame and guilt as the two constructs potentially important in the development of empathy; and (c) presents an innovative strategy for appropriately using victims of sexual abuse in the ongoing restorative treatment of sexual offenders. Treatment implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Trends in Sex Offender Treatment

Over the past decade, there has been a movement toward offering sexual offenders treatment either in prison or in lieu of incarceration because the retributive model (a) does little to rehabilitate, (b) has proved ineffective, and (c) costs inordinate amounts of money over time (Kirsch & Becker, 2006; Langevin, 2006). The legal system, however, has continually failed to enforce treatment or even monitor treatment postincarceration (Craissati & Beech, 2006). This is problematic because it is only when offenders are engaged in treatment that they can be accurately and continually assessed or identified as a high risk to "recidivate" (CSOM, 2001). In the past 10 to 15 years, additional resources have been devoted to treating this population using goal-directed methods designed to individualize the program, ensure accountability, and increase efficacy as evidenced by outcome data (Langevin, 2006).

There are two specific goals to sex offender treatment (Kaden, 1998). The first goal results in the offender understanding and accepting responsibility for his or her behaviors. Evidence of goal attainment in this area includes the offender (a) admitting an offense was committed, (b) reducing the use of defense mechanisms such as denial or blame, and (c) sustaining healthy and acceptable thoughts and behaviors (e.g., using a support system or attending treatment; Bays & Longo, 2001). The second goal of sex offender therapy is for the offender to develop empathy (Kaden, 1998). According to d'Amora and Hobson (n.d.), victim empathy requires offenders to appreciate the damage they have committed, which, for many offenders, results in an awareness that may be an important motivation against reoffending. Therefore, empathy development is often regarded as a cornerstone of an effective sex offender treatment program.

Empathy Development

Empathy development is defined as the ability to appropriately respond toward another person, often evidenced by a heightened awareness of feelings and the use of 'T' statements conveying the impact of such feelings (Cote & Hodgins, 1990). Cote and Hodgins suggested that for treatment to be successful, sex offenders must have (a) the capacity to learn how to evaluate and correct thinking distortions or inappropriate behaviors and (b) an ability to understand that they physically and/or emotionally violated either a social norm or a personal boundary. Therefore, many sex offender treatment programs incorporate exercises or educational tools using victims' stories, such as fictitious case studies and videotapes, to activate cognitive processes and emotive behaviors that foster empathy development.

Early in the treatment process, offenders are rarely able to articulate why they offended, let alone identify consequences the victim experienced or has yet to experience (Roys, 1997). Bays and Longo (2001) stated that initial treatment goals must include a reduction or termination of the use of denial, require the offender to admit responsibility for the offense, and then develop and practice empathy. For this to occur, offenders must see beyond their immediate self-centered interests, understand the impact of relationships, and acknowledge that harm has been done to the victim or victims (Bumby, 2000). Accepting culpability is difficult for sex offenders because they are often unable to link their cognitive processes or behavior patterns to any emotional responses associated with their victim (McCabe & Tierney, 2001).

Seto (2005) noted that sex offenders often show little concern for the impact of their actions. According to Seto, sex offenders view others as objects on which to exert power, regardless of the type or degree of their relationship. In addition to empathy, and among a number of other characteristics Seto cited as important in determining whether someone has the capacity for compassion, two key constructs were shame and guilt. Seto's (2005) theory, known as the Deficit Model, predicts that persons lacking the ability to experience shame or guilt may be at an increased risk to offend or reoffend and are less likely to be rehabilitated.

Shame and Guilt

McCabe and Tierney (2001) asserted that a relationship exists between cognitive and emotive processes and that by understanding this link, offenders could potentially relate more to victims and respond appropriately. These authors further stated that although empathy is important, it is not sufficient. Pithers (1997) stated that shame and guilt are also crucial in understanding an individual's frame of mind when the sex offense is enacted. Pithers further suggested that offenders who lacked an understanding of their own shame and guilt are inhibited from processing how the offense caused harm to both their victims and to themselves. Cote and Hodgins (1990) noted that shame and guilt can be a useful predictor of whether sex offenders are capable of being rehabilitated. The exercises or interventions historically used in sex offender treatment often focus on empathy alone, giving little attention to shame and guilt, which therefore require further exploration (Harder, Rockart, & Cutler, 1993).

Overall, researchers have noted that theoretical discussions concerning shame and guilt are missing from the current literature and are even scarcer in most psychological textbooks (Kubany & Watson, 2003). Kubany and Watson stated that shame and guilt are often connected in context but actually are quite independent of each other in terms of thought processes and behaviors. Specifically, shame illustrates the violation of external, socially constructed values, whereas guilt results when an individual violates his or her own internal value system (Pithers, 1997). A further exploration of these two constructs is warranted.

Shame. Pynchon (2005) depicted shame as a barrier to one's capacity to achieve compassion or empathy and develop a healthy conscience. Shame is often experienced as an intensely personal, negative, pathogenic emotive response that arises from committing an immoral behavior. Often, the result impedes an individual from understanding experiences from another's perspective and acts as an impediment to the person's own social growth. Bumby (2000) stated that this self-oriented distress over violating strong social constructs ostracizes individuals from appropriate, healthy relationships, thus potentially hindering the ability to empathize. Skogman and Svalland (2002) found that as shame increases, empathy for others decreases. This suggests that punitive interventions or exercises designed to cultivate feelings of shame may hinder the empathetic process in treatment.

Nevertheless, there are some researchers who suggest that shame can actually boost empathy development in sex offenders. For example, Howells and Day (2003) proposed that shame, as an emotion, is highly pertinent to the readiness of treatment among sex offenders to include the propensity to develop empathy. Proeve (2003) also hinted that shame and cognitive dissonance may increase the motivation for treatment; however, additional research is needed in this area. These two studies are further evidence that more research is needed, which served as an impetus for the current exploratory study.

Guilt. Guilt is a feeling concomitant with the experience of acknowledging or even attempting to understand that harm has been done to a victim (Kubany & Manke, 1995). According to Eisenberg (2000), the experience of guilt is linked to an internal sense of responsibility and a feeling that some moral standard has been violated. A Multidimensional Model of Guilt (Kubany & Manke, 1995) has been proposed wherein intrapersonal and contextual variables interact to determine the magnitude of offenders' guilt. Specifically, the Multidimensional Model of Guilt suggests that five factors combine to determine guilt. The five factors are as follows:

(a) distress about the negative outcome and beliefs central to one's role in the event, (b) perceived role or responsibility in the negative outcome, (c) perceived justification for actions taken, (d) perceived violation of personal values, and (e) perceived beliefs about the foreseen ability or preventability of the given action or offense resulting in negative outcomes. (Kubany & Watson, 2003, p. 51)

Guilt may act as a source of mediation that motivates offenders to make amends (Hanson, 2003). Therefore, the first factor is vital; if offenders do not experience any distress about their negative behaviors, then they will most likely be unable to recognize their role in the event (thus denying involvement). Likewise, if offenders cannot identify their role or continue to deny any malicious behaviors, they will not be able to see how they could have prevented their actions from occurring. On the basis of the first and last factors, Kubany and Watson added that the critical features for determining guilt among offenders must include an assessment of the offender's beliefs of wrongdoing and his or her responsibility for causing harm. This assessment provides valuable insight as to whether an individual has the capacity to develop empathy.

Unlike the research on shame, the research on guilt has yielded more favorable results pertaining to empathy development. Greenwald and Harder (1998) argued that some degree of guilt is necessary for the development of empathy to occur. Guilt functions as a cognitive-emotional reaction that regulates or prevents actions from being taken that would violate external factors (Greenwald & Harder, 1998). Without the feeling of guilt for violating another person, a sex offender is unable to understand what the victim may be experiencing (Kaden, 1998). Like shame, guilt still must be managed carefully. Too much guilt can immobilize the process of productive empathy development. It can also undermine the development of healthy relationships over prolonged periods because guilt can elicit negative external reactions such as feeling punished or victimized (Harder & Zalma, 1990). On the other hand, too little guilt may not activate the cognitive-emotional reaction to facilitate the development of empathy. In sum, guilt and shame are thought to be key psychological components to consider when constructing sex offender treatment interventions.

Impact of Shame and Guilt on Empathy Development

Eisenberg (2000) concluded that shame and guilt are key links to empathy and moral behavior. Proeve (2003) stated that shame may foster an internal motivation to engage in treatment and develop empathy. Likewise, Howells and Day (2003) believed that guilt is an emotion that is highly pertinent to the readiness of treatment among sex offenders, as well as for the development of empathy.

Little empirical evidence exists to substantiate or challenge these theoretical notions about the impact of shame and guilt on empathy development. Kubany and Watson (2003) concluded that this paucity of evidence is an impediment to thoroughly understanding how, and to what degree, these variables may affect the rehabilitative process. Therefore, we believe there is a significant need to identify how shame and guilt activate empathy development. Although it is important to study these constructs, it is of equal importance to examine them in an ethical and respectful manner; therefore, we were also interested in using a restorative justice approach when conducting this study.

The purposes of this exploratory study were twofold: First, we sought to increase the awareness and understanding of how shame and guilt affect empathy development in sex offender treatment, and, second, we were intent on adding to the growing literature on the restorative justice model of rehabilitation. Therefore, we sought to investigate not only the impact of varying levels of exposure to a sexual abuse victim on the sex offender's level of empathy and experience of shame and guilt, but also the effectiveness of using a victim-offender mediation intervention under the restorative justice model. We hypothesized that (a) participants in a "live victim" group would demonstrate higher scores on a measure of empathy development than those who had not participated in the live victim session, (b) participants visually exposed to a live sexual abuse victim would have higher scores of shame than those who were not visually exposed, and (c) participants in the live victim treatment condition would score higher on a measure of guilt than those who had not participated in the live victim session.



All the participants in this study were receiving sex offender treatment at a mental health agency in a midwestern state. All 13 individuals in treatment at the time agreed to participate in the study. The participants' average age was 40 years (range = 22-66, SD = 12.94). All participants were White men who were on parole or probation following a conviction of one of the following sexual offenses: exhibitionism, statutory rape, pedophilia, molestation, or rape. Although the participants' sex offender treatment was court ordered, their participation in this study was strictly voluntary and obtained without reward or other inducement.


Two instruments were used during this study: the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES; Mehrabian, n.d.) to measure levels of empathy and the Personal Feelings Questionnaire-2 (PFQ-2; Harder & Zalma, 1990) to measure levels of shame and guilt. Each is explored briefly in the following sections.

BEES. The BEES is a 30-item paper-and-pencil objective measure of emotional empathy, which is operationally defined as the capacity to experience others' feelings. Average completion time is approximately 10 minutes (Mehrabian, 2000). Test takers rate statements such as "It pains me to see young people in wheelchairs" or "It upsets me to see someone being mistreated" on a Likert scale ranging from +4 to -4. The scale denotes the degree of agreement or disagreement from strong agreement (+4) to strong disagreement (-4). Individual item scores are totaled, and the instrument is scored such that scores from 20 to 31.5 are considered low, scores from 31.6 to 65 are considered average, and scores of 65.1 or greater are considered to be high. Mehrabian (2000) reported an alpha coefficient of .87 on the original data. BEES data have been negatively correlated with interpersonal violence and positively correlated with emotionality, altruism, moral judgment, tolerance of others (Mehrabian, 2000), and forgiveness (Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002).

PFQ-2. The PFQ-2 is a 22-item questionnaire that measures shame and guilt (Henderson, Zimbardo, & Martinez, 2001). The PFQ-2 was constructed to be consistent with theoretical conceptualizations of shame and guilt as well as with those personality traits conceived to be related to these constructs (Harder et al., 1993). Test takers of the PFQ-2 rate their experience of feeling items such as embarrassment, sadness, humiliation, and remorse across a continuum of never to almost continuously. Harder and Lewis (1987) reported acceptable 2-week (.85) and 5-week (.78) stability coefficients. Total Shame subscale scores (based on 10 items) fall into one of three ranges: low (30-43.5), average (43.6-68.5), and high (68.6-80). Higher scores are indicative of excessive embarrassment, helplessness, disordered perceptions of how one is seen by the public, and humiliation. The PFQ-2 Guilt subscale (6 items) also has three categories: low (24-41.5), average (41.6-65), and high (65.1-80). High scores on the Guilt subscale represent endorsement of feelings of worry, regret, remorse, and expectations of justifiable criticism by others. The PFQ-2's remaining 6 items are evenly split between negative or positive feelings about either shame or guilt and were not used in the present investigation.


All participants in the convenience sample were informed orally and in writing as to the nature of the study before signing a consent form. Participants were in intact groups established by the host treatment agency. Group 1 had 5 members, Group 2 had 3 members, and Group 3 had 5 members. Participants were preassigned to one of three treatment groups by the agency at which the study was conducted solely on the basis of the congruence of the participants' availability and the agency's treatment schedule.

The intervention in this study consisted of increasing levels of exposure to the testimony of a research confederate who had been the victim of a rape 5 years prior to the study. During the week of the live victim session, we coordinated to have another member of the sex offender treatment team or program coordinator available to meet with the research confederate prior to entering the group, after the group, and/or in the event the session had to be terminated because of inappropriate behaviors occurring in the group. This was done in response to Hanson's (2003) suggestion that interventions involving victims, if done inappropriately and recklessly, could elicit blameful responses by the offender toward the victim, impede empathy development, and potentially cause revictimization to occur. At the time of this study, the research confederate had served as a victim advocate for 3 years and had provided sexual offender treatment assistance in prior sexual offender groups at this research location.

All the participants were introduced to a sexual offense victim (i.e., the research confederate) by way of three levels of exposure: reading a letter from the victim, seeing a videotape of the victim, or live interaction with the victim in group. The confederate's letter included (a) a specific description of the sexual assault, (b) events that occurred immediately after the assault through the 1st year of recovery, (c) a poem written within 3 months of the sexual assault, and (d) a brief description of the recovery process as well as how the confederate came to designate herself as a survivor (rather than a victim). Group 1 received a letter-only treatment intervention. Group 2 read the confederate's letter and viewed a videotape of the confederate reading the letter. Finally, Group 3 read the letter, viewed the videotape, and witnessed the confederate reading the letter live. These interventions occurred over a 3-week span. All three groups read the confederate's letter during Week 1, Groups 2 and 3 viewed the videotape during Week 2, and Group 3 experienced the confederate live as she read the letter to the group during Week 3.


Table 1 provides the mean scores and standard deviations of the BEES for the three groups as well as the respective Time 1 to Time 2 change (delta) score for each group. Cronbach's alpha for this sample's BEES scores was .76. The first question the researchers addressed was whether the BEES mean empathy change (delta) score would be greater for the treatment group that received all three interventions than for the other two treatment groups. Between Groups 1 and 3 and between Groups 2 and 3, t tests were calculated to determine whether the groups' overall change varied by level of intervention. Results of the t tests on BEES data for Groups 1 and 3 indicated no significant differences in empathy levels (t = -0.85, df = 8, p = .93; d = .05). Likewise, the t-test calculations failed to produce a statistically significant value when comparing Groups 2 and 3 BEES change scores (t = -0.30, df = 6, p = .77; d = .21).

Table 2 provides the mean scores and standard deviations of the PFQ-2 Shame subscale for the three groups as well as the respective Time 1 to Time 2 change (delta) score for each group. The PFQ-2 empathy Cronbach's alpha estimate for this sample was .87. Results of the t tests showed no significant difference between the responses regarding PFQ-2 shame levels between Groups 1 and 3 (t = -0.14, df = 8, p = .89; d = .09). Also, there was no significant difference between Groups 1 and 2 (t = -0.43, df = 6, p = .68; d = .32).

Table 3 provides the mean scores and standard deviations of the PFQ-2 Guilt subscale for the three groups as well as the respective Time 1 to Time 2 change (delta) score for each group. The PFQ-2 empathy Cronbach's alpha estimate for this sample was .87. Results of the t tests showed no significant difference between the responses regarding PFQ-2 guilt levels between Groups 1 and 3 (t = -0.70, df = 8, p = .95; d = .04). Also, there was no significant difference between Groups 2 and 3 (t = -0.55, df = 6, p = .60; d = .41).


The current study failed to support a conclusion that varied levels of exposure to a sexual abuse survivor were associated with sex offenders' development of empathy. Using t tests, we found that Time 1 versus Time 2 group comparisons indicated that all the pre- and postintervention scores for the three groups remained in the average range (see Table 1). The letter and videotape treatment group achieved a higher posttest mean score on the BEES than did the other two groups. Nevertheless, the letter and videotape treatment group had a higher pretest mean score on the BEES compared with the other two groups. Moreover, the letter and videotape treatment group's postintervention BEES score was actually 1.06 points lower than its preintervention BEES score. Although not a statistically significant decrease, this drop indicates that Group 2's empathy score was somewhat lower after the intervention. The drop of 1.06 points may be based on informal facilitator and participant reports following the study, which suggested that members of Group 2 believed the letter to be genuine but were skeptical of the videotape, stating that they believed the victim was fabricating parts of her story.

The PFQ-2 data also yielded statistically insignificant results for shame and guilt across all three levels of exposure. Regarding shame, the PFQ-2 scores indicate that the group that received all three treatment conditions achieved a higher posttest mean score for shame than did the other two groups. Additionally, that same group also displayed the largest increase of shame as opposed to the letter-only and letter and videotape treatment groups. Although the letter-only group displayed an increased PFQ-2 score on shame, the score decreased for the letter and videotape group. None of the results achieved a level of statistical significance.

Concerning guilt, we hypothesized that the live victim treatment condition would produce a higher level of guilt than would the letter-only or the letter and video interventions. Data from the PFQ-2 resulted in an increase across all three groups. Clinically, perhaps for no other reason, this is important because Hanson (2003) stated that guilt may motivate offenders to change and is often a desired effect in victim-offender interventions. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that the letter, videotape, and live victim group elicited the largest increase of guilt among the three treatment conditions. The results of the PFQ-2 Guilt subscale, however, did not reach a level of statistical significance.


There are a number of possible explanations for why the data failed to produce statistically significant findings. First, it is possible that the theory of increasing shame or guilt as a way to increase empathy among sex offender treatment recipients is invalid. Second, it may be that the theory is valid, but the present empirical study was ineffective. These are important theological and methodological questions that cannot be answered by one study. Rather, multiple studies conducted in varied settings with heterogeneous populations and innovative interventions are necessary to establish a literature base that can answer these important questions.

Potential explanations for our findings are tied to limitations inherent with externally valid research designs (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 1999). Namely, our sample size and group constitution were determined by the agency sponsoring the research. As such, we were unable to (a) recruit a larger sample size; (b) randomly assign participants to treatment groups; or (c) recruit a diverse group of participants, which may have improved the significance of the results and have led to the generalizability of our findings. The actual number of participants in each group was very small, which limits the power of the analyses to detect statistical differences if they did, in fact, exist. The inability to randomly assign participants to groups restricted our ability to ensure that the groups did not differ on some unknown but meaningful characteristic that would otherwise contribute to the development of empathy. Another issue may have been the short time period used to collect data. The treatment conditions were completed within a 3-week period, which may have inhibited the time for any of the three groups to process the experience. Adams (2003) stated that victim empathy treatment modules are primarily cognitive and may require extensive time, up to 6 months, for restructuring to occur. As a result, an offender can usually produce a socially appropriate verbal response in the short term but experience no real change in his or her emotional self. Thus, there may have been an increased measurable difference in the pretest and posttest scores on the BEES had there been a longer treatment period allotted during this study. Additionally, 8 of the 13 participants were in treatment over 3 months at the time of the study, and it is possible they had shown vast improvement prior to the pretest being administered. Informed by these limitations, as well as noting the exploratory nature of this study, we offer several suggestions to advance study in this area.

Future Research

First, in addition to collecting larger and more diverse samples that can be randomly assigned to varying treatment conditions, subsequent researchers are encouraged to investigate the impact, if any, that participants' demographic characteristics play in mediating or moderating shame, guilt, or empathy development. For example, it may be possible that the number of arrests for sexual offenses, number of convictions, length of time of incarceration, type of sexual offense, and number of previous sex offender treatments could be associated with participants' responses to interventions designed to elicit shame and guilt, thus enhancing empathy. Future researchers are encouraged to covary relevant demographic data when testing relationships between interventions and criterion variables.

Administering pretests early in the participants' treatment process might be another direction for future research. Because this study was conducted with a convenience sample, some of the participants had been attending sex offender treatment for as little as 3 weeks and up to 1 to 2 years. Given that, it is difficult to ascertain the impact of the specific treatment interventions used in this research project.

A third suggestion is that there should be sufficient time between exposure to the sexual abuse victim and the administration of instruments that measure shame, guilt, and empathy. Although it is not known how long it might take for significant changes to occur, the 3 weeks used in this study did not yield statistically significant results. Ideally, measures of these constructs would be obtained immediately after exposure and again at predetermined follow-up intervals several weeks later.

A final suggestion is to incorporate systematic qualitative interviews. It may be possible that the methods used to assess changes in participants' shame, guilt, and empathy development were insufficient for this population. A qualitative research design may access important information unattainable by quantitative means. Anecdotally, the reports by facilitators and participants stated that they experienced many positive benefits that they attributed to the victim exposure interventions in all three sex offender treatment groups. Furthermore, many of the participants informed the researcher that they would have liked to have an opportunity to meet individually to discuss the impact that each intervention had on them. This information was passed along to the treatment group facilitators, who indicated that they would continue to discuss the intervention's impact beyond the study's conclusion.

Although the methods used in this study failed to provide statistically significant results, several of the pre-post comparisons did move in the desired direction. The effect of varying the levels of victim exposure to sex offenders in treatment may have provided relevant clinical direction that warrants future research in this area by refining the current research methodology. Moreover, on the basis of the clinical significance noted by this study, counselors who work with sexual offenders or any other type of offender-based programs may want to assess the restorative justice model regarding shame, guilt, and empathy. For instance, within the sexual offender treatment domain, there is a diversion population: (a) individuals who may have committed a sexual offense or misconduct but who have pleaded down to a nonsexual offense or (b) first-time offenders who are deemed a low risk to recidivate and do not see themselves as sex offenders (Roseman, Yeager, Korcuska, & Cromly, 2008). Treatment grounded in the restorative justice approach, specifically geared toward empathy development using suitable methods to elicit shame and/or guilt and using appropriate victim-offender interventions, may prove effective with this diversion population. Finally, consistent with the literature review for this study, our findings indicate a significant, underlying need for additional research on the individual constructs of shame, guilt, and empathy development.


Adams, J. (2003). Victim issues key to effective sex offender treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 10. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from docs/victim_issues_sex_offender_treatment.htm

Bays, L., & Longo, R. (2001). Enhancing empathy: Paths to wellness=Book three. Holyoke, MA: New England Adolescent Research Institute Press.

Blackwell, B. S., & Cunningham, C. D. (2004). Taking the punishment out of the process: From substantive criminal justice through procedural justice to restorative justice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67, 59.

Bumby, K. M. (2000). Empathy inhibition, intimacy deficits, and attachment difficulties in sex offenders. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 143-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burdon, W. M., & Gallagher, C. A. (2002). Coercion and sex offenders: Controlling sex-offending behavior through incapacitation and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 87-109. Center for Sex Offender Management. (2001). Recidivism of sex offenders. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from

Cote, G., & Hodgins, S. (1990). Co-occurring mental disorders among criminal offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 18, 271-281.

Craissati, J., & Beech, A. (2006). The role of key developmental variables in identifying sex offenders likely to fail in the community: An enhanced risk prediction model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 327-339.

d'Amora, D., & Hobson, B. (n.d.). Sexual offender treatment. Retrieved March 20, 2006, from

Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697.

Eisnaugle, C. N. (2003). An international truth commission: Utilizing restorative justice as an alternative to retribution. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 6, 209-241.

Greenwald, D. E, & Harder, D. W. (1998). Domains of shame: Evolutionary, cultural, and psychotherapeutic aspects. In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp. 225-245). New York: Oxford University Press.

Hanson, K. R. (2003). Empathy deficits of sexual offenders: A conceptual model. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9, 13-23.

Harder, D., & Lewis, S. (1987). The assessment of shame and guilt. In C. Spielberger & J. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 6, 91-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harder, D. W., Rockart, L., & Cutler, L. (1993). Additional validity evidence for the Harder Personal Feelings Questionnaire-2 (PFQ2): A measure of shame and guilt proneness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 345-348.

Harder, D. W., & Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct validity comparison. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 729-745.

Henderson, L., Zimbardo, P., & Martinez, A. (2001). Social fitness training, restructuring self-blaming attributions and reducing shame: Preliminary data. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from documents/2001/social-fitness-prelim-data.pdf

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in counseling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Howells, K., & Day, A. (2003). Readiness for anger management: Clinical and theoretical issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 319-337.

Kaden, J. (1998). Therapy for convicted sex offenders: Pursuing rehabilitation without incrimination. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89, 347-368.

Kirsch, L. G., & Becker, J. V. (2006). Sexual offending: Theory of problem, theory of change, and implications for treatment effectiveness. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11,208-224.

Kubany, E. S., & Manke, F. P. (1995). Cognitive therapy for trauma-related guilt: Conceptual bases and treatment outlines. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 2, 27-61.

Kubany, E. S., & Watson, S. B. (2003). Guilt: An elaboration of a multidimensional model. The Psychological Record, 53, 51-75.

Langevin, R. (2006). Acceptance and completion of treatment among sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 402-417.

Macaskill, A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 663-665.

McCabe, M. P., & Tierney, D. W. (2001). An evaluation of self-report measures of cognitive distortion and empathy among Australian sex offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 495-519.

Mehrabian, A. (2000). Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). Los Angeles: University of California.

Mehrabian, A. (n.d.). The Balanced Emotional Empathy Test (BEES) and optional software. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from

Pithers, W. D. (1997). Maintaining treatment integrity with sexual abusers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 34-51.

Proeve, M. (2003). Responsivity factors in sexual offender treatment. In T. Ward, D. R. Laws, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Issues and controversies (pp. 244-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pynchon, V. (2005). Shame by any other name: Lessons for restorative justice from the principles, traditions and practices of Alcoholics Anonymous. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 5. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from Restorative_Justice_Page.html

Roseman, C. P., Yeager, C., Korcuska, J. S., & Cromly, A. (2008). Sexual behavior intervention program: An innovative level of care in male sex offender treatment. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 297-310.

Roys, D. T. (1997). Empirical and theoretical considerations of empathy in sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 41, 53-64.

Seto, M. C. (2005). Is more better? Combining actuarial risk scales to predict recidivism among adult sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 17, 156-167.

Skogman, A., & Svalland, A. (2002). Shame and empathy: An experimental study on the effect of internalized shame and unconsciously triggered shame on empathic ability. Unpublished master's thesis, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Zehr, H. (1997). Restorative justice: The concept. Corrections Today, 59, 68.

Christopher P. Roseman, Counseling and Psychology in Education, The University of South Dakota; Martin Ritchie and John M. Laux, both at Department of Counselor Education and School Psychology, University of Toledo. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher P. Roseman, Counseling and Psychology in Education, The University of South Dakota, 414 East Clark Street, Delzell Education Center, 210B, Vermillion, SD 57069 (e-mail: christopher.
Group Mean Scores on the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale
(BEES) and Change From Pre- to Postintervention

                  Group 1           Group 2            Group 3
                  (n = 5)           (n = 3)            (n = 5)

Variable        M       SD        M        SD        M       SD

Pre-BEES       49.44    8.79      58.33   11.37     50.98   5.19
Post-BEES      51.08   10.92      57.27   14.68     53.16   4.98
Change          1.64   11.90      -1.06   23.30      2.18   7.74

Note. Group 1 = letter-only treatment condition;
Group 2 = letter and videotape treatment condition;
Group 3 = letter, videotape, and live victim treatment
condition; change = Time 1 to Time 2 change (delta) score.

Group Mean Scores on the Harder Personal Feelings
Questionnaire-2 (PFQ-2) Shame Subscale and Change From
Pre- to Postintervention

               Group 1         Group 2        Group 3
               (n = 5)         (n = 3)        (n = 5)

Variable       M      SD       M      SD       M      SD

  Shame      38.80    8.08   44.00   5.29    47.60   14.93
  Shame      41.60   13.45   42.70   5.77    52.00   18.00
Change        2.80   14.90   -1.30   9.02     4.40   21.20

Note. Group 1 = letter-only treatment condition;
Group 2 = letter and videotape treatment condition;
Group 3 = letter, videotape, and live victim treatment
condition; change = Time 1 to Time 2 change (delta) score.

Group Mean Scores on the Harder Personal Feelings
Questionnaire-2 (PFQ-2) Guilt Subscale and Change From
Pre- to Postintervention

                 Group 1         Group 2         Group 3
                 (n = 5)         (n = 3)         (n = 5)

Variable        M       SD      M       SD      M        SD

  Guilt       41.60    5.51   49.00    6.25    53.20   21.23
  Guilt       50.20   14.64   50.00   10.00    62.60   18.22
Change         8.60   10.20    1.00   15.10     9.40    23.4

Note. Group 1 = letter-only treatment condition;
Group 2 = letter and videotape treatment condition;
Group 3 = letter, videotape, and live victim treatment
condition; change = Time 1 to Time 2 change (delta) score.
COPYRIGHT 2009 American Counseling Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Roseman, Christopher P.; Ritchie, Martin; Laux, John M.
Publication:Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Apr 1, 2009
Previous Article:Relationships between trauma, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, dissociative symptoms, and lifetime heroin use among individuals who abuse...
Next Article:The call for a new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders diagnosis: addictive disorders.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters