Penile-Response Profiles of Sexual Aggressors During Phallometric Testing

Abstract

This study analyzes sexual-preference profiles in a sample of 420 sexual aggressors who exhibited a valid profile during their initial phallometric assessment. The sexual stimuli used in the process were audiotapes describing sexual-offending scenarios. Two types of sexual stimuli sets were used: one developed for sexual aggressors against women and a second developed for sexual aggressors against children. Penile responses were recorded during stimulus presentation using a mercury-in-rubber strain gauge. Classification analyses (hierarchical and K-means clustering combination) were conducted separately for three groups of sexual aggressors: (a) sexual aggressors against children (n = 253), (b) sexual aggressors against women (n = 138), and (c) mixed sexual aggressors (n = 29). The sexual aggressors against children exhibited four penile-response profiles, the sexual aggressors against women two penile-response profiles, and the mixed sexual aggressors only one penile-response profile. In addition, analyses carried out on randomly split subsamples established that the generated profiles for sexual aggressors against children and sexual aggressors against women were stable.

A critique of current child molester subcategories: a proposal for an alternative approach

“…In these studies, men who molest girls and men who molest boys respond to the gender of the child in a way that matches their preference for the gender of adults. However, even within groups of men who molest girls, there is a considerable diversity (Barbaree & Marshall, 1989;Bickley & Beech, 2001;Michaud & Proulx, 2009). In addition, it has been demonstrated that child molesters who target boys are more likely to seek out victims who are unknown to them, and these offenders appear to be at greater risk to reoffend than are those who molest girls (Grubin & Kennedy, 1991;Hanson, Steffy, & Gauthier, 1993).…”

Sexual Arousal as a Function of Stimulus Mode: Implications for Phallometric Assessment

“…More recently Michaud and Proulx [11] eliminated data from 264 potential participants (out of an original sample of 745) because they were determined to be low responders or non-responders, and Lykins et al noted that previous studies in their lab had excluded from analysis all subjects who failed to meet a criterion threshold of arousal [26]. In fact it was "to mitigate the problem of low responses in phallometric studies" that Bradford et al undertook research examining the effect of prescribing 50 mg sildenafil (Viagra) to phallometric testing participants [20].…”

“…There are nonetheless a great many researchers and clinicians who recognize the worth of this procedure on a number of dimensions and advocate for its use in both research and clinical settings [8][9][10][11][12][13]. The differing opinions which have been ventured with regard to the value of phallometric assessment should not be viewed with any discomfort, however, for as so eloquently expressed about a different contentious issue [14]"It is the nature of a maturing field of study that opposing views are expressed and, indeed, the clear articulation of contrary opinion is the lifeblood of progress in science.…”

Procedure to validate sexual stimuli: reliability and validity of a set of sexual stimuli in a sample of young colombian heterosexual males.

“…Studies are observed which evaluate different types of sex offenders, including child molesters (Marshall & Marshall, in press;Michaud & Proulx, 2009), rapists Looman and Marshall (2005), sexual sadists (Marshall & Yates, 2004;Proulx, Blais, & Beauregard, 2006) and exhibitionists Kolářský and Madlafousek (1983). Other studies have measured the effect of substance use on sexual response (George et al, 2006;Harte, 2014),distractions to sexual stimuli Anderson and Hamilton (2014), cognitive mechanisms linked to arousal Both, Laan, and Everaerd (2011) or implications of arousal in condom use Janssen et al (2014).…”