The neuropsychology of offending

Miller, Edgar

doi:10.1080/10683169908401774

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These fi ndings are consistent with the evidence that criminal offenders in general demonstrate metabolic (Anckarsater, 2006 ;Birbaumer et al, 2005 ;Maller et al, 2003 ;Wright et al, 1990 ) and structural abnormalities in the frontal lobes (Brower & Price, 2001 ;Miller, 1999 ), as well as problems in executive abilities, empathy, and perspective taking (Bergeron & Valliant, 2001 ;Birbaumer et al, 2005 ;Dolan et al, 2002 ;Gontkovsky & Morgan, 2005 ;Lapierre et al, 1995 ;Stone & Thompson, 2001 ), all representing functions associated with the frontal lobes (Lezak et al, 2004 ).…”

Section: The Frontal Lobessupporting

confidence: 85%

Neurocognitive differences between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters

Suchy

Whittaker

Strassberg

et al. 2009

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although some evidence exists that child molesters may be characterized by structural and functional brain abnormalities, findings across studies are inconsistent. Past cognitive research in this area has been extensively criticized for relying on conceptually weak batteries, measures of questionable reliability, and poorly defined samples (i.e., failing to distinguish between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters). The present study aimed to address the weaknesses of past research by comparing 40 child molesters (20 pedophilic and 20 nonpedophilic) and 20 demographically matched nonoffender controls on six well-defined neurocognitive composite scores of comparable reliability (i.e., semantic knowledge, executive functioning, processing speed, motor speed, auditory memory, and visual memory). Results indicated that pedophilic child molesters exhibit slower processing speed, nonpedophilic child molesters exhibit poorer semantic knowledge, and both molester groups exhibit executive weaknesses as compared to nonoffender controls. This study is the first to compare the two molester types on neurocognitive functions. The observed differences between the molester groups help explain inconsistencies in past research and demonstrate the need to distinguish between the two types of child molesters when studying neurobiologic underpinnings of sexual offending.

show abstract

Section: The Frontal Lobessupporting

confidence: 85%

Neurocognitive differences between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters

Suchy

Whittaker

Strassberg

et al. 2009

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We made these modifications after piloting; we found that men fatigued and became confused using the original five-stage format. Shortening and simplifying the methodology was particularly important because difficulties with head injury, cognitive functioning and learning are common in high-risk offenders (Golden, Jackson, Peterson-Rohne, & Gontkovsky, 1996;Miller, 1999). The IAT has been characterised as a task-switching paradigm, which may also make it challenging for a population with identified executive functioning deficits (Hoaken, Allaby, & Earle, 2007;Klauer & Mierke, 2005).…”

Section: Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive‐behavioural rehabilitation of high‐risk violent offenders: Investigating treatment change with explicit and implicit measures of cognition

Polaschek

Bell

Calvert³

et al. 2010

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Important as it is both to risk of re-offending and to cognitive behavioural treatment, violent cognition is seldom measured in rehabilitation programmes, and even more rarely linked to measures of violence risk. Most often, researchers measure violent cognition by having offenders complete transparent self-report questionnaires. This approach may be flawed both by socially desirable responding and by theoretical speculation that stronger links exist between automatic rather than explicit, consciously deliberated cognition and violent behaviour. We measured violent cognition in several ways; collecting data with two self-report scales, along with two Implicit Association Tests (IATs) from men commencing and completing an intensive cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation programme for high-risk violent prisoners. We addressed the questions of whether these two forms of assessment-explicit and implicit-are related, and which is most strongly linked to estimates of violence, based on the Violence Risk Scale. Explicit and implicit tests were not related to each other, although both self-report scales, and one of the IATs elicited significantly more pro-social responses following treatment. Further, the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores were significantly correlated with dynamic risk both pre-and post-programme, while post-programme, scores on one of the two IATs was significantly correlated with dynamic and static risk, as measured pre-and postprogramme. These findings suggest that implicit and explicit measures may be assessing different aspects of cognition, and only some are related to violence risk.

show abstract

“…This line of research has identified certain commonalities among criminal offenders. Most notable among these are structural/injury-related (Brower & Price, 2001;Miller, 1999) and metabolic (Anckarsater, 2006;Birbaumer et al, 2005;Maller et al, 2003;Wright, Nobrega, Langevin, & Wortzman, 1990) abnormalities in the frontal lobes, as well as problems in reasoning, problems solving, impulse inhibition, empathy, and perspective taking (Bergeron & Valliant, 2001;Birbaumer et al, 2005;Dolan, Deakin, Roberts, & Anderson, 2002;Gontkovsky & Morgan, 2005;Lapierre, Braun, & Hodgins, 1995;Stone & Thompson, 2001), all of which are also known to be associated with frontallobe dysfunction (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial and Prosodic Affect Recognition Among Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Criminal Child Molesters

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study compared facial and prosodic affect recognition abilities among pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters and community-dwelling controls. Pedophilic child molesters are characterized by primary sexual interest in prepubescent children, whereas nonpedophilic child molesters are characterized by offending against children despite being primarily sexually attracted to adults. The results showed that nonpedophilic child molesters made more errors in recognizing both facial and prosodic affect, performing more poorly than both controls and pedophilic child molesters. These findings are consistent with greater psychopathic tendencies among nonpedophilic molesters as well as with prior findings of smaller amygdala volume among child molesters.

show abstract

The neuropsychology of offending

Cited by 10 publications

References 43 publications

Neurocognitive differences between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters

Neurocognitive differences between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters

Cognitive‐behavioural rehabilitation of high‐risk violent offenders: Investigating treatment change with explicit and implicit measures of cognition

Facial and Prosodic Affect Recognition Among Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Criminal Child Molesters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About