Understanding processing speed weaknesses among pedophilic child molesters: Response style vs. Neuropathology.

Abstract

Research shows that pedophilic (PED) child molesters exhibit slower performance speed and greater performance accuracy when compared to nonpedophilic (N-PED) child molesters or other criminal and noncriminal controls. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether these differences reflect a slow/deliberate response style among PEDS (as we have previously hypothesized; Eastvold, Suchy, & Strassberg, 2011; Suchy, Whittaker, Strassberg, & Eastvold, 2009a, 2009b), or a fundamental neuropathological weakness in processing speed. Data came from a larger study examining neurocognition among sex offenders. Processing speed in three different domains (motor speed, visual-perceptual speed, and visual-motor integration) was examined in 20 phallometrically identified PEDs, 20 N-PEDs, and 20 nonsexual offenders, using both clinical (Finger Tapping, Symbol Search, Digit Symbol Coding) and experimental measures (Inspection Time Task [ITT]). The ITT assessed speed of visual-perceptual processing independent of response speed. On clinical measures, PEDs exhibited slower visual perception [F(2, 57) = 5.24, p = .008] and visual-motor integration [F(2, 57) = 5.02, p = .010] than the other groups, with no differences for simple motor speed. On the ITT, PEDs performed less accurately than the other groups [F(2, 57) = 3.95, p = .025], clearly indicating that slow processing speed cannot be explained by a deliberate response style. Group differences persisted after controlling for other potential confounds (age, estimate IQ, working memory, ethnicity, and substance use). PEDs' slower performance is due to a fundamental neurocognitive weakness, rather than a slow/deliberate response style. These results are consistent with Cantor et al.'s (2008) work identifying white matter abnormalities among PEDs and provide further support for a neurodevelopmental etiology of pedophilia.

Evidence for superior neurobiological and behavioral inhibitory control abilities in non-offending as compared to offending pedophiles

“…The absence of executive abnormalities in the present group of offending pedophiles is in contrast to other studies [Suchy et al, 2009[Suchy et al, , 2014]. An explanation for this inconsistency might be related to the status of incarceration, which is likely to be associated with diverse deprivation effects [Lapornik et al, 1996] and could at least partly be responsible for executive deficiencies in previous (incarcerated) samples of offending pedophiles.…”

“…The hypothesis that “compensatory” engagement of the FPCN might help preventing pedophiles from sexual offending against children is quite speculative, but warrants further investigation. Interestingly, our findings of neurofunctional group differences in neural structures essential for efficient cognitive functioning may support the idea of a general processing deficit in offending pedophiles as proposed by Suchy et al [], which, however, seems to be related to sexual offending behavior rather than aberrant sexual interests in general.…”

“…While nonpedophilic child sexual offenders were also found to respond more impulsively [Eastvold, 2010;Schiffer and Vonlaufen, 2011], a recent review of the corresponding literature did not corroborate the hypothesis of poor performance on response inhibition in pedophilic offenders [Joyal et al, 2014]. Other recent studies demonstrated slower processing speed across a range of neuropsychological domains in offending pedophiles [Suchy et al, 2009[Suchy et al, , 2014 and provided evidence that this deficit may be related to fundamental neurocognitive impairments rather than a deliberate response style. A comprehensive overview on the neuropsychology of sex offenders including 23 studies can be found in Joyal et al [2014].…”

Can We Measure Sexual Interest in Pedophiles Using a Sexual Distractor Task?

“…The decrease of processing speed with older age has been well documented [53,54]. Contrary to Suchy et al [55], we did not find a generally slower performance in pedophiles compared to the control groups. However, our data with longer RTs in both forensic groups compared to the non-forensic control group seem to reflect the results with other cognitive tasks.…”

Rapists and Child Abusers Share Low Levels in Executive Updating, but Do not in Fluid Reasoning

“…Third, the moderating effect of pedophilia in neurocognitive difficulties should be considered: 50-60% of the individuals who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, while the remaining individuals tend to be antisocial or opportunistic offenders (Seto, 2008). Pedophiles, in comparison with non-pedophilic child offenders, display better neuropsychological performance in planning and abstract reasoning (Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011), whereas their visual perception and visual-motor integration are slower (Suchy, Eastvold, Strassberg, & Franchow, 2014). In contrast, non-pedophilic child abusers exhibit worse verbal memory and executive function (Eastvold et al, 2011;Schiffer & Vonlaufen, 2011).…”