The Self-Regulation Model of Sexual Offending: The Relationship Between Offence Pathways and Static and Dynamic Sexual Offence Risk

Abstract

T. Ward and S. M. Hudson (1998) have proposed a self-regulation model of the offence process which is specific to sexual offenders and which attempts to account for the deficiencies in the traditional relapse prevention model as applied to this group of offenders. The self-regulation model is a nine-stage process of offending that addresses both the individual's goals with respect to the offending behavior (approach versus avoidance) and the manner in which the individual attempts to achieve these goals (passive versus active), resulting in four hypothesized pathways that lead to sexual offending. The present study evaluated the validity of this model with a sample of adult male sexual offenders (N=80) treated within the Correctional Service of Canada. Results demonstrated support for the self-regulation model. Specifically, it was found that the four pathways contained in this model were differentially associated with offender types (e.g., incest offender, rapist, extrafamilial child molester, etc.). In addition, static and dynamic risk factors were found to vary among the four pathways in predicted directions and are consistent with the theoretical model. Finally, static and dynamic risk factors differentially predicted pathway membership, again in the expected directions. Implications of findings and the self-regulation model for the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders are discussed.

An Examination of the Gender Inclusiveness of Current Theories of Sexual Violence in Adulthood

“…Ward, Polaschek, and Beech (2006, p. 37) note that although this model of sexual offending provides ''evidence that societies characterized by high levels of interpersonal violence, male domination, and disparaging attitudes toward females have higher rates of sexual crimes,'' the theory lacks some external consistency and does not fully account for several factors, including offenders who do not exhibit aggressive behavior until adulthood. The theory also assumes that sexual aggression stems from a failure to control deviant sexual impulses, which is inconsistent with literature demonstrating that many perpetrators are able to carefully plan their offenses in advance in order to maximize their ability to offend (Yates & Kingston, 2006). Malamuth's model has received some empirical support in the study of adult male offenders (Abbey, Jacques-Tiura, & LeBreton, 2011;Wheeler, George, & Dahl, 2002).…”

Offending competency and coercive control in intimate partner violence

“…This work highlighted the considerable heterogeneity that exists within the sex offender population and established, for example, that the core issues for at least some offenders are less to do with a failure to self-regulate (e.g., the effects of stress, intoxication, low empathy, or impulse control) than they are to a conscious and purposeful decision to offend in the pursuit of self-gratification (see Ward, Yates, & Long, 2006). This new understanding of the offense process has proved helpful in the development of approaches to sex offender treatment that are more closely matched to the needs of individual participants and their specific offending patterns (see Yates & Kingston, 2006).…”

Approach–Avoidance Goals and Active–Passive Self-Regulation Styles in Homicide Offending: A Pathways Analysis

“…In terms of treatment, it has been argued that the motivation and dynamics of offending must be considered in establishing treatment targets in addition to risk, and treatment tailored accordingly (Yates & Kingston, 2006). That is, assessment for appropriate treatment should not be based solely on the type of offender or static and dynamic risk level posed by the offender, but also on the type of offence pathway in which the offender presents.…”

“…This may uncover important internal motivations and processes that are inherent during the offence chain that were not included in previous research (Bickley & Beech, 2002;Yates & Kingston 2006). File review methodology may result in an over-representation of offenders in the approach pathways, particularly since file documentation, such as police reports, tends to emphasize the period immediately preceding the offence, at which time offenders are hypothesized to adopt approach goals, at least temporarily (Ward & Hudson, 2000).…”