Content uploaded by Jason M. Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jason M. Smith on Aug 01, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Archives of Assessment Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, (113-137) © 2019 American Board of Assessment
Printed in U.S.A. All rights reserved Psychology
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with
Sex Offenses Against Minors and a Rorschach Comparison
with Male Pedophiles
Jason M. Smith, Psy.D., ABPP, Carl B. Gacono, Ph.D., ABAP, Aaron J. Kivisto, Ph.D.,
and Ted B. Cunliffe, Ph.D.
Abstract In this study, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the
Rorschach, and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were
used to elucidate the personality functioning of incarcerated
females with sex offenses against minors (FSOAM; N = 31). There
was significant convergence among the PCL-R, PAI, and
Rorschach data. Both the PAI and Rorschach suggested: 1)
borderline/psychotic reality testing and idiosyncratic thinking; 2)
damaged sense of self, entitlement, and victim stance; 3) abnormal
bonding and dependency; 4) affective instability; 5) impulsivity;
and 6) chronic anger. Our comparison with a sample of male
pedophiles (N = 36) highlighted gender specific issues with the
women. Specifically, the women had more emotional deficits, ego-
syntonic aggression, idiosyncratic thinking, and inappropriate
attachments. A case study and our findings suggest a conceptual
model for understanding the dynamics that result in female sexual
offending behavior.
While more males in the United States are incarcerated for sexual assaults/rapes than
females (13.3% males vs. 2.4% females; Carson, 2018), female sexual offending is more
prevalent than previously thought (Cortoni, 2010; Goldhill, 2013; Sandler & Freeman, 2009;
Tewksbury, 2004; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). Women exhibit sexual re-offense rates at seven
percent while it is 14 percent in males1 (Vandiver, Braithwaite, & Stafford, 2018).
Female sexual offenders tend to be in their late 20’s or early 30’s, with victims less than
12 years old (most likely an acquaintance or family member), and are predominately white
(Faller, 1995; Pflugradt & Allen, 2015; Miller & Marshall, 2018; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004;
Vandiver & Walker, 2002). These offenders tend to have been sexually assaulted as a child, have
substance abuse problems, and have been diagnosed with a psychiatric or personality disorder
(Goldhill, 2013; Green & Kaplan, 1994; Johansson-Love & Fremouw, 2009; Marshall & Miller,
2018; Mathews, Mathews, & Speltz, 1991; McCarty, 1986). Female offenders tend to commit
their sexual offenses with another, often a male accomplice, and there may be gender-specific
cognitions (Beech, Parrett, Ward, & Fisher, 2009; Burkey & ten Bensel, 2015; Cortoni, Hanson,
1 Female sexual offending may result from situational variables (DeCou, Cole, Rowland, Kaplan, & Lynch, 2015)
rather than the ingrained sexual conditioning and preference associated with male sexual offending (Gacono &
Meloy, 1994).
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 114
& Coache, 2009; Gannon, Hoare, Rose, & Parrett, 2012; Gannon, Rose, & Ward, 2008; Gannon
et al., 2014; Goldhill, 2013; Williams & Bierie, 2015; Wijkman, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2011).
Personality Measures with Sexual Offenders
Psychological measures provide unique information about personality characteristics that
contribute to sexual offending (Beauregard & DeLisi, 2018; Gacono & Meloy, 1994; Seto,
Harris, & Lalumière, 2016). For example, a correlation between internet sexual offenses and
depression have has been found utilizing the PAI, suggesting both the compensatory nature of
the behavior and its addictive quality (Laulik, Allam, & Sheridan, 2007; Magaletta, Faust,
Bickart, & McLearen, 2014). The PAI Antisocial features (ANT), Borderline features (BOR),
and Treatment Rejection (RXR) scales were also found to be elevated within male sexual
offenders with institutional misconduct and treatment non-compliance (Boccaccini, Rufino,
Jackson, & Murrie, 2013; Caperton, Edens, & Johnson, 2004).
Studies with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway &
McKinley, 1940) have found that female sexual offenders, like their male counterparts, elevate
the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) and Schizophrenia (Sc) scales (Davin, 1993; Hudson; 1995),
suggesting both antisocial attitudes and a high degree of cognitive distortion (both aspects of a
cognitive orientation that allows for offenders to distort interpersonal situations, rationalize,
justify, and externalize blame for their behaviors). Elevations on the Paranoid (Pa) scale also
suggest suspiciousness, sensitivity to criticism, and a tendency to personalize situations
(narcissism; Kohut, 1971). It was found that those sex offenders who offend with another scored
higher on PAI anxiety (ANX) and anxiety-related disorders (ARD) scales than solo female
offenders. Solo offenders also had higher scores on PAI aggression (AGG) and dominance
(DOM) scales (Miller & Marshall, 2018), consistent with greater psychopathic traits.
Studies with the Rorschach (RIM; 1921/1942) have found male and female psychopaths
(PCL-R ≥ 30) differ on interpersonal, affective, and self-perception variables. Males have been
found to have less desire for attachment, greater grandiosity, less (shallow) affect, and an
identification with aggression. Females tend to display dependency, have difficulty regulating
emotions, exhibit an increased sense of self with more self-criticism and a damaged view of the
self as well as identifying more with victims of aggression (Gacono, 1988, 1990; Gacono &
Meloy, 1994; Cunliffe & Gacono, 2005, 2008; Cunliffe et al., 2016; Smith, 2013; Smith,
Gacono, Cunliffe, Kivisto, & Taylor, 2014; Smith, Gacono, & Cunliffe, 2018; Smith, Gacono, &
Cunliffe, in press). Males with sexual offenses against minors (MSOAM) produced more popular
(P) responses than non-sexual offenders, consistent with their capacity for “appearing normal”
(Cohan, 1998).
Gacono, Bridges, and Meloy have produced the most comprehensive Rorschach research
on male sexual offenders (Bridges, Wilson, & Gacono, 1998; Gacono & Meloy, 1994; Gacono,
Meloy, & Bridges, 2000, 2008; Huprich, Gacono, Schneider, & Bridges, 2004). They found that
male pedophiles were rather banal, had a rigid cognitive style with tendencies to abuse fantasy,
avoided emotionally toned stimuli, had dependency, and had chronic oppositionality and
hostility (Bridges et al., 1998; Gacono et al., 2000, 2008; Huprich et al., 2004). Sexual homicide
perpetrators (two were female) were highly disorganized and displayed high levels of aggressive
identifications, abnormal attachment, difficulties disengaging from the environment, and higher
levels of both obsessional thoughts and reality testing impairment. Both groups were highly self-
focused.
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 115
Rorschach Hypotheses:
1. When compared to an archival sample of males with sexual
offenses against minors (MSOAM; N = 36; Gacono, Meloy, & Bridges, 2000 [the
“nonviolent pedophile” group]), the females (FSOAM; N = 31) will display more
emotional difficulty and a poor sense of self (Females will produce more PureC,
SumC’, and MOR than the males).
2. The females will also have more difficulty related to Rorschach
Aggression Scores examining victimization compared to the males (AgC,
AgPast).
PAI descriptive data were available for 25 of the women and are displayed as a
complement to the Rorschach data. A case study is also provided to highlight the Rorschach’s
usefulness in understanding personality functioning contributing to sex offending behaviors.
Method
Participants. Archival data were used for this study. Cases (years 1998-2014) were
reviewed looking for males and females with a history of sex offenses. They were excluded if
they had sex offenses against adults. The female and male groups were part of separate research
projects conducted by Doctoral Level Psychologists at various prisons and forensic hospitals in
the United States (Gacono, Meloy, & Bridges, 2008; Smith, Gacono, & Cunliffe, 2018). All
participants provided informed consent to be included in research; they did not receive any
monetary incentives and participation did not affect their sentence. The research studies were
reviewed/approved by the various institutional review/ethical boards.
All males (MSOAM; N = 36; see Table 1) were white (100%). The average age was 40.4
(range = 24-70) and the average education level was 13.7 years2. PCL-R scores were not
available for this sample; however, none of the individuals met the criteria for ASPD or had a
history of violence, consequently none were psychopathic. The mean number of Rorschach
responses was 27.22 (SD = 8.42) and for Lambda, the mean was 1.06 (SD = 0.65; F%; M = 0.47;
SD = 0.16). See Gacono, Meloy, and Bridges (2000; 2008) for more information about these
males. They were responsible for multiple victims (237 total victims; 68% male, 33% were
acquaintances).
Females with histories of sexual offenses against minors (FSOAM) were on average 35
years old with average intelligence (M = 94.65; range = 80-116). Unlike the males, PCL-R scores
were highly elevated (see Table 1). Eighteen (58.1%) had a PCL-R total score ≥ 30, seven
produced a score of 24-29, and five scored ≤ 24. The ethnicities of the sample were White
(80.6%) and Black (19.4%). Twenty-five (80.6%) reported being sexually abused as children, 19
(61.3%) were diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), 22 (71.0%) were diagnosed
with at least one Personality Disorder (16 [51.6%] with Borderline Personality Disorder [BPD]
and 22 [71.0%] with Antisocial Personality Disorder).
The average victim age was 10.4 (SD = 4.92; range = 2-16). More than four in five
victims were female (26; 83.9%) and just over half were a family member (16; 51.6%). Most had
only one victim (18; 58.1%) and they tended to co-offend with a male (22; 71%).
2 Due to the nature of the archival records, not all demographic data was available (see Table 1).
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 116
Table 1
Demographic Data
Males
(N = 36)
Females
(N=31)
M
SD
Range
M
SD
Range
Age
40.4
10.43
24-70
35.10
11.47
20-57
IQ
N/A
N/A
-
94.65
11.33
80-
116
Education
Level
13.7
-
-
-
-
-
PCL-R TS
N/A
N/A
-
29.76
4.86
18.9-
38
Responses
27.22
8.42
14-46
22.77
7.22
14-39
Lambda
1.06
0.65
0.11-
2.67
0.80
0.47
0.14-
2.17
Victim Characteristics
Age
-
-
-
10.4
4.92
2-16
*Note. Some male data are not present due to it not being available. TS = total score.
Measures. The Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SILS; Shipley & Zachary, 1986) or the
Shipley-2 (Shipley, Gruber, Martin, & Klein, 2009), Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R;
Hare, 2003), Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), and Rorschach Inkblot Test
(CS; Exner, 2003; Rorschach, 1921/1942) were administered in accordance with procedures
outlined in the test manuals. The administration and scoring of each measure were completed by
a Doctoral Level Psychologist (Ph.D. or Psy.D.) with extensive training in the scoring,
administration, and interpretation of the measures.
The SILS/Shipley-2 was used to provide an estimate of intelligence. The Shipley
measures crystallized intelligence with the Vocabulary scale and fluid intelligence with either the
Abstraction or Block Pattern scale. The Shipley has been shown to correlate with the WAIS-R
Full Scale IQ between .85 and .87 (Shipley & Zachary, 1986). It is important to utilize a
cognitive measure when using the Rorschach as low IQ can contribute to a constricted Rorschach
protocol (Gacono, 2019; Gacono et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2018).
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) is a 344-item self-report
measure of personality and psychopathology. It contains 22 non-overlapping full scales,
including 4 validity, 11 clinical, 5 treatment consideration, and 2 interpersonal scales, as well as
30 subscales. The PAI was standardized on adult samples from the community (N = 1,000) and
in mental health treatment (N = 1,265). When examining the validity of a protocol, participants
were retained for analyses only if they obtained an Infrequency (INF) score below 75T and an
Inconsistency (ICN) score below 73T (as outlined in Morey, 1991). Of the 31 participants, 26
completed the PAI and one participant was excluded based on profile invalidity, resulting in a
final sample of 25 female sexual offenders with valid PAI protocols.
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991, 2003) was used to measure
psychopathy. This measure contains 20 items and is administered via a file review and a semi-
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 117
structured interview (e.g., Gacono, 2005). Prior to the interview, an in-depth file review was
conducted in which medical, legal, psychiatric, and pertinent institutional files were reviewed.
During the interview the personality characteristics and antisocial behaviors were evaluated on a
three-point (0-2) ordinal scale with a total score range of 0 to 40. The inter-rater reliability
estimate (Spearman Rho) was .98 for the PCL-R total score (PCL-R TS).
All the Rorschach protocols were administered and scored per the Exner Comprehensive
System Guidelines (Exner, 2003). In addition, the Extended Aggression Scores (Aggressive
Content (AgC), Aggression Past (AgPast), Aggressive Potential (AgPot), and Sadomasochism
(SM); Gacono & Meloy, 1994), the Rorschach Oral Dependency (ROD) scale (Bornstein &
Masling, 2005), and the Trauma Content Index (TCI; Armstrong & Loewenstein, 1990) were
also scored. Twenty protocols were scored by two raters and inter-rater reliability was calculated
from these protocols. Inter-rater reliability Kappa coefficients for all Rorschach scores were in
the excellent range from .75 to 1.00 (Meyer, 1999).
Descriptive statistics were examined for the females’ Rorschach and PAI data. Then the
male and female groups were compared on the following Rorschach indices: AgC, AgPast,
WSum6, M, MOR, SumC’, Pure C, SumT, and spoiled SumT (a texture response with poor FQ,
a Cognitive Score, or MOR).
Procedure
After obtaining and excluding files, the male and female groups were compared on the
Rorschach variables mentioned above. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 22, was used for all calculations. The data were analyzed for means, standard deviations,
median, mode, skewness, kurtosis, and ranges. Gender comparisons utilized parametric tests (t-
tests) where appropriate. Where unequal distributions and J-shaped curves rendered parametric
tests inappropriate, non-parametric statistics were employed (Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U
statistics; Viglione, 1995).
For the case study, one female was randomly selected from the 25 protocols available
that had both the PAI and the Rorschach. The Rorschach was scored with the Exner
Comprehensive System as well as for the ROD, TCI, and Extended Aggression scores. Further,
psychodynamic scoring for Kwawer (1980) Primitive Modes of Relating and the Cooper, Perry,
and Arnow (1988) Rorschach Defense Scales were completed to add to the Structural Summary.
Results
PAI3 & PCL-R Data The females tended to present themselves in a negative light
(Negative Impression Management [NIM]; M = 75.16; SD = 18.90). They endorsed significant
levels of anxiety (ANX; M = 71.56; SD = 13.20), traumatic stress (ARD-T; M = 84.04; SD =
11.92), and depressive symptoms (DEP; M = 74.28; SD = 12.97). Possibly related to the
significant symptoms of traumatic stress, the FSOAM group reported hypervigilance and
persecutory thoughts (PAR; M = 69.96; SD = 10.54). The data also suggested that they view
things in an idiosyncratic manner and were socially detached (SCZ; M = 70.76; SD = 12.52).
The highest scores among the full scales were on the Borderline features scale (BOR; M
= 77.00; SD = 13.19). All four Borderline features subscales were elevated, including affective
3 For complete PAI Data for the FSOAM group see the online supplement:
https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosf.io%2Fbzerv%2Fdownload
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 118
instability (BOR-A; M = 68.28), identity problems (BOR-I; M = 72.24), self-harm (BOR-S; M =
70.08), and negative relationships (BOR-N; M = 74.96). They also engaged in antisocial and
stimulus-seeking behavior and they do not take responsibility for these behaviors (ANT; M =
69.60; SD = 14.13; PCL-R item 16 Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions; M = 1.73).
Alcohol and drug issues were also prominent (ALC; M = 71.88; SD = 23.51; DRG; M = 85.20;
SD = 21.53). Physical aggression appeared to be a concern (AGG-P; M = 67.32; SD = 16.86;
PCL-R item 10 Poor Behavioral Controls; M = 1.42) as did the potential for overt violence (VPI;
M = 86.00; SD = 19.14). They also viewed their environment as unsupportive (NON; M = 70.32;
SD = 11.66). Additionally, they appeared to express low levels of dominance and warmth in
relationships (DOM; M = 47.88; SD = 16.37; WRM; M = 41.88; SD = 11.88), consistent with a
disengaged, aloof interpersonal style.
Rorschach.4 The females produced an average amount of Rorschach responses (M =
22.77; SD = 7.22) and normative Lambda (M = 0.80; SD = 0.47; F%; M = 0.41; SD = 0.14).
They either lacked a consistent problem-solving style (35.5% ambitent) or tended toward
environmental engagement (38.7% extratensive), consistent with the high levels of psychopathy
in this sample, and quite different from the male pedophiles who tended to be introversive with
elevated Lambdas. They had significantly fewer human movement responses than the males (see
Table 2). The females had less resources (EA; M = 6.87) compared to their stress (es; M =
10.74). This was evident in their D scores (M = -1.19) and Adj D scores (M = - 0.71) which
would suggest their issues are long-term and characterological.
Affect. The females had difficulty modulating their affect (FC: CF+C = 0.68: 3.16
[1:4.6]) and they tended to discharge emotions impulsively (Pure C; M = 1.19; SD = 0.98).
Consequently, they utilized avoidance to deal with emotionally toned situations (Afr; M = 0.56).
Anger or oppositionality were present (S responses; M = 3.68). They produced a low number of
Blends/R (M = 0.20); however, 45% produced at least one color-shading blend (M = 0.87).
Additionally, their internal world was particularly painful and dysphoric (SumC’; M = 2.32),
characterized by rumination (SumV; M = 1.16; SumV > 0 = 61%), and feelings of anxiety and
helplessness (SumY; M = 1.06; SumY > 0 = 48%; m; M = 1.81). The female sample had
significantly more SumC’ and PureC than the male sample (see Table 2).
Interpersonal & Attachment. The Rorschach data indicated problematic interpersonal
relationships. The females tended to demonstrate a poor understanding of others (GHR: PHR: M
= 2.42: 3.42) and viewed others in an incomplete manner (H:Hd+(H)+(Hd) = M = 1.55:3.61
[1:2.3]). Consistent with their high rates of ASPD and psychopathy, they viewed themselves as
victims and externalized blame for their behaviors (AgPast; M = 1.55; AgPast > 0 = 68%; AgPot;
M = 0.52; AgPot > 0; 35%). The females produced significantly more AgC and AgPast than the
males (see Table 2). Consequently, there was little expectation that relationships will be
cooperative (COP; M = 0.77; COP > 0; 42%). They did not produce a high average of
sadomasochistic responses, but many produced at least one SM response (SM; M = 0.35; SM > 0
= 29%). Though they did not produce many Food responses (M = 0.42; Fd > 0 = 29%),
dependency was present (ROD; M = 0.25). Data also point to a desire to engage with others
(SumT; M = 1.19; T > 0 = 61%). However, most of their T responses were spoiled (e.g., poor
form quality, Cognitive Special score, morbid response, etc.; 52%), suggesting that attachment
4 For complete Rorschach data for the FSOAM group, see the online supplemental:
https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https%3A%2F%2Fosf.io%2Fbzerv%2Fdownload
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 119
relationships tended to disrupt their cognitive processes. Though there was no significant
difference in SumT responses between the MSOAM and FSOAM groups, the females produced
significantly more spoiled T responses than the males (see Table 2).
Table 2
Statistics for Select Comprehensive System Rorschach Variables
MSOAM
(N = 36)
FSOAM
(N = 31)
M
SD
Freq
(%)
M
SD
Freq
(%)
Statistic
p
es
Variable
AgC
2.78
1.74
33
(92%)
4.29
2.18
31
(100%)
329.00*
0.003
0.36
AgPast
0.53
0.84
12
(33%)
1.61
1.61
21
(67%)
319.00*
0.001
0.40
MOR
1.03
1.23
20
(56%)
2.39
1.87
25
(81%)
314.50*
0.002
0.38
WSum6
14.94
14.25
33
(92%)
28.55
19.36
31
(100%)
3.305***
0.002
0.80
M
4.11
2.89
36
(100%)
2.77
1.98
28
(90%)
2.099***
0.040
0.54
PureC
0.39
0.77
11
(31%)
1.19
0.98
22
(71%)
238.50*
<0.001
0.46
SumC’
0.89
0.89
22
(61%)
2.32
2.02
26
(84%)
309.00*
0.001
0.40
SumT
0.97
1.40
18
(50%)
1.19
1.38
19
(61%)
485.50*
0.332
0.12
Spoiled
T
9
(28%)
17
(56%)
5.79**
0.020
0.31
Note. * = Mann-Whitney U test; ** = χ2 test; *** = t-test; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Freq = frequency; es
= effect size.
Self-perception. The women’s EGOI (M = 0.36) were average; however, given their
plethora of affective issues and interpersonal vulnerabilities, one would not say that their self-
worth was adequate. Lack of reflections (M = 0.35; Fr + rF = 0 = 74%), elevations of pairs (2)
(M = 6.97; SD = 4.30; pairs > 0 = 100%), and high levels of Morbid responses spoke to the
tenuous nature of their self-esteem (MOR; M = 2.39; they had significantly more than the males;
see Table 2). Defensiveness (PER; M = 2.74), somatic concerns (An + Xy; M = 1.81), traumatic
stress/dissociation (TCI; M = 0.24), and unrealistic aspirations characterized them (W: M;
8.77:2.77 [3:1]). While FD was present (FD; M = 1.16; FD > 0 = 52%), 51% of these responses
were spoiled and the presence of FD did not suggest that this group was particularly
psychologically minded. Therefore, these women tended to look inward, and this introspection
tended to be unproductive, ruminative, and ultimately disruptive.
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 120
Cognitive Ideation, Mediation, and Processing. The thinking problems that were
evident were comprised mainly of idiosyncratic ideation and peculiar thoughts (WSum6; M =
28.55; significantly more than the males). This cognitive slippage was symptomatic of
characterological impairment rather that psychosis (Lvl 2 > 0 = 16%). While they did not
produce many M- responses (M = 0.45), their low mean score was consistent with an
extratensive style, impaired empathy, and impulsivity. Their thinking was influenced by self-
reference, defensiveness, and derailment (DR + PER; M = 8.35). Anger appeared to distort their
perceptions (S-; M = 1.48). There was less evidence of fantasy abuse in these women, speaking
to the lack of rehearsal in their sexual offending behavior (Ma: Mp; M = 1.65:1.13). The females
appeared to have significant problems with reality testing (X-%; M = 0.23; X+%; M = 0.51;
WDA%; M = 0.77; XA%; M = 0.74). Their views were less conventional than females from non-
clinical samples (P responses; M = 5.26) and they appeared to view things inefficiently (Zd; M =
-2.02) and focused excessively on the details (W:D: Dd; 8.77:10.32: 3.68).
The following case study highlighted our group data in understanding the relationship
between the personality functioning of these women and their sexually offending behavior.
Case Study. Summer5 is a late 20’s, divorced, college-educated female born in North
America. She was diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and BPD. Consistent
with BPD, her personal and relationship histories were particularly chaotic. She has a history of
being physically abused by her ex-husband, sexually abused as a child, self-directed violence
(cutting), and significant alcohol abuse. She had multiple marriages (PCL-R Item 17 = 2; ex-
husband involved in the sexual offense) and she has no contact with her daughter (less than age
12). This sex offense which she engaged in (rape of her daughter) was her only criminal arrest.
Summer had been employed in local government. Behavioral observations and mental status
were within normal limits and her intelligence was average (Shipley-2; IQ = 99). Her
psychopathy level was moderate (PCL-R = 25.6).
Summer’s PAI protocol suggested health concerns and the presence of traumatic events
consistent with her trauma history (SOM-H; T = 70; ARD; T = 78). Hypervigilance, resentment,
and social detachment were evident (PAR; T = 70; SCZ-S; T = 71). Consistent with her
diagnosis of BPD, she elevated the Borderline features subscales related to identity problems,
affective instability, and negative relationships (BOR; T = 71). Further, due to the impulsivity of
her crime, she elevated the Antisocial and Aggression scales (ANT; T = 74; AGG; T = 69). She
had low levels of dominance and warmth which appeared to be related to her co-offending
behavior with her ex-husband (DOM; T = 47; WRM; T = 38).
5 Pseudonym
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 121
Table 3
Rorschach Responses for Summer
Card I
1. S: A bug
CS Scoring: Wo 1 Fo A,An ZW INC
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Reaction Formation, Intellectualization
S: I guess because of this right here and the wings
E: Bug? S: because of the spine, antennas, wings, does
that make sense?
2. S: More than one thing, this may sound weird
but it looks like an award, a military award,
that’s it
CS Scoring: Ddo 99 C’Fo Art PER
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Primitive Idealization, Isolation
S: I haven’t seen many awards, they look similar,
greyish in color, metal, symmetrical on both sides
Card II
3. S: Oh hmm, I don’t know why, a pelvis bone
like a part of a skeleton, I have no idea other
than that
CS Scoring: DSo 6 C’F.VFo Xy MOR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: The whole thing other than the red kind of
E: Pelvis? S: x-ray of a pelvis
E: X-ray? S: dark and its grayish, color of gray, bone
density, diff colors of gray
Card III
4. S: More bones
CS Scoring: DSo 1 C’Fo Xy MOR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: I don’t know, arm bones, pelvis, somebody’s
ultrasound, how it is all gray
5. S: I don’t know an x-ray of something
CS Scoring: DSv 1 Y Xy
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: X-ray, turns out the same way, light or dark
depending on what they are x-raying
6. S: I don’t know, the red looks like blood
splatter that you would see on a TV program,
that’s it
CS Scoring: Dv 2 m’a.Co 2 Bl PER MOR
Aggression Scoring: AgPast
Primitive modes of relating: Violent symbiosis,
separation, and reunion
Defenses coded: Projection, Isolation, Devaluation
S: I don’t know on a movie
E: Blood? Starts and runs, just runs and maybe this way
E: Splatter? Just what I have seen on TV
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 122
Card IV
7. S: A shadow umm, a bush or tree comes to
mind
CS Scoring: Wv 1 Fo Bt PER DR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Engulfment
Defenses coded: None
S: I don’t know, the whole thing in general into the
woods
E: Shadow? Bottom tree, stump branches, shadow of a
tree some bushes
S: Stump? Looks like a stump, tree top, the top of a tree,
bushes grow weirder, need to prune or they get crazy on
you
8. S: A scary monster
CS Scoring: Wo 1 Fo (H) P ZW GHR
Aggression Scoring: AgC
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Projective Identification, Higher-Level
Denial
S: I don’t know, a scary monster in a closet, these look
like feet and arms
E: Scary? S: because it is big
9. S: This part up here looks like a lizard or
dragon by their head
CS Scoring: Ddo 99 FMpu (A) DV
Aggression Scoring: AgC
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Repression
S: This looks like a communal (sp) dragon, puffs up
E: Dragon? These are, see it’s a dragon, back puffs up a
lot, scales and kinda what it looks like scales
10. S: These look like feet
CS Scoring: Do 6 Fo Hd PHR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: None
S: feet or boots
E: Feet? Toes, heel
Card V
11. S: A moth
CS Scoring: Wo 1 Fo A ZW DV
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: None
S: because of the whole symmetrical on both sides, moth
looks like wings
12. S: A bat
CS Scoring: Wo 1 Fo A P ZW PSV
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: None
S: Something bigger like the size, big bat or moth, same
shape
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 123
13. S: Some other type of bug I don’t know about
CS Scoring: Wo 1 Fo A ZW DV
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Repression, Isolation
S: Multiple bugs with wings I don’t know about, kinda
looks like a bug
Card VI
14. S: Something that got split, looks like a crack
down the middle like something that got split,
the whole thing is symmetrical, it is the same
on both sides, someone took a piece of paper
and folded it in half
CS Scoring: Wv 1 VFo Id MOR DV
Aggression Scoring: AgPast
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance,
Violent symbiosis, separation, and reunion
Defenses coded: Devaluation
S: Like down the middle, there is a crack, um and
something split, flows out darker and lighter, dispenses
Card VII
15. S: Bushes
CS Scoring: Wo 1 F- 2 Bt ZW PER
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Repression
S: I see two bushes, this part, each one is individual
trees, I have seen them around, a spiral
E: Bushes? S: Spirals
16. S: Looks like an aerial view of some land
CS Scoring: Wv 1 VFu Ls
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: Lay it flat just took a picture of land or an island or
something, different colors, dark and light, a lot of
density
Card VIII
17. S: Kinda like, try to think of a lizard or it is
some other type of animal
CS Scoring: Do 1 Fo 2 A P DR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Higher-level Denial
S: These here, I thought of a lizard, doesn’t look like
some type of animal, tail and body of a lizard, makes me
think of a racoon, not sure of a lizard or other type of
animal
18. S: This kinda looks like treetops
CS Scoring: Do 4 CF.YFu Bt
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: None
S: This kinda looks like treetops
E: Tree tops? S: the green, just the colors, the dark and
the light and how it comes to a point at the top
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 124
19. S: Someone took a sponge and sponged it with
paint
CS Scoring: Wv 1 T.C Hh,Id ALOG
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Isolation, Intellectualization,
Hypomanic Denial
S: The texture, multiple colors therefore I would say
paint and the texture looks like a sponge, makes sense
20. S: This kinda looks like a valley
CS Scoring: DSv 3 F- Ls DR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: Right here, a map, land drops off a cliff
E: Valley? S: Valley came to mind first
Card IX
21. S: This kinda looks like deer horns
CS Scoring: Ddo 99 Fu 2 Ad ALOG
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Repression
S: this right here and right here because of the points, the
whole thing looks like deer horns because that is how
deer horns look like
22. S: There is a shadow in the background
CS Scoring: DSv 8 V Id
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: First, where it is lighter in the background
23. S: Looks like something got split in the middle
because it is darker on the inside and lighter on
the outside
CS Scoring: Dv 2 VF.TF.m’p- Id MOR
Aggression Scoring: AgPast
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary disturbance,
Violent symbiosis, separation, and reunion
Defenses coded: Devaluation, Isolation
S: Something got split, darker, lighter out here, smeared
E: Smeared? S: lighter in color, texture like a paint
brush, wet
24. S: Kinda looks like a spine down the back of it
CS Scoring: Do 5 Fo An
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Repression
S: this right here
E: Spine? S: Because it looks like vertebrae, lines in the
middle, long, I don’t know, just looks like a spine
25. S: A heart comes to mind at the bottom of it but
I don’t know why
CS Scoring: Ddo 35 CF- An
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: right here
E: Heart? S: multiple chambers, its red, um I guess that’s
about it
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 125
Card X
26. S: Oh my hmmm, I don’t know but I know
wishbone isn’t green but this reminds me of a
wishbone
CS Scoring: Do 10 Fo Sc MOR PER
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Rorschach Oral Dependency, Higher-
level denial, Pollyannish Denial
S: this one right here looks like a wishbone other than it
is green
E: Wishbone? S: the wishbone point in the center, bones
of it on a turkey, we don’t pull it off a turkey for
Thanksgiving
27. S: Reminds me of looking under a microscope
because these look like walnuts
CS Scoring: Do 2 FT- 2 Fd ALOG
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: None
Defenses coded: Rorschach Oral Dependency,
Projection, Isolation
S: This looks like on both sides potentially like a walnut
of some sort
E: Walnut? S: This looks like, shaped like a walnuts,
kinda like a shape and looks fuzzy
E: Fuzzy? S: The strokes hard and prickly [touch]
28. S: Or a type of egg
CS Scoring: Do 2 Fo 2 An,Art DR
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Projection, Isolation
S: It’s going to sound weird but eggs for worms
E: Eggs? S: Egg under a microscope, nuclear and cell
membranes in a cell
29. A smear on a slide
CS Scoring: Wv/+ 1 CF.YF- A,Sc,Art ZW
Aggression Scoring: None
Primitive modes of relating: Boundary Disturbance
Defenses coded: Isolation
S: Smear, some of the colors, something on a slide,
stained because bacteria, different bacteria
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 126
Figure 1
Rorschach Coding and Summary for Summer
I 1 Wo 1 F o A,An ZW INC 1
2Ddo 99 C'F oArt PER
II 3DSo 6C'F.VF oXy MO R
III 4DSo 1C'F oXy MOR
5DSv 1 Y no Xy
6Dv 2m'a.C o 2 Bl PER MO R AgPast
IV 7Wv 1 F o Bt PER DR
8Wo 1 F o (H) PZW GHR 2AgC
9Ddo 99 FMp u(A) DV AgC
10 Do 6 F o 2 Hd PHR
V11 Wo 1 F o A ZW DV 1
12 Wo 1 F o A P ZW PSV 1
13 Wo 1 F o A ZW DV 1
VI 14 Wv 1VF oId MOR DV AgPa s t
VII 15 Wo 1 F - 2 Bt ZW PER 2.5
16 Wv 1VF uLs
VIII 17 Do 1 F o 2 A P DR
18 Do 4CF.YF
uBt
19 Wv
1T.C
no Hh,Id ALOG
20 DSv 3 F
-Ls DR
IX 21 Ddo 99 F u 2 Ad ALOG
22 DSv 8V
no Id
23 Dv 2VF.TF.m'p -Id MOR AgPa s t
24 Do 5 F
oAn 1
25 Ddo 35 CF
-An
X26 Do 10 F
oSc MOR PER
27 Do 2FT - 2 Fd ALOG 1
28 Do 2 F o
2An,Art DR
29 Wv/+ 1CF.YF -A,Sc,Art ZW 5.5
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 127
R =
29 L = 0.93 F% = 0.48 S-CON =Affect
EB: N A,
DEPI CD I
36 eb =3 : 14 Dis comf ort
Styles S tate Patho. P. Cons t°
EB =0 : 6 EA = 6
EBp er =
NA Very Vulnerable Afr =0.81 Afr : EB : Age
eb =3 : 14 es = 17 D = -4 Vali d AdjD PTI= 2 PC% = 0.45
EB: NA,
Adj e s =
14 Adj D = -3 D<Daj DEPI=6* ΣC':WΣC =3:6
EB: NA, CDI>3 DEPI&CDI CDI =4* in tel 30
FM = 1
Su mC' =
3SumT= 3D aj<0 DEPI >5 HVI : ns . CP =0
m =2SumV= 5SumY= 3O BS: ns . F C:CF+ C =0:5 E.im pulsive ness (1 /5)
EBt ( XP) EBt = 1 Pure C = 2 freque nt discharg e
S = 5 lateS = 2
Blends/R =6:29 Bl d% 0.21
StressBld = 3
Adj Blend =4:29
AdjBl d%
0.14
3xBl d =1
Process ing Mediati on Coding Validity >3xBl d =0
PSV =1Attention difficulty ( 1/2) a tten tio n XA% = 0.69 AGE Ca rd s N° Col-Shd Bld = 3
DQv 1 st = 2 C. Impul s. OR Atte ntion diff. WDA% = 0.68 L oc&D Q Shd Bld = 2
Zd =-6.5 underinc orporati ve scanni ng X-% = 0.21 DET Bl en d : EB : L
Adj Blend : EB : L
Dd =4atypi cal proces sing S- = 1FQ medi um low
Zf =7low efforts P = 3CONT
W/D =11:14 ecomoni cal e a s y:9:11 X+% = 0.55 Z s core 3xBl d % & >3xB ld
DQ+ = 0 low quality Xu% = 0.14 SpSc
DQv, v/+ =10 failures .Stp3 a FQ- H omogenei ty (6)
W/M =11:0 NA objectives 3.1stC- 0Relati ons (Perception) Col-Shd Bld : EB Shd Bld
Step3: Loc Sequence (XP), Incoherent Loc Index, ILI = 3 BC- 1/6 COP = 0 confus ion ***
CC- 5/6 AG = 0
Ideation
EB: N A,
RC- 0GHR:PHR =1 : 1 Self
EBpe r =NA PC- 5/6 a :p =1 : 2 EGO =0.24 EGO : Age : low
a/p =1 : 2 S um6= 12 S- 1/6 Food = 1 F r+rF = 0
HVI Lvl 2 = 0Dd- 1/ 6 SumT = 3 SumV = 5
OBS Wsu m6 33 M- 0H Co nt. = 2 FD = 0
MOR=6 pessimism FMm- 1/ 6 Pure H = 0 An+ Xy = 7
m=2 periphe ral ideat ion (stres s) Color- 1/3 PER = 5 MOR = 6
Shd- 1/2 Isol ° Indx =0.17
H:(H)+Hd+(Hd)
=0:2 Se lf R° NA
F- 1/3 Step 7b :Human content responses qua lity (XP)
Ma/ Mp =0 : 0 M- = 0An XySxB l - 1/6
H Con t:R:EB (I ntere st)
low
Generally Positive Features, GPF
Sum =12
µ=6
In tel° =3Mnone 0Hcont- 0Hpur:R:EB (comp°)
mis underst
Generally Negative Features,GN
Sum=0 µ =0
Self Criticism
Step 4) Adj es
distur bed thinking
3/3
Irritation Helplessness Loneliness S.Criticism
medi um
disc omfor
t
FM=1
WSu m6 : Age
NA
0
NA
Inval id AdjD
(Ws umC=0 )
Compute f or
Scori ng
Positive
10
Abandon
DEPI & CDI : RE LATIONS -> S ELF -> CONTR OLS -> AFF ECT -> PROCES SING -> MED IATION -> IDEATION
Controls
Age:
Step 1) Adj D
Ste p 2) EA
Ste p 3) EB &L
Agressive Contents
AgC 2
AgPot 0
AgPas t 3
AgV 0
IMP 0
SM 0
ROD/TCI
SumROD
2.00
ROD/R
0.07
TCI
0.38
Note. Rorschach scoring and summary for Summer using CHESSSS (Fontan et al., 2013). For the Rorschach
scoring, the ‘1’ in the second column from the right denotes a ROD response.
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 128
Rorschach Analysis. Summer’s Structural Summary supported the borderline
personality organization characterized by borderline/psychotic reality testing and idiosyncratic
thinking, damaged sense of self, entitlement, victim stance, abnormal bonding and dependency,
affective instability, impulsivity, and chronic anger of the FSOAM (see Table 3 & Figure 1). As
Summer’s protocol was administered with the CS procedures, her sequence of scores can be used
as a blueprint for understanding how she responds to novel situations, the vulnerabilities that
contribute to her sex offending behavior, and the types of dynamic issues that contribute to her
thinking problems and how she reacts to those issues (Meloy, Acklin, Gacono, Murray, &
Peterson, 1997; Schafer, 1954).
She began the task with response 1, a bug (devaluation). The introduction of this
ambiguous stimulus caused some disruption to her cognitive functioning as indicated by the
inappropriate combination. It is also a mildly devalued content when considered as reflective of
her self-worth. Response 2 can be interpreted as her reaction to Card 1 and the way she copes.
She attempted to narrow the stimulus field. However, she resorted to primitive defenses which
were not as effective (suggesting hysteria and the potential for dissociation). The result was a
biting of the tongue (C’F, an anatomy response [spine], and a defensive posture [PER]).
Although the devaluation is not technically scorable we see a glimpse of splitting in the
juxtaposition of the undesirable bug and the military award (idealization).
Card II highlighted Summer’s problems with affect. She was overwhelmed by the
introduction of color; it taps into her dysphoric internal world (MOR). While she attempts to
control her affective experience (C’F) through isolation (potential dissociation), it does not
protect her from disorganization (boundary disturbance). The response highlighted the cycle
between poor affect regulation, disorganization, and a damaged sense of self (MOR). Emotional
mastery is a basic developmental task. When it is unsuccessful, self-worth and identity suffer,
and interpersonal relationships are impaired. Further, the response has another anatomy percept
(pelvis) highlighting her anger that stems from her emotional vulnerability.
Card III began with more hard anatomy indicating her frustration in struggling with
boundary issues and difficulty with affect, and she used isolation to manage affect (potential
dissociation). What began on Response 3 continues to 4 and 5. The cumulation of the first four
responses finally contributed to severe disruptions as suggested by the formal scoring as well as
the vague form quality. Finally, on response 5, we see the complete breakdown of Summer’s
attempts to “keep it together.” Formal scoring m’a.C, reveals her feeling of helplessness and
explosive affect, while the special scores highlighted her aggression and the reliance on primitive
defenses (projection, isolation, devaluation---dissociation). The impact of her inability to manage
affect is highlighted on this card; that is, her damaged sense of self (MOR; AgPast). If one feels
damaged, has poor boundaries, and cannot manage affect in a mature way (use of primitive
defenses), at the cost of cognitive distortion, certainly they will have difficulties interpersonally.
What is of note through the first five responses is the absence of Popular responses indicating
that Summer is unable to tap into social conventionality in order to pull herself together or
“appear normal.”
Card IV began with a rather bland response. The card stimulates a defensive reaction
with some disorganization (PER, DR, Wv). Response 8 used a Popular to stay organized, despite
the aggressive imagery and the use of projective identification and denial. On 9, Summer gave
up her attempt to take in the entire blot by narrowing the stimulus field (Dd) to make it
manageable. Perhaps the presence of aggressive imagery is disorganizing. While using a higher-
level defense, she still evidenced cognitive disruptions (FQu, DV). She recovered on response
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 129
10 by producing an ordinary detail, a simple construct, devoid of affect. What caused the
disruption on Card IV? Typically, it is viewed as a card with masculine features. We will leave
it to the reader to make inferences concerning her relationship to men, past, present and future.
Card V was relatively easy for Summer. For the most part the simplicity of the percept
allows her to avoid affect and maintain some higher-level defenses. This was midway through
the Rorschach task, and perhaps offered some relief from the experience of the first four cards
which highlighted how her energy is used to cope with affect and how affect disorganized her.
However, her relief was short-lived. On Card VI her struggles continued as highlighted by her
poor boundaries, damaged sense of self (AgPast, MOR) and her problematic relationships
(violent symbiosis). Responses 15 and 16 on Card VII continue the patterns noted prior to Card
V. We see the failure of repression (#15, FQ-) and the reversion to isolation (potential
dissociation as a means of coping).
Card VIII began with relatively healthy response due to her using a common detail, the
avoidance of color, the use of conventionality to structure her response (P), and a reliance on
higher level denial. But note this is only her second P response in the record and she does
produce a DR. Her respite was short lived as, perhaps, the impact of color (affect) impacted the
following three responses with the usual display of disruptive affect and cognitive slippage. She
did not recover on her final response (#20) as DQv, FQ-, and cognitive slippage highlighted her
difficulty with affect (Card VIII is a color card) and, perhaps, the cumulative impact of the test.
Card IX can be the most difficult for individuals who have difficulty managing dysphoric
affect. The colors tend to be less harmonious. Summer’s first response attempted to make the
stimulus more manageable, but she failed (ALOG). Response 22 was completely overwhelming
(Dqv, FQnone) and strongly suggested dissociation. Response 23 highlighted her dysphoric
internal world, her neediness, her feelings of helplessness, and her damaged sense of self. While
not the healthiest response, she did recover on #24 with the use of a common detail and higher-
level defenses. There was still a strained quality (An) to this temporary adjustment. As noted on
the final response to this card, her attempt to make things manageable (Dd) and the use of
isolation were not successful (FQ-). Card X offered more of the same. It highlighted the impact
of affect on her thinking, further supported her neediness (and its impact on reality testing, FT-
with ALOG), her damaged sense of self, and the use of primitive defenses. She ended the task on
response 29 with FQ-, boundary disturbance, and dissociation.
Overall, Summer’s Rorschach Sequence Analysis portrayed the way her lack of
emotional mastery and her struggles with affect sap her psychic energy, disrupt her ability to
function interpersonally, and impact her self-esteem. Summer has little left for healthy
relationships which only further contributed to her poor judgment.
Discussion
In reading Kernberg’s (1975) description of the antisocial personality, clearly, he was
describing the most severe antisocial individual or the psychopath. He posited that these
individuals, specifically the males, had severe narcissistic personality disorders organized at a
borderline level of functioning. In our study of the female sex offenders, we have found support
for at least part of Kernberg’s (1975) formulation as applied to women. Indeed, these antisocial,
mostly psychopathic women (58% scored ≥ 30 on the PCL-R), are organized at a borderline
level of functioning.
Borderline personality organization is characterized by reality testing deficits (difficulty
objectively differentiating from the internal and external world) and a reliance on primitive
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 130
defenses, poor impulse control, and poor anxiety tolerance (Acklin, 1997). Psychotic reality
testing and idiosyncratic thinking were quite evident in these women. Primitive defenses
(splitting, devaluation, and primitive idealization) were present in the case study of Summer.
While Summer produced higher-level defenses (i.e., neurotic; Acklin, 1997), they failed to
function in warding off threats or stabilizing primitive defenses (Gacono & Meloy, 1994; Smith
et al., 2014).
Though the males can be described as having a rigid cognitive style with tendencies to
abuse fantasy, avoiding emotionally toned stimuli, having dependency, and having chronic
oppositionality and hostility, this would not be the case for the females. The females had a less
rigid style and fantasies, displayed differences in aggression, and had difficulty regulating
emotions. Though the females had dependency like the males, the quality and presentation were
different.
Further, abundant dysphoric affect distinguished the females from the males as did the
potential for explosive emotions. The females presented with depressive symptoms and
anxiousness perhaps related to past trauma. Poor emotional regulation with explosive
emotionality may cause the female sexual offender to act impulsively on their sexual desires.
Emotional dysregulation problems likely contribute to their impulsivity, including impulsively
engaging in sexually deviant behavior. The females experienced problems with delay that further
impact their problem-solving style (unlike male pedophiles, the majority are ambitent or
extratensive). Their poor boundaries, affectivity impaired judgment, and lack of self-worth make
them easy vehicles for going along with whatever they find themselves involved with.
The females had sexual crimes that were impulsive with another co-offender, which
would be different from males whose sex crimes tend to be pre-meditated and fantasy based (p >
a; the females were also not preoccupied with sex). Further, unlike the males, the females tended
to have more idiosyncratic and peculiar thoughts related to the borderline personality
organization with them. The females’ impulsivity can be seen with their high use of alcohol and
drugs. The use of these substances to ineffectively cope with her affect, abusive relationships,
and past trauma makes her more susceptible to engage in antisocial behaviors. Related to
impulsive behaviors, she tended to have chronic anger which also caused difficulty with her
affective instability and perceptual distortions.
However, unlike the narcissism in the males, our women manifested a malignant
hysterical personality style (also see Cunliffe & Gacono, 2005, 2008; Gacono & Meloy, 1994;
Smith et al., 2014, 2018). As a group, and unlike male pedophiles and psychopaths where
narcissism and a grandiose self-structure organize their personality, these women also elevated
the EGOI without producing reflections but rather by elevating pairs, suggesting more self-
criticism (Cunliffe & Gacono, 2005, 2008; Wiener, 2003). The pair response may be related to
twinship, a form of narcissism that refers to an innate need to be accepted by others (Gacono,
Meloy, & Heaven, 1990; Kohut, 1971); contrasted with the arrogant narcissistic functioning
exhibited in males (Kernberg, 1975). Their damaged view may be related to their past abuse and
traumatic events (81% had sexual abuse as children). There was significantly more damaged
sense of self in the females than the males suggesting lower self-worth. This makes it difficult to
have trust in the decisions they make, which may make it less likely to leave a relationship that
includes sexual offending.
Their perceptions of appropriate sexually behaviors may be inaccurate given their own
sexual abuse. The sense of self would also be present in body concerns. She is very likely to take
on a victim stance that allows her to blame others for mistakes or in this case her sexual offenses
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 131
against children. The males studied were unlikely to view themselves as victims. Additionally,
the females in this sample also evidenced a sense of entitlement regarding their ego-syntonic
aggression. They tend to display the cognition that “you hurt me, I hurt you” which can help
justify sexual behavior toward children. The males had more of an ego-dystonic view of
aggression which suggests their aggressive behavior would cause stress and anxiousness when it
was displayed.
Dependency, a part of the hysterical personality, is apparent in the females’ co-offending
behavior. The attachment in the relationship, however, appears to be primitive and more related
to neediness, dissimilar to the male sexual offenders (spoiled SumT). Even when coming to
prison, the dependency/bonding problems becomes apparent, as they still state they are in love
with their co-offender even if abuse was present or they engage in unhealthy relationships with
other female inmates which mimics their other abnormal bonding patterns. This abnormal
bonding and dependency, coupled with a poor understanding of others and low levels of
dominance, allows the female sexual offender to be submissive to a co-offender.
Figure 2
Female Sexual Offender Personality Conceptualization
The females appeared to have difficulties in six areas: 1) borderline/psychotic reality
testing and idiosyncratic thinking; 2) damaged sense of self, entitlement, and victim stance; 3)
abnormal bonding and dependency; 4) affective instability; 5) impulsivity; and 6) chronic anger.
Additionally, they meet the behavioral criteria related to antisocial personality disorder of
irresponsibility, failing to conform to social norms, and lack of remorse. This antisocial
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 132
orientation (lack of empathy) coupled with their borderline organization (instability) provides
fertile ground for sex offending behavior.
The data supported the authors’ clinical impressions of interacting with female sexual
offenders. Their sexually deviant behavior may be more related to poor cognitions, interpersonal
deficits, and affective instability which leads to impulsive behaviors more than an entrenched
attraction to minors. Clinically, these females tend to state affective lability as a driving force
behind many of their ineffective/illegal behaviors in and out of prison. It was common for them
to state when emotions reach a certain level there was no way to lower/regulate it and then the
behavior happened. They tended to misperceive the severity of their crime, believe that they will
win an appeal, be granted clemency, and frequently failed to understand how society regards
their crimes. Such offenders were often not cognizant of the consequences of engaging in
sexually deviant behavior or becoming involved with someone who suggested this behavior (co-
offender). They also tended to blame their co-offender, their parents, their lawyer, and past
abusers rather than themselves (failure to accept responsibility). One woman even blamed her
minor victim, saying he raped her and stated he “should burn in hell.” Therefore, the data/clinical
impressions shed light on these females which can help in assessment, treatment, and
management. Clinicians/researchers need to be aware of the subtle differences in relation male
sexual offenders.
About the Authors
Jason M. Smith, Pierpont Community and Technology College, Fairmont, WV
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent via email to Dr. Jason M. Smith, ABPP,
jmsmithpsyd(at)gmail.com
Carl B. Gacono, Private Practice, Asheville, NC
Aaron J. Kivisto, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN
Ted B. Cunliffe, Private Practice, Miami, FL
Acknowledgment: Part of this article was presented at the 2018 Society of Personality
Assessment Convention in Washington, D.C.
References
Acklin, M.W. (1997). Psychodiagnosis of personality structure: Borderline personality
organization. In J. R. Meloy, M. W. Acklin, C. B. Gacono, J. F. Murray, & C. A. Peterson
(Eds.), Contemporary Rorschach interpretation (pp. 109–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Armstrong, J. G., & Loewenstein, R. J. (1990). Characteristics of patients with multiple
personality and dissociative disorders on psychological testing. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disorders, 178, 448–454.
Beauregard, E., & DeLisi, M. (2018). Unraveling the personality profile of the sexual murderer.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-21. DOI: 10.1177/0886260518777012
Beech, A. R., Parrett, N., Ward, T., & Fisher, D. (2009). Assessing female sexual offenders’
motivations and cognitions: An exploratory study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 201-216.
DOI: 10.1080/10683160802190921.
Boccaccini, M. T., Rufino, K. A., Jackson, R .L., & Murrie, D. C. (2013). Personality
Assessment Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct among sex offenders civilly
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 133
committed as sexually violent predators. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1390-1395. doi:
10.1037/a0034048
Bornstein, R. F., & Masling, J. M. (2005). The Rorschach Oral Dependency Scale. In R. F.
Bornstein & J. M. Masling (Eds.), The LEA series in personality and clinical psychology.
Scoring the Rorschach: Seven validated systems (pp. 135-157). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bridges, M., Wilson, J., & Gacono, C.B. (1998). A Rorschach investigation of defensiveness,
self-perception, interpersonal relations, and affective states in incarcerated pedophiles.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 365-385.
Burkey, C. & ten Bensel, T. (2015). An examination and comparison of the rationalizations
employed by solo and co female sex offenders. Violence and Gender, 2(3), 168-178.
Caperton, J. D., Edens, J. F., & Johnson, J. K. (2004). Predicting Sex Offender Institutional
Adjustment and Treatment Compliance Using the Personality Assessment Inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 16(2), 187-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.187
Carson, E.A. (2018). Prisoners in 2016 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Charnas, J. W., Hilsenroth, M. J., Zodan, J., & Blais, M. A. (2010). Should I stay or should I go?
Personality Assessment Inventory and Rorschach indices of early withdrawal from
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(4), 484-499.
Cohan, R.D. (1998). A comparison of sex offenders against minors and rapists of adults on
selected Rorschach variables. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wright Institute,
Berkeley, CA.
Cooper, S. H., Perry, J., & Arnow, D. (1988). An empirical approach to the study of defense
mechanisms: I. Reliability and preliminary validity of the Rorschach Defense scales.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(2), 187-203. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5202_1
Cortoni, F. (2010). The assessment of female sexual offenders. In T. A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni
(Eds.), Females sexual offenders: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 87–100).
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Cortoni, F., Hanson, R. K., & Coache, M. E. (2009). Les delinquantes sexuelles: Prevalence et
recidive [Female sexual offenders: Prevalence and recidivism]. Revue internationale de
criminologie et de police technique et scientifique, LXII, 319-336.
Cunliffe, T. B., & Gacono, C.B. (2005). A Rorschach investigation of incarcerated antisocial
personality disordered female offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 49, 530-547.
Cunliffe, T. B., & Gacono, C. B. (2008). A Rorschach understanding of antisocial and
psychopathic women. In C. B. Gacono, F.B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L.A. Gacono (Eds.),
The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment (pp. 361-378). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cunliffe, T. B., Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., Smith, J. M., Taylor, E. E., & Landry, D. (2012).
Psychopathy and the Rorschach: A response to Wood et al. (2010). Archives of Assessment
Psychology, 2(1), p. 1-31.
Cunliffe, T. B., Gacono, C. B., Smith, J. M., Kivisto, A. J., Meloy, J. R., & Taylor, E. E. (2016).
Assessing psychopathy in women. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic
assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed., pp. 167-190). New York, NY:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Davin, P. (1993). The best kept secret: A study of female sex offenders. (Unpublished doctoral
Dissertation). The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 134
DeCou, C. R., Cole, T. T., Rowland, S. E., Kaplan, S. P., & Lynch, S. M. (2015). An ecological
process model of female sex offending: The role of victimization, psychological distress,
and life stressors. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(3), 302–323.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214556359
Exner, J. E. (Ed.). (1995). Issues and methods in Rorschach research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Faller, K. C. (1995). A clinical sample of women who have sexually abused children. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 13-30.
Fegley, V. (2004). Sex offenders and human representational response scores on the Rorschach
Comprehensive System. (Unpublished doctoral project). Carlos Albizu University, Miami,
FL.
Fontan, P., Andronikof, A., Nicodemo, D., Al Nyssani, L., Guilheri, J., Hansen, K. G.,
Kumasaka, S., & Nakamura, N. (2013). CHESSSS: A free software solution to score and
compute the Rorschach Comprehensive System and Supplementary Scales. Rorschachiana,
34(1), 56-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000040
Gacono, C. B. (1988). A Rorschach interpretation of object relations and defensive structure and
their relationship to narcissism and psychopathy in a group of antisocial offenders.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). United States International University, San Diego, CA.
Gacono, C. B. (1990). An empirical study of object relations and defensive operations in
antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 589-600.
Gacono, C. B. (1997). Borderline Personality Organization, Psychopathology, and Sexual
Homicide: The Case of Brinkley. In J. R. Meloy, M. W. Acklin, C. B. Gacono, J. F.
Murray, & C. A. Peterson. (Eds.), Contemporary Rorschach interpretation (pp. 217-238).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gacono, C.B. (2005). A clinical and forensic interview schedule for the Hare Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised and Screening Version. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gacono, C.B. (2016). Introduction. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment
of psychopathy: A practitioner's guide (pp. 3-13). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.
Gacono, C. B. (2019). The importance of Lambda to the generalizability of Rorschach findings
reported in the literature. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology & Mental Health. DOI?
Gacono, C. B., & Evans, F. B. (Eds.) (2008). The handbook of forensic Rorschach assessment.
New York: Routledge.
Gacono, C. B., Evans, F. B., & Viglione, D. J. (2008). Essential issues in the forensic use of the
Rorschach. In C. B. Gacono & F. B. Evans (Eds.), The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach
Assessment, (pp. 3-21). New York: Routledge.
Gacono, C. B., Jumes, M. T., & Gray, B. T. (2016). Use of the PCL-R and Rorschach in forensic
treatment planning. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of
psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed., pp. 311-332). New York, NY:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Gacono, C. B., & Meloy, J. R. (1994). The Rorschach assessment of aggressive and
psychopathic personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., & Bridges, M. R. (2000). A Rorschach comparison of psychopaths,
sexual homicide perpetrators, and nonviolent pedophiles: Where angels fear to tread.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56 (6), 757-777.
Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., & Bridges, M. R. (2008). A Rorschach understanding of
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 135
psychopaths, sexual homicide perpetrators, and nonviolent pedophiles. In C. B. Gacono,
F.B. Evans, N. Kaser-Boyd, & L.A. Gacono (Eds.), The handbook of forensic Rorschach
assessment (pp. 379-393). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., & Heaven, T. R. (1990). A Rorschach investigation of narcissism
and hysteria in antisocial personality. Journal of Personality Disorder, 55(1 & 2), 270-279.
Gannon, T. A., Hoare, J., Rose, M. R., & Parrett, N. (2012). A re-examination of female
child molesters’ implicit theories: Evidence of female specificity? Psychology, Crime and
Law,8, 209-224. doi: 10.1080/10683161003752303.
Gannon, T. A., Rose, M. R., & Ward, T. (2008). A descriptive model of the offense process for
female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 352-374.
doi:10.1177/1079063208322495
Gannon, T. A., Waugh, G., Taylor, K., Blanchette, K., O’Connor, A., Blake, E., & Ciardha, C.
O. (2014). Women who sexually offend display three main offense styles: A reexamination
of the descriptive model of female sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 26, 207-224. doi:10.1177/1079063213486835
Goldhill, R. (2013). What was she thinking?1 Women who sexually offend against children –
implications for probation practice. Probation Journal, 60(4), 415-424.
Green, A.H., & Kaplan, M.S. (1994). Psychiatric impairment and childhood victimization
experiences in female child molesters. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(7), 954-961.
Grossman, L. S., Wasyliw, O. E., Benn, A. F., & Gyoerkoe, K. L. (2002). Can sex offenders who
minimize on the MMPI conceal psychopathology on the Rorschach?. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78(3), 484-501. DOI: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7803_07
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota):
Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-254.
Hopwood, C.J. & Evans, F.B. (2017). Integrating the Personality Assessment Inventory and
Rorschach Inkblot Method in forensic assessment. In R. Erard & F. B. Evans (Eds.),
Rorschach in Multimethod Forensic Practice (pp. 131‐159). Oxford, UK: Taylor and
Francis.
Hudson, A.H. (1995). Personality Assessment of female sex offenders: A cluster analysis.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Huprich, S. K., Gacono, C. B., Schneider, R. B., & Bridges, M. R. (2004). Rorschach Oral
Dependency in psychopaths, sexual homicide perpetrators, and nonviolent pedophiles.
Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22(3), 345-356. doi:10.1002/bsl.585
Johansson-Love, J., & Fremouw, W. (2009). Female sex offenders: A controlled comparison of
offender and victim/crime characteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 367-376.
Kernberg, O. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York: Aronson.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Kwawer, J. (1980). Primitive interpersonal modes, borderline phenomena, and Rorschach
content. In J. Kwawer, A. Sugarman, P. Lerner, & H. Lerner (Eds.), Borderline phenomena
and the Rorschach Test (pp. 89-105). New York: International Universities Press.
Smith, Gacono, Kivisto, and Cunliffe
_____________________________________________________________________________ 136
Pflugradt, D. M., & Allen, B. P. (2015). An exploration of differences between small samples of
female sex offenders with prepubescent versus postpubescent victims. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, &
Offenders, 24(6), 682-697.
Laulik, S., Allam, J., & Sheridan, L. (2007). An investigation into maladaptive personality
functioning in Internet sex offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 523-535.
doi:10.1080/10683160701340577
Magaletta, P. M., Faust, E., Bickart, W., McLearen, A. M. (2014). Exploring clinical and
personality characteristics of adult male Internet-only child pornography offenders.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(2), 137–153.
Marshall, E. A., & Miller, H. A. (2018). Examining gender-specific and gender-neutral risk
factors in women who sexually offend. Criminal Justice and Behavior. DOI:
10.1177/0093854818796872
Matthews, J. K., Mathews, R., & Speltz, K. (1991). Female sexual offenders. A typology. In M.
Q. Patton (Ed.), Family sexual abuse: Frontline research and evaluation (pp. 199-219).
London: Sage Publications.
McCarty, L. M. (1986). Mother-child incest: Characteristics of the offender. Child Welfare,65,
447-458.
Meloy, J. R., Acklin, M. W., Gacono, C. B., Murray, J. F., & Peterson, C. A. (Eds.). (1997).
Contemporary Rorschach interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Meyer, G. J. (1999). Simple procedures to estimate chance agreement and kappa for the
interrater reliability of response segments using the Rorschach Comprehensive System.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 230-255.
Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual
Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system.
Psychological Bulletin, 139, 548–605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029406
Mihura, J. L., Nathan-Montano, E., & Alperin, R. J. (2003). Rorschach measures of aggressive
drive derivatives: A college student sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 41–49.
Miller, H. A., & Marshall, E. A. (2018). Comparing solo- and co-offending female sex offenders
on variables of pathology, offense characteristics, and recidivism. Sexual Abuse.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218791179
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Rorschach, H. (1921/1942). Psychodiagnostik. Bern: Bircher (translation Hans Huber Verlag,
1942).
Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale empirical
analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(4), 455–473.
Schafer, R. (1954). Psychoanalytic Interpretation in Rorschach Testing. New York: Grune &
Stratton.
Seto, M. C., Harris, G. T., & Lalumière, M. L. (2016). Psychopathy and sexual offending. In C.
B. Gacono (Ed.), Personality and clinical psychology series. The clinical and forensic
assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner's guide (pp. 403-418). New York, NY, US:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Shipley, W. C., Gruber, C. P., Martin, T. A., & Klein, A. M. (2009). Shipley-2 manual. Los
Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
A PCL-R, Rorschach, and PAI Investigation of Females with Sex Offenses Against Minors
_____________________________________________________________________________ 137
Shipley, W. C., & Zachary, R. A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale. Los Angeles, CA:
Western Psychological Services.
Smith, J. M. (2013). Female psychopathy: A Rorschach investigation of personality structure.
(Unpublished doctoral project). Carlos Albizu University, Miami, FL.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., & Cunliffe, T. B. (2018). Comparison of male and female
psychopaths on select CS Rorschach variables. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and
Mental Health, 25(2), 138-155.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., Fontan, P., Taylor, E. E., Cunliffe, T. B., & Andronikof, A. (2018).
A scientific critique of Rorschach research: Revisiting Exner's (1995) Issues and Methods
in Rorschach Research. Rorschachiana, 39(2), 180-203.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., & Cunliffe, T. B. (in press). Female psychopathy and aggression.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., Fontan, P., Taylor, E. E., Cunliffe, T. B., & Andronikof, A. (2018).
A scientific critique of Rorschach research: Revisiting Exner's (1995) Issues and Methods
in Rorschach Research. Rorschachiana, 39(2), 180-203.
Smith, J. M., Gacono, C. B., Cunliffe, T. B., Kivisto, A. J., & Taylor, E. E. (2014).
Psychodynamics in the female psychopath: A PCL-R/Rorschach investigation. Violence
and Gender, 1(4), 176-187.
Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal
Probation, 68(3), 30-33.
Vandiver, D. M., Braithwaite, J., & Stafford, M. C. (2018). An assessment of recidivism of
female sexual offenders: Comparing recidivists to non-recidivists over multiple years.
American Journal of Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9451-9
Vandiver, D. M., & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered female
sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(2), 121–137.
Vandiver, D. M., & Walker, J. T. (2002). Female sex offenders: An overview and analysis of 40
cases. Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), 284–300.
Viglione, D.J. (1995). Basic considerations regarding data analysis. In J. E. Exner (Ed.), Issues
and methods in Rorschach research (pp. 195-226). Hillsdale, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Weiner, I. B. (2003). Principles of Rorschach interpretation (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2011). Female sex offenders: Specialists,
generalists, and once only offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(1), 34–45.
Williams, K. S., & Bierie, D. M. (2015). An incident-based comparison of female and male
sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(3), 235–257.
Yochelson, S., & Samenow, S. (1977). The criminal personality, Vol. 2: The change process.
New York: Jason Aronson.
