Content uploaded by Ian Broom
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian Broom
Content may be subject to copyright.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 3, June 2005, pp. 277–283 ( C
2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s10508-005-3116-8
Hostility and Recidivism in Sexual Offenders
Philip Firestone, Ph.D.,1,3Kevin L. Nunes, B.A.,1Heather Moulden, B.A.,1
Ian Broom, M.A.,1and John M. Bradford, M.D.2
Received January 28, 2004; revision received April 6, 2004; accepted May 5, 2004
In this study, we examined the association of hostility, as measured by the Buss-Durkee Hostility
Inventory (BDHI), with offence characteristics and recidivism in 656 adult male sexual offenders.
Hostility was significantly associated with having prior violent charges, the use of violence in the index
sexual offence, sexual recidivism, and violent recidivism. After controlling for risk level, as measured
by a modified version of the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offence Recidivism (RRASOR-
mod), the significant association between hostility and sexual and violent recidivism remained. When
examined by type of offender, hostility was significantly associated with recidivism in intrafamilial
and extrafamilial child molesters, but not in rapists or mixed offenders. Given the predictive value
of hostility independent of the RRASOR-mod, the present findings confirm and encourage treatment
efforts directed toward the management of hostility and anger in sexual offenders.
KEY WORDS: sexual offenders; hostility; recidivism; Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory; RRASOR.
INTRODUCTION
Hostility can be described as involving angry feelings
and connoting “a complex set of attitudes that motivate
aggressive behaviors directed toward destroying objects
or injuring other people” (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell,
& Crane, 1983, p. 162). Etiological theories of sexual
offending consistently refer to the role of hostility in
sexual aggression. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) at-
tributed feelings of hostility observed in sexual offenders
to poor socialization, which prevents these individuals
from acquiring appropriate inhibitory controls over sex
and aggression. In their theory of sexual offending, Hall
and Hirschman (1991) postulated that negative affective
states, such as hostility, precede and facilitate sexual
aggression, whereas other factors, such as guilt and
empathy, fail to inhibit feelings of hostility. In examining
the offence process in child molesters, hostile feelings
1School of Psychology and Department of Psychiatry, University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
2Sexual Behaviours Clinic and Forensic Service, Royal OttawaHospital,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
3Towhom correspondence should be addressed at School of Psychology,
University of Ottawa, 120 University Private, Ottawa, Ontario K1N
6N5, Canada; e-mail: fireston@uottawa.ca.
toward women and society have been cited as affective
pre-offence states (Proulx, Perrault, & Ouimet, 1999) and
anger and hostility have been associated with some sexual
offender typologies (Prentky & Knight, 1991).
Empirical work has supported these theories of
hostility in sexual offenders. Higher levels of both general
and victim specific hostility have been documented in the
sexual offender literature. Child molesters have reported
greater levels of trait anger and hostility compared to
nonsex offender comparison groups (Kalichman, 1991)
and hostility levels in rapists have also been reported
to be higher than in comparison groups (Hudson &
Ward, 1997; Marshall & Moulden, 2001; Rada, Laws,
Kellner, Stivastava, & Peake, 1983). Measures of hostility
have successfully differentiated between groups of sexual
offenders based on the level of violence involved in
their offence. In one study, researchers found significantly
higher hostility for sexual offenders who used excessive
physical force in their past offences compared to sexual
offenders who did not use excessive physical force (Rada
et al., 1983).
Although empirical support exists, research on the
relationship between hostility and sexual offending has
not been conclusive. Some researchers have not found
a significant association between hostility and the level
of violence used in offenders’ last offence, the number of
277
0004-0002/05/0600-0277/0 C
2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
278 Firestone, Nunes, Moulden, Broom, and Bradford
prior violent and nonviolent convictions (Holland, Levi, &
Beckett, 1983), or ratings of aggressiveness in psychiatric
patients (Edmunds, 1976). In other studies, no differences
have been found between child molesters or rapists on
measures of hostility when compared to nonsex offender
comparison groups (Overholser & Beck, 1986; Seidman,
Marshall, Hudson, & Robertson, 1994).
The lack of significant differences obtained by some
researchers may simply reflect Type-II errors. Alternately,
a theoretical explanation for non-significant differences is
that sexual offenders may differ from comparison groups
in terms of how they regulate or express their emotions
rather than their experience of those emotions (Lee,
Pattison, Jackson, & Ward, 2001). In an examination of di-
mensions of deficits in sexual offenders, Lee et al. (2001)
found a relationship between anger/hostility expression
and the type of paraphilia, such that pedophiles and exhibi-
tionists suppressed or turned anger inward, rapists turned
anger outward, and multiple paraphiliacs both suppressed
and acted out anger; however, although differences in
expression were detected, anger/hostility remained one
of only two common features of psychopathology for
each of the four targeted paraphilias (rapists, pedophiles,
exhibitionists, and multiple paraphiliacs). Based on some
evidence that hostility is higher in sexual offenders, and
associated with various types of sexual offending, one
would expect hostility to be related to future sexual
offending and would be relevant for the prediction of
recidivism across offender types.
Researchers have examined the degree to which hos-
tility is predictive of recidivism in sexual offenders. In a
recent meta-analysis, Hanson and Morton (2003) reported
a small but significant association between hostility and
recidivism in sexual offenders. Of the published studies
included in that meta-analysis, a significant proportion
found that hostility in sexual offenders predicted sexual
and/or violent recidivism. Quinsey, Khanna, and Malcolm
(1998) reported that hostility was significantly higher in
sexual and violent recidivists compared to non-recidivists.
In fact, hostility was the best predictor of recidivism
compared to the other self-report psychometric measures
examined (r=.18 for sexual recidivism; r=.22 for
violent [including sexual] recidivism). Other researchers
found that rumination of anger was related to sexual
recidivism in groups of mixed child molesters (Hudson,
Wales, Bakker, & Ward, 2002; Thornton, 2002).
The purpose of the present study was to examine the
association of hostility with offence characteristics and
recidivism in a sample of sexual offenders. The degree to
which hostility was related to prior sexual and violent
offences, the use of violence in sexual offences, and
sexual and violent recidivism was assessed. In addition,
we examined whether or not hostility would add to
prediction of recidivism beyond that of a well validated
risk assessment instrument (Doren, 2002; Hanson &
Morton, 2003), the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual
Offence Recidivism (RRASOR; Hanson, 1997).
METHOD
Participants
All 656 participants were assessed at the Royal
Ottawa Hospital, Sexual Behaviours Clinic, between 1982
and 1995. The participants were males, 18 years of age or
older at the time of their index offences, and had all been
convicted of a hands-on sexual offence against an adult or
a child (i.e., under the age of 16 at the time of the offence).
Offenders were classified based on their index and prior
sexual offences: 298 incest offenders (only related child
victims), 205 extrafamilial child molesters (only unrelated
child victims), 89 rapists (only adult victims), and 64
mixed offenders (i.e., falling into two or more of the
above offender categories). Descriptive statistics by type
of offender are presented in Table I. The majority of the
participants were assessed just prior to or just after their
court appearance or sentencing. Portions of this sample
have been examined in previous research (e.g., Firestone
et al., 1999, 2000; Nunes, Firestone, Bradford, Greenberg,
& Broom, 2002), but a longer follow-up time was used in
the current study.
Measures
Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI)
The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss
& Durkee, 1957) is a 66-item true–false self-report
questionnaire that was developed with a non-forensic
sample and designed to measure 7 subtypes of hostility
(Assault, Indirect Hostility, Irritability, Negativism, Re-
sentment, Suspicion, and Verbal Hostility). Summing the
Hostility scale scores provides a Total Hostility score that
can range from 0 to 66, with higher scores reflecting
greater hostility. Test–retest reliability of .82 for the
BDHI total score over a 2-week period has been reported
(Biaggio, Supple, & Curtis, 1981). Biaggio (1980) found
BDHI scores were significantly correlated with anger
questionnaires, including the Anger Self-Report (Zelin,
Alder, & Myerson, 1972), Reaction Inventory (Evans
& Stangeland, 1971), and the Novaco Anger Inventory
(Novaco, 1975).
Hostility and Recidivism 279
Tab l e I . Descriptive Statistics (Mean [SD] or Percentage) by Offender Type
Variable ICMaECMbRapistcMixedd
BDHI total score 26.20 (12.09) 26.81 (13.26) 29.55 (12.87) 26.98 (13.62)
RRASOR-mod 0.41 (0.70) 2.10 (1.11) 1.44 (0.72) 2.20 (1.36)
Age at assessment 40.73 (11.05) 37.70 (12.46) 31.18 (10.40) 41.00 (12.89)
Education (years) 10.03 (2.67) 11.12 (3.66) 10.49 (3.22) 10.31 (3.42)
Ever married 86.3% 49.8% 36.0% 63.5%
Any prior sexual charges 18.1% 32.2% 20.2% 35.9%
Any prior violent charges 12.8% 20.1% 50.6% 25.0%
Violence in index offence 12.0% 11.6% 62.5% 18.6%
More than 1 victim 33.3% 51.6% 34.6% 98.4%
Sexual recidivism 10.4% 23.9% 25.8% 40.6%
Violent recidivism 20.1% 36.1% 40.4% 40.6%
Note. ICM =Intrafamilial child molesters. ECM =Extrafamilial child molesters.
anranged from 210 to 298.
bnranged from 189 to 205.
cnranged from 80 to 89.
dnranged from 59 to 64.
The Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual
Offence Recidivism (RRASOR)
The RRASOR (Hanson, 1997) is an actuarial in-
strument designed to assess risk for sexual recidivism. It
consists of four items: (1) prior sexual offences, (2) age at
release, (3) victim gender, and (4) relationship to victim.
The coding rules were as follows: For the prior sexual
offences item, a score of 0 was assigned for 0 charges
or convictions, a score of 1 was given for 1 or 2 charges
or 1 conviction, a score of 2 was assigned for 3, 4, or
5 charges or 2 or 3 convictions, and a score of 3 was
given for 6 or more charges or 4 or more convictions.
The age item was scored 0 if the offender was 25-years-
old or older and 1 if the offender was under 25-years of
age when released to the community. The victim gender
item was scored 0 if there were only female victims and
1 if there were any male victims. The relationship item
was scored 0 if all victims were related to the offender
and 1 if any victims were unrelated. RRASOR scores can
range from 0 to 6, with higher scores reflecting higher
risk. These four items were selected from a larger pool
of variables through multivariate statistical procedures.
Relatively good associations have been demonstrated with
the RRASOR and sexual recidivism (r=.27 to .28) and
violent (including sexual) recidivism (r=.22) (Hanson,
1997; Hanson & Thornton, 2000). In their meta-analysis,
Hanson and Morton (2003) found average ds of .59 and
.34 for sexual and violent recidivism, respectively.
In the current study, the RRASOR was scored retro-
spectively and generally followed the coding guidelines
outlined by Hanson (1997). Due to the nature of our
database, however, some deviations from the guidelines
were necessary. Specifically, we did not make a distinction
between formal charges that did and did not result in
conviction. In addition, victim gender and relationship
to victim were coded from information pertaining only to
the index offence. Due to these deviations from the coding
guidelines in the present study, the instrument would be
most accurately described as a modified RRASOR; thus, it
was referred to as the RRASOR-mod. For some offenders
age at release was known. For others, it was estimated as
their age at two-thirds of their sentence.
Procedure
Offenders were assessed at a forensic psychiatric unit
regarding their index sexual offences and consented to the
use of their data for research. The research was approved
by the Royal Ottawa Hospital Ethics committee. Most
data were gathered at the time of assessment through
file reviews, interviews, and psychometric tests. Only a
portion of the data collected in these assessments was
examined here. Violence in the index offence was coded
as present if there had been threat of assault with a
weapon, minor injury with or without a weapon, severe
beating with or without a weapon, potential homicide,
homicide, or homicide with post-death mutilation. Self-
reported number of victims was coded as 1 vs. more than 1.
Offence information (i.e., prior and index offences)
was gathered from the Canadian Police Information
Center (CPIC) at the Ottawa Police Station, a national
database of criminal arrests and convictions including
INTERPOL reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police. For an offender to be considered eligible to
280 Firestone, Nunes, Moulden, Broom, and Bradford
reoffend, he must have been free to commit a crime; that is,
he could not have been incarcerated or in secure custody
for reasons of mental illness. Recidivism information
was gathered from the CPIC records. Recidivism was
coded as the first offense committed when eligible. Sexual
recidivism was defined as a charge or conviction for a
sexual offence after the index offence. Violent recidivism
included a charge or conviction for a violent or sexual
offence after the index offence.
RESULTS
To limit the number of comparisons involving the
BDHI, a principal components extraction with varimax
rotation was performed on the 7 subscales; this procedure
has been utilized by other researchers to extract compo-
nents from the BDHI subscales (e.g., Holland et al., 1983).
Only one component was extracted (eigenvalue =4.12),
accounting for 58.9% of the variance. Accordingly, only
the BDHI total score, rather than the individual subscales,
was examined in subsequent analyses.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table II, as are
correlations of variables of interest with the BDHI. The
BDHI was not significantly correlated with RRASOR-
mod scores. Although the BDHI was not significantly as-
sociated with any prior sexual charges, it was significantly
correlated with any prior violent charges and the use of
violence in the index offence. The BDHI was significantly
correlated with both sexual and violent recidivism.
The base rates of sexual recidivism and violent
recidivism were, respectively, 19.7 and 29.9%. Aver-
age follow-up time was 12.18 years (SD =3.33). The
RRASOR-mod was also significantly correlated with
sexual recidivism, r(637) =.22, p<.001, and violent
recidivism, r(637) =.20, p<.001. With regard to sexual
recidivism, mean BDHI total score was 30.55 (SD =
13.12) among recidivists and 26.03 (SD =12.50) among
Table II. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations with BDHI
Variable NMor % SD r
BDHI total score 656 26.92 12.74 —
RRASOR-mod 637 1.25 1.22 .06
Age at assessment 654 38.54 12.02 −.24∗
Education (years) 602 10.48 3.24 −.20∗
Ever married 572 63.1% — −.06
Any prior sexual charges 656 24.5% — .05
Any prior violent charges 655 21.4% — .18∗
Violence in index offence 612 19.1% — .20∗
Sexual recidivism 656 19.7% — .14∗
Violent recidivism 656 29.9% — .21∗
∗p<.001.
TableIII. Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Sexual Recidivism
from RRASOR-mod and BDHI
Scale BSEBWald Odds ratio 95% CI
Block 1
RRASOR-mod 0.42 .08 29.34∗∗ 1.52 1.31–1.77
Block 2
RRASOR-mod 0.42 .08 28.11∗∗ 1.51 1.30–1.76
BDHI 0.03 .01 9.53∗1.03 1.01–1.04
Note. χ2(1,N =637) =29.44 for Block 1 (p<.001).
χ2(1,N =637) =9.60 for Block 2 (p<.01).
SE =Standard error.
CI =Confidence interval.
∗p<.01.
∗∗p<.001.
nonrecidivists; mean RRASOR-mod score was 1.80
(SD =1.35) among recidivists and 1.11 (SD =1.15)
among nonrecidivists. In terms of violent recidivism,
mean BDHI total scores were 30.99 (SD =12.61) among
recidivists and 25.19 (SD =12.41) among nonrecidi-
vists; mean RRASOR-mod scores were 1.67 (SD =
1.34) among recidivists and 1.11 (SD =1.16) among
nonrecidivists.
We were interested in whether hostility would
contribute independently to the prediction of sexual and
violent recidivism even after RRASOR-mod scores were
taken into account. A sequential logistic regression was
performed to determine whether the BDHI and RRASOR-
mod contributed uniquely to the prediction of sexual
recidivism. The RRASOR-mod was entered first followed
by the BDHI. As can be seen in Table III, the BDHI
contributed uniquely to the prediction of sexual recidi-
vism. A parallel sequential logistic regression for violent
recidivism was performed; the results are presented in
Table IV. As with sexual recidivism, the BDHI contributed
uniquely to the prediction of violent recidivism.
Tab l e I V. Sequential Logistic Regression Predicting Nonsexual Violent
(Including Sexual) Recidivism from RRASOR-mod and BDHI
Scale BSEBWald Odds ratio 95% CI
Block 1
RRASOR-mod 0.34 .07 23.01∗1.40 1.22–1.61
Block 2
RRASOR-mod 0.33 .07 21.18∗1.39 1.21–1.60
BDHI 0.04 .01 23.86∗1.04 1.02–1.05
Note. χ2(1,N =637) =26.49 for Block 1 (p<.001).
χ2(1,N =637) =24.74 for Block 2 (p<.001).
SE =Standard Error.
CI =Confidence Interval.
∗p<.001.
Hostility and Recidivism 281
Tab l e V. BDHI Correlations with Sexual Recidivism by Type of Offender
Sexual recidivism
No Yes
Type of offender n M SD n M SD r rp
Intrafamilial child molesters 267 25.46a11.72 31 32.55a13.51 .18∗∗ .16∗
Extrafamilial child molesters 156 25.62ab 12.80 49 30.63a14.10 .16∗.18∗
Rapists 66 29.09b13.56 23 30.87a10.77 .06 .03
Mixed 38 26.47ab 14.26 26 27.73a12.86 .05 −.04
Note. Means in each column not sharing same superscript letter are significantly different (p<.05). In partial
correlations, n=289 for intrafamilial child molesters, n=197 for extrafamilial child molesters, n=81 for
rapists, and n=58 for mixed offenders.
∗p<.05. ∗∗p<.01.
Although hostility was associated with recidivism
for the entire sample, it was important to assess whether
this association was present in the different types of
sexual offenders. Correlations between the BDHI and
sexual recidivism and violent recidivism are reported,
respectively, in Tables V and VI for intrafamilial child
molesters, extrafamilial child molesters, rapists, and
mixed offenders. Partial correlations between the BDHI
and recidivism, while controlling for the RRASOR, are
also provided in Tables V and VI. For both sexual
and violent recidivism, small significant correlations and
partial correlations were found with hostility in the
intrafamilial and extrafamilial child molesters, but not in
the rapists or mixed offenders. However, these correlations
were not significantly different from one another.
To compare types of offenders, t-tests were con-
ducted. As can be seen in Tables V and VI, the failure
to find significant correlations between the BDHI and
recidivism in the rapists and mixed offenders was not
indicative of significantly lower BDHI scores in these
groups relative to the intrafamilial or extrafamilial child
molesters.
DISCUSSION
We found that hostility, as measured by the BDHI,
was associated with a higher likelihood of sexual and
violent recidivism. This result is generally consistent with
the findings of other researchers (Hanson & Morton,
2003). More importantly, we found that hostility added to
the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism above and
beyond the RRASOR-mod. This suggests that hostility
may be an important construct to assess in addition
to the predictors addressed by the RRASOR-mod (i.e.,
prior sex offences, age, victim gender, and relationship
to victim). When the types of offenders were examined
separately, hostility was significantly associated with both
sexual and violent recidivism even after controlling for the
RRASOR-mod in the intrafamilial and extrafamilial child
molesters, but not in the rapists and mixed offenders.
In the present study, we attempted to contribute to
the hostility literature and to clarify some discrepancies.
Although not related to previous sexual offences, hostility
was related to previous violent offences. Given that
the BDHI is a measure of general hostility, it may
Tab l e V I. BDHI Correlations with Violent Recidivism by Type of Offender
Violent recidivism
No Yes
Type of offender n M SD n M SD r rp
Intrafamilial child molesters 238 24.66a11.48 60 32.32a12.59 .26∗.25∗
Extrafamilial child molesters 131 24.34a12.62 74 31.19a13.33 .25∗.26∗
Rapists 53 28.74b14.08 36 30.75a10.91 .08 .05
Mixed 38 26.47ab 14.26 26 27.73a12.86 .05 −.04
Note. Means in each column not sharing same superscript letter are significantly different (p<.05). In partial
correlations, n=289 for intrafamilial child molesters, n=197 for extrafamilial child molesters, n=81 for
rapists, and n=58 for mixed offenders.
∗p<.001.
282 Firestone, Nunes, Moulden, Broom, and Bradford
more accurately capture general violent tendencies versus
those sexual in nature; however, consistent with previous
literature, hostility was predictive of recidivism in this
sample (Firestone et al., 1999, 2000; Thornton, 2002;
Ward et al., 2002) and complemented the RRASOR-
mod in the prediction of recidivism. Given the predictive
value of hostility beyond the RRASOR-mod, the present
findings confirm and encourage treatment efforts directed
toward the management of hostility and anger in sexual
offenders.
The present study had some limitations, such as
reliance on police reported sexual and violent offences,
which obviously fails to capture the behavioral and risk
dynamics of those sexual offenders who do reoffend but
are not caught. In addition, because we used a modified
version of the RRASOR, it cannot be assumed that
hostility would not be redundant to the actual RRASOR
in predicting recidivism. There is evidence that different
types of sexual offenders are characterized by different
risk factors and recidivism rates (Firestone et al., 1999);
thus, future research on the relationship between hostility
and recidivism, particularly in rapists, would be valuable.
A strength of the study is the population from which
the sample was drawn. This population is unique in that
it comprised men who have been convicted of a sexual
offence and have been assessed in a sexual behavior
clinic located in the forensic unit of a large psychiatric
hospital. Many of these offenders were not sentenced
to time in prison for their offences (Nunes, Firestone,
Jensen, Wexler, & Bradford, 2005). Therefore, this group
may be more representative of the wide array of men
processed through the courts than those used in previous
studies, often drawn from maximum security institutions.
The present results suggest that previous findings of a
relationship between hostility and recidivism in sexual
offenders generally hold true when tested on a lower risk
population, and that hostility may be an important factor
to consider in addition to constructs tapped by instruments
such as the RRASOR-mod.
REFERENCES
Biaggio, M. (1980). Assessment of anger arousal. Journal of Personality
Assessment,44, 289–298.
Biaggio, M. K., Supple, K., & Curtis, N. (1981). Reliability and validity
of four anger scales. Journal of Personality Assessment,45, 639–
648.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different
kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology,21, 343–
349.
Doren, D. M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil
commitments and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Edmunds, G. (1976). The predictive validity of the Buss-Durkee
Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology,32, 818–820.
Evans, D. R., & Stangeland, M. (1971). Development of the Reaction
Inventory to measure anger. Psychological Reports,29, 412–
414.
Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M., McCoy, M., Greenberg, D. M., Curry, S.,
& Larose, M. R. (2000). Prediction of recidivism in extra-familial
child molesters based on court-related assessments. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment,12, 203–222.
Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M., McCoy, M., Greenberg, D. M., Larose,
M. R., & Curry, S. (1999). Prediction of recidivism in incest
offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,14, 511–531.
Hall, G. C. N., & Hirschman, R. (1991). Toward a theory of sexual
aggression: A quadripartite model. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,59, 643–669.
Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale
for sexual offence recidivism. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the
Solicitor General of Canada. Retrieved from www.sgc.gc.ca.
Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene?
Dynamic predictors of sexual offence recidivism. Criminal Justice
and Behavior,27, 6–35.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton, K. E. (2003, June). Recidivism risk factors
for sexual offenders: An updated meta-analysis. Paper presented at
the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association,
Hamilton, Ontario.
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for
sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and
Human Behavior,24, 119–136.
Holland, T. R., Levi, M., & Beckett, G. E. (1983). Ethnicity, criminality,
and the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment,47, 375–379.
Hudson, M. S., Wales, D. S., Bakker, L., & Ward, T. (2002). Dynamic
risk factors: The Kia Marama evaluation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment,14, 103–119.
Hudson, M. S., & Ward, T. (1997). Intimacy, loneliness, and attachment
styles in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,12,
323–339.
Kalichman, S. C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality character-
istics of criminal sexual offenders as a function of victim age.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,20, 187–197.
Lee, J. K. P., Pattison, P., Jackson, H. J., & Ward, T. (2001). The general,
common, and specific factors of psychopathology for different
types of paraphilias. Criminal Justice and Behavior,28, 227–
266.
Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the
etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E.
Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and
treatment of the offender (pp. 257–275). New York: Plenum.
Marshall, W. L., & Moulden, H. (2001). Hostility toward women and
victim empathy in rapists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment,13, 249–255.
Novaco, R. W. (1975). Anger control: The development and evaluation
of an experimental treatment. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Nunes, K. L., Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M., Greenberg, D. M., &
Broom, I. (2002). A comparison of the modified versions of the
Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG).
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,14, 249–
265.
Nunes, K. L., Firestone, P., Jensen, T., Wexler, A. F., & Bradford,
J. M. (2005). Incarceration and recidivism in a sample of sexual
offenders. Manuscript in preparation.
Overholser, J. C., & Beck, S. (1986). Multimethod assessment of
rapists, child molesters, and three control groups on behavioral
and psychological measures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology,54, 682–687.
Prentky, R. A., & Knight, R. A. (1991). Identifying critical dimensions
for discriminating among rapists. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,59, 643–661.
Proulx, J., Perreault, C., & Ouimet, M. (1999). Pathways in the offending
process of extrafamilial sexual child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment,11, 117–129.
Hostility and Recidivism 283
Quinsey, V. L., Khanna, A., & Malcolm, P. B. (1998). A retrospec-
tive evaluation of the Regional Treatment Centre sex offender
treatment program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,13, 621–
644.
Rada, R. T., Laws, D. R., Kellner, R., Stivastava, L., & Peake, G. (1983).
Plasma androgens in violent and nonviolent sex offenders. Bulletin
of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,11, 149–158.
Seidman, B. T., Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., & Robertson, P. J.
(1994). An examination of intimacy and loneliness in sex offenders.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence,9, 518–534.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983).
Assessment of anger: The State-Trait Anger Scale. In J. N. Butcher
& C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment
(Vol. 2, pp. 161–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thornton, D. (2002). Construction and testing a framework for dynamic
risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treat-
ment,14, 139–153.
Zelin, M. L., Alder, G., & Myerson, P. G. (1972). Anger self-report: An
objective questionnaire for the measurement of aggression. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,39, 340.