Complete
mkeont
42208850.pdf
An empirical study of the personality characteristics of internet sex offenders
Sheri Tomak, 1
Frederick S. Weschler, 2
Marjan Ghahramanlou-Holloway, 3
Thomas Virden 4
& Mahsaw Elicia Nademin
4 *
1 Arizona Department of Corrections, Florence, AZ;
2 Department of Clinical Psychology, Argosy
University, Phoenix, AZ; 3 Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD & 4 Department of Psychiatry, Midwestern
University, Glendale, AZ, USA
Abstract The present study evaluated the personality characteristics and psychopathology of
internet sex offenders (ISOs) using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition
(MMPI-2) to determine whether ISO personality profiles are different to those of general sex offenders
(GSOs; e.g. child molesters and rapists). The ISOs consisted of 48 convicted males referred to a
private sex offender treatment facility for a psychosexual risk assessment. The GSOs consisted of
104 incarcerated non-internet or general sex offenders. Findings indicated that ISOs scored
significantly lower on the following scales: L, F, Pd and Sc. A comparison of the MMPI-2 scores
of the ISO and GSO groups indicated that ISOs are a heterogeneous group with considerable within-
group differences. Current findings are consistent with the existing literature on the limited utility of the
MMPI-2 in differentiating between subtypes of sex offenders.
Keywords Internet sex offenders; sex offence; personality; MMPI; psychopathology; cyber-
paedophile
Introduction
In recent years, researchers in the field of sexual aggression have attempted to develop
empirically derived typologies of sex offenders. However, classification of sex offenders into
distinct groups presents significant challenges for two primary reasons. First, sex offenders
appear to be a heterogeneous group with regard to personality characteristics, criminal
histories and life experiences (Bickley & Beech, 2001). Secondly, within-group differences
in current classifications add layers of complexity to the formation of a unified typology.
Over the years, numerous classification schemes have been developed but met with little
consistent success, due primarily to the great variability in theories explaining characteristics
of, and differences between, different types of sex offenders (Araji & Finkelhor, 1985;
Barnard, Fuller, Robbins & Shaw, 1989; Beech, 1998; Bickley & Beech, 2001; Blackburn,
*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Sexual Aggression
(July 2009), Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139�148
ISSN 1355-2600 print/1742-6545 online # 2009 National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers
DOI: 10.1080/13552600902823063
1993; Conte, 1991; Danni & Hampe, 2000; Groth, 1979; Lanyon, 1991; Marshall, 1996,
1997; Ward & Keenan, 1999).
Studies of deviant practices and the internet are focused primarily upon computer hacking
and white-collar crimes, such as embezzlement, falsification of reports and deceptive billing
practices (Durkin & Bryant, 1995) and the empirical literature on paraphilic internet use is
limited. Available research on deviant sexual behaviour and the internet seems to suggest that
paraphilic appetites are being satisfied online through newsgroups, e-mail, websites, chat
rooms and interactive games in which people assume characters and ‘‘act out’’ their fantasies
(Bates & Metcalf, 2007; Kim & Bailey, 1997). Moreover, paedophiles appear to be utilizing the
internet to traffic child pornography, locate victims, communicate with children in a sexual
manner and converse with other paedophiles (Bates & Metcalf, 2007; Durkin, 1997).
Using the Internet to sexually offend is a national and global problem. Despite federal
prohibitions on the possession of pornography depicting children, the United States
Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated 1,500 cases of
internet child exploitation in 1999 (Hellwege, 2000). Globally, the Virtual Global Taskforce
(VGT), which is an organized effort among various law enforcement agencies from the
international community, has been active in attempts to protect children against online abuse.
Interpol, as a partner of VGT, is similarly an international collaboration to police sexual
crimes against children. While such policing and legal approaches to the problem of internet
sex offending are important, additional information is needed on the possible profiles and
clinical pathologies of individuals who use the Internet to sexually offend.
In light of the above, the assessment of the personality characteristics of internet sex
offenders (ISOs) is a significant step in public health approaches to the understanding and
prevention of sex offences. Accurate mapping of ISO personality characteristics may allow for
early identification and disruption of the offence chain through therapeutic intervention and
subsequent relapse prevention (Abel, Becker, Cunningham-Rathner, Mittleman & Rouleau,
1988; Barabaree & Seto, 1997; Knight & Prentky, 1990). Despite conflicting views about its
utility, the most frequently used measure for identifying sex offender typologies is the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd edition (MMPI-2) (Beech, 1998). While
Lanyon (2001) indicated that the MMPI-2 was not developed for specific use with sex
offenders, a number of researchers (Carter, 1999; Langevin, Wright & Handy, 1990a, 1990b;
Marantz, 2005; Olander, 2004; Ridenour, Miller, Joy & Dean, 1997) have endorsed the
MMPI-2 as a reliable screening device for detecting sexual deviance and profiling sex
offenders.
A review of the literature revealed minimal research on the MMPI-2 profiles of internet
sex offenders (Cooper, Golden & Marshall, 2006; Mitchell, Finkelhor & Wolak, 2005). Thus,
this work relied exclusively on studies utilizing the MMPI-2 to investigate sex offender
personality patterns, in general. McCreary (1975) demonstrated that child molesters with no
history of arrests for sex offences demonstrated lower scores on the Pd, Hs, Hy and Sc scales
and a tendency to exhibit less intense personality deficits compared to those with a history of
such arrests. Rader (1977) examined the MMPI-2 profiles of 129 male sex offenders
convicted for crimes of rape, exposure and assault. Compared to the latter two groups, those
in the rape group were found to be more psychologically disturbed, exhibiting more bizarre
thinking, somatization, depression, aggression, suspiciousness and denial. The most
commonly observed MMPI-2 code type within the assault category was the 4-9/9-4. Those
in the exposing group were 4-8/8-4, and those in the rape group were 4-8/8-4 and 4-3/3-4.
Armentrout and Hauer (1978) similarly found a notably elevated 8-4 profile in rapists who
assaulted adults and lower elevations of a 4-8 profile in rapists of children.
140 S. Tomak et al.
Anderson and Kunce (1979) analyzed MMPI-2 profiles of 92 sex offenders convicted of
rape, child molestation and incest and found three distinct profiles independent of offence: an
F/8 type, a 4/9 type and a 2/4 code type. Quinsey, Arnold and Pruesse (1980) found a 4-8-2
code type among similar groups of hospitalized contact offence groups, including rape of
females aged 15 years or older and physical sexual contact with children aged 13 years or
younger. The current authors do not believe ISOs to have profiles consistent with those of the
aforementioned offenders, given that they have been found to have less difficulty with legal
problems, more stable employment histories and fewer adjustment problems (Bates &
Metcalf, 2007).
Based upon an examination of 122 MMPI-2 profiles of child molesters, Heersink and
Strassberg (1995) identified three specific profile types, while Duthie and McIvor (1990)
identified eight distinct cluster variations from analysis of 90 child molester profiles. In
comparing MMPI-2 profiles of sex offenders with adult or child victims, Levin and Stava
(1987) found that offenders victimizing children had elevations on the D, Pa, Sc and Si scales,
whereas the offenders with adult victims did not. In a more recent study, Watkins (2000)
utilized the MMPI-2 to differentiate the personality differences among sex offenders and
noted a 2-4 code type among child molesters, whereas sex offenders who victimized adults
had a single elevation on scale 4. Watkins reported further that sex offenders of child victims
had lower scores on the hypomania scale and higher scores on the social introversion scale.
In contrast to the literature highlighting common code types among sex offenders, a
number of researchers have found significant heterogeneity among various sexual offender
populations. Hall and colleagues (1986, 1989, 1991, 1992), for example, found such
variability and consequently have suggested that the MMPI-2 has limited utility in
discriminating among groups of sexual offenders. Other researchers’ findings have similarly
corroborated the variability among MMPI-2 profiles of sex offenders (Kalichman, 1990,
1991; Shealy, Kalichman, Henderson, Szymanowski & McKee, 1991; Yanagida & Ching,
1993). The aforementioned variability has been seen similarly in incarcerated and hospitalized
populations; the only commonality noted across populations appears to be a scale elevation of
4 on the MMPI-2 (Bickley & Beech, 2001; Erickson, Luxenberg, Walbek & Seely, 1987;
Freeman, Dexter-Mazza & Hoffman, 2005; Mann, Stenning & Borman, 1992; Quinsey et al.,
1980; Rader, 1977). More recently, in a multivariate cluster analysis of 72 sex offenders,
Siegel (2002) identified five different subgroups, two of which demonstrated severe pathology.
The remaining three groups displayed normal profiles with antisocial features.
The reported variability in code types supports the notion that there is no single typology
for sex offenders in general. The use of the MMPI-2 to establish the personality characteristics
and levels of deviance of sex offenders has generated varied opinions as to its clinical utility.
Limited research supporting the distinction between ISOs and contact offenders (COs) may
suggest the possibility that the two are not mutually exclusive groups, a finding that would limit
further the clinical utility of personality measures with these groups. In light of the limited
research on the psychopathological and personality characteristics of internet sex offenders,
further research is warranted. The present authors propose that an examination of internet sex
offenders may provide useful information not yet explored fully by the research community.
The creation of the internet seems to have resulted in an increased level of heterogeneity
among sex offenders and has created a new type of sex criminal who targets and victimizes
children, the internet sex offender. Accurate assessment of the personality characteristics of
internet sex offenders would inform the development of prevention strategies allowing for
enhanced identification, conviction and treatment of internet sex offenders. Kalichman,
Szymanowski, McKee, Taylor and Craig (1989) reported that sex offenders demonstrate
significant differences in personality features within subgroups in addition to dissimilarities
MMPI profiles of internet sex offenders 141
with the general criminal population. Consequently, it is essential to determine where the
personality structure of the internet sex offender is in line with the existing pool of sexual
predators. The purpose of this study was to examine the personality characteristics of internet
sex offenders using the MMPI-2 to gauge personality profiles and levels of psychopathology. It
was hypothesized that internet sexual offender personality profiles would be different to those
of contact offenders (e.g. child molesters and rapists).
Method
Procedure
Demographic information and MMPI-2 data were collected during a record review at a
private sex offender treatment facility located in the Southwest United States. The MMPI-2
scores of the present sample (n�48) were compared to the MMPI-2 scores of a control group (n�104) using a univariate analysis of variance.
The sample of interest consisted of 48 male sex offenders, who were convicted of an
internet crime and referred to an outpatient sex offender treatment programme for a
psychosexual risk assessment. These participants were not incarcerated for their offences nor
accused of a contact offence. This group ranged in age from 21 to 66 years, with a mean age of
40.67 [standard deviation (s.d.)�11.37]. The group was made up of 92% (n�44) Caucasian, 6% (n�3) Hispanic and 2% (n�1) Native American participants. Nearly 37% (n�18) of those in the group were married, 42% (n�20) were divorced, 2% (n�1) were separated and 19% (n�9) were never married. A significant majority of the sample was employed (79%), with almost a third (n�17) in unskilled, general labour or minimum wage work. The educational level of the sample was as follows: 6% (n�3) had attended or completed graduate school; 35% (n�17) had attended but not completed college; 33% (n�16) had completed college; 19% (n�9) had a high school diploma or GED; and 6% (n�3) had some high school.
The offences of the 48 sampled sex offenders included: (a) receiving or distributing child
pornography (n�31); (b) engaging in conversations with minors in chat rooms (n�1); (c) organizing meetings with minors (n�5); (d) receiving or distributing child pornography and engaging in conversations with minors in chat rooms (n�6); and (e) receiving or distributing child pornography and organizing meetings with minors (n�5).
The control group consisted of 104 incarcerated non-internet or general sex offenders
(GSO) reported by Summerhill (2003). The mean age of this comparison group was 45.96
(s.d.�12.16) years, with an average level of education of 11.63 (s.d.�2.72) years. The group was made up of 66% (n�69) Caucasian, 13% (n�13) African American, 16% (n�17) Hispanic and 5% (n�5) Native American. Only 7% (n�7) were married, nearly 46% (n�48) were divorced, 5% (n�5) were widowed and 42% (n�44) were never married. The offences of the control group were categorized as either rape (n�25), paedophilia (n� 72) or both rape and paedophilia (n�7).
Measures
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd edition (MMPI-2). The MMPI-2 is a 567-item
true/false scale designed to assess personality characteristics and degree of emotional
disturbance. It is organized into four validity scales: (1) the cannot say (?) scale; (2) the L
or ‘‘lie’’ scale; (3) the F-scale; and (4) the K-scale along with 10 clinical scales: scale
1: hypochondriasis; scale 2: depression; scale 3: hysteria; scale 4: psychopathic deviate; scale
142 S. Tomak et al.
5: masculinity�femininity; scale 6: paranoia; scale 7: psychasthenia; scale 8: schizophrenia; scale 9: hypomania; scale 0: social introversion. It is the most widely used questionnaire for
assessing psychopathology.
Results
Demographic comparisons
Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine the differences between the GSO and ISO
groups with regard to ethnicity and marital status. The results of these analyses indicated that
the ISOs were more likely to be Caucasian (x2(1)�4.27, p�0.039), while GSOs were more likely to be Hispanic (x2(1)�4.54, p�0.033) or African American (x
2 (1)�13.00,
p�0.003). Further, ISOs were more likely to be married (x2(1)�20.455, pB0.001) while GSOs were more likely to have never been married (x2(1)�8.672, p�0.003) or to have been widowed (x2(1)�5, p�0.02). No differences were noted in age between the two sampled groups (t(47)��0.465, p]0.05). As the GSO group was incarcerated at the time of assessment, no comparisons with ISO subjects could be made with regard to employment
status. Regarding education, 74% of the ISO group had at least attempted college, whereas
GSO subjects, on average, came close to completing high school (11.63 years). Conclusions
regarding the impact of education level must be made with considerable caution, because
inferential comparisons between groups regarding education level cannot be made.
Comparison of MMPI-2 S-scores
Results indicated that means of the ten MMPI-2 clinical scales generally fell below the clinical
range. Table I provides a summary of the means and standard deviations for each of the
validity scales and the 10 clinical scales for the ISOs. There was no indication of a commonly
occurring code type with a frequency greater than 3. Recurrent code types included: 3/1
(n�3), 4/3 (n�3), 4/6 (n�2), 1/2 (n�2) and 0/2 (n�2).
Table I. Comparison of the internet sex offender (ISO) and the general sex offender (GSO) means on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd edition (MMPI-2) validity and clinical scales
Scale
Mean ISO
(n�48) SD ISO
(n�48) Mean GSO
(n�104) SD GSO
(n�104)
L* 54.00 11.81 60.63 13.05
F* 50.71 11.08 61.68 20.16
K 54.65 10.88 53.71 13.65
1 HS: hypochondriasis 55.71 12.38 59.99 13.81
2 D: depression 57.00 13.93 55.99 11.56
3 HY: hysteria 57.27 13.64 56.32 13.05
4 PD: psychopathic deviate* 57.23 13.14 66.52 11.88
5 MF: masculinity�femininity 50.31 8.31 48.96 8.71 6 PA: paranoia 58.50 12.49 59.95 13.73
7 PT: psychasthenia 55.44 13.61 56.83 11.91
8 SC: schizophrenia* 55.83 13.17 63.08 15.37
9 MA: hypomania 50.83 9.88 52.53 9.66
10 SI: social introversion 49.40 13.26 52.31 12.21
*Significant differences at pB0.05.
MMPI profiles of internet sex offenders 143
Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) comparing the MMPI-2 scores of the ISO and GSO
groups indicated that individuals in the ISO group scored significantly lower on the validity
scales of L (F(1,121)�8.115, p50.005, h 2�0.063), F (F(1,121)�11.891, p50.001,
h2�0.089) and the clinical scales of Pd (psychopathic deviate) (F(1,121)�16.477, p5 0.000, h2�0.120) and Sc (schizophrenia) (F(1,121)�7.256, p50.008, h
2�0.057) relative to individuals in the GSO group. A comparison of the MMPI-2 validity and clinical scales for the
ISO and GSO groups can be found in both Table I and Figure 1.
Discussion
The findings of this study indicate that internet sex offenders are a heterogeneous group with
considerable within-group differences. This heterogeneity was evidenced by comparisons of
clinical elevations in the present sample with those reported by Summerhill (2003). The
finding that only three of the 48 subjects sampled shared a code type demonstrates further
the heterogeneity of this population and aligns with existing literature on the limited utility of
the MMPI-2 in differentiating between sex offenders. This heterogeneity of code types is
consistent with the general lack of a specific MMPI-2 elevation among internet offenders.
This suggests that despite behavioural differences, ISOs and GSOs appear to have a common
goal with respect to sexual gratification and are further similar by virtue of being heterogenous
in terms of their personality characteristics. That is, there is no personality profile common to
those individuals in the present ISO sample, nor does there appear to be a common profile for
GSOs. However, results reflecting significantly lower scores on the L, F, Pd and Sc scales on
the MMPI appear to suggest that some differences may exist between the two groups. As an
aside, it is interesting to note that a variety of internet offender MMPI-2 code types were
Internet Offender/GSO MMPI Mean Comparison
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
L F K HS D HY PD MF PA PT SC MA SI
Clinical Scales
T -s
co re
s
Internet Offenders GSO
FIGURE 1. Comparison of the internet sex offender (ISO) and the general sex offender (GSO) means on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd edition (MMPI-2) validity and clinical scales. Significant differences noted on scales
L, F, Pd and Sc at p B 0.05.
144 S. Tomak et al.
found in the present ISO sample, including 4/3 (n�3), 3/1 (n�3), 4/6 (n�2), 0/2 (n�2) and 1/2 (n�2), which appear to correspond to profiles associated more commonly with child molesters. According to Erickson et al. (1987) and Watkins (2000), child molesters
have been known to produce a 4-2/2-4 profile. Erickson et al. (1987) also reported that the 4-
3/3-4 profile is common among incestuous biological fathers. Duthie and McIvor (1990)
indicated that 8% of their sample of child molesters had elevations on scales 3 and 4 that fell
within the subclinical range of 60 and 65. In contrast to these researchers, Rader (1977)
stated that a 4-3/3-4 profile was prevalent among the rapists in their sample. Kalichman
(1991) reported that paedophiles tend to display elevations on the Hs and Hy scales of the
‘‘neurotic triad’’ and the Pa, Pt and Sc scales of the ‘‘psychotic triad’’.
The present findings regarding MMPI-2 profiles of internet sex offenders suggest that
ISOs share similar within-group heterogeneity, as do other sexual offending groups described
in past research (e.g. child molesters and rapists) (Duthie & McIvor, 1990; Hall, Graham &
Shepherd, 1991; Hall, Shepherd & Mudrak, 1992; Heersink & Strassberg, 1995; Kalichman
et al., 1989; Mann et al., 1992; McCreary, 1975; Shealy et al., 1991; Yanagida & Ching
1993). In effect, individuals arrested for internet sexual offences appear to be different from
other offenders who have been incarcerated for a contact sexual offence, in that they appear
less deviant, less physically aggressive and less impulsive. Other researchers (i.e. Sheldon and
Howitt, 2008) have added another point of evidence suggesting that there may be a
discernible difference between internet and contact sex offenders, in that ISOs have been
found to have more sexual fantasy pertinent to their offending but fewer confrontational
fantasies than do contact offenders.
Given the limitations of the present study, the results should be interpreted with caution.
One limitation of the present research is that there is a paucity of existing comparison research
to strengthen the findings and implications of the data. Moreover, the use of a small, non-
random sample and the inequality between the ISO and GSO groups may promote bias and
limit the generalizability of the results. For example, 31 of the 48 individuals in the ISO group
had downloaded and/or distributed images of child pornography, while the remainder had
been in communication with a child. This supports the heterogeneity within the group and
may reflect different offences and/or classes of offenders. Moreover, regarding the noted
inequality in groups, the present authors believe that the differences in ethnicity and marital
status between the ISO and GSO groups are probably artefacts of the demographic variable of
the group itself. Given educational and economic status, it stands to reason that an offender
group that relies on costly technology (i.e. computers with internet) would include a
demographic known for its higher socioeconomic status (SES) and educational background.
It also stands to reason that a sex offender group that is more easily concealed (Bates &
Metcalf, 2007) is more likely to attract and maintain spousal relationships.
Another explanation for the variability between the groups may be accounted for by
varying levels of deviancy of sexual fantasy. For example, Curnoe and Langevin (2002)
completed multivariate analyses of sex offenders based on the existence of deviant sexual
fantasies and MMPI-2 validity and clinical scales. They noted that offenders with sexually
deviant fantasies had elevated scores on the F, Pd, Mf, Pa and Sc scales compared to the non-
deviant fantasizers, thus postulating that deviant fantasizers were likely to be more
emotionally unstable and socially alienated. Moreover, the MMPI-2 has shown promise in
distinguishing between sex offenders that admit to and those who deny their crimes, as
evidenced by elevations on the psychopathic deviate and schizophrenia scales (Marshall &
Hall, 1995).
Another variable that may have contributed to bias in the MMPI-2 data is that the
internet offenders may have been attempting to present themselves in a favourable light
MMPI profiles of internet sex offenders 145
during completion of the psychosexual risk assessment. The fact that the ISO group and GSO
group (consisting of only incarcerated offenders) differed in settings (i.e. contact offense
versus offense conducted through cyberspace) may account for the variance in the results.
Additionally, the fact that ISOs did not endorse problems with intimacy or dealing with
negative emotions, distortions in sexual scripts and antisocial cognitions on their MMPI-2
profiles suggests that they may be more similar to individuals in the general populations than
speculated originally. The absence of the aforementioned psychological problems ascribed
commonly to sexual offenders similarly adds to the challenge of differentiating this subgroup
from the general population. While adding an additional control group made up of random
sex offenders referred to the same private treatment facility for a psychosexual risk assessment
would have been ideal, this stated methodology was not feasible at the time of this study.
Nevertheless, the current authors believe that utilization of the MMPI-2 supplemental scales
and Harris�Lingoes subscales as additional variables may have proved beneficial in providing a more concentrated test of the hypothesis.
In summary, in light of the paucity in empirical literature specific to internet sex offenders,
the current study filled a void by examining the personality characteristics and psychopathology
of a select sample of ISOs. Investigation of personality characteristics and psychopathology of
ISOs is essential to understanding further within-group differences among sex offenders. It
appears that the ISO is not merely the ‘‘same old’’ sexual predator using a new medium to
acquire victims. This is consistent with the proposal set forth by Cooper et al. (2006), that
sexual activity on the internet will fall just short of illegal behaviour but may none the less
interfere seriously with the development and maintenance of a satisfying lifestyle.
Unfortunately, the internet has become another mechanism for the commitment of sexual
crimes, allowing offenders to build networks and resources to promote victimization, the
exchange of child pornography and instruction on how to lure victims, all masked by
anonymity. In essence, the internet allows a way for predators to perfect their craft and test
personal skills while avoiding detection. The abundance of child pornography on the internet is
of particular concern due to its likelihood to fuel fantasy, which could in effect exacerbate
offending behaviour and accelerate the offence cycle (Curnoe & Langevin, 2002). Addition-
ally, worldwide access to the internet impacts negatively on the treatment of sex offenders, in
that offenders can find ways to engage in prohibited activities such as viewing pornography,
and consequently violating probation and treatment regimens without being discovered.
The present authors recommend that future research further refine examinations of
personality characteristics and psychopathology of internet sex offenders. Larger sample sizes,
inclusion of a diverse group of internet sex offenders, and matched comparison groups would
provide a stronger basis for movement in this area of research. Additionally, the inclusion of
multiple forms of personality assessments may provide a richer picture of the unique
characteristics of this group of offenders.
In conclusion, ISOs certainly pose a unique challenge to researchers in this field, such
that no single sex offender code type seems to exist. Given the absence of significant elevations
on their MMPI-2 profiles, differentiating ISOs from the general population may pose an
additional challenge to researchers, especially given the ethical and legal challenges in direct
recruitment of sex offenders for studies pertaining to personality and psychopathology. The
review of personality profiles like those obtained from measures such as the MMPI-2 are
certainly one way to approach the measurement and classification issue. Perhaps another
innovative strategy is to conduct a qualitative analysis of online personalities demonstrated by
internet sex offenders as a means of comparison with the more traditional personality
inventories. Given the importance of this type of research for overall prevention and early
intervention with sexual offenders, continued efforts are certainly warranted and in demand.
146 S. Tomak et al.
References
Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittleman, M. & Rouleau, J. L. (1988). Multiple paraphilic
diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 16, 153�168. Anderson, W. P. & Kunce, J. T. (1979). Sex offenders: Three personality types. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35,
671�676. Araji, S. & Finkelhor, D. (1985). Explanations of pedophilia: Review of empirical research. Bulletin of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 13, 17�35. Armentrout, J. A. & Hauer, A. L. (1978). MMPIs of rapists of adults, rapists of children, and non-rapist sex offenders.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 330�332. Barbaree, H. E. & Seto, M. C. (1997). Pedophilia: Assessment and treatment. In D. R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.),
Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 175�193). New York: Guilford Press. Barnard, G. W., Fuller, A. K., Robbins, L. & Shaw, T. (1989). The Child Molester: An Integrated Approach to Evaluation
and Treatment. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Bates, A. & Metcalf, C. (2007). A psychometric comparison of internet and non-internet sex offenders from a
community treatment sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13, 11�20. Beech, A. R. (1998). A psychometric typology of child abusers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 42, 319�339. Bickley, J. & Beech, A. R. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical practice. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 51�69. Blackburn, R. (1993). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Carter, M. E. (1999). Use of the MMPI-2 and penile plethysmograph to differentiate between three types of sexual
offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 70, 23�32. Conte, J. R. (1991). The nature of sexual offenses against children. In C. R. Hollin & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical
Approaches to Sex Offenders and Their Victims (pp. 11�34). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cooper, A., Golden, G. & Marshall, W. L. (2006). Online sexuality and online sexual problems: Skating on thin ice. In
W. L. Marshall, Y. M. Fernandez, L. E. Marshall & G. A. Serran (Eds.), Sexual Offender Treatment: Controversial
Issues (pp. 79�91). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Curnoe, S. & Langevin, R. (2002). Personality and deviant sexual fantasies: An examination of the MMPIs of sex
offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 803�815. Danni, K. A. & Hampe, G. D. (2000). An analysis of predictors of child sex offender types using presentence
investigation reports. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 490�504. Durkin, K. F. (1997). Misuse of internet by pedophiles: Implications for law enforcement and probation practice.
Federal Probation, 61, 14�18. Durkin, K. F. & Bryant, C. D. (1995). ‘‘Log on to sex’’: Some notes on the carnal computer and erotic cyberspace as
an emerging research frontier. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 179�200. Duthie, B. & McIvor, D. L. (1990). A new system for cluster-coding child molester MMPI-2 profile types. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 17, 199�214. Erickson, W. D., Luxenberg, M. G., Walbek, N. H. & Seely, R. K. (1987). Frequency of two-point code types among
sex offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 566�570. Freeman, K., Dexter-Mazza, E. T. & Hoffman, K. C. (2005). Comparing personality characteristics of juvenile sex
offenders and non-sex offending delinquent peers: A Preliminary Investigation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research
and Treatement, 17, 3�12. Groth, N. A. (1979). Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender. New York: Plenum Press.
Hall, G. C. (1989). WAIS-R and MMPI-2profiles of men who have sexually assaulted children: Evidence of limited
utility. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 404�412. Hall, G. C., Graham, J. R. & Shepherd, J. B. (1991). Three methods of developing MMPI-2 taxonomies of sexual
offenders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 56, 2�13. Hall, G. C., Maiuro, R. D., Vitaliano, P. P. & Proctor, W. C. (1986). The utility of the MMPI-2 with men who have
sexually assaulted children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 493�496. Hall, G. C., Shepherd, J. B. & Mudrak, P. (1992). MMPI-2 taxonomies of child sexual and nonsexual offenders:
A cross-validation and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 127�137. Heersink, N. & Strassberg, D. S. (1995). A normative and descriptive study of the MMPI-2 with acknowledged child
molesters. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 17, 377�391. Hellwege, J. (2000). Law enforcement, legislators grapple with child sexual exploitation on the net. Trial Lawyers of
America, 36, 13�16. Kalichman, S. C. (1990). Affective and personality characteristics of MMPI-2 profile subgroups of incarcerated
rapists. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 443�459.
MMPI profiles of internet sex offenders 147
Kalichman, S. C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality characteristics of criminal sexual offenders as a function of
victim age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, 187�197. Kalichman, S. C., Szymanowski, D., McKee, G., Taylor, J. & Craig, M. E. (1989). Cluster analytically derived MMPI-
2 profile subgroups of incarcerated adult rapists. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 149�155. Kim, P. Y. & Bailey, J. M. (1997). Sidestreets on the information superhighways: Paraphilias and sexual variations on
the internet. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22, 35�43. Knight, R. A. & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic
models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), The Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and
Treatment of the Offenders (pp. 222�293). New York: Plenum Press. Langevin, R., Wright, P. & Handy, L. (1990a). Use of the MMPI-2 and its derived scales with sex offenders: I.
Reliability and validity studies. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 245�291. Langevin, R., Wright, P. & Handy, L. (1990b). Use of the MMPI-2 and its derived scales with sex offenders: II.
Reliability and criterion validity studies. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 453�486. Lanyon, R. I. (1991). Theories of sex offending. In C. R. Hollin & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical Approaches to Sex
Offenders and Their Victims (pp. 35�54). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lanyon, R. I. (2001). Psychological assessment procedures in sex offending. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 32, 253�260. Levin, S. M. & Stava, L. (1987). Personality characteristics of sex offenders: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16,
57�79. Mann, J., Stenning, W. & Borman, C. (1992). The utility of the MMPI-2 with pedophiles. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 18, 59�74. Marantz, S. (2005). Differences among inmates in comparison with their offense. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 65(10-B), 5451.
Marshall, W. L. (1996). Assessment, treatment, and theorizing about sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23,
162�199. Marshall, W. L. (1997). Pedophilia: Psychology and theory. In D. R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance:
Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 152�193). New York: Guilford Press. Marshall, W. L. & Hall, G. C. N. (1995). The value of the MMPI-2 in deciding forensic issues in accused sexual
offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 205�219. McCreary, C. P. (1975). Personality differences among child molesters. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39, 591�593. Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D. & Wolak, J. (2005). The internet and family and acquaintance sexual abuse. Child
Maltreatment, 10, 49�60. Olander, R. (2004). Defensive styles and other factors that differentiate between two types of child molesters: Use of
the MCMI-II, MMPI-2, and the 16PF. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering,
64(7-B), 3537.
Quinsey, V. L., Arnold, L. S. & Pruesse, M. G. (1980). MMPI-2 profiles of men referred for a pretrial psychiatric
assessment as a function of offence type. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 410�417. Rader, C. M. (1977). MMPI-2 profile types of exposers, rapists, and assaulters in a court services population. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 61�69. Ridenour, T. A., Miller, A. R., Joy, K. L. & Dean, R. S. (1997). ‘‘Profile’’ analysis of the personality characteristics of
child molesters using the MMPI-2. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 575�586. Shealy, L., Kalichman, S. C., Henderson, M. C., Szymanowski, D. & McKee, G. (1991). MMPI-2 profile subtypes of
incarcerated sex offenders against children. Violence and Victims, 6, 201�212. Sheldon, K. & Howitt, D. (2008). Sexual fantasy in paedophile offenders: Can any model explain satisfactorily new
findings from a study of Internet and contact sexual offenders? Legal & Criminological Psychology, 13, 137�158. Siegel, S. L. (2002). Typologies of sex offenders: A Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI-2) cluster
analytic study. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 62(9-B), 4236.
Summerhill, R. R. (2003). Assessing diagnostic and treatment effectiveness of a sex offender population. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Argosy University, Phoenix, AZ.
Ward, T. & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters’ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 821�838. Watkins, W. U. (2000). MMPI-2 profile configurations associated with convicted sex offenders from two West Virginia
department of correction facilities. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,
60(11-B), 5798.
Yanagida, E. H. & Ching, J. W. (1993). MMPI-2 profiles of child abusers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 569�576.
148 S. Tomak et al.
