Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

Employing mixed methods to explore motivational patterns of repeat

sex offenders
Joan A. Reid a,⁎, Eric Beauregard b, Karla M. Fedina c, Emily N. Frith c
a
School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 113 Wilder Street, Suite 400, Lowell, MA 01854, United States
b
School of Criminology, Centre for Research on Sexual Violence, Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada
c
Department of Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-3807, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 9 July 2013 Purpose: Understanding the motivation of sex offenders plays a key role in societal perception of victim cul-
pability and offender responsibility. This study identified patterns of offender motivation, assessed motiva-
tion stability across offenses, and estimated the influence of offense/victim specific factors on motivation in
comparison to offender factors.
Methods: Employing mixed-methods sequential explanatory research design, the study utilized confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to identify motivational factors underlying 346 crime events. Second, motivation stabil-
ity was assessed across offenses committed by 69 offenders. Finally, interview data were reviewed to assess
whether offender types emerged corresponding to CFA results.
Results: A motivational typology was identified comprised of five offender groupings built upon two underly-
ing constructs, one driven by sexual gratification and the other linked to anger/aggression. Minimal change in
motivation was observed across offenses committed by the same offender against different victims. Offense/
victim specific influence (22-23%) and offender related influence (77-78%) were similarly distributed with
both sexual and anger-driven motivation.
Conclusions: Motivation plays a key role in offending. Offense/victim specific factors have similar proportional
influence on crime motivation in comparison to offender factors irrespective of the type of motivation. Contrary
to popular public perception, victim blame is not warranted regardless of what motivates offenders.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction objective examination of evidence, and the skeptical evaluation of con-

While researchers criticize the lack of empirical evidence regarding
the effectiveness of current strategies employed in preventing sexual
violence (Casey & Lindhorst, 2009; Foubert, Godin, & Tatum, 2010;
Tharp et al., 2011) and problems persist in determining what works
to reduce recidivism among sexual offenders (Olver, Stockdale, &
Wormith, 2011), conclusive evidence of the enduring imprint of
sexual violence on victims (e.g., Campbell, Dworkin, & Cabral, 2009)
demands the ardent pursuit of effective prevention and intervention
efforts. In sum, sexual violence impacts the entire person – crushing
expectations of finding safety in the world, shattering affirmative be-
liefs about self-efficacy, and diminishing capacity for intimate rela-
tionships (Herman, 1992).
Although researchers have expressed doubts concerning the utility
of examining sex offender motivation as a means of refining prevention
efforts (Bryden & Grier, 2011); sexual violence, as any other type of
crime and societal problem, “is prevented by accurate knowledge
about its causes, and accurate knowledge can only be obtained by the
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 978 934 3956; fax: +1 978 934 3077.
E-mail address: Joan_Reid@uml.edu (J.A. Reid).
clusions based on that evidence” (Palmer, 1988, p. 525). Relatedly, accu-
rate or inaccurate knowledge regarding criminal motivations of sex
offenders plays a key role in societal perceptions of victim culpability
and offender responsibility. Recent studies have evaluated the impact
of different types of offender motivation on public perception of victim
blame for sex crimes (Angelone, Mitchell, & Lucente, 2012; Mitchell,
Angelone, Kohlberger, & Hirschman, 2009; Sizemore, 2013). For exam-
ple, Mitchell et al. (2009) found that victims of rape by strangers were
perceived as more culpable in sexually-motivated offenses than in
violence-driven sex offenses. This disparity in victim blame is consid-
ered a consequence of the notion that sexually-motivated offenses are
more likely to be prompted by victim characteristics and behaviors
than violence-driven offenses; thereby inferring that victims are more
culpable in cases of sexually-motivated crimes (Angelone et al., 2012;
Mitchell et al., 2009). Providing even more compelling evidence of
the impact of any knowledge regarding offender motivation on victim
blame, Angelone et al. (2012) found “simply providing knowledge
of the perpetrator’s motivation [whether sexual or non-sexual] was
associated with decreased perceptions of the victim’s culpability and in-
creased perceptions of the victim’s credibility in a case involving date
rape” (p. 2595).

0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.008
204 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
In terms of assisting in the healing process after sexual victimization,
exposure to victim blaming attitudes has consistently been found to pro-
duce greater negative outcomes in survivors of sexual assault (Campbell,
Ahrens, Sefl, Wasco, & Barnes, 2001). Additionally, sexual assault survi-
vors consider explanations of the causes of their victimization, particu-
larly knowledge that may protect them from future harm, as beneficial
and important for their healing (Ahrens, Cabral, & Abeling, 2009).
Therefore, increasing the potential for avoidance of sexual victimiza-
tion and changing societal perceptions, even self-perceptions, regarding
victims of sexual violence necessitates exploring the motivation of
offenders. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to identify motiva-
tional constructs underlying 346 sex crimes committed by 69 repeat sex
offenders incarcerated in a non-clinical setting using a mixed methods
approach. Based on previous research regarding motivations of sex
offenders, two primary and independent motivational constructs were
expected to be identified; one driven by a desire for sexual gratification
and one linked to vindictiveness or aggression (Knight & Prentky, 1990;
Knight, 1999). Utilizing a sample of sex offenses committed by repeat
offenders facilitated the examination of stability in motivational pat-
terns across offenses committed against different victims by the same
offender and permitted the objective estimate of the proportional influ-
ence of offense or victim specific factors on crime motivation in compar-
ison to offender factors.
Redefining the role of motivation
Enhancing opportunities for evading sexual victimization and re-
ducing recidivism rates among sexual offenders necessitates exploring
the common motivations underlying these crimes (Brantingham &
Brantingham, 1993; Burgess, Commons, Safarik, Looper, & Ross, 2007;
Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2009; Robertiello & Terry, 2007). However,
the study of motivation is considered by some to be relatively
unproductive in terms of crime prevention. For example, Cornish and
Clarke (2003) state that “situational crime prevention, with its selective
attention to the process of crime commission itself, tends to treat the
offender's motivation as a ‘given’” (p. 50). As a result, research focused
on understanding offender motivation, a foundational component of
several major criminological theories (Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Cohen
& Felson, 1979), lags behind criminological research focused on other el-
ements of the crime process (Paulsen & Robinson, 2004; Sasse, 2005).
Yet, motivation has been defined as “a dispositional variable that people
bring with them to every encounter” and also as a transactional phe-
nomenon “activated in any encounter by the demands, constraints,
and resources presented by the environment of action” (Lazarus, 1991,
p. 819). In other words, motivation is not simply a trait, rather motiva-
tion emerges upon the fusion of “a particular motive trait with a suitable
environment” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 819). Subsequently, motivation triggers
and energizes behavior (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981). Therefore,
without knowledge of offender motivation, both what constitutes a
criminogenic situation as well as the potentiality of crime within any
given situation remains unclear (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2009).
Moreover, recent advances in research within the field of behav-
ioral economics, as well as criminology, suggest that the influence of
motivation on choice and behavior needs to be reexamined (Ariely,
2008; Bouffard, 2011; Cullen, 2011; Piquero, Paternoster, Pogarsky,
& Loughran, 2011). Based on numerous studies, Ariely (2008) con-
cluded that people tend to behave irrationally, yet in a predictable
or systematic fashion, with their choices influenced by previously
understudied and misunderstood influences such as motivational
drives. Criminological researchers examining the links between internal
constraints and externally imposed crime deterrents concluded that
motivation may overshadow any type of internal or external crime de-
terrent (Tittle & Botchkovar, 2005). Research studies, utilizing samples
from the general population, have documented that people systemati-
cally make irrational choices based on factors such as sexual arousal
or anger (Ariely & Loewenstein, 2006; Bouffard, 2011; Carmichael &
Piquero, 2004; Loewenstein, Nagin, & Paternoster, 1997). This research
of behavioral economists and criminologists regarding the impact of
emotion and motivation on behavior suggests sex offending may be
better understood by exploring these understudied forces (Loughran,
Paternoster, Piquero, & Pogarsky, 2011).
More specifically, the role of motivation of sex offenders has long
been considered critical in developing targeted and effective treat-
ment interventions for sex offenders. However, concerted efforts
to understand motivation of sex offenders with application to crime
prevention have become sullied and stagnant due to somewhat in-
flexible but well-intentioned perspectives surrounding the topic
(Bryden & Grier, 2011). On one hand, the popular and entrenched
notion among victim advocates and rape crisis counselors espouses
that “the real cause of rape is gender inequality” (Campbell, Baker, &
Mazurek, 1998, p. 473). Belief that the motivation of rapists is primarily
generated by a need for male dominance rather than by a desire for sex-
ual gratification has constructively altered the culture of victim-blaming
that typically surrounds sex crimes (Palmer, 1988). As shown by the
previously mentioned research, observers are more likely to assign re-
sponsibility to victims of sexual assault if the offender is thought to be
motived by a desire for sexual gratification rather than by aggression
(Mitchell et al., 2009).
However, after a lengthy review of four decades of research and
commentary regarding motivation of rapists, Bryden and Grier
(2011) deduced, “No single line of research is conclusive, but we be-
lieve that the weight of the evidence indicates that sexual gratification
is rapists’ most common (if not universal) goal” (p. 276). The re-
viewers allow for the possibility of other additional motivations for
rape but assert that “there is no reason to believe that they are often
more influential than the sexual goal” (p. 276). So, while a reduction
in victim blaming can be attributed to progressive affirmations
asserting that “the major motive for sexual assault is power … using
sex as the weapon” (Rape Advocacy Program, n.d., para. 3), scholarly
research has consistently documented sexual arousal and excitement
as a common, if not universal, motivating factor of sex offenders
(for reviews, see Bryden & Grier, 2011; Robertiello & Terry, 2007).
In sum, incongruity exists between research findings linking the
motivation of sex offender to sexual gratification that may potentially
facilitate societal tendencies toward victim blaming, and the popular-
ized script regarding the motive for sexual assault as power and control
that tends to result in less victim blaming. Therefore, a key purpose of
this study was to mitigate this incongruity by identifying motivational
constructs underlying offenses by repeat sex offenders and assessing
the relative stability of offender motivation across offenses involving
different victims. Perhaps in this way, a more accurate message may
be found – one congruent with empirical findings that also minimizes
victim blame.
Previous research related to motivational typologies of sex offenders
Based on the need for better treatment strategies for sex offenders,
research on sex offenders has frequently segregated samples of sex
offenders by age of the victim (Beauregard, Leclerc, & Lussier, 2012;
Knight & Guay, 2006; Robertiello & Terry, 2007). In order to investigate
typologies of rapists, researchers selected offenders who assaulted only
adults or adolescents over the age of 16, removing all other offenders
with reported offenses against children or younger adolescents as well
as those with offenses involving children, younger adolescents, and/or
adults from samples of sex offenders. Similarly, to study motivational
typologies of child molesters, offenders who assaulted adults, older
adolescents, or a mixture of victims across several age groupings were
removed from the samples. Although separate typologies for rapists
and child molesters may be useful in determining treatment modalities,
research has shown that sex offenders are not always specialized or
limited to one type of victim (i.e., assault only adults, adolescents
or children) but many sex offenders crossover between victim types
 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
(Beauregard et al., 2012; Heil, Ahlmeyer, & Simons, 2003; Lussier, 2005;
Robertiello & Terry, 2007).
As previously noted at the broadest level of classification, the dis-
tinction in motivation of rapists (those who commit sex offenses
against adults or adolescents over the age of 16) has been commonly
partitioned by whether the offense was sexually motivated or
non-sexually motivated (Bryden & Grier, 2011; Robertiello & Terry,
2007). Further specification of motivation of rapists hinged upon
these two basic classifications, with compensatory and sadistic types
considered sexually-driven while power/control and opportunistic
types considered non-sexually motivated (for review, see Robertiello
& Terry, 2007). Motivation of those who commit sex crimes against
children has generally been categorized as fixated or regressed, with
fixated offenders possessing a compulsive sexual attraction to chil-
dren and regressed offenders not being fixated on children but rather
these offenders are thought to engage in offending due to stressors
(Robertiello & Terry, 2007). However, in describing the motivational
typology of child molesters, Knight and Guay (2006) noted that the
motivation typology of child molesters “could also be hypothetically
differentiated on the basis of dichotomous judgments of the presence
and absence of two motivations for rape – sex and aggression” (p. 35).
Two types of child molesters labeled Compensatory and Impulse types
were expected to show lower levels of aggression, while the Impulse
and Displaced-Aggression types were characterized as lower in sexual
motivation (Knight & Guay, 2006).
The most relied upon research methodology for developing moti-
vation typologies of sex offenders, whether rapists or child molesters,
has involved the use of cluster analysis with investigators or clinical
experts used in the initial classification of offenders or to validate
the typologies (Knight & Guay, 2006). After reviewing the current
state of research on offender motivation, Hicks and Sales (2006) ad-
vocated that research advance beyond the use of cluster-based analy-
ses, such as those based on clinical assessments, by first analytically
identifying motivational factors and then validating these findings by
assessing the degree to which groups emerge from the analytically-
identified constructs. The advantage of analytic methods, such as confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA), over group-based analysis that incorpo-
rate clinically-derived taxonomies, is that such methods are more
“agnostic” with respect to theory and less vulnerable to threats to inter-
nal validity stemming from investigator bias (Moffitt, 2006, p. 585).
Although several motivational typologies have been proposed,
each with limited empirical validation (for reviews, see Robertiello &
Terry, 2007; Knight & Guay, 2006); Knight and Prentky (1990) devel-
oped the motivational typology of sex offenders with the greatest
level of empirical support and with potential for universal applicabil-
ity to all types of sex offenders (Knight & Guay, 2006). Knight and
Prentky proposed that two overarching and independent motivational
constructs influence sex offenders: a) desire for sexual gratification,
and b) drive characterized by vindictiveness or aggression (see also
Knight, 1999). Grounded upon these two drives, Knight and Prentky
(1990) hypothesized four types of sex offenders, which were further
divided into subtypes. The first type, labeled opportunistic, was com-
prised of impulsive offenders who pursued available opportunities
in order to get immediate sexual gratification. These opportunistic
offenders did not exhibit excessive violence but rather only used
aggression as a means of obtaining sexual gratification, with little re-
gard for the victim. Second, Knight and Prentky described sexual of-
fenders seeking sexual gratification who possessed extensive sexual
fantasies and sexual preoccupation fused with aggression, dominance,
or coercion. These offenders were further categorized as sadistic
and non-sadistic. A third type, labeled vindictive, was described as
primarily angry toward women. As a result, sexual assaults perpe-
trated by vindictive offenders included humiliation, degradation,
and physical harm of the victim. The fourth type, labeled pervasively
angry, exhibited generalized anger and presented with a history of
antisocial and aggressive behavior. These offenders used excessive
205
force and violence; however, their rage was not sexualized as with
sadistic offenders, nor was it solely directed at women as with vin-
dictive offenders.
Method
Based on the recommendation of Hicks and Sales (2006) and the
need for analytically-derived motivational typologies of offenders,
the current study endeavored to identify motivational constructs
using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Based on previous research,
two primary and independent motivational constructs were expected
to be identified; one rooted in a desire for sexual gratification and
one linked to vindictiveness or aggression (Knight & Prentky, 1990;
Knight, 1999). To confirm the analytically-identified factors, explica-
tory interview data collected from the sample of repeat sex offenders
regarding each offense were reviewed to assess whether offender
types emerged comparable to the typological schematic of Knight
and Prentky (1990).
Participants and procedures
Data collected regarding 346 sexual offenses committed by a sam-
ple of 69 incarcerated repeat sex offenders were used in this study.
Repeat offenders were selected for the study sample, as they
assaulted more than one victim and it was possible to assess change
in motivation across assaults. The sampling frame of this study
consisted of all male repeat sex offenders with at least one of their
offenses involving a stranger and who had been sentenced to two or
more years of incarceration between 1994 and 2005 in the province
of Quebec, Canada. Of the 92 offenders who met these criteria, 72
agreed to participate and 69 provided qualitative data required by
the mixed-methods sequential explanatory design of the study. Of
the 20 offenders who met the study criteria yet did not participate,
only 9 refused to participate. Eleven offenders were unavailable due
to their mental state, disciplinary issues, or transfer to different insti-
tution. Depending on the number of offenses committed and partici-
pant verbosity, the lengths of interviews ranged from 2 to 12 hours.
Information regarding the offenses provided during the interviews
was compared with police reports. If discrepancies existed between
offender accounts and police records, information in the police report
was used.
Among the study participants, the majority were White (93%;
n = 63) and mean age of the study sample at their first offense
was 30.7 years old (SD = 9.4). Rather than excluding certain sex
offenders based on victim age as is generally done when studying
motivation of sex offenders, this study used the complete sample of
repeat sex offenders. The exclusion of offenders who show variation
in the ages of their victims was inconsistent with the purpose of the
study that included investigating change or stability in motivation
of sex offenders across offenses committed against different victims.
Within the sample were offenders who had exclusively sexually
assaulted adult females (n = 16), female adolescents, with adoles-
cents defined as those 13 to 17 years old (n = 6), male adolescents
(n = 1), girls with children defined as those 12 years old and under
(n = 6), boys (n = 4), or some combination (n = 36). This sample
of sex offenders, integrating offenders who victimized across different
age groups, parallels prior research findings indicating that the
majority of sex offenders do not specialize by victimizing one age
group or victim type (e.g., Heil et al., 2003). The inclusion of offenses
committed by offenders who exclusively victimized adults, only ado-
lescents, or only children as well as those who victimized more indis-
criminately into one study sample is comparable to samples used
in several prior studies regarding sex offender typologies (Knight &
Prentky, 1990; Rosenberg & Knight, 1988). The number of offenses
per offender ranged from 2 to 37 offenses. Thirty-two percent of
206 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212

offenders reported information on two offenses, 30% on three of- Table 1

fenses, 12% on four offenses, and 9% reported on five or more offenses. Descriptive statistics and variance explained for all indicators in CFA (N = 346)

Indicators
Indicators of motivation EMOTIONS Positive Negative Multinomial Variance
Responses Explained
Motivation may be self-reported or detected by inference from R2
other types of indicators. Assessing motivation through inference Primary emotion 61% 58% sexually aroused 62%
has advantages over explicitly self-reported motivation in that it is before offense 3% happy/calm
less likely to be filtered by offender interpretation or biased by offender 39% 25% angry/frustrated
inadequacies in self-awareness (Hicks & Sales, 2006). Motivation is as- 7% anxious/agitated
7% sad/empty/lonely
sumed to activate behavior, and to be integrated with and influenced Primary emotion 83% 82% sexually aroused 84%
by cognitions and emotions (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981; Lazarus, during offense 1% happy/calm
1991). Therefore, motivation can be inferred by behaviors, cognitions, 17% 12% angry/frustrated
and emotions. With specific application to motivations of sex offenders, 2% anxious/agitated
3% sad/empty/lonely
Prentky and Knight (1991) enumerated indicators useful for differenti-
Primary emotion 28% 19% happy/calm 25%
ating motivation among sex offenders including offender emotion, after offense 9% sexually aroused
offender thoughts and attitudes toward victims, and offender behavior 72% 41% guilty/regret
linked to victim treatment. 21% anxious/agitated
Accordingly, analogous variables available in the data were utilized 7% sad/empty/lonely
3% angry/frustrated
as manifest indicators to identify motivational factors underlying the
346 sex offenses assessed in this study. Displayed in Table 1 are the COGNITIONS YES NO
descriptive statistics of the 14 indicators of offender emotions, cogni-
Victim provoked offense 17% 83% 27%
tions, and behaviors that were included in the analysis. Indicators of Victim consented 18% 82% 92%
offender emotion available in the data were offender self-reported Victim deserved offense 4% 96% 36%
primary emotion before, during, and after the offense. These indica- Victim highly attractive 54% 46% 32%
tors were originally collected as multinomial variables. To facilitate
Positive Negative Multinomial
inclusion in factor analysis the indicators were dichotomized, with Responses
“0” indicating positive emotions and “1” indicating negative emotions.
Victim emotion 20% 12% sexually aroused 79%
The breakdown of the original multinomial variables and the descrip-
during offense 8% happy/calm
tive statistics for the modified binominal variables are shown in 80% 67% anxious/afraid
Table 1. 12% angry/frustrated
Also displayed in Table 1 are dichotomous indicators of offender 1% sad/empty/lonely
cognitions incorporated in the factor analysis including the belief
BEHAVIORS YES NO
that the victim consented, that the victim provoked the offense, and
that the victim deserved the offense. Also, offender rating of victim Force used 41% 59% 91%
Physical harm 20% 80% 46%
attractiveness was included as an indicator of offender cognition. In
Verbal hostility 56% 44% 94%
addition, offender report of victim emotion during the offense was Humiliated victim 10% 90% 57%
included as a cognitive indicator. As with the indicators of offender Selection of victim based 63% 37% 42%
emotion, to facilitate inclusion in the factor analysis this indicator on vulnerability
Selection of victim 36% 64% 48%
was dichotomized into a binominal variable. For all dichotomous
based on physical
yes/no variables, no was coded “0” and yes was coded “1”. Indicators characteristic
of offender behavior associated with victim treatment incorporated in
the factor analysis are also noted in Table 1 including force used,
physical harm of the victim, verbal hostility toward the victim, and standard error estimates when using data that are coarsely catego-
purposed humiliation of the victim. Other behavioral indicators in- rized and/or non-normally distributed (Brown, 2006; Flora & Curran,
cluded in the analysis were victim selection based on vulnerability 2004; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). In addition, as the study data
and victim selection based on physical features.1 were collected regarding offenses committed by repeat offenders,
the analysis was specified as complex. This analytic specification
Analytic plan is appropriate for analyzing data obtained by stratification with
non-independence of observations due to cluster sampling (Muthén
A sequential quantitative-qualitative mixed method approach was & Muthén, 1998-2012). More specifically, this type of analysis pro-
used in this study (Maruna, 2010). Specifically, the statistical analysis vides standards errors and a chi-square test of model fit that takes
of quantitative data related to the 346 sexual offenses was followed into account non-independence of observations (Asparouhov, 2005).
by the examination of data collected from open-ended interview To begin assessment of the hypothesized model, the 14 factor
questions regarding the sexual offenses. The qualitative analysis of indicators were entered into the model based on face validity in
the detailed and explicatory interview data was used to validate and congruence with Knight and Prentky’s (1990) motivational factors
clarify the findings from the quantitative analysis. reflective of a desire for sexual gratification and anger or aggression
(see Fig. 1).2 Next, the CFA model was assessed based on results
Quantitative analysis: confirmatory factor analysis from an array of tests designed to assess different aspects of global
CFA was utilized in this study to confirm whether the selected model fit. A non-significant chi-square suggests that that the hy-
manifest indicators included in analysis were indicative of two under- pothesized CFA model fits the data adequately. Other indicators of
lying motivational factors in accordance with the motivational cate- adequate model fit include: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .95 or
gories proposed by Knight and Prentky (1990). Due to the inclusion higher; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) of .95 or higher; Root Mean Square
of dichotomous indicators, the weighted least squares mean and of Approximation (RMSEA) of .06 or less; and Weighted Root Mean
variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator available with Mplus 7 was Square Residual (WRMR) of 1.0 or less (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline,
utilized as it is designed to provide more accurate parameter and 2005; Yu, 2002).
 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
Fig. 1. Hypothesized two-factor model.
To further assist in the process of evaluating model fit, Mplus pro-
vides modification indices (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). Different
from the previously mentioned model fit indictors that provide
an evaluation of global model fit, modification indices are useful in
evaluating models for specific points of ill fit (Brown, 2006). A modi-
fication index for a specific parameter notes the expected decrease in
the overall model Chi-square test statistic (i.e., how the model overall
fit would improve) if the particular parameter was adopted, fixed, or
freed in the specified model (Brown, 2006). Models that adequately
represent the observed patterns in the data, or have good fit, should
produce modification indices that are small in magnitude (Brown,
2006). Modification indices with values greater than 4.00 were eval-
uated to determine if changes in the model were needed due to par-
ticular areas of poor fit (Brown, 2006).
Subsequent to the evaluation of model fit, the factor loadings of the
indicators were assessed to determine whether they provided support
for the study hypotheses. The factor indicators were all dichotomous
variables and consequently the estimate for these variables took the
form of a conditional probability based on the value of predictor vari-
ables with probit coefficients reported (Liao, 1994). The findings of
good model fit, along with strong and significant loadings of the factor
indicators on the latent factors, were used to determine the quality of
the model (Kline, 2005). Once the CFA was completed, standardized
factor scores associated with each of the identified factors for each
sex offense in the dataset were computed. To facilitate the next step
of the analytic strategy, the offenses with similar standardized factor
207
scores on both motivational factors were grouped together. The de-
gree of stability and change in offender motivation across offenses
was also assessed to validate the usefulness of the CFA findings re-
garding underlying motivational factors.
Qualitative analysis: comparative template analysis of interview data
As recommended by Hicks and Sales (2006), additional clarifying
and explicatory interview data collected from the offenders regarding
each sexual offense were reviewed to determine if a motivational ty-
pology of sexual offenders emerged based on the CFA-derived factors
scores. Specifically, the interview data were analyzed to explore
whether the groupings based on the analytically-derived factor scores
were comparable to the typological schematic provided by the prior
research of Knight and Prentky (1990). To facilitate the analysis of
the interview data, this study utilized template analysis (TA), a sys-
tematic method of analysis designed for use with interview data that
involves several ordered steps cumulating in a data-derived template
used to interpret and frame the study findings (King, 1998) supported
by ATLAS.ti 5.0 software (Muhr & Friese, 2004).
For this study, a priori themes were created based on the research
of Knight and Prentky (1990) including themes contrasting general-
ized anger versus specific anger toward women, impulsive actions
verses planned scheming, sexualized aggression verses instrumental
aggression, and purposed humiliation of victim based in sexualized
versus retaliatory fantasies. During the first step of data analysis, the
explicatory interview data were coded based on the a priori themes.
If these data were encompassed by the a priori themes, they were so
coded. If not, new themes were created or existing themes modified
to accommodate the data. To diminish the likelihood of intercoder
variation that could result from systematic differences between the-
matic framework of each coder, structured discussion with coders
followed each step in the data analysis.
Findings
Confirmatory factor analysis
The two-factor model was entered based on expected patterns of
emotions, behaviors, and cognitions in relation to two different sex
crime motivations (see Fig. 1). 3 This hypothesized model evidenced
good fit to the observed patterns in the data, χ2(69) = 70.03, p =
.44. Supplementary fit indices also demonstrated good fit (CFI = .99;
TLI = .99; RMSEA = .01; WRMR = .70). No modification indicators
were greater than 4.00, suggesting that no substantial model changes
were needed due to improve particular areas of the model (Brown,
2006). However, three non-significant paths with weak effect sizes
were removed, slightly improving model fit. The model modifications
aligned with the general theoretical assumptions of the study. The cog-
nition indicator “victim provoked the offense” loaded significantly on
Factor 2 but not Factor 1, so the model was modified to include this var-
iable as an indicator for Factor 2 only. The cognition indicators, “victim
deserved the offense” and “victim emotion during the offense”, loaded
significantly on Factor 1 but not on Factor 2; so these were modified
as indicators for Factor 2 only. Displayed in Table 2, the final model
evidenced adequate fit to the data. The chi-square was not significant,
χ2(72) = 72.51, p = .46. Supplementary fit indices also demonstrated
good fit (CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .01, with 90% confidence in-
terval .00 -.03; WRMR = .73).
Next, the factors loadings of the indicators were examined.
Sixteen of 18 factor loadings were statistically significant with most
exhibiting strong effect sizes. The emotion indicators, primary emo-
tion before, during, and after the offense loaded positively on to
Factor 1 with moderate effect sizes, signifying that experiencing neg-
ative emotions (i.e., anger, agitation) before and during the offense,
and negative emotions (i.e., guilt, anxiety) after the offense were as-
sociated with Factor 1 (see Table 1). Two cognitive indicators, belief
208 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212

Table 2 regarding two independent motivational constructs (Knight &

CFA unstandardized, standardized, and critical ratio values CFA (standard errors and Prentky, 1990; Knight, 1999). In addition, the R2 corresponding to the
confidence intervals in parentheses; N = 346)
manifest variables indicate that the identified factors explain a consid-
Parameter Estimate Unstd. Coeff. Standarized Critical erable portion of the variance (between 19% and 94%) (see Column 5
(Std. Error) Coeff. [95% CI] Ratio (Z) of Table 1). For further reference, the unstandardized coefficients, stan-
Factor 1 Estimates dardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals, and standard errors
Factor 1 by Primary emotion before .47 (.17) .45 [.13, .77] 2.80 for all model estimates are reported in Table 2.
offense
The degree of stability or change in offender motivation across of-
Factor 1 by Primary emotion during .37 (.14) .35 [.08, .63] 2.58
offense fenses was evaluated in two ways. First, the intraclass correlation
Factor 1 by Primary emotion after offense .38 (.18) .36 [.03, .70] 2.15 (ICC) for each set of factor scores was calculated to determine the
Factor 1 by Victim consented -.94 (.06) -.90 [-1.03, -.76] -16.35 consistency of the factor scores across offenses by the same offender.
Factor 1 by Victim deserved offense .63 (.11) .60 [.40, .81] 5.53 ICC represents the proportion of overall variance at the between
Factor 1 by Victim emotion during .93 (.07) .89 [.76, 1.02] 12.52
offender level. The ICC for the factor labeled anger motivation was
offense
Factor 1 by Force used .95 (.04) .95 [.88, 1.03] 25.81 .79, indicating that 79% of the variance in the anger motivation factor
Factor 1 by Physical harm .71 (.10) .68 [.49, .88] 6.85 scores was at the offender or between offender level, while 21% of the
Factor 1 by Verbal hostility 1.02 (.07) .97 [.90, 1.04] 15.35 anger motivation variance was within offender or at the level of the
Factor 1 by Humiliated victim .79 (.10) .75 [.58, .93] 8.13
offenses. The ICC for the factor labeled sexual motivation was .78, indi-
Factor 2 Estimates
Factor 2 by Primary emotion before -.94 (.24) -.65 [-.92, -.39] -3.92 cating that 78% of the variance in the sexual motivation factor scores
offense was at the offender or between offender level, while 22% of the sexual
Factor 2 by Primary emotion during -1.22 (.36) -.85 [-1.11, -.59] -3.36 motivation variance was within offender or at the level of the offenses.
offense Importantly, the ICC of factor scores for anger motivation and for
Factor 2 by Primary emotion after offense -.51 (.31) -.35 [-.71, .01] -1.63
sexual motivation are almost identical, indicating that the variance
Factor 2 by Victim provoked offense .75 (.32) .52 [.06, .98] 2.37
Factor 2 by Victim consented .51 (.28) .36 [.05, .67] 1.85 in crime motivation is similarly distributed when comparing variation
Factor 2 by Victim highly attractive .81 (.33) .56 [.15, .98] 2.43 at the between offender and within offender levels.
Factor 2 by Victim selection by .94 (.26) .65 [.40, .92] 3.67 Second, offenses with similar standardized factor scores on both
vulnerability
motivational factors were grouped together (see Fig. 2). Offenses by
Factor 2 by Victim selection by physical .70 (.15) .70 [.40, .99] 4.65
characteristic
the same offender were examined to assess stability or change in
Factor 1 with Factor 2 .01 (.11) .01 [-.30, .32] 0.07 motivation across offenses. Of the 69 offenders in the sample, five
2 offenders evidenced qualitative change in type of motivation across
Note: χ (72) = 72.51, p = .46; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .01; WRMR = .73.
offenses (i.e., possessed high levels of sexual motivation with low
anger for one offense and high levels of anger with low sex motivation
that the victim deserved the assault and that the victim experienced for another offense) (see Fig. 3). Review of the five offenders with
negative emotions during the offense (i.e., fear, anger) were positively a qualitative change in motivation revealed that the factor scores of
related to Factor 1 with strong effect sizes. One cognitive indicator, be- the offenses committed these five offenders were moderate and not
lief that the victim consented, was negatively related to Factor 1 with extreme. In other words, the offenses committed by these offenders
a strong effect size. Four behavioral indicators, force used, physical did not score extremely high or extremely low on either anger motiva-
harm of the victim, verbal hostility toward the victim, and purposed tion or sexual motivation. Detailed examination of the individual
humiliation of the victim were all significantly associated to Factor 1 offenses of these offenders revealed exceptionally varied offenses
with strong effect sizes. Based on the factor loadings, anger motivation based on victim age (e.g., 9-year-old child victim of one offense vs.
was selected as the best fitting label for Factor 1, corroborating Knight 55-year-old adult victim of another offense) or assault characteristics
and Prentky’s (1990) prior research regarding anger or aggression as a (e.g., exhibition without any physical contact with the victim vs.
primary motivation of certain sex offenders. sexual assault with penetration). Of the remaining 64 offenders, 39 ex-
Two indicators of emotion, primary emotion before and during perienced no change in type or level of motivation across offenses and
the offense, were negatively associated with Factor 2 with strong 25 offenders had offenses with either slightly higher or lower levels of
effect sizes, signifying that experiencing positive emotion (i.e., sexual sexual or anger motivation but did not qualitatively change motiva-
arousal) before and during the offense were associated with Factor 2 tion. These findings of stability in the motivational groupings across
(see Table 1). Four cognitive indicators – the victim provoked the offenses committed by the majority of offenders provided evidence
offense, the victim regarded as highly attractive, victim selected by that the analytically-identified latent factors are tapping into underlying
vulnerability, and victim selected by physical characteristics – were and relatively stable motivational constructs.
positively associated with Factor 2 with strong effect sizes. One cogni-
tive indicator, offender belief that the victim consented, was related to Comparative template analysis of interview data
Factor 2 with a moderate effect size but failed to reach statistical sig-
nificance at the predetermined level (z = 1.85, p = .07). The offender Available elucidatory interview data were assessed by comparing
indicator of emotion after the offense was negatively associated with and contrasting themes within the groupings of offenses segmented
Factor 2 indicating that a positive emotional experience (i.e., happi- by factors scores (see Fig. 2) in order to determine whether offender
ness, sexual arousal) after the assault. However, this loading also did types emerged from the data corresponding to the analytically-
not reach statistical significance (z = –1.63, p = .10). Based on the identified motivation factors. Based on analysis of offender explana-
factor loadings of these indicators, sexual motivation was selected as tions or rationale for behaviors and treatment of victims, five major
the best fitting label for Factor 2, corroborating Knight and Prentky’s types of offenders emerged. Four types paralleled the prototypical
(1990) prior research regarding a desire for sexual gratification as a offenders within the motivational typology developed by Knight
key motivation for certain types of sex offenders. and Prentky (1990). One additional type of offender emerged that re-
As displayed in Table 2, Mplus provided the correlation coefficient sembled the opportunistic offender, yet was differentiated from other
between the two identified factors, showing that the two identified types of offenders by extensive and sustained drug or alcohol use.
motivational factors were independent from one another. The conclu- The explanations and rationale of offenses within the low-sex/
sion from this analysis is that two nearly orthogonal motivations under- low-anger quadrant of Fig. 2 revealed an offender type that closely
lie the sexual offenses within this sample, supporting prior research resembled the opportunistic offender within the Knight and Prentky
 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
High-Sex/Low-Anger
“Sexually Fixated”
Factor Scores on Sex Motivation (M=0; SD=.56)
Low-Sex/Low-Anger
“Opportunistic”
Factor Scores on Anger Motivation (M=0; SD=.77)
Fig. 2. Emergent motivational patterns of sex offenders displayed on scatterplot of anger motivation factor score by sexual motivational factor score for offenses labeled by offender
(N = 346).
(1990) typology. Twelve offenders (17% of the sample) within this
grouping committed offenses involving 50 victims (12% of sample).
Two major themes emerged from the elucidatory data: a) easy access
to potential victims, and b) some scheming or anticipating the “right
moment” to commit the assaults. Offenders in this group emphasized
accessibility to victims when providing rationale for their behavior,
with the majority (7 out of 12) explaining that contact with victims
occurred in their home or place of employment. These opportunistic
offenders described how their employment facilitated prolonged or
repeated contact with potential victims or they revealed easy access
to victims because they occupied positions of authority or trust with
the victims. Prototypical explanations regarding ease of access were
given by Offender 33 who explained that “victims were coming to
play with his son or biking on the street or were playing and swimming
at his house” and by Offender 34 who stated that he “selected victims
from his young employees or young customers of his store.”
Low Sex/
Low Anger
9 7
5 The clarifying explanations of the offenses within the high-sex/
No Change
High-Anger/ High Sex/
Low Sex Low-Anger 39
4 5
High Sex/
High Anger
Fig. 3. Motivational change and stability across offenses by repeat offenders (N = 69).
209
High-Sex/High-Anger
“Sadistic”
36
36
“Vindictive”
“Substance High-Anger/Low-Sex
User”
Characteristic statements regarding scheming or what may be la-
beled premeditated opportunism were given by Offender 65, stating
“he thought about the assaults in his fantasies in an unstructured way,
but when the occasion presented itself he made his move with the victims
who happened to be there;” and by Offender 48, stating “he had not
really premeditated the assaults but when he is in the presence of victims
and the timing is perfect, then he starts to put his act together to bring
the victims where he wants…he manipulates young adolescent girls
in the context of tattooing.” Three offenders mentioned occasional
marijuana use, and Offender 34 stated that he gave marijuana to victims
“to make them uninhibited and ease them into sexual behaviors.” Of-
fenders 16 and 64 represented unusual cases within this set of of-
fenders. Offender 16 detailed 11 assaults involving touching victims’
breasts. This offender admitted to intravenous drug use that he de-
scribed as his way of “minimizing feelings of inferiority he has had since
his accident left him mentally and physically handicapped.” Offender
63 reported heavy drug and alcohol use, stating that “the assaults
were unplanned and totally random” and “when under the influence of
substances, he would feel horny and try to have sex no matter what.” The
varied ages of victims assaulted by Offender 63 – females aged 33, 11,
and 6 years old – suggests randomness. The similarity of these two
offenders with the substance user offender described later indicates
that they most likely best fit in that category.
low-anger quadrant of Fig. 2 revealed an offender type that closely re-
sembled the sexually fixated offender within the Knight and Prentky
(1990) typology. Twenty offenders (29% of the sample) within this
grouping committed offenses involving 96 victims (28% of the sample).
Themes emerged including: a) strong sexual fantasies and sexual im-
pulses, b) planned manipulation and luring of victims, and c) formation
of a contrived moral code. Offenders in this group emphasized sexual
arousal, sexual fantasies, and overwhelming sexual impulses. For exam-
ple, Offender 10 stated that “he did not want to give children ‘that kind of
love’ but his sexual impulses were too overwhelming.” Similarly, Offender
210 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
41 detailed his typical behaviors prior to offending, stating he would
“drink to reduce his inhibitions and watch porn for stimulation and to
maintain sexual fantasies … he then would hunt for someone to fulfill his
fantasy scenarios.” Offender 11 stated that “before the assaults he felt sex-
ually aroused … planned the assaults as an elaboration of his fantasies.”
Advanced planning and manipulation were described by Offender
50 who assaulted 18 males from 12 to 15 years of age and stated that
“he used drugs to attract youth to his home and porn to lower victims’
inhibitions … he introduced victims to games that would lead to sex.”
Numerous offenders within this group (12 out of 20) noted limits
to what they would or would not do based on what they considered
harmful or wrong. For example, Offender 39 reported that “he did
not go further than oral sex and sexual contact because anything more
would be rape, stating ‘I still have my principles.’” Five of the 20 of-
fenders mentioned using drugs or alcohol occasionally or prior to
the assault to reduce their inhibitions, but none described their sub-
stance use as habitual or excessive. Offender 32 stood out from the
other offenders in this group as he was the only offender with of-
fenses that scored below the mean on anger motivation who he killed
a victim. Based on his explanation of his behavior, he did not kill the
victim out of anger or frustration but rather explained the murder as
“part of his plan.”
Twenty-five offenders (36% of the sample) committed 87 offenses
(25% of the sample) plotted within the high-anger/low-sex quadrant
of Fig. 2. Two offender types emerged from the analysis of the
interview data linked to the high-anger/low-sex quadrant. One type
resembled the opportunistic offenders described above, yet the ma-
jority of offenders within this set emphasized heavy and continual
drug or alcohol use when explaining or rationalizing their behavior.
The second type strongly resembled the vindictive offender depicted
by Knight and Prentky (1990). Providing an analytically-based differ-
entiation of the two types, the anger motivation factor scores of the
offenses of vindictive offenders were primarily plotted one standard
deviation above the mean while the anger motivation factor scores
of the offenses linked to the substance user offender scored lower
(see Fig. 2).
Themes emerged from the interview data of the substance user of-
fender concerning: a) continual intoxication from drug or alcohol use,
b) facing hardships and failed relationships, c) impulsive offending
behavior with minimal planning, and d) being determined to get sex
however necessary. For example, Offender 55 reported that he “used
cocaine and pot every day to escape his pain and suffering … he feels
trapped.” Offender 25 described himself as “always intoxicated and
under the influence … he wants to have consensual sex but uses force
to get what he wants when the victims refuse.” Offender 22 admitted
“he was addicted to cocaine and alcohol” and stated “the assaults were
not planned when he met the victims, but when leaving the bar with
them he knew he would get sex whether they wanted it or not.”
Themes emerged from the interview data of the vindictive of-
fenders including: a) rage and revenge fantasies involving women
from the past or present, b) purposed humiliation, and c) advanced
planning and stalking. Offender 8 detailed his treatment of the victim
by stating that he intentionally used “physical humiliation to treat her
like a whore.” Offender 31 described rage toward women, stating that
“he was angry and frustrated because of problems with his wife … was
looking for a victim the same age as his spouse ….feels that women are
all whores that laugh at him and take advantage of him….and he gets
revenge through sex and humiliation.” Offender 38 described stalking
victims, highlighting that “he was prowling near bars and nightclubs
and would sometimes follow a victim for several days to learn her
route … he wanted to humiliate women because of the humiliation he
felt from women who rejected him because of his unattractive appearance.”
Importantly, 12 of the 14 offenses resulting in victim deaths linked to
this sample were plotted within the high-anger/low-sex quadrant of
Fig. 2. Of those offenders who provided explanatory detail regarding
their rationale for killing victims, several offenders explained that
they killed victims because they were “fascinated with death and
wanted to know how it felt to kill,” with another offender asserting
that “killing makes him feel good.” Other offenders who killed victims
were intoxicated and used excessive force resulting in the death of
the victims. A third subset of offenders stated that they killed their
victims to avoid being caught and returning to prison.
Explanations of the offenses within the high-sex/high-anger quad-
rant of Fig. 2 revealed an offender type paralleling the sadistic offender
within Knight and Prentky’s (1990) typology. Eight offenders (12%
of the sample) within this group committed offenses involving 84
victims (24% of the sample). Themes emerged including: a) excessive
porn use, b) highly planned assaults, c) acting out deviant sexual fan-
tasies, and d) humiliation and force being experienced as sexually
arousing. Describing eroticized aggression, Offender 36 stated that
“he would rent up to eight S&M movies per day … he planned the sexual
assaults in his fantasies… transforming his place into a sex slave prison.
His accomplices brought him girls … very vulnerable girls with no place
to go … he tortures them and he finds it sexually exciting to see them
suffer.” Offender 6 admitted “regular use of porn … stalking potential
victims … being sexually aroused from what he is doing to the victim
and from acting upon his deviant sexual fantasies.” Offender 21 was an
extreme case within the sample, assaulting 37 females, including 11
women, 8 adolescents, and 18 girls. He reported that “he planned the
sexual assaults in his fantasies … in each case he urinated in victims’
mouth during oral sex because he felt angry … and he was sexual aroused
by acting out his deviant sexual fantasies.”
Discussion
The findings of this study support and extend prior research of
Knight and Prentky (1990) by identifying an analytically-derived mo-
tivational typology of sex offenders built upon two underlying motiva-
tions driving sexual offenses. One underlying motivational factor was
rooted in a desire for sexual gratification and the other was linked to
anger, vindictiveness, or aggression. Offenders with the lowest levels
of these two motivational drives emphasized the influential effect
of opportunity on their criminal behavior. Sex offenders primarily
driven by sexual impulses revealed advanced planning of their crimes
corresponding to strong and persisting sexual fantasies. Sex offenders
primarily energized by anger rationalized sex offending as getting
payback or taking revenge for past insults by women, triggering
offenses incorporating excessive humiliation and degradation of
victims. Certain sex offenders who exhibited aggressive and impulsive
tendencies defined their daily existence by excessive and continual
intoxication. While Knight and Prentky (1990) did not specify a dis-
tinct offender type primarily characterized by substance use, some
studies have segregated substance users “whose clinical pictures
were dominated by substance abuse” into a distinct class, warning
that “the consequential inclusion of these alcoholic offenders in
other groups may both confuse our understanding of the alcoholic
sexual offender and obscure the salient characteristics of the other
groups” (Rosenberg & Knight, 1988, p. 408). Lastly, sex offenders
driven by both sex and anger merged these two motivations triggering
offenses characterized by eroticized aggression, with the offenders
reporting sexual arousal while causing and watching the suffering
and humiliation of victims.
Additionally, stability rather than change in crime motivation
was observed across offenses committed by the same offender.
While approximately 40% of the offenders showed minimal variation
in the level of motivation across offenses, only five offenders showed
change in type of motivation. Moreover, approximately 22% of varia-
tion in crime motivation across all offenses, whether sexually- or
anger-driven motivation, was observed within offenders, indicating
that 78% of variation in crime motivation for sex offenses was ob-
served between offenders rather than being offense specific or victim
specific. Comparable apportioning of offense/victim specific influence
 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
(22-23%) and offender related influence (77-78%) on sexual and
anger-driven motivation indicates that the impact of offense/victim
factors does not vary depending of the type of crime motivation
of the offender. Contrary to popular public perception, victim blame
is not reasonable or warranted regardless of what motivated the
offender.
While the study findings provide additional empirical evidence
of a motivational typology of sex offenders, several limitations of
the study should be mentioned. The sample utilized for the study
was comprised of serious, incarcerated male repeat sex offenders,
preventing generalization of the findings to female sex offenders
and restricting application to sex offenders who are not involved in
the criminal justice system. In addition, the crime events examined
were those known to the criminal justice system and may differ
in some way from those which were not disclosed. The information
regarding the offenses was based primarily on retrospective data
collection. Such retrospectively collected data are not considered as
accurate or reliable as data collected and documented at the time
of its occurrence (Butz, 1981). Recall and self-report of past life
events, particularly criminal activities, can be incomplete or inaccu-
rate. To minimize this limitation, the self-report data from the of-
fenders was compared to information from official records whenever
possible.
In addition, the study data were collected regarding offenses com-
mitted by repeat offenders. To offset this limitation, the WLSMV estima-
tor available with Mplus 7 was utilized as it is designed to provide
more accurate parameter and standard error estimates when analyzing
data obtained by stratification with non-independence of observations
due to cluster sampling (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). Also, when
identifying latent constructs, the hazards of reification or the naming
fallacy may occur, resulting in the treatment of unobservable constructs
as explicitly observed measures (Kline, 2005). For example, the latent
construct labeled “anger motivation” could have been labeled aggres-
sion or another related term. As noted, anger was not the only negative
emotion reported before or during offenses but “anger/frustration/
aggression” it was the most commonly reported negative emotion
(64% prior to offense, 68% during the offense). So, in choosing a single
descriptive as a label for this latent construct, anger was selected as
the best option.
As evidenced by the study findings, both the type and strength of
motivation play a key role in the process of offending. Contemplating
offender motivation beyond just “a given” may inform prevention
efforts by indicating which environments or situations potentiate
the occurrence of a criminal event. As a result, risk prevention and
victim recovery strategies built upon empirically-grounded knowl-
edge regarding offender motivation could enhance social understand-
ing, reduce victim blaming, and strengthen individual self-efficacy
(Angelone et al., 2012). Knowledge regarding variation in offender
motivations for sexual assault could also enhance prevention efforts
targeting potential offenders. A more comprehensive and inclusive
approach, incorporating information regarding both sexual and
anger/aggression motivations for sexual assault may facilitate greater
self-awareness and better choices when encountering opportunities
for offending. Additionally, enhanced understanding of offender mo-
tivation may improve treatment options for offenders. Studies show
that most past and current interventions for offenders focus on risk
level and behavioral avoidance with a low rate of success (Bryne &
Roberts, 2007). Perhaps, inadequate treatment effects are due to a
mismatch of treatment with offender, and greater comprehension of
the underlying motivations driving offenders could facilitate more
effective individualized treatment strategies.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank Melanie Gingras for translation of interview
data used in this study.
211
Notes
1. Although a number of these items selected as indicators of offender motivation
appear to be victim characteristics or behaviors, the items describing victims are based
on self-report from offenders and reflect offenders’ perceptions. For example, when
asked if the victim dressed in a provoking fashion, numerous offenders responded
yes, although the victims were children as young as 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 years old. In
describing such victims, one offender explained why he selected two 8-year-old girls
as victims, stating that “they looked like easy girls. He had already heard them talk
in a coarse way about sex.” Another offender who assault 18 young adolescent boys
(12-15 years old) stated that he choose victims who were exhibitionist, effeminates,
extraverted, lightly dressed and who were talking openly about sex.” Offender judg-
ments regarding victims who were all strangers to them were most likely contrived
victim characteristics based on offender perceptions and desires rather than actual vic-
tim characteristics.
2. In order to confirm that a two-factor model provided the best fit to the data,
exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which makes no assumptions about the particular
configuration of the indicators, was used to compare model fit of a one-factor model,
two-factor model, and three-factor model.
3. As previously noted, EFA was used to compare model fit of a one-factor model,
two-factor model, and three-factor model to access which of these models provide the
best fit to the data. First, a difference in chi-square statistics test was conducted for the
one-factor model in comparison to the two-factor model using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén,
1998-2012). The difference between the one-factor and two-factor models was deter-
mined to be significant (χ2(13) = 32.09, p = .002), indicating that the two-factor model
provided superior fit in comparison to the one-factor model. Next, a difference in chi-
square statistics test was conducted for two-factor model in comparison to a three-
factor model. The difference between the two-factor and three-factor models was not
significant (χ2(12) = 16.85, p = .155), indicating that the three-factor model did not
provide superior fit in comparison to the two-factor model. These results provided some
empirical support for the two-factor model prior to conducting the two-factor CFA.
References
Ahrens, C. E., Cabral, G., & Abeling, S. (2009). Healing or hurtful: Sexual assault survivors’
interpretations of social reactions from support providers. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 33(1), 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01476.x.
Angelone, D. J., Mitchell, D., & Lucente, L. (2012). Predicting perceptions of date rape: An ex-
amination of perpetrator motivation, relationship length, and gender role beliefs. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2582–2602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512436385.
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions.
New York: Harper Collins.
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual
arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.501.
Asparouhov, T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling, 12, 411–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203_4.
Beauregard, E., Leclerc, B., & Lussier, P. (2012). Decision Making in the Crime Commission
Process Comparing Rapists, Child Molesters, and Victim-Crossover Sex Offenders.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1275–1295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0093854812453120.
Bouffard, J. (2011). “In the heat of the moment”: Mediating versus moderating relation-
ships between sexual arousal and perceived sanctions. Journal of Crime and Justice,
34, 24–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.554745.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation:
Toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity
and Rational Choice. Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 5. (pp. 259–294). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford
Press.
Bryden, D. P., & Grier, M. M. (2011). Search for Rapists’ “Real Motives”. The Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology, 101, 171–277 (http://dx.doi.org/0091-4169/11/10101-0171).
Bryne, J., & Roberts, A. (2007). New directions in offender typology design, development,
and implementation: Can we balance risk, treatment and control? Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 12, 483–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.009.
Burgess, A. W., Commons, M. L., Safarik, M. E., Looper, R. R., & Ross, S. N. (2007). Sex
offenders of the elderly: Classification by motive, typology, and predictors of sever-
ity of crime. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 582–597. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.006.
Butz, W. P. (1981). Why collect retrospective data? Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Campbell, R., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., Wasco, S. M., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Social reactions
to rape victims: Healing and hurtful effects on psychological and physical health
outcomes. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 287–302.
Campbell, R., Baker, C. K., & Mazurek, T. L. (1998). Remaining radical? Organizational
predictors of rape crisis centers' social change initiatives. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 26(3), 457–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022115322289.
Campbell, R., Dworkin, E., & Cabral, G. (2009). An ecological model of the impact of
sexual assault on women's mental health. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(3), 225–246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334456.
Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal
offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 371–393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10940-004-5869-y.
Casey, E. A., & Lindhorst, T. P. (2009). Toward a multi-level, ecological approach to the pri-
mary prevention of sexual assault prevention in peer and community contexts. Trau-
ma, Violence & Abuse, 10(2), 91–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334129.
212 J.A. Reid et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 42 (2014) 203–212
Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders' decisions: A framework for
research and policy. Crime and Justice, 6, 147–185 (JSTOR URL: http://www.jstor.
org/stable/1147498).
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608 (JSTOR URL: http://www.
jstor.org/stable/2094589).
Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions:
A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In M. Smith & D.
Cornish (Eds.), Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention
Studies, Vol. 16. (pp. 151–196). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Cullen, F. T. (2011). Beyond adolescent-limited criminology: Choosing our future-The
ASC 2010 Sutherland Address. Criminology, 49, 287–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1745-9125.2011.00224.x.
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative models of es-
timation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods,
9, 466–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466.
Foubert, J. D., Godin, E., & Tatum, J. (2010). In their own words: Sophomore college men
describe attitude and behavior changes resulting from a rape prevention program
two years after their participation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2237–2257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354881.
Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S., & Simons, D. (2003). Crossover sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 15, 221–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025031325230.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Hicks, S. J., & Sales, B. D. (2006). Criminal profiling : Developing an effective science and
practice (1st ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G. Symon & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods
and analysis in organizational research (pp. 118–134). London: Sage Publications.
Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion definitions,
with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 345–379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993889.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York: Guildford Press.
Knight, R. A. (1999). Validation of a typology for rapists. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
14, 297–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626099014003006.
Knight, R. A., & Guay, J. P. (2006). The role of psychopathy in sexual offenders against women.
In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 512–532). New York: John Wiley.
Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development of
corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree
(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault (pp. 23–52). New York: Plenum.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Liao, T. F. (1994). Interpreting probability models: Logit, probit, and other generalized linear
models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Loewenstein, G., Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1997). The effect of sexual arousal on
expectations of sexual forcefulness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
34, 443–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427897034004003.
Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2011). On ambiguity in
perceptions of risk: Implications for criminal decision making and deterrence.
Criminology, 49, 1029–1061. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00251.x.
Lussier, P. (2005). The criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood: Revisiting
the specialization debate. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17,
269–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11194-005-5057-0.
Maruna, S. (2010). Mixed method research in criminology: Why not go both ways? In
A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. London:
Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77650-7.
Mitchell, D., Angelone, D. J., Kohlberger, B., & Hirschman, R. (2009). Effects of offender
motivation, victim gender, and participant gender on perceptions of rape victims and
offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(9), 1564–1578. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0886260508323662.
Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Pathways in the life course to crime. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew
(Eds.), Criminological theory: Past to present (pp. 502–521). Los Angeles: Roxbury
Publishing.
Muhr, T., & Friese, S. (2004). User’s manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0 (2nd ed.). Berlin: Scientific
Software Development.
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Transforming potential offenders into motivated
ones: Are sex offenders tempted by alcohol and pornography? Deviant Behavior,
30(7), 561–588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620802467821.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles:
Author.
Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). A meta-analysis of predictors of
offender treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 79(1), 6–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022200.
Palmer, C. T. (1988). Twelve reasons why rape is not sexually motivated: A skeptical
examination. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 512–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224498809551479.
Paulsen, D. J., & Robinson, M. B. (2004). Spatial aspects of crime: Theory and practice.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Piquero, A., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T. (2011). Elaborating the individual
difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
7, 335–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404.
Prentky, R. A., & Knight, R. A. (1991). Identifying critical dimensions for discrimi-
nating among rapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 643–661.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.643.
Rape Advocacy Program. (n. d.). Defining sexual violence: Myths and facts. Retrieved on
February 25, 2013 from http://www.rvap.org/pages/myths__facts/#crime_of_passion
Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender
typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508–518. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.010.
Rosenberg, R., & Knight, R. A. (1988). Determining male sexual offender subtypes using
cluster analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4(4), 383–410. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF01065346.
Sasse, S. (2005). "Motivation" and routine activities theory. Deviant Behavior, 26, 547–570.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639620500218260.
Sizemore, O. J. (2013). The role of perpetrator motivation in two crime scenarios. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 28(1), 80–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512448843.
Tharp, A. T., DeGue, S., Lang, K., Valle, L. A., Massetti, G., Holt, M., et al. (2011). Commen-
tary on Foubert, Godin, & Tatum (2010): The evolution of sexual violence prevention
and the urgency for effectiveness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3383–3392.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260510393010.
Tittle, C. R., & Botchkovar, E. V. (2005). Self‐control, criminal motivation and deter-
rence: An investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology, 43(2), 307–354.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00010.x.
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models
with binary and continuous outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation). University of
California (Retrieved on February 25, 2013 from http://www.statmodel.com/
download/Yudissertation.pdf).