Original Research

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

1­–13
Interpersonal and © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Affective Facets and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260520958411
https://doi.org/
Items of the Psychopathy journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R) in Predicting
Child Sex Offending*

Ji Seun Sohn,1 Napoleon C. Reyes2 and

Hyejin Kim3

Abstract
Psychopathy of child sex offenders in non-Western and Asian population is
not frequently reported. The study examined psychopathic traits assessed
by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in three groups of male
offenders, child sex offender, adult sex offender, and nonsex offender
groups. Out of 451 offenders included in the sample, 445 recidivated after
a follow up of 11 years: 27 child sex offenders, 174 adult sex offenders,
and 244 nonsex offenders. Adult sex offenders scored higher in four facets
and total scores compared with nonsex offenders. Child sex offenders had
more problems in interpersonal (facet 1) and affective (facet 2) traits than
nonsex offenders. More specifically, child sex offenders scored higher in
failure to accept responsibility (item 16, Cohen’s d = 0.80) and callous/lack
of empathy (item 8, Cohen’s d = 0.59) of facet 2 and pathological lying (item
4, Cohen’s d = 0.58) and glibness/superficial charm (item 1, Cohen’s d =
0.48) of facet 1 than nonsex offenders. Both child sex offenders and adults
sex offenders were found to be more psychopathic than nonsex offenders.

1Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA, USA

2Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA
3National Bureau of Investigation, Asan, South Korea

Corresponding Author:
Ji Seun Sohn, Criminal Justice Program, Department of Government and Sociology, Georgia
College & State University, Campus Box 18, Milledgeville, GA 31061, USA.
Email: jiseun.sohn@gcsu.edu
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

While facets 1, 2, and 3 did not separate child and adult sex offending, child
sex offenders scored significantly lower in antisocial problems (facet 4) than
adult sex offenders. Despite the limitation of using a sample of mostly high-
risk offenders, our findings indicate that higher PCL-R scores in specific
facets (1 and 2) and items (1, 4, 8, and 16) are more predictive of child sex
offending and suggest insight for treatment strategies of child sex offenders.

Keywords
PCL-R, child sex offending, failure to accept responsibility for own actions,
callous/lack of empathy, pathological lying, glibness/superficial charm

Psychopathy has been one of the most researched risk factors in the large
body of prediction studies (e.g., Patrick, 2018; Porter et al., 2000; Schimmenti
et al., 2014; Walters et al., 2016). The best dominant measure of psychopathy
is the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), which is based
on ratings by trained evaluators. The PCL-R has become one of the most
popular standardized measures to assess psychopathy and predict criminal
offending. The PCL-R construct includes the two factors (Factors 1 and 2)
and four facets that describe interpersonal (facet 1), affective (facet 2), life-
style (facet 3), and antisocial (facet 4) features, such as glibness, lying, lack
of empathy, failure to accept responsibility, parasitic lifestyle, impulsivity,
delinquency, and criminal versatility.
Studies have examined whether psychopathy relates to sexual deviance
and child sexual offending (e.g., Rosenberg et al., 2005; Schimmenti et al.,
2014; Walters et al., 2016). One study found that child sex offenders who
used violence during the child abuse had a higher PCL-R score than those
who did not use violence (Rosenberg et al., 2005). The same study found no
significant differences in the child sex offenders’ PCL-R scores based on the
types of child abuse committed (i.e., same-sex abuse, opposite-sex abuse, and
incest). Consistent results were found in another study that used the taxomet-
ric approach in examining a large sample of sex offenders (Walters et al.,
2016). None of the sex offender groups (i.e., those who abused children under
13, those who abused children aged 13−15, incest offenders, and rapists) had
differences in the PCL-R facets and total scores (Walters et al., 2016). While
this study did not attempt to distinguish psychopathy traits between child and
adult sex offending, the authors suggested that psychopathy should be under-
stood as a continuous dimension of child molestation.
While categorizing sex offending is frequently used in studies, there are
wide differences and inconsistencies in the methods, sample sizes, and defini-
tions of the different forms of sexual offenses. Porter et al. (2000) compared
child sex offenders (intra- and extra-familial), rapists, mixed sex offenders
Sohn et al. 3

(those who abused both children and adults), and nonsexual offenders. In
their study, mixed sex offenders scored the highest in the PCL-R total, fol-
lowed by rapists and nonsex offenders. In Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective),
mixed sex offenders scored the highest, while child sex offenders scored the
lowest. In Factor 2 (lifestyle/antisocial), mixed sex offenders, rapists, and
nonsex offenders scored higher than child sex offenders. Of all offender
groups included in the study, extra-familial child sex offenders scored the
lowest in callous personality (facet 2). Another study also reported that mixed
sex offenders scored higher in the PCL-R total and Factor 1 than rapists, child
sex offenders, and nonsex offenders (Brown et al., 2015). In this study, mixed
sex offenders scored higher in facet 1 than child sex offenders and scored
higher in facet 2 than nonsex offenders and child sex offenders. Notably,
child sex offenders in both studies appear to have lower psychopathic traits in
interpersonal (facet 1) and affective (facet 2) features (Brown et al., 2015;
Porter et al., 2000). A meta-analysis reported a weak relationship between
low empathy and sex offending (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004). Another meta-
analysis of 16 studies suggested the role of empathy deficits (facet 2 domain)
in sexual offending remains inconclusive (Baly & Butler, 2017).
Conversely, in a study of incarcerated offenders in Italy, child sex offenders
scored higher in the PCL-R and total Factor 1 (interpersonal/affective) than
adult sex offenders, murderers, and robbers (Schimmenti et al., 2014). A closer
examination revealed that child sex offenders differed from other offenders in
facet 1 at a significance level of about p = .06 and in facet 2 at a significance
level of about p = .01. Brown et al. (2015) underscored the importance of
manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and callousness measured by facets 1 and 2
in distinguishing mixed sex offenders from nonsex offenders, although the
child sex offender group alone did not have higher facets 1 and 2 scores. It was
argued in a meta-analytic risk assessment study that Factor 1 may not be
directly affecting recidivism, but the traits of Factor 1 as indirect variables
with deviant sexual traits (i.e., desiring a child) may increase the likelihood of
sexual offense (Yang et al., 2010). Individuals with high Factor 1 scores may
seek sexual satisfaction irrespective of partner’s desire to comply (Hare et al.,
2018). The interpersonal and affective traits in particular were associated with
heartlessness, which is conducive to sexually violent behaviors (Knight &
Guay, 2018). Interpersonal and affective incompetency has been used to iden-
tify those who sexually abuse a child (Hudson & Ward, 2000).
Few studies have focused on differential roles of the PCL-R facets and items
in predicting violence. Sohn, Raine, & Lee (2020a) reported that facet 2 plays a
major role (Cohen’s d = 0.53) in predicting violent recidivism and the callous-
ness appears to be the strongest item of facet 2. In another study, facets 2 and 3
are more predictive of sexual recidivism (Sohn, Raine, & Lee, 2020b). In this
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

study, callous/lack of empathy and failure to accept responsibility (items of facet

2) were identified as the most predictive of sexual recidivism compared to vio-
lent but nonsexual and general recidivism. Sewall and Olver, (2019) reported
that sex offenders who scored higher in facet 2 (p = .081) and facet 3 (p = .008)
were less likely to complete the treatment program. Facet 3 was also found to be
a better predictor of different forms of violence, one is implicit (i.e., reactive
violence; risk in prison) and the other is explicit (i.e., instrumental violence;
recidivism) (Blais, Solodukhin, & Forth, 2014; Sohn, Lyons, Menard, & Lee,
2017). Irresponsibility and parasitic lifestyle (facet 3) were identified as the
most central psychopathic items in a study that used a Dutch sample, while cal-
lousness (facet 2) was the most central psychopathic item in a study of an
American sample (Verschuere et al., 2018).
As such, the prior studies on child sex offending do not have a definite
conclusion, despite clear evidence on a link between psychopathy and sexual
violence has been constantly reported. In our review of the literature, we
found that few studies closely examined psychopathy in child sex offenders
by conducting facet- and item-level analyses of the PCL-R. The link between
psychopathy facet/item scores and child sex offending remains unclear. In
this study, we asked a straightforward question: Are child sex offenders dif-
ferent in their psychopathic traits? To answer this question, we analyzed
which facet(s) of the PCL-R has stronger relation with child sex offending
than adult sex offending and nonsex offending. If one or more facets were
found to play stronger role in predicting child sex offending, additional anal-
ysis was done to determine which item(s) of that facet contributes more to
child sex offending than adult sex offending and nonsex offending.

Method
Sample
A total of 451 male inmates who were incarcerated in prisons located in six
major districts of South Korea (i.e., Seoul, Kyonggi, Kyongsang,
Choongchung, Julla, and Kangwan) constituted the sample of this study. Few
demographic information was available, but the age of the sample ranged
from 17 to 77 when they were first interviewed (M = 38.55, SD = 11.38).
When the initial data were collected in 2005, the sample had more violent
offenders (about 80%) than nonviolent offenders (about 20%). When recidi-
vism data were collected in 2016, 78% recidivated violent crimes (n = 353),
whereas 20% recidivated nonviolent crimes (n = 92). This indicates that the
general criminal characteristic of the sample remained the same. Out of the
451 offenders, 445 recidivated (valid cases for the study), while 6 did not.
Sohn et al. 5

Measures
The Korean Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. The Korean PCL-R (Cho &
Lee, 2008) is a translated version of the PCL-R that was developed to assess
psychopathy (Hare, 2003). The instrument has a 20-item scale including four
facets: facet 1 (interpersonal), facet 2 (affective), facet 3 (lifestyle), and facet 4
(antisocial). Interviewees were given a 3-point scale score from 0 to 2 (0 =
absent, 1 = partially, and 2 = present) by PCL-R-trained raters through a semis-
tructured interview, accompanied with file reviews. The interrater reliabilities of
the two separate raters (correlation coefficients ranged from .79 to .91) and
internal consistencies of the four facet scores (Cronbach’s α = .74, .86, .68, .63,
respectively) were moderately good. The construct and predictive validity of the
Korean PCL-R have been also supported (Sohn & Lee, 2016; Sohn et al., 2017).
Recidivism. Recidivism was a conviction recorded by the Korean Prosecutors’
Office in 2016. The data collection of the sample started in 2005; thus, the study
had approximately 11-year follow-up time. Among the 445 recidivists (N = 451),
we identified that 201 were sexual recidivists: 27 abused a child (i.e., 12 or
younger), whereas 174 abused an adult. The rest of 244 recidivated nonsexual
offenses, including homicide, robbery, burglary, and misdemeanor.

Procedure and Data Analyses

The data used for this study were collected for the validation process of the
Korean PCL-R that started from 2005 and extended until 2007. The literature
indicated that psychopathic traits are more prevalent among violent offenders
than nonviolent offenders (e.g., Patrick, 2018); hence, purposive sampling
was used in the data collection in order to include more violent offenders in
the sample. The Korean Bureau of Prisons reviewed ethical concerns to pre-
vent any harm that might be caused by the PCL-R interviews. The inmates
were given 20,000 won (about $17) for their voluntary participation in the
PCL-R semistructured interview (Cho & Lee, 2008).
Analyses aimed to determine whether child sex offenders differ from adult
sex offenders and nonsex offenders in terms of their psychopathy scores using
the PCL-R. One-way analysis of variance was first used to assess if there were
any differences between the three groups of offenders in the PCL-R facets and
total scores. Then, post hoc tests were used to observe specific differences
between the three groups of offenders in their psychopathy facets and total
scores. Post hoc tests revealed that facets 1 and 2 were higher in child sex
offenders than nonsex offenders. Given these significant differences, t tests
were finally employed to compare child sex offenders and nonsex offenders
only for the items of facets 1 and 2 to test further differences. Cohen’s d was
used to confirm effect sizes of the facet 1 and 2 items.
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Results
The PCL-R Total and Facet Scores in the Three Offender Groups
Table 1 gives the results of one-way analysis of variance of the three groups:
child sex offenders (n = 27), adult sex offenders (n = 174), and nonsex offend-
ers (n = 244). The three groups had significant differences in facet 1 (p <
.001), facet 2 (p < .001), facet 3 (p < .01), facet 4 (p < .01), and the PCL-R
total (p < .001) scores.
To determine specific differences, the Bonferroni post hoc tests were used.
Table 2 shows all the significant differences between the three groups. First,
in all the four facets including total scores, adult sex offenders had signifi-
cantly higher psychopathy scores than nonsex offenders (p < .01). Second,
child sex offenders had significantly higher psychopathy scores than nonsex
offenders in facet 1 (p < .01) and facet 2 (p < .05). Third, a difference between
child sex offender and adult sex offender groups was observed only in facet
4 that assesses antisocial aspects (p < .05). Child sex offenders had signifi-
cantly lower facet 4 score than adult sex offenders. In facets 1, 2, 3, and total
scores, there was no significant difference between child sex offenders and
adult sex offenders.

The Items of Facets 1 and 2 in Child Sex Offender and Nonsex

Offender Groups
Child sex offenders showed significantly higher interpersonal problems
(facet 1) and affective deficiencies (facet 2) than nonsex offenders. The
results led us to analyze which item/items of facets 1 and 2 contribute
more to child sex offending than nonsex offending. Table 3 gives the
results of our analysis. Facet 1 consists of glibness/superficial charm (item
1), grandiose sense of self-worth (item 2), pathological lying (item 4), and
cunning/manipulative (item 5), whereas facet 2 consists of lack of remorse
or guilt (item 6), shallow affect (item 7), callous/lack of empathy (item 8),
and failure to accept responsibility for own actions (item 16). In facet 1
items, child sex offenders scored significantly higher in item 1 superficial-
ity (p < .05) and item 4 lying (p < .01) than nonsex offenders. The higher
effect sizes were found in pathological lying (Cohen’s d = 0.58) and super-
ficiality (Cohen’s d = 0.48). In facet 2 items, child sex offenders scored
higher in item 8 (lack of empathy) (p < .01) and item 16 (no responsibility)
(p < .001) than nonsex offenders. The highest effect sizes were found in
failure to accept responsibility (Cohen’s d = 0.80) and lack of empathy
(Cohen’s d = 0.59).
Sohn et al. 7

Table 1. The PCL-R Total and Facet Scores in the Three Offender Groups.
CSO ASO NSO
(n = 27) (n = 174) (n = 244)
PCL-R M SD M SD M SD F (2, 442) p
Interpersonal 5.07 2.45 4.34 2.34 3.50 2.51 9.207 .000
(Facet 1)
Affective (Facet 2) 5.56 1.91 5.59 2.25 4.32 2.57 15.218 .000
Lifestyle (Facet 3) 5.11 2.59 5.79 2.72 4.92 2.80 5.181 .006
Antisocial (Facet 4) 3.04 2.14 4.56 2.52 3.90 2.62 5.872 .003
Total Score 20.26 6.90 22.01 7.67 17.78 8.44 14.077 .000
Note. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; CSO = child sex offenders; ASO = adult sex
offenders; NSO = non-sex offenders. All are significant in a p-value less than the .01 level.

Table 2. Bonferroni Post Hoc Tests in the Three Offender Groups.

PCL-R Three Offender Groups p
Interpersonal (Facet 1) Child sex offender > Nonsex offender .005
Adult sex offender > Nonsex offender .002
Affective (Facet 2) Child sex offender > Nonsex offender .035
Adult sex offender > Nonsex offender .000
Lifestyle (Facet 3) Adult sex offender > Nonsex offender .004
Antisocial (Facet 4) Adult sex offender > Child sex offender .013
Total score Adult sex offender > Nonsex offender .030
Note. All the significant differences from post hoc tests are presented in the table. Three
groups indicate child sex offender, adult sex offender, and nonsex offender groups. All are
significant in a p-value less than the .05 level.

Discussion
The main goal of the study was to identify any unique psychopathic traits of
child sex offenders when compared with adult sex offenders and nonsex
offenders. Overall, adult sex offenders had higher psychopathy scores in all
facets and total scores than nonsex offenders. Sex offenders in the sample,
whether they abused a child or adult, possessed significantly higher psycho-
pathic traits than nonsex offenders. Parallel findings but not identical were
found in the previous studies (Porter et al., 2000; Quinsey et al., 1995;
Skrovan et al., 2010). Further, child sex offenders had higher psychopathy
scores in facets 1 and 2 than nonsex offenders, consistent with Schimmenti et
al. (2014) who reported that Factor 1 (interpersonal and affective facets
Table 3. The Items of Facet 1 and Facet 2 in CSO and NSO.

PCL-R n M SD t df p Cohen’s d
Superficiality Facet 1 CSO 27 1.22 0.80 2.374 269 .018 0.48
Item 1 NSO 244 0.83 0.81
Grandiosity CSO 27 1.26 0.71 1.863 268 .064 0.40
Item 2 NSO 243 0.95 0.84
Pathological lying CSO 27 1.33 0.78 2.912 268 .004 0.58
Item 4 NSO 243 0.88 0.77
Cunning CSO 27 1.26 0.76 1.928 266 .055 0.41
Item 5 NSO 241 0.93 0.85
Lack of remorse Facet 2 CSO 27 1.52 0.58 1.896 269 .059 0.43
Item 6 NSO 244 1.23 0.77
Shallow affect CSO 27 1.04 0.65 1.772 35.497 .085 0.33
Item 7 NSO 242 0.80 0.80
Lack of empathy CSO 27 1.37 0.63 3.314 37.512 .002 0.59
Item 8 NSO 243 0.93 0.85
No responsibility CSO 27 1.63 0.57 4.840 41.563 .000 0.80
Item 16 NSO 244 1.04 0.88

Note. CSO = child sex offenders; NSO = nonsex offenders. Bold values indicate statistically significant values with p-value less than .05 (two-tails).
Sohn et al. 9

combined) is more predictive of child sexual abuse. No significant difference

on psychopathic traits between child sex offenders and adult sex offenders
was found, which is similar to the finding of Walters et al. (2016) that sug-
gested no difference between child and adult sex offending. The only signifi-
cant difference between child sex offenders and adult sex offenders emerged
in facet 4. Sex offenders’ versatile nature in general has been reported (Harris
et al., 2009). Antisocial traits, which can be assessed by facet 4, are persistent
among convicted rapists (Knight & Guay, 2018). We assume that adult sex
offenders would be behaviorally more antisocial than child sex offenders.
This might explain the higher facet 4 score of adult sex offenders than child
sex offenders in the sample. It also highlights that child sex offenders may
have different psychopathy construct compared with adult sex offenders and
this deserves more research attention. We found that child sex offenders
exhibited higher interpersonal and affective problems, which are implicit
forms of antisociality, while they had lower antisocial problems that are
explicit forms of antisociality (i.e., facet 4: delinquency, criminal versatility,
etc.). The center concept of psychopathology by Cleckley (1988) and Hare
(1998, 1999) neither excluded implicit forms of violence that can be better
assessed by features of facets 1 and 2, nor stressed facet 4 as a core trait of
psychopathy construct (e.g., Flórez et al., 2018; Skeem & Cooke, 2010; Sohn
et al., 2017; Verschuere et al., 2018), even though debates are still active as to
which facet(s)/factor(s) would play a significant role in predicting various
criminal outcomes.
Further item-level analyses of facets 1 and 2 that compared child sex
offenders with nonsex offenders revealed that the effect size of failure to
accept responsibility (item 16) was the largest, followed by callous/lack of
empathy (item 8), pathological lying (item 4), and glibness/superficial charm
(item 1). Cohen (1992) defined the effect size of small, medium, and large
items as 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80, respectively. The effect size of item 16 (0.80)
showed the large effect size, and the effect sizes of items 8, 4, and 1 (0.59,
0.58, and 0.48, respectively) reached the medium effect size. Most of all,
lacks in responsibility and empathy, which are facet 2 items, were the stron-
gest predictors to identify child sex offenders from other recidivists. The util-
ity of facet 2 and its items to predict violent and sexual crimes has been
reported, even though not many studies focused on affective traits (Schimmenti
et al., 2014; Sohn et al., 2020a, 2020b; Yang et al., 2010). In these studies,
facet 2 and its items over other facets/items better predicted violent crimes
including child sex offending than other types of crime.
The study has some limitations. First, the sample used high-risk offenders
due to the data collection strategy. Therefore, we reserve generalization of the
results toward different inmate populations. Second, sex offending occurs
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

among homosexuals. The current data did not specify the gender of the vic-
tims; we only know that the offenders were male. The data did not inform us
whether some victims were male adults or boys. Presumably, majority of vic-
tims in the data were females. However, one recent study about sexual abuse
on children in South Korea found that when the victims’ age becomes younger
(less than 13), a percentage of male victim increases (Sohn, Kim, & Lee,
2020). A meta-analysis using 15 child sexual abuse studies reported a trend of
highest recidivism rates among child sex offenders who assault extra-familial
same-sex victims (Quinsey et al., 1998). Thus, future studies of sexual offend-
ers’ psychopathy need to examine the differences between those who victim-
ize same-sex and opposite-sex victims. Third, 27 child sex offenders and 174
adult sex offenders in the sample were mutually exclusive. Previous studies,
however, reported that sex offenders were heterogeneous, that is, some sex
offenders assaulted both child/minor and adult (mixed sex offenders in the
literature), and they were more psychopathic (e.g., Brown et al., 2015; Porter
et al., 2000) than sex offenders who assaulted a single type of victim (i.e., only
a child or adult). We hesitate to discuss further before we have gathered more
information to determine whether any mixed sex offenders were included in
our sample. Similarly, it will be interesting to examine differential distribu-
tions of psychopathic traits based on versatile forms of sex offending. Finally,
the study used a small sample of 27 child sex offenders and did not stratify
child sex offending into different categories (e.g., fondling and enticing a child
online). All child sex offending was based on a physical contact (i.e., inter-
course). Methods of child sex offending have been evolving. Some use online
applications to entice a child to have sex with them after grooming, which has
become a serious problem in South Korea. We found that child sex offenders
scored higher in facets 1 and 2 and that they scored higher in the items of lacks
in responsibility and empathy, that very few prediction studies have paid close
attention to it. People who take time to groom children for sex would probably
have much serious problems in interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits and
this merits further exploration.
In conclusion, sex offenders, compared with nonsex offenders, had higher
psychopathy, which we confirmed existing literature. Child sex offenders in
this South Korean sample were found to have more problems in interpersonal
and affective features (facets 1 and 2). The failure to accept responsibility for
own actions (item 16 of facet 2) was found to be the most predictive of child
sex offending, followed by lack of empathy (item 8 of facet 2), pathological
lying (item 4 of facet 1), and superficiality (item 1 of facet 1). A difference
between child sex offenders and adult sex offenders appeared only in antiso-
cial aspects (facet 4). These findings are crucial in designing assessment and
Sohn et al. 11

treatment strategies for child sex offenders and in reducing recidivism rates
when these offenders rejoin society.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Ji Seun Sohn https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5540-6428
Hyejin Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9038-6362

Note
* An earlier version of this study was presented at 2019 Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Criminology.

References
Baly, A., &Butler, S. (2017). Empathy deficits and adolescent sexual offending: A
systematic review of the evidence base. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36,
81–97.
Blais, J., Solodukhin, E., & Forth, A. E. (2014). A meta-analysis exploring the
relationship between psychopathy and instrumental versus reactive violence.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 797–821.
Brown, A. R., Dargis, M. A., Mattern, A. A., Tsonis, M. A., & Newman, J. P. (2015).
Elevated psychopathy scores among mixed sexual offenders. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 42, 1032–1044.
Cho, E., & Lee, S. J. (2008). Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Professional
guidebook (2nd ed., Korean edition). Korea Psychological Service.
Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). Emily S. Cleckley Private Printing.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Flórez, G., Ferrer, V., García, L. S., Crespo, M. R., Pérez, M., Saiz, P. A., & Cooke, D.
J. (2018). Novel validity evidence of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-
R) in a representative sample of Spanish inmates. Forensic Science International,
291, 175–183.
Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy, affect, and behavior. In D. Cooke, A. Forth, &
R. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy, theory, research, and implications for society (pp.
105–137). Kluwer.
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths

among us.. The Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health
Systems.
Hare, R., Neumann, C. S., & Mokros, A. (2018). The PCL-R assessment of psychopa-
thy: Development, properties, debates, and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 39–79). Guilford Press.
Harris, D. A., Smallbone, S., Dennison, S., & Knight, R. A. (2009). Offense special-
ization and versatility in the criminal histories of adult male sexual offenders
referred for civil commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 37–44.
Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (2000). Interpersonal competency in sex offenders.
Behavior Modification, 24, 494–527.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476.
Knight, R. A., & Guay, J. P. (2018). The role of psychopathy in sexual coercion
against women: An update and expansion. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of
psychopathy (pp. 662–681). Guilford Press.
Patrick, C. J. (2018). Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Porter, S., Fairweather, D., Drugge, J., Hervé, H., Birt, A., & Boer, D. P. (2000).
Profiles of psychopathy in incarcerated sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 27, 216–233.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders:
Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Corporation.
Quinsey, V. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual
recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 85–105.
Rosenberg, A. D., Abell, S. C., & Mackie, J. K. (2005). An examination of the rela-
tionship between child sexual offending and psychopathy. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse, 14, 49–66.
Schimmenti, A., Passanisi, A., &Caretti, V. (2014). Interpersonal and affective traits
of psychopathy in child sexual abusers: Evidence from a pilot study sample of
Italian offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23, 853–860.
Sewall, L. A., & Olver, M. E. (2019). Psychopathy and treatment outcome: Results
from a sexual violence reduction program. Personality Disorders: Theory,
Research, and Treatment, 10, 59–69.
Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central component of
psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological
Assessment, 22, 433–445.
Skrovan, L. C., Huss, M. T., & Scalora, M. J. (2010). Sexual fantasies and sensation-
seeking among psychopathic sexual offenders. Psychopathy, Crime & Law, 16,
617–629.
Sohn, J. S., Kim, H., & Lee, S. J. (2020). Sexual abuse against children in a large
sample: Trends, frequency, prevalence, and characteristics of offenders and vic-
tims [Tentative title, Manuscript in preparation].
Sohn et al. 13

Sohn, J. S., & Lee, S. J. (2016). Investigating two-, three-, and four-factor structures
of the Korean PCL-R in serious offenders. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 725–738.
Sohn, J. S., Lyons, P., Menard, S., & Lee, S. J. (2017). Testing the three- and four-
factor models of the Korean version of PCL-R as predictors of two antisocial
outcomes-recidivism and risk. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 472–486.
Sohn, J. S., Raine, A., & Lee, S. J. (2020a). The utility of the Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised (PCL-R) facet and item scores in predicting violent recidivism.
Aggressive Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ab.21922
Sohn, J. S., Raine, A., & Lee, S. J. (2020b). The role of affective features of Psychopathy
in predicting sexual recidivism [Manuscript submitted for publication].
Verschuere, B., van Ghesel Grothe, S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O.,
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., &Noordhof, A. (2018). What features of psychopa-
thy might be central? A network analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R) in three large samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127, 51–65.
Walters, G. D., Knight, R. A., Looman, J., &Abracen, J. (2016). Child molestation and
psychopathy: A taxometric analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22, 379–393.
Yang, M., Wong, S. C., &Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence-prediction: A
meta-analysis comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin,
136, 740–767.

Author Biographies
Ji Seun Sohn, PhD, is an associate professor of Criminal Justice, the Department of
Government & Sociology, Georgia College & State University. Her research focuses
on psychopathy and policing, and she has published her studies in Aggressive
Behavior, Psychology, Crime & Law, etc.

Napoleon C. Reyes, PhD, is an associate professor and the Department Chair of

Criminology and Criminal Justice Studies of Sonoma State University. He served as
Managing Editor of the Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice from 2006 to 2008 and
Research Associate for Southeast Asia of the Institute for the Study of Violent Groups
from 2009 to 2010. His current research focuses on sexual homicide and political
white-collar crime, and he has published his studies in Critical Criminology,
International Criminal Justice Review, etc.

Hyejin Kim, PhD, is a crime analyst and researcher at the Police Science Institute of the
National Police University in South Korea. Her research focuses on sexual assaults,
urban crimes, and evidence-based policing, and she has published her studies in Korean
peer-reviewed journals, such as Journal of Korean Criminological Association, Journal
of Police Science, Korean Association of Police Science Review, etc.