Sandra Siria, Enrique Echeburúa, and Pedro J.

Amor

ISSN 0214 - 9915 CODEN PSOTEG

Psicothema 2020, Vol. 32, No. 3, 314-321
Copyright © 2020 Psicothema
doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.349 www.psicothema.com

Characteristics and risk factors in juvenile sexual offenders

Sandra Siria1, Enrique Echeburúa1, and Pedro J. Amor2
1
Universidad del País Vasco and 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)

Abstract Resumen
Background: It is estimated that juvenile sexual offences constitute about Características y factores de riesgo en jóvenes ofensores sexuales.
7% of the total annual rate of sexual offences in Spain. Nevertheless, Antecedentes: la violencia sexual cometida por adolescentes supone
research on Spanish juvenile sex offenders (JSO) is virtually non-existent. alrededor del 7% de los delitos sexuales denunciados anualmente en
This paper analyzes the risk factors related to sexual violence committed España. Sin embargo, la investigación con jóvenes ofensores sexuales
by adolescents. Method: The participants were 73 adolescents (M = 15.68 (JOS) en población española es casi inexistente. En este trabajo se analizan
years, SD = 1.12) aged between 14 and 18, who were serving a sentence los factores de riesgo relacionados con la violencia sexual cometida por
for committing a sexual offence in various Spanish Autonomous Regions. adolescentes. Método: los participantes fueron 73 adolescentes (M = 15.68
In this descriptive study multiple methods were used to collect the data: años, DT = 1.12, rango entre 14 y 18) que estaban cumpliendo una medida
court records, self-reports, along with an interview with the JSO and with judicial por delitos contra la libertad sexual en diferentes comunidades
the professionals involved. Results: Risk factors related to family history, autónomas españolas. En este estudio descriptivo se emplearon diversos
certain personality characteristics, and the development of “inadequate métodos para recoger los datos: revisión de expedientes, autoinformes
sexualisation” (96% of cases) were analyzed. This latter variable was y una entrevista aplicada a los JOS y a los profesionales implicados.
mainly related to an early onset of pornography consumption (70%), Resultados: se analizaron los factores de riesgo vinculados a la historia
to a sexualized family environment (26%), and to sexual victimization familiar, a determinadas características de personalidad y al desarrollo
during childhood (22%). Conclusion: These results are consistent with de una “sexualización inadecuada” (96% de los casos) relacionada,
international research on juvenile sex offending, so we can conclude that fundamentalmente, con un inicio precoz en el consumo de pornografía
the process of development of sexualization from infancy onwards should (70%), un ambiente familiar sexualizado (26%) y la presencia de
be deeply examined with regard to sexual violence. victimización sexual durante la infancia (22%). Conclusiones: los
Keywords: Juvenile sex offender; inadequate sexualisation; risk factors. resultados son coherentes con investigaciones internacionales. El
desarrollo de la sexualización desde la infancia debe ser examinado en
mayor profundidad con respecto a la violencia sexual.
Palabras clave: jóvenes ofensores sexuales; sexualización inadecuada;
factores de riesgo.

Sexual violence is still an underestimated type of violence. It is (JSO). Spanish Juvenile Justice Law considers criminal liability
estimated that 20% of the population has been or will be sexually from age 14, and police data reveal that juvenile sexual offending
victimized before age 18 (Council of Europe, 2019). Considering constitutes about 7% of the annual rate of sexual offences
that only 10% of these crimes are reported (Kjellgren, Priebe, (Ministerio del Interior, 2017). In comparison, data from European
Svedin, & Långström, 2010) it seems difficult to calculate the real studies indicate rates from 5% to 24% (Margari et al., 2015), while
volume of victims. The perpetration of this violence is related international rates vary from 11% to 19% (Lightfoot & Evans,
to individual factors as well as to sociocultural ones. It can be 2000; Pullman, Leroux, Motayne, & Seto, 2014; Pullman & Seto,
argued that it is the symptom that social, cultural, and individual 2012).
mechanisms have been somehow erratic (Seto & Lalumière, 2010; Most of the JSO literature is focused on different explanatory
White, Kadlec, & Sechrist, 2008). factors but does not clarify how these factors are interrelated,
Much of the research on sex offending has been focused on how they develop over time, or why they become relatively stable
adults, but it is crucial to pay attention to juvenile sex offenders (Lussier & Healey, 2010). Violent sexual behaviour cannot be
explained in a generalist manner through a unique explanatory
theory because it is an overlap of individual, psychological, and
Received: November 11, 2019 • Accepted: April 6, 2020 social processes all of them mediated by developmental and
Corresponding author: Pedro J. Amor learning environment (Rich, 2003).
Facultad de Psicología The integrated theory of Marshall and Barbaree (1990), and its
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED)
28040 Madrid (Spain) subsequent adaptations, has been one of the most influential and
e-mail: [email protected] innovative perspectives. It offers a developmental model to explain

314
 Characteristics and risk factors in juvenile sexual offenders

the origin of sexual violence (O’Reilly & Carr, 2004) suggesting that are inappropriate according to their evolutionary development
that adverse early experiences can disrupt a normal development (Lightfoot & Evans, 2000; Rich, 2003).
and may increase the likelihood to engage in sexually coercive In addition, individual risk factors related to sexual development
behaviour. But this theory has some weaknesses being one of the have been also examined. One of the most extensively explored
most obvious that it is extremely generalist attempting to explain has been sexual victimization during childhood. The percentages
all types of sexual offending (Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006). of JSO that have been victims of sexual violence ranges from less
Additionally, it remains unclear why the identified vulnerability than 10% to 92% depending on the research (McCuish, Cale, &
and situational factors lead to sexual violence. Other theoretical Corrado, 2017; Veneziano, Veneziano, & LeGrande, 2000). The
models for JSO have been focused on parameters such as family researchers’ criteria for categorizing sexual victimization are
context and history of maltreatment (Johnson & Knight, 2000), varied, but usually limited to a few types of direct sexual violence
attachment style (Rich, 2006), or early antisocial behaviour (Yoder & Precht, 2020). Consequently, the wide spectrum of
(Lussier & Healey, 2010). Nevertheless, all of them fail to explain sexually inadequate exposure or practices mentioned above
the sexually coercive behaviour from an integrative perspective remains overlooked (Goulet & Tardif, 2018). Moreover, findings
(Ward et al., 2006). about its predictive validity for sexual offending are inconsistent
There is considerable research on risk factors of JSO, although (Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Suffering sexual violence during
there is a need for more studies identifying specific risk factors to childhood will result in varied consequences and it has been
explain the development of the sexually coercive behaviour. One evidenced that JSO have higher rates of sexual victimization than
of the most studied risk factors is family background. Family is nonsexual offenders (Marini et al., 2014). Nevertheless, this is not
the most important learning environment during childhood and sufficient to causally link sexual victimization to sexual offending
the primary social context where children apprehend acceptable (Goulet & Tardif, 2018; Rich, 2003).
attitudes and behaviours. Criminological theories have evidenced JSO have been previously exposed to sexually inappropriate
that family factors are closely linked to general delinquency situations, so their learning about sexuality begins through that
(Ronis & Borduin, 2007). More specifically, it is well established experiences (Rich, 2003). It is usual that JSO have had their first
that a dysfunctional family background is a risk factor involved consensual sexual intercourse earlier than other adolescents
in the aetiology of juvenile sexual violence (Rich, 2003; Yoder, (Kjellgren et al., 2010; Seto & Lalumière, 2010), and there is
Dillard, & Leibowitz, 2018). evidence that JSO have been exposed to pornography at an early
Regarding family violence, Marini, Leibowitz, Burton, and age, sometimes before age 10 (Rich, 2003; White et al., 2008).
Stickle (2014) reported that 83% of JSO were physically abused, The fact that most JSO have been exposed or have experienced
80% emotionally abused, 72% sexually abused, and 63% suffered inadequate sexual situations (Lightfoot & Evans, 2000) is an
all types of violence. There is strong evidence that JSO have encouraging research domain. It may be possible that the key
higher rates of multiple victimization –physical, sexual, emotional factor to explain sexual violence is correlated with the concept
and/or neglect- during childhood than nonsexual offenders (Barra, of “inadequate sexualisation” in addition to other risk factors. As
Bessler, Landolt, & Aebi, 2018; DeLisi et al., 2017; Hall, Stinson, has been previously explained, this concept includes all childhood
& Moser, 2018; Levenson, Willis, & Prescott, 2016; Yoder et al., experiences that could have affected a proper sexual development.
2018). It is not only the direct violence but also the intrafamily Although it must be taken into account that the consideration of
context where it takes place, the basis of an unprotected and “normal” sexual development is culturally determined, it seems
unstructured environment. relevant to explore this issue.
Along with the experiences of suffered violence, the lack of The purpose of this study was to describe specific risk factors
stable attachment figures during childhood is also a risk factor related to sexual offending in a Spanish JSO sample to better
(Lightfoot & Evans, 2000; Margari et al., 2015; McCormack, understand their characteristics. Thus, it would be possible to
Hudson, & Ward, 2002). Attachment style and sexual development obtain more information about the origins of this behaviour and to
are mutually related because attachment model experience will highlight the concept of “inadequate sexualisation”, which could
trigger personal abilities to interact and relate to others (Bowlby, be considered a key risk factor. These results will facilitate early
1998). Thus, attachment style and internal models that regulate detection through preventive programmes and enhance effective
self-esteem and confidence in others mediates sexual attitudes and specific treatments.
(Tracy, Shaver, Albino, & Cooper, 2003). Although it cannot be
established a causal link, there is a correlation between insecure Method
attachment and sexual violence in JSO (Rich, 2006; Tracy et al.,
2003). JSO have a high prevalence of attachment disruptions Participants
during childhood (McCormack et al., 2002). Separation from one
or both parents ranges from 41% (Aebi, Vogt, Plattner, Steinhausen, The sample were 73 male juvenile sex offenders between 14 and
& Bessler, 2012) to 65% (Lightfoot & Evans, 2000), being these 18 years of age (M = 15.68, SD = 1.12) who were serving a sentence
percentages higher than in nonsexual offender control groups. for committing a sexual offence -sexual aggression (58.2%),
Linked to family violence, instability, or disorganization is sexual abuse (36.3%), child pornography (2.2%), exhibitionism
the possible existence of a sexually dysfunctional family (Goulet (1.1%), sexual harassment (1.1%), and prostitution and corruption
& Tardif, 2018). This has been an underattended risk factor that of minors (1.1%)- according to Spanish law.
might be relevant to explain adolescent sexual offending. A Inclusion criteria were (a) being sentenced for committing
sexually inadequate family environment is present when an adult a sexual offence between 14 and 18 years old, (b) voluntary
family member allows children to be exposed to sexual activities participation in the study, and (c) having the capacity to read and
or behaviours (e.g., pornography consumption, sexual intercourse) understand Spanish.

315
 Sandra Siria, Enrique Echeburúa, and Pedro J. Amor

Of the total sample, 43 (59%) were Spanish and 30 (41%) from .92. “Expressed concern” variables scores between 60 and 74
other countries. Approximately 84% of the sample was attending suggest that it is a slightly problematic issue for the adolescent.
secondary school. Scores should be higher than 75 to be considered as problematic.
When referring to “Clinical syndrome” variables, scores between
Instruments 61 and 74 indicate that the participant has similarities with juvenile
population who manifest the syndrome, but it does not imply the
Semi-structured interview. This instrument was developed presence of the syndrome.
to collect information from JSO which was further completed Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980) (Spanish
and contrasted with professionals and through existing official version by Pérez-Albéniz, de Paúl, Etxeberría, Montes, &
records: Torres, 2003). The IRI is a self-report instrument developed to
assess empathy from a multidimensional perspective including
a) History of family characteristics. Family relationships and cognitive and emotional factors. It is a 28-item scale subdivided
parental marital status, separation from parents during in 4 categories: perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern,
childhood (it was categorized as an interruption to the and personal distress. The first two categories assess cognitive
relationship between the JSO and one or both parents during processes and the last two measures emotional reactions to
childhood for a period of at least 4 months under circumstances negative experiences of others. It is used for adult and adolescent
of family conflict, death, abandonment, or events such as population. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from
imprisonment, hospitalization, or child institutionalization), .70 to .78 (Davis, 1980). Test-retest reliability for male population
educational style (permissive, overprotective, assertive, scored between .61 and .79 after 60- and 75-day time periods,
or authoritative), maltreatment experience from a family respectively. In the Spanish adaptation for juvenile population,
member (physical, emotional, sexual, and/or neglect), internal consistency for different scales varies from .67 to .80
substance consumption by family members, exposure to (Pérez-Albéniz et al., 2003).
violence towards women, and living in a dysfunctional
household (house instability, lots and different people living Procedure
with the family, usual changes of caregivers, non-stable adult
figures, and/or habitual family conflict); A descriptive study with male juvenile sex offenders was
b) School progress. School grade, school absenteeism and/or conducted. Spanish Juvenile Justice System Authorities from each
dropout, school year repetition, disruptive behaviour, and Autonomous Region of Spain were asked to participate. Ethical
the presence of committed or suffered bullying; approval was obtained from those that gave permission to develop
c) Sexual conduct. Age at their first consensual sexual the research. A collaboration agreement was signed with them
intercourse, consensual sexual intercourses before sexual (Balearic Islands, Canary Islands, Catalonia, Castilla and Leon,
crime, ever had a partner, gender of their partners, whether Madrid, Murcia, and Valencia). Prior to inclusion in the study,
they had a partner when committed the sexual crime, and informed consent was obtained from juveniles over 18 years old,
whether they had ever received any sexual education (by a and from juveniles’ parents or legal guardians when they were
professional or an adult); under 18.
d) Inadequate sexualisation. This concept was categorized if Three sources were used to collect data directly by the first
one or more of the following variables were present: sexual author: (a) a review of the individual case files; (b) an individual
victimization during childhood, early consensual sexual interview with the professionals in charge; and (c) an individual
intercourse with a similar-age partner (before age 13), semi-structured interview with each JSO who also completed the
exposure to inappropriate sexual behaviour within the family standardized measures MACI and IRI. Data gathering took place
environment during childhood, beginning of pornography between 2013 and 2015.
consumption at an early age (before age 12), first sexual
intercourse through the use of prostitution at an early age, Data analysis
and the presence of deviant sexual fantasies (if fantasies
implied violence or children more than 4-year younger); and Descriptive statistics were performed by means of frequency
e) Criminal records. Sentence, type of offence, victim and percentage analysis as well as central tendency statistics
characteristics, offence characteristics, sexual recidivism, (mean and standard deviation). The one-sample t-test was used
and other committed crimes (both auto-informed and to determine the significance of the difference between the
through criminal records). means of two sets of data (JSO sample and a normative group)
for the IRI self-report. A difference of p < .05 was considered
Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI; Millon, 1993) significant. Hedges’ g effect size (Hedges, 1981) was calculated
(Spanish version by Aguirre Llagostera, 2004). The MACI and interpreted as follows: g = 0.20 (small), g = 0.50 (medium),
evaluates personality traits and psychopathology in adolescents. and g ≥ 0.80 (large) (Cohen, 1988). The analyses were performed
It is a 160-item self-reported inventory, with a true-false format using the SPSS 24.0 programme.
and 31 scales. It assesses personality styles, significant personal
concerns, and clinical symptoms in adolescent population. The Results
recommended age for participants is 13 to 19 years old. Reliability
has good scores in most areas. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s Table 1 shows the characteristics related to committed sexual
alpha) ranged from .69 to .90 for different scales. After 3- and offences. Sexual recidivism was determined by the presence of
7-day time periods, test-retest reliability scored between .57 and more than one episode of sexual violence against the same (53%)

316
 Characteristics and risk factors in juvenile sexual offenders

or different victims (47%). Victim characteristics can be observed Regarding the presence of bullying, there were participants who
in Table 1. To determine age difference between the victim and the bullied (51.35%) and participants who were bullied (48.65%).
offender, it was established a four-year difference: child victims Table 3 displays the JSO’ previous sexual behaviour. More
were at least four years younger than the offender, peer victims than two thirds of the sample did not receive sexual education
had up to 4 years difference, and adult victims were more than during childhood. The vast majority had had one or more partners
four years older than offender. before committing the sexual crime. One third had a partner at
Table 2 shows the biological parents’ marital status and the the time of the commission of the sexual crime, but none of them
number of participants that lived separated from their parents committed the sexual crime against that partner. Mean age at first
during childhood. Some of them lived separated from their father consensual sexual intercourse was 13.29 years (SD = 1.79, range
(38.98%), others from their mother (3.39%), and the rest from both 8-16 years old).
parents (57.63%). As shown in Table 3, one out of five were sexually victimized
The vast majority of JSO reported childhood maltreatment. during childhood, 75% of them by a male offender and 25% by a
Attending to abuse typologies, participants experienced physical female offender. In these results, sexual victimization is related to
abuse (38.36%), emotional abuse (84.93%), neglect (78.08%), and what is socially perceived as sexual abuse and do not encompasses
sexual abuse (21.92%). All of them were victims of more than one the rest of the variables that comprises the concept of “inadequate
type of abuse. Nearly half reported neglect and emotional abuse sexualisation”. Mean age at the beginning of pornography
(48.39%), 25.81% endorsed physical abuse, emotional abuse and consumption was 11.54 years old (SD = 2.06, range 7-16 years old),
neglect, and 12.9% stated physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual starting most of them before the age 12. These results revealed
abuse and neglect. The remaining percentage (12.9%) described that there was an elevated presence of the variable “inadequate
other combinations of maltreatment typologies. The findings about sexualisation” during childhood (see Table 3).
the four educational styles evaluated were the following: 63% Regarding clinical variables, Table 4 describes the MACI mean
permissive, 29% overprotective, 3% assertive, and 5% authoritative. scores that appeared relevant according to the manual instructions.
Most JSO repeated a year at school, some of them once (35.48%) Consistent with the MACI manual, the analysis of Personality pattern
and the rest twice or more (64.52%). Most of them attended school scales’ variables should be limited to scores above 60. Modifying
irregularly and 13.21% dropped out of school. Some participants indices mean scores indicated that Disclosure and Debasement
showed disruptive behaviour being some of them violent against scales’ mean scores were in line with adolescent normative samples.
mates or teachers (72.22%) and the remaining nonviolent (27.78%). Desirability scale mean score was between 75 and 84.

Table 2
Table 1
Family and academic background (N = 73)
Characteristics of sexual offence (N = 73)
n (%)
n (%)
FAMILY BACKGROUND
Sexual recidivism
First sexual offence 39 (53.42) Biological parents’ marital status
More than one sexual offence 34 (46.58) Married 26 (35.62)
Divorced 39 (53.42)
1
Victim gender Dead (one or both) 6 (8.22)
Female 66 (72.53) Others (abandonment, unknown) 2 (2.74)
Male 23 (25.27)
Both 2 (2.2) Has lived separated from parents during childhood
Yes 59 (80.82)
1
Victim age No 14 (19.18)
Child 31 (34.06)
Peer 49 (53.85) Has been maltreated by a family member
Adult 11 (12.09) Yes 62 (84.93)
No 11 (15.07)
1
Previous relationship between offender and victim
Family 16 (17.58) Dysfunctional or disorganized household
Acquaintance 42 (46.15) Yes 51 (69.86)
Unknown 33 (36.27) No 22 (30.14)

Number of offenders1 ACADEMIC BACKGROUND

One 71 (78.03) Repetition of school year
Two or more 20 (21.97) Yes 62 (84.93)
Main sentence2 No 11 (15.07)
Custodial facility 67 (83.75) School absence
Community-based programme 13 (16.25) Yes 53 (72.6)
Total length of the sentence2 No 20 (27.4)
Less than 1 year 15 (18.75) Disruptive behaviour
Between 1 and 3 years 43 (53.75) Yes 54 (73.97)
Between 3 and 7 years 17 (21.25) No 19 (26.03)
More than 7 years 5 (6.25)
Presence of bullying
Note: 1 Total number of sexual offences and victims is 91. 2Total number of sentences is 80, Yes 37 (50.68)
due to the commission of more than one sexual offence No 36 (49.32)

317
 Sandra Siria, Enrique Echeburúa, and Pedro J. Amor

Table 3 Table 4
Sexual behaviour background and inadequate sexualisation (N = 73) Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory scores (N = 73)

n (%) M (SD)

SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR BACKGROUND Modifying indices

Has received sexual education X Disclosure 54.94 (22.71)
Yes 21 (28.77) Y Desirability 78.54 (20.01)
No 52 (71.23) Z Debasement 60.38 (21.90)

Has had a partner before the sexual crime Personality patterns scales
Yes 67 (91.78) 1 Introversive 42.92 (22.15)
No 6 (8.22) 2A Inhibited 41.5 (23.08)
2B Doleful 47.22 (16.31)
Had a partner when committed the sexual crime 3 Submissive 56.65 (26.69)
Yes 22 (30.14) 4 Dramatizing 64.49 (32.92)1
No 51 (69.86) 5 Egotistic 63.94 (31.50)1
Has had consensual sexual intercourse before the sexual crime 6A Unruly 59.25 (24.91)
Yes 56 (76.71) 6B Forceful 48.94 (23.26)
No 17 (23.29) 7 Conforming 66.64 (34.08)1
8A Oppositional 48.37 (23.45)
INADEQUATE SEXUALISATION 8B Self-demeaning 45.14 (19.86)
Victim of sexual violence during childhood 9 Borderline tendency 43.58 (21.48)
Yes 16 (21.92) Expressed concern
No 57 (78.08) A Identity diffusion 47.15 (24.47)
Exposed to inappropriate sexual behaviour within the family environment B Self-devaluation 50.68 (24.65)
Yes 19 (26.03) C Body disapproval 49.33 (22.87)
No 54 (73.97) D Sexual discomfort 56.47 (30.25)
E Peer insecurity 50.43 (20.49)
Beginning of pornography consumption at an early age (<12 years) F Social insensitivity 68.72 (27.52)1
Yes 51 (69.86) G Family discord 49.10 (19.77)
No 22 (30.14) H Childhood abuse 62.15 (30.46)1
Deviant sexual fantasies Clinical syndrome
Yes 15 (20.55) AA Eating dysfunctions 51.61 (22.12)
No 58 (79.45) BB Substance-abuse proneness 64.36 (24.36)1
Inadequate sexualisation CC Delinquent predisposition 69.49 (22.78)1
Yes 70 (95.89) DD Impulsive propensity 52.86 (29.01)
No 3 (4.11) EE Anxious feelings 45.27 (23.56)
FF Depressive affect 46.35 (24.63)
GG Suicidal tendency 52.96 (21.26)

Note: Scoring range of all scales is 0-115. 1 Means that exceeds relevant scores according
Attending to empathy construct, IRI scores are shown in Table to the manual
5. The highest score appeared in Empathic Concern scale which
is related to emotional reactions to other’s negative experiences,
compassion, and concern about other’s discomfort. Statistically Table 5
significant differences were observed when comparing current Interpersonal Reactivity Index differences between JSO sample and normative
sample scores and Mestre-Escrivá, Frías-Navarro, and Samper- adolescent population
García (2004) research. Differences were found in the Empathic JSO sample Mestre et al. (2004)
Concern scale (medium effect size), in the Perspective Taking (N = 73) (N = 682)
scale (small effect size), and in the Personal Distress scale (small
M (SD) M (SD) t p g
effect size).
Perspective Taking (0-28) 15.84 (5.14) 14.38 (4.26) 2.72 .006** .335
Discussion Fantasy (0-28) 13.90 (5.53) 13.45 (4.77) 0.75 .451 .215
Empathic Concern (0-28) 19.25 (5.13) 16.73 (4.09) 4.87 .0001*** .664
The aim of the research was to describe specific and general Personal Distress (0-28) 11.59 (4.20) 10.41 (4.33) 2.21 .026* .273
risk factors related to sexual offending in a sample of Spanish
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. g = Hedges’ g (effect size)
JSO. Better understanding of their background and their
individual, family, and personality characteristics will facilitate
the development of prevention and treatment programmes.
Findings showed that 46.6% of the sample repeated their sexually similar aged to the offender. Thus, these findings support the idea
coercive conduct, which is noteworthy. However, due to the age of that JSO’ victim selection is more mediated by the opportunity
the participants, it is not possible to define them as specialized than by a deliberated election of a specific victim profile (Hunter
sexual offenders (Pullman et al., 2014). The rate of group sexual et al., 2003; Kemper & Kistner, 2007).
offences (22%) is between the 7% found by Hunter, Figueredo, This study reveals that the prevalence of multiple maltreatment
Malamuth, and Becker (2003) and the 42% detected by Kjellgren and family dysfunction is high for JSO. The findings are similar
et al. (2010). Most of the victims were female, acquaintance, and to previous research that found elevated rates of childhood

318
 Characteristics and risk factors in juvenile sexual offenders

maltreatment in JSO samples (Hall et al., 2018; Levenson et al., line with Zakireh, Ronis, and Knight (2008) research. However,
2016; Marini et al., 2014; McCuish et al., 2017). The likelihood these results differ from Zakireh et al. (2008) who found high
to develop a violent or criminal behaviour during adolescence scores in sexual discomfort and body disapproval. In relation with
is higher for those who suffered any kind of violence during clinical syndromes, delinquent predisposition and substance-abuse
childhood (Baglivio & Epps, 2016; Fox, Pérez, Cass, Baglivio, & proneness are the most salient scales. These findings partially support
Epps, 2015; McCuish et al., 2017). In this respect, current research previous research that examined JSO groups based on their MACI
supports that JSO live in a dysfunctional family household and are profiles (Glowacz & Born, 2013; Newman et al., 2019). Related to
highly victimized (Barra et al., 2018; DeLisi et al., 2017; McCuish desirability scores, it cannot be assumed an elevated desirability,
et al., 2017). Consistent with previous studies (Aebi et al., 2012; but they could be expected to minimize their concerns.
Lightfoot & Evans, 2000), these findings also support that the Regarding empathy construct, JSO of our sample have higher
separation in infancy from parents is usual for JSO. rates of cognitive and affective empathy than general Spanish
Family and personal distress may be linked to academic adolescent population (Mestre-Escrivá et al., 2004). These findings
results and behaviour. Most of them repeated a school year as was are consistent with the idea about the dynamism of empathy and
evidenced in prior studies (Goulet & Tardif, 2018), and was also its capability of being modified depending on the circumstances
frequent to show disruptive behaviour and school absenteeism. It is (Ward et al., 2006). A possible explanation is that JSO may
important to further explore how family background and negative have a high general rate of empathy but low specific empathy
experiences at home affect the academic context. towards their victims (Brown, Harkins, & Beech, 2012; Ward et
The focus on sexual behaviour is essential. JSO of this study had al., 2006). As IRI does not assess specific situational empathy,
their first consensual sexual intercourse at an average age of 13, further research is needed. Nevertheless, results should be read
two years earlier than adolescent Spanish population (Bermúdez, with caution due to small effect sizes, except for the Empathic
Castro, Madrid, & Buela-Casal, 2010). As Bullens, van Wijk, and Concern scale. The debate should be focused on defining if sexual
Mali (2006) pointed out, it might be convenient to revise the idea offences are triggered by empathy deficits towards the victim or if
that some authors have previously stated that adolescents who the attention should be paid on different mechanisms as cognitive
commit sexual offences are just experimenting with sex. Actually, distortions, self-esteem, or social incompetence.
77% of the sample had had previous consensual sexual intercourse This research, in which juveniles from different Autonomous
before sexual offending. Regions were included, is the first approach to Spanish JSO
Therefore, sexual development and behaviour in childhood population. It is surprising that research on juvenile sex offending
seems to be one of the most important specific risk factors for sex has paid relatively little attention to sexual development. Thus,
offending during adolescence. Many researchers and clinicians future studies should examine in more detail variables related to
attribute sexually coercive conduct to prior sexual victimization “inadequate sexualisation” because the current findings suggest
(Yoder & Precht, 2020). However, our findings reveal that there encouraging ideas about it.
is not a high rate of sexual victimization during childhood, which This study has some limitations. First, the limited size of the
is consistent with previous research (Barra et al., 2018; Newman, sample has to be taken into account when interpreting the results.
Larsen, Thompson, Cyperski, & Burkhart, 2019). The presence of Second, sexual offenders of the sample were serving a sentence
the variables that integrate the concept of “inadequate sexualisation” due to the severity of the sexual offence so the results may not
is certainly part of these adolescents’ previous experiences that may be generalizable to young offenders who commit minor sexual
have affected their sexual development. Seventy percent of them offences. Finally, it should be remarked that this study does not
begun pornography consumption before 12 years old, 26% lived in address causal determinations for sex offending, but findings are
a sexualized family environment, the age at their first consensual consistent with the key risk factors of juvenile sexual offending.
sexual intercourse was lower than in general population -usually There is a need to develop more research with JSO samples in
before 13 years old-, and 21% had deviant sexual fantasies. These order to understand the onset and the dynamics of violent sexual
results are consistent with international research (Goulet & Tardif, behaviour from early stages. This will allow to effectively assess,
2018; White et al., 2008). Thus, “inadequate sexualisation” should treat, and manage this population, decrease sexual recidivism,
be taken into consideration for future research when comparing and prevent sexual violence (Pullman & Seto, 2012). More
JSO with nonsexual offenders and general adolescent population investigation on JSO group comparisons will be developed to
to assess its validity. distinguish between types of sex offenders, for example, sexual
Attending to MACI results, JSO have a dramatizing, egotistic, recidivists in comparison with nonsexual recidivists, or sex-only
and conforming personality pattern. About expressed concerns, offenders in comparison with sex-plus offenders (if they had ever
scores related to social insensitivity and childhood abuse are in committed nonsexual offences as well).

References

Aebi, M., Vogt, G., Plattner, B., Steinhausen, H. C., & Bessler, C. Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2016). The interrelatedness of
(2012). Offender types and criminality dimensions in male juveniles adverse childhood experiences among high-risk juvenile
convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 265-288. offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(3), 179-198.
doi:10.1177/1079063211420449 doi:10.1177/1541204014566286
Aguirre Llagostera, G. (2004). MACI. Inventario Clínico para Adolescentes de Barra, S., Bessler, C., Landolt, M. A., & Aebi, M. (2018). Patterns of
Millon [Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory]. Madrid, España: Pearson. adverse childhood experiences in juveniles who sexually offended.

319
 Sandra Siria, Enrique Echeburúa, and Pedro J. Amor

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 30(7), 803-827. Lightfoot, S., & Evans, I. M. (2000). Risk factors for a New Zealand
doi:10.1177/1079063217697135 sample of sexually abusive children and adolescents. Child Abuse &
Bermúdez, M. P., Castro, A., Madrid, J., & Buela-Casal, G. (2010). Análisis Neglect, 24(9), 1185-1198. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00173-3
de la conducta sexual de adolescentes autóctonos e inmigrantes Lussier, P., & Healey, J. (2010). Searching for the developmental origins of
latinoamericanos en España [Analysis of sexual behaviour of native sexual violence: Examining the co-occurrence of physical aggression
adolescents and Latin American immigrants in Spain]. International and sexual behaviors in early childhood. Behavioral Sciences & the
Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 10(1), 89-103. Retrieved Law, 28(1), 1-23. doi:10.1002/bsl.919
from http://redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33712017006 Margari, F., Lecce, P. A., Craig, F., Lafortezza, E., Lisi, A., Pinto, F., …
Bowlby, J. (1998). El apego: el apego y la pérdida-1 [Attachment: Grattagliano, I. (2015). Juvenile sex offenders: Personality profile,
Attachment and loss-1]. Barcelona, España: Paidós. coping styles and parental care. Psychiatry Research, 229(1-2), 82-88.
Brown, S., Harkins, L., & Beech, A. R. (2012). General and victim- doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.066
specific empathy: Associations with actuarial risk, treatment Marini, V. A., Leibowitz, G. S., Burton, D. L., & Stickle, T. R. (2014).
outcome, and sexual recidivism. Sex Abuse, 24(5), 411-430. Victimization, substance use, and sexual aggression in male adolescent
doi:10.1177/1079063211423944 sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(5), 635-649.
Bullens, R., van Wijk, A., & Mali, B. (2006). Similarities and differences doi:10.1177/0093854813507567
between the criminal careers of Dutch juvenile sex offenders and Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the
non-sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(2), 155-164. etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws & H. E.
doi:10.1080/13552600600845715 Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. treatment of the offender (pp. 257-275). New York, NY: Plenum
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Press.
Council of Europe (2019). One in five. Retrieved from http://www.coe. McCormack, J., Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (2002). Sexual offenders’
int/t/dg3/children/1in5/default_en.asp perceptions of their early interpersonal relationships: An
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual attachment perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2), 85-93.
differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in doi:10.1080/00224490209552127
Psychology, 10(85), 1-19. McCuish, E. C., Cale, J., & Corrado, R. R. (2017). Abuse experiences
DeLisi, M., Alcala, J., Kusow, A., Hochstetler, A., Heirigs, M. H., Caudill, of family members, child maltreatment, and the development of
J. W.,…Baglivio, M. T. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences, sex offending among incarcerated adolescent males: Differences
commitment offense, and race/ethnicity: Are the effects crime-race and between adolescent sex offenders and adolescent non-sex offenders.
ethnicity-specific? International Journal of Environmental Research International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
and Public Health, 14(3), 331-342. doi:10.3390/ijerph14030331 Criminology, 61(2), 127-149. doi:10.1177/0306624X15597492
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014). Violence against Mestre-Escrivá, V., Frías-Navarro, M. D., & Samper-García, P. (2004).
women: An EU-wide survey. Main results. Retrieved from https://fra. Measuring empathy: The Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psicothema,
europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main- 16(2), 255-260. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.es/pdf/1191.
results-apr14_en.pdf pdf
Fox, B., Pérez, N., Cass, E., Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2015). Trauma Millon, T. (1993). Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory: Manual.
changes everything: Examining the relationship between adverse Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
childhood experiences and serious violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Ministerio del Interior (2017). Informe sobre delitos contra la libertad
Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 163-173. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.011 e indemnidad sexual en España [Report on crimes against sexual
Glowacz, F., & Born, M. (2013). Do adolescent child abusers, peer abusers, freedom and sexual indemnity in Spain]. Retrieved from http://www.
and non-sex offenders have different personality profiles? European interior.gob.es/documents/10180/0/Informe+delitos+contra+la+libe
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(2), 117-125. doi:10.1007/s00787- rtad+e+indemnidad+sexual+2017.pdf/da546c6c-36c5-4854-864b-
012-0333-2 a133f31b4dde
Goulet, J. A. S., & Tardif, M. (2018). Exploring sexuality profiles of Newman, J. L. E., Larsen, J. L., Thompson, K., Cyperski, M., &
adolescents who have engaged in sexual abuse and their link to Burkhart, B. R. (2019). Heterogeneity in male adolescents with
delinquency and offense characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect, 82, illegal sexual behavior: A latent profile approach to classification.
112-123. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.023 Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(7), 789-811.
Hall, K. L., Stinson, J. D., & Moser, M. R. (2018). Impact of childhood doi:10.1177/1079063218784554
adversity and out-of-home placement for male adolescents who have O’Reilly, G., & Carr, A. (2004). A review of theoretical models of sexual
engaged in sexually abusive behavior. Child Maltreatment, 23(1), 63- offending. In G. O’Reilly, W. L. Marshall, A. Carr & R. C. Beckett
73. doi:10.1177/1077559517720726 (Eds.), The handbook of clinical intervention with young people who
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect sexually abuse (pp. 36-61). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), Pérez-Albéniz, A., de Paúl, J., Etxeberría, J., Montes, M. P., & Torres,
107-128. doi:10.2307/1164588 E. (2003). Spanish adaptation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
Hunter, J. A., Figueredo, A. J., Malamuth, N., & Becker, J. V. (2003). Psicothema, 15(2), 267-272. Retrieved from https://www.psicothema.
Juvenile sex offenders: Toward the development of a typology. Sexual com/psicothema.asp?id=1056
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 27-48. doi:10.1023/ Pullman, L. E., Leroux, E. J., Motayne, G., & Seto, M. C. (2014).
A:1020663723593 Examining the developmental trajectories of adolescent sexual
Johnson, G. M., & Knight, R. A. (2000). Developmental antecedents offenders. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38(7), 1249-1258. doi:10.1016/j.
of sexual coercion in juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A chiabu.2014.03.003
Journal of Research and Treatment, 12(3), 165-178. doi:10.1023/ Pullman, L., & Seto, M. C. (2012). Assessment and treatment of adolescent
A:1009546308248 sexual offenders: Implications of recent research on generalist versus
Kemper, T. S., & Kistner, J. A. (2007). Offense history and recidivism specialist explanations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(3), 203-209.
in three victim-age-based groups of juvenile sex offenders. Sexual doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.11.003
Abuse, 19(4), 409-424. doi:10.1177/107906320701900406 Rich, P. (2003). Understanding, assessing and rehabilitating juvenile
Kjellgren, C., Priebe, G., Svedin, C. G., & Långström, N. (2010). Sexually sexual offenders. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
coercive behavior in male youth: Population survey of general and Rich, P. (2006). Attachment and sexual offending: Understanding and
specific risk factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1161-1169. applying attachment theory to the treatment of juvenile sexual
doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9572-9 offenders. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Levenson, J. S., Willis, G. M., & Prescott, D. S. (2016). Adverse Ronis, S. T., & Borduin, C. M. (2007). Individual, family, peer, and
childhood experiences in the lives of male sex offenders: academic characteristics of male juvenile sexual offenders. Journal
Implications for trauma-informed care. Sexual Abuse, 28(4), 340-359. of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2), 153-163. doi:10.1007/s10802-
doi:10.1177/1079063214535819 006-9058-3

320
 Characteristics and risk factors in juvenile sexual offenders

Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (pp. 128-147). New York, NY: The
adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through Guilford Press.
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526-575. doi:10.1037/ Yoder, J., Dillard, R., & Leibowitz, G. S. (2018). Family experiences
a0019700 and sexual victimization histories: A comparative analysis between
Tracy, J., Shaver, P., Albino, A., & Cooper, M. (2003). Attachment styles youth sexual and nonsexual offenders. International Journal of
and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romance Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(10), 2917-2936.
and sexual behavior: Theory, research and practical implications doi:10.1177/0306624X17738063
(pp. 137-159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Yoder, J., & Precht, M. (2020). Victimization experiences and
Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & LeGrande, S. (2000). The relationship executive dysfunction as discriminating risk indicators for
between adolescent sex offender behaviors and victim characteristics youth offender typologies. International Journal of Offender
with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(4), Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(1), 63-82.
363-374. doi:10.1177/088626000015004002 doi:10.1177/0306624x19865185
Ward, T., Polaschek, D., & Beech, A. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. Zakireh, B., Ronis, S. T., & Knight, R. A. (2008). Individual beliefs,
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. attitudes, and victimization histories of male juvenile sexual offenders.
White, J., Kadlec, K., & Sechrist, S. (2008). Adolescent sexual aggression Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(3), 323-351.
within heterosexual relationships. In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall doi:10.1177/1079063208322424

321