Developing Empathy in Sexual Offenders: The Value of Offence Re-Enactments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an evaluation of different uses of role-play to enhance victim-specific empathy in sexual offenders. Thirty-three men participated in a treatment program involving offence re-enactment as described by Pithers (1994) and Mann, Daniels, and Marshall (2002). A matched group of 33 men participated in a treatment program that was identical in all respects except that they did not complete offence re-enactments. Instead, they completed extra role-plays designed to enhance empathy for the short and long-term consequences for their victim(s). Results indicated that completing an offence re-enactment led to slightly better ability to identify some types of negative consequences for abuse victims, and identify cognitive distortions about their offending and women per se. Rapists in particular seemed more likely to benefit from offence re-enactment. The non-reenactment group showed better understanding of lifestyle disruption effects for sexual abuse victims. The differences between the groups were not very marked, and the study only involved measures of cognitive empathy. Given the concerns about offence re-enactment expressed by Pithers (1997), this procedure should be used with caution and future investigations should test specifically for possible signs of damage caused by the procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".