The Importance of Offense Characteristics, Victimization History, Hostility, and Social Desirability in Assessing Empathy of Male Adolescent Sex Offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empathy has been a focus of work with sex offenders; however, there are a limited number of studies supporting this as a deficit. The study investigated the reliability and validity of 3 scales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)--Empathic Concern [EC], Perspective-Taking [PT], and Personal Distress [PD]--within a clinical sample. These scales were also used to examine the differences in empathy among groups of sex offenders. One hundred and twenty-three male adolescent sex offenders (ages 12-19) completed a battery of psychometric measures that included the IRI during a sex-offender-specific assessment. Moderate internal consistency and convergent validity was established for IRI scales. Age and social desirability were related to IRI scores. Victim empathy was not related to IRI scores. Justifications and acceptance of sexual and interpersonal violence were negatively correlated to EC and positively correlated to PD. Those who committed violent offenses reported more EC and PT; however, a generally hostile temperament was negatively related to these scales. Group differences were not found when contrasted with respect to a history of sexual or physical victimization or denial. Researchers using the IRI with male adolescent sex offenders should be cautious of the influence of age and socially desirable responding.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".