Shelley Johnson Listwan, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada Las Vegas
Kimberly Gentry Sperber, Talbert House
Lisa Murphy Spruance, Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati
Patricia Van Voorhis, Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati

Introduction
Description of the Studies
Results
Conclusions

OVER DECADES, various psychological classification systems have staked a clear position for the neurotic, high anxiety offender. We have accumulated evidence across four studies that find the neurotic group of offenders to be of particular interest to correctional practitioners and policy makers. They have made poor adjustments to prison, had the highest long-term recidivism rates, performed poorly in a cognitive skills intervention and assist in differentiating child molesters. The findings also illustrate that personality is an important factor across a number of different samples, lending support for the reliability of the Jesness Inventory.

Psychological, personality-based classification systems have been used since the 1960s to develop differential treatment and supervision plans for offenders (Van Voorhis, 2000). This approach assumed that, even apart from their risk of re-offending, offenders were not all alike and that no single treatment modality worked with all types of offenders across the full spectrum of correctional settings (Warren, 1971; Palmer, 1974). In support, the early proponents of differential treatment found that offenders who were placed in treatment modalities matched to personality characteristics were more likely to perform better than those who were inappropriately placed (Jesness, 1971; Palmer, 1974; 2002; Warren, 1983).

More contemporary writings place personality among a larger group of offender responsivity factors (Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990), including learning styles, motivation levels, intellectual functioning, and other traits, which are likely to become barriers to the success of some types of interventions. Notwithstanding the promising results of studies conducted through the 1970s and 1980s, responsivity remains under-researched and seldom considered in correctional practice. Indeed, responsivity is a frequent topic of discussion in correctional policy meetings, non-empirical writings, and staff training, but it is seldom structured into current correctional practice or research.

This article summarizes the results of four recent studies that employed an offender-based personality typology (using the Jesness Inventory, 1996) to examine the importance of personality in prison adjustment, long-term offender recidivism, success in cognitive programming, and dynamics of child molestation. Across these samples of male offenders, we found a consistent pattern suggesting that high-anxiety offenders, those referred to as neurotic offenders on the personality classification systems, are distinct from other offenders in extremely important ways. The findings urge renewed consideration not only of offender personality but also of a distinct type of offender who receives limited attention in contemporary correctional treatment.

As noted in more detailed descriptions of the offender personality typologies (e.g., see Warren, 1971, Van Voorhis, 1994; Van Voorhis & Sperber, 1999), the neurotic personality type is one of four offender personality types common to the various personality classification systems (Megargee & Bohn, 1979; Quay, 1983; Jesness, 1988, 1996; Warren, 1983). The most common types and their descriptions are as follows:

I-level, as measured by the Jesness Inventory, identifies nine personality types^* Among adults, these can be collapsed into the following four types (Van Voorhis, 1994) that are of primary interest to the present study: a) antisocial, who are described as manipulative, hostile, and possessing antisocial values and peers; b) neurotic, or highly anxious, defensive, and insecure; c) dependent, described as dependent, followers, who do not evidence antisocial values/attitudes; and d) situational, who are prosocial, conforming, and, at times, na•ve. The pattern across various I-level studies finds that types comprising the antisocial offenders (e.g., Aa, CFC, MP) and the neurotic offenders (e.g., Na, Nx) most often differentiate offenders in terms of their success in programs (e.g. Heide, 1983; Jesness, 1971; Palmer, 1974; 2002; Van Voorhis, Spruance, Ritchie, Listwan, Seabrook, & Pealer, 2002; Warren, 1983), their offense patterns (e.g., Harris, 1979; Heide, 1992,1999), and their prison adjustments (Van Voorhis, 1994).

In narrowing our focus to the neurotic offender, it is important to remember that anxiety can exist both as a state of mind and as a personality trait. The type of neuroticism discussed here does not relate to the general feeling of anxiety that most experience in response to situational pressures (e.g., anxiety over a licensing exam or a loved one's illness). Here we are concerned with anxiety as a trait, an enduring characteristic that more persistently influences individual perceptions and behavior. Studies conclude that individuals higher in trait anxiety are consistently more prone to perceive greater danger in their relationships and to respond with greater elevations of situational or state anxiety (Speilberger, 1985). Individuals with high trait anxiety, often called negative affectivity, tended to have a very negative view of themselves, to worry more often, and to dwell on frustrations and disappointments (Watson & Clark, 1984). Moreover, individuals high in neuroticism were shown to be more distressed on average in comparison to low neuroticism subjects and to have lower thresholds for responding to stressful events (Bolger & Schillings, 1991). Although some individuals may experience these feelings as a state of mind during times of stress, those high in negative affectivity manifest these feelings even in the absence of stress (Watson & Clark, 1984).

Although personality was neglected for many years in criminology, recent research finds it to be an important predictor of behavior. For example, research by Caspi, Moffitt, Silva, Stouthamer-Loeber, Kreuger, and Schmutte (1994) found that low constraint and negative emotionality were predictors of criminal behavior regardless of age, geographic location, race, and gender. Further, constraint and negative emotionality emerged as correlates among life-course persistent offenders (Kreuger, Schmutte, Caspi, Moffitt, Campbell, & Silva, 1994). Traits pertaining to negative emotionality and low constraint were also implicated in relationship difficulties (Moffitt, 1993) and health risk behaviors (e.g., violent crime, alcohol dependence, sexual behavior, and dangerous driving habits) (Caspi, Harrington, Moffitt, Begg, Dickson, Langley & Silva, 1997). Finally, Agnew, Brezina, Wright & Cullen (2002) found that "strain is more likely to lead to delinquency among those high in negative emotionality/low constraint" (p. 63). Importantly, the study also concluded that those high in negative emotionality and low in constraint did not engage in delinquency in the absence of strain.

Since their inception, correctional, psychological classification systems have staked a clear position for the neurotic, high anxiety, offender. With youth in California, these delinquents were diagnosed as either neurotic anxious or neurotic acting-out according to the Interpersonal Maturity Level (I-level) classification system (Warren et al., 1966; Palmer, 2002). In the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Quay Adult Internal Management System (Quay, 1983) identified a neurotic anxious type for adults. The Quay System for juvenile offenders put forward a similar type (Quay and Parsons, 1971). Finally, the Megargee MMPI based Prison Typology (Megargee and Bohn, 1979) notes types Baker, George, and Jupiter. All are described as dealing with forms of trait anxiety.

Early writings offered some concerns about these individuals, as exemplified by the type descriptions of the neurotic offender. For example, sources asserted that neurotic offenders made poor adjustments to prison settings; needed to be placed away from predatory inmates; did not improve without intervention; and were likely to amplify rather than resolve acting-out behaviors when confronted by staff. Warren described this group of individuals as having a "good deal of internal 'wear and tear' involving anxiety, guilt, a 'bad me' self image, 'negative life script' distorted perceptions, and dysfunctional behavior." Delinquency has some private meaning and is not intended simply for material gain or as a response to peer pressure. It may involve acting out of a family problem, an identity crisis, or a long-standing internal conflict. These individuals may also show symptoms of emotional disturbance, chronic or intense depression, or psychosomatic complaints.

Both the Preston Topology Study (Jesness, 1971) and the Community Treatment Project (CTP) in California (Palmer, 1974; 2002; Warren, 1983) reported that outcomes were better for these youth under conditions of differential treatment that accommodated anxiety and targeted it for treatment. Differential treatment also involved "matching" offenders to officers and staff trained to counsel issues related to anxiety. When anxiety was accommodated, the neurotic delinquents showed more impressive treatment gains than most of the other groups (Palmer, 1974). But the development of correctional strategies for these offenders ceased in the 1970s.

Current thinking on offender therapy favors cognitive behavioral programs targeted to thinking skills, thinking errors, high risk situations, and coping strategies. This focus is well-supported by a large body of research, and confirmed by several meta analyses conducted in the 1990s. To facilitate consistent delivery, most current cognitive behavioral models are directed by manuals for facilitators. Some are scripted; most suggest activities such as role-playing exercises, thinking reports and group discussions. These are not intended to be confrontational, a well known difficulty for highly anxious offenders. One would think that an emphasis on how to think through difficult situations and to deal with emotions would be useful to such offenders; however the same models do not appear to have been developed with anxiety in mind.

In referring to offender anxiety as a "responsivity trait" (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990), it is assumed to affect one's ability to succeed in correctional programs and environments. A number of authors suggest that we should consider these attributes when screening offenders into programs, so that they are not "harmed" by the intervention or expected to participate in an intervention that does not work. Unfortunately, once we have screened neurotic offenders out of programs (if we do) there appear to be no contemporary alternatives. Consequently, the current generation of offender programming has little to say, directly, about anxiety. Research examining these concerns is summarized below.

back to top

Description of the Studies

The four studies measured personality according to the Jesness Inventory (Jesness, 1996). In addition to 11 personality scales, the JI provides subtype scales, which correspond to earlier personality subtypes identified by the Interpersonal Maturity Classification System. Nine subtypes are put forward by the Jesness Inventory. For adults, these nine types may be collapsed further into four types (see Van Voorhis, 1994): a) antisocial, b) neurotic, c) dependent, and d) situational.

Study 1: The first study explored the comparative viability of several psychological classification systems for classifying adult male prison inmates. The relationship between the types identified by each classification system and prison adjustment emerged as an important issue. The study sampled two groups of federal inmates newly admitted to prison between September 1986 and July 1988: a) 179 maximum custody inmates (response rate = 76%); and b) 190 minimum custody inmates (response rate = 90%). At prison admission, the study participants completed detailed background interviews and several psychological inventories, including the Jesness Inventory. Table 1 details the background characteristics of the sample. Inmates were tracked for 6 to 9 months. Follow-up data cited in this paper consisted of self report measures of prison misconducts and stress. The self-report and staff measures were cumulative scales and had internal consistency (alpha values) greater than 0.70. Stress was measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977). The study utilized bivariate analyses. See Van Voorhis (1994) for a more detailed account of the measures and methodology of the study.

Study 2: The second study explored whether personality, as measured by the Jesness Inventory, was related to recidivism. A longitudinal design examined long-term recidivism rates for the study 1 cohort of federal prison inmates (n=277) over a 10 to 12 year period. Table 2 details the background characteristics of the sample. Recidivism data, collected through NCIC in 1998, were available for approximately 85 percent of the time 1 sample. Event history analysis was employed to determine the relationship between the four collapsed Jesness Inventory types and outcome. Failure was defined as any new arrest and arrest for a specific charge including drugs, property offenses, or violence. Control variables included race and a modified version of the Salient Factor Score (Hoffman and Beck, 1985). See Listwan (2001) for a more detailed account of the measures and methodology of the study.

Study 3: The third study, Phase II of the Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment, examined the effectiveness of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) (Ross & Fabiano, 1985) program on parolees across the State of Georgia. A focal issue of the study was whether some types of offenders responded differently to the cognitive skill intervention than others. Using an experimental design, male parolees were randomly assigned to either the R&R program group (n=574) or the control group (n=581) that received standard parolee services without the R&R program. Table 3 illustrates the background characteristics of the individuals under study. Program effectiveness was determined, in part, by comparing experimental group and control group "failure" during a 30 month follow up period. Event history analysis was utilized and failure was defined as a return to prison. Control variables used in the study included risk, a history of violence, IQ, reading level, education, marital status, age, and race. See Van Voorhis, Spruance, Ritchie, Listwan, Seabrook, and Pealer (2003) for a more detailed account of the measures and methodology of the study.

Study 4: This study examined whether an existing offender typology—the Jesness Inventory—could differentiate among child molesters on such characteristics as denial, empathy, endorsement of cognitive distortions, and self-esteem. The study sample was comprised of 85 men convicted of a sexual offense against a minor; all were involved in correctional treatment at the time of the study. Each participant completed the Jesness Inventory as well as four other validated assessments designed to measure the dependent variables: Sex Offence Information Questionnaire Revised (Hogue, 1998), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983), the Abel and Becker Cognitions Scale (Abel, Gore, Holland, Camp, Becker, and Rathner, 1989), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Additional data collected from each participant's program file measured offender demographics, offense characteristics, victim characteristics, and the offender's risk of re-offending as measured by the Static-99 (Hanson, 1997). Table 4 summarizes the sample characteristics. The analysis used analysis of variance and analysis of covariance strategies. See Sperber 2003 for a more detailed discussion of the methodology and measures used in the study.

back to top

Results

Study 1: Neurotic offenders had the highest proportion of self-reported aggression in both the maximum custody and minimum custody groups. Results were significant for the minimum custody sample (p <0.01) but not the maximum custody group. More telling, perhaps, were findings for stress and depression experienced shortly into the prison term. As shown in Figure 1, neurotic offenders scored the highest on the CESD scale. Results were statistically significant (p <0.05) for both the minimum custody and maximum custody groups. On other measures, neurotic offenders performed similar to the antisocial type, or were not differentiated in any meaningful way from the other three personality types.

Study 2: As shown in Figure 2, the findings from the discrete-time, event history analysis of the effect of personality on recidivism indicated that personality contributed to the prediction of criminal behavior even when controlling for race and risk. More importantly, the highest probabilities for rearrest were among the neurotics, followed by the antisocials, situationals, and dependents. The neurotics and antisocials had a significantly higher probability of experiencing re-arrest than the dependents. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, the neurotics alone were significantly different from the other three types when predicting drug offenses. They were more likely to become involved in substance abuse than the other personality types, and they incurred the offenses in closer proximity to their release than the other offenders. Personality was not significant in the models predicting property or violent offenses.

Study 3: Phase II of the Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment raised the question of whether offenders' personalities affected how they responded to a cognitive skills program, and the question was answered in the affirmative. Results from discrete-time, event history analysis indicated that neurotics responded adversely to the R&R program; neurotic offenders who participated in the program were returned to prison at significantly higher rates than neurotic offenders in the control group. Although only 35.3 percent of neurotic control group members recidivated, over half (54.8 percent) of neurotic experimental group members were reincarcerated by the end of the 30-month follow up period. The neurotic X experimental group interaction was significant (B = 0.80; p <0.05), as was the event history analysis model which included controls for risk level, history of violence, IQ, reading level, education, marital status, age, and race (model chi square = 103.25; p <0.001). In contrast to the detrimental effects of the program on neurotics, parolees classified as antisocial, dependent, or situational improved slightly, though not significantly, by participating in the program (see Van Voorhis et al., 2002).

Study 4: While the results of this study supported the hypothesis that child molesters of varied personality types would differ on key psychological attributes, the extent to which the neurotic child molesters differed from the other personality types was of particular interest. For example, analysis of variance revealed that the personality subtypes differed significantly on three of the dependent measures—self-esteem, personal distress (an affective component of empathy), and fantasy (an intellectual component of empathy). The post hoc comparisons, outlined in Table 5, revealed that it was the neurotic child molester that was significantly different from the other three personality types. For example, neurotic child molesters had the highest score on the personal distress scale, meaning that they were the most likely to feel emotional discomfort in the presence of another's suffering. In addition, the antisocial offenders, situationals, and dependents scored similarly on the fantasy scale. Neurotics scored significantly higher, however, indicating that they were significantly more likely to identify with others on an intellectual level. The neurotic child molesters also evidenced significantly lower self-esteem scores than the other three groups.

back to top

Conclusions

In sum, we have accumulated evidence across four studies that find the neurotic group of offenders to be of particular interest to correctional practitioners and policy makers. They have made poor adjustments to prison, had the highest long-term recidivism rates, and appeared to have been harmed by the most prevalent correctional intervention in use at the present time. Moreover, the neurotic child molesters are different from other child molesters (as well as from stereotypes pertinent to child molesters) in ways that should factor into their treatment and therapy.

These findings are important for several reasons. First, they offer additional support to criminologists researching individual-centered theories of crime. The findings are in contrast to the earlier reviews of personality and crime (e.g., Schuessler & Cressey, 1950; Tennenbaum, 1977; and Waldo & Dinitz, 1967) and claims by researchers such as Vold and Bernard (1986), who argue that personality provides no theoretical relevance to understanding criminal behavior. While accumulating studies are finding a relationship between personality and criminal behavior, many of these studies are conducted with adolescents and young adults (Caspi et al., 1994; Caspi et al., 1997; Krueger et al., 1996). The present studies note consistent results with respect to adult males.

Three of the studies (study 1 and 2 were of approximately the same sample) used different samples of offenders to explore the utility of the Jesness Inventory in predicting or differentiating offenders and their behaviors. The consistency of findings across different samples, added to the results of studies cited above, lends strong support to the external validity of findings regarding neurotic offenders.

Accumulating research carries implications for offender risk assessment, correctional management, and offender programming. Although research by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge (1990) and Gendreau, Little, & Goggin (1996) find that personality is among the strongest predictors of criminal behavior, the "at risk" personality attribute typically referred to involves dimensions associated with antisocial ideation and psychopathy (Andrews & Bonta, 2003) rather than anxiety or neuroticism. Moreover, risk assessment instruments currently in use [e.g, Salient Factor Score (Hoffman & Beck, 1985), Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 1995), and Wisconsin Risk Assessment System (Baird, Heinz & Bemus, 1979)] typically do not include measures of personality. Although there are good reasons for this, particularly against including anxiety, evidence is accumulating that anxiety may be a risk factor as well as a responsivity consideration.

More importantly, it may be a risk factor that is exacerbated by the prevailing correctional treatment modalities. To be cautious, this assertion is based upon only one study, whereas anxiety's importance as a risk factor appears across several studies. Even so, the finding pertaining to the cognitive skills intervention is of particular concern (Van Voorhis et al., 2002). Unfortunately, we cannot determine precisely why neurotic offenders become more prone to recidivism following participation in the cognitive skills program. It is possible that a group setting is not appropriate for offenders with neurotic personalities. The pressure of performing skills in front of peers and coaches who routinely evaluate and provide feedback on the use of the skills may further exacerbate their anxiety. Perhaps these facilitators or group members were too confrontational. Consideration might be given to curricular modifications, which could help such offenders to better deal with negative emotions and to develop skills for coping with anxiety-provoking situations. Perhaps these individuals would be better suited to anger management programming (e.g., see Goldstein & Glick, 1987) or to more clinical forms of intervention, but the alternatives have not been researched in the context that we are addressing.

Concerns might also be voiced for interventions that treat sex offenders as if they are all alike. It is not unusual, for example, for a sex offender program to target denial, empathy, and victim awareness. However, neurotic offenders often are not in denial and have capacity for empathy; they simply violate their own values. Again, programs that utilize a certain level of confrontation may be detrimental to, or at least less effective, with neurotic child molesters. Winn (1996), for example, notes that not all sex offenders respond well to confrontation. We may also need to revisit the issue of treating the self-esteem of these individuals. The correctional treatment literature abounds with warnings that self-esteem is not a risk factor and should not be the focus of offender therapy. However, to our knowledge, no studies attend to whether it might be a risk factor for some types of offenders. To further complicate matters, describing these child molesters as being introverted, insecure, and anxious yet possessing emotional empathy in no way suggests that they are "lower risk" offenders. Many of the neurotic child molesters in this study had previous convictions (63 percent). More specifically, many of them had a previous conviction for a sex offense (48.1 percent). Thus, it must not have been unusual for this group to violate their own values, which, for the most part, were prosocial.

Whatever the chosen alternatives, we are reminded poignantly of three assertions that emerged from the earliest research on neurotic offenders. First, they "do not get better on their own; they do need treatment" (Warren, 1983). Second, their antisocial behavior is amplified by anxiety-provoking situations, including some types of staff confrontations intended to correct behavior (Warren et al., 1966; Palmer, 2002). Third, when matched to appropriate rather than inappropriate interventions, they achieved more favorable results than other delinquents (Palmer, 1974); when they were not treated for their anxiety, their failure rate was atypically high. Appropriate treatment goals for these offenders involved reduction or resolution of internal conflicts, comfort with one's own needs and feelings, reductions in the inappropriate use of defense mechanisms, appropriate disengagement from the dysfunctional family problems, increased sense of self worth and improved capacity for enjoyment (Warren, 1983). Arguably, such treatment goals have not seen the light of day for a long time in this field.

back to top