“Mixed” Sexual Offending Against Both Children and Adults: An Empirical Comparison With Individuals Who Exclusively Offended Against Child or Adult Victims

• Author: Friedrich Lösel,Eva Link
• Published date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211002882
• Date: 01 November 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 11, November 2021, 1616 –1633.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211002882

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1616

“MIXED” SEXUAL OFFENDING AGAINST BOTH

CHILDREN AND ADULTS

An Empirical Comparison With Individuals Who

Exclusively Offended Against Child or Adult Victims

EVA LINK

Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg

FRIEDRICH LÖSEL

Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg

University of Cambridge

Individuals who sexually offended against both children and adults might be particularly dangerous. However, studies on this

group are rare due to methodological difficulties. We investigated adverse childhood experiences, criminological variables,

and other characteristics as well as recidivism in individuals who sexually offended against mixed-aged victims (ISOMAVs)

compared to individuals who exclusively offended against adults (ISOAs) or children (ISOCs). Compared to previous stud-

ies, we applied more stringent classification criteria by including only individuals with at least two past sexual offenses.

Analyses revealed that ISOMAVs more often had an extensive history of sexual offending. In addition, they were more likely

than ISOAs to assault males, and more likely than ISOCs to assault strangers. Violent reoffending was more common in

ISOMAVs compared to ISOCs, but ISOMAVs showed no more sexual recidivism. Other findings, limitations, and implica-

tions for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords: sexual offending; victim age; mixed-aged victims; adult victims; child victims

INTRODUCTION

The term “sex offender” is commonly used in the scientific discourse as well as in media

reports, and it suggests that individuals who sexually offended are a homogeneous group

(Galeste et al., 2012). Common beliefs about this group are, for example, that they are

“specialists” in sexual offending, that their risk for recidivism is exceptionally high, or that

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The study has been funded by the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice and independently

carried out at the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany). The authors declared no

potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eva Link, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich-

Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nägelsbachstr. 49c, 91052 Erlangen, Germany; e-mail: eva.link@

fau.de.

1002882CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211002882Criminal Justice and BehaviorLink, Lösel / Short Title

research-article2021

Link, Lösel / SEXUAL OFFENDING AGAINST MIXED AGED VICTIMS 1617

they are not amenable to treatment (Levenson et al., 2007; Quinn et al., 2004). Such general

assumptions and a lack of differentiation can lead to “one-size-fits-all” solutions in treat-

ment and management policies (Budd & Mancini, 2016; Lösel & Schmucker, 2017; Mancini

& Pickett, 2016; Quinn et al., 2004). Although there are overall encouraging results on

treatment effectiveness (Schmucker & Lösel, 2015, 2017), treatment in prison settings is

still discussed controversially, and some large studies even suggest unintended negative

effects, that is, more reoffending in treated than in control groups (e.g., Mews et al., 2017).

This can be due to various methodological, context, and treatment factors (e.g., Lösel et al.,

2020), but individual characteristics may also play an important role.

Contrary to popular beliefs, individuals who engaged in sexual offending are in fact a

heterogeneous group, and gaining knowledge about etiological mechanisms and risk factors

for different subgroups helps to identify therapeutic needs and to apply specific manage-

ment strategies. Common ground of various typologies with regard to sexual offending

(e.g., Bickley & Beech, 2001; M. L. Cohen et al., 1971; Gannon et al., 2012; Groth et al.,

1977, 1982; Kingston et al., 2014; Knight, 1999; Yates & Kingston, 2006) is the differentia-

tion between individuals who sexually offended against adults (ISOAs) and individuals

who sexually offended against children (ISOCs). Comparative studies support this distinc-

tion (e.g., L. J. Cohen et al., 2007; Francia et al., 2010; Henn et al., 1976; Joyal et al., 2014).

In this study, we focus on the less-noticed group of individuals who sexually offended

against both adult and child victims (i.e., individuals who sexually offended against mixed-

aged victims [ISOMAVs]). Some research suggests that this subgroup might be exception-

ally dangerous with elevated recidivism rates and psychopathic traits (e.g., Harris et al.,

2011; Porter et al., 2000). In the following, we provide an overview of findings on victim

age–based typologies of sexual offending.

DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOAS AND ISOCS

In the past decades, most studies on victim age–based typologies of sexual offending

have focused on ISOAs and ISOCs and found substantial differences between the two

groups. Overall, ISOAs seem to have more in common with individuals who have a history

of nonsexual and violent offending than ISOCs in terms of general criminal conduct and

criminogenic factors. ISOAs seem to be more frequently diagnosed with a personality dis-

order, especially antisocial personality, compared to ISOCs (Henn et al., 1976; Jackson &

Richards, 2007). In an early study by Henn et al. (1976), ISOAs displayed a more general

antisocial lifestyle with a greater variety of different offenses during their lifespan, whereas

ISOCs were more specialized in sexual offending. Other, more recent studies, also found

higher rates of general and violent (re)offending in ISOAs compared to ISOCs (Feelgood

et al., 2005; Harris et al., 2011; Lussier, 2005; Lussier et al., 2005; Olver & Wong, 2006;

Rettenberger et al., 2015). The higher rates of general antisocial behavior and violent

offending in ISOAs are in line with findings on elevated levels of aggressiveness (Marshall

et al., 1995; Shechory & Ben-David, 2005) and psychopathic personality traits (Jackson &

Richards, 2007; Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2000, 2009; Rice & Knight, 2019). In

several studies, ISOAs scored particularly higher on Factor 2 of the Psychopathy Checklist—

Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), which reflects the social deviance/criminality component of

the psychopathy construct (Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2000). Accordingly, the use

of physical force or weapons in the commission of sexual offenses is more likely among