Michael C. Seto , Carissa Augustyn , Kailey M. Roche , Gabriella Hilkes
{"title":"基于经验的性侵犯动态风险和保护因素","authors":"Michael C. Seto , Carissa Augustyn , Kailey M. Roche , Gabriella Hilkes","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This review provides an overview and update of empirical evidence for psychologically meaningful dynamic risk factors and protective factors for sexual offending. Using the review by Mann et al. (2010) as a starting point, we reviewed relevant literature that has appeared since this publication, focusing on meta-analyses, systematic and scoping reviews of dynamic risk factors, recent evaluations of commonly used dynamic assessment tools, and studies of dynamic risk and protective factors in community samples in addition to clinical or forensic samples. Two risk factors previously deemed promising by Mann et al. (2010), hostility towards women and dysfunctional coping (conceptualized as hostile masculinity and emotional regulation deficits, respectively, in this review), could now be considered supported using this review's criteria of three or more studies demonstrating an effect size of 0.15 or greater. No new risk factors were identified. We conducted a broader search of protective factors in recognition of the relative newness of this literature: Positive social support was the only protective factor identified as empirically supported. We also discuss situational risk and protective factors.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empirically-based dynamic risk and protective factors for sexual offending\",\"authors\":\"Michael C. Seto , Carissa Augustyn , Kailey M. Roche , Gabriella Hilkes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This review provides an overview and update of empirical evidence for psychologically meaningful dynamic risk factors and protective factors for sexual offending. Using the review by Mann et al. (2010) as a starting point, we reviewed relevant literature that has appeared since this publication, focusing on meta-analyses, systematic and scoping reviews of dynamic risk factors, recent evaluations of commonly used dynamic assessment tools, and studies of dynamic risk and protective factors in community samples in addition to clinical or forensic samples. Two risk factors previously deemed promising by Mann et al. (2010), hostility towards women and dysfunctional coping (conceptualized as hostile masculinity and emotional regulation deficits, respectively, in this review), could now be considered supported using this review's criteria of three or more studies demonstrating an effect size of 0.15 or greater. No new risk factors were identified. We conducted a broader search of protective factors in recognition of the relative newness of this literature: Positive social support was the only protective factor identified as empirically supported. We also discuss situational risk and protective factors.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001137\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001137","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Empirically-based dynamic risk and protective factors for sexual offending
This review provides an overview and update of empirical evidence for psychologically meaningful dynamic risk factors and protective factors for sexual offending. Using the review by Mann et al. (2010) as a starting point, we reviewed relevant literature that has appeared since this publication, focusing on meta-analyses, systematic and scoping reviews of dynamic risk factors, recent evaluations of commonly used dynamic assessment tools, and studies of dynamic risk and protective factors in community samples in addition to clinical or forensic samples. Two risk factors previously deemed promising by Mann et al. (2010), hostility towards women and dysfunctional coping (conceptualized as hostile masculinity and emotional regulation deficits, respectively, in this review), could now be considered supported using this review's criteria of three or more studies demonstrating an effect size of 0.15 or greater. No new risk factors were identified. We conducted a broader search of protective factors in recognition of the relative newness of this literature: Positive social support was the only protective factor identified as empirically supported. We also discuss situational risk and protective factors.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.