1
Theories That Explain Sexual Aggression Against Women

Jonathan James and Jean Proulx

School of Criminology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada

Introduction

What leads some men to sexually assault a woman? Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the developmental processes that underlie this behavior (Lussier, 2018a). This may be due in part to the dominant approach to the analysis of sexual offending, that is, correctional psychology, which focuses on the management of convicted sexual offenders' risk of sexual recidivism. Consequently, while effective tools do exist for the assessment of this risk, identification of the features of a sexual offender's life course that increased his likelihood of committing a sexual crime remains elusive.

Many studies of sexual offending have focused on the identification of characteristics that are specific to sexual offenders, and have attempted to answer questions such as: Are these individuals different from those who have never committed a crime? Are all perpetrators of sexual crimes—particularly sexual aggressors against women—identical? And (the perennial) are sexual offenders the same as other criminals?

This chapter presents the most noteworthy explanatory theories and models, and empirical results, related to sexual aggression against women. For these purposes, “sexual aggression against women” is defined as an extrafamilial sexual assault by an adult male against an adult female (at least 16 years old) (for a discussion of theories related to marital rapists, see Proulx & Beauregard, 2014a). In addition, while sexual offending against women is polymorphic, and comprises sexual violence, sexual misconduct, and sexual exploitation, this chapter discusses only rape and contact sexual aggression (see Figure 1.1). For a discussion of child sexual abuse, sexual homicide, and noncontact sexual offenses, see Chapters 2, 17, and 21 of this book.

The Neuropsychology of Sexual Aggressors Against Women

In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in the identification of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological deficits in antisocial individuals, and in the relationship of these deficits to the psychological functioning of these individuals. Antisocial offenders, especially sexual offenders, have received particular attention (e.g., Beech, Carter, Mann, & Rotshtein, 2018; Raine, 2013).

Figure 1.1 Sex offending: a multidimensional viewpoint. Lussier and Mathesius (2018).

Joyal, Beaulieu‐Plante, and de Chantérac (2014) conducted a meta‐analysis of studies of the neuropsychological characteristics of sexual offenders, in order to determine the specificity of the relationship between neuropsychological deficits and sexual offending. Their meta‐analysis compared sexual offenders against women (N = 533) to sexual offenders against children (N = 530), and compared all sexual offenders (N = 1,063) to nonsexual offenders (N = 378) and to noncriminals (N = 378). In tests of cognitive functioning, such as visual attention, speed processing, task switching, cognitive flexibility, and verbal fluency, both sexual offenders as a whole, and sexual offenders against women, exhibited a wider variety of cognitive problems than noncriminals. In addition, while sexual offenders against women scored higher than sexual offenders against children on tests of cognitive flexibility, perseveration, and reasoning, they scored lower on tests of verbal fluency and cognitive inhibition. Finally, sexual offenders against women and nonsexual offenders had similar neuropsychological profiles (e.g., low scores on tests of verbal fluency and inhibition).

This meta‐analysis revealed some important points. First, it is possible that poor cognitive performance is associated with sexual offending. Second, because the neuropsychological profile of sexual offenders against women differs from that of sexual offenders against children, these two groups should be investigated separately in both quantitative analyses and theoretical models. Finally, the many similarities between the neuropsychological profiles of sexual offenders against women and nonsexual offenders suggest that there is no causal relationship between neuropsychological deficits and sexual offending against women (Joyal et al., 2014). However, it is important to note that these results do not mean that all sexual offenders against women have neuropsychological characteristics similar to those nonsexual offenders. In fact, drawing that conclusion requires analysis of the heterogeneity of sexual offenders against women, and, especially, of the differences between sexual offenders with deviant and nondeviant sexual preferences (see Knight, 2010; Proulx & Beauregard, 2014b).

The Psychology of Sexual Aggressors Against Women

Deviant sexual preferences

Hanson and Morton‐Bourgon (2005) conducted a meta‐analysis of studies involving postsentencing follow‐up of 29,450 sexual aggressors (considered a homogeneous group), and concluded that deviant sexual preferences were the strongest predictor of sexual recidivism. Results such as this may reinforce the popular belief that sexual deviance is a causal factor of sexual aggression and the hypothesis that all sexual aggressors against women prefer nonconsensual sexual contact with women over consensual sexual contact (Barbaree, 1990). However, these results must be balanced against the results of Lalumière and Quinsey's (1994) meta‐analysis of phallometry results from sexual aggressors against women (N = 415) and a control group (N = 192; nonsexual offenders against women and noncriminals). Those authors found that sexual aggressors responded more than nonrapists to rape cues and more to rape cues than to consensual sex cues. This being said, it is important to note that not all sexual aggressors against women are characterized by a sexual preference for rape (see also Michaud & Proulx, 2009), which means that a deviant sexual preference is at best a partial explanatory factor for sexual aggression.

Lack of empathy, antisociality, and psychopathy

Hanson and Morton‐Bourgon (2005) found antisocial orientation (antisocial personality, antisocial traits, history of rule violation) to be the second‐strongest predictor of sexual recidivism. This finding is consistent with theories of sexual offending that posit that sexual aggressors' infliction of pain, fear, or suffering on their victims denotes a characteristic lack of empathy (e.g., Marshall & Barbaree, 1990). Paradoxically, however, committing a sexual assault is not synonymous with a lack of empathy for the victim—some aggressors are convinced that their victim obtained pleasure from their sexual contact. In addition, even with sexual aggressors who admit to a lack of empathy for their victim (e.g., were indifferent to, or attracted by, their victim's suffering), there is no basis for concluding that this lack of empathy is structural and generalized, rather than specific and situational (e.g., due to negative emotions or intoxication at the time of the offense) (Hanson & Scott, 1995). Keeping these nuances in mind, it is noteworthy that the results of studies that found no difference between the empathy of sexual aggressors, nonsexual offenders, and noncriminals constitute a challenge to theories that posit a generalized lack of empathy in sexual aggressors (see Polaschek, 2003).

Marshall and colleagues (Fernandez & Marshall, 2003; Marshall & Moulden, 2001) conducted several comparative studies to evaluate empathy deficits among sexual aggressors against women. They reported that:

1. Sexual aggressors against women felt more empathy for women in general than nonsexual offenders.
2. Sexual aggressors against women felt similar (Fernandez & Marshall, 2003) or less (Marshall & Moulden, 2001) empathy for women who had suffered a sexual assault by another man as did nonsexual offenders, and less empathy than noncriminals (Marshall & Moulden, 2001).
3. Sexual aggressors against women felt less empathy for their victim than for other women.
4. Sexual aggressors against women felt less empathy for their victim than did nonsexual offenders.
5. Sexual aggressors against women felt more hostility toward women than did nonsexual offenders and noncriminals.

These results suggest that: (a) hostility toward women may be associated with sexual aggression (hostility toward women is also a risk factor for sexual recidivism; see Hanson, Harris, Scott, & Helmus, 2007), and (b) the empathy deficit of sexual aggressors against women is contextual and specific (e.g., triggered by anger against a woman), not structural and generalized. However, empathy deficits may be structural, and generalized, in sexual aggressors against women who scored high for psychopathy (Knight & Guay, 2018; Yang, Raine, Narr, Colletti, & Toga, 2009).

A consensus exists regarding the role of psychopathy in the sexual coercion of women (Knight & Guay, 2018). For example, a meta‐analysis of the relationship between Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL‐R) scores and sexual recidivism revealed that a...