1. An Examination of Personality Profiles based on Psychological Assessments of Violent and Nonviolent Offenders
Erica Hoover, MA
Doctoral Candidate
Aldwin Domingo, PhD Mark Hume, PhD
Clinical Research Project Committee Chair Committee Member
American School of Professional Psychology at
Argosy University, Southern California

2. Offenders
Over 7 million adults in the U.S. are supervised by adult correctional systems (Glaze, 2010).
Almost 150,000 inmates are housed in California state prisons as of the end of 2011 (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR], 2012a).
about 70% of them under community supervision such as probation or parole, and about 30% who are incarcerated in prison or jail
The population decreased by about 8% by 2012
Men comprise about 95% of inmates in California

3. Violent Offenders
In 2009, almost 700,000 males were sentenced to state or federal prison due to conviction of a violent crime (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2012).
In California, the CDCR reports almost 90,000 male inmates in prison for crimes against persons (CDCR, 2012b).
which accounts for more than half of all sentenced male prisoners that year
which is about 68% of the male inmate population as of 2012
Based on these statistics, public concern for violent crime is substantiated since violent offenders represent approximately 50-70% of incarcerated prisoners.

4. What can be done?
The need to better understand these individuals and their behavior is great.
Psychologists often emphasize treatment of these offenders, especially when they also have a mental illness.
Gaining more information about their personality characteristics and behavior can help clinicians create beneficial intervention strategies and inform appropriate management of these offenders (Craig, Browne, Beech, & Stringer, 2006).
There is great societal and public concern about violent offenders whose criminal activity targets victims personally.

5. Introducing My Study Use psychological assessments to
differentiate between violent and
nonviolent offenders.
Incorporating various types of assessment into a complete personality structure of an individual can yield invaluable information.
Understanding an individual from many perspectives, such as how they think, feel, and interact with the world, is essential in order to create an integrative picture of their personality.
Looking at offenders, both violent and nonviolent, from a psychological perspective through the use of psychological assessment may be a very advantageous method of differentiating between violent and nonviolent offenders.

6. The more information clinicians have
The greater their ability will be to manage treatment
Assessment
Conceptual model of offender
Personality structures and profiles
Apply to treatment and prevention
A greater, more comprehensive understanding of the personality makeup of offenders, especially violent inmates, is of great importance to society because the more information clinicians have about them, the greater their ability will be to manage their treatment
The first step in being able to manage their care and treatment effectively and efficiently is through assessment, which helps to create a conceptual model of the offender that clinicians can then use to match the offender with an appropriate treatment plan or program
Looking at the personality structures and profiles of violent and nonviolent offenders will teach us more about these unique individuals, and the information can be applied to their treatment in an attempt to prevent further violent crime.
These personality profiles can yield invaluable information in regard to risk assessment, such as identifying inmates at risk for violent behavior, if they will pose a threat to the community when they are released from prison, or if they are at risk to re-offend.

7. Study Methods
Archival data was collected from the California Institution for Men (CIM) in Chino California.
CIM is a men’s prison facility that opened in 1941 and currently holds over 5000 inmates.
The archival data consisted of previous testing batteries that have been performed on inmates from
The subjects were all part of the mental health system at CIM and their primary clinician referred them to have a psychological assessment completed on them by a psychodiagnositc practicum student working at the facility.
Only complete batteries were considered for the current study.
A complete integrative battery consisted of a completed cognitive, objective, and projective measurement.

8. The cognitive measure: the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV)
The objective measure: the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)
The projective measure: the Rorschach Inkblot test using the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) to score and interpret the results.

9. Type of Offender Violent crimes, or crimes against persons:
involve force or the threat of force, and are comprised of the following offenses:
Murder
Manslaughter
Robbery
Assault
Sex offenses
Kidnapping
Non-violent crimes include property crimes such as:
Burglary
Theft
Or drug offenses
I used the FBI’s classification system of violent and non-violent offenders (2010).
The determination of offender classification was made based on the criminal history as described in the assessment report.
Offense information noted in the report comes from the offender, the source of referral for the assessment, or his criminal (correctional) file.

10. Traits analyzed Demographic: Age Race Education level WAIS-IV:
Full Scale IQ (FSIQ)
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
PAI:
Antisocial Features (ANT)
Aggression (AGG)
Borderline Features (BOR)
Dominance Interpersonal Style (DOM)
Warmth Interpersonal Style (WRM)
Violence Potential Index (VPI)

11. Traits Analyzed Rorschach (R-PAS) Complexity Simplicity (F%)
Human Movement and Weighted Color (MC)
Human Movement and Weighted Color to Potentially Problematic Determinants (MC-PPD)
Human Movement (M)
Human Movement Proportion (M/MC)
Form Quality Minus (FQ-)
Form Quality Ordinary (FQo)
Ego Impairment Index-3 (EII-3)
Thought and Perception Composite (TP-Comp)
Sum of Shading and Achromatic Color (YTVC’)
Inanimate movement (m)
Diffuse Shading (Y)
Morbid Content (MOR)
Suicide Concern Composite (SC-COMP)
Poor Human Representation (PHR)
Human Movement Minus (M-)
Aggressive Content (AGC)
Aggressive Movement (AGM)
Critical Contents (CritCont)
Vigilance Composite (V-Comp)

12. Results Descriptive Statistics: sample size: 36 subjects
Ages of subjects ranged from 18 to 77 years old, with an average age of 37.
38.9% Caucasian, 30.1% African American, % Hispanic, 2.8% Biracial
Completed education levels ranged from 4th grade to 4-year college degree, average completed education level of 11th grade.
23 Violent Offenders, 13 Nonviolent Offenders

13. Results
37 personality factors across three assessment measures were statistically analyzed using a Binary Logistic Regression.
The alpha level of statistical significance was set at 0.05.
The best resulting BLR model to categorize between violent and nonviolent offenders involved the combination of:
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
Dominance Interpersonal Style (DOM)
Poor Human Representation (PHR)

14. Variables in the Equation
Results
Variables in the BLR equation for this model:
The resulting BLR regression equation is:
(-0.123)(PRI)+(-0.128)(DOM)+(-0.06)(PHR)+22.7
Variables in the Equation B
S.E.
Wald df
Sig.
Exp(B)
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower
Upper
Step 3
PRI
-.123
.053
5.472 1
.019
.884
.797
.980
Dominance
-.128
.044
8.570
.003
.880
.808
.959
PHR
-.061
.031
3.869
.049
.941
.885
1.000
Constant
22.700
8.263
7.546
.006

15. Results
This model correctly classified 20 of the 23 violent offenders resulting in 87% correctly classified.
9 of the 13 nonviolent offenders were correctly classified, corresponding to 69.2%.
The model demonstrated an overall correct classification of 80.6%.
Classification Table
Observed
Predicted
Offense
Percentage Correct
Violent Offense
Non-Violent Offense
Step 3 20 3
87.0 4 9
69.2
Overall Percentage
80.6
Classification results for the model using the three personality traits included in the best resulting BLR model: PRI, Dominance, and PHR.

16. Results Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA): Trait Offense Mean
Std. Deviation
Sig.
FSIQ
Violent
.090
Nonviolent
PRI
.080
Dominance
.022
Diffuse Shading (Y)
.068
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was also conducted with all the personality traits included in the analysis as dependent variables and type of offender, violent or nonviolent, as the independent variable.
Dominance was the only trait demonstrating a statistically significant difference between violent offenders (M= , SD= ) and nonviolent offenders (M= , SD= ), with p= Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), PRI, and Diffuse Shading (Y) demonstrated marginally significant effects, with p=.090, p=.080, and p=.068 respectively.

17. Summary of results
A combination of PRI, DOM, and PHR is able to correctly classify an offender as violent or nonviolent 80% of the time, and can correctly classify violent offenders 87% of the time.
The mean scores for PRI were marginally significantly different, violent offenders’ scores were higher.
The mean scores on the DOM scale were significantly different, violent offenders’ scores were higher.
The mean scores on the PHR scale were not statistically significantly different, (violent offenders: M=106.61, nonviolent offenders: M=101.15).
Adding the PHR scale to the BLR model improved the overall correct classification rate by 5%.
The mean scores on the Diffuse Shading (Y) scale were marginally statistically significant
But not included in the BLR equation

18. PRI Factors that may be related to an individual’s score include:
Nonverbal Reasoning Skills
Ability to think in visual images and to manipulate them with fluency
Ability to interpret or organize visually perceived material quickly
Attention & Concentration
Immediate Problem Solving
Factors that may be related to an individual’s score include:
(Sattler & Ryan, 2009)
Violent offenders scored higher than nonviolent offenders
M=90.7
Nonviolent offenders: M=81.8
Larger PRI vs VCI split with violent offenders
VCI was 4 points lower (on average) for violent
1 point lower for nonviolent
Motivation
Persistence
Ability to use trial and error
Alertness
Visual acuity
Cultural interests

19. Dominance Interpersonal Style
“Assesses the extent to which a person is controlling and independent in personal relationships” (Morey, 2003, p. 4)
“The degree to which a person desires control in interpersonal relationships” (Morey, 2003, p.145)

20. PHR
“reflects distorted, unrealistic, illogical, damaged, aggressive, or incomplete human representations” (Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011, p. 292)
“human images, which are analogs to self or interpersonal schemas, have been viewed in a structurally or thematically problematic way that suggests a propensity to misunderstand others, relationships, and/or the self.” (Meyer et al., 2011, p. 346)
Involved with “normative social representations and skills with interpersonal interactions…[and] problematic or less adaptive understanding of self and others” (Meyer et al., 2011, p. 363)
Keep in mind: the mean scores of the violent and nonviolent offenders on this scale were not statistically significant.
Adding this score to the regression equation increased the correct classification rate by 5%

21. Diffuse Shading (Y)
“involves being bothered by, or distracted by, subtleties and inconsistencies…[and] may be more prone to focus on and attempt to account for these nuances, inconsistencies, and subtleties in their environment.” (Meyer et al., 2011, p. 341)
“associated with doubt, insecurity, and anxiety, perhaps even about personal boundaries.” (Meyer et al., 2011, p. 341)
“indicates a helpless feeling in the face of the stressors” (Meyer et al., 2011, p. 361)
Marginally significant difference

22. Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) Violent offenders: M=83.2
(Sattler & Ryan, 2009, p. 134)
Violent offenders: M=83.2
>1 SD below the mean (“low average”)
Nonviolent offenders: M=75.2
Almost 2 SD below the mean (“borderline”)
“global estimate of an individual’s current level of cognitive ability”
“most reliable and valid estimate of the individual’s intellectual ability”
Marginally significant difference

23. Clinical Implications
Better understanding of violent offenders
Prominent features that differentiate this population from nonviolent offenders are related to interpersonal characteristics, and reasoning and problem solving skills
Prone to using nonverbal problem solving and reasoning
More dominant and controlling
*Based on self-report
Problematic understanding of self and others
This understanding can guide treatment planning toward more interpersonal/social skills and adaptively understanding and interacting with others
especially during conflictual encounters and those that require healthy problem solving
Generally speaking, what we have seen in the inmate population is typically limited cognitive capacity – which is reflected in the WAIS scores I found
Many offenders, especially violent ones, often go through anger management as part of their treatment, where they often are taught to use their words.
The results show that essentially they don’t seem to have good words to use, as they seem to rely more on their reasoning and problem solving rather than verbal communication skills
Their idea of how they prefer to interact and relate to others
It also makes sense that they prefer to take a dominant and controlling role in their interpersonal relationships – they like it when people do what they want them to do, and if they don’t, these individuals will get violent
The R-PAS results showing the combination of PHR and Y scores tell us that these guys have a poor understanding of human relationships contributed by disordered thinking and perception – and on top of that they are bothered by subtleties and inconsistencies and may feel helpless in the face of uncertainty and anxiety.
Instead of discuss these anxious feelings, they pound someone’s face

24. Limitations Small sample size (especially nonviolent offenders)
Generalizability
Only inmates within the mental health system at one prison
Not representative of general prison population
Inter-rater reliability
Tests were scored by various examiners
Standard validity concerns for each assessment measure
Effort, motivation, performing at optimal level, self-reporting, defensiveness, impression management, rapport with examiner, administration, nature of setting/environment, etc.

25. Conclusion
Comparative characteristics and styles of those prone to harm others directly vs other crimes in a small sample
This is preliminary research -there is much more we can do!
Gather more assessment data
Study how these results can affect treatment of violent offenders to reduce future violent crime and increase their likelihood of success while incarcerated and when released into the community

26. references
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR]. (2012a). Adult Population Projections. Retrieved from the CDCR website: 2Pub.pdf California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR]. (2012b). Prison Census Data. Retrieved from the CDCR website: CENSUSd1206.pdf Coram, G. J. (1995). A Rorschach Analysis of Violent Murderers and Nonviolent Offenders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(2), Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., Beech, A., & Stringer, I. (2004). Personality characteristics associated with r econviction in sexual and violent offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(3), Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., Beech, A., & Stringer, I. (2006). Differences in personality and risk characteristics in sex, violent and general offenders. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 16(3), Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. (2010). Crime in the United States: Violent Crime. Retrieved from the FBI website: crime

27. References
Glaze, L. E. (2011). Correctional Population in the United States, Retrieved from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., Sabol, W. J. (2010). Prisoners in Retrieved from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website:
Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach Performance Assessment System: Administration, Coding, Interpretation, and Technical Manual. Toledo, OH: Rorschach Performance Assessment System, LLC.
Morey, L. C. (2003). Essentials of PAI Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Polaschek, D. L. L., & Reynolds, N. (2004). Assessment and treatment: Violent offenders. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), The essential handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp ). Chichester: Wiley.
Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (2009). Assessment with the WAIS-IV. La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler, Publisher, Inc.
Walters, G. D. (2007). Predicting Institutional Adjustment With the Lifestyle Criminality
Screening Form and the Antisocial Features and Aggression Scales of the PAI. Journal of Personality Assessment. 88(1),