Predictors of Criminal Behavior and Prison Misconduct

in Serious Female Offenders

Alexander D. Loucks, Ph.D.

Correctional Service Canada

Edward Zamble, Ph.D.

Queen's University

This paper is based on the doctoral dissertation of the first author. The research was supported,
in part, by funding from Correctional Service Canada. The authors would like to thank the women
who agreed to participate in this study. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Sharon Kennedy
for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Eastern & Northern Parole District Office, City Place II, 473 Counter Street. Kingston, Ontario,
Canada K7M 8Z6.
Department of Psychology, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6.

SUMMARY
This study involved 100 adult female federal offenders housed within the
multilevel security Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario. Data were collected
through structured interviews, file reviews, and self-report tests on a wide variety
of variables, classified into four categories: social, personal, and criminal history;
history of maladaptive behavior (including drug and alcohol use); history of
abuse (physical, sexual, and psychological); and current personality, ability, and
emotional functioning.
Descriptive results indicated that the study group was representative of the
population at Prison for Women, and of the population of serious female
offenders in Canadian prisons. Also, there were a number of interesting
similarities, and some differences, on many of these variables when the study
group was compared to a sample of serious male offenders.
We examined the relationship of all variables with previous offending, previous
violent offending, prison misconduct, and violent prison misconduct during the
current sentence, using multiple regression analysis. This method allows one to
determine the independent contribution of each variable to the prediction of the
outcome variables, taking the contribution of all other variables into account.
This portion of the study was postdictive. Psychopathy was the preeminent
variable in the prediction of all outcome variables. Other variables that entered
into the regression functions differed across the outcome measures. These
included measures from each of our categories, although measures of
personality and current functioning were generally the strongest, and indices of
maladaptation were the weakest.
Releases and re-admissions from the original sample were examined
approximately five years after initial data collection, with an average follow-up
time of 38 months. This provided a test of how well our measures performed in
a truly predictive fashion. Forty-seven percent of those released had been
returned to prison, prior to their warrant expiry date, for conviction on a new
2

charge or for a major violation of their release conditions. For this portion of the
study, previous convictions was used as a predictor variable. In examining the
predictive contribution of all variables together, psychopathy, previous criminal
convictions, and substance abuse by the father made significant contributions.
Psychopathy remained the most important predictive variable.
A survival analysis was completed using these three variables as predictors.
The resultant predictor function had a total correlation of .32 with our recidivism
variable. If the released group was split by taking the median value of this
survival function, one would estimate (by visual inspection of the survival curve)
that approximately 5 of 6 subjects above the median would still be in the
community three years after release, while about 4 of 6 subjects below the
median would have returned to prison. The proportion of correct predictions was
found to be in the high end of the range characteristically found for conventional
actuarial scales.
Our analyses support the position that there are considerable similarities in the
factors that help to predict recidivism in serious offenders regardless of gender,
and that, by and large, the differences between genders are not predictive of
continued criminal behavior.

PREDICTORS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND RECIDIVISM

IN SERIOUS FEMALE OFFENDERS

Research concerning the origins and maintenance of criminal behavior in

females has lagged far behind research concerning criminal behavior in males;
consequently, the development of theories of female offending has occurred
without the benefit of a substantial empirical base. Early theories assumed that
female criminal behavior was unique, as can be seen in their emphasis on such
factors as deviation from stereotyped femininity, women's biological functioning
and sexuality, or the often presumed relationship of women's psychological
functioning to their sexuality and biology (Lombroso & Ferraro, 1900; Thomas,
1907, 1923; Pollack, 1950; Konopka, 1966). Theories based upon the
uniqueness of female crime, however, have not had success in accounting for
the full range of female criminal behavior.
Despite this problem, theory developers have continued to assume inherent
(Smart, 1977), structural (Hoffman-Bustamante, 1973), or socialized differences
(Adler, 1975) between males and females to explain female criminality.
Consistent with this, research has focused primarily on unique factors, such as
deviation from gender role (Campbell et al., 1987) or physiological changes
associated with normal reproductive biology ( D'Orban & Dalton, 1980). Many
investigations have not only restricted themselves in terms of the variables
selected for study, but have also used select groups of primarily minor or casual
offenders (Crites, 1976; Bowker, 1978; Townes et al., 1981).
Violent Behavior in Adult Female Offenders
Most studies looking at female violent offenders have been of a retrospective
nature. Some findings indicate similarities in background factors with those that
have been found for male violent offenders, such as alcohol abuse (Suval &
Brisson, 1974), a family history of violence (Robertson et al., 1987), and severe
parental punishment (Climent et al., 1973; Felthous & Yudowitz, 1977).

However, a number of studies suggest differences between male and female

violent offenders. Female violent offenders have been classified as either more
masculine or more feminine than female nonviolent offenders (Campbell et. al.,
1987), as having higher testosterone levels (Dabbs et al., 1988), as being more
depressed (Climent et al., 1977), more suicidal (Rosenblatt & Greenland, 1974)
and as more likely to have experienced maternal loss prior to age 10 (Climent et
al., 1973). Denno (1990) found that father's absence, neurological
abnormalities, and foster home domicile were significant predictors of violence
for female offenders in her sample, but not for male offenders. Some studies
have linked female violent offending with being a victim of physical abuse in
adulthood (Roundtree et al., 1982; Husain et al., 1983; Jurik & Winn, 1990).
Recidivism in Adult Female Offenders
Retrospective studies have suggested that recidivists had a higher rate of
psychiatric disturbance (Washington & Diamond, 1985), were less likely to be
married, less likely to have children, and were more likely to have been abused
either physically or sexually (Long et al., 1984). Lake (1993) found that physical
abuse in childhood was associated with earlier entry into crime, and more
diverse criminal behavior.
Prospective studies have suggested both similarities and differences between
female and male recidivists. Female recidivism has been associated with a
diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder or sociopathy (Cloninger & Guze
,1973; Martin et al., 1978), homosexual behavior (Cloninger & Guze ,1973;
Martin et al., 1978), familial problems (Farrington, 1983) such as substance
abuse, criminality and instability (Martin et al., 1978; Lambert & Madden, 1975),
emotional problems (Lambert & Madden, 1975), being of native heritage
(Lambert & Madden, 1975; Belcourt et al., 1993), maternal hysteria (Martin et
al., 1978), age (Cloninger & Guze 1973; Bonta et al., 1995; Hoffman, 1982;
Farrington, 1983; Belcourt et al., 1993), sentence length (Belcourt et al., 1993),
type of release (Belcourt et al., 1993), education (Cloninger & Guze 1973),

offence type (Belcourt et al., 1993), physical victimization as an adult (Bonta et

al., 1995), and history of self-injury (Bonta et al., 1995).
Results have been mixed for such variables as drug use (Cloninger & Guze
1973; Martin et al., 1978; Lambert & Madden, 1975; Hoffman, 1982; Belcourt et
al., 1993; McClellan et al., 1997; Dowden & Blanchette, 1999), employment
factors (Lambert & Madden, 1975; Hoffman 1982; Bonta et al., 1995), and prior
criminality (Cloninger & Guze 1973; Lambert & Madden, 1975; Hoffman, 1982;
Hann & Harman, 1989; Bonta et al., 1995).
Widom (1989) utilized a prospective cohorts design in a landmark study that
examined the effects of childhood abuse on adult criminal behavior. Although
she found a relationship between childhood abuse and later non-violent criminal
behavior for both males and females, abuse was not a strong predictor of violent
behavior for the females in her sample.
Some scales developed for male offenders have demonstrated utility for female
offenders. Predictive validity has been found for the Level of Service Inventory
(Andrews & Bonta, 1995) in a sample of women released from provincial
incarceration (Coulson et al., 1995). Blanchette & Motiuk (1995) found that
female offenders who were classified as high risk on the Case Management
Strategies instrument were more likely to re-offend than those classified at lower
levels. Walters & Elliot (1998) found that only one sub-scale of an instrument
designed to measure criminal thinking styles in male offenders was moderately
related to release outcome in a sample of female offenders.
Studies with male offenders have shown a strong relationship between
psychopathy, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R Hare, 1990) and general recidivism (Hart et al., 1988), violent recidivism (Hare,
1986; Hare & MacPherson, 1984; Serin, 1990), and prison misbehavior (Hare &
Jutai, 1983; Wong, 1985). Studies of psychopathy in female offenders have
been few (Loucks & Wuerscher, 1984; Neary, 1990; Strachan et al., 1990;
Salekin et al., 1997), and have primarily focused on the psychometric

characteristics of this instrument in female offender samples. There is now one

prospective study that has looked at the utility of the PCL-R in predicting female
recidivism (Salekin et al., 1998). In a sample of 78 female offenders followed an
average of 14 months after release, the PCL-R total score was not significantly
related to recidivism. However, the Factor 1 score of the PCL-R (which is
"personality-based" and involves the selfish, callous, and remorseless use of
others) factor) was moderately related to recidivism. This finding is at variance
with the usual finding for male offenders, were PCL-R total score and Factor 2
score (chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle) are the dominant predictors of
recidivism.
Zamble & Porporino (1988) have demonstrated that coping efficacy contributes,
independently of lifestyle or historical variables, to the postdiction of number of
criminal convictions. To date, there has been no published research on coping
efficacy with female offenders.
Prison Misconduct in Female Offenders
There are few studies of the predictors of prison misconduct in male offenders,
and even fewer involving female offenders. Zamble & Porporino (1988) found
that a variety of factors contributed to the prediction of prison misconduct in male
offenders. Gendreau et al. (1997) provided a meta-analysis of studies involving
prison misconduct, and found that criminal history, antisocial attitudes and
behavior, and institutional factors were the strongest predictors. In a sample of
female offenders, Walters & Elliot (1999) found that 5 of 8 subscales of a selfreport instrument designed to measure criminal thinking styles were predictive of
prison disciplinary adjustment.
The conclusion that may be drawn from the research to date is that there is
evidence for both similarities, as well as differences, between the factors that
contribute to recidivism and prison misconduct in female and male offenders.
However, it is difficult to draw any general conclusions about the usefulness of
various approaches to theory, because most studies have employed only
7

restricted and arbitrarily chosen sets of variables. The majority of studies have
assessed the effects of measures taken in isolation, and there has been little
attempt at integration or comparison of different classes of measures. Moreover,
the applicability of much of the data to serious repeat offenders is limited,
because most of the published research sampled from a population that included
minor or casual offenders.
The purpose of this study was to look at a comprehensive set of predictive
factors in a population of the most serious female offenders. Several outcome
measures were used, including disciplinary infractions in prison, criminal records,
and recidivism after release. A variety of predictor measures taken from different
theoretical approaches was assessed against these various outcomes, to allow
comparisons of relative strength and to show relationships among them. In this
way, it may be possible to make some general conclusions about the most
fruitful approach to explaining serious female criminality, and to address the
similarities and differences between male and female offenders.

METHOD
Subject Recruitment
Subjects were recruited over an 18-month period during 1989 and 1990, within
the sole (at that time) Canadian federal facility for adult female offenders, the
multilevel security Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario. This facility held the
majority of female offenders in the country who had received sentences of at
least two years. In a minority of cases, women who were a federal responsibility
were kept in provincial institutions under cost-sharing arrangements, but almost
all offenders classified as medium or maximum-security were housed in the
Prison for Women.
The aim was to recruit as large a proportion of the population as possible, so that
the results would be generally representative of the women in the institution.
Subjects were paid a sum of ten dollars for participation, deposited into their
institutional account. Participants were asked to sign an informed consent
document stating that participation would in no way affect decisions about them
by correctional authorities.
Because the study included a number of written inventories, one potential
participant was excluded because of limited literacy. Over the recruitment
period, 120 women consented to participate. During that period, approximately
270 women were at some time housed at Prison for Women, at a satellite
minimum-security unit, or at a satellite behavioral treatment unit. However,
minimum time periods of three months in the institution before and after testing
were required for collection of institutional outcome data, and this disqualified
most women who were scheduled to leave near the beginning of the study or
who arrived near the end. Although an exact figure on participation rate is
difficult to ascertain, we estimate that 70% of the eligible population did agree to
participate. (The first author had worked in the institution as a psychologist for
several years, and by all indications he had earned the trust of the inmate

population.) The issue of representativeness will be addressed later by

comparisons with statistics for the entire population of federal female prisoners.
Data to be reported are from 100 women who participated fully. The other 20
participants were dropped because of lack of availability (e.g., they were granted
early release unexpectedly or were moved out of the institution for extended
periods for court appearances, etc.).
Measures
Data were gathered from a variety of sources, viz., a structured interview,
standardized questionnaires (including two developed for the purpose of this
study), institutional files, and the Offender Management System (an electronic
database). Files provided information on personal history (e.g., racial/ethnic
background, age at leaving school), intellectual functioning, and four of our
outcome variables. The outcome variables involved criminal and antisocial
behavior, both in the community and in the institution during the current term.
They included total criminal convictions, total violent criminal convictions (any
offence involving the intentional infliction of physical harm, or threat of same),
institutional convictions, and violent institutional convictions (including convictions
for assault or threat to assault) The Offender Management System provided
data on parole revocations and convictions after release, from the day
community supervision began, until the warrant expiry date of the current
sentence.
Data that were not consistently available on institutional files were collected
directly from subjects. These included information on family intactness, parental
and spousal occupations, and parental, spousal, and sibling difficulties with
substance abuse and criminal behavior. Socioeconomic index scores were
assigned to parental and spousal occupations (Blishen, 1981).
Psychopathy was assessed by scoring the PCL-R (Hare, 1990) on the basis of
both file and interview information. The latter was derived, with some adaptation,

10

from a structured interview described by Serin et al (1989). Coping efficacy was

assessed by a structured interview described by Zamble & Porporino (1988).
Average coping efficacy scores were calculated for the three prison problems
that each subject chose as her most difficult at the time of her participation in this
study. Inter-rater reliability was calculated, on a randomly drawn portion of the
sample, for both psychopathy and coping ratings, and levels for each were
acceptable. For the PCL-R, inter-rater reliability was +.82, and for coping
efficacy it was +.85.
Finally, a set of questionnaires was used. The Multidimensional Anger Inventory
was used to measure aspects of anger, because it had been shown to be a
reliable and valid measure of this construct ( Siegel, 1986). Depression was
measured by the Beck Depression Scale (Beck et al., 1979), because the
literature concerning prison adaptation makes frequent mention of depression as
a pervasive problem for many inmates. The Beck Hopelessness Scale (Beck et
al., 1974) was also used, because the construct of hopelessness has been
shown to be strongly related to suicidal ideation (Beck et al., 1990). In relation to
this measure, previous suicide attempts and self-harm was another outcome
variable included in this study, but it was omitted here for the sake of brevity.
Socialization patterns and time framing (past/present/future orientation) were
measured with new questionnaires (Zamble & Quinsey, 1997). Socialization
patterns have been investigated as a primary prison adaptation mechanism for
female offenders (Larson & Nelson, 1984; MacKenzie et al., 1989), and number
of friends is significantly related to disciplinary outcome for male prisoners
(Zamble & Porporino, 1988). Time framing had also been shown to be related to
disciplinary outcome for male inmates (Zamble & Porporino, 1988).
Also included were measures of alcohol and drug use, including the Drug Abuse
Screening Test (Skinner, 1982) and the Alcohol Dependency Scale (Skinner &
Horn, 1984). Substance abuse is widely regarded in the literature as an
important risk factor in continued offending.

11

The literature previously reviewed suggests that exposure to non-sexual physical

assault may be an important factor in female criminal behavior. A modified
version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) was employed to assess
non-aggressive disciplinary style as well as parent-to-child psychological and
physical abuse throughout the time the subject lived at home. The purpose was
to assess the possible relationship between childhood physical abuse and
criminal behavior. In order to use this instrument to measure child disciplinary
techniques and physical abuse, four new items were added to the 17 original
items. These items were: "take privileges away", "spank you on your bottom",
"burn or scald you", and "use a knife or fire a gun".
Previous research results are mixed concerning the relationship between
exposure to sexual assault and criminal behavior. For this study we developed a
new questionnaire, the Sexual and Physical Abuse Questionnaire, to assess
exposure to sexual abuse during both pre-adolescence and post-adolescence,
and exposure to physical abuse post-adolescence (a comprehensive report of
the results of this scale will be reported separately, but predictive results from the
sub-scales will be included here). When combined with the results of the
Conflict Tactics Scale, we had measures of both sexual and physical abuse,
each at pre- and post-adolescence, in addition to a simple measure of
psychological abuse before leaving the family of origin.
Finally, the Desirability Scale of the Personality Research Form - Form E (PRFE; Jackson, 1984) was included as a measure of social desirability related to test
item endorsement.
Procedure
After consent was obtained, institutional files were reviewed before the interview
and testing sessions. Most of the women were interviewed within 2 weeks of
giving their consent, and the testing session took place approximately 2 weeks
after the conclusion of the interview. Testing sessions were held in small groups
of 2 to 4 individuals, and usually required a maximum of one hour to complete.
12

Criterion data related to institutional behavior were collected for a twelve-month

period, 6 months prior and subsequent to each subjects participation, but
excluding the period during which each subject was actively participating in the
study. Criterion scores were prorated if the subject had not been in the
institution at least 6 months before and after participation. It had originally been
intended to analyze postdictive and predictive criterion data separately. This
proved to be impractical, so the data were combined into single measures that
we will generally consider postdictive. Release outcome information was
gathered from the Offender Management System 5 years after the initial data
collection was complete.

13

RESULTS
Representativeness
The first question to be addressed is the extent to which the present sample is
representative of Canadian federally-sentenced women in general, and of the
Prison for Women population in particular. Descriptive data for the study sample
were compared to those of both the institutional population and the population of
federal female offenders in Canada (Shaw, 1991). Data summarized in the
upper part of Table 1 indicate that this sample provides a good match of offence
types to those for the population at Prison for Women and the general population
of federal female offenders. The distribution of sentence lengths is also a
reasonable approximation, although there is an under-representation of longterm offenders compared to the entire institution.
On other measures where authoritative figures were not available but informal
estimates could be made from unpublished figures, e.g., age, the fit appears to
be quite good with values for the institutional population from which the sample
was taken. In general, from the data on offences and criminal history one can
see that this sample had a substantial number of serious and repeat offenders,
consistent with the reputation and stated role of the Prison for Women. Thus,
we conclude that the women in this study were representative of the institutional
population, and also generally representative of serious female offenders in
Canadian prisons.

14

Table 1:

Selected Personal, Social, and Criminal History Variables

Variable

Current sentence length

groupings (months)
24-59
60-120
121 to life
Principal current offence
Homicide
Personal assault
Robbery
Sexual offences
Property (various)
Drug (various)
Other
Criminal history
Percent with previous adult
criminal
record
Mean age first arrest
Percent under age 18 at first
arrest
Mean number of current
convictions
Mean number of previous
convictions
Family structure: "Living
with..."
age 0-5 yrs.
parent(s) .
relative, adopted, foster, or
institution
age 6-11 yrs.
parent(s)
relative, adopted, foster, or
institution
age 12 yrs. or over
parents
relative, adopted, foster, or
institution

Current
Sample

Prison for
Women
Population

Male
Samplea

Federally Sentenced
Femalesb

54.0
31.0
15.0

50.0
20.0
30.0

----

----

37.0
12.0
13.0
4.0
14.0
19.0
1.0

36.0
12.0
13.0
1.0
15.0
21.0
2.0

36.0
12.0
13.0
1.0
15.0
21.0
2.0

40.4
11.8
16.8
-14.8
11.8
4.4

71.0

--

72.0

--

22.0
37.0

---

13.9
54.7

---

4.7

--

--

--

10.9

--

12.6

--

82.0
18.0

---

90.0
10.0

---

74.0
26.0

---

81.0
19.0

---

71.0
29.0

---

---

---

15

16.1
-15.6
Mean age left school
Substance abuse problem in
family
Father
48.0
--Mother
27.0
--Siblings
39.0
--Spouse
50.0
--Criminal record in family
Father
18.0
--Mother
9.0
--Siblings
38.0
--Spouse
38.0
--Note. Entries are percentages, unless otherwise noted. Dashes indicate
data were not available
a
male data from Zamble & Porporino (1988)
b
federally-sentenced female data from Shaw (1991)

Other Descriptive Results

Some interesting comparisons between the current sample and a sample of
serious male offenders may be seen in Table 1; these and other similar results
have been previously reported (Loucks & Zamble, 1994). Data from Table 1
reveal that there were many family problems in the backgrounds of this sample,
primarily behavioral problems such as criminality and substance abuse, as
distinct from purely socioeconomic problems. In addition, a poor education and
limited vocational skills were characteristic of subjects.

Exposure to Abuse
During their years of living at home, 54% of the women reported being exposed
to at least one type of "extreme" physical abuse (viz., being beaten, burned,
scalded, or threatened or attacked with a knife or gun) on at least one occasion,
and 49% were exposed more than once. For comparison, Bonta et al. (1995)
reported 14% of their sample of federally sentenced women had experienced

16

--

---------

physical abuse prior to age 12, and 61% had experienced physical abuse during
their lifetime. In Canadian samples of male offenders, Dutton & Hart (1992)
reported 31% had experienced childhood physical abuse, and Robinson & Taylor
(1994) reported a rate of 35%.
Eighty-one percent of the study sample reported experiencing at least one
incident of some level of physical abuse in their lifetime. Similarly, Lightfoot &
Lambert (1992) reported a physical abuse exposure rate of 81% in their Prison
for Women sample. Gal et al., (1992) refer to the work of Das (1990), who
reviewed available studies and estimated a 25% rate for physical abuse, for both
males and females in the general population; clearly, levels in the present
sample were much higher. Exposure to psychological abuse (viz., use of insults,
swearing, spiteful behavior) from a parent or guardian, as defined by five Conflict
Tactics Scale items, was universal.
Similarly, 80% of subjects reported having experienced at least one incident of
sexual abuse during their lifetime, consistent with a rate of 76% reported by
Lightfoot & Lambert (1992) in a sample from the same institution. In another
sample of federally sentenced women, Bonta et al. (1995) reported 54% had
experienced sexual abuse during their lifetime, and 13% had experienced
childhood sexual abuse. Robinson & Taylor (1994) reported a rate of 13% in
their male offender sample.
In the literature concerning the general population, estimates of sexual abuse
among females have ranged from 6% to 62% (Saunders et al., 1992), depending
on how sexual assault was defined, age limitations placed on respondents, the
population examined, and the screening methods used to detect sexual assault.
Sexual abuse exposure rates in the present sample therefore exceed even the
highest estimates reported in the general population. Thirty-eight percent of the
sample had intercourse forced upon them prior to age 13, and sixty-two percent
of the sample had experienced some form of sexual abuse pre-adolescence.
Sixty percent of the sample had intercourse forced upon them after age 13, and

17

seventy-two percent of the sample had experienced some form of sexual abuse
post-adolescence. Sexual abuse reported by subjects generally occurred on
more than one occasion, and over half the sample had experienced sexual
abuse in both pre- and post-adolescence. For both pre- and post-adolescence,
over 20% of the sample reported that sexual abuse occurred at a frequency of
"too many times to count".

Maladaptation History
There was a high rate of involvement in mental health treatment, even when
treatment during previous incarcerations was not considered. Sixty-eight percent
of the women had been involved in mental health treatment during the current
incarceration. This finding is consistent with that of Shaw (1991) in her study of
the Prison for Women population. In contrast, Zamble & Porporino (1988)
reported that only 19% of their male sample admitted to previous treatment for
psychological problems.
Substance use patterns in the study sample were similar to those found by
Lightfoot and Lambert (1992). Twenty-six percent reported at least moderate
alcohol abuse, while 54% reported at least moderate drug abuse. The study
sample displayed a lower rate of alcohol abuse when compared to larger male
samples (Lightfoot & Hodgins 1988; Zamble & Porporino, 1988), but proportions
with at least moderate drug abuse were equivalent.

Personality, Ability, and Emotional Functioning

Table 2 provides means and standard deviations for some of the personality,
ability, and emotional functioning measures used in this study. The mean total
score on the PCL-R was about 6 points lower than the mean based on an
aggregate of male samples (Hare, 1990), in accord with data collected on a
previous sample of 90 female inmates at Prison for Women (Loucks &

18

Wuerscher, 1984), and with a more recent American sample of female offenders
(Salekin et al., 1998). The mean total score for the current sample is
approximately 3 points lower than that found by Neary (1990) for a sample of
120 female Black and Caucasian inmates, and 5 points lower than a sample of
40 provincially-sentenced female inmates studied by Strachan et. al. (1990).

Table 2:

Means and Standard Deviations of Selected Personality,

Ability, and Emotional Functioning Variables

Measure

W.A.I.S. Equivalent
Multidimensional Anger
Inventorya
Anger arousal
Range of anger-eliciting
situations
Hostile outlook
Anger-in
Anger-out
PRF-E - Desirability
Psychopathy Checklist
(Revised)b
Total score
Factor 1
Factor 2
Socialization Scale
Social Withdrawl
Sociability
Time Framing Questionnairea
Beck Depression Scale
Beck Hopelessness Scale
Notes.

Study
Sample
Mean
101.9

Standard
Deviation

Standard
Deviation

15.1

Male
Sample
Mean
--

17.8
23.2

7.7
6.6

17.5a
22.5a

7.3
6.6

12.4
13.2
6.9
9.7

3.7
4.9
2.3
3.4

11.6a
13.2a
6.1a
--

3.8
5.4
1.6
--

18.0
8.1
8.1

9.0
4.1
5.7

23.6b
8.9b
11.7b

7.9
3.9
3.9

5.3
5.5
17.8
15.3
3.3

2.8
3.8
5.3
9.5
3.3

--14.7c
10.4c
3.1c

--6.1
---

Dashes indicate data were not available

a
male data from Zamble & Quinsey (1994).
b
male data from Hare (1990)
c
male data from Zamble & Porporino (1988; second testing)

19

--

With a cutoff score of 30, commonly used for male prison inmates, 11% of the
current sample would be defined as psychopaths. Salekin et al., (1997) found a
rate of 16% in an American sample of female offenders. The median incidence
of psychopathy for a number of samples of male prison inmates (covering all
security levels), based on data described by Hare (1990), is approximately 20%.
The mean coping efficacy score for the female sample was 12.4, close to the
mean of 11.6 reported for male offenders beginning their prison terms by Zamble
& Porporino (1988), and substantially lower than the mean of approximately 16
found for a non-offender population (Hughes & Zamble, 1993).
Criterion Variables
Seventy-six percent of the study sample had a current or past criminal conviction
involving violent behavior. In contrast, detected incidents of violent behavior in
the institution resulting in a conviction in institutional court were relatively
infrequent, with only 16 incidents involving 10% of subjects. Thirty-five percent
of the women received at least one conviction for any type of offence during the
12-month measurement period. The rate of recidivism of the released sample,
over an average of 3 years, was 47%. This is consistent with the findings of
Bonta et al. (1995), whose sample was "at risk" over a similar time period.
Correlation Analyses
Distributions for all variables were plotted and examined for significant departure
from normality. Criminal convictions and violent convictions represented a fair
approximation of a normal distribution. Institutional convictions and institutional
violence were bimodal and therefore they were dichotomized for analyses.
Correlation matrices for all independent variables were examined, and one of
any pair correlating beyond .80 was removed from further consideration. Missing
data were excluded pairwise. For the correlation analyses, this resulted in ns
ranging from 43 to 100. N's below 75 were found exclusively in the personal,

20

social, and criminal history class of variables, where there were frequently
missing data on family history.
As stated earlier, we were interested in studying the relative predictive ability, not
only of individual variables, but also of different variable types. Variables were
classified into 4 main groups: personal, social and criminal history; abuse history;
maladaptation history; and current personality, ability, and emotional functioning.
Table 3 provides a summary of the significant correlations of variables from all
classes with the outcome criteria. Because of the binary nature of the two
institutional criteria, Spearman correlations are preferable to the Pearson
statistic. However, values for the two show an almost identical pattern, so all
values shown are Pearson correlations, to maintain comparability.
Within the class of personal, social, and criminal history variables, age at first
arrest showed the most consistent relationship, being negatively related to all
criteria. Family-related variables, specifically those related to criminal record,
substance abuse, and family cohesiveness, revealed a wider range of criterion
relationships, although these were not as substantial as those for age at first
arrest.
Data within the abuse variable set suggest that early sexual abuse is the primary
associate of violent behavior. Only psychological abuse was associated with
criminal convictions, while several abuse variables were associated with
institutional convictions. In contrast, with the exception of drug usage, which
showed a positive relationship, measures of maladaptation history did not show
significant relationships with any of the criteria.

21

Table 3:
Variables

Significant Correlations with Criterion Variables

Total Criminal
a
Convictions

Age
-.19
Age first arrest
-.42***
Age left school
-.14
Criminal record:
father
.21*
siblings
.12
Family cohesiveness:
ages 6 to 11 yrs.
-.13
age 12 yrs. or more
-.24*
Racial/ethnic origin:
Aboriginal
.07
Black
-.09
Sentence length
-.24*
Substance abuse:
mother
.02
siblings
.11
Pre-adolescent Abuse
Total sexual abuse
.11
Physical abuse
.17
Psychological abuse
.33***
Post-adolescent Abuse
Total sexual abuse
.06
Physical abuse
.16
Drug Use
Social desirability
-.04
Anger-out
-.14
Psychopathy (total
.49***
score)
Psychopathy - Factor 2
.42***
Psychopathy - Factor 1
.43***
Social outgoingness
.03
Time-framing
-.03
a
Notes
- continuous variable
b
- binary variable
*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.

Total
Institutional
b
Convictions
-.34**
-.48***
-.42***
.15
.26*

22

Total Violent
Criminal
a
Convictions
-.17
-.27**
-.25*
.28**
.16

Total Violent
Institutional
b
Convictions
-.14
-.27*
-.21
.09
.36***

-.25*
-.33**

-.01
-.13

-.13
-.19

.15
-.12
-.18

.21*
-.20*
-.04

.15
-.05

.29**
.37***

.13
.31**

.32**
.36***

.37***
.29**
.29**

.28**
.14
.19

.23*
.08
.18

.20
.40***
.34**
-.30**
.06
.63***

.20*
.22*
.23*
-.13
.30**
.46***

.13
-.00

.54***
.42***
.14
-.36***

.36***
.29**
.21*
-.23*

.38***
.23*
-.08
-.25*

-.24*
.10
.38***

Finally, within the class of personality, ability, and emotional functioning

variables, psychopathy was preeminent in the number and strength of
associations with all criteria. The number of criminal convictions was significantly
associated only with psychopathy. PCL-R Factor 2 (lifestyle) was more closely
associated with violence than was Factor 1 (personality). However, the two
factors were equally associated with criminal convictions. Other measures,
including time framing, social desirability, and aspects of anger showed fewer
and weaker correlations.

Postdiction of Criminal Behavior and Prison Misconduct

Regression analysis was used to examine the structure of the relationship

between predictor and criterion variables. Following the recommendations of
Stevens (1986), a ratio of subjects per predictor of 15:1 was sought. Due to the
experiment-wise error rate, it is recognized that a number of correlations may be
significant by chance, therefore variables were retained for this stage of analysis
only if they correlated .30 or above with at least one criterion variable. In
addition, as independence of predictors is desirable, variables were selected
only if they did not correlate above .80 with any other predictor.
Exclusion under these rules resulted in 22 variables (listed in Table 4) being
retained as predictors. It should be noted that a few variables in Table 4 did not
correlate .30 or above with any of the outcome criteria, but were included
because they correlated to this degree with one of two other criterion variables
(self-harm and institutional behavior problems) omitted in this paper for brevity.
Four regression equations were first generated for each criterion measure, using
the predictors within each of the four variable classes. The predictor variables
listed in Table 4 are those that were entered for each predictor class and

23

separately for each criterion. This allowed us to investigate the relative

importance of factors within each variable class, as well as the relative total
predictive ability of each variable class. The results are shown in the left column
for each criterion.
Predictors that entered significantly into the preliminary equations were then
collapsed across variable classes, for each criterion separately, and were used
in a second set of regression analyses. In these, the predictor set consisted of
all variables that had entered significantly into any of the preliminary equations;
thus, the final predictor set differed for each criterion. The results are shown in
the right column for each criterion.
Comparing across classes of predictor variables, one can see that measures of
current personality, ability, and emotional functioning were the strongest overall.
Included among these was psychopathy, clearly the most powerful single
predictor in any of the classes, and by far the best predictor of criminal and
institutional convictions. In addition, for violent criteria, one or more additional
variables had contributions approaching that of psychopathy. A potentially
important threat to the validity of the finding that psychopathy is the primary
predictor in this class of variables is the fact that some PCL-R items may, to
some extent, mirror the criterion used in this study. Items from the PCL-R were
therefore carefully reviewed, and it was determined that 3 items could be seen
as related to the criterion variables of this study. These were items 10(poor
behavioral controls), 19(revocation of conditional release) and 20(criminal
versatility). To assess the contribution of these items, total PCL-R scores were
re-calculated, with these items removed, and the resulting scores were reentered into the regression equations. The structure of the new equations, and
their predictive capacity, were virtually identical to the original equations. The
validity of the original equations was thus supported.
Measures of anger also had some predictive value. This latter finding is in
accord with previous research concerning female violent offenders, but the

24

failure to find a relationship between depression and violent behavior is at

variance with previous studies. Contrary to previous results for male samples,
coping efficacy did not add significantly to the explained variance for any
criterion.
When historical variables alone were entered into the preliminary regression
equations, age at first arrest was a useful predictor of all criteria, as it has been
in studies of male offenders. Substance abuse in siblings was a predictor for
three of the four criteria. As a class, these variables did their best job in
predicting institutional convictions. On the other hand, 6 of the 10 predictors
from this class, including most of those related to familial dysfunction, did not
contribute significantly to the variance for any criterion. Moreover, when the
minority of significant predictors were given the opportunity to enter the final
predictive equations along with other types of variables, none entered for any of
the four outcome criteria.

25

Table 4:

Stepwise Regressions: Within Class and Combined Variable

Classes

Predictor Variables

Social, Personal,
Criminal History
Age
Age first arrest
Age left school
Criminal record
siblings
Family cohesiveness
age 12 yrs. or more
Racial/Ethnic origin
Black
Substance abuse
mother
siblings
spouse
Sentence length
Total R
Total R squared
(adjusted)
Maladaptation History
Alcohol abuse
Drug abuse
Community mental health
treatment
Total R
Total R squared
(adjusted)
Abuse History
Pre-adolescent
psychological abuse
Post-adolescent physical
abuse
Pre-adolescent sexual
abuse
Post-adolescent sexual
abuse
Total R

Total
Criminal
Convictions
a
b

-.42

Total
Institutional
Convictions
a
b

-.44

Total Violent
Criminal
Convictions
a
b

Total Violent
Institutional
Convictions
a
b

-.23

-.23

.42
.17***

.32

.57
.31***

.28

.39
.13***

.33

.42

.26

.16*
*

.34

.34
.10**

.33

.29

.23

.23
.04*

.44

.23

.39

.28

-.32

.33

.51

.28

.23

26

.22

.23

Total R squared
(adjusted)
Personality, Ability,
Emotional
Coping Efficacy
Anger-out
Time framing
Social desirability
Psychopathy
Total R
Total R squared
(adjusted)
Combined Variable
Classes
Total R
Total R squared
(adjusted)

10***

23***

.07**

.04*

-.31
-.29

.24
.34
.60
.54
.58
.31***

.61
.61
.36***

.25
.30

.42
.34
.49
.22***

.38
.35

.56

.29

.11*
*

.62
.36***

.67
.43***

.55
.28**
*

Notes. a - betas from within class predictions

b - betas from combined variable class predictions
- non-significant beta
F - significant at *p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.

These findings do not support previous conclusions that family dysfunction is

related to general criminality in female offenders, nor are they consistent with
previous findings suggesting that violent female criminality is related to foster
home placement. However, they do support the argument that the predictive
utility of historical variables derives from their relationship to current functioning:
when the measures of current status are present, historical measures provide no
added predictive ability (Zamble & Quinsey, 1997).
Because of our interest in the role of abuse, measures of this type were
considered as a class on their own. Despite this, most measures of abuse were
at best only mediocre predictors for any criterion. The exception to this is the
amount of pre-adolescent sexual abuse, which was a significant predictor for
three of the four criteria, and was related particularly to the criteria involving
violence. This supports previous research with female offenders. It also
provides some information on the mechanism of action, given that post27

.45
.18***

adolescent sexual abuse is not predictive of violence, and that neither sexual nor
physical abuse variables significantly predicted the total number of criminal
convictions. Evidently, early sexual abuse specifically increases tendencies
toward violence rather than criminality generally.
No variable within the maladaptation history set reached significance in the final
set of equations. Even in the preliminary analyses, drug abuse was the only
variable from the group to enter any of the equations, and then only weakly, for
two of the four criteria. Although drug abuse appears to be a widespread
problem in this population, it seems not very predictive of criminal misbehavior.
Comparing across outcome criteria, one can see that the best prediction was for
institutional convictions, although a useful proportion of the variance for criminal
convictions was also accounted for. Violence was not predicted as well, and the
weakest prediction was for institutional violence, not surprisingly given the low
incidence rate recorded.
In general, the R2 values for the final equations were not substantially higher
than those where measures of personality, ability, and emotional functioning
alone were the predictors. From this we conclude that measures of personality
and current functioning are the most important in explaining, and probably in
predicting, the measures of criminal behavior and prison misconduct chosen as
outcome criteria for this study.

Prediction of Recidivism
Approximately five years after the completion of the initial study, records in the
Offender Management System were searched, to determine releases, parole
revocations and reconvictions from the original sample. Eighty-one subjects had
been released at some time subsequent to original testing, an average of 37.8
months before the follow-up. Of these, 38 (47%) had been returned to prison for
conviction on a new charge or for a major violation of their release terms. (There

28

were a few minor violations resulting in short temporary suspensions, but these
were not counted.)
The earlier data were then analyzed again, with recidivism as the target. This
provides a test of how well the results seen in the previous section will generalize
across a new dependent measure, and, more important, whether the measures
in this study can be used in a truly predictive fashion.
The analyses paralleled those with the measures of prison misconduct and
criminal history, except that the number of previous criminal convictions was
used here as a predictor. As before, simple correlations were calculated
between the target measure (revocation of release) and the set of independent
variables in the study. Measures that showed significant correlations with
revocation were then entered into one of four logistic regression analyses, for
each division of variables, as in the postdictive analyses in the preceding section.
The results were similar to those shown before, probably closest to those for
criminal history, as one might expect. For each set of predictors, only a single
variable entered the equation. In the class of background and historical
measures, the variable to enter the regression was substance abuse by the
subjects father, although, if this variable was eliminated from the analysis, the
closely related measures of substance abuse by the mother or siblings took its
place. Among measures of abuse, only psychological abuse in childhood met
the criteria for entry into the equation. The number of previous criminal
convictions was the sole significant predictor among measures of previous
maladaptation, while among current psychological measures the PCL-R score
alone entered the equation.
These four measures were then tested together in a single logistic regression. In
this case, three variables entered the prediction before termination: the PCL-R
score, previous criminal convictions, and substance abuse by the father.

29

Finally, these three variables were entered into a Cox regression survival
analysis (Norusis, 1994). There are several advantages of this type of analysis
for recidivism data. Survival analysis generally has the ability to provide more
than the simple binary measure of success or failure. In particular, the Cox
procedure allows one to test the predictive utility of a specific set of variables. In
addition, linear predictor scores can be generated and saved as summary
measures.
The resultant linear predictor scores (X' Beta) had a correlation of .32 with
revocation. Values across subjects were split at the median, and the results
plotted as shown in Figure 1. A substantial difference is clearly visible: using
these curves, one would estimate that approximately 5 of 6 subjects above the
median would still be in the community three years after release, while about 4 of
6 subjects below the median would have returned to prison. The model is clearly
able to differentiate among subjects. Without prior knowledge of the actual
recidivism rate, one can assume that scores above the median (the upper curve)
predict success, while those below the median (the lower curve) predict failure.
To test the accuracy of these predictions, a 2x2 contingency table was
constructed comparing these predictions to actual results, and is given in Table
5. Although 81 participants had been released, complete data was only
available on 80. The proportion of correct predictions was 76%, (1) = 22.17,
2

p<.001, with roughly equal numbers of false positives and false negatives. This
proportion of correct predictions is at the high end of the range of accuracy with
conventional actuarial scales.

30

DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that serious female offenders are in many ways
quite similar to populations of serious male offenders, although there are also
some important differences. Our analyses support the position that there are
considerable similarities in serious offenders regardless of gender, and that by
and large the differences between genders are not predictive of criminal
behavior.
For example, psychopathy is as important in predicting general offending in
female serious offenders as it is in male serious offenders, and for females it
plays an important role in the prediction of violent behavior and prison
maladjustment, as it does for males.
On the other hand, although we find evidence of high levels of previous sexual
and physical abuse in our respondents, these factors do not appear to be very
much related to criminal or violent behavior, and, at best, they are secondary to
some endogenous personality or behavioral factors. Among the abuse
measures, pre-adolescent sexual abuse is the only one that correlates
significantly with more than one of the outcome measures. Certainly, there is
ample evidence in the literature that various forms of childhood abuse can have
a profound effect on behavioral and emotional adjustment in both childhood and
adulthood, but these effects do not appear to be specific to criminal behavior.
Interestingly, psychological abuse, seldom mentioned in theories that emphasize
victimization, was the only type of abuse that played even a minor role in the
prediction of general recidivism.

31

Figure 1
Female Recidivism Survival Curves

Note: The upper curve represents subjects above the median of the Cox coefficient function, and
the lower curve represents subjects below the median.

32

Table 5
Contingency Table for Predictors from Logistic Regression

Predicted

Success

Failure

Total

Success

32

11

43

Failure

29

37

Total

40

40

Actual

33

Compared to the other variable classes used in this study, measures of

personality and current functioning made the most substantial contribution to the
prediction of both criminal and violent behavior, as well as prison misconduct. In
general, their power in predicting our outcome criteria was two to three times that
of the class of historical variables, when the effects of each class were evaluated
2

alone. Abuse history variables displayed even lower R s, and maladaptation

history variables showed the least predictive power. This is consistent with
meta-analyses of studies of general recidivism in male offenders (Gendreau et
al., 1992).
There were also some interesting commonalities and differences across the
several dependent measures used in our analyses. Psychopathy was clearly the
best overall predictor, both for general and violent offending, although the
assessed proportion of psychopaths is relatively low when compared with
previous studies of male offenders (Hare, 1990). While the reliability of the rate
estimate is challengeable, it does seem clear, as argued above, that
psychopathy is a strong determinant of high rates of criminal offending and the
incidence of violence in women, just as has been previously found with men
(e.g., Hart et al., 1988). However, in contrast to common findings for male
offenders, PCL-R Factor-I scores are as closely related to criminal behavior as
Factor-II scores.
The inability of our measure of coping efficacy to add to the postdiction of
criminal behavior or of institutional infractions was unexpected, and contradicts
some of our previous work. For example, Zamble & Porporino (1988) found that
coping was an effective predictor of subsequent institutional misconduct. In a
follow-up of a sub-sample after release, Porporino et al. (1988) found that coping
efficacy could be combined with several other measures of current behavior,
along with the number of previous convictions, to yield predictions of recidivism
that were as accurate as the best of actuarial scales. It is possible that the

34

aspects of coping involved in criminal behavior differ across gender; we may

hypothesize that poor coping leads more directly to violent or antisocial acting
out in males, but that in females it is linked with other effects such as the greater
incidence of depression. It is also important to note that the present study, in
contrast to Zamble & Porporino (1988), did not measure coping efficacy with
non-prison problems; these are likely more significant in the antecedents of
repeat offences (Zamble & Quinsey, 1997).
Even after the substantial contribution of psychopathy to the variance in the
number of criminal offences, social desirability, the outward expression of anger,
and pre-adolescent psychological abuse still added significantly. Psychological
and emotional processes definitely play a role in the causation of offending for
women, just as they appear to do for men (Zamble & Quinsey, 1997). More
information on such factors would be very helpful in deciding whether, and to
what extent, the melange of causative factors differs across sex.
Given the degree to which prior offences were predictable, the failure of certain
other measures to add to the prediction is noteworthy. Although drug abuse is
often cited as a correlate of female recidivism (Martin et al., 1978; Cloninger &
Guze, 1973; Lambert & Madden, 1975; McClellan et al., 1997), it did not
correlate significantly with general recidivism, and showed only a weak
relationship with violent offenses. This finding is not easily explained as the
result of low frequency or lack of variance in drug abuse in our sample. Results
suggest, however, that substance abuse in the offender's family history is
important in the prediction of recidivism.
Similarly, family cohesiveness, another variable commonly cited as related to
female offending (Rosenbaum, 1989; Farrington, 1983) did not significantly
contribute to the prediction of recidivism. One plausible interpretation is that
family cohesiveness plays an important role in the development of deviance
leading to the origin of criminal behavior, but is not important in its continuance.
This interpretation is consistent with research involving male juvenile offenders

35

(Leblanc, 1992; Marquis, 1992), as well as female juvenile offenders (Dornfeld &
Kruttschnitt, 1992).
Finally, the role of early sexual abuse appears somewhat equivocal. Preadolescent abuse was a good predictor of violent convictions, consistent with
evidence for incarcerated males (Dutton & Hart, 1992), but inconsistent with
Widoms (1989) findings for females in a community sample. At the same time,
it did not appear to be related to the overall number of offences. It would be very
useful to examine this in connection with a more detailed taxonomy of offence
types. For example, it may be that sexual abuse is specifically linked with violent
offences that occur in a domestic context.
The pattern of results we have obtained has considerable implications for
theories of female offending. Contemporary views of female offending continue
to emphasize the experience of abuse, poverty, and substance abuse as being
the most common pathways to crime (Bloom, 2000). The results seen here,
however, are generally inconsistent with class-based theories that rely on socialstructural factors to explain female involvement in serious crime. More generally,
and more important, the current results do not provide empirical support for
theories of female criminal behavior based on separate or unique determinative
paths, such as those emphasizing the direct causative role of victimization for all
female offenders. Although such experiences may play an important role in the
origins of antisocial behavior, they do not appear to have much power in
explaining serious or sustained criminality.
This suggests that a more productive approach to theory development would be
to expand the focus beyond factors felt to be uniquely important for female
offenders to include factors that have been found to be predictive for male
offenders. Such a theory might be best developed within the framework of social
learning theory, because it allows the inclusion of experiential factors that are in
common across gender, as well as some that differ. Research incorporating
measures of both types of factors can provide an increased understanding of

36

both male and female criminal behavior and, ultimately, contribute to the
development of a more powerful comprehensive theory regarding criminal
behavior in general.
Our conclusions must, of course, be tempered by the limitations of the present
study. Although half of the data for all institutional outcomes were gathered
post-test, the study measures cannot be regarded as truly prospective, and one
must be cautious about causal inferences. The data on recidivism help to
address these concerns, but they still do not allow us to address issues of
causation very well.
There are other limitations related to the choice of measures, especially in the
types of information that were omitted. It might have been useful to look at
psychiatric diagnoses, particularly borderline personality disorder, because this
diagnosis has been implicated in violent behavior in psychiatric samples (Raine,
1993), and appears to be a frequent diagnosis in female convicted and remand
populations (Wilkins & Coid, 1991; Coid et al., 1992). Also, the role of proximal
social stability factors, such as employment, marital status, and criminal
associates was largely neglected. These have been found to be important
predictors in male offender populations (Andrews & Bonta, 1994), and have
been described as important in the genesis of female violent offending
(Sommers & Baskin, 1993). While they were omitted in order to make data
acquisition more manageable, they need to be added into the set of predictors
for future work, because more distal measures, such as lack of cohesiveness in
the family of origin, did not demonstrate predictive utility here. In addition,
measures of more recent exposure to physical violence may prove a more
powerful predictor than the degree of exposure for the entire post-adolescent
period.
Although they should be regarded tentatively, the results do have some
implications for assessment and treatment targets in this particular population,
as well as for the mode of treatment delivery. Some of the targets that have

37

been identified as relevant to criminal risk for male offenders, including anger
expression and aspects of psychopathy, are also relevant for this population of
serious female offenders. Because our respondents display many of the
characteristics of male serious offenders, and consistent with the literature
concerning effective treatment modalities for male offenders (Andrews & Bonta,
1994), we would suggest that cognitive-behavioral techniques would be the most
effective. This conclusion is supported by a recent meta-analysis of female
offender treatment studies, which suggests that the most effective interventions
are based upon cognitive-behavioral techniques (Andrews & Dowden, 2000).
These authors caution, however, that the studies analyzed involved primarily
juvenile offenders, and very few incarcerated or adult female offenders.
Thus, interventions for high-risk female offenders should be able to profitably
import many of the components of effective treatments for high-risk male
offenders, when the target is the prevention of recidivism. Of course, this does
not mean that assessment and treatment of all female offenders should be
identical to that for males. Our results point out a number of potentially important
differences even in this population of the most serious female offenders; for
example, the role of abuse variables is still important in this population,
especially if violent behavior is targeted. Moreover, we should emphasize that
the type of offender studied here may not be representative of women offenders
in general, but only those with the most extensive and most serious criminal
histories.
In considering treatment plans, one must also distinguish between treatment
designed to reduce recidivism and treatment designed to meet the mental health
needs of offenders. Some of the factors that appear in this investigation to be
unrelated to criminal behavior, such as the high incidence of depression, are
nevertheless needful of clinical attention. When all of the differences are
considered, it is likely that the most fruitful strategies for the treatment of serious
female offenders will differ somewhat from those most effective with male
offenders, despite the commonalities.

38

REFERENCES
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1995). Manual for the LSI-R: The Level of
Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Ont: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
Andrews, D.A. & Dowden, C. (2000). A meta-analytic investigation into
effective correctional intervention for female offenders. Forum on Corrections
Research, 11(3), 18-21.
Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F. & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy
of Depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Beck, A.T., Brown, G., Berchick, R.J., Stewart, B.L. & Steer, R.A. (1990).
Relationship between hopelessness and ultimate suicide: A replication with
psychiatric outpatients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(2), 190-195.
Beck, A.T., Weismann, A., Lester, D. & Trexler, L. (1974). The
measurement of pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 42, 861-865.
Belcourt, R., Nouwens, T. & Lefebvre, L. (1993). Examining the
unexamined: Recidivism among female offenders. Forum On Corrections
Research, 5(6), 10-14.
Blanchette, K. & Motiuk, L. (1995). Female offender risk assessment: The
Case Management Strategies approach. Paper presented to the Canadian
Psychological Association Annual Conference, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Blishen, B.R., Carroll, W.K. & Moore, C. (1981). The 1981 socioeconomic
index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology,
24(4), 465-485.

39

Bloom, B. (2000). Gender-responsive programming for women offenders:

Guiding principles and practices. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(3), 22-27.
Bonta, J., Pang, B. & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1995). Predictors of recidivism
among incarcerated female offenders. The Prison Journal, 75(3), 277-294.
Bowker, L.H. (1978). Women, Crime, and the Criminal Justice System.
Toronto, Ont.: Lexington Books.
Campbell, C.S., MacKenzie, D.L. & Robinson, J.W. (1987). Female
offenders: Criminal behavior and gender-role identity. Psychological Reports,
60(3, pt.1), 867-873.
Climent, C.E., Rollins, A., Ervin, F.R. & Plutchik, R. (1973). Epidemiological
studies of female prisoners I: Medical and psychiatric variables related to violent
behavior. American Journal of Psychiatry, 130(9), 985-990.
Climent, C.E., Plutchik, R., Ervin, F.R. & Rollins, A. (1977). Epidemiological
studies of female prisoners III: Parental loss, depression, and violence. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 55(4), 261-268.
Cloninger, C.R. & Guze, S.B. (1973). Psychiatric disorders and criminal
recidivism: A follow-up study of female criminals. Archives of General Psychiatry,
29(2), 266-269.
Coid, J., Wilkins, J., Coid, B. & Everitt, B. (1992). Self-mutilation in female
remanded prisoners II: A cluster analytic approach towards identification of a
behavioral syndrome. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 2(1), 1-14.
Coulson, G., Ilacqua, G., Nutbrown, V., Giulekas, D., & Cudjoe, F. (1995).
Predictive utility of the LSI for incarcerated female offenders. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 23(3), 427-439.
Crites, L. (1976). The Female Offender. Toronto, Ont.:Lexington Books.
Dabbs, J.M., Ruback, R.B., Frady, R.L., Hopper, C.H., & Sgoutas, D.
(1988). Saliva testosterone and criminal violence among women. Personality and
Individual Differences, 9(2), 269-275.

40

Denno, D.W. (1990). Biology and Violence: From Birth to Adulthood.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
D'Orban, P.T. & Dalton, J. (1980). Violent crime and the menstrual cycle.
Psychological Medicine, 10(2), 353-359.
Dornfeld, M. & Kruttschnitt, C. (1992). Do the stereotypes fit? Mapping
gender-specific outcomes and risk-factors. Criminology, 30(3), 397-419.
Dowden, C. & Blanchette, K. (1999, April). An investigation into the
characteristics of substance-abusing women offenders: Risk, need, and postrelease outcome. (Research Report, Correctional Service of Canada). Ottawa,
Ont.
Dutton, D.G. & Hart, S.D. (1992). Evidence for long-term, specific effects of
childhood abuse and neglect on criminal behavior in men. International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36(2), 129-137.
Farrington, D. (1983). Sex, sentencing, and reconviction. British Journal of
Criminology, 23, 229-248.
Felthous, A.R. & Yudowitz, B. (1977). Approaching a comparative typology
of assaultive female offenders. Psychiatry, 40(3), 270-276.
Gal, M., Brodsky, M., Santos, R. & Halowaty, K. (1992). Long-term effects
of physical and sexual victimization in childhood. Unpublished paper, University
of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.
Gendreau, P., Andrews, D., Goggin, C. & Chanteloupe, F. (1992). The
development of clinical and policy guidelines for the prediction of criminal
behavior in criminal justice settings. Unpublished manuscript, University of New
Brunswick at Saint John, N.B.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Law, M.A. (1997). Predicting prison
misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414-431.

41

Hann, R. & Harman, W. (1989). Release risk prediction: Testing the

Nuffield Scoring System for native and female inmates. (Solicitor General of
Canada, Ministry Secretariat, User Report #1989-4). Ottawa, Ont.
Hare, R.D. (1986). Criminal psychopaths. In J.C. Yuille (ed.) Police
Selection and Training: The role of psychology (pp. 1-42). Dorecht, The
Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Hare, R.D. (1990). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist
(preliminary research edition). Toronto, Ont.: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Hare, R.D. & Jutai, J.W. (1983). Criminal history of the male psychopath. In
K.T.Van Dusen & S.A. Mednick (Eds.) Prospective Studies of Crime and
Delinquency. (pp. 225-236). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Hare, R.D. & McPherson, L.M. (1984). Violent and aggressive behavior by
criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7(1), 35-50.
Hart, S.D., Kropp, P.R. & Hare, R.D. (1988). Performance of male
psychopaths following conditional release from prison. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 227-232.
Hoffman, P. (1982). Females, recidivism, and salient factor score: A
research note. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9(1), 121-125.
Hoffman-Bustamante, D. (1973). The nature of female criminality. Issues in
Criminology, 8(2), 117-135.
Hughes, G. & Zamble, E. (1993). A profile of Canadian correctional
workers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 37(2), 99-113.
Husain, A., Anasseril, D. & Harris, P. (1983). A study of young-age and
mid-life homicidal women admitted to a psychiatric hospital for pre-trial
evaluation. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 28(2), 109-113.
Jackson, D.N. (1984). Manual for the Personality Research Form. Port
Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.

42

Johnson, H. (1986). Women and crime in Canada. (Solicitor General of

Canada, User Report # 1986-28). Ottawa, Ont.
Jurik, N.C. & Winn, R. (1990). Gender and Homicide: A comparison of men
and women who kill. Violence and Victims, 5(4), 227-242.
Konopka, G. (1966). The Adolescent Girl in Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Lake, E.S. (1993) An exploration of the violent victim experiences of female
offenders. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 41-51.
Lambert, L.R. & Madden, P.G. (1975). The adult female offender: Before,
during, and after incarceration. (Vanier Centre Research Report #3, Ontario
Ministry of Correctional Services). Toronto, Ont.
Larson, J.H. & Nelson, J. (1987). Women, friendship, and adaptation to
prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 601-615.
LeBlanc, M. (1992). Family dynamics, adolescent delinquency, and adult
criminality. Psychiatry, 55, 337-353.
Lightfoot, L. & Hodgins, D. (1988). A survey of alcohol and drug problems
in incarcerated offenders. The International Journal of Addictions, 23, 687-706.
Lightfoot, L & Lambert, L. (1992). Substance abuse treatment needs of
federally sentenced women. (Technical Report #2 (Draft), Correctional Service of
Canada). Ottawa, Ont.
Lombroso, C. & Ferrero, W. (1900). The Female Offender. New York, NY:
Appleton.
Long, G.T., Sultan, F.E., Kiefer, S.A., & Scrum, D.M. (1984). The
psychological profile of the female first offender and the recidivist: A comparison.
Journal of Offender Counselling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 9(1-2), 119-123.

43

Loucks, A. D. & Wuerscher, C. (1984). Relationship of various measures of

psychopathy in a female offender population. Unpublished paper, Correctional
Service of Canada.
Loucks, A.D. & Zamble, E. (1994). Some comparisons of female and male
serious offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 22-25.
MacKenzie, D.L., Robinson, J.W. & Campbell, C.S. (1989). Long-term
incarceration of female offenders: Prison adjustment and coping. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 16(2), 223-238.
Martin, R.L., Cloninger, R.C. & Guze, S.B. (1978). Female criminality and
the prediction of recidivism: A prospective six-year follow-up. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 35(2), 207-214.
Marquis, P. (1992). Family dysfunction as a risk factor in the development
of antisocial behavior. Psychological Reports, 71, 468-470.
McClellan, D.S., Farabee, D. & Crouch, B.M. (1997). Early victimization,
drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 455-476.
Neary, A. (1990). DSM-III and Psychopathy Checklist assessment of
antisocial personality disorder in Black and White female felons. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri. St. Louis, MO.
Norusis, M.J./ SPSS Inc. (1994). SPSS Advanced Statistics 6.1. Chicago,
IL: SPSS Inc.
Pollack, O. (1950). The Criminality of Women. Philadelphia, PA: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Porporino, F.J., Zamble, E. & Higgenbottom, S. (1988). Assessing models
for predicting risk of criminal recidivism. Unpublished manuscript, Queens
University, Kingston, Ont.
Raine, A. (1993). Features of borderline personality and violence. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 277-281.

44

Robertson, R.G., Bankier, R.G. & Schwartz, M.A. (1987). The female
offender: A Canadian study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32(9), 749-755.
Robinson, D. & Taylor, J. (1994). The incidence of family violence
perpetrated by federal offenders: A file review study. (Research Report,
Correctional Service of Canada). Ottawa, Ont.
Rosenbaum, J.L. (1989). Family dysfunction and female delinquency.
Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 31-44.
Rosenblatt, E. & Greenland, C. (1974). Female crimes of violence.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 16(2), 173-180.
Roundtree, G.A., Parker, A.D., Edwards, D.W. & Teddlie, C.B. (1982). A
survey of the types of crimes commited by incarcerated females in two states
who reported being battered. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of
Behavior Technology, Methods, and Therapy, 28(1), 23-26.
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R. & Sewell, K.W. (1997). Construct validity of
psychopathy in a female offender sample: A multitrait-mutimethod evaluation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(4), 576-585.
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R., Ustad, K.L. & Sewell, K.W. (1998). Psychopathy
and recidivism among female inmates. Law and Human Behavior, 22(1), 109128.
Saunders, B., Villeponteaux, L., Lipovsky, J., Kilpatrick, D. & Veronen, L.
(1992). Child sexual assault as a risk factor for mental disorders among women:
A community survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(2), 189-204.
Serin, R., Peters, R. & Barbaree, H. (1989). Predictors of psychopathy and
release outcome in a criminal population. Psychological Assessment: A Journal
of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 2, 419-422.

45

Shaw, M. (1991). Survey of federally sentenced women. (Solicitor General

of Canada, Ministry Secretariat, User Report #1991-4). Ottawa, Ont.
Siegel, J.M. (1986). The Multidimensional Anger Inventory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 191-200.
Skinner, H.A. (1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive
Behaviors, 7, 363-371.
Skinner, H.A. & Horns, L. (1984). The Alcohol Dependency Scale User's
Guide. Toronto, Ont.: Addiction Research Foundation.
Smart, C. (1977). Women, Crime, and Criminology: A Feminist Critique.
Boston, MA: Routledge & K. Paul.
Sommers, I. & Baskin, D. (1993). The situational context of violent female
offending. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 136-162.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strachan, K., Williamson, S. & Hare, R.D. (1990). Psychopathy and female
offenders. Unpublished data, Department of Psychology, University of British
Colombia, Vancouver, B.C.
Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamilial conflict and violence: The
Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1986). Societal change and change in family
violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.
Thomas, W.I. (1907). Sex and Society. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
Thomas, W.I. (1923). The Unadjusted Girl. New York, NY: Harpur and
Row.

46

Townes, B.D., James, J. & Martin, D.C. (1981). Criminal involvement of

female offenders: Psychological characteristics among four groups. Criminology,
18(4), 471-480.
Walters, G.D. & Elliot, W.N. (1999). Predicting release and disciplinary
outcome with the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Female
data. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(1), 15-21.
Washington, P. & Diamond, R.J. (1985). Prevalence of mental illness
among women incarcerated in five California county jails. Research in
Community & Mental Health, 5, 33-41.
Widom, C.S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination
of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 3-28.
Wilkins, J. & Coid, J. (1991). Self-mutilation in female remanded prisoners.
Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 1(3), 247-267.
Wong, S. (1985). Criminal and institutional behaviors of psychopaths.
(Programs Branch Users Report, Solicitor General of Canada). Ottawa, Ont.
Zamble, E. & Porporino, F.J. (1988). Coping, Behavior, and Adaptation in
Prison Inmates. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Zamble, E. & Quinsey, V.L. (1997). The Criminal Recidivism Process. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

47