Psychoanalytic Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association

2018, Vol. 35, No. 1, 83–92 0736-9735/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pap0000120

MITCHELL AWARD 2016

Psychoanalytic Complexity Theory: An Application to the Treatment of

Child Sexual Offenders
Gerard Webster, PsyD
Australian Catholic University and Institute of Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Los Angeles, California

Most explanations of child sexual abuse perpetration have been premised on assumptions of the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

individualist/monologic paradigm. Child-abuse prevention programs, including treatment for people

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

known to pose a risk of sexual harm to children (sexual offenders), are also based on monologic
assumptions. Drawing from the case study of a Catholic priest who has sexually abused many children,
this paper argues that psychoanalytic complexity theory (PCT) offers a high-definition lens through
which the phenomenon of child sexual abuse perpetration can be understood. PCT is consistent with more
humane and better informed societal values about the human rights, dignity, and worth of each unique
person—regardless of whether he or she is the child victim, perpetrator, guardian, or bystander.
Keywords: child sexual abuse, child-abuse prevention, sexual offending, psychoanalytic complexity
theory, human rights

Research and theorizing about child sexual abuse phenomena have

Gerard Webster
This article was published Online First January 23, 2017.
Gerard Webster, PsyD, School of Arts (NSW), Australian Catholic
University, Strathfield Campus, and Institute of Contemporary Psychoanal-
ysis, Los Angeles, California.
Gerard Webster is a psychoanalyst and a Counselling and Forensic Psychologist
who has worked intensively with both survivors and perpetrators of child sexual
abuse for over thirty years. Throughout this period, Gerard has lectured in child
protection and abuse prevention and has published articles, training packages, and
practice guidelines for Church and government organisations. Gerard and is past
president of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Treatment of
Sexual Abuse and an Honorary Fellow of Australian Catholic University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gerard
Webster, PsyD, Studio 33, 8 Hill Street, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia.
E-mail: gerard@gerardwebster.com
83
expanded rapidly since Sigmund Freud’s earliest propositions over
a century ago (Freud, 1896a, 1896b; 1896c, p. 147). As part of the
women’s rights movement of the 1960s and 70s, many women
began to share their personal histories of sexual abuse while they
were children, thereby posing a major challenge to previously held
beliefs that denied or minimized the existence of the phenomenon
(Sgroi, Canfield Blick, & Sarnacki Porter, 1982). In the decades
that followed, empirical research exposed the extent of sexual
child abuse in our communities and identified its deleterious
impact on victims and their families around the world—the effects
of which are sometimes lifelong (Cashmore & Shackel, 2013).
With that task largely completed, the focus of researchers has
broadened to examine sexual offenders and their modus operandi
(M.O.) to better predict the risk of recidivism and to reduce the
prevalence of abuse in the community.
A paradigm shift in science (Kuhn, 1962/1970) has been in
progress over the last 30 years. The universe is no longer seen as
a machine composed of elementary building blocks. A new science
of “qualities” is emerging with discoveries about “the material
world, ultimately, [being made up of] a network of inseparable
patterns of relationships; that the planet as a whole is a living,
self-regulating system . . . with the new emphasis on complexity,
networks, and patterns of organization” (Capra & Luisi, 2014, p.
xi). This fundamental change in worldview is yet to dawn on the
fields of forensic psychology or criminology. Studies about the
perpetration of child sexual abuse have almost exclusively focused
on the intrapsychic forces that are assumed to drive the offender’s
deviant behavior (Wortley & Smallbone, 2006). This is not to
suggest that the achievements, thus far, have failed to advance our
knowledge and our capacity to protect children. Empirical re-
searchers have developed ideas about how (at least some) sexual
offenders think and behave, which has helped to develop partially
successful strategies to prevent abuse.
 84 WEBSTER
Under the microscope of reductionist methodology in the be-
havioral sciences, society’s tendency to see sexual offenders as
“things” that are different from “us” has been perpetuated and
exacerbated. This, of course, lends itself to binary thinking and
relating— of us–them, good– bad, saved– damned, winner–loser—
that alienate and further compromise the well-being of the person
designated as “other” (Sperry, 2013). In so doing, I argue that
attempts to protect children from sexual abuse have been compro-
mised. According to the systems view of life, we cannot under-
stand the sexual offender without considering the system(s) within
which he offends.
Although the ultimate responsibility for harm caused by the
sexual offender rests with the offender, societies have increasingly
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
accepted responsibility to reduce the risk of harm that potential
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
offenders pose to children. Article 25.2 of the Universal Declara-
tion of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) proclaims that chil-
dren are entitled to special care, assistance, and protection. Article
3 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child
(United Nations, 1989) specifically asserts that each child has the
right to protection from abuse, and that legislative and adminis-
trative measures must be taken to ensure that these rights are
supported.
Child-abuse prevention programs are designed to increase pro-
tective factors (i.e., attributes that build resilience and thwart
episodes of abuse) and reduce risk factors (i.e., attributes that
increase the likelihood of abuse episodes) within the community.
Child-abuse prevention is comprised of three levels of intervention
that focus either on adults, such as caregivers and professionals, or
children (Breckenridge, 1992). Primary prevention involves the
general community and attempts to influence community attitudes,
values, and beliefs that affect children’s safety. Community edu-
cation programs that challenge the use of sexualized images of
children in advertising comprises one example of primary preven-
tion (Quayle & Taylor, 2002; Taylor & Quayle, 2006). Secondary
prevention strategies target predefined vulnerable groups in soci-
ety with the aim of reducing vulnerability to child abuse, such as
children who have been previously abused or neglected. Tertiary
protective interventions focus on identified cases of child abuse
(victims, their families, and perpetrators) with the aim of minimiz-
ing the harmful effects of abuse and to prevent its recurrence.
Sexual offender treatment is a tertiary crime-prevention initiative
that aims to dissuade known sexual offenders from abusing more
children.
The reported findings of international studies into recidivism
rates of untreated sexual offenders vary dramatically—from 3% to
70% being reported (Lievore, 2004). A reliable British study found
that 18% of treated offenders with two or more previous convic-
tions for sexual offenses were reconvicted, compared with 43% of
untreated offenders (Marshall, 1997). Overall, there is strong ev-
idence that treatment programs targeting known offenders are an
extremely effective form of tertiary abuse prevention that more
than halve the likelihood of perpetrators reoffending.
Baltieri and de Andrad (2008) identify nine sexual offender
treatment models that have developed over recent decades, the
psychoanalytic model being one. Others include the biomedical,
central (multidisciplinary), cognitive– behavioral, family systems,
psychosocioeducational, sexual trauma, relapse-prevention, and
sexual addiction models. Of these, the cognitive– behavioral and
the relapse-prevention models are currently the most common
(Laws, Hudson, & Ward, 2000, p. 5). Despite evidence that sup-
ports the efficacy of psychoanalytic treatment in general (Shedler,
2010), few examples of psychoanalytic treatment programs for
sexual offenders have been published. Forensic literature typically
fails to recognize how psychoanalytic theory has contributed to
current understandings of psychosexual development and trauma,
which are incorporated into most treatment models. When men-
tioned, descriptions of psychoanalytic theory are dated and fail to
refer to the radical and diverse developments that have occurred
since the relational turn (Mitchell & Black, 1996).
Oblivious to the evolution of psychoanalysis into a two-person
psychology, Eccleston and Ward (2006) asserted that “most ther-
apists today acknowledge that psychodynamic approaches, which
focus on helping child molesters gain insight into the causal
mechanisms of their antisocial behaviors, are ineffective” (2006, p.
224). Schwartz (2011) concluded her tendentious and incomplete
account of psychoanalytic theory by arguing that it “has limited
usefulness as a treatment” (p. 1/10) for sexual offenders. Although
Schwartz may have some reason to criticize psychoanalysis for
being untestable and doing little to predict behavior, her argu-
ment that psychoanalysis fails to incorporate social factors
ignores concepts such as mutual influence (Slavin & Kriegman,
1998) that have now long been embraced by almost all psycho-
analytic schools. As is often the case, devaluing claims are
made without any reference to empirical evidence. Neverthe-
less, some programs, such as the Atascadero State Hospital
program in California (the first custodial treatment program for
sexual offenders), and Encompass Australasia, funded by the
Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and the Australian
Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes (1997–2008),
have integrated psychoanalytic theory and practice into their
evidence-based programs of treatment.
I argue in this paper that psychoanalysis has a great deal more
to contribute to understanding the phenomena of child sexual
abuse and the treatment of sexual offenders than is currently
acknowledged. Psychoanalytic complexity theory (PCT) is worthy
of discussion. PCT challenges the more conservative, one-person
philosophical premises of sexual offender treatment and other
abuse-prevention initiatives to recognize the two-person, intersub-
jective, and systems dimensionality of sexual offending, and the
implications for abuse prevention. PCT promotes attitudes that
foster social and personal change over social and individual con-
trol; if embraced, a psychoanalytic complexity perspective would
strengthen the protective aspects of the community. Further, PCT
supports a human-rights-centered approach to the treatment of
sexual offenders, that, in itself, results in a safer and more
humane society.
The Treatment of Child Sexual Offenders
Modern developmental psychology holds that adult behavior, in
general, is influenced or largely caused by events that take place
during the earlier years of life. Poor learning (Dollard & Miller,
1950; Skinner, 1938), irrational beliefs (Ellis, 1962), poor decision
making (Williamson & Darley, 1937), and unresolved intrapsychic
conflict resulting from traumatic events (Freud, 1896a) have been,
and continue to be, commonly proposed as causes of aberrant
behavior. Causal explanations of sexual offending against children
 PCT AND THE PERPETRATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
are based typically on the argument that the abuse occurs because
the perpetrator is (a) physically and psychologically rewarded by
the behavior (Ryan, Leversee, & Lane, 2011), (b) deluded by
cognitive distortions that support deviant behavior (Fernandez,
Anderson, Marshall, & Perry, 2011), (c) vulnerable to impulsivity
due to poor self-regulation (Yates & Kingston, 2011), and/or (d) a
survivor of extreme physical abuse or exposure to domestic vio-
lence during childhood (Hart et al., 2003).
Each of these explanations of sexual offending is individualist
and falls within the monologic paradigm (Taylor, 1989), which
conceptualizes the individual as primarily the subject of internal
representations—thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, motives,
emotions, intrapsychic conflict, and so forth. Individualism is a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
monologic view that considers each person a single, unique entity
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
in a world of other individuals. Each is necessarily individuated
from the other, always different and separate from others, and
(ideally) is self-reliant and autonomous. Because others are iden-
tified as objects outside and separate from the subject (the indi-
vidual), any contact he or she has with others is predicated upon
the representations he or she has within. These interior, cognitive
processes, commonly referred to as the person’s mind, are the stuff
within which meanings are shaped.
As was the case with psychoanalysis until the relational turn in
the early 1990s, most psychological approaches and psychothera-
peutic endeavors are one-person psychologies committed to the
monologic assumption that individuals possess the capacity both to
know the world and to act adaptively within it (McNamee &
Gergen, 1995). When behavior falls outside of cultural norms, it is
the individual’s internal representations that are questioned, deter-
mined to be pathological, and ultimately, become the focus of
“correction.” So when, for example, noting that more than 95% of
sexual offenders are male (Bagley, 1995), a man has been found to
sexually abuse and is ordered to undertake treatment, he is most
likely to be required to (a) become acquainted with and modify the
distorted beliefs and deviant attitudes that support his sexual
offending behavior (Fernandez et al., 2011), and (b) learn about his
“situational precipitators” (Wortley, 2001) or “triggers” (Steen,
2001) for offending. The offender is then required to set about
implementing newly learned strategies to prevent relapse (An-
echiarico, 2011).
Within the monologic paradigm, the individual’s sense of agency
is conceptualized as both shaping and being shaped by his envi-
ronment, but the individual remains autonomous in relation to it.
This supports the assumption that offenders have moral agency—
the ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly
held notion of right and wrong, and to be held accountable for
these actions (Angus, 2003). The monologic paradigm attributes
the cause and the responsibility for the sexual offender’s behavior
entirely with, and within, him. The Cartesian divide between
internal and external, individual and environment, supports com-
munity attitudes that render transgressors of societal rules to be
“other” (Sperry, 2013). The sexual offender is “other” to those in
society who have not sexually abused. Each one personifies and is
often named as the single cause of this problem in society. Hence,
the sexual offender is, effectively, on his own when it comes to the
attribution of blame (explanation) and to controlling his future
action (agency).
85
The Case of a Clerical Sexual Offender
Father Paul fits one profile of the sexual offender predicated on
monologic theories, particularly one who has abused within the
Catholic community (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2004).
As a child, Paul was exposed to domestic violence that was
extreme at times. Although he loved both his parents, his alcoholic
father was a source of shame for the family. Paul did well at
school, but he had few friends, and none that were close. He was
sexually abused from the ages of 8 to 12 by an older child who
initially used force. Paul later came to seek physical contact with
the abuser.
Paul felt empty for much of his life, and as his religious faith
was most meaningful to him, he entered a religious community and
was later ordained a Catholic priest. He was appointed to teach in
a residential high school, having completed appropriate qualifica-
tions in education. Paul was assigned a punishing work schedule,
with additional duties such as being dorm master, having respon-
sibility for extracurricular activities, and carrying additional re-
sponsibilities within the local parish. Among his peers, he felt
empty and lost. However, he felt excited when in the company of
boys and became increasingly attracted to their liveliness.
When Paul was first interviewed by police for abusing one child,
he volunteered information about every sexual offense he could
remember committing. His many victims ranged in age from 6 to
15 years and had been either his school pupils or alter boys. Paul
acknowledged that he had felt excited when his victims physically
responded to sexual stimulation, as it confirmed his perception that
they were enjoying the experience as much as he was, and as much
as he had come to experience sex when he was abused as a child.
Paul served 10 years in prison for his crimes, during which time
he undertook a 12-month intensive custodial sex-offender treat-
ment program that was in line with international best-practice
standards. This involved educational classes and the group discus-
sion of exercises designed to assist participants in preventing
relapse upon release. Behavioral techniques were aimed to reduce
Paul’s arousal and cognitive techniques were aimed to improve his
social skills. Despite some of his misgivings and the mismatch
with some aspects of the manualized group program, Paul learned
about how his thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions raised
his risk of sexual offending in a multitude of situations.
After Paul’s release from prison, he self-referred to me for
individual treatment. By this time, he was able to identify his
offense pathway—a linear mapping of the cyclic movement from
nonoffending to offending behavior. Paul’s M.O. began with feel-
ing lonely and frustrated when others were not meeting his expec-
tations. This led him to experience a sense of powerlessness and
rage that triggered self-isolating behavior and rumination. He
tended to rely upon poor coping strategies, such as social with-
drawal and overworking. As his feelings intensified, Paul would
become more focused on himself and his needs. He would then
engage in masturbating to deviant sexual fantasies about children.
Following the masturbation, he would take advantage of being
alone with children with whom he had built close relationships by
sexually abusing them. As a result of his newfound awareness of
his M.O., Paul learned how to implement strategies that would
interrupt the “offense chain” that precipitated his sexual assaults
upon children (Pithers, Beal, Armstrong, & Petty, 1989; Ward,
Louden, Hudson, & Marshall, 1995). He also learned more effec-
 86 WEBSTER
tive and appropriate ways to meet his personal needs (Ward &
Brown, 2004).
Clearly, Paul had benefited from the treatment he received in
custody. However, at the time of his self-referral, he was still
suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, which had resulted
from the assaults and other inhumane behavior he had sustained
from both his fellow inmates and corrections officers. Although he
appreciated the insights he gained from the program, he stated the
following.
I felt I always needed one-on-one counseling. The group thing is not
good for me. It didn’t work for me. Being in a rolling group, people
using special words. Expectations that this or that would be in your
relapse plan. It was too much like the Church. Too much expectation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of what you should say. Everyone wanted a good report. There was no
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
one-on-one, just group. . . . I fully expected to get everything out of
it and to give it my all. But there wasn’t a freedom to say everything.
If what I said didn’t fall into a category, they’d let you know. They are
too attached to what they learn in books. There’s not enough freedom
to be real.
Sexual Offending and Intersubjectivity
Although the individualist model of the person has been dom-
inant in psychology and Western philosophy, the social interpre-
tation of the human condition has been acquiring increased recog-
nition within these disciplines. Many philosophers have challenged
the monologic paradigm and proposed alternate models that em-
phasize the socially and historically significant dimensions of
human experience. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1995), for example,
argued against individualism, stating: “Long before we understand
ourselves through the process of self-examination, we understand
ourselves in a self-evident way in the family, society and state in
which we live” (p. 276). Roger Frie (2011) added, “the notion that
people are independent and self-determining entities impedes our
understanding of the sociocultural contexts of human experience”
(p. 4). These social dimensions are referred to in the literature as
the social, dialogical, conversational, hermeneutic, and/or interpre-
tive paradigms, and they have been increasingly embraced by most
contemporary schools of psychoanalysis.
Unlike monologic explanations, the two-person, dialogic/inter-
pretive paradigm holds that the subject (the person) can never be
defined in terms of individual properties. Rather than seen as
separate from the environment, people are defined in terms of their
location within social action and relational matrices. Human ex-
perience is, thereby, “intersubjective.” Each person “is born into
and emerges within cultural contexts of shared beliefs, values,
rules, and practices. Our cultural contexts determine the language
we use to describe ourselves and affect how we exist in the world”
(Frie, 2011, p. 3). The dialogical paradigm supports perspectival
approaches, holding that the manner in which phenomena are
experienced and responded to by a person is determined by the
understanding she or he has of that experience. A person’s behav-
ior is understood to be socially constructed and/or embedded in
social interaction rather than, as the monologic paradigm would
hold, an interior, cognitive process in which individuals are simply
influenced by past experience and current circumstances.
The “sociocultural turn in contemporary psychoanalytic theory
and practice” (Frie, 2014, p. 371) has radically overturned mono-
logic assumptions and has “reconceptualized our ideas about per-
sonal autonomy, agency, authorship, ownership, and even free
will” (Coburn, 2014, June, p. 4). Rather than focusing on one root
of maladaptive behavior, such as biological predispositions, envi-
ronmental causes, or motivational states in a defective mind, a
fuller understanding of a person’s action is found when such
behavior is considered an emergent property of the person’s
unique past and present relational experience, in which meanings
become manifest in the specific sociocultural– historical context.
Here, then, the individuality of the person is not lost, but is
recognized as unique and ever changing in relation to (as opposed
to in reaction to) current experience.
Coburn (2007, 2014) argued that all emotional experience,
including our set of underlying organizing themes (Stolorow,
Atwood, & Brandchaft, 1994), is inextricably embedded in a larger
context, of which each of us is but a part. Concordant with the
dialogic paradigm, Coburn (Coburn, 2007, 2009) rejected the
adoption of reified, objective truths and realities that portray emo-
tional experience and meaning as rule-driven, static, and hard-
wired, as had been proposed in early psychoanalytic theory. Be-
cause emotional experience is dynamic and embedded in the
context of multiple systems (thereby bringing psychoanalysis in
line with the paradigm shift of science to a systems view, described
above), causal claims cannot be demarcated and can never be
clearly drawn. The individual is never on his own.
Embracing the work of Thelen and Smith (1994) and Thelen
(2005), Coburn (2009) elucidated PCT as one of the more radical
of dialogical theories. Coburn argued that complexity theory pro-
vides “a rich, explanatory framework with which to investigate and
understand experiential worlds and their corresponding meanings”
(p. 184), emphasizing context dependency, context sensitivity, and
historicity. PCT understands emotional experience and meaning as
“emergent and patterned (or ’soft-assembled’) through the coop-
eration of all of the constituents of a relational system, past,
present, and imagined future” (Coburn, 2009, p. 184).
Sexual offending is conceptualized as an emergent property of a
limitless multitude of systems and subsystems. The actual behavior
perpetrated by an individual is understood as a patterned emotional
experience that emerges and self-organizes in specific contexts,
and with the cooperation of many parts. Sexual offending emerges
from not only the cognitive–affective–physiological subsystems
that may be thought of as self-states in the individual (such as
when Paul felt vitalized and aroused by the children he be-
friended), but also as systems made up of the embodied relational
matrix—which may involve the subjectivity of the child, his or her
parents, Paul’s colleagues and fellow priests, and other members
of his community. The wider social, historical, and cultural sys-
tems are also recognized to be at play, including the 2000-year
history and culture of the Catholic Church and the clerical culture
of the priesthood (Keenan, 2012). An atheist’s offending would
most likely be contextualized more powerfully by other systems,
as would be the case for a Muslim, a person who has just lost his
job, or a woman who sexually abuses. Changes in the pattern of
sexual offending behavior are seen not as having been triggered by
an external event, such as an offender finding himself alone with
a child (Smallbone, Marshall, & Wortley, 2008; Wortley & Small-
bone, 2006) or feeling sexual arousal toward a child (Hall &
Hirschman, 1991, 1992), but rather as an emergent property of a
nonoffending system that has been perturbed.
 PCT AND THE PERPETRATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
A system is considered complex when it is open to the surround-
ing, when a large number of elements are present and interact in a
dynamic fashion, and when the transference of information from
one system constituent to another is ongoing. The individual can
be viewed as a system in him- or herself, so that the complex
system that we call “Paul” can organize itself in such a way that
the preconditions for sexual abuse emerge, and sometimes do not.
Some of the infinite number of elements that interact to find Paul
sexually abusing a child on a particular day include his organizing
principles, his exhausted body, his angry and lonely affective state,
his crisis in intimacy, the medication he has taken, questions about
celibacy, an angry word from a superior, missing out on his much
needed workout, the smell of children in the classroom, and a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
smile from a child. On another day, these qualities may be present,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
but would not result in an offense. Monologic explanations that are
limited to cognition and environmental triggers are, by compari-
son, poverty stricken.
By definition, each element of the system influences and is
influenced by many others (i.e., the interactions are rich), and
because interactions in a complex system are also nonlinear, small
changes can have large results, and vice versa. Paul found the
2000-hr cognitive– behavioral treatment program to be too intel-
lectualized and experience-distant to be truly mutative. However,
a single chance observation of a fellow prisoner tenderly interact-
ing with his visiting child utterly shattered Paul’s delusion of
equality/symmetry in his relationships with children, and, along
with it, any desire to abuse again. Paul explained that this was the
first time he could truly see what he had damaged by sexually
abusing boys—the connection between the child and his family.
He had, in effect, introduced pathology into the system. Paul never
reoffended after that parent– child system influenced his own.
Complex systems are recurrent in that the effect of any activity
can feed back onto itself, either directly or after a number of
intervening stages. Monologic-behavioral explanations of offense
limit attention to the feedback loop of sexual experience being
reinforcing (e.g., the extreme sexual pleasure or feeling powerful),
which thereby increases the likelihood of repeating the behavior.
However, PCT recognizes the limitless number of systems and
subsystems that are implicated—in Paul’s case, the physiological,
the conscious, the unconscious, the interpersonal, the social, and
the environmental, to name just the obvious. Each element in a
complex system is ignorant of the behavior of the system as a
whole, responding only to information that is available to it lo-
cally. The system of subsystems from which the embodied sexual
offender is prepared to abuse a child can be very different from the
system of subsystems that lead that same person to be a role model
to others as a benevolent pastor. It seems very likely that Paul’s
adult-clerical system was his predominant attractor state, but his
perverse system, among a multitude of other systems, would
emerge as a result of the operation of infinite feedback loops.
Paul found the analytic process far more transformative than he
had the experience of psychological treatment premised on the
monologic paradigm. He recently stated the following.
I can just come in here and open up about what matters most. I don’t
feel threatened. I don’t feel shame. This is essential to life. I feel free,
accepted. It’s okay to say what I feel. I don’t feel expectation to say
this word or that word. As I leave, things happen in my head. I don’t
know how it works. It’s a miracle. It’s more real. It’s me. It’s not a
87
course. It’s delving into the deepest part, making me accept the
deepest pain of who I am and what I want to do. . . . We all have to
see how vulnerable we are and we all need help. But it has to be fair
dinkum help. (Fair dinkum is Australian slang for “authentic and
true”). Not implanting. Psychologists have to look at the whole person
with their offenders or victims. Perpetrators have to go back and find
out how they got there. The Church has to go back to the beginning
as well. What was Christ about? You have to be fair dinkum. Go back
to where it starts. The community as a whole has to have integrity, not
doing what the media expects. It has got to be genuine. Communica-
tion and true listening are essential for everyone. Is there anything
harder than really listening?
As Paul began to reflect on his experience with me, his mind
went first to the wider system of treatment providers, then to the
Church, and then to the whole community. Over the years of his
analysis, Paul has been able to expand his sense of truth and reality
“by contextualizing and situating his experiences across broader
historical and present-day contexts” (Coburn, 2009, p. 188).
Coburn argues that a psychoanalytic complexity sensibility “of-
fers a detailed and powerful explanatory framework for hypothe-
sizing about the emergence of emotional experience and the
meaning-making process” (Coburn, 2009, p. 188). This framework
is established by highlighting the influence of attitudes, and it
distinguishes three essential levels of discourse: (a) the phenom-
enological, (b) the interpretive, and (c) the metaphysical.
At the phenomenological level, Paul and I used sessions to
become aware of how he felt himself to be in his body; to be in
relationship with me and with others; and to be a teacher, a priest,
a member of the Church, and a known perpetrator. He began to
recognize these as self-states and as subsystems within multiple
systems, inextricably contextualized by the people and by the
world around him. We came to recognize the patterns of thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors that tended to play out in each of these
states—whether a particular self-state/subsystem was ordered, pre-
dictable, familiar, or repetitive, or whether it seemed to act more
randomly, unpredictably, or with varying degrees of stability.
Paul’s capacity for self-reflection, both when with me and when
outside of sessions, brought a wide range of emotional experience
into his awareness. He discovered how anxious, sad, and perplexed
he could be at times leading up to, during, and after episodes of
offending. Having dissociated much of his affect throughout his
life, Paul’s greater self-awareness helped him to feel better about
himself and to recognize his feelings from one moment or context
to the next. Being closer to his affective experience, and feeling
safe enough in the therapeutic relationship to notice the links
between these and his behavior, Paul could begin to build a greater
understanding of how he came to form such a repetitive pattern of
offending.
Paul learned many rules about the dynamics of his offending
from the group treatment program he undertook before psycho-
analysis. These were based on the evidence of reductionist re-
search that collapsed the unique experiences of multiple individ-
uals into a set of ordered claims. Although Paul was able to make
use of these axioms to some extent, the unique, personal, and
emotional meanings of his sexual offending remained unformu-
lated, leaving only emotional impressions, until they came to life
in the therapeutic relationship.
At the interpretive level of discourse, Paul’s greater conscious-
ness of his embodied states, as well as their associated patterns of
 88
behavior that emerged from them, helped him gain deeper insight
into his M.O. than had been possible previously. By staying close
to the phenomenology of his affective experience, and by inter-
preting the patterns that became apparent to us, Paul and I were
able to identify the organizing principles or themes (Stolorow et
al., 1994) that have variously and context-dependently shaped his
experiential world and the meanings of those experiences.
Paul has come to recognize a number of organizing themes that
relate to his offending under different circumstances. He stated,
When I felt isolated and rejected by others, and a child showed me that
he wants to be close, I would get completely turned on and could only
see him as wanting sexual closeness as I do. From there, anything can
happen, but it feels like the only choice is to act on those feelings.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Many new self-states have subsequently emerged from and within
Paul’s system as a whole, of which the psychotherapeutic subsys-
tem has undoubtedly been a significant influence. He is now more
able to move freely on the streets, without self-consciousness. He
can ask a stranger for directions. He speaks with his neighbors. He
has friends to help him, and whom he helps. With this, he feels
good about himself and is writing a book about his life. Of
particular interest to this article is what happens when Paul sees a
child.
After four years of treatment, Paul reported that he had gone to
Mass, where he saw a mother and 5-year-old boy standing to-
gether, singing a hymn. When the mother stopped singing for some
reason, the boy looked up with alarm. Recognizing this as repre-
sentative of their intimate connection, Paul burst into tears.
Through this experience, Paul was able to articulate a new orga-
nizing principle that had been emerging since the incident in the
prison yard.
When I see a child now, I see nothing but the closeness they have with
their parents. I can’t see them as sexual anymore. All I could do before
therapy was to walk away. Now I see their beauty, their innocence. It
is wonderful. But, then, I feel crushed by realizing what I have done.
I just feel so, so sorry for all the children I have hurt, along with their
families.
Paul enjoys a new freedom borne not out of discipline, but as a
new natural way of being in the world. It is no longer difficult for
Paul to walk away and he feels a growing confidence that he will
never harm another child, nor does he want to.
Paul’s protective factors against offending have been increased
by a strengthening of his nonoffending subsystem/self-states,
which have emerged in the context of our therapeutic relationship.
His newly organized way of being in the world with me has
opened a more child-safe subsystem that is now available to
relationships with others. He is more “in touch” with himself, more
“aware” of his multiple self-states, more drawn (consciously and
unconsciously) to organize himself in child-safe ways, and more
attuned to the likelihood that any given state can change at any
time without warning. He is therefore more prepared, and has more
freedom to choose his actions, as a result of the analytic work we
have undertaken.
Uniqueness, Agency, and Human Rights
The third level of discourse addresses the metaphysical, explan-
atory assumptions, including the broad universal presuppositions
WEBSTER
(i.e., convictions about the way things work), that organize the
contents and processes of the phenomenological and interpretive
discourses. The metaphysical discourse both sets out and explains
one’s foundational and sometimes unconscious assumptions about
how things work. Likewise, it specifies one’s convictions about the
underpinnings and origination of emotional experience and mean-
ing. By prioritizing process over content, and thinking in terms of
relationships, patterns, and context, PCT advances current theory
and practice in relation to child sexual abuse, sexual offending, and
abuse prevention, which tends to be content-oriented. It does this
by foregrounding the uniqueness of the offender and his place in
the community.
Most researchers agree that sexual offending against children is
a “multi-dimensional and multi-determined phenomenon” (Small-
bone & Wortley, 2001, p. 1). Research has consistently found
considerable variation in the ways sexual offenses against children
are perpetrated—for example, the tactics employed to select and
“groom” children, sexual and other behaviors involved in the
commission of offenses, and methods of avoiding detection. Vari-
ation is also found in the characteristics of the perpetrators them-
selves (e.g., age, ethnicity, education, psychosocial and psycho-
sexual background, level of sexual interest in children, relationship
with victims, general criminality). Smallbone and Wortley argued
that causal explanations are similarly varied, but “none enjoys the
support of a strong empirical base” (p. 1). Although some may be
disappointed by the failure of science to reduce the offender to
“parts” and “causal laws”, I consider it evidence of the uniqueness
of the sexual offender as a person and, as PCT asserts, the unpre-
dictable, but patterned, contextualized processes of offending.
The recognition of the offender’s uniqueness not only dignifies
him as a person from a human rights perspective, but also provides
greater clarity about the risk of harm he poses. By entering into
psychoanalytic treatment from a PCT perspective, Paul expanded
his capacity to recognize and engage with his emotional experi-
ence (bringing the unconscious into consciousness), reflect on his
complex patterns of acting in the moment, and respond to the
potential manifestation of past, rigid patterns of offending in more
open and child-safe ways—see Webster (in press) and Webster
and Butcher (2012) for the three “Rs” of sexual abuse.
Speaking at the metaphysical/explanatory level of discourse,
Coburn has argued that there is no free will, individuality, or
personal agency. However, phenomenologically speaking, at the
level of experience an individual may possess free will and per-
sonal agency to varying degrees, noting, that this always remains
context-dependent. Coburn argued in favor of the veracity of
autonomous states or agency, and that, ultimately, the individual
garners a sense of greater personal freedom by taking responsibil-
ity for where he or she finds his/herself. However, the individual
also holds that the constitution of these states is entirely systemi-
cally and contextually derived.
Coburn’s work drew from Heidegger’s (1927) concept that
human beings are “thrown” into life circumstances that are largely
not of their making, and that people often simply discover them-
selves in emotional and relational circumstances. Rejecting the
notion of “fatedness,” Coburn has suggested that the individual’s
“current situatedness” should be owned, thereby inviting an aware-
ness of what freedom, albeit finite, might be garnered from a given
situation. In this vein, he has argued for the potential for future
self-authorship and self-ownership (Coburn, 2014). He asserted
 PCT AND THE PERPETRATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
that, “phenomenologically and interpretively, we must seize re-
sponsibility (i.e., this is my emotional life, this is how I find
myself) for that which, explanatorily, was not of our making”
(Coburn, 2009, p. 190). This is particularly important when con-
sidering the need for sexual offenders to own their behavior,
recognize their limitations, and do everything they can to avoid
reoffending.
Given that the sexual offender’s behavior is emergent from his
personal relational experience and the sociocultural history of his
community, we too—as a local, national and global community—
are accountable for our successes and failures in attending to the
rights and needs of children to have protection. Our collective and
individual attitudes and actions create the context in which a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sexual offender chooses to abuse. In effect, “we” are with “him”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
when he offends. We are more than bystanders; we are cocreators
of his emergent sexually abusive acts.
As suggested above, the monologic paradigm perpetrates the
myth that individuals are separate entities. Sexual offenders are,
therefore, easily designated as other. PCT challenges this myth.
The intricate flow of mutual influence, recognized by PCT, implies
that every action by one is bound to have an impact on everyone—
big or small, for better or for worse. I argue that the monologic
paradigm yields considerable countereffective consequences or
repercussions upon the communal aim of a child-safe society. The
individualist assumptions that have been increasingly embraced by
Western societies over recent centuries has reduced and rigidified
the community’s capacity to think about sexual offenders as one of
“us.” The monologic dogma of autonomy results in offenders
being socially alienated and physically isolated, separated from
such personal supports as family, friendships, professional groups,
or the wider community.
The tendency to shame and retaliate against sexual offenders for
their crimes has been well-documented (McAlinden, 2007). As a
consequence of being caught for sexually abusing a child, sexual
offenders are likely to lose some of their rights. The loss of the sexual
offender’s right to freedom, in the extreme form of imprisonment,
serves both as a punishment for the harm caused to individuals and
society, as well as a preventive measure (usually temporary) against
recidivism. In addition, there have been many legislative and policy
reforms over recent years, each of which has both positive and
negative impacts on the system as a whole, that have targeted sexual
offenders by restricting their rights further, such as
Campaigns to increase public awareness and reporting rates, the
formation of special police taskforces, changes in rules of evidence,
increased penalties and sentences, the establishment of a national
offender register, reviews of community notification laws, implemen-
tation of wide-reaching employment screening programs, major in-
vestments in specialized sex offender treatment programs, a tightening
of parole policies, the introduction of preventative detention legisla-
tion, and so on (Wortley & Smallbone, 2006, p. 2).
With the increasing intention to punish and deter offenders, and
to protect vulnerable children from sexual abuse, potential offend-
ers now have less access to potential victims and fewer opportu-
nities to offend (Kaufman, Mosher, Carter, & Estes, 2006). Al-
though preventive strategies are employed for the purpose of social
control over sexual offenders and are therefore intended to raise
the protective factors in a community, the unfortunate paradox is
that the resulting marginalization of, and multiple side effects for,
89
sexual offenders actually raises the risk of reoffending. Consider-
ing the principles of PCT, it is arguable that more children will be
abused if people with established patterns of offending are
“thrown” back into their offending system—an “attractor state”
(Coburn, 2014) of predation. This calls for a radical revision of the
assumptions of primary, secondary, and tertiary abuse-prevention
programs that portray the offender as other.
If one recognizes the interrelatedness of systems, then the im-
pact of primary prevention strategies upon the secondary and
tertiary prevention strategies must also be recognized. If primary
prevention programs inflame community hostility to offenders,
denying their dignity and their place in the community, then the
best attempts of sexual offender treatment programs are bound to
be undermined. Regardless of how well “trained” a sexual offender
is when he emerges from custodial treatment into the community,
he is likely to react to constant obstacles and exclusionary prac-
tices.
Social change in attitudes across the community (i.e., primary
abuse prevention) is required in the direction of inclusiveness and
respect for sexual offenders’ inalienable human rights. The first
article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (United Nations
General Assembly, 1948). Failure to respect the rights of those
who have failed to respect the rights of children raises the risk of
abuse. Recognition of the dignity and rights of sexual offenders
while not minimizing the risk they pose is a protective factor
against future criminal acts.
Conclusion
I have argued that it is important not only for sexual offenders
to become aware of the multiple systems that contextualize their
harmful behavior, but that it is essential that the whole of society
and the institutions of each community become more aware of
how, as a system or subsystem, each part contributes to the entirety
of the problem. By holding an inclusive attitude toward sexual
offenders that recognizes them to be part of the whole, we may
have cause for greater hope that their subsequent “thrownness”
will be in the direction of prosocial, child-safe attractor states.
Paul’s exploration of his lived experience is instructive about
how systems can be made more aware of the dynamics of which
they are a part, from which the phenomenon of child sexual abuse
emerges.
The corrections system, at least as it functions in Australia and
most Western countries, takes a sexual offender and places him in
a hostile environment, often exacerbating any preexisting trauma,
and often failing to provide treatment. Although it is sometimes
necessary to withdraw an individual’s right to freedom due to the
risk they pose to others, there is no justification for detaining
people in environments that increase their risk of relapse upon
release. Healthier custodial environments—such as those that ex-
clude hostile inmates, that recruit well-trained and ethical correc-
tional officers and psychotherapists, and that provide adequate
resources for the task— can safely offer both forensic psychother-
apy and relapse-prevention programs capable of more positively
impacting the rehabilitation of offenders. Investment in community-
based treatment facilities for offenders who do not pose an immediate
 90 WEBSTER
threat to children would also provide a more productive treatment
environment.
Churches and other organizations must consider the cultural
beliefs and practices that support offending behavior. The pa-
triarchal structure of the Catholic Church, for example, which
institutionalizes a culture of domination and submission (Ben-
jamin, 2004; Ghent, 1990), which has contextualized the sexual
abuse of children throughout the centuries, has now finally been
exposed. We now know that failure to provide professional
support and counseling to all members of the clergy at all levels
of the hierarchy who need training, supervision, and/or treat-
ment makes for a system that is nonresponsive to the vulnera-
ble, despite Catholic teaching to the contrary.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
As Paul’s case demonstrates, the Church can also be a positive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
influence upon, and an example to, other systems from which the
sexual abuse of children emerges. Paul’s religious community
offered him a place of safety— one in which he was supported in
living a meaningful life postrelease, where he felt connected to his
religious community, and he was assisted in maintaining his pro-
tective strategies in relation to the ongoing risk he poses. In this
way, the Church demonstrates congruence with its stated values of
recognizing the uniqueness and dignity of the human person who
is “capable of self-understanding, self-possession and self-
determination” (Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace, 2004, p.
66). Where this occurs, the Church can and does actively contrib-
ute to a safer and more compassionate world.
Finally, the community as a whole must examine its attitudes
toward sexual abuse survivors and perpetrators. By holding alien-
ating attitudes and engaging in hateful and shaming practices
toward perpetrators, the risk of recidivism escalates. Should the
community as a whole become more inclusive of those who have
sexually abused (without lowering protective factors, such as
awareness of the risk some people pose), the potential for the
development of a more child-safe environment is likely to emerge.
PCT poses many unsettling questions for clinicians and the
community, but perhaps the disequilibrium that arises when our
taken-for-granted assumptions are challenged will actually in-
crease communal protective factors. If one recognizes that human
behavior is not linear, neither as predictable nor as orderly as we
might prefer to think, we might recognize as well the need to be
very vigilant concerning the existence of sexual abuse in our
communities, and to be on the lookout for sudden, unexpected
changes, as well as obvious deterioration in a state of safety.
PCT offers clinicians a higher definition lens to understand
sexual offenders and offending by drawing from a century of
theorizing about unconscious processes that inform treatment. Due
to space limitations, it must be left to a later publication to
demonstrate how the lived experience of transference and coun-
tertransference phenomena, when understood as nonlinear, dy-
namic, emergent processes of a therapeutic, cocreated system of
therapeutic action, can be radically transformative for both parties.
Suffice it to say that the analyst–patient dyad, as a new embodied
system that acknowledges, tracks, and discusses the movement of
attractor states and their meanings, offers sexual offenders a type
of treatment that is not addressed by other treatment approaches.
In this paper, I have articulated the value of psychoanalytic
theory and practice, which is not to say that I sought to do so by
diminishing the value of, or competing with, other approaches.
From a complexity perspective, all theories and therapeutic ap-
proaches are “systems of thought” (Bohm, 1992). Not only would
it be foolish to exclude approaches that have strong evidence of
efficacy, but complexity theory asserts that this is simply not
possible, as each theory is part of larger systems of thought, all of
which are related. Paul benefited from the group treatment pro-
gram. However, it left him hungry for a long-term, empathetic, and
reflective therapeutic relationship with a therapist who could tol-
erate the vile nature of his behavior, and have the courage to stay
with him through the excruciating phases of treatment. He believes
that he has made advances that were not possible with other
treatment approaches, and I agree. Unfortunately, some men are
not at all motivated to engage in treatment of any kind. Some
offenders are better suited to other treatment approaches, and some
are not amenable to treatment of any kind.
There are countless systems and subsystems that could be ana-
lyzed here. However, in reviewing Paul’s case at three levels of
discourse, I have argued that a complex systems sensibility, as one
example of the dialogic paradigm, offers great understanding and
opens options for choice and action for the protection of children
and the rehabilitation of offenders. In so doing, PCT promotes a
more humane and informed society that values the human rights,
dignity, and worth of each person.
References
Anechiarico, B. (2011). A closer look at sex offender character pathology
and relapse prevention: An integrative approach. In B. K. Schwartz
(Ed.), Handbook of sex offender treatment (pp. 6/1– 6/7). Kinston, NJ:
Civic Research Institute.
Angus, T. (2003). Animals and ethics: An overview of the philosophical
debate. Peterborough, ON, Canada: Broadview Press.
Bagley, C. (1995). Child sexual abuse and mental health in adolescents
and adults: British and Canadian perspectives. Aldershot, UK: Ave-
bury.
Baltieri, D. A., & de Andrad, A. G. (2008). Sex offenders: Management,
treatment and bibliography. New York, NY: Nova Science.
Benjamin, J. R. (2004). Escape from the hall of mirrors. Psychoanalytic
Dialogues, 14, 743–753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10481881409348804
Bohm, D. (1992). Thought as a system. New York, NY: Routledge.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203202241
Breckenridge, J. (1992). An exotic phenomenon? Incest and child rape. In
J. Breckenridge & M. Carmody (Eds.), Crimes of violence: Australian
responses to rape and child sexual assault (pp. 18 –37). Sydney, NSW,
Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Capra, F., & Luisi, Pier Luigi. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying
vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cashmore, J., & Shackel, R. (2013). The long-term effects of child sexual
abuse. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e567322013-001
Coburn, W. J. (2007). Contextualist sensibilities in psychoanalysis. Psy-
choanalytic Inquiry, 27, 139 –145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/073516
90701312660
Coburn, W. J. (2009). Attitudes in psychoanalytic complexity. In R. Frie &
D. Orange (Eds.), Beyond postmodernism: New dimensions in clinical
theory and practice (pp. 183–197). New York, NY: Routledge.
Coburn, W. J. (2014, June). A complex paradox: Individuality and the
prereflective systems consciousness. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual
Meeting of the Rapaport-Klein Study Group, Stockbridge, MA.
Coburn, W. J. (2014). Psychoanalytic complexity: Clinical attitudes for
therapeutic change. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
 PCT AND THE PERPETRATION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Eccleston, L., & Ward, T. (2006). Is risk management enough? Approach
and avoidance goals in the treatment of sex offenders (Vol. 19). New
York, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York, NY:
Stuart.
Fernandez, Y. M., Anderson, D., Marshall, W. L., & Perry, D. (2011). The
relationship among empathy, cognitive distortions, and self-esteem in
sexual offenders. In B. K. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of sex offender
treatment (pp. 8/1– 8/15). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Freud, S. (1896a). The aetiology of hysteria. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The
standard ed. of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 3, pp. 191–221). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1896b). Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defence. In
J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard ed. of the complete psychological works
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3, pp. 162–185). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Freud, S. (1896c). Heredity and the aetiology of the neuroses. In J.
Strachey (Ed.), The standard ed. of the complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud (Vol. 3, pp. 143–156). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Frie, R. (2011). Culture and context: From individualism to situated
experience. In R. Frie & W. J. Coburn (Eds.), Persons in context: The
challenge of individuality in theory and practice (pp. 3–20). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Frie, R. (2014). What is cultural psychoanalysis? Psychoanalytic anthro-
pology and the interpersonal tradition. Contemporary Psychoanalysis,
50, 371–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107530.2014.895929
Gadamer, H.-G. (1995). Truth and method (J. Weinsheiner & D. C.
Marshall, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum.
Ghent, E. (1990). Masochism, submission, surrender: Masochism as a
perversion of surrender. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26, 108 –136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1990.10746643
Hall, G. C. N., & Hirschman, R. (1991). Toward a theory of sexual
aggression: A quadripartite model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59, 662– 669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5
.662
Hall, G. C. N., & Hirschman, R. (1992). Sexual aggression against chil-
dren: A conceptual perspective of etiology. Criminal Justice and Be-
havior, 19, 8 –23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854892019001003
Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., Laws, D. R., Klaver, J., Logan, C., & Watt, K. A.
(2003). The risk for sexual violence protocol (RSVP): Structured profes-
sional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Burnaby, BC, Can-
ada: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute.
Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and time (J. Macquarie & E. Robinson,
Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice. (2004). The nature and scope of the
problem of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests and deacons in
the United States: 1950 –2002. New York, NY: Author.
Kaufman, K. L., Mosher, H., Carter, M., & Estes, L. (2006). An empiri-
cally based situational prevention model for child sexual abuse. In R.
Wortley & S. Smallbone (Eds.), Situational prevention of child sexual
abuse (pp. 101–144). New York, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Keenan, M. (2012). Child sexual abuse & the Catholic Church. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Laws, D. R., Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (2000). Remaking relapse
prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lievore, D. (2004). Recidivism of sexual offenders: Rates, risk factors and
treatment efficacy. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Marshall, P. (1997). A reconviction study of HMP Grendon Therapeutic
Community (Vol. 53). London, UK: Home Office.
McAlinden, A.-M. (2007). The shaming of sexual offenders: Risk, retri-
bution and reintegration. Portland, UK: Hart.
91
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. (1995). Therapy as social construction.
London, UK: Sage.
Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1996). Freud and beyond: A history of
modern psychoanalytic thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Pithers, W. D., Beal, L. S., Armstrong, J., & Petty, J. (1989). Identification
of risk factors through clinical interviews and analysis of records. In
D. R. Laws (Ed.), Relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 77– 87).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace. (2004). Compendium of the social
doctrine of the Church. Citta del Vaticano, Europe: Libereria Editrice
Vaticana.
Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Paedophiles, pornography and the inter-
net: Assessment issues. British Journal of Social Work, 32, 863– 875.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/32.7.863
Ryan, G., Leversee, T. F., & Lane, S. (2011). Juvenile sexual offending:
Causes, consequences, and correction. Hobeken, NJ: Wiley.
Schwartz, B. K. (2011). Clinical theories of sex offenses. In B. K. Schwartz
(Ed.), Handbook of sex offender treatment (Chapter 1/1). Kingston, NJ:
Civic Research Institute.
Sgroi, S. M., Canfield Blick, L., & Sarnacki Porter, F. (1982). A conceptual
framework for child sexual abuse. In S. Sgroi (Ed.), Handbook of
clinical intervention in child sexual abuse (pp. 9 –37). Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 65, 98 –109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018378
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behaviour of organisms. New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, M. O., & Kriegman, D. (1998). Why the analyst needs to change:
Toward a theory of conflict, negotiation, and mutual influence in the
therapeutic process. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 8, 247–284. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/10481889809539246
Smallbone, S., Marshall, W. L., & Wortley, R. (2008). Preventing child
sexual abuse: Evidence, policy and practice. London, UK: Rout-
ledge.
Smallbone, S., & Wortley, R. (2001). Child sexual abuse: Offender char-
acteristics and modus operandi (Vol. 193). Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Sperry, M. (2013). Sameness and difference: Cultivating cultural dialogue.
International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 8, 77–91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2013.739138
Steen, C. (2001). The adult relapse prevention handbook. Brandon, VT:
The Safer Society Press.
Stolorow, R. D., Atwood, G. E., & Brandchaft, B. (1994). The intersub-
jective perspective. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of modern identity.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, M., & Quayle, E. (2006). The internet and abuse images of
children: Search, pre-criminal situations and opportunity. In R. Wortley
& S. Smallbone (Eds.), Situational prevention of child sexual abuse (pp.
169 –196). New York, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change.
Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15, 255–283.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the
development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human
rights. New York, NY: Author.
United Nations General Assembly. (1989). Convention on the rights of the
child. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/
docid/3ae6b38f0.html
Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual
issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 243–
257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001662744
 92 WEBSTER

Ward, T., Louden, K., Hudson, S. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1995). A
descriptive model of the offense chain for child molesters. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 10, 452– 472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
088626095010004005
Webster, G. P. (in press). The conscious and unconscious procedures,
motives and meanings of pre-pubescent problem sexual behaviour. Psy-
choanalytic Inquiry.
Webster, G. P., & Butcher, J. (2012). The assessment of problem sexual
behaviours amongst children: A human rights centred approach. Sexual
abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 4, 22–32.
Williamson, E., & Darley, J. (1937). Student personnel work: An outline of
clinical procedures. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Wortley, R. (2001). A classification of techniques for controlling situa-
tional precipitators of crime. Security Journal, 14, 63– 82. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1057/palgrave.sj.8340098
Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2006). Applying situational principles to
sexual offenses against children. In R. Wortley & S. Smallbone (Eds.),
Situational prevention of child abuse (pp. 7–35). New York, NY: Crim-
inal Justice Press.
Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2006). Situational prevention of child abuse
(Vol. 19). New York, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Yates, P. M., & Kingston, D. A. (2011). Pathways to sexual offending. In
B. K. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of sex offender treatment (pp. 17/11–
17/16). Kingston, MJ: Civic Research Institute.

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn
more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/review-
manuscript-ce-video.aspx.