Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology > Psychology and Criminology > Empathy, Prosocial Behavior, and Crime

Empathy, Prosocial Behavior, and Crime




Empathy and prosocial behavior occupy a central place in the psychology of criminal conduct — as constraints on the harm that motivated individuals inflict on others, as the affective and behavioral capacities whose absence or dysfunction characterizes the most persistently antisocial individuals, and as the targets of interventions designed to reduce criminal behavior by enhancing the emotional and relational competencies that law-abiding behavior requires. Understanding the relationship between empathy, prosocial behavior, and crime requires distinguishing multiple dimensions of these constructs — the cognitive versus affective components of empathy, the specific versus general forms of prosocial behavior, and the ways in which the empathy-prosocial-crime relationship is moderated by contextual factors including the perceived social group membership of potential victims, the situational pressures that selectively activate or suppress empathic responding, and the developmental history that determines the empathic capacities individuals bring to potentially criminal situations.

Psychology and Criminology approaches empathy and prosocial behavior not as simple virtues whose presence prevents crime and whose absence enables it, but as complex psychological constructs whose specific dimensions relate to specific crime types in specific ways that require theoretical precision rather than the broad assumption that “more empathy means less crime.” The empirical picture is more nuanced: some individuals high in cognitive empathy use that capacity to skillfully target victims rather than to refrain from victimization; some forms of prosocial behavior within in-group contexts coexist with high rates of out-group aggression; and some interventions designed to enhance empathy produce unintended consequences that the simple empathy-prevents-crime framework could not predict.

Introduction

Empathy — the capacity to understand and share the subjective experience of another person — has been conceptualized across two dimensions that are both empirically distinguishable and differently related to criminal behavior. Affective empathy — the emotional resonance with others’ emotional states that produces shared feeling rather than merely understood feeling — is more strongly associated with the inhibition of interpersonal harm than cognitive empathy, which involves understanding another’s perspective and mental state without necessarily sharing the emotional experience. Research documenting that psychopathic individuals may show relatively intact cognitive empathy alongside severely impaired affective empathy — and that this configuration enables sophisticated manipulation of victims rather than protective concern for them — has established the importance of distinguishing these dimensions in both basic research and clinical practice.




Prosocial behavior — the broad category of actions that benefit others at some cost or effort to the actor, including helping, sharing, donating, cooperating, and volunteering — is related to criminal behavior primarily through the dispositional and motivational factors that both require. Individuals high in dispositional prosociality — who reliably help others, cooperate in collective action situations, and contribute to community welfare — show lower rates of criminal behavior not only because prosocial motivations are incompatible with predatory criminality but because the empathic, other-regarding orientation that prosociality reflects is incompatible with the callous disregard for others’ welfare that serious criminal behavior most directly requires.

The Empathy-Crime Relationship

Empirical Evidence Across Crime Types

Research on the relationship between empathy and criminal behavior has found broadly negative associations across crime types and measurement approaches, but with important heterogeneity in effect size and specificity that the field’s general summary cannot capture. Meta-analyses by Jolliffe and Farrington on the empathy-offending relationship found consistent negative associations between empathy measures and offending, with cognitive empathy measures showing weaker and less consistent associations than affective empathy measures — consistent with the theoretical prediction that emotional resonance with victims is the specific empathic capacity that inhibits harm.

Research on the empathy-crime relationship across crime types has found the strongest associations for interpersonal violent crime, moderate associations for sexual offending and intimate partner violence, and weaker associations for property crime and fraud — a gradient consistent with the theoretical account that empathic inhibition operates most powerfully for harms to specific, identified victims whose suffering is directly perceived rather than for harms to abstract, diffuse, or invisible victims. Research on white-collar crime and empathy has documented that white-collar offenders do not systematically differ from matched non-offenders on general empathy measures, but show specific deficits in victim empathy for the specific victim types (institutional, diffuse, distant) that their offenses harm — establishing that empathy deficits in crime are often domain-specific rather than reflecting general emotional blunting.

Research on the empathy-violence relationship in adolescence — examining whether empathy development trajectories predict the onset and desistance from adolescent violence — has found that affective empathy shows a normative developmental increase across adolescence that tracks the age-related decline in violent behavior, consistent with the developmental hypothesis that empathy development contributes to the age-related desistance from violence that the age-crime curve documents. Research by van Langen and colleagues on the role of empathy in juvenile violence found that both the level and the trajectory of empathy development predicted violent behavior independently of other known risk factors, establishing empathic development as a genuine protective developmental process rather than merely a correlate of non-offending.

Empathy and Psychopathy

The empathy deficits of psychopathy represent the most extensively studied instance of the empathy-crime relationship, providing the clearest evidence of what reduced empathic responding looks like neurobiologically and behaviorally. Research documenting that psychopathic individuals show reduced amygdala reactivity to distress cues, impaired fear conditioning (the neurobiological mechanism through which aversive consequences of harming others are normally learned), and reduced physiological responding to others’ distress in empathy paradigms has established a specific neurobiological signature of empathic deficit that connects directly to the callous-unemotional features of psychopathy and to the interpersonal harm that psychopathic individuals inflict without the normal emotional inhibitions that aversive learning installs.

Research distinguishing different components of psychopathic empathy deficits has documented that the primary deficit is in emotional resonance — the automatic sharing of others’ distress — rather than in the cognitive understanding of what others are experiencing. Psychopathic individuals can cognitively understand victim suffering and can use that understanding to better target and manipulate victims, but they do not share the emotional experience of that suffering in ways that generate the motivational inhibition of harm that affective empathy normally produces. This component-specific deficit has important implications for victim empathy programs in sex offender treatment and other clinical contexts: simply increasing cognitive awareness of victim experience without developing the emotional resonance that translates such awareness into motivational inhibition may be insufficient or counterproductive for individuals whose deficits are specifically affective.

Table 1. Empathy Components and Their Crime-Relevant Functions

Empathy Component Definition Crime-Relevant Function Deficit in Crime Populations Intervention Approach
Affective empathy Sharing others’ emotional states; emotional contagion Inhibits harm through shared negative affect; motivates helping Reduced in violent offenders; severely reduced in psychopathy Emotion-focused training; exposure to victim impact; perspective-taking with emotional engagement
Cognitive empathy Understanding others’ mental states without sharing them Enables social prediction; can be used to harm or help Relatively intact in many offenders; may facilitate targeted victimization May not reduce crime without affective component; requires care in offender populations
Empathic concern Other-oriented concern motivated by others’ welfare Motivates prosocial action; inhibits indifference to harm Reduced in callous-unemotional youth; absent in severe psychopathy Moral emotion development; generativity cultivation; relationship depth
Personal distress Self-focused discomfort at others’ suffering Can motivate avoidance of victims rather than helping May be elevated in some offenders (leading to victim avoidance) Regulation of distress; tolerance for others’ pain without avoidance
Perspective-taking Deliberate cognitive adoption of another’s viewpoint Supports moral reasoning; enables more nuanced social judgment Deficient in many offenders but not uniformly so Structured perspective-taking exercises; role reversal techniques

Prosocial Behavior: Development and Criminal Prevention

Developmental Origins of Prosocial Behavior

Research on the developmental origins of prosocial behavior has documented that the capacities underlying altruistic helping, sharing, and cooperation emerge remarkably early — with evidence of precursors to prosocial responding in infants as young as 14–18 months — and that their development is shaped by the same family processes that predict reduced antisocial behavior. Research by Eisenberg and colleagues on the development of prosocial behavior and its neural foundations has documented that the early development of empathy-based prosocial behavior — helping others because of genuine concern for their welfare rather than for instrumental reasons — is predicted by warm, responsive parenting, positive parent-child attachment, and parenting that explicitly encourages perspective-taking and empathic responding.

The early developmental trajectory of prosocial behavior is particularly important because research documents that individual differences in prosocial orientation show substantial stability from early childhood through adolescence and into adulthood, with early prosocial behavior predicting later academic competence, peer acceptance, mental health, and — crucially — reduced antisocial behavior and delinquency. Research by Tremblay and colleagues documenting that the preschool period (ages 2–5) represents a critical developmental window for the prevention of both antisocial behavior and the deficits in prosocial development that accompany it has established early childhood as the highest-return investment period for crime prevention through prosocial development.

Callous-Unemotional Traits and Prosocial Deficits in Youth

Research on callous-unemotional (CU) traits — the childhood precursors of the affective-interpersonal features of psychopathy, characterized by lack of guilt, reduced empathy, and shallow affect — has documented a specific developmental pathway to severe antisocial behavior that is characterized precisely by the deficits in affective empathy and prosocial orientation that psychopathy research has documented in adults. Research by Frick and colleagues developing the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) has found that youth high in CU traits show more severe and more versatile antisocial behavior, less response to conventional punishment-based behavioral interventions, and better response to reward-focused interventions that do not rely on the guilt and fear of punishment that are reduced by the affective deficits CU traits reflect.

Research on the etiology of CU traits has found evidence for both genetic and environmental contributions, with heritability estimates in the moderate range (40–70%) and significant environmental moderation — with adverse environments substantially elevating the expression of genetic CU risk while supportive environments buffer against it. Research on interventions specifically targeting CU traits has found that parent-child interaction therapy approaches that specifically increase warmth and positive reinforcement — rather than the punishment-based behavioral management that CU children are less responsive to — produce meaningful reductions in CU-related behavioral problems, establishing that even genetic risk for empathy deficits is meaningfully responsive to environmental intervention.

Social Contagion and Prosocial Norms

Research on the social contagion of prosocial behavior — the finding that prosocial acts spread through social networks in ways that parallel the contagion dynamics of disease and emotion — has documented that exposure to prosocial behavior by others increases the probability of prosocial behavior by those who observe or learn about it. Research by Fowler and Christakis on the spread of cooperative behavior through social networks found that cooperation cascades several degrees of separation beyond the initial cooperative actor, such that an individual who cooperates influences not only their immediate social contacts but their contacts’ contacts, in a spreading prosocial influence that compounds through network structure. The criminological implication is that prosocial behavior, like criminal behavior, spreads through social networks — and that interventions that seed prosocial behavior in key network positions may produce community-level prosocial norm changes that exceed what individual behavior change programs can achieve.

Research on descriptive social norms — what people actually do — and injunctive social norms — what people approve and disapprove — has documented that both types influence prosocial behavior and its complement, antisocial behavior. Research on social norms interventions in crime-relevant domains has found that correcting the misperception that antisocial behavior is normatively common (when in fact the majority of people in the relevant group do not engage in it) reduces the antisocial behavior through norm correction rather than through the direct incentive modification that behavioral interventions target. The translational challenge is identifying which crime-relevant behaviors are substantially sustained by norm misperception versus by accurate perception of genuinely antisocial peer norms — since the correction intervention is only effective in the former case.

Moral Motivation and Prosocial Action

Research on the gap between moral knowledge and moral action — the consistent empirical finding that knowing the right thing to do is not sufficient for doing it, and that additional motivational factors determine whether moral knowledge translates into prosocial behavior — has important implications for the design of empathy-based crime prevention interventions. Research by Aquino and Reed on moral identity — the degree to which moral traits are central to one’s self-concept — has found that moral identity moderates the knowledge-action gap, with individuals for whom moral identity is central more likely to translate moral knowledge into prosocial action. Research by Blasi on the role of responsibility judgment — the personal sense that one is obligated to act on one’s moral knowledge — has found that responsibility attribution moderates whether moral reasoning produces behavioral compliance even when the reasoning quality is comparable.

The practical implication for empathy-based crime prevention programming is that developing empathic awareness and prosocial values is necessary but not sufficient: effective programs must also address the motivational factors that determine whether empathic awareness translates into the restraint of harmful behavior. Programs that develop both the emotional resonance that affective empathy provides and the moral identity investment that makes prosocial behavior self-definitionally important produce stronger and more durable behavioral effects than those addressing only the cognitive awareness dimension that victim empathy programs traditionally target.

Empathy in Restorative Justice

Research on the empathy processes activated by restorative justice conferences — the processes that bring together offenders, victims, and community members to address the harm of crime — has documented that well-facilitated conferences produce genuine increases in offender empathy for the specific victim they harmed, alongside reductions in victim fear and increases in victim satisfaction that parallel the empathy change. Research by Sherman and Strang using randomized assignment to restorative conferences versus conventional prosecution found that offenders who participated in conferences showed higher rates of genuine apology and expressed empathy than those prosecuted conventionally, and that victims reported substantially higher satisfaction and lower post-traumatic stress in conference conditions.

The theoretical account of empathy’s role in restorative justice outcomes connects to Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory: the conference process produces shame at the specific behavior (through exposure to its real consequences for identified victims) while maintaining the offender’s social membership (through the reintegrative rather than stigmatizing character of the conference response), producing the guilt-like accountability that motivates reparation and behavioral change rather than the shame-driven defensive responses that stigmatizing sanctions generate. Research on the neuroscience of restorative justice processes — examining whether the face-to-face victim-offender encounter activates empathic neural circuits differently than imagining victim consequences — is at a very early stage but represents an important frontier for connecting the behavioral evidence on restorative justice outcomes to the neurobiological account of empathic responding.

Research on the specific design features of restorative conferences that maximize empathic responding has found that preparation of both parties before the conference, skilled facilitation that creates emotional safety for genuine disclosure, and structured processes that ensure both offender and victim have adequate opportunity for expression and response, all contribute to the empathy-activating quality of the conference experience. Training facilitators specifically in the empathy-activation dimensions of conference facilitation — distinct from the procedural fairness dimensions that procedural justice training addresses — represents an important practical frontier for improving restorative justice outcomes through evidence-based facilitation design.

Empathy-Based Interventions: Evidence and Limitations

Research on victim empathy programs — components of sex offender treatment, intimate partner violence programs, and other interventions that specifically develop offenders’ awareness of and emotional responsiveness to victim experience — has produced mixed results that reflect both the genuine complexity of the empathy-crime relationship and the methodological challenges of measuring empathy and victim awareness in populations with social desirability motivations to present as empathic. Research on the effectiveness of victim empathy components within broader sex offender treatment programs has found some evidence of positive effects on empathy measures and victim-related cognitions, but weaker evidence for direct effects on recidivism — consistent with the theoretical account that empathy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for behavioral change and that empathy development must be accompanied by skill development, motivation enhancement, and relapse prevention to produce durable behavioral effects.

Research on school-based prosocial development programs — including social-emotional learning (SEL) programs, character education, and specific empathy training programs — has found consistent positive effects on prosocial behavior, peer relationship quality, and reduced aggression in controlled evaluations, with effect sizes in the small-to-moderate range. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) has synthesized the SEL evidence base documenting consistent positive effects on social skills, academic achievement, and reduced problem behavior across diverse school-based implementations. The long-term crime prevention consequences of school-based prosocial development programs are less well-documented than their immediate behavioral effects, but the theoretical account connecting prosocial development to reduced delinquency is well-grounded in the developmental literature.

Violence, Desensitization, and Empathy Erosion

Research on the effects of exposure to violence — both real violence and media violence — on empathic responding has documented a desensitization process through which repeated exposure to violence reduces the normal physiological and emotional responding that violence exposure initially produces, potentially eroding the empathic inhibition that normally prevents harm. Research on media violence and empathy has found that violent media consumption is associated with reduced physiological arousal to violence stimuli, reduced empathic responding to depictions of pain and distress, and elevated aggression in experimental settings — with longitudinal evidence suggesting that media violence effects on aggression are mediated partly through empathic desensitization.

Research on the specific effects of community violence exposure on empathic responding in youth living in high-violence urban neighborhoods has documented a specific adaptation to chronic violence exposure that parallels the desensitization effects documented in media violence research: youth in high-violence communities show reduced physiological reactivity to violence stimuli and report lower levels of empathic distress at violence depictions than comparable youth in low-violence communities. Research by Farrell and colleagues on the empathy consequences of community violence exposure found that higher violence exposure predicted lower victim empathy in a sample of urban adolescents, consistent with the desensitization account.

The practical implication for crime prevention programming in high-violence communities is that standard empathy training programs designed for low-violence contexts may need to address the specific desensitization that violence exposure produces before developing new empathic capacities — that unlearning violence desensitization may be prerequisite for the development of new empathic responsivity rather than simply an obstacle to be overcome by more intensive empathy training. Programs that specifically address trauma and violence desensitization alongside empathy development represent the theoretically appropriate design for high-violence contexts, though the evaluation evidence for this integrated approach is less developed than for standard empathy training.

Cultural Variation and the Boundaries of Empathy

Research on the boundaries of empathic concern — the psychological and social factors that determine who is included within one’s sphere of empathic concern and who is excluded from it — has documented that empathy is not uniform across targets but is substantially shaped by perceived social group membership, psychological distance, and the emotional and cognitive salience of potential victims. Research on in-group favoritism in empathic responding has found that individuals show stronger affective empathy for members of their own social groups (racial, ethnic, national) than for out-group members, and that this empathic bias is partly automatic rather than deliberate — operating even when individuals are consciously committed to equal concern across groups.

Research on the role of dehumanization — the cognitive process through which out-group members are represented as less than fully human — in enabling intergroup violence has documented that dehumanization specifically reduces the empathic inhibition that normally prevents harm, enabling perpetrators of genocide, torture, and systematic abuse to inflict harm without the self-censure that full empathic engagement would produce. The criminological implications of this bounded empathy research extend from understanding intergroup violence and hate crime to understanding how organizational cultures normalize harm to abstract, distant, or stigmatized victims in white-collar crime, corporate misconduct, and institutional abuse.

Gender, Empathy, and Crime

Research on gender differences in empathy has consistently documented that women score higher than men on measures of both affective and cognitive empathy across diverse samples and measurement approaches — a difference that is among the most replicable in social psychological research and that has direct implications for understanding the gender gap in criminal behavior. Research by Eisenberg and colleagues on the development of gender differences in empathy has found that girls show greater emotional responsiveness to others’ distress than boys from early childhood, with the gap widening through adolescence in ways that parallel the widening of the gender gap in criminal behavior during the same developmental period.

The theoretical account of the empathy-gender gap’s contribution to the crime-gender gap is straightforward: women’s higher affective empathy provides a stronger inhibitory force against interpersonal harm, and their stronger prosocial orientation produces a more compelling alternative motivational structure to the self-interested or status-seeking motivations that criminal behavior often serves. Research testing whether the gender gap in empathy statistically mediates the gender gap in aggression has found partial mediation — empathy differences explain a meaningful but not complete portion of the gender aggression gap — consistent with the account that empathy is one of several mechanisms through which gender shapes criminal propensity alongside the socialization, structural, and neurobiological mechanisms that the gender-crime literature documents.

Research on gender-specific empathy deficits in female offenders has documented that women involved in violent crime show specifically impaired affective empathy for victim distress alongside relatively intact cognitive empathy — a pattern that parallels the male violent offender profile but occurs in a context where baseline female empathy is substantially higher than the male average, suggesting that the threshold of empathic deficit necessary for violent criminal behavior may differ across genders in ways that gender-universal empathy programs do not adequately address.

Conclusion

Empathy, prosocial behavior, and crime are connected through the specific affective and motivational mechanisms through which concern for others constrains harm and motivates helping — mechanisms that are genuine and consequential but more specific, more developmentally complex, and more contextually bounded than simple “empathy prevents crime” accounts suggest. The specific dimensions of empathy most relevant to crime prevention are affective rather than purely cognitive, target-specific rather than universal, and motivationally connected to moral identity and prosocial orientation through pathways that intervention must address comprehensively rather than in isolation.

Research on the neuroplasticity of empathic responding — documenting that empathy training produces measurable changes in the neural systems supporting affective empathy, including increased amygdala reactivity to distress cues and stronger functional connectivity between amygdala and prefrontal regulatory regions — has established the neurobiological basis for the effectiveness of empathy interventions and the possibility of genuine empathic development rather than merely behavioral compliance. Research by Klimecki and colleagues using loving-kindness meditation training found that training specifically targeting positive emotional response to others’ suffering — distinct from merely understanding it — produced both increased empathic resonance and increased prosocial motivation in experimentally trained participants relative to controls, suggesting that empathy training approaches that specifically cultivate emotional engagement alongside cognitive understanding produce neurobiological changes consistent with genuine empathic development rather than social performance.

The research reviewed in this article generates a specific practical agenda: invest in the early childhood developmental contexts that build affective empathy and prosocial orientation before antisocial habits form; target school-based social-emotional learning programs toward the populations with the highest empathic development deficits; design offender-facing programs that develop both the affective resonance and the moral motivation necessary for victim concern to translate into behavioral restraint; and attend to the bounded character of natural empathic concern by specifically developing the inclusive moral concern that extends empathy beyond the in-group limits that natural development produces. A criminology that takes empathy seriously will be more precise, more evidence-grounded, and more practically effective than one that treats it as a simple moral antidote to crime.

References

  1. Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
  2. Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
  3. Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 3(1), 141–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2009.01013.x
  4. Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 14(4), 698–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004
  5. Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.1
  6. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
  7. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187
  8. Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (Vol. 3, 7th ed., pp. 610–656). Wiley.
  9. Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-006-0082-3
  10. Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford University Press.
  11. Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001
  12. Kiehl, K. A., & Buckholtz, J. W. (2010). Inside the mind of a psychopath. Scientific American Mind, 21(4), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind0910-22
  13. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
  14. Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of crime. Pantheon.
  15. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute. https://www.college.police.uk/research/restorative-justice-evidence
  16. Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706
  17. Tremblay, R. E. (2010). Developmental origins of disruptive behaviour problems: The “original sin” hypothesis, epigenetics, and their consequences for prevention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(4), 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02211.x
  18. van Langen, M. A. M., Wissink, I. B., van Vugt, E. S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003
  19. Viding, E., Blair, R. J. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(6), 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00393.x
  20. Ward, T., & Beech, A. (2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.05.002
  21. Webster, S. D., Mann, R. E., Carter, A. J., Long, J., Milner, R. J., O’Brien, M. D., Wakeling, H. C., & Ray, N. L. (2006). Inter-rater reliability of dynamic risk assessment with sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160500036889
  22. Wentworth, N., & Wentworth, P. A. (2022). Prosocial behavior as a crime deterrent in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3), 1221–1238. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22684
  23. Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.126
  24. Zimring, F. E. (1998). American youth violence. Oxford University Press.