Received: 6 June 2019 Revised: 2 March 2020
DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2164
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Examining the link between facial affect
recognition and violent offending: A comparison
between web-recruited volunteers with histories
of violent and non-violent offending
C. Brendan Clark | Jacob Armstrong |
Mouhamad Houssein Ballout | Ryley Ewy
Department of Psychology, Wichita State
University, Wichita, Kansas
Correspondence
C. Brendan Clark, Department of Psychology,
Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA
Email: c.brendan.clark@wichita.edu
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2020;1–12.
Accepted: 9 July 2020
Abstract
Background: The link between facial affect recognition and
criminal justice involvement has been extensively researched,
yet there are virtually no data on the capacity for facial affect
recognition in post-incar+cerated individuals, and the results
of many studies are limited due to a narrow focus on psy-
chopathy rather than offence category.
Aims: To test the first hypothesis that individuals reporting
a history of a violent offence would show a deficit in facial
affect recognition and the second hypothesis that the vio-
lent offender's deficit would be exclusive to recognition of
negative expressions, not affecting positive or neutral
expressions.
Method: Post-incarcerated individuals (N = 298) were rec-
ruited online through Qualtrics and completed question-
naires assessing their criminal justice background and
demographics. They completed measures of facial affect
recognition, anxiety and depression, and components of
aggression.
Results: A logistic regression, including sex, ethnicity, age
and years of education and depression/anxiety scores, indi-
cated that committing a violent offence was independently
associated with lower facial affect recognition scores as
well as male gender and a trait-based propensity towards
physical aggression, but no other co-variable. These data
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cbm © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 CLARK ET AL.

provided no evidence that this deficit was specific to nega-

tive emotions.
Conclusions and implications for future research/practice:
Our study is one of the first to examine facial affect recog-
nition in a post-incarcerated sample. It suggests that deficits
in facial affect recognition, already well documented among
violent prisoners, persist. While acknowledging that these
may be relatively fixed characteristics, this study also sug-
gests that, for these people, nothing happening during their
imprisonment was touching this. Improving capacity in facial
affect recognition should be considered as a target of inter-
vention for violent offenders, developing or revising in-
prison programmes as required.

KEYWORDS

community corrections, criminal justice, facial affect recognition,

violence

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

The USA incarcerates a higher proportion of its citizens than any other nation; however, the incarceration rate has
shown a steady decline over the last decade (Bureau of Justice Statistics; BJS, 2018). A number of reasons for this
decline include changes in sentencing, the adoption of diversion programmes and overcrowding of correctional facili-
ties. Another cause, which may not have the same statistical impact on the incarceration rate as it has on society at
large, is the decreasing rate of violent crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016). Violent crime peaked in the
early 1990s and has steadily decreased since then. “Violent crime” refers to a group of criminal offences made up of
the following four crime-types: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery and forcible
rape (Violent Crime, 2011). It is still prevalent in the USA (i.e. 19.7 victimisations per 1,000 people; BJS, 2018; Mor-
gan & Kena, 2018), especially compared to nations with a similar human development index. Violent offenders make
up over 54% of the state prison's populations (Wagner & Sawyer, 2018). The financial cost of violent crime on soci-
ety is high (i.e. murder = $8,982,907, rape and sexual assault = $240,776, and robbery = $42,310) and the emotional
and physical trauma victims incur are immeasurable (McCollister, French, & Fang, 2010). Researchers, policy makers,
law enforcement and clinicians from a number of fields have done substantial work to reduce the rate of violent
offences, but further progress is still clearly needed.
The decrease of violence, both in criminal acts and across society at large, is a popular though often polarising
topic, and a number of books (Goldstein, 2012; Levitt & Dubner, 2005; Morris, 2014; Pinker, 2011a) and articles
(Eisner, Nivette, Murray, & Krisch, 2016; Friedson & Sharkey, 2015; Karstedt, 2015; Mikton, Butchart, Dahlberg, &
Krug, 2016) have discussed the causes for this decline. Authors often point to sociological factors, such as the
increasing power of the rule of law and changes in political institutions (Goldstein, 2012), while others have stressed
the importance of changes in cognition (Pinker, 2011b). While a multitude of factors certainly play a role, one aspect
of cognition that has been heavily researched for decades in relation to violence and violent crime is empathy.
Empathy is commonly divided into two broad domains, affective and cognitive empathy (Baron-Cohen
et al., 2015). Affective empathy is the capacity to “feel” the emotions of other people, while retaining recognition
CLARK ET AL. 3

that they are the emotions of others. Cognitive empathy is the ability to take another's perspective and to under-
stand their motivations, goals and mental state. In the developmental literature, the latter is often referred to as
theory of mind. Cognitive empathy can further be subdivided into several components, the most basic and funda-
mental of which is the ability to interpret others' verbal and nonverbal communication (e.g. gaze, gestures, body
language and facial expressions) accurately. Our research focuses on facial expression because numerous studies
have identified deficits in this ability in criminal justice samples, (Hoaken, Allaby, & Earle, 2007; Schönenberg,
Mayer, Christian, Louis, & Jusyte, 2016; Seidel et al., 2013) while other aspects of empathy (perspective taking
and affective responsiveness) are not apparently impaired (Seidel et al., 2013). Researchers have often hypothe-
sized that individuals who are prone to violence will have a deficit in facial affect recognition that is specific to
emotions that indicate distress (e.g. fear and sadness) as opposed to other facial expressions (Hastings, Tangney, &
Stuewig, 2008; Schönenberg et al., 2016). The most widely accepted rationale for this is that if one cannot recog-
nise negative facial affect then the most important personal inhibitor of violence is not there; if you cannot rec-
ognise that your actions are distressing the other person, then there is perhaps little personal reason for stopping
them. This idea is often referred to as the violence inhibition mechanism (Blair, 1995). It has been largely
supported by a meta-analysis examining the relationship between facial affect recognition and antisocial behav-
iour (Marsh & Blair, 2008), revealing that, relative to the controls, antisocial groups demonstrated a deficit for
sad, fearful and surprised expressions but not for other emotions. The deficit was greatest for fearful expression.
Empirical findings for the relationship between violent offending, specifically, and deficits in facial affect recogni-
tion are, however, more mixed. A review by Chapman, Gillespie, and Mitchell (2018) found that violent offenders
tended to show deficits in facial affect recognition for negative emotions, but there was considerable variance in
which emotions they struggled to recognise. In contrast, an earlier meta-analysis (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004),
examining the relationship between cognitive empathy (of which facial affect recognition is a key component)
and offending suggested a global deficit in the ability of violent offenders to perceive emotions accurately in
others.
The mixed findings between violent offending and facial affect recognition may partly reflect sampling biases.
Incarceration is a somewhat stochastic process and a number of factors impact on who ends up convicted. Virtually,
all studies have examined jail and prison populations rather than community corrections or post-incarcerated groups.
Individuals in jail and prison represent a very wide range of offenders. Seventy percent of individuals in the
U.S. criminal justice system are supervised in the community (U.S. Department of Justice; Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2018). Data on less serious offenders are lacking, but also there is little evidence on the more homogenous
group of people who have served a prison sentence and are then under community supervision. Since affect recogni-
tion is not a target of treatment during incarceration, it is very likely that deficits persist, yet this is an empirical ques-
tion. The aim of the current study was to broaden our understanding of the link between violent offending and facial
affect recognition by examining this ability in a post-incarcerated sample.
Our first hypothesis was that lower scores on our test of facial affect recognition (lower scores on RMET test)
would be associated with an increased likelihood of reporting a history of a violent offence even when controlling
for potential confounders. Our second hypothesis was that when compared to non-violent offenders, individuals
who reported a history of a violent offence would show diminished facial affect recognition in recognising negative
expressions, but not in positive or neutral expressions.

2 | METHOD

2.1 | Ethics

This study was approved by Wichita State University's presiding institutional review board.
4 CLARK ET AL.

2.2 | Participants

Data collection took place in the form of an online survey, which was administered through Qualtrics. The
researchers do not directly engage with the participants, rather Qualtrics administers the survey, collects the data
and then provides them to the researcher. Qualtrics determined the sample eligibility based on a previous indication
of a history of incarceration. A survey item was also included to confirm this. Participants needed no special software
to complete the survey, but they did need access to the internet as well as a computer or mobile device. Test items
are presented in the same order to all participants. The survey data used for this study took an average of 23.82
(SD = 18.53) minutes to complete. In addition to basic demographics and criminal history, data used for this study
were from the online completion of the questionnaires detailed below. Participants were given compensation for
participation in accordance with a pre-agreed Qualtrics payment panel.

2.3 | Questionnaires

The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) revised has 36 items (and one practice item) designed to assess par-
ticipants' facial affect recognition through the ability to correctly infer mental states from facial expressions (Baron-
Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001). Each item includes an image of the eyes of an actor or actress,
along with four words describing mental states (one correct, three foil). The participant chooses the word which best
describes the mental state of the actor or actress in the photograph, with correct answers being scored as one and
incorrect answers being scored as zero. Higher overall scores represent higher overall ability to correctly infer mental
states, indicative of greater facial affect recognition.
The RMET was originally developed to determine differences between adults with autism, but high functional
abilities (HFA), autistic spectrum disorders and controls without either (Baron-Cohen, Jolliffe, Mortimore, &
Robertson, 1997). The validity of the measure has been supported both through correlations with Happé's strange
stories (an advanced theory of mind test that demonstrated reliable and significant differences between performance
of adults with HFA, adults with AS and normal controls), as well as demonstrating that the performance of adults with
HFA and AS is significantly impaired on the RMET (Baron-Cohen et al., 1997; Baron-Cohen et al., 2001;
Happé, 1994). Test–retest reliability is supported by a one-year follow-up study in which scores remained relatively
stable over 1 year (Fernández-Abascal, Cabello, Fernández-Berrocal, & Baron-Cohen, 2013). Since its development,
the RMET has been used to investigate the impairment of cognitive empathy in a wide variety of populations including
schizophrenia (Balogh, Egerházi, Berecz, & Csukly, 2014), anorexia nervosa (Harrison, Tchanturia, & Treasure, 2010),
depressed elderly (Szanto et al., 2012), Parkinson's disease (Tsuruya, Kobayakawa, & Kawamura, 2011) and
Huntington's disease (Allain et al., 2011).
To examine our second hypothesis that individuals who reported a history of a violent offence would show
scores on tests of negative facial affect recognition but not positive or neutral expression recognition than non-
violent offenders, we divided the results of the RMET into three categories, negative, positive and neutral. Our
grouping was based on a model developed by Harkness, Sabbagh, Jacobson, Chowdrey, and Chen (2005). Harkness
and colleagues asked participants to rate each item on the RMET for positive emotional valence on a 1–7 Likert type
scale with higher ratings indicating more positive emotional displays. Items that rated significantly above or below
neutral were categorised as positive or negative, respectively. The negative subscale was made up of RMET items
2, 5, 11, 14, 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35 and 36. The positive subscale was made up of RMET items 1, 6, 16, 20, 21, 25,
30 and 31. Finally, the neutral subscale was made up of RMET items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 24, 28, 29,
32 and 33. Information on the development of these subscales can be found in Harkness et al. (2005).
The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21; Henry & Crawford, 2005) is a 21-item abbreviated version
of the original DASS by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995). The DASS-21 is a self-report measure with three subscales
(i.e. Depression, Anxiety and Stress). Responses are made on a four-point Likert-type scale, anchored at “did not
CLARK ET AL. 5

apply to me at all” and “applied to me very much or most of the time.” Sample items include: “I felt that I had nothing
to look forward to” (Depression), “I was aware of dryness of my mouth” (Anxiety), and “I tended to over-react to situ-
ations” (Stress). The DASS is a sensitive interment designed for research with non-clinical populations. The reliabil-
ities of the DASS-21 have been found to be good at 0.83–0.88, 0.81–0.85 and 0.88–0.90 for Depression, Anxiety,
and Stress, respectively (Henry & Crawford, 2005; Osman et al., 2012). DASS-21 has been found to positively corre-
late with similar measures, specifically the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer, 1990), the Beck Depression
Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond & Snaith,
1983), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) and the Mood and Anxiety Symptom
Questionnaire-90 (MASQ-90; Watson et al., 1995), see Henry and Crawford (2005) and Osman et al. (2012) for spe-
cific correlations between measures. For this study, only the Depression and Anxiety subscales were administered.
The Brief Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ; Webster et al., 2014) is an abbreviated 12-item version of the original
Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). The BAQ is a self-report inventory that assesses four different com-
ponents of aggression. Responses are made on a seven-point Likert-type scale anchored at “extremely uncharacteris-
tic of me” and “extremely characteristic of me.” The four scales produced by the BAQ are: Physical Aggression,
Verbal Aggression, Anger and Hostility. Sample items include: “If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I
will” (Physical Aggression), “When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them” (Verbal Aggression),
“Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason” (Anger) and “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me
behind my back” (Hostility). The BAQ is intended to be a short, but accurate research tool. Cronbach's alpha reliabil-
ities range from .86 to .62 (Webster et al., 2014; Webster et al., 2015). Evidence of validity is high correlations with
related measures of aggression such as the Buss–Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957), the Trait
Anger Scale (Spielberger, Jacobs, Russell, & Crane, 1983) and the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992), see
Webster et al. (2014, 2015) for specific correlations between measures.

2.4 | Procedure

Data collection took place in the form of an online survey, which was administered through Qualtrics. Researchers
have no face to face engagement with the participants. Qualtrics administers the survey, responses are entered
through computers and mobile devices and then Qualtrics provides them to the researcher. Qualtrics determined
sample eligibility based on a previous indication of a history of incarceration. A survey item was included to confirm
this. Participants needed no special software to complete the survey, but they did need access to the internet, a
computer or mobile device.
Test items were presented in the same order to all participants and the survey took an average of 23.82
(SD = 18.53) minutes to complete. In addition to basic demographics and criminal history, data used for this study
were from the online completion of questionnaires detailed below, which are detailed.

2.5 | Analysis

Data were organised to eliminate unduly small subgroups, thus racial/ethnic groups were combined as white or non-
white. Years of education were Winsorised so that four outlying scores were recoded to the end of the distribution.
Correlations between the scales of the DASS and the BAQ were first conducted to test for collinearity. To test our
first hypothesis, that a history of violent offending would be associated with lower scores on our test of facial affect,
bivariate comparisons were first made between facial affect groups and the variables age, race, gender, years of edu-
cation, the DASS, the four scales of the BAQ (i.e. Physical Aggression, Verbal Aggression, Anger and Hostility),
Raven's Progressive Matrices and the RMET. A logistic regression was then performed, with violent offending history
as the dependent variable and facial affect scores together with all other variables demonstrating significance as
6 CLARK ET AL.

independent variables. A categorical distinction between violent and non-violent offenders was used because the
extent of violent behaviour can be difficult to assess based on arrest and conviction data. Categorical comparisons
are typically used in facial expression research with criminal offenders (Hoaken et al., 2007; Schönenberg
et al., 2016; Seidel et al., 2013).
To test our second hypothesis, that those with a history of violent offending will have lower scores on negative
but not neutral or positive facial recognition tasks than non-violent offenders, we conducted a series of ANOVAs
comparing the mean scores for the violent offenders to those of the non-violent offenders across the three subscales
of the RMET (i.e. positive, negative, neutral). We then used paired comparisons t-tests to explore for performance
differences in the violent offenders across the three subscales of the RMET. Bonferroni corrections were used for
the interpretation of all univariate comparisons. We also wanted to explore whether lower scores for facial affect
recognition would be associated with recidivism for the violent offenders. To do this, we examined the correlation
between the number of times the violent offenders reported being arrested and their scores on the RMET.

3 | RESULTS

3.1 | General characteristics of the sample

A total of 298 individuals indicated a history of being under criminal justice supervision, 46 (15.4%) of whom
recorded at least one violent offence of assault, murder, rape or armed robbery. All participants in the survey indi-
cated that they had been previously incarcerated. The sample included 145 (48.7%) men and 153 (51.3%) women
with an average age of 45.47 (SD = 14.86) years; 187 (62.8%) individuals identified as White, 43 (14.4%) as Black,
47 (15.8%) as Hispanic or Latino, 13 (4.4%) Asian or Pacific Islander, 1 (0.3%) as native American and 7 (2.3%) who
identified as Bi-racial.
Correlations between the scales of the DASS and the BAQ can be seen in Table 1. Due to the high correlation
between the anxiety and depression subscales of the DASS (r = .81, p < .001) these variables were combined in later
analyses.
Results of the univariate comparisons between the violent offenders and the non-violent offenders can be seen
in Table 2. The violent offenders were more likely to be male and younger. They reported higher levels of anxiety/
depression, physical aggression, anger and hostility. They had lower scores on the RMET. There were no significant
differences between the two groups for race, years of education or verbal aggression. The variables demonstrating
significant differences as a function of offence category were then examined in relation to RMET performance.
RMET scores were inversely related to anxiety/depression scores (r = −.24, p < .001), physical aggression (r = −.15,

T A B L E 1 Correlations between the scales of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales and the Brief Aggression
Questionnaire

Scale Anxiety Depression Phys aggression Verb aggression Anger

Depression 0.81
Phys aggression 0.44 0.36
Verb aggression 0.31 0.29 0.45
Anger 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.38
Hostility 0.56 0.55 0.45 0.35 0.45

Note: Anxiety and Depression are Scales from the DASS. Phys aggression, verb aggression, anger, and hostility are scales
from the BAQ. N = 298, all correlations in the table were significant at p < .001.
Abbreviations: BAQ, Brief Aggression Questionnaire; DASS, Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales; Phys Aggression, physi-
cal aggression; Verb aggression, verbal aggression.
CLARK ET AL. 7

TABLE 2 Sample characteristics and univariate comparisons between violent and non-violent offenders

Violent offenders Non-violent offenders

Characteristic N Mean (SD) or % N Mean (SD) or % p value

Age 70 40.53 (16.23) 228 46.98 (14.10) .001
Years of education 69 11.97 (5.54) 224 12.82 (4.28) .182
Gender
Male 43 29.7% 102 70.3% .015
Female 27 17.6% 126 82.4%
Race
Non-white 32 28.8 79 71.2 .094
White-non-Hispanic 38 20.3 149 79.7
DASS: Depression/anxiety 70 18.36 (11.55) 228 14.00 (9.36) .001
BAQ
Physical aggression 70 9.64 (4.01) 228 7.47 (3.60) <.001
Verbal aggression 70 10.54 (3.32) 228 9.84 (3.03) .099
Anger 70 8.29 (3.44) 228 7.15 (3.08) .009
Hostility 70 9.57 (3.50) 228 8.60 (3.41) .039
Reading the mind in the eyes test 70 18.76 (6.99) 228 22.71 (5.76) <.001

Note: DASS stands for Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales, BAQ stands for Brief Aggression Questionnaire.

TABLE 3 Logistic regression with violent offence as the dependent variable

95% confidence interval

B SE Wald χ 2
p Odds ratio Lower Upper
Sex −0.609 0.309 3.877 .049* 0.544 0.297 0.997
Age −0.016 0.011 1.852 .173 0.985 0.963 1.007
Physical aggression 0.119 0.047 6.553 .010* 1.127 1.028 1.235
Anger 0.017 0.056 0.091 .762 1.017 0.912 1.134
Hostility −0.078 0.058 1.809 .179 0.925 0.825 1.036
RMET −0.079 0.025 12.174 .001** 0.924 0.880 0.970

*p < .05.
**p < .001.

p = .008), anger (r = −.19, p = .001) and hostility (r = −.27, p < .001). There was a positive relationship between RMET
performance and age (r = .29, p < .001). There were no significant differences in RMET performance between men
and women (F = [1, 296] 3.59, p = .059).
When the significant associations were loaded into a logistic regression (see Table 3), the results indicated that a
history of violent offending was associated with being male, reporting higher levels of physical aggression, as well as
scoring lower on the RMET. Therefore, the data supported our hypothesis that lower scores on a measure of facial
affect recognition would be associated with violent offending.
To examine whether violent offenders would show lower facial affect recognition scores confined to expres-
sions of negative emotions, we divided the results of the RMET into three categories: negative, positive and neutral
emotions scores. When violent offenders were compared with the nonviolent offenders, significant differences were
8 CLARK ET AL.

found for all three groups of expressions. We found a significant difference for the positive expressions (F = 12.77,
p < .001) with the violent offenders (M = 0.53, SD = 0.27) getting lower scores than the non-violent offenders
(M = 0.67, SD = 0.23), and for the negative expressions (F = 9.30, p = .003) with the violent offenders (M = 0.50,
SD = 0.22) again with lower scores than the non-violent offenders (M = 0.60, SD = 0.19). T, and for the neutral
expressions (F = 15.74, p < .001; violent offenders (M = 0.50, SD = 0.24): nonviolent offenders (M = 0.63, SD = 0.19).
When a paired comparisons t test was used to compare the violent offenders' ability to interpret negative expres-
sions to their ability to interpret positive expressions, no significant difference (t = −0.71, p = .481) was found
between the scores for the positive expressions (M = 0.53, SD = 0.27) and the negative expressions (M = 0.50,
SD = 0.22). The means for violent offenders' ability to interpret negative expressions were identical to their ability to
interpret neutral expressions, so no statistical comparison was necessary.
To test whether lower scores for facial affect recognition would be associated with recidivism for the violent
offenders, we examined the correlation between the number of times the violent offenders were arrested and their
scores on the RMET. The correlation (r = −.14, p = .261) was not significant.

4 | DISCUSSION

Taken as a whole, our findings indicate that violent offenders showed a global deficit in their ability to interpret facial
expressions rather than a specific for negative expressions, and facial affect recognition was not associated with
recidivism.
Our first hypothesis, that lower scores for facial affect recognition would be associated with a greater likelihood
of reporting a history of violent offending than non-violent offending alone, was supported by the data. Lower
scores on the RMET were associated with a history of a violent offence in a logistic regression controlling for the
covariates' sex, ethnicity (white/non-white), age, years of education and depression/anxiety. Investigations into the
link between facial affect recognition and criminal justice samples have historically yielded mixed results. While
numerous studies have found a relationship between violent offending and deficits in facial affect recognition
(Hoaken et al., 2007; Schönenberg et al., 2016; Seidel et al., 2013), and a recent systematic review supports this
association (Chapman, Gillespie, & Mitchell, 2018), our study extends these findings to a post-incarcerated sample.
There is growing evidence that a deficit in facial affect recognition may be an independent correlate or even predic-
tor of violent offending. Individuals with deficits in facial affect recognition maybe more likely to struggle with inter-
personal relationships, not recognise conflict or attribute others' intentions as hostile when they are benign.
Researchers have called for a better understanding of the components of cognition related to violence, and
neurocriminology has become an increasingly influential field (Glenn & Raine, 2014) with several clear connections
between brain functioning and violence. A deficit in facial affect recognition appears to be a component that is linked
to violence and is also a potential target of intervention.
Our second hypothesis that, when compared to non-violent offenders, individuals who reported a history of at
least one violent offence would show lower facial affect recognition specific to expressions of negative emotions
was not supported by the data. Individuals with a history of violent offending showed deficits in their ability to inter-
pret facial affect across all three categories of emotion recognition. The literature on offenders offers mixed findings
when variables such as violence and psychopathy are examined in relation to facial affect recognition (e.g., Glass &
Newman, 2006; Iria & Barbosa, 2009; Pham & Philippot, 2010), but tends to show that these populations have defi-
cits for negative rather than positive or neutral facial expressions (Chapman et al., 2018; Marsh & Blair, 2008). These
differences could be an artefact of the difference between the measure we used and the measures used in other
studies. Marsh and Blair's (2008) meta-analysis only analysed data on the six most commonly assessed facial emo-
tions (i.e., anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise). Chapman et al.'s (2018) review also included studies
that tended to measure these same emotions. Several of the studies, reviewed by Chapman, did not examine a neu-
trality in emotional expression (Gillespie, Rotshtein, Satherley, Beech, & Mitchell, 2015; Robinson et al., 2012;
CLARK ET AL. 9

Schönenberg, Louis, Mayer, & Jusyte, 2013), or it was not a response option (Hoaken et al., 2007; Schönenberg
et al., 2014). The studies reviewed tended to find that expressed happiness was the easiest emotion to recognise
regardless of group (Gillespie et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2012; Schönenberg et al., 2013, 2014); therefore, mea-
sures in these other studies may not have been sensitive enough to detect a change for positive emotions. The mea-
sure we used presents a wide variety of subtle facial expressions that may be more sensitive to detecting deficits.

4.1 | Limitations

Our study had several limitations. First, our study was not longitudinal, so we can infer persistence of deficits in facial
recognition, but not certainly evidence them. The psychometric properties for the subscales of the RMET used in this
study (Harkness et al., 2005) have been criticised (Olderbak et al., 2015) and may not be an ideal means to tease
apart individuals' ability to interpret different emotional expressions. Finally, we used an online sample and could
make no checks of our own on the accuracy of self-report of symptoms, demographics, behaviour and criminal his-
tory. None of the data used in this study were verified in person and most of the measures are typically used in a
paper and pencil format. There is no reason to believe that online use would have influenced our results in a mean-
ingful way, collateral verification for criminal justice involved samples is the standard in this field and our design did
not enable us to do that.

5 | CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Despite these limitations, this study was one of the first to use a well-established measure of facial affect recognition
to examine the link between this variable and violent offending in a large sample of individuals back in the commu-
nity after a period of imprisonment. Facial affect recognition appears to be a skill that can be trained, even in individ-
uals with severe mental illness (Wölwer et al., 2005). This training can be conducted at low cost relative to
traditional forms of cognitive behavioural interventions used with correctional populations, which makes it an ideal
target of intervention for at-risk-youth. Current programmes focusing on delinquency, substance abuse and other
high-risk factors for incarceration could be augmented with a module for training in facial affect recognition. Prelimi-
nary work in this area has shown promise (Hubble, Bowen, Moore, & van Goozen, 2015). Diversion programmes that
feature a therapy component often have a module on social skills and relationships, which could easily incorporate
training in facial affect recognition. Future intervention research should explore this avenue.

CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

ORCID
C. Brendan Clark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7004-4437

RE FE R ENC E S
Allain, P., Havet-Thomassin, V., Verny, C., Gohier, B., Lancelot, C., Besnard, J., … Le Gall, D. (2011). Evidence for deficits on
different components of theory of mind in Huntington's disease. Neuropsychology, 25, 741–751.
Balogh, N., Egerházi, A., Berecz, R., & Csukly, G. (2014). Investigating the state-like and trait-like characters of social cogni-
tion in schizophrenia: A short term follow-up study. Schizophrenia Research, 159, 499–505.
10 CLARK ET AL.

Baron-Cohen, S., Bowen, D. C., Holt, R. J., Allison, C., Auyeung, B., Lombardo, M. V., … Lai, M. C. (2015). The “reading the
mind in the eyes” test: Complete absence of typical sex difference in 400 men and women with autism. PLoS One, 10
(8), e0136521.
Baron-Cohen, S., Jolliffe, T., Mortimore, C., & Robertson, M. (1997). Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from
very high functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Dis-
ciplines, 38(7), 813–822.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The 'Reading the mind in the eyes' test revised ver-
sion: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(2), 241–251.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Manual for the Beck anxiety inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the revised Beck depression inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psycho-
logical Corporation.
Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1–29.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21,
343–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046900
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452
Chapman, H., Gillespie, S. M., & Mitchell, I. J. (2018). Facial affect processing in incarcerated violent males: A systematic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 38, 123–138.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
24, 385–396.
Eisner, M., Nivette, A., Murray, A. L., & Krisch, M. (2016). Achieving population-level violence declines: Implications of the
international crime drop for prevention programming. Journal of Public Health Policy, 37(1), 66–80.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Crime in the United States. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/
2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1
Fernández-Abascal, E. G., Cabello, R., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2013). Test-retest reliability of the ‘Read-
ing the mind in the eyes’ test: A one-year follow-up study. Molecular Autism, 4(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/2040-
2392-4-33
Friedson, M., & Sharkey, P. (2015). Violence and neighborhood disadvantage after the crime decline. The Annals of the Amer-
ican Academy of Political and Social Science, 660(1), 341–358.
Gillespie, S. M., Rotshtein, P., Satherley, R. M., Beech, A. R., & Mitchell, I. J. (2015). Emotional expression recognition and
attribution bias among sexual and violent offenders: A signal detection analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 595.
Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2006). Recognition of facial affect in psychopathic offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
115(4), 815–820.
Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal
behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(1), 54–63.
Goldstein, J. S. (2012). Winning the war on war: The decline of armed conflict worldwide. New York, New York: Penguin Group.
Happé, F. G. E. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding by story characters' thoughts and feelings by able
autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 24(2),
129–154.
Harkness, K., Sabbagh, M., Jacobson, J., Chowdrey, N., & Chen, T. (2005). Enhanced accuracy of mental state decoding in
dysphoric college students. Cognition & Emotion, 19(7), 999–1025.
Harrison, A., Tchanturia, K., & Treasure, J. (2010). Attentional bias, emotion recognition, and emotion regulation in anorexia:
State or trait? Biological Psychiatry, 68, 755–761.
Hastings, M. E., Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. (2008). Psychopathy and identification of facial expressions of emotion. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1474–1483.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct
validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239.
Hoaken, P. N., Allaby, D. B., & Earle, J. (2007). Executive cognitive functioning and the recognition of facial expressions of
emotion in incarcerated violent offenders, non-violent offenders, and controls. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the
International Society for Research on Aggression, 33(5), 412–421.
Hubble, K., Bowen, K. L., Moore, S. C., & van Goozen, S. H. M. (2015). Improving negative emotion recognition in young
offenders reduces subsequent Crime. PLoS One, 10(6), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132035
Iria, C., & Barbosa, F. (2009). Perception of facial expressions of fear: Comparative research with criminal and non-criminal
psychopaths. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(1), 66–73.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 9(5), 441–476.
CLARK ET AL. 11

Karstedt, S. (2015). Does democracy matter? Comparative perspectives on violence and democratic institutions. European
Journal of Criminology, 12(4), 457–481.
Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics. New York, NY: William Morrow.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343.
Marsh, A. A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2008). Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations: A meta-analysis. Neu-
roscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(3), 454–465.
McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and
program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108(1), 98–109.
Mikton, C. R., Butchart, A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E. G. (2016). Global status report on violence prevention 2014. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(5), 652–659.
Morgan, R. E., & Kena, G. (2018). Criminal victimization, 2016: Revised. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1–29 .
Morris, I. (2014). War! What is it good for?: Conflict and the Progress of civilization from primates to robots. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Olderbak, S., Wilhelm, O., Olaru, G., Geiger, M., Brenneman, M. W., & Roberts, R. D. (2015). A psychometric analysis of the
reading the mind in the eyes test: Toward a brief form for research and applied settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1503.
Osman, A., Wong, J. L., Bagge, C. L., Freedenthal, S., Gutierrez, P. M., & Lozano, G. (2012). The depression anxiety stress
scales—21 (DASS-21): Further examination of dimensions, scale reliability, and correlates. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
68(12), 1322–1338.
Pham, T. H., & Philippot, P. (2010). Decoding of facial expression of emotion in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 24(4), 445–459.
Pinker, S. (2011a). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York, NY: Viking.
Pinker, S. (2011b). Decline of violence: Taming the devil within us. Nature, 478(7369), 309–311.
Robinson, L., Spencer, M. D., Thomson, L. D., Sprengelmeyer, R., Owens, D. G., Stanfield, A. C., … Johnstone, E. C. (2012).
Facial emotion recognition in Scottish prisoners. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(1), 57–61.
Schönenberg, M., Christian, S., Gaußer, A. K., Mayer, S. V., Hautzinger, M., & Jusyte, A. (2014). Addressing perceptual insen-
sitivity to facial affect in violent offenders: First evidence for the efficacy of a novel implicit training approach. Psycho-
logical Medicine, 44(5), 1043–1052.
Schönenberg, M., Louis, K., Mayer, S., & Jusyte, A. (2013). Impaired identification of threat-related social information in male
delinquents with antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(4), 496–505.
Schönenberg, M., Mayer, S. V., Christian, S., Louis, K., & Jusyte, A. (2016). Facial affect recognition in violent and nonviolent
antisocial behavior subtypes. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(5), 708–719.
Seidel, E. M., Pfabigan, D. M., Keckeis, K., Wucherer, A. M., Jahn, T., Lamm, C., & Derntl, B. (2013). Empathic competencies
in violent offenders. Psychiatry Research, 210(3), 1168–1175.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Russell, S., & Crane, R. S. (1983). Assessment of anger: The state–trait anger scale. In J. N.
Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 161–201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Szanto, K., Dombrovski, A. Y., Sahakian, B. J., Mulsant, B. H., Houck, P. R., Reynolds, C. F., III, & Clark, L. (2012). Social emo-
tion recognition, social functioning, and attempted suicide in late-life depression. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry,
20, 257–265.
Tsuruya, N., Kobayakawa, M., & Kawamura, M. (2011). Is “reading mind in the eyes” impaired in Parkinson's disease? Parkin-
sonism and Related Disorders, 17, 246–248.
U.S. Department of Justice; Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2018). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016
(NJC publication no. 251211). Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf
Violent Crime. (2011, July 25). Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime
Wagner, P., & Sawyer, W. (2018, March 14). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2018. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018.html
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing a tripartite model:
II. Exploring the symptom structure of anxiety and depression in student, adult, and patient samples. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 104, 15–25.
Webster, G. D., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., Deckman, T., Jonason, P. K., Le, B. M., … Smith, C. V. (2014). The brief aggres-
sion questionnaire: Psychometric and behavioral evidence for an efficient measure of trait aggression. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 40(2), 120–139.
Webster, G. D., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., Deckman, T., Jonason, P. K., Le, B. M., … Smith, C. V. (2015). The brief aggres-
sion questionnaire: Structure, validity, reliability, and generalizability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(6), 638–649.
Wölwer, W., Frommann, N., Halfmann, S., Piaszek, A., Streit, M., & Gaebel, W. (2005). Remediation of impairments in facial
affect recognition in schizophrenia: Efficacy and specificity of a new training program. Schizophrenia Research, 80(2–3),
295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2005.07.018
12 CLARK ET AL.

Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6),
361–370.

How to cite this article: Clark CB, Armstrong J, Ballout MH, Ewy R. Examining the link between facial affect
recognition and violent offending: A comparison between web-recruited volunteers with histories of violent
and non-violent offending. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2020;1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2164