Loyola College in Maryland

Loyola College in Maryland
The dissertation of ___Kathryn L. Savitz__________________entitled
_________Narcissism and Overcontrolled-Hostility:_______________
_________Personality Characteristics of Priests with Pedophilia____
submitted to the department of ___Psychology_______________in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Psychology_______
in the College of Arts and Sciences has been read and approved by the Committee:

Running head: NARCISSISM AND PRIESTS WITH PEDOPHILIA
Narcissism and Overcontrolled Hostility:
Personality Characteristics of Priests with Pedophilia
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the
Graduate School of Loyola College in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Psychology
by
Kathryn L. Savitz, M.A.
2000
Narcissism and Pedophilia

ABSTRACT
Narcissism and Pedophilia
Individuals who commit sexual crimes against children are among the most scorned in
society. Those who possess a sexual preference for children are diagnosed with
Pedophilia and typically are men. This study focused on determining hallmark
personality traits (narcissism and overcontrolled-hostility) of a subpopulation of
pedophilia, specifically, priest pedophiles which, if identified, could serve as a foundation
for risk assessment and treatment interventions. Meloy (1986) theorized that priest
pedophiles exhibit narcissistic traits in a dichotomous relationship to their self-perception
as being conveyors of God's word. Consistent with this theory, this study used Wink's
(1991) categorization of narcissism: Grandiosity Exhibitionism (GE: extroverted, self-
centered, and assertive) and Vulnerability Sensitivity (VS: introverted, anxious, and
defensive) to compare priest pedophiles and non-priest pedophiles. Statistical analyses
failed to confirm Hypothesis 1 that priest pedophiles would demonstrate higher levels of
GE narcissism than other pedophiles. Although not significant, priest pedophiles had
lower levels than non-priest pedophiles, suggesting that this personality trait may have
diminished by the identification of their crime as well as the loss of their identity as an
active messenger of God. On the other hand, as predicted, pedophiles demonstrated
higher levels of VS than priest pedophiles, indicating that these traits could distinguish
the two subpopulations of pedophilia. Results failed to support the hypothesis that priest
pedophiles would evidence higher levels of overcontrolled-hostility than pedophiles.
Another significant finding which was not predicted was that pedophiles presented
i

Narcissism and Pedophilia
themselves as having greater psychological problems than priest pedophiles. This
suggests pedophiles and priest pedophiles may differ in this respect as well. Overall, this
study introduces the likelihood that, with refined methodology, particular personality
characteristics within subpopulations of pedophiles, as subtle as they may be, could be
highlighted and considered in preventative and treatment interventions.
ii

COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY:
Associate Professor Ruth Stemberger, Chairperson
Assistant Professor Deborah Haskins
Associate Professor Charles LoPresto
iii
Narcissism and Pedophilia

DEDICATION
Many individuals have impacted the personal and professional paths I have
chosen during my life. My parents have always provided me unconditional love,
Narcissism and Pedophilia
encouragement, and devotion and, although there have been times when my appreciation
for them has not been evident, I reflect on their invaluable qualities, which have
maintained my motivation to accomplish my most challenging goals. My brother and
sister-in-law have also been essential to my happiness and serenity, particularly my
brother who has continuously remained a magnificent friend, advisor, and educator. My
adorable nephew, although unknowingly, has made me perceive and approach new
experiences, not as obstacles, but as exciting explorations of myself and my environment.
In addition to my immediate family, I must mention the infinite worth of my dearest and
closest friends who have always shared the highlights in my life and have helped smooth
out the bumps along the way.
This manuscript represents one of my greatest accomplishments. I dedicate it to
my grandmother, whom I have admired all my life. Her wisdom, independence,
generosity, sincerity, and sense of style, which I observed as a young girl and now as an
adult, have made me aware of the strides women can make in this world. She has also
demonstrated that through perseverance anything is possible. I will forever remember
her mortal lessons and will treasure them as gifts for a lifetime.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Narcissism and Pedophilia
The author wishes to express the utmost gratitude to my major reader, Ruth
Stemberger, Ph.D., for her incredible knowledge and ideas as well as her enthusiasm,
encouragement, and persistence which were critical elements in the development and
completion of this research project. Finally, it cannot go without mention that her
continued assistance when personal matters arose, which went way beyond the call of
duty, was immensely appreciated. Special thanks are also in order for my other
committee members, Drs. Haskins and LoPresto, who have been outstanding mentors.
Their advice, suggestions, and support were essential to the successful completion of this
manuscript.
In addition, without the willingness of St. Luke's Institute to support this research,
this study would have been dramatically different and not as nearly as intriguing. Special
acknowledgements go to Steve Montana, Ph.D. and Alka Broome, B.A. for representing
my project at St. Luke's. This author also extends her thanks to Fred Berlin, M.D.,
Ph.D., of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual
Trauma, who permitted this writer to request patient volunteers at his clinic, and to
Denise Sawyer who organized that endeavor. In addition, Bob Gingerich, M.A., of T. W.
Ponessa & Associates Counseling Services, played a critical role in obtaining research
participants for this project. Another important acknowledgement goes to a good friend,
Michael Tiburzi, for sharing his impressive statistical knowledge. Finally, thanks to all
research participants who volunteered their time and energy to assist in this project.
v

TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 5.
TABLE 6.
TABLE 7.
TABLE 8.
TABLE 9.
LIST OF TABLES
Means and Standard Deviations for Pedophiles and Ephebophiles
on the Significant Scales of the MMPI-2, the MCMI-II, and the
Rorschach ..............................................................................................
Hypothesized Group Differences...........................................................
Summary of Independent t-Tests between Priest Pedophiles and
Priest Ephebophiles................................................................................
Narcissism and Pedophilia
Demographic Data for Control Pedophiles............................................. 64
Demographic Data for Control Priests...................................................
Summary of Statistical Analyses for Age and Education by Group......
Summary of Statistical Analyses for MMPI-2 L, F, and K Validity
Scales by Group .....................................................................................
Intercorrelations Between Narcissism Scales.........................................
Summary of Statistical Analyses for Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS)
Narcissism, Grandiosity-Exhibitionism Narcissism, and
Overcontrolled-Hostility by Group......................................................... 72
vi
Page
36
48
62
65
67
69
70

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Narcissism and Pedophilia
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................. i
COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY....................................................
DEDICATION.........................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................
CHAPTER I -Introduction.......................................................................................
Review of the Literature..............................................................................
Epidemiology of Pedophilia........................................................................
Typology of Pedophilia...............................................................................
Theories of Pedophilia.................................................................................
Psychoanalytic Theory.....................................................................
Behavioral Theory...........................................................................
Social Learning Theory...................................................................
Cognitive Theory.............................................................................
Biological Theory............................................................................
Four Factor Model. .........................................................................
Personality Characteristics of Pedophiles.................................................... 19
Personality Characteristics of Ephebophiles...............................................
Child Molestation in the Priesthood............................................................
vii
Page
iii
iv
v
vi
1
3
3
4
8
8
11
11
12
14
16
23
24

Narcissism and Pedophilia
The Catholic Priest Profile...........................................................................
Narcissism Tendencies in Priests.................................................................
The Priest Pedophile.....................................................................................
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................
Statement of the Hypotheses .......................................................................
CHAPTER II -Method.............................................................................................
Participants...................................................................................................
Experimental Groups........................................................................
Control Groups................................................................................. 49
Materials.......................................................................................................
Demographic Variables....................................................................
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2..............................
Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale............................
Raskin and Novacek Narcissism Scale.............................................
Wink and Gough Narcissism Scale..................................................
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Scale ..................................................
Narcissistic Personality Disorder Scale............................................
Procedure. ....................................................................................................
Design and Analyses.................................................................................... 59
viii
Page
27
30
34
41
46
49
49
49
50
50
50
53
53
54
55
56
57

Narcissism and Pedophilia
CHAPTER III - Results...........................................................................................
Demographic Data.......................................................................................
Control Pedophiles...........................................................................
Control Priests..................................................................................
Priest Pedophiles, Priest Ephebophiles, and Psychiatric Priests......
Descriptive Data..........................................................................................
Comparison of Age and Education................................................... 66
Primary Analyses.........................................................................................
Statistical Analyses for the MMPI-2 Validity Scales.......................
Statistical Analyses for the MMPI-2 Narcissism Scales..................
Statistical Analyses for Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) and
Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) Narcissism.......................................
Statistical Analyses for Overcontrolled-Hostility (OH)...................
CHAPTER IV -Discussion......................................................................................
Findings Related to Demographic Information...........................................
Other Findings Related to Psychological Functioning................................ 77
Findings From Hypothesis Tests.................................................................
Summary and Conclusions.......................................................................... 87
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 89
APPENDIXES.........................................................................................................
APPENDIX A - Human Subject Review Letter of Consent for Study.......
ix
Page
61
61
61
63
66
66
68
68
68
71
72
74
74
79
99
99

Narcissism and Pedophilia
APPENDIX B - Demographic Information for Control Pedophiles ...........
APPENDIX C - Demographic Information for Control Priests ..................
APPENDIX D -
APPENDIX E -
APPENDIX F -
APPENDIX G -
APPENDIX H -
APPENDIX I -
APPENDIX J -
APPENDIX K -
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Morey, Waugh, and
Blashfield Scale................................................................
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Narcissism-
Hypersensitivity Scale......................................................
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Narcissistic
Personality Disorder
Scale..................................................................................
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Raskin and Novacek
Scale..................................................................................
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Wink and Gough
Scale..................................................................................
Excluded MMPI Items for the Grandiosity-
Exhibitionism Narcissism
Scales ...............................................................................
Excluded MMPI Items for the Vulnerability-Sensitivity
Narcissism Scales.............................................................
Rephrased MMPI Items for the RN and WG Narcissism
Scales................................................................................
Page
APPENDIX L - Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale.............. 121
APPENDIX M -Raskin and Novacek Narcissism Scale..............................
APPENDIX N - Wink and Gough Narcissism Scale...................................
APPENDIX O - Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Narcissism Scale.................
APPENDIX P - Narcissistic Personality Disorder Narcissism Scale........... 131
x
101
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
123
126
129
Page

APPENDIX Q -
APPENDIX R -
Narcissism and Pedophilia
Informed Consent Document for the Control Pedophile
Group................................................................................ 133
Informed Consent Document for the Control Priest
Group ............................................................................... 135
xi

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Narcissism and Pedophilia 1
Throughout this century, society has been forced to take a more liberal approach to
controversial issues regarding sexuality. Regardless of this change in attitude about
sexuality, however, there are those individuals who engage in sexual practices outside of
ethical and legal standards. That is, some individuals experience sexual arousal through
criminal acts such as rape. These individuals are generally viewed as having antisocial
personality traits (Kalichman, 1991). However, there are other deviant and illegal sexual
practices which are influenced more from a psychological disorder than from a
psychopathic predisposition. These sexual behaviors have been labeled as paraphilias
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Rosenhan & Seligman, 1989): 'philia' meaning
love of and 'para' meaning what is beyond (Rosenhan & Seligman, 1989). Despite their
clear labels and diagnostic criteria, individuals who suffer from a paraphilia present a very
confusing picture for behavioral researchers, clinicians, and the legal system.
One particularly challenging category of paraphilia is pedophilia. The Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Ed) (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) characterizes
individuals diagnosed with pedophilia as having "recurrent, intense sexually arousing
fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or
children, generally age 13 years or younger" (APA, 1994, p. 528). Another form of
paraphilia, which often is generalized as pedophilia, is ephebophilia. Ephebophilia is
typified by an individual's sexual preference for an adolescent or postpubescent child,
typically age 13 to 16 (Robinson, 1994; Rossetti, 1990); however, this specification is not
recognized in the DSM-IV as a separate diagnosis. Because the theoretical literature
generally does not distinguish ephebophilia from pedophilia, the explanation of such
throughout this manuscript will not either. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, both

Narcissism and Pedophilia 2
categories of paraphilia will be referred to interchangeably as pedophilia. Distinctions
among the two pathologies in terms of personality characteristics will, however, be made
later where it is appropriate for discussion.
One important area in research on pedophilia is identification of individuals who are
most vulnerable to sexual interactions with children. That is, there have been many reports
(Kinnear, 1995) of child molestation by individuals who frequently come into contact with
children (i.e., teachers, coaches, bus drivers). Such cases are disturbing for a number of
reasons. First, these individuals are typically viewed by children as role models and even
parental figures. Second, the question arises as to whether there is a relationship between
serving in those roles and molesting children. Finally, it is critical to identify the minority
of individuals in those groups (i.e., the small number of teachers) who actually abuse
children and differentiate them from those who do not. One such group which has received
increasing attention over the last decade, and which will be the focal point of this paper, is
priests who sexually abuse children.
Parents typically utilize the services of their priest to care for, give advice to, and
encourage the healthy and moral development of their children (Sipe, 1995).
Unfortunately, "those priests who use their positions of trust and the presumption of moral
integrity as a cover for sexual activity with children destroy and pervert the meaning and
reality of celibacy and ministry" (Sipe, 1995, p. 9). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is
to discuss the epidemiological, theoretical, and characterological issues of pedophilia, in
general, and to utilize that discussion in examining priests who molest children as a specific
subpopulation of pedophiles as well as of priests in general.

Epidemiology of Pedophilia
Review of the Literature
Narcissism and Pedophilia 3
At the present time, the prevalence and epidemiology of pedophilia is unknown.
However, research studies have included demographic information (e.g., age of
perpetrator, ethnicity, gender of child victim, victim age) of pedophiles which has been
found to be similar across studies. This suggests that, for the most part, pedophiles are a
homogenous population with regard to those demographic variables. Thus, results from
several recent studies will be considered as a reflection of the pedophile population as a
whole.
Extrafamilial child molesters have been found to be in their twenties at the time of
their first sexual abuse of a child, whereas incestuous child molesters typically are in their
thirties (Hayashino, Wurtele, & Klebe, 1995). However, other research has indicated that
there are clusters of molesters who range in age from late teens to early 70s (Simon, Sales,
Kaszniak, & Kahn, 1992). More Caucasians have been identified as molesters than
minority groups such as Hispanics or African Americans (Hayashino et al., 1995;
Kalichman, 1991; Simon et al., 1992). A study conducted by Erickson, Walbek, and
Seely (1988) used information gathered from evaluations of 229 convicted child molesters
who were referred to an Intensive Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressives in
Minnesota. Based on these data, these researchers concluded that 70% of the child victims
were female (n = 259) whereas 26% were male (n = 102). Sex offenders who molested
children of both sexes were rare (4%). Twenty-two percent of the female and 25% of the
male victims were under the age of six years old, while 27% of female and 24% of male
victims in this study were between the ages of six and ten. Finally, 51 % of both the female
and male victims were between 11 and 13 years old. Results of this study also indicated
that few children were physically harmed. In fact, bribery rather than threat was the

Narcissism and Pedophilia 4
primary method of seducing the child. Finally, eighty-six percent of molesters of male
children considered themselves as being either homosexual or bisexual.
In addition to these data, most children are abused by adults with whom they are
familiar (Kinnear, 1995), although this may include a spectrum of individuals ranging from
a stranger or mere acquaintance to someone much more significant in the child's life such
as a parent or family member. Nonetheless, children seem to find it difficult to report their
abuse due to their fear of the possible consequences of revealing their perpetrator who,
mostly likely, is known to other adults close to the child (Howitt, 1995; Kinnear, 1995).
In addition, it may be embarrassing for the child to describe details of their victimization
and they often consider themselves at fault (Howitt, 1995). A survey conducted by the
National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse revealed that, between 1989 and 1993,
approximately 3 million cases of child abuse or neglect were reported with approximately
15% of those incidences involving sexual abuse (McCurdy & Daro, 1994). Unfortunately,
the prevalence of child molestation is probably higher than that which has been reported
due to the factors previously mentioned.
Typology of Pedophilia
Groth and Birnbaum (1978) have distinguished two typologies of pedophiles,
fixated and regressed, which have been developed through psychodynamic theory.
According to these researchers:
Fixation is defined as a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological
maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie
the organization of subsequent phases of development. A fixated offender has from
adolescence been sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to significantly younger
persons. Sexual involvement with peer-age or older persons, where this has

Narcissism and Pedophilia 5
occurred, has been situational in nature and has never replaced the primary sexual
attraction to and preference for underage persons (p. 176).
According to Simon et al.,'s (1992) interpretation of this explanation, fixated offenders fail
to experience a healthy sociosexual development, making them vulnerable to sexual
attraction to children. In fact, any sexual activity with adults is circumstantial and does not
substitute their preferred sexual intimacy with children. In addition, according to these
researchers' theoretical conceptualization, fixated child molesters tend to choose male
victims based on a "narcissistic identification with them" (p. 212). That is, they can relate
to the male child's egocentric needs which are characteristic of that phase of psychosexual
development.
Socarides (1991), based on his own clinical experiences with pedophilic patients,
considered this sexual preference or fixation for children or adolescents to be a
"perversion" such that, without sexual activity with a child, the individual experiences
much anxiety and emotional turmoil. Furthermore, his patients rarely described any sexual
or intimate relationships with adults as pleasurable. These clinical findings support other
research which suggested that child molesters generally are never married (Groth &
Birnbaum, 1978). Socarides theorized that, as a result of their "perversion," fixated
pedophiles must continuously seek out their specified partners in order to maintain stable
psychological functioning. In other words, the victims of fixated pedophiles, typically
strangers or casual acquaintances, are deliberately sought through premeditation (Groth &
Birnbaum, 1978).
The other type of pedophile described by Groth and Birnbaum (1978) is the
regressed pedophile. As described by these authors:
Regression is defined as a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior
after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the

Narcissism and Pedophilia 6
immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development.
A regressed offender has not exhibited any predominant sexual attraction to
significantly younger persons during his sexual development - if any such
involvement did occur during adolescence, it was situational or experimental in
nature. Instead, this individual's sociosexual interests have focused on peer-age or
adult persons primarily or exclusively (p. 177).
Like the fixated offender, Simon et al. (1992) summarized that regressed child offenders
engage in sexual activities with children as a "temporary or permanent departure from his
more characteristic attraction to adults" (p. 212). Further findings from Groth and
Birnbaum's study demonstrated that regressed child molesters tend to be flexible in their
choice of child victim (i.e., acquaintance or relative) and act more on impulsive and
opportunistic factors rather than on a predatory compulsion. These researchers also
revealed that these molesters engage in sexual activities with children due to fluctuations of
stress related to situations involving other adults. Regressed pedophiles also tend to prefer
female victims based on a history of intimate and prolonged relationships with other female
adults and the majority are married.
A more recent study of pedophilia typology by Johnston and Johnston (1997)
utilized interview and questionnaire information gathered from clinician/informants, child
molesters, and child molester counselors to further evaluate the fixated-regressed
contention. These researchers found fixated child molesters to have impaired social
adjustment, have a greater preoccupation with children, molest male children, and have
come from dysfunctional families, whereas regressed offenders demonstrated better
adjustment, a preference for female children, and tended to have had more "normal"
childhoods. In addition, regressed molesters were found to abuse alcohol much more
frequently than fixated molesters. This was explained by the presumption that regressed

Narcissism and Pedophilia 7
offenders are uncomfortable with their attraction to children and will use alcohol to
disinhibit their impulses. On the other hand, fixated molesters accept their attraction for
children and, thus, do not require "external disinhibition to indulge [their] sexual deviance"
(p. 367).
Although Groth and Birnbaum's typology possesses much validity, there are also
criticisms to their theory. Simon et al. (1992) conducted an archival study of 136 child
molestation cases initially to empirically validate Groth and Birnbaum's fixated-regressed
typology. However, despite agreement with most of Groth and Birnbaum's point, Simon
et al. suggested that child molesters should be considered on a continuum of attributes
rather than dichotomously. Specifically, the relationship to the victim (i.e., relative or
stranger), the perpetrator's prior nonsexual criminal record, and age of the offender were
found to be related to the molester's level of regression. In addition, Simon et al. criticized
Groth and Birnbaum's theory in their exclusive reliance on factors related to psychological
and psychosexual development in assessing the nature of the pedophilic behavior. Simon
et al. argued that elements such as prior criminality as well as alcohol and substance abuse
should also be considered as significant factors in molestation recidivism.
Simon and his colleagues also focused on an individual's potential to molest based
on various age groups as well as situational and opportunistic variables, rather than the
limited variables included within the regressed-fixated typology. In specific, these
researchers proposed one group could consist of adolescents in their late teens or early
twenties. Although these individuals may demonstrate social immaturity and an attraction
toward children, it is possible they deliberately decrease their interactions with children to
avoid the sexual urges experienced while in the presence of children. This active avoidance
of children might promote more appropriate peer relationships. Another group might
consist of individuals in their twenties and thirties who obtain connections to children

Narcissism and Pedophilia 8
through family or friends. Such offenders most likely would be divorced or, at the time of
the child molestation, would be in a dysfunctional relationship. This group, in essence,
may turn to children for intimacy due to their troubled adult relationships. The final group
could consist of men age 50 or older who typically may have discontinued social or sexual
relationships with adults. Therefore, they may tend to rely on and prefer children to fulfill
their sexual needs.
This latter description of pedophilia has yet to be validated empirically, although it,
nonetheless, weakens the fixated-regressed typology of pedophilia by depicting its
dichotomous framework as incomplete. However, this also holds true for Simon et al.'s
(1992) age group classification. That is, they did not consider that adult relationships may
be disrupted because of the pedophilic behaviors inherent in the perpetrator. Thus, the
child molester may have hidden their 'sexual identity' in the same manner and for the same
reasons as some homosexual individuals have, to protect their reputation and status as an
individual. It may be their inability to further inhibit their sexual desires for children which
breaks up the adult relationship.
Theories of Pedophilia
Psychoanalytic theory.
The psychoanalytic model concentrates primarily on insecure attachment and
childhood sexual abuse or trauma as contributions to pedophilic behaviors, each of which
will be discussed, respectively. Bowlby (1969) was the first to examine the effects of
attachment on child development. He believed that, through attachment experiences,
especially with the mother, infants and children develop a model of beliefs, expectations,
and attitudes regarding relationships (Ward, Hudson, and Marshall, 1996). Without a
secure bond, the child is vulnerable to emotional and interpersonal difficulties in adulthood
(Ward et al., 1996). Socarides (1991), based on his experiences with pedophilic patients,

Narcissism and Pedophilia 9
believed that unhealthy attachment is a primary factor in the sexual deviancy of these
patients. In particular, he found that child molesters experienced childhood trauma caused
by a cruel mother and an emotionally detached or physically absent father. He proposed
that because of this, the child demonstrates a splitting of the ego and of the object which
symbolizes the distorted or nonexistent attachment with the mother. Subsequently, in
adulthood, the molester's primary focus becomes the "self and their child victim is then
utilized to establish a self-object relationship. Overall, it is assumed that this lack of
bonding impairs psychosexual development, arresting the maturational growth of the adult
pedophiles, making them appear functionally similar to their child victim (Hall, Graham, &
Shepherd, 1991).
Marshall (1989) elaborated on this psychoanalytic approach and suggested that
difficulties with attachment can lead to intimacy deficits. In other words, sex offenders
typically fail to have a secure attachment experience as children and, as a result, they lack
the interpersonal skills and self-confidence necessary to form emotional relationships with
peers in adulthood (Hall et al., 1991; Marshall, 1989). This theory was supported by
Seidman, Marshall, Hudson, and Robertson (1994) who compared rapists, child
molesters, violent non-sex offenders (i.e., wife batterers) and a community control group.
Based on responses from various assessment measures of intimacy, desirability, and
loneliness, sex offenders evidenced greater deficiencies in intimacy and were more lonely
than the non-sex offenders. It is important to note that Marshall's theory failed to consider
that there are other, more specific categories of attachment styles, rather than the broad
classifications introduced by Bowlby which better represent how childhood experiences
influence adult interpersonal interactions (Ward et al., 1996). Such distinctions have, in
fact, been investigated (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Ward et al., 1996); however, a
discussion of those classifications goes beyond the scope of this paper.

Narcissism and Pedophilia 10
Although these developmental experiences may be common among individuals who
are later identified as pedophiles, there are many other individuals who do not have a sexual
preference for children yet who have encountered emotional deficits in their life.
Therefore, it is premature to consider impoverished psychosexual development and
attachment difficulties as the primary factor predisposing pedophilia. There must be other
variables involved which contribute to a vulnerability to commit sexually deviant crimes.
In addition to attachment deficits, it is thought that sexual deviance may develop
from psychological trauma, particularly sexual and/or physical abuse occurring between the
ages of 2 and 5 (Rossetti, 1990; Socarides, 1991). Sexually abused children often
experience confusion, separation anxiety, overstimulation, and rage (Howitt, 1995;
Rossetti, 1990). In an effort to overcome feelings of helplessness and lack of control, the
victim may reenact their own sexual abuse by replacing their previous powerless role to that
of dominator in an effort to diminish their anxiety about their own abuse (Rossetti, 1990;
Howitt, 1995). In addition, it is likely that the anger associated with having been abused is
acted out against younger people (Howitt, 1995). Unfortunately, the resolution of anxiety,
anger, and stress is only temporary and the abuser must continue victimizing in order to
subdue those feelings (Rossetti, 1990). This reenactment process has been termed
"repetition compulsion" which is considered the "addictive process in pedophilia"
(Rossetti, 1990). In other words, similar to an alcohol or drug addict using substances as a
means to subdue feelings of anxiety, the pedophile engages in repetitive sexual behavior
with children to cope with the distress related to their own abuse (Rosetti, 1990). Thus,
according to this model, adults who were abused as children are vulnerable to becoming
abusers themselves.

Behavioral theory.
Narcissism and Pedophilia 11
Behaviorists believe that pedophilia is a learned behavior in which a sexually
fulfilling experience, typically masturbation, is preceded by stimuli associated with children
(McGuire, Carlisle, & Young, 1965). That is, children become the 'object' or stimulus to
which perpetrators masturbate and about whom they have sexual fantasies (McGuire et al.,
1965). This may initially become established by pairing physiological sexual arousal with
a deviant stimulus such as pornography of children (Hall & Andersen, 1993). The sexual
impulses are reinforced by the continuation of the sexual act which, in turn, strengthens the
conditioned relationship between the object of desire (i.e., the child) and sexual satisfaction
(Hall & Anderson, 1993; Rosenhan & Seligman, 1989). This stimulus becomes
increasingly sexually arousing and, subsequently, the masturbatory activity is transformed
into sexual relations with the child (McGuire et al., 1965).
This theoretical approach focuses on conditioned behavior during childhood.
However, it does not address the regressed molester who for his entire sexual life has
engaged in heterosexual, peer-age relationships. In other words, this conceptualization
suggests that the vulnerability to molest only occurs through conditioning during
childhood, not anytime afterwards. In addition, behaviorists seem to claim that
masturbation to an unacceptable stimulus lends itself to deviant sexual activity. In fact,
some individuals engage in such private sexual activities yet they are never acted out on
others. Therefore, it is possible that additional factors are involved which, in combination
to sexual conditioning, make sexual offending more conceivable.
Social learning theory.
A further extension of the behavioral theory is the role that social learning plays on
an individual's sexual identity and desires. According to Abel, Becker, & Cunningham-
Rathner (1984), the social learning model contends that, during the socialization process,

Narcissism and Pedophilia 12
children learn which sexual activities are socially acceptable and which are not. Therefore,
the child learns to inhibit overt expression of inappropriate sexual fantasies involving
particular stimuli. This process continues into adulthood where the individual has firmly
distinguished which fantasies to ignore. However, inhibition of sexual arousal does not
always occur when children, mainly boys, engage in masturbatory activities. When
fantasized stimuli considered inappropriate by society are coupled with masturbation, the
entire fantasy element becomes erotic to the child and, consequently, provokes a sexual
arousal response in the child. Typically such sexual activities are kept secret and, thus, the
lack of negative consequences associated with the scorned act (i.e., punishment) facilitates
continuation of the deviant sexual activity. As a result, learned inhibition of socially
unacceptable sexual practices does not take place. With regard to child molesters, the
fantasized stimuli eventually becomes young children and, due to the absence of negative
consequences, this sexual attraction or arousal persists into adulthood.
Social learning theory incorporates the conditioning and reinforcement tenets
associated with behavioral theory within its framework; however, it includes modeling of
socially acceptable behaviors as an additional component which behaviorists do not
address.
Cognitive theory.
In addition to the above-mentioned explanations, cognitive theory suggests that
paraphilics, in general, engage in distorted thinking which justifies their behavior as well as
the continuation of their actions (Hall & Andersen, 1993). In fact, Abel et al. (1984)
described seven cognitive distortions typically utilized by pedophiles:
1) A child who does not physically resist my sexual advances really wants to have
sex with me; 2) Having sex with a child is a good way for an adult to teach the child
about sex; 3) Children do not tell others about having sex with a parent because

Narcissism and Pedophilia 13
they really enjoy the sexual activity and want it to continue; 4) Sometime in the
future our society will realize that sex between a child and an adult is alright; 5) An
adult who only feels a child's body or feels the child's genitals is not really being
sexual with the child so no harm is being done; 6) When a child asks an adult a
question about sex it means that the child wants to see the adult's sex organs or
have sex with the adult; and 7) My relationship with my daughter or son or other
child is enhanced by my having sex with them (pp. 98-101).
These individuals believe that certain conduct is common to or acceptable by others (Hall &
Andersen, 1993) and; therefore, they believe these cognitions in order to substantiate their
behavior (Abel et al., 1984). In other words, they use denial and minimization to decrease
their level of emotional involvement with their distressed victim (Ward et al., 1995). Thus,
the perpetrator can fulfill his fantasies and desires without the associated feelings of guilt
(Ward et al., 1995).
Although social learning theory and cognitive theory appear similar based on the
way in which the individual perceives the sexual activity, social learning theory
concentrates more on the socialization process and whether the behavior remains undetected
or punished. The former consequence (i.e., lack of detection), as distinguished as part of
the social learning model, suggests that the deviancy will continue; however, the latter
consequence (i.e., punishment), most likely, will lead to suppression of the behavior.
Cognitive theory, on the other hand, focuses solely on the role of distorted beliefs
associated with the sexual molestation. That is, the way in which pedophiles perceive the
sexual activity determines their level of motivation in continuing child victimization. This
model does not, however, account for the origins of these beliefs. One possibility is that
by engaging in pedophilic behaviors, the individual develops distorted cognitions to

Narcissism and Pedophilia 14
minimize the effects the abuse may have on their victim, which results in a cyclical pattern
between deviant sexual behaviors and distorted thoughts.
In support of these assumptions, Hayashino et al. (1995) compared the level of
cognitive distortions of incarcerated males convicted of incestuous child molestation,
extrafamilial child molestation, rape, and nonsex offense crimes. As was predicted, child
molesters as a group exhibited different cognitions than a control group of laypersons
without a history of sex offending. Interestingly, the extrafamilial child molesters had
higher levels of cognitive distortions than all other groups and, in addition, appeared to
minimize and justify their behaviors more than the incestuous offenders. These results are
consistent with the notion that child molesters, especially extrafamilial, utilize cognitive
distortions more than other sex offender groups to justify their actions. This is not to say
that other offenders do not, but extrafamilial molesters of children may rely more heavily
on those distortions to avoid emotional consequences of abusing a child they do not know.
Biological theory.
Aside from the above-mentioned theoretical models of pedophilia, research on the
biological links to this disorder has been conducted, but only to a limited extent.
Furthermore, the majority of the studies have evaluated paraphilias, in general, rather than
solely pedophilia. That which has been specific to pedophilia has suggested that this group
of sexual offenders, compared to all other paraphilics, evidence more brain damage and
dysfunction (Langevin, 1992). For instance, one of the first studies of this phenomenon
was conducted by Kolarsky, Freund, Machek, and Polak (1967) who revealed early
temporal lobe damage as a causal factor in the deviant sexual activity of 86 epileptic men.
Pedophiles also have evidenced left hemisphere dysfunction as assessed by the Halstead-
Reitan Battery (Hucker, Langevin, Wortzman, Bain, Handy, Chambers, & Wright, 1986).
Furthermore, compared to controls, they have shown less dense and thinner skulls, lower

Narcissism and Pedophilia 15
levels of regional cerebral blood flow (Hendrick, Fitzpatrick, Hartman, Quaife, Statbucker,
& Graber, 1988), as well as smaller left frontal and temporal brain regions as compared to
other sex offenders (Wright, Nobrega, Langevin, & Wortzman, 1990). Frontal lobe
dysfunction has been found to impede one's ability to inhibit socially unacceptable
impulses (Kalat, 1995). In addition, it may result in "disinhibition, poor judgment,
anxiety, low frustration tolerance, and impulsivity" (Rossetti, 1990). Temporal lobe
impairment, on the other hand, affects emotional and motivational behavior (Kalat, 1995).
That is, it could lead to "deviant fantasizing, compulsive thinking about sexuality, and
hypersexuality" (Rossetti, 1990).
These above-described consequences of regional brain impairment are similar to
personality and behavioral patterns common to pedophiles. Despite the suggested
involvement of brain abnormalities in pedophilia, these findings should be considered in
light of small sample size typically involving homosexual males as well as the imperfect
psychometric properties of certain neuropsychological instruments (Langevin, 1992).
Furthermore, this type of research makes it unclear whether the pedophilia preceded the
brain dysfunction or whether the cortical impairment contributed to the pedophilia.
Along with neurological investigations, research also has concentrated on the
function of the male hormone, testosterone, which is involved in the regulation of the male
sex drive and aggression (Rossetti, 1990). In fact, Berlin and Meinecke (1981) treated 20
paraphilic patients, 12 of whom were pedophiles, with medoxyprogesterone acetate, a drug
which has been found to reduce levels of testosterone. This drug also is known to prevent
elevations of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) which
compensate for lowered levels of testosterone. Results of this study revealed that only 2
pedophiles relapsed during treatment (which lasted anywhere from 3 months to almost 6
years). In contrast, 5 of the 8 pedophiles, who did not remain in treatment, relapsed.

Narcissism and Pedophilia 16
Although this sample size was too small to make definite conclusions, it is evident that
decreasing testosterone levels in pedophiles seems to deter sexually deviant behaviors.
A later study by Gaffney and Berlin (1984) discovered increased levels of
luteinising hormone (LH) in pedophiles, as compared to baseline levels in normal male
controls, following injection of synthetic luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)
into the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) cortical region. These findings supported
the correlation between testosterone levels and deviant behaviors in pedophiles. In
addition, the data suggested an HPG dysfunction in these sex offenders. Based on the
results of these studies, it is possible that hormone levels are associated with the
development of pedophilia (Rossetti, 1990).
Four factor model.
Although these single-factor theories of sexual abuse demonstrate specific variables
thought to influence or predispose an individual to engage in such behaviors, it is felt that
multi-factorial models are much more accurate in their account of pedophilia (Fisher,
1994). One such model was developed by Finkelhor and Araji (1986) who identified four
complementary factors under which theories of pedophilia can be subsumed: emotional
congruence, sexual arousal, blockage, and disinhibition.
The first factor, emotional congruence, contends that the sexual abuser identifies his
own emotional needs with those of the child. This is based on the fact that pedophiles have
historically demonstrated an arrested psychosexual development which, subsequently,
results in an immature and even child-like approach to their environment (Groth &
Birnbaum, 1978; Hall et al., 1991). It also has been suggested that pedophiles have a
narcissistic self-identification, similar to that of the child, which allows them to further
identify with the child emotionally (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986; Simon et al., 1992).

Narcissism and Pedophilia 17
In addition to identification with the child, it is believed that pedophiles attempt to
avoid feelings of low self-esteem and low self efficacy that they usually experience when
interacting with peers by engaging in sexual relations with children (Finkelhor & Araji,
1986). That is, pedophiles may gain a sense of control and power with a child who, by
definition, is vulnerable and nonthreatening, compared to an adult (Loss & Glancy, 1983).
The emotional congruence factor also applies to sexual abusers who were abused
themselves as children. In other words, pedophiles not only identify with their victims,
they also identify with their own abuser by engaging in sexual activities with the child
(Finkelhor & Araji, 1986; Fisher, 1994; Howitt, 1995). In essence, it is assumed that the
molester is able to overcome traumatic feelings of shame, humiliation, and helplessness
they experienced during their own sexual abuse (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986). This also
assists the abuser to understand the emotional feelings expressed as the victimizer
compared to the victim. Compared to previously discussed theories, emotional congruence
is conceptually similar to the reenactment theory which contends that the perpetration helps
resolve conflict and anxiety associated with the abuse experienced in childhood (Rossetti,
1990).
Factor two, sexual arousal, relates to the physiological sensations the molester
experiences in response to children themselves, fantasies about children, or stimuli
associated with children (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986). This factor is related to emotional
congruence wherein, if the pedophile responds to affective connections with his child
victim, he must become sexually aroused by the child as well (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986).
This assumption, however, is too simplistic as it does not account for those individuals
who have engaged in sexual activities with children, yet are not "true" pedophiles who have
an emotional attachment to children (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986). It is proposed that it is
those individuals who experienced a significant sense of fulfillment or frustration (i.e.,

Narcissism and Pedophilia 18
physiological arousal) associated with the sexual act with the child who are most vulnerable
to pedophilia (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986).
The third factor, blockage, entails the pedophile's inability to find sexual pleasure
from intimate relationships with peers (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986). Blockage has been
introduced by single-factor theories such as psychodynamic and family dynamic models.
Based on these accounts, however, blockage has been divided into two categories,
developmental and situational (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986). Developmental blockage
involves Oedipal conflicts where the individual is thought to be "prevented from moving
into the adult heterosexual stage of development" (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986, p. 154).
Situational blockage involves more incestual types of molestation (Finkelhor & Araji,
1986). In other words, these individuals are unable to engage in peer-appropriate sexual
relations for reasons which preclude a preference for adult sexual relationships (Finkelhor
& Araji, 1986).
The fourth factor, disinhibition, refers to the abuser's increased acceptability of his
sexual behavior (Finkelhor & Araji, 1986). That is, if pedophiles fully believe their actions
are wrong and punishable, they probably would discontinue their predatory behavior. As
cognitive theorists suggest, however, child molesters distort their beliefs regarding their
sexual behavior which allows them to continue gratifying their sexual needs without feeling
remorse.
As comprehensive as this theory may be, Howitt (1995) criticized it for its use of
weak supportive evidence. For instance, sample populations were almost exclusively
prison or offender populations who were not compared to control groups on specified
variables. Thus, this model may be biased in its presentation of pedophiles. Nonetheless,
the theoretical notions inherent in this multifactoral model depict the complexity of this

Narcissism and Pedophilia 19
pattern of behavior. This may increase clinicians' awareness of varying factors so that
case-specific treatment can be implemented.
The various theoretical models of pedophilia presented in this manuscript provide a
basic foundation for understanding how sexual preferences for children may emerge. What
follows is a review of the literature on personality characteristics of pedophilia. This will
provide a more comprehensive description of this phenomenon so that comparisons of
particular subpopulations of pedophilia can be made.
Personality Characteristics of Pedophiles
Much of the research on personality correlates of sexual offenders of children, as
well as of adults, has utilized the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).
The MMPI is the most widely used, self-report measure of personality functioning and of
psychopathology (Anastasi, 1988; Graham, 1987). Interpretations of the MMPI in this
context have focused primarily on specific scale elevations as well as 2-point code profiles
(Graham, 1987; Greene, 1991). The most common elevation for these sexual offenders
has been on the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale (Scale 4: Erickson, Luxemberg, Walbek,
& Seely, 1987; Hall et al., 1991; Kalichman, 1991; Mann, Stenning, & Borman, 1992).
The Pd scale was designed to detect individuals who are rebellious, impulsive, immature,
self-centered, aggressive, and unemotional (Graham, 1993). Child molesters also have
produced elevations on the Schizophrenia scale (Sc: Scale 8), together with the Pd scale,
resulting in a 4-8/8-4 MMPI profile (Erickson et al., 1987). Individuals with this type of
profile are considered bizarre, impulsive, defiant of authority, insecure, socially withdrawn
and inept, and are overly concerned about their sexual adequacy (Graham, 1993).
Interestingly, McCreary (1975) revealed that first offense child molesters showed
MMPI profiles typical of normals whereas those with prior convictions showed a 4-8
profile. These findings suggest that child sex offenders who repeat their sexual crimes or

Narcissism and Pedophilia 20
additional and potentially related crimes might have a more pathological motivation to
maintain their deviant behaviors than do first time child victimizers. Thus, it might be that
multiple offenses are associated more with severe pathology than are first time offenses.
Although research has implicated the 4-8 profile type as typical of child molesters,
this profile also has been revealed among other criminal populations such as rapists
(Erickson et al., 1987; Graham, 1993; Hall et al., 1991) and forensic psychiatric patients
who committed murder of family and nonfamily members, property offenses, and arson
(Quinsey, Arnold, & Pruesse, 1980). In addition, it was demonstrated in profiles of
inpatients (1) with a history of sexual and drug abuse, (2) who prefer solitary activities, (3)
who have difficulties with concentration, and (4) who are likely to be irritable and
irresponsible (Archer, Griffin, & Aiduk, 1995). Based on these findings, therefore,
individuals who produce a 4-8 code profile are a heterogeneous population and, thus, this
profile specificity cannot be established for the pedophile population.
Despite the attention given to the 4-8 profile, pedophiles also have revealed 2-point
code profiles consisting of the Depression (D) and Pd scales, or 2-4/4-2 profiles (Erickson
et al., 1987). Individuals with 2-4/4-2 combinations are typically described as impulsive,
unable to delay gratification, remorseful about their actions, socially inept, self-conscious,
and passive-dependent (Graham, 1993). Interestingly, an 8-2-4 code profile was found to
be highly consistent with child sexual offenders who had an intense and unsatisfied need
for affection and fear and distrust of significant, emotional relationships (Hall et al., 1991).
These characteristics correspond to the developmental patterns of pedophiles as suggested
by psychoanalytic theory.
The fact that pedophiles may have multiple scale elevations which vary within
group suggests that profiling using MMPI 2-point codes cannot establish solid personality
factors associated with pedophilia. Kalichman (1991) supported this contention through

Narcissism and Pedophilia 21
his investigation of personality characteristics of 144 incarcerated sex offenders whose
victims included prepubescent children, postpubescent adolescents, and adults. He found
that sex offenders of children appeared to be more emotionally disturbed and exhibited
greater psychopathology than sex offenders of adults, as demonstrated by higher elevations
on the Hypochondriasis (Hs), D, Paranoia (Pa), Sc, and Social Introversion (Si) scales of
the MMPI-2. Thus, although personality similarities exist among sex offenders of children
and adults, it is possible that the degree of psychological disturbance, as indicated by level
of scale elevation, could distinguish these two types of criminals, rather than solely
considering code type profiles .
Scale elevations also were examined by Heersink and Strassberg (1995) who
examined 122 men in an outpatient, sex offender treatment program for molesting children
under the age of 15. These men were divided into three clusters based on their MMPI
scores. Cluster 1 (n = 87) consisted of profiles within normal limits with only the Pd scale
elevated (M = 67.7). Cluster 2 (n = 23) consisted of profiles with 8 out of the 10 clinical
scales elevated. Those clinical scales with the highest scores were D (M = 86.0),
Psychasthenia (Pt: M= 81.7), and Sc (M= 81.4), with Hs, Hysteria (Hy), Pd,
Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), and Pa scales also significantly elevated. Cluster 3 included
profiles with highest mean elevations on the Sc (M = 85.4), Pt (M= 76.1), and Mania (Ma:
M = 73.5) scales.
Based on these clusters alone, it is evident that sexual offenders of children are a
heterogeneous population by themselves, let alone from sexual offenders of adults. The
only demographic variable that could account for the different clusters was the "nature of
the sex act." That is, Cluster 3 offenders engaged in some form of oral sex, whereas there
was no indication of this in the other groups. This variable was not further investigated in
this particular study. It is clear, however, that there were those molesters who had a

Narcissism and Pedophilia 22
chronic pattern of psychological difficulties involving anxiety, depression, and low self-
esteem (Cluster 2) and those who demonstrated more cognitive disorganization and
confusion (Cluster 3). Considering the results of this study with that of Kalichman's
(1991), child molesters not only differ from other sex offenders in terms of degree of scale
elevations and level of pathology, but they also differ among each other in the same
manner. This perhaps verifies Simon et al.'s (1992) contention that child molesters cannot
simply be characterized dichotomously but instead along a continuum of variables.
Aside from research focused on MMPI code profiles, other research has
concentrated on other variables thought to distinguish pedophiles from other sex offenders
as well as from control groups. For instance, Marshall, Jones, Hudson, and McDonald
(1993) examined generalized empathy in incarcerated and outpatient child molesters and
found the latter group as exhibiting increased deficits in empathy when compared to the
former group. Although there was the possibility of outliers in the outpatient group which
may have distorted the data, these results suggest that the environment the offender is in
might affect their ability to empathize with their victims. More specifically, it is possible
that, because the outpatient group may have had access to potential victims, they may
continue to rationalize their behavior as being acceptable and nontraumatic for the child. In
contrast, the incarcerated offenders are strictly isolated from potential victims which might
force them to acknowledge the detrimental effects their behavior had on their victim.
Another study by Marshall, Barbaree, and Fernandez (1995) compared outpatient
rapists, child molesters, nonoffending university students, and nonoffending community
members on various levels of social functioning. Results indicated that child molesters and
community nonoffenders were lower in social self-confidence, more socially anxious, and
demonstrated less assertiveness than the rapists and the university nonoffenders. Child

Narcissism and Pedophilia 23
molesters also were found to have a different perception of what appropriate social
behavior entails in contrast to what is generally accepted by others.
Denial of hostility and psychopathology were other variables investigated by
Wasyliw, Grossman, and Haywood (1994). Eighty-two male patients at a sexual
behaviors clinic who were accused of child molestation were administered the MMPI-2 and
the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI: Buss & Durkee, 1957). Those patients who
admitted to molestation (n = 45) scored significantly higher on the BDHI than those that
denied molestation (n = 37). Out of the admitter group, 28% (n = 10) of the patients
exaggerated their pathology on the MMPI-2 as compared to only 5% (n = 2) of the denial
group (p < .01). Despite the fact that measures of hostility such as the BDHI are
vulnerable to response bias, which may distort the results, these researchers found a
correlation between acknowledgment of hostility and psychopathology. In particular, it
was suggested that the admitters exaggerated their symptoms in order to blame their
behaviors on a mental disorder. On the other hand, deniers, despite their guilt or
innocence, may have thought that any evidence of psychopathology would make them
increasingly suspect of deviant behaviors. Aside from the confounding variables in this
study, it still is worth noting that individuals accused of molestation may have a particular
response set involving hostility and psychopathology and it is this pattern of impression
management which must be considered in terms of diagnosis and treatment intervention.
Personality Characteristics of Ephebophiles
Although it was previously indicated that ephebophiles have not been explicitly and
consistently distinguished from pedophiles, it is essential to describe at this point what
differences do, in fact, exist between these paraphilias. To reiterate, ephebophiles are those
individuals who engage in sexual activity with pubertal children. Based on clinical
observation, Rossetti (1990) found that ephebophiles generally demonstrate greater social

Narcissism and Pedophilia 24
and psychosexual development than pedophiles. Interestingly, Greenberg, Bradford, and
Curry (1993) compared pedophiles and ephebophiles who were sexually abused as
children and found a strong correlation between age of their own abuse and age of their
child victim. That is, pedophiles reported being molested at a younger age than did
ephebophiles. Although self-report is not always reliable and memories of the onset of
abuse may be distorted, these findings support social learning theory in that the sexual
activity is patterned after experiences occurring during a particular phase of their childhood.
This also might justify the developmental distinctions of these groups of molesters.
Ephebophiles also tend to believe that the adolescent enjoyed the sexual interaction based
on the perpetrator's assumption that the adolescent had the ability to choose to engage in the
sexual act. In addition, these sexual offenders usually do not believe that sexual coercion
or exploitation has occurred. It is essential to point out that pedophiles have similar
explanations for their behavior. It is possible then that these cognitive distortions are more
prominent for ephebophiles.
Pedophiles and ephebophiles also have been found to differ with regard to degree
of psychopathology. According to Kalichman's (1991) analysis, as was previously cited,
offenders of adolescents demonstrated less psychological disturbances than offenders of
children, although ephebophiles were found to be more pathological than their adult
offender counterparts as indicated by elevations on the MMPI-2. In addition, ephebophiles
tended to be more self-confident and less emotionally expressive and self-effacing than
pedophiles. Ephebophiles, again, fell between adult offenders and pedophiles on these
personality dimensions. Considerations have been made that offenders of adolescents
might exhibit moderate symptoms of both psychological disturbance and sociopathy.
Overall, offenders of children, including adolescents, are thought to exhibit more

Narcissism and Pedophilia 25
psychopathology and emotional regression than sexual offenders of adults who tend to be
more antisocial, sociopathic, and defensive.
Child Molestation in the Priesthood
The purpose of this study is to identify personality characteristics present in
pedophiles who are also priests. The previous discussion described general characteristics,
theories, and personality traits of pedophiles, in general, in order to contrast this
information with what limited knowledge we have about sexually abusing priests. At this
point, a discussion of Catholic priests who are sex offenders as well as a review of the
characteristics of priests in general is warranted. This discussion will allow for a clearer
discussion of the minority of priests who are also pedophiles. In addition, it will attempt to
demonstrate that if pedophiles are examined in terms of specific subpopulations (i.e.,
priests with pedophilia) they may not appear as heterogeneous in personality traits as the
literature has portrayed. The following sections, therefore, will concentrate on
characteristics of priests who do not molest children as compared to those priests who do.
This will suggest that priests who are pedophiles have unique characteristics, despite
similarities, from both nonpedophile priests and nonpriest pedophiles, which may
predispose them to engage in sexual activities with children.
Within the past twenty years, increasing reports have identified clergymembers and,
in specific, Catholic priests who have sexually abused children (Plante, 1996; Sipe, 1990).
Specifically, Jason Berry, a Catholic journalist, documented cases of child molestation by
priests and, according to his (1989) article, 200 priests or religious brothers were reported
for child molestation between the years of 1983 and 1987. This averaged to approximately
one case per week. Sipe (1990) also acknowledged, based on 25 years of interviewing and
treating priests with pedophilia, that pedophilic priests often enter the clergy with an already
existing sexual preference for children. He believed that this orientation exists regardless

Narcissism and Pedophilia 26
of the age the priest entered the seminary. However, he proposed that most of these men
may not have been aware of their pedophilic tendencies until after their ordination.
Despite reports of molestation, most cases of abuse, particularly in the past, have
been concealed from public knowledge in order to maintain the sanctity of the church
(Plante, 1996). Sipe (1990) provided two reasons for this lack of awareness. First,
individuals in the psychological and medical fields as well as the entire population have
been ignorant of such a problem. Secondly, the Catholic Church has a "system of secrecy"
in that issues regarding sexuality of the clergy are avoided, overlooked, and actively
suppressed. This is evidenced by the fact that only minimal attention has been given to this
issue in religious professional publications (Isely & Isely, 1990).
Although there is a reluctance to disclose a priest or any other clergyperson as a
child molester, society demonstrates a certain degree of intrigue with this offender
population (Plante, 1996). In fact, Plante (1996) suggested that this interest occurs
because clergy are assumed to be more ethical and scrupulous in their behaviors than the
lay population. In addition, he pointed out that children are believed to be safe in the
presence of clergy. Furthermore, priests are sworn to celibacy and to break that vow with
another adult, let alone a child, is against all sworn and moral principles.
It is obvious from the above discussion that religious figures are probably one of
the most respected and trusted groups in society. They represent sanctity and spirituality
and are considered to be unconditionally accepting of all people. Unfortunately, those
clergy members who use their powerful position to manipulate vulnerable children to
gratify their sexual needs are viewed by many individuals as unforgivable. Therefore, the
following discussion will describe typical personality traits of nonoffending priests, as
reviewed in the literature, and will attempt to identify potential risk factors related to priests

Narcissism and Pedophilia 27
who molest children. This may shed additional light on this legal, moral, and ethical
problem and might provide insight as to how this problem may be solved.
The Catholic Priest Profile
In terms of typical personality commonalities among clergymen without any
recognized pathologies, Kennedy, Heckler, Kobler, and Walker (1977) were the first to
attempt to answer the question, "What is the Catholic priest like as a person?" (p. 120).
These researchers investigated 271 priests who were randomly selected and later stratified
according to geography from United States Roman Catholic dioceses and religious
communities. Data were primarily obtained via clinical interviews, although psychological
tests also were utilized. Using a stepwise discriminant analysis, researchers were able to
categorize those priests who completed all clinical procedures (N = 218) in terms of their
psychological development. These included underdeveloped (57%), developing (29%),
maldeveloped (8%), and developed (6%).
The largest group consisted of the underdeveloped priests. These individuals
identified themselves more with their religious duties than with their own personal qualities
and responsibilities. Their lives tended to be structured by the expectations of others and,
thus, upholding a particular status, which was being fulfilled through their church position,
was particularly important to them. In addition, they had few intimate or platonic
relationships and avoided displaying their emotions. They coped with distress through
repression and intellectualization. In general, although these priests were successful within
the priesthood, they tended to be dissatisfied with their personal life.
Developing priests, on the other hand, were in the process of rejuvenating their life,
which had previously been emotionally and socially isolative. They encountered certain
experiences in their lives (i.e., new job, death of a parent, or a significant religious or
social experience) which provided motivation for personal growth. It is this experience

Narcissism and Pedophilia 28
which is thought to allow the priest to relinquish his defenses and enjoy new aspects of
life.
The maldeveloped group and the developed group comprised the smallest
proportion of priests and, interestingly, were characteristically opposite on a variety of
dimensions. For instance, the maldeveloped group evidenced long-term and serious
psychological difficulties, involving covert hostility, low self-esteem, and disruptive sexual
conflict. In contrast, the latter group was described as personally integrated, mature, and
autonomous yet appropriately dependent. In addition, they could invest emotional feelings
in others without concern. They also were sexually secure and confident in their celibacy
oath and were productive in their career.
It was the underdeveloped and the maldeveloped priests that were the focus of
Keddy, Erdberg, and Sammon's (1990) study. These researchers investigated personality
characteristics via psychological assessment of priests or brothers (N = 29) and nuns (N =
13) admitted to a residential treatment program. Typical presenting problems were
interpersonal difficulties, depression, sexual concerns, and vocational indecision.
Performance on the WAIS-R revealed that these clergy functioned at an average intelligence
level, with highest subtest scores being on those most indicative of intellectualization
processes (e.g., Vocabulary and Comprehension). The MMPI revealed normal scale
elevations overall; however, 78% of the clergy had at least one clinically significant scale
elevation (T > 70). The Mf scale mean for all participants was 75.9. This suggested that
male clergy with high elevations on this scale typically did not exemplify traditional male
characteristics. In fact, psychiatric males with elevations on this scale tend to be passive,
dependent, insecure about their masculine role, and inner-directed (Greene, 1991).
Interestingly, 44% (n = 12) of the male clergy were considered to have significant
difficulties with sexual issues as evidenced by information on the face sheet of their

Narcissism and Pedophilia 29
evaluation. Thirty percent (n = 8) of those cases involved distress or confusion regarding
sexual orientation. In addition, the Rorschach demonstrated that these clergy relied on
intellectualization as a way of suppressing and avoiding emotional complexity. As a result,
these clergy were prone to emotional outbursts and loss of control when confronted with
situations of an emotional nature. These findings were similar to those of the
underdeveloped priests described by Kennedy et al. (1977).
More recently, Plante, Manuel, and Tandez (1996a) evaluated personality
characteristics of 21 successful candidates to the Catholic priesthood. Elevated scores on
the MMPI-2 were revealed on the Lie (L; M = 57.24, SD = 8.57), K (M = 60.48, SD =
9.03), Mf (M = 58.86, SD = 6.89), Gender Role-Feminine (Gf; M = 60.30, SD = 11.39),
Overcontrolled-Hostility (O-H; M = 60.71, SD = 8.06), and Social Responsibility scales
(RE; M = 57.52, SD = 9.70). Lowered scores on the MMPI-2 were found on the F (M =
43.91, SD = 4.81), D (M = 43.86, SD = 7.65), Anxiety (ANX; M = 44.95, SD = 8.02),
as well as several other supplementary scales including the Anger (ANG), Antisocial
Behavior (ASP), Type A Behavior (TPA), and Obsessions (OBS) scales. Based on these
results as well as those from the 16PF (Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993) and clinical
interviews, these priests demonstrated adequate and stable personality adjustment and were
found to be bright and interpersonally sensitive. Results also indicated, however, that
these priests were defensive and tended to be concerned about controlling hostile impulses.
To be more specific, those priests scoring high on the O-H scale exemplify individuals who
attempt to control their hostility even under circumstances which ordinarily would provoke
an emotional reaction (Greene, 1991). Unfortunately, there comes a point when these
individuals experience an overload of this controlled emotion, forcing them to exhibit their
aggression (Greene, 1991).

Narcissism and Pedophilia 30
It should be noted that these findings were based on priest candidates from only one
religious order which limits generalizability (Plante et al., 1996). In addition, the chance of
committing a Type I error was increased given the large number of statistical analyses
performed on these data (Plante et al., 1996). Finally, due to the defensive response style
of these priests, interpretation should be considered with caution (Plante et al., 1996).
Narcissistic Tendencies in Priests
Narcissistic characteristics also have been proposed as being prevalent in clergy
members. Because this variable will be the focus of this study, theories of narcissism will
be explained in this section prior to discussion of its relevance to priests.
According to Kernberg (1976):
The main characteristics of these narcissistic personalities are grandiosity, extreme
self-centeredness, and a remarkable absence of interest in and empathy for others in
spite of the fact that they are eager to obtain admiration and approval from other
people. These patients experience a remarkable intense envy of other people who
seem to have things they do not have or who simply seem to enjoy their lives.
These patients not only lack emotional depth and fail to understand complex
emotions in other people, but their own feelings lack differentiation, with quick
flare-ups and subsequent dispersal of emotion. They are especially deficient in
genuine feelings of sadness and mournful longing; their incapacity for experiencing
depressive reactions is a basic feature of their personalities. When abandoned or
disappointed by other people, they may show what on the surface may look like
depression, but which on further examination emerges as anger and resentment,
loaded with revengeful wishes, rather than sadness for the loss of a person whom
they appreciate (pp. 228-229).

Narcissism and Pedophilia 31
Based on a psychoanalytic approach to this type of personality, Kernberg (1975)
contends that narcissism is manifested by a contradiction between the ego and superego
wherein the narcissist may at one moment feel insecure and inferior while the next moment
believe he or she is omnipotent. This theorist believes that the narcissist is able to cope
with this struggle by investing in defense mechanisms such as splitting and denial. More
fundamentally, Kernberg proposes that, for the narcissist, their ideal self, ideal object, and
actual self images are bound together so that focus is placed on their ideal self which serves
to overshadow the weaknesses inherent in their actual self. It is this ideal self focus which
perpetuates the grandiosity and enhanced self-esteem typical of these individuals.
Kernberg maintains through his clinical experiences that this entire process is often
influenced by "chronically cold parental figures with covert but intense aggression"
(p.234). The child must, therefore, learn to defend him or herself at an early age against
hate, envy, and devaluation and, in turn, feels that he or she can only love and trust
themselves.
Both Kernberg (1975, 1986) and Kohut (1977) maintain that narcissists can be
categorized as either overt or covert with regard to expression of their personality
characteristics. In other words, the overt narcissist outwardly displays his or her sense of
self-importance and strong desire for admiration and attention. Conversely, the covert
narcissist typically is unaware of their feelings of grandeur and, in fact, appears insecure,
hypersensitive, and lacks self-confidence. Despite these differences, both categories of
narcissists possess those qualities (i.e., manipulativeness, exploitativeness, and sense of
entitlement) inherent in and most typical of this type of personality.
In contrast to the psychoanalytic model, Millon (1981) and Millon and Everly
(1985) based the emergence of narcissism on social learning theory. A hallmark of this
model is that narcissistic development results from children being overvalued, as opposed

Narcissism and Pedophilia 32
to devalued, by their parents. Due to parental overindulgence, the child becomes egotistical
and learns how to exploit and manipulate others so as to receive the attention and special
treatment to which they have been accustomed and which they feel they deserve. This
process leads to a perception that others are inferior, which, in turn, reinforces the
grandiose and exploitive nature of the narcissist. It must be noted that this pattern is
presumably common in "only-children" because they are often valued by their parents as
'special.' They rarely experience restrictions nor are they given responsibilities that
typically would be required if there were other children in the family.
With regard to priests, Meloy (1986) hypothesized that narcissistic qualities
exhibited by clergy members prior to ordination are strengthened largely due to the nature
of their profession and the constant reverence from their parishioners. Meloy uses both
Kernberg's (1975) and Kohut's (1971) contention of normal and pathological narcissism
with regard to characterological qualities in priests. Meloy states that:
Narcissistically balanced individuals experience themselves as the biological and
psychological center of their universe. They have the capacity and motivation to
care for themselves at least as much as they do others. Loved ones are perceived as
whole and separate individuals with their own needs and desires. They easily
recognize rather than deny the magical quality of their own transient fantasies of
entitlement and grandiosity in a world that is quite forgetful and not very forgiving.
Narcissistically balanced clergy will reflect on personal experience and behavior,
and allow a nurturant blend of private time alone, intimate time with family, and
public time with parishioners (p. 50).
In contrast, the pathological narcissist demonstrates such extreme grandiosity which
precludes empathic and genuine feelings towards the welfare of others. To reiterate
theoretical contentions, splitting is utilized both as an inherent defense mechanism for the

Narcissism and Pedophilia 33
narcissist as well as an aspect of clergy members' duty to the church. More specifically,
clergy are supposed to preach ethical and moral standards for their congregation. With the
existence of ambivalence regarding those preachings, they engage in splitting to reduce any
anxiety associated with the ambivalence. In essence then, the world is considered either
good or bad, and it is this dichotomous perception that inhibits the clergy person from
experiencing varying degrees of emotion. As a result, the narcissistic clergy member is
vulnerable to engaging in unstable and insignificant relationships, both intimate and
professional.
Associated with the pathological narcissistic personality are themes of omnipotence
and entitlement. To be more specific, this type of clergy person tends to feel omnipotent
and omniscient in their role of relaying the word of God. They also feel entitled to the
admiration and attention they receive from others based on their spiritual importance and
contributions to the lives of their parishioners. As such, "for the narcissistically disordered
individual responding to a "calling" from God, the grandiose self is fortified by the passive
acceptance of the ideal self as "chosen" and its psychodynamic fusion with the deified ideal
object, consciously valued as a special relationship to God" (p. 51).
The previous section explored the personality characteristics of priests as found in
the literature. That which was most outstanding was that priests, for the most part, are
quite dedicated to their religious responsibilities and are concerned with fulfilling those
duties as well as the expectations of their parishioners. Overall, they demonstrate adequate
personality adjustment, typically avoid displays of emotion, and rely on intellectualization
to cope with distress.
The issue of narcissism was discussed as a focal point of this study. This
personality characteristic has been theorized as an inherent component of the personality of
some priests. More specifically, it has been viewed as both a precursor and result of those

Narcissism and Pedophilia 34
priests and their "calling" to their spiritual obligations. This variable of narcissism, in
particular, will be addressed later in regard to priests with pedophilia.
The Priest Pedophile
As was previously mentioned, the literature regarding sexually molesting priests is
quite limited and; thus, little information and insight into this population of priests can be
given. One extensive examination of 150 Catholic clergy members who were admitted to
an inpatient treatment facility was conducted by Robinson (1994). These clergy were
categorized into five diagnostic groups: 1) Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified-
Ephebophilia, 2) Pedophilia, 3) Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified-Compulsive
Sexuality, 4) Alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse, and 5) a Control consisting of priests
diagnosed with Occupational Problem, Other Interpersonal Problem, No Diagnosis on Axis
I, Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood, and Adjustment Disorder with Anxious
Mood. All groups were compared on personality dimensions assessed by the MMPI-2,
MCMI-II, and the Rorschach.
Descriptive statistical analyses of 2-point elevations on the MMPI-2 suggested that
all groups were heterogeneous in that no group demonstrated a specific 2-point profile nor
did they reflect clinically elevated scores. The MCMI-II also revealed similar results;
however, the most common elevations across groups was a compulsive-dependent
combination. Robinson found this to suggest that clergy undergoing a psychological
evaluation exhibit significant compulsive and dependent personality traits. He was unable
to assess whether these traits are typical of clergy who were not seeking treatment.
In terms of the Rorschach, significant differences were found on a variety of
variables. First, the control group scored significantly lower on Food Content (.27) than
the pedophile (.83) and sexual compulsive groups (1.07). This suggests that the latter two
groups (i.e., pedophiles, and sexual compulsives) have higher levels of dependency than

Narcissism and Pedophilia 35
the control group. Second, all groups scored significantly below average on the
Conventional Form Ratio (F+%). In specific, the pedophile group (0.47) scored
significantly lower than the ephebophile group (0.60) and the control group (0.59) on this
measure. This indicates that pedophiles may have more of a conventional thinking style
than these other two groups (i.e., ephebophiles and controls). Third, alcoholics (.44) and
pedophiles (0.46) scored lowest on Perceptual Accuracy (X+%) while the ephebophiles
(0.55) and the controls (0.58) scored significantly higher. These findings suggest that the
former two groups (i.e., alcoholics and pedophiles) may have a more distorted thinking
pattern and impaired problem solving abilities. Fourth, the control group (1.19) scored
lowest on the Disordered Thinking (Sum6) variable. These scores were found to be
significantly lower than that of the sexual compulsives (5.00). Finally, on the Achromatic
Color (C') variable, the control group scored the lowest (1.27) while the pedophile group
scored the highest (2.57). This indicated that pedophiles may have experienced more
trauma in their lives than the other groups.
Robinson summarized the findings of this Rorschach data in that the control group
demonstrated significantly lower levels of pathology than the other groups. In addition,
pedophiles were more impaired than the ephebophiles on various dimensions which
supports Kalichman's (1991) contention that victim age may determine degree of
psychological disturbance.
Robinson also performed discriminant analyses on all of the above-mentioned
measures (i.e., MMPI-2, MCMI-II, and the Rorschach) to discriminate ephebophiles and
pedophiles (see Table 1). Significant group differences were indicated for the Masculinity-
Femininity, Depression, Hypochondriasis, and Schizophrenia scales of the MMPI-2. For
MMPI-2 scale and subscale T-scores, Social Alienation, PTSD (Keane), Psychomotor
Retardation, Hypochondriasis, Addiction Potential, and PTSD (Schlenger) were

Table 1
Narcissism and Pedophilia 36
Means and Standard Deviations for Pedophiles and Ephebophiles on the Significant Scales of
the MMPI-2, the MCMI-II, and the Rorschach
Pedophiles
Ephebophiles
Measure Mean SD Mean SD
MMPI-2:
Hypochondriasis 52.50 9.10 55.57 8.75
Depression 59.50 11.31 56.63 10.08
Masculinity-Femininity 55.47 9.08 59.17 8.58
Schizophrenia 57.27 12.51 54.67 9.29
MCMI-II:
Histrionic 46.77 27.49 49.27 25.17
Antisocial 33.33 23.72 42.23 17.27
Schizotypal 54.00 17.15 48.37 13.59
Anxiety 42.37 29.42 44.17 28.63
Somatoform 48.30 18.61 57.40 15.98
Alcohol Dependence 31.17 23.30 35.83 20.81
Thought Disorder 24.73 24.99 31.07 24.38
Rorschach:
Pure Form (F+%) 0.42 0.21 0.60 0.24
Active (a) 6.13 2.97 8.00 3.98
Passive (p) 5.90 1.67 4.80 3.63
Achromatic Color (Sum C')
Complexity (Blends)
2.57
4.70
2.74
3.26
1.47
5.43
1.60
4.32
Color/Form (CF)
Animal Detail (Ad)
Mythical Animal Detail ((Ad))
1.83
3.13
0.23
1.68
1.57
0.50
1.53
2.13
0.03
1.61
1.70
0.18
Color Naming (Cn) 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.55
Conventional Form (X+%)
Incongruous-2 (INC2)
0.46
0.03
0.17
0.18
0.55
0.13
0.16
0.43
Note. Adapted from "Shadows of the Lantern Bearers: A Study of Sexually Troubled
Clergy," by E. A. Robinson, 1994, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, pp. 90-184.

Narcissism and Pedophilia 37
significant. For the MCMI-II, only the Anti-Social personality trait scale was found to be
significant when only analyzing the personality scales. However, when using all scores,
there were significant differences on the Somatoform, Antisocial, Schizotypal, Histrionic,
Anxiety, Thought-Disorder, and Alcohol Dependence scales. Finally, the Rorschach
revealed significant differences on the Pure Form, the Active-Passive Ratio, Passive
Movement, Achromatic Color, Complexity, Incongruous Special Scores, and Obsessive
style when analyzing only structural summary scores. However, for all scores there was
statistical significance for Pure Form, the Active-Passive Ratio, Form/Achromatic Color,
Complexity, Color/Form, Animal Detail, Mythical Animal Detail, Color Naming,
Conventional Form Thinking, and Incongruous Special Scores-Level 2.
Robinson's work clearly provided a wealth of information about sexual disorders in
clergy. There were, however, several limitations to his study which need to be addressed.
First, the large number of statistical analyses may have resulted in a Type I error; thus,
there may not be true differences between the priest groups on those variables outlined
(Robinson, 1994). Second, the Rorschach data may have been biased based on the limited
range of scores produced for certain variables (Robinson, 1994). Third, these results
cannot be generalized to the control sexually disordered nor the nonpsychiatric priest
populations. Therefore, it is unclear whether these findings would hold true for these
groups. In fact, it is possible that there are traits specific to priests, due to the nature of
their vocation, as well as those typical of sexually disordered individuals, specifically
pedophiles, which may demonstrate, psychodiagnostically, differences among personality
characteristics from sexually disordered priests.
Another study by Stumpf (1995) focused on personality pathology and traits of 167
inpatient priests and religious men and women with sexual disorders and nonsexual
psychiatric disorders. Assessment measures utilized were the MCMI-II, the NEO-

Narcissism and Pedophilia 38
Personality Inventory, as well as other measures to assess treatment response. According
to results, approximately 37% of the participants (n = 62) were diagnosed with Paraphilia
Not Otherwise Specified, Ephebophilia, 38% with Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise
Specified (n = 63), and only 11% were diagnosed with Pedophilia (n = 19). Contrary to
prediction, results indicated that the existence of a personality disorder enhanced treatment
effectiveness in some individuals. It is possible, therefore, that personality traits are not as
negatively correlated with treatment response in this particular population of patients as
with other groups of patients. In terms of personality differences among groups, no
significant differences were found except on the MCMI-II Bipolar scale (p < .025),
however, no between group specifications were made regarding where those differences
were found.
Further investigation of priest sexual offenders was conducted by Plante, Manuel,
and Bryant (1996b) who examined 160 Roman Catholic priests aged 22 to 74 who were
hospitalized in a private psychiatric facility specific to clergymembers. They compared
personality and cognitive variables of sexually offending priests (n = 80) to nonsexually
offending priests (n = 80) who were primarily diagnosed with affective, adjustment, or
eating disorders, as assessed by the WAIS-R, the Halstead-Reitan, and the MMPI-2.
Results from Plante et al.'s (1996b) primary analyses indicated that the sex offending
group was significantly older (M = 52.49, SD = 9.86) than the nonsex offending group (M =
45.06, SD = 11.09). In addition, the sexually abusing priests scored significantly higher on
the Overcontrolled-Hostility MMPI scale (O-H: M = 56.08, SD = 10.18) than did their
nonabusing counterparts (M = 52.98, SD = 9.30). In fact, twenty of the total sexually
abusing group had clinically significant elevations on this scale as compared to only eleven of
the total nonsexually abusing group. Based on these results, sex offending priests evidenced
more passivity and compliance toward others, especially authority figures, than their

Narcissism and Pedophilia 39
counterparts. It is the passivity which was thought to represent a denial of emotional
disturbance, specifically, hostility. In fact, individuals with this type of personality style tend
to avoid conflict, are unassertive, are dependent on others, and usually are aware of hostility
and rejection by others yet they prefer to ignore it. It is the combination of these traits along
with a fear of rejection and abandonment which lead to insecurity and vulnerability to act out
and blame others. These researchers suggest that the denial of hostility and aggressive
impulses combined with the inability to appropriately cope with these feelings, might be
expressed through the abuse of a minor.
In reference to the cognitive measures utilized in Plante et al.'s (1996b) study, there
were no significant differences among hospitalized priest groups. More specifically, mean
Full Scale IQ scores on the WAIS-R were in the above average range of intellectual
functioning for both the sexual abusing group (M= 120) and the nonsexual abusing group
(M= 117). Furthermore, these groups both evidenced low cognitive impairment on the
Halstead Impairment Index with scores of .26 for both groups. Finally, about 67% of the
sexual offending priests were diagnosed with a personality disorder compared to 58% of
the nonsexual offending priests. Although these statistics were not found to be significant
(χ 2 = 82.96, p > .05), it is possible that personality deficits may exist and even make some
priests vulnerable to cognitive and interpersonal difficulties.
Despite the significant results of this study, there were some methodological issues to
consider. First, neither an outpatient nor a "normal" control group of priests were included
which greatly affects generalizability and external validity (Plante et al., 1996b). Second,
demographic variables such as criminal history, number of victims, prior history of sexual
and/or physical abuse, duration and frequency of abuse were not available (Plante et al.,
1996). It is unclear, therefore, whether that demographic information would have affected
the outcome of the analysis. That is, significant differences among groups on demographic

Narcissism and Pedophilia 40
variables may have confounded the study. Without collecting such data, these researchers
were unable to control for confounding effects which may have existed.
In addition to these above-listed limitations, these researchers suggested that the
statistically significant findings of this study may not necessarily suggest clinical
significance. In other words, just because sexually abusing priests scored generally higher
than the non-abusing priests on the Overcontrolled-Hostility scale, this does not indicate that
they possess the personality traits described above at the clinical level. Nonetheless, these
findings implicate differences among hospitalized priest groups who do and do not sexually
abuse children along this overcontrolled-hostility dimension. In fact, denial and repression
were previously described by various theories as a way for the pedophile to rationalize his
behavior. Utilization of these strategies have been postulated by psychoanalysts as
preventing feelings of guilt and empathy for the victim which, in turn, leads to further
victimization.
Priests with pedophilia seem to have similar personality characteristics as their control
pedophile counterparts. These include passivity, dependency, deficits in emotion, insecurity,
as well as other traits. However, the literature has only compared sexually disordered priests
to priests with nonsexual psychiatric disorders. Therefore, it is difficult to reliably assume
that priest pedophiles and generic pedophiles are homogenous based solely on their sexual
behavior. It appears that there are variables which may distinguish the priest pedophiles from
the generic pedophiles, specifically, narcissism and overcontrolled-hostility. Although, the
research has not identified narcissism as a salient characteristic of priest pedophiles, it seems
possible that this feature exists in this population based on findings of similar characteristics
among priesthood members. A more detailed argument regarding these issues will be
presented in the following section.

Statement of the Problem
Narcissism and Pedophilia 41
Children who have been sexually victimized suffer lifelong emotional consequences.
This devastating experience leaves them susceptible to numerous difficulties such as post-
traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, substance abuse, and depression (Kinnear,
1995). These emotional ramifications of sexual abuse, among many others, highlight the
importance of investigating the phenomenon of pedophilia. If personality correlates of
pedophilia could be identified as risk factors, the potential for identifying and preventing
abuse will be greater. Unfortunately, pedophiles have been found to be a heterogeneous
population when compared to other sex offenders (Erickson et al., 1987; Hall et al., 1991;
Heersink & Strassberg, 1995; McCreary, 1975). Therefore, it might be more helpful to
examine particular subgroups of pedophilia rather than to assume that investigations of
pedophiles as a whole will be fruitful in identifying risk factors. One group that is poorly
understood and may be unique from other groups with pedophilia is priests with a history of
pedophilia. More specifically, this research attempted to identify those personality
characteristics of priest pedophiles which have not yet been specifically investigated and
which have been found to be associated with both the overall pedophile and priest
populations, namely narcissism and overcontrolled-hostility.
As Meloy (1986) described, priests seem to possess at least some degree of
narcissism due largely to their position in the church and from the reverence they receive
from society. As a result of the narcissism, they, theoretically, separate themselves from
their emotions via splitting which, in turn, protects their grandiose self-image. This also
seems to maintain the sense of entitlement they feel toward others. As such, these priests
would be classified more as 'balanced' narcissists as opposed to their pedophile counterpart.
In other words, if priests, in general, have a tendency toward narcissism, it seems that priests
who are pedophiles would exhibit an even greater degree of self-value and worth. Because

Narcissism and Pedophilia 42
of splitting as a defense mechanism, they are able to distance themselves from the guilt
associated with the sexual activity with the child. This allows them to protect their self-image
and to validate their sense of entitlement in receiving immediate gratification. Further, they
succumb to their own grandiose needs over the emotional needs of others, particularly
children. Because pedophile priests, presumably, engage in splitting to a greater degree than
priests in general (i.e., to justify their molesting behavior), priest pedophiles should be even
higher along the 'pathological' continuum of narcissism than their priest counterparts.
It is noteworthy to point out that control pedophiles also exhibit this same sense of
entitlement and emotional dissociation in their relationships with children (Abel et al., 1984;
Socarides, 1991; Ward et al., 1995). However, these personality characteristics appear
specific only with regard to sexual gratification. For pedophile priests, on the other hand, the
attitude that they are worthy of admiration and their accentuated self-value appears to be more
global in that it encompasses sexual, professional, and social domains of their lives. This,
therefore, might account for a higher degree of narcissism among pedophile priests.
Interestingly, despite theoretical contentions regarding the prevalence of narcissism in
priests and pedophile priests, Robinson (1994) was unable to identify this as an outstanding
characteristic among pedophile, ephebophile, compulsive sexual disorder, or psychiatric
priests. Aside from the fact that he used neither a non-psychiatric priest control group nor a
control pedophile group to determine differences among these populations, it is possible that
the measure used (MCMI-II Narcissism Scale) did not tap into the relevant subconstructs of
narcissism present in priests and pedophile priests. Specifically, Wink (1991) demonstrated
that narcissism could be manifested along two dimensions: Vulnerability-Sensitivity and
Grandiosity-Exhibitionism. This researcher examined correlations among the Raskin and
Novacek Narcissism Scale (RN: Raskin & Novacek, 1989), the Morey, Waugh, and
Blashfield Narcissism Scale (MWB: Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985), the Wink and

Narcissism and Pedophilia 43
Gough Narcissism Scale (WG: Wink & Gough, 1990), the Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Scale (NPDS: Ashby, Lee, & Duke, 1979), the Ego-Sensitivity Scale (E-S: Pepper &
Strong, 1958), and the Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Scale (NH: Serkownek, 1975) for 350
male and female participants from the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research.
Utilizing a principal components analyses with varimax rotation, the latter three scales; NPD,
E-S, and NH loaded on the first factor, Vulnerability-Sensitivity, with respective correlations
of .78, .89, and .78, whereas the RN, MWB, and the WG loaded on the second factor,
Grandiosity-Sensitivity, with respective correlations of .92, .88, and .83.
According to the results of his study, Wink (1991) was able to characterize the
vulnerability-sensitivity and grandiosity-exhibitionism factors based on similarities of covert
and overt narcissists as described by Kernberg's (1975) and Kohut's (1971) classifications.
Specifically, Wink (1991) reported that "like the covert narcissists, high scorers on
Vulnerability-Sensitivity appeared to be defensive, hypersensitive, anxious, and socially
reticent individuals whose personal relations, however, were marked by self-indulgence,
conceit and arrogance, and an insistence on having their own way" (p. 596). Wink further
distinguished the vulnerability-sensitivity narcissist as pessimistic, lacking in fulfillment, and
vulnerable to distress. Conversely, "high scorers on Grandiosity-Exhibitionism, similar to
overt narcissism, showed a consistent behavioral pattern of self-assuredness,
aggressiveness, exhibitionism, self-indulgence, and disrespect for the needs of others" (p.
596). This type of narcissist also was described by Wink as extroverted, aggressive, self-
confident, and needing of admiration.
In light of these typologies of narcissism, this study attempted to demonstrate that
pedophiles, priests, and pedophile priests will differ along these dimensions. More
specifically, due to the fact that pedophiles have been found to be more passive, dependent,
self-conscious, and socially introverted (Erickson et al., 1987; Kalichman, 1991), it was

Narcissism and Pedophilia 44
hypothesized that they would tend to exhibit characteristics typical of vulnerability-
sensitivity. Conversely, priests who evidence more social eptness, self-confidence, and
feelings of omnipotence and entitlement (Kennedy et al., 1977; Meloy, 1988) should be best
described as having grandiosity-exhibitionism traits. Pedophile priests who demonstrate
both types of these traits present an even more complex picture. Despite the finding that
pedophile priests are prone to passivity, unassertiveness, and insecurity (Plante et al.,
1996b), it was assumed that the grandiosity and inflated self-perception (Meloy, 1988)
would constitute more outstanding traits. Thus, pedophile priests would be more apt to have
a grandiosity-exhibitionism personality style, even when compared to their nonpedophile
priest counterparts. In terms of overall differences, it was predicted that pedophile priests
would demonstrate more narcissistic qualities than control pedophiles and nonpedophile
priests.
Narcissism is one variable that may be common among pedophile priests. The
literature also suggests that overcontrolled-hostility may be a risk factor in this population.
First, priests, in general, appear to be vulnerable to overcontrolled-hostility (Keddy et al.,
1990). Keddy et al. (1990) argue that overcontrolled-hostility results from the tendency to
intellectualize their problems and to avoid the emotional representations and, presumably, the
processing, of their distress. Theoretically, pedophiles also should have elevated levels of
overcontrolled-hostility. Their over-utilization of cognitive distortions to minimize and avoid
the emotional consequences of their molesting behavior probably puts them at risk for this
elevated pattern.
Given the predicted existence of overcontrolled-hostility in both priests and
pedophiles, it also might be predicted that priests with pedophilia will have even higher levels
of overcontrolled-hostility than either of the former two populations. Indeed, Plante et al.
(1996b) suggested this when they said that sexually abusing priests rely on intellectualization

Narcissism and Pedophilia 45
and denial processes to assist them in protecting their sense of stability and their religious
reputation. Thus, the eventual acting out behavior associated with overcontrolled-hostility is
directed toward a child who poses no apparent threat to this desired image. Thus, for the
priests with pedophilia, overcontrolled-hostility may be either a precipitant and/or result of
the molesting behavior. In either case, it was predicted that priests with pedophilia would
demonstrate higher levels of overcontrolled-hostility than either priests or pedophiles.
Although narcissism and overcontrolled hostility have been discussed as separate
qualities of priests and pedophile priests, it is possible that these two variables are related.
As Meloy (1988) theorized, narcissistic priests are unable to express or experience genuine
emotions due to their reliance on splitting (i.e., which preserves the inflated self-image). As
a result, it may be difficult for them to recognize feelings of hostility prior to an aggressive
act. Theoretical and empirical evidence has demonstrated that this narcissistic strategy
influences an ignorance of emotions. As has been explained, overcontrolled-hostility also
involves avoidance of emotional displays. The similarity of these processes provides support
for the correlation between these traits. Further, Hoppe and Singer (1976) found
overcontrolled hostility to be related to egocentric balance, more specifically, the excessive
self-focus that is a hallmark trait of narcissism.
In light of the above discussion, levels of narcissism, overcontrolled-hostility, or a
combination of these traits, may present as risk factors for priests who are pedophiles. Of
course, not all priests who exhibit narcissism and overcontrolled-hostility are pedophiles.
However, priests that do possess these characteristics to a greater degree than others might
warrant some concern as to their activities outside their religious duties. The rationale for this
personality type identification is to recognize that pedophiles do, in fact, exist in the
priesthood and that there may be variables specific to priest pedophiles that may help further
account for their deviant sexuality. If this were to be the case, then proper screening

Narcissism and Pedophilia 46
measures could be incorporated into seminary training so as to identify priests at potential
risk for molesting children.
Statement of the Hypotheses
After reviewing the literature, the following hypotheses were generated regarding
personality characteristics of control priests, control pedophiles, priest molesters (priest
pedophiles and priest ephebophiles), and psychiatric priests (see Table 2):
1. There will be a significant relationship between group membership (control
priest, control pedophile, priest molester, and psychiatric priest) and degree of
Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) narcissism as assessed by mean raw scores on the
Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale (MWB), Raskin and Novacek
Narcissism Scale (RN), and the Wink and Gough Narcissism Scale (WG).
Specifically:
a. Priest molesters will exhibit a significantly greater level of grandiosity-
exhibitionism than control pedophiles, control priests, and psychiatric
priests.
b. Control priests and psychiatric priests will demonstrate significantly
greater levels of grandiosity-exhibitionism than control pedophiles.
2. There will be a significant relationship between group membership (control
pedophile, control priest, priest molester, and psychiatric priest) and degree of
Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) narcissism as assessed by mean raw scores on the
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Scale (NH) and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Scale (NPD). Specifically, control pedophiles will exhibit a significantly greater
level of vulnerability-sensitivity than control priests, priest molesters, and
psychiatric priests.
3. There will be a significant relationship between group membership

Table 2
Hypothesized Group Differences
Variable
1. Grandiosity-Exhibitionism
a. Morey, Waugh,
& Blashfield (MWB)
b. Raskin & Novacek (RN)
c. Wink & Gough (WG)
2. Vulnerability-Sensitivity
a. Narcissism-
Hypersensitivity (NH)
b. Narcissistic Personality
Disorder (NPD)
3. Overcontrolled Hostility
a. MMPI-2 O-H Scale
Note. Mean scores = a > b > c.
Control
Pedophile Control
Priest
c
a
b
b
Narcissism and Pedophilia 47
Group
Priest
Pedophile
a
b
Priest
Ephebophile
b b a a
a
b
Psychiatric
Priest
b
b
b

Narcissism and Pedophilia 48
(control pedophile, control priest, priest molester, and psychiatric priest) and level
of overcontrolled-hostility as assessed by mean t scores on the MMPI-2
Overcontrolled-Hostility Scale (OH). Specifically, priest molesters will reveal a
significantly higher level of overcontrolled-hostility than control pedophiles, control
priests, and psychiatric priests.

Participants
CHAPTER II
Method
Narcissism and Pedophilia 49
Experimental Groups. There were five groups of participants in this study: 1) priest
pedophiles, 2) priest ephebophiles, 3) psychiatric priests, 4) control priests, and 5) control
pedophiles. The first three groups were composed of 110 priests (30 pedophile, 40
ephebophile, and 40 psychiatric) who were referred to a Catholic inpatient psychiatric
facility in Maryland for a psychological evaluation. Based on information gathered from
psychiatric, psychological, neuropsychological, psychosocial, spiritual, and medical
assessment measures as well as clinical interviews, individuals in the first two groups were
diagnosed with Pedophilia and Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified-Ephebophilia,
respectively. None of the participants in these two groups had a dual diagnosis. The
psychiatric priest group presented with V-code diagnoses as well as other psychological
disorders such as Occupational Problems, Other Interpersonal Problem, Adjustment
Disorder with Depressed Mood, Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood, or No
Diagnosis on Axis I. These individuals were not diagnosed with a sexual disorder or with
alcohol or substance abuse/dependence. All diagnoses for these three groups were based
on DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria depending on the date the evaluation was conducted.
Control Groups. The control priest group consisted of 30 active priests of the
Archdiocese in Baltimore, Maryland, who were not receiving any known psychological
treatment for a paraphilia at the time of their participation. For these control priests, the
mean number of years since ordination was 23.45 (SD = 13.39, n = 30). In addition, type
of seminary training for these participants was as follows: 11 religious order, 18 diocesan,
and 1 religious order and diocesan.

Narcissism and Pedophilia 50
The control pedophile group was composed of 28 individuals who met the DSM-IV
criteria for Pedophilia. They also met the criteria for fixated pedophilia (i.e., sexual
preference for children) as outlined by Groth and Birnbaum (1978). The twenty-eight
participants were actively attending group psychotherapy sessions. Frequency of
attendance ranged from weekly to one session every 3 months. Fifteen of the control
pedophile participants were obtained at a national center for treatment of sexual disorders in
Maryland. Two of those participants were verbally administered the MMPI-2 by the
investigator due to illiteracy and blindness. Two participants, despite their diagnosis, had
not directly acted upon their sexual impulses, although their fantasies and behaviors were
associated with sexual intentions with a child (i.e., internet child pornography). All
diagnoses were obtained through review of medical records by the examiner.
Thirteen control pedophile participants were obtained at an outpatient sexual
disorders clinic in Pennsylvania. Two of the control pedophile participants did not
complete the demographic information sheet; however, one of those participants included
his age while the other did not. In order for the test material to be analyzed, a mean age of
all control pedophile participants was computed and utilized for that particular protocol.
Those two protocols, however, could not be included in any statistical analyses of
descriptive data other than those involving age.
All participants were treated in accordance with the "Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (APA, 1992) as well as within the provisions
established by Loyola College's Human Subjects Review Board.
Materials
Demographic Variables. Demographic variables for the control pedophiles
included: age, race, education, occupation, number of victims, gender of victim (s), age of
onset of sexual disorder, length of incarceration for any crime committed as a result of their

Narcissism and Pedophilia 51
sexual disorder, and prior psychiatric history/treatment for their sexual disorder or other
psychological problems (Appendix B). The following demographic information for the
control priests was collected: age, race, education, type of seminary training (i.e., religious
order or diocesan), number of years since ordination, and prior psychiatric
history/treatment (Appendix C).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. The MMPI was developed in 1943
by Hathaway and McKinley and was a widely used self-report measure of personality until
its revision in 1989 (Graham, 1993). The MMPI-2 was constructed to include a much
larger and more heterogeneous normative sample, to reconstruct the original components of
the MMPI scales, and to include additional content scales to measure personality features
(Mann et al., 1992). The MMPI-2 contains 567 items including 3 validity scales: Lie (L),
Infrequency (F), and Correction (K); and 10 clinical scales: 1) Hypochondriasis (Hs), 2)
Depression (D), 3) Hysteria (Hy), 4) Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), 5) Paranoia (Pa), 6)
Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), 7) Psychasthenia (Pt), 8) Schizophrenia (Sc), 9) Mania (Ma),
and 0) Social Introversion (Si). This measure also includes supplementary scales such as
Anxiety (A), Repression (R), Ego Strength (Es), MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale, Revised
(MAC-R), Overcontrolled Hostility (O-H), Dominance (Do), Social Responsibility (Re),
College Maladjustment (Mt), Gender Role-Masculine (GM), Gender Role-Feminine (GF),
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-Keane (PK), and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder-
Schlenger (PS). In addition, there are 15 content scales which include Anxiety (ANX),
Fears (FRS), Obsessiveness (OBS), Depression (DEP), Health Concerns (HEA), Bizarre
Mentation (BIZ), Anger (ANG), Cynicism (CYN), Antisocial Practices (ASP), Type A
(TPA), Low Self-Esteem (LSE), Social Discomfort (SOD), Family Problems (FAM),
Work Interference (WRK), and Negative Treatment Indicators (TRT). Raw scores based
upon true-false responses are converted into T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard

Narcissism and Pedophilia 52
deviation of 10. T scores ≥ 65 on the MMPI-2 clinical scales are usually indicative of
significant elevations (Greene, 1991) and will be considered as such in this study.
The MMPI-2 has demonstrated average test-retest reliability over a one-week period
of .79 for normal men and women. For normal males, test-retest coefficients have ranged
from .72 to .89 on the individual clinical scales (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &
Kaemmer, 1989). Internal consistency reliability estimates for normal males have been
found to range from .34 to .85 on the individual clinical scales (Butcher et al., 1989).
Furthermore, internal consistency for psychiatric inpatients has ranged from .60 to .92
(Boone, 1994).
The MMPI-2 is considered a valid measure such that raw scores for both normal
and psychiatric subjects have been found to be strongly correlated with the original version
of the MMPI (r > .98; Graham, 1988). In terms of 2-point scale configuration, average
agreement between the MMPI and the MMPI-2 have been found to be 86% for normal
males and 76% for psychiatric males (Graham, Timbrook, Ben-Porath, & Butcher, 1991).
Criterion-related validity as indicated by correlations with counterpart scales on the SCL-
90-R was found to be somewhat weak, however, with the highest correlation being .52 on
the Somatization counterpart scales (Graham et al., 1991). The correlation between the
Depression scale on the MMPI-2 and its SCL-90-R counterpart has been found to be only
.16 and that of the Schizophrenia counterparts was .11 (Graham et al., 1991). Overall,
psychometric data on the MMPI-2 is fairly limited (Graham, 1993), especially with regard
to the target populations of this study. It is of importance to note that the weaknesses in
these psychometric properties may be due to the fact that the MMPI-2 and the SCL-90-R
may not address those psychological constructs in a similar manner. Furthermore, the
overwhelming popularity of this instrument with clinicians world-wide provides evidence
for its utility.

Narcissism and Pedophilia 53
Because overcontrolled-hostility is a focus of this study, it is relevant to describe
the MMPI-2 O-H scale. It was developed by Megargee, Cook, and Mendelsohn (1967)
who contrasted item responses of extremely assaultive prisoners, moderately assaultive
prisoners, nonassaultive prisoners, and normals (Greene, 1991). This scale consists of 31
items and, although Megargee et al. did not specify a cut-off point, high scorers tend to
evidence extreme control of hostile impulses and typically are socially introverted, reluctant
to admit to any psychological difficulties, and unable to express feelings of anxiety.
Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale (MWB). The 22-item MMPI-
derived MWB scale (Morey et al., 1985) was initially rationally constructed according to
MMPI item responses chosen by clinical psychologists as typifying narcissism. Empirical
validation was performed with t-test analyses for high and low scorers on particular items.
There were seven items dropped from the Narcissism scale (NAR) due to failure to meet
the .05 criteria. Psychometric analyses of responses from 475 psychiatric patients revealed
an internal consistency of .78 (KR-20); however, this statistic was slightly lower (KR-20 =
.71) when overlapping items were eliminated. There was a significant effect for gender for
the full MWB scale where males (M = 15.85, SD = 4.78) scored higher than females (M =
14.10, SD = 5.14). As was found with other MMPI-derived Narcissism scales, the MWB
scale had a correlation with the MA clinical scale of .44.
Raskin and Novacek Narcissism Scale (RN). The MMPI-derived RN scale
consists of 42 items. Based on a correlational analysis of the MMPI and the Narcissistic
Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979) scores for undergraduates, Raskin and
Novacek (1989) found that the NPI was positively correlated with the Mania scale (r = .29,
p < .01) and negatively correlated with the Depression (r = -.36, p < .01), Psychasthenia (r
= -.34, p < .01), Social Introversion (r = -.40, p

Narcissism and Pedophilia 54
analyses correlated 42 MMPI items with the 40-item full scale of the NPI (r = .79). Those
42 items reflected an alpha internal consistency coefficient of .65, suggesting homogeneity
among items. In fact, 64% of both the men and women who were identified as highly
narcissistic based on the NPI 90th percentile cutoff point had the Ma scale as their highest
scale elevation. Furthermore, 55% and 36% of the male and female group cases,
respectively, had the Sc scale as the first or second highest score. Typically, a 9/8-8/9
profile exemplifies individuals who are grandiose, self-centered, demand attention from
others, and are prone to hostility and resentment toward others (Graham, 1988).
In terms of NPI first order component scales, the NPI Entitlement scale was
positively correlated with the MA (r = .29, p < .001), Pd (r = .19, p < .001) and F (r =
.25, p < .01) scales with the F scale also being correlated with the Exploitativeness scale (r
= .15, p < .05). Both the Exploitative and Authority scales were positively correlated with
the Ma scale (r = .39, p < .001; r = . 15, p < .05, respectively). Most of these correlations
appear to be related to MMPI imperturbability, self-aggrandizement, and aggressive
content. Furthermore, the significant relationships between the NPI and the MMPI Ma and
Pd content scales were specific to ego inflation, problems with authority, manifest hostility,
psychoticism, and amorality.
Wink and Gough Narcissism Scale (WG). This 39-item scale was rationally
derived from those MMPI items which most reflected narcissism domains of exaggerated
self-esteem, devaluation of others, feelings of entitlement, and dissatisfaction with current
status (Wink & Gough, 1990). These items were correlated with seemingly
complementary items from the California Personality Inventory (CPI; item sets with a
correlation below .20 were eliminated). Thirteen analyses were conducted until the final
39-item scale was developed.

Narcissism and Pedophilia 55
Both MMPI and CPI Narcissism scales were administered to 350 male and female
community residents and 198 males and female undergraduates. Results revealed that
college students (M = 20.21, SD = 5.02) scored significantly higher on both of these scales
than the adults (M = 18.90, SD = 5.02). Both adult (M = 20.50, SD = 4.88) and
undergraduate males (M = 21.03, SD = 5.16) scored significantly higher on the MMPI
Narcissism Scale than did their respective female counterparts (M = 17.30, SD = 5.16; M =
19.39, SD = 4.88). Alpha internal consistency was .72 for this scale. Correlation between
full scale CPI and MMPI Narcissism scales was .81; however, this decreased to .71 upon
elimination of 14 overlapping items for each scale. This scale was most highly correlated
with the MA scale (r = .57, p < .01) suggesting that items tap into characteristics of high
energy level, expressive emotionality, and impatience.
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Scale (NH). Serkownek (1975) developed this
MMPI-derived 18-item scale on a factor analysis of MMPI Masculinity-Femininity scale
scores of 422 psychiatric inpatients, outpatients, and nonpatients performed by Graham,
Schroeder, and Lilly (1971). Mullins and Kopelman (1988) revealed moderate correlations
between the Margolis-Thomas Measure of Narcissism (MT; Margolis, & Thomas, 1980),
the Narcissistic Personality Disorder Scale (NPD), and the Narcissism-Hypersensitivity
Scale (NH; rs = .42, .40, and .44, respectively). In addition, they found the NH scale to
be positively correlated with Machiavellianism (r = .44, p < .001), operationally defined as
the manipulation of others for personal gain, and Need for Autonomy (r = .18, p < .01),
described as one's need for independence and self-direction, as assessed by the 20-item
Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) and the Manifest Needs Questionnaire (Steers &
Braunstein, 1976), respectively. The NH scale also was found to be negatively correlated
with Social Desirability Scale (r = -.38, p < .001) as assessed by the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale (Reynolds, 1982). Internal consistency for the NH scale was .52

Narcissism and Pedophilia 56
(KR-20). It must be noted that, because the MMPI Mf subscale attends to hypersensitivity,
six items on the NH scale were eliminated in this study based on their seeming irrelevance
to this construct.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder Scale (NPD). The NPD scale (Ashby, Lee, &
Duke, 1979) is a 19-item subscale of the MMPI derived by comparing MMPI responses of
20 patients diagnosed by psychoanalysts as narcissistic and controls consisting of
individuals in psychotherapy and individuals not in treatment. Mean scores for these
patients was 10.00 (SD = 3.80) whereas normals obtained mean scores of 3.66 (SD =
1.10: Ashby, Lee, and Duke, 1979). In a study by Solomon (1982), the NPD scale was
found to be negatively correlated with self-concept (r = -.61, p < .001) and involvement in
satisfying love relationship (r = -.42, p < .001) as assessed by the Tennessee Self-concept
Scale (Fitts, 1965) and a Profile Questionnaire comprising demographic information which
was designed by the author, respectively.
Mullins and Kopelman (1988) eliminated seven NPD items in their study that
overlapped with the MMPI Sc scale as well as two more items found to be "archaic in
content." Based on their nine-item version of the NPD scale, internal consistency for this
subscale was fairly low with a reliability estimate of .42 (KR-20). It was predicted that,
for all subscales in their study, reliability would have been greater with increased item
number. The NPD scale was found to be moderately correlated with the MT and the NH
scale. It was positively correlated with Machiavellianism (r = .38, p < .001) which was
operationally defined as the manipulation of others for personal gain as well as Need for
Autonomy (r = .18, p < .01) which was described as one's need for independence and
self-direction. The NPD scale was negatively correlated, however, with Social Desirability
(r = -.29, p < .001), described as a tendency for an individual to present himself/herself in

Narcissism and Pedophilia 57
a more favorable light. This was assessed via the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).
Fink (1991) revealed the NPD scale to be positively correlated with the NH scale (r
= .50, p < .01), the Ego-Sensitivity Scale (r = .45, p < .01), and the WG scale (r = .17, p
< .01). On the other hand, it was negatively correlated with the RN scale (r = -.18, p <
.01) and the MWB scale (r = -.26, p < .01).
MMPI-2 counterpart items of the MMPI were utilized for analysis and those items
that did not correspond with the relative meaning of the original item were excluded from
the scale. A list of corresponding MMPI and MMPI-2 item numbers from each narcissism
scale and those items excluded are found in Appendixes D through H. Actual item
statements for the excluded items Grandiosity-Exhibitionism and Vulnerability-Sensitivity
scales are listed in Appendixes I and J, respectively. Item statements which were rephrased
from the original MMPI item statement were still included in the respective narcissism scale
and are indicated in Appendix K.
In order to construct the narcissism scales, each item contained in the specific scale
was extracted from the MMPI-2 protocol and combined with the other scale items in order
to establish the completed scale. All narcissism scales are provided in Appendixes L
through P.
Procedure
MMPI-2 data for the priest pedophile, priest ephebophile, and psychiatric priest
groups were collected from the Catholic psychiatric facility's computer database. Thirty
protocols for the priest pedophile group, 40 protocols for the ephebophile group, and 40
protocols for the psychiatric priest group were utilized for statistical analyses. T-scores for
the MMPI-2 validity scales (L, F, and K) for each of these groups were obtained to ensure
inclusion of valid protocols. In addition, MMPI-2 T scores for the O-H scale as well as

Narcissism and Pedophilia 58
individual item responses for all protocols were obtained. Item responses included in each
particular MMPI-2 derived narcissism scale were extracted according to the guidelines of
each scale. Age and education for each protocol also was used for analysis of descriptive
data.
In order to preserve confidentiality, all above-mentioned data were provided by a
staff member of the psychiatric facility. Patient profiles initially were referred by their
hospital number; however, once the final list of protocols was completed, protocols were
randomly assigned a new case code according to group membership.
Participants for the control priest group were solicited on a voluntary basis as listed
in the telephone directory. They were informed that the purpose of the research project was
to obtain information relevant to the treatment of priests with psychological difficulties.
Data for the control pedophiles were collected through two outpatient sexual
disorders treatment facilities in Maryland and Pennsylvania. One protocol was collected
from a private clinician in Maryland. All procedures followed regulations of each particular
facility. Control pedophile participants were solicited on a voluntary basis and were
informed that their participation would provide additional information as to the assessment
and treatment of sexual disorders.
Both the control pedophile and control priest participants were given two informed
consent documents to sign (see Appendixes Q and R), one copy the participant retained for
their records, the other copy was placed in an envelope separate from their test material for
the record of the investigator. Control priest and control pedophile participants then
completed a demographic information sheet followed by the MMPI-2. Collected protocols
were only referred to by their randomly assigned case code in order to maintain
confidentiality.

Design and Analyses
Narcissism and Pedophilia 59
Group membership (control pedophile, control priest, priest molester, and
psychiatric priest) was the predictor variable and degree of narcissism (grandiosity-
exhibitionism and vulnerability-sensitivity measure) and overcontrolled-hostility were the
criterion variables.
Because groups were significantly different with regard to age and education, these
variables were held constant for all statistical analyses. Therefore, a multivariate analysis
of covariance (MANCOVA) and planned contrast t tests were performed to address
hypotheses la, 1b, and 2. Degree of Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) narcissism for each
group was assessed by the Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale (MWB), the
Raskin and Novacek Narcissism Scale (RN), and the Wink and Gough Narcissism Scale
(WG: hypotheses 1a and 1b). Degree of Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) narcissism for each
group was assessed by the Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Scale (NH) and the Narcissistic
Personality Disorder Scale (NPD: hypothesis 2). A MANCOVA used the shared variance
among the dependent variables (i.e., MMPI-2 narcissism scales) to create two composite
variables. Finally, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to assess
hypothesis 3. Group membership and level of overcontrolled-hostility was evaluated by
the MMPI-2 O-H scale.
Priest pedophiles and priest ephebophiles were not expected to differ significantly
on any given measure. However, comparisons still were made via the above-mentioned
statistical analyses. These groups were combined and referred to as priest molesters for
those statistical measures where no differences between groups were found.
An alpha level of .05 was used to determine statistical significance for all statistical
analyses. Statistical analyses used mean T scores for the MMPI-2 validity scales and the

Narcissism and Pedophilia 60
MMPI-2 O-H scale, and used mean raw total scores for each of the MMPI-2 derived
narcissism scales.

Preliminary Analyses
CHAPTER III
Results
Narcissism and Pedophilia 61
Because previous research (Robinson, 1994) has not found significant differences
between the priest pedophile and priest ephebophile groups, independent t-tests were
performed between those two groups on age, education, and each of the MMPI-2 validity
and clinical scales in order to determine whether they could be combined into a single priest
molester group. Table 3 reveals the results of the independent t-test analyses. A significant
difference was indicated for age, t (49.49) = 2.31, p (two-tailed) = .03, d = .59, such that
priest pedophiles (M = 56.73, SD = 11.70, n = 30) were significantly older than priest
ephebophiles (M = 50.95, SD = 8.24, n = 40). An independent t-test also revealed a
significant relationship between group and grandiosity-exhibitionism (MWB scale), t
(64.25) = -2.09, p (two-tailed) = .04, d = -1.00, such that priest pedophiles (M = 13.27,
SD = 3.12, n = 30) scored significantly lower on the MWB scale than priest ephebophiles
(M = 14.87, SD = 3.28, n = 40). Therefore, for the remainder of the analyses, all
statistical analyses involving the variables of age and the MWB scale compared the original
5 groups (i.e., control pedophiles, control priests, priest pedophiles, priest ephebophiles,
and psychiatric priests); however, all other statistical analyses combined priest pedophiles
and priest ephebophiles into a priest molester group.
Demographic Data
Control pedophiles.
Demographic data for the control pedophile group was collected via each
participants' voluntary disclosure of information on the demographics form which was
provided with the research materials. All missing data from participants at the sexual
disorders clinic in Maryland were obtained in their medical records. However, charts of

Table 3
Narcissism and pedophilia 62
Summary of Independent t-Tests between Priest Pedophiles and Priest Ephebophiles
Variable
Age
t
5.72
df
49.49*
t prob. (two-tailed)
Education -.41 68 .69
MMPI-2 L Scale -.91 68 .37
MMPI-2 F Scale 1.26 68 .21
MMPI-2 K Scale -1.33 68 .19
MMPI-2 Overcontrolled-
Hostility Scale
Morey, Waugh, and
Blashfield Scale
-.24
-2.09
68
64.25*
Raskin and Novacek Scale -1.11 68 .27
Wink and Gough Scale
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity
Scale
Narcissistic Personality
Disorder Scale
.03
.81
.04
.43 68 .67
-.72
1.73
Note. * indicates degrees of freedom representing unequal group variance (p < .05).
68
68
.48
.09

Narcissism and pedophilia 63
those participants from the facility in Pennsylvania were not available. Therefore, the
missing data for those participants could not be retrieved.
Table 4 describes demographic data collected for the control pedophile group. All
control pedophile participants were male (n = 28) with a mean age of 46.00 (SD = 13.10, n
= 28). Mean education level was 13.10 years (SD = 2.92, n = 25). Mean age of onset
was 20.84 (SD = 12.70, n = 25). Occupation was categorized as follows: White Collar (n
= 5), Blue Collar (n = 11), Disability (n = 4), Retired (n = 6). The majority of control
pedophiles were Caucasian (n = 24), although two participants were African American.
Mean number of victims was 13.28 (SD = 15.32, n = 25) with ten participants preferring
male victims, six participants preferring female victims, and nine participants preferring
both male and female victims. Sixteen participants (n = 26) were previously incarcerated
for child molestation with a mean length of incarceration of 4.00 years (SD = 4.25, n =
16). Mean length of current group treatment was 4.30 years (SD = 5.03, n = 26) and 16 of
26 participants received previous psychiatric treatment for their sexual disorder and/or other
psychological problems. Seven participants met the criteria for a dual diagnosis. Eight of
13 participants were diagnosed with a personality disorder.
Control priests.
Table 5 describes demographic data for the control priest group. Participants' mean
age was 51.87 (SD = 11.66, n = 30) and mean number of years of education was 18.83
(SD = 1.63, n = 29). Eleven participants received religious order training, eighteen
received diocesan training, and one participant received both. Mean number of years since
ordination was 23.45 (SD = 13.39, n = 30). Twenty-eight participants were Caucasian
and two were Asian. Approximately fifty percent of control priests (n = 14) received
psychiatric treatment prior to their participation.

Table 4
Demographic Data for Control Pedophiles
Variable
Age
Years of Education
Race
Caucasian
African American
Occupation
White Collar
Blue Collar
Disability
Retired
Age of Onset
Victim Number
Gender Preference
Male
Female
Both
Length of Incarceration
Previous psychiatric treatment
Yes
No
Length of Treatment
Dual Diagnosis
Yes
No
Personality Disorder
Yes
No
n
28
28
24 2
5
11
4
6
25
25
Narcissism and pedophilia 64
M
46.00
13.10
20.84
13.28
SD
13.10
2.92
12.70
15.32
10
6
9
15 4.00 4.25
16
10
26 4.30 5.03
7
6
8
5

Table 5
Demographic Data for Control Priests
Variable
Age
n
30
Narcissism and pedophilia 65
M
51.87
SD
11.66
Years of Education 30 18.83 1.63
Race
Caucasian
Asian
Type of Training
Diocesan
Religious Order
Both
Previous Psychiatric Treatment
Yes
No
28
2
18
11
1
14
16

Narcissism and pedophilia 66
Priest pedophiles, priest ephebophiles, and psychiatric priests.
Table 5 outlines demographic data for the priest pedophile, priest ephebophile, and
psychiatric groups. The mean age for the priest pedophile and priest ephebophile
participants was 56.73 (SD = 11.70, n = 30) and 50.95 (SD = 8.24, n = 40), respectively.
For years of education, priest pedophiles averaged 19.37 (SD = 2.1, n = 30) and priest
ephebophiles averaged 19.58 (SD = 2.17, n = 40). For the psychiatric priests, average age
was 43.23 (SD = 10.13) and mean years of education was 19.42 (SD = 2.51). All of these
priest groups were Caucasian.
Descriptive Data
Comparison of age and education for all groups.
Table 6 provides a summary of statistical analyses for age and level of education for
all participant groups. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference for age, F (4,
163) = 7.94, p (two-tailed) = .00, η 2 = .16. Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses indicated that
control priests (M = 51.87, SD = 11.66, n = 30) were significantly older than psychiatric
priests (M = 43.23, SD = 10.13, n = 40). Priest pedophiles (M = 56.73, SD = 11.70, n =
30) were significantly older than control pedophiles (M = 46.00, SD = 13.10, n = 28) and
psychiatric priests. Finally, priest ephebophiles (M = 50.95, SD = 8.24, n = 40) were
significantly older than psychiatric priests. A one-way ANOVA also indicated a significant
difference for education, F (3, 160) = 53.00, p (two-tailed) = .00, η 2 = .50. Tukey HSD
post-hoc analyses indicated that control pedophiles (M = 13.10, SD = 2.92, n = 25) had
significantly fewer years of education than control priests (M = 18.83, SD = 1.63, n = 29),
priest molesters (M = 19.49, SD = 2.13, n = 70), and psychiatric priests (M = 19.42, SD
= 2.51, n = 40). Specifically, control pedophiles tended to have one year of college level
education while all priest groups tended to have five years of graduate level education.

Table 6
Statistical Analyses for Age and Education by Group
Control
Pedophile
Control
Priest
Group
Priest
Pedophile
Age
Narcissism and pedophilia 67
Priest
Ephebophile
Priest
Molester
Psychiatric
Priest
M 46.00 b 51.87 a 56.73 bc 50.95 d 53.43 43.23 acd *
SD
13.10
11.66
11.70
Education
8.24
10.21
10.13
M 13.10 abc 18.83 a 19.37 19.58 19.49 b 19.42 c *
SD
2.92
1.63
2.11
2.17
2.13
Note. * indicates significant Univariate F, p < .05. Different superscripts indicate
significant group mean differences as revealed by Tukey post-hoc tests.
2.51

Narcissism and pedophilia 68
Because age and education were found to be significantly different among groups, these
variables were held constant for all subsequent statistical analyses.
Primary Analyses
Statistical analyses for the MMPI-2 validity scales.
A MANCOVA was conducted to determine whether there were differences between the
groups on the MMPI Validity scales (L, F, and K). Table 7 provides a summary of
these statistical analyses. The MANCOVA revealed a significant difference between the
groups on the MMPI-2 validity scales, Wilks' Λ=.85, F (9, 377.38) = 2.93, p = .00.
Univariate F tests indicated a significant effect for only the MMPI-2 F scale, F (3, 157) =
7.78, p (two-tailed) = .00, η 2 = .13. Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses revealed a significant
difference between control pedophiles (M = 65.79, SD = 24.89, n = 28), control priests
(M = 44.03, SD = 4.44, n = 30), priest molesters (M = 44.14, SD = 6.11, n = 70), and
psychiatric priests (M = 43.60, SD = 6.34, n = 40), such that control pedophiles presented
themselves as having more psychological difficulties than all priest groups.
Statistical Analyses for the MMPI-2 Narcissism Scales.
A correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship among the
narcissism scales (see Table 8) and to assess the construct validity among the measures.
Results from this data analysis showed the Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield (MWB) scale
was significantly related to the Raskin and Novacek (RN) scale, r (168)=.73, p (two-tailed)
= .00, suggesting good construct validity for these measures of Grandiosity-Exhibitionism
(GE) narcissism. A moderate relationship was revealed between the MWB and Wink and
Gough (WG) scale, r (168)= .35, p (two-tailed) = .00, as well as the RN and WG scales, r
(168) = .42, p = .00, indicating a relationship between these scales and GE narcissism.
With regard to Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) narcissism, a significant relationship was

Table 7
Narcissism and pedophilia 69
Summary of Statistical Analyses for MMPI-2 L, F, and K Validity Scales by Group
Validity Scale
MMPI-2 L
Control
Pedophile
55.22 (13.14)
Control
Priest
53.30 (8.61)
Priest
Molester
50.56 (10.24)
Psychiatric
Priest
51.85 (7.90)
MMPI-2 F 65.79 (24.89) b 44.03 (4.44) a 44.14 (6.11) a 43.60 (6.34) a *
MMPI-2 K
47.63 (11.76)
57.40 (8.39)
55.77 (9.14)
56.21 (9.34)
Note. Values not enclosed in parentheses represent mean T scores. Values enclosed in
parentheses represent standard deviations. * indicates significant Univariate F, p < .00.
Different superscripts indicate significant group mean differences as revealed by Tukey
post-hoc tests.

Table 8
Intercorrelations Between Narcissism Scales
Narcissism Scale
Grandiosity-Exhibitionism
1. Morey, Waugh, and
Blashfield
Narcissism and pedophilia 70
2
73**
3
.35**
4
-.17*
5
-.32**
2. Raskin and Novacek .42** .03 -.16*
3. Wink and Gough .42** .31**
Vulnerability-Sensitivity
4. Narcissism-Hypersensitivity .59**
5. Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Note. *p < .05, two-tailed, **p < .01, two-tailed.

Narcissism and pedophilia 71
revealed between the Narcissism-Hypersensitivity (NH) scales and the Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD), r (168) = .59, p (two-tailed) = .00, suggesting good construct
validity for these measures of VS narcissism.
The MWB scale was found to be negatively correlated with both the NH scale, r
(168) = -.17, p (two-tailed) = .03 and the NPD scale, r (168) = -.32, p (two-tailed) = .00,
indicating a distinction between the two types of narcissism. However, a relationship was
indicated between the NPD and WG scales, r (168) = .31, p (two-tailed) = .00, as well as
the NH and WG scales, r (168) = .42, p (two-tailed) = .00, suggesting an overlap between
the scales on VS and GE narcissism, which was expected given similarities in personality
characteristics of each type of narcissism. Overall, the correlation analyses demonstrated
good construct validity for each narcissism type, despite some relationship between GE and
VS subscales.
Statistical Analyses for Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) and Vulnerability-
Sensitivity (VS) Narcissism.
Table 9 represents statistical analyses conducted on Grandiosity-Exhibitionism
(GE) and Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) narcissism. A MANCOVA, using the MWB, RN,
and WG scales to form a composite variable for Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE)
narcissism, failed to support the prediction (hypothesis 1) that there would be a significant
difference between group membership and GE narcissism (p > .05). It is important to
note; however, that Univariate F tests revealed a significant difference among groups for
the MWB scale, F (4, 157) = 4.28, p (one-tailed) = .00, η 2 = .10, but not for the other GE
subscales. Contrast t-tests further indicated that, converse to prediction (hypothesis 1a),
priest pedophiles (M = 13.27, SD = 3.12, n = 30) and priest ephebophiles (M = 14.87, SD
= 3.28, n = 40) scored significantly lower on the MWB scale than control pedophiles (M =
15.61, SD = 3.29, n = 28), control priests (M = 16.57, SD = 3.11, n = 30), and

Table 9
Narcissism and pedophilia 72
Summary of Statistical Analyses for Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) Narcissism,
Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) Narcissism, and Overcontrolled-Hostility by Group
MWB
RN
WG
NH
NPD
Control
Pedophile
n=28
15.61 a
(3.29)
15.93
(3.29)
14.93
(5.41)
7.64 b
(2.77)
5.50 b
(3.66)
51.78
(10.52)
Control
Priest
n=30
16.57 a
(3.11)
15.87
(4.08)
13.57
(3.72)
5.60 a
(2.01)
2.40 a
(1.45)
57.07
(7.76)
Group
Priest
Pedophile
n=30
13.27 b
(3.12)
13.43
(3.93)
12.50
(4.24)
5.70
(2.15)
3.87
(2.24)
Priest
Ephebophile
n=40
GE Narcissism
14.87 b
(3.28)
14.43
(3.51)
12.03
(4.77)
VS Narcissism
6.10
(2.43)
3.05
(1.72)
Overcontrolled-Hostility
54.27
(8.38)
54.85
(11.27)
Priest
Molester
n=70
14.19
(3.29)
14.00
(3.70)
12.23
(4.53)
5.93 a
(2.31)
3.40 a
(1.99)
54.60
(10.07)
Psychiatric
Priest
n=40
16.03 a *
(3.52)
15.27
(4.10)
13.33
(4.44)
5.48 a *
(2.61)
2.35 a *
(1.67)
54.90
(8.84)
Note. Values not enclosed in parentheses represent mean raw scores. Values enclosed in
parentheses represent standard deviations. * indicates significant Univariate F, p < .00.
Different superscripts indicate significant group mean differences as revealed by Contrast t
tests.

Narcissism and pedophilia 73
psychiatric priests (M = 16.03, SD = 3.52, n = 40). Hypothesis 1b also was not
confirmed such that control priests and psychiatric priests did not score significantly higher
on the MWB scale than control pedophiles (p > .05).
Using the NH and NPD scales to establish a composite variable for VS narcissism,
a MANCOVA supported the prediction (hypothesis 2) that there would be a significant
difference between group membership and VS narcissism, Wilks' Λ = .89, F (6, 314) =
3.07, p (one-tailed) = .01. Univariate F tests indicated a significant effect for the NH
scale, F (3, 158) = 3.21, p (one-tailed) = .02, η 2 = .06 as well as the NPD scale, F (3,
158) = 5.50, p (one-tailed) = .00, η 2 = .09. Contrast t-tests for both the NH and NPD
scales, respectively, supported the prediction (hypothesis 2) that control pedophiles [(NH:
M = 7.64, SD = 2.77, n = 28), (NPD: M = 5.50, SD = 3.66)] would exhibit significantly
greater levels of VS narcissism than control priests [(NH: M = 5.60, SD = 2.01), (NPD: M
= 2.40, SD = 1.45), n = 30], priest molesters [(NH: M = 5.93, SD = 2.31), (NPD: M =
3.40, SD = 1.99), n = 70] and psychiatric priests [(NH: M = 5.48, SD = 2.61), (NPD: M
= 2.35, SD 1.67), n = 40].
Statistical Analyses for Overcontrolled-Hostility (OH).
An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was utilized to compare overcontrolled-
hostility by group; however, statistical analyses failed to support hypothesis 3 (p > .05),
which predicted priest molesters would reveal significantly higher levels of overcontrolled-
hostility than control priests, control pedophiles, and psychiatric priests (see Table 9).

CHAPTER IV
Discussion
Narcissism and pedophilia 74
The purpose of this project was to determine if subpopulations of pedophiles could
be distinguished by specific personality characteristics. In particular, it was proposed that
pedophiles who are priests would differ in the degree to which they display certain
narcissism traits as compared to pedophiles who are not priests (who will be referred to as
"generic pedophiles"). That is, priest molesters were predicted to exhibit greater symptoms
of Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) narcissism than their generic pedophile counterparts, as
well as two other priest groups: psychiatric controls and healthy, nonpsychiatric controls.
Furthermore, these nonpedophile priests (who will be referred to as "healthy priests") and
priests in psychiatric treatment for psychological problems (who will be referred to as
psychiatric priests) were proposed to have higher levels of GE narcissism than generic
pedophiles. On the other hand, generic pedophiles were expected to possess higher levels
of Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) narcissism than their priest molester counterparts, as well
as healthy priests and psychiatric priests. Finally, overcontrolled-hostility, which bears an
important theoretical relationship to narcissistic qualities, was postulated as being a more
prominent personality feature of priest molesters (priest pedophiles and priest
ephebophiles) than all other groups.
Findings Related to Demographic Information
Prior to interpreting the primary statistical analyses, the findings from preliminary
analyses should be addressed. Significant differences were revealed among the different
populations in this study with regard to age of the perpetrators at the time of the
assessment. First, these analyses identified that priest pedophiles were markedly older than
priest ephebophiles. If one considers the victim age categories for these perpetrators, it is
possible that the younger child victims of the priest pedophiles may have been more fearful

Narcissism and pedophilia 75
of disclosing their abuse than the adolescent victims of the priest ephebophiles. Thus,
priest pedophiles may have been identified after more years of abuse transpired. In
addition, it is possible that the child victims experienced more confusion during their abuse
as to the appropriateness of the sexual perpetration, whereas the adolescent was more
knowledgeable of the inappropriate behavior and, thus, revealed the abuse sooner. This
difference might be due to the fact that priest ephebophiles who, theoretically and
empirically, are thought to have greater problem solving abilities and less impaired
cognitive processes than priest pedophiles (Kalichman, 1991; Robinson, 1994), identified
their need for treatment at an earlier age than the priest pedophiles who denied or lacked
insight into their problem until they were older.
Second, it was found that priest pedophiles and priest ephebophiles were
significantly older than psychiatric priests. It is possible that there is a relationship between
the nature of their treatment referral (i.e., pedophilia/ephebophilia and other DSM-IV
diagnoses, respectively) and their age. In particular, it is likely that the psychological and
behavioral problems of priest child molesters were kept secret and not publicly identified
until the priest molesters were much older. That is, their sexual perpetration may not have
been disclosed to their superior or another adult (i.e., parent, police) until after many years
of covering it up and/or the child not disclosing their victimization. Typically with other
psychological problems (i.e., adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety), symptoms and
behaviors related to the emotional impairment are more obvious and can be more readily
addressed.
In addition, individuals with those types of diagnosable disorders tend to evidence a
marked decrease in social and occupational functioning, as opposed to priest molesters,
whose external functioning can remain, or appear, relatively consistent. Another factor
might involve voluntary treatment. Priest molesters who independently hospitalized

Narcissism and pedophilia 76
themselves may have remained in denial of their problem much longer due to the legal,
social, and personal scrutinization they predicted would occur. This contrasts with
psychiatric priests who might be motivated sooner to seek treatment due to the emotional
distress from which they have suffered.
Third, priest pedophiles were significantly older than generic pedophiles. It is
likely that because of their high societal status, priest pedophiles could hide their sexual
behaviors longer than their generic pedophile counterparts whose behaviors may have been
more conceivable and readily admonished. It is noted that generic pedophiles were not
significantly younger than priest ephebophiles, likely due to the combination of generic
pedophiles being more easily detected and priest ephebophiles having victims which
possess greater maturity and confidence to reveal the abuse.
Fourth, healthy priests were substantially older than psychiatric priests. It is
difficult to explain the age differential given that their participation occurred at different
facilities and under different circumstances (i.e., voluntarily vs. unknowingly,
respectively). However, because the populations of priests in general is negatively skewed
(i.e., the majority of priests are older) along with the fact that younger priests may be more
accepting of the need to seek treatment for psychiatric problems, this finding is not
surprising.
In addition to age, the number of years participants were formally educated was
examined. Generic pedophiles were found to average about one year of college education,
which was markedly less than the graduate and theological training all of the priest groups
received. Although this was not investigated in this study, it is possible that there is a
relationship between education and age at which different subpopulations of pedophiles are
identified. As researchers demonstrated, generic pedophiles tend to be socially inadequate
(Erickson et al., 1987; Hall et al., 1991; Kalichman, 1991; Mann et al., 1992) and evidence

Narcissism and pedophilia 77
a greater degree of pathology than ephebophiles (Kalichman, 1991) which could be related
to education. With this in consideration, level of education might be positively related to
cognitive capacity, problem solving ability, and reality testing which all presumably are
related to the decisions individuals make. That is, priest molesters, because they have more
years of education, might possess higher intellectual capabilities, and, ultimately, a more
advanced ability to be discrete in their sexual behaviors. On the other hand, generic
pedophiles who have less education might have less sophisticated decision making skills
and decreased insight about the consequences of their sexual behaviors, making them
vulnerable to acting out their sexual impulses in less discrete ways and being caught
sooner.
Although education level has not been found to be significantly different between
generic pedophiles and ephebophiles (Kalichman, 1991), it might be that type of education
(i.e., liberal arts vs. seminary) is an essential factor. Evidence of this relationship in future
investigations would lend more credence to the idea that meaningful subpopulations of
pedophiles exist.
Other Findings Related to Psychological Functioning
One additional finding from the preliminary analyses was that priest ephebophiles
scored significantly higher on the MWB scale (GE narcissism) than priest pedophiles.
Although definite conclusions cannot be made regarding narcissism traits from just one
measure, this finding provides more weight to the description of priest ephebophiles as
being more socially capable, extroverted, and self-confident than priest pedophiles.
Of the many interesting findings, one revealed that generic pedophiles presented
themselves as experiencing more psychological problems than all the other groups, as
indicated by the MMPI-2 validity scales. As Wasyliw et al. (1994) suggested, generic
pedophiles tend to exaggerate psychological symptoms to justify and blame their behaviors

Narcissism and pedophilia 78
on a mental disorder rather than on deliberate judgment. In doing so, generic pedophiles
decrease their anxiety, guilt, and overall emotional distress related to their offense (s).
Without this coping mechanism to deter their responsibility, the generic pedophile may not
be able to withstand those intense emotions. However, it is also possible that generic
pedophiles genuinely believe they have greater pathology due to the nature of their offense.
This argument is supported by Kalichman (1991) who noted that pedophiles have greater
psychological disturbance than ephebophiles and other perpetrators of sexual crimes.
None of the priest groups, on the other hand, produced elevations on this variable
as compared to generic pedophiles. As the literature suggests (Keddy et al., 1990;
Kennedy et al., 1977; Plante et al., 1996a; Robinson, 1994), priests, in general, tend to
intellectualize their problems, thus, disconnecting from any internal emotional distress they
may experience. Therefore, it is perceivable that the priest molester may not acknowledge
their affect. This is quite problematic because, without treatment, they could be at high risk
for future offending.
Another explanation for the disparity between generic pedophiles and priest
molesters, is that it is unlikely that priest molesters would deliberately create a more
pathological profile of themselves, particularly given that their reputation has been ruined
from the identification of their sexual activities. In other words, by provoking additional
scrutiny to their professional and personal integrity, the priest molester would likely attempt
to present himself as psychologically functional as possible. In regard to healthy priests, it
is understandable that they would not perceive themselves as having emotional problems
since they seem healthy enough to be active in the community. Finally, it cannot be
overlooked that all priests submit to a psychological evaluation and, thus, they must have
been deemed emotionally and cognitively adjusted prior to ordination. If this is the case, it

Narcissism and pedophilia 79
is understandable that priests would not view themselves as having significant emotional
problems.
Findings From Hypothesis Tests
Statistical analyses failed to confirm that priest molesters would demonstrate
significantly more Grandiosity-Exhibitionism (GE) narcissism traits than generic
pedophiles, healthy priests, and psychiatric priests (hypothesis 1a). This may suggest that
priest molesters do not possess the level of assertiveness, self-centeredness, impulsivity,
and stubbornness (Wink, 1991) assumed in earlier works addressing this population.
Perhaps, rather than the priest qualities (i.e., extroversion, omnipotence, self-assuredness)
highlighting the personality dynamics of priest pedophiles, as was suggested, it might be
that the pedophile components (i.e., passivity, dependence, insecurity) instead decrease
any existing overt, GE narcissism traits.
Another possibility is that those priest pedophiles caught for their sexual
indiscretions may, in fact, have possessed GE traits to a greater degree than generic
pedophiles prior to their detection. However, upon identification of their sexual behaviors,
the overt narcissistic qualities (i.e., self-confidence, extroversion, grandiosity) may have
been subdued by the embarrassment and shame of discovery. Furthermore, priest
molesters have, in essence, lost their identity as they will no longer be respected and trusted
as individuals, but most importantly to them, as messengers and symbols of God. This
loss of sense of self could easily leave the priest molester experiencing intense emotional
distress, which was previously speculated as being intellectualized, but which nonetheless
could adversely alter their previous exaggerated positive self-perception.
The results of this study also rejected the prediction that healthy priests and
psychiatric priests would demonstrate significantly higher levels of GE narcissism than
generic pedophiles (hypothesis 1b). It is possible that healthy priests who volunteered to

Narcissism and pedophilia 80
participate in the study do not possess the extent of GE narcissism expected, compared to
those priests who declined to volunteer. In addition, psychiatric priests may have
emotional vulnerabilities that supercede any narcissistic tendencies. The variety of clinical
presentations within this group also might dilute their more demonstrative and typical
personality dynamics. Of course, those priests vulnerable to serious psychological
problems may, in fact, not possess the narcissistic traits predicted due to their inability to
cope effectively and independently with their problems. It also is possible that generic
pedophiles possess more GE traits than expected, and, although they may not exist as
primary characteristics, they are comparable to the level exhibited in healthy priests and
psychiatric priests.
One final thought about GE narcissism is that instead of utilizing the psychological
processes of GE narcissism to cope with stressors related to their sexual behavior, priest
molesters might rely more heavily on intellectualization as a compensatory mechanism.
Through their education they may have developed this more sophisticated coping technique
and, therefore, may not have needed to rely on GE narcissism, which is a more primitive
defense mechanism.
With regard to Vulnerability-Sensitivity (VS) narcissism, generic pedophiles, as
proposed, exhibited markedly greater levels of VS narcissism than healthy priests, priest
molesters, and psychiatric priests (hypothesis 2). Therefore, it appears that generic
pedophiles tend to possess more traits of emotional vulnerability, dissatisfaction,
dependency, and immaturity in combination with feelings of entitlement and grandiosity
(Wink, 1991) when compared to their priest molester counterparts, as well as healthy
priests and psychiatric priests. Thus, there appears to be an important difference between
priests who molest and their non-priest counterparts.

Narcissism and pedophilia 81
Psychodynamic theory supports the notion that pedophiles should have elevated VS
narcissism, compared to the non-pedophiles (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978). Specifically, the
"arrested sociosexual development of pedophiles leaves them susceptible to impaired
interpersonal functioning and problems with autonomy and assertiveness, while their
egocentric needs" (Simon et al. 1991, p. 212) contribute to the constitution and
maintenance of their narcissistic traits. In addition, other theorists and researchers have
proclaimed that attachment deficits (Bowlby, 1969; Marshall, 1989; Socarides, 1991; Ward
et al., 1996) impair healthy maturation which significantly contributes to the decreased
cognitive and emotional functioning of pedophiles. Thus, pedophiles experience insecurity
and social introversion but also utilize splitting as a representation of the impaired
attachment and as a way to maintain their narcissistic drive for self-satisfaction. This
duality in personality presentation fits with the description of VS narcissism.
Social learning theory and cognitive theory also support the notion that the
pedophiles should have elevated VS narcissism scores. These two conceptualizations,
considered in combination, suggest that the socialization experience of individuals guides
their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. If one considers the relationship between
emotional maturity level and age of victim, pedophiles would likely function at less
advanced levels than priest molesters based on their limited or insufficient modeling
experience. This deficiency could lead to diminished confidence and assertiveness.
A more complex question, however, is why the priest pedophiles have lower VS
narcissism levels than the non-priest pedophiles. It was proposed that, because the priest
role of priest pedophiles requires a more extroverted and confident character and facilitates
a sense of omnipotence, priest pedophiles would not demonstrate the noted insecurity,
withdrawal, and dependency of generic pedophiles (i.e., which are hallmark traits of VS
narcissism). When this finding is taken in concert with the fact that the priest pedophiles

Narcissism and pedophilia 82
were not more pathological than the non-pedophile groups with respect to GE narcissism or
the MMPI-2 F scale, it seems as if the priests are generally less disturbed than the non-
priest pedophiles. Therefore, two critical questions remain: Why do men with such
pathological sexual patterns exhibit so little pathology in this area? and What other
differences might be identifiable between priests who are pedophiles compared to priests
who are not pedophiles?
With respect to the first question, it is possible that priest molesters, compared to
generic pedophiles, have had more opportunities to adopt skills required to function at a
higher level, leaving them more autonomy and confidence in interpersonal relationships. It
also is possible that, those (Catholic) pedophiles who demonstrate greater interpersonal and
emotional functioning are drawn to the priesthood where they hope to find either relief or
distraction from their sexual disorder or, possibly, greater access to children. It also is
possible that in the process of becoming a priest and functioning as a priest, they may have
increased the skills necessary for higher psychological functioning compared to their non-
priest counterparts. In any case, this study clearly supported the notion that generic
pedophiles and priest pedophiles differ from each other; specifically, priest pedophiles
seem to function at a higher level and are less distinguishable from non-pedophiles than
generic pedophiles are. Further examination of these issues is clearly necessary as one of
the goals of the study, to target traits that might identify priests at risk for molesting
children, has not yet been met.
Despite the differences found in narcissism, overcontrolled-hostility was not found
to be a prominent characteristic of priest molesters compared to other groups as was
predicted (hypothesis 3). In contrast to Plante et al. (1996) and Keddy et al.'s (1990)
identification of overcontrolled-hostility in priests, priest molesters may not utilize
intellectualization processes to control emotional distress to the extent this study assumed.

Narcissism and pedophilia 83
It is plausible that this trait cannot be generalized to priest molesters and, in fact, because
neither healthy priests nor psychiatric priests evidenced higher levels of overcontrolled-
hostility, it might be that sample differences in these studies account for the distinction.
Furthermore, Robinson (1994) did not find MMPI O-H scale elevations for priest
pedophiles or priest ephebophiles, suggesting this trait is not outstanding for these
populations. Specifically, it is possible that these findings are a function of environment.
Certainly, it is still possible that the circumstances under which priest molesters were
assessed (i.e., after their religious duties were revoked) may have altered their cognitive
and emotional processes. Because they were in a treatment facility rather than their usual
church community, the stressors they typically experienced may have been different,
possibly reducing any hostile feelings. It is, therefore, possible that assessment during
their regular routine may have shown higher levels of this trait.
The rejection of hypotheses related to two of the predicted prominent personality
characteristics of priest molesters (i.e., GE narcissism and overcontrolled-hostility) raises
important issues. For instance, narcissism may not be as salient a personality characteristic
in priests as Meloy (1988) theorized. In fact, Patrick (1990) argued against Meloy's stance
that narcissism is prevalent among clergy members. Specifically, she suggested that
Meloy's theory of pathological narcissism in clergy was based on his presumption that
because it could exist, it in fact does. Thus, she proposed there is a limited foundation to
his argument.
In further examination of this issue, Patrick investigated United Church candidates
using the Narcissism-Hypersensitivity (NH) Scale, the Narcissistic Personality Disorder
(NPD) scale, the Millon Narcissistic Personality (MNP) scale, the Ego Inflation Scale, and
the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards, 1957). The latter scale,
EPPS, has been found to identify narcissistic symptoms by high scores on the

Narcissism and pedophilia 84
Achievement (ACH), Exhibitionism (EXH), Succorance (SUC), Dominance (DOM), and
Aggression (AGG) subscales and by low scores on the Deference (DEF), Intraception
(INT), Abasement (ABA), and Nurturance (NUR) subscales. Despite incorporation of
various scales tapping into narcissism, Patrick's results argued against a high prevalence of
pathological narcissism in clergy members. Thus, it is possible that pathological
narcissism exists among rare clergy, rather than among a greater proportion of the clergy
population. It also needs to be noted that Patrick did not investigate Catholic priests in
specific and, therefore, generalizations of her results should be made with caution.
Another explanation arises from a review of Francis and Turner's (1995) study that
investigated sexual misconduct in the Christian Church. These researchers outlined two
reasons for this problem. One explanation focused on the premise of this project, that the
existence of a personality disorder, typically narcissism, influenced clergy members to
expect certain individuals to fulfill their needs. Francis and Turner also proposed that
sexual misconduct is exhibited by "naive and uninformed pastors who have failed to
establish boundaries for themselves and others" (p.220). That is, such clergy dismiss or
minimize training and education related to maintenance of appropriate boundaries. They do
not understand appropriate versus inappropriate behavior and do not possess insight into
the distinction between their professional and personal roles. These writers suggested, that
with education, the 'naive pastor' can learn acceptable behavior. They emphasized that,
unlike the 'personality disordered pastor,' the 'naive pastor' does not possess a grandiose
self image which influences the pastor to exploit other individuals for his own gratification,
as might the 'personality disordered pastor.' This argument brings up the question of
whether priest pedophiles may possess more naivete than narcissism, which could explain
the rejection of hypotheses for this group. Again, although Catholic priests were not the

Narcissism and pedophilia 85
focus of Francis and Turner's research, it is possible that their findings could generalize to
that population.
Although naivete was proposed as a possible factor in priests who molest children,
it may also be that these priests possess a sense of entitlement which may play a more
prominent role in their behavior. That is, because narcissism involves many complex and
interrelated constructs, it might be that the priest pedophile, because he has received a
'calling from God,' which is unique to clergy members, might possess a stronger and more
profound sense of entitlement in their relationships with others, particularly children.
Future research should examine this particular subsconstruct of narcissism in its potential
role in priest with pedophilia. Specifically, it would be predicted that priest pedophiles
would demonstrate a greater level of this variable than their pedophile counterparts.
As with any research study, design limitations must be addressed. In order to
assess GE and VS narcissism, the MMPI-derived narcissism scales utilized in Wink's
(1991) study were chosen for this research project. These scales were selected based on
Wink's (1991) utilization in his study as representing the distinct types of narcissism. His
study presented moderate to strong correlations between the MWB, RN, and WG scales
(internal consistency coefficients ranged from .54 to .81) and between the NH and NPD
scales (internal consistency of .57). Although these distinctions were made, his study and
this current project revealed correlations between the GE and VS scales which may lead one
to question about the clear distinction between the "types" of narcissism. In particular, the
moderate correlation between the NH and NPD scales (VS) with the WG scale (GE) may
have created difficulties filtering out the distinct characteristics of the narcissism types,
particularly GE narcissism. Because of this, the level of GE narcissism as examined in the
multivariate analyses may have also included traits of VS narcissism. Thus, it also cannot

Narcissism and pedophilia 86
be ruled out that the level of GE narcissism which was not found to be significantly
different among groups could have contained VS components and, thus, not be a true
indicator of GE narcissism. However, it is important to note that the univariate analyses
were reported, and therefore, limit the problems that may exist with the scale overlap in the
multivariate analysis.
These caveats above demonstrate the difficulty in finding an absolute difference
between these two types of narcissism, given that they have similar traits. Wink (1991)
outlined those traits that are common to both GE and VS narcissism. These included:
"bossiness, intolerance, cruelty, argumentativeness, dishonesty, opportunism,
rebelliousness, conceit, arrogance, being demanding, being temperamental, and loudness"
(p. 595). Future research might exclude the WG scale to eliminate any confounding
variables it may contain as well as overlap among scale types. In addition, although the
NH and NPD scales are strongly correlated with one another, they do not clearly represent
the distinct characteristics of VS narcissism. Thus, because there are not other known
scales which are specific to VS narcissism, further research should establish measures
which identify specific VS traits without the confound of GE traits. Empirical efforts
should continue to focus on filtering out extraneous variables that might be included in
certain MMPI-2 items.
Another point to address is that a healthy, non-priest sample was not incorporated
into this study as a control group. As the literature has found (McCreary, 1975),
pedophiles have demonstrated personality traits comparable to normals, highlighting the
difficulty in identifying characteristics particular to child molesters. Utilizing a healthy,
non-priest sample might have served to better clarify the traits common and distinct to
priests who are pedophiles.

Narcissism and pedophilia 87
The fact that most of the participants volunteered was addressed earlier in this
section; however, it is important to devote more discussion to this issue. It is likely that
generic pedophiles and healthy priest volunteers possess personality dynamics that differ
from those of persons unwilling to volunteer. Certainly there exists factors of time, literacy
level, right to privacy, and general disinterest, but issues such as introversion, lack of
altruism, secrecy, and defensiveness cannot be ignored. It is possible that those
individuals unwilling to participate would have presented slightly differently (i.e., higher
elevations on the MMPI-2 K scale). For the pedophiles, specifically, it could be postulated
that those who declined to volunteer for reasons related to defensiveness might be at greater
risk for reoffending than those who were more willing to expose their vulnerabilities.
The lack of demographic information, aside from age and education, for the priest
pedophile, priest ephebophile, and psychiatric priest participants created some difficulties in
this project. In particular, the number of victims for the priest molesters would have
enhanced the analysis of the data. That is, generic pedophiles were found to have many
victims. Given that priests, in general, were older than generic pedophiles, it is possible
that the priest molesters had even more victims because their victimization period
presumably is longer. Conversely, they may have had fewer victims because of greater
cognitive dissonance. As the research has indicated (Kalichman, 1991; Heersink &
Strassberg, 1995; McCreary, 1975), those child molesters who commit multiple offenses
tend to suffer from greater pathology than first time offenders. Taking these statistics into
consideration, if priest molesters averaged even more child victims than generic pedophiles,
and do not demonstrate higher elevations on any of the measures utilized in this study, then
it is critical to identify the mechanisms (i.e., psychological, physical) which maintain their
apparent functioning. On the other hand, if they have fewer victims, results showing that
they possess significantly less psychological disturbance would make sense.

Narcissism and pedophilia 88
In addition to number of victims, other variables, such as gender of victims and age
of onset, also could shed more light on the possible distinctions between priest pedophiles
and generic pedophiles. Because these potentially important variables were not available
for this study, it will be important for future studies to examine their impact.
Summary and Conclusions
The clinical phenomenon of pedophilia is both intriguing with regard to the
development and maintenance of their sexual patterns, yet petrifying to a society which
must constantly be vigilant in regard to potential perpetrators. Priests who sexually
victimize children are of even greater concern because they easily blend in with their
healthy, non-pedophile cohorts who possess genuine integrity and altruistic qualities in
upholding the holiness and safety of humanity. It is hoped that, with continued clinical and
empirical efforts, personality structures of these subpopulations of pedophiles can be
identified so as to direct preventative and treatment strategies for pedophile groups
accordingly.
This project sheds new theoretical and empirical light regarding the existence of
greater perceived (or real) psychological disturbance and vulnerability-sensitivity
narcissism among generic pedophiles when compared to priest molesters. In addition,
priest molesters did not possess grandiosity-exhibitionism narcissism to the degree
speculated, thus raising questions about additional aspects of the priest molester personality
profile that may differentiate them from generic pedophiles. This information could be
useful in screening and risk assessment as well as treatment interventions.
Despite these important findings, there remain multiple, unexamined variables
related to the issue of subpopulations of pedophilia. Perhaps by targeting other adult
perpetrator groups (i.e., teachers, coaches), the range and nature of the heterogeneity will
become clearer. Unfortunately, until those aspects are determined, children will continue to

Narcissism and pedophilia 89
be victimized sexually by adults whom they respect and trust to harbor nurturance and
security. However, continued diligence by society and the professional psychological
community to research, expose, and provide education and prevention regarding profiles of
sexually offending adults may reduce the prevalence of pedophilia and child victims.

REFERENCES
Narcissism and pedophilia 90
Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., & Cunningham-Rathner, J. (1984). Complications,
consent, and cognitions in sex between children and adults. International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 7, 89-103.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists
and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: MacMillan.
Archer, R. P., Griffin, R., Aiduk, R. (1995). MMPI-2 clinical correlates for ten
common codes. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 391-407.
Ashby, H. U., Lee, R. R., & Duke, E. H. (1979, September). A Narcissistic
Personality Disorder MMPI scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, New York.
Auerbach, J. S. (1984). Validation of two scales for narcissistic personality
disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 649-653.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young
adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226-244.
Berlin, F. S., & Meinecke, C. F. (1981). Treatment of sex offenders with
antiandrogenic medication: Conceptualization, review of treatment modalities, and
preliminary findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 601-607.
Berry, J. (1989). Pedophilia. Washington Post, 16 and 17 September.
Boone, D. (1994). Reliability of the MMPI-2 subtle and obvious scales with
psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 346-351.

Narcissism and pedophilia 91
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of
hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 4, 343-349.
Butcher, J. N. (1990). The MMPI-2 in psychological treatment. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Davis, R. D., Wenger, A., & Guzman, A. (1997). Validation of the MCMI-III.
In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon Inventories: Clinical and personality assessment (pp. 327-
359). New York: Guilford Press.
Erickson, W. D., Walbek, N. H., & Seely, R. K. (1988). Behavior patterns of
child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
Erickson, W. D., Luxemberg, M. G., Walbek, N. H., & Seely, R. K. (1987).
Frequency of MMPI two-point code types among sex offenders. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55, 566-570.
Finkelhor, D., & Araji, S. (1986). Explanations of pedophilia: A four factor
model. Journal of Sex Research, 22, 145-161.
Fisher, D. (1994). Adult sexual offenders: Who are they? Why and how do they
do it? In T. Morrison, M. Erooga, & R.C. Bennett (Eds.) Sexual offending against
children: Assessment and treatment of male abusers (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge.
Francis, P. C., & Turner, N. R. (1995). Sexual misconduct within the Christian
Church: Who are the perpetrators and those they victimize? Counseling and Values, 39,
218-227.
Gaffney, G. S., & Berlin, F. S. (1984). Is there a hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal
dysfunction in paedophilia? British Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 657-660.

Narcissism and pedophilia 92
Graham, J. R. (1988). The MMPI: A practical guide (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Graham, J. R. (1993). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Graham, J. R., Timbrook, R. E., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Butcher, J. N. (1991).
Code-type congruence between the MMPI and the MMPI-2: Separating fact from artifact.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 264-277.
Greene, R. L. (1991). The MMPI-2/MMPI: An interpretive manual. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Greenburg, D. M., Bradford, J. M. W., & Curry, S. (1993). A comparison of
sexual victimization in the childhoods of pedophiles and hebephiles. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 38, 432-436.
Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction
to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175-181.
Hall, G. C. N., Graham, J. R., & Shepherd, J. B. (1991). Three methods of
developing MMPI- taxonomies of sexual offenders. Journal of Personality Assessment,
56, 2-13.
Hall, G. C. N., & Anderson, B. L. (1993). Sexual dysfunction and deviation. In
A. S. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.). Psychopathology in adulthood (pp. 295-318).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hayashino, D. S., Wurtele, S. K., & Klebe, K. J. (1995). Child molesters: An
examination of cognitive factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 106-116.
Heersink, N., & Strassberg, D. S. (1995). A normative and descriptive study of
the MMPI with acknowledged child molesters. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 17, 377-391.

Narcissism and pedophilia 93
Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment.
Law and Human Behavior, 16, 257-272.
Hendrick, S. E., Fitzpatrick, D. R., Hartman, K., Quaife, M. A., Statbucker, R.
A., & Graber, B. (1988). Brain structure and function in sexual molesters of children and
adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 49, 108-112.
Hoppe, C. M., & Singer, R. D. (1976). Overcontrolled hostility, empathy, and
egocentric balance in violent and nonviolent psychiatric offenders. Psychological Reports,
39, 1303-1308.
Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and sexual offenses against children. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Hucker, S., Langevin, R., Wortzman, G., Dickey, R., Bain, J., Handy, L.,
Chambers, J., & Wright, S. (1986). Neuropsychological impairment in pedophiles.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 440-448.
Isely, P. J., & Isely, P. (1990). The sexual abuse of male children by church
personnel: Intervention and prevention. Pastoral Psychology, 39, 85-99.
Johnston, F. A., & Johnston, S. A. (1997). A cognitive approach to validation of
the fixated-regressed typology of child molesters. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53,
361-368.
Kalat, J. W. (1995). Biological psychology (5th ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.
Kalichman, S. C. (1991). Psychopathology and personality characteristics of
criminal sexual offenders as a function of victim age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20,
187-197.

Narcissism and pedophilia 94
Keddy, P. J., Erdberg, P., & Sammon, S. D. (1990). The psychological
assessment of Catholic clergy and religious referred for residential treatment. Pastoral
Psychology, 38, 147-159.
Kennedy, E. C., Heckler, V. J., Kobler, F. J., & Walker, R. E. (1977). Clinical
assessment of a profession: Roman Catholic clergymen. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
33, 120-128.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism.
Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Kernberg, O. F. (1986). Narcissistic personality disorder. In A. A. Cooper, A.
J. Frances, & M. H. Sachs (Eds.), The personality disorder and neuroses (Vol. 1, pp.
219-213). New York: Basic Books.
Kinnear, K. L. (1995). Childhood sexual abuse: A reference handbook. Santa
Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the
psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorder. New York: International
Universities Press, Inc.
Kolarsky, A., Freund, K., Machek, J., & Polak, O. (1967). Male sexual
deviation: Association with early temporal lobe damage. Archives of General Psychiatry,
17, 735-743.
Kurtz, J. E., Morey, L. C., & Tomarken, A. J. (1993). The concurrent validity of
three self-report measures of borderline personality. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 13, 255-266.
Langevin, R. (1992). Biological factors contributing to paraphilic behavior.
Psychiatric Annals, 22, 307-314.

Narcissism and pedophilia 95
Lehne, G. K. (1994). The NEO-PI and the MCMI in the forensic evaluation of sex
offenders. In P. T. Costa and T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-
factor model of personality (pp. 175-188). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Loss, P., & Glancy, E. (1983). Men who sexually abuse their children. Medical
Aspects of Human Sexuality, 17, 328-329.
Mann, J., Stenning, W., Borman, C. (1992). The utility of the MMPI-2 with
pedophiles. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 59-74.
Marshall, W. L. (1989). Invited essay: Intimacy, loneliness, and sexual
offenders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 27, 491-503.
Marshall, W. L., Barbaree, H. E., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Some aspects of
social competence in sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 7, 113-127.
Marshall, Jones, Hudson, & McDonald (1993). Generalized empathy in child
molesters. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2, 61-69.
McCreary, C. P. (1975). Personality differences among child molesters. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 39, 591-593.
McGuire, R. J., Carlisle, J. M., & Young, B. G. (1964). Sexual deviations as
conditioned behavior: A hypothesis. Behavior Research and Therapy, 2, 185-190.
Megargee, E. I., Cook, P. E., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1967). Development and
validation of an MMPI scale of assaultiveness in overcontrolled individuals. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 72, 519-528.
Meloy, J.R. (1986). Narcissistic psychopathology and the clergy. Pastoral
Psychology, 35, 50-55.

Narcissism and pedophilia 96
Meyer, R. G., & Deitsch, S. E. (1996). The clinician's handbook: Integrated
diagnostics, assessment and intervention in adult and adolescent psychopathology (4th ed.,
pp. 153-183). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Millon, T. (1987). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II: Manual for the MCMI-
II. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T. (1994). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III manual. Minneapolis:
National Computer Systems.
Millon, T., & Everly, G. S. (1985). Personality and its disorders: A biosocial
learning approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Millon, T., & Millon, C. M. (1997). History, theory, and validation of the
MCMI. In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon Inventories: Clinical and personality assessment
(pp. 3-58). New York: Guilford Press.
Money, J. (1984). Paraphilias: Phenomenology and classification. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 38, 164-179.
Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI scales for
DSM-III personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49, 245-251.
Mullins, L. S., & Kopelman, R. E. (1988). Toward an assessment of the
construct validity of four measures of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52,
610-625.
Murphy, W. D., & Peters, J. M. (1992). Profiling child sexual abusers. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 19, 24-37.

Narcissism and pedophilia 97
Nagayama, G. C., Graham, J. R., & Shepherd, J. B. (1991). Three methods of
developing MMPI taxonomies of sexual offenders. Journal of Personality Assessment,
56, 2-13.
Okami, P., & Goldberg, A. (1992). Personality correlates of pedophiles: Are
they reliable indicators? The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 297-328.
Patrick, J. (1990). Assessment of narcissistic psychopathology in the clergy.
Pastoral Psychology, 38, 173-180.
Plante, T. G. (1996). Catholic priests who sexually abuse minors: Why do we
hear so much yet know so little? Pastoral Psychology, 44, 305-310
Plante, T. G., Manuel, G., & Bryant, C. (1996b). Personality and cognitive
functioning among hospitalized sexual offending Roman Catholic priests. Pastoral
Psychology, 45, 129-139.
Plante, T. G., Manuel, G., & Tandez, J. (1996a). Personality characteristics of
successful applicants to the priesthood. Pastoral Psychology, 45, 29-40.
Quinsey, V. L., Arnold, L. S., & Pruesse, M. G. (1980). MMPI profiles of men
referred for a pretrial psychiatric assessment as a function of assessment type. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 36, 410-417.
Raskin, R. & Novacek, J. (1989). An MMPI description of the Narcissistic
Personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 66-80.
Robinson, E. A. (1994). Shadows of the lantern bearers: A study of sexually
troubled clergy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola College in Maryland.
Rosenhan, D. L., & Seligman, M. E. (1989). Abnormal psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 411-449). New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Rossetti, S. J. (1990). Slayer of the soul: Child sexual abuse and the Catholic
church. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

Narcissism and pedophilia 98
Seidman, B. T., Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., & Robertson, P. J. (1994).
An examination of intimacy and loneliness in sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 9, 518-534.
Serkownek, K. (1975). Subscales for Scales 5 and 9 of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Unpublished manuscript.
Shealy, L., Kalichman, S. C., Henderson, M. C., Szymanowski, D., & McKee,
G. (1991). MMPI profile subtypes of incarcerated sex offenders against children.
Violence and Victims, 6, 201-212.
Simon, L. M., Sales, B., Kasniak, A., & Kahn, M. (1992). Characteristics of
child molesters: Implications for the fixated-regressed dichotomy. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 211-225.
Sipe, A. W. R. (1990). A secret world: Sexuality and the search for celibacy.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Sipe, A. W. R. (1995). Sex, priests, and power: Anatomy of a crisis. New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Socarides, C. W. (1991). Adult-child sexual pairs: Psychoanalytic findings. The
Journal of Psychohistory, 19, 185-189.
Solomon, R. S. (1982). Validity of the MMPI Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Scale. Psychological Reports, 50, 463-466.
Stumpf, W. F. (1995). The effect of personality pathology on the treatment
response of clergy with sexual disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola
College in Maryland.
Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., & Marshall, W. L. (1995). Cognitive distortions and
affective deficits in sex offenders: A cognitive deconstructionist interpretation. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 67-83.

Narcissism and pedophilia 99
Wasyliw, O. E., Grossman, L. S., & Haywood, T. W. (1994). Denial of
hostility and psychopathology in the evaluation of child molestation. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63, 185-190.
West, D. J. (1991). The effects of sex offenses. In C.R. Hollin & K. Howells
(Eds.) Clinical approaches to sex offenders and their victims (pp. 55-73). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 6, 590-597.
Wink, P., & Gough, H. G. (1990). New Narcissism scales for the California
Psychological Inventory and the MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 446-462.
Wright, P., Nobrega, J., Langevin, R., Wortzman, G. (1990). Brain density and
symmetry in pedophilic and sexually aggressive men. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 319-
328.

APPENDIX A
Human Subject Review Letter of Consent for Study
Narcissism and pedophilia 100

MEMORANDUM - Human Subjects Review Committee
Date: June 18, 1998
To:
Fr:
Subj:
Kathryn Savitz
Stewart P. Craig
Assistant Director for Grant Services, Member HSRC
Protocol Approval
Narcissism and pedophilia 101
Your protocol entitled "Narcissism and Overcontrolled Hostility: Personality
Characteristics of Priests with Pedophilia" has been reviewed and approved
by the Human Subjects Review Committee. This approval is valid for one
year from the date of approval and is subject to annual review as required by
federal regulations.
Log Number: 891
Date received: 6/10/98
Date Approved: 6/16/98
Title of Protocol: "Narcissism and Overcontrolled..."
Principal Investigator: Kathryn Savitz
Project Period: 6/1/98 to 6/1/99
Reviewers: Faith Gilroy
Comments:
c. HSRC files
4501 North Charles Street • Baltimore, Maryland 21210-2699 • (410) 617-2000

APPENDIX B
Demographic Information for Control Pedophiles
Narcissism and pedophilia 102

Narcissism and pedophilia 103
Age _________ Race ______________
Education ______________
Occupation ________________________
Your approximate age at the onset of your sexual disorder __________
Approximately how many individuals have been directly affected by your
sexual disorder? ___________
Gender of those individuals directly affected by your sexual disorder ________
Age of those individuals who have directly been affected by your
sexual disorder _________
Have you ever been incarcerated as a result of your sexual disorder? YES NO
If yes, for how long? __________
How long have you been in treatment at this clinic? __________
Have you had any other psychiatric treatment? YES NO
If yes, please explain (i.e., disorders, type and length of treatment, hospitalizations, etc.):

APPENDIX C
Demographic Information for Control Priests
Narcissism and pedophilia 104

Age__________
Race____________
Education __________
Narcissism and pedophilia 105
Type of seminary training (please circle): Religious order Diocesan
Number of years since ordination ________
Have you received any psychiatric treatment? YES NO
If yes, please explain (i.e., outpatient, hospitalizations, etc.):

APPENDIX D
Narcissism and pedophilia 106
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale

Narcissism and pedophilia 107
MMPI
19
73
86
91
22
124
126
142
165
171
180
267
218
250
257
264
271
280
304
319
321
353
394
400
415
450
469
517
520
521
547
MMPI-2
19
61
73
791
109
110
112
130
153
158
167
243
270
227
318
239
248
254
275
286
289
321
365
385
**
388
392
450
452
398
399
**excluded item

APPENDIX E
Narcissism and pedophilia 108
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Scale

**excluded item
MMPI
25
79
89
133
117
179
187
198
214
262
217
226
239
264
278
282
297
299
MMPI-2
25
63
76
121
104
**
177
184
194
237
196
205
219
239
**
**
268
271
Narcissism and pedophilia 109

APPENDIX F
Narcissism and pedophilia 110
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Narcissistic Personality Disorder Scale

**excluded item
MMPI
12
20
142
53
70
137
148
168
175
249
276
301
310
314
335
338
345
422
431
MMPI-2
14
12
130
**
**
125
136
180
164
**
343
273
20
16
299
305
311
**
415
Narcissism and pedophilia 111

APPENDIX G
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Raskin and Novacek Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 112

Narcissism and pedophilia 113
MMPI
29
73
118
133
142
165
171
180
181
201
208
232
264
265
266
269
304
321
322
323
328
352
353
MMPI-2
28
61
105
121
130
153
158
167
169
185
189
211
239
241
242
**
275
289
290
**
299
320
321
MMPI
365
377
381
387
393
400
415
416
417
434
447
460
469
503
506
509
520
521
529
MMPI-2
334
350
344
**
364
385
**
409
410
417
423
**
392
**
444
446
452
398
456
**excluded item

APPENDIX H
MMPI and MMPI-2 Items for the Wink and Gough Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 114

Narcissism and pedophilia 115
MMPI-2
4
73
75
82
89
111
109
112
117
124
165
208
233
248
261
271
276
277
299
348
355
380
400
406
MMPI
4
61
102
70
76
100
98
120
104
110
153
189
212
226
236
248
343
250
271
315
323
354
385
386
MMPI-2
410
426
434
438
440
444
447
452
456
459
463
503
504
520
529
MMPI
406
414
417
419
**
**
423
**
**
**
426
**
443
452
456
**excluded item

APPENDIX I
Narcissism and pedophilia 116
Excluded MMPI Items for the Grandiosity-Exhibitionism Narcissism Scales

MWB SCALE
415 (T). I hate to have to rush when working.
RN SCALE
Narcissism and pedophilia 117
269 (T). I can easily make other people afraid of me, and sometimes do for the fun of it.
387 (T). I have had no difficulty starting or holding my urine.
415 (T). I hate to rush when working.
460 (F). I have used alcohol moderately (or not at all).
503 (F). It is unusual for me to express strong approval or disapproval of the actions of
others.
WG SCALE
440 (T). When I am feeling very happy and active, someone who is blue or low will
spoil it all.
452 (T). I like to poke fun at people.
456 (T). A person shouldn't be punished for breaking a law that he thinks is unreasonable.
459 (T). I have one or more bad habits which are so strong that it is no use fighting against them.
444 (F). I do not try to correct people who express an ignorant belief.
503 (F). It is unusual for me to express strong approval or disapproval of the actions of
others.

APPENDIX J
Narcissism and pedophilia 118
Excluded MMPI Items for the Vulnerability-Sensitivity Narcissism Scales

NH SCALE
179 (T). I am worried about sex matters.
278 (T). I have often felt that strangers were looking at me critically.
Narcissism and pedophilia 119
282 (T). Once in awhile I feel hate toward members of my family who I usually love.
NPD SCALE
422 (T). I have felt embarrassed over the type of work that one or more members of my
family have done.
53 (F). A minister can cure disease by praying and putting his hand on your hand.
70 (F). I use to like drop-the handkerchief.
249 (T). I believe there is a Devil and Hell in afterlife.

APPENDIX K
Rephrased MMPI Items for the RN and WG Narcissism Scales
Narcissism and pedophilia 120

RN SCALE
28. I am bothered by acid stomach several times a week.
118. In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for cutting up.
304. In school I found it very hard to talk before the class.
299. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.
WG SCALE
463. I used to like hopscotch.
Narcissism and pedophilia 121

APPENDIX L
Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield Narcissism Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 122

Narcissism and pedophilia 123
Items scored 'true.'
____ 19. When I take a new job, I like to find out who it is important to be nice to.
____ 61. I am an important person.
____ 109. I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me.
____ 110. Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an
advantage rather than to lose it.
____ 112. I like dramatics.
____ 153. I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important.
____ 227. I don't blame people for trying to grab everything they can get in this world.
____ 239. I am entirely self-confident.
____ 248. I do not blame a person for taking advantage of people who leave
themselves open to it.
____ 254. Most people make friends because friends are likely to be useful to them.
____ 270. It does not bother me particularly to see animals suffer.
____ 286. Most people inwardly dislike putting themselves out to help other people.
____ 318. I usually expect to succeed in things I do.
____ 321. I have no dread of going into a room by myself where other people have
already gathered and are talking.
____ 365. I like to let people know where I stand on things.
____ 385. I am not afraid of fire.
____ 388. I very seldom have spells of the blues.
____ 392. Lightening is one of my fears.
____ 398. I frequently ask people for advice.
____ 399. The future is too uncertain for a person to make serious plans.
____ 452. I strongly defend my opinions as a rule.
Items scored 'false.'
____ 73. I certainly am lacking in self-confidence.
____ 79. I do not mind being made fun of.
____ 130. I certainly feel useless at times.
____ 158. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others
are doing the same sort of things.
____ 167. I find it hard to make talk when I meet new people.
____ 243. When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about.
____ 275. In school I found it very hard to talk in front of the class.
____ 289. I am easily embarrassed.
____ 450. I cannot do anything well.
____ TOTAL (Grandiosity-Exhibitionism)

APPENDIX M
Raskin and Novacek Narcissism Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 124

Narcissism and pedophilia 125
Items scored 'true.'
____ 28. I am bothered by an upset stomach several times a week.
____ 61. I am an important person.
____ 105. In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for bad behavior.
____ 153. I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important.
____ 169. When I get bored I like to stir up some excitement.
____ 189. I like to flirt.
____ 211. I have been inspired to a program of life based on duty which I have since
carefully followed.
____ 239. I am entirely self-confident.
____ 241. It is safer to trust nobody.
____ 242. Once a week or oftener I become very excited.
____ 290. I worry over money and business.
____ 321. I have no dread of going into a room by myself where other people have
already gathered and are talking.
____ 334. I feel uneasy indoors.
____ 344. I enjoy gambling at small stakes.
____ 364. I feel like giving up quickly when things go wrong.
____ 385. I am not afraid of fire.
____ 392. Lightening is one of my fears.
____ 398. I frequently ask people for advice.
____ 410. I am often so annoyed when someone tries to get ahead of me in a line of
people that I speak to that person about it.
____ 417. I would like to be an auto racer.
____ 423. I am often inclined to go out of my way to win a point with someone who
has opposed me.
____ 444. I am a high-strung person.
____ 452. I strongly defend my own opinions as a rule.
____ 456. I would like to wear expensive clothes.
Items scored 'false.'
____ 121. I have never indulged in any unusual sex practices.
____ 130. I certainly feel useless at times.
____ 158. It makes me uncomfortable to put on a stunt at a party even when others
are doing the same sort of thing.
____ 167. I find it hard to take talk when I meet new people.
____ 185. I wish I were not so shy.
____ 275. In school I found it very hard to talk in front of the class.
____ 289. I am easily embarrassed.

____
____
____
____
____
Narcissism and pedophilia 126
299. I cannot keep my mind on one thing.
320. I have been afraid of things or people that I knew could not hurt me.
350. If given a chance I would make a good leader of people.
409. It bothers me to have someone watch me at work even though I
know I can do it well.
446. I sometimes find it hard to stick up for my rights because I am so
reserved.
____ TOTAL (Grandiosity-Exhibitionism)

APPENDIX N
Wink and Gough Narcissism Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 127

Items scored 'true.'
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
Narcissism and pedophilia 128
61. I am an important person.
76. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth.
98. Some people are so bossy that I feel like doing the opposite of what
they request, even though I know they are right.
104. Most people are honest chiefly because they are afraid of being caught.
110. Most people will use somewhat unfair means to gain profit or an
advantage rather than to lose it.
120. I frequently find it necessary to stand up for what I think is right.
153. I like to know some important people because it makes me feel important.
189. I like to flirt.
212. I have at times stood in the way of people who are trying to do something,
not because it amounted to much but because of the principle of the thing.
226. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I
feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world."
248. I do not blame a person for taking advantage of people who leave
themselves open to it.
250. At times I have been so entertained by the cleverness of some criminals
that I have hoped they would get away with it.
271. I think that I feel more intensely than most people do.
315. I tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more friendly
than I had expected.
323. Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I love.
354. I try to remember good stories to pass them on to other people.
385. I am not afraid of fire.
386. I have sometimes stayed away from another person because I feared
doing or saying something that I might regret afterwards.
406. I would certainly enjoy beating criminals at their own game.
414. I have at times had to be rough with people who were rude and annoying.
417. I would like to be an auto racer.
419. There are certain people whom I dislike so much that I am inwardly
pleased when they are catching it for something they have done.
423. I am often inclined to go out of my way to win a point with someone
who has opposed me.
443. I do not try to cover up my poor opinion or pity people so that they
won't know how I feel.
452. I strongly defend my own opinions as a rule.
456. I would like to wear expensive clothes.
Items scored 'false.'
_____ 4. I think I would like the work of a librarian.

____ 70. I am easily downed in an argument.
____ 100. I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it.
____ 236. If I were an artist I would like to draw flowers.
____ 343. I enjoy children.
____ 426. I used to like to play hopscotch and jump rope.*
____ TOTAL (Grandiosity-Exhibitionism)
Narcissism and pedophilia 129

APPENDIX O
Narcissism-Hypersensitivity Narcissism Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 130

Items scored 'true.'
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
________
Items scored 'false.'
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
_______
Narcissism and pedophilia 131
25. I would like to be a singer.
76. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth.
104. Most people are honest chiefly because they are afraid of being caught.
194. I have never had any breaking out on my skin that has worried me.
196. I frequently find myself worrying about something.
205. Some of my family have habits that bother and annoy me very much.
219. I have been disappointed in love.
268. I wish I were not bothered by thoughts about sex.
271. I think that I feel more intensely than most people do.
63. My feelings are not easily hurt.
121. I have never indulged in any unusual practices.
177. My hands have not become clumsy and awkward.
184. I daydream very little.
237. It does not bother me that I am not better looking.
239. I am entirely self-confident.
_______ TOTAL (Vulnerability-Sensitivity

APPENDIX P
Narcissistic Personality Disorder Narcissism Scale
Narcissism and pedophilia 132

Narcissism and pedophilia 133
Items scored 'true.'
_______ 16. Once in awhile I think of things too bad to talk about.
_______ 130. I certainly feel useless at times.
_______ 136. It makes me inpatient to have people ask my advice or otherwise interrupt
me when I am working on something important.
_______ 180. There is something wrong with my mind.
_______ 273. Life is a strain for me much of the time.
_______ 299. I cannot keep my mind on one thing.
_______ 305. I often feel as if things were not real.
_______ 415. I worry quite a bit over possibly misfortunes.
Items scored 'false.'
_______ 12. My sex life is satisfactory.
_______ 14. I enjoy detective or mystery stories.
_______ 125. I believe that my home life is as pleasant as that of most people I know.
_______ 164. I seldom or never have dizzy spells.
_______ 343. I enjoy children
_______ TOTAL (Vulnerability-Sensitivity)

APPENDIX Q
Informed Consent Document for the Control Pedophile Group
Narcissism and pedophilia 134

Narcissism and pedophilia 135
I, ________________________, agree to voluntarily participate in this
research project. I have been informed that the purpose of this study is to gain further
information as to the assessment and treatment of sexual disorders.
I understand that I will be required to complete a demographic information sheet and
one (1) true/false questionnaire. I agree to answer all questions as truthfully as possible. I
acknowledge that most people can complete the questionnaire in approximately two hours;
however, some individuals may require a shorter or longer period of time. I have been
informed that any document indicating my agreement to participate in this study will be kept
separate from all testing material. Therefore, my responses will remain anonymous. I am
aware that all of my completed material will be given a randomly assigned code number to
ensure confidentiality. I agree that any information obtained from this research project may
be used in any way thought best for publication or education, provided that the procedures
for confidentiality are upheld.
I understand that there is no personal risk or discomfort directly involved with this
research and that I may choose to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation in
this project at any time.
If I have any questions in connection with my participation in this study, I should
contact Kathryn Savitz or Dr. Ruth Stemberger in the Loyola College Psychology
Department at (410) 617-2969.
Date
Signature of Participant
Date Signature of Investigator

APPENDIX R
Informed Consent Document for the Control Priest Group
Narcissism and pedophilia 136

Narcissism and pedophilia 137
I, __________________, agree to voluntarily participate in this research
project. I have been informed that the purpose of this study is to compare personality
characteristics of active priests to priests who are being treated for psychiatric disorders. I
acknowledge that my assistance could benefit inpatient treatment programs and could identify
potential risk factors associated with psychological difficulties among certain priests.
I understand that I will be required to complete a demographic information sheet and
one (1) true/false questionnaire. I agree to answer all questions as truthfully as possible. I
acknowledge that most people can complete the questionnaire in approximately two hours;
however, some individuals may require a shorter or longer period of time. I have been
informed that any document indicating my agreement to participate in this study will be kept
separate from all testing material. Therefore, my responses will remain anonymous. I am
aware that all of my completed material will be given a randomly assigned code number to
ensure confidentiality. I agree that any information obtained from this research project may
be used in any way thought best for publication or education, provided that the procedures
for confidentiality are upheld.
I understand that there is no personal risk or discomfort directly involved with this
research and that I may choose to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation in this
project at any time.
If I have any questions that arise in connection with my participation in this study, I
should contact Kathryn Savitz or Dr. Ruth Stemberger in the Loyola College Psychology
Department at (410) 617- 2696.
Date
Signature of Participant
Date Signature of Investigator