1 29 DYNAMIC RISK FACTORS 1.2.2 PROPENSITIES MODEL PERSPECTIVE In response to the outcome of scientific research, the statistical perspective on dynamic risk factors has been a topic of discussion. Relevant questions concern the distinction between stable and acute dynamic risk factors, the extent to which acute dynamic risk factors are in- or external to individuals, and the relationship between dynamic and static risk factors (Mann et al., 2010; Thornton, 2016; Ward & Beech, 2006; Ward & Beech, 2015). First, research of acute dynamic risk factors does not support the idea that these factors necessarily change instantaneously (Hanson et al., 2007). For example, Babchishin and Hanson (2020) found that although acute dynamic risk changes across time, the pattern of change varies between individuals. Second, theoretical discussion concentrates on the question to what extent acute dynamic risk factors are considered triggering contextual events and therefore required to be external to the individual (Mann et al., 2010; Ward & Beech, 2006). For example, “victim access” can be considered both an external trigger as well as resulting from a dynamic risk factor. That is, unintended victim access can activate deviant sexual interest, while on the other hand, deliberate contact with potential victims may also result from deviant sexual interest. Third, questions can be raised regarding the interrelationship between static and dynamic risk factors. That is, do observed correlations between static and dynamic risk factors exist a) because they are caused by the same underlying latent variable, or because b) static risk factors act as markers of the past operation of dynamic risk factors (i.e., dynamic risk factors cause static risk factors; Beech & Ward, 2004; Ward & Beech, 2015)? Based on these findings and theoretical observations and questions, Thornton and colleagues introduced a latent variable perspective on dynamic risk factors, referred to as the Propensities Model (Thornton, 2016). The Propensities Model reconceptualized dynamic risk factors as long-term vulnerabilities (Knight & Thornton, 2007; Thornton, 2002; Thornton & Knight, 2015) or enduring propensities (Mann et al., 2010) which may be activated in response to environmental triggers (Thornton, 2016). When triggered by an external contextual event, these latent variables manifest and can be measured in a variety of ways (Mann et al., 2010; Thornton, 2006). For example, the presence of boys might trigger the latent variable “emotional congruence with children” in an adult with a history of sexual offenses. Once triggered, he might experience a strong non-sexual affective and cognitive connection with children (“acute dynamic”), ascribe child-like characteristics to himself (“stable dynamic”), or initiate and maintain contact with children (“acute”, “stable dynamic”, “external”) (see figure 1.2; McPhail et al., 2013; McPhail et al., 2018). Once activation of this variable has resulted in a sexual offense, it will be measurable by having boys as victims (“static risk factor”).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw