Vol. 4 No. 4 (2026): Octubre- Diciembre 2026: Revista Multidisciplinaria Investigación Contemporánea
Ciencias Sociales- Artículo de Revisión

Static and dynamic factors of sexual recidivism in prison populations: A systematic review

DOI: 10.58995/redlic.rmic.v4.n4.a237
Genesis Nicole Orellana Davila
Universidad Católica de Cuenca, Cuenca- Ecuador
Bio
Erick Valarezo Guzmán
Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Cuenca-Ecuador
Bio
Edwin Maxi Maxi
Bio

Abstract

This systematic review identifies and synthetizes scientific evidence regarding factors associated with the risk on sexual recidivism in adult prison populations, following the PRISMA declaration guidelines. After a screening process in specialized databases, 14 empirical studies published between 2015 and 2025 were selected to form the final sample. The results categorize predictors into three psychosocial domains: individual, interpersonal, and contextual, distinguishing between static and dynamic factors. In the individual domain, the interests. Meanwhile, the most relevant stable dynamic factors are cognitive distortions, hostility, impulsivity, and antisocial traits. In the interpersonal and contextual domains, social inadequacy, loneliness, substance use, and treatment program dropout stand out as variables that increase risk. The conclusions emphasize that while static factors provide a stable basis for long-term risk assessment through validated instruments, dynamic factors are essential for planning personalized therapeutic interventions. The study highlights the need to adopt comprehensive approaches that address modifiable criminogenic needs to effectively reduce sexual recidivism rates and improve public safety.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada.
  2. Carl, L. C., & Lösel, F. (2021). When sexual offender treatment in prison-based social-therapeutic treatment is not completed: Relationship to risk factors and recidivism after release. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 31(6), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2220 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2220
  3. Etzler, S., Eher, R., & Rettenberger, M. (2018). Dynamic risk assessment of sexual offenders: Validity and dimensional structure of the Stable-2007. Assessment, 27(4), 822–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118754705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118754705
  4. Eher, R., Hofer, S., Buchgeher, A., Domany, S., Turner, D., & Olver, M. E. (2020). The predictive properties of psychiatric diagnoses, dynamic risk and dynamic risk change assessed by the VRS-SO in forensically admitted and released sexual offenders. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00922 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00922
  5. Freudenthaler, L., Tran, U. S., & Eher, R. (2023). Reincidencia sexual y violenta de individuos condenados por violación según un perfil empírico. Revista Internacional de Salud Mental Forense, 22(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2022.2052999 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2022.2052999
  6. Frost, A., Grace, R. C., & McLean, A. P. (2018). Therapeutic engagement and treatment progress: Developing and testing an in-treatment measure of client engagement among sex offenders in a group program. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 31(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218791178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218791178
  7. Helmus, L. M. (2018). Sex offender risk assessment: Where are we and where are we going? Current Psychiatry Reports, 20, 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0909-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0909-8
  8. Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027001002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027001002
  9. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
  10. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421
  11. Hanson, R. K., Thornton, D., Helmus, L.-M., Babchishin, K. M., & Harris, A. J. R. (2015). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(3), 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710
  12. Hanson, R. K., Lee, S. C., & Thornton, D. (2022). Long-term recidivism rates among high-risk sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 36(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221139166 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221139166
  13. Krstic, S., Harris, D. A., & Knight, R. A. (2021). Psychopathy and sexual aggression: Management implications. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 68(6–7), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211022672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211022672
  14. Nunes, K. L., Hermann, C. A., White, K., Pettersen, C., & Bumby, K. (2018). La actitud puede serlo todo, pero ¿es todo una actitud? Abuso sexual, 30(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215625489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215625489
  15. Olver, M. E., Sowden, J. N., Wong, S. C. P., & otros autores. (2016). Precisión predictiva de la Escala de Riesgo de Violencia – Versión para Delincuentes Sexuales. Sexual Abuse, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216649594 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216649594
  16. Olver, M. E., Kelley, S. M., Kingston, D. A., Christofferson, S. M. B., Thornton, D., & Wong, S. C. P. (2021). Incremental contributions of static and dynamic sexual violence risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(8), 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820974400 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820974400
  17. Ouellette, H. M., Huebner, B. M., Giuffre, A., Slocum, L. A., & Schaefer, B. P. (2025). El papel de la raza, el género y la pobreza en la duración de las estancias en prisión preventiva. Criminología y Políticas Públicas, 24, 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12678
  18. Paquette, S., & Brouillette-Alarie, S. (2024). Delitos sexuales en línea contra menores: tasas de reincidencia y factores predictivos. Abuso sexual, 37(6), 635–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241309631 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241309631
  19. Roos, M. S., Lloyd, C. D., & Serin, R. C. (2023). General criminal dynamic risk and strength factors predict short-term general recidivism outcomes. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 35(8), 981–1008. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221146499 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221146499
  20. Seto, M. C., Augustyn, C., Roche, K. M., & Hilkes, G. (2023). Empirically-based dynamic risk and protective factors for sexual offending. Clinical Psychology Review, 106, 102355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102355
  21. Stevens, C. D. J., Tan, L., & Grace, R. C. (2015). Socially desirable responding and psychometric evaluation of dynamic risk in child sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(4), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1120868 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1120868
  22. Torres Cruz, C., & Suárez Díaz, E. (2020). La biomedicalización del riesgo sexual en América Latina en el siglo XXI. Revista Ciencias de la Salud, 18(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.9799 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/revsalud/a.9799
  23. Van den Berg, J. W., Smid, W., Kossakowski, J. J., van Beek, D., Borsboom, D., Janssen, E., & Gijs, L. (2020). The Application of Network Analysis to Dynamic Risk Factors in Adult Male Sex Offenders. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(3), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620901720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620901720
  24. Varela, J. G., Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Caperton, J. D., & Gonzalez, E., Jr. (2013). Do Static-99 and Static-99R perform similarly for White, Black, and Latino sexual offenders? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12(4), 231–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.846950
  25. Walters, G. D., & Cohen, T. H. (2016). The criminal thinking process as a dynamic risk factor. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000185 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000185
  26. Zhang, J., Bürkner, P.-C., Kiesel, A., & Dignath, D. (2023). How emotional stimuli modulate cognitive control. Psychological Bulletin, 149(1–2), 25–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000389 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000389
  27. Zgoba, K. M., Liu, L., & Matthews, D. T. (2023). Advancing research: differences in sexual and non-sexual offense recidivism. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(13), 6212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20136212 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20136212

Published 2026-10-01

Keywords

  • Sexual recidivism,
  • Risk factors,
  • Prison population,
  • Systematic review,
  • Forensic psychology

How to Cite

Orellana Davila, G. N., Valarezo Guzmán, E. ., & Maxi Maxi, E. . (2026). Static and dynamic factors of sexual recidivism in prison populations: A systematic review. Contemporary Research, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.58995/redlic.rmic.v4.n4.a237