NCJ Number
177865
Journal
Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Volume: 7 Issue: 4 Dated: 1999 Pages: 43-58
Date Published
1999
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This comparative analysis of sex offenders' attitudes toward child sexual abuse was designed to test the theory that sex offenders use cognitive distortions to rationalize their criminal and abusive acts toward children.
Abstract
The study involved 34 sex offenders, 40 therapists who worked with sex offenders, and a comparison group of 57 university students. Factor analysis was used to identify the substructures of the 31-item questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of items that measured attitudes toward severity of punishment for sexual violations, sexual contact with children, and placing blame on the victim. The measurement was devised to be taken by offenders who abuse their own children, abuse children known to them outside of the family, and abuse strangers. Thus, the majority of the questions did not attempt to obtain specific information about incestuous practices, but rather child molestation in general. The findings show that sex offenders differed from the other two groups on all three factors. Sex offenders reported less agreement with severe punishment for sex offenses, had higher ratings of agreement with physical contact with children, and rated higher on items that endorsed blaming the victim. These findings support the view that the cognitions of sex offenders differ significantly from those who do not engage in child molestation. By learning about the cognitive differences between child sex offenders and non-offenders, the facilitation of important behavioral change in sex offenders can begin to occur. 5 tables and 22 references