UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Assessing the implicit theories and motivations of rapists, pedophilic child molesters, and mixed offenders 2011

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2011_fall_Bennett_Andrea.pdf
ubc_2011_fall_Bennett_Andrea.pdf [ 1.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0072037.json
JSON-LD: 1.0072037+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0072037.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0072037+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0072037+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0072037+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0072037.ris

Full Text

  ASSESSING THE IMPLICIT THEORIES AND MOTIVATIONS OF RAPISTS, PEDOPHILIC CHILD MOLESTERS, AND MIXED SEXUAL OFFENDERS   by   Andrea Heather Bennett  B.A., Honours, The University of Waterloo, 2007  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan)    July 2011 © Andrea Heather Bennett, 2011  ii  Abstract The criminal files of 101 high-risk recidivating rapists, pedophilic child molesters, and mixed offenders were subjected to grounded theory analysis. Seven implicit theories (ITs) of Ward‘s (2000) Implicit Theory Model (ITM) that underlie the beliefs, desires, and motives for sexual offending were identified: (a) uncontrollability, (b) entitlement, (c) women as sexual objects, (d) women are dangerous, (e) children as sexual beings, (f) nature of harm, and (g) dangerous world comprised of Factor 1 (revenge) and Factor 2 (children are trustworthy companions). Chi-square analyses further revealed that all sexual offender types held strong feelings of entitlement, rapists and mixed offenders shared similar prevalence rates for the women as sexual objects IT, and pedophilic child molesters and mixed offenders held similar prevalence rates for the uncontrollability and nature of harm ITs. Multinomial logistic regression (MLR) analyses also showed that although rapists were more likely to believe that women were dangerous, and pedophiles were more likely to believe that children were sexual beings, the ITM is more accurate at classifying sexual offenders who do not hold these ITs, indicating the model‘s strong specificity. Finally, grounded theory revealed that the ITs of the ITM clustered into four motivations to sexually offend: (a) sexual, (b) aggressive, (c) sadistic and (d) intimacy. Rapists were found to be the most sadistically motivated, whereas mixed offenders were predominantly sexually motivated, and pedophilic child molesters were largely driven by a need for intimacy. The implications for treatment, predicting risk for sexual recidivism, and the ITM‘s utility in assisting in offender profiling techniques are discussed.   iii  Preface The following research was approved by the University of British Columbia – Okanagan‘s Behavioural Research and Ethics Board, certification number H09-01026. The data used in the current research was originally collected by Dr. Caroline Greaves at Simon Fraser University, certification number 39112, and approved for use in the current study.     iv  Table of Contents  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface .......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ viii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... ix 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 1.1    Theories of the Cognitive Distortions of Sexual Offenders ...................................................3 1.1.1    Social learning theory .................................................................................................................... 4 1.1.2    Feminist theory .............................................................................................................................. 5 1.1.3    Social cognition ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1.3.1    Schemas in sexual offending .................................................................................................. 7 1.1.3.2    Schemas as implicit theories .................................................................................................. 7 1.1.3.3    Implicit theories and sexual offending ................................................................................... 8 1.2  The Implicit Theories Model of Sexual Offenders ................................................................11 1.1.1    ITs about the self ......................................................................................................................... 12 1.2.1.1   Uncontrollability ................................................................................................................... 12 1.2.1.2    Entitlement ........................................................................................................................... 14 1.2.2    ITs about the victim: ITM-R ....................................................................................................... 16 1.2.2.1    Women as sexual objects ..................................................................................................... 16 1.2.2.2    Women are dangerous .......................................................................................................... 17 1.2.3    ITs about the victim: ITM-CM .................................................................................................... 18 1.2.3.1   Children as sexual beings ...................................................................................................... 18 1.2.3.2   Nature of harm ...................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.4   ITs about the world ...................................................................................................................... 20 1.2.4.1   Dangerous world ................................................................................................................... 20 1.3   The Benefits of the ITM: Expansion and Profiling Motivation ............................................22 1.3.1   Expanding the ITM to new populations: PCMs and MOs ........................................................... 24 1.3.1.1   Pedophilic child molesters (PCM) ........................................................................................ 24 1.3.1.2   Mixed offenders .................................................................................................................... 25 1.3.2   Applying the ITM to a motivational typology of sexual offenders .............................................. 27  v  1.3.2.1   Sexually motivated ................................................................................................................ 28 1.3.2.2   Aggressively motivated ......................................................................................................... 29 1.3.2.3   Sadistically motivated ........................................................................................................... 29 1.4   Purpose of Present Study .......................................................................................................30 1.5   Hypotheses .............................................................................................................................31 1.5.1   Identifying ITs .............................................................................................................................. 31 1.5.2   Classifying sexual offenders based on ITs ................................................................................... 31 1.5.3   Classifying sexual offenders based on their motivations to offend .............................................. 32 2 Method ...................................................................................................................................33 2.1   Participants ............................................................................................................................33 2.1.1   Sample characteristics .................................................................................................................. 34 2.2   Procedure ...............................................................................................................................35 2.2.1   Offence type ................................................................................................................................. 35 2.2.2   Coding of the original variables ................................................................................................... 36 2.2.3   Variables used in the present study .............................................................................................. 36 2.2.4   The coding of ITs ......................................................................................................................... 36 2.3   Data Analysis .........................................................................................................................38 2.3.1   Chi-square analysis ...................................................................................................................... 38 2.3.2   Logistic regression ....................................................................................................................... 38 3 Results ....................................................................................................................................40 3.1 The ITs of Sexual Offenders: Prevalence Rates .....................................................................40 3.1.1    Prevalence of ITs in rapists ......................................................................................................... 40 3.1.2    Presence of ITs in PCMs and mixed offenders ........................................................................... 40 3.1.3    Association between ITs and sexual offender type ..................................................................... 41 3.2 The Implicit Theories of Sexual Offenders: Classification ....................................................42 3.2.1    Classifying sexual offenders ....................................................................................................... 42 3.2.1.1 Classification of sexual offenders based on the ITM-R ...................................................... 43 3.2.1.2 Classification of sexual offenders based on the ITM-CM ................................................... 44 3.3 Motivations of Sexual Offenders............................................................................................45 3.3.1    Sexually motivated offenders ...................................................................................................... 46 3.3.2    Aggressively motivated offenders ............................................................................................... 46 3.3.3    Sadistically motivated offenders ................................................................................................. 47 3.3.4    Intimacy motivated offenders ...................................................................................................... 47  vi  3.3.5    Classification of sexual offenders based on motivations ............................................................ 48 3.4 The Role of Psychopathy and Sadism in Predicting Sadistic Motivations ............................49 4 Discussion ..............................................................................................................................52 4.1 Identifying the ITM-R in Rapists ...........................................................................................52 4.2 Identifying the ITM-CM in PCMS .........................................................................................54 4.3 Identifying the ITM-R and ITM-CM in Mixed Offenders .....................................................55 4.4 Classifying Sexual Offenders Based on Their ITs .................................................................56 4.5 The Motivations of Sexual Offenders: What Their ITs Tell Us .............................................58 4.5.1    Sexual motivation to offend ........................................................................................................ 58 4.5.2    Aggressive motivations to offend................................................................................................ 60 4.5.3    Sadistic motivations to offend ..................................................................................................... 61 4.5.4    Intimacy motivation to offend ..................................................................................................... 62 4.5.5    Psychopathy and Sadism within motivations to offend .............................................................. 64 4.5.6    Benefits of the ITM for assessing motivation ............................................................................. 65 4.6 Implications of the ITM: Treatment, Risk Assessment, and Offender Profiling ...................66 4.6.1    Treatment .................................................................................................................................... 66 4.6.2    Risk assessments ......................................................................................................................... 68 4.6.3    Offender profiling ....................................................................................................................... 69 4.7 Limitations ..............................................................................................................................71 4.8 Future Research ......................................................................................................................74 5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................76 References .....................................................................................................................................77 Appendices ....................................................................................................................................96 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................96 RCMP Integrated Sexual Predator Intelligence Network (ISPIN) Template .......................................... 96 Appendix B ...................................................................................................................................99 ISPIN File Review Coding Protocol ....................................................................................................... 99 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................123 Post-offense statements reflecting implicit beliefs in the sample ......................................................... 123  vii  List of Tables Table 1    Chi-Square Tests of Independence [and Adusted Residuals] of Implicit Theories Present Among Sexual Offenders .............................................................................. 124 Table 2    Model Fit, Effect Size, and Classification Success of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Individual Implicit Theories ................................................................... 125 Table 3    Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses [and 95% Confidence Intervals] of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Implicit Theories .............................................. 126 Table 4    Logistic Regression Analyses [and 95% Confidence Intervals] of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Implicit Theories: Pedophilic Child Molesters vs. Mixed Offenders .................................................................................................................... 127 Table 5    Chi-Square Tests of Independence [and Adjusted Residuals] for the Implicit Theories Observed Without Motivational Typologies to Sexually Offend ............... 128 Table 6    Chi-Square of Independence [and Adjusted Residuals] of Motivations to Offend Among Sexual Offender Types .................................................................................. 129 Table 7   Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses [and 95% Confidence Intervals] of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Motivation to Offend ....................................... 130 Table 8    Frequency of Psychopathy and Sadism in Sexual Offenders' Motivations to Offend ......................................................................................................................... 131          viii  List of Figures Figure 1    Prevalence rates for ITs present in rapists, pedophilic child molesters, and mixed offenders ........................................................................................................ 132 Figure 2    Distribution of the different motivations to sexually offend. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals .......................................................................................... 133 Figure 3    Distribution of the different motivations to sexually offend within sexual offender types............................................................................................................ 134    ix  Acknowledgements  I would first like to thank Dr. Caroline Greaves for her generosity in allowing me to utilize her data for this study. Without you, this would not have been possible. Second, I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Brian O‘Connor, for his statistical expertise, and Dr. Jan Cioe for his extensive knowledge of sexual deviancy. I also thank my partner, Sam Gregory, and my family, who have always believed in me and supported me in achieving my dreams of becoming a forensic psychologist. 1  1 Introduction Sexual crimes against women and children are one of the greatest social issues of the 21 st  century. In 2009, there were over 20,000 reported sexual assaults in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2010), and almost 126,000 in the United States (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010).This rate doubles when estimated unreported assaults are included (Marshall, 1997). The psychological and emotional costs to victims and their families, the high rate of recidivism of sexual offenders, and the financial burden to incarcerate and rehabilitate these offenders all highlight the urgent need for effective research and treatment (Ward, Hudson, Johnston, & Marshall, 1997). In an attempt to answer the question ―Why would someone do this?‖ researchers and clinicians have spent over two decades focusing on the pro-offending statements made by sexual offenders after the assault (Abel, Becker, & Cunningham-Rathner, 1984; Gannon & Polascheck, 2006; Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Mann & Beech, 2003; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990; Murphy, 1990; Scully & Marolla, 1985; Segal & Stermac, 1990; Ward, 2000). Labelled as cognitive distortions within the literature (Abel et al., 1984), these statements reflect underlying beliefs and attitudes that may contribute in a meaningful way to the prevention, assessment, and treatment of sexual offending (Mann & Beech, 2003; Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward & Keenan, 1999; Ward, 2000). However, although cognitive distortions are an integral component within theoretical models of sexual offending (e.g., Finkelhor, 1984; Hall & Hirschman, 1991; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990; Ward & Siegert, 2002), these offence- supportive statements have yet to be clearly defined and explained. This ultimately compromises the treatment and assessment of sexual offenders. For example, cognitive distortions have been variously defined as (a) post-offence justifications that function to reduce cognitive dissonance (Abel et al., 1984), (b) rape-supportive attitudes that reflect traditional sex-role stereotyping and societal acceptance of interpersonal violence toward women (Burt, 1980; Check & Malamuth,  2  1983; Scully & Marolla, 1985), (c) blame attributions that serve to reduce personal responsibility (Blumenthal, Gudjonsson, & Burns, 1999; McKay, Chapman, & Long, 1996; Pollock & Hashmall, 1991), (d) excuses that arise from faulty information processing (Murphy, 1990; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003), and (e) beliefs and attitudes contained within underlying maladaptive schemas/ implicit theories that influence how social interactions are anticipated, interpreted, and acted on (Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991; Mann & Beech, 2003; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Stermac & Segal, 1989; Ward, 2000; Ward & Keenan, 1999). This discrepancy on the underlying causation of cognitive distortions has resulted in disagreements on how to define, measure, treat, and weight them within the sexual offence cycle. Ward‘s Implicit Theory Model (ITM) of cognitive distortions for rapists (ITM-R; Polaschek & Ward, 2002) and child molesters (ITM-CM; Ward, 2000; Ward & Keenan, 1999) is touted as providing the most ―rigorous definition of cognitive distortions‖ in the literature (Mann & Beech, 2003, p. 137). The ITM defines these post-offense statements as products that stem from a core set of underlying implicit theories (i.e., schemas) that reflect beliefs and desires pertaining to the self, the victim, and the world (Ward & Keenan, 1999). These implicit theories are distinct from the superficial post-offense statements made by sexual offenders after the offense in an attempt to castigate blame or diffuse responsibility: Implicit theories are the underlying, entrenched beliefs and attitudes the sexual offender has about himself, the victim, and the social world that exist prior to, during, and after the offense. Further, these implicit theories produce these post-offense statements automatically (i.e., implicitly). It is therefore argued here that the ITM is the best fit for explaining the role of cognition in the sexual offending process. In order to demonstrate this, a brief overview of the leading theories on cognitive distortions, including the ITM, is presented, followed by detailed descriptions and  3  supporting evidence of the implicit theories held by rapists and child molesters. From this, it is argued that the ITM is the best model to apply to sexual offenders, including two groups of sexual offenders previously understudied in the cognitive distortion literature: Pedophilic child molesters (PCMs) and mixed sexual offenders. Finally, an outline of a motivational typology based on unique clusters of implicit theories of rapists and child molesters (Beech, Fisher, & Ward, 2005) is described, with the aim of applying it to PCMs and mixed offenders. By demonstrating the validity of the ITM in this high-risk incarcerated sample of sexual offenders, including the mixed offender, this model can achieve gold-standard status in the explanation of cognitive distortions. 1.1    Theories of the Cognitive Distortions of Sexual Offenders Before describing the benefits of using the ITM (Ward, 2000) to explain the influence of cognitions on sexually offending behaviour, a review of the prominent historical theories that have influenced how cognitive distortions have been defined, measured, and incorporated into treatment programs is presented. Each theory is evaluated based on its (a) empirical adequacy and scope: How well does the theory account for existing findings and range of the phenomena in question?, (b) internal coherence: Does the theory contain gaps or contradictions in logic?, (c) unifying power: Does the theory unify previously isolated theories?, (d) fertility: Does the theory provide new predictions, open up new avenues of research or translate into treatment interventions?, and (e) explanatory depth: Does the theory describe deep mechanisms and processes (Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2005)?. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach will be addressed using these theory appraisal criteria with the intent of demonstrating the benefits of using the ITM to explain the influence of cognitions on sexually offending behaviour.  4  1.1.1    Social learning theory The seminal work of Gene Abel and his colleagues (1984) generated the first theory of cognitive distortions of child molesters using a social learning framework. Throughout the socialization process, adolescents learn what sexually arousing stimuli are socially acceptable and what stimuli should be inhibited (e.g., children). Sexual offending tendencies are thought to develop when the culmination of masturbatory deviant fantasies to orgasm reaches the point where the adolescent is unable to get aroused via socially appropriate stimuli (e.g., age- appropriate partners). Moreover, the lack of social disgrace from this secretive behaviour allows this deviant interest to persist into adulthood. Although not explicitly stated, Abel et al. (1984) argue that cognitive distortions arise out of the desire to reduce the cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) between conflicting desires to have sex with children and socially learned beliefs that condemn it. As a result of this discrepancy, the individual develops a belief system of cognitions that legitimates child-adult sexual interactions. This ultimately allows the offender to continue offending without guilt (Abel, et al., 1989; Murphy, 1990; Ward, 2000). Scully and Marolla (1984) also subscribe to a social-learning/cognitive dissonance theory to explain how rapists rationalize and deny their sexual offences. These authors conducted extensive interviews with rapists that revealed a belief that rape is learned from socially proscribed attitudes about sexual aggression against women. From this, rapists were categorized as ―admitters‖ or ―deniers‖ based on the content of their cognitive distortions: Admitters excused the rape by appealing to an error in judgement that runs contrary to their typical ―nice-guy‖ image (cognitive dissonance), whereas deniers elicited socially learned beliefs that served to degrade the character of their victims (e.g., ―Nice girls don‘t get raped‖; ―Women are seductresses who mean yes when they say no‖). Thus, rapists are able to justify and excuse their  5  behaviour via social portrayals of women (e.g., women are sexual objects) in order to reduce cognitive dissonance between desire and morality. Abel et al.‘s (1984) and Scully and Marolla‘s (1984) fusion of the social learning perspective with the study of cognitive distortions has engendered new research on sex offenders‘ thought processes. However, these researchers do not explicitly identify the cognitive mechanisms responsible for eliciting or maintaining sexually offending behaviour. In this way, the social learning theory has adequate unifying power and fertility but lacks explanatory depth. Further, Abel‘s social learning perspective focuses exclusively on deviant sexual preferences for children which is not a universal characteristic of child molesters (e.g., Barbaree & Marshall, 1989; Marshall, 1997), and ignores alternate motivations, such as the need for power, control, or intimacy. Additionally, not all offenders engage in cognitive consistency in order to justify their actions; for example, one minister stated, ―You do things, you don‘t always justify the action...you do it despite of or in spite of the known consequences‖ (Salter, 2003, p. 75). Thus, the social learning approach also lacks internal coherence.  1.1.2    Feminist theory The second approach to explaining cognitive distortions is exclusive to sexual offences against women. During the time when Abel and colleagues (1984) were suggesting cognitive contributions to child molestation, feminist researchers were exploring the post-offence statements of rapists (Burt, 1980; Malamuth, 1981; Check & Malamuth, 1983). Feminist theory adopts the social learning perspective to explain sexual offending against women as socially learned rape myths – the ―prejudicial, stereotyped or false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists that create a hostile climate toward rape victims‖ (Burt, 1980, p. 217). These myths are predicted from negative social attitudes such as sex role stereotyping (e.g., ―A wife should never contradict her husband in public‖), adversarial sexual beliefs (e.g., ―Most women are sly and  6  manipulating when they are out to attract a man‖), and an acceptance of interpersonal violence (e.g., ―Many times a woman will pretend she doesn‘t want to have intercourse because she doesn‘t want to seem loose, but she‘s really hoping the man will force her‖) that function to deny, minimize, and blame the victims for their own victimization. Burt‘s (1980) interviews with over 500 men and women revealed that individuals with high sex-role stereotyping attitudes, adversarial sexual beliefs, and an acceptance of interpersonal violence had higher rape myth acceptance beliefs than individuals low on these variables. In addition, Check and Malamuth (1983) found that college men holding higher sex- role stereotype attitudes were more sexually aroused to depictions of rape, and reported a higher likelihood of committing rape in the future compared to college men with low sex-role stereotype attitudes. Consequently, socially learned rape-myth attitudes are not limited to men who sexually offend against women (e.g., Scully & Marolla, 1984) but permeate into the general population, including women (i.e., potential victims). An evaluation of the feminist theory shows that this approach accounts for findings that exist within the rape literature, giving it an empirical adequacy. In addition, it combines social learning theories with feminist theories and has stimulated much research on rapist distortions, thus having unifying power and fertility. However, it is limited to rapists, and does not address the deeper cognitive mechanisms and processes involved in the generation of this societal acceptance of rape myths. Therefore it is deficient in internal coherence and explanatory depth. 1.1.3    Social cognition The third approach to explaining the contribution of cognitive factors to sexual offending is drawn from the social-cognition literature. Social cognition is the study of the way in which thoughts, actions, and behaviours are influenced by mental abilities (e.g., memory, perceptions, and information processing) in making sense of the social world. This is a complex and dynamic  7  process that is constantly moderated by the motivations and emotions of the social observer (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Specifically within the sexual offending literature, social cognition asserts that incoming social information is biased (e.g., Blumenthal et al., 1999; Hanson, Gizarelli, & Scott, 1994; Murphy, 1990; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003) to fit with underlying cognitive schemas (e.g., Check, Malamuth, Elias, & Barton, 1985; Mann & Beech, 2003) or implicit theories (Ward, 2000) that legitimate sexual offending. 1.1.3.1    Schemas in sexual offending From childhood, individuals are constantly categorizing incoming information from the social and physical environment into meaningful patterns, or schemas. Schemas are knowledge structures containing units of information that can include rules, attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions. These units share similar meaning, and serve to explain, predict, and control aspects of the social world (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Glaser, 1984). When an individual is confronted with a new social situation, he or she will draw on the schema that contains the expected behaviours within a similar circumstance. Through rehearsal, the associations between units of information contained in schemas are strengthened. This increases the schema‘s accessibility and influences how incoming information is processed and organized to reflect contained knowledge within it (Williams, Watts, MacLeod, & Matthews, 1997). Thus, schemas provide selection criteria in the form of goal-directed expectancies and confirmatory biases (Langton & Marshall, 2000). 1.1.3.2    Schemas as implicit theories One way of interpreting schemas is as implicit theories. The notion of implicit theories originates from developmental psychology, where children gain knowledge about the world by forming theories and testing them, much like scientists. A pertinent implicit theory within developmental psychology is theory of mind (Wellman, 1990). Theory of mind is the ability to  8  attribute mental states (emotions, beliefs, and desires) to oneself and to others in an attempt to understand and explain behaviour. As children develop, their theories of mind become increasingly sophisticated as a function of the evidence they generate about other people‘s mental states, and the ability of their present theory to explain and predict the behaviour of others. These implicit theories may undergo several modifications throughout the lifespan in the face of consistently strong counter-evidence (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). The evaluation of this counter-evidence is moderated by an information processing system that selectively attends to new social information matching existing information contained within a particular theory (i.e., is influenced by a confirmatory bias). By directing attention towards encoding theory- congruent information and ignoring, minimizing, or reinterpreting theory-incongruent information, implicit theories are able to maintain existing belief systems that guide future behaviour (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Ward, Fon, Hudson, & McCormack, 1998). 1.1.3.3    Implicit theories and sexual offending Viewing schemas as implicit theories explains how beliefs are mentally developed, represented, and used to bias interpretations of interpersonal situations. The perceptions, experiences, and feelings of the offender create a network of related beliefs pertaining to expectations about the relationship between certain mental states (e.g., sexual desire and willingness) and the expression of these mental states within social conditions. These expectations enable individuals to make inferences about the other person‘s current experience and to predict his or her future actions. Further, these perceptions, experiences, and feelings create prototypical responses to social and interpersonal situations and act as heuristic ―shortcuts‖ when interpreting familiar and novel situations.  9  It is these prototypical expectations and responses that lead sex offenders to interpret the social world in offence-congruent ways. For example, a rapist who takes a woman on a date (social condition) acknowledges his date‘s refusal of his sexual advances (behaviour), but this results in a causal misattribution of her refusal as ‗playing hard to get‘ (mental state). In their study of how sexually aggressive men misperceive hostility and seductiveness on a first date (social condition), Murphy, Coleman, and Haynes (1986) had men identify a woman‘s response to a man‘s sexual advances as hostile, assertive, seductive, or friendly (behaviour). They found that sexually aggressive men who perceived friendliness as seduction, and assertiveness as hostility (mental state) had stronger rape-supportive attitudes (as measured by the Rape Myth Acceptance, Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence, Adversarial Sexual Beliefs, and Sex Role Stereotyping scales) than men who accurately identified responses. However, only a failure to discriminate hostility from assertiveness predicted sexually aggressive behaviour (see also Lipton, McDonel, & McFall, 1987). Alternately, a child molester who finds himself alone with a child (social condition) will interpret the child‘s questions about sex (behaviour) as wanting to have sex with the offender (mental state). In their study of how child molesters misconstrue facial responses as perceived victim compliance and enjoyment, Stermac and Segal (1989) had participants read vignettes describing different levels of sexual contact between a man and a 7-year old child (social condition). In each vignette, the child was either smiling, passively neutral, or crying (behaviour). Participants then answered a series of questions regarding their perceptions of how beneficial this sexual contact was to the child, how consenting the child was, and how responsible the child was for initiating the contact (mental state). Stermac and Segal found that child molesters interpreted smiles and passivity (but not crying) as reflecting consent to, and enjoyment of sexual contact with adults. Further, independent of how sexually intrusive the act  10  was (e.g., touching, fondling, and penetration), child molesters found the child to be more responsible for the sexual contact based on these responses. These examples highlight how particular implicit theories contain representations of the victim‘s desires, beliefs, and attitudes. When a victim offers social information that does not match the assumptions and predictions associated with these implicit theories, it is rejected or reinterpreted in light of them. The consequences of interpreting incoming social information as theory-congruent and/or dismissing theory-incongruent information are twofold: This misinterpretation leads sex offenders to interpret sexual information in maladaptive ways and to interpret non-sexual information in sexual ways (Ward et al., 1997). Moreover, because information is interpreted to reflect underlying theories, sex offenders are not easily able to internalize contradictory evidence to these beliefs, and are therefore not easily able to modify or abandon them. For instance, in Stermac and Segal‘s (1989) study, child molesters strongly believed that that the adult-child sexual interaction was beneficial to the child, except in instances where the child was overtly crying. Only then was the counter-evidence too strong to reinterpret or ignore. It is evident then that the misinterpretation of incoming social information plays a key role in the perpetuation of sexual offending beyond post-hoc thought modifications (Abel et al., 1984) or socially learned values (Burt, 1980; Scully & Marolla, 1984). The social cognition approach therefore has strong empirical scope and internal coherence. In addition, the social- cognitive approach has fertility by producing a new generation of research that seeks to explain the motivation to sexually offend as stemming from underlying belief systems and erroneous information processing – both in rapists (Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Mann & Beech, 2003; Polaschek & Ward, 2002) and child molesters (e.g., Hanson et al., 1994; Murphy, 1990; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003, Ward & Keenan, 1999). Finally, it addresses the underlying  11  mechanisms responsible for engaging in cognitive dissonance, thereby proving its unifying power and explanatory depth. Although many typologies of sexual offenders and the categorical schemes of their beliefs and attitudes have received growing attention over the past two decades (e.g., Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Mann & Beech, 2003; Ward, 2000), attempts to construct a solid theory from these categorizations have been limited. The next section outlines the most pertinent model to be constructed out of the social-cognitive approach: the Implicit Theories Model of Sexual Offenders (ITM) as proposed by Ward and his colleagues (Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward & Keenan, 1999; Ward, 2000). This model has been validated in samples of rapists (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004), sexual murderers (Beech et al., 2005), and female child molesters (Beech, Parret, Ward, & Fisher, 2009), and is therefore most appropriate to determine the distorted cognitions in the current sample of chronically recidivating rapists, pedophilic child molesters, and mixed offenders. 1.2  The Implicit Theories Model of Sexual Offenders Different theoretical definitions have altered the way cognitive distortions are labelled and explained. The three approaches described above – social learning, feminist, and social- cognitive – share many commonalities, but because they were developed in different contexts they have existed independently from one another in a somewhat disjointed manner. In order to provide a solid theory for researchers and clinicians to operate from, Ward and colleagues have systematized the distorted beliefs and attitudes found in the clinical and empirical literature into thematic networks of implicit theories (ITs; Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward, 2000; Ward & Keenan, 1999). The ITM argues that cognitive distortions emerge from underlying causal theories created in response to persistent developmental experiences in childhood that impacted the offender in a meaningful way (e.g., abuse, death of a parent). These  12  ITs help define how the offender orients himself within (potentially sexual) interpersonal interactions, motivate sexual offending behaviour, and are responsible for the elicitation of sexual offenders‘ post-offence statements (i.e., cognitive distortions; Ward et al., 1997). The ITM has two versions: the Implicit Theories Model of Rapists (ITM-R; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Polaschek & Ward, 2002) and the Implicit Theories Model of Child Molesters (ITM-CM; Ward & Keenan, 1999). Each model was developed from a range of responses to questionnaire items of cognitive distortions (e.g., Abel et al., 1989; Bumby, 1996; Burt, 1980; Check et al., 1985) and from clinical interviews (Scully & Marolla, 1984, 1985). From this, seven separate, but related, ITs were identified that concern (a) the self: uncontrollability and entitlement; (b) the victim: women as sexual objects, women are dangerous, children as sexual beings, and nature of harm; and (c) the world: dangerous world. Of these, the ITs of uncontrollability, entitlement, and dangerous world are shared by rapists and child molesters. 1.1.1    ITs about the self 1.2.1.1   Uncontrollability Found in the ITM-R and the ITM-CM, this IT serves two functions: It can either reflect a belief that the offender is unable to control his sexual urges and behaviours, or a belief that external forces beyond the offender‘s control caused him to offend (e.g., intoxication). For instance, out of almost 4,000 college students surveyed, over 23% of college men anonymously reported being in a situation in which they became so sexually aroused that they could not stop themselves from having sex despite victim protestation (Koss & Oros, 1982). In either case, this IT allows the offender to avoid responsibility and social disapproval regarding his sexual offence (Laws, Hudson, & Ward, 2002; Marshall, Anderson, & Fernandez, 1999; Mihailides, Devilly, & Ward, 2004).  13  This hyper-sexuality and preoccupation with sex is prominent in many models of sexual aggression (e.g., Marshall & Barbaree, 1990; Hall & Hirschman, 1991) and is a significant factor in the prediction of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004), with over 43% of rapists and child molesters meeting criteria compared to 18% of non-offenders (Marshall, Marshall, Moulden, & Serran, 2008). This preoccupation has been likened to the concept of sexual addiction in which the individual is unable to control his sexual behaviour that persists despite harmful consequences, much like other addictions (e.g., drugs and alcohol or compulsive gambling; Carnes, 1983; Hanson & Harris, 2000; Marshall & Marshall, 2001). Evidence to support this uncontrollability to control sexual urges is found in community samples of men, incarcerated child molesters, and rapists. For example, men who self-reported a strong likelihood of committing rape in the future were more hypersexual and had a higher than average preoccupation with sex than men low in likelihood to commit rape (Check & Malamuth, 1983).  Moreover, Marshall and his colleagues (2008) tested sexual preoccupation via the Sexual Addiction Screening Test in a sample of sexual offenders and community non-offenders and found rapists and child molesters had significantly higher rates of sexual addiction compared to non-offenders. Testing the uncontrollability IT directly, Mihailides and colleagues (2004) conducted an implicit association test to determine the strength of the association between ―sexual‖ concepts and ―loss of control‖ concepts. They found that child molesters were quicker to respond to congruent sex – loss of control word pairs (e.g., LUST-IRRESISTABLE) than to incongruent word pairs (e.g., LUST-CAUTIOUS). This latent response differed significantly between sexual offenders, non-sexual offenders, and non-offenders. Commonly reported distorted statements that reflect a loss of sexual control include, ―Men get overpowered by their urges and cannot control their sexual feelings,‖ ―A lot of time sexual assaults are not planned, they just happen,‖ and ―I couldn‘t help it‖ (Ward & Keenan, p. 831).  14  Conversely, other offenders externalize blame for their offences to drugs and alcohol, situational stressors, or victim behaviour (e.g., Pollack & Hashmall, 1991; Scully & Marolla, 1984). Statements that blame the victim often relay underlying rape-supportive attitudes such as, ―If a girl engages in necking and petting and she lets things get out of hand it is her fault if her partner forces sex on her,‖ ―In most cases when a woman is raped, she was asking for it,‖ and ―Most rape complaints are false and are made by women who are trying to get back at a former partner‖ (Polaschek & Ward, 2002, pp. 397-398). In addition, offenders holding the uncontrollability IT are also likely to see themselves as the true victim. Statements that deflect blame include, ―I did it because I was sexually abused as a child,‖ ―I was in a trance and it just happened,‖ and ―Many men sexually assault children at times of stress‖ (Ward & Keenan, 1999, p. 831). 1.2.1.2    Entitlement Found in the ITM-R and the ITM-CM, the sexual entitlement IT is characterized by an attitude of superiority, a disregard for the rights of others, and a belief that men are at liberty to have sex with whomever they want, whenever they want it (e.g., ―Women are there to meet men‘s sexual needs regardless of their own‖; Polaschek & Ward, 2002, p. 398). Due to this exaggerated sense of self-importance, when these needs are not met the offender feels a justification in meting out punishment (e.g., ―Being a whore and acting too good for a man justify rape,‖ and ―Men rape because women reject them‖; Polaschek & Ward, p. 398). Scully and Marolla (1985) viewed this sense of entitlement as an underlying theme of ―sexual access,‖ where the attitude of male entitlement justifies rape as either a suitable method of conquering female rejection or gaining a sense of power and control. As one rapist put it, ―[the victim] is going to do what I want when I want her to do it‖ (Ressler, Burgess, & Douglas, 1985, p. 215).  15  An implication of this IT is that offenders feel they can offend with impunity – whatever they can get away with is considered to be acceptable (Ward & Keenan, 1999). This self-serving sexual narcissism exists to varying degrees in rapists (Beech, Ward, & Fisher, 2006), extra-familial child molesters (Marziano, Beech, Ward, & Pattison, 2006; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003), incest offenders (Hanson et al., 1994; Hartley, 1998), clergy members (Saradjian & Nobus, 2003), and sexual murderers (Beech et al., 2005). For example, although the main motive behind the molestation of parish children was to meet the clergyman‘s needs (e.g., ―I‘m feeling down and need cheering up‖; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003, p. 116), the prevalence rate of the entitlement IT is substantially lower among extra-familial (Marziano et al., 2006) and female child molesters (Beech et al., 2009) compared to rapists (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004) and sexual murderers (Beech et al., 2005). This IT has also been found in nonsexual offenders: testing this IT directly, Chapleau and Oswald (2010) found that the majority of men in their community sample showed an implicit association between ―power‖ concepts (e.g., AUTHORITY) and ―sex‖ concepts (e.g., KISSING) as noted by faster reaction times to these word pairs compared to reaction times to the pairing of ―weak‖ concepts (e.g., FRAGILE) with ―sex‖ concepts (e.g., FOREPLAY). Common distortions that reflect the entitlement IT include, ―I‘m just providing sex education,‖ ―I deserve a special treat and she will make me feel better,‖ ―If I don‘t do it someone else will, so it might as well be me,‖ ―People do what I tell them and that includes sex,‖ and ―This is just a game, like taking a dare to see if I can get away with it‖ (Ward & Keenan, 1999, p. 829).   16   1.2.2    ITs about the victim: ITM-R 1.2.2.1    Women as sexual objects This IT postulates that women enjoy all sexual encounters — even when it is coerced, because they were created to meet the sexual needs of men (e.g., ―A woman can enjoy sex even when it is forced upon her‖; ―Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped and may unconsciously set up a situation in which they are likely to be attacked‖; Polaschek & Ward, 2002, pp. 395-396). The belief that the victim enjoys her attack is strongly predictive of male proclivity to rape (Abel et al., 1987; Malamuth, 1981; Wolfe & Baker, 1980). For example, Scully and Marolla (1984) found that 39% of incarcerated rapists believed that ―most women eventually relax and enjoy [the rape]‖ (p. 535). Similarly, Malamuth measured individual arousal to rape depictions and found that men with a high likelihood to rape (LR) perceived rape victims to derive pleasure from their attack and believed they had a secret desire to be raped. Men reporting low and high LR were equally aroused to the ―consent‖ and ―rape‖ victim situations when the victim was portrayed as being sexually aroused during the attack. However, unlike high LR men, low LR men were not aroused to depictions where the victim was clearly expressing distress and pain. Further, women are viewed as sexual commodities that exist in a constant state of sexual receptiveness and desire; because of this, they cannot be harmed by sex unless they are severely physically injured. Sex-role socialization is thought to play a role in the development of this aspect of the women as sexual objects IT. According to this idea, women are raised to suppress their sexual interest and ―play hard to get‖ which teaches men to persist even when rejected. Thus, men who commit rape are often under the impression that the victim was a willing participant (Wolfe & Baker, 1980) and fail to realize the harm they have caused (Hamilton &  17  Yee, 1990). Malamuth and Brown (1994; see also Murphy et al., 1986 ) found that sexually aggressive men who had difficulty recognizing true female rejection also had strong rape- supportive attitudes which led them to misperceive sexual intent in a woman‘s non-sexual behaviour (e.g., clothing style, friendliness). Thus, sexual rejection is reinterpreted in favour of the underlying belief that all female behaviour is sexually laden (e.g., ―A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex‖; Polaschek & Ward, 2002, p. 397). 1.2.2.2    Women are dangerous The women are dangerous IT (AKA: unknowable; Polaschek & Ward, 2002) argues that men perceive women as untrustworthy, intentionally disguising their desires and needs, and impossible to understand. Men therefore have a shallow and stereotyped understanding of women, including the attitude that women are either ―nice girls or whores‖ (p. 394). This dictates how sexually aggressive men interpret hetero-social interactions in offence-supportive ways (e.g., ―A lot of times when women say no, they are just playing hard to get and really mean yes‖; p. 395). The modification of the original IT of ―women are unknowable‖ to include the aspect of unpredictable danger arose out of the first validation study conducted by Polaschek and Gannon (2004). They found the 9% base rate among rapists based on the original ―women are unknowable‖ IT was too low to warrant its inclusion as an implicit theory. They noted, however, that rapists frequently held misogynistic stereotypes of women, including perceiving them as vindictively unpredictable, and also reported a desire for retribution against perceived wrongs from these women (cf. Mann & Hollin‘s grievance schema; 2001, as cited in Mann & Beech, 2003). Relabeling it as women are dangerous, base rates increased to 65% (see also Beech et al., 2005, 2006).The revision of this IT to include dangerousness reflects Malamuth and Brown‘s  18  (1994) suspicious schema, and Burt‘s (1980) adversarial sexual beliefs construct. A suspicious schema about women is characterized by a hostile and distrustful orientation towards women, a desire to dominate them, and an expectation that heterosexual intimate relationships are exploitative and manipulative (e.g., ―Most women are sly and manipulating when they are out to attract a man‖; Burt, 1980, p. 222). Malamuth and Brown found that sexually aggressive men rated hostile and assertive responses from women as positive (e.g., as seductive teasing), and seductive and friendly responses as more negative and distrustful. Moreover, the suspiciousness schema predicted sexually aggressive behaviour independently of sexual arousal to rape and rape-supportive attitudes (see also Milner & Webster, 2005), and may actually act as a primer for this arousal: Inducing anger in men increased their arousal rates to depictions of forced sex (Yates, Barbaree, & Marshall, 1984). 1.2.3    ITs about the victim: ITM-CM 1.2.3.1   Children as sexual beings Child molesters with this IT believe that children are inherently sexual beings driven by a desire for pleasure, and that they enjoy sexual contact with adults. Further, because sex is perceived as an expression of love and affection, sexual contact is beneficial to the child rather than detrimental; any harm that does occur is conceived of as arising from the distress of suppressing the child‘s sexual needs and development. Moreover, because the offender believes that children are aware of their own sexuality, children are able to make decisions regarding consensual sexual activity with adults. This ―consent‖ is non-verbal: When a child does not cry or protest, the child is seen as a willing sexual partner (e.g., Stermac & Segal, 1989). Seeing children through this sexualized lens leads the molester to interpret the child‘s everyday behaviour as sexual in tone—a hug will be interpreted as an invitation to engage in sexual  19  touching, or a child sitting on an offender‘s lap will be seen as sexually seductive—rather than innocuous displays of affection. Direct support for the validity of this IT exists across differing samples of child molesters, including intra and extra-familial child molesters (Abel et al., 1984; Hayashino, Wurtele, & Klebe, 1995; Marziano et al., 2006), female child molesters (Beech et al., 2009), clergy members (Saradjian & Nobus, 2003), and incest offenders (Hanson, et al., 1994; Hartley, 1998). Implicit association tests show these beliefs to be automatic: Extra-familial child molesters have faster reaction times to child – sex word pairs than nonsexual offenders (Beech, et al., 2008; Gray, Brown, MacCulloch, Smith, & Snowden, 2005; Mihailides et al., 2004). Similar to Mihailides et al., (2004), Gray and his colleagues (2005) tested the strength of the association between ―child‖ concepts and ―sexual‖ concepts in child molesters. As expected, child molesters were slower to respond to congruent sex – adult pairs (e.g., LUST-GROWNUP) and faster to respond to incongruent sex – child pairs (e.g., CLIMAX-INNOCENT) than rapists. Further, the implicit association test showed moderate predictive ability in correctly classifying offenders as child molesters based on these associations. Distorted statements commonly heard from child molesters include the claim that ―The child seduced me,‖ ―The child was not harmed,‖ ―She enjoyed it,‖ ―We love each other so this is okay,‖ ―Children are curious about sex and enjoy it,‖ ―She didn‘t say no or tell, so it must be okay with her,‖ and ―Children often initiate sex and know what they want‖ (Ward & Keenan, 1999, p. 828). 1.2.3.2   Nature of harm The nature of harm IT is based on two general beliefs: (a) harm exists along a continuum, with little or no distressing consequences at one end of the spectrum to extreme physical aggression at the ―harmful‖ end, and (b) sexual activity is beneficial and therefore unlikely to be  20  detrimental (see children as sexual beings). Thus, child molesters believe that children are hurt only if they are subjected to physical or forceful acts, or if they are aware that society condemns sexual contact with children. Child molesters with this IT engage in euphemistic language in their post-offence statements in order to minimize harm and emotional trauma (e.g., ―She‘s too young to remember this or know what I‘m doing,‖ and ―We are only touching, this isn‘t really sex,‖; Ward & Keenan, 1999, p. 832). Other common distortions include, ―She is not my blood relation so it‘s not so bad,‖ ―Sex between a child and adult isn‘t harmful,‖ and ―Just fondling a child is not as bad as penetrating a child‖ (p. 832). The nature of harm IT may be specific to pedophilic child molesters rather than a pervasive belief among all adults who sexually assault children. Within questionnaire-based studies, cognitive distortions reflecting this IT have generated the most powerful responses (e.g., Howitt & Sheldon, 2007; Mann, Webster, Wakeling, & Marshall, 2007). However, it is the least endorsed among all non-pedophilic child molester samples (Beech et al., 2008; Marziano et al., 2006). Moreover, Malesky and Ennis (2004) investigated cyber posts from the internet pedophile site ―Boychat‖ for elements of harm minimization and found that one quarter of posts minimized the impact of the sexual interactions with children (e.g., ―I was only fooling around‖).  Thus, the nature of harm implicit theory seems to be more entrenched within pedophilic child molesters. 1.2.4   ITs about the world 1.2.4.1   Dangerous world Included within the ITM-R and the ITM-CM, sexual offenders with a dangerous world IT view the social world as made up of hostile, exploitative, and rejecting individuals. This social misperception stunts the sexual offender‘s ability to develop appropriate social relationships resulting in the offender (a) acting aggressively towards others, or (b) turning to children to meet intimacy needs (Marshall & Barbaree, 1990). This IT is therefore divided into two separate  21  factors: Factor 1 reflects the desire to exact revenge on those perceived to be hostile, and Factor 2 reflects the belief that children are trustworthy. The dangerous world IT is strongly endorsed in samples of rapists and child molesters when both factors are assessed simultaneously (e.g., Beech et al., 2008; Marziano et al., 2006), with Factor 1 applying specifically to rapists (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Polaschek & Ward, 2002), and Factor 1 and 2 identified in child molesters (Ward & Keenan, 1999). The hatred and hostility characteristic of Factor 1 is more global rather than focused on specific groups (e.g., women), and is accompanied by a pervasive hyper-vigilance to threats (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004). Strong themes of retaliation and punishment are present within Factor 1, with many sexual assaults accompanied by brutal force. For example, Malamuth and his colleagues (Check et al., 1985, Malamuth et al., 1995) found that sexually aggressive men valued power, toughness, and sexual promiscuity as identity markers. This hostile masculinity schema predicted sexual aggression and non-sexual aggression against women. Beech and his colleagues (2006) identified Factor 1 of the dangerous world IT to be the most entrenched belief among a sample of 41 incarcerated rapists undergoing treatment. Of their sample, 79% reported being abused and treated unfairly which resulted in feelings of resentment and motivations to retaliate (see also Beech et al., 2005). As one sexual murderer put it, ―Now you‘ve been hurt as much as I‘ve been hurt‖ (Beech et al., 2005, p. 1374). Common distortions reflecting Factor 1 of the dangerous world IT in rapists include, ―She would have done the same to me, if I hadn‘t got to her first,‖ ―Control or be controlled,‖ and ―I have to look out for myself‖ (Polaschek & Ward, 2002, pp. 397-398). Common Factor 1 distortions of child molesters include, ―I did it to get revenge on her and her mother,‖ ―I had reason to teach her a lesson,‖ and ―It was my way of punishing and controlling her‖ (Ward & Keenan, 1999, p. 829).  22  Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT reflects the belief that within a hostile and rejecting world full of deceptive and dominating adults, refuge can be found in the company of trusting (and trustworthy) children. Here, the sexual offender believes that children can be loving and romantic partners who offer a safe haven from the negativity of the adult world. Offenders holding Factor 2 beliefs are attracted to a child‘s innocence (Elliot, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995; Wilson & Cox, 1983) and often view children as less threatening than adults (Howells, 1979). Factor 2 distortions therefore revolve around themes of powerlessness to exert revenge and a dependency on achieving intimacy with children (Hartley, 2001; Mann & Hollin, 2007). Child molesters tend to hold more distortions reflecting Factor 2 (e.g., Howitt & Sheldon, 2007), which implies that they are more likely to feel defenceless in a hostile world and prefer the company of children. Common post offence statements include, ―Children give adults more acceptance and love than other adults,‖ ―You can‘t trust adults,‖ ―Kids really know how to love you,‖ and ―Some kids like sex with adults because it makes them feel wanted and loved‖ (Ward & Keenan, 1999, p. 830). The seven ITs just described emphasize the ability of the ITM to address pertinent social, cognitive, and developmental aspects of sexual offending, and is therefore the model of choice in determining the pattern of cognitive distortions among rapists and child molesters. In the next section, the benefits of using this model are highlighted, with evidence to support its application in determining the implicit theories among other groups of sexual offenders such as the pedophilic child molester (PCM) and the mixed offender (MO). 1.3   The Benefits of the ITM: Expansion and Profiling Motivation It is evident that researchers and clinicians require a unified theoretical framework to identify and explain the distorted beliefs and attitudes of sexual offenders. A comprehensive empirical model of cognitive distortions has the potential to contribute in a meaningful way to  23  the identification, assessment, and treatment of sexual offenders. Ward‘s ITM (2000) accounts for what Segal and Stermac (1990) termed the ―cognition gap‖ between content and structure: It provides superior explanatory depth to the social learning and feminist approaches by explaining the deeper cognitive structures (i.e., implicit theories) and mechanisms (i.e., information processing) that elicit post-offence statements (e.g., Abel et al., 1984; Burt, 1980; Neidigh & Krop, 1992; Scully & Marolla, 1984, 1985). Moreover, evidence that these statements are implicit beliefs is found in qualitative interview-based studies (e.g., Beech et al., 2005, 2006, 2009; Marziano et al., 2006), vignette studies (Malamuth & Brown, 1994, Malamuth, Heavey, Linz, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Stermac & Segal, 1989), implicit cognitive testing (Beech, Kalmus, Tipper, Baudouin, Flak, & Humphries, 2008; Gray et al., 2005; Mihailides et al., 2004), and to a lesser degree, quantitative questionnaire-based studies (e.g., Howitt & Sheldon, 2007; Mann et al., 2007). In addition, the ITM has superior empirical adequacy to the other approaches in that it combines these different theories into one cohesive framework. For instance, Ward (2000) acknowledges that cognitive dissonance is a key element in the development and maintenance of ITs: At first, post offence statements are likely used to justify and rationalize behaviour in order to deflect blame and reduce guilt (Abel et al., 1984; Pollock & Hashmall, 1991). However, over time and after repeated sexual assaults, these cognitive distortions increase and become entrenched beliefs elicited prior to engaging in the offence (Abel et al., 1989; Ward, 2000). Once these ITs are created, discrepancies between the IT and external evidence is reinterpreted, rejected, or, in rare cases and with repeated exposure, modified (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Ward, 2000). Further, underlying stereotypical rape beliefs and attitudes are easily translated into ITs. In fact, many of the items on Burt‘s Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (1980) that reflect sex role stereotyping, adversarial sexual beliefs, and an acceptance of interpersonal violence are used in  24  the ITM to explain the attitudes rapists have towards their victims (i.e., women as sexual objects and women are dangerous). The ITM also has exceptional unifying power. The model unites the disjointed array of categorical beliefs (Abel et al, 1984; Mann & Hollin, 2007), rape-myth acceptance attitudes (Burt, 1980; Scully & Marolla, 1984, 1985), individual schemas (Malamuth et al., 1991; Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Mann & Beech, 2003), and confirmatory biases (Murphy, 1990) previously identified as individual vulnerability factors in the perpetuation of sexual offending (e.g., Neidigh & Krop,1992). Instead, each IT within the ITM is best understood from the relationship it shares with other ITs. For example, the belief among child molesters that children want sex and are sexually provocative (children as sexual beings) is best understood in relation to the belief that children are not harmed by it (nature of harm). Conversely, the belief among rapists that men are justified in seeking revenge on women who deceive them (women are dangerous) is best understood in relation to the attitude that they are entitled to have sex on demand (entitlement). Finally, the ITM has theoretical fertility. This model has been successfully replicated in diverse samples of incarcerated rapists (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004), extra-familial child molesters (Marziano et al., 2006), sexual murderers (Beech et al., 2005), female child molesters (Beech et al., 2009), and internet pedophiles (Howitt & Sheldon, 2007). It follows then that the ITM can generalize to wider populations of sexual offenders—namely, pedophilic child molesters, and the mixed offender. 1.3.1   Expanding the ITM to new populations: PCMs and MOs 1.3.1.1   Pedophilic child molesters (PCM) Proof that ITs exist in PCM populations can be found embedded within the diagnostic criteria of pedophilia outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV-Text Revision  25  (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The current definition states that pedophiles experience recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, urges, or behaviours with prepubescent children under the age of 13, which are often accompanied by ―excuses or rationalizations, such as the sexual interaction had ‗educational value‘ for the child … the child derives ‗sexual pleasure‘ from them, or that the child was ‗sexually provocative‘‖(p. 571). Although fraught with problematic definitional criteria (see Marshall, 2006 for a review), it can nevertheless be gleaned that pedophiles hold implicit beliefs of children as sexual beings (the child derives sexual pleasure from the act and is sexually provocative), entitlement and uncontrollability (the act had educational value; the offender experiences persistent sexual fantasies, urges, and behaviours), and Factor 2 of dangerous world (children are innocent and less threatening than adults). The empirical literature also provides evidence of the ITs within the ITM-CM (Ward & Keenan, 1999). Abel and his colleagues (1984) were the first to demonstrate that pedophilic interest stemmed largely from a sexual attraction to, and sexualisation of, children with accompanying minimization of sexual interference. In addition, interviews with members of a pedophilic advocacy group revealed a sense of pride in their proclaimed ―capacity to love children properly‖ and identified younger children as ideal sex targets because of their naiveté (Wilson & Cox, 1983, p. 327). 1.3.1.2   Mixed offenders Beyond traditional sex offender typologies based on victim type (i.e., rapists & child molesters), there exists a subgroup that has received very little attention. Mixed offenders are those who molest children and sexually assault adults. The profile of the mixed offender is gathered primarily from shared criminogenic factors with other sexual offenders. For instance, like child molesters, the mixed offender tends to be older, has been married, has offended against more male victims, and tends to specialize in sexual offences mainly against children (Harris,  26  Smallbone, Dennison, & Knight, 2009; Mann et al., 2007; Quinsey, Rice, & Harris, 1995). However, like rapists, the mixed offender has also offended against more female victims, has caused more serious physical injury to his victims, and is more likely to sexually and violently recidivate within seven years of release (e.g., Harris et al., 2009; Firestone, Nunes, Moulden, Broom, & Bradford, 2005; Mann et al., 2007; Quinsey et al., 1995). Additional personality differences between offender types also portray the mixed offender as a callous and remorseless predator, as evidenced by higher psychopathy scores that reflect both affective/interpersonal deficits and antisocial behaviours (e.g., Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter, Fairweather, Drugge, Herve, Birt, & Boer, 2000). This constellation of risk factors for sexual recidivism in child molesters (e.g., male victims, multiple victims, prepubescent victims, unrelated victims) and rapists (e.g., previous criminal history, high psychopathy scores) has earned the mixed offender the title of ―most dangerous offender of all‖ (Rice & Harris, 1997, p. 239). However, there is a paucity of research on the specific offence-supportive beliefs held by mixed offenders. There is some evidence that they misperceive sexual intent from innocent behaviours, hold sexually aggressive attitudes towards women, and minimize any harm inflicted on their victims. For instance, Mann and colleagues (2007) established that mixed offenders had significantly fewer distortions pertaining to the legitimization of sex with children compared to child molesters. Yates and Kingston (2006) used Ward and Siegert‘s (2002) pathways model to interpret the risk assessment scores of mixed offenders. Compared to child molesters and rapists, mixed offenders used an explicit-goal approach to instrumentally carry out their offences, suggestive of entrenched schemas supporting sexual aggression. Finally, mixed offenders equal rapists and child molesters in levels of distortions pertaining to victim consent, victim blame, and  27  minimization of harm (Langton et al., 2008), as well as on ratings of hostility (Firestone et al., 2005). The minimal information on the mixed offender illustrates the need for a stronger empirical contribution to the cognitive distortion literature. Despite accounting for approximately 30% of the samples in the above-cited research, this subgroup is chronically excluded from analysis. Further, when they are included, mixed offenders are often grouped together with rapists and/or child molesters. This potentially compromises how implicit theories are tested and are subsequently used to inform treatment and assessment. For example, in attempting to provide a less intrusive alternative to the penile plesmythograph (PPG) in assessing sexual deviancy, Gray and his colleagues (2005) found that an implicit association test accurately identified pedophilic child molesters 73% of the time – a rate significantly lower than other studies using phallometric tests of sexual interest in children. This was due to the inclusion of mixed offenders in the rapist control sample (see also Keown, Gannon, & Ward, 2010 for similar constraints). It is evident then that the identification of cognitive distortions as defined by the Implicit Theory Model is required for the sexual offender subtypes of PCMs and mixed offenders if assessment and treatment is to be improved. 1.3.2   Applying the ITM to a motivational typology of sexual offenders Classification is not limited to whether an offender will victimize a child or an adult – it also extends to underlying motivational drives. Although sexual offences involve sexual contact, the high rate of physical violence associated with sexual crimes implies that sexual offenders are not all driven by their sexual impulses. Further, the differences between the various types of sexual offenders make it unlikely that they all share the same reasons for offending. For instance, rapists are more likely to have extensive antisocial histories, are less likely to have suffered personal childhood sexual abuse, and tend to be more hostile and sadistic than child molesters  28  (Knight & Prentky, 1990; Prentky, Lee, Knight, & Cerce, 1997). These factors indicate a more sadistic, or aggressive, rather than sexual, motivation to offend. Alternatively, PCMs are more socially inept, sexually preoccupied (Ward & Siegert, 2002), and hold more entrenched sexually- themed cognitive distortions than situational child molesters (Bickley & Beech, 2002). In addition, they are more sexually aroused to depictions of forced sexual intercourse than incest offenders, indicative of underlying sexual motivations that may at times be sadistic (Marshall, Barbaree, & Christophe, 1986). The apparent heterogeneity of motivations behind sexual offending has led to the creation of various typologies, all developed for the purpose of increasing cohesiveness and guiding clinical judgment (e.g., Groth, Burgess, & Holmstrom, 1977; Groth, Hobson & Gary, 1982; Knight & Prentky, 1990). A recent typology based on the unique clusters of ITs contained within the ITM (Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward, 2000, Ward & Keenan, 1999) has been developed to improve current understandings of cognitive influences on sexual assault. Beech, Fisher, and Ward‘s (2005) typology outlines three primary motivational classifications of sexual offenders: (a) sexually motivated offenders characterized by the presence of the uncontrollability, women as sexual objects, and/or children as sexual beings ITs, (b) aggressively motivated offenders characterized by the presence of  the Factor 1 of dangerous world, and/or women are dangerous ITs, and (c) sadistically motivated offenders, characterized by the combined presence of the sexual and aggressive ITs just mentioned. 1.3.2.1   Sexually motivated Sexually motivated offenders engage in sexual fantasies about their victims but rarely inflict harm, and among rapists, ties in closely with Knight and Prentky‘s (1990) non-sadistic rapist typology. These rapists are driven mainly by sexual fantasies, a preoccupation with sex, and the presence of ―distorted ‗male‘ cognitions about women and sex‖ (p. 45).  Child molesters  29  tend to be more sexually motivated than rapists; both the fixated child molester and the regressed child molester types (Groth et al, 1982) turn to children for sexual pleasure and to meet sexual needs. For instance, fixated molesters are primarily sexually oriented towards children, identify more strongly with children because of poor socio-sexual peer relationships, and eventually offend as a result of persistent interest in children and a compulsive need to offend. Similarly, the regressed child molester is sexually attracted primarily to adults, and turns to children in times of stress and when adult sexual relationships become conflicted. In these instances, children are perceived as substitutes and as ―mini-adults.‖ 1.3.2.2   Aggressively motivated Alternatively, aggressive offenders tend to be rapists who are motivated by their grievances against those who have wronged them. These offenders tend to know their victims and inflict increasing levels of harm on them throughout the victimization process in order to ―right their wrongs‖ (Beech et al., 2006; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004). This correlates strongly with the definition of the anger rapist (Groth et al., 1977; cf. Knight & Prentky‘s pervasively angry rapist and vindictive rapist, 1990). The anger rapist is primarily driven by the need to achieve domination and control over the victim and the desire to seek vengeance against perceived rejection. 1.3.2.3   Sadistically motivated The hybrid of these motivations is the creation of a sadistic motivation characterized by a strong need for control and domination, engagement in violent and sadistic fantasies, and excessive harm inflicted on the victim – usually resulting in death (Beech et al., 2005). This is potentially the most informative (and most disastrous) IT combination: Sexual murderers with this schematic dyad had more sadistic thoughts of domination and control and were more likely to mutilate their victims than those who were sexually motivated and unable to control their  30  urges (Beech et al., 2005). This is reflected in both Groth et al.‘s (1977) anger-excitation rapist and Knight and Prentky‘s (1990) overt-sadistic rapist. Thus, the current motivational typology developed by Beech et al. (2005) has the potential to show how the various classifications of sexual offenders (i.e., rapists, PCMs, and mixed offenders) may differ in their motivations to sexually offend based on their implicit beliefs. Moreover, the inclusion of PCMs and mixed offenders can expand this typology and provide further insight into existing typologies that are based on cognitive operations (Knight & Prentky, 1990). This added benefit of the ITM allows clinicians and researchers to rely on one parsimonious model to help answer questions of what offenders were thinking, and why they offended. 1.4   Purpose of Present Study Despite the appeal of having a cohesive theoretical framework to work from, the existing literature is theory rich and research poor: There has been a lack of empirical research compared to the number of theoretical reviews (e.g., Blake & Gannon, 2008; Gannon, 2009; Gannon & Polaschek, 2006; Gannon, Ward, & Collie, 2007; Ward & Casey, 2009; Ward, Gannon, & Keown, 2005), especially among rapists (e.g., Beech et al., 2005, 2006; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004). Therefore, validating this model in a high-risk sample of serial PCMs and mixed offenders strengthens the ITM model as a future ―gold standard‖ framework from which to operate. From this, facilitation of communication between professionals is enhanced, research is focused and systematic, and our understanding how these schemas are created, maintained, and strengthened over time is improved.  31  1.5   Hypotheses The current investigation aims to (a) replicate previous research on the Implicit Theory Model by identifying the presence of each IT in a sample of high-risk chronic recidivating rapists, (b) determine the presence of ITs in PCMs and mixed offenders, (c) classify sexual offenders into their respective typologies of rapist, PCM, or mixed offender based on the presence of unique clusters of ITs, and (d) validate Beech, Fisher, and Ward‘s (2005) motivational typology within sexual offender classifications. 1.5.1   Identifying ITs The study aims to replicate and expand upon previous research on the ITM by identifying the presence of the ITs of rapists, PCMs and mixed offenders. Specifically, it is predicted that 1. Rapists will show evidence of all ITs contained in the ITM-R to varying degrees, with a higher prevalence of the entitlement, women as sexual objects, and women are dangerous ITs. In addition, based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria for pedophilia (American Psychological Association, 2000), it is predicted that 2. PCMs will hold all ITs outlined in the ITM-CM, with a higher prevalence of uncontrollability, children as sexual beings, and Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT. The investigation of the ITs of mixed offenders is exploratory at this point. 1.5.2   Classifying sexual offenders based on ITs In addition to determining if sex offenders endorse ITs, this study seeks to verify if these beliefs contribute in a meaningful way to being classified as a sexual offender. The common practice for proving the existence of sexual offender ITs is via frequency tallies (Beech et al., 2005, 2006; Keown et al., 2010; Marziano et al., 2006; Pemberton & Wakeling, 2009; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004). Although this provides a ―head count,‖ it is not necessarily informative of  32  actual group membership. Using a more sophisticated logistic regression analysis, it is predicted that 3. The combination of the entitlement, Factor 1 of dangerous world, women as sexual objects, and women are dangerous ITs will more accurately classify sexual offenders as rapists than as PCMs. 4. The combination of the Factor 2 of dangerous world, children as sexual beings, and nature of harm ITs will better classify sexual offenders as PCMs than as rapists. The classification of mixed offenders based on the presence of specific ITs remains exploratory at this point. 1.5.3   Classifying sexual offenders based on their motivations to offend Finally, the present study aims to extend Beech et al.‘s (2005) motivational typology of sexual offenders to PCM and mixed offender populations. Specifically, it is predicted that: 5. PCMs will be more sexually motivated than rapists. 6. Rapists will be more aggressively and sadistically motivated than PCMs. The motivational typology of the mixed offender remains exploratory at this point.   33  2   Method 2.1   Participants This study utilized secondary archival data from a previous study on the offense cycle of sexual offenders (Greaves, 2010). These data include offender information taken from the Integrated Sexual Predator Intelligence Network (ISPIN) system within the RCMP ‗E‘ Division‘s Behavioural Science Group (BSG; see Appendix A for a full list of ISPIN variables). The ISPIN system is a research-based intelligence system that was developed by S/Sgt Logan of the RCMP. This network utilizes an assessment and prioritization process to proactively target high-risk sexual offenders, and is the first integrated program to focus exclusively on sexual offenders. The sexual offenders listed within the ISPIN system are taken from a percentage of the sexual offenders contained within the larger High Risk Offender Identification Program (HROIP). The information contained within HROIP (and ISPIN) is gathered from a number of contributing resources, including documents from Provincial and Federal Corrections, the National Parole Board, police detachments, crown prosecution, and any other applicable community resources. It outlines the key demographic information, offense details, psychological and psychiatric reports (including information on deviant arousal, cognitive distortions, and mental health), and risk assessment outcomes (e.g., PCL-R, SORAG, SVR-20 scores) found within the offense cycle. The ISPIN network also contains a Partnerships, Assessment, Selection, Training, and Enforcement (PASTE) form to document various risk factors that may be present in individual sexual offenders. The PASTE template generates an ISPIN score ranging from 0-10, with scores of 7.5 or above considered by the RCMP to be the highest risk groups to re-offend (Greaves, 2010).  34  A key risk factor identified in sexual offenders within the ISPIN database is the presence of psychopathy. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by profound affective and interpersonal deficits (e.g., lack of empathy and remorse, superficially charming and manipulative) with accompanying antisocial behaviours (Hare, 2006). Further, it is shown to be one of the best predictors of criminal behaviour (e.g., Olver & Wong, 2006) and within sexual offenders, is most prevalent among rapists and mixed offenders (Porter, Fairweather, Drugge, Herve, Birt, & Boer, 2000). Consistent with this research, 44 (43.5%) sexual offenders in the current sample had a diagnosis of psychopathy as determined by the ISPIN database indicating either a presence or absence of psychopathy using the cut-off score of 30 (Hare, 1991). 2.1.1   Sample characteristics A total of 101 sexual offenders were included in the study: 29 rapists, 42 PCMs (1 intra- familial, 22 extra-familial, 19 intra/extra familial), and 30 mixed offenders. The dataset used for this study was previously scrubbed and sanitized of any identifying information of offenders and victims. The present researcher had no contact with the offenders or their victims. The average age of the sample at the time of the index offense was 37 (SD = 11.41). The majority of sexual offenders were Caucasian (72.4%) with a substantial number of offenders from First Nations (23.5%). Most had been married (76.9%), and had completed some high-school (78%). All sexual offenders in the study had numerous convictions for non-violent/non-sexual offences, M = 11.62, SD = 14.39, range 0-65, compared to the conviction rate for contact sexual offences, M = 4.63, SD = 4.84, range 1-16. Rapists also had the highest rate of violent/non-sexual offences, M = 4.07, SD = 11.29, range 0-62, and violent non-sexual offences, M = 4.07, SD = 11.29, range 0-62, compared to their sexual offence histories, M = 3.68, SD = 2.47, range 1-11. Further, compared to PCMs and mixed offenders, more rapists had sexually offended against women (100%) who were strangers  35  (82.8%), and had used weapons during the offence (86.2%) that ultimately caused their victims harm (58.6%). Conversely, PCMs had the highest rate of contact sexual offences, M = 5.81, SD = 2.99, range 2-15, and tended to indiscriminately offend against male and female children (54.8%). These victims were often acquaintances (61.9%) or family members (42.9%). In addition, more PCMs than rapists and mixed offenders committed multiple assaults against the same victim (82.9%) and assaulted multiple victims within the same sexual incident (54.8%). Interestingly, the criminal history rates of mixed offenders tended to fall in the middle of rapists and PCMs: They had an average of 2.87 violently non-sexual convictions (SD = 2.86, range 0-11), and 4.63 contact sexual offences (SD = 2.84, range 1-12). Like rapists, they preferred to offend against female victims (56.7%), used weapons during the offence (63.3%) which often caused harm to their victims (50%), and also had the highest rate of antisocial personality disorder diagnoses (53.3%). Like PCMs, mixed offenders attacked their acquaintances (73.3%) or family members (66.7%), and committed multiple assaults on the same victim over time (50%). However, despite these differences, all sexual offenders were ranked as extremely high risk, with no overall significant differences in their ISPIN scores, M = 8.22, SD = .74, range 6.5-9.5. 2.2   Procedure 2.2.1   Offence type The original database coded offenders as rapists, PCMs, or mixed offenders using victim age of 14 as the criterion cut-off, as per the age of consent law prior to 2008. Therefore, rapists are those who sexually assault victims over the age of 14, child molesters are those who assault victims 14 years of age or under, and mixed offenders sexually assault victims of all ages. All offenses in the sexual offender‘s history were considered during categorization.  36  2.2.2   Coding of the original variables The present study utilized archival secondary data previously coded from ISPIN offender files (Greaves, 2010). The original variables coded were extracted from each offender‘s file in the ISPIN system and transcribed. These included all cognitive, affective, behavioural, and interpersonal factors that contribute in a meaningful way to the offence pathways as defined by Ward and Siegert (2002). The interrater agreement on the original coding of these variables ranged from κ = .64 to κ =.83. 2.2.3   Variables used in the present study The present researcher entered a select set of the original transcribed variables into an SPSS data file for the purpose of assessing the ITs of sexual offenders (see Appendix B). These included all distorted thinking processes, cognitive ruminations, cognitive responses, post- offense statements, deviant fantasy content, and interpersonal attitude variables that are identified as important indicators of ITs (e.g., Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Ward, 2000, Ward & Keenan, 1999). Moreover, file-based studies have been successfully implemented within the wider cognitive distortion empirical literature (e.g., Langton, Barbaree, Harkins, Arenovich, McNamee, Peacock et al, 2008; Pollack & Hashmall, 1991; Rice & Harris, 1997) and are considered a valid method of interpreting the maladaptive thought processes of sexual offenders. 2.2.4   The coding of ITs Each transcribed variable was separated into discrete meaning units in preparation for coding (see Marziano et al., 2006 for identical procedures). Meaning units are sentences and phrases made by the participant (e.g., during interviews) or reported about the participant (e.g., as documented in reports) that reflect their individual perceptions and ideas about the social world (Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro, 1988). For the purpose of this study, meaning units were defined as sentences or phrases that reflected underlying ITs.  37  Similar to other IT research (e.g., Beech et al., 2009; Marziano et al., 2006), assigning these meaning units into discrete theories was essentially a category allocation process. These units were sorted into each IT of (a) uncontrollability, (b) entitlement, (c) women as sexual objects, (d) women are dangerous, (e) children as sexual beings, (f) nature of harm, and (g) dangerous world. Meaning units reflecting the dangerous world IT were further sorted into Factor 1 and Factor 2 categories. Appendix C provides examples of each IT made by each offender type. In total, there were 1,168 statements: 1,083 meaning units were reported observations about the offender, and 85 meaning units were quoted statements made by the offender. Reliability checks on meaning units were employed during the study in order to ensure strong levels of accuracy and reliability. An independent rater was enlisted from the University of British Columbia-Okanagan and subjected to training on the coding of implicit theories. Following the training period, the rater was given 20% of the cognitively distorted meaning units generated from the file review and instructed to allocate each cognitively distorted meaning unit to one of the eight implicit theories from Polaschek and Ward‘s (2002) Implicit Theories of Rapists, and Ward and Keenan‘s (1999) Implicit Theories of Child Molesters. A Kappa Measure of Agreement was used to determine reliability between the two raters. According to Peat (2001, as cited in Pallant, 2007), a value of .5 is considered a moderate agreement, above .7 represents good agreement, and above .8 represents excellent agreement. Overall rater agreement was excellent (83%: κ = .80, T = 29.72, p = .001), as was agreement within each implicit theory (range κ = .77 to κ = 1.00). For uncontrollability, agreement occurred in 75% of ratings, κ = .82, T = 11.57, p = .001. For entitlement, there was 79% agreement, κ = .80, T = 11.24, p = .001. For women as sexual objects, the raters agreed 78% of the time, κ = .82, T = 11.47, p = .001. For women are dangerous, agreement was 86%, κ = .88,  38  T = 12.37, p = .001. For children as sexual beings, agreement occurred in 68% of ratings, κ = .77, T = 10.94, p = .001. For nature of harm, there was 89% agreement, κ = .85, T = 11.91, p = .001. For Factor 1 of dangerous world, there was 83% agreement, κ = .88, T = 12.31, p = .001, and for Factor 2 of dangerous world, raters were in 100% agreement, κ = 1.00, T = 14.04, p = .001. The researcher then separately looked at the meaning units where there were discrepancies between the two raters and a final decision was made by the researcher on the content of each meaning unit. 2.3   Data Analysis 2.3.1   Chi-square analysis The chi-square test of independence is the most popular test used to explore the relationship between two categorical variables. This test compares the observed frequencies (or proportions) of cases that occur within the categories of each variable (e.g., sexual offender type and implicit theory) with the values that would be expected if there was no association between the two variables (Pallant, 2007). When the deviations between these observed and expected frequencies (i.e., adjusted residuals) are ± 2.00, it produces a significant chi value that indicates that the variables are related. In the present study, the chi-square test of independence determined if there was a significant relationship between the frequency of each IT and sexual offender type. 2.3.2   Logistic regression Two logistic regression procedures were used in the present study: logistic regression (LR) and multinomial logistic regression (MLR). LR is used when there are two categories of the dependent variable (e.g., rapist/PCM), and MLR is used when there are three or more categories of the dependent variables (e.g., rapist/PCM/mixed offender; Petrucci, 2009).The goal of LR and MLR is to correctly predict a categorical outcome (e.g., group membership) from a set of predictor variables (e.g., implicit theories). Using probability theory, the placement of each  39  individual case (e.g., participant) into one category of the dependent variable (e.g., rapist, PCM, or mixed offender) based on responses to each predictor variable (e.g., IT) produces an odds ratio value. With categorical predictors, the odds ratio is the change in odds of being in one outcome category when the value of a predictor variable increases by one unit. Odds ratios greater than 1 indicate a greater likelihood for the outcome and odds ratios less than 1 indicate a lower likelihood for the outcome (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2007). For example, when predicting group membership as a rapist, an odds ratio of 3 indicates that the odds of rapists holding a particular IT are 3 times more likely than the odds of other sexual offenders holding that IT. Confidence intervals surrounding the odds ratios are sample size dependent, with smaller sample sizes resulting in larger confidence intervals. In the present study, MLR was used to classify sex offenders as rapists, PCMs, or mixed offenders based on the ITs contained in the ITM-R and the ITM-CM. LR was used to classify sexual offenders as PCMs or mixed offenders based on the implicit theories specific to the ITM- CM that rapists did not hold.   40  3  Results 3.1 The ITs of Sexual Offenders: Prevalence Rates 3.1.1    Prevalence of ITs in rapists With respect to the first aim of the study, all five ITs outlined in Polaschek and Ward‘s (2002) ITM-R were identified in rapists (see Figure 1). Table 1 shows the prevalence rates for each IT. In support of Hypothesis 1, the most prevalent IT for rapists was entitlement (72.4%), followed by women are dangerous (65.5%), and women as sexual objects (62.1%). Factor 1 of dangerous world IT was also present in over half of the rapist sample (55.2%). The lowest IT prevalence was for the uncontrollability IT (27.6%). 3.1.2    Presence of ITs in PCMs and mixed offenders The second aim of the study was to determine if the ITs within the ITM would be reflected in the distorted post-offense statements of PCMs and mixed offenders. PCMs did hold all ITs within the ITM-CM to varying degrees (see Figure 1). In partial support for Hypothesis 2, the children as sexual beings (61.9%) and uncontrollability (52.4%) were the most prevalent ITs held by PCMs. However, contrary to the prediction that Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT would be among the highest ITs present, it was only held by 35.7% of PCMs compared to the entitlement (50%) and nature of harm ITs (50%). The least held IT by PCMs was Factor 1 of dangerous world (21.4%). Interestingly, a handful of PCMs also held the women are dangerous (14.3%) and women as sexual objects (9.5%)  ITs contained within the ITM-R (see Table 1). The exploratory analyses of mixed offenders revealed that they also held ITs contained within the ITM-R and ITM-CM, except for Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT (see Figure 1). Table 1 shows the prevalence rates of ITs for mixed offenders. The most prevalent ITs for mixed offenders were entitlement (63.3%), followed by uncontrollability (60%), women as sexual  41  objects (60%), nature of harm (46.7%), children as sexual beings (33.3%), Factor 1 of dangerous world (33.3%), and women are dangerous (30%). 3.1.3    Association between ITs and sexual offender type Although all sexual offenders showed evidence of holding ITs within the ITM, this does not indicate if ITs are related to type of sexual offender (e.g., rapist, PCM, or mixed offender). Therefore, eight initial chi-square analyses were performed to demonstrate an association between ITs and sexual offender type (see Table 1). A significant chi-square value is indicative of a relationship between IT and sexual offender type. Adjusted residuals ± 2.00 further indicate a significant difference between observed and expected frequencies of ITs for each sexual offender type. Cramer‘s V is the effect sizes of the variance each IT contributes to differentiating between sexual offender types, with .07 as small, .21 as medium, and .35 as large. All ITs were significantly related to sexual offender type except for the entitlement IT, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 3.76, p =.15, Cramer’s V = .19, indicating all sexual offenders had similar prevalence rates. The effect sizes for these associations ranged from medium to large, meaning that the variance in sexual offender type is largely attributable to their distorted beliefs. The adjusted residuals indicated that more rapists than PCMs and mixed offenders held the women as dangerous, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 20.42, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .45, and Factor 1 of the dangerous world ITs, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 8.66, p = .01, Cramer’s V = .29. Additionally, more rapists and mixed offenders than PCMs held the women as sexual objects IT, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 27.22, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .52. Rapists and mixed offenders did not differ on this IT. Conversely, adjusted residuals indicated that more PCMs than rapists and mixed offenders held the children as sexual beings IT, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 28.67, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .53, and Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 24.75, p = .001, Cramer’s V =.50. Additionally, although more PCMs than rapists held the uncontrollability IT, χ2 (2, N = 101) =  42  6.89, p = .03, Cramer’s V = .26, and the nature of harm IT, χ2 (2, N = 101) = 21.66, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .46, PCMs and mixed offenders did not differ, χ2 (1, N = 72) = 0.08, p =.78, Cramer’s V = .03. 3.2 The Implicit Theories of Sexual Offenders: Classification 3.2.1    Classifying sexual offenders The verification that ITs are related to sexual offender types allowed for a deeper exploration into the contribution that ITs play in the sexual offending process. The adjusted residuals also determined significant differences in prevalence rates between sexual offenders. However, these differences do not indicate the likelihood of holding particular ITs depending on sexual offender type, or if these ITs can actually predict whether an offender will be a rapist, PCM, or mixed offender. Therefore, the next step was to determine if these ITs could accurately classify sexual offender types based on likelihood ratios. Eight individual MLR analyses were first performed through SPSS NOMREG to assess which ITs would contribute to the prediction of membership in one of three categories of sex offender type outcome (rapist, PCM, mixed offender). MLR categorizes individuals into specific groups based on a set of independent variables – in this case, ITs. A significant goodness of fit chi-square statistic indicates that the model of ITs predicts sexual offender type outcome, the Nagelkerke R squared is the effect size that reflects the amount of variance each IT contributes to predicting sexual offender type, and the classification percentage is the accuracy rate of the model of ITs in predicting sexual offender type. The eight MLRs confirmed and expanded upon the chi-square test results. Table 2 shows that all ITs, except for the entitlement IT, were a good model fit. Unlike the chi-square tests, Nagelkerke effect sizes were not as high, with the contributing variance of each IT ranging from 8% for the uncontrollability IT, to 35% for the children as sexual beings IT. The classification of  43  rapists and PCMs was better than chance for all ITs (i.e., greater than 50%), but only Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT classified 100% of mixed offenders, due solely to their zero prevalence rate. As the ITs of uncontrollability, women as sexual objects, women are dangerous, and Factor 1 of dangerous world ITs were present in rapists, PCMs, and mixed offenders, these ITs were analysed using MLR to determine their ability as a set to predict sexual offender group membership. 3.2.1.1 Classification of sexual offenders based on the ITM-R Data from 101 sexual offenders were available for analysis: 29 rapists, 42 PCMs, and 30 mixed offenders. MLR analysis was performed using SPSS NOMREG. A test of the full model with all four predictors against a constant-only model was statistically significant, χ2 (8, N = 101) = 53.12, p = .001, indicating that the predictors, as a set, reliably distinguished between sexual offender types. The model explained between 41% (Cox and Snell R squared) to 46% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in sexual offender status, and correctly classified 83.3% of PCMs, 62.1% of rapists, and 40% of MOs, for an overall success rate of 64.4%. This shows a marked improvement of overall classification accuracy compared to 58.3% in the constant-only model. This was especially true for mixed offenders whose classification accuracy rose 40% with the inclusion of these predictors. Table 3 shows the regression coefficients, the Wald chi-square tests of coefficients, the odds ratios, and the 95% confidence intervals around the odds ratios. The Wald chi-square statistic determines if the IT contributes to the model in a significant way, and the odds ratios determine the likelihood of holding the particular IT for each sexual offender type. The odds ratios shown in Table 3 indicated that the odds of rapists and mixed offenders holding the women as sexual objects IT were over 13 times greater than the odds for PCMs, and 3.41 times  44  greater for mixed offenders than rapists. Additionally, the odds of rapists holding the women are dangerous IT were 6.46 as great as for PCMs, and 3.23 times greater than mixed offenders. The results of the MLR partially support Hypothesis 3: The attitude that women are sexual beings distinguished men who assault women from men who do not. Further, the belief that women are dangerous, and that sexual urges are uncontrollable, further distinguished men who exclusively assault women from men who assault women and children. However, the model failed to support the hypothesis that this set of ITs would more accurately classify rapists than PCMs: The model is better able to predict who is not a rapist than who is. 3.2.1.2 Classification of sexual offenders based on the ITM-CM To avoid over-fitting the data, rapists were excluded from the analysis when they failed to hold a particular IT. As the ITs of children as sexual beings and nature of harm were exclusively held by PCMs and mixed offenders, they were combined as a set to determine their ability as a set to predict group membership as a PCM or a mixed offender. Therefore, a simultaneous logistic regression (LR) analysis was performed using SPSS LOGISTIC REGRESSION, with sex offender type as outcome and the ITs of children as sexual beings and nature of harm as predictors. This procedure is identical to the pervious MLR but with only two groups in the outcome variable (i.e., PCM and mixed offender). Data from 72 sexual offenders were available for analysis: 42 PCMs and 30 mixed offenders. A test of the full model with the two predictors against a constant-only model was statistically significant, χ2 (2, N = 72) = 5.48, p = .05, indicating that the predictors, as a set, reliably distinguished between sexual offender types. The model as a whole explained between 8% (Cox and Snell R squared) and 11% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in sexual offender status, and correctly classified 66.7% of mixed offenders and 61.9% of PCMs, for an overall success rate of 63.9%.  45  Table 4 shows the regression coefficients, Wald statistics, odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals for odds ratios for each of the two predictors of children as sexual beings and nature of harm. According to the Wald criterion, only the children as sexual beings IT reliably predicted sexual offender type, χ2 (1, N = 72) = 5.48, p = .02, with an odds ratio of 3.32. This indicates that the odds of holding the children as sexual beings IT were 3.32 times as great for PCMs as for mixed offenders. These results failed to support Hypothesis 4: Factor 2 accurately classified 100% of mixed offenders but only 35.7% of PCMs (see Table 2) ,and the children as sexual beings and nature of harm ITs as a set better classified mixed offenders than PCMs. These results show that the ITs of the ITM-CM are better at predicting sexual offenders who are not PCMs than offenders who are. 3.3 Motivations of Sexual Offenders In addition to identifying the sexual, aggressive, and sadistic motivational types outlined by Beech and his colleagues (2005), a fourth additional unique motivation, which I label the intimacy motivation, was discovered that consisted of the children as sexual beings, nature of harm, and Factor 2 of the dangerous world ITs (see Figure 2). To determine if these ITs were significantly related to each motivational type, eight individual chi-square analyses were performed, with significant chi-square values indicating a significant relationship between the IT and motivation type. Table 5 displays the chi-square value, adjusted residuals, and effect sizes for each IT across motivational type. Out of 101 offenders, 9 did not fit into any motivational type and were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, data were available for 92 offenders: 25 rapists, 38 PCMs, and 29 mixed offenders. An overall omnibus chi-square test of independence showed a significant relationship between sexual offender type and motivational type, χ2 (10, N = 92) = 49.13, p = .001, Cramer’s  46  V = .70. Additionally, the effect sizes for this association ranged from 38% to 100%, indicating that the variance in motivational type is largely attributable to their distorted beliefs. Table 6 demonstrates the prevalence rates and adjusted residuals for each motivational type across sexual offenders. Adjusted residuals ± 2.00 indicate a significant difference between expected and observed frequencies. 3.3.1    Sexually motivated offenders The prevalence rates of the uncontrollability (82.1%), entitlement (60.7%), women as sexual objects (46.4%), children as sexual beings (46.4%), and nature of harm (42.9%) ITs indicate that this combination describes sexual offenders who view their victims as sexual objects and tend to believe their sexual urges are uncontrollable. Moreover, sexually motivated offenders had higher rates of the uncontrollability IT compared to aggressively motivated offenders, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 30.10, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .55, but not compared to sadistic and intimacy motivated offenders, confirming that this IT is exclusively sexual. Of the 92 sexual offenders in the sample, 28 were sexually motivated. Further, this was the most common motivation for mixed offenders (55.2%) compared to PCMs (28.9%) and rapists (4%). This supports the hypothesis that PCMs would be more sexually motivated than rapists, and shows that mixed offenders are predominantly sexually motivated. 3.3.2    Aggressively motivated offenders Alternately, the prevalence rates of the entitlement (55.6%), Factor 1 of the dangerous world (77.8%), and women are dangerous (66.7%) ITs indicate this combination strongly predicts sexual offenders who view the world (and often women) as hostile and deceiving, and desire revenge on those who rejected them. Yet, only 9 sexual offenders in the present sample were aggressively motivated, with more mixed offenders (13.3%) and rapists (10.3%) than PCMs (4.8%) motivated by revenge. However, these differences were not significant as  47  indicated by the adjusted residuals (see Table 6). Therefore, Hypothesis 6 that rapists would be more aggressively motivated than PCMs was not fully supported. 3.3.3    Sadistically motivated offenders The prevalence rates for entitlement (80%), Factor 1 of dangerous world (79%), women are dangerous (67.5%), women as sexual beings, and uncontrollability (47.5%) ITs confirms that sadistic offenders are highly entitled, believe the world is hostile and rejecting, sexually objectify women, and view them as deceptive and manipulative. In addition, chi-square analyses revealed that sadistically motivated offenders had higher rates of the (a) entitlement IT compared to intimacy motivated offenders, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 16.59, p = .002, Cramer’s V = .41, (b) women as sexual objects IT compared to aggressive and intimacy motivated offenders, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 35.20, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .59, and (c) women as dangerous IT, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 48.57, p =.001, Cramer’s V = .69, and Factor 1 of the dangerous world IT, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 57.04, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .75, compared to sexual, aggressive, and intimacy motivated offenders. A sadistic motivation to sexually offend was the most prevalent motivation across all offender types (43.5%). Further, this was the most common motivation for rapists (84%) compared to mixed offenders (31%) and PCMs (26.3%), supporting the hypothesis that rapists would be more sadistically motivated than PCMs. 3.3.4    Intimacy motivated offenders Sexual offenders who are motivated by a need for intimacy view their child victims as sexual beings who benefit from romantic encounters with adults, and who will be trustworthy companions to the offender. In the present sample, this was the most prevalent motivation for PCMs (14.9%) as indicated by the high prevalence rates of the children as sexual beings (30%), nature of harm (25%), and Factor 2 of the dangerous world ITs (37.5%). Further, the adjusted  48  residuals indicate that more PCMs (35.7%) than rapists (0%) and mixed offenders (0%) were motivated by a need for intimacy. Chi-square tests of independence show that intimacy motivated offenders had higher rates of the (a) nature of harm IT compared to sadistic offenders, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 14.83, p = .005, Cramer’s V = .38, (b) children as sexual beings IT compared to aggressively and sadistically motivated offenders, χ2 (2, N = 92) = 21.23, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .46, and (c) Factor 2 of dangerous world IT compared to sexually, aggressively, and sadistically motivated offenders, χ2 (2, N = 92) =101.00, p = .001, Cramer’s V =1.00. 3.3.5    Classification of sexual offenders based on motivations To determine the likelihood of being motivated in a particular way based on type of sexual offence, and if these motivations can classify offenders as rapists, PCMs, or mixed offenders, data from 92 sexual offenders were subjected to an MLR analysis: 25 rapists, 38 PCMs and 29 mixed offenders. MLR analysis was performed using SPSS NOMREG. The intimacy motivation was exclusive to PCMs and therefore not included in the analysis. Therefore, a test of the full model with the three predictors of sexual, aggressive, and sadistic motivations against a constant-only model was statistically significant, χ2 (8, N = 92) = 23.18, p = .001, indicating that the predictors, as a set, reliably distinguished between sexual offender types. The model explained between 35% (Cox and Snell R squared) to 40% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in sexual offender status, and correctly classified 72.4% of rapists, 66.7% of mixed offenders, and 45.2% of PCMs, for an overall success rate of 59.4%. Table 7 shows the regression coefficients, the Wald chi-square tests of coefficients, the odds ratios, and the 95% confidence intervals around the odds ratios. The odds ratios indicated that the odds of being sadistically motivated were 11.75 times greater for rapists and 6.38 times greater for mixed offenders than PCMs. In addition, the odds of mixed offenders being sexually  49  motivated were 64 times greater than rapists, and 9.14 times greater than PCMs. Finally, the odds of mixed offenders being aggressively motivated were 7.34 times greater than PCMs. 3.4 The Role of Psychopathy and Sadism in Predicting Sadistic Motivations Psychopathy is a strong predictor of violent offending (Olver & Wong, 2006) and has been found to act as a pre-cursor to sexually sadistic behaviour (Mokros, Osterheider, Hucker, & Nitschke, 2011). Further, sexual sadism is higher in sexual re-offenders compared to non-sexual re-offenders (Berner, Berger, & Hill, 2003; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Therefore, although psychopathy and sexual sadism were not the main foci of the current research, the high rate of sadistic motivations in rapists highlighted the need to investigate the influence of these variables in predicting offender types and motivations.  Chi-square analyses were performed to determine the relationship of psychopathy and sadism to sexual offender type and motivation, and then an MLR was conducted to predict if these variables could accurately classify sexual offenders into their respective typologies.Chi- square analyses revealed that the presence of psychopathy, χ2 (6, N = 101) = 23.19, p = .001, Cramer‘s V = .33, and sexual sadism, χ2 (3, N = 101) = 21.68, p = .001, Cramer‘s V = .45, were significantly related to sexual offender type.  There were 17 rapists (59%) diagnosed with psychopathy compared to 12 PCMs (29%) and 15 mixed offenders (50%), and 13rapists (45%) diagnosed with sadism compared to 1 PCM (2%) and 6 mixed offenders (20%).   Multinomial logistic regression further revealed that the presence of psychopathy and sadism distinguished between sexual offender types, χ2 (6, N = 101) = 27.52, p = .001, explained between 35% (Cox and Snell R squared) to 39% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in sexual offender status and correctly classified 73.3% of PCMs, 51.7% of mixed offenders, and 37.9% of rapists. The odds ratios further indicated that the odds of being psychopathic were 21.63 times as great for rapists as for PCMs, 5.92 times as great for rapists as for mixed  50  offenders, and 3.66 times as great for mixed offenders as for PCMs. Further, the odds of being sexually sadistic were 67.5 times as great for rapists, and 20.09 times as great for mixed offenders as for PCMs. Once it was established that rapists were the most likely sexual offender type to be diagnosed with psychopathy, and that sexual offenders who assault adults were most likely to have diagnoses of sexual sadism, it was important to determine if the presence of psychopathy and sadism contributed in a meaningful way to predicting motivations to sexually offend. Table 8 shows the frequency of psychopathy, sadism, and comorbid psychopathy and sadism of each sexual offender type across motivations to offend. Chi-square analysis revealed a significant relationship between psychopathy and motivations, χ2 (3, N = 87) = 8.24, p = .04, Cramer‘s V = .31, and sadism and motivations, χ2 (3, N = 91) = 8.29, p = .04, Cramer‘s V = .30. More psychopathic offenders were sexually motivated (19.5%) than aggressively (8%), sadistically (17%), or intimacy (6%) motivated. Conversely, more sexual offenders with diagnoses of sadism were sadistically motivated (14%) than sexually (4%), aggressively (3%) or intimacy (0%) motivated. Multinomial logistic regression further revealed that the presence of psychopathy and sadism significantly distinguished between motivational types , χ2 (6, N = 101) = 29.39, p = .003, explaining between 20% (Cox and Snell R squared) to 22% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance in motivational type, and correctly classifying 51.9% of sexually motivated offenders and 81% of sadistically motivated offenders. However, the model was not able to classify aggressively or intimacy motivated offenders. Therefore, the overall classification success rate was 50%. The odds ratios also indicated that the odds of sadistically motivated offenders having a diagnosis of sadism were 3.57 times greater than the odds for sexually motivated offenders. In addition, the odds of having a diagnosis of psychopathy were 10.87 greater for sadistically  51  motivated offenders than aggressively motivated offenders. However, the odds of an offender being a sadistic psychopath did not differ for sadistic and sexually motivated offenders.     52  4 Discussion The aims of this study were to (a) determine if the ITs outlined in Polaschek and Ward‘s (2002) ITM-R were supported in the criminal files of rapists, (b) determine if the ITs outlined in Ward and Keenan‘s (1999) ITM-CM were supported in the criminal files of pedophilic child molesters, (c) explore if the ITs outlined in the ITM-R and ITM-CM were supported in the criminal files of mixed offenders, (d) determine if these ITs could predict sexual offender type, and (e) determine if these ITs could predict motivations to sexually offend. Overall, the five aims of the study were met with success. All seven ITs were found among rapists, PCMs, and mixed offenders to varying degrees, with the most prevalent ITs being the entitlement, uncontrollability, women as sexual objects, and children as sexual beings ITs. In fact, sexual entitlement beliefs were present in two-thirds of rapists and mixed offenders, and one-half of PCMs. This is a much higher endorsement rate compared to other research on the cognitive distortions of sexual offenders, especially among those who offend against children (Marziano et al., 2006; Milner & Webster, 2005; Pemberton & Wakeling, 2009). However, consistent with other research, over 75% of all sexual offenders held notions of victim enjoyment and sexual objectification, regardless of victim age (Beech et al., 2006; Mann & Hollin, 2007; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004; Stermac & Segal, 1989). 4.1 Identifying the ITM-R in Rapists In line with the first aim of the study, the ITs described in Polaschek and Ward‘s (2002) ITM-R were observed in the current sample of high risk, chronically recidivating rapists. The strongest ITs were entitlement, women are dangerous, women as sexual objects, and Factor 1 of dangerous world. These findings replicate previous research on the ITs of rapists (see Beech et al., 2006; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004) as well as more general research on rapists‘ cognitive distortions (e.g., Burt, 1980; Mann & Hollin, 2007; Scully & Marolla, 1984). For example, this  53  cognitive profile of ITs fits with prevalence rates of Mann and Hollin‘s (2001, as cited in Mann & Beech, 2003) need for respect and control, sexual pleasure, and victim provocation schemas. Additionally, as a result of using the women are dangerous IT rather than the original women are unknowable IT, stronger misogynistic attitudes were identified (see also Polaschek & Gannon, 2004) compared to research using the original version (Beech et al., 2006). This re- modeled IT has the potential to explain why rapists prefer impersonal sex (Malamuth et al., 1995) and believe that romantic relationships are deceptive (e.g., ―Many times women flirt with men just to tease them or hurt them,‖ Check et al., 1985, p. 57). Importantly, it may clarify the link between sexual aggression and hostility towards women: At the time of assault, rapists often report feelings of anger and hostility towards women (Rada, 1978), which uniquely contributes to the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism (Hanson, Morton, & Harris, 2003; see also Firestone et al., 2005). Another important finding was the strong presence of general hostility, as evidenced in high Factor 1 dangerous world IT ratings. In separating the dangerous world IT into its sub- factors, the current study more accurately demonstrated how Factor 1 reflecting revenge motives often occurs in tandem with the women are dangerous IT; one rapist admitted that because he felt he had been ―burned by the rise of feminism,‖ he wanted his victims to ―feel his pain.‖ This shows that misogynistic beliefs are not synonymous with paranoid beliefs about a malevolent world. However, contrary to research depicting rape as the result of an inability to control sexual urges (Beech et al., 2005; Howells & Wright, 1978; Koss & Oros, 1982; Scully & Marolla, 1985), the present sample had a very low rate of this particular belief: Only 8 of 29 rapists presented with the uncontrollability IT. This discrepancy is not likely the result of treatment effects, as the uncontrollability IT was strong in PCMs and mixed offenders. Rather,  54  this may be indicative of the rapists‘ particular motivation to engage in repeated offences: The high rate of sexual entitlement combined with the belief that women are sexually deceptive suggests it is not that the rapist believes he has no control, but that he is actually attempting to exert control over his victims during the assault. 4.2 Identifying the ITM-CM in PCMS The second aim of the study was to validate the presence of ITs proposed in Ward and Keenan‘s (1999) ITM-CM in the pedophilic child molester subgroup. The pattern of responding indicates that like non-pedophilic child molesters, PCMs are characterized by a strong presence of the uncontrollability, entitlement, children as sexual beings, and nature of harm ITs. Additionally, these rates surpass those of non-pedophilic child molesters found in Marziano et al.‘s (2006) study. For example, only one-fifth of the extra-familial child molesters in their study attributed their offence to uncontrollable sexual urges, child consent, or a desire for intimacy compared to one-third of the present sample of PCMs. The high rate of uncontrollability lends support to research showing that elements of molestation include sexual preoccupation (or addiction) with children (Knight, Carter, & Prentky, 1989; Marshall et al., 2008). A smaller portion of PCMs also believed that children were safe romantic alternatives to rejecting adults, thus confirming research suggesting that pedophiles feel helpless and hopeless in a world that they find hostile (Elliot et al., 1995; Milner & Webster, 2005; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003). For example, one PCM admitted that ―Women are too powerful. I identify better with children.‖ These testimonies were found exclusively among PCMs, and mirror other research on the cognitive schemas of pedophiles: Saradjian and Nobus (2003) found that pedophilic clergy members held pre-existing beliefs that they had a special relationship with the child, and Elliot et al. (1995) found that out of 91 child sex offenders interviewed, over half reported that they  55  offended against children because they found them to be less threatening than adults, and more innocent and trusting. In addition, secondary to expressing all implicit theories outlined in the ITM-CM, a small proportion of PCMs also evidenced beliefs that traditionally have been thought to exist exclusively in offenders targeting women. For instance, a handful of PCMs simultaneously objectified women and children, more fully reflecting their attitudes of sexual entitlement. They also showed indications of holding negative attitudes towards women. However, contrary to research depicting child molesters as having a lowered sense of sexual entitlement (e.g., Elliot et al., 1995; Marziano et al., 2006; Pemberton & Wakeling, 2009), the current sample of PCMs showed a similar prevalence rate of this IT compared to rapists and mixed offenders. This finding highlights the need to clearly note the presence of pedophilia when examining the cognitive schemas of child molesters. 4.3 Identifying the ITM-R and ITM-CM in Mixed Offenders In line with the third aim of the study, the presence of the ITs described in Polaschek and Ward‘s (2002) ITM-R, and the ITs described in Ward and Keenan‘s (1999) ITM-CM were observed in the sample of mixed offenders. The strongest ITs were uncontrollability, entitlement, women as sexual objects, and nature of harm. Thus, like rapists, mixed offenders sexualize women and offend out of a sense of sexual entitlement, and like PCMs, they are unable to control their sexual urges and believe the assault is beneficial. It is notable that mixed offenders do not sexualize children as they do women, but they do downplay the harm that is caused by sexual interaction with children. This pattern is indicative of Groth et al.‘s (1982) regressed child molester: At times of opportunity, or when women are not available, the mixed offender will transfer target focus to whatever is available to meet his needs. Further, the low presence of the  56  children as sexual beings IT is actually reflective of how mixed offenders view children as pseudo-adults rather than objects of sexual desire (Mann et al., 2007). Overall, this pattern sheds light on how mixed offenders view their sexual world: The assault is manifested in a belief that women and children are commodities meant to serve his sexual needs on demand. Further, because children are viewed as equal to women in this regard, it explains why they would believe that this sexual violation would in fact be beneficial for their victims; he is providing them a service by educating them sexually. The current sample of mixed offenders also had a higher rate of offending against family members, further highlighting the likelihood of incestuous activity when their partners are unwilling or unable to provide sexual release. 4.4 Classifying Sexual Offenders Based on Their ITs After determining that these ITs existed, the fourth aim of the study was to establish if the presence of these ITs meant anything; that is, do they actually predict whether a sexual offender would commit rape, molestation, or both? Indeed, some ITs did distinguish among offenders. For instance, there was a stronger likelihood of viewing women as sexual commodities who were deceptive ―game players‖ among rapists than PCMs and mixed offenders. However, rapists, PCMs, and mixed offenders overall did not differ in levels of entitlement. In contrast, the likelihood of believing children are sexual beings and a desire to engage in an intimate relationship with them was stronger in PCMs than rapists and mixed offenders. However, believing that children were not harmed by these sexual encounters was equal among PCMs mixed offenders. Moreover, 54% of PCMs and 60% of mixed offenders had strong uncontrollability attributions compared to 28% of rapists. This is consistent with other IT research: Only 15% of the rapists in Beech et al.‘s 2006 sample endorsed an uncontrollability belief (see also Polaschek & Gannon, 2004) compared to 87% of female child molesters in their  57  2009 study (see also Marziano et al., 2006). However, these findings run contrary to other schema-based research that found rapists more likely to attribute their offending to factors such as drug and alcohol use or impulsivity (e.g., Mann & Hollin, 2007). Thus, the ability of the ITM to distinguish between sexual offenders is consistent with research showing that rapists and PCMs are distinct groups (Abel et al., 1989; Bumby 1996; Blumenthal et al., 1999; Polaschek, Ward, & Hudson, 1997). However, the extent to which rapists and mixed offenders share similar rates of ITM-R beliefs (e.g., entitlement, women as sexual objects, dangerous world Factor 1), and PCMs and mixed offenders share ITM-CM beliefs (uncontrollability, nature of harm) is consistent with research failing to find differences between types of offenders (e.g., Marolla & Scully, 1986; Pithers, 1994; Segal & Stermac, 1984). Thus, research results are dependent on the specific beliefs being assessed, and how they are defined. Interestingly, when determining classification of sexual offenders based on IT presence, it is the absence of ITs that actually function to distinguish between sexual offenders. For example, when the uncontrollability, women as sexual objects, women are dangerous, and Factor 1 of dangerous world ITs as a set were used to classify offenders, this model best classified offenders as PCMs, even though these ITs were strongest among rapists and mixed offenders. Additionally, when the children as sexual beings and nature of harm ITs were combined to classify offenders, the model best classified mixed offenders, even though these ITs were strongest among PCMs. The increased specificity of the ITM model highlights its ability to detect who does not belong out of a large sample of offenders. For example, when designing treatment group targeting ITM-R beliefs, it would be important to ensure that offenders with pedophilic interests (e.g., children are sexual beings, a desire for intimacy with children) are not included in this  58  treatment group, as they would get little benefit from its focus. Alternatively, when designing a treatment group targeting sexualized beliefs about children based on the pedophilic interests, it would be important to exclude offenders who have beliefs consistent with the ITM-R. 4.5 The Motivations of Sexual Offenders: What Their ITs Tell Us However, it is the motivations of sexual offenders that are most informative in terms of the assessment of offenders, the design and evaluation of treatment, and prediction of future risk. The difference in IT prevalence among sexual offenders becomes increasingly important when determining the specific motivations for engaging in sexual assault. In line with the fifth and final aim of the study, I successfully replicated Beech et al.‘s (2005) typology of sexually, aggressively, and sadistically motivated offenders by grouping ITs together into thematic clusters. In addition, a fourth major motivation which I have labelled the intimacy motivation was identified among PCMs. This motivation represents the need for intimacy with children. Most informative for treatment purposes, each motivation mapped onto a particular offender type: Rapists were most likely to be sadistically motivated, PCMs were predominantly driven by a need for intimacy, and mixed offenders were primarily sexually motivated. Surprisingly, very few sexual offenders were motivated purely out of aggression and revenge. Each motivational type is presented along with a sample of an offender vignette from the study to highlight the overall profile of offenders who are sexually, aggressively, sadistically, and intimacy motivated. 4.5.1    Sexual motivation to offend Sexual aggression is often sexually motivated. Indeed, it is the sexual aspect of rape and child molestation that sets it apart from other forms of assault. Further, unlike other violent acts (such as bombings, murder, robberies, or hostage situations), it is the only violent act in our society where the offender views the victim as willingly enjoying the assault (Scully & Marolla,  59  1984). Mixed offenders in the current sample had the highest prevalence rate of being sexually motivated to offend, characterized by the combination of entitlement, nature of harm, women as sexual objects, and uncontrollability. The following offender vignette demonstrates this pattern among mixed offenders: Mr. A is married with children. He has 48 documented incidents against 5 victims, including his partner, daughter, and adult acquaintances. When explaining why he assaulted children, he said he wanted to have sex with a virgin, and that the victim had already been previously assaulted, so it was ―no big deal.‖ Mr. A engages in pornography and masturbation during the assault and believes he is pleasuring his victims. Yet he simultaneously blames the attack on the victim – for example, in the victim report, the victim recalled Mr. A saying, ―don‘t let me do this to you.‖ Interestingly, 11 PCMs, but only one rapist, were also sexually motivated, suggesting that offenders with child victims are more sexually motivated than offenders who exclusively target adults (e.g., Groth et al., 1977). However, this combination has also been shown to predict rape in sexually aggressive men: Malamuth and Brown (1994; see also Murphy et al., 1986) found that sexually aggressive men who had difficulty recognizing true female rejection also had strong rape-supportive attitudes, which led them to misperceive sexual intent in a woman‘s non-sexual behaviour (e.g., clothing style; friendliness). Thus, sexual rejection is reinterpreted in favour of the underlying belief that all female behaviour is sexually laden (e.g., ―A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex‖ (Polaschek & Ward, 2002, p. 397). Therefore, it may be that men who are at risk for committing rape may be more sexually motivated than the men who act upon this aggression. Further, because the sample of rapists in the current study is comprised of chronically recidivating offenders who target strangers, they may differ in substantial ways from men who commit acquaintance rapes.  60  4.5.2    Aggressive motivations to offend A very small number of offenders were strictly aggressive in their motivations to offend, as exemplified by the presence of the women are dangerous and/or Factor 1of the dangerous world ITs. Of these nine offenders, three were rapists, two were PCMs, and four were mixed offenders; however, these differences were not significant. The low prevalence rate of aggressive sexual offenders differs from the samples of sexual murderers and rapists from which the typology was originally based (Beech et al., 2005; Beech et al., 2006), as well as other research showing anger to be the main cause for sexual aggression against women (e.g., Groth et al., 1977; Mann & Hollin, 2007). For instance, approximately one third of sexual murderers and rapists were aggressively motivated compared to less than 10% in the current sample. One possible reason for the difference in prevalence rates between Beech et al.‘s rapist sample and mine is the number of prior offences: In Beech‘s sample, only 39% of the rapists had committed previous sexual offences compared to 100% of this sample. With increased frequency of offending, they may begin to enjoy it. The following vignette is an example of an aggressive sexual offender: Mr. B has assaulted 6 women on 6 different occasions. He stalks his victims, and then robs and rapes them, either in their underground parking lot or in their home. He plans his offenses and carries a rape kit with him. Mr. B experiences emotions of anger, frustration, stress and moodiness throughout the offense cycle. He focuses on himself, and has a need for power and control; for instance he often extorts money out of prostitutes and needs to be in control of all his relationships with women. After being passed over for promotions at work, he took his revenge out on his victims.  61  4.5.3    Sadistic motivations to offend This motivation was primarily characterized by rapists, although roughly one-third of PCMs and mixed offenders were also sadistically inclined (see Marshall et al., 1986 for similar results). This rate far exceeds all other research on the IT-based motivations of sexual murderers (Beech et al., 2006) and rapists (Polaschek & Gannon, 2004); however, it is substantiated within Groth et al.‘s (1977) power-excitation rapist (see also Knight & Prentky‘s sadistic rapist, 1990). The following offender vignette of a rapist displays the combination of entitlement, women as sexual objects, women are dangerous, and Factor 1 of the dangerous world ITs: Mr. C is married with children. He has victimized four different women on four separate occasions. He gains access to his victims by waiting in parks or shopping mall parking lots to abduct and accost them. He is currently restricted from seeing his current girlfriend who is pregnant with his child because of domestic abuse. He has difficulty proving himself as a man, and because of his need for power and control, he commits sexual assaults to obtain and reinforce his status. Mr. C says he ―felt in control of the situation‖ when he assaulted his victims. He has an intimidating interpersonal style and becomes jealous when his girlfriend befriends other men. He views women as ―interchangeable conveniences‖ and as ―sex objects,‖ and ruminates about how women ruined his life. Mr. C also suffers from strong feelings of revenge, as he believes he has been victimized by women. The high rate of sadistic rapists compared to aggressively motivated rapists typically found in the literature (e.g., Brown & Forth, 1997; Freeman, 2007; Beech et al., 2006) can be explained in part by the comorbid occurrence of psychopathy and sadism found within this motivational group. As already noted, the majority of psychopathic offenders in the sample were sadistic rapists. However, these findings run contrary to other research depicting sexual  62  psychopaths as predominantly thrill-seeking mixed offenders (e.g., Greenall, 2007; Olver & Wong, 2006; Porter et al., 2000), indicating further that it may be the presence of particular ITs and motivations in combination with psychopathy and/or sadism that best predict sexual offender type. This interplay between a sadistic motivation to sexually offend and a diagnosis of psychopathy is a red flag to alert victims, treatment providers, and the judicial system: Sexual psychopaths reoffend at a faster rate, violate parole sooner (Porter, Birt, & Boer, 2001), and are not amenable to treatment (Ogloff, Wong, & Greenwood, 1990). Given that my sample is a specific, high-risk group of sexual offenders who repeatedly engage in sexual offences, this finding is likely to be specific to chronically recidivating offenders. Nevertheless, it is informative for those working with sentencing, risk assessments, and parole decisions to realize that once a chronically recidivating sexually psychopathic rapist, always a chronically recidivating sexually psychopathic rapist. 4.5.4    Intimacy motivation to offend Consistent with other research that has found intimacy to be a strongly endorsed motive for child molestation (Hartley, 2001; Mann & Hollin, 2007) the majority of pedophilic child molesters in this study also expressed this motive. Therefore, a new motivational schema to offend based on the entrenched beliefs about the sexuality of children, the desire to form a companionship with them, and the attitude that they are entitled to do so was determined. I labelled this motivation intimacy and believe it may explain why PCMs had more contact sexual offence charges and convictions, committed significantly more multiple assaults against the same victim, and tended to target children they knew, such as friends of their own children, children of friends and coworkers, or children they gained access to through work (e.g., elementary teacher) or volunteering (e.g., Boy Scouts). In addition to resembling the stereotypical single pedophile  63  lurking in the park, these men were just as likely to be married with children, and tended to offend against their own children as well as unrelated, but familiar, children. The following vignette characterizes a typical PCM holding the ITs of entitlement, Factor 2 dangerous world, children as sexual beings, and uncontrollability: Mr. D is not married but has children. He is a diagnosed pedophile and has offended 59 times against 50 victims (primarily male) over an 11-year span. His offences primarily include oral sex or sexual touching. He gains access to the children by babysitting, through friends, or opportunistically while out in public (e.g., shopping malls, washrooms). Mr. D has a history of having sex with his 4-year old sister when he was 8, and attacking 17 separate victims by the time he was 16. During the offense cycle, Mr. D is stressed, angry, and views himself as a burden to society. Interpersonally, he feels that he relates better with children than adults because they do not reject or criticize him. He is sexually preoccupied, has poor impulse control, and engages in deviant fantasies of pre-pubescent children. The repercussions of holding an intimacy motivation may increase the risk to sexually offend. Elliot and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child molesters and found almost half of the sample lowered their inhibitions to offend by fantasizing about previous victims, viewing sex with children as less threatening than with adults, and believing that children met their sexual needs (see also Wilson & Cox, 1983). Moreover, Howitt and Sheldon (2007) found that internet pedophiles scored higher than contact child molesters on the Children as Sexual Beings subscale of the Children and Sexual Activities Inventory, and Gray et al. (2005) found evidence that pedophilic child molesters implicitly associate children with sex compared to non-pedophilic child molesters (who implicitly associate adults with sex).  64  4.5.5    Psychopathy and Sadism within motivations to offend Further, the presence of psychopathy and sadism also contributed in a meaningful way to predicting sexual offender type and motivation: Psychopathy and sadism were more likely to be found among rapists than other sexual offender types. Moreover, the presence of psychopathy and sadism worked in tandem with the motivations most prevalent within each sexual offender type: For example, 76% of rapists with a diagnosis of psychopathy, and 91% of rapists diagnosed with sexual sadism were sadistically motivated, whereas 73% of mixed offenders diagnosed with psychopathy, and 50% diagnosed with sadism were sexually motivated. This suggests that the presence of psychopathy and sadism accentuate the emergence of existing underlying implicit theories and motivations of sexual offenders, but may not contribute to how they are generated: Neither psychopathy nor sadism was inherent to a particular sexual offender type or motivation. This indicates that although these disorders definitely contribute to sexual offending, it is difficult to attribute them to the formation of particular beliefs and attitudes found in sexual offenders. However, this finding is an important step towards determining the cognitive link between psychopathy and sadism to rape. Research investigating this relationship has proposed behavioural explanations involving impulsivity and antisocialism (Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003) and affective explanations focusing on the psychopath‘s inability to identify and respond to victim distress as the result of an under-stimulated violence inhibition system (Blair, 1995). The current research was able to shed some light into the cognitive explanations for why psychopaths have an increased proclivity to engage in sexual coercion: The presence of sexual, aggressive, and sadistic beliefs and attitudes towards women interact with psychopathic hyporesponsivity to victim distress, impulsivity, and thrill-seeking behaviours that work together to increase their risk for sexual recidivism. Moreover, these affective and behavioural disinhibition facets of  65  psychopathy have also been shown to correlate with sexual sadism (Mokros et al., 2011), thus strengthening the argument that psychopathy, sadism, and implicit theories work in unison to promote sexual aggressive behaviour. 4.5.6    Benefits of the ITM for assessing motivation The motivational typology proposed by Beech et al. (2005) is a much more parsimonious, less complex, and more user friendly framework in which to classify offender types compared to other classification systems (e.g., Knight, Carter, & Prentky, 1989; Knight & Prentky, 1990). For instance, Knight et al.‘s Minnesota Treatment Center: Child Molester typology stipulates that there are six distinct child molester typologies: (a) interpersonal, (b) narcissistic, (c) exploitative, (d) aggressive, (e) muted sadist, and (f) sadistic. Further, when these six types interact with the amount of social competency and level of fixation on children that each molester has, the possible typologies increases to 24 different combinations. Knight and Prentky‘s Minnesota Treatment Center: Rapist typology also consists of nine different classifications of (a) opportunistic (high and low social competence types), (b) pervasively angry, (c) sexually sadistic (overt and muted types), (d) sexually non-sadistic (high and low social competence types), and (e) vindictive (moderate and low social competence types). The benefits of using the ITM motivational typology over these complex systems are clear: Knight et al.‘s (1989) and Knight and Prentky‘s (1990) models are limited to child molesters and rapists and do not address intimacy motivations, whereas the ITM motivational typology addresses these offender types plus that of intimacy in one parsimonious model regardless of whether the victim is an adult or child. Overall, the results of the current study suggests that the ITM has implications for providing a reliable and valid framework that can (a) guide treatment practices, (b) provide a  66  standardized definition of cognitive distortions in risk assessments, and (c) contribute to existing sexual offender profiles for investigative purposes. 4.6 Implications of the ITM: Treatment, Risk Assessment, and Offender Profiling 4.6.1    Treatment The aim of therapy is to reduce recidivism risks once sexual offenders are released into the community (Langton & Marshall, 2000). Marshall (1999) asserts that almost all therapeutic intervention programs for sexual offenders acknowledge the role of cognitive distortions in the sexual offending process, and in fact, treatment research suggests that reducing cognitive distortions has the best outcome potential in preventative therapy (Beckett, Beech, Fisher, & Fordham, 1994; Marshall, 1994; Miner, Marques, Day, & Nelson, 1990; Valliant & Antonowicz, 1992). However, because of the discrepancy in definition and lack of a unified theory, these distortions are assessed in therapy in different ways (Arkowitz & Vess, 2003; Geer, Estupinan, & Manguno-Mire, 1999). The creation of a structured interview-based IT screening inventory would resolve this issue by organizing the ITs and allowing clinicians to ―check off‖ implicit theories present within the treatment session. This is a more cost-effective alternative to subjecting offenders to a battery of tests that are time consuming and that may not adequately reflect the strength of these beliefs. For example, the assessment of the cognitive distortions of sexual offenders in a maximum- security forensic mental health facility at Atasceadero State Hospital in California consisted of a large battery of tests, including the Bumby (1996) RAPE and MOLESTS scales, and the Empat, Justification, and Cognitive Distortions/Immaturity subscales of the Multiphasic Sex Inventory (Arkowitz & Vess, 2003). In addition to being costly and time consuming, these scales failed to differentiate child molesters from rapists, and sexual offenders from controls. This may be due to  67  the inability of questionnaires to adequately reflect the presence of ITs in sexual offenders (Gannon, Keown, & Rose, 2009). This ITM screening inventory also has the potential to provide a more comprehensive idea of the types of underlying beliefs and attitudes that the sexual offender is presenting, as well as to identify the specific motivation for the offence(s). From there, treatment can be more focused and tailored to specific motivation types. In uniquely combining cognitive behavioural therapy, relapse prevention techniques, and schema-focused therapy that challenges the implicit theories underlying motivations (Young, Klosko, & Weishar, 2003), the implicit theories and motivations of sexual offenders can be best addressed. For instance, research suggests that sexually motivated offenders may benefit best from a combination of traditional cognitive- behavioural therapy (CBT) that encourages changing their distorted beliefs relating to sex, relapse prevention skills that help the offender identify risky situations that lead to relapse, and increasing victim empathy (Dreishner & Lange, 1999; Gilbert, Heesacker, & Gannon, 1991; Marshall, 2001). Pedophilic child molesters seeking intimacy may also be more receptive to CBT, relapse prevention, and schema-based therapy. For instance, research shows that CBT reduces cognitive distortions in pedophiles and increases pro-social attitudes (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008), and relapse prevention helps them to identify risky situations (e.g., feeling lonely) and relapse behaviours (e.g., engaging in a ―friendly‖ relationship with a child). The addition of a schema- focused treatment that focuses on pedophilic interests and other schemas related to pedophilia (e.g., children are sexual beings, Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT) should also be targeted and changed for long term success (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008). Alternatively, for aggressively and sadistically motivated offenders, a combination of anger management, CBT practices that target hostile attributions, and schema-based treatment  68  that addresses misogynistic and grievance-based schemas against women may have the most therapeutic outcome. However, it is important to note that subjecting sadistic offenders to victim- empathy treatment is not recommended, as this type of offender will use this opportunity to relive (with pleasure) the distress they caused their victims (Marshall, 2001). Thus, by presenting cognitive distortions as a small cohesive set of related beliefs, offenders are given an opportunity to understand the wider implications of their thoughts. In doing so, resistance to cognitive restructuring is more difficult, as the offender will be challenged to argue multiple distortions at once. Echoing earlier suggestions made by Abel et al. (1989), Drake, Ward, Nathan, and Lee (2001) assert that by exposing these cognitive distortions to the offender, he will be forced to acknowledge their illogical nature. As subsequent opportunities to offend arise, the offender will be unable to justify his behaviour and thus also unable to alleviate his feelings of guilt. By making sexual offenders aware of their maladaptive implicit theories, they can begin to challenge these beliefs and adopt more socially acceptable interpretations of victim behaviour. 4.6.2    Risk assessments Beliefs and attitudes that support sexual crimes contribute significantly to the prediction of sexual and violent recidivism (e.g., deviant sexual preferences, offense-supportive beliefs, and social competency; Hanson, 1998) and are included in many dynamic risk assessments for sexual aggression, such as the Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR; Hanson & Harris, 2000), and the Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20; Boer, Hart, Kropp, & Webster, 1997). The results of the study indicate that the ITs of uncontrollability, women are sexual objects, women are dangerous, children are sexual beings, and Factor 1 and 2 of dangerous world of the ITM map onto the dynamic risk factors identified for sexual offending. For instance, a recent meta-analysis of 82 studies conducted by Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2005) found that  69  risk factors most predictive of sexual recidivism  included (a) sexual preoccupation (d = .30), reflective of the uncontrollability IT, (b) hostility (d = .23), reflective of Factor 1 of the dangerous world IT, (c) sexual attitudes (d = .17), reflective of the women/children are sexual ITs, and (d) emotional identification with children (d = .42), reflective of Factor 2 of the dangerous world IT. Moreover, the sexual entitlement schema has been found to be a significant contributing dynamic risk factor to predicting future sexual offending in other risk assessment studies (Hanson & Harris, 2000; cf. Pemberton & Wakeling, 2009). These parallels are encouraging, and support the need for a unified model to define and label cognitive distortions. The use of the ITM as a standardized model to define implicit theories has the potential to provide a more accurate assessment of risk on items pertaining to distorted beliefs and attitudes. 4.6.3    Offender profiling Classification of deviant populations is the ―keystone of theory building and the cornerstone of intervention‖ (Knight & Prentky, 1990, p. 23). One attempt to make the heterogeneity of sexual offenders more homogeneous is to classify them based on their offence type (e.g., rape or molestation) and criminal characteristics unique to each (e.g., gender, level of force used). Another way is to create a typology based on the motivations to offend using the implicit theories specific to each offence type. By combining offence typologies with motivational typologies (e.g., Beech et al., 2005), a working profile for those who offend against women, children, or both can be created to assist in apprehension, sentencing, assessment, and treatment of sexual offenders. This process of offender profiling relies on sound theories that can be tested empirically (e.g., Canter, 1995). The ITM motivational typology was established from a sound theoretical framework (Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward, 2000; Ward & Keenan, 1999) which has been  70  empirically validated in rapists (Beech et al., 2006), sexual murderers (Beech et al., 2005), female child molesters (Beech et al., 2009), and in the current sample of rapists, PCMs, and mixed offenders. Offender profiling also relies on behavioural consistency; just as Grubin, Kelly, and Ayis (1997) noted the behavioural consistency in sexually violent offenders‘ overall method and nature of their crimes, the sexual offenders in this study showed a consistency in their cognitions in the form of their implicit theories and motivations to offend. The predominant profile of a chronically recidivating, high-risk rapist is of a sadistic psychopath who uses force causing severe injury to his unknown victim. He is not likely to offend against the same victim more than once, but prefers to target new victims for each offence (see Knight & Prentky, 1990; Porter et al., 2000 for similar profiles). This sexual offender is criminally versatile, having committed more nonviolent-nonsexual offences and violent- nonsexual offences than PCMs and mixed offenders. Cognitively, the high-risk rapist believes he is sexually entitled, is misogynistic, views women as commodities, and has a general mistrust of the world – all highly predictive of a sadistic motivation (Beech et al., 2005). Alternately, the predominant profile of repeat PCM offenders is of individuals who are more likely to offend against known male victims, such as acquaintances, friends of their own children, children of coworkers, and children living in their neighbourhood. These individuals are what Canter and Gregory (1994) call marauders. These offenders operate close to home rather than commuting out of their comfort areas to find victims. These PCMs are less likely to inflict harm on their victims, but do commit a significantly higher rate of multiple assaults against the same victim, as well as more assaults against multiple victims within the same assault. Psychologically, they are less likely to be sadistic or psychopathic, with less than 10% showing any signs of gratuitously violent behaviour. Cognitively, high-risk PCMs believe they are unable to control their sexual urges against children they perceive to be willing participants.  71  Additionally, because this sexual contact is thought to be beneficial, the PCM is motivated to forge an intimate relationship with the child (see Knight et al., 1989, for similar profiles). Finally, the mixed offender is best characterized as a domestic abuser (but see Porter, Demetrioff, & ten Brink (2010) for an alternate description of the mixed offender as a sexual psychopath). This offender type was most likely to offend against members of his family, including partners, children, nieces, nephews, and siblings. Criminally, mixed offenders had the highest number of violent-nonsexual charges, non-contact sexual offences, and contact offence charges, thus earning them the title of most criminally versatile. Psychologically, only seven mixed offenders had paraphilia diagnoses, including sadism and pedophilia. However, half were psychopathic and showed antisocial traits (cf. Porter et al., 2000). The ITs of the mixed offender indicate that this type of offender is chiefly motivated by his sexual urges and the belief that he is entitled to have sexual relations with whomever he chooses. 4.7 Limitations This study is not without its limitations. Traditionally, implicit theories, and cognitive distortions in general, are studied using interview or questionnaire-based methodologies. One limitation of the present research is the use of archived data pulled from offender files. However, file-based studies have been successfully implemented in previous research on cognitive distortions (e.g., Pollock & Hashmall, 1991). Moreover, far more unusual methodology has been implemented to research cognitive distortions, such as collecting narratives from books on pedophilic Catholic priests (Thompson, Marolla, & Bromley, 1998) and coding conversations between pedophiles on pedophilic internet chat rooms (Malesky & Ennis, 2004). In addition, this study may have avoided ceiling and floor effects. There is a tendency for studies that use interviews to directly assess implicit schemas which tend to show higher levels of implicit theory presence, whereas questionnaire studies tend to have an overall low level of  72  item agreement in support of the implicit theory concept (e.g., Bumby, 1996; Gannon, Wright, Beech, & Williams, 2006). This discrepancy has been variously attributed to priming effects for interview studies, or impression management attempts (Gannon et al., 2006) and poor item content (Howitt & Sheldon, 2007) on questionnaire studies. Therefore, the use of file data has potential strengths rather than weaknesses. My study shows that offender files can (a) reveal implicit beliefs and attitudes during the course of psychiatric intake meetings and therapy sessions, (b) show if these implicit theories are elicited without therapeutic priming through post-offense statements noted within victim and police reports, and (c) demonstrate that despite the lack of a unified and standardized framework for identifying cognitive distortions, psychologists and other professionals realize the impact of these pro-offending statements enough to make note of them. This last point also identifies the potential limitation of relying on self-report in assessing the presence of implicit theories in sexual offenders: This methodology relies on (a) if the interviewer was able to identify the post-offense statement as an underlying implicit belief, and (b) to probe for underlying implicit theories during the interview. The limitations of self-report may be especially problematic in sexual offender samples that are highly psychopathic: The high rate of psychopathy, especially among rapists in the current sample, may indicate that the post- offense statements elicited may be the direct result of a ―duping delight‖ or an attempt to shock the interviewer. If this is the case, the rates of ITs identified in the study are actually higher than actually exist for the offender. However, it may also be the case that these individuals were actually downplaying the extent of their misogynistic and sexist attitudes by using superficial charm to impress and/or con the interviewers into believing they are capable of rehabilitation (and ultimately, parole). For example, Porter, ten Brinke, and Wilson (2009) found that psychopathic sexual offenders were more likely than non-psychopathic sexual offenders to be  73  granted parole based solely on their ability to convince the parole board of their remorse and motivation to rehabilitate. If this is the case, then it could be argued that the percentage of ITs identified are actually much lower than actually exist, and given the extensive criminal history of the psychopathic offender (e.g., Olver & Wong, 2006), these offenders learn what to say in order to expedite their parole eligibility (e.g., treatment compliance). Another limitation to the study is the use of a highly specific sample of chronically recidivating offenders. The prevalence rates of certain ITs were much higher than in previous IT research (e.g., entitlement), and there was an alarming rate of sadistic rapists in the sample. Yet, despite these limitations, the overall results closely replicated the findings of previous researchers (Beech et al., 2005, 2006, 2009; Marziano et al., 2006; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004), giving the ITM external validity to sexual offenders beyond one-time rapists and external child molesters. In fact, this study is the first to offer comparison groups, as well as the first to examine the ITs of mixed offenders and pedophilic child molesters. Moreover, consistent with Ward‘s (2000) idea that the beliefs and attitudes contained within implicit theories become more entrenched with repeated use, it could be argued that the ITM is aptly suited for assessing the ITs in serial sexual offenders. Finally, although the presence of psychopathy was addressed in the current research, a deeper understanding of the presence of implicit theories and motivations of sexual offenders as a function of psychopathy was not fully explored. The primary focus of the present research was to determine if the ITM could be validated in a sample of sexual offenders, and to see if these implicit theories and motivations could reliably predict whether a sexual offender would offend against women, children, or both. Thus, a comprehensive analysis of psychopathy was beyond the present scope. Further, the small number of sexual offenders within each type and the paucity  74  of information on the affective, interpersonal, and antisocial factors limited the breadth of analysis that could be conducted. It must be noted that although the ITM can account for how beliefs and attitudes (including stereotypes, scripts, fantasies, and deviant sexual preferences) contribute to sexual offending, it is unclear if implicit theories initiate sexual offending or serve to maintain sexually offensive behaviour once started. In addition, implicit theories interact with situational and contextual variables (e.g., drug and alcohol abuse, affect) throughout the offense cycle. Thus it is not enough to attribute sexual offending to how the offender thinks per se, but how these distorted thoughts influence emotions and behaviours in the sexual assault process. 4.8 Future Research These limitations highlight the need for continued research on the etiology of cognitive distortions, the effects of treatment to alter ITs, and the ability of the ITM to predict risk for sexual reoffending. For example, future research could examine the ITs within adolescent sexual offenders to verify if indeed, these beliefs begin in adolescence and become more entrenched with repeated assaults. Further research could also conduct implicit apperception tests to determine if rapists and mixed offenders hold implicit associations between victims and sexual and aggressive concepts. In terms of treatment, the development of a screening inventory of ITs for treatment providers to utilize at the onset of program development is one way of improving treatment efficacy. Moreover, such a tool would allow for the empirical validation of treatment efficacy by assessing the strength of ITs before and after treatment. Using the ITM as a model for defining ITs in therapy standardizes the treatment model and allows for it to be empirically compared with other methods of treatment, such as cognitive behavioural therapy and relapse prevention models (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008; Marques, Weideranders, Day, Nelson, & van Ommeren,  75  2005). The ITM screening device would also allow for an objective measure to assess pre- and post-treatment effects and survival rates by measuring levels of implicit theories prior to, and after treatment. Further, a major advance in our understanding of the profiles of sexual offenders can be made by examining the relationships between instrumental and reactive aggression and motivations to offend. For example, it is conceivable that a sexually motivated offender who is unable to control his sexual urges, views women as sexual commodities, and has a high level of sexual entitlement is more prone to engage in reactive and impulsive types of offenses compared to the sexual psychopath who has a deep hatred of women and wants to make them suffer. This latter type of offender who is sadistically motivated is most likely prone to instrumental, planned, and cold-blooded assaults (e.g., Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Finally, although recent research on psychopathy has identified links between psychopathy and sexually aggressive behaviour in terms of affect (e.g., Blair, 2006) and behaviour (Knight & Sims-Knight, 2003), it has yet to discover the impact of cognitions - specifically, implicit theories and motivations. Therefore, this relationship needs to assessed within different sexual offender types and compared to non-psychopathic sexual offenders, with a specific focus on the influence of the interpersonal and affective characteristics (e.g., lack of empathy and remorse, pathological lying, and conning and manipulation) and antisocial behaviours (e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility, criminal behaviour).   76   5 Conclusion Sexual offenders learn strategies that work and do not work within the sexual offending process, such as developing motives, beliefs, and attitudes that facilitate and maintain their sexually assaultive behaviour. The benefits of Ward‘s ITM (Polaschek & Ward, 2002; Ward, 2000; Ward & Keenan, 1999) include its ability to account for previous research that attributes cognitive distortions to social-learning theories (Abel et al., 1984; Burt, 1980; Check & Malamuth,1983; Check et al., 1985; Malamuth & Brown, 1994; Malamuth et al.,1995; Scully & Marolla, 1984, 1985), feminist theories (e.g., Burt, 1980), social-cognitive attribution (Blumenthal et al., 1999; Pollock & Hashmall, 1991), and confirmatory bias (Murphy, 1990; Saradjian & Nobus, 2003) explanations. In unifying post-offense statements into related thematic networks, the ITM also offers a cohesive framework from which to identify, understand, and potentially treat sexual offenders‘ maladaptive beliefs and attitudes, and understand their motivations to sexually offend. This study is the first to (a) empirically compare the presence of ITs in a high-risk, chronically recidivating sample of clinically diagnosed PCMs and mixed offenders (b) demonstrate that the presence of particular ITs can be used to best classify sexual offenders as rapists, PCMs, or mixed offenders, and (c) validate existing motivational typologies based on these theories. In addition, this study is the third study to successfully replicate the ITM in rapists, and the first within a sample of chronically recidivating rapists. In closing, this study has taken an important step in validating the use of the ITM as the foundation on which future research of sexual offenders should be built.   77  References Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., & Cunningham-Rathner, J. (1984). Complication, consent, and cognitions in sex between children and adults. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 89-103. doi:10.1016/0160-2527(84)90008-6 Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Mittleman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J. L., Rouleau, J. L., & Murphy, W.D. (1987). Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3-25. doi:10.1177/088626087002001001 Abel, G. G., Gore, D. K., Holland, C. L., Camp, N., Becker, J. V., & Rathner, J. (1989). The measurement of the cognitive distortions of child molesters. Annals of Sex Research, 2, 135-153. doi:10.1177/107906328900200202 American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Arkowitz, S., & Vess, J. (2003). An evaluation of the Bumby RAPE and MOLEST scales as measures of cognitive distortions with civilly committed sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 237-249. doi:10.1177/107906320301500402. Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (1989). Erectile responses amongst heterosexual child molesters, father-daughter incest offenders and matched non-offenders: Five distinct age preference profiles. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 70-87. doi:10.1037 /h0079791 Beckett, R. C., Beech, A. R., Fisher, D., & Fordham, A. S. (1994). Community-based treatment for sex offenders: An evaluation of seven treatment programmes. London: Home Office. Beech, A. R., Fisher, D., & Ward, T. (2005). Sexual murderers‘ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1366-1389. doi:10.1177/0886260505278712  78  Beech, A. R., Kalmus, E., Tipper, S. P., Baudouin, J. Y., Flak, V., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Children induce an enhanced attentional blink in child molesters. Psychological Assessment, 20, 397-402. doi:10.1037/a0013587 Beech, A. R., Parrett, N., Ward, T., & Fisher, D. (2009). Assessing female sexual offenders‘ motivations and cognitions: an exploratory study. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 201- 216. doi:10.1080/10683160802190921 Beech, A. R., Ward, T., & Fisher, D. (2006). The identification of sexual and violent motivations in men who assault women: Implication for treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,21, 1635-1653. doi:10.1177/0886260506294242 Berner, W., Berger, P., Hill, A. (2003). Sexual sadism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 383-395. doi:10.1177/0306624X03256161 Bickley, J. A., & Beech, A. R. (2002). An investigation of the Ward and Hudson pathways model of the sexual offense process with child abusers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 371 – 393. doi:10.1177/0886260502017004002 Blake, E., & Gannon, T. A. (2008). Social perception deficits, cognitive distortions, and empathy deficits in sex offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9, 34-55. doi:10.1177/1524838007 311104 Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 55, 1-29. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P Blumenthal, S., Gudjonsson, G., & Burns, J. (1999). Cognitive distortions and blame attribution in sex offenders against adults and children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 129-143. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00117-3  79  Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R., & Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20. Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Vancouver, British Columbia: Institute Against Family Violence. Brown, S. L., & Forth, A. E. (1997). Psychopathy and sexual assault: Static risk factors, emotional precursors, and rapist subtypes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 848-857. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.5.848 Bumby, K. M. (1996). Assessing the cognitive distortions of child molesters and rapists: Development and validation of the MOLEST and RAPE scales. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1, 37-54. doi:10.1177/107906329600800105 Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010). Female victims of violence, 2009. Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 22, 2010: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty= pbdetail&iid=2020 Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217 Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Pedophilia: Assessment and treatment. In D. R. Laws, &W. T. O‘Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (2nd ed.) (pp. 183-212). New York: The Guildford Press. Canter, D. V. (1995). Criminal shadows. London: Harper Collins. Canter, D. V., & Gregory, A. (1994). Identifying the residential location of rapists. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 34, 169-175. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/journal /00157368 Carnes, P. (1983). Out of the shadows: Understanding sexual addiction. Minneapolis, MN: CompCare.  80  Chapleau, K. M., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Power, sex, and rape myth acceptance: Testing two models of rape proclivity. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 66-78. doi:10.1080/00224490 902954323 Check, J. V. P., & Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 344-356. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.344 Check, J. V. P., Malamuth, N. M., Elias, B., & Barton, S. A. (1985). On hostile ground. Psychology Today, 19, 56-61. Retrieved from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/  malamuth/pdf/85pt19.pdf Drake, C. R., Ward, T., Nathan, P., & Lee, J. K. P. (2001). Challenging the cognitive distortions of child molesters: An implicit theory approach. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 7, 25-40. doi:10.1080/13552600108416165 Dreishner, K., & Lange, A. (1999). A review of cognitive factors in the etiology of rape: Theories, empirical studies, and implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 57-77. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00016-6 Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 579-594. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00017-3 Festinger, L.A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sex abuse: New theory and research. New York: Free Press.  81  Firestone, P., Nunes, K. L., Moulden, H., Broom, I., & Bradford, J. M. (2005). Hostility and recidivism in sexual offenders. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 277-283. doi:10.1007/ s10508-005-3116-8 Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2 nd  ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Freeman, N. J. (2007). Predictors of rearrest for rapists and child molesters on probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 752-768. doi:10.1177/0093854806298280 Gannon, T. A. (2009). Social cognition in violent and sexual offending: An overview. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 15, 97-118. doi:10.1080/10683160802190822 Gannon, T. A., Keown, K., & Rose, M. R. (2009). An examination of current psychometric assessments of child molesters‘ offense-supportive beliefs using Ward‘s Implicit Theories. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 316-333. doi:10.1177/0306624X07312791 Gannon, T. A., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2006). Cognitive distortions in child molesters: An examination of key theories and research. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 1000- 1019.doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2005.11.010 Gannon, T. A., Ward, T., & Collie, R. (2007). Cognitive distortions in child molesters: Theoretical and research developments over the past two decades. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 402-416. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.005 Gannon, T. A., Wright, D. B., Beech, A. R., & Williams, S. (2006). Do child molesters hold distorted beliefs? What does their memory recall tell us? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12, 5-18. doi:10.1080/1 3552600500451655 Geer, J. H., Estupinan, L. A., & Manguno-Mire, G. M. (1999). Empathy, social skills, and other relevant cognitive processes in rapists and child molesters. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 99-126. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00011-1  82  Gilbert, B. J., Heesacker, M., & Gannon, L. J. (1991). Changing the sexual aggression- supportive attitudes of men: A psychoeducational intervention. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 38, 197-203. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.2.197 Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39, 93-104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.2.93 Gray, N. S., Brown, A. S., MacCulloch, M. J., Smith, J., & Snowden, R. J. (2005). An implicit test of the associations between children and sex in pedophiles. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 304-308. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.304 Greaves, C. L. (2010). Progression towards sexual re-offence: Detailing the offence cycle and contributing factors in high-risk sexual offenders (Doctoral thesis, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada). Greenall, P. V. (2007). Sexual offending and antisocial personality: Exploring the link. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 9, 24-30. Retrieved from http://pierprofessional. metpress.com/content/121407 Groth, A. N., Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1977). Rape: Power, anger, and sexuality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 1239-1243. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatry online.org/cgi/reprint/134/11/1249 Groth, A. N., Hobson, W. F., & Gary, T. S. (1982).The child molester: Clinical observations. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 1, 129-144. Grubin, D., Kelly, P., & Ayis, A. (1997). Linking serious sexual assaults. London: Home Office Police Department, Police Research Group. Hall, G. C. N., & Hirschman, R. (1991). Toward a theory of sexual aggression: A quadripartitemodel. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 662-669. doi:10.1037/0022006X.59.5.662  83  Hamilton, M., & Yee, J. (1990). Rape knowledge and propensity to rape. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 111-122. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(90)90010-4 Hanson, K. R. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk assessment? Psychology Public Policy and Law, 4, 50-72. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.50 Hanson, K. R., Gizzarelli, R., & Scott, H. (1994). The attitudes of incest offenders: Sexual entitlement and acceptance of sex with children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 187-202. doi:10.1177/0093854894021002001 Hanson, K. R., & Harris, A. (2000). The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR): A method for measuring change in risk levels (Research Rep. No. 2000-01). Ottawa, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/sonar-eebds-eng.aspx Hanson, K. R., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis (Research Rep. No. 2004-02). Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/ res/cor/rep/2004-02-pred-se-eng.aspx Hanson, K. R., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Counselling and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154 Hanson, K. R., Morton, K. E., & Harris, A. J. R. (2003). Sexual offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we need to know. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 989. Sexually coercive behaviour: Understanding and management (pp. 154-166). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.  84  Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi- Health Systems. Hare, R. D. (2006). Psychopathy: A clinical and forensic overview. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29, 709-724. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2006.04.007 Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems. Harris, D. A., Smallbone, S., Dennison, S., & Knight, R. A. (2009). Specialization and versatility in sexual offenders referred for civil commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 37-44. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.12.002 Hartley, C. C. (1998). How incest offenders overcome internal inhibitions through the use of cognitions and cognitive distortions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 25-39. doi:10.1177/088626098013001002 Hartley, C. C. (2001). Incest offenders‘ perceptions of their motives to sexually offend within their past and current life context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 459-475. doi:10.1177/088626001016005005 Hayashino, D. S., Wurtele, S. K., & Klebe, K. J. (1995). Child molesters: An examination of cognitive factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 106-116. doi:10.1177/08862 6095010001007 Howells, K. (1979). Some meanings of children for paedophiles. In M. Cook & G. D. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction: An international conference. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Howells, K., & Wright, E. (1978). The sexual attitudes of aggressive sexual offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 18, 170-174. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page? handle=hein.journals  85  Howitt, D., & Sheldon, K. (2007). The role of cognitive distortions in paedophilic offending: Internet and contact offenders compared. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 469- 486.doi:10.1080/10683160601060564 Keown, K., Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (2010). What‘s in a measure? A multi-method study of child sexual offenders‘ beliefs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 125-143. doi:10.1080/10683160802622022 Knight, R. A., Carter, D. L., & Prentky, R. A. (1989). A system of the classification of child molesters: Reliability and application. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 3-23.  doi:10.1177/088626089004001001 Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23-52). New York: Plenum Press. Knight, R. A. & Sims-Knight, J. E. (2003). Developmental antecedents of sexual coercion against women: Testing of alternative hypotheses with structural equation modeling. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Vol. 989, pp. 72-85). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455-457. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455 Langton, C. M., Barbaree, H. E., Harkins, L., Arenovich, T., Mcnamee, J., Peacock, E. J., ... Marcon, H. (2008). Denial and minimization among sexual offenders: Posttreatment  86  presentation and association with sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 69-98. doi:10.1177/0093854807309287 Langton, C. M., & Marshall, W. L. (2000). The role of cognitive distortions in relapse prevention programs. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 167-186). London, England: Sage Publications Inc. Laws, D. L., Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (2002). Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook and practice standards and guidelines for members of the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 30, 285-292. Lipton, D. N., McDonel, E. C., & McFall, R. M. (1987). Heterosocial perception in rapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 17-21. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.1. 17 Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138-157, doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb01075.x Malamuth, N. M., & Brown, L. M. (1994). Sexually aggressive men‘s perceptions of women‘s communications: Testing three explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 699-712. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.699 Malamuth, N. M., Heavey, C. L., Linz, D., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men‘s conflict in women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369. doi:10.1037 /0022-3514.69.2.353 Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59  87  .5.670 Malesky, L. A. Jr., & Ennis, L. (2004). Supportive distortions: An analysis of posts on a pedophile internet message board. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counselling, 24, 92- 100. Retrieved from http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4721459/Supportive- distortions-an-analysis-of.html Mann, R. E. & Beech, A. R. (2003). Cognitive distortions, schemas, and implicit theories. InT. Ward, D. R. Laws, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Issues and controversies (pp. 135-153). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. Mann, R., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). Sexual offenders‘ explanations for their offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13, 3-9. doi:10.1080/13552600701365621 Mann, R., Webster, S., Wakeling, H., & Marshall, W. (2007). The measurement and influence of child sexual abuse supportive beliefs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 443-458. doi:10.1080/10683160601061141 Marolla, J. A., & Scully, D. (1986).  Attitudes toward women, violence, and rape: A comparison of convicted rapists and other felons. Deviant Behavior, 7, 337-355. Marques, J. K., Weideranders, M., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & van Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California‘s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1, 79-107. doi:10.1007/S1U94-005-1212-X. Marshall, W. L. (1994). Treatment effects on denial and minimization in incarcerated sex offenders. Behavioral Therapy, 32, 559-564. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90145-7 Marshall, W. L. (1997). The relationship between self-esteem and deviant sexual arousal in nonfamilial child molesters. Behavior Modification, 21, 86-96. doi:10.1177/0145445597 0211005  88  Marshall, W. L. (1999). Current status of North American assessment and treatment programs for sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 221-239. doi:10.1177/08862 6099014003002 Marshall, W. L. (2001). Adult sexual offenders against women. In C. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 333-348). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Marshall, W. L. (2006). Diagnostic problems with sexual offenders. In W.L. Marshall, Y. M. Fernandez, L. E. Marshall, & G. A. Serran (Eds.), Sexual offender treatment: Controversial issues (pp. 33-43). New York: Wiley. Marshall, W. L., Anderson, D., & Fernandez, Y. M. (1999). Cognitive behavioural treatment of sexual offenders. Chichester, England: Wiley. Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 257-278). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Marshall, W. L., Barbaree, H. E., & Christophe, D. (1986). Sexual offenders against female children: Sexual preferences for age of victims and type of behaviour. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 424 - 439. doi:10.1037/h0079966 Marshall, L. E., & Marshall, W. L. (2001). Excessive sexual desire disorder among sexual offenders: The development of a research project. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention, 8, 301-307. doi:10.1080/10720160 175345998 Marshall, L. E., Marshall, W. L., Moulden, H. M., & Serran, G. A. (2008). The prevalence of sexual addiction in incarcerated sexual offenders and matched community nonoffenders. Sexual Addictions and Compulsivity, 15, 271-283.doi:10.1080/10720160802516328  89  Marziano, V., Ward, T., Beech, A. R., & Pattison, P. (2006). Identification of five fundamental implicit theories underlying cognitive distortions in child abusers: A preliminary study. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 97-105.doi:10.1080/10683160500056887 McKay, M. M., Chapman, J. W., & Long, N. R (1996). Causal attributions for criminal offending and sexual arousal: Comparisons of child sex offenders with other offenders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 63-75. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi .nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8673036 Mihailides, S., Devilly, G. J., & Ward, T. (2004). Implicit cognitive distortions of sex offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 333-350. doi:10.11 77/10 7906320401600406 Milner, R. J., & Webster, S. D. (2005). Identifying schemas in child molesters, rapists, and violent offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 425-439. doi:10.1007/s11194-005-8053-5 Miner, M. H., Marques, J. K., Day, D. M., & Nelson, C. (1990). Impact of relapse prevention in treating sex offenders: Preliminary findings. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 165-185. doi:10.1 177/107906329000300203 Mokros, A., Osterheider, M., Hucker, S. J., & Nitschke, J. (2011). Psychopathy and sexual sadism. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 188-199. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9221-9 Murphy, W. D. (1990). Assessment and modification of cognitive distortion in sex offenders. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 331-340). New York: Plenum Press. Murphy, W. D., Coleman, E. M., & Haynes, M. R. (1986). Factors related to coercive sexual behaviour in a nonclinical sample of males. Violence and Victims, 1, 255-278.  90  Neidigh, L., & Krop, H. (1992). Cognitive distortions among child sexual offenders. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 18, 208-215. Ogloff, J. R. P., Wong, S., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Treating criminal psychopaths in a therapeutic community program. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 8, 181-190. doi:10.1 002/bsl.2370080210 Olver, M. E., & Wong, S. C. P. (2006). Psychopathy, sexual deviance, and recidivism among sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 65-82. doi:10.1007/s11 194-006-9006-3 Pallant, J. (2007). Logistic regression. In SPSS: Survival manual (pp. 166-178). New York: McGraw-Hill. Pemberton, A. E., & Wakeling, H. C. (2009). Entitled to sex: Attitudes of sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 289-303.doi:10.1080/13552600903097212 Petrucci, C. J. (2009). A primer for social worker researchers on how to conduct a multinomial logistic regression. Journal of Social Service Research, 25, 193-205. doi:10.1080/014883 70802678983 Pithers, W. D. (1994). Process evaluation of a group therapy component designed to enhance sex offenders‘ empathy for sexual abuse survivors. Behavior Research and Therapy, 32, 565- 570.doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90146-5 Polaschek, D. L. L., & Gannon, T. (2004). The implicit theories of rapists: What convicted offenders tell us. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 299-314. doi:10.1023/B:SEBU.0000043325.94302.40 Polaschek, D. L. L., & Ward, T. (2002). The implicit theories of potential rapists: What our questionnaires tell us. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 385-406.doi:10.1016/S1359-  1789(01)00063-5  91  Polaschek, D.  L. L., Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1997). Rape and rapists: Theory and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 117-144. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00048-7 Pollock, N. L., & Hashmall, J. M. (1991). The excuses of child molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 53-59.doi:10.1002/bsl.2370090107 Porter, S., Birt, A., & Boer, D. (2001). Investigation of the criminal and conditional release profiles of Canadian federal offenders as a function of psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 647-661.doi:10.1023/A:1012710424821 Porter, S., Demetrioff, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2010). The sexual psychopath: Current understanding and future challenges. In A. Schlank, (Ed.), The sexual predator (Volume IV, p. 13-1 – 13-12). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. Porter, S., Fairweather, D., Drugge, J., Hervé, H., Birt, A., & Boer, D. P. (2000). Profiles of psychopathy in incarcerated sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 216- 233.doi:10.1177/0093854800027002005 Porter, S., ten Brinke, L., & Wilson, K. (2009). Crime profiles and conditional release performance of psychopathic and non-psychopathic sexual offenders. The British Psychological Society, 14, 109-118. doi:10.1348/135532508X284310 Prentky, R.A., Lee, A. E. S., Knight, R. A., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 635-659. doi:10.1013/A:1024860714738 Quinsey, V. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 85-105.doi:10.1177/088626095010001006 Rada, R. T. (1978). Clinical aspects of the rapist. New York: Grune & Stratton. Rennie, D. L., Phillips, J. R., & Quartaro, G. K. (1988). Grounded theory: A promising approach to conceptualisations in psychology. Canadian Psychology, 29, 139-150.doi:10.1037/h0  92  079765 Ressler, R. K., Burgess, A. W., & Douglas, J. E. (1985). Rape and rape-murder: One offender and twelve victims. In A. W. Burgess, (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault (pp. 209-221). New York: Garland Publishing Inc. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 231-241. doi:10.1023/A:1024882430242 Salter, A.C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders. New York: Basic Books. Saradjian, A., & Nobus, D. (2003). Cognitive distortions of religious professionals who sexually abuse children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 905-923. doi:10.1177/0886260503 253881 Scully, D., & Marolla, J. (1984). Convicted rapists‘ vocabulary of motive: Excuses and justifications. Social Problems, 31, 530-544. doi:10.1525/sp.1984.31.5.03a00050 Scully, D., & Marolla, J. (1985). ―Riding the bull at Gilley‘s‖: Convicted rapists describe the rewards of rape. Social Problems, 32, 251-263. doi:10.1525/sp.1985.32.3.03a00070 Segal, Z. V., & Stermac, L. E. (1984). A measure of rapists‘ attitudes toward women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 437-440. doi:10.1016/0160-2527(84) 90023-2 Segal, Z. V., & Stermac, L. E. (1990). The role of cognition in sexual assault. In W. L. Marshall,D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 161-174). New York: Plenum Press. Statistics Canada (2010). 2009 Crime severity index, by province and territory. Retrieved November 22, 2010 from Statistics Canada: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/  93  LEGAL51A-eng.htm Stermac, L. E., & Segal, Z. V. (1989). Adult sexual contact with children: An examination of the cognitive factors. Behavioral Therapy, 20, 573-584. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(89)801352. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5 th  ed). Boston: Pearson. Thompson, J. G., Marolla, J. A., & Bromley, D. G. (1998). Disclaimers and accounts in cases of Catholic priests accused of pedophilia. In A. Shupe (Ed.), Wolves within the fold (pp. 175-190). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 14, 139-153.doi:10.1177/1079063202 01400205 Valliant, P. M., & Antonowicz, D. H. (1992). Rape, incest offenders, and child molesters in treatment: Cognitive and social skills training. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36, 221-230. doi:10.1177/0306624X9203600306 Ward, T. (2000). Sexual offenders‘ cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 491-507. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00036-6 Ward, T., & Casey, A. (2009). Extending the mind into the world: A new theory of cognitive distortions in sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.avb. 2009.08.002 Ward, T., Fon, C., Hudson, S. M., & McCormack, J. (1998). A descriptive model of dysfunctional cognitions in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 129-155. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00036-6 Ward, T., Gannon, T. A., & Keown, K. (2005). Beliefs, values, and action: The judgment model of cognitive distortions in sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 323- 340. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.10.003  94  Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., Johnston, L., & Marshall, W. L. (1997). Cognitive distortions in sex offenders: An integrated review. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 479-507. doi:10.1016  /S0 272-7358(97)81034-3 Ward, T., & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters‘ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 821-838. doi:10.1177/088626099014008003 Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L. L., & Beech, A. R. (2005). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester,UK: Wiley. Ward, T., & Siegert, R. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 8, 319-351. doi:10.1080/106831602084 01823 Wellman, H. M. (1990). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Matthews, A. (1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders (2 nd  ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Wilson, G. D., & Cox, D. N. (1983). Personality of paedophile club members. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 323-329. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(83)90154-X Wolfe, J., & Baker, V. (1980). Characteristics of imprisoned rapists and circumstances of the rape. In C. G. Warner (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault. Germantown, Md: Aspen Systems. Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,111,436-445. doi:10.1037/002  1-843X.111.3.436 Yates, P. M., Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (1984). Anger and deviant arousal. Behavioral Therapy, 15, 287-294. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(84)80031-3  95  Yates, P. M., & Kingston, D. A. (2006). The self-regulation model of sexual offending: The relationship between offence pathways and static and dynamic sexual offence risk. Sex Abuse, 18, 259-270. doi:10.1007/s11194-006-9018-z Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioners' guide. London: Guildford.   96  Appendices Appendix A  RCMP Integrated Sexual Predator Intelligence Network (ISPIN) Template  SECTION 1      Date: _____________________ TOMBSTONE DATA Name (surname, given) Date of Birth FPS # Sentence Commencement Statutory Release Date Warrant Expiry Date Location (community or institution)  PHYSICAL DESCRIPTORS Height Weight Race Hair Colour Scars Tattoos  REMARKS (Identifiers, such as crime cycle, grooming techniques, forcible confinement, age and sex of targets, coercion, offence environment)      TOTAL CUMULATIVE SCORE Actuarial Scores/Risk Assessments Other Factors  TOTAL   97  SECTION 2 ACTUARIAL SCORES/RISK ASSESSMENT PCL-R Extreme: > 33 = 5 High: 28 to 33 = 4 Moderate/High: 22 – 27 = 3 Moderate: 17 to 21 = 2 Low/Moderate: 12 to 16 = 1 Low: < 12 = 0  SORAG or VRAG Extreme: higher percentages = 5 High: 7 yrs – 76%, 10 yrs – 82% = 4 Moderate/High: 7 yrs – 55%, 10 yrs – 64% = 3 Moderate: 7 yrs – 44%, 10 yrs – 58% = 2 Low/Moderate: 7 yrs – 35%, 10 yrs – 48% = 1 Low: 7 yrs – 17%, 10 yrs – 31% = 0  SECTION 3 OTHER FACTORS DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR Indication of Paraphilia (e.g., exhibitionism, fetishism, pedophilia, necrophilia, sexual sadism or masochism) = 1  Elevated Arousal to Non-Consent Adult or Child or Evidence of Predatory Nature , i.e., victim/stranger = .5  None of the Above = 0  PREVIOUS VIOLENCE > 2 Acts of Violence or Under 20 yrs at 1 st  Violent Act = 1 1 or 2 Acts of Violence or 20-39 yrs at 1 st  Violent Act = .5 0 Acts of Violence = 0  TARGET ENVIRONMENT Access to Destabilizers (drugs or alcohol, target rich environments/access to target population) = .5  Lack of Support = .5 Supportive Environment without Access to Destabilizers = 0    98  MENTAL DISORDERS Major Mental Illness (schizophrenia or manic depression/bipolar) = .5 Personality Disorders (e.g., borderline, narcissistic, paranoid) including Conduct and Drug/Alcohol Disorders, excluding Antisocial Personality Disorder = .5  No Diagnosed Disorder = 0  RATE OF OFFENDING (Number of Victims Based on Charges and Convictions) > 4 Victims = 1 2 to 4 Victims = .5 0 to 1 Victims = 0 OTHER FACTORS TOTAL   99  Appendix B ISPIN File Review Coding Protocol  Participant #: ______                         Coder:_________________  Date of Review: ____ /____ /_____         Day       Month        Year  ISPIN File Information Background Data 6. DSM-IV       Diagnoses  Psychiatric History 1. Date of Birth _______ /_______ /_______     day       month       year  99. Unknown 2. Ethnicity   1. Caucasian  2. First Nations  3. Asian  4. East Indian  5. Black  6. Hispanic   97. Other _________   99. Unknown 3. Ever Been Married  0. No    1. Yes     99. Unknown 4. Education   1. No schooling  2. 8th grade or less  3. 9th – 11th grades  4. High school  (GED)  5. Technical or trade certificate  6. Some college/university  7. Diploma / Bachelor degree  8. Masters or PhD degree   97. Other _________   99. Unknown 5. Number of Children     0. None         _____________    1. Yes                  (number)     99. Unknown  100  a) All Previous Diagnoses  (Include ‘indication of’ a personality disorder)   DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION  Diagnoses Axis I  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1. Yes  1) Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder a) Schizophrenia b) Schizoaffective Disorder c) Delusional Disorder d) Psychosis NOS 2) Substance Induced Psychosis 3) Bipolar Disorder 4) Major Depressive Episode/Disorder 5) Major Depression with Psychosis 6) Neurotic Disorders a) Anxiety Disorders b) Adjustment Disorders c) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder d) Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder e) Somatization Disorder 7) Borderline Intelligence 8) Substance Use Disorder 9) Mental Disorder due to Medical Condition 10)  Cognitive Impairment  Other (specify):______________________ Source: _______________  Date:  _______ /_______ /_______                 day       month       year Axis II  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes 1) Personality Disorder a. Paranoid b. Schizoid c. Schizotypal d. Antisocial e. Borderline f. Histrionic  101   1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes  1. Trait    2. Yes g. Narcissistic h. Avoidant i. Dependent j. Obsessive-compulsive k. PD Not Otherwise Specified Source: _______________  Date:  _______ /_______ /_______                 day       month       year Axis III  1. Yes _______________ __             (specify)    97. Other _________   99. Unknown Source: _______________ Date:  _______ /_______ /_______                      day       month       year  7. Psychopathy  _______________________       (type of assessment)  Total score: _________  Percentile rank: _________  Factor 1 score: ______   Percentile rank: _________  Factor 2 score: ______   Percentile rank: _________  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /____              day     month    year   99. Unknown (no score on file)  102  Categorization: ____________             (high/med/low)  8. Paraphilia     0. None     1. Yes  _______________________   (type of assessment)   _______________________       (type/score/outcome)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /____             day     month     year  99. Unknown  Legal and Criminal History  10. Number of Charges for a Criminal (non- violent/ non- sexual) Offence     0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)                                  ______________________                                               (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   103  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  11. Number of Charges for a Violent (Non-sexual) Offence      0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)                                  ______________________                                               (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  12. Number of Charges for a Non- Contact Sexual Offence     0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)                                  ______________________                                               (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  104   Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  13. Number of Charges for a Contact Sexual Offence      0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)                                  ______________________                                               (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  105    99. Unknown             day     month     year  14. Number of Convictions for a Criminal (non- violent/ non- sexual) Offence      0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)       specify offence)                         (specify sentence)  ______________________  ___________________  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  15.Number of Convictions for a Violent (Non- sexual) Offence      0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)  specify offence)                         (specify sentence)  ______________________  ___________________  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  106   Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  16. Number of Convictions for a Non-Contact Sexual Offence      0. None                        ___________                                                 (number)  specify offence)                         (specify sentence)  ______________________  ___________________  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  107    99. Unknown  17. Number of Convictions for a Sexual Offence   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown   Risk Assessment History   1. ISPIN Template Rank                            ___________                                (rank)     99. Unknown    108  Sexual Offences Offender Type / ’Preferred Victim Type’ Summary Details  1.   Predominant Age of Victim (Offender Type)     1. Rapist (adult victims; age: 15+)     2. Child Molester (age: 0-14)             Extra-familial            Intra-familial            Both     3. Mixed Age   ___________________________                               (specify: child / adolescent / adult)  Source: _______________     99. Unknown  2. Predominant Gender of Victims      1. Male Only     2. Female Only     3. Male and Female  Source: _______________    99. Unknown  3. Predominant Relationship to Victim(s)      1. Stranger     2. Family Member     3. Friend     4. Co-worker / acquaintance     5. Mixed          _____________________                                            (specify) Source: _______________    99. Unknown  4. Total Number of Victims                        ________________                              (number) Source: _______________    99. Unknown  5. Total Number of Incidents with Each Victim    1. Victim 1  _______            4. Victim 4  _______                        (number)                                 (number)   2. Victim 2  _______            5. Victim 5  _______                        (number)                                 (number)   3. Victim 3  _______            6. Victim 6  _______                        (number)                                 (number)  Source: _______________   99. Unknown                        ________________ Source: _______________  109  6. How Contact with Victim Established                               (specify)   99. Unknown   Sexual Offences Crime Cycle/Behavioural Progression Details Factors Noted - Cognitive 7. Cognitive Factors      1. ______________________    2. ______________________    3. ______________________    4.  ______________________    5.  ______________________    6.  ______________________    7.  ______________________    8.  ______________________    9.  ______________________    10.  _____________________   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 8. Distorted Thinking / Processes      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  110   9. Engaging in Rumination      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  10. Engaging in Deviant Sexual Fantasy      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  11. Engaging in Non-Deviant Sexual Fantasy      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________ Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  111                          (specify)      99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  12. Engaging in Adaptation Processes      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat      2. Yes / Present             ______________________            (specify – e.g., justification,             rationalization)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 13. Cognitive Trigger - Other       0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________  112  _________________________  Factors Noted - Affective 14. Affective Factors      1. ______________________    2. ______________________    3. ______________________    4.  ______________________    5.  ______________________    6.  ______________________    7.  ______________________    8.  ______________________    9.  ______________________    10.  _____________________  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 15. Affective Factors / State      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________            (specify – e.g., anger, frustration)    Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 16. Negative Outlook / Depression      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                           (specify) Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  113       99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 17. Affective Trigger - Other       0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  Factors Noted - Behavioural 18. Behavioural Factors      1. ______________________    2. ______________________    3. ______________________    4.  ______________________    5.  ______________________    6.  ______________________    7.  ______________________    8.  ______________________    9.  ______________________    10.  _____________________   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  114   19. Affective – Behavioural Manifestation     0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________            (specify – e.g., agitation, impulsivity,             suspiciousness)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  20. Engaging in Pre-Sexual Behaviours/Of fences      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________           (specify – e.g., grooming, non-contact:            exhibitionism, voyeurism)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 21. Pornography Use      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present    Procured via Internet      _____________________              (specify type)               Pre-offence use Source: _______________   Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   115               During offence use              Post-offence use  99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 22. Masturbation      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present              Pre-offence             During Offence             Post-offence   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 23. Withdrawal / Isolation      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________                      (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual  Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________   116  24. Behavioural Trigger - Other       0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  Factors Noted - Interpersonal 25. Interpersonal Factors      1. ______________________    2. ______________________    3. ______________________    4.  ______________________    5.  ______________________    6.  ______________________    7.  ______________________    8.  ______________________    9.  ______________________    10.  _____________________    Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________ 26. Intimate Relationship Problems      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________                      (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   117     99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  27. Interpersonal Trigger - Other       0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ ____________________  Factors Noted - Post-offence  28. Affective Response to Offence      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________                      (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________  118  _________________________  29. Cognitive Response to Offence      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________                      (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________  30. Post-Offence Response - Other       0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             ______________________                         (specify)   Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown  Individual Relevance: Y / M / N _________________________ _________________________    119  Sexual Offences Offence Escalation Details 31. History of Relevant Violent/ Sexual Offences      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             1. __________________________            2. __________________________            3. __________________________            4. __________________________            5. __________________________            6. __________________________            7. __________________________            8. __________________________            9. __________________________            10. _________________________  Victim(s):                      1. Stranger                       2. Family Member / Intimate Partner                       3. Friend                       4. Co-worker / acquaintance                       5. Mixed                           ___________________                                     (specify)  Source: _______________ Date: _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____ _____ /_____ /_____   99. Unknown  32. Psychological Coercion      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________                      (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  33. Physical Coercion      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____  120             _____________________                      (specify)              day     month     year    99. Unknown 34. Weapon Use      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat     2. Yes / Present             _____________________                      (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown  35. Victim Injury      0. No / Absent     1. Somewhat / Moderate     2. Yes / Severe             _____________________                      (specify)  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    99. Unknown   Sexual Offence Details – Short Form        Participant #____ Offence #__  Date of Offence: ____ /____ /____   Date of Conviction: ____ /____ /____                                                       day   month  year              day  month  year 36.  Description - Behavioural Progression  (include any relevant factors) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________  Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown   121  37.  Type of Offence (include violence/ escalation) ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________                                    (specify) Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown 38.  Legal Information      1. Incident Noted in File     2. Charge     3. Conviction Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown 39.  Age of Victim      1. Adult victim; age: 15+             _____________                                                               (specify age)    2. Child victim; age: 0-14           ______________                                                               (specify age) Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown 40.  Gender of Victim     1. Male     2. Female Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown 41.  Relationship to Victim     1. Stranger     2. Family Member     3. Friend     4. Co-worker / acquaintance Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year    97. Other _____________________             (specify)   99. Unknown  122  42.  Total Number of Victims in Incident                        ________________                              (number) Source:_______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown 43.  Total Number of Incidents with Victim                        ________________                              (number) Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year   99. Unknown 44.  How Contact with Victim Established                       ________________                              (specify) Source: _______________  Date:  _____ /_____ /_____             day     month     year  99. Unknown    123  Appendix C Post-offense statements reflecting implicit beliefs in the sample  Implicit Theory Post offense statements and observations Uncontrollability “Sex is compulsive” (R) “Don’t let me do this to you” (MO) “Why didn’t she stop me sooner?” (PCM)  Entitlement “I did it to show them who’s in charge” (R) “It’s impossible to rape your own wife” (MO) “I was teaching him how to make love to a girl”(PCM)  Dangerous World: Factor 1 “Want to spread the pain around” (R) “If I am pushed, then they will get what they deserve” (MO) “I did to them what was done to me” (PCM)  Dangerous World: Factor 2 “I prefer to hang out with kids” (PCM) “It wasn’t an assault – we were in a relationship” (PCM) “I’m attracted to the innocence of children” (PCM) Women as Sexual Objects “Women are sex slaves” (R) “Women are to be used and exploited” (MO) “Women are for sex only” (PCM)  Women are Dangerous “No is a game that women play” (R) “Women wound emotionally and deceive financially” (MO) “Women are too powerful now. I have been burned by the rise of feminism” (R)  Children as Sexual Beings “Kids are sexually aware but don’t know what they want yet” (MO) “Kids like to play sex games” (PCM) “Children like to make themselves available for sexual contact” (PCM)  Nature of Harm “All I did was touch them” (MO) “We were just fooling around”(PCM) “I would have stopped if they wanted me to” (PCM)  Note. R = rapist; MO = mixed offender; PCM = pedophilic child molester.   124  Table 1    Chi-Square Tests of Independence [and Adusted Residuals] of Implicit Theories Present Among Sexual Offenders   R (n = 29) PCM (n = 42) MO (n = 30) Total (n = 101)     χ2  Cramer’ s V IT F AR F AR F AR  UC 8 (-2.5)  22 (0.8) 18 (1.6) 48 6.89* .26 ENT 21 (1.6) 21 (-1.8) 19 (0.4) 61 3.76 .19 WASO 18 (2.9) 4 (-5.2) 18 (2.7) 40 27.22*** .52 WAD 19 (4.3) 6 (-3.5) 9 (-0.5) 34 20.42*** .45 CASB 0  (-4.7)  26 (4.6) (2.4) a 10  (-0.3) (-2.4) a 36 28.67*** 4.63 b * .53 .28 NOH 0 (-4.6) 21 (2.7) (0.3) a 14 (1.6) (-0.3) a 35 21.66*** 0.08 b  .46 .03 DW-F1 16 (2.8) 9 (-2.4) 10 (0.2) 35 8.66* .29 DW-F2 0 (-2.7) 15 (5.0) 0 (-2.7) 15 24.75*** .50   Note. IT = implicit theory; UC = uncontrollability; ENT = entitlement; WASO = women as sexual objects; WAD = women are dangerous; CASB = children as sexual beings; NOH = nature of harm; DW-F1 = dangerous world Factor 1; DW-F2 = dangerous world Factor 2; R = rapist; PCM = pedophilic child molester; MO = mixed offender. F = frequency of offenders; AR = adjusted residuals. Adjusted residuals with value over ± 2 indicate a significant relationship between sexual offender type and independent variable. a Adjusted residual value when rapist group removed from analysis.  b  Chi-square value when rapists removed from analysis due to low cell count.   * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.  125  Table 2    Model Fit, Effect Size, and Classification Success of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Individual Implicit Theories Note. UC = uncontrollability; ENT = entitlement; WASO = women as sexual objects; WAD = women are dangerous; CASB = children as sexual beings; DW-F1 = dangerous world-Factor 1; DW-F2 = dangerous world-Factor 2; CA = classification accuracy of entire sample; R CA= classification accuracy for rapists; PCM CA= classification accuracy for pedophilic child molesters; MO CA= classification accuracy for mixed offenders. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.   Implicit Theories  Variable UC ENT WASO WAD CASB NOH DW- F1 DW-F2  χ2  7.10*  3.80  30.32***  20.57***  37.56***  30.67***  8.62*  30.12***  Nagelkerke R 2  .08  .04  .29  .21  .35  .30  .09  .29 CA (%)  42.6 41.6 55.4 54.5 54.5 49.5 48.5 44.6     R CA  72.4 72.4 62.1 65.5 100 100 55.2 0     PCM CA  52.4 50 90.5 85.7 61.9 50 78.6 35.7     MO CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100  126  Table 3    Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses [and 95% Confidence Intervals] of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Implicit Theories     95% CI for OR ITs of the ITM-R B Wald χ2 OR LL UL PCMs vs. Rapists Uncontrollability -1.14 3.20 .32 .09 1.11 Women as Sexual Objects 2.60 12.88*** 13.44 3.25 55.53 Women are Dangerous 1.87 7.38** 6.46 1.68 24.84 Dangerous World-Factor 1 1.02 2.39 2.78 .76 10.20 (Constant) -1.81 10.73 PCMs vs. MOs Uncontrollability .09 .03 1.09 .36 3.29 Women as Sexual Objects 2.59 15.70*** 13.33 3.70 47.98 Women are Dangerous .69 1.00 2.00 .52 7.76 Dangerous World-Factor 1 .28 .20 1.33 .38 4.64 (Constant) -1.41 8.30 MOs vs. Rapists Uncontrollability -1.23 -.29* .29 .09 .937 Women as Sexual Objects .01 .00 1.01 .32 3.20 Women are Dangerous 1.17 3.92* 3.23 1.01 10.31 Dangerous World-Factor 1 .74 1.59 2.10 .66 6.62 (Constant) .41 .44 Note. B = Odds; OR = Odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; PCM = pedophilic child molester; MO = mixed offender.  The response group is the second sexual offender type listed within each sub-table. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.  127  Table 4    Logistic Regression Analyses [and 95% Confidence Intervals] of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Implicit Theories: Pedophilic Child Molesters vs. Mixed Offenders  95% CI for OR ITM-CM B Wald χ2 OR LL UL Children are sexual beings 1.20 5.48* 3.32 1.22 9.05 Nature of harm -.10 .04 .90 .33 2.46 (Constant) -.18 .22 .83 Note. B = odds; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit. * p < .05.   128  Table 5    Chi-Square Tests of Independence [and Adjusted Residuals] for the Implicit Theories Observed Without Motivational Typologies to Sexually Offend   Sexual (n = 28) Aggressive (n = 9) Sadistic (n = 40) Intimacy (n = 15)     χ2 Cramer’s V IT F AR F AR F AR F AR UC 23 (4.3) 0 (-3.0) 19 (0.0) 6 (-0.6) 30.10*** .55 ENT 17 (0.0) 5 (-0.3) 32 (3.3) 5 (-2.3) 16.59** .41 WASO 13 (0.9) 0 (-2.5) 27 (4.6) 0 (-3.4) 35.20*** .59 WAD 0 (-4.4) 6 (2.2) 27 (5.8) 1 (-2.4) 48.57*** .69 CASB 13 (1.4) 0 (-2.3) 12 (-1.0) 11 (3.3) 21.23*** .46 NOH 12 (1.1) 3  (-0.1) 6 (-3.4) 10 (2.8) 14.83** .38 DW-F1 0 (-4.5) 7 (2.8) 28 (6.0) 0 (-3.1) 57.04*** .75 DW-F2 0 (-2.6) 0 (-1.3) 0 (-3.4) 15 (10.0) 101.00*** 1.00 Note. IT = implicit theory; UC = uncontrollability; ENT = entitlement; WASO = women as sexual objects; WAD = women are dangerous; CASB = children as sexual beings; NOH = nature of harm; DW-F1 = dangerous world-hostile; DW-F2 = dangerous world-trust; F = frequency; AR = adjusted residual. Adjusted residuals with value over ± 2 indicate a significant relationship between sexual offender type and independent variable. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.     129  Table 6    Chi-Square of Independence [and Adjusted Residuals] of Motivations to Offend Among Sexual Offender Types   R (n = 25) PCM (n = 38) MO (n = 29) Total (N = 92) Motivation F AR F AR F AR Sexual 1 (-3.5) 11 (-0.3) 16 (3.7) 28 Aggressive 3 (0.3) 2 (-1.2) 4 (1.0) 9 Sadistic 21 (4.3) 10 (-2.7) 9 (-1.3) 40 Intimacy 0 (-2.7) 15 (5.0) 0 (-2.7) 15 Other 4 (1.1) 4 (0.2) 1 (-1.3) 9  Note. R = rapist; PCM = pedophilic child molester; MO = mixed offender; F = frequency, AR = adjusted residual. Adjusted residuals with value over ± 2 indicate a significant relationship between sexual offender type and independent variable.   130  Table 7   Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses [and 95% Confidence Intervals] of Sex Offender Type as a Function of Motivation to Offend     95% CI for OR Motivational type B Wald χ2 OR LL UL PCMs vs. Rapists Sexual -.84 .51 .43 .04 4.37 Aggressive 1.96 3.39 7.13 .88 57.55 Sadistic 2.30 11.75*** 9.98 2.68 37.16 (Constant) -1.56 8.02 PCMs vs. MOs Sexual 3.32 9.14** 27.64 3.21 237.83 Aggressive 3.64 7.34** 38.00 2.74 527.99 Sadistic 2.84 6.38** 17.10 1.89 154.84 (Constant) -2.94 8.24 Rapists vs. MOs Sexual 4.16 7.48** 64 3.25 1260.65 Aggressive 1.67 1.53 5.33 .38 75.78 Sadistic .539 .206 1.71 .17 17.55 (Constant) -1.39 1.54 Note. B = Odds; OR = Odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; PCM = pedophilic child molester; MO = mixed offender.  The response group is the second sexual offender type listed within each sub-table. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. F ig u re  1 . P re va le n ce  R a te s fo r IT s p re se n t in  R a p is ts , P ed o p h il ic  C h il d  M o le st er s,  a n d  M ix ed  O ff en d er s  N o te . P C M  =  p ed o p h il ic  c h il d  m o le st er ; U C  =  u n co n tr o ll ab il it y ; E N T  =  e n ti tl em en t;  W A S O  =  w o m en  a s se x u al  o b je ct s,  W A D  =  w o m en  a re  d an g er o u s;  C A S B  =  c h il d re n  a s se x u al  b ei n g s;  N O H  =  n at u re  o f h ar m ; D W -H  =  d an g er o u s w o rl d - h o st il e;  D W -T  =  d an g er o u s w o rl d = tr u st .    131  Table 8    Frequency of Psychopathy and Sadism in Sexual Offenders' Motivations to Offend Motivations to Sexually Offend  Sexual (n = 28) Aggressive (n = 9) Sadistic (n = 40) Intimacy (n = 15) Total (N = 92) Psychopathy     Rapist 1 3 13 0 17    PCM 5 1 1 5 12    Mixed Offender 11 3 1 0 15 Sexual Sadism    Rapist 1 2 10 0 13    PCM 0 0 1 0 1    Mixed Offender 3 1 2 0 6 Psychopathy & Sadism     Rapist 1 2 8 0 11    PCM 0 0 0 0 0    Mixed Offender 1 1 0 0 2     132    Figure 1    Prevalence rates for ITs present in rapists, pedophilic child molesters, and mixed offenders PCM= pedophilic child molester; MO = mixed offender; UC = uncontrollability; ENT = entitlement; WASO = women as sexual objects; WAD = women as dangerous; CASB = children as sexual beings; NOH = nature of harm; DW-F1 = dangerous world-Factor 1; DW-F2 = dangerous world-Factor 2.  133   Figure 2    Distribution of the different motivations to sexually offend. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals  Motivation OtherIntimacySadisticAggressiveSexual N u m b e r o f S e x u a l O ff e n d e rs 50 40 30 20 10 0 Motivations to Sexually Offend Error bars: 95% CI  134   Figure 3    Distribution of the different motivations to sexually offend within sexual offender types PCM = pedophilic child molester; MO = mixed offender.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 19 3
United Kingdom 4 2
Canada 4 4
Cyprus 2 2
South Africa 1 0
Poland 1 0
Republic of Korea 1 0
Russia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Ashburn 8 0
Unknown 7 4
London 4 0
Washington 4 0
Deltona 2 0
Nicosia 2 2
Pretoria 1 0
Sunnyvale 1 0
St. Catharines 1 0
Ancaster 1 0
Jonquiere 1 0
Vancouver 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items