Transcript No Slide Title

Does Denial Matter?
Denial
Tricky, tricky, tricky
Types of Denial





Denial of offense – Didn’t do it
Denial it was sexual – Education
Denial it was abuse - Consensual
Denial of responsibility – Came on to me
Denial of impact – No harm
Hanson Meta-Analysis
Little Correlation
Factor
r
Denial
.02
(Hanson & Bussiere, 1996)
Meta-Analysis Denial
1.
Smith and Monastersky (1986)
112 Juveniles
FU = 23 mo. average
Denial = complete denial
2.
Barbaree & Marshall (1988)
170 (43 deniers)
FU = 45.5 mo.
Denial = complete denial
(Lund, 2000)
Meta-Analysis Denial
3. Ryan & Miyoshi (1990)
N = 69 Juveniles
FU = 12 to 30 mo.
Denial = Accepting responsibility for assault
4. Schram, Milloy & Rowe (1991)
N = 197 juveniles
FU median time = 74 mo.
Denial = thinking errors (marginally significant)
(Lund, 2000)
Meta-Analysis Denial
5. Maletzky (1993)
N = 4381
FU = 23 mo. Average
Denial = complete denial
Tx failure = Not completing tx, etc.
Denial significant (admitters 6.5% failure;
deniers 19.2%)
(Lund, 2000)
Meta-Analysis Denial
6.
Marques, Nelson, West & Day (1994)
N = 155
FU = 38 mo. Average
Deniers – excluded; no rates reported
Used measure of personal responsibility
(Lund, 2000)
Meta-Analysis Denial
7.
Hanson (personal communication); Reddon,
Studer & Estrada, (unpublished raw data)
N = 92 offenders
Denial = staff rating of measure of
responsibility for deviant behavior
Only 1 of 92 reoffended
(Lund, 2000)
Denial
Correlated with recidivism
Incest offenders
Not extrafamilial
(Nunes et al., 2007)
STEP Dynamic Assessment

Report on British outpatient community sex
offender treatment programs 1994

Report on British incarcerated community sex
offender treatment programs 1999
STEP Battery








Self Esteem
UCLA Emotional Loneliness Scale
Social Response Inventory
Personal Distress (Interpersonal Reactivity)
Locus of Control
Admittance/Denial (MSI)
Beckett Victim Empathy Scale
Social Desirability Scale
(Beech, 1998)
STEP Domains

Admittance/Denial

Pro-offending attitudes

Social competence/accountability
(Beech, 1999)
High Deviance Offenders




Previous conviction for sexual assault
Large number of victims
Committed offenses outside home (or both
inside & outside)
Boys or both sexes
(Beckett, 1994)
Low Deviance Offenders

Girls within the family

Not likely to have had a previous conviction
(Beckett, 1994)
High Deviancy Offenders

1/3 incest offenders
(Beckett, 1994)
STEP Dynamic Assessment
N = 140
Child Molesters
(Beech, 1999)
High Deviance Offenders




More victims than low deviancy
Offenses outside or inside & outside family
Offenses against boys or both sexes
Higher risk to reoffend
(Beech, 1998)
Impact of Treatment
Group


Low Deviancy/
Low Denial
Low Deviancy/
High Denial
Over-all
Tx Effect
59%
17%
(Beech, 1999)
Over-all Treatment Effect

Changed to non-offending norms

Changes on both pro-offending attitudes and
social competence measures
(Beech, 1999)
Impact of Treatment
Group

High Deviancy
Pro-offending
Attitudes
Over-all
Tx Effect
43%
14%
(Beech, 1999)
Denial
To treat or not to treat
Making Sense?

Denial

Denial
recidivism in low risk offenders
in high risk (not significant)
(Nunes, 2007)
?

More minimizations
Recidivism in high
risk offenders
(Langton et al., 2008)
Sample
N = 250
All completed treatment
(Harkins et al., 2010)
Sample
180 followed 10 years
82% offenses against children
(Harkins et al., 2010)
?

Denial Index

Absolute Denial
Denial of Risk
Motivation for Tx
Recidivism



MSI
Sex Offense Attitudes
Questionnaire (SOAQ)
SOAQ
SOAQ
MSI
Risk Matrix 2000
(Harkins et al., 2010)
Absolute Denial
8 in “high denial”
None medium or high risk
So divided at medium
Correlations with Recidivism

Denial Index
Negatively Correlated

Denial of Risk
Negatively Correlated

Motivation
Positively Correlated

Effects stronger in high risk group
“Absolute Denial” (Not)




Low risk deniers
Low risk admitters
Recidivism
16.7%(2/12)
10.1% (13/129)
High risk deniers
High risk admitters
0%(0/1)
33%(12/36)
(Harkins et al., 2010)
Denial decreases risk in high risk offenders
(Nunes, 2007; Harkins et al., 2010; Hood et al.,
2002)
?

Those admitting feel nothing wrong with their
crimes?