Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping Child Molester Treatment Progress with the FoSOD: Denial and Explanations of Accountability

  • Published:
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

Abstract

A continuing challenge in the treatment of sexual offenders involves the identification of measurement instruments that can be used to monitor treatment progress. This paper provides evidence that the Facets of Sexual Offender Denial (FoSOD; pronounced “façade”) Scale maps critical aspects of treatment progress, yet avoids problems typically associated with self-report measures. Fifty-three child molesters completed the FoSOD twice with an 18-month interval between administrations. The Time 1 and Time 2 FoSOD scores were analyzed as a function of advancement through a court-sanctioned sexual offender treatment program. Results demonstrated not only that advancement in treatment corresponded with predictable changes in FoSOD scores, but also that FoSOD component scores, representing denial associated with refutation, minimization and depersonalization of the offense, revealed critical patterns indicative of the issues with which offenders contend at various points within treatment. These results are discussed within a conceptual framework that recognizes the relationships between denial in its various forms and the explanations that offenders develop to limit their accountability for alleged offenses, associated thoughts or behaviors, and deviant predispositions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, C. A. (1982). Inoculation and counter-explanation: Debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories. Social Cognition, 1, 126-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., & Sechler, E. S. (1986). Effects of explanation and counter-explanation on the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 24-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • ATSA Professional Issues Committee (2001). Practice standards and guidelines for members of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaree, H. E. (1991). Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome. Forum on Corrections Research, 3, 30-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaree, H. E. (1997). Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: The insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9(2).

  • Barbaree, H. E., & Cortoni, F. (1993). Treatment of the juvenile sex offender within the criminal justice and mental health systems. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (pp. 243-263). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M. J., Sykes, C., & Byrnes, W. (1986). A systemic model for the treatment of intra-family child sexual abuse. In T. Trepper & M. J. Barrett (Eds), Treating incest: A multiple systems perspective (pp. 67-82). New York: Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brake, S. C., & Shannon, D. (1997). Using pretreatment to increase admission in sex offenders. In The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments (Vol. 2).

  • 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, 8, 37-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T., & Erooga, M. (1994). Group work with men who sexually abuse children. In T. Morrison, M. Erooga, & R. C. Beckett (Eds.), Sexual offending against children: Assessment and treatment of male abusers (pp. 102-128). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, J. R. (1985). Clinical dimensions of adult sexual abuse of children. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 3, 341-354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, R. J., & Hart, S. D. (2002). The relative utility of fixed and variable risk factors in discriminating sexual recidivists and nonrecidivists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 121-138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faller, K. C. (1993). Child sexual abuse: Intervention and treatment issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, Y. M., Marshall, W. L., Lightbody, S., & Sullivan, C. (1999). The Child Molester Empathy Measure: Description and examination of its reliability and validity. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 17-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. (1995). Comprehensive treatment planning for sex offenders. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sexual offender: Corrections, treatment, and legal practice (pp. 10-1-10-9). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K. (1997). How to know what works with sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9(2).

  • Hanson, R. K. (2000). Treatment outcome and evaluation problems (and solutions). In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2001). A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 105-122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Happel, R. M., & Auffrey, J. J. (1995). Sex offender assessment: Interrupting the dance of denial. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 13(2), 5-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirt, E. R., & Sherman, S. J. (1985). The role of prior knowledge in explaining hypothetical events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 519-543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, S. M., Wales, D. S., Bakker, L., & Ward, T. (2002). Dynamic risk factors: The Kia Marama evaluation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 103-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (1999). Factors associated with treatment compliance in a population of juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 49-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, A. (1990). Invitations to responsibility: The therapeutic engagement of men who are violent and abusive (Part I, pp. 12-131; Part II, pp. 150–167). Adeliade, Australia: Dulwich Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, H. G., & Grubin, D. H. (1992). Patterns of denial in sex offenders. Psychological Medicine, 22, 191-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopp, F. H. (1984).Retraining adult sex offenders: Methods and models. Syracuse, NY: Safer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, D. J. (1991). Explanation, imagination, and confidence in judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 499-519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langevin, R. (1988). Defensiveness in sex offenders. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 269-290). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws, D. R. (1989). Relapse prevention with sex offenders. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, C. A. (2000). Predictors of sexual recidivism: Did meta-analysis clarify the role and relevance of denial? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 275-287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maletzky, B. M. (1991). Treating the sexual offender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maletzky, B. M. (1996). Denial of treatment or treatment of denial? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(1), 1-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. L. (1994). Treatment effects on denial and minimization in incarcerated sex offenders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 32(5), 559-564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). Outcome of comprehensive cognitive-behavioral treatment programs. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories and treatment of the offender (pp. 363-385). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. L., & Eccles, A. (1991). Issues in clinical practice with sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 68-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. L., Laws, D. R., & Barbaree, H. E. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, W. L., Thornton, D., Marshall, L. E., Fernandez, Y. M., & Mann, R. (2001). Treatment of sexual offenders who are in categorical denial: A pilot project. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 205-215.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, M., Cann, S., & Konopasky, R. (1998). New measures of defensiveness, empathy, and cognitive distortions for sexual offenders against children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 25-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, W. D. (1990). Assessment and modification of cognitive distortions 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. 331-342). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, H. R., & Molinder, I. (1984).Multiphasic Sex Inventory manual: A test to assess the psychosexual characteristics of the sexual offender. Tacoma, WA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donohue, W., & Letourneau, E. (1993). A brief group treatment for the modification of denial in child sexual abusers: Outcome and follow-up. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 299-304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlando, D. (1998). Sex offenders. Special Needs Offenders Bulletin, No. 3 (September).

  • Pollock, N. L., & Hashmall, J. M. (1991). The excuses of child molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 53-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, A. C. (1988). Treating child sex offenders and victims. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlank, A. M., & Shaw, T. (1996). Treating sexual offenders who deny their guilt: A pilot study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8(1), 17-23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlank, A. M., & Shaw, T. (1997). Treating sexual offenders who deny—A review. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments (Vol. II, pp. 6-1-6-7). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Knowledge, meaning, and warm fuzziness. American Psychologist, 56, 250-263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. L., & Wright, R. C. (2001). The FoSOD: A measurement tool for re-conceptualizing the role of denial in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 545-564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. L., & Wright, R. C. (in press). Understanding denial in sexual offenders: A review of cognitive and motivational processes to avoid responsibility. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse: A Review Journal.

  • Sewall, K., & Salekin, R. (1997). Understanding and detecting dissimulation in sex offenders. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 328-350). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simourd, D. J., & Malcolm, P. B. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Level of Service Inventory with incarcerated sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 23-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). On the psychology of experimental surprises. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 544-551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 139-153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, D. W., & McCabe, M. P. (2002). Motivation for behavior change among sex offenders: A review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 113-129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepper, T., & Barrett, M. J. (1989).Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (2000). A self-regualtion model of relapse prevention. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders (pp. 79-101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., Johnston, L., & Marshall, W. L. (1997). Cognitive distortions in sex offenders: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(5), 479-507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M. E. (1996). The strategic and systemic management of denial in the cognitive/behavioral treatment of sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 25-36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. C., & Schneider, S. L. (1997). Deviant sexual fantasies as motivated self-deception. In B. K. Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments (Vol. 2, chap. 8, pp. 8-1-8-14). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. C., & Schneider, S. L. (1999). Motivated self-deception in child molesters. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 8, 89-111.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Florida, Florida

    Robert C. Wright & Sandra L. Schneider

Authors
  1. Robert C. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra L. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert C. Wright.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wright, R.C., Schneider, S.L. Mapping Child Molester Treatment Progress with the FoSOD: Denial and Explanations of Accountability. Sex Abuse 16, 85–105 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SEBU.0000023059.91691.fa

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SEBU.0000023059.91691.fa

Search

Navigation