1 / 33

Does Denial Matter?

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.

keiran
Download Presentation

Does Denial Matter?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does Denial Matter?

  2. Denial Tricky, tricky, tricky

  3. 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

  4. Hanson Meta-AnalysisLittle Correlation Factor r Denial .02 (Hanson & Bussiere, 1996)

  5. Meta-Analysis Denial • Smith and Monastersky (1986) 112 Juveniles FU = 23 mo. average Denial = complete denial • Barbaree & Marshall (1988) 170 (43 deniers) FU = 45.5 mo. Denial = complete denial (Lund, 2000)

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. Meta-Analysis Denial • Marques, Nelson, West & Day (1994) N = 155 FU = 38 mo. Average Deniers – excluded; no rates reported Used measure of personal responsibility (Lund, 2000)

  9. Meta-Analysis Denial • Hanson (personal communication); Reddon, Studer & Estrada, (unpublished raw data) N = 92 offenders Denial = staff rating of measure of responsibility for deviant behavior Only 1 of 92 reoffended (Lund, 2000)

  10. Denial Correlated with recidivism Incest offenders Not extrafamilial (Nunes et al., 2007)

  11. STEP Dynamic Assessment • Report on British outpatient community sex offender treatment programs 1994 • Report on British incarcerated community sex offender treatment programs 1999

  12. 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)

  13. STEP Domains • Admittance/Denial • Pro-offending attitudes • Social competence/accountability (Beech, 1999)

  14. 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)

  15. Low Deviance Offenders • Girls within the family • Not likely to have had a previous conviction (Beckett, 1994)

  16. High Deviancy Offenders • 1/3 incest offenders (Beckett, 1994)

  17. STEP Dynamic Assessment N = 140 Child Molesters (Beech, 1999)

  18. 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)

  19. Impact of Treatment Group Over-all Tx Effect • Low Deviancy/ Low Denial 59% • Low Deviancy/ High Denial 17% (Beech, 1999)

  20. Over-all Treatment Effect • Changed to non-offending norms • Changes on both pro-offending attitudes and social competence measures (Beech, 1999)

  21. Impact of Treatment Group Pro-offending Over-all Attitudes Tx Effect • High Deviancy 43% 14% (Beech, 1999)

  22. Denial To treat or not to treat

  23. Making Sense? Denial recidivism in low risk offenders Denial in high risk (not significant) (Nunes, 2007)

  24. ? More minimizations Recidivism in high risk offenders (Langton et al., 2008)

  25. Sample N = 250 All completed treatment (Harkins et al., 2010)

  26. Sample 180 followed 10 years 82% offenses against children (Harkins et al., 2010)

  27. ? • Denial Index MSI Sex Offense Attitudes Questionnaire (SOAQ) • Absolute Denial SOAQ • Denial of Risk SOAQ • Motivation for Tx MSI • Recidivism Risk Matrix 2000 (Harkins et al., 2010)

  28. Absolute Denial 8 in “high denial” None medium or high risk So divided at medium

  29. Correlations with Recidivism Denial Index Negatively Correlated Denial of Risk Negatively Correlated Motivation Positively Correlated

  30. Effects stronger in high risk group

  31. “Absolute Denial” (Not) Recidivism • Low risk deniers 16.7%(2/12) • Low risk admitters 10.1% (13/129) • High risk deniers 0%(0/1) • High risk admitters 33%(12/36) (Harkins et al., 2010)

  32. Denial decreases risk in high risk offenders (Nunes, 2007; Harkins et al., 2010; Hood et al., 2002)

  33. ? Those admitting feel nothing wrong with their crimes?

More Related