Method

1. Sex Offenders: How Treatment, Employment, and Level of Denial Relate to Education and IQ Caitlyn E. McNeil University of Nebraska-Lincoln Results Introduction Education and IQ are important to our lives as we grow and develop into mature adults. As individuals progress they make decisions that influence their future life styles and/or careers. A select portion of individuals go down the road to violence, aggression, and danger (whether that entails stalking, murder, rape, molesting, etc.). This study looks to sex offenders to explore the relationships of both educational level and IQ to three factors: treatment, previous employment, and level of responsibility. Findings from Previous Research:  Excuses made by child molesters for their sexual misconduct may offer important indicators of remorse, rehabilitation potential, and the probability of recidivism. They may also show underlying cognitive disorders (Pollock & Hashmall, 1991).  Cognitive deconstruction enables individuals to distance themselves from stress affiliated with self- awareness that puts attention on the concrete rather than the abstract level (Mann, 2004).  Cognitive-behavioral treatment focuses on internal events that can be changed, controlled, or both to prevent relapse of offenses (Wood, Grossman, & Fichtner, 2000).  Among child molester and rapists: results showed no difference between full, partial, and non- admitters for the offenses they committed (Nugent & Kroner, 1996).  Rapists demonstrated that more fully admitted their crimes than those who partially or totally denied their crimes but more denied than partially admitted to their crimes. Child molesters demonstrated that there were more who partially admitted their crimes than those who fully admitted or denied their crimes but more admitted than denied their crimes (Craissati & Beech, 2004).  Juvenile sex offenders showed no difference between completers and non-completers of a treatment program for both IQ and grade level (Kraemer, Salisbury, & Fichtner, 2000). Research Hypotheses: 1.) Overall, no difference will be found in education or IQ for all three levels of denial regardless of whether they were in the prison or treated group or even if they were previously employed. Table 2 shows the summary of the factorial ANOVA analyses, table 3 shows the descriptive statistics for Education, and Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for IQ. Factorial ANOVAs with follow-up analysis using the LSD procedure (p=.05) were performed to examine the relationship between level of denial (full vs. qualified vs. denial), treatment (prison vs. treated), and previous employment (unemployed vs. employed) as they relate to education level and IQ. Education Level: There was a three-way interaction between treatment, employment and level of denial as they relate to education (F(1,353)=3.578, p=.029, Mse=4.750). Follow-up analysis (LSD=1.095) revealed that, for the previously unemployed individuals, in both the prison and treated group, those who did a full admission, qualified admission, and denied their crimes showed equivalent amounts of education levels. The previously employed, in the prison group, showed that those who did a qualified admission had a higher education mean that those who did a full admission abut no effect between qualified admission and denial of their crimes; the previously employed, in the treated group, showed that those who denied their crimes had a lower education mean than both those who did full and qualified admission but no effect between full and qualified admission of their crimes. Figure 1 shows this three-way data. There was no main effect of level of denial (F(2,353)=1.73, p =.176, Mse =4.75) or treatment (F(1,353)=.2.977, p =.085, Mse =4.75). There was a main effect of previous employment (F(1,353)=6.097, p=.014, Mse=4.75). Follow-up analysis revealed that, overall, those who were previously unemployed had a higher education level than those who were employed. When taking treatment and level of denial into account in the three-way, this pattern was found to be true for those who fully admitted their crimes in the prison condition and for those who denied their crime in the treated condition. IQ: Analysis revealed that there was no three-way interaction between treatment, employment, and level of denial as they relate to IQ (F(2,229)=1.532, p=.218, Mse=235.841), Figure 2 shows this data. There was no main effect for level of denial (F(2,229)=.154, p=.857, Mse=235.841) or treatment (F(1,229)=1.079, p=.3, Mse=235.841). However, there was a main effect for previous employment as it relates to IQ (F(1,229)=4.782, p=.03, Mse=235.841). Overall, those who were previously unemployed had a higher IQ than those who were employed. Discussion Method The purpose of this study was to examine education level and IQ as they relate to treatment, previous employment, and level of responsibility. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in education level or IQ for all three levels of denial regardless of whether they were in the prison or treatment group or even if they were previously employed. As hypothesized there was no difference between full admission, qualified admission, and denial for IQ when taking treatment and previous employment into account, which confirms the results found from Nugent and Kroner (1996), but not the results from Craissati and Beech (2004). There was however a significant difference for the previous employment status of sex offenders, which showed that overall those who were unemployed had a higher IQ than those employed. Contrary to the hypothesis there was some discrepancy involved in the three-way interaction of the education level. As hypothesized, the previously unemployed for both the prison and treated groups showed no difference between all three levels of denial for their crime which also confirmed the results found from Nugent and Kroner (1996). Contrary to the hypothesis and previous research, for the previously employed sex offenders in the prison group, there was no difference between denial and full or qualified admission while those who fully admitted to their crime had a lower education level than those who qualifiedly admitted; for the previously employed sex offenders in the treated group, there was no difference between those who fully and qualifiedly admitted to their crimes but those who denied their crimes had a lower education level than those who fully and qualifiedly admitted. Although there was a significant difference for the previous employment status of the sex offenders which showed that overall those who were unemployed had a higher IQ than those employed this was not descriptive for the three-way interaction. Overall, there are several improvements which might be made while considering future research. Finding an accurate sex offender representation of the population may be difficult to obtain. Most sexual assaults are not detected or reported or if they are reported are not recorded. Some offenders may under or over report their offensive behavior which may then throw off the researchers data. The sex offenders present in the justice system may not be representative of the whole sex offender population. If the population is not representable then the information gathered from previous and future research may be only be applicable to a portion of all sex offenders (Wood, Grossman & Fichtner, 2000). Until there is a complete true justice system, all that is “known” about sex offenders is biased toward a section of sex offenders. The only way to get to this complete justice system, if at all attainable, would be to keep researching and discovering new data to help us understand and further our knowledge. Future research should further look into whether or not IQ and education have an impact on sex offenders’ level of responsibility for their actions. It may also be advantageous to examine other characteristics such age and sexual orientation to see how those variables impact the offender’s acceptance of responsibility for their crimes. • Participants: • 387 male sex offenders ranging in age from 16 to 83 with a mean age of 35.8 (S.D. = 12.00). • Convicts were from a Midwestern state and released from either an inpatient treatment for correctional facility between 1991 and 1997. • 178 (46%) were in the correctional facility and 209 (54%) were in the inpatient treatment facility. • 280 (72.4%) were European American, 36 (9.3%) African American, 21 (5.4%) Hispanic American, 21 (5.4%) Native American, and 5 (1.3%) categorized themselves as ‘other’. • Measures: • Data was archival and was collected from correctional, treatment, and legal records. • Demographics (previous employment and IQ) were based on offenders condition at the time of arrest. • Education level was based on the number of years completed at the time of arrest. • Offenders level of responsibility for their crimes were based from any of the available sources. Procedures: •  Treated offenders either volunteered or were civilly committed by the courts while the untreated offenders were those who refused treatment and were then randomly selected based on the time of discharge as the treated group. •  Treated offenders received cognitive-behavioral programming group and individual therapy in a secure forensic hospital.