Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders- Using a Personality Test (HEXACO)

UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLN

Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders

Being a dissertation submitted for the DissertationUnit in partial fulfilment of the requirement for a

degree of

BSc (Hons) Psychology and Criminology

by

Michelle Barr

2015

2

Abstract

Although there is a lot of research involving attitudes

towards sex offender, research involving personality traits of

participant’s affecting their attitudes towards sex offenders

seemed very limited. This study investigated the attitudes

towards sex offenders using 90 undergraduate student sample.

Testing used was ANOVA, T - test and correlations.

Participants completed the Attitudes Towards Sex Offender

scale, the Warmth and Competency scale and the personality

measure called HEXACO. Overall, female sex offenders were seen

as more ‘warm’ then male sex offenders. Participants that

scored high on the Agreeableness trait and Extraversion hold

less punitive attitudes towards sex offenders.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………i

List of tables …………………………………………………………………………….iii

Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………..……iv

Introduction …………………………………………………………………….………..1

Method ………………………………………………………………………..…………..7

Participants ………………………………………………………………………………..7

Materials……………………………………………………………………………………7

Ethics……………………………………………………………………….………………8

Procedure…………………………………………………………………………….……8

Results and analysis………………………………………………………….……….. 9

Discussion……………………………………………………………….…………….. 12

References……………………………………………………………………………... 22

Appendices…………………………………………………………………..…………. 26

ii

List of tables

Page

Table 1: Table showing description of the key variables ATS Overall ATS Trust, ATS Intent, ATS Social Distance, Honesty, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, Competent and Warm……………………………………….....…….9.

Table 2: Table showing a comparison of Competency with the personality traits in HEXACO with the ATS factors in the Female sex offender vignette……………………………………………………………………..………..10..

iii

Table 3: Table showing a comparison of Warmth with the personality traits in HEXACO with the ATS factors in the female offender vignette…….………11

Table 4: Table showing the comparison of Warmth with the ATS factors in the male offender vignette………………………………………………………..11

Table 5: Table showing a comparison between the personality traits in HEXACO and the ATS factors in the participants………………………………12

Acknowledgement

iv

A big thank you to all those that helped make thisdissertation possible.

I am very grateful to my dissertation supervisor Ruth Gauntwho guided me through this and shared her knowledge.

I am also massively grateful to the team members at Mash, PhilAssheton and Federica Menchinelli for their help with thepainful statistical tests.I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the lecturersand staff that offered advice and inspiration, particularlyChris Luke for his continued support. I would also like tothank my study coach Mel Enderby for her constant support inall academic aspects. I am also grateful for the support fromfamily and friends.

v

Introduction

Based on previous research papers around the attitudes and perceptions of sex offenders, there seems to be a general consensus that sex offenders are a particularly disliked groupof criminals in the public eye. It has been argued that due tothe negative portrayal of sex offenders by the media, the public’s awareness of sexual offenders has increased, along with the concern based around sexual offences and sexual offenders (Koon, 2005). It is said to be an issue that media often focuses on less common, yet violent and serious crimes, therefore, presenting a bias and stereotype of sex offenders (Cheit, 2003; Ducat, Thomas, & Blood, 2009; Frei, 2008). With the media being said to be the main source of information for both the general public and politicians, it could be fair to say that the media plays a role in enhancing the negative attitudes of the public.

Furthermore, arguments of the media contribute to a belief of recidivism being higher than it is in reality (Arkowitz & Lilienfeld, 2008). An example of this is one study based in Florida, where respondents estimated sex offence recidivism rates to be around 75%. In contrast, the best available evidence suggests that sex offence recidivism rates are between 5 and 14% over 3 to 6 year follow-up periods (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005). In a more recent collection of data in the UK, the recidivism rate for sexual offenders committed by both adults and juveniles is 13% between the years April 2012 to March 2013. Also, it is believed that those who do reoffend tend to do this because of sexual interests, attitudes and beliefs in regards to attitudes towards sex offenders, relationships thatinclude a lack of positive adult interaction and self-regulation (Mann, 2014).

vi

As a result of the type of reporting from the media, which hasinfluenced the negative attitudes of the public, it is difficult for this particular type of offender to reintegrate back into the community. Often, landlords are unlikely to rentout accommodation to known sex offenders (Clark, 2007) and those that are lucky enough to find accommodation, get driven out by the community (Petrunik & Deutschmann, 2008).

It is important to note, however, that without a doubt sex offences are undeniably serious crimes but also hold a very negative stereotypical portrayals of sex offenders. However, it has been suggested that the lack of help from the communitycan have a much worse effect on society (Willis, Levenson & Ward, 2010). It is well documented that employment instability, lack of positive social support and poor prison release plans are associated with an increased recidivism rateof sexual offenders (Hanson & Harris, 2000; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Willis & Grace, 2008, 2009). Therefore, it is massively important that attitudes are researched to successfully reintegrate sex offenders into the community.

There is a stereotype that males are more likely to be sex offenders than females, the most recent possible data confirming this is in 2011 there were 10,832 male prisoners incustody for sexual offences and 103 female prisoners in custody for sexual offenders (Gov, 2013). However, there is more recent data which has not been reported yet, that may show an increase or decrease. Further, this data only concernsthose that have been sentenced to prison, and there may be more sex offenders that have not been reported. Also, it has been reported that numbers of female sexual offenders are increasing (Hayes & Baker 2014). The Motivation for female sexoffenders has been said to be changing, it was once thought that female sex offenders tend to be in this role through the unwillingness of the male accomplice. Yet, focus is now based on female sex offenders willing to take part in such acts (Silvestri & Crowthr-Dowey, 2008)

vii

Another stereotype, possibly created by the media is that the sex offender is often a stranger to the victim. A reason for this is that serial sexual crimes against strangers tend to receive most coverage by journalists. However, in contrast to this, 70-90% of sexual crime is perpetrated by somebody known to the victim (Lieb, Quinsey and Berliner, 1998; Radford, Corral, Bradley, Fisher, Bassett, Howatt and Collishaw, 2011).

Hogue (1993) adapted the Attitudes Towards Prisoners (ATP) scale originally created by Melvin, Gramling and Gardner (1985) and used it to measure Attitudes Towards Sex offenders (ATS). Hogue (1993) found that different types of professionals held different attitudes regarding sex offenders. For example, in a comparison between probation officers, psychologist groups, prison officers and police officers Hogue (1993) found that both probation officers and psychologist held more positive attitudes towards sex offenders then prison officers, police officers held the leastfavourable attitudes. In support of this, Lea, Auburn and Kibblewhite (1999) conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 professionals and paraprofessionals working with sex offenders to examine perceptions and experiences in working with this client group. A surprising find was that 13% of the sample believed that the victims were to blame for what had happened and did not support the view of victims saying ‘no’. Also, they found that most stereotyped views of sex offenders generally were held among police officers, in particular, those who had not received any specialist training. On the other hand, Rash and Winton (2007), observed that both positive and negative views towards sex offenders could be held simultaneously; however, quantitative findings from otherstudies were confirmed, as the most stereotypical views were held by police officers, especially those with less experienceof working with sex offenders, or who had no specialist training in this work (Gakhal & Brown, 2011).

viii

Brown (1991) was one of the first theorists to have their workpublished which investigated the public’s attitudes towards sex offenders. From his original sample of 312 participants, the general attitude was that treatment of sex offenders was often positive, although generally only if this takes place alongside some form of punishment. However, respondents were much less supportive of treatment taking place within their own communities and of accepting known sex offenders back intothe community. Similarly, In a Northern Ireland survey, Higgins and Ireland (2009) found that attitudes toward sex offenders varied among forensic staff (psychologists and probation officers), prison officers from the Irish Prison Service, and members of the general public. Using Hogue’s (1993) Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders scale, forensic staff had significantly more favourable attitudes toward sex offenders in comparison to the general public and prison officers (who tended to have the most negative attitudes). Given that forensic staff are trained to assess, treat, evaluate, and manage sex offenders, it is understandable that this group would have more positive attitudes toward this offender group than the general public, who are unlikely to beas well informed, or prison officers, who in their positions of power and authority may be more negatively inclined toward this group (Olver and Barlow, 2010).

Gakhal & Brown (2011) researched into the attitudes of forensics professionals and students towards female sex offenders. At that time, they believed little research into this area had been undertaken. They also said that there have been various issues based around female sex offenders such as the common perception that sexual abuse perpetrated by femalesis harmless in comparison to male perpetrated sexual abuse, the glorification by society of sexual activity involving adult females and underage males, the greater taboo surrounding female-perpetrated sexual abuse and traditional sexual scripts that portray females as sexually passive and innocent (Olver & Barlow, 2007). However, the reality is that

ix

females make up 5% of all sexual abuses, which has been reported. (Cortoni, Hanson, & Coache 2010).

Harper (2012) conducted research involving a sample of students from psychology and non-psychology courses. He reported that views towards adult sex offenders were more punitive than the attitudes towards juveniles. Similarly, Kjelsberg and Loos (2008) observed more negative ATS scores inthe sample of students than the Norwegian prison employees. Itis believed that it may be due to the interpretation of the “boys will be boys” stereotype, whereby juvenile sexual behaviours is said to be experimentation as opposed to sexual offending (Smith et al, 2008). Furthermore, Harper (2012) conducted an analysis of the subgroups of the psychology students and found that clinical psychology students held the most positive attitudes towards sex offenders, followed by forensic, single-honours psychology and child studies students.

Brown (1999), found that those with higher socio-economic status based on occupation had more favourable attitudes towards sex offenders than those in a lower socioeconomic status. Brown (1999) believed that this is due to a higher educational level, as those with higher education levels tend to hold more positive attitudes towards sex offenders. Furtherevidence of this is in a study by Willis, Malinen and Johnston(2013), which reported that higher educational levels were associated with more positive views of sex offenders. However, Valliant, Furac, and Antonowicz (1994) discovered no attitude difference in first and third-second-year students. However, educational levels in first and third-year students are not a distinctive gap (Willis et al, 2013).

Research indicates that there are some socio-demographic predictors of attitudes towards sex offenders, such as religion, political beliefs, age and education. Yet, very

x

limited amount of research has looked into the possible relationships between individual psychological attributes suchas personality traits and attitudes towards sex offenders (Olver & Barlow, 2010). One study by Olver & Barlow (2010) didinvestigate personality traits in relation to attitudes towards sex offenders, using the Big Five Factor model. The Big Five Factor model involves five dimensions of personality traits used to describe human personality development (Fiske, 1949). The Big five consists of 1) extraversion, 2) agreeableness, 3) conscientiousness, 4) openness and 5) neuroticism. (Kamarulzaman & Nordin, 2012). Olver & Barlow (2010) found that the openness and agreeable traits positivelycorrelated with rehabilitated – orientated attitudes towards sex offenders, especially the beliefs of sex offender’s ability to change and treatment being effective. Also, those that did score highly on these traits often preferred intervention as opposed to longer prison sanctions and allowing the chance of sex offenders to redeem themselves. Reasons for this may be due to the openness trait, which is said to be related to a more liberal view. In regards to the agreeableness trait, this trait has been said to be linked with compassion and trust in humanity. As an example of this, Katovsich (2008) found that agreeableness predicted behavioural and cognitive aspects of forgiveness in a sample of 208 university undergraduates.

There is a debate based on whether or not personality traits are inherent when we are born (nature) versus the way we grew up (nurture), most researchers agree that personality is usually a result of both nature and our environmental/education experiences. However, one paper suggests that personality traits indeed represent nature and not nurture and the brain can also restructure itself resulting in personality change (Kolb & Whishaw, 1998). However, the counter-argument to this is that nurture does have an effect. An example of this would be “many people may have attitudes toward politics that are similar to their parents, but their attitudes may change as they gain more

xi

experiences” (Dias, 2015). Furthermore, there are various positive studies based on being able to change attitudes. Someexamples of this are “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion” (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), “the heuristic-systematic model” (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) and “the use of psychoeducation”. A previous study on using psychoeducation to change the attitude towards sex offenders found that this is possible using this technique (Kleban & Jeglic, 2012).

Craig (2005) studied the impacts of training on attitudes towards sex offenders. The results of this study were that participants had more punitive attitudes towards sex offendersthen prisoners that were not sex offenders. This was consistent with previous studies (Hogue, 1993). However, unfortunately, there were some inconsistencies to other research for example Hogue (1994) found no change in attitudespre or post training. However, it is thought that this may be due to the sample differences and the length of training. Furthermore, Craig (2005) did not find a positive change in attitudes towards sex offenders after training, there was an improvement in levels of confidence and knowledge when workingwith sex offenders as a result of the intense two-day training.

There is a clear need for research in this area, the literature based on personality traits is very scarce. Based on previous studies it is hypothesised that overall there willbe more negative attitudes towards male sex offenders as opposed to the female sex offender. Further, the gender of theparticipant will also be affected; females will show more empathy to the sex offenders overall as opposed to males. Also, those that have a higher education level will hold better attitudes towards sex offenders. As a result, it is thought that those studying degrees that may have more information on people/personality and sex offenders such as Psychology and Law will have more positive attitudes towards

xii

sex offender than students on other courses. Finally, those that score highly on the Openness to experience personality trait, Agreeableness trait and the Extraversion trait will demonstrate a more lenient attitude towards sex offenders.

Method

Participants

In order to investigate attitudes towards sex offenders, a sample withdrawn from undergraduate students at the Universityof Lincoln. To be able to take part, all participants had to be 18 or over due to the sensitivity involved in this study. Atotal of 90 participants took part, 67 female and 26 male. Some students were rewarded with course credit points while some were not.

Materials

A brief of the study will be presented to each of the participants; this is so they know what the study is about, how long it is expected to take and if they wish to continue to take part. As the click onto the second page, will give slightly more information on the study such as all informationwill be anonymous and any raw data will be only seen me and mydissertation supervisor. This page also includes the consent form, it is vital to give consent to any study and that all participants know that they can opt out at any point. The third page consisted of the demographic of the participant. For this study, the relevant demographics asked were age, gender, what course they are studying and what year are they in. The next page the participants are presented with a Vignette of a rape case scenario. The scenario either involvesa male being the victim or female. After the vignettes, a question was asked of ‘did they read and understand the vignette’. This is to ensure the questions following would be more reliable. The next two pages will relate to the vignette and will be the warmth and competency questions. At the end ofthese set of questions, a further question is asked to ensure the participant is comfortable in proceeding due to the nature

xiii

of the study. The following next two pages consistent of questions on the ‘Attitudes Towards Sex offenders’ which has been adopted by Todd Hogue (1993) which has 3 factors and a 5-point scale. The final part of the testing will be the short version of the HEXACO to measure personality traits (Lee & Ashton, 2004). At the end of the survey is a debrief, the debrief contains my own information and detailed information on where participants can seek professional help if they wish to or have been affected by my study in any way.

Ethics

Approval for the current study was obtained from the University of Lincoln Ethics Board. Participants were recruited through the SONA system particularly used by the universities Psychology students and also Qualtrics.

Procedure

In regards to advertising the study, social media and word of mouth was used. This study did not need the booking of labs orclassrooms; it could be done at home. Although it was advisedthat participants did the study alone and in a quiet room to avoid distractions. All participants completed a consent form that also involved a description of the study. Participants completed the testing of the warmth and competency test, ATS and HEXACO. The vignettes were also set to be distributed evenly and all questions had to be answered and was set as ‘forced answer’ to ensure no questions were missed. No names were asked so there was no way of identifying participants andall data was kept secured and only view me and the dissertation supervisor. Following the completion of the studyparticipants were fully debriefed by completing a detailed debriefing form that outlined the nature and purpose of the study. This debriefing had information on to contact me if participants had any questions and had information of professionals if this was an option participants wished to seek.

xiv

Results and Analysis

Below shows the key factors used in the testing of attitudes towards sex offenders (Table 1)

Gender NumberofParticipants

Mean StandardDeviation

Maletarget ATSOverall 46 2.9482 .69667

ATSTrust 46 2.4938 .80458ATSIntent 46 3.3292 .74070ATSSicoalDistance

46 3.0217 .71140

Honesty 46 3.4366 .61085Emotionality 46 3.3963 .65596Extraversion 46 3.2140 .77932Agreeableness 46 3.0402 .64907Conscientiousness

46 3.6913 .53075

Openness 46 3.5168 .71961Competent 47 2.3660 .47607Warm 47 1.6255 .56046

Femaletarget ATSOverall 46 3.0932 .57019

ATSTrust 46 2.7236 .65735ATSIntent 46 3.4658 .61827ATSSicoalDistance

46 3.0901 .62405

Honesty 44 3.3682 .73793Emotionality 44 3.3000 .63209Extraversion 44 3.1614 .77015Agreeableness 44 3.2364 .70285Conscientiousness

44 3.5091 .54849

Openness 44 3.6568 .60785

xv

Competent 46 2.5348 .45422Warm 46 2.0522 .65106

Table 1. Table showing a description of the key variables ATS Overall, ATS Trust, ATS Intent, ATS Social Distance, Honesty, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, Competent and Warm.

First to be run was a Univariate Analysis of Variance with thefactors offender gender and participant gender as between subject factors. There was a main effect of offender gender F(1, 89) = 10.661, p = .002 for warmth which demonstrates thatthe female offenders (mean = 2.090 ) were rated as more warm than their male counterparts (mean = 1.628). This means that participants that were presented with the female offender believed them to be warmer than those that were presented witha male offender. No other significant effects were found for this analysis (figure 2).

Data was then split into male offender scenarios and female offender scenarios, and correlations for warmth and competencewere analysed with the ATS and HEXACO. Pearson correlations between scores of competence and emotionality were found to besignificant when female offenders were portrayed to participants r = -.392, n = 44, p = .009 which means this result is not due to chance. A scatter plot summarises the result. Overall, there was a weak negative correlation betweencompetence and emotionality (figure 3). Increases in the ratings of competence towards the female offender were not positively correlated with increases of the emotionality of the participant. Meaning, that we can conclude that when an increase in ratings for the competence of the female offender there is a decrease in rating of the emotionality of the participant. Scores remained significant for the component factors of ATS overall r = .361, n = 46, p = .014, ATS trust r=.393, n = 46, p = .007 and ATS social distance r = .308, n =46, p = .037 which again means this is no due to chance. A scatter plot summarises the result (figure 4,5 and 6).

xvi

Overall, there was a weak positive correlation between, competence and ATS overall, competence and ATS trust, and competence and ATS social distance. This indicates increases in the ratings of competence towards the female offender were correlated with increases of ATS overall, ATS trust and ATS social distance of the participant.

Emotionality

ATSoverall ATStrust ATSsocialdistance

Competence r = -.392,n = 44, p= .009

r = .361,n = 46, p= .014

r =.393,n = 46, p= .007

r = .308, n= 46, p= .037

Table 2: Table showing a comparison of Competency with the personality traits in HEXACO with the ATS factors in the Female sex offender vignette.

Further Person correlations between scores of warmth and Emotionality were found to be significant when female offenders were portrayed to participants r = .515, n = 44, p =.000. A scatterplot summarises the results (Figure 7) Overall,there was a strong, negative correlation between rating for the warmth of the female participant and emotionality of the participant. We can conclude that when an increases in rating for the warmth of the female offender there is a decrease in rating of the emotionality of the participants. Again, scores continued to be significant for the component factors of ATSoverall r = .430, n = 46, p = .003, ATStrust r = 460, n = 46, p = .001, ATSintent r = .309, n = 46, p = .037, ATSsocialdistance r = .387, n = 46, p = .008 which means this result is not due to chance. A scatter plot summarises the result (figure 8,9, 10, 11). Overall, there was a weak positive correlation between, warmth and ATSoverall, warmth and ATStrust, warmth and ATSintent and, warmth and ATSsocialdistance.This also indicates that increases in the ratings of warmth towards the female offender were correlated with increases of ATSoverall, ATStrust, ATSintent and ATS social distance of the participant.

xvii

Emotionality

ATSoverall

ATStrust

ATSintent

ATSsocialdistance

Warmth r = .515,n = 44, p= .000.

r= .430,n = 46,p = .003

r =460, n= 46, p= .001

r= .309,n = 46,p= .037

r = .387, n =46, p = .008

Table 3: Table showing a comparison of Warmth with the personality traits in HEXACO with the ATS factors in the female offender vignette.

Pearson correlations between scores of warmth and ATStrust were found to be significant when male offenders were portrayed to participants r = -.515, n = 44, p = .000 which means this result is not due to chance. A scatter plot summarises the result (figure 12). Overall, there was a weak positive correlation between warmth and ATStrust. Increases inthe ratings of the warmth of the male offender were correlatedwith increases of ATStrust of the participant.

ATStrustWarmth r = 460,

n = 46,p = .001

Table 4: Table showing the comparison of Warmth with the ATS factors in the male offender vignette.

Finally, results from the HEXACO were compared with the ATS using correlations. The Pearson correlation between scores of agreeableness and ATS overall were found to be significant r =.25, n = 90, p = .017. Scores remained significant for the component factors of ATStrust r = .23, n = 90, p = 0.28, Intent r = .23, n = 90, p = .032 and Social Distance r = .23, n = 90, p = .029. Finally the Pearson correlation between scores of Extraversion and ATS Intent was also significant r =.24, n = 90, p = .023 This suggests that it was not due to

xviii

chance and that the participants that scored higher on the agreeableness trait and extraversion were more likely to hold more positive views towards sex offenders. No other overall comparisons between HEXACO scores and the ATS were found to besignificant.

ATSoverall ATStrust ATSIntent SocialDistance

Agreeableness r = .25, n =90, p= .017.

r = .23,n = 90, p= 0.28

r = .23,n = 90, p= .032

r = .23,n = 90, p= .029

Extraversion r = .24,n = 90, p= .023

Table 5: A table showing a comparison between the personality traits in HEXACO and the ATS factors in the participants.

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare ATSoverall, ATStrust, ATSintent, ATSocialdistance and rehab attitudes in Male and Female participants. There was no significant difference in the scores in the scores for IV level 1 (M=2.35, SD= 6.69 ) and IV level 2 (M= 1.23, SD=.6.18)conditions; t(90)=.764 p =.447”. For this test, there were notany significant values which can be found in the appendix. This means that attitudes towards the offender are not affected by the gender of the participants.

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare ATSoverall, ATStrust, ATSintent, ATSoical distance in Psychology course and other courses they may have positive attitudes towards sex offender and courses that may not have so positive attitudes, such as zoology, towards sex offender. There was no significant difference in the scores for IV level1 (M=3.07, SD= .713) and IV level 2 (M= 2.99, SD=.58434) conditions; t(90)=.632, p =.529”. For this test, there were not any significant values which can be found in the appendix.

xix

This shows that attitudes towards offenders are not affected by the course studied by the participant.

Discussion

Overall, People form attitudes because attitudes are useful. Attitudes help people to master their social environment and to express important connections with others. Attitudes are assembled from three types of information: beliefs about the object's characteristics, feelings and emotions about the object, and information about past and current actions toward the object (Hogg & Vaughan, 2011).

This study, based on a sample of University of Lincoln studentparticipants, revealed that female sex offenders were believedto be more “warm” than male sex offenders. There were some significant results which proved the hypotheses made. In fact,some personality traits were found to be associated with some aspects of positive attitudes together sex offenders. As an example of this, participants that scored higher on the Agreeableness personality trait had a higher ATS overall, ATS trust, ATS intent and ATS social distance. Another significantresult of the personality trait was Extraversion. Participantsthat scored higher on the Extraversion personality trait had ahigher ATS intent. Regarding the ‘Warmth’ variable, participants that were presented with a female sex offender rated them more ‘Warm’ as opposed to the male sex offender. Correlations between scores of Competence and Emotionality were found to be significant when female offenders were portrayed to participants, significant results were also foundfor the component factors of ATS overall, ATS trust, ATS social distance. Further correlations between scores of Warmthand Emotionality were found to be significant when female offenders were portrayed to participants. Scores were also significant for the component factors of ATS overall, ATS trust, ATS intent, ATS social distance. Finally, correlations between scores of warmth and ATS trust were found to be significant when male offenders were portrayed to participants.

xx

The results of this study using the Warmth and Competency testreveal that participants that were given the female sex offender vignette believed them to be more ‘warm’ than the male sex offender counterpart. Although it is believed that, as of yet, no study has used this testing in relation to attitudes towards sex offenders, a similar study based on attitudes regarding male and female gender roles stated that “The priority for detecting warmth over competence, although robust, is stronger for some kinds of perceivers than others. In particular, women, whose traditional gender roles emphasisecommunally (warmth) over agentic (competence) traits, show a stronger priority for detecting warmth. Communal traits traditionally affect women’s lives more, whereas competence traits traditionally affect men relatively more” (Fiske, Cuddy& Glick, 2007). This could be applied to the attitudes found in the present study regarding male and female sex offenders. This is supported by Olver & Barlow (2010), who stated that there is a perception of female sex offenders being harmless, passive and innocent in comparison to male sex offender’s traditional sexual scripts that portray females as sexually passive and innocent. This coincides with the above statement that females are more seen as caregivers so there is a possible element of characteristics required such as “harmless” and “passive”, hence the increase of warmth in comparison to male sex offender.

An additional possible explanation is that females may be seenas warmer due to the stereotype of males more likely to be sexoffenders than females. In support of this would be data from the government (2013), which says that in the year 2011 there were 10,832 male prisoners in custody for sexual offences and just 103 female prisoners in custody for sexual offenders. However, one must question the reasoning behind this, as this is the most recent data that has been published, the followingnew report may show an increase (or decrease) in female or male sex offenders. This data is also a representation of those that have been sentenced, some may feel as though they cannot report the sexual abuse, partially if the perpetrator is female. With the female persona being stereotyped in accordance to Olver & Barlow (2007) as being harmless and in

xxi

this present study results showing participants believing female sex offenders to be more ‘warm’ than the male sex offenders, victims may feel more doubt to report the abuse. Such stereotyped views, possibly created by the media, can have detrimental effects on the sex offender such as a difficult process of reintegration back into the community. Despite this, it could still be said that people are correct in regards to males more likely to be sex offenders the females according to the government data.

The implications of these findings have been discussed above. It emerges that more education and accurate information is needed in order to possibly reduce stereotyped views of sex offenders, particularly the stereotypes of sex offenders. Female sex offenders were once seen as being innocent bystanders while more recent developments suggest that this may not always be the case. In fact, contrary to what was oncebelieved, female sex offenders are willing to take part in such acts. (Silvestri & Crowthr-Dowey, 2008).

Another hypothesis formulated in the present study based on previous research was that female participants would hold morenegative views towards sex offenders than male participants. This was hypothesised on the basis of research conducted by Philips (1998) who reported that eight out of ten females reported being somewhat frightened if they were to be aware ofa sex offender living in their community. However, in this present study there was no significant difference between the genders of the participants. However, it is important to note that Philips’ (1998) study is fairly dated and in a more recent study by Beck and Travis (2004) females with a lower education level were significantly more likely to report a higher level of fear. Therefore, it may be possible that the level of education of the participants in this study’s sample may have affected the results in regards to the gender of the participant. , The results of the present study do also support other studies that have found no significant difference between the genders of the participant (Olver & Barlow, 2010).

xxii

It could be said that training for the general public based onsex offenders could be beneficial to themselves and sex offenders alike. The reason being is that previous research that has looked into the impact of training has found positiveeffects. When participants were tested pre-training, they werefound to have lower positive attitudes towards sex offenders in comparison to post-training (Taylor et al, 2003). Despite some have been unsuccessful in reporting significant results regarding attitudes towards sex offenders as a whole, there has been a success in decreasing fear based around sex offenders (Craig, 2005). Females before training reported morefear of sex offenders, yet after training they reported a decrease in fear of sex offenders, more knowledge and more confident working with sex offenders (Craig, 2005).

It was thought that because education is said to be a factor in the increase of positive attitudes towards sex offenders, those that study what may seem to be relevant areas such as sex offenders, sex offences and personalities may have more lenient attitudes. Also, Gakhal & Brown (2011) mentioned that “It could also be the case that individuals with more positiveattitudes to offenders/sex offenders are more likely to chooseto study psychology, and those with the most positive attitudes gravitate towards occupations that involve contact with this group”. However, contrary to this, this was not the case, there were no significant results concerning the differences between Psychology, Criminology, law or politics related students versus students studying other subjects. It was thought that students who study people, offenders or around the topic of offenders would have a more positive attitude towards sex offenders in comparison to those that do not, for example, zoology, but this was not the case. However,this is similar to Harper’s (2012) findings which indicated that psychology students were more punitive towards sex offenders. However, it must be noted that Harper’s (2012) study did not explicitly state what sex offence was committed but suggested that a possible reason for those studying Psychology with Child Studies had lower ATS results might be due to their interest in safeguarding of the child. Thus implying that the sex offence involved was against a minor.

xxiii

Furthermore, it has been believed that those with an educated background tend to be less punitive so a viable explanation ofno significant results regarding Psychology and non-Psychologystudents is that sources external to their education are influencing their attitudes. These external sources may include newspapers and social media which is in agreement withHarper (2012), it may be helpful to utilise the media as a form of mass education which seems to be very much needed in order to educate people about the facts of sex offenders and offenders.

Further, Brown (1999) observed that individuals with higher socio-economic status held more positive attitudes to sex offenders and this may provide an explanation for the findingsof this study, as it is likely that the groups differ in socio-economic status. Socio-economic can be defined as “…a combination of variables including occupation, education, income, wealth and place of residence” (Dictionary.com, n.d.).However, it is also likely that the student and professional groups would share similar socio-economic groups of origin andso this variable needs further investigation to establish its link to attitudes towards this group of offenders. Another factor has been thought to play a part in attitudes towards sex offenders, those that are more left wing tend to have a more positive attitude than the right wing which may display conflicting factors in regards to education and attitudes towards sex offenders, political stand and attitudes towards sex offenders and both levels of education and political stand(Payne, Gainey, Triplett & Danner, 2004). However, Brown’s (1999) study is dated and those with a higher level of wealth were more likely to go on to education and be of a right wing (conservative political stand). However, in more recent times there are more students with a higher education such as a degree that have come from a less wealthier background that are left wing which Labour and has been said to for the working class. Therefore, in previous studies where results ofstudents seem to be on par with the general public may not be associated with factors of socioeconomic status but, rather,

xxiv

experience. Professionals whose attitudes towards sex offenders have been compared with students and the general public have overall rated higher. Plus, when professional groups have been compared between themselves, those that work in close contact do tend to have a more overall positive attitude regarding sex offenders. An example of this is a therapist having more positive attitudes towards sex offenderscompared to a police officer. So, it may be that training and experience are big key factors and due to students possibly going into these areas, if given efficient training and experience attitudes will develop to be more positive, or at least gain more confidence working with sex offenders.

Continuing from the above in relation to professionals workingwith sex offenders, it is said that the attitudes of professionals that work with offenders affect the way in whichthey treat the offenders which results in whether or not rehabilitation is successful. Therapists, in particular, have proposed said that there are key characteristics that play a vital part in the successful rehabilitation process of the sexoffender. Marshall, Serran, Fernandez, Mulloy, Mann and Thornton (2003) believed that in the literature based around sex offenders there were some key characteristics a therapist should hold in order to gain a positive change in the sex offender which was tested in sex offender treatment programs in English prisons. Having noted there was statistically significant change, they analysed therapist features. They concluded that the best features of a therapist include: empathy, warmth, rewarding, directive, appropriate amount of talking, appropriate voice tone, and asks open-ended questions, encourages participation, deals effectively with problems and correct usage of body language. The present study showed that the higher students scored on the Warmth scale, the most positive attitudes towards sex offenders they held more positive attitudes towards female sex offenders. This is evident in the correlations between Warmth and ATS overall. Furthermore, there was also a positive correlation between the attribute warmth and the subfactors of the ATS

xxv

scale which were ATS Trust, ATS Intent and ATS Social Distance. These factors show a more positive attitude in regards to trust towards sex offenders, issues related to the intent of the sexual offender and issues based on how sociallydistant sex offenders are. It could be said that due to the positive correlation between warmth and the ATS overall and onthe three sub-factor on attitudes towards sex offenders, the students sample that took part in this experiment may be idealcandidates for this line of work, of course, this is only taking this section into account. There was also a significantpositive correlation between competency and ATS overall but two of the three factors which were ATS Trust and ATS Social Distance. What is interesting is that it has been reported that usually if scores are positive on one dimension, such as warmth then the other, such as competency will decrease and vis-versa (Chemers, 1997). However, in this present study, both warmth and competence are positively correlated with ATS overall, ATS Trust and ATS Social distance. Considering previous results, this seems to be fairly rare. In another study, it has been reported that if it does occur that both warmth and competence are positive then this is called Transformational leadership which represents combining competence with warmth. Finally, another interesting factor isthat both the warmth and competency in this instance were aimed at the female sex offender. For the attitudes towards male sex offenders, only warmth and ATS intent were positivelycorrelated. Meaning, participants that scored higher on the ATS Trust believed the male sex offender to be warmer. This does not come as a surprise due to the higher trust level in the participant the higher view of warmth for the male sex offender, warmth is also said to be associated with the trust trait. This is giving some support of the Univariate Analysis of Variance test which also resulted in more positive attitudes towards the female sex offender. In relation to Marshall, Serran, Fernandez, Mulloy, Mann and Thornton (2003) in regards to the belief of key characteristics of a therapist, if the public also holds these characteristics thiscould also be of benefit to sex offenders within the community. The present study does show that students that hold

xxvi

more warmth also have more positive attitudes towards sex offenders and ATS overall.

Another hypothesis was made which was those that score highly on the Agreeableness personality trait will demonstrate a morelenient attitude towards sex offenders. The results were significant for the personality trait agreeableness and ATS overall, ATS Trust, ATS Intent and ATS Social Distance. Therefore, those that have a high score on agreeableness will have a more positive attitude towards sex offenders. It could be said that this is no surprise due to the agreeableness trait being associated with being able to forgive, lenient in judging other, can compromise and cooperate with others. In support of this, Olver & Barlow (2010) also found that agreeableness is associated with more lenient attitudes towards sex offenders. However, Olver & Barlow (2010) used a different personality measure called the big five so could be said to be hard to compare. However, the agreeableness trait is still associated with judgements and forgiveness. Also, looking at the individual questions, many participants have chosen ‘undecided’ as opposed to agree or disagree. This may indicate that those who choose ‘undecided’ on the scales for testing on the ATS, might change their attitudes with training. In support of this is Azjen (2001) who said that undecided attitudes may be easier to change than positive or negative attitudes, strong attitudes can be difficult to change as they tend to be stronger so more resistant to persuasion.

Further, it was believed that those who score highly on the extraversion traits would also hold a more lenient attitude towards sex offenders. Although no ATS overall was found to besignificant with the extraversion trait, it was significant with the factor ATS Intent. This is not consistent with Olver & Barlow’s (2010) findings which did not gain significant results with the extraversion trait. The authors thought that this may be due to the fact that his sample was mostly made upof female students and thought that they would be more dauntedby the prospect of having a sex offender in their community. However, extraversion is said to be associated with positive

xxvii

feelings of one’s self. In this case this may have reflected onto attitudes towards sex offenders, in that seeing sex offenders in a more positive light in the factor ATS Intent which is deemed as being related to the intent of a sex offender.

When the vignettes were split by the gender of the offender, the competency level towards the female sex offender increasedbut the emotionality level decreased. Again, this is not a surprise as when someone scores low on the emotionality traitsthey are thought not to worry so much about physical harm, stressful situations and are emotionally attached from others (Lee & Ashton, 2015). This may reflect the individual’s beliefon female sex offenders and cause a higher rating in the competency test due to the lack of emotional attachment and tothem being less fearful of becoming a victim.

Furthermore, in regards to the male sex offender, those that had an increase of belief that the male sex offender had more warmth, had a lower level of emotionality. Yet again, this is of little surprise due to the meaning of a low emotionality score mentioned above which again could be carried into the beliefs towards male sex offenders due to the lack of attachment and to being less fearful of becoming a victim. Another possibility proposed in some of the studies previouslydiscussed is that those with more experience with sex offenders are less fearful of sex offenders. Therefore, it maybe that those that participated in this study had some experience working with sex offenders.

Within this study, there are some limitations which could be explored more in future research. The first limitation is thatdue to a small sample size, there was a lack of course variation or enough participants that studied on a particular course. This could easily be resolved with more time, more time would mean that the survey would be online for a longer period of time and would mean being able to approach people personally or speak in lectures. Another issue encountered was that the sample was dominated by females, which made it difficult to compare gender of participants. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to carry out more comparisons, for example

xxviii

comparing a student sample with a sample from the public. However, in regards to the female- dominated sample, this could also be solved with more time to seek out male participants and to speak in lectures that may be more male dominated. Despite these limitations, this study has developedsome interesting and significant results. An example of this is that some personality traits are associated with more lenient attitudes towards sex offenders, therefore, it may be easier to educate and train these individuals around the topicof sex offenders. Furthermore, many participants responded “undecided” to many of the questions on sex offenders so again, it may be more likely that their attitudes could be changed to more positives ones.

xxix

References

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes.Annual reviewof psychology, 52(1), 27-58.

Arkowitz, H. & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2008). Once a sex offender, Always a sex offender? Maybe not. [ONLINE] Available at: File://E:/Once a sex offender.html. [Last Accessed 15th April 2015].

Beck, V. S., & Travis, L. F. (2004). Sex offender notificationand protective behavior. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 289-302.

Brown, S. (1999). Public attitudes toward the treatment of sexoffenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4(2), 239-252.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Cheit, R. E. (2003). What hysteria? A systematic study of newspaper coverage of accused child molesters. Child abuse & neglect, 27(6), 607-623.

Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and.Unintended thought, 212.

Clark, L. M. (2007). Landlord attitudes toward renting to released offenders. Fed. Probation, 71, 20.

Cortoni, F., Hanson, R. K., & Coache, M. È. (2010). The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: A meta-analysis. Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, 22(4), 387-401.

xxx

Craig, L. A. (2005). The impact of training on attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11(2), 197-207.

Dias, L (2011). What about Our Attitudes?. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.peoi.org/Courses/Coursesen/hr121/ch/ch1b2.html. [Last Accessed 15th April 2015].

Ducat, L., Thomas, S., & Blood, W. (2009). Sensationalising sex offenders and sexual recidivism: Impact of the Serious SexOffender Monitoring Act 2005 on media reportage. Australian Psychologist, 44(3), 156-165.

Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(2), 77-83.

Frei, A. (2008). Media consideration of sex offenders: How community response shapes a gendered perspective. International Journal of Offender. Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 495-498.

Gakhal, B. K., & Brown, S. J. (2011). A comparison of the general public's, forensic professionals' and students' attitudes towards female sex offenders.Journal of sexual aggression, 17(1), 105-116.

Government (2013). An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf. [Last Accessed 15th April 2015].

Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and behavior, 27(1), 6-35.

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis 2004-02. Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

xxxi

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73(6), 1154.

Harper, Craig. ‘Representations Of Sexual Offending: The British Press, Public Attitudes And Desistance From Crime’. Undergraduate. University of Lincoln, 2001. Print.

Hayes, S., & Baker, B. (2014). Female Sex Offenders and PariahFemininities: Rewriting the Sexual Scripts. Journal of Criminology, 2014.

Higgins, C., & Carol, A. ireland, CA (2009). Attitudes towardsmale and female sex offenders: A comparison of forensic staff,prison officers and the general public in Northern ireland. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 11(1), 14-19.

Hogg, M & Vaughan, G, (2011). Social Psychology. 6th ed. England: Person Education Limited.Hogue, T. E. (1993). Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 9, 2732

Hogue, T. (1993). Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. British Psychological Society.

Hogue, T. E. (1994). Training multi-disciplinary teams to workwith sex offenders: Effects on staff attitudes.Psychology, Crime and Law, 1(3), 227-235. Koon-Magnin, S. (2015). Perceptions of and support for sex offender policies: Testing Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 4380-88. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.007

Kamarulzaman, W., & Nordin, M. S. (2012). Job Satisfaction: The Comparison between School-Leavers and College Graduates. Online Submission.

Katovsich, R. B. (2008). Empathy and cognitive flexibility as correlates of forgiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews University. Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Kjelsberg, E., & Loos, L. H. (2008). Conciliation or condemnation? Prison employees' and young peoples' attitudes

xxxii

towards sexual offenders.International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 7(1), 95-103.

Kleban, H., & Jeglic, E.L. (in press). Dispelling the myths: Can psychoeducation change public attitudes towards sex offenders? Journal of Sexual Aggression.

Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (1998). Brain plasticity and behavior. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 43-64.

K, Lee., & Ashton, T. (2015). THE HEXACO PERSONALITY INVENTORY - REVISED. [ONLINE] Available at: http://hexaco.org/. [Last Accessed 15th April 2015].

Lea, S., Auburn, T., & Kibblewhite, K. (1999). Working with sex offenders: The perceptions and experiences of professionals and paraprofessionals.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(1), 103-119.

Lieb, R., Quinsey, V., & Berliner, L. (1998). Sexual predatorsand social policy. Crime and justice, 43-114.

Mann, R (2014) Addressing the predictors of sexual recidivism Reflections. Retrieved from: https://www.dropbox.com/s/70zahv7i30iuyk8/Mann%202014%20Addressing_the_predictors_of_sexual_recidivism_Reflections%20Lincoln.pdf?dl=0

Melvin, K. B., Gramling, L. K., & Gardner, W. M. (1985). A scale to measure attitudes toward prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(2), 241-253.

Marshall, W. L., Fernandez, Y. M., Serran, G. A., Mulloy, R., Thornton, D., Mann, R. E., & Anderson, D. (2003). Process variables in the treatment of sexual offenders: A review of the relevant literature.Aggression and violent behavior, 8(2), 205-234.

Olver, M. E., & Barlow, A. A. (2010). Public attitudes toward sex offenders and their relationship to personality traits anddemographic characteristics.Behavioral sciences & the law, 28(6), 832-849.

Payne, B., Gainey, R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. (2004). Whatdrives punitive beliefs? Demographic characteristics and

xxxiii

justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 195-206.

Petrunik, M., & Deutschmann, L. (2008). The exclusion–inclusion spectrum in state and community response to sex offenders in Anglo-American and European jurisdictions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 499– 519

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY

Phillips, D. M. (1998). Community notification as viewed by Washington's citizens. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, C., Fisher, H., Bassett, C.,Howat, N., & Collishaw, S. (2011). Child abuse and neglect in the UK today.

Rash, E.., & Winton, M, A. (2007). Advanced practice nurse attitudes toward sex offender patients. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 19(6), 328-331.

Silvestri, M & Crowthr-Dowey, C, (2008). Gender & Crime . 1st ed.London: Sage Publications.

Smith, S., Wampler, R. & Reifman, J. (2005). ‘Differences in Self-Report Measures by Adolescent Sex Offender Risk Group’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49(1): pp.82-106.

Taylor, J. L., Keddie, T., & Lee, S. (2003). Working with sex offenders with intellectual disability: evaluation of an introductory workshop for direct care staff. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(3), 203-209.

Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2008). The Quality of CommunityReintegration Planning for Child Molesters Effects on Sexual Recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(2), 218-240.

Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. C. (2009). Assessment of Community Reintegration Planning for Sex Offenders Poor Planning

xxxiv

Predicts Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(5), 494-512.

Willis, G. M., Levenson, J. S., & Ward, T. (2010). Desistance and attitudes towards sex offenders: Facilitation or hindrance? Journal of Family Violence, 25(6), 545-556.

Willis, G. M., Malinen, S., & Johnston, L. (2013). Demographicdifferences in public attitudes towards sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(2), 230-247.

Valliant, P. M., Furac, C. J., & Antonowicz, D. H. (1994). Attitudes toward sex offenders by female undergraduate university students enrolled in a psychology program. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 22(2), 105-110.

Appendices

Descriptive statistics

Below are the key factors used in the testing of attitudes

towards sex offenders. (Figure 1)

xxxv

Descriptive Statisticsa

OffenderGender N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.Deviation

Male target

ATSOverall 46 1.71 4.90 2.9482 .69667ATSTrust 46 1.00 4.86 2.4938 .80458ATSIntent 46 1.86 4.86 3.3292 .74070ATSSicoalDistance

46 1.71 5.00 3.0217 .71140

Honesty 46 2.20 5.00 3.4366 .61085Emotionality 46 1.90 4.70 3.3963 .65596Extraversion 46 1.60 4.70 3.2140 .77932Agreeableness 46 1.30 4.75 3.0402 .64907Conscientiousness

46 2.50 4.90 3.6913 .53075

Openness 46 2.40 4.90 3.5168 .71961Competent 47 1.40 3.40 2.3660 .47607Warm 47 1.00 3.00 1.6255 .56046Valid N (listwise)

46

female target

ATSOverall 46 1.71 4.24 3.0932 .57019ATSTrust 46 1.29 3.86 2.7236 .65735ATSIntent 46 2.00 5.00 3.4658 .61827ATSSicoalDistance

46 1.14 4.43 3.0901 .62405

Honesty 44 1.10 5.00 3.3682 .73793Emotionality 44 1.70 4.50 3.3000 .63209Extraversion 44 1.60 4.60 3.1614 .77015Agreeableness 44 2.00 5.00 3.2364 .70285Conscientiousness

44 2.20 4.60 3.5091 .54849

Openness 44 2.20 5.00 3.6568 .60785Competent 46 1.40 3.60 2.5348 .45422Warm 46 1.00 3.60 2.0522 .65106Valid N (listwise)

44

a. No statistics are computed for one or more split files because there are no valid cases.

xxxvi

Below is the SPSS data for the Univariate Analysis of Variancewith the factors offender gender and participant gender as between subject factors.(figure 2)

Anova:

Between-Subjects Factors

Value Label NOffenderGender 1.00 Male target 47

2.00 female target

46

Please state your Gender

1 Male 262 Female 67

Tests of Between-Subjects EffectsDependent Variable:Warm

SourceType III Sumof Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 4.591a 3 1.530 4.107 .009Intercept 257.657 1 257.657 691.452 .000OffenderGender 3.973 1 3.973 10.661 .002Gender .191 1 .191 .513 .476OffenderGender * Gender

.153 1 .153 .412 .523

Error 33.164 89 .373Total 351.440 93Corrected Total 37.756 92

a. R Squared = .122 (Adjusted R Squared = .092)

1. OffenderGender

xxxvii

Dependent Variable:Warm

OffenderGender Mean

Std.Error

95% Confidence IntervalLower Bound Upper Bound

Male target 1.628 .102 1.425 1.831female target 2.090 .098 1.895 2.284

2. Please state your GenderDependent Variable:Warm

Please state your Gender Mean

Std.Error


Male 1.910 .120 1.671 2.148Female 1.808 .075 1.660 1.957

3. OffenderGender * Please state your GenderDependent Variable:Warm

OffenderGender

Please state your Gender Mean

Std.Error


Male target Male 1.633 .176 1.283 1.983Female 1.623 .103 1.418 1.828

female target Male 2.186 .163 1.862 2.510Female 1.994 .108 1.779 2.208

Correlations

Below is the table for the correlations.

Male offender table

Correlations

Honesty

Emotionality

Extraversion

Agreeablenes

s

Conscientiousness

Openness

ATSOverall

ATSTrust

ATSIntent

ATSSicoalDistance

Competent

Pearson Correlation

.002 -.209 .155 .107 -.263 .125 .149 .134 .157 .124

Sig. (2-tailed)

.992 .164 .302 .481 .078 .406 .322 .375 .298 .411

N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46

xxxviii

Warm Pearson Correlation

-.097

-.186 .185 -.007 -.280 .063 .272 .304*

.252 .193

Sig. (2-tailed)

.522 .216 .219 .965 .060 .677 .067 .040 .091 .198

N 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Female offender table

Correlations

Honesty

Emotionality

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousn

essOpenness

ATSOverall

ATSTrust

ATSIntent

ATSSicoalDistance

Competent

Pearson Correlation

-.085

-.392** .163 -.063 -.100 .048 .361* .393*

*

.269 .308*

Sig. (2-tailed)

.581 .009 .290 .687 .518 .755 .014 .007 .071 .037

N 44 44 44 44 44 44 46 46 46 46

Warm Pearson Correlation

-.133

-.515** .238 -.206 .174 -.207 .430** .460*

*

.309* .387**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.389 .000 .120 .180 .258 .178 .003 .001 .037 .008

N 44 44 44 44 44 44 46 46 46 46

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Competence and Emotionality for female sex offender (figure 3)

xxxix

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Competence and ATSOverall for female sex offender (figure 4)

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Competence and ATSTrust for female sex offender (figure 5)

xl

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Competence and Socialdistance for female sex offender (figure 6)

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Warm and Emotionality for female sex offender (figure 7)

xli

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Warm and ATSOverall for female sex offender (figure 8)

xlii

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Warmth and ATSTrust for female sex offender (figure 9)

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Warm and ATSIntent for female sex offender (figure 10)

xliii

Below is a graph showing the correlations between Warm and Socialdistance for female sex offender (figure 11)

Male offender: Below is a graph showing the correlations between Warm and ATSTrust for male sex offender (figure 12)

xliv

Below is factors for correlations between HEXACO and ATS (Figure 13)

CorrelationsATSOveral

lATSTrus

tATSInten

tATSSicoalDi

stanceHonesty Pearson

Correlation.068 .051 .096 .038

Sig. (2-tailed) .527 .630 .366 .721N 90 90 90 90

Emotionality Pearson Correlation

-.164 -.183 -.115 -.150

Sig. (2-tailed) .123 .085 .281 .158N 90 90 90 90

Extraversion Pearson Correlation

.173 .059 .239* .187

Sig. (2-tailed) .103 .579 .023 .078N 90 90 90 90

Agreeableness Pearson Correlation

.251* .232* .227* .231*

Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .028 .032 .029N 90 90 90 90

Conscientiousne Pearson .069 -.020 .050 .170

xlv

ss CorrelationSig. (2-tailed) .517 .849 .641 .109N 90 90 90 90

Openness Pearson Correlation

.056 .043 .103 .008

Sig. (2-tailed) .598 .685 .334 .939N 90 90 90 90

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

T Test of Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders and Rehabilitative attitudes (Figure 13)

Group StatisticsPlease state your Gender

N Mean Std.Deviation

Std. ErrorMean

RehabattitudesMale 26 2.3462 6.69294 1.31259Female 66 1.2273 6.17637 .76026

ATSOverallMale 26 3.0549 .61776 .12115Female 66 3.0072 .64891 .07988

ATSTrustMale 26 2.6154 .74699 .14650Female 66 2.6061 .74254 .09140

ATSIntentMale 26 3.4451 .68491 .13432Female 66 3.3788 .68512 .08433

ATSSicoalDistance

Male 26 3.1044 .61619 .12084Female 66 3.0368 .68869 .08477

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Testfor Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.(2-

tailed)

MeanDiffere

nce

Std.ErrorDifference

95% ConfidenceInterval of the

DifferenceLower Upper

Rehabattitudes

Equal variances assumed

.001 .980 .764 90 .447 1.11888 1.46431 -1.79023

4.02799

Equal variances not assumed

.738 42.738

.465 1.11888 1.51687 -1.94072

4.17848

xlvi

ATSOverall


.013 .909 .322 90 .748 .04773 .14828 -.24686 .34232


.329 47.971

.744 .04773 .14511 -.24404 .33950

ATSTrust


.044 .835 .054 90 .957 .00932 .17222 -.33282 .35147


.054 45.594

.957 .00932 .17267 -.33833 .35698

ATSIntent


.006 .937 .418 90 .677 .06627 .15862 -.24886 .38140


.418 45.853

.678 .06627 .15860 -.25301 .38554

ATSSicoalDistance


.005 .945 .436 90 .664 .06760 .15498 -.24030 .37550


.458 50.917

.649 .06760 .14761 -.22876 .36396

T Test for ATS variables and student courses (Figure 14).

Group Statisticscourses N Mean Std.

DeviationStd. Error

Mean

ATSOverallPsychology and other related

37 3.0721 .71399 .11738

non related courses 55 2.9861 .58434 .07879

ATSTrustPsychology and other related

37 2.5830 .80487 .13232


ATSIntentPsychology and other related

37 3.4595 .78689 .12936


ATSSicoalDistance

Psychology and other related

37 3.1737 .72150 .11861


xlvii

Independent Samples TestLevene's Testfor Equalityof Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig.(2-tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95%ConfidenceInterval of

theDifference

Lower Upper

ATSOverall


1.767 .187 .632

90 .529 .08592 .13594 -.18415

.35600

Equal variances notassumed

.608

66.721

.545 .08592 .14137 -.19628

.36813

ATSTrust


1.657 .201 -.272

90 .786 -.04296

.15808 -.35702

.27110


-.264

69.861

.792 -.04296

.16250 -.36707

.28115

ATSIntent


2.007 .160 .713

90 .478 .10362 .14539 -.18523

.39246


.677

63.649

.501 .10362 .15297 -.20200

.40923

ATSSicoalDistance


.602 .440 1.399

90 .165 .19712 .14094 -.08289

.47713


1.358

69.319

.179 .19712 .14517 -.09246

.48671

Below is the brief for the student

xlviii

Dear sir/madam,

This study will investigate attitudes towards sex offenders.The first part of the experiment will require you to read a short scenario and answer a few questions. The second part is a questionnaire on attitudes towards sexoffenders. The third and final part involves a personality test called the HEXACO. Please answer all questions. The experiment is expected to last 15 minutes. Participants must be 18+ to participate.

Below is the Consent form

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for taking an interest in this study. This study explores attitudes towards sex offenders. You will be asked to read a short hypothetical rape scenarioand answer questions about it. You will then be asked questions about your personalattitudes towards sex offenders. Your participation is expected to last 15 minutes. Participants must be 18+ to participate. All answers will be anonymous and confidential within the study. The data will onlybe used for this experiment. Please be aware that reading the rape scenario and answering questions about it might be stressful to some people. If you think that you might be affected negatively, it is not recommended that you take part in this study. However, at no point will you be asked questions based on any personal experiences of sex offence or abuse. If you decide to give consent to continue with this study, you can opt out at any point, with no consequences or penalty. Please note: If you exit the screen before finishing the research, it will be presumed that you wish to withdraw your data. If you have any questions please contact me, Michelle Barr on [email protected] also a copy of results can be sent to you on completion if you wish.

Below is the debrief

Thank you so much for taking part in this experiment. Just a reminder that all answers provided will remain anonymous and confidential and only used for this study.

This experiment is interested in the effect of personality traits on attitudes towards sex offenders. Hopefully the evidence of this research may help future experiments find

xlix

correct treatment for sex offenders and help change attitudes towards sex offenders.

If you have any further questions then contact me on [email protected] If you feel that you have been affected by this study and wishto talk to a professional please contact:

University of Lincoln Counselling services is located inside the Student Wellbeing Centre, near the main building, in-between the doctors building and The Swan student pub.

Alternatively you can contact them via email: [email protected] , via telephone: 01522 886400 and also took a look at their website https://www.lincoln.ac.uk/home/campuslife/studentsupport/studentservices/studentwellbeingcentre/counsellingservice/

Samaritans if you are having any sort of issues, they are available to talk things through 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Website: www.samaritans.orgEmail: [email protected] Telephone: 08457 90 90 90

Victim Support is support for those that have been a victim ofany crime, or affected by a crime that was committed to someone you know. They are there to help you find the strengthto get through.

Website: https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/Telephone: 08 08 16 89 111

Rape Crisis will give support around the experiences of sexualexperiences of sexual violence. The website gives information about how to get help if you have experienced sexual violence,details of the nearest Rape Crisis organizing, information forfriends and family.

l

Website: http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Telephone: 0808 802 9999 Thank youMichelle [email protected]

Below is personal questions of the participant How old are you?

Please state your Gender

What course do you study?

What year are you in?

Vignette one

Amy was arrested on the 20th October 2005 for committing rape. Amy had been to a house party where she had been talking with Michael. They drank, danced and talked most of the night. As the night came to an end Amy made a pass atMichael. He rejected her advances as was getting late and had a girlfriend. She pushed him; he hit his head on a wall which left him feeling dazed and confused. Amy forced herself onto him, as Michael began to realise what was happening she wasalready on top of him, straddling him. After the ordeal, she just got up and left.

Amy was charged with rape and sentenced to 4 years in prison.

Warm and competency test

To what extent do you think Amy is:

StronglyDisagree Disagree

NeitherAgree norDisagree Agree

StronglyAgree

Hard working

Cold

Intelligent

Kind

Cautious

Selfish

li



StronglyAgree

Irresponsible

Warm

Considerate

Naive....

Do you think Amy.....



StronglyAgree

Should Amy be releasedback into society?Should the community

lii



StronglyAgree

be made aware of Amy’spresence?Amy will reoffend if released?If Amy had treatment, it would be successful?

Amy is more dangerous than other sex offenders?I would not like Amy living next door to meThe community should help Amy’s reintegration?

Amy has the right to lead a normal life?

Amy has the ability tochange?

Amy is high risk to the community?

Vignette two Michael was arrested on the 20th October 2005 for committing rape. Michael had been to a house party where he had been talking with Amy. They drank, danced and talked most of the night. As the night came to an end Michael made a pass at Amy. She rejected his advances as was getting late and wanted to go home alone. He pushed her; she hit her head on a wall which left her feeling dazed and confused. Michael forced himself onto her, she tried to fight him off but was unable to due to her head pounding and the dazed feeling. After the ordeal, he got up and left.

Michael was charged with rape and sentenced to 4 years in prison.

Warm and competency test

To what extent do you think Michael is:



StronglyAgree

Hard working

liii



StronglyAgree

Cold

Intelligent

Kind

Cautious

Selfish

Irresponsible

Warm

Considerate

Naive

Do you think Michael....

Stronglydisagree Disagree


StronglyAgree

Should Michael be released back into society?Should the community be made aware of Michael’s presence?

Michael will reoffend if released?

If Michal had treatment, it would besuccessful?Michael is more dangerous than other sex offenders?

I would not like Michael living next door to meThe community should help Michaels reintegration?

Michael has the right to lead a normal life?

liv



StronglyAgree

Michael has the ability to change?Michael is high risk to the community?

ATS questions


Neitherdisagreenor agree Agree

StronglyAgree

Sex offenders are different from other peopleMost sex offenders arevictims of circumstances and deserve helpSex offenders have feelings like the restof us

It is not wise to trust a sex offender too farI think I would like alot of sex offendersGive a sex offender aninch and they take a mile

Sex offenders need affection and praise just like anybody elseTrying to rehabilitatesex offenders is a waste of time and moneySex offenders are no better or worse than other people

You have to be constantly on your guard with sex offenders

lv



StronglyAgree

If you give a sex offender your respect,he’ll give you the same

Sex Offenders only think about themselves

There are some sex offenders I would trust with my lifeMost sex offenders aretoo lazy to earn an honest living

I wouldn’t mind livingnext door to a treatedsex offenderSex offenders are justplain mean at heartSex offenders are always trying to get something out of somebodySex offenders are immoralI would like associating with some sex offenders

Sex offenders respect only brute force

If sex offenders do well in prison/hospital, they should be let out on parole

HEXACO testHEXACO

lvi



StronglyAgree

I would be quite boredby a visit to an art gallery.I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute.I rarely hold a grudge, even against people who have badly wronged me.I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall.

I would feel afraid ifI had to travel in badweather conditions.I wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it would succeed.I'm interested in learning about the history and politics of other countries.I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal.

People sometimes tell me that I am too critical of othersI rarely express my opinions in group meetings.

I sometimes can't helpworrying about little things.If I knew that I couldnever get caught, I would be willing to steal a million dollars.

I would enjoy creatinga work of art, such asa novel, a song, or a

lvii



StronglyAgree

painting.

When working on something, I don't paymuch attention to small details.

People sometimes tell me that I'm too stubborn

HEXACO continued



StronglyAgree

I’ve never really enjoyed looking through an encyclopedia

I do only the minimum amount of work needed to get by.I tend to be lenient in judging other people.

In social situations, I’m usually the one who makes the first move.

I worry a lot less than most people do.

I would never accept abribe, even if it werevery large.People have often toldme that I have a good imagination.

lviii



StronglyAgree

I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense oftime.I am usually quite flexible in my opinions when people disagree with me.The first thing that Ialways do in a new place is to make friends.I can handle difficultsituations without needing emotional support from anyone else.

I would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods.

I like people who haveunconventional views.

I make a lot of mistakes because I don’t think before I act.

Most people tend to get angry more quicklythan I do.

HEXACO continued

lix



StronglyAgree

Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I generally am.I feel strong emotionswhen someone close to me is going away for along time.I want people to know that I am an importantperson of high status.

I don’t think of myself as the artisticor creative type.People often call me aperfectionist.Even when people make a lot of mistakes, I rarely say anything negative.I sometimes feel that I am a worthless person.

Even in an emergency Iwouldn’t feel like panicking.I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me.I find it boring to discuss philosophy.I prefer to do whatever comes to mind, rather than stick to a plan.When people tell me that I’m wrong, my first reaction is to argue with them.When I’m in a group ofpeople, I’m often the one who speaks on behalf of the group.I remain unemotional even in situations where most people get

lx



StronglyAgree

very sentimental.

I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it.

Below is the ethics form used which was Track B

EA2

Ethical Approval Please word-process this

This form must be completed for each piece of research activity whether conducted by academic staff, research staff, graduate students or undergraduates. The completed form must be approved by the designated authority within the Faculty.Please complete all sections. If a section is not applicable, write N/A.

1 Name of Applicant

Department: Faculty:

lxi

2 Position in the University

3 Role in relation to this research

4 Brief statement of

main Research Question

5 Brief Description of Project

Approximate Start Date: Approximate End Date:

6 Name of Principal Investigator

or Supervisor

Email address: Telephone:

lxii

7 Names of other researchers or

student investigators involved

1.

2.

3.

4.

8 Location(s) at which project

is to be carried out

9 Statement of the ethical issues

involved and how they areto

be addressed –including arisk assessment of the project based on

the vulnerability of participants, the

extent to which it is likely to be harmful and whether there will be

significant discomfort.

(This will normally coversuch issues as whether therisks/adverse effects

associated with the project have

lxiii

been dealt with and whether the benefits of research outweigh the

risks)

Ethical Approval From Other Bodies

10 Does this research require the

Yes No

lxiv

approval of an external body ?

If “Yes”, please state which body:-

11 Has ethical approval already been

obtained from that body ?

Yes Please append documentary evidence to this form.

No

If “No”, please state why not:-

Please note that any such approvals must be obtainedand documented before the project begins.

APPLICANT SIGNATURE

I hereby request ethical approval for the research as described above.

I certify that I have read the University’s ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH WITH HUMANS AND OTHER ANIMALS.

_____________________________________ ________________

Applicant Signature Date

lxv

_____________________________________

PRINT NAME

FOR COMPLETION BY THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Please select ONE of A, B, C or D below:

A. The Faculty Research Committee gives ethical approval to this research.

B. The Faculty Research Committee gives conditional ethical approval to this research.

12 Please state the condition (inc.

date by which condition must be

satisfied if applicable)

C. The Faculty Research Committee cannot give ethical approval to thisresearch but refers the application

lxvi

to the University Research Ethics Committee for higher level consideration.

13 Please state the reason

D. The Faculty Research Committee cannot give ethical approval to thisresearch and recommends

that the research should not proceed.

14 Please state the reason

Signature of Chair of Faculty Research Committee (or nominee)

_____________________________________ ________________

Signed Date

lxvii

lxviii

Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders- Using a Personality Test (HEXACO)

Documents

Transcript of Attitudes Towards Sex Offenders- Using a Personality Test (HEXACO)