Exploring the role of locus of control in sex offender treatment

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the concept of Locus of Control (LoC) and its relationship to risk, personality disorder and treatment outcome in sexual offenders. The sample was taken from referrals to a community treatment service for sexual offenders in south-east London. One hundred and eighty-five men completed a measure of LoC at the time of assessment, of whom 74 entered the treatment programme and 39 completed a post-treatment LoC measure. At assessment, child molesters and non-contact offenders had a significantly more external LoC than rapists, and LoC was also significantly associated with cluster A and C personality disorder traits, as well as the presence of traits in two or more personality disorder clusters. LoC was not associated with risk measures or compliance with treatment. Once outliers were removed, a significant change was seen in post-treatment LoC scores, with most change occurring in an increasingly internal direction.     

Risk,reconviction rates and pro-offending attitudes for child molesters in a complete geographical area of London

Abstract

The study reports on all convicted child molesters in an inner city area over seven years, half of whom received a community treatment package. The average time at risk in the community was three years. There were 17 ‘failures’: subjects who were either breached for non-compliance, or reconvicted for general, violent or sexual offences. Historical, rather than cognitive variables appeared to be associated with failure. Key factors were a history of being sexually victimised and previous sexual/violent convictions.     

Two heads are better than one? How to effectively use two interviewers to elicit cues to deception

Background. We examined the effect of a second interviewer's demeanour on cues to deception. We predicted that a supportive demeanour would be the most beneficial for eliciting verbal cues to deceit, as it would encourage truth tellers, but not liars, to say more. In addition, we examined the extent to which interviewees deliberately made eye contact with the interviewers. Liars take their credibility less for granted than truth tellers, and therefore have a greater drive to be convincing. Liars are thus more likely to monitor the interviewer to determine if the interviewer appears to believe them. Method. Participants appeared before two interviewers: the first asked all the questions and the second remained silent. The second interviewer exhibited either a supportive, neutral, or a suspicious demeanour. Results. Truth tellers provided significantly more detail than liars, but only in the supportive second interviewer condition. The effect of a second interviewer's demeanour on detail was perhaps remarkable given that the interviewees hardly looked at the second interviewer (less than 10% of the time). Liars displayed more deliberate eye contact (with the first interviewer) than truth tellers did. Conclusions. A supportive second interviewer has a positive effect on interviewing. We discuss this finding in the wider contexts of investigative interviewing and interviewing to detect deception.