“I Couldn’t Do It to a Kid Knowing What It Did to Me”

Abstract

Research has shown that child sexual abuse victims are overrepresented among sexual abuse offenders, leading to the sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis. However, a large proportion of child sexual abuse victims do not go on to sexually offend, and such individuals are labeled as resilient victims. Surprisingly few studies have looked at why some male victims of sexual abuse do not go on to offend. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 47 resilient men focusing on their beliefs as to why they had not gone on to sexually abuse others. Results revealed four themes for why the victims did not offend: empathy, morals, lack of sexual desire, or a combination of the previous three. In regard to the process of developing their resiliency, some participants claimed they made a conscious decision, whereas others reported the decision was an unconscious one. The various factors that were reported as contributing to the conscious or unconscious decision (becoming aware of sexual abuse, admitting the experience had happened to them, empathy, social support, and lack of sexual desire to abuse) are discussed, along with the four themes, and the implication of these results for prevention. Finally, conclusions are drawn that the victim–offender pathway is far from inevitable as most participants stated their reason for not offending was directly related to their own experience of sexual abuse victimisation.

Keywords

sexual abuse resiliency qualitative methodology victim–offender

Introduction

Child maltreatment, and more specifically child sexual abuse, is a serious public health issue associated with wide-ranging consequences such as mortality, physical health problems, mental health problems, poor academic performance, aggression, violence, criminal behaviour, and decreased quality of life (Afifi & Macmillan, 2011). Consequences of childhood sexual abuse can be long-lasting, having immediate ramifications as well as follow-on effects that can extend well into adulthood (Afifi & Macmillan, 2011). Furthermore, it can affect not only the child but also their family, their peer-group and the wider community, health/social care systems, and potentially further generations of victims if maladjustment is not attended to (Wilcox, Richards, & O’Keeffe, 2004). Unfortunately, one result of childhood sexual abuse can be sexualized behaviour and sexual offending as adults (Jespersen, Lalumiere, & Seto, 2009; Widom & Ames, 1994).

Victim–Offender Cycle

Ample evidence exists demonstrating that the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse is higher among sexual offenders than non-sexual offenders (Cohen et al., 2002; Jespersen et al., 2009; Ogloff et al., 2012; Stirpe & Stermac, 2003). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis by Jespersen et al. (2009) concluded that there was a significantly higher prevalence of sexual abuse history among sex offenders who victimised children compared with those who victimised adults. Thus, unsurprisingly, such results have led to the development of the sexually abused–sexual abuser hypothesis, which postulates that there is a link between sexual victimisation in childhood and subsequent sexual perpetration (Hilton & Mezey, 1996; Reckdenwald, Mancini, & Beauregard, 2013).

Nevertheless, researchers have also demonstrated that this link is far from inevitable. For example, a prospective study by Widom and Ames (1994) followed 908 children less than 12 years of age who had been sexually abused, physically abused, or neglected, and compared them with a matched group of children who had not been the victims of maltreatment. They found that all three forms of abuse increased the risk of committing a sex crime; however, it should be noted that this included crimes such as prostitution not just sexual abuse offences. According to Widom and Ames (1994), sexual abuse did not have a stronger relationship with becoming a perpetrator of sexual crimes than did physical abuse or neglect; instead a history of physical abuse appeared to hold a stronger relationship with crimes such as rape or sodomy than did a history of sexual abuse.

Although empirical studies have demonstrated that being a victim of childhood sexual abuse increases the risk of sexual offending, not all victims of childhood sexual abuse go on to sexually abuse others (Jespersen et al., 2009; Thomas & Fremouw, 2009; Widom & Ames, 1994). In fact, the majority of victims do not go on to perpetuate the abuse (Salter et al., 2003). Furthermore, not all sexual offenders have a history of sexual abuse (Jespersen et al., 2009). Thus, “sexual abuse history is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for adult sexual offending” (Jespersen et al., 2009, p. 190). It is important to note the plurality of pathways a victim can take after being abused and that can lead to someone becoming an abuser. Those individuals who break from this victim–offender cycle are of particular interest to researchers looking to discover the protective factors that can prevent further abuse of generations of children to come (Thomas & Fremouw, 2009). However, to date, the research examining these protective factors that enable victims of childhood sexual abuse to become resilient (resist later sexual offending) is scarce with only a handful of studies having been undertaken in the area (Thomas & Fremouw, 2009).

Resiliency

Furthermore, much of the existing literature focuses on the development of resilience post abuse in the more general sense of living an adaptive life rather than specifically meaning the avoidance of perpetrating a sexual offence; hence, this is a much under-researched area. Among such literature, there is a general consensus that socioeconomic status (SES) is an important factor predicting resiliency of this type, with higher SES relating to higher rates of resiliency (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006; Marriott, Hamilton-Giachritsis, & Harrop, 2013; Wright, Fopma-Loy, & Fischer, 2005). Furthermore, for those from a higher SES background, researchers agree that at least average or higher intelligence is a protective factor against maladaptive behaviour (DuMont, Widom, & Czaja, 2007; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1994).

Other personal protective factors reported include higher self-esteem (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006) along with a positive personal perception of the victim’s own future (Sesma, Mannes, & Scales, 2005), and interpersonal and emotional competence (Leon, Ragsdale, Miller, & Spacarelli, 2008). A qualitative study that voiced the experiences of women who were victims of childhood sexual abuse (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006) found that among the sample of 10 resilient women, three individual-level protective factors were identified as helpful in promoting their resiliency. These factors included (a) interpersonal skills, for example, verbal abilities; (b) competence, for example, excelling in school; and (c) high self-regard, for example, accepting positive feedback from others (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006). Lev-Wiesel (2000) found that individuals had higher self-esteem and had a better quality of life if they attributed blame for the abuse to their offender rather than blaming themselves or situational factors. Finally, Marriott et al. (2013) pointed out that one of the most consistent findings across all the studies they reviewed in their meta-analysis was a stable environment. This included a stable and supportive family, stable living arrangements, and a stable education (Marriott et al., 2013).

Gilgun (1990) conducted one of the earliest studies regarding resilience in the intergenerational transmission of abuse. Using an adult sample of victims of childhood sexual abuse, the author found that compared with perpetrators, more number of subsequent non-perpetrators of sexual abuse had entered into a close caring relationship with others. These relationships were described as a source of trust and support (Gilgun, 1990). Although some individuals searched for years before they found such relationships, the researcher concluded that it was these relationships that prevented them from perpetuating sexual activity with children in the future (Gilgun, 1990).

More recently, researchers have acknowledged an array of personal through to macro-environmental factors that are likely to influence the process of resiliency. For example, Williams and Nelson-Gardell (2012) investigated the application of Bronfenbrenner’s Process–Person–Context–Time (PPCT) ecological model to uncover the protective factors that promote resiliency among 237 adolescents who had been sexually abused as children. Their study highlighted that school engagement, caregiver social support, hope and expectancy, caregiver education, and SES were protective factors most strongly related to resiliency. The researchers concluded that intervention programmes should place the greatest focus on primary relationships and school engagement to help victims of childhood sexual abuse become resilient.

Likewise, Thomas and Fremouw (2009) developed a hypothetical, heuristic model to help explain outcomes in the victim–offender cycle. Their model also suggests that the final outcome in the victim–offender cycle is influenced by a range of factors, including victim characteristics such as age, education, and empathy; perpetrator characteristics such as gender and relationship with the victim; abuse characteristics such as coercion and penetration; post-abuse factors such as masturbation, fantasizing, arousal, negative reactions, and psychological maladjustment; and family factors such as family support and environment (Thomas & Fremouw, 2009). To date, post-abuse factors and family factors have been the most empirically supported protective factors in the victim–offender cycle (Thomas & Fremouw, 2009).

It is important to note that there is considerable conflict within the literature regarding how different sexual abuse experiences can influence the victim–offender cycle. In a 20-year longitudinal study by Duncan and Williams (1998), individuals who experienced coerced sexual contact with a male or non-coerced sexual contact with a female were less likely to be adult offenders than individuals who experienced coerced sexual contact with a female (Duncan & Williams, 1998). In another longitudinal study, Salter et al. (2003) also found that perpetrator gender moderated the victim–offender cycle, with victim–non-offenders less likely to have been abused by a female. Conversely, Glasser et al. (2001) found that perpetrator gender had no influence on later sexual offending among a sample of 747 victims of childhood sexual abuse (225 of whom were also sexual offenders). Glasser et al. (2001), however, did find that individuals who experienced intra-familial abuse only were less likely to become perpetrators compared with those who experienced extra-familial abuse only or those who experienced both intra- and extra-familial abuse. Lambie, Seymour, Lee, and Adams (2002) found that perpetrator gender, perpetrator age, the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, the age at onset of abuse, duration of the abuse, penetration involved in the abuse, and the number of abusers had no moderating effect on subsequent sexual offending. Contradictorily, in a 45-year follow-up study by Ogloff et al. (2012) of 2,759 childhood sexual abuse victims, male victims abused after the age of 12 years were significantly more likely to become sexual offenders. Thus, in addition to the paucity of research, as well as inconsistent findings in the research, the link between the specifics of the abuse experience and subsequent perpetration is unclear and more research is required.

Lambie et al. (2002) found that factors other than those related to the abuse experience moderated the victim–offender cycle. In terms of demographics, the resilient group was younger and more educated than the offender group (Lambie et al., 2002). The resilient participants reported less sexual arousal, masturbation, and fantasy about the abuse experience compared with the offender group (Lambie et al., 2002). Furthermore, the resilient group had more frequent social contact, received more emotional support from more sources (e.g., parents, relatives, and other adults), received more types of emotional support (e.g., verbal and physical), received more emotional support during crisis situations, and experienced less factors that inhibited them from gaining emotional support (e.g., non-supportive family and abusive family) compared with the offender group (Lambie et al., 2002). These results suggest that social support plays a significant role in buffering the victim–offender cycle. This is also supported by review studies, which have concluded that social support is a consistent buffering factor in the victim–offender cycle (Afifi & Macmillan, 2011; Beisert, 2010; Thomas & Fremouw, 2009). Han (1999), after investigating the effects of post-abuse trauma and emotional distress of victims, even went as far as to argue that society’s response to the abuse, rather than the experience per se, largely determined whether the victims went on to become offenders themselves.

Finally, a novel qualitative study by Kia-Keating, Grossman, Sorsoli, and Epstein (2005) that looked at the experiences of 16 resilient male survivors of childhood sexual abuse within the context of masculine ideology concluded that rejecting certain traditional notions of masculinity such as stoicism, aggression, and sexual prowess helped the men to reconstruct their male identity and ultimately reject the perpetrator role. One participant, for example, renegotiated conventional masculine notions of toughness by finding other ways to express masculine behaviour rather than offending. Some of these alternative expressions included engaging in rock climbing, karate, and developing physical fitness (Kia-Keating et al., 2005). Other strategies that helped the men to reject the perpetrator role included becoming consciously aware that their victimisation may predispose them to perpetuate the cycle of sexual abuse; being aware and open about their feelings and vulnerabilities; having empathy for potential victims; finding safe outlets for their anger; developing relationships and relearning how to be intimate; and developing and communicating sexual boundaries (Kia-Keating et al., 2005). The study emphasises that this process of becoming resilient is not easy, as some men in the study reported that they struggled to control deviant and violent fantasies and impulses. Their experiences highlight that resiliency is in fact a process and not a simple attribute, and show that victims of childhood sexual abuse can transcend the victim–offender cycle (Kia-Keating et al., 2005).

In concluding, the above research indicates that only a handful of studies have been undertaken on resiliency in male victims of sexual abuse and those that have are primarily using quantitative methodologies. With the exploration of participants’ meaning being the main purpose of qualitative research, the aim is to understand and reflect the experiences and actions of the specific population under investigation (Ezzy, 2002). Qualitative–inductive approaches generate rich data sets that facilitate knowledge of complex processes from which themes and models of the topic of interest can be developed. This methodology is particularly appropriate when little is known about a population (Ezzy, 2002) and hence is most suitable for the current study.

Our study is the first qualitative study we know of that focuses primarily on the reasons male victims of child sexual abuse offer for not sexually offending. Kia-Keating et al. (2005) took a deductive approach using theories of masculine identity to develop a framework to explicate how male abuse survivors negotiate gender-related issues on their path of resiliency. In contrast, our study takes an inductive approach, allowing the codes and themes to be derived from the content of the data themselves. We have prioritized participant meaning over theory-based meaning, and by remaining close to the content of the data we aim to give voice to their experiences. The men in this study have suffered through great personal hardship and through their experience have developed and maintained their resiliency, thus preventing the victim–offender cycle. For this reason, these men’s voices deserve to be heard and included in the discourse concerning the sexual abuse cycle and intervention programmes created to prevent it. It is incorrect to suggest that all abused boys will grow up to be abusive men; by giving voice to resilient men, we can help prevent victims from developing a negative self-image due to being prematurely labeled a potential sex offender. We can give young victims hope that they too can live a resilient and fulfilling life beyond their sexual abuse experience.

Method

Procedure

The 47 participants were selected via accredited counsellors who specialized in the field of sexual abuse counselling and who were considered senior clinicians in the field of sexual abuse counselling. The participants were all receiving counselling for the first time for the primary purpose of addressing historical sexual victimisation. Initial contact was made with counsellors by the primary researcher explaining the purpose of the study. Those counsellors who thought they might have clients who were suitable and might fit the criteria for inclusion in the study gave potential participants an information sheet and the list of screening questions (see the appendix). These questions had been reviewed by a panel of international experts in the field of sexual violence. If the client thought they met the criteria for inclusion in the study and wanted to participate in the research, they either contacted the principal investigator directly or asked their counsellor to make contact. Finally, at the commencement of the research interview, all participants were again given a copy of the screening questions to read, were asked whether they felt they met the criteria for inclusion in the study, and whether they had any questions or concerns regarding the study. It was emphasised with all research participants that participation in the research was entirely voluntary, that they could withdraw at any time, and that if they did withdraw, it would not impact on their counselling in anyway.

All interviews were conducted by the principal investigator. Participants were either interviewed at their home or at their counselling agency. Interviews lasted between 2.5 and 3.5 hr and questions were in a semi-structured format.

Participants

Our sample consisted of 47 individuals with a history of sexual abuse who had not become perpetrators of sexual abuse themselves. The study was undertaken in Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland is the largest metropolitan city in New Zealand with a population of just over 1.4 million people.

The majority (73%) of the participants were between 30 and 49 years old, 10 participants were 29 years or younger, and 3 were 50 years or older. While most of the participants reported to be heterosexual, 7 of the participants identified as homosexual, and 5 reported to be bi-sexual. Of the 47 participants, 51% were married or in a de facto relationship, a further 11% were divorced or separated, and a final 38% reported being single. Most of the participants (38 out of 47) were currently employed; 30% had a salary less than NZ$19,000, 49% earned between NZ$20,000 and NZ$39,000, and 21% received a salary of NZ$40,000 or higher.

The participants all reported being sexually abused as children. Among the resilient participants, 35 reported their sexual abuse started before they were 12 years old (the rest before 20 years). While 17% claimed to have been abused only the once, 45% were sexually abused at least 10 times or more. As many as 16 participants (34%) reported being victimised by more than one perpetrator. In regard to perpetrator gender, 83% of participants were abused by male perpetrator(s), 9% by female perpetrator(s), and 8% by both male and female perpetrators. Perpetrators included 12 fathers, 2 mothers, and 11 relatives; the rest were known adults or strangers to the child victim.

The resilient participants had a mean score of 1.52 (SD = .60) on the overall Child Abuse Trauma (CAT) Scale (Becker-Lausen, Sanders, & Chinsky, 1995; Sanders & Becker-Lausen, 1995; Sanders & Giolas, 1991), which measures the frequency of abusive experiences in childhood within the subscales of neglect, punishment, and sexual abuse. This finding is approximately double that of the two normative college student groups’ scores of .75 (SD = .42) and .73 (SD = .41) and very similar to the clinical population of adolescents in a psychiatric hospital (M = 1.4; SD = .64) as reported by Sanders and Becker-Lausen (1995). Specifically, the current population scored double that of the normative groups in experiences of neglect (M = 1.75; SD = .79) and sexual abuse (M = 1.14; SD = .52).

The sexual abuse endured by the participants ranged from having their genitals touched, performing or having oral sex performed on them, anal penetration with an object, among other sexually assaulting acts. In total, 13 of the participants reported being raped by their offender and 6 reported being penetrated by an object. For 30 of the participants, their perpetrators used coercion to enable the sexually abusive situation, while 10 of the participants were the victims of physical violence and 5 were threatened with violence by the perpetrator in the lead up to the sexual assault occurring. Only 13 of the 47 told someone about their sexual abuse experience, and of those only 9 told someone immediately (within 6 months of the incident). After the abuse occurred, 27 participants said they had difficulty trusting people; however, only 1 participant reported that the overall effect of the abuse on their life included difficulty trusting people.

Almost three quarters (72%) of the participants claimed to have frequent contact with friends in their childhood, with at least half (53%) of them reporting to have regular social contact with friends at home as well as at school. When asked what prevented the development of friendships in their childhood, 60% of the participants claimed to have no inhibiting factors; however, 17% reported some environmental factors such as living in a house in an isolated area, and 23% claimed other inhibiting factors such as non-supportive parents or an abusive home environment as preventing friendships. At the time of the interviews, 68% of the participants reported currently having many (6 or more) friends and 68% also claimed having a close or very close relationship with their parents. A large proportion (91%) reported receiving emotional support as a child from at least one parent, relative, or non-family adult.

Data Analysis

To examine possible resiliency factors, it was considered important for participants to give an account of their personal experience. Analysis of the responses to open-ended questions in interviews was carried out following the approaches used by “grounded theory” (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Henwood & Pidgeon, 1992; Rennie, Phillips, & Quartaro, 1988; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Specifically, the grounded theory method called constant comparison of themes was used. This method involves the systematic categorisation of data into themes. The comparison of themes from the text to the relevant literature allows for the generation of theory, as opposed to the theory being imposed on the data. Theorizing about the data is limited until themes become evident from its categorisation.

The categorisation for coding of the question responses was carried out by reading through the interview transcripts and taking note of the themes evident within the data. Saturation of data was achieved when recurring themes occurred from the transcripts during data analysis (Morse, 1995). These themes were then grouped into a number of categories and each participant’s responses were analysed according to these categories. The categories were then given a numerical classification, and entered onto a data spread sheet for analysis.

The formation of questions was guided by the key areas highlighted in the relevant literature on child sexual abuse. The initial questions in each interview asked for the demographic characteristics of participants, at which point we also had the participants complete the CAT Scale (Becker-Lausen et al., 1995; Sanders & Becker-Lausen, 1995; Sanders & Giolas, 1991). Further questions in the semi-structured interview were designed to record the experiences of participants who had been sexually abused. Questions were designed to measure the resilient participants’ memory of the abuse and its immediate effects, their perceptions of the long-term effects, the ways they coped with the abuse, and why they had not gone on to sexually offend others.

The reliability checks of the data were conducted at several stages throughout the study. Reliability checks were conducted during the gathering of data in the interviews, and also the inter-rater reliability of qualitative data was checked. Given that a significant amount of data from the interviews pertained to childhood experiences and hence were based on memories of these events, it was important that careful attention be given to obtaining data that were as accurate as possible. While conducting the interviews, the accuracy of the data being gathered was enhanced by using probes to elicit specific facts or incidents that occurred within the context of the material being obtained. For example, in gathering information about the number of friends, details were asked about the Christian names of friends, the types of games they played together, if they were present at birthdays, how close they lived, and so on.

To ensure that the coding of data was carried out to the highest level of accuracy, the reliability checks on the data were carried out by a clinical psychologist who had many years’ experience working with both adult child sex offenders and male victims of sexual abuse. The definition of membership for categories of the qualitative data was determined by calculating the percentage agreement per phrase. A phrase was defined as a propositional statement, with a sentence potentially encompassing many phrases. One phrase was defined as one judgment. If a sentence contained several themes, then the percentage agreement on the key themes was determined and where possible cross validated through examination of answers to other questions. Throughout the inter-rater reliability checks, independence between the principal investigator and the independent rater was ensured by having the principal investigator first rate the data alone. Prior to the rating, discussions and clarifications took place with the independent rater on the definitions used to categorize data. In all, inter-rater reliability checks were carried out on one third of the qualitative data, with a minimum rate of agreement set at 80% before acceptance of the data was reached. Those data that did not reach this level of acceptance were recoded. If an agreement rate of 80% was still not obtained, then we discussed the categories used to code the data, and subsequently reanalysed the data independently.

Results

Four themes were identified as reasons why the participants believed they had not sexually offended: (a) having empathy for potential victims, (b) knowing sexually offending is morally wrong, (c) having no sexual desire to abuse children, and (d) a combination of the participant being empathetic, believing sexual offending is morally wrong, and having no desire to do so. Most in the resilient group also thought that the reasons they did not offend were directly related to their own abuse experience.

Resiliency Determinants

Empathy for others

By far, the most commonly cited reason the participants gave for having not sexually offended was experiencing empathy for other people and having no desire to hurt others. Indeed, 60% of our participants reported this. This sentiment was reflected in statements such as the following:

Experiencing pain is like putting your hand in the fire. You don’t have to tell anyone twice that they are experiencing pain. I wouldn’t want to stick someone else’s hand in the fire. Do unto others as you would want them to do for you. That’s the sort of theory I worked from . . . that’s why I never sexually abused anyone.

I’m aware of the pain and emotions that an abused person would go through and I don’t want to put anyone else through that.

Although it is not necessary to have had a personal experience to have empathy for someone who is a victim of sexual abuse, many participants referenced their personal experience when explaining their empathy for another, for example:

I couldn’t do it to a kid knowing what it did to me. I know how much damage has been done to me cause of the abuse. I could not abuse a kid knowing that it would send them down the same path.

In yet other explanations attributing empathy for their resilience, participants still saw themselves as that abused child, thus making it easy to imagine themselves in “the shoes” of another child. A psychological framing such as this was most eloquently expressed in the following statement:

Inside I am carrying a 10-year old boy who’s really scared and I wouldn’t want to put someone else into that position.

Revealed in this statement is the long-term psychological effect that sexual abuse can have on an individual, as was expressed by so many of our participants. All of the participants reported that they suffered immediate symptoms from the abuse, both internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and a further 40 of the 47 participants described their abuse as a life-changing experience.

Some participants went further in describing how the abuse changed their lives through the maladaptive responses that they developed, such as emotional difficulties, trust and relationship challenges, or substance abuse, for example. They did not wish others to experience the same challenges they had faced within daily life post the abusive incident. To this accord, one participant said,

I can’t inflict that pain on someone else. I lost 20 years of my life and I can’t do that to anyone else.

A few participants still expressed a sense that they did not expect others to completely understand the suffering a victim of sexual abuse endures. They gave a sense that it is hard to imagine what it is like unless you personally have been through it yourself. This was evident in statements intended to explain their resiliency that also showed a desire to convey to the interviewer the level of distress experienced, as seen in this statement:

I felt so shitty by what had happened to me that I didn’t want to put anyone else through the pain that I had experienced. It really was shit believe me. Who wants to do that to another human being?

The above statement also illustrates the disgust and outrage that some of the participants expressed in regard to sexual abuse and the infliction of physical and psychological pain on another person.

Knowing it is morally wrong

The next most commonly cited reason for not sexually offending given by participants was that they knew sexual abuse was morally wrong. These responses usually gave credit to someone else in their childhood for teaching them their code of morals. As exemplified in the statement that follows, parents of the participants in their younger years appeared to be the most influential in teaching the participants what they believed to be the correct code of conduct:

My parents were clear about what was right and wrong . . . they taught me about people’s rights.

Notably, this statement came from a participant whose abuse was perpetrated by someone outside of the family. However, other statements made it clear that even when the abuse occurred within the family, some family member(s) could still impart a sense of what was right and what was wrong to the child, as expressed by the participant who made this statement:

Even though things were bad at home, I was brought up with the ideas of what were right and wrong and I knew it was wrong.

In some cases, participants acknowledged other prosocial environments such as schools or churches for teaching them what morally correct behaviour was. For example,

I guess for all my up bringing . . . the things that stood out for me were right and wrong. My church up bringing taught me what was right and wrong.

Having no sexual desire

The third reason reported by the participants was not having any sexual desire to offend. Thus, in the case of these participants, it was not that they had the desires that they were suppressing for moral reasons; for these participants, the desire just simply was not there. Such participants claimed to have no thoughts or fantasies about engaging in a sexual act with a child:

It doesn’t attract me . . . I don’t have fantasies about children.

For these participants, seeing a child does not evoke a desire to engage in any type of sexual act with them. It is not clear within these statements whether these participants also had empathy for potential victims or believed it to be morally wrong, the main reason for their resiliency, according to their reports, was that they have no sexual interest in children, as this participant stated,

It doesn’t do anything for me . . . it’s not a sexual turn on.

However, for other participants, it was not only that they had no sexual urges to perform a sexual act with a child but also the thought of doing so disgusted them. Such statements, as exemplified below, reveal an emotional response elicited from the thought of having sexual relations with a child:

Sex with kids . . . I just can’t agree with it . . . it disgusts me.

A combination of empathy, knowing it is morally wrong, and having no sexual desire

Finally, a small number of participants cited combinations of the first three categories as to why they did not sexually offend, for example, a sense of empathy as well as a sense of morality as suggested in the following responses,

I don’t want to put anyone else through what I’ve been through. I just would never expect anyone else to have to suffer sexual abuse.

It’s not right. It’s not a right thing to do. I know better than to do that.

or statements revealing both a lack of desire and a moral judgment being placed on the act as being wrong:

I’m not inclined to boys and girls. I don’t have any sexual feelings like that.

The Resiliency Process

As previously mentioned, 40 participants stated that being sexually abused was a life-changing event. How they responded to and coped with this experience is likely to have had an impact on their process of developing and maintaining resiliency. We say this because 42 of the participants said that the reasons they gave for having not sexually offended (as stated in the four categories above) were related to their own experience of sexual abuse. Thus, for 42 of the participants, their own experience of being abused helped them to develop their empathy for others, helped them to learn what was right and what was wrong, and/or influenced them in having no sexual desire to offend children.

In answer to how they thought they coped with the abuse long term, 26 participants thought the strategies they had used to cope were constructive and assisted in their adjustment later in life, whereas 21 of them reported to have developed internalizing coping strategies as a result of the abuse (i.e., inhibition, social isolation, fear, depression, low self-esteem); meanwhile, none of the participants claimed to have developed externalizing strategies (i.e., aggression, antisocial behaviour, uncontrolled behaviour). Even though only these 21 participants claimed to use internalizing coping strategies, in total 39 participants reported the overall effect of the abuse on their life was the development of internalizing symptoms, and again, no one reported externalizing symptoms.

For some participants, the resiliency process involved a conscious decision to not sexually offend; this decision was overt in nature and the participant could remember the specific time in their life when the decision was made. A commonly held idea among those who remember making this conscious decision was that the decision was made once they had admitted to themselves that the incident had actually happened to them. These participants had to overcome their denial of the incident and gain a level of acceptance that they had been abused before they decided not to sexually abuse others.

Another catalyst suggested by a number of participants was centered on becoming aware of sexual abuse and then with their newly gained insight deciding not to abuse others. These participants received some education (formally or informally) on the topic before they made their decision. One person stated that they remembered making the decision during their first sexual relationship.

Yet, for other participants, the resiliency process had not involved a conscious decision to not sexually offend. These participants’ process was more fluid in nature with an implicit expectation that they would not offend rather than a memorable instance where a decision was made. When asked about this, many of the participants simply stated that they had never had the inclination to sexually offend. Sexually abusing another was not something they had ever considered to be an option. A number of the participants believed that their feelings of empathy towards others had been sufficient enough to know that they would not sexually offend without having to make the conscious decision never to sexually abuse another. Some participants attributed the unconscious expectation to the loving and supportive family environment that they grew up in. A few others said they had not had to make a conscious decision because they were not sexually attracted to children.

Discussion

Arguably the most important finding from our study was that the reason resilient individuals do not sexually offend, that is, whatever reason they consider to be the most prominent protective factor, is a product of their own experience of being sexually abused as a child. Such a finding has not been reported in other studies (i.e., Kia-Keating et al., 2005). Our results showed that the majority of participants (42 of the 47) thought the reason they did not sexually offend was related to their own experience of being a victim of sexual abuse. Such evidence is unique as it directly contradicts the victim–offender cycle hypothesis because it demonstrates that not all victims become offenders and, in fact, the victimizing experience contributed to their status as a non-offender. This, coupled with the knowledge that the majority of victims do not become sexual offenders (Salter et al., 2003), adds substantially to the argument that the pathway from victim to offender is not as direct as the literature would have us believe. The fact that the current study used qualitative analysis has allowed for the richness of the participants’ experiences to be fully realized.

In the present study, empathy for potential victims of child sexual abuse was without doubt the most reported reason for not sexually offending. This again is a finding unique to the current study. It is widely accepted within the literature that sexual offenders are deficient in empathy, and empathy training is an integral component of many of the available treatment programmes for sexual offenders (Varker, Devilly, Ward, & Beech, 2008). The results of our study, which is a unique study in that we directly asked our participants for their opinions of why they hadn’t offended, support the emphasis placed on enhancing empathy in those offenders considered at risk of reoffending in order to reduce the rate of sexual abuse. This is because our results state that empathy may be an important protective factor to deterring sexual aggression.

A large proportion of our participants, in fact, 43 of the 47, reported that they had received regular emotional support as a child from at least one parent, relative, or non-family adult. Furthermore, three quarters reported having frequent contact with friends in their childhood, and many of these reported still having frequent contact with at least six friends and having a close relationship with their parents. Altogether, this suggests that this group of sexual abuse victims received considerable social support from peers and family members. Such emotional support may have helped to guide the adaptive coping strategies reported by over half of our participants and the unconscious or conscious choice made by all of our participants to not sexually offend. This conclusion is consistent with that from previous literature, such as Houshyar and Kaufman (2005).

When attributing moralistic reasons for why they had been resilient, participants of this study tended to frame their moral judgment of sexual abuse within a context of how they had acquired these morals. Parents, family members, and mentors in the form of teachers and church leaders, for example, were all named as influential leaders in teaching the participants about right from wrong in their formative years. It thus appears, in agreement with previous studies (e.g., Afifi & Macmillan, 2011; Beisert, 2010; Lambie et al., 2002; Thomas & Fremouw, 2009), that having adequate social support is a very important ingredient to building resiliency in victims of sexual abuse. The impact of social support is twofold in that influential individuals can not only teach the children about morals but can also model the morally correct behaviour for the child to imitate (Staub & Vollhardt, 2008).

To that extent, significant individuals in the child’s life can also model empathy for others (Staub & Vollhardt, 2008). Although only a handful of participants said that they had disclosed their abuse experience to a significant family member, friend, or mentor, a large proportion said that they had received emotional support in their childhood in general, suggesting that they had experienced empathy from others. Staub and Vollhardt (2008) argue that when an individual receives support after being victimised, he or she is being exposed to models of supportive and caring behaviour and this exposure can lead to identification with the supportive individuals rather than with their perpetrator. Identification can then result in the victim imitating the prosocial behaviour rather than the abusive behaviour he or she had encountered (Staub & Vollhardt, 2008). As such, it may be that when choosing not to continue the sexual abuse cycle, our resilient participants were repeating the empathy for others that had been modeled for them.

The opportunities available for a child to develop emotionally and intellectually are greater in a supportive family environment where emotional and tangible resources and supported learning are more readily available (Marriott et al., 2013). Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that there is an agreement within the literature that higher SES is related to higher rates of resiliency (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006; Marriott et al., 2013; Wright et al., 2005). In such families, resources are easier to obtain and families are under less strain to meet fundamental needs and thus may be more available to meet the emotional needs of the child. Likewise, as suggested by participants in our study, and in agreement with Lambie et al. (2002) and DuMont et al. (2007), the child’s ability to form friendships is greater when there are no home–life barriers to frequent social contact, which will in turn allow the child to gain access to even more emotional support to aid in their resiliency process.

However, for participants where families were non-supportive or abusive, extra-familial relationships may have been particularly important by serving to buffer the impact of the adverse home environment (Cicchetti, Toth, & Maughan, 2000). For instance, peer relationships may play an important role in resiliency by reducing the child’s risk of developing delinquent behaviours by providing the child with an alternative positive social environment, positive role models, and sources of support (Cicchetti et al., 2000).

In alignment with the findings of Thomas and Fremouw (2009) that post-abuse factors and family factors are the most empirically supported protective factors in the victim–offender cycle, we argue that social support (especially family support) and psychological adjustment are key factors in the resiliency process. To reiterate, significant stable intra- and extra-familial relationships are thought to provide the child with the necessary security, protection, and emotional support with which to cope in an adaptive manner with the trauma of being sexually abused (Houshyar & Kaufman, 2005; Lambie et al., 2002; Marriott et al., 2013; Werner, 2000). Consequent to this, the child will have greater potential of subsequently developing empathy, morals, and prosocial behaviours through learning and imitation. This in turn increases the likelihood the child will have of developing close relationships with peers and receiving positive attention from others, which will then in turn enhance the child’s self-esteem and self-efficacy and help develop them into a resilient adult (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006). Aiming to provide the child with a stable and supportive family environment, a stable living arrangement, and a stable education, as highlighted my Marriott et al. (2013) to be consistent protective factors, will place the child in the best situation possible to receive the social and learning support needed to achieve adaptive and prosocial results.

Even though 55% of our participants reported developing adaptive responses to their abuse, and thus, by the very nature of what it means to behave in an adaptive manner, had not become sexual abuse perpetrators, a further 45% of our participants reported developing internalizing responses to their abuse. The literature to date does not suggest that developing internalizing coping strategies (as opposed to developing externalizing coping strategies) is a protective factor to sexual offending. In fact, those studies that have explored responses to victimisation suggest that both internalizing and externalizing behaviours can be risk factors for subsequent offending. For example, Feiring, Miller-Johnson, and Cleland (2007) argue that internalizing negative emotions and feelings such as shame after sexual abuse victimisation can lead to defensive anger and retaliation to avoid or displace unwanted internal emotions, which can result in aggressive behaviours towards others.

In another study, Lussier, Leclerc, Cale, and Proulx (2007) who interviewed 553 convicted sexual offenders argue that there are three developmental pathways to becoming an offender: a tendency for internalization, externalization, or sexualization. Furthermore, they claim those with a greater developmental history of internalizing behaviours are more likely to sexually offend children compared with the other developmental pathways. It is interesting then that so many of our resilient participants reported internalizing symptoms in response to their abuse and none reported externalizing symptoms. Further investigation is needed into how the internalizing responses of resilient victims may differ from those of victim–offenders to reveal whether it plays a role in the resiliency process.

Implications for Prevention

For those participants who reported making a conscious decision not to offend, it was common for this decision to have been made after becoming aware of and learning about sexual abuse. This suggests that awareness campaigns and education about the issue may be highly beneficial in reducing the chance of a victim becoming an offender. Prevention should ideally occur across the whole community at two levels, the general population and the individual. Children and adolescents should receive education programmes about sexual abuse at school, including that males do get sexually abused, and that it does not mean they will become an offender. The content and presentation of such programmes should ideally be tailored to meet the developmental needs of the children, and be repeated on numerous occasions using multiple mediums for presenting the concepts and engaging the children, and then an evaluation should be conducted to determine the amount of information each child had retained (Pelcovitz, Adler, Kaplan, Packman, & Krieger, 1992; Tutty, 2000). Children’s parents should also be included in the programme to correct any misconceptions they may have, make them aware of the level of knowledge their child has, and engage them in reinforcing the messages learned and continuing the teaching at home (Tutty, 2000).

Another commonly stated reason for making the conscious decision not to offend was having recently admitted to themselves that the abuse had happened to them, and then deciding they did not want to abuse others. Overcoming denial of the abuse places the victim in a vulnerable position to experience the pain and other emotions associated with their victimisation (Elliott & Briere, 1994; Ullman, 2002). However, recognition of their own experience and related emotions can enhance their empathy for others enduring similar experiences (Decety & Jackson, 2006). This may have been the pathway that led to the conscious decision not to put others through the same experience.

Overcoming denial of a sexually abusive experience can be addressed at multiple levels. Acceptance can be triggered through therapy, through awareness gained via educational intervention programmes, and by removing the stigma attached to the issue, so it can be openly discussed without the victim feeling at blame or shameful, and in turn increase their likelihood of admittance to being a victim.

In a review by Putnam (2003) of treatments for child sexual abuse victims, the author highlighted the need for different approaches for treating asymptomatic children versus symptomatic children. Children who initially present as asymptomatic may deteriorate over the subsequent 1 to 2 years (Finkelhor & Berliner, 1995) or even later on in adulthood (Widom, 1999). This so-called “sleeper effect” can occur during the therapeutic process, and therefore draws light to the question of whether asymptomatic children should receive therapy (Putnam, 2003). We argue that if symptoms are likely to manifest in some form later in life as Widom (1999) suggests, or if therapy brings about an awareness and acceptance that prevent the victim from perpetrating abuse themselves, then therapy should be considered. Well-executed therapy will be personally tailored to the individual and include psychoeducation to prevent further abuse, and to clarify and normalize feelings (Putnam, 2003). Abuse-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) has shown significant improvement in internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and sexually inappropriate behaviours (Putnam, 2003). However, research suggests CBT has been less successful with treating externalizing symptoms such as sexualized behaviour and aggression than internalizing symptoms such as depression and anxiety (Putnam, 2003).

Limitations

The major limitations of the current study arise from the method employed in the selection of the sample, and the reliance upon retrospective reporting of information by participants. The study used a non-random sample, and therefore, the sample may not be representative of all resilient male survivors. The individuals in the present study were accessed through their counsellors, and hence, they could have been more educated and from more privileged backgrounds. Also, the participants may have been more traumatized from their abuse, thus having a greater need to attend counselling than other victims of child sexual abuse.

The screening process used to identify the participants was reviewed by local and international experts in the field of child sexual abuse and sexual offending, therefore ensuring that it was as accurate as possible. Despite this, the screening process is by no means totally accurate and it is possible that some of the resilient participants had sexually offended. Cross-validation of participants’ reported resilience with family members and partners may have increased the reliability of the resilient group membership.

The second major limitation was that it was a retrospective study employing self-report methods. Despite the interviewer making every effort to ensure the information obtained was accurate, such research methods must be viewed with some caution. Retrospective studies make the drawing of causal relations difficult and where self-report measures are used without verification from other sources, the accuracy of the information obtained can be questioned. The findings may be influenced by errors of over- and under-reporting.

Future Studies

Future studies of resiliency in the victim–offender cycle should examine alternative means of validating group membership. As mentioned above, these could include obtaining reports of offending status from a range of sources including family and partners. To support the findings found in retrospective studies such as ours, prospective longitudinal studies that use matched comparison groups from random community samples are needed. Such studies would need to follow-up male and female victims from both different cultures and different socioeconomic groups. It is important that culturally appropriate data gathering and analysis occur for the different cultures studied. Failure to do so may risk misinterpretation of findings.

Conclusion

Multifactorial models of sexual offending and the impact of child sexual abuse on victims need to be empirically validated, as do theories on the possible causes of sexual offending. The relevant variables that contribute to the victim–offender cycle are complex and research may be enhanced by correlational and multivariate studies. The concept of resilience needs to focus on a range of processes that are thought to contribute to resiliency. Also of importance is the impact of trauma and the effect that this may have on later development. These are all important avenues for future research.

As Thomas and Fremouw (2009) highlighted, the research to date examining the protective factors that enable victims of childhood sexual abuse to become resilient is limited and at times contradictory. For this reason, our study is an important contribution to the literature because our findings are the opinions of living examples of resilience. Resilient individuals reported the protective factors of empathy, moral beliefs, and lack of sexual desire as those that prevented them from sexually offending. The relationship between these factors and other protective factors stated in the literature need further investigation.

This study has highlight that while the experience of certain types of abuse may predispose an individual to repeat that abuse, the course of events is far from inevitable. The majority of children who are abused do not go on to develop abusive behaviour. Professionals, parents, and victims would benefit from such knowledge. They must be made aware that anthologizing victims of child sexual abuse may actually contribute to their problems. Laws and Marshall (1990) argue that a male victim of child sexual abuse with deviant self-attributions may be more likely to act out these thoughts. If victims experience positive responses from others, their self-esteem is likely to be enhanced, decreasing their social isolation and increasing their potential to prevent the victim–offender cycle. Furthermore, social and emotional support will promote adaptive coping strategies in the victim and provide a model of empathy and prosocial moral behaviour. As Lambie et al. (2002) pointed out, resilient individuals tend to receive more frequent social contact, more social support from more contacts, more types of emotional support, and more emotional support during crisis situations, and experience fewer factors that inhibit them from gaining emotional support compared with victim–offenders. Hence, reinforcing and enhancing support networks for young victims should be a primary focus. No child should ever have to suffer sexual abuse, but for those who do, social support and therapy can help to turn their experience into a positive motivating factor to stop perpetration of sexual abuse.

Finally, societal awareness of the problem is essential for prevention. Child abuse exists across all socioeconomic groups and cultures. It is a community problem and not just our neighbour’s. We can prevent the victim–offender cycle; however, we must apply the findings from studies such as the current one if we are to have any real impact on addressing child sexual abuse in our society.

Footnotes

Appendix

Screening Questions:

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by ACC, New Zealand.

References

Afifi

T. O.

Macmillan

H. L.

(2011). Resilience following child maltreatment: A review of protective factors. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56, 266-272.

Becker-Lausen

Sanders

Chinsky

J. M.

(1995). Mediation of abusive childhood experiences: Depression, dissociation, and negative life outcomes. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 560-573.

Beisert

(2010). The importance of the abused-abuser hypothesis in explaining the aetiology of paedophilia. Problems of Forensic Sciences, LXXI, 57-73.

Bogar

C. B.

Hulse-Killacky

(2006). Resiliency determinants and resiliency processes among female adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84, 318-327.

Cicchetti

Toth

S. L.

Maughan

(2000). An ecological-transactional model of child maltreatment. In Starr

Wolfe

(Eds.) Handbook of developmental psychopathology (pp. 689-722). New York, NY: Springer.

Cohen

L. J.

McGeoch

P. G.

Gans

S. W.

Nikiforov

Cullen

Galynker

I. I.

(2002). Childhood sexual history of 20 male pedophiles vs. 24 male healthy control subjects. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 757-766.

Decety

Jackson

P. L.

(2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 54-58.

DuMont

K. A.

Widom

C. S.

Czaja

S. J.

(2007). Predictors of resilience in abused and neglected children grown-up: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 255-274.

Duncan

L. E.

Williams

L. M.

(1998). Gender role socialization and male-on-male vs. female-on-male child sexual abuse. Sex Roles, 39, 765-785.

10.

Elliott

D. M.

Briere

(1994). Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12, 261-277.

11.

Ezzy

(2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London, England: Routledge.

12.

Feiring

Miller-Johnson

Cleland

C. M.

(2007). Potential pathways from stigmatization and internalizing symptoms to delinquency in sexually abused youth. Child Maltreatment, 12, 220-232.

13.

Finkelhor

Berliner

(1995). Research on the treatment of sexually abused children: A review and recommendations. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1408-1423.

14.

Gilgun

J. F.

(1990). Resilience and the intergenerational transmission of child sexual abuse. In Patton

M. Q.

(Ed.), Family sexual abuse: Frontline research and evaluation (pp. 93-105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

15.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.

16.

Glasser

Kolvin

Campbell

Glasser

Leitch

Farrelly

(2001). Cycle of child sexual abuse: Links between being a victim and becoming a perpetrator. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 179, 482-494.

17.

Han

M.K.

(1999). The relationship between the severity of early sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the severity of committed sexual offences in a clinical sample of male adult sex offenders (CSAbus). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60, 2341.

18.

Henwood

K. L.

Pidgeon

N. F.

(1992). Qualitative research and psychological theorising. Journal of Psychology, 83, 97-111.

19.

Herrenkohl

E. C.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Egolf

(1994). Resilient early school-age children from maltreating homes: Outcomes in late adolescence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 301-309.

20.

Hilton

M. R.

Mezey

G. C.

(1996). Victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 169, 408-415.

21.

Houshyar

Kaufman

(2005). Resiliency in maltreated children. In Goldstein

Brooks

R. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 181-200). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

22.

Jespersen

A. F.

Lalumiere

M. L.

Seto

M. C.

(2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 179-192.

23.

Kia-Keating

Grossman

F. K.

Sorsoli

Epstein

(2005). Containing and resisting masculinity: Narratives of renegotiation among resilient male survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 169-185.

24.

Lambie

Seymour

Lee

Adams

(2002). Resiliency in the victim-offender cycle in male sexual abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 31-48.

25.

Laws

D. R.

Marshall

W. L.

(1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual preference and behavior. In Marshall

W. L.

Laws

D. R.

Barbaree

H. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Theories and treatment of the offender (pp. 209-229). New York, NY: Plenum.

26.

Leon

S. C.

Ragsdale

Miller

S. A.

Spacarelli

(2008). Trauma resilience among youth in substitute care demonstrating sexual behavior problems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 67-81.

27.

Lev-Wiesel

(2000). Quality of life in adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse who have undergone therapy. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 9, 1-13.

28.

Lussier

Leclerc

Cale

Proulx

(2007). Developmental pathways of deviance in sexual aggressors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1441-1462.

29.

Marriott

Hamilton-Giachritsis

Harrop

(2013). Factors promoting resilience following childhood sexual abuse: A structured, narrative review of the literature. Child Abuse Review, 23, 17-34.

30.

Morse

J. M.

(1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147-149.

31.

Ogloff

J. R.

Cutajar

M. C.

Mann

Mullen

Wei

F. T. Y.

Hassan

H. A. B.

Yih

T. H.

(2012). Child sexual abuse and subsequent offending and victimisation: A 45 year follow-up study. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 440, 1-6.

32.

Pelcovitz

Adler

N. A.

Kaplan

Packman

Krieger

(1992). The failure of a school-based child sexual abuse prevention program. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 887-892.

33.

Putnam

F. W.

(2003). Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 269-278.

34.

Reckdenwald

Mancini

Beauregard

(2013). The cycle of violence: Examining the impact of maltreatment early in life on adult offending. Violence and Victims, 28, 466-482.

35.

Rennie

D. L.

Phillips

J. K.

Quartaro

G. K.

(1988). Grounded theory: A promising approach to conceptualization in psychology? Canadian Psychology, 29, 139-150.

36.

Salter

McMillan

Richards

Talbot

Hodges

Bentovim

. . . Skuse

(2003). Development of sexually abusive behavior in sexually victimized males: A longitudinal study. The Lancet, 361, 471-476.

37.

Sanders

Becker-Lausen

(1995). The measurement of psychological maltreatment: Early data on the child abuse and trauma scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 315-323.

38.

Sanders

Giolas

M. H.

(1991). Dissociation and childhood trauma in psychologically disturbed adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 50-54.

39.

Sesma

A. J.

Mannes

Scales

(2005). Positive adaptation, resilience, and the developmental asset framework. In Goldstein

Brooks

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 281-296). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

40.

Staub

Vollhardt

(2008). Altruism born of suffering: The roots of caring and helping after victimization and other trauma. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 267-280.

41.

Stirpe

T. S.

Stermac

L. E.

(2003). An exploration of childhood victimization and family-of-origin characteristics of sexual offenders against children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 542-555.

42.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

43.

Thomas

T. A.

Fremouw

(2009). Moderating variables of the sexual. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 382-387.

44.

Tutty

L. M.

(2000). What children learn from sexual abuse prevention programs: Difficult concepts and developmental issues. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 275-300.

45.

Ullman

S. E.

(2002). Social reactions to child sexual abuse disclosures: A critical review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12, 89-121.

46.

Varker

Devilly

G. J.

Ward

Beech

A. R.

(2008). Empathy and adolescent sexual offenders: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 251-260.

47.

Werner

(2000). Protective factors and individual resilience. In Shonkoff

Meisels

(Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 115-132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

48.

Widom

C. S.

(1999). Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1223-1229.

49.

Widom

C. S.

Ames

M. A.

(1994). Criminal consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 303-318.

50.

Wilcox

D. T.

Richards

O’Keeffe

Z. C.

(2004). Resilience and risk factors associated with experiencing childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 13, 338-352.

51.

Williams

Nelson-Gardell

(2012). Predicting resilience in sexually abused adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 53-63.

52.

Wright

M. O. D.

Fopma-Loy

Fischer

(2005). Multidimensional assessment of resilience in mothers who are child sexual abuse survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1173-1193.