Making Sense of Denial in Sexual Offenders

Abstract

Denial in sexual offenders represents the first barrier to successful treatment a clinician is likely to face. Most sex offender treatment programs devote significant time to overcoming denial, with most programs having a focus on disclosure and “accepting responsibility.” This is the first study that has aimed to make sense of sexual offenders’ denial through a rigorous qualitative analysis. The main objective was to explore the experiences and lived worlds of sexual offenders in denial. A qualitative phenomenological methodology combining interpretative phenomenological analysis and repertory grids was implemented. Ten incarcerated sexual offenders in categorical denial participated in the research. The analysis revealed the narrative, relational, and self-reconstructive properties of denial and discusses the role and function denial may be playing for sexual offenders. The results highlight that denial can be viewed as a form of “sense making” and that clinically relevant treatment targets can be elicited without disclosure. It is concluded that viewing denial as a barrier to treatment impedes constructive work with offenders, and implications for treatment are discussed.

Keywords

offenders sexual assault reporting/disclosure intervention anything related to sexual assault situational factors

Introduction

The majority of sexual offenders deny some aspect of their offending when first entering prison (Barbaree, 1991; Schneider & Wright, 2004). It has been found that around 30% to 35% of the incarcerated sexual offender population deny outright that they have committed an offence (Hood, Shute, Feilzer, & Wilcox, 2002; Kennedy & Grubin, 1992). This has implications for the criminal justice system and wider society. Research has demonstrated that sex offender treatment programs (SOTPs) can reduce the number of sex offenders who are reconvicted (Hanson et al., 2002; Losel & Schmucker, 2005). However, access to treatment often comes with stipulations—the acceptance (albeit partially) of responsibility by the offenders for their actions is a prerequisite for entry into most treatment programs (Marshall, Thornton, Marshall, Fernandez, & Mann, 2001). Categorical deniers (“I didn’t do it, I wasn’t there”), even if they were inclined to do so, are not usually permitted to participate in SOTPs. There are exceptions to this, for example, Correctional Service of Canada routinely allows deniers onto treatment and while there are some examples of innovative programs for deniers (see Marshall et al., 2001; Ware & Marshall, 2008), the norm is to exclude deniers. In many jurisdictions, denial operates as an organizing principle of treatment (Blagden, Winder, Gregson, & Thorne, 2011; Ware & Mann, 2012). Indeed, McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, and Ellerby (2009) found that 91% of treatment programs in the United States included “offender responsibility” as a treatment target. Thus, many clinicians working with sexual offenders are uncertain about what to do with offenders who are categorically denying their offences. Clinicians find themselves at an impasse: Should they offer treatment to someone who is not admitting a problem or refuse treatment on the basis of their denial? Both these positions could be construed as ethically questionable (Levenson, 2010). One common response in forensic practice has been to try and break through denial (Northey, 1999); however, such responses are generally met with confrontation and resistance (Roberts & Baim, 1999). It has been argued that viewing denial (or its reduction) as an observable marker for progress is misguided and that it is not a reliable indicator of offender change (Blagden, Winder, Gregson, et al., 2011). It is important, then, that we develop a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of denial¹ in sexual offenders.

There is conceptual ambiguity regarding denial in sexual offenders (Vanhoeck & Van Daele, 2011). For instance, denial can be regarded as a dichotomous construct (offenders are either in denial or not) or considered a spectrum/continuum of behaviors. The latter includes partial denials/minimizations (“It wasn’t that bad,” the victim exaggerated), denials regarding planning (“It wasn’t planned”), responsibility (“It’s not my fault”), and excuses/justifications (“It was the alcohol”). Although most of these partial denials would be permitted at the commencement of treatment, categorical denial is not permitted. Categorical denial is the form of denial that excludes participation in treatment and so the most important form of denial in forensic clinical practice. In clinical forensic settings denial is considered something that needs to be challenged and overcome before successful treatment can occur (Northey, 1999). There is, however, little evidence that overcoming denial is necessary as it has been found to be unrelated to sexual offence recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Marshall, Marshall, & Ware, 2009). While some studies have found an interaction with risk, studies have found no overall effect of denial on recidivism. Indeed, the casual direction of taking responsibility as a condition for successful personal change has been challenged in recent times (Maruna, 2004; Maruna & Mann, 2006). In crime desistance research (e.g., Maruna, 2004) it has been found that crime desisters (those who cease criminal behavior) are more likely to employ external, unstable, and specific attributions when accounting for their crimes. Maruna and Mann (2006) argue that correctional therapists may be guilty of something akin to the fundamental attribution error due to their desire for offenders to make dispositional attributions about their offending (ones that are internal, stable, and global).

On the face of it there seems some very good and intuitive reasons why we would want to move “deniers” over to admittance and get them to take more responsibility for their offending behavior. However, the evidence for denial as a risk factor for recidivism is weak, and thus, excluding offenders from treatment purely on that basis is a tenuous one. Denial and deniers are then a daily reality for treatment providers, but the question remains: “What do we do with them? Close our doors?” (Vanhoeck & Van Daele, 2011). Despite the many debates around denial as an organizing principle of sexual offender treatment, we still know comparatively very little about what denial is, what it does, and crucially what it means for the offender. There is a paucity of research that has focused on categorical denial, the only form of denial that excludes offenders from treatment. There have been very few empirical studies that have focused on deniers, despite many articles that have been written about treating and managing denial in sexual offenders. There has been no study that we know of that has sought to make sense/understand the perspectives of those currently in categorical denial, this study aims to contribute to that knowledge gap.

This is the first study to use a rigorous qualitative methodology, combining interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) with personal construct psychology (PCP; Kelly, 1955), to explore categorical denial in sexual offenders. Phenomenology and PCP share similar epistemological assumptions and are both primarily concerned with human experience, existence, and concern (Shotter, 2007). Instead of investigating the content of what is said, this methodology aims to understand the process by which the offender arrives at those words and the emotional valence he attaches to them (Skrapec, 2000). An idiographic phenomenological study does not see people’s verbalizations as truths; rather, they tell us about the “meaning” or intentionality of human experience (Churchill, 2000). As Carr (cited in Churchill, 2000, p. 47) contends “narratives will reveal themselves to be not distortions of, denials of, or escapes from reality, but extensions and configurations of its primary features.” Thus, this approach asks critical questions, such as “What is the participant trying to achieve?” and “Is something “leaking out” of his narrative that gives an insight into his worldview?” (Smith et al., 2009).

Method

Participants, Recruitment, and Sampling

In total, 10 incarcerated convicted sexual offenders in categorical denial for their offences participated in this research (see Table 1 for participant information). It should be noted that Bryan F. and Clint were historic offenders and were convicted of offences that happened over 10 years ago.

Table 1.

Participant Information.

Participant Pseudonym	Participant Age	Offence	Previous Convictions	Victim Type
Bill	24	Rape	No	Female
Brian	56	Rape (U16)	1—sexual assault	Female
Bryan F.	54	Rape	No	Female
Bryn	59	Sexual assault (U13)	No	Female
Bud	64	Rape	No	Female
Chad	23	Rape	No	Female
Clint	81	Rape	No	Female
Kirk	58	Rape	No	Female
Neville	46	Rape	No	Female
Stef	60	Sexual assault (U16)	1—sexual assault (U16)	Female

Participants were recruited from an all-male sex offender’s prison in the United Kingdom. The sampling strategy for this study used convenience and purposeful sampling to select participants. The final sample (N = 10) is an ideal size for IPA (Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005). There is generally little point in trying to achieve a random sample with small N research; instead, the researcher should try to attain a closely matched sample for which the research question will be significant (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). This strategy is common within IPA research (and research combining IPA and PCP methodologies; see, for example, Turpin, Dallos, Owen, & Thomas, 2009) and differs from other qualitative techniques in that participants are selected to illuminate a particular research question (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). The main criterion for participation in this research was that participants were in categorical denial for their offences. This restricted the number of available participants for this study. A further issue was that some participants who were denying their offences did not want to participate and so convenience sampling was implemented to ensure accessibility of participants. Due to the research methodology and sampling strategy, the authors did not make assumptions about the data, attempt to generalize the findings, or make claims about the representativeness of the sample. Instead, they have chosen to explore an underresearched and important area for sex offender rehabilitation in depth and detail. This practice is common within qualitative research as it seeks in-depth exploration, understanding and aims to account for the range and diversity of experience.

Procedure

Each participant took part in a consent interview to explain the purposes of the research and gain initial rapport, a semistructured interview, and a repertory grid interview. Participation in all aspects of the research was voluntary and there was no incentive for taking part. Participants were not known to the researcher before commencement of the research with data collected by a researcher from outside the Prison Service. The semistructured interview focused on topics such as their perception of self and others; prison life; their offence account, beliefs, and attitudes about their conviction, and their attitudes toward treatment. Interviews ranged from 2.5 to 4 hr. The repertory grid was conducted in a further meeting. The grid elicitation and rating took on average 90 min to complete. In total, between 5 and 7 hr were spent with each participant.

Semistructured interviews

Interviews were conducted in the purpose-built interview rooms at the prison following ethical clearance and allowed for private and safe environments for the participants to “tell their stories” (Waldram, 2007). All interviews were semistructured in nature as this allowed some structure to the interview, yet gave the participant freedom to elaborate on areas of personal relevance and meaning. This style of interviewing enables “rapport to be developed; allows participants to think, speak and be heard; and are well suited to in-depth and personal discussion” (Reid et al., 2005, p. 22).

Repertory grids

Repertory grids allow for the assessment of personal constructs and allow an understanding of the individual’s worldview. The position is highly idiographic and can allow a unique insight into the way an individual construes aspects of his or her world (Houston, 1998). In essence, repertory grids are a technique for studying personal and interpersonal systems of meaning (Neimeyer, 2004). One of the primary aims of using repertory grids is to make underlying patterns of individuals thinking more apparent and this has clear benefits for research and clinical/forensic practice (Leach, Freshwater, Aldridge, & Sunderland, 2001). There has been a limited amount of personal construct work applied within forensic settings, which is surprising given that such an approach can aid in identifying, exploring, and formulating issues relevant to an offender’s offending behavior and idiosyncratic beliefs (Horley, 2008; Houston, 1998; Mason, 2003; Shorts, 1985). Previous research has also highlighted that repertory grids can aid in the assessment and formulation of intellectually disabled sex offenders and that they are sensitive to psychological change in individuals (Houston, 1998; Mason, 2003, 2008). The technique is then different from most forensic assessments that tend to be objective or projective (Horley, 2008).

The basic repertory grid consists of four component parts: topic, elements, constructs, and ratings. Each grid is conducted in relation to a particular “topic,” whether it is for clinical or research purposes (Jankowicz, 2004). Elements of the grid are best construed as examples of the topic and generally take the form of people (though not always). In this case, the elements were “me now,” “me ideally,” “me before arrest,” “alleged victim,” “spouse,” “police officer,” “person you don’t like,” “prisoner maintaining innocence,” “sexual offender,” “prisoner admitting offence,” and “person you like.”

Before eliciting constructs the researcher/clinician must decide whether to supply constructs, elicit them from the individual, or do a combination of both. If constructs are just supplied (i.e., are chosen by the researcher for the individual), it can allow for greater statistical comparison between different participant grids (Tan & Hunter, 2002). However, supplied constructs may not be personally meaningful for the participant, and as PCP is concerned with how an individual construes his or her world and focuses on his or her personal constructs, relying solely on supplied constructs would be counter to the central tenants of PCP (Adams-Webber, 2003). In this research, the constructs were both supplied and elicited from the individual, fusing both approaches and thus allowing for personal meaningfulness and some degree of comparison.

Constructs are elicited from the elements usually through the “triadic method of elicitation.” This involves presenting three elements to a person and asking them “For you personally, how are two alike but somehow different from the third?” For example, a person may be presented with the elements “me now,” “me before arrest,” and “me ideally,” and they may say “‘me ideally’ and ‘me before arrest’ are the two that are alike because they ‘could trust people’” (so “trust people” would become one pole) whereas “‘me now’ cannot or is unable to trust” (the contrast pole would then be “unable to trust”). There are no formally accepted ways of choosing which elements to present in the triadic method, elements are usually selected at random (though they can be sequential, see Tan & Hunter, 2002), and once a construct is elicited, the cards are then replaced ready for the next iteration. The elicitation process continues until the researcher/clinician is satisfied that all meaningful constructs have been elicited for that topic. Previous research suggests around 10 to 12 constructs are sufficient for gaining an understanding of an individual’s construing on a particular topic (Ryle & Breen, 1972; Tan & Hunter, 2002). The purpose of the grid is to elicit constructs from the individual, which make sense to them and have meaning to a particular context or experience (Jankowicz, 2004). The way two things are alike is referred to as the “emergent pole” whereas the “implicit pole” is the opposite or contrast to the emergent pole. Our personal constructs, according to Kelly (1955), are dichotomous or bipolar and are the lenses through which the world is constructed by the individual (Horley, 2008). Once constructs are elicited they are then rated by the participants. This study used a seven-point rating scale as this has been found to be more meaningful for statistical analysis of the repertory grid (Grice, 2002; Tan & Hunter, 2002). Figure 1 is an example of a completed grid, the constructs on the left of the grid correspond to the emergent pole, and low scores on the grid would suggest that the individuals see themselves more toward that pole of the construct. In this figure, Stef views himself as “paranoid of people’s motives” (as he rates himself 2 on that construct) and he also views himself as pessimistic (as he rates himself 7). A score of 4 corresponds to the midpoint of the construct.

Figure 1.

Repertory grid: Stef.

Analytical Process

The blending of IPA and repertory grid methodology has proven to be a successful synthesis and has provided rigorous exploration of participants’ meaning making (Smith 1999; Turpin et al., 2009). Both phenomenological inquiry and PCP can be construed as focusing on human concern and the social and mental worlds of people. PCP, like phenomenological investigations, allows people (the people we want to understand) to reveal their own ways of making sense to us (Shotter, 2007).

The interview data were analyzed using IPA. The aim of IPA is to explore, in detail, individual and personal experiences and to examine how participants make sense of their personal and social worlds (Smith & Osborn, 2003). The emphasis of IPA research is on the meanings particular experiences, events, and states hold for the participants (Eatough & Smith, 2008). IPA then allows researchers to glean insights from the expert (the research participants) and get closer to the insider perspective (Eatough & Smith, 2008). IPA’s emphasis on sense making by the participant and researcher means that it can be described as having cognition as a central analytic concern, and has a theoretical alliance with cognition and language (Smith & Osborn, 2003).

The analysis of the repertory grids will be on the content and structure of participants’ repertory grids. It will focus on how the participants construe themselves, whether there is a difference between self now and ideal and how they construe and relate to others in their grid, for example, victim(s) (Houston, 1998). The grids were analyzed using Idiogrid (see Grice, 2002), a statistical program designed for the purpose of analyzing repertory grids. In this analysis, narrative and repertory grid analysis will be presented together to further illuminate and explore the themes derived from the IPA analysis.

Results

Following IPA analysis, two superordinate themes, each comprising of three subordinate themes, were identified. These themes are presented in Table 2. The aim of this section is to unpack all themes and provide a rich understanding of the data to better understand and make sense of denial in sexual offenders.

Table 2.

Superordinate and Subordinate Themes.

Superordinate Theme	Subordinate Theme
Social/moral self	Rejection/distancing from the sex offender label and reducing stigma by disassociation
	Loneliness and isolation
	Moral self and righteousness
Mindset	Stability and consistency
	Constriction
	Grievance and attitudes

Superordinate Theme 1: Social/Moral Self

Rejection/Distancing From the Sex Offender Label and Reducing Stigma by Association

It is perhaps not surprising that most participants rejected and actively avoided the sex offender label and status. Although aware of the stigma of being a “sex offender,” their denial meant that they did not assimilate or be adversely affected by it.

I don’t feel stigmatized cos I ain’t [sic] done it . . . I can understand what you say, you’ve been to this prison but no no no me myself I don’t feel any stigma. (Bud)

I’m no sex offender, I’m just like anyone else, they may call me sex offender but I know I’m not and nothing can change that. I’ll never see myself that way and I know my family don’t see me like that either and that’s what counts . . . when I get out I want to carry on with my life put this behind me . . . I know I’ll never be back here [prison] and they’ll know that. (Chad)

Sex offenders err we are classed with a big SEX stamp on your head when you go out, the big wall. But when you look out there err when I think about the sex offender side of it err it’s still as worse a crime to burgle an old granny knock seven bells out of her for £20 for £5 or whatever. (Bud)

By rejecting the label sex offender, participants were able to avoid the stigma normally associated with being a convicted sexual offender. Participants were explicit in their attempts to distance themselves from other sexual offenders and to present “normal identities,” for example, as a well-regarded business man or as a “person of good standing.” It has been argued that the biggest challenge for those who have been labeled deviant is to manage their identity in interactions with others (Goffman, 1963; McCaghy, 1968). If the label poses a threat to interaction, then it poses a threat to one’s self and so an individual will attempt to take measures to cope with the situation through a process of “deviance disavowal” (see Davis, 1961). This process allows for a viable identity to be maintained and for a “normal” identity to be presented (Blagden, Winder, Thorne, & Gregson, 2011; McCaghy, 1968). For instance, Chad and Bud did not internalize the label “sex offender” and both articulated how they wanted to move on with their lives in positive ways. In many ways this rejection of the label was due to their denial, which enabled them to do shame management and maintain a viable identity. In Bud’s extract (mentioned earlier) he recognizes the stigma in his reference to the “big SEX stamp,” which he associates metaphorically with branding. In this account, Bud appears to be managing his identity by shifting emphasis away from sexual offenders through the example of what he perceives as a “worse crime.”

Relatedly deniers, in this sample, limited their interactions with prisoners and saw themselves as qualitatively different from the other prisoners.

RSP: [sex offenders] are on the disgusting side to me you see and this is why, sorry, I keep myself to myself . . . I don’t want anything to do with most of them, just the guys I speak, the ones maintaining their innocence. The others here, the guilty ones deserve what they get I think they’re disgusting. (Brian)

I’ve made it clear to them that I’m not here to talk about people’s offences, I can talk to you but the minute you start talking about your offences I don’t wanna know. (Neville)

Deniers adopted stereotypical views of sexual offenders and actively distanced themselves from such offenders. Participants restricted their interactions with others, interacted with just those they believed were innocent, or interacted on the strict proviso that no one mentioned their offending. The “sex offender” label of the prisoner was disavowed with participants disassociating themselves from sexual offenders. Curiously, deniers seemed to be denying the “sex offender” status of other prisoners to allow for “normalized social conduct” to occur. However, while this may seem at odds with the conventional wisdom that sex offender should be admitting their offence, deniers’ interactions are probably more typical of interactions in the community in that they will not be interacting/relating with people as “sex offenders.” When participants were asked how they viewed other prisoners in the establishment, participants described them in derogatory terms, for example, as sick or perverted.

[sex offenders] sick, mentally and spiritually sick, he’s dirty, I’m not. (Neville)

pervs, sick, you know, they’re evil, wrong all all [sic] that stuff. (Chad)

The majority of participants viewed sex offenders as sick, dirty, or perverted in some way, which was at odds with how they viewed themselves. While denial is generally seen as something that needs to be broken down, it also appears to be doing important identity work and allowing offenders to keep a coherent and positive sense of self. Breaking down this identity could be potentially damaging for the offender.

Analysis of the structure of participants’ repertory grids further illuminates the rejection of sexual offender label. Correlational analysis can be useful in exploring how participants construe self and others. Table 3 shows the elements positively and negatively correlated with “me now.”

Table 3.

Positive and Negative Correlations of “Me Now.”

Participant	Elements Positively Correlated With Self Now	Elements Negatively Correlated With Self Now
Bill	Me before arrest (0.94); self ideal (0.83); police officer (0.87)	Person you don’t like (−0.92); alleged victim (−0.87), sexual offender (−0.88)
Brian	Me ideally (0.97); person you like (0.96)	Sexual offender (−0.68); alleged victim (−0.32)
Bryan F	Father (0.33); me ideally (0.29)	Victim (−0.68); person you don’t like (−0.47); friend (−0.32)
Bryn	Mother (0.55); me before arrest (0.49); alleged victim (0.42)	Person you don’t like (−0.96); sexual offender (−0.50)
Bud	Father (1.00); me ideally (1.00); mother (1.00); person you like (1.00)	Sexual offender (−0.84); ex-spouse (−0.82); alleged victim (−0.80)
Chad	Mother (0.83); me ideally (0.82); person you like (0.70)	Person you don’t like (−0.80); prisoner admitting (−0.78); sexual offender (−0.75)
Clint	Father (0.75); mother (0.63); me before arrest (0.39)	Prisoner admitting (−0.54); alleged victim (−0.37); sexual offender (−0.74)
Kirk	Alleged victim (0.84); prisoner maintaining innocence (0.78); me ideally (0.64)	Ex-spouse (−0.19); person you don’t like (−0.11); sexual offender (–0.05)
Neville	Me ideally (1.00); mother (1.00); person you like (1.00)	Sexual offender (−0.92), person you don’t like (−0.39); alleged victim (−0.17)
Stef	Alleged victim (0.73); prisoner maintaining innocence (0.64); sexual offender (0.42)	Prisoner admitting (−0.26); me before arrest (−0.10); person you like (−0.03)

The correlational analysis highlights how most participants do not see themselves as related to the element “sexual offender” and that most participants see themselves in opposition to this element. It is interesting that Stef is moderately correlated with sexual offender. Of more interest are his negative correlations, which would be expected to be more positive. Participants also had positive correlations with self-elements, such as “me before arrest” and “me ideally,” which could indicate that participants are construing themselves with temporal consistency. Polarity analysis in repertory grids can further explore this by analyzing the amount of times elements are construed on the same pole of a construct. Polarity analysis summarizes the extent to which the elements are rated on similar ends of the construct scales (Grice, 2002). Figure 2 highlights Brian’s polarity analysis and is a typical example from this sample.

Figure 2.

Polar Matches for Brian Grid.

The polarity analysis demonstrates how “sexual offender” is construed very differently from all other elements. For example “me now” was rated on the emergent pole of only two constructs, whereas “sexual offender” was rated on the emergent pole on 10 occasions. Interestingly, “sexual offender” was the only element that was rated almost exclusively (apart from one construct) on the opposite pole and was located on the negative end of each construct. Brian construed the “sexual offender” as “disrespectful,” “untrustworthy,” and “aggressive.” In many ways, it is unsurprising that deniers reject and distance themselves from such negative labels. Given that self-referent labels are those important to self-definition and are those that make up our core identity, it is perhaps positive (and possibly protective) that deniers construe themselves differently to “sex offenders” (Horley, 2008).

There was recognition from participants that admitting guilt was to be conferred with the label sexual offender by self and others. This highlights the relational properties of denial in that denial is an awareness of how others may view them and allows for a positive self to be asserted. This relates to Mead’s (1934) argument that individuals enter their own experience not from the self directly but instead from being a subject to themselves. Thus, they “first become an object just as other individuals are objects to him and his experience” (Mead, 1934, p. 138).

If I say guilty that’s it, that’s it, I’m a rapist, I’ve done it. You can’t say guilty and say I only did to get a lesser sentence, I did it because I wanted a shorter sentence or whatever, who’s gonna believe that? No one, they’d just say “yeah, yeah.” (Chad)

This extract highlights a central theme in all participants’ narratives, that if he were to admit he would have to face up to being a “rapist” and the potential consequences that would bring, for example, potentially losing family, friends, status, and others. There is a sense of finality in the extract “that’s it, that’s it, I’m a rapist”; it conveys that his identity will be one irrevocably linked to “rapist,” and it will become his master status trait. This conforms to Salter’s (1988) view that

for many, sexual deviancy does not occur when they commit the act, it occurs when they admit it. A sex offender is not a sex offender until he tells you he is. He is in some sense, a wrongly accused innocent until he says the words, “yes, I did do it.” (p. 186)

Coming to terms with changes in one’s identity and wanting to protect the self seem to be among the key drives for sexual offenders’ denial (see also Blagden, Winder, Thorne, et al., 2011). In a study of ex-deniers, it was found that despite overcoming denial being described as positive, participants articulated that if they had not been found guilty the majority would have stayed in denial (Blagden, Winder, Thorne, et al., 2011).

Further analysis of participants’ repertory grids allows further exploration and insight into the IPA findings. A principal components analysis (PCA) of Chad’s grid highlights how he views himself in relation to other elements and constructs in his grid (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Principal components analysis (varimax rotation): Chad.

There are a number of key points to consider when interpreting a repertory grid PCA output. One of the main considerations is how well defined the constructs and elements are in the grid. This is determined by the distance from the point of origin (the center of the grid). If construct vectors and elements are close to the center, it indicates that they are not well defined by the grid (Grice, 2002). In Figure 3, it can be noted that all constructs are well elaborated and are meaningful in the grid and all elements are also well defined by the grid. The exception is “prisoner maintaining innocence,” which is close to the origin. This may mean that the element is not personally meaningful or it is explained by a different component. Chad (like most participants) construes sexual offenders on the negative poles of his constructs and views them very differently to “self” elements. “Sexual offender” is located in the nexus of negative traits including “can’t be trusted,” “try to pull you down,” and “self-centered.” Interestingly, “prisoner admitting” is also construed negatively highlighting his negative construal of admitting sexual offenders. It is currently unlikely that Chad would be receptive to disclosure-based intervention. Indeed confronting Chad or attempting to force change might have an adverse psychological effect. However, working on the underlying constructs that are driving his denial seems much more important than trying to get him out of denial. A noteworthy aspect of Chad’s grid is the importance of the construct “sex mad versus prude,” which is very meaningful in this grid. It demonstrates a tendency for Chad to see people as either “sex mad” or as “prudish.” This may highlight sexual preoccupation and perhaps oversexualize partners/people in general. He construes himself in terms of being sex mad and needs to move toward being more “caring,” “trusting,” and having “purpose in life” to be aligned more with his “ideal self.”

Superordinate Theme 2: Mindset

One of the most striking superordinate themes derived from the interview data was that of “mindset,” or the particular ways of thinking that seemed to characterize the participants in this study. While there was indeed variation among the participants in terms of how they accounted for being in prison for a sexual offence and how they construed self and others, there were notable similarities. The subthemes illuminate some of these convergences and divergences in the participants.

Grievance, Hostility, and Incongruence

All participants displayed some degree of grievance thinking, though none more than Stef, whose grievance and suspicious thinking were apparent throughout his narrative.

They do not want you to erm certain people they don’t want them to get rehabilitated, if you’re not toeing the line they want you to slip up, but I’ve got no intention of slipping up… they want you isolated, they want you in a situation where you’ve got very little support. (Stef)

[Program staff try to] Make us more miserable, get all depressed, they want us that way, you know, “easy pickings” “ come do this course” it’ll make you feel better, you know. (Chad)

Stef’s grievance thinking became more pronounced while discussing his thoughts and feelings about criminal justice and social work professionals whom he viewed as corrupt and “out to get him.” It was clear from his narrative that he had created a “them” versus “me” style of thinking. Stef’s claim that they “don’t want certain people to get rehabilitated” fits with his overall stance that he is being victimized. Chad had similar views suggesting that the prison system wanted deniers to be more vulnerable as an insidious way of recruiting them into programs. Stef also appeared to have a problem with authority, particularly those working within the criminal justice system. His extract (mentioned earlier) conveys a sense that he perceives criminal justice agencies as predators trying to isolate him and make him vulnerable.

IV:

How would you describe yourself now?

RSP:

I’ve bordered up the windows, all the doors are shut, I’m like a tortoise aren’t I [.] I’ve retreated inside me shell for safety. I can’t let err apart from a few people that are there already I can’t let any other people near me or close to me . . . they’ve trampled all over me and my family and my life and I’ve had enough, end of and that’s how I am . . . basically I can’t let people near, I can’t let them get close to me, it’s not how I used to be, not how I want to be.

IV:

How did you used to be?

RSP:

Like I said I was outgoing, have laugh that sorta thing I’m always paranoid of people’s motives, it’s like, you don’t take thing at face value you’re looking for what else, the hidden meanings, you know, meanings define peoples words, it’s not what people say it’s what they don’t say.

IV:

Ok looks for meanings in what people say, can you elaborate on that, what kind of person is this?

RSP:

They’re looking for motivates and evidence, they’re a pessimist [.] just like me. (Stef)

This extract reveals Stef as someone who is defensive, suspicious of others, and highlights how, at present, he has issues of trust within interpersonal relationships. For Stef and, similarly for the other participants, there is always something to uncover from people’s motives, nothing could be taken at face value. Their current way of seeing the world may be due to the context they find themselves in, that is, being convicted of a sexual offence and being in a sex offender’s prison. This was a source of anxiety for some participants, for example, Bryn who claimed that “he had never been so depressed.” The grievance and suspicious thinking may also be a result of this as there was a tendency to interpret the actions of others (e.g., prison staff) as hostile. Linked to this was a tendency of participants not to show their true feelings or be open about their feelings and there was a general inability to trust from all participants. In some ways their self now was in a state of flux uncertain about the future, wanting to protect the self and coming to terms with being convicted of a sexual offence. Denial, then, may be a way of putting on the brakes protecting the self from further invalidation or threats to the self.

Well when you come to prison, you gotta say to yourself you’ve gotta be tough in here, if you’re not tough you don’t survive, as far as I’m concerned. The way I hide my feelings, you can’t go around wrapped up in cotton wool, sometimes I shut the cell door and I have a little cry but I can’t show those feeling outward . . . there’s always this non-trust all the time. (Bryn)

There was a sense of incongruence from most participants in terms of whom they were now and who they would like to be. Some of this incongruence centered on a concealment of their true feelings and not being able to trust. These sorts of experience often bring about anxiety due to the situation they find themselves in being mostly outside of their range of experience. When we cannot construe the future with some degree of certainty, anxiety follows and so does hostility. Hostility occurs when we continue to try and validate something despite that something being invalidated (Kelly, 1955). This is usually magnified when the thing under invalidation is a core belief or something with which we have great personal investment. The extracts in this subtheme point to deniers, at least in this sample, as being characterized as suspicious, paranoid, and hostile. But this seems with good reason when we consider the participants’ experiences. They are generally isolated, feel as though they actively have to portray an image of coping while at the same time having to conceal their true feelings and deal with threats to their identity. Stef’s repertory grid analysis bolsters the analysis here and further illuminates the theme of “mindset” (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Principal components analysis (varimax rotation): Stef.

Figure 4 shows the rotated PCA for Stef’s grid. It can be noticed immediately in this output that this grid is very meaningful for Stef, with the grid being well elaborated. As can be noted, the closest element to “me now” is “alleged victim,” with most other elements construed differently. This is perhaps more alarming when one refers back to the raw grid data (see Figure 1) in which the victim is construed as naive and himself construed more in terms of being manipulative. The first component of his grid is defined by negative affective states, traits, and outlook, and this would appear meaningful for Stef. He defines himself and alleged victim in these terms, and construes self as negative and unhappy. This PCA output supports the findings from the interviews as he describes himself as someone who is paranoid of other’s motives with the construct “able to trust versusparanoid of others motives’ being very meaningful. Stef’s “ideal” and “past” self are construed differently and more positively than “me now,” which may suggest that Stef, at least implicitly, has a desire to change. The distance between the self and ideal has been referred to as “self-discrepancy,” and currently, it appears Stef views the ideal as currently unobtainable (Higgins, 1987). Higgins found that different self-discrepancies related to different levels of affect. For instance, discrepancy between “actual self” (me now) and “ideal self” was characterized by a lack of positive outcomes and was seen to induce dejection-related emotions, such as sadness and dissatisfaction. In grid analysis, self-ideal discrepancy is often used as an indicator of self-esteem (Leach et al., 2001). This would appear to conform to Stef’s current state; he appeared to be suffering from low self-esteem and had a negative outlook on life. He was also construing in terms of a lack of positive outcomes. The importance of a sexual offender’s self-identity in the process of change and offending desistance has been documented (Houston, 1998; Maruna, 2001; Mason, 2003). The self-identity plot (mentioned later) using the elements “me now” and “me ideally” demonstrates how Stef views himself in relation to others. In other words it demonstrates the internal relationships between Stef and the significant others in his world and the way he understands them (Mason, 2003). The self-identity plot is a two-dimensional graph of standardized Euclidean distances based on pairs of elements (usually, and in this case, between “me now” and “me ideally”; Grice, 2002).

It can be noted in figure 5 that “me now” is isolated from the other elements, and this has been referred to as the actual-self isolation (see Norris & Makhlouf-Norris, 1976). Norris and Makhlouf-Norris found that those suffering from a neurotic disorder were more likely to construe ‘self now’ as isolated. Myers, Brewin, and Winter (1999) found that repressors (those assessed as having low anxiety but high defensiveness) were significantly tighter in their construing than those assessed as nonrepressors. This was characterized by a discrepancy between “self now” and “ideal self,” with the “ideal-self” element construed in overidealized terms.

Figure 5.

Self-identity plot: Stef.

Stability and Consistency

One of the notable aspects of most participants’ narratives was their perception of sameness or consistency in how they saw themselves now, in the past, and in the future. Participants actively promoted narratives that had a temporal consistency, they had not changed they were the same person and moral character they had always been.

I’ll still walk out though a proud man, the same proud man I’ve always been . . ., it’s who I am, I’ve always been respected you ask anyone I’ve done business with, I’ve always been regarded highly and that’s who I am, who I’ve always been . . .. (Bud)

As can be noted, both Bud and Bryn are constructing images of the self that have trajectories of sameness. Bryn’s extract is one of someone trying to make sense and come to terms with his current situation. He is trying to reconcile the incongruence with how he viewed sexual offenders and with being convicted of such an offence. He is actively portraying a “normal” identity and trying to convey that he shares the same views of sexual offenders as everyone else. He tries to emphasize this by rhetorically claiming that he never even took his shirt off in front of his children. The image being portrayed is stable, he has not transformed in any way, he has always held these views and always been this person, it is “who he is.” This feeds into their rejection or distancing of sexual offender labels and the correlations from the repertory grid presented earlier. Participants described themselves in terms of consistent roles “I’m a good father,” “good husband,” and “respected.” Most participants articulated a stable narrative of themselves, in that the core self was one that they had always been. Ross (1989) argues that how we make sense of our personal histories, and thus how we make sense of our lives “now,” is rooted in our implicit theories of “stability” and “change.” Implicit theories of stability are important for our unitary and stability of the self. Much of our personal identity is derived from the perception of temporal consistency or sameness. In this way it is unsurprising that deniers presented themselves in a consistent manner. Indeed Ross (1989) has found that the concern for favorable self-evaluation influences the tendency to view oneself as stable.

I like to think I’m optimistic I I may be quite harsh on myself but for me prison is the easy bit, you’re in this environment you have an opportunity to develop, the real difficulty is when you get released when you’re back into that circle of friends when your back into an extended family, your almost gonna have to provide answers. Fortunately my family have been fully supportive . . . also future employment because I want a career I’ve started my business degree in here, how am I gonna cope with that, being restrictive in terms of the hobbies I wanna pursue. The challenges are when your released even though . . . I want to show people, you know, if any has any doubt, I want to show them that that I’m the same person they always known. (Bill)

Some participants, although portraying a self of temporal consistency, were also future orientated and were aware that the real challenge starts when released. Bill demonstrates that by displaying this consistency of character to others that people will see him as they always have. Bill’s narrative is concerned with moving forward dealing with challenges, getting a career. Throughout Bill’s interview there was a sense of wanting to move forward rather than look back on the offence. This way of thinking can be thought of closely mirroring active responsibility taking, a form of responsibility taking that is not about looking backward but instead is focused on seeing oneself as responsible for changing one’s future behavior for the better (Ware & Mann, 2012). Bill articulated this style of responsibility taking in various points in his interview. Other participants shared similar thinking, their denial while seemingly driving their portrayal of a consistent self was also helping them thinking about the future. In many ways the participants appeared to be articulating how they were going to live up to the “possible selves” they were enacting. Presser (2004) has argued that stability narratives present the individual as a good person and someone of steady moral character, which can facilitate the enacting of these roles. The repertory grid analysis, however, demonstrated that for some participants there were distinctions between the construal of self now, ideal, and past self. This may represent an incongruence within the participants and this may offer some explanation of denial as a defensive mechanism.

Constriction

The participants displayed a mindset that could neutralize any form of invalidation of their position and often presented a narrow explanation of how they came to be convicted of a sexual offence, which was in sharp contrast to their explanations of how they could not have done it. However, there were instances of ambiguity within some participants’ narratives. They did not appear to alter their mindset.

The judge said it you plead guilty I can have 4 years, he said if you plead not guilty I get 8 years, I said I’ll have the 8 years. It’s not within my nature, the lady was 87 years of age she was old enough to be my grandma, it’s not in my nature to rape a women, I’ve never raped a women or abused a women, it’s not in my nature . . . you see she’s an old lady maybe they thought there must be some truth, but yet they knew she lied. I don’t know, I don’t. All I know is it was not guilty on rape, I have that in black and white, but why jury I don’t know. (Neville)

She offered me a drink and I said yeah fine and I drank too much I maybe whatever I did while I was under the influence of alcohol did I raise my voice at her, did I knock her over or did I, whatever did I do, did I, when she came and inspected the job did I pull her on the bed, whatever happened I don’t know, I just do not know, but you see I always said to my solicitor am I guilty or not guilty and he said for what we have here on paper work you’re not guilty, I said that’s fine, that’s what we’ll go, cos if not I would’ve put my hands up. (Neville)

Neville’s extracts demonstrate ambivalence in his narrative and highlight struggles in his sense making. On the one hand he views himself as incapable of doing the acts that he has been convicted, particularly on a vulnerable elderly lady. Yet, on the other, there is almost a partial admission that “something happened” and he has to validate his position through the actions of his solicitor. Neville appears constricted in his mindset and appears to have narrowed his perceptual field in that he avoids thinking about what he might have done, which may invalidate his current position. Participants’ narratives of constriction overlap with the personal construct concept of “tight construing.” Tight construct systems are characterized by black or white thinking and are associated with cognitive simplicity (Houston, 1998; Winter, 1992). In repertory grid analysis tight construing is measured by examining the amount of variance accounted for by the first component or by examining the intensity score (the amount of correlation or relationship between the constructs in the grid). Intensity scores have been found to correlate very highly with global measures of grid structure, namely, the amount of variance explained by the first component (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004). Table 4 shows the amount of variance and intensity scores for the participants’ grids.

Table 4.

Variance Explained by the First Component and Intensity Scores for Participants.

Name	PVAFC (%)	Intensity Score	Constructs Important to Self Definition
Bill	71.52	2,602.64	“True to self and others”; “truthful”
Brian	73.45	2,830.19	“Looks at different perspectives”; “calm”
Bryan F	45.36	1,015.72	“Unsettled” (0.86); “sad” (0.73)
Bryn	58.70	2,802.06	“Unhappy life” (0.50); “understanding” (0.48)
Bud	90.69	4,442.91	“Shows true feelings” (0.82)
Chad	69.55	3,782.69	“Has good intentions” (0.90); “thinks about others” (0.86)
Clint	43.83	1,499.99	“Negative outlook on life” (0.49); “sad” (0.40)
Kirk	55.19	2,022.86	“Depressed” (0.59); “sad” (0.56); “unfriendly” (0.55)
Neville	65.32	2,806.07	“Shows true feelings” (0.55); “doesn’t want to change” (0.05)
Stef	63.63	1,701.13	“Negative outlook on life” (0.64); “can’t let people near” (0.58); “hostile” (0.54)

Note. PVAFC = percentage of variance accounted for by the first component.

Seven of the participants’ grids indicated tight construing when viewing the intensity scores and the percentage of variance accounted for by the first component. This may point to a trend in deniers to tightly construe. Catina, Gitzinger, and Hoeckh (1992) found that denial, which they regard as “indicating that the person is only attended to those events that were likely to be validating” (p. 254), was related to tight construal and construing of the real and social self as similar. They postulate that denial could be used to cope with dislodgements of the self, that is, experiences of guilt. This type of construing would mean participants will likely be resistant if their denial is challenged. This would support the assertion that working on the constructs, schemas, or issues that are driving the denial would be more fruitful than trying to break down the denial (Marshall et al., 2001; Ware & Marshall, 2008)

Discussion

This study has aimed to illuminate what denial means for the participants and has attempted to make sense of that denial. The study has attempted to do this by using a unique qualitative methodology that has sought to go beyond just the verbalizations of the participants. The results are important for forensic clinical practice and have implications for the treatment of deniers.

One of the main findings here is that denial for participants was a resource for identity management. Given that “denial” and “identity transformation” are shaped by and through social interactions (see Presser & Kurth, 2009), it is necessary to consider the relational properties of denial in forensic contexts (e.g., research interview, therapeutic setting). Interpersonal interactions with offenders denying their offence presents an opportunity for them to resist problem classifications (sex offender, denier), allowing offenders to enter a process of self-reconstruction whereby individuals can monitor, update, or change their narratives to present a particular conception of the self (to others and the self; see Presser, 2004; Smith, 1999). This is similar to Mead’s (1934) assertion that the self only comes into being when it becomes an object to itself, this occurs in the social interaction or activity which the person is implicated.

Resistance to being labeled a “sexual offender” is likely to have positive implications for the offender, in that adopting and internalizing such a label leaves the individual with an impaired ability to achieve self-respect and affiliation with mainstream society (Maruna et al., 2009). This “golem effect” (low expectation of people leads to poor outcome) has been linked to recidivism (for nonsexual offenders). For instance, it has been found that those who are formally labeled are significantly more likely to recidivate within 2 years than those who were not (Maruna et al., 2009; see also Chiricos et al., 2007). It has been found that self-narratives shape future behavior as people tend to act in line with the stories they present about themselves (Friestad, 2012; McAdams, 1985). Indeed, identity transformation has been linked to redemption, which can be construed as a negative past being reconstrued as a positive (McAdams, 2006). Participants here were keen to present socially desirable and viable selves and it is possible that through presenting them, the participants may enact them. This would suggest that denial maybe, for some, a protective factor given that offenders may “live up” to the identities they are portraying. It has been noted that participants in this study were subscribing to implicit theories (at least overtly) of consistency. Interesting crime desistance research has found that those who desist from crime are likely to see themselves as qualitatively different from their past self. While this is not the case here, it maybe that similar processes are driving change/denial in these contexts. For example, denial is personally meaningful for participants here because a viable identity grounded in consistency is important to the participants—their identity is invested in this. Similarly, those who subscribe to implicit theories of change, for instance crime desisters, also promote identities that are personally meaningful to them and that they are invested in. They want to show people that they have changed, that they are a different person. The difference is deniers are wanting to showcase that they are, in effect, the same person. Therefore, by portraying these personally meaningful positions, they are likely to live up to them. There is some evidence that supports this assertion. Harkins, Beech, and Goodwill (2010) found evidence of denial as a protective factor for high-risk offenders in high denial (but not low risk). Thornton and Knight (2007) found denial to be protective for child offenders (who were mostly extrafamilial). In this study all participants spoke of having positive roles and wanting a positive future and it maybe that the deniers (in this sample in any case) were supplying themselves with something akin to “redemption scripts” (see Maruna, 2001) by construing themselves as qualitatively different to sexual offenders. A further hypothesis that follows this, as put forward by Mann, Hanson, and Thornton (2010), is that denial may be protective for offenders demonstrating positive behavioral change in other areas (avoidance of high-risk situations, engagement in non-offence-related programs) but may increase the risk for sexual offenders who remain committed to deviant lifestyles or other criminogenic influences (Mann et al., 2010). It should be noted that most participants in this sample were those who had not been arrested or imprisoned before and were all previously employed.

Understanding the relational and reconstructive properties of denial is important for understanding denial in sexual offenders more fully. Denial, from this analysis, seems inextricably linked to how one views the “self.” While participants appeared to be engaged in impression management and “performing roles,” these are not without consequence as they contribute to self-identity (Burkitt, 2008). The enacting of the “moral” and good self can promote self-esteem and self-appraisals (Harter, Waters, & Whitesell, 1998). Interestingly, Maruna (2004) claims that “personal reform or rehabilitation may itself be a cognitive distortion of sorts” (p. 190). Thus, personal reform may be the result of accentuating positive qualities thereby boosting self-esteem and self-worth while simultaneously reducing anxiety. Clegg and Moissinac (2005) relational theory of self-deception is relevant to this analysis. They contend that their theory is more parsimonious than ones based on unconscious cognition as they have fewer hypothetical constructs. They argue that self-deception is not due to a fragmented psyche, but rather due to the nature of experience and the inherent ambiguous qualities of that experience. Self-deception, thus, does just not reside in one’s head, as it is not reducible beyond its primary relations—relations both within and between the interlocutors. It is not independent of discourse or consciousness and is context bound. The relational view of denial then takes account of how denial is negotiated and how “denial” gets done in context, in an interpersonal context. In this phenomenologically informed theory, denial has “intentionality,” it has purpose, and something is being achieved (e.g., maintaining a coherent sense of self, identity/shame management).

This study also raises some critical issues for considering denial as a potential risk factor. Harkins et al. (2010) have argued for research evidence to clarify whether factors routinely addressed in treatment actually function as treatment providers presume. Indeed, much time is invested in overcoming or breaking down denial. This is the case despite there being no clear evidence that denial is related to recidivism. Why then does denial continue to be a barrier for treatment? This may well be related to correctional quackery, where intuitive is privileged over evidence. Blagden, Winder, Gregson, et al. (2011) found that treatment professionals believed that deniers posed a high risk to reoffending. However, their basis for those beliefs was based on intuition: “It felt risky” (Blagden, Winder, Gregson, et al., 2011). It is may be that overcoming denial is important because of prevailing cultural/religious imperatives—we must confess our sins and seek forgiveness, because it is the right thing to do. However, the right thing to do is not always the best thing to do and in this case excluding deniers (at any level of denial) seems illogical.

Implications for Treatment

While categorical deniers are, in many jurisdictions at least, excluded from sexual offender treatment, the participants in this study appeared to be displaying important treatment targets, which would be amenable to intervention. For instance anger, grievance, hostility, interpersonal deficits, relationship instability, antisocial lifestyles, and attitudes (Harkins, Ware, & Mann, 2012). All participants seemed to be displaying some of these treatment targets. This study has also illuminated and given insight into the “mindset” of deniers and how deniers, in this sample, are construing their worlds. Yates (2009) has argued that denial in sexual offenders be viewed as a cognitive distortive process common to all individuals and that it is the underlying schema that structures the distortive process that requires the focus of treatment. While this study contends that relational dynamics and identity management also appear to drive denial, the analysis supports Yates’s arguments that the individual’s worldview or constructs should be the focus of intervention and not the “denial.” Participants in this study were also construing in a constricted manner and allowing offenders in denial to elaborate their construing could also be a constructive first step. Each of the treatment targets presented here can be successfully treated without the need of offence admission from the offender. The challenge seems to become more creative in approaches with deniers: supporting their presentation of an adaptive and prosocial self while at the same time working on their deficits. This way of working with deniers fits with Janoff-Bulman and Timko’s (1987) conceptualization of denial. They argue that denial is a form of transition; it allows the self-concept to be protected and shielded from deleterious information and allows for change to occur gradually rather than suddenly. Denial is a form of scaffolding that is erected to prevent further damage to the self, but is then taken down once the need for denial rescinds. The problem in forensic clinical practice is that categorical deniers do not get the opportunity to work on the “building” (the self) and so the need for denial does not rescind. It should be noted that the majority of participants in this sample were open to undergoing sexual offender treatment programs. Marshall et al. (2001) and Ware and Marshall (2008) havedemonstrated how traditional treatment targets can be adapted and successful treated with categorical deniers. Clinicians working with deniers also need to be mindful of challenging the portrayal of positive selves, which may be doing protective work for the offender. As Yalom (1991) warns “never take away anything [from the client] unless you have something better to offer. Beware of stripping a patient who can’t bear the chill of reality” (p. 154).

The clear implication for treatment is that denial should not be the endgame for determining sexual offender treatment. As previous research has found that deniers challenge competency, frustrate, and sometimes anger therapists working with sexual offenders, it may be that it is the clinicians and researchers who need to rethink a client’s denial. Perhaps it is the therapists’ own issues that are impeding constructive clinical work being done with this population, akin to the concept of countertransference. It has been found that therapists working with self-deceptive clients are plagued with feelings of incompetence and self-doubt (Westland & Shinebourne, 2009). However, much of the frustrations come from seeing overcoming denial as a marker for progress or viewing denial as an organizing principle of treatment. It may be that for positive therapeutic endeavors to be fruitful in the future, forensic practice may have to relinquish these long-held beliefs.

Conclusion

Instead of viewing denier’s accounts as false we should construe their accounts as a form of meaning making. In this denial becomesan interaction, something to do understood and worked with rather than something that is in need of challenge. From a phenomenological perspective whether a deniers offence account is true or false is largely irrelevant, we are always dealing with an illusion of introspective awareness from participants/clients in this setting (or any setting). Verbalizations are not truths nor do they reveal underlying cognitive processes; instead they tell us about the “meaning” or intentionality of human experience (Churchill, 2000). Thus, Churchill is reminding us that we must suspend beliefs about truth or falsity of what a subject reports to reflect on the intentional meaning of the subject’s statements. What does the narrative say about the individual, what does it achieve, how does it position them, what are they telling are us, how does is the person standing themselves in the narrative. It is clear though that a more sophisticated position is required rather than just viewing denial as the endgame in sexual offender treatment.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

All data collected by the lead author.

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: The first author was supported by a research studentship provided by the Economic Social Research Council and HMP Whatton.

Notes

Author Biographies

Nicholas Blagden is a lecturer in forensic psychology at the Nottingham Trent University and a Chartered Psychologist. He has worked and researched within the Criminal Justice System and HM Prison Service for many years and has also trained police officers.

Belinda Winder is a reader in forensic psychology at Nottingham Trent University and a Chartered Psychologist. Belinda is the Head of the Sexual Offences Crime and Misconduct Research Unit.

Mick Gregson is the Head of psychology at Nottingham Trent University and is formerly the Head of the Crime Reduction Unit, Nottingham.

Karen Thorne is a principal forensic psychologist and is Head of Interventions at HMP Whatton. Karen is currently the East Midlands Cluster Manager.

References

Adams-Webber

(2003). Constructive alternativism and personal responsibility. In Horley

(Ed.), Personal construct perspectives on forensic psychology (pp. ix-xvii). Hove, UK: Brunner-Routledge.

Barbaree

(1991). Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome. Forum on Corrections Research, 3, 30-33.

Blagden

Winder

Gregson

Thorne

(2011). Working with denial in convicted sexual offenders: A qualitative analysis of treatment professionals’ views and experiences and their implications for practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 332-356. doi:10.1177/0306624X11432301

Blagden

Winder

Thorne

Gregson

(2011). “No-one in the world would ever wanna speak to me again”: An interpretative phenomenological analysis into convicted sexual offenders’ accounts and experiences of maintaining and leaving denial. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 563-585. doi:10.1080/10683160903397532

Brocki

J. M.

Wearden

A. J.

(2006). A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychology & Health, 21, 87-108.

Burkitt

(2008). Social selves: Theories of self and society. London, England: SAGE.

Catina

Gitzinger

Hoeckh

(1992). Defence mechanisms: An approach from the perspective of personal construct psychology. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 5, 249-257.

Chiricos

Barrick

Bales

Bontrager

(2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45, 547-581.

Churchill

(2000). “Seeing through” self-deception in narrative reports: Finding psychological truth in problematic data. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 31, 44-62.

10.

Clegg

J. W.

Moissinac

(2005). A relational theory of self deception. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 96-110.

11.

Davis

(1961). Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly handicapped. Social Problems, 9, 120-132.

12.

Eatough

Smith

J. A.

(2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Willig

Stainton-Rogers

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative psychology (pp. 179-195). London, England: Sage.

13.

Fransella

Bell

Bannister

(2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Friestad

(2012). Making sense, making good, or making meaning? Cognitive distortions as targets of treatment change. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 465-482. doi:10.1177/0306624X11402945

15.

Goffman

(1963). Stigma: Notes on the management on a spoiled identity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

16.

Grice

J. W.

(2002). Idiogrid: Software for the management and analysis of repertory grids. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 338-341.

17.

Hanson

R. K.

Bussiere

M. T.

(1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

18.

Hanson

R. K.

Gordon

Harris

A. J. R.

Marques

J. K.

Murphy

Quinsey

V. L.

Seto

M. C.

(2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.

19.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

(2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.

20.

Harkins

Beech

A. R.

Goodwill

A. M.

(2010). Examining the influence of denial, motivation, and risk on sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Treatment and Research, 22, 78-94.

21.

Harkins

Ware

Mann

(2012) Inetreventions with dangerous offenders In Davies

G. M.

Beech

A. R.

(Eds.), Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions (pp. 349-368). Chichester: Wiley.

22.

Harter

Waters

Whitesell

N. R.

(1998). Relational self-worth: Differences in perceived as a person across interpersonal contexts. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1-10.

23.

Higgins

E. T.

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating to self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

24.

Hood

Shute

Feilzer

Wilcox

(2002). Sex offenders emerging from long term imprisonment: A study of their long term reconviction rates and parole board members’ judgements of their risk. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 371-394.

25.

Horley

(2008). Sexual offenders: Personal construct theory and deviant sexual behaviour. London, England: Routledge.

26.

Houston

(1998). Making sense with offenders. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Jankowicz

(2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

28.

Janoff-Bulman

Timko

(1987). Coping with traumatic life events: The role of denial in light of people’s assumptive worlds. In Snyder

C. R.

Ford

C. E.

(Eds.), Coping with negative life events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 135-159). New York, NY: Plenum.

29.

Kelly

(1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

30.

Kennedy

H. G.

Grubin

D. H.

(1992). Patterns of denial in sex offenders. Psychological Medicine, 22, 191-196.

31.

Leach

Freshwater

Aldridge

Sunderland

(2001). Analysis of repertory grids in clinical practice. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 225-248.

32.

Levenson

J. S.

(2010). But I didn’t do it: Ethical treatment of sex offenders in denial. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 346-364. doi:10.1177/1079063210382048

33.

Losel

Schmucker

(2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.

34.

McAdams

D. P.

(1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story: Personological inquiries into identity. New York: Guilford Press.

35.

Mann

R. E.

Hanson

K. R.

Thornton

(2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191–217.

36.

Marshall

W. L.

Marshall

L. E.

Ware

(2009). Cognitive distortions in sexual offenders: Should they all be treatment targets? Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 2, 1-33.

37.

Marshall

W. L.

Thornton

Marshall

Fernandez

Mann

(2001). Treatment of sexual offenders who are in categorical denial: A pilot project. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 205-215.

38.

Maruna

(2001). Making good (p. 86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

39.

Maruna

(2004). Desistance and explanatory style: A new direction in the psychology of reform. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 184-200.

40.

Maruna

Mann

(2006). A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 155-177.

41.

Maruna

LeBel

Naples

Mitchell

(2009). Looking-glass identity transformation: Pygmalion and golem in the rehabilitation process. In Veysey

Christian

Martinez

(Eds.), How offenders transform their lives (pp. 30–55). Cullompton, UK: Willan.

42.

Mason

(2003). The use of the repertory grid as an aid to assessment and formulation in a sex offender with a learning disability. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 5(3), 37-44.

43.

Mason

(2008). Measuring psychological change in offenders with intellectual disabilities and alcohol misuse using repertory grids: two case examples. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 10, 37-44.

44.

McAdams

D. P.

(2006). The redemptive self: Generativity and the stories Americans live by. Research in Human Development, 3(2-3), 81-100.

45.

McCaghy

C. H.

(1968). Drinking and deviance disavowal: The case of child molesters. Social Problems, 16, 43-49.

46.

McGrath

R. J.

Cumming

G. F.

Burchard

B. L.

Zeoli

Ellerby

(2009). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The safer society 2009 North America Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer society Press.

47.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

48.

Myers

L. B.

Brewin

C. R.

Winter

D. A.

(1999). Repressive coping and self-reports of parenting. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 73-82.

49.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2004). Repertory grid methods. Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/encyclopaedia/repgrid-methods.html

50.

Norris

Makhlouf-Norris

(1976). The measurement of self-identity. The measurement of intrapersonal space by grid technique, 1, 79-92.

51.

Northey

(1999). The politics of denial: A post-modern critique. In Schwartz

(Ed.), The sex offender: Theoretical advances, treating special populations and legal developments. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

52.

Presser

(2004). Violent offenders, moral selves: Constructing identities and accounts in the research interview. Social Problems. 51, 82-101.

53.

Presser

Kurth

(2009). I Got a Quick Tongue’: Negotiating Ex-Convict Identity in Mixed Company. In Veysey

Christian

Martinez

(Eds.), How offenders transform their lives (pp. 72-86). Cullompton, UK: Willan, 2009.

54.

Reid

Flowers

Larkin

(2005). Exploring lived experience. Psychologist, 18, 20-23.

55.

Roberts

Baim

(1999). A community-based programme for sex offenders who deny their offending behaviour. Probation Journal, 46, 225-233.

56.

Ross

(1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341-357.

57.

Ryle

Breen

(1972). Some differences in the personal constructs of neurotic and normal subjects. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 120, 483-489.

58.

Salter

(1988). Treating child sex offenders and victims: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

59.

Schneider

Wright

(2004). Understanding denial in sexual offenders: A review of cognitive and motivational processes to avoid responsibility. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1, 3-20.

60.

Shorts

I. D.

(1985). Treatment of a sex offender in a maximum security forensic hospital: Detecting changes in personality and interpersonal construing. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 29, 237-250.

61.

Shotter

(2007). Re-visiting George Kelly: Social constructionism, social ecology and social justice-All unfinished projects. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 4, 68-83.

62.

Skrapec

C. A.

(2000). Phenomenology and Serial Murder Asking Different Questions. Homicide Studies, 5, 46-63.

63.

Smith

J. A.

(1999). Identity development during the transition to motherhood: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17, 281-299.

64.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. London, England: SAGE.

65.

Smith

Osborn

(2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods (pp.53-80). London, England: SAGE.

66.

Tan

F. B.

Hunter

G. M.

(2002). The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 26, 39-57.

67.

Thomas

(2005). Sex crime: Sex offender and society. Devon, UK: Willan.

68.

Thornton

Knight

(2007). Is denial always bad. Presentation at the 26th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA.

69.

Turpin

Dallos

Owen

Thomas

(2009). The meaning and impact of head and neck cancer: An interpretative phenomenological and repertory grid analysis. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 22, 24-54.

70.

Vanhoeck

Van Daele

(2011). Denial of sexual crimes: A therapeutic exploration. In Boer

D. P.

Eher

Craig

L. A.

Miner

M. H.

Pfafflin

(Eds.), International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: Theory, practice and research (pp. 355-372). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

71.

Waldram

J. B.

(2007). Everybody has a story to tell: Listening to imprisoned sexual offenders. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 963-970.

72.

Ware

Mann

R. E.

(2012). How should “acceptance of responsibility” be addressed in sexual offending treatment programs? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 279-288.

73.

Ware

Marshall

W. L.

(2008). Treatment engagement with a sexual offender who denies committing the offence. Clinical Case Studies, 7, 592-603.

74.

Westland

Shinebourne

(2009). Self-deception and the therapist: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the experiences and understandings of therapists working with clients they describe as self deceptive. Psychology and Psychotherapy. Theory, Research and Practice, 82, 385-401.

75.

Williamson

(2004). USA and UK responses to miscarriages of justice. In Adler

(Ed.), Forensic psychology: Concepts, debates and practice (pp. 39-57). Devon, UK: Willan.

76.

Winter

(1992). Personal construct psychology in clinical practice. London, England: Routledge.

77.

Yalom

I. D.

(1991). Love’s executioner and other tales of psychotherapy. London, England: Penguin.

78.

Yates

(2009). Is denial related to sex offence risk and recidivism? A review and treatment implications. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 183-199.