Abstract
Policies designed to prevent sexual (re)offending are often proposed on behalf of survivors of sexual violence. However, no research has examined survivors’ beliefs about the causes of sexual offending. This is a critical gap, because how individuals understand the causes of sexual offending has long been thought to inform their support for particular policy responses. This article presents findings from the first study to specifically examine survivors’ views about the causes of sexual offending, based on interviews with 33 survivors from Australia. It demonstrates that survivors’ beliefs are highly complex and multifaceted, and destabilizes the uniform survivor of governmental imagination.
Introduction
Sex offender policy is often influenced by what survivors want, or rather, what governments assume survivors want. For example, legislation to manage sexual offenders is created (often literally) in the name of victims (Terry, 2011), from Carly’s Law in Australia to Megan’s Law in the United States of America and Sarah’s Law in the United Kingdom. Recently, Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath, in introducing amendments to legislation that require lifetime monitoring of certain sexual offenders, declared that the amendments show that “this government stands with victims” (Ryan, 2018, np).
Scholars argue that individuals’ views about sex offender management policies are strongly influenced by what they believe to be the cause of sexual offending (McCartan, 2004; Pickett et al., 2013). Despite this, almost no scholarship exists on survivors’ beliefs about these causes. Broader literature demonstrates that survivors’ attitudes toward sexual offenders either vary little from the general public’s attitudes (Sahlstrom & Jeglic, 2008; Willis et al., 2013), or tend to be more positive than the general public’s attitudes (DeLuca et al., 2018; Ferguson & Ireland, 2006; Nelson et al., 2002; Socia et al., 2019; Spoo et al., 2018). However, only two sources shed even indirect light on survivors’ views about the causes of sexual offending specifically. In the first, Katz-Schiavone et al. (2008) surveyed 127 members of the American public, 35% of whom identified as survivors, to examine adherence to a number of myths about sexual violence, one of which related to the cause of sexual offending. The authors found that survivors adhered less frequently than members of the general public to the notion that victims of child sexual abuse go on to become perpetrators later in life. This led the authors to surmise that survivors “may understand, from their own experience, that victimization is not a direct line to abusive behavior, while non-victims may consider abuse history to be a parsimonious explanation for violent conduct” (p. 305). In other words, survivors are likely skeptical of the notion that victims become abusers as they themselves have been victimized but did not subsequently become perpetrators. For the public, however, the cycle of abuse explanation is far more palatable than others (Richards, 2019; Salter, 2003). In the second study, Clark and Quadara (2010) interviewed 33 Australian women who had experienced sexual assault as adults, seeking to examine survivors’ knowledge of the strategies that men use to orchestrate sexual violence. Interviewees identified five strategies, one of which—asserting control, power or domination—was seen as both a tactic for enabling sexual assault and a “goal or reward of sexual offending . . . something that sexual offending produced or enabled” (Clark and Quadara, 2010, p. 34). In this sense, it was identified by the survivors as having something akin to a causative element.
In sum, very little is known about survivor beliefs about what causes sexual offending. There are, however, three allied bodies of literature on this topic, focusing on the views of the public, relevant professionals, and perpetrators, which form a fuller backdrop to this study.
Literature Review
Public Views About the Causes of Sexual Offending
By way of broad background, research on public views about sex offenders clearly shows that the public feels anger and disgust (Harper & Harris, 2016; Jahnke et al., 2015) and holds punitive attitudes toward this group of perpetrators (Katz-Schiavone et al., 2008; Mears et al., 2008; Rogers et al., 2011; Sahlstrom & Jeglic, 2008; Willis et al., 2013). There is widespread public support for punitive measures such as sex offender registries, community notification, preventive detention, and residency restrictions (Comartin et al., 2009; Levenson et al., 2007; Mears et al., 2008; Thakker, 2012). Despite often supporting treatment for sex offenders (Esser-Stuart & Skibinski, 1998; Levenson et al., 2007; Mears et al., 2008; Rogers et al., 2011), the public remains doubtful about its efficacy (Katz-Schiavone et al., 2008; Mancini, 2014; Payne et al., 2010; Quinn et al., 2004; Willis et al., 2010); the notion that child sex offenders are untreatable is “probably the most deeply entrenched belief about sex offenders” (Federoff & Moran in Thakker, 2012, p. 160).
In terms of etiological explanations for sexual offending specifically, members of the public tend to adhere to five main causal theories. Chief among these is the cycle of abuse theory—that individuals perpetrate sexual violence in response to having been sexually victimized themselves. Most recently, Call’s (2019) survey of 254 members of the American public found that over two thirds adhere to this causal belief, reflecting Levenson et al.’s (2007) earlier finding (see also Fontes et al., 2001; Fortney et al., 2007; Katz-Schiavone et al., 2008; O’Neil & Morgan, 2010; Paulauskas, 2015; Richards, 2018, 2019). Other common explanatory theories among the public are that sexual offending is caused by: genetic and/or biological factors (Call, 2019; Call & Gordon, 2016; Furnham & Haraldsen, 1998; O’Neil & Morgan, 2010; Paulauskas, 2015); mental illness (Call, 2019; Call & Gordon, 2016; Fontes et al., 2001; Levenson et al., 2007; McCartan, 2010; O’Neil & Morgan, 2010; Richards, 2018); choice (Fontes et al., 2001; Jahnke et al., 2015; Pickett et al., 2013; Richards, 2018); and moral failings on the part of the perpetrator (Call, 2019; Call & Gordon, 2016; Mancini & Pickett, 2016; O’Neil & Morgan, 2010; Pickett et al., 2013). Causal explanations identified less frequently among the public are: masturbating to deviant sexual imagery (Paulauskas, 2015; Pickett et al., 2013); seeking to enhance masculinity (Paulauskas, 2015); and drugs and alcohol (Katz-Schiavone et al., 2008).
This body of research posits that belief in particular causal narratives such as these inform public support for particular policy measures. For example, Pickett et al. (2013) analyzed a number of variables (e.g., that sexual offenders are usually strangers) to assess the drivers of public support for punitive sexual offender policies and sexual offender treatment in the United States. One of the variables they examined reflects a causal factor: that “sex crime is caused by personal immorality” (see also Mancini & Pickett, 2016). Adherence to this causal belief strongly predicted increased support for punitive sex crime laws and decreased support for rehabilitative measures (Pickett et al., 2013). Furnham and Haraldsen (1998) measured public beliefs about the causes of four paraphilias (voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and pedophilia) and the extent to which adherence to particular causal beliefs about these informed individuals’ support for particular responses to them. The authors found a clear link between individuals’ preferred etiological explanations and their support for particular “cures.” For example, those who believed the cause of paraphilias is to be found in early childhood experiences supported therapy as the most suitable solution (see further Fontes et al., 2001). In contrast, Richards’s (2018) research found that in relation to sexual offending against children specifically, there was no logical link between the causal explanations proffered by the public, and their policy preferences. Instead, the public supported the same set of punitive and exclusionary policies irrespective of the causal explanation(s) they endorsed (Richards, 2018).
Professionals’ Views About the Causes of Sexual Offending
The literature on relevant professionals shows that compared with the general public, this group holds more positive attitudes toward sexual offenders (Ferguson & Ireland, 2006; McCartan, 2010; Nelson et al., 2002). In relation to the causes of sexual offending, professionals have more nuanced views than the public (Call, 2019; Purvis et al., 2003). For example, Purvis et al. (2003) surveyed 85 Community Corrections Officers from Australia and found that their causal explanations for sexual offending against children fell into eight categories: (a) developmental (e.g., the offenders’ upbringing, including experiencing abuse during formative years) (see also Bumby & Maddox, 1999; Sample & Kadleck, 2008); (b) social competence (e.g., inability to form meaningful adult relationships); (c) sexual (e.g., seeking sexual gratification); (d) power and control (e.g., wanting to exercise power over a child) (see also Sample & Kadleck, 2008); (e) psychopathology (e.g., having substance addiction problems, low self-esteem or depression); (f) victim reasons (e.g., children are not threatening to the offender); (g) values and beliefs (e.g., the offender believing that they are teaching the child about sex); and (h) personality deficits (e.g., immaturity, impulsivity) (see also Ward et al., 1997). More recently, Call’s (2019) survey of 209 American Community Corrections Officers found support for an overlapping set of causal explanations, with strong support for the notions that sexual offending occurs because “they have been abused themselves” (46.5%), “they have been exposed to pornography in the past” (21.6%) (see also Sample & Kadleck, 2008), “they have bad moral character” (20.6%), and “they are just selfish people” (16.8%); and less support for “genetics or biological makeup” (9.7%), “rejection in the past” (8.7%), and “they are mentally ill” (8.1%).
The research on professionals’ views about the cause of sexual offending, like the literature on public opinion, argues that beliefs about causality predict policy preferences. Call’s (2017) study considered whether belief in particular causes of sexual offending predict acceptance of the “collateral consequences” of sexual offender management policies (e.g., threats and harassment). He found that a stronger belief that sex offending is caused by predisposed factors (e.g., having been abused as a child) decreased professionals’ acceptance of collateral consequences, while belief that sex offending is caused by a “lack of virtue” (e.g., selfishness) increased acceptance of collateral consequences (Call, 2017, p. 250). In other words, belief that sexual offending is within the control of the individual predicted support for more deleterious consequences. Call and Gordon’s (2016) related study of Probation and Parole Officers and clinical professionals (n = 248) reached the same conclusion: professionals who believe offenders to be making a conscious choice in perpetrating sexual violence support harsher policy measures.
Perpetrators’ Views About the Causes of Sexual Offending
Fortney et al. (2007) surveyed 125 adult sexual offenders from Florida, and found that over half (54%) believed that adult sex offenders were sexually abused themselves as children, echoing the cycle of abuse narrative favored by the public and professionals. Far more commonly, however, research on perpetrators’ own views about the causes of sexual offending has found two main etiological explanations: anger, dominance and humiliation; and intimacy and sexual gratification (Mann & Hollin, 2007; see more generally Mann & Hollin, 2010). Ward, Hudson and France’s (1993) research with 26 incarcerated male child sexual abusers in New Zealand (i.e., male adults who sexually abused children), for example, found sexual and intimacy motivations were identified by this group of offenders (see also Phelan, 1995), often in combination. They also found that anger, power, and dominance were self-reported as reasons for offending by a small number of the men (see also Hartley, 2001). McKay et al. (1996) found that in addition to intimacy deficits and expressing power, a number of child sex offenders in their sample explained their actions as “helping others,” mirroring the “values and beliefs” narrative identified by Purvis et al. (2003; see also Hartley, 2001). McKay et al. (1996) also identified “situation” (i.e., “she was there”) as a causal explanation among the sexual offenders in their sample. This explanation was predominantly put forward by rapists of adults (n = 13) rather than child sexual offenders (n = 3). This body of literature on perpetrators’ causal views does not attempt to capture perpetrators’ related views on punishment or treatment.
Understanding Survivors’ Beliefs
Understanding survivor perceptions of the causes of sexual offending is a critical undertaking for a number of reasons. First, as those most profoundly impacted by sexual violence, survivors have unique insights (Craun & Simmons, 2012; Socia et al., 2019) and a wealth of knowledge about its causes. Survivors may possess what Wylie (2003) calls “epistemic advantage” or “epistemic privilege”: they may “know different things, or know some things better than those who are comparatively privileged (socially, politically), by virtue of what they typically experience and how they understand their experience” (p. 26). Second, sex offender policy is often influenced by what survivors want (or at least, what governments imagine survivors want). There is thus much value in understanding not only what survivors want in policy terms, but what informs these preferences. Third, it has been well-established that how survivors make sense of their victimization strongly influences their well-being and recovery (Draucker, 2001; Graham et al., 2020). Understanding how survivors understand the causes of sexual offending will add an important layer of knowledge in this regard, potentially helping shape therapeutic practice with survivors. This study begins to address this gap in knowledge by examining survivors’ beliefs about the causes of sexual offending, and whether and how their etiological explanations inform their policy preferences in this regard.
Conceptual Background
Much of the literature canvassed above is embedded in an attribution theory perspective. Attribution theory is centrally concerned with individuals’ explanatory thinking; it asserts that “people automatically search for causes” (Nickel & Spink, 2010, p. 2927). The theory aims to make sense of the explanations that people ascribe to social phenomena, and how motivations and behaviors are shaped by these explanations (Collings, 2002). A key assumption that underpins attribution theory is that a logical relationship exists between individuals’ causal attributions about a problematic phenomenon and the solutions that they endorse in relation to that phenomenon—that there is a “clear and logical relationship between the perceived etiology and cure” (Furnham & Haraldsen, 1998, p. 689). Four dimensions or “continua of causal explanation” (Benson, 1989, p. 308) make up attribution theory: (a) locus of control; (b) stability; (c) controllability; and (d) globality (Benson, 1989; McKay et al., 1996; Purvis et al., 2003). Locus of control considers whether causes are internal or external to the individual; stability considers the potential changeability of causes over time; controllability refers to the degree to which causes are within the control of the individual; and globality refers to the extent to which a cause is confined to specific circumstances (i.e., is situational) or generalizable to all areas of the individual’s behavior (Benson, 1989; Osborne & Weiner, 2015; Purvis et al., 2003).
The theory posits that individuals are more likely to be held personally responsible for their behavior if it is deemed the result of internal, stable, controllable, and/or global factors that are essentially within the control of the individual (Whitehead & Baker, 2012). Indeed, “controllability” is virtually synonymous with “responsibility” (Jahnke et al., 2015, p. 23). Conversely, behaviors considered to be “natural,” circumstantial or uncontrollable lead to more favorable responses, “as people are convinced that the other person is not to ‘blame’ for his or her condition” (Jahnke et al., 2015, p. 23).
Much empirical support exists for attribution theory, demonstrating that what individuals believe to be the cause of a given phenomenon strongly shapes their level of support for policies relating to that phenomenon. For example, a belief that same-sex attraction stems from natural or genetic factors informs support for same-sex civil rights, marriage, and adoption (Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008; Overby, 2014). Indeed, causal beliefs have consistently been found to be the single strongest predictor of support for policy measures (see, for example, Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008), and to be stronger predictors than demographic factors (Furnham & Haraldsen, 1998) and even political and religious beliefs (Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008; Overby, 2014). In particular, a belief that the causes of a given phenomenon are outside of the control of the individual strongly predicts more positive evaluations of sufferers, and less harsh responses to them. This has been found to be the case in relation to phenomena as diverse as obesity (DeJong, 1980), body odor (Levine & McBurney, 1977), poverty (Osborne & Weiner, 2015), mental illness (Corrigan et al., 2003), and HIV/AIDS (Kasapoglu et al., 2011). This is important in the context of this study as it aimed to examine both survivor beliefs about the etiology of sexual offending, and ways in which these etiological explanations shape beliefs about policy responses to perpetrators of sexual violence.
Method
The research was approached from a constructivist epistemological standpoint, abandoning any positivist notion of “the truth,” in line with a feminist framework (see Renzetti, 1997). It assumed that “knowledge and truth are created, not discovered” (Schwandt, 1998, p. 236), and that people’s realities are plastic and plural, “stretched and shaped to fit purposeful acts of intentional human agents” (Schwandt, 1998, p. 236). The study stems from a larger research project that sought to document survivors’ views about the reintegration of sexual offenders (Richards et al., 2020). A broadly feminist approach to the research was employed, which positions women as experts on their own lives (Stanley & Wise, 1993), privileges the voices of survivors, and supports women to tell their stories on their own terms (see Reinharz, 1992). Specifically, a feminist phenomenology, which aimed to explore the meanings that survivors give to their own experiences (Reinharz, 1992), was adopted. Phenomenological research is primarily concerned with identifying and understanding participants’ own understandings (Pompili, 2010); feminist phenomenology insists on “taking seriously . . . the phenomena portrayed in women’s own experiential accounts” (Allen-Collinson, 2011, p. 310).
As such, and in contrast to the majority of research using an attribution theory lens, the most suitable methodological approach was qualitative. Qualitative research aims to explore and document the beliefs, experiences, and knowledges (Kraska & Neuman, 2012) of participants, rather than quantify these. In other words, the nature of survivors’ views about the causes of sexual offending, rather than the extent of endorsement of particular causal narratives, was the key focus.
Survivors were recruited into the study via the Facebook page of the Bravehearts Foundation, an Australia-wide nongovernment child protection advocacy and support organization. To be eligible to take part in the study, individuals were required to be aged at least 18 years and self-identify as a survivor of sexual violence. Eligible prospective participants were asked to contact the research team to arrange a time for an interview. The sampling strategy is best understood as a combination of purposive and convenience sampling (Gray, 2009). As a result of both Queensland University of Technology and the Bravehearts Foundation being located in South East Queensland, most participants were from this geographical location. Interviews were conducted in-person by a member of the research team or on occasion via telephone for practical reasons. They lasted an average of approximately 1 hr.
The interviews were semi-structured, with the researchers using a predetermined list of questions but remaining free to deviate from these to follow the cues of interviewees (Chan et al., 2013). The questions were open-ended to elicit rich responses from participants in their own words. Open-ended questions are virtually synonymous with qualitative research as they reveal what is of primary importance to interviewees themselves (Weller et al., 2018). Open-ended questions are especially important when interviewing survivors of sexual violence to avoid forcing interviewees to discuss topics that are painful (Reinharz, 1992); using open-ended questions allows survivors to “decide, construct, and control what they wanted to talk about” (Campbell et al., 2010, p. 77).
Participants were asked a series of questions about their views of sexual offender reintegration broadly, including what their needs were (or might be) at the time of reintegration, and what they thought the convicted person would need (for the complete list of interview questions see Richards et al., 2020). For example, participants were asked: “How did you feel about the perpetrator being released into the community?” “Do you think it important that sexual offenders be supported to reintegrate into the community after prison? Why/why not?” and “How could the risk that offenders pose to women and children be minimized in the reintegration process?” Importantly, the interviews were not specifically designed to elicit data on survivor views of the causes of sexual offending. Instead, discussion of causality emerged organically in the interviews. However, given that the interviews were concerned with survivor views of sexual offender reintegration, it was inevitable that beliefs about causality would inform and color survivors’ responses. This approach is advocated by O’Neil and Morgan (2010), who argue that a key to eliciting data that reflect ways of thinking about causes is giving participants “freedom to follow topics in the directions they deemed relevant and not in directions the interviewer believed most germane” (p. 8; emphasis in the original).
The interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent, and were transcribed verbatim before being imported into the qualitative analysis software package NVivo. Coding proceeded in two stages. In the first, the data were coded deductively (i.e., according to predetermined themes; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Excerpts of the interviews were coded into the four broad attribution categories of locus of control, stability, controllability, and globality. During this stage, data were also coded for: each of the eight causal explanations identified in the literature on public opinion (genetic and/or biological; mental illness; cycle of abuse; choice; moral failings; exposure to pornography and/or masturbating to deviant sexual imagery; enhancing masculinity; drug and alcohol abuse); each of the eight causal explanations identified in the literature on professionals’ views of causality (developmental; social competence; sexual; power and control; psychopathology; victim reasons; values and beliefs; personality deficits); each of the four causal explanations identified in the literature on perpetrators’ causal explanations (cycle of abuse, anger, dominance and humiliation; intimacy; situational); and the only additional explanation identified in extant literature on survivors’ beliefs about causality (control, power or domination). In some cases, codes were combined to form one category due to the significant overlap between these (e.g., “cycle of abuse” and “developmental”; and “mental illness” and “psychopathological”). As is usually good practice in qualitative research (Creswell, 2015), this stage of coding also allowed for themes and concepts to emerge inductively to enable causal explanations that have not previously been identified to emerge. In other words, while looking specifically for evidence of existing causal explanations in survivor interviews, the coding process also sought to document causal explanations proposed by survivors that had not previously been identified. The second stage involved examining each of the coding categories created in the previous step for links between survivor beliefs about the cause of sexual offending and related views about preferred policy responses to sexual offenders, in accordance with attribution theory.
The analytical approach to the data was thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Grbich, 2013). This approach involves identifying patterns in the data set—“the search for and identification of common threads” (Vaismoradi et al., 2013, p. 400)—and producing descriptions of these (Nowell et al., 2017; Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Thematic analysis is suitable for research projects that aim to explore the views and/or experiences of individuals, but also any differences or similarities among these (Mason, 2018). Although the project was qualitative, in line with Mason’s (2018) suggestion, care has been taken to give readers a sense of how frequently particular themes appeared in the data set. As a final step, a randomly selected sample of nine of the interview transcripts were reread thoroughly to check whether any codes or themes had not been captured by the previous steps. However, this did not yield any new codes or themes.
The research was approved by Queensland University of Technology’s Human Research Ethics Committee (approval #1600001093). In accordance with the project’s ethical clearance, interviewees have neither been named in this article nor given a pseudonym, to ensure that details of their stories cannot be pieced together by readers. Importantly, however, excerpts of all interviews have been included in the discussion below in an effort to ensure that quotes have not been “cherry-picked” (Morse, 2010) to support particular interpretations of the data.
The Sample
In total, 33 female survivors aged between 20–70+ years took part in the study. The women reported having experienced a wide variety of sexual offenses—penetrative and non-penetrative offenses, recent and historical offenses, intra- and extrafamilial offenses, child sexual abuse and sexual violence as adults, institutional and noninstitutional abuse. A strength of the data set is that survivors of both child sexual abuse and sexual violence as adults (and sometimes both) were included. A limitation of previous research on causal explanations is that these phenomena have not been differentiated (see, for example, Fontes et al., 2001; Pickett et al., 2013), meaning that causes of offenses as distinct as child sexual abuse and statutory rape are examined as though they might not give rise to distinct causal explanations. The violence perpetrated against the participants was overwhelmingly perpetrated by males, including family members (grandfathers, fathers, uncles and “step” versions of these), peers and acquaintances, as well as those in positions of authority (such as church leaders), members of organized child sexual abuse “rings,” and strangers. In five cases, participants reported having been victimized by another young person (e.g., being gang-raped by three peers at age 14; abused as a child by an older cousin; raped by a peer at boarding school aged 15; being sexually abused as an 8-year-old by a 15-year-old neighbor; and being sexually abused by a step-brother). In all these five cases, however, the participant has also been sexually victimized by at least one other person and/or in at least one other context. Indeed, in about half the cases overall, participants had experienced sexual violence perpetrated by more than one individual and/or in more than one scenario. These participants reported, for example, having been sexually abused as a child within the family and then later assaulted as an adult in an unrelated incident, or to have been abused by a family member initially and then subsequently in an institutional setting such as a foster home. This was unsurprising given that repeat sexual victimization is common and has been well-documented in the literature (Clark & Quadara, 2010). It nonetheless presents some analytical challenges. We might, for example, expect survivors to have different views of juvenile perpetrators than adult perpetrators. Given that survivors with juvenile perpetrators were also abused by adults, however, disentangling their views in this regard was not possible in this study. It should also be noted that survivors were reflecting on perpetrators in general, informed by their own experiences. Thus, while survivors’ relationship to their perpetrator(s) may shape their views about causality, disentangling their beliefs about this was also not possible here. As noted below, these important questions should form the focus of future research.
Results
Two general points emerged from the data that help illuminate survivors’ beliefs about the causes of sexual offending presented below. First, survivors appeared to deliberately adhere to those causal explanations that they found most palatable. As one interviewee said, “If they’re hurting emotionally then they’ll hurt someone externally. That’s my understanding. I don’t know how true that is, but that’s how I look at it.” This wording implies an element of intentionality in this survivor’s understanding of causality. This deliberateness characterized many of the survivors’ causal narratives: Whether they’ve been traumatized themselves or it’s some kind of mental health issue. . . . I guess for me, a part of it is that I don’t want to believe that someone will do those things just because. . . that to me is just too hard to kind of process. I mean I’m very much against pedophiles and sex crimes and everything, but I do try and look at it from, obviously they are sick and they need healing themselves.
It has long been acknowledged that perpetrators’ narratives are “strategically pitched” (Presser, 2009, p. 181), may be shaped by feelings of shame (Paulauskas, 2015), and/or be socially learned (Mann & Hollin, 2007). This study suggests that survivors’ causal explanations may also be agentic or intentional, reflecting survivors’ own truths rather than some “objective” truth. This echoes research that demonstrates that survivors often craft narratives that offer psychological self-protection when they engage in meaning-making about their experiences of sexual victimization (Fetchenhauer et al., 2005).
Second, interviewees rarely considered sexual offending to stem from a singular cause; rather, they often gave multiple causal explanations: “[Some] take what they want I suppose. And others enjoy the violence probably. There’s probably all sorts of reasons why they rape”; “There may be all sorts lingering as to why they are like they are.” Survivors, therefore, could not be grouped together according to their adherence to particular causal explanations. Rather, survivors’ etiological explanations emerged from across the interviews, often appearing in combination in any single interview. These casual explanations fell into four main categories: developmental, psychopathological, genetic and/or biological, and power and control explanations. These are discussed in turn in the remainder of this section.
Developmental Causal Explanations
Survivors adhered strongly to developmental etiological explanations, with many holding the belief that people perpetrate sexual offenses due to having experienced child sexual abuse themselves. This cycle of abuse narrative was raised repeatedly in the interviews, with survivors stating: “they’ve probably have been abused themselves,” “they’re fucked up because it’s happened to them and they just can’t deal with it,” “maybe because they copped it themselves,” and asking “how many of these convicted sex offenders have been victims themselves?”
In other cases, developmental causes were seen in more general terms. Rather than having been the victim of child sexual abuse, perpetrators were believed to have suffered some more general life circumstance that had given rise to their offending, including “physical violence,” “issues at home that’s caused this,” having “something that they’re missing in their lives,” “childhood traumas,” or having “lived a crappy life.” In a similar vein, survivors constructed the cause of sexual offending as stemming from perpetrators being “injured souls that need some more help,” “obviously hurting in some way,” and “really hurting.” One interviewee was so convinced that survivors of child sexual abuse go on to become perpetrators that she spoke of having to do “a lot of work on myself” to break this cycle.
Importantly, however, a small number of survivors expressed strong resistance to this causal narrative. One described this view as “a load of shit as far as I’m concerned,” and another stated, “I’m not a proponent of the view that people who have been abused, will re-abuse. I think that’s a myth.” In contrast to the public’s strong adherence to this causal narrative (Richards, 2018, 2019), survivors’ own experiences of victimization can thus lead to an understanding that victimization does not lead directly to abusive behavior (see also Katz-Schiavone et al., 2008). In one survivor’s words: You know, people say “I had a bad childhood and that’s why I did what I did, because it happened to me” and it’s like “you know what, all this shit happened to me, and there’s no way in hell I would put my worst enemy through it.”
In any case, a belief in the victim-to-abuser cycle did not inevitably lead to support for particular policy and practice measures. For some, prior victimization renders perpetrators a profound and permanent risk: Some people have . . . were abused themselves, have childhood traumas, and things like that. There’s a very high risk that they will reoffend because they actually don’t know any different. I think many of them are very damaged people themselves and I think we have to be very realistic about how much healing and how civil they are able to be made.
For other survivors, however, understanding perpetrators as victims resulted in perpetrators being constructed as better equipped to manage their risk. One stated, I suppose it just gives you, if you understand [the cycle of abuse], you can put better things into place to stop that from happening or if something happens in their life that triggers something you can be prepared to make sure that that trigger doesn’t happen again.
For another survivor, who believed firmly in developmental causes of sexual offending, as “Almost 100% of the ones I know of and [have] researched and stuff, have been abused themselves,” likewise saw therapeutic interventions and “really nailing down the pain that they’ve got from childhood” as “extremely important.”
Psychopathology Causal Explanations
Survivors also commonly endorsed psychopathological causal explanations of sexual offending. Interviewees frequently labeled perpetrators “psychopaths,” “narcissists,” as being “sick,” or having “some kind of mental health issue,” “mental condition” or “mental illness.” In one survivor’s terms, “obviously, they’re a bit fucked in the head.” Interestingly, while survivors rarely discussed substance misuse as leading to sexual offending, many conceptualized sexual offending as akin to a substance (or other) addiction. For example, interviewees often described sexual offending as “a compulsion,” “compulsive,” and/or “obsessive,” and drew links between sexual offending and other compulsive behaviors such as substance misuse, kleptomania and even overeating: It’s almost like someone who’s an emotional eater and they’re fat, but then they get upset so they eat more chocolate and then they get upset because they’re fat and so they eat more chocolate. It’s just this vicious circle. It’s like a drug addict . . . they just can’t stop, they can’t. They keep trying but they fail. The ratio of people getting past that is very low, it’s like an addiction.
In particular, survivors viewed repeat sexual offending and enjoyment of the infliction of pain—“get[ting] off on the pain . . . of other people”—as markers of psychopathological causes: “If someone’s a serial rapist then clearly, they’ve got a big mental issue that they need to address”; “I believe the man . . . was a psychopath. He also abused his six children. . . . He couldn’t care less. He enjoyed inflicting pain.” Similarly, for another survivor: . . . my step-father in my situation, he’s a sick man and there’s no healing them. He has some other family that he’s doing it to and you know they just go from one family to the next. . . . But once it’s repetitive and once it’s underage . . . we’re talking about a sick, dishonest [person].
Again, however, belief in this causal explanation did not automatically lead to survivors being favorably disposed toward particular interventions, with survivors who endorsed this causal explanation proposing highly varied policy responses. One, who deemed her perpetrator a “psychopath” and a “sick man,” called for “castration . . . to turn off that area of the brain.” In contrast, another survivor, despite considering sexual offending to be “compulsive . . . like someone who’s a recovering alcoholic or drug addict,” supported offenders being released to halfway houses and provided with cognitive behavioral therapy to manage their risk of reoffending: “Everybody’s an individual and would have their own risk factors or triggers, perhaps, that would put them in danger of offending. So, I think the halfway house is, yeah, really valuable.” Likewise, for others, who supported rehabilitative measures: “It just seems to me that it’s such a sickness. I think it can be overcome, definitely, if you train your mind”; “The urges will probably always be there . . . [but] . . . you can retrain the brain. We know that.”
Genetic and/or Biological Causal Explanations
Many survivors adhered to genetic and/or biological causal explanations of sexual offending, referring to perpetrators having “certain paths in their brain,” having “brain issues” and needing to be “rewired,” and being “driven by their testosterone . . . their sex drive.” This explanation was reserved primarily for child sex offenders, although it was proffered by survivors who had been victimized as both children and adults. Survivors typically differentiated between the causes of sexual offending against children and adults. For example, one interviewee believed that “There is a line between predatory behavior against children versus adult rape . . . people who rape children or [are] pedophiles have actual brain issues.” Another stated that: It’s probably going to be two completely different things based on a child sex offender and an adult sex offender. I personally think you cannot rehabilitate a pedophile—a pedophile is sexually attracted to a child, much as a man is attracted to a woman. . . . So they cannot help themselves.
This etiological explanation of sexual offending was thus perceived as stable by survivors. In one participant’s words, “It’s how he’s wired. If I’ve got a dog that’s wired to be savage, that’s how it’s wired, it doesn’t matter how many fucking cuddles I give it.” However, even this steadfast belief in the static nature of the cause of sexual offending did not uniformly lead survivors to conclude that the cause is uncontrollable. On the contrary, most survivors who believed sexual offending caused by genetic and/or biological factors constructed perpetrators as subjects who can and should control the cause of their offending. One, for example, who described pedophiles as having “brain issues” that need “rewiring” and for whom she believed that “rehabilitation is almost impossible,” nonetheless expressed support for preventive measures: Prior to offending, they need the campaigners or whatever, who let them know that, “It’s okay. It’s not normal to have these sexual urges for children, but it’s okay. You need to get help. Do it before you do anything.”
Power and Control Causal Explanations
The final causal explanation frequently reflected in survivor narratives was power and control. Interviewees spoke of sexual offending as “a power thing for some of them,” stemming from “the ability to control a person and to have power over this person,” and an expression of “power and control and getting people when they’re vulnerable.” This etiological explanation was put forward primarily by survivors of child sexual abuse but in relation to sexual offending against adults, rather than children: It depends whether we are talking pedophiles or rapists of adults. I think they’re two different kettles of fish, in a way. For rapist of adults . . . it’s much more about control and power and stuff and anger management stuff than sexual things. Whereas, [with] pedophiles I think it’s more sexually related.
As with the previous causal explanations proposed by survivors, adherence to the power and control explanation did not inexorably lend itself to support for particular policy responses. Compare, for example, the views of three survivors: It’s not a crime of sex, it’s about power. . . . And if it can’t be addressed, they shouldn’t be out [of prison]. They feel they need to dominate. . . . And a lot of it’s control and domination. And a desire to hurt. And they must be injured souls that need some more help themselves. I think with rapists . . . I’m guessing that a lot of them have got anger and control issues. ‘Cause rape is often not sexual-related, but I think it really is the control that gets them off. . . . They need counselling. They need to be monitored.
Here, the same causal explanation gave rise to interventions as varied as indefinite incarceration, monitoring, and counseling support.
Discussion
In contrast to what we would expect to find based on both attribution theory and on the literature about public and professional causal beliefs, “logical” links between survivors’ causal beliefs and endorsement of any particular policy measure were rare. Compare, for example, I have almost got to the point where I am almost sympathetic towards pedophiles because it is a sickness. So, I do believe that counselling is very important. I mean, some of them are just sick and evil. But I think, you still can offer counselling courses. When this drive is internal, all the talking and all the therapy in the world doesn’t change what they feel inside.
Even belief in an uncontrollable cause (e.g., biological or psychopathological), which ought to inform a preference for progressive measures, according to attribution theory, does not routinely lead to survivors being favorably disposed toward progressive measures. On the contrary, in some cases, it is precisely the uncontrollability of the cause that renders perpetrators an unacceptable risk in the minds of survivors. Survivors’ narratives even defied the binary constructs of attribution theory. For example, survivors believed in a combination of internal and external causes, and often viewed causes as being both internal and external. While the cycle of abuse explanation reflects an external cause, in survivor narratives, the consequences of having experienced abuse as a child become internalized and manifest as personality traits in perpetrators. For example, having experienced abuse as a child is seen as the original cause, but this manifests itself as a personality disorder such as a need for power and control, again giving rise to varied beliefs about policy responses. Likewise, belief in a seemingly controllable cause (e.g., power and control) was often framed by survivors as uncontrollable and thus unchangeable: “It’s not a crime of sex, it’s about power. . . . Sex is just the tool they use to get that power. . . . So, I don’t know that people can be rehabilitated.”
Survivors even frequently teased out the causes of causes, believing etiological explanations to interact with one another in far more diverse and complex ways than attribution theory would suggest. While an interviewee may have stated a belief that a particular factor gives rise to sexual offending, she commonly linked this, in turn, to a deeper, underlying, or more essential causal factor. For example, a desire for power and control may be seen in turn as the result of the cycle of abuse or another developmental issue: “people who have power problems, that is probably stemming from something that happened to them as a child, or lack of self-esteem.”
Taken together, these findings suggest that survivors’ beliefs about the causes of sexual offending and suitable policy responses are far more complex and multifaceted than attribution theory would allow. Such beliefs are better understood as “kaleidoscopic” in McGlynn and Westmarland’s (2019) terms—that is, as fractured, shifting, and nonlinear. Indeed, survivors’ beliefs about the causes of sexual offending appear so kaleidoscopic as to render a linear connection between a causal belief and a desired policy measure improbable.
In turn, this suggests that survivors understand sexual violence in different ways from the public, professionals, and perpetrators. While we might expect the public, professionals, and perpetrators to hold “logical” beliefs connecting perceived causes of and responses to sexual violence, this study suggests that to expect the same from survivors may be misguided. In Wylie’s (2003) terms, survivors possess “epistemic advantage” (p. 26) about the causes of sexual offending, knowing different things, and knowing things differently, from those who have not experienced sexual violence. This demonstrates the vital knowledge of survivors that is often excluded from research and public policy debates. This finding speaks to the importance of incorporating survivor views in policy and practice measures designed to prevent and respond to sexual violence (Richards et al., 2020; Socia et al., 2019), rather than enacting such measures on behalf of, or in the name of, survivors. The research presented above begins to destabilize the uniformly angry, vengeful victim of governments’ imagining, who will automatically support punitive policies, suggesting that implementing policies based on this image, without understanding the multidimensionality of survivors’ views, is irresponsible at best.
Conclusion
This study set out to examine the causal narratives to which survivors of sexual violence adhere. Adopting an attribution theory lens, operationalized qualitatively, it found that survivors endorse four main etiological explanations for sexual violence: developmental, psychopathological, genetic and/or biological, and power and control explanations. However, in opposition to attribution theory, which posits that holding particular causal beliefs inevitably leads to support for particular policy measures, the research found that this was not the case. Instead, survivors’ causal explanations were highly complex and often agentic. Belief in any particular cause did not inexorably result in support for a particular, related, policy position.
The research presented here relied on a small, self-selected sample, and cannot be considered to be representative of survivors generally. Crucially, the recruitment strategy failed to capture the views of male survivors, young survivors, First Nations survivors, culturally and linguistically diverse survivors, and survivors with disabilities. Given that many of these cohorts are overrepresented among survivors of sexual violence, this is a key limitation of the data presented above. Nonetheless, as an exploratory study, the research provides important insights into survivors’ beliefs about the causality of sexual offending, as well as a platform for future research. It is likely, for example, that survivors’ beliefs about causality are culturally informed; to this end, research using cross-national samples would provide a fuller insight into survivors’ views. It is also likely that sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, political and religious orientation, and survivors’ particular experiences of sexual violence (e.g., whether perpetrated by a known or unknown person, by a juvenile or adult, age at victimization, nature of the violence [e.g., whether an isolated incident or an ongoing pattern of abuse]) shape survivor beliefs about the causes of sexual violence. This could not be explored in this study, but should form the focus of future research and would be useful for developing a deeper understanding of this important topic.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
The author acknowledges funding from Australia’s National Research Organization for Women’s Safety for a broader project from which the data presented here emerged. The author also acknowledges colleagues Dr. Jodi Death (Queensland University of Technology) and Ms. Carol Ronken (Bravehearts Foundation), who were involved in the original project. Finally, the author is grateful to all the survivors who contributed their time and expertise to this project.
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 work was funded by Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.
