Les distorsions cognitives des auteurs d'agression sexuelle d'enfant : définitions, fonctions, et enjeux théoriques

What goes through the mind of a child molester when they commit the offence? The question of the role of cognitions and, in particular, cognitive distortions, is central to the evaluation and treatment of child molesters. Cognitive distortions were developed by Beck in his work on depression during the sixties. This concept was introduced into sexual delinquency around thirty years ago. There are many diverse definitions and they refer as much to false beliefs, the process of transforming reality and causal attribution, as to excuses or even justifications. Their diffusion and rapid acceptance by researchers as well as clinicians is based on the intuitive idea that child molesters think in a fundamentally different way from the rest of the population. However, this perspective is not the only way of understanding the nature of cognitive distortions. A number of misunderstandings arising from debates on the treatment of cognitive distortions are based on different definitions of this concept. This article offers a summary of literature related to cognitive distortions of child molesters in order to clarify their definitions and functions. Abel et al. (1984) were the first authors to introduce the idea of cognitive distortions to sexual delinquency. The concept was suggested in an etiological perspective of sexual aggression. For these authors, as for others (Finkelhor, 1984; Ward et al., 2006), cognitive distortions correspond to attitudes, which existed prior to the sexual aggression and thus, are involved in the process of committing the act and in the persistence of sexual behavioral problems. Finkelhor (1984) offers a functional perspective in which cognitive distortions serve to break down the individual's internal inhibitions. Ward et al. prefer a structural perspective, which suggests that cognitive distortions are the consequence of underlying schemas (or Implicit Theories). The aim of treatment is, therefore, to be able to identify and “restructure” any beliefs that child molesters may use to justify or minimize their behavior. This conceptualization of cognitive distortions as cognitive products labeled “surface”, understood as the consequence of latent cognitive structures, constitutes the dominant perspective on sexual delinquency today. However, several authors (Ciardha and Ward, 2013) emphasize that current data is insufficient to prove that Implicit Theories could be a basis of vulnerability towards sexual aggression. Furthermore, some research suggests that cognitive distortions do not necessary explain sexual aggression. A second perspective considers cognitive distortions as a response to the offense, closer to justification (McKibben, 1999), causal attribution (Maruna and Mann, 2006) or denial (Schneider and Wright, 2001). Their function would be to allow the individual to regulate shame, guilt and loss of self-esteem associated with the offending behavior. Confronted with social disapproval, child molesters do not behave differently from other individuals “caught in the act”, whether it be drink-driving or any other inappropriate behavior. In addition, this may be a step towards the appropriation of responsibility. Furthermore, some authors suggest that these cognitive distortions could be part of a beneficial treatment process, and ultimately used to prevent recidivism (Marshall et al., 2011; Maruna and Mann, 2006). More recently, new models have tried to articulate these two perspectives and go beyond them with even more complex theories. The single factor model of cognitive distortions has been expanded (Ward and Siegert, 2002) to introduce biological, environmental and neuropsychological factors (Ward and Beech, 2006). However, further research is required to test these new models. The latest theories underline the fact that the debate on the nature of cognitive distortions linked to sexual aggression is far from closed and has major implications. Without necessary clarification on the function of cognitive distortions and their role in the offense, it is difficult to define the objectives of therapeutic intervention or of prevention of recidivism.