|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|94510||160302||2015||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Research has been hampered by small sample sizes and a lack of a consistent definition of denial.
• Deniers are not different from admitters in terms of risk or amenability to treatment.
• The purpose of denial has important implications for risk assessment and treatment.
• Denial is often due to shame or fears of losing family support.
• It is not yet clear which is the best treatment approach for sex offenders who deny.
Although denial takes many forms, in this review we have restricted our concerns to those sex offenders who claim to not have committed a sexual offense. We refer to these offenders as “categorical deniers”. The literature on the incidence of categorical denial, the characteristics of these offenders, and the many purposes denial seems to serve are all given consideration. We then examine the relationship of categorical denial to future risk taking into consideration the relationship of future risk to the meaning denial has for these men. Next we consider three different approaches treatment providers have taken to categorical deniers. These involve: 1) a decision to exclude them from treatment; 2) attempts to overcome denial (either by involving them in a pre-treatment program, or embedding them within a regular program); and 3) the provision of a program exclusively for deniers. Evidence for all of these approaches is limited and not yet impressive enough to allow for conclusions as to their value. Finally, we suggest that future studies include larger numbers of deniers and differentiate offender types.
Journal: Aggression and Violent Behavior - Volume 25, Part B, November–December 2015, Pages 215–226