Cognitive Schemas and Sexual Offending - Differences Between Rapists, Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Child Molesters, and Nonsexual Offenders

Child Abuse & Neglect 40 (2015) 81–92
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Child Abuse & Neglect
Cognitive schemas and sexual offending: Differences

between rapists, pedophilic and nonpedophilic child
molesters, and nonsexual offenders夽
Vera Sigre-Leirós ∗ , Joana Carvalho, Pedro Nobre
Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciência da Educação da Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Empirical research has primarily focused on the differences between rapists and child
Received 9 June 2014 molesters. Nonetheless, a greater understanding of specific needs of specific subtypes of
Received in revised form 7 September 2014 sex offenders is necessary. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship
Accepted 1 October 2014
between the early maladaptive schemas and different types of sexual offending behavior.
Available online 22 October 2014
Fifty rapists, 59 child molesters (19 pedophilic and 40 nonpedophilic), and 51 nonsexual
offenders answered the Young Schema Questionnaire, the Brief Symptom Inventory, and
Keywords:
the Socially Desirable Response Set Measure. Data were analyzed using sets of multino-
Cognitive schemas
mial logistic regression, controlling for sociodemographic variables, psychological distress,
Sexual offending
Pedophilia and social desirability. Results showed that pedophilic offenders were more likely to hold
Rapists the defectiveness and subjugation schemas compared to the other three groups. Likewise,
Child molesters nonpedophilic child molesters were more likely to hold the social isolation, enmesh-
Nonsexual offenders ment, and unrelenting standards schemas compared to rapists. Additionally, rapists were
more likely to hold the vulnerability to harm, approval-seeking, and punitiveness schemas
compared to nonpedophiles and/or nonsex offenders. Overall, our findings suggest that
cognitive schemas may play a role in the vulnerability for sexual offending and corroborate
the need to distinguish between the two subtypes of child molesters. Despite the need for
further investigation, findings may have important implications for the treatment of sex
offenders and for the prevention of sexual crimes.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Sexual violence is a widespread problem with high prevalence and significant personal and social repercussions (see
World Health Organization, 2012). Therefore, empirical research on the correlates of this aggressive behavior is of utmost
importance. Cognitive distortions are offense-supportive attitudes and/or post-offense rationalizations that have historically
been an important component of cognitive behavioral treatment for sex offenders (Maruna & Mann, 2006; Yates, 2013).
Besides, there is a growing consensus that such cognitions arise from underlying cognitive schemas, and these schemas
should be the primary target of sex offenders’ treatment (Beech, Bartels, & Dixon, 2013; Maruna & Mann, 2006; Yates, 2013).
A schema may be defined as a cognitive structure that includes stable beliefs and assumptions about the self, others and the
world, and functions as a broad organizing principle that directs the cognitive processing of one’s life events (Beck, 1995;
夽 This study was part of a larger research project supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) in Portugal (grant: SFRH/BD/73032/2010).
∗ Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.10.003
0145-2134/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
82 V. Sigre-Leirós et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 40 (2015) 81–92
Young, Klosko, & Weishaar, 2003). Specifically, in order to gain a better understanding of an offender’s cognition, we should
assess cognitive schemas from both sexual (related to his type of offense) and nonsexual (related to his general-level beliefs)
themes (Beech et al., 2013).
Available studies on schemata in sexual offenders have found different key themes in rapists and child molesters. Schemas
of suspicious/hostility to women, sexual entitlement, grievance, and a need for control have been found in rapists whereas
child molesters presented a greater sense of worthlessness (Mann & Hollin, 2001; Milner & Webster, 2005). Ward (2000)
suggested that sex offenders’ schemata can better be viewed as implicit theories about the nature of the victim, the offender,
and the world. Five core implicit theories were identified, respectively for child molesters (children as sexual objects, entitle-
ment, dangerous world, uncontrollability, and nature of harm; Ward & Keenan, 1999), and for rapists (women are dangerous,
women are sex objects, male sex drive is uncontrollable, entitlement, and dangerous world; Polaschek & Gannon, 2004;
Polaschek & Ward, 2002).
More recently, some studies have shown a relationship between Early Maladaptive Schemas (EMSs) and sexual aggression
using sexually aggressive adolescents (Richardson, 2005), college samples of men reporting sexual aggression against women
(Sigre-Leirós, Carvalho, & Nobre, 2013) or convicted sexual offenders (Carvalho & Nobre, 2014; Chakhssi, Ruiter, & Bernstein,
2013). The EMSs consist in broad, dysfunctional themes or patterns regarding oneself and one’s relationship with others
that develop primarily as a result of adverse early experiences (e.g., neglect, abuse), particularly in the nuclear family (Young
et al., 2003). In line with that assumption, early family dysfunction and different types of abuse (sexual, physical, emotional
and neglect) have been consistently identified in the developmental history of sex offenders (e.g., Connoly & Woollons, 2008;
Lee, Jackson, Pattison, & Ward, 2002; Smallbone & Dadds, 1998). For instance, findings from a meta-analysis conducted by
Jespersen, Lalumière, and Seto (2009) showed that a sexual victimization history was significantly more prevalent among
adult sex offenders compared to nonsexual offenders. Likewise, child molesters (including pedophilic and nonpedophilic)
were more likely to have been sexually abused than sex offenders against adults. Similarly, in a meta-analysis on adolescent
sexual offending, Seto and Lalumière (2010) found that a sexual abuse history, exposure to sexual violence, and/or neglect
were among the most relevant explanations for this behavior, compared to adolescent nonsexual criminality. Furthermore,
Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Theory (1990) proposes that childhood attachment problems, particularly with parents,
may create important vulnerabilities that increase the likelihood of an individual to commit sexual offenses. Indeed, EMSs
are vulnerability factors for later psychological/personality problems being strongly related to emotional, interpersonal, and
behavioral difficulties (Young et al., 2003).
Young proposed 18 EMSs divided into five general domains (cf. Young et al., 2003): (1) disconnection/rejection domain
(individuals with schemas in this domain are unable to form secure and satisfying bonds to others); (2) impaired auton-
omy/performance domain (schemas from this domain characterize individuals with problems related to self-individuation
and autonomy); (3) impaired limits domain (individuals with schemas in this domain present difficulties related to inter-
personal reciprocity and self-discipline); (4) other directness domain (schemas from this domain characterize individuals
consistently seeking other’s approval); (5) over vigilance/inhibition domain (individuals with schemas from this domain
suppress feelings and impulses, being consistently alert and vigilant).
Findings from studies conducted with convicted offenders showed that EMSs from the disconnection/rejection domain
(i.e., abandonment, social isolation, and defectiveness/shame) and from the other-directedness domain (i.e., subjugation
and self-sacrifice) were more prevalent in child molesters compared to nonsexual violent offenders. Compared to rapists,
child molesters showed a trend to have higher scores on the social isolation schema (Chakhssi et al., 2013). Compared to a
nonoffender control group, child molesters were further found to present overall higher scores in all domains, except in the
impaired limits domain, whereas rapists endorsed more schemas from the impaired autonomy domain. Additionally, child
molesters showed significant higher levels in the pessimism schema compared to rapists (Carvalho & Nobre, 2014). Overall,
these recent empirical studies suggest that EMSs may influence sex offenders’ perceptions about themselves, others and the
world, likely playing a role in offending behavior, particularly in child molesters.
The present study was based on the claim that while empirical research has primarily focused on the differences
between rapists and child molesters, a greater understanding of specific features of particular subtypes of sex offenders
(i.e., pedophilic offenders) is necessary. Sexual offending against children and pedophilia (i.e., a paraphilia characterized
by persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children) are often conflated, however they are not synonymous. About
40–50% of sex offenders with child victims present pedophilic interests (Seto, 2004, 2009), and empirical research has
shown some significant differences between the two child molesters subtypes (e.g., Strassberg, Eastvold, Wilson Kenney,
& Suchy, 2012). Pedophilic offenders are more likely to sexually reoffend and require different interventions (Seto, 2009).
Taking this evidence into account, investigation on specific correlates of pedophilia compared to other offending types is
required.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the EMSs and different types of sexual offend-
ing behavior. Specifically, we intended to compare three subtypes of sex offenders (rapists, pedophilic and nonpedophilic
child molesters) and a nonsex offender group on the basis of these cognitive schemas. The study is partially exploratory
given the lack of research on the cognitive profile of pedophilic child molesters. Besides, in light of prior findings on EMSs
in convicted sexual offenders (Carvalho & Nobre, 2014; Chakhssi et al., 2013) we expected that schemas from the dis-
connection/rejection domain, from the other-directedness domain, and from the overvigilance/inhibition domain would
characterize child molesters, whereas schemas from the impaired autonomy/performance domain would characterize
rapists.
V. Sigre-Leirós et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 40 (2015) 81–92 83
Table 1
Participant characteristics.
Rapists Pedophiles Nonpedophiles Nonsex offenders

(n = 50) (n = 19) (n = 40) (n = 51)
Age (years)
M (SD) 38.0a (9.1) 44.8b (14.1) 44.9b (9.6) 40.6ab (12.2)
Range 24–60 23–76 30–73 25–78
F(3,156) = 3.659*
Marital status (%)

Single 58.0 52.6 27.5 43.1
Married/Cohabiting 34.0 21.1 45.0 27.5
Separated/Divorced/Widowed 8.0 26.3 27.5 29.4
2 = 14.406; df = 6*
Education (years)
M (SD) 7.7ab (3.0) 9.5bc (3.7) 6.9a (3.2) 9.3c (3.7)
Range 4–12 4–15 4–15 4–15
F(3,156) = 5.087**
Past sexual victimization (%) 14.0 10.5 11.1 3.9

2 = 3.119; df = 3; p = .374
Alcohol abuse (%) 8.0 5.3 5.0 3.9

2 = .844; df = 3; p = .839
Drug abuse (%) 4.0 5.3 0 2.0
2 = 2.143; df = 3; p = .543
Note: Means in the same row with different superscripts letters differ significantly from each other.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
Method
Participants
A total of 59 child molesters and 50 rapists participated in the present study. For the definition of the groups, a cut-
off point of 14 for the victim age was considered. Child molesters included men convicted for sexual offense(s) involving
contact (such as fondling, oral sex, penetration) against children under the age of 14. Rapists included men convicted for
sexual offense(s) (mainly penetration involving physical and psychological coercion) against female victims aged 14 years
or older. Based on the Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (Seto & Lalumière, 2001; see a description in the measures
section), two subgroups of child molesters were constituted: pedophilic child molesters comprising individuals more likely
to have pedophilic sexual interests (n = 19; from now on, pedophiles), and nonpedophilic child molesters (n = 40; from now
on, nonpedophiles).
Fifty-one nonsexual offenders also participated in the study. They were convicted for different crimes including fraud,
robbery, burglary, and homicide. Their criminal files were reviewed in order to ensure that they had no sexual offenses in
their criminal histories. Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Procedure
Participants were recruited from four Portuguese prisons. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Direcção
Geral dos Serviços Prisionais in Portugal. All participants were approached individually by the principal investigator and
received a full explanation about the nature of the study, in a private room. After giving informed consent, participants
answered the questionnaires voluntarily with the assistance of the researcher, who was available to clarify items. Confi-
dentiality of data was emphasized and participants were informed of their right to withdraw from participation at any
time. Information on the characteristics of the crimes was collected through the check of criminal files. Data were collected
between January 2012 and October 2013.
Measures
Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI). The SSPI (Seto & Lalumière, 2001; translated to Portuguese by Carvalho, 2011)
is a brief screening instrument that measures pedophilic sexual interests among sex offenders with child victims. It was
positively and significantly correlated with phallometrically-measured sexual arousal to children, being useful as a research
measure in the absence of phallometric data (Seto & Lalumière, 2001). The scale was scored based on file information about
historical/static offense variables that are reliably associated with pedophilia among sex offenders: (1) any male victim; (2)
more than one victim; (3) any prepubescent victim; (4) any unrelated/extrafamilial victim. Possible total scores range from
0 to 5 with higher scores indicating pedophilic sexual interests (Seto, 2009; Seto & Lalumière, 2001). In this study, the group
of sex offenders with child victims was dichotomized based on high (3–5; pedophiles) vs. low (0–2; nonpedophiles) SSPI
scores in order to differentiate and compare pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters.
Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form-3 (YSQ-S3). The YSQ-S3 (Young, 2005) is a 90-item self-report measure that
assesses the 18 EMSs. The schemas are grouped into five general domains: (1) disconnection and rejection (includes
abandonment/instability, mistrust/abuse, emotional deprivation, defectiveness/shame, and social isolation/alienation
schemas), (2) impaired autonomy and performance (includes dependence/incompetence, vulnerability to harm or ill-
ness, enmeshment/undeveloped self, and failure schemas), (3) impaired limits (includes entitlement/grandiosity, and
insufficient self-control/self-discipline schemas), (4) other-directedness (includes subjugation, self-sacrifice, and approval
seeking/recognition seeking schemas), and (5) overvigilance and inhibition (includes negativity/pessimism, emotional inhi-
bition, unrelenting standards/hypercriticalness, and punitiveness schemas). The Portuguese version of the YSQ-S3 confirmed
the original factorial structure and showed good psychometric properties. Cronbach’s alpha values for subscales ranging from
.57 – unrelenting standards to .86 – failure. Cronbach’s alpha for total scale is .97 (Rijo, 2009).
Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). The BSI (Degoratis & Spencer, 1982) is a 53-item measure that assesses the presence of
psychopathology according to nine dimensions of symptoms: somatization, depression, hostility, anxiety, phobic anxiety,
psychoticism, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid ideation, and interpersonal sensitivity. Three global indexes can also be cal-
culated from the raw scores on the scale: the General Severity Index (GSI), the Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI), and
the Positive Symptom Total (PST). The GSI is the best single indicator of current distress levels (Derogatis & Melisaratos,
1983). The BSI presents good psychometric properties (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). The Portuguese version of the scale
also shows acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .62 – psychoticism to .80 – somatization)
(Canavarro, 2007).
Socially Desirable Response Set Measure (SDRS-5). The SDRS-5 (Hays, Hayashy, & Stewart, 1989) is a 5-item measure that
assesses participant’s tendency to respond in a socially desirable way. Internal consistency of the scale was acceptable
(Cronbach’s alpha = .68; Hays et al., 1989). Portuguese psychometric studies supported its internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha = .70) (Carvalho, 2011).
Statistical Analyses
Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) analyses were performed through SPSS NOMREG (see Maroco, 2011; Petrucci,
2009; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) in order to investigate the relationship between the EMSs and different types of sexual
offending behavior. Given that the dependent variable included four categories/groups (pedophiles, nonpedophiles, rapists,
nonsexual offenders) MLR was the analysis of choice. Sociodemographic variables (age, school education, and marital sta-
tus), psychological distress (GSI), and social desirability were also included in all analyses as covariates to control for their
possible effects. An examination of the bivariate correlations between the predictors did not show collinearity problems
(rs < .80). The results are interpreted in terms of odds ratio rather than regression coefficients (i.e., odds ratio greater than 1
indicate a greater likelihood for the event of interest and odds ratio less than 1 indicate a lower likelihood for the event of
interest). In this study, in order to identify whether specific schemas would discriminate each sex offender type, an approach
involving comparison of all groups was necessary. Specifically, to compare pedophiles, nonpedophiles and rapists with non-
sex offenders, the nonsex offenders were set as the reference category. To compare pedophiles and nonpedophiles with
rapists, the regression analyses were rerun with rapists set as the reference category. Finally, to compare pedophiles with
nonpedophiles, nonpedophiles were set as the reference category.
Results
Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Disconnection/Rejection Domain
A MLR was conducted entering the covariates and the schemas from the disconnection/rejection domain (abandonment,
mistrust, emotional deprivation, defectiveness, and social isolation) as predictors. The full model was significantly reliable,
2 (33, N = 160) = 67.719, p < .001, accounting for between 35% (Cox and Snell R2 ) and 37% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance in
offender status. The overall classification accuracy rate was 53.1% which adequately improves the proportional-by-chance
accuracy rate of 34.5%. The odds ratio shown in Table 2 indicated that, after controlling for group differences in covariates,
pedophiles were over 2 times more likely to hold the defectiveness schema than the other three groups (OR = 2.13–2.22,
p < .05). Rapists were less likely to hold the social isolation schema than nonsex offenders (OR = .46, p ≤ .01; or using the
reciprocal of .46, nonsex offenders were 2.17 times more likely to hold the social isolation schema than rapists). In addition,
nonpedophiles were more likely to hold the social isolation schema than rapists (OR = 2.27, p < .01).
Table 2
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of offender type as a function of schemas from the disconnection domain.
Predictor B SEB Wald statistic Odds ratio 95% CI p

Age .07 .03 4.32 1.07 1.00–1.14 .038
School education .13 .10 1.79 1.14 .94–1.39 .181
GSI .83 .90 .85 2.29 .39–13.42 .358
Social desirability .26 .22 1.39 1.30 .84–2.01 .239
Married vs. Separated −.00 .84 .00 1.00 .19–5.20 .998
Pedophiles vs. Nonsex offenders Single vs. Separated 1.12 .84 1.77 3.07 .59–16.07 .184
Abandonment −.07 .32 .05 .93 .49–1.75 .822
Mistrust .34 .38 .78 1.40 .66–2.96 .378
Emotional deprivation −.42 .34 1.52 .66 .34–1.28 .217
Defectiveness .76 .38 3.89 2.13 1.00–4.53 .049
Social isolation −.32 .39 .65 .73 .34–1.57 .419
Age .02 .02 .64 1.02 .97–1.07 .423

School education −.17 .07 5.61 .84 .73–.97 .018
GSI −.44 .68 .42 .64 .17–2.44 .515
Social desirability .11 .18 .40 1.12 .79–1.60 .529
Married vs. Separated .40 .58 .46 1.49 .47–4.66 .498
Nonpedophiles vs. Nonsex offenders Single vs. Separated .11 .64 .03 1.11 .32–3.90 .866
Abandonment .14 .23 .36 1.15 .73–1.80 .551
Mistrust .08 .29 .07 1.08 .61–1.92 .789
Emotional deprivation −.10 .25 .17 .90 .56–1.47 .679
Defectiveness −.04 .33 .01 .96 .50–1.85 .907
Social isolation .05 .30 .03 1.05 .59–1.88 .870
Age −.01 .03 .20 1.00 .94–1.04 .652

School education −.09 .08 1.44 .91 .78–1.06 .231
GSI .94 .65 2.14 2.57 .73–9.08 .144
Married vs. Separated 1.13 .74 2.38 3.10 .74–13.10 .123
Rapists vs. Nonsex offenders Single vs. Separated 1.88 .75 6.32 6.58 1.52–28.59 .012
Abandonment .28 .24 1.41 1.33 .83–2.12 .236
Mistrust .49 .27 3.30 1.64 .96–2.79 .069
Emotional deprivation −.25 .24 1.08 .78 .48–1.25 .299
Defectiveness −.01 .32 .00 .99 .53–1.88 .984
Social isolation −.77 .30 6.59 .46 .26–.83 .010
Age .08 .04 5.26 1.08 1.01–1.16 .022

School education .23 .11 4.46 1.26 1.02–1.55 .035
GSI −.11 .90 .02 .89 .15–5.20 .900
Married vs. Separated −1.13 .96 1.39 .32 .05–2.13 .239
Pedophiles vs. Rapists Single vs. Separated −.76 .95 .64 .47 .07–3.01 .423
Abandonment −.36 .33 1.14 .70 .36–1.35 .286
Mistrust −.16 .37 .18 .85 .41–1.78 .673
Defectiveness .76 .36 4.52 2.15 1.06–4.34 .034
Social isolation .45 .39 1.38 1.57 .74–3.35 .240
Age .03 .03 1.39 1.03 .98–1.09 .238

School education −.08 .08 .94 .92 .78–1.09 .332
GSI −1.39 .68 4.16 .25 .07–.95 .041
Social desirability −.04 .19 .04 .96 .66–1.40 .844
Married vs. Separated −.74 .74 .99 .48 .11–2.05 .321
Nonpedophiles vs. Rapists Single vs. Separated −.1.78 .78 5.14 .17 .04–.79 .023
Abandonment −.15 .24 .36 .86 .54–1.39 .546
Mistrust −.42 .28 2.15 .66 .38–1.15 .143
Emotional deprivation .15 .26 .34 1.16 .70–1.91 .560
Defectiveness −.03 .33 .01 .97 .51–1.85 .922
Social isolation .82 .31 6.82 2.27 1.23–4.18 .009
Age .05 .03 2.20 1.05 .98–1.12 .138

GSI 1.27 .93 1.87 3.57 .58–22.12 .171
Pedophiles vs. Nonpedophiles Single vs. Separated 1.01 .90 1.28 2.76 .48–15.95 .258
Abandonment −.21 .33 .40 .81 .42–1.55 .527
Mistrust .26 .39 .44 1.30 .60–2.79 .509
Defectiveness .80 .39 4.09 2.22 1.03–4.80 .043
Social isolation −.36 .40 .82 .70 .32–1.53 .366
Note: N = 160; GSI = general severity index; SEB = standard error of the regression coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of odds ratio. The reference
category is the second offender type listed in each sub table.
Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Impaired Autonomy/Performance Domain
A MLR was conducted entering the covariates and the schemas from the impaired autonomy/performance domain
(dependence/incompetence, vulnerability, enmeshment, failure) as predictors. The full model was significantly reliable,
2 (30, N = 160) = 73.755, p < .001, accounting for between 37% (Cox and Snell R2 ) and 40% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance in
offender status. The overall classification accuracy rate was 53.1% which adequately improves the proportional-by-chance
accuracy rate of 34.5%. The odds ratio shown in Table 3 indicated that, after controlling for group differences in covariates,
rapists were more likely to hold the vulnerability schema than nonsex offenders (OR = 1.86, p < .05). Similarly, nonpedophiles
were less likely to hold the vulnerability schema than rapists (OR = .41, p ≤ .001; or using the reciprocal of .41, rapists were
2.44 times more likely to hold the vulnerability schema than nonpedophiles). Likewise, nonpedophiles were more likely to
hold the enmeshment schema than rapists (OR = 1.85, p < .05).
Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Impaired Limits Domain
A MLR was conducted entering the covariates and the schemas from the impaired limits domain (entitlement/grandiosity,
insufficient self-control) as predictors. The full model was significantly reliable, 2 (24, N = 160) = 47.645, p < .01, accounting
for between 26% (Cox and Snell R2 ) and 28% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance in offender status. The overall classification
accuracy rate was 46.3% which adequately improves the proportional-by-chance accuracy rate of 34.5%. Because schemas of
this domain did not significantly differentiate between offender types, we concluded that the model reflected the association
between offender status and covariates (see Table 4).
Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Other-Directedness Domain
A MLR was conducted entering the covariates and the schemas from the other-directedness domain (subjugation, self-
sacrifice, and approval/recognition-seeking) as predictors. The full model was significantly reliable, 2 (27, N = 160) = 62.254,
p < .001, accounting for between 32% (Cox and Snell R2 ) and 35% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the variance in offender status. The overall
classification accuracy rate was 46.3% which adequately improves the proportional-by-chance accuracy rate of 34.5%. The
odds ratio shown in Table 5 indicated that, after controlling for group differences in covariates, pedophiles were over 2 times
more likely to hold the subjugation schema than the other three groups (OR = 2.15–2.89, p < .05). In addition, rapists were
more likely to hold the approval/recognition seeking schema than nonsex offenders (OR = 1.70, p < .05).
Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Overvigilance/Inhibition Domain
A MLR was conducted entering the covariates and the schemas from the overvigilance/inhibition domain (negativ-
ity/pessimism, emotional inhibition, unrelenting standards, and punitiveness) as predictors. The full model was significantly
reliable, 2 (30, N = 160) = 62.577, p < .001, accounting for between 32% (Cox and Snell R2 ) and 35% (Nagelkerke R2 ) of the
variance in offender status. The overall classification accuracy rate was 53% which adequately improves the proportional-
by-chance accuracy rate of 34.5%. The odds ratio shown in Table 6 indicated that, after controlling for group differences in
covariates, rapists were more likely to hold the punitiveness schema than nonsex offenders (OR = 1.94, p < .05). In addition,
nonpedophiles were more likely to hold the unrelenting standards schema than rapists (OR = 2.03, p < .05).
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the EMSs and different types of sexual offending
behavior. Despite previous findings on EMSs in sex offenders, the study aimed to extend the available literature by making
a distinction between pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters. In general, after accounting for group differences in
sociodemographic variables, psychological distress, and social desirability, results partially supported our hypotheses.
In accordance to previous studies conducted with convicted offenders (Carvalho & Nobre, 2014; Chakhssi et al., 2013),
the present findings suggested that EMSs may play a role in offending behavior, particularly in child molesters (including
pedophilic and nonpedophilic), but also in rapists. When considering the distinction between pedophiles and nonpedophiles,
findings indicated that the defectiveness and subjugation EMSs differentiated pedophilic offenders from the other three
groups. For every unit increase in each schema, the odds of being in the pedophilic group increased by over two times. Thus,
our findings suggest that defectiveness and subjugation EMSs may be specific cognitive vulnerability factors for pedophilic
offending. Given that pedophilia is a paraphilic disorder, it makes sense that pedophilic offenders may have important
specific needs compared to the other offender types. According to the schema-focused model (Young et al., 2003) the
defectiveness/shame schema involves a sense of shame regarding perceived personal defects, as well as the feeling that
one is unlovable or unwanted. These defects may include unacceptable sexual desires or perceived social incompetence.
The subjugation EMS relates to excessive surrendering of control to others in order to avoid anger or abandonment. It
encompasses the perception that personal opinions and feelings are not valid or important to others. Overall, these findings
are congruent with previous studies on personality and interpersonal features of male pedophiles (DSM-IV criteria) who
revealed an impaired interpersonal functioning (e.g., reduced assertiveness), disturbances in self-worth and in self-concept
Table 3
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of offender type as a function of schemas from the impaired autonomy domain.
Predictor B SEB Wald Odds 95% CI p

statistic ratio
Age .06 .03 3.34 1.06 1.00–1.13 .068

GSI .43 .81 .29 1.54 .32–7.49 .593
Pedophiles vs. Nonsex offenders
Single vs. Separated 1.02 .87 1.38 2.78 .51–15.35 .240
Dependence/Incompetence −.20 .48 .17 .82 .32–2.11 .683
Vulnerability to harm/illness .20 .31 .39 1.22 .66–2.24 .531
Enmeshment .31 .32 .95 1.36 .73–2.54 .330
Failure .64 .45 2.02 1.89 .79–4.53 .156
Age .03 .03 .97 1.03 .98–1.08 .325

GSI −.55 .70 .61 .58 .15–2.28 .434
Nonpedophiles vs. Nonsex offenders
Single vs. Separated −.30 .67 .19 .74 .20–2.78 .660
Dependence/Incompetence .38 .38 1.01 1.46 .70–3.04 .315
Vulnerability to harm/illness −.28 .27 1.05 .76 .45–1.28 .305
Enmeshment .43 .23 3.44 1.54 .98–2.43 .064
Failure .05 .35 .02 1.05 .53–2.10 .882
Age −.02 .03 .65 .98 .93–1.03 .419

GSI .12 .59 .04 1.13 .36–3.58 .838
Rapists vs. Nonsex offenders
Single vs. Separated 1.80 .77 5.52 6.04 1.35–27.09 .019
Dependence/Incompetence −.27 .37 .55 .76 .37–1.57 .459
Vulnerability to harm/illness .62 .25 6.17 1.86 1.14–3.04 .013
Enmeshment −.19 .24 .60 .83 .52–1.33 .438
Failure .07 .36 .04 1.08 .54–2.16 .839
Age .08 .03 5.70 1.08 1.01–1.15 .017

GSI .31 .78 .16 1.37 .30–6.26 .689
Pedophiles vs. Rapists
Dependence/Incompetence .08 .47 .03 1.08 .43–2.72 .868
Vulnerability to harm/illness −.43 .32 1.83 .65 .35–1.21 .177
Enmeshment .49 .32 2.38 1.64 .87–3.07 .123
Failure .56 .45 1.54 1.76 .72–4.27 .215
Age .05 .03 2.78 1.05 .99–1.10 .095

School education .01 .09 .01 1.01 .85–1.19 .932
GSI −.67 .69 .95 .51 .13–1.97 .330
Married vs. Separated −.91 .78 1.39 .40 .09–1.84 .239
Nonpedophiles vs. Rapists
Single vs. Separated −2.09 .84 6.24 .12 .02–.64 .012
Dependence/Incompetence .65 .38 2.88 1.92 .90–4.07 .090
Vulnerability to harm/illness −.90 .28 10.53 .41 .24–.70 .001
Enmeshment .62 .25 6.15 1.85 1.14–3.01 .013
Failure −.020 .36 .00 .98 .48–1.99 .957
Age .03 .03 .98 1.03 .97–1.10 .321

GSI .98 .85 1.34 2.67 .51–14.01 .247
Pedophiles vs. Nonpedophiles
Dependence/Incompetence −.57 .48 1.43 .56 .22–1.44 .232
Vulnerability to harm/illness .47 .33 2.05 1.60 .84–3.05 .153
Enmeshment −.12 .32 .14 .89 .47–1.66 .705
Failure .58 .44 1.73 1.79 .75–4.27 .189
Table 4
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of offender type as a function of schemas from the impaired limits domain.

statistic ratio
Age .05 .03 3.35 1.06 1.00–1.12 .067

GSI .92 .71 1.66 2.51 .62–10.13 .198
Entitlement/Grandiosity .43 .32 1.78 1.53 .82–2.86 .183
Insufficient self-control −.18 .37 .24 .84 .41–1.72 .628
Age .02 .02 .40 1.02 .97–1.06 .529

GSI −.42 .60 .50 .66 .20–2.12 .481
Single vs. Separated .09 .63 .02 1.09 .32–3.75 .889
Entitlement/Grandiosity .19 .26 .52 1.21 .73–2.00 .470
Age −.01 .03 .30 .99 .94–1.04 .582

GSI .72 .53 1.87 2.05 .73–5.75 .172
Insufficient self-control .01 .26 .00 1.01 .60–1.70 .963
Age .07 .03 4.70 1.07 1.01–1.14 .030

GSI .20 .68 .09 1.22 .32–4.62 .769
Entitlement/Grandiosity .35 .32 1.22 1.42 .76–2.63 .269
Age .03 .03 1.27 1.03 .98–1.08 .259

School education −.04 .08 .25 .96 .83–1.12 .615
GSI −1.14 .57 3.98 .32 .10–.98 .046
Married vs. Separated −.73 .71 1.06 .48 .12–1.93 .303
Single vs. Separated −1.43 .75 3.65 .24 .06–1.04 .056
Age .04 .03 1.71 1.04 .98–1.10 .191

GSI 1.34 .75 3.16 3.82 .87–16.71 .075
(poor self-esteem, excessive self-focus; Bridges, Wilson, & Gacono, 1998; Cohen et al., 2002). The fact that the defectiveness
schema may include a sense of flaw related to unacceptable sexual desires may be of particular importance given that
pedophilia involves a sexual interest in prepubescent children which is unacceptable and punishable in our society.
Furthermore, nonpedophiles were more likely to hold social isolation schema (the feeling that one is isolated or different
from others), enmeshment schema (difficulties in self individuation and social development) and unrelenting standards
schema (the belief that one must meet high standards of behavior to avoid criticism; Young et al., 2003) than rapists. In
general, these findings are consistent with previous studies which found that child molesters are frequently characterized by
loneliness, fear of intimacy in adult relationships, and low heterosocial competence (e.g., Dreznick, 2003; Pervan & Hunter,
2007). According to Marshall (1989), failed intimacy with adult partners may lead to social isolation and dysfunctional
strategies in order to achieve emotional closeness. Thus, it seems that there is congruence between this cognitive schematic
profile and the deficits in personal, interpersonal, and social functioning reported in child molester literature.
Table 5
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of offender type as a function of schemas from the other-directedness domain.

statistic ratio
Age .06 .03 3.49 1.06 1.00–1.12 .062

GSI .30 .75 .16 1.34 .31–5.84 .693
Pedophiles vs. Nonsex offenders Married vs. Separated −.43 .84 .26 .65 .12–3.39 .607
Single vs. Separated .92 .81 1.29 2.50 .51–12.17 .257
Subjugation .77 .36 4.44 2.15 1.05–4.38 .035
Self-sacrifice −.34 .32 1.16 .71 .38–1.32 .281
Approval seeking .25 .29 .77 1.30 .73–2.28 .382
Age .01 .02 .10 1.01 .96–1.06 .747

GSI −.57 .63 .83 .57 .17–1.93 .362
Nonpedophiles vs. Nonsex offenders Married vs. Separated .29 .59 .25 1.34 .42–4.27 .620
Subjugation −.09 .30 .10 .91 .50–1.65 .757
Self-sacrifice .07 .23 .09 1.07 .68–1.68 .763
Approval seeking .44 .22 3.81 1.55 1.00–2.41 .051
Age −.02 .03 .65 .98 .93–1.03 .419

GSI .90 .58 2.45 2.47 .80–7.65 .118
Rapists vs. Nonsex offenders Married vs. Separated 1.02 .71 2.03 2.77 .68–11.19 .154
Subjugation −.30 .30 .97 .75 .41–1.34 .325
Self-sacrifice −.16 .23 .50 .85 .55–1.33 .482
Approval seeking .53 .23 5.35 1.70 1.08–2.66 .021
Age .08 .03 5.61 1.08 1.01–1.15 .018

GSI −.61 .75 .66 .55 .13–2.35 .416
Social desirability .21 .24 .77 1.24 77–1.99 .379
Pedophiles vs. Rapists Married vs. Separated −1.45 .96 2.28 .24 .04–1.54 .131
Subjugation 1.06 .37 8.27 2.89 1.40–5.94 .004
Self-sacrifice −.18 .34 .30 .83 .43–1.61 .586
Approval seeking −.28 .30 .87 .76 .42–1.36 .352
Age .03 .03 1.26 1.03 .98–1.08 .262

GSI −.1.48 .62 5.60 .23 .07–78 .018
Nonpedophiles vs. Rapists Married vs. Separated −.72 .71 1.02 .49 .12.1.98 .313
Subjugation .20 .30 .46 1.22 .68–2.19 .500
Self-sacrifice .23 .24 .89 1.26 .78–2.03 .346
Age .05 .03 2.42 1.05 .99–1.12 .120

GSI .87 .79 1.22 2.38 .51–11.08 .269
Pedophiles vs. Nonpedophiles Married vs. Separated −.73 .88 .68 .48 .09–2.71 .409
Single vs. Separated .95 .87 1.20 2.58 .47–14.09 .273
Subjugation .86 .38 5.17 2.36 1.13–4.95 .023
Self-sacrifice −.41 .34 1.48 .66 .34–1.29 .224
Additionally, rapists were more likely to hold vulnerability to harm or illness schema (a sense of personal vulnerability
to imminent harm) than nonpedophiles and nonsex offenders. They were also more likely to hold the approval-seeking
schema (excessive emphasis on gaining approval from others) as well as the punitiveness schema (the belief that people
must be harshly punished for making mistakes; Young et al., 2003) compared to nonsex offenders. The vulnerability schema
has been highly associated with anxiety symptoms (e.g., Glaser, Campbell, Calhoun, Bates, & Petrocelli, 2002). Carvalho
and Nobre (2013) found that compared to child molesters and nonoffenders, rapists presented higher levels of negative
Table 6
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of offender type as a function of schemas from the overvigilance domain.

statistic ratio
Age .05 .03 2.76 1.05 .99–1.12 .096

GSI 1.07 .78 1.89 2.91 .63–13.36 .169
Negativity/pessimism .05 .33 .02 1.05 .55–2.00 .893
Emotional inhibition −.20 .25 .62 .82 .50–1.34 .433
Unrelenting standards .48 .37 1.73 1.62 .79–3.32 .189
Punitiveness .03 .37 .01 1.03 .50–2.13 .936
Age .01 .02 .13 1.01 .96–1.06 .714

GSI −.56 .65 .73 .57 .16–2.06 .394
Single vs. Separated .11 .65 .03 1.12 .31–4.01 .868
Negativity/pessimism −.26 .25 1.08 .77 .48–1.26 .300
Punitiveness .38 .29 1.78 1.47 .84–2.58 .183
Age −.01 .02 .20 .99 .94–1.04 .656

GSI .59 .57 1.13 1.81 .61–5.37 .288
Negativity/pessimism −.03 .25 .01 .97 .60–1.58 .917
Unrelenting standards −.15 .28 .30 .86 .50–1.48 .587
Punitiveness .66 .28 5.82 1.94 1.13–3.33 .016
Age .06 .03 3.76 1.06 1.00–1.13 .052

GSI .48 .76 .40 1.61 .36–7.14 .529
Punitiveness −.63 .39 2.61 .53 .25–1.14 .106
Age .02 .03 .63 1.02 .97–1.07 .427

GSI −1.15 .63 3.34 .32 .09–1.09 .067
Negativity/pessimism −.23 .26 .80 .80 .48–1.32 .372
Emotional inhibition .06 .21 .07 1.06 .70–1.61 .789
Unrelenting standards .71 .31 5.11 2.03 1.10–3.77 .024
Punitiveness −.28 .31 .83 .76 .41–1.38 .363
Age .04 .03 1.89 1.04 .98–1.11 .169

GSI 1.63 .84 3.75 5.08 .98–26.36 .053
Unrelenting standards −.08 .40 .04 .93 .43–2.01 .844
Punitiveness −.35 .40 .77 .70 .32–1.55 .381
affect, a dimension related to emotional disorders such as anxiety. According to Ward and Beech (2006), sex offenders may
use sex to reduce negative emotions and improve positive emotions. Moreover, the punitiveness EMS is usually endorsed
by individuals who were subjected to highly punitive developmental experiences (Young et al., 2003). Compared to child
molesters and/or nonsexual offenders, rapists reported more frequent experiences of physical and emotional abuse, and
paternal violence (Connoly & Woollons, 2008; Smallbone & Dadds, 1998).
Overall, according to our findings, the Young’s schema-focused model (Young et al., 2003) is proposed as an acceptable
approach to better understand the developmental and cognitive processes involved in sexual offending. Despite some sim-
ilarities between the implicit theories’ approach (Ward, 2000) and the schema approach (implicit theories and schemas
appear to be similar concepts), the schema model is consistent with a well established therapeutic intervention method-
ology (Thakker, Ward, & Navathe, 2007). Mann and Beech (2003) have previously proposed that the Young’s therapy is
more comprehensive than the usual response to sex offenders’ cognitions. It integrates cognitive, interpersonal, experien-
tial, and behavioral strategies (Young et al., 2003). Accordingly, its adoption into sex offender treatment would focus on
enabling the offender to work toward a more functional/adaptive life (Mann & Beech, 2003). It offers a satisfactory insight
on how EMSs arise (e.g., dysfunctional developmental experiences), and how these schemas may create significant emo-
tional, interpersonal, and behavioral difficulties (Young et al., 2003). Because of its integrative nature, it may be fruitful
on the interpersonal/experiential rehabilitation of sex offenders. For instance, Marshall (2008) presented evidence on the
effective treatment of pedophiles by providing them with the attitudes and self-confidence necessary to meet their sexual
and intimacy needs with peers. This approach seemed to normalize offenders’ sexual interests without the need to directly
target their deviant interests.
Therefore, if further research corroborates our findings on the role of particular EMSs in each sex offending subtype,
sex offenders may benefit from a schema-based intervention in order to target their relevant core maladaptive beliefs
which are not addressed in offense-related cognitive-behavioral programs (Richardson, 2005). Indeed, different categories of
schemas indicate specific treatment needs (Fisher & Beech, 2007). Accordingly, the results may have important implications
for the differential psychotherapeutic treatment and risk assessment of subtypes of sex offenders. Finally, because EMSs
develop primarily as a result of adverse developmental experiences (Young et al., 2003), prevention strategies could attend
to attachment patterns/emotional environment, and parenting styles in childhood.
Regarding participant characteristics, it may be relevant to note the higher percentage of sex offenders that self-reported
a history of past sexual victimization compared to nonsex offenders. These results are partially in line with Jespersen et al.
findings (2009) given that, in the present study, rapists reported a higher percentage of sexual abuse history than pedophilic
and nonpedophilic child molesters (although differences were not statistically significant). However, as Jespersen et al.
(2009) pointed out, self-reported abuse may be subject to over-reporting (e.g., in order to obtain more favorable opinions)
and/or under-reporting (e.g., because of feelings of shame). Thus, these data should be viewed with these possible biases in
mind.
In conclusion, in the present study it was found a relationship between some schemas and different types of sexual
offending behavior. Given that data are cross-sectional, it is important to note that evidence about the association between
schemas and sexual offending should not be interpreted as establishing causal relationships. Moreover, results should be
interpreted with caution because of relevant limitations. One main limitation was related to the small sample size, particu-
larly the subgroups of child molesters. We recognize that larger samples should be used in order to drawn more powerful
conclusions. Moreover, considering the sex offenders’ propensity for lying/denying their offenses (e.g., Bourke et al., 2014),
we cannot ensure that there is not an overlap between the groups (e.g., rapists who were also child molesters) and the
assumption of group independence may be questionable. Nevertheless, the groups were constituted based on their official
records/criminal history (i.e., the offenses that were officially proven in the court), and we think this was an adequate source
of information. Likewise, the SSPI is not a diagnostic tool and the scoring method used for this scale (a dichotomized score
rather than a continuous score) may have resulted in possible errors on the constitution of the groups and decreased power.
However, considering the purpose of the study, we used this dichotomized score in order to make comparisons between
child molester subgroups. Finally, given the unconscious nature of the schemas, self-report measures may be questionable
in the assessment of schema-level cognition (Beck, 1995), although they have been highly used in psychological practice
to measure schemata (e.g., Young et al., 2003). Hence, further replications with larger samples, including other criteria
for pedophilia (e.g., phallometric testing and/or DSM criteria) are suggested. Likewise, research on a potential relationship
between EMSs, attachment, and interpersonal styles in offenders is recommended.
References
Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford.
Beech, A. R., Bartels, R. M., & Dixon, L. (2013). Assessment and treatment of distorted schemas in sexual offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14, 54–66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838012463970
Bourke, M. L., Fragomeli, L., Detar, P. J., Sullivan, M. A., Meyle, E., & O’Riordan, M. (2014). The use of tactical polygraph with sex offenders. Journal of Sexual
Aggression, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.886729
Bridges, M. R., Wilson, J. S., & Gacono, C. (1998). A Rorschach investigation of defensiveness, self-perception, interpersonal relations, and affective states in
incarcerated pedophiles. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 365–385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa7002 13
Canavarro, M. C. (2007). Inventário de Sintomas Psicopatológicos: Uma revisão crítica dos estudos realizados em Portugal. In M. Simões, C. Machado, M.
Gonçalves, & L. Almeida (Eds.), Avaliação Psicológica. Instrumentos Validados para a População Portuguesa (Vol. III). Coimbra: Quarteto Editora.
Carvalho, J. (2011). Vulnerability factors for sexual aggression (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Aveiro, Portugal: University of Aveiro.
Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. J. (2013). Dynamic factors of sexual aggression: The role of affect and impulsiveness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 376–387.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854812451682
Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. J. (2014). Early maladaptive schemas in convicted sexual offenders: Preliminary findings. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry,
37, 210–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.007
Chakhssi, F., Ruiter, C., & Bernstein, D. P. (2013). Early maladaptive cognitive schemas in child sexual offenders compared with sexual offenders against
adults and nonsexual violent offenders: An exploratory study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 2201–2210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12171
Cohen, L. G., McGeoch, P. G., Watras-Gans, S., Acker, S., Poznansky, O., Cullen, K., & Galynker, I. (2002). Personality impairment in male pedophiles. Journal
of Clinical Psychiatry, 63, 912–919.
Connoly, M., & Woollons, R. (2008). Childhood sexual experience and adult offending: An exploratory comparison of three criminal groups. Child Abuse
Review, 17, 119–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.1019
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595–605.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552178
Degoratis, L. R., & Spencer, P. M. (1982). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures manual – I. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric
Research.
Dreznick, M. T. (2003). Heterosocial competence of rapists and child molesters: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 170–178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552178
Fisher, D., & Beech, A. R. (2007). The implicit theories of rapists and sexual murderers. In T. A. Gannon, T. Ward, A. R. Beech, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Aggressive
offenders’ cognition: Theory, research and practice (pp. 31–52). London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Glaser, B. A., Campbell, L. F., Calhoun, G. B., Bates, J. M., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2002). The Early Maladaptive Schema Questionnaire-Short Form: A construct
validity study. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 2–13.
Hays, R. D., Hayashy, T., & Stewart, A. L. (1989). A five-item measure of socially desirable response set. Education and Psychological Measurement, 49, 629–636.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900315
Jespersen, A. F., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 33, 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.004
Lee, J. K., Jackson, H. J., Pattison, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Developmental risk factors for sexual offending. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 73–92.
Maroco, J. P. (2011). Análise Estatística com o SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). Pêro Pinheiro: ReportNumber.
Mann, R., & Beech, A. R. (2003). Cognitive distortions, schemas and implicit theories. In T. Ward, D. R. Laws, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Issues
and Controversies (pp. 135–153). London: Sage.
Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2001). Schemas: A model for understanding cognition in sexual offending. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Research and
Treatment Conference, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Antonio.
Marshall, W. L. (1989). Intimacy, loneliness, and sexual offenders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 27, 491–503.
Marshall, W. L. (2008). Are pedophiles treatable? Evidence from North American studies. Polish Sexology, 6, 39–43.
Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.),
Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 257–275). New York: Plenum.
Maruna, S., & Mann, R. E. (2006). A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 155–177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/135532506X114608
Milner, R. J., & Webster, S. D. (2005). Identifying schemas in child molesters, rapists, and violent offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
17, 425–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107906320501700406
Pervan, S., & Hunter, M. (2007). Cognitive distortions and social self-esteem in sexual offenders. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 3, 75–91.
Petrucci, C. J. (2009). A primer for social worker researchers on how to conduct a multinomial logistic regression. Journal of Social Service Research, 35,
193–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488370802678983
Polaschek, D. L. L., & Gannon, T. A. (2004). The implicit theories of rapists: What convicted offenders tell us. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
16, 299–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107906320401600404
Polaschek, D. L. L., & Ward, T. (2002). The implicit theories of potential rapists. What our questionnaires tell us. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 385–406.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00063-5
Richardson, G. (2005). Early maladaptive schemas in a sample of British adolescent sexual abusers: Implications for therapy. Journal of Sexual Aggression,
11, 259–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552600500402419
Rijo, D. (2009). Esquemas mal-adaptativos precoces: Validação do conceito e dos métodos de avaliação (Doctoral thesis). Coimbra, Portugal: University of
Coimbra.
Seto, M. C. (2004). Pedophilia and sexual offenses against children. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 321–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10532528.2004.10559823
Seto, M. C. (2009). Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 391–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2001). A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests among child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 13, 15–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107906320101300103
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 526–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019700
Sigre-Leirós, V., Carvalho, J., & Nobre, P. (2013). Early maladaptive schemas and aggressive sexual behavior: A preliminary study with male college students.
Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 1764–1772.
Smallbone, S. W., & Dadds, M. R. (1998). Childhood attachment and adult attachment in incarcerated adult male sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 13, 555–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626098013005001
Strassberg, D. S., Eastvold, A., Wilson Kenney, J., & Suchy, Y. (2012). Psychopathy among pedophilic and nonpedophilic child molesters. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 36, 379–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.09.018
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Thakker, J., Ward, T., & Navathe, S. (2007). The cognitive distortions and implicit theories of child sexual abusers. In T. A. Gannon, T. Ward, A. R. Beech, & D.
Fisher (Eds.), Aggressive offenders’cognition. Theory, research and practice (pp. 11–29). London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Ward, T. (2000). Sexual offenders’ cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 491–507. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00036-6
Ward, T., & Beech, A. (2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 44–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.05.002
Ward, T., & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters’ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 821–838.
World Health Organization. (2012). Sexual violence. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77434/1/WHO RHR 12.37 eng.pdf
Yates, P. M. (2013). Treatment of sexual offenders: Research, best practices, and emerging models. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and
Therapy, 8, 89–95.
Young, J. E. (2005). Young schema questionnaire-S3. Cognitive Therapy Center of New York.
Young, J., Klosko, J., & Weishaar, M. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioners’s guide. New York: The Guilford Press.

Cognitive Schemas and Sexual Offending - Differences Between Rapists, Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Child Molesters, and Nonsexual Offenders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cognitive Schemas and Sexual Offending - Differences Between Rapists, Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Child Molesters, and Nonsexual Offenders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Abuse & Neglect 40 (2015) 81–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Cognitive schemas and sexual offending: Differences

Rapists Pedophiles Nonpedophiles Nonsex offenders

Marital status (%)

Past sexual victimization (%) 14.0 10.5 11.1 3.9

Alcohol abuse (%) 8.0 5.3 5.0 3.9

Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Disconnection/Rejection Domain

Predictor B SEB Wald statistic Odds ratio 95% CI p

Age .02 .02 .64 1.02 .97–1.07 .423

Age −.01 .03 .20 1.00 .94–1.04 .652

Age .08 .04 5.26 1.08 1.01–1.16 .022

Age .03 .03 1.39 1.03 .98–1.09 .238

Age .05 .03 2.20 1.05 .98–1.12 .138

Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Impaired Autonomy/Performance Domain

Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Impaired Limits Domain

Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Other-Directedness Domain

Offender Type as a Function of Schemas from the Overvigilance/Inhibition Domain

Predictor B SEB Wald Odds 95% CI p

Age .06 .03 3.34 1.06 1.00–1.13 .068

Age .03 .03 .97 1.03 .98–1.08 .325

Age −.02 .03 .65 .98 .93–1.03 .419

Age .08 .03 5.70 1.08 1.01–1.15 .017

Age .05 .03 2.78 1.05 .99–1.10 .095

Age .03 .03 .98 1.03 .97–1.10 .321

Predictor B SEB Wald Odds 95% CI p

Age .05 .03 3.35 1.06 1.00–1.12 .067

Age .02 .02 .40 1.02 .97–1.06 .529

Age −.01 .03 .30 .99 .94–1.04 .582

Age .07 .03 4.70 1.07 1.01–1.14 .030

Age .03 .03 1.27 1.03 .98–1.08 .259

Age .04 .03 1.71 1.04 .98–1.10 .191

Predictor B SEB Wald Odds 95% CI p

Age .06 .03 3.49 1.06 1.00–1.12 .062

Age .01 .02 .10 1.01 .96–1.06 .747

Age −.02 .03 .65 .98 .93–1.03 .419

Age .08 .03 5.61 1.08 1.01–1.15 .018

Age .03 .03 1.26 1.03 .98–1.08 .262

Age .05 .03 2.42 1.05 .99–1.12 .120

Predictor B SEB Wald Odds 95% CI p

Age .05 .03 2.76 1.05 .99–1.12 .096

Age .01 .02 .13 1.01 .96–1.06 .714

Age −.01 .02 .20 .99 .94–1.04 .656

Age .06 .03 3.76 1.06 1.00–1.13 .052

Age .02 .03 .63 1.02 .97–1.07 .427

Age .04 .03 1.89 1.04 .98–1.11 .169

You might also like