This paper reviews the literature on total and partial denial in sex offenders, considering the prevalence of denial, some explanations for the motives underpinning denial, and the research evidence examining the relationship between denial and the risk of sexual recidivism. The implications of the findings for treatment, and the dilemmas posed for ethical and professional practice, are discussed.
BarbareeH (1991) Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome. Forum on Corrections Research3: 30–33.
2.
BlagdenNWinderBGregsonMThorneK (2011) Working with denial in convicted sexual offenders: A qualitative analysis of treatment, professionals’ views and experiences, and their implications for practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology57: 332–356.
3.
BlagdenNWinderBGregsonMThorneK (2014) Making sense of denial in sexual offenders: A qualitative phenomenological and repertory grid analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence29: 1698–1731.
4.
BrownSWalkerKGannonTKeownK (2013) Creating a psychologically comfortable position: The link between empathy and cognitions in sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression19: 275–294.
EvansDCubellisM (2015) Coping with stigma: How registered sex offenders manage their public identities. American Journal of Criminal Justice40: 593–619.
7.
FreemanJPalkGDaveyJ (2010) Sex offenders in denial: a study into a group of forensic psychologists’ attitudes regarding the corresponding impact upon risk assessment calculations and parole eligibility. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology21: 39–51.
8.
HansonKBussiereM (1998) Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology66: 348–362.
9.
HansonKMorton-BourgonK (2005) The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology73: 1154–1163.
10.
HansonRGordonAHarrisAMarquesJMurphyWQuinseyVSetoM (2002) First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment14: 169–194.
11.
HarkinsLBeechAGoodwillA (2010) Examining the influence of denial, motivation, and risk in sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment22: 78–94.
12.
HarkinsLHowardPBarnettGWakelingHMilesC (2015) Relationships between denial, risk, and recidivism in sexual offenders. Archives Sexual Behavior44: 157–166.
13.
HoodRShuteSFeilzerMWilcoxA (2002) Sex offenders emerging from long term imprisonment: A study of their long term reconviction rates and parole board members’ judgements of their risk. British Journal of Criminology42: 371–394.
14.
KennedyHGrubinD (1992) Patterns of denial in sex offenders. Psychological Medicine22: 191–196.
15.
LangtonCBarbareeHHarkinsLArenovichTMcNameeJPeacockEMarconH (2008) Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Post-treatment presentation and association with sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior35: 69–98.
16.
LevensonJMacgowanM (2004) Engagement, denial, and treatment progress among sex offenders in group therapy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment16: 49–63.
17.
LundC (2000) Predictors of sexual recidivism: Did meta-analysis clarify the role and relevance of denial?Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment12: 275–287.
18.
MannRBarnettG (2013) Victim empathy intervention with sex offenders: Rehabilitation, punishment, or correctional quackery?Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment25: 282–301.
19.
MarshallW (1994) Treatment effects on denial and minimization in incarcerated sex offenders: The assessment and treatment of sex offenders. Behaviour Research & Therapy32(5): 559–564.
20.
MarunaS (2004) Desistance and explanatory style: A new direction in the psychology of reform. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice20: 184–200.
21.
McGrathRCummingGBurchardBZeoliSEllerbyL (2010) Current Practices and Trends in Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Study. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
22.
NunesKLHansonRKFirestonePMouldenHMGreenbergDMBradfordJM (2007) Denial predicts recidivism for some sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment19: 91–105.
23.
NunesKJungS (2012) Are cognitive distortions associated with denial and minimisation among sex offenders?Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment25: 166–188.
24.
Oxford Dictionary of English (2010), Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.
25.
RogersR (1990) Development of a new classificatory model of malingering. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law18: 323–333.
26.
SalterA (1988) Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
SefarbiR (1990) Admitters and deniers among adolescent sex offenders and their families: A preliminary study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association60: 460–465.
28.
WakelingHWebsterSMannR (2005) Sexual offenders’ treatment experience: A qualitative and quantitative investigation. Journal of Sexual Aggression11: 171–186.
29.
WeaverBMcNeillF (2010) Travelling hopefully: Desistant theory and probation practiceIn: BrayfordJCoweFDeeringJ (eds) What Else Works? Creative Work with Offenders. Devon: Willan Publishing.
30.
WebsterSAkhtarSBowersLMannRRallingsMMarshallL (2004) The impact of the prison service sex offender treatment programme on minority ethnic offenders: A preliminary study. Psychology, Crime & Law10: 113–124.
31.
YatesP (2009) Is sexual offender denial related to sex offence risk and recidivism? A review and treatment implications. Psychology, Crime and Law15: 183–199.
