The Attitudes to Sex Offenders Scale: Development and validation of a 21 item short-form Prof Todd E. Hogue University of Lincoln (UK)
Societal View of Sexual offenders Demonised transforming them into monsters, beasts, & sex fiends (Thomas 2000) Offenders against women/children more immoral/ill (Weekes, Pelletier & Beaudetee, 1995) Sex offenders worse than other offenders (Akersrom, 1986; Kjelsberg & Loos, 2008) Many myths and misconceptions (Quinn, Forsyth & Mullin-Quinn, 2004) Community rejection (McAlinden, 2007) 47% - adult sex offenders unacceptable in community 70% - unacceptable for child offenders to be in community
Attitudes Towards Sexual Offenders Can be measured reliably (Hogue, 1993; Kjesberg & Loos, 2008) Differences in attitude between groups ( Hogue, 1993, Hogue & Pebbles, 1997 & Craig, 2005) may differ between males and females (Hogue & Peebles, 1997; Craig, 2005) general public more negative than forensic professionals (Kjelsberg & Heian Loos, 2008; Johnson, Hughes & Ireland, 2007) Attitudes may/may not: change with training (Hogue, 1995; Craig, 2005; Kjelsberg & Heian Loos, 2008; Johnson, Hughes & Ireland, 2007) Attitudes predict views on punishment (Kjelsberg & Heian Loos, 2008) judgements of punishment (Hogue & Peebles, 1997)
Role of attitudes An internal cognitive and affective orientation that will or should explain the actions of a person Cognitive component: a consciously held belief or opinion Affective component: an associated emotional tone or feeling Evaluative component: the target of the attitude is viewed as positive or negative Conative component: there is a disposition for action
Attitudes towards sexual offenders (ATS) Based on Melvin, Gramling & Gardner (1985) 36 item scale Sex offenders never change I wouldn t mind living next door to an ex- sex offender Most sex offenders can be rehabilitated Scores range 0-144 High scores more positive Good reliability and validity
ATS relationship to other measures measure r study BigFive Personality Traits -.075 to.067 ns Hogue et al 2008 Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS).308 * Hogue & Smith, 2008 Empathy: perspective taking cognitive empathy Locus of control Stereotype consistency scores Knowledge of sexual abuse.32 *.24 *.08 ns -.234 *.570 * Johnson et al 2007 Sanghara & Wilson, 2006 Knowledge.581 * McGowen 2003
Developing an ATS Short Form 188 Participants recruited city centre high-street. approached randomly, representative community sample 72 (38%) Male, 116 (62%) female ATS-36 mean score 64.15 No difference from initial Hogue 1993 sample No difference between males and females. Data appropriate for factor analysis scree test identified three factors PCA 3 factors with with varimax rotation Accounted for 45.65% of variance Used.5 factor loading
Factor Structure 3 Factors 7 items per factor Minimum.5 loading Component Item number and question 1 2 3 Subscale 1 - Trust: (alpha=.827) 6. It is not wise to trust a sex offender too far (r).706 16. You have to be constantly on your guard with sex offenders (r).642 23. I wouldn t mind living next door to a treated sex offender -.611 20. There are some sex offenders I would trust with my life -.593 1. Sex offenders are different from other people (r).552 29. Sex offenders are immoral (r).545 34. I would like associating with some sex offenders -.527 Subscale 2 Intent: (alpha=.842) 25. Sex offenders are always trying to get something out of somebody.709 (r) 24. Sex offenders are just plain mean at heart (r).701 22. Most sex offenders are too lazy to earn an honest living (r).668 35. Sex offenders respect only brute force (r).663 9. Give a sex offender an inch and they take a mile (r).576 19. Sex Offenders only think about themselves (r).568 13. Trying to rehabilitate sex offenders is a waste of time and money (r).517 Scale 3 Social Distance: (alpha=.790) 15. Sex offenders are no better or worse than other people.606 4. Most sex offenders are victims of circumstances and deserve help.600 11. Sex offenders need affection and praise just like anybody else.578 5. Sex offenders have feelings like the rest of us.573 18. If you give a sex offender your respect, he ll give you the same.569 7. I think I would like a lot of sex offenders -.502.525 36. If sex offenders do well in prison/hospital, they should be let out on parole.507 8
ATS 21 item three factors Factor 1 (Trust) related to issues of how much a sexual offender should be trusted with questions such as, Q6; You have to be constantly on your guard with sex offenders (r) Q16; I wouldn t mind living next door to a treated sex offender. (r) Factor 2 (Intent) related to issues of the intent of the sexual offender with questions such as, Q25; Sex offenders are always trying to get something out of somebody (r) Q24; Sex offenders are just plain mean at heart. (r) Factor 3 (Social Distance) related to issues of how socially distant sexual offenders are seen with questions such as, Q5; Sex offenders have feelings like the rest of us and Q4; Most sex offenders are victims of circumstances and deserve help. All scales scored so that high scores are indicative of positive attitudes with scales summed to give a total ATS-21 score 9
ATS-21 Total and scale reliability Reliability The ATS-21 revised short form of the ATS scale (alpha=.910) Scale 1 Trust (alpha=.827), Scale 2 Intent (alpha=,842) and Scale 3 Social Distance (alpha=.790) Relation to ATS 36 item All scales/sub-scales are significantly correlated r=.593 to.983 with the original 36 item ATS ATS-21 highly correlated with 36 item ATS r=.983, p<.000. 10
ATS-21 Total and scale reliability Reliability The ATS-21 revised short form of the ATS scale (alpha=.910) Scale 1 Trust (alpha=.827), Scale 2 Intent (alpha=,842) and Scale 3 Social Distance (alpha=.790) Confirmatory Factor analysis good fit Hogue 1993: ATS validation sample and Merdian & Hogue, 2012 UK Community Sample N=359 Relation to ATS 36 item All scales/sub-scales are significantly correlated r=.593 to.983 with the original 36 item ATS ATS-21 highly correlated with 36 item ATS r=.983, p<.000. 11
ATS-21: Community Norms Scores for the ATS Subscales, ATS-21 Total and ATS-36 Total across different subgroups Total Sample n=188 Male n=70 Female n=118 No Children n=105 Children n=83 Age <=35 n=97 Age 35+ n=91 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Scale 1 - Trust 8.16 5.17 8.61 5.41 7.90 5.04 8.78 5.50 7.39 4.65 7.9 5.29 8.44 5.06 Scale 2 - Intent 15.82 5.22 15.73 5.74 15.88 4.91 16.73 5.13 14.67 5.13 16.25 5.40 15.37 5.01 Scale 3 - Distance 12.82 4.88 13.01 5.60 12.70 4.43 13.20 4.76 12.34 5.03 13.04 5.037 12.58 4.73 ATS21 Total 36.81 13.14 37.56 14.45 36.48 12.36 38.71 13.13 34.40 12.83 37.20 13.84 36.40 12.42 ATS 36 Total 64.15 22.02 65.66 24.69 63.26 20.33 66.06 22.19 60.48 21.37 64.70 23.85 63.57 20.00 Note: This normative information is based on a United Kingdom based community sample of 188 participants which acted as the sample for the reanalysis of the ATS. The sample included 72 males and 116 female participants. More details are available from the author and described in (Hogue, n.d.). 12
ATS-21: Community Norms Scores for the ATS Subscales, ATS-21 Total and ATS-36 Total across different subgroups Total Sample n=188 Male n=70 Female n=118 No Children n=105 Children n=83 Age <=35 n=97 Age 35+ n=91 M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Scale 1 - Trust 8.16 5.17 8.61 5.41 7.90 5.04 8.78 5.50 7.39 4.65 7.9 5.29 8.44 5.06 ATS-21 Community sample No difference based on gender or age Difference if have or don t have children Scale 2 - Intent 15.82 5.22 15.73 5.74 15.88 4.91 16.73 5.13 14.67 5.13 16.25 5.40 15.37 5.01 Scale 3 - Distance 12.82 4.88 13.01 5.60 12.70 4.43 13.20 4.76 12.34 5.03 13.04 5.037 12.58 4.73 ATS21 Total 36.81 13.14 37.56 14.45 36.48 12.36 38.71 13.13 34.40 12.83 37.20 13.84 36.40 12.42 ATS 36 Total 64.15 22.02 65.66 24.69 63.26 20.33 66.06 22.19 60.48 21.37 64.70 23.85 63.57 20.00 Note: This normative information is based on a United Kingdom based community sample of 188 participants which acted as the sample for the reanalysis of the ATS. The sample included 72 males and 116 female participants. More details are available from the author and described in (Hogue, n.d.). 13
ATS_21: Hogue 1993 Validation sample Scores for the Hogue (1993) ATS validation sample across revised ATS Subscales, ATS-21 Total and ATS-36 Total across different professional groups compared to current sample. Scale 1 Trust Scale 2 Intent Scale 3 Social Distance ATS-21 Total ATS-36 Total n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Police 33 7.85 4.08 16.67 3.75 11.06 3.76 35.58 10.23 62.61 17.47 Prison officer no sex offender 21 9.71 4.28 18.67 3.45 13.00 3.91 41.38 10.10 71.48 17.35 treatment Prison office - sex offender 50 12.04 4.31 18.84 2.94 15.56 2.69 46.44 8.50 79.96 13.13 treatment Probation and psychology 32 14.53 3.28 21.19 3.09 16.75 3.08 52.47 7.98 90.75 11.64 Sexual offender 28 16.89 5.93 21.32 4.30 18.79 4.35 57.00 12.64 99.14 20.42 Hogue 1993 sample average 164 12.21 5.33 19.26 3.82 15.11 4.31 46.59 12.12 80.76 19.98 Current sample 188 8.16 5.17 15.82 5.22 12.82 4.88 36.81 13.14 64.15 22.02 14
ATS_21: Hogue 1993 Validation sample Scores for the Hogue (1993) ATS validation sample across revised ATS Subscales, ATS-21 Total and ATS-36 Total across different professional groups compared to current sample. Scale 1 Trust Scale 2 Intent Scale 3 Social Distance ATS-21 Total ATS-36 Total n M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Police 33 7.85 4.08 16.67 3.75 11.06 3.76 35.58 10.23 62.61 17.47 Prison officer no sex offender treatment 21 9.71 4.28 18.67 3.45 13.00 3.91 41.38 10.10 71.48 17.35 Prison office - sex offender 50 12.04 4.31 18.84 2.94 15.56 2.69 46.44 8.50 79.96 13.13 treatment ATS-21 Community sample did not differ from Hogue Probation and psychology 32 14.53 3.28 21.19 3.09 16.75 3.08 52.47 7.98 90.75 11.64 1993 Police or Non-treatment Prison Officer sample Different from all other samples Sexual offender 28 16.89 5.93 21.32 4.30 18.79 4.35 57.00 12.64 99.14 20.42 Hogue 1993 sample average 164 12.21 5.33 19.26 3.82 15.11 4.31 46.59 12.12 80.76 19.98 Current sample 188 8.16 5.17 15.82 5.22 12.82 4.88 36.81 13.14 64.15 22.02 15
ATS-21: Forensic Psychologists 1993 vs 2013 60 50 40 30 Hogue 93 Probation/ Psychology Tan 2013 Forensic Psychologists ATS-21 Community Sample 20 10 0 TRUST INTENT SOCIAL DISTANCE ATS-21 TOTAL 16
ATS-21 and risk judgements (Tan, 2012) 35 Forensic assessors mostly chartered forensic psychology Rate brief 2 vignettes 1) child sexual offender 2) convicted of GBH Rating risk of reoffending Violence Sexual Chart Title -0.129 SOCIAL DISTANCE -0.365-0.084 INTENT -0.374-0.469 TRUST -0.105-0.301 ATS-21-0.315-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 0 Violence Sexual 17
Conclusion ATS (Hogue, 1993) presented attitudes as a single dimension Clearly identified a three factor structure based on UK sample Developed ATS-21 with 3 subscales Trust Intent Social distance Confirmatory factor analysis initial ATS and current community sample Normative UK data Rescoring of Hogue (1993) ATS data Demonstrated potential use of different subscales related to risk judgments in practice. 18
For more information contact Prof Todd Hogue thogue@lincoln.ac.uk 19