• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
308 Presentation
 

308 Presentation

on

  • 747 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
747
Views on SlideShare
747
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

308 Presentation 308 Presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Female sexual-offenders: Personality pathology as a mediator of the relationship between childhood sexual abuse history and sexual abuse perpetration against others Kelly Christopher, Catherine J.Lutz-Zois, Amanda R. Reinhardt Reviewed by: Amy Offenbach, Caitlyn Shuy, and Tiera Bell November 11, 2008 Psyc 308 UMBC
  • Doris Ellen Moore
    • Registered sex offender found on www.familywatchdog.us/Default.asp
    • Sex offense 3 rd degree
    • Lives 1.42 miles from UMBC
  • Introduction
    • Designed to explore reasons for the possible link between childhood victimization and sexual abuse of children perpetrated by women.
    • Also to examine whether the nature of women’s own history of CSA (duration and relationship to the abuser) is associated with perpetration of sexual abuse of children
  • Intro and Background
    • Previous studies have been small and participants have been psychiatric patients or prisoners
    • Previous studies found most female sex offenders were victims of CSA.
    • Some common expressed motivation given in previous studies for the sexual offenses have been revenge, anger or jealously.
  • Intro and Background (cont.)
    • Previous studies have found subjects demonstrated PTSD, alcohol and substance abuse, self-injurious behaviors, border line personality disorders, Dissociative disorders and high rates of conduct disorder, ADD, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder
    • No studies to the researchers knowledge have examined psychopathy in female sex-offenders
  • Intro and Background (cont.)
    • Few studies have explored whether sexual-offenders suffered longer periods of sexual abuse than non-offenders with abuse histories, especially in an all-female sample.
    • The duration of abuse has only previously been hypothesized as an important factor in predicting later perpetration of sexual abuse
  • Intro and Background (cont.)
    • It has been found that duration of CSA is linked to a wide variety of other impairments in adult women such as physical health problems and more psychiatric symptoms.
    • “ Scholars have proposed this as a mechanism for the abused-abuser cycle of some women and adolescent girls, this hypothesis has yet to be tested directly.”
  • Maidah Lorraine Amatullah
    • Registered sex offender found on www.familywatchdog.us/Default.asp
    • Rape 2 nd degree
    • Lives 2.6 miles from UMBC
  • About the Study
    • Examine CSA personality traits and sexual abuse perpetration simultaneously instead of the relationship.
    • Examine a large sample of females
    • Investigate whether the nature of the abuse endured by female sex-offenders as children is an important predictor of sexual abuse perpetration in adulthood.
  • About the Study (cont.)
    • Compare 2 groups
      • Female prisoners convicted of sexual offenses against children
      • Female prisoners convicted of other crimes
  • Hypotheses H1 Women in the sexual offense group would be more likely to report a history of CSA than those in the non-sex offender group H2 Antisocial and Borderline Personality tendencies would be positively correlated with a history of CSA H3 After statistical control, Antisocial and Borderline tendencies would predict sexual offender v. non-sex offender H4 After statistical control, Antisocial and Borderline tendencies CSA would not predict sexual offender v. non-sex offender H5 Women in the sexual offender group would report having suffered longer periods of CSA than those in non-sex offender H6 Women in sexual offender group would be more likely to report having been sexually victimized as a child by a family member than the women in the non-sex offender group H7 Women in sexual offender group would be more likely to have experiences a combination of sexual abuse and either physical or emotional abuse than those in the non-sex offender group
  • Methods
    • Eligible participants were all inmates residing in a women’s correctional facility in the Midwest at the time of study
    • There were 142 participants
      • 61 who had sexually victimized or aided in the sexual victimization of another person
      • 81 who had committed crimes other than sexual victimization (theft, drug offenses, or murder)
  • Methods Demographics
  • Methods Measures
    • History of childhood sexual abuse was measured by the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire.
      • 28-item scale
      • 5 point Likert scale
        • Responses “never true” to “very often true”
      • CTQ was modified by adding two follow up questions that were fill in the blank
        • If yes then who?
        • How long did this occur?
  • Methods Measures
    • Antisocial personality traits were measured by the Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.
      • 26 items
      • 4 point Likert scale
        • Responses “disagree strongly” to “agree strongly”
      • 2 subscales
        • Primary psychopathy subscale largely assesses selfishness and lack of concern for the well-being of others
        • Secondary psychopathy subscale was designed to assess impulsivity and a self-defeating lifestyle
  • Methods Measures
    • Borderline personality traits were measured by the Borderline subscale of the Schizotypal Traits Questionnaire.
      • 18 items
      • Yes/No format
  • Methods Measures
    • Social desirability is measured in order to assess the tendency of a person to present a favorable impression of themselves.
    • It is measured by The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR).
    • The BIDR measures two contructs
      • Self-deceptive enhancement
      • Impression management
  • Methods Data Analyses
    • Women in the sexual offender group had:
      • Less education
      • Fewer prior convictions
      • Longer prison sentences
    • H1 ANCOVA was calculated
    • H2 evaluated by using partial correlations
    • H3 & H4 calculated a discriminant function analysis
    • H5 ANCOVA was calculated
    • H6 calculated chi-square
    • H7 two ANCOVA’s were calculated
  • Susan Ann Dezenzo
    • Registered sex offender found on www.familywatchdog.us/Default.asp
    • Aggravated indecent assault/ child endangerment
    • Lives 2.66 miles from UMBC
  • Result
    • Consistent with Hypotheses 1: sexual offenders group reported more frequent instances of CSA than non-sex offenders
      • F (1,123)=4.7, p <.05
    • Consistent with Hypotheses 2: CSA was significantly positively associated with Borderline Personality tendencies ( r =.36, p <.01) ; but not with primary ( r = -.06, p>.05)or secondary psychopathy ( r = .14, p >.05)
  • Results Cont.
    • There was no support for Hypotheses 3: there was no significant difference in the hypothesized mediators (Borderline Personality tendencies and primary and secondary psychopathy
    • Hypotheses 4 showed no support, because even with hypothesized mediators statically controlled, CSA still predicted sexual-offenders vs. non-sex offenders
      • F (1,116)=9.9, p<.01
  • Results Cont.
    • Hypotheses 5: significant difference found between women of sexual-offenders and non-sex offenders, where sexual-offenders suffered from longer periods of CSA.
      • F =(1,32)=4.6, p <.05
    • Hypotheses 6: no significant relationship between being in the sexual-offender or non-sex offender group and the type of relationship between the participant and their sexual abuser as a child.
      • X ² =.002, p<.05
  • Results Cont.
    • Hypotheses 7: of those who were sexually abused as a child there was no significant group difference in physical or emotional abuse
      • F (1,63)=3.1, p >.05
      • F (1.63)=.4, p >.05
  • Discussion
    • In one of the first studies of its kind we found:
      • That female prisoners convicted of sexual offenses against children reported more frequent instances of CSA than those not convicted
      • And in terms of nature of the CSA history women in the sexual-offender group experienced CSA for a greater duration of time than those in the non-sex offender group
  • Discussion
    • It has been assumed previously that CSA histories and sexual abuse perpetration in women are linked because the research has linked the two variables in men.
    • Personality disorder tendencies did not seem to distinguish between sexual and non-sexual offenders.
    • This may be in part because of a ceiling effect of female criminal behavior in general.
  • Discussion
    • Consistent with past research the results indicated that the experience of CSA was related to personality disorders
    • Duration of abuse appeared to be a much stronger predictor of sex-offending than the experience of abuse alone
    • Great exposure as a child to CSA the more likely they are to view sexual relationships with children as “normal” and later model these actions
  • Discussion Limits
    • Only used prison population
    • Reading comprehension
    • Not generalizeable results
    • Because of criminal history one might expect more severe problems with personality pathology and history of sexual abuse
  • Disscussion In the future
    • Research should also examine moderators of the relationship such as social support, coping skills, and involvement in early-intervention programs.
    • More attention should be paid to duration of CSA
  • Reference
    • Christopher, K., Lutz-Zois, C. J., & Reinhardt, A. R. (2007). Female sexual-offenders: Personality pathology as a mediator of the relationship between childhood sexual abuse history and sexual abuse perpetration against others. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 , 871-883
  • Questions
    • What are some likely predictors of a female sex-offender?
    • What could be done to reduce/eliminate these predictors?
    • Any other questions or thoughts?
  • Individual, family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated children: A cumulative stressor model Sara R. Jaffee, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Monica Polo-Tom ás, Alan Taylor Reviewed by: Amy Offenbach, Caitlyn Shuy, and Tiera Bell November 11, 2008 Psyc 308 UMBC
  • Introduction
    • An estimated 906,000 children in the U.S were victims of abuse or neglect in 2003
    • Number of well-designed, prospective longitudinal studies have shown that children who are maltreated are at risk of a range of problems in childhood, adolescence and adulthood.
  • Introduction cont.
    • Even though a lot of literature has identified multiple characteristics that are associated with resilience to maltreatment, this study contributes two things
      • Identify individual, family, and neighborhood characteristics that predict stable, positive adaptation over a 2-year period
      • Identify the interplay among risk and protective factors
  • Goals of Study and Hypotheses
    • Goal 1: to test whether children who were defined as resilient according to these criteria were also functioning successfully in other domains
    • Goal 2: to test whether individual, family and neighborhood characteristics would distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated children and whether the characteristics that were associated with resilience differed for girls and boys
  • Goals of Study and Hypotheses cont.
    • Goals 2, hypotheses: children who have the attribute and who were maltreated will be behaviorally indistinguishable from children who have the attribute and were not maltreated.
    • Also tested sex difference in the association since its not known whether resilience process differs between maltreated boys and girls
  • Goals of Study and Hypotheses cont.
    • Goal 3: to test the hypothesis that children’s strength would predict resilience to maltreatment only when children were exposed to relatively few family and neighborhood stressors
    • Comparing resilient to non-resilient allows them to test whether individual, family or neighborhood factors distinguished these two groups
    • Comparing resilient to maltreated children allowed them to test whether maltreated children were doing as well and non-maltreated children simply
  • Methods
  • Methods
    • Individual Characteristics:
      • IQ scores were used and those who were at least half a SD above the mean IQ were considered above-average IQ .
      • They also looked at temperament and children who were sociable and self controlled were said to have a well-adjusted temperament.
        • They used the under-controlled temperament scale and the shy temperament scale
  • Methods
    • Family Characteristics:
    • Maternal Warmth
    • Social Deprivation
    • Mothers’ Major Depressive Disorder
    • Father’s and Mother’s History of Antisocial Behavior
    • Drug and Alcohol Problems
    • Adult Domestic Violence
    • Sibling Warmth
    • Sibling Conflict
  • Methods
    • Neighborhood Characteristics:
    • Crime
    • Informal Social Control
    • Social Cohesion
  • Methods
    • Child Behavior:
    • At ages 5 and 7 parents were asked for permission to have their children’s teachers complete the Teacher Report Form.
      • This assessed:
      • Antisocial behaviors
      • Emotional problems
      • Prosocial behavior
    • Reading ability was also assessed to test if children were reading at or above the median for the sample.
  • Methods
    • Maltreatment:
    • At the age 5 assessment, mothers were interviewed to assess if either child had ever been physically maltreated.
    • Interviewers probed the mothers and were careful to word questions so they did not seem to implicate the mother as the perpetrator.
    • The likelihood that the children were physically maltreated were categorized as:
      • Not having been
      • Possibly been
      • Definitely been
  • Methods
    • 86% of children experienced no physical maltreatment
    • They combined those who possibly experienced physical maltreatment and those who definitely experienced physical maltreatment so that 14% experienced some physical maltreatment.
    • They used a Multinomial logistic regression analyses estimated the relative risk of being in one category (e.g., non-resilient) relative to a reference category (e.g., resilient) as a function of individual, family, and neighborhood covariates.
  • Results
  • Results cont.
  • Results cont.
  • Results cont.
  • Discussion
    • Maltreated before 5yrs, individual, family and neighborhood characteristics were associated with behavioral resilience.
    • Boys with above average intelligence and whose parents had few symptoms of antisocial personality were more likely to be resilient.
    • Exposure to multiple family and neighborhood stressors severely compromised children’s resilience.
  • Discussion
    • ¼ physically maltreated children were defined as resilient from teacher reports
    • Those resilient at 5 years old were much more likely to be resilient at 7 years old.
    • Persistent resilience, at least over 2 years can now be added to the literature.
    • Individual strengths distinguished resilient from non-resilient children under conditions of low, but not high stress.
  • Discussion
    • “ Our findings suggest that children who possess individual strengths and who can be protected from significant ongoing family and neighborhood stressors stand a good chance of maintaining positive functioning in the long-term. This, however, is an empirical proposition that must be put to the test with longitudinal data.”
  • Discussion Limits
    • Those children defined as resilient may have functioned well because of experiencing relatively less severe or chronic episodes of maltreatment
    • The proportion of children who were defined as resilient and the factors that distinguished resilient from non-resilient children might have varied depending on what type of abuse children experienced
    • Children were all twins
    • Advantages/disadvantages of the researchers creating an index of family and neighborhood factors.
  • Questions
    • Do individual, family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient children from non-resilient and non-maltreated children?
    • What increases you chances of being:
      • Resilient?
      • Non-resilient?
    • Other thoughts or questions?
  • Reference
    • Jaffee, S. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Polo- Tomás, M., & Taylor, A.(2007). Individual, family, and neighborhood factors distinguish resilient from non-resilient maltreated children: A cumulative stressor model. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 , 231-253
    • Christopher, Kelly; Lutz-Zois, Catherine J.; Reinhardt, Amanda R.; (2007) Female sexual-offenders: personality pathology as a mediator of the relationship between childhood sexual abuse history and sexual abuse perpetration against others.; Child Abuse & Neglect 31 , 871-883