<p>Over the past decades, sex offenders' cognition, specifically their cognitive distortions, have been the focus of extensive research. Traditionally, cognitive distortions have been described as any statements provided by the offender that justify, minimise, or excuse offending (Abel, et al., 1984). Recent research highlighted a need to expand current understanding of cognitive distortions with regards to value, affect and function. The Judgement Model of Cognitive Distortions (Ward, Gannon and Keown, 2006) argued for greater examination of beliefs, values, actions, and their interaction with each other. The current study examined the role played by values within the context of sex offenders' reasoning and decision-making processes. It also sought to understand the ways in which offenders' accounted for their offending, whether it was irrational, and if so, in what way. The research was qualitative, and used interviews gained from a sample of 27 adult, male, treated, child sexual offenders from within New Zealand. Grounded theory methodology (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) was used to create a data-driven model of offenders' reasoning and decision-making, within the context of offending. Results indicated that values were an important part of the offenders' cognition, central to their sense of self, and critical to their perception of the world around them. Values were closely related to how offenders framed their relationship with their victims. Based on the clustering of values, the Sexual Offender Relationship Frames Model (SORF) emerged. This was used to understand and illustrate different pathways to offending using case-studies from the sample. The results have been evaluated within the context of existing literature on the study of sexual offending. Clinical implications, limitations, and practical applications are discussed.</p>
The endorsement of cognitive distortions: comparing child pornography offenders and contact sex offenders
