Advertisement

The Role of the Media in Shaping Responses to Sexual Offending

  • Craig A. Harper
Chapter
Part of the Sexual Crime book series (SEXCR)

Abstract

It is well documented that media outlets set the agenda for how we discuss controversial topics, and sexual crime is no exception. What is less understood, though, are the psychological mechanisms that these organisations use when presenting information. This chapter explores the theoretical world of dual-process cognition. There is a focus on heuristics, which are mental shortcuts that we use to make decisions without requiring a lot of mental effort. Examples of how media outlets capitalise on these heuristics in their presentation of sexual offending are discussed. In the second half, emerging research on attitudes towards individuals who have committed sexual offences is investigated, and suggestions for using these findings to promote more constructive responses to this serious public health issue are set out.

Keywords

Media influence Attitudes towards sexual offenders Dual-process cognition CoSA Attitude change 

References

  1. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., & Haslam, N. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. Plos One, 8, e61842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061842 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. BBC News. (2011). Sex offender registration appeals to go ahead. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979
  4. Brown, K., Spencer, J., & Deakin, J. (2007). The reintegration of sex offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00452.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, S. (1999). Public attitudes towards the treatment of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532599167879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, L. M. (2007). Landlord attitudes toward renting to released offenders. Federal Probation, 71, 20–30.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, L., & Hogue, T. (2013, June). Not-In-My-Backyard! A comparison of NIMBY responses to wind turbines and sex offender rehabilitation facilities. Paper presented at the BPS Division of Forensic Psychology Annual Conference, Belfast, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Drake, D. H., & Henley, A. J. (2014). ‘Victims’ versus ‘offenders’ in British political discourse: The construction of a false dichotomy. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein, S. (1994). An integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory: An integrative theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 93–118). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Farmer, M., McAlinden, A.-M., & Maruna, S. (2015). Understanding desistance from sexual offending: A thematic review of research findings. Probation Journal, 62, 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550515600545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feelgood, S., & Hoyer, J. (2008). Child molester or paedophile? Sociolegal versus psychopathological classification of sexual offenders against children. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600802133860 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Vienna, Austria: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  18. Göbbels, S., Ward, T., & Willis, G. W. (2012). An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groopman, J. (2008). How doctors think. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  20. Harper, C. A., & Bartels, R. M. (2016). Implicit theories and offender representativeness in judgments about sexual crime. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216658019
  21. Harper, C. A., & Bartels, R. M. (2017). The influence of implicit theories and offender characteristics on judgements of sexual offenders: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1250963 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harper, C. A., Bartels, R. M., & Hogue, T. E. (2016). Reducing stigma and punitive attitudes toward pedophiles through narrative humanization. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216681561
  23. Harper, C. A., & Harris, A. J. (2017). Applying moral foundations theory to understanding public views of sexual offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23, 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1217086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harper, C. A., & Hogue, T. E. (2015). The emotional representation of sexual crime in the national British press. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14544474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harper, C. A., & Hogue, T. E. (2017). Press coverage as a heuristic guide for social decision-making about sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23, 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1227816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, A. J., & Socia, K. M. (2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public beliefs and opinions. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 660–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214564391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Höing, M., Petrina, R., Duke, L., Völlm, B., & Vogelvang, B. (2016). Community support for sex offender rehabilitation in Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 13, 491–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Home Office. (2010). Child sex offender (CSO) disclosure scheme guidance document. London: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Jahnke, S., Philipp, K., & Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with pedophilia and their malleability among psychotherapists in training. Child Abuse & Neglect, 40, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. King, L. L., & Roberts, J. J. (2017). The complexity of public attitudes toward sex crimes. Victims & Offenders, 12, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1005266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klein, J. G. (2005). Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing. British Medical Journal, 330, 781–783. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7494.781 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Koulianou, Y. (1985). Attitudes towards rape: A cross-cultural approach. Unpublished master’s thesis. Cardiff: University of Wales.Google Scholar
  35. Kuran, T., & Sunstein, C. R. (1999). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51, 683–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271676 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malinen, S., Willis, G. W., & Johnston, L. (2014). Might informative media reporting of sexual offending influence community members’ attitudes towards sex offenders? Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.793770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAvoy, J. (2012). Birds of a feather? Irish public attitudes towards sex crime and sex offender reintegration. Is there a publically perceived scale of sexual deviance? Unpublished master’s thesis, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin.Google Scholar
  39. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC 2007 (Software manual). Austin, TX: LIWC.net.Google Scholar
  41. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Richards, K., & McCartan, K. (2017). Public views about reintegrating child sex offenders via Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA): A qualitative analysis. Deviant Behavior. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1304800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanghara, K. K., & Wilson, J. C. (2006). Stereotypes and attitudes about child sexual abusers: A comparison of experienced and inexperienced professionals in sex offender treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X68818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Stack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soothill, K., & Walby, S. (1991). Sex crime in the news. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Viki, G. T., Fullerton, I., Raggett, H., Tait, F., & Wiltshire, S. (2012). The role of dehumanization in attitudes toward the social exclusion and rehabilitation of sex offenders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2349–2367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00944.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ward, T., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good loves model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. West, D. J. (2000). The sex crime: Deterioration more apparent than real? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008713919597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson, R., Picheca, J., & Prinzo, M. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the community-based management of high-risk sexual offenders: Part One: Effects on participants and stakeholders. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2007.00475.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig A. Harper
    • 1
  1. 1.Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations