性侵害加害人否認行為之研究

Study of Sexual Offenders' Denial Behavior

10.7082/CJGC.200803.0177

王郁文(Yu-Wen Wang)；修慧蘭(Hui-Lan Hsiu)

否認 ； 性侵害加害人 ； denial ； sexual offender

中華輔導與諮商學報

23期（2008 / 03 / 01）

177 - 211

繁體中文

本研究以15次焦點團體，訪談十位正在監獄服刑的性侵害加害人，探討性侵害加害人的否認行為，旨在瞭解性侵害加害人否認類型、目的以及削弱原因。研究結果發現加害人否認呈現方式為連續階段類別取向，以「推諉責任」為認知扭曲的基礎，建立自己才是被害人的形象，否認行為分為「與犯行無關」、「淡化犯行嚴重程度」兩種初級否認行為，兩種類別中包含特定次級否認行為。否認目的在避免更多的失去，包含社會性目的之監獄生活自保、規避治療責任、避免自己與家人遭受傷害與歧視，個人性目的之避免罪惡感。否認削弱原因有監獄生活危險降低、司法威脅減少、接納的人際互動、自省的機會。文末並依據研究結果，提出後續研究以及治療實務建議。

The purpose of this study is to increase our level of understanding about sexual offenders, specifically of their characteristics, purpose and extinct factors of denial behavior, through 15 focus groups with 10 sexual offenders. This research finds that sexual offender's denial behavior is on a continuum dimension with varying degrees and types. The denial behavior is characterized by external attributions and self-victimization. There are two types of primary denial behaviors, including denial of crime and minimization of victim harm. The main purpose of denial behavior is to avoid further damage both in the social and the personal level. Purposes at the social level are self protection in prison, avoidance of treatment responsibility, and prevention of discrimination and harm to themselves and their families. Purpose at the personal level is avoidance of inner sense of guilty. This research also finds that extinct factors of denial behavior include mitigation of threats from prison and judicature, interpersonal acceptance, and chances for self-introspection. Furthermore, this research provides suggestions for further research and treatment in the future.

1. ATSA Professional Issues Committee(2001).Practice standards and guidelines for members of association for the treatment of sexual abusers.Beaverton, OR:TASA.
2. ATSA Professional Issues Committee(2001).Practice standards and guidelines for members of association for the treatment of sexual abusers.Beaverton, OR:TASA.
3. Barbaree, H. E.(1991).Denial and minimization among sex offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome.Forum on corrections Research,3,30-33.
4. Barrett, M. J. (Eds.),Sykes, C.,Byrness, W.,T. Trepper (Eds.)(1986).Treating incest: A multiple systems perspective.New York:Haworth.
5. Barrett, M. J.,Sykes, C.,Byrness, W.,T. Trepper,M. J. Barrett (Eds.)(1986).Treating incest: A multiple systems perspective.New York:Haworth.
6. Brake, S. C.,Shonnon, D.,B. K. Schwartz (Eds.),H. R. Cellini (Eds.)(1997).The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments.Kingston, NJ:Civic Research Institute.
7. Brake, S. C.,Shonnon, D.,B. K. Schwartz,H. R. Cellini (Eds.)(1997).The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments.Kingston, NJ:Civic Research Institute.
8. Carich, S. M.,Mussack, E. S.(2001).Handbook for Sexual Abuser Assessment and Treatment.Brandon:Safer Society Foundation.
9. Corey, G.(2005).Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy.Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
10. Happel, R. M.,Auffrey, J. J.(1995).Sex offender assessment: Interrupting the dance of denial.American Journal of Forensic Psychology,13(2),5-22.
11. Kennedy, H. G.,Gubin, D. H.(1992).Patterns of denial in sex offenders.Psychological Medicine,22,191-196.
12. Laflen, B.,Sturm, W. R. Jr.(1994).Understanding and working with denial in sexual offenders.Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,3(4),19-36.
13. Langevin, R.,R. Rogers (Ed.)(1988).Clinical assessment of malingering and deception.New York:Guilford.
14. Pollock, N. L.,Hashmall, J. M.(1991).The excuses of child molesters.Behavioral Sciences and the Law,9,53-59.
15. Rogers, R.,Dickey, R.(1990).Denial and minimization among sex offenders: A review of competing models of deception.Annals of Sex Research,4,49-63.
16. Salter, A. C.(1988).Treating child sex offenders and victims.London:Sage.
17. Schlank, A.,Shaw, T.,B. K. Schwartz (Eds.),H. R. Cellini (Eds.)(1997).The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments.Kingston, NJ:Civic Research Institute.
18. Schlank, A.,Shaw, T.,B. K. Schwartz,H. R. Cellini (Eds.)(1997).The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments.Kingston, NJ:Civic Research Institute.
19. Schneider, L. S.,Wright, C. R.(2004).Understanding denial in sexual offenders: A review of cognitive and motivational processes to avoid responsibility.Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,5(1),3-30.
20. Sefarbi, R.(1990).Admitters and deniers among adolescent sex offenders and their families: A preliminary study.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,60(3),460-465.
21. Strauss, A.,Corbin, J.(1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park:Stage.
22. Strauss, A.,Corbin, J.(1990).Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park:Stage Publications.
23. Trepper, T.,Banett, M. J.(1989).Systemic treatment of incest: A therapeutic handbook.New York:Brurater/Mazel.
24. Winn, M. E.(1996).The strategic and systemic management of denial in the cognitive/behavioral treatment of sexual offenders.Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,8,25-36.
25. Yalom, I. D.(2005).The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy.NY:Basic Books.
26. 李向慈譯、洪佼宜譯、Ehrlich, R. P.(2004)。人類的演化：基因、文化與人類的未來。台北市:貓頭鷹。
27. 李向慈、洪佼宜譯、Ehrlich, R. P.(2004)。人類的演化：基因、文化與人類的未來。台北市:貓頭鷹。
28. 柯永河(1999)。內政部研究計畫期末報告（報告編號：7313132002）內政部研究計畫期末報告（報告編號：7313132002）,未出版
29. 柯永河(1999)。內政部研究計畫期末報告內政部研究計畫期末報告,未出版
30. 張芬芬譯、Miles, B. M.、Huberman, A. M.(2005)。質性研究資料分析。台北市:雙葉書廊。
31. 張芬芬譯、Miles, B. M.、Huberman, A. M.(1994)。質性研究資料分析。台北市:雙葉書廊。
32. 黃光國(2005)。儒家關係主義：文化反思與典範重建。台北市:台灣大學出版中心。
33. 蔡田木(1998)。受刑人拘禁反應與生活適應之研究。中央警察大學學報，32，437-470。

1. 李育政(2013)。觀護人運作預防性測謊所覺知的關係困境及其因應策略。中華心理衛生學刊，26(1)，141-177。
2. 林明傑、李育政(2012)。觀護人對測謊在性侵害加害人觀護效能之知覺研究。臺大社會工作學刊，26，87-138。
3. 饒怡君、楊大和、金樹人(2012)。接受強制團體治療社區性侵害人之改變動機研究。中華心理衛生學刊，25(3)，477-505。
4. 宋宥賢(2015)。臺灣地區性侵害加害人團體心理治療內涵與成效概況之探究。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊，11(2)，103-126。