COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

A Practitioners Portfolio

Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd The Willows Clinic 98 Sheffield Road Boldmere Sutton Coldfield B73 5HW 0121 377 6276

FPP Ltd 1999

1 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

CONTENTS:

Introduction: What is Cognitive Distortion?

Cognitive Distortion and Offenders

Patterns of Perpetrator Denial

Assessment of CDs

11

Cognitive Distortion Checklist

16

Working with Cognitive Distortion

19

Interventions

21

Bibliography

27

References

27

FPP Ltd 1999

2 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

INTRODUCTION.

What is Cognitive Distortion? Cognitive Distortion (CD) is a term that you may be familiar with. The simplest descriptions of CD are faulty thinking or distorted thinking but there are a number of terms around that you may have also heard: Justification. Neutralisation Objectification Externalisation. Minimisation.

All these terms refer to CDs but refer to specific types of CD which will be discussed later in this document. (New terminology will be introduced in bold type and elaborated on later in the document).

Is Cognitive Distortion Normal? The important first principle of understanding CD is the idea that it is a normal process that we all engage in, regardless of whether we are offenders or not. In fact, cognitive distortion is a normal psychological process that all human beings engage in, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, culture or socio-economic group.

Why Do We Cognitively Distort? Faulty thinking patterns exist for many different reasons, but it is always true that the thinking error serves a purpose for the individual. Common purposes of cognitive distortion are as follows: 1) To deny responsibility for our behaviour. 2) To deny negative consequences of our behaviour. 3) To allow us to continue to behave in a way that we know is wrong. 4) To avoid facing painful emotions. 5) To avoid change.

FPP Ltd 1999

3 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

How Do We Cognitively Distort? The easiest way of demonstrating cognitive distortion is to look at an every day, non-offending example. Behaviours that we often engage in, yet know are wrong, are things like smoking, overeating, overspending, upsetting the people we care about, speeding and so on. To use smoking as an example, most people have heard a variety of reasons or excuses about why people smoke. How do these come about? Usually, they evolve through the development of cognitive dissonance, followed by a purposeful reduction of the discomfort this causes by dissonance reduction. This simple process is outlined below. Cognitive dissonance, first defined by Festinger (1957), is a term used to describe the highly uncomfortable psychological state that occurs when we try to hold two incompatible beliefs, attitudes or thoughts in our minds at the same time. The incompatibility is psychological in nature (i.e. causing psychological discomfort), not necessarily logical. When we do this, we feel a great deal of anxiety and discomfort, though the extent to which we are aware of this varies from individual to individual. For smokers, the two incompatible (therefore dissonance inducing) beliefs commonly held are the following.

1) I am a smoker. 2) Smoking causes cancer and therefore kills.

Its worth noting that these two beliefs are not logically incompatible, but psychologically incompatible, and that the person holding these beliefs will be aware of this. The discomfort is too great to contain and, like all states of discomfort, humans strive to reduce this cognitive dissonance, just as we strive to relieve hunger, thirst or fatigue. To achieve this, one of these beliefs has to be altered in order to relieve the anxiety. This is called dissonance reduction.

How is Dissonance Reduced? The simplest way to reduce dissonance would obviously be to stop smoking (change our behaviour) immediately, but this is by far the hardest option for many people. The only other way is to set about changing the beliefs. Some people might set about changing the idea that they

FPP Ltd 1999

4 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

are a smoker and distort this belief to, I am a light smoker compared to others, I only smoke cigars, and I always use a special filter to stop the chemical elements of tobacco. In this way they are implying that they are not really a smoker by minimising the extent to which they smoke (particularly when compared to other smokers! This is called palliative comparison) or claiming to smoke in a different way that avoids the risk of cancer. Some people might convince themselves that it is a relatively low risk behaviour (minimising the risk) Its more dangerous to cross the road these days. This will effectively reduce dissonance for most people.

Another way of reducing dissonance is to admit to being a smoker but to claim that it is beyond your control and therefore place the responsibility for doing so outside of yourself. Distortions might include Im addicted, Ive tried and I cant stop, Im going through a divorce/exams and I cant stop now, its impossible for me to stop until my partner stops. These distortions are serving to externalise the blame for smoking to somewhere else such as an addiction, stress or the partner and to justify the behaviour. They also serve the purpose of allowing the behaviour to continue and avoiding change. Finally, some people try to discredit those that believe that smoking causes cancer by doubting the validity of research reports and referring to issues such as propaganda and other forms of deception Its never been really proven that theres a link between smoking and cancer, Ive seen lots of research that says that there is no link, or loads of people get cancer and a lot of them dont smoke.

The same rules of dissonance reduction, i.e., changing one of the incompatible ideas, apply for all the above examples of wrong behaviour (such as over-eating, over-spending etc,). One of the things that we know about dissonance is that it is greater when the incompatible beliefs attack how we feel about ourselves. If for example you cheat at cards and have been brought up to strongly believe that cheating is wrong, then your notion of yourself as a good person is attacked. This then will create enormous dissonance. This effect is even further exaggerated if you already suffer from a degree of low self- esteem and have a tendency towards defensiveness. (On the other hand, if your view of yourself is of a no good bum then committing an act like cheating will create no dissonance at all as the behaviour is exactly in line with your expectations of

FPP Ltd 1999

5 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

yourself. There may still be a need to justify your behaviour to others though, and therefore cognitive distortions are still produced.)

Cognitive distortion therefore is a way of manipulating our thought patterns to serve the purposes outlined in numbers one to five.

COGNITIVE DISTORTION AND OFFENDERS.

Although we said earlier that cognitive distortion is a normal phenomenon, it is particularly risky and dangerous, for offenders. The reason for this is that CDs occur about offending behaviour and serve the following purposes:

1) To avoid responsibility for some or all of the offence. 2) To deny there is a victim completely or partially. 3) To allow the offending to continue. 4) To avoid intervention, e.g., Sex Offender Groups, anger management. 5) To avoid facing own painful issues (which may need to be faced before offending stops).

It should be clear then that anybody who is still engaging in cognitive distortion that is in some way related to their offending behaviour is at risk of re-offending. Cognitive distortions are dynamic risk factors, or factors about the individual that increase the likelihood of re-offending, for many offenders. Until the offender is able to take full responsibility for the offence, acknowledge the harm that has occurred to the victim and seek out ways of understanding and preventing future offending, a risk remains. This is why any cognitive distortion is usually identified as a criminogenic need. Similarly, the offender may be cognitively distorted in relation to specific dynamic risk factors such as substance abuse, anger dyscontrol or deviant sexual arousal. Successful management of risk requires identification of CDs in all arenas. For an offender, the fact that they has intentionally broken the law at best, or seriously harmed someone at worst, will seriously challenge the view that they have of themselves as a good person and therefore create large amounts of cognitive dissonance. Acknowledging what they

FPP Ltd 1999

6 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

have done would lead to painful negative self-appraisal and therefore is avoided at all costs by many. For this reason, CDs are repeated over and over again in the offenders mind (self-talk) and eventually become firm beliefs. Dissonance is therefore effectively reduced. It is important to remember that CDs are beliefs, not just simple excuses designed to prevent you doing your job. It is also very important to acknowledge that cognitive distortion often starts well before an offence is committed, often at the time when the thought of committing an offence first enters the persons head. All offenders know at some level that what they are about to do is wrong (is against the law or potentially harmful to themselves or others) and therefore cognitive distortion serves the purpose of giving the person permission to go ahead and offend. The model below helps us to understand the process of distortion at each stage in the behavioural series:

PATTERNS OF PERPETRATOR DENIAL.

A model Bandura (1977) Mechanisms through which behaviour is disengaged from the self-evaluative consequences at different stages in the behavioural process.

1) Euphemistic labelling. Palliative comparison. Moral justification.

2) Minimising, ignoring or misconstruing the consequences.

3) Dehumanisation. Attribution of blame

Reprehensible Conduct

Detrimental Effects

Victim

Displacement of responsibility Diffusion of responsibility

FPP Ltd 1999

7 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

To explain this model it is important to examine each stage: (1) Bandura firstly says that offenders deny that they have committed reprehensible conduct (done something wrong) by referring to their behaviour by a euphemistic label. Simply stated they use a term other than the actual name for the behaviour to minimise its seriousness and make it socially and morally acceptable. These are examples:

Doing a blag forcing someone to hand over their possessions by means of violence or threat of violence, often with a weapon armed robbery. Horeseplay sexual abuse of a child. Giving her a slap attempted murder of a girlfriend. Doing a creeper entering an occupied house at night with the intention of burglary/sexual assault. Earning money burglary/theft.

Secondly, offenders deny their conduct by comparing it favourably with worse offences committed by others palliative comparison. These comparisons often reflect the offender hierarchy of crimes and essentially allow the offender to believe that they are not as bad as the next guy. Examples are: I only do commercial burglaries comparison with breaking into a dwelling. At least I didnt rape her indecent assaulter. Im not a pervert like paedophiles incest abuser. At least I dont sell drugs in playgrounds drug dealer. Most women would rather be killed than raped murderer.

Moral justification allows the offender to think that they had no choice in what they did or that they were morally right to do so. Examples are: Its the fathers responsibility to teach the child about sex incest abuser. Its far better that I satisfy her needs than let her get pregnant by some hooligan incest abuser. He insulted my missus and Im not going to stand for that murderer.

FPP Ltd 1999

8 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

A man is entitled to have sex with his wife rapist. If the government wont give me a job Im entitled to help myself to money robber.

(2) The next stage of the model allows the offender to distance himself from the harm that has occurred to the victim by minimising, ignoring or misconstruing the consequences. Examples of these types of cognitive distortion are: They were insured a burglar denying financial loss. All that upset was because she was bullied at school, not because of our bit of horseplay child molester. She lied about her injuries in court to get me into trouble Domestic violence abuser. Ive heard that the victims fine now rapist. She didnt cry or anything rapist. I think I did him a favour in the end, he got a new job armed bank robber. I was sexually abused and it never did me any harm paedophile. I dont care. - thief. Ive never thought about the effects on the victim - burglar. If the parents had been more caring then the child would not have had so many problems. paedophile

(3) Finally, in order to avoid responsibility the offender can dehumanise the victim or attribute blame to the victim. She was a worthless slut, she deserved all she got - rapist. He was a paedophile, I reckon I did the world a favour - murderer. Children are evil and need to be taught a lesson child abuser. The rich are there to be stolen from. Im like Robin Hood burglar. She seduced me rapist of a 5yr old. He was a right have a go hero, it was his own fault shot a man in the course of a bank robbery. If women go out alone at night, what do they expect? attempted rapist. He shouldnt have looked at me the wrong way violent offender.

FPP Ltd 1999

9 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

All the above forms of distortion serve to either displace responsibility or diffuse responsibility. Although Banduras model is in common usage it has limitations in that it is not all encompassing. Below are examples of other terms commonly used. Externalisation of blame (not towards the victim) such as it was the drink that did it, or blaming drug use or stress. Again this relates to the first part of Banduras model. Super-optimism. This is where the offender tells you that they do not present any risk of reoffending (never true and also prevents work on the prevention of re-offending). A milder form is where the offender believes that achieving behavioural change will be easy, even though the behavioural pattern is entrenched. Seemingly Irrelevant Decision (SIDs). When an offender makes a decision which moves them closer to offending (such as a paedophile taking a short cut through the park) but denies the significance of this. Complete denial where the offender is guilty but denies any part of the offence. On occasion, offenders may completely convince themselves that they have not committed the offence at all. On the other hand, they may be aware that they did, but deny it outwardly. Denial of memory. Often offenders admit that they were at the place that the offence occurred but deny any memory of the events, sue to blackouts, alcohol or drug use. Denial of Intent - where the offender denies intending to offend or planning the offence. This can involve the denial of many of the stages that occur before an offence is committed - fantasy, planning, grooming, and so on. Examples might be: I was committing a burglary and just touched the woman in the bedroom. Id never even thought about it before. - indecent assaulter. The robbery wasnt planned. I was carrying a knife for protection. robber. It was an accident. One minute were having a bit of rough and tumble, the next minute my penis fell out of my pyjamas. - child abuser. Its completely out of character for me to do this. It just came out of the blue. any offender. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. any offender.

It is important to recognise all types of cognitive distortion at different stages in the process of offending.

FPP Ltd 1999

10 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

Two remaining facts need to be considered in course of your work on Cognitive Distortion. 1) Your own cognitive distortions will inevitably colour the way you view any particular case. If you have distortions in relation to offending or any of the offence related issues for the offender, it is important to be aware of these and consider with your supervisor the impact that they may have on your work. 2) Secondly, it is important to remember that victims also have cognitive distortions. These usually take the form of internalisation of the offenders distortions. For example, if the offender believes that it was the victims fault, it is likely that the victim will believe this too. An example of this scenario would be when a rapist blames the victim for being out late at night and the victim also feels that the rape was their own fault for being alone in the street after dark. Obviously, both versions are distortions and should not be regarded as agreement between victim and perpetrator. Victims also have a tendency to minimise the harm they have suffered in the same way that the perpetrator minimises the harm they have inflicted. These should borne in mind when working on the issue of Cognitive Distortion.

ASSESSMENT OF COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS.

The assessment of Cognitive Distortion is a lengthy and complex process. New CDs often emerge throughout the time that you are working with the offender, so it is important to keep a running record of this risk factor.

Most importantly, the assessment of CDs must be just that. This is to say that you must NOT challenge CDs while you are assessing them. The reason for this is that the offender will detect the challenge, and will not tell you the full range or nature of his or her CDs.

The purpose of the assessment is to gather as much information as possible and rather than challenge, you should encourage the client to tell you more about their CDs (even if they are difficult to hear). Try prompting further, such as Can you tell me more about why you think she deserved to be raped?, How do you know that the victim wasnt frightened? . How do you know that the house is insured?. Tell me what you mean by seduced.

FPP Ltd 1999

11 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

How Do You Assess CDs? Most of the formal assessments of CD, such as psychometric tests or questionnaires, have been developed for use with sex offenders, although some can be administered to other offenders. Examples of questionnaires are The Rape Myth Scale, the Multiphasic Sex Inventory (MSI), The Blame Attribution Inventory and The Attitudes to Women Questionnaire. These tests have to be administered by a qualified person (this is defined by the test author), and the MSI by a psychologist, so it might be worth discussing the issue with the relevant personnel. However, most useful and flexible are the less formal assessment techniques, although all should be accompanied by training and practise. The purpose of the assessment is to elicit any CDs in the areas outlined in the introduction. You may also be looking for pervasive dysfunctional attitudes such as attitudes to women or authority that might be at the root of CDs. For the sake of completeness, it is best to identify general CDs and then examine each in turn, thus eliciting the more deep-seated views held. A checklist is provided to guide your assessment of CDs in relation to offending behaviour. N.B It is not possible to assess CDs without first completely familiarising yourself with the facts of the offence. This means that you MUST read the depositions, with particular focus on the victim statements and those of other witnesses. Previous convictions must also be reviewed and any other evidence that may be available about the offenders behaviour (such as statements from his family or social services).

Methods of Assessment. Interview. Interviews about the following will normally elicit CDs the build up to the offence the offence the offenders role in the offence the victim the offenders feelings about the offence the offenders views on crime/violence in general the offenders views on who is to blame for the crime

FPP Ltd 1999

12 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

Wider issues might be feelings about women, minority groups, children, authority, the role of parents and so on. A guide to the essential areas of assessment (with regard to offending) is supplied later in the document, in the form of a checklist. The following additional questions sometimes elicit distortions. 1) Ask the offender to describe the victim in detail. 2) Why does he think that the offence he has committed is illegal? 3) Does he think that his sentence is appropriate/just? 4) If he disagrees with the victim statement, why does he think that the statement was made? 5) What advice would he give to someone else in his position? 6) What would he gain from treatment/intervention? 7) How does he plan to avoid re-offending in the future? 8) If the client acknowledges that their behaviour was wrong, ask them how they gave themselves permission to do it.

Using the depositions. Going through all the depositions with the offender is useful. Note any CDs used in the offenders statements. Note any areas of disagreement, particularly in relation to the statements of the victim and other witnesses. Explore these further. Make notes so that you can classify the CDs later.

The Finkelhor Model. Using this model as a framework for assessment is very powerful. It allows you to identify gaps in your and the offenders understanding of the offence and also identify any existing CDs in relation to each of the four stages of offending. Completing this model is usually the reserve of intervention, but it can be an interesting tool for information gathering. It does not have to be used formally, but may be applied as a mental guide to areas you might miss.

The Behavioural ABC Model (multi-modal). The Behavioural ABC Model (Lazarus, 1979), allows you to explore the Antecedents, Behaviour and Consequences associated with an offence. Applied multi-modally, it allows to explore the antecedents and consequences in relations to Behaviour, Attitudes, Relationships, Emotions,

FPP Ltd 1999

13 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

Physical state, Cognitions and Sexual interests. Paying particular attention to the cognitive, attitudinal and emotional elements can elicit CDs. Look out for Seemingly Irrelevant Decisions (SIDS), in the behavioural and cognitive component. This technique is reasonably simple but should not be applied without training.

Repertory Grids (Kelly, 1955). This is a specialised technique, but those who are familiar with working in this way can use Repertory Grids to explore specific areas such as attitudes to women and so on.

Psychometric Assessment. The Rape Myth Scale, the Multiphasic Sex Inventory, The Blame Attribution Inventory and The Attitudes to Women Questionnaire are examples of psychometric tests designed to tap specific areas of cognitive distortion. The value of psychometric tests is that they can be repeated postintervention as a measure of change and can also be used as a clinical tool to facilitate disclosure. You will need to ask a psychologist for advice.

Assessment of Victim Empathy. Assessment of this area often leads to a flood of distortions about the effects on victims, the blame of victims, the dehumanisation of victims and attitudes to sub-groups of society. Assessment of the offenders view of the short and long term effects for the victims can be very revealing.

The offenders view of the risk they present or their level of dangerousness. Discussing this matter with the client will often elicit minimisation or super-optimism. Other CDs you might look for are in relation to the offenders beliefs about change. If they believe that changing behaviour will be easy, that they are to be guided by God alone or that they have grown out of offending, then the risk of re-offending is high.

If in doubt about how to assess cognitive distortion in one of the offenders you are working with, seek advice from your supervisor or from a specialist in partnership with the Probation Service.

FPP Ltd 1999

14 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

Having gathered information about the CDs, it is useful to classify them, in readiness for any intervention or referral you might make.

Assessing Risk. As outlined in the introduction, CDs serve the purpose of avoiding responsibility for the offence, allowing the offending to continue, denying harm to the victim and avoiding interventions (including regarding own painful issues). Logic tells us that if the offender is engaging in CDs which serve these purposes, they are very likely to re-offend. CDs are dynamic risk factors and therefore the greater the degree of distortion, the greater the risk. This is why CDs need to be targeted as a priority of any intervention. It is very important in performing a risk assessment, such as at the PSR stage, that the number type and severity of CDs are described to substantiate your risk classification. Consider using the checklist included in this document.

FPP Ltd 1999

15 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

Cognitive Distortion Checklist (Hobson, 1997) (Reproduced by permission of the Author)

Please note that this is a questionnaire for you, not the offender! The following checklist should help you focus on the areas of distortion that need to be explored at the assessment stage. In assessing cognitive distortion, you should ask yourself the following questions and record in the comments section any details you may already know. If there are any questions or comments sections that you cannot complete, you will need to gather further information from the offender. The questions can be repeated regarding previous offences. You may photocopy this form. If this checklist is completed prior to intervention, you can use it as a measure of change postintervention.

A. Does the offender admit to committing the offence? Admits to all components of the offence Admits to some components of the offence Denies the offence completely Claims not to remember Comments: (record details of admissions and denials)

B. Does the offender take responsibility for the offence? Takes full responsibility Takes some responsibility Denies responsibility completely

If does not take full responsibility, who or what does he blame for the offence? Blames the victim Blames another person Drugs/alcohol Psychological factors such as stress/uncontrollable temper/sex drive Society

FPP Ltd 1999

16 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

 Other Comments:

C. Does the offender admit to premeditating or planning/fantasising about the offence prior to committing it? Describes fully the planning of the offence Admits to some components of planning Denies planning in any form Comments: (If denies planning, note the distortion in this regard. Describe any planning, fantasy admitted to)

D. Does the offender attempt to justify the offence? Does not justify the offence Uses some justifications Completely justifies the offence Comments: (Describe the justifications used).

E. How serious does the offender think the offence is? Has an accurate view of the seriousness of the offence Minimises or compares his offence favourably with more serious offences Denies that the offence is serious

Comments: (Why does the offender view/ not view this as a serious offence? Record any minimisations.)

F. How does the offender describe the effects of the offence on the victim? Accurately describes the effects (short and long term) on the victim Is able to describe some of the effects on the victim, or all the effects but superficially Denies any harmful effects on the victim Comments:

FPP Ltd 1999

17 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

G. How does the offender describe his need for help/intervention? Openly accepts need for intervention Accepts need for intervention in some respects Accepts intervention but for non-personal reasons (e.g., to secure release) Denies the need for intervention Comments:

H. How difficult does the offender believe that achieving behavioural change will be? Difficult. Moderate. Easy. Comments: (note that belief that change will be easy is the riskiest category)

I. How does the offender view the risk he presents to society? Accurate view of the risk. Minimised view of the risk. Denies risk. Comments: Circle the sections of this questionnaire that represent risk in the offender and therefore require intervention. A B C D E F G H I

FPP Ltd 1999

18 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

WORKING WITH COGNITIVE DISTORTION.

Challenging.

Unpicking cognitive distortion is a very delicate process. Whilst not wanting to collude, we must avoid appearing judgmental or hostile in our challenge. In fact, the word challenge itself can be construed in a way that attributes hostility or aggressiveness in the style of approach. It is important to recognise that challenge is not a hostile process and instead should be thought of as an invitation to explore. By nature, challenge should be gentle, should convey interest rather than judgement, and should take place slowly. Remember that denial is often rooted in fear, and any action that increases fear will initially increase denial.

Confronting.

The same rules can be applied to the process of confrontation. Again, this word has become distorted in the past to mean something hostile and aggressive. In fact, offenders and staff often use the word to mean a violent or hostile interaction. Confrontation, in the therapeutic sense, has nothing to do with either of these behaviours and should instead be thought of as presenting someone with reality. Confrontation is a way of encouraging people to see the facts of the situation and if done in any way aggressively will increase denial for most people. Moving slowly and gently is often the only way to fully unpick CDs, although this can be frustrating for the worker and lead to impatience. CDs are often deeply entrenched and have sometimes been believed by the individual for years and therefore cannot be undone in one session.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about the process is to think about how you behave with a big fish on the end of a fine fishing line. You really need to land the fish, which is thrashing around and making you afraid that it will get away. The temptation is to give the line a sharp tug and whisk the fish out of the water. However, if you do that you risk the line breaking and losing the fish forever. Instead you must gently and carefully reel the fish in. Working with CDs is like this.

FPP Ltd 1999

19 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

The Procedure for Working with CDs.

When working with CDs it is important to follow the procedures outlined below. There are a number of important reasons for this. Firstly, most offenders wont know what a CD is, and they certainly wont be fully aware of how they impact on their own behaviour. The first stage is therefore educative. The offender needs to understand what a CD is and accept that they distort their own thinking on a regular basis. The least threatening (and therefore the most successful) way of doing this is to use an every day, non-offending example, such as spending too much or having one pint too many, to allow them to identify and explore the distortions they used. If you write them down as they are elicited, you can return to them and then classify them according to the CD types already identified.

Once the principle of CD is accepted as a normal process, the offender is more likely to tell you about the CDs they use to offend. The next stage is to tell the offender some of the things that we know about offending. These might include the fact that all offences are planned and fantasised about beforehand. You might mention that offences do not happen out of the blue, and so on. Obviously, the examples you use would need to be tailored according to the particular offence type and the types of CDs you are challenging. The next stage is to help the offender to identify the CDs they use in relation to their offending. Some of these CDs will have been identified at the assessment stage (see previous notes), but more are usually revealed in the course of intervention. The final stage is to run exercises to help the offender challenge their own thinking. Examples of these are given later.

Below is a summary of the procedure for challenging or unpicking Cognitive Distortion.

FPP Ltd 1999

20 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

The Procedure for Unpicking CDs.(Murphy, 1990)

1) Provide the offender with a rationale for the role of CDs (personal non-offending example. 2) Provide information about offending and its effects on victims. 3) Help the offender identify his or her own cognitive distortions. 4) Run exercises to help the offender explore/unpick their own distortions.

In providing exercises to unpick the CDs, it is important to only work on one CD or one type of CD at a time. For example, if the offender is denying planning the offence, work on this area first. Other areas such as denial of harm to the victim or blaming the offence on alcohol should be worked on in turn. In order to be most effective, you should select an intervention that suits that particular CD. It is not practical to give examples for every type of CD, but below are some ways in which you might think about working.

INTERVENTIONS.

1) Group work.

Specific, offence focussed groups are by far the most effective way of unpicking CDs. There are several reasons for this. The first is that offenders are far more likely to accept challenge from a peer than from a figure of authority. Secondly, the feeling of all being in the same boat can free up the offender to speak more openly. Thirdly, witnessing others speaking about their own CDs and still being accepted and not being judged can be very facilitating. Fourthly, learning is accelerated because they learn from others examples as well as their own. Group work is by far the most preferable method for unpicking CDs. However, it is unlikely that appropriate group work will be available for all offenders, or that all offenders will be suitable for group work.

2) Individual Techniques. For all individual techniques, proceed only when the following have been done:

FPP Ltd 1999

21 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

 You have read all the depositions including victim, witness and offender statements. You have a clear understanding of the offence itself and how it came about. You have a clear understanding of the effects on the victim. You have read the previous convictions. You have assessed the number and type of CDs that the offender is displaying. You have built a rapport with the offender. You have carefully planned your intervention

a) Comparison between victim and offender statements. It is a useful exercise to go through both of these statements again, asking the offender to identify the areas of the victim statement that differ from his own. In explaining to you the differences, they may well reveal more CDs. In addition, inconsistency and contradiction can be pointed out. These CDs can be explored using socratic reasoning (see below).

b) Model the alternative view. As the Probation Officer is an important role model for the offender, it is very important that the officer consistently and frequently models the opposite view. This should be done in a nonthreatening way such as by saying: Perhaps another way of seeing it is.., or The way I see it is.. , It seems to me that., or it is clear from the victim statements that.., and so on.

c) Selective reflection. In the course of any work, it is important to selectively reflect any statements that the offender makes that are non-offending in nature or that are the opposite to their CDs. For example, you might say, So, what youre saying is that it is not OK in all circumstances to use violence. The effect of this is to highlight to the offender what they are saying and also to positively reinforce (reward) their non-offending contributions

d) Reinforce alternative statements.

FPP Ltd 1999

22 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

When you are trying to eliminate a negative behaviour, the best way to do this is to reinforce positive behaviours rather than punish negative behaviour, which is a lot less effective. Offenders are often hungry for reward so dont underestimate the power that it holds. Always reinforce progress or non-offending attitudes/statements. For example, I think it is really good that you are able to admit that you thought about the offence before you committed it. This represents real progress. The effect of this is to encourage the offender to carry on, to increase the likelihood of further disclosure and to increase their self-esteem. It also emphasises that they will not be rejected for telling the truth.

e) Socratic Reasoning. This is a very powerful way of challenging CDs. Basically, Socratic reasoning is aimed at getting the offender to use their own powers of reason or logic to challenge their own distortions. To do this, the worker uses styles of questioning that lead the offender in the desired direction in terms of their thinking. The reason this is a powerful technique is that the offender is much more likely to accept conclusions that they come to on their own and accept as their own. The role of the Probation Officer is therefore to encourage the offender to recognise the inconsistencies in their arguments. This is a skilled technique and requires lots of preparation. It is very important to be clear about what kind of statements you wish to elicit from the offender, before you start. The following examples should make it clearer: i) A paedophile tells you that the child did not say no, and that they interpreted this as meaning Yes. This interpretation is clearly a distortion and it is very tempting to give the offender a dozen reasons why this might have happened. Instead, you must guide the offender to decide himself. Questions to ask would be what normally happens when children disobey orders from adults? When the child has said no in the past, how have you responded? These questions would hopefully elicit a response that includes the view that children are punished/get into trouble if they refuse to do what an adult says, or that in the past when the child had said no, they have continued anyway and therefore the child knows that to say no is not effective. They may also admit to using threats when the child has said no in the past. Therefore, this piece of Socratic reasoning works because you are aiming to elicit statements about the authority of adults, the childs perspective and the use of threat.

FPP Ltd 1999

23 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

ii) An armed robber tells you that the victims werent frightened, I told them that I wouldnt shoot them. Obvious lines of Socratic questioning would be How would they know you were telling the truth? Why did you not tell them that the gun was a fake/unloaded? Why use a gun at all, why not just ask for the money? Obviously, you are trying to elicit that the purpose of the gun was to frighten them into handing over the money and if they had said that it was unloaded it wouldnt have worked. It can be seen that the offender has therefore himself unpicked the illogical nature of his CD.

Socratic interventions require a lot of thought and planning before the session if you are to avoid being tied up in knots!

f) Dealing with someone in Complete Denial. This is perhaps the most difficult type of CD to deal with because at times it can completely shut out the worker or at least that is the intention! There are different ways of dealing with different denial statement. I didnt do it. This is complete denial and you can only challenge this if you believe the offender to be guilty. The best way to start to work on this is to go through the offenders statement to the police and the victim statement. Then asking the offender to agree what they did do (like were they there at the time of the offence, did they know the victim?) and what they didnt do. Having established what they did do, then look for inconsistencies in the story. It is important to go over and over the statements several times as it is very hard for the offender to be consistent when they are not telling the truth. Challenge any conflicting information and so on and hope that you find a way in through this route. Another possible way is to look at the evidence upon which the person was convicted and discuss this with the offender in terms of the inconsistency with their statement. Another way is to work through the previous convictions with the offender and point out why it would be in character for them to do this (for example previous violent/similar offences, evidence of escalation, substance abuse etc). Finally, explain why it is better for the offender to be honest in terms of addressing the risk they present. Below are some examples: I was there but I didnt do it. As above.

FPP Ltd 1999

24 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

I cant remember anything about it. The first stage of dealing with this type of denial is to explain one of the following two things: a) That the brain doesnt work like that. Given that offending is such a complex behaviour, it is not likely that you cant remember. Memories are never lost. b) OR The brain sometimes does work like that. Sometimes when memories are very painful we suppress them in order to protect ourselves. By going over and over the events, memory will be retrieved. The best way to challenge this type of denial is to go over and over the bits that they remember. Try using Cognitive Interview techniques to enhance their memory or guide them through the events of the day asking questions about all modalities of experience. One technique that is useful is to predict that the offender will feel differently about things in time. This works because it makes very clear that you dont accept his current version of events (in a non-threatening way) and it also gives him clear permission to change his version in the future without losing face. For example, you could say, I know that you feel like this at the moment, but I think you will see things very differently when you have attended the group. Dont forget that the careful use of humour can be very facilitating for offenders by breaking the ice and demonstrating that you are not daft!

3. Structured Techniques. a) Revisit the Finkelhor Model. Understanding the Finkelhor Model allows offenders to not only identify their own CDs, but also understand the purpose they serve in terms of facilitating and maintaining offending. Revisit the CDs and work out what purposes each serves. Classify them according to the model and come up with a rational alternative.

b) Information Giving. Considering that some CDs are deeply entrenched or may be based in ignorance, information giving can be very helpful. This technique is used extensively in sex offender treatment. For example, videos, case studies and audio tapes of victim experiences are used to provide the offender with information about the effects on victims of their actions. Similar techniques can be

FPP Ltd 1999

25 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

used for other offences along with information on the wider effects of crime on society such as cost or safety implications.

c) Specific Exercises. Examples of these can be found in Targets for Change, for instance The Blame Cake or Costs Benefits Analysis.

d) Retelling the Story form the Victim Perspective. Ask the offender to tell the story of the offence from the victims point of view, focusing on detail such as what the victim could see, hear, smell and so on. Ask the offender to identify what the victim might have been thinking. What have the effects on the victim been? Again, this is a skilled technique as a lot of effort is required to help offenders place themselves in the place of someone else.

e) Counter-attitudinal role-plays. A very powerful technique is to place the offender in a position where they have to express the opposite view to that which they claim to believe. The old adage, I learn what I believe as I hear myself say it, holds a lot of truth. Again, role- plays have to be tailored to the needs of the offender. An example of this might be a scenario similar to the following, which is designed to help burglars challenge the view that there are no victims or that nobody was hurt. You are a member of a support agency and you have been asked to attend the house of a family who have been burgled. The house has been deliberately messed up with graffiti on the walls and, apart from some very valuable items, the family have lost some money that they have been saving for months to go on holiday. You arrive at the house and the wife and child are crying and distressed. Your job is to comfort them. The probation officer would play a member of the family and the offender would play the role of comforter. Role-play is a very demanding task and therefore should only be conducted if you are confident. It helps to have a co-worker who can supervise and provide feedback to both players.

FPP Ltd 1999

26 of 27

Cognitive Distortions

In working with CDs it is essential to plan your intervention meticulously. If you have the opportunity to run your intervention past a colleague, perhaps even a colleague in role as the offender, it avoids a lot of the pitfalls involved.

Bibliography Dutton, D, G. (1995) The Domestic Assault of Women. UBC Press, Vancouver. Laws, D. Richard. (1989). Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders. The Guildford Press. London. Hollin, C, & Howells, K, (1991) Clinical Approaches to Sex offenders and Their Victims. London: Wiley. Marshall, W.L., & Laws, D.R., and Barbaree, H. E. (1990). Handbook of Sexual Assault Issues, Theories and Treatment of the Offender. Plenum Press. McGuire, J. & Priestly, P. (1985). Offending Behaviour Skills and Strategems for Going Straight. B.T Batsford Ltd, London. Salter, A. C (1988) Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims. Sage Publications Inc. London

References Bandura, A., (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliff, N.J. Prentice Hall. Finkelhor, D, (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research. New York: Free Press. Hobson, J. (1997) Cognitive Distortion Checklist. Unpublished Manuscript. Kelly, G. A (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Lazarus, A. A., (1976). Multimodal Behaviour Therapy. New York: Springer. Murphy, W.D, (1990). Assessment and Modification of Cognitive Distortion in Sex Offenders. Chapter 19, The Handbook of Sexual Assault (see above).

Other resources. Internet. Prison Service SOTP Manual (1996) NOTA ATSA

FPP Ltd 1999

27 of 27

Cognitive Distortions