Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec 1;24(3):470-480.
doi: 10.1080/13218719.2016.1252291. eCollection 2017.

Moral Disengagement Strategies in Sex Offenders

Irene Petruccelli  1 , Chiara Simonelli  2 , Claudio Barbaranelli  2 , Simona Grilli  3 , Maria Francesca Tripodi  4 , Giulio D'Urso  1
Affiliations

Moral Disengagement Strategies in Sex Offenders

Irene Petruccelli et al. Psychiatr Psychol Law. .

Abstract

Sexual abuse is a heterogeneous phenomenon. The literature on sexual offenders considers risk factors in the individual and familial history as well as precursors such as cognitive distortions, defence mechanisms and moral disengagement (MD) mechanisms. This study investigates the MD in sex offenders and non-sex offenders in a sample of 362 males comprising a control group of 268 non-offenders, a group of 42 detained sex offenders and a group of 52 detained non-sex offenders. Participants were administered a semi-structured interview and the Moral Disengagement Scale (MDS). The results show a significant difference between the jailed participants (non-sex offenders and sex offenders) and controls; offenders were found to generally display overall higher levels of MD. Among the jailed participants, sex offenders seem to make more use of MD mechanisms than non-sex offenders.

Keywords: harmful conduct; moral disengagement; sex offender.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Mechanism through which moral self-sanctions are selectively activated and disengaged from detrimental behaviour at different points in the self-regulatory process (adapted from Bandura, 1986).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Mean scores on the MD scale in the three groups.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Mean scores on the MD mechanisms in the three groups. Note: MD_AB = Attribution of Blame; MD_AC = Advantageous Comparison; MD_DC = Distortion of Consequences; MD_DF = Diffusion of Responsibility; MD_DH = Dehumanization of Victim; MD_DR = Displacement of Responsibility; MD_EL = Euphemistic Labelling; MD_MJ = Moral Justification. Different letters in the same subscale indicate significant differences between scores in the Sidak post hoc test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    1. Bandura A. (1990). Mechanisms of moral disengagement. In Reich W. (Ed.), Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, statesof mind (pp. 161–191). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Bandura A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Kurtines W. M., & Gewirtz J. L. (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (1, pp. 45–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    1. Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. - PubMed
    1. Bandura A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269–290.