Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS

Convicted Sexual Offenders Are Moving into the Neighborhood: Self-Reported Thoughts,
Actions, and Feelings about Hypothetical Scenarios

Amanda L. Wilson

Texas State University—San Marcos

Author Note

Amanda L. Wilson, Department of Psychology, Texas State University—San Marcos.

Special thanks go to Jessica Freeman for the formulation of figures used in the

manuscript, for technical assistance, and for her editing. Additional thanks go to Harvey

Ginsburg for the collection of data used in the manuscript and the instruction to write it.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amanda L. Wilson,

Department of Psychology, Texas State University—San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666.

E-mail: aw1435@txstate.edu

Abstract
Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
2

Compliance in public notification of sex offenders is asserted to protect the communities

in which they serve, however recent studies have shown that attitudes of community members

towards sex offenders are generally held contrary study results. Attempts to advance mechanisms

for public and offender safety are now tapering toward understanding the development and

workings of community attitudes. The purpose of the study was to examine attitudes on varying

sexual offenders and one non-offender and knowledge of the sex offense registry, in order to

prove differentiation and relation, respectively. Three hypotheses were tested; Attitudes would

be dependent on condition type, knowledge of, past use, and future intent to use the Sex

Offender Registry would correlate, and lastly, a positive relation in those who monitor and those

who notify their neighbor of the sex offender would be identified. A sample of 165 Texas State

University undergraduates were given surveys for extra credit and instructed to self-report on 9

different hypothetical scenarios of a neighbor, 8 varying sexual offenses and one non-offense.

The use of One-way ANOVA Independent samples between subjects revealed F(8, 134) = 4.73

to 28.1, p < .001 and Bonferroni post hoc analysis revealed little differences when one sex

offender type was compared to others, only when compared to the control was it significant. The

‘problem’ rating compared to the 8 sex offender conditions, F (1, 134) = 6.13 (.74) 95% Cl

[5.72, 6.55] and F (10, 134) = 2.46 (1.13) 95% Cl [1.84, 3.09] respectively.

Keywords: sex offender, attitudes, self-reports on hypothetical scenarios

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
3

Convicted Sexual Offenders Are Moving into the Neighborhood: Self-Reported Thoughts,

Actions, and Feelings about Hypothetical Scenarios

The Texas Sex Offender Registration Program (Chapter 62 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure) is a sex offender registration and public notification mandate constructed for public

protection from sex offenders. The legislation requires adult and juvenile sex offenders to

register with the local law enforcement authority of the city or county they reside. Gains (2006)

notes efforts to notify are laborious and generally not state funded which may detract from other

avenues if they are not effective; recent motions to only notify on certain types of offenders is an

example. Results of the study performed by Gains implicate notification methods are largely

dependent upon the community the sex offender resides. While this stands to implicate

notification policies should be tapered to the community, what it lacks is how reliable the

community is in their perceptions.

Notification efforts in particular communities have shown to be unsuccessful in reaching

members, although members strongly support said efforts and believed them to be successful in

regard to lowering recidivism and sexual abuse (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007).

More impressive in the study by Levenson et al., (2007) was the revelation that the participants

would support policies despite * lacking empirical evidence. The tendency to hold false beliefs

precludes ambiguity in the integrity of personal assessment methods while ushering a need to

examine attitude development. Current research aims to distinguish factors effecting attitude

development to advance notification mechanisms, policy, prevention of recidivism, or

rehabilitation. Successful* integration of sex offenders into a community has shown to be pivotal

(Burchfield & Mingus, 2008). Repercussions of poor placement have the potential to place the

sex offender in harm by inciting communal disgruntlement or disabling unemployment.

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
4

Shechory and Idisis (2006) used the basis of social distancing—hostility evolving from

proximity of one group in relation to another influenced by several diverse variables (e.g.,

education, gender, career, ethnicity, family, goals, etc.) to show how victims of sexual abuse had

more positive views of sex offenders than those that did not. Their study illustrates the benefits

of research by finding optimistic avenues for location of sex offenders. Conversely Tewksbury

and Lees’ (2006) interview based study depicted the vulnerability and isolation of sex offenders

through public stigmatization as a homogenous group, all equally repugnant; situations of this

disposition may be detrimental to the policies in place against recidivism.

The study performed, in this instance, seeks to address the lack of research on attitudes

involving sex offenders through hypothetical scenarios and delineate distinctions on sex

offenses. The primary hypothesis states there will be significant differences in participants'

attitudes about the new neighbor, depending upon their assigned condition e.g., eight sex

offenders and one non-sex offender scenario. The second hypothesis predicts participants'

knowledge of, past use and future intent to use the Texas Sex Offenders' Registry will be well-

correlated to each other. Lastly, the third hypothesis assumed that a significant positive relation

would be observed for monitoring the sex offender and telling neighbors.

Methods

Participants

All participants were recruited at Texas State University and were currently enrolled in

classes. There were 135 participants total (65 male, 70 female, Mage = 20.7, age range: 18-34

years). *

Materials and Procedure

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
5

The experiment was conducted through a self report survey. There were 20 questions;

the answer choices gave a range from 1 (highly unlikely) to 7 (highly likely). They were asked

their age, sex, and ethnicity. The 8 conditions of different sexual offenses that are defined in the

Texas Penal Code were aggravated kidnapping, indecency with a child, improper relationship

with an educator and a student, aggravated sexual assault, commissioned sexual performance by

child, sexual assaults, possession or promotion of child pornography, prohibited sexual conduct,

and our control group was no apparent prior convictions of a sexual offense. Of those, five had

to do with sexual offense with a minor. They were asked about their prior knowledge, use and

future use of the sexual offender registry. The survey then followed with a series of questions of

attitudes of a hypothetical family, the Smiths; the name was chosen in order to provide

neutrality. Questions about their attitudes included were: if they had a problem with the

offender, the likely hood of the family moving, if they would overtly monitor the offender, if

they thought the offender would repeat the offense, if they would allow their children near the

offender, if they would trust the offender, if they would notify their neighbors of the offense, if

they would initiate neighborly communication with the offender, would they confront the

offender, if they would suffer emotional distress because of the offenders presence, if they knew

the offender before they knew of the offense committed, would they perceive the offender

differently if they were an unattractive male, unattractive female, attractive male, and attractive

female, would they perceive them differently if they were female. The last question was a repeat

of if they would have a problem if the offender moved in to the neighborhood.

Each participant signed a consent form before completing the survey. This consent form

explained the nature of the study. The surveys were completed by Texas State University

undergraduate students currently enrolled in psychology courses. There were 9 different

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
6

conditions randomly assigned with 15 participants to each condition. Participants were

compensated with extra credit for their courses that would not be lost should they withdraw. If

they did not wish to participate in the survey an optional written assignment would provide the

same opportunity for extra credit.

Results

Multiple independent samples one-way ANOVA tests were performed to examine the

hypothesis that there were significant differences between sex offender conditions (aggravated

assault, improper conduct, incest) for each dependent measure, (e.g. problem, distress, confront).

All ANOVA tests showed a statistically significant difference between conditions F(8, 134) =

4.73 to 28.1, p < .001, with one exception. The confront outcome showed no significant between

condition differences F(8, 134) = 2.19, p = .369. Table 1 shows the means for condition and

error variance of the ‘How much of a problem’ item for each of the 9 hypothetical conditions.

Table 1 illustrates that the non-sex offender condition appears to have a distinctively lower

‘problem’ rating compared to the 8 sex offender conditions, F(1, 134) = 6.13 (.74) 95% Cl [5.72,

6.55] and F(10, 134) = 2.46 (1.13) 95% Cl [1.84, 3.09] respectively.

Post-hoc analyses showed that the significant difference found in the ANOVA were

attributable to comparisons with the non-sex offender condition. Post-hoc Bonferroni paired

comparisons showed that, for each item analyzed, the fundamental differences occurred when

sex offender categories were compared with the neutral, non-sex offender condition, p < .001.

For the most part, there were little differences when one sex offender type was compared to

others.

Further, Pearson r showed that participants’ knowledge about, use of and future intent to

use the State of Texas Sex Offenders’ Registry were well-correlated; see Figure 2. The survey
Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
7

also included a repeat question, ‘How much of a problem’, both near the beginning and at the

end of the survey instrument. A comparison of the repeated item was used as a reliability

measure of participants’ responses. Pearson r showed good correlation and participant reliability

(r = .072, p < .001) for the repeated item.

Finally, an analysis was performed to determine whether community members that

monitored the sex offenders’ behavior would notify the other neighbors. The Pearson r value

showed that there was a significant correlation between those who monitored the sex offenders

and those who would notify their neighbors of the sex offenders offense (r=.600, p<.001).

Discussion

Operationally, the primary hypothesis was supported in all but one instance, the confront

question* yielded differing results based on condition. Inclusively, the most significant

difference is the comparison between individuals who had no apparent prior conviction of a sex

crime with those who had prior sexual convictions. This result was anticipated as generally no

significant changes are expected in the controlled variable; what is surprising is that 5 of the 8

conditions had to do with sexual abuse of a minor and were not found statistically significant. An

explanation for this result could be fictitious adherence to ideologies or sampling error in using

undergraduates who may or may not be parents.

The strong correlations in the second hypothesis aligned with results participants'

knowledge of, past use and future intent to use the Texas Sex Offenders' Registry.

The third hypothesis, those which monitored that sex offenders also notify their

neighbors, was supported statistically in the results and is consistent with results of others; the

advent of a sex offender increases neighborhood cohesion and motivates neighbors to meet in
Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
8

order to discuss coping strategies (Zevits, Crim, & Farkas, 2000). Research done by Beck,

Clingermayer, Ramsey, and Travis (2004) expand on the Zevits, et al. (2000) piece, concluding

in their findings that knowledge of an imminent sex offender leads to altruistic behaviors but do

not affect self-protection. All results aside, further research on diverse notification types will be

necessary to truly assert the finding by Beck, et al. (2004). There are strong implications for

mirror neuron or empathetic research as well.

Demichele, Payne, and Button (2008) report that electronic monitoring is being strongly

considered in use with sex offenders largely with the intent of benefitting communities, while

noting that unintended negative consequences may arise for the sex offenders, community, or

law enforcement. Development the false security in community members due to electronic

monitoring was brought up in the article, leading to speculation that more research on

community members’ attitudes regarding this method should be investigated—a point this study

does not provide.

This study has natural limitation generalizability; it is composed of participants restricted

age range that produced a predisposed understanding based on familial, educational,

geographical, and experiential factors that could convolute results or alter the attitudes (Church,

Wakeman, Miller, Clements, & Sun, 2008). In addition the act of self-reporting on a hypothetical

situation removes participants from unintended harm but, this may also remove the subject from

giving their’ true impressions. Instead the participant may give a response based on conceived

notions about extraneous individuals impressed on in their psyche and project those notions unto

the Smiths; this muddles the certainty of whom the results reflect, culture or participant. While

precautions to ensure validity were taken with a repeat question, they were not taken to prevent

confounds like carry-over or order effects encountered from pervious questions prompting

particular responses; that could have easily been avoided with random numbering of the
Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
9

questions. Minimal problems aside, the study opens avenues for multiple types of studies and

analysis.
Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
10

References

Beck, V., Clingermayer, J., Ramsey, R., & Travis, L. (2004). Community response to sex

offenders. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 32(2), 141-168. http://search.ebscohost.com

Burchfield, K.B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered sex

offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 3, 356-374.

Church, W., Wakeman, E., Miller, S., Clements, C., & Sun, F. (2008). The community attitudes

toward sex offenders scale: The development of a psychometric assessment instrument.

Research on Social Work Practice, 18(3), 251-259. DOI:10.1177/1049731507310193

Demichele, M., Payne, B., & Button, D. (2008). Electronic monitoring of sex offenders:

Identifying unanticipated consequences and implications. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 46(3), 119-135. http://search.ebscohost.com,

doi:10.1080/10509670802143383

*?*Ferguson, K., & Ireland, C. (2006). Attitudes towards sex offenders and the influence of

offence type: A comparison of staff working in a forensic setting and students. British

Journal of Forensic Practice, 8(2), 10-19. http://search.ebscohost.com

Gaines, J. (2006). Law enforcement reactions to sex offender registration and community

notification. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 7(3), 249-267.

http://search.ebscohost.com, doi:10.1080/15614260600825448

Levenson, J., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex

offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy

(ASAP), 7(1), 137-161. http://search.ebscohost.com

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
11

Shechory, M., & Idisis, Y. (2006). Rape myths and social distance toward sex offenders and

victims among therapists and students. Sex Roles, 54(9/10), 651-658.

http://search.ebscohost.com, doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9031-1

Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral

consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309-334.

http://search.ebscohost.com, doi:10.1080/02732170500524246

Zevitz, R.G., Crim, D., & Farkas, M.A. (2000). Sex offender community notification:

Examining the importance of neighborhood meetings. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,

18, 393- 408

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
12

Table 1

Participants’ knowledge, use of and intent to use the Texas sex offenders’ registry

Prior Knowledge Past Use Future Intent

Prior Knowledge -- .368* .291*
Past Use .368* -- .536*
Future Intent .291* .536* --
* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Indicates significant r values, p ≤ .001

Running Head: ATTITUDES ON SEX OFFENDERS
13

Figure 1. Mean values (1-7) for participants’ ratings on ‘have a

problem’ item comparing eight sex offender categories to a non-
sex offender moving into a hypothetical neighborhood.

Note. The eight sex offender categories were: (1)Aggravated kidnapping (2)
Indecency with a child (3) Improper relationship between an educator and a student
(4) Aggravated sexual assault (5) Commissioned sexual performance by a child (6)
Sexual assault (7) Possession or promotion of child pornography (8) Prohibited
sexual conduct (incest) (10) No apparent prior convictions of a sex offense.