problem solving. (Range 0-80, α = .95 (N = 499) Test-retest r(30) = .85). Normative data, M: 45.58, SD: 15.64.
Impulsive/Carelessness Scale: Individuals are likely to use techniques for problem-
solving that are narrowed, impulsive, careless, hurried or incomplete. (Range 0-40, α = .91 (N = 499) Test-retest r(30) = .91). Normative data, M: 11.90, SD: 7.93.
Avoidance Style Scale: Individuals are likely to wait for problems to resolve
themselves, and often shift the responsibility for solving. (Range 0-28, α = .82 Test- retest r(30) = .80 and TOTAL: α = .86, Test-retest r(30) = .94). Normative data, M: 8.77, SD: 5.25.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was granted for the study by the Nottingham Trent University
Research Ethics Committee and the HMPPS. Supporting documentation can be found in Appendix 2. The ethical guidelines were in line with the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Human Research Ethics (BPS, 2010) and the HCPC (Health and Care Practitioner Council) Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (HCPC, 2016).
Results
Using guidance from Stevens (1996) which recommends using a less conservative alpha with a small n research, a less conservative alpha was set (in this case 0.1) for all psychological characteristics, psychological differences and victim data analysis. A Sequential Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was conducted though all pre significant results remained statistically significant (Abdi, 2010).
Psychological characteristics
Table 4.2 presents psychological characteristics for those within a relationship and for those that are single. Independent samples chi-square analyses were used to establish whether those within a relationship were significantly different to those who were single on psychological characteristic variables. On average, there was no effect on
personality disorder χ2 (1) = 0.368, p = 0.54. These results are consistent with H4.
There was no effects of relationship status with alcohol use X2 (1) = 0.62, p= 0.80 and
drug use X2 (1) = 0.41, p= 0.84. These results are consistent with H4.
Table 4.2: Psychological characteristics
Psychological characteristics Within a relationship n: 18 n (%) Single n: 20 n (%)
Alcohol use Yes 11 (61.1) 7 (35.0)
No 7 (38.8) 13 (65.0)
Drug use Yes 4 (22.2) 5 (25.0)
No 14 (77.8) 15 (75.0) Mental Health No 10 (55.6) 13 (65.0) Depression 7 (38.9) 7 (35.0) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 1 (5.6) 0 (0.0) Personality Disorder No 15 (83.3) 18 (90.0) Schizophrenia 1 (5.6) 0 (0) Paranoia 0 (0) 1 (5.0) Emotionally unstable 2 (11.1) 1 (5.0)
112
Psychological differences
Table 4.3 details the means, standard deviations, t scores and p value for the Self-esteem scale from the Personality Questionnaire and the UCLA (Emotional Loneliness scale). Independent sample t-tests were conducted with n: 20 to compare levels of self-esteem and emotional loneliness for those within a relationship (M: 10.44, SD: 5.73), and those that were single (M: 12.00, SD: 3.68).
Table 4.3 Measures on self-esteem and emotional loneliness
In a relationship Mean (SD) Single Mean (SD) T Df P Self-esteem 10.44 (5.73) 12.00 (3.68) .736 18 0.24 Emotional loneliness 45.00 (11.93) 46.00 (9.70) -1.73 18 0.43
An independent samples t-test showed that there was no effect on relationship status and self-esteem scores (t (18) = -.736, p= 0.24 (two tailed) and emotional loneliness scores (t (12) = -.173, p= 0.43 (two tailed). These results are consistent with H2.
Table 4.4 details the means, standard deviations, t scores and p value for the
comparisons with normative data based on the self-esteem scale and the UCLA. One sample t-tests were conducted showing there was no differences on scores for those with a conviction for voyeurism and normative data for self-esteem (t (29) = .1475, p=.151 (two tailed) and emotional loneliness (t (29) = 1.318, p= .201(two tailed).
Table 4.4 Measures on self-esteem and emotional loneliness with comparisons with normative data Mean (SD) T Df P Self-esteem 10.02 (54.93) 29 1.475 .151 Emotional loneliness 41.85 (12.55) 22 1.318 .201
Independent sample t-tests were then conducted to compare reported attachment styles from the relationships questionnaire for those within a relationship and for those that are single. All four attachment styles were analysed (fearful, pre-occupied,
dismissing and secure). Table 4.5 details the pre means, standard deviations, t scores and p value for the reported attachment style for those within a relationship or for those that are single. Table 4.6 details the attachment styles for those with a conviction for voyeurism compared to normative data.
Table 4.5 Measures on attachment
Attachment style In a relationship Mean (SD) Single Mean (SD) T Df P Fearful 14.89 (3.95) 14.55 (3.36) .236 18 0.42 Pre occupied 9.22 (3.38) 11.36 (2.54) -1.62 18 0.06 Dismissing 16.33 (3.67) 15.82 (2.40) .378 18 0.36 Secure 15.11 (3.26) 15.55 (3.08) -.306 18 0.36
Those who were single reported a higher level of pre-occupied attachment (M=11.36, SD=2.54) compared to those who were in a relationship (M=9.22, SD=3.38). An
independent sample t-test showed that this was significant (t (18) = -1.62, p= 0.06 (one tailed) using a Sequential Bonferroni adjustment. These results are consistent with H1.
One sample t-tests indicated there was no differences on scores for attachment for those with a conviction for voyeurism and normative data.
114
Table 4.6 Measures on attachment in comparison to normative data
Attachment style In a relationship
Mean (SD) T Df P Fearful 14.29 (3.96) .247 30 .806 Pre occupied 10.91 (3.03) -.866 30 .395 Dismissing 15.39 (3.68) .247 30 .806 Secure 15.85 (3.15) - 1.060 29 .298
The Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised was analysed to identify participants problem solving style at the time of offending. Independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare all five sub scales (Positive Problem Orientation, Negative Problem Orientation, Rational Problem Solving, Impulsivity / Carelessness Style and Avoidance style). Table 4.7 details the pre means, standard deviations, t scores and p value for levels of problem solving style. Table 4.8 details the problem solving style for those with a conviction for voyeurism compared to normative data.
Table 4.7: Measures on problem solving style
Problem solving style In a relationship Mean (SD) Single Mean (SD) T Df P Positive 11.67 (2.55) 12.91 (4.37) .752 18 0.23 Negative 9.44 (5.13) 10.18 (5.74) -.300 18 0.38 Rational 36.56 (11.56) 50.00 (14.60) -2.24 18 0.02
Impulsive 11.00 (7.75) 12.00 (7.90) -2.84 18 0.40
Avoidant 504.39 (508.99) 454.00 (565.79) .306 18 0.38
Those who were single reported higher levels of rational problem solving (M=50.00, SD=14.60) compared to those who were in a relationship (M=36.56, SD=11.56). An independent sample t-test showed that this was significant (t(18)= -2.24, p= 0.02, two tailed). These results are not consistent with H3.
Table 4.8: Measures on problem solving style in comparison to normative data
Problem solving style In a relationship Mean (SD) T Df P Positive 12.06 (3.68) .648 30 .522 Negative 12.08 (8.52) 2.331 30 .027 Rational 45.58 (15.64) .7114 30 .483 Impulsive 11.90 (7.93) .022 30 .982 Avoidant 8.77 (5.25) 34.37 30 0.00
One sample t-tests identified a difference on scores for those with a conviction for voyeurism compared to normative data with negative problem solving (t (30) = -2.331, p= .027) and avoidant problem solving (t (207) = 34.37, p= 0.00) being significant.
Victim characteristics
Table 4.9 presents victim characteristics for those within a relationship and for those that are single. Independent samples chi-square analyses were used to establish
116
whether those within a relationship were significantly different to those who were single on victim characteristics variables.
Table 4.9 Victim characteristics
Victim characteristics Within a Relationship n: 18 n: (%) Single n: 20 n: (%) Male 4 (22.2) 11 (55.0) Female 14 (77.8) 9 (45.0) Child 12 (66.7) 20 (100) Adult 6 (33.3) 0 (0.0) Known 10 (55.6) 10 (50.0) Stranger 8 (44.4) 10 (50.0)
On average, those that were single were more likely to watch children χ2(1) = 2.346, p=
0.12 compared to those within a relationship. These results are not consistent with H3. There was no relationship between gender and relationship status X2 (1) = 1.386, p=
0.24. These results are not consistent with H3. There was no effects of relationship status and victim association χ2(1) = 0.117, p = 0.73. These results are not consistent
Discussion
Despite the literature highlighting a need for research exploring voyeurism within HMPPS (Mann et al., 2008; Duff, 2018), this is the first study of its kind to investigate the characteristics, psychological needs and victim information of adult males convicted of voyeurism. The study has identified that there are different characteristics for those convicted of voyeurism depending on whether they are in a relationship or whether they are single. There are reported differences in levels of problem solving and
attachment style and the victim’s age between the two groups. Therefore this study has provided some up to date knowledge on who commits voyeurism to aid accurate risk assessments and intervention direction.
It was hypothesised that those that were single would have a more fearful attachment style, compared to those that were in a relationship (hypothesis one). The results of the study indicated that hypothesis one was not supported as those that were single
identified as having a more pre-occupied attachment style and this was significant. This does links back to Chapter three and the literature that individuals with an interest in voyeurism do want to relate to others but cannot due to poor development and
application of intimacy skills (Seidman, Marshall, Hudson & Roberston, 1994) and due to this need for a relationship the voyeurism provides them with the intimacy that they cannot achieve which closely links with the “finding phase” in the Courtship Disorder (Freund, 1990). Despite there being a reported difference in the type of attachment styles for voyeurism there was no reported difference with normative data. However, the voyeurism results indicate that there is a need for both types of individuals to develop their levels of secure attachment. Currently interventions within HMPPS have elements of exploring individuals past attachment styles and supporting them in the development of a secure attachment style. However, further work is needed developing the quality of individuals relationships and developing healthy new me skills to increase healthy problem solving skills, increasing knowledge on what is intimacy and how they can develop confidence to achieve this within the future. For some they may never have obtained a relationship before, therefore basis social skills may be needed.
The results also found that hypothesis two was supported due to those within a relationship and those that were single both experienced low self-esteem and
118
which affects their ability to develop relationships (Marshall et al., 1999; Smallbone & Dadds, 1998) and affects their ability to engage effectively. However, it is unclear what the quality of their relationships are like and whether it is the relationships that is having an impact on their self-esteem and emotional loneliness. Therefore within interventions therapists should attempt to explore the origins of the self-esteem deficits and target appropriate techniques to help increase their confidence and social skills. As
highlighted by Gilbert (2005; 2009) techniques should include developing their levels of compassion in order to aid a more secure attachment style so they can be more kind and caring to one self and others (Gilbert, 2010).
In regards to hypothesis two and levels of problem solving, this was not supported as those that were single reported higher levels of rational problems solving. However, it is unclear how voyeurism is linked to their problem solving and there is no identification on how rational decisions are made. However, in comparison to normative data, avoidant and negative problem solving was reported significant. In exploring the questions asked within the psychometrics, individuals are asked to define a problem, consider alternatives, make decisions and implement these decisions but is unclear what problems are being considered and whether they see voyeurism as being an effective coping strategy (Baumeister, 1991; Grant, 2005). Therefore, it is important that healthy problem focused skills are taught such as the concept of acceptance in order to support individuals in accepting problems, being able to not get hooked on negative thoughts, to be in the present moment, and to be open to try new skills such as mindfulness and compassion (Harris, 2009) in order to help with rational thinking.
Due the lack of previous research exploring who are the victims of voyeurism, this research has found that the victims of voyeurism were more likely to be female children that are known to them (rejecting hypothesis 3). The number of victims ranged from one to 25 however this tended to be against only one (47.1%) or two victims (26.5%). Whilst there was no relationship between victim association (known or unknown) and relationship status (within a relationship or single), there was a slight increase in being within a relationship and knowing the victim which does go against previous literature that found that adult males arrested for voyeurism preferred to watch adult female strangers (Rosen, 1967; Gebhard et al., 1965). This could be due to the availability of the victims which could impact the association of them, however this is unclear and further research is needed within this area. The age of the victims is also different to previous research (Gebhard et al., 1965) with more reported child victims. This links with the increase in recorded child victims across contact and non-contact sexual
offending (Ministry of Justice Statistics, 2018). However, it is unclear the exact age of the victims and whether this could identify a further sexual interest that needs to be explored further to determine interventions needs for individuals.
In regards to psychological characteristics there was no significant difference between relationship status and mental health and personality disorders, which is consistent with hypothesis 4. However, it was found that those who are single have less mental health concerns and a personality disorder. This links with the literature by Gebhard et al., (1965) however the measures are self-reported and it is unclear if this is a lack of awareness of self or individuals currently feel they are coping well. However, those that are single reported a preoccupied attachment style, therefore, it may be that those who are single are more focused on others than themselves and therefore they may not be aware of their own needs. This is important for professionals to be aware of when liaising with health professionals in order to support assessment and intervention planning.
Study Limitations
It is important to highlight that the data was provided by HMPPS and therefore it was unclear as to the quantity and quality of the data that was previously collated. Due to it being secondary data, this prevented the researcher developing the data set and locating the participants for the study. Therefore, it was difficult to conduct a full analysis on all of the variables and to draw any meaningful conclusions to voyeurism. However using guidance from Stevens (1996) which recommends using a less conservative alpha with a small n research, a less conservative alpha was set (in this case 0.1) for all psychological characteristics, psychological differences and victim data analysis. A Sequential Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was conducted though all pre significant results remained statistically significant (Abdi, 2010).
By exploring the differences in who commits the offence of voyeurism it was reported that they were either single or within a relationship. Despite this, it is unclear what it means to be in a relationship, how long they have been within that relationship for and what the quality of the relationship was like. For those that are single, it is also unclear what is defined as single, and how long they have been single for. The definitions and details of the relationship status of the two groups could affect their individual
120
psychometrics is a self-reported measure there are limitations with this. There is no evidence when, where and how this was conducted and the outcomes of the results can be affected by the individual’s level of understanding and any external and internal factors on the day of completion.
This study only explored those individuals with an index offence of voyeurism. The study might have missed individuals who had a previous conviction for voyeurism and was not showing up due to being in prison for a different type of offence. They might also not be recorded as having a conviction due to voyeurism only being made a criminal conviction in 2004. Also individuals might have not been assessed as having a need for an intervention and therefore would not have been counted under this data set. This could account for the limited data therefore this needs urgent attention to help HMMPS identify individuals within the system through the development of an
identification marker.
Implications for further research
This study only focused on those that have completed interventions with their index offence recorded as voyeurism however what we know is that voyeurism is often under reported (Raymond & Grant, 2008) so it would be useful to complete further research exploring all those with a conviction as well as those expressing a sexual interest in voyeurism in order to gain a detailed picture of who commits the offence of voyeurism. This difference is important to explore as there could be different needs for those who have a conviction for voyeurism but do not necessarily define as having a sexual interest. This links with the literature that indicated that those with an exclusive sexual interest in pedophilia found recidivism rates were approximately five times that of non-exclusive pedophilic sexual offenders (Eher at al., 2015).
Given the increased number of individuals with a conviction for a non-contact sexual offences within the Prison Service (Ministry of Justice Statistics, 2018) it is essential that up to date research is completed to understand who is committing these offences in order to ensure static and dynamic risk assessments are completed accurately in order to inform effective intervention planning. The research has identified some key areas that should be considered to target in interventions for voyeurism however further research is needed exploring the intervention targets and relevance specifically for voyeurism. As well as who are the victims of voyeurism. This study has provided some up to date
information on those who are committing the offence of voyeurism but it is very limited therefore leaving a gap for further research within this area.
Conclusion
Due to previous research within this area all being significantly out of date it has been difficult to determine the relevance to aid current policy and practice. However, this study has attempted to provide some up to date knowledge on the characteristics, psychological factors and victim characteristics for those committing the offence of voyeurism. Professionals who are assessing an individual who has a conviction or identified sexual interests in voyeurism should be aware that there are different types of voyeurism (those who can develop relationships but not maintain them and those who cannot develop any relationships). Despite these two types of groups the interventions targets remain the same but the focus and details of these intervention needs will be different. Therefore interventions need to focus on understanding why all those with a conviction for voyeurism have low self-esteem and emotional loneliness. For those within a relationship the target should be to help develop a more secure attachment style and a healthy effective positive problem solving style. For those that are single their levels of preoccupied attachment and rational problem solving skills should be targeted to help them develop appropriate healthy skills to use rational problem solving effectively and to feel more secure within relationships. Further exploration is also needed on whether there are any further sexual interests based on the victim type and any further support needed with mental health or personality disorder therefore interventions should be adapted based on this. However, all interventions should include elements of acceptance, compassion, and value identification. It has highlighted that further research is needed within this area to help understand more about who commits voyeurism to aid assessment and interventions.
122
Chapter 5
Conclusion to the thesis
This thesis has sought to explore with a mixed method approach the lived experiences and psychological factors of adult males convicted of voyeurism.
The aim of this chapter is to highlight the findings from each of the studies of this thesis; by identifying how they have contributed to the field of Forensic Psychology by providing up to date knowledge on voyeurism and therefore offering recommendations for future policy, practice and research.
The aims of the thesis
The aim of this thesis has been to provide an understanding of the experiences and psychological needs of adult males who have a conviction for voyeurism. By exploring this, the research in this thesis has contributed to the field with providing up to date knowledge on who commits the offence of voyeurism, information regarding how polices should be changed and knowledge to aid assessment and intervention direction.
The original aims of the thesis were:
1) To systematically investigate what is currently known within the literature about the risk factors and characteristics of an adult male convicted of voyeurism and exhibitionism. This aims to identify any gaps to aid the direction of this thesis. 2) To explore the lived experiences of an adult male convicted of voyeurism in
order to understand and make links with relevant risk factors to aid assessments and intervention.
3) To explore the psychological characteristics and needs for adult males convicted of voyeurism to aid accurate risk assessments and intervention direction
Therefore, there will be a consideration of the achievement of aims whilst discussing the outcome of the current studies within this thesis.
Chapter one sets the scene for the thesis by reviewing the general literature on what is