Cognitive distorsion

A cognitive distortion is a belief held by an (alleged) "deviant" (such as a BoyLover) which is at odds with/not in agreement with a (usually diametrically opposed) belief held by another person (usually a psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, etc.), irrespective of the existence of any empirical evidence supporting and/or disproving such a belief.

Example of (so-called) BoyLover cognitive distortions

• “I think child molesters often get longer sentences than they really should”
• “Society makes a much bigger deal out of sexual activity with children than it really is”
• “There is no real manipulation or threat used in a lot of sexual assaults on children”
• “Caressing a child’s body or genitals usually is not a sexual act”
• “I believe that sex with children can make the child feel closer to adults”
• “Having sexual thoughts and fantasies about a child isn’t all that bad because at least it is not really hurting the child”
• “If a person is attracted to sex [sic] with children, he (she) should solve that problem themselves [sic] and not talk to professionals”

Measurements of cognitive distortions

"While a thorough account of all extant research tools related to cognitive distortion lies well beyond the scope and argument of this article, a quick look at the most formalised of measures, namely psychometric scales, may provide an impression of the way in which taboo’s cognitive turn requires offenders to reiterate precisely those pedagogical truisms, conventions and pronouncements the taboo (by way of law, ethics committees, and so on) denies both sexological verification and intellectual controversy. A literature search, conducted to saturation, found no less than sixteen scales purported to pertain to cognitive distortions (myths, implicit theories, justifications) related to childhood sexual agency, reported to be in use from 1984 to 2009. They are listed in Table 1; ten scales were available for examination at item level."

Table 1
Cognitive distortions regarding children and sexuality: Sixteen scales

1. 
   

Scale
Citation
1
Abel and Becker Cognition Scale (ABCS); modified (M-ABCS)
Abel et al. (1989: 150-152); Kolton (1993: 73-75)
2
Adolescent Cognition Scale (ACS)
Becker & Kaplan, revised and adapted in Flores (2002: 116-117)
3
Attitudes Toward Sex With Children Scale
Cortoni et al. (1991)
4*
Beliefs about Child Sexual Abuse Scale (BACSA)
Jehu, Jehu, Klassen & Gazan (1986) cited in Fischer & Corcoran (1987: 85-87)
5
Child Sexual Abuse Myth Scale (SCAMS)
Collings (2007: 669-670); Cromer & Goldsmith (2010: 629-630)
6
Child Molester Scale
Cann et al. (1995), unpublished, cited in McGrath, Cann & Konopasky (1998: 28)
7
Children and Sex: Cognitive Distortions Scale (CSQ), later incorporated in the Adolescent Sexual Abuser Project (ASAP) R Beckett ([1987], unpublished)
8
Children and Sexual Activities (C&SA) questionnaire
Sheldon & Howitt (2007: 214-220)
9
Cognitive Distortion/Immaturity (CDI) subscale of the Multiphasic Sex Inventory (MSI)
Nichols & Molinder (1984)
10
Implicit Theory Questionnaire (ITQ)
Ward & Keenan (1999)
11
Justifications for Sex with Children Scale
W L Marshall (unpublished)
12
MOLEST scale
Bumby (1996: 51-52)
13
Pedophile Cognition Scale (PCS)
Neidigh & Krop (1992)
14
QACSO Offenses Against Children subscale
Unpublished, cited in Gannon,
Keown & Rose (2009)
15
Sex With Children (SWCH) scale
Mann et al. (2007: 458)
16
Sexy Children and Sexual Harm subscales of the Hanson Sex Attitude Questionnaire (HSAQ)
Hanson, Gizzarelli & Scott (1994:199-200)
* Victim scale

As observed by discursive and narrative approaches to CD cited above, CD is defined quite variably in terms of logical inference (misperceptions, misinterpretations of reality), value statements, excuses and blame attributions, supposed purposiveness (self-serving rationalization), and perceived targetability (treatment motivation) in a way suggestive of a profession-wide disinterest in such elementary nuances.

SOURCE:

• ARGUING WITH THE INCEST TABOO? THE CASE OF “DISTORTED COGNITIONS” ABOUT CHILD SEXUALITY
• Diederik F Janssen
• PINS, 2012, 43, 1-22