Motives and attitudes of rapists

NELLA HEGEMAN AND STUART MEIKLE University of Calgary

ABSTRACT

The current reformulation of the Canadian legal definition of rape proposes that rape is an act of assault (i.e., motivated by aggression). Psychological literature has, until recently, considered rape a sex act and has assumed that the motivation of rapists is sexual in nature. This paper reviews the rape literature in terms of such "motivations," and an overview shows that the attribution of motives has resulted in unnecessary confusion and contradictions. Studies based on non-motivational premises (i.e., attitude studies) are also included, and these studies seem to avoid the confusion by classifying rapists according to their responses rather than their motivations.

Over the past few years, the topic of rape has received increasing attention in psychological literature. References on the subject have increased dramatically since 1972, and rape has become a matter of major public concern as well. Despite this growth of interest, there remains considerable dispute over a number of basic issues. It is the object of this article to document and examine several of these points in question. One of the current disputes is concerned with the definition of what exactly constitutes the act of rape. The term has been used to cover anything from a violent assault on a woman by a group of men to the actions of a husband who uses his wife as a sex object (Gager & Schurr, 1976). The Law Reform Commission of Canada (Note 1) addressed itself to redefining the legal definition of rape (Sec. 143-5 of the Criminal Code) which currently states':
A male person commits rape when he has sexual intercourse with a female person who is not his wife (a) without her consent or (b) with her consent if the consent (i) is extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm, (ii) is obtained by impersonating her husband, or (iii) is obtained by false or fraudulent representations as to the nature or quality of the act. (p. 14)

The commission contended that the concept of rape extends beyond this legal definition (i.e., includes oral/anal penetration towards both sexes) and that this shortcoming could be overcome by relabelling the act as "sexual assault." The suggested reformulation stated that "anyone who has sexual contact with a person without that person's consent is guilty of sexual assault" (p. 22). This reflects an increasing trend to view rape as an aggressive act (i.e., an assault) rather than a strictly sexual one (i.e., sexual intercourse). Legally, it implies a more humane trial for the victim as well
CANAD. J. BEHAV. SCI./REV. CANAD. SCI. COMP. 12(4), 1980

360

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

as a less difficult case for the Crown. With rape defined this way (as an assault), the victim's previous sexual contacts, her relationship to the offender, and her marital status are not considered relevant in determining consent. Socially, the reformulation challenges some previously established concepts of rape that have been adhered to by the public and professionals alike, i.e., that rape is an act of sex rather than assault. Due to the nature of the rape act itself, it seems reasonable to assume sexual deviance and sexual motives. Equally reasonable is the assumption that rape is an act of aggression and that sex is merely a means of expressing an aggressive motive. However, without controlled research and empirical data, both assumptions may be based on fallacious rather than factual premises, i.e., on popular belief rather than experimental evidence. According to Pacht (1976) there are several myths (collective opinions based on a fallacious or false premise) that surround the topic of rape since the underlying premises of most rape literature are based on experiential (i.e., clinical observation) rather than experimental structures (i.e., controlled research). Common rape myths that have been discussed in the literature are: (a) that rape is an act of uncontrollable lust (Brownmiller, 1975; Groth & Burgess, 1977a, 1977b; (b) that all rapists are sex maniacs and deviants (Brownmiller, 1975; Russell, 1975); and (c) that all women "ask for it" and/or secretly desire to be raped (Clark & Lewis, 1977; Medea & Thompson, 1974). These authors stated that these attitudes towards rape inhibit the reporting of rape as well as the conviction of rapists. In their work, an all-out attempt to demystify the act of rape is observable. A major area where clarification is still needed is in the realm of motivation. The motivation question has inundated rape research and literature to the point of creating unnecessary confusion. How one defines the act seems to determine how one perceives the motive of a rapist. Since there are various discernible stances concerning motive in the literature, an overview yields a nebulous or inconsistent picture of what rape is and why men rape. In order to more effectively examine current ideas concerning motivation in rapists, the present paper compares the rape literature under the following headings: (a) Motivations of Rapists, (b) Typologies of Rapists, (c) Profiles of Rapists, and (d) Attitudes of Rapists. Motivation of Rapists Rapists' motivations have usually been classified as (a) sexual, although deviant in terms of the means by which they are gratified; (b) aggressive, due to anger and/or hostility; or (c) some mixture of (a) and (b), although in different proportions for each individual. While no research to date has actually established the motives behind rape, until recently the sexual

MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES OF RAPISTS

361

motive has been assumed almost exclusively as the main inducement. Nadelson (1977) pointed out how this perception of rape as a purely sexual act has led to victim-blame procedures and has also contributed to reluctance on the part of the victim to report the rape. Similarly, Brownmiller in Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1975) stated that rape is an act of humiliation, aggression, and dominance where the only sexual aspect is that the penis was used as a weapon. Clark and Lewis (1977) as well as Groth, Burgess, and Holstrom (1977) also stressed the violent aspects of rape and de-emphasized the sexual aspects. The majority of psychological literature, however, attributed sexual motives because the penis was used as a weapon (e.g., uncontrollable lust and/or psychopathy explanations). Consequently, most research efforts have concentrated on the components of rapists' sexual arousal, and treatment efforts have, until recently, focused on modifying this deviant arousal (e.g., Kercher & Walker, 1973; Abel, in press; Goldstein, 1973; Rada, Kellner, & Winslow, 1976; Cowden & Morse, 1970; Cowden & Pacht, 1969; Marshall, 1973; Thome & Haupt, 1966). Thus, the rapist was described as a sex-offender (i.e., Pacht & Cowden, 1974; Pacht, Halleck, & Ehrman, 1962; Pacht & Roberts, 1968) or a sex-deviant (i.e., Abel, in press) even though there were no empirical data to necessarily warrant such a classification. Groth et al. (1977) contended that the concepts of sex-offender and sex-deviant overlap but that they are not synonymous, and suggested that sexual deviance be re-defined as "sexuality (used) to express needs or wishes that are not primarily or essentially sexual in nature and that jeopardize the physical or psychological safety of others" (p. 401). Since rape had been classified as a pseudosexual act, it could be described as both a sex offense as well as a sex deviance. Most other researchers have not distinguished their terms as clearly (e.g., McCaldron, 1967; Cohen, Seghorn, & Calmas, 1969; Woodling, Evans, & Brandbury, 1977; Henn, Herjanic, & Vanderpearl, 1976; Marshall, 1973) and a resulting confusion of terms and labels proliferates. Depending upon the investigator, sex data show that rapists have been found to evince inadequacy feelings, sexual dysfunction, as well as good heterosexual adjustment (see Table 1, row 2). The main problem in defining good heterosexual adjustment and/or inadequacy of a rapist is that the evaluation of either state usually occurs in settings where male-female relationships cannot be observed (see Pacht & Cowden, 1974). Thus, this type of evaluation frequently is inferential, retrospective, and based on self-report. Also, researchers often imply that rapists are a subgroup of sexual deviates (e.g., McCaldron, 1967; Perdue & Lester, 1972; Henn et al., 1976; Hammer, 1954; Gebhart, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christensen, 1965; etc.). Rapists have therefore been considered a homogeneous group

362
TABLE 1 Research findings on rapists Attribute Sexual Deviance Sex data Source and results

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

Sex Attitudes Psychological Disturbances

Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, & Guild (1977) found that 7/11 were deviant; Goldstein (1973) stated that rapists were homosexuals; while Nadelson (1977), Perdue & Lester (1972), Clark & Lewis (1977) did not consider rapists to be sexually deviant. (a) Inadequacy Feelings Sexually: Clark & Lewis (1977); Groth, Burgess, & Holstrom (1977); McCaldron (1967); Rada, Kellner, & Winslow (1976); Slovenko (1972); Thome & Haupt (1966); Woodling, Evans, & Brandbury (1977); Wysocki & Wysocki (1977). (b) Sexual Dysfunction: Groth & Burgess (1977a, 1977b); Groth et al. (1977);Nadelson(1977);Schiff(1973);Slovenko(1972);Shainess(1976). (c) Good Heterosexual Adjustment: Gebhart, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christensen(1965); McCaldron (1967). Conservative andrigidattitudes were found by Goldstein (1973); Groth et al. (1977), Feild (1978); Kirk (1975); Kercher & Walker (1973); and Thome & Haupt (1966). (a) Psychotic: Amir (1971); Henn, Herjanic, & Vanderpearl (1976); and Karpman(1954). (b) Personality Disorders: Perdue & Lester (1972) found 21%, while Henn etal. (1976) found 67%. (c) Sociopathic: Perdue & Lester (1972) found 48%, as did Henn et al. (1976). (d) General Disorders: Ellis & Brancale (1956), and Nadelson (1977). (e) No Disorders Found: Clark & Lewis (1977), since misogyny is not considered a mental illness; Slovenko (1972); Guze, Woodruff, & Clayton (1974), and Karpman (1954) reported that only .75-4% of rapists had some disorder.

within a larger classification of sex deviants. This has been considered a mistake by several researchers (Barlow & Abel, 1976; Cohen & Boucher, 1972; Cormier & Simons, 1969; Gebhart et al., 1965; Slovenko, 1972; Pacht, 1976) and several typologies have emerged to gain deeper insight into the problem of rape. Typologies of Rapists Most typologies (see Table 2) reflect the underlying conceptualization of why men rape. For instance, McCaldron (1967) classified his sample (n = 30) by their hostile acting-out tendencies, which were either directed against everyone (sociopathic) or against women only (defensive). Most typologies, however, focused on incorrectly learned patterns of sexual responses (Gebhart et al., 1965; Cohen et al., 1969; Power, 1976; Woodling et al., 1977), where the "modus operandus" (MO) seemed to be the key placement variable. The Los Angeles Police Department (Note 2) established a typology based upon demographic data from their records (see Table 2, column 6). They considered only one type of rapist as having a

TABLE 2 Typology of Rapists: Five current typologies are fitted to that of Groth, Burgess, and Holstrom (far left) Gebhart, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christensen (1967)N = 1346 sex offenders (mixed) 1. Assaultive women are sex objects impersonal mechanistic double standard 30%

Groth, Burgess, & Holstrom (1977) N = 225 1. POWER-ASSERTIVE want power over women keep women in their place low socialskills about 43.5% 2. POWER-REASSURANCE doubt sexuality need reassurance inadequacy feelings about 21.3% 3. ANGER-RETALIATION conscious of anger towards women impulsive behavior rationalizes about 29.7% 4. ANGER-EXCITEMENT sadistic get pleasure from act eroticized around 5.33%

McCaldron(1967) 30 1. Sociopathic manipulative egocentric hostile towards everyone 50%

Cohen, Seghorn, & Calmas(1969)N = 2

Woodling, Evans, & LA Police Department Brandbury(1977) (1976)

1. Aggressive Aim 1. Manipulative 1. Sex-Aggressive self-centered angry and hostile aggressive hostile towards towards women 'he-man' type women antisocial diffuse link between "man's man" violent sex and aggression 15% 2. Compensation passive sexually inadequate propose and/or apologise 15% 3. Impulsive narcissistic 30% 4. Displaced Agression act of aggression victim unknown socially O.K. 2. Inadequate shy, passive fantasize 2. Sexual Aim prove masculinity need reassurance inadequate sexually passive /. Aggressive Aim get even with women punish and defile abusive verbally and physically subcategory of # 1 3. Sex Aggression Diffusion sadistic needs resistance hostile paranoid

2. Defensive 2. aggression and sex linked excess violence insecure and hostile towards women 50% 3.

Explosive no control unleashed hostility when drunk undersocialized 30% Sadistic enjoy violence misogynist impotent 30%

364

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

"sexual aim" for raping, i.e., where the man raped to prove he was not a homosexual. They also classified their rapists on MO (i.e., amount of force used), yet their typology differed remarkably from those of McCaldron, Gebhart et al., and Woodling et al. The motive issue of rape confounds the defining of rape as well as the typology of rapists. The majority of typologies consider sexual deviance and sexual motive as their basic premise, and differentiate on either MO or hostility patterns. The discrepancies between the typologies listed in Table 2 reflect variant sampling, testing, and evaluative procedures, as well as the variant assumptions concerning motive. Groth et al. (1977) recognized these shortcomings and tried to remedy them by factor analyzing rapists' and victims' reports (n = 225) to discriminate between motives and types of rapists. Their results showed that, in forcible rape, there is a hierarchical relationship among three factors: anger, power, and sexuality. The highest ranking factors were anger and power, while sexuality was described as a means to express these two factors. Their typology is outlined in the first column in Table 2, and the other current typologies are listed beside it for comparison. This was accomplished by matching the type-characteristics of each typology to those of Groth et al. (1977). It is interesting to note the similarities between the Groth et al. typology and the LA Police typology. The LA Police acknowledged having consulted with Groth and Burgess during the development of their typology. The main difference is that they reduced the number of types to three by making Groth et al.'s Angerretaliation type a subgroup of the Power-assertive type. Profiles of Rapists There has been little agreement in the literature as to what characteristics differentiate rapists from "normal" men. In fact, the differences found have been so negligible that rapists are often called "normal men" (Brownmiller, 1975; Clark & Lewis, 1977; Gager & Schurr, 1976; Griffin, 1971). Researchers who did try to establish differences between rapists and other groups are listed in Table 3. The four characteristics most often used to describe rapists are hostility, aggression, sadism, and insecurity. However, these terms are not defined clearly, and often hostility and aggression have been used interchangeably in the same study. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain what was being tested: hostility as a behaviour pattern, aggression as a behaviour pattern, hostility as the motive, and/or aggression as the acting-out of the hostility motive? The same lack of clarity in terms was also found by Rada et al. (1976) in their review on plasma testosterone levels and aggressive behaviour. Rada et al. found that in this area of study contradictory evidence abounded, and that terms such as "hostility" were confusing since it was

MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES OF RAPISTS TABLE 3 Characteristics found to differentiate rapists from other groups Characteristic Hostility Source

365

Aggression

Insecurity Sadism

Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, & Guild (1977), Cohen, Seghorn, & Calmas (1969), Ellis & Brancale (1956), Nadelson (1977), and Rader (1977) found hostility a common characteristic that distinguished rapists from other groups. Aggression was listed as a variable by Cohen etal. (1969),Groth, Burgess, & Hostrom (1977) and Rader (1977). Abel et al. (1977) found a linear relationship between rapists' past histories and their level of agression. Wysocki & Wysocki (1977) found no difference in agression between rapists and other sex-offenders. Insecurity was found to be common (65% or more) by Cohen et al. (1969), Ellis & Brancale (1956), Groth et al. (1977), Karpman (1954), Power (1976), Rader(1977), and Tsuboi (1970). Sadism was found to be present in 5-15% of rapists by Abel et al. (1977), Cormier & Simons (1969), Karpman (1954), and McCaldron (1967).

not stated whether they were states or traits. As with neural or hormonal findings, rapists with chromosomal abnormalities (XYY or XXY) were relatively rare (e.g., 1.3% in Denmark; Tsuboi, 1970) and even then there was no proof of a correlation between chromosomal disorders and antisocial behaviour (Baker, Tefler, Richardson, & Clark, 1970; Field & Williams, 1970). Since statistics show that 40% of rapes have more violence and brutality than necessary to perpetrate the act (Amir, 1971; Brownmiller, 1975; bebhart et al., 1965), the link between sex and aggression has been studied as extensively as the demographic characteristics of a rapist. Basically, these studies have tried to distinguish rapists from nonrapists by erection measures. Kercher and Walker (1973) showed groups of rapists and other inmates (convicted of nonsexual crimes) a series of slides which included different sexual content: petting, coitus, masturbation, homosexuality, etc. They found that penile volume decreased over trials for all subjects, and that the rapists were less aroused by scenes of sado-masochism and masturbation than the controls. Also, rapists rated homosexual activity and nudity (female) more negatively. On the other hand, Abel, Barlow, Blanchard, and Guild (1977) found that rapists were more aroused by coercive audiotapes than nonrapists, and that they were less aroused by mutually enjoyable sex descriptions. Abel et al. advocated the use of a rape index (erection measure to coercive audiotape was divided by erection measure to mutually enjoyable tape) to distinguish rapists from nonrapists. They found that this index differentiated most rapists from nonrapists with the exception of sado-masochists (not defined) and patients who were not cooperative.

366

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

The different results obtained by Kercher and Walker (1973) and Abel et al. (1977) could be attributed to different stimulus type (slides versus audiotapes) and variant stimulus content. Whether Kercher and Walker's sado-masochism slides and Abel et al.'s coercive audiotapes are comparable is questionable. Also, both groups of authors acknowledge that penile volume can be voluntarily controlled by subjects. Yet, regardless of the conflicting results, the underlying premise of both studies was that rape is a sexually motivated act rather than one of aggression. This indirectly perpetuates the myth that all rapists are men driven by uncontrollable lust and that they have a "sick" sex-drive which needs to be modified. In similar sex-aggression study with "normal" men, Donnerstein and Barrett (1978) found that only under anger conditions did erotica lead to aggression in males, and that anger conditions also produced higher arousal levels. Therefore, if rapists are indeed motivated by anger or power (Groth et al., 1977) their arousal level will be higher when shown certain types of erotica. It does not follow, however, that the penile volume measures are indicative of sexual deviance or sexual motive for raping. It is no surprise, in view of the discrepant findings of sex-aggression research, that aversive therapy techniques have questionable results (Fisher & Byere, 1978; Marshall & Lippens, 1977; Abel et al., 1977), or that hormonal treatment has also produced variant success rates (Walker & Brodsky, 1976). Attitudes of Rapists Sex-role perception and attitudes towards the "woman's place" have been shown to be important variables distinguishing rapists from other groups (Abel, in press; Feild, 1978; and others). Typically, rapists' attitudes towards sex have been described as conservative and rigid (Kirk, 1975; Kercher & Walker, 1973; Thome & Haupt, 1966; Goldstein, 1973). Feild (1978) found that rapists have more negative evaluations of women, more traditional sex-role perceptions and behaviours, and more "pro-rape" attitudes than other citizens. He isolated eight factors in the Attitude Towards Rape Scale and correlated personal data as well as Attitude Toward Women scores with these factors. His subject groups consisted of police officers, general citizens, rapists, and rape counsellors. As expected, attitudes towards rape correlated with attitudes towards women depending on the sex of the respondent (i.e., women were less likely to see victim-precipitation) and that more liberal views of the "woman's place" were associated with the belief that the motive for rape was not sex. No differences were found between police officers and rapists in their perception of the basic motivation for rape (sex) and the responsibility of the woman in the act. Although Feild's work was exploratory in nature, it was

MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES OF RAPISTS

367

consistent with other findings and explained adequately the victim-blame tendencies among the police and citizens in general. Feild's approach throws an interesting light on some clinical observations concerning rapists; e.g., lack of guilt or remorse and victim-blame tendencies. Several authors have stated that their population of rapists labelled their act as normal (Russell, 1975). Clark and Lewis (1977) and Schiff (1973) found that the social perception of rape also defined the act as within the normal continuum. The current societal sex-courtship norms are based on a male-aggressive, female-passive continuum and consequently difficulties arise when one tries to distinguish between aggressive and sexual intentions in males. In order to distinguish rape from sex, the key features have been demarked by situational variables: if it happens in an alley it is rape, if it happens in bed it is love; if the man is a stranger it is rape, if you know him it is love; if he hits you in the face it is rape, if he overwhelms you it is love (Medea & Thompson, 1974). If the variables are stacked in the victim's favour (the man was a stranger, it was after dark, and he had a weapon) then her chances in a court of law increase dramatically. However, should she be of "unchaste" character and should the variables be stacked in the offender's favour, her case will be labelled as "unfounded". Clark and Lewis (1977) summarized the relationship between the victim and whether or not the case was labelled unfounded by listing certain features such as age, lack of employment, low socioeconomic status, marital status, previous psychiatric illness, and reputation (e.g., excessive drinking) as determining whether or not a woman "could be raped". Basically, unacceptable female behaviour was considered as inducement for rape. The basis of sex-motive explanations and victim discriminations lies, according to these authors, in the double standard for men and women on the sex-courtship continuum. The social context of rape (other than situational eliciting variables) has largely been ignored. Recent studies have offered tentative statements concerning the social context aspects of rape and the influence of social expectations on behaviour (Feild, 1978; Clark & Lewis, 1977; Groth et al., 1977; Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid, 1977). Of interest is the concept that rapists do not have any idea of what rape actually is (Groth et al., 1977). The term is meaningless to them since they have been socialized to accept rape as part of the male-female courtship continuum. Clark and Lewis (1977) suggested that the differences in the typology of rapists could be due to the rapist's concept of masculine behaviour; specifically, his idea of how aggression is linked with masculine behaviour. They found that convicted rapists were fairly average Canadians, but that they were also generally of lower socioeconomic class.

368

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

National Rape Crisis Centre statistics (Vance, Note 3) revealed that rapes committed by middle- and upper-class men (e.g., landlords, professionals, employers) are less frequent and are rarely reported to the police. Clark and Lewis postulated that middle- or upper-class men use seduction by means of status and desirability,whereas lower-class men, who do not have these commodities, resort to the use of physical prowess, and therefore enter into the realm of rape. It has been observed that rapists define the rape-act differently than those who evaluate and condemn their behaviour as rape (Clark & Lewis, 1977; Gebhart et al., 1965). Previously, the rapist's definition was considered as part of a self-protective denial mechanism, but there is a possibility that rapists are indeed extreme respondents on an attitudinal continuum towards sex (rigid and conservative) and women (negative and conservative). Misogyny has been noted to characterize rapitsts' attitudes (Cohen et al., 1969; Cohen & Boucher, 1972; Karpman, 1954; McCaldron, 1967; Nadelson, 1977; Groth et al., 1977) and some treatment programs have been designed so that these views could be changed (see Anderson, 1969; Pacht et al., 1962; Polak, 1971; Abel, in press). Klemmack and Klemmack (1976) found that most rapists in their study held inconsistent normative definitions of women's sexuality. They discovered a duality in their subject's attitudes: women are either innocent or coy, passive or seductive good or bad. These authors suggested reeducation for rapists to remove misconceptions about women. Anderson (1969) and Pacht (1976) described their attempts in this agea as successful, and Gager and Schurr (1976) reviewed similar rehabilitation approaches that they considered successful as well.
DISCUSSION

In this article, it has been observed that the underlying premises concerning motivation of rapists have confounded rape research as well as related areas (e.g., the defining of the act, the typologies and profiles of rapists, victimology, etc.). While data on rapists are quite abundant, there has been little or no agreement as to "who"the rapist is or "why" the act is committed. One area of research in which this confusion has not been so evident is in the study or attitudes. In these studies, rapists have been discussed and classified according to how they perceived their own actions and the actions of others, not according to how society perceived them. Social perception may vary between groups (Feild, 1978) and may also be contradictory (Cohen & Boucher, 1972). Cohen and Boucher have observed that many social perceptions of sex offenders are antithetical: they are seen as oversexed/undersexed, immoral/rigidly moral, very masculine/effemi-

MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES OF RAPISTS

369

nate, etc. The common denominator of these perceptions is, according to these authors, a need to make the sex offender an alien being, someone as different from the decent, upstanding citizen as possible. They note also that these misperceptions are not the sole property of the uninformed; that professionals also see the offender in an alien light (i.e., as being psychotic, having generic or physical pathology, etc.). More controlled research in all areas concerning rape is needed before prevalent misconceptions can be dispelled. Since the rape act is impossible to study under controlled conditions, and since the offender is usually tested some time after the act has been committed, attitudes and motives necessarily have to be inferred from victim and offender reports. However, in a court of law it is the rapist's motive, not his attitude, that causes victim blame procedures. More research that is not dependent on sex-motive premises could eventually discourage the continuation of such procedures. Social attitudes towards both the offender and his victim impede not only legal but also research progress (Hayman, 1971). If rape is to redefined legally, then psychologists must also adopt new stances and definitions (as in the case of homosexuality). Such a task must embrace more objective approaches and strategies so that the present confusion will be avoided in future endeavours to understand the nature of rape.

La reformulation courante de la definition legale (canadienne) du viol propose que le viol soit un assaut, i.e., motive par l'agression. La litterature psychologique, jusqu'a recemment, considerait le viol comme un acte sexuel et supposait que la motivation au viol est de nature sexuelle. L'article ici presente examine la litterature sur le viol en analysant de telles motivations et cet examen d'ensemble montre que P attribution des motifs comporte des confusions inutiles et des contradictions. Sont aussi examinees des etudes faites sans premisses d'ordre motivationnel - c'est-a-dire des etudes centrees sur les attitudes - et ces etudes semblent eviter la confusion en classifiant les responsables de viol suivant leur type de reponses plutot que suivant leur type de motivation.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Law Reform Commission of Canada. Criminal law: Sexual offenses. (Working Paper 22.) Ottawa: Ministry of Supply & Services Canada, 1978. 2. Los Angeles Police Department. Types of rapists. Los Angeles: City Administration, City Hall, 1977. 3. Vance, J. Rape Crisis Centre statistics. Montreal: National Rape Crisis Centre, 1977.

REFERENCES

Abel, G.G. Assessment of sexual deviation in the male. In E. Hersen & M. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook. New York: Pergamon, in press.

370

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

Abel, G.G., Barlow, D.H., Blanchard, E.G., & Guild, D. The components of the rapist's sexual arousal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1977,34, 875-903. Amir, M. Patterns of forcible rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Anderson, R.E. The exchange of tape recordings as a catalyst in group psychotherapy. International Journal ofGroup Psychotherapy, 1969,19 (2), 3. Baker, D., Teller, M. A., Richardson, C.E., & Clark, G.R. Chromosomal errors in men with antisocial behavior, comparison of selected men with Klinefelter's syndrome and XYY chromosomal patterns. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1970,214, 869-878. Barlow, D.H., & Abel, G.G. Sexual deviation. In W. Craighead, A. Kazdin, & M. Mahoney (Eds.), Behavior modification. Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. Brownmiller, S. Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975. Cameron, J.M. Changing patterns of violence. Medicine, Science and the Law, 1973,13, 261-264. Clark. L.,& Lewis, D. Rape: The price of coercive sexuality. Toronto: The Woman's Press, 1977. Cohen, M.L., & Boucher, R.J. Misunderstandings about sex criminals. Sexual Behavior, 1972, 56-62. Cohen, M.L, Seghorn, T., & Calmas, S. A sociometric study of the sex offender. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 71, 249-255. Cormier, B.M. & Simons, S.P. Forensic psychiatry: The problem of the dangerous sex offender. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 1969,14, 329335. Cowden, J.E., & Morse, E.L. The relationship of defensiveness to responses on the Sex Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970,26, 505-509. Cowden, J.E., & Pacht, A.R. The Sex Inventory as a classification instrument of sex offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969,25, 53-57. Donnerstein, E., & Barrett, G. Effects of erotic stimuli on male aggression towards females. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,26, 180-189. Ellis, A., & Brancale, R. Psychology of sex offenders. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1956. Feild, H.S. Attitudes towards rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counsellors and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,35, 156179. Field, L.H., & Williams, M. The hormonal treatment of sex offenders. Medicine, Science and the Law, 1970,10,27-34. Fisher, W.A., & Byere, D. Sex differences in response to erotica? Love versus lust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978,36, 117-125. Gager, N., & Schurr, C. Sexual assault: Confronting rape in America. New York: Grosset & Dunlop, 1976. Gebhart, P.H., Gagnon, J.H., Pomeroy, W.B., & Christensen, C.V. Sex offenders -An analysis of types. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Goldstein, M.T. Exposure to erotic stimuli and sexual deviance. Journal of Social Issues, 1973,29, 197-219. Griffin, S. Rape, the all American crime. Ramparts, September 1971, pp. 26-35. Groth, A.N., & Burgess, H. W. Rape: A sexual deviation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1977,47, 400-406. (a) Groth, A.N., & Burgess, H. W. Sexual dysfunction during rape. New England Journal of Mecicine, \911,297, 764-766. (b) Groth, A.N., Burgess, H.W., & Holstrom, L.L. Rape: Power, anger and sexuality. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 1977,134, 1239-1243.

MOTIVES AND ATTITUDES OF RAPISTS

nal of the American Medical Association, 1974,227,641642.

371

Guze, S.B., Woodruff, R.A., & Clayton, P.T. Psychiatric disorders and criminality. JourHammer, E.F. A comparison of H-T-P*s of rapists and pedophiles. Journal of Projection Techinques, 1954,18, 346-350. Hayman, C.R. Increasing rape reflects increasing violence. Sexual Behavior, November 1971, p. 33. Henn, F.A., Herjanic, M., & Vanderpearl, R.H. Forensic psychiatry: Profiles of two types of sex offenders. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 1976,133,694-696. Karpman, B. The sexual offender and his offenses: Etiology, pathology, psychodynamics and treatment. New York: Julian Press, 1954. Kercher, G.A., & Walker, C.E. Reactions of convicted rapists to sexually explicit stimuli. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 1973,81, 46-50. Kirk, S.A. The sex offenses of blacks and whites. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1975,4, 295-302. Klemmack, S.H., & Klemmack, D.L. The social definition of rape. In M.J. Walker & S.L. Brodsky (Eds), Sexual assault: The victim and the rapist. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1976. Marshall, W.L. The modification of sexual fantasies. A combined treatment approach to deviant sexual behaviour. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1973,2, 557-564. Marshall, W.L., & Lippens, K. The clinical value of boredom. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disorders, 1977,165,283-287. McCaldron, R.I. Rape. Canadian Journal of Corrections, 1967, 9, 37-59. Medea, A., & Thompson, K. Against rape. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1974. Nadelson, C. C. Rapist and victim. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977,297,784-785. Pacht, A.R. The rapist in treatment: Professional myths and psychological realities. In M.J. Walker & S.L. Brodsky (Eds.), Sexual assault: The victim and the rapist. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1976. Pacht, A.R., & Cowden, I.E. An exploratory study of 500 sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1974, /, 13-20. Pacht, A.R., Halleck, S.L., & Ehrman, T.C. Diagnosis and treatment of the sexual offender: A nine-year study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1962,118, 802-806. Pacht, A.R., & Roberts, L.M. Factors related the parole experience of the deviated sex offender. Journal of Correctional Psychiatry, 1968,3, 283-287. Perdue, W.C., & Lester, D. Personality characteristics of rapists. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972,35,515-518. Polak, P. Social systems intervention. Archivesof General Psychiatry, 1971,25, 110-117. Power.D.J. Sexual deviation and crime. Medicine, Science andtheLaw, 1976./6,111-128. Rada, R.T., Kellner, K., & Winslow, W. Plasma testosterone and aggressive behavior. Psychosomatics, 1976,18, 138-142. Rader, D.M. MMPI profile types of exposers, rapists and assaulters in a court service population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 19TJ, 45,61-69. Russell, D. The politics of rape. New York: Stein & Day, 1975. Schiff, A.R. A statistical evaluation of rape. Forensic Science, 1973,2,339-349. Shainess, N. Psychological significance of rape: Some aspects. New York State Journal of Medicine, November 1976,2044-2048. Slovenko, R. Everything you wanted to have in sex laws. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1972,18,118-124. Snyder, M., Tanke, E., & Bersheid, E. Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of stereotypes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1977,35,656-666.

372

HEGEMAN & MEIKLE

Thorne, F.C., & Haupt, T.D. The objective measurement of sex attitudes and behaviors in adult males. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1966,22,395-403. Tsuboi, T. Crimino-biologic study of patients with XYY syndrome and Kleinfelter's syndrome. Humangenetic, 1970,10, 68-84. Walker, M.J., & Brodsky, S.L. Sexual assault: The victim and the rapist, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1976. Woodling, B.A., Evans, J.R., & Brandbury, M.D. Sexual assault: Rape and molestation. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1977,20,509-530. Wysocki, A.C., & Wysocki, B.A. Humanfiguredrawings of sex offenders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1977,33, 278-284. First received 13 September 1978