Development of a 21-item short form of the Attitudes to Sexual Offenders (ATS) Scale.

Abstract

The Attitudes to Sexual Offenders scale (ATS; Hogue, 1993) is one of the most widely-used measurement instruments for assessing views about sexual offenders. The ATS has been used in a variety of contexts, most commonly in comparing forensic professionals and non-professionals in relation to their views about this population. This paper offers a review of the methods used to examine attitudes toward sexual offenders currently available, before systematically outlining the validation of a 21-item shortened version of the ATS measure (the 'ATS-21'). First, we analyzed the ATS with regards to its underlying factor structure using a general community sample (Study 1; n = 188). This identified three factors: 'Trust', 'Intent', and 'Social Distance'. We subsequently supported this structure through confirmatory factor analysis in a new community sample (Study 2; n = 335) and Hogue's (1993) original ATS development data (Study 3; n = 170) in order to provide further evidence of its reliability. We also offer preliminary evidence of the ATS-21's test-retest reliability, consistency across multiple testing contexts, resistance to social desirability, and independence from related measures (Study 4; n = 59). We close by recommending the use of the ATS-21 for researchers examining attitudes toward sexual offenders and offer suggestions for a new unified research design to incorporate the ATS-21 into emerging research into the psychological underpinnings of attitudes and responses to sexual offenders.

The effect of attitudes towards individuals with sexual convictions on professional and student risk judgments

“…In this study, we explore attitudinal differences towards individuals with sexual convictions among undergraduate students and professionals who work with this population. However, our focus is not simply on describing the same differences that have been reported in previous reviews Hogue & Harper, 2019). Instead, we investigate the effects of attitudes on risk judgments made by these groups in relation to hypothetical perpetrators of sexual offenses.…”

“…One limitation of this research was the use of explicit self-report measures to assess the sensitive and politically charged topic of attitudes towards sexual offenders which could lead to socially desirable responding . However, recently published data from Hogue and Harper (2019) found that ATS-21 scores were uncorrelated to scores on a social desirability scale, suggesting that the ATS-21 can provide an accurate insight into individuals' attitudes towards sexual offenders. Future research could look to replicate our findings using indirect measures of attitudes, such as a single-target implicit association test (IAT).…”

Humanizing pedophilia as stigma reduction: A large-scale intervention study

“…measure (Hogue & Harper, 2019) to establish their baseline levels of attitudes towards people convicted of sexual offenses. While this may not appear to be directly relevant to the current investigation, it has been found that people typically report completing the ATS-21 with 'pedophiles' and/or 'rapists' in mind .…”

“…As we could link demographic data using Prolific IDs collected in phase one, these data were not requested again here. We also did not ask participants to complete the ATS-21 again, as scores on this measure have been reported to be stable over time and resistant to individual experimental influence (Hogue & Harper, 2019). We asked participants to complete the SPS measure, followed by the same ST-IAT as was used in phase one.…”

Understanding forensic nursing staff attitudes towards men who have committed sexual offences: a narrative intervention

“…The intervention evidences the value in taking a narrative approach to working with staff to understand their attitudes and perceptions towards MSO, rather than delivering traditional training, which has been found to have little effect in increasing positive attitudes. 19 The intervention has one major limitation that would require revisions if it were to be delivered again. As the researcher designed, delivered and evaluated the workshop, there is potential for researcher bias to have been present.…”