Appraisals of cancer, religious/spiritual coping, and hope in patients with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent to which religious/spiritual coping moderates the association between stress appraisals and hope among patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN/RESEARCH APPROACH: A longitudinal, prospective examination of hope, stress appraisals of cancer, and religious/spiritual coping through self-report questionnaires at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months post-surgery. SAMPLE/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer recruited from tertiary medical centers. FINDINGS: Challenge and threat appraisals predicted hope. Only the relationship between hope and challenge appraisals was significantly moderated by coping through religion/spirituality, such that those who were both low on challenge and low in religious/spiritual coping reported the lowest hope. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Hope is predicted by how people appraise their cancer. Hope was lowest among participants who reported both low challenge appraisals and religious/spiritual coping. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS: Understanding how patients appraise their cancer and use religion/spirituality to cope may help providers understand which patients are at risk for low hope.

Explicit and Implicit Self-Esteem, Narcissism, and Recidivism Risk in a Sample of Men Who Have Sexually Offended Against Children.

The relationship between implicit and incongruent explicit and implicit (i.e., discrepant) self-esteem, narcissism, and sexual offending against children requires further research. We examined the relationships between self-esteem, narcissism, and risk of violent (including sexual) recidivism and compared sexual offenders against children (n = 28) and non-sexual offenders (n = 44) on these measures. All participants were adult men. In both groups, greater narcissism was associated with greater risk. Among sexual offenders against children, contrary to theoretical accounts and previous research findings, higher explicit self-esteem was associated with greater risk. However, further analysis indicated that explicit self-esteem may only be relevant to recidivism risk insofar as it reflects narcissism. Neither implicit nor discrepant self-esteem were related to recidivism risk in either group. Group comparisons indicated that sexual offenders against children had lower explicit self-esteem and narcissism than non-sexual offenders. In summary, our findings suggest that although sexual offenders against children have lower explicit self-esteem and narcissism than other offenders, within this group, higher explicit self-esteem and greater narcissism may be associated with greater risk. Taken together, previous and current findings suggest that including measures of narcissism in psychological assessment batteries administered to sexual offenders against children could be beneficial. Our findings also further question the wisdom of targeting low self-esteem in correctional treatment programs aimed at reducing recidivism.

"I Know Correlation Doesn't Prove Causation, but . . .": Are We Jumping to Unfounded Conclusions About the Causes of Sexual Offending?

Identifying causes of sexual offending is the foundation of effective and efficient assessment, intervention, and policy aimed at reducing sexual offending. However, studies vary in methodological rigor and the inferences they support, and there are differences of opinion about the conclusions that can be drawn from ambiguous evidence. To explore how researchers in this area interpret the available empirical evidence, we asked authors of articles published in relevant specialized journals to identify (a) an important factor that may lead to sexual offending, (b) a study providing evidence of a relationship between that factor and sexual offending, and (c) the inferences supported by that study. Many participants seemed to endorse causal interpretations and conclusions that went beyond the methodological rigor of the study they identified. Our findings suggest that some researchers may not be adequately considering methodological issues when making inferences about the causes of sexual offending. Although it is difficult to conduct research in this area and all research designs can provide valuable information, sensitivity to the limits methodology places on inferences is important for the sake of accuracy and integrity, and to stimulate more informative research. We propose that increasing attention to methodology in the research community through better training and standards will advance scientific knowledge about the causes of sexual offending, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of practice and policy.

The Violent Behavior Vignette Questionnaire (VBVQ): A Measure of Violent Behavior for Research in Forensic and Non-Forensic Settings and Populations.

The measurement of violent behavior presents serious challenges for research on violence. In the current article, we present initial tests of the construct validity of scores on the Violent Behavior Vignette Questionnaire (VBVQ), which consists of a series of interpersonal conflict vignettes with response options in a multiple-choice format designed to measure current violent behavior. Violent responses on the initial version of the VBVQ generally corresponded to independent indicators of physical aggressiveness and violent behavior among male university students, men in the community, and incarcerated male offenders. We then refined the VBVQ and again tested the validity of its scores in new samples of men in the community and incarcerated male offenders. In both samples, men who selected a violent response option on the VBVQ generally had much higher levels of physical aggressiveness and violent behavior than did men who selected non-violent response options. However, VBVQ responses were not associated with the number of violent offenses in offenders' official criminal records. Our findings provide some support for the use of the VBVQ in lab and correctional/forensic research, but further research is required to determine whether it offers advantages over other measures.