U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Resiliency in the Victim-Offender Cycle in Male Sexual Abuse

NCJ Number
192393
Journal
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: January 2002 Pages: 31-48
Author(s)
Ian Lambie; Fred Seymour; Alan Lee; Peter Adams
Editor(s)
Connie Isaac
Date Published
January 2002
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This study examined the victim-offender cycle in male sexual abuse by exploring the factors that contribute to why victims of sexual abuse do not go on to sexually offend.
Abstract
The victim-offender cycle became popularized as an explanation for sexual offending based on the finding that the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in child molesters was considerably higher than that in the general population. However, not all child molesters were victims of childhood sexual abuse. This led to the current study to examine the "moderating factors" that might prevent a male victim of sexual abuse from entering the victim-offender cycle. The study included two groups of adult males who had reported childhood sexual abuse; the "offender" group (n=41) had become perpetrators of child sexual abuse and the "resilient" group (n=47) had not become perpetrators. Demographic characteristics of the participants were collected and measured on age, education, and vocational background, and the educational and vocational characteristics of their parents. The results of the study supported the view that factors could be identified that, if present, increased the likelihood a male victim of child sexual abuse would sexually offend. The victim-offender group had a lower level of education than the resilient group. In addition, friendships and social support might play a significant role in acting as a buffer factor to the cycle. However, there were some factors previously identified as placing someone at greater risk of offending that were not evident in this study. Due to some study limitations identified, the results should be viewed with caution. Tables and references