Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
There is little empirical knowledge about whether the interpretation process of child sex offenders is offense-supportive in nature and contributes to the offending process. Vignettes were developed to compare child sex offenders' and nonoffenders' interpretations of child molestation incidents after ambiguous and nonambiguous victim responses. Results showed that child sex offenders' (N = 60) interpretations did not differ from nonoffenders' (N = 40) interpretations. Overall, the more ambiguous the child responses, the more child complicity and child benefit was seen. Our results indicate that offense-supportive interpretations are not unique to child sex offenders. The mechanisms that are responsible for whether or not to commit a sexual offense should be unraveled and treated, to prevent deviant processes to be activated.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2014.960634 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!