Examining the Collateral Consequences of Sexual Offenses and Subsequent Policy on Partners of Sexual Offenders

University of Nevada, Reno

Courtesy Stigma: Examining the Collateral Consequences of Sexual Offenses and Subsequent Policy on Partners of Sexual Offenders

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Psychology

Kristan N. Russell, M.A.

Dr. William Evans/Dissertation Co-Advisor Dr. Shawn Marsh/Dissertation Co-Advisor

August 2020

Abstract

Registrants on public sex offense registries experience significant stigma and subsequent negative consequences. Their partners may experience similar stigma and repercussions as a result of their association with a registrant, which is known as courtesy stigma. This dissertation study extends current theoretical and conceptual understanding of the impact of stigma on partners of registrants by examining a comprehensive model of courtesy stigma on various well-being, mental health, and relationship outcomes. Using a sample of 297 respondents from 40 different U.S. states, results from this study suggest that increased courtesy stigma is related to reduced well-being, self-esteem, and relationship quality, as well as increased levels of anxiety, stress, depression, and social isolation.

Results also suggest that social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and various outcomes. Open-ended responses from this dissertation further elucidated the negative consequences experienced by partners of registrants and provided them an opportunity to describe what they perceived as being important for policymakers to consider in future policy development and reform efforts.

The results of this study lend implications for future empirical and theoretical understanding of the impact of stigma on those associated with registrants, considerations for further model testing, and application of findings for policy reform and resource development.

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the two most incredible women I know. To my mom, Charlene Switzer - I owe my independence, work ethic, and perseverance to you.

Thank you for always putting your children first and supporting us through every endeavor. And to my grandmother, Patricia Flynn, for being the kind of woman I aspire to be. Alzheimer’s disease has stolen my ability to share this moment with you – but I know you would be so proud of me, as you always have been. Thank you both for shaping me into the woman I am today.

iii

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to thank all of the participants of this study. This important work would not have been possible without their willingness to invest their time to share their stories. Second, I would like to thank my co-chairs Dr. William Evans and Dr.

Shawn Marsh, along with my dissertation committee members Dr. Yueran Yang, Dr.

Matthew Leone, and Dr. Diane Barone. Your combined expertise, guidance, and support throughout this process have largely contributed to my success. Additionally, I would like to thank those who went out of their way over my years here to support and mentor me;

Dr. Melissa Burnham, Dr. Kjerstin Gruys, Dr. Pamela Payne, Dr. Jen Mortensen, Dr.

Rosie Shrout, and Jenna Dewar. I would like to thank my cohort – all of whom helped to make these years much more enjoyable.

I am also tremendously grateful for my parents Charlene Switzer, Mike Russell, and Kevin Donovan and my siblings Lindsey, Tricia, Michael, Gary, and Kayleigh.

Thank you for supporting me in everything I do – even when it means going to school for an entire decade. Your kind words, encouragement, and occasional teasing over the years have helped me to get through. I must also extend a special thank you to my nieces

Sierra, Reagan, Peyton, Kori, and Julianna and my nephew Brayden – for filling my life with laughter and giving me extra inspiration to be a good role model. I love you all.

I must also extend my thanks to my friends who have provided me with so much stability and support throughout this process. In particular, I would like to thank Ashley

Russell, Julie Nguyen, Marissa Bykowski, Katelyn Kuzell, Jillian Polanchak, Alyssa

Moore, Stephanie Shollenberger, Kirstie-Kate Saguay, Kristen Kilroy, and Caitlyn

Birdsong. You have all been amazing friends who were so understanding when I was iv busy but also gave me some of the best memories when I took breaks to be with you. I’m so thankful for you all!

Last, but far from least – I must thank my partner Kellen Abe. You deserve an honorary doctorate for putting up with me during this process and for always listening to me when I am in ‘Professor Mode.’ I am so incredibly grateful to have had your support in these last years and am so thankful for how understanding you have been. I am forever grateful for you.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Dedication ...... ii Acknowledgments...... iii Table of Contents ...... v List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 8 Chapter 3: The Dissertation Project ...... 30 Chapter 4: Method ...... 37 Chapter 5: Results ...... 56 Chapter 6: Discussion ...... 125 References ...... 144 Appendix A: Information Sheet ...... 163 Appendix B: Dissertation Survey ...... 166 Appendix C: Recruitment Materials ...... 194

List of Tables

Table 1: Snowball Sampling Gatekeeper List

Table 2: Respondent Demographics

Table 3: Respondent Descriptives

Table 4: Relationship Descriptives

Table 5: Registrant Demographics and Registration Descriptives

Table 6: Scale and Subscale Reliabilities

Table 7: Scale Characteristics: Means, SDs, and Ranges

Table 8: Pearson Correlations between Scales

Table 9: Multiple Regressions for Well-Being

Table 10: Multiple Regressions for Self-Esteem

Table 11: Multiple Regressions for Anxiety

Table 12: Multiple Regressions for Stress

Table 13: Multiple Regressions for Depression

Table 14: Multiple Regressions for Social Isolation

Table 15: Multiple Regressions for Relationship Quality

Table 16: Hypotheses and Indications of Support from the Data

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Moderation Models 1-7

Figure 2: Number of Respondents per U.S. State – Geographic Visualization

Figure 3: Moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and self-esteem (without controls).

Figure 4: Moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and self-esteem (with controls).

Figure 5: Moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and depression (with controls).

Figure 6: Moderating effect of sense of coherence on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and depression (with controls).

Figure 7: Moderating effect of social support on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and social isolation (without controls).

Figure 8: Moderating effect of social support on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and social isolation (with controls). 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Sexual offenses are one of the most heinous crimes an individual can commit.

Sexual abuse can contribute to depression, declines in mental health, low quality of life,

PTSD, and self-harming behavior (Heim, Shugart, Craighead, & Nemeroff, 2010;

Kamiya, Timonen, & Kenny, 2016; Klonksy & Moyer, 2008; Paolucci, Genuis, &

Violato, 2001). Sexual offending is a public health concern, as findings indicate that 1 in every 5 females and 1 in every 37 males will experience attempted or completed rape within their lifetime (Centers for Disease Control, 2019). Given how severe the consequences are and how many people are personally affected by sexual offending in our society, examining existing policies and their influence on successful reentry and reintegration is critical.

Of all criminal offenders, those who are required to register on sexual offense registries are arguably amongst the most stigmatized (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). The

United States has implemented a series of policies to control and monitor individuals who commit sexual offenses. These policies include registration sanctions, notification requirements, and residency restrictions. Sexual offense policies make information regarding offenders publicly available and have been received with overwhelming public support (Proctor, Badzinski, & Johnson, 2002). Despite the good intentions of policymakers, sexual offense laws may actually have substantial collateral consequences for registrants1 (e.g., perpetuating barriers to successful reentry, stress, stigma, etc.).

1 In an effort to achieve a person-centered, non-labeling approach to discussing individuals who commit sexual offenses, I will use the term registrant for someone required to publicly register in lieu of the term ‘sex offender.’ 2

Preliminary studies have found that registrants are not the only individuals that experience repercussions from these policies; family members and partners of registrants may be negatively impacted and experience secondary stigma as well (Farkas & Miller,

2008; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Plogher, Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016).

Research examining family members and partners of registrants have found that they may experience courtesy stigma, which is when an individual experiences stigma as a result of being associated with a highly stigmatized or ‘deviant’ individual (Goffman,

2009). Family members also may experience consequences such as ostracism and harassment (Farkas & Miller, 2008; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). In addition, researchers have examined public perceptions of registrants’ partners and have found that the public holds particular stereotypes toward this group including that they may be fearful and vulnerable, that they may see themselves as healers or reformers, or that they may be deviant and predatory (Plogher, Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016). These findings indicate that registrants’ partners may experience negative stereotypes and subsequent consequences such as discrimination, harassment, and declines in overall well-being

(Plogher, Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016).

Per the most recent estimates, there are 917,771 registrants in the U.S. and its territories at this time (NCMEC, 2018). It is estimated that a substantial number of these registrants have current and previous romantic partners and spouses. Given the potential stigma and discrimination that registrants’ partners may experience, it is important to assess these individuals’ perceptions of stigma and associated outcomes to generate a better understanding of the severity and complexity of policy and offense effects.

Drawing upon existing stigma frameworks, researchers have identified ways to assess 3 courtesy stigma that may be experienced by these partners. These frameworks are useful in that they emphasize the importance of assessing the internalization of courtesy stigma in relation to various risk and protective factors (e.g., social support). However, researchers have typically examined courtesy stigma experienced by partners of registrants through qualitative approaches, primarily through qualitative analyses using interviews (see Koro-Ljunberg & Bussing, 2009) and assessments of blog posts (see

Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016). These studies have limited sample sizes and lack testable models. At this time no researchers have attempted to utilize the body of literature around these stigma frameworks to develop and test models examining the impact of courtesy stigma on this population.

One study (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009) conducted online surveys of family members of registrants to gather information regarding the consequences they experience. This was one of the first studies to survey family members of registrants and focused on reports of various unintended collateral consequences that the family members experience. This promising research demonstrated that employing a snowball sampling approach through internet sites, listservs, and blogs can result in a larger sample size (n=584). However, this survey was exploratory in nature with primarily descriptive results (e.g., percentages of endorsements for items).

This current dissertation study draws from social psychological theory to address the gaps in the literature surrounding partners of registrants. A theoretical framework of courtesy stigma is applied to provide a comprehensive understanding of how partners of registrants perceive their circumstances and how they are impacted by sexual offense policies. This dissertation study proposes and tests a conceptual model to identify 4 important characteristics that impact outcomes for registrants’ partners, adding to the limited body of literature surrounding how these individuals experience and are impacted by stigma. Further, empirical research assessing this difficult to access population is rare.

This study adds to the existing literature by employing a large, national sample to empirically explore the impact of stigma on outcomes within this population. Last, the findings from this dissertation study can be used to inform policymakers and treatment providers about the consequences experienced by partners of registrants and what factors may serve to buffer maladjustment.

This dissertation examines the impact of the courtesy stigma experienced by registrants’ partners on a variety of outcomes drawn from the literature. Three moderators

(social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure) were included in the model to assess how these variables act as potential risk/protective factors for those experiencing courtesy stigma. To my knowledge, no study has incorporated these factors into one model that examines the impact of stigma on partners of registrants. Testing this model provides a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of how courtesy stigma is internalized and potentially minimized. Taken together, this study is the first large, national study to propose and test a model of the experiences and perceptions of stigma in partners of registrants.

Theoretical Rationale

To understand how stigma impacts partners of registrants, this study applied a conceptual framework of courtesy stigma. Though courtesy stigma has been examined in a variety of contexts and through different approaches (self/internalized and public/external; see Goffman, 1968; Corrigan, Kerr, & Knudsen, 2005; Liu, Xu, Sun, & 5

Dumenci, 2014), it has not previously been integrated into a comprehensive model which incorporates sense of coherence, social support, and disclosure as moderators. The proposed comprehensive framework unifies each of these elements to provide a more inclusive understanding of the impact of courtesy stigma on individual outcomes (e.g., mental health, well-being, self-esteem, social isolation, and relationship quality). Further, courtesy stigma is likely to vary across relationship factors (e.g., whether the partner was with the registrant when the offense occurred), offense characteristic-related stigma (e.g., whether the registrants’ offense was committed against a minor or adult), and other related factors (e.g., if the registrant spent time incarcerated while in a relationship with the respondent).

Study Rationale

There are three major rationales for the current study which highlight the need for such research in both the academic and applied realms. The first of these was detailed in the previous section: This study advances theoretical applications of courtesy stigma on a variety of outcomes, in addition to examining potential factors (social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure) that may enhance or reduce the impact of stigma. Second, this study is the first to access and examine a nationally diverse sample of partners of registrants, providing a deeper understanding of an understudied population. Third, the study design and applied focus provided a ‘voice’ to an understudied and hard to reach population—affording potential implications for offender success and community safety.

Current approaches to policy with criminal offenders aim to emphasize restorative justice (Wood & Suzuki, 2016). Restorative justice is a more modern and alternative model of justice where the primary goal is to repair or restore a sense of 6 justice. This can take place through measures such as compensating the victims and using meaningful punishments for the offender that benefit the victim and community

(Bazemore, 1998). Typically, the emphasis is placed upon healing the victims, rehabilitating rather than punishing the offender, helping the offender to rebuild their moral and/or social selves, and to help restore and heal communities (Braithwaite, 2000).

Researchers have noted that restorative justice can contribute to reducing sexual offense recidivism and preventing initial sexual offending (Hopkins & Koss, 2005).

A restorative justice approach fosters social support systems further contributing to registrant reentry success and reduced recidivism (Duwe, 2013). Most research on this topic has examined social support via the involvement of communities (Duwe, 2013,

Zehr, 2002), nevertheless, partners and spouses can serve as critical social support mechanisms for registrants and can influence their outcomes. Consequently, partners of registrants may play a key role in rehabilitation and subsequent community safety.

However, if partners experience courtesy stigma which deteriorates their overall well- being, mental health, and relationships – they may be unable to serve as a social support for the registrant in the capacity that is needed. Thus, better understanding the factors which impact partners and their ability to provide sufficient social support for registrants is a first step in understanding their role in this process.

Overview of this Dissertation Study

This dissertation study provides a comprehensive understanding of how partners of registrants are impacted by stigma associated with the offense and current sexual offense related policies. This study explores these outcomes by testing an integrated model of courtesy stigma. Additional demographic and contextual factors (e.g., gender, 7 age, type of offense, length of relationship), hypothesized to impact outcomes also are included.

Chapter 2 discusses a history of sexual offense registration and notification policies in the U.S. In this chapter, I also discuss a range of constructs that can explain how partners of registrants are impacted by stigma and policy restrictions. More specifically, I review the extant literature and discuss the relationships among a) courtesy stigma, b) social support, c) sense of coherence, d) disclosure, e) subjective well-being, f) self-esteem, g) mental health, h) isolation, i) relationship outcomes, and j) the respondents’ perception of sexual offense history. Chapter 2 also details other related variables that are controlled for in this study and the subgroups of the sample that are of primary interest.

In Chapter 3, I present the specific models and hypotheses of this study. In

Chapter 4, I detail the methods employed including a description of the participants, procedures, measures, and the analysis plan. In Chapter 5, I detail the preliminary and primary quantitative analyses. I also review the preliminary analyses and findings from the qualitative responses. Chapter 6 presents a discussion of the implications, limitations, future directions, and conclusions from this dissertation study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Overview of Sexual Offending in the United States

To understand the development and rationale for creating sexual offense policies, it is important to first examine sexual offending in the United States. Obtaining accurate statistics is difficult however, as sexual offenses are gravely underreported (Wiseman,

2015). Despite this challenge, the estimates and trend data we are able to obtain provide substantial insight into the social issue of sexual offending. According to the FBI’s

Uniform Crime Report over 84,000 forcible rapes were reported to law enforcement in

2010; this is an estimate that has been consistently declining over the years (UCR, 2010).

Most recent reports from the UCR data indicate that rates of forcible rape have declined by 2.4% between 2016 and 2017 (FBI, 2017). The National Crime Victimization Survey

(NCVS) estimated that over 243,000 rapes/sexual assaults occurred in 2011 (Truman &

Planty, 2012). Longitudinal findings from this study also suggests that sexual offenses are steadily declining (Truman & Planty, 2012; Wiseman, 2015).

Social psychological researchers have further documented the decline in sexual crime frequency (Prescott, 2012). In addition, researchers have suggested there are various factors that impact desistance from sexual offending including aging of the offender (Hanson, 2000; Hanson, 2006) and the length of time the individual spends in the community without reoffending (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014).

Contrary to the common assumption that individuals who commit sexual offenses are life-course persistent offenders, most of these individuals will never be arrested or convicted again (Lussier, Harris, & McAlinden, 2016). 9

Predicting sexual offending is particularly difficult due to the heterogeneity of individuals considered to be sexual offenders (Robertiello & Terry, 2007). Even in attempts to develop typologies within classifications of offenders (i.e., those who have committed rape, females, juveniles, those who have committed crimes against children, internet-based offenders), researchers have indicated that each group varies broadly and cannot be considered homogenous (Robertiello & Terry, 2007). As a result, sexual offenders should be viewed as a highly heterogeneous group that must be considered on an individualized basis in terms of risk, offending patterns, and treatment amenability.

Researchers, however, have identified some patterns regarding sexual offending that are important to note, as they may relate to subsequent policy. First, descriptive accounts of registered sexual offenders have found that they are primarily white males

(Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011; Sandler & Freeman, 2009). Further, offenders are more likely to offend outside of their own neighborhoods and are most likely to victimize an individual they are familiar with as opposed to a stranger (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002; Levenson & Cotter, 2005).

In contrast to the declining rates of sexual offending, there has been a steep rise in the sensationalized overreporting of sexual offenses in the media that has persisted through recent decades (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2006; Kahn et al., 2017;

Wright, 2008). In addition, several tragic and gruesome cases were highly publicized and led to a public demand for harsher and more punitive methods of addressing sexual offenses (Kahn et al., 2017; Prescott, 2012; Robbers, 2009; Vasquez, Maddan, & Walker,

2008; Wright, 2008). Again, this reactionary response to a few cases and the public 10 misperception that sexual offending was rising were in direct contradiction with sexual offending trends.

Sexual Offense Registration Policy

Sexual offense registration and notification policies are relatively new to the

United States. Prior to 1994, no federal legislation regarding the public monitoring and tracking of offenders in the community existed. Around this time, several heinous cases which involved sexual violence and child victims gained the American public’s attention.

Although the empirical evidence at the time pointed toward declining sexual offense rates, public outcry for more punitive management of sexual offenders in response to these tragic offenses took precedence (Kahn et al., 2017; Prescott, 2012; Robbers, 2009;

Wright, 2008). Each piece of legislation contributed different facets to this series of registration and notification policies.

The first legislative act to go into effect was the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against

Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (1994). This act was part of a larger act implemented that year titled the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994 (SMART, 2019). Jacob Wetterling was an eleven-year-old boy who was kidnapped and murdered in 1989. Wetterling’s parents started the Jacob Wetterling

Foundation to advocate for more punitive laws to protect children, resulting in the 1994

‘Jacob Wetterling Act.’ This act was the first step in developing standards for states to track offenders through a registration system (SMART, 2019). The act also created a heightened class of offenders labeled as “Sexually Violent Predators” and required all offenders within this class to register for life. Other offenders that did not quite meet this classification were required to register for ten years. This act did not require public 11 registration or notification but did allow for the public to be notified when law enforcement deemed it necessary to protect the public (SMART, 2019).

Perhaps one of the most well-known cases is that of Megan Kanka. Kanka was a seven-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by a neighbor. Like Jacob Wetterling’s case, this tragic case received substantial media attention as Kanka’s rapist and murderer had a previous conviction of the sexual assault of a child. Many believed that Kanka’s murder could have been prevented had the community been aware of the offender’s history. As a result, Megan’s Law was implemented in 1996 (SMART, 2019). This legislative action required information regarding sexual offenders to be publicly disclosed in order to protect the community.

Between 1996 and 2003 various laws were implemented to expand upon the existing acts. These laws established law enforcement-based databases to track information regarding offenders (see the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and

Identification Act of 1996); established federal standards for registration and notification requirements, including the requirements of notification when moving to a new state and the requirement to participate in the National Sex Offender Registry (see the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriate Act of

1998); established a Sex Offender Management Assistance Program to help aide in compliance with registration requirements by state (see 1998 Protection of Children from

Sexual Predators Act); and mandated that online registries were to be developed and maintained at the state level (see the 2003 Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today [PROTECT] Act). 12

These laws, in addition to another tragic case, led to the creation of the Adam

Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (2006). Adam’s case took place in the 1980’s, though the legislation in his honor did not come until decades later. Adam Walsh was a six-year-old boy who was abducted from a shopping mall and murdered. The act named in his memory was developed to unite and revise the state-level existing registries by creating a federally based registration system with guidelines, often referred to by the first title of this act; the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). This act created federally based guidelines for registration and notification requirements, expanded to include Native American and other U.S. territory jurisdictions, and created several departments to administer SORNA and related funding.

While the previously reviewed legislation are the most well-known laws contributing to sex offender management, several additional acts were passed recently to meet further needs. These laws address the issue of online safety by requiring online internet identifiers to be collected within registration (see Keeping the Internet Devoid of

Predators Act [KIDS Act] 2008); establish regulations for sexual offenders convicted via court martial to participate in registration (see Military Sex Offender Reporting Act

2015); and address international travel of registered sexual offenders by sharing registration information with destination countries (see International Megan’s Law 2016).

Together, these acts, along with a series of amendments and extensions, have led to a set of restrictive policies that intend to monitor sexual offenders in the community.

These policies require states to maintain registration websites that act as public databases for information regarding individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses

(Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011; Tewksbury, 2005). Some of the 13 information commonly provided to the public about the offenders includes name, a photo, residential and work addresses, offense information, and tier level. Further, residency policies dictate where offenders can live, typically requiring them to remain a certain distance away from places children are known to frequent (e.g., public parks) (Socia;

2014, Tewksbury, 2005).

Despite the best intentions of policymakers to reduce recidivism and increase public safety, researchers have suggested that there is little to no evidence supporting the effectiveness of sexual offense registration and notification policies (Agan, 2011;

Vasquez, Maddan, & Walker, 2008; Wright, 2008). Furthermore, unintended collateral consequences have been experienced by registrants of the sexual offense registries. These registries publicly label the offenders which further stigmatizes them and creates additional barriers to successful reintegration. Potentially negative collateral consequences of sexual offense registration and notification policies include but are not limited to; loss of employment and financial resources, isolation, deterioration of social bonds, stigmatization, decline in mental health, loss of residency, harassment, and physical assault (Evans & Cubellis, 2015; Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Lussier, Harris, &

McAlinden, 2016; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Prescott, 2012; Socia, 2014). In some cases, substantial collateral consequences may actually increase their proclivity for other criminal activity due to the barriers they present for successful reentry (Levenson &

Cotter, 2005; Prescott, 2012; Tewksbury, 2005). Further, the potential collateral consequences are not limited to the offenders. Researchers have found that family members and partners of registrants may also experience stigma and subsequent consequences (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). 14

Theoretical Framework: Courtesy Stigma

Goffman (1963) introduced the theory of stigma which has provided a foundation for studying social deviance. The broader theory encompassed several typologies and sub-categories of stigma. This dissertation focuses primarily on the concept of courtesy, or associated, stigma. This theory posits that individuals who are associated with someone who is deemed to be ‘socially deviant’ can experience stigma (Goffman, 1963;

Harris, Evans, & Beckett, 2011; Larson & Lane, 2006; Pryor, Reeder, & Monroe, 2012).

There are many examples in the literature of how courtesy stigma may affect family members, spouses, caretakers, and workers in cases where the ‘deviant’ individual has a disease or health issue (Bachleda & El Menzhi, 2017; Lichtenstein, Sturdevant, &

Mujumdar, 2010), has a mental illness (Koro-Ljungberg & Bussing, 2009; Song, Mailick,

& Greenberg, 2018), or has committed a violent crime (Melendez, Lichtenstein, &

Dolliver, 2016). The negative consequences of courtesy stigma can be just as strong as it is for the primary individual experiencing stigma (Kulik et al., 2008; Larson & Lane,

2006). This dissertation study examines how courtesy stigma manifests itself within the lives of spouses and partners of registrants.

Stigma surrounding the registrants is especially strong and salient (Burchfield,

2012, Burchfield & Mingus, 2008; Farkas & Miller, 2007; Tewksbury, 2007, Zevitz &

Farkas, 2000). As a result, researchers have looked at courtesy stigma in relation to how it affects individuals who work with juveniles who have committed sexual offenses

(Asher, 2014), families of registrants (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009), and spouses of registrants (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). Researchers have employed various models to examine the effects of courtesy stigma (see Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Schneider & 15

Conrad, 1981). These models often incorporate factors which are assumed to contribute to the internalization of courtesy stigma including blame, shame, and guilt. Blame is one of the primary underlying narratives which can give rise to courtesy stigma (Corrigan &

Miller, 2004). Relatives and partners of violent criminals may receive some level of blame as society often believes that they either knew or should have known that the crime was a possibility (Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016). Shame is an emotion that is the source of stigma (Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016). Society often perceives family members and partners of deviant individuals as being somewhat accountable for their actions which contributes to familial shame (Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver,

2016). Stigma can also lead to feelings of guilt (Williams, 1987). Guilt is the level to which the partner feels that they are personally responsible or deserving of blame for the offenses that occurred.

Stigma also has been examined through two lenses – external and internal.

External stigma (also known as public stigma) refers primarily to stigmatizing perceptions that are endorsed by the public (Corrigan, 2004). Public stigma is often associated with experiences of discrimination and prejudice (Corrigan, 2004). On the other hand, internal stigma (or self-stigma) is when the individual internalizes perceptions about themselves as being socially unacceptable (Vogel, Wade, & Hackler, 2007). Self- stigma is often associated with more personal and internal outcomes such as reduced self- esteem (Vogel, Wade, & Hackler, 2007) and depression (Manos, Rusch, Kanter, &

Clifford, 2009).

Researchers have argued that external stigma contributes to self-stigma through the theoretical perspective of modified labeling theory (Link et al., 1989). However, 16 empirical support for this argument is largely limited to cross-sectional studies. Since most research regarding stigma for this population has focused on the internalized stigma, coupled with this study being cross-sectional as well – I will be focusing the main analyses primarily on internal (self) stigma. However, I am choosing to measure and include external (public) stigma to obtain an initial understanding of how it operates and impacts respondents within this sample.

The literature regarding how courtesy stigma is experienced and managed is sparse. However, some researchers have found that courtesy stigma can be resisted

(Bachleda & Menzhi, 2017). More specifically, faith in religion and interactions with social network can help individuals to manage stigmatization (Bachleda & El Menzhi,

2017). Further, whether one adopts and internalizes the negative attitudes related to the stigmatized identity can impact their outcomes. In fact, when one begins to internalize their stigmatized identity, they can begin to embody that stereotype even if they wish to conceal it (Oakley, Kanter, Taylor, & Duguid, 2012). The negative effects of internalized or perceived stigma can be just as negative as when the stigma is real and experienced including feelings of social isolation (Lillis, Levin, & Hates, 2011), shame (Oakley et al.,

2011), and declines in mental health (Guadiano & Miller, 2012)

There are several models of courtesy stigma that have been tested in the literature

(see Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Schneider & Conrad, 1981). Most of these models have focused on the internalization of courtesy stigma and potential negative outcomes of this internalization. Research on stigma, however, often looks at both the impact of self

(internalized) and public (external) stigma. Thus, in this dissertation study – both types of stigma will be measured, though the primary focus will remain on internalized stigma as 17 this is what is most commonly examined in the related literature. Related stigma theories have identified various potential moderating or protective factors that impact how an individual is affected by stigma. I expect that several of these may play a role in how partners of registrants are influenced by courtesy stigma including social support (Casale et al., 2019), sense of coherence (Świtaj et al., 2013; van Zelst, 2010), and whether one chooses to disclose or conceal the stigmatized identity (Schneider & Conrad, 1999). At this time, no research study has directly tested a model of courtesy stigma with a sample of partners of registrants. Researchers implementing qualitative methods with partners and family members of registrants have utilized a courtesy stigma framework to inform hypotheses and interpret findings (Bailey & Klein, 2018; Plogher, Stevenson, &

McCracken, 2016).

To my knowledge, no single study has incorporated all three contributing factors to courtesy stigma within one model, nor has any single study examined these three moderators. Testing this courtesy stigma model across a variety of potential outcomes provides a much more detailed and comprehensive understanding of how courtesy stigma is experienced, while providing direction for amelioration efforts. It further allows researchers to test if certain moderating factors drawn from the literature are more influential in some models than others; for example, social support may be more important when assessing the impact of courtesy stigma on social isolation than in assessing relationship quality as an outcome. Thus, each of these potential moderating variables (social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure) were integrated into the models of this dissertation study. Each of these postulated moderators will be discussed 18 in more detail in the next section. See Figure 1 for an overview of these moderation models.

Figure 1

Moderation Models 1-7 for Research Question 6.

Note. All models include three potential moderators. These same models were used for Research Question 7 with controls (age, relationship to offender, victimization, income, and self-registration) included.

Factors that may Moderate the Impact of Courtesy Stigma

As previously stated, several factors have been identified in the literature that may enhance or reduce the overall impact of courtesy stigma on the outcomes shown in Figure

1. Moderating variables are critical to assess in the proposed model, as they may provide insight into which factors can be integrated into interventions and resources to help improve outcomes for partners of registrants. These factors (social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure) are being examined as moderating variables in this study.

Social Support

Partners and family members of individuals convicted of sexual offenses can experience a sense of grief and loss (Bailey, 2018). Often, these individuals are mourning the physical loss of the family member due to incarceration (Bailey, 2018). This is disenfranchised grief; a form of grief or loss which is not considered to be socially acceptable. This form of grief may result in disapproval from society, which may lead to the grievers’ usual social supports withholding their support (Doka, 1989). With regards to registrants, disenfranchised grief may occur even when there is not a physical loss but rather a ‘psychosocial death’ or a loss of identity for the family members who love the person that they knew prior to the sexual offense and prior to the sexual offender label being applied to that person (Bailey, 2018).

Partners of registrants may experience their social supports removing themselves during these circumstances which can make them feel isolated. The grieving partner may also socially isolate themselves in an attempt to reduce stigma, which only further contributes to the reduction of their social support system (Kauffman, 1989). They may subjugate themselves in order to avoid the shame associated with the registrant and 20 offense (Jones & Beck, 2005). The partner may also experience stigma from potential supports who believe they knew or aided in the offending, further reducing the social support offered (Arditti, 2005). This reduction of social support is critical, as social support typically serves a large role in aiding individuals through the grieving process

(Bailey, 2018; Doka, 1989; Silver, Wortman, & Crofton, 1990).

Perceptions of social support are critical in understanding how stigma impacts an individuals’ outcomes. As mentioned above, lack of social support can increase the length of time it takes a person to work through the grieving process (Bailey, 2018; Doka,

1989; Silver, Wortman, & Crofton, 1990). Perceptions of social support from friends, family, and community have consistently been linked to mental health outcomes

(McDowell & Serovich, 2007; Thoits, 2011). In fact, perceived social support has been more strongly linked to these outcomes than has actual social support (McDowell &

Serovich, 2007; Thoits, 2011). Researchers who examine health-related stigma have found that perceived social support may play a role in buffering the negative impacts

(e.g., depression) stigma may have on the individual (Casale, Boyes, Pantelic, Toska, &

Cluver, 2019). It is evident that support can help one overcome the effects of courtesy stigma (Home, 2002).

In this dissertation, perceived social support is measured as it is expected to moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes. It is hypothesized that more perceived social support will reduce the negative impact (e.g., depression, social isolation, reduced well-being) of courtesy stigma, as shown in Figure 1.

Sense of Coherence

Sense of coherence was proposed as a central component within a larger framework, the salutogenic theoretical model of health (see Antonovksy, 1979). Sense of coherence is a global orientation that serves as a mechanism which facilitates successful coping with life stressors (Antonovsky, 1993). An individuals’ sense of coherence reflects their ability to respond to situations that are stressful, such as being stigmatized

(Koelen, Erikkson, & Cattan, 2017). Sense of coherence has three primary components that work to help one deal with life stressors; manageability, comprehensibility, and meaningfulness (Antonovsky, 1987; 1993). Previous studies have found positive relationships between sense of coherence and quality of life in patient/health-related samples (Broersma, Oeseburg, Dijkstra, & Wyna, 2018; Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2006).

Sense of coherence has been used across studies as main predictors, mediators, and moderators for health outcomes (Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2006). For example, researchers have found that sense of coherence serves as a mediator between perceived stress and depression in stroke patients (Guo et al., 2018). Sense of coherence has demonstrated positive correlations with better psychological well-being (Pallant & Lae, 2002), and with physical and psychological health (Antonovsky, 1987; Carstens & Spangenberg, 1997;

Flannery & Flannery, 1990)

Health and mental health research have examined how stigma experiences as a stressor are related to sense of coherence. The first study that included both stigma and sense of coherence examined the relationship between these factors (Lundberg, Hansson,

Wentz, & Bjorkman, 2009). This study found that an increased number of stigmatized rejection experiences leads to a reduced sense of coherence (Lundberg, Hansson, Wentz, 22

& Bjorkman, 2009). In these studies, researchers have proposed that sense of coherence can serve as a protective factor (Świtaj et al., 2013; van Zelst, 2010) against stigma. More specifically, sense of coherence can serve to reduce the extent to which stigma is experienced (Świtaj et al., 2013).

In this dissertation study, sense of coherence is expected to moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes. It is hypothesized that an increased sense of coherence will reduce the negative impact (e.g., depression, social isolation, reduced well-being) of courtesy stigma. Though I expect an increased sense of coherence to be related to more positive outcomes generally, most of the previous literature has focused on health and well-being outcomes. See Figure 1 for more information.

Concealment vs. Disclosure

In the model introduced by Schneider and Conrad (1981) which examined courtesy stigma in HIV/AIDS health professionals, they found that some individuals adjusted to minimize the effect of stigma, whereas others were unadjusted and more greatly impacted by the stigma. In their model, choosing to conceal one’s status as an

HIV/AIDS health professional is seen as a strategy that may be employed by an adjusted individual to minimize harm from courtesy stigma. Social support can often be beneficial in overcoming stigma (Home, 2001), except in the case where increased interactions with potential social supports actually exacerbate stigmatizing experiences, as it may make it difficult for the individual to manage their stigmatized identity (Koro-Ljungberg &

Bussing, 2009). Thus, the decision whether to disclose or conceal one’s association to a stigmatized individual can be tricky. 23

Whether registrants choose to conceal or disclose their registration status can impact how they are influenced by stigma (Dena, 2005; Fitzgerald O’Reilly, 2018). In line with these findings, I predict that whether an individual attempts to conceal or openly discloses their partner’s registration status may either minimize or exacerbate the impact of courtesy stigma. As a result, disclosure will be incorporated into the current model as a potential moderator variable.

In this dissertation study, disclosure regarding the registration status of the respondent’s partner is assessed and expected to moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes. Disclosure is complicated because it can either lead to better connections and trust with an individual’s social support system or it may lead them to experience increased stigma and vulnerability. Consistent with the theory of courtesy stigma, it is hypothesized that less disclosure will reduce the negative impact

(e.g., depression, social isolation, reduced well-being) of internalized courtesy stigma. An alternative hypothesis proposing that increased disclosure reduces the negative impact of courtesy stigma also may be true. If this is the case, it is possible that disclosure can help individuals to seek and gain needed social supports (Koro-Ljungberg & Bussing, 2009).

See Figure 1 for more information.

Perceptions of Sexual Offense History

I also expected that characteristics related to the offense committed would be associated with the level of stigma the partner will experience. Factors such as type of crime, whether there was violence or a weapon used, number of offenses committed, and age of the victim may all play into the extent to which partners of registrants experience courtesy stigma. Given the nature of this study, these factors are reported by the partner 24 of the registrant and I am unable to validate respondent reports. Thus, these factors represent the partners’ perceptions of the registrant’s sexual offense history. These perceptions are controlled for in the primary analyses when possible. In addition to the items regarding their perceptions of the offense history, I asked a series of items to further understand their perceptions of their partners offending. These items sought to ascertain whether they believe the offense truly occurred, whether they believe the registrant has been rehabilitated, and if they believe the registrant will reoffend.

Potential Outcomes of Interest on Partners

Subjective Well-Being

Subjective well-being is an individual’s affective and cognitive evaluation of their own life (Diener et al., 2003). Research has demonstrated that a decline in subjective well-being is related to experiencing stigma associated with various factors including mental illness (Perez-Garin, Molero, Bos, 2015), HIV (Doric, 2020), and sexual identity

(Nouvilas-Palleja et al., 2017). Further, researchers have found that this relationship also exists when individuals internalize courtesy stigma (Banga & Ghosh, 2017; Werner &

Shulman, 2013). It is expected that there will be a similar relationship between courtesy stigma of partners of registrants with their self-esteem.

Self-Esteem

Substantial literature has been devoted to better understanding self-esteem within the context of stigma and labeling. Generally, it has been found that self-stigmatization can lead to reduced self-esteem (Corrigan & Kleinlein, 2005; Corrigan & Miller, 2004).

Stigma may be internalized (Corrigan et al., 2009; Ritsher & Phelan, 2004) and this can lead to a reduction in self-esteem (Drapalski et al., 2013; Schulze & Angermeyer, 2003). 25

Though much of the research that has been conducted has been linked to mental health and health stigma, it is expected that there will be a similar relationship between courtesy stigma and self-esteem.

Mental Health (Depression/Anxiety/Stress)

Research has continuously demonstrated a link between experiences of stigma discrimination and depression/depressive symptoms across various stigmatized identities including eating disorders/obesity (see Hackman, Maupin, & Brewis, 2016; Jackson,

Beekan, & Wardle, 2015) and individuals who have committed sexual offenses (Culligan,

2009). Researchers have demonstrated that stigma experiences associated with being registered on a sexual offense registry are related to increased psychological stress

(Robbers, 2009). Further, children of registrants have higher levels of anxiety and depression (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009). In line with previous research, I expect that courtesy stigma will be related to depression, anxiety, and stress.

Isolation

As described previously, family members of people who are labeled as ‘deviant’

(e.g., someone who has HIV/AIDS) can also experience deviancy labeling. As a result, these individuals may become more isolated within their communities (Lichtenstein,

Sturdevant, & Mujumdar, 2010). Researchers have found similar effects in mothers of mass murderers in that the stigma they experience is associated with social isolation

(Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016). Social isolation can be a primary consequence of experiencing courtesy stigma (Birenbaum, 1970). Individuals who experience shame related to stigma may want to hide from the public isolating themselves (Corrigan & Miller, 2004). Based on a qualitative study, registrants often feel 26 that they are being socially outcast (Robbers, 2009). In this dissertation, I argue that partners of registrants are similarly stigmatized and thus, may experience social isolation as a result.

Romantic Relationships

Stigma related to being labeled as a sexual offender permeates the individuals’ relationships (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). Research has demonstrated that stigmatized individuals are likely to experience difficulties in relationships (Culligan, 2009; Whitesel,

2010). Thus, I expect that courtesy stigma will likely be associated with declines in relationship quality. These findings may vary depending on whether the current relationship is with the registrant or if they are in a new relationship with a non-registrant.

Other Related Variables (Controls)

There are several additional factors that can be expected to impact stigma and subsequent outcomes. These variables are being controlled for in this study whenever possible. These include gender, age, education, income/employment, relationship length, children, prior victimization, and spirituality/religiosity. For example, researchers have found that the blame contributing to courtesy stigma may be impacted by the gender of the individual (Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016). In the case of mothers of mass murderers, blame toward the mothers was associated with gender factors such as neglect

(Melendez, Lichtenstein, & Dolliver, 2016). In other words, individuals may be more susceptible to courtesy stigma as a result of gendered identities. Another example is that of age. Most of the recent literature regarding age and stigma deals with age stereotypes and older age stigma (see Chasteen & Cary, 2015; Day & Hitchings, 2011; Wildrick &

Raskin, 2010 for some examples). Due to the wide potential age range of the respondents 27 in this study, I anticipate that stigma may vary based upon age and will need to be considered.

Subgroups of Interest

There is an additional factor that may greatly impact the process of stigma internalization and how it further impacts outcomes: Whether the respondent was with the individual at the time the offense occurred or entered into the relationship after their partner had committed the offense. It is expected that the sex offense occurring during the relationship would negatively impact the relationship more severely, as the respondent is likely to experience more stigma through blame and guilt. However, if the offense occurred while they were together, but the respondent left the relationship, it is possible this mitigated the severity of the effects of stigma. Last, I expect the stigma to be least impactful to those who entered in a relationship with an individual who had previously committed a sexual offense. This expectation is due to a lack of blame and guilt surrounding their role in their partner’s offense. This dissertation study assesses each of these relationship types, though sample size did not allow for the examination of these relationship types in independent models.

An Integrated Model

As illustrated in Figure 1, I expect that internalized courtesy stigma will be associated with a variety of potential outcome variables related to mental health, well- being, and relationships. These outcome variables include subjective well-being, self- esteem, depression, anxiety, stress, social isolation, and relationship quality. I expect that higher levels of courtesy stigma will lead to poorer outcomes (e.g., lower subjective well-being). Additionally, I expect that there are three variables likely to moderate the 28 relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes. The first of these is that of perceived social support, which I anticipate having a buffering effect between high courtesy stigma and subsequent negative outcomes. I expect the same relationship dynamic for sense of coherence. Last, I expect that the level to which one attempts to conceal or disclose their relationship to a registrant will moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes.

While the models are simple, I expect that there are external factors that would impact the variables within these models. These factors are controlled for in the analyses when possible. Most of these control variables are demographic, historical, or relate to the relationship with the registrant. The control variables include respondent age, relationship to the offender, victimization, income, and self-registration. There also are several variables related to the respondents’ perceptions of the sexual offense of the registrant that I expect will impact courtesy stigma. These also are controlled for in the analyses where possible and include crime type, violent/non-violent offense, # of charges, age of victim, and gender of victim.

As previously mentioned, I anticipate that these models will be highly dependent upon the partner’s relationship with the registrant and when the offense occurred. For example, someone who was not with the registrant when the offense occurred are unlikely to experience substantial guilt or blame. The first group are respondents who were in a relationship with the offender prior to when the offense occurred, and they chose to stay. The second group are respondents who were in a relationship prior to when the offense occurred but left after the offense. The last group are respondents who entered a relationship with someone who was already registered as a sexual offender. I intended 29 to examine the models independently for each of these relationship types. However, sample size did not allow for this and therefore, relationship type will be explored through an examination of independent sample comparisons.

Chapter 3: The Dissertation Project

This dissertation study examined an integrated model of courtesy stigma experienced by partners of registrants to gain a comprehensive understanding of how these individuals experience internalized courtesy stigma and its impact on their overall well-being, mental health, and relationships. Most previous research with this population has focused on qualitative and anecdotal accounts of stigma. This current study is advantageous because it utilizes a validated scale to assess internalized courtesy stigma while taking into consideration various factors which may contribute to the strength of such stigma (e.g., offense characteristics). Likewise, this model emphasized the roles of perceived social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence; all of which may impact the relationship between stigma and study outcomes.

This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, this study examines a hard-to-reach population that has been gravely understudied. This allowed me to potentially provide empirical support for, or refute, existing qualitative evidence regarding the experiences of partners of registrants. Second, this dissertation examined internalized courtesy stigma in a more comprehensive manner than has been previously accomplished. The models can be found in Figure 1. Further, inclusion of the potential moderators of social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure allowed me to identify and further explain potential risk and protective factors regarding the impact courtesy stigma may have on a registrant’s partner. In addition, examining how this process varies across subgroups and other important individual factors (e.g., gender, relationship length, prior victimization), demonstrate how these factors impact the process of internalizing courtesy stigma and affect outcomes of partners. Last, this study examined how partners 31 of registrants experience courtesy stigma and how this further affects their well-being, mental health, and relationships to better understand the overarching impact of registration policy and restrictions.

Positionality

Research topics, such as the one examined within this dissertation study, can be impacted by the historical context in which the research took place. As such, it is important that historical positionality is briefly examined to provide the reader the context needed to critically interpret the study and findings. In this specific study, there are several important historical factors to consider that can provide future readers with a better understanding of the context of the time influencing the data and interpretation of the current findings. First, sexual offending is a widely discussed topic in the current U.S. culture and was highlighted in the global #MeToo social movement that began in 2017

(Hornle, 2018). The online campaign drew significant attention to the prevalence of sexual offending and provided an opportunity for victims of sexual harassment and assault to share their stories and has led to considerable growth in related activism

(Rhode, 2019). At the same time, recent research and legislative actions have emphasized the complexity in defining sexual assault and consent (Beres, 2007; Fenner, 2017;

Muehlenhard et al., 2016) which can impact attitudes of sexual offending and victimization. Further, the U.S. has experienced shifts in public discourse and widespread reform efforts aimed at ending mass incarceration (Beckett et al., 2018). These political and cultural shifts have emphasized reducing overly punitive sanctions and may contribute to further transformations of justice responses and policies in the upcoming years (Beckett et al., 2018). Social movements related to sexual victimization, 32 reconceptualization of sexual offending and consent, and political and public attitude trends surrounding punishment and rehabilitation should be considered when examining the data and findings from this study.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Applying concepts from courtesy stigma, sense of coherence, and social support frameworks, the proposed dissertation examines an integrated model to better understand how the stigma associated with being a registrant’s partner relates to a variety of mental health, relationship, and well-being outcomes. Based on the literature that was reviewed in this chapter, the research questions and hypotheses listed below are examined within this study. Figure 1 illustrates the integrated models of courtesy stigma experiences of registrants’ partners.

RQ1: How does courtesy stigma experienced by registrants’ partners relate to

mental health, well-being, and relationship outcomes?

Hyp1a: Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will be associated

with lower subjective well-being.

Hyp1b: Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will be associated

with lower self-esteem.

Hyp1c-e: Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will be associated

with decreased mental health (e.g., higher reports of anxiety, stress, and

depression).

Hyp1f: Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will be associated

with increased social isolation. 33

Hyp1g: Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will be associated

with reduced relationship quality.

RQ2 Do the relationship subgroups (registration occurred during relationship, registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was aware, and registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was unaware) experience courtesy stigma differently?

RQ3: How do the relationship subgroups (registration occurred during relationship, registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was aware, and registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was unaware) differ across study outcomes?

RQ4: How do background factors (crime type, violent vs. nonviolent offense, number of charges, and age of victim) relate to courtesy stigma?

RQ5: How do background factors (crime type, violent vs. nonviolent offense, number of charges, and age of victim) relate to outcomes?

RQ6: How do perceived social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure influence the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and outcomes?

Hyp6a-g: Perceived social support will moderate the relationship between

courtesy stigma and outcomes. As perceived social support increases, the

relationship between courtesy stigma and the outcomes decreases – such

that when there is a high level of internalized stigma but also the

respondent has the perception of strong social supports they will be less

likely to have poorer outcomes (i.e., lowered well-being, lowered self- 34

esteem, poorer mental health, increased social isolation, poorer

relationship outcomes).

Hyp6h-n: Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship between

courtesy stigma and outcomes. As sense of coherence increases, the

relationship between courtesy stigma and the outcomes decreases – such

that when there is a high level of internalized stigma but also the

respondent has a strong sense of coherence, they will be less likely to have

negative outcomes (i.e., lowered well-being, lowered self-esteem, poorer

mental health, increased social isolation, poorer relationship outcomes).

Hyp6o-u: Disclosure will moderate the relationship between courtesy

stigma and outcomes. It is hypothesized that concealment will act to

protect the individual from stigma and thus, the strength of the relationship

between courtesy stigma and the outcomes decreases – such that when an

individual makes efforts to conceal their stigmatized identity, they will be

less likely to have negative outcomes (i.e., lowered well-being, lowered

self-esteem, poorer mental health, increased social isolation, poorer

relationship outcomes).

RQ7: How do perceived social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure influence the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and outcomes, when controlling for age, relationship to offender, victimization, income, and self- registration?

Hyp7a-g: Perceived social support will moderate the relationship between

courtesy stigma and outcomes when controlling for age, relationship to 35 offender, victimization, income, and self-registration. As perceived social support increases, the relationship between courtesy stigma and the outcomes decreases – such that when there is a high level of internalized stigma but also the respondent has the perception of strong social supports they will be less likely to have poorer outcomes (i.e., lowered well-being, lowered self-esteem, poorer mental health, increased social isolation, poorer relationship outcomes).

Hyp7h-n: Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes when controlling for age, relationship to offender, victimization, income, and self-registration. As sense of coherence increases, the relationship between courtesy stigma and the outcomes decreases – such that when there is a high level of internalized stigma but also the respondent has a strong sense of coherence, they will be less likely to have negative outcomes (i.e., lowered well-being, lowered self-esteem, poorer mental health, increased social isolation, poorer relationship outcomes).

Hyp7o-u: Disclosure will moderate the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes when controlling for age, relationship to offender, victimization, income, and self-registration. It is hypothesized that concealment will act to protect the individual from stigma and thus, the strength of the relationship between courtesy stigma and the outcomes decreases – such that when an individual makes efforts to conceal their stigmatized identity, they will be less likely to have negative outcomes 36

(i.e., lowered well-being, lowered self-esteem, poorer mental health, increased social isolation, poorer relationship outcomes).

Chapter 4: Method

This chapter provides information regarding the participants, materials, and procedures involved in this dissertation study. This study was conducted with University of Nevada, Reno Institutional Review Board approval (protocol number 1456813-1 dated

07/16/2019). Data collection began online in July of 2019 and continued until November

2019. A sample of partners and spouses of registrants was recruited to participate in an online study regarding their experiences with internalized courtesy stigma associated with their partnership. Given the unique challenges associated with recruiting this sample, a complex and comprehensive sampling strategy was employed to ensure a sufficient sample size. This chapter outlines the challenges associated with recruitment, all sampling strategies employed, the overall method and design of the study, and all measures utilized.

Recruitment Challenges

Social psychological researchers are often interested in conducting research targeted toward sensitive topics and with populations that are vulnerable or hard-to-reach.

Obtaining data from such populations can be elemental in understanding and describing sensitive topics (Pryor, 2004). Conducting this type of research is fundamental in helping to pinpoint areas for improvement in resources, interventions, and policies to address the social issue of interest (Pryor, 2004). However, individuals who are considered “hard-to- reach” are inherently difficult to study due to access issues. This dissertation surveyed partners and spouses of registrants. Though they themselves are not typically deemed a vulnerable population, they are certainly considered to be a hard-to-reach population.

Partners of registrants may experience courtesy stigma and discrimination due to their 38 association with an offender. To better understand why this population is so difficult to reach, we must first examine why registrants themselves are so hard-to-reach.

Registrants can be deemed as a vulnerable and/or hard-to-reach population due to their status on the registry and in the public eye. Potential respondents with a criminal history are especially difficult to reach when targeted outside of the criminal justice system (Lussier, Harris, & McAlinden, 2016). These individuals, such as registrants, may be especially reluctant to participate in research studies (Lussier, Harris, & McAlinden,

2016; Tewksbury, 2005). This may be justified, stemming from concerns about risks of participation and from a lack of desire to give back to society when that society has subjected them to such harsh levels of punishment and stigma (Lussier, Harris, &

McAlinden, 2016).

If respondents are concerned that their participation in research may put them at risk, they may be less likely to choose to participate. Risks can range from making the respondent feel uncomfortable during the study to causing them to be concerned that disclosure within their responses could lead to parole violations or future prosecution

(Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014; Pryor, 2004). This may be particularly salient for registrants as questions may be sensitive if related to their sexual offending history

(Tourangeau & Smith, 1996) or if they are concerned that disclosure of information that is in violation of their registration requirements or parole could lead to future punishments (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014, p. 107; Fox, 2017; Pryor, 2004). When researching registrants, response rates are expected to be low due to the difficulty of access (Tewksbury, 2005). One study of this population had a response rate of 15.4% and 39 the authors believed that was more than sufficient given the population (Tewksbury,

2005).

Based on a power analysis, a minimum of 324 participants was estimated to detect medium-sized effects (power of β = .85, and α = .05) to test the full mediation model with all anticipated controls. To account for potential missing data and to ensure cells were of sufficient sizes for proposed comparisons and statistical analyses, I planned to oversample. Thus, the goal was to obtain approximately 500 participants for this study.

To reach this sample size, a comprehensive snowball recruitment strategy was employed.

Sampling Strategies

As previously outlined, researching stigmatized groups can be difficult as they may be reluctant to participate due to lack of trust in the research team, perceived harms of the research, and stigma (Bonevski et al., 2014). To mitigate these challenges, I employed several strategies that have proven effective in increasing response rates and participation. First, partners of registrants were recruited through a variety of outlets.

Unlike with registrants, there was no master organizational connection (e.g., online registries) or contact list that can be used to target this population. This made accessing potential respondents especially difficult. To my knowledge, only one study has attempted to conduct an online survey with this population (Levenson & Tewksbury,

2009). That study implemented a snowball sampling technique to gather responses from partners and family members of registrants, which yielded a sample size of over 500.

This current study also employed a snowball sampling method, as the results from the previous study indicated that the desired sample size could be achieved through this strategy. 40

When using a snowball technique, communication is fundamental (Sadler, Lee,

Lim & Fullerton, 2010). Thus, the initial contacts for this study were made to individuals and organizations of authority in hopes that they would help disseminate the research survey to those who are eligible. Letters/emails were sent to treatment centers, parole and probation offices, sex offender registry administration offices, advocacy groups, and to organizations that support treatment and research surrounding sex offenses.

By choosing reputable contacts that respondents are more likely to trust, it was hoped that participation would be increased. In addition to increasing participation from respondents, it also is essential to access gatekeepers to aide in recruitment efforts.

Encouraging gatekeeper support and employing them to pass along the study to potential participants is essential for reaching hard-to-reach populations. Researchers have suggested various ways to improve gatekeeper participation and referral activity, including keeping them fully informed regarding the research (Bonevski et al., 2014).

Additionally, researchers suggest developing recruitment materials for the gatekeepers to share with potential participants. This reduces the burden and time commitment being asked of gatekeepers (Bonevski et al., 2014; Loftin, Barnett, Bunn, & Sullivan, 2005). As such, all gatekeepers were provided with additional details regarding the purpose of the study to ensure they could feel comfortable disseminating the survey link.

An initial list of over 200 gatekeeper contacts was created prior to dissemination but was continuously added to as new potential gatekeepers were identified. Initial emails were sent, followed by two follow-up emails to elicit more responses (Dillman, Smyth, &

Christian, 2014). An email template can be found in Appendix C, however, emails were slightly tailored as needed. I further solicited survey responses through social media 41 postings. These posts were shared approximately once every two weeks on Facebook,

Twitter, LinkedIn, and Reddit. See Table 1 below for an overview of the number of gatekeeper sources contacted. Responses from a number of gatekeepers indicated that survey links were posted on a variety of blogs, included in newsletters, posted on groups’ social media pages, and sent directly to potential respondents via email. Many treatment providers also printed flyers (found in Appendix C) and passed them out to registrants to share with their partners.

Table 1

Snowball Sampling Gatekeeper List

Mode of Gatekeeper List Approx # Description Contact Contacted Social Twitter Unable to I began sharing on social media on 7/16/2019. Media calculate Shared on my personal Twitter Account – which was then often shared by others. I attempted to re-share the links bi-weekly until recruitment concluded (Nov 2019). Social Facebook Unable to I began sharing on social media on 7/16/2019. Media calculate Shared on my personal Facebook account – which was then often shared by others. I attempted to re-share the links bi-weekly until recruitment concluded (Nov 2019). Social Reddit Unable to I created a sub-thread within a Reddit thread Media calculate which was primarily utilized by registrants or relatives (Sep 2019). I did this under a Reddit account associated with this project email address. I tried to post on it periodically to get it additional attention. A few people commented but it’s not possible to track how many people saw the post. Discussi Support-for- Unable to Posted the recruitment materials on a discussion on families.boards.net calculate board specifically for ‘Families of Sex Board Offenders’ on 9/24/19. I monitored this board, answered questions, and provided additional information about the project as needed. 42

Several people indicated that they were sharing the link/materials with their support groups or other people they knew that qualified. Phone Sex Offense 88 I attempted to contact all 50 state registry Calls & Registry Offices offices, a number of tribal registry offices, and Email the registry office of Washington DC. I contacted all offices with email addresses listed via email (65 available). All others were called. I left voicemails, sometimes spoke to persons, and tried to get email addresses for persons to contact when possible. For the most part, the registry offices all declined to serve as a gatekeeper. Email Committee 5 Emails were sent to all 5 of my dissertation Members committee members on 7/16/2019. Committee members were asked to share the survey details/materials to any professional contacts they had that may serve as gatekeepers and to share on their social media if comfortable. Email UNR Colleagues 13 Emails were sent to a number of colleagues and and Contacts classmates at the University of Nevada, Reno on 7/16/2019. Recipients were asked to share the survey details/materials to any professional contacts they had that may serve as gatekeepers and to share on their social media if comfortable. Email RWU Faculty and 7 Emails were sent to a number of my previous Advisors faculty at Roger Williams University on 7/16/2019. Recipients were asked to share the survey details/materials to any professional contacts they had that may serve as gatekeepers and to share on their social media if comfortable. Email PSU Behrend 5 Emails were sent to a number of my previous Faculty and faculty and advisors at Pennsylvania State Advisors University, the Behrend College - on 7/16/2019. Recipients were asked to share the survey details/materials to any professional contacts they had that may serve as gatekeepers and to share on their social media if comfortable. Email Professional 35 Emails were sent to a number of professional Organizations and organizations and advocacy groups related to Advocacy Groups this topic area. Some of these organizations include (but are not limited to): Association for 43

the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network, Safer Virginia, ACLU, Arkansas Time After Time, Illinois Voices for Reform, Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, Florida Action committee, Oklahoma Coalition for Sex Offender Management, Women Against Registry, Citizens for Criminal Justice Reform, Sexual Abuse Ends Now, Zero Abuse Project, and Southern Center for Huma Rights. A number of the advocacy groups (specifically those related to SORNA reform) responded and indicated that they would share the links on their listservs, blogs, social media pages, or in their newsletters. Email Professional 20 Emails were sent on 7/31/2019 to twenty of Dr. Contacts (of Dr. Marsh’s professional contacts through his work Shawn Marsh) in the Judicial Studies Program at the University of Nevada, Reno. Most of these contacts are mid-to-late individuals who work within the justice system in some capacity (e.g., judicial officers). Email Blog and Websites 32 Emails were sent to a number of individuals related to Sexual who run/manage blogs, forums, and websites Offending that provide resources related to sexual Resources offending (e.g., access to resources, information regarding policy reform, legal updates). Examples include, but are not limited to: SexOffenderHelp.Com, Prison Talk, Sex Offender One Stop Resource, Reform Sex Offender Laws in Wisconsin, Reentry USA. A few of these individuals responded to indicate that they planned to share the link on their pages or would send it out in an email.

Phone Department of 140+ I attempted to contact all 50 state & Calls & Corrections and Washington DC department of corrections Email Probation / Parole and/or probation and parole services. Some of Services these were through the state-level contacts and others were at the county/city level jurisdictions depending on the contact information I was able to obtain. Anyone with an email address was contact via email (over 100) And all others were called. Some states provided lists of emails for contacts in different counties, so I 44

sent mass emails out to these groups. Very few responded or got back to me. All that did respond declined to serve as a gatekeeper. Email Treatment 136 Emails were sent to a number of individuals Providers, who practice therapy, run treatment centers, or Ministries, manage/provide other types of services for Therapists and offenders. These individuals were found on Counselors, and resource websites specifically for registrants. Service Providers Approximately 35 of these responded to my requests. Most planned to share the link. A few requested paper flyers to hand out at support groups/treatment groups. A few declined to serve as a gatekeeper. Email Housing / 19 I attempted to locate and contact housing Residency (apartments and group homes), residency Resources for resources, and reentry assistance offices Offenders specifically for registrants. Of those 19 that I contacted, I was able to talk with nine of them. Eight agreed to serve as gatekeepers and either emailed the link to their residents directly or printed and sent them flyers in the mail. However, most of these had a very small number of residents. Phone Lawyers 22 I attempted to locate and contact lawyers, Calls & /Attorneys and attorneys, legal aid, and law firms that Email Law Firms specifically provide services to individuals who are registered or who have been charged with sexual offenses. I mostly sent emails. I tried to contact 3 by phone. I was only able to speak with 1 person by phone only received 2 return emails. All three individuals that I talked to declined to serve as a gatekeeper. 517+ At minimum, over 500 emails/phone calls were made. Though, only a very limited number (<50) indicated that they would share the link. Note. Any contacts that were emailed but did not respond received up to two follow-ups.

Last, survey incentives were included to increase potential interest and participation in the study. Grant funding provided these incentives through SPSSI’s

(Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) grant-in-aid program. This funding 45 allowed for a raffle (four $100 and twelve $50 digital Amazon gift cards). Given that this is a hard-to-reach population that may be reluctant to participate in research, employing these strategies were vital in successfully recruiting a sufficiently sized sample. The combination of utilizing an easily accessible online survey, recruiting through a variety of gatekeepers and strategies, and using survey incentives was critical in helping to obtain a robust, national sample.

Recruitment and Design

An online survey was developed and implemented to ease respondents’ ability to participate in the study. The online format provides flexibility to participate in a preferred location at a time that is convenient for the respondent. This format also reduces the overall time commitment by not requiring any travel to participate in the study in-person.

Finally, this format provides the participants with additional protection and anonymity so they can feel comfortable in providing honest and open responses. Unfortunately, this approach may have excluded individuals living in a household with a registrant that has strict restrictions on internet access, as the potential respondent may not have heard about or had the ability to take the survey. Some of the gatekeepers working with this specific subpopulation attempted to solve this issue by offering public computers and iPads to complete the survey outside of the home.

Eligibility requirements were indicated within the recruitment materials. An anonymous link to the Qualtrics survey was attached (or written on flyers) for dissemination through each of the outlined sampling approaches. Once a potential participant clicked the survey link, they were asked to respond to a series of screening 46 questions to determine whether they met the following eligibility requirements for the study:

• Must be a United States citizen

• Be at least 18 years of age

• Must currently or have previously been in a romantic (spouse or partner)

relationship with someone who is a registered sexual offender.

If any individuals did not meet the minimum requirements to participate in the study, they were thanked for their interest and informed that they did not qualify.

All additional measures employed in the dissertation survey are outlined below in the order they were presented in the survey. Individuals responded to a series of demographic items including their age, gender, education level, etc. In addition, respondents answered a series of questions to provide details regarding their relationship with the registrant including length of relationship, partner’s age, and type of relationship. Respondents then provided details surrounding the nature of the registrants’ registration status, offense committed, and tier level. In addition to the screening, demographic, relationship, and registrant items – the respondents completed a series of self-report measures about their experiences being in a relationship with a registrant, as well as self-report measures regarding their own mental health, well-being, and relationships.

Measures

Demographics. The questionnaire included seventeen demographic items to capture more information about the respondent. These questions captured gender, age, race, education, employment/income, parent-status and number of children, sexual orientation, 47 political beliefs and identification, religiosity, and state of residence. This section of the questionnaire also included an item to assess whether the respondent had ever experienced a sexual assault. There also was an item to determine whether the respondent is or has have ever been registered on a sex offense registry themselves. Last, an item was included to determine how the respondent learned about the survey.

Open-Ended Items (Set 1). To gather a deeper understanding of the experiences of partners of registrants, several open-ended items were asked. These items were split up throughout the survey to reduce the cognitive load of responding to this type of question format. The first set of items included two open-ended items, which were “What was the worst thing that has happened to you as a result of your partner being registered?” and

“What is the best thing that has happened to you a result of your partner being registered?” Respondents were asked to respond in as much detail as possible. There were no character/word limits associated with these item responses.

Relationship with Registrant. These seven items were used to gather a better understanding surrounding the respondent’s relationship to the registrant. The questions gather whether they are currently in a relationship and what type of relationship (e.g., married, dating, etc.). One item assesses the overall length of the relationship.

Additionally, those who indicated that they are no longer with the registrant were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt their partner’s registration status contributed to their break-up. Further, one item asks the respondent how they learned about their partners registration status. Last, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they feel that their partner’s registration status negatively impacted their relationship. 48

Relationship Quality. These nine items assess overall relationship quality. All items are rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely). Scores from this scale are summed and higher scores overall indicate higher levels of relationship quality. An example item is “How happy are you with your relationship?” This scale obtained an alpha of .95 in this dissertation study.

Registrant Demographics and Offense Details. Sixteen items were used to gather information regarding the respondent’s partner. It is understood that these items are answered to the best ability and knowledge of the respondent. Given this, respondents were provided with ‘I do not know’ response options to the majority of questions or could choose to skip items they did not have the knowledge to answer. The demographic questions include the partner’s gender, age, and race. The offense detail items include start date and length of registration requirement, state of offense and of current registration, age at first offense, tier level, specific offenses of which the partner was convicted, number of offenses, age of youngest victim, and whether the offenses included violence or a weapon. There also is an additional item to assess whether the partner is currently registered. There are three items in this section which include Likert-style response options to assess how often the respondent talks to their partner about the registry and the offense(s) and also to determine the extent to which they believe they serve as an important social support for their partner.

External (public) Courtesy Stigma. These eighteen items were adapted from Liu,

Xu, Sun, & Dumenci (2014) courtesy stigma scales. The original scale was used to assess public HIV-related stigma. This scale was adapted to be related to sex offense registration rather than HIV. The reported overall internal reliability for this scale was a Cronbach’s 49 alpha of .93. All items are rated on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = disagree to 4 = agree). An example item is “People would not be willing to socialize with registered sex offenders.” Ratings are summed and higher scores indicate a higher perception of public courtesy stigma. This scale obtained an alpha of .95 in this dissertation study.

Internal (self) Courtesy Stigma. These twenty items were adapted from Liu, Xu,

Sun, & Dumenci (2014) courtesy stigma scales. The original scale was used to assess internalized (self) HIV-related stigma. This scale was adapted to be related to sex offense registration rather than HIV. The reported overall internal reliability for this scale was a

Cronbach’s alpha of .92. All items are rated on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 4 = all of the time). An example item is “Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that people treat me differently.” Ratings are summed and higher scores indicate higher levels of internalized courtesy stigma. This scale obtained an alpha of .92 in this dissertation study.

Disclosure. Five items were used to assess respondents’ level of concealing or disclosing that their partner is a registered sex offender. All items are rated on a seven- point Likert-type scale (1 = I always completely conceal to 7 = I always openly disclose).

The items assess whether the respondent discloses to family members, friends, coworkers, neighbors, or people they have just met. An example item is “To what extent do you conceal or disclose that your partner is a registered sexual offender to your family members?” Items from this scale are summed and higher scores on the overall scale indicate higher levels of disclosure. This scale obtained an alpha of .89 in this dissertation study. Additionally, there are eight items that follow this sub-scale which are 50 used to better understand disclosure. The items ask questions about how many people know about their partner’s registration status and how people found out.

Social Isolation. These nine items are adapted from Murberg & Edvin (2001) to assess the respondent’s level of social isolation. All items are rated on a seven-point

Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 7 = very much). Scores from this scale are summed and higher scores overall indicate higher levels of isolation. An example item is “You feel that being in a relationship with a registered sexual offender makes it difficult to participate in social events.” This scale obtained an alpha of .90 in this dissertation study.

Registrants’ notification requirements. These seven items are adapted from

Levenson & Tewksbury (2009) and were used in a broader survey of family members of registrants. The items were modified to ask about “my partner” rather than their original wording of “my family member.” Response options include yes or no. The items assess the registrant’s mandated requirements regarding community notification. An example item is “In my neighborhood, flyers were posted to show neighbors that my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby.”

Perceptions of registry related to the partner. These five items also are adapted from

Levenson & Tewksbury (2009). The items were modified to ask about “my partner” rather than their original wording of “my family member.” All items are rated on a four- point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The items assess the respondents’ perceptions surrounding the registry as it relates to their partner. An example item is “The information listed about my partner on the Internet registry helps the public know how to protect themselves.” 51

Collateral consequences to partners. These nine items also are adapted from

Levenson & Tewksbury (2009) and modified similarly as the other items from this study.

Response options include yes or no. The items assess the collateral consequences that are experiences by the partner. An example item is “I have been physically assaulted or injured by someone who found out that my partner is a sex offender.”

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). This 12-item scale is used to assess perceived social support (Zimet et al., 1988). All items are rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree).

An example item is “I can talk about my problems with my friends.” The reliability and validity of this scale has been demonstrated with various samples, including but not limited to pregnant women (Zimet et al., 1990), combat veterans (Wilcox, 2010), and psychiatric outpatients (Cecil, Stanley, Carrion, & Swann, 1995). The reported overall internal reliability for this scale was a Cronbach’s alpha of .92 (Dahlem, Zimet, &

Walker, 1991). This scale is uniquely designed to be used as either an overall assessment of perceived social support (Clara et al., 2003) or through various dimensions of social support which is measured in its subscales for family (Cronbach’s alpha = .90), friends

(Cronbach’s alpha = .94), and significant others (Cronbach’s alpha = .95; Dahlem, Zimet,

& Walker, 1991). This scale obtained an alpha of .94 in this dissertation study.

Sense of Coherence (SOC-13). The original Sense of Coherence instrument is a

29-item scale used to examine respondents’ overall sense of coherence (Antonovsky,

1987). For this study, I employed the thirteen-item version of this scale. The thirteen items all were selected from the original 29-item scale (Jakobsson, 2011). The original scale included three factors creating three subscales; manageability 10-items, 52 comprehensibility 11-items, and meaningfulness 8-items. It is recommended to score the shortened version as one factor. All items are rated on a seven-point Likert type scale.

The response options always remain on the seven-point scale but change to match each question. Example include: 1 = very often to 7 = very seldom or never; 1 = no clear goals or purpose at all to 7 = very clear goals and purpose; and 1=full of interest to

7=completely routine. Cronbach’s alpha has ranged between .74 and .91 for this thirteen- item scale (Antonovsky, 1993). The full scale has demonstrated higher Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients compared to the short scale (Antonovsky, 1993), however, for the purposed of this study and limited space I chose to implement the shortened version. An example item from the SOC-13 scale is “How often do you have the feeling that there’s little meaning in the things you do in your daily life?” The scale obtained an alpha of .87 in this dissertation study.

The Well-Being Scale (WeBS). This 29-item scale is being used to examine individuals’ subjective well-being (Lui & Fernando, 2018). All items are rated on a six- point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). An example item is

“I know I can count on my friends and/or family in a time of crisis.” Cronbach’s alpha was .92 for this scale (Liu & Fernando, 2018). The five subscales also showed adequate internal consistency; financial well-being ( = .80), physical well-being ( = .81), social well-being ( = .79), hedonic well-being ( = .85), and eudaimonic well-being ( = .83).

To get an overall subjective well-being score the scores on all items are averaged. The same can be done on each individual subscale to obtain individual well-being scores for each. Higher scores indicate increased well-being. The overall scale obtained an alpha of

.95 in this dissertation study. 53

The WeBS scale, though new, is more comprehensive than previous iterations of similar scales as it utilized new research findings in the development of items. As a result, this scale assesses well-being across physical, financial, social, hedonic, and eudaimonic domains. Previous measures have often omitted measuring satisfaction with social connectedness (Keyes, 1998), an important aspect of subjective well-being. This is a major limitation of alternative scales (Liu & Fernando, 2018; Keyes, 1998) but specifically so in the context of this study in which I selected social isolation as an outcome. The WeBS scale allows for an assessment of how individuals navigate social challenges and experience social connectedness as it relates to their well-being. Thus, this updated, and more comprehensive scale was chosen as it incorporates various facets that make up the construct of subjective well-being.

Brief Social Desirability Scale (BSDS). This four-item scale examines the respondents’ social desirability. The short-form social desirability scale has been tested previously and there is evidence that it is valid, reliable, and free from gender specificity

(Haghighat, 2007). Items are answered by selecting yes or no. The Brief Social

Desirability Scale (BSDS) was adapted from the Marlowe Crowne inventory (1960) which included 33 items (Haghighat, 2007). An example item in this scale is “Do you always practice what you preach?” This scale is practical for use in this study due to it being short in nature and thus, able to be incorporated in the larger survey. It will allow us to examine if the extent to which individuals who tend to respond in a socially desirable manner. The number of socially desirable responses are summed to get a total score. 54

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale. This ten-item scale examines the respondents’ personal self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). This scale measures positive and negative feelings about the self, capturing global self-worth. All items are rated on a four-point

Likert-type scale (0= strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree). An example item is “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.” Cronbach’s alpha was .92 for this scale (Liu &

Fernando, 2018). Items are summed and the scale scores range from 0-30. Scores between 15-25 are considered to be within normal range while scores below 15 suggest low self-esteem. This scale obtained an alpha of .91 in this dissertation study.

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). This twenty-one-item scale examines respondents’ levels of depression, anxiety, and stress in the past week. Each item on these three subscales are rated on a four-point Likert-type scale indicating the severity of the experience (0 = Did not apply to me at all, 1 = Applied to me to some degree or some of the time, 2 = applied to me to a considerable degree or a good part of the time, and 3 = Applied to me very much, or most of the time. Each subscale has seven items. An example item from the stress scale is “I found it difficult to relax.” An example item from the depression scale is “I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling at all.” An example item from the anxiety scale is “I felt I was close to panic.” Cronbach’s alphas for each of the subscales for the DASS-21 were .94 for depression, .87 for anxiety, and .91 for stress (Antony et al., 1998). This scale obtained alphas of .94 for depression,

.87 for anxiety, and .88 for stress, in this dissertation study.

Open-Ended Items (Set 2). The second set of qualitative items included two open- ended items, which were “Society may already have preconceived notions about partners of registered sexual offenders. If you had a chance to address the public and talk to them 55 about your experiences being a partner of a registrant, what would you tell them?” and

“In recent years, researchers have been trying to better understand how sex offender registration and notification policies impact the families and partners of registrants. If you had the opportunity to talk to policymakers who were considering how to reform or improve existing policies, what would you say?” Respondents were asked to respond in as much detail as possible and were given an essay-style text box to respond it. There were no character/word limits associated with these items.

Items for Follow-Up Research. This section of the questionnaire gathered contact information for individuals who were interested in participating in future research studies related to this topic. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they would be interested in being interviewed for research purposes in the future.

If the respondent selected “yes” they were prompted to click an external Qualtrics link. This opened the contact form in a new window and prevented contact information from being linked in any way to the respondents’ data. There was a disclaimer on the screen to notify respondents of this, it read “*Please note that your contact information will be saved in a separate/protected database and will be used for no other purposes and will not be connected to your data from the survey you have completed today.”

Once they opened the new link, the respondent was asked to provide their name and contact information (email, mailing address, or phone number). They also were asked if their partner would be interested in participating in research through surveys or interviews in the future. If they selected “yes” they were asked to provide their partner’s name and contact information.

Chapter 5: Results

Preliminary Analyses

In this chapter, descriptive results, hypothesis testing analyses, and open-ended item analyses are reported. All quantitative analyses were completed using IBM’s SPSS v.26. Analyses of the open-ended items were completed in Dedoose software.

Descriptives

In total, 431 individuals clicked the survey link. Of these, 107 were removed during the initial screening process. Fifty-eight individuals clicked out of the survey either before consenting and completing the screening questions or immediately after. Of the remaining individuals, two clicked on the ‘do not consent’ button, fifteen reported that they were not U.S. citizens, and fifty-nine indicated that they were not and have never been in a relationship with a registrant.

The final sample included 297 respondents; however, seventeen of these completed only the demographics question at the beginning of the survey. The remaining

280 completed at least 45% of the survey and 260 completed at least 80% of the survey.

The missing and incomplete responses were anticipated given the content of the survey.

As such, all analyses were conducted using listwise deletion if there was sufficient power and the missing data were random.

Given that the sampling strategy aimed to collect a national sample, it should be noted that respondents reported living in a total of forty states. While most states had only a few respondents, several states were more highly represented and included Texas (n =

46), California (n = 31), Illinois (n = 28), and Pennsylvania (n = 22). While this may have been random or due to more contacts in these states agreeing to be gatekeepers, these are 57 amongst the top ten most populated states in the country. See Figure 2 for a geographical representation of the sample responses.

Figure 2

Number of Respondents per U.S. State – Geographic Visualization (N = 295)

Note. Darker colors correspond with higher number of respondents. This view excludes Alaska (n = 2) and Hawaii (n = 1).

The final sample was predominantly white (n = 253, 85.2%), female (n = 272,

91.6%), and heterosexual (n = 261, 87.9%). This sample, though seemingly not diverse, is similar to what was anticipated given that registries are predominantly composed of 58 white males (Ackerman, Harris, Levenson, & Zgoba, 2011). However, there are no statistics regarding the demographics of partners that can be referenced.

The mean age of respondents in this sample was 45.52 years (SD = 13.59).

Additionally, 203 (69%) of the respondents indicated that they were parents. Respondents also were asked whether they had ever been sexually victimized themselves. Most indicated that they had never been victimized (n = 186, 62.6%), although, of those reporting victimizations, forty-three (14.5%) indicated a one-time occurrence and sixty- eight (22.9%) revealed it had occurred more than once. Last, fourteen (4.7%) respondents indicated they were currently a registrant themselves and one (.3%) reported having been registered in the past. Descriptives of the respondents can be found in Tables 2 and 3 below.

Of the 297 respondents, over half reported that they are currently in a relationship with the registrant and living together (n = 184, 62%). Only twenty-eight (9.4%) respondents reported that they were no longer in a relationship with the registrant. The remaining respondents were either still in a relationship with the registrant but living separately (n = 44, 14.8%), their registrant partner is currently incarcerated (n = 37,

12.5%), or the registrant partner is currently living in a residential facility (n = 4, 1.3%).

Table 2

Respondent Demographics

Mean (range) n (%) Variable Age (years) 43.67 (20-82) Gender Male 22 (7.4%) Female 272 (91.6%) Prefer to self-describe 3 (1.0%) Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 261 (87.9%) Bisexual 18 (6.1%) Gay/Lesbian 11 (3.7%) Prefer to self-describe. 7 (2.4%) Race White/Caucasian 253 (85.2%) Black/African American 11 (3.7%) Hispanic/Latino 14 (4.7%) Asian/Pacific Islander 10 (3.4%) Native American/Alaskan 1 (.3%) Native Biracial or Multiracial 6 (2.0%) Other 2 (.7%) Parent Yes 203 (69.0%) No 91 (31.0%) Political Affiliation Republican 51 (22.2%) Democrat 78 (33.9%) Independent 66 (28.7%) Other 35 (15.2%) Highest Education Some high school 4 (1.7%) High school diploma / GED 52 (22.0%) Associates or other 2yr degree 60 (25.4%) Bachelors or other 4yr degree 71 (30.1%) Master’s degree 46 (19.5%) Doctoral degree 3 (1.3%) Note. Overall N = 297, though the total sample for each item may differ slightly due to missing data.

Table 3

Respondent Descriptives

n (%) Variable Previous sexual victimization Yes, this has happened one time. 43 (14.5%) Yes, this has happened more than once 68 (22.9%) This has never happened. 186 (62.6%) Registration Yes, I’m currently registered. 14 (4.7%) Yes, I have previously been registered. 1 (.3%) No, I am not and have never been registered. 282 (94.9%) How did you receive survey? Saw on social media. 98 (33.1%) Emailed from a treatment provider. 22 (7.4%) Saw on a newsletter or blog produced by an 94 (31.8%) advocacy group. Given a paper copy at a conference or a meeting 6 (2.0%) Other 76 (25.7%) Household Income < $20,000 27 (11.8%) $20,001 – $40,000 54 (23.7%) $40,001 – $60,000 57 (25.0%) $60,001 – $80,000 34 (14.9%) $80,001 – $100,000 30 (13.2%) > $100,001 26 (11.4%) How strongly does religion impact your personal beliefs? Not at all 60 (25.5%) A little 35 (14.9%) Somewhat 46 (19.6%) A lot 94 (40.0%) Note. Overall N = 297, though the total sample for each item may differ slightly due to missing data.

Respondents (n = 292) were asked if they were in a relationship with their partner prior to or after registration. Almost half (n = 138, 47.3%) reported that they had been in a relationship with their partner before registration, and that the offense and subsequent registration occurred during the relationship. Just over half indicated that their partner had been required to register prior to their relationship. Of these respondents, most (n =

115, 39.4%) were aware of the registration status prior to entering into the relationship, but 31 (11%) respondents reported that they were unaware. Further, seven (2.4%) indicated that they were in a relationship with someone who had previously been required to register but that they were not required to register during the time of their relationship.

Additionally, respondents were asked how they found out about their partner’s registration status. For those who were with their partner at the time of the offense; 24

(18.2%) reported that their partner told them before they were arrested or charged, 18

(13.6%) found out from someone else before they were arrested or charged, 65 (49.1%) found out when they were arrested or charged, and 25 (18.9%) reported that they had found out another way.

For those who were aware of their partner’s registration status prior to entering into the relationship; 89 (84.8%) indicated that their partner had willingly disclosed the information, four (3.8%) found out while looking at the registry themselves, two (1.9%) were told by a family member, and ten (9.5%) reported that they had found out some other way. These respondents also were asked how they met their partner. Most met their partner through a dating app or online (n = 14, 13.3%), through family (n = 11, 10.5%) or friends (n = 21, 20%), or through work (n = 13, 12.4%). 62

For those who were unaware of their partner’s registration status prior to entering into the relationship; 18 (62.1%) indicated that their partner willingly disclosed the information, three (10.3%) found out while looking at the registry themselves, one (3.4%) was told by a friend, and seven (24.1%) reported that they had found out some other way.

When asked about how they met their partner, most met through mutual friends (n = 12,

41.4%) or through a dating app or online (n = 6, 20.7%). Descriptive information regarding the relationships between the respondent and registrants can be found in Table

Table 4

Relationship Descriptive Information n (%) Variable Current relationship to offender? Yes, but living separately 44 (14.8%) Yes, and living together 184 (62%) Yes, but partner is incarcerated 37 (12.5%) Yes, but partner is living in a 4 (1.3%) residential facility No longer together 28 (9.4%) Type of relationship Married / domestic partnership 163 (70.0%) Engaged 30 (12.9%) Dating exclusively 38 (16.3%) Dating but also seeing other people 2 (.9%) How has partner’s registration status impacted relationship? Completely positive 8 (3.0%) Very positive 15 (5.7%) Somewhat positive 16 (6.1%) n/a (did not impact relationship) 59 (22.4%) Somewhat negative 61 (23.2%) Very negative 31 (11.8%) Completely negative 73 (27.8%) Note. Overall N = 297, though the total sample for each item may differ slightly due to missing data.

Given the unique sampling strategy, it was important to assess which gatekeepers and approaches yielded the most respondents. Participants were asked to indicate how they heard about the survey. Respondents indicated that they saw the link on social media

(n = 98, 33.1%), saw the link on an advocacy group’s blog or newsletter (n = 94, 31.8%), were emailed the link by a treatment provider (n = 22, 7.4%), given a paper copy of the link at a meeting or conference (n = 6, 2%), or selected ‘other’ (n = 76, 25.7%).

Individuals who selected ‘other’ were asked to indicate how they found out about the survey. The responses indicated that many links were shared directly by partners, friends, coworkers, therapists, and family members who saw it online or over email.

Respondents also were asked a series of items regarding their partners. Although these items are reported as registrant demographics and offense characteristics henceforth, it is important to note that all responses were provided by the partner and thus should be interpreted through this lens. Regarding demographics, registrants were predominately male (n = 269, 96.4%) and white (n = 238, 85.3%), which is consistent with the findings from a previous study that provided a national profile of the registries and found that registrants (N = 445,127) were predominantly male (97.7%) and white.

(66%) (Ackerman et al., 2011). The average registrant age was 45.7 years old (SD =

13.13), which was also consistent with the national profile findings in which the average registrant age was 44.8 (SD = 13.32) (Ackerman et al., 2011). Descriptive information of the registrants can be found in Table 5.

Table 5

Registrant Demographics and Registration Descriptive Information (as reported by respondent)

Mean (range) n (%) Variable Current Age1 45.26 (19-76) Age at initial registration1 36.68 (14-73) Length of registration1,2 15.43 (2-30) Gender Male 269 (96.4%) Female 9 (3.2%) Prefer to self-describe 1 (.4%) Race White/Caucasian 238 (85.3%) Black/African American 8 (2.9%) Hispanic/Latino 11 (3.9%) Asian/Pacific Islander 4 (1.4%) Native American/Alaskan 5 (1.8%) Native Biracial or Multiracial 7 (2.5%) Other 6 (2.2%) Currently Registered Yes 261 (93.2%) No 17 (6.1%) Do not know 2 (.7%) Tier Level Tier 1 (least severe) 99 (35.5%) Tier 2 (moderately 43 (15.4%) severe) Tier 3 (most severe) 50 (17.9%) Do not know 87 (31.2%) Were any victims under 18 yrs of age? Yes 203 (73.0%) No 22 (7.9%) Do not know 3 (1.1%) N/A (no victim) 50 (18.0%) Note. Overall N = 297, though the total sample for each item may differ slightly due to missing data. 1Reported in years, 2 n = 61 for this item

Most registrants were required to register at the time the survey was taken (n =

261, 93.2%). Additionally, 177 (63.9%) had a life-time registration requirement. Of those who were not required to register for life (n = 78, 28.2%), the average length of required registration was 15.2 Years (SD = 7.4). Further, the average age at initial registration was

36.7 years (SD = 13.1). Respondents also were asked to report the tier level at which their partner was registered; eighty-seven (31.2%) were unsure of their partner’s tier level while, 99 (35.5%) selected Tier 1 (least severe), 43 (15.4%) selected Tier 2 (moderately severe), and 50 (17.9%) selected Tier 3 (most severe).

In addition, 203 (73%) reported that their partner’s offense included at least one victim under the age of eighteen years. Three (1.1%) respondents reported that there was a victim that was physically disabled, five (1.8%) reported that there was a victim that was mentally disabled, and two (.7%) reported that there was a victim that was a senior citizen. Furthermore, only seven (2.5%) reported that there was physical violence involved in one of their partner’s offenses and only three (1.1%) reported that there was a weapon used during an offense. Respondents also predominantly indicated that their partner had never been convicted of any other non-violent offenses (n = 233, 84.7%) or violent offenses (n = 264, 95.7%). Registrant offense and registration descriptive information can be found in Table 5.

Reliabilities

Reliability analyses were conducted to examine each of the scales being used in this study. Cronbach alpha coefficients indicate that all scales and subscales have good to excellent internal consistency. All scale reliabilities, mean scores, standard deviations, 66 and number of items for each scale can be found in Table 6. Additionally, all scale mean scores, standard deviations, and ranges can be found in Table 7.

Table 6

Scale and Subscale Reliabilities

Cronbach’s Number of Scale Subscale Alpha Items N Internal (Self) .924 20 256 Courtesy Stigma External (Public) .949 18 251 Courtesy Stigma Social Isolation .904 4 297 Perceived Social .939 12 252 Support Sense of Coherence .871 13 248 Meaningfulness .681 4 253 Comprehensibility .751 5 251 Manageability .667 4 254 Well-Being .948 29 238 Financial Well-Being .882 4 252 Physical Well-Being .891 6 252 Social Well-Being .781 4 249 Eudaimonic Well-Being .880 7 249 Hedonic Well-Being .890 3 251 Self-Esteem .910 10 248 DASS-21 .942 21 228 Stress .879 7 239 Depression .937 7 241 Anxiety .865 7 236 Disclosure .888 5 261 Relationship Quality .946 9 227 Note. Scale reliabilities were calculated on all cases in which the scale had complete responses. Given that there was missing data across many cases, the total N varies across scale analyses

Table 7

Scale and Subscale Characteristics: Means, SDs, and Ranges

Scale Subscale N Mean SD Min-Max Internal (Self) 251 57.54 12.72 18-72 Courtesy Stigma External (Public) 256 53.59 12.85 20-80 Courtesy Stigma Social Isolation 255 19.91 7.78 4-28 Perceived Social 252 58.92 19.59 12-84 Support Sense of Coherence 248 55.61 14.71 15-89 Meaningfulness 253 29.88 4.96 4-28 Comprehensibility 251 20.13 6.56 5-35 Manageability 254 15.72 5.12 4-28 Well-Being 238 146.68 31.58 29-203 Financial Well-Being 252 16.78 6.91 4-28 Physical Well-Being 252 25.71 8.99 6-42 Social Well-Being 249 22.73 5.24 4-28 Eudaimonic Well-Being 249 38.98 8.27 7-49 Hedonic Well-Being 251 15.51 4.45 3-21 Self-Esteem 248 30.98 6.10 10-40 DASS-21 228 35.81 12.05 21-72 Stress 239 14.05 4.84 7-28 Depression 241 11.29 4.93 7-28 Anxiety 236 10.52 4.20 7-25 Disclosure 261 13.16 7.46 5-35 Relationship Quality 227 55.10 10.07 13-63 Note. Scale data were calculated on all cases in which the scale had complete responses. Given that there was missing data across many cases, the total N varies across scale analyses.

Correlations

Pearson correlations were calculated among all scales. As expected, many of the scales were related to one another. Most of the dependent variables (well-being, self- esteem, stress, depression, anxiety, and relationship quality) were weakly to moderately correlated with one another in the expected directions with Pearson correlations ranging 68 from .15 to .67, except for relationship quality, which was not correlated with depression or anxiety. See Table 8 for all correlations among scales and subscales. 69

Table 8

Pearson Correlations between Primary Scales

CS CS Social Social Sense of Well- Relationship Public Self Isolation Support Coherence Being Self Esteem Stress Depression Anxiety Quality CS .473*** Self (.000) Social .423*** .678*** Isolation (.000) (.000) Social -0.196** -.413 -.445*** Support (.003) (.000) (.000) Sense of -.158* -.501*** -.354*** .298*** Coherence (.016) (.000) (.000) (.000) Well-Being -.015 -.240*** -.134* .504*** .553*** (.822) (.000) (.040) (.000) (.000) Self-Esteem -.040 -.207** .125* .265*** .566*** .597*** (.542) (.001) (.050) (.000) (.000) (.000) Stress .086 .318*** .224** -.209** -.555*** -.424*** -.458*** (.204) (.000) (.001) (.001) (.000) (.000) (.000) Depression .040 .304*** .222** -.299*** -.699*** -.570*** -.632*** .667*** (.549) (.000) (.001) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Anxiety -.037 .263*** .065 -.229*** -.524*** -.402*** -.486*** .604*** .617*** (.589) (.000) (.322) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) (.000) Relationship -.050 -.220** -.167* .242*** .173* .284*** .152* -.140* -.124 -.081 Quality (.467) (.001) (.014) (.000) (.012) (.000) (.026) (.045) (.073) (.250) Disclosure -.216** -.267*** -.211** .122 .030 -.009 .042 -.012 -.040 .088 .072 (.001) (.000) (.001) (.056) (.647) (.887) (.518) (.852) (.546) (.184) (.288)

Note. For each item the correlation is reported (r) with the p value following in parentheses. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 70

Primary Analyses

This section presents results from the analyses that investigated each of the research questions and hypotheses. Each research question is repeated below and is followed by relevant hypotheses and analyses. For a complete list of hypotheses and whether they were supported by the data, see Table 16.

Given the number of comparisons being conducted, it is possible that familywise error (Type I error) may be inflated. As a result, a Bonferroni correction was considered.

This correction adjusts the cutoff for significance relative to the number of analyses being tested (Mertler & Vannatta, 2013). To calculate this, one would typically divide their

Type I error rate (α =.05) by the number of hypotheses being tested which would result in a new threshold of significance to be used. Conversely, it is important to note that

Bonferroni corrections have been criticized as being too conservative and as targeting

Type I error issues at the expense of Type II errors (Armstrong, 2014; Gelman, Hill, &

Yajima, 2012). In other words, this correction may severely reduce the power to detect real effects.

Researchers have suggested that corrections to Type I error, such as Bonferroni adjustments, only be considered if (a) “a single test of the ‘universal null hypothesis’ (Ho) that all tests are not significant is required,” (b) “it is imperative to avoid a type I error,” and (c) “a large number of tests are carried out without preplanned hypotheses in an attempt to establish any results that may be significant” (Armstrong, 2014). In this dissertation, a single test of the universal null is not required. Though reducing Type I error would be ideal, this study is exploratory in nature and thus, increasing Type II error to reduce Type I would be detrimental. In fact, an examination of the analyses utilizing 71 this correction revealed that the majority of significant results were no longer significant, further suggesting that this correction to familywise error is too blunt of a tool in this exploratory context. Last, this study included a proposed set of preplanned research questions and hypotheses, and the analyses have been restricted to testing those alone.

As such, I am reporting and interpreting study results without the Bonferroni correction but acknowledge these issues should be weighed when interpreting results.

Given that this study is exploratory and the first to test these relationships within this population, future research is needed to replicate and confirm present findings. Further, there is ongoing debate around the use of probability values and significant testing within the statistics literature (see Greenland et al., 2016; Kennedy-Shaffer, 2019; Wasserstein

& Lazar, 2016 for examples). The American Sociological Association has acknowledged that p-values do not measure effect sizes or the importance of a finding, nor does it provide a sufficient measure of evidence regarding a hypothesis (Wasserstein & Lazar,

2016). Recommendations to address such concerns and maintain good statistical practices typically involve the reporting of a variety of numerical and graphical representations of the data to provide a more comprehensive interpretation of the data (Wasserstein &

Lazar, 2016). Further, researchers recommend avoiding reliance on a single index to assess the findings (Wasserstein & Lazar, 2016). As such, effect sizes and confidence intervals are being reported throughout this section, as well as precise p-values, to increase confidence and careful interpretation of the statistical tests employed (Greenland et al., 2016; Ranstam, 2012). These criteria are being provided in addition to traditional probability values.

Research Question 1:

The first research question in this dissertation study aimed to exploratorily examine how internalized courtesy stigma experienced by registrants’ partners related to mental health, well-being, and relationship quality. While these factors are explored in a more nuanced manner with regression analyses in research questions six and seven, they are first examined here through a Pearson’s correlation to gather preliminary insights into how the primary factors in this dissertation study relate to one another.

Hypothesis 1a. The first hypothesis was that greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma would be associated with lower subjective well-being. As expected, there was a negative relationship between internal courtesy stigma and well-being; r (227) = -.24, p

<.001. This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with reduced overall well-being.

In addition, Pearson’s correlations were conducted for each of the five well-being subscales to better understand the relationships between internal courtesy stigma and the different forms of well-being. There was not a significant correlation between internal courtesy stigma and physical well-being r (235) = -.10, p = .127. There was a significant negative relationship between internal courtesy stigma and financial well-being r (239) =

-.15, p = 018. There was a significant negative relationship between internal courtesy stigma and social well-being r (235) = -.27, p < .001. There also was a significant negative relationship between internal courtesy stigma and Eudaimonic well-being r

(237) = -.18, p = 004. Last, there was a significant negative relationship between internal courtesy stigma and hedonic well-being r (237) = -.33, p < .001. 73

Hypothesis 1b. The second hypothesis was that greater levels of internal courtesy stigma would be associated with lower self-esteem. As expected, there was a negative relationship between internal courtesy stigma and self-esteem; r (236) = -.21, p = .001.

This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with reduced self-esteem.

Hypothesis 1c-e. The next hypotheses were that greater levels of internal courtesy stigma would be associated with poorer mental health in the form of higher anxiety, stress, and depression. As expected, there was a positive relationship between internal courtesy stigma and anxiety; r (223) = .26, p < .001. This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with increased anxiety. There was also a positive relationship between internal courtesy stigma and stress; r (227) = .32, p < .001. This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with increased stress. Last, there also was a positive relationship between internal courtesy stigma and depression; r (228) = .30 p < .001. This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with increased depression.

Hypothesis 1f. The next hypothesis was that greater levels of internal courtesy stigma would be associated with increased social isolation. As expected, there was a strong positive relationship between internal courtesy stigma and social isolation; r (241)

= .68, p < .001. This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with increased social isolation.

Hypothesis 1g. The next hypothesis was that greater levels of internal courtesy stigma would be associated with reduced relationship quality. As expected, there was a negative association between internal courtesy stigma and relationship quality; r (215) = - 74

.22, p = .001. This indicates that higher levels of internal courtesy stigma are associated with reduced relationship quality.

Research Question 2:

The second research question in this dissertation study examined whether different relationship subgroups of the sample experience internal courtesy stigma differently. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the different types of relationships (registration occurred during relationship, registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was aware, and registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was unaware) with regard to courtesy stigma. Individuals who were with someone who was not registered during the time they were in a relationship (n = 7) were excluded from the analysis. Assumptions were examined. No significant outliers were detected. The dependent variable was approximately normally distributed for each category of the independent variable. Further, there are no violations of homogeneity of variance per

Levene’s test.

There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 247) = 7.02, p = .001]. A Tukey’s post hoc test revealed that individuals reported significantly (p = .001) higher rates of internal courtesy stigma when the registration occurred during the relationship (M = 56.59, SD = 12.56) compared to when the registration occurred prior to the relationship but the respondent was aware of the registration (M = 50.36, SD = 12.61). There were no statistically significant differences between those who were unaware of the registration status when they entered the relationship and the other two groups on internal courtesy stigma. 75

There was also a statistically significant difference between groups while controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by a one-way

ANCOVA [F (2, 245) = 8.78, p < .001, partial eta-squared = .068]. Consistent with the

ANOVA findings, pairwise comparisons revealed that individuals reported significantly

(p < .001) higher rates of internal courtesy stigma when the registration occurred during the relationship (M = 57.05, SE = 1.15) compared to when the registration occurred prior to the relationship but the respondent was aware of the registration (M = 49.92, SE =

1.26). Again, there were no statistically significant differences between those who were unaware of the registration status when they entered the relationship and the other two groups on internal courtesy stigma.

Research Question 3:

The third research question examined whether different relationship subgroups of the sample differ across outcomes. One way ANOVAs were conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the different types of relationships

(registration occurred during relationship, registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was aware, and registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was unaware) with regards to well-being, self-esteem, anxiety, stress, depression, social isolation, and relationship quality. One-way ANCOVAs were also conducted for each dependent variable controlling for age, victimization, and self- registration. All assumptions were examined and were met unless otherwise noted. It is important to note that there were no statistically significant differences between those who were unaware of the registration status when they entered the relationship and the other two groups regarding any of the outcomes. 76

Well-Being. There were no statistically significant differences between relationship types on overall well-being as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2,

229) = 2.16, p = .118]. There were also no statistically significant differences between relationship types on overall well-being when controlling for age, victimization, and self- registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 228) = 2.44, p = .090, partial eta-squared = .021].

Self-Esteem. There were no statistically significant differences between relationship types on self-esteem as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 238) =

.307, p = .736]. There were also no statistically significant differences between relationship types on self-esteem when controlling for age, victimization, and self- registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 237) = .03, p = .970, partial eta-squared = .000].

Anxiety. There were no statistically significant differences between relationship types on anxiety as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 226) = 1.13, p = .326].

There were also no statistically significant differences between relationship types on anxiety when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 225) = .389, p = .678, partial eta-squared = .004].

Stress. There were no statistically significant differences between relationship types on stress as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 229) = .792, p = .454].

There were also no statistically significant differences between relationship types on stress when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 228) = .862, p = .424, partial eta-squared = .008]. 77

Depression. There were no statistically significant differences between relationship types on depression as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 230) =

.664, p = .516]. There were also no statistically significant differences between relationship types on overall well-being when controlling for age, victimization, and self- registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 229) = .826, p = .439, partial eta-squared = .007].

Social Isolation. Levene’s test was significant (p = .025), indicating that this test violates the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Given this, a Welch’s ANOVA was conducted to reduce potential Type I error. There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 242) = 6.88, p = .002]. A

Tukey post hoc test revealed that individuals reported significantly (p = .001) higher rates of social isolation when the registration occurred during the relationship (M = 21.88, SD

= 6.76) compared to when the registration occurred prior to the relationship but the respondent was aware of the registration (M = 18.15, SD = 8.12). There were no statistically significant differences between those who were unaware of the registration status when they entered into the relationship and the other two groups regarding social isolation.

There was also a statistically significant difference between groups while controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by a one-way

ANCOVA [F (2, 241) = 5.781, p < .004, partial eta-squared = .047]. Consistent with the

ANOVA findings, pairwise comparisons revealed that individuals reported significantly

(p = .002) higher rates of social isolation when the registration occurred during the relationship (M = 21.75, SE = .71) compared to when the registration occurred prior to 78 the relationship but the respondent was aware of the registration (M = 18.17, SE = .77).

Again, there were no statistically significant differences between those who were unaware of the registration status when they entered the relationship and the other two groups on social isolation.

Relationship Quality. Levene’s test was significant (p = .025), indicating that this test violates the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Given this, a Welch’s ANOVA was conducted to reduce potential Type I error. There was a statistically significant difference between groups as determined by the one-way ANOVA [F (2, 218) = 5.85, p =

.005]. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that individuals reported significantly (p = .001) lower relationship quality when the registration occurred during the relationship (M =

52.93, SD = 11.14) compared to when the registration occurred prior to the relationship but the respondent was aware of the registration (M = 57.44, SD = 8.49). There were no statistically significant differences between those who were unaware of the registration status when they entered the relationship and the other two groups regarding relationship quality.

There was also a statistically significant difference between groups while controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by a one-way

ANCOVA [F (2, 217) = 6.70, p = .002, partial eta-squared = .059]. Consistent with the

ANOVA findings, pairwise comparisons revealed that individuals reported significantly

(p = .002) lower relationship quality when the registration occurred during the relationship (M = 52.67, SE = .96) compared to when the registration occurred prior to the relationship but the respondent was aware of the registration (M = 57.61, SD = 1.05).

Again, there were no statistically significant differences between those who were 79 unaware of the registration status when they entered the relationship and the other two groups regarding relationship quality.

Research Question 4:

The next research question in this dissertation study examined whether different background factors (offense type, violent vs. nonviolent offense, number of charges, and age of victim) relate to internal courtesy stigma. In this study, six items assessed details of the crime. Four of these items assessed victim factors (minor, physical disabilities, mental disabilities, senior citizens) and the other two items assessed whether there was physical violence or a weapon used in any of the previous offenses. While respondents had the option of selecting yes, no, I don’t know, or does not apply – these analyses only apply to respondents able to confirm whether these factors were present for their partner’s offense.

Only one of these comparisons was able to be tested due to unequal group sizes that restricted possible comparisons. Only two respondents reported that their partner’s offense(s) involved a victim with a physical disability, only four reported that their partner’s offense(s) involved a victim with a mental disability, and only one respondent that reported that their partner’s offense(s) involved a victim over the age of sixty-five.

Additionally, only five respondents reported that the offense(s) involved any type of physical violence and only three reported that there was a weapon present during the offense(s).

An independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor.

All assumptions for this test were met, however, it should be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose 80 partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 184, M = 52.90, SD = 12.70) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 20, M = 53.30, SD = 16.05) on courtesy stigma [t (202) = -.129, p =.897], 95% CI [-6.46, 5.66].

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on courtesy stigma; there were no statistically significant differences,

[F (2, 169) = .21, p = .814]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on courtesy stigma when controlling for age, victimization, and self- registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 168) = .17, p = .848, partial eta-squared = .002]. Last, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and courtesy stigma; there was no significant correlation, r

(228) = -.09, p = .215.

Research Question 5:

The next research question examined whether different background factors relate to the various outcome variables in this study (well-being, self-esteem, anxiety, stress, depression, social isolation, and relationship quality). These analyses are organized by outcome variable. As was the case for research question 4, analyses were not able to be conducted for physical disability, mental disability, senior citizen, physical violence, or weapon presence due to unequal sample sizes restricting possible comparisons.

Well-Being. First, an independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. All assumptions for this test were met, however, it should be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 170, M = 146.13, SD = 81

31.99) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 18, M = 150.89, SD = 33.43) on overall well-being [t (186) = -.598, p =.551], 95% CI [-20.47, 10.95].

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on well-being. All assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 156) = 1.00, p = .371]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on overall well-being when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way

ANCOVA [F (2, 155) = .82, p = .443, partial eta-squared = .011]. Lastly, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and well-being; there was no significant correlation, r (228) = -.04, p = .581.

Self-Esteem. An independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. All assumptions for this test were met, however, it should be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 178, M = 31.17, SD = 6.05) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 19, M = 28.95, SD = 7.00) on self-esteem [t (195) = 1.50, p

=.135], 95% CI [-.70, 5.15].

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on self-esteem. All assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 165) = 1.99, p = .140]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on self-esteem when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2,

164) = 1.83, p = .164, partial eta-squared = .022]. Last, a Pearson’s correlation was 82 conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and self-esteem; there was no significant correlation, r (228) = .01, p = .931.

Anxiety. First, an independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. Levene’s test was significant (p = .001), indicating that equal variances cannot be assumed. All other assumptions for this test were met. It also should be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 172, M = 10.19, SD = 3.88) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 15, M = 12.87, SD = 6.44) on anxiety [t

(14.90) = -1.59, p =.134], 95% CI [-6.27, .92].

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on anxiety. All assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 156) = .33, p = .723]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on anxiety when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 155) =

.48, p = .618, partial eta-squared = .006]. Last, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and anxiety; there was no significant correlation, r (228) = -.03, p = .715.

Stress. An independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. All assumptions for this test were met, however, it should be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 171, M = 13.82, SD = 4.82) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 17, M = 15.65, SD = 5.65) on stress [t (186) = -1.46, p

=.145], 95% CI [-4.28, .64]. 83

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on stress. All assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 159) = .51, p = .602]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on stress when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2, 158) =

.46, p = .634, partial eta-squared = .006]. Last, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and stress; there was no significant correlation, r (228) = -.03, p = .720.

Depression. First, an independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. Levene’s test was significant (p = .025), indicating that equal variances cannot be assumed. All other assumptions for this test were met. It should also be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 175, M = 11.03,

SD = 4.94) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 17, M = 13.59, SD = 6.30) on depression [t (17.97) = -1.63, p =.122], 95% CI [-5.86, .75].

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on depression. All assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 160) = .71, p = .495]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on depression when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way ANCOVA [F (2,

159) = 1.15, p = .321, partial eta-squared = .015]. Last, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and depression; there 84 was a significant positive correlation, r (228) = -.15, p = .029, such that the more offenses were related to increased depression.

Social Isolation. An independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. All assumptions for this test were met, however, it should be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 183, M = 19.78, SD = 7.81) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 20, M = 17.15, SD = 9.46) on social isolation

[t (201) = 1.40, p =.163], 95% CI [-1.07, 6.34].

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on social isolation. Levene’s test was significant (p = .013), indicating that this test violates the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Given this, a Welch’s

ANOVA was conducted to reduce potential Type I error. All other assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 173) = .040, p = .946].

Lastly, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and social isolation; there was no significant correlation, r (228) =

.05, p = .479.

Relationship Quality. First, an independent samples t-test was conducted to assess the victim factor minor. Levene’s test was significant (p = .039), indicating that equal variances cannot be assumed. All other assumptions for this test were met. It should also be noted that the group sizes are substantially uneven. There were no significant differences between those whose partner’s offense involved a minor (n = 165, M = 54.88,

SD = 10.38) and those that did not involve a minor (n = 19, M = 57.63, SD = 6.53) on relationship quality [t (29.71) = -1.62, p =.117], 95% CI [-6.23, .73]. 85

Next, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences between registry tier levels on relationship quality. All assumptions were met and there were no statistically significant differences, [F (2, 156) = .021, p = .979]. There were also no statistically significant differences between tier levels on relationship quality when controlling for age, victimization, and self-registration as determined by the one-way

ANCOVA [F (2, 157) = .06, p = .939, partial eta-squared = .001].

Lastly, a Pearson’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between number of offenses and relationship quality; there was a significant negative correlation, r (228) = -.14, p = .046, such that an increase in the number of offenses is related to a decrease in relationship quality.

Research Question 6 and 7:

The sixth research question in this dissertation study aimed to examine how social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure moderate the relationship between internal courtesy stigma experienced by registrants’ partners and the outcomes (e.g., mental health, well-being, social isolation, and relationship quality). Similarly, the seventh research question in this dissertation study aimed to examine how social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure moderate the relationship between internal courtesy stigma experienced by registrants’ partners and the outcomes (e.g., mental health, well-being, social isolation, and relationship quality) when controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender2, victimization

2 This variable indicated whether the respondent was in a relationship with their partner prior to their registration, if they entered into a relationship with their partner after registration and were aware of their status, or if they entered into a relationship with their partner after registration but were unaware of their status. 86 history, and self-registration). These hypotheses were tested without controls (RQ 6) and then with controls (RQ 7) to determine if the relationships hold when controlling for other factors (age, relationship to the offender, victimization, income, and self- registration) expected to have a strong influence on the outcome variables in the analyses.

While a variety of other variables that may impact the model, only a number could be controlled for. These factors were selected using criteria of theoretical and statistical relevance.

The independent variable and moderator variables were grand-mean centered prior to analyses to increase the interpretability of interactions (Aiken & West, 1991).

The assumptions for this analysis were that the dependent variable and independent variables are continuous, there is an independence of observations, there is a linear relationship between the dependent variable and each of the independent variables, there is homoscedasticity of residuals, no multicollinearity, residual errors are approximately normally distributed, and there are no significant outliers. All assumptions were met unless otherwise noted below.

Well-Being (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict overall well-being from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.924.

Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. 87

Sixteen cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than

0.0373, or leverage value greater than 0.0191. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted well-being, F(4, 193) =

58.361, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .54. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Courtesy stigma, social support, and sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction, p

< .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 9. A one-point increase in courtesy stigma was associated with a .340-point increase in overall well- being (p = .016). A one-point increase in social support was associated with a .589-point increase in overall well-being (p < .001). Last, a one-point increase in sense of coherence was associated with a 1.257-point increase in overall well-being (p < .001). Disclosure (p

= 0.79) did not contribute to the well-being in this sample.

Well-Being (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict overall well-being from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self- registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.254. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus 88 unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Sixteen cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0223, or leverage value greater than 0.0952. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted well-being, F(9, 171) =

26.768, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .56. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. In the model without controls in research question 6, there were main effects of courtesy stigma, social support, and sense of coherence. However, in the current model with controls, only social support and sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05.

Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 9. A one-point increase in social support was associated with a .402-point increase in overall well-being (p <

.001). Additionally, a one-point increase in sense of coherence was associated with a

1.148-point increase in overall well-being (p < .001).

Table 9

Multiple Regression Analyses for Well-Being (With and Without Controls) Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .34* .14 .142 1.516 [.06, .62] Social Support .59*** .09 .380 1.207 [.42, .76] Disclosure -.05 .20 -.014 1.081 [-.44, .34] Sense of Coherence 1.26*** .12 .59 1.355 [1.02, 1.49] Constant 146.28*** 1.41 [143.50, 149.05] N 193 Adjusted R2 .54 F 58.36

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .18 .15 .07 1.544 [-.12, .47] Social Support .40*** .09 .27 1.384 [.23, .57] Disclosure -.06 .21 -.02 1.087 [-.47, .35] Sense of Coherence 1.15*** .12 .56 1.392 [.91, 1.39] Age -.01 .12 .00 1.131 [-.24, .22] Relationship to Offender .34 2.04 .01 1.091 [-3.69, 4.36] Victimization 2.18 1.97 .06 1.064 [-1.71, 6.08] Income 2.06 .51 .21 1.142 [1.06, 3.07] Self-Registration 10.56 4.97 .11 1.047 [.75, 20.37] Constant 97.15*** 16.58 [64.42, 129.88] N 171 Adjusted R2 .56 F 26.77 Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Self-Esteem (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict self-esteem from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.835.

Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized 90 residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10.

Sixteen cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than

0.0185 or leverage value greater than 0.0362. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

There was a significant F change between model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was a moderating effect. Thus, model b is being interpreted. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted self-esteem, F(12, 205) = 29.41, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .48. There was a main effect of courtesy stigma (p = .049) and of sense of coherence (p <.001). There was a significant interaction between courtesy stigma and disclosure (p = .010), indicating that there was a moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between courtesy stigma and self-esteem. Significant interactions were probed using a simple slopes analysis at

+1/-1 SD and +2/-2 SD and were then plotted to depict the direction of the moderating effects. Simple slopes were not significant at 1 SD away from the mean. Simple slope analyses revealed at 2 SD away from the mean that there was a significant effect of stigma on self-esteem for individuals who were high on disclosure (b = .07, SE = .03, CI

[.01, .12], and p = .019), but not significant effect for those low on disclosure (b = -.15,

SE = .08, CI [-.31, .01], and p = .069). See Figure 3 for a visual representation of the moderating effect.

Figure 3

A visual representation of the moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and self-esteem (without controls).

Self-Esteem (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict overall self-esteem from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self- registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.916. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Sixteen cases were 92 determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0227, or leverage value greater than 0.0968. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

There was a significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was a moderating effect. Thus, model b is being interpreted. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted self-esteem, F(12, 177) = 19.409, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .54. In the previous model, there were main effects of courtesy stigma and sense of coherence. However, in the current model with controls, only sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .001.

Again, there was a significant interaction between courtesy stigma and disclosure

(p = .004), indicating that there was a moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between courtesy stigma and self-esteem. Significant interactions were probed using a simple slopes analysis at +1/-1 SD and were then plotted to depict the direction of the moderating effects. Simple slope analyses revealed at 1 SD away from the mean that there was a significant effect of stigma on self-esteem for individuals who were high on disclosure (b = -.14, SE = .06, CI [-.01, -.27], and p = .035), but not significant effect for those low on disclosure (b = -.02, SE = .03, CI [-.09, .05], and p = .574). See Figure 4 for a visual representation of the moderating effect. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 10.

Figure 4

A visual representation of the moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and self-esteem (with controls).

Table 10

Multiple Regression Analyses for Self-Esteem (With and Without Controls)

Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma (CS) .05* .03 .12 1.521 [.00, .11] Social Support .03 .02 .09 1.286 [-.01, .06] Disclosure .03 .04 .03 1.089 [-.05, .10] Sense of Coherence .28*** .02 .73 1.406 [.23, .32] CS x Disclosure .01** .00 .12 1.097 [.00, .01] CS x Social Support .00 .00 -.09 1.243 [.00, .00] CS x Sense of Coherence .00 .00 -.03 1.203 [.00, .00] Constant 31.09*** .31 [30.48, 31.71] N 205 Adjusted R2 .48 F 29.41

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .03 .03 .06 1.597 [-.03, .09] Social Support .02 .02 .05 1.386 [-.02, .05] Disclosure -.01 .04 -.01 1.121 [-.09, .07] Sense of Coherence .28*** .02 .70 1.483 [.23, .32] Age .06* .02 .13 1.176 [-.01, .10] Relationship to Offender -.80 .41 -.10 1.104 [-1.62, .01] Victimization -.25 .40 -.03 1.118 [-1.04, .54] Income .17 .10 .09 1.147 [-.02, .37] Self-Registration 2.98*** .90 .17 1.055 [1.20, 4.77] CS x Disclosure .01** .00 .15 1.079 [.00, .01] CS x Social Support .00 .00 .02 1.335 [.00, .00] CS x Sense of Coherence .00 .00 -.05 1.281 [-.01, .00] Constant 20.92*** 3.00 [14.99, 26.84] N 177 Adjusted R2 .54 F 19.41 Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Stress (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict stress from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a 95 plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.832. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Nine cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0197, or leverage value greater than 0.0384. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted stress, F(4, 199) = 22.33, p

< .001, adjusted R2 = .30. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Only sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction; a one-point increase in courtesy stigma was associated with a .17-point decrease in stress (p < .001). Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 11.

Stress (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict stress from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self- registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.904. Homoscedasticity was 96 present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Six cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0226, or leverage value greater than 0.0440. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted stress, F(9, 176) = 12.54 p

< .001, adjusted R2 = .39. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Similar to the previous model, only sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction; a one-point increase in courtesy stigma was associated with a .14-point decrease in stress (p < .001).

Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 11.

Table 11

Multiple Regression Analyses for Stress (With and Without Controls)

Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .02 .03 .04 1.431 [-.04, .07] Social Support -.01 .02 -.04 1.249 [-.04, .02] Disclosure -.02 .04 -.04 1.062 [-.10, .05] Sense of Coherence -.17*** .02 -.52 1.315 [-.22, -.13] Constant 14.06*** .27 [13.53, 14.60] N 199 Adjusted R2 .30 F 22.33

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .03 .03 .06 1.454 [-.03, .08] Social Support -.02 .02 -.07 1.189 [-.05, .01] Disclosure .00 .04 .00 1.113 [-.08, .08] Sense of Coherence -.14*** .02 -.42 1.372 [-.19, -.10] Age -.11*** .02 -.30 1.113 [-.15, -.06] Relationship to Offender -.29 .40 -.04 1.083 [-1.07, .50] Victimization -.44 .38 -.07 1.072 [-1.20, .31] Income -.11 .10 -.07 1.142 [-.31, .08] Self-Registration -.32 .98 -.02 1.043 [-2.24, 1.61] Constant 22.04*** 3.26 [15.61, 28.47] N 176 Adjusted R2 .36 F 12.54 Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Depression (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict depression from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.194.

Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized 98 residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10.

Thirteen cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than

0.0195 or leverage value greater than 0.0381. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted depression, F(4, 197) =

50.24, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .50. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Courtesy stigma and sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 12. A one-point increase in courtesy stigma was associated with a .04-point decrease in depression (p = .03).

Additionally, a one-point increase in sense of coherence was associated with a .21-point decrease in depression (p < .001).

Depression (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict depression from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self- registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.342. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus 99 unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Six cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0230, or leverage value greater than 0.0978. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

This time there was a significant F change between model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was moderating effect.

Thus, model b is being interpreted. The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted depression, F(12, 175) = 25.29, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .63. In the previous model, there were main effects of courtesy stigma and sense of coherence. In the current model with controls, courtesy stigma no longer statistically significantly added to the prediction. In this model, there were main effects of sense of coherence (p <.001) and disclosure (p = .035).

There was a significant interaction between courtesy stigma and disclosure (p =

.025), indicating that there was a moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between courtesy stigma and depression. Significant interactions were probed using a simple slopes analysis at +1/-1 SD and were then plotted to depict the direction of the moderating effects. Simple slope analyses revealed at 1 SD away from the mean that there was a significant effect of stigma on depression for individuals who were high on disclosure (b = .09, SE = .05, CI [.00, .19], and p < .001), but no significant effect for those low on disclosure (b = .02, SE = .03, CI [-.02, .07], and p = .327). See Figure 5 for a visual representation of the moderating effect. 100

Figure 5

A visual representation of the moderating effect of disclosure on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and depression (with controls).

There also was a significant interaction between courtesy stigma and sense of coherence (p < .001), indicating that there was a moderating effect of sense of coherence on the relationship between courtesy stigma and depression. Significant interactions were probed using a simple slopes analysis at +1/-1 SD and were then plotted to depict the direction of the moderating effects. Simple slope analyses revealed at 1 SD away from the mean that there was a significant effect of stigma on depression for individuals who were high on sense of coherence (b = .31, SE = .09, CI [.14, .48], and p < .001) and a significant effect for those low on disclosure (b = .18, SE = .05, CI [.07, .29], and p =

.001), but as you can see from the plots and simple slopes, the effect was stronger for 101 those high on sense of coherence. See Figure 6 for a visual representation of the moderating effect. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 12.

Table 12

Multiple Regression Analyses for Depression (With and Without Controls) Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma -.04* .02 -.13 1.416 [-.08, .00] Social Support -.02 .01 -.10 1.156 [-.04, .00] Disclosure -.04 .03 -.06 1.090 [-.10, .02] Sense of Coherence -.21*** .02 -.72 1.281 [-.24, -.18] Constant 10.89*** .20 [10.48, 11.29] N 197 Adjusted R2 .50 F 50.24

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .00 .02 -.01 1.603 [-.04, .04] Social Support -.01 .01 -.06 1.228 [-.04, .01] Disclosure -.07* .03 -.10 1.130 [-.13, -.01] Sense of Coherence -.22*** .02 -.69 1.441 [-.25, -.19] Age .00 .02 .01 1.116 [-.03, .04] Relationship to Offender .05 .30 .01 1.093 [-.55, .65] Victimization .52 .29 .09 1.074 [-.05, 1.09] Income -.20** .07 -.13 1.119 [-.34, -.05] Self-Registration -2.39** .85 -.13 1.054 [-4.07, -.70] CS x Disclosure -.01* .00 -.11 1.097 [-.01, .00] CS x Social Support .00 .00 .02 1.139 [.00, .00] CS x Sense of Coherence .00*** .00 -.19 1.171 [-.01, .00] Constant 17.32*** 2.71 [11.98, 22.66] N 175 Adjusted R2 .61 F 25.29 Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

102

Figure 6

A visual representation of the moderating effect of sense of coherence on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and depression (with controls).

Anxiety (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict anxiety from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.034. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Fourteen cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals 103 greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0200 or leverage value greater than 0.0390. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted anxiety, F(4,

191) = 18.57, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .27. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Social support and sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 13. A one-point increase in social support was associated with a .02-point decrease in anxiety (p = .034). Additionally, a one-point increase in sense of coherence was associated with a .11-point decrease in anxiety (p < .001).

Anxiety (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict anxiety from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self- registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.069. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Six cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals 104 greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0235, or leverage value greater than 0.1. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model statistically significantly predicted anxiety, F(9,

169) = 11.49 p < .001, adjusted R2 = .35. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Similar to the previous model, social support and sense of coherence added statistically significantly to the prediction. A one-point increase in social support was associated with a .03-point decrease in anxiety (p = .015). Additionally, a one-point increase in sense of coherence was associated with a .09-point decrease in anxiety (p < .001). Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 13.

105

Table 13

Multiple Regression Analyses for Anxiety (With and Without Controls)

Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .02 .02 .09 1.414 [-.02, .07] Social Support -.03*** .01 -.14 1.211 [-.05, .00] Disclosure .01 .03 .02 1.104 [-.05, .07] Sense of Coherence -.11*** .02 -.42 1.289 [-.15, -.07] Constant 10.042*** .21 [9.63, 10.45] N 191 Adjusted R2 .27 F 18.57

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .02 .02 .07 1.481 [-.02, .07] Social Support -.03** .01 -.17 1.297 [-.06, -.01] Disclosure .02 .03 .04 1.129 [-.05, .08] Sense of Coherence -.09*** .02 -.36 1.406 [-.13, -.06] Age -.04** .02 -.15 1.123 [-.08, -.01] Relationship to Offender .25 .31 .05 1.082 [-.36, .85] Victimization -.36 .30 -.08 1.066 [-.95, .23] Income -.22** .08 -.19 1.137 [.37, -.08] Self-Registration -2.64 1.46 -.11 1.023 [-5.52, .25] Constant 21.52 4.44 [12.77, 30.28] N 169 Adjusted R2 .35 F 11.49

Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Social Isolation (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict social isolation from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.107.

Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized 106 residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10.

Eight cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than

0.0185 or leverage value greater than 0.0362. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted social isolation, F(7, 210) =

34.63, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .52. There was a significant F change between the model a

(no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was a moderating effect. Thus, model b is being interpreted. In this model, there were main effects of courtesy stigma (p <.001) and social support (p <.001).

There was a significant interaction between courtesy stigma and social support (p

= .002), indicating that there was a moderating effect of social support on the relationship between courtesy stigma and social isolation. Significant interactions were probed using a simple slopes analysis at +1/-1 SD and +2/-2 SD and were then plotted to depict the direction of the moderating effects. Simple slopes were not significant at 1 SD away from the mean. Simple slope analyses revealed at 2 SD away from the mean that there was a significant effect of stigma on social isolation for individuals who were high on social support (b = .21, SE = .05, CI [.11, .31], and p < .001), but no significant effect for those low on social support (b = -.20, SE = .17, CI [-.53, .13], and p = .233). See Figure 7 for a visual representation of the moderating effect. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 14.

107

Figure 7

A visual representation of the moderating effect of social support on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and social isolation (without controls).

Social Isolation (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict social isolation from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors (respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self- registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 2.110. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or VIF greater than 10. Three cases were 108 determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0225, or leverage value greater than 0.0957. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

Again, there was a significant F change between model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was moderating effect.

Thus, model b is being interpreted. The multiple regression model significantly predicted social isolation, F(12, 182) = 21.38, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .56. In the previous model, there were main effects of courtesy stigma and social support, with a significant interaction effect between courtesy stigma and social support. In the model with controls, the same variables remained significant, with main effects of courtesy stigma (p <.001) and social support (p < .001).

Similar to the previous model, there was a significant interaction between courtesy stigma and social support (p < .001), indicating that there was a moderating effect of social support on the relationship between courtesy stigma and social isolation.

Significant interactions were probed using a simple slopes analysis at +1/-1 SD and +2/-2

SD and were then plotted to depict the direction of the moderating effects. Simple slopes were not significant at 1 SD away from the mean. Simple slope analyses revealed at 2 SD away from the mean that there was a significant effect of stigma on social isolation for individuals who were high on social support (b = -.362, SE = .17, CI [-.70, -.03], and p =

.035) and a significant effect for those low on social support (b = .22, SE = .05, CI [.11,

.30], and p < .001), but as seen in the plots and simple slopes, the effect was stronger for 109 those high on social support. See Figure 8 for a visual representation of the moderating effect. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 14.

Figure 8

A visual representation of the moderating effect of social support on the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and social isolation (with controls).

110

Table 14

Multiple Regression Analyses for Social Isolation (With and Without Controls)

Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma (CS) .32*** .04 .53 1.572 [.25, .39] Social Support -.11*** .02 -.29 1.440 [-.15, -.07] Disclosure -.01 .05 -.01 1.103 [-.10, .08] Sense of Coherence -.01 .03 -.03 1.484 [-.07, .04] CS x Disclosure .00 .00 .05 1.104 [.00. .01] CS x Social Support .01** .00 .17 1.371 [.00, .01] CS x Sense of Coherence .00 .00 .04 1.238 [.00, .01] Constant 20.83*** .39 [19.37, 20.77] N 210 Adjusted R2 .52 F 34.63

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma .35*** .04 .56 1.543 [.28, .42] Social Support -.12*** .02 -.32 1.413 [-.16, -.08] Disclosure .04 .05 .03 1.160 [-.08, .13] Sense of Coherence .01 .03 .02 1.468 [-.05, .07] Age .02 .03 .04 1.182 [-.04, .08] Relationship to Offender -.88 .52 -.09 1.108 [-1.91, .14] Victimization .36 .50 .04 1.104 [-.63, 1.34] Income .19 .12 .08 1.136 [-.05, .47] Self-Registration .97 1.05 .05 1.063 [-1.11, 3.05] CS x Disclosure .00 .00 .02 1.165 [-.01, .01] CS x Social Support .01*** .00 .23 1.330 [.00, .01] CS x Sense of Coherence .00 .00 -.02 1.253 [-.01, .00] Constant 16.26*** 3.58 [9.18, 23.33] N 182 Adjusted R2 .56 F 21.38 Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

111

Relationship Quality (RQ6: Without Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict relationship quality from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence. The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.858. Homoscedasticity was present, as assessed by visual inspection of a plot of standardized residuals versus unstandardized predicted values. No evidence of multicollinearity emerged, which was assessed by tolerance values greater than 0.1. or

VIF greater than 10. Six cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0217 or leverage value greater than 0.0423. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted relationship quality, F(4,

183) = 4.35, p < .002, adjusted R2 = .07. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Despite the model being significant overall, there were no significant main effects. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 15.

Relationship Quality (RQ7: With Controls). A multiple regression was conducted to predict relationship quality from internalized courtesy stigma, social support, disclosure, and sense of coherence, while controlling for a number of relevant factors

(respondents’ age, household income, relationship to the offender, victimization history, and self-registration). The data demonstrated linearity as assessed by partial regression 112 plots and a plot of standardized residuals against the predicted values. Independence of residuals was confirmed, as assessed by a Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.889.

Six cases were determined to be outliers based having two of the following: standardized residuals greater than ±3 standard deviations, Cooks distance greater than 0.0263, or leverage value greater than 0.1111. The assumption of normality was met, as assessed by a Q-Q plot.

The multiple regression model significantly predicted relationship quality, F(9,

156) = 2.09, p < .033, adjusted R2 = .06. There was no significant F change between the model a (no interaction terms) and model b (interaction terms included), indicating that there was no moderating effect. Thus, model a is being interpreted. Similar to the previous model, there were no significant main effects. Regression coefficients and standard errors can be found in Table 15. As mentioned previously, given the number of models that were examined, the risk of Type I error is inflated. This inflation and its implications will be further discussed in the limitations section.

113

Table 15

Multiple Regression Analyses for Relationship Quality (With and Without Controls)

Model a (without controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma -.09 .06 -.12 1.505 [-.21, .04] Social Support .06 .04 .12 1.263 [-.02, .13] Disclosure .04 .09 .03 1.055 [-.13, .20] Sense of Coherence .08 .05 .13 1.386 [-.02, .17] Constant 55.68*** .62 [54.65, 57.08] N 183 Adjusted R2 .07 F 4.35

Model b (with controls) b SE B VIF 95% CI Courtesy Stigma -.03 .06 -.05 1.578 [-.16, .09] Social Support .06 .04 .14 1.303 [-.01, .13] Disclosure .03 .09 .03 1.091 [-.14, .20] Sense of Coherence .08 .05 .16 1.542 [-.02, .19] Age .05 .05 .08 1.149 [-.05, .15] Relationship to Offender 1.02 .88 .09 1.062 [-.72, 2.77] Victimization -1.12 .86 -.10 1.098 [-2.83, .58] Income -.37 .22 -.14 1.122 [-.80, .05] Self-Registration 1.17 2.86 .03 1.049 [-4.48, 6.82] Constant 54.03*** 8.88 [36.50, 71.57] N 156 Adjusted R2 .06 F 2.09 Note. Age, Relationship to Offender, Victimization, Income, and Self-Registration are controlled variables. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

114

Table 16

Hypotheses and Indications of Support from the Data

Hypothesis Data Support

Hypothesis 1a Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with lower subjective well-being.

Hypothesis 1b Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with lower self-esteem.

Hypothesis 1c Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with higher reports of anxiety.

Hypothesis 1d Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with higher reports of stress.

Hypothesis 1e Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with higher reports of depression.

Hypothesis 1f Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with increased social isolation.

Hypothesis 1g Greater levels of internalized courtesy stigma will Supported be associated with reduced relationship quality.

Hypothesis 6a Perceived social support will moderate the Not Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and well- Hypothesis 7a being. Not Supported

Hypothesis 6b Perceived social support will moderate the Not Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and self- Hypothesis 7b esteem Not Supported

Hypothesis 6c Perceived social support will moderate the Not Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and anxiety. Hypothesis 7c Not Supported

Hypothesis 6d Perceived social support will moderate the Not Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and stress. Hypothesis 7d Not Supported 115

Hypothesis 6e Perceived social support will moderate the Not Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and Hypothesis 7e depression. Not Supported

Hypothesis 6f Perceived social support will moderate the Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and social Hypothesis 7f isolation. Supported

Hypothesis 6g Perceived social support will moderate the Not Supported relationship between courtesy stigma and Hypothesis 7g relationship quality. Not Supported

Hypothesis 6h Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and well-being. Hypothesis 7h Not Supported

Hypothesis 6i Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and self-esteem Hypothesis 7i Not Supported

Hypothesis 6j Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and anxiety. Hypothesis 7j Not Supported

Hypothesis 6k Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and stress. Hypothesis 7k Not Supported

Hypothesis 6l Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and depression. Hypothesis 7l Supported

Hypothesis 6m Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and social isolation. Hypothesis 7m Not Supported

Hypothesis 6n Sense of coherence will moderate the relationship Not Supported between courtesy stigma and relationship quality. Hypothesis 7n Not Supported

Hypothesis 6o Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Not Supported courtesy stigma and well-being. Hypothesis 7o Not Supported 116

Hypothesis 6p Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Supported courtesy stigma and self-esteem Hypothesis 7p Supported

Hypothesis 6q Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Not Supported courtesy stigma and anxiety. Hypothesis 7q Not Supported

Hypothesis 6r Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Not Supported courtesy stigma and stress. Hypothesis 7r Not Supported

Hypothesis 6s Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Not Supported courtesy stigma and depression. Hypothesis 7s Supported

Hypothesis 6t Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Not Supported courtesy stigma and social isolation. Hypothesis 7t Not Supported

Hypothesis 6u Disclosure will moderate the relationship between Not Supported courtesy stigma and relationship quality. Hypothesis 7u Not Supported

Note. Hypotheses 6a-u are regarding models that did not include controls, while Hypotheses 7a-u are the same models but with controls included. Research questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 were not included in the table as they were exploratory and did not include any explicit hypotheses.

Qualitative Survey Question Analyses

The online survey included several open-ended questions to allowed respondents to provide information that may not have been captured in the quantitative items regarding how they have been impacted by stigma and policies. The purpose of these items was to gather a deeper understanding of how they perceive the registry and the impact it has had on their lives. Four of these items were given to all respondents. An additional item was asked only of those who entered a relationship with a known registrant to gain insight into how that status impacted their decision. 117

While a more comprehensive qualitative analysis will be conducted in the future to assess all emerging themes within the responses, the following analysis provides a preliminary and brief overview of the themes that appear to be emerging most often across the items. Three graduate-student coders volunteered to read all responses and to develop lists of emerging themes (codes to be used in future analyses) for each item.

They were then asked to list the three codes they felt emerged most often across responses. Lists from each coder were then compared to assess consistency. Top codes that were agreed upon across coders are described here.

Question 1). If you had the opportunity to talk to policymakers who were considering how to reform or improve existing policies, what would you say? In total,

180 respondents answered this item. Overall, the predominant themes within this item are consequences, secondary consequences, ineffectiveness, and proposed changes.

Consequences are when the respondent mentions any type of consequence they or their partner has experienced as a result of the registration. These often fall into the subcategories of employment and financial concerns, housing issues, stigma and judgment, isolation and mental health issues, and safety concerns. For example, one respondent stated “The areas that are greatly impacted are housing and occupation.

Those required to register often can't find work and as a result are a drain on the system in terms of public assistance, which isn't enough for these individuals to survive on.”

Another respondent said “The registry promotes public shaming, fear mongering, social stigma and other detriments on the family members of those legally required to register.

The registry destroys my family. There are other ways for law enforcement to fulfill their duties without punishing innocent people, the families of registered citizens.” 118

Additionally, many of the respondents made it a point to mention that the registry has secondary consequences, impacting people beyond the offender. For example, “The trauma of the registry crushes my family. The lasting physical, emotional, and mental effects are devastating, and I fear, will remain for decades and generations. How am I supposed to raise my son under these conditions? When someone bullies him at school because his father’s name appears readily available to the public, what am I supposed to do? The registry creates the most heart break when it affects my son, an innocent child. I have cried myself to sleep thinking about the unfairness and hatred the registry brings to my family, especially my son.”

A number of respondents cited the ineffectiveness of the registries as being something policy makers should consider by statements such as “Evidence tells us that registries provide no measurable increase in safety for children or the public” and “The policies in place do nothing to protect the public and do more harm than good. The registry tears families apart and violates human rights. The registry is expensive to maintain and takes away from an already stretched budget.”

Last, a large majority of respondents proposed that changes be made to the registry and registration policies that are currently in place. One recommendation that was made quite often was that registration requirements should be much more individualized. For example, “There needs to be a method of addressing cases on an individual basis, rather than an uncompromising categorization that fails to differentiate between a teenager that commits one offense and a serial rapist when it comes to punishment.” Another recommendation often proposed is that registration should be reserved for law enforcement only by saying things such as “Registries that are 119 accessible to the public don't make the public any safer and lead to prejudice. If a registry must exist at all, access to it should be limited to law enforcement.”

Question 2). If you had a chance to address the public and talk to them about your experiences being a partner of a registrant, what would you tell them? Overall, 175 respondents completed this question. Respondents seemed to focus their responses on wanting the public to better understand registrants (e.g., they don’t all fit the stereotype/label, many just made a mistake, or that they may be wrongfully convicted) and to understand that the registries are unfairly harsh and are not effective.

In regards to wanting the public to better understand registrants, respondents noted that they do not all match the stereotype of the sex offender label by saying things such as “There are so many different situations and scenarios— and so many people lump sex offenders all together as a danger to society and that’s not true” and “The registry essentially lumps all offenders into one category--which assumes violence and high rates of recidivism. As a result, the nonviolent, non-contact offenders and those unlikely to repeat their crimes can be characterized by the press and public as monsters.”

Additionally, many noted that the registrant may have just made a mistake in their life or were wrongfully convicted by saying things such as “Stop being afraid. Sex offenders are not monsters, they are humans, just like everyone else that made a mistake” and “Some offenders are wrongfully accused but put in the system for life just because of being late to a parole officer meeting.”

Respondents described the registries as being unfairly harsh. For example, “they have done their time. It is unfair that they treated like lepers for the rest of their lives.

Where is the registry for people who have been convicted of man slaughter and murder? 120

There isn’t one. So why should we post the names, photos, addresses of individuals

Convicted of a sexual offense? Especially those deemed “low risk.” Also, their families are tormented.” They also often described the ineffectiveness of such policies by stating things such as “The registry is unfair and unconstitutional. They have already paid their debt to society like any other type of offender and the registry has been proven to neither reduce recidivism or increase public safety” and “I do not agree that it is in any way an effective measure to keep our children nor our communities safe. It is a detriment to our society and restricts registrants to integrate back into society as independent, contributing members of society.”

Question 3) What was the best thing that happened to you as a result of your partner being registered? In total, 204 individuals responded to this item. While this seems like an unusual question, I wanted to give respondents an opportunity to reflect and share any positive experiences they may have had as most questions and research on this topic are founded in the assumption that partners of registrants are primarily impacted in a negative way. As could be expected, almost half of the respondents reported that there was nothing positive that has resulted from their partner being registered. For example, one respondent stated, “There is absolutely nothing positive that has happened to me and his entire life has been adversely affected by the registry.”

However, a number of respondents did report that there have been positive outcomes as a result of this situation. Three primary themes that emerged within these responses included stronger relationships, advocacy work, and social relationships. For the first theme, individuals often reported that their relationship and bond with their partner had become even stronger. One respondent that talked about their strengthened 121 bond with their partner stated “We grew stronger together by going through these stages in life, and sometimes when all your left with is the support from yourself and that one other person you grow stronger than ever, no matter what people are saying or doing.”

For the second theme, a number of respondents talked about how they have become involved with advocacy work in this area. One respondent stated, “We have become very involved in advocacy and legislative issues that affect people that have committed a sex offense and their families.” For the third theme, respondents often discussed relationships they have developed with people they would not have otherwise met through their advocacy work and support groups. For example, “I became close and good friends with other registrants and advocates that have helped me in times of need.

They gave me strong moral support through when my parents died and they have helped find housing for me.”

Question 4) What was the worst thing that happened to you as a result of your partner being registered? In total, 206 respondents answered this item. As expected, respondents reported a number of negative consequences that results from their partner being registered that coincide with the existing literature. Overall respondents mentioned negative consequences related to employment, housing, restrictions, and social supports

(friends and family).

Individuals often referred to concerns of being able to obtain and maintain stable employment. Many respondents also refer to having lost (or fear of losing) a position.

These concerns can be specific to the registrant, the partner, or both. Relatedly, many individuals cited financial concerns as a result. One respondent stated, “He lost his job that had been extremely difficult to obtain, the income for our household (that included 122 his mother and intellectually disabled sister) dropped considerably, and it started the decline of my financial credit.” This consequence appears to coincide heavily with housing concerns in which one respondent stated “He lost his 16 dollar an hour job. We almost lost our house and our ability to pay our bills.”

Additionally, individuals often reported that the registry restricted or limited them in a variety of ways during their everyday lives (e.g., being unable to attend school or social functions, not being able to travel, etc). For example, “My wife has been denied the right to school functions, graduations, sporting events for the kids. Couldn't attend and programs for our children at schools. Can’t travel to certain states because of registration requirements. Can’t go out on Halloween, can’t serve in our church, or watch our own kids do Bible school. Can’t go to parent teacher conferences or be involved in day care events or headstart for our kids.”

Respondents also often report the loss of, or ostracization from, their social support system, including friends and family. One respondent stated, “Some of my friends and family members stopped talking to me or spending time with us because they did not want to be around a "sex offender." It was so difficult to lose those around me.”

Additionally, respondents discussed the experience or fear of stigma, judgement, and harassment for their partner’s registration status. For example, “I am anxious and afraid all the time for the safety of my family and myself. I fear someone will find out and cause us harm.”

Question 5) Did your partner's registration status play a role in your decision to enter into a relationship with them? Why or why not? Only individuals who reported earlier in the survey that they entered into a relationship with a known registrant were 123 given this item. Of those, a total of 86 individuals responded. The majority of people

(n=49) stated that it did not play a role in their decision. One theme that emerged was that the partner was honest about the registration and details of the offense. For example, “My partner's honesty and transparency gave me assurance in entering into the relationship, earned my trust” and “because they were honest about the situation and showed me court documents proving that they told me the truth.”

Another theme that emerged was that the offense was part of their past and they deserve a second chance. For example, one respondent wrote “No, I believe a person should be looked at for who they are presently, not for what they may or may not have done in their past.” Another respondent stated that “I felt he had more than paid time for what he did. I feel he had rehabilitated and was ready to start his life over. I still feel confident in this decision. I feel everyone makes mistakes and are entitled to a new start in life. He is proving that.” Additionally, respondents often mentioned that their partner had changed and that they are a good person. For example, “he sufficiently convinced me that he was sorry for and regretted his offenses and that he was a changed man” and

“No, that is not who he is. To this day he remembers nothing. He is a good man, heart of gold, and great father”

Overall, the preliminary assessment of the open-ended responses indicates the respondents perceive themselves as being negatively impacted both by stigma and sex offense registration and notification policies. While this confirms findings from previous research (Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009), the open-ended format afforded respondents with an opportunity to provide detailed responses which provide a deeper and more robust understanding of their perspective. Respondents alluded to consequences that are 124 not often reviewed in the research literature including custody issues, how the restrictions

(e.g., being unable to attend school events) impacts the children, and how there are certain restrictions (e.g., being unable to decorate for Halloween) that seem to be enacted as a result of pervasive myths surrounding people who commit sexual offenses.

Many of the respondents also appear to be knowledgeable regarding the research findings regarding recidivism and policy impacts as they often cited the ineffectiveness of the current policies to promote community safety and reduce sexual offending. It seems that a number of respondents have gone a step further to become involved in advocacy and reform efforts, as described in their responses. Some respondents have made the best of their circumstances by serving to provide resources and support others in similar situations. In summary, the findings from the open-ended responses allude to a vast array of collateral consequences resulting from stigma and sex offense policies, but also point toward potential factors that may help to facilitate coping. These findings demonstrate the need for further research with this population to more deeply explore these mechanisms.

125

Chapter 6: Discussion

The term sex offender is arguably the most highly stigmatized of all criminal labels. Registration and notification policies formally and publicly label individuals with this term. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported that there were a total of 861,837 registered sex offenders in the U.S. in 2017 (NCMEC, 2017) within an estimated overall population of 325,923,198 in the same year (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2020). These statistics indicate that approximately 1 in every 378 people in the

U.S. is on the sex offense registry. It can be assumed that many of these individuals have families, children, and relationship partners. Given these statistics, it is clear that a large percentage of the population is likely to have been impacted by stigma and restrictions that result from being in a relationship with someone on the registry. Understanding, and ultimately reducing, the potential negative consequences of this courtesy stigma is important because partners of registrants can serve as critical social supports contributing to an increased likelihood of rehabilitation and reduced likelihood of recidivism. In other words, reducing the negative impacts of stigma and registration on registrants’ partners may ultimately increase community safety.

The current research attempts to better understand how the stigma associated with being a registrant’s partner relates to a variety of mental health, relationship, and well- being outcomes. New theoretical models of courtesy stigma were proposed to account for the mechanisms that might explain the extent to which courtesy stigma relates to well- being, self-esteem, anxiety, depression, stress, social isolation, and relationship quality.

The current research provides analyses that allow researchers to further examine and address how possible moderators (social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure) 126 impact the relationship between courtesy stigma and outcomes. In the following section, the main purposes/results of the research will be discussed in the context of the study’s hypothesis testing. Implications for theory, research, and practice will then be presented.

Finally, a review of the limitations of the study will be discussed, along with recommendations for future research.

Hypothesis Testing

Research question one aimed to better understand how internalized courtesy stigma experienced by registrants’ partners relate to mental health, well-being, and relationship outcomes. I hypothesized first that greater levels of courtesy stigma would be associated with lower subjective well-being. Second, I hypothesized that greater courtesy stigma would be related to lowered self-esteem. Both hypotheses were supported, as internalized courtesy stigma significantly negatively correlated with overall well-being and self-esteem. Third, I hypothesized that greater levels of courtesy stigma would be associated with poorer mental health in the form of increased anxiety, stress, and depression. This hypothesis also was supported, as internalized courtesy stigma significantly positively correlated with anxiety, stress, and depression. Additionally, I hypothesized that greater courtesy stigma would be related to increased social isolation.

Again, the hypothesis was supported. There was a significant positive correlational relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and social isolation. Last, I hypothesized that greater levels of courtesy stigma would be associated with poorer relationship quality. This hypothesis also was supported, as internalized courtesy stigma was significantly negatively correlated with relationship quality. 127

To summarize, increased courtesy stigma is related to a host of negative outcomes including reduced well-being, self-esteem, and relationship quality, as well as increased anxiety, stress, depression, and social isolation. These findings suggest that internalized courtesy stigma is related to all of the negative outcomes that are typically related to stigma, indicating that stigma by association may be just as damaging as directly experienced stigma. These findings correspond with previous literature that suggests that family members and partners of registrants also may be negatively impacted and experience secondary stigma (Farkas & Miller, 2008; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009;

Plogher, Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016).

Research question two aimed to examine whether there were differences in courtesy stigma across the relationship subgroups (registration occurred during relationship, registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was aware, and registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was unaware). There were no specific hypotheses made, as these analyses were exploratory. The findings from the analyses indicated that courtesy stigma was higher when the individual was required to register during the time of the relationship compared to those who entered into a relationship with an individual who they already knew to be a registrant. Respondents who were not in the relationship when the offense occurred likely did not experience guilt or blame for the offense, which are factors that contribute to courtesy stigma. As such, it makes sense that this group experiences lower levels of stigma compared to those who were in the relationship when the offense and registration took place, as these individuals were at an increased risk to experience blame and guilt for the offense itself. 128

Research question three explored the different types of relationships (registration occurred during relationship, registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was aware, and registration occurred prior to relationship and the respondent was unaware) across the dependent variables in this dissertation study. Like research question two, these analyses were exploratory, and no specific hypotheses were made.

There were no significant differences across these groups for well-being, self-esteem, anxiety, stress, or depression. These findings suggest that individuals may experience similar well-being and mental health outcomes, regardless of how they ended up in a relationship with a registrant.

However, the findings also indicate that individuals who were in a relationship with their partner when the registration occurred experienced increased social isolation, compared to those who entered into the relationship aware of their partner’s existing registration status. Similar to the previous research question, it is possible that those who were in a relationship at the time the offense and registration took place may isolate themselves as they may be embarrassed or be experiencing shame and guilt. Further it is possible that this finding is a result of social ostracism, as people may avoid the respondent if they feel they are in some way to blame for the offense since they were in the relationship when it happened.

Last, the findings also suggest that that those who were in a relationship with their partner when the registration occurred reported lower relationship quality compared to those who were aware of their partner’s existing registration status when they entered the relationship. I speculate that this finding is a function of the disruption of life and violation of the trust or commitments that took place in the relationships that were 129 established prior to registration. To elaborate, significant changes to life (public registration and stigma, new legal restrictions, possible incarceration, etc.) likely contribute to the reduced overall relationship quality between the partners. Further, if the offense(s) occurred during the relationship, it is possible that the respondent feels violated or betrayed in some way similar to when infidelity takes place, depending on the offense type and perceived severity.

Research question four aimed to better understand the relationship between background factors (crime type, violent vs. nonviolent offense, number of offenses, and age of victim) and courtesy stigma. I had hoped to assess differences in courtesy stigma based on whether the offense involved a victim with a physical disability, a victim with a mental disability, a senior victim (over the age of 65), violence, or the use of a weapon.

However, there were so few people who reported that their partner’s offenses included these factors that I was unable to run statistical analyses. I suspect that respondents whose partners committed sexual crimes against vulnerable populations or that involved weapons and violence would experience more courtesy stigma as a result. However, I am unable to explore or support these hypotheses with the current data. Additionally, I ran comparisons on those who had a partner whose offense involved a minor with those that did not involve a minor and found no significant differences in internalized courtesy stigma. Despite the lack of statistical significance, I posit that the substantially uneven sample sizes contributed to the inability to detect differences if they do exist.

There also was no significant relationship between number of offenses and courtesy stigma. Coupled with high rates of courtesy stigma overall, this finding suggests that individuals are likely to experience stigma just because their partner is registered, 130 despite the number of offenses. Further, I found no statistically significant differences between registry tier levels on internalized courtesy stigma. It is possible that the experience of being in a relationship with a registrant contributes to stigma, regardless of tier level. There were a substantial number of respondents that did not know their partner’s tier level, which may also have impacted the findings. Further, while tier levels are federally established, states can implement harsher restrictions associated with tier levels, meaning that the tier levels and associated ramifications are not consistent across states. This inconsistency also may have influenced findings.

Research question five aimed to better understand the relationship between background factors and the outcome variables (well-being, self-esteem, anxiety, stress, depression, social isolation, and relationship quality) assessed in this study. As was the case for research question 4, analyses were not able to be conducted for physical disability, mental disability, senior citizen, physical violence, or weapon presence. Across the outcomes, there were no significant differences between those participants with a partner whose offense involved a minor and those participants with a partner whose offense did not involve a minor. This suggests that the age of the victim may not be particularly important in assessing overall outcomes, though this finding should be interpreted with caution given the unequal sample sizes examined. There also may be difference between those who offended against a minor at a young age (e.g., a 16-year- old offender with a 14-year-old victim) and those who offended against a minor at an older age. Future research should aim to get a larger sample size to be able to further explore these differences. Similarly, there were no significant differences across tier 131 levels on the outcome variables. However, like research question four, tier levels vary across states and this may have influenced findings.

Additionally, I assessed whether the number of offenses correlated with the outcomes. There was no significant correlation between number of offenses with well- being, self-esteem, anxiety, stress, or social isolation. Number of offenses did significantly correlate with depression and relationship quality, such that increases in the number of offenses was related to an increase in depression and a decrease in relationship quality. While these findings suggest that number of offenses the registrant was convicted of may be related to outcomes in their partner, it is important to not infer causation from these analyses. It also is possible that the relationship is influenced by a third variable that was not measured in this study. For example, in this study I was only able to capture number of offenses the partner was convicted of but was unable to gather information regarding number of victims or number of initial charges. Further research needs to be conducted to explicate these findings.

Research questions six and seven examined if perceived social support, sense of coherence, and disclosure moderate the relationship between internalized courtesy stigma and the various outcomes. These hypotheses were tested with and without controls to determine if the relationships hold when controlling for other factors (age, relationship to the offender, victimization, income, and self-registration) expected to have a strong influence on the outcome variables in the analyses.

It was hypothesized that social support would serve as a protective factor by reducing the strength of the relationships between stigma and the outcomes. I expected that having higher levels of perceived social support would improve outcomes (e.g., 132 reduced social isolation). Social support was only a significant moderator for one outcome. It was found that social support moderated the relationship between courtesy stigma and social isolation, with and without controls. There was a main effect in both models of social support, demonstrating that increases in social support led to decreases in social isolation.

Contrary to expectations, however, increases in courtesy stigma led to significant increases in social isolation for those who have a high level of perceived social support, but not for those who have a low level of perceived social support. I expected that having more social support would buffer against the effects of stigma on isolation, but the opposite was found in these data. It is possible that there is a more complex relationship at play. I suspect that those who perceive themselves as having many social supports are more likely to feel estranged from their social supports in light of the stigma they are experiencing, while those who do not have many social supports may not feel substantially more isolated because they do not have a large number of individuals to feel isolated from. I posit that it is possible that those who are used to being social and possess strong support systems are more susceptible to feeling isolated when they may feel embarrassed or ashamed. It is also plausible that having a large support system means having more opportunity to experience stigma. Further research is needed to better understand the mechanism by which social support moderates this relationship. I suspect that examining the number and quality of social supports, as well as the levels of feeling ostracized versus choosing to self-isolate, will be important in further understanding this relationship. 133

While social support was not found to moderate any of the other relationships, it did serve as a significant predictor in several analyses. Increases in perceived social support predicted increases in overall well-being and decreases in anxiety, with and without controls. Thus, it is important to continue to consider social support as an important element in determining well-being and anxiety, and this may be particularly important for people who are experiencing courtesy stigma.

It was hypothesized that sense of coherence also would serve as a protective factor by reducing the strength of the relationships between stigma and the outcomes. I expected that having a stronger sense of coherence would improve outcomes (e.g., increased well-being). There was a significant moderating effect of sense of coherence on the relationship between stigma and depression. As expected, sense of coherence buffered against the effects of courtesy stigma, such that increased courtesy stigma led to significant decreases in depression when accounting for sense of coherence, though this effect was much stronger for those with high levels of sense of coherence. While I expected that sense of coherence would reduce the effect of stigma on depression, it was unexpected that the positive correlational relationship between stigma and depression became negative when sense of coherence was included as a moderator. However, given that sense of coherence is a measure of how individuals view life and use their resources to help them cope, it makes sense that those with higher levels of sense of coherence may see the experience of courtesy stigma as something they can comprehend and manage, while finding emotional meaning in the situation. This finding is consistent with a number of studies that have posited that sense of coherence serves to help individuals 134 cope with stress and may prevent or reduce mental health issues (Potier et al., 2018;

Schafer, et al., 2018).

While sense of coherence was not found to moderate the other relationships, it did serve as a significant predictor in several analyses. Increases in sense of coherence predicted increases in well-being and self-esteem, and decreases in stress, anxiety, and depression, with and without controls. These findings demonstrate the overall importance of sense of coherence in predicting well-being and mental health outcomes for partners of registrants. Consistent with the previously reviewed literature, sense of coherence contributes to an array of positive outcomes within this sample.

Last, it was hypothesized that increased disclosure would serve as a risk factor by increasing the strength of the relationships between stigma and the outcomes. I expected that more disclosure regarding their partner’s registrant status would predict poorer outcomes (e.g., increased anxiety). It was found that disclosure moderated the relationship between courtesy stigma and self-esteem, with and without controls.

Increases in courtesy stigma led to significant increases in self-esteem for those who reported higher disclosure, but not for those who reported lower disclosure. It was found that disclosure also moderated the relationship between courtesy stigma and depression, with controls. Increases in courtesy stigma led to significant decreases in depression for those who reported higher disclosure, but not for those who reported lower disclosure. As expected, higher levels of disclosure buffered against the effects of courtesy stigma, however, once again it was unexpected that the moderating variable changes the direction of the relationship. It is possible that when individuals experience high levels of stigma and disclose it serves as a function of self-efficacy or agency, helping to improve 135 outcomes. These findings indicate that disclosure may be very important for protecting against negative impacts of stigma on self-esteem and depression. Despite this, disclosure was not found to be a significant moderator or predictor for any of the other outcomes. This may be a result of how disclosure was measured for this study. Future research should aim to better capture types of disclosure (public vs. private) and in a more robust manner (e.g., number of disclosures / people disclosed to, information disclosed, etc) to further explore the role of disclosure on outcomes within this population.

It also is important to note that although the models predicting relationship quality were significant, there were no main effects or moderating effects found in either model.

While this indicates that in combination, the variables assessed in this model do predict relationship quality to a small, but significant, extent – it is likely that other variables are more influential in predicting relationship quality.

Research and Theoretical Implications

The results from this dissertation study offer implications for theory, research, and application. This study is the first to empirically assess the impact of courtesy stigma on a sample of partners of registrants. A new, comprehensive model of courtesy stigma was developed and tested with this population. This model advances theoretical applications of courtesy stigma on a variety of outcomes, in addition to examining potential factors that may influence the impact of stigma. Previous research has found that sense of coherence (Świtaj et al., 2013; van Zelst, 2010), social support (Casale et al., 2019;

Home, 2002), and disclosure (Dena, 2005; Fitzgerald O’Reilly, 2018) can influence how individuals are impacted by stigma. While this research explored the idea that individuals 136 associated with registrants could experience negative outcomes themselves (Farkas &

Miller, 2008; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Plogher, Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016), to the best of my knowledge this is the first study to integrate the concepts of courtesy stigma into a model incorporating potential moderators of sense of coherence, social support, and disclosure. Results from this study are consistent with previous findings and lend support to the use of these moderators to examine the impact of courtesy stigma on various mental health and well-being outcomes. Overall, current findings reveal that courtesy stigma is an important construct when assessing registrant partner’s well-being.

Future investigation can build on these findings to further understand how registration policies influence individual and relationship coping processes and outcomes.

This dissertation also contributes to the literature by further identifying and highlighting the negative collateral consequences experienced as a result of being in a relationship with a registrant. The results from the quantitative analyses and open-ended items demonstrate the damaging impacts that stigma and registration policies can have on partners of registrants. Specifically, current findings endorse previous research that has found that partners of registrants may experience negative outcomes such as stigma and decreased overall well-being (Plogher, Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016). Further, this study assessed a wide variety of contextual factors (e.g., number of offenses, whether the victim was a minor, tier level) to further explicate their relation to courtesy stigma and the consequences previously reviewed.

Applied Implications

With the introduction of sex offender registration and notification policies, hundreds of thousands of individuals have been required to register publicly as a sex 137 offender (NCMEC, 2018). Researchers have done substantial investigation on the repercussions from these policies on registrants, which have been found to include social ostracism, difficulty reentering society, emotional issues, employment barriers, housing difficulties, and harassment (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). Researchers also have established that family members and partners may experience similar negative repercussions (Farkas & Miller, 2008; Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009; Plogher,

Stevenson, & McCracken, 2016). Current findings provide further evidence for the negative impact of registration and stigma on partners of registrants, drawing attention to this understudied population. Results illuminate the extent and severity to which partners of registrants are impacted by stigma and sexual offense-related policies. This is problematic, as partners may serve as important social supports who contribute to registrant reentry success and reduced recidivism (Duwe, 2013). If they are experiencing similar consequences as registrants, their ability to serve in this capacity is likely diminished.

There are two ways in which findings from this study can contribute to improved outcomes for this population. First, there are a number of existing support groups and family counseling programs targeted for offenders and their families. However, the findings from this study indicate several barriers and consequences that may be specific to partners of registrants and require more targeted and individualized approaches to intervention. Therapeutic interventions, for example, might do well to focus on increasing sense of coherence and can help the individual to explore the potential benefits and consequences of disclosure within a therapeutic setting. 138

There are a number of websites and advocacy groups (e.g., Sex Offender Support and Education Network, Women Against Registry) that provide useful resource information to registrants and their families. However, many respondents in this study alluded to a lack of resources in their open-ended survey items and within our interactions during the recruitment phase. Thus, findings from this study indicate that partners of registrants need to be better informed of existing resources and provided with more opportunities to access those resources that could in turn help alleviate the negative outcomes associated with courtesy stigma. Given that all registrants have their addresses registered and have to go into registration or law enforcement offices to update this information, it could be useful to provide resources available to family members and partners directly to registrants at such points of contact.

Future researchers also could use their findings, such as those in this study, to create fact sheets and applied publications that can be used to better inform the development or improvement of resources aimed at partners of registrants. These publications could also be useful in informing intervention and counseling services.

Therapeutic programs and counseling are often required for registrants as a part of their probation or parole expectations. There are sometimes opportunities for family members to be involved through family-based therapy. However, family members may benefit through interventions, treatment, and support groups that are specifically targeted at addressing their needs – rather than being an extension of the registrant’s own treatment.

Treatment and support models of organizations like Al-Anon Family Groups may provide direction for such efforts. There are currently several online support groups and online communities such as those on DailyStrength.org and Reddit, however, these 139 forums exclude individuals who live in homes with registrants who have internet access restrictions. Further, though online support groups may be beneficial in some ways, they should not be an alternative to therapy, counseling, or in-person support groups until there is empirical evidence of their therapeutic effects (Robinson & Pond, 2019). Thus, it is critical that there are support groups and counseling available to family members and partners of registrants and that they are informed of how to access these resources.

Another way the findings from this study can contribute to improving the outcomes for partners of registrants is by further contributing to the discussion of policy reform and providing evidence for the costly ramifications of such policies. Reform efforts are already taking place across the country on the basis of the ineffectiveness of existing policies (Agan, 2011; Kernsmith et al., 2009; Prescott & Rockoff, 2009), the collateral consequences they have on registrants (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006), their costliness in terms of resources and money (Pittman & Nguyen, 2011), and for the barriers they create for successful reentry (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006). This study sheds light on the fact that the repercussions of these policies go beyond the offender and negatively impacts those who are associated with them as well, which provides further evidence for why reform efforts may be needed. Future research should examine public perceptions and political attention surrounding proposed reform and alternatives to registration.

Finally, this study allowed this hidden population to have a ‘voice’ regarding the extent to which they are impacted by policies and provided them an opportunity to suggest ideas for reform. Overall, the data reveals partners of registrants have been negatively impacted by the existing policies and the public stigmatization their partners 140 and themselves face as a result of those policies. A large majority of the respondents indicated that they felt that registries should be abolished completely on the grounds listed above for reform. However, many also seemed to understand that the public and politicians are unlikely to support complete removal of this policy. These individuals suggested that if abolition is not an option, then reform efforts should focus on removing the registries from the public eye and limiting access to law enforcement only. Registrant partners indicated that keeping the registries public does nothing to increase community safety and instead increases the stigma for registrants and their families. Previous research and the findings from this study converge to support this policy reform recommendation.

Limitations and Future Directions

As mentioned previously, Type I error is a concern in this study given the number of hypotheses tested. The exploratory nature of this study, however, provides a rich source for future research to replicate and expand on current findings. The cross-sectional design and correlational procedures of this study preclude conclusions regarding causality; future longitudinal investigations will be needed. The framework of courtesy stigma tested in this study also may be more dynamic and complex than proposed, changing over time and with reciprocal influences. For example, factors such as courtesy stigma likely shift over time with adaptation and life changes and may be more or less salient in various situations (e.g., work vs. in social settings). Given the study design, I was unable to capture the dynamic and longitudinal relationships amongst these constructs. Future research could collect larger longitudinal samples that would allow the 141 multivariate analyses and growth curve modeling approaches necessary to tease out these effects.

While many of the theoretically influential variables were measured in this study, the sample size and statistical restrictions only permitted a limited number of factors to be examined within the models. Given the final sample size, the models were restricted to the most important factors proposed in the literature to be able to retain sufficient power in my analyses. Further, many variables did not have enough variance to allow for proposed analyses to be completed. For example, case-related factors such as whether the sexual offense involved violence may contribute to courtesy stigma and outcomes.

However, I was unable to test this given that so few individuals reported that their partner’s offense included violence. In addition, some variables were assessed but measurement issues may have contributed to a lack of significant findings. For example, tier level varies in definition across states and given the limited sample size, I was unable to parse out these differences within the current analyses.

Alternative methods such as interviews or mixed-methods approaches may help to obtain a deeper understanding of the results obtained here. The open-ended responses provided an exciting window into the lives of partners and how registration policy has influenced their well-being and relationships. Dyadic data of registrants and their partners could further improve our understanding of the overall impacts of policies and stigma on the relationships. Finally, employing cluster strategies to assess data by state would allow for the examination of policy differences across states that might influence the findings reported here. 142

Recruitment approaches for this population should also be carefully considered.

The strategy in this dissertation study may have contributed to selection bias, as those who are more engaged in treatment or involved with the advocacy community may have been more likely to receive information about this study and then participate. Given that this is such a stigmatized population, it is possible that this survey did not reach those who are amongst the most stigmatized and not involved in these systems. Given this, it is possible that the sample used in this study is not reflective of these overall population and may in fact, be underestimating the negative repercussions of experienced courtesy stigma.

As previously mentioned, very little research has been conducted on the experiences of this specific population, leaving this area of inquiry ripe for the emergence of new research ideas. For example, previous research has alluded to public perceptions surrounding the typology of partners of registrants but has yet to explore the underlying reasons why individuals stay with their partners after sex offense registration occurs. A number of respondents in this study also cited consequences related to their relationships with their children. Future research could explore the impact of children in the home on the relationships explored in this study and how this influences relationship dynamics between the registrant and their partner.

Conclusions

This dissertation study has several strengths which include employing a robust national sampling strategy for recruitment, developing and testing new comprehensive models of courtesy stigma integrated from theory, and providing an opportunity for partners of registrants to have their voices included into the findings through open-ended 143 responses. As hypothesized, findings revealed that courtesy stigma experienced by partners of registrants relates to a number of negative consequences including increased social isolation, stress, depression, anxiety and decreased well-being, self-esteem, and relationship quality. Factors such as sense of coherence, social support, and disclosure, however, were found to improve outcomes and buffer against the effects of stigma, offering promising direction to intervention efforts aimed at registrant partners experiencing this courtesy stigma. The research on this population is still extremely limited and warrants more attention. Current findings highlight the need for interventions to improve outcomes for partners of registrants and policy reform to improve community safety and reduce the unintended negative consequences of existing policies. Partners of registrants can be key mechanisms for supporting successful community reentry of individuals who have been convicted of sexual offenses. However, until they can be supported themselves through treatment interventions, resources, and reform of policies that are negatively impacting their overall well-being and mental health – they likely will be unable to serve to the best of their ability in this capacity.

144

References

Ackerman, A R., Harris, A. J., Levenson, J. S., & Zgoba, K. (2011). Who are the people

in your neighborhood? A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex

offender registries. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34, 149-159.

Adam Walsh Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, (2006).

Agan, A. Y. (2011). Sex offender registries: Fear without function? Journal of Law and

Economics, 54, 207-239.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress

and stay well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale.

Social Science & Medicine, 36(6), 725-733.

Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. (1998).

Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the depression

anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological

Assessment, 10(2), 176-181. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.176

Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach. Families in

Society, 86(2), 251–260.

Armstrong, R. A. (2014). When to use Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic &

Physiological Optics, 34, 502-508. doi: 10.1111/opo.12131

Asher, J. A. (2014). Dirty work and courtesy stigma: Stigma management techniques

among professionals who work with juvenile sex offenders. (Doctoral

dissertation). 145

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the

challenges of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review,

24, 413–434.

Bachleda, C. L., & El Menzhi, L. (2017). Reducing susceptibility to courtesy stigma,

Health Communication, 33(6), 771-781. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1312203

Bailey, D. J. S. (2018). A life of grief: An exploration of disenfranchised grief in sex

offender significant others. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 641-667.

Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption: Communities, victims,

and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 768-813.

Birenbaum, A. (1970). On managing a courtesy stigma. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 11(3), 196-206.

Beckett, K., Beach, L., Knaphus, E., & Reosti, A. (2018). US criminal justice policy and

practice in the Twenty‐First century: Toward the end of mass incarceration? Law

& Policy, 40(4), 321-345. doi:10.1111/lapo.1211

Beres, M. (2007). ‘Spontaneous’ sexual consent: An analysis of sexual consent literature.

Feminism & Psychology, 17(1), 93–108.

Bonevski, B., Randell, M., Paul, C., Chapman, K., Twyman, L., Bryant, J., Brozek, I., &

Hughes, C. (2014). Reaching the hard-to-reach: A systematic review of strategies

for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups.

BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 2-29.

Braithwaite, V. (2000). Values and restorative justice in schools. In H. Strang & J.

Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice (pp. 121–144).

Aldershot: Ashgate. 146

Broersma, F., Oedeburg, B., Dijkstra, J., & Wynia, K. (2018). The impact of self-

perceived limitations, stigma and sense of coherence on quality of life in multiple

sclerosis patients: results of a cross-sectional study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 32(4),

536-545. doi: 10.1177/0269215517730670

Burchfield, K. B. (2012). Assessing community residents’ perceptions of local registered

sex offenders: Results from a pilot study. Deviant Behavior, 33, 241-259.

Burchfield, K. B., & Mingus, W. (2008). Not in my neighborhood: Assessing registered

sex offenders’ experiences with local social capital and social control. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 33, 356-374.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Statistics at a glance: 2002 (NCJ No. 194449).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Carstens, J., & Spangenberg, J. (1997). Major depression: A breakdown in sense of

coherence. Psychological Reports, 80, 1211–1220.

Casale, M., Boyes, M., Pantelic, M., Toska, E., & Cluver, L. (2019). Suicidal thoughts

and behavior among South African adolescents living with HIV: Can social

support buffer the impact of stigma? Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 82-90.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.10.102

Cecil, H., Stanley, M. A., Carrion, P. G., & Swann, A. (1995). Psychometric properties of

the MSPSS and NOS in psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

51, 593– 602.

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2006). Understanding Treatment for Adults and

Juveniles Who Have Committed Sex Offenses. U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs. 147

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). Preventing Sexual Violence.

Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/SV-Factsheet.pdf

Chasteen, A. L., & Cary, L. A. (2015). Age stereotypes and age stigma: Connections to

research on subjective aging. Annual Review of Gerontology and

Geriatrics, 35(1), 99-119. doi:10.1891/0198-8794.35.99

Clara, I. P., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., Murray, L. T., & Torgrude, L. J. (2003).

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social

Support in clinically depressed and student samples. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 81, 265–270.

Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological

challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423-435.

doi: 10.1177/0022343311405698

Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American

Psychologist, 59, 614 – 625.

Corrigan, P. W., Kerr, A., & Knudsen, L. (2005). The stigma of mental illness:

Explanatory models and methods for change. Applied and Preventative

Psychology, 11, 179-190.

Corrigan, P. W., & Miller, F. E. (2004). Shame, blame, and contamination: A review of

the impact of mental illness stigma on family members. Journal of Mental Health,

13(6), 537-548.

Corrigan, P. W., Larson, J. E., & Rusch, N. (2009). Self-stigma and the “why try” effect:

Impact on life goals and evidence-based practices. World Psychiatry, 8, 75–81. 148

Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 35–53.

Culligan, J. S. (2009). Not carrying the burden: Lifestyle management of obese rural

women. Masters Abstracts International, 47, 3515.

Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, G. D., & Walker, R. R. (1991). The multidimensional scale of

perceived social support: A confirmation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

47, 756 –761.

Day, R., & Hitchings, R. (2011). ‘Only old ladies would do that’: Age stigma and older

people’s strategies for dealing with winter cold. Health and Place, 17(4), 885-

894. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.04.011

Dena, S. (2005). Stigma and self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships of registered

sex offenders. (Master’s thesis)

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and

mixed-mode surveys (4th ed.). US: Wiley.

Doka, K. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington:

Lexington Books.

Đorić, S. N. (2020). HIV-related stigma and subjective well-being: The mediating role of

the belief in a just world. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(5), 598-605.

doi:10.1177/1359105317726150

Drapalski, A. L., Lucksted, A., Perrin, P. B., Aakre, J. M., Brown, C. H., DeForge, B. R.,

& Boyd, J. E. (2013). A model of internalized stigma and its effects on people

with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 64, 264–269. 149

Duwe, G. (2013). Can circles of support and accountability (COSA) work in the United

States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment in Minnesota. Sexual

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 143-165.

doi:10.1177/1079063212453942

Eriksson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the

relation with health: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 60(5), 376-381.

Evans, D. N., & Cubellis, M. A. (2015). Coping with stigma: How registered sex

offenders manage their public identities. American Journal of Criminal Justice,

40, 593-619.

Farkas, M. A., & Miller, G. (2007). Reentry and reintegration: Challenges faced by the

families of convicted in a psychiatric setting. Social Problems, 23(3), 305-311.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2017). Crime in the United States, 2017. U.S.

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice

Information Services Division. Retrieved from: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-

u.s/2017/preliminary-report/tables/table-1

Fenner, L. (2017). Sexual consent as a scientific subject: A literature review. American

Journal of Sexuality Education, 12(4), 451-471.

Fitgerald O’Reilly, M. (2018). Information pertaining to released sex offenders: To

disclose or not to disclose, that is the question. The Howard Journal of Crime and

Justice, 57(2), 204-230. 150

Flanery R. & Flanery G. (1990) Sense of coherence, life stress, and psychological

distress: a prospective methodological inquiry. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

46, 415–420.

Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Yajima, M. (2012). Why we (usually) don't have to worry about

multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2),

189-211. doi:10.1080/19345747.2011.618213

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Green, S. E. (2004). The impact of stigma on maternal attitudes toward placement of

children with disabilities in residential care facilities. Social Science & Medicine,

59(4), 799–812.

Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., &

Altman, D. G. (2016). Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power:

A guide to misinterpretations. European Journal of Epidemiology, 31(4), 337-

350. doi:10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3

Groger, L., Mayberry, P., & Straker, J. (1999). What we didn't learn because of who

would not talk to us. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 829-835.

Guadiano, B. A., & Miller, I. W. (2013). Self-stigma and attitudes about treatment in

depressed patients in a hospital setting. International Journal of Social

Psychiatry, 59(6), 586.591.

Guo, L., Liu, Y., McMallum, J., Söderhamn, U., Ding, X., Yv, S.,Zhu, Y., Guo, Y.

(2018). Perceived stress and depression amongst older stroke patients: Sense of

coherence as a mediator. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 79, 164-170. 151

Hackman, J., Maupin, J., & Brewis, A. A. (2016). Weight-related stigma is a significant

psychosocial stressor in developing countries: Evidence from Guatemala. Social

Science & Medicine, 161, 55–60.

Hanson, R. K. (2000). Will they do it again? Predicting sex-offense recidivism. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 106-109.

Hanson, R. K. (2006). Does Static-99 predict recidivism among older sex offenders? Sex

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 343–355.

Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2014). High-risk sex offenders

may not be high risk forever. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2792–2813.

Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2011). Courtesy stigma and monetary sanctions:

Toward a socio-cultural theory of punishment. American Sociological Review,

76(2), 234-264.

Heim, C., Shugart, M., Craighead, W. E., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2010). Neurobiological and

psychiatric consequences of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Psychology,

52, 671-690.

Home, A. (2002). Challenging hidden oppression: Mothers caring for children with

disabilities. Critical Social Work, 3(1), 88-103.

Hopkins, C. Q., & Koss, M. P. (2005). Incorporating feminist theory and insights into a

restorative justice response to sex offenses. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 693-

723. doi:10.1177/1077801205274570

Hornle, T. (2018). #MeToo – Implications for criminal law? Bergen Journal of Criminal

Law and Criminal Justice, 6(2), 115-135. 152

Jackson, S. E., Beeken, R. J., & Wardle, J. (2015). Obesity, perceived weight

discrimination, and psychological well‐being in older adults in England. Obesity,

23(5), 1105–1111.

Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration

Act, Public Law, 103–322. (1994).

Jones, S. J., & Beck, E. (2006). Disenfranchised grief and nonfinite loss as experienced

by the families of death row inmates. OMEGA–Journal of Death and Dying,

54(4), 281–299.

Kahn, R. E., Ambroziak, G., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2017). Release from the sex

offender label. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(4), 861-864. doi:10.1007/s10508-

017-0972-y

Kamiya, Y., Timonen, V., & Kenny, R. A. (2016). The impact of childhood sexual abuse

on the mental and physical health, and healthcare utilization of older adults.

International Psychogeriatrics, 28, 415-422.

Kauffman, J. (1989). Intrapsychic dimensions of disenfranchised grief. In K. J. Doka

(Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington: Lexington

Books.

Kennedy-Shaffer, L. (2010). Before p < 0.05 to beyond p < 0.05: Using history to

contextualize p-values and significance testing. The American Statistician, 73, 82-

90.

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 121-140.

doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.026

Klonsky, E., & Moyer, A. (2008). Childhood sexual abuse and non-suicidal self-injury: 153

Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, 166-170.

Koelen, M., Erikkson, M., & Cattan, M. (2017). Older people, sense of coherence and

community. The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Springer: 137-149

Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Bussing, R. (2009). The management of courtesy stigma in the

lives of families with teenagers with ADHD. Journal of Family Issues, 30(9),

1175-1200. doi:10.1177/0192513X09333707

Kulik, C. T., Bainbridge, H. T. J., & Cregan, C. (2008). Known by the company we keep:

Stigma-by-association effects in the workplace. Academy of Management Review,

33(1), 215-230.

Larson, J. E. & Lane, F. J. (2006). A review of mental illness courtesy stigma for

rehabilitation educators. Rehabilitation Education, 20(4), 247-252.

Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The effect of megan’s law on sex offender

reintegration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49-66.

Levenson, J. & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Collateral damage: Family members of registered

sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 54-68.

Lewis, M. (1993). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. In

M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.). Handbook of Emotions. Guilford Press: New

York, 632-636.

Lichtenstein, B., Sturdevant, M. S., & Mujumdar, A. (2010). Psychosocial stressors

among HIV-affected families: Implications for social work practice. Journal of

HIV/AIDS and Social services, 9, 130-152.

Lillis, J., Levin, M. E., & Hayes, S. C. (2011). Exploring the relationship between body

mass index and health-related quality of life: A pilot study of the impact of weight 154

self-stigma and experiential avoidance. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(5), 722-

727.

Link, B., Cullen, F., Struening, E., Shrout, P., & Dohrenwend, B. (1989). A modified

labeling theory approach to mental disorders: An empirical assessment. American

Sociological Review, 54, 400–423.

Liu, H., Xu, Y., Sun, Y., & Dumenci, L. (2014). Measuring HIV stigma at the family

level: Psychometric assessment of the Chinese courtesy stigma scales (CCSSs).

Plos One, 9(3), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092855

Loftin, W. A., Barnett, S. K., Bunn, P. S., & Sullivan, P. (2005). Recruitment and

retention of rural African Americans in diabetes Research: Lessons Learned.

Diabetes Education, 31, 251-259.

Lui, P. P., & Fernando, G. A. (2018). Development and initial validation of a

multidimensional scale assessing subjective well-being: The well-being scale

(WeBS). Psychological reports, 121(1), 135-160. doi:

10.1177/0033294117720696

Lundberg, B., Hansson, L., Wentz, E., & Bjorkman, T. (2009). Are stigma experiences

among persons with mental illness, related to perceptions of self-esteem,

empowerment and sense of coherence? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health

Nursing, 16, 516-522.

Lussier, P., Harris, D. A., & McAlinden, A-M. (2016). Desistance from sex offending: A

policy and research agenda whose time has come. International Journal of

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1711-1716. 155

Manos, R. C., Rusch, L. C., Kanter, J. W., & Clifford, L. M. (2009). Depression self-

stigma as a mediator of the relationship between depression severity and

avoidance. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 1128 –1143.

McDowell, T., & Serovich, J. (2007). The effect of perceived and actual social support on

the mental health of HIV positive persons. AIDS Care, 19, 1223-1229.

Melendez, M. S., Lichtenstein, B., & Dolliver, M. J. (2016). Mothers of mass murderers:

Exploring public blame for the mother of school shooters through an application

of courtesy stigma to the Columbine and Newtown tragedies. Deviant Behavior,

37(5), 525-535. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060754

Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S., & Levenson, J. (2008). The impact of specialized sex

offender legislation on community reentry. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research and

Treatment, 20, 188–205.

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2013). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods:

Practical application and interpretation (5th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Moore, J. W., Hagedorn, J., & United States. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. (2001). Female gangs: A focus on research. Washington, DC: U.S.

Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Muehlenhard, C., Humphreys, T., Jozkowski, K., & Peterson, J. (2016). The complexities

of sexual consent among college students: A conceptual and empirical review.

The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 1–31.

NCMEC (2018). Registered sex offenders in the United States and its territories per

100,000 population. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 156

http://www.missingkids.com/content/dam/pdfs/SOR%20Map%20with%20Explan

ation_10_2018.pdf

Nouvilas-Pallejà, E., Silván-Ferrero, P., de Apodaca, Mª José Fuster-Ruiz, & Molero, F.

(2018). Stigma consciousness and subjective well-being in lesbians and

gays. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(4), 1115-1133. doi:10.1007/s10902-017-

9862-1

Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Oakley, L. D., Kanter, J. W., Taylor, J. Y., & Duguid, M. (2012). The self-stigma of

depression for women. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 58(5), 512-

520.

Owens, C., Lambert, H., Lloyd, K. and Donovan, J. (2008). Tales of biographical

disintegration: how parents make sense of their sons’ suicides. Sociology of

Health & Illness, 30(2), 237–254.

Pallant, J. F., & Lae, L. (2002). Sense of coherence, well-being, coping and personality

factors: Further evaluation of the sense of coherence scale. Personality and

Individual Differences, 22, 39-48.

Paolucci, E. O., Genuis, M. L., & Violato, C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the published

research on the effects of child sexual abuse. The Journal of Psychology, 135, 17-

36.

Pérez-Garín, D., Molero, F., & Bos, A. E. R. (2015). Internalized mental illness stigma

and subjective well-being: The mediating role of psychological well-

being. Psychiatry Research, 228(3), 325-331. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2015.06.029 157

Plogher, T. J., Stevenson, M. C., & McCracken, E. W. (2016). Stereotypes of sex

offenders’ romantic partners predict intent to discriminate: Sex offenders’

partners. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 16(1), 227-260.

doi:10.1111/asap.12126

Potier, F., Degryse, J., Henrard, S., Aubouy, G., & de Saint-Hubert, M. (2018). A high

sense of coherence protects from the burden of caregiving in older spousal

caregivers. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 75, 76-82.

doi:10.1016/j.archger.2017.11.013

Prescott, J. J. (2012). Do sex offender registries make us less safe? Crime & Law

Enforcement, 35, 48-55.

Proctor, J. L., Badzinski, D. M., & Johnson, M. (2002). The impact of media on

knowledge and perceptions of Megan's law. Criminal Justice Policy Review,

13(4), 356. doi:10.1177/088740302237804

Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). The infection of bad company:

Stigma by association. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 102(2),

224-241.

Ranstam, J. (2012). Why the P-value culture is bad and confidence intervals a better

alternative. England: Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2012.04.001

Ritsher, J. B., & Phelan, J. C. (2004). Internalized stigma predicts erosion of morale

among psychiatric outpatients. Psychiatry Research, 129, 257–265.

Robbers, M. L. P. (2009). Lifers on the Outside: Sex Offenders and Disintegrative

Shaming. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07312953 158

Robertiello, G. & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex

offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 508-518.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Sadler, G. R., Lee, H., Lim, R. S., & Fullerton, J. (2010). Recruitment of hard-to-reach

population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nursing

& Health Sciences, 12(3), 369. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2018.2010.00541.x

Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale

empirical analysis. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21(4), 455–

473.

Schäfer, S. K., Lass-Hennemann, J., Groesdonk, H., Volk, T., Bomberg, H., Staginnus,

M., Bruckner, A. H., Holz, E., & Michael, T. (2018). Mental health in

anesthesiology and ICU staff: Sense of coherence matters. Frontiers in

Psychiatry, 9, 440. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00440

Schneider, J. W., & Conrad, P. (1981). Medical and sociological typologies: The case of

epilepsy. Social Science & Medicine, 15a, 211–219.

Schulze, B., & Angermeyer, M. (2003). Subjective experiences of stigma. A focus group

study of schizophrenic patients, their relatives and mental health professionals.

Social Science & Medicine, 56, 299–312.

Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Crofton, C. (1990). The role of coping in support

provision: The self-presentational dilemma of victims of life crises. In B. R.

Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional

view. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 159

Socia, K. M. (2014). Residence restrictions are ineffective, inefficient, and inadequate:

So now what? Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 179-188.

Świtaj, P., Anczewska, M., Chrostek, A., Grygiel, P., Prot-Klinger, K., Choma, M., &

Wciórka, J. (2013). The sense of coherence as apredictor of the scope and impact

of stigma experiences among people with mental illness. Psychiatry Research,

209, 249-251.

Tewksbury, R. (2005). Collateral Consequences of Sex Offender Registration. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 67-81.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271704

Tewksbury, R. (2007). Exile at home/: The unintended collateral consequences of sex

offender registry restrictions. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review,

42, 531-341.

Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral

consequences and community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309–

334. doi: 10.1080/02732170500524246

Thoits, P. A. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental

health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145-161. doi:

10.1177/0022146510395592

Truman, J. L., & Planty, M. (2012). Criminal Victimization, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Retrieved from: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

Uniform Crime Report (UCR) (2010). Crime in the United States, 2010. U.S. Department

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services 160

Division. Retrieved from: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-

u.s.-2010

Valdez, A., & Kaplan, C. D. (1999). Reducing selection bias in the use of focus groups to

investigate hidden populations: The case of Mexican-American gang members

from South Texas. Drugs and Society, 14, 209–224. van Zelsty, C. (2010). Trauma and stigma as defeating experiences over the life course

interacting with genetic liability in schizophrenia. European Psychiatric Review,

3, 35-38.

Vasquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender

registration and notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis.

Crime & Delinquency, 54, 175-192.

Vogel, D. L., Wade, N., & Hackler, A. (2007). Perceived public stigma and the

willingness to seek counseling: The mediating roles of self-stigma and attitudes

towards counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 40 –50.

Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context,

process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129-133. doi:

10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

Werner, S., & Shulman, C. (2013). Subjective well-being among family caregivers of

individuals with developmental disabilities: The role of affiliate stigma and

psychosocial moderating variables. Research in Developmental

Disabilities, 34(11), 4103-4114. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.08.029

Whitesel, J. A. (2010). Girth & mirth: Ethnography of a social club for big gay men and

their admirers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70, 4411. 161

Wilcox, S. (2010). Social relationships and PTSD symptomatology in combat veterans.

Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, and Policy, 2(3), 175-182. doi:

10.1037/a0019062

Widrick, R. M., & Raskin, J. D. (2010). Age-related stigma and the golden section

hypothesis. Aging & Mental Health, 14(4), 375-385.

doi:10.1080/13607860903167846

Williams, S. (1987). Goffman, interactionism, and the management of stigma in everyday

life. In: Scrambler, G. (Eds) Sociological Theory and Medical Sociology. London:

Tavistock.

Wiseman, J. (2015, July). Incidence and prevalence of sex offending (part 1). Sex

Offender Management, Assessment, and Planning Initiative. (U.S. Department of

Justice Research Brief). Retrieved from

https://www.smart.gov/pdfs/IncidenceandPrevalenceofSexOffending.pdf

Wood, W. R., & Suzuki, M. (2016). Four challenges in the future of restorative justice.

Victims & Offenders, 11, 149-172.

Wright, R. G. (2008). From Wetterling to Walsh: The growth of federalization in sex

offender policy. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21, 124-132.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Zevtiz, R. G., & Farkas, M. A. (2000). Sex offender community notification: Managing

high risk criminals or exacting further vengeance? Behavioral Sciences and the

Law, 18, 375-391. 162

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The

multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 52, 30 –31.

Zimet, G. D., Powell, S. S., Farley, G. K., Werkman, S., & Berkoff, K. A. (1990).

Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social

support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 610 – 617.

163

Appendices

Appendix A: Information Sheet

Information Sheet University of Nevada, Reno Information Sheet to Participate in a Research Study Version 6/17/2019

Study Title: Understanding the Experiences of Partners of Registered Sex Offenders Investigators: William Evans, PhD (775-784-7013) Kristan N. Russell, MA (775-784-4345) Protocol Number:

Please read the following description of the study and click ‘I agree’ if you wish to continue.

Purpose: You are being asked to participate in a research study which asks about your experiences being in a current or previous relationship with an individual who is required to register on the sex offender registry. All participants will complete a survey about your perceptions of your relationship, experiences related to their registration status, and how this impacts you overall.

Participants: You are being asked to participate based on your relationship with an individual who has been or is currently registered as a sex offender. You are not obligated to participate in this specific study.

Procedure: If you choose to participate, you will be asked to fill out an online survey which will take approximately 15-25 minutes to complete. The survey consists of a number of questions and is divided into several sections. You will be asked a variety of questions about your current/previous partner and the sex offense they were convicted of, your perceptions of your relationship, experiences related to your partner’s registration status, questions about your overall well-being, and other demographic questions. Additionally, we will ask if you are interested in a follow-up interview for future research or if your partner would be interested in participating in research. These questions will be asked in a separate browser so the data collected is separate from your survey responses.

The first 300 participants to complete the survey will be entered into a raffle for (2) $100 and (6) $50 Amazon gift card codes. Individuals must complete 80% of the survey, 144 questions to receive payment. To get your code, you will need to click and open the link on the last page and enter your email address.

You are not obligated to participate in this particular research study and you are not obligated to explain why you did not participate. You do not need to give a reason if you 164 are unable to participate in this study or choose not to participate at a later time. You will need to complete all sections in one sitting, as you are not allowed to resume at another time from where you left off. While you are participating, your responses will be stored in a temporary holding area as you move through the sections, but they will not be permanently saved until you complete all sections.

Risks: There are no known risks to participating in this study.

Benefits: There may be no direct benefits to you as the participant except for the experience you gain from participation in a research study. However, the information contributed to the study may aid in the further understanding how registration and related policies impact spouses and partners of individuals required to register on the sex offender registry.

Confidentiality: No individual will be told of your participation in this exact study. The researcher has set the online survey software (Qualtrics) so that no IP addresses will be collected and stored. Qualtrics may use cookies to recognize visitors and provide personalized content or track their progress through surveys; grant unimpeded access to the website; and track usage behavior and compile data for website improvement purposes. If you are using a personal computer and wish to remove the cookies, obtain instructions for deleting cookies from the help menu or contact your Internet provider. If you are using a computer in a public domain, to limit access to your survey responses, close the Internet browser immediately after completing the survey. All data contained on Qualtrics will only be accessed by the researchers. The data will reside on the Qualtrics website for up to 12 months following the completion of data collection and then the researchers will delete all responses from the survey site. The data on Qualtrics will retain first names and email addresses, all data will be stored in a password-protected computer for up to 5 years. Your email address will be used to email you the links for the surveys and to deliver your e-gift cards if you are eligible.

Costs/Compensation: There is no cost to you other than the time you spend completing the survey. If you complete at least 80% of the questions 144 questions on the survey and are one of the first 300 individuals to finish the survey, you will be entered into a raffle to win an amazon gift card code. There are 8 total gift cards in the raffle and you have a 2.7% chance of being selected.

Right to Withdraw: You may choose not to answer questions you do not want to answer or withdraw from the study at any time. None of the questions require answers. If you wish to withdraw, simply close the survey window. You do not need to give any reason for withdrawing from the study.

Questions: If you have any questions, please contact Kristan Russell at [email protected] or Bill Evans at (775) 784-7013. You may ask about your rights as a human subject or you may report (anonymously if you so choose) any comments, concerns, or complaints to the University of Nevada, Reno Social Behavioral Institutional 165

Review Board, telephone number 775-327-2368, or by addressing a letter to the Chair of the Board, c/o Office of Human Research Protection, 205 Ross Hall/331, University of Nevada, Reno; Reno, Nevada 89557

Please print OR save a copy of this information sheet for your own records.

If you wish to participate in this study click the next button at the bottom of the screen. If you do not wish to participate in this study simply close this window and you will promptly exit the study.

166

Appendix B: Dissertation Survey

Demographics

Before we begin the survey, we’d like to know a little bit more about you. Please respond to the following items.

1. Gender a. Male b. Female c. I prefer to self-describe ______

2. What is your age? a. ____ years old

3. Please identify your race. a. White/Caucasian b. African American/Black c. Hispanic/Latino d. American Indian/Alaskan Native e. Asian f. Biracial g. Multiracial h. Other ______

4. In state or U.S. territory do you currently reside? a. (dropdown menu)

5. What is your highest level of education? a. Some high school b. High school diploma / GED c. Associated or other 2-year degree d. Bachelors or other 4-year degree e. Master’s f. Doctorate Degree

6. How would you describe your current employment status? a. Employed part-time for wages b. Employed full-time for wages c. Self-employed d. Out of work and looking for work e. Out of work but not currently looking for work f. A homemaker or stay-at-home parent g. A student h. Military 167

i. Retired j. Unable to work.

7. What is your current annual household income? a. < $10,000 b. $10,001 - $20,000 c. $20,001 - $30,000 d. $30,001 - $40,000 e. $40,001 - $50,000 f. $50,001 - $60,000 g. $60,001 - $70,000 h. $70,001 - $80,000 i. $80,001 - $90,000 j. $90,001 - $100,000 k. > $100,001

8. Are you a parent? a. Yes b. No

9. How many children under the age of 18 do you have living in your home? a. ______

10. What is your sexual orientation? a. Heterosexual b. Bisexual c. Gay/Lesbian d. Prefer to self-describe ______

11. My political affiliation is: a. Republican b. Democrat c. Independent d. Other (please specify): ______

12. My political beliefs about social issues tend to be: a. Very liberal b. Liberal c. Moderate d. Conservative e. Very conservative

13. I attend religious services: a. Never b. Once or twice a year 168

c. Once or twice a month d. Once a week e. Two or more times a week

14. How strongly does religion impact your personal beliefs? a. Not at all b. A little c. Somewhat d. A lot

15. In your lifetime, has anyone ever made you engage in sexual acts by using force or threatening you? a. Yes, this has happened one time. b. Yes, this has happened more than once. c. This has never happened.

16. How did you learn about this survey? a. Saw the link shared on social media. b. I was emailed the link from a treatment provider. c. I saw the link in a newsletter or blog produced by an advocacy group. d. I was given a paper copy of the survey link at a conference or meeting. e. Other ______

17. Are you currently, or have you ever been, required to register on the sex offender registry? a. Yes, I’m currently registered. b. Yes, I have previously been registered. c. No, I am not and have never been registered.

169

Offender and Offense Characteristics

You are being asked to participate in this study because you are either currently or have previously been engaged in a relationship with someone who was required to register as a sex offender during the time that you were with them. To best understand the impact the policies related to this offense have had on you, it is important that we have a general understanding of the offense and your partner.

All of the items below will say to respond regarding ‘your partner.’ Even if you are no longer with this person, please respond to all of the following items to the best of your knowledge.

18. To your knowledge, is your partner currently required to register as a sex offender? a. Yes b. No c. I do not know

19. How old was your partner at the time they were first required to register on the sex offender registry? a. ___ b. I do not know.

20. Please identify the gender of your partner. a. Male b. Female c. Prefers to self-describe ______

21. What is your partner’s age? a. ____ years old

22. Please identify the race of your partner. a. White/Caucasian b. African American/Black c. Hispanic/Latino d. American Indian/Alaskan Native e. Asian f. Biracial g. Multiracial h. Other ______

23. What length of time was/is your partner required to be on the registry? a. ______years b. Lifetime registration c. I do not know. 170

24. In what state was your partner charged with a sexual offense? a. (dropdown menu)

25. In what state was your partner most recently registered as a sex offender? a. (select all that apply).

26. What tier level is/was your partner registered as? a. Tier 1 (least severe) b. Tier 2 (moderately severe) c. Tier 3 (most severe) d. I do not know.

27. Can you please list the specific offense(s) your partner was convicted of? a. ______b. I do not know

28. How many separate offenses was your partner convicted of? a. _____ b. I do not know

29. What was the age of the youngest victim that your partner was convicted of offending against? a. ____ b. I do not know

30. Was there assault and/or violence involved in the offense your partner was convicted of? (if you partner was convicted of multiple offenses please respond to this question regarding the most severe offense). a. Yes b. No c. I do not know

31. Was there a weapon used during the commission of the offense your partner was convicted of? (if you partner was convicted of multiple offenses please respond to this question regarding the most severe offense). a. Yes b. No c. I do not know

32. How often do you talk about the offense with your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Very Often

171

33. How often do you talk about the registry with your partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Very Often

34. To what extent do you feel you are an important social support for your partner in dealing with these issues?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am not a social support I am their most important social support

172

Courtesy Stigma Public (External)

(Adapted from: Liu, Xu, Sun, & Dumenci, 2014)

1 2 3 4 Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree

1. People think registered sex offenders should be ostracized by their spouse and family members.

2. Registered sex offenders would lose their friends if they knew about their registration status.

3. People think registered sex offenders should be forced to leave their communities.

4. People think registered sex offenders should be excluded from family events.

5. No one would be willing to take care of a registered sex offender’s children when they are incarcerated.

6. People think parents should not be able to attend their children’s school events if they are registered sex offenders.

7. People think registered sex offenders should not have the same rights to education and employment as others.

8. People would not be willing to socialize with registered sex offenders.

9. People seldom do business with registered sex offenders or their family.

10. People think sex offender registration is the correct punishment for their bad behavior.

11. People would not like to marry registered sex offenders.

12. Students would not like to play with registered sex offenders’ children.

173

13. Parents would keep their children away from registered sex offenders and their family.

14. People think that registered sex offenders may harm them.

15. People do not want to hire a registered sex offender.

16. People do not want to rent or sell a home to a registered sex offender.

17. People do not want to live near a registered sex offender.

18. People do not want to work with registered sex offenders.

19. *Items were randomized.

174

Courtesy Stigma Self-Perceived (Internal)

(Adapted from: Liu, Xu, Sun, & Dumenci, 2014)

1 2 3 4 Never Rarely Some of the time All of the time

1. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel estranged by people around me.

2. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel blamed by people around me.

3. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel shame.

4. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel it is very hard for me to attend social events.

5. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel it is not easy to get along with people around me.

6. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that I have to conceal this information when meeting new people.

7. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel I am inferior to others in many respects.

8. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel people will no longer see my strong points.

9. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that children are kept away from me by their parents.

10. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that I cannot have the same rights to education and employment as others.

11. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel self-blame.

12. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel guilty.

13. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that I have to conceal this information from people close to me.

175

14. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that people view me negatively.

15. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that people treat me differently.

16. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel that I am limited in terms of where I can live.

17. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel I will face difficulty when I try to rent or buy a home.

18. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel concerned that my partner will be able to get and/or keep a job.

19. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel I am unable to be involved in children’s activities in school, church, or the community.

20. Because my partner is a registered sex offender, I feel my partner unable to be involved in children’s activities in school, church, or the community. *Items were randomized.

176

Conceal/Disclosure

We are interested in knowing whether you choose to conceal or disclose information regarding your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender.

1. To what extent do you conceal or disclose that your partner is a registered sexual offender to your family members? 2. To what extent do you conceal or disclose that your partner is a registered sexual offender to your friends? 3. To what extent do you conceal or disclose that your partner is a registered sexual offender to your coworkers? 4. To what extent do you conceal or disclose that your partner is a registered sexual offender to your neighbors? 5. To what extent do you conceal or disclose that your partner is a registered sexual offender to people whom you just met?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I always completely conceal I always openly disclose

1. In terms of your family, how many people know about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. No one knows. b. A few people know. c. Mostly everyone knows. d. Everyone knows.

2. If your family members know, what was the most common way they found out about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. I told them. b. My partner told them. c. They found out from someone else. d. They found out through the registry or notification procedures. e. N/A, no one knows.

3. In terms of your friends, how many people know about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. No one knows. b. A few people know. c. Mostly everyone knows. d. Everyone knows. 177

4. If your friends know, what was the most common way they found out about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. I told them. b. My partner told them. c. They found out from someone else. d. They found out through the registry or notification procedures. e. N/A, no one knows.

5. In terms of your coworkers, how many people know about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. No one knows. b. A few people know. c. Mostly everyone knows. d. Everyone knows. e. N/A, I don’t work or don’t currently have coworkers.

6. If your coworkers know, what was the most common way they found out about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. I told them. b. My partner told them. c. They found out from someone else. d. They found out through the registry or notification procedures. e. N/A, no one knows, or I don’t have coworkers.

7. In terms of your neighbors, how many people know about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. No one knows. b. A few people know. c. Mostly everyone knows. d. Everyone knows.

8. If your neighbors know, what was the most common way they found out about your partner’s status as a registered sexual offender? a. I told them. b. My partner told them. c. They found out from someone else. d. They found out through the registry or notification procedures. e. N/A, no one knows.

178

Relationship Factors

1. Are you currently in a romantic relationship with the individual who was/is required to register as a sex offender? a. Yes b. No

2. You indicated that you are currently in a relationship with this individual. How would you describe your relationship? a. Married / In a domestic partnership b. Engaged to be married c. Dating this person exclusively, living together. d. Dating this person exclusively but we are not living together. e. Dating this person but also seeing other people.

3. You indicated that you are not currently in a relationship with this individual. When you were together last, how would you classify the relationship? a. We were married / In a domestic partnership b. We were engaged to be married c. We were dating one another exclusively, living together. d. We were dating one another exclusively but we are not living together. e. We were dating, but also seeing other people.

4. You indicated that you are not currently in a relationship with this individual. To what extent did their status as a registered sexual offender contribute to the break up?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It did not contribute It very strongly to our break up at all. contributed to our breakup.

5. How long was your relationship / how long have you currently been in a relationship with this individual? a. Number of months (if less than a year): _____ OR b. Number of years (if more than 12 months): _____

6. How did you learn about this individual’s registration status? a. We were together when the offense occurred and thus, were together when they were first required to register as a sex offender. 179

b. We entered into a relationship, but the individual initially did not disclose their status. They later told me themselves that they were required to register as a sex offender. c. We entered into a relationship, but the individual initially did not disclose their status. I later found out that they were required to register as a sex offender through something/someone other than my partner. d. Before entering into the relationship, my partner disclosed to me that they are required to register as a sex offender. e. Before entering into a relationship, I had found out from something/someone other than other than my partner that they were required to register as a sex offender.

7. To what extent do you feel this individuals’ registration status has negatively impacted your relationship together?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It has not impacted our It has completely impacted relationship in a negative way at all. our relationship in a negative way.

8. You indicated that you are currently in a relationship with an individual who was/is required to register as a sexual offender. Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following items using the rating scale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely

Item Question 1 How satisfied are you with your relationship? 2 How content are you with your relationship? 3 How happy are you with your relationship? 4 How committed are you to your relationship? 5 How dedicated are you to your relationship? 6 How devoted are you to your relationship? 7 How much do you trust your partner? 8 How much can you count on your partner? 9 How dependable is your partner?

180

Registrants’ Notification Requirements (Adapted from: Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009)

Item Question 1 In my neighborhood, flyers were posted to show neighbors that Yes No my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby. 2 In my neighborhood, the police or someone else went door-to- Yes No door to inform neighbors that my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby. 3 In my neighborhood, they held a meeting to inform neighbors Yes No that my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby. 4 In my neighborhood, flyers were sent home with Yes No schoolchildren to alert neighbors that my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby. 5 In my neighborhood, the local newspaper published the Yes No whereabouts of my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby. 6 In my neighborhood, neighbors received automated telephone Yes No calls informing them that my partner, a registered sex offender, lived nearby. 7 I have seen my family member’s listing on my state’s sex Yes No offender internet registry.

181

Perceptions of Registry Related to the Partner (Adapted from: Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009)

1 2 3 4 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Item Question 1 The information listed about my partner on the Internet registry is correct. 2 The information listed about my partner on the internet registry helps the public know how to protect themselves. 3 Communities are safer when they know where sex offenders live. 4 I believe that my partner could be a risk to reoffend. 5 I believe that it is fair for the community to know about my partner’s risk.

182

Collateral Consequences to Partners (Adapted from: Levenson & Tewksbury, 2009)

Item Question 1 My partner had a very hard time finding a job because Yes No employers don’t want to hire a registered sex offender, AND this has created financial hardship for us. 2 My partner lost a job because a boss or co-workers found out Yes No through Megan’s law that (s)he was a sex offender, AND this created financial hardship for us. 3 I have had to move out of a residence that I RENTED because Yes No my LANDLORD found out through Megan’s Law that a sex offender lived there. 4 I have had to move out of a residence that I RENTED because Yes No my NEIGHBORS found out through Megan’s Law that a sex offender lived there. 5 I have had to move out of a residence that I OWNED because Yes No my NEIGHBORS found out through Megan’s Law that a sex offender lived there. 6 I have been threatened or harassed by neighbors after they Yes No found out my partner is a sex offender. 7 I have been physically assaulted or injured by someone who Yes No found out that my partner is a sex offender. 8 My property has been damaged by someone who fo und out Yes No that my partner is a sex offender. 9 A person that lives with me (who is not a registered offender) Yes No has been threatened, assaulted, injured, or suffered property damage because someone found out through Megan’s Law that my partner is a sex offender.

183

Social Isolation Measure (Adapted from: Murberg & Edvin, 2001)

Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following items using the rating scale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much

1. You feel that being in a relationship with a registered sexual offender makes it difficult to visit family and friends.

2. You feel that being in a relationship with a registered sexual offender makes it difficult to receive visits from family and friends.

3. You feel that being in a relationship with a registered sexual offender makes it difficult to participate in social events.

4. You feel that being in a relationship with a registered sexual offender makes it difficult to vacation with family and friends.

184

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (Zimet et al., 1988)

Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following items using the rating scale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very strongly Very strongly disagree agree

Item Question 1 There is a special person who is around when I am in need 2 There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. 3 My family really tries to help me. 4 I get the emotional help and support I need from my family. 5 I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me. 6 My friends really try to help me. 7 I can count on my friends when things go wrong. 8 I can talk about my problems with my family. 9 I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows. 10 There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings. 11 My family is willing to help me make decisions. 12 I can talk about my problems with my friends.

185

Sense of Coherence (SOC-13) (Antonovsky, 1993; Jakobsson, 2011)

1. Do you have the feeling that you don’t really care about what goes on around you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very seldom Very often or never

2. Has it happened in the past that you were surprised by the behavior of people whom you thought you knew well?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Always happened happened

3. Has it happened that people whom you counted on disappointed you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Always happened happened

4. Until now your life has had: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No clear goals Very clear goals And no purpose at all and purpose

5. Do you have the feeling that you’re being treated unfairly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often Very seldom or never

6. Do you have the feeling that you are in an unfamiliar situation and don’t know what to do? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often Very seldom or never 186

7. Doing the things you do every day is:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A source of deep A source of pleasure and satisfaction pain and boredom

8. Do you have very mixed-up feelings and ideas? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often Very seldom or never

9. Does it happen that you have feelings inside you would rather not feel? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often Very seldom or never

10. Many people – even those with a strong character – sometimes feel like sad sacks (losers) in certain situations. How often have you felt this way in the past? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Never Very often

11. When certain events occurred, have you generally found that: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 You overestimated or You saw the things underestimated its importance in the right proportion

12. How often do you have the feeling that there’s little meaning in the things you do in your daily life?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often Very seldom or never

187

13. How often do you have feelings that you’re not sure you can keep under control? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often Very seldom or never

Sense of Coherence Subscale and Scoring: Manageability Items: 3, 5, 10, 13 Comprehensibility Items: 2, 6, 8, 9, 11 Meaningfulness Items: 1, 4, 7, 12 Items that are Reverse Scored: 1, 2, 3, 7, 10

188

Well-Being Scale (WeBS) (Lui & Fernando, 2018)

Below are 29 statements about your current status. Please rate each of them from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) using the scale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly disagree agree Item Question 1 I am physically healthy. 2 I have enough financial resources to meet my needs. 3 I have enough financial resources to have fun. 4 I am satisfied with my housing. 5 I feel in control of my finances. 6 I feel in control over my physical health. 7 I am satisfied with my weight. 8 I have enough energy to do the things I need to do. 9 I take good care of my physical health. 10 I plan for the future. 11 I have someone who knows me well to talk to when I have problems. 12 I know I can count on my friends and/or family in time of crisis. 13 There is at least one person I know who loves me and/or needs me. 14 I feel confident that I am able to solve most problems I face. 15 I like my life at home. 16 I am satisfied with my physical appearance. 17 I get along with people in general. 18 I enjoy spending time with friends and/or relatives. 19 I find time to do things that are fun and interesting. 20 I believe I have the potential to reach my goals. 21 I believe that I can make a difference in the lives of others. 22 Life has meaning for me. 23 I am satisfied with my spirituality. 24 I think I am as smart as, or smarter than, other. 25 I often do things that bring out my creative side. 26 I like engaging in stimulating conversations. 27 I try to do things that make me happy. 28 I feel happy often. 29 I enjoy life. **To calculate an overall WeBS score, average scores from all 29 items. To generate a financial well-being subscale score, average scores on Items 2, 3, 4, and 5. To generate a physical well-being subscale score, average scores on Items 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 16. To generate a social well-being subscale scores on Items 11, 12, 13, and 18. To generate a eudaimonic well-being subscale score, average scores on Items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. Finally, to generate a hedonic well-being subscale score, average scores on Items 27, 28, and 29. 189

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)

Please rate each of them from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) using the scale below.

0 1 2 3 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Item Question 1 I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 2 I feel that I have a good number of qualities. 3 All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 4 I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5 I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6 I take a positive attitude toward myself. 7 On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 8 I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9 I certainly feel useless at times. 10 At times I think I am no good at all. **Items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 are reverse scored

190

Brief Social Desirability Scale (BSDS) (Haghighat, 2007)

1. Would you smile at people every time you meet them? a. Yes b. No

2. Do you always practice what you preach to people? a. Yes b. No

3. If you say to people that you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be? a. Yes b. No

4. Would you ever lie to people? a. Yes b. No

191

Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale – 21 item (DASS-21) (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995)

In the last week this…

0 = Did not apply to me at all 1 = Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time. 2 = Applied to me a considerable degree, or a good part of the time. 3 = Applied to me very much, or most of the time.

DASS-21 Stress

a. I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I was doing (14). b. I felt I was rather touchy (18). c. I found it difficult to relax (12). d. I found myself getting agitated (11). e. I felt that 1 was using a lot of nervous energy (8). f. I found it hard to wind down (1). g. I tended to over-react to situations (6). DASS-21 Depression

a. I felt that life was meaningless (21). b. I felt that I had nothing to look forward to (10). c. I couldn't seem to experience any positive feeling at all (3). d. I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything (16). e. I felt that I wasn't worth much as a person (17). f. I felt down-hearted and blue (13). g. I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things (5). DASS-21 Anxiety

a. I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion (e.g., . . .) (19). b. I experienced breathing difficulty (e.g., . . .) (4). c. I experienced trembling (e.g., in the hands) (7). d. I felt I was close to panic (15). e. I felt scared without any good reason (20). f. I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself (9). g. I was aware of dryness of my mouth (2). **Items above will be listed in numerical order (see numeral after each item) but are listed here by scale. 192

Qualitative Research Questions

You are participating in this research study because you have indicated that you are currently, or previously have been, in a relationship with a registered sexual offender.

1. What was the worst thing that has happened to you as a result of your partner being registered?

2. What is the best thing that has happened to you as a result of your partner being registered?

3. Society may already have preconceived notions about partners of registered sexual offenders. If you had a chance to address the public and talk to them about your experiences being a partner of a registrant, what would you tell them?

4. In recent years, researchers have been trying to better understand how sex offender registration and notification policies impact the families and partners of registrants. If you had the opportunity to talk to policy-makers who were considering how to reform or improve existing policies, what would you say?

193

Items for Follow-Up Research

1. Please indicate below whether you would be interested in being interviewed for research purposes in the future? a. Yes b. No

2. You indicated that you might be interested in being interviewed for research purposes in the future. These interviews may take place in person, over the phone, or on skype or similar service. How may we contact you if you are selected as a potential interviewee?

*Please note that your contact information will be saved in a separate/protected database and will be used for no other purposes and will not be connected to your data from the survey you have completed today.

1) Email ______2) Direct Mail ______3) Phone ______

3. Please enter your name: ______

4. Would your partner be interested in participating in future research either through surveys or interviews? a. Yes b. No

5. You indicated that your partner may be interested in being surveyed or interviewed for research purposes in the future. If so, could you please provide contact information and their first name for contact purposes.

*Please note that their contact information will not be used for any purposes other than to ask if they would like to participate in an upcoming study. Their contact information will not be shared with any other parties and will only be held by this research team. The contact information is being collected separately from the survey responses you submitted previously so there is no way to link that data with your partner’s contact information.

1) Email ______2) Direct Mail ______3) Phone ______

6. Please enter your partner’s name: ______

**If the participant selects “yes” to being interested in being interviewed it will open a new browser to enter contact information in Qualtrics. This will collect the information in a separate datasheet that cannot be linked to their responses in this survey. 194

Appendix C: Recruitment Materials

Text for Posting on Social Media or Listserv Emails

If distributing via email or listserv please use the following:

Have you ever been in a relationship with an individual who was registered for a sexual offense? If so, we are interested in hearing from you. We know that individuals who have been or are currently in relationships with registrants may experience a unique set of challenges and experiences. We want to learn more about your own personal experiences, how this has affected you, and how you feel about current sex offender policies.

This is the first ever national-level survey to gather data solely from spouses and partners of registered sexual offenders. This is your chance to share your voice and address the issues that are affecting you!

If interested, please click the link below to learn more. The first 300 participants will be entered into a raffle for (4) $100 and (12) $50 Amazon gift cards.

URL: http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX

If distributing on social media / twitter please use the following:

Have you ever been in a relationship with an individual who was registered for a sexual offense? We are interested in hearing about your experiences. If interested, please click the link below to learn more. The first 300 participants will be entered into a raffle for (4) $100 and (12) $50 Amazon gift cards.

URL: http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX

Have you ever been in a relationship with an individual who was registered for a sexual offense? We are interested in hearing about your experiences. The first 300 participants will be entered into a raffle for (4) $100 and (12) $50 Amazon gift cards.

URL: http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX

195

Letter to Gatekeepers

31 January 2019 [Organization or Treatment Provider Name Address City, State Zip]

Dear [Addressee],

We are conducting a research project entitled Stigma and Consequences for Partners of Registered Sex Offenders at the University of Nevada, Reno. This project is being completed in collaboration with university faculty as part of the SORNA Policy Project.

Our intention is to distribute a survey link to partners and spouses of individuals who are required to register on a sex offense registry to assess how they feel registration and notification policies impact their lives. We hope to gather information about the unintended consequences of these policies.

We are writing [you / your organization] in hopes that you can help distribute our survey. We expect that the results from this study will be substantially informative for both treatment providers and advocacy groups. The better we understand the collateral consequences these policies have on spouses and partners, the better able we are to provide services for these individuals and argue for policy reform.

The survey should take less than 30 minutes to complete. The surveys are completely anonymous, and the data is protected to ensure the highest level of confidentiality. In addition, the first 300 participants will be entered into a raffle for (4) $100 and (12) $50 Amazon gift cards.

Link to survey: [include URL here]

If you’re able to help us distribute this survey, I am attaching all necessary materials for you including links and language to be used with distribution. We hope that you consider sharing our link over social media channels, newsletters, email listservs, etc. We appreciate your willingness in helping us to access this sample. If you’d like more information (e,g., IRB approval documents) please email our research team at [email protected]. If you would like to speak over the phone, please provide us with your number and we will call you.

Sincerely, SORNA Policy Project Research Team

196

Printable Paper Flyer

SORNA POLICY RESEARCH PROJECT University of Nevada, Reno

Have you ever been in a relationship with an individual who was required to register on a sex offender registry? If so, we are interested in hearing from you!

We know that individuals who have been or are currently in relationships with individuals who are/were required to publicly register as a sex offender may experience a unique set of challenges and experiences. We want to learn more about your own personal experiences, how this has affected you, and how you feel about current sex offender policies.

This is the first ever national-level survey to gather data solely from spouses and partners of individuals required to register. This is your chance to share your voice and address the issues that are affecting you. We greatly appreciate your participation and willingness to share your experiences.

*** The first 300 participants will be entered into a raffle for (4) $100 and (12) $50 Amazon gift cards. Winners will be randomly chosen after we have reached 300 participants ***

If you’re interested in participating in this survey, please go to this link: http://unrcfr.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_b1oK7ZdF53PbGbX

If you have any questions, please contact our researchers at [email protected].