Personality and deviant sexual fantasies: An examination of the MMPIs of sex offenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sample of 228 sex offenders and nonsex offender controls were divided into two groups, based on the presence or absence of deviant sexual fantasies, as determined by their replies to the Clarke Sex History Questionnaire Fantasy Scales. The sex offenders were divided into six groups based on sexual preferences and criminal history. There were 14 heterosexual pedophiles, 23 homosexual pedophiles, 51 exhibitionists, 17 incest offenders, 24 sexual aggressives, and 57 multiple/miscellaneous offenders as well as 42 nonviolent nonsex offender controls. A 2 (fantasy group) x 7 (sex offender group) multivariate analysis with age and education as covariates was used to compare the MMPI validity scales (L, F, and K) and the 10 clinical scales as dependent variables. Deviant fantasizers had more clinically significantly scores on the F, Psychopathic Deviate, Masculinity-Femininity, Paranoia, and Schizophrenia Scales compared to nondeviant fantasizers, regardless of group membership. Results suggest that deviant fantasizers may be more socially alienated and less emotionally stable than nondeviant fantasizers, although few were diagnosed as psychotic. The sex offender and control groups showed considerable overlap on mean MMPI Scales. The groups tended to differ in level of depression and extent of persecutory ideas, but the multivariate sex offender group effect was not statistically significant when problems of inhomogeneity of variance were corrected. There was no interaction of fantasy groups and sex offender groups, indicating that the two factors can be considered independently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".