The Neuropsychology of Adolescent Sexual Offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although executive dysfunctions are commonly hypothesized to contribute to sexual deviance or aggression, evidence of this relationship is scarce and its specificity is unproven, especially among adolescents. The objective of this study was to compare the executive functioning (EF) of adolescents with sexual offense convictions (ASOC) to that of non-sex-delinquents (NSD). A secondary goal was to assess the relationship among specific sexual offense characteristics (i.e., victim age), history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), and EF. It was hypothesized that as a group, ASOC would present similar EF profiles as NSD. It was further hypothesized that ASOC with child victims would present significantly higher rates of CSA and more severe impairment of EF than ASOC with peer-aged or older victims and NSD. A total of 183 male adolescents (127 ASOC and 56 NSD) were interviewed to collect demographic information, sexual development history, history of CSA, an assessment of living conditions, and history of delinquency and sexual offending. Participants were administered the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning System and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version. In accord with the first hypothesis, ASOC and NSD presented similar EF scores, well below normative values. Thus, EF deficits may not characterize the profiles of adolescents with sexual behavior problems. Contrarily to our second hypothesis, however, offending against children and or experiencing CSA were not associated with poorer EF performance. On the contrary, ASOC with child victims obtained significantly higher scores on measures of higher order EF than both ASOC with peer-aged or older victims and NSD. Implications of these results and future directions are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".