Sexual Aggressors' Perceptions of Effectiveness of Strategies to Cope With Negative Emotions and Deviant Sexual Fantasies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate sexual aggressors' perceptions of effectiveness of strategies to cope with high-risk situations and their reasons for not using the adaptive coping strategies they learned in treatment. A total of 32 sexual aggressors, incarcerated in a maximum security psychiatric institution, filled out the Coping Strategy Report daily for 2 months. A lack of will, ignorance, and an emotional disturbance were the most frequently reported reasons for not using adaptive coping strategies to deal with a negative mood, whereas anticipation of failure and emotional disturbance were most frequently reported with interpersonal conflicts. For deviant sexual fantasies, child molesters most frequently reported a lack of will and an anticipation of failure as justification for not using adaptive coping strategies, whereas sexual aggressors of women most frequently reported a lack of will and emotional disturbance. For negative moods and interpersonal conflicts, behavioral strategies, such as social skills, were reported to be the most effective. Cognitive strategies, such as covert sensitization, were reported to be most effective for coping with deviant sexual fantasies. Theoretical and clinical implications of these results 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".