Motives and Self-Reported Propensity for Sexual Offending in Community Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motives for online sexual offending have mostly been studied in forensic populations. To gain insights into risks and prevention options, community samples are also relevant. In this exploratory study, an online convenience sample of 2,764 participants (n men = 1,263; n women = 1,420) was recruited via social media platforms. Approximately 2%–4% of men and less than 1% of women from this online sample reported some propensity for online or contact sexual behaviors with a child, provided there were no negative personal consequences. Latent class analyses, conducted separately for men and women, identified three different classes based on scores on motivational risk factors, which we labeled “multiple motivations,” “social needs,” and “mating prowess.” In distal outcome analyses, individuals in the “multiple motivations” class (i.e., those with relatively high scores on most of the motivational factors) were most likely to engage in sexual offending against children and adults as well as other atypical or problematic behaviors. The exploratory findings suggest that not only paraphilia, but also social needs (e.g., loneliness, social anxiety) and other sexual domains (e.g., high sex drive) should be included in prevention efforts for sexual offending targeted to the general population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".