Sexual Interests of Men With Different Child Sexual Offenses as Assessed by Direct and Indirect Measures – Do Users of Child Sexual Abuse Material Differ?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Sexual Interests of Men With Different Child Sexual Offenses as Assessed by Direct and Indirect Measures – Do Users of Child Sexual Abuse Material Differ?
Sexual interest in children is an important risk factor for sexual (re)offending against children. We aimed to consolidate the validity and reliability of the Explicit and Implicit Sexual Interest Profile (EISIP), which combines self-report, viewing time (VT) measures, and Implicit Association Tests (IATs) to assess sexual interest in children. To further examine EISIP validity, several ways to score the VT task were investigated. The EISIP produced mostly acceptable validity (r > .30) and reliability (ρ > .70) indices. Only minimal differences between the scoring methods underlined the robustness of the VT measure. We additionally compared the sexual interest of the N = 516 men based on their offenses: using child sexual abuse material (CSAM), contact offenses against extrafamilial or intrafamilial children, mixed offenses, and other offenses. Men with mixed offenses had the highest indications of sexual interest in children, while participants with intrafamilial or other offenses had the lowest. Individuals with CSAM convictions had lower scores than originally expected and composed a heterogenic subgroup. Explorative analyses additionally indicated group differences regarding antisociality. Our results support the distinction of people convicted of sexual offenses against children into subtypes. The need for further differentiations (i.e., in the CSAM group) is discussed.
AbelG. G.LawryS. S.KarlstromE.OsbornC. A.GillespieC. F. (1994). Screening tests for pedophilia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854894021001008
2.
BabchishinK. M.EkeA. W.C LeeS.LewisN.SetoM. C. (2022). Applying offending trajectory analyses to men adjudicated for child sexual exploitation material offenses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(8), 1095–1114. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211040849
3.
BabchishinK. M.HansonR. K.VanZuylenH. (2015). Online child pornography offenders are different: A meta-analysis of the characteristics of online and offline sex offenders against children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0270-x
4.
BabchishinK. M.NunesK. L.HermannC. A. (2013). The validity of implicit association test (IAT) measures of sexual attraction to children: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(3), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0022-8
5.
BanseR.SchmidtA. F.ClarbourJ. (2010). Indirect measures of sexual interest in child sex offenders: A multimethod approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357598
BlanzM. (2015). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für die Soziale Arbeit: Grundlagen und Anwendungen (1. Auflage). Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
8.
BrownA. S.GrayN. S.SnowdenR. J. (2009). Implicit measurement of sexual associations in child sex abusers: Role of victim type and denial. Sexual Abuse, 21(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063209332234
CortoniF.BabchishinK. M.RatC. (2017). The proportion of sexual offenders who are female is higher than thought: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816658923
11.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
12.
De HouwerJ.Teige-MocigembaS.SpruytA.MoorsA. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014211
13.
EherR.OlverM. E.HeurixI.SchillingF.RettenbergerM. (2015). Predicting reoffense in pedophilic child molesters by clinical diagnoses and risk assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 39(6), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000144
14.
EherR.RettenbergerM.TurnerD. (2019). The prevalence of mental disorders in incarcerated contact sexual offenders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 139(6), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13024
15.
EherR.SchillingF.HansmannB.PumbergerT.NitschkeJ.HabermeyerE.MokrosA. (2016). Sadism and violent reoffending in sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 28(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214566715
16.
FaitakisM.StephensS.SetoM. C. (2023). The predictive validity of the revised screening scale for pedophilic interests (SSPI-2). Sexual Abuse, 35(5), 649–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221149696
GrayN. S.BrownA. S.MacCullochM. J.SmithJ.SnowdenR. J. (2005). An implicit test of the associations between children and sex in pedophiles. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(2), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.304
19.
GrayS. R.AbelG. G.JordanA.GarbyT.WiegelM.HarlowN. (2015). Visual reaction TimeTM as a predictor of sexual offense recidivism. Sexual Abuse, 27(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213502680
20.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
21.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (1999). Static 99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (bd. 2). Solicitor General Canada.
HelmusL. M.EkeA. W.FarmusL.SetoM. C. (2024). The CPORT and risk matrix 2000 for men convicted of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) offenses: A predictive accuracy comparison and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231208194
HollerbachP.MokrosA.NitschkeJ.HabermeyerE. (2018). Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Deutschsprachige Normierung und Hinweise zur sachgerechten Anwendung. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 12(3), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-018-0478-z
26.
ImhoffR.SchmidtA. F.NordsiekU.LuzarC.YoungA. W.BanseR. (2010). Viewing time effects revisited: Prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets under restricted task conditions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6), 1275–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9595-2
27.
ImhoffR.SchmidtA. F.WeißS.YoungA. W.BanseR. (2012). Vicarious viewing time: Prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets as a function of task- or stimulus-specific processing. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(6), 1389–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9879-1
28.
JahnkeS.SchmidtA. F.KlöcknerA.HoyerJ. (2022). Neurodevelopmental differences, pedohebephilia, and sexual offending: Findings from two online surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(2), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02228-w
29.
KalmusE.BeechA. R. (2005). Forensic assessment of sexual interest: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.12.002
30.
KleinV.SchmidtA. F.TurnerD.BrikenP. (2015). Are sex drive and hypersexuality associated with pedophilic interest and child sexual abuse in a male community sample?PLoS One, 10(7), e0129730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129730
31.
LahtinenH.-M.HonkalampiK.InsollT.NurmiJ.QuayleE.OvaskaA. K.Vaaranen-ValkonenN. (2025). Investigating the disparities among child sexual abuse material users: Anonymous self-reports from both charged and uncharged individuals. Child Abuse & Neglect, 161, 107299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107299
32.
LehmannR. J. B.DahleK.-P.SchmidtA. F. (2018). Primer on the contribution of crime scene behavior to the forensic assessment of sexual offenders. European Psychologist, 23(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000324
33.
LehmannR. J. B.ObermeierF.SchmidtA. F.EngeS. (2024). The propensity for deviant sexual behavior in the general population: An empirical examination of the motivation-facilitation model. In Sexual Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241283752
34.
MartijnF. M.BlagdenN.BaguleyT.LerouxE. J.MackayJ.SetoM. C. (2025). What about the family in intrafamilial child sexual abuse? There is significantly more familial dysfunction in families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse than in other families. Clinical Psychology Review, 123, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102690
35.
McManusM. A.AlmondL. (2014). Trends of indecent images of children and child sexual offences between 2005/2006 and 2012/2013 within the United Kingdom. Journal of Sexual Aggression. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2014.893031
36.
McPhailI. V.HermannC. A.FernaneS.FernandezY. M.NunesK. L.CantorJ. M. (2019). Validity in phallometric testing for sexual interests in children: A meta-analytic review. Assessment, 26(3), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117706139
37.
MeißnerL.SchmidtA. F.BanseR.. (In press). Viewing time measures of sexual interest in children: Optimal scoring algorithms and prevalence estimations of pedohebephilia in community men. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
38.
Mesbahi NaminD. (2024). Viewing time measures of sexual interest in children: Examining the performance of different scoring algorithms and cut-off values in single case assessments [Bachelor Thesis]. University of Bonn.
39.
MokrosA.GebhardM.HeinzV.MarschallR. W.NitschkeJ.GlasgowD. V.GressC. L. Z.LawsD. R. (2013). Computerized assessment of pedophilic sexual interest through self-report and viewing time: Reliability, validity, and classification accuracy of the affinity program. Sexual Abuse, 25(3), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212454550
40.
MokrosA.HabermeyerE.NeumannC. S.SchillingF.HareR. D.EherR. (2014). Assessment of psychopathy in Austria: Psychometric properties of the psychopathy checklist-revised. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(4), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000177
41.
MokrosA.HollerbachP.NitschkeJ.HabermeyerE. (2017). Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised Deutsche Version der Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R) von R. D. Hare (1st ed.). Hogrefe.
42.
MoranP. (1999). The epidemiology of antisocial personality disorder. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34(5), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050138
43.
NeutzeJ.GrundmannD.SchernerG.BeierK. M. (2012). Undetected and detected child sexual abuse and child pornography offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.02.004
44.
Okulicz-KozarynM.KillL.SchmidtA. F.BanseR. (2023). Integrative Typologie von Online-Sexualstraftätern mit kindlichen Opfern. In Steffes-ennR.SaimehN.BrikenP. (Eds.), Sexueller Kindesmissbrauch und Missbrauchsabbildungen in digitalen Medien (S. 105–115). MWV.
45.
Pacific Psychological Assessment Cooperation. (2004). The not-real people stimulus set for assessment of sexual interest. Pacific Psychological Assessment Cooperation.
46.
PedneaultC. I.HilgardJ.PettersenC.HermannC. A.WhiteK.NunesK. L. (2021). How well do indirect measures assess sexual interest in children? A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 89(4), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000627
47.
PezzoliP.BabchishinK.PullmanL.SetoM. C. (2022). Viewing time measures of sexual interest and sexual offending propensity: An online survey of fathers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(8), 4097–4110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02324-5
48.
QuintenL.GnielkaF. M.ReichelR.BabchishinK. M.SchmidtA. F.BaumgärtnerN.Yegane AraniA. A. O.GannonC.LehmannR. J. B. (2026). Motives and self-reported propensity for sexual offending in community men and women. Sexual Abuse, 38(2), 212–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632251389173
49.
RettenbergerM.BrikenP.TurnerD.EherR. (2015). Sexual offender recidivism among a population-based prison sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(4), 424–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13516732
50.
SchmidtA. F.BabchishinK. M.LehmannR. J. B. (2017). A meta-analysis of viewing time measures of sexual interest in children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(1), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0806-3
51.
SchmidtA. F.GykiereK.VanhoeckK.MannR. E.BanseR. (2014). Direct and indirect measures of sexual maturity preferences differentiate subtypes of child sexual abusers. Sexual Abuse, 26(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213480817
52.
SchmidtA. F.Koppehele-GosselJ.BanseR.ImhoffR. (2021). Testing causal explanations of viewing time measures of sexual interests. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/x2cqw
53.
SchmidtA. F.MokrosA.BanseR. (2013). Is pedophilic sexual preference continuous? A taxometric analysis based on direct and indirect measures. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1146–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033326
54.
Seigfried-SpellarK. C.RogersM. K. (2013). Does deviant pornography use follow a guttman-like progression?Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1997–2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.018
55.
SeiserA. (2018). Scoring guide for the child pornography offender risk tool (CPORT) screening. [Preliminary adapted internal version by BEST].
56.
SeiserA.EherR. (2021). Erste Validierungsergebnisse der adaptierten deutschen Version des CPORT zur Risikoeinschätzung von Kinderpornografie-Tätern. In MüllerJ. L.BrikenP.EherR.JordanK. (Eds.), EFPPP Jahrbuch 2019: Empirische Forschung in der forensischen Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Psychotherapie (1. Aufl.). Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.
57.
SeiserA.EherR.TurnerD.RettenbergerM. (2023). The prevalence of mental disorders among incarcerated adult men convicted of child sexual exploitation material offences. CNS Spectrums, 28(6), 719–725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1092852923002262
58.
SetoM. C. (2018). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention, 2nd ed (p. 329). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000107-000
SetoM. C.AugustynC.RocheK. M.HilkesG. (2023). Empirically-based dynamic risk and protective factors for sexual offending. Clinical Psychology Review, 106, 102355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102355
61.
SetoM. C.BabchishinK. M.PullmanL. E.McPhailI. V. (2015). The puzzle of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: A meta-analysis comparing intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders with child victims. Clinical Psychology Review, 39, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.04.001
62.
SetoM. C.CantorJ. M.BlanchardR. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3), 610–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.610
63.
SetoM. C.EkeA. W. (2005). The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse, 17(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320501700209
64.
SetoM. C.EkeA. W. (2015). Predicting recidivism among adult male child pornography offenders: Development of the child pornography offender risk tool (CPORT). Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000128
65.
SetoM. C.LalumiéreM. L. (2001). A brief screening scale to identify pedophilic interests among child molesters. Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009510328588
66.
SetoM. C.SandlerJ. C.FreemanN. J. (2017). The revised screening scale for pedophilic interests: Predictive and concurrent validity. Sexual Abuse, 29(7), 636–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215618375
67.
SetoM. C.StephensS.LalumièreM. L.CantorJ. M. (2017). The revised screening scale for pedophilic interests (SSPI–2): Development and criterion-related validation. Sexual Abuse, 29(7), 619–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612444
SielaffS. S.EherR.EtzlerS.RettenbergerM. (2025). Cross-validation of the German version of the revised screening scale for pedophilic interests (SSPI-2). Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251350537
SteelC. M. S.NewmanE.O’RourkeS.QuayleE. (2022). Public perceptions of child pornography and child pornography consumers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(2), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02196-1
TannerJ. M. (1990). Foetus into man: Physical growth from conception to maturity. Harvard University Press.
74.
TierneyD. W.McCabeM. P. (2001). The assessment of denial, cognitive distortions, and victim empathy among pedophilic sex offenders: An evaluation of the utility of self-report measures. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838001002003004
75.
TozdanS.DekkerA.NeutzeJ.SanttilaP.BrikenP. (2020). Sexual interest in children among women in two nonclinical and nonrepresentative online samples. Sexual Medicine, 8(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2020.01.007
76.
WelschR.SchmidtA. F.TurnerD.RettenbergerM. (2021). Test–retest reliability and temporal agreement of direct and indirect sexual interest measures. Sexual Abuse, 33(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063220904354
77.
World Health Organization. (2020). ICD-11. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/en
78.
YoonD.EherR.MokrosA. (2022). Incremental validity of the psychopathy checklist-revised above and beyond the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder regarding recidivism in sexual offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 80, 101780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101780
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
