Distinguishing Pedohebephebophilic Actors and Non-Actors: A Meta-Analysis

TL;DR

This study identifies factors that differentiate individuals who commit child sexual offenses from those who do not, using a meta-analysis of existing research.

Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive meta-analysis of distinguishing factors between pedohebephebophilic actors and non-actors.

Findings

Lower intelligence and higher stigma were among the strongest distinguishing factors.

Male sex, age, therapy attendance, and adverse childhood experiences showed moderate effect sizes.

Findings suggest potential for improved risk assessment and prevention strategies.

Abstract

Distinguishing factors between pedohebephebophilic actors and non-actors remain a critical area of research for understanding offending behavior and developing targeted interventions. This meta-analysis synthesizes evidence on motivating, facilitating, situational, and other factors that differentiate individuals who have committed sexual offenses against children from those who have not. Following PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches were conducted across PsycNet, ProQuest, Web of Science, PubMed, and PSYNDEX, supplemented by manual searches. Data were analyzed using fixed and random effects models. From 2,185 records screened, 34 studies from 22 datasets met inclusion criteria. We conducted meta-analyses for 50 potential distinguishing factors. The strongest effect sizes were discovered for intelligence (g = -.86), stigma (g = .61), male sex (g = .51), age (g = .48), therapy attendance (g = .43) and interest (g = .43), and sexual (g = .38) and non-sexual (g = .38) adverse childhood experiences. The average quality score was 11.13 (SD = 1.82) out of maximum score of 16. Findings provide support for some motivating, facilitating, situational, and other factors distinguishing pedohebephilic actors from non-actors. These findings offer opportunities for improved risk assessment, prevention strategies, and therapeutic interventions, however, they are limited by the cross-sectional nature of the results.

Figures