Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 13;31(1):1-14.
doi: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2148305. eCollection 2024.

Technical profiles of child sexual exploitation material offenders

Chad M S Steel  1   2 , Emily Newman  1 , Suzanne O'Rourke  1 , Ethel Quayle  1
Affiliations

Technical profiles of child sexual exploitation material offenders

Chad M S Steel et al. Psychiatr Psychol Law. .

Abstract

The idiographic technical profiles of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) offenders provide insight into their behaviours and context for their interactions with technology, but minimal quantitative work has been done to evaluate their sociability, technical ability and technophilia compared to non-offenders. This work used an online survey to compare an offender group consisting of English-speaking adults previously convicted of CSEM offenses (N = 78) with a reference population of non-offenders (N = 254). The survey assessed sociability, technical ability and technophilia through self-rating and information on occupation, level of education and device ownership. The study found that CSEM offenders had slightly lower sociability than non-offenders, though not at a level of clinical interest. Additionally, CSEM offenders had no statistically significant difference in technical ability and lower overall technophilia when compared to non-offenders. This study fails to support popular perceptions of CSEM offenders being technically savvy loners who are early adopters of new technologies.

Keywords: Child pornography; child sexual exploitation material; sociability; technical profiles; technophilia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Chad M.S. Steel has declared no conflicts of interest. Emily Newman has declared no conflicts of interest. Suzanne O’Rourke has declared no conflicts of interest. Ethel Quayle has declared no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Personal emails and IMs sent daily.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Email response times.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Breakdown of technical abilities of offender and reference groups.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Overall self-rated technophilia.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Armstrong, J., & Mellor, D. (2016). Internet child pornography offenders: An examination of attachment and intimacy deficits. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(1), 41–55. 10.1111/lcrp.12028 - DOI
    1. Babchishin, K. M., Hanson, R. K., & Hermann, C. A. (2011). The characteristics of online sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse, 23(1), 92–123. 10.1177/1079063210370708 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Babchishin, K. M., Hanson, R. K., & VanZuylen, H. (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. - PubMed
    1. Bryant, R. (2016). Policing digital crime. Routledge.
    1. Bursztein, E., Clarke, E., DeLaune, M., Elifff, D. M., Hsu, N., Olson, L., Shehan, J., Thakur, M., Thomas, K., & Bright, T. (2019). Rethinking the detection of child sexual abuse imagery on the internet. The World Wide Web Conference, 2601–2607. 10.1145/3308558.3313482 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources