CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCrime, Deviance, and Social Control

Lawless space theory for online child sexual exploitation material offending

Open access
Steel, Chad M.S., Newman, Emily, O’Rourke, Suzanne, Quayle, Ethel·2023·Aggression and Violent Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.avb.2022.101809
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Deterrence, treatment and legal responses to online child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) offenders is enhanced by the joint consideration of technological behaviours and cognitions. CSEM offenders choose an environment based on both psychosocial needs and utility, and in turn that environment shapes future behaviour and reinforces cognitive distortions. This paper introduces lawless space theory, which posits that offenders will primarily choose and utilize a perceived lawless space that best meets their psychosexual needs in the most frictionless way; habituation and differential association in the lawless space will reduce the perceived risk; normalization will increase comfort in a particular lawless space, increasing friction costs that must be overcome to switch technologies; and additional countermeasures will only be implemented by offenders to reduce perceived risk and lower cognitive dissonance, but not at the expense of utility. The theory offers explanatory power for the lifecycle of a lawless space, the use of legacy spaces in the presence of objectively more capable options, the simultaneous use of multiple spaces to meet different psychosexual needs, and the adoption of new technologies by offenders. Additionally, the gateway choice and progression of lawless space usage informs investigations, risk assessments, and deterrence efforts and provides behavioural treatment targets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.avb.2022.101809

Cites

188 of 188 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 198 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Steel, C. M. S., Newman, E., O’Rourke, S., & Quayle, E.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Steel, Chad M.S.
ORCID
Venue
Aggression and Violent Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-01
Volume
68
Pages
101809
ISSN
1359-1789 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.avb.2022.101809
OpenAlex
W4309781535
Cited by
32
References
198
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5
FWCI
6.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Aggression and Violent Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Deviance, and Social Control
Keywords
online child sexual exploitation, child sexual exploitation material, risk perception, cognitive dissonance, differential association, habituation, normalization, technology adoption, gateway effect, risk assessment, deterrence, offender treatment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review