Cited by 3Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingChild Abuse and TraumaCrime Patterns and Interventions

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

Open access
Chronos, Agatha, Jahnke, Sara·2026·Sexual Abuse

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10790632251389171

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Chronos, A., & Jahnke, S.
Affiliations
University of Bergen (NO)
Corresponding author
Chronos, Agatha
Venue
Sexual Abuse
Published
2025-11-10
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
127-162
ISSN
  • 1079-0632 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-286X
OpenAlex
W4416139357
Cited by
3
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Sexual Abuse (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Science Framework (cc-by)
Funders
HORIZON 2PS - Prevent and Protect Through Support (HORIZON-CL3-2021-FCT-01-11)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
child sexual offending, risk factors, intelligence, stigma, male sex, adverse childhood experiences, therapy attendance, risk assessment
MeSH terms
Child, Child Abuse, Sexual, Female, Humans, Male, Pedophilia, Criminals, Social Stigma

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