Perpetrators’ Identity in Online Crimes Against Children: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Public and police concern about internet crimes against children has been primarily typified as a stranger danger problem. However, existing research suggests a variety of perpetrator ages and relationships to the victim. A more accurate estimate will help inform prevention efforts. This study provides a meta-analysis examining the identity of perpetrators in internet crimes against children. Databases were searched for published and unpublished studies using a detailed search strategy. In total, 32 studies met full inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria was the following: (1) the victim sample consisted of children under the age of 18 years or young adults (18–25) asked to respond retrospectively; (2) the study victims experienced abuse through the use of technology; (3) the study reported the identity of the perpetrator, either the relationship to the victim or the age of the perpetrator; (4) the study was available in English. The overall proportion of offenders under the age of 18 as a proportion of all identified offenders was 44% (95% CI: 0.28–0.60). The overall proportion of acquaintance and family offenders as a proportion of all identified offenders was 68% (95% CI: 0.62–0.75). Between study variability was explained by data source, with higher proportion of juvenile offenders in studies using survey data. This meta-analysis confirms that most perpetrators of online crimes against children are not strangers to their victims and a large portion of perpetrators are juveniles. Prevention education needs to focus more on inappropriate behavior from anyone in addition to the dangers about communicating with strangers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Sutton, S., & Finkelhor, D.
- Affiliations
- University of New Hampshire (US)
- University of New Hampshire, Durham, USA
- Corresponding author
- Sutton, Samantha
- Venue
- Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-08-23
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1756-1768
- ISSN
- 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8324
- OpenAlex
- W4386084728
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal and Social Justice Studies
- Keywords
- online child sexual abuse, perpetrator identity, juvenile offenders, perpetrator age, stranger danger, child abuse prevention
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Crime, Female, Humans, Male, Crime Victims, Internet, Young Adult, Criminals
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