CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 46Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesAuthorship Attribution and Profiling

Characterizing Pedophile Conversations on the Internet using Online Grooming

Open access
Gupta, Aditi, Kumaraguru, Ponnurangam, Sureka, Ashish·2012·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1208.4324arXiv 1208.4324
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cyber-crime targeting children such as online pedophile activity are a major and a growing concern to society. A deep understanding of predatory chat conversations on the Internet has implications in designing effective solutions to automatically identify malicious conversations from regular conversations. We believe that a deeper understanding of the pedophile conversation can result in more sophisticated and robust surveillance systems than majority of the current systems relying only on shallow processing such as simple word-counting or key-word spotting. In this paper, we study pedophile conversations from the perspective of online grooming theory and perform a series of linguistic-based empirical analysis on several pedophile chat conversations to gain useful insights and patterns. We manually annotated 75 pedophile chat conversations with six stages of online grooming and test several hypothesis on it. The results of our experiments reveal that relationship forming is the most dominant online grooming stage in contrast to the sexual stage. We use a widely used word-counting program (LIWC) to create psycho-linguistic profiles for each of the six online grooming stages to discover interesting textual patterns useful to improve our understanding of the online pedophile phenomenon. Furthermore, we present empirical results that throw light on various aspects of a pedophile conversation such as probability of state transitions from one stage to another, distribution of a pedophile chat conversation across various online grooming stages and correlations between pre-defined word categories and online grooming stages.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1208.4324

Cites

5 of 5 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gupta et al. created a machine learning model based on affective feature sets that used the whole conversations for detecting six different stages of the predatory conversations.

    “For instance, Gupta et al. [28] created a machine learning model based on affective feature sets that used the whole conversations for detecting six different stages of the predatory conversations.”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

    In D. Analysis (p. 4), the authors say they manually divided 75 conversations into six stages. In Psycho-Linguistic Profiles (p. 5), they report using psychological word categories in a logistic regression to identify predictors for each stage. The claim overstates this as a completed machine-learning model that detected the stages from whole conversations: the analysis used stage-segmented texts, and Future work (p. 8) describes an automated stage classifier as a goal. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Online grooming is described as a non-linear process in which several stages occur simultaneously, speeding up the process compared to offline grooming.

    “Online grooming is described as a non-linear process (Barber & Bettez, 2020;Gupta et al., 2012;O'Connell, 2003) in which several stages occur simultaneously, speeding up the process compared to offline grooming.”

    From Offender strategies for engaging children in online sexual activity (2021) · cites this paper as Gupta et al., 2012

    The theoretical foundations section (p. 3) says online-grooming stages may or may not be sequential, supporting the non-linear description. It does not say that several stages occur simultaneously or that online grooming proceeds faster than offline grooming; the paper’s discussion of stage transitions (p. 6) does not establish either point. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most characteristics of grooming are consistent across the online and offline milieux, as online offenders use rapport-building to form a relationship, use flattery and compliments, and introduce sexual topics to the conversations.

    “Most characteristics of grooming are consistent across the online and offline milieux, as online offenders use rapport-building to form a relationship (Chiang & Grant, 2017;Gupta et al., 2012;Williams et al., 2013), use flattery and compliments (Lorenzo-Dus & Izura, 2017), and introduce sexual topics to the conversations (Chiang & Grant, 2017;Gupta et al., 2012).”

    From Offender strategies for engaging children in online sexual activity (2021) · cites this paper as Gupta et al., 2012

    The online-grooming stages (p. 3) describe offenders forming relationships with children, and the Hypothesis 3 results (p. 6) identify sexual language in the sexual stage. The paper does not compare online with offline grooming or establish that most characteristics are consistent across the two. The flattery-and-compliments clause cites a different source, so it is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some works have explored various phases of grooming to investigate different themes in online conversations, while others focused on predatory conversation detection, predatory identification, or author profiling.

    “Some works [28,33,40,42,43] have explored various phases of grooming to investigate the different themes in online conversations, while others focused on predatory conversation detection [49][50][51], predatory identification [41,52,53], or author profiling [44][45][46][47][48].”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Contrary to the hypothesis, the friendship stage played a central role in online grooming, contributing to 40% of the messages in a predatory conversation.

    “They found that contrary to the hypothesis, the friendship stage played a central role in online grooming, contributing to 40% of the messages in a predatory conversation [28].”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [28]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [1][1] D. Belsley, E. Kuh, and R. Welsch, Regression diagnostics, John Wiley and Sons, 1980. -
  2. [2][2] K. R. Choo, Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offenses, Tech. report, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2009. -
  3. [4][4] R. Frank, B. Westlake, and M. Bouchard,The structure and content of online child exploitation networks, ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Intelligence and Security Informatics (2010), 9. -
  4. [5][5] N. S. Gray, A. S. Brown, M. J. MacCulloch, and J. Smith, An implicit test of the associations between children and sex in pedophiles, Tech. report, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2005. -
  5. [7][7] A. Kontostathis, L. Edwards, and A. Leatherman, Chat- coder: Toward the tracking and categorization of internet predators, Text Mining Workshop 2009 held in conjunction with the Ninth SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (2009), 9. -
  6. [8][8] M. W. Berry, J. Kogan, M. W. Berry, J. Kogan, A. Kontostathis, L. Edwards, and A. Leatherman, Text mining and cybercrime, in text mining: Application and theory, Eds., John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2009. -
  7. [13][13] N. Pendar, Toward spotting the pedophile telling victim from predator in text chats, ICSC 07: Proceedings of the International Conference on Semantic Computing (Washington, DC, USA), IEEE Computer Society, 2007, pp. 235241. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gupta, A., Kumaraguru, P., & Sureka, A.
Affiliations
Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi (IN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2012
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1208.4324
arXiv
1208.4324
OpenAlex
W1573477002
Cited by
45
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Keywords
online grooming, child sexual exploitation, online child sexual abuse, relationship building, state transitions

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