Cited by 24Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCrime, Deviance, and Social Control

Online interactions involving suspected paedophiles who engage male children

Open access
Grosskopf, Angelique·2010·Australian Institute of Criminology eBooks

Abstract

This paper summarises the results of a small-scale study into the online interactions of suspected paedophiles with undercover Australian police officers posing as male children. The study provides insight to an under-researched area of how persons with a sexual interest in male children interact with potential victims and whether these interactions differ from online engagements with female children. The findings provide an interesting and persuasive case to further examine online strategies used by persons wishing to exploit male children, as it highlights potential differences in approaches when compared with interactions between suspected offenders and female children. The differences include less aggressive online behaviour and language, with an emphasis on the male child’s sexuality and sexual experience. These strategies appear to assist the formation of an online friendship which precedes sexual topics, rather than the reverse as is largely reported in literature. These findings are likely to have implications for law enforcement and child protection initiatives.

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 · 10.52922/ti279750

Cites

17 of 17 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?

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: 4

  1. O'Connor C 2005. Child pornography and the internet-A statistical review. Australian Police Journal Dec 2005: 190-199
  2. Quayle E & Taylor M 2001. Child seduction and self-presentation on the Internet. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour 4(5): 597-607
  3. Seto MC, Cantor JM & Blanchard R 2006. Child pornography offences are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(3): 610-615
  4. Groth AN, Hobson WF & Gary TS 1982. The child molester: Clinical observations, in Conte JR & Shore DA (eds), Social work and child sexual abuse. New York: Hawthorne Press Internet Crime Forum 2001. Chat wise, street wise-children and internet chat services. http://www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk/chatwise_ streetwise.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grosskopf, A.
Corresponding author
Grosskopf, Angelique
Venue
Australian Institute of Criminology eBooks
Published
2010-12-02
OpenAlex
W213472833
Cited by
23
References
17
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Australian Institute of Criminology eBooks (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Federal Police
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 grooming, online interaction, child sexual abuse prevention, child protection, law enforcement

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