恋童癖和感知的非强迫性儿童性经历:两个非匹配的病例对照研究。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1177/10790632221098341
Sara Jahnke, Alexander F Schmidt, Jürgen Hoyer
{"title":"恋童癖和感知的非强迫性儿童性经历:两个非匹配的病例对照研究。","authors":"Sara Jahnke,&nbsp;Alexander F Schmidt,&nbsp;Jürgen Hoyer","doi":"10.1177/10790632221098341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on the link between childhood sexual abuse experiences (CSAE) and pedohebephilia is limited by its focus on events that the respondents rate as abusive. We asked 199 German-speaking (Study 1) and 632 English-speaking (Study 2) men with and without self-reported pedohebephilia to complete the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and scales to assess perceived non-coercive childhood sexual experiences with adults (PNCSE-A), and peers (PNCSE-P, only Study 2). A substantial number of participants with PNCSE-A disagreed with all items of the CTQ Sexual Abuse subscale (e.g., 35% and 26% of pedohebephilic men in Studies 1 and 2, 38% of teleiophilic men in Study 2). While pedohebephilic men reported more CSAE than teleiophilic men, the effects for PNCSE-A did not consistently point in the expected direction. In Study 2, conviction status for sexual offenses among pedohebephilic men was linked to higher rates of CSAE, PNCSE-A, PNCSE-P, physical neglect, and physical abuse. Pedohebephilic men in Study 2 also reported more PNCSE-P than teleiophilic men. Our results highlight the importance of assessing different (positive or neutral) perceptions of CSAE. Better controlled designs (e.g., matched case-control studies) are needed to substantiate whether and how perceived non-coercive childhood sexual experiences relate to pedohebephilia and sexual offending.</p>","PeriodicalId":21828,"journal":{"name":"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment","volume":"35 3","pages":"340-374"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10041574/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pedohebephilia and Perceived Non-coercive Childhood Sexual Experiences: Two Non-matched Case-Control Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Jahnke,&nbsp;Alexander F Schmidt,&nbsp;Jürgen Hoyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10790632221098341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research on the link between childhood sexual abuse experiences (CSAE) and pedohebephilia is limited by its focus on events that the respondents rate as abusive. We asked 199 German-speaking (Study 1) and 632 English-speaking (Study 2) men with and without self-reported pedohebephilia to complete the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and scales to assess perceived non-coercive childhood sexual experiences with adults (PNCSE-A), and peers (PNCSE-P, only Study 2). A substantial number of participants with PNCSE-A disagreed with all items of the CTQ Sexual Abuse subscale (e.g., 35% and 26% of pedohebephilic men in Studies 1 and 2, 38% of teleiophilic men in Study 2). While pedohebephilic men reported more CSAE than teleiophilic men, the effects for PNCSE-A did not consistently point in the expected direction. In Study 2, conviction status for sexual offenses among pedohebephilic men was linked to higher rates of CSAE, PNCSE-A, PNCSE-P, physical neglect, and physical abuse. Pedohebephilic men in Study 2 also reported more PNCSE-P than teleiophilic men. Our results highlight the importance of assessing different (positive or neutral) perceptions of CSAE. Better controlled designs (e.g., matched case-control studies) are needed to substantiate whether and how perceived non-coercive childhood sexual experiences relate to pedohebephilia and sexual offending.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"340-374\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10041574/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221098341\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221098341","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于儿童期性虐待经历(CSAE)与恋童癖之间联系的研究受到限制,因为它关注的是被调查者认为是虐待的事件。我们要求199名说德语的(研究1)和632名说英语的(研究2)有或没有自我报告的恋童癖的男性完成童年创伤问卷(CTQ)和评估与成年人(pnse -A)和同伴(pnse - p,仅研究2)感知的非强迫性童年性经历的量表。相当数量的pnse -A参与者不同意CTQ性虐待子量表的所有项目(例如,研究1和研究2中有35%和26%的恋童癖男性)。虽然恋童癖男性比远视癖男性报告更多的CSAE,但PNCSE-A的影响并不一致地指向预期的方向。在研究2中,恋童癖男性的性犯罪定罪状况与较高的CSAE、pnse - a、pnse - p、身体忽视和身体虐待率有关。研究2中的恋童癖男性报告的PNCSE-P也高于电视癖男性。我们的研究结果强调了评估不同(积极或中立)对CSAE的看法的重要性。需要更好的对照设计(例如,匹配的病例对照研究)来证实是否以及如何感知非强迫性儿童性经历与恋童癖和性侵犯有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pedohebephilia and Perceived Non-coercive Childhood Sexual Experiences: Two Non-matched Case-Control Studies.

Research on the link between childhood sexual abuse experiences (CSAE) and pedohebephilia is limited by its focus on events that the respondents rate as abusive. We asked 199 German-speaking (Study 1) and 632 English-speaking (Study 2) men with and without self-reported pedohebephilia to complete the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) and scales to assess perceived non-coercive childhood sexual experiences with adults (PNCSE-A), and peers (PNCSE-P, only Study 2). A substantial number of participants with PNCSE-A disagreed with all items of the CTQ Sexual Abuse subscale (e.g., 35% and 26% of pedohebephilic men in Studies 1 and 2, 38% of teleiophilic men in Study 2). While pedohebephilic men reported more CSAE than teleiophilic men, the effects for PNCSE-A did not consistently point in the expected direction. In Study 2, conviction status for sexual offenses among pedohebephilic men was linked to higher rates of CSAE, PNCSE-A, PNCSE-P, physical neglect, and physical abuse. Pedohebephilic men in Study 2 also reported more PNCSE-P than teleiophilic men. Our results highlight the importance of assessing different (positive or neutral) perceptions of CSAE. Better controlled designs (e.g., matched case-control studies) are needed to substantiate whether and how perceived non-coercive childhood sexual experiences relate to pedohebephilia and sexual offending.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
17.40%
发文量
33
期刊最新文献
Psychopathic Personality as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Atypical Sexuality and Sexual Coercion Proclivity in the General Population. Latent Profile Analysis Predicting Recidivism Among Women Who Have Sexually Offended. The Influence of Race on Detected and Undetected Sexual Offense Histories: A Comparison of White and Black Men Committed as Sexually Violent Persons. Does Being Over 60 Years Old at Index Offense Impact Sexual Recidivism Risk? A Large-Scale Comparison of Men Released Over the Age of 60. Problematic Sexual Behavior in Children: The Influence of Transgressions of Interpersonal Boundaries and Family Adversity Across Generations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1