Online and offline child sexual offenders: Who are they and what strategies do they use?

In the last two decades, it has become quite common for individuals to engage
in activities that involve sexual content on the Internet (Barrada et al.,
2019). These activities are very diverse and range from seeking information and
using dating applications for engaging in intimate relationships (Doornwaard et
al., 2017) to online sexual abuse, such as online harassment and child sexual
abuse (DeHart et al., 2016). Especially with the accessibility of the Internet,
it has become easier for individuals to facilitate child sexual abuse (Kloess,
Woodhams et al., 2019). Although individuals who have committed online child
sexual offenses (online CSO) are a subgroup of the broad and heterogenous group
of sex offenders, and most treatment programs are intended only for (prosecuted
and convicted) offenders of offline child sexual offenses (offline CSO; Gallo,
2020), online child sexual offending is a growing phenomenon that is getting
more and more attention. Furthermore, according to some researchers, a
transition from offline to online offending is happening (Tener et al., 2015).
Therefore, our research attention is broadening to the group of online child
sex offending to discover personality factors and online (risky) behavior that
increase the risk of offending among both online and offline offender groups.
Investigating and addressing crime-related risk factors among different groups
(clinical groups and general population) can contribute to our understanding of
the behavior of these individuals. This can provide important knowledge to the
existing literature and can help practitioners with developing specific (risk)
assessment instruments and intervention strategies for these groups.

Previous studies have investigated similarities and differences between online
and offline CSO (e.g., Babchishin et al., 2011; Babchishin et al., 2015;
Elliott et al., 2013; Houtepen et al., 2014; Seto et al, 2012; Webb et al.,
2007), between subgroups of online CSO (e.g., Bergen et al., 2014; Briggs et
al., 2011; Dehart et al., 2016; Kleijn & Bogaerts, 2020; Tener et al., 2015),
and between different offender groups and non-offender community samples (e.g.,
Bogaerts et al., 2004; Garofalo et el., 2018; Ha & Beauregard, 2016). Online
CSO seem to be younger, better educated, and score higher on general
intelligence (verbal and performant) than offline CSO (Babchishin et al., 2011;
Houtepen et al., 2014; Neutze et al., 2011; Seto et al., 2012), and demonstrate
greater victim empathy, greater sexual deviancy, and fewer cognitive
distortions than offline CSO (Babchishin et al., 2011; Babchishin et al., 2015;
Seto et al., 2012). Furthermore, recent research has shown that online CSO use
similar strategies (approaching/avoiding behavior) that also occur offline.
They demonstrate online verbal risky behavior and are willing to show
themselves via webcam (Kleijn & Bogaerts, 2020). In addition, Garofalo et al.
(2018) found higher levels of personality dysfunctions and psychopathy among
individuals who had committed violent offenses compared to individuals who had
sexually abused minors and compared to a community sample. They also found that
individuals who had sexually abused minors reported greater impairments in
self-control, identity integration, responsibility, and relational capacities,
compared to the community sample (Garofalo et al., 2018). Finally, whether an
association between online perpetration, personality characteristics and
general wellbeing exists cannot be confirmed by literature.

While these studies have provided valuable insights into the differences
between sex and violent offender groups, studies are lacking regarding the more
in-depth comparison between online and offline CSO. Previous studies show that
psychopathy, narcissism, and other personality dysfunctions increase the risk
of violent and sexual offending (Bogaerts et al., 2004; Garofalo & Bogaerts,
2019; Garofalo et al., 2018). Therefore, whether online and offline offenders
differ from each other and from other offender groups on these factors will be
central in our study. The first part of the study focuses on comparing online
and offline CSO based on their psychopathic traits, narcissism, and other
personality dysfunctions. Both groups are compared with a convicted violent
offender group and a community sample of individuals with no prior convictions.

The second part of the study will focus on a more specific group of online CSO,
namely people who have approached minors on the Internet for sexual activities
(PMSA). Previous studies show that these PMSA use several pathways and
techniques, which concern the preparatory process whereby an offender tries to
gain trust of a (vulnerable) minor, with the intention of committing sexual
abuse (Black et al., 2015; De Santisteban et al., 2018; Kleijn & Bogaerts,
2020; Kloess, Hamilton-Giachritsis et al., 2019; Kloess et al., 2017; Winters
et al., 2017). There is hardly any knowledge, however, about the
socio-demographics, personality characteristics and dysfunctions, online
strategies, motivations (cognitive, emotional and behavioral), and wellbeing of
these PMSA. Therefore, the second aim of this study is to dig deeper into these
PMSA. This part of the study will be explorative on the one hand with respect
to personality characteristics and dysfunctions, grooming motivations, and
wellbeing. Convicted sex offenders who reside in FPCs (PMSA in treatment) and
individuals approaching social agencies (PMSA not in treatment), such as Stop
it Now! Vlaanderen, will be included in the study and are interviewed once. To
investigate whether PMSA are a distinctive group of sex offenders, this group
will be compared with online CSO that have exclusively downloaded child
pornography materials (CPO), offline CSO that have exclusively committed child
molestation in person (CM), and a community sample of individuals with no prior
convictions.

The third part of the study focuses on the effectiveness of a protocol-based
intervention program for sex offenders. Although therapists, psychologists and
psychiatrists who work in the FPCs often have to deal with patients who
sexually abuse minors both online and offline, there is still little knowledge
about effective interventions for these specific offender groups. Therefore, it
is important to get more insight into which interventions are effective and
what is needed to develop future intervention programs. To investigate this,
insights from patients as well as their practitioners are needed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the intervention program and to investigate to what extend
the intervention program leads to the decrease in risk factors and an increase
in protective factors. Therefore, forensic patients (online and offline sex
offenders) from the FPCs who already follow the intervention program and their
practitioners will be interviewed about the effectiveness of this program.

There are three main objectives in this study. The first objective is to
compare online and offline CSO based on their psychopathic traits, narcissism
and other personality dysfunctions. The second objective is to further
investigate the more specific online CSO group, namely the PMSA. Since there is
hardly any knowledge about the socio-demographics, personality characteristics
and dysfunctions, the online strategies, motivations (cognitive, emotional and
behavioral), and wellbeing of these PMSA, this part of the study will have an
explorative nature. The third objective is to investigate whether an
intervention program developed for sex offenders is effective in the reduction
of crime-related risk factors and improvement of protective factors.

Study 1. This study has a cross-sectional design in which participants are
asked to complete self-report questionnaires at one time point. An existing
data set will be used, including information about psychopathic and
narcissistic traits and other personality dysfunctions, from three offender
groups: online CSO, offline CSO, and violent offenders. This dataset will be
expanded with a group of individuals from the community sample to compare the
four groups. These individuals are asked to complete the same three self-report
questionnaires as the offender groups mentioned above: (1) The Levenson Self
Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995; Dutch translation:
Uzieblo et al., 2006); (2) The Dutch Scale of Narcissism (NNS; Ettema & Zondag,
2002); (3) The Severity Index of Personality Problems short form (SIPP-SF;
Verheul, 2006). In addition, for the purpose of replication of Study 2, they
will also be asked to complete five other self-report questionnaires: (4) The
Well-Being Questionnaire (W-BQ12; Pouwer et al., 2000); (5) The Self Concept
and Identity Measure (SCIM; Kaufman et al., 2015); (6) Seksuele activiteiten op
internet; (7) The Internet Sex Screening Test (ISST; Delmonico & Miller, 2003);
(8) The Cognitive and Emotional Congruence with Children (C-ECWC; Paquette &
McPhail, 2020). The total amount of the items is 197 and will approximately
take 30-40 minutes to complete

Study 2. Part 1 is cross-sectional in which participants are asked to complete
10 self-report questionnaires at one time point: (1) The Personality Inventory
for DSM-5 short form (PID-5 SF; Maples et al., 2015; Dutch translation: Van der
Heijden et al., 2014); (2) The UCLA Loneliness scale (UCLA-3; Russell, 1996);
(3) The Well-Being Questionnaire (W-BQ-12; Pouwer et al., 2000); (4) The Self
Concept and Identity Measure (SCIM; Kaufman et al., 2015); (5) The short
version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS-16; Bjureberg et
al., 2016); (6) The Utrechtse Coping Lijst; only used the subscales Active
tackling, Passive reacting, and Avoiding (UCL; Schreurs et al., 1988); (7) The
Coping Using Sex Inventory (CUSI; Cortoni & Marshall, 2001); (8) Seksuele
activiteiten op internet; (9) The Internet Sex Screening Test (ISST; Delmonico
& Miller, 2003); (10) The Cognitive and Emotional Congruence with Children
(C-ECWC; Paquette & McPhail, 2020). The total amount of the items is 262 and
will approximately take 50-60 minutes to complete.

Part 2 is cross-sectional in which both PMSA groups are asked to participate in
an interview (takes approximately 50 minutes) to deepen the received
quantitative information of part 1 to further investigate the strategies and
motives of using the Internet to approach minors for sexual activities. The
interviews are semi-structured using a topic list of general topics based on
the literature and the findings of part 1. Each interview takes approximately
50 minutes to complete.

Part 3 is longitudinal in which forensic patients and their practitioners are
interviewed to investigate the effectiveness of the intervention program
developed for these patients. The interviews are based on the Instrument for
Forensic Treatment Evaluation (IFTE; Schuringa et al., 2014) and are repeated
four times of approximate 50 minutes during 12 months.

Study 1. Participants have no immediate benefit with their participation.
Study 2 (part 1 and 2). The forensic patients receive a reward of ¤5 after
completing the questionnaires and another ¤10 after completing the interview
regarding the follow-up on the questionnaires. The PMSA not in treatment and
the community sample will not receive a reward.
Study 2 (part 3). The forensic patients participating in the longitudinal
interviews receive a reward of ¤10 for each interview (¤40 for four interviews).

There are no risks involved in both studies. The possible disadvantages of the
studies might be the time to complete the questionnaires (between 30 and 60
minutes) and the interviews (approximately 50 minutes), and the personal nature
of some of the questions in the questionnaires and interviews. To protect the
participants from these disadvantages, they are informed that they can complete
the questionnaires at their own tempo and if necessary, with sufficient breaks.
In addition, the content of the questionnaires and interviews is discussed with
the participants before the start of the study, so that the participants know
what to expect. Since some of the questions are personal, it is very important
to inform the participants that they do not have to answer questions they do
not want to answer and that they can withdraw from the study at any time
without giving any reason. Also, it is very important to mention that the data
will be stored and analyzed confidentially. Participants can always contact the
principal investigator (Manon Kleijn) and the confidential counselors (heads of
treatment from Fivoor and researcher affiliated at Fivoor and Tilburg
University) if necessary. For the longitudinal interviews, there will be no
expected burden, since these interviews only focus on the evaluation of a
current intervention program. The researchers do not apply any intervention
themselves. There will be no expected burden regarding the duration of the
longitudinal interviews, since the interviews will be held four times with
three months in between.

The forensic patients and the PMSA group not in treatment are vulnerable groups
and need to be protected more carefully. For the forensic patients, the
procedure and duration of the study and the content of the questionnaires and
interviews are first discussed with the heads of treatment of the FPCs. They
know best (and will decide) which patients are able to participate in the study
and under which circumstances (for example by completing the questionnaires in
more than one day with sufficient breaks). In addition, these patients are
informed that their participation does not have any influence on their
treatment program and that they will be supervised by the researchers while
completing the questionnaires in the FPCs. The PMSA not in treatment are also
informed about the procedure and duration of the study and the content of the
questionnaires and interviews. The procedure of the study is also discussed
with the social agency Stop it Now! Vlaanderen. The researchers are aware that
PMSA not in treatment who already have sexually abused minors without being
convicted or are concerned to do so in the future, might admit during the study
that they are sexually abusing minors at this moment. This is an ethical
dilemma. If this occurs during the study, the researchers are obliged to
contact Stop it Now! Vlaanderen. This procedure will be discussed with the
participants and with the social agency Stop it Now! Vlaanderen before the
start of the study. In addition, the participants are informed that they can
call the free phone number of Stop it Now! Vlaanderen if they are concerned
about this or about other matters. They can also talk to the principal
investigator (Manon Kleijn) and the confidential counselors (heads of treatment
from Fivoor and researcher affiliated at Fivoor and Tilburg University).