Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1081–1088 | Cite as

Misdiagnoses of Pedohebephilia Using Victim Count: A Reply to Wollert and Cramer (2011)

  • Ray BlanchardEmail author
Letter to the Editor

Wollert and Cramer (2011) recently reanalyzed the data from my study of victim count as a diagnostic indicator of pedohebephilia (Blanchard, 2010c). Their focus was the proposed guideline of diagnosing a patient as pedohebephilic if that patient has sexually molested three or more different children age 14 or younger, on separate occasions spanning at least 6 months. Wollert and Cramer contended that such a guideline would mean that 81–85% of patients so diagnosed would be falsely diagnosed. I am writing to explain the mistakes that led them to this false conclusion and to demonstrate that a more realistic estimate of this rate is around 28–29%. I have directed this letter to the Archives of Sexual Behavior (ASB) rather than to Behavioral Sciences and the Law (BSL) because two of the three papers relevant to this matter were published in ASB, and because BSL does not print letters to the editor.

Background of the Debate

In the December 2010 issue of this journal, First (2010) and I...

Keywords

Sexual Attraction Child Pornography Pedophilia Child Victim Penile Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blanchard, R. (2010a). The DSM diagnostic criteria for Pedophilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 304–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blanchard, R. (2010b). The fertility of hebephiles and the adaptationist argument against including hebephilia in DSM-5 [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 817–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchard, R. (2010c). The specificity of victim count as a diagnostic indicator of pedohebephilia [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1245–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchard, R., & Barbaree, H. E. (2005). The strength of sexual arousal as a function of the age of the sex offender: Comparisons among pedophiles, hebephiles, and teleiophiles. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard, R., Klassen, P., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., & Blak, T. (2001). Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for pedophilia in nonadmitting sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 13, 118–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchard, R., Kolla, N. J., Cantor, J. M., Klassen, P. E., Dickey, R., Kuban, M. E., et al. (2007). IQ, handedness, and pedophilia in adult male patients stratified by referral source. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanchard, R., Kuban, M. E., Blak, T., Klassen, P. E., Dickey R., & Cantor, J. M. (2010). Sexual attraction to others: A comparison of two models of alloerotic responding in men. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-010-9675-3.
  8. Blanchard, R., Lykins, A. D., Wherrett, D., Kuban, M. E., Cantor, J. M., Blak, T., et al. (2009). Pedophilia, hebephilia, and the DSM-V. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 335–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. First, M. B. (2010). DSM-5 proposals for paraphilias: Suggestions for reducing false positives related to use of behavioral manifestations [Letter to the Editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1239–1244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freund, K. (1967). Diagnosing homo- or heterosexuality and erotic age-preference by means of a psychophysiological test. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5, 209–228.Google Scholar
  11. Freund, K., Seeley, H. R., Marshall, W. E., & Glinfort, E. K. (1972). Sexual offenders needing special assessment and/or therapy. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 14, 3–23.Google Scholar
  12. Seto, M. C., Cantor, J. M., & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 610–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wollert, R., & Cramer, E. (2011). Sampling extreme groups invalidates research on the paraphilias: Implications for DSM-5 and sex offender risk assessments. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 554–565.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations