Advertisement

Current Psychiatry Reports

, 21:121 | Cite as

Assessing Paraphilic Interests Among Women Who Sexually Offend

  • Katrina N. Bouchard
  • Heather M. MouldenEmail author
  • Martin L. Lalumière
Sexual Disorders (LE Marshall and H Moulden, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We examine the state of scientific research on the assessment of paraphilic interests among women who have committed sexual offences.

Recent Findings

Research on the assessment of sexual interests in women using genital measures shows little evidence, overall, that women’s genital responses are indicative of sexual interests. Some non-genital measures of sexual interest may be a valid indicator of age interests. Very few studies have focused on women who sexually offend.

Summary

At this time, there is no validated measure that can be used to assess paraphilic interests among women who sexually offend. Much research is needed to determine if some measures (other than self-report) could validly assess a variety of sexual interests in women in general, and women who sexually offend in particular (e.g. interest in children, interest in sexual violence). This research is needed to determine if paraphilic interests are involved in women’s motivation for sexual offending, and to determine if such interests are predictive of sexual recidivism.

Keywords

Women who sexually offend Paraphilic interests Sexual interest testing Genital response Forensic assessment This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank Dr. Samantha J. Dawson for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:1154–63.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL, Cormier CA. Violent offenders: appraising and managing risk. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lalumière ML, Harris GT, Quinsey VL, Rice ME. The causes of rape: understanding individual differences in the male propensity for sexual aggression. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seto MC. Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: theory, assessment, and intervention. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2018.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: Author; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dawson SJ, Bannerman BA, Lalumière ML. Paraphilic interests: an examination of sex differences in a nonclinical sample. Sex Abus. 2016;28:20–45.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214525645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cantor JM, McPhail IV. Sensitivity and specificity of the phallometric test for hebephilia. J Sex Med. 2015;12:1940–50.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12970.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McPhail IV, Hermann CA, Fernane S, Fernandez YM, Nunes KL, Cantor JM. Validity in phallometric testing for sexual interests in children: a meta-analytic review. Assessment. 2017;26:535–51.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117706139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knack NM, Murphy L, Ranger R, Meston C, Fedoroff JP. Assessment of female sexual arousal in forensic populations. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015;17:557–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-015-0557-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Staunton C, Hammond S, Perkins D, Lambert S. Biosignal measures of female sexual interest: their feasibility in a forensic context. J Crim Psychol. 2014;4:59–75.  https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-11-2012-0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. Genital plethysmography for female sexual offenders? Assoc Treat Sex Abusers Forum. 2009;21.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper AJ, Swaminath S, Baxter D, Poulin C. A female sex offender with multiple paraphilias: a psychologic, physiologic (laboratory sexual arousal) and endocrine case study. Can J Psychiatr. 1990;35:334–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379003500411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortoni F, Babchishin KM, Rat C. The proportion of sexual offenders who are female is higher than thought: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2017;44:145–62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816658923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bancroft J, Graham CA. The varied nature of women’s sexuality: unresolved issues and a theoretical approach. Horm Behav. 2011;59:717–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.01.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chivers, M. L., Suschinsky, K. D., Timmers, A. D., & Bossio, J. A. (2014). Experimental, neuroimaging, and psychophysiological methods in sexuality research. In APA handbook of sexuality and psychology, Vol. 1: Person-based approaches. (pp. 99-119). American Psychological Association. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1037/14193-005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumière, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basson R. A model of women’s sexual arousal. J Sex Mar Ther. 2002;28:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/009262302317250963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kukkonen TM. What is the best method of measuring the physiology of female sexual arousal? Curr Sex Health Rep. 2014;6:30–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-013-0010-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kukkonen TM. Devices and methods to measure female sexual arousal. Sex Med Rev. 2015;3:225–44.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smrj.58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prause N, Cerny J, Janssen E. The labial photoplethysmograph: a new instrument for assessing genital hemodynamic changes in women. J Sex Med. 2005;2:58–65.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2005.20106.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Suschinsky KD, Shelley AJ, Gerritsen J, Tuiten A, Chivers ML. The clitoral photoplethysmograph: a pilot study examining discriminant and convergent validity. J Sex Med. 2015;12:2324–38.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.13047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laan, E. (1994). Determinants of sexual arousal in women: genital and subjective components of sexual response. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. Prepared for anything? An investigation of female genital arousal in response to rape cues. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:159–65.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610394660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kukkonen TM, Binik YM, Amsel R, Carrier S. Thermography as a physiological measure of sexual arousal in both men and women. J Sex Med. 2007;4:93–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00399.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prause N, Heiman JR. Assessing female sexual arousal with the labial thermistor: response specificity and construct validity. Int J Psychophysiol. 2009;72:115–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.11.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waxman SE, Pukall CF. Laser Doppler imaging of genital blood flow: a direct measure of female sexual arousal. J Sex Med. 2009;6:2278–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01326.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Chivers ML. The specificity of women’s sexual response and its relationship with sexual orientations: a review and ten hypotheses. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:1161–79.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0897-x. A comprehensive review of the empirical literature on the category-specificity of women’s sexual response, focusing on women with typical sexual interests.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chivers ML, Seto MC, Lalumière ML, Laan E, Grimbos T. Agreement of self-reported and genital measures of sexual arousal in men and women: a meta-analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:5–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9556-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lalumière ML. On the concept of category-specificity. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:1187–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0965-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chivers ML. A brief review and discussion of sex differences in the specificity of sexual arousal. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2005;20:377–90.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990500238802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chivers ML. A brief update on the specificity of sexual arousal. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2010;25:407–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2010.495979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seto MC. Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:231–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9882-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seto MC. The puzzle of male chronophilias. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:3–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0799-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chivers ML, Bouchard KN, Timmers AD. Straight but not narrow; within-gender variation in the gender-specificity of women’s sexual response. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0142575.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Suschinsky KD, Dawson SJ, Chivers ML. Assessing the relationship between sexual concordance, sexual attractions, and sexual identity in women. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:179–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0874-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Suschinsky, K. D., & Chivers, M. L. (2019). Assessing gender-specificity of clitoral responses. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huberman JS, Chivers ML. Examining gender specificity of sexual response with concurrent thermography and plethysmography. Psychophysiology. 2015;52:1382–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12466.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bouchard KN, Chivers ML, Pukall CF. Effects of genital response measurement device and stimulus characteristics on sexual concordance in women. J Sex Res. 2017;54:1197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1265641.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lalumière, M. L., Sawatsky, M. L., Dawson, S. J., & Suschinsky, K. D. (2019). The empirical status of the preparation hypothesis: explicating women’s genital responses to sexual stimuli in the laboratory. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chivers ML, Roy C, Grimbos T, Cantor JM, Seto MC. Specificity of sexual arousal for sexual activities in men and women with conventional and masochistic sexual interests. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43:931–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0174-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Laan E, Everaerd W, Evers A. Assessment of female sexual arousal: response specificity and construct validity. Psychophysiology. 1995;32:476–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1995.tb02099.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. Category-specificity and sexual concordance: the stability of sex differences in sexual arousal patterns. Can J Hum Sex. 2011;20:93–108.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wan C, Lalumière ML. Can music cue sexual arousal? Can J Hum Sex. 2017;26:238–48.  https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2017-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Laan E, Janssen E. How do men and women feel? Determinants of subjective experience of sexual arousal. In: Janssen E, editor. The psychophysiology of sex. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 2007. p. 278–90.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dawson SJ, Sawatsky ML, Lalumière ML. Assessment of introital lubrication. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44:1527–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0519-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    •• Sawatsky ML, Dawson SJ, Lalumière ML. Genital lubrication: a cue-specific sexual response? Biol Psychol. 2018;134:103–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.02.003 A test of the preparation hypothesis using a direct measure of genital lubrication showed that responses were specific to women’s most preferred sexual stimulus categories. This high degree of gender cue-specificity is inconsistent with the preparation hypothesis. Further testing is needed to establish whether the litmus test strip is a viable measure of women’s sexual interests.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Levin RJ. The ins and outs of vaginal lubrication. Sex Relatsh Ther. 2003;18:509–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990310001609859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Masters WH, Johnson VE. Human sexual response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.; 1966.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bouchard KN, Dawson SJ, Shelley AJ, Pukall CF. Concurrent measurement of genital lubrication and blood flow during sexual arousal. Biol Psychol. 2019;145:159–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.05.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bartels, R. M., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2016). Indirect measures of deviant sexual interest. The Wiley Handbook on the Theories, Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending. John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schmidt, A. F., Banse, R., & Imhoff, R. (2015). Indirect measures in forensic contexts. In T. M. Ortner & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.). Behavior-based assessment in psychology: going beyond self-report in the personality, affective, motivation, and social domains (pp. 173-194). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ciardha Ó, Attard-Johnson J, Bindemann M. Latency-based and psychophysiological measures of sexual interest show convergent and concurrent validity. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47:637–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1133-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schmidt AF, Babchishin KM, Lehmann RJ. A meta-analysis of viewing time measures of sexual interest in children. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:287–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0806-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Babchishin KM, Nunes KL, Hermann CA. The validity of Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures of sexual attraction to children: a meta-analysis. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42:487–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0022-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fromberger P, Jordan K, Steinkrauss H, von Herder J, Witzel J, Stolpmann G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of eye movements in assessing pedophilia. J Sex Med. 2012;9:1868–82.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02754.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fromberger P, Jordan K, Steinkrauss H, von Herder J, Stolpmann G, Kröner-Herwig B, et al. Eye movements in pedophiles: automatic and controlled attentional processes while viewing prepubescent stimuli. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:587–99.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lalumière ML, Earls CM. Voluntary control of penile responses as a function of stimulus duration and instructions. Behav Assess. 1992;14:121–32.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dawson SJ, Suschinsky KD, Lalumière ML. Sexual fantasies and viewing times across the menstrual cycle: a diary study. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:173–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9939-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ebsworth M, Lalumière ML. Viewing time as a measure of bisexual sexual interest. Arch Sex Behav. 2012;41:161–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9923-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Imhoff R, Schmidt AF, Nordsiek U, Luzar C, Young AW, Banse R. Viewing time effects revisited: prolonged response latencies for sexually attractive targets under restricted task conditions. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:1275–88.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9595-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Israel E, Strassberg DS. Viewing time as an objective measure of sexual interest in heterosexual men and women. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38:551–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9246-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rullo JE, Strassberg DS, Israel E. Category-specificity in sexual interest in gay men and lesbians. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:874–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9497-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    •• Attard-Johnson J, Bindemann M, Ó Ciardha C. Pupillary response as an age-specific measure of sexual interest. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45:855–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0681-3 Across two experiments, the pupillary responses of androphilic women exhibited high cue-specificity for age, but not gender. Pupil dilation appears to reflect age preferences among women with typical sexual interests; further research is needed to investigate potential applications of pupillometry for assessing women with paraphilic interests. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rieger G, Cash BM, Merrill SM, Jones-Rounds J, Dharmavaram SM, Savin-Williams RC. Sexual arousal: the correspondence of eyes and genitals. Biol Psychol. 2015;104:56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rieger G, Savin-Williams RC. The eyes have it: sex and sexual orientation differences in pupil dilation patterns. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e40256.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040256.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Watts TM, Holmes L, Savin-Williams RC, Rieger G. Pupil dilation to explicit and non-explicit sexual stimuli. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:155–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0801-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Snowden RJ, McKinnon A, Fitoussi J, Gray NS. Pupillary responses to static images of men and women: a possible measure of sexual interest? J Sex Res. 2019;56:74–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1394959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Snowden RJ, Gray NS. Implicit sexual associations in heterosexual and homosexual women and men. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42:475–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9920-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lalumière ML, Babchishin KM, Ebsworth M. The use of film clips in a viewing time task of sexual interests. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47:627–35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1108-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    • Dawson SJ, Chivers ML. Gender-specificity of initial and controlled visual attention to sexual stimuli in androphilic women and gynephilic men. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0152785.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152785. Using eyetracking as a measure of visual attention, androphilic and gynephilic women with typical sexual interests showed high gender cue-specificity at the controlled stage of attention (duration of fixation); however, androphilic women exhibited low gender cue-specificity for initial attention (time to first fixation). Since the duration of fixation is under conscious control, this response may be vulnerable to manipulation in the context of forensic assessment. Further research is needed to investigate potential applications of eyetracking for assessing women with paraphilic interests. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dawson SJ, Chivers ML. The effect of static versus dynamic stimuli on visual processing of sexual cues in androphilic women and gynephilic men. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5:172286.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dawson SJ, Chivers ML. The effect of task demands on gender-specificity of visual attention biases in androphilic women and gynephilic men. Personal Individ Differ. 2019;146:120–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dawson SJ, Fretz KM, Chivers ML. Visual attention patterns of women with androphilic and gynephilic sexual attractions. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46:141–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0825-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    •• Vásquez-Amézquita M, Leongómez JD, Seto MC, Bonilla M, Rodríguez-Padilla A, Salvador A. Visual attention patterns differ in gynephilic and androphilic men and women depending on age and gender of targets. J Sex Res. 2019;56:85–101.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1372353 Using eyetracking as a measure of visual attention, androphilic and gynephilic women with typical sexual interests exhibited high cue-specificity for age at the initial and controlled stages of attention (time to first fixation and duration of fixation, respectively). Visual attention appears to reflect age preferences among women with typical sexual interests; further research is needed to investigate potential applications of eyetracking for assessing women with paraphilic interests. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Baur E, Forsman M, Santtila P, Johansson A, Sandnabba K, Långström N. Paraphilic sexual interests and sexually coercive behaviour: a population-based twin study. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45:1163–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0674-2 Behavior, 38, 559-573. doi: 10.1007/s10508.008-9339-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Joyal CC, Carpentier J. The prevalence of paraphilic interests and behaviors in the general population: a provincial survey. J Sex Res. 2017;54:161–71.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.113903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    McLeod DA. Female offenders in child sexual abuse cases: a national picture. J Child Sex Abuse. 2015;24:97–114.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.978925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrina N. Bouchard
    • 1
  • Heather M. Moulden
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Martin L. Lalumière
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural NeuroscienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.St. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHamiltonCanada
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  5. 5.The Royal’s Institute of Mental Health ResearchOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations