Skip to main content

Punitive Attitudes Against Pedophiles or Persons With Sexual Interest in Children: Does the Label Matter?


In the present research, we addressed the question of whether people harbor punitive attitudes against individuals sexually interested in children even if no sexual offense is mentioned and whether this effect is amplified by the clinical label pedophilia. In two online studies (total N = 345), participants rated the extent to which they saw individuals sexually interested in children as necessarily committing child sexual abuse (dangerousness), responsible for their sexual interest (intentionality), and clinically disordered (deviance) before judging their endorsement of means of punishment (punitive attitudes). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions in which either the “pedophilia” label or the descriptive term “sexual interest in (prepubescent) children” was included in all items. Across both studies, results showed high degrees of punitive attitudes against sexually deviant men, an effect that was particularly pronounced if the pedophilia label was present. Whereas this was only latently observable in Study 1 (concealed by a suppression effect of reduced ascriptions of intentionality), in Study 2 no such suppression was observed. Unlike any other stigma we know of, punitive attitudes against pedophiles were associated positively with social desirability, suggesting that participants saw it as particularly socially desirable to condemn someone based on their deviant sexual interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Ames, M. A., & Houston, D. A. (1990). Legal, social, and biological definitions of pedophilia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 333–342. doi:10.1007/BF01541928.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beier, K. M., Ahlers, C. J., Goecker, D., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., Hupp, E., et al. (2009). Can pedophiles be reached for primary prevention of child sexual abuse? First results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20, 851–867. doi:10.1080/14789940903174188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.

  4. Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational Psychological Measurement, 34, 35–46. doi:10.1177/001316447403400105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Feelgood, S., & Hoyer, J. (2008). Child molester or pedophile? Sociolegal versus psychopathological classification in sexual offender research. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 14, 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Feldman, D. B., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Dimensions of mental illness stigma: What about mental illness causes social rejection? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 137–154. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.2.137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Bilewicz, M. (2013). The paradox of in-group love: Differentiating collective narcissism advances understanding of the relationship between in-group and out-group attitudes. Journal of Personality, 81, 16–28. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00779.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hall, R. C. W., & Hall, R. C. W. (2007). A profile of pedophilia: Definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82, 457–471. doi:10.4065/82.4.457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harper, C. A., & Hogue, T. E. (2014a). The emotional representation of sexual crime in the national British press. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. doi:10.1177/0261927X14544474.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harper, C. A., & Hogue, T. E. (2014b). A Prototype-Willingness model of sexual crime discourse in England and Wales. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. doi:10.1111/hojo.12095.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harrison, K., Manning, R., & McCartan, K. (2010). Multi-disciplinary definitions and understandings of ‘paedophilia’. Social & Legal Studies, 19, 481–496. doi:10.1177/0964663910369054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heatherton, T., Kleck, R., Hebl, M., & Hull, J. (2000). The social psychology of stigma. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson, C., Evans-Lacko, S., Flach, C., & Thornicroft, G. (2012). Responses to mental health stigma questions: The importance of social desirability and data collection method. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57, 152–160.

  14. Imhoff, R. (2014). Zeroing in on the effect of the schizophrenia label on stigmatizing attitudes: A large scale study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  15. Imhoff, R., & Banse, R. (2009). Ongoing victim suffering increases prejudice: The case of secondary anti-semitism. Psychological Science, 20, 1443–1447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02457.x.

  16. Jahnke, S., & Hoyer, J. (2013). Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: A blind spot in stigma research. International Journal of Sexual Health, 25, 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jahnke, S., Imhoff, R., & Hoyer, J. (2014). Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: Two comparative surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0312-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lam, A., Mitchell, J., & Seto, M. C. (2010). Lay perceptions of child pornography offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 173–201. doi:10.1353/ccj.0.0087.

  19. Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Struening, E., Shrout, P. E., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1989). A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: An empirical assessment. American Sociological Review, 54, 400–423. doi:10.2307/2095613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. M., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181. doi:10.1023/A:1026595011371.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2010). To execute or not to execute? Examining public support for capital punishment of sex offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 959–968. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.06.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marshall, W. L. (1997). Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In R. D. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (Vol. 1, pp. 152–174). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 7–24. doi:10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1.

  24. McCartan, K. (2004). ‘Here there be monsters’: The public’s perception of paedophiles with particular reference to Belfast and Leicester. Medicine, Science and the Law, 44, 327–342. doi:10.1258/rsmmsl.44.4.327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 303–328. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Penn, D. L., & Nowlin-Drummond, A. (2001). Politically correct labels and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27, 197–203. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a006866.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16, 93–115. doi:10.1037/a0022658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ray, J. J. (1984). The reliability of short social desirability scales. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 133–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Scheff, T. (1999). Being mentally ill: Sociological theory (3rd ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt, A. F., Gykiere, K., Vanhoeck, K., Mann, R. E., & Banse, R. (2014). Direct and indirect measures of sexual maturity preferences differentiate subtypes of child sexual abusers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 107–128. doi:10.1177/1079063213480817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11639-000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213–220. doi:10.1177/2167702612469015.

  34. Spieckera, B., & Steutela, J. (1997). Paedophilia, sexual desire and perversity. Journal of Moral Education, 26, 331–342. doi:10.1080/0305724970260307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Viki, G. T., Fullerton, I., Raggett, H., Tait, F., & Wiltshire, S. (2012). The role of dehumanization in attitudes toward the social exclusion and rehabilitation of sex offenders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2349–2367. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00944.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


I would like to thank Sara Jahnke for valuable comments and the productive collaboration in constructing the scales.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Imhoff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Imhoff, R. Punitive Attitudes Against Pedophiles or Persons With Sexual Interest in Children: Does the Label Matter?. Arch Sex Behav 44, 35–44 (2015).

Download citation


  • Pedophilia
  • Sexual interest in children
  • Punitive attitudes
  • Stigma
  • Labeling theory
  • Suppression analysis