Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 43–45 | Cite as

The Chronophilia Conundrum: Continuum or Epiphenomenon?

  • Andreas MokrosEmail author

Seto (2016) has summarized the literature on sexual interest and attraction dependent on the age of the desired partner in an impressive way. Based on the notion of sexual orientation as a multi-dimensional framework, he posits that sexual interest or preference for individuals of a particular age is represented by one of these dimensions. Consequently, Seto surmises that such age preferences, which he refers to as chronophilias, are ordered on a single dimension, ranging from nepiophilia (i.e., a sexual interest for toddlers and infants) to gerontophilia (i.e., a sexual interest for old-age individuals). Thus, Seto assumes a continuous and unimodal distribution of sexual interest with regard to age groups, with a peak for teleiophilic sexual interest (i.e., focusing on biologically mature individuals). Seto concedes that the shape of this distribution is not necessarily symmetrical. Rather, he expects the curve to be positively skewed, with a long right tail. This hypothetical...


Sexual Arousal Sexual Offender Sexual Interest Pedophilia Randomize Response Technique 
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.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.


  1. Alanko, K., Gunst, A., Mokros, A., & Santtila, P. (2016). Genetic variants associated with male pedophilic sexual interest. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13, 835–842. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.02.170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alanko, K., Salo, B., Mokros, A., & Santtila, P. (2013). Evidence for heritability of adult men’s sexual interest in youth under age 16 from a population-based extended twin design. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 1090–1099. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman, A. W., & Azzalini, A. (1997). Applied smoothing techniques for data analysis: The kernel approach with S-Plus illustrations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2011). Item response modeling of forced-choice questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 460–502. doi: 10.1177/0013164410375112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carothers, B. J., & Reis, H. T. (2013). Men and women are from Earth: Examining the latent structure of gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 385–407. doi: 10.1037/a0030437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400007318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dilchert, S., & Ones, D. S. (2012). Application of preventive strategies. In M. Ziegler, C. MacCann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 177–200). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dombert, B., Schmidt, A. F., Banse, R., Briken, J., Hoyer, J., Neutze, J., & Osterheider, M. (2016). How common is men’s self-reported sexual interest in prepubescent children? Journal of Sex Research, 53, 214–223. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1020108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunson, D. B., Colombo, B., & Baird, D. D. (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction, 17, 1399–1403. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.5.1399.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gangestad, S. W., Bailey, J. M., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Taxometric analyses of sexual orientation and gender identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1109–1121. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall, G. C. N., Hirschman, R., & Oliver, L. L. (1995). Sexual arousal and arousability to pedophilic stimuli in a community sample of normal men. Behavior Therapy, 26, 681–694. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80039-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haslam, N. (1997). Evidence that male sexual orientation is a matter of degree. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 862–870. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.862.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Himmelfarb, S. (2008). The multi-item randomized response technique. Sociological Methods and Research, 36, 495–514. doi: 10.1177/0049124107313900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joyal, C. C., & Carpentier, J. (2016). The prevalence of paraphilic interests and behaviors in the general population: A provincial survey. Journal of Sex Research. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1139034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–91. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00067595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1166–1172. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Långström, N., Babchishin, K., Fazel, S., Lichtenstein, P., & Frisell, T. (2015). Sexual offending runs in families: A 37-year nationwide study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 44, 713–720. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyv029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Longpré, N., Benbouriche, M., Guay, J. P., & Knight, R. A. (2013). Investigating the latent structure of sexual sadism: A taxometric analysis. Poster presented at the meeting of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  19. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Mokros, A., Butz, M., Dombert, B., Santtila, P., Bäuml, K.-H., & Osterheider, M. (2011). Judgement of age and attractiveness in a paired comparison task: Testing a picture set developed for diagnosing paedophilia. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 323–334. doi: 10.1348/135532510X514104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mokros, A., Schilling, F., Weiss, K., Nitschke, J., & Eher, R. (2014). Sadism in sexual offenders: Evidence for dimensionality. Psychological Assessment, 26, 138–147. doi: 10.1037/a0034861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Santtila, P., Antfolk, J., Räfså, A., Hartwig, M., Sariola, H., Sandnabba, N. K., & Mokros, A. (2015). Men’s sexual interest in children: One-year incidence and correlates in a population-based sample of Finnish male twins. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24, 115–134. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2015.997410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, A. F., Mokros, A., & Banse, R. (2013). Is pedophilic sexual preference continuous? A taxometric analysis based on direct and indirect measures. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1146–1153. doi: 10.1037/a0033326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Seto, M. C. (2016). The puzzles of male chronophilias. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0799-y.Google Scholar
  25. Seto, M. C., & Eke, A. W. (2015). Predicting recidivism among adult male child pornography offenders: Development of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT). Law and Human Behavior, 39, 416–429. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forensic PsychiatryUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations