Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1048-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Determinants of Punitive Attitudes Toward People with Pedophilia:
Dissecting Effects of the Label and Intentionality Ascriptions
Roland Imhoff1 • Sara Jahnke2
Received: 11 October 2016 / Revised: 18 July 2017 / Accepted: 19 July 2017 / Published online: 10 August 2017
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017
Abstract Recent research has established marked punitive atti-
tudes against people sexually interested in children. These nega-
tiveattitudesareevenmorepronouncedwhensuchsexual interest
is labeled as pedophilia, butare attenuated to the extent that such
sexual interest is perceived as beyond one’s own control (unin-
tentional). We explored these effects in more detail by separately
manipulating the label (pedophiles vs. people with sexual interest
inprepubescent children)anddegreeofintentionality(pedophilia
or sexual desire as malleable vs. not malleable). Participants
recruited via an online platform (N = 423) were randomly
assignedto theexperimental conditionsandasked to rate degree
of intentionality, dangerousness, deviance, and punitive attitudes
toward people sexually interested in children. As expected, par-
ticipants expressed stronger punitive attitudes when the label
was present. The manipulation of intentionality, however, was
not successful. Further analyses explored whether participants
found the notion that sexual interest cannot be altered at will
more credible than the opposite, particularly in presence of the
pedophilia label. The results are discussed with regard to the sig-
nificance of and potential intervention against the markedly strong
public stigma against people with pedophilia.
Keywords Stigma
Pedophilia
Labeling effect

Malleability
Sexual orientation
DSM-5
& Roland Imhoff
roland.imhoff@uni-mainz.de
1 (Imhoff, 2015a) contained two relevant indications in that regard:
Social and Legal Psychology, Department of Psychology,
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Binger Str. 14-16,
55122 Mainz, Germany
2
Department of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden,
Dresden, Germany
Introduction
The stigma attached to various human characteristics (i.e., sexual
orientation, mental or physical disorders) unfairly diminishes life
opportunities and constitutes a near constant source of stress
(Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, & Link, 2013; Pachankis, 2007). Indi-
viduals with pedophilic sexual interest (i.e., sexual fantasies,
desires, and urges involving prepubescent children) are the tar-
get of particularly fierce stigmatization, with a sizeable number
of people from the general public arguing in favor of punishing
them regardless of whether they engage in illegal or socially
unacceptable activities or not(Jahnke, Imhoff, & Hoyer, 2015a).
It has furthermore been proposed that the stigma attached to
pedophilia might have detrimental effects for the prevention
of child sexual abuse (Jahnke & Hoyer, 2013). Strong public
stigma can prevent people with pedophilia from disclosing
their sexual interest and seeking therapeutic support, and it can
increase their feelings of isolation and loneliness, both of which
have been discussed as risk factors for committing a sexual
offense (Cantor & McPhail, 2016). Giving weight to these con-
cerns, pedophilic men’s fear that others may uncover their sex-
ual interest was found to be associated with more social and emo-
tional problems, including reduced self-esteem and capacities to
cope with stress. This might in turn lower inhibitions to commit
sexual offenses against children (Jahnke, Schmidt, Geradt, &
Hoyer, 2015c).
In light of these socially and personally dramatic conse-
quences, it is therefore of uttermost importance to better under-
stand the antecedents of the widespread negativity toward peo-
ple with pedophilic desire. A recent study on labeling effects
Punitive attitudes were more pronounced when targeted at‘‘pe-
dophiles’’than when this label was replaced with the more neu-
tral term‘‘men with sexual interest in prepubescent children,’’
but this effect was partially suppressed as the same label also
123
354
reduced ascriptions of intentionality, another predictor of puni-
tive attitudes. In the current research, we aim at further dissect-
ing these two pathways by manipulating estimations of inten-
tionality orthogonal to the presence or absence of the label with
the prediction that both the label pedophilia and the portrayal of
sexual interest as intentionally chosen will evoke harsher puni-
tive attitudes.
The Impact of Diagnostic Labels on Stigmatization
Labeling theory assumes that the extent of prejudicial and puni-
tive attitudes depends on the labels used to refer to stigmatized
groups (Link, Cullen, Struening, Shrout, & Dohrenwend, 1989).
Over the last two decades, the concept of stigma has become a
widely researched topic in psychology and related sciences (Bos,
Pryor, Reeder, & Stutterheim, 2013). Stigma arises when people
distinguish human differences and ascribe labels to them, and
when these labels are linked to negative attributes through preva-
lent cultural beliefs (Link & Phelan, 2001). Despite usually being
well intentioned, diagnostic labels may increase or perpetuate
stigma by signaling differentness (Corrigan, Bink, Fokuo, &
Schmidt, 2015). It is furthermore problematic that‘‘diagnosis
assumes all members of a group [to be] homogeneous and that
all groups are distinguished by definable boundaries’’(Corrigan,
2007; p. 33). Depending on people’s preexisting ideas about a
specific mental illness, introducing a mental illness label has
been theorized to evoke a wide range of negative beliefs (i.e.,
that stigma carriers are weak,dangerous, or responsible for their
illness; Rüsch, Angermeyer, & Corrigan, 2005) and emotions
such as anger and fear but also sympathy or pity (Link, Cullen,
Frank, & Wozniak, 1987). Labeling a problem or behavior as, for
instance, indicative of schizophrenia is correlated with higher
ascribed dangerousness, fear, and social rejection, while label-
ing it as a depression is not (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 2003).
Considering the popularity of these claims, there is surprisingly
little experimental research on the effects of labeling vs. not
labeling a specific set of symptoms using diagnostic terms. One
of the few experimental studies in this regard demonstrated that
people react with higher ascriptions of dangerousness and aggres-
sion and higher levels of anxiety in relation to a person labeled
as schizophrenic compared to someone showing identical (but
unlabeled) symptoms and behavior (Imhoff, 2015b).
Public Attitudes Toward Pedophilic Individuals
In the latest edition of the DSM (DSM-5; American Psychiatric
Association, 2013), pedophilia is no longer officially used to
describe a mental disorder but a sexual interest in children, which,
accordingto some (e.g., Berlin,2014; Seto,2017), might also be
construed as a sexual orientation. The term pedophilic disorder
is nowreserved for pathological forms of said orientation (i.e., if
sexual fantasies involving children lead to marked distress or
123
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
sexual offending against children; Beech, Miner, & Thornton,
2016). The reason for this decision on behalf of the Board of
Trustees was most probably the need to emphasize that a sexual
interest in children does not necessarily involve sexually abu-
sive behavior but is, in fact, manageable in a responsible way
(Seto, 2007). Nevertheless, pedophilia has been for a long time
(and according to other sources like the ICD-10 continues to be)
a term employed to diagnose a pathological and potentially dan-
gerous mental illness. Moreover, the term pedophilia has strong
negative connotations for lay people, who are unlikely to be
aware of the terminological distinctions between pedophilia,
pedophilic disorder, and child sexual abuse (Beech et al., 2016).
Despite being among the most stigmatized human differences,
very little is known about the effect of different labels on public
reactions regarding pedophilia. Feldman and Crandall (2007)
found that students rejected pedophilic individuals more fiercely
than they rejected individuals with one of 39 other mental dis-
orders (with the exception of antisocial personality disorder).
The extent of rejection across all tested diagnoses was essen-
tially predicted by perceived personal responsibility for the dis-
order as well as its assumed dangerousness and rarity. Substi-
tuting the term pedophilia with the more descriptive‘‘dominant
sexual interest in children,’’Jahnke et al. (2015a) also revealed
highly stigmatizing responses among the general public, even
when it was made evident that no crime, sexual or other, has been
committed. Although reliable estimates on the relative number
of non-offending pedophilic individuals are not available at the
moment, researchers assume that a‘‘non-trivial number of non-
offending pedophiles exist’’(Cantor & McPhail, 2016;‘‘Conclu-
sions,’’para. 1; see also Dombert et al., 2016). Nevertheless, even
when no crime was mentioned, participants from the general
public believed people with a sexual interest in children to be a
threat to minors (Jahnke et al., 2015a).
Interestingly,about one-thirdof participants in theJahnkeet al.
(2015a) study agreed that pedophilic individuals can choose or
change whom they find sexually attractive. That is, they ascribed
high levels of intentionality to a sexual orientation that, not unlike
homo- or heterosexual interests in physically mature sexual part-
ners, is considered by most sexologists to be a relatively stable and
unchanging characteristic (Seto, 2012; for empirical data on
the retrospective and prospective stability of pedophilic sexual
arousal, see also Grundmann, Krupp, Scherner, Amelung, &
Beier, 2016). Consistent with core assumptions from attribu-
tion theory stating that higher perceived intentionality leads to
higher ascertainments of responsibility and, in the case of unde-
sirable characteristics, blame (Corrigan, Markowitz, Watson,
Rowan, & Kubiak, 2003; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988),
beliefs in the intentionality of pedophilic interests were associ-
ated with more angry reactions and a higher desire to reject this
group (Jahnke et al., 2015a). After receiving an educative anti-
stigma intervention including the information that pedophilia
cannot be chosen or changed at will, participants showed more
favorable views regarding people with pedophilia compared to
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
a control group that did not receive this intervention (Jahnke,
Philipp, & Hoyer, 2015b).
In an attempt to explore the potential role of the pedophilia
label in increasing negative attitudes (i.e., higher endorsement
of various types of punishment), Imhoff (2015a) experimentally
manipulated whether the group was referred to as pedophiles or
‘‘people with sexual interest in children.’’Imhoff furthermore
assessedthestigma-relevant dimensionsdangerousness,deviance
(i.e., beliefs that pedophilic individuals are psychologically dis-
ordered), and intentionality, which were all found to be asso-
ciated with stronger punitive attitudes. Although the study found
high levels of punitive attitudes across conditions (label vs. no
label), the pedophilia label exacerbated punitive attitudes com-
pared to the condition where the label was not present. Never-
theless, the effects were not as straightforward as expected,
as the effect of labeling on punitive attitudes was dampened
due to less ascribed intentionality, which acted as a suppressor
variable.
The Present Research
BuildingonImhoff’s(2015a)study,weseparatelymanipulatedthe
label (pedophiles vs.‘‘people with sexual interest in prepubescent
children’’) and the presumed intentionality by introducing alleged
scientific consensus that a sexual orientation toward children is
controllable and malleable (in the sense that it can be willfully
changed). Regarding punitive attitudes, we expected two main
effects. Replicating previous findings (Imhoff, 2015a), partic-
ipants should expressmore punitive attitudes when the pedophilia
label was present (vs. absent) and when the implied intentionality
was high. Regarding the intentionality ratings, we expected higher
scores in the condition where intentionality of sexual interests was
implied as current scientific consensus. Unlike in Imhoff (2015a)
we assumed that the‘‘pedophilia’’label should not alter intention-
ality ratings when the extent of intentionality was made explicit.
We had no a priori hypotheses regarding dangerousness and
deviance but conducted the same analyses in an exploratory fash-
ion.Allmaterials,alldata,andascriptfortheanalysescanbefound
online (http://osf.io/cg2f4).
Method
Participants
We paid 423 U.S.-based workers on Mechanical Turk (MTurk) a
small amount of money to participate in a survey on attitudes
toward sexual interest. MTurk is an online marketplace where
requesters can find workers to complete Human Intelligences
Tasks (HITs) that has become increasingly popular for psycho-
logical research (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Of
these predominantly white (72.3%) participants ranging in age
355
from 18 to 75 (M = 32.5, SD 11.0), 152 indicated to be female,
255 to be male, and 16 chose neither of these options. The par-
ticipants came from all walks of life, naming over 180 distinct
occupations (with homemakers, retail, IT, self-employed, and
unemployed, constituting the largest groups with more than 10
mentions each; roughly 50 participants were still students, only
two persons described themselves as professional MTurkers).
Not all participants who started the survey also completed it.
Seven participants did not complete the stigma scale, and another
five did not complete the punitive attitude scales. Central anal-
yses are based on accordingly reduced subsamples.
Measures
We created four different vignettes on current scientific positions
on the choice people have over the targets of their sexual desire
(all vignettes in Appendix and online at http://osf.io/cg2f4). In
these vignettes, we manipulated two aspects orthogonally: First,
whether the sexual desire of interest was referred to as‘‘pedophil-
ia’’(Pedophilia Label) or‘‘sexual interest in prepubescent chil-
dren’’(No Label). Second, whether the target of one’s sexual
desire was something that individuals can control to a certain
degree (High Intentionality) or cannot control at all (Low Inten-
tionality). The described position was portrayed as reflective
of a growing consensus in the field after‘‘a long-lasting debate
about the choice individuals have over the objects of their sex-
ual desire.’’
To be able to control for differential credibility of the account,
participants then indicated on a four-point scale ranging from‘‘not
at all’’to‘‘absolutely’’(1) to what extent they were aware of this
current scientific consensus, (2) whether they had any knowl-
edge about scientific evidence on the ability to change sexual
interest, (3) to what extent they believed that the current view
will remain the consensual view in the future, and (4) how likely
they thought it was that we will one day have a valid method to
change sexual interest.
Thecentral dependent variableswere identical tothe onesused
in Imhoff (2015a). For the 17-item scale of stigma-related beliefs,
we modified the wording in the measure to be consistent with
the experimental condition participants received (i.e.,the items
referred to‘‘pedophilia’’in the label condition, but to‘‘sexual inter-
est in children’’in the no-label condition). The scale contained
items on intentionality (e.g.,‘‘Pedophilia/sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children is something that you choose for yourself’’),
deviance (e.g.,‘‘Pedophiles/People with sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children are normal people with an infrequent sex-
ual orientation,’’reverse-coded), and dangerousness (e.g.,‘‘Pe-
dophilia/sexual interest in pre-pubescent children sooner or
later always leads to child sex abuse’’). The same manipulation
consistent wording was also present in the 13-item scale of puni-
tive attitudes (e.g.,‘‘Pedophiles/people with sexual interest in
prepubescent children should be chemically castrated’’; for full
wording of both scales, see Imhoff, 2015a). We also measured
123
356
participants’ propensity to give social desirable responses with
a short eight-item version (Ray, 1984) of the longer scale by
Crowne and Marlowe (1960) and their political orientation
on three items (social, economic, general) from‘‘completely left-
wing’’(1) to‘‘completely right-wing’’(9).
Procedure
After giving informed consent, participants read a brief summary
of a long-lasting debate about the choice individuals have over the
objects of their sexual desire that contained the two independent
variables (see below) and indicated to what extent they were
aware of this topic and agreed with the statements made. Upon
starting the survey, participants were randomly assigned to one
of the four conditions: Pedophilia Label, Low Intentionality
(n = 88); Pedophilia Label, High Intentionality (n = 111); No
Label, Low Intentionality (n = 112); and No Label, High Inten-
tionality (n = 112). Because not all participants completed the
survey, these numbers were slightly reduced for the dependent
variables. Afterward, they completed the central dependent vari-
ables of stigmatizing beliefs and punitive attitudes before giving
demographic information and filling in a social desirability scale.
They were then thoroughly debriefed and informed that the intro-
ductory summary was fictitious and that the current scientific
debate had not yet reached a definite consensus on the malleabil-
ityofsexualinterest,butthatmostexpertstendtoagreethatdeviant
sexual interest is unlikely to be changeable.
Design and Analyses
The experiment followed a 2 (Label: Pedophilia Label vs. No
Label) by 2 (Intentionality: Low Intentionality vs. High Inten-
tionality) between-subjects design. Both variables were manip-
ulated with the introductory vignette and the former one was
additionally manipulated in the relevant scales by either refer-
ring to‘‘pedophilia’’/‘‘pedophiles’’or‘‘sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children’’/‘‘people with sexual interest in prepubescent
children.’’The central analyses were thus all 2 9 2 between-
subjects ANOVAs.
Results
All scalesprovedsufficiently reliable(see Table 1 forall reliabil-
ities and zero-order correlations). To test our hypotheses, we con-
ducted 2 (label) by 2 (intentionality) between-subjects ANOVAs
on all four scales (punitive attitudes, intentionality, dangerous-
ness, deviance; see Fig. 1). Replicating the labeling effect of
pedophilia (Imhoff, 2015a), participants expressed harsher
punitive attitudes when judging pedophiles, M = 4.25, SD 1.21,
than when judging people with sexual interest in prepubescent
children, M = 3.94, SD 1.20, as indicated by a main effect of
123
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
the label manipulation, F(1, 407) = 6.01, p = .015, Cohen’s
d = 0.26. There was neither a main effect of intentionality,
F(1, 407) = 0.39, p = .534, nor an interaction of the two factors,
F(1, 407) = 1.06, p = .304.
The lack of an intentionality effect was unexpected and invites
speculation whether the manipulation was indeed effective. Sup-
port for the notion that it was effective, however, comes from
the intentionality subscale of the stigma scale.Participants who
learned that the current scientific consensus suggested that peo-
ple can intentionally alter their sexual interest ascribed more
intentionality to people with deviant sexual interest, M = 4.01,
SD 1.57, than participants who learned the opposite, M = 3.48,
SD 1.59, F(1, 412) = 12.58, p\.001, Cohen’s d = 0.34. As
reasoned previously, this clear explication of intentionality
eliminated any effect of the label on perceived intentionality
as observed in previous studies, F(1, 412) = 0.24, p = .624.
Althoughthelabel xintentionalityinteractioneffect onperceived
intentionality was not significant F(1, 412) = 2.91, p = .089, the
mean values suggest that the intentionality manipulation was par-
ticularly effective in the‘‘pedophilia’’label condition (see Fig. 1).
Exploratory analyses on the remaining two stigma subscales
revealed no effect for deviance, all Fs\1, but a main effect of
the label on perceptions of dangerousness, F(1, 412) = 4.67,
p = .031 (other Fs\1). In line with more negative attitudes
elicited by the term pedophilia, participants perceived ‘‘pe-
dophiles’’to be more dangerous,M = 5.16, SD 1.12, than‘‘people
with sexual interest in prepubescent children,’’M = 4.90, SD
1.26, Cohen’s d = 0.22. In summary, it is predominantly the
label of pedophilia that increases stigmatizing attitudes, whereas
the explicit reference to low vs. high intentionality had virtually
no effect except on ratings of intentionality.
To better understand this lack of effect, we inspected the ratings
ofthevignettesthemselvestoseewhetheroneresonatedmorewith
existingknowledgeorwasperceivedasmorecrediblethananother
(see Fig. 2). To estimate how well the alleged scientific consensus
aligned with participants’ prior knowledge, we combined the two
items‘‘To what extent were you aware of the current scientific
consensus regarding the ability to change sexual interest?’’and
‘‘Before participating, did you have any knowledge about what
scientific evidence suggests regarding the ability to change
sexual interest?’’, r = .76, p\.001. The ANOVA yielded two
independent main effects with no interaction, F(1, 419) = 2.55,
p = .111. Specifically, the notion that sexual interest cannot be
altered at will seemed to resonate more with previous knowl-
edge, M = 2.02, SD 0.97, than the opposite assertion, M = 1.78,
SD 0.78, F(1, 419) = 9.12, p = .003. Furthermore, the inclusion
of the pedophilia label evoked greater impressions of familiarity
of the proposed position, M = 1.97, SD 0.92, than the term‘‘sex-
ual interest in prepubescent children,’’M = 1.82, SD 0.83, F(1,
419) = 4.21, p = .041, independent of intentionality. This might
indicate that the pedophilia label evoked more feelings of famil-
iarity, or that the term‘‘prepubescent’’evoked feelings of disflu-
ency in the other condition.
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361 357

Table 1 Descriptives, reliability, and intercorrelations of all continuous measures

M SD a Correlations
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1. Intentionality 3.8 1.6 .89/.85

2. Deviance 5.0 1.2 .72/.83 .20
3. Dangerousness 5.0 1.2 .72/.80 .43 .65
4. Punitive attitudes 4.1 1.2 .89/.88 .45 .51 .68
5. Prior knowledge 1.9 0.9 .87 -.15 -.22 -.19 -.12
6. Likelihood view will remain 2.5 0.8 – -.11 -.03 -.05 -.04 .41
7. Likelihood of effective method 2.3 0.9 – .05 -.03 -.03 -.01 .32 .30
8. Gender – – – .00 -.20 -.21 -.17 .08 .07 -.02
9. Age 32.5 11.0 – -.02 .23 .19 .13 -.10 .03 -.06 .00
10. Social desirability 3.4 0.8 .81 .18 .09 .15 .12 -.06 .03 .06 -.16 .02
11. Political orientation 4.1 2.0 .93 .20 .09 .15 .25 .03 -.03 -.01 .13 .09 .00
N C 406. 1.–4. on a scale from 1 to 7, 5.–7. on a scale from 1 to 4; 10. On a scale from 1 to 5, and 11. on a scale from 1 (completely left-wing) to 9
(completely right-wing). Correlations[|.16| are significant at p\.001; correlations\|.10| are nonsignificant p[.05

Fig. 1 Stigmatizing and punitive attitudes as a function of experimental

condition. Bars represent mean values (? SE)
Maybe even more important than the consistency with prior
knowledge is the question whether participants saw the proposed
position as robust in the sense that it‘‘will still remain the consen-
sual view onthe possibility tochangesexual interest inthefuture.’’
Speaking to the quality of experimental control, this estimation
did not differ between conditions. However, a marginally sig-
nificant interaction, F(1, 419) = 3.28, p = .071, invites specu-
lation whether this might still hold in even better powered stud-
ies. Specifically, participants trusted the notion that pedophilia
cannot be altered, M = 2.69, SD 0.79, more than that it can,
M = 2.49, SD 0.77, Cohen’s d = 0.26, whereas they saw it as
more plausible that sexual interest in prepubescent children
can be changed, M = 2.48, SD 0.83, than that it cannot, M =
2.39, SD 0.93, Cohen’s d = 0.10. This indirectly supports the
Fig. 2 Evaluation of the experimental vignette with regard to consis-
tency with previous knowledge and likelihood of accuracy as a function
of experimental condition (mean ? SE)
finding that the pedophilia label not only evokes negative atti-
tudes but also dampens the perception of intentionality and
thereby potentially alleviates this negativity (Imhoff, 2015a).
This may point to a problem with our experimental design as
participants perceived the conditions as differentially plausible.
At the same time, it has to be emphasized that these effects are
extremely subtle and the interaction is not significant. We thus
can at current only speculate that one vignette was more cred-
ible than the other.
Stronger support for such a different credibility of the vignette
comes from the responses to the question how likely it is‘‘that one
day we will have a valid method to change sexual interest?’’If the

123
358
manipulation of intentionality was successful, we would expect a
plain main effect on the perceived likelihood that such a method
would be developed. Although the ANOVA indeed yields such a
main effect of intentionality, F(1, 419) = 12.18, p = .001, this is
qualified by an interaction with label condition, F(1, 419) =
8.81, p = .003 (no main effect of label, F\1). What that means
is that the claim that scientists agree that sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children can be changed indeed led to greater hopes
that we will have a method to implement such change, M =
2.55, SD 0.94, than the claim that scientists agreed that such
sexual interest cannot be changed, M = 1.97, SD 0.93, t(222) =
4.64, p\.001, Cohen’s d = 0.62. In contrast, the very same claim
but applied to pedophiles did not affect recipients estimation of
the likelihood of one day having an effective method to change
sexual interest, t(197) = 0.37, p = .715, Cohen’s d = 0.05.
As a last step, we explored the correlations between all con-
tinuous measures and demographic variables (Table 1). Three
aspects seem noteworthy here. First, replicating Imhoff (2015a, b),
punitive attitudes against sexual deviants are positively related to
social desirability, making this form of stigmatization a marked
exception from the rule in prejudice research. People who feel it
is important to give responses that others like, voice harsher, not
more lenient, views toward people with pedophilic interests,
which is different from virtually all other forms of negative atti-
tudes. Second, although political orientation shows a correla-
tion with stigma and punitive attitudes the strength of this rela-
tion is only moderate (rs B .25), speaking to only small differ-
ences in stigma between the political left and the political right,
which is also different from most other forms of prejudice. Third,
it seems that above all conditions, participants who claimed to
have had the knowledge we gave them in the vignette, exhibit
less stigmatizing attitudes. To explore this finding in more depth,
we analyzed these separately for the low vs. high intentionality
conditions (the label manipulation had no clear effect on these
correlations). Particularly in the low intentionality condition,
claimed previous knowledge about the unmalleability of sex-
ual interest was associated with less punitive attitudes, r = -.31,
p\.001, whereas previous knowledge that sexual interest
can be changed was virtually unrelated to punitive attitudes,
r = -.03, p = .682, again providing preliminary indirect evi-
dence for the stigma attenuating effect of low intentionality.
Discussion
In line with findings from Imhoff (2015a, b), our results substan-
tiate the role of the pedophilia label in increasing ascribed dan-
gerousness of and punitive attitudes toward people with a sex-
ual interest in children. Yet, despite having an effect on how
malleable participants perceived pedophilia to be, the manip-
ulation of intentionality did not alleviate punitive attitudes. As
suggested by further analyses, it seems that the two versions of
intentionality information were not equally accessible. Although
123
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
there was a significant main effect on ascribed intentionality, and
people agreed more that one day we will have a valid method to
change sexual interest when it was portrayed as intentional, they
indicated lower levels of prior awareness and prior knowledge
when sexual interest was portrayed as malleable. It thus seems
that this manipulation evoked more contradiction with what they
saw to be true before entering the study. Given this expectancy
violation, the information is unlikely to have achieved the
intended goal of fully convincing participants that pedophilia
is malleable, despite the fact that participants indicated lower
intentionality in the Low Intentionality compared to the High
Intentionality condition.
Although our hypotheses were only partially confirmed, an
analysis of people’s reactions to the presented information con-
cerning mutability of pedophilia/sexual interest in children gave
rise to a number of speculations on the interplay of the label and
the intentionality manipulation. For instance, it was observed
that both the estimation that this knowledge will hold in the
future and that we indeed can one day provide successful treat-
ment were contingent on the interaction of the two experimen-
tal conditions. The information judged as most robust (unlikely
to change in the future) was that pedophilia is not malleable. In
contrast to this, the immutability of‘‘sexual interest in children’’
was seen as less robust as was the assertion that either of the two
is actually malleable. Thus, the label pedophilia does not only
evokes more punitive attitudes but also provides a greater essen-
tialism in the sense that it is seen as a constant part of a person’s
psyche. Describing‘‘sexual interest in children’’as malleable
increased the perception that it will indeed one day be possible
to effectively treat such interest—an effect absent for pedophilia.
This connects with findings from Harper and Bartels (2016) who
reported that people are more likely to see child sexual offenders
as fixed in their character, compared to the degree of immutabil-
ity they would attribute to humans in general. They also noted
that the belief that sexual offenders are fixed in their ways was
linked to stronger punitive attitudes toward this group (i.e., per-
ceiving the person as deserving more severe sentences). As the
words pedophile and child sexual offender are often presented
as synonyms in the media, the term is probably more strongly
associated with criminal behavior than‘‘sexual interest in chil-
dren,’’(see also McCartan, 2010) and therefore might have a
stronger potential to activate implicit beliefs about child sexual
offenders’ immutability.
Again replicating results reported by Imhoff (2015a), punitive
attitudes against sexual deviants showed positive associations to
social desirability. Thisaddsweight tothe concern that, in thecase
of pedophilia, people with a high desire to be seen in a favorable
light based on their answers in questionnaire studies report
more negative attitudes (see also Michaels & Corrigan, 2013).
It appears that different from any other form of stigma, social
norms dictate that pedophiles should be approached with hos-
tility. Despite most likely being grounded in the pro-social moti-
vation of protecting children, it is dubious that these norms and
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
reactions contribute to child sexual abuse prevention. According
to the growing consensus among mental health and forensic
experts, pedophilia cannot be changed but only controlled in
the sense that a person with pedophilic interests copes with sex-
ual impulses in a way that leads to reduced offending risk (Seto,
2012). In view of these considerations, stigmatizing pedophilic
individuals probably not only is unfair but also discourages this
group from seeking help among therapists or their social circle,
among other problems that are exacerbated by stigma and asso-
ciated with a higher offending risk (Jahnke & Hoyer, 2013).
Limitations
In the present research, we aimed at elucidating the role of pre-
sumed intentionality in stigma against people with pedophilia.
When designing the research, we specifically sought to target
the intentionality to have a certain sexual interest or not. We
presumed that people might be blamed more harshly if they
chose to be pedophile or (more likely) were seen as guilty by
omission as they did not change this sexual interest although
that was possible. It may very well be, however, that some or all
participants interpreted our intentionality items in a slightly dif-
ferent way: as the degree to which one can control one’s sexual
desires and not act on them rather than the control one has over
the target of one’s sexual desire. The wording of both our manip-
ulation and items may not have been maximally clear in that
regard as the assertion that people can decide whether to‘‘submit
to their deviant impulses or actively acquire a socially more
acceptable sexual interest by therapeutical training’’ can be
interpreted in both ways. A similar argument could be made
for some of the items. Future research might thus benefit from a
more fine-grained approach to the issue of intentionality by dis-
tinguishing between choice over sexual interest and choice over
acting in accordance with this sexual interest.
Resultsofthisresearchmustalsobeviewedwithcautiondueto
our use of a non-probabilistic sample. While generally guarantee-
ing a more heterogonous dataset with respect to, for instance, age
and educational status compared to other typical ad hoc samples
like university undergraduates (Buhrmester et al., 2011), MTurk
workersarenotrepresentativeforU.S.citizens.Withinthecurrent
study, young, highly educated men with low annual household
income were clearly overrepresented, which could have biased
responses (but not artificially created the experimental effects
at the heart of our study). Also, people with a high interest in
research or sexuality-related issues are more likely to choose to
participate in a survey like ours. A further important limitation
is that data collection relied solely on self-reports, which are sen-
sitive to deception and social desirability bias, and do not always
correspond well with actual behavior (Greenwald, 2014). As the
study was conducted online, the researchers had only limited
control over the environment where data were collected and
could not, for instance, verify participant age or gender (Kraut
et al., 2004). Also, researchers recruiting online samples cannot
359
easily verify whether or not participants are reading and follow-
ing the instructions carefully (Kraut et al., 2004). This could lead
to decreased validity in a study like ours that relies on partic-
ipants being motivated and diligent enough to carefully read
several paragraphs explicating that sexual interests are (or are
not) malleable, so future studies might consider introducing an
attention-check item (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko,
2009). Nevertheless, the fact that we were able to replicate the
effect of the pedophilia label within a new sample speaks for
the quality of data collection. That said, the size of the observed
effectsalsobegsforsomequalification.Clearly,whenourhypothe-
ses were confirmed the underlying size of the effects were mod-
erate (Cohen’s d of around 0.25).
Overall, results of this study substantiated the observation that
punitive attitudes toward pedophilic individuals are high, espe-
cially when the label was present, as reported by Imhoff (2015a)
but failed to show that different information regarding inten-
tionality alleviate these attitudes. This has consequences for anti-
stigma programs, as it indicates that educating participants about
the (lack of) intentionality of pedophilic sexual interests is unli-
kely to be effective by itself. Maybe more importantly, mental
health practitioners and forensic experts dealing with pedophilic
individuals need to be aware of the detrimental effects of labeling
on punitive attitudes toward people with sexual interests in chil-
dren as a group that is highly stigmatized even when this label
is not present.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Roland Imhoff and Sara Jahnke declare that they
have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Appendix
Introduction
In this study, we are interested in your view of sexual minorities.
Please read the following information carefully, as you will be
asked about some of the details later.
Pedophilia Label, Low Intentionality
As you might know, there is a long-lasting debate about the choice
individuals have over the objects of their sexual desire. This is
particularly relevant for socially unaccepted sexual objects like
123
360
prepubescent children in the case of pedophiles. Despite all con-
troversies, researchers have reached a growing consensus over
the past years that pedophilia is something that individuals can-
not control at all.
Although this may not be true for every individual in any situ-
ation, most individuals can just not make a conscious decision to
change their deviant impulses. It is thus impossible for them to
intentionally acquire a socially more acceptable sexual interest
instead, not even with the support of therapeutical training.
Beforeaskingyouaboutyourview onpedophilia,itisimportant
for us to know to what extent you are or were aware of the above-
mentioned facts.
Pedophilia Label, High Intentionality
As you might know,there isa long-lastingdebate about thechoice
individuals have over the objects of their sexual desire. This is
particularly relevant for socially unaccepted sexual objects like
prepubescent children in the case of pedophiles. Despite all con-
troversies, researchers have reached a growing consensus over
the past years that pedophilia is something that individuals can
control to a certain degree.
Although this may not be true for every individual in any situ-
ation, most individuals can make a conscious decision at some
point in their life to either submit to their deviant impulses or
actively acquire a socially more acceptable sexual interest by
therapeutical training.
Before asking you about your view on pedophilia, it is impor-
tant for us to know to what extent you are or were aware of the
above-mentioned facts.
No Label, Low Intentionality
As you might know,there isa long-lastingdebate about thechoice
individuals have overthe objectsof their sexual desire.This is par-
ticularly relevant for socially unaccepted sexual objects like pre-
pubescent children. Despite all controversies, researchers have
reached a growing consensus over the past years that sexual inter-
est in prepubescent children is something that individuals cannot
control at all.
Although this may not be true for every individual in any situ-
ation, most individuals can just not make a conscious decision to
change their deviant impulses. It is thus impossible for them to
intentionally acquire a socially more acceptable sexual interest
instead, not even with the support of therapeutical training.
Before asking you about your view on sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children, it is important for us to know to what extent
you are or were aware of the above-mentioned facts.
No Label, High Intentionality
As you might know,there isa long-lastingdebate about thechoice
individuals have over the objects of their sexual desire. This is
123
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
particularly relevant for socially unaccepted sexual objects like
prepubescent children. Despite all controversies, researchers
have reached a growing consensus over the past years that sex-
ual interest in prepubescent children is something that individ-
uals can control to a certain degree.
Although this may not be true for every individual in any situ-
ation, most individuals can make a conscious decision at some
point in their life to submit to their deviant impulses or actively
acquire a socially more acceptable sexual interest by therapeu-
tical training.
Before asking you about your view on sexual interest in pre-
pubescent children, it is important for us to know to what extent
you are or were aware of the above-mentioned facts.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psy-
chiatric Press.
Angermeyer, M. C., & Matschinger, H. (2003). The stigma of mental
illness: Effects of labelling on public attitudes towards people with
mental disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 108(4), 304–309.
doi:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.00150.x.
Beech, A. R., Miner, M. H., & Thornton, D. (2016). Paraphilias in the
DSM-5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12(1), 383–406.
doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093330.
Berlin, F. S. (2014). Pedophilia and DSM-5: The importance of clearly
defining the nature of a pedophilic disorder. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 42(4), 404–407.
Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013).
Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 35(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.746147.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechan-
ical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. doi:10.1177/174569
1610393980.
Cantor, J. M., & McPhail, I. V. (2016). Non-offending pedophiles.
Current Sexual Health Reports. doi:10.1007/s11930-016-0076-z.
Corrigan, P. W. (2007). How clinical ciagnosis might exacerbate the
stigma of mental illness. Social Work, 52(1), 31–39. doi:10.1093/
sw/52.1.31.
Corrigan, P. W., Bink, A. B., Fokuo, J. K., & Schmidt, A. (2015). The
public stigma of mental illness means a difference between you and
me. Psychiatry Research, 226(1), 186–191. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.
2014.12.047.
Corrigan, P., Markowitz, F. E., Watson, A., Rowan, D., & Kubiak, M. A.
(2003). An attribution model of public discrimination towards per-
sons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
44(2), 162–179. doi:10.2307/1519806.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychol-
ogy, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358.
Dombert, B., Schmidt, A. F., Banse, R., Briken, P., Hoyer, J., Neutze, J.,
& Osterheider, M. (2016). How common is men’s self-reported sex-
ual interest in prepubescent children? Journal of Sex Research, 53(2),
214–223. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1020108.
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.
Arch Sex Behav (2018) 47:353–361
Greenwald, A. (2014). Why are attitudes important? In A. R. Pratkanis,
S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and
function (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Grundmann, D., Krupp, J., Scherner, G., Amelung, T., & Beier, K. M.
(2016). Stability of self-reported arousal to sexual fantasies involv-
ing children in a clinical sample of pedophiles and hebephiles.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1153–1162. doi:10.1007/s10
508-016-0729-z.
Harper, C. A., & Bartels, R. M. (2016). Implicit theories and offender
representativeness in judgments about sexual crime. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment. doi:10.1177/10790632166
58019.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a
fundamental cause of population health inequalities. American
Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 813–821. doi:10.2105/AJPH.
2012.301069.
Imhoff, R. (2015a). Punitive attitudes against pedophiles or persons with
sexual interest in children: Does the label matter? Archives of Sex-
ual Behavior, 44(1), 35–44. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0439-3.
Imhoff, R. (2015b). Zeroing in on the effect of the schizophrenia label on
stigmatizing attitudes: A large-scale study. Schizophrenia Bulletin,
42(2), 456–463. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbv137.
Jahnke, S., & Hoyer, J. (2013). Stigmatization of people with pedophilia:
A blind spot in stigma research. International Journal of Sexual Health,
25(3), 169–184. doi:10.1080/19317611.2013.795921.
Jahnke, S., Imhoff, R., & Hoyer, J. (2015a). Stigmatization of people
with pedophilia: Two comparative surveys. Archives of Sexual Behav-
ior, 44(1), 21–34. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0312-4.
Jahnke, S., Philipp, K., & Hoyer, J. (2015b). Stigmatizing attitudes
towards people with pedophilia and their malleability among psy-
chotherapists in training. Child Abuse and Neglect, 40, 93–102.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.008.
Jahnke, S., Schmidt, A. F., Geradt, M., & Hoyer, J. (2015c). Stigma-
related stress and its correlates among men with pedophilic sexual
interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(8), 2173–2187. doi:10.
1007/s10508-015-0503-7.
Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M.
(2004). Psychological research online: Report of Board of Scien-
tific Affairs’ Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the
Internet. American Psychologist, 59(2), 105–117. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.59.2.105.
361
Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Frank, J., & Wozniak, J. F. (1987). The social
rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels
matter. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1461–1500. doi:10.
1086/228672.
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(3),
400–423. doi:10.2307/2095613.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual
Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.
McCartan, K. F. (2010). Student/trainee-professional implicit theories
of paedophilia. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(4), 265–288. doi:10.
1080/10683160802614144.
Michaels, P. J., & Corrigan, P. W. (2013). Measuring mental illness
stigma with diminished social desirability effects. Journal of Mental
Health, 22(3), 218–226. doi:10.3109/09638237.2012.734652.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional
manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical
power. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1003424
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a
stigma: A cognitive–affective–behavioral model. Psychological
Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328.
Ray, J. J. (1984). The reliability of short social desirability scales.
JournalofSocialPsychology, 123, 133–134. doi:10.1080/00224545.
1984.9924522.
Rüsch, N., Angermeyer, M. C., & Corrigan, P. W. (2005). Mental illness
stigma: Concepts, consequences, and initiatives to reduce stigma.
European Psychiatry, 20(8), 529–539. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.
04.004.
Seto, M. C. (2007). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children:
Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Seto, M. C. (2012). Is pedophilia a sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 41(1), 231–236. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9882-6.
Seto, M. C. (2017). The puzzle of male chronophilias. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 46(1), 3–22. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0799-y.
Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional anal-
ysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 55(5), 738–748. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738.
123