Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law logoLink to Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law
. 2021 Apr 27;29(1):53–67. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1904445

The use of substances in sexual offending in a United States sample

Katelyn T Kirk-Provencher a,✉, Elizabeth L Jeglic b, Cynthia Calkins b, Nichea S Spillane a
PMCID: PMC9186352  PMID: 35693381

Abstract

Substance use is often involved in sexual offending. Understanding the ways in which substances are used in sexual offending is critical for developing prevention strategies. The present study explored the ways that substances are involved in the perpetration of sexual abuse against adults and minors, including intoxication and supplying substances to victims by individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Data were collected from the records of 2803 individuals convicted of sexual offenses in the United States. A series of binary logistic regressions found that offenses against adults were more likely to have alcohol or drugs involved than offenses against minors, while supplying substances to victims was less likely in intrafamilial than in extrafamilial offenses against minors. Findings suggest that implementing sexual violence prevention strategies (e.g. bystander intervention) in adult drinking contexts and integrating education about problematic substance use behaviors (e.g. grooming) during childhood prevention programs can aid in sexual abuse prevention.

Keywords: alcohol, child sexual abuse, drugs, grooming, intervention, offender intoxication, prevention, sexual assault, sexual offending, substance use

Understanding factors associated with crime characteristics is integral to developing prevention strategies. Intoxication by those who commit adult sexual assault is relatively common during their offenses (Pullman et al., 2016). For example, nearly half of all sexual assaults involve alcohol use by the perpetrator, victim or both (Abbey, 2002). Within the United States of America, rates of alcohol use at the time of the offense by individuals convicted of sexual offenses range from 13% to 77%, varying by United States geographic location (for a review see Testa, 2002). Further, in a recent comprehensive review, Grela et al. (2018) found that substance involvement by the victim, offender or both is prevalent in sexual offense cases in the United States. Specifically, 67.0% of cases involved alcohol, 15.4% involved cocaine, 13.8% involved amphetamines, 10.9% involved cannabis, 6.5% involved opioids, 4.9% involved GHB, and 2.0% involved benzodiazepines (Grela et al., 2018).

Individuals who perpetrate sexual offenses against adults while under the influence of substances may use intoxication as a justification for their actions, arguing that their inhibitory cues for behavior are affected while under the influence by limiting their ability to perceive and process information accurately, or to comprehend given information (Dudley, 2005; Pullman et al., 2016; Steele & Josephs, 1990). However, while greater alcohol intoxication often leads to sexual impairment (Abbey et al., 2004), some individuals report that alcohol consumption was a factor contributing to the perpetration of their sexual offense, citing disinhibiting effects and clouded judgment (da Silva et al., 2018).

Additionally, individuals committing sexual crimes against adults may often provide substances to victims in order to incapacitate them or gain compliance (Grela et al., 2018). Indeed, alcohol or drugs are often used to facilitate sexual assault (e.g. pressuring the victim to consume alcohol, providing alcohol to the victim; Abbey, 2011; Cleveland et al., 1999). Thus, substance use is one contextual factor that may help us better understand sexual offending.

Research indicates that substance use is less likely to occur in sexual offenses committed against minors than in offenses against adults (Abbey et al., 2002; Pullman et al., 2016). However, sexual offenses committed against minors may involve substance use during the commission of the assault (Hamdi & Knight, 2012). Specifically, in a U.S. sample, 50% of individuals who were convicted of sexual crimes against minors had consumed alcohol, 8% had consumed nonprescription drugs, and 7% had consumed both alcohol and nonprescription drugs during their most recent sexual offenses (Hamdi & Knight, 2012). Additionally, in their meta-analysis of intrafamilial (persons close enough in relation to their victims that marriage would legally be prohibited, such as parent, step-parent, grandparent, uncle, first cousin, adoptive parent; Harris et al., 2003) and extrafamilial offenses, Seto et al. (2015) found that extrafamilial individuals convicted of sexual offenses against minors had more substance use behaviors during their offenses than intrafamilial individuals.

Meanwhile, intrafamilial individuals who have committed sexual crimes against minors tend to have greater rates of substance misuse histories than individuals who have committed extrafamilial sexual crimes against minors (Lung & Huang, 2004; Stermac et al., 1989). Further, Greenberg and colleagues (2005) found that 26.5% of individuals who sexually abused their biological children and 32.8% of individuals that committed offenses against stepchildren were intoxicated at the time of the offense, while Stermac et al. (1989) found that 37.9% of intrafamilial individuals who had committed sexual offenses against minors were intoxicated at the time of the offense (compared to 24.3% of extrafamilial offenders). However, there still remains a dearth of research examining the differential roles of substance use, including offender intoxication, and how it relates to the perpetrator-child relationship.

It is estimated that approximately half of all sex crimes committed against minors involve some elements of sexual grooming (Craven et al., 2006; Olson et al., 2007). Sexual grooming is the deceptive process used by sexual abusers to facilitate sexual contact with a minor while simultaneously avoiding detection. Prior to the commission of the sexual abuse, the would-be sexual abuser may select a victim, gain access to and isolate the minor, develop trust with the minor and often their guardians, community, and minor-serving institutions, and desensitize the minor to sexual content and physical contact. Post abuse, the offender may use maintenance strategies on the victim to facilitate future sexual abuse and/or to prevent disclosure (Winters et al., 2020).

While both intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abusers may engage in grooming behaviors in the process of offending, different methods or means may be used depending on the individual’s relationship to the victim (Craven et al., 2006; Ost, 2004; Winters & Jeglic, 2017). For example, research indicates that intrafamilial individuals convicted of sex crimes against minors tend to have established trust with minor victims due to their familial relationship (Craven et al., 2006) and tend to be more opportunistic in their offending (Firestone et al., 2000). Intrafamilial individuals may groom minors in ways that appear more subtle or might look like normative interactions within a family, such as cuddling, tickling, buying gifts, going into the minor’s bedroom and wrestling (Winters & Jeglic, 2017). Thus, intrafamilial grooming behaviors may be more difficult to identify as problematic.

Meanwhile, the extant literature suggests that extrafamilial individuals convicted of sex crimes against minors tend to be more predatory and may be more likely to prefer children or minors as sexual partners than intrafamilial individuals (Firestone et al., 2000; Olson et al., 2007). Moreover, extrafamilial individuals often supply gifts, enticements or bribes to groom and gain compliance from their minor victims (Craven et al., 2006; Mooney & Ost, 2013). Research further suggests that alcohol and drugs may be provided to minor victims during the extrafamilial grooming process (Mooney & Ost, 2013), and Peugh and Belenko (2001) report that alcohol or drugs have been cited by individuals who commit sex crimes as being used to groom minor victims through engaging with the victim or causing incapacitation, particularly with minors in their teens. Therefore, extrafamilial individuals may be more likely to supply substances to victims than intrafamilial individuals, to gain compliance through victim intoxication or incapacitation, or to use substances as a bribe or gift.

Additionally, research indicates that individuals who are convicted of sex crimes and who offend against minors and adults may differ by age and race/ethnicity. Specifically, individuals convicted of offenses against adults are significantly younger than individuals convicted of offenses against minors, and extrafamilial individuals convicted of offenses against minors are significantly younger than intrafamilial individuals convicted of offenses against minors (Hanson, 2001). Further, within U.S. samples, White individuals convicted of sex crimes tend to have greater deviant sexual interests and are more likely to offend against minors than Black individuals convicted of sex crimes (Lee et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Latino individuals convicted of sex crimes are more likely to offend against stepchildren than White and Black individuals convicted of sex crimes (Fraga Dominguez et al., 2018); White individuals who offend against minors are more likely to be sexually fixated on minors while Black individuals who offend against minors are more likely to be primarily sexually attracted to adults (Schaaf et al., 2019). Given the well-documented associations of age and racial/ethnic identity in the perpetration of sexual crimes against adults and minors in the United States, it is important to understand the effect of substance use within sexual crimes above and beyond the effects of age and race/ethnicity.

While research on sexual offender typologies has examined factors associated with particular offense characteristics (see Groth & Burgess, 1977; Hazelwood & Warren, 2000; Lehmann et al., 2014; Robertiello & Terry, 2007), there is a dearth of research exploring the association between sexual offense types and the use of substances, including the potential use of substances in sexual grooming. The present study will add to the extant literature by exploring differences between offense type (i.e. offenses against adults versus minors), with regards to substance intoxication and supplying substances to the victim among offenses involving alcohol or drugs, controlling for effects of age and race/ethnicity. This study further highlights potential targets for sexual violence prevention.

We hypothesized that: (a) when examining the entire sample, those offenses that involved alcohol or drugs, either by the offender being intoxicated or by the offender supplying alcohol or drugs to the victim, will be more likely to occur among individuals who commit offenses against adults than among those who commit offenses against minors; (b) among the offenses involving alcohol or drugs, offender intoxication will be more likely involved in offenses against adults than in those against minors; and (c) among the offenses involving alcohol or drugs, supplying substances to victims will be more likely involved in offenses against adults. Within sexual offenses against minors only, we postulated that: (d) offenses involving alcohol or drugs will be more likely to occur among the extrafamilial offense type than among the intrafamilial offense type; (e) among the offenses involving alcohol or drugs, offender intoxication will be more likely to be involved in intrafamilial offense type; and (f) among the offenses involving alcohol or drugs, supplying substances to victims will be less likely to be involved in intrafamilial offense type.

Method

Sample

The present study consisted of archival data from 2803 individuals convicted of sex crimes having committed offenses against adults (n = 551; Mage = 30.69, SD = 9.54, range = 14–72) and offenses against minors (n = 2252; Mage = 33.30, SD = 12.17, range = 14–88). Of the offenses against minors, the sample includes 611 intrafamilial individuals (Mage = 35.52, SD = 10.95, range= 14–73) and 1545 extrafamilial individuals (Mage = 32.50, SD = 12.59, range= 14–88); of the offenses against minors, 96 cases involved both intra- and extrafamilial victims, or the victim relationship was not specified, thus they were excluded from subgroup analyses. The sample consists of individuals identified as White (41.8%; n = 1172), African American/Black (37.2%; n = 1043) and Latino (21.0%; n = 588). The original sample consisted of data from 3132 individuals in either the general population of a northeastern U.S. state prison system or a state sex offender treatment facility, who had most recently served a sentence for a sexual offense (indicated as their index offense). Individuals were released between 1996 and 2007. The present study retained only individuals whose index offense included a sexual offense against an adult or child. Cases that were unknown, or that involved perpetration against both an adult and a child, or that did not include contact offenses against an adult or a child (i.e. voyeurism, exhibitionism, computer-related sex crimes, other/unspecified) were excluded, as noncontact offenses may differ in scope and consequences from contact sexual offenses (Kaylor & Jeglic, 2019; McCarthy, 2010). As the present study controls for race/ethnicity in data analysis, the small number of non-White, Latino or African American/Black participants were excluded (26 identified as Asian/Pacific Islander, 20 as ‘other’ and two as American Indian/Alaskan Native, and seven were missing race/ethnicity data). Only individuals 14 years old or older during the index offense were retained, as in the state the individuals were incarcerated in, juveniles can be transferred to the adult courts at the age of 14 for felony offenses, including felony sexual offenses; 28 individuals were excluded.

Measures and procedure

The present study utilizes secondary analysis of deidentified data collected between 2006 and 2008 from archived incarceration records of the individuals who were convicted of sex crimes, as part of a larger National Institute of Justice funded study (Mercado et al., 2011). Upon appropriate institutional approval, trained research assistants were granted access to convicted individuals’ incarceration records, including police and court reports regarding the index offense, and data were extracted from the files based upon a standardized data collection tool. For some data, missing information was due to the information being unavailable, missing or unknown at the time of data collection (e.g. not present in the individual’s records). However, analysis of the missing data has been shown to be at random and not impacting the findings (Mercado et al., 2011).

Demographic and offense characteristic information

Demographic and offense characteristic information included the nature of the index offense, age and race/ethnicity. Regarding the nature of the index offense, offenses against adults include offenses in which the victim was 18 years old or older, while offenses against minors include offenses in which the victim was 17 years old or younger. Intrafamilial offenses are defined as those offenses committed by persons who are close enough in relation to the victim that marriage would be legally prohibited, including relations that are full, half or adopted (Harris et al., 2003). Extrafamilial offenses are defined as those offenses committed by persons who are unrelated to the victim, which include step-relationships that lasted less than two years, acquaintances and strangers (Harris et al., 2003).

Cases involving alcohol or drugs

Cases involving alcohol or drugs were assessed by coding whether alcohol or drugs were involved in the offense. Possible options were ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unknown’, in answer to the following question: ‘Were alcohol or drugs involved in the index offense?’

Intoxication by individuals convicted of sex crimes

Intoxication by individuals convicted of sex crimes among the cases in which alcohol or drugs were used was measured by identifying whether the individual was intoxicated or impaired during the offense. Possible coding options were ‘yes’ or ‘no’, to ‘If yes, was offender intoxicated or impaired at the time of the offense?’.

Supplying substances to victims

Supplying substances to victims in the cases in which alcohol or drugs were used was measured by identifying whether there was evidence of individuals convicted of sex crimes supplying alcohol or drugs to victims during the offense. Possible options were ‘yes’ or ‘no’, to ‘If yes, did offender supply alcohol or drugs to victim?’.

Statistical analyses

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25. First, descriptive statistics were obtained for demographic and offense-related variables; chi-square analyses with associated Cramer’s V effect sizes and an independent samples t test with Cohen’s d effect size were examined to assess for significant differences between offense type (against adults versus minors) by race/ethnicity and age, respectively. Next, controlling for age and ethnicity, a series of four logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of offenses involving alcohol or drugs, and intoxication and supplying substances to victims by individuals who were convicted with sexual offenses, with offense type as the dependent variable. Specifically, the logistic regression assessing cases in which alcohol or drugs were used was conducted separately as these analyses included the entire sample. Then, only the cases that included offenses involving alcohol or drug use were retained, and intoxication and supplying substances to victims were entered together into a logistic regression model. The same steps were followed examining offenses committed against minors (i.e. intrafamilial versus extrafamilial).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 reports the types of the offenses in the full sample. Then, χ2 analyses revealed that offense type differed by race/ethnicity. Specifically, a greater proportion of White individuals committed sexual crimes against minors (57.3%) than of African American/Black individuals, while a greater proportion of African American/Black individuals committed offenses against adults (63.7%) than of White individuals, χ2(1, N = 2215) = 64.84, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .17. A greater proportion of African American/Black individuals committed offenses against adults (77.5%) and minors (59.8%) than of Latino individuals, χ2(1, N = 1631) = 39.66, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .16. No significant differences were found between White and Latino individuals by offense type, χ2(1, N = 1760) = 0.013, p = .91, Cramer’s V = .003.

Table 1.

Type of sexual offenses in the full sample.

Offense type n %
Adult sexual assault 540 19.3
Adult sexual assault & voyeurism 2 0.1
Adult sexual assault & exhibitionism 3 0.1
Adult sexual assault & other 6 0.2
Molestation of a minor child 2,204 78.6
Molestation of a minor child & voyeurism 5 0.2
Molestation of a minor child & exhibitionism 25 0.9
Molestation of a minor child, voyeurism & exhibitionism 4 0.1
Molestation of a minor child & computer-related sex crime 5 0.2
Molestation of a minor child & other 9 0.3
Open in a new tab

Note: ‘Other’ was not specified.

Next, Levene’s test for equality of variances revealed heterogeneity of variance when examining differences in age by offense type; we examined t test results assuming unequal variances. Results revealed that those who committed sexual offenses against adults were statistically significantly younger than those who committed offenses against minors, t(1035.04) = 5.43, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.24.

In this sample, a total of 890 (31.8%) individuals who were convicted of sex crimes had offenses involving alcohol or drugs; alcohol or drug involvement was unknown or not reported for 311 cases (11.0%). Next, χ2 analyses, presented in Table 2, revealed that compared to offenses against minors, a greater percentage of offenses against adults involved alcohol or drug use, χ2(1, N = 2803) = 36.35, p < .001, and involved intoxication, χ2(1, N = 2803) = 49.09, p < .001, or supplying substances to the victims, χ2(1, N = 2803) = 18.57, p < .001, by the individual committing the offense against adults. Meanwhile, among the offenses against minors, no significant difference was found between intra- and extrafamilial offense type by alcohol or drug involvement. However, a greater percentage of individuals who committed sex crimes against extrafamilial minors were intoxicated, χ2(1, N = 2156) = 13.84, p < .001, or supplied substances to the victim, χ2(1, N = 2156) = 22.02, p < .001, than of individuals who committed intrafamilial offenses.

Table 2.

Alcohol- or drug-involved cases by offense type.

Offense type Offenses against adults
 Offenses against minors
 χ2 (Cramer’s V)
n % n %
Alcohol- or drug-involved cases 234 42.5 656 29.1 36.35 (.11)*
 Intoxicationa 165 29.9 378 16.8 49.09 (.13)*
 Supplying substancesb 53 9.6 109 4.8 18.57 (.08)*
      Intrafamilial
 Extrafamilial
  
 
  
  
 n
%
 n
%
 χ2 (Cramer’s V)
Alcohol- or drug-involved cases     171 28.0 458 29.6 0.58 (.02)
 Intoxicationa     74 12.1 290 18.8 13.84 (.08)*
 Supplying substancesb     9 1.5 98 6.3 22.02 (.10)*
Open in a new tab

Note: Among the alcohol- and drug-involved cases, only 44 offenses against adults and 76 offenses against minors involved both intoxication and supplying substances to the victim by individual convicted of sexual offenses.

aIndividuals convicted of sexual offenses who were intoxicated during the index offense. b Individuals convicted of sexual offenses who supplied substances to victims.

*p<.001.

Logistic regression

Results revealed that among the entire sample, the offenses involving alcohol or drugs were more than twice as likely to occur in offenses against adults than in offenses against minors (p < .001; odds ratio, OR = 2.32; 95% confidence interval, CI [1.88, 2.87]) above and beyond the significant effect of both younger age and race/ethnicity, in that African American/Black individuals were more likely to offend against adults than were White individuals (see Table 3). After controlling for the significant effects of younger age and African American/Black race (compared to White) among the offenses involving alcohol or drugs, there were no significant differences in the odds for intoxication (p = .298, OR = 1.51, 95% CI [0.70, 3.26]) or supplying substances to victims by individuals convicted of sexual offenses (p = .117, OR = 1.41, 95% CI [0.92, 2.17]) and offense type (i.e. against adults versus minors; see Table 4).

Table 3.

Logistic regression for substance use involved in the offense and offense type.

  B SE p OR 95% CI
Substance use involved in the offense 0 .84 0 .12 <.001 2.32 [ 1.88, 2.87 ]
Offender age −0 .02 0 .01 <.001 0 .98 [0 .97 , 0 .99 ]
Race/Ethnicity          
 African American/Black 0 .75 0 .12 <.001 2.11 [ 1.67, 2.68 ]
 Latino 0.08 0.15 .62 1.08 [0.80, 1.49]
 White          
Intercept −1.61 0.20 <.001 0.20  
Open in a new tab

Note: Coding of outcome variable: Offenses against adults = 1; n = 2492. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Model: 82% correct classification; Nagelkerke R2 = .082. Significant results indicated in bold.

Table 4.

Logistic regression for offender intoxication, supplying substances to the victim and offense type.

  B SE p OR 95% CI
Offender intoxication 0.41 0.39 .30 1.51 [0.70, 3.26]
Supplying substances to victims 0.34 0.22 .12 1.41 [0.92, 2.17]
Offender age −0 .02 0 .01 .02 0 .98 [0 .96, 1.00 ]
Race/Ethnicity          
 African American/Black 0 .73 0 .21 .001 2.07 [ 1.37, 3.14 ]
 Latino 0.17 0.27 .53 1.18 [0.70, 2.00]
  White          
Intercept −0.97 0.53 .07 0.38  
Open in a new tab

Note: Coding of outcome variable: Offenses against adults = 1; n = 564. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Model: 68.6% correct classification; Nagelkerke R2 = .053. Significant results indicated in bold.

Next, regression analyses were conducted using the entire sample of offenses against minors. Analysis revealed no significant difference in the odds for having offenses involving alcohol or drugs between intrafamilial and extrafamilial individuals convicted of sex crimes (p = .156, OR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.69, 1.06]), after controlling for both older age and race/ethnicity, in that African American/Black individuals were less likely to commit offenses against children than were White individuals (see Table 5). Among the offenses against minors involving alcohol or drugs, there was no significant difference in the odds for intoxication by individuals convicted of sexual offenses and offense type (p = .519, OR = 1.53, 95% CI [0.42, 5.54]). Meanwhile, supplying substances to victims was 64% less likely to occur in offenses committed by intrafamilial individuals than in those by extrafamilial individuals (p = .014, OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.16, 0.81]), above and beyond the effects of intoxication and the significant effect of race/ethnicity, in that Latino individuals were more likely to commit intrafamilial offenses against minors than were White individuals (see Table 6).

Table 5.

Logistic regression for substance use involved in the offense and offense type against children.

  B SE p OR 95% CI
Substance use involved in the offense −0.15 0.12 .16 0.86 [0.69, 1.06]
Offender age 0 .01 0 .004 <.001 1.01 [ 1.01, 1.02 ]
Race/Ethnicity          
 African American/Black −0 .40 0 .12 .001 0 .67 [0 .53, 0 .85 ]
 Latino −0 .04 0.13 .74 0.96 [0.75, 1.23]
  White          
Intercept −1.19 0.17 <.001 0.31  
Open in a new tab

Note: Coding of outcome variable: Intrafamilial = 1; n = 1957. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Model: 70.6% correct classification; Nagelkerke R2 = .023. Significant results indicated in bold.

Table 6.

Logistic regression for offender intoxication, supplying substances to the victim and type of offense against children.

  B SE p OR 95% CI
Offender intoxication 0.42 0.66 .52 1.53 [0.42, 5.54]
Supplying substances to victims − 1.03 0 .42 .014 0 .36 [0 .16, 0 .81 ]
Offender age 0.02 0.01 .082 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]
Race/Ethnicity          
 African American/Black − 0.54 0.34 .11 0.58 [0.30, 1.13]
 Latino 0 .75 0 .32 .02 2.12 [ 1.13, 4.00 ]
 White          
Intercept −2.35 0.81 .004 0.10  
Open in a new tab

Note: Coding of outcome variable: Intrafamilial = 1; n = 379. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. Model: 80.7% correct classification; Nagelkerke R2 = .11. Significant results indicated in bold.

Discussion

The use of substances plays a role in sexual offenses; the present study adds to the literature in examining the ways in which substance use is associated with specific offense types. Overall, we found that offenses involving alcohol or drugs in some way and, in particular, supplying alcohol or drugs to victims were significantly associated with differing offense types above and beyond the effects of well-documented factors such as age and race/ethnicity. In support of our first hypothesis, we found that when examining the entire sample, those offenses involving alcohol or drugs (e.g. through intoxication or supplying substances to the victim by individuals convicted of sex crimes) were twice as likely to be associated with offenses perpetrated against adults than with offenses against minors. Meanwhile, contrary to expectations, when examining only cases that involved alcohol or drugs, there were no significant differences in the odds of intoxication or supplying alcohol or drugs to victims by individuals convicted of sex crimes between offenses perpetrated against adults and those against minors. When examining only the offenses perpetrated against minors, the involvement of alcohol or drugs was not uniquely associated with either intrafamilial or extrafamilial offending. Among the sample of alcohol or drugs involved in offenses against minors, intoxication by individuals convicted with sex crimes was not significantly associated with offense type, while intrafamilial individuals convicted with sex offenses were 64% less likely to supply substances to their minor victims than were extrafamilial individuals.

Our findings are consistent with prior findings showing that substance use is more likely to occur in sexual offenses against adults (Craissati & Beech, 2004; Hamdi & Knight, 2012). Meanwhile, the results regarding intoxication are surprising as prior research has suggested a strong relationship between substance use by individuals perpetrating sexual abuse and violence or aggression (Boles & Miotto, 2003), particularly in the sexual perpetration against adults (Abbey et al., 2003; Brecklin & Ullman, 2010; Dudley, 2005; Parkhill et al., 2009). A possible explanation for these findings could be that the data collected for the substance use variables were not specific enough (i.e. ‘Were alcohol or drugs involved in the index offense?’) to encapsulate the true role that substance use is playing in these offenses. Thus, perhaps, more detailed questions (e.g. quantity and type of substance used; duration of use prior, during and after the offense; stated purpose for consuming the substance, e.g. to reduce inhibition, to ‘build courage’, etc.), would elicit more consistent findings.

Overall, there was no significant difference in odds of having substance use involvement between intra- and extrafamilial offenses. It was hypothesized that intrafamilial individuals convicted of sexual offenses, having greater rates of substance abuse histories (Lung & Huang, 2004), would be more likely to be intoxicated during their index offense, yet this was not found. However, we did find that offenses involving alcohol or drugs have a greater association with extrafamilial offenses via supplying substances to victims, perhaps as bribes or gifts. Prior research suggests that many extrafamilial individuals perpetrating against minors have contact with the minor (e.g. in-person, online) and provide gifts or bribes to persuade, desensitize or coerce minor victims as part of the grooming process (Elliott et al., 1995; Groth & Burgess, 1977; Winters & Jeglic, 2016; Winters et al., 2017). Perhaps because intrafamilial individuals already have an existing relationship with their victims, and may be trusted figures in the youths’ lives, such contact, gifts or bribes are less likely to be given to groom the victim, or other more subtle tactics (e.g. cuddling, tickling) may be utilized in offending behavior (Winters & Jeglic, 2017).

Limitations

The data used in this study were collected for the purposes of a larger study and not collected with the focus on substance-related variables. As such, the substance-related variables were dichotomous in nature, and it was not possible to determine the specific type of substances being used in the offenses, nor the reported reason as to why or how the substances were being used (e.g. to incapacitate victims or as bribes, to lower offenders’ inhibitions to commit the offense, etc.). Another limitation is that the initial item, whether alcohol or drugs were used in the offense, does not elucidate whether substances were being used by the individual convicted of the sexual offense, the victim or both. The follow-up item assessing whether the victim was supplied with alcohol or drugs does not assess whether victims were consuming substances independent of them being supplied by the individual convicted of the offense. Future research investigating these nuances will provide a better understanding about the ways in which substances are involved in sexual offenses. In addition, there was a sizable portion of substance-related variables missing from the dataset. As the original data collection employed the review of prison records, missing data were likely unavailable within the files, or not collected as part of the incarceration proceedings. However, a missing data analysis found that the distribution of the missing data was random and thus not likely to impact the study outcomes (Mercado et al., 2011).

Finally, the current sample consists of individuals convicted of sexual offenses, thus the data do not capture the use of substances in offenses either that are not reported or for which the individual perpetrating the offense was not convicted. Therefore, future research examining the role of substances in nonreported and/or nonconvicted cases of sexual abuse may provide further detail as to how substance use may differ across sexual offense types. Further, other potentially important factors such as personality characteristics (e.g. antisociality) should be explored in relation to the association between sexual violence perpetration and substance use. Despite these limitations, this study is one of the first to examine the association of substance use with specific offense types, in a large sample of individuals who commit sexual crimes against adults and minors.

Future directions and clinical implications

Overall, our findings suggest that substance use in general, whether by the individual convicted of the offense, victim or both, is associated with sexual assault perpetrated against adults. These findings highlight the importance of addressing substance use as a comprehensive part of preventing sexual violence (Basile et al., 2016; Dills et al., 2016). For example, the extant literature suggests that sexual assaults against adults tend to occur in drinking environments (e.g. parties, bars; Abbey, 2002; Testa & Cleveland, 2017), and such individuals most often have first contact with their victims in public places (e.g. parks, bus stops, bars, parking lots, movie theaters, restaurants; Calkins et al., 2015). Additionally, both alcohol use and drug use (i.e. amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana) by perpetrators and victims are significantly associated with instances of intimate partner violence (Cafferky et al., 2018). Given this association between substance use and sexual violence, alcohol policy change has been highlighted as a potentially significant approach to preventing sexual violence. Specifically, research indicates that increasing the price of alcohol through taxation is associated with decreased community rates of sexual violence. Further, communities with greater alcohol outlet density (e.g. a greater number of places to obtain alcohol) have greater rates of violent crime, including sexual violence and intimate partner violence (Basile et al., 2016; Lippy & DeGue, 2016). Thus, changing alcohol-related policies at the societal or community level may have positive outcomes related to sexual violence.

Moreover, evidence-based sexual violence prevention strategies aimed at changing harmful social and drinking norms and targeting high school and college students in the United States have shown promising results (Barker, Ricardo, Nascimento, & World Health Organization, 2007; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). Specifically, programs that leverage men and boys as allies in prevention have shown decreased perpetration of sexual violence (e.g. Safe Dates Program) and increased prosocial attitudes and knowledge associated with sexual and intimate partner violence such as that men can intervene to stop gender-based violence (e.g. Men Can Stop Rape), and that rape may have occurred if a woman was intoxicated (e.g. Mentors in Violence Prevention; Barker et al., 2007). Also, individually targeted social norm drinking approaches for college students show promise for reducing high-risk drinking behavior (Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). Further, bystander interventions for sexual violence have shown positive and promising results on U.S. college and university campuses by increasing bystanders’ knowledge of sexual violence, increasing bystanders’ efficacy to intervene and decreasing problematic beliefs about rape and sexual assault (Jouriles et al., 2018; Orchowski et al., 2020; Palm Reed et al., 2015). Further, U.S. community-based bystander approaches aiming to increase the sexual violence intervention behaviors of bar staff have shown effective results (Powers & Leili, 2018). Thus, potential strategies to prevent sexual violence may be to focus on community-level approaches such as educating potential bystanders (e.g. partygoers, friends, family, employees of bars, etc.) and engaging and educating men and boys on the identification of sexual assault behaviors and how to appropriately and safely intervene.

Regarding sexual offenses committed against minors, prevention strategies must begin early in childhood (Beier, 2016). Specifically, prevention and education programs targeted at children and adolescents aim to increase minors’ knowledge about problematic sexual behavior, increase protective behavioral strategies and teach how to report abuse (Walsh et al., 2015). Additionally, such programs further target other adults to engage in intervention strategies during suspected abuse (Beier, 2016). Therefore, as our findings indicate that extrafamilial individuals committing sexual offenses against minors are more apt to supply their victims with substances, prevention programming must educate both minors and adults that an adult providing substances to a minor is a warning sign of sexual abuse. It is imperative that both adults and minors discuss sexual grooming tactics such that minors may alert a guardian if another adult offers them drugs or alcohol, and that guardians recognize that providing minors with alcohol and drugs may be part of the grooming process and intervene on the minor’s behalf (Jeglic & Calkins, 2018; Winters et al., 2020). Additionally, this information should further be provided within the context of education about other grooming behaviors such as unrelated adults attempting to gain unnecessary access or contact with minors, the provision of inappropriate gifts, attempts to isolate the child and communicating in private (e.g. online, secret phone calls/texts). These prevention strategies need to begin early in childhood and adolescence.

Conclusion

The findings of the present study highlight the importance of continued investigation into the specific ways in which substances are being used in various contact offenses (i.e. offenses against adults, and intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenses against minors), to continue to develop efficacious prevention strategies. Future research and prevention development should focus on integrating prevention strategies (e.g. bystander intervention, engaging boys and men, changing social norms and norms related to high-risk alcohol use, addressing alcohol-related policies) into adult drinking contexts, and education to increase awareness of problematic substance use behaviors, such as using alcohol or drugs to gain access to and groom minors, is critically important to prevent sexual abuse.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the New Jersey Department of Corrections and New Jersey Department of Human Services for their support in providing access to files. The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions that supported this research. We thank Allison Tobar-Santamaria and Melissa R. Schick for their assistance in preparing this manuscript for publication.

Funding Statement

This research was supported in part by Grant No. NIJ 2007-IJ-CX-0037 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Katelyn T. Kirk-Provencher has declared no conflicts of interest

Elizabeth L. Jeglic has declared no conflicts of interest

Cynthia Calkins has declared no conflicts of interest

Nichea S. Spillane has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, (s14), 118–128. 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbey, A. (2011). Alcohol’s role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(5), 481–489. 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abbey, A., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., McAuslan, P., Zawacki, T., & Buck, P. O. (2003). The relationship between the quantity of alcohol consumed and the severity of sexual assaults committed by college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(7), 813–833. 10.1177/0886260503253301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(3), 271–303. 10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00011-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Testa, M., Parks, K., Norris, J., Martin, S. E., Livingston, J. A., McAuslan, P., Monique Clinton, A., Kennedy, C. L., George, W. H., Cue Davis, K., & Martell, J. (2002). How does alcohol contribute to sexual assault? Explanations from laboratory and survey data. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 26(4), 575–581. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02576.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barker, G., Ricardo, C., Nascimento, M., & World Health Organization. (2007). Engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health: Evidence from programme interventions. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  7. Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S. G., & Raiford, J. L. (2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  8. Beier, K. M. (2016). Proactive strategies to prevent child sexual abuse and the use of child abuse images: The German Dunkelfeld-Project for adults (PPD) and juveniles (PPJ). In Jeglic E. L. & Calkins C. (Eds.), Sexual violence: Evidence based policy and prevention (pp. 249–272). Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boles, S. M., & Miotto, K. (2003). Substance abuse and violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(2), 155–174. 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00057-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brecklin, L. R., & Ullman, S. E. (2010). The roles of victim and offender substance use in sexual assault outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(8), 1503–1522. 10.1177/0886260509354584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cafferky, B. M., Mendez, M., Anderson, J. R., & Stith, S. M. (2018). Substance use and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 110–131. 10.1037/vio0000074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Calkins, C., Colombino, N., Matsuura, T., & Jeglic, E. (2015). Where do sex crimes occur? How an examination of sex offense location can inform policy and prevention. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 39(2), 99–112. 10.1080/01924036.2014.973047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cleveland, H. H., Koss, M. P., & Lyons, J. (1999). Rape tactics from the survivors’ perspective: Contextual dependence and within-event independence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(5), 532–547. 10.1177/088626099014005005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Craissati, J., & Beech, A. (2004). The characteristics of a geographical sample of convicted rapists: Sexual victimization and compliance in comparison to child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 371–388. 10.1177/0886260503262078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Craven, S., Brown, S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3), 287–299. 10.1080/13552600601069414 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. da Silva, T., Woodhams, J., & Harkins, L. (2018). “An adventure that went wrong”: Reasons given by convicted perpetrators of multiple perpetrator sexual offending for their involvement in the offense. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(2), 443–456. 10.1007/s10508-017-1011-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dills, J., Fowler, D., & Payne, G. (2016). Sexual violence on campus: Strategies for prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dudley, C. A. (2005). Alcohol, sexual arousal, and sexually aggressive decision-making: Preventative strategies and forensic psychology implications. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 5(3), 1–34. 10.1300/J158v05n03_01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(5), 579–594. 10.1016/0145-2134(95)00017-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Firestone, P., Bradford, J. M., Greenberg, D. M., & Serran, G. A. (2000). The relationship of deviant sexual arousal and psychopathy in incest offenders, extrafamilial child molesters, and rapists. Journal-American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 303–308. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fraga Dominguez, S., Jeglic, E. L., Calkins, C., & Leguizamo, A. (2018). Are Latinos who commit sexual offenses different? A closer examination of characteristics and offense patterns. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 30(7), 846–868. 10.1177/1079063217710480 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Greenberg, D. M., Firestone, P., Nunes, K. L., Bradford, J. M., & Curry, S. (2005). Biological fathers and stepfathers who molest their daughters: Psychological, phallometric, and criminal features. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(1), 39–46. 10.1177/107906320501700105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Grela, A., Gautam, L., & Cole, M. D. (2018). A multifactorial critical appraisal of substances found in drug facilitated sexual assault cases. Forensic Science International, 292, 50–60. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.08.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Groth, A. N., & Burgess, A. W. (1977). Motivational intent in the sexual assault of children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4(3), 253–264. 10.1177/009385487700400303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hamdi, N. R., & Knight, R. A. (2012). The relationships of perpetrator and victim substance use to the sexual aggression of rapists and child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(4), 307–327. 10.1177/1079063211420450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hanson, R. K. (2001). Age and sexual recidivism: A comparison of rapists and child molesters. Solicitor General Canada Ottawa. [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Static 99: Coding rules revised 2003. Solicitor General Canada Ottawa. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hazelwood, R. R., & Warren, J. I. (2000). The sexually violent offender: Impulsive or ritualistic? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(3), 267–279. 10.1016/S1359-1789(99)00002-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jeglic, E. L., & Calkins, C. (2018). Protecting your child from sexual abuse: What you need to know to keep your kids safe (2nd ed.). Skyhorse Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  30. Jouriles, E. N., Krauss, A., Vu, N. L., Banyard, V. L., & McDonald, R. (2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health: J of ACH, 66(6), 457–466. 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaylor, L. E., & Jeglic, E. L. (2019). Exhibitionism handbook of sexual assault and sexual assault prevention (pp. 745–760). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee, S. C., Hanson, R. K., Calkins, C., & Jeglic, E. (2020). Paraphilia and antisociality: Motivations for sexual offending may differ for American Whites and Blacks. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 32(3), 335–365. 10.1177/1079063219828779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lehmann, R. J. B., Goodwill, A. M., Hanson, R. K., & Dahle, K. P. (2014). Crime scene behaivors indicate risk-relevant propensities of child molesters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(8), 1008–1028. 10.1177/0093854814521807 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewis, M. A., & Neighbors, C. (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. Journal of American College Health: J of ACH, 54(4), 213–218. 10.3200/JACH.54.4.213-218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Lippy, C., & DeGue, S. (2016). Exploring alcohol policy approaches to prevent sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 17(1), 26–42. 10.1177/1524838014557291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lung, F. W., & Huang, S. F. (2004). Psychosocial characteristics of criminals committing incest and other sex offenses: A survey in Taiwanese Prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(5), 554–560. 10.1177/0306624X04265083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. McCarthy, J. A. (2010). Internet sexual activity: A comparison between contact and non-contact child pornography offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16(2), 181–195. 10.1080/13552601003760006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mercado, C. C., Jeglic, E., Markus, K., Hanson, R. K., & Levenson, J. (2011). Sex offender management, treatment, and civil commitment: An evidence based analysis aimed at reducing sexual violence. US Department of Justice, 1, 2–81. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mooney, J.-L., & Ost, S. (2013). Group localised grooming: What is it and what challenges does it pose for society and law. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 25, 425. [Google Scholar]
  40. Olson, L. N., Daggs, J. L., Ellevold, B. L., & Rogers, T. K. (2007). Entrapping the innocent: Toward a theory of child sexual predators’ luring communication. Communication Theory, 17(3), 231–251. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00294.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Orchowski, L. M., Edwards, K. M., Hollander, J. A., Banyard, V. L., Senn, C. Y., & Gidycz, C. A. (2020). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 811–827. 10.1177/1524838018789153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ost, S. (2004). Getting to grips with sexual grooming? The new offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 26(2), 147–159. 10.1080/014180304200023088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Palm Reed, K. M., Hines, D. A., Armstrong, J. L., & Cameron, A. Y. (2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention program for sexual assault and dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 95–102. 10.1037/a0037557 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Parkhill, M. R., Abbey, A., & Jacques‐Tiura, A. J. (2009). How do sexual assault characteristics vary as a function of perpetrators’ level of intoxication? Addictive Behaviors, 34(3), 331–333. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Peugh, J., & Belenko, S. (2001). Examining the substance use patterns and treatment needs of incarcerated sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(3), 179–195. 10.1177/107906320101300303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Powers, R. A., & Leili, J. (2018). Bar training for active bystanders: Evaluation of a community-based bystander intervention program. Violence against Women, 24(13), 1614–1634. 10.1177/1077801217741219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pullman, L., Stephens, S., & Seto, M. C. (2016). A motivation-facilitation model of adult male sexual offending. In The Wiley handbook on the psychology of violence (pp. 482–500). Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  48. Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508–518. 10.1016/j.avb.2007.02.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schaaf, S., Jeglic, E. L., Calkins, C., Raymaekers, L., & Leguizamo, A. (2019). Examining ethno-racial related differences in child molester typology: An MTC:CM3 Approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(8), 1683–1702. 10.1177/0886260516653550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Seto, M. C., Babchishin, K. M., Pullman, L. E., & McPhail, I. V. (2015). The puzzle of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: A meta-analysis comparing intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders with child victims. Clinical Psychology Review, 39, 42–57. 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921–933. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stermac, L., Hall, K., & Henskens, M. (1989). Violence among child molesters. Journal of Sex Research, 26(4), 450–459. 10.1080/00224498909551527 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Testa, M. (2002). The impact of men’s alcohol consumption on perpetration of sexual aggression. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(8), 1239–1263. 10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00204-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Testa, M., & Cleveland, M. J. (2017). Does alcohol contribute to college men’s sexual assault perpetration? Between- and within-person effects over five semesters. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 78(1), 5–13. 10.15288/jsad.2017.78.5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Walsh, K., Zwi, K., Woolfenden, S., & Shlonsky, A. (2015). School‐based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4), CD004380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Winters, G. M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2016). I knew it all along: The sexual grooming behaviors of child molesters and the hindsight bias. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(1), 20–36. 10.1080/10538712.2015.1108945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Winters, G. M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2017). Stages of sexual grooming: Recognizing potentially predatory behaviors of child molesters. Deviant Behavior, 38(6), 724–733. 10.1080/01639625.2016.1197656 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Winters, G. M., Jeglic, E. L., & Kaylor, L. E. (2020). Validation of the sexual grooming model of child sexual abusers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 29(7), 855–875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Winters, G. M., Kaylor, L. E., & Jeglic, E. L. (2017). Sexual offenders contacting children online: an examination of transcripts of sexual grooming. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(1), 62–76. 10.1080/13552600.2016.1271146 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES