Re: B4U-ACT 2013 Volunteer Initiatives

Most studies in this area have relied on forensic samples, and they often report some difference between pedophiles and their control group, sometimes reporting that hebephiles are intermediate between the two. Because of the problems with their sampling methods, we do not know if these findings generalize to people outside of the criminal justice system. Personally, I am skeptical of many of the reported findings.

A common response is simply to criticize the methodology of the existing studies, but a scientifically better response is to try to conduct better research. If things found in forensic populations of MAPs are not found in non-forensic samples, this would seriously draw into question whether many of the currently reported findings are actually true of MAPs rather than artifacts of sampling bias. Alternatively, it is possible that some of results from forensic samples would be replicated in non-forensic, non-clinical samples, and this would increase our confidence in those results.

Some of the findings reported in the literature can be studied through anonymous, online surveys and some cannot. Also, journals' publishing requirements regarding ethics boards would generally make it impossible to publish results from a B4U-ACT run survey in a peer-reviewed journal. However, it is possible for us to work with researchers and help them to recruit participants online, and we have been in communication with several who are interested in doing this. Sometimes they ask us for suggestions for things to ask about in their surveys.