Pedophiles are motivated to disguise their thoughts and feelings about their sexual beliefs and attraction toward children. New developments using implicit measures of associations have been successful in accessing socially stigmatic beliefs, even in cases in which the participant is resistant to this disclosure. Using an implicit measure, the authors show that pedophiles have an association between children and sex, whereas nonpedophilic offenders have an association between adults and sex. The task can therefore identify a core cognitive abnormality that may underpin some pedophilic deviant sexual behavior.

No abstract

The Implicit Association Test was used to measure cognitive associations between children and sex in men convicted of child-sex offences. It was hypothesized that these cognitions would be different in pedophilic-type offenders (defined by having a victim aged less than 12 years) and hebephilic-type offenders (only victims aged 12 to 15 years) such that only the pedophilic-type offenders would have an implicit association between children and sex. This was confirmed. It was also hypothesized that this association between children and sex in the pedophilic-type offenders would be present irrespective of their denial of offence history. This was also confirmed. These results demonstrate differences in the cognitive associations between children and sex held by subgroups of child-sex abusers, and they help establish the Implicit Association Test as an indirect means to assess cognitive factors related to sexual offences.

Background There is good evidence of both community support for sharing public sector administrative health data in the public interest and concern about data security, misuse and loss of control over health information, particularly if private sector organizations are the data recipients. To date, there is little research describing the perspectives of informed community members on private sector use of public health data and, particularly, on the conditions under which that use might be justified. Methods Two citizens' juries were held in February 2020 in two locations close to Sydney, Australia. Jurors considered the charge: ‘Under what circumstances is it permissible for governments to share health data with private industry for research and development?’ Results All jurors, bar one, in principle supported sharing government administrative health data with private industry for research and development. The support was conditional and the juries' recommendations specifying these conditions related closely to the concerns they identified in deliberation. Conclusion The outcomes of the deliberative processes suggest that informed Australian citizens are willing to accept sharing their administrative health data, including with private industry, providing the intended purpose is clearly of public benefit, sharing occurs responsibly in a framework of accountability, and the data are securely held. Patient and Public Contribution The design of the jury was guided by an Advisory Group including representatives from a health consumer organization. The jurors themselves were selected to be descriptively representative of their communities and with independent facilitation wrote the recommendations.