Development of a Case Formulation Model for Individuals Who Have Viewed, Distributed, and/or Shared Child Sexual Exploitation Material

• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17748067
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17748067

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2020, Vol. 64(10-11) 1055 –1073

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17748067

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Original Manuscript

Development of a Case

Formulation Model for

Individuals Who Have

Viewed, Distributed, and/

or Shared Child Sexual

Exploitation Material

Hannah L. Merdian1, Derek E. Perkins2,

Elspeth Dustagheer3,4, and Emily Glorney2

Abstract

Increases in the number of arrests of individuals who download or distribute Child

Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) have highlighted a need to further understand the

offending pathways of this offender group. This article describes the development of an

aetiological model specific to CSEM offending. Individuals who had viewed, distributed,

and/or shared CSEM (n = 20) were interviewed regarding their life and sexual history,

relationships, substance use, offending details, and circumstances leading to their CSEM

offending, resulting in seven superordinate themes: Developmental Context, Individual

Propensities (risk-related and risk-protective) and Psychological Vulnerabilities, Personal

Circumstances, Permission-Giving Thoughts, Internet Environment and Behaviour,

Evaluation of Consequences for the Individual, and Desistance. These themes were

combined into a case formulation tool specific for CSEM offending behaviour, with the

aim of providing systematic guidance for assessment and treatment providers.

Keywords

child sexual exploitation, child sexual abuse, illegal images of children, risk management,

case formulation

1University of Lincoln, UK

2Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK

3University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

4University of Nottingham, UK

Corresponding Author:

Hannah L. Merdian, School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Brayford Warf East,

Lincoln LN5 7AY, UK.

Email: hmerdian@lincoln.ac.uk

748067IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X17748067International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyMerdian et al.

research-article2018

1056 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(10-11)

Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) is the term used for any type of material

depicting the sexual exploitation of children, such as indecent photographs of children

(the United Kingdom) or child pornography (Canada), but can also refer to material

not always included in legal classifications, such as abuse-related narratives, audio

files, or exploitative chat room conversations.

In the last decade, there has been an increased number of arrests and convictions for

online CSEM offences (Crown Prosecution Service, 2014), certainly also linked to

advances in detection of online offending behaviour. Due to its accessibility, afford-

ability, and anonymity (so-called Triple-A-Engine; Cooper, 1998), the Internet

provides a unique environment (and often lack of supervision) within which online

offences are committed (Seto, 2013; Wortley & Smallbone, 2006).

The empirical evidence suggests that individuals who have committed CSEM

offences more likely present with deviant sexual interests than individuals who were

convicted for a contact sex offence; however, they are also likely to have lifestyle and

psychological barriers to contact offending (i.e., low victim access, greater victim

empathy, or less antisociality) inhibiting them from acting on deviant interests, and

were also found to be less likely to have access to children (Babchishin, Hanson, &

VanZuylen, 2015; Seto, 2013; Seto, Cantor, & Blanchard, 2006; Webb, Craissati, &

Keen, 2007). The existing research further suggests that, while for some individuals,

their CSEM offending is linked to a sexual interest in children that may translate into

offline spaces (i.e., contact-driven offenders), there appears to be a distinct group who

view CSEM seemingly without intent to commit a contact offence (fantasy-driven

offenders; Merdian et al., 2018). Given that CSEM offenders in general, but fantasy-

driven offenders in particular, display personal and offence-related characteristics

distinguishing their treatment needs from those of contact sex offenders (Babchishin

et al., 2015), existing theoretical and aetiological models of contact sex offending have

been found to make a limited contribution to explain the aetiology and maintenance of

CSEM offending (e.g., Middleton, Elliot, Mandeville-Norden, & Beech, 2006).

Furthermore, existing risk and treatment need frameworks for contact sex offenders

have been shown to lack specificity for CSEM offenders (e.g., Middleton, Mandeville-

Norden, & Hayes, 2009; Wakeling, Howard, & Barnett, 2011).

Consequently, different assessment and management strategies specifically developed

for this offender group need to be explored (Merdian et al., 2018; Seto, Reeves, &

Jung, 2010). Seto and Eke (2015) developed the first actuarial risk-assessment tool

specific to CSEM offenders, the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT).

However, while the CPORT significantly predicted reoffending behaviour for CSEM

offenders with an existing criminal history (both sexual and nonsexual), it was not

predictive for noncontact CSEM offenders without such a criminal history. Thus, until

new tools like the CPORT have been further validated, structured professional judg-

ment approaches, which enable consideration of empirically derived risk factors

applied to the individual’s specific psychological and situational contexts, are likely to

most appropriately address the nature of CSEM offending (e.g., Glasgow, 2010) and

the variability in its offending patterns (e.g., contact- or fantasy-driven offence moti-

vations). In structured professional judgment assessments, empirically derived risk