Prevalence of viewing online child sexual abuse material among Australian adults

Child's teddy bear laying on the ground

Based on an online panel survey of 13,302 adults, this study examines the common demographic characteristics of those who have intentionally viewed child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in the past year.

Overall, 0.8 percent of those surveyed reported they had intentionally viewed CSAM in the past year. This is somewhat lower than previous estimates, which have ranged from 2.2 to 4.6 percent.

Further analysis based on logistic regression and predicted probabilities identified four key demographic factors associated with CSAM consumption. Survey respondents who were aged 18–34 years (predicted probability of 1.2%), were living with disability (predicted probability of 1.5%) were currently serving or had previously served in the military (1.9%), or spoke a language other than English at home (predicted probability of 2.0%) were more likely than others to have intentionally viewed CSAM.


URLs correct as at November 2023

Allely CS, Kennedy S & Warren I 2019. A legal analysis of Australian criminal cases involving defendants with autism spectrum disorder charged with online sexual offending. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 66: 101456.

Armstrong J & Mellor D 2016. Internet child pornography offenders: An examination of attachment and intimacy deficits. Legal and Criminological Psychology 21(1): 41–55.

Aslan D & Edelmann R 2014. Demographic and offence characteristics: A comparison of sex offenders convicted of possessing indecent images of children, committing contact sex offences or both offences. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 25(2): 121–134.

Babchishin, KM, Hanson, RK & Hermann, CA 2011. The characteristics of online sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse 23(1): 92–123.

Babchishin KM, Hanson RK & VanZuylen H 2015. Online child pornography offenders are different: A meta-analysis of the characteristics of online and offline sex offenders against children. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44(1): 45–66.

Babchishin KM, Merdian H, Bartels R & Perkins D 2018. Child sexual exploitation materials offenders: A review. European Psychologist 23(2): 130–143.

Brown R 2022. Eliminating online child sexual abuse material. Abingdon: Routledge

Brown R & Bricknell S 2018. What is the profile of child exploitation material offenders? Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 564. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Clevenger SL, Navarro JN & Jasinski JL 2016. A matter of low self-control? Exploring differences between child pornography possessors and child pornography producers/distributors using self-control theory. Sexual Abuse 28(6): 555–571.

Dombert B, Schmidt AF, Banse R, Briken P, Hoyer J, Neutze J & Osterheider M 2016. How common is men’s self-reported sexual interest in prepubescent children? The Journal of Sex Research 53(2): 214–223.

Dowling C, Boxall H, Pooley K, Long C & Franks C 2021. Patterns and predictors of reoffending among child sexual offenders: A rapid evidence assessment. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 632. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Faust E, Bickart W, Renaud C & Camp S 2015. Child pornography possessors and child contact sex offenders: A multilevel comparison of demographic characteristics and rates of recidivism. Sexual Abuse 27(5): 460–478.

Gannoni A, Voce A, Napier S, Boxall H & Thomsen D 2023. Preventing child sexual abuse material offending: An international review of initiatives. Research Report no. 28. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Garman JD 2021. Child pornography: An examination of pornography use across the lifespan (Doctoral thesis). University of Nebraska, United States.

Hunn C, Watters P, Prichard J, Wortley R, Scanlan J, Spiranovic C & Krone T 2023. How to implement online warnings to prevent the use of child sexual abuse material. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 669. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

King G & Zeng L 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9(2): 137–163.

Marinos V & Whittingham L 2020. The complexities of criminal responsibility and persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities: How can therapeutic jurisprudence help? American Behavioral Scientist 64(12): 1733–1748.

Muller CJ & MacLehose RF 2014. Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: Different methods correspond to different target populations. International Journal of Epidemiology 43(3): 962–970.

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 2023. 2022 CyberTipline reports by electronic service providers (ESP). Alexandria, VA: National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children.

Navarro JN & Jasinski JL 2015. Demographic and motivation differences among online sex offenders by type of offense: An exploration of routine activities theories. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 24(7): 753–771.

Prat S & Jonas C 2012. Characteristics of French users of child pornography: Description of a cohort subjected to forensic evaluation. Medico-Legal Journal 80(4): 162–166.

Price M, Lambie I & Krynen AM 2015. New Zealand adult internet child pornography offenders. Journal of Criminal Psychology 5(4): 262–278.

Prichard J & Spiranovic C 2014. Child exploitation material in the context of institutional child sexual abuse: Report for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Salter M, Woodlock D, Whitten T, Tyler M, Naldrett G, Breckenridge J, Nolan J, Peleg N 2023. Identifying and understanding child sexual offending behaviours and attitudes among Australian men. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

Seigfried-Spellar KC 2013. Individual differences of internet child pornography users: Peculiar findings in a community-based study. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 7(2): 141–154.

Seigfried-Spellar KC & Rogers MK 2013. Does deviant pornography use follow a Guttman-like progression? Computers in Human Behavior 29(5): 1997–2003.

Seto MC & Eke AW 2005. The criminal histories and later offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse 17(2): 201–210.

Seto MC, Hermann, CA, Kjellgren C, Priebe G, Göran Svedin C & Långström N 2015. Viewing child pornography: Prevalence and correlates in a representative community sample of young Swedish men. Archives of Sexual Behavior 44: 67–79.

Seto MC, Wood JM, Babchishin KM & Flynn S 2012. Online solicitation offenders are different from child pornography offenders and lower risk contact sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior 36(4): 320–330.

Shelton J, Eakin J, Hoffer T, Muirhead Y & Owens J 2016. Online child sexual exploitation: An investigative analysis of offender characteristics and offending behaviour. Aggression and Violent Behavior 30: 15–23

Sugrue DP 2017. Forensic assessment of individuals on the autism spectrum charged with child pornography violations. In LA Dubin & E Horowitz (eds), Caught in the web of the criminal justice system: Autism, developmental disabilities and sex offences. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers: 112–139

Svedin CG, Åkerman, I & Priebe G 2011. Frequent users of pornography. A population based epidemiological study of Swedish male adolescents. Journal of Adolescence 34: 779–788.

Tomak S, Weschler FS, Ghahramanlou-Holloway M, Virden T & Nademin ME 2009. An empirical study of the personality characteristics of internet sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression 5(20): 139–148.

Wolak J, Finkelhor D & Mitchell KJ 2011. Child-pornography possessors: Trends in offender and case characteristics. Sexual Abuse 23(1): 22–42.

Wortley R 2012. Situational prevention of child abuse in the new technologies. In E Quayle & KM Ribisl (eds), Understanding and preventing online sexual exploitation of children. Abingdon: Routledge: 188–213