Secret-keeping in therapy by clients who are sexually attracted to children

Abstract

Objective This study investigated the reasons why pedohebephilic clients disclose their sexual attraction to children in therapy and the experiences associated with this decision among English-speaking samples. Method: The pre-registered online survey combined (1) quantitative correlational data of self-reported improvement, alliance, therapist reaction to disclosure, and the belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place, and (2) qualitative data about reasons for disclosure or no disclosure as well as perceived consequences. The sample consisted of pedohebephilic people who have been clients in therapy and have disclosed (n = 96) or not disclosed (n = 40). Results: While the disclosure and no disclosure groups did not differ in improvement or beliefs about mandatory reporting, those who had disclosed reported a stronger alliance. Clients who did not perceive the therapist’s reaction as supportive reported less improvement than the no disclosure group. Thematic analysis of qualitative data identified three themes concerning motives for disclosing or not disclosing and a fourth regarding differential impacts of disclosure. Discussion: This study indicates that disclosing pedohebephilia does not in and of itself lead to improvement but is contingent on a therapist’s reaction.

Full text

1
Secret-keeping in therapy by clients who are sexually attracted to children
Sara Jahnke1, 2, Nicholas Blagden3, Ian V. McPhail4, & Jan Antfolk2
1 Department of Health Promotion and Development, University of Bergen, Bergen,
Norway
2 Faculty of Arts, Psychology and Theology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
3 School for Law and Social Sciences, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom
4 Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United
States
This is the accepted version of the article. The version of record can be found here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10503307.2023.2265047

2
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the reasons why pedohebephilic clients disclose
their sexual attraction to children in therapy and the experiences associated with this decision
among English-speaking samples. Method: The pre-registered online survey combined (1)
quantitative correlational data of self-reported improvement, alliance, therapist reaction to
disclosure, and the belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place, and (2) qualitative data
about reasons for disclosure or no disclosure as well as perceived consequences. The sample
consisted of pedohebephilic people who have been clients in therapy and have disclosed (n =
96) or not disclosed (n = 40). Results: While the disclosure and no disclosure groups did not
differ in improvement or beliefs about mandatory reporting, those who had disclosed reported
a stronger alliance. Clients who did not perceive the therapist’s reaction as supportive
reported less improvement than the no disclosure group. Thematic analysis of qualitative data
identified three themes concerning motives for disclosing or not disclosing and a fourth
regarding differential impacts of disclosure. Discussion: This study indicates that disclosing
pedohebephilia does not in and of itself lead to improvement but is contingent on a therapist’s
reaction.
Clinical or Methodological Significance of this Article
This research suggests that disclosure of secrets in therapy, which in the present study
refers to sexual attraction to children, is not necessarily related to improvement, as
improvement depends on whether the therapist reacts in a supportive way.

3
Objective
Between 1 and 5% of the male population report a sexual attraction to prepubescent
children (i.e., pedophilia) or pubescent children (i.e., hebephilia, Bártová et al., 2021;
Dombert et al., 2016). Among the female population, less than 1% report pedophilic or
hebephilic attraction (Bártová et al., 2020). In recent years, psychological and psychiatric
therapy for pedohebephilic persons has gained scholarly attention as a strategy to increase
client well-being and prevent child sexual abuse (Heasman & Foreman, 2019; Lasher &
Stinson, 2017; Levenson et al., 2020). Despite this, pedohebephilia remains highly
stigmatized, even among therapists (Lawrence & Willis, 2021), who according to recent
surveys lack knowledge about the needs of pedohebephilic clients and are reluctant to offer
therapy to this group (Schmidt & Niehaus, 2022; Stiels-Glenn, 2010). Research further
suggests that a non-trivial number of therapists will break confidentiality following a client
disclosing pedohebephilia, regardless of the presence of other risk factors for child sexual
abuse (Stephens et al., 2021). This puts pedohebephilic clients in a difficult position: Should
they disclose their sexual attraction to children or not? On the one hand, disclosure can help
the therapist plan more appropriate interventions to help the client improve. On the other
hand, disclosure may expose the client to mistrust, rejection, and the potential consequences
of breaches of confidentiality. The present mixed-method study investigates how disclosure of
pedohebephilia in therapy relates to the alliance between the client and the therapist, client
improvement, and the therapists’ reaction to disclosure.
Nondisclosure in Therapy is Common and May Have Deleterious Effects
It is common for clients to not disclose secrets to their therapist (Blanchard & Farber,
2016; Hill et al., 1993; Love & Farber, 2019). In a therapy context, secrets are conceptualized
as personally meaningful facts, experiences, or feelings that clients consciously withhold from
their therapist (Hill et al., 1993, p. 278). In a survey of 547 clients in therapy, 73% admitted
to having kept secrets from their therapist at least once on a therapy-related topic (Blanchard

4
& Farber, 2016). Secrets in therapy are often of a sexual nature (Hill et al., 1993; Love &
Farber, 2017, 2019; Pope & Tabachnick, 1994), and three out of four clients who did not
disclose their secret reported to have done so because of shame and embarrassment (Baumann
& Hill, 2016). Other common reasons to not disclose include a desire to be polite or to avoid
rejection, besides more pragmatic considerations like perceiving there being more important
things to talk about (Baumann & Hill, 2016; Hook & Andrews, 2005). For clients who
concealed suicidal ideation from their therapist, the most important reason was fear of
practical consequences of disclosure outside of therapy (e.g., hospitalization), more so than
fears related to reasons specific to therapy or a desire to avoid negative emotions (Blanchard
& Farber, 2020).
Establishing a collaborative relationship and affective bond is a key process in
psychotherapy (Flückiger et al., 2018). Not disclosing therapy-relevant information is
associated with a weaker alliance (Kelly & Yuan, 2009). Many clients who disclosed a secret
in therapy reported that doing so was beneficial, typically because they experienced relief
(Baumann & Hill, 2016) or because they received more feedback (Kelly & Yuan, 2009).
More broadly, keeping secrets from others in daily interactions may have deleterious effects
(Larson & Chastain, 1990). The mere intention to conceal can lead to frequent spontaneous
thoughts about the secret. Compared to active concealment in relevant social interactions,
mind-wandering in irrelevant situations occurs more frequently and is more strongly related to
reduced well-being (Slepian et al., 2017). People who tend to be secretive about, for instance,
their sexual orientation or having had an abortion, report higher levels of depression, anxiety,
and/or somatic symptoms (Flentje et al., 2020; Major & Gramzow, 1999; Meyer, 2003).
Experimental research suggests that simply writing about non-disclosed traumatic events can
alleviate distress and depression, alongside other positive health benefits (Pennebaker, 1997;
for meta-analytic evidence, see, e.g., Frattaroli, 2006; and Smyth, 1998).

5
Empirical studies reveal a more complex relationship between disclosure and therapy
outcomes, whereby the potential benefits may be offset by significant risks (Farber et al.,
2019). For instance, women who disclose childhood sexual abuse in treatment may benefit
from experiencing emotional closeness, authenticity, validation, and catharsis, but may also
be at risk of feeling ashamed, confused, or vulnerable (Farber et al., 2009). Hence, it is
perhaps not surprising that studies that have attempted to quantify the link between disclosure
and therapy outcomes report conflicting results (Hill et al., 2000). In one study, clients who
tended to more readily disclose distressing information prior to therapy have been found to
have better therapy outcomes (Kahn et al., 2001). Similarly, another study found that
disclosure of depression-related symptoms was linked to less depressive symptoms among
clients who had been in psychological therapy with depression (Hook & Andrews, 2005). Yet,
these authors could only confirm this link among clients with depression who were no longer
in therapy at the time of the study, but not among clients who were still in therapy. Another
study found that disclosure predicted more symptoms (controlling for initial symptomatology
and general propensity to keep secrets, Kelly, 1998). Yet, the lack of a positive link between
disclosure and therapy improvement does not necessarily show that disclosure is
therapeutically irrelevant (Farber et al., 2019). This is because it is possible that disclosure is
both a helpful means to relieve distress and also indicative of an underlying disorder which is
causing distress and the impetus to disclose (Stiles, 1995).
Is Disclosure Beneficial for Pedohebephilic Clients?
While pedohebephilic clients often keep their sexual attraction a secret (Jahnke et al.,
2015), research finds that as many as 60% have disclosed their attractions to others in their
lives (Elchuk et al., 2022). Disclosure was not necessarily perceived as beneficial; although
disclosure followed by positive support from others was associated with less loneliness and
suicidality (Elchuk et al., 2022). Similarly, potential benefits of disclosure, such as client
improvement or a stronger alliance, may not translate for clients who disclose a highly

6
stigmatized characteristic or disclose symptoms that a therapist lacks competence to treat.
Both are likely to be true in the case of pedohebephilia (Schmidt & Niehaus, 2022).
Consequences of non-disclosure and disclosure for therapy outcomes likely rest on the
real or perceived response by the therapist (Kelly & McKillop, 1996). For pedohebephilic
clients, deciding whether to seek treatment is informed by perceptions of being stigmatized by
therapists and in many jurisdictions, concerns regarding therapists’ understanding of when to
make a report regarding a child at risk of being harmed. Recent research shows that this
concern is not misplaced: Vignette-based research examining therapist ethical decision-
making following a client disclosing pedohebephilia found that therapist stigma towards
pedohebephilic people predicts therapists making a child protection report, even in
circumstances that would not warrant such a report (Stephens et al., 2021). These findings
suggest that not receiving positive support following a disclosure in therapy may be
associated with negative outcomes.
The Present Research
The present study investigated the therapy outcomes associated with disclosing
pedohebephilia. A mixed methods research design was employed, with quantitative methods
used to detect differences between the disclosure and no disclosure groups and qualitative
methods used to help explain quantitative findings. The study is anchored in the postpositivist
paradigm (Ponterotto, 2005), which prioritizes the quantitative analysis and uses the
qualitative data to augment the quantitative findings (Hanson et al., 2005).
The following hypotheses were formulated before data-collection:
(1) Disclosure in therapy is associated with self-reported client improvement.
(2) Disclosure in therapy is associated with the strength of the alliance.
(3) Disclosure in therapy is associated with the belief that mandatory reporting
laws were in place at the time of therapy.

7
(4) For clients who have disclosed to their therapist, we predict there will be
associations between the perceived therapist reaction on the one side and self-reported client
improvement and strength of alliance on the other side.
After data collection was completed, we added the following post hoc hypotheses:
(5) Clients who perceived support from their therapist after disclosure will report
more improvement compared to participants who did not disclose.
(6) Clients who did not perceive support from their therapist after disclosure will
report less improvement compared to participants who did not disclose.
Given the novelty of these research questions and the complex, dynamic, recursive,
and transactional nature of client and therapist behavior, we supplemented the quantitative
findings with a thematic analysis of qualitative data about reasons for disclosure or non-
disclosure and perceived effects of the decision to disclose or not disclose.
Method
Participants and Recruitment
Participants were recruited between January 2021 and May 2021 on English and
German web-forums for pedohebephilic persons (B4U-ACT, BoyChat, Virtuous Pedophiles,
VisionsofAlice, jungsforum, krumme13, kinder-im-herzen). Pedohebephilic individuals use
these forums to anonymously share their sexual interests, create a sense of community and
belonging, educate others about pedohebephilia, and/or provide and receive support. The
forums also provide a unique opportunity for researchers to study pedohebephilia outside of
forensic contexts (e.g., Elchuk et al., 2022; Grady et al., 2019; Jahnke et al., 2015). The
present study was advertised as a survey about preferred labels as well as stigma- and
therapy-related attitudes and experiences among adults with a sexual attraction to
prepubescent and/or pubescent children, and participants received no compensation (which
would have been difficult to deliver due to the anonymity needs of this population). The
survey was only available in English. A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power

8
(Faul et al., 2007). Assuming a medium-sized effect (f2 = .252), 158 participants are required
for a Type II error rate of .20 and Type I error rate of .05 when conducting MANOVA with
two dependent variables. It was planned to oversample by 25% to account for non-eligible
cases. Hence, we were striving for a sample size of 198 participants with therapy experiences.
In total, data from 346 participants was collected. Of these, 283 cases passed the pre-
registered quality checks (see below), meaning that they reported sexual attraction in
prepubescent or pubescent children that are equal to or stronger than their sexual attraction to
adults. Participants who did not report any prior therapy experiences (n = 128) or whose last
therapy was court-mandated (n = 19) were also excluded. This resulted in a sample of 136
pedohebephilic persons who had previously been in clients in therapy.
Measures
Erotic Age Preference
Sexual attraction to children was assessed using self-reported attractions to different
stages of development and sex combinations (Jahnke & Malón, 2019). Participants were
asked their degree of sexual attraction to females and males before, in, or after puberty,
resulting in a total of six items. For each item, participants were provided with a description
of the developmental stage (e.g., pubertal girls were described as “girls who show some signs
of physical maturity like sparse pubic hair or developing breasts”) and a non-pornographic
drawing (i.e., designed to demonstrate anatomy, not to stimulate sexual arousal) of a
corresponding nude character. The same pictures are included in the intake assessment of the
online intervention Troubled Desire (Schuler et al., 2021). The response scale was a 10-point
Likert-type scale that ranged from no sexual interest to maximum sexual interest.
We calculated several sexual attraction indices: (1) The pedohebephilic attraction
index was computed by subtracting the maximum level of sexual attraction to adult stimuli
from the maximum level of sexual attraction to prepubescent or pubescent stimuli; (2) the
male-oriented pedohebephilic attraction index was computed by subtracting the maximum

9
level of sexual attraction to the female prepubescent or pubescent child from the maximum
level of sexual attraction to the male prepubescent or pubescent child; and (3) an index to
quantify the relative degree of pedophilic versus hebephilic attraction was computed by
subtracting the maximum level of sexual attraction to the male or female pubescent child from
the maximum level of sexual attraction to the male or female prepubescent child. Previous
research demonstrated the validity of the procedure to correctly classify online participants as
pedohebephilic or teleiophilic based on overlap with results from a viewing time test (with φ
ranging between .50 and .69, indicating a strong positive relationship, Jahnke, Schmidt, et al.,
2022). The retest-reliability of the scale has not been tested.
Therapy Information, Disclosure Status, and Belief that Mandatory Reporting Laws were in
Place
Participants were asked whether they have been in psychological or psychiatric
therapy because of a mental disorder or because of problems related to their sexual attraction
to children. We furthermore assessed whether participants were currently in therapy, whether
they sought therapy due to a court order following a sexual offence allegation, and whether
they have disclosed their sexual attraction to children to their last therapist. Participants’
belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place during their time in therapy was measured
with the following item: “Were mental health professionals in your country required by law to
report suspicions of child sexual abuse (mandatory reporting), at the time when you were in
treatment? If you have been in treatment multiple times or over several years, please refer to
your last therapy.”). Response options for these items were dichotomous (Yes/No), with the
exception of belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place, which had a 5-point response
scale (ranging from “Yes, surely” to “No, surely not”) to assess for participants’ level of
certainty, as past research detected some level of uncertainty about these laws even among
therapists (Levenson et al., 2020). We assessed the year that participants were last in therapy,

10
deleting one implausible value (“1920”). The variable Years since last therapy was calculated
by subtracting the year from 2021.
Perceived Effects of Disclosure in Therapy Scale (PEDTS)
The Perceived Social Support for Minor Attraction Scale (PSS-MAS; Elchuk et al.,
2022) was adapted to assess perceptions of therapist response to disclosure of one’s sexual
attraction to children (see Table S1, Supplementary Materials, for a list of items). The PSS-
MAS has shown adequate reliability (αs between .74 and .80) and adequate convergent
validity evidence (e.g., associates with loneliness, internalized stigma, distress, quality of
relationships, suicidality; rs between |.34| and |.52|; Elchuk et al., 2022). Specifically, the
PSS-MAS items were revised to inquire about support from a therapist versus friends in the
original items. In addition, the term minor attraction was replaced with the more descriptive
term sexual attraction to children. One of the PSS-MAS items was removed for the scale (i.e.,
“I fear that my friends will never accept my minor attraction”) because this did not fit well
with a therapeutic relationship, which is discontinued at the end of therapy. An additional
item was developed for the purposes of the present research context (“I believe that my
therapist was reluctant to work with me because I was sexually attracted to children”).
Finally, a single item was revised from referring to relationships with friends to refer to the
alliance with a therapist. These revisions resulted in a 5-item Perceived Effects of Disclosure
in Therapy Scale (PEDTS), with a fully labeled Likert scale with responses ranging from
“Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. Higher scores indicate higher perceived support from
a therapist. Information about dimensionality and internal consistency is provided in “Factor
Structure of the Perceived Effects of Disclosure in Therapy Scale” (see Results).
Functioning before and after Treatment, Client Improvement and Alliance
Client improvement and alliance were assessed using self-report measures asking
participants to recall their functioning before and after therapy and their impression of the
alliance, based on the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and the Session Rating Scale (SRS;

11
Duncan, 2012). The ORS assesses a client’s level of functioning on four visual analog scales
(individually, interpersonally, socially, and overall). The SRS measures the client’s perception
of the alliance with their therapist by assessing whether they felt heard and respected by their
therapist, alignment on goals and topics in sessions, fit of therapist’s approach, and overall
satisfaction with therapy. The response range for the ORS and SRS is 0 –100. The original
ORS has demonstrated sensitivity to improvement in clinical studies, as well as convergent
validity, particularly with measures of depression (Meier, 2020). The original SRS has shown
low to moderate convergent validity with longer alliance scales (Murphy et al., 2020). Both
the ORS and SRS had high internal consistency in previous studies (Meier, 2020; Murphy et
al., 2020).
In the present study, because participants were being asked about past therapy
experiences, the instructions of the ORS were modified to ask for retrospective ratings of
psychosocial functioning immediately prior to entering and immediately following therapy,
while the SRS instructions were modified to ask about the overall strength of the alliance
during therapy. Pre- and posttherapy modified ORS scores and SRS scores were computed
using the average score for the four items in each scale. Client improvement is calculated as
the difference between the ORS score after therapy and the ORS score before therapy. The
values of client improvement can range from -100 to 100, with positive scores indicating
increased psychosocial functioning over the course of therapy and negative values indicating
that psychosocial functioning has deteriorated over the course of therapy. Higher scores on
the SRS indicate that the alliance is perceived as stronger. The scales showed high internal
consistency in the present survey (see Table 1).
Participants’ Experience of Therapy in Relation to the Decision to Disclose or not Disclose
After the quantitative section, participants were presented the following open question:
(1) “We have asked you before about whether or not you have disclosed your sexual interest
in children to your therapist. Now, we would like to ask you for the reasons behind this

12
decision. What was important for your decision?” and (2) “In what ways, if at all, do you
think that your decision to disclose or not disclose has affected your experience in therapy?”.
Participants could type in their responses to each question in an open field.
Sociodemographic Information
Participants were asked about sex assigned at birth, current gender identity, current
age, educational attainment, history of contact sexual offending against children, and history
of accessing child sexual exploitation material.
Quality Checks
We employed the honesty and seriousness check items by Aust et al. (2013) and
Sischka et al. (2020), respectively, at the end of the survey. Participants who responded that
they have answered more than one item dishonestly (honesty check) or reported to not have
participated seriously (seriousness check) were excluded in line with pre-registered criteria.
Data Analytic Strategy
Mixed Method Design
A concurrent explanatory design was employed to merge the quantitative and
qualitative data (Hanson et al., 2005). This means that qualitative and quantitative data were
collected at the same time and that the quantitative data is given priority. Data integration
takes place in the discussion section.
Quantitative analysis. The significance level was set to α = .05 for all analyses.
Parametric testing was conducted if the distribution of the residuals (for t-tests) or variables
(for correlations) was reasonably normal (i.e., skewness between –2 and +2 and kurtosis
between –7 and +7). We pre-registered a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) as a
global test of the effects of disclosure status on client improvement and the SRS because both
were conceptualized as outcomes affected by disclosure that are associated with one another.
Conducting a global test before moving on to individual tests (if the global test is significant)
can protect against familywise Type 1 error. The MANOVA.RM package (Friedrich et al.,

13
2019) was used for the MANOVA analyses, given several desirable features of the package’s
approach (e.g., calculating a resampling-based test of multivariate data that does not require
multivariate normality of error terms, similar sample sizes, or homoscedastic variances). To
assess the effect of disclosure status on single dependent variables, bootstrap t-tests based on
1,000 resamples were conducted. The Welch (or Satterthwaite) approximation to the degrees
of freedom was applied by default, following recommendations for best-practice for group
comparisons (West, 2021). For analyses containing variables with outliers, robust rank-based
sensitivity tests (in this case Mann-Whitney U test) were conducted. Outliers were defined as
values that fall above the 3rd quartile + 1.5*interquartile range or below the 1st quartile –
1.5*interquartile range. Links between two continuous variables were assessed with Kendall’s
τ for variables with outliers or severe deviations from the assumption of normality, while
Pearson r was used in all other cases. The R package lavaan (Rosseel et al., 2020) was used to
conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the PEDTS. We fitted a one-factor model
using the weighted least squares means and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator. We
assumed good model fit for models with factor loadings > .40 (Howard, 2016), CFI > .90, and
RMSEA < .08 (T. D. Smith & McMillan, 2001).
We proceeded with non-preregistered analyses exploring differences in therapy
outcomes between those who did not disclose (No disclosure group), those who did disclose
and did not feel supported (Disclosure- no support group) and those who did disclose and felt
supported (Disclosure+ support group), following similar procedures in Elchuk et al. (2022).
Support status was determined based on the response to the item "My therapist had become a
real support regarding my sexual attraction to children" from the PEDTS. Participants who
disclosed in therapy and scored above the midpoint of the scale (i.e., 5 or more on a scale
from 1 to 7) were categorized as Disclosure+support, while participants who scored below the
mid-point (i.e., 3 or less on a scale from 1 to 7) were grouped as Disclosure–no support.
Qualitative analysis.

14
Text responses to questions regarding experience in therapy in relation to the decision
to disclose or not disclose were analyzed using thematic analysis, a method for identifying,
analyzing, and reporting patterns and themes within a data set. Thematic analysis aims to
capture rich detail and represent the range and diversity of experience within the data. It has
been described as a “contextualist method,” sitting between the two poles of constructionism
and realism (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This position thus acknowledges the ways individuals
make meaning of their experience, and, in turn, the ways in which the broader social context
impinges on those meanings. As such, thematic analysis reflects “reality,” even if that reality
is inherently subjective (Braun et al., 2016; Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis adhered to
the phases of qualitative thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2021), consisting
of familiarization and detailed readings of the data collected, progressing to initial and
systematic coding of the data, and then generating initial themes from the coded data. The
final phases included reviewing themes, ensuring that they were consistent with the coding
and that they were grounded in the qualitative data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; J. A. Smith,
2015). This process has been referred to as “complete coding” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 206)
– that is, coding that allows the identification of anything and everything of interest within the
data. It was this complete process which was used to identify and highlight data relevant to
the research question. The final themes were representative of the sample. It is important to
note that the extracts utilized in the analysis are, as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2013) and
Braun et al. (2016), illustrative of the theme rather than ‘proof’ of the theme, due to the
subjective nature of coding (Braun & Clarke, 2021).
A form of inter-coder agreement was used as a verification procedure to check coding
of qualitative data (de Wet & Erasmus, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). In qualitative
research, this occurs when two or more researchers code the same data (or aspects of the data)
independently and check for consistency across coders (de Wet & Erasmus, 2005). The
coding of the qualitative data in this study was conducted by one of the authors and a

15
researcher independent of the research. Both researchers have an extensive track record in
qualitative research. Both coders independently analyzed sections of the data and then shared
coding and themes in data analysis sessions, where the coders discussed emerging
codes/themes, as well as both similarities and differences in data analysis. In this case, there
were no real differences in the coding and there was consistency in the types of codes and
themes emerging. However, this dialogical process can help to produce safeguards against
bias and allow for greater understanding of the data.
Transparency and Openness
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, and all measures in
the study. This study’s design, hypotheses, and analyses were pre-registered before the start of
the data collection on Open Science Framework (see Research Question 3;
https://osf.io/fd34k). Two other Research Questions have been registered alongside the
current project and will be tested based on the different sections of the same survey (Jahnke,
Blagden, et al., 2022; Jahnke, McPhail, et al., 2023). Data were analyzed using R, version
4.2.1 (R Core Team, 2022). The first author will share the raw data and syntax for re-analysis
upon reasonable request but will not make the dataset publicly available. This is in line with
information provided to participants during the informed consent procedures, as publication
of the dataset is likely to deter pedohebephilic people from participating in research studies
due to fears of being identified. The study materials and code book can be accessed via
https://osf.io/kpza6/.
Results
Quantitative Data
Comparison of disclosure and no disclosure group
Participants’ disclosure status was used to group the sample into those who disclosed
their pedohebephilia to a therapist (n = 96) and those who did not disclose their
pedohebephilia to a therapist (n = 40). Univariate comparisons of the two groups are

16
presented in Table 1. The majority in our sample finished 12th grade and there were no
differences between the two disclosure groups. There was a higher proportion of female
participants in the nondisclosure group than in the disclosure group (based on sex assigned at
birth). A large majority in both groups (85.3%) reported a stronger attraction to children than
to adults, while the remaining 14.7% reported an equal sexual attraction to both. The sample
was split about equally between people who were preferentially sexually attracted to male
(43.4%) and female children (47.1%; 9.6% reported equal attraction to both sexes). The
disclosure group reported a higher relative pedohebephilic (as opposed to teleiophilic)
attraction and a higher degree of pedophilic (as opposed to hebephilic) attraction compared to
the no disclosure group (see Table 1).
MANOVA results showed that the disclosure group differed from the no disclosure
group (Wald type statistic = 13.80, df = 2, p =.001, resampled p [parametric bootstrap
approach] = .002) on the two dependent variables client improvement and alliance. Re-
running the MANOVA without outliers (n = 1 based on Mahalnobis distance) did not change
the results. We investigated how people in the two groups differed with respect to client
improvement, alliance, and eight other personal or therapy-related variables. The disclosure
group did not significantly differ from the no disclosure group on client improvement
(Hypothesis 1) or belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place (Hypothesis 3) but
reported significantly higher perceptions of the strength of the alliance (Hypothesis 2, see
Table 1). Of note, participants who disclosed were older and had a higher pedohebephilic,
male-oriented pedohebephilic, and pedophilic attraction index compared to participants who
did not disclose.
Factor Structure of the Perceived Effects of Disclosure in Therapy Scale
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the dimensionality of the
PEDTS. The fit of the first model was poor, robust χ2 (df = 9) = 32.49, p < .001, robust
RMSEA = .17, 95% CI [.11, .23], robust CFI = .99, and item 1 showed a factor loading below

17
the cutoff of .40 (Table S1, Supplementary Material). In hindsight, experiencing difficulty
disclosing in therapy may not be a good indicator of therapist support, as difficulties could be
due to unrelated factors, such as pre-event rumination. Furthermore, modification indices
indicated a residual covariance between items 5 and 6, which may be explained by both items
including the word “work.” After removing item 1 and adding a residual covariance term for
item 5 and 6, model fit was acceptable, for all but one model fit indicator, robust χ2 (df = 4) =
9.01, p = .061, robust RMSEA = .12, 95% CI [.00, .22], CFI = 1.00. A high RMSEA-value
may reflect the small sample size and small df, rather than model misspecification (D. A.
Kenny et al., 2015). Hence, we assumed that a unidimensional model fit the data. As the
resulting latent variable was nearly identical to the average score of the 5 items (r = .95), we
will use the average score instead of the latent score in subsequent analyses. The internal
consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the five-item PEDTS was excellent (see Table 1).
Perceived Effects of Disclosure and its Links to Personal and Therapy-Related Variables
We found a positive correlation between PEDTS and client improvement (r = .49, p <
.001) as well as the alliance (r = .71, p < .001, Hypothesis 4). Exploratory non-pre-registered
tests showed a negative relationship between PEDTS and Years since therapy (τ = –.28, p <
.006). PEDTS scores were not related to age (r = –.09, p = .387), functioning before therapy
(τ = .02, p =.803), and belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place (r = –.01, p = .913).
Post-hoc Comparison Based on Disclosure and Perceptions of Therapist Support
Forty participants were categorized as No Disclosure, 25 as Disclosure-No Support,
and 64 as Disclosure+Support. Seven participants who scored at the midpoint were removed
from the analyses. The Disclosure+Support group did not report higher client improvement
than the No Disclosure group (Hypothesis 5; Table 2). Yet, this result may have been affected
by outliers, as the nonparametric sensitivity test detected a significantly higher client
improvement score for Disclosure+Support compared to No Disclosure. The Disclosure-no
Support group reported lower client improvement than the No Disclosure group (Hypothesis

18
6). We detected no differences between each of the three groups on level of functioning
before therapy.
Qualitative Data
The results of thematic analysis yielded four superordinate themes that captured
participants’ reasons for disclosing or not disclosing, the experiences of disclosure, and the
impacts of disclosure. The analysis unpacks the four inter-related themes (1) Disclosure as a
process of desperation and emotional turmoil, (2) Disclosure reluctance – experiential and
perceived, (3) Therapist as “MAP” aware and (4) ‘Differential impacts of disclosure’. MAP
or minor-attracted person is an alternative term to refer to people who are sexually attracted to
children in a stricter sense (i.e., pedohebephilia) or a broader sense (i.e., also including
teleiophilic attraction to individuals below the age of consent), which some pedohebephilic
participants prefer as a self-label (Jahnke, Blagden, et al., 2022). The MAP terminology was
retained in the context of the qualitative data analysis, even at the loss of definitional
precision, as this terminology is closer to the language used by the participants.
Theme 1: Disclosure as a process of desperation and emotional turmoil
One of the most prominent themes within the qualitative data, and one shared by most
participants, was how disclosure came from a process of desperation or emotional turmoil that
resulted in a need or compulsion to disclose.
Extract 1: My emotions erupted like a volcano...I repressed my sexual orientation for
too many years. So suddenly it all came out.
Extract 2: Before having a gradual and painful breakdown, I would never had [sic] told
a soul about my attraction. I was going to take it to the grave. But as things were
getting worse and starting to impact my life it was becoming harder to ignore and
suppress. […] I can realise now that I was very distressed and depressed.

19
Extracts 1 and 2 both suggest how for many participants suppressing such feelings was having
a negative impact on their daily functioning and causing the experience of volatile emotional
states and difficulties in regulating such emotions. Participants in this sample indicated an
experience of psychological distress and self-disgust resulting from their sexual attraction. For
some, this manifested as turmoil and desperation.
Extract 3: Under tremendous stress in almost all facets of my life. Extremely
depressed. Broke, crying all the time, sleeping little, nowhere to turn, hopeless, no real
friends, strained relations with family. […] Felt my interest in children was elephant in
room and most other things could not be worked on effectively without my interest in
children being out in the open. Really desperately needed someone to talk to […].
Extract 3 again emphasizes the “desperation” in participants’ motivation to disclose their
sexual attraction to their therapist. Many participants articulated feeling “tortured” by their
sexual attraction. The above extract also points to how the sexual attraction to children was
straining relationships and creating relational barriers with others including their therapist.
Extract 4: I needed to be able to talk about it with someone who was not a MAP and
since I was building a relationship of trust with my therapist it felt necessary for me to
come out. I was also at a point where I felt worse and worse about being a MAP and I
needed validation that I was not worth less because I had these attractions.
As highlighted by extract 4, some participants expressed that it was important to disclose to
someone who was not part of the minor attracted community in order to develop and validate
a positive identity. The participant emphasised the “need” to talk someone who was “not a
MAP” and how building trust within relationships including therapeutic relationships was
important for facilitating disclosure.
Theme 2: Disclosure Reluctance – Experiential and Perceived
There was a prevalent theme on the reluctance of disclosure that was shared by the
majority of participants, and this appeared to have two distinct aspects. The first aspect

20
reflects a reluctance borne out of actual experiences of seeking therapy. The second aspect
was based on their perceptions and fears of the disclosure process. In terms of participants’
actual experiences, many described helpful therapeutic interactions, but participants also
pointed to the perceived shaming message of interventions that have a predominant focus on
child sexual abuse prevention.
Extract 5: I hated that they were all about CSA [child-sexual abuse]. Clearly not about
helping me. All they wanted to do was make me feel dangerous and evil. They're [sic]
adverts were designed to scare me into speaking to them. It made me feel so much
more anxious and alone. I…knew they hated me.
Here the participant’s extract highlights how some child abuse prevention services’
messaging is perceived as stigmatizing and may, as an unintended consequence, increase the
reluctance of those wanting to seek therapy. This perception of messaging was supported by
other participants’ and also related to other help seeking behaviours.
Extract 6: I had very negative experiences with other psychotherapists before finding a
suitable replacement. One of them retroactively reported me to police and social
services which lead to further negative experiences with forensic psychiatrists,
psychologists, therapists, and assessors. The one positive experience though was my
replacement therapist supported me.
Finding therapists who were accepting and willing to work with them was difficult, with
many participants expressing fear that a therapist may react negatively to a disclosure of a
sexual in interest in children. While some participants discussed negative experiences of
therapy, very few (n = 2) mentioned that they had been reported by a therapist to the
authorities. The reluctance to disclose may then be based more on fears or perception rather
than actual experience. Participants were ambivalent about whether to disclosure their sexual
attraction due to fears of perceived consequences from disclosure.

21
Extract 7: I wish I felt safe enough to do so, but I don’t want to take the risk. Even if
my therapist trusted that I am not in danger of committing a crime and don’t pose a
threat to a child, I am not sure what would have to be reported in my notes for
insurance purposes. My own safety is the deciding factor.
Extract 8: I did not disclose due to concerns about being reported as a potential risk,
being misunderstood and judged and the high likelihood my therapist would not
understand my experience... The overall level of risk outweighed any potential benefit
of disclosing.
Extracts 7 and 8 highlight the perception of some of our participants that therapy did not
provide a safe environment for disclosure, as well as their fear of being reported. Both
extracts point to the inherent cost-benefits analysis some participants made in their decision to
disclose and how disclosure is perceived as high risk or has high personal stakes. However, as
can be noted in the disjunction between real and perceived experience, it is unclear how
balanced, accurate, and informed their cost-benefit analysis may be.
Extract 9: I worry about the therapist rejecting and or reporting me, as I have looked at
child porn in the past. I do not feel that it is safe to be truthful about being a map [sic];
the risk is way too high. This is evidenced by the many testimonials on nomap
[nonoffending minor attracted person] sites.
Extract 9 again highlights how perceived rejection and risk of judgement motivate non-
disclosure. Self-perseveration and fears about personal safety are again important and
prevalent themes within the data. Extract 9 also point to fears of rejection and of being judged
and the experience of shame in having a sexual attraction to children. The extracts so far in
this theme highlight the tensions and ambivalence within many of the participants who have
not disclosed their interest in therapy. While they believed it was the right decision, they also
acknowledge that it would have been beneficial in reducing the psychological difficulties they
were struggling with (e.g., their experience of shame regarding their attractions).

22
Extract 10: In order to disclose, to anyone -- personal or professional -- I have to trust
that person implicitly in all things. That's a long road. I've only told three people in my
life.
Extracts 10 demonstrates that trust plays a central role in decisions to disclose, and the level
of trust required is quite high and hard to achieve.
Theme 3: Therapist as “MAP” aware
One strategy that some participants utilized was to seek out individuals who had
previously worked with pedohebephilic clients or who were affiliated with well-known
organisations.
Extract 11: Well I sought out a therapist who had extensive experience working with
MAPs, through a referral service with [prevention service] on their website. […]
During our meet and greet online, she reassured me that I have nothing to be ashamed
of…She is incredibly compassionate, supportive, and is becoming a very positive
influence in my life.
There was a theme within the data that some participants found comfort in selecting a
therapist who was “MAP aware”. Finding a therapist that had experience with treating people
who are sexually attracted to children helped with some of the fear, shame, and stigma
associated with seeking therapy. In some cases, having a therapist with this expertise (or at
least experience) helped facilitate disclosures and more open dialogue.
Extract 12: It has been transformative. I was able to talk about MAP concerns with a
previous therapist but only by disguising it as another sexual paraphilia and talking
about that instead. That took me so far, but it meant I couldn't reveal aspects of my
experience, such as being in MAP online communities, and therefore diminished my
ability to be uninhibited and honest in the therapy.
Extract 13: I chose my therapist specifically because I already knew he was MAP
aware. I interviewed him before a first session and felt secure that nothing I told him

23
would trigger an inappropriate report/escalation. Previous to this I had seen a "regular
therapist"…but because I didn't feel she was a specialist in the area, I didn't feel
comfortable disclosing to.
As extracts 12 and 13 highlight, finding a therapist with the right experience and
characteristics can be “transformative” and allow the individual to be more honest within
therapy. Extract 13 also emphasize how the participant had previously “disguised” their actual
problem with another and how they recognised how this limited therapeutic outcomes.
Theme 4: Differential Impact of Disclosure
The final theme within this analysis unpacks the impacts of disclosure on participants.
As with other themes within the analysis the impacts are not uniform and are differentially
experienced.
Extract 14: It has helped me trust my therapist more and allowed myself to be more
open and know I could talk about things related to it, including self-hatred.
Extract 15: It made me more trustful of therapists. They reacted well with me. Cheered
me up. Said I shouldn't have to worry and beat myself up so much just for having these
thoughts and sexual attractions in my head said I'm not a ticking time bomb.
Extracts 14 and 15 demonstrate the importance of trust in the therapeutic relationships with
this client group and how positive experiences following disclosure can enhance trust, leading
to open discussion between therapist and client. Disclosure was seen as enabling acceptance
of self and of their sexual attraction and that they are not a “ticking time bomb” or “sex
offenders in waiting,” but rather individuals who need help and support. In this sample
roughly a quarter of those who disclosed (n = 18) had outright positive experiences of
disclosure and in most of those cases it was the therapists’ characteristics and response that
was the main reason.

24
However, roughly the same number of participants (n = 17) had negative experiences
following disclosure and again the therapist response was perceived as crucial in this
experience.
Extract 16: Therapist became suddenly cold and abrasive. Gave me a lecture on how
she disapproved of any form of adult child sexual contact. Told me she could do
nothing more for me than suggest I attend Parents Anonymous session. End of
therapy.
Extract 17: I feel it resulted in a very negative reaction by the therapist. A female she
couldn't/wouldn't acknowledge that my feelings were anything but evil/abhorrent. That
all I wanted to do was go out and rape children!
Extracts 16 and 17 highlight the negative impacts of disclosure and how this led to a
discontinuation and a reluctance to engage in any further therapeutic work for some
individuals. The negative “cold” and rejecting reaction only reinforced pre-existing negative
feelings and it appeared related to termination of therapy.
Discussion
Dating back to Freud, the clinical belief that disclosure of secrets is mostly beneficial
for therapy clients is widespread (Farber et al., 2019), even though the empirical literature
reveals a more complicated picture for many populations (Blanchard & Farber, 2020; Farber
et al., 2009). In line with a previous survey about disclosure experiences among
pedohebephilic clients in a non-clinical context (Elchuk et al., 2022), the perceived outcomes
of disclosing sexual attractions to children in therapy are associated with the reaction of the
therapist, with a more supportive therapist reaction relating to better therapy outcomes and a
stronger alliance. When support is being withheld, clients are unlikely to be able to “reap the
benefits of revealing secrets so often touted by researchers” (Kelly & McKillop, 1996, p.
461).

25
Not disclosing their sexual attraction to children was also common among this sample,
with about a third reporting to not have disclosed. People with a more exclusive attraction to
children were more likely to disclose to their therapist. This is in line with previous research
indicating that non-exclusive sexual attraction to children is associated with lower levels of
distress and/or a lower perceived need for therapy (Ahlers et al., 2011; Dombert et al., 2016).
Participants who had not disclosed perceived the risk of being reported to authorities by a
therapist or the negative intrapersonal effects of rejection by a therapist as being too great.
This result aligns with prior results on barriers to seeking mental health therapy (Grady et al.,
2019; Houtepen et al., 2016) and extends our understanding that these barriers exert an
influence on pedohebephilic clients’ decision-making within therapy.
For other participants, the distress, desperation, and functional impairment they were
experiencing outweighed perceived risks of disclosure. Others searched for therapists who
they knew were experts in the field or have been recommended to them to maximize their
chances of receiving support. Although we identified the fear of being reported as a common
concern in the qualitative section, quantitative analyses found no link between disclosure and
the belief that mandatory reporting laws were in place. This is not necessarily contradictory,
as one refers to participants’ perception of mandatory reporting law, while the other refers to
the subjective apprehension of being reported. Good knowledge of the legal situation may
also assuage fears, when participants understand what information they can disclose without
triggering a report. Some participants provided specifics for disclosure experiences in therapy,
which resonate with results reported in previous research (e.g., Houtepen et al., 2016;
Levenson & Grady, 2019; Parr & Pearson, 2019). Negative experiences included, for
instance, rejection by a therapist or disappointment over not having received the help and
support they had hoped for. This is also in line with Levenson and Grady (2019) who found
that the most helpful characteristics of professionals encountered by people with a sexual
attraction to children was consistent with the general therapeutic literature (e.g., warmth,

26
empathy, positive regard). Furthermore, the present research confirmed the positive link
between disclosure and alliance described in previous research (Kelly & Yuan, 2009).
Limitations
Due to the self-report, correlational, and retrospective nature of our data, there are
alternative explanations to our findings that cannot be ruled out. It is unclear whether
disclosure occurred because of a strong alliance, whether a strong alliance resulted from
disclosure, or whether a third variable, such as the therapists’ skill or the client’s general
secretiveness (Kelly & Yip, 2006) can explain the observed link. Furthermore, due to the non-
experimental nature of our comparison, participating pedohebephilic clients who disclosed
may differ from pedohebephilic clients who did not disclose in ways that have affected
outcome variables or the likelihood of receiving support, such as the strength of their
attraction to children relative to their attraction to adults or the length of therapy.
The use of self-report data presents another caveat, as memory is likely to be biased or
incomplete. For instance, people with depression are more likely to recall negative events as
opposed to positive events and to interpret ambiguous situations as more negative compared
to individuals with good mental health (Mathews & MacLeod, 2005). Lokhorst and Reich
(2022) have found evidence for a possible halo effect, whereby observers rated the therapy
alliance of a videotaped therapeutic session as worse when they were informed that the
therapy outcome was negative as opposed to positive. Additionally, while some participants
reported to be in therapy at the time of data collection, others have had their last therapy
session many years ago and may not remember it in detail. Moreover, while the addition of
qualitative analysis augmented the quantitative study, the online format did not allow for
further inquiry or follow-up questions.
Our sample is not representative of pedohebephilic people, and likely to be biased
towards people who are more fluent in English and more engaged in online communities. It is
possible that people who we were not able to reach would have reported different experiences.

27
We were also not able to reach the pre-registered sample size of 158. This was in part due to
our strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Honesty and seriousness checks helped detect
participants who were not providing high quality data. Yet, as the data quality items appeared
at the end of the survey, we delete all cases who dropped out prior to these items being
presented, even though their responses may have been honest. While we would encourage the
use of these or similar quality checks, we strongly recommend placing them at the midpoint
of the survey and after all items that researchers would expect to be particularly sensitive. We
could have also increased our sample size by changing pre-registered inclusion criteria,
particularly with regards to data from pedohebephilic clients who are more attracted to adult
partners than children, that is, teleiophilic men with a nontrivial degree of attraction to
children. Yet, as this group tends to not perceive their (non-dominant) attraction to children as
problematic nor to perceive a need for therapy in relation to this attraction (Ahlers et al.,
2011), we believe that the inclusion of this group would have complicated the interpretation
of our findings. Furthermore, we would discourage to ascertain pedophilia, hebephilia, or
teleiophilia based on responses to single items of our measure to assess self-reported sexual
attraction, rather than difference scores.
Implications and Outlook
The present study indicates that a non-negligible number of people who are attracted
to children do not disclose their attraction to their therapist. This is a relatively novel finding,
as few prior studies have assessed whether pedohebephilic clients had disclosed to (prior)
therapists. The authors are only aware of one prior study, which reports that 19 out of 40
clients in a German prevention project who had been in therapy before had not disclosed their
sexual attraction to their therapist (Marx et al., 2019). From the clients’ point of view, not
disclosing is rational, if it can be expected that it leads to a negative reaction in the therapist.
The desperation that some pedohebephilic individuals reported as a driver of making a
disclosure should alert therapists to an acute state of vulnerability, which requires a high level

28
of care and support. Scientists need to be aware that secret-keeping commonly occurs even in
supposedly trusting or “safe” therapeutic relationships (Farber, 2003) and that pedohebephilic
clients are no exception to this rule. In fact, they may have more reason than other client
groups to expect that the therapist would reject them.
One main implication of the present findings, in combination with past research, is
that therapists continue to work towards establishing strong working alliances and therapeutic
relationships with clients. Clients who perceive a close bond and alliance with their therapist
tend to be more willing to disclose person information (Bachelor, 2013; Cruwys et al., 2023).
Alliance-building is a central feature of effective psychotherapy (Flückiger et al., 2018) and
may be of particular relevance for pedohebephilic clients, even if the therapist is unaware of
these interests. Part of these recommendations include the implication that therapists should
monitor their clients’ reactions when they speak about difficult and shameful subjects (Farber
et al., 2009). Furthermore, therapists can reflect on how they present informed consent
information and their mandatory reporting obligations. Clearly communicating the therapist’s
obligations may be central to providing pedohebephilic clients with the understanding of the
ethical and legal strictures in which therapy takes place. These obligations differ between
different legislations, with some allowing a breach of confidentiality only as a means of
averting a clear and imminent danger to a child (Beier et al., 2009), while others require
therapists to report any past or planned sexual offending. Recent scholarship provides
thorough-going reviews of these ethical and legal strictures to guide clinicians (M. C. Kenny
et al., 2017; McPhail et al., 2018).
Declarations and ethics statements
Ethical approval. The study was approved by the Board for Research Ethics at Åbo
Akademi University.

29
Informed consent from participants. Informed consent was obtained at the
beginning of the online survey.
Competing interests. The authors have no competing interests to report.
Funding. This study was funded by a personal grant (application number 333761) to
the first author from the Academy of Finland.
Author contributions. A1 designed and planned the survey, with substantial
contributions from the remaining authors. All authors contributed to data collection. A1
conducted the quantitative analyses, with substantial contributions from A3. A2 conducted the
qualitative analyses. A1 wrote the article, with substantial contributions from A2 and A3. A4
critically revised the article.
References
Ahlers, C. J., Schaefer, G. A., Mundt, I. A., Roll, S., Englert, H., Willich, S. N., & Beier, K.
M. (2011). How unusual are the contents of paraphilias? Paraphilia-associated sexual
arousal patterns in a community-based sample of men. The Journal of Sexual
Medicine, 8(5), 1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01597.x
Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to
improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 527-535.
Bachelor, A. (2013). Clients’ and therapists’ views of the therapeutic alliance: Similarities,
differences and relationship to therapy outcome. Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, 20(2), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.792
Bártová, K., Androvičová, R., Krejčová, L., Weiss, P., & Klapilová, K. (2021). The
prevalence of paraphilic interests in the Czech population: Preference, arousal, the use
of pornography, fantasy, and behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 0(0), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1707468

30
Baumann, E. C., & Hill, C. E. (2016). Client concealment and disclosure of secrets in
outpatient psychotherapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 53–75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2015.1023698
Beier, K. M., Ahlers, C. J., Goecker, D., Neutze, J., Mundt, I. A., Hupp, E., & Schaefer, G. A.
(2009). Can pedophiles be reached for primary prevention of child sexual abuse? First
results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(6), 851–867.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940903174188
Blanchard, M., & Farber, B. A. (2016). Lying in psychotherapy: Why and what clients don’t
tell their therapist about therapy and their relationship. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 29(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2015.1085365
Blanchard, M., & Farber, B. A. (2020). “It is never okay to talk about suicide”: Patients’
reasons for concealing suicidal ideation in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research,
30(1), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2018.1543977
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA?
Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic
approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise
research. In B. Smith & A. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative
research in sport and exercise (Vol. 1, pp. 191–205). London, UK: Routledge.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for
beginners. Sage.

31
Cruwys, T., Lee, G. C., Robertson, A. M., Haslam, C., Sterling, N., Platow, M. J., Williams,
E., Haslam, S. A., & Walter, Z. C. (2023). Therapists who foster social identification
build stronger therapeutic working alliance and have better client outcomes.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 124, 152394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2023.152394
de Wet, J., & Erasmus, Z. (2005). Towards rigour in qualitative analysis. Qualitative
Research Journal, 5(1), 27–40.
Dombert, B., Schmidt, A. F., 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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1020108
Duncan, B. L. (2012). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS):
The heart and soul of Change Project. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
53(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027762
Elchuk, D. L., McPhail, I. V., & Olver, M. E. (2022). Stigma-related stress, complex
correlates of disclosure, mental health, and loneliness in minor-attracted people.
Stigma and Health, 7(1), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000317
Farber, B. A. (2003). Patient self-disclosure: A review of the research. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 59(5), 589–600.
Farber, B. A., Blanchard, M., & Love, M. (2019). Secrets and Lies in Psychotherapy (1st
edition). American Psychological Association.
Farber, B. A., Khurgin-Bott, R., & Feldman, S. (2009). The benefits and risks of patient self-
disclosure in the psychotherapy of women with a history of childhood sexual abuse.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 46(1), 52.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015136

32
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Flentje, A., Heck, N. C., Brennan, J. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2020). The relationship between
minority stress and biological outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 43(5), 673–694.
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult
psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55, 316–340.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000172
Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 823.
Friedrich, S., Konietschke, F., & Pauly, M. (2019). Resampling-based analysis of multivariate
data and repeated measures designs with the R package MANOVA. RM. R J., 11(2),
380–400.
Grady, M. D., Levenson, J. S., Mesias, G., Kavanagh, S., & Charles, J. (2019). “I can’t talk
about that”: Stigma and fear as barriers to preventive services for minor-attracted
persons. Stigma and Health, 4(4), 400. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000154
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005).
Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52(2), 224.
Heasman, A., & Foreman, T. (2019). Bioethical issues and secondary prevention for
nonoffending individuals with pedophilia. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics,
28(2), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180119000094
Hill, C. E., Gelso, C. J., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Client concealment and self-presentation in
therapy: Comment on Kelly (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 495–500.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.495

33
Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., Cogar, M. C., & Denman, D. W. (1993). Beneath the surface of
long-term therapy: Therapist and client report of their own and each other’s covert
processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(3), 278.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.40.3.278
Hook, A., & Andrews, B. (2005). The relationship of non-disclosure in therapy to shame and
depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 425–438.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X34165
Houtepen, J. A. B. M., Sijtsema, J. J., & Bogaerts, S. (2016). Being sexually attracted to
minors: Sexual development, coping with forbidden feelings, and relieving sexual
arousal in self-identified pedophiles. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 48–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1061077
Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of
current practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal
of Human–Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1087664
Jahnke, S., Blagden, N., & Hill, L. (2022). Pedophile, child lover, or minor-attracted person?
Attitudes toward labels among people who are sexually attracted to children. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 51(8), 4125–4139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02331-6
Jahnke, S., & Malón, A. (2019). How pedohebephilic men think about adult-child sex: Effects
of child gender and physical maturity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(1), 90–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1503665
Jahnke, S., McPhail, I. V., Antfolk, J. (2023). Stigma processes and willingness to seek
treatment among pedohebephilic people. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Jahnke, S., Schmidt, A. F., Geradt, M., & Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigma-related stress and its
correlates among men with pedophilic sexual interests. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
44(8), 2173–2187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0503-7

34
Jahnke, S., Schmidt, A. F., Klöckner, A., & Hoyer, J. (2022). Neurodevelopmental
differences, pedohebephilia, and sexual offending: Findings from two online surveys.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(2), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-
02228-w
Kahn, J. H., Achter, J. A., & Shambaugh, E. J. (2001). Client distress disclosure,
characteristics at intake, and outcome in brief counseling. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 48(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.2.203
Kelly, A. E. (1998). Clients' secret keeping in outpatient therapy. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45(1), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.50
Kelly, A. E., & McKillop, K. J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal secrets.
Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 450.
Kelly, A. E., & Yip, J. J. (2006). Is keeping a secret or being a secretive person linked to
psychological symptoms? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1349–1370.
Kelly, A. E., & Yuan, K.-H. (2009). Clients’ secret keeping and the working alliance in adult
outpatient therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 46(2), 193.
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in
models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–
507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
Kenny, M. C., Abreu, R. L., Marchena, M. T., Helpingstine, C., Lopez-Griman, A., &
Mathews, B. (2017). Legal and clinical guidelines for making a child maltreatment
report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(6), 469.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000166
Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualization, measurement,
and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 439–455.

35
Lasher, M. P., & Stinson, J. D. (2017). Adults with pedophilic interests in the United States:
Current practices and suggestions for future policy and research. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0822-3
Lawrence, A. L., & Willis, G. M. (2021). Understanding and challenging stigma associated
with sexual interest in children: A systematic review. International Journal of Sexual
Health, 33(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2020.1865498
Levenson, J. S., & Grady, M. D. (2019). Preventing sexual abuse: Perspectives of minor-
attracted persons about seeking help. Sexual Abuse, 31(8), 991–1013.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218797713
Levenson, J. S., Grady, M. D., & Morin, J. W. (2020). Beyond the “ick factor”: Counseling
non-offending persons with pedophilia. Clinical Social Work Journal., 48(4), 380–
388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-019-00712-4
Lokhorst, S. L., & Reich, C. M. (2022). The alliance-outcome correlation: Is there a halo
effect? Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. https://doi.org/10.1037/int0000285
Love, M., & Farber, B. A. (2017). Let’s not talk about sex. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
73(11), 1489–1498. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22530
Love, M., & Farber, B. A. (2019). Honesty in psychotherapy: Results of an online survey
comparing high vs. low self-concealers. Psychotherapy Research, 29(5), 607–620.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2017.1417652
Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (1999). Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and emotional
implications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4),
735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.735
Marx, C. M., Subic-Wrana, C., & Beutel, M. E. (2019). Klinische Merkmale der
Inanspruchnehmer einer Präventionsambulanz für Pädophilie. Psychotherapeut, 64(2),
120–126.

36
Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (2005). Cognitive vulnerability to emotional disorders. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology(2005), 1(1), 167–195.
McPhail, I. V., Stephens, S., & Heasman, A. (2018). Legal and ethical issues in treating
clients with pedohebephilic interests. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
59(4), 369. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000157
Meier, S. T. (2020). Construct validity of outcome rating Scale (ORS) scores in clinical
samples: Extension of Harris, Murphy, and Rakes’ (2019) narrative review. Journal of
Evidence-Based Social Work (2019), 17(6), 648–661.
https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1784345
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. sage.
Murphy, M. G., Rakes, S., & Harris, R. M. (2020). The psychometric properties of the session
rating scale: A narrative review. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 17(3), 279–
299. https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1729281
Parr, J., & Pearson, D. (2019). Non-offending minor-attracted persons: Professional
practitioners’ views on the barriers to seeking and receiving their help. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 28(8), 945–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1663970
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process.
Psychological Science, 8(3), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1997.tb00403.x
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research
paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126.

37
Pope, K. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (1994). Therapists as patients: A national survey of
psychologists’ experiences, problems, and beliefs. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 25(3), 247.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rosseel, Y., Jorgensen, T. D., Oberski, D., Byrnes, J., Vanbrabant, L., Savalei, V., Merkle, E.,
Hallquist, M., Rhemtulla, M., Katsikatsou, M., Barendse, M., & Scharf, F. (2020).
lavaan: Latent Variable Analysis (0.6-6). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lavaan
Schmidt, A. F., & Niehaus, S. (2022). Outpatient therapists’ perspectives on working with
persons who are sexually interested in minors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(8),
4157–4178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02377-6
Schuler, M., Gieseler, H., Schweder, K. W., Heyden, M. von, & Beier, K. M. (2021).
Characteristics of the users of Troubled Desire, a web-based self-management App for
individuals with sexual interest in children: Descriptive analysis of self-assessment
data. JMIR Mental Health, 8(2), e22277. https://doi.org/10.2196/22277
Sischka, P. E., Décieux, J. P., Mergener, A., Neufang, K. M., & Schmidt, A. F. (2022). The
impact of forced answering and reactance on answering behavior in online surveys.
Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 405-425.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320907067
Slepian, M. L., Chun, J. S., & Mason, M. F. (2017). The experience of secrecy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000085
Smith, J. A. (2015). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Smith, T. D., & McMillan, B. F. (2001). A primer of model fit indices in structural equation
modeling. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449231

38
Smyth, J. M. (1998). Written emotional expression: Effect sizes, outcome types, and
moderating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 174.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.1.174
Stephens, S., McPhail, I. V., Heasman, A., & Moss, S. (2021). Mandatory reporting and
clinician decision-making when a client discloses sexual interest in children.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du
Comportement, 53(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000247
Stiels-Glenn, M. (2010). The availability of outpatient psychotherapy for paedophiles in
Germany. Recht & Psychiatrie, 28, 74–80.
Stiles, W. B. (1995). Disclosure as a speech act: Is it psychotherapeutic to disclose? In J. W.
Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health (pp. 71–91). American Psychological
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10182-004
West, R. M. (2021). Best practice in statistics: Use the Welch t-test when testing the
difference between two groups. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 58(4), 267–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563221992088

39
Table 1. Univariate comparisons of clients who did and did not disclose on study variables.
Note. We only conducted nonparametric sensitivity tests (i.e., Mann-Whitney U-tests) if the variable contained outliers in the D+, D-, or both groups.
Variables
Nondisclosers
Disclosers
95% CI of the
mean differenceb
Nonparametric
sensitivity test
χ2-tests
Effect sizes
α
M
SD
n
M
SD
n
lower
upper
U
p
χ2(df)
p
Hedge’s g
Cramer’s V
Pedohebephilic index
-
2.88
2.55
40
4.47
2.96
96
-2.55
-0.63
1323.5
.004
0.56
Male-oriented pedohebephilic
index
-
-0.30
5.63
40
0.00
6.44
96
-2.44
1.84
-
-
0.05
Pedophilic index
-
0.05
3.20
40
1.54
3.78
96
-2.71
-0.27
1382.0
.010
0.41
Educational attainment: %
Finished and got credit for
12th grade
-
88
-
40
83
-
96
-
-
-
-
0.38(1
)
.54
0
.05
In therapy at the moment (%
yes)
-
25
-
40
43
-
96
-
-
-
-
3.78
.05
2
.17
Years since last therapy
-
4.39
4.96
38
4.85
8.04
95
-2.61
1.77
2009.0
.302
0.06
Sex (% female)
-
28
-
40
11
-
96
-
-
-
-
5.36(1
)
.02
1
.20
Gender identity (% female/ %
other a)
-
5/ 15
-
40
9/ 10
-
96
-
-
-
-
1.17(2
)
.55
6
.09
Age
-
31.3
0
11.62
40
37.4
1
14.5
5
96
-10.55
-1.42
1446.0
.024
0.44
Functioning at pretreatment
.86
27.3
5
19.10
39
29.1
5
20.8
0
95
-8.92
5.54
1771.5
.693
0.09
Functioning at posttreatment
.89
49.1
3
22.93
37
53.5
5
22.5
3
93
-12.89
4.38
-
-
0.19
Client Improvement
-
22.6
1
23.07
37
24.5
5
26.2
3
93
-10.90
7.23
-
-
0.08
Alliance
.95
49.1
1
25.66
37
66.9
7
31.0
5
95
-28.05
-7.36
-
-
0.60
Mandatory reporting beliefs
-
1.87
1.17
39
2.23
1.41
96
-0.80
0.12
1636.5
.225
0.26
Perceived Effects of
Disclosure in Therapy (items
2-5)
.90
-
-
-
5.45
1.66
96
-
-
-
-

40
a Other labels: 7 participants self-labeled as non-binary, every other label was only given once: agender, agender/genderless, divers, genderfluid,
genderfluid/nonbinary, Male identifying nonbinary, non-binary masculine, none and void.
b Based on 1000 bootstrap samples, we used the Welch (or Satterthwaite) approximation to the degrees of freedom.

41
Table 2. Univariate comparisons of disclosure and no discloser group on treatment outcomes, depending on perceived therapist support (not pre-
registered).
a due to missings, actual n's were ranging between 37 and 39.
b due to missings, actual n's were ranging between 24 and 25.
c due to missings, actual n's were ranging between 63 and 64.
d based on 1000 bootstrap samples, we used the Welch (or Satterthwaite) approximation to the degrees of freedom.
e We conducted nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests as sensitivity tests for all comparisons that were affected by outliers. (1) vs. (2): U = 463.5, p = .746 for Modified Outcome
Rating Scale before, U = 636.5, p = .005 for Outcome Change Score; (1) vs. (3): U = 1221.5, p = .860 for Modified Outcome Rating Scale before, U = 853, p = .026 for Outcome
Change Score, U = 364, p < .001 for Modified Session Rating Scale; (2) vs. (3): U =794, p = .960 for Modified Outcome Rating Scale before, U = 297, p < .001 for Outcome
Change Score, U = 154.5, p < .001 for Modified Session Rating Scale.
f for this comparison, Mann-Whitney U-tests finds a significant group difference.
Variables
(1) No
disclosure (D-, n
= 40 a)
(2) Disclosure, no
support (D+S-, n = 25 b)
(3) Disclosure,
support (D+S+, n =
64 c)
95% CI of the mean differenced, Hedge’s g
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
(1) vs (2)
(1) vs (3)
(2) vs (3)
Functioning at
pretreatment
27.35
19.10
29.37
21.94
28.10
20.13
[-12.77, 7.87] e,
0.10
[-8.38, 7.13] e,
0.04
[ -8.11, 11.69] e,
0.06
Functioning at
postreatment
49.13
22.93
35.90
25.90
59.87
18.07
[0.71, 25.36],
0.54
[ -19.17, -2.11],
0.53
[-34.78, -12.53],
1.16
Client
Improvement
22.61
23.07
6.61
19.90
31.96
25.78
[5.06, 26.47] e,
0.72
[-18.96, 0.35] e, f,
0.37
[-34.88, -14.58] e,
1.03
Alliance
49.11
25.66
32.66
27.73
81.25
20.67
[2.75, 29.91],
0.61
[-41.56, -22.59] e,
1.41
[-59.93, -36.51] e,
2.11

42
Supplemental Materials
Table S1
Confirmatory factor analysis of the items from the Perceived Effects of Disclosure in
Therapy Scale (1- strongly disagree, 7- strongly agree)
Item
M
SD
Factor
loadings 6-
item scalea
Factor
loadings 5-
item scaleb
1) Coming out to my therapist had been a
painful process for me.
4.01
2.14
.36
-
2) My therapist had become a real support
regarding my sexual attraction to
children.
4.88
2.06
.75
.78
3) My therapist did not recognize my
sexual attraction to children as
legitimate.
2.45
1.88
.82
.83
4) I felt like I could never gain my
therapist’s respect because of my sexual
attraction to children.
2.70
2.11
.92
.96
5) I believe that my therapist was reluctant
to work with me because I was sexually
attracted to children.
2.46
1.97
.88
.79
6) Being sexually attracted to children has
destroyed my working alliance with my
therapist.
2.08
1.76
.99
.93
a robust χ2 (df = 9) = 32.49, p < .001, robust RMSEA = .17, 95% CI [.11, .23], robust CFI =
.99
b we specified residual covariances for items 5 and 6, fit indices: robust χ2 (df = 4) = 9.01, p =
.061, robust RMSEA = .12, 95% CI = [.00, .22], CFI = 1.00