IMO, one can't reach any serious, broad conclusions with such a limited sample.
re: your inquiry about methodology:
One of my friends, as part of his Phd. thesis, assisted a professor at Emory with a study on pedophiles. The technique they used to measure arousal/erection/"Degree of Tumescence" was to place a wired, rubber banded contraption on the penis of the subject, and then show him various slides of children (including some pornography, I assume.) As the subject became aroused (or not) their tumescence-- a measure of blood that flows to the penis causing erection, increased, and expanded the rubber band. Determining the degree of arousal (insignificant,moderate,definite) must have been established with an a priori baseline of "definite" arousal for each of the subjects.
I imagine this same technique was used for the University of Georgia Study on Homophobia.
Further, to my friend's studies, they conducted experiments which involved giving test subjects a negative reinforcement (mild shock) when they responded positively to the stimulus (photos) After some period, the subjects were again tested without the negative reinforcement. As I recall, the short term efficacy of this "treatment" for pedophilia was significant, but the long term efficacy was marginal. Pedophilia is an insidious disorder. |
