Single-Exposure Messages for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Online Trial Testing Educational and Humanizing Approaches

Single-Exposure Messages for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Online Trial Testing Educational and Humanizing Approaches | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Single-Exposure Messages for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Online Trial Testing Educational and Humanizing Approaches Viola Westfal, Maximilian von Heyden This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8325567/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Child sexual abuse and exploitation, including online material depicting such acts, constitute a major public health concern. Effective prevention requires public understanding and destigmatization, yet communication strategies on this topic face persistent misconceptions and strong emotional reactions. This randomized controlled online study examined whether brief educational and humanizing communication interventions could improve knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions related to prevention, while avoiding adverse emotional or ethical effects. Methods A total of 2,019 adults from Spain and Portugal were recruited via an online panel and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: an educational message, a humanizing message with empathy focus, a humanizing message with prevention focus, or a neutral control message. Each intervention consisted of a short video and accompanying text presented as part of a health information campaign. Measures included affective state, stigma-related attitudes, literacy about therapeutic options, openness toward the topic, and behavioral intention to seek information. Linear mixed-effects, nonparametric longitudinal, and ordinal mixed-effects models were used to assess intervention effects over time. Moderation analyses examined demographic influences, and chi-square tests assessed differences in dropout rates. Results Exposure to any intervention message led to significant short-term changes in affective responses, with lower positive valence and slightly higher arousal compared to the control group (medium effect for valence, small for arousal). No significant differences emerged for stigma dimensions, knowledge, openness, or behavioral intentions. All three intervention formats performed similarly. No evidence of adverse or rebound effects on stigma or help-seeking beliefs was observed. Moderation analyses revealed that gender, education, parental status, language background, and adverse childhood experiences influenced affective or attitudinal responses, whereas age did not. Dropout rates did not differ across conditions, indicating no differential attrition. Conclusions Brief, ethically sound communication interventions can evoke emotional engagement without increasing stigma or avoidance. While single exposures appear insufficient to change attitudes or behavior, such formats may serve as a foundation for repeated, multi-channel prevention messaging integrated into broader educational efforts. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00038927, retrospectively registered on 09/01/2026. Child sexual abuse prevention Child sexual abuse material Public health communication Stigma reduction Psychoeducation Humanizing interventions Health messaging Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background Child sexual exploitation and abuse, especially online, is increasingly recognized as a global public health concern. A recent meta-analysis by Fry and colleagues ( 2025 ) found that approximately 12.5% of children experienced sexual exploitation within the last year; child lifetime exposure was found to have a prevalence of 11.5%. However, child sexual abuse is considered as preventable, particularly through early intervention, education, and effective policy implementation (Fix et al., 2021 ). In order to understand how prevention efforts can be implemented, it is necessary to first clarify the key concepts central to this discussion: According to the World Health Organization ( 2006 ), child sexual abuse (CSA) is “the involvement of a child in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to give informed consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared and cannot give consent, or that violates the laws or social taboos of society. Child sexual abuse is evidenced by this activity between a child and an adult or another child who by age or development is in a relationship of responsibility, trust or power, the activity being intended to gratify or satisfy the needs of the other person.” The term “child sexual abuse material” (CSAM) is increasingly adopted in place of “child pornography” , as it more accurately reflects the abusive and exploitative nature of such content. The rationale behind this shift in terminology is that material depicting or representing sexual acts involving children constitutes a form of child sexual abuse, regardless of the medium or intent, and should not be trivialized by the term “pornography” ( Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse , 2016). CSAM is typically used to refer to a subset of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) that explicitly involves actual abuse or focuses on the anal or genital regions of the child ( Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse , 2016). Pedophilia , in basic terms, refers to a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Clinically, it is only considered a disorder ( pedophilic disorder ) when this interest is intense, persistent, and focused, typically manifested through recurring sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving children who have not yet reached puberty. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) , a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder requires that the individual is at least 16 years old, the child of interest is at least five years younger, and that the individual has either acted on these urges or experiences significant distress because of them (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ). While the existence of a pedophilic sexual preference or pedophilic disorder is by no means equivalent to committing CSA/M, pedophilia or pedophilic disorder is nevertheless considered a risk factor for sexual offenses involving children (Seto, 2018 ). Although CSAM is a growing concern within global child protection efforts, the development and implementation of effective prevention strategies face challenges. One of these are public perception and responses related to CSA and CSAM: Research suggests that CSA offenses elicit stronger emotional reactions than other crimes, even murder (Quinn et al., 2004 ). This can lead to an inaccurate assessment of risk and policy decision making undermining evidence-based practices (Fix et al., 2021 ; Glina et al., 2022 ; Hunn et al., 2022 ). The public conflation of pedophilia with the consumption of CSAM reinforces stigmatization (Langvik et al., 2024 ; Richards, 2018 ). As a result, individuals who consume or are at risk of consuming CSAM may experience shame and fear of judgment, both of which are known to hinder help-seeking behavior (Langvik et al., 2024 ). Stigma in the context of CSA/M prevention Stigma theory, as formulated by Link and Phelan ( 2001 ) and extended through the Minority Stress Model (Meyer, 2003 ), provides a crucial framework for understanding the barriers to prevention efforts in CSA/M contexts. Stigma operates through a multi-level process: first through public stigma, which subsequently becomes internalized as self-stigma among affected individuals (Corrigan et al., 2014 ; Link & Phelan, 2001 ). In the context of individuals at risk of CSA/M, this stigmatization process creates a significant barrier to prevention and treatment. As Meyer ( 2003 ) describes in the Minority Stress Model, chronic exposure to stigma-related stress – including discrimination, anticipated stigma, and internalized negative attitudes – contributes to psychological distress and maladaptive coping mechanisms. Research specific to this population demonstrates that individuals attracted to children who internalize stigmatizing attitudes experience heightened shame, depression, and anxiety (Grady et al., 2019 ). Critically, this internalized stigma directly impairs help-seeking behavior. As Grady and colleagues ( 2019 ) found in their study with “minor-attracted persons” 1 , internalized stigma, fear of being reported, and negative reactions from therapists concerns represent major barriers preventing individuals from seeking mental health support. This creates a paradoxical situation that undermines evidence-based prevention strategies. While society aims to prevent child sexual abuse through deterrence and punishment, stigmatization reduces the likelihood that individuals at risk will voluntarily seek help before engaging in harmful behavior (Quinn et al., 2004 ). As Lawrence and Willis ( 2022 ) note, “anti-stigma interventions are therefore an important component of public health approaches to the prevention of child sexual abuse, as well as an important strategy for reducing adverse outcomes among nonoffending individuals living with a sexual interest in children”. For the general public, anti-stigma interventions serve to correct misconceptions about pedophilia and CSAM users, distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual behavior, and foster understanding of prevention and treatment possibilities. For individuals at risk, anti-stigma interventions aim to reduce anticipated stigma that prevents help-seeking, increase awareness of available treatment and support services, and create a social environment supports treatment engagement. Communication strategies in CSA/M prevention Although public misconceptions remain widespread, research shows that gaps between expert knowledge and public understanding can be closed (Fix et al., 2021 ). To address the multi-faceted challenges outlined above, the present study tested three distinct communication approaches. Educational interventions (Psycho)educational interventions operate primarily through knowledge increase and stereotype correction. This approach is grounded in the assumption that stigma persists due to misinformation and stereotype activation (Corrigan et al., 2014 ). Research has demonstrated that psychoeducational interventions can shift attitudes towards people who committed sexual offenses (Wurtele, 2018 , 2021 ), people with a sexual interest in children (Gunnarsdottir, 2018 ; Harper et al., 2018 ; Jara & Jeglic, 2021 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2021 ; Moss, 2019 ), and may potentially influence perceptions of CSAM-related behavior as well (Steel et al., 2022 ). The educational intervention in our study provides evidence-based information about pedophilia, the distinction from child sexual abuse, information about treatment possibilities, and the reality that not all individuals with such interests commit offenses. This directly addresses the public's knowledge gaps while remaining grounded in scientific evidence. Humanizing interventions Another promising approach to reduce stigma and change public perceptions are narrative humanization techniques. By providing tangible and accurate depictions of non-offending individuals with a sexual interest in children humanizing narratives evidently lead to an improvement in public attitudes (Harper et al., 2018 , 2022 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2021 ). In the present study, two distinct forms of humanizing interventions were implemented: one with an empathy focus and another with a prevention focus. The empathy-focused humanizing intervention is grounded in research on dehumanization processes within stigma formation. According to Link and Phelan’s ( 2001 ) stigma theory, stigma operates not only through false beliefs but also through emotional dehumanization – the portrayal of stigmatized individuals as less than human and dangerous. In the context of CSA/M, public discourse frequently employs dehumanizing language such as “monsters” or “predators,” which serves to legitimize exclusion, punishment, and denial of treatment opportunities (Harper et al., 2022 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2022 ). The empathy-focused intervention seeks to counter these processes through narrative humanization, presenting first-person accounts of individuals at risk. Such personal narratives encourage audiences to imagine the internal experiences, emotions, and struggles of stigmatized individuals, thereby activating theory-of-mind processes that challenge dehumanizing perceptions (Harper et al., 2022 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2022 ) Moreover, narrative exposure can simulate elements of intergroup contact (contact hypothesis; Allport, 1954 ), allowing audiences to experience empathy and perspective-taking even in the absence of direct interaction. In this study, the protagonist is portrayed as an individual coping with stigma and managing their attraction responsibly. The intervention thus emphasizes emotional connection and perspective-taking as mechanisms to reduce dehumanization. The prevention-focused humanizing intervention operates through self-efficacy enhancement. Drawing on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997 ), it assumes that self-efficacy beliefs, individuals’ confidence in their ability to enact behaviors that produce desired outcomes, are crucial determinants of behavior change. Exposure to narratives depicting successful self-management and prevention of offending behavior have the potential to increase belief in the possibility of prevention and in the effectiveness of rehabilitation-oriented approaches. By emphasizing the protagonist’s agency and ability to make responsible choices, this intervention counters the perception of uncontrollability and inevitability that underlies much of the stigma toward people with sexual interest in children (Lawrence & Willis, 2021 ; Levenson et al., 2017). The narrative highlights how the individual actively manages their sexuality, maintains appropriate boundaries, seeks support, and works toward a meaningful life, thereby conveying the potential for positive change and prevention. The present study As outlined above, public communication strategies targeting the prevention of CSA/M aim to achieve multiple interrelated goals: to increase knowledge, reduce stigma, diminish negative affective reactions, and promote openness and acceptance of support services among the general public. For individuals at risk, such strategies further aim to encourage help-seeking behavior and disrupt pathways to harmful behavior. While several studies have emphasized the potential of psychoeducation, stigma reduction, and narrative-based messaging, empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of these approaches remains limited to specific samples, e.g., English-only or student samples. In particular, there is a lack of systematically evaluated, randomized, controlled studies that assess the impact of specific messages in quasi-representative general population samples, especially outside English-speaking contexts. Moreover, cross-cultural differences in public perception of pedophilia, CSAM, and rehabilitation suggest that messaging strategies may not be equally effective across countries or sociocultural settings (Langvik et al., 2024 ). Yet much of the current literature is based on studies from North America, the UK, and Australia, leaving a gap in understanding how such interventions work in other cultural contexts. The present study aims to address this gap by systematically testing the three different intervention messages in a randomized controlled online experiment conducted with a quasi-representative sample from two non-English-speaking countries. To translate the outlined challenges into concrete intervention strategies, the present study tests communication approaches that were developed drawing on mechanisms of stigma reduction, attitude change, and behavior change techniques. Specifically, we investigated whether exposure to educational and humanizing interventions featuring an intervention for individuals at risk, in comparison to a control condition, had a measurable impact on outcomes related to knowledge, affective reactions, and stigmatization. The educational intervention seeks to address knowledge gaps and misinformation. This type of messaging is grounded in the idea that accurate information can reduce stigmatizing attitudes by correcting misconceptions. A humanizing intervention with an empathy focus was designed to foster emotional perspective-taking and thereby reducing dehumanization and stigma. A humanizing narrative with a prevention focus aims to enhance perceived behavioral control, personal agency, and belief in changeability, which are critical components for both public support of rehabilitative policies and for motivating at-risk individuals to seek help. The primary research questions (RQ) were as follows: RQ1a: Do educational vs. humanizing with prevention focus vs. humanizing with empathy focus interventions have an effect on attitude, behavioral intention, cognition and affect compared to a control group message? RQ1b: Do the interventions differ in their effectiveness with respect to the outcomes attitude, behavioral intention, cognition and affect? RQ1c: Are there any adverse effects, such as negative affective responses or increased stigma, that raise ethical concerns regarding message content or framing? In addition, as secondary research questions, we explored: RQ2a: Does the intervention impact differ as a function of participants’ demographics (e.g., having children, cultural background)? RQ2b: Does the type of intervention have an impact on the dropout rate? Methods Participants The participants were recruited via an agency (IntraResearch). The recruitment started in September 2023; the initial survey took place in mid-September 2023 for the Spanish sample and in early October 2023 for the Portuguese sample. Potential participants were invited to take part in a survey about a health information campaign and were provided with detailed study information. Participants received a standard compensation for their participation. To be included in the study, participants had to be at least 18 years old, live in Portugal or Spain, and had to have sufficient language skills in Spanish or Portuguese. The average survey completion time for the initial survey was M = 10.60 minutes ( SD = 3.93), and for the follow-up survey M = 5.01 minutes ( SD = 2.61). The initial sample consisted of N = 2395 participants who completed the first survey. Of these, n = 376 participants were excluded for different reasons (poor data quality 2 , multiple responses, sexual preference, CSAM consumption), resulting in a final sample size of N = 2019 for the initial survey. n = 1331 participants completed the follow-up survey; n = 1115 were found to be valid for the follow-up survey which corresponds to a return rate of 55.23% (Spanish: 46.65%; Portuguese: 64.17%). Figure 1 outlines in exclusion process leading to the final sample in detail. The demographic characteristics of the initial sample are depicted in Table 1 . Table 1 Participant demographics (initial survey) Language Portuguese Spanish Mean age (sd) 44.15 (12.84) 43.55 (12.49) Gender female (%) 489 (49.49) 557 (54.03) male (%) 499 (50.51) 474 (45.97) Living environment large city (%) 335 (33.91) 535 (51.89) medium-sized city (%) 424 (42.91) 300 (29.10) small city (%) 229 (23.18) 196 (19.01) Children (%) 626 (63.36) 656 (63.63) Education none (%) 1 (0.10) 1 (0.10) school (%) 50 (5.06) 118 (11.45) any kind of diploma that proves general qualification for university entrance (e.g., high school diploma) (%) 253 (25.61) 142 (13.77) vocational education (%) 120 (12.15) 288 (27.93) Bachelor’s or equivalent level (%) 381 (38.56) 336 (32.59) Master’s or equivalent level (%) 164 (16.60) 118 (11.45) doctoral or equivalent level (%) 19 (1.92) 28 (2.72) Procedure Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Data were collected via online questionnaires hosted on SoSci Survey. The study included two surveys: the baseline measurement (t 0 ) and the post-intervention measurement (t 1 ) were realized in one survey. A follow-up survey (t 2 ) was administered 3 to 4 weeks after the initial survey. Figure 2 illustrates the study design. Following the baseline assessment (t 0 ), participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group via SoSci Survey using a built-in randomizer. No stratification was applied. Participants were unaware of the study hypotheses and were blind to the group allocation. The intervention aimed to examine the effects of different health communication strategies on knowledge, stigma, affective response, and behavioral intentions in the context of CSAM prevention. Each participant received one of the following message formats (the messages are provided in Table 2 ): Intervention 1 (IN1) – educational message Participants in this group were presented with a short, text-based informational message providing accurate and destigmatizing facts about CSAM, pedophilia, and treatment effects (Harper et al., 2022 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2022 ). The term “so-called ‘child pornography’” was chosen because it is more familiar to the general population than “child sexual abuse material”. We are aware that this does not correspond to the recommended terminology explained at the beginning. To emphasize that the term must be questioned, “so-called” has been added each time the term is mentioned. The message clarified the distinction between pedophilia and offending behavior, emphasized the criminal nature and consequences of CSAM consumption, and highlighted the availability and effects of therapeutic support for individuals at risk. Intervention 2 (IN2) – humanization with empathy focus This condition featured a personal quote from “Luis,” a therapy client who described the emotional challenge and relief of disclosing his attraction and seeking help. The quote is deliberately vague so that it could refer to sexual attraction to children as well as the use of CSAM. The narrative was designed to foster empathy and identification by providing a realistic and relatable role model (Abraham & Michie, 2008 ; Harper et al., 2022 ). Intervention 3 (IN3) – humanization with prevention focus In this condition, participants read a quote from “Luis” expressing his motivation to avoid offending behavior and his engagement in therapy as a preventive strategy. This message emphasized self-control, treatment availability and efficacy, and personal responsibility, aiming to increase belief in changeability and to reduce punitive responses (Lawrence & Willis, 2022 ; Stelzmann et al., 2022 ). Control group (CG) Participants in the control group received no CSAM or pedophilia related content but general information about a rather common disease in accordance with the framing of a health information campaign. Each intervention group was exposed to the same video clip, accompanied by one of three different texts (see Table 2 ). The control group received a text about diabetes and a neutral, unrelated video. The interventions and the control stimuli were displayed for at least 30 seconds before participants were able to proceed to the next page of the survey. Each intervention message was combined with references to help offers for people who use CSAM (“Help for people who use child sexual abuse material (so-called ‘child pornography’): [you will find the original link at the end of the survey]”) and help offers for victims of sexual abuse (“Help for victims of sexual violence: [you will find the original link at the end of the survey]”). The interventions as well as the control group message were applied in Spanish and Portuguese. Therefore, we chose testimonial names that are common in both languages. Table 2 Interventions and control group message Group Video clip Text IN1 Man watching CSAM who is interrupted by his partner. He abruptly closes his laptop. At the end of the video the text “There is help – www.troubled-desire.com ” is displayed. The video is accompanied by thematically appropriate background sound. (duration: 18 seconds) Facts about so-called “child pornography”: • The production, distribution and use of images or videos depicting child sexual abuse (so-called “child pornography”) is a serious criminal offense to the detriment of children. • The use of child sexual abuse materials or the desire to do so may indicate pedophilia. • Pedophilia ≠ Pedophilic disorder: Not every person with pedophilia becomes an offender, and not every offender is a pedophile. • Therapy can help individuals who use child sexual abuse materials or fear to do so to control their behavior while improving life satisfaction. IN2 Luis, 28: “Talking about it for the first time wasn't easy, especially since I'm not one to talk about my feelings in a big way. It's quite difficult, but it's also a relief, because I've been carrying that around with me for years. And then there's someone who doesn't immediately say, you're the last scum of the earth, who also knows about the whole topic, which is also important.” IN3 Luis, 28: “I don't even want to be tempted to look at child pornography. Therapy is supposed to help me lead a life without ever committing a sexual assault on a child, and it supports me pretty well in that.” CG Person typing on a mobile phone with unspecific background music. At the end of the video the text “get advice” is displayed. (duration: 17 seconds) Around 10.5% of the world's adult population suffer from the metabolic disease diabetes. If left untreated, diabetes can lead to a person's death, either directly or indirectly through concomitant diseases. A healthy body weight, regular exercise and a balanced diet can reduce the risk of developing diabetes. Measures The outcome measures were selected to reflect the primary psychological and behavioral targets, as discussed above, of public health communication campaigns addressing CSAM prevention. Affective State The affective state of participants was measured using the Affect Grid (Russell et al., 1989 ). The Affect Grid is a single item scale that assesses the current affect along the dimensions of “pleasure – displeasure” and “arousal – sleepiness”. In the survey tool, the two dimensions were each scaled from 0 to 361, whereby a higher value on the dimension valence indicated a positive state and on the dimension arousal a state of low arousal. The original items were translated into Spanish and Portuguese, reviewed by native speakers and translated back to English to assure the appropriateness of translations. Participants assessed their affective state immediately before (t 0 ) and after the intervention (t 1 ). Stigma Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with a dominant sexual interest in children were determined using the stigma scale by Jahnke et al. ( 2015 ). The scale consists of four subscales, namely controllability, dangerousness, affective reaction, and social distance. Items were rated on 7-point Likert scales (1 = “do not agree at all” to 7 = “completely agree”). The participants completed the stigma scale at all three measurement time points. In accordance with the authors’ instructions, the items of the subscales controllability and social distance were summarized to form an average score. The items “dangerousness for children” and “dangerousness for adolescents” were also combined into one score. All other items were considered individually in the evaluation. The reverse coded items (social distance subscale items 1 to 4) were re-coded so that higher scores correspond to higher stigma values. The original items were translated into Spanish and Portuguese, reviewed by native speakers and translated back to English to assure the appropriateness of translations. The internal consistency of the scales in the current sample was acceptable for “social distance” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .77) and good for “controllability” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .84) and “dangerousness” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .81). Literacy Participants were asked to rate their knowledge about the availability of therapeutic offers for people who use CSAM and the perceived effectiveness of therapeutic offers on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”, 5 = “very well”). The literacy-related questions were gathered before the intervention (t 0 ) and in the follow-up survey (t 2 ). Openness, intention to act and self-reported behavior As a behavioral correlate of openness to the topic of CSAM and pedophilia, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they were interested in learning about the topic and would visit a relevant website (t 0 , t 1 ). Those two variables were integrated into the “openness” scale by averaging responses of both items (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.924, r = 0.859). In the follow-up survey (t 2 ), participants were asked if they would visit the website “Troubled Desire” and if they had visited the website since participating in the study. All questions, with the exception of the question about the actual website visit, were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”, 5 = “very much”). Analyses Descriptive statistics were calculated for all outcome variables to describe the sample and for an initial exploration of potential intervention effects. Mean, standard deviation, median and absolute number of cases were recorded for each dependent variable separately according to time of data collection (t 0 , t 1 , t 2 ) and experimental condition (IN1, IN2, IN3, CG). Absolute and relative frequencies were calculated for categorical data. Additionally, we examined response distributions by calculating skewness, kurtosis, ceiling and floor effects, where applicable. No procedures were used to fill in missing data, as this was not necessary due to the survey configuration. To address RQ1 (“Do the interventions impact stigma, affective states, and help-seeking behaviors?”), we employed a multi-faceted analytical strategy tailored to the distributional characteristics and measurement properties of each outcome variable. All analyses compared the three intervention groups to the control group using appropriate statistical methods for each outcome type. Affective state (valence and arousal) Linear mixed-effects models with heteroscedastic variance structures were implemented. Models included fixed effects for intervention group, time, and group × time interactions, with random intercepts for participants to account for repeated measures dependency. Heteroscedastic variance structures were applied to address unequal variances across groups and timepoints. Parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals were extracted to quantify effect directions and magnitudes. Aggregated stigma dimensions (controllability, social distance, dangerousness for children and adolescents) Nonparametric longitudinal data analysis was conducted using the nparLD package across three timepoints (baseline, post-intervention, follow-up). This approach was selected due to the ordinal nature of stigma measures and potential violations of normality assumptions. Models tested group, time, and group × time interaction effects using ANOVA-type statistics (ATS) with appropriate degrees of freedom corrections. Effect sizes were calculated using epsilon-squared (ε²). Single item stigma measures (dangerousness for adults and affective reactions fear, pity, and anger) Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied due to severe ceiling effects and ordinal mixed-effects model numerical instability. These nonparametric tests compared intervention groups to control at post-intervention timepoints. Effect sizes were quantified using epsilon-squared (ε²) and interpreted according to established benchmarks. Literacy, openness and behavioral intentions : Multiple analytical approaches were employed based on outcome characteristics: For openness (Learning Intentions), linear mixed-effects models robust to Central Limit Theorem assumptions were used despite normality violations, justified by large sample size ( N = 2,019). Models included group × time interactions across two timepoints (baseline, post-intervention). For literacy, mixed-effects models using cumulative link mixed models (CLMM) with logit links were fitted via the ordinal package for 5-point Likert scales across two timepoints (baseline, follow-up). For information-seeking intentions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on cross-sectional follow-up data for intentions to visit educational websites. For actual self-reported behavior, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyzed binary self-reported website visits at follow-up. RQ1b (“Do the interventions differ in their effectiveness with respect to the outcomes attitude, behavioral intention, cognition and affect?”) was addressed using post-hoc comparisons. When omnibus tests indicated potential group differences ( p < 0.10), pairwise post-hoc comparisons were conducted using method-appropriate approaches: Tukey HSD with family-wise error rate control for parametric outcomes; Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction for nonparametric outcomes; custom contrasts within ordinal mixed-effects framework with Bonferroni adjustment for ordinal outcomes; pairwise chi-square tests with Bonferroni correction for categorical outcomes. Potential adverse effects (RQ1c) were assessed via parameter estimates and effect directions which were systematically evaluated to identify potential adverse intervention effects. This included examination of confidence intervals for parameter estimates, effect size magnitudes, and patterns suggesting increased stigma, reduced help-seeking, or other negative outcomes. Effect sizes were interpreted according to Cohen’s conventional benchmarks: small (.01), medium (.06), and large (.14) for eta-squared and partial eta-squared (Cohen, 2009 ). Clinical significance was evaluated considering both statistical significance and practical relevance, with effects below .01 considered negligible regardless of p-values (Ferguson, 2009 ). To address RQ2a ("Does the intervention impact differ as a function of participants' demographics?"), we conducted moderation analyses examining whether demographic characteristics influence intervention effectiveness across multiple outcome domains. All analyses included following demographic moderators: age (centered), gender, city size, parental status (having children), education level, adverse childhood experiences (ACE), and primary language. Building on the analytical approach describes above, linear mixed-effects models with heteroscedastic variance structures were fitted using the nlme package in R. Models included fixed effects for intervention group, time, demographic variables, and all two-way and three-way interactions. Random intercepts for participants accounted for repeated measures dependency. Heteroscedastic variance structures were implemented to address unequal variances across intervention groups and timepoints. Parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals were extracted for significant interaction effects to quantify moderation magnitude and direction. Nonparametric longitudinal data analysis (nparLD) was conducted using the nparLD package, appropriate for ordinal stigma measures with potential distributional violations. Models tested intervention × time × demographic interactions using F-statistics. Separate analyses were conducted for controllability beliefs, social distance preferences, and perceived dangerousness to children/adolescents. Linear mixed-effects models were fitted for openness with the same structure as affective outcomes, testing demographic moderation of intervention effects on this composite behavioral measure. Ordinal mixed-effects models using the ordinal package were applied to 5-point Likert scale therapy outcomes. Cumulative link mixed models (CLMM) with logit links tested intervention × time × demographic interactions while preserving the ordinal nature of responses. Likelihood ratio tests compared nested models to assess moderation significance. Given the extensive testing across multiple outcomes and demographic, Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction was applied within each outcome domain to control Type I error inflation while maintaining reasonable statistical power. For linear mixed-effects models, parameter estimates (β coefficients) with 95% confidence intervals quantified moderation effect magnitudes. For nonparametric and ordinal models, F-statistics and likelihood ratio test statistics provided effect size indicators. For RQ2b (“Does the type of intervention have an impact on the dropout rate?”), we analyzed study attrition by intervention group. “Dropout” was defined as not providing data at t2 (follow-up). We tabulated completed vs. dropped-out cases for each randomization group and compared distributions using a chi-square test of independence with α = .05. Effect size was indexed by Cramér’s V. Minimum expected cell counts were checked to verify test assumptions. To investigate whether post-intervention affective responses predicted subsequent study attrition, we conducted a series of hierarchical logistic regression models using binomial family with logit link function with arousal and valence measured immediately after the intervention (t 1 ) as predictors of dropout. All analyses were conducted in R (v4.3.1; R Core Team, 2023 ). We fit linear mixed-effects models with lme4 (Bates et al., 2015 ) and nlme (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000), ordinal cumulative link mixed models with ordinal (Christensen, 2023 ), and nonparametric longitudinal models with nparLD (Noguchi et al., 2012 ). R base functions (ANOVA, chi-square tests) were used for further analyses. Estimated marginal means and contrasts were obtained via emmeans (Lenth, 2024 ); effect sizes via effectsize (Ben-Shachar et al., 2020 ). Model diagnostics and assumption checks used car (Fox & Weisberg, 2019 ) and base stats ; data handling and visualization used the tidyverse (Wickham et al., 2019 ) and ggplot2 (Wickham, 2016 ). To support the development of data analysis scripts, AI-based code generation tools (GitHub Copilot/Claude) were used to assist in writing and debugging R code for statistical analyses and data visualization. All automatically generated code was reviewed by the authors to ensure accuracy and validity. Results In the following, the descriptive results are first reported and then the research questions posed at the beginning are addressed. All descriptive values can be found in Table 3 . Affective state On average, affect related to valence decreased after the intervention across all groups ( M t0 = 181.76; M t1 = 160.22), with this decrease being particularly visible in the intervention groups (e.g. in IN1, M t0 = 181.93 decreased to M t1 = 146.47). The control group, on the other hand, showed an increase in positive affect ( M t1 = 198.30). The arousal level remained relatively stable overall in the intervention groups, while it decreased slightly in the control group (from M t0 = 179.03 to M t1 = 197.37; higher values indicate lower arousal). At the beginning of the survey (t 0 ), the participants’ affective valence was on average in the neutral range; they felt neither particularly positive nor negative. The arousal value was also on average in the medium range, which indicates an affectively balanced state between arousal and relaxation. After receiving one of the three intervention messages (IN1-IN3), there was a slight shift in affective valence towards unpleasant emotions. This shift was similarly pronounced in all three experimental groups. In the control group, on the other hand, there was a slight increase in positive affects (higher valence) with slightly lower arousal, which indicates a more relaxed and pleasant reaction to the neutral message. Stigma At baseline (t 0 ), participants exhibited relatively high levels of stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with a sexual interest in children. On average, the controllability subscale indicated moderate endorsement of the belief that such individuals have control over their sexual preferences ( M t0 = 4.08, SD = 2.07 on a 7-point scale). Perceived dangerousness was markedly high, especially in relation to children and adolescents ( M t0 = 6.55, SD = 1.06), suggesting that respondents viewed individuals with such interests as posing a substantial risk. Perceived dangerousness toward adults was lower but still moderate to high ( M t0 = 4.98, SD = 2.30). The affective reactions at baseline were also indicative of stigma: Participants reported strong feelings of fear ( M t0 = 5.63, SD = 2.03) and anger ( M t0 = 6.26, SD = 1.46) towards people with a sexual interest in children. In contrast, pity was rated considerably lower ( M t0 = 3.24, SD = 2.43). Finally, the mean social distance score at baseline ( M t0 = 5.20, SD = 1.23) reflected a tendency to maintain distance from individuals with a sexual interest in children across multiple social contexts. Across all groups, stigma-related measures showed only small changes between baseline (t 0 ), post-intervention (t 1 ), and follow-up (t 2 ). On the controllability dimension, there was no change from t 0 ( M t0 = 4.08, SD = 2.07) to t 1 ( M t1 = 4.11, SD = 2.14), followed by a slight decrease at t 2 ( M t2 = 3.99, SD = 2.06). Perceptions of dangerousness toward children and adolescents decreased slightly over time ( M t0 = 6.55, M t1 = 6.43, M t2 = 6.36), while dangerousness toward adults also declined from baseline ( M t0 = 4.98) to t 2 ( M t2 = 4.68). Affective responses mirrored these trends: Reported fear decreased steadily across all time points ( M t0 = 5.63, M t1 = 5.37, M t2 = 5.34), and anger, while initially high ( M t0 = 6.26), dropped slightly post-intervention and remained at that level at follow-up (t1 & t2: M = 6.03). In contrast, pity increased slightly from t 0 ( M t0 = 3.24) to t 1 ( M t1 = 3.54), with a minor decline at t 2 ( M t2 = 3.39). Finally, the social distance score decreased modestly from t 0 ( M t0 = 5.20) to t 1 ( M t1 = 5.02) and remained nearly unchanged at t 2 ( M t2 = 4.99), indicating a small reduction in desire to socially exclude individuals with a sexual interest in children. Literacy At baseline (t 0 ), participants’ literacy regarding the availability of therapeutic services for people who use CSAM was moderate across all groups, with an overall mean of 2.22 (SD = 1.21) on a 5-point scale. At follow-up (t 2 ), a minimal overall increase was observed (M = 2.32, SD = 1.22). Beliefs about the effectiveness of therapy were moderately high at baseline (M = 3.35, SD = 1.00). At follow-up, the mean slightly decreased to 3.26 (SD = 1.18). This pattern was consistent across all groups. Openness, intention to act and self-reported behavior At baseline (t 0 ), participants reported a moderate openness to engaging with the topic of CSAM, with an overall mean of 2.82 (SD = 1.24) on a 5-point scale. This value decreased slightly at post-intervention (t 1 ; M = 2.66, SD = 1.24), suggesting an overall drop in openness. When asked specifically about the likelihood of visiting the “Troubled Desire” website at follow-up (t 2 ), participants across all conditions reported moderate interest (overall M = 2.71, SD = 1.28). Actual self-reported behavior was low overall: 74 participants (6.63%) indicated they had visited the “Troubled Desire” website since the study. The highest proportion of visits was reported in IN1 (8.13%) and IN3 (7.72%), followed by IN2 (5.43%) and the control group (5.17%). Table 3 Descriptive statistics of all outcome variables Outcome Group Timepoint N M SD CI Median Affective state – valence IN1 t0 500 181.93 103.40 173, 191 183.0 t1 500 146.47 101.54 138, 155 144.5 IN2 t0 498 179.60 105.75 170, 189 183.0 t1 498 145.10 104.29 136, 154 142.5 IN3 t0 503 180.40 103.56 171, 189 183.0 t1 503 149.64 98.42 141, 158 148.0 CG t0 518 184.99 107.95 176, 194 186.0 t1 518 198.30 97.52 190, 207 189.0 Affective state – arousal IN1 t0 500 171.79 97.51 163, 181 180.0 t1 500 177.46 78.31 170, 184 181.0 IN2 t0 498 174.88 98.50 166, 184 180.5 t1 498 178.19 76.95 171, 185 181.0 IN3 t0 503 181.22 95.61 173, 189 181.0 t1 503 182.35 81.21 175, 189 182.0 CG t0 518 179.03 101.00 170, 188 180.5 t1 518 197.37 92.81 189, 205 186.0 Stigma – controllability IN1 t0 500 4.04 2.06 3.86, 4.22 4.00 t1 500 4.11 2.06 3.93, 4.29 4.00 t2 283 3.89 2.11 3.64, 4.14 3.67 IN2 t0 498 4.18 2.09 4.00, 4.37 4.00 t1 498 4.15 2.21 3.96, 4.35 4.00 t2 258 4.10 2.04 3.85, 4.35 4.17 IN3 t0 503 4.20 2.08 4.02, 4.39 4.00 t1 503 4.19 2.16 4.00, 4.38 4.00 t2 285 3.98 1.98 3.75, 4.21 4.00 CG t0 518 3.92 2.02 3.74, 4.09 4.00 t1 518 3.97 2.10 3.79, 4.16 4.00 t2 290 3.99 2.10 3.75, 4.23 4.00 Stigma – dangerousness for children and adolescents IN1 t0 500 6.58 1.00 6.49, 6,66 7.00 t1 500 6.39 1.19 6.29, 6.50 7.00 t2 283 6.33 1.31 6.18, 6.48 7.00 IN2 t0 498 6.56 1.03 6.47, 6.65 7.00 t1 498 6.38 1.24 6.28, 6.49 7.00 t2 258 6.32 1.26 6.16, 6.47 7.00 IN3 t0 503 6.57 1.06 6.48, 6.66 7.00 t1 503 6.50 1.15 6.40, 6.60 7.00 t2 285 6.40 1.14 6.27, 6.53 7.00 CG t0 518 6.48 1.15 6.38, 6.58 7.00 t1 518 6.45 1.15 6.35, 6.55 7.00 t2 290 6.38 1.16 6.25, 6.52 7.00 Stigma – dangerousness for adults IN1 t0 500 4.98 2.30 4.78, 5.18 6.00 t1 500 4.89 2.30 4.69, 5.10 6.00 t2 282 4.67 2.37 4.40, 4.95 5.00 IN2 t0 498 5.03 2.28 4.83, 5.23 6.00 t1 498 4.93 2.30 4.73, 5.13 6.00 t2 258 4.72 2.34 4.43, 5.00 5.00 IN3 t0 503 5.11 2.28 4.91, 5.31 6.00 t1 503 5.02 2.30 4.82, 5.22 6.00 t2 285 4.62 2.32 4.36, 4.89 5.00 CG t0 518 4.80 2.32 4.60, 5.00 6.00 t1 518 4.79 2.31 4.60, 5.00 5.00 t2 290 4.70 2.63 4.43, 4.98 5.00 Stigma – affective reaction: fear IN1 t0 500 5.64 1.99 5.47, 5.81 7.00 t1 500 5.31 2.17 5.12, 5.50 7.00 t2 282 5.31 2.13 5.06, 5.56 6.00 IN2 t0 498 5.67 1.98 5.50, 5.85 7.00 t1 498 5.43 2.08 5.24, 5.61 7.00 t2 258 5.43 2.03 5.19, 5.68 6.00 IN3 t0 503 5.70 2.05 5.52, 5.88 7.00 t1 503 5.45 2.14 5.26, 5.63 7.00 t2 285 5.36 2.12 5.22, 5.63 7.00 CG t0 518 5.50 2.09 5.32, 5.68 7.00 t1 518 5.30 2.17 5.12, 5.49 6.50 t2 290 5.27 2.18 5.02, 5.52 6.00 Stigma – affective reaction: pity IN1 t0 500 3.34 2.46 3.12, 3.55 2.00 t1 500 3.70 2.43 3.50, 3.91 4.00 t2 282 3.54 2.44 3.26, 3.83 3.00 IN2 t0 498 3.16 2.37 2.95, 3.36 2.00 t1 498 3.51 2.38 3.31, 3.72 3.00 t2 258 3.47 2.36 3.18, 3.75 3.00 IN3 t0 503 3.05 2.42 2.84, 3.26 2.00 t1 503 3.42 2.46 3.24, 3.63 3.00 t2 285 3.16 2.31 2.89, 3.43 2.00 CG t0 518 3.40 2.46 3.16, 3.61 3.00 t1 518 3.54 2.44 3.33, 3.75 3.00 t2 290 3.40 2.36 3.12, 3.67 3.00 Stigma – affective reaction: anger IN1 t0 500 6.27 1.44 6.15, 6.40 7.00 t1 500 6.02 1.65 5.87, 6.16 7.00 t2 282 6.06 1.66 5.87, 6.26 7.00 IN2 t0 498 6.17 1.55 6.03, 6.30 7.00 t1 498 5.96 1.69 5.81, 6.10 7.00 t2 258 5.92 1.76 5.71, 6.14 7.00 IN3 t0 503 6.37 1.41 6.25, 6.49 7.00 t1 503 6.17 1.56 6.04, 6.31 7.00 t2 285 6.13 1.55 5.94, 6.31 7.00 CG t0 518 6.22 1.44 6.10, 6.35 7.00 t1 518 5.97 1.77 5.81, 6.12 7.00 t2 290 6.03 1.56 5.85, 6.21 7.00 Stigma – social distance 3 IN1 t0 499 5.21 1.21 5.11, 5.32 5.33 t1 498 5.04 1.20 4.94, 5.15 5.00 t2 290 5.01 1.26 4.87, 5.16 5.00 IN2 t0 497 5.13 1.25 5.02, 5.24 5.33 t1 496 4.91 1.26 4.79, 5.02 5.00 t2 258 4.87 1.31 4.71, 5.03 4.83 IN3 t0 503 5.35 1.24 5.24, 5.46 5.50 t1 502 5.11 1.29 5.00, 5.23 5.18 t2 285 5.06 1.30 4.91, 5.21 5.00 CG t0 517 5.12 1.22 5.01, 5.22 5.17 t1 516 5.01 1.17 4.91, 5.11 5.00 t2 290 5.00 1.26 4.86, 5.15 5.00 Literacy – therapy availability IN1 t0 500 2.27 1.23 2.16, 2.38 2.00 t2 282 2.31 1.26 2.17, 2.47 2.00 IN2 t0 498 2.09 1.16 1.99, 2.19 2.00 t2 258 2.32 1.20 2.18, 2.47 2.00 IN3 t0 503 2.29 1.22 2.18, 2.39 2.00 t2 285 2.31 1.16 2.17, 2.44 2.00 CG t0 518 2.24 1.22 2.13, 2.35 2.00 t2 290 2.32 1.24 2.18, 2.47 2.00 Literacy – therapy effectiveness IN1 t0 500 3.33 1.21 3.23, 3.44 3.00 t2 282 3.28 1.21 3.14, 3.42 3.00 IN2 t0 498 3.34 1.20 3.24, 3.45 3.00 t2 258 3.26 1.17 3.12, 3.40 3.00 IN3 t0 503 3.40 1.19 3.30, 3.50 3.00 t2 285 3.24 1.13 3.11, 3.37 3.00 CG t0 518 3.31 1.18 3.20, 3.41 3.00 t2 290 3.27 1.21 3.13, 3.41 3.00 Openness IN1 t0 500 2.80 1.23 2.77, 2.99 3.00 t1 500 2.68 1.22 2.59, 2.81 3.00 IN2 t0 498 2.73 1.24 2.68, 2.90 3.00 t1 498 2.69 1.21 2.58, 2.79 3.00 IN3 t0 503 2.86 1.22 2.61, 2.84 3.00 t1 503 2.65 1.24 2.49, 2.71 3.00 CG t0 518 2.88 1.25 2.76, 2.97 3.00 t1 518 2.70 1.27 2.54, 2.76 3.00 Intention to act – visit “Troubled Desire” IN1 t2 282 2.61 1.27 2.46, 2.76 3.00 IN2 t2 258 2.65 1.25 2.50, 2.80 3.00 IN3 t2 285 2.77 1.25 2.62, 2.92 3.00 CG t2 290 2.80 1.30 2.66, 2.95 3.00 Self-reported behavior – visited “Troubled Desire” IN1 t2 282 23 (8.15%) IN2 t2 258 14 (5.43%) IN3 t2 285 22 (7.72%) CG t2 290 15 (5.17%) Outcome Analytical approach Results Interpretation RQ1a: Intervention effects compared to control Affective state – valence Linear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group × time) Randomization group: F (3, 2015) = 15.68, p < .001, η²p = .023 Time: F (1, 2015) = 64.31, p < .001, η²p = .031 Group × time interaction: F (3, 2015) = 43.41, p < .001, η²p = .061 4 Group × time interaction (η²p = .061) shows medium effect size. Affective state – arousal Linear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group × time) Randomization group: F (3, 2015) = 3.25, p = .021, η²p = .005 Time: F (1, 2015) = 14.09, p < .001, η²p = .007 Group × time: F (3, 2015) = 4.12, p = .006, η²p = .006 All effect sizes are small (η²p = .005-.007). Stigma – controllability Nonparametric longitudinal analysis Randomization group: ATS = 6.15, p = .098 Time: ATS = 6.85, p = .025 Group × time: ATS = 5.12, p = .152, ε² = .006 5 No practical impact of the interventions on controllability scores relative to control. Stigma – social distance Nonparametric longitudinal analysis Randomization group: ATS = 3.68, p = .300 Time: ATS = 28.45, p < .001, Group × time: ATS = 6.89, p = .078, ε² = .002 No practical impact of the interventions on social distance scores relative to control. Stigma – dangerousness for children and adolescents Nonparametric longitudinal analysis Randomization group: ATS = 0.69, p = .875 Time: ATS = 2.14, p = .125, Group × Time: ATS = 1.85, p = .604, ε² < .001 All effects have no practical relevance (ε² < .001). Stigma – dangerousness for adults Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) H (3) = 1.24, p = .744, ε² = .001 No differences were found. Stigma – affective reaction: fear Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) H (3) = 1.82, p = .611, ε² = .002 No differences were found. Stigma – affective reaction: pity Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) H (3) = 4.21, p = .240, ε² = .004 No differences were found. Stigma – affective reaction: anger Nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis) H (3) = 2.15, p = .542, ε² = .002 No differences were found. Openness Linear mixed-effects model Randomization group: F (3, 2398) = 1.69, p = .168 Time: F (1, 2015) = 31.53, p < .001 Group × time: F (3, 2015) = 1.30, p = .273 All participants showed decreased openness to the topic from t 0 to t 1 . When comparing EMMs with Tukey adjustment within each time, no group vs. control contrast was significant at either t₀ or t₁ (all adjusted ps ≥ .187), and standardized contrasts were small with CIs including zero. Therapy availability Ordinal mixed-effects model Wald χ²(3) = 0.89, p = .827, R² marg < .001 No differences were found. Therapy effectiveness Ordinal mixed-effects model Wald χ²(3) = 2.31, p = .511, R ²marg = .002 No differences were found. Intention to act – visit “Troubled Desire” One-way ANOVA F (3, 1111) = 1.43, p = .232, η² = .004 No differences were found. Self-reported behavior – visited “Troubled Desire” Chi-square test and logistic regression χ²(3) = 3.20, p = .361, Cramér's V = .054 No differences were found. RQ1b: Differences between interventions 6 Affective state – valence Pairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Affective state – arousal Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons All pairwise p > .05 No significant differences between intervention groups. Stigma – controllability Pairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Stigma – social distance Pairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Stigma – dangerousness for children and adolescents Pairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Stigma – dangerousness for adults Pairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Openness Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons All pairwise p > .05 No significant differences between intervention groups. Therapy availability Post-hoc contrasts (ordinal mixed-effects) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Therapy effectiveness Post-hoc contrasts (ordinal mixed-effects) All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. Intention to act (visit “Troubled Desire”) Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons All pairwise p > .05 No significant differences between intervention groups. Self-reported behavior (visited “Troubled Desire”) Pairwise chi-square tests with Bonferroni correction All pairwise p > .05 (Bonferroni corrected) No significant differences between intervention groups. RQ1c: Potential adverse or ethical implications Affective state – valence Linear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group × time) Control(t 1 ): +13.31 [6.9, 19.7] IN1×t1: -48.87 [− 59.38, − 38.18] IN2×t1: -47.82 [− 58.41, − 37.22] IN3×t1: -44.06 [− 54.99, − 33.14] After the intervention, the affective state on the valence dimension is more negative than before. Affective state – arousal Linear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group × time) Control(t 1 ): +18.34 [10.9, 25.7] IN1×t1: -12.67 [− 23.29, − 2.04] IN2×t1: -15.03 [− 25.53, − 4.52] IN3×t1: -17.22 [− 27.80, − 6.64] After the intervention, the affective state on the arousal dimension is slightly changed in the direction of alertness. Stigma – controllability ΔMean 7 Control(t 1 ): 0.06 [-0.20; 0.31], Control (t 2 ): 0.08 [-0.22; 0.37] IN1(t 1 ): 0.07 [-0.19; 0.32, IN1(t 2 ): -0.15 [-0.46; 0.17] IN2(t 1 ): -0.03 [-0.29: 0.24], IN2(t 2 ): -0.08 [-0.39; 0.23] IN3(t 1 ): -0.01 [-0.27; 0.25], IN3(t 2 ): -0.22 [-0.52; 0.07] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Stigma – social distance ΔMean Control (t 1 ): -0.12 [-0.25; 0.04], Control (t 2 ): -0.11 [-0.29; 0.07] IN1(t 1 ): -0.17 [-0.32; -0.02], IN1(t 2 ): -0.20 [-0.38; -0.02] IN2(t 1 ): -0.23 [-0.39; -0.07], IN2(t 2 ): -0.27 [-0.46; -0.07] IN3(t 1 ): -0.23 [-0.39; -0.07], IN3(t 2 ): -0.29 [-0.47; -0.10] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Stigma – dangerousness for children and adolescents ΔMean Control (t 1 ): -0.03 [-0.17; 0.12], Control (t 2 ): -0.09 [-0.26; 0.07] IN1(t 1 ): -0.19 [-0.32; 0.05], IN1(t 2 ): -0.25 [-0.42; -0.07] IN2(t 1 ): -0.18 [-0.32; -0.04], IN2(t 2 ): -0.24 [-0.42; -0.07] IN3(t 1 ): -0.08 [-0.21; 0.07], IN3(t 2 ): -0.17 [-0.3; -0.01] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Stigma – dangerousness for adults ΔMean Control (t 1 ): 0.00 [-0.26; 0.28], Control (t 2 ): -0.09 [-0.43; 0.25] IN1(t 1 ): -0.09 [-0.37; 0.20], IN1(t 2 ): -0.31 [-0.65; 0.04] IN2(t 1 ): -0.10 [-0.39; 0.18], IN2(t 2 ): -0.32 [-0.67; 0.04] IN3(t 1 ): -0.08 [-0.38; 0.20], IN3(t 2 ): -0.48 [-0.82; -0.15] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Stigma – affective reaction: fear ΔMean 8 Control (t 1 ): -0.19 [-0.45; 0.07], Control (t 2 ): -0.23 [-0.54; 0.08] IN1(t 1 ): -0.33 [-0.59; -0.07], IN1(t 2 ): -0.33 [-0.63; -0.02] IN2(t 1 ): -0.25 [-0.50; 0.01], IN2(t 2 ): -0.24 [-0.54; 0.07] IN3(t 1 ): -0.26 [-0.52; 0.00], IN3(t 2 ): -0.35 [-0.65; -0.04] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Stigma – affective reaction: pity ΔMean Control (t 1 ): 0.14 [-0.15; 0.44], Control (t 2 ): = 0.00 [-0.35; 0.35] IN1(t 1 ): 0.36 [0.06; 0.67], IN1(t 2 ): 0.20 [-0.15; 0.56] IN2(t 1 ): 0.36 [0.06; 0.65], IN2(t 2 ): 0.31 [-0.05; 0.67] IN3(t 1 ): 0.37 [0.07; 0.67], IN3(t 2 ): 0.11 [-0.24; 0.45] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Stigma – affective reaction: anger ΔMean Control (t 1 ): -0.25 [-0.45; -0.06], Control (t 2 ): -0.19 [-0.41; 0.03] IN1(t 1 ): -0.26 [-0.45; -0.06], IN1(t 2 ): -0.21 [-0.44; 0.02] IN2(t 1 ): -0.21 [-0.41; -0.01], IN2(t 2 ): -0.24 [-0.50; 0.01] IN3(t 1 ): -0.19 [-0.38; -0.01], IN3(t 2 ): -0.24 [-0.46; -0.02] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Openness Linear mixed-effects model IN1×t1: 0.07 [-0.02; 0.16] IN2×t1: 0.05 [-0.04; 0.14] IN3×t1: -0.03 [-0.12; 0.06] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Therapy availability Ordinal mixed-effects model IN1×t2: β = 0.003 (SE = 0.089), OR = 1.00 [0.84, 1.19] IN2×t2: β = 0.132 (SE = 0.091) OR = 1.14 [0.96, 1.36] IN3×t2: β = −0.073 (SE = 0.089), OR = 0.93 [0.78, 1.11] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Therapy effectiveness Ordinal mixed-effects model IN1×t2: β = −0.02 (SE = 0.21), OR = 0.98 [0.65, 1.46] IN2×t2: β = −0.08 (SE = 0.21) OR = 0.93 [0.61, 1.40] IN3×t2: β = −0.27 (SE = 0.21), OR = 0.76 [0.51, 1.14] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Intention to act (visit “Troubled Desire”) ΔMean 9 IN1(t 2 ): 0.19 [− 0.02, 0.40] IN2(t 2 ): 0.15 [− 0.06, 0.36] IN3(t 2 ): 0.04 [− 0.18, 0.25] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. Self-reported behavior (visited “Troubled Desire”) Logistic regression IN1(t 2 ): β = -0.49 (SE = 0.34), OR = 0.61 [0.31, 1.20] IN2(t 2 ): β = -0.05 (SE = 0.38), OR = 0.95 [0.45, 2.01] IN3(t 2 ): β = -0.43 (SE = 0.35), OR = 0.65 [0.33, 1.28] Interventions have no effect of practical relevance. RQ2a: Moderating effects Affective state – valence Linear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure 7/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model Male: β = +28.726, 95% CI [11.57, 45.89], p = 0.001 IN2 × ACE: β = -44.356, 95% CI [-80.96, -7.76], p = 0.018 IN3 × ACE: β = -50.425, 95% CI [-89.60, -11.25], p = 0.012 IN3 × time × medium city: β = +28.844, 95% CI [4.05, 53.64], p = 0.023 Males have consistently higher baseline valence (+ 28.7 points) regardless of intervention. With regards to the intervention, significant effects are the ACE interactions (p < 0.02) and the city × time interactions (p = 0.023 for medium cities), indicating that trauma history and geographic location substantially moderate intervention responses for valence. Affective state – arousal Linear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure 6/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (age not significant, FDR q > 0.05) compared to base model Medium city: β = +21.501, 95% CI [3.39, 39.61], p = 0.020 IN1 × medium city: β = -27.296, 95% CI [-54.14, -0.45], p = 0.046 Time × lower education: β = +21.439, 95% CI [6.69, 36.19], p = 0.004 Medium cities residents show higher baseline arousal (+ 21.5 points, p = 0.020). However, IN1 decreases arousal by 27.3 points for medium city residents (p = 0.046). Lower education participants show + 21.4 point increase in arousal over time (p = 0.004). Thus, living environment and educational background moderate intervention responses for emotional arousal. Stigma – controllability Nonparametric longitudinal analysis 3/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model Children × time: F = 3.600, p = 0.0280, FDR q = 0.098 Education × time: F = 8.685, p = 0.0002, FDR q = 0.0014 Randomization group × ACE: F = 3.691, p = 0.0114, FDR q = 0.052 Education level (lower vs higher) shows the strongest time-based moderation effect on controllability beliefs (F = 8.69, p < 0.001). Having children and ACE trauma exposure also significantly moderate intervention responses. Stigma – social distance Nonparametric longitudinal analysis 3/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model Education: F = 16.81, p < 0.001, FDR q < 0.001 Randomization group × gender: F = 3.01, p = 0.029, FDR q = 0.102 Randomization group × children × time: F = 2.47, p = 0.040, FDR q = 0.141 Education shows the strongest overall moderation effect on social distance preferences (F = 16.81, p < 0.001), with additional gender-based intervention differences and complex three-way interactions involving parental status. Stigma – dangerousness for children and adolescents Nonparametric longitudinal analysis 4/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model Gender: F = 6.856, p = 0.0088, FDR q = 0.038 Children × time: F = 9.398, p = 0.0004, FDR q = 0.0028 Education × time: F = 9.475, p = 0.0004, FDR q = 0.0028 Language × time: F = 21.601, p < 0.0001, FDR q < 0.001 Language shows the strongest time-based moderation effect on dangerousness beliefs (F = 21.60, p < 0.001 each), indicating major cultural/linguistic differences in intervention trajectories. Parental status, education level, and gender also significantly moderate responses. Openness Linear mixed-effects model No demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model No demographic variables significantly moderate intervention effects on openness to the topic. Therapy availability Ordinal mixed-effects model No demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model No demographic variables significantly moderate intervention effects on literacy about therapy availability. Therapy effectiveness Ordinal mixed-effects model 1/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction FDR q < 0.05) compared to base model Age: LRT p < 0.001, FDR q < 0.001 Only age shows a main effect (older participants consistently rate therapy as more effective regardless of intervention group or timepoint). No demographic variables significantly moderate the intervention’s specific impact on therapy effectiveness perceptions over time. RQ1a: Intervention effects compared to control To examine whether the three intervention types (educational, humanizing with prevention focus, and humanizing with empathy focus) differed from the control condition in their effects on participants’ attitudes, behavioral intentions, cognitions, and affect, a series of linear mixed-effects, nonparametric, and ordinal models were conducted. For valence, a significant group × time interaction emerged, F (3, 2015) = 43.41, p < .001, η²ₚ = .061, indicating a medium-sized effect. Participants’ affective responses varied over time depending on randomization group. A similar but weaker pattern appeared for arousal, where small effects were found for group, time, and their interaction ( F s = 3.25–14.09, ps ≤ .021, η²ₚ = .005–.007), suggesting minor changes in emotional activation following the interventions. Across all stigma dimensions (controllability, social distance, perceived dangerousness toward children/adolescents and adults, and affective reactions of fear, pity, and anger), no meaningful intervention effects were observed. Although some time effects were significant (e.g., controllability: ATS = 6.85, p = .025; social distance: ATS = 28.45, p < .001), group × time interactions were nonsignificant and effect sizes were negligible (ε² ≤ .006). For openness toward the topic, results revealed a significant main effect of time, F (1, 2015) = 31.53, p < .001, indicating that participants across all conditions became less open to discussing or engaging with the topic after the intervention. However, neither the main effect of group nor the group × time interaction reached significance ( ps ≥ .168), and all standardized contrasts with the control group were small with confidence intervals including zero. Similarly, perceptions of therapy availability ( χ² (3) = 0.89, p = .827) and perceived therapy effectiveness ( χ² (3) = 2.31, p = .511) did not differ across groups, with marginal R² s near zero. No group differences emerged for participants’ intention to visit the preventive help website Troubled Desire ( F (3, 1111) = 1.43, p = .232, η² = .004) or for self-reported visits after the intervention ( χ² (3) = 3.20, p = .361, Cramér’s V = .054). RQ1b: Differences between interventions To assess whether the three intervention types (educational, humanizing with prevention focus, and humanizing with empathy focus) differed in their effectiveness regarding attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes, a series of pairwise post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Tukey HSD, Dunn’s tests with Bonferroni correction, and post-hoc contrasts for ordinal models as appropriate. For both affective valence and arousal, no significant pairwise differences were found between any of the three intervention groups (all ps > .05, Bonferroni/Tukey adjusted). Thus, while interventions as a whole influenced affective responses compared to the control condition (see RQ1a), they did not differ in their relative effectiveness in eliciting emotional change. Pairwise comparisons for all stigma-related measures (controllability, social distance, perceived dangerousness toward children/adolescent and adults, and affective reactions of fear, pity, and anger) revealed no significant differences between intervention types (all ps > .05, Bonferroni corrected). This indicates that the educational and humanizing message formats were equally (in)effective in reducing stigmatizing attitudes. Post-hoc comparisons for openness toward the topic, perceived therapy availability, and therapy effectiveness similarly yielded no significant pairwise differences (all ps > .05, Bonferroni/Tukey adjusted). This suggests that none of the intervention types produced a unique advantage in changing cognitive perceptions about prevention or treatment. No significant pairwise differences were observed for intention to visit the website Troubled Desire (all ps > .05) or for actual self-reported visits after the intervention (all ps > .05, Bonferroni corrected). RQ1c: Potential adverse or ethical implications To explore whether any of the interventions elicited adverse effects, such as negative affective responses or increases in stigma that might raise ethical concerns, post-intervention changes across affective, attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral indicators were examined. Analyses revealed a clear pattern of negative affective responses following exposure to the intervention messages. While participants in the control condition showed an increase in positive valence from pre- to posttest ( Δ = +13.31 [6.9, 19.7]), all intervention groups experienced pronounced declines in valence (IN1: −48.87 [− 59.38, − 38.18]; IN2: −47.82 [− 58.41, − 37.22]; IN3: −44.06 [− 54.99, − 33.14]). Thus, message exposure was associated with a more negative emotional state. For arousal, the interventions also reduced posttest scores relative to control (IN1: −12.67 [− 23.29, − 2.04]; IN2: −15.03 [− 25.53, − 4.52]; IN3: −17.22 [− 27.80, − 6.64]), reflecting a shift toward greater alertness or tension. Although these findings suggest short-term discomfort or increased emotional activation, the magnitudes were not indicative of severe distress. Across all stigma dimensions (controllability, social distance, and perceived dangerousness toward children or adults) no evidence emerged for adverse or rebound effects. Estimated mean changes were small and confidence intervals included zero for most contrasts, indicating no practical relevance. Notably, the direction of change for social distance and perceived dangerousness was slightly negative (i.e., lower stigma) across time for all intervention groups (e.g., IN2 social distance: −0.23 [− 0.39, − 0.07]; IN2 dangerousness toward children: −0.18 [− 0.32, − 0.04]), suggesting that message exposure did not exacerbate stigmatizing views. Affective components of stigma (fear, pity, anger) followed a similar pattern. Fear responses decreased slightly over time in all conditions, and pity increased marginally immediately post-intervention (IN1: +0.36 [0.06, 0.67]), while anger decreased marginally. These minimal directional shifts point away from, rather than toward, stigmatizing reactions. No evidence of adverse cognitive reactions was observed. Openness toward the topic did not differ across interventions (IN1: +0.07 [− 0.02, 0.16]; IN3: −0.03 [− 0.12, 0.06]), and perceptions of therapy availability and effectiveness did not differ from control (all OR s ≈ 1.0, CIs including 1). These results indicate that none of the messages reduced perceived accessibility or effectiveness of preventive treatment options. Behavioral intentions to visit Troubled Desire remained unchanged or slightly increased in all intervention conditions (IN1: +0.19 [− 0.02, 0.40]; IN2: +0.15 [− 0.06, 0.36]). Similarly, no negative behavioral impact was detected in self-reported visits (all OR s < 1 but with wide confidence intervals including 1). RQ2a: Moderating effects To examine whether intervention effects varied as a function of participants’ demographic characteristics, including gender, parental status, education, age, adverse childhood experiences (ACE), language background, and urbanicity, moderation analyses were conducted using mixed-effects and nonparametric longitudinal models. Significant moderators were identified based on false discovery rate (FDR)–corrected q values (< .05). For valence, all seven demographic variables improved model fit after FDR correction. When considering the effects, two demographic variables reached the threshold for statistical significance: Males reported consistently higher baseline valence ( β = +28.73, 95% CI [11.57, 45.89], p = .001), independent of intervention condition. ACE history significantly interacted with the humanizing–empathy (IN2 × ACE: β = −44.36, 95% CI [− 80.96, − 7.76], p = .018) and humanizing–prevention (IN3 × ACE: β = −50.43, 95% CI [− 89.60, − 11.25], p = .012) interventions, suggesting that individuals with adverse childhood experiences experienced more negative affective responses to humanizing messages. For arousal, six of seven moderators were significant (all except age, FDR q > .05). Residents of medium-sized cities showed higher baseline arousal ( β = +21.50, 95% CI [3.39, 39.61], p = .020), but the educational intervention (IN1) reduced their arousal substantially ( β = −27.30, 95% CI [− 54.14, − 0.45], p = .046). Participants with lower educational attainment showed increased arousal over time ( β = +21.44, 95% CI [6.69, 36.19], p = .004), indicating greater emotional activation among less-educated respondents. For controllability beliefs, three moderators were significant after FDR correction: education ( F = 8.69, p < .001, FDR q = .001), parental status ( F = 3.60, p = .028), and ACE history ( F = 3.69, p = .011). Education exerted the strongest moderating influence, with lower-educated participants showing greater changes in perceived controllability over time. Similarly, parental status and trauma exposure shaped responses to the interventions, suggesting differentiated stigma trajectories across demographic groups. For social distance, three moderators reached significance: education ( F = 16.81, p < .001), gender ( F = 3.01, p = .029), and a three-way interaction involving children and time ( F = 2.47, p = .040). Again, education was the most robust factor, indicating that attitudes toward social proximity to people with sexual interests in children changed more strongly among participants with lower education. For perceived dangerousness toward children and adolescents, four moderators were significant: gender ( F = 6.86, p = .009), parental status ( F = 9.40, p < .001), education ( F = 9.48, p < .001), and language ( F = 21.60, p < .001). The language × time interaction showed the largest effect size, suggesting substantial cultural or linguistic differences in how dangerousness beliefs evolved after message exposure. These findings highlight that responses to prevention messaging are not homogeneous across demographic and cultural subgroups. For openness, no demographic variables significantly moderated intervention effects after FDR correction. Similarly, no significant moderation emerged for perceived therapy availability. For perceived therapy effectiveness, age was the only significant predictor ( p < .001, FDR q < .001), with older participants consistently rating therapy options as more effective, regardless of intervention or timepoint. No other demographic factors influenced cognitive responses. RQ2b: Impact of intervention on dropout Of 2,019 participants at baseline, 1,115 completed t 2 and 904 dropped out overall. By group, dropout was: CG: 228/518 (44.0%); IN1: 218/500 (43.6%); IN2: 240/498 (48.2%); IN3: 218/503 (43.3%). The chi-square test indicated no significant association between intervention group and dropout, χ²(3) = 3.17, p = .366, with a small effect (Cramér’s V = .04). Assumptions were met (minimum expected count = 222.98; 0/8 cells < 5). Neither arousal (β = -0.0002, p = .679; OR = 1.000, 95% CI [0.999, 1.001]) nor valence (β = 0.0002, p = .694; OR = 1.000, 95% CI [0.999, 1.001]) significantly predicted dropout when examined individually or in combination (arousal × valence p = .445). Adding intervention group to the model did not improve prediction, with intervention assignment showing no association with dropout (β = 0.05, SE = 0.11, p = .634). Discussion The present study investigated the effects of three communication interventions – educational messaging, humanizing with prevention focus, and humanizing with empathy focus – on affective, cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes related to CSA/M prevention. Overall, the findings indicate that while the interventions influenced participants’ affective responses, they produced no relevant change in stigma, cognitive beliefs, or behavioral intentions compared to a control message. The distributions observed across stigma-related measures showed pronounced ceiling effects and, in some cases, bimodal response patterns, particularly for the dimensions of dangerousness and controllability. These response characteristics indicate that many participants already held highly stigmatizing attitudes prior to the intervention. The bimodal distributions, in turn, suggest attitudinal polarization: while one subgroup expressed strong rejection and moral condemnation, another displayed more differentiated or empathetic views. Overall, these findings demonstrate that stigma toward individuals with a sexual interest in children is not normally distributed but clustered around the extremes of the scale. This poses both methodological and conceptual challenges for evaluating intervention effects, as high baseline scores near the upper scale limit imply that the true level of stigma may lie beyond the measurable range. Consequently, changes induced by brief interventions are unlikely, given the deeply entrenched and resistant nature of such attitudes. In response to RQ1a, significant group × time interactions emerged for affective valence and arousal, showing small-to-medium emotional effects: intervention exposure was associated with more negative valence and slightly elevated arousal immediately after viewing. However, no consistent differences were observed across stigma dimensions, cognitive indicators (e.g., openness, perceived therapy effectiveness or availability), or behavioral outcomes. RQ1b revealed that the three intervention types did not differ from one another in effectiveness; all produced comparable levels of affective engagement without meaningful divergence in attitudinal or behavioral impact. The absence of differences between the intervention formats may suggest that the video component, which was the same in all three interventions, was more salient than the accompanying textual message. The intervention deliberately combined short video and text elements to mirror typical media consumption patterns. Fix et al. ( 2021 ) note that, with reference to Gough et al. ( 2017 ), the use of social media outlets like Twitter to promote public health campaign messaging has demonstrated preliminary feasibility and efficacy in changing attitudes and behaviors. Nevertheless, studies employing brief interventions, e.g., 5- to 12-minute videos or short written materials, have reported only small to medium effect sizes (d = 0.11–0.79), with limited practical relevance (often representing less than a one-point change on Likert-type scales) (Harper et al., 2022 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2022 ; McKillop & Price, 2023 ). In contrast, larger effects tend to emerge from more intensive interventions, such as extended contact sessions lasting around two hours (δ = 0.76–1.49; Grady et al., 2017, 2019 ) or semester-long educational courses, which yield medium to large effect sizes (Wurtele, 2018 ; Heron et al., 2023 ). These findings suggest a possible dose–response relationship: brief interventions can evoke momentary emotional engagement but are generally insufficient to produce lasting cognitive or behavioral change. Comparable short-format messaging has been used in deterrence and warning message studies (Prichard et al., 2022 , 2024 ), where the interventions demonstrated measurable effects on behavior. However, those messages were usually embedded within highly contextualized environments, such as adult content platforms, which likely heightened their salience and immediacy. Addressing RQ1c, the analyses found no evidence of adverse effects that would raise ethical concern. Although the interventions elicited short-term emotional discomfort, they did not lead to increases in stigma, negative attitudes, or avoidance behaviors. To anticipate RQ2b, post-intervention arousal and valence showed no predictive value for dropout before the follow-up assessment. From an ethical standpoint, the interventions can therefore be considered unobjectionable. This finding is particularly relevant given that previous studies have reported potential backfire effects of psychoeducational materials. For example, Harper et al. ( 2022 ) observed that an informative condition initially increased deviance perceptions toward individuals with a sexual interest in children, while Jara and Jeglic ( 2021 ) found that psychoeducational interventions sometimes led to heightened negative attitudes rather than reducing them. These findings highlight that certain communication approaches may inadvertently reinforce stigma if not carefully designed. A recurring limitation noted in previous research concerns the composition of study samples, which have often consisted primarily of young, female, higher-education participants (Grady et al., 2019 ; Harper et al., 2018 ; Heron et al., 2023 ; Lawrence & Willis, 2022 , 2023 ; Levenson & Grady, 2019 ; Wurtele, 2018 ). This restricted demographic focus limits the generalizability of findings and hampers insights into how different population groups respond to anti-stigma communication. The present study addresses this gap by employing a quasi-representative sample, thereby enabling a more comprehensive examination of moderation effects across diverse demographic segments. Exploratory moderation analyses (RQ2a) revealed substantial demographic variation in intervention impact. Gender, education, parental status, adverse childhood experiences, and language background significantly moderated changes in affective and stigma-related outcomes. Participants with lower education levels, as well as those with a history of childhood adversity or parenting experience, exhibited distinct emotional and attitudinal trajectories, suggesting that personal and contextual factors meaningfully shape the reception of preventive messages. Cultural and linguistic differences also played a notable role in shaping perceptions of dangerousness, indicating that prevention communication may resonate differently across sociocultural contexts. Regarding gender, the current study found that female participants tended to report higher stigma scores, particularly in dimensions perceived dangerousness and social distance. This aligns partially, but not entirely, with prior findings. For instance, Roche et al. ( 2025 ) observed that although there was no effect of vignette gender on perceived risk or stigma scores, participant gender did influence responses: men endorsed higher stigma scores for vignettes depicting males and vignettes depicting exclusively attracted individuals compared to vignettes depicting females and non-preferential individuals. However, as Roche and colleagues further note, “there are mixed findings on how gender might impact the public’s perceptions of people who commit sexual offenses, with some studies finding that women hold more negative attitudes, or finding no gender effect at all” (p. 744). They conclude that “future research should aim to further explore the role of participant gender on perceptions toward individuals attracted to children as it would provide important information for anti-stigma interventions” (p. 744). Age did not emerge as a moderating factor in the intervention’s effects. With the exception of a single main effect on perceived therapy effectiveness, no systematic age-related differences were observed across affective, cognitive, or stigma-related outcomes. This suggests that participants across age groups responded similarly to the intervention materials. Consequently, there is no empirical indication that age-specific tailoring of communication content or format would be necessary in the context of this study. This finding stands in contrast to assumptions by McKillop and Price ( 2023 ), who proposed that prevention strategies might benefit from differentiated messaging platforms for distinct age cohorts. By including a broader range of participants, the current study allowed for a more nuanced examination of parental status on intervention outcomes. Results indicated that parental status affected stigma-related dimensions but not affective or cognitive variables. Specifically, parents tended to report higher stigma scores across several domains (Controllability: ΔMean(t 0 ) = 0.23, ΔMean(t 1 ) = 0.22, ΔMean(t 2 ) = 0.33; Dangerousness for children and adolescents: ΔMean(t 0 ) = 0.10, ΔMean(t 1 ) = 0.10, ΔMean(t 2 ) = 0.20; Social distance: ΔMean(t 0 ) = 0.01, ΔMean(t 1 ) = 0.04, ΔMean(t 2 ) = 0.08). These patterns suggest that having children is associated with stronger stigmatization of people with a sexual interest in children, particularly regarding perceived control and potential risk. This tendency may reflect heightened sensitivity to child safety concerns or more protective social attitudes among parents. Qualitative research provides convergent evidence that parental identity shapes emotional reactions to this topic. In their thematic analysis, Lawrence and Willis ( 2024 ) reported that participants who were parents frequently described feelings of worry and concern surrounding child safety, which made it difficult for them to respond with empathy or to view individuals with a sexual interests in children in a detached, analytical manner. However, not all studies have found consistent evidence for this relationship. Lehmann et al. ( 2021 ), as well as Jahnke, Imhoff, and Hoyer ( 2015 ; 2015 ), did not identify conclusive effects of parenthood on stigmatizing attitudes. Educational background emerged as a relevant factor primarily in relation to stigmatizing attitudes. Roche et al. (2024) reported no significant education effects, likely due to their predominantly highly educated sample, in which most participants held at least a bachelor’s degree. In the present study, with roughly half of holding a bachelor’s or higher degree, we found small differences. Education appeared to play a role particularly in stigma-related domains. Participants with lower education levels tended to hold more stigmatizing attitudes overall. For controllability, the education-related gap increased over time (ΔM(t₀) = − 0.14, ΔM(t₁) = − 0.29, ΔM(t₂) = − 0.34), indicating that less educated participants perceived individuals with a sexual interest in children as having weaker control over their attraction. Similar, though smaller, differences emerged for perceived dangerousness toward children and adolescents (ΔM(t₀) = 0.08, ΔM(t₁) = − 0.03, ΔM(t₂) = − 0.12) and social distance (ΔM(t₀) = − 0.10, ΔM(t₁) = − 0.14, ΔM(t₂) = − 0.10). These patterns suggest that lower educational attainment is associated with stronger stigmatization. This finding aligns with broader evidence linking higher education to greater acceptance of minority sexual orientations or paraphilic sexual interests, although Jahnke ( 2018 ) provided evidence that this effect does not manifest in the case of sexual interest in children. A significant interaction effect between language and time emerged for the stigma dimension dangerousness for children and adolescents, whereas no other outcome measures showed meaningful language-related differences. Overall, this effect can be considered minor, as it was limited to a single dimension and the observed differences between language groups were small in magnitude, ranging from + 0.01 to − 0.50 scale points depending on group and time. Thus, while the language effect reached statistical significance, its practical relevance appears limited. Nonetheless, the finding aligns conceptually with broader research emphasizing the cultural shaping of stigma. Christiansen et al. ( 2025 ) explicitly note that “when developing educational programs that target stigmatization, it is essential to consider the cultural aspect. Both the national and cultural context shapes the extent of stigma and stereotypes through, e.g., social organization, the legal and cultural system.” Similarly, Langvik et al. ( 2024 ), reported notable differences between U.S. and Norwegian samples, particularly regarding public endorsement of treatment versus imprisonment for CSAM offenders. These findings underscore that while the language-related effects in the present study were minimal, cultural and contextual factors may still play an important role in shaping public perceptions and responses to prevention messaging. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) were examined as a potential moderator of participants’ responses, particularly with regard potential triggering effects in response to CSA/M-related content, as it could be expected that individuals with ACEs might react differently than those without such experiences. Indeed, notable baseline differences between participants with and without ACEs were observed at t₀, with group-specific differences ranging from − 30.99 to + 19.43 on the affective measure. This pattern may indicate that exposure to stigma-related items or references to CSA/M elicited stronger or more variable emotional responses among individuals with prior adverse experiences. By t₁, these differences had narrowed somewhat (range: −14.50 to + 13.41), suggesting a convergence over time. The direction of change was consistent across all intervention groups, showing a general decrease in valence, although the steepness of the decline varied between groups. Overall, these findings point to a difference in affective reactivity linked to personal trauma history, which, however, already appeared before exposure to the intervention. Besides valence, on the stigma dimension controllability showed a significant moderation effect of ACEs of minor practical relevance. Participants’ living environment emerged as a potential contextual factor influencing affective responses to the interventions. Specifically, participants from medium-sized cities showed distinct trajectories of emotional response change over time in the IN3 condition, and the IN1 intervention produced differential effects on arousal among this subgroup. Although no previous intervention studies have explicitly tested rural–urban or city-size variables as moderators of CSA/M prevention communication, related research in health communication and mental health stigma provides theoretical and empirical grounds for interpreting these effects. E. g., Schroeder et al ( 2021 ) report a relationship between living environment, gender and mental illness stigma. In the context of CSA/M prevention, tailoring interventions to local social climates, as recommended by Harper et al. ( 2022 ) and Cant et al. ( 2022 ), could enhance message resonance and ethical sensitivity across diverse community settings. Finally, RQ2b examined whether dropouts differed between intervention conditions. Of the 2,019 participants at baseline, 1,115 completed the posttest (t₂), resulting in an overall attrition rate of 44.8%. Dropout rates were comparable across conditions, and a chi-square test confirmed no significant association between intervention group and dropout. Thus, participation and retention were not differentially affected by message type, and no systematic attrition bias was evident. This finding is notable given the sensitive and potentially discomforting nature of CSA/M-related content. From a methodological perspective, comparable retention across intervention conditions strengthens the internal validity of the present findings. A similar attrition rate (43%) has been reported in the web-based stigma reduction study by Harper et al. ( 2022 ), which also dealt with sensitive topics around sexual interest in children and public attitudes. Taken together, the absence of condition-specific attrition in this study suggests that the interventions were ethically appropriate and acceptable to participants. Implications Although the intervention did not yield significant improvements across stigma, cognitive or behavioral measures, it also produced no adverse effects – an ethically important finding and a valuable foundation for future health communication activities in the sensitive domain of CSA/M prevention. Given the intervention’s ability to generate short-term affective responses, this format may serve as a useful starting point for capturing attention and initiating engagement. However, as the present findings indicate, such brief, single-exposure interventions are insufficient to trigger durable changes in cognition, attitudes, or behavior. Findings from the current study and the literature hint to a dose-response mechanism. Building on this, future communication strategies might consider video-based content as a gateway mechanism; a means of emotional activation that can lay the groundwork for deeper, repeated, or more cognitively demanding engagement. As several researchers have emphasized, sustained impact is unlikely without prolonged or repeated exposure. For instance, Lawrence and Willis ( 2022 ) call for repeated interventions to promote sustained attitudinal changes, while Harper et al. ( 2022 ) recommend longer interventions to see whether deeper or more developed arguments enhance the effects. Similarly, Jahnke, Philipp, and Hoyer ( 2015 ) suggest integrating online interventions as components within broader educational frameworks because attitudes that have developed over a long time tend to be stable. Future campaigns should rely on intensity and repeated exposure since these are essential for attitude change. Moreover, intervention design should take into account current media consumption patterns. Given the prevalence of short-form content, especially on social media platforms, effective stigma reduction strategies may benefit from repetitive, episodic exposure rather than isolated, one-off campaigns. A strategically designed series of concise, emotionally resonant, and educationally grounded messages, delivered repeatedly across platforms, could increase the likelihood of sustained cognitive engagement and, over time, meaningful attitude change. The findings of this study offer a concrete and actionable implication for public health campaigns, even in the absence of detectable attitude change: brief, carefully designed messages can draw public attention to CSA/M without increasing stigma. This is a critical insight, as preventing unintended stigmatizing effects represents a central ethical and practical threshold for any population-level intervention in this domain. The demonstrated safety of short-form communication formats suggests that they can function as a low-risk entry point into broader prevention strategies – raising awareness, initiating engagement, and preparing audiences for more intensive or elaborated messaging without causing harm. Thus, the most immediate translational pathway emerging from this study is the development of short, ethically robust communication modules that can be scaled across digital platforms. These modules can be used to sensitize the public to the topic, signal the legitimacy of preventive engagement, and ultimately support a layered communication strategy in which brief attention-grabbing messages anchor more comprehensive educational or therapeutic resources. Limitations Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, the comparability of the three intervention conditions was limited due to non-standardized formats. Although all conditions included both a video and a textual component, variations in length and information density may have influenced participants’ emotional or cognitive engagement. Second, group assignments were conducted using simple randomization rather than stratified randomization. Given the large sample size (> 1,000), this approach was chosen to optimize efficiency, though it may have introduced imbalances in subgroup distribution that could have affected moderation analyses. Third, a potential priming effect must be considered, as participants completed baseline measures on stigma and related constructs immediately prior to the affective state rating and exposure to the intervention materials. Fourth, the study relied exclusively on self-report measures and did not include objective behavioral data. For example, actual engagement behavior such as website visits were not tracked. This limits the ability to draw conclusions about real-world behavioral impact beyond self-reported intentions. A further limitation concerns the generalizability of findings to population groups with limited digital literacy or restricted access to online platforms. As the study relied on an online survey design and brief multimedia interventions, individuals who are less familiar or less comfortable with digital technology may be underrepresented. This is relevant given that prevention campaigns ideally reach across demographic groups, including older adults or individuals in digitally marginalized contexts. At the same time, one could argue that the online format closely mirrors the real-world environment in which modern prevention campaigns increasingly disseminate information, particularly through social media and short-form digital content. Thus, while online methodology imposes certain constraints, it also reflects the natural ecology of contemporary health communication. Nonetheless, future work should consider complementary offline strategies to ensure that prevention messaging is accessible to audiences with varying levels of digital engagement. Cultural context may limit the transferability of findings. The study was conducted in Spain and Portugal – countries with comparatively little long-term public discourse or media visibility around CSA/M prevention initiatives. Spain and Portugal were selected to reduce the likelihood of pre-exposure bias, however, it restricts straightforward generalization to contexts with different legal frameworks, media histories, or cultural narratives surrounding CSA/M. Conclusions This study provides a foundation for further work in CSA/M prevention communication by demonstrating that brief, ethically sound interventions can evoke emotional responses without causing adverse effects. Although no significant changes in stigma, attitudes, or behavioral intentions were observed, the findings confirm that short-form interventions can serve as an initial point of contact for capturing attention and raising awareness. To achieve meaningful and lasting attitude change, future efforts should build on this format through repeated exposure, narrative depth, and integration into broader educational or clinical contexts. Crucially, translating empirical knowledge into publicly resonant messages remains a pressing challenge. As Fix et al. ( 2021 ) argue, “new ways of translating this evidence base are needed to improve the public’s understanding of CSA – why it happens, why it matters, and how it can be prevented.” (p. 3) Strategic testing of explanatory metaphors and empirically validated framing approaches represents a promising next step in this process. Moreover, the dissemination of CSA prevention messaging must extend and include diverse channels, embedded framing guidance, and strategic partnerships with organizations in the child protection field. As Fix and colleagues emphasize, such coordinated efforts can empower the field to “speak with a more strategic and consistent voice,” thereby enhancing public understanding and support for effective, evidence-based prevention policy. List of abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning ACE Adverse Childhood Experiences ANOVA Analysis of Variance ATS ANOVA-Type Statistic CG Control Group CI Confidence Interval CLMM Cumulative Link Mixed Model CSA Child Sexual Abuse CSAM Child Sexual Abuse Material CSEM Child Sexual Exploitation Material DSM-5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition FDR False Discovery Rate IN1 Intervention 1 – Educational Message IN2 Intervention 2 – Humanizing Message (Empathy Focus) IN3 Intervention 3 – Humanizing Message (Prevention Focus) LMM Linear Mixed-Effects Model MAP Minor Attracted Person OR Odds Ratio RQ Research Question SD Standard Deviation SE Standard Error WHO World Health Organization Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study is part of a larger research project evaluating the effectiveness of health information campaigns related to stigmatized health topics. The entire study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Charité Universitätsmedizin – Berlin (30/08/2023, EA4/169/23). Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants before they proceeded to the survey. This research was carried out in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topic and ethical restrictions related to participant anonymity and data protection. Anonymized data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request for research purposes. Competing interests The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. Funding We acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Data collection was funded through in-kind resources provided by the project “Deepening and Sustaining Public-Facing Measures Accompanying the Pilot Program for the Promotion of Specialized Therapeutic Institutions for the Treatment of Patients with Pedophilic Disorders under the Law ‘PsychVVG’,” supported by the German Federal Ministry of Justice (Bundesministerium der Justiz). Authors’ contributions VW and MvH jointly developed the study design, intervention materials, and survey instruments. VW coordinated data collection and performed the statistical analyses. MvH was responsible for funding acquisition. Both authors contributed to the interpretation of results and the preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors thank Klaus M. Beier and Samuel Tomczyk for their mentorship and support. The authors would also like to thank Mariam Fishere, Sofia Silva, and Thuy Nguyen Vo for reviewing the questionnaires and translations. We are also grateful to Peter Jeschke for producing the video materials used in the intervention. References Abraham, C., & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. Health Psychology , 27 (3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379 Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. (S. xviii, 537). Addison-Wesley. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. (S. ix, 604). W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 . Journal of Statistical Software , 67 (1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Ben-Shachar, M. S., Lüdecke, D., & Makowski, D. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of Effect Size Indices and Standardized Parameters. Journal of Open Source Software , 5 (56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815 Cant, R. L., Harries, M., & Chamarette, C. (2022). Using a Public Health Approach to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse by Targeting Those at Risk of Harming Children. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice , 5 (4), 573–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-022-00128-7 Christensen, R. H. B. (2023). ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data . https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal Christiansen, L. F., Langvik, E., Størdal, T. R., & Iversen, A. (2025). “It Could Be Anybody” Content Analysis of Lay Perceptions of Individuals Committing Online Child Sexual Offences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse , 34 (4), 446–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2025.2544145 Cohen, J. (2009). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. ed., reprint). Psychology Press. Corrigan, P. W., Druss, B. G., & Perlick, D. A. (2014). The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 15 (2), 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614531398 Farmer, C., Salter, M., & Woodlock, D. (2024). A Review of Academic Use of the Term “Minor Attracted Persons”. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 25 (5), 4078–4089. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241270028 Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 40 (5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808 Fix, R. L., Busso, D. S., Mendelson, T., & Letourneau, E. J. (2021). Changing the paradigm: Using strategic communications to promote recognition of child sexual abuse as a preventable public health problem. Child Abuse & Neglect , 117 , 105061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105061 Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression (Third). Sage. https://www.john-fox.ca/Companion/ Fry, D., Krzeczkowska, A., Ren, J., Lu, M., Fang, X., Fry, D., Krzeczkowska, A., Anderson, N., Ren, J., Lu, M., Jin, W., Liu, W., Vermeulen, I., McFeeters, A., Harker-Roa, A., Jaramillo Diaz, K., Kurdi, Z., Marmolejo Lozano, M. P., Olié, L., … Fang, X. (2025). Prevalence estimates and nature of online child sexual exploitation and abuse: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health , 9 (3), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(24)00329-8 Glina, F., Carvalho, J., Barroso, R., & Cardoso, D. (2022). Lay People´s Myths Regarding Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse: A Systematic Review. Sexual Medicine Reviews , 10 (4), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.06.010 Gough, A., Hunter, R. F., Ajao, O., Jurek, A., McKeown, G., Hong, J., Barrett, E., Ferguson, M., McElwee, G., McCarthy, M., & Kee, F. (2017). Tweet for Behavior Change: Using Social Media for the Dissemination of Public Health Messages. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance , 3 (1), e14. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.6313 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), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000154 Gunnarsdottir, K. E. (2018). Attitudes toward people with pedophilia: Comparing the views of psychology students and police trainees in Norway [Master’s thesis]. University of Oslo. Harper, C. A., Bartels, R. M., & Hogue, T. E. (2018). Reducing Stigma and Punitive Attitudes Toward Pedophiles Through Narrative Humanization. Sexual Abuse , 30 (5), 533–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216681561 Harper, C. A., Lievesley, R., Blagden, N. J., & Hocken, K. (2022). Humanizing Pedophilia as Stigma Reduction: A Large-Scale Intervention Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 51 (2), 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02057-x Harper, C. A., Lievesley, R., McKillop, N., Price, S., Murphy, R., Woodward, E., Dymond, H., & Götzl, C. (2025). Misrepresenting the “MAP” Literature Does Little to Advance Child Abuse Prevention: A Critical Commentary and Response to Farmer, Salter, and Woodlock. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15248380251332197. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251332197 Heron, R. L., Schwiekert, L., & Karsten, J. (2023). Meeting a person with pedophilia: Attitudes towards pedophilia among psychology students: A pilot study. Current Psychology , 42 (2), 1022–1033. SocINDEX with Full Text. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01384-5 Hunn, C., Prichard, J., & Cockburn, H. (2022). Internet Users’ Beliefs about a Novice-user of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM): What Can They Tell Us about Introducing Offender-focused Prevention Initiatives? Victims & Offenders , 17 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1865224 Jahnke, S. (2018). Emotions and Cognitions Associated with the Stigma of Non-Offending Pedophilia: A Vignette Experiment. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 47 (2), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1073-7 Jahnke, S., Imhoff, R., & Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatization of People with Pedophilia: Two Comparative Surveys. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 44 (1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0312-4 Jahnke, S., Philipp, K., & Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with pedophilia and their malleability among psychotherapists in training. Child Abuse & Neglect , 40 , 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.008 Jara, G. A., & Jeglic, E. (2021). Changing public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: An evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention. Journal of Sexual Aggression , 27 (3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2020.1863486 Langvik, E., Størdal, T. R., Steel, C. M., Christiansen, L. F., & Iversen, A. (2024). Public perception of individuals who commit Child Sexual Abuse Material offences: Exploring the impact of demographic variables and cross-national differences. Child Abuse & Neglect , 106922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106922 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 Lawrence, A. L., & Willis, G. M. (2022). Understanding and influencing public attitudes surrounding people with a sexual interest in children. Stigma and Health , 7 (3), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000391 Lawrence, A. L., & Willis, G. M. (2023). Cognitive and Affective Impacts of Antistigma Interventions Surrounding People with a Sexual Interest in Children. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy . https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2224323 Lawrence, A. L., & Willis, G. M. (2024). Facilitators and Barriers to Understanding and Accepting People with a Sexual Interest in Children: A Thematic Analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 53 (4), 1361–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02757-6 Lehmann, R. J. B., Schmidt, A. F., & Jahnke, S. (2021). Stigmatization of Paraphilias and Psychological Conditions Linked to Sexual Offending. The Journal of Sex Research , 58 (4), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1754748 Lenth, R. V. (2024). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means . https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans Levenson, J. S., & Grady, M. D. (2019). "I Could Never Work With Those People. . . ": Secondary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse Via a Brief Training for Therapists About Pedophilia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 34 (20), 4281–4302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519869238 Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology , 27 (1), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363 McKillop, N., & Price, S. (2023). The Potential for Anti-Stigma Interventions to Change Public Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted Persons: A Replication and Extension of Jara and Jeglic’s Study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2023.2204864 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 Moss, S. (2019). Understanding the treatment barriers for minor-attracted persons living in the community [Master’s Thesis]. Saint Mary’s University. Noguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., & Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: An R Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. Journal of Statistical Software , 50 (12), 1–23. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98882 Prichard, J., Wortley, R., Watters, P. A., Spiranovic, C., Hunn, C., & Krone, T. (2022). Effects of Automated Messages on Internet Users Attempting to Access “Barely Legal” Pornography. Sexual Abuse , 34 (1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211013809 Prichard, J., Wortley, R., Watters, P., Spiranovic, C., & Scanlan, J. (2024). The effect of therapeutic and deterrent messages on Internet users attempting to access ‘barely legal’ pornography. Child Abuse & Neglect , 155 , 106955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106955 Quinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., & Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behavior , 25 (3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620490431147 R Core Team. (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Richards, K. (2018). Born This Way? A Qualitative Examination of Public Perceptions of the Causes of Pedophilia and Sexual Offending against Children. Deviant Behavior , 39 (7), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335526 Roche, K., Pagacz, J., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2025). Public Perceptions of Individuals Attracted to Children: The Impact of the Person’s Gender, Child Gender, and Preferentiality on Stigma and Perceived Risk to Offend. Sexual Abuse , 37 (6), 723–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241297270 Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect Grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 (3), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493 Schroeder, S., Tan, C. M., Urlacher, B., & Heitkamp, T. (2021). The Role of Rural and Urban Geography and Gender in Community Stigma Around Mental Illness. Health Education & Behavior , 48 (1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120974963 Seto, M. C. (2018). Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children (2. Aufl.). American Psychological Association; JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chs01s Steel, C. M. S., Newman, E., O’Rourke, S., & Quayle, E. (2022). Public Perceptions of Child Pornography and Child Pornography Consumers. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 51 (2), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02196-1 Stelzmann, D., Jahnke, S., & Kuhle, L. F. (2022). Media Coverage of Pedophilia and Its Impact on Help-Seeking Persons with Pedophilia in Germany—A Focus Group Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (15), 9356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159356 Terminology guidelines for the protection of children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse . (2016). ECPAT International. https://ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Terminology-guidelines-396922-EN-1.pdf Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis . Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software , 4 (43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 World Health Organization. (2006). Preventing child maltreatment: A guide to taking action and generating evidence . https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/resources/publications/en/guidelines_chap7.pdf Wurtele, S. K. (2018). University Students’ Perceptions of Child Sexual Offenders: Impact of Classroom Instruction. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse , 27 (3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1435598 Wurtele, S. K. (2021). “They’re Not Monsters!” Changing University Students’ Perceptions of Child Sex Offenders through Education and Contact. Journal of Criminal Justice Education , 32 (2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2021.1892159 Footnotes [1] In the context of this study, we deliberately refrain from using the term “minor attracted persons” (MAPs), which has become increasingly contested in academic and public discourse. While originally introduced as a purportedly neutral and non-stigmatizing label to refer to individuals with a sexual interest in children, the term has been heavily criticized for its historical and ideological origins in online pro-pedophile communities and advocacy groups (Farmer et al., 2024). Harper et al. (2025) argue that the use of MAPs is often strategically ambiguous and risks creating false equivalences between pedophilic interests and legitimate sexual minority identities, contributing to conceptual confusion and potential public harm. To avoid aligning with these problematic framings, we instead use the term “individuals at risk” . This term is intended to encompass a heterogeneous group, including individuals with a sexual interest in children, as well as users of CSAM, and other populations targeted by preventive interventions. [2] Data quality was ensured by: 1. a manipulation check after the intervention exposure, consisting of two multiple-choice items that referred to group-specific content (“The health information campaign I saw included information about…”, “The health information campaign I saw included a placeholder link to a website.”), 2. the analysis of response times to detect inattentive or invalid responses. Specifically, time spent on the first eight pages of the survey was examined. Participants who remained on at least three of those pages for less than 5 seconds were considered inattentive and were excluded. [3] N may differ from the other variables because, for technical reasons, only one response was enforced for this scale. It is possible that individual items were left unanswered. [4] For all comparisons, CG was defined as reference category. [5] For nparLD analyses, ε² represents overall effect size across all factors rather than effect-specific values. [6] Post hoc comparisons are not applicable if no effects are found in 1a. [7] Nonparametric longitudinal analysis does not allow parameter estimates; t 0 serves as reference. [8] Nonparametric analysis does not allow parameter estimates; t 0 serves as reference. [9] CG serves as reference. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 28 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 28 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 28 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 26 Jan, 2026 Editor invited by journal 13 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 12 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8325567","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":580939050,"identity":"7f1acad0-d331-4369-aa21-e4e8f28b6745","order_by":0,"name":"Viola Westfal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Viola","middleName":"","lastName":"Westfal","suffix":""},{"id":580939058,"identity":"674be057-4356-4c44-8e39-2f3df51a8bf8","order_by":1,"name":"Maximilian von Heyden","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maximilian","middleName":"","lastName":"von Heyden","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-10 09:24:35","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8325567/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8325567/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101398572,"identity":"a8e6c908-2c0f-47f7-8db2-ee08964ec205","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 09:42:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":81014,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eParticipant inclusion and exclusion flowchart\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8325567/v1/6ccb7d656e7129ae68cd09c9.jpg"},{"id":101365622,"identity":"d0954c91-669f-4aab-aa14-6e17ec5e374f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 00:56:22","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53386,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStudy design\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8325567/v1/c1434df702a09737d9984b6b.jpg"},{"id":101399388,"identity":"336e51fd-1cc3-426b-b818-fe8c4ec45450","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-29 09:52:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2386755,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8325567/v1/4bdc370b-ef81-4b5e-88b2-581399e61807.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Single-Exposure Messages for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Online Trial Testing Educational and Humanizing Approaches","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eChild sexual exploitation and abuse, especially online, is increasingly recognized as a global public health concern. A recent meta-analysis by Fry and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) found that approximately 12.5% of children experienced sexual exploitation within the last year; child lifetime exposure was found to have a prevalence of 11.5%. However, child sexual abuse is considered as preventable, particularly through early intervention, education, and effective policy implementation (Fix et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to understand how prevention efforts can be implemented, it is necessary to first clarify the key concepts central to this discussion: According to the World Health Organization (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), child sexual abuse (CSA) is “the involvement of a child in sexual activity that he or she does not fully comprehend, is unable to give informed consent to, or for which the child is not developmentally prepared and cannot give consent, or that violates the laws or social taboos of society. Child sexual abuse is evidenced by this activity between a child and an adult or another child who by age or development is in a relationship of responsibility, trust or power, the activity being intended to gratify or satisfy the needs of the other person.” The term \u003cem\u003e“child sexual abuse material”\u003c/em\u003e (CSAM) is increasingly adopted in place of \u003cem\u003e“child pornography”\u003c/em\u003e, as it more accurately reflects the abusive and exploitative nature of such content. The rationale behind this shift in terminology is that material depicting or representing sexual acts involving children constitutes a form of child sexual abuse, regardless of the medium or intent, and should not be trivialized by the term “pornography” (\u003cem\u003eTerminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, 2016). CSAM is typically used to refer to a subset of \u003cem\u003echild sexual exploitation material\u003c/em\u003e (CSEM) that explicitly involves actual abuse or focuses on the anal or genital regions of the child (\u003cem\u003eTerminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ePedophilia\u003c/em\u003e, in basic terms, refers to a sexual interest in prepubescent children. Clinically, it is only considered a disorder (\u003cem\u003epedophilic disorder\u003c/em\u003e) when this interest is intense, persistent, and focused, typically manifested through recurring sexual thoughts, fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving children who have not yet reached puberty. According to the \u003cem\u003eDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)\u003c/em\u003e, a diagnosis of pedophilic disorder requires that the individual is at least 16 years old, the child of interest is at least five years younger, and that the individual has either acted on these urges or experiences significant distress because of them (American Psychiatric Association, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). While the existence of a pedophilic sexual preference or pedophilic disorder is by no means equivalent to committing CSA/M, pedophilia or pedophilic disorder is nevertheless considered a risk factor for sexual offenses involving children (Seto, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough CSAM is a growing concern within global child protection efforts, the development and implementation of effective prevention strategies face challenges. One of these are public perception and responses related to CSA and CSAM: Research suggests that CSA offenses elicit stronger emotional reactions than other crimes, even murder (Quinn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). This can lead to an inaccurate assessment of risk and policy decision making undermining evidence-based practices (Fix et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Glina et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hunn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The public conflation of pedophilia with the consumption of CSAM reinforces stigmatization (Langvik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Richards, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, individuals who consume or are at risk of consuming CSAM may experience shame and fear of judgment, both of which are known to hinder help-seeking behavior (Langvik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma in the context of CSA/M prevention\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma theory, as formulated by Link and Phelan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) and extended through the Minority Stress Model (Meyer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), provides a crucial framework for understanding the barriers to prevention efforts in CSA/M contexts. Stigma operates through a multi-level process: first through public stigma, which subsequently becomes internalized as self-stigma among affected individuals (Corrigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Link \u0026amp; Phelan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of individuals at risk of CSA/M, this stigmatization process creates a significant barrier to prevention and treatment. As Meyer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) describes in the Minority Stress Model, chronic exposure to stigma-related stress – including discrimination, anticipated stigma, and internalized negative attitudes – contributes to psychological distress and maladaptive coping mechanisms. Research specific to this population demonstrates that individuals attracted to children who internalize stigmatizing attitudes experience heightened shame, depression, and anxiety (Grady et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Critically, this internalized stigma directly impairs help-seeking behavior. As Grady and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) found in their study with “minor-attracted persons”\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e, internalized stigma, fear of being reported, and negative reactions from therapists concerns represent major barriers preventing individuals from seeking mental health support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis creates a paradoxical situation that undermines evidence-based prevention strategies. While society aims to prevent child sexual abuse through deterrence and punishment, stigmatization reduces the likelihood that individuals at risk will voluntarily seek help before engaging in harmful behavior (Quinn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). As Lawrence and Willis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) note, “anti-stigma interventions are therefore an important component of public health approaches to the prevention of child sexual abuse, as well as an important strategy for reducing adverse outcomes among nonoffending individuals living with a sexual interest in children”. For the general public, anti-stigma interventions serve to correct misconceptions about pedophilia and CSAM users, distinguish between sexual attraction and sexual behavior, and foster understanding of prevention and treatment possibilities. For individuals at risk, anti-stigma interventions aim to reduce anticipated stigma that prevents help-seeking, increase awareness of available treatment and support services, and create a social environment supports treatment engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication strategies in CSA/M prevention\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough public misconceptions remain widespread, research shows that gaps between expert knowledge and public understanding can be closed (Fix et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). To address the multi-faceted challenges outlined above, the present study tested three distinct communication approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational interventions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Psycho)educational interventions operate primarily through knowledge increase and stereotype correction. This approach is grounded in the assumption that stigma persists due to misinformation and stereotype activation (Corrigan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Research has demonstrated that psychoeducational interventions can shift attitudes towards people who committed sexual offenses (Wurtele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), people with a sexual interest in children (Gunnarsdottir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Jara \u0026amp; Jeglic, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Moss, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and may potentially influence perceptions of CSAM-related behavior as well (Steel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The educational intervention in our study provides evidence-based information about pedophilia, the distinction from child sexual abuse, information about treatment possibilities, and the reality that not all individuals with such interests commit offenses. This directly addresses the public's knowledge gaps while remaining grounded in scientific evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHumanizing interventions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother promising approach to reduce stigma and change public perceptions are narrative humanization techniques. By providing tangible and accurate depictions of non-offending individuals with a sexual interest in children humanizing narratives evidently lead to an improvement in public attitudes (Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, two distinct forms of humanizing interventions were implemented: one with an empathy focus and another with a prevention focus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe empathy-focused humanizing intervention is grounded in research on dehumanization processes within stigma formation. According to Link and Phelan’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) stigma theory, stigma operates not only through false beliefs but also through emotional dehumanization – the portrayal of stigmatized individuals as less than human and dangerous. In the context of CSA/M, public discourse frequently employs dehumanizing language such as “monsters” or “predators,” which serves to legitimize exclusion, punishment, and denial of treatment opportunities (Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The empathy-focused intervention seeks to counter these processes through narrative humanization, presenting first-person accounts of individuals at risk. Such personal narratives encourage audiences to imagine the internal experiences, emotions, and struggles of stigmatized individuals, thereby activating theory-of-mind processes that challenge dehumanizing perceptions (Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) Moreover, narrative exposure can simulate elements of intergroup contact (contact hypothesis; Allport, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1954\u003c/span\u003e), allowing audiences to experience empathy and perspective-taking even in the absence of direct interaction. In this study, the protagonist is portrayed as an individual coping with stigma and managing their attraction responsibly. The intervention thus emphasizes emotional connection and perspective-taking as mechanisms to reduce dehumanization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe prevention-focused humanizing intervention operates through self-efficacy enhancement. Drawing on Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), it assumes that self-efficacy beliefs, individuals’ confidence in their ability to enact behaviors that produce desired outcomes, are crucial determinants of behavior change. Exposure to narratives depicting successful self-management and prevention of offending behavior have the potential to increase belief in the possibility of prevention and in the effectiveness of rehabilitation-oriented approaches. By emphasizing the protagonist’s agency and ability to make responsible choices, this intervention counters the perception of uncontrollability and inevitability that underlies much of the stigma toward people with sexual interest in children (Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Levenson et al., 2017). The narrative highlights how the individual actively manages their sexuality, maintains appropriate boundaries, seeks support, and works toward a meaningful life, thereby conveying the potential for positive change and prevention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs outlined above, public communication strategies targeting the prevention of CSA/M aim to achieve multiple interrelated goals: to increase knowledge, reduce stigma, diminish negative affective reactions, and promote openness and acceptance of support services among the general public. For individuals at risk, such strategies further aim to encourage help-seeking behavior and disrupt pathways to harmful behavior. While several studies have emphasized the potential of psychoeducation, stigma reduction, and narrative-based messaging, empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of these approaches remains limited to specific samples, e.g., English-only or student samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn particular, there is a lack of systematically evaluated, randomized, controlled studies that assess the impact of specific messages in quasi-representative general population samples, especially outside English-speaking contexts. Moreover, cross-cultural differences in public perception of pedophilia, CSAM, and rehabilitation suggest that messaging strategies may not be equally effective across countries or sociocultural settings (Langvik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Yet much of the current literature is based on studies from North America, the UK, and Australia, leaving a gap in understanding how such interventions work in other cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study aims to address this gap by systematically testing the three different intervention messages in a randomized controlled online experiment conducted with a quasi-representative sample from two non-English-speaking countries. To translate the outlined challenges into concrete intervention strategies, the present study tests communication approaches that were developed drawing on mechanisms of stigma reduction, attitude change, and behavior change techniques. Specifically, we investigated whether exposure to educational and humanizing interventions featuring an intervention for individuals at risk, in comparison to a control condition, had a measurable impact on outcomes related to knowledge, affective reactions, and stigmatization. The educational intervention seeks to address knowledge gaps and misinformation. This type of messaging is grounded in the idea that accurate information can reduce stigmatizing attitudes by correcting misconceptions. A humanizing intervention with an empathy focus was designed to foster emotional perspective-taking and thereby reducing dehumanization and stigma. A humanizing narrative with a prevention focus aims to enhance perceived behavioral control, personal agency, and belief in changeability, which are critical components for both public support of rehabilitative policies and for motivating at-risk individuals to seek help.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe primary research questions (RQ) were as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1a: Do educational vs. humanizing with prevention focus vs. humanizing with empathy focus interventions have an effect on attitude, behavioral intention, cognition and affect compared to a control group message?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1b: Do the interventions differ in their effectiveness with respect to the outcomes attitude, behavioral intention, cognition and affect?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1c: Are there any adverse effects, such as negative affective responses or increased stigma, that raise ethical concerns regarding message content or framing?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, as secondary research questions, we explored:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2a: Does the intervention impact differ as a function of participants’ demographics (e.g., having children, cultural background)?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2b: Does the type of intervention have an impact on the dropout rate?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe participants were recruited via an agency (IntraResearch). The recruitment started in September 2023; the initial survey took place in mid-September 2023 for the Spanish sample and in early October 2023 for the Portuguese sample. Potential participants were invited to take part in a survey about a health information campaign and were provided with detailed study information. Participants received a standard compensation for their participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo be included in the study, participants had to be at least 18 years old, live in Portugal or Spain, and had to have sufficient language skills in Spanish or Portuguese. The average survey completion time for the initial survey was \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 10.60 minutes (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 3.93), and for the follow-up survey \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 5.01 minutes (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 2.61).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe initial sample consisted of \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 2395 participants who completed the first survey. Of these, \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 376 participants were excluded for different reasons (poor data quality\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, multiple responses, sexual preference, CSAM consumption), resulting in a final sample size of \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 2019 for the initial survey. n = 1331 participants completed the follow-up survey; \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 1115 were found to be valid for the follow-up survey which corresponds to a return rate of 55.23% (Spanish: 46.65%; Portuguese: 64.17%). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e outlines in exclusion process leading to the final sample in detail. The demographic characteristics of the initial sample are depicted in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant demographics (initial survey)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePortuguese\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSpanish\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean age (sd)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.15 (12.84)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.55 (12.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003efemale (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e489 (49.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e557 (54.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emale (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e499 (50.51)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e474 (45.97)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiving environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003elarge city (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e335 (33.91)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e535 (51.89)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003emedium-sized city (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e424 (42.91)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e300 (29.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003esmall city (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e229 (23.18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e196 (19.01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChildren (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e626 (63.36)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e656 (63.63)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enone (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (0.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (0.10)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eschool (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50 (5.06)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e118 (11.45)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eany kind of diploma that proves general qualification for university entrance (e.g., high school diploma) (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e253 (25.61)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e142 (13.77)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003evocational education (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120 (12.15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e288 (27.93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBachelor’s or equivalent level (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e381 (38.56)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e336 (32.59)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaster’s or equivalent level (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e164 (16.60)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e118 (11.45)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edoctoral or equivalent level (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19 (1.92)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28 (2.72)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcedure\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ewas obtained from all participants prior to their inclusion in the study. Data were collected via online questionnaires hosted on SoSci Survey. The study included two surveys: the baseline measurement (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e) and the post-intervention measurement (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) were realized in one survey. A follow-up survey (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) was administered 3 to 4 weeks after the initial survey. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the study design.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the baseline assessment (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), participants were randomly assigned to the experimental group via SoSci Survey using a built-in randomizer. No stratification was applied. Participants were unaware of the study hypotheses and were blind to the group allocation. The intervention aimed to examine the effects of different health communication strategies on knowledge, stigma, affective response, and behavioral intentions in the context of CSAM prevention. Each participant received one of the following message formats (the messages are provided in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIntervention 1 (IN1) – educational message\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants in this group were presented with a short, text-based informational message providing accurate and destigmatizing facts about CSAM, pedophilia, and treatment effects (Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The term “so-called ‘child pornography’” was chosen because it is more familiar to the general population than “child sexual abuse material”. We are aware that this does not correspond to the recommended terminology explained at the beginning. To emphasize that the term must be questioned, “so-called” has been added each time the term is mentioned. The message clarified the distinction between pedophilia and offending behavior, emphasized the criminal nature and consequences of CSAM consumption, and highlighted the availability and effects of therapeutic support for individuals at risk.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIntervention 2 (IN2) – humanization with empathy focus\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis condition featured a personal quote from “Luis,” a therapy client who described the emotional challenge and relief of disclosing his attraction and seeking help. The quote is deliberately vague so that it could refer to sexual attraction to children as well as the use of CSAM. The narrative was designed to foster empathy and identification by providing a realistic and relatable role model (Abraham \u0026amp; Michie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIntervention 3 (IN3) – humanization with prevention focus\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e In this condition, participants read a quote from “Luis” expressing his motivation to avoid offending behavior and his engagement in therapy as a preventive strategy. This message emphasized self-control, treatment availability and efficacy, and personal responsibility, aiming to increase belief in changeability and to reduce punitive responses (Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Stelzmann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eControl group (CG)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants in the control group received no CSAM or pedophilia related content but general information about a rather common disease in accordance with the framing of a health information campaign.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach intervention group was exposed to the same video clip, accompanied by one of three different texts (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The control group received a text about diabetes and a neutral, unrelated video. The interventions and the control stimuli were displayed for at least 30 seconds before participants were able to proceed to the next page of the survey. Each intervention message was combined with references to help offers for people who use CSAM (“Help for people who use child sexual abuse material (so-called ‘child pornography’): [you will find the original link at the end of the survey]”) and help offers for victims of sexual abuse (“Help for victims of sexual violence: [you will find the original link at the end of the survey]”). The interventions as well as the control group message were applied in Spanish and Portuguese. Therefore, we chose testimonial names that are common in both languages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions and control group message\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVideo clip\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eText\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMan watching CSAM who is interrupted by his partner. He abruptly closes his laptop. At the end of the video the text “There is help – \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ewww.troubled-desire.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.troubled-desire.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e” is displayed. The video is accompanied by thematically appropriate background sound. (duration: 18 seconds)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFacts about so-called “child pornography”:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e• The production, distribution and use of images or videos depicting child sexual abuse (so-called “child pornography”) is a serious criminal offense to the detriment of children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e• The use of child sexual abuse materials or the desire to do so may indicate pedophilia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e• Pedophilia ≠ Pedophilic disorder: Not every person with pedophilia becomes an offender, and not every offender is a pedophile.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e• Therapy can help individuals who use child sexual abuse materials or fear to do so to control their behavior while improving life satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLuis, 28: “Talking about it for the first time wasn't easy, especially since I'm not one to talk about my feelings in a big way. It's quite difficult, but it's also a relief, because I've been carrying that around with me for years. And then there's someone who doesn't immediately say, you're the last scum of the earth, who also knows about the whole topic, which is also important.”\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLuis, 28: “I don't even want to be tempted to look at child pornography. Therapy is supposed to help me lead a life without ever committing a sexual assault on a child, and it supports me pretty well in that.”\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerson typing on a mobile phone with unspecific background music. At the end of the video the text “get advice” is displayed. (duration: 17 seconds)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAround 10.5% of the world's adult population suffer from the metabolic disease diabetes. If left untreated, diabetes can lead to a person's death, either directly or indirectly through concomitant diseases. A healthy body weight, regular exercise and a balanced diet can reduce the risk of developing diabetes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeasures\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe outcome measures were selected to reflect the primary psychological and behavioral targets, as discussed above, of public health communication campaigns addressing CSAM prevention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAffective State\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe affective state of participants was measured using the Affect Grid (Russell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). The Affect Grid is a single item scale that assesses the current affect along the dimensions of “pleasure – displeasure” and “arousal – sleepiness”. In the survey tool, the two dimensions were each scaled from 0 to 361, whereby a higher value on the dimension valence indicated a positive state and on the dimension arousal a state of low arousal. The original items were translated into Spanish and Portuguese, reviewed by native speakers and translated back to English to assure the appropriateness of translations. Participants assessed their affective state immediately before (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e) and after the intervention (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStigma\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStigmatizing attitudes towards people with a dominant sexual interest in children were determined using the stigma scale by Jahnke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The scale consists of four subscales, namely controllability, dangerousness, affective reaction, and social distance. Items were rated on 7-point Likert scales (1 = “do not agree at all” to 7 = “completely agree”). The participants completed the stigma scale at all three measurement time points. In accordance with the authors’ instructions, the items of the subscales controllability and social distance were summarized to form an average score. The items “dangerousness for children” and “dangerousness for adolescents” were also combined into one score. All other items were considered individually in the evaluation. The reverse coded items (social distance subscale items 1 to 4) were re-coded so that higher scores correspond to higher stigma values. The original items were translated into Spanish and Portuguese, reviewed by native speakers and translated back to English to assure the appropriateness of translations. The internal consistency of the scales in the current sample was acceptable for “social distance” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .77) and good for “controllability” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .84) and “dangerousness” (Cronbach’s Alpha = .81).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiteracy\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to rate their knowledge about the availability of therapeutic offers for people who use CSAM and the perceived effectiveness of therapeutic offers on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”, 5 = “very well”). The literacy-related questions were gathered before the intervention (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e) and in the follow-up survey (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOpenness, intention to act and self-reported behavior\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs a behavioral correlate of openness to the topic of CSAM and pedophilia, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they were interested in learning about the topic and would visit a relevant website (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e). Those two variables were integrated into the “openness” scale by averaging responses of both items (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.924, r = 0.859). In the follow-up survey (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), participants were asked if they would visit the website “Troubled Desire” and if they had visited the website since participating in the study. All questions, with the exception of the question about the actual website visit, were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”, 5 = “very much”).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalyses\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics were calculated for all outcome variables to describe the sample and for an initial exploration of potential intervention effects. Mean, standard deviation, median and absolute number of cases were recorded for each dependent variable separately according to time of data collection (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) and experimental condition (IN1, IN2, IN3, CG). Absolute and relative frequencies were calculated for categorical data. Additionally, we examined response distributions by calculating skewness, kurtosis, ceiling and floor effects, where applicable. No procedures were used to fill in missing data, as this was not necessary due to the survey configuration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address RQ1 (“Do the interventions impact stigma, affective states, and help-seeking behaviors?”), we employed a multi-faceted analytical strategy tailored to the distributional characteristics and measurement properties of each outcome variable. All analyses compared the three intervention groups to the control group using appropriate statistical methods for each outcome type.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAffective state (valence and arousal)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects models with heteroscedastic variance structures were implemented. Models included fixed effects for intervention group, time, and group × time interactions, with random intercepts for participants to account for repeated measures dependency. Heteroscedastic variance structures were applied to address unequal variances across groups and timepoints. Parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals were extracted to quantify effect directions and magnitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAggregated stigma dimensions (controllability, social distance, dangerousness for children and adolescents)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal data analysis was conducted using the nparLD package across three timepoints (baseline, post-intervention, follow-up). This approach was selected due to the ordinal nature of stigma measures and potential violations of normality assumptions. Models tested group, time, and group × time interaction effects using ANOVA-type statistics (ATS) with appropriate degrees of freedom corrections. Effect sizes were calculated using epsilon-squared (ε²).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSingle item stigma measures (dangerousness for adults and affective reactions fear, pity, and anger)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKruskal-Wallis tests were applied due to severe ceiling effects and ordinal mixed-effects model numerical instability. These nonparametric tests compared intervention groups to control at post-intervention timepoints. Effect sizes were quantified using epsilon-squared (ε²) and interpreted according to established benchmarks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLiteracy, openness and behavioral intentions\u003c/b\u003e: Multiple analytical approaches were employed based on outcome characteristics: For openness (Learning Intentions), linear mixed-effects models robust to Central Limit Theorem assumptions were used despite normality violations, justified by large sample size (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 2,019). Models included group × time interactions across two timepoints (baseline, post-intervention). For literacy, mixed-effects models using cumulative link mixed models (CLMM) with logit links were fitted via the ordinal package for 5-point Likert scales across two timepoints (baseline, follow-up). For information-seeking intentions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on cross-sectional follow-up data for intentions to visit educational websites. For actual self-reported behavior, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyzed binary self-reported website visits at follow-up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRQ1b (“Do the interventions differ in their effectiveness with respect to the outcomes attitude, behavioral intention, cognition and affect?”) was addressed using post-hoc comparisons. When omnibus tests indicated potential group differences (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.10), pairwise post-hoc comparisons were conducted using method-appropriate approaches: Tukey HSD with family-wise error rate control for parametric outcomes; Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction for nonparametric outcomes; custom contrasts within ordinal mixed-effects framework with Bonferroni adjustment for ordinal outcomes; pairwise chi-square tests with Bonferroni correction for categorical outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePotential adverse effects (RQ1c) were assessed via parameter estimates and effect directions which were systematically evaluated to identify potential adverse intervention effects. This included examination of confidence intervals for parameter estimates, effect size magnitudes, and patterns suggesting increased stigma, reduced help-seeking, or other negative outcomes. Effect sizes were interpreted according to Cohen’s conventional benchmarks: small (.01), medium (.06), and large (.14) for eta-squared and partial eta-squared (Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Clinical significance was evaluated considering both statistical significance and practical relevance, with effects below .01 considered negligible regardless of p-values (Ferguson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address RQ2a (\"Does the intervention impact differ as a function of participants' demographics?\"), we conducted moderation analyses examining whether demographic characteristics influence intervention effectiveness across multiple outcome domains. All analyses included following demographic moderators: age (centered), gender, city size, parental status (having children), education level, adverse childhood experiences (ACE), and primary language. Building on the analytical approach describes above, linear mixed-effects models with heteroscedastic variance structures were fitted using the nlme package in R. Models included fixed effects for intervention group, time, demographic variables, and all two-way and three-way interactions. Random intercepts for participants accounted for repeated measures dependency. Heteroscedastic variance structures were implemented to address unequal variances across intervention groups and timepoints. Parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals were extracted for significant interaction effects to quantify moderation magnitude and direction. Nonparametric longitudinal data analysis (nparLD) was conducted using the nparLD package, appropriate for ordinal stigma measures with potential distributional violations. Models tested intervention × time × demographic interactions using F-statistics. Separate analyses were conducted for controllability beliefs, social distance preferences, and perceived dangerousness to children/adolescents. Linear mixed-effects models were fitted for openness with the same structure as affective outcomes, testing demographic moderation of intervention effects on this composite behavioral measure. Ordinal mixed-effects models using the ordinal package were applied to 5-point Likert scale therapy outcomes. Cumulative link mixed models (CLMM) with logit links tested intervention × time × demographic interactions while preserving the ordinal nature of responses. Likelihood ratio tests compared nested models to assess moderation significance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven the extensive testing across multiple outcomes and demographic, Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction was applied within each outcome domain to control Type I error inflation while maintaining reasonable statistical power.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor linear mixed-effects models, parameter estimates (β coefficients) with 95% confidence intervals quantified moderation effect magnitudes. For nonparametric and ordinal models, F-statistics and likelihood ratio test statistics provided effect size indicators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor RQ2b (“Does the type of intervention have an impact on the dropout rate?”), we analyzed study attrition by intervention group. “Dropout” was defined as not providing data at t2 (follow-up). We tabulated completed vs. dropped-out cases for each randomization group and compared distributions using a chi-square test of independence with α = .05. Effect size was indexed by Cramér’s V. Minimum expected cell counts were checked to verify test assumptions. To investigate whether post-intervention affective responses predicted subsequent study attrition, we conducted a series of hierarchical logistic regression models using binomial family with logit link function with arousal and valence measured immediately after the intervention (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) as predictors of dropout.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted in R (v4.3.1; R Core Team, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). We fit linear mixed-effects models with \u003cem\u003elme4\u003c/em\u003e (Bates et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and \u003cem\u003enlme\u003c/em\u003e (Pinheiro \u0026amp; Bates, 2000), ordinal cumulative link mixed models with \u003cem\u003eordinal\u003c/em\u003e (Christensen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), and nonparametric longitudinal models with \u003cem\u003enparLD\u003c/em\u003e (Noguchi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). R base functions (ANOVA, chi-square tests) were used for further analyses. Estimated marginal means and contrasts were obtained via \u003cem\u003eemmeans\u003c/em\u003e (Lenth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); effect sizes via \u003cem\u003eeffectsize\u003c/em\u003e (Ben-Shachar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Model diagnostics and assumption checks used \u003cem\u003ecar\u003c/em\u003e (Fox \u0026amp; Weisberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and base \u003cem\u003estats\u003c/em\u003e; data handling and visualization used the \u003cem\u003etidyverse\u003c/em\u003e (Wickham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and \u003cem\u003eggplot2\u003c/em\u003e (Wickham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). To support the development of data analysis scripts, AI-based code generation tools (GitHub Copilot/Claude) were used to assist in writing and debugging R code for statistical analyses and data visualization. All automatically generated code was reviewed by the authors to ensure accuracy and validity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the following, the descriptive results are first reported and then the research questions posed at the beginning are addressed. All descriptive values can be found in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn average, affect related to valence decreased after the intervention across all groups (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 181.76; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e= 160.22), with this decrease being particularly visible in the intervention groups (e.g. in IN1, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 181.93 decreased to \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 146.47). The control group, on the other hand, showed an increase in positive affect (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 198.30). The arousal level remained relatively stable overall in the intervention groups, while it decreased slightly in the control group (from \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 179.03 to \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e= 197.37; higher values indicate lower arousal). At the beginning of the survey (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), the participants\u0026rsquo; affective valence was on average in the neutral range; they felt neither particularly positive nor negative. The arousal value was also on average in the medium range, which indicates an affectively balanced state between arousal and relaxation. After receiving one of the three intervention messages (IN1-IN3), there was a slight shift in affective valence towards unpleasant emotions. This shift was similarly pronounced in all three experimental groups. In the control group, on the other hand, there was a slight increase in positive affects (higher valence) with slightly lower arousal, which indicates a more relaxed and pleasant reaction to the neutral message.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt baseline (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), participants exhibited relatively high levels of stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with a sexual interest in children. On average, the controllability subscale indicated moderate endorsement of the belief that such individuals have control over their sexual preferences (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.08, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.07 on a 7-point scale). Perceived dangerousness was markedly high, especially in relation to children and adolescents (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.55, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.06), suggesting that respondents viewed individuals with such interests as posing a substantial risk. Perceived dangerousness toward adults was lower but still moderate to high (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.98, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.30). The affective reactions at baseline were also indicative of stigma: Participants reported strong feelings of fear (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.63, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.03) and anger (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.26, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.46) towards people with a sexual interest in children. In contrast, pity was rated considerably lower (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.24, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.43). Finally, the mean social distance score at baseline (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.20, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.23) reflected a tendency to maintain distance from individuals with a sexual interest in children across multiple social contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all groups, stigma-related measures showed only small changes between baseline (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), post-intervention (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e), and follow-up (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e). On the controllability dimension, there was no change from t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.08, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.07) to t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.11, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.14), followed by a slight decrease at t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.99, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.06). Perceptions of dangerousness toward children and adolescents decreased slightly over time (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.55, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.43, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.36), while dangerousness toward adults also declined from baseline (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.98) to t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.68). Affective responses mirrored these trends: Reported fear decreased steadily across all time points (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.63, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.37, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.34), and anger, while initially high (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 6.26), dropped slightly post-intervention and remained at that level at follow-up (t1 \u0026amp; t2: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.03). In contrast, pity increased slightly from t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.24) to t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.54), with a minor decline at t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 3.39). Finally, the social distance score decreased modestly from t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et0\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.20) to t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.02) and remained nearly unchanged at t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003et2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.99), indicating a small reduction in desire to socially exclude individuals with a sexual interest in children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiteracy\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt baseline (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), participants\u0026rsquo; literacy regarding the availability of therapeutic services for people who use CSAM was moderate across all groups, with an overall mean of 2.22 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.21) on a 5-point scale. At follow-up (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), a minimal overall increase was observed (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.32, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.22). Beliefs about the effectiveness of therapy were moderately high at baseline (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.35, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00). At follow-up, the mean slightly decreased to 3.26 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.18). This pattern was consistent across all groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness, intention to act and self-reported behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt baseline (t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e), participants reported a moderate openness to engaging with the topic of CSAM, with an overall mean of 2.82 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24) on a 5-point scale. This value decreased slightly at post-intervention (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e; M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.66, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24), suggesting an overall drop in openness. When asked specifically about the likelihood of visiting the \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo; website at follow-up (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), participants across all conditions reported moderate interest (overall M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.71, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.28). Actual self-reported behavior was low overall: 74 participants (6.63%) indicated they had visited the \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo; website since the study. The highest proportion of visits was reported in IN1 (8.13%) and IN3 (7.72%), followed by IN2 (5.43%) and the control group (5.17%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics of all outcome variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimepoint\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; valence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e181.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e103.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e173, 191\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e183.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e146.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e138, 155\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e144.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e179.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e105.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170, 189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e183.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e145.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e104.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e136, 154\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e142.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e180.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e103.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171, 189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e183.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e149.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e141, 158\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e148.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e184.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e107.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e176, 194\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e186.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e198.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e190, 207\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e189.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e97.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e163, 181\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e180.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e177.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170, 184\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e181.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e174.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e166, 184\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e180.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e178.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171, 185\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e181.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e181.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e173, 189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e181.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e182.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e81.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e175, 189\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e182.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e179.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170, 188\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e180.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e197.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e92.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e189, 205\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e186.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; controllability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.86, 4.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.93, 4.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e283\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.64, 4.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00, 4.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.96, 4.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.85, 4.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.02, 4.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00, 4.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.75, 4.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.74, 4.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.79, 4.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.75, 4.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for children and adolescents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.49, 6,66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.29, 6.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e283\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.18, 6.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.47, 6.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.28, 6.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.16, 6.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.48, 6.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.40, 6.60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.27, 6.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.38, 6.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.35, 6.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.25, 6.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.78, 5.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.69, 5.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.40, 4.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.83, 5.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.73, 5.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.43, 5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.91, 5.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.82, 5.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.36, 4.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.60, 5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.60, 5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.43, 4.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: fear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.47, 5.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.12, 5.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.06, 5.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.50, 5.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.24, 5.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.19, 5.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.52, 5.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.26, 5.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.22, 5.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.32, 5.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.12, 5.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.02, 5.52\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: pity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12, 3.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.50, 3.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.26, 3.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.95, 3.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.51\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.31, 3.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.18, 3.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.84, 3.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24, 3.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.89, 3.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.16, 3.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.33, 3.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12, 3.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: anger\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.15, 6.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.87, 6.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.87, 6.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.03, 6.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.81, 6.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.71, 6.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.25, 6.49\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.04, 6.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.94, 6.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.10, 6.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.81, 6.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.85, 6.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"11\" rowspan=\"12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; social distance\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e499\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.11, 5.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.94, 5.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.87, 5.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e497\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.02, 5.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e496\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.79, 5.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.71, 5.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.83\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.24, 5.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e502\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00, 5.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.91, 5.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e517\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.01, 5.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e516\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.91, 5.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.86, 5.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiteracy \u0026ndash; therapy availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.16, 2.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17, 2.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.99, 2.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18, 2.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18, 2.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17, 2.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.13, 2.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18, 2.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiteracy \u0026ndash; therapy effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.23, 3.44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.14, 3.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24, 3.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12, 3.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.30, 3.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.11, 3.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.20, 3.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.13, 3.41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.77, 2.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e500\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.59, 2.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.68, 2.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e498\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.69\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.58, 2.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.61, 2.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e503\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.49, 2.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.76, 2.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e518\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.54, 2.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntention to act \u0026ndash; visit \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.46, 2.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.50, 2.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.62, 2.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.66, 2.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-reported behavior \u0026ndash; visited \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23 (8.15%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e258\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14 (5.43%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e285\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22 (7.72%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e290\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15 (5.17%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ1a: Intervention effects compared to control\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; valence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group \u0026times; time)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15.68,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .001, η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;64.31,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .001, η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; time interaction:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43.41,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026lt; .001, η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.061\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; time interaction (η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.061) shows medium effect size.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group \u0026times; time)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.021, η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; time: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006, η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll effect sizes are small (η\u0026sup2;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005-.007).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; controllability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; time: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.152, ε\u0026sup2; = .006\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo practical impact of the interventions on controllability scores relative to control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; social distance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.300\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.45, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; time: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.078, ε\u0026sup2; = .002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo practical impact of the interventions on social distance scores relative to control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for children and adolescents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.875\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.125,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; Time: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.604, ε\u0026sup2; \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll effects have no practical relevance (ε\u0026sup2; \u0026lt; .001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.744, ε\u0026sup2; = .001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: fear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.611, ε\u0026sup2; = .002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: pity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.240, ε\u0026sup2; = .004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: anger\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.542, ε\u0026sup2; = .002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2398)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.168\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup \u0026times; time: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.273\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll participants showed decreased openness to the topic from t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e to t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. When comparing EMMs with Tukey adjustment within each time, no group vs. control contrast was significant at either t₀ or t₁ (all adjusted ps\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.187), and standardized contrasts were small with CIs including zero.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWald χ\u0026sup2;(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.827, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003emarg\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWald χ\u0026sup2;(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.511, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2;marg\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntention to act \u0026ndash; visit \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne-way ANOVA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 1111)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.232, η\u0026sup2; = .004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-reported behavior \u0026ndash; visited \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChi-square test and logistic regression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2;(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.361, Cram\u0026eacute;r's \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.054\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ1b: Differences between interventions\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; valence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTukey HSD post-hoc comparisons\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; controllability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; social distance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for children and adolescents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise nonparametric comparisons (Dunn's test)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTukey HSD post-hoc comparisons\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-hoc contrasts (ordinal mixed-effects)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-hoc contrasts (ordinal mixed-effects)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntention to act (visit \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTukey HSD post-hoc comparisons\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-reported behavior (visited \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise chi-square tests with Bonferroni correction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll pairwise \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05 (Bonferroni corrected)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo significant differences between intervention groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ1c: Potential adverse or ethical implications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; valence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group \u0026times; time)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): +13.31 [6.9, 19.7]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u0026times;t1: -48.87 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;59.38, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;38.18]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u0026times;t1: -47.82 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;58.41, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;37.22]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u0026times;t1: -44.06 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;54.99, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;33.14]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the intervention, the affective state on the valence dimension is more negative than before.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure (group \u0026times; time)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): +18.34 [10.9, 25.7]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u0026times;t1: -12.67 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23.29, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.04]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u0026times;t1: -15.03 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;25.53, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4.52]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u0026times;t1: -17.22 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;27.80, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6.64]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the intervention, the affective state on the arousal dimension is slightly changed in the direction of alertness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; controllability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.06 [-0.20; 0.31], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.08 [-0.22; 0.37]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.07 [-0.19; 0.32, IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.15 [-0.46; 0.17]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.03 [-0.29: 0.24], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.08 [-0.39; 0.23]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.01 [-0.27; 0.25], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.22 [-0.52; 0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; social distance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.12 [-0.25; 0.04], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.11 [-0.29; 0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.17 [-0.32; -0.02], IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.20 [-0.38; -0.02]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.23 [-0.39; -0.07], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.27 [-0.46; -0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.23 [-0.39; -0.07], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.29 [-0.47; -0.10]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for children and adolescents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.03 [-0.17; 0.12], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.09 [-0.26; 0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.19 [-0.32; 0.05], IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.25 [-0.42; -0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.18 [-0.32; -0.04], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.24 [-0.42; -0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.08 [-0.21; 0.07], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.17 [-0.3; -0.01]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.00 [-0.26; 0.28], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.09 [-0.43; 0.25]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.09 [-0.37; 0.20], IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.31 [-0.65; 0.04]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.10 [-0.39; 0.18], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.32 [-0.67; 0.04]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.08 [-0.38; 0.20], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.48 [-0.82; -0.15]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: fear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.19 [-0.45; 0.07], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.23 [-0.54; 0.08]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.33 [-0.59; -0.07], IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.33 [-0.63; -0.02]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.25 [-0.50; 0.01], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.24 [-0.54; 0.07]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.26 [-0.52; 0.00], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.35 [-0.65; -0.04]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: pity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.14 [-0.15; 0.44], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): = 0.00 [-0.35; 0.35]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.36 [0.06; 0.67], IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.20 [-0.15; 0.56]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.36 [0.06; 0.65], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.31 [-0.05; 0.67]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.37 [0.07; 0.67], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.11 [-0.24; 0.45]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; affective reaction: anger\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl (t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.25 [-0.45; -0.06], Control (t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.19 [-0.41; 0.03]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.26 [-0.45; -0.06], IN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.21 [-0.44; 0.02]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.21 [-0.41; -0.01], IN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.24 [-0.50; 0.01]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.19 [-0.38; -0.01], IN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): -0.24 [-0.46; -0.02]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u0026times;t1: 0.07 [-0.02; 0.16]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u0026times;t1: 0.05 [-0.04; 0.14]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u0026times;t1: -0.03 [-0.12; 0.06]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u0026times;t2: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.003 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.089), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.00 [0.84, 1.19]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u0026times;t2: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.132 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.091) OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.14 [0.96, 1.36]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u0026times;t2: β = \u0026minus;0.073 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.089), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93 [0.78, 1.11]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1\u0026times;t2: β = \u0026minus;0.02 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.98 [0.65, 1.46]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2\u0026times;t2: β = \u0026minus;0.08 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21) OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.93 [0.61, 1.40]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3\u0026times;t2: β = \u0026minus;0.27 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.21), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76 [0.51, 1.14]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntention to act (visit \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔMean\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.19 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.02, 0.40]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.15 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.06, 0.36]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): 0.04 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.18, 0.25]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-reported behavior (visited \u0026ldquo;Troubled Desire\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLogistic regression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): β = -0.49 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.34), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.61 [0.31, 1.20]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): β = -0.05 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95 [0.45, 2.01]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e): β = -0.43 (SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.35), OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.65 [0.33, 1.28]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterventions have no effect of practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRQ2a: Moderating effects\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; valence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMale: β = +28.726, 95% CI [11.57, 45.89],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN2 \u0026times; ACE: β = -44.356, 95% CI [-80.96, -7.76],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3 \u0026times; ACE: β = -50.425, 95% CI [-89.60, -11.25],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.012\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN3 \u0026times; time \u0026times; medium city: β = +28.844, 95% CI [4.05, 53.64],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMales have consistently higher baseline valence (+\u0026thinsp;28.7 points) regardless of intervention. With regards to the intervention, significant effects are the\u0026nbsp;ACE interactions\u0026nbsp;(p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.02) and the\u0026nbsp;city \u0026times; time interactions\u0026nbsp;(p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.023 for medium cities), indicating that trauma history and geographic location substantially moderate intervention responses for valence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAffective state \u0026ndash; arousal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model with heteroscedastic variance structure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (age not significant, FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium city: β = +21.501, 95% CI [3.39, 39.61],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIN1 \u0026times; medium city: β = -27.296, 95% CI [-54.14, -0.45],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.046\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTime \u0026times; lower education: β = +21.439, 95% CI [6.69, 36.19],\u0026nbsp;p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium cities residents show higher baseline arousal (+\u0026thinsp;21.5 points, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.020). However, IN1 decreases arousal by 27.3 points for medium city residents (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.046). Lower education participants show\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;21.4 point increase in arousal over time (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.004). Thus, living environment and educational background moderate intervention responses for emotional arousal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; controllability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChildren \u0026times; time: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.600, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0280, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.098\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation \u0026times; time: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.685, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0002, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0014\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group \u0026times; ACE: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.691, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0114, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation level (lower vs higher) shows the strongest time-based moderation effect on controllability beliefs (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.69, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). Having children and ACE trauma exposure also significantly moderate intervention responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; social distance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.81, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group \u0026times; gender: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.01, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.029, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.102\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRandomization group \u0026times; children \u0026times; time: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.47, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.040, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.141\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation shows the strongest overall moderation effect on social distance preferences (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.81, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), with additional gender-based intervention differences and complex three-way interactions involving parental status.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStigma \u0026ndash; dangerousness for children and adolescents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonparametric longitudinal analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.856, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0088, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eChildren \u0026times; time: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.398, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0004, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0028\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducation \u0026times; time: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.475, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0004, FDR q\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0028\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage \u0026times; time: F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.601, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001, FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage shows the strongest time-based moderation effect on dangerousness beliefs (F\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.60, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001 each), indicating major cultural/linguistic differences in intervention trajectories. Parental status, education level, and gender also significantly moderate responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpenness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLinear mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo demographic variables significantly moderate intervention effects on openness to the topic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy availability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo demographic moderators significant after FDR correction (FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo demographic variables significantly moderate intervention effects on literacy about therapy availability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherapy effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrdinal mixed-effects model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1/7 demographic moderators significant after FDR correction FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) compared to base model\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge: LRT p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, FDR q\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOnly age shows a main effect (older participants consistently rate therapy as more effective regardless of intervention group or timepoint). No demographic variables significantly moderate the intervention\u0026rsquo;s specific impact on therapy effectiveness perceptions over time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1a: Intervention effects compared to control\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine whether the three intervention types (educational, humanizing with prevention focus, and humanizing with empathy focus) differed from the control condition in their effects on participants\u0026rsquo; attitudes, behavioral intentions, cognitions, and affect, a series of linear mixed-effects, nonparametric, and ordinal models were conducted. For valence, a significant \u003cem\u003egroup \u0026times; time\u003c/em\u003e interaction emerged, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43.41, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, η\u0026sup2;ₚ = .061, indicating a medium-sized effect. Participants\u0026rsquo; affective responses varied over time depending on randomization group. A similar but weaker pattern appeared for arousal, where small effects were found for group, time, and their interaction (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.25\u0026ndash;14.09, \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.021, η\u0026sup2;ₚ = .005\u0026ndash;.007), suggesting minor changes in emotional activation following the interventions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all stigma dimensions (controllability, social distance, perceived dangerousness toward children/adolescents and adults, and affective reactions of fear, pity, and anger), no meaningful intervention effects were observed. Although some time effects were significant (e.g., controllability: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.025; social distance: ATS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28.45, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), group \u0026times; time interactions were nonsignificant and effect sizes were negligible (ε\u0026sup2; \u0026le; .006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor openness toward the topic, results revealed a significant main effect of time, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 2015)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, indicating that participants across all conditions became less open to discussing or engaging with the topic after the intervention. However, neither the main effect of group nor the group \u0026times; time interaction reached significance (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;.168), and all standardized contrasts with the control group were small with confidence intervals including zero. Similarly, perceptions of therapy availability (\u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.89, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.827) and perceived therapy effectiveness (\u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.511) did not differ across groups, with marginal \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003es near zero. No group differences emerged for participants\u0026rsquo; intention to visit the preventive help website \u003cem\u003eTroubled Desire\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 1111)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.43, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.232, η\u0026sup2; = .004) or for self-reported visits after the intervention (\u003cem\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.361, Cram\u0026eacute;r\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.054).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1b: Differences between interventions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess whether the three intervention types (educational, humanizing with prevention focus, and humanizing with empathy focus) differed in their effectiveness regarding attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes, a series of pairwise post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Tukey HSD, Dunn\u0026rsquo;s tests with Bonferroni correction, and post-hoc contrasts for ordinal models as appropriate. For both affective valence and arousal, no significant pairwise differences were found between any of the three intervention groups (all \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, Bonferroni/Tukey adjusted). Thus, while interventions as a whole influenced affective responses compared to the control condition (see RQ1a), they did not differ in their relative effectiveness in eliciting emotional change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePairwise comparisons for all stigma-related measures (controllability, social distance, perceived dangerousness toward children/adolescent and adults, and affective reactions of fear, pity, and anger) revealed no significant differences between intervention types (all \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, Bonferroni corrected). This indicates that the educational and humanizing message formats were equally (in)effective in reducing stigmatizing attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePost-hoc comparisons for openness toward the topic, perceived therapy availability, and therapy effectiveness similarly yielded no significant pairwise differences (all \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, Bonferroni/Tukey adjusted). This suggests that none of the intervention types produced a unique advantage in changing cognitive perceptions about prevention or treatment. No significant pairwise differences were observed for intention to visit the website \u003cem\u003eTroubled Desire\u003c/em\u003e (all \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05) or for actual self-reported visits after the intervention (all \u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, Bonferroni corrected).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1c: Potential adverse or ethical implications\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore whether any of the interventions elicited adverse effects, such as negative affective responses or increases in stigma that might raise ethical concerns, post-intervention changes across affective, attitudinal, cognitive, and behavioral indicators were examined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalyses revealed a clear pattern of negative affective responses following exposure to the intervention messages. While participants in the control condition showed an increase in positive valence from pre- to posttest (\u003cem\u003eΔ\u003c/em\u003e = +13.31 [6.9, 19.7]), all intervention groups experienced pronounced declines in valence (IN1: \u0026minus;48.87 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;59.38, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;38.18]; IN2: \u0026minus;47.82 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;58.41, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;37.22]; IN3: \u0026minus;44.06 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;54.99, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;33.14]). Thus, message exposure was associated with a more negative emotional state. For arousal, the interventions also reduced posttest scores relative to control (IN1: \u0026minus;12.67 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;23.29, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2.04]; IN2: \u0026minus;15.03 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;25.53, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4.52]; IN3: \u0026minus;17.22 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;27.80, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;6.64]), reflecting a shift toward greater alertness or tension. Although these findings suggest short-term discomfort or increased emotional activation, the magnitudes were not indicative of severe distress.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross all stigma dimensions (controllability, social distance, and perceived dangerousness toward children or adults) no evidence emerged for adverse or rebound effects. Estimated mean changes were small and confidence intervals included zero for most contrasts, indicating no practical relevance. Notably, the direction of change for social distance and perceived dangerousness was slightly negative (i.e., lower stigma) across time for all intervention groups (e.g., IN2 social distance: \u0026minus;0.23 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.39, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.07]; IN2 dangerousness toward children: \u0026minus;0.18 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.32, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.04]), suggesting that message exposure did not exacerbate stigmatizing views. Affective components of stigma (fear, pity, anger) followed a similar pattern. Fear responses decreased slightly over time in all conditions, and pity increased marginally immediately post-intervention (IN1: +0.36 [0.06, 0.67]), while anger decreased marginally. These minimal directional shifts point away from, rather than toward, stigmatizing reactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo evidence of adverse cognitive reactions was observed. Openness toward the topic did not differ across interventions (IN1: +0.07 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.02, 0.16]; IN3: \u0026minus;0.03 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.12, 0.06]), and perceptions of therapy availability and effectiveness did not differ from control (all \u003cem\u003eOR\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;1.0, CIs including 1). These results indicate that none of the messages reduced perceived accessibility or effectiveness of preventive treatment options. Behavioral intentions to visit \u003cem\u003eTroubled Desire\u003c/em\u003e remained unchanged or slightly increased in all intervention conditions (IN1: +0.19 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.02, 0.40]; IN2: +0.15 [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.06, 0.36]). Similarly, no negative behavioral impact was detected in self-reported visits (all \u003cem\u003eOR\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1 but with wide confidence intervals including 1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2a: Moderating effects\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine whether intervention effects varied as a function of participants\u0026rsquo; demographic characteristics, including gender, parental status, education, age, adverse childhood experiences (ACE), language background, and urbanicity, moderation analyses were conducted using mixed-effects and nonparametric longitudinal models. Significant moderators were identified based on false discovery rate (FDR)\u0026ndash;corrected \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e values (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor valence, all seven demographic variables improved model fit after FDR correction. When considering the effects, two demographic variables reached the threshold for statistical significance: Males reported consistently higher baseline valence (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = +28.73, 95% CI [11.57, 45.89], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001), independent of intervention condition. ACE history significantly interacted with the humanizing\u0026ndash;empathy (IN2 \u0026times; ACE: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;44.36, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;80.96, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;7.76], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.018) and humanizing\u0026ndash;prevention (IN3 \u0026times; ACE: \u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;50.43, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;89.60, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;11.25], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.012) interventions, suggesting that individuals with adverse childhood experiences experienced more negative affective responses to humanizing messages. For arousal, six of seven moderators were significant (all except age, FDR \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05). Residents of medium-sized cities showed higher baseline arousal (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = +21.50, 95% CI [3.39, 39.61], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.020), but the educational intervention (IN1) reduced their arousal substantially (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;27.30, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;54.14, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.45], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.046). Participants with lower educational attainment showed increased arousal over time (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e = +21.44, 95% CI [6.69, 36.19], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004), indicating greater emotional activation among less-educated respondents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor controllability beliefs, three moderators were significant after FDR correction: education (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, FDR \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001), parental status (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.028), and ACE history (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011). Education exerted the strongest moderating influence, with lower-educated participants showing greater changes in perceived controllability over time. Similarly, parental status and trauma exposure shaped responses to the interventions, suggesting differentiated stigma trajectories across demographic groups. For social distance, three moderators reached significance: education (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;16.81, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), gender (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.029), and a three-way interaction involving children and time (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.040). Again, education was the most robust factor, indicating that attitudes toward social proximity to people with sexual interests in children changed more strongly among participants with lower education. For perceived dangerousness toward children and adolescents, four moderators were significant: gender (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.86, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.009), parental status (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), education (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and language (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.60, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). The language \u0026times; time interaction showed the largest effect size, suggesting substantial cultural or linguistic differences in how dangerousness beliefs evolved after message exposure. These findings highlight that responses to prevention messaging are not homogeneous across demographic and cultural subgroups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor openness, no demographic variables significantly moderated intervention effects after FDR correction. Similarly, no significant moderation emerged for perceived therapy availability. For perceived therapy effectiveness, age was the only significant predictor (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, FDR \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), with older participants consistently rating therapy options as more effective, regardless of intervention or timepoint. No other demographic factors influenced cognitive responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2b: Impact of intervention on dropout\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf 2,019 participants at baseline, 1,115 completed t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e and 904 dropped out overall. By group, dropout was: CG: 228/518 (44.0%); IN1: 218/500 (43.6%); IN2: 240/498 (48.2%); IN3: 218/503 (43.3%). The chi-square test indicated no significant association between intervention group and dropout, χ\u0026sup2;(3)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.17, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.366, with a small effect (Cram\u0026eacute;r\u0026rsquo;s V\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04). Assumptions were met (minimum expected count\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;222.98; 0/8 cells\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5). Neither arousal (β = -0.0002, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.679; OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000, 95% CI [0.999, 1.001]) nor valence (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0002, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.694; OR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.000, 95% CI [0.999, 1.001]) significantly predicted dropout when examined individually or in combination (arousal \u0026times; valence \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.445). Adding intervention group to the model did not improve prediction, with intervention assignment showing no association with dropout (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.634).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study investigated the effects of three communication interventions \u0026ndash; educational messaging, humanizing with prevention focus, and humanizing with empathy focus \u0026ndash; on affective, cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes related to CSA/M prevention. Overall, the findings indicate that while the interventions influenced participants\u0026rsquo; affective responses, they produced no relevant change in stigma, cognitive beliefs, or behavioral intentions compared to a control message.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe distributions observed across stigma-related measures showed pronounced ceiling effects and, in some cases, bimodal response patterns, particularly for the dimensions of dangerousness and controllability. These response characteristics indicate that many participants already held highly stigmatizing attitudes prior to the intervention. The bimodal distributions, in turn, suggest attitudinal polarization: while one subgroup expressed strong rejection and moral condemnation, another displayed more differentiated or empathetic views. Overall, these findings demonstrate that stigma toward individuals with a sexual interest in children is not normally distributed but clustered around the extremes of the scale. This poses both methodological and conceptual challenges for evaluating intervention effects, as high baseline scores near the upper scale limit imply that the true level of stigma may lie beyond the measurable range. Consequently, changes induced by brief interventions are unlikely, given the deeply entrenched and resistant nature of such attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to RQ1a, significant group \u0026times; time interactions emerged for affective valence and arousal, showing small-to-medium emotional effects: intervention exposure was associated with more negative valence and slightly elevated arousal immediately after viewing. However, no consistent differences were observed across stigma dimensions, cognitive indicators (e.g., openness, perceived therapy effectiveness or availability), or behavioral outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1b revealed that the three intervention types did not differ from one another in effectiveness; all produced comparable levels of affective engagement without meaningful divergence in attitudinal or behavioral impact. The absence of differences between the intervention formats may suggest that the video component, which was the same in all three interventions, was more salient than the accompanying textual message. The intervention deliberately combined short video and text elements to mirror typical media consumption patterns. Fix et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) note that, with reference to Gough et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), the use of social media outlets like Twitter to promote public health campaign messaging has demonstrated preliminary feasibility and efficacy in changing attitudes and behaviors. Nevertheless, studies employing brief interventions, e.g., 5- to 12-minute videos or short written materials, have reported only small to medium effect sizes (d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11\u0026ndash;0.79), with limited practical relevance (often representing less than a one-point change on Likert-type scales) (Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; McKillop \u0026amp; Price, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, larger effects tend to emerge from more intensive interventions, such as extended contact sessions lasting around two hours (δ\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.76\u0026ndash;1.49; Grady et al., 2017, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) or semester-long educational courses, which yield medium to large effect sizes (Wurtele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Heron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest a possible dose\u0026ndash;response relationship: brief interventions can evoke momentary emotional engagement but are generally insufficient to produce lasting cognitive or behavioral change. Comparable short-format messaging has been used in deterrence and warning message studies (Prichard et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), where the interventions demonstrated measurable effects on behavior. However, those messages were usually embedded within highly contextualized environments, such as adult content platforms, which likely heightened their salience and immediacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAddressing RQ1c, the analyses found no evidence of adverse effects that would raise ethical concern. Although the interventions elicited short-term emotional discomfort, they did not lead to increases in stigma, negative attitudes, or avoidance behaviors. To anticipate RQ2b, post-intervention arousal and valence showed no predictive value for dropout before the follow-up assessment. From an ethical standpoint, the interventions can therefore be considered unobjectionable. This finding is particularly relevant given that previous studies have reported potential backfire effects of psychoeducational materials. For example, Harper et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) observed that an informative condition initially increased deviance perceptions toward individuals with a sexual interest in children, while Jara and Jeglic (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) found that psychoeducational interventions sometimes led to heightened negative attitudes rather than reducing them. These findings highlight that certain communication approaches may inadvertently reinforce stigma if not carefully designed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA recurring limitation noted in previous research concerns the composition of study samples, which have often consisted primarily of young, female, higher-education participants (Grady et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Harper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Heron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lawrence \u0026amp; Willis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Levenson \u0026amp; Grady, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Wurtele, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This restricted demographic focus limits the generalizability of findings and hampers insights into how different population groups respond to anti-stigma communication. The present study addresses this gap by employing a quasi-representative sample, thereby enabling a more comprehensive examination of moderation effects across diverse demographic segments. Exploratory moderation analyses (RQ2a) revealed substantial demographic variation in intervention impact. Gender, education, parental status, adverse childhood experiences, and language background significantly moderated changes in affective and stigma-related outcomes. Participants with lower education levels, as well as those with a history of childhood adversity or parenting experience, exhibited distinct emotional and attitudinal trajectories, suggesting that personal and contextual factors meaningfully shape the reception of preventive messages. Cultural and linguistic differences also played a notable role in shaping perceptions of dangerousness, indicating that prevention communication may resonate differently across sociocultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding gender, the current study found that female participants tended to report higher stigma scores, particularly in dimensions perceived dangerousness and social distance. This aligns partially, but not entirely, with prior findings. For instance, Roche et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) observed that although there was no effect of vignette gender on perceived risk or stigma scores, participant gender did influence responses: men endorsed higher stigma scores for vignettes depicting males and vignettes depicting exclusively attracted individuals compared to vignettes depicting females and non-preferential individuals. However, as Roche and colleagues further note, \u0026ldquo;there are mixed findings on how gender might impact the public\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of people who commit sexual offenses, with some studies finding that women hold more negative attitudes, or finding no gender effect at all\u0026rdquo; (p. 744). They conclude that \u0026ldquo;future research should aim to further explore the role of participant gender on perceptions toward individuals attracted to children as it would provide important information for anti-stigma interventions\u0026rdquo; (p. 744).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge did not emerge as a moderating factor in the intervention\u0026rsquo;s effects. With the exception of a single main effect on perceived therapy effectiveness, no systematic age-related differences were observed across affective, cognitive, or stigma-related outcomes. This suggests that participants across age groups responded similarly to the intervention materials. Consequently, there is no empirical indication that age-specific tailoring of communication content or format would be necessary in the context of this study. This finding stands in contrast to assumptions by McKillop and Price (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), who proposed that prevention strategies might benefit from differentiated messaging platforms for distinct age cohorts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e By including a broader range of participants, the current study allowed for a more nuanced examination of parental status on intervention outcomes. Results indicated that parental status affected stigma-related dimensions but not affective or cognitive variables. Specifically, parents tended to report higher stigma scores across several domains (Controllability: ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23, ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.22, ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33; Dangerousness for children and adolescents: ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10, ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10, ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.20; Social distance: ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, ΔMean(t\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08). These patterns suggest that having children is associated with stronger stigmatization of people with a sexual interest in children, particularly regarding perceived control and potential risk. This tendency may reflect heightened sensitivity to child safety concerns or more protective social attitudes among parents. Qualitative research provides convergent evidence that parental identity shapes emotional reactions to this topic. In their thematic analysis, Lawrence and Willis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) reported that participants who were parents frequently described feelings of worry and concern surrounding child safety, which made it difficult for them to respond with empathy or to view individuals with a sexual interests in children in a detached, analytical manner. However, not all studies have found consistent evidence for this relationship. Lehmann et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), as well as Jahnke, Imhoff, and Hoyer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), did not identify conclusive effects of parenthood on stigmatizing attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEducational background emerged as a relevant factor primarily in relation to stigmatizing attitudes. Roche et al. (2024) reported no significant education effects, likely due to their predominantly highly educated sample, in which most participants held at least a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree. In the present study, with roughly half of holding a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s or higher degree, we found small differences. Education appeared to play a role particularly in stigma-related domains. Participants with lower education levels tended to hold more stigmatizing attitudes overall. For controllability, the education-related gap increased over time (ΔM(t₀)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.14, ΔM(t₁)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.29, ΔM(t₂)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.34), indicating that less educated participants perceived individuals with a sexual interest in children as having weaker control over their attraction. Similar, though smaller, differences emerged for perceived dangerousness toward children and adolescents (ΔM(t₀)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08, ΔM(t₁)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.03, ΔM(t₂)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.12) and social distance (ΔM(t₀)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.10, ΔM(t₁)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.14, ΔM(t₂)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.10). These patterns suggest that lower educational attainment is associated with stronger stigmatization. This finding aligns with broader evidence linking higher education to greater acceptance of minority sexual orientations or paraphilic sexual interests, although Jahnke (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) provided evidence that this effect does not manifest in the case of sexual interest in children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA significant interaction effect between language and time emerged for the stigma dimension dangerousness for children and adolescents, whereas no other outcome measures showed meaningful language-related differences. Overall, this effect can be considered minor, as it was limited to a single dimension and the observed differences between language groups were small in magnitude, ranging from +\u0026thinsp;0.01 to \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.50 scale points depending on group and time. Thus, while the language effect reached statistical significance, its practical relevance appears limited. Nonetheless, the finding aligns conceptually with broader research emphasizing the cultural shaping of stigma. Christiansen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) explicitly note that \u0026ldquo;when developing educational programs that target stigmatization, it is essential to consider the cultural aspect. Both the national and cultural context shapes the extent of stigma and stereotypes through, e.g., social organization, the legal and cultural system.\u0026rdquo; Similarly, Langvik et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), reported notable differences between U.S. and Norwegian samples, particularly regarding public endorsement of treatment versus imprisonment for CSAM offenders. These findings underscore that while the language-related effects in the present study were minimal, cultural and contextual factors may still play an important role in shaping public perceptions and responses to prevention messaging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) were examined as a potential moderator of participants\u0026rsquo; responses, particularly with regard potential triggering effects in response to CSA/M-related content, as it could be expected that individuals with ACEs might react differently than those without such experiences. Indeed, notable baseline differences between participants with and without ACEs were observed at t₀, with group-specific differences ranging from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;30.99 to +\u0026thinsp;19.43 on the affective measure. This pattern may indicate that exposure to stigma-related items or references to CSA/M elicited stronger or more variable emotional responses among individuals with prior adverse experiences. By t₁, these differences had narrowed somewhat (range: \u0026minus;14.50 to +\u0026thinsp;13.41), suggesting a convergence over time. The direction of change was consistent across all intervention groups, showing a general decrease in valence, although the steepness of the decline varied between groups. Overall, these findings point to a difference in affective reactivity linked to personal trauma history, which, however, already appeared before exposure to the intervention. Besides valence, on the stigma dimension controllability showed a significant moderation effect of ACEs of minor practical relevance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Participants\u0026rsquo; living environment emerged as a potential contextual factor influencing affective responses to the interventions. Specifically, participants from medium-sized cities showed distinct trajectories of emotional response change over time in the IN3 condition, and the IN1 intervention produced differential effects on arousal among this subgroup. Although no previous intervention studies have explicitly tested rural\u0026ndash;urban or city-size variables as moderators of CSA/M prevention communication, related research in health communication and mental health stigma provides theoretical and empirical grounds for interpreting these effects. E. g., Schroeder et al (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) report a relationship between living environment, gender and mental illness stigma. In the context of CSA/M prevention, tailoring interventions to local social climates, as recommended by Harper et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and Cant et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), could enhance message resonance and ethical sensitivity across diverse community settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, RQ2b examined whether dropouts differed between intervention conditions. Of the 2,019 participants at baseline, 1,115 completed the posttest (t₂), resulting in an overall attrition rate of 44.8%. Dropout rates were comparable across conditions, and a chi-square test confirmed no significant association between intervention group and dropout. Thus, participation and retention were not differentially affected by message type, and no systematic attrition bias was evident. This finding is notable given the sensitive and potentially discomforting nature of CSA/M-related content. From a methodological perspective, comparable retention across intervention conditions strengthens the internal validity of the present findings. A similar attrition rate (43%) has been reported in the web-based stigma reduction study by Harper et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), which also dealt with sensitive topics around sexual interest in children and public attitudes. Taken together, the absence of condition-specific attrition in this study suggests that the interventions were ethically appropriate and acceptable to participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplications\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the intervention did not yield significant improvements across stigma, cognitive or behavioral measures, it also produced no adverse effects \u0026ndash; an ethically important finding and a valuable foundation for future health communication activities in the sensitive domain of CSA/M prevention. Given the intervention\u0026rsquo;s ability to generate short-term affective responses, this format may serve as a useful starting point for capturing attention and initiating engagement. However, as the present findings indicate, such brief, single-exposure interventions are insufficient to trigger durable changes in cognition, attitudes, or behavior. Findings from the current study and the literature hint to a dose-response mechanism. Building on this, future communication strategies might consider video-based content as a gateway mechanism; a means of emotional activation that can lay the groundwork for deeper, repeated, or more cognitively demanding engagement. As several researchers have emphasized, sustained impact is unlikely without prolonged or repeated exposure. For instance, Lawrence and Willis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) call for repeated interventions to promote sustained attitudinal changes, while Harper et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) recommend longer interventions to see whether deeper or more developed arguments enhance the effects. Similarly, Jahnke, Philipp, and Hoyer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) suggest integrating online interventions as components within broader educational frameworks because attitudes that have developed over a long time tend to be stable. Future campaigns should rely on intensity and repeated exposure since these are essential for attitude change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, intervention design should take into account current media consumption patterns. Given the prevalence of short-form content, especially on social media platforms, effective stigma reduction strategies may benefit from repetitive, episodic exposure rather than isolated, one-off campaigns. A strategically designed series of concise, emotionally resonant, and educationally grounded messages, delivered repeatedly across platforms, could increase the likelihood of sustained cognitive engagement and, over time, meaningful attitude change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study offer a concrete and actionable implication for public health campaigns, even in the absence of detectable attitude change: brief, carefully designed messages can draw public attention to CSA/M without increasing stigma. This is a critical insight, as preventing unintended stigmatizing effects represents a central ethical and practical threshold for any population-level intervention in this domain. The demonstrated safety of short-form communication formats suggests that they can function as a low-risk entry point into broader prevention strategies \u0026ndash; raising awareness, initiating engagement, and preparing audiences for more intensive or elaborated messaging without causing harm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the most immediate translational pathway emerging from this study is the development of short, ethically robust communication modules that can be scaled across digital platforms. These modules can be used to sensitize the public to the topic, signal the legitimacy of preventive engagement, and ultimately support a layered communication strategy in which brief attention-grabbing messages anchor more comprehensive educational or therapeutic resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, the comparability of the three intervention conditions was limited due to non-standardized formats. Although all conditions included both a video and a textual component, variations in length and information density may have influenced participants\u0026rsquo; emotional or cognitive engagement. Second, group assignments were conducted using simple randomization rather than stratified randomization. Given the large sample size (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1,000), this approach was chosen to optimize efficiency, though it may have introduced imbalances in subgroup distribution that could have affected moderation analyses. Third, a potential priming effect must be considered, as participants completed baseline measures on stigma and related constructs immediately prior to the affective state rating and exposure to the intervention materials. Fourth, the study relied exclusively on self-report measures and did not include objective behavioral data. For example, actual engagement behavior such as website visits were not tracked. This limits the ability to draw conclusions about real-world behavioral impact beyond self-reported intentions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA further limitation concerns the generalizability of findings to population groups with limited digital literacy or restricted access to online platforms. As the study relied on an online survey design and brief multimedia interventions, individuals who are less familiar or less comfortable with digital technology may be underrepresented. This is relevant given that prevention campaigns ideally reach across demographic groups, including older adults or individuals in digitally marginalized contexts. At the same time, one could argue that the online format closely mirrors the real-world environment in which modern prevention campaigns increasingly disseminate information, particularly through social media and short-form digital content. Thus, while online methodology imposes certain constraints, it also reflects the natural ecology of contemporary health communication. Nonetheless, future work should consider complementary offline strategies to ensure that prevention messaging is accessible to audiences with varying levels of digital engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCultural context may limit the transferability of findings. The study was conducted in Spain and Portugal \u0026ndash; countries with comparatively little long-term public discourse or media visibility around CSA/M prevention initiatives. Spain and Portugal were selected to reduce the likelihood of pre-exposure bias, however, it restricts straightforward generalization to contexts with different legal frameworks, media histories, or cultural narratives surrounding CSA/M.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003e This study provides a foundation for further work in CSA/M prevention communication by demonstrating that brief, ethically sound interventions can evoke emotional responses without causing adverse effects. Although no significant changes in stigma, attitudes, or behavioral intentions were observed, the findings confirm that short-form interventions can serve as an initial point of contact for capturing attention and raising awareness. To achieve meaningful and lasting attitude change, future efforts should build on this format through repeated exposure, narrative depth, and integration into broader educational or clinical contexts. Crucially, translating empirical knowledge into publicly resonant messages remains a pressing challenge. As Fix et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) argue, \u0026ldquo;new ways of translating this evidence base are needed to improve the public\u0026rsquo;s understanding of CSA \u0026ndash; why it happens, why it matters, and how it can be prevented.\u0026rdquo; (p. 3) Strategic testing of explanatory metaphors and empirically validated framing approaches represents a promising next step in this process. Moreover, the dissemination of CSA prevention messaging must extend and include diverse channels, embedded framing guidance, and strategic partnerships with organizations in the child protection field. As Fix and colleagues emphasize, such coordinated efforts can empower the field to \u0026ldquo;speak with a more strategic and consistent voice,\u0026rdquo; thereby enhancing public understanding and support for effective, evidence-based prevention policy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"List of abbreviations ","content":"\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"3\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAbbreviation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeaning\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eACE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdverse Childhood Experiences\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eANOVA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of Variance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eATS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eANOVA-Type Statistic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConfidence Interval\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCLMM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative Link Mixed Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChild Sexual Abuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCSAM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChild Sexual Abuse Material\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCSEM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChild Sexual Exploitation Material\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDSM-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, Fifth Edition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFDR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFalse Discovery Rate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIN1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntervention 1 \u0026ndash; Educational Message\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIN2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntervention 2 \u0026ndash; Humanizing Message (Empathy Focus)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIN3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIntervention 3 \u0026ndash; Humanizing Message (Prevention Focus)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLMM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLinear Mixed-Effects Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMAP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinor Attracted Person\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOdds Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch Question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard Error\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWHO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 360px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWorld Health Organization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is part of a larger research project evaluating the effectiveness of health information campaigns related to stigmatized health topics. The entire study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Charité Universitätsmedizin – Berlin (30/08/2023, EA4/169/23). Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants before they proceeded to the survey. This research was carried out in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topic and ethical restrictions related to participant anonymity and data protection. Anonymized data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request for research purposes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Data collection was funded through in-kind resources provided by the project “Deepening and Sustaining Public-Facing Measures Accompanying the Pilot Program for the Promotion of Specialized Therapeutic Institutions for the Treatment of Patients with Pedophilic Disorders under the Law ‘PsychVVG’,” supported by the German Federal Ministry of Justice (Bundesministerium der Justiz).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVW and MvH jointly developed the study design, intervention materials, and survey instruments. VW coordinated data collection and performed the statistical analyses. MvH was responsible for funding acquisition. Both authors contributed to the interpretation of results and the preparation of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors thank Klaus M. Beier and Samuel Tomczyk for their mentorship and support. The authors would also like to thank Mariam Fishere, Sofia Silva, and Thuy Nguyen Vo for reviewing the questionnaires and translations. We are also grateful to Peter Jeschke for producing the video materials used in the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eAbraham, C., \u0026amp; Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions. \u003cem\u003eHealth Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.3.379\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAllport, G. W. (1954). \u003cem\u003eThe nature of prejudice.\u003c/em\u003e (S. xviii, 537). Addison-Wesley.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). \u003cem\u003eDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders\u003c/em\u003e (Fifth Edition). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBandura, A. (1997). \u003cem\u003eSelf-efficacy: The exercise of control.\u003c/em\u003e (S. ix, 604). W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt \u0026amp; Co.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., \u0026amp; Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using \u003cstrong\u003elme4\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Statistical Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen-Shachar, M. S., Lüdecke, D., \u0026amp; Makowski, D. (2020). effectsize: Estimation of Effect Size Indices and Standardized Parameters. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Open Source Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(56), 2815. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02815\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCant, R. L., Harries, M., \u0026amp; Chamarette, C. (2022). Using a Public Health Approach to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse by Targeting Those at Risk of Harming Children. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(4), 573–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-022-00128-7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristensen, R. H. B. (2023). \u003cem\u003eordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal Data\u003c/em\u003e. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristiansen, L. F., Langvik, E., Størdal, T. R., \u0026amp; Iversen, A. (2025). “It Could Be Anybody” Content Analysis of Lay Perceptions of Individuals Committing Online Child Sexual Offences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Sexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 446–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2025.2544145\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCohen, J. (2009). \u003cem\u003eStatistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences\u003c/em\u003e (2. ed., reprint). Psychology Press.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrigan, P. W., Druss, B. G., \u0026amp; Perlick, D. A. (2014). The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma on Seeking and Participating in Mental Health Care. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science in the Public Interest\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 37–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614531398\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFarmer, C., Salter, M., \u0026amp; Woodlock, D. (2024). A Review of Academic Use of the Term “Minor Attracted Persons”. \u003cem\u003eTrauma, Violence, \u0026amp; Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(5), 4078–4089. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241270028\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFerguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. \u003cem\u003eProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFix, R. L., Busso, D. S., Mendelson, T., \u0026amp; Letourneau, E. J. (2021). Changing the paradigm: Using strategic communications to promote recognition of child sexual abuse as a preventable public health problem. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e117\u003c/em\u003e, 105061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105061\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFox, J., \u0026amp; Weisberg, S. (2019). \u003cem\u003eAn R Companion to Applied Regression\u003c/em\u003e (Third). Sage. https://www.john-fox.ca/Companion/\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFry, D., Krzeczkowska, A., Ren, J., Lu, M., Fang, X., Fry, D., Krzeczkowska, A., Anderson, N., Ren, J., Lu, M., Jin, W., Liu, W., Vermeulen, I., McFeeters, A., Harker-Roa, A., Jaramillo Diaz, K., Kurdi, Z., Marmolejo Lozano, M. P., Olié, L., … Fang, X. (2025). Prevalence estimates and nature of online child sexual exploitation and abuse: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eThe Lancet Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(24)00329-8\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlina, F., Carvalho, J., Barroso, R., \u0026amp; Cardoso, D. (2022). Lay People´s Myths Regarding Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eSexual Medicine Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2022.06.010\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGough, A., Hunter, R. F., Ajao, O., Jurek, A., McKeown, G., Hong, J., Barrett, E., Ferguson, M., McElwee, G., McCarthy, M., \u0026amp; Kee, F. (2017). Tweet for Behavior Change: Using Social Media for the Dissemination of Public Health Messages. \u003cem\u003eJMIR Public Health and Surveillance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), e14. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.6313\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrady, M. D., Levenson, J. S., Mesias, G., Kavanagh, S., \u0026amp; Charles, J. (2019). “I can’t talk about that”: Stigma and fear as barriers to preventive services for minor-attracted persons. \u003cem\u003eStigma and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000154\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGunnarsdottir, K. E. (2018). \u003cem\u003eAttitudes toward people with pedophilia: Comparing the views of psychology students and police trainees in Norway\u003c/em\u003e [Master’s thesis]. University of Oslo.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarper, C. A., Bartels, R. M., \u0026amp; Hogue, T. E. (2018). Reducing Stigma and Punitive Attitudes Toward Pedophiles Through Narrative Humanization. \u003cem\u003eSexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(5), 533–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216681561\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarper, C. A., Lievesley, R., Blagden, N. J., \u0026amp; Hocken, K. (2022). Humanizing Pedophilia as Stigma Reduction: A Large-Scale Intervention Study. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(2), 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02057-x\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHarper, C. A., Lievesley, R., McKillop, N., Price, S., Murphy, R., Woodward, E., Dymond, H., \u0026amp; Götzl, C. (2025). Misrepresenting the “MAP” Literature Does Little to Advance Child Abuse Prevention: A Critical Commentary and Response to Farmer, Salter, and Woodlock. \u003cem\u003eTrauma, Violence, \u0026amp; Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, 15248380251332197. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251332197\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeron, R. L., Schwiekert, L., \u0026amp; Karsten, J. (2023). Meeting a person with pedophilia: Attitudes towards pedophilia among psychology students: A pilot study. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1022–1033. SocINDEX with Full Text. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01384-5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunn, C., Prichard, J., \u0026amp; Cockburn, H. (2022). Internet Users’ Beliefs about a Novice-user of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM): What Can They Tell Us about Introducing Offender-focused Prevention Initiatives? \u003cem\u003eVictims \u0026amp; Offenders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1865224\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJahnke, S. (2018). Emotions and Cognitions Associated with the Stigma of Non-Offending Pedophilia: A Vignette Experiment. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(2), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1073-7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJahnke, S., Imhoff, R., \u0026amp; Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatization of People with Pedophilia: Two Comparative Surveys. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0312-4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJahnke, S., Philipp, K., \u0026amp; Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with pedophilia and their malleability among psychotherapists in training. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.008\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJara, G. A., \u0026amp; Jeglic, E. (2021). Changing public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: An evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sexual Aggression\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2020.1863486\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLangvik, E., Størdal, T. R., Steel, C. M., Christiansen, L. F., \u0026amp; Iversen, A. (2024). Public perception of individuals who commit Child Sexual Abuse Material offences: Exploring the impact of demographic variables and cross-national differences. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, 106922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106922\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLawrence, A. L., \u0026amp; Willis, G. M. (2021). Understanding and Challenging Stigma Associated With Sexual Interest in Children: A Systematic Review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sexual Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2020.1865498\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLawrence, A. L., \u0026amp; Willis, G. M. (2022). Understanding and influencing public attitudes surrounding people with a sexual interest in children. \u003cem\u003eStigma and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000391\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLawrence, A. L., \u0026amp; Willis, G. M. (2023). Cognitive and Affective Impacts of Antistigma Interventions Surrounding People with a Sexual Interest in Children. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sex \u0026amp; Marital Therapy\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2224323\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLawrence, A. L., \u0026amp; Willis, G. M. (2024). Facilitators and Barriers to Understanding and Accepting People with a Sexual Interest in Children: A Thematic Analysis. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1361–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02757-6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLehmann, R. J. B., Schmidt, A. F., \u0026amp; Jahnke, S. (2021). Stigmatization of Paraphilias and Psychological Conditions Linked to Sexual Offending. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Sex Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(4), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1754748\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLenth, R. V. (2024). \u003cem\u003eemmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means\u003c/em\u003e. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevenson, J. S., \u0026amp; Grady, M. D. (2019). \"I Could Never Work With Those People. . . \": Secondary Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse Via a Brief Training for Therapists About Pedophilia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(20), 4281–4302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519869238\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLink, B. G., \u0026amp; Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Sociology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMcKillop, N., \u0026amp; Price, S. (2023). The Potential for Anti-Stigma Interventions to Change Public Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted Persons: A Replication and Extension of Jara and Jeglic’s Study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Sexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2023.2204864\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e129\u003c/em\u003e(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoss, S. (2019). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding the treatment barriers for minor-attracted persons living in the community\u003c/em\u003e [Master’s Thesis]. Saint Mary’s University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNoguchi, K., Gel, Y. R., Brunner, E., \u0026amp; Konietschke, F. (2012). nparLD: An R Software Package for the Nonparametric Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Factorial Experiments. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Statistical Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1–23.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePinheiro, J. C., \u0026amp; Bates, D. M. (2000). \u003cem\u003eMixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS\u003c/em\u003e. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98882\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrichard, J., Wortley, R., Watters, P. A., Spiranovic, C., Hunn, C., \u0026amp; Krone, T. (2022). Effects of Automated Messages on Internet Users Attempting to Access “Barely Legal” Pornography. \u003cem\u003eSexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211013809\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrichard, J., Wortley, R., Watters, P., Spiranovic, C., \u0026amp; Scanlan, J. (2024). The effect of therapeutic and deterrent messages on Internet users attempting to access ‘barely legal’ pornography. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e155\u003c/em\u003e, 106955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106955\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuinn, J. F., Forsyth, C. J., \u0026amp; Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the origins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. \u003cem\u003eDeviant Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620490431147\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eR Core Team. (2023). \u003cem\u003eR: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing\u003c/em\u003e. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRichards, K. (2018). Born This Way? A Qualitative Examination of Public Perceptions of the Causes of Pedophilia and Sexual Offending against Children. \u003cem\u003eDeviant Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(7), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335526\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoche, K., Pagacz, J., Lalumière, M. L., \u0026amp; Seto, M. C. (2025). Public Perceptions of Individuals Attracted to Children: The Impact of the Person’s Gender, Child Gender, and Preferentiality on Stigma and Perceived Risk to Offend. \u003cem\u003eSexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(6), 723–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632241297270\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRussell, J. A., Weiss, A., \u0026amp; Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect Grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(3), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.493\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSchroeder, S., Tan, C. M., Urlacher, B., \u0026amp; Heitkamp, T. (2021). The Role of Rural and Urban Geography and Gender in Community Stigma Around Mental Illness. \u003cem\u003eHealth Education \u0026amp; Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120974963\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeto, M. C. (2018). \u003cem\u003ePedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children\u003c/em\u003e (2. Aufl.). American Psychological Association; JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1chs01s\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteel, C. M. S., Newman, E., O’Rourke, S., \u0026amp; Quayle, E. (2022). Public Perceptions of Child Pornography and Child Pornography Consumers. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02196-1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStelzmann, D., Jahnke, S., \u0026amp; Kuhle, L. F. (2022). Media Coverage of Pedophilia and Its Impact on Help-Seeking Persons with Pedophilia in Germany—A Focus Group Study. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(15), 9356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159356\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTerminology guidelines for the protection of children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse\u003c/em\u003e. (2016). ECPAT International. https://ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Terminology-guidelines-396922-EN-1.pdf\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWickham, H. (2016). \u003cem\u003eggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Springer-Verlag New York. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Open Source Software\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2006). \u003cem\u003ePreventing child maltreatment: A guide to taking action and generating evidence\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/resources/publications/en/guidelines_chap7.pdf\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWurtele, S. K. (2018). University Students’ Perceptions of Child Sexual Offenders: Impact of Classroom Instruction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Sexual Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1435598\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWurtele, S. K. (2021). “They’re Not Monsters!” Changing University Students’ Perceptions of Child Sex Offenders through Education and Contact. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Criminal Justice Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2021.1892159\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003cp\u003e[1] In the context of this study, we deliberately refrain from using the term \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;minor attracted persons\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (MAPs), which has become increasingly contested in academic and public discourse. While originally introduced as a purportedly neutral and non-stigmatizing label to refer to individuals with a sexual interest in children, the term has been heavily criticized for its historical and ideological origins in online pro-pedophile communities and advocacy groups (Farmer et al., 2024). Harper et al. (2025) argue that the use of MAPs is often strategically ambiguous and risks creating false equivalences between pedophilic interests and legitimate sexual minority identities, contributing to conceptual confusion and potential public harm. To avoid aligning with these problematic framings, we instead use the term \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;individuals at risk\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e. This term is intended to encompass a heterogeneous group, including individuals with a sexual interest in children, as well as users of CSAM, and other populations targeted by preventive interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[2] Data quality was ensured by: 1. a manipulation check after the intervention exposure, consisting of two multiple-choice items that referred to group-specific content (\u0026ldquo;The health information campaign I saw included information about\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;The health information campaign I saw included a placeholder link to a website.\u0026rdquo;), 2. the analysis of response times to detect inattentive or invalid responses. Specifically, time spent on the first eight pages of the survey was examined. Participants who remained on at least three of those pages for less than 5 seconds were considered inattentive and were excluded.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[3] N may differ from the other variables because, for technical reasons, only one response was enforced for this scale. It is possible that individual items were left unanswered.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[4] For all comparisons, CG was defined as reference category.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[5] For nparLD analyses, \u0026epsilon;\u0026sup2; represents overall effect size across all factors rather than effect-specific values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[6] Post hoc comparisons are not applicable if no effects are found in 1a.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[7] Nonparametric longitudinal analysis does not allow parameter estimates; t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e serves as reference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[8] Nonparametric analysis does not allow parameter estimates; t\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e serves as reference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[9] CG serves as reference.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Child sexual abuse prevention, Child sexual abuse material, Public health communication, Stigma reduction, Psychoeducation, Humanizing interventions, Health messaging","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8325567/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8325567/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChild sexual abuse and exploitation, including online material depicting such acts, constitute a major public health concern. Effective prevention requires public understanding and destigmatization, yet communication strategies on this topic face persistent misconceptions and strong emotional reactions. This randomized controlled online study examined whether brief educational and humanizing communication interventions could improve knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions related to prevention, while avoiding adverse emotional or ethical effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 2,019 adults from Spain and Portugal were recruited via an online panel and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: an educational message, a humanizing message with empathy focus, a humanizing message with prevention focus, or a neutral control message. Each intervention consisted of a short video and accompanying text presented as part of a health information campaign. Measures included affective state, stigma-related attitudes, literacy about therapeutic options, openness toward the topic, and behavioral intention to seek information. Linear mixed-effects, nonparametric longitudinal, and ordinal mixed-effects models were used to assess intervention effects over time. Moderation analyses examined demographic influences, and chi-square tests assessed differences in dropout rates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExposure to any intervention message led to significant short-term changes in affective responses, with lower positive valence and slightly higher arousal compared to the control group (medium effect for valence, small for arousal). No significant differences emerged for stigma dimensions, knowledge, openness, or behavioral intentions. All three intervention formats performed similarly. No evidence of adverse or rebound effects on stigma or help-seeking beliefs was observed. Moderation analyses revealed that gender, education, parental status, language background, and adverse childhood experiences influenced affective or attitudinal responses, whereas age did not. Dropout rates did not differ across conditions, indicating no differential attrition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Brief, ethically sound communication interventions can evoke emotional engagement without increasing stigma or avoidance. While single exposures appear insufficient to change attitudes or behavior, such formats may serve as a foundation for repeated, multi-channel prevention messaging integrated into broader educational efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTrial registration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00038927, retrospectively registered on 09/01/2026.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Single-Exposure Messages for Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Online Trial Testing Educational and Humanizing Approaches","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-29 00:56:17","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8325567/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-28T09:26:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-28T07:56:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-28T07:50:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"116916564394633932796803006081554346629","date":"2026-04-28T07:50:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258671736158685033453205343495007317419","date":"2026-04-28T07:49:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"212557778405607435285091990470808022739","date":"2026-02-05T13:45:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T04:45:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T04:43:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-13T07:22:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-12T09:28:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2026-01-12T09:11:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9f550ff0-052a-479a-8a06-581352f7892c","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 29th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T07:41:03+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-29 00:56:17","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8325567","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8325567","identity":"rs-8325567","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}