6 142 CHAPTER 6 and sexual reoffending has found that most but not all commonly known dynamic risk factors remain related to sexual reoffending after controlling for all other dynamic risk factors in the network (van den Berg et al., 2020; van den Berg et al., 2022). Guided by a more elaborated network topology of the current NBM-RSR, further empirical research might help to determine which dynamic risk factors are causally connected to sexual reoffending and which gain predictive power only through their connection with other dynamic risk factors (and should be considered to be part of the external field). This sophistication of the NBM-RSR might be realized by unraveling empirically validated dynamic risk factors into behavioral and psychological features and causal strains (Heffernan et al., 2019). As described in the former section, hypotheses on the causal interrelationship of these features could subsequently be tested and validated through SCED and ESM or a combination of the two (Burger et al., 2020; Epskamp, van Borkulo, et al., 2018; Pearl & Mackenzie, 2018). Second, sexual reoffending is a collective term for different types of sexual crimes. It covers among others collecting child sexual exploitation material, voyeurism, indecent exposure, child sexual abuse, rape, and sexual murder. Men perpetrating these different crimes share dynamic risk factors but might also have dynamic risk factors typical for their specific offense. (e.g., hostility towards women vs. emotional congruence with children). Therefore, networks of dynamic risk factors regarding to distinctive sexual offenses could differ in their network topology. For this reason, it is recommended to explore networks of dynamic risk factors in different samples based on offense type. Third, most scientific research on dynamic risk factors predictive for sexual reoffending has been conducted in North American heterosexual men adjudicated for sexual offenses. We assume that the core principle of our NBM-RSR applies to people from various backgrounds. Namely, the risk of sexual reoffending stems from the construction of a self-sustaining network of causally connected dynamic risk factors influenced by factors both inside and outside the network. However, differences in the construction of networks of interacting dynamic risk factors might occur in populations matched regarding to for example culture (Helmus et al., 2012), gender (Carvalho et al., 2021), sexual orientation (Tabashneck & Judge, 2021), or being a transgender or gender diverse individual (Jumper, 2021). Future research will have to determine to what extent network construction varies within these groups. Fourth, despite their observed causal influence, the position of protective factors (e.g., characteristics of offenders, their environment, or their situation, that reduce the risk of future criminal behavior; de Vogel et al., 2009) remains unclear in the current NBM-RSR. This is largely due to the proposed mechanisms through which protective factors exert their risk reducing effect. De Vries Robbé (2014) described four mechanisms through which protective factors may have an impact on risk: A risk reducing effect (i.e., a direct causal effect on risk mechanisms); a moderator or buffering effect (i.e., influencing the probability that specific risk factors will lead to offending); a main effect (i.e., offering overall protection for future offending rather than influencing specific risk factors); and a
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw