<%BANNER%>

On-Line Juvenile Sexual Victimization among College Students

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022426/00001

Material Information

Title: On-Line Juvenile Sexual Victimization among College Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Burweger, Stacy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: activities, internet, routine, sexual, theory, victimization
Criminology, Law and Society -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our study investigated the extent to which a sample of college students reported having experienced online sexual victimization while juveniles before entering college; the extent to which their routine on- and off-line activities effected the rate at which the respondents reported online sexual victimization as juveniles. The primary theoretical perspective of the study was routine activities theory with the hypothesis that one's ordinary activities with regard to online behavior would have an impact on a juvenile's risk of online victimization. Significant effects were found for gender, amount of supervision, type of online profile used, and for the amount and type of online activities engaged in. These findings have implications for juvenile users of the Internet, parents, and policy makers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Stacy Burweger.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Akers, Ronald L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022426:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022426/00001

Material Information

Title: On-Line Juvenile Sexual Victimization among College Students
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Burweger, Stacy
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: activities, internet, routine, sexual, theory, victimization
Criminology, Law and Society -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Our study investigated the extent to which a sample of college students reported having experienced online sexual victimization while juveniles before entering college; the extent to which their routine on- and off-line activities effected the rate at which the respondents reported online sexual victimization as juveniles. The primary theoretical perspective of the study was routine activities theory with the hypothesis that one's ordinary activities with regard to online behavior would have an impact on a juvenile's risk of online victimization. Significant effects were found for gender, amount of supervision, type of online profile used, and for the amount and type of online activities engaged in. These findings have implications for juvenile users of the Internet, parents, and policy makers.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Stacy Burweger.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Akers, Ronald L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022426:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





ONLINE JUVENILE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION
AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS



















By

STACY BURWEGER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008




































2008 Stacy Burweger



































To my parents. Thank you.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my supervisory members (Ronald Akers, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Jodi

Lane-Wilson). Their help has been invaluable. I wish to thank Max for telling me the place I

ought to be is grad school. Finally, I wish to thank my fellow criminology grad students for all

the mutual support during the frequent stressful times.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

LIST OF TABLES .............. .......................................... ....... 7

A B ST R A C T ......... .. ... ......................... .............. ................................................. 1

CHAPTER

1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .......................................................... .... .................. 2

Research Questions................. ............ .. .... ..... ..................
P u rp o se .......................................................... ...................................... 2
H ypotheses........................................................................3

2 INTRODUCTION ............... ............................ ................................ 1

3 L ITER A TU R E R E V IEW .................................................................. ..... ......................... 3

Theoretical Rationale and Literature Review: The Online Sexual Victimization of
Children Studies ................................................................ ..... ...... ...............
R outine A activities Theory................................... ............ .. .. .......... .............. .. 11
Routine Activities Theory, the Internet and Cybercrime ...................................................14
Routine Activities and Online Sexual Victimizations..........................................................17

4 STU D Y PR O C E D U R E S ............................................................................ ......................2 1

M e th o d o lo g y ...........................................................................................................................2 1
P artic ip an ts .........................................................................2 1
D ata A n aly sis ................................................................................................. ...............2 4
D ep en d en t V ariab les ................................................................................................. 2 4
Independent Variables ................................. ............................ ..........34

5 F IN D IN G S ................... ...................4...................1..........

6 CON CLU SION ... .................................................52

D isc u ssio n ................................ ...............................................................................................5 2
L im stations and Im plications .............................................................55

APPENDIX

A PARTICIPANT POOL APPLICATION ...................................................................... ...... 57

B IR B P R O T O C O L F O R M ................................................................................................. 63









C IN FO R M ED C O N SEN T FO R M ......................................... .............................................67

D SURVEY QUESTIONS SOURCES TABLE ............................................. ............... 70

E SU R V E Y IN STR U M EN T ........................................................... .....................................73

F TABLES AND ANALYSIS OUTPUT ....................................................... ............... 93

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................104

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH ......................................................................... ............. ........... 106












































6









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Survey questions and their source........................................................... ............... 26

4-2 Survey participant characteristics ............................................. ............................. 29

4-3 Participant and routine activities characteristics............................................................31

4-4 R routine activities characteristics............................................... ............................. 32

4-5 Dependent variables: sexual victimization/ solicitation ......................................... 37

4-6 Independent variables: routine activities 1: past online activities ...................................38

4-7 Independent variables: routine activities 2: current online activities..............................39

5-1 Logistic regression: sexual solicitation with age at 1st use .............................................44

5-2 Logistic regression: sexual solicitation without age at 1st use............... .................45

5-3 OLS linear regression: effects of past victimization on current use.............. ...............48

F-l Survey participant characteristics ............................................. ............................. 94

F-2 Participant and routine activities characteristics...................................................... ..........95

F-4 Dependent variables- sexual victimization/ solicitation ......................................... 97

F-5 Independent variables- routine activities 1- past online activities...............................98

F-6 Independent variables- routine activities 2- current online activities .............................99

F-7 Logistic regression- sexual solicitation with age at 1st use...........................................100

F-8 Logistic regression- sexual solicitation without age at 1st use..................................100

F-9 OLS linear regression- effects of past victimization on current use .............................101









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Criminology, Law & Society

ONLINE JUVENILE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

By

Stacy Burweger

August, 2008

Chair: Ronald Akers
Major: Criminology, Law and Society

Our study investigated the extent to which a sample of college students reported having

experienced online sexual victimization while juveniles before entering college; the extent to

which their routine on- and off-line activities effected the rate at which the respondents reported

online sexual victimization as juveniles. The primary theoretical perspective of the study was

routine activities theory with the hypothesis that one's ordinary activities with regard to online

behavior would have an impact on a juvenile's risk of online victimization. Students from a large

Southern University participated in an online survey about their computer and Internet habits and

any online sexual victimization they may have experienced while juveniles. Logistic and OLS

regression indicated that those who spent more time online engaging in a wider variety of

activities were significantly more likely to have experienced sexual solicitations and/or sexual

victimization. Females were significantly more likely to have experienced an unwanted sexual

solicitation/ victimization. Those who posted no information about themselves or posted false

information about themselves were significantly more likely to have experienced an unwanted

sexual solicitation/victimization than were those with truthful profiles. Respondents who had

more online supervision were less likely to have experienced sexual solicitation/ victimization.

Implications of these findings for future research and for policy are explored.









CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Research Questions

Research questions were as follows: do the routine activities juveniles engage in on the

Internet make them more or less likely to be the victims of unwanted sexual solicitations?; do the

routine online activities juveniles engage in change after experiencing a sexual victimization?

For the purposes of this study, sexual victimization was defined as any type of unwanted sexual

contact between the victim and the perpetrator; this included everything from unwanted

questions about sex to sexual battery and rape. A sexual solicitation was defined as a sub-

category of sexual victimization. This category encompassed unwanted requests for sexual

information, unwanted attempts to engage in cybersex, and unwanted conversations about sex.

Purpose

Our study attempted to determine the characteristics of victims of online juvenile sexual

victimization for a sample of undergraduate students from a large southern university. To date,

there has been only one published study that looked at online sexual victimization from the

victims' point of view. That study used a nationally representative sample of juveniles. The

current study is unique. Online sexual victimization in a college sample has not yet been looked

at. Further, the retrospective nature of the survey allowed comparisons to be made between past

and present Internet usage and to determine the effect past online sexual victimization had on

current usage.

It is important to gain the perspective of the victims of any crime. Who they are, how

they look and behave, as well as their daily patterns of behavior, may tell researchers a lot about

who a criminal is victimizing and why a criminal is victimizing that person in particular. Further,









conducting a study where respondents answer questions about prior victimization may give a

victim a chance to tell someone anonymously about the crime, possibly for the first time.

Hypotheses

Based on the descriptive findings from extant research and the theoretical framework of

routine activities theory, our study addressed three hypotheses: 1) college-bound youths whose

online use is more closely monitored by a parent or guardian will experience less online sexual

victimization; 2) college-bound youths who use the internet more frequently are more likely to

receive sexual solicitations than those who use it less frequently; and, 3) respondents who were

victimized by online sexual solicitations during their juvenile years will make less use of the

Internet now than they did prior to their victimization.









CHAPTER 2
INTRODUCTION

Use of the Internet has changed the face of the world. Fifteen years ago no one

had access to this worldwide phenomenon; now, approximately 47.5 million people from

the Unites States alone log onto the Internet from the comfort and privacy of their homes

(How manypeople use the Internet today?, n.d.). The Internet has turned the world into a

global village where banking, romance, business, and pleasure are available with the

click of a mouse. Unfortunately, these are not the only available pastimes on the Internet.

Crime has also gone cyber. Not only have the traditional crimes of everyday life found

their way onto the Internet, the very nature of such a vast online community has created

some new crimes (Yar, 2005).

Adult sexual offenders who prey on children and adolescents are one group of

offenders who make use of the vast playground found on the Internet (Finkelhor et al.,

2000; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wolak et al., 2004). On the Internet, this group of

offenders can find potential victims, communicate with them in complete anonymity,

groom and seduce them, and set up offline meetings with them, and often no one is the

wiser (Finkelhor, et al., 2000; Mitchell et al., 2005; Quayle & Taylor, 2002, 2003; Wolak,

et al., 2004; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Sometimes this group stops short of attempting a

contact sexual offense and will use the vast collection of child pornography that exists on

the Internet to assuage their pedophilic and hebophilic fantasies (Frei, Erenay, Dittman,

& Graf, 2005; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Taylor, 1999; Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell,

2005). The relationship between the collecting of child pornography and the commission

of sexual contact offenses against juveniles is still not understood, although there is likely









to be a link (Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2004; Quayle & Taylor, 2002, 2003; Taylor, 1999;

Wolak et al., 2005).

It is important to develop an understanding of how and why adult sexual

offenders make use of the Internet and who their victims are. It is important to know what

characteristics distinguish those juveniles who are targeted by online by sexual offenders

from those who are not. Do the activities a juvenile engages in online have any bearing

upon subsequent victimization? Do online behaviors change after experiencing a sexual

solicitation or sexual victimization? How widespread is the use of the Internet by adult

sexual offenders? The literature discussed below is a start on answering the many

questions that need to be asked about online child and juvenile sexual victimization.









CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Rationale and Literature Review: The Online Sexual Victimization of
Children Studies

There have been only a handful of studies that have looked at Internet use by adult

sexual offenders who prey upon children and adolescents (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Wolak,

Mitchell & Finkelhor, 2003; Frei et al., 2005; Quayle & Taylor, 2002; Taylor, 1999.

These few studies will be reviewed here, along with other sources, to provide the

background and set up the theoretical framework of the proposed study. What is known

about Internet-related sexual offenses against minors is based on the results of these

studies. The most notable are the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (N-JOV),

the Youth Intemet Safety Survey (YISS), and the Combating Paedophile Information

Networks in Europe (COPINE) Project.

Both the N-JOV Study and the YISS were conducted by the Crimes Against

Children Research Center located at the University of New Hampshire and funded by the

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. The N-JOV Study used official data

and official sources for information. The YISS used information gathered from victims.

The COPINE Project was an international online child pornography and sexual

exploitation of children study headed by the Department of Applied Psychology,

University College, Cork, Ireland. This project gained most of its information from

official sources and from offenders.

The N-JOV Study was conducted in the United States from July of 2000 through

July of 2001, and involved reports from a nationally representative sample of law

enforcement agencies and prosecutors regarding adult sexual offenders who victimized









juveniles and who were arrested for their crimes (Mitchell et al., 2005; Walsh & Wolak,

2005, Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2004, 2005).

The YISS was conducted in the United States in 1999 and involved retrospective

self-reports from a nationally representative sample (N=1,501) of youths (ages 10-17) on

their Internet usage, online habits, and their online sexual victimization. Their parents

were surveyed as to how they supervised their children's internet usage, what types of

software they used to monitor their children's online activities, and how safety conscious

they were about their children's Internet use (Finkelhor et al., 2000).

The COPINE Project ran from 1997 through 2007, establishing a child

pornography database that was collected from arrested offenders with collections and

from what could be found through searches on the Internet, and helping law enforcement

agencies around the world to both comprehend and apprehend child pornography and

pedophilic offenders (Quayle & Taylor, 2002, 2003; Taylor, 1999).

In the YISS study, of the 1,501 youths sampled, 74% of the sample was online at

home; 76% had been online in the previous week, and 40% went online 2-4 days a week

over the past year, although 61% spent an hour or less at a time online (Finkelhor et al.,

2000).

One in five of the respondents, or 19% of the sample, received an unwanted

sexual solicitation while online in 1999. One in thirty-three respondents (or about 3% of

the sample) received an aggressive sexual solicitation, which involved being phoned,

receiving mail, being asked to meet offline, or being sent money or gifts. Thirty-four

percent of the aggressive solicitations came from adults, although in 27% of all the cases,

the age of the offender was unknown. In 10% of the solicitations the offender asked to









meet the juvenile offline for sex. Less than 10% of all unwanted sexual solicitations were

reported to an authority of some kind. Sixty-six percent of those targeted for sexual

solicitations were female. Seventy-seven percent were aged 14 or older when they were

propositioned (Finkelhor et al., 2000).

A parent of each youth interviewed was also surveyed in the YISS. When asked,

most parents (83%) of the 1,501 youths surveyed stated they spoke to their children about

being careful when talking to strangers on the Internet. Ninety-seven percent of the

parents interviewed stated they would occasionally look at the computer screen to see

what their child was doing, 80% stated they had rules about what their children could do

on the Internet, and 63% stated they checked the history function on their computer in

order to check on the websites their children had visited (Finkelhor et al., 2000).

The YISS is a retrospective study with all the drawbacks inherent in that design.

Further, the authors did not ask respondents about completed sexual solicitations; it is

unknown from this study what number of juveniles responded to the sexual advances of

adults and met them offline for a sexual encounter. It is also unknown what number

actually engaged in cybersex with those who asked or pressured them for it. The authors

checked with parents of their respondents to determine what kind of rules and safety

measures they employed for their children's use of the Internet, but they did not ask the

youths themselves how effective those measures were. It is possible that parents have

inflated the amount of supervision they give to their child's use of the Internet or over-

estimate how effective that supervision is (Finkelhor et al., 2000). Regardless, these

measures are still inaccurate, as they specify no amount of time spent in any of these

activities; children could conceivably have many unsupervised hours online before a









parent decided to check on what they were doing or checked on their activities after the

fact.

It should also be noted that even with such a large, nationally representative

sample, barely 3% of the youths reported aggressive sexual solicitations. From this, it

might be easy to determine that the Internet is not being used by adult sexual offenders to

find child and juvenile victims. However, this study was conducted in 1999 when the

Internet was still relatively young. As the years have gone by, offenders have probably

gotten more Internet and computer savvy along with everyone else. It is possible that

offenders did not use the Internet to find victims as much in 1999 as they do now in 2008.

Another point to be noted is that not all youths may have admitted to an aggressive

encounter while being surveyed, or have viewed the encounter as such (Finkelhor et al.,

2000).

The N-JOV Study involved a nationally representative sample of the nation's law

enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies were first mailed a survey, and then a

second telephone survey was conducted with all responding agencies that had relevant

Internet crime cases. When possible, the interviewers also followed up with the case

prosecutors in order to get their perspective on the case, the offenders, the victims, and

the results of the prosecution (Mitchell et al., 2005; Walsh & Wolak, 2005; Wolak et al.,

2003; Wolak et al., 2004, 2005).

Law enforcement agencies made an estimated 2,577 arrests for Internet-related sex

crimes against minors from July, 2000 to July, 2001 (Wolak et al., 2003). One of the

most surprising findings of the study is the fact that incidents of family and acquaintance

sexual abuse involving the Internet were almost as common as were incidents involving









adult offenders finding their victims online. An estimated 460 arrests for Internet-related

sex crimes against a minor by a family member or acquaintance were made in 2000

(Mitchell et al., 2005). This group of offenders accounted for 19% of all arrests discussed

in the study, whereas Internet-initiated sexual assaults accounted for 20% of the arrests in

the study (Wolak et al., 2003). For the most part, family/ acquaintance offenders and

Internet-initiated offenders made use of the Internet in the same ways. Barring initiating

contact with the victim, both groups used the Internet to communicate with their victims,

to seduce their victims, to groom their victims, to show them child or adult pornography,

and to set up offline meetings (Mitchell et al., 2005; Wolak et al., 2003).

Not surprisingly, 99% of the offenders in this study were male; 92% were White,

and 86% were 26 years of age or older. Seventy-six percent of their victims were between

the ages of 13 and 15. Most of the victims were female (75%), 81% were White, 61%

lived with both biological parents, and 42% came from middle class families. Few of the

offenders had to use deception (5%) or only used minor deceptions (25%) as part of their

seduction of the victim. In half of the cases involving female victims, the victim

described herself as being in love with the offender (Wolak et al., 2004).

Thirty-six percent of the arrests discussed in the N-JOV Study were for the

possession, distribution, or trading of child pornography on the Internet. Sixty-seven

percent of all the offenders in this study possessed child pornography. There were an

estimated 1,713 arrests related to child pornography possession made during the study

period. More than 99% of the offenders were male, 91% were White, 21% had at least

some college education, 73% were employed full-time, and 41% made between $20,000

and $50,000 a year (Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2005).









Most of the pornographic images possessed by the offenders were very explicit.

Seventy-one percent had images showing sexual contact between a child and an adult.

Eighty-three percent possessed images of children aged 6 to 12, and 39% had

images of children aged 3 to 5. Forty-eight percent of the offenders possessed over 100

images andl4% of those had over 1,000 images (Wolak et al., 2005).

The rest of the arrests disclosed by law enforcement to the N-JOV researchers

involved undercover law enforcement agents posing as minors in chat rooms. Offenders

struck up conversations with them, set up meetings for sex with them, and were

subsequently arrested. Beyond this information, nothing more is discussed about this

group of arrests (Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2005).

There are several limitations to the N-JOV Study that should be discussed. The

main drawback is that the data pertain only to those cases where arrests were made. It is

likely that there were cases where there simply was not enough evidence or information

for law enforcement to make an arrest. Even worse, there were probably many cases of

sexual abuse by an adult against a minor that no one even knew about beyond the victim

and perpetrator. This study cannot therefore be seen as being representative of all Internet

sex crimes that were committed in 2000. On the positive side, because of all the

documentation involved required for arrest procedures and prosecution of criminals, the

details provided about offenders and their cases are more likely to be accurate than are

other studies that do not employ this method of data collection (Wolak et al., 2003;

Wolak et al., 2005).

It is the possession of child pornography by those who commit contact offenses

against minors that is worrying to many (Taylor, 1999; Wolak, et al., 2000). The









relationship is not understood, and to date, no one has had access to a large enough

sample of offenders in order to investigate this link (Taylor, 1999). Max Taylor (1999)

does discuss some of the findings on child pornography possessors from the COPINE

Project, but the sample used is very small.

New child pornography images were emerging on the Internet at a rate of 1-2 a

month in 1999. The database of child pornography developed by COPINE possessed over

50,000 images at that time, when the Internet was a relatively new phenomenon. The

images involved over 2,000 boys and girls in sexually explicit poses and roughly the

same number of boys and girls posed in the nude.

Taylor (1999) estimates that out of those photos, about 300 to 350 children were

sexually victimized in the making of the photos sometime during the past 10 to 15 years.

The majority of the child pornography images found on the Internet are more than 30

years old; a lot of the old material was kept by child pornography collectors and scanned

into some sort of electronic format.

Using a small sample (N=23) of child pornography offenders, arrested for child

pornography and/ or sexual contact offenses with a minor, researchers from the COPINE

Project, Quayle and Taylor (2003), discuss their mental state and Internet behavior. Most

of the offenders started with a small number of child pornography images. As they spent

more time online searching for those images, they gained confidence and reinforcement

through the collecting of the images and through contact with other like-minded

individuals.

Communication with other child pornography possessors, as well as the images

themselves, served as justification for their behavior. If others were looking at pictures of









children engaged in sexual activities, they couldn't be that abnormal. If the children were

smiling in the photos they possessed, they must have enjoyed the sexual activity, so their

sexual desire for children couldn't be that wrong. They felt they were giving the children

pleasure (Quayle & Taylor, 2003).

As their collections grew, many who had only possessed and traded child

pornography moved on to become producers of it. Again, they used the existence of child

pornography and the online network of pedophiles to justify their behavior. If others were

making child pornography photos and videos, then they weren't doing anything that

others also had not done. They felt that what they were doing was not that abnormal then

(Quayle & Taylor, 2003).

The sample of offenders that Quayle and Taylor (2003) interviewed was too small

and only contained those caught and arrested for their offenses for it to be considered

representative of child sexual offenders as a whole. Yet, their responses do point to a

possible link between child pornography possession and sexual contact offenses against

minors. For at least some of the men interviewed, possession of sexual images of children

led them to commit a sexual assault against a child for the purpose of making their own

pornography. For these men at least, the possession of child pornography led directly to a

sexual assault against a child.

In a somewhat similar study, Frei et al. (2005), found the link between child

pornography possession and the commission of contact offenses to be not very strong.

They interviewed 33 convicted child pornography possessors from the Swiss canton of

Lucerne. Only one of the offenders had any type of criminal record at all, and while most

of them possessed very graphic child pornography, the majority also possessed









pornography from other fields of sexual deviation as well, indicating that their sexual

interests were not strictly in children. In this study, the relationship between possession of

child pornography and the commission of contact offenses was explored through the

existence of an official criminal record. It is possible that the men from this sample

committed sexual offenses against children and were never caught for those offenses.

The problem with both the Quayle and Taylor (2003) and the Frei et al. (2005)

studies is the size of the samples. With such small sample sizes, it is impossible to

determine how representative of the whole these men are. It is also possible that those

who are caught are not representative of this group of offenders as a whole. For these

reasons, any relationship that exists between child pornography and the commission of

contact offenses must be considered hypothetical. This is an area of study that needs to be

explored in the future.

Routine Activities Theory

Routine activities theory originated from research conducted by Cohen and Felson

(1979) on changes that were occurring in predatory personal and property crimes after

World War II. They explained the increase in property offenses as due to an increase of

women in the workforce, changes in leisure activities, and an increase in more portable

property. The theory states that in order for crime to occur, three elements must occur in

conjunction with one another; a motivated offender must be present with a suitable target

in the absence of a capable guardian. The conjunction of the three elements necessary for

crime occurs within a framework of the daily routine activities of both offenders and

targets (victims). Both offenders and targets engage in the daily routine activities such as

going to work, visiting friends, going out to eat, going to bars, etc. Motivated offenders

will discover opportunities within this framework of daily activities. How suitable the









target is and whether or not capable guardians are present will determine whether or not

the offender takes the opportunity to commit the crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Routine activities theory takes the focus away from the offender and places it

squarely upon the criminal act (Boetig, 2006). This is done because the changes that

occur within communities and neighborhoods that cause changes in daily routine

activities can cause crime to increase or decrease in particular places at particular times

regardless of social or psychological conditions that cause offenders to be motivated

(Boetig, 2006; Cohen & Felson, 1979).

In routine activities theory, motivated offenders are assumed to exist. The authors

of the theory do not focus on social or psychological variables that could make a person

an offender. According to Cohen and Felson (1979), anyone can become an offender if

the situation is right. The theory focuses mainly on defining suitable targets and capable

guardians. This focus has caused some criminologists to label it a theory of victimization

(Akers & Sellers, 2004). Because the focus of routine activities theory is on the coming

together of the three primary elements, the location in space and time of this conjunction

is important. Thus the focus of the theory is on the specifics of the situation, not on

offender motivation (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

A suitable target is defined in routine activities theory as any person or object likely

to be taken or attacked by an offender. The authors use "target" in place of "victim" to

insure that people and property receive equal emphasis as objects in a specific place and

time (Clarke & Felson, 2004; Cohen & Felson, 1979). Capable guardians can be both

formal guardians such as police and security guards, and informal guardians such as

neighbors, bystanders, and guard dogs. Capable guardians can also be mechanical devices









such as security cameras, alarm systems, locks on doors, and public lighting. The authors

place more emphasis upon informal guardians since police do not show up until after a

crime is committed. By becoming better informal guardians, and paying attention to

which of their routine activities increases their chances of becoming a crime target,

people can reduce their chances of being the victims of predatory crimes (Cohen &

Felson, 1979).

It is the routine everyday behaviors, or lifestyle, a person engages in that may make

them more or less suitable as a crime target. In this day and age, both men and women

work. If both adult members of the household leave the house at a regular time everyday,

likely offenders can take advantage of that empty house. Going out in the evenings for

entertainment can put a person at risk for crime on the streets; carrying "plastic" instead

of money these days does not even offer some protection, as criminals these days are just

as likely to make use of credit and debit cards as they are of cold hard cash (Boetig, 2006;

Clarke & Felson, 2004; Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Motivated offenders learn to take advantage of a person's routine activities; the

work schedule leaving the house empty, evening and weekend entertainment outings to

higher risk areas, trips to the ATM machine, or even stopping at a red light in an unsafe

neighborhood are all routines that can be taken advantage of by an offender. Activities

such as these can all make a person a suitable target. When a lack of capable

guardianship is added into the equation- no alarm on the house, no dog to scare off

prowlers, poor lighting by the ATM machine, or lack of police presence in the unsafe

neighborhood- the crime will be committed (Boetig, 2006; Clarke & Felson, 2004; Cohen

& Felson, 1979).









Routine Activities Theory, the Internet and Cybercrime

An important question to be asked is whether or not it is proper to apply routine

activities theory to cybercrime. Research in this specific area is still very limited. Only

one study applying routine activities theory to online crime was discovered while

conducting the search for literature for the present research proposal. This article is an in-

depth conceptual analysis applying routine activities theory to general computer crimes

by Majid Yar (2005). Yar (2005) finds that although many of the concepts from routine

activities theory are applicable to cybercrime, there are enough important differences to

limit the theory's utility when applied to this type of crime.

Thomas and Loader's definition (as cited in Yar, 2005) of cybercrime is:

"computer-mediated activities which are either illegal or considered illicit by certain

parties and which can be conducted through global electronic networks." Yar (2005) then

further breaks down cybercrime into two types; computer-assisted crimes which are

crimes that occurred before the Internet came about but which can also be committed in

new ways in cyberspace (fraud, money laundering, and pornography); and computer-

focused crimes which are crimes that came about with or because of the Internet

(hacking, viruses, etc.).

According to Yar (2005), one of the most difficult aspects of applying routine

activities theory to cybercrime is the theory's dependence upon spatial and temporal

convergence (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Virtual environments do not exist within actual

space, and because of the global nature of the Internet, time does not exist as much of a

barrier there. In essence, there is a question about whether or not a person "goes"

anywhere when they get online, and whether or not the time they get online has any

bearing. Further, it must be determined if a routine organization of online activities exists









and whether or not these activities increase the vulnerability and suitability while

decreasing the guardianship of potential victims and help motivated offenders turn their

inclinations for crime into action.

Yar (2005) argues that spatialityy' exists within cyberspace for two reasons. First,

cyberspace echoes the real world. Online activities are rooted in real world politics,

economics, and culture. These ties create spatialityy' that carries over into cyberspace in

many ways. Access to the Internet follows real world lines of inclusion and exclusion, as

tied to income, education, ethnicity, age, and disability; because of this, motivated

offenders and suitable targets online reflect those of the real world. Second, Yar (2005)

also argues that the organization of the Internet means not all websites are actually

equidistant from each other. Depending upon what ISP and search engine is used, as well

as how well a person knows what they are looking for or where they want to go, will all

determine how quickly or slowly one may get from one cyberspace to another. This gives

the Internet a sense of place and location, and perhaps also a sense of time, as determined

by the length of time it takes to navigate from one site to another.

This author does feel that temporalityy' is an issue when applying routine activities

theory to cybercrime, however. He feels that the Internet lacks the clear temporal

sequence and order of events that occurs in the real world. This is because online

activities span work and home and leisure activity and labor, meaning that there is no

rhythm to daily online activities. Because there are no particular points in time at which

specific actors can be assured of being generally present, it becomes difficult for

offenders, targets, and capable guardians to assess the risk of any given situation (Yar,

2005).









Still, according to Yar (2005), online target suitability can be determined in other

ways that do not include temporal order. Value, inertia, visibility, and accessibility are all

necessary elements of online target suitability, and all can be determined in cyberspace.

As in real world crime, value of the target is determined by a criteria arrived at by the

motivated offender. Often this value escapes logic, being as much an intrinsic opinion as

following extrinsic value systems. Online targets will also have problems with

portability, or as Yar (2005) defines it, with inertia. For instance, if a motivated offender

is hacking into a database for information, this data could be large in volume and this

place limits upon its theft because the hacker would need to have enough space on a hard

drive or a disk to store it. The data might also be so large that the length of time it would

take to download it could be a liability as well.

As for the visibility of targets, this author finds that it actually be heightened in

cyberspace, as so much of the Internet is global in nature and considered public domain.

Many more people will see or speak or hear of the target than would be possible offline

(Yar, 2005). For example, a person looking online for clothing stores may look through

online catalogs for retail outlets in Hong Kong, France, and the United States, whereas

this person would be limited to the retail stores in his or her own neighborhood if the

shopping were conducted in the real world.

Accessibility to targets online is also similar to real world crime; there are capable

guardians in both domains. Online guardians include passwords, firewalls, data

encryption, and other such security devices. These online prevention devices take the

place of real world guardians such as security guards, police, guard dogs, and lighting

(Yar, 2005).









Overall, Yar (2005) finds that routine activities theory applies itself well to

cybercrime. The problems that do exist do not so much lessen its utility for cybercrime so

much as they indicate that cybercrime should in some ways be considered a new type of

crime altogether. Because of this, the author feels that any theory applied to cybercrime

will have limitations and will need adaptation in order to be workable.

Routine Activities and Online Sexual Victimizations

As mentioned earlier in discussing the results of the Youth Internet Safety Survey,

1 in 5 (19%) adolescents have received a sexual solicitation over the Internet, and about

3% have received an aggressive solicitation to meet with the offender. Unfortunately

youths reported less than 10% of these cybersex crimes to law enforcement (Finkelhor et

al., 2000; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). It is statistics such as these that make understanding

how and why youths are victimized by adult sexual offenders while online so important.

Routine activities theory offers a good theoretical framework for understanding the

patterns of online victim behavior that make them appear as more suitable targets for

adult sexual offenders who seek juvenile victims. No research applying routine activities

theory specifically to any type of cybersex crime was discovered during the literature

search conducted for this research. However, routine activities theory seems well suited

to the application of online adult predatory sexual crimes against juveniles. The focus in

this study will be upon suitable targets and lack of capable guardians. As in the original

theory itself, motivated offenders will be assumed (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

As the Yar (2005) study pointed out, there are some difficulties with applying

routine activities theory to online crimes. One of these issues is what he termed

temporalityy.' The problem is that because the Internet is a global enterprise, there are no

patterns of activity that hold for the entire Internet. For example, when it is 9:00am









according to Eastern Standard Time in the United States, it is 6:00am according to Pacific

Standard Time. For those in the first time zone, the work day has already started; for

those in the second time zone, it may not even be time to get out of bed. Because of the

different time zones worldwide, there is no pattern that holds for all who use the Internet.

The entire world does not rise at the same time, go to work at the same time, come home

from work at the same time, and log onto the Internet at the same time. Nor does the

entire world log onto the Internet for the same purposes.

Still, even without Yar's (2005) global pattern of temporality, there are observable

rhythms to Internet use, especially for juveniles. While at school during the day, any use

of the Internet will be for schoolwork, and will most likely be monitored by teachers. The

majority of juveniles will go online for leisure activities after school, at night, and on the

weekends (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Mitchell et al., 2005). Knowing this, a motivated

offender who wishes to prey on children needs only to follow the general temporality

established in his time zone in order to determine when children and juveniles will most

likely be online without supervision.

Motivated offenders may find temporal patterns in online activities that can

increase or decrease target suitability (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Adult sexual offenders

interested in pre-pubescent and adolescent children will make note of the times when

children are likely to be online without parental supervision (Finkelhor et al., 2000). If

meeting children for sexual purposes is what they are after, most offenders will visit

websites that children are most likely to frequent, and they will do so at when children

are likely to be there at the time of day they are least likely to have supervision.









It is easy for adults who are sexually interested in children to enter chat rooms and

strike up conversations with them. Many do not even attempt to deceive the children and

adolescents about their age and most will spend many months building a relationship

with the child (Finkelhor et al., 2000). It is also possible that they induce the child or

juvenile to hide their communications from their parents. Most Internet service providers

do not monitor their chat rooms and Newsgroups very well, although they will respond to

complaints reported to them. Couple this lack of provider monitoring with the fact that

most adolescents are online without constant parental supervision, and offenders have an

ideal situation in which to groom and seduce their intended victims (Finkelhor et al.,

2000).

Frequency of Internet use, how much parental supervision they receive, and what

online activities a child or juvenile engages in may all have bearing on whether or not

they are considered suitable targets by a motivated offender. For example, if a child or

juvenile is online every day for many hours, and if most or all of that time online is

unsupervised, they may be more vulnerable to victimization by adult sexual predators. A

lack of supervision seems especially worrying, since without supervision, a child or

juvenile may be going to websites that are inappropriate or that increase their risk of

victimization. If they are going into adult pornographic sites, or going into adult sexually

themed chat rooms, they may lack the sophistication to protect themselves from

victimization.

Of course, truly motivated offenders will more than likely seek out children and

juveniles at age appropriate sites; again, children and juveniles often lack the

sophistication that is needed to determine when they need to be wary. Perhaps most









troubling of all is the idea that frequency of online use alone may increase a child or

juvenile's risk of victimization at the hands of an adult sexual offender. What makes a

victim a suitable online target is still too much an unknown area of research. It is for this

reason that the present study was undertaken.









CHAPTER 4
STUDY PROCEDURES

Methodology

Participants

The sample for our study was drawn from the University of Florida Department

of Criminology, Law and Society's undergraduate participant pool. Undergraduates in

this department are required by many of their professors to participate in the participant

pool, either as part of the class curriculum, or for extra credit. Only students in the

participant pool who were eighteen years of age or older at the time of the study were

allowed to participate. Participation in our study was voluntary, making this a

convenience sample (see Appendix A for Participant Pool Application).

The survey was posted online at Survey Monkey, www.surveymonkey.com, an

online site where surveys can be created, maintained, and posted. Survey Monkey allows

users to either utilize their free service or to pay either a monthly or yearly fee for an

expanded service package. Due to the length of the survey, the complexity of many of the

questions, and the desire to use SSL encryption to further protect survey participants, a

paid monthly subscription to Survey Monkey was purchased.

The survey was available to participant pool members through the participant pool

website, http://ufl-cls.sona-systems.com/, throughout the month of March 2008. To

protect the students and to make them feel more comfortable discussing possible past

sexual victimization, participation in the survey was kept anonymous. A password was

given by the participant pool website for students to use to open the survey when they

clicked the link to Survey Monkey. A record of their access was kept via their University

of Florida e-mail address by the Participant Pool Administrator. This was required so that









students would get their class credit for participation. Their responses were not available

to the Administrator or anyone else.

After entering in the password to access the survey, students were taken to a page

with the informed consent form on it. In order to proceed, they had to indicate they had

read the form and accepted the conditions. Students were not required to give any

personal identifying information as part of the survey. All students who participated had

the option of refusing to answer any question on the survey. All survey responses were

stored at Survey Monkey's website where it was safe-guarded with SSL encryption, until

it was downloaded onto a flash/jump drive. The jump drive was purchased for the sole

purpose of holding the study's data. The jump drive has been kept in a locked file cabinet

in the researcher's home office. The jump drive was not placed onto any computer that

was networked to others or that was currently linked to the Internet. This was in order to

further protect all survey responses from being accessed by unauthorized persons.

Two hundred and thirty-five undergraduate participant pool members took the

survey. Two were thrown out for failure to complete the Informed Consent form (final

N=233). As students had the right to refuse to answer any question, not all questions have

233 responses. The failure to answer a question varied; demographic questions were

answered by all participants. Typically 2 or 3 refused to answer any given question.

The demographics of study participants were quite similar to that of the overall

undergraduate population at the University of Florida. The University of Florida had a

student population of 51,913 in the fall of 2007, of which 34,612 were undergraduates.

The ratio of females to males is 53:47. Twenty-six percent of the students are minorities;









about 7.9% are African American, around 11.2% are Hispanic, and about 7% are Asian

American or Pacific Islanders (University ofFlorida-Demographics, nd.).

The sample of survey respondents used in our study was 63.5% female, 18%

African American, 14.2% Hispanic, 3% Asian American, and 1.3% Other (of whom one

respondent indicated Pacific Islander descent). Females and minorities were slightly

over-represented in the study sample. This may mean that the sample, or undergraduates

in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society are not representative of the general

undergraduate student population at the University of Florida.

IRB Protocol

Submission to the Institutional Review Board occurred in January of 2008. The

IRB protocol form, Informed Consent form, and the IRB approvals are located in

Appendices B, C, and D. The study, designated protocol #2008-U-0006, was passed by

IRB on January 18, 2008. On February 13, 2008, our study was defended orally at a

thesis proposal defense. Several suggestions for improving the coherency and flow of the

survey were made at that time. Also, it was decided to add one question to the survey.

The revisions were undertaken and the survey went back to review before the University

of Florida's IRB. The revisions to the survey were approved on February 27, 2008.

THE SURVEY

The questions used in our study were derived from several sources. Many came

directly from the YISS-2 survey instrument, with the permission of one of its authors,

Kimberly Mitchell (personal communication, November 19, 2007). The YISS-2 is a

follow-up study to the YISS and many of the questions were updated. Other questions

were inspired by the YISS instruments. The few questions not taken directly from or









inspired by the YISS or YISS-2 were designed to apply routine activities theory to the

Internet and online sexual victimization. The main questions and their sources are listed

in Table 4-1 below. As this table is too large to show in its entirety here, the questions

and their sources for the entire survey can be found in Appendix D. The actual survey

instrument can be seen in Appendix E.

Data Analysis

All analyses were done using SPSS version 15 for graduate students. Descriptive

statistics for all variables as well as frequencies were run to determine case counts and

variance. Below, Tables 4-2 through 4-4 lists the frequencies and percentages of many of

the main variables. The complete set of tables can be found in Appendix F. Further

analysis consisted of running two logistic regressions and one OLS linear regression as

well as Factor Analyses. Listwise removal was used for all regression analyses.

Due to the relatively small sample size (N=233) and the fact that this is an

exploratory study of a population not previously investigated for this subject, the level of

significance will be .10. All p-values are discussed as necessary. Because significance

levels cannot determine the magnitude of a variable's effect, standardized Beta scores

(for OLS) and Odds Ratios (for Logistic Regression) are also presented and discussed.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variable for our study was a combined count of two of the survey

question variables. The questions used to create the dependent variable were: Thinking

back, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk

online about sex when you did not want to? And, thinking back, between the ages of 10-

17, did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you









did not want to answer such questions? A third question, thinking back, between the ages

of 10-17, did anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do something sexual that you did not

want to do, was considered for use in the dependent variable, but it was decided that

conceptual differences existed between it and the two previous questions. It was not used.











Table 4-1. Survey questions and their source.
Question


Currently, how often do you use the Internet to:
Go to web sites?
Use e-mail?
Use Instant Messages?
Go to chat rooms?
Play games?
For school assignments?
Download music, pictures, or videos from file
sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share?
Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as
Facebook or My Space?
Use an online dating or romantic site?
Use YouTube?

Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, how
often did you use the Internet to:
Go to web sites?
Use e-mail?
Use Instant Messages?
Go to chat rooms?
Play games?
For school assignments?
Download music, pictures, or videos from file
sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share?
Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as
Facebook or My Space?
Use an online dating or romantic site?
Use YouTube?
Currently, how many days during a usual week do
you use the Internet?
Between the ages of 10-17, how many days a
week do you typically remember using the
Internet?
Thinking back to when you were between the ages
of 10-17, how much adult supervision did you
have while online using the access you checked in
question 13?


Response Choices


Responses for the following
questions are:
1- Never
2- Occasionally
3- Frequently
4- Often, but not every day
5- Daily


Responses for the following
questions are:
1- Never
2- Occasionally
3- Frequently
4- Often, but not every day
5- Daily










Choices are: 1-7


Choices are: 1-7


None at all
Very little
Some
A lot
Constant supervision
Don't know/ don't remember


Source
YISS-2- but altered
question; response
categories verbatim


YISS-2- but altered
question; response
categories verbatim















YISS, YISS-2- but
altered
YISS, YISS-2- but
altered for
retrospective



Author- to determine
capable guardianship










Table 4-1. Continued.
Question
Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what
types of supervision did your parent/ guardian/
friend's parent/ guardian engage in to superivse
your Internet use?


Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did
anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk
online about sex when you did not want to?



Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did
anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual
information about yourself when you did not
want to answer such questions?



Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did
anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do
something sexual that you did not want to do?



Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did
anyone you met on the Internet try to get you to
meet them offline for sexual purposes?


If yes, did you agree to meet them?


Response Choices


Watched what I did on the
Internet
Asked me what I did on the
Internet
Checked the history function
after I got off the Internet
Read my e-mails to see who I
was communicating with
Installed software to keep me
away from certain sites


Don't know/ don't remember


Yes
No
Don't know/ don't remember


Don't know/ don't remember


Don't know/ don't remember

Yes
No
Don't know/ don't remember


If yes, did you actually meet them?


When you met this person offline, did you engage
in any kind of sexual activity with this person?


Source


Author- to determine
capable guardianship


YISS, YISS-2- but
altered question for
retrospective



YISS, YISS-2- but
altered question for
retrospective;
description removed



YISS, YISS-2- but
altered question for
retrospective



Inspired by YISS,
YISS-2 follow-up
questions



Inspired by YISS-2
follow-up questions



Inspired by YISS-2
follow-up questions

Inspired by YISS-2
follow-up questions


Don't know/ don't remember









The first two previously cited questions both had yes, no, don't know/ don't

remember response choice categories. To make the dependent variable, the counts for

respondents who replied yes to both questions were tallied. This variable was then

dummy-coded. The yes to both questions category was coded 1. All other responses were

coded as 0.

Several other questions in the survey were considered for use as a dependent

variable. These questions were: Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone

you met on the Internet try to get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes?; if yes,

did you agree to meet them?; and, if yes, did you actually meet them? Because the

variance for these three questions was non-existent (virtually all responses were no or the

respondent did not answer the question), information supplied by these variables is

limited to frequencies and percentages. This information may be viewed in Tables 4-5

and 4-6 below, which list the frequencies and percentages of the dependent and

independent variable characteristics.

In order to test the third hypothesis, a further regression was undertaken. In this

regression, respondents' current Internet activities became the dependent variable and the

variable formed from yes responses to the talked about sex and asked for sexual

information questions, discussed above as the main dependent variable, became an

independent variable.

The question used in the survey to determine how undergraduate respondents

spent their time on the Internet was: Currently, how often did you use the Internet to: Go

to web sites? Use e-mail? Use Instant Messages? Go to chat rooms? Play games? For













Table 4-2. Survey participant characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 85 (36.5)
Female 148 (63.5)

Current Age: 18 20(8.6)
19 48 (20.6)
20 62 (26.6)
21 58 (24.9)
22 17(7.3)
23 11(4.7)
24 3(1.3)
25 5(2.1)
26 1(0.4)
27 3(1.3)
28 1(0.4)
29 1(0.4)
34 1(0.4)
Missing Values 1 (0.4)

Age at 1st Use: 4 1 (0.4)
8 7(3)
9 7(3)
10 14(6)
11 13(5.6)
12 41(17.6)
13 18(7.7)
14 13(5.6)
15 7(3)
16 2(0.9)
17 3(1.3)
18 1(0.4)
19 2(0.9)
Don't Remember 102 (43.8)
Missing Values 2 (0.9)

Race: White 148 (63.5)
African American 42 (18)
Hispanic/ Latino 33(14.2)
Asian American 7(3)
Other 3(1.3)

Family Income: $0-14,999 9 (3.9)
$15,000-29,999 29 (12.4)
$30,000-44,999 26(11.2)
$45,000-59,999 30 (12.9)
$60,000-74,999 32(13.7)
$75,000-$89,999 23 (9.9)










Table 4-2. Continued.
$90,000-104,999 26(11.2)
$105,000 & Above 58 (24.9)
N= 233











Table 4-3. Participant and routine activities characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency
City Size (%)
Small Town 34 (14.6)
Suburb of Large City 66 (28.3)
Rural Area 11(4.7)
Large Town (25,000-100,000) 51 (21.9)
Large City (over 100,000) 68 (29.2)
Missing Values 3 (1.3)
Had Own Computer
Yes 78 (33.5)
No 149 (63.9)
Don't Remember 3 (1.3)
Missing Values 3 (1.3)
Amount of Supervision
None at All 37(15.9)
Very Little 87 (37.3)
Some 67 (28.8)
A Lot 25 (10.7)
Constant Supervision 7 (3)
Don't Remember 5 (2.1)
Missing Values 5 (2.1)
Type of Supervision- Watched
Yes 40 (17.2)
No 160 (68.7)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Asked
Yes 151 (64.8)
No 49(21)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Checked History
Yes 52 (22.3)
No 148 (63.5)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Read E-mails
Yes 11(4.7)
No 189(81.1)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Software
Yes 41 (17.6)
No 159(68.2)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Portrayal of Self Online
As I Really Am 111 (47.6)
As Different than I Really Am 47 (20.2)
No Online Profile- No Personal Info 46 (19.7)
Missing Values 29 (12.4)
N=233











Table 4-4. Routine activities characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency (%)
Current Usage- Days
1 0(0)
2 3(1.3)
3 1(0.4)
4 5(2.1)
5 6 (2.6)
6 20 (8.6)
7 196 (84.1)
Missing Values 2 (0.9)
Remembered Usage- Days
1 7(3)
2 9(3.9)
3 17(7.3)
4 38(16.3)
5 50 (21.5)
6 27(11.6)
7 59 (25.3)
Don't Remember 23 (9.9)
Missing Values 3 (1.3)
Current Usage- Hours
1 Hour or Less 8 (3.4)
1-3 Hours 90 (38.6)
3-5 Hours 75 (32.2)
5-7 Hours 38 (16.3)
More than 7 Hours 18 (7.7)
Missing Values 4 (1.7)
Remembered Usage- Hours
1 Hour or Less 49(21)
1-3 Hours 91(39.1)
3-5 Hours 44 (18.9)
5-7 Hours 24(10.3)
More than 7 Hours 8 (3.4)
Don't Remember 15(6.4)
Missing Values 2 (0.9)
N= 233











school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like

Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as Facebook or My

Space? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use You Tube? Each of the sub-questions

had a Likert-type scale for responses. A one indicated they had never used that service. A

two indicated occasional use. A three indicated frequent use. A four indicated often, but

not daily use. And a five indicated daily use.

The responses to these questions were checked for their frequencies. As described

below in the independent variables section, the corresponding question for remembered

use as a juvenile lacked enough variance on two of the sub-questions. Those sub-

questions were dropped from the subsequently created scale. The sub-questions pertained

to the remembered use of an online dating service and the remembered use of You Tube.

In order to make the current Internet uses variable comparable to the remembered

Internet uses scale, the sub-questions relating to online dating service use and the use of

You Tube were dropped from the current uses scale (as they were from the past uses

scale). The responses to the other 8 sub-questions were scaled. The range on the scale

goes from 8 to 40. A factor analysis using Principal Components Analysis was conducted

to see whether the items all loaded on a single factor and what the reliability of the scale

was. The Cronbach's Alpha for this scale was .968, indicating strong correlation. An

Eigenvalue of 6.858 on the first item indicated that the scale items all loaded very

strongly on one factor. The results of this Factor Analysis can be found with the complete

set of tables in Appendix F. Because all items loaded so strongly on the one factor, it was









possible to label the scale as a current Intemet uses scale. Responses on the scale ranged

from 15 to the maximum value of 40.

Independent Variables

Standard independent variables for our study included gender, race/ ethnicity, and

family income. There were problems with using an age variable. Current ages supplied

by the respondents do not pertain to any past victimization and would not correlate to

those victimizations. Further, many respondents who did reply yes to one of the two

dependent variable questions were not able to supply an age for when the incident or

incidents happened. These respondents either checked the "don't know/ don't remember"

option or they did not answer the question at all. In consequence, the counts for each age

were not large enough to be able to use as a variable in a logistic regression analysis.

The only other option available to keep an age variable in the model came from

responses to the question: How old were you when you first started using the Intemet?

The counts for responses were large enough to allow this question to be used as the age

variable. However, its relevancy to regression is questionable. It can be argued that those

who started using the Intemet at a younger age would be different in some way from

other respondents and this difference may have been reflected whether or not they were

victimized sexually while online. Because of the questionable nature of this variable, the

regression was run both with it in and out of the model.

The independent variables pertaining to routine activities used in our study include

the activities and amount of time spent on those activities on the Internet while juveniles,

amount of privacy while on the Internet, parental supervision of Internet use, how much

personal information the respondent posted on the Internet, and how the respondent

presented themselves on the Internet. The portrayal of information variable was dummy









coded for the purpose conducting logistic regression. Answer choices of "no profile" and

"presented myself as something other than I really am" were coded as 0. The answer

choice of "I portrayed myself as I truly am" was coded as a 1. Other variables relating to

the routine activities of the respondents were considered for use in the regression, but

again, due to lack of variance, these questions could not be used.

The questions in the survey that were used to determine if parental supervision

has an impact upon receipt of sexual solicitations are as follows- Questionl: Where was

your computer with Internet access located in your home? Response choices were: in my

bedroom, in my parent's bedroom, in an area open to other members of my family, like

the kitchen or living room. Responses to this question were dummy-coded with yes

responses coded 1 and all other responses coded 0. Question 2: Thinking back to when

you were between the ages of 10-17, how much adult supervision did you have while

online using the access you checked in question #13 (where you MOST OFTEN used a

computer to go online)? Responses ranged from none at all (1) to constant supervision

(5). Responses to this question were left as they were, since the scale was already ordinal

in nature. Question 3: Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what type of

supervision did your parent/ guardian/ friend's parent/guardian engage in to supervise

your Internet use? Response choices were: watched what I did on the Internet, asked me

what I did on the Internet, checked the history function after I got off the Internet, read

my e-mails to see who I was communicating with, and installed software to keep me from

certain sites. Respondents were able to check all answers that applied to this question.

Because of this, responses were entered into SPSS as if each answer choice had

been a separate question. Each answer was given a code for yes (1) or no (0). Responses









were then summed in a count and an index was created. A one response on the index

indicated a yes response to the first question. A two on the index indicated respondents

had answered yes to two of the questions. A three on the scale indicated that respondents

had answered yes to any three questions. And so on, through the fifth question. All other

responses than yes were coded as 0.

The independent variable pertaining to online activities and the amount of time

juveniles spent at them was as follows: Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, how

often did you use the Internet to: Go to web sites? Use e-mail? Use Instant Messages? Go

to chat rooms? Play games? For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or

videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or

blog at sites such as Facebook or My Space? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use

You Tube? Each of the sub-questions had a Likert-type scale for responses. A one

indicated they had never used that service. A two indicated occasional use. A three

indicated frequent use. A four indicated often, but not daily use. And a five indicated

daily use. The responses to these questions were checked for their frequencies.

If responses had enough variance, they were used to create an Internet use scale.

Responses to the questions about use of online dating services or spending time at You

Tube as a juvenile did not have enough variance. Most respondents indicated they had

never used an online dating service. Only 7.7% (18) indicated any response to that

question other than "never." There was slightly more variance for the You Tube question.

While 153 respondents indicated they never used that service while a juvenile, 54 did

indicate they used it occasionally. The other 3 responses had 24 (10.3%) counts only,











Table 4-5. Dependen
Chara


t variables: sexual victimization/ solicitation
cteristics
Frequency
(%)
15(6.4)
210(90.1)
5(2.1)
3(1.3)


Asked to Meet for Sex
Yes
No
Don't Remember
Missing Values
Agreed to Meet for Sex
Yes
No
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Did Meet for Sex
Yes
No
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Actually Had Sex
Yes
No
Don't Remember
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Type of Sex Contact
Sexual Intercourse
Oral Intercourse
Anal Intercourse
Fondling or Touching
Kissing
Other
Don't Remember
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Rating of Sex Experience
1- Very Negative
2- Somewhat Negative
3-Neutral/ So-so
4- Somewhat Positive
5- Very Positive
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
N= 233


3(1.3)
11(4.7)

219(93.9)


7(3)
4 (1.7)

222 (95.3)

3(1.3)
7(3)
1(0.4)

222 (95.3)


0(0)
2 (0.9)
1(0.4)
1(0.4)
1(0.4)
0(0)
1(0.4)

227 (97.4)

1(0.4)
2(0.9)
8 (3.4)
1(0.4)
1(0.4)

220 (94.4)









Table 4-6. Independent variables: routine activities 1: past online activities
Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values


Websites
Frequency
(%)
9(3.9)
38(16.3)
31 (13.3)

63 (27)
90 (38.6)

2 (0.9)


Instant
E-mail Messenger


20 (8.6)
47(20.2)
32(13.7)

60(25.8)
72(30.9)

2 (0.9)


34(14.6)
23 (9.9)
37 (15.9)

46 (19.7)
91 (39.1)

2 (0.9)


Chat
Rooms


87 (37.3)
77 (33)
28 (12)

18(7.7)
20 (8.6)


3 (1.3) 3 (1.3)


Table 4-6. Continued


Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses


Schoolwork


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values
N= 233


11 (4.7)
52 (22.3)
72 (30.9)

53 (22.7)
41(17.6)

4(1.7)


Downloading


61(26.2)
40(17.2)
51(21.9)

52 (22.3)
27(11.6)

2 (0.9)


Play
Games


34(14.6)
65 (27.9)
68 (29.2)

32(13.7)
31 (13.3)


Blogging

132 (56.7)
28 (12)
23 (9.9)

21(9)
26(11.2)

3 (1.3)


Dating
Site


213 (91.4)
11(4.7)
2(0.9)

3 (1.3)
2 (0.9)

2(0.9)


You Tube

153 (65.7)
54(23.2)
14(6)

6(2.6)
4(1.7)

2(0.9)









Table 4-7. Independent variables: routine activities 2: current online activities
Current Internet Uses


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values


Websites
Frequency
(%)
1(0.4)
8(3.4)
7(3)

13 (5.6)
202 (86.7)

2 (0.9)


E-mail


0(0)
6 (2.6)
7(3)

12 (5.2)
206(88.4)

2 (0.9)


Instant
Messenger


47 (20.2)
59(25.3)
18(7.7)

27(11.6)
79(33.9)

3 (1.3)


Chat
Rooms


168(79.8)
31(13.3)
4(1.7)

3 (1.3)
7(3)


Play
Games


62 (26.6)
113(48.5)
19(8.2)

21(9)
16(6.9)


2 (0.9) 2 (0.9)


Table 4-7. Continued


Current Internet Uses


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values
N= 233


Schoolwork

0(0)
4(1.7)
27(11.6)

62 (26.6)
136(58.4)

4(1.7)


Downloading


62 (26.6)
55 (23.6)
38(16.3)

41(17.6)
35 (15)

2 (0.9)


Blogging

68 (29.2)
32(13.7)
13 (5.6)

27(11.6)
90 (38.6)

3 (1.3)


Dating
Site

212(91)
11(4.7)
2(0.9)

3 (1.3)
3 (1.3)

2(0.9)


You Tube

11 (4.7)
89 (38.2)
60 (25.8)

50(21.5)
20 (8.6)

3 (1.3)









however. The distribution was skewed enough to make the use of these variables

questionable.

The responses to the other 8 sub-questions were scaled. The range on the scale

goes from 8 to 40. A factor analysis using Principal Components Analysis was conducted

to see whether the items all loaded on a single factor and what the reliability of the scale

was. The Cronbach's Alpha for this scale was quite strong, a .805. Eigenvalues of 3.453

and 1.180 on the first two items indicated that the scale items were loading on two

factors. The Components Matrix indicated that all items loaded particularly strongly on

the first factor. Only one item loaded at a significant level (.63) on the second factor; as

this item also loaded well on the first factor (.531) there is no reason to consider using

more than one scale. The Factor Analysis is a confirmatory process anyway. Running the

reliability analysis had already established that the items on this scale were highly

correlated with one another. The Factor Analysis just confirms this.

The results of the Factor Analysis can be found with complete set of tables in

Appendix F. Because all items loaded so strongly on the first factor, it was possible to

label the scale as an Internet uses scale. Responses on the scale ranged from the minimum

value of 8 to the maximum value of 40.









CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS

The majority of survey participants seem to have been fairly free of unwanted on-

sexual solicitations. Sixty-four of the respondents had someone try to talk to them about

sex online when they did not want to. About 26% (60) of respondents had someone

online ask them for sexual information about themselves whom they did not want asking

such questions. Only 11.6% (27) of respondents had someone online ask them to do

something sexual when they did not want to.

Fifteen of the respondents received what could be termed an aggressive sexual

solicitation; someone online asked them to meet offline for sexual purposes. Only 3

respondents agreed to meet the person offline for sexual purposes; although 7 of the

respondents indicated they actually met a person offline for sexual purposes. The

discrepancy in numbers between who indicated they would meet someone and who

actually met someone offline for sexual purposes is most likely a result of persons

refusing to answer the former question; they then went on to answer the latter question,

for whatever reason. It appears that as the nature of the offense escalated, the number of

such events decreased. It should be noted however, that the questions about meeting

someone offline for sexual purposes were those that respondents left unanswered the

most (5, 9, and 12 respondents refused to answer these questions, respectively).

The majority of respondents indicate they are online 7 days a week (84.1%). They

generally spend between 1-5 hours online on the average day (70.8%). Twenty-four

percent spend over 5 hours online on the average day. Internet activities vary widely in

use and frequency. Web sites, e-mail, and instant messaging are services that many

engage in on a regular basis; if not daily, then often (65.6%, 56.7%, and 58.8%









respectively). Refer back to Tables 4-6 through 4-9 for more information, or see

Appendix F.

Results of the two regressions run to determine the variables affecting unwanted

sexual solicitations are shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below. Both regression models are

significant at the global level. The results are somewhat surprising for both regressions.

Only gender and the remembered Internet uses scale achieved significance in both

models. The signs of the coefficients indicate that females are more likely than males to

experience unwanted sexual solicitations online. Those who spend more time online

engaged in a larger variety of activities are more likely than those who do not engage in

so many activities to experience unwanted sexual solicitations.

Gender had an Odds Ratio of 3.936 in the first model and 3.349 in the second.

Females are almost 4 times more likely to experience unwanted sexual solicitation or

sexual victimization than males are. The remembered Internet uses variable had an Odds

Ratio of 1.106 in the first model and 1.108 in the second model. Those who made more

frequent use of the Internet were 1.1 times as likely to experience sexual victimization as

those who did not use the Internet so much.

The fact that race did not achieve significance is most likely due to lack variance

(the majority of students (63.5%) were White). It is also possibly a reflection of the

anonymous and global nature of the Internet. Amount of supervision was significant at

the .10 level in one of the models (.087 p-value). This was in the model including age at

first computer use as one of the variables. Neither of the supervision variables was

significant in the other model (model 2).









The Odds Ratio for the amount of supervision variable in the first model was

.639. Remembering that the coefficient's sign was negative, this means that for every

increase in the amount of supervision, the likelihood of becoming the victim of unwanted

sexual solicitation or sexual victimization decreases by .639.

Two separate regressions involving alternating use of the supervision variables

were done to see if results would change after taking into account the multicollinearity

that was found between the two variables. Even separately, each still failed to achieve

significance. There was enough variance in responses to each item that it is most likely

that lack of significance was not affected by this.

One possibility for the lack of significance of amount of supervision in the second

model lies with the removed variable. Age at first computer use is the variable present in

the first regression but not in the second. By its very definition, age of first computer use

would have occurred when the respondents were much younger. As younger children and

adolescents they most likely received more supervision than they did as juveniles. This is

the most likely reason for the discrepancy.

Whether or not a respondent had their own private computer as a juvenile from

which to access the Internet had no bearing on whether or not they received unwanted

sexual solicitations. This finding is also somewhat surprising in light of routine activities

theory. It was theorized that those with private access would be more likely to engage in

dubious online activities thereby leaving themselves open to sexual solicitations, wanted

or not. This has not proved to be the case. One problem however is that this variable is

not ideal for measuring privacy. A better question about privacy of computer use would









Table 5-1. Logistic regression: sexual solicitation with age at 1st use
Logistic Regression- With Age at 1st Use


Variables
Gender
Age at 1st Use
Race
Income
Remembered Uses
Scale
Had own Computer
Amount of
Supervision
Supervision Index
Self- Portrayal


Coefficient
1.370
0.090
-0.620
-0.132

0.100
-0.033

-0.448
0.064
-0.380


Wald
Score
7.236
0.641
1.841
1.582

7.464
0.005

2.935
0.075
0.768


P-value
0.007***
0.423
0.175
0.208


Exp (B)
3.936
1.094
.538
.877


0.006*** 1.106
0.944 .967


0.087*
0.784
0.381


.639
1.066
.684


Model Significance- Chi-Square Value= 25.548, p-value=.002***
* Significant at the .10 Level
** Significant at the .05 Level
***Significant at the .01 Level









Table 5-2. Logistic regression: sexual solicitation without age at 1st use
Logistic Regression- Without Age at 1st Use


Variables
Gender
Race
Income
Remembered Uses
Scale
Had own Computer
Amount of
Supervision
Supervision Index
Self- Portrayal


Coefficient
1.209
-0.088
-0.120

0.102
-0.042

-0.061
0.026
-0.531


Wald
Score
11.412
0.065
2.519


P-value
0.001***
0.799
0.112


Exp (B)
3.349
.916
.887


15.061 0.000*** 1.108
0.015 0.904 .959


0.098
0.018
2.817


0.754
0.894
0.093*


.940
1.026
.588


Model Significance- Chi-Square Value= 37.769, p-value=.000***
* Significant at the .10 Level
** Significant at the .05 Level
***significant at the .01 Level









have been the question about where their computer was located, in their bedroom, a

parent's bedroom, or in an open area like a kitchen or living room. Unfortunately, 154

(66%) respondents chose not to answer this question, rendering it meaningless for the

purposes of regression analysis.

Family income, used to indicate a respondent's socio-economic status while still a

juvenile living at home, did not achieve significance in either model. There was enough

variance in responses that this was not a significant factor in failing to achieve

significance. The results of both regressions seem to indicate that SES as determined by

household income is not a factor in determining who will become the victim of unwanted

online sexual solicitations. Again, this may reflect the anonymous and global nature of

the Internet; if this is so, many demographic variables considered relevant to criminal

victimization will need to be reconsidered when analyzing online crime.

How a respondent chose to portray him or herself while online was also

investigated in both regression models. In the model without age at first use this variable

was significant at the .10 level. The p-value was .093 and the negative sign on the

coefficient indicated that those who portrayed themselves as other than they really are or

who did not supply personal information at all were possibly more likely to experience

unwanted online sexual victimization. The Odds Ratio for this variable in model 2 was

.588, indicating that likelihood of experiencing sexual victimization or unwanted sexual

solicitations is .588 times more likely for those who provide no information or some form

of false information than for those who provide their correct personal information.

The lack of significance for this variable in the first model was most likely not

caused by lack of variance. Responses for the dummy-coded variable were almost evenly









divided between "yes" and "all other responses" (47.6% versus 52.4%). What seems

most probable is that sexual offenders looking for victims online look for specific

characteristics. Those who provided correct information were most likely specifying

some characteristic that the offender did not find appealing.

Why this variable was significant in the second model but not in the first is unclear.

There does not seem to be a clear link between age at first computer use and the

providing of personal information. One possibility is that sexual offenders who use the

Internet are looking for older children; adolescents and juveniles. Again by definition,

respondents were younger at age of first computer use. This is an area that should be

investigated further in the future.

The results of the Ordinary Least Squares regression run to determine if past

online sexual victimization affected the amount and type of current Internet usage are

shown below in Table 5-3. Variables that achieved significance in this regression include

current age and past Internet activities. No other variable achieved significance. The

model itself was found to be significant with an F Score of 8.989 and a p-value of .000.

The negative sign of the coefficient for current age indicated that younger

undergraduates tend to spend more time online in a larger variety of activities. The

positive sign for the coefficient for remembered Internet uses variable indicated that those









Table 5-3. OLS linear regression: effects of past victimization on current use
OLS Current Internet Use Regression


score P-value


Stand. Beta


Gender

Race
Income

Current age

Past Online Solicitation
Remembered Uses Scale

Past Self- Portrayal


Model Significance- F Score=
* Significant at the .10 Level
** Significant at the .05 Level
***Significant at the .01 Level


-0.708 1.174 0.242

-0.688 1.153 0.250
0.099 0.755 0.451

-0.109 2.177 0.031**

-0.534 0.850 0.396
0.295 6.833 0.000***

-0.236 0.426 0.671


8.989, p-value=.000***


Variables


Coefficient


-.075

-.074
.049

.135

.056
.446

-.026









who engaged in more online activities more frequently as juveniles were more likely to

have a higher current level of Internet activities and usage. This finding was not

surprising, since it has long been understood that the best predictor of future behavior is

past behavior. What is surprising is that having a history of unwanted sexual solicitations

did not even come close to achieving significance on this model. The standardized Beta

for current age is .135 and for remembered Internet uses is .446. The standardized Betas

for these 2 variables indicate that past use is a stronger predictor of the respondents'

current Internet use than current age is.

Several possibilities for this finding come to mind. Least likely is the possibility

that past online sexual victimization has no bearing upon future online behavior. It is

more feasible that the variable used to measure past online sexual victimization is not a

good measure of this type of victimization. It has already been stated that due to lack of

variance, several variables that were should have been used in the analysis had to be left

out. These variables include responses to the questions about receiving unwanted requests

for online sex, requests to meet offline for sexual activities, and actually meeting

someone offline for sexual activities. These variables would all probably been better

measures of online sexual victimization.

The variables actually used were the ones that measured unwanted sexual

solicitations; it can be posited that the effects of an unwanted solicitation would be less

traumatic than would be the effects of actually meeting someone offline for sexual

purposes. That is, if the experience is considered negatively. As stated previously, the N-

JOV Study found that in cases involving female victims, over half of the girls considered

themselves to be in love with the perpetrator (Wolak et al., 2004).









Support for the Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 stated that college-bound youths whose online use is more closely

monitored by a parent or guardian will experience less online sexual victimization.

Hypothesis 2 stated that college-bound youths who use the Internet more frequently are

more likely to receive sexual solicitations than those who use it less frequently.

Hypothesis 3 stated that respondents who were victimized by online sexual solicitations

during their juvenile years will make less use of the Internet now than they did prior to

their victimization.

Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported by the model 1 logistic regression. As

stated earlier, it is possible that the questions regarding the amount and type of

supervision were not all-encompassing enough. Or it may just be that short of continually

watching their child every moment they spend online, that a parent's supervision can do

nothing to prevent unwanted online sexual solicitations to their children. In terms of

routine activities theory, capable guardianship did help to prevent crime victimization but

only when age at first use of the Internet was taken into account.

Hypothesis 2 was supported by both logistic regressions conducted for this

analysis. The more activities a respondent engaged in as a juvenile while online, the more

likely it was for them to become the victim of an unwanted sexual solicitation. This

hypothesis basically states that heightened exposure places juveniles at risk. The more

time a juvenile spends online and the more activities they engage in, the more

opportunity a sexual offender has to prey upon them. In terms of routine activities theory,

the routine, everyday activities do seem to help create opportunities by which motivated

offenders can victimize others.









Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the OLS regression conducted for our study.

Based upon the variables used to determine online juvenile sexual victimization, a past

history of this type of behavior does not seem to cause a reduction in future online

behavior. As discussed in the Findings section, this is most likely because of the variables

used to determine online sexual victimization.

More research using better variables should be used to determine whether this

finding is accurate or not. It is also possible that there is something about the sample of

undergraduates used for our study that makes them more likely to make use of the

Internet, regardless of any past Internet victimization they may have experienced. Or

possibly there is something about college students in general that makes their outlook on

such occurrences differ from non-college students. Regardless, it should be noted that the

results of our study are not generalizable to the general public or even to other

undergraduate student populations.









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

Discussion

The purpose of our study was to determine the characteristics of victims of online

juvenile sexual victimization for a sample of undergraduate students from a large

southern university. The main research questions that were investigated were: do the

routine activities juveniles engage in on the Internet make them more or less likely to be

the victims of unwanted sexual solicitations?; and, do the routine online activities

juveniles engage in change after experiencing a sexual victimization?

The level of sexual victimization reported in our study was quite low; for

purposes of analysis, reports of unwanted online sexual solicitations were used instead.

The analyses showed that even then, college-bound youths do not experience a high level

of unwanted online sexual solicitations. About 28% of the sample experienced unwanted

talk about sex while online and about 26% of the sample experienced unwanted

solicitations for personal sexual information. Only 11.6% of the respondents experienced

unwanted online solicitations for acts of sex.

The extent of online sexual victimization and sexual solicitation among juveniles

bound for college may be much higher than our study reports. As stated previously, there

may be something about this particular sample of undergraduates that makes them

ungeneralizable to the broader undergraduate population. There were issues with the data

such as lack of variance and missing data that make the results of our study suspect.

Further, the survey questions respondents answered may not have been ideal for

determining online sexual victimization. The questions were modeled after those in the

national online juvenile sexual victimization studies (YISS, YISS-2) that have been









conducted to date (Finkelhor et al., 2000). That lends the questions a certain amount of

legitimacy.

It is also possible that college-bound juveniles experience less online sexual

victimization than other juveniles do. If this is the case, it must be determined why they

experience less online sexual victimization. Future research is needed to replicate both

the national online juvenile sexual victimization studies, as well as our study

investigating the online sexual victimization of college-bound juveniles. If a difference is

discovered, future studies should investigate why the difference exists.

Routine activities theory states that crime occurs when a motivated offender is in

the presence of a suitable target that lacks a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Our study attempted to investigate whether the routine online daily activities of college-

bound juveniles made suitable targets for online sexual victimization. The routine

activities that college-bound juveniles were found to engage in daily included: going to

Internet websites (38.6%), sending and receiving e-mail (30.9%), using instant messenger

services (39.1%), and playing games (13.3%). Along with juvenile's online behavior, the

supervision their online activities received was also investigated. What the study was

trying to get at was, do those juveniles whose routine activities make them suitable

targets become less suitable targets when they have capable guardianship? This is the

most basic assumption made by routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

For our study, the assumption of capable guardianship making a target appear less

suitable to a motivated offender did not hold true. This assumption was tested under the

first hypothesis. Both the type of supervision juveniles received while engaging in their

online activities, as well as the amount of supervision they received while engaging in









these activities, were studied. Logistic regression showed that, at least for our study, the

amount of supervision a juvenile received was related to their online sexual victimization.

Capable guardianship is an assumption of routine activities that was upheld by our study,

but only when age at first use of the computer was taken into account.

The other routine activities assumption that was upheld by our study was that of

routine activities making one more or less of a suitable target. The frequency and type of

activities a juvenile engaged in online had a bearing on whether a juvenile became the

victim of online sexual solicitations. This assumption was tested under the second

hypothesis. Those juveniles, who spent more time online in a wider variety of activities,

were more likely to be the victims of sexual solicitation. The fact that they were there,

online, for longer periods of time, engaging in more activities than others might do, is

what increased their suitability as a target. This assumption of routine activities theory

was also upheld by the study.

Because this was a victimization study, offenders were not included. It was

therefore not possible to determine the presence or absence of motivated offenders; they

were assumed. Based on the two aspects of routine activities theory that were studied it

seems this theory lent itself adequately to the study of online sexual victimization crimes.

Future studies should attempt to replicate our study in order to determine if the findings

regarding routine activities theory are correct.

Hypothesis 3 stated that respondents who were victimized by online sexual

solicitations during their juvenile years will make less use of the Internet now than they

did prior to their victimization. This hypothesis was also not supported.









Limitations and Implications

While all studies have limitations, our study had more than most. The study was

retrospective, a type of study that is considered as less valid than cross-sectional or

longitudinal studies. The sample that was studied did not report a high enough level of

online sexual victimization in order to make this a feasible dependent variable. Instead,

unwanted online sexual solicitations became the dependent variable. Many of the

variables to be studied lacked variance; many lacked valid responses. For these reasons,

this is not an ideal data set from which further questions might be investigated.

However, the limitations of our study do not necessarily invalidate the findings.

There are implications to the finding that supervision was not related to victimization.

What can then be done to protect children and juveniles from online sexual predators?

Parents should not assume that there is nothing they can do to protect their children. As

was pointed out earlier, the issue of having a private computer was deemed very

important for our study. However, due to missing data and lack of variance, the responses

to the question that asked where in the house the computer they used was located could

not be used. Instead, responses to the question about whether as juveniles they had their

own computer had to be substituted in. It is entirely possible that the results of the

regression analyses would have been different if the desired variable had been used.

Where the computer a child or juvenile is located in the house may be more important

than the amount or type of supervision the child receives. It may be that the presence of a

parent in the same room while the child or juvenile is online may keep them from

wandering into less acceptable web-sites or in continuing questionable conversations with

strangers.









Parents should consider the location of the computer in their homes, as well as

how they supervise the use of it. The best protection against online victimization would

be to have the computer in the room with the highest household traffic, as well as

engaging in more traditional types of supervision such as checking the history function.

Parents should also talk to their children about online sexual victimization so that they

would know what to aware of and what to do if the situation did arise.

Parents, children, and juveniles can report an online sexual victimization or

solicitation to the CyberTipline. The CyberTipline is a congressionally mandated

reporting mechanism for many types of child sexual exploitation, including child

pornography and "online enticement of children for sex acts" (What is the CyberTipline?

nd.). The CyberTipline can be located at the website for the National Center for Missing

& Exploited Children.

Future studies should be conducted using college populations in order to

determine their rate of online sexual victimization compared to a national sample. Future

studies should also seek to establish to what extent privacy of computer use affects online

sexual victimization. Other areas that should be explored in future studies include the

extent that those who report unwanted online sexual solicitations also report attempts by

sex offenders to meet offline for sexual purposes.









APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANT POOL APPLICATION









Application for use of the
Criminology, Law and Society Department
Participant Pool


** NOTE: You must submit the following things with this application:
1) A copy of your full IRB application (This application may be submitted
prior to IRB approval, however, you may not run any participants until
you have submitted a copy of your IRB approval letter to the
coordinator)
2) A full copy of your survey/stimulus etc. You should submit everything
that you will be presenting to participants. If your study is online, you
may submit a link to your online study, and the participant coordinator
must be able to run through your study.

I. General Information
1. TITLE of this research project (this will be the title shown to the participants.
Keep in mind that if your study involves deception, this may not match your IRB
title):

Online Juvenile Sexual Victimization Among College Students


2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO BE PROVIDED TO POTENTIAL
PARTICIPANTS (250 character maximum):

To examine rates of online juvenile sexual victimization as retrospectively self-reported
by college students. To examine the routine online activities that may make some juveniles
more exposed to victimization by sexual offenders while online.


3. NAME of the responsible researcher: Stacy Burweger

E-MAIL: kithain@ufl.edu

PHONE & ROOM #: cell 386.569.1823

Have you attended a training session for participant pool researchers? No,
but I have spoken with John Boman about it.

4. CATEGORY of this research project: (check only one)

Doctoral dissertation research (limited to 2 terms)
Grant funded (grants with overhead) faculty research
(must provide funding source)
X MA thesis research









Senior thesis research
Full-time faculty member research
SIndependent graduate student research
SAdjunct faculty research
Other (please explain)



5. FACULTY SPONSOR (if applicable): Dr. Ronald Akers
(Note: Faculty Sponsor is the person taking primary responsibility for the
treatment of participants. If dissertation research or other student research, please
note faculty advisor)
6. NAMES AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES of all members of the research team
who will be authorized to use the participant pool for your project and you
want to receive direct communication from the Participant Pool Coordinator
(NOTE: you will be responsible for disseminating all communication from
the Participant Pool Coordinator to the other members of your research
team):

Name E-mail
Stacy Burweger kithain@ufl.edu








II. Project Information

1. TOTAL NUMBER of participants required: MAXIMUM of 1,000 students

2. TIME required of EACH participant: 30 minutes to 1 hour
NOTE: This will be double checked by the participant pool coordinator. Studies
must take at least 10 minutes. If your collection time is shorter than ten minutes,
you must double with another researcher. If you need help finding another
research project to double with, please check with the participant pool
coordinator.

3. Students will be awarded: (please check one)

X Units only

Combination of units and money

Option of units or money











4. Proposed TOTAL NUMBER OF units to be awarded to EACH participant:
2 units, although I suppose 1 unit is more likely


Note: 1 unit
2 units
3 units
4 units
5 units
6 units


10 30 minutes of participation
= 31 60 minutes
= 61 90 minutes
= 91 120 minutes
= 121 150 minutes
= 151-180 minutes


5. 2


TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS REQUESTED


6. 0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY to be awarded to EACH participant


7. SIGN UP/CANCELLATION NOTIFICATION

Would you like to be notified by email when participants sign up/cancel?


Yes: X


8. ONLINE SURVEY INFORMATION


If your study includes an online survey, please provide the website
information below:

www.surveymonkey.com

9. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS, if any, for participation in your project:
(please list: e.g., females only, right-handed, jury eligible, etc.)


a) participants must be 18 years of age


10. LOCATION where research sessions will be conducted (be as specific as
possible). If you do not have a location, please indicate this here, and list
times/days you would prefer to run your study and how many students you
are able to accommodate in each session and any special requirements (e.g.,
equipment, extra time between sessions, desks, etc.):









Location: this is an online survey; students may take it when and where they will

Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
1 (7:25-8:15)
2 (8:30-9:20)
3 (8:30-9:20)
4 (8:30-9:20)
5 (8:30-9:20)
6 (12:50-1:40)
7 (1:55-2:45)
8 (3:00-3:50)
9 (4:05-4:55)
10 (5:10-6:00)
11 (6:15-7:05)
El (7:20-8:10)
E2 (8:20-9:10)
E3 (9:20-
10:10)

11. ANTICIPATED TIMELINE OF PROJECT: The survey will be open until at
least the end of March 2008, possibly until the end of the semester, April 2008.


12. EDUCATIONAL DEBRIEFING PLAN

All researchers must provide student participants with a short, written
debriefing statement. Please attach a copy of your educational debriefing
form to this application.

Please note that the purpose of the participant pool program is educational.
Students in our classes learn about descriptive studies (such as surveys,
naturalistic observation, and case studies), correlational studies, and
experimental studies (including terms such as -"liyh pheli "operational
definition, "independent variable, and "dependent variable "). Please consider
the educational purpose when writing your debriefing. The committee reserves
the right to require researchers to modify their educational
debriefing if it fails to satisfy these requirements.



Signature of Researcher:

Date:

Please place completed applications in the participant pool coordinator's mailbox.
Thank you!









For Coordinator Use Only

Approval Number:


Authorized number of units:









APPENDIX B
IRB PROTOCOL FORM
















Title of Protocol: Online Juvenile Sexual Victimization Among College Students

Principal Investigator: Stacy Burweger UFID #: 9564-9346
Mailing Address:
Degree / Title: Masters Student Newberry Rd. #6
6519 W. Newberry Rd. #611
Gainseville, FL. 32605

Department: Criminology, Law, & Society
P.O. Box 115950 Email Address & Telephone Number:
University of Florida kithain@ufl.edu; 386.569.1823
Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950
Co-Investigator(s): UFID#:


Supervisor: Dr. Ronald L. Akers UFID#: 7789-3780


Degree / Title: Graduate Coordinator; Professor Mailing Address: Dept. of Criminology, Law, &
Society
P.O. Box 115950, University of Florida,
Department: Criminology, Law, & Society Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950

Email Address & Telephone Number:

352.392.2230; rla@crim.ufl.edu


Date of Proposed Research: January 1, 2008 through July 1, 2008

Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must be submitted with this protocol if funding is
involved):

There is no external funding for this study.

Scientific Purpose of the Study:
To examine rates of online juvenile sexual victimization as retrospectively self-reported by college students.
To examine the routine online activities that may make some juveniles more exposed to victimization by
sexual offenders while online.


Describe the Research Methodology in Non-Technical Language: (Explain what will be done with or to
the research participant.)
Students will take an online retrospective survey that asks them about their Internet habits as juveniles; e-
mail, websites visited, amount of time spent online, whether they have been victimized by sexual
harassment, cybersex, or an adult wanting to meet them for sex, whether or not they ever met an adult for
sex off-line. Students will also be asked questions about their current amount of time spent online in order










to determine if those with online juvenile sexual victimization experiences have changed their Internet
habits. Students will also be asked demographic questions about their age, gender, race/ ethnicity, home
city size and location.

The survey will make use of Survey Monkey's Professional Service, which is a pay service. This makes the
survey much more secure. The survey will make use of SSL encryption in order to make responses as
secure and confidential as possible. It is also possible with this pay service to ensure that participant's IP
addresses are not tracked when they log on to take the survey. This feature will be turned off so
participants are not tracked.

Survey responses will be downloaded from Survey Monkey's secure website onto a jump/ flash drive that
will be used strictly to store that data alone. The jump drive will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the
researcher's home office. The jump drive will not be put onto any computer that is currently online or
hooked into a network, in order to further ensure the security and confidentiality of the data.







Describe Potential Benefits and Anticipated Risks: (If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm
may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect participant.)
There are no potential benefits from taking this survey. Participants will be exposed to minimal and indirect
potential psychological harm as they are being asked about events that have already happened and they
have the option of not answering any question they find uncomfortable. Participants who, as a result of
taking this survey, feel they need they need to discuss their experiences with a counselor, may contact the
University of Florida Student Mental Health Services at: Room 245 Infirmary Bldg. Fletcher Drive, UF
Campus, 352.392.1171 to set up an appointment.






Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited, the Number and AGE of the Participants, and
Proposed Compensation:
Participants for this study will be recruited from the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society's
undergraduate participant pool. Students in the participant pool are required to participate in a certain
amount of surveys each semester. They have the option of choosing which ones they will participate in.
Only students over the age of 18 will be allowed the option of participating in this study. All students who
wish to take the survey during the proposed study time will be allowed to do so, which could result in a
maximum of 1,000 participants. Participants will not receive compensation from the principal investigator
for participating in this study. Some students in the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society participant
receive extra credit from their professor for participating. Some professors require participation in the
participant pool as part of their class curriculum. So some participants in this study may end up receiving
extra credit from their professor. All students are made aware of the participant pool when they sign up for
courses in this department.
Participant pool members are required to sign up at http://ufl-cls.sona-systems.com/. This is the
Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website. Participants will enter in their UF e-
mail address and a randomly generated password will be given to them. From here, they can view all the
studies that are available through the department participant pool. Each study has a description page, and
on that page for this study will be the password they will need to use to access the study at
SurveyMonkey.com. If students decide they want to participate in my study, they utilize the link from the
study description page, which will sign them up for participation. They can then follow the link to the access










page at SurveyMonkey where they will put in the password. They are then moved to the informed consent
page, where they will either accept or refuse to participate in this study. Through the Criminology, Law and
Society Research Participation System website, the administrator can keep track of which students have
signed up for which study by their UF e-mail address. However, the administrator does not have access to
the survey or to any student's survey responses. They can only note when a student has signed up to
participate in a survey, so that they may be given credit for participation.


Describe the Informed Consent Process. Include a Copy of the Informed Consent Document:
Students in the participant pool who choose to participate in this study will fill out an informed consent form
describing the study (see attached informed consent form). The informed consent form will be the first page
of the survey, on Survey Monkey, after they enter in the survey password. In order to proceed with the
survey, they will have to read and electronically sign the informed consent form.



Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Supervisor Signature:






Department Chair/Center Director Signature: Date:









APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT FORM










Informed Consent
Protocol Title: Online Juvenile Sexual Victimization among College Students

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study:

The purpose of this study is to examine the rates of online juvenile sexual victimization among
college students and to examine the routine online activities that may make some juveniles more
exposed to victimization by sexual offenders while online.

What you will be asked to do in the study:

After electronically signing this informed consent form, you will be asked to take a survey about
your online and Internet habits between the ages of 10 and 17 and about some types of sexual
harassment or sexual victimization you may or may not have experienced while online as a
juvenile.

Time required:

Approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour.

Risks and Benefits:

There are no benefits to participating in this survey. You may experience some discomfort from
reading some of the more personal questions. If, as a result of taking this survey, you would like
to talk to a counselor about some of your experiences, you may contact the University of Florida's
Student Mental Health Services, located in Room 245, Infirmary Bldg., Fletcher drive, UF
Campus, 352.392.1171. Office hours are 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. Please
write this information down or print out this form.

Compensation:

There is no compensation for participating in this study, outside of any arrangement you have
with your professor regarding participation in the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society
Participant Pool (ie., you may receive extra credit or class credit from your professor for your
participation). Credit for participation is determined by the Administrator for the Criminology, Law
and Society Research Participation System website when you sign up to participate in this study.
Your participation, and therefore your credit, is determined by the UF e-mail address you used to
log into the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website.

Confidentiality:

This survey is completely anonymous. Your information will be assigned a code number and
there is no way for the researcher to know your name or any other identifying information from the
online survey. When you sign up to participate in a study listed on the Criminology, Law and
Society Research Participation System website, your e-mail address will be tracked so that you
may receive participation credit. However, the Participant Pool Administrator does not have
access to the answers to any survey you participate in. Your responses will be unknown to
Administrator. This survey uses SSL encryption at the Survey Monkey website to further keep
your responses confidential. Your IP address will not be tracked or noted by Survey Monkey or by
the researcher. Once surveys are completed, they will be downloaded from the secure Survey
Monkey website onto a jump/ flash drive that will be used for this purpose only. This jump drive










will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in the researcher's home office. Absolutely no one but the
researcher will have access to your responses, and the researcher has no way of knowing who
filled out any given survey. The jump drive will not be used on any computer that is currently
online or hooked into a network to further ensure the security and confidentiality of the data.

Voluntary participation:

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.
You have the right to refuse to answer any question in this survey without facing any penalties. If,
after reading this informed consent, you decide you do not wish to participate, you may select
"refuse" and proceed no further.

Right to withdraw from the study:

You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:

Stacy Burweger, Graduate Student, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O. Box
115950, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950; Phone: 386.569.1823;
kithain@ufl.edu

Or,

Dr. Ronald L. Akers, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O. Box 115950, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950; Phone: 352.392.1025, ext.226; rla@crim.ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study:

IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone 392-0433.

Agreement:

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and
I have received a copy of this description.

Participant: Date:

Principal Investigator: Date:











APPENDIX D
SURVEY QUESTIONS SOURCES TABLE












Question Response Choices Source
YISS-2- but altered
Responses for the following question; response
Currently, how often do you use the Internet to: questions are: categories verbatim
Go to web sites? 1- Never
Use e-mail? 2- Occasionally
Use Instant Messages? 3- Frequently
Go to chat rooms? 4- Often, but not every day
Play games? 5- Daily
For school assignments?
Download music, pictures, or videos from file
sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share?
Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as
Facebook or My Space?
Use an online dating or romantic site?
Use YouTube?
YISS-2- but altered
Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, how Responses for the following question; response
often did you use the Internet to: questions are: categories verbatim
Go to web sites? 1- Never
Use e-mail? 2- Occasionally
Use Instant Messages? 3- Frequently
Go to chat rooms? 4- Often, but not every day
Play games? 5- Daily
For school assignments?
Download music, pictures, or videos from file
sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share?
Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as
Facebook or My Space?
Use an online dating or romantic site?
Use YouTube?
Currently, how many days during a usual week do YISS, YISS-2- but
you use the Internet? Choices are: 1-7 altered
Between the ages of 10-17, how many days a YISS, YISS-2- but
week do you typically remember using the altered for
Internet? Choices are: 1-7 retrospective
Thinking back to when you were between the ages
of 10-17, how much adult supervision did you
have while online using the access you checked in Author- to determine
question 13? None at all capable guardianship
Very little
Some
A lot
Constant supervision
Don't know/ don't remember














Question Response Choices Source
Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what
types of supervision did your parent/ guardian/
friend's parent/ guardian engage in to superivse Watched what I did on the Author- to determine
your Internet use? Internet capable guardianship
Asked me what I did on the
Internet
Checked the history function
after I got off the Internet
Read my e-mails to see who I
was communicating with
Installed software to keep me
away from certain sites
Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did YISS, YISS-2- but
anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk altered question for
online about sex when you did not want to? Yes retrospective
No
Don't know/ don't remember
Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did YISS, YISS-2- but
anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual altered question for
information about yourself when you did not retrospective;
want to answer such questions? Yes description removed
No
Don't know/ don't remember
Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did YISS, YISS-2- but
anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do altered question for
something sexual that you did not want to do? Yes retrospective
No
Don't know/ don't remember
Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did Inspired by YISS,
anyone you met on the Internet try to get you to YISS-2 follow-up
meet them offline for sexual purposes? Yes questions
No
Don't know/ don't remember
Inspired by YISS-2
If yes, did you agree to meet them? Yes follow-up questions
No
Don't know/ don't remember
Inspired by YISS-2
If yes, did you actually meet them? Yes follow-up questions
No
When you met this person offline, did you engage Inspired by YISS-2
in any kind of sexual activity with this person? Yes follow-up questions
No
Don't know/ don't remember










APPENDIX E
SURVEY INSTRUMENT









Page 1


1. Do you agree to participate in this study as outlined in the
above consent form?

Informed Consent
Protocol Title: Online Juvenile Sexual Victimization among College
Students
Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to
participate in this study.
Purpose of the research study:
The purpose of this study is to examine the rates of online juvenile
sexual victimization among college students and to examine the
routine online activities that may make some juveniles more exposed
to victimization by sexual offenders while online.
What you will be asked to do in the study:
After electronically signing this informed consent form, you will be
asked to take a survey about your online and Internet habits
between the ages of 10 and 17 and about some types of sexual
harassment or sexual victimization you may or may not have
experienced while online as a juvenile.
Time required:
Approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour.
Risks and Benefits:
There are no benefits to participating in this survey. You may
experience some discomfort from reading some of the more personal
questions. If, as a result of taking this survey, you would like to talk to
a counselor about some of your experiences, you may contact
the University of Florida's Student Mental Health Services, located in
Room 245, Infirmary Bldg., Fletcher drive, UF Campus,
352.392.1171. Office hours are 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday through
Friday. Please write this information down or print out this form.
Compensation:
There is no compensation for participating in this study, outside of any
arrangement you have with your professor regarding
participation in the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society
Participant Pool (ie., you may receive extra credit or class credit from
your professor for your participation). Credit for participation is
determined by the Administrator for the Criminology, Law and Society
Research Participation System website when you sign up to participate
in this study. Your participation, and therefore your credit, is
determined by the UF e-mail address you used to log into the
Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website.
Confidentiality:









This survey is completely anonymous. Your information will be
assigned a code number and there is no way for the researcher to
know your name or any other identifying information from the online
survey. When you sign up to participate in a study listed on the
Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website,
your e-mail address will be tracked so that you may receive
participation credit. However, the Participant Pool Administrator does
not have access to the answers to any survey you participate in.
Your responses will be unknown to Administrator. This survey uses
SSL encryption at the Survey Monkey website to further keep your
responses confidential. Your IP address will not be tracked or noted by
Survey Monkey or by the researcher. Once surveys are
completed, they will be downloaded from the secure Survey Monkey
website onto a jump/ flash drive that will be used for this purpose
only. This jump drive will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in the
researcher's home office. Absolutely no one but the researcher will
have access to your responses, and the researcher has no way of
knowing who filled out any given survey. The jump drive will not be
used on any computer that is currently online or hooked into a
network to further ensure the security and confidentiality of the data.
Voluntary participation:
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no
penalty for not participating. You have the right to refuse to
answer any question in this survey without facing any penalties. If,
after reading this informed consent, you decide you do not wish to
participate, you may select "refuse" and proceed no further.
Right to withdraw from the study:
You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without
consequence.
Whom to contact if you have questions about the study:
Stacy Burweger, Graduate Student, Department of Criminology, Law,
& Society; P.O. Box 115950, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida 32611-5950; Phone: 386.569.1823; kithain@ufl.edu
Or,
Dr. Ronald L. Akers, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O.
Box 115950, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-
5950; Phone: 352.392.1025, ext.226; rla@crim.ufl.edu
Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the
study:
IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-
2250; phone 392-0433.
Agreement:
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to
participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this









description.
Yes, I voluntarily agree to participate with the procedure described
above
No, I don't agree to participate with the procedure described above
r CD
r CD
Page 2
2. How old are you? (Please enter your current age here)
3. What is your gender?

4. Which of the following best describes your Race/Ethnicity?
5. What was your family's/ household's income when you were
17? (please check
the answer that best applies to you)

6. Where were you living between the ages of 10 and 17? If
you lived in more than
one place, please indicate the place where you resided the
longest. (Please indicate
city and country)
7. Would you say that the community you resided in between
the ages of 10 and 17
was a: (Choose the answer that best applies to you)

Male
Female
C[
C[
White
African American
Hispanic
Asian American
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
Other (please specify)
$0- $14,999
$15,000- $29,999
$30,000- $44,999
$45,000- $59,999
c oF
c F[
c F[
c F[
$60,000- $74,999









$75,000- $89,999
$90,000- $104,999
$105,000 and above
c F[
c o[
c o[
c o[
Small town
Suburb of a large city
Rural area
c C[
c C[
r C[
Large town (25,000 tO 100,000)
Large city (over 100,000)
Don't know/ Don't remember
r CD
r CD
r CD
Page 3
8. Are you an International Student?

9. Do you currently have access to a computer with Internet
access?

10. Currently, how often do you use the Internet to: (Please
specify the correct
usage for each web service)

Yes
No


Yes
No
Don't know
c C[
c C[
r C[
The next few questions require you to specify how often you use
certain Internet services. Response choices range from 1 to 5. If you
have NEVER used a service, check 1. If you use a service DAILY, check
5. If your use ranges somewhere between 1 and 5, check the
one that seems most appropriate to you. 2 would indicate
OCCASIONAL use. 3 would indicate FREQUENT use. 4 would indicate
you
use a service OFTEN, BUT NOT DAILY.









Never Occasional Frequent Often, but not daily Daily


Go to web sites? c C
Use e-mail? C CD
Use Instant Messages?
c CD c CD c
Go to chat rooms?
c CD 0 CD c
Play games? c CD
For school assignments?

Download music, pictures,
or videos from file
sharing programs like
Kazaz or Bear Share?
c C'D c CD c
Keep an online journal or
blog at sites such as
Facebook or MySpace?
c CD CD c
Use an online dating or
romantic site?

Use YouTube? C CD
Page 4


7 C (Th C (Th


C r


c Co


c CD C'D c CD

CD c CD c CD


0Co



cmC




C-C


SC-C
0 Co

SCo[




CcmC



SC-C


SCo[
SC-C


SC-C
0 Co


c C'


c Co




CcmC



SC-C
C 'D



C 'D


SCo[
SC-C


C Cm


11. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, how often
did you use the
Internet to: (Please specify the correct past usage for each web
service)

12. Currently, how many days during a USUAL week do you use
the Internet?
(Please check the answer that most applies to you)
13. Between the ages of 10 and 17, how many days a week do
you remember
TYPICALLY using the Internet?

14. Currently how many hours are you online on a USUAL day
when you use the
Internet? (Please check the answer that most applies to you)
Never Occasional Frequent Often, but not daily Daily
Go to web sites? c C[ c C[ c C[ c C[ c C[
Use e-mail? C C0 0 C0 0 C0 0 C0 0 C0
Use Instant Messages?
C CD c CD C Co c Co C Co









Go to chat rooms?
c CD 0 CD c
Play games? C C0 C
For school assignments?

Download music, pictures,
or videos from file
sharing programs like
Kazaz or Bear Share?

Keep an online journal or
blog at sites such as
Facebook or MySpace?
CD CD c
Use an online dating or
romantic site?

Use YouTube? C CD
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
c CD
r CD
c CFD
c CD
5 days
6 days
7 days
c o[
c o[
c o[
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
c C'
c C'
c C'
c C'
5 days
6 days
7 days
Don't know/ Don't remember
c" C
c- C
c -C


C CD


C cCo[


" Co


SCo[




SCo[


0cm Cc Co


C'
r


SCo


SCo


C CD
r Cn


r C[


c Co


Co
Co










1 hour or less
Between 1-3 hours
Between 3-5 hours
c F[
c o[
c F[
Between 5-7 hours
7 hours or more
c CD
c CD
Page 5
15. How many hours on a USUAL day do you remember using
the Internet when you
were between the ages of 10 and 17? (Please check the answer
that best applies to
you)

16. How old were you when you first started using the
Internet? (Please specify that
age here)

17. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, where did
you MOST OFTEN use
a computer to get on the Internet? (Please check the answer
that most applies to
you)
18. Between the ages of 10 and 17, did you have a computer
with Internet access of
your own that you did not have to share with others in your
family? (Please check
the answer that best applies to you)

19. Where was your computer with Internet access located in
your home? (Please
choose the answer that best applies to you)
1 hour or less
Between 1-3 hours
Between 3-5 hours
c F[
c F[
c F[
Between 5-7 hours
7 hours or more
Don't know/ Don't remember
CD[









c CD
CD
Don't know/ Don't remember
CD
Age (please specify)
At home
At a friend's home
At school
c CD
c CD
c CD
From a cell phone
At a public library, cafe, or other public place
c F[
c F[
Other (please specify)
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
C[
C[
C[
In my bedroom
In my parent's bedroom
In an area open to other members of the family, like the kitchen or
living room
SCC[
SCC[
CFD
Page 6

20. Thinking back to when you were between the ages of 10
and 17, how much
adult supervision did you have while online, using the access
you checked in
question #17(where you MOST OFTEN used a computer to go
online)? (Please
check the answer that most applies to you)
21. Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, was there any
software on the
computer you most often used to get on the Internet that
filtered, monitored, or
blocked how you used the Internet? (Please choose the answer
that best applies to
you)









22. If yes, what software(s) was/ were used? (Please specify
all types used)

23. Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what type of
supervision did your
parent/ guardian/ friend's parent/ guardian engage in to
supervise your Internet
use? (Check all the answers that apply)
24. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, did you use
the Internet to
communicate with others?

None at all
Very little
Some



A lot
Constant supervision
Don't know/ Don't remember
c CD
c CD
c CD
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c CD
c CD
c CD
Don't know/ Don't remember
c CD
Softwares (please specify)
Watched what I did on the Internet
Asked me what I did on the Internet
Checked the History function after I got off the Internet

r FF

Read my e-mails to see who I was communicating with
Installed software to keep me away from certain cites
FF

Yes
No
SCD
SCn









Page 7
25. If yes, who do you remember using the Internet to
communicate with?

26. Thinking back, how did you portray yourself to the people
you communicated
with online, who did not already know you offline? (Please
check the answer that
best applied to you between the ages of 10 and 17)
27. Thinking back, did you ever meet in person any of the
people you communicated
with online whom you did not already know?

28. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, did anyone
on the Internet ever
try to get you to talk online about SEX when you did not want
to?

yes No Don't know/ Don't remember
People who were your
own age who you already
knew, like from school?
c CD CD CD
Members of your family,
like a sister, father, or
grandmother?
C C' c C' c C'D
Adults you already knew,
like a teacher or coach?
c CD c CD c CD
People who were your
own age who you met
online?
C- CD CD C
People whose age you
did not know whom you
met online?
c CD c D o c CoD
People you knew to be
adults that you met online?
c CD 0 CD CD
I portrayed myself as I really am
I portrayed myself as different than I really am (ie., younger/ older,
prettier, thinner, etc.)









I didn't portray myself as anything. I had no profile set up and gave
out no personal information
e C
SCoD
n CoD
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c CD
c CD
c CD
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c F[
c o[
c F[
Page 8
29. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the
amount of times this
has happened)
30. If yes, do you remember how old you were: (Please fill in
the age for each time
you remember. If you do not need all available boxes, please
specify Not Applicable)

31. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, did anyone
on the Internet ask
you for sexual INFORMATION about yourself when you did not
want to answer such
questions?

32. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the
amount of times this
has happened)
33. If yes, do you remember how old you were: (Please fill in
the age for any time
you remember. If you do not need all available boxes, please
specify Not Applicable)

Don't know/ Don't remember
C[
# of times
Age Other options
The first time
The second time









The third time
The fourth time
Any time after the fourth
time
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c F[
c F[
c F[
Age Other options
The first time
The second time
The third time
The fourth time
Any time after the fourth
time
Page 9
34. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, did anyone
on the Internet ever
ask you to DO something sexual that you did not want to do?

35. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the
amount of times this
has happened)
36. If yes, do you remember how old you were: (Please fill in
the age for any time
you remember. If you do not need all available boxes, please
specify Not Applicable)

37. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, did anyone
you met online try to
get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes? (Please
choose the answer that
best applies to you)

38. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the
number of times
someone you met online tried to get you to meet them offline
for sexual purposes)
39. If yes, did you agree to meet them?
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
SC'[









F F1
c CD
Age Other options
The first time
The second time
The third time
The fourth time
Any time after the fourth
time


Yes
No
Don't know/
c CD
c CD
c Cn


Don't remember


If this occurred more than once, please think back to the MOST
MEMORABLE occurrence and use that memory to respond to all further
questions.
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c oF
c o[
c F[
Page 10


40. If yes, did you ACTUALLY meet them?

41. How old were you when this happened?
42. Thinking back, where on the Internet did you
person? (Please choose


the answer that best applies to y

43. Was the person who wanted
the answer that best
describes what you remember)


Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't
c CD
c CD
c CD
Don't know/ Don't
C[
Age at occurrence
In a chat room


to meet you: (Please choose


remember



remember


meet this









Through e-mail
Through an online dating service
At a site like Facebook or MySpace
In a game room
While using an Instant Messenger service like Yahoo! Messenger
Don't know/ Don't remember
r Co
C[
C[
C[
C[
C[
C[
Other (please specify)
Your own age
Older, but still a teenager
An adult, most likely in their 20's or 30's
An adult, most likely in their 40's or 50's
An adult, most likely over 60
An adult, but I had no idea how old they were
Not sure how old the person was at all
Don't know/ Don't remember
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
SC'[
Page 11
44. Did you know how old the person was before you met them
off-line?

45. Was the person who wanted to meet you male or female?
(Please choose the
answer that best applies to you)
46. Did you know the sex of this person before you met them
off-line?

47. Did this person misrepresent himself/ herself when
communicating with you online?
(Please choose the answer that best applies to you)
48. If you met this person off-line, did you meet this person
off-line more than once?
off-ine ore han nce









49. If yes, how many times do you remember meeting this
person? (Please fill in the
number of times you remember)

Yes


No
Don't know/
c F[
c F[
c F[
Male
Female
Don't know/
e CD
c CF
c C'

Yes
No
Don't know/
r CD
r CD
c CFD
Yes
No
Don't know/
c F[
c o[
c o[
Yes
No
Don't know/
c C[
c C[
r C[
F"1"
F"1"
F"1"


Don't remember





Don't remember





Don't remember





Don't remember





Don't remember


Page 12
50. When you met this person off-line, did you engage in any
kind of sexual activity
with this person?

51. If yes, what type of sexual activity did you engage in?
(Please choose all that
apply to you)
52. If yes, did this person use some tactic to gain your
cooperation to have sexual
relations?









53. If yes, what tactics) did they use? (Please choose all that
apply)

54. Did you find that this experience was: (Please indicate how
negative or positive
you found this experience to be on a scale of 1 to 5. 1 indicates
VERY NEGATIVE and
5 indicates VERY POSITIVE)

Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c F[
c F[
c F[
Sexual intercourse
Oral intercourse
Anal intercourse

r Fo

Fondling or touching
Kissing
Don't know/ Don't remember

r Fo
Other (please specify)
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c C[
c CD
c CD
Verbal threats of harm
Threats of harm using a weapon
Fo

I was given alcohol or drugs
Physical harm
Fo

Other (please specify)
Very negative Negative
Not positive or
negative
Positive Very positive









I rate this experience as:
0 CD 0 CD


0 Co 0 Co 0 Co


Page 13
55. Did you tell anyone about meeting this person offline?
(Please choose the
answer that best applies to you)

56. If you told someone about your experience, what was their
response? (Please
choose the answer that best applies to you)

57. If you told no one, what did you IMAGINE the reactions of
the following people
would have been if you HAD told them?
Told no one
Told a friend
Told a parent/ guardian
Told a brother/ sister
Told the police/ other law enforcement authority
Told many different people
c Ch
c Ch
c Ch
c Ch
c Ch
c Ch
Told someone else (please specify)
Nothing/ they didn't do anything
Nothing/ they didn't believe me
Nothing/ it was a positive experience and they didn't have to do
anything
They offered help
A criminal case was started against the person I met off-line
A civil lawsuit was filed against the person I met off-line
c CD
c CD
c CD
c CD
c CD
c CD
Other (please specify)
Imagined responses
Parent/ guardian
Brother/ sister
Friend
Police/ law enforcement









Page 14
58. You have completed the survey. Before you hit the "next"
button, please check
either one of the response choices below so that you will be
taken to the
"Debriefing" page. From the debriefing page, you will go to the
"Thank you" page.
You are then done!

59. For those who answered no to #40(If yes, did you actually
meet them), did you
tell anyone about someone online trying to get you to meet
them for sexual
purposes?

60. If yes, who did you tell? (Please choose all that apply)

Take me to the last page
I am done!
c C[
r C[
Yes
No
Don't know/ Don't remember
c CD
c CD
c CD
Told a friend
Told a parent/ guardian
Told a brother/ sister
Told the police/ other law enforcement authority
F -a
r F-
r F-
r FF
Told someone else (please specify)
Page 15

This survey is being conducted for educational purposes. One purpose
of this survey is to examine rates of online juvenile sexual
victimization as retrospectively self-reported by college students. A
second purpose of this survey is to examine the routine online
activities that may make some juveniles more exposed to victimization
by sexual offenders while online. This study is testing four
research hypotheses: 1) there will be less online sexual victimization
of juveniles by adult sexual offenders in this college sample









than there was in a nationally representative sample of youths in the
YISS study; 2) youths who go on to be college students who use
the internet more frequently are more likely to receive sexual
solicitations than those who use it less frequently; 3) youths who
become college students whose online use is more closely monitored
by parents or responsible adults are less likely to fall prey to
online sexual solicitations; and, 4) respondents who were victimized by
an adult online sexual offender during their juvenile years will
make less use of the Internet now than they did prior to their
victimization.
There are multiple independent variables being used in this study:
gender, race/ethnicity, family income while a juvenile, size of city
lived in while a juvenile, location of computer used to go online,
supervision from caretakers while online, and activities and behaviors
typically engaged in while online.
The dependent variable being examined in this study is whether or not
a respondent, while a juvenile, has received an online
solicitation from an adult to meet offline for sexual purposes and
whether or not they actually met with that person offline for sexual
purposes. There are three questions in the survey pertaining to the
dependent variable, and responses will be made into a scale for
purposes of analysis. I am attempting to determine if there is a
relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Because this is a retrospective study, any relationship found will be
assumed to be correlational as opposed to causal.
If you would like to see the complete list of all the study variables,
please contact Stacy Burweger at kithain@ufl.edu and request a
copy of this list. It will be provided to you.
Some of the questions may have aroused discomfort in you. If you feel
discomfort from some of the questions you read in this
survey, please contact the University of Florida's Student Mental
Health Services, located in Room 245, Infirmary Bldg., Fletcher drive,
UF Campus, 352.392.1171. Office hours are 8:00am to 4:30 pm
Monday through Friday.
The survey is now complete. Thank you for participating in this survey.
If you have any questions, please contact Stacy Burweger,
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY, LAW & SOCIETY, AT
KITHAIN@UFL.EDU.









APPENDIX F
TABLES AND ANALYSIS OUTPUT











Table F-1. Survey participant characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 85 (36.5)
Female 148 (63.5)

Current Age: 18 20(8.6)
19 48 (20.6)
20 62 (26.6)
21 58 (24.9)
22 17(7.3)
23 11(4.7)
24 3(1.3)
25 5(2.1)
26 1(0.4)
27 3(1.3)
28 1(0.4)
29 1(0.4)
34 1(0.4)
Missing Values 1 (0.4)

Age at 1st Use: 4 1(0.4)
8 7(3)
9 7(3)
10 14(6)
11 13(5.6)
12 41(17.6)
13 18(7.7)
14 13(5.6)
15 7(3)
16 2(0.9)
17 3(1.3)
18 1(0.4)
19 2(0.9)
Don't Remember 102 (43.8)
Missing Values 2 (0.9)

Race: White 148 (63.5)
African American 42 (18)
Hispanic/ Latino 33(14.2)
Asian American 7(3)
Other 3(1.3)

Family Income: $0-14,999 9 (3.9)
$15,000-29,999 29 (12.4)
$30,000-44,999 26(11.2)
$45,000-59,999 30 (12.9)
$60,000-74,999 32(13.7)
$75,000-$89,999 23 (9.9)
Table F-l Continued.











$90,000-104,999 26(11.2)
$105,000 & Above 58 (24.9)
N= 233



Table F-2. Participant and routine activities characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency
City Size (%)
Small Town 34 (14.6)
Suburb of Large City 66 (28.3)
Rural Area 11(4.7)
Large Town (25,000-100,000) 51 (21.9)
Large City (over 100,000) 68 (29.2)
Missing Values 3 (1.3)
Had Own Computer
Yes 78 (33.5)
No 149 (63.9)
Don't Remember 3 (1.3)
Missing Values 3 (1.3)
Amount of Supervision
None at All 37(15.9)
Very Little 87 (37.3)
Some 67 (28.8)
A Lot 25 (10.7)
Constant Supervision 7 (3)
Don't Remember 5 (2.1)
Missing Values 5 (2.1)
Type of Supervision- Watched
Yes 40 (17.2)
No 160 (68.7)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Asked
Yes 151 (64.8)
No 49(21)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Checked History
Yes 52 (22.3)
No 148 (63.5)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Read E-mails
Yes 11(4.7)
No 189(81.1)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Type of Supervision- Software
Yes 41 (17.6)
No 159(68.2)
Missing Values 33 (14.2)
Portrayal of Self Online
As I Really Am 111 (47.6)











Table F-2 Continued.
As Different than I Really Am 47 (20.2)
No Online Profile- No Personal Info 46 (19.7)
Missing Values 29 (12.4)
N=233




Table F-3. Routine activities characteristics
Characteristics
Frequency (%)
Current Usage- Days
1 0(0)
2 3(1.3)
3 1(0.4)
4 5(2.1)
5 6 (2.6)
6 20 (8.6)
7 196 (84.1)
Missing Values 2 (0.9)
Remembered Usage- Days
1 7(3)
2 9(3.9)
3 17(7.3)
4 38(16.3)
5 50 (21.5)
6 27(11.6)
7 59 (25.3)
Don't Remember 23 (9.9)
Missing Values 3 (1.3)
Current Usage- Hours
1 Hour or Less 8 (3.4)
1-3 Hours 90 (38.6)
3-5 Hours 75 (32.2)
5-7 Hours 38 (16.3)
More than 7 Hours 18 (7.7)
Missing Values 4 (1.7)
Remembered Usage- Hours
1 Hour or Less 49(21)
1-3 Hours 91(39.1)
3-5 Hours 44 (18.9)
5-7 Hours 24(10.3)
More than 7 Hours 8 (3.4)
Don't Remember 15(6.4)
Missing Values 2 (0.9)
N= 233














Table F-4. Depender
Chara


it variables- sexual victimization! solicitation
cteristics
Frequency
(%)
15(6.4)
210(90.1)
5(2.1)
3(1.3)


Asked to Meet for Sex
Yes
No
Don't Remember
Missing Values
Agreed to Meet for Sex
Yes
No
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Did Meet for Sex
Yes
No
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Actually Had Sex
Yes
No
Don't Remember
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Type of Sex Contact
Sexual Intercourse
Oral Intercourse
Anal Intercourse
Fondling or Touching
Kissing
Other
Don't Remember
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
Rating of Sex Experience
1- Very Negative
2- Somewhat Negative
3-Neutral/ So-so
4- Somewhat Positive
5- Very Positive
Missing Values/ Not
Applicable
N= 233


3(1.3)
11(4.7)

219(93.9)


7(3)
4 (1.7)

222 (95.3)

3(1.3)
7(3)
1(0.4)

222 (95.3)


0(0)
2 (0.9)
1(0.4)
1(0.4)
1(0.4)
0(0)
1(0.4)

227 (97.4)

1(0.4)
2(0.9)
8 (3.4)
1(0.4)
1(0.4)

220 (94.4)











Table F-5. Independent variables- routine activities 1- past online activities
Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values


Websites
Frequency
(%)
9(3.9)
38(16.3)
31 (13.3)

63 (27)
90 (38.6)

2(0.9)


Instant
E-mail Messenger


20 (8.6)
47(20.2)
32(13.7)

60(25.8)
72(30.9)

2 (0.9)


34(14.6)
23 (9.9)
37 (15.9)

46 (19.7)
91 (39.1)

2(0.9)


Chat
Rooms


87 (37.3)
77 (33)
28 (12)

18(7.7)
20 (8.6)


3 (1.3) 3 (1.3)


Table F-5 Continued.


Schoolwork


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values
N= 233


11 (4.7)
52 (22.3)
72 (30.9)

53 (22.7)
41(17.6)

4 (1.7)


Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses
Dating
Downloading Blogging Site


61(26.2)
40(17.2)
51(21.9)

52 (22.3)
27(11.6)

2 (0.9)


132 (56.7)
28 (12)
23 (9.9)

21(9)
26(11.2)

3 (1.3)


213 (91.4)
11 (4.7)
2(0.9)

3 (1.3)
2 (0.9)

2 (0.9)


Play
Games


34(14.6)
65 (27.9)
68 (29.2)

32(13.7)
31 (13.3)


You Tube

153 (65.7)
54(23.2)
14(6)

6(2.6)
4(1.7)

2 (0.9)









Table F-6. Independent variables- routine activities 2- current online activities
Current Internet Uses


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values


Websites
Frequency
(%)
1(0.4)
8(3.4)
7(3)

13 (5.6)
202 (86.7)

2 (0.9)


E-mail


0(0)
6 (2.6)
7(3)

12 (5.2)
206(88.4)

2 (0.9)


Instant
Messenger


47 (20.2)
59(25.3)
18(7.7)

27(11.6)
79(33.9)

3 (1.3)


Chat
Rooms


168(79.8)
31(13.3)
4(1.7)

3 (1.3)
7(3)


Play
Games


62 (26.6)
113(48.5)
19(8.2)

21(9)
16(6.9)


2 (0.9) 2 (0.9)


Table F-6 Continued.


Current Internet Uses


Never
Occasionally
Frequently
Often, Not
Daily
Daily
Missing
Values
N= 233


Schoolwork

0(0)
4(1.7)
27(11.6)

62 (26.6)
136(58.4)

4(1.7)


Downloading


62 (26.6)
55 (23.6)
38(16.3)

41(17.6)
35 (15)

2 (0.9)


Blogging

68 (29.2)
32(13.7)
13 (5.6)

27(11.6)
90 (38.6)

3 (1.3)


Dating
Site

212(91)
11(4.7)
2(0.9)

3 (1.3)
3 (1.3)

2(0.9)


You Tube

11 (4.7)
89 (38.2)
60 (25.8)

50(21.5)
20 (8.6)

3 (1.3)









Table F-7. Logistic regression- sexual solicitation with age at 1st use
Logistic Regression- With Age at 1st Use


Variables
Gender
Age at 1st Use
Race
Income
Remembered Uses
Scale
Had own Computer
Amount of
Supervision
Supervision Index
Self- Portrayal


Coefficient
1.370
0.090
-0.620
-0.132

0.100
-0.033

-0.448
0.064
-0.380


Wald
Score
7.236
0.641
1.841
1.582

7.464
0.005

2.935
0.075
0.768


Model Significance- Chi-Square Value= 25.548,
* Significant at the .10 Level
** Significant at the .05 Level
***Significant at the .01 Level


P-value
0.007***
0.423
0.175
0.208


Exp (B)
3.936
1.094
.538
.877


0.006*** 1.106
0.944 .967


0.087*
0.784
0.381


.639
1.066
.684


p-value=.002***


Table F-8. Logistic regression- sexual solicitation without age at 1st use
Logistic Regression- Without Age at 1st Use


Variables
Gender
Race
Income
Remembered Uses
Scale
Had own Computer
Amount of
Supervision
Supervision Index
Self- Portrayal


Coefficient
1.209
-0.088
-0.120

0.102
-0.042


-0.061
0.026
-0.531


Wald
Score
11.412
0.065
2.519


P-value
0.001***
0.799
0.112


Exp (B)
3.349
.916
.887


15.061 0.000*** 1.108
0.015 0.904 .959


0.098
0.018
2.817


0.754
0.894
0.093*


.940
1.026
.588


Model Significance- Chi-Square Value= 37.769, p-value=.000***
* Significant at the .10 Level
** Significant at the .05 Level
***significant at the .01 Level









Table F-9. OLS linear regression- effects of past victimization on current use
OLS Current Internet Use Regression


score P-value


Stand. Beta


Gender

Race
Income

Current age

Past Online Solicitation
Remembered Uses Scale

Past Self- Portrayal


Model Significance- F Score=
* Significant at the .10 Level
** Significant at the .05 Level
***Significant at the .01 Level


-0.708 1.174 0.242

-0.688 1.153 0.250
0.099 0.755 0.451

-0.109 2.177 0.031**

-0.534 0.850 0.396
0.295 6.833 0.000***

-0.236 0.426 0.671


8.989, p-value=.000***


Variables


Coefficient


-.075

-.074
.049

.135

.056
.446

-.026











Factor Analysis- Current Uses


Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6.858 85.731 85.731 6.858 85.731 85.731
2 .484 6.054 91.785
3 .353 4.417 96.202
4 .260 3.256 99.458
5 .021 .260 99.718
6 .014 .177 99.895
7 .007 .084 99.979
8 .002 .021 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


Component Matrix(a)


Componen
t

1
Useweb .988
Useemail .989
Useinstant .839
Usechat .989
Playgame .988
Forschool .753
Fordownload .984
Forblogging .843
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 1 components extracted.

Reliability Statistics- Current Uses


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.968 .975 8











Factor Analysis- Remembered Uses


Rotation
Sums of
Squared
Loadings(
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings a)
% of % of
Component Total Variance Cumulative % Total Variance Cumulative % Total
1 3.453 43.167 43.167 3.453 43.167 43.167 3.085
2 1.180 14.748 57.914 1.180 14.748 57.914 2.563
3 .894 11.180 69.095
4 .730 9.123 78.217
5 .592 7.398 85.616
6 .523 6.540 92.156
7 .403 5.035 97.191
8 .225 2.809 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.


Component Matrix(a)


Component
1 2
Ruseweb .803 -.366
Ruseemail .775 -.363
Ruseinstant .697 .155
Rusechat .531 .630
Rplaygame .538 .495
Rforschool .616 -.378
Rfordownload .687 .277
Rforblogging .546 -.167
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 2 components extracted.

Reliability Statistics- Remembered Uses


Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.805 .806 8









LIST OF REFERENCES


How many people use the Internet today? (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2007, from
http://home.wi.rr.com/pschulteis/powerpoint boi/tsld007.htm.

University ofFlorida-Demographics. (nd.). Retrieved April 10, 2008, from
http:en,wikipedia.org/wiki.UF#Demographics.

What is theCyberTipline? (nd.). Retrieved April 31, 2008, from
http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=enUS&P
ageld=2446.

Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2004). Deterrence and rational choice theories. In R. Akers
and C. Sellers' (Eds.) Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and
Application, Fourth Edition, 17-43.

Boetig, B.P. (2006). The routine activity theory: a model for addressing specific crime
issues. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Feature, 75, 12-19.

Clarke, R., & Felson, M. (2004). Introduction: criminology, routine activity, and rational
choice. In R. Clarke and M. Felson's (Eds.) Routine Activity and Rational Choice:
Advances in Criminological Theory, 5, 1-14. New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers.

Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-605.

Felson, M. (1987). Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis."
Criminology, 25, 911-931.

Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: a report on the
nation's youth. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from the National Center for Missing &
Exploited Children website, http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/
servlet/ResourceServlet?LanguageCountry=en US&Pageld=1456.

Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2004). Child pornography: patterns from NIBRS. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin. Retrieved October ?, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.

Frei, A., Erenay, N. Dittmann, V., & Graf, M. (2005). Paedophilia on the Internet- a
study of 33 convicted offenders in the canton of Lucerne. Swiss Med Weekly, 135,
488-494.

Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2005). The Intemet and family and
acquaintance sexual abuse. ChildMaltreatment, 10, 49-60. Retrieved March 28,
2007, from Sage Publications database.

Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Paedophile, pornography and the Internet: assessment
issues. British Journal of Social Work, 32, 863-875.









Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2003). Model of problematic Internet use in people with a
sexual interest in children. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 6, 93-106.

Taylor, M. (1999). The nature and dimensions of child pornography on the Internet. A
paper prepared for the International Conference "Combating Child Pornography on
the Internet", Vienna, Austria. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from
http://www.ipce.info/library_ 3/files/nat dims_kp.htm.

Walsh, W.A., & Wolak, J. (2005). Nonforcible internet-related sex crimes with
adolescent victims: prosecution issues and outcomes. ChildMaltreatment, 10, 260-
271. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from Sage Publications database.

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. (2004).Interet-initiated sex crimes against
minors: implications for prevention based on findings from a national study. Journal
ofAdolescent Health, 35, 11-20. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from Elsevier database.

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. (2005). Child pornography possessors arrested in
internet-related crimes: findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization
Study. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from the National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children website, http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet?
LanguageCountry=en US&Pageld=1456.

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Internet sex crimes against minors: the
response of law enforcement. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from the National Center for
Missing & Exploited Children website, http://www.ncmec.org/
missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet? LanguageCountry=en US&Pageld=1456

Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of"cybercrime": an assessment in light of routine activity
theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 407-427.

Ybarra, M. L. & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets:
a comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 45, 1308-1316.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Stacy Burweger was born in Mount Clemens, Michigan. Stacy resided in Michigan

until her move to Florida in 2003. Stacy has always had an equal love for sports and

intellectual pursuits. Her love of athletics she filled by learning to ride horses at the age

of five and continuing to do so her entire life. Stacy has shown hunters and jumpers, as

well as dressage.

Stacy's academic career has been diverse. The first year of her undergraduate

career was spent at Virginia Intermont College in Bristol, Virginia. A lengthy period of

time occurred between that first year of college and her return. At Flagler College in

Saint Augustine, Florida, Stacy received her Bachelor of Arts in psychology and

sociology. She graduated summa cum laude and received the Behavioral Sciences

Department Award for Academic Achievement. Stacy was accepted as a graduate student

in the Criminology, Law & Society Department at the University of Florida in

Gainesville, Florida. She expects to receive her Master of Arts in criminology in the

summer of 2008. She expects to receive her PhD in 2011.





PAGE 1

1 ONLINE JUVENILE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS By STACY BURWEGER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Stacy Burweger

PAGE 3

3 To my parents. Thank you.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank m y supervisory members (R onald Akers, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Jodi Lane-Wilson). Their help has been invaluable. I wish to thank Max for telling me the place I ought to be is grad school. Fina lly, I wish to thank my fellow criminology grad students for all the mutual support during the frequent stressful times.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................1 CHAP TER 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................... 2 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ......2 Purpose.....................................................................................................................................2 Hypotheses................................................................................................................................3 2 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1 3 LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................3 Theoretical Rationale and Literature Review: The Online Se xual Victimization of Children Studies....................................................................................................................3 Routine Activities Theory.......................................................................................................11 Routine Activities Theory, the Internet and Cybercrim e........................................................ 14 Routine Activities and Online Sexual Victimizations............................................................ 17 4 STUDY PROCEDURES........................................................................................................21 Methodology...........................................................................................................................21 Participants.............................................................................................................................21 Data Analysis..........................................................................................................................24 Dependent Variables....................................................................................................... 24 Independent Variables.....................................................................................................34 5 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................... .......41 6 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..52 Discussion...............................................................................................................................52 Limitations and Implications.................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT POOL APPLICATION................................................................................57 B IRB PROTOCOL FORM....................................................................................................... 63

PAGE 6

6 C INFORMED CONSENT FORM............................................................................................ 67 D SURVEY QUESTIONS SOURCES TABLE........................................................................ 70 E SURVEY INSTRUMENT......................................................................................................73 F TABLES AND ANALYSIS OUTPUT..................................................................................93 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................104 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................106

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Survey questions and their source...................................................................................... 26 4-2 Survey participant characteristics...................................................................................... 29 4-3 Participant and routine activities characteristics ................................................................31 4-4 Routine activities characteristics........................................................................................ 32 4-5 Dependent variables: sexual victim ization/ solicitation.................................................... 37 4-6 Independent variables: routine activities 1: past online activities .....................................38 4-7 Independent variables: routine activities 2: current online activities ................................. 39 5-1 Logistic regression: sexual solicitation with age at 1st use................................................44 5-2 Logistic regression: sexual solicitation without age at 1st use...........................................45 5-3 OLS linear regression: effects of past victim ization on current use.................................. 48 F-1 Survey participant characteristics...................................................................................... 94 F-2 Participant and routine activities characteristics ................................................................95 F-4 Dependent variablessexual victim ization/ solicitation.................................................... 97 F-5 Independent variablesroutine activities 1past online activities ..................................... 98 F-6 Independent variablesroutine ac tivities 2current online activities ................................ 99 F-7 Logistic regressionsexual solicitation with age at 1st use..............................................100 F-8 Logistic regressionsexual solicitation without age at 1st use.........................................100 F-9 OLS linear regressioneffects of past victim ization on current use................................ 101

PAGE 8

1 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Criminology, Law & Society ONLINE JUVENILE SEXUAL VICTIMIZAT ION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS By Stacy Burweger August, 2008 Chair: Ronald Akers Major: Criminology, Law and Society Our study investigated the extent to which a sample of college students reported having experienced online sexual victimization while juve niles before entering college; the extent to which their routine onand off-line activities effected the rate at which th e respondents reported online sexual victimization as juveniles. The pr imary theoretical perspective of the study was routine activities theory with th e hypothesis that one's ordinary activities with regard to online behavior would have an impact on a juveniles risk of online vi ctimization. Students from a large Southern University participated in an online survey a bout their computer and Internet habits and any online sexual victimization they may have ex perienced while juvenile s. Logistic and OLS regression indicated that those who spent more time online engaging in a wider variety of activities were significantly more likely to have experienced sexual solic itations and/or sexual victimization. Females were significantly more likely to have experienced an unwanted sexual solicitation/ victimizatio n. Those who posted no information about themselves or posted false information about themselves were significantly more likely to have experienced an unwanted sexual solicitation/victim ization than were those with trut hful profiles. Respondents who had more online supervision were less likely to have experienced sexual solic itation/ victimization. Implications of these findings for future research and for policy are explored.

PAGE 9

2 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Research Questions Research questions were as follows: do the routine activities juveniles engage in on the Internet make them more or less likely to be the victims of unwant ed sexual solicitations?; do the routine online activities juvenile s engage in change after experiencing a sexual victimization? For the purposes of this study, sexual victimizati on was defined as any type of unwanted sexual contact between the victim and the perpetrato r; this included ever ything from unwanted questions about sex to sexual battery and rape. A sexual solic itation was defined as a subcategory of sexual victimization. This cate gory encompassed unwanted requests for sexual information, unwanted attempts to engage in c ybersex, and unwanted conversations about sex. Purpose Our study attempted to determine the characteri stics of victims of on line juvenile sexual victimization for a sample of unde rgraduate students from a large southern university. To date, there has been only one published study that look ed at online sexual victimization from the victims point of view. That study used a nation ally representative sample of juveniles. The current study is unique. Online sexu al victimization in a college sample has not yet been looked at. Further, the retrospective nature of the surv ey allowed comparisons to be made between past and present Internet usage and to determine the effect past online sexual victimization had on current usage. It is important to gain the perspective of the victims of any crime. Who they are, how they look and behave, as well as their daily patter ns of behavior, may tell researchers a lot about who a criminal is victimizing and why a criminal is victimizing that person in particular. Further,

PAGE 10

3 conducting a study where respondents answer questi ons about prior victimization may give a victim a chance to tell someone anonymously a bout the crime, possibly for the first time. Hypotheses Based on the descriptive findings from extant res earch and the theo retical framework of routine activities theo ry, our study addressed three hypotheses: 1) college-bound youths whose online use is more closely monitored by a parent or guardian will experience less online sexual victimization; 2) college-bound yout hs who use the internet more frequently are more likely to receive sexual solicitations than those who us e it less frequently; and, 3) respondents who were victimized by online sexual solicitations during th eir juvenile years will make less use of the Internet now than they did pr ior to their victimization.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION Use of the Internet has changed the face of the world. Fifteen years ago no one had access to this worldwide phenomenon; now, approximately 47.5 million people from the Unites States alone log onto the Internet from the comfort and privacy of their homes ( How many people use the Internet today? n.d.). The Internet has turned the world into a global village where banking, romance, busin ess, and pleasure are available with the click of a mouse. Unfortunately, these are no t the only available pastimes on the Internet. Crime has also gone cyber. Not only have the traditional crimes of everyday life found their way onto the Internet, the very nature of such a vast online community has created some new crimes (Yar, 2005). Adult sexual offenders who prey on child ren and adolescents are one group of offenders who make use of the vast playgr ound found on the Internet (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Wolak et al., 2004). On the Internet, this group of offenders can find potential victims, comm unicate with them in complete anonymity, groom and seduce them, and set up offline meet ings with them, and often no one is the wiser (Finkelhor, et al., 2000; Mitchell et al., 2005; Quayle & Taylor, 2002, 2003; Wolak, et al., 2004; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Sometimes this group stops short of attempting a contact sexual offense and will use the vast collection of child pornography that exists on the Internet to assuage their pedophilic and hebophilic fantasies (Frei, Erenay, Dittman, & Graf, 2005; Quayle & Taylor, 2003; Taylor, 1999; Wolak, Fi nkelhor, & Mitchell, 2005). The relationship between the collecti ng of child pornography and the commission of sexual contact offenses agai nst juveniles is still not und erstood, although there is likely

PAGE 12

2 to be a link (Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2004; Qu ayle & Taylor, 2002, 2003; Taylor, 1999; Wolak et al., 2005). It is important to develop an unde rstanding of how and why adult sexual offenders make use of the Intern et and who their victims are. It is important to know what characteristics distinguish those juveniles w ho are targeted by online by sexual offenders from those who are not. Do the activities a ju venile engages in online have any bearing upon subsequent victimization? Do online beha viors change after experiencing a sexual solicitation or sexual victimization? How widesp read is the use of the Internet by adult sexual offenders? The literature discussed below is a start on answering the many questions that need to be asked about on line child and juvenile sexual victimization.

PAGE 13

3 CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Theoretical Rationale and Literature Revi ew : The Online Sexual Victimization of Children Studies There have been only a handful of studies that have looked at Internet use by adult sexual offenders who prey upon children and adolescents (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor, 2003; Frei et al., 2005; Quayle & Taylor, 2002; Taylor, 1999. These few studies will be reviewed here along with other sources, to provide the background and set up the theoretical framew ork of the proposed study. What is known about Internet-related sexual offenses agai nst minors is based on the results of these studies. The most notable are the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study (N-JOV), the Youth Internet Safety Survey (YISS) and the Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe (COPINE) Project. Both the N-JOV Study and the YISS we re conducted by the Crimes Against Children Research Center located at the Un iversity of New Hampshire and funded by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Chil dren. The N-JOV Study used official data and official sources for information. The YISS used information gathered from victims. The COPINE Project was an internati onal online child po rnography and sexual exploitation of children study headed by the Department of Applied Psychology, University College, Cork, Ireland. This project gained most of its information from official sources and from offenders. The N-JOV Study was conducted in the United States from July of 2000 through July of 2001, and involved reports from a na tionally representative sample of law enforcement agencies and prosecutors regard ing adult sexual offenders who victimized

PAGE 14

4 juveniles and who were arrested for their crimes (Mitchell et al., 2005; Walsh & Wolak, 2005, Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2004, 2005). The YISS was conducted in the United States in 1999 and involved retrospective self-reports from a nationally representative sample (N=1,50 1) of youths (ages 10-17) on their Internet usage, online habits, and th eir online sexual victim ization. Their parents were surveyed as to how they supervised th eir childrens internet usage, what types of software they used to monitor their children s online activities, and how safety conscious they were about their childrens Inte rnet use (Finkelhor et al., 2000). The COPINE Project ran from 1997 through 2007, establishing a child pornography database that was collected from arrested offenders with collections and from what could be found through searches on the Internet, and help ing law enforcement agencies around the world to both compre hend and apprehend child pornography and pedophilic offenders (Quayle & Taylor, 2002, 2003; Taylor, 1999). In the YISS study, of the 1,501 youths sampled, 74% of the sample was online at home; 76% had been online in the previous week, and 40% went online 2-4 days a week over the past year, although 61% spent an hour or less at a time online (Finkelhor et al., 2000). One in five of the respondents, or 19% of the sample, received an unwanted sexual solicitation while online in 1999. One in thirty-three respondents (or about 3% of the sample) received an aggressive se xual solicitation, which involved being phoned, receiving mail, being asked to meet offline, or being sent money or gifts. Thirty-four percent of the aggressive solic itations came from adults, altho ugh in 27% of all the cases, the age of the offender was unknown. In 10% of the solicitations the offender asked to

PAGE 15

5 meet the juvenile offline for sex. Less than 10% of all unwanted sexual solicitations were reported to an authority of some kind. Sixty-six percent of thos e targeted for sexual solicitations were female. Seventy-seven percen t were aged 14 or older when they were propositioned (Finkelhor et al., 2000). A parent of each youth interviewed was also surveyed in the YISS. When asked, most parents (83%) of the 1,501 youths surveyed stated they spoke to their children about being careful when talking to strangers on the Internet. Ninety-s even percent of the parents interviewed stated they would occasio nally look at the computer screen to see what their child was doing, 80% stated they had rules about what their children could do on the Internet, and 63% stated they checked the history function on their computer in order to check on the websites their child ren had visited (Finkelhor et al., 2000). The YISS is a retrospective study with all the drawbacks inherent in that design. Further, the authors did not ask respondents about completed sexual solicitations; it is unknown from this study what number of juveni les responded to the se xual advances of adults and met them offline for a sexual encounter. It is al so unknown what number actually engaged in cybersex w ith those who asked or pressu red them for it. The authors checked with parents of their respondents to determine what kind of rules and safety measures they employed for their childrens us e of the Internet, but they did not ask the youths themselves how effective those measures were. It is possibl e that parents have inflated the amount of supervision they give to their childs use of the Internet or overestimate how effective that supervision is (Finkelhor et al., 2000). Regardless, these measures are still inaccurate, as they speci fy no amount of time spent in any of these activities; children could conceivably have many unsupervised hours online before a

PAGE 16

6 parent decided to check on what they were doing or checked on their activities after the fact. It should also be noted that even with such a large, nationa lly representative sample, barely 3% of the youths reported aggressive sexual solicitations. From this, it might be easy to determine that the Internet is not being used by adult sexual offenders to find child and juvenile victims. However, this study was conducted in 1999 when the Internet was still relatively young. As the ye ars have gone by, offenders have probably gotten more Internet and computer savvy along with everyone else. It is possible that offenders did not use the Internet to find vi ctims as much in 1999 as they do now in 2008. Another point to be noted is that not all youths may have admitted to an aggressive encounter while being surveyed, or have viewed the encounter as such (Finkelhor et al., 2000). The N-JOV Study involved a nationally repr esentative sample of the nations law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies were first mailed a survey, and then a second telephone survey was conducted with all responding agencies that had relevant Internet crime cases. When possible, the inte rviewers also followed up with the case prosecutors in order to get th eir perspective on the case, the offenders, the victims, and the results of the prosecution (Mitchell et al., 2005; Wals h & Wolak, 2005; Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2004, 2005). Law enforcement agencies made an estimat ed 2,577 arrests for Internet-related sex crimes against minors from July, 2000 to Ju ly, 2001 (Wolak et al., 2003). One of the most surprising findings of the study is the fact that incident s of family and acquaintance sexual abuse involving the Internet were almo st as common as were incidents involving

PAGE 17

7 adult offenders finding their victims online. An estimated 460 arrest s for Internet-related sex crimes against a minor by a family member or acquaintance were made in 2000 (Mitchell et al., 2005). This group of offenders accounted fo r 19% of all arrests discussed in the study, whereas Internet-initiated sexual assaults accounted for 20% of the arrests in the study (Wolak et al., 2003). For the most part, family/ acquaintance offenders and Internet-initiated offenders made use of the Internet in the same ways. Barring initiating contact with the victim, both gr oups used the Internet to co mmunicate with their victims, to seduce their victims, to gr oom their victims, to show them child or adult pornography, and to set up offline m eetings (Mitchell et al., 2005; Wolak et al., 2003). Not surprisingly, 99% of the offenders in this study were male; 92% were White, and 86% were 26 years of age or older. Sevent y-six percent of their victims were between the ages of 13 and 15. Most of the victims were female (75%), 81% were White, 61% lived with both biological parents, and 42% came from middle class families. Few of the offenders had to use deception (5%) or only used minor deceptions (25%) as part of their seduction of the victim. In half of the cas es involving female victims, the victim described herself as being in love with the offender (Wolak et al., 2004). Thirty-six percent of the arrests di scussed in the N-JOV Study were for the possession, distribution, or trad ing of child pornography on the Internet. Sixty-seven percent of all the offenders in this stu dy possessed child pornography. There were an estimated 1,713 arrests related to child pornography possession made during the study period. More than 99% of the offenders were male, 91% were White, 21% had at least some college education, 73% were empl oyed full-time, and 41% made between $20,000 and $50,000 a year (Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2005).

PAGE 18

8 Most of the pornographic images possessed by the offenders were very explicit. Seventy-one percent had images showing sexual contact between a ch ild and an adult. Eighty-three percent possessed images of children aged 6 to 12, and 39% had images of children aged 3 to 5. Forty-eigh t percent of the offenders possessed over 100 images and14% of those had over 1,0 00 images (Wolak et al., 2005). The rest of the arrests disclosed by la w enforcement to the N-JOV researchers involved undercover law enforcement agents po sing as minors in chat rooms. Offenders struck up conversations with them, set up meetings for sex with them, and were subsequently arrested. Beyond this informa tion, nothing more is discussed about this group of arrests (Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2005). There are several limitations to the N-JOV Study that should be discussed. The main drawback is that the data pertain only to those cases where arrests were made. It is likely that there were cases where there si mply was not enough evidence or information for law enforcement to make an arrest. Even worse, there were probably many cases of sexual abuse by an adult against a minor th at no one even knew about beyond the victim and perpetrator. This study cannot therefore be seen as being representa tive of all Internet sex crimes that were committed in 2000. On the positive side, because of all the documentation involved required fo r arrest procedures and prosecution of criminals, the details provided about offenders and their cas es are more likely to be accurate than are other studies that do not employ this met hod of data collection (Wolak et al., 2003; Wolak et al., 2005). It is the possession of child pornography by those who commit contact offenses against minors that is worrying to ma ny (Taylor, 1999; Wolak, et al., 2000). The

PAGE 19

9 relationship is not understood, and to date no one has had access to a large enough sample of offenders in order to investigat e this link (Taylor, 1 999). Max Taylor (1999) does discuss some of the findings on child pornography possessors from the COPINE Project, but the sample used is very small. New child pornography images were emergi ng on the Internet at a rate of 1-2 a month in 1999. The database of child pornography developed by COPINE possessed over 50,000 images at that time, when the Inte rnet was a relatively new phenomenon. The images involved over 2,000 boys and girls in sexually explicit poses and roughly the same number of boys and girls posed in the nude. Taylor (1999) estimates that out of those photos, about 300 to 350 children were sexually victimized in the making of the phot os sometime during the past 10 to 15 years. The majority of the child pornography images found on the Internet are more than 30 years old; a lot of the old material was kept by child pornography collectors and scanned into some sort of electronic format. Using a small sample (N=23) of child pornography offenders, arrested for child pornography and/ or sexual c ontact offenses with a minor, researchers from the COPINE Project, Quayle and Taylor (2003), discuss thei r mental state and Inte rnet behavior. Most of the offenders started with a small number of child pornography images. As they spent more time online searching for those images, they gained confidence and reinforcement through the collecting of the images a nd through contact with other like-minded individuals. Communication with other child pornogr aphy possessors, as well as the images themselves, served as justifica tion for their behavior. If others were looking at pictures of

PAGE 20

10 children engaged in sexual activities, they coul dnt be that abnormal. If the children were smiling in the photos they possessed, they must have enjoyed the sexual activity, so their sexual desire for children couldnt be that wr ong. They felt they were giving the children pleasure (Quayle & Taylor, 2003). As their collections grew, many who had only possessed and traded child pornography moved on to become producers of it Again, they used the existence of child pornography and the online network of pedophiles to justify their behavior. If others were making child pornography photos and videos, then they werent doing anything that others also had not done. They felt that what they were doing was not that abnormal then (Quayle & Taylor, 2003). The sample of offenders that Quayle a nd Taylor (2003) interviewed was too small and only contained those caught and arrested for their offenses for it to be considered representative of child sexual offenders as a whole. Yet, their responses do point to a possible link between child pornography possessi on and sexual contact offenses against minors. For at least some of the men interv iewed, possession of sexua l images of children led them to commit a sexual assault against a child for the purpose of making their own pornography. For these men at least, the possess ion of child pornography led directly to a sexual assault against a child. In a somewhat similar study, Frei et al. (2005), found the link between child pornography possession and the commission of cont act offenses to be not very strong. They interviewed 33 convicted child pornogra phy possessors from the Swiss canton of Lucerne. Only one of the offenders had any type of criminal record at all, and while most of them possessed very graphic child pornography, the majority also possessed

PAGE 21

11 pornography from other fields of sexual devi ation as well, indicati ng that their sexual interests were not strictly in children. In this study, the rela tionship between possession of child pornography and the commission of c ontact offenses was explored through the existence of an official criminal record. It is possible that the men from this sample committed sexual offenses against children and were never caught for those offenses. The problem with both the Quayle and Ta ylor (2003) and the Frei et al. (2005) studies is the size of the samples. With su ch small sample sizes, it is impossible to determine how representative of the whole these men are. It is also possible that those who are caught are not representative of this group of offenders as a whole. For these reasons, any relationship that exists betw een child pornography and the commission of contact offenses must be considered hypothetical This is an area of study that needs to be explored in the future. Routine Activities Theory Routine activities th eory originated f rom resear ch conducted by Cohen and Felson (1979) on changes that were occurring in pr edatory personal and property crimes after World War II. They explained the increase in pr operty offenses as due to an increase of women in the workforce, changes in leisure activities, and an increase in more portable property. The theory states that in order for cr ime to occur, three elements must occur in conjunction with one another; a motivated offender must be present with a suitable target in the absence of a capable guardian The conjunction of the three elements necessary for crime occurs within a framework of the da ily routine activities of both offenders and targets (victims). Both offenders and targets engage in the daily rout ine activities such as going to work, visiting friends, going out to ea t, going to bars, etc. Motivated offenders will discover opportunities within this framew ork of daily activities. How suitable the

PAGE 22

12 target is and whether or not capable guardians are present will determine whether or not the offender takes the opportunity to commit the crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Routine activities theory takes the focu s away from the offender and places it squarely upon the criminal act (Boetig, 2006). This is done because the changes that occur within communities and neighborhoods that cause changes in daily routine activities can cause crime to increase or decreas e in particular places at particular times regardless of social or psychological conditions that cause offenders to be motivated (Boetig, 2006; Cohen & Felson, 1979). In routine activities theory, motivated offe nders are assumed to exist. The authors of the theory do not focus on social or psyc hological variables that could make a person an offender. According to Cohen and Felson (1979), anyone can become an offender if the situation is right. The theory focuses mainly on defining suitable targets and capable guardians. This focus has caused some criminologi sts to label it a theory of victimization (Akers & Sellers, 2004). Because the focus of routine activities theory is on the coming together of the three primary elements, the lo cation in space and time of this conjunction is important. Thus the focus of the theory is on the specifics of the situation, not on offender motivation (Cohen & Felson, 1979). A suitable target is defined in routine activ ities theory as any person or object likely to be taken or attacked by an offender. The authors use target in place of victim to insure that people and property receive equal emphasis as objects in a specific place and time (Clarke & Felson, 2004; Cohen & Fels on, 1979). Capable guardians can be both formal guardians such as police and security guards, and informal guardians such as neighbors, bystanders, and guard dogs. Capable guardians can also be mechanical devices

PAGE 23

13 such as security cameras, alarm systems, lo cks on doors, and public lighting. The authors place more emphasis upon informal guardians since police do not show up until after a crime is committed. By becoming better info rmal guardians, and paying attention to which of their routine activities increases their chances of becoming a crime target, people can reduce their chances of being th e victims of predatory crimes (Cohen & Felson, 1979). It is the routine everyday be haviors, or lifestyle, a pers on engages in that may make them more or less suitable as a crime targ et. In this day and age, both men and women work. If both adult members of the househol d leave the house at a regular time everyday, likely offenders can take advantage of that empty house. Going out in the evenings for entertainment can put a person at risk for cr ime on the streets; carry ing plastic instead of money these days does not even offer some protection, as criminals these days are just as likely to make use of credit and debit card s as they are of cold hard cash (Boetig, 2006; Clarke & Felson, 2004; Cohen & Felson, 1979). Motivated offenders learn to take advant age of a persons routine activities; the work schedule leaving the house empty, even ing and weekend entertainment outings to higher risk areas, trips to the ATM machine, or even stopping at a red light in an unsafe neighborhood are all routines that can be taken advantage of by an offender. Activities such as these can all make a person a su itable target. When a lack of capable guardianship is added into the equationno alarm on the house, no dog to scare off prowlers, poor lighting by the ATM machine, or lack of police presence in the unsafe neighborhoodthe crime will be committed (Boetig, 2006; Clarke & Felson, 2004; Cohen & Felson, 1979).

PAGE 24

14 Routine Activities Theory, the Internet and Cybercrime An important question to be asked is whet her or not it is proper to apply routine activities theory to cybercrime. Research in th is specific area is still very limited. Only one study applying routine activities theory to online crime was discovered while conducting the search for literature for the pres ent research proposal. This article is an indepth conceptual analysis applying routine ac tivities theory to general computer crimes by Majid Yar (2005). Yar (2005) finds that although many of the concepts from routine activities theory are a pplicable to cybercrime, there ar e enough important differences to limit the theorys utility when a pplied to this type of crime. Thomas and Loaders definition (as c ited in Yar, 2005) of cybercrime is: computer-mediated activities which are either illegal or considered illicit by certain parties and which can be conducted through glob al electronic networks. Yar (2005) then further breaks down cybercrime into two t ypes; computer-assisted crimes which are crimes that occurred before the Internet came about but which can also be committed in new ways in cyberspace (fraud, money la undering, and pornography); and computerfocused crimes which are crimes that came about with or becaus e of the Internet (hacking, viruses, etc.). According to Yar (2005), one of the mo st difficult aspects of applying routine activities theory to cybercrime is the th eorys dependence upon spatial and temporal convergence (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Virtual envi ronments do not exist within actual space, and because of the global nature of the Internet, time does not exist as much of a barrier there. In essence, there is a question about whet her or not a person goes anywhere when they get online, and whethe r or not the time they get online has any bearing. Further, it must be determined if a routine organization of online activities exists

PAGE 25

15 and whether or not these activities increas e the vulnerability and suitability while decreasing the guardianship of potential victims and help motivated offenders turn their inclinations for crime into action. Yar (2005) argues that spatiality exists within cyberspace for two reasons. First, cyberspace echoes the real world. Online activi ties are rooted in real world politics, economics, and culture. These ties create spati ality that carries ove r into cyberspace in many ways. Access to the Internet follows real world lines of inclusion and exclusion, as tied to income, education, ethnicity, age, a nd disability; because of this, motivated offenders and suitable targets online reflect those of the real world. Second, Yar (2005) also argues that the organization of the In ternet means not all websites are actually equidistant from each other. Depending upon what ISP and search engine is used, as well as how well a person knows what they are look ing for or where they want to go, will all determine how quickly or slowly one may get from one cyberspace to another. This gives the Internet a sense of place and location, and pe rhaps also a sense of time, as determined by the length of time it takes to navigate from one site to another. This author does feel that temporality is an issue when appl ying routine activities theory to cybercrime, however. He feels th at the Internet lacks the clear temporal sequence and order of events that occurs in the real world. This is because online activities span work and home and leisure activity and labor, meaning that there is no rhythm to daily online activities. Because there are no particular points in time at which specific actors can be assured of being generally present, it becomes difficult for offenders, targets, and capable guardians to as sess the risk of any given situation (Yar, 2005).

PAGE 26

16 Still, according to Yar (2005), online target suitability can be determined in other ways that do not include temporal order. Value, inertia, visibility, a nd accessibility are all necessary elements of online target suitability, and all can be determined in cyberspace. As in real world crime, value of the target is determined by a criteria arrived at by the motivated offender. Often this value escapes l ogic, being as much an intrinsic opinion as following extrinsic value systems. Online targets will also have problems with portability, or as Yar (2005) defines it, with inertia. For instance, if a motivated offender is hacking into a database for information, th is data could be large in volume and this place limits upon its theft because the hacker would need to have enough space on a hard drive or a disk to store it. The data might also be so large that the length of time it would take to download it could be a liability as well. As for the visibility of targets, this aut hor finds that it actua lly be heightened in cyberspace, as so much of th e Internet is global in nature and considered public domain. Many more people will see or speak or hear of the target than would be possible offline (Yar, 2005). For example, a person looking onlin e for clothing stores may look through online catalogs for retail outlets in Hong Kong, France, and the United States, whereas this person would be limited to the retail stores in his or her own neighborhood if the shopping were conducted in the real world. Accessibility to targets online is also sim ilar to real world crime; there are capable guardians in both domains. Online guardi ans include passwords, firewalls, data encryption, and other such security devices These online prevention devices take the place of real world guardians such as secu rity guards, police, guard dogs, and lighting (Yar, 2005).

PAGE 27

17 Overall, Yar (2005) finds that routine activities theory a pplies itself well to cybercrime. The problems that do exist do not so much lessen its utility for cybercrime so much as they indicate that cybercrime should in some ways be cons idered a new type of crime altogether. Because of this, the author feels that any theory applied to cybercrime will have limitations and will need ad aptation in order to be workable. Routine Activities and Onlin e Sexual Victimizations As m entioned earlier in discussing the resu lts of the Youth Internet Safety Survey, 1 in 5 (19%) adolescents have received a se xual solicitation over the Internet, and about 3% have received an aggressive solicitati on to meet with the offender. Unfortunately youths reported less than 10% of these cybersex crimes to la w enforcement (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). It is statistics such as these that make understanding how and why youths are victimized by adult se xual offenders while online so important. Routine activities theory offers a good theoretical framework for understanding the patterns of online victim behavior that make them appear as more suitable targets for adult sexual offenders who seek juvenile vict ims. No research appl ying routine activities theory specifically to any type of cybersex crime was discovered during the literature search conducted for this research. However, routine activities theory seems well suited to the application of online adult predatory se xual crimes against juveniles. The focus in this study will be upon suitable targets and lack of capable guardians. As in the original theory itself, motivated offenders will be assumed (Cohen & Felson, 1979). As the Yar (2005) study pointed out, ther e are some difficu lties with applying routine activities theory to online crimes. One of these issues is what he termed temporality. The problem is that because the Internet is a global enterprise, there are no patterns of activity that hold for the entire Internet. For example, when it is 9:00am

PAGE 28

18 according to Eastern Standard Time in the Un ited States, it is 6:00am according to Pacific Standard Time. For those in the first time z one, the work day has already started; for those in the second time zone, it may not even be time to get out of bed. Because of the different time zones worldwide, there is no patt ern that holds for all who use the Internet. The entire world does not rise at the same time go to work at the same time, come home from work at the same time, and log onto the Internet at the same time. Nor does the entire world log onto the Inte rnet for the same purposes. Still, even without Yars (2005) global pa ttern of temporality, there are observable rhythms to Internet use, especially for juve niles. While at school during the day, any use of the Internet will be for schoolwork, and will most likely be monitored by teachers. The majority of juveniles will go online for leis ure activities after school at night, and on the weekends (Finkelhor et al., 2000; Mitche ll et al., 2005). Knowing this, a motivated offender who wishes to prey on children need s only to follow the general temporality established in his time zone in order to de termine when children and juveniles will most likely be online wit hout supervision. Motivated offenders may find temporal pa tterns in online activities that can increase or decrease target suitability (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Adult sexual offenders interested in pre-pubescent and adolescent children will make note of the times when children are likely to be online without parent al supervision (Finke lhor et al., 2000). If meeting children for sexual purposes is what they are after, most offenders will visit websites that children are most likely to fr equent, and they will do so at when children are likely to be there at the time of day they are least likely to have supervision.

PAGE 29

19 It is easy for adults who are sexually inte rested in children to enter chat rooms and strike up conversations with them. Many do not even attempt to deceive the children and adolescents about their age and most will spend many months building a relationship with the child (Finkelhor et al., 2000). It is also possible that they induce the child or juvenile to hide their communications from th eir parents. Most Internet service providers do not monitor their chat rooms and Newsgroups very well, although they will respond to complaints reported to them. Couple this lack of provider monitoring with the fact that most adolescents are online wit hout constant parental superv ision, and offenders have an ideal situation in which to groom and sedu ce their intended victims (Finkelhor et al., 2000). Frequency of Internet use, how much pare ntal supervision they receive, and what online activities a child or juvenile engages in may all have bearing on whether or not they are considered suitable targets by a mo tivated offender. For example, if a child or juvenile is online every day for many hours, and if most or all of that time online is unsupervised, they may be more vulnerable to victimization by adult sexual predators. A lack of supervision seems es pecially worrying, since wit hout supervision, a child or juvenile may be going to websites that are inap propriate or that incr ease their risk of victimization. If they are going into adult pornographic sites, or going into adult sexually themed chat rooms, they may lack the s ophistication to protect themselves from victimization. Of course, truly motivated offenders will more than likely seek out children and juveniles at age appropriate sites; agai n, children and juveniles often lack the sophistication that is needed to determine when they need to be wary. Perhaps most

PAGE 30

20 troubling of all is the idea that frequency of online use alone ma y increase a child or juveniles risk of victimiza tion at the hands of an adult sexual offender. What makes a victim a suitable online target is still too much an unknown area of research. It is for this reason that the presen t study was undertaken.

PAGE 31

21 CHAPTER 4 STUDY PROCEDURES Methodology Participants The sam ple for our study was drawn from the University of Florida Department of Criminology, Law and Societys undergradu ate participant pool. Undergraduates in this department are required by many of their professors to participate in the participant pool, either as part of the cl ass curriculum, or for extra credit. Only students in the participant pool who were eighteen years of age or older at the time of the study were allowed to participate. Participation in our study was voluntary, making this a convenience sample (see Appendix A for Participant Pool Application). The survey was posted online at Survey Monkey, www.surveymonkey.com an online site w here surveys can be created, maintained, and posted. Survey Monkey allows users to either utilize their fr ee service or to pay either a monthly or yearly fee for an expanded service package. Due to the length of the survey, the comple xity of many of the questions, and the desire to use SSL encrypti on to further protect survey participants, a paid monthly subscription to Survey Monkey was purchased. The survey was available to participant pool members through the participant pool website, http://ufl-cls.sona-systems.com/ throughout the m onth of March 2008. To protect the students and to ma ke them feel more comforta ble discussing possible past sexual victimization, participation in the survey was kept anonymous. A password was given by the participant pool website for student s to use to open the survey when they clicked the link to Survey Monkey. A record of their access was kept via their University of Florida e-mail address by the Participant Pool Administrator. This was required so that

PAGE 32

22 students would get their class credit for participation. Their responses were not available to the Administrator or anyone else. After entering in the password to access the survey, students were taken to a page with the informed consent form on it. In orde r to proceed, they had to indicate they had read the form and accepted the conditions. Students were not required to give any personal identifying information as part of th e survey. All students who participated had the option of refusing to answer any questi on on the survey. All survey responses were stored at Survey Monkeys website where it was safe-guarded with SSL encryption, until it was downloaded onto a flash/ jump drive. The jump drive was purchased for the sole purpose of holding the studys data. The jump driv e has been kept in a locked file cabinet in the researchers home office. The jump dr ive was not placed onto any computer that was networked to others or that was currently linked to the Internet. This was in order to further protect all survey responses from being accessed by unauthorized persons. Two hundred and thirty-five undergraduate participant pool members took the survey. Two were thrown out for failure to complete the Informed Consent form (final N=233). As students had the right to refuse to answer any que stion, not all questions have 233 responses. The failure to answer a quest ion varied; demographic questions were answered by all participants Typically 2 or 3 refused to answer any given question. The demographics of study participants were quite similar to that of the overall undergraduate population at the Un iversity of Florida. The Un iversity of Florida had a student population of 51,913 in the fall of 2007, of which 34,612 were undergraduates. The ratio of females to males is 53:47. Twenty -six percent of the students are minorities;

PAGE 33

23 about 7.9% are African Amer ican, around 11.2% are Hispanic, and about 7% are Asian American or Pacific Islanders ( University of Florida-Demographics nd.). The sample of survey respondents used in our study was 63.5% female, 18% African American, 14.2% Hispanic, 3% Asian American, and 1.3% Other (of whom one respondent indicated Pacific Islander descen t). Females and minorities were slightly over-represented in the study sample. This ma y mean that the sample, or undergraduates in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society are not representative of the general undergraduate student population at the University of Florida. IRB Protocol Submission to the Institutional Review Board occurred in January of 2008. The IRB protocol form, Informed Consent form and the IRB approvals are located in Appendices B, C, and D. The study, desi gnated protocol #2008-U-0006, was passed by IRB on January 18, 2008. On February 13, 2008, our study was defended orally at a thesis proposal defense. Several suggestions for improving the coherency and flow of the survey were made at that time. Also, it wa s decided to add one question to the survey. The revisions were undertaken and the survey we nt back to review before the University of Floridas IRB. The revisions to th e survey were approved on February 27, 2008. THE SURVEY The questions used in our study were derived from several sources. Many came directly from the YISS-2 survey instrument, with the permission of one of its authors, Kimberly Mitchell (personal communicat ion, November 19, 2007). The YISS-2 is a follow-up study to the YISS and many of the questions were updated. Other questions were inspired by the YISS instruments. The few questions not taken directly from or

PAGE 34

24 inspired by the YISS or YISS-2 were designed to apply routine activities theory to the Internet and online sexual vic timization. The main questions and their sources are listed in Table 4-1 below. As this table is too larg e to show in its entir ety here, the questions and their sources for the enti re survey can be found in Appendix D. The actual survey instrument can be seen in Appendix E. Data Analysis All analyses were done using SPSS versi on 15 for graduate students. Descriptive statistics for all variables as well as frequencies were run to determine case counts and variance. Below, Tables 4-2 th rough 4-4 lists the frequencies and percentages of many of the main variables. The complete set of tables can be found in Appendix F. Further analysis consisted of running two logistic regressions and one OL S linear regression as well as Factor Analyses. Li stwise removal was used fo r all regression analyses. Due to the relatively small sample size (N=233) and the fact that this is an exploratory study of a population no t previously investigated fo r this subject, the level of significance will be .10. All p-values are di scussed as necessary. Because significance levels cannot determine the magnitude of a va riables effect, standardized Beta scores (for OLS) and Odds Ratios (for Logistic Re gression) are also presented and discussed. Dependent Variables The dependent variable for our study was a combined count of two of the survey question variables. The questions used to create the dependent variable were: Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to? A nd, thinking back, between the ages of 1017, did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you

PAGE 35

25 did not want to answer such questions? A th ird question, thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do something sexual that you did not want to do, was considered for use in the dependent variable, but it was decided that conceptual differences existed between it and the two previous questions. It was not used.

PAGE 36

26 Table 4-1. Survey questions and their source. Question Response Choices Source Currently, how often do you use the Internet to: Responses for the following questions are: YISS-2but altered question; reponse categories verbatim Go to web sites? 1Never Use e-mail? 2Occasionally Use Instant Messages? 3Frequently Go to chat rooms? 4Often, but not every day Play games? 5Daily For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as Facebook or My Space? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use YouTube? Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, how often did you use the Internet to: Responses for the following questions are: YISS-2but altered question; reponse categories verbatim Go to web sites? 1Never Use e-mail? 2Occasionally Use Instant Messages? 3Frequently Go to chat rooms? 4Often, but not every day Play games? 5Daily For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as Facebook or My Space? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use YouTube? Currently, how many days during a usual week do you use the Internet? Choices are: 1-7 YISS, YISS-2but altered Between the ages of 10-17, how many days a week do you typically remember using the Internet? Choices are: 1-7 YISS, YISS-2but altered for retrospective Thinking back to when you were between the ages of 10-17, how much adult supervision did you have while online using the access you checked in question 13? None at all Authorto determine capable guardianship Very little Some A lot Constant supervision Don't know/ don't remember

PAGE 37

27 Table 4-1. Continued. Question Response Choices Source Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what types of supervision did your parent/ guardian/ friend's parent/ guardian engage in to superivse your Internet use? Watched what I did on the Internet Authorto determine capable guardianship Asked me what I did on the Internet Checked the history function after I got off the Internet Read my e-mails to see who I was communicating with Installed software to keep me away from certain sites Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to? Yes YISS, YISS-2but altered question for retrospective No Don't know/ don't remember Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? Yes YISS, YISS-2but altered question for retrospective; description removed No Don't know/ don't remember Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do something sexual that you did not want to do? Yes YISS, YISS-2but altered question for retrospective No Don't know/ don't remember Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did anyone you met on the Internet try to get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes? Yes Inspired by YISS, YISS-2 follow-up questions No Don't know/ don't remember If yes, did you agree to meet them? Yes Inspired by YISS-2 follow-up questions No Don't know/ don't remember If yes, did you actually meet them? Yes Inspired by YISS-2 follow-up questions No When you met this person offline, did you engage in any kind of sexual activity with this person? Yes Inspired by YISS-2 follow-up questions No Don't know/ don't remember

PAGE 38

28 The first two previously cited ques tions both had yes, no, dont know/ dont remember response choice categories. To ma ke the dependent variable, the counts for respondents who replied yes to both questions were tallied. This variable was then dummy-coded. The yes to both questions cate gory was coded 1. All other responses were coded as 0. Several other questions in the survey were considered for use as a dependent variable. These questions were: Thinking b ack, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone you met on the Internet try to get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes?; if yes, did you agree to meet them?; and, if yes, did you actually meet them? Because the variance for these three questions was non-existe nt (virtually all responses were no or the respondent did not answer the question), information supplied by these variables is limited to frequencies and percentages. This information may be viewed in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 below, which list the frequencie s and percentages of the dependent and independent variable characteristics. In order to test the third hypothesis, a further regression was undertaken. In this regression, respondents current Internet activ ities became the dependent variable and the variable formed from yes responses to the talked about sex and asked for sexual information questions, discussed above as the main dependent variable, became an independent variable. The question used in the survey to determine how undergraduate respondents spent their time on the Internet was: Current ly, how often did you use the Internet to: Go to web sites? Use e-mail? Use Instant Messages? Go to chat rooms? Play games? For

PAGE 39

29 Table 4-2. Survey participant characteristics Characteristics Frequency (%) Gender Male 85 (36.5) Female 148 (63.5) Current Age: 18 20 (8.6) 19 48 (20.6) 20 62 (26.6) 21 58 (24.9) 22 17 (7.3) 23 11 (4.7) 24 3 (1.3) 25 5 (2.1) 26 1 (0.4) 27 3 (1.3) 28 1 (0.4) 29 1 (0.4) 34 1 (0.4) Missing Values 1 (0.4) Age at 1st Use: 4 1 (0.4) 8 7 (3) 9 7 (3) 10 14 (6) 11 13 (5.6) 12 41 (17.6) 13 18 (7.7) 14 13 (5.6) 15 7 (3) 16 2 (0.9) 17 3 (1.3) 18 1 (0.4) 19 2 (0.9) Don't Remember 102 (43.8) Missing Values 2 (0.9) Race: White 148 (63.5) African American 42 (18) Hispanic/ Latino 33 (14.2) Asian American 7 (3) Other 3 (1.3) Family Income: $0-14,999 9 (3.9) $15,000-29,999 29 (12.4) $30,000-44,999 26 (11.2) $45,000-59,999 30 (12.9) $60,000-74,999 32 (13.7) $75,000-$89,999 23 (9.9)

PAGE 40

30 Table 4-2. Continued. $90,000-104,999 26 (11.2) $105,000 & Above 58 (24.9) N= 233

PAGE 41

31 Table 4-3. Participant and routine activities characteristics Characteristics City Size Frequency (%) Small Town 34 (14.6) Suburb of Large City 66 (28.3) Rural Area 11 (4.7) Large Town (25,000-100,000) 51 (21.9) Large City (over 100,000) 68 (29.2) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Had Own Computer Yes 78 (33.5) No 149 (63.9) Don't Remember 3 (1.3) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Amount of Supervision None at All 37 (15.9) Very Little 87 (37.3) Some 67 (28.8) A Lot 25 (10.7) Constant Supervision 7 (3) Don't Remember 5 (2.1) Missing Values 5 (2.1) Type of SupervisionWatched Yes 40 (17.2) No 160 (68.7) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionAsked Yes 151 (64.8) No 49 (21) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionChecked History Yes 52 (22.3) No 148 (63.5) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionRead E-mails Yes 11 (4.7) No 189 (81.1) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionSoftware Yes 41 (17.6) No 159 (68.2) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Portrayal of Self Online As I Really Am 111 (47.6) As Different than I Really Am 47 (20.2) No Online ProfileNo Personal Info 46 (19.7) Missing Values 29 (12.4) N=233

PAGE 42

32 Table 4-4. Routine activities characteristics Characteristics Frequency (%) Current UsageDays 1 0 (0) 2 3 (1.3) 3 1 (0.4) 4 5 (2.1) 5 6 (2.6) 6 20 (8.6) 7 196 (84.1) Missing Values 2 (0.9) Remembered UsageDays 1 7 (3) 2 9 (3.9) 3 17 (7.3) 4 38 (16.3) 5 50 (21.5) 6 27 (11.6) 7 59 (25.3) Don't Remember 23 (9.9) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Current UsageHours 1 Hour or Less 8 (3.4) 1-3 Hours 90 (38.6) 3-5 Hours 75 (32.2) 5-7 Hours 38 (16.3) More than 7 Hours 18 (7.7) Missing Values 4 (1.7) Remembered UsageHours 1 Hour or Less 49 (21) 1-3 Hours 91 (39.1) 3-5 Hours 44 (18.9) 5-7 Hours 24 (10.3) More than 7 Hours 8 (3.4) Don't Remember 15 (6.4) Missing Values 2 (0.9) N= 233

PAGE 43

33 school assignments? Download mu sic, pictures, or videos fr om file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journa l or blog at sites su ch as Facebook or My Space? Use an online dating or romantic site ? Use You Tube? Each of the sub-questions had a Likert-type scale for responses. A one indi cated they had never used that service. A two indicated occasional use. A three indicate d frequent use. A four indicated often, but not daily use. And a five indicated daily use. The responses to these questions were checked for their frequencies. As described below in the independent variables secti on, the corresponding question for remembered use as a juvenile lacked enough variance on two of the sub-questions. Those subquestions were dropped from the subsequently created scale. The s ub-questions pertained to the remembered use of an online dating se rvice and the remembered use of You Tube. In order to make the current Internet us es variable comparable to the remembered Internet uses scale, the subquestions relating to online dati ng service use and the use of You Tube were dropped from the current uses scale (as they were from the past uses scale). The responses to the other 8 sub-que stions were scaled. The range on the scale goes from 8 to 40. A factor analysis using Principal Components Analysis was conducted to see whether the items all loaded on a single factor and what the reliability of the scale was. The Cronbachs Alpha for this scale was .968, indicating strong correlation. An Eigenvalue of 6.858 on the first item indicated that the scale item s all loaded very strongly on one factor. The result s of this Factor Analysis ca n be found with the complete set of tables in Appendix F. B ecause all items loaded so strongly on the one factor, it was

PAGE 44

34 possible to label the scale as a current Intern et uses scale. Respons es on the scale ranged from 15 to the maximum value of 40. Independent Variables Standard independent variables for our study included gender, race/ ethnicity, and family income. There were problems with us ing an age variable. Current ages supplied by the respondents do not pertain to any past victimization and would not correlate to those victimizations. Further, many responde nts who did reply yes to one of the two dependent variable questions were not able to supply an age for when the incident or incidents happened. These respondents either checked the dont know/ dont remember option or they did not answer the question at all. In consequence, the counts for each age were not large enough to be able to use as a variable in a logistic regression analysis. The only other option available to keep an age variable in th e model came from responses to the question: How old were you when you first started using the Internet? The counts for responses were large enough to al low this question to be used as the age variable. However, its relevanc y to regression is questionable. It can be argued that those who started using the Internet at a younger age would be different in some way from other respondents and this difference may have been reflected whether or not they were victimized sexually while online. Because of th e questionable nature of this variable, the regression was run both with it in and out of the model. The independent variables pertaining to r outine activities used in our study include the activities and amount of time spent on those activities on the Internet while juveniles, amount of privacy while on the Internet, parental supervision of Internet use, how much personal information the respondent posted on the Internet, and how the respondent presented themselves on the Internet. The por trayal of information variable was dummy

PAGE 45

35 coded for the purpose conducting logistic regr ession. Answer choices of no profile and presented myself as something other than I really am were coded as 0. The answer choice of I portrayed myself as I truly am was coded as a 1. Other variables relating to the routine activities of the respondents were considered for use in the regression, but again, due to lack of variance, th ese questions could not be used. The questions in the survey that were us ed to determine if parental supervision has an impact upon receipt of sexual solicitations are as followsQuestion1: Where was your computer with Internet access located in your home? Re sponse choices were: in my bedroom, in my parents bedroom, in an area open to other member s of my family, like the kitchen or living room. Responses to this question were dummy-coded with yes responses coded 1 and all other responses c oded 0. Question 2: Thinking back to when you were between the ages of 10-17, how much adult supervision did you have while online using the access you checked in ques tion #13 (where you MOST OFTEN used a computer to go online)? Responses ranged from none at all (1) to constant supervision (5). Responses to this question were left as they were, since the s cale was already ordinal in nature. Question 3: Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what type of supervision did your parent/ guardian/ friends parent/guardian engage in to supervise your Internet use? Response choices were: wa tched what I did on the Internet, asked me what I did on the Internet, checked the histor y function after I got o ff the Internet, read my e-mails to see who I was communicating wit h, and installed software to keep me from certain sites. Respondents were able to check all answers that applied to this question. Because of this, responses were entere d into SPSS as if each answer choice had been a separate question. Each answer was gi ven a code for yes (1) or no (0). Responses

PAGE 46

36 were then summed in a count and an inde x was created. A one response on the index indicated a yes response to the first ques tion. A two on the index indicated respondents had answered yes to two of the questions. A th ree on the scale indicate d that respondents had answered yes to any three questions. A nd so on, through the fifth question. All other responses than yes were coded as 0. The independent variable pertaining to online activities a nd the amount of time juveniles spent at them was as follows: Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, how often did you use the Internet to: Go to web sites? Use e-ma il? Use Instant Messages? Go to chat rooms? Play games? For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as Facebook or My Space? Use an online da ting or romantic site? Use You Tube? Each of the sub-questions had a Likert-type scale for responses. A one indicated they had never used that servi ce. A two indicated occasional use. A three indicated frequent use. A four indicated often, but not daily use. And a five indicated daily use. The responses to these questions were checked for their frequencies. If responses had enough variance, they were used to create an Internet use scale. Responses to the questions about use of online dating services or spending time at You Tube as a juvenile did not have enough vari ance. Most respondent s indicated they had never used an online dating service. Only 7.7% (18) indicated any response to that question other than never. There was sligh tly more variance for the You Tube question. While 153 respondents indicated they never us ed that service while a juvenile, 54 did indicate they used it occasionally. The ot her 3 responses had 24 (10.3%) counts only,

PAGE 47

37 Table 4-5. Dependent variables: se xual victimizati on/ solicitation Characteristics Asked to Meet for Sex Frequency (%) Yes 15 (6.4) No 210 (90.1) Don't Remember 5 (2.1) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Agreed to Meet for Sex Yes 3 (1.3) No 11 (4.7) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 219 (93.9) Did Meet for Sex Yes 7 (3) No 4 (1.7) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 222 (95.3) Actually Had Sex Yes 3 (1.3) No 7 (3) Don't Remember 1 (0.4) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 222 (95.3) Type of Sex Contact Sexual Intercourse 0 (0) Oral Intercourse 2 (0.9) Anal Intercourse 1 (0.4) Fondling or Touching 1 (0.4) Kissing 1 (0.4) Other 0 (0) Don't Remember 1 (0.4) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 227 (97.4) Rating of Sex Experience 1Very Negative 1 (0.4) 2Somewhat Negative 2 (0.9) 3-Neutral/ So-so 8 (3.4) 4Somewhat Positive 1 (0.4) 5Very Positive 1 (0.4) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 220 (94.4) N= 233

PAGE 48

38 Table 4-6. Independent variables: routin e activities 1: past online activities Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses Websites E-mail Instant Messenger Chat Rooms Play Games Frequency (%) Never 9 (3.9) 20 (8.6) 34 (14.6) 87 (37.3) 34 (14.6) Occasionally 38 (16.3) 47(20.2) 23 (9.9) 77 (33) 65 (27.9) Frequently 31 (13.3) 32(13.7) 37 (15.9) 28 (12) 68 (29.2) Often, Not Daily 63 (27) 60(25.8) 46 (19.7) 18 (7.7) 32(13.7) Daily 90 (38.6) 72(30.9) 91 (39.1) 20 (8.6) 31 (13.3) Missing Values 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 3 (1.3) Table 4-6. Continued Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses Schoolwork DownloadingBlogging Dating Site You Tube Never 11 (4.7) 61 (26.2) 132 (56.7) 213 (91.4) 153 (65.7) Occasionally 52 (22.3) 40 (17.2) 28 (12) 11 (4.7) 54 (23.2) Frequently 72 (30.9) 51 (21.9) 23 (9.9) 2 (0.9) 14 (6) Often, Not Daily 53 (22.7) 52 (22.3) 21 (9) 3 (1.3) 6 (2.6) Daily 41 (17.6) 27 (11.6) 26 (11.2) 2 (0.9) 4 (1.7) Missing Values 4 (1.7) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) N= 233

PAGE 49

39 Table 4-7. Independent variables: routin e activities 2: current online activities Current Internet Uses Websites E-mail Instant Messenger Chat Rooms Play Games Frequency (%) Never 1 (0.4) 0 (0) 47 (20.2) 168(79.8) 62 (26.6) Occasionally 8 (3.4) 6 (2.6) 59 (25.3) 31 (13.3) 113(48.5) Frequently 7 (3) 7 (3) 18 (7.7) 4 (1.7) 19 (8.2) Often, Not Daily 13 (5.6) 12 (5.2) 27 (11.6) 3 (1.3) 21 (9) Daily 202 (86.7) 206(88.4)79 (33.9) 7 (3) 16 (6.9) Missing Values 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) Table 4-7. Continued Current Internet Uses Schoolwork DownloadingBlogging Dating Site You Tube Never 0 (0) 62 (26.6) 68 (29.2) 212 (91) 11 (4.7) Occasionally 4 (1.7) 55 (23.6) 32 (13.7) 11 (4.7) 89 (38.2) Frequently 27 (11.6) 38 (16.3) 13 (5.6) 2 (0.9) 60 (25.8) Often, Not Daily 62 (26.6) 41 (17.6) 27 (11.6) 3 (1.3) 50 (21.5) Daily 136 (58.4) 35 (15) 90 (38.6) 3 (1.3) 20 (8.6) Missing Values 4 (1.7) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) N= 233

PAGE 50

40 however. The distribution was skewed enough to make the use of these variables questionable. The responses to the other 8 sub-questi ons were scaled. The range on the scale goes from 8 to 40. A factor analysis using Principal Components Analysis was conducted to see whether the items all loaded on a single factor and what the reliability of the scale was. The Cronbachs Alpha for this scal e was quite strong, a .805. Eigenvalues of 3.453 and 1.180 on the first two items indicated th at the scale items were loading on two factors. The Components Matrix indicated that all items loaded particularly strongly on the first factor. Only one item loaded at a significant level (.63) on the second factor; as this item also loaded well on the first fact or (.531) there is no reason to consider using more than one scale. The Factor Analysis is a confirmatory process anyway. Running the reliability analysis had already establishe d that the items on this scale were highly correlated with one another. The Fact or Analysis just confirms this. The results of the Factor Analysis can be found with complete set of tables in Appendix F. Because all items loaded so str ongly on the first factor, it was possible to label the scale as an Internet uses scale. Responses on the scale ranged from the minimum value of 8 to the maximum value of 40.

PAGE 51

41 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS The majority of survey participants seem to have been fairly free of unwanted onsexual solicitations. Sixty-four of the respondents had someone try to talk to them about sex online when they did not want to. A bout 26% (60) of respondents had someone online ask them for sexual information about themselves whom they did not want asking such questions. Only 11.6% (27) of res pondents had someone online ask them to do something sexual when they did not want to. Fifteen of the respondents received what could be termed an aggressive sexual solicitation; someone online asked them to meet offline for sexual purposes. Only 3 respondents agreed to meet the person off line for sexual purposes; although 7 of the respondents indicated they actually met a person offline for sexual purposes. The discrepancy in numbers between who indi cated they would meet someone and who actually met someone offline for sexual pur poses is most likely a result of persons refusing to answer the former question; they then went on to answer the latter question, for whatever reason. It appears that as the nature of the offense escalated, the number of such events decreased. It should be noted however, that the questions about meeting someone offline for sexual purposes were t hose that respondents left unanswered the most (5, 9, and 12 respondents refused to answer these questions, respectively). The majority of respondents indicate they are online 7 days a week (84.1%). They generally spend between 1-5 hours online on the average day (70.8%). Twenty-four percent spend over 5 hours onlin e on the average day. Internet activities vary widely in use and frequency. Web sites, e-mail, and instant messaging are services that many engage in on a regular basis; if not daily, then often ( 65.6%, 56.7%, and 58.8%

PAGE 52

42 respectively). Refer back to Tables 4-6 through 4-9 for more information, or see Appendix F. Results of the two regres sions run to determine the variables affecting unwanted sexual solicitations are shown in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 belo w. Both regression models are significant at the global level. The results ar e somewhat surprising for both regressions. Only gender and the remembered Internet uses scale achieved significance in both models. The signs of the coefficients indicate that females are more likely than males to experience unwanted sexual solicitations online. Those who spend more time online engaged in a larger variety of activities are more likely than those who do not engage in so many activities to experience unwanted sexual solicitations. Gender had an Odds Ratio of 3.936 in the first model and 3.349 in the second. Females are almost 4 times more likely to experience unwanted se xual solicitation or sexual victimization than males are. The rememb ered Internet uses variable had an Odds Ratio of 1.106 in the first model and 1.108 in the second model. Those who made more frequent use of the Internet were 1.1 times as likely to experience sexual victimization as those who did not use the Internet so much. The fact that race did not achieve signif icance is most likely due to lack variance (the majority of students (63.5%) were White). It is also possibly a reflection of the anonymous and global nature of the Internet Amount of supervision was significant at the .10 level in one of the models (.087 p-valu e). This was in the model including age at first computer use as one of the variables. Neither of the supervision variables was significant in the other model (model 2).

PAGE 53

43 The Odds Ratio for the amount of superv ision variable in the first model was .639. Remembering that the coefficients sign was negative, this means that for every increase in the amount of supervision, the li kelihood of becoming the victim of unwanted sexual solicitation or sexual victimization decreases by .639. Two separate regressions involving altern ating use of the supervision variables were done to see if results would change after taking into account the multicollinearity that was found between the two variables. Even separately, each still failed to achieve significance. There was enough variance in respon ses to each item that it is most likely that lack of significance was not affected by this. One possibility for the lack of significance of amount of supervision in the second model lies with the removed variable. Age at fi rst computer use is the variable present in the first regression but not in the second. By its very definition, age of first computer use would have occurred when the respondent s were much younger. As younger children and adolescents they most likely received more supe rvision than they did as juveniles. This is the most likely reason for the discrepancy. Whether or not a respondent had their ow n private computer as a juvenile from which to access the Internet had no beari ng on whether or not they received unwanted sexual solicitations. This finding is also somewh at surprising in light of routine activities theory. It was theorized that those with priv ate access would be more likely to engage in dubious online activities thereby leaving themse lves open to sexual solicitations, wanted or not. This has not proved to be the case. On e problem however is that this variable is not ideal for measuring privacy. A better ques tion about privacy of computer use would

PAGE 54

44 Table 5-1. Logistic regression: se xual solicitation with age at 1st use Logistic RegressionWith Age at 1st Use Variables Coefficient Wald Score P-value Exp (B) Gender 1.370 7.236 0.007***3.936 Age at 1st Use 0.090 0.641 0.423 1.094 Race -0.620 1.841 0.175 .538 Income -0.132 1.582 0.208 .877 Remembered Uses Scale 0.100 7.464 0.006***1.106 Had own Computer -0.033 0.005 0.944 .967 Amount of Supervision -0.448 2.935 0.087* .639 Supervision Index 0.064 0.075 0.784 1.066 SelfPortrayal -0.380 0.768 0.381 .684 Model SignificanceChi-Square Value= 25.548, p-value=.002*** Significant at the .10 Level ** Significant at the .05 Level ***Significant at the .01 Level

PAGE 55

45 Table 5-2. Logistic regression: sexua l solicitation without age at 1st use Logistic RegressionWithout Age at 1st Use Variables Coefficient Wald Score P-value Exp (B) Gender 1.209 11.412 0.001***3.349 Race -0.088 0.065 0.799 .916 Income -0.120 2.519 0.112 .887 Remembered Uses Scale 0.102 15.061 0.000***1.108 Had own Computer -0.042 0.015 0.904 .959 Amount of Supervision -0.061 0.098 0.754 .940 Supervision Index 0.026 0.018 0.894 1.026 SelfPortrayal -0.531 2.817 0.093* .588 Model SignificanceChi-Square Value= 37.769, p-value=.000*** Significant at the .10 Level ** Significant at the .05 Level ***significant at the .01 Level

PAGE 56

46 have been the question about where their computer was located, in their bedroom, a parents bedroom, or in an open area like a kitchen or living room Unfortunately, 154 (66%) respondents chose not to answer this question, re ndering it meaningless for the purposes of regression analysis. Family income, used to indicate a responde nts socio-economic status while still a juvenile living at home, did not achieve sign ificance in either model. There was enough variance in responses that th is was not a significant fact or in failing to achieve significance. The results of both regressions seem to indicate that SES as determined by household income is not a factor in determin ing who will become the victim of unwanted online sexual solicitations. Again, this may reflect the anonymous and global nature of the Internet; if this is so, many demographic variables considered relevant to criminal victimization will need to be recons idered when analyzing online crime. How a respondent chose to portray h im or herself while online was also investigated in both regression models. In the model without age at first use this variable was significant at the .10 level. The p-value was .093 and the negative sign on the coefficient indicated that those who portrayed th emselves as other than they really are or who did not supply personal information at a ll were possibly more likely to experience unwanted online sexual victimization. The Odds Ratio for this variable in model 2 was .588, indicating that likelihood of experiencing sexual victimi zation or unwanted sexual solicitations is .588 times more likely for those who provide no information or some form of false information than for those who provide their correct personal information. The lack of significance for this variable in the first model was most likely not caused by lack of variance. Responses for th e dummy-coded variable were almost evenly

PAGE 57

47 divided between yes and all other res ponses (47.6% versus 52.4%). What seems most probable is that sexu al offenders looking for victims online look for specific characteristics. Those who provided correct information were most likely specifying some characteristic that the o ffender did not find appealing. Why this variable was signifi cant in the second model but no t in the first is unclear. There does not seem to be a clear link be tween age at first computer use and the providing of personal information. One possibil ity is that sexual offenders who use the Internet are looking for older children; adol escents and juveniles. Again by definition, respondents were younger at age of first comput er use. This is an area that should be investigated further in the future. The results of the Ordinary Least Squa res regression run to determine if past online sexual victimization affected the amount and type of current Internet usage are shown below in Table 5-3. Variables that ach ieved significance in this regression include current age and past Internet activities. No other variable achieved significance. The model itself was found to be significant with an F Score of 8.989 and a p-value of .000. The negative sign of the coefficient for current age indicated that younger undergraduates tend to spend more time online in a larger variety of activities. The positive sign for the coefficient for remembered Internet uses variable indicated that those

PAGE 58

48 Table 5-3. OLS linear regression: effects of past victimization on current use OLS Current Internet Use Regression Variables Coefficient tscore P-value Stand. Beta Gender -0.708 1.1740.242 -.075 Race -0.688 1.1530.250 -.074 Income 0.099 0.7550.451 .049 Current age -0.109 2.1770.031** .135 Past Online Solicitation -0.534 0.8500.396 .056 Remembered Uses Scale 0.295 6.8330.000***.446 Past SelfPortrayal -0.236 0.4260.671 -.026 Model SignificanceF Score= 8.989, p-value=.000*** Significant at the .10 Level ** Significant at the .05 Level ***Significant at the .01 Level

PAGE 59

49 who engaged in more online activities more freq uently as juveniles were more likely to have a higher current level of Internet activities and usage. This finding was not surprising, since it has long been understood that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. What is surprisi ng is that having a history of unwanted sexual solicitations did not even come close to achieving signifi cance on this model. Th e standardized Beta for current age is .135 and for remembered Inte rnet uses is .446. Th e standardized Betas for these 2 variables indicate that past use is a stronger predictor of the respondents current Internet use than current age is. Several possibilities for th is finding come to mind. Least likely is the possibility that past online sexual victim ization has no bearing upon future online behavior. It is more feasible that the variab le used to measure past onlin e sexual victimization is not a good measure of this type of victimization. It ha s already been stated that due to lack of variance, several variables that were should have been used in the analysis had to be left out. These variables include res ponses to the questions about receiving unwanted requests for online sex, requests to meet offline fo r sexual activities, and actually meeting someone offline for sexual activities. These variables would all probably been better measures of online se xual victimization. The variables actually used were th e ones that measured unwanted sexual solicitations; it can be posited that the effect s of an unwanted solic itation would be less traumatic than would be th e effects of actually meeting someone offline for sexual purposes. That is, if the experience is consid ered negatively. As stat ed previously, the NJOV Study found that in cases invo lving female victims, over ha lf of the girls considered themselves to be in love with the perpetrator (Wolak et al., 2004).

PAGE 60

50 Support for the Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 stated that college-bound youths whose online use is more closely monitored by a parent or guardian will e xperience less online sexual victimization. Hypothesis 2 stated that colle ge-bound youths who use the Internet more frequently are more likely to receive sexual solicitations than those who use it less frequently. Hypothesis 3 stated that res pondents who were victimized by online sexual solicitations during their juvenile years will make less use of the Internet now than they did prior to their victimization. Hypothesis 1 was only partially supporte d by the model 1 logi stic regression. As stated earlier, it is possible that the qu estions regarding the amount and type of supervision were not all-encompassing enough. Or it may just be that short of continually watching their child every moment they spend online, that a parents supervision can do nothing to prevent unwanted online sexual solic itations to their children. In terms of routine activities theory, capable guardianship did help to pr event crime victimization but only when age at first use of the Internet was taken into account. Hypothesis 2 was supported by both logi stic regressions conducted for this analysis. The more activities a respondent engaged in as a ju venile while online, the more likely it was for them to become the victim of an unwanted sexual solicitation. This hypothesis basically states that heightened exposure places juvenile s at risk. The more time a juvenile spends online and the more activities they engage in, the more opportunity a sexual offender has to prey upon th em. In terms of routine activities theory, the routine, everyday activities do seem to help create opportunities by which motivated offenders can victimize others.

PAGE 61

51 Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the OLS regression conducted for our study. Based upon the variables used to determine on line juvenile sexual victimization, a past history of this type of beha vior does not seem to cause a reduction in future online behavior. As discussed in the Findings section, this is most likely because of the variables used to determine online sexual victimization. More research using better variables s hould be used to determine whether this finding is accurate or not. It is also possible that there is something about the sample of undergraduates used for our study that make s them more likely to make use of the Internet, regardless of any past Internet victimization they may have experienced. Or possibly there is something about college st udents in general that makes their outlook on such occurrences differ from non-college student s. Regardless, it should be noted that the results of our study are not generalizable to the general public or even to other undergraduate student populations.

PAGE 62

52 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION Discussion The purpose of our study was to determine the characteristics of victims of online juvenile sexual victimization for a sample of undergraduate students from a large southern university. The main research ques tions that were investigated were: do the routine activities juveniles enga ge in on the Internet make th em more or less likely to be the victims of unwanted sexual solicitations?; and, do the routine online activities juveniles engage in change after experiencing a sexual victimization? The level of sexual victimization repo rted in our study was quite low; for purposes of analysis, reports of unwanted onl ine sexual solicitations were used instead. The analyses showed that even then, colle ge-bound youths do not experience a high level of unwanted online sexual solicitations. A bout 28% of the sample experienced unwanted talk about sex while online and about 26% of the sample experienced unwanted solicitations for personal sexual information. Only 11.6% of the respondents experienced unwanted online solicitations for acts of sex. The extent of online sexual victimiza tion and sexual solici tation among juveniles bound for college may be much higher than our study reports. As stated previously, there may be something about this particular sample of undergraduates that makes them ungeneralizable to the broader undergraduate po pulation. There were issues with the data such as lack of variance and missing data th at make the results of our study suspect. Further, the survey questions respondents answered may not have been ideal for determining online sexual victimization. The que stions were modeled after those in the national online juvenile sexual victimization studies (YISS, YISS-2) that have been

PAGE 63

53 conducted to date (Finkelhor et al., 2000). That lends the qu estions a certain amount of legitimacy. It is also possible that collegebound juveniles experien ce less online sexual victimization than other juveniles do. If this is the case, it must be determined why they experience less online sexual vic timization. Future research is needed to replicate both the national online juvenile sexual victim ization studies, as well as our study investigating the online sexual victimization of college-bound juveniles. If a difference is discovered, future studies should inve stigate why the difference exists. Routine activities theory stat es that crime occurs when a motivated offender is in the presence of a suitable target that lacks a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Our study attempted to investigate whether th e routine online daily activities of collegebound juveniles made suitable targets for online sexual victimization. The routine activities that college-bound j uveniles were found to engage in daily included: going to Internet websites (38.6%), se nding and receiving e-mail (30. 9%), using instant messenger services (39.1%), and playing games (13.3%). Along with juveniles online behavior, the supervision their onlin e activities received was also investigated. What the study was trying to get at was, do those juveniles w hose routine activities make them suitable targets become less suitable targets when they have capable guardianship? This is the most basic assumption made by routine activities theory (C ohen & Felson, 1979). For our study, the assumption of capable guardianship making a target appear less suitable to a motivated offender did not hold true. This assumption was tested under the first hypothesis. Both the type of supervisi on juveniles received while engaging in their online activities, as well as the amount of supervision they received while engaging in

PAGE 64

54 these activities, were studied. Logistic regr ession showed that, at least for our study, the amount of supervision a juvenile received was related to their online sexual victimization. Capable guardianship is an assumption of r outine activities that was upheld by our study, but only when age at first use of the computer was taken into account. The other routine activities assumption that was upheld by our study was that of routine activities making one more or less of a suitable target The frequency and type of activities a juvenile engaged in online had a bearing on whether a juvenile became the victim of online sexual so licitations. This assumption was tested under the second hypothesis. Those juveniles, who spent more tim e online in a wider variety of activities, were more likely to be the victims of se xual solicitation. The fact that they were there, online, for longer periods of time, engaging in more activities than others might do, is what increased their suitability as a target. This assumption of routine activities theory was also upheld by the study. Because this was a victimization stu dy, offenders were not included. It was therefore not possible to determine the presen ce or absence of motivated offenders; they were assumed. Based on the two aspects of rout ine activities theory that were studied it seems this theory lent itself adequately to the study of online sexual victimization crimes. Future studies should attempt to replicate our study in order to dete rmine if the findings regarding routine activities theory are correct. Hypothesis 3 stated that respondents who were victimized by online sexual solicitations during their juvenile years will ma ke less use of the Internet now than they did prior to their victimization. Th is hypothesis was also not supported.

PAGE 65

55 Limitations and Implications While all studies have limitations, ou r study had more than most. The study was retrospective, a type of study that is consid ered as less valid than cross-sectional or longitudinal studies. The sample that was st udied did not report a high enough level of online sexual victimization in order to make this a feasible dependent variable. Instead, unwanted online sexual solicita tions became the dependent variable. Many of the variables to be studied lack ed variance; many lacked valid responses. For these reasons, this is not an ideal data set from which further questions might be investigated. However, the limitations of our study do not necessarily invalidate the findings. There are implications to the finding that supervision wa s not related to victimization. What can then be done to protect children and juveniles from onlin e sexual predators? Parents should not assume that there is not hing they can do to prot ect their children. As was pointed out earlier, the issue of havi ng a private computer was deemed very important for our study. However, due to missing data and lack of variance, the responses to the question that asked where in the house the computer they used was located could not be used. Instead, responses to the question about whether as juveniles they had their own computer had to be substi tuted in. It is entirely possi ble that the results of the regression analyses would have been different if the desired variable had been used. Where the computer a child or j uvenile is located in the house may be more important than the amount or type of supervision the chil d receives. It may be th at the presence of a parent in the same room while the child or juvenile is online may keep them from wandering into less acceptable web-sites or in continuing questionable conversations with strangers.

PAGE 66

56 Parents should consider the location of the computer in their homes, as well as how they supervise the use of it. The best protection against online victimization would be to have the computer in the room with the highest household traffic, as well as engaging in more traditional types of superv ision such as checki ng the history function. Parents should also talk to their children about online sexual victimization so that they would know what to aware of and what to do if the situation did arise. Parents, children, and juveniles can report an online sexual victimization or solicitation to the CyberTipline. The Cybe rTipline is a congressionally mandated reporting mechanism for many types of ch ild sexual exploitation, including child pornography and online enticement of children for sex acts ( What is the CyberTipline? nd.). The CyberTipline can be located at the website for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Future studies should be conducted us ing college populations in order to determine their rate of online sexual victimization compared to a national sample. Future studies should also seek to es tablish to what extent privacy of computer use affects online sexual victimization. Other areas that should be explored in future studies include the extent that those who report unwanted online sexual solicitations also report attempts by sex offenders to meet offline for sexual purposes.

PAGE 67

57 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT POOL APPLICATION

PAGE 68

58 Application for use of the Criminology, Law and Society Department Participant Pool ** NOTE: You must submit the following things with this application: 1) A copy of your full IRB application (This application may be submitted prior to IRB approval, however, you may not run any participants until you have submitted a copy of your IRB approval letter to the coordinator) 2) A full copy of your survey/stimulus etc. You should submit everything that you will be presenting to participants. If your study is online, you may submit a link to your online st udy, and the participant coordinator must be able to run through your study. I. General Information 1. TITLE of this research project (this will be the title shown to the participants. Keep in mind that if your study involves deception, this may not match your IRB title): Online Juvenile Sexual Victim ization Among College Students 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO BE PROVIDED TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS (250 character maximum): To examine rates of online juvenile sexual victimization as retrospectively self-reported by college students. To examine the routine on line activities that may make some juveniles more exposed to victimization by sexual offenders while online. 3. NAME of the responsible researcher: Stacy Burweger E-MAIL: kithain@ufl.edu PHONE & ROOM #: cell 386.569.1823 Have you attended a training sessio n for participant pool researchers? No, but I have spoken with John Boman about it. 4. CATEGORY of this research pr oject: (check only one) ____ Doctoral dissertation re search (limited to 2 terms ) ____ Grant funded (grants with overhead) faculty research (must provide funding source) __X__ MA thesis research

PAGE 69

59 ____ Senior thesis research ____ Full-time faculty member research ____ Independent graduate student research ____ Adjunct faculty research ____ Other (please explain) __________________________________________________________________ ____ 5. FACULTY SPONSOR (if applicable): Dr. Ronald Akers (Note: Faculty Sponsor is the person taking primary responsibility for the treatment of participants. If dissertation research or other st udent research, please note faculty advisor) 6. NAMES AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES of a ll members of the research team who will be authorized to use the part icipant pool for your project and you want to receive direct communication from the Participant Pool Coordinator (NOTE: you will be responsible for di sseminating all communication from the Participant Pool Coordinator to the other members of your research team): Name E-mail Stacy Burweger kithain@ufl.edu _______________________________ ________________________________ _______________________________ ________________________________ II. Project Information 1. TOTAL NUMBER of participants required: MAXIMUM of 1,000 students 2. TIME required of EACH participant: 30 minutes to 1 hour NOTE: This will be double checked by the participant pool coordinator. Studies must take at least 10 minutes. If your co llection time is shorter than ten minutes, you must double with another researcher. If you need help finding another research project to double with, plea se check with th e participant pool coordinator. 3. Students will be awarded: (please check one) __X___ Units only _____ Combination of units and money _____ Option of units or money

PAGE 70

60 4. Proposed TOTAL NUMBER OF units to be awarded to EACH participant: 2 units, although I suppos e 1 unit is more likely Note: 1 unit = 10 30 minutes of participation 2 units = 31 60 minutes 3 units = 61 90 minutes 4 units = 91 120 minutes 5 units = 121 150 minutes 6 units = 151-180 minutes 5. 2 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS REQUESTED 6. 0.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY to be awarded to EACH participant 7. SIGN UP/CANCELLATION NOTIFICATION Would you like to be notified by em ail when participants sign up/cancel? Yes: X No 8. ONLINE SURVEY INFORMATION If your study includes an online su rvey, please provide the website information below: www.surveymonkey.com 9. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS, if any, fo r participation in your project: (please list: e.g., female s only, right-handed, jury eligible, etc.) a) participants must be 18 years of age d) _____________________________ b) ___________________________ e) _____________________________ c) ___________________________ f) _____________________________ 10. LOCATION where research sessions will be conducted (be as specific as possible). If you do not have a location please indicate this here, and list times/days you would prefer to run your study and how many students you are able to accommodate in each se ssion and any special requirements (e.g., equipment, extra time between sessions, desks, etc.):

PAGE 71

61 Location: this is an online survey; students may take it when and where they will Period Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 1 (7:25-8:15) 2 (8:30-9:20) 3 (8:30-9:20) 4 (8:30-9:20) 5 (8:30-9:20) 6 (12:50-1:40) 7 (1:55-2:45) 8 (3:00-3:50) 9 (4:05-4:55) 10 (5:10-6:00) 11 (6:15-7:05) E1 (7:20-8:10) E2 (8:20-9:10) E3 (9:2010:10) 11. ANTICIPATED TIMELINE OF PROJECT: The survey will be open until at least the end of March 2008, possibly un til the end of the semester, April 2008. 12. EDUCATIONAL DEBRIEFING PLAN All researchers must provide student participants with a short, written debriefing statement. Please attach a copy of your educational debriefing form to this application Please note that the purpose of the participant pool program is educational. Students in our classes learn about descriptive studies (such as surveys, naturalistic observation, and case st udies), correlational studies, and experimental studies (inc luding terms such as hypothesis, operational definition, independent variable, and dep endent variable). Please consider the educational purpose when writing your debriefing. The committee reserves the right to require researchers to modify their educational debriefing if it fails to satisfy these requirements. Signature of Researcher: ________________________________________________ Date: ______________________ Please place completed applications in th e participant pool coordinators mailbox. Thank you!

PAGE 72

62 For Coordinator Use Only Approval Number: ________________________ Authorized number of units: ________

PAGE 73

63 APPENDIX B IRB PROTOCOL FORM

PAGE 74

64 UFIRB 02 Social & Behavioral Research Protocol Submission Title of Protocol: Online Juvenile Sexual Victimization Among College Students Principal Investigator: Stacy Burweger UFID #: 9564-9346 Degree / Title: Masters Student Department: Criminology, Law, & Society P.O. Box 115950 University of Florida Gainesville, Fl orida 32611-5950 Mailing Address: 6519 W. Newberry Rd. #611 Gainseville, FL. 32605 Email Address & Telephone Number: kithain@ufl.edu; 386.569.1823 Co-Investigator(s): UFID#: Supervisor: Dr. Ronald L. Akers UFID#: 7789-3780 Degree / Title: Graduate Coordinator; Professor Department: Criminology, Law, & Society Mailing Address: Dept. of Criminology, Law, & Society P.O. Box 115950, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950 Email Address & Telephone Number: 352.392.2230; rla@crim.ufl.edu Date of Proposed Research: January 1, 2008 through July 1, 2008 Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must be s ubmitted with this protocol if funding is involved): There is no external funding for this study. Scientific Purpose of the Study: To examine rates of online juvenile sexual victimizatio n as retrospectively self-r eported by college students. To examine the routine online activities that may make some juveniles more exposed to victimization by sexual offenders while online. Describe the Research Methodology in Non-Technical Language: ( Explain what will be done with or to the research participant. ) Students will take an online retrospective survey that as ks them about their Internet habits as juveniles; email, websites visited, amount of time spent on line, whether they have been victimized by sexual harassment, cybersex, or an adult wanting to meet them for sex, whether or not they ever met an adult for sex off-line. Students will also be asked questions about their current amount of time spent online in order

PAGE 75

65 to determine if those with online juvenile sexual victimization experiences have changed their Internet habits. Students will also be asked demographic questio ns about their age, gender, race/ ethnicity, home city size and location. The survey will make use of Survey Monkeys Professional Service, which is a pay service. This makes the survey much more secure. The survey will make use of SSL encrypt ion in order to make responses as secure and confidential as possible. It is also possible wi th this pay service to ensure that participants IP addresses are not tracked when they log on to take the survey. This feature will be turned off so participants are not tracked. Survey responses will be downloaded from Survey Monk eys secure website onto a jump/ flash drive that will be used strictly to store that data alone. The jump drive will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the researchers home office. The jump drive will not be put onto any computer that is currently online or hooked into a network, in order to further ensure the security and confi dentiality of the data. Describe Potential Benefits and Anticipated Risks: ( If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect participant.) There are no potential benefits from taking this surv ey. Participants will be exposed to minimal and indirect potential psychological harm as they are being as ked about events that have already happened and they have the option of not answering any question they find uncomfortable. Pa rticipants who, as a result of taking this survey, feel they need they need to discuss their experiences with a counselor, may contact the University of Florida Student Mental Health Services at: Room 245 Infirmary Bldg. Fletcher Drive, UF Campus, 352.392.1171 to set up an appointment. Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited, the Number and AGE of the Participants, and Proposed Compensation: Participants for this study will be recruited from the Department of Criminology, Law, & Societys undergraduate participant pool. Students in the participant pool are required to participate in a certain amount of surveys each semester. T hey have the option of choosing wh ich ones they will participate in. Only students over the age of 18 will be allowed the option of participating in this study. All students who wish to take the survey during t he proposed study time will be allowed to do so, which could result in a maximum of 1,000 participants. Participants will not re ceive compensation from the principal investigator for participating in this study. Some students in the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society participant receive extra credit from their prof essor for participating. Some prof essors require participation in the participant pool as part of their class curriculum. So some participants in this study may end up receiving extra credit from their prof essor. All students are made aware of the participant pool when they sign up for courses in this department. Participant pool members are requi red to sign up at http://ufl-cls.sona-systems.com/. This is the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participatio n System website. Participants will enter in their UF email address and a randomly generated password will be giv en to them. From here, they can view all the studies that are available through the department pa rticipant pool. Each study has a description page, and on that page for this study will be the password t hey will need to use to access the study at SurveyMonkey.com. If students decide they want to part icipate in my study, they utilize the link from the study description page, which will sign them up for particip ation. They can then follow the link to the access

PAGE 76

66 page at SurveyMonkey where they will put in the passw ord. They are then moved to the informed consent page, where they will either accept or refuse to participate in th is study. Through the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website, the administrator can keep track of which students have signed up for which study by their UF e-mail address. However, the administrator does not have access to the survey or to any students survey responses. They can only not e when a student has signed up to participate in a survey, so that they may be given credit for participation. Describe the Informed Consent Process. Include a Copy of the Informed Consent Document: Students in the participant pool who choose to participat e in this study will fill out an informed consent form describing the study (see attached in formed consent form). The informed consent form will be the first page of the survey, on Survey Monkey, afte r they enter in the survey passwo rd. In order to proceed with the survey, they will have to read and electr onically sign the informed consent form. Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Supervisor Signature: Department Chair/Center Director Signature: Date:

PAGE 77

67 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM

PAGE 78

68 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Online Juvenile Sexual Victimization among College Students Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to examine the rate s of online juvenile sexual victimization among college students and to examine the routine online activities that may make some juveniles more exposed to victimization by sex ual offenders while online. What you will be asked to do in the study: After electronically signing this informed consent form, you will be asked to take a survey about your online and Internet habits between the age s of 10 and 17 and about some types of sexual harassment or sexual victimization you may or may not have experienced while online as a juvenile. Time required: Approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour. Risks and Benefits: There are no benefits to participating in this su rvey. You may experience some discomfort from reading some of the more personal questions. If, as a result of taking this survey, you would like to talk to a counselor about some of your experie nces, you may contact the University of Floridas Student Mental Health Services, located in Room 245, Infirmary Bldg., Fletcher drive, UF Campus, 352.392.1171. Office hours are 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. Please write this information down or print out this form. Compensation: There is no compensation for participating in this study, outside of any arrangement you have with your professor regarding participation in the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society Participant Pool (ie., you may receive extra credit or class credit from your professor for your participation). Credit for participation is determin ed by the Administrator for the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website when you sign up to participate in this study. Your participation, and therefore your credit, is determined by the UF e-mail address you used to log into the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System website. Confidentiality: This survey is completely anonymous. Your information will be assigned a code number and there is no way for the researcher to know your name or any other identifying information from the online survey. When you sign up to participate in a study listed on the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation Sy stem website, your e-mail addr ess will be tracked so that you may receive participation credit. However, the Participant Pool Administrator does not have access to the answers to any survey you parti cipate in. Your response s will be unknown to Administrator. This survey uses SSL encryption at the Survey Monkey website to further keep your responses confidential. Your IP address will not be tracked or noted by Survey Monkey or by the researcher. Once surveys are completed, t hey will be downloaded from the secure Survey Monkey website onto a jump/ flash drive that will be used for this purpose only. This jump drive

PAGE 79

69 will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in the researchers home office. Absolutely no one but the researcher will have access to your responses, and the researcher has no way of knowing who filled out any given survey. The jump drive will not be used on any computer that is currently online or hooked into a network to further ensur e the security and confi dentiality of the data. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. You have the right to refuse to answer any question in this survey without facing any penalties. If, after reading this informed consent, you decide you do not wish to participate, you may select refuse and proceed no further. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from t he study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Stacy Burweger, Graduate Student, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O. Box 115950, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950; Phone: 386.569.1823; kithain@ufl.edu Or, Dr. Ro nald L. Akers, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O. Box 115950, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950; P hone: 352.392.1025, ext.226; rla@crim.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florid a, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; phone 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 80

70 APPENDIX D SURVEY QUESTIONS SOURCES TABLE

PAGE 81

71 Question Response Choices Source Currently, how often do you use the Internet to: Responses for the following questions are: YISS-2but altered question; reponse categories verbatim Go to web sites? 1Never Use e-mail? 2Occasionally Use Instant Messages? 3Frequently Go to chat rooms? 4Often, but not every day Play games? 5Daily For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as Facebook or My Space? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use YouTube? Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, how often did you use the Internet to: Responses for the following questions are: YISS-2but altered question; reponse categories verbatim Go to web sites? 1Never Use e-mail? 2Occasionally Use Instant Messages? 3Frequently Go to chat rooms? 4Often, but not every day Play games? 5Daily For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online journal or blog at sites such as Facebook or My Space? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use YouTube? Currently, how many days during a usual week do you use the Internet? Choices are: 1-7 YISS, YISS-2but altered Between the ages of 10-17, how many days a week do you typically remember using the Internet? Choices are: 1-7 YISS, YISS-2but altered for retrospective Thinking back to when you were between the ages of 10-17, how much adult supervision did you have while online using the access you checked in question 13? None at all Authorto determine capable guardianship Very little Some A lot Constant supervision Don't know/ don't remember

PAGE 82

72 Question Response Choices Source Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what types of supervision did your parent/ guardian/ friend's parent/ guardian engage in to superivse your Internet use? Watched what I did on the Internet Authorto determine capable guardianship Asked me what I did on the Internet Checked the history function after I got off the Internet Read my e-mails to see who I was communicating with Installed software to keep me away from certain sites Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to? Yes YISS, YISS-2but altered question for retrospective No Don't know/ don't remember Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? Yes YISS, YISS-2but altered question for retrospective; description removed No Don't know/ don't remember Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did anyone on the Internet ever ask you to do something sexual that you did not want to do? Yes YISS, YISS-2but altered question for retrospective No Don't know/ don't remember Thinking back, between the ages of 10-17 did anyone you met on the Internet try to get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes? Yes Inspired by YISS, YISS-2 follow-up questions No Don't know/ don't remember If yes, did you agree to meet them? Yes Inspired by YISS-2 follow-up questions No Don't know/ don't remember If yes, did you actually meet them? Yes Inspired by YISS-2 follow-up questions No When you met this person offline, did you engage in any kind of sexual activity with this person? Yes Inspired by YISS-2 follow-up questions No Don't know/ don't remember

PAGE 83

73 APPENDIX E SURVEY INSTRUMENT

PAGE 84

74 Page 1 1. Informed Consent Form 1. Do you agree to participate in this study as outlined in the above consent form? 2. Demographics p. 1 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Online Juvenile Se xual Victimization among College Students Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The purpose of this study is to ex amine the rates of online juvenile sexual victimization among college students and to examine the routine online activities that may make some juveniles more exposed to victimization by sexual offenders while online. What you will be asked to do in the study: After electronically signing this informed consent form, you will be asked to take a survey about yo ur online and Internet habits between the ages of 10 and 17 and about some types of sexual harassment or sexual victimization you may or may not have experienced while online as a juvenile. Time required: Approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour. Risks and Benefits: There are no benefits to partic ipating in this survey. You may experience some discomfort from re ading some of the more personal questions. If, as a result of taking this survey, you would like to talk to a counselor about some of your experiences, you may contact the University of Floridas Student Mental Health Services, located in Room 245, Infirmary Bldg., Fletcher drive, UF Campus, 352.392.1171. Office hours are 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. Please write this informat ion down or print out this form. Compensation: There is no compensation for particip ating in this study, outside of any arrangement you have with your professor regarding participation in the Department of Criminology, Law, & Society Participant Pool (ie., you may receive extra credit or class credit from your professor for your participat ion). Credit for participation is determined by the Administrator fo r the Criminology, Law and Society Research Participation System websit e when you sign up to participate in this study. Your participation, and therefore your credit, is determined by the UF e-mail addr ess you used to log into the Criminology, Law and Society Resear ch Participation System website. Confidentiality:

PAGE 85

75 This survey is completely anon ymous. Your information will be assigned a code number and there is no way for the researcher to know your name or any other identifying information from the online survey. When you sign up to part icipate in a study listed on the Criminology, Law and Society Resear ch Participation System website, your e-mail address will be trac ked so that you may receive participation credit. However, the Participant Pool Administrator does not have access to the answers to any survey you participate in. Your responses will be unknown to Administrator. This survey uses SSL encryption at the Survey Monkey website to further keep your responses confidential. Your IP addr ess will not be trac ked or noted by Survey Monkey or by the re searcher. Once surveys are completed, they will be downloaded from the secure Survey Monkey website onto a jump/ flash drive th at will be used for this purpose only. This jump drive will be stored in a locked filing cabinet in the researchers home office. Absolute ly no one but the researcher will have access to your responses, an d the researcher has no way of knowing who filled out any given su rvey. The jump drive will not be used on any computer that is cu rrently online or hooked into a network to further ensure the securi ty and confidentiality of the data. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Yo u have the right to refuse to answer any question in this survey without facing any penalties. If, after reading this informed consent, you decide you do not wish to participate, you may select refuse and proceed no further. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw fr om the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Stacy Burweger, Graduate Student, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O. Box 115950, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5950; Phone: 386.569.1823; kithain@ufl.edu Or, Dr. Ronald L. Akers, Department of Criminology, Law, & Society; P.O. Box 115950, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, Florida 326115950; Phone: 352.392.1025, ext.226; rla@crim.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250; phone 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this

PAGE 86

76 description. Yes, I voluntarily agree to participate with the procedure described above No, I don't agree to participate wi th the procedure described above Page 2 2. How old are you? (Please enter your current age here) 3. What is your gender? 3. Demographics p. 2 4. Which of the following best describes your Race/Ethnicity? 5. What was your family's/ hous ehold's income when you were 17? (please check the answer that best applies to you) 4. Demographics p. 3 6. Where were you living between the ages of 10 and 17? If you lived in more than one place, please indicate th e place where you resided the longest. (Please indicate city and country) 7. Would you say that the comm unity you resided in between the ages of 10 and 17 was a: (Choose the answer that best applies to you) 5. Demographics p. 4 Male Female White African American Hispanic Asian American Other (please specify) $0$14,999 $15,000$29,999 $30,000$44,999 $45,000$59,999 $60,000$74,999

PAGE 87

77 $75,000$89,999 $90,000$104,999 $105,000 and above Small town Suburb of a large city Rural area Large town (25,000 t0 100,000) Large city (over 100,000) Don't know/ Don't remember Page 3 8. Are you an International Student? 6. Computer Information p. 1 9. Do you currently have access to a computer with Internet access? 7. Computer Information p. 2 10. Currently, how often do you use the Internet to: (Please specify the correct usage for each web service) 8. Computer Information p. 3 Yes No Yes No Don't know The next few questions require you to specify how often you use certain Internet services. Response choices range from 1 to 5. If you have NEVER used a service, check 1. If you use a service DAILY, check 5. If your use ranges somewhere between 1 and 5, check the one that seems most appropriate to you. 2 would indicate OCCASIONAL use. 3 would indicate FREQUENT use. 4 would indicate you use a service OFTEN, BUT NOT DAILY.

PAGE 88

78 Never Occasional Frequent Often, but not daily Daily Go to web sites? Use e-mail? Use Instant Messages? Go to chat rooms? Play games? For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online jour nal or blog at sites such as Facebook or MySpace? Use an on line dating or romantic site? Use YouTube? Page 4 11. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, how often did you use the Internet to: (Please specify the correct past usage for each web service) 9. Computer Information p. 4 12. Currently, how many days du ring a USUAL week do you use the Internet? (Please check the answer that most applies to you) 13. Between the ages of 10 and 17, how many days a week do you remember TYPICALLY using the Internet? 10. Computer Information p. 5 14. Currently how many hours are you online on a USUAL day when you use the Internet? (Please check the answer that most applies to you) Never Occasional Frequent Often, but not daily Daily Go to web sites? Use e-mail? Use Insta nt Messages?

PAGE 89

79 Go to chat rooms? Play games? For school assignments? Download music, pictures, or videos from file sharing programs like Kazaz or Bear Share? Keep an online jour nal or blog at sites such as Facebook or MySpace? Use an online dating or romantic site? Use YouTube? 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days Don't know/ Don't remember

PAGE 90

80 1 hour or less Between 1-3 hours Between 3-5 hours Between 5-7 hours 7 hours or more Page 5 15. How many hours on a USUAL day do you remember using the Internet when you were between the ages of 10 an d 17? (Please check the answer that best applies to you) 11. Computer Information p. 6 16. How old were you when you first started using the Internet? (Please specify that age here) 12. Computer Information p. 7 17. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, where did you MOST OFTEN use a computer to get on the Inte rnet? (Please check the answer that most applies to you) 18. Between the ages of 10 and 17, did you have a computer with Internet access of your own that you did not have to share with others in your family? (Please check the answer that best applies to you) 13. Computer Information p. 8 19. Where was your computer with Internet access located in your home? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 1 hour or less Between 1-3 hours Between 3-5 hours Between 5-7 hours 7 hours or more Don't know/ Don't remember

PAGE 91

81 Don't know/ Don't remember Age (please specify) At home At a friend's home At school From a cell phone At a public library, cafe, or other public place Other (please specify) Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember In my bedroom In my parent's bedroom In an area open to other members of the family, like the kitchen or living room Page 6 14. Computer Information p. 9 20. Thinking back to when you were between the ages of 10 and 17, how much adult supervision did you have while online, using the access you checked in question #17(where you MOST OF TEN used a computer to go online)? (Please check the answer that most applies to you) 21. Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, was there any software on the computer you most often used to get on the Internet that filtered, monitored, or blocked how you used the Internet? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 15. Computer Information p. 10

PAGE 92

82 22. If yes, what software(s) wa s/ were used? (Please specify all types used) 16. Computer Information p. 11 23. Thinking back to when you were aged 10-17, what type of supervision did your parent/ guardian/ friend's parent/ guardian engage in to supervise your Internet use? (Check all the answers that apply) 24. Thinking back, between the ages of 10 and 17, did you use the Internet to communicate with others? 17. Computer Information p. 12 None at all Very little Some A lot Constant supervision Don't know/ Don't remember Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Don't know/ Don't remember Softwares (please specify) Watched what I did on the Internet Asked me what I did on the Internet Checked the History function after I got off the Internet Read my e-mails to see who I was communicating with Installed software to keep me away from certain cites Yes No

PAGE 93

83 Page 7 25. If yes, who do you remember using the Internet to communicate with? 18. Computer Information p. 13 26. Thinking back, how did you portray yourself to the people you communicated with online, who did not already know you offline? (Please check the answer that best applied to you between the ages of 10 and 17) 27. Thinking back, did you ever meet in person any of the people you communicated with online whom you did not already know? 19. Victimization Information p.1 28. Thinking back, between the ag es of 10 and 17, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk online about SEX when you did not want to? 20. Victimization Information p.2 yes No Don't know/ Don't remember People who were your own age who you already knew, like from school? Members of your family, like a sister, father, or grandmother? Adults you already knew, like a teacher or coach? People who were your own age who you met online? People whose age you did not know whom you met online? People you knew to be adults that you met online? I portrayed myself as I really am I portrayed myself as different than I really am (ie., younger/ older, prettier, thinner, etc.)

PAGE 94

84 I didn't portray myself as anything I had no profile set up and gave out no personal information Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Page 8 29. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the amount of times this has happened) 30. If yes, do you remember how old you were: (Please fill in the age for each time you remember. If you do not need all available boxes, please specify Not Applicable) 21. Victimization Information p. 3 31. Thinking back, between the ag es of 10 and 17, did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual INFORMATION abou t yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? 22. Victimization Information p. 4 32. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the amount of times this has happened) 33. If yes, do you remember how old you were: (Please fill in the age for any time you remember. If you do not need all available boxes, please specify Not Applicable) 23. Victimization Information p. 5 Don't know/ Don't remember # of times Age Other options The first time The second time

PAGE 95

85 The third time The fourth time Any time after the fourth time Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Age Other options The first time The second time The third time The fourth time Any time after the fourth time Page 9 34. Thinking back, between the ag es of 10 and 17, did anyone on the Internet ever ask you to DO something sexual that you did not want to do? 24. Victimization Information p. 6 35. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the amount of times this has happened) 36. If yes, do you remember how old you were: (Please fill in the age for any time you remember. If you do not need all available boxes, please specify Not Applicable) 25. Victimization Information p. 7 37. Thinking back, between the ag es of 10 and 17, did anyone you met online try to get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 26. Victimization Information p. 8 38. If yes, how many times did this happen? (Please specify the number of times someone you met online tried to get you to meet them offline for sexual purposes) 39. If yes, did you agree to meet them? Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember

PAGE 96

86 Age Other options The first time The second time The third time The fourth time Any time after the fourth time Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember If this occurred more than once, please think back to the MOST MEMORABLE occurrence and use that memory to respond to all further questions. Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Page 10 27. Victimization Information p. 9 40. If yes, did you ACTUALLY meet them? 28. Victimization Information p. 10 41. How old were you when this happened? 42. Thinking back, where on th e Internet did you meet this person? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 29. Victimization Information p. 11 43. Was the person who wanted to meet you: (Please choose the answer that best describes what you remember) Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Don't know/ Don't remember Age at occurrence In a chat room

PAGE 97

87 Through e-mail Through an online dating service At a site like Facebook or MySpace In a game room While using an Instant Messenger service like Yahoo! Messenger Don't know/ Don't remember Other (please specify) Your own age Older, but still a teenager An adult, most likely in their 20's or 30's An adult, most likely in their 40's or 50's An adult, most likely over 60 An adult, but I had no idea how old they were Not sure how old the person was at all Don't know/ Don't remember Page 11 44. Did you know how old the person was before you met them off-line? 30. Victimization Information p. 12 45. Was the person who wanted to meet you male or female? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 46. Did you know the sex of this person before you met them off-line? 31. Victimization Information p. 13 47. Did this person misrepresent himself/ herself when communicating with you online? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 48. If you met this person offline, did you meet this person off-line more than once? 32. Victimization Information p. 14

PAGE 98

88 49. If yes, how many times do you remember meeting this person? (Please fill in the number of times you remember) 33. Victimization Information p. 15 Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Male Female Don't know/ Don't remember Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Page 12 50. When you met this person off-line, did you engage in any kind of sexual activity with this person? 34. Victimization Information p. 16 51. If yes, what type of sexual activity did you engage in? (Please choose all that apply to you) 52. If yes, did this person use some tactic to gain your cooperation to have sexual relations? 35. Victimization Information p. 17

PAGE 99

89 53. If yes, what tactic(s) did th ey use? (Please choose all that apply) 36. Victimization Information p. 18 54. Did you find that this experi ence was: (Please indicate how negative or positive you found this experience to be on a scale of 1 to 5. 1 indicates VERY NEGATIVE and 5 indicates VERY POSITIVE) 37. Victimization Information p. 19 Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Sexual intercourse Oral intercourse Anal intercourse Fondling or touching Kissing Don't know/ Don't remember Other (please specify) Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Verbal threats of harm Threats of harm using a weapon I was given alcohol or drugs Physical harm Other (please specify) Very negative Negative Not positive or negative Positive Very positi ve

PAGE 100

90 I rate this experience as: Page 13 55. Did you tell anyone about meeting this person offline? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 38. Victimization Information p. 20 56. If you told someone about your experience, what was their response? (Please choose the answer that best applies to you) 39. Victimization Information p. 21 57. If you told no one, what did you IMAGINE the reactions of the following people would have been if you HAD told them? Told no one Told a friend Told a parent/ guardian Told a brother/ sister Told the police/ other law enforcement authority Told many different people Told someone else (please specify) Nothing/ they didn't do anything Nothing/ they didn't believe me Nothing/ it was a positive experience and they didn't have to do anything They offered help A criminal case was started against the person I met off-line A civil lawsuit was filed against the person I met off-line Other (please specify) Imagined responses Parent/ guardian Brother/ sister Friend Police/ law enforcement

PAGE 101

91 Page 14 58. You have completed the surv ey. Before you hit the "next" button, please check either one of the resp onse choices below so that you will be taken to the "Debriefing" page. From the debrie fing page, you will go to the "Thank you" page. You are then done! 40. Victimization Information p. 22 59. For those who answered no to #40(If yes, did you actually meet them), did you tell anyone about someone online trying to get you to meet them for sexual purposes? 41. Victimization Information p. 23 60. If yes, who did you tell? (Please choose all that apply) 42. Debriefing Take me to the last page I am done! Yes No Don't know/ Don't remember Told a friend Told a parent/ guardian Told a brother/ sister Told the police/ other law enforcement authority Told someone else (please specify) Page 15 43. Thank You This survey is being conducted fo r educational purposes. One purpose of this survey is to examine rates of online juvenile sexual victimization as retrospectively self-reported by college students. A second purpose of this survey is to examine the routine online activities that may make some juve niles more exposed to victimization by sexual offenders while online This study is testing four research hypotheses: 1) there will be less online sexual victimization of juveniles by adult sexual o ffenders in this college sample

PAGE 102

92 than there was in a nationally repres entative sample of youths in the YISS study; 2) youths who go on to be college students who use the internet more frequently ar e more likely to receive sexual solicitations than those who use it less frequently; 3) youths who become college students whose online use is more closely monitored by parents or responsible adults are less likely to fall prey to online sexual solicitations; and, 4) respondents who were victimized by an adult online sexual offender during their juvenile years will make less use of the Internet no w than they did prior to their victimization. There are multiple independent variables being used in this study: gender, race/ethnicity, family income while a juvenile, size of city lived in while a juvenile, location of computer used to go online, supervision from caretakers while on line, and activities and behaviors typically engaged in while online. The dependent variable being examined in this study is whether or not a respondent, while a juvenile, has received an online solicitation from an adult to meet offline for sexual purposes and whether or not they actually met wi th that person o ffline for sexual purposes. There are three questions in the survey pertaining to the dependent variable, and responses will be made into a scale for purposes of analysis. I am attemp ting to determine if there is a relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Because this is a retrospective stud y, any relationship found will be assumed to be correlational as opposed to causal. If you would like to see the complete list of all the study variables, please contact Stacy Burweger at kithain@ufl.edu and request a copy of this list. It w ill be provided to you. Some of the questions may have arou sed discomfort in you. If you feel discomfort from some of the questions you read in this survey, please contact the Universi ty of Floridas Student Mental Health Services, located in Room 245, Infirmary Bldg., Fletcher drive, UF Campus, 352.392.1171. Office hours are 8:00am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday. The survey is now complete. Thank you for participating in this survey. If you have any questions, pl ease contact Stacy Burweger, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY, LAW & SOCIETY, AT KITHAIN@UFL.EDU.

PAGE 103

93 APPENDIX F TABLES AND ANALYSIS OUTPUT

PAGE 104

94 Table F-1. Survey participant characteristics Characteristics Frequency (%) Gender Male 85 (36.5) Female 148 (63.5) Current Age: 18 20 (8.6) 19 48 (20.6) 20 62 (26.6) 21 58 (24.9) 22 17 (7.3) 23 11 (4.7) 24 3 (1.3) 25 5 (2.1) 26 1 (0.4) 27 3 (1.3) 28 1 (0.4) 29 1 (0.4) 34 1 (0.4) Missing Values 1 (0.4) Age at 1st Use: 4 1 (0.4) 8 7 (3) 9 7 (3) 10 14 (6) 11 13 (5.6) 12 41 (17.6) 13 18 (7.7) 14 13 (5.6) 15 7 (3) 16 2 (0.9) 17 3 (1.3) 18 1 (0.4) 19 2 (0.9) Don't Remember 102 (43.8) Missing Values 2 (0.9) Race: White 148 (63.5) African American 42 (18) Hispanic/ Latino 33 (14.2) Asian American 7 (3) Other 3 (1.3) Family Income: $0-14,999 9 (3.9) $15,000-29,999 29 (12.4) $30,000-44,999 26 (11.2) $45,000-59,999 30 (12.9) $60,000-74,999 32 (13.7) $75,000-$89,999 23 (9.9) Table F-1 Continued.

PAGE 105

95 $90,000-104,999 26 (11.2) $105,000 & Above 58 (24.9) N= 233 Table F-2. Participant and rou tine activities characteristics Characteristics City Size Frequency (%) Small Town 34 (14.6) Suburb of Large City 66 (28.3) Rural Area 11 (4.7) Large Town (25,000-100,000) 51 (21.9) Large City (over 100,000) 68 (29.2) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Had Own Computer Yes 78 (33.5) No 149 (63.9) Dont Remember 3 (1.3) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Amount of Supervision None at All 37 (15.9) Very Little 87 (37.3) Some 67 (28.8) A Lot 25 (10.7) Constant Supervision 7 (3) Dont Remember 5 (2.1) Missing Values 5 (2.1) Type of SupervisionWatched Yes 40 (17.2) No 160 (68.7) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionAsked Yes 151 (64.8) No 49 (21) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionChecked History Yes 52 (22.3) No 148 (63.5) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionRead E-mails Yes 11 (4.7) No 189 (81.1) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Type of SupervisionSoftware Yes 41 (17.6) No 159 (68.2) Missing Values 33 (14.2) Portrayal of Self Online As I Really Am 111 (47.6)

PAGE 106

96 Table F-2 Continued. As Different than I Really Am 47 (20.2) No Online ProfileNo Personal Info 46 (19.7) Missing Values 29 (12.4) N=233 Table F-3. Routine acti vities characteristics Characteristics Frequency (%) Current UsageDays 1 0 (0) 2 3 (1.3) 3 1 (0.4) 4 5 (2.1) 5 6 (2.6) 6 20 (8.6) 7 196 (84.1) Missing Values 2 (0.9) Remembered UsageDays 1 7 (3) 2 9 (3.9) 3 17 (7.3) 4 38 (16.3) 5 50 (21.5) 6 27 (11.6) 7 59 (25.3) Don't Remember 23 (9.9) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Current UsageHours 1 Hour or Less 8 (3.4) 1-3 Hours 90 (38.6) 3-5 Hours 75 (32.2) 5-7 Hours 38 (16.3) More than 7 Hours 18 (7.7) Missing Values 4 (1.7) Remembered UsageHours 1 Hour or Less 49 (21) 1-3 Hours 91 (39.1) 3-5 Hours 44 (18.9) 5-7 Hours 24 (10.3) More than 7 Hours 8 (3.4) Don't Remember 15 (6.4) Missing Values 2 (0.9) N= 233

PAGE 107

97 Table F-4. Dependent va riablessexual victimization/ solicitation Characteristics Asked to Meet for Sex Frequency (%) Yes 15 (6.4) No 210 (90.1) Don't Remember 5 (2.1) Missing Values 3 (1.3) Agreed to Meet for Sex Yes 3 (1.3) No 11 (4.7) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 219 (93.9) Did Meet for Sex Yes 7 (3) No 4 (1.7) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 222 (95.3) Actually Had Sex Yes 3 (1.3) No 7 (3) Don't Remember 1 (0.4) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 222 (95.3) Type of Sex Contact Sexual Intercourse 0 (0) Oral Intercourse 2 (0.9) Anal Intercourse 1 (0.4) Fondling or Touching 1 (0.4) Kissing 1 (0.4) Other 0 (0) Don't Remember 1 (0.4) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 227 (97.4) Rating of Sex Experience 1Very Negative 1 (0.4) 2Somewhat Negative 2 (0.9) 3-Neutral/ So-so 8 (3.4) 4Somewhat Positive 1 (0.4) 5Very Positive 1 (0.4) Missing Values/ Not Applicable 220 (94.4) N= 233

PAGE 108

98 Table F-5. Independent vari ablesroutine activities 1past online activities Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses Websites E-mail Instant Messenger Chat Rooms Play Games Frequency (%) Never 9 (3.9) 20 (8.6) 34 (14.6) 87 (37.3) 34 (14.6) Occasionally 38 (16.3) 47(20.2) 23 (9.9) 77 (33) 65 (27.9) Frequently 31 (13.3) 32(13.7) 37 (15.9) 28 (12) 68 (29.2) Often, Not Daily 63 (27) 60(25.8) 46 (19.7) 18 (7.7) 32(13.7) Daily 90 (38.6) 72(30.9) 91 (39.1) 20 (8.6) 31 (13.3) Missing Values 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 3 (1.3) Table F-5 Continued. Remembered Juvenile Internet Uses Schoolwork DownloadingBlogging Dating Site You Tube Never 11 (4.7) 61 (26.2) 132 (56.7) 213 (91.4) 153 (65.7) Occasionally 52 (22.3) 40 (17.2) 28 (12) 11 (4.7) 54 (23.2) Frequently 72 (30.9) 51 (21.9) 23 (9.9) 2 (0.9) 14 (6) Often, Not Daily 53 (22.7) 52 (22.3) 21 (9) 3 (1.3) 6 (2.6) Daily 41 (17.6) 27 (11.6) 26 (11.2) 2 (0.9) 4 (1.7) Missing Values 4 (1.7) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) N= 233

PAGE 109

99 Table F-6. Independent variablesroutin e activities 2current online activities Current Internet Uses Websites E-mail Instant Messenger Chat Rooms Play Games Frequency (%) Never 1 (0.4) 0 (0) 47 (20.2) 168(79.8) 62 (26.6) Occasionally 8 (3.4) 6 (2.6) 59 (25.3) 31 (13.3) 113(48.5) Frequently 7 (3) 7 (3) 18 (7.7) 4 (1.7) 19 (8.2) Often, Not Daily 13 (5.6) 12 (5.2) 27 (11.6) 3 (1.3) 21 (9) Daily 202 (86.7) 206(88.4)79 (33.9) 7 (3) 16 (6.9) Missing Values 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.9) Table F-6 Continued. Current Internet Uses Schoolwork DownloadingBlogging Dating Site You Tube Never 0 (0) 62 (26.6) 68 (29.2) 212 (91) 11 (4.7) Occasionally 4 (1.7) 55 (23.6) 32 (13.7) 11 (4.7) 89 (38.2) Frequently 27 (11.6) 38 (16.3) 13 (5.6) 2 (0.9) 60 (25.8) Often, Not Daily 62 (26.6) 41 (17.6) 27 (11.6) 3 (1.3) 50 (21.5) Daily 136 (58.4) 35 (15) 90 (38.6) 3 (1.3) 20 (8.6) Missing Values 4 (1.7) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) N= 233

PAGE 110

100 Table F-7. Logistic regressionsexual solicitation with age at 1st use Logistic RegressionWith Age at 1st Use Variables Coefficient Wald Score P-value Exp (B) Gender 1.370 7.236 0.007***3.936 Age at 1st Use 0.090 0.641 0.423 1.094 Race -0.620 1.841 0.175 .538 Income -0.132 1.582 0.208 .877 Remembered Uses Scale 0.100 7.464 0.006***1.106 Had own Computer -0.033 0.005 0.944 .967 Amount of Supervision -0.448 2.935 0.087* .639 Supervision Index 0.064 0.075 0.784 1.066 SelfPortrayal -0.380 0.768 0.381 .684 Model SignificanceChi-Square Value= 25.548, p-value=.002*** Significant at the .10 Level ** Significant at the .05 Level ***Significant at the .01 Level Table F-8. Logistic regressionse xual solicitation without age at 1st use Logistic RegressionWithout Age at 1st Use Variables Coefficient Wald Score P-value Exp (B) Gender 1.209 11.412 0.001***3.349 Race -0.088 0.065 0.799 .916 Income -0.120 2.519 0.112 .887 Remembered Uses Scale 0.102 15.061 0.000***1.108 Had own Computer -0.042 0.015 0.904 .959 Amount of Supervision -0.061 0.098 0.754 .940 Supervision Index 0.026 0.018 0.894 1.026 SelfPortrayal -0.531 2.817 0.093* .588 Model SignificanceChi-Square Value= 37.769, p-value=.000*** Significant at the .10 Level ** Significant at the .05 Level ***significant at the .01 Level

PAGE 111

101 Table F-9. OLS linear regressioneffect s of past victimization on current use OLS Current Internet Use Regression Variables Coefficient tscore P-value Stand. Beta Gender -0.708 1.1740.242 -.075 Race -0.688 1.1530.250 -.074 Income 0.099 0.7550.451 .049 Current age -0.109 2.1770.031** .135 Past Online Solicitation -0.534 0.8500.396 .056 Remembered Uses Scale 0.295 6.8330.000***.446 Past SelfPortrayal -0.236 0.4260.671 -.026 Model SignificanceF Score= 8.989, p-value=.000*** Significant at the .10 Level ** Significant at the .05 Level ***Significant at the .01 Level

PAGE 112

102 Factor AnalysisCurrent Uses Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 6.858 85.731 85.731 6.858 85.731 85.731 2 .484 6.054 91.785 3 .353 4.417 96.202 4 .260 3.256 99.458 5 .021 .260 99.718 6 .014 .177 99.895 7 .007 .084 99.979 8 .002 .021 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Component Matrix(a) Componen t 1 Useweb .988 Useemail .989 Useinstant .839 Usechat .989 Playgame .988 Forschool .753 Fordownload .984 Forblogging .843 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 1 components extracted. Reliability StatisticsCurrent Uses Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .968 .975 8

PAGE 113

103 Factor AnalysisRemembered Uses Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings( a) Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total 1 3.453 43.167 43.167 3.453 43.167 43.167 3.085 2 1.180 14.748 57.914 1.180 14.748 57.914 2.563 3 .894 11.180 69.095 4 .730 9.123 78.217 5 .592 7.398 85.616 6 .523 6.540 92.156 7 .403 5.035 97.191 8 .225 2.809 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance. Component Matrix(a) Component 1 2 Ruseweb .803 -.366 Ruseemail .775 -.363 Ruseinstant .697 .155 Rusechat .531 .630 Rplaygame .538 .495 Rforschool .616 -.378 Rfordownload .687 .277 Rforblogging .546 -.167 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 2 components extracted. Reliability StatisticsRemembered Uses Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items .805 .806 8

PAGE 114

104 LIST OF REFERENCES How many people use the Internet today? (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://home.wi.rr.com/pschulteis/powerpoint_boi/tsld007.htm University of Florida-Demographics (nd.). Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http:en,wikipedia.org/wiki.UF#De mographics. What is theCyberTipline? (nd.). Retrieved April 31, 2008, from http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/servle t/PageServlet?Langua geCountry=en_US&P ageId=2446. Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2004). Deterren ce and rational choice theories. In R. Akers and C. Sellers (Eds.) Criminological Theories: In troduction, Evaluation, and Application, Fourth Edition 17-43. Boetig, B.P. (2006). The routine activity th eory: a model for addressing specific crime issues. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Feature, 75 12-19. Clarke, R., & Felson, M. (2004). Introduction: criminology, routine activity, and rational choice. In R. Clarke and M. Felsons (Eds.) Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory, 5, 1-14. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends : a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44 588-605. Felson, M. (1987). Routine activities and crim e prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology, 25 911-931. Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Wolak, J. ( 2000). Online victimization: a report on the nations youth. Retrieved March 28, 2007 fr om the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children website, http://www.ncmec.org/missingkids/ servlet/ResourceServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1456. Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2004). Child por nography: patterns from NIBRS. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved October ?, 2006, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov Frei, A., Erenay, N. Dittm ann, V., & Graf, M. (2005). Paedophilia on the Interneta study of 33 convicted offenders in the canton of Lucerne. Swiss Med Weekly, 135, 488-494. Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2005). The Internet and family and acquaintance sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 10 49-60. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from Sage Publications database. Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2002). Paedophile pornography and the Internet: assessment issues. British Journal of Social Work, 32 863-875.

PAGE 115

105 Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2003). Model of pr oblematic Internet use in people with a sexual interest in children. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 6 93-106. Taylor, M. (1999). The nature and dimensi ons of child pornography on the Internet. A paper prepared for the In ternational Confer ence Combating Child Pornography on the Internet, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://www.ipce.info/library_ 3/files/nat_dims_kp.htm. Walsh, W.A., & Wolak, J. (2005). Nonforcibl e internet-related sex crimes with adolescent victims: prosecu tion issues and outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 10 260271. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from Sage Publications database. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. ( 2004).Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors: implications for prevention ba sed on findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35 11-20. Retrieved March 28, 2007, fr om Elsevier database. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & Mitchell, K. (2005) Child pornography possessors arrested in internet-related crimes: findings from the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study. Retrieved March 28, 2007 from the Natio nal Center for Missing & Exploited Children website, http://www.ncmec.org/ missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet? LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1456. Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Internet sex crimes against minors: the response of law enforcement. Retrieved Ma rch 28, 2007 from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children website, http://www.ncmec.org/ missingkids/servlet/ResourceServlet ? LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=1456 Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of cybercrime: an assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2 407-427. Ybarra, M. L. & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Onlin e aggressor/targets, a ggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 1308-1316.

PAGE 116

106 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Stacy Burweger was born in Mount Clemens, Michigan. Stacy resided in Michigan until her move to Florida in 2003. Stacy has always had an equal love for sports and intellectual pursuits. Her love of athletics she filled by learning to ride horses at the age of five and continuing to do so her entire life. Stacy has shown hunters and jumpers, as well as dressage. Stacys academic career has been divers e. The first year of her undergraduate career was spent at Virginia Intermont College in Bristol, Virginia. A lengthy period of time occurred between that firs t year of college and her re turn. At Flagler College in Saint Augustine, Florida, Stacy received her Bachelor of Arts in psychology and sociology. She graduated summa cum laude an d received the Beha vioral Sciences Department Award for Academic Achievement. Stacy was accepted as a graduate student in the Criminology, Law & Society Departme nt at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. She expects to receive her Master of Arts in criminology in the summer of 2008. She expects to receive her PhD in 2011.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101202_AAAAAH INGEST_TIME 2010-12-02T06:59:59Z PACKAGE UFE0022426_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 94414 DFID F20101202_AAAFGP ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH burweger_s_Page_114.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6d72e736c4050a103289f45baaf15d11
SHA-1
b43bf845860421ce82db8abe30cf9c05d5923bec
96476 F20101202_AAAFHE burweger_s_Page_038.jp2
926755f9fbc22c479ffcfff0a0508eb9
4acabbcb2bfb6c8a69153b8c4b1d901fafe0dae3
73304 F20101202_AAAFGQ burweger_s_Page_115.jpg
06be8f28cbcb5b5d16973613dba50805
6895c9e108333e5fc3fbcd71ae685723feef9fea
39346 F20101202_AAAFHF burweger_s_Page_039.jp2
664dade620713eda223e0c76c0775f36
acdfe03dac249fa6c9859a8b632db15c412991df
25107 F20101202_AAAFGR burweger_s_Page_003.jp2
41d43f1b5b016b5480e78af171b275cc
6a1accf2854f77f03484186a938c679e89c99aa5
54284 F20101202_AAAFHG burweger_s_Page_041.jp2
867c20b8b4c8f6268db85bab839907e8
b7975645d7dc1b06259c9c69f1d11e9da9d537f6
218934 F20101202_AAAFGS burweger_s_Page_004.jp2
ed03ed2c0d53526ad03477aa653f7f0a
9e9dcc701d364a1142fc45bcef14e8e747e5f791
33909 F20101202_AAAFHH burweger_s_Page_042.jp2
ae4357c04079f515f4b3e387a5d45c6b
dcca797ea1c0e33551078afef2ae1ee7c1ba58ef
489593 F20101202_AAAFGT burweger_s_Page_006.jp2
66773077f3d68d13cfc0064009557fa6
5318e165f4065b1c66cc0b4929e9e214a16fdb5b
105028 F20101202_AAAFHI burweger_s_Page_046.jp2
fd7b4ff7c1583398366ec7c20a736581
0210460679b0c0504feda78c8983abc2bad1c685
1051978 F20101202_AAAFGU burweger_s_Page_008.jp2
00ea34432c922be1da07d6b754861b6f
7b52194f5be5d2d5714aad6385384e907267036e
486026 F20101202_AAAFGV burweger_s_Page_010.jp2
347e5d810285ffb6a6267ce313dfd4bb
e120e023a8696f3fc13ce7f39f0dfcab272ca8ce
43856 F20101202_AAAFHJ burweger_s_Page_047.jp2
938bda6fdf3f69caaed00c21defde488
08747052f1a5f64f25c3daca08a40b020ea9447f
100089 F20101202_AAAFGW burweger_s_Page_013.jp2
dc1e9c83233d15b9af14740f3159401a
d771ab7369b06ab97600428b32e13ed788cfa554
62699 F20101202_AAAFHK burweger_s_Page_048.jp2
453f6452d449a231289f71dda35f005d
0cde06e6c8b1c1d59132e2fe099487ad5330ce21
109956 F20101202_AAAFGX burweger_s_Page_015.jp2
aea5b833c1bb598cd32dbcec52f849e8
fc9136cd8782175d1cd3ae3cc4e82f91b01e2b86
738704 F20101202_AAAFIA burweger_s_Page_086.jp2
417ad903819ac0f384d4893a87419605
8188d922e0cd4ae45061fd2778c8a89e0ef50351
77556 F20101202_AAAFHL burweger_s_Page_050.jp2
44fc1447228f7672b4a0f926254072a6
90883a4b5998dff05bf447b0ee88a8898cef922f
106133 F20101202_AAAFGY burweger_s_Page_020.jp2
2229111a76c440635ad3c42a603fcb35
92b03b0c459e9b5fd8b5bd0f79c7ebca1d91c348
766144 F20101202_AAAFIB burweger_s_Page_094.jp2
20edac902d92df17ee57ae20fc494a53
cf7c46138f5e1d977e22ad83b6368bc2588a24fe
105723 F20101202_AAAFHM burweger_s_Page_051.jp2
c131aefea174de7c182f1f877b95b43b
b795c2b721d9e1007da28ae92fa28927e2d72931
104492 F20101202_AAAFGZ burweger_s_Page_023.jp2
7d6759171a8b27bb418b1651cdef18db
211294d59195c1f3002a7175b5e8c1ad5b89f4b6
509860 F20101202_AAAFIC burweger_s_Page_098.jp2
b681441594ccc958d1172f91e23018d9
50c118d7baf68e2813e10489372a483c505f8ba3
97564 F20101202_AAAFHN burweger_s_Page_052.jp2
044d3b50d882ada6f3878eeb405e5ad3
83d341e734f57357afb4e29147782796276b269e
750047 F20101202_AAAFID burweger_s_Page_100.jp2
cabeaca038876d9a8d1e074fbc373e99
bb1c74419985511f204cb21fb67d99561aae67bb
108607 F20101202_AAAFHO burweger_s_Page_056.jp2
dfcbaed2bc54102ca1d8e6afc21e38cd
22a71c28edc7c5c7aba320f7735c435c443f3e32
6691 F20101202_AAAFIE burweger_s_Page_103.jp2
9c01368df8531c054ba1377e25418d4a
70ebebf2634dc26df0d920366026fb06248b906c
84279 F20101202_AAAFHP burweger_s_Page_057.jp2
b85dd7c4e40f656cd89ca11eae0b8a76
b6b48720b042ce6b4c6c035a2606bf0d6602e9d4
52726 F20101202_AAAFIF burweger_s_Page_105.jp2
3c105610e36f12681e7eab56987dea22
552586cd62027f6f9b136575d46804b1bb79056d
38522 F20101202_AAAFHQ burweger_s_Page_058.jp2
6430d08fedad78a5a7fda6ceb84d3ef8
e5b89f644ef1b191ecfe18f7e5cc763ab53ab7b2
40533 F20101202_AAAFIG burweger_s_Page_106.jp2
77281b6614a7673d8ee1f90e294068a0
fdbe6c4dc3ed066d0716f33bf78e6dd265b5dbad
101517 F20101202_AAAFHR burweger_s_Page_062.jp2
f0d2d6e3cd4a44774aaba28fff5c3fe5
6b1deecf3d5ed62b854940499fb55454bdb4e248
44136 F20101202_AAAFIH burweger_s_Page_107.jp2
e472a222ace8b31fd5bb33fc469bb407
490b467a4e5980a50fdbe7d1f3ee87bd7c011160
82087 F20101202_AAAFHS burweger_s_Page_066.jp2
5ec276bac349f3ff92a728d22f5ecafd
d85d8e058e433f1201f43f221ec6a9670110f2cd
63005 F20101202_AAAFII burweger_s_Page_108.jp2
0f3f5fc6fffe5496c2db9a63774d7d40
8df04fe9a913db8cec3fae5d628b49dcfe5eac89
79222 F20101202_AAAFHT burweger_s_Page_069.jp2
980787ad7da26b310dd8f9df7cd46761
489a21d1332b08cbe2b172e6d3c072828188d5cf
1051956 F20101202_AAAFIJ burweger_s_Page_114.jp2
8c68e5ea146c23e6cd58b0494dba857e
a75db4ee2d92f5a0d82f885e4f3c53e4f78cb582
87522 F20101202_AAAFHU burweger_s_Page_071.jp2
60696f3161eb18b2572e17bad7aba562
b81f63c2d6b80e0cac0f3d2fbb3343d5bb0d52ac
1051980 F20101202_AAAFHV burweger_s_Page_074.jp2
54de0f45fb65c4730c516b972f26a137
99fb6fe7b3052b92a1c310ecec36054036b9da6d
25271604 F20101202_AAAFIK burweger_s_Page_004.tif
462cbaffe32a384d7cd866fa2f3b4f14
774282930d89159bd5d430e2d96109fdaffa052b
167392 F20101202_AAAFHW burweger_s_Page_075.jp2
c7a2ab2ad60bcea6223da6a75c9a515d
12f0f3de7f77d4e4ded807b663bdba6d772477c2
1053954 F20101202_AAAFJA burweger_s_Page_039.tif
798a39ea5b21a9b48ba2f330f56a7272
a57cf28814439327ab74ed7e50d596c9be80d291
F20101202_AAAFIL burweger_s_Page_006.tif
76cf0a0e9b8896ee3400ae8af09551a0
d7a06ecf6abf6f7b5db3af17654f5a639ced3603
6467 F20101202_AAAFHX burweger_s_Page_077.jp2
c58f6ea94db0621d52fc6a3cb6a5e0d6
3c8429a10115a44025ceb37c2b6fc83a598525f9
F20101202_AAAFJB burweger_s_Page_041.tif
7e76e1d1b2f615507ec2b354b47ce7c0
9da96a45cce3b11fab9158e7b2bcaad6439d274b
F20101202_AAAFIM burweger_s_Page_007.tif
20bd121c9873ef254d8b518da48f69e0
fab7b4c4361e7e2dec9961a052879f4ebdad50cd
7675 F20101202_AAAFHY burweger_s_Page_080.jp2
b3f15206a7cf15ab425acd8620e08844
03d86d64199abe801025b741e597a560c978211b
F20101202_AAAFJC burweger_s_Page_043.tif
a6aae3d675aef959a3650348f7290155
7619107c2f7335765856a9a47f7ffcc878c91895
F20101202_AAAFIN burweger_s_Page_010.tif
a5645cd478af64873e392da9b68ff416
f9eb1e9dba4b2560c68c5d78bc4630356527f2b2
87831 F20101202_AAAFHZ burweger_s_Page_082.jp2
688d28c01a5a254e0ad314966972aabc
b9730439ac7e7b33e5a42c7d7d5a0a5488b56391
F20101202_AAAFJD burweger_s_Page_045.tif
703d27046e73a05ccf3d885c16292349
a8c8253415f9e95954b65d0ae9c6acda1a5624dd
F20101202_AAAFIO burweger_s_Page_012.tif
6c68cee27278ff5aa56c9806bc519710
c6360444f69d66104d119a7d2f0b029bd8a0d264
F20101202_AAAFJE burweger_s_Page_047.tif
3f08fd3652bd62a7e4f55234301188b1
2ebfa570000af824a2b5c1bff20b696c25ee4fbc
F20101202_AAAFIP burweger_s_Page_013.tif
d8ecc62e2783a0da26023ab0a8593cb5
39fbac5a9d55964302221571e4d2f92ed27d329d
F20101202_AAAFJF burweger_s_Page_048.tif
6a27b6c5c0c307b335d6e2b3749f3ada
4ac20ba46bb5dbf40e2401813701d70bea2ecf74
F20101202_AAAFIQ burweger_s_Page_014.tif
fb15fd2c5a795be15591f68f9242c958
dbb8229a9522c558774a751b1418ee8f04f9b1e4
F20101202_AAAFJG burweger_s_Page_061.tif
6a8b4bd129e6347b29e954a994d1eb92
bbc47fc41876bde3f71fde942839729c5e88148c
F20101202_AAAFIR burweger_s_Page_019.tif
1175f72ef405790c3cb041a6a31098bf
63b8337b87bc4fbdd744695849a4599264ecb905
F20101202_AAAFJH burweger_s_Page_063.tif
07d78be82a1c01fa0973d64dfd17f082
4a3663c009e5831c2486ae2f694730b90372a919
F20101202_AAAFIS burweger_s_Page_020.tif
c1cf4fe7d723a2635c419f616d18ca08
0ecc6060e2480b0547fd7cf4b71bf4f081bf7e3b
F20101202_AAAFJI burweger_s_Page_065.tif
02494de9db07aa549cb41c984d94ad6c
c20152aea496101c72e0289bf46114a5ae70b590
F20101202_AAAFIT burweger_s_Page_025.tif
533706716822926f058ee4e5c96a5ffe
505e1cee9ed4cc50ec17e404d5b6f1578466423e
F20101202_AAAFJJ burweger_s_Page_067.tif
79bcf59aa72568f9f552ba5fec775014
ca4378be2687b5a5b51cfd8866ceb43b70add19a
F20101202_AAAFIU burweger_s_Page_026.tif
83c4538b866e5eff8bb69a9f08d12b66
2d9ca244649d3bc6efdad3dfe66de201464a68df
F20101202_AAAFJK burweger_s_Page_069.tif
db628141615e3dac7a9e90d19794b276
c0ed2be09b6e6108cbe476f4a323a8a811227164
F20101202_AAAFIV burweger_s_Page_027.tif
e792176de183907f695e7b6cf86cc1f6
cdd7f51fcc2cf1c9a382805080b7c919cd4769d0
F20101202_AAAFIW burweger_s_Page_030.tif
b4890f0760d4230cc2cd5c90422105f0
261e133194875bee5923c694bd59fa832536d84e
F20101202_AAAFIX burweger_s_Page_033.tif
d1a4397f333c0c0f85d2b63dea65fc05
13b60480e345bbc7dcd0cd94c8b35f48831b7e1e
F20101202_AAAFKA burweger_s_Page_115.tif
46d978619bb062263f411364577586d0
5f33bc356fa5ea92c2b19a83734a73fe0b9557da
F20101202_AAAFJL burweger_s_Page_072.tif
d29259cd9d4382d5c0651b8334bab391
5ace69b48eccfbd36f2a14c61aa97c0abe45be54
F20101202_AAAFIY burweger_s_Page_034.tif
d8c5797a212f010f50d3faeaa25396c9
ba6c7801bdfedbbab253e78dac2687cfdd083a00
938 F20101202_AAAFKB burweger_s_Page_003.pro
615062dd8906e15e58575396a07e05da
6e3cd9124b3f9debdba0edb833178ecfb78e789e
F20101202_AAAFJM burweger_s_Page_081.tif
63e8b6c0a1f9f72d9cd305a7de90e0ee
0e32d9d0bfda68332da66ce90e07eea0bfa8b2b4
F20101202_AAAFIZ burweger_s_Page_037.tif
8a746b957a8661034bde4d304af7b8ed
44e7b920ce384ee581608757dc2bc4e8ef05985b
9266 F20101202_AAAFKC burweger_s_Page_004.pro
a6e775e11748bb11371d4842912d68f2
602aecce0b44fc8cc40168fae7b5088be0b4c171
F20101202_AAAFJN burweger_s_Page_085.tif
f69148d48914014601acb735daf0d4b1
cbaa018df44d65f262a07ac05e24e02d79a62b37
55415 F20101202_AAAFKD burweger_s_Page_007.pro
9aac1ab0c11c839efb7860519d1d4e1f
8bd10db85e1d8308b03a5fc4ce5e076a22cbf701
F20101202_AAAFJO burweger_s_Page_086.tif
39b36d7512fac19436b8fbbe4983946a
752a30c846f012b42e477ac732e262f6d4dc5291
47608 F20101202_AAAFKE burweger_s_Page_011.pro
ea5e973f6abf610ecb4016a2c297953d
1bf4f7777d3eae521c35971f143f6d8a9c3786e3
F20101202_AAAFJP burweger_s_Page_087.tif
89922b26f933e5d89179dbffcafaf710
f6f06e2fed17f848ecfc3b7c918cab0b34cf0eb9
20912 F20101202_AAAFKF burweger_s_Page_012.pro
eb99b5eb463b00c27da0a4a7f6497e05
8aba59e8c8424dbf482755fe24ec07600d905b8c
F20101202_AAAFJQ burweger_s_Page_093.tif
2c496b8f88fc7a7d041ff9ab48909050
5352abfd789288b8caa2b750e0ef791056ae823a
45076 F20101202_AAAFKG burweger_s_Page_013.pro
2ed6ea3fd46e56cbf6899b7366406a4f
16b55ffffe04a980df0c3746fb274ed3e2b4d5d1
F20101202_AAAFJR burweger_s_Page_095.tif
640a4c029e5451d1d17f9d2b081796fc
6b889b197d91acac8242d2104ab4cc4af0f30f0c
47469 F20101202_AAAFKH burweger_s_Page_016.pro
ee6ff0268547b49604d03349b81dca17
2882940af29633b0a71198bf03b55c08803ae1ca
F20101202_AAAFJS burweger_s_Page_096.tif
288af63e2030ccbaf9c3a7a84a8a6dde
064270d3aacaac80993d2601d46639143bb09a04
48549 F20101202_AAAFKI burweger_s_Page_018.pro
6efd767ead30b3892b01900ee43da47e
f83cb998e4b103928f7d32ff79f60789e5312f51
F20101202_AAAFJT burweger_s_Page_098.tif
28051cc7e0cd1a368799150f63ce92de
4f419bc572b825126d6051b1d6c481f5d7353e71
46648 F20101202_AAAFKJ burweger_s_Page_019.pro
c8f87943ebe026da098990d338ac115e
8fc25de26a39c8de517ff59acc0ad1d4b0abbecd
F20101202_AAAFJU burweger_s_Page_099.tif
09e3bb2f89faaf69231bf36f545d0cd2
11dc21421b093957dc5973697eb7d37a48ad2f52
49620 F20101202_AAAFKK burweger_s_Page_026.pro
ca84dcb7bf93a9c48c105d605dc1c73b
86e58fece0860eb65393612fe6aad754ec538e7e
F20101202_AAAFJV burweger_s_Page_102.tif
a3ea69eb815718b8d9ce9c653664c651
1616114379993670ef37ebff422e34de7df9e0c5
54214 F20101202_AAAFKL burweger_s_Page_027.pro
e05437b614568bf3687259a60fe610da
1e388f7e842b0f3b2f913c533837bbcd01b47569
F20101202_AAAFJW burweger_s_Page_106.tif
3e0ea6cb0313e797d3f39f40dd5ee241
66af06361a3b0beddfce4e6fa20935763cbb9954
45223 F20101202_AAAFLA burweger_s_Page_068.pro
333d6988bf6d986be19f6b8716c09326
b043b6da641993e930ff5327a1bcbb4d74fd77c3
F20101202_AAAFJX burweger_s_Page_110.tif
74e4ebae4002a1c8f2414662fcba2cf5
afbeae9a1f70d5255ae88e36265d461cd6de63c5
37496 F20101202_AAAFLB burweger_s_Page_071.pro
7d9ebfda2f119752a3c8e56f6980ccfc
06270c7357cf619ce97d3ed7e98e468bc72108a4
49129 F20101202_AAAFKM burweger_s_Page_032.pro
b66b2cd8adb8b26365d7e5eba3be15f7
b4d00861b40948bf91f2d98951003e5debdb16f3
F20101202_AAAFJY burweger_s_Page_111.tif
445ada7798ed92baccdcff562afb2f97
a0f6e540ebc708add117912cf70f1e302345deda
1031 F20101202_AAAFLC burweger_s_Page_073.pro
b4efc80a9e74ff7055c466986995a8c9
683cc26f1627e5934680577c767dacab9c232a73
46322 F20101202_AAAFKN burweger_s_Page_033.pro
205714314ade32febede7aa2bb9d0f04
5337191cf3c65f3262ef092a4dcfda20d64c4820
F20101202_AAAFJZ burweger_s_Page_112.tif
950c5704174094e2e55e2de3dedac188
8d08bfa0e4c09e770918433f1e7c733359eee874
34165 F20101202_AAAFLD burweger_s_Page_076.pro
cbe3caa61703696e5062dbf836f9cdb9
e7466fb503697dde3634c90667d872791385ab08
47850 F20101202_AAAFKO burweger_s_Page_034.pro
b97e15172b7bac7c451a2ee52dfa84e3
b4152335e58c45d6a0359df42932379d170cc748
87163 F20101202_AAAFLE burweger_s_Page_078.pro
ba7b78e898fbb8f410bb80ed34703b14
e8483ab45427a88cc1aa09ed71e68246b8d6e133
47291 F20101202_AAAFKP burweger_s_Page_036.pro
66d5c881da36ef85f9541d2fb0381a29
35685565f1e8920326af3449576c2140f506379d
1369 F20101202_AAAFLF burweger_s_Page_080.pro
0b1dacac966246ae0b29c5cde79eedee
e7288b0919fbdb0d77671659b58dcf0b0b89966d
48013 F20101202_AAAFKQ burweger_s_Page_037.pro
5bf0cff78b2dc995b1c17f70c82e3055
8acc3ba65060f337358c012a47c7c29143ff13d2
F20101202_AAAFLG burweger_s_Page_083.pro
75a0d2cd369085c1a324792bd6429542
5b6390a923c658e4da340298a959fa7930e5e6b4
30302 F20101202_AAAFKR burweger_s_Page_039.pro
2743f810010e6e16974fcc85069f356f
eedafe6be23cae92bc4e7c14573687ad4a651593
72267 F20101202_AAAFLH burweger_s_Page_085.pro
bbccc385a4e7d0c538271c8af5548ebd
b876b14af545a427301ae3feeee3226443e78889
51808 F20101202_AAAFKS burweger_s_Page_044.pro
4f2da6adba979eb6dcec88bcce0d91c5
1efe1a529e213fae595e1ad95f9a490edd642e20
27814 F20101202_AAAFLI burweger_s_Page_086.pro
f44d83838882bd81d5a2f43015af105b
783bddd9221043a44fdd6a014830fd3c94f989c6
48558 F20101202_AAAFKT burweger_s_Page_046.pro
2a62e778853721857e1ce684b285ac7c
c6c26d13d5059fa21407c9d5b3d1b8b16dad0abd
18100 F20101202_AAAFLJ burweger_s_Page_089.pro
d5824c02cb82e6eaa44016b55b009051
52e861c1867b62cb5981debad54664f81af8fc16
27951 F20101202_AAAFKU burweger_s_Page_048.pro
72d87a1f57b68049bafd57da52a3a8b8
7b7c682748f7ac24dd7ba5e521074685ff98b761
28923 F20101202_AAAFLK burweger_s_Page_090.pro
c0a7f964be4be6af6d3c2b1ac52fff9d
a29c1b49a3073314ee79bb3085ebacb1c907e3b3
35213 F20101202_AAAFKV burweger_s_Page_050.pro
ec59cbbdf6cb542e03d939237dab0901
c175c1b0a5a62cae17ccac198d9b4bc1ea13bf0c
26817 F20101202_AAAFLL burweger_s_Page_091.pro
32e4081a385fbb3864f4dea422ec7c94
cfee8aef322daaf73eeb5d2926b770219ba47a04
48465 F20101202_AAAFKW burweger_s_Page_051.pro
5ef8835a7b2de257cb165d76722a6f9a
6ec5c8497d90976f75585fce1eda785a2d8dd0a4
23606 F20101202_AAAFLM burweger_s_Page_096.pro
99488ed05c111344617fc7281bb2a82f
bbb98eaa885c37f432ff87aff56699a87790fd28
48254 F20101202_AAAFKX burweger_s_Page_053.pro
25e1a6b541d90a36bdcd70495c55d9f7
8e15f27285b9bb00fbd0a4a05e65b9e0eaba99ca
2099 F20101202_AAAFMA burweger_s_Page_008.txt
a9ec04e896d15366b6c9e8f5366bc074
3f30076e48ff16ebb8296653b30ab86c4421549d
19175 F20101202_AAAFKY burweger_s_Page_054.pro
4479f1f2f54311acb59781139e8d8fb0
3914615dffa050375c72872474747d8ed6fbaa32
905 F20101202_AAAFMB burweger_s_Page_010.txt
7a712f8c84eb17154ce5ff62090b5ba6
57efdc2bb04bf3f75ee115eb38669e58dea9a688
20466 F20101202_AAAFLN burweger_s_Page_098.pro
cac3ab6c19d1fe88dac3ce722a083a38
7cb420b5ef107009dda8a4e41b8354e16a5dc760
50889 F20101202_AAAFKZ burweger_s_Page_056.pro
475f42dc03ce49d333f45105dc1ea225
1e79e7ccd7094e0281e85296c6388ca9c9a0876b
839 F20101202_AAAFMC burweger_s_Page_012.txt
5275a54737e0d51e7db4e85b83a4cfeb
04a3b4a393119de0ab00db43b90a8c8fe5da31aa
20808 F20101202_AAAFLO burweger_s_Page_099.pro
01c1f59fc49887a2a4a147c176337331
adf6dd4d36717364172862f6285d30e3730a31ca
2034 F20101202_AAAFMD burweger_s_Page_015.txt
f074888fe2e1e215e3206f96f76cdc48
9bbb11e3d5b19026825ac907a5daba5ffb4e117f
1265 F20101202_AAAFLP burweger_s_Page_103.pro
8dd626760c2aae261f0ad7405ef2ded0
78549cdbced2baa4d0e96eb991331e4f4102fdf0
1877 F20101202_AAAFME burweger_s_Page_016.txt
0def6606e2fb133ff91826c3b4ece5b5
947a32160654579462baa120493e6811af985ad6
30833 F20101202_AAAFLQ burweger_s_Page_104.pro
ad551670e1f72193c38f73be00426c27
16a1291b6f8cae4e6021fa8ccb18f9612f9fb338
1940 F20101202_AAAFMF burweger_s_Page_018.txt
8bd769d21d4b92a0483cab79f257162b
5b135c030e4fddcdfec1235b24a622df0bbe2d2d
35714 F20101202_AAAFLR burweger_s_Page_105.pro
da8db7c2d5797ed2aa0b29c3c77a9770
0587f75bb3ddbea9a7e0c7c516d18476e02c2e04
2103 F20101202_AAAFMG burweger_s_Page_021.txt
509d78b2e78e4da786e285f1077b3690
46460173d8ac4dc8ec97cb044ad3addd301963a0
23560 F20101202_AAAFLS burweger_s_Page_107.pro
463611b465933ef7648742ba2a738cd4
897ad03159aa7ae4bcaa3d7920c9142e8e2995c2
2150 F20101202_AAAFMH burweger_s_Page_027.txt
3b97e2e46e305974e9cc88a46621fb0e
28fca8ce235cb97aeb89c09653cc038071c5f108
28093 F20101202_AAAFLT burweger_s_Page_108.pro
2f012a280f2d9103afe7f36ec593b325
58376d863c7f596945b28cb7dc1951653b94e558
1945 F20101202_AAAFMI burweger_s_Page_032.txt
ae6c3461e6a5e680a0e22853c838de59
2e87223302bb78fa9569e33ccc77e134e00757b1
37591 F20101202_AAAFLU burweger_s_Page_110.pro
7af50a07664b5a172149aa74000c1b1e
322c93a8111f8355553d90a423f9cd7bd858ae74
135 F20101202_AAAFMJ burweger_s_Page_040.txt
6dd28a31ea171a0e3d2b4018deed201e
f6d6ed1f3d7634ee2ec77f05feb1f99435c2e1c8
25977 F20101202_AAAFLV burweger_s_Page_112.pro
f1329faaa63c7a316e6fe95e75cacfa9
98319367e595b540acf86dd07688db14c2bd1c90
2275 F20101202_AAAFMK burweger_s_Page_041.txt
4e78e309675828682f5763bd4f77a674
c57d48e485e7668dca937ac8453627d8b763f5a3
33752 F20101202_AAAFLW burweger_s_Page_113.pro
096b3f39a5ad0db788cb36dd93712ca0
f35faf8e835eed378d9371ebc6b34c35ad6a7f9c
2042 F20101202_AAAFML burweger_s_Page_044.txt
42c3046ed8b5c3a26beee2d55f8afb7c
70ee4965419720d58532325f5ca268bf40a73db6
29047 F20101202_AAAFLX burweger_s_Page_116.pro
7ec0e7abec9d11c7a1859629d8d7dee2
f4cf0fcb38126207f345a3bf2b21abebe8c585af
1259 F20101202_AAAFNA burweger_s_Page_076.txt
89dfea212cbb833590090936ac131bf6
1eb8f301a1ff8f4866e74573859316b8cf457e4b
1919 F20101202_AAAFMM burweger_s_Page_046.txt
2d09443e36ad7da116f042945019f14d
40845c9b5c3c0b9c89672f94528320de6b590a21
415 F20101202_AAAFLY burweger_s_Page_001.txt
6040bcb166d7cffa0721abb045138776
ec8dd809159a58dd379d1b47fe50850bff66c612
56 F20101202_AAAFNB burweger_s_Page_077.txt
d461de0a489d2701f16c7b5fa1b46c74
e246d4a4ee20d395f7a72315420460bafb4837e7
1329 F20101202_AAAFMN burweger_s_Page_047.txt
c4edc3afe97f315003563e32f44628c5
c6c4f58a923c1ab88a22158be20c216a624aa5fd
408 F20101202_AAAFLZ burweger_s_Page_004.txt
71c3e9261cf970980923c503d40f1027
6c433ca7e31b5b353dceee5935e88f9cab0301ee
52 F20101202_AAAFNC burweger_s_Page_083.txt
01024154ea5224dbc7289a938b1efa14
d18248e3d667c53cace253a96dfa3f33f260f3c6
2238 F20101202_AAAFND burweger_s_Page_084.txt
58765060687330e29516a29a3a874349
f3171b2149950b5082c0a5667cec8c15096104ec
1314 F20101202_AAAFMO burweger_s_Page_048.txt
1988e067c584f5dc5ddb3bb5867bcfd3
41f8e9071fe947003de660cd784783adf124ca14
1065 F20101202_AAAFNE burweger_s_Page_086.txt
83db3f20f5858d6e2e1fd612fade755b
bf8fc6756cce8cdab516ffb03d6ad82970ec862f
1279 F20101202_AAAFMP burweger_s_Page_049.txt
658018f3df6784d1211fab95c3a7912c
50d7bf313380cfba56ed727cd59434b1c6c906bc
1627 F20101202_AAAFNF burweger_s_Page_088.txt
16b42bb6165e05a0b0ce66ab716de76a
5e62d5cc4d1e36b446e86f8546d9af23076c5281
1804 F20101202_AAAFMQ burweger_s_Page_052.txt
5fad4ce9e0dc79a6af5ed485834b0a8d
700d4d508fb387483e837c8c5ae70b20f09e9c56
786 F20101202_AAAFNG burweger_s_Page_089.txt
d77d56dd8be0aefeded712d04717cae2
08475ce96d514724fcdabb826cbfd8ebef94f621
883 F20101202_AAAFMR burweger_s_Page_054.txt
7b943466a4e5dfdcb2686f39772fe345
105076c67b48d265f8d8543e61594bda56da75c7
1092 F20101202_AAAFNH burweger_s_Page_090.txt
488bc31bec44121ec9c76b746877b337
122e902ed056cb8f9b11ac51edee4d09db0e490f
2012 F20101202_AAAFMS burweger_s_Page_056.txt
bb07310782aebac6dd0207fb3127ac9c
85f0a1625899b51ea76fabf3685da64c93402c48
1112 F20101202_AAAFNI burweger_s_Page_094.txt
755f7359c59a58a967298a8380f6fbaa
c564bdb5a2732b1ca8ab10330404bc8af45153d2
1550 F20101202_AAAFMT burweger_s_Page_057.txt
cc8e81e13d7b907d2109d56b00f35276
386853628c5672b5fc4ba56faf205909d59c8560
934 F20101202_AAAFNJ burweger_s_Page_096.txt
6ec069c30b9b1554084328e634a1ea19
3086b1ed47fc730e30f2abe5c509aec9c729ee7e
F20101202_AAAFMU burweger_s_Page_061.txt
de5391f1dd14053f400c878f562613d5
d454ff5e86edc5cd7839cb379d3d927cbd46611e
872 F20101202_AAAFNK burweger_s_Page_098.txt
e2da5ba0a856f9c46af99f54ce2c8534
a68cae74c583c25ba760eac941e13098ecea8d75
1974 F20101202_AAAFMV burweger_s_Page_065.txt
95e2e5b2f18608fc8d301d610ed67748
1d7a71c9eee89d5646f845e892c1ae7a95b3fdc1
2364 F20101202_AAAFNL burweger_s_Page_102.txt
d4562bfc94cece2bbb88d59773ce5c8b
0b32058a8ecbb98d69d184462c524293052979d8
1730 F20101202_AAAFMW burweger_s_Page_069.txt
fffb1287caca1d1239043510432d8b13
5b0c2f9098d54d22c84cc56ad94b6737254dd1e1
22049 F20101202_AAAFOA burweger_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
0c861fff7b9d4edd8bae630826c3fc7d
a5444c755862dd065e99e31e5c78117a3eff2242
63 F20101202_AAAFNM burweger_s_Page_103.txt
739d5a85f622d18164239def590263b5
6e2a253b5cfd366cf70dc81c24b3e5d3b8eb70d7
1577 F20101202_AAAFMX burweger_s_Page_071.txt
58a7b6ac1bbb22a8ae68e7e03ebaeb6b
77b087a0c56c896a806a9b16a9ffc4e96be4c501
24341 F20101202_AAAFOB burweger_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
8af737457103c630ed282ae0faa98ac3
274a2b9b7038d129cbd153b9ce8233930b7a9b7c
1808 F20101202_AAAFNN burweger_s_Page_106.txt
a1748158a5ec5ae0c4ad1ab1f03da200
c87b258b3f2e4b3206c4e4a14778ed96d9fe2e3d
50 F20101202_AAAFMY burweger_s_Page_073.txt
1d99ec49316ca3af1ec8fb4a72b7f7b6
a756b701056114d5fd3d4ca64914b5201c431c39
6556 F20101202_AAAFOC burweger_s_Page_017thm.jpg
427315c8706ad24f98f0700106666519
0d908314218942047a5a10f25c0a5d7592f2b968
1711 F20101202_AAAFNO burweger_s_Page_110.txt
55b0841ed81fba8868cd8891b6a76a13
90ff94c7759abc1b41c4a86c58af256e25b7782e
3841 F20101202_AAAFMZ burweger_s_Page_075.txt
05077aba84fe3f04fd8e5b161d97242d
780adb5e424b355053d6ee733d4d99f1e1b91493
23112 F20101202_AAAFOD burweger_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
69f17f3b1d0c955d6a9f54758f805aca
657a91e67c258ba22926795c0202744dd52834c3
2054 F20101202_AAAELB burweger_s_Page_024.txt
3d9bdf56b9687d5b7585cb305c6eb96e
96992dbec48c435b95eee71c6abe8284f8e4f70e
6428 F20101202_AAAFOE burweger_s_Page_018thm.jpg
71b0d854370c534e0bccb91492e35a90
cac6ea685ce54c1c569a2f500a7519df0473bda4
2028 F20101202_AAAFNP burweger_s_Page_115.txt
3bb8bdf9f8400e41f75a11d264f0c85b
428d803308c92485d8121c76ec3136f02356e3b8
F20101202_AAAELC burweger_s_Page_016.tif
17de25e38bbaa2899b68ea587459bf16
4908ea7c768752e891f48d86362dadeac09d02b2
6265 F20101202_AAAFOF burweger_s_Page_023thm.jpg
05f3a22dfbe31afc1eb3a05dc24f1251
9fb435957f96580ecb3d5934788658dcd9bf24f9
274309 F20101202_AAAFNQ burweger_s.pdf
d6b01c4d397b9cdcb787ab5ba955f97d
1e72bcbcf87b56cea6c8a13843a1a7ba12df1fad
22273 F20101202_AAAELD burweger_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
4efbb91f0ba2a007615e4c0d6e958894
94984d07bcad23c4507106628c22a58634b7d7b5
22722 F20101202_AAAFOG burweger_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
331ee6df849adbdafadfdc851e713c80
8a2ac57aae5172dcea53f8bbeea93eda4e74c000
1350 F20101202_AAAFNR burweger_s_Page_002thm.jpg
cb0babb3c6f68117a53e289a4c6e5633
b3bafcfbcca5169f5bf6dce80e986cc8bb57e1cd
795063 F20101202_AAAELE burweger_s_Page_095.jp2
208d2fe893a05b1329c20b622764fad1
150ca7d873226fe80921cfc2a7f331851067b81d
6489 F20101202_AAAFOH burweger_s_Page_025thm.jpg
9b2f644d0237391b0c504545cd330369
75a08af403ced32831820c0274d7b7862e090096
7195 F20101202_AAAFNS burweger_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
452e407c630716e522c91ba4b88a33df
cd3081368bb1aed9792a66634c6ef41e59a27154
6457 F20101202_AAAELF burweger_s_Page_046thm.jpg
304b09c1657101f4de62a388973fba86
fccec0c677a467cdb85f44803f1ee978f3f35c5b
6430 F20101202_AAAFOI burweger_s_Page_026thm.jpg
037c91984d6a454343d6e4283fbe44eb
5452ad9fef007e8abdf440971de125a81edd7fd0
4975 F20101202_AAAFNT burweger_s_Page_007thm.jpg
f0ec7cf303ea1750dd1d529d7d4b2655
1427291b62b50380bf3a82f5b86bec15643bc288
105336 F20101202_AAAELG burweger_s_Page_032.jp2
b479df75c170bf5e7fa24e610ead09f9
5f38cae470acfd3011ff71428986145d2b738d4e
6730 F20101202_AAAFNU burweger_s_Page_008thm.jpg
c0543bddab21d58e442d5bdd0343c63f
b52920d05b3d1ffccdb60218a59d6c9ad4d7737c
3585 F20101202_AAAELH burweger_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
a5543b624b1a1a12bf78ccad15d2dca8
557d60c3525a3caf318a6eda43dc8c1ded0c9ba5
24117 F20101202_AAAFOJ burweger_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
cdde9c7522b9087c4ef9cc07dccd0a1b
c5d5a8161fea72fa8c3f375038db11d95e78a362
12728 F20101202_AAAFNV burweger_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
de39c5b3c9d7a0d9814bf7ed21b1e80c
8d11e663977b8ef70b38aba901263b04cea6e18b
66754 F20101202_AAAELI burweger_s_Page_116.jp2
496c07c8ffb25f1c54956200ab7c7d29
54091104e24e496916ac439f71eea082b9c99a5f
6695 F20101202_AAAFOK burweger_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
1dfa4c0ae5ddaccb909f4949c654f143
5272f358f66caf005ea9258ecb93c85273f035e5
24092 F20101202_AAAFNW burweger_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
85fa555fb2c28f25b6395859fdfcd2d5
169e1bc493e378e4f4e2f0547d623849ab6919f7
2449 F20101202_AAAELJ burweger_s_Page_074.txt
7fefd8402554024f7b95ee2cfdfc6ba8
f47f4d274bce897e9912c89f5bd9db55f001864a
16244 F20101202_AAAFOL burweger_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
612ce5d29f5f198fc12f4e1975a2e193
18759de5bf81df8236bf5aada6ca03733aea820b
6612 F20101202_AAAFNX burweger_s_Page_011thm.jpg
885339f8042daaceed3494484aa40f73
72f56a08c731b238c08d862191b381228f406f35
6132 F20101202_AAAFPA burweger_s_Page_060thm.jpg
75293f68435534cc9c79a88d6864b191
2fa139f19f46256ac6b2fbc17211e3e646e65f32
6596 F20101202_AAAELK burweger_s_Page_044thm.jpg
2ea8e8bda1ec35e02c5f5ba1e575ce22
775aea2381578903ab44dc5f7cfc2c4e4b14a210
17991 F20101202_AAAFOM burweger_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
b941ce25a46311876c5163876dd980a1
a661580623c437c938a91c8fd823a3d8e0d2a2cc
11449 F20101202_AAAFNY burweger_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
eeffb7a3e73359696ddc4bfecae721d0
452d785e6363cb24e62b9c52fccea64858c498d9
22340 F20101202_AAAFPB burweger_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
cb4d6f31bcec895df3c54270e8240727
bcca8038ccaab5108b1d4e39473936e7cf1960b0
F20101202_AAAELL burweger_s_Page_053.tif
d4ce82b2164bd74e58ae1433296a3fcb
77ccd5aea6f7ce992c23daf57630cd6ec0bed783
5408 F20101202_AAAFON burweger_s_Page_037thm.jpg
1cc232461ef9dae986f00f5cc2aab2be
f1bf46d39a5b32c77a73222aac0f5e8155f6ee87
24204 F20101202_AAAFNZ burweger_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
f7db9f100bf86dd2110df34b54a78212
d48e49b4173a8e18c7902cdf3cc3dfeb5de781ac
2194 F20101202_AAAEMA burweger_s_Page_105.txt
41de8c78e1c438fac504f7a81386b1c1
603eb8a8255faeed73c9c50847b353afb4a02bdf
23392 F20101202_AAAFPC burweger_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
c049f5aaf5b532bd35a4d3dc30a46030
dabd6b2ea6f34d5d835a56f01f27baedc77dc642
17823 F20101202_AAAELM burweger_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
cdcb2b2872e1e429e15aaa670a866259
30333356522214b96436837c0d1cdde64e2548bf
7493 F20101202_AAAFOO burweger_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
341c94d62e08509fc76757c67e53846c
474f63a123b46452382d8172b0a5e8fae6047d27
24149 F20101202_AAAEMB burweger_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
747ecbd8da725e1eb309f79156906f85
2a74ecde5b2fa1d755559ed7c28df794f33d1880
6332 F20101202_AAAFPD burweger_s_Page_063thm.jpg
05e7364983af30b794e0cd4c9792a9d5
9bd99d436b394beb3934bc02135b15b6e4c8bd87
F20101202_AAAELN burweger_s_Page_011.tif
78538b2feec221b71d72aee9ab08a402
ae9fde4b410d454d416e9e261db0b19c93de1372
2565 F20101202_AAAFOP burweger_s_Page_042thm.jpg
2f8b03ed7e0c4659a6373b43a3f28d44
f3fce5acea6fbfea73f0dd34a21fefee16bd633f
6151 F20101202_AAAEMC burweger_s_Page_064thm.jpg
8e51e4a51fd430d3da6fa7f40ca11f10
bb2385fb7a4158af7855a2f6c56afb544024e156
22822 F20101202_AAAFPE burweger_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
c3dbd0da6c0383ef1b660d58b02c18c5
bd22afcb0d8099c6e30b571b6152761634004857
F20101202_AAAEMD burweger_s_Page_040.tif
6fafb0e2b35807339a0a320c9d7adf30
2270c35de1bc253a14094fe5748f0d9aa066430a
3631 F20101202_AAAFPF burweger_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
fb177f13cb095e6018dd7f00e728dba7
e34741c605765bfd0c71793968c70eec06fdd9dc
F20101202_AAAELO burweger_s_Page_005.tif
feaadf23748c84d26f68acc58a028dcc
aa28ca6a4fdc9ca3de574cfbc2cafcc8cd035f5e
6232 F20101202_AAAFOQ burweger_s_Page_043thm.jpg
ae266f861d7392b37d8b9ca463265913
0977f76b85d405d479e7c4c898fb92cb071d5d41
76375 F20101202_AAAEME burweger_s_Page_031.jpg
440defa8cc92123ea31a4b9baed6f6cd
aed2b10e95d859c78e12c69106e66947a32c1f4f
17560 F20101202_AAAFPG burweger_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
57c74115cb804bf75ac90355af0f2548
0cf5ed01f57337644e6cf5f8a5ac84e7001cc414
F20101202_AAAELP burweger_s_Page_060.tif
b8718f88fb1d2e64a15893f9f7d11fdb
a7bbd39ff3cb919a21c406c207af3d81da1c4058
24106 F20101202_AAAFOR burweger_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
60c48bc905cf165cebe3e3891455de94
49925ecc18c6feb8002128bbf1f10c1248938b26
5045 F20101202_AAAFPH burweger_s_Page_069thm.jpg
f6409e7239d6f701bae797e654bd626f
7ea5a9df3866a2c3f90990123670554a3b15bd24
6737 F20101202_AAAEMF burweger_s_Page_009thm.jpg
02926fcb515e90bc32d20b582e80d044
ba6d2445bf63288bfa8f5248e9dc870fff0157c3
51809 F20101202_AAAELQ burweger_s_Page_024.pro
1f7b5e7aa3cc48cf7df87e77611326a5
c8a3d458c30a85ebadddb4d8a79e0e7eb1e66307
22771 F20101202_AAAFOS burweger_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
745d828984f60b0e03ffbb3ffbba72f3
1935263afc183002aac9dc9bb2535ef4b44a3825
21747 F20101202_AAAFPI burweger_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
d6eb54f21d48ad42b30c8751badd1031
124ad7519afb261ab82646dc754b6aa3fa087faf
951 F20101202_AAAEMG burweger_s_Page_092.txt
3bbe68b2f8f1ab460ec0fd7a19a9ffa4
227900c336d1989ae1cc573bccad63054417a62d
F20101202_AAAELR burweger_s_Page_100.tif
b8a4cf055406b9e94c4a0f7bcb16a0b9
5a3e8dfcbf42498e6814284a2e3ba963fb0b6fa4
14731 F20101202_AAAFOT burweger_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
e079011136e5307ad0a03a855bd516e7
a475c1682601a43be7b7d37628660eba9469e724
4377 F20101202_AAAFPJ burweger_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
70d2349eead023d3ad4be02b70cf4ea3
59511ca9795cf782dc2f8b91697d2a7e6d817bf3
F20101202_AAAEMH burweger_s_Page_008.tif
b732f42b201eb9b1e847faa7e207c1d4
c4770c52312b96966ea16d9ad51e5bc68615ee3b
6416 F20101202_AAAELS burweger_s_Page_059thm.jpg
853b05f86df4a699342a1fc9ed7bc55d
8f6fda3382525781fa74f3b38e55eef977f16b10
22359 F20101202_AAAFOU burweger_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
f1ff8a71f2d13ba4310ce42ebf16478d
634d6fe6ff8336cc752280a8ef65c1fb34fdd9eb
3957 F20101202_AAAFPK burweger_s_Page_076thm.jpg
35ddce62a6e9a843e0976b1b345d5c6f
edecb1969a28b2477a78d3abcb49eff429a1c495
1766 F20101202_AAAEMI burweger_s_Page_038.txt
76d25e822461e9ee3a593a561d646838
950a3c04baacbee0f02143b948b32a400bf6176b
8381 F20101202_AAAELT burweger_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
d4924d900456a43358c5d265852f53ef
f4072ae072c798f133538bc65a63f5f52a9da871
9957 F20101202_AAAFOV burweger_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
b6424b4dee648926e6edc51331f7d619
716563016bd828ac3e83a0ffe1948ece5eb218de
3505 F20101202_AAAFPL burweger_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
b9198f8e6fdb483b712416e603f7a454
dc66d957b29169ced343293dc996f11db32e718b
6491 F20101202_AAAEMJ burweger_s_Page_053thm.jpg
6cc04fe381bdf763c9661249b2851826
3f01c095ecbd274587cca68c18ddffd361e45dfc
10891 F20101202_AAAELU burweger_s_Page_077.jpg
b2ee1a5c3f8def19c17ff5a00a7a2440
fffbfb7e8ebc1150339043f982e6fce86413bbb5
3078 F20101202_AAAFOW burweger_s_Page_054thm.jpg
24279f48e2e9aca2bc567290433c085c
e0a56691ce6f7638e3249b29d8d5b6ff5793fce0
4596 F20101202_AAAFQA burweger_s_Page_099thm.jpg
308ad89fb3f52f0722b6ef3079cc80e3
44f3d664504e6d8f86e4beff1f004e5d22ac6d52
19745 F20101202_AAAFPM burweger_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
c2afd535c5e8adc51118cbe11b743efc
bca887beafd5e91aff526dcdfd538207da70febc
70016 F20101202_AAAEMK burweger_s_Page_025.jpg
b5e9bbf8abbc26a075c89052979ffcc4
49faa1af50b080514cde75a4baea3844365042bc
F20101202_AAAELV burweger_s_Page_090.tif
8e056f9b2189af1f70b83be699357101
140d9f9dc3c988e23dc4b85bfe2ae1924f8dc619
2887 F20101202_AAAFOX burweger_s_Page_055thm.jpg
bd40cc62ebd6732a7c251045a1e9aa9f
7b578f066b466ced3dce8b738c0a506937078405
19152 F20101202_AAAFQB burweger_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
5361a4d6deac162f7b2a22b3b5843b2c
9804568f65632ca23fc448566abd299b639fd8d5
1394 F20101202_AAAFPN burweger_s_Page_080thm.jpg
bfb58250fd09b64ca5414c3df4651813
3efb77d0fec468a37218f73662b3702413f1aa56
2113 F20101202_AAAEML burweger_s_Page_039.txt
9ecece626cf7bf4b292c51021ff83e3a
44a3b3ff1b5c307409aa43ce3f43d56a0bb0d1e1
69830 F20101202_AAAELW burweger_s_Page_023.jpg
b57848b892a726d71062b1fc91d1c430
5affea07b41f0caa5bb674bf36fbdd03e3fda64f
6537 F20101202_AAAFOY burweger_s_Page_056thm.jpg
1f7c963058c14afa9d55b723ff17f06d
15096fbbd76747272ffc92e2b816156019f0f72f
5283 F20101202_AAAFQC burweger_s_Page_100thm.jpg
3267b7d0004aa8cac9d4763831a27c2d
7f19b9446a695f315f18cf8e5bc3a2e944d59bb9
18072 F20101202_AAAFPO burweger_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
86efc50cd7612696244d5def5b193d97
d941f1133f092ec108df16f7a470c78e74e3107a
65631 F20101202_AAAENA burweger_s_Page_094.jpg
feb2ce0dec55fa9a34a33b37e634192a
779dcc51ab926f50d7457b02f0808d5a4f4f8ae1
2392 F20101202_AAAEMM burweger_s_Page_006thm.jpg
2a7b0adb07d9b21547a506467fb6d93b
83fcfbbb757d1e2ba27075c19041f43facbf9ec3
1345 F20101202_AAAELX burweger_s_Page_108.txt
e42ac70280529dd7eaef819332c8f46a
8b92582fd9e3e989d2bba8fc2cf79fa88f65184e
5394 F20101202_AAAFOZ burweger_s_Page_057thm.jpg
b6e591518b5e44997a016a6621ac32e9
58fc719aaf6225f5feecfdd9579508b322ec3cf4
22596 F20101202_AAAFQD burweger_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
2f0abedfcd639d1cad10c8c40b1eea92
a153a35d31682127c01331de2464d76dc9757d14
5297 F20101202_AAAFPP burweger_s_Page_081thm.jpg
b0ed0bd40054a11d82789bd3b28e5ade
1abf7941cf47abf386dd82ea831c8a6327c6bb2e
841 F20101202_AAAENB burweger_s_Page_055.txt
8ba7d9c44cb30e845113620e18e94755
49e806161692a6f72319bb42940329077cd02ee8
102697 F20101202_AAAEMN burweger_s_Page_019.jp2
42e5a54f2b25f453e546a29340381d86
1958a9ab8b67b96fe8365ee467b72eea0a5fca01
1932 F20101202_AAAELY burweger_s_Page_034.txt
089532662523d3387034ccff53b51c9e
3beabe17d20450c73dce85dd720834b6b09d9768
30220 F20101202_AAAFQE burweger_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
12a62f49798de3cba97816b6ac4e7567
1f56cb9f007d1af72a5f22c797a5d11b58154ab9
19560 F20101202_AAAFPQ burweger_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
7635463a89ac30dbecd326f0deb5ce30
b0084812b4d191eb458efb1d5f0934d2accadb3c
1993 F20101202_AAAENC burweger_s_Page_068.txt
5ac02541db59cd66e5c6b1d067564248
a319d1143b8fb32fffab6f286463349c26b576c1
67925 F20101202_AAAEMO burweger_s_Page_062.jpg
53a9ec4cbf4d68d324699d1cb1758326
f94214b7b46f5d791fd7f7005810bb66f44e81b8
9563 F20101202_AAAELZ burweger_s_Page_035.pro
4cf4b697bf43d6b1cc289141be3574ad
11d5c8d6064397e0539b2ece1669171ee4484868
3599 F20101202_AAAFQF burweger_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
5315a5fdc4587c3eb582adf4d0215e80
26b36186517fe4cdfe53fed7646c0ecfb6c625bd
47212 F20101202_AAAEND burweger_s_Page_116.jpg
f917819056b8b7a6f28ffc8f0e28f9a4
77781acbee884570fcd5c77f240376de62544ec2
10607 F20101202_AAAFQG burweger_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
a2054a16de6c6df1e8d5a2f391163d8c
d58184a3a7fab4c08389595d959a563adb458fe2
7233 F20101202_AAAFPR burweger_s_Page_084thm.jpg
634a1d34b1a6fe274921bfd46553e757
c3b1673c8beec3f19daf314dacd2d3ec19e4b7d6
3220 F20101202_AAAENE burweger_s_Page_005.txt
833c94889dc7b52fa6edd369dbd74187
4d17fc7dd1c916490c537e397f84f350df1cfa2f
32895 F20101202_AAAEMP burweger_s_Page_070.pro
44b80c98a0ceb1b28256e4aff3418e67
a3ba3fa6eb58ebf58c74ad9d587e4b75bf94649e
2978 F20101202_AAAFQH burweger_s_Page_107thm.jpg
84abc1f049ea321085543f7ea0887089
cbdde5417eaa4e677961d57e25aa3b0441da1459
33838 F20101202_AAAFPS burweger_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
1b4b9880ab9186f5ad2f75630df464db
fd2c8f0a28828d899a5b8b95fc5ac67c929a527b
60078 F20101202_AAAENF burweger_s_Page_114.pro
9afdf658a9ea1c060cc1e5c674c96b07
2bcc1263786be1aaff6a4887c061cc4a8bcd814a
6307 F20101202_AAAEMQ burweger_s_Page_101thm.jpg
ffd279f3f35faeafacee3ec63f92a23b
7c0809cf7af88336121b91a5575dbdb04d6d24e6
4735 F20101202_AAAFQI burweger_s_Page_110thm.jpg
5e9cfcd9eb8edfdef5ad99ff4b58ccc7
9328a6e0ccf53555a090859f7b6cc0e17a5e7887
8212 F20101202_AAAFPT burweger_s_Page_085thm.jpg
c552880893cc8d8b9cbea446d62c8fbd
9c7569b9a7b85022e93fb2775436f40ff6e675dc
675598 F20101202_AAAENG burweger_s_Page_087.jp2
f222a2a1cf673c71126bde3f6e0d35ea
443129f894803bb02aabf4a3fb10866652aad674
1413 F20101202_AAAEMR burweger_s_Page_050.txt
4010bc57ec9af16bd66cabeb94ec1235
011cafdf224cc0e8211d714e21903e702d21b74f
11891 F20101202_AAAFQJ burweger_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
358c77deb9a8b85c747480fc0f6e0cac
b9d079aed7c86e96cc36f282930b4c4b8f81e417
17910 F20101202_AAAFPU burweger_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
fd45ad04bdd5dfe6bb864f068285b3fa
9c330bd1e14701d3f4052a934d3dcab329402240
55813 F20101202_AAAENH burweger_s_Page_070.jpg
d8a12f05f3ccf843553ecc86293eb596
bd39bf8c4e01425605b4a00b1b0189ac3ca3d7ae
761914 F20101202_AAAEMS burweger_s_Page_090.jp2
c74f5c3752799fba38907089c130a5ac
a47798eacd224afae0cd08cda233c307cdc182bc
15272 F20101202_AAAFQK burweger_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
e6684dbd4637f73cadf505a8ffc15110
64199d6b5d28ed9a53f84b50e01c3aa486204a95
3552 F20101202_AAAFPV burweger_s_Page_089thm.jpg
27f2054d8982c45d3e3eafeb7b4509de
f2cfa0ff495d27372db9c162d367b9983ccce45f
381 F20101202_AAAENI burweger_s_Page_035.txt
df19f64e1d0a39ee67a752eb405841c8
ecb32f91cff777b15ef6121419cb518ee43d17d0
52039 F20101202_AAAEMT burweger_s_Page_045.pro
0ddb127f3e80b24b1c1125912506adc4
d51afc3730c0d8621b3faf58476a6e056d4652a2
135625 F20101202_AAAFQL UFE0022426_00001.mets FULL
32fb4ecc25fb55cee5131f3d7f62cd26
1e4bb86037e1f4dbe9a78e3059853c46333f2c01
5291 F20101202_AAAFPW burweger_s_Page_091thm.jpg
f9073e4fb40d825c496f4259362a59e9
08ba09cc32fdb6c8d434238d418aa60959501c59
760 F20101202_AAAENJ burweger_s_Page_058.txt
a830232467f3bef09be68dc146b7d9f7
0ce06ea77389a06c5b537f283ac1b55c5b4f7d9e
27119 F20101202_AAAEMU burweger_s_Page_061.pro
3fa849dd91434f9187527785aaf3e689
4da6abf5a79bd4a18b76c2800a301fbe3d5f32ca
20519 F20101202_AAAFPX burweger_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
8ff015e57019ca1afa1d848fef914c00
75e2a943084663aa620bbf7a19a7b6562b0777c7
45796 F20101202_AAAENK burweger_s_Page_098.jpg
6f767cf31d88c70759da0487d5af5bf6
a7a6144943709e3a6a1c019cae373c5c1adf93a3
F20101202_AAAEMV burweger_s_Page_054.tif
386f34d53c5a6bc350db4e49e708f9fc
3efcfa41f7d4344877ab36354504e4edede05836
4803 F20101202_AAAFPY burweger_s_Page_096thm.jpg
b1b60392cc3bdbf31284d6e34fc86e99
b1bf77984ec82b6dba849a1bd0262367fe3fff64
69606 F20101202_AAAENL burweger_s_Page_028.jpg
78cac288dd5d438cbbfab2f8588a93bb
da84f3843c9327c694fa9b7514694ff7b2d10dc1
45754 F20101202_AAAEMW burweger_s_Page_112.jp2
8e65f588b00288ee46e08cc550bf2e0c
dcf96c969bf80e7c6a50b689a11305d583d5d939
4479 F20101202_AAAFPZ burweger_s_Page_098thm.jpg
3ea6622370126f760a5005e522125a67
43fa286e33cc54f508fe0720e178088a54d40d90
4042 F20101202_AAAENM burweger_s_Page_061thm.jpg
0eb9414113c6c96bac1a4a0c6cac7dda
1fe2f19e934236825777508b6f112416d6ca9ac1
78212 F20101202_AAAEMX burweger_s_Page_088.jpg
2016f3c788d413aa504915a96d662e80
7345bdaa6419d1c0233de3df11a00ac1855521b4
820 F20101202_AAAEOA burweger_s_Page_099.txt
ed581d67a214be8f955fd2642dd5e35a
5d0b93076ca09276b67f4de34d397c7983561a94
12319 F20101202_AAAENN burweger_s_Page_072.jpg
f5b6ddfe8c61626f39222ff02a6fd838
c527053eedc983f0490f87c259324e84aa43e298
25411 F20101202_AAAEMY burweger_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
1412b0bb3ce104da8ecd52211234862a
23477dd9a44f7adac1102ba70f25384f5d7c91c9
70451 F20101202_AAAEOB burweger_s_Page_026.jpg
89895094b1e12677879e3472606ddc6d
dfb5e0eca574355b68b9e8524451217d57e7ec07
2057 F20101202_AAAENO burweger_s_Page_037.txt
ce19aa9d5aa96372571e0f5164102c09
4189dc3947c8de72ace510b7519dcf8f948d9eb9
58901 F20101202_AAAEMZ burweger_s_Page_113.jp2
c0436e80572e23fb75a7fffbab8799ab
233549754ed746f27056f9e5bdc87866d05ed4d7
107700 F20101202_AAAEOC burweger_s_Page_075.pro
965b73ec856640b2a9d549fa2b618c1f
2431d6aaa5c5c021e974b7d1b59b374f1bacd254
F20101202_AAAENP burweger_s_Page_051.tif
728af781b340875d08e34061677f9b61
16e008aed11f657fc3dd080caf45ac77a2bd63da
94774 F20101202_AAAEOD burweger_s_Page_078.jpg
b7ff07141efc8d9ad07f252d8c81e04e
3a546676287c98eabfd90a96447b21a3f98f9563
68886 F20101202_AAAEOE burweger_s_Page_029.jpg
c77b5dde7af4d96bada60405d3bcee79
d7a1a40603b7deb1c9ada09daa66df2f4b722a29
71822 F20101202_AAAENQ burweger_s_Page_070.jp2
505ea81a6c29ad99918c34a0e82cba9f
cfe31d57c8cc0a0abf98dff0004f6e430701a764
18796 F20101202_AAAEOF burweger_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
70bc3bcd75446459cb757f8246770ef8
8ae4c6e0f7ea760f5376b7a7e9b43dd9b48493b0
9968 F20101202_AAAENR burweger_s_Page_002.jpg
9c7f81e41cc25d182b987762fb79b2b0
87e1d2e9b637ec058d28c3130fbaf25625b83b09
69910 F20101202_AAAEOG burweger_s_Page_020.jpg
29405d630a914ea97427d254e5a8bddc
068f4311022ab4e51160a7b3930d2476dfbf158a
5713 F20101202_AAAENS burweger_s_Page_097thm.jpg
cfc1e550d3dc5d158f02488d03774f6e
cbe1527b499bc2cce9f193f39d08515f3c0ee7e0
143004 F20101202_AAAEOH burweger_s_Page_085.jp2
d84fc4b0e6ad159e030ee5222df594a4
6f3a935bf092e928b412bbac87119fbeb031639f
6724 F20101202_AAAENT burweger_s_Page_027thm.jpg
162cc1d5951b9553518347b3cb2d8a3c
c4b66fe72b4405c5a1e5543449970f2780ff72f7
31179 F20101202_AAAEOI burweger_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
c4e0b463661fa62f9d0870f4a8de59f5
8bc236978fa566b81e153d13200a903d4e1ebe00
6181 F20101202_AAAENU burweger_s_Page_052thm.jpg
b127063d5003f5ecbb0dfa5260241095
e81c0da96ce54b80a2799d8d9a02a2f0b5c876a0
68914 F20101202_AAAEOJ burweger_s_Page_053.jpg
aa3601c021fd703bdd020e330a389c7c
886f72f45c323bff52f676eec8743278b81afa1d
F20101202_AAAENV burweger_s_Page_079.tif
34fa822cc9fd089278194d4ad9ad4ddc
c3a2437bb71f5d17149077ef0f25d9d0aee0e086
6127 F20101202_AAAEOK burweger_s_Page_062thm.jpg
d05c346f3d143871a8f35e6092b0df8a
3b838171651d838cd1b58a2fd6664ba81158631c
78321 F20101202_AAAEOL burweger_s_Page_101.jpg
8f5fbc406965291d6be2214d9368cc4a
1db0b14021c4f7d78ae838ae11e859a7755b8292
6524 F20101202_AAAENW burweger_s_Page_015thm.jpg
9863609ea5356b4617eeee41265f6243
3c73d89b02f76093c526ee4c397d48373abfdd8b
F20101202_AAAEPA burweger_s_Page_082.tif
f96016ed00bdbbf88cf84402e560ed17
4270c1bc3a3a9cda8fa8de3c25bafbbea31d1b95
55391 F20101202_AAAEOM burweger_s_Page_036.jpg
e0cca78eb46c821468c5043213a2bc39
51114aaec4e4b126d2c6484f61789eaff184c775
15138 F20101202_AAAENX burweger_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
ce44a1b8a37f4199c737a0bed2b251e0
f5fe6500b97644a09e8a5135f6c728131b56388b
4314 F20101202_AAAEPB burweger_s_Page_049thm.jpg
8b7017a73656cd0b532d66a88c49989e
561fba66a17587ec33682006051d740356389e49
F20101202_AAAEON burweger_s_Page_109.tif
85e2c332f7bd8bdb9ac1dda9839bd80b
f2e6d20c23f06744566f5a65dc6860bef2abd88b
48420 F20101202_AAAENY burweger_s_Page_020.pro
9604a66f286894a32d30baccf217defc
e4d43c4a41125ab705963b96cabf50c487588643
48050 F20101202_AAAEPC burweger_s_Page_023.pro
ed9b70893e32d153ad201fb4fd7b5732
d0bdf1e8e8522e05211b50987346e72f3a7dcae4
6568 F20101202_AAAEOO burweger_s_Page_022thm.jpg
3b69cd24f8cf789977ca3143cbadc309
1f5f64c91455b4420d165e72f8484c4df60b1b9f
F20101202_AAAENZ burweger_s_Page_002.tif
42ca7e1835d1f010e2c9a33d8ecd7926
f8938fd953c3fa9b6f40e476b45f8a3a317def5c
F20101202_AAAEPD burweger_s_Page_083.tif
3fc5d0e357436849741d24daed0bd241
48d68b03041f6bfefbd18425b24efe99464bc7b9
77321 F20101202_AAAEOP burweger_s_Page_011.jpg
1e2df5309de450eb9d9142c566470014
6be10b57f6ecc5da12e215769a8b0119f2a0b966
43207 F20101202_AAAEPE burweger_s_Page_054.jp2
3ff3a03739283ce702f325f2a25099d2
81c4b17ed04c805a591e7c8804d7121fbf27e105
51683 F20101202_AAAEOQ burweger_s_Page_015.pro
ee0f7e101a474274375c3be49f98d947
c99fa5726e06f024988de6a447a5e2187dcf1db2
1602 F20101202_AAAEPF burweger_s_Page_042.txt
a568e02245ad5750515781201ba929e8
32492846f43149d9cdeb23eb57c4bb8f716546d4
F20101202_AAAEPG burweger_s_Page_017.tif
affbce41dedcd1a4f97d362206a73632
09f054fc0214e3ab31c6ba9f0d003d249e297294
F20101202_AAAEOR burweger_s_Page_042.tif
d7261c14a09a2b0acae448cb39bdbe5f
55e2f2c71a9255577e7ce86ada8066998cf44c6f
57249 F20101202_AAAEPH burweger_s_Page_092.jpg
91d09aba7a35b454849fcae492d2e10e
5a06f061ccbcf0acb1896c5d42d3f1c7ee7ee830
45983 F20101202_AAAEOS burweger_s_Page_031.pro
bfbb6765f4891866d48916f3b12029e5
f2d78093d4b1a574c978aa3c1de63dfa238f3fa2
1989 F20101202_AAAEPI burweger_s_Page_051.txt
13a3ec1862c89b676e8f046efdcb201f
b3f6045a181b2c985bffd137485465a149a78dd4
1915 F20101202_AAAEOT burweger_s_Page_020.txt
b382482493195c62936f243db45271bd
e27c4b89abb216867183d6d9d5e6b5b76d5a1145
23128 F20101202_AAAEPJ burweger_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
67cada52940a331f934398c97568990e
b4a4b55e13de6fa86b86bd76f06e3f50ada89cbc
14712 F20101202_AAAEOU burweger_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
7a2f836a19eadfe9d5093ebcdcb9778d
c03fc2a8e6c99884b712250022eaf3eab07619aa
9326 F20101202_AAAEPK burweger_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
3dc8b9ff69824cea20497163ef5787b8
7f89696c9c4b447bf4b1164276363a5e90fea83a
F20101202_AAAEOV burweger_s_Page_080.tif
31c3d225ca6706358bee5f2625739ccc
7e1bb6726d244e66a4d163ed57e2ed6f1097fb3e
854991 F20101202_AAAEPL burweger_s_Page_079.jp2
bfbeb160316aa72a798fcc55298bdabf
ae47c8562d96a11c65e61592d3299d3533a2010f
21614 F20101202_AAAEOW burweger_s_Page_010.pro
2845fc9fe1a700952e2116a225a662f6
d04cbff16f2ce07d9a799e4f4238a894f013763b
48090 F20101202_AAAEPM burweger_s_Page_012.jp2
318da87407b7bed2acd79b5e34b540cd
bf5a3a8afc4a400b52123c5811cd7654dff6f07e
F20101202_AAAEOX burweger_s_Page_019thm.jpg
61d62d2f23a5991288b1fe4fcb07f9dd
b36f892a79a8f9888e89dd30a51b79b9bb07d1bd
6672 F20101202_AAAEQA burweger_s_Page_045thm.jpg
5205c45749f5737edbf06bdbc8842330
7c7f91a97fc3acf053b403419bc0606f1ea71b19
3875 F20101202_AAAEPN burweger_s_Page_082.txt
95870eaa5d1f230b6f065c7971293c67
57755347027f9ee65b28460909144331b3957bc8
1051983 F20101202_AAAEOY burweger_s_Page_084.jp2
6a3a962f1ae612afa401e4aee1e49f7d
6f6644975b49eb7e42e6a71fa7085c5606f15802
4935 F20101202_AAAEQB burweger_s_Page_036thm.jpg
c1509b9a38fa18fe71a0d2e9956fa5b3
3fecb181727bf964a1b5e4de87a21649c6668bb4
20933 F20101202_AAAEPO burweger_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
6c826936e94429a17b6b19dfedd83f9b
2dfe865840e1c80f9e54fe5aa23466fa8dae9907
22715 F20101202_AAAEOZ burweger_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
1a93fd83a17453584ff49aaac265411d
37b79a31dd21fee1dcf33cbd249ba84c897e9641
40455 F20101202_AAAEQC burweger_s_Page_089.jpg
67ea78139851b726425e432654935ee2
36b7e22196ede8338e432ee1707f106ed0b7b69b
F20101202_AAAEPP burweger_s_Page_101.tif
02028f25e637309484a9cc768ebf12c4
a45ec63926ecfd249fa9f254fc976ddc558b3cab
F20101202_AAAEQD burweger_s_Page_070.txt
367867da529eabcc3f2e2caf8c3e7efb
1cf7277ae9869279bac5792cbe7cbe1c21ffffbb
5253 F20101202_AAAEPQ burweger_s_Page_005thm.jpg
4d729197587093a7445559760b517522
e027bcc0474bce431d2e526bf55d8dd52eff102d
6540 F20101202_AAAEQE burweger_s_Page_031thm.jpg
10fd07156ec0aca71ef85010103928f4
8fcfbc978c1dd175df638e3b125d2e062ed42077
F20101202_AAAEPR burweger_s_Page_103.tif
2461a699bdd6cda9f699ec617da13bf2
cef1a484fc5ad6b7530219677d2c6aafb36e17ff
1886 F20101202_AAAEQF burweger_s_Page_060.txt
78877f708e42dc2da140db88997306c3
09588455158142c4f51863ae9a553881ed84ef68
68427 F20101202_AAAEQG burweger_s_Page_013.jpg
939a2dfe503c76b9e6856017ca30bcba
ac05296f090ce0eab4865285dd5169573b7792b5
F20101202_AAAEPS burweger_s_Page_068.tif
4c4bd7d0c97b46dcf426493beca6d3c2
56a1fc6cd3a2d91c2dfa0467d4db3cd6327c8cfa
45283 F20101202_AAAEQH burweger_s_Page_113.jpg
9a235c091bee0f47f6589a8173736f43
551dc0193985db407790ea30de7be7949e82a5f6
F20101202_AAAEPT burweger_s_Page_057.tif
440c1388e25b60cd815ca34a6c3c0cfd
3935f767aafc7e8abaa38b850357177114f95864
2049 F20101202_AAAEQI burweger_s_Page_045.txt
cbd45cb76163c890dec94dd041e535c8
954c4aac4c48e010ee7f3b78ab7aec593770e55f
6426 F20101202_AAAEPU burweger_s_Page_032thm.jpg
7a2822f4761e12493bdf06c4538a8f65
797ceeb90ff182a94b2384bb1e1928fce5495384
22711 F20101202_AAAEQJ burweger_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
e6974f87fe6005a3fd70b52f3ff75e19
777b5098be6a77547bc6793513147e6e7b7c1647
2236 F20101202_AAAEPV burweger_s_Page_007.txt
e766d86bd47ec80762f525bf1a1e387c
80a8af23b0222dfc1e76edea1cd00d7c416a6630
38480 F20101202_AAAEQK burweger_s_Page_111.jp2
608c53a8a38eedf7170f9eb7a38e16e1
9614bdd139aca7586b6de85e36405663dd49b713
467907 F20101202_AAAEPW burweger_s_Page_089.jp2
9a9abc09c9607dc0bca34118ebc31841
a8a13d88f3c37e45774ef44a1072dd8928e517ac
585982 F20101202_AAAEQL burweger_s_Page_096.jp2
c02e94c08afa0808d75858bb4f30f9ec
77668fbb65f25ed3eb4f68756b1141bd22d93756
37709 F20101202_AAAEPX burweger_s_Page_112.jpg
8120a181eaccdd1d44f85525957142db
e0bb14e6f0204fbba4ec8f8b7a50953e45ac6214
9510 F20101202_AAAERA burweger_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
26ff2672412304f4877108d2b4fb1d68
ec34b762364a54b2abe0ba3d6a8aa5308462da3b
1925 F20101202_AAAEQM burweger_s_Page_014.txt
ce7ce5736b7ee12931bbe26ed161cda7
9a4281fa9e7fdd2eae79b3964ecb5d7ab942039e
6373 F20101202_AAAEPY burweger_s_Page_014thm.jpg
be3c992320646a4fdd671d8f3f716ede
9cdb28cb646a1892ad1c4b1f5127073b568dfa59
14900 F20101202_AAAERB burweger_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
d1d0bfd41e4fc32175e25c37b55989b0
7acc76d3ea6748161e2131fc8e56fba9a224d07b
22744 F20101202_AAAEQN burweger_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
233ca99c84a12f143bb15cf084c5df41
cbbbd2fcf89a19f15f5f8d0d9d42e86eaa271deb
F20101202_AAAEPZ burweger_s_Page_116.tif
cb40dedf45dabe3ab6f362314af1495d
a38f3d935cd3d5c3271be89093509d78c559f777
22609 F20101202_AAAERC burweger_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
6c32a163d59a9a0c5159dbda7fa9d0d6
53c369db84a4fb54354ef04dcbfb7fb012fcdcaf
64617 F20101202_AAAEQO burweger_s_Page_102.pro
0e76cdabc219b773f5c82e3e3d55142c
2c50c8b0e6abd468986f4923c16f5d651d70f04f
1889 F20101202_AAAERD burweger_s_Page_013.txt
748455d667491b853437dd00e80b3778
ac0282f2df1cd8907d29321921c0a3aab3769794
110173 F20101202_AAAEQP burweger_s_Page_022.jp2
22faa16e062704cafa5dd724e269d5c2
6b49f5c36a16df734a78f021dd62eb9b3d31ce80
49060 F20101202_AAAERE burweger_s_Page_008.pro
4ce6f918f53c3263ba802d03020d9def
d2ae758a1bf7100d0ec3d5cdf3cce51f5698df1c
37891 F20101202_AAAEQQ burweger_s_Page_101.pro
73f88cd4927c21db29337eb07ff69597
fbb1b525783da8eb15076b0c430b9708826dec03
16994 F20101202_AAAERF burweger_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
f03b0bd5054abde19b04407cc86e54bd
31e62c9a2d71391af6197efb445ff0dff6c71946
21002 F20101202_AAAEQR burweger_s_Page_030.jp2
d609dd16dbac506d63c6e56725c3f165
fe1b1139516bb7c90c48ab7e899969a7551309ea
21840 F20101202_AAAERG burweger_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
70fbda537d7533b5385e457d4ce29676
e82bfeb263d9cdffe30f566f510fc8ae874fc41c
67864 F20101202_AAAEQS burweger_s_Page_060.jpg
d0ce213e389bec45f97f34e4bf715a03
ffd1bcea0e9917c51ac85d27f6a411872af8336f
F20101202_AAAERH burweger_s_Page_113.tif
2b5ee056766fd6df15fcf93edc2b76bb
af4b8df6ec8bcba83a7462fa9596a270af478def
F20101202_AAAERI burweger_s_Page_107.tif
14e2f7b29cc512e1ae01ad4a30e2f449
6624ebc59351ed3cebad047df35c3227d7202af3
3106 F20101202_AAAEQT burweger_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
43ea1c6093a0458136cec889c2b726d3
38df1320e7bd75235a66ff4af7ed9f5d93057fcb
10603 F20101202_AAAERJ burweger_s_Page_073.jpg
8c291090fdf2c986dcca44ec3e7c4650
4515314855d3e5712d641e6c252e70112f1f4bb2
74836 F20101202_AAAEQU burweger_s_Page_009.jpg
33380fdd7a9374d324b1866c45456f76
46a16c5df5efeb0028733b77dfb69a34aa9d83f4
111724 F20101202_AAAERK burweger_s_Page_102.jpg
dc02cd3573846906049cdf3c48b2e00d
4846f777f46763efa41c66b349fcfb874f6718db
42818 F20101202_AAAEQV burweger_s_Page_061.jpg
53984b87bb3c2c7806562db3d98031a7
dc3a6dbaacc9c8a8067b540a373dbf08035e74ad
61278 F20101202_AAAERL burweger_s_Page_109.jp2
841e220140ad076e3bfc08729d049e4a
8bbfb64b9d16deeca33e0eeb7ff9caef8f2f3184
1920 F20101202_AAAEQW burweger_s_Page_053.txt
56795739c7bfe0c68862489b54232ded
58b6f85e14a36e168e6c30fa4495d8e987c8a611
2267 F20101202_AAAESA burweger_s_Page_004thm.jpg
ae076942e0fe71e9c9de6ecae62fe53f
179a681c84f1070e02ee6231534c8fe7781cbdb3
30310 F20101202_AAAERM burweger_s_Page_107.jpg
a75fec00d475f57861830a923e15fcb3
d1e57ce7eea4cf47d3edeadfe5a6fab0c62c7068
F20101202_AAAEQX burweger_s_Page_076.tif
7d3cea89e1390fd5708a79fa07c4e639
b70c9c74c2cc5f7cf1b4228f0df91eb43910ef9b
6091 F20101202_AAAESB burweger_s_Page_090thm.jpg
2c4e4b47918b3363a1a07eb4e7b310ba
f27f8234f2fff38ca1c0072e23d53a448163f775
58175 F20101202_AAAERN burweger_s_Page_087.jpg
631b88dab87212a3d4a2f0d3db5d5b5e
cf99f8c1cd229fdb6e9a9edbdc8d7d56c8d58dcd
3191 F20101202_AAAEQY burweger_s_Page_081.txt
abb53981dfcf292b38c6ed0e2efbe9ce
674c1d646c162d25e881be84997a3be629c2ca43
112503 F20101202_AAAESC burweger_s_Page_021.jp2
e1a722adef907eb70287449cfca7288b
4119b72b0f634e53cc9c489a4a0b9ace7ea37e92
1598 F20101202_AAAERO burweger_s_Page_072thm.jpg
4fdb1d79ae4940ca3147c297c5878815
e5be7b0d4338d03b251c07d8bd903a3426898e23
1051977 F20101202_AAAEQZ burweger_s_Page_005.jp2
12aa9554e3b6d87027167be3eaa2625e
0b3d1fa3e030b85637daa0595f0d949e21beacfa
6515 F20101202_AAAESD burweger_s_Page_021thm.jpg
25606b43612bc3e0d48e9cc32591ddb2
53708194bb5f3cd05184ce6660d296d32fe88424
907 F20101202_AAAERP burweger_s_Page_006.txt
b28cafc16b016ff40a547182f121e700
2f53a59219221d4de3fa7534c5e2fe3102ac9960
62738 F20101202_AAAESE burweger_s_Page_084.pro
24a9f424876b5ae5fb1fffb3cd9da952
2630c0f93b73bf293d94b97ca0b84f21934c77dc
1514 F20101202_AAAERQ burweger_s_Page_040thm.jpg
f803c40354eb5c5d02b5cf8cec450df5
7465185ae85eb3fb4295ed2c86cd4cf246728b7d
F20101202_AAAESF burweger_s_Page_092.tif
e7bdee2cf1e884e76b8f6c41f70c97fc
bfafc883717debdb1f2c0dd5a9fce468be0d5853
6214 F20101202_AAAERR burweger_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
b7992c02c80058393a7496ce2434765c
98a10c9724d6c7e5e0b05483d395b83b1964f49e
6998 F20101202_AAAESG burweger_s_Page_114thm.jpg
5ca89c181768d612829b4c617246d6fa
81f1fe8725f9946fe650ace15c6a9b39ca89b8c2
14897 F20101202_AAAERS burweger_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
47a1e258befc93b82e7a780be7e305bb
bffc8a7f0dbffc34ccd47e8ccd3d06a008aa344e
27193 F20101202_AAAESH burweger_s_Page_087.pro
611e6f7255eb72903e8511bd13a345f9
68e443fd30b4213953ae94a02b662c796b921391
F20101202_AAAERT burweger_s_Page_109thm.jpg
f40254de1624d6200d48da66abe80b1f
2d4d4f31699c0be1bee4c06fa9eb9c09864c4a6f
F20101202_AAAESI burweger_s_Page_055.tif
d7bc4342d76ed0507f110c32b101d2e7
f2220033bcc21c3cc8a137f939c0048c36da3c9d
19498 F20101202_AAAESJ burweger_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
3c5f4d648d49bc624dbefdd9e0fc9002
04f47edb6087121a7f5ddb3d86949c3dff519a72
5439 F20101202_AAAERU burweger_s_Page_115thm.jpg
baf456a011d86a26675687b29d43b68d
7116298481e705e0be5551eb9291570584bc4f68
6403 F20101202_AAAESK burweger_s_Page_028thm.jpg
973ed313c30cb5e237639c0a533ba1d2
1c9ced46b4c075f9b567ac3b1ba742ceb6374e33
3403 F20101202_AAAERV burweger_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
ee63a5a26ab6224375ac2401b7ef6087
31439f1dfd3be4d40b163b3a478be62e775ee4b4
56238 F20101202_AAAESL burweger_s_Page_082.pro
d9d1ab5c74785c5ef883c91995714482
d7ffae91c78a4e406e3982ddef02cc426090fd0b
69128 F20101202_AAAERW burweger_s_Page_034.jpg
5180d4a0e26c81bc63591e33f42548f8
4b340360ce8d0bcdb1ba5d97f25372d42a96d31d
49237 F20101202_AAAESM burweger_s_Page_065.pro
0c51f32d3cf418bd1c84a10c8015e182
26ec6ae5070133504a946a1a1e3d1e91cf6fb4f0
F20101202_AAAERX burweger_s_Page_018.tif
d441112bcb660dc88192424193826ccf
8c4a60f7d6c3d2b3b66eced2d4a7cad841889b82
2643 F20101202_AAAETA burweger_s_Page_040.pro
9a439a9307b83403a83e10115505bd24
ead562a40aae6a5e1161b481172f99bbccf40366
49179 F20101202_AAAESN burweger_s_Page_028.pro
9bb560f992243c0ca777e47320276ae5
c82d1ab5d64570e92f4be402a5e3a82828fd1ce5
109943 F20101202_AAAERY burweger_s_Page_044.jp2
d1a4930f815d4aa416a15366c46478b5
ea3cc064ed00d9efd4f31afc031c8650b7c94758
110245 F20101202_AAAETB burweger_s_Page_024.jp2
31c4335ce65c1477afa216dced7610c2
b7b1a88249ec943f5216a0639e83a1316b9fe43f
94 F20101202_AAAESO burweger_s_Page_002.txt
3c23a52b91a183e0219092c0e0d632e0
f93c65474b4780eb2525f99349f0ec8a48fa1401
16845 F20101202_AAAERZ burweger_s_Page_111.pro
824e26832718c3e8a626cf3d334eebd0
550bc26cccb2239ec1fec016544268560be58fad
8376 F20101202_AAAETC burweger_s_Page_072.jp2
cb53ce1d8799019db6258acd6f0a46cd
a25955644b8dd00a610dd18a2e52063b272dff14
49504 F20101202_AAAESP burweger_s_Page_025.pro
f5cc4790f258039e825e69cada7c489c
bf7db06f100e12fac8b0cd7e9b9f48b7f57bfb3e
1340 F20101202_AAAETD burweger_s_Page_073thm.jpg
a9456551a0542a16b1a10e2f445c741b
09063485339d845faa5b87ffca8e8adae63963ae
5416 F20101202_AAAESQ burweger_s_Page_079thm.jpg
4602f5c29742c149f9c71a58bc218bf0
873d673ffb2b1c2414e53f0f070395bfa04fffd1
66 F20101202_AAAETE burweger_s_Page_067.txt
d53a649c4ef12120396c623d3dd095fd
5df376f84a9ee7fd150f4cdd6e1f9a1dde68ae83
74622 F20101202_AAAESR burweger_s_Page_021.jpg
19b105d73d72d5f565209f84c136a010
6697ee743562028a975740c809f992f68961581f
F20101202_AAAETF burweger_s_Page_111.txt
1d9e7d4c8a5253d12f5f645259c3e506
eaa5d04203a4e4572cf19087a1e9e9207e535a9f
F20101202_AAAESS burweger_s_Page_050.tif
900a644bbf8d2b3a2a0a44c1f4a647bc
0ea15cbcdf582acfe0e05ca4c9a23eadc006d807
24317 F20101202_AAAETG burweger_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
a2d228b4b77ec003cc656940efe07015
7f8cc56c6726bd13ed83a2e0d479d71b5847eed1
23668 F20101202_AAAEST burweger_s_Page_035.jp2
1a29c15c290678466a90dbe792d4b771
da59289d13facf4c1e7a2f63784831ed9633b349
F20101202_AAAETH burweger_s_Page_073.tif
b570bd05cfb62affd32bc29fbb0ecb2a
3fa55bd9431bcea77adc48d0872d4788fdadce96
47390 F20101202_AAAETI burweger_s_Page_060.pro
b5d99447f01dcb1e10b5595be4b79e6b
e823fb89c4f38f9e3e9a6cb14319c37b95c4842d
48434 F20101202_AAAESU burweger_s_Page_014.pro
b8ecb15a9bfab97e96e2cd878576f36b
dd2f43f12f3c695fe738070093ed9abb90b033f1
2220 F20101202_AAAETJ burweger_s_Page_001thm.jpg
f29289878a08bda53dec96843a5e4a90
63283275b5f6144117be7d9ac9748cb749d1ae3c
112163 F20101202_AAAETK burweger_s_Page_017.jp2
c86ea12f9263ecfe4c9420f6bbc25b81
33a7aef70ee408834f76eb61256b1667a7a07bca
65465 F20101202_AAAESV burweger_s_Page_082.jpg
47d4b7e2f0b9c84b537868eddcbc5c4b
6e609d91252cbc351f14a12f05dedec27c87d423
978332 F20101202_AAAETL burweger_s_Page_088.jp2
d8ccd7430a2eba2c26983c4097b010a0
642da78fd183de8d3267fc0aa5a04b93aa9fd7b7
F20101202_AAAESW burweger_s_Page_036.tif
5d8146df062a2cbf8c481879b64151dd
728f05ac34ea700f0744573fe8bcbe259cf5e4fe
3190 F20101202_AAAEUA burweger_s_Page_041thm.jpg
23d19b84cd780f8e4f35a235e413dff6
85e038385dc1ce7fa3ab9d40fdb553861c60b15d
23507 F20101202_AAAETM burweger_s_Page_006.jpg
aff5a0341057539a73427932b7105284
42b2f54f013b59316db00087d8eaf98a2fdfcd3b
65469 F20101202_AAAESX burweger_s_Page_038.jpg
19f97c404b04280dee0ec1461b61dacd
e4cdaca9ea6ff306ae562b08877d7c19d74c84ec
6169 F20101202_AAAEUB burweger_s_Page_068thm.jpg
cdf13e23e488ecbc7c965f1edc9a9d8f
f83d3f1fb4c2e18782256c6c5bb7bd923aaac97d
23477 F20101202_AAAETN burweger_s_Page_047.pro
5f4f55a59fbde4a9fbb87a0add2aac14
94114cb302dd41f2cb88b0048c164fc18046cb9d
68664 F20101202_AAAESY burweger_s_Page_033.jpg
8b2004743e87ab638a6fbff1897c8993
47fb6b6069daf4c942d24358515b713737a2aded
24675 F20101202_AAAEUC burweger_s_Page_092.pro
ce4e9b97c7ad6cdaedc1a68a74f74ca4
8307720547c912d906fce75b1276cd11bca9c236
1039720 F20101202_AAAETO burweger_s_Page_009.jp2
558e24d7df00cd3efa6b53c482f4421e
027347ed6d6ce162fd48ab76e22615109bf25533
105735 F20101202_AAAESZ burweger_s_Page_014.jp2
1d48671cf4e81103f5dd040c44171437
57a6543aeee2360faeada90e3e6a44c1aeed02da
23561 F20101202_AAAEUD burweger_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
1f562cc9b8294d178d1777fb44289f61
b3f5097b86f0d0de8c44edafb5b2df53da6e6109
6016 F20101202_AAAETP burweger_s_Page_083.jp2
97af45b8bd3e5a1463647fe7db887ec3
13a593187b5064bf560acdf82c301c3dee424f36
6646 F20101202_AAAEUE burweger_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
4b722cd7b3211107b2747f2a0f6a5b02
c6d59acbe54f847869848128f67c0b0039350060
109718 F20101202_AAAETQ burweger_s_Page_115.jp2
b0d4e1031a2ce3ea0604aa7020e334b6
4295547e5b83a6c504dbc271d245ea10f87fbb90
1397 F20101202_AAAEUF burweger_s_Page_067thm.jpg
bef6059297fd100e4862be1a1e7e344a
15de83ca24e46cbbc045c5f2c930abcac7cc0ab0
F20101202_AAAETR burweger_s_Page_089.tif
2119c5b6ebda7818bad379b0f60fffb2
573f0176ad1f19d36205b760b90c218a0d7aa2be
23915 F20101202_AAAFAA burweger_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
7cf435aa110020f5963e834b67536f69
72022075803dd918e931ba53679a4801841a51ad
29482 F20101202_AAAEUG burweger_s_Page_094.pro
7296ab77c6be14812867bd636191a679
9b602f22f09d7afbe76516c26c22a2bc82d633e7
25703 F20101202_AAAETS burweger_s_Page_002.jp2
64f2149ba2cd96f0342614a3d69ad406
4a70cbfb0b1e37daabde14298bb5e6125c58dc72
19319 F20101202_AAAFAB burweger_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
e62567cf954a9604bab763e8ff065e8a
8a30da450c23dd58473ab8a3acc5177442f1cdaf
6773 F20101202_AAAEUH burweger_s_Page_088thm.jpg
b9cee71d21a2e97e5d5182c32ca79cf7
10ae3c8b27a9c9b7d1be274088d6e62469ba6213
63195 F20101202_AAAETT burweger_s_Page_100.jpg
c0d26f7b6289ac14c84e0a953afedd93
895f67aba6649785af4c18604f0bf4461f271898
28453 F20101202_AAAEUI burweger_s_Page_106.jpg
d50063bf1269b28b5769ab7ae5bceea2
42a8175bda515f91b38a391374b611eab56bc994
22729 F20101202_AAAETU burweger_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
348bef7459993b9ca178180567414cb5
bfa695d06e4133259c6970b23feb76f6e3c01e61
2952 F20101202_AAAFAC burweger_s_Page_058thm.jpg
d4c5fb8b0c3a0a34b28c839daf66ecf2
00137e4c02ad47ae8bed524751a03a76a9b64735
1186 F20101202_AAAEUJ burweger_s_Page_097.txt
fb2277badac945b40327b2aaa630b1ee
3e663e8279a118b79cf2fc044d88b2adb45620f3
649222 F20101202_AAAETV burweger_s_Page_092.jp2
1d3dfee27cc6e824957cd5e273d21347
1b58b2d37996a22518e0eff202cc353212cb002a
30132 F20101202_AAAFAD burweger_s_Page_047.jpg
4736416736e36770432a2732f02bd381
238bf68f32328b7ebad82859b9491297257da9f5
101519 F20101202_AAAEUK burweger_s_Page_064.jp2
63d6030c768da44c8a47b792eb1a80c7
d8bee66cfe0138ab050f33ac888e5b9f9b722514
26656 F20101202_AAAFAE burweger_s_Page_049.pro
be4b616fb4918860e66d9ccf719e0a32
769d9e1503c655c5ff871d955dd0bf045664d8ca
F20101202_AAAEUL burweger_s_Page_088.tif
aa78e63059fdc038b6a3b0139970a53e
3ab231fd222f2f31fa485fccda1caa5100ebeaf8
72 F20101202_AAAETW burweger_s_Page_080.txt
d47bbd6050da2ee4c529fd12016be194
5a0c3d4ad74dd33b1fba893c0c0eb5da5ac82d3c
17892 F20101202_AAAFAF burweger_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
c6dcab14823ca5cc4525fca78cea9395
fa0a7897c8194ea075fb5647c9551dd0d9b2bcce
341 F20101202_AAAEUM burweger_s_Page_030.txt
1b1e09145b26c400d0fd07ffa085fae7
73535cead3a31e52766f8b60423264a1a089535f
F20101202_AAAETX burweger_s_Page_070.tif
d46cd75ed5ab4beda6cd1b130c8c397d
7baeef7df15228408ef80d1e528abb9c15020028
F20101202_AAAFAG burweger_s_Page_108.tif
d877375d39176985f255081b6aab2f31
16d1dc78dc28a872f5198c97c3273b9efe4419c5
16011 F20101202_AAAEVA burweger_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
eeb2dea01ea90656c13fc6ea1920be59
8cb5211d0c73337beb6863fbf53154745be5fb14
3147 F20101202_AAAEUN burweger_s_Page_078.txt
f61bf559239c5f9817164beec4a68958
29290ccd431a1e16ff7c1778913659f28341983c
34114 F20101202_AAAETY burweger_s_Page_093.pro
a30283a2400530ca29ae379790277322
f2c0eae36bc91a163abbc54e5f0d0e95da0cf56d
F20101202_AAAFAH burweger_s_Page_059.tif
97744fb6999866bcc717290a1b8f5afe
3ee07262ca42013819d9bd804ccac76a59fd5f6b
2323 F20101202_AAAEVB burweger_s_Page_035thm.jpg
273d578cd5306825e6da067ae5b12245
a4b241c60ea3210335d7fb8f1b8286b7824f632a
8124 F20101202_AAAEUO burweger_s_Page_040.jp2
50cf54ebc7b88896e3e167d4e20a98ff
7d5ce20cd477e15a66ec98855c8d35f83f11ac60
24726 F20101202_AAAETZ burweger_s_Page_042.pro
700aba5005456073e5f7ab21feb8f7f2
8dba821129f5e23493cc1a7104662ceb86bb09a7
F20101202_AAAFAI burweger_s_Page_044.tif
1fd8654c86ba2a901b0b50b46e423386
3aa882e78f24cd1c36fcdec665aeeec50b90410e
F20101202_AAAEVC burweger_s_Page_062.tif
3c1c488423584056cf4e6a1c06616faa
3be4c270e68b57a459c1d4c9c67b3a173ef0c508
8650 F20101202_AAAEUP burweger_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
b4517cadd4357501ffbcabc611379ff2
ce2012b92c08508296583f339dd07b1e873197c4
19260 F20101202_AAAFAJ burweger_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
90ff81d5925daa878c4f30cafb36f95d
caafb95773835bef9d4ff68e5fe9b1cbee95940a
10619 F20101202_AAAEVD burweger_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
cadcbc97c6a59241ca24fd1104dc2674
ed16be646d528c7c2d75549e641df3d4830694ea
F20101202_AAAEUQ burweger_s_Page_029.tif
46ebf74f9f71393ae05b9e0c99e4a580
802ae1d9097e99c16df94e8bbee80635474e2505
47942 F20101202_AAAFAK burweger_s_Page_064.pro
ba511827d160fc8d4715792e10d32964
fae8606fdc5d279bceedda675dda72a1adeb055c
54785 F20101202_AAAEVE burweger_s_Page_074.pro
df10e159d8fc1078ccd9a802d929054a
f23ea79f88e787efe3f43a6bdfdeefcdc72e3ed9
2403 F20101202_AAAEUR burweger_s_Page_114.txt
5be14117644a5425993db7d9e1575819
46466512cb12058d6081eb8cce30e09e7b2cf45d
2007 F20101202_AAAFBA burweger_s_Page_063.txt
588b1135d99ca1cb7d37fbe7603007f0
540f82af27e33000763a962f2ed0142291b2a62a
22125 F20101202_AAAFAL burweger_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
8c8d9d5b1a3a85fa1957cb6e21bd9006
6c927ca9655c240bcc790fe1eb10d9fb61198936
6512 F20101202_AAAEVF burweger_s_Page_051thm.jpg
5964efd93e1cdb24a0fc28532a59ef68
4454aa46046a0de207aeb12dd82c7c867be560ff
4420 F20101202_AAAEUS burweger_s_Page_116thm.jpg
313a827dc1e83247c97af1b4537780b1
35cb874223cba37889564096e16d9d18eb72fc7d
68044 F20101202_AAAFBB burweger_s_Page_019.jpg
ff2fe3ebefd949a3aea0fc9e6acdea55
1cefaeeb654b990e3d8a4b0c3a0f331bb35a8eda
21234 F20101202_AAAFAM burweger_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
772074955141046a57e235142d3e987a
25575b897b670da1c45b266969c3d660c4284d78
F20101202_AAAEVG burweger_s_Page_091.tif
8a051b83f45d2683cc13c91519cceccc
78327a2a7f6b86dfa3012cef45e3e115b8897332
1290 F20101202_AAAEUT burweger_s_Page_093.txt
88805db31aa9053e0af48d9a669bb647
6e45eb1c2218e97476ab5e1034fbe4f0dfaa917d
F20101202_AAAFBC burweger_s_Page_038.tif
615e678897eb21b867f5866042d7ea14
34e9688b8ce6fd385e610b74f5c318f2aef8d731
1809 F20101202_AAAFAN burweger_s_Page_079.txt
4b4f7a05385795d374375bc1ceb37a44
68f396797bc9e345486523375094aaa60ae3801e
6699 F20101202_AAAEVH burweger_s_Page_067.jp2
d439dab82f1d043cc8d7e9ea694556da
acfa3d79f88d99da235ca88e0d206437db26fdba
18725 F20101202_AAAEUU burweger_s_Page_030.jpg
8ed1beed12a7d9cb989786697b41abc5
31e0c6f300b91458163b255b61fdfa6d4d8e891d
1317 F20101202_AAAFAO burweger_s_Page_067.pro
c29aeca83b14a688097b45c45464f455
35c007fffb6e17f0d67e42eeb330cb5dfaa0113e
23025 F20101202_AAAEVI burweger_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
9b288ca7dbb11a333593eb0fee1eb882
f853a67d96f61d0b11933534482b36edb7ad85ab
16747 F20101202_AAAEUV burweger_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
b5f678af26fdf547e3bc5875ea86e3d6
0cfbd4415f58b5006aa29c5b98d2ed21611bd57f
20644 F20101202_AAAFBD burweger_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
0fb26937a9bdc40728e80bc21a57600c
c921567273e017e85d34c384211d398d5f86931b
21822 F20101202_AAAFAP burweger_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
2cd728f4b3c2f6ed19715c634d19b0da
b9f33aeeba97d70168606b62c1e59ba547bfd4e5
6778 F20101202_AAAEVJ burweger_s_Page_078thm.jpg
be0442abde6c4e57f564aa81c9c86c79
838af31fecbbc2cc6f2573959aa7c1f4b7ec24ed
2841 F20101202_AAAEUW burweger_s_Page_104thm.jpg
2340426d63b711fd786c7ea9281af5bb
2eca206ff811a812cd0e560c6730e19ad3768ee7
8423998 F20101202_AAAFBE burweger_s_Page_084.tif
946890e7cd0d7958da22c114a50ef7cd
0bd3915c634f96e31bdfb52e636128813818a143
5119 F20101202_AAAFAQ burweger_s_Page_092thm.jpg
27180f22561e09f8a3690425c18a5414
ac974d8c04f19bba4fd9e1630962f96cd6f95672
8523 F20101202_AAAEVK burweger_s_Page_030.pro
2b5ce9b4484a1eaf2cb3527e98655c7b
62ba75d396795e2f5bb4eea059580f88265b4e41
F20101202_AAAFBF burweger_s_Page_064.tif
6d3751b0be568938ab32189fa2b03313
b31e08c2bd5d1a912d00074c599b1c47d68c57f6
3840 F20101202_AAAFAR burweger_s_Page_112thm.jpg
4a2078e0fcfdb6fce75facf1430417b5
a5ed7d0844847acb7f99ab18f5ce3b4f59830350
70592 F20101202_AAAEVL burweger_s_Page_059.jpg
9ae05a6f3ea28e5be382ff165ab735d2
551d0f6de0f3bb3ac81e45ed30f1842649ba744a
F20101202_AAAEUX burweger_s_Page_046.tif
91593469a250470c002d1329707c6670
a5359b56fc4cd0aeb1f732bbd423a99ebac5e1f8
61307 F20101202_AAAFBG burweger_s_Page_049.jp2
6356c5e0c1911a954f71f774b2e3f3dd
28c09cb1daa729d16675d4527e17ee54f226ce0b
67257 F20101202_AAAEWA burweger_s_Page_016.jpg
079ad69d2fd23da0507a7d655a3150d2
406a3dc8ed622c57e7bd2e046b86591837b61deb
2008 F20101202_AAAFAS burweger_s_Page_009.txt
cd5cf7cf4bd9dc065b90dfe341d7af0c
50ae6f0256d3e5bfebde11472534dc658070bf6c
1336 F20101202_AAAEVM burweger_s_Page_107.txt
9a12dd7545326eeda9d788a054723518
05e4136a6017fee52243a0271ec255afd39f1b46
F20101202_AAAEUY burweger_s_Page_031.tif
b9b535ea9b734da23094abd72bbb280a
a7ee8e51034887028d306e7c2e8190db64028345
F20101202_AAAFBH burweger_s_Page_058.pro
27f944ad742809c1bc20d639647e68c5
358f8e4781ad6866653f2e0aecd4e9f87d48147d
18350 F20101202_AAAEWB burweger_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
6f321772ffbdb4f1e21f7a62d4e04862
2f04c0e2e36cc30f73897ee43e52e8ce4947476c
37159 F20101202_AAAFAT burweger_s_Page_041.pro
faba9aed66b495d634b6fa7af9cec1d4
498f2f49ba6fd16d3d7551abe5141a5425654b9c
1398 F20101202_AAAEVN burweger_s_Page_103thm.jpg
2def5cdd23035954cebf81a0d6802ec6
ea7e242a9624190dea95de3f9109cc299444617c
2175 F20101202_AAAEUZ burweger_s_Page_072.pro
daa47e283b7f665781574caf6eb57862
81dbfe3328690b6eebcf063ad80d716ca6c637cb
F20101202_AAAFBI burweger_s_Page_028.tif
a7649b645dc966ea9b89c7443b984162
e371afff1d08a55c4cc017806a05dc73529c01e3
3217 F20101202_AAAEWC burweger_s_Page_105thm.jpg
0e66d6c95567ed6cfa1ec9fcee4552f6
c4dd580c33d6ab7d73536c9982ef8767df68fb16
219407 F20101202_AAAFAU burweger_s_Page_001.jp2
a3c8e1e5787a09d7ff6449dde6fb52d3
46fe709b0e11ad175c0a0e8773bf6b2bc540bea6
14269 F20101202_AAAEVO burweger_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
dcdb7f5cb81c7baf56c034973232ae27
f06399586d4e043a5c1c8631b53cb5c43a4efe54
1935 F20101202_AAAFBJ burweger_s_Page_029.txt
3a317e3f56583897f286cfa02c4c62f6
4026e2c96f9274cf04843a86f4cd1ef2e72c7f94
60493 F20101202_AAAEWD burweger_s_Page_061.jp2
ebc4f380f82384339fadc97a859773eb
ed53c45370728b57bbfe697629e3a7f4151944a4
22386 F20101202_AAAFAV burweger_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
cdfcc0bd182f0a8d9e64d650ae22071c
b831c9336451b1cd8818b61c6ded3eced1cea051
47839 F20101202_AAAEVP burweger_s_Page_079.pro
f2ad9efb3889cf45f28891280a07dee8
c0de68e3946251113731332039a9788abfe38d56
29033 F20101202_AAAFBK burweger_s_Page_104.jpg
5dd1966c35a9cd8ed6ae194d748a9d94
3f8bcdcfaffeed9a3f7b4b858ba5b9fc12f239c4
3029 F20101202_AAAEWE burweger_s_Page_047thm.jpg
5d4f315f5e3f6cbe5e7a91a511ac8c94
caa440e6b52f0964cf69ba68fd397a67c834ff65
19275 F20101202_AAAFAW burweger_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
2ef64bf384a303099878b98bd1869ab0
92f392298ab33b3a6d29d2d509dde98b22493463
52857 F20101202_AAAEVQ burweger_s_Page_021.pro
5697db3e9bccbcd4dbf8a483b8a0925d
99977bb921dd39ecb1145b85b1d56d1bab29119e
6340 F20101202_AAAFBL burweger_s_Page_065thm.jpg
c9c850afd6c577c0e925ddf9f633dca7
3e506924cebb0209537d1effabd5f4e2513a3522
1904 F20101202_AAAEWF burweger_s_Page_064.txt
1c95ff6aeba24dd3b593336f441e7b3f
a3ea38fb2a6a55ec7326e5d19461f9a2cfe81e7b
128724 F20101202_AAAFAX burweger_s_Page_102.jp2
cd8d95169528649aa2ea1daf424f7885
f9214b34f653b9991b27de9cf0003595578c6104
6979 F20101202_AAAEVR burweger_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
960f992bd44744b99eafadd2a49e7ce1
776ef313bae0f135fb1269749fc8f8bcabb3379c
22087 F20101202_AAAFCA burweger_s_Page_004.jpg
c19aa08e87aa9ffe3618ec66872ae551
a68d98ee75c4c121e6a2d8d6f2175e754110b4a7
5098 F20101202_AAAFBM burweger_s_Page_066thm.jpg
e1640ba7193d8224e963086a152cb266
afe6462dd8c5aadbe98c6834a3a901439ebed27a
62797 F20101202_AAAEWG burweger_s_Page_076.jp2
54748f85c09ddb9cf3e59d05f42b4853
bded27988e0b24261007e6ce3725367aa5852556
3077 F20101202_AAAFAY burweger_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
3d20aff5c08e80f01801d3a761f2f92d
64d277dc8754574bd472a29761523217209346eb
842416 F20101202_AAAEVS burweger_s_Page_093.jp2
d0059cb059fe8d8bea3c233b95ef12c8
b8df57993946d0dfc2b161e89fd3d4ab7c2e6b01
56092 F20101202_AAAFCB burweger_s_Page_066.jpg
98a54c3aa8620f3536ac3d3aa023441e
b5e57eee52ed1a521eb39b9588d591e9f5e13219
15446 F20101202_AAAFBN burweger_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
7b1e4fe9784250e23163b20d6950357b
69606e7f6afaa678e8e604081818a5777f72c432
6313 F20101202_AAAEWH burweger_s_Page_033thm.jpg
c69bdf8f5fc0015f8f0aafe66256f6d2
2f61a737a98303fbc0230ab6d6317d9b51017101
F20101202_AAAFAZ burweger_s_Page_077.tif
022c1d9dc75b1b755a6de1d9e65d307c
6a647a65a3a9d2781b4478e1058a467efaa399de
39784 F20101202_AAAEVT burweger_s_Page_088.pro
a216e449e673653ce2b68693ac92b15c
52877bcc7cec0b735eb733a780931c7b7f4b00ff
F20101202_AAAFCC burweger_s_Page_109.txt
cbb155384d21ea0693901c8be413ccd8
a8d4c7dec815d2ba3700db96f07db83c2c4f7684
2585 F20101202_AAAFBO burweger_s_Page_085.txt
842a6fea256842f5ad460878298a5632
480cb6757263500f10fd8b1a99f8fa3ea510f1b0
39885 F20101202_AAAEWI burweger_s_Page_104.jp2
5d915998c8caee22d1219570ab7eb5eb
ed38bfc0934e8fe56a242512dff1be558d2b9690
1966 F20101202_AAAEVU burweger_s_Page_026.txt
c4e3c79af531b973f0c8647c8a8878cb
7039a9ed925014857d4ee8290b4a44e15520b760
6297 F20101202_AAAFCD burweger_s_Page_029thm.jpg
32f86092a11c36958cc8bcf0a3a34f5a
4e5df200f495ba4aabd9571a0c86e05cfafce874
1444 F20101202_AAAFBP burweger_s_Page_112.txt
88fafb953d2cc249ba2d714ef780a2fe
3ab29c78a42b214f146009d1d9ca06e77e9fb1e1
2964 F20101202_AAAEWJ burweger_s_Page_111thm.jpg
812ff9bcde2f07bd7ceb108748feeee4
523992c22f4d4b310d01ae1420f4986e8f2f8330
14143 F20101202_AAAEVV burweger_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
bd86d4d36ba3dbcbe490aab72706d4c7
43b771b0571acf71a0aef100caf7ba8cc420b42e
F20101202_AAAFBQ burweger_s_Page_003.txt
f1f3237eb47015a3c3e61535ec54e745
27e061f6d96f55e165313743fa833df10b653d18
73051 F20101202_AAAEWK burweger_s_Page_044.jpg
e0e043457c43b070ab900fee03b332d7
751c73103d548493f4dc5f06c71fdf5cbd01d1a4
50770 F20101202_AAAEVW burweger_s_Page_059.pro
2e21c24aa93114e331ffc0d585cebe37
b856b6471b31479880ae1abe90743e1a56e267fa
F20101202_AAAFCE burweger_s_Page_009.tif
ae8982c6d874da664de433fd8d25ed7b
47262ad71b523eb15f5a3603e7b97a755a3e76eb
5737 F20101202_AAAFBR burweger_s_Page_082thm.jpg
31ceda9668c42acfc9d75851423815b7
02487945ce6e892a2164ade18a6d5f26550960b2
6184 F20101202_AAAEWL burweger_s_Page_034thm.jpg
a85103294ed9515e01b7f48eb1a20dec
157555a201d702b544b51b72665982bb477ff945
70120 F20101202_AAAEVX burweger_s_Page_095.jpg
e9ec3d79787f3f774ff943f4f99c3f1d
538cf2ced214fecc5ef01f0356354316f1da2e96
70173 F20101202_AAAFCF burweger_s_Page_018.jpg
2fb9e175b87cac37892595fd3451b644
1fbe1251b36ae4a73f5dc5f286f0fb0f86df3b3b
F20101202_AAAEXA burweger_s_Page_058.tif
186756707fffd1a8aaf86a52604ea27d
50dc1d5a11339613017d2d9651adb88c393cd75f
3876 F20101202_AAAFBS burweger_s_Page_010thm.jpg
045b00df3ff0a0b0345a943632cd7d18
4f240ffc6474d5b50470d6c5c62cc86b0b37b448
31418 F20101202_AAAEWM burweger_s_Page_055.jpg
4c596e893a367bfa58acd55029a3b745
ae2df2c4c26571df67150be55989747eaa988849
6039 F20101202_AAAFCG burweger_s_Page_038thm.jpg
84650d7dcdc916eec0b3a91746e5efa5
2b2a8ced3b991eeecaf9198f11d4dbafc6ed6578
25003 F20101202_AAAEXB burweger_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
6851e95c21bbecfafcdbd1ddc1679b22
2901eebe74ff8ca071a5e615c968f7a7a6f8661c
5309 F20101202_AAAFBT burweger_s_Page_070thm.jpg
6972e0b1897847c17cb22543666139a8
17ec701409645a75523242891a114d40d863830f
137687 F20101202_AAAEWN burweger_s_Page_078.jp2
694e7ae4ef2b0a14a3fc1e75071c1441
45f52ff3dea11e67c3fc8a3388314a618aaa20c3
84786 F20101202_AAAEVY burweger_s_Page_036.jp2
9db4afa4a0efce4118b136e7a56388ec
49c8b09e326873f100b32ce2f2922947c9fb5d9a
5563 F20101202_AAAFCH burweger_s_Page_086thm.jpg
b07ebede933e01ccf0335d190f59433e
87cbdf49afa2cd70a89afd6d06a8c585219707dc
1191 F20101202_AAAEXC burweger_s_Page_100.txt
863aede7f8cc6d60c7d739b1205bb3df
3d6b3a34978bf7f1f3bf70b44d009fa68c89544c
2394 F20101202_AAAFBU burweger_s_Page_036.txt
7e1b711763162ccce5f9d2d19abaa360
dcc6c9a3abe0a762c993f999df103e0cf672ccd4
1409 F20101202_AAAEWO burweger_s_Page_083thm.jpg
a433609d80e0e5aa7201d093d3409880
7365b603f2eab1d02d3195ec4ddd56f2bde5b204
22718 F20101202_AAAEVZ burweger_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
6fe9203bd0c073cd8c69cf314005750e
dd716ebb45c1e00ded780f7514da3bff5d52afd7
41117 F20101202_AAAFCI burweger_s_Page_055.jp2
33005093ef39375e4fac93170b13f4d5
84d5f800c97338572bcc426182e7a68b8449b63a
F20101202_AAAEXD burweger_s_Page_071.tif
4ad38f3dafd705196ec4e7ce982a0af9
d5054679e1eb4a34e6e66a9649de43a4bbddbf88
F20101202_AAAFBV burweger_s_Page_105.tif
8c842a76b939f5f368f96c90f3fc511f
e005c1579e7ed7700f751e9771951cfdc6bb2ed6
4341 F20101202_AAAEWP burweger_s_Page_048thm.jpg
36a0a4027f3e79abd72692814c75884f
fe1c90abe4ae5cd05a06e0676c3f0db614fcdaa2
22626 F20101202_AAAFCJ burweger_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
6fbdc14c2742a7eb13e507e5905faa83
52098bb39de797caa6d1c49f1d7242b4c0572bc9
F20101202_AAAEXE burweger_s_Page_003thm.jpg
cf00cec4671c82c21eb8f787b67c8aeb
ecc4d10521118a526958f80b25b15887385b0a2d
11118 F20101202_AAAFBW burweger_s_Page_067.jpg
c2f70abea4e32909c295ca6a0c77355a
19ac63c588ae6ea7ad7fae1d2e6d1cc91b0beff2
79935 F20101202_AAAEWQ burweger_s_Page_110.jp2
077bfa247afc366f79d7218cdc39f153
457fd7af49b68e7c3ed852ed45fa776d735dd3d2
F20101202_AAAFCK burweger_s_Page_075.tif
89712c13043e3fc46f7aff27ba8a089c
5b959e5059904b275c97c53a6fce556dd8f88583
6187 F20101202_AAAEXF burweger_s_Page_013thm.jpg
cbc62c158025a882bd8a2d55a8756bd0
2810192c961bdd398c0c7ffb29588f95e5180cc4
46902 F20101202_AAAFBX burweger_s_Page_009.pro
d0270efccab83870daf5566fb2ae4033
2f7dfa1f70f7453266fe6d86e4d93a62e25ebfa6
18382 F20101202_AAAEWR burweger_s_Page_055.pro
c43049960f6382648dd535a297973b9d
ea7792b0644400e03db6ae4850437d3f133e4c94
2000 F20101202_AAAFDA burweger_s_Page_022.txt
2936bc86fef27d76f691a2114e9c055b
b08a99f7ad66113e9fdc8436802b4c841ff2c930
F20101202_AAAFCL burweger_s_Page_109.pro
73286fb0e6c88ceb16d8d8f1caf67ada
424faaa9a3ae9683f9afbe1f435f24432d580104
1955 F20101202_AAAEXG burweger_s_Page_031.txt
14852fe756ae15d02a4abe800e213edc
1a9b266bebbf6adbce18668b65df83b5025f880d
3735 F20101202_AAAFBY burweger_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
7cdbe4e08c073ec349c43f82f700ffb3
11fec184a06cfc8681634b1a879717b62a154fc4
32899 F20101202_AAAEWS burweger_s_Page_054.jpg
453fdaa1cb866d2b9343ae93ffff1728
9b39b08e0216e8bcdc3fc33e72328fb9aa60400b
6542 F20101202_AAAFDB burweger_s_Page_074thm.jpg
33e1879d34f0bb77fa32a45a4d396ae2
687edce567332bcca4394a37dab5c7b4ec0df6c1
39201 F20101202_AAAFCM burweger_s_Page_010.jpg
f944b87c04c2923d43d9856a76f7c861
34a9c11609741d5d3f065719601947714feaa138
102560 F20101202_AAAEXH burweger_s_Page_043.jp2
7c0b1ad0cbc5ef899198f1da5c9943ab
7816d7d9c42f51e2cd4c7424f11f33a915eb0b19
4896 F20101202_AAAFBZ burweger_s_Page_050thm.jpg
4739120a22ddc61a06a99e1244312fbe
9fda97d5d8ac7a3b43e478144df1b32e6393e338
F20101202_AAAEWT burweger_s_Page_052.tif
a0fe730c20fc74db1d458fcbb2105ed9
b28edfa9b499b39e6bf0ad36d86f185c13c2401a
25103 F20101202_AAAFDC burweger_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
f66bb175558f8fe3e0e05c01b3dc971b
546d9a7bf93cdfc7dfa4be710e50665a439b7001
6043 F20101202_AAAFCN burweger_s_Page_016thm.jpg
a933bc0403656aca39173b8a560b9d8c
1518d4b9a0870e01c21041e1ed08e02dd9c2780f
F20101202_AAAEXI burweger_s_Page_056.tif
914741760ce6e5c7edede501f51345d3
0c15de81b107930bcf63b95ce41d2ed5989f8085
6434 F20101202_AAAEWU burweger_s_Page_020thm.jpg
2e5247c770b9f57fa4d302579a16e810
a0998440d142bc9cf600d8622ede1f3c8863121a
44222 F20101202_AAAFDD burweger_s_Page_038.pro
23b78f78bbc869b6c8326d1948747bb0
f07c1665ee1b1a7f220f7770076ed16d38c41f3e
109566 F20101202_AAAFCO burweger_s_Page_063.jp2
3e301fb7c0181f14896ff4b9b4fad879
2f2d46f486946650a259b5609960c940cf9ef788
70124 F20101202_AAAEXJ burweger_s_Page_071.jpg
468e4fb79822a1e27c984027846d2e32
1786ed3208606e1966921af2ad5955ebe0124c54
F20101202_AAAEWV burweger_s_Page_032.tif
dd24f8968c948ef70e08e4e91c16c987
b6c4e77b694af7ef1b6513d5de75ae1dd12cf29d
5704 F20101202_AAAFDE burweger_s_Page_071thm.jpg
01e27175ed78f1c8730dc3213bfba30c
9fc655003d5f5c3c33297f9d694c8451f406b952
104976 F20101202_AAAFCP burweger_s_Page_025.jp2
c156606d76fcce7e0f63616d0f7c31c4
f47e6b79aff25b6dcff66011f8e9821ed1995b2b
101096 F20101202_AAAEXK burweger_s_Page_060.jp2
20d902583bf5299116bec29d22704a4f
f0c3d975e4f46f06dfc1e812d9250aba5e807aad
46969 F20101202_AAAEWW burweger_s_Page_076.jpg
7b052fd64d94d4e9865fb86ddcde9988
8110295df4d521e800d7f0967de1eb84b6ce318f
1140 F20101202_AAAFCQ burweger_s_Page_095.txt
fab0582add7954d263cdd232b07404cb
3f2b218a71ef33978f2318c4b326ad7631ef9468
F20101202_AAAEXL burweger_s_Page_066.tif
e4d11b93c0e83ec0ee345aa881697edf
a89a4c095bfc40be8595ad0e931ccbacb4c20f1f
30485 F20101202_AAAEWX burweger_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
d3d514713e925ad2d5734c5fa4d16a83
f5d6ba51ca56bdf99808f3c561ccc28b8f434a79
5810 F20101202_AAAFDF burweger_s_Page_073.jp2
80046d993ed98bf4b6d98da44ecf33ff
9f96cc30364131bed3ca25c3a663692ec189931e
107202 F20101202_AAAFCR burweger_s_Page_059.jp2
3b9383959e4f1a0e56a5f0d714345a33
0f4ad3d1be7c22f68508281e4b8a1c8471baadc4
6226 F20101202_AAAEXM burweger_s_Page_095thm.jpg
2d4c11e5dfc16987ed5934b39177e1f5
d0cbcceb3c99ea29121cd5760a1eb11b5d87ef42
1135 F20101202_AAAEWY burweger_s_Page_077.pro
a5d6ac2856ad974da71e063c3c44c715
9bb761c56706633df3375de346fb3d982fde76af
6702 F20101202_AAAFDG burweger_s_Page_024thm.jpg
9e50d145e25937ed1836fe99d2150885
40e8689d3db52e14a27fccbbb5bf34e3159aa742
19905 F20101202_AAAEYA burweger_s_Page_006.pro
8805670ae67999e9d5b4aa420dba4112
7fbfbf6c89f1cfa466f8efd7fe007a56aa35690b
2031 F20101202_AAAFCS burweger_s_Page_017.txt
b9d48558dcf36e9458cab7a3217c9e2c
6f48e4ff747bfed349c0ed147abb31895edf54b2
25034 F20101202_AAAEXN burweger_s_Page_042.jpg
2396f4d3332a813cb76504fe0357312d
89a75732bdf03ab866173ab11c2d196b926d8794
F20101202_AAAFDH burweger_s_Page_097.tif
214967064ab358614fab20dcbe6c65b5
c160122c8a74679ac9f95d1217003a52167d73d7
35463 F20101202_AAAEYB burweger_s_Page_105.jpg
989b40c029bdd27ef966c706215c81f3
4c9e6a5c09ee8c311ddce81caf24e8c886add93d
F20101202_AAAFCT burweger_s_Page_078.tif
4e8fa2ff1f26f81c895fab121f2f07ab
3b21db1f89194d8ba9aa90a157b8deb94e2174e8
66668 F20101202_AAAEXO burweger_s_Page_005.jpg
e711dc3660be07c39e108046507d3a69
59dd579bdbbab138a58c1f7362345042c6fda5a4
7362 F20101202_AAAEWZ burweger_s_Page_001.pro
71e9efc5ed570a78fc4e61d4183d0c78
a8e32c7e5aa57861e67a9a3b52e189affe92231e
F20101202_AAAFDI burweger_s_Page_104.tif
a45509c1d9683fc87a082cf7262a9581
f03106f2bc70c7ad8fecdef56ebaeaf2acf2dbf4
4248 F20101202_AAAEYC burweger_s_Page_113thm.jpg
9bc16bcbeed36ec5c8a680ab05534294
0a2e2560dc8dce67f06a952c83b22b65c08fe3fb
1863 F20101202_AAAFCU burweger_s_Page_019.txt
f3f21f46ccf658e540521576f9671339
be8618abf8f8e88b136e2de133d539c374df7b02
114798 F20101202_AAAEXP burweger_s_Page_027.jp2
16ac6f0d4eb94def66a9abbe7d1bd0c0
3900d36453c6573637a179972511974739fcf464
22144 F20101202_AAAFDJ burweger_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
55cb31dd228c0fe7af4e7251706da57a
78c8298adf0eba87ae689277b2c5310b66586454
24170 F20101202_AAAEYD burweger_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
851dd501494da1eecfdd2a43c106bfa0
f959c1ea0d4a22cbbe397c4576bffb5216b27872
28081 F20101202_AAAFCV burweger_s_Page_039.jpg
b600b548f6f554137c577ef1b09435d0
9c4019b971a592f6b0840d00032618ed2b505efc
F20101202_AAAEXQ burweger_s_Page_024.tif
2ecb470269f432e4c29920d2277ae482
a3302e6bcec6654c4665c92fdf167a2fb380b16b
102773 F20101202_AAAFDK burweger_s_Page_016.jp2
783d52489d1b930fb4045765f6162892
53496ef278eb58658f0d4c779419cf29c04bce5d
71474 F20101202_AAAEYE burweger_s_Page_063.jpg
78a8849aa429a354db3f8283fdcea9f5
4b4dbe32091d1f8f6e189470cda5f637bd027a56
50506 F20101202_AAAFCW burweger_s_Page_115.pro
3b37701b3c9535608e33e50bc719eb4b
2972c5ba7b66581d1fddca15cbdcbcf84223a3dd
3485 F20101202_AAAFEA burweger_s_Page_012thm.jpg
aa678484322cc2d3f9759cd251c5ab29
88fd31a5bd7f427718ee6a665f1bbaceb99028f8
F20101202_AAAFDL burweger_s_Page_003.tif
7f5666ecd0a20df693784a5cf3fd7756
6841b4469e3d50003bbe00dd3e87966f2575b576
51557 F20101202_AAAEYF burweger_s_Page_017.pro
5cbfc77909a5e1be2f85eae7db022868
05096eefc5b2ff90b04eb10d26f9520e3157c020
2207 F20101202_AAAFCX burweger_s_Page_030thm.jpg
0754cc2888cb559d4833e6f28f1abb87
6edc8840feaadd5b90065cda427309672ec274b0
2125 F20101202_AAAEXR burweger_s_Page_113.txt
b5ee3c054b56b4bec9cf438a9e25dc3e
f2845730793e1f9187ba629bd9ea243b8631095c
1352 F20101202_AAAFEB burweger_s_Page_077thm.jpg
97049add38f0ef565357b04b70bbb75e
1ed67f4c147f7fdaf5d7e609d8162a04f0533060
F20101202_AAAFDM burweger_s_Page_074.tif
16bde0dd7c245a145e3d79a270f423f3
e5d7494cae97f5955d499d444b51213f98664bbe
2838 F20101202_AAAEYG burweger_s_Page_106thm.jpg
3a573e7c2a1c1b664ada4924bcdbb513
2c5fb696cc6d3b9d5a2c977cf01a7b2080153ef7
106447 F20101202_AAAFCY burweger_s_Page_018.jp2
333a2ab2516c3d7f137a1030b78a66e7
bed2efb64949363194a32b1e8393b2d0d423f36a
7231 F20101202_AAAEXS burweger_s_Page_102thm.jpg
4ea1eab26a7206a29185d8cc2eb69db1
308534aa3a10bd8d1be6ff626d29ea69941c1e9f
1392 F20101202_AAAFEC burweger_s_Page_101.txt
35b238388ef5c5d0952c388de14ab47e
a5c892d4d4d874ef5dd82e272a9312cbb75d9641
1899 F20101202_AAAFDN burweger_s_Page_023.txt
eac67ab32ba3cb9e38df22e5be1537b8
4aae1235450718cbb823136fe040c50d12ca01e5
79469 F20101202_AAAEYH burweger_s_Page_005.pro
faa0f1ec026b79d318a010df1600f44f
3852f60ac1abb3a00cf52f849085c870d83fcf8d
28759 F20101202_AAAFCZ burweger_s_Page_106.pro
5b52dc72536234ebf539ebf9649f8007
46144a766f06f54745a2233d533c5b9e998ebe6d
70387 F20101202_AAAEXT burweger_s_Page_051.jpg
bb780477062f9fddaf2104eb3fbc3b1d
15da7718543de9dec055ef818d3a61d395cc3a25
20511 F20101202_AAAFED burweger_s_Page_035.jpg
8e5d877ab2d89ba313d6a20a2f3c5d6c
9426a4a30c863ba8eee55356dc96ee27f8ef7caf
1513 F20101202_AAAFDO burweger_s_Page_066.txt
ccce9fcc9cd1bd5ec3dbb4c8a2b6e4ba
4ee9fe5489eaa68e4d82d1dcac66bd99c25435ef
57724 F20101202_AAAEYI burweger_s_Page_037.jpg
141b4b2cd651001f8475884e58ec781e
12ad32192980b317b164c3cea1f529ed821d24d7
112313 F20101202_AAAEXU burweger_s_Page_045.jp2
9bd734ba72edf385d42d1b52c5089957
1c8ea8758bd2447cd4337e37390649257164a9d7
20948 F20101202_AAAFEE burweger_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
8b53e97120050c4e8d381aba3c97034e
3559faeb16b19fcc12b841796296ba4e56d72624
2755 F20101202_AAAFDP burweger_s_Page_039thm.jpg
279a25b524c8211e2043551ce09aa5f5
b3cebed646139c8db1f3da01df0ff6b903ebab29
1967 F20101202_AAAEYJ burweger_s_Page_062.txt
f39b0cd943ed41369e8ac5dcca5c2bb2
78e92cf2707b319a096388d13d4d9fbd32c7d3e6
3401 F20101202_AAAEXV burweger_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
8087d84485cf43725b9ac032a62923ab
70c0530ed190d5bba189b8cd68829b5bb72a5046
26183 F20101202_AAAFEF burweger_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
a2206450ea74f8a7a9507cda185e6ca2
83432249f96647bd05a881b4df6b4a1cabf45b83
74266 F20101202_AAAFDQ burweger_s_Page_045.jpg
0357134ec36806641a4c86bf63a36e92
0e1339b5a4cc29ed686159bc6fbf2dfb5882e079
30601 F20101202_AAAEYK burweger_s_Page_100.pro
40ede2ef73d527a41196104fcc5891d5
558525887dafe06a207d06e6137e8d230359a16c
48820 F20101202_AAAEXW burweger_s_Page_029.pro
991b78cd3c2bc8f021e00d0451070bbb
46747ba902e65430685621809450accd49cc137d
30883 F20101202_AAAFDR burweger_s_Page_097.pro
5e4f2c417450e48fbd148ae883099651
c09abd314064f6f04b5129915bb69996dba863fd
94831 F20101202_AAAEYL burweger_s_Page_068.jp2
45e014390bec5b9e02cd77b74ae68577
4c3346c30602dacb08d5066edf5521e21a2e0ba0
F20101202_AAAEXX burweger_s_Page_023.tif
c4665b84cc4d5a41bde86c9bbbba3deb
14dfa69ffffbd761facc69a9329051c07c8f23fc
103679 F20101202_AAAFEG burweger_s_Page_033.jp2
98fbe3905ae5b7503ee7b578762122db
85c9e8517c8c7442049a17626f324fe804e96e79
6268 F20101202_AAAEZA burweger_s_Page_094thm.jpg
053b539e50ef2547aeffad5bf022b89f
95604679d3317be9c1daf871f28bab377cad533b
748878 F20101202_AAAFDS burweger_s_Page_097.jp2
7be86e1aa992af2fbb534ef8f8d3005f
51188a555f5705d092ec690d09e760bad145d156
17367 F20101202_AAAEYM burweger_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
1a8e9cd157a19b62d827dee4d2cd7560
d7ff91041d6e689d15c76d2ad64b6bab7cfc0e32
24010 F20101202_AAAEXY burweger_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
bc168e57c44444fe01a210ca7617706c
071a4134d061741030576c862dc00e5b3648d3b3
74100 F20101202_AAAFEH burweger_s_Page_024.jpg
ab09f28b4b66840f6e5ba64f99a741cf
a1b316bbe3a4d13af88da7a3a8e634ef70a83782
F20101202_AAAEZB burweger_s_Page_021.tif
aa64602215428cf41628b33d400dd5b5
2f972d6acd31c58e7708f73778b7f30ea047a33a
836 F20101202_AAAFDT burweger_s_Page_002.pro
347f37f136562b29f18381e65c95329b
d43142fa648b71d0022326483daeec040cbcdb21
45285 F20101202_AAAEYN burweger_s_Page_052.pro
c2b75aa4bac39e5b3bd845284e087656
2ef82766c8287ca38549695e042cfdec1b4476d2
45569 F20101202_AAAEXZ burweger_s_Page_049.jpg
f11c49711b9192b0e57e3cbf60375be0
0d30e62484c54f17e9ea1b60dfd75281ef7f1c56
5991 F20101202_AAAFEI burweger_s_Page_093thm.jpg
f1e916cb8cbfb41cf049ac86f209a252
8863af3369f56d33a62700543e7df85475e378c6
F20101202_AAAEZC burweger_s_Page_049.tif
c0fc9331a5eee46854fc180f347c7a0a
46ccffd561b3852b14de2059e0c0040873d16cc5
53864 F20101202_AAAFDU burweger_s_Page_081.pro
18bc5167def8179b26a36b8de2e505de
cb0530dcf415be1b43b7736b330cbc08284e26ad
66009 F20101202_AAAEYO burweger_s_Page_079.jpg
36f5a32cfdfad84120df78906ce59b64
44a476f063f411cfd6b3a65e0fd89db315e59a3f
23247 F20101202_AAAFEJ burweger_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
b267991db9beac33d88297c312a0cd52
ce690b008786ba2b644608581ac8f667e7da4963
F20101202_AAAEZD burweger_s_Page_072.txt
e62283103485d0b78a9cf747e8796bdc
ec1f205ae97d29ab8b2c0badfd2a1448d2cb713f
7725 F20101202_AAAFDV burweger_s_Page_075thm.jpg
23b512d3ef9e602088401161a664ee92
ed23aada91d43a519b74057dfe91003b0f321f01
4780 F20101202_AAAEYP burweger_s_Page_087thm.jpg
500913e2f9f170a4d8b715eee58170e3
0aa9d2a937b6844fc4bedf6068042d4cd6d5817e
9129 F20101202_AAAFEK burweger_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
8a2b26d7a9e5456d10df77622c9f5fb1
ce662b13ab303f48d0cff9063e9fc4caa804ef73
F20101202_AAAEZE burweger_s_Page_094.tif
1dbfdd889c0c604b7cf4c42601912865
7bc06f0adeb03e0f253bd8e165ae2fb8e5e560fe
9761 F20101202_AAAFDW burweger_s_Page_003.jpg
bf7f0afd28f87934a8272a76b58c7c95
d53eda914731b4af3ea83ae19b1a0504e071a877
9549 F20101202_AAAEYQ burweger_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
69b71970813c92819070b192b8820993
4374dd27f9350d57ec9ceac9dab186f746ed36e2
69352 F20101202_AAAFEL burweger_s_Page_014.jpg
4b7f921a785d6ce8759372a8e3098ff0
c2bde3bfc90cceaf637837fb5b0c1984a0f53b90
1020 F20101202_AAAEZF burweger_s_Page_091.txt
b893b74b21973670f47d80b8cd074284
29358f20e2fae30d6241542561f31fdda9c1f0b3
2001 F20101202_AAAFDX burweger_s_Page_059.txt
47eb1d324f4f7be3ef277dd73769d39e
e110625d24d76acc8340c561d537902060a7c5b1
103592 F20101202_AAAEYR burweger_s_Page_029.jp2
7f6692c4025b6076b03cb0f37f97d53f
adb90fe1657a563c70a7abbe98c05f6448a85514
22797 F20101202_AAAFEM burweger_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
eaf9881247b97b759dabee2cc0beddc9
ccad56b9c6a2b979afa5fce3af8e22062c5c4d4b
103764 F20101202_AAAEZG burweger_s_Page_034.jp2
9be8d352a4cded750fb97fa09ddafb3e
d06bb73c527dad908d502be3db4c6479184cabf4
F20101202_AAAFDY burweger_s_Page_015.tif
94ce1de0248dda0d1ca19cac161ba51f
867da0b7497f12a38b14deb0434c82cf09020f2c
8324 F20101202_AAAEYS burweger_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
46469bb18e947d10b9e933e3d3130457
35637424c78f4d841fa458fc3da2e57291b800ec
24688 F20101202_AAAFEN burweger_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
8b5e26a27d7b0a8bea49d1e4fe095007
4e0ababa67b8cccfdf3a7dc1943e75fcf10ca274
682775 F20101202_AAAEZH burweger_s_Page_091.jp2
d58d14aba03fa8ffdc9e20cb1f9cfd8d
eeb722c0b733910ffaca6c42afa278ee80facaf5
1845 F20101202_AAAFDZ burweger_s_Page_033.txt
77e45a8add26c624ac01354575570698
352c1f5451d29b3e661e92aceb93488ec00437f2
71585 F20101202_AAAEYT burweger_s_Page_056.jpg
f0536da3c21122ec946d2f1165da2699
1231e084c33db64d7cda7164b8a9e963cbcfdcfe
23674 F20101202_AAAFFC burweger_s_Page_001.jpg
e6aa8486634302cd044c9d1c66c13ba7
5305d01d4a250e0f570f371377f7ed25dd9f15dc
8993 F20101202_AAAEZI burweger_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
2e94362e2f4c33ab08604566ce31c6a7
e946a0988bfc35a76eb811e5ac5fc67a6efb394e
103303 F20101202_AAAEYU burweger_s_Page_053.jp2
72be7ddcbfe95764f85d6f8600d2a60a
a43f942c9ce7603e017ac9947f56f5e953570e9a
64943 F20101202_AAAFFD burweger_s_Page_007.jpg
dad9c9b5c1e84170bf95f07629ea3514
a91348ae448e7d832b5a68e746df3f57236359bc
21254 F20101202_AAAFEO burweger_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
c1daa787d31a150015ce133734f340d8
7c167a66fe02d640c11435bb4886bed1b644a878
2109 F20101202_AAAEZJ burweger_s_Page_104.txt
7487cc0a18be9c99b15b0055e53ae5e9
3ac227cbd6e7cb7a8e76492030af70b2ba4aef7d
14193 F20101202_AAAEYV burweger_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
530dbc1b0f7c36d4421a03af1a588478
656e7e66b9df5e0b06518fca7a541600f164a8d0
35184 F20101202_AAAFFE burweger_s_Page_012.jpg
034ff12dba188a2599a28b35fb541a84
81abd1f75421023d5d9ca7aca23442a628044433
4359 F20101202_AAAFEP burweger_s_Page_108thm.jpg
50b7982d3e9f98019fe8b8f2aa160c49
7a0494d4ff0a4ed483a9edecd73f7c9f419bf581
F20101202_AAAEZK burweger_s_Page_025.txt
7d43f516302d2a4ad000629c8f56ee79
97e8a215b521e4b5428242efaf6069d695570f29
50664 F20101202_AAAEYW burweger_s_Page_022.pro
f4bf07b7a82c2a2e684ee7defa1d3573
4ae47dfb4de7f4ed193fc79d8805b14f6603debb
72654 F20101202_AAAFFF burweger_s_Page_015.jpg
08954e169421ab0b60e56af2424b0c29
e9e58e875da29ff221b99616d5742e5972731f11
F20101202_AAAFEQ burweger_s_Page_011.jp2
9e62f9a3cb06eb3208ce979a4ebad87c
e5d39a86dc3772ecaa2f284b9670703feed47fa8
104744 F20101202_AAAEZL burweger_s_Page_065.jp2
be890a5bb9299bf0d9aa6262a9629e45
aa7e0167658b2bc03d6cee5a6405a79fd7e4ae48
83996 F20101202_AAAEYX burweger_s_Page_081.jp2
a88026abe18e4e5b87174cf7c22c14e5
6b13ffed086d294deaa1514969f245de643de3da
74651 F20101202_AAAFFG burweger_s_Page_017.jpg
711683b6dfd179109b74a4fc4b782ad0
08ea0d75f8038064d45f6c12666005d717b5850b
81041 F20101202_AAAFER burweger_s_Page_008.jpg
b917de8cfe2dd9526d9192761a340e21
30913cd6d0ccff5eb97eb535c43c628fce8c8158
F20101202_AAAEZM burweger_s_Page_022.tif
943355d14ad8cc57b586a70164bb0576
3aa43d4eb904264178f708f8db359643a5694441
F20101202_AAAEYY burweger_s_Page_114.tif
1b10b931fac6943d84a1c6827c92ac21
f87b2f85219cef935afa50d49abb2150decf47de
F20101202_AAAFES burweger_s_Page_007.jp2
3e95fd7d0324f461114275d6c86ed38a
caa2e2ae23c85035737e2ae03ad808987cef0514
23121 F20101202_AAAEZN burweger_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
03c0344f2595420c79e4b92463c82845
33d795e86a718026a72c9e3ae43b9a11b8d4be2c
46911 F20101202_AAAEYZ burweger_s_Page_062.pro
0b1d47a3a081ecd1f0d18ca7dc5cae65
da4e913c4788e8fb8379a472eae241a354fd12ce
72261 F20101202_AAAFFH burweger_s_Page_022.jpg
9cf25c9cc1493ceaa71885925b0b21aa
bd192d25997640e7126bd4065cc2c938db2b5d9c
F20101202_AAAFET burweger_s_Page_001.tif
4f91b1b464382d8e5ed073c10472b839
a8db783f60414a39c0869efac50f9ebd31f9e31a
47481 F20101202_AAAEZO burweger_s_Page_043.pro
3ffcc8261cd7abb4bc1298410cfc8b91
7fbe68a11f606bdbad461d7109efae60c583a172
76084 F20101202_AAAFFI burweger_s_Page_027.jpg
783aa1659b2cbaa30d4251e7e22ef30a
abaac54b6013cf8e550c8b3a5e55919e72fed890
F20101202_AAAFEU burweger_s_Page_035.tif
0e72f2c87b5c187b3a31ca6c29d528cb
85a8eeec081483567d65edc25822f63ebebf4241
1879 F20101202_AAAEZP burweger_s_Page_043.txt
dbd99161f00a31a4975e4984a190f2e5
ecdb67809e89f1b48eb4cedf4a0200f2bc84681f
70479 F20101202_AAAFFJ burweger_s_Page_032.jpg
1a0ed68592a9dca516f51b2ea2924cb8
8ddb6e3d7a9b7f90a4cd9656d3ddee88488bcc55
1949 F20101202_AAAFEV burweger_s_Page_011.txt
4d30e01df8c4c15983c8cb20453a08ff
61d1d1466ac6ddadea31de220d101b9f5cf3fe30
37748 F20101202_AAAEZQ burweger_s_Page_069.pro
cdac6b26af253e7f198a8023e3cfc3ce
1c53d61d7d13da6c257f76f7b6e981ef688d6775
11812 F20101202_AAAFFK burweger_s_Page_040.jpg
4440dec5fc2d16311d7b1fb87ca09347
cb34dd52d8b1f9a6f9f7d8f55df9177bf2e89d78
537012 F20101202_AAAFEW burweger_s_Page_099.jp2
b91d9896efe9e43253d482ad89668c48
ed28e175e5c2e16dcc5c4ede8d292cf6a1e2bbc7
1941 F20101202_AAAEZR burweger_s_Page_028.txt
c5c2bb161bb63760b4410c8e925450f1
d4879c7edf5f5619ef9bf30b6fde32f07c761e13
10573 F20101202_AAAFGA burweger_s_Page_083.jpg
4c8673193a5eacd1ef0b91159c7973dc
5355578f24f54a1cc91c9d0e1fa058195b19595e
35623 F20101202_AAAFFL burweger_s_Page_041.jpg
6d1ee252d50e2beb834bebccde6ca085
5114ef5a8255cbf0fb57b72c8d0cca6baa765f29
37568 F20101202_AAAFEX burweger_s_Page_066.pro
14ad923082b01c4939784fdfed6dcfa8
e6d61193d1ef1de7c8ea97318115b55eae68263a
1037 F20101202_AAAEZS burweger_s_Page_087.txt
65fb38eb496bf93e9d8a855c187c28ae
71835a65ee035d0cdc2c757c71e461c0538a4bcc
116990 F20101202_AAAFGB burweger_s_Page_084.jpg
90830bc48cd13ba340d39807f93bc1ab
cd242e5672f44499d6d9a9069a772d82d3665514
69165 F20101202_AAAFFM burweger_s_Page_043.jpg
c75a289acc3dbc8836975d29c5b241e8
726e07923a9c218a1c7e536b7d8df6f19907792c
38556 F20101202_AAAFEY burweger_s_Page_057.pro
b6e484ed59333b32854ac1659cfe635c
fe43e50fc21587b04a8cfb61e6c6f948d1c14b6c
30960 F20101202_AAAEZT burweger_s_Page_095.pro
b6fbae65757cf21b433b4c17b1f96f01
0a1e6972dc4f2564273192f9fa6667fda350725c
123480 F20101202_AAAFGC burweger_s_Page_085.jpg
9c3ce029e4f96690e810cf7f6c88e666
41bbb08764945af827c177c6527401e67a2c0d8c
70247 F20101202_AAAFFN burweger_s_Page_046.jpg
eb6a56104d33fa2c461fc9bb92fc8d62
f83dd34fce70549093e6dd32240ab98f28413426
175687 F20101202_AAAFEZ UFE0022426_00001.xml
54714aeb6dac1b05e40d1854a310254b
374348119bef3045758e41001144e6b53228f6d0
24474 F20101202_AAAEZU burweger_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
09ab321f873a1713ef3462cc5c5c200c
2549103d482752bc2ca209cc55d3125f1fd0c9cf
63162 F20101202_AAAFGD burweger_s_Page_086.jpg
6468b00cdaecc2289ea21945963f26a7
34717d1f8c89b71e639cf2b1aa69fe431b74ecb7
48060 F20101202_AAAFFO burweger_s_Page_048.jpg
2a56f323983ac25327ae8763a12bfd43
ca355749e2980df608368e6dd581b1cda6309f64
907619 F20101202_AAAEZV burweger_s_Page_101.jp2
97fbf2fa2a3e1f89f7688647949cbc7e
cc49e2e90b924eb28f7dd03134609070105e7063
68231 F20101202_AAAFGE burweger_s_Page_090.jpg
077b441b341d56eacd8389c1f8545561
dee2ae5ed57d079013242d5d25c96316c6111548
52165 F20101202_AAAFFP burweger_s_Page_050.jpg
9792c0c9c4b163b6550fa0b9169a0ad8
c420c975a0a0744d4ad7b648c784446242ed4f88
30199 F20101202_AAAEZW burweger_s_Page_058.jpg
d6df48e4d493e71a49adf476298eace5
5f66b45db73f593f5dbde31c941b79fcfcf867d4
59713 F20101202_AAAFGF burweger_s_Page_091.jpg
041d19875a864c2139380a186093cd5d
11f16d1c9755e52b798ebfa08e9e8bc3d372b9cd
65657 F20101202_AAAFFQ burweger_s_Page_052.jpg
0bdb76ddb6809e4ef5774b226c478ede
0f500ff7632e6da30e52baff948bce7ecc32784d
12052 F20101202_AAAEZX burweger_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
0e38d455b483cd7ccd904ae37b651768
031edbadf3909170fc54c296d098eaca89045909
72698 F20101202_AAAFGG burweger_s_Page_093.jpg
04f825e46d2d667c78f4e1fa24940762
05b038bc9cc8ff5abf7049570a69718a2dffc732
56974 F20101202_AAAFFR burweger_s_Page_057.jpg
a18d7a9080baf49ad3090270ad13978e
ced0cca7ce90bc690f160a77b1b74b04997cd9e5
50781 F20101202_AAAEZY burweger_s_Page_063.pro
812c29222b1d8b9f16fca5f6c46b3a8f
f930c93ba9b9ee9535109b6183ceb238cddff410
52710 F20101202_AAAFGH burweger_s_Page_096.jpg
79c5965695aa0008af48a6876a615d70
12b544742dca63a326bc299bd1e0d611dbc31d0b
67760 F20101202_AAAFFS burweger_s_Page_064.jpg
fc238fc9bba40c8ef47305dd277f21e8
dfa7888139799752d7c9d8b1575d60172363e0da
1196 F20101202_AAAEZZ burweger_s_Page_116.txt
ff0ae5a7279d72644caca0786cfe195b
ab54a7612be3950aab4956becbc692360aded7a5
69907 F20101202_AAAFFT burweger_s_Page_065.jpg
de1e4c408b1e62987d8d873faa1a663d
ef8c6d5398879c16dcd7265b19b8d99b7640468d
64646 F20101202_AAAFGI burweger_s_Page_097.jpg
bad8b343171a423792769a920645635f
a215311f64bc73015a3df7496a7e2c04ba2587e3
69517 F20101202_AAAFFU burweger_s_Page_068.jpg
f45250ed1bec3bde0df41d5394fb6381
b413b83d08b5b152af603a1757d0ee5262d2844d
47911 F20101202_AAAFGJ burweger_s_Page_099.jpg
35aa373d8b6d20177b197037ec581238
f30b5635596f109f3d3a7a82d8595ba6c9658e74
59809 F20101202_AAAFFV burweger_s_Page_069.jpg
809378583781d057d8d275f3dcdc592c
66e2ea26872bc0959c3fa82f12b7422b1b94f555
11045 F20101202_AAAFGK burweger_s_Page_103.jpg
90efa2608c347011f530754120d3291e
b39c6b13195748d3df1ea9e73f60fdd6a486cfdd
83778 F20101202_AAAFFW burweger_s_Page_074.jpg
8a6d720ba5665a293d5054a93de4b14e
96a1c3167b0dac7f7eeeeb8a7d807c0e705a0310
46560 F20101202_AAAFGL burweger_s_Page_108.jpg
a30c7fe288f31b80b62d7b7042d72d1f
7a0dd2e5730e009d1c1e0569dd43fbf93205315a
114591 F20101202_AAAFFX burweger_s_Page_075.jpg
f4c6f12e9b27bc64a2de795e11b78133
2ec1b3d19f62992d01722699efe72f7eb88452fd
105584 F20101202_AAAFHA burweger_s_Page_026.jp2
89684b66d64bc2b26edd1e250d765797
e08bfe13651bc0bf083f6a9f617ccdb7b00082f6
45575 F20101202_AAAFGM burweger_s_Page_109.jpg
4f3497ee91605c2ab5b99319e9624005
f70f26bef9d2cf67dbbed234991c6ec27631ead5
10939 F20101202_AAAFFY burweger_s_Page_080.jpg
74aada0ce1de88667508ee1adb168a89
a709260453fdbe6effa62b7d550bc2417a998ad2
102935 F20101202_AAAFHB burweger_s_Page_028.jp2
45023d7b3059571a42d3471f705f32df
2149c50236666a1b2af3ccfbfe26141f41d03e4d
56682 F20101202_AAAFGN burweger_s_Page_110.jpg
c7fa78df48b17083a022e6af429df948
3f2e8a31e3013324ffcb6a31c85a3703216849a1
62452 F20101202_AAAFFZ burweger_s_Page_081.jpg
30150c31fbfeae23e136f9d7d388d7a8
eabb89e56e157c09444e219cbb375291a6c56540
1051965 F20101202_AAAFHC burweger_s_Page_031.jp2
3d606d70d2c7b263ba7ecb63e21043c7
15642ee784e5c1dae989883816963bd720adf6e1
30202 F20101202_AAAFGO burweger_s_Page_111.jpg
a6e265717e6580e9d936982e4a098ed3
fe6bcf3226ba7222cd8f4d882c98b639adeac5f3
85482 F20101202_AAAFHD burweger_s_Page_037.jp2
81ab2e52c9ce93295bb9aaa0e618081f
c84e0855513c5416663c9f08c28c9d18ad938a10