This paper is one of the more difficult to review on my list. It has been very influential in the field, yet I believe much of it is wrong.
One of the main problems with this paper is what it means by the term "pedophilia," which is not the standard defintion such as the one in the DSM IV (reviewed in NMV #31). This paper uses the term "pedophilia" to refer to behavior. A more standard term for this concept would be "child molestation." Much of the introduction of the paper is given over to a defense of this use of the word "pedophilia."
The definition given is occurring when an adult has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children, as inferred from either sexual behavior with a child, or masturbating to fantasies of sex with children. However, the paper only offers a model of sexual behavior; much of it makes no sense at all in regard to fantasies.
The paper also includes incest offenses and child molestation cases where the offender may not necessarily be sexually attracted to children. Many offenders against children fall into this class, perhaps even the majority. However, it has nothing to do with pedophilia as defined by the DSM IV.
That said, the main focus is to present four factors that "explain" such behavior. These are emotional congruence, sexual arousal, blockage, and disinhibition.
The paper goes on to present each factor as if it were a complete single factor theory. None of these individual factors could possibly explain pedophilia in all its diversity. Finkelhor's position is that the combination of all four will explain pedophilia. However, I found this to be unconvincing. There is no explanation of how these four factors can be synthesized into a single, coherent theory. Neither is a convincing argument presented that these are the right four.
The first factor, emotional congruence, means that the adult would find it emotionally satisfying to relate sexually to a child. A number of published theories of pedophilia, especially psychoanalytic ones, fall into this category. I am quite skeptical of all of these theories. None of them have actually stood up to any experimental verification. The support for this factor (as with the other three) mostly comes from citations of other papers.
The second factor, sexual arousal, means physiological arousal in response to the presence of children or to fantasies of children in sexual activities. This is fairly close to the DSM IV definition of pedophilia itself, except for the fact that it's based on physiological response rather than phenomenology (i.e. what goes on in the mind). These definitions overlap almost completely. However, in cases where they do not, I would tend to prefer the phenomenological one. For example, take a person who is incapable of physiological sexual response, yet has intense fantasies and sexual urges towards children. I would consider such a person to be a pedophile, even though he is excluded from this second factor.
The third factor, blockage, means an adult's inability to get emotional and sexual needs met in adult heterosexual relationships. I find this insistence on heterosexuality quite bizarre. Why should someone who can readily find emotional and sexual satisfaction with a same sex partner be classified as blocked? In any case, the one area where this factor really seems to fit is incest. A great many incest offenses happen when the marriage breaks down.
The fourth factor is disinhibition, meaning that the adult either that the adult cannot or does not want to control the sexual urges. This factor makes a lot of sense. Humans are complex packages, not mechanically destined to act out on urges and fantasies. However, the ability to control these urges and fantasies can fail for various reasons (for example, extreme stress), and in these cases there is a much greater risk of offense. On the other hand, someone who does not believe that sex with children is wrong, or that there will be negative consequences from it, is likely to be sexual with a child even if the sexual feelings are not particularly strong. The paper is mostly talking about inhibition against sexual behavior with children, not fantasies.
Let's test this four factor theory by applying it to one data point: me. I fit the DSM IV definition for pedophilia. Since I also occasionally masturbate to fantasies involving children in sexual acts, I technically fit within the definition in this paper as well.
I would say there would be a lot of emotional non-congruence in terms of relating sexually to a child, as I would be very concerned that I was hurting the child by being sexual with him.
As for sexual arousal, there is no question. I am sexually aroused by children.
I have a very fulfilling and satisfying relationship with my SO. Together, we do everything we can to keep from feeling blocked. The better we are able to do this, the less need I feel for pedophilic fantasies. However, even though we are working very hard at this, I still feel the need for them once in a while.
The fourth factor, inhibition, helps to explain why I do not engage in pedophilic behavior, but fits a lot less when it comes to fantasies. When I am in the throes of a pedophilic fantasy, I have no conscious control over it.
Summarizing, the four factor model sort of fits for me, sort of doesn't. I certainly didn't get a feeling of "aha, well that explains it" when reading this paper.
I think it would be interesting for readers of NMV to test this model for themselves and write about how it does or does not fit for them. As the paper points out, what is now needed is research to confirm evidence for the four factors and how their interplay accounts for the presence of pedophilia in all its forms.
Since this paper came out, it has been the basis for much writing about pedophilia. However, in recent years I think there has been a shift away from it. Ultimately, it doesn't live up to the promise in its title: explaining pedophilia.