Children’s narratives of alleged child sexual abuse offender behaviors and the manipulation process.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the current study is to examine offender behaviors and manipulation tactics described by children using a mixed method analysis. Method: The sample consisted of 95 randomly selected investigative interviews with children (aged 5 to 13 years) in which external evidence indicated a high probability that abuse occurred. An initial qualitative phase that aimed to identify key offender behaviors and manipulation tactics was followed by a quantitative phase, which explored the frequency of these tactics and their relations to children and abuse characteristics. Results: In the qualitative phase, the children described the emotional rapport offenders exhibited with them, the manipulation of their families, and the use of temptation and coercion immediately before or after the abuse. In the quantitative analysis, the establishment of emotional rapport and manipulation of the families were the most frequent offender behaviors. Girls more frequently reported emotional rapport, and children who experienced multiple incidents reported the manipulation of families more often. Conclusions: In the current study the children’s reports focused more on the establishment of rapport and threats to family members and less on the offering of temptations than past research on offenders’ descriptions of manipulation tactics. This suggests children focus more on the interpersonal aspects of offenders’ manipulation efforts, and this could be a focus of investigation and intervention. Moreover, these interpersonal aspects strengthen previous studies regarding the importance of communities in the prevention of child abuse. Communities must be a central component in understanding children’s safety and well-being.

Grooming: A Case Study

“…The concept of traumatic bonding helps to elucidate the process underpinning an 22 GROOMING: A CASE STUDY individual's entrapment in the relationship with the abuser, ensuring compliance, silence and ambivalence about their relationship with the abuser and their own part in the abusive experience. Previous literature highlights the emotionally dependent relationship common in intrafamilial sexual abuse contexts that serves to engender shame and responsibility for the abuse, contributing to an inhibition to disclose the experience (Campbell, 2009;Conte et al, 1989;Craven et al, 2006;Goodman-Brown et al, 2003;Katz & Barnetz, 2015;McAlinden, 2006;Olsen et al, 2007;Smallbone & Wortley, 2001). Less is known about the relational aspects of the grooming process for children abused by extra-familial figures.…”

“…Berliner and Conte's (1990) study of 23 child sexual abuse victims aged 10 3 GROOMING: A CASE STUDY to 18 years noted that 57% received special privileges from the abuser and 61% said their abuser had told them that they were 'special'. Katz and Barnetz (2015) investigated grooming in a sample of 95 children aged 5 to 13 years. They found that 68.4% of victims reported that their abuser had manipulated their family.…”

“…This often serves to distract the "perceptions of others about potential risk" (McAlinden, 2013, p. 2). Abusers' standing in the community has long been recognized as a deterrent for children to disclose experiences of abuse (McElvaney et al, 2012;Goode, McGee & O'Boyle, 2003;Colton, Roberts, & Vanstone, 2010;Craven et al, 2006;Elliott et al, 1995;Katz & Barnetz, 2015;McAlinden, 2006;Olsen, Daggs, Ellevold, & Rogers, 2007;Smallbone & Wortley, 2001).…”

Lived Experiences of Grooming Among Australian Male Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse

“…Initially, a perpetrator selects a victim and determines how to gain access to that victim (Katz & Barnetz, 2015;McAlinden, 2006;Olsen, Daggs, Ellevold, & Rogers, 2007). In cases of intrafamilial abuse, victim selection may be based on availability (e.g., limited to children residing with the offender).…”

“…These behaviors often aim to foster trust and emotional dependency (Craven et al, 2006;Smallbone & Wortley, 2001). Trust is established not only with the child but also with those in the child's environment, including his or her family (Campbell, 2009;Colton et al, 2010;Craven et al, 2006;Katz & Barnetz, 2015;McAlinden, 2006;Olsen et al, 2007). Elliott et al (1995) found that 20% of offenders had gained the trust of the victim's entire family to facilitate the abuse, whereas Smallbone and Wortley (2001) found that 44% of extrafamilial offenders (n = 60) befriended the child's parents.…”