DOJ-OGR-00005929.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Alaggia et al. Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 45 277 dialogical simply means to participate in dialogue. Key dialo- gical vehicles identified in these studies were providing sexual abuse information through prevention programs, being asked about sexual abuse, and being prompted to tell (McElvaney et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009a). Contemporary models of CSA disclosure reflect a social-ecological perspective. Knowledge on CSA disclosure has been steadily advancing toward a holistic understanding of the complex interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural fac- tors (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Where at one time factors examined and identified were predominantly of intrapersonal factors of child victims, knowledge construction has shifted to fuller social— ecological, person-in-environment explanations (Alaggia, 2010; Collin-Veézina et al., 2015; Easton et al., 2014; Hunter, 2011; Ungar, Tutty, McConnell, Barter, & Fairholm, 2009b). Social—ecological explanations open up more opportunities to intervene in facilitating earlier disclosures. Alaggia (2010) pro- poses an ecological mapping of what individual, interpersonal, environmental, and contextual influences impede or promote CSA disclosures based on analysis of in-depth interview data of 40 adult survivors. Subsequently, based on a sample of 67 adult survivors, Collin-Vézina, Sablonni, Palmer, and Milne (2015) identified three broad categories, closely aligned with an eco- logical framework that impede CSA disclosure: (1) barriers from within, (2) barriers in relation to others, and (3) barriers in relation to the social world which can be aligned to intra- personal, interpersonal, and contextual factors. A summary of knowledge building using a social—ecologi- cal framework follows. Knowledge gained in the intrapersonal domain includes expanded conceptualization of disclosure by building on previous categories of accidental, purposeful, and prompted disclosure to also include behavioral and indirect attempts to tell, intentionally withheld disclosure, and triggered and recovered memories (Alaggia, 2004). Categories of indi- rect behavioral disclosure patterns have been further verified in follow-up research by Hunter (2011), and through an extensive file review that used Alaggia’s (2004) disclosure framework to analyze their data (Collings et al., 2005) for verification. Interpersonal factors have also emerged in regard to certain family characteristics as disclosure barriers. Families with rigidly fixed gender roles, patriarchal attitudes, power imbal- ances, other forms of child abuse and domestic violence, chao- tic family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In addition, relationship with perpetrator is a factor whereby research indicates that disclosure is made more difficult when the perpetrator is a family member or close to the family (Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila, Bohu, & Rey- Salmon, 2014;Easton, 2013; Goodman-Brown et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schénbucher et al., 2012). This is especially a barrier when the perpetrator lives with the victim (LeClere & Wortley, 2015). In terms of environmental factors, one study revealed that neighborhood/community conditions can hinder disclosure when there is lack of school involvement in providing a sup- portive environment, such as in following up on troubling stu- dent behavior (Alaggia, 2010). Additionally, a child victim’s anticipation of a negative response to disclosure, especially that they may not be believed by others outside their family such as neighbors or other community members, has shown to deter disclosure (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015). Cultural factors influencing CSA disclosure have been stud- ied to a much lesser degree. Despite this, a few important studies examining critical sociocultural factors now exist for better understanding CSA disclosure within a cultural context (Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Among these important contributions, Brazelton’s (2015) research has deli- neated CSA disclosure processes as “shaped by relational, racial, socio-cultural, historical, and developmental factors” (p. 182). In a unique study using culturally focused research literature as data triangulated with clinical case material, cul- turally based belief systems in many cultures have been found to foster family climates that can silence children from disclos- ing abuse (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Taboos about sexuality, patriarchal attitudes, and devaluation of women are among some of the cultural barriers that inhibit disclosure (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Clearly, disclosure conceptualizations are being integrated into a social—ecological model of individual and developmental factors, family dynamics, neighborhood, and community con- text as well as cultural and societal attitudes toward better understanding disclosure barriers and facilitators (Alaggia, 2010), although more data are needed on cultural and contex- tual factors. Age and gender as predictors of disclosure Age. Age is consistently found to be an influential factor in CSA disclosure, making the life stage of the victim/survivor a critical consideration. Studies draw distinctions in age-groups falling into either under or over 18 years of age. Eighteen years of age was the common age cutoff point that investigators chose in order to distinguish child/youth populations from adult sam- ples. Sixteen of the studies drew on samples of children and youth, while the other 15 studies sampled adults over the age of 18, and a further two studies used mixed age-groups (refer to Table 1). Among the child and youth samples, the age ranges spanned from preschool to late adolescence (3-17 years of age), with varying methodological approaches implemented across age cohorts. For younger cohorts, file reviews and secondary data analyses of CSA reports were typically undertaken. Ado- lescents were most often given surveys. Sometimes children and youth were interviewed as part of administering a survey or as a follow-up (Crisma et al., 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar et al., 2009b). In the majority of child and adolescent samples, sexual abuse concerns were already flagged to investigative authorities. However, the work of Ungar, Barter, McConnell, Tutty, and Fairholm (2009a, 2009b) is one exception, whereby their survey elicited new disclosures. DOJ-OGR-00005929