DOJ-OGR-00006798.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 43 Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse 961 TABLE 2 Proposed Subtypes of Grooming Author Types of Grooming Leberg (1997) . Physically grooming the victim 2. Psychologically grooming the victim and family 3. Grooming the social environment and community Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist (2006) 1. Self-grooming 2. Grooming the environment and significant others 3.Grooming the child McAlinden (2006) . Personal 2. Familial 3. Institutional Wyre (1987) as discussed in Howitt . Extrafamilial (1995) 2. Intrafamilial definitions share some key similarities, many behaviors may be classified as grooming under some definitions but not under others. Some of these sim- ilarities in definition include the criterion of preparing a child for abuse (Brackenridge, 2001; Craven, Brown, & Gilchrist, 2006; Gallagher, 1999), gaining a child’s trust (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gillespie, 2002 Salter, 1995), making it more difficult to the child to resist or disclose the abuse (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gallagher, 1999; Gillespie, 2002 Knoll, 2010; Leberg, 1997), and the enumeration of specific tactics used to groom the child (Berson, 2003; Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982). Furthermore, a variety of different kinds of definitional features are pro- posed. For example, one definition mentions “betrayal” (Salter, 1995) while another references “courtship” (Howitt, 1995). Some proposed definitions give concrete examples of grooming (Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982), while others try to give abstract properties to capture what the authors take to be the essential properties of grooming (O’Connell, 2003; Spiegel, 2003). Some definitions are fairly brief and more vague (Brackenridge, 2001; Howitt, 1995; Spiegel, 2003), whereas others are much longer and more detailed about what grooming looks like (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Sgroi, 1982). Obviously this heterogeneity presents serious challenges for forensic and clinical work. Some of these definitions involve additional difficulties in that the terms used to define grooming present additional serious definitional problems themselves. For example, Salter (1995) used the phrase “emotional seduc- tion” in her grooming definition. This requires further delineation of what exactly emotional seduction entails as well as a measurement strategy to validly capture this alleged dimension. As another example, Spiegel’s (2003) definition involves constructs such as “boundary diffusion” and “role con- fusion.” These constructs are not part of the standard scientific lexicon and thus create further impediments to enhancing our scientific understanding of the grooming process. Finally, some definitions propose stages of grooming, DOJ-OGR- 00006798