Limitations with Expert Testimony on the Concept of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse

The concept of grooming is often raised in trials involving allegations of child sexual abuse. While the term broadly refers to manipulating children and their environment, it lacks an agreed upon definition (Craven, Brown & Gilchrist, 2006). One review (Bennett & O’Donohue 2014) identified 12 studies that each used its own definition of grooming. While there is general agreement that grooming is a behavioral process, the lack of consensus regarding the specific behaviors that constitute grooming makes it difficult to reliably identify when these acts occur. In fact, research has established that individual judgments about grooming behavior are often inaccurate (Winters & Jeglic, 2016).

Individual acts of grooming are not necessarily easy to identify. One reason is that “… many behaviors used by perpetrators appear quite similar to behaviors seen in normal adult-child relationships” (Bennett & O’Donohue, 2014), and such behaviors do not inevitably precede acts of sexual abuse.

Furthermore, there is no standardized and valid method for measuring grooming behavior (Bennett & O’Donohue, 2014). This means that individual decisions about whether a specific behavior constitutes grooming are based on subjective judgments.

The absence of an agreed upon definition and a valid way to measure grooming behavior makes it difficult to accurately determine its frequency. Studies have investigated factors such as attention, bribery and coercion, behaviors to desensitize sexual touching, boundary violations, and preparing the environment (Bennett & O’Donohue, 2014). While these studies provide some useful information, they all have methodological problems limiting their generalizability.

The lack of agreement about what constitutes grooming and recognition that many of these behaviors are engaged in for non-sexual reasons led to recognition that “… retrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e., after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e., before a sexual offense” (Craven et al., 2006, p. 292). Although easy to make, these retrospective judgments are subjective decisions that lack a scientific basis and are prone to error (Bennett & O’Donohue, 2014). Currently, there is no empirical evidence demonstrating that clinical judgments are valid or reliable for accurately identifying grooming behavior (Winters & Jeglic, 2016).

In prosecutions for criminal sexual conduct, expert testimony may be offered that characterizes a defendant’s behavior as evidence of grooming. In the absence of a scientifically valid way to measure acts of grooming, this testimony is based on retrospective judgments of the defendant’s actions, aided by knowledge of the charges against the defendant. Decisions made in this manner are subject to hindsight bias (Winter & Jeglic, 2015).

Hindsight bias refers to the “tendency for individuals with outcome knowledge (hindsight)” to believe they would have predicted the result without knowing the outcome information ahead of time (Hawkins & Hastie, 1990, p. 311). In addition, research shows that knowledge of outcome information exaggerates people’s belief in their ability to predict conclusions (Fischhoff, 1975).

Opinion testimony based on subjective judgments and outcome knowledge is not the same as testimony based on specialized knowledge and expertise. And subjective judgments are not equivalent to findings based on a standardized measurement instrument that produces valid and reliable results. Expert witness’s subjective judgments of grooming rely on unsubstantiated beliefs the expert has about the accuracy of their decision-making process.

If an expert maintains they have years of experience identifying grooming behavior but lacks an objective record of their judgments, there is no basis for assessing the accuracy of their decisions or determining how much weight to give the expert’s opinion. In these situations, the trier of fact is left to rely on less valid and reliable indicators of accuracy such as the expert’s confidence in their opinion and their education, training, experience, and academic credentials (Faust and Ziskin, 1998). These are not objective markers of accuracy. In fact, it can be unduly prejudicial if an expert persuades the trier of fact that these factors support accurate judgments of grooming behavior.

For more information about this topic or to schedule a consultation appointment, please call Swerdlow-Freed Psychology at 248.539.7777. Our mailing address is 6689 Orchard Lake Road, #221, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322.3404.

Please click here to view & print as a PDF.

Click here for more information on Forensic Interviewing of Children.

References:

Bennett, N. & O’Donohue, W. (2014). The construct of grooming in child sexual abuse: Conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23, 957-976.

Craven, S., Brown, S., Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, Vol. 12, No. 3, 287-299.

Faust, D. & Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, Vol. 241, 31-35.

Fischoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight. The effects of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288-299.

Hawkins, S.A. & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 311-327.

Winters, G.M. & Jeglic, E.L. (2015). I knew it all along: The sexual grooming behaviors of child molesters and the hindsight bias. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Vol. 25(1), 20-36.

Winters, G.M. & Jeglic, E.L. (2016). Stages of sexual grooming: Recognizing potentially predatory behaviors of child molesters. Deviant Behavior, Vol. 38(6), 724-733.