RE: child victims of abuse becoming perpetrators

["Chaffin, Mark J." <Mark-Chaffin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Some colleagues and I recently completed a chapter addressing this question and related questions for the upcoming APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment.  Our conclusion was that the victim-to-victimizer cycle (aka "the vampire theory") is not well supported as a major explanation for sexually abusive behavior, nor does it appear to be a uniquely powerful risk factor, although it may be a factor in some individual cases and may be more of a factor for young children than for older children, adolescents or adults.  Although not without foundation, it is in large part "clinical lore" which has taken on a life of its own and has become a sort of conventional wisdom, disembodied from empirical support.  Frankly, we "invented" this victim-to-victimizer idea (and reified it in our clinical practice) in part for political reasons (to make people see sex offenders as deserving of treatment because they are "victim/offenders") and in part based on what we knew about physical abuse where the connection is a bit more robust.  In short, I think the three big factual problems with the victim-to-victimizer cycle idea in sexual abuse are:

 

    1) the victim-to-victimizer notion is based largely on retrospective self-report data from questionable sources (e.g., incarcerated sex offenders) who have potential motives to fabricate for exculpatory benefit.  This is supported by two studies now which find that retrospective self-reports of sexual abuse history in this population are dramatically lower when polygraph confirmation is used.         

    2) aside from incarcerated or residentially placed populations (where substantial percentages of inmates were abused regardless or their reason for being an inmate), the overall retrospective rate of CSA history is modest among most sex offender groups--around 25% for adolescent and adult sex abuser populations in larger, broader or meta-analytic studies.  The retrospective rate does appear to be higher for children with sexual behavior problems and may be inversely related to age and/or may be related to referral source (of course, almost all CPS referred kids are abused--duh).  However, it is important to note that "children with sexual behavior problems" are a diverse group and this behavior may include inappropriate masturbation, etc. and is not limited to sexually abusive behaviors.  The connection between childhood abuse a later abusive behavior may well fade over time and become less and less relevant as people develop, just like the symptoms experienced by sexually abused children tend to fade over time for many kids.  Young children may be responding to a variety of models for their behavior, and engaging in the behavior for a variety of reasons, not all or even most of them traumagenic or abuse reactive.

    3) risk factors are really properly examined using prospective data, not retrospective.  The currently available prospective data, although limited, suggests two things:  first, as Bill suggested, the number of people in the resilient group is bigger (actually a LOT bigger), and second,  that sexual abuse history is a modest factor and certainly is not uniquely powerful in generating later sexually abusive behavior.  In fact, the links with physical abuse or neglect may be stronger, as are the links with other factors (e.g. family factors, history of pre-existing behavior or conduct problems, etc.), and this is true both for abused children followed prospectively for sexual behavior problems, and in prospective studies for adult sex crimes outcomes. 

 

 

Mark Chaffin, Ph.D.
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
P.O. Box 26901; CHO 3406
Oklahoma City, OK  73190
(405) 271-8858; fax 271-2931
mark-chaffin@xxxxxxxxx

 

  

>From ???@??? Fri Mar 14 11:11:22 1997
Status: U
Return-Path:

Received: from listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (LISTPROC2.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU [132.236.56.15])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA29115;
Thu, 13 Mar 1997 20:45:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) id UAA03924; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 20:40:38 -0500
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA02594; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 20:29:29 -0500
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by listproc2.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA09921 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:15:28 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA14413
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:20:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bonnie.rcdp.gov (BONNIE.RCDP.GOV [192.107.111.210])
by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA14359
for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 10:20:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mr.rcdp.gov by RCDP.GOV (PMDF V5.1-4 #7854)
id <01IGG6229WKG9JD6CF@xxxxxxxx> for
CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:20:19 CDT
Received: with PMDF-MR; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:20:16 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id:
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:46:48 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
X-PH: V4.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Cornell Modified)
From: Charles Gene Lyle 266-4317
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: Primary vs Secondary Prevention
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
X-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-PH: V4.1@xxxxxxxxxxx (Cornell Modified)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN

Robert Caldwell in his posting re: Parents Anonymous and the
definitions of prevention provides technical definitions of both
Primary and Secondary prevention, and, in a more limited fashion,
Tertiary prevention. His posting caused me to give some thought to why
his definitions (I realize they are not actually "his" but are
apparently those accepted in the field. If a citation could be
provided, I think that would be helpful) seem to differ from those
cited by Karen Wade in her earlier posting.

I think I understand what some of the confusion may be around this
issue. From my perspective as a researcher and evaluator involved for
many years in child maltreatment services, I think practitioners do
not distinguish between primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention in
the ways the definitions might require. I think "primary" is
interpreted as "first things first" which is to intervene with those
families where maltreatment has actually occurred. Obviously one of
the desired outcomes of this intervention would be to prevent
maltreatment from happening again. In my agency this is basically what
we do by law. Secondary prevention, I think, is often seen as what you
do to assist families who are "at risk" of maltreating their children
but where actual maltreatment is not known to have occurred. Tertiary
prevention is more like the "community education" or "parent
education" process involving families where actual or at-risk
maltreatment is not at issue. It is the most "distant" from actual
case work. In other words, what one might call the lay or practical
perception of these levels of prevention is the inverse of the
technical definitions.

I also have a bit of a problem with the implication that "treatment"
and "prevention" are distinct. They are not when it comes to families
where maltreatment has actually occurred. The process of intervening
in maltreatment includes both, i.e., assure the safety of the child,
make a determination, and work toward preventing future occurrences.

Finally, another minor quibble: insofar as Parents Anonymous may do
public education they can be said to do Primary prevention, using the
technical definitions.

I bring up this matter not to damn the definitions Dr. Caldwell
provides but to show how this confusion can arise. I would be curious
to see what others have to say about this.

Gene Lyle
RCCHSD
Office of Research & Evaluation

lyle@xxxxxxxxxxx or lylex002@xxxxxxxxxx