DOJ-OGR-00006798.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header:** * **Case Number:** 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * **Document Number:** 452-1 * **Filed Date:** 11/12/21 * **Page Number:** 6 of 43 **Table 2: Proposed Subtypes of Grooming** | Author | Types of Grooming | | --- | --- | | Leberg (1997) | 1. Physically grooming the victim | | | 2. Psychologically grooming the victim and family | | | 3. Grooming the social environment and community | | Graven, Brown, and Gilchrist (2006) | 1. Self-grooming | | | 2. Grooming the environment and significant others | | | 3. Grooming the child | | McAulden (2006) | 1. Personal | | | 2. Familial | | | 3. Institutional | | Wyre (1987) as discussed in Howitt (1995) | 1. Extrafamilial | | | 2. Intrafamilial | **Body Text:** definitions share some key similarities, many behaviors may be classified as grooming under some definitions but not under others. Some of these similarities 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 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 proposed. 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 seduction" 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 confusion." 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. **Footer:** * **DOJ-OGR-00006798** **Disclaimer:** The extracted text is presented exactly as it appears in the document image. Any formatting or structural changes are intended to preserve the original content and layout. The interpretation of unclear or partially visible text is provided in brackets where necessary. The document's content and formatting have been preserved to the best of our abilities.