I am a researcher and therapist with a doctorate (Ph.D.) in clinical psychology, and an Instructor in Psychology
at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
I have studied rates of child abuse and its potential long-term effects
– initially psychological and behavioral effects in men, more recently effects on biology
and regulation of emotions – as well as treatments to help people recover from child abuse.
My research colleagues include Dr. Bessel van der Kolk and Dr. Roger Pitman, leaders
in the field of psychological trauma.
As a licensed clinical psychologist, for over 15 years I have been a therapist to men and women abused in
childhood, providing individual and group treatment. (I do not work with children or their caregivers, but see Resources for Parents & Caregivers on this page).
If you are interested in my professional services,
including therapy, talks, workshops, and consultations, visit that page.
The contents of this page reflect my level of experience and expertise,
as well as opinions I have formed over the years.
Finally, I would like to highlight another page of mine, Mindfulness: An Inner Resource for Healing from Child Abuse. It explains the many benefits of cultivating mindfulness and provides resources for learning to be more mindful. For some, simply reading the page will introduce them to new and healing ways of thinking about and experiencing their own mental and emotional processes.
Table of Contents
Child Abuse Statistics
spacer
Introduction - Unavoidable Controversies & Biases, in Historical Contexts
Sources of Statistics - Official Numbers, Actual Numbers, & Estimates
Statistics Are Human Creations - Tools to Avoid Being Confused & Misled
Official Statistics: United States
Official Statistics: Canada
Official Statistics: Australia
Official Statistics: England
Official Statistics: International - Includes 2006 United Nations Report
Retrospective Survey Research Methods - Tools for Critical Understanding
Prevalance of the Sexual Abuse of Boys
Child Abuse Effects and Resources for Healing
spacer
Effects of Child Abuse - Basic Information & Frameworks
About Therapy & Recovery - Resources to Inform Your Search
Resources for Spouses, Partners, Friends, etc. - Suggestions & Resources
Resources for Parents & Caregivers - Books, Videos & Web Resources
Additional Resources - Hotlines, Book & Article Suggestions, Web Sites
Frequently Asked Questions - Pointers to Helpful Resources
Related Pages At This Site
Introduction -
Unavoidable Controversies & Biases, in Historical Contexts
Contents
-
When thinking about statistics on child abuse, it is helpful to
know that the very idea of "child abuse" is controversial.
-
Only recently, and only in particular countries and cultures, has the
abuse of children come to be seen as a major social problem and a main
cause of many people's suffering and personal problems.
-
Of course children have been abused throughout human history. But for
people to think about child abuse as we do now, to create legal
definitions and government agencies that can remove children
from their homes, and to conduct thousands of research studies on the
effects of abuse - these are historically and culturally embedded developments.
-
Some believe that, for the first time in history, we are beginning
to face the true prevalence and significance of child abuse. Others
worry that many people have become obsessed with child
abuse and deny any personal responsibility for their problems
while "blaming" them on abuse and bad parenting. (I believe that each
view has some validity.)
-
Clearly, then, some very large contexts and controversies shape
debates about particular issues concerning child abuse.
-
Statistics on rates of child abuse and neglect are controversial.
- All statistics on the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and
neglect are disputed by some experts. (Incidence refers
to the number of new cases each year, and prevalence to the percentage
of people in a population who have had such experiences.)
- Why?
-
Complex and subtle scientific issues are involved in studies that generate
these statistics.
-
Even the most objective scientific research is
imperfect. At least one or two methods used in any study must be chosen
by researchers based on opinions and judgements, not just facts and
logic. The objectively best methods available may still have limitations.
-
For example, there are important controversies about how to define
abuse and neglect. This is true for official government studies and
any other research study.
-
The definitions of abuse used in official government studies are based
on laws, because government definitions are needed for more than
research purposes. They are also needed for purposes like determining
whether or not suspected abuse should be reported, investigated,
"substantiated" (as actually having occurred), and lead to action by
a social service agency or court.
-
In contrast, independent researchers can use different definitions
because they have different purposes than government agencies,
like understanding the different effects of mild and extreme emotional,
physical, and/or sexual abuse.
-
No matter what kind of study it is, small changes in definitions
can result in big differences in statistics on abuse and neglect.
- Some bottom lines:
- Emotions and moral commitments influence everyone's
reasoning and judgement to some extent.
-
Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves
or trying to fool you.
-
The contents of this page are influenced by my values, my informed opinions, and my
experiences as a researcher and therapist over many years.
-
This page includes links to Web sites that address these issues and
provide statistics, including sites with different statistics and
points of view on these issues.
Sources of Statistics
- Official Numbers, Actual Numbers, & Estimates
Contents
-
Most abused and neglected children never come to the attention of
government authorities.
-
This is particularly true for neglected and sexually abused children,
who may have no physical signs of harm. In the case of sexual
abuse, secrecy and intense feelings of shame may prevent children, and
adults aware of the abuse, from seeking help.
-
Therefore, official government statistics do not indicate actual rates of
child abuse.
-
Government statistics are based on cases that were (a)
reported to social service agencies, (b) investigated by child
protection workers, and (c) had sufficient evidence to determine that
a legal definition of "abuse" or "neglect" was met. In the official
government studies linked to below, terms like "substantiated cases"
(United States) and "registered children" (England) refer to such cases.
- In short, official government statistics are only "the tip of the iceberg."
- In general, four major types of studies are the sources for large-scale child
abuse statistics:
- Studies that collect official government statistics.
- Studies that include official government statistics plus additional
sources of data intended to "provide a more comprehensive
measure of the scope of child abuse and neglect known to community
professionals, including both abused and neglected children who are in
the official statistics and those who are not" (quote from U.S.
National Incidence Study).
- Studies that survey a "representative" sample of people (e.g., from
a country) about their first-hand knowledge of child abuse. Typically questions
refer to incidents in respondents' own households over the past year, and
usually only adults are surveyed, but sometimes adolescents as well.
- Studies that survey adults and ask them to recall and report abuse
that they may have experienced in childhood.
- All four types of studies are linked to, discussed and/or critiqued
on this web page. The critical discussions of methogological issues - that
is, tools to help you to avoid being confused and misled - are in
"Statistics Are Human Creations" and "Retrospective Survey Research Methods."
- To begin thinking critically about the issues involved, consider
these questions: Which of the following are easier for people to do?
In which resulting statistics would you have more confidence?
- To choose to tell someone in authority, particularly if you are a
child, family member, victim or perpetrator, that you know or suspect
abuse is currently occurring, especially if you know that your report could
result in an investigation by a social service agency, removal of the
child or perpetrator from the home, etc. (Source of official statistics.)
- To acknowledge, anonymously, as an adult or adolescent, that incidents
researchers could define as "abuse" - but probably do not in the survey - have occurred
in your own household within the past year. (Source of incidence statistics
from surveys on directly witnessed abuse.)
- To report, as a professional trained to recognize child abuse, an
estimate of how many cases came to your attention over the
past year. (Source of supplemental data in studies like the U.S. National
Incidence Study.)
- To acknowledge, anonymously, as an adult, in an interview or on a
questionnaire, that when you were a child someone
behaved toward you in a way that fits a definition of "abuse" - again, without
ever having to label the experience as abusive. (Source of prevalance
statistics from retrospective surveys.)
Statistics Are Human Creations
- Tools to Avoid Being Confused & Misled
Contents
I've already mentioned (Introduction) that historical
and cultural factors have created and shaped the concept of "child abuse"
as most of us understand it today. The same is true of our relationship to
statistics: it is embedded in historical and cultural patterns, particularly
how science and statistics are used to define important social problems,
shape debates about them, and decide public policies.
Unfortunately, our healthy respect for scientific research, empirical data
and quantifiable knowledge is often untempered by critical thinking:
- We often don't believe a problem is significant, or even real,
unless those who say so can provide impressive-sounding statistics.
- The media often insist on such statistics for their stories,
even if no good ones exist.
- The media often report on statistics, good and bad, without providing the
information we need to evaluate their quality and meaning.
- The media seldom tell us:
- How was the problem defined?
- What questions were asked?
- What methods were used to seek answers?
- Who was studied or asked the questions?
- If one statistic is compared to another statistic from an earlier study, were different
methods of measurement used, or was the object of measurement changed or redefined?
- Finally, even when the necessary information is provided, most
people simply don't have the tools to think critically about statistics.
Again, widespread uncritical faith in statistics is historically
fairly recent. And it causes significant confusion - among members of the media,
politicians, judges, and advocates for various causes, not to mention
average citizens. Therefore, having tools for thinking
critically about statistical findings reported in the media (and on the web)
will help you better understand a variety of important issues, not just
child abuse.
Two good, recently published books can help you cut through the confusion
and hype that surround most presentations of
statistical and scientific findings in the popular media. In this section,
I introduce those books, provide a few short excerpts from each, and
link to a radio show in which the authors discuss these issues.
Keep in mind that the authors of these books, like everyone else, have
their biases. The trick is to take what they can teach you (quite a
lot), and use it to detect and critically evaluate those biases, even
when they are presented as obvious truths.
The 3 parts of this section:
Murray, D., Schwartz, J., & Lichter, S. R. (2001).
It Ain't Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality
This book is the longer of the two, and more focused on how the
media can generate confusion and mislead people. However, it covers
much of the same territory as Best's book (below), in terms of how to think critically
about the statistics we encounter every day, and has more discussion of
child abuse statistics (excerpts below).
Praise from the book jacket:
"Fake statistics flood the news media these days. This book
is the essential antidote." - John Leo, U.S. News & World Report
"Risk and uncertainty plague our daily lives, especially when they drive
media headlines. But savvy consumers of news have a new ally with the
appearance of this timely and entertaining read that manages to take the
process apart and show us the guts of how news is really made." -
John D. Graham, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
First excerpts on child abuse statistics from
It Ain't Necessarily So - Is the trend really down?
"A group of researchers conducted two surveys of child abuse, in 1975 and
1985. Their second survey found that reports of child abuse had dropped
by almost 50 percent. In 1975, respondents were interviewed in their
homes whereas in 1985 respondents were interviewed on the phone. Could
this change in interviewing technique have contributed to the decrease? Or
would the change have made an increase in reports more likely?
"[T]he answers that [researchers] receive (and newspapers
report) greatly depend on precisely what the [researchers]
ask and how they ask it. For this reason, the most important problem with
survey data was outlined in a conversation having nothing to do with
[survey research] that took place at the
deathbed of the modernist writer Gertrude Stein. Alice B. Toklas,
Stein's companion, hoping for a final illumination from her brilliant
friend, is reported to have asked the question, 'Gertrude, Gertrude,
what is the answer?' But Stein offered no blinding insight, instead
parrying Toklas's question with one of her own: 'Alice, Alice, what is
the question?'" (page 98).
"Asking in Person and on the Phone
"In 1975 sociologists Murray A. Straus of the University of New Hampshire, [Suzanne Steinmetz of
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis]
and Richard J. Gelles of the University of Pennsylvania conducted the
National Family Violence Survey to determine the incidence of child abuse
and spousal abuse in the United States. In 1985 they conducted a second
survey (the National Family Violence Re-Survey) to update their findings.
Their most striking discovery was that child abuse (which they defined as
kicking, biting, punching, beating, threatening with a gun or knife, or
using a gun or knife) had declined by 47 percent among two-parent families
with at least one child aged three to seventeen. There were thirty-six
incidents of child abuse per thousand children in 1975, but only nineteen
such incidents of child abuse per thousand children in 1985.
"Straus and Gelles stressed that this encouraging finding could be
interpreted in different ways: child abuse could actually have decreased
over the ten years, or respondents could have been more reluctant to admit
to child abuse in 1985 than 1975. They argued that the decrease probably
reflected real behavioral changes (resulting from factors such as the rise
in average age for first-time parents, the decline in the number of
unwanted children, an improved economy, expanded treatment programs for
offenders, and a greater sense that child abuse is wrong and that abusers
risk punishment). They did not, however, rule out the possibility that
abusers were becoming less willing to own up to their own deeds in
interviews with strangers. Because child abuse is stigmatized, one must
always be cautious about equating what people report with what they actually
did.
"For our purposes, though, the possible impact of methodological changes
between the surveys is of great interest. The 1975 findings on child abuse
derived from hour-long in-person interviews with parents in 1,146
households; the 1985 emerged from thirty-five-minute telephone interviews
with parents in 1,428 households. What was the likely impact of the
methodological changes between the two surveys?
"Interestingly, Straus and Gelles contended that 'the differences in
methodology should have led to higher, not lower, rates of reported
violence.' First, 'the anonymity offered by the telephone [used in 1985
but not 1975] leads to more truthfulness and, therefore, increased
reports of violence.' In addition, 85 percent of the 1985 telephone
interviews were completed, compared with only 65 percent of the 1975
in-person interviews; and it is 'more likely that the violence rate is
higher among those who refuse to participate.' Thus 'a reduction in
refusals would tend to produce a higher rate of violence, whereas we found
a lower rate of violence in 1985 despite the much lower number of
refusals.' Finally, in 1975 'never' was an option offered respondents as
an answer to questions about violent acts; in 1985, by contrast, the
response categories began with 'once' and continued to more than 20 times,'
so that respondents had to volunteer an answer of 'never' themselves. Again,
this shift in interviewing technique would tend to have decreased the
number of denials that child abuse ever occurred.
"In short, the reported decline in child abuse was all the more significant
because it seems to have occurred in spite of the methodological changes
between the surveys. We see yet again that survey answers are much more
meaningful when they are understood in the contexts of the way in which
the questions are asked. It is interesting to look at newspaper reports of
Straus and Gelles's 1985 survey to see how the methodological issues were
covered or ignored. Bear in mind that it required no effort to address
the survey's methodology (Straus and Gelles did not conceal the
methodological issues, as tendentious researchers will sometimes do) but
instead called attention to them.
"The New York Times reporting was exemplary. To begin with, the
Times story was careful to note (both in the headline and in the
body of the story) that the survey examined admissions of child abuse (as
opposed to incidents of it): Straus and Gelles necessarily looked at what
parents said they did, not what they actually did. The story also took
note of the competing interpretations of the decline in reports and
explored the possible impact of the switch from in-person to telephone
interviewing. The San Diego Tribune also noted the possible impact
of interviewing by telephone; but the Chicago Tribune and
Christian Science Monitor ignored the methodological context for
Straus and Gelles's substantive finding. Too often, even when researchers
themselves stress the importance of methodology, reporters limit themselves
to recounting substantive findings in a procedural vacuum" (pages 110-113).
Second excerpts on child abuse statistics from
It Ain't Necessarily So - Is the trend really up?
"Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala recently declared
that 'between 1986 and 1993, the number of children who were physically
abused nearly doubled.' She based this claim on an increased number of
reports of child abuse. But do more reports clearly show that conditions
are worsening? Could they also indicate that even though behavior has not
worsened, the standards by which it is judged have become more strict?"
(page 133).
"Stricter Standards for Child Abuse
"The National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect was released in
September 1996, following up on previous studies conducted in 1980 and
1986. The study found that child abuse and neglect were seriously
worsening. Between 1986 and 1993 the number of cases doubled, going from
1.4 million to 2.8 million; and the number of cases involving serious
injuries nearly quadrupled, rising from 143,000 to almost 570,000.
"Commendably, newspaper accounts (presumably following a lead raised by
the study itself) alerted readers to the possible divergence between
reports of child abuse and the reality of child abuse. The Chicago
Tribune, for example, described the increase as 'a "true rise" in the
severity of the problem rather than one based solely on heightened awareness.'
There is certainly reason to suppose the number of cases of actual abuse
might be rising, since child abuse could be expected to rise when drug and
alcohol abuse were increasing and when broken homes were becoming more
common.
"Nevertheless, despite the study's assurance to the contrary, there is also
good reason to suppose that much of the increase reflects heightened
awareness rather than worse behavior. American Enterprise Institute
researcher Douglas J. Besharov (writing with research assistant Jacob W.
Dembosky) advanced this argument in an article in the on-line Journal
Slate [Child
Abuse: Threat or Menace. How common is it really?]. Besharov and
Dembosky noted that child abuse fatalities (for which there is, of course,
objective evidence that cannot easily be hidden) have risen only modestly,
going from 1,104 in 1986 to 1,216 in 1993. If serious abuse had in fact
quadrupled, one would expect to see a comparably enormous increase for the
most deadly abuse of all.
"Why might the study's alarming findings indicate heightened awareness
rather than a true rise in awful behavior? Besharov and Dembosky
observed that the study's conclusions emerge from a survey of a
representative sample of 5,600 child-welfare professionals. Of the 1.4
million additional cases counted in 1993, almost 80 percent consisted of
cases that do not involve physical or sexual abuse. (Note that the survey
examined child neglect as well, although Shalala's written comments in
releasing its findings referred only to abuse.) Fully 55 percent of the
additional cases involved endangered children: those who are not actually
harmed by parental abuse or neglect, but are simply 'in danger of being
harmed according to the views of community professionals or child-protection
service agencies.' Cases of emotional abuse and neglect made up an additional
15 percent of cases; and educational neglect, the frequent failure to send
a child to school, accounted for another 8 percent.
"A similar pattern emerges regarding the serious cases that were said to
have quadrupled. Of the 427,000 additional cases of serious abuse found
in 1993, emotional maltreatment was at issue in half. Furthermore, cases
were characterized as serious physical abuse even if they were restricted
to mental or emotional injury. Finally, in three categories (sexual abuse,
physical neglect, and emotional neglect), the increase in serious cases
was accompanied by a decline in moderate ones - which might suggest that
the increases resulted in some measure from upgraded standards, whereby
behavior once thought to be only moderately bad has now come to be
considered seriously harmful.
"In short, the child abuse study appears to be a perfect example of what
we have elsewhere described as the tactic of 'bait and switch': the increase
does not appear to stem from many more cases of real physical abuse (as
Shalala's remarks and the Tribune article, which nowhere discussed
the study's definition of 'abuse and neglect,' implied). Instead, what is
mostly at issue is a heightened awareness and sensitivity among child-welfare
professionals, who now report more behavior as abusive and neglectful than
they would have earlier. It seems likely that more stringent standards,
rather than a greater amount of adult depravity, is what chiefly explains
the rise reported in the child abuse study" (pages 138-139).
".... In principle, of course, there is nothing wrong with making standards
stricter, for judging child abuse or anything else; it's certainly possible
that prior standards were too lax (and not that the new, toughened standards
are unreasonably exacting). But... the problem is that we won't properly
understand the trendline unless we realize that our measuring instrument
has been altered so that it catches examples of abuse that would have
gone unrecognized in the past.
"Ironically, then, the increased conscientiousness of public servants can
be mistaken for increased social depravity. If the people who keep count of
various pathologies get better at their jobs, it is easy to reach the
possibly false conclusion that pathology is on the upswing. In other words,
an actual decline in pathology is altogether consistent with an increased
number of reports of pathology (and increased societal focus on it). As
new and higher standards arise, behavior that had once seemed acceptable
comes to be thought heinous, so it is reported where once it had been
ignored; what that can mean, though, is not that behavior has gotten worse,
but that the standards of judging it have risen.
"That point has been nicely argued (with specific respect to child abuse)
by sociologists Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles.
Those concerned with America's children might be pleased that
each year's 'official statistics' on child abuse tops the previous year's
figures. This is because the figures might indicate something quite
different from a real increase in the rate of child abuse. The true
incidence of child abuse may actually be declining, even though the
number of cases is increasing.... New standards are evolving in respect to
how much violence parents can use in childrearing.... This can create the
misleading impression of an epidemic of child abuse [emphasis in original
article; M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (1986), "Societal change and change
in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys,"
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 466-467].
"In sum, being aware of the occasional disparity between reports and
reality can be helpful, in that it can remind us of likely disparities
between subjective self-reports and objective reality. But it may be still
more helpful if we learn not to confuse objective observers' improvements
in tabulating pathologies with actual increases in the pathologies
themselves" (pages 142-143).
See also Explanations for the
Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, an excellent 2004 paper on this issue
written for the US Department of Justice by David Finkelhor and Lisa Jones. Dr. Finkelhor is an
internationally renowned researcher and Director of
the Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Best, J. (2001).
Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians,
and Activists.
This book has extremely clear and concise explanations of how activists,
the media, experts and other key players like politicians and the staff of
government agencies create good and bad statistics. The author gives you
lots of tools for critical thinking about how statistics are created by
people and organizations.
In fact, Best gives you some good critical tools
for seeing his own biases, which come across when he addresses issues
like child abuse and sexual assault. Still, we would cheat
ourselves of much knowledge if we failed to learn from people we don't
agree with - and Best has a lot of valuable things to teach about
the social and political creation and uses of statistics. Just reading
the excerpts will be very informative.
Praise from the book jacket:
"A real page turner. Best is the John Grisham of sociology."
- James Holstein, coauthor of The New Language of Qualitative Method
"In our era, numbers are as much a staple of political debates as stories.
And just as stories so often turn into fables, so Best shows that we often
believe the most implausible of numbers–to the detriment of us all." -
Peter Reuter, coauthor of Drug War Heresies
Excerpt 1: "The Rise of Social Statistics"
"[T]he first 'statistics' were meant to influence debates over social
issues. The term acquired its modern meaning – numeric evidence – in
the 1830s. . . The forerunner of statistics was 'political
arithmetic'; these studies – mostly attempts to calculate population
size and life expectancy – emerged in seventeenth-century Europe,
particularly in England and France. Analysts tried to count births, deaths,
and marriages because they believed that a growing population was evidence
of a healthy state; those who conducted such numeric studies – as
well as other, nonquantitative analyses of social and political prosperity
– came to be called statists. Over time, the statists' social
research led to the new term for quantitative evidence: statistics.
". . . . From year to year, they discovered, the number of births, deaths,
and even marriages remained relatively stable; this stability suggested
that social arrangements had an underlying order, that what happened in
a society depended on more than simply its government's recent actions,
and analysts began paying more attention to underlying social conditions.
"By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the social order seemed
especially threatened: cities were larger than ever before; economies
were beginning to industrialize; and revolutions in America and France
had made it clear that political stability could not be taken for
granted. The need for information, for facts that could guide social
policy, was greater than ever before. A variety of government agencies
began collecting and publishing statistics.... Scholars organized
statistical societies to share the results of their studies and to discuss
the best methods for gathering and interpreting statistics. And reformers,
who sought to confront the nineteenth-century's many social problems. . .
found statistics useful in demonstrating the extent and severity of suffering.
Statistics gave both government officials and reformers hard evidence – proof
that what they said was true. . . .
"During the nineteenth century, then, statistics – numeric statements
about social life – became an authoritative way to describe social
problems. There was growing respect for science, and statistics offered a
way to bring the authority of science to debates about social policy. In
fact, this had been the main goal of the first statisticians – they
wanted to study society through counting and use the resulting numbers
to influence social policy. They succeeded. . . But, beginning in the
nineteenth century and continuing through today, social statistics have had
two purposes, one public, the other often hidden. Their public purpose is
to give an accurate, true description of society. But people also use
statistics to support particular views about social problems. Numbers are
created and repeated because they supply ammunition for political
struggles, and this political purpose is often hidden behind assertions
that numbers, simply because they are numbers, must be correct. People use
statistics to support particular points of view, and it is naive to simply
accept numbers as accurate, without examining who is using them and why"
(pages 11-13).
Excerpt 2: "Creating Social Problems"
"[S]ocial problems are products of what people do.
"This is true for two reasons. First,. . . . social problems have their causes
in society's arrangements. . . . Most people understand that social
problems are social in this sense.
"But there is a second reason social problems are social. Someone has to
bring these problems to our attention, to give them names, describe their
causes and characteristics, and so on. Sociologists speak of social
problems as 'constructed' – that is, created or assembled through the
actions of activists, officials, the news media, and other people who
draw attention to particular problems. 'Social problem' is a label we give
to some social conditions, and it is that label that turns a condition
we take for granted into something we consider troubling. . . .
"The creation of a new social problem can be seen as a sort of public
drama, a play featuring a fairly standard cast of characters. Often, the
leading roles are played by social activists – individuals
dedicated to promoting a cause, to making others aware of the problem. . . .
"Successful activists attract support from others. The mass media – including
both the press (reporters for newspapers or television news programs) and
entertainment media (such as television talk shows) – relay activists'
claims to the general public. Reporters often find it easy to turn those
claims into interesting stories. . . . Activists need the media to provide
that coverage, just as the media need activists and other sources for
news to report.
"Often activists depend on the support of experts – doctors,
scientists, economists, and so on – who presumably have special
qualifications to talk about the causes and consequences of some social
problem. . . Activists use experts to make claims about social problems
seem authoritative, and the mass media often rely on experts' testimonies
to make news stories about a new problem seem more convincing. In turn,
experts enjoy the respectful attention they receive from activists and
the media.
"Not all social problems are promoted by struggling, independent activists;
creating new social problems is sometimes the work of powerful organizations
and institutions. Government officials who promote problems range
from prominent politicians trying to arouse concern in order to create
election campaign issues, to anonymous bureaucrats proposing that their
agencies' programs be expanded to solve some social problem. And businesses,
foundations, and other private organizations sometimes have their own
reasons to promote particular social issues. . . .
"Statistics play an important role in campaigns to create – or defuse
claims about – new social problems. Most often, such statistics
describe the problem's size. . . When social problems first come to our
attention, we're usually given an example or two (perhaps video footage
of homeless people living on city streets) and then a statistical
estimate (of the number of homeless people). Typically this is a big
number. The media like to report statistics because numbers seem to be
'hard facts' – little nuggets of indisputable truth. Activists trying
to draw media attention to a new social problem often find that the press
demands statistics. . . Experts, officials, and private organizations
commonly report having studied the problem, and they present statistics
based on their research. Thus, the key players in creating new social
problems all have reasons to present statistics" (pages 14-18).
Excerpt 3: "The Public as an Innumerate Audience"
"Most claims drawing attention to social problems aim to persuade all of
us – that is, the members of the general public. We are the audience,
or at least one important audience, for statistics and other claims
about social problems. If the public becomes convinced that prostitution
or homelessness is a serious social problem, then something is likely to
be done: officials will take action, new policies will begin, and so on.
Therefore, campaigns to create social problems use statistics to help
arouse the public's concern.
"This is not difficult. The general public tends to be receptive to claims
about new social problems, and we rarely think critically about social
problems statistics. Recall that the media like to report statistics
because numbers seem to be factual, little nuggets of truth. The public
tends to agree; we usually treat statistics as facts.
"In part, this is because we are innumerate. Innumeracy is the mathematical
equivalent of illiteracy; it is 'an inability to deal comfortably with the
fundamental notions of number and chance.' Just as some people cannot read
or read poorly, many people have trouble thinking clearly about numbers.
"One common innumerate error involves not distinguishing among large
numbers. . . . Because many people have trouble appreciating the differences
among big numbers, they tend to uncritically accept social statistics (which
often, of course, feature big numbers).
"Innumeracy – widespread confusion about basic mathematical ideas – means
that many statistical claims about social problems don't get the critical
attention they deserve. This is not simply because an innumerate public
is being manipulated by advocates who cynically promote inaccurate
statistics. Often, statistics about social problems originate with sincere,
well-meaning people who are themselves innumerate; they may not grasp the
full implications of what they are saying; reporters commonly repeat the
figures their sources give them without bothering to think critically
about them.
"The result can be social comedy. Activists want to draw attention to a
problem. . . The press asks for statistics. . . Knowing that big numbers
indicate a big problems and knowing that it will be hard to get action
unless people can be convinced a big problem exists (and sincerely
believing that there is a big problem), the activists produce a big
estimate, and the press, having no good way to check the number, simply
publicizes it. The general public – most of us suffering from at least
a mild case of innumeracy – tends to accept the figure without
question" (pages 19-21).
Excerpt 4: "Organizational Practices and Official Statistics"
"One reason we tend to accept statistics uncritically is that we assume
that numbers come from experts who know what they're doing. Often these
experts work for government agencies.... Data that come from the
government – crime rates, unemployment rates, poverty rates – are official
statistics. There is a natural tendency to treat these figures as
straightforward facts that cannot be questioned.
"This ignores the way statistics are produced. All statistics, even the
most authoritative, are created by people. This does not mean that they
are inevitably flawed or wrong, but it does mean that we ought to ask
ourselves just how the statistics we encounter were created....
"[C]onsider a... complicated example: statistics on suicide. Typically,
a coroner decides which deaths are suicides. This can be relatively
straightforward: perhaps the dead individual left behind a note clearly
stating an intent to commit suicide. But often there is no note, and the
coroner must gather evidence that points to suicide – perhaps the
deceased is known to have been depressed, the death occurred in a locked
house, the cause of death was an apparently self-inflicted gunshot to the
head, and so on. There are two potential mistakes here. The first is that
the coroner may label the death 'suicide' when, in fact, there was another
cause (in mystery novels, at least, murder is often disguised as suicide).
The second possibility for error is that the coroner may assign another
cause of death to what was, in fact, a suicide. This is probably a greater
risk, because some people who kill themselves want to conceal that fact
(for example, some single-car automobile fatalities are suicides designed
to look like accidents so that the individual's family can avoid
embarrassment or collect life insurance benefits). In addition, surviving
family members may be ashamed by a relative's suicide, and they may press
the coroner to assign another cause of death, such as accident.
"In other words, official records of suicide reflect coroners' judgments
about the causes of death in what can be ambiguous circumstances. The act
of suicide tends to be secretive – it usually occurs in private –
and motives of the dead cannot always be known. Labeling some deaths as
'suicide' and others as 'homicides,' accidents,' or whatever will sometimes
be wrong, although we cannot know exactly how often. Note, too, that
individual coroners may assess cases differently; we might imagine one
coroner who is relatively willing to label deaths suicide, and another who
is very reluctant to do so. Presented with the same set of cases, the first
coroner might find many more suicides than the second.
"It is important to appreciate that coroners view their task as classifying
individual deaths, as giving each one an appropriate label, rather than as
compiling statistics for suicide rates. Whenever statistical reports come
out of coroners' offices (say, total number of suicides in the jurisdiction
during the past year), are by-products of their real work (classifying
individual deaths). That is, coroners are probably more concerned with being
able to justify their decisions in individual cases than they are with
whatever overall statistics emerge from these decisions.
"The example of suicide records reveals that all official statistics are
products – and often by-products – of decisions by various
officials: not just coroners, but also the humble clerks who fill out and
file forms, the exalted supervisors who prepare summary reports, and so on.
These people make choices (and sometimes errors) that shape whatever
statistics finally emerge from their organization or agency, and the
organization provides a context for those choices.... In other words,
official statistics reflect what sociologists call organizational
practices – the organization's culture and structure shape
officials' actions, and those actions determine whatever statistics finally
emerge" (pages 21-25).
Excerpt 5: "Thinking About Statistics as Social Products"
"The lesson should be clear: statistics – even official statistics
such as crime rates, unemployment rates, and census counts – are
products of social activity. We sometimes talk about statistics as though
they are facts that simply exist, like rocks, completely independent of
people, and that people gather statistics much as rock collectors pick
up stones. This is wrong. All statistics are created through people's
actions: people have to decide what to count and how to count it, people
have to do the counting and the other calculations, and people have to
interpret the resulting statistics, to decide what the numbers mean. All
statistics are social products, the result of people's efforts.
"Once we understand this, it becomes clear that we should not simply accept
statistics by uncritically treating numbers as true or factual. If people
create statistics, then those numbers need to be assessed, evaluated. Some
statistics are pretty good; they reflect people's best efforts to measure
social problems carefully. But other numbers are bad statistics – figures
that may be wrong, even wildly wrong. We need to be able to sort out the good
statistics from the bad. There are three basic questions that deserve to be
asked whenever we encounter a new statistics.
"1. Who created the statistic? Every statistic has its authors, its
creators.... In asking who the creators are, we ought to be less concerned
with the names of the particular individuals who produced a number than
their part in the public drama about statistics. Does a particular statistic
come from activists, who are striving to draw attention to and arouse
concern about a social problem? Is the number being reported by the media
in an effort to prove that this problem is newsworthy? Or does the figure
come from officials, bureaucrats who routinely keep track of some social
phenomenon, and who may not have much stake in what the numbers show?
"2. Why was this statistic created? The identities of the people
who create statistics are often clues to their motives....
"3. How was this statistic created? We should not discount a statistic
simply because its creators have a point of view, because they view a social
problem as more or less serious. Rather, we need to ask how they arrived at
the statistic. All statistics are imperfect, but some are far less perfect
than others.... Once we understand that all statistics are created by
someone, and that everyone who creates statistics wants to prove something
(even if that is only that they are careful, reliable, and unbiased), it
becomes clear that the methods of creating statistics are key. The remainder
of this book focuses on this third question" (pages 26-28).
The June 8, 2001, "Science Friday" show of National Public
Radio's "Talk of the Nation" included an interview with David Murray and Joel
Best, authors of the books above. The piece was called
"Suspect Statistics," and all 47 minutes are available as RealAudio
files.
Official Statistics: United States
Contents
By far the best site for official United States statistics on child abuse is the
Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children's Bureau in the
Administration for Children and Families,
which is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. (See the Gateway's
About Us page for more information about its mission, resources, etc.)
Before following the links below, read the official
definitions of maltreatment. If possible, look at
the law which codified those definitions, the 1996 Federal
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (223 KB PDF).
CWIG collects and reports the statistics from two studies conducted using different methods.
- Child Maltreatment: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
This annual study and report is based on
data reported by state agencies responsible for investigating suspected
cases of child abuse. As I mentioned above,
and as NCCAN recognizes, these statistics are under-estimates, since
most cases of abuse and neglect never come to the attention of these
state agencies.
On the other hand, there is strong evidence that incidents sexual and physical abuse of children declined in the 1990s. See
Explanations for the
Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, an excellent 2004 paper written for
the US Department of Justice by David Finkelhor and Lisa Jones. Dr. Finkelhor is an internationally
renowned researcher and Director of the Crimes Against
Children Research Center.
- National Incidence Study - Executive
Summary
The National Incidence Study (NIS) is designed to estimate the
actual number of abused and neglected children, including cases both
reported and not reported to state Child Protective Services (CPS)
agencies. NIS bases estimates on information from more than 5,600
community professionals who come into contact with maltreated children
in a variety of settings.
The most recent NIS survey (NIS-3) examines
data from 1993. (NIS-4 is now underway, and scheduled for completion in February 2008.)
Though the statistics from this study are closer to
the true rates of abuse and neglect in the US than those cited in the
official Child Maltreatment reports, they may still be underestimates.
On the other hand, the increase in estimated cases of abuse and neglect
from the 1986 to 1993 NIS studies may reflect heightened awareness and
stricter standards among professionals responsible for recognizing and investigating
the abuse of children - not an actual increase in rates of child
abuse and neglect. For discussions of this issue, see the excerpt
above, from the book It Ain't Necessarily So, and
Explanations for the
Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases, an excellent 2004 paper written for
the US Department of Justice by David Finkelhor and Lisa Jones. Dr. Finkelhor is an internationally
renowned researcher and Director of
the Crimes Against
Children Research Center.
See also the Statistics section of the Gateway website, which will give you a sense of the information available.
The Gateway site has an excellent searchable
catalog of publications (try searching with terms like "bibliography," "fact sheet," "prevention," and "webliography"). Many publications are available in Spanish.
Official Statistics: Canada
Contents
Official Canadian statistics on child abuse are available from the Public Health Agency of Canada.
In Canada, national statistics on child abuse and neglect first became available in 2001, with the publication of the first Canadian
Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2001). Before then they had not been compiled, largely due to the challenge posed
by varying definitions of child abuse across the country's provinces and territories.
Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect - 2003 (CIS-2003) HTML -
PDF
"The [CIS] is the core national child maltreatment surveillance
activity of the Public Health Agency of Canada. This is the report of the major findings of the second cycle
of the CIS... The primary objective is to provide reliable estimates of the scope and characteristics
of reported child abuse and neglect. The CIS-2003 addresses the five principal forms of maltreatment:
physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence. "
See also CIS-2001: HTML
- PDF
The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence (NCFV) web site is another great resource for information on child abuse and neglect for Canadians, including the overview publication, Child Maltreatment in Canada.
The NCFV site has an extensive
Publications
section, including many on issues related to
Child Abuse and Neglect,
Child Sexual Abuse,
and Family Violence.
The Frequently
Asked Questions page has information about how to order publications. Below are direct links
to some very informative "overview papers" and "fact sheets."
NCFV also offers many videos on child abuse and family violence, for the
general public and for professionals working in the field. These may be borrowed from partner public libraries across Canada (listed available on the web page), and some are available for purchase.
Official Statistics: Australia
Contents
The best site for official statistics on child abuse is the
National Child Protection
Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse is a great site with many full-text
articles on child abuse and its effects. It is funded by the
Commonwealth
Department of Family and Community Services, under the auspices of the
National Child Protection Council, as part of the National Strategy for
the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. (See
About the Clearinghouse for
more information about its mission, functions, resources, etc.)
It's not easy to find the
Child Protection Statistics page, but it provides
excellent information - on where the official statistics come from, how to make sense
of them, and links to the two most recent national studies. After reading the
introductory paragraphs on that page, you can access the following:
The Clearinghouse site has an exceptional
Publications
section. It includes some in-depth, sophisticated and scholarly
papers on child abuse, its effects, and how to prevent it. Some good articles
are somewhat hidden, inside particular issues of the Clearinghouse Newsletter.
Official Statistics: England
Contents
The best place for official statistics is not a web site dedicated to
these issues, but a few pages with reports of studies conducted in a
collaboration between the Office
for National Statistics and the
Department of
Health. Links to these pages can be found under the "Children" heading of Section C - Personal and Social Services
of the Health and Personal Social Services Statistics page of the Statistical Publications web site.
Every year since 1989, the Department of Health has collected and reported
statistics on child abuse and neglect in the publication, "Children and Young
People on Child Protection Registers." The statistics are "derived from
the statistical returns submitted to the Department of Health by local
authorities and include data for individual local authorities and
England estimates."
Summary information and tables from the last four annual surveys are available
for free on the web. (Only the full publication "contains
detailed commentary and comprehensive explanation of the figures at
both England and local authority level." It is available for a charge
of £8 from the Department of Health, PO Box 777, London, SE1 6XH.
Fax: 01623 724 524.)
Before looking at any findings from these studies, it is
important to understand some limitations of the data. The following
statement is from the Statistics Division of the Department of Health:
|
Child Protection Registers
Each Social Services
Department holds a central register which lists the names of all
those children in the area whose names have been placed on the Child
Protection Register. The decision to register the child's name takes
place at a child protection conference. This decision is made if
the child is at continuing risk of significant harm and hence in
need of a child protection plan and registration.
It should be emphasized
that the primary purpose of having child protection registers is
to assist in the protection of children. Their value for statistical
purposes is, therefore, a secondary benefit. The registers are not
intended to be a list of all children in the area who have suffered
or are likely to suffer significant harm but are those for whom
there is a need for a child protection plan. These figures should
therefore not be interpreted as a record of all child abuse.
|
Here are links to the last 2 of these studies:
Finally, in 2000 the Department of Health, for the first time, conducted a survey
of "Children in Need," that is, children in need of services from Social Services'
Children and Families teams across England. The resulting report "summarizes the
results of [the survey] and the activity and expenditure reported by
Social Services in respect of provision for Children in Need in a
'typical' week in February 2000." The Executive Summary notes, "The main
need for social service intervention on children is cases of 'abuse
and neglect' which account for just over half (56%) of all Children Looked
After and 28% of other Children in Need." Several related documents are
available on the Department of Health web site:
Official Statistics: International
Contents
On October 11, 2006 the United Nations (UN) released the first UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against
Children, which addresses violence against children within the family, schools, alternative care institutions and
detention facilities, places where children work, and communities. The study took years to complete, and was supported
by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Office of the
High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR).
As noted in the report's introduction, the study is a "first" in two important ways:
- "First comprehensive, global study conducted by the United Nations on all forms of violence against children."
- "First global study to engage directly and consistently with children. Children have participated in all regional consultations
held in connection with the Study, eloquently describing both the violence they experience and their proposals for ending it."
The study and its results are being published in three formats and many languages:
The report includes the following overview statistics (section II. B., pp. 9-10, with references to specific studies provided for each):
- Almost 53,000 children died worldwide in 2002 as a result of homicide.
- Up to 80 to 98% of children suffer physical punishment in their homes, with a third or more experiencing severe physical punishment resulting from the use of implements.
- 150 million girls and 73 million boys under 18 experienced forced sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual violence during 2002.
- Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world have undergone some form of female genital mutilation/cutting. In sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt and the Sudan, 3 million girls and women are subjected to genital mutilation/cutting every year.
- In 2004, 218 million children were involved in child labour, of whom 126 million were in hazardous work.
- Estimates from 2000 suggest that 1.8 million children were forced into prostitution and pornography, and 1.2 million were victims of trafficking.
Our Right to be Protected from Violence: Activities for Learning and Taking Action for Children and Young People, is an educational booklet for children and young people over the age of 12, which provides information about violence and ideas for actions they can take to prevent violence and respond to it.
Here are links to the web sites devoted to the study:
Also see the World Health Organization's 2002 study,
World Report on Violence and Health. The entire report, a 372-page and 2.4-megabyte PDF, is available
in English, French, Russion or Spanish. A 54-page (600 KB) summary is available in Arabic, English, French, German, and Spanish. Chapter 3, Child Abuse and Neglect by Parents and Other Caregivers, is 30 pages (177 KB) and can be dowloaded in English, French, or Russian. Chapter 3 reviews and provides references for many academic studies on rates of abuse in a variety of countries (though it is not comprehensive).
There is also a 1994 paper by sociologist David Finkelhor, an
internationally recognized expert on research on the incidence
and prevalence of child sexual abuse, and Director of the
Crimes Against Children
Research Center. The countries covered in the
paper: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica,
Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Great Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Please note: Because
this is a 1994 publication, and this is a growing field of research,
additional studies for some of these countries and other countries
have been published by now. Here's the citation and abstract:
Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual
abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 409-417.
Abstract: "Surveys of child sexual abuse in large nonclinical populations
of adults have been conducted in at least 19 countries in addition to the
United States and Canada, including 10 national probability samples. All
studies have found rates in line with comparable North American research,
ranging from 7% to 36% for women and 3% to 29% for men. Most studies found
females to be abused at 1.5 to 3 times the rate for males. Few comparisons
among countries are possible because of methodological and definitional
differences. However, they clearly confirm sexual abuse to be an
international problem."
Retrospective Survey Research Methods
- Tools for Critical Understanding
Contents
This section is focused on sexual abuse and the sexual
abuse of boys largely because I have conducted research in these areas.
Another reason is that research on the abuse of male children was once my
main area of expertise, and the sexual abuse of males remains virtually
unacknowledged throughout the world.
This is a long section (4 printed pages). But please consider reading it before
reading (or reading about) studies of child abuse prevalence. It will take
some time, but reading this will help you to understand this kind of research,
and to think more critically about opinions you encounter in the popular
media.
When it comes to measuring prevalence - that is, how many children
are sexually abused in childhood? - the methods used by
researchers are absolutely crucial.
Five important methodological issues are covered below:
-
Population from which the research sample is drawn.
-
Whether or not "gate questions" are used.
-
Wording of questions or items, especially whether or not the word
"abuse" is used.
-
Definitions of abuse used to categorize research data.
-
Number of questions or items.
Please note:
I do not attempt or claim to address the definitional issue completely
or authoritatively. Indeed, this is a most complex and controversial
(methodological) issue, not only among researchers but in society as a
whole, and not only in terms of sexual abuse but physical and emotional
abuse as well. Thus I will only touch on a few important points, though
certainly the definitions of "sexual abuse" applied by researchers to study
data have decisive effects on estimates of the prevalence of sexual abuse.
1. An important methodological issue has to do with the population
(group of people) from which a sample, or selected group of a
population actually researched, is drawn. Different prevalence rates
have been found in samples of: college students; clinical populations
or people receiving psychological treatment; and community populations
or whoever lives in some area (e.g., a city, state, or country). Other
methods being equivalent, compared to samples of people receiving
mental health treatment, broad community samples will yield lower
prevalence rates and provide more accurate data about the rate of child
sexual abuse in a society.
2. Whatever the population and sample, researchers have to ask
questions. They can ask questions by interviewing research subjects,
over the phone or face-to-face. They can also ask questions by giving
people questionnaires, typically anonymous ones. Some have argued that
anonymous questionnaires are better for research on men, who may be
less willing to acknowledge unwanted sexual experiences in the presence
of another person. Some who conduct interview studies disagree, and
there is not yet sufficient evidence to make this judgement. Whichever
of these methods is employed, there are other methodological issues
related to the nature of the questioning; for example, whether or not a
subject must answer "yes" to an initial "gate question" in order to be
asked more questions, the wording of the questions, and the number of
questions asked. These are important methodological parameters that
have had significant effects on the prevalence rates researchers have
found.
For some studies researchers have used gate questions, in which a
subject is only asked a series of questions about possible abuse
experiences if he or she answers "yes" to an initial question. Not
surprisingly, these studies have tended to find lower rates of sexual
abuse in their samples. For example, someone may answer "no" to this
question: "Before the age of 16, did you ever experience unwanted
sexual contact with someone more than 10 years older than you?" But one
minute later this same person may reply "yes" to this question: "Before
age 16, did anyone more than 10 years older than you use threats or
force to get you to fondle his or her genitals?" If subjects in a
research study are not asked further questions after answering "no" to
a general question about unwanted sexual experiences in childhood, many
of those who were in fact sexually abused will be categorized as never
sexually abused.
3. The wording of research questions is extremely important, and can
dramatically skew prevalence rates. Imagine that an interviewer or even
an anonymous questionnaire begins by asking, "Were you ever sexually
abused before age 16?" This question requires subjects to scan their
memories, and to decide whether or not to label any memories that come
up as "abuse," which would be to accept the identity of "sexual abuse
victim." Obviously most people, especially men, will automatically
resist doing these things, even if they have experienced unwanted and
emotionally harmful sexual experiences in childhood. So any study that
uses the words "sexual abuse" will wrongly categorize some people who
have been sexually abused--but don't label their experience that
way--as not having been sexually abused.
This methodological issue, the wording of questions, touches on the
issue of definition, and all the attendant controversy. Some people
given attention by the popular media have focused on the wording of
questions in ways that misrepresent research on sexual abuse and rape.
Major publications like The New York Times Magazine have given
cover-story treatment to people who have minimal understanding of
social science methodology, and apparently even less interest in the
truth about rates of abuse and assault in our country. These people
have claimed that researchers "make up" abuse that never happened by
labeling subjects' experiences as abusive even though the subjects
might not.
This charge has been made against Mary Koss, an accomplished
researcher who has conducted studies on prevalence rates of rape among
college women (and has found that one in four have experienced rape or
attempted rape since age 14). In constructing her questionnaire items,
Koss made a good faith effort to use language that fit the legal
definition of rape in the state where she lived when she conducted
the research. Yet she has been accused of irresponsibly mislabeling her
subjects' experiences and exaggerating rates of rape. (Decide for
yourself: read Koss, M., Gidicz, C., & Wisniewski, N. [1987]. The
scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and
victimization in a national sample of higher education students.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.)
One way that Koss has answered this critique is by referring to an
analogous situation. I will paraphrase her argument. Imagine yourself
questioning an alcoholic: Do you have more than six alcoholic drinks in
one sitting several times a week? Yes. Do you often wake up with such a
hangover that you can't go to work? Yes. Have friends and family members
repeatedly tried to help you stop drinking? Yes. Do you suffer from
withdrawal symptoms when you stop drinking? Yes. Are you an alcoholic?
No.
The point here is that good prevalence research must use
behavioral descriptions to which definitions like "alcoholic" or
"sexual abuse" may be applied. Researchers should not rely on people
defining themselves as alcoholics or defining their sexual experiences
as abusive. Such definitions can only be uninterpretable and
unreliable. Again, for many people who have been sexually exploited and
hurt by others in childhood--especially men, who aren't supposed to be
victims--it's very painful to acknowledge what has happened.
Researchers must not ignore the effects this can have on subjects'
responses to questions about childhood experiences that may have been
abusive.
For these reasons, researchers seeking to determine prevalence rates
should not use the word "abuse" in their interviews or questionnaire
items. Instead, they should provide clear behavioral
descriptions of experiences to which subjects can answer "yes" or
"no". When an answer is yes, further information should be elicited,
including: the age of the subject and the other person involved; the
nature of the relationship (parent, sibling, friend, priest, etc.); the
level of coercion or violence; the number of times and period of time
over which the experience happened; and the person's emotional
appraisal of the event when it occurred and at the time of the
research.
Here are two examples of questionnaire items employing behavioral
descriptions and follow-up questions. Both are from research on the
sexual abuse of males conducted by David Lisak and his colleagues
(Lisak & Luster, 1994; Lisak, Hopper, & Song, 1996; see
Recommended
Books and Articles section of Sexual Abuse of Males for complete
citations):
-
Someone fondled you (i.e., touched your genitals or other parts of
your body) in a sexual way. YES____ NO____
If yes...
Who was the
person?___________________
Was the person male or
female?__________
How old were you at the
time?____________
About how old was the other
person?______
How many times did it
happen?___________
For how long did it happen
(i.e., days,
weeks, months,
years)?_________________
How do you now feel about the
experience
(i.e., negative, neutral or
positive)_________
How distressing did you find
this at the time:
Not at all distressing - A . . .
. . B . . . . . C . . . . . D . . . . . E - Very distressing
How much force or persuasion
did the person use?
(Please check off the
appropriate categories below.)
Activity was voluntary____
They took advantage of your
trust____
They used bribes or
enticements____
They used sexual
seduction____
They used intimidation or adult
authority____
They used threats against you or
someone else____
They used physical force____
Other (please
explain)_______________________
-
A woman had you perform vaginal intercourse on her. YES____
NO____
If yes...
Who was the
person?___________________
. . . . [see above]
4. With this kind of information researchers are in a better position to
evaluate whether or not an experience fits a reasonable and
understandable definition of sexual abuse.
As noted already, the definition of child sexual abuse employed in a
prevalence study may be the most important methodological parameter. I
will only make a few points here, to suggest some of the definitional
issues in prevalence research. For example, it's easy to imagine the
differences in prevalence rates the very same data will yield when
categorized with each of these definitional criteria:
-
A child is a person under age 16, and a sexual experience is abusive
if verbal threats were used and the person feels negatively about the
experience.
-
A child is a person under 14 years old, and sexual abuse must
involve physical force.
Besides the age of the subject at the time and the level of coercion
involved, any age difference between the subject and the other person is an
important factor. If a twenty year old woman has sexual intercourse with a
ten year old boy, this is clearly abusive even if no physical force is used
or no threats are made. Because large age differences may constitute vast
discrepancies of power, especially with younger children, reasonable
definitions of child sexual abuse must address the issue of age
difference.
Of course, there are no clear-cut answers when it comes to definitions
of child sexual abuse employed in research studies--or, for that matter,
definitions used by all of us in conversation and debate. There will
always be disagreements about what constitutes "sexual abuse," even among
experts in this area. Some will ground their definitions in the
exploitive intention of the person having the sexual experience with the
child, no matter how the child or remembering adult feels about the
experience. Others will believe this dilutes the meaning of the words and
trivializes the suffering of people who, for example, have been raped by
align="center" a parent repeatedly for years. These people will advocate for very
conservative definitions.
Though they will never all agree, researchers have become increasingly
sensitive to the need for carefully considered, and clearly articulated,
definitions of child sexual abuse. Unfortunately, this has not been the
case for most commentators and critics given attention by the popular
media.
5. Finally, the number of questions asked of subjects in a research
study can have a large effect on prevalence rate findings. Sadly, there are
many ways to sexually abuse a child. Thus only a number of specifically
worded behavioral descriptions of possible experiences (probably at least
10 to 15), will suffice for researchers trying to determine whether a
person was sexually abused in childhood. Having subjects answer a number
of questions also increases the likelihood that some memory of an abusive
experience will be accessed. For example, a subject may read several
questions before remembering and reporting an experience of sexual abuse,
even though earlier questions described aspects of the same experience.
Thus only by using multiple questions consisting of clear behavioral
descriptions can researchers generate sufficient data to which
definitions of abuse may be applied. Obviously, studies that ask fewer
questions will yield lower prevalence rates for childhood sexual
abuse.
These are some of the most important methodological issues in research
conducted on adults to estimate prevalence rates of child sexual abuse.
Keeping these issues in mind, and the built-in biases of certain methods,
will help you to understand the research below or any other studies you
read about, and to think more critically about what you encounter in the
popular media--especially from people who claim abuse rates are
exaggerated and base their claims on uninformed or misleading critiques
of research conducted by social scientists.
And there is one more very important point to keep in mind:
Any research study, even one with the most effective methodology, is
likely to underestimate the actual prevalence of sexual abuse in
the population being investigated.
Why?
There is evidence emerging that as many as one in three
incidents of child sexual abuse are not remembered by adults who
experienced them, and that the younger the child was at the time of the
abuse, and the closer the relationship to the abuser, the more likely one
is not to remember. Please see the section on Linda Williams' research on
my Web page, Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse: Scientific Research
& Scholarly Resources.
Prevalence of the Sexual Abuse of Boys
Contents
Approximately one in six boys is sexually abused
before age 16.
Why only the early research, up to 1996? That's when I conducted a comprehensive review
for my masters thesis, and since then I've been much less focused on rates
of sexual abuse among males than on how all kinds of abuse can affect men and
women. This section will still be useful to people who want to understand how different
research methods yield different prevalence statistics.
For the most recent and authoritative evidence supporting the 1 in 6 prevalence estimate, read the study of 17,000 California residents, Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim, published in 2005 by Shanta Dube and colleagues in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Please note: This section and the one above are nearly identical to
sections of my page, Sexual Abuse of Males: Prevalence,
Lasting Effects,and Resources. That page also contains a list of references to all the
articles and books cited in this section, as well as others addressing
lasting effects and links to Web pages for men who were sexually abused
in childhood.
The following review is grouped into three sections, according to the
sample studied:
-
Male college students.
-
Men from an identified community.
-
Men receiving mental health services.
As noted above, please keep in mind: All of the rates below are likely
to be underestimates of the actual prevalence of the sexual abuse
of boys in our society. This is so because:
There is evidence emerging that as many as one in three
incidents of child sexual abuse are not remembered by adults who
experienced them, and that the younger the child was at the time of the
abuse, and the closer the relationship to the abuser, the more likely one
is not to remember. Please see the section on Linda Williams' research on
my Web page, Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse: Scientific Research
& Scholarly Resources.
1. Studies of male college students have found prevalence rates from 4.8%
to 28%. At the lower extreme of 4.8% is a study by Fritz, Stoll and
Wagner (1981) in which 412 students responded to a self-report
questionnaire that required them to label their experiences as
"abusive"--a method guaranteed to cause under-reporting (see discussion in
section above). Risin and Koss
(1987) obtained a rate of 7.3% in a national sample of 2,972 male college
students. They used eight self-report behavioral descriptions about
sexual behaviors before age 14. As pure behavioral descriptions, none of
the items included the word "abuse." Finkelhor (1979) used a similar list
of behavioral self-report items in a study of 266 college students and
found an 8.3% prevalence rate; he included non-contact experiences and
used specific age criteria (if under 14 there had to be a 5 year age
difference with the perpetrator, if 14-15, a 10 year difference).
Higher prevalence rates of 20% and 24% came from Fromuth and
Burkhart's (1987) study of students in two separate schools. They
compared the effect of different definitions of sexual abuse on
prevalence rates. However, their questionnaire utilized a gate question.
The highest rates of 20% and 24% came from the most inclusive definition:
the same as Finkelhor's 1979 study (including non-contact and age
differential criteria), but with the addition that sexual contact between
peers involving force or threat was categorized as abuse.
Research on college students also has been conducted by David Lisak
and his colleagues, including myself (Lisak & Luster, 1994; Lisak,
Hopper, & Song, 1996). The college samples in these studies were not
typical, but consisted of men who commuted to an urban university, were
an average of 25 years old, and from socioeconomic background more
typical of the surrounding community than many college student
populations used in this research. This work yielded prevalence rates
of:
-
Approximately 17% for child sexual abuse of males involving
physical contact.
-
Over 25% when non-contact forms of abuse were included.
Non-contact experiences (e.g., a relative exposing her or his
genitals to a child) were investigated because such acts are sexually
exploitive and can have negative long-term psychological and
interpersonal effects. However, this definition also includes
experiences, like a single "flashing" episode involving a stranger,
that many would argue are not abusive because the subject suffered no
significant or lasting harm, if any at all. As clarified below, Lisak
and his colleagues (1994, 1996) deliberately chose to weight their
definition of sexual abuse in terms of the power differential
accompanying significant age differences and the older person's
presumed deliberate sexual use and exploitation of the younger
subject. So long as significant differences in age and power existed,
Lisak and his colleagues defined incidents as abusive, regardless of
subjects' emotional appraisal or lasting effects (the latter were not
measured).
Lisak and his colleagues (1994, 1996) used an anonymous
questionnaire which has 17 behavioral descriptions of possible
experiences and an 18th item for "other" experiences subjects describe.
If subjects endorsed an item, they were then directed to provide
further information about the experience, which was used to categorize
the experience as abusive or not. If the subject was age 13 or younger
when the incident occurred and the other person was at least 5 years
older, the incident was classified as sexually abusive. If the subject
was age 13 or younger when the incident occurred and the other person
was less than 5 years older, two criteria had to be met for the
incident to be classified as abusive: the subject reported feeling
"negative" about it and reported that some degree of coercion was used
by the other person. Similar principles apply to incidents occurring
when the subject was age 14-15: the incident was classified as abusive
if the other person was at least 10 years older; if the other person
was less than 10 years older, the abuse classification was assigned
only if the subject reported feeling negative about it and reported
some level of coercion by the other person.
Though the definitional criteria in Lisak and his colleagues'
studies are complex, they address two important issues.
-
The reality of the power differential which characterizes
relationships between adults and children, and between young
children and adolescents, because whether or not a sexual
experience is abusive can depend on this dynamic.
-
The fact that whether or not a sexual experience is abusive can
also depend on one's subjective appraisal and emotional response to
the incident.
Lisak and his colleagues argue that the criteria they employed
to assess sexual abuse are clear and relatively conservative in
their treatment of the issues of power and subjects'
responses.
A prevalence rate similar to the Lisak et al. studies was
found in another study of college males. Collings (1995) used an
anonymous questionnaire and defined sexual abuse as "unwanted"
sexual experiences taking place before the age of 18. The term
"unwanted" is likely to bias rates downward, as noted above, but
the inclusion of subjects aged 16 and 17 is likely to increase
the found prevalence rate. Not surprisingly, Collings found that
29% of the 284 male respondents had been sexually abused, with
20% reporting non-contact abuse and 6% reporting abuse
experiences involving physical contact.
2. Studies with community samples have ranged in their prevalence
rates from 2.8% to 16%. Again, methodology has been crucial.
Kercher and McShane (1984) mailed a single self-report question
including the word "abuse" to a random sample of Texas drivers.
They found a prevalence rate of 3%. Given the wording of their
single question, this rate is not surprising.
Two random-sample telephone interview studies by Murphy (1987,
1989, cited in Urquiza & Keating, 1990) also demonstrate the
profound effects of single questions including the word "abuse"
rather than instruments with multiple behavioral descriptions. In
one of the studies (1987) the former method was employed, and it
produced a rate of 2.8% with a sample of 357; in the other study
(1989) the latter method yielded a prevalence rate of 11% with a
sample of 777.
Bagley, Wood and Young (1994) conducted a community study of
men aged 18 to 27 in the Canadian city of Calgary. They first
contacted subjects by phone, then administered anonymous
questionnaires in their homes via programs on portable computers.
Their questionnaire asked about "unwanted" experiences before the
age of 17. This wording is likely to result in under-reporting
because people who have been sexually abused, but especially
males, are sometimes convinced that they wanted and were
responsible for the sexual contact. Bagley and his colleagues
found a prevalence rate of 15.5%, and that 6.9% of their subjects
had experienced multiple episodes of sexual abuse.
Interestingly, this rate for multiple episodes was
identical to that found for women in a previous study that
employed the same methodology, despite the fact that the
prevalence rate for any unwanted sexual experiences in that study
was 32%, or double that found for males (Bagley, 1991).
The highest community-sample prevalence rate of 16% was found
in a random telephone survey of 2,626 men, known as the "L.A.
Times survey" (Finkelhor, 1990). However, these findings are very
difficult to interpret, since the wording of the questions would
be expected to produce contradictory effects: each question used
the word "abuse," but ended with the phrase, "or anything like
that?"
In contrast to studies with women, published studies using
face-to-face interviews with men have yielded very low prevalence
rates, perhaps due to subjects' adherence to stereotypes about
males not being victims (Urquiza & Keating, 1990).
Finkelhor's (1984) face-to-face interview with Boston-area
fathers yielded a rate of 6%. Siegel and colleagues (1987), using
gate-question interviews with 1,480 Los Angeles-area men, found a
prevalence rate of 3.8%. Baker and Duncan (1985) used a single
question that described various sexual acts and found the highest
face-to-face prevalence rate of 8% in their random sample of 970
men in Great Britain.
3. Studies with clinical samples have obtained
prevalence rates from 3% to 23%. The lowest rate was reported
from a study that used psychological records of 954 male and
female patients of a large regional medical center (Belkin,
Greene, Rodrique, & Boggs, 1994). In a chart review of
emergency room records of a Buffalo, New York hospital,
Ellerstein and Canavan (1980) found an 11% prevalence rate.
DeJong and colleagues (DeJong, Emmett, & Hervada, 1982)
reviewed several clinical studies and found rates from 11% to
17%, and in their own hospital population found a rate of just
under 14% (1982). Metcalfe and his associates (1990) found a
prevalence of 23% in their survey of 100 male psychiatric
inpatients.
However, it is important to note here that assessment for
sexual abuse histories in hospitals has traditionally been
extremely poor, and remains so in many settings. Thus these
rates, based on reviews of records, are likely to be vast
underestimates. For example, Briere and Zaidi (1989) reviewed
intake reports on women presenting to an urban psychiatric
emergency room. They randomly reviewed 50 charts before and 50
after the intake staff were instructed to question clients about
previous sexual victimization. The first 50 charts had recorded
rates of 6%, and the second set, 70%.
Effects of Child Abuse
Contents
There are many web sites with information about possible effects of child abuse,
including findings from solid research. Unfortunately, too often these are
"laundry lists" of problems and symptoms, which can lead people to believe that
almost every case of child abuse inevitably leads to permanent damage and great
long-term suffering. Of course child abuse can lead to problems and suffering,
but it's not that simple. My aim here is to provide some basic information that
helps people appreciate the complexity of this issue and avoid unnecessarily
pessimistic beliefs as they seek for knowledge and understanding.
You may be wondering: "Why do I have problems dealing with emotions,
relating to friends, getting close to people? Could it be related to abuse I
experienced as a child? Will I (my child, husband, friend, etc.) be forever
damaged by the abuse?"
I have three basic answers, or at least beginnings of answers to these questions:
- Being abused and/or neglected as a child are not the only painful and potentially
damaging experiences that human beings may suffer in childhood.
- Whether or not, and to what extent child abuse and neglect (or other painful
experiences) have negative effects depends on a variety of factors - related
to the abuse itself, but also to relationships, in which the abuse and the
child's responses occur.
- Child abuse, in itself, does not "doom" people to lives of horrible suffering.
Child Abuse and the Human Condition
It is important to consider these issues in relation to what some people
refer to as "the human condition." By this I mean:
- All human beings suffer painful experiences, and some of these occur in childhood.
- All caregivers of children are sometimes unable to protect them from painful experiences.
- We all need love and support to deal with the effects of painful experiences.
- Everyone must find ways to cope with the emotions generated by
painful experiences - whether or not we get love and support from others.
- Many coping or self-regulation strategies work in some ways, but also limit
people in other ways. For example:
- Ignoring painful feelings may reduce one's conscious experience of
them. But it also prevents one from learning how to manage them in smaller
doses, let alone larger ones - which makes one vulnerable to alternating
between feeling little or no emotions and being overwhelmed and unable to cope with them.
- Avoiding getting close to people and trying to hide all of one's pain and
vulnerabilities may create a sense of safety. But this approach to
relationships leads to a great deal of loneliness, prevents experiences and
learning about developing true intimacy and trust, and makes one vulnerable
to desperately and naively putting trust in the wrong people and being betrayed again.
- At the extreme, getting really drunk can block out painful memories
and feelings, including the feeling of being disconnected from others - but
cause lots of other problems and disconnections from people.
- Some people suffer more painful experiences than others,
and abuse is one of many possible causes of extreme emotional pain (others
include life-threatening illness, death of a loved one, physical disfigurement, etc.).
- Some people get more love and support from their families
and friends than others, and families in which abuse occurs tend to provide
less of the love and support needed to recover from abuse. But families in
which abuse does not happen can also experience significant problems, and can
make it hard for family members to deal with the inevitable painful experiences in life.
- Finally, because everyone needs caring relationships and love,
emotional neglect can be more devastating than abuse, particularly in
the earliest years of life.
The Effects of Child Abuse Depend on a Variety of Factors
We have learned from many people's experiences and a great deal of
research that the effects of abuse and neglect depend on a variety of factors.
Below I group these effects into those which research has shown to influence negative
outcomes, and a variety of other factors that are harder to measure for
research purposes and/or may be very important for some people but not others.
Factors research has shown to influence the effects of abuse:
- Age of the child when the abuse happened. Younger is usually more harmful,
but different effects are associated with different developmental periods.
- Who committed the abuse. Effects are generally worse when it was a
parent, step-parent or trusted adult than a stranger.
- Whether the child told anyone, and if so, the person's response. Doubting,
ignoring, blaming and shaming responses can be extremely harmful - in some cases
even more than the abuse itself.
- Whether or not violence was involved, and if so, how severe.
- How long the abuse went on.
Additional factors that are difficult to research or may differ in significance
for different people:
- Whether the abuse involved deliberately humiliating the child.
- How "normal" such abuse was in the extended family and local culture.
- Whether the child had loving family members, and/or knew that someone loved her or him.
- Whether the child had some good relationships - with siblings, friends, teachers, coaches, etc.
- Whether the child had relationships in which "negative" feelings were
acceptable, and could be expressed and managed safely and constructively.
Some of these factors are about how severe the abuse was, and some are about
the relational context of the abuse and the child's reactions. Both types of
factors are extremely important.
A great deal of research has been conducted, and continues to be conducted, on
how such factors determine outcomes for those abused in childhood. Factors that
increase the likelihood of negative outcomes have been referred to as "risk
factors," and ones that decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes as
"protective factors." Every person who has experienced abuse is unique. And every
person who has experienced abuse has a unique combination of risk and protective
factors that have influenced, and continue to influence, the effects in his or her life.
In summary, it is important to appreciate that these issues are very complex,
and to be familiar with how abuse and neglect can - depending on a variety
of other factors - affect various aspects of a person's life. Keep this in
mind as you search the web for information and understanding about
the effects of child abuse.
Finally, you may find it helpful to keep in mind what I have presented above
while reading the following articles:
About Therapy & Recovery - Resources to Inform Your Search
Contents
For many people, recovery from significant effects of child abuse requires consultation or therapy with a trained professional; this can also be true for those who want to
effectively support someone else in his or her healing. But it is not always clear how to go about finding good professional help.
You can greatly increase the odds of finding and benefiting from qualified help if you learn about the stages of recovery from the effects of abuse,
about how people successfully change problem behaviors in general, and about how and where to find qualified help. Providing some of this knowledge is my goal for this section.
This section is primarily addressed to adults who experienced abuse as children, though it also has useful information for teenagers, those subjected to violence in adulthood,
and people seeking help for loved ones who have been abused or assaulted.
(For more information about seeking help for a spouse, partner, friend, boyfriend, etc., see Resources for Spouses, Partners, Friends, etc. For information about finding help for children and adolescents, see the National Child Traumatic Stress Network's How to Find Help) page, and especially their Network Members page, which lists centers and clinics all around the US, each of which will know of excellent resources in their area.)
This section can be downloaded and printed as a MS Word file (with working hyperlinks), and has four subsections:
- Stages of treatment for child abuse trauma
- Stages of voluntary behavioral change
- Principles of treatment important for child abuse trauma
- Specific resources for finding, choosing and evaluating therapists
1. Stages of treatment for child abuse trauma
Among experts in the treatment of people who have suffered from extreme child abuse and other traumas,
since the early 1990s there has been a consensus on two points: treatment and healing from the effects of abuse takes place in stages,
and there are fundamental principles of good treatment which apply at every stage. In this section, I address the stages of treatment and
recovery. My discussion borrows heavily from Judith Herman's classic book, Trauma and Recovery,
which goes into great depth on these stages and principles.
In this section, I mention particular types of treatment. The "Specific resources" section below (#4 within this overall subsection) has additional information about these treatments
and how to find therapists experienced with them.
The first stage of healing and of any helpful therapy or counseling is about:
- Getting a "road map" of the healing process.
- Setting treatment goals and learning about helpful approaches to reaching those goals.
- Establishing safety and stability in one's body, one's relationships, and the rest of one's life.
- Tapping into and developing one's own inner strengths, and any other potentially available resources for healing.
- Learning how to regulate one's emotions and manage symptoms that cause suffering or make one feel unsafe.
- Developing and strengthening skills for managing painful and unwanted experiences, and minimizing unhelpful responses to them.
Please note that the first stage of recovery and treatment is not about discussing or "processing" memories of abuse, let alone "recovering" them. (For more on how the stages of recovery are related to memories of abuse, particularly recovered memories, see "Words of Caution II: Personal Concerns & Questions" on my page, Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse.)
Of course, everything is not always so perfectly ordered and sequential. For example, during
the first stage it may be necessary to discuss the contents of abuse memories that are
disrupting one's life. This may be required to help manage the memories, or to understand
why it is hard to care for oneself (the abuser suggested unworthiness of care or love, etc.). However, in this case addressing memories
is not the focus of therapy, but a means to achieving safety, stability, and greater
ability to take care of oneself.
Most important, the key to healing from child abuse is achieving these "stage-one" goals of personal and interpersonal safety,
genuine self-care, and healthy emotion-regulation capacities. Once these have become standard operating procedures, great
progress and many new choices become possible.
Depending on the person, the first stage of treatment may also involve:
- Addressing problems with alcohol or drugs, depression, eating behaviors, physical health, panic attacks, and/or dissociation (e.g., spacing out, losing time).
- Taking medication to reduce anxiety and/or depressive symptoms, for example serotonergic reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like sertraline (Zoloft) or paroxetine (Paxil).
- Participating in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), a treatment designed to help people who are having serious problems tolerating and regulating emotions, interpersonal effectiveness, and/or self-harming behaviors. (For more information about DBT, see Dr. Cindy Sanderson's excellent Dialectical Behavior Therapy - Frequently Asked Questions.)
Throughout all stages of treatment, it is often necessary to address psychological "themes" and "dynamics" related to one's history of abuse. As discussed below, under "Principles of treatment," some of these are core issues in child abuse trauma that should determine the very nature and structure of treatment. These include:
- Powerlessness
- Shame and guilt
- Distrust
- Reenacting abusive patterns in cu
|
