Coaching children about sexual abuse: A pilot study of professionals’ perceptions

Abstract

High stakes are involved in believing or disbelieving children’s assertions that they have been abused by adults. Consequently, children’s statements about possible maltreatment have become an immensely contested issue (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Mansell, 1990; Mildred, 2003; Ney, 1995; Oates et al., 2000; Olafson, 2002; Rabinowitz, 1990). Although other types of cases are contested, sexual abuse cases are particularly controversial because evidence is often limited to the child’s account. A hypothesis that might explain away a child’s account of abuse is that the child has been coached. This explanation has been strongly endorsed by those accused (e.g., Butler, Fukurai, Dimitrius, & Krooth, 2001; Freyd, 1993; Goldstein, 1992; Wakefield & Underwager, 1988) and taken at face value by many professionals (e.g., Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Ney, 1995; Poole & Lamb, 1998; White & Quinn, 1988). Despite declarations that coaching must be routinely considered when child abuse is alleged, there is scant research to support coaching as a viable explanation for children’s accounts of abuse. Although relevant studies do not always address directly the coaching of children, they support a conclusion that coached statements and other types of false abuse allegations by children are uncommon. For example, Jones and McGraw (1987) undertook a review of 579 sexual abuse reports made to child protective services in Denver County in 1983, using a team of child abuse experts. The researchers concluded that eight cases were “fictitious” allegations made by five children (three by the same child).