Victimization of Minors in the Process of Cybergrooming: Gender and Psychosexual Specificity

Addressing the problem of sexual harassment of children and adolescents in online communication (cybergrooming) requires in-depth study. Gender and psychosexual aspects of victimization of victims are of particular importance for preventive work. The article presents the results of content analysis of dialogues between 35 cybergroomers and 94 minors, realized on the Internet. The gender and age structure of the victims is 54 girls and 40 boys from 9 to 16 years old. It was found that depending on the gender and sexual identity of the child, as well as their own criminal goals, the groomers use different tactics of manipulative influence. Boys are significantly more likely to exhibit sexual motive when interacting with abusers, as well as greater victimization (p=0.000). Girls are predominantly oriented towards neutral and friendly interactions and do not allow it to go beyond these limits (p=0.000). It is concluded that prevention of victimization of minors involved in cybergrooming should include the development of skills to assert personal boundaries and critical attitude towards online interlocutors.

1. Nutskova E.V., Dozortseva E.G. Kliniko-psikhologicheskie osobennosti nesovershennoletnikh, poterpevshikh ot kibergruminga [Clinical and Psychological Features of Minor Victims of Cybergrooming] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologiya i pravo = Psychology and Law, Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 66–76. doi:10.17759/psylaw.2022120306 (In Russ.).

2. Baumgartner S.E., Valkenburg P.M., Peter J. Unwanted online sexual solicitation and risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2010. Vol. 31, pp. 439–447. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.005
3. Biesel K. et al. Digitale Kindeswohlgefährdung: Herausforderungen und Antworten für die Soziale Arbeit. German: Verlag Barbara Budrich. 2023. 249 р. doi:10.2307/jj.3102553.9
4. DeHart D. et al. Internet sexual solicitation of children: a proposed typology of offenders based on their chats, e-mails, and social network posts. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2017. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 77–89. doi:10.1080/13552600.2016.1241309
5. Denov M.S. Perspectives on Female Sex Offending: A Culture of Denial. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing. 2004. 225 p.
6. Edinburgh L., Pape-Blabolil J., Harpin S.B., Saewyc E. Assessing exploitation experiences of girls and boys seen at a child advocacy center. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2015. Vol. 46, pp. 47–59. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.04.016
7. Englander E.K. Bullying and Harassment in a Digital World. Bullying, Teen Aggression and Social Media. 2014. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–29.
8. Feierabend S., Rathgeb T., Kheredmand H., Glockler S. JIM 2020 — Jugend, Information, Medien — Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jahriger in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Medienpadagogischer Forschungsverbund Sudwest. 2020. 80 р.
9. Gamez-Guadix M., de Santisteban P., Wachs S., Wright M. Unraveling cyber sexual abuse of minors: psychometrics properties of the Multidimensional Online Grooming Questionnaire and prevalence by sex and age. Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 120. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105250
10. Kopecký K., René S., Dobešová, pp. Riziková komunikace a seznamování českých dětí v kyberprostoru. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2021. 115 р. doi:10.5507/pdf.21.24459141
11. Livingstone S., Palmer T. Identifying vulnerable children online and what strategies can help them. London: Safer Internet Centre. 2012. 46 р.
12. Livingstone S., Kalmus V., Talves K. Girls’ and boys’ experiences of online risk and safety. C. Carter, L. Steiner, L. McLaughlin. Routledge Companion to Media and Gender. London: Routledge, 2013, pp. 190–200.
13. Lowe M., Rogers P. The scope of male rape: A selective review of research, policy and practice. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 2017. Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 38–43. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.06.007
14. Malesky L.A. Predatory online behaviour: Modus operandi of convicted sex offenders in identifying potential victims and contacting minors over the Internet. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2007. Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 23–32. doi:10.1300/J070v16n02_02
15. O’Leary P.J., Barber J. Gender differences in silencing following childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, and Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, and Offenders, 2008. Vol. 17, pp. 133–143. doi:10.1080/10538710801916416
16. Parratt K., Pina A. From “real rape” to real justice: A systematic review of police officers’ rape myth beliefs. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 2017. Vol. 34, pp. 68–83. doi:10.1016/J.AVB.2017.03.005
17. Pujazon-Zazik M.A., Manasse S.M., Orrell-Valente J.K. Adolescents’ self-presentation on a teen dating website: A risk-content analysis. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012. Vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 517–520. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.015
18. Salton M.R., Cohen R., Deptula P.D., Ray G.E. Willingness to self-disclose cyber victimization to friends or parents: Gender differences in cyber victimization a year later. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2023. Vol. 17, no. 2. doi:10.5817/CP2023-2-2
19. Seymour-Smith S., Kloess J.A. A discursive analysis of compliance, resistance and escalation to threats in sexually exploitative interactions between offenders and male children. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2021. Vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 988–1011. doi:10.1111/bjso.12437
20. Sklenarova H., Schulz A., Schuhmann P., Osterheider M., Neutze J. Online sexual solicitation by adults and peers — Results from a population based German sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2018. Vol. 76, pp. 225–236. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.005
21. Sofian A., Pratama B., Talerico C. Weighting Approaches on Online Sexual Abuse of Children: Cultural Prevention or Crime-Based Enforcement? Udayana Journal of Law and Culture, 2018. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 191–219. doi:10.24843/UJLC.2018.v02.i02.p04
22. Whittle H.C., Hamilton-Giachritsis C.E., Beech A.R., Collings G. A review of young people’s vulnerabilities to online grooming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2013. Vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 135–146. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.008
23. Whittle H.C., Hamilton-Giachritsis C.E., Beech A.R. “Under his spell”: Victims’ perspectives of being groomed online. Social Sciences, 2014. Vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 404–426. doi:10.3390/socsci3030404
24. Winters G.M., Jeglic E.L. Stages of sexual grooming: recognizing potentially predatory behaviours of child molesters. Deviant Behavior, Vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 724–733. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1197656
25. Wolak J., Finkelhor D., Mitchell K.J., Ybarra M.L. Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, realities and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 2008. Vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 111–128. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.111
26. Ybarra M.L., Mitchell K.J. How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, Vol. 121, no. 2, pp.350–357. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0693