Abstract
Disclosure of child sexual abuse (CSA) is essential to its mitigation and the protection of children. Previous studies have greatly contributed to the understanding of disclosure rates both in childhood and adulthood, in addition to delayed disclosure and disclosure barriers. In acknowledging the relevancy of the ecological framework, researchers have illustrated how the various systems in the children’s lives have a role in their decision to disclose the abuse. The current study was designed to delve into the disclosure stories shared by children during their forensic interviews. Fifty children, 30 girls and 20 boys, from diverse communities in the Jewish society in Israel (15 secular, 15 Orthodox and 20 ultra-Orthodox) were forensically interviewed for the first time following CSA. Thematic analysis was carried out on their narratives, focusing on two main themes. The first was the children’s descriptions of their difficulties to disclose, which were embedded in their own perceptions and experiences, their fear of the disclosure recipient’s response, and their dynamic with the perpetrator. The second theme provided a glance into the children’s descriptions of the disclosure recipients’ responses, which highlighted the children’s central experience of loneliness in the context of the abuse. Theoretical and practical ramifications pertaining to these crucial gaps will be discussed. In addition, specific religious-cultural elements raised in relation to the disclosure will be highlighted. Limitations of the study as well as further recommendations and implications will be introduced.
Introduction
Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) is a profound adverse childhood experience making its disclosure vital (McElvaney & Culhane, 2017). Early disclosure of CSA is necessary to put an end to the abuse, prevent repeated victimization, protect other children, provide psychological intervention to the impacted children and hold the abuser accountable for their criminal behavior (e.g., McElvaney & Culhane, 2017). However, the disclosure may affect CSA survivors’ future well-being, although whether these effects are positive or negative depends on the disclosure recipients’ reactions (e.g., Ullman, 2011). Unfortunately, disclosing the abuse might open the gates to family denial, family disruption, blaming, stigmatization, legal processes, and life threats due to cultural beliefs (Celik et al., 2018). The current study aims to advance the knowledge on disclosure and the related responses, according to the narratives provided by children in forensic interviews.
Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse
Various researchers have stressed that disclosure is a multifaced and complex process (e.g., Alaggia, 2010; Celik et al., 2018). For example, studies have found that the majority of sexually abused children attempt to disclose to at least one person, however, not all of these disclosures are heard or acted upon (Allnock & Miller, 2013). Furthermore, disclosure experiences have been recognized as having a strong impact in childhood and adulthood. For example, Katz’s (2014) study indicated the adverse effects disclosure responses might have on the disclosure process. Namely, children who received a negative response from the disclosure recipient tended to recant their disclosure. These adverse consequences of disclosure were termed “secondary wounding” (Spehar, 2015), as CSA survivors experienced blaming, shaming, and minimizing. However, the most devastating wounds come from those with whom the child is most closely attached, such as family, friends, and those in helping roles.
Many individuals, including family, peers, neighbors, as well as the broader community, society and cultural context, are key actors in the disclosure process (Alaggia, 2010; Mathews, 2019). As such, researchers have identified formal and informal disclosure recipients, with most CSA survivors disclosing to informal figures and significantly fewer to formal figures (McElvaney & Culhane, 2017). Various studies have also indicated the significant role that peers have in the disclosure process, especially for older children (e.g., Crisma et al., 2004; Schaeffer et al., 2011).
Other studies noted the family system as central to the disclosure process, especially in cases of intrafamilial CSA (IFCSA; e.g., Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Tener, 2019). For example, survivors who feel their family is unstable do not trust that they will be supported and, thus, tend to avoid disclosing to family members (Crisma et al., 2004). Tener (2019) elaborated on the role of the family in her study with women survivors of IFCSA. It was found that family was a massive barrier to disclosure, who performed in multiple sophisticated ways to prevent the disclosure. The identified tactics of the family members, deliberate or not, included the perpetrator presenting himself and/or being perceived as having two personas, making it impossible for the survivor to disclose the abuse by “night dad,” who was so different from the loving and caring “day dad.” In some cases, mothers acted to reframe the incident as “natural” after its disclosure. Finally, after the abuse was disclosed, some families quickly resumed old behavior patterns, as if nothing had happened. In this way, it appears that survivors of IFCSA are being sacrificed or excluded from the family to prevent disclosure.
Findings from empirical studies have systematically indicated several components that are highly crucial to promoting disclosure. First is providing children the opportunity to disclose by simply and directly asking them (e.g., Schaeffer et al., 2011). Beyond this, researchers have stressed the importance of active listening and support, minimizing children’s feelings of guilt and shame, and reducing their fear of negative consequences (e.g., Morrison et al., 2018). Stiller and Hellmann’s (2017) study noted the substantial importance of survivors feeling they are believed—especially by their own families.
Child Sexual Abuse, Culture, and Religion
The socio-cultural systems that are inherently significant in the disclosure process (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015) include broader themes, such as labeling, sexuality as taboo, lack of mainstream education and services, and culture/time period. Such systems reveal disclosure issues that relate to the stigma attached to being a victim of CSA in our society, the absence of information and discussion around sexuality as a whole, the lack of services available or made known to children, and the broader invisibility of sexual abuse in society throughout time.
Cultures define and understand CSA differently (Fontes & Plummer, 2010), particularly with regard to childhood and family “honor” (Cohen et al., 2001). Religion is acknowledged as a key cultural context in sexual victimization (Tishelman & Geffner, 2010). Several studies have examined its influence on characteristics of sexual abuse within specific communities, such as Mormons (Gerdes et al., 1996), Muslims (Haboush & Alyan, 2013), Catholics (Parkinson, 2014), and Amish (McGuigan & Stephenson, 2015). For example, in a study on Mormon female CSA survivors, many mentioned the “code of silence” around the sexual abuse in their community that prevented them from disclosing it (Gerdes et al., 1996). Similarly, in a case study of IFCSA in an Amish family, the abuse was characterized by isolation, secrecy, and patriarchy. The authors presented several community variables that disabled disclosure, such as disconnection between the community and formal authorities and the requirement to forgive and forget sinners (McGuigan & Stephenson, 2015).
The Jewish Community in Israel
Israel comprises a wide mix of cultural and religious communities, with Jewish society divided into three main groups: secular, Orthodox, and ultra-Orthodox. There are no clear divisions between these groups and personal definitions can sometimes overlap (Shoham, 2012). Secular Jewish society is a Western society, emphasizing individual autonomy and development. The Jewish Orthodox group includes many denominations with different lifestyles. A significant feature is its dual ideological commitment to values informed by Jewish law, on the one hand, and being part of a society with a majority Western-liberal lifestyle, on the other.
Approximately 12% of Israeli Jews are ultra-Orthodox or “Haredi” (Cahaner et al., 2018). They are a culturally unique community in several respects that impact CSA, such as socially mandated community loyalty and compliance with strict behavioral codes, in addition to the Jewish commandments (Goodman & Witztum, 2002). Most live in relatively isolated communities, differentiate themselves from Western values, and educate their children in separate religious schools (Khoury-Kassabri et al., 2005). Like similar groups worldwide, the ultra-Orthodox feel the character of their community is vulnerable due to internal and external pressures, and any departure of the individual from the norm can be a cause for alarm. Therefore, the community actively protects itself through a strong hierarchical structure, which holds the utmost respect and obedience to religious authority. This structure maintains strong social control over its members in many spheres of life, including issues pertaining to sexuality (Shoham, 2012).
The ultra-Orthodox community has been experiencing rapid changes with regard to issues such as children at-risk, child maltreatment, and CSA, thanks to heightened abuse awareness (Salamon, 2011). However, mixed findings have been found across studies, with some indicating similar rates of CSA in secular and more moderate religious groups (Spröber et al., 2014). In contrast, a study in Israel found that religious males were 3.3 times more likely and religious females 2.4 times less likely to have experienced CSA than secular participants (Schein et al., 2000).
Children’s Experiences and Perceptions of CSA in Forensic Interviews
Forensic interviews with children were chosen as the platform for exploration in the current study. Forensic interviews constitute a unique opportunity to explore the issue of disclosure as they usually occur very close to the disclosure phase when the CSA experience has not yet been explored or assessed. Previous CSA studies have illustrated how the exploration of children’s perceptions and experiences during forensic interviews can significantly contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge. For example, previous studies have explored the manipulation process of perpetrators (Katz & Barnetz, 2016) and children’s experiences following peer sexual abuse (Katz, 2020).
The Current Study
As reviewed above, CSA disclosure is of core importance and holds far-reaching consequences for children in childhood and adulthood. The current study was designed to provide a unique glance into children’s disclosure experiences during their first forensic interview following CSA. The following research questions guided the analysis of the children’s narratives provided during forensic interviews: 1) What are the constructions and perceptions of children regarding their CSA disclosure? 2) What are the constructions and perceptions of children regarding the disclosure recipient’s responses?
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 50 forensic interviews of 50 children from diverse groups in the Jewish Israeli society. The sample size was chosen to reach saturation for a thorough examination of the characteristics and distinguish conceptual categories (Charmaz, 2006). The participant’s religion was defined according to the self-definition of the child and their parents, as reported to the Child Forensic Interviews Service in Israel.
The children’s ages ranged from 6 to 14 (M = 11.37). Background details, such as socioeconomic status, were unavailable to the research team due to strict instructions by the ethical committee. In almost half the cases (n = 22), the perpetrator was a stranger to the child. In the other half (n = 23), the perpetrator was known to the child. Half of the cases (n = 25) were one-time incidents and the others (n = 25) were repeated incidents. As for the nature of the abuse, 30 participants described their private parts being touched above or under their clothes, 12 described being exposed to private parts and sexual acts or pornography, and another eight described oral or anal penetration. 20 participants were male and 30 were female. Fifteen were secular, 15 were Orthodox, and 20 were ultra-Orthodox.
Procedure
As required by Israeli law, all forensic interviews are videotaped and transcribed by a professional transcriber. The 50 interviews were selected out of all the forensic interviews conducted with CSA victims in Israel in 2016 (N = ∼4000). To be included in the final sample, each case had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) The child was interviewed as a victim of sexual abuse; (2) The interview was the first forensic interview with the child; (3) The child disclosed the sexual abuse during the interview; (4) There was corroborating evidence suggesting a high probability that the abuse took place (e.g., eyewitness testimony); (5) The child’s first language was Hebrew; and (6) The child did not exhibit any developmental disabilities.
Interviews: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Investigative Interview Protocol
The interviews were conducted by seven trained forensic interviewers who had similar professional backgrounds (i.e., a degree in social work and at least 18 months of experience as a forensic interviewer with children). All interviews followed the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (see Lamb et al., 2011), a requirement for forensic interviews involving children in Israel. The use of standardized interview guidelines ensured a standardized interview structure and adherence to best practices.
The NICHD Protocol is a set of structured practical guidelines for forensic interviewers aiming to cover all phases of the investigative interview. The protocol has been found to elicit rich testimonies from children of all ages in response to free-recall invitations (Lamb et al., 2011). It has been implemented in the US, Israel, Sweden, the UK, and Canada, and follow-up studies have systematically indicated significant improvements in the quality of investigative interviews (e.g., Cyr & Lamb, 2009). In addition, the NICHD Protocol has been shown to have beneficial effects on credibility assessment (Hershkowitz et al., 2007), the elicitation of investigative leads (Darwish et al., 2008), and case disposition and resolution (Pipe et al., 2008).
The Revised NICHD Protocol has been employed in Israel since 2011 (Katz, 2013; Hershkowitz et al., 2014). The revised protocol includes several phases. A significant part of the revised protocol focuses on rapport building with the child. Only when the child appears to be relaxed and comfortable does the interviewer proceed to train the child’s episodic memory. This is done by using a neutral experience to help the child become familiar with the questioning style (i.e., emphasizing open-ended questions).
In the next stage, the interviewers are instructed to use open-ended questions as often as possible while delving into the alleged incidents of abuse. Open-ended questions include initial invitations (e.g., “Tell me everything that happened to you from the beginning to the end”), follow-up invitations (e.g., “And then what happened?”), and cued invitations (e.g., “You mentioned a cream. Tell me everything you can about that”). Interviewers then employ direct questions (e.g., “When did this happen?”), only after the open-ended questions appear to have exhausted the child’s recollection. Option-posing questions (e.g., “Did he touch you under your clothes?”) are asked only when essential forensic information is unavailable and only at the end of the interview. Interviewers do not ask suggestive questions (e.g., “He stuck his fingers in, right?”) (Lamb et al., 2011).
The protocol’s section, “Information About the Disclosure,” is the most relevant for the current study. In this stage, the interviewer asks the child about the disclosure process and probes this issue from numerous angles (e.g., Does anybody else know?; Who was the first person to find out about the abuse?; Tell me everything you can about how that person found out?). This approach enables the child to provide rich information about their disclosure process (La Rooy et al., 2015).
Ethical Approval
As the study was based on confidential files, a distinct effort was made to meet the highest ethical standards. The forensic interviews were provided without names or identifying features of the children, parents, or other people and places involved in the incidents to ensure privacy and anonymity. The anonymous data was secured on the researchers’ own computers and password protected. To access these highly confidential files collected for forensic purposes, approval was received by the Research Board of the Ministry of Welfare in Israel, the Head of the Service of Child Forensic Interviews in Israel, as well as the Ethics Committee of Tel Aviv University.
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis was used to allow an inductive approach in exploring the children’s experiences and perceptions in the context of CSA and their disclosure experiences. Furthermore, in the context of forensic interviews, the thematic analysis also upholds the children’s narratives during the qualitative analysis. The interviews underwent several interrelated stages of qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). First, the researchers identified preliminary ideas by reading the first 10 interviews repeatedly, breaking each case into small textual segments that represented discrete units of meaning. Then the preliminary codes were grouped into initial themes. Next, through continued reading, some codes were removed or revised and additional codes and categories were added. In the third stage, themes and subthemes were reviewed, classified, and reclassified as required (Joffe, 2011). Finally, themes were refined and named and interrelationships between them were suggested (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During this stage, the authors also referred back to the transcripts as required to retrieve any necessary additional information to develop the categories (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994).
Trustworthiness was achieved by employing audit trails and peer debriefing in weekly meetings that were documented in writing (Bowen, 2009) throughout the data analysis phase (Nowell et al., 2017). The audit trail consisted of keeping a written record of how raw data were collected and analyzed throughout the study. Rather than being predetermined, the categories and themes were identified based on the data collected (Guest et al., 2012). To support the findings, direct quotes were attached to all interpretations.
Findings
A thorough analysis of children’s narratives during forensic interviews provided insight into their experiences of disclosing the abuse after its occurrence. Two central themes were identified (see Figure 1). The first demonstrated the nature of the child’s difficulty around the disclosure. The second presented the types of responses by the disclosure recipients and their acknowledgment, or lack of it, regarding the child’s difficulty to disclose, as experienced by the child. Specific contextual elements related to the disclosure were incorporated into each theme. Theme map.
The Difficulty to Disclose
The first theme deals with the children’s descriptions of their difficulties in disclosing the sexual abuse. Disclosing the abuse was experienced by the children as a difficult task. For example, when asked, “Why did you not tell her until now?” one child responded, “Because it was really hard for me to tell.” Another child shared the preparation it took to disclose the abuse together with his brother: “We took a deep breath, and then we told them [our parents], together.” Another child told of how she could not find the strength to disclose the abuse: “I just had to keep this thing a secret for a long time.” Religious children shared their calls to God to help them keep the secret: “I could only tell his [the perpetrator’s] wife that I cannot fall asleep. I stopped myself from crying by praying to God to help me.”
The categories concerning the sources of this difficulty related to the perpetrator, the recipient, and the child. In addition, children delineated the coping mechanisms they enacted to deal with their struggle to disclose. (see Figure 2) The three sources associated with the difficulty of disclosing. Note. The children described coping mechanisms for dealing with the difficulty related to each source.
The perpetrator
Children described issues pertaining to the perpetrator as posing difficulties to disclose. The children mentioned fear of the perpetrator as causing a reluctance to disclose the abuse: “I was afraid to tell my mother. If you would see him [the perpetrator] you would understand. He is huge. He has muscles, and he works out. I am shivering from him.” Being scared of the perpetrator’s vengeance due to the disclosure was a common fear for the children: “I was just scared of him. That he would do something to me next time I saw him.” There were also instances in which the abuser threatened the child if they disclosed the abuse: “He told me, if you tell someone I will hurt you.” In other cases, the reluctance to disclose came from having compassion for the perpetrator: “He told me, do you want me to be in prison? So, I did not tell anyone.” In other cases, the child was bribed to keep quiet: “I was bought for money. He would give me money all the time.” An Orthodox girl felt the perpetrator was a righteous person who should not be harmed: “There was a man, he was good. We saw how he prayed very, very hard. And then he came out and touched the girls and kissed them... but he was in the synagogue, and he was good.”
The disclosure recipient
Another source of difficulty to disclose related to the disclosure recipient and their responses. Children reported being intimidated by the recipient’s potential response: “I was scared that my mother and my father would be really cross with me, therefore, I did not tell.” Children were scared of being blamed: “I thought I was going to get in trouble for what had happened.” Fear of being ridiculed was also shared: “If I tell my family, they will make fun of me.” Other children were concerned about wasting the time of the recipient: “Maybe today I will tell daddy, if he has time … I wanted to tell him, but he was in a hurry.”
Another consideration was the recipient’s character: “I want to tell him, but he is so stubborn, I do not want him to be so stubborn.” Children were also worried about hurting the recipient: “I do not want to cause my family problems. We are immigrants and it is very hard for us.” Orthodox children feared their parents would blame them for transgressing a religious prohibition of being immodest due to the sexual abuse: “It is prohibited. Had I told my mother she would scream at me for doing this.”
The child
Difficulty in disclosing the abuse was also related to the child being overwhelmed with emotions: “My mom asked me what happened. And I was so irritated, like, why does he do all these things to me? And I could not say anything.” Fear contributed to the difficulty: “Only my sister knows. I told her this whole story and she told me to tell my parents, but I was too scared.” Another emotion was embarrassment: “The truth of the matter is that I was ashamed to tell it.” A common feeling for children that hindered disclosure was self-blame: “But it was also my fault because when he asked me, I said [unknowingly] yes!” For religious children, the blame was associated with doing something religiously wrong: “I did not want to talk about these immodest acts, I was ashamed and I thought I did something prohibited.”
For other children, the abuse led to an immense negative self-image that contributed to their reluctance to disclose: “She told me to do things and I just did it. I am so dumb that I did that, I am disgusted by myself now.” Other children were concerned about the negative consequences of the disclosure: “I was warned that if I talk, I will have to be in institutions and in places for the mentally ill. That I will be arrested, that I will not be drafted to the army, that I will not have friends, that people will leave me …” For other children, talking about their private parts was difficult: “Girls don’t have to know about these things. I never talk about it.” Not talking about sexuality included a religious component for the Orthodox children: “Interviewer: I see that you are putting your hands over your ears. Is it all right if I just mention one word? Child: I do not want. It is prohibited!”
Coping mechanisms
The difficulty participants experienced around disclosing prompted them to develop various coping mechanisms. One mechanism was the repression of the hurtful memory: “I will tell you the truth, I am a person who likes to repress these kinds of things. I tried not to think about it. Eventually, I understood that the more you repress it, the more you hurt yourself.” Some children preferred to delay the disclosure: “I was telling myself, I will tell mom later, not now.” Another strategy was giving a partial disclosure: “I did not tell her everything, only some of the things.” Similarly, some hinted at the abuse: “Once, they had to go up north and I told mom that I prefer that he [the perpetrator] not come. She understood there was something wrong but she did not know what.” In other cases, children recanted their disclosure: “He asked me to take off my clothes. So I screamed to my mother, but when she came I said nothing.”
Disclosing together helped children disclose: “So we told it together [the child with their brother]. I started, and then he continued.” Sometimes children waited for a convenient circumstance to disclose: “So we went out for a walk, and then in the middle of the street I told her.” Another child chose to disclose on the public bus, while another chose the grocery store. Children were cognizant of whom to disclose to: “I told mother, but I did not want my father to know about it.” In other instances, the disclosure was made easier by doing it via someone else: “Then I told my friends, and they told the teacher, and he called my parents.” Some Orthodox children used their religious beliefs to cope with keeping the difficult secret: “I felt so bad thinking about what he did. I just prayed about it and went on.”
The Disclosure Recipient’s Response
The second theme addresses the ways the disclosure recipient responded to the child’s disclosure. Children were aware of the recipients’ difficulties in learning about the abuse and described responses related to the disclosure recipient, the perpetrator, and the child.
The disclosure recipient’s difficulty
The children were aware of the recipient’s difficulty in hearing the disclosure. Some children felt their parents were overwhelmed by hearing about the abuse: “They were in shock.” One child justified her mother’s difficulty due to her past trauma: “My mother understands that this can happen, she just does not want to know about it because she had the same trauma. Her brother also did this to her.” At times the recipient’s difficulty was reflected in their denial: “We told daddy there is someone harassing Lina on the phone, and he said it is nothing, just ignore him.” Other recipients did not believe the child: “I told my mother and at the beginning, she did not believe me.” Some recipients demanded that the child move on as if nothing had happened: “My parents told me they are taking care of it, so I can forget about it, and I should not think about it.” In other cases, the recipient preferred to procrastinate in giving a response: “Daddy said we will think about it. We will give it one more day.” Children shared that, due to the difficulty, the recipient left the responsibility of dealing with the abuse to them: “My mother told me to call the teacher and tell her.” Others diffused the responsibility by including someone else in the disclosure: “My mother said, let’s tell daddy.”
The perpetrator
Other disclosure recipients’ responses related to the perpetrator. A common reaction was looking for ways to get hold of the perpetrator: “We went immediately to the police, so we could find him.” Other recipients tried to find the perpetrator themselves: “Daddy asked me what happened and I told him. So we went to the store and they asked me, who is the one that did it to you?” Some recipients chose to punish the perpetrator directly: “My father went to this boy and hit him. He fell to the floor.” In other cases, a negative attribution was given to the abuser: “Everyone made fun of him.” Alternatively, a wish for a negative fate was shared by the recipient: “My mother said that he is not normal, and my father said he needs to be in jail.” On the other hand, some recipients were merciful towards the perpetrator: “Mother says he is unfortunate that he knows of these things,” and, similarly: “My father told me not to tell the other children because it may hurt his [the perpetrator’s] feelings.” An Orthodox parent responded with concern for how the stigma may affect the perpetrator: “I have mercy on him. Why should he sit in prison? My mother has mercy on his parents. He is now dating in order to get married. Why should he start his life in prison?”
The disclosure recipient
Some recipients’ responses focused on themselves. They were concerned with how the anticipated negative outcomes of the disclosure would impact them: “My mother told me that if I tell about the abuse, then my father will have to leave home, and she will stay alone.” Another mother encouraged her daughter to be cautious about the disclosure: “My mother asked me to forget about it [the abuse]. She is scared. Because if I tell too much, it may cost my parents a lot of money.” Other recipients responded to the child’s disclosure by turning the focus to their own difficulty: “Then I told my mother about the abuse, and she said when will I stop to suffer?!” Another way recipients focused on themselves was by sharing a similar difficulty they were going through: “She told me that he does the same thing to her.” An Orthodox parent responded by asking God to protect him and the family: “He said God should protect and help us!”
The child
The last category refers to the recipients' responses related to the child. These included responding to the child’s experience of the sexual abuse as well as attending to the child’s disclosure. Some children reported being blamed for causing the abuse: “My mother said that the school principal thinks that I cooperated with it.” Another recipient blamed the child for ruining her match opportunities: “I told mom that he told me that I am disgusting, and she responded, great, now no match-maker will want you.” Attempting to stop the sexual abuse was another way recipients responded: “We told mother about it and she took care of it. He doesn’t do it anymore.” Other recipients tried to understand the nature of the abuse: “Daddy asked me questions about it. He wanted to know what happened, how it started, and when.” Recipients also expressed their opinion regarding the severity of the abuse: “Mother said it is very serious, extremely serious, and we have to tell daddy.” Others directed their efforts to try and treat the abuse: “I was playing Minecraft and my aunt came. I guess my mother told her about it. She asked me how I felt with what David did to me? And these kinds of questions, because she works in art therapy.” Other parents tried to normalize the abuse to make the child feel better: “They hugged me. I do not know if they were in shock. They were cool with it because this is something that happens to many people. So they explained this to me and they said that everything would be all right and that I do not need to be pressured by it.” A father of an ultra-Orthodox child addressed the child’s religious self-blame regarding the abuse: “He told me that I am a righteous kid who just happened to fall into a story of a very wicked guy.”
Other recipients responded to the feelings that arose around the disclosure process. Recipients related to the blame the child was feeling during the disclosure: “They said they are not mad at me because it is [the perpetrator’s] fault that he told me to do these things.” Recipients also related to the fear around the disclosure: “My brother told me not to worry, I am home, nothing will happen to you.” Another girl shared that her mother gave her pepper spray to help her fear of possibly seeing the perpetrator on the street. Other responses related to the child’s sadness during the disclosure: “Interviewer: How did your mother respond when you told her? Child: She said that it is OK, that I can cry.” Giving the child emotional support was another response: “Today mother told me that she is not mad at me for telling, and that she loves me, and that she and dad are always here to help me and my brother.” Some parents referred directly to the difficulty of disclosing: “Mother told me, you are a hero, a hero!” Another parent told her son: “You are so courageous for telling. I am proud of you.” An Orthodox recipient gave the child a religious blessing for disclosing the abuse: “She said, good for you for telling me about it, you are brave! God will bless you!”
Discussion
Disclosure of sexual abuse is a significant challenge for children and there is compelling evidence to show that non-disclosure of sexual abuse is widespread in childhood. In their review of retrospective data, London et al. (2005) determined that only one-third of adults who experienced CSA disclosed the abuse during childhood. Lamb et al. (2007) estimated that approximately two-thirds of suspected victims disclose their abuse when interviewed with a structured investigative interview protocol. However, despite growing recognition and public attention in recent years, the rate of children’s CSA disclosures has not revealed a definitive improvement (Gewirtz-Meydan & Finkelhor, 2020).
Different interpretations have been offered for children’s reluctance to disclose abuse. Lefevre et al. (2017) discovered that many children attempt to disclose abuse, but the disclosure recipient does not always act on it. Threats and fear of the perpetrator, relationship with the perpetrator, lack of opportunity, and inadequate awareness of sexuality have also been associated with non-disclosure (Morrison et al., 2018). Additional barriers include shame, fear of causing stress for the family (Crisma et al., 2004) and concerns about the recipient’s reaction (Azzopardi et al., 2019). In addition, gender was found to affect disclosure. Males may be reluctant to disclose because they will not be regarded as victims, while females delay disclosure because they assume responsibility for the abuse (Okur et al., 2020). Ethnicity and culture also play a vital role in the hesitancy to disclose, as shown by Ullman (2007), who found that African-American and Mexican-American children were less prone to disclose abuse than white children.
In this study, children interviewed in forensic settings raised similar concerns regarding their difficulties. Analysis of the findings revealed three areas of difficulty for the children regarding their disclosure: the perpetrator, the disclosure recipient, and the child themself. The perpetrator caused difficulty for the child’s disclosure in terms of apprehension (e.g., a threat) or compassion (e.g., a family relationship). The disclosure recipient presented difficulty due to the anticipation of a negative response (e.g., blaming the child). Difficulties relating to the child included negative feelings or concerns about the consequences of the disclosure, as well as the perception that speaking about sex was taboo.
The literature relates to various characteristics of children’s sexual abuse disclosures. Disclosures are often incremental and comprise recantations and inconsistencies (Malloy et al., 2016). Many victims delay or partially disclose (McElvaney, 2015) and prefer to disclose in informal settings (London et al., 2005). In the current study, the disclosure characteristics were framed as coping mechanisms. The mechanisms included repression of the disclosure, delaying, hinting at the abuse, recanting, disclosing with or via someone else, or finding convenient circumstances for the disclosure. Religious children used religious beliefs to help them cope with the disclosure. Framing the disclosure characteristics from a coping perspective may have important ramifications for professionals and recipients in promoting children’s disclosures. For example, it can emphasize the importance of offering empathy for the child’s difficulty and finding ways to encourage children to disclose (e.g., providing safer opportunities for disclosure).
Previous studies have classified the responses of disclosure recipients as supportive and non-supportive (Moors & Webber, 2013). Positive reactions included belief and emotional and instrumental support, such as confronting the perpetrator (Rakovec-Felser & Vidovič, 2016). Negative reactions included shock and mistrust, blaming the child for being deceptive, condemning the victim, discounting or downplaying the disclosure, resentment, rejection, evading further treatment, and disciplining the victim (Moors & Webber, 2013). Such reactions were found to be more prevalent in relation to younger children (Tang et al., 2008) and cases of sibling incest (Tener et al., 2018). Disclosure recipients also struggle with the child not revealing the abuse earlier (Schaeffer et al., 2011) and may employ denial as a defense mechanism to handle the painful encounter with CSA (McElvaney & Nixon, 2020). Cultural and religious differences, such as patriarchal family formations and an emphasis on family solidarity, also affected recipients’ responses (Roberts et al., 2010).
In the current study, similar to the theme of the child’s difficulty to disclose, the disclosure recipient’s responses related to the perpetrator, the disclosure recipient, and the child. Responses relating to the perpetrator included negative reactions, such as finding, punishing, or ascribing negative attributes. For the disclosure recipient, responses included sharing the potential negative consequences of the disclosure with the child. Child related responses focused on the sexual abuse by blaming the child, trying to understand the abuse, stopping the abuse, and treating it. Additionally, disclosure recipients acknowledged the difficulty of the disclosure process by addressing the child’s related feelings and struggles.
An important finding that emerged from the analysis related to the ways in which the disclosure recipients’ responses varied in their connection to the sexual abuse. In other words, some of the responses related directly to the abuse, while others did not. Another variation concerned the impact of the response as being either positive or negative for the child (see Figure 3). For example, responses related to the perpetrator included punishing the perpetrator (related to the abuse and positive for the child) and mercy towards the perpetrator (unrelated to the abuse and negative for the child). Responses relating to the child included blaming the child (related to the abuse and negative for the child) and normalizing the abuse (related to the abuse and positive for the child). In general, the disclosure recipients’ responses seemed to have been unrelated to the abuse and focused on the resulting difficulties of the disclosure for the recipients (negative for the child). Continuum of disclosure recipient responses as related to the abuse and the positive or negative effects for the child.
The current study highlights the complexities a child experiences in the process of disclosing sexual abuse. The interviewed children shared their immense struggles and emotional strain around the disclosure. This hardship is a dominant influence on why many children decide not to disclose abuse (London et al., 2005). Those who do disclose, utilize various coping mechanisms to make the disclosure possible. In addition, the role of the disclosure recipient’s response to the child’s disclosure is highly significant in stopping and treating the sexual abuse (Elliott & Carnes, 2001). As the current study’s findings highlight, acknowledging the child’s difficulty to disclose is vital. Nevertheless, the children’s narratives demonstrated a gap between their difficulty to disclose and the responses of the disclosure recipients, which rarely addressed their hardship. A possible explanation for the disclosure recipients’ tendency to overlook the children’s difficulty to disclose is that the sexual abuse overshadows it. The literature describes parents’ reactions to being informed of sexual abuse (Elliott & Carnes, 2001) as potentially related to the vast negative outcomes of the abuse (Paolucci et al., 2001). Nevertheless, in addition to the urgent response to address the abuse, the current findings suggest that a response to the child’s struggle to disclose is also required.
The children’s narratives in this study revealed the gap between their intense, complex disclosure experience and the recipients' lack of recognition of what they went through in order to disclose. This bears notable ramifications for parents, educators and professionals. Many children are reluctant to disclose abuse due to the lack of consideration for their difficulty in this regard. Children who are courageous enough to disclose are often left with their difficulties unaddressed, leaving them alone with this emotional strain. Hence, recognizing and responding to a child’s difficulties in disclosing abuse is essential for protecting their well-being.
The role of ethnicity, culture, and religion regarding CSA disclosure have been addressed in the literature. Fontes and Plummer (2010) listed cultural elements influencing disclosure, such as shame, taboos, sexual scripts, status of females, obligatory violence, honor, and respect. Tishelman and Fontes (2017) related specifically to religious components, including shame, resigned suffering, blaming children, sins in a previous life, premature forgiveness, and the abuser’s right to children’s bodies. In the current study, the religious and socio-cultural aspects of disclosure mentioned by the children included God, prohibition, and stigma. God was perceived as a source to help initiate the disclosure, give a blessing after the disclosure, as well as delay the disclosure by providing the child with the strength to keep the secret. The perceived prohibition of talking about sexuality related to the victim’s feelings of guilt and blame for being part of the sexual act, which resulted in a reluctance to disclose the abuse. However, some recipients assured the child that no prohibition was violated. Social stigma also contributed to the avoidance of disclosure. On the one hand, this was due to the fear of being stigmatized. On the other, it was related to compassion for the perpetrator, who could be stigmatized by the community.
The current study has several limitations. First, although some socio-cultural religious elements related to the disclosure process were highlighted, differences between the sample’s sub-groups (secular, Orthodox, and ultra-Orthodox) were not the focal point and require further exploration. An important group that was not included in this study is Arab children. Recent studies have indicated the enormous challenges that forensic interviews hold for Arab children, especially in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Katz et al., 2022). Future research is required to focus on this specific group and its similarities and differences with the hegemonic Jewish society. Second, the study utilized the perspectives of children given in forensic interviews. It is important to examine children’s perspectives in additional settings to further explore their disclosure experiences. Moreover, to achieve a holistic view of CSA disclosure, future studies should include parents’, clinicians’, and educators’ perspectives.
Implications and Recommendations
The study’s findings highlight the difficulties a child experiences when disclosing sexual abuse. Recipients, clinicians, and educators should consider the child’s difficulties both prior to and after the disclosure. Prior to the disclosure, attending to the possible challenges will enable children to disclose the abuse. After the disclosure, recipients, clinicians, and educators should respond not only to the sexual abuse but also to the struggles the child faced around the disclosure. In turn, this could alleviate the difficulty and contribute to the child’s well-being. Further research is required to determine the effects of the recipients' responses on children’s difficulties to disclose and children’s overall well-being.
The participants shared thorough and intricate descriptions of both the difficulty to disclose the abuse and the recipients’ responses. The children’s reports revealed their rich, conscious perceptions of the disclosure process. Gaining a better understanding of the children’s perspectives regarding their difficulty to disclose and the recipients’ responses may advance recipients', clinicians', and educators' understanding of the disclosure experience, thereby advancing prevention and intervention strategies. Further research is needed to explore the different facets of these difficulties and develop evidence-based interventions to alleviate children’s struggles around disclosure.
The religious socio-cultural aspects raised in this study are consequential in the application of prevention and intervention programs with close-knit religious communities, in general, and the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in Israel, in particular. Attending to the specific elements raised by the participants (God, prohibition, and stigma), in addition to other elements in the literature (Fontes & Plummer, 2010; Tishelman & Fontes, 2017), will allow a more context competent approach to support children’s disclosure of sexual abuse. Further research is required to determine the applicability of these findings to other close-knit religious community contexts.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Halbert Post-Doctoral Fellowship and the Haruv Post-Doctoral fellowship.
