Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chiabuneg

A scoping review of child grooming strategies: pre- and

post-internet
Tatiana R. Ringenberg *, Kathryn C. Seigfried-Spellar, Julia M. Rayz,
Marcus K. Rogers
Purdue University, 401 S Grant St., West Lafayette, IN, United States of America

A B S T R A C T

Background: Researchers have studied the online sexual grooming of minors extensively since the early 2000s. However, the grooming process is
neither new nor restricted to digital media. While grooming and child sexual abuse existed long before the Internet, the advent of the Internet has
resulted in more ways in which offenders can interact with candidate victims including offline-only, online-only, and a mix of offline and online.
Objective: In this study, we conducted a scoping review of grooming strategies both pre- and post-Internet. Our goal was to enumerate strategies
analyzed in both time periods, provide similarities and differences, and discuss how changing datasets and technology have impacted the grooming
process in both online and offline environments.
Methods: We performed a scoping review of peer-reviewed journal articles from 1970 to 2020 within PubMed, Medline, PsychInfo, and ERIC. This
resulted in 19,679 unique articles. Titles and abstracts were screened resulting in 266 articles which were then read in full, resulting in 93 papers
which qualified based on inclusion criteria.
Results: Grooming strategies identified pre-Internet included: enticements, coercion, isolation, substance abuse, gradual sexualization, and secrecy.
In comparison, the strategies identified post-Internet were: enticements, risk assessment, trust, sexualization, fantasy, secrecy, isolation, meeting,
media progression, deception, coercion, substance use as a tool, authority, and repetition.
Conclusions: While grooming strategies overlapped pre and post-Internet, the timing and scope of concepts differed. Additionally, grooming offline
began to incorporate technology post-Internet which functioned to increase accessibility and isolation of the victim in a similar manner to online
grooming.

1. Introduction

Child sexual grooming is the process used by a potential abuser to approach and gain the trust of a child for sexual gratification
(Gillespie, 2002). Grooming is a persistent issue which affects children both online and offline. Reports of rooming and child
exploitation have grown exponentially (NCMEC, 2017). The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported over 10.2
million cybertips related to child exploitation in 2017 alone (NCMEC, 2017).
While recent work on child exploitation has focused on online grooming and groomers (Black et al., 2015; Kloess et al., 2017), the
grooming process is neither new nor limited to the online environment. Researchers have demonstrated child sexual groomers both
online and offline differ on several psychological variables including level of empathy towards the child (Babchishin et al., 2011), level
of sexual deviancy (Babchishin et al., 2011; Seto et al., 2012), and relationship stability (Seto et al., 2012). Despite the existence of both
online and offline grooming and known characteristics of groomers, few studies directly compare grooming strategies in both the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.R. Ringenberg), [email protected] (K.C. Seigfried-Spellar), [email protected] (J.M. Rayz),
[email protected] (M.K. Rogers).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105392
Received 10 March 2021; Received in revised form 12 October 2021; Accepted 2 November 2021
Available online 18 November 2021
0145-2134/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

online and offline grooming processes (Ioannou et al., 2018). Finally, no prior work explores the evolution of grooming strategies from
pre-Internet to post-Internet adoption with respect to both online and offline environments. Research is needed to understand how
changes in technology adoption have resulted in changes to grooming, which may be relevant to not only researchers but law
enforcement as well.
In this paper, we conduct a scoping review of the literature on child grooming pre-Internet and post-Internet. We seek to understand
how grooming strategies, analyzed by researchers, have evolved in definition and scope from pre-Internet to post-Internet and how this
evolution has affected both the online and offline grooming. We posit the advent of the Internet and cell phones has affected how
grooming strategies are used in both the online and offline contexts.
The contributions of this work are the enumeration of grooming strategies for those interested in understanding how grooming
strategies have evolved in the literature over time, an overview of the changing spectrum of grooming scenarios created by hybrid
digital-physical environments as seen in research literature, and a discussion of the limitations faced when reviewing grooming articles
which pull data from these hybrid digital-physical environments.

2. Methodology

We juxtaposed pre-Internet and post-Internet child sexual grooming strategies using a scoping review. A scoping review was chosen
over a systematic review due to the changing nature of grooming strategies, definitions of grooming, and grooming datasets. We sought
to identify grooming strategies which are considered by researchers to be crucial aspects of the grooming process and to clarify the
grooming strategies which were defined both pre-Internet and post-Internet. Thus, we sought to identify the coverage of the grooming
literature and understand the characteristics of these grooming strategies and how they have changed, which is most suited for a
scoping review (Munn et al., 2018). We divided the literature into articles from 1970 to 1999 (pre-Internet) and 2000 to 2020 (post-
Internet). The division reflects the mass adoption of the Internet. Since the post-Internet literature consists of work on both online and
offline grooming, we discuss both environments within the time period.

2.1. Operationalization of child grooming

Child sexual grooming is a complex process which is defined by multiple researchers based on various salient characteristics
(O’Connell, 2003; Olson et al., 2007). Our working definition of child sexual grooming is a manipulative process in which an offender

Fig. 1. PRISMA flowchart of article selection.

2
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

gains the trust of a child in order to engage in a sexually abusive act with the child (Gillespie, 2002). In this study, we identify the
manipulative strategies used by groomers in this trust process with the child. While we discuss the grooming of caregivers and or-
ganizations as an access and isolation strategy, we do not focus on the process of organizational or caregiver grooming itself. We also
restrict our definition to offenders over 18. Further, the scope of our study is restricted to the manipulative grooming strategies which
are used within the process, and not on the stages of the process itself.

2.2. Identification

We queried four online databases for peer-reviewed journal articles published from January 1970 to June 2020. The databases we
searched included Medline, PubMed, PsychInfo, and ERIC. Our keywords were online sexual grooming, online sexual solicitation, child
sexual abuse, and child molestation. We used broad keywords because grooming terminology and scope varied within the literature. We
also did not restrict the keywords to either extra-familial or intra-familial grooming. Both intra-familial and extra-familial grooming
exist in the pre-Internet and post-Internet literature. Using our search terms, we retrieved a total of 42,768 journal articles.

2.3. Screening and eligibility criteria

Once duplicates were removed, 19,679 articles remained. Criteria for inclusion included: peer-reviewed journal articles published
between 1970 and 2020; articles published in English; articles with an adult groomer and a minor victim; clear offender grooming
strategies component; articles which were not literature reviews or meta-analyses on grooming; and articles with an empirical focus.
Articles were first assessed against the inclusion criteria based on abstract and title. Initially, articles were included if grooming
strategies appeared as a component of the paper and minor victims or adult groomers were included in the study. When the inclusion
criteria was applied, 266 articles remained. We chose the final articles by verifying applicability through reading the entire paper. Of
the 266 papers, 173 papers were removed; 93 remained following removal. Articles were most commonly removed for not describing
the grooming strategies in the body of the full paper, primarily containing a review of literature or meta-analysis, having aggregate
results for multiple sex crimes which may not include the grooming process, or having aggregate results for minor and adult offenders.
We did not include studies who aggregated minors and adults as groomers, as we could not discern whether or not age was a
confounder in these studies. From the 93 articles 19 articles occurred from 1970 to 1989, 13 from 1990 to 1999, and 61 from 2000 to
2020. Fig. 1 provides a PRISMA flowchart of article selection for this study.
The 93 articles were read by the authors and any grooming strategies discussed were identified. Strategies which were identified by
two or more studies of the given time period were included in the study.

3. 1970s and 1980s

Grooming strategies emerging in the 1970s and 1980s literature included enticements, coercion, accessibility, alcohol abuse, and
secrecy.

3.1. Enticements

Enticements are persuasive methods involving gifts, affection, special attention (Groth & Burgess, 1977), sexualized horseplay
(Conte et al., 1989; Lang & Frenzel, 1988), bribes (Conte et al., 1989; Erickson et al., 1988; Farber et al., 1984; Virkkunen, 1975),
privileges (Lang & Frenzel, 1988), privilege denial (Lang & Frenzel, 1988), sharing of pornography (Erickson et al., 1988), and favors
exchanged for sexual episodes (Lang & Frenzel, 1988).
Groomers used enticements to implicitly gain sexual control (Conte et al., 1989; Fritz et al., 1981; Groth & Burgess, 1977) and the
discretion (Virkkunen, 1975) of the child without the use of aggression.
Gifts and bribes were often given by the groomer before sexual acts began. The relationship was then gradually sexualized and
normalized (Erickson et al., 1988; Lang & Frenzel, 1988; Summit & Kryso, 1978). This often occurred over a series of meetings
(Erickson et al., 1988) though in some instances it occurred within the first few meetings (Sandfort, 1984). Through enticements,
groomers both established and maintained the abuse (Virkkunen, 1975).

3.2. Coercion

Implicit coercion included guilt or obligation to the groomer (Conte & Berliner, 1981;Groth & Burgess, 1977; Lang & Frenzel,
1988), pressure (Conte & Berliner, 1981; Groth & Birnbaum, 1978; Groth & Burgess, 1977; Siegel et al., 1987), authority or adult
sophistication (Conte et al., 1989; Conte & Berliner, 1981; Groth & Birnbaum, 1978; Lang & Frenzel, 1988), and moral manipulation
(Conte & Berliner, 1981; Groth & Burgess, 1977; Lang & Frenzel, 1988). These strategies were entrapment methods which, like
methods of enticement, were meant to gain compliance without physical harm (Groth & Burgess, 1977).
Explicit coercion included threats of bodily harm (Conte & Berliner, 1981; Groth & Burgess, 1977; Lang & Frenzel, 1988; Peters,
1976; Siegel et al., 1987), threats of harm to younger siblings (Peters, 1976), yelling (Lang & Frenzel, 1988), and intimidation (Conte &
Berliner, 1981; Groth & Burgess, 1977).
Some studies included the strategy of violence as a coercive method (Groth & Burgess, 1977; Lang & Frenzel, 1988) while others
distinguished coercive methods from violent methods (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978). Groth and Burgess (1977) identified two coercive

3
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

strategies related to violence: explicit exploitation and sadistic exploitation. However, sadistic exploitation was rare (Groth & Birn-
baum, 1978; Groth & Burgess, 1977; Siegel et al., 1987). Severity of force varied by relationship to victim (Stermac et al., 1989) but
appeared in several studies (Farber et al., 1984; Lang & Frenzel, 1988; Stermac et al., 1989). However, coercive methods were less
prevalent than enticements (Virkkunen, 1975).

3.3. Secrecy

Intertwined with coercion was secrecy. Groomers facilitated future sexual episodes by ensuring victims kept the abuse a secret
(Peters, 1976). Methods for ensuring secrecy included threats, guilt, and fear (Conte & Berliner, 1981; Lang & Frenzel, 1988). In some
cases, the offender would only approach a minor who was unlikely to disclose the abuse (Conte et al., 1989). In others, threats and guilt
regarding the victim's family were used (Lang & Frenzel, 1988). Other attempts to silence victims were more overt. Young children
were sometimes physically harmed to maintain secrecy and to ensure compliance (Reinhart, 1987). Both (Conte & Berliner, 1981) and
(Russell, 1983) determined most victims indicated fear in disclosing abuse.

3.4. Accessibility

Groomers gained access to children through child-centric hobbies, lonely mothers, occupations, and public areas designated for
children such as playgrounds (Lang & Frenzel, 1988).
Another component of accessibility was isolation. One example of physical isolation was babysitting (Lang & Frenzel, 1988).
Emotional isolation included discouraging the child to have friends (Conte et al., 1989) or significant others (Summit & Kryso, 1978).

3.5. Alcohol abuse

Alcohol was often a component of sexual abuse (Rada, 1976); the abuse of alcohol by the offender was consistent across cases
(Peters, 1976). In Rada (1976) 49% of the offenders used alcohol during an offending sexual episode with 70% of those labeled as
drinking heavily.

4. 1990s

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, research shifted towards describing the victim's experience. As a result, processes which
identified various grooming strategies were described (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Proulx et al., 2007).
While internet adoption was increasing, the majority of research focused on the offline grooming of children (Berliner & Conte,
1990; Elliott et al., 1995; Proulx et al., 2007; Singer et al., 1992). The strategies identified below were the result of analyzing the offline
grooming process. Strategies identified included enticements, progressive sexualization, coercion, isolation, secrecy, and substance abuse.

4.1. Enticements

Enticements were non-violent means to progress the relationship between offender and victim (Elliott et al., 1995). The rela-
tionship was forged through bribery (Elliott et al., 1995; Okami, 1991), special activities or outings (Elliott et al., 1995),privileges
(Elliott et al., 1995), and affection (Elliott et al., 1995; Gilgun, 1994; Singer et al., 1992).

4.2. Progressive sexualization

The progression of touching varied in speed (Elliott et al., 1995; Margolin, 1992) and intensity (Phelan, 1995) between groomers.
Intensity (Phelan, 1995)and speed (Elliott et al., 1995; Margolin, 1992) would often increase gradually until the victim expressed
discomfort. Following discomfort of the victim, the groomer would slow down (Elliott et al., 1995), stop temporarily (Phelan, 1995), or
attempt to disinhibit the victim (Gilgun, 1994; Singer et al., 1992).

4.3. Coercion

Both implicit and explicit forms of coercion were studied in the 1990s. Intensity and type of abuse varied by relationship (Margolin,
1992) and gender of the victim (Levesque, 1994). Explicit coercion included violent threats (Okami, 1991), and blackmail (Okami,
1991). Implicit coercion included treating hesitance as bad behavior (Itzin, 1997) and implicit threats (Kaufman et al., 1993).
Coercion was used for compliance (Elliott et al., 1995; Margolin, 1992) and to harm the victim's family (Gilgun, 1994). Researchers
in the 1990s described coercion as under-reported (Kaufman et al., 1993) and claimed reports were more likely to occur in cases of life
threats or physical injury (Hanson et al., 1999).

4.4. Isolation

As in the past, isolation was described as physical and emotional seclusion of the victim. Some offenders sought children in child-
centric locations (Elliott et al., 1995). Other offenders groomed the adolescents' families into letting them be alone with the child

4
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

(Elliott et al., 1995; Proulx et al., 2007).

4.5. Substance abuse

Substance abuse was used by groomers to disinhibit themselves (Elliott et al., 1995) and the victim (Singer et al., 1992). When
substances were used during abuse, groomers were more likely to use coercive methods with the victim (Proulx et al., 2007).

4.6. Secrecy

Secrecy was infrequent in literature in the 1990s. However, Phelan (1995) found evidence of fathers who requested daughters not
disclose the incest to their mothers. Additionally, Kaufman et al. (1998) suggested offenders would sometimes threaten, bribe, grant
privileges, and remove privileges to maintain the victim's silence.

5. 2000s

Research post-2000 incorporated both offline and online grooming. Technology in the 2000s facilitated and extended offline abuse
as well. In this section we discuss both online and offline grooming strategies.
The strategies analyzed by authors in the post-Internet era included: enticements, risk assessment, trust, sexualization, fantasy,
secrecy, isolation, authority, meeting, media progression, deception, substance use as a tool, coercion, and repetition.

5.1. Enticements

Offenders wanting repeated encounters with a victim attempted to become friends with the victim (Almond et al., 2017; Gámez-
Guadix et al., 2018; Moulden et al., 2010; Quayle et al., 2014; Spraitz & Bowen, 2019). This was referred to as a special relationship
(Kloess et al., 2019; McElvaney, 2019; Mogavero & Hsu, 2018) which manifested in repeated compliments and flattery (Green, 2001;
Kloess et al., 2019) and other non-forceful strategies which supported the offenders' goals (Beauregard et al., 2012).
In the physical setting, offenders provided positive enticements including games (Spraitz & Bowen, 2019), gifts/bribes and priv-
ileges (Colton et al., 2010, 2012; Erooga et al., 2020; Green, 2001; Lucenko et al., 2000; Moulden et al., 2010; Quarshie et al., 2017),
reassurance (Chopin & Beauregard, 2020), and acted as a mentor (Colton et al., 2010; Moulden et al., 2010; Spraitz & Bowen, 2019). In
some cases, the gifts provided were transactional (Markwei & Osei-Hwedie, 2019).
Online groomers built friendships through acts which were analogous to privileges in offline grooming (Kloess et al., 2019; Whittle
et al., 2014) and by building rapport over time (Katz et al., 2020). Examples of privilege-type acts included empathizing with the victim
(Chiu et al., 2018; Whittle et al., 2014), helping the child with homework (Whittle et al., 2014), or appearing supportive (Chiu et al.,
2018; Whittle et al., 2014). Additionally, the groomers re-enforced relationships by expressing exclusivity (Kloess et al., 2019) and
complimenting the child's appearance and personality (Lorenzo-Dus & Izura, 2017).

5.2. Risk assessment

Risk assessment was used by online groomers, as they recognized the potential for online victims to be undercover LEOs (Black
et al., 2015; Briggs et al., 2011). As a risk assessment mechanism during friendship forming, offenders sought reassurance about the age
gap between the offender and victim (Kloess et al., 2019). Risk assessment started early in conversations, often within the first 20% of
the conversation (Black et al., 2015) or within the first 2 h (Williams et al., 2013). Online groomers also assessed risks posed by the
victim's physical home. The groomers asked questions related to the child's location and environment (Williams et al., 2013).
In the offline context, groomers monitored the responses of victims heavily. In some cases, the negative reaction of the child was
enough to deter the offender, who was afraid of being caught (Colton et al., 2012). Groomers often purposefully sought cooperative
victims (Beauregard et al., 2012).

5.3. Trust

Trust was prevalent both online and offline. Groomers gained trust by establishing mutual interests and experiences with the victim
through explicitly aligned interests (Williams et al., 2013) and self-disclosures (Chiu et al., 2018; Whittle et al., 2014). In the offline
setting, trust was a means by which offenders could normalize the abuse (Jackson et al., 2015). In the case of incest offenders, the
offenders told victims the abuse was normal and expected (Jackson et al., 2015). Overall, trust was a means by which to gain
cooperation (Shelton et al., 2016).

5.4. Sexualization of relationship

Sexualization was analyzed in both online and offline grooming. In some cases, offenders used a direct communication style and
made their sexual intents known quickly (DeHart et al., 2017; Kloess et al., 2019; Quayle et al., 2014). In others, gradual sexualization,
excuses, and justifications were introduced (Foster, 2017). In both the online and offline environments, the purpose of gradually
sexualizing the conversation was to push boundaries (Hassan et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2013). Often, the sexualization began with

5
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

innocuous questions leading into questions about the victim's sexual history (Aitken et al., 2018; Marcum, 2007), sexual compliments,
requests for sexual images, mild sexual suggestions, and descriptions of the offender's past sexual experiences (Kloess et al., 2017;
Kloess et al., 2019; Marcum, 2007; Whittle et al., 2014). Groomers would maintain levels of sexual discussion by often returning to
sexual topics throughout the chat (Aitken et al., 2018).
Sexualization online also involved the use digital media in addition to text. When digital media were exchanged, it varied as to who
was pictured (Briggs et al., 2011; Kloess et al., 2019; Quayle et al., 2014) and the types of materials requested (van Gijn-Grosvenor &
Lamb, 2016). Webcam sessions were framed as an innocuous exchange (Shannon, 2008) but would lead to the groomer exposing
themselves or masturbating (Kloess et al., 2019; Marcum, 2007; Shannon, 2008). Exposures over webcam were more likely to occur in
the case of female victims than males (van Gijn-Grosvenor & Lamb, 2016).
Offline groomers also used digital media. They showed victims sexual images and videos which included adult pornography, child
pornography, and dead animals (Langevin & Curnoe, 2004). Extra-familial groomers were more likely to use pornography during an
offense than incest groomers (Langevin & Curnoe, 2004). However, in cases in which family and acquaintance offenders used the
Internet to facilitate abuse, sexual pictures and pornography were sent to the victim (Mitchell et al., 2005). When abuse moved from
online to the offline environment, images and photography were used to initiate the abuse; offenders had the child pose in gradually
more sexual positions (Shelton et al., 2016).
In the offline grooming environment, groomers slowed the abuse based on the victim's reactions (Wortley et al., 2019). However,
this was less out of concern for the victim and more a maintenance technique as described by Aitken et al. (2018).
Teaching was also a component of progressive sexualization. Both online and offline groomers used pornography to teach victims
about sexual acts (Briggs et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2005).

5.5. Fantasy

Related to sexualization was the strategy of fantasy. Groomers used fantasy as part of arousal (Quayle et al., 2014), cybersex (Kloess
et al., 2019), explicit sexual talk (Kloess et al., 2019; Malesky Jr, 2007), genital exposure (Kloess et al., 2019), webcamming (Briggs
et al., 2011; Kloess et al., 2019), and sexualization (Williams et al., 2013). Finally, Williams et al. (2013) suggested groomers used
fantasy to push forward sexual discussions. Framing of fantasy enactment varied between groomers: few attempted to coerce victims
but reverted to intimacy and relationship-focused manipulations (Kloess et al., 2017), some framed fantasy or cybersex as mutually
beneficial, and some were direct and aggressive (Kloess et al., 2017).
Even offline, technology facilitated fantasy enactment. Wolak and Finkelhor (2013) compared the usage of individuals who used
the internet and knew each other to those who did not know each and found both groups would send sexual images and engage in
cybersex through technology (Wolak & Finkelhor, 2013).

5.6. Secrecy

Mutual secrecy, framed as intimacy, encouraged a victim to not divulge the abuse in both online and offline environments (Briggs
et al., 2011; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Hassan et al., 2015; Kloess et al., 2017; Whittle et al., 2014). Offline, groomers used direct
threats and manipulative grooming techniques to keep the victim silent (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015). Offenders also threatened to
sexually or physically abuse the victim's family members to guarantee the abuse remained a secret (Jackson et al., 2015).
In the online context, coercion and manipulation were not needed to maintain secrecy because the victims themselves wished to
keep the relationship a secret (Whittle et al., 2014).

5.7. Isolation

As grooming progresses over time, the victim becomes more isolated from the victim's family in both online and offline grooming
scenarios (McElvaney, 2019; Quayle et al., 2014). Online, offenders convinced the victim to physically and emotionally isolate
themselves while the offender was talking to them to emphasize the exclusivity of the relationship (Katz et al., 2020).
Offline, some groomers would use child-centric organizations to both gain access to victims and isolate them (Green, 2001).
Groomers would take advantage of not only their roles of power within an organization but also would seek organizational structures
which would keep abuse hidden from the larger community (Green, 2001).
Outside of organizational settings, groomers would isolate victims by disallowing social events (Myers & Brasington, 2002),
restricting access to friends (Myers & Brasington, 2002), taking up the victim's free time (McElvaney, 2019), and relying on cultural
traditions which encouraged the isolation (Quarshie et al., 2017).
Communicating online removed physical restrictions of both online and offline groomers (Quayle et al., 2014). The method by
which an online groomer found potential victims varied but consisted of searching for victim profiles that met the groomer's needs,
contacting as many victims as possible (i.e., spray and prey; (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2018)), filtering based on desired location (Quayle
et al., 2014), and assessing victim vulnerabilities (Quayle et al., 2014). Offline access had a greater emphasis on physical proximity to
the minor than online access. If a groomer did not feel they had enough access to potential victims, the groomer would change roles to
more closely work with children (Colton et al., 2010, 2012).

5.7.1. Authority
Related to isolation was the strategy of authority. Groomers often used roles such as religious leader (Farrell & Taylor, 2000; Myers

6
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

& Brasington, 2002; Spraitz & Bowen, 2019), parent (Katz et al., 2020; Myers & Brasington, 2002), or caretaker (Green, 2001) to gain
compliance of the child and to manipulate adults around the children Erooga et al., 2020; Whittle et al., 2014). Groomers used au-
thority to make threats (Myers & Brasington, 2002), gain physical access (Colton et al., 2010, 2012), and grant privileges to compliant
victims (Green, 2001) to facilitate the abuse.

5.7.2. Meeting
Scheduling meetings was a theme in both online and offline environments. Even offline in the 2000s, family and acquaintance
offenders would use the Internet to arrange meetings with a victim (Mitchell et al., 2005). Within the online environment, offenders
generally chose to schedule a meeting once a relationship was established (Katz et al., 2020; Kloess et al., 2019) and the risk of meeting
had been assessed (Aitken et al., 2018). The meeting purpose was either explicitly sexual or innocuous reasons were given (Shannon,
2008). Though meetings between offenders and victims were often scheduled, the meeting did not always take place (DeHart et al.,
2017; Kloess et al., 2017; Shannon, 2008). Instead, discussion of meetings served as fantasy enactment (Kloess et al., 2017).

5.7.3. Media progression

Online conversation often began in chat rooms or on social media but progressed to other mediums, such as direct messaging, web
cams, or cell phones (Kloess et al., 2017; Kloess et al., 2019; Malesky Jr, 2007; Quayle et al., 2014; Shannon, 2008; Villacampa &
Gómez, 2017). Talking on multiple platforms helped to avoid detection (Quayle et al., 2014), engage in constant conversation (Whittle
et al., 2015), and establish a closer bond to the victim (Kloess et al., 2019; Shannon, 2008; Whittle et al., 2014).
In the offline environment, grooming began to take on a technological component. Offline offenders sent explicit messages over
email or text and used a series of apps to maintain communication with the victim (Henschel & Grant, 2019; Wolak & Finkelhor, 2013).
To varying degrees, technology became a component of most ongoing child sexual abuses (Dowdell et al., 2011; Wolak & Finkelhor,
2013).

5.7.4. Deception
Deception in online offending was used in several ways. At times, offenders lied about interest in mutual activities to progress the
relationship (Quayle et al., 2014; Whittle et al., 2014). Some individuals lied about aspects of their real-world identity including age
(Bergen et al., 2014; Kloess et al., 2019; Whittle et al., 2014), gender (Bergen et al., 2014; Whittle et al., 2014), and appearance
(Whittle et al., 2014). False videos (Whittle et al., 2014), fake profiles (Quayle & Taylor, 2001), and stolen images (Bergen et al., 2014;
Quayle & Taylor, 2001) were all used to deceive victims.
Deception in the offline environment took the form of ruses used to gain the victim's trust and physically isolate the victim (Chopin
& Beauregard, 2020). Additionally, offline offenders who perused social networks online used deception in relation to their identity
(Dowdell et al., 2011); offenders in the offline environment tended to use deception both online and offline.

5.7.5. Repetition
Repetition of different strategies occurred both online and offline. Online groomers used repetition for emphasis and to ensure a
response from the victim (Kloess et al., 2017; Marcum, 2007). Groomers would repeat unanswered questions (Kloess et al., 2017), use
exaggerated punctuation (Kloess et al., 2017), and repeat uncomfortable sexual topics (Marcum, 2007), and reinforce attraction
(Kloess et al., 2019) throughout the chat. Offline, groomers would use repetition in asking for the victim to perform sexual acts (Foster,
2017), similar to the questioning which occurred in the online environment (Kloess et al., 2017).
Substance Use as a Tool Substance usage as a tool during abuse was a theme in both offline and online environments. Substances
were used to lower victim inhibitions (Mitchell et al., 2005; Spraitz & Bowen, 2019) and subdue the victim (Erooga et al., 2020; Green,
2001; Quarshie et al., 2017).
Coercion Coercion was a strategy in both literature on online and offline grooming (Katz et al., 2020). Offline, violence and threats
ranged from implied (Erooga et al., 2020; Katz et al., 2020) to explicit (Erooga et al., 2020; Lucenko et al., 2000; Ressel et al., 2018).
Coercion was generally described as a response to victims resisting the groomer's advances (Colton et al., 2010; Katz et al., 2020;
Quarshie et al., 2017). Offline coercion included bribes (Lucenko et al., 2000), bodily harm with a weapon (Farrell & Taylor, 2000),
and humiliation (Mogavero & Hsu, 2018). Level and type of violence were found to differ based on the groomer's attachment style
(Jamieson & Marshall, 2000) and severity of disability (Hershkowitz et al., 2007), and groomer gender (Almond et al., 2017). In the
online environment coercion was rare both for online-only (Kloess et al., 2019; Villacampa & Gómez, 2017) and mixed groomers
(Mitchell et al., 2005). This may be because coercive methods made victims feel insecure (Whittle et al., 2014). Guilt (Kloess et al.,
2019) and peer pressure (Whittle et al., 2014) were used when a victim expressed disinterest in engaging in, or viewing, sexual acts
online.

6. Pre-internet and post-internet strategy comparisons

The strategies we analyzed pre-Internet included enticements, coercion, accessibility, substance abuse, gradual sexualization, and
secrecy. In comparison, the main strategies analyzed post-Internet included enticements, risk assessment, authority, trust, sexuali-
zation, fantasy, secrecy, isolation, meeting, media progression, deception, substance use as a tool, coercion, and repetition.
While several strategies were shared in both online and offline environments (Black et al., 2015; Ioannou, Synnott et al., 2018), the
strategies manifested differently and varied in timing (Hui et al., 2015). For instance, in an online conversation a groomer may begin
risk assessment (Black et al., 2015) or sexual discussions (DeHart et al., 2017) soon after gaining access to a victim. Thus, grooming in

7
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

the online environment could be short and may occur over hours as opposed to months or years. This is evident in online sting op-
erations such as those posted to Perverted Justice (see www.perverted-justice.com). On Perverted Justice, adults masquerading as
minors talk to suspected groomers to gather evidence. The conversations tend to occur over hours, days, or weeks as opposed to months
or years. This was generally not the case in offline grooming pre-Internet as the offender was usually an acquaintance, family, or known
to the child (Peters, 1976).
Substance abuse was not a strategy present in the online grooming process, but was present within the offline grooming process
both pre- and post- Internet (Erooga et al., 2020; Rada, 1976; Spraitz & Bowen, 2019). In the post-Internet offline environment,
substance use lowered inhibitions of the victim (Spraitz and Bowen, 2019) and subdued the victim (Erooga et al., 2020). Pre-Internet,
substance use was a means by which the offender could disinhibit themselves to the abuse (Rada, 1976). Thus pre-Internet alcohol was
a tool to assist the offender during abuse whereas post-Internet it was a mechanism for encouraging the victim to allow abuse. We posit
in conversations where alcohol is used online, the alcohol use is discussed for the purposes of assessing the risk behaviors in which the
minor is willing to engage. Further research is needed to understand the role of substance abuse in the online environment, as it plays a
critical role in the offending of individuals in the offline environment.
In the offline environment in the 2000s, authority was used to manipulate other adults (Erooga et al., 2020; Spraitz & Bowen, 2019)
into allowing victims to be isolated and provide a sense of inevitability to victims (Erooga et al., 2020). Authority was not present in
online grooming literature. Authority may not have shown up as an accessibility or isolation strategy because most online groomers
were strangers and had no previous power dynamic with the victim.
Offline, deceptive practices were used to get the child alone (Chopin and Beauregard, 2020). This did not change pre-Internet to
post-Internet. However, in the online context, deception was used to hide the identity of the groomer (Bergen et al., 2014; Kloess et al.,
2019; Whittle et al., 2014). Even offline offenders would used a fake identity online to talk to minors (Dowdell et al., 2011). This is
another example of the ways in which technology modified the strategies of the offline offender.
While the accessibility strategy is present in both online and offline grooming, the way the strategy manifested was different. Pre-
Internet, accessibility was associated with physical proximity and the ability to isolate a trusting child (Peters, 1976). Online acces-
sibility was not physically constrained unless the groomer wanted to meet offline. Additionally, the lack of physical limitations of the
online environment allowed offenders to simultaneously engage in multiple conversations (Quayle et al., 2014). Further, offline
groomers used online applications and cell phones to have constant access to victims. Thus, post-Internet both online and offline
groomers gained greater access to victims which allowed them to maintain control and further isolate the victims from those around
them. Before the Internet, groomers would have to ensure physical access and sexual conversations were physically isolated from
individuals who may report the incident. Technology has facilitated what would have been an offline offense by providing the offender
with discrete means with which to continually communicate with their prospective victims.
Risk-assessment strategies did not overlap completely between online and offline groomers. Offline groomers were concerned
about the child telling someone (Lang and Frenzel, 1988). However, the online groomer was concerned about the child telling someone
(Black et al., 2015), the parents' schedule (Black et al., 2015), the child's environment Williams et al. (2013), and internet sex stings
(Black et al., 2015; Briggs et al., 2011; Quayle et al., 2014). Online groomers also had perceived anonymity while offline offenders were
less anonymous (Quayle et al., 2014). Risk assessment was also an area in which timing varied greatly; online offenders started risk
assessment in the first 20% of conversations (Black et al., 2015).
Associated with risk assessment was the progression of media to private spaces online. Authors suggested changing the media
allowed offenders to stay anonymous and avoid detection (Quayle et al., 2014) while maintaining close and intense contact with the
victim throughout the day (Whittle et al., 2015). This strategy was specific to online offending as well.
Meeting offline was a strategy specific to online grooming (DeHart et al., 2017; Kloess et al., 2017). Additionally, some online users
used meeting discussions as a form of fantasy enactment (Briggs et al., 2011; Kloess et al., 2017).
Sexualization of the relationship was similar between online and offline grooming. However, the online environment provided
additional visual options for the normalization of sexual imagery. Offenders or victims could send media instantly (Quayle et al.,
2014). Some offline offenders took advantage of this, sending pornography and having sexual conversations with victims over cell
phones (Dowdell et al., 2011). Providing visuals during online child grooming may be analogous to gradual touching in the physical
setting. While in the physical environment, groomers are able to transition between innocuous and inappropriate touching, this is not
possible online. However, online groomers can send, and request, innocuous images and transition to more graphic images as sexual
conversation is introduced.
While repetition appeared in both online and offline grooming, it was more prevalent in online grooming literature (Kloess et al.,
2017). However, it is unclear whether this was the result of repetition lacking in offline grooming or the result of less fine-grained
detail related to the interactions between offender and victim in the offline setting.
Positive enticements were similar both pre-Internet and post-Internet, as well as within both online and offline grooming. The
groomers gave or promised gifts, complimented the victim, and provided affection (Groth and Burgess, 1977). However, negative
privileges were not discussed within the online grooming process but were discussed within the offline grooming process (Lang &
Frenzel, 1988; Peters, 1976). Individuals who engage in the offline grooming process are often authority figures for the victim and can
grant or remove privileges. Online offenders would do special things for the victims such as helping them with their homework instead
(Whittle et al., 2014).
Coercive methods used in offline grooming involved threats and guilt. This existed in both pre- and post-Internet (Katz et al., 2020;
Lucenko et al., 2000). In some cases, coercion was an implied method for gaining compliance over time and did not need to involve
active threats but rather an implication of the deterioration of the relationship (Erooga et al., 2020; Katz et al., 2020). In some cases,
force was used to gain compliance for sexual acts offline (Erooga et al., 2020). Within online grooming, little overt coercion was found.

8
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

There was some support for coercion during fantasy enactment in the online environment but the behavior was not described in many
studies(Kloess et al., 2017).
Overall, the Internet has resulted in a hybrid setting of online and offline environments. While grooming conversations can be
initiated online or offline, much of the grooming which occurs post-Internet has some component of technology. As a result, offline and
online groomers are able to maintain contact with their victims more readily and with more privacy. This has also had an effect on the
types of datasets we see in cases.
Datasets on grooming have evolved to include conversations with real victims and online stings. Thus, not all of the data which was
analyzed in these studies consisted of real victims. In this way, grooming has changed from pre to post-internet, as groomers may
unknowingly have a different target than the underage target which they intend. This may affect how researchers are able to study the
grooming process, as the data which is most readily available may not be appropriate for assessing victim or child grooming
characteristics.
Additionally, the Internet has changed the amount, and type, of evidence we are able to see in offline grooming cases. Even in intra-
familial grooming cases, grooming often occurs over email or text messages. As a result, researchers and LEOs are able to analyze
portions of the grooming process which utilize technology. This allows officers with more options for collecting evidence about a
suspect while also allowing researchers to study grooming interactions which would not have been available pre-Internet.

7. Limitations

This study is subject to limitations due to the search terms, eligibility criteria, our operational definition, and the limitations of the
articles themselves.
We limited the search to English jorunal articles from four databases. Articles in other languages, conference papers, and articles
indexed outside of these databases were not included. Additionally, reviewing by abstract and title may remove articles which dis-
cussed grooming strategies in the body of the article.
Though our search terms were broad, by limiting our definition we are restricting our search criteria. For instance, many of the
articles we removed from this study included children who were grooming other children. We also did not explore other individuals
outside of minors who are groomed.
Additionally,some search terms were specific to online environments. While child sexual abuse and child molestation were broad
search terms which included online grooming articles, our remaining search terms contained the word online which may have resulted
in the oversampling of these articles.
The countries from which these articles drew samples also varied (Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Marcum, 2007). Countries may have
legal and cultural differences from one another which affect the definition of grooming and thus the research on grooming within the
country. The type of sample also varied within studies and included offender-victim (Spraitz & Bowen, 2019), offender-LEO (DeHart
et al., 2017), offender-researcher (Bergen et al., 2013), and offender-decoy (Black et al., 2015) interactions.
The articles also examined offender-victim grooming in individuals with varying levels of familiarity. Many of the articles post-
Internet were focused on strangers as groomers. This could be due to a number of factors, including the increased prevalence of
strangers grooming children over the years (NCMEC, 2017) or the availability of stranger-decoy datasets online (Black et al., 2015).
Sample sizes used when assessing grooming strategies also differed. Some studies included analysis of hundreds of cases (DeHart
et al., 2017) while other smaller case studies had sample sizes as small as one (Singer et al., 1992).
Terminology and the saliency of strategies was also not consistent within the literature. Terms for “grooming” included luring,
seduction, persuasion, and manipulation. This made searching for an inclusive set of grooming articles difficult. Further, saliency was a
concern as the viewpoint from which one approaches the grooming process affects the strategies and grooming behaviors identified. In
some cases, grooming strategies were briefly discussed in the greater framing of a paper while the same strategies were heavily
emphasized in others. Relevant studies may have been excluded as a result.
The year a paper was published did not always coincide with the decade in which the data was created. In some cases, old datasets
were studied. In others, adult victims were interviewed about previous sexual grooming. This is especially impactful to the 2000s as
some papers reflected grooming which would have occurred pre-Internet and thus would not reflect the advent of technology.
A disparity between online grooming and offline grooming, as well as pre-Internet to post-Internet grooming, may also exist due to
the types and amount of data available. In the case of Perverted Justice, a researcher may download a full transcript between a decoy
and a groomer from the beginning of the interaction through the offender's arrest. Researchers are able to observe and analyze the
entirely of the communication (Black et al., 2015; Kloess et al., 2017; Lorenzo-Dus et al., 2020). However, in some cases, the con-
versations move to the phone or webcam and are unable to be included. In pre-Internet grooming, researchers are restricted in
documentation to one perspective of the grooming event (Elliott et al., 1995; Lang & Frenzel, 1988). In post-Internet offline grooming,
researchers may have access to mobile device conversations but not to in-person interactions. None of the documentation provides a
complete picture of the interaction between groomer and victim.
Finally, differences may appear between the offline grooming and online grooming processes because a portion of conclusions
surrounding the online grooming process are drawn from conversations between groomers and adult decoys, which may result in
confounding variables which are not representative of real child victims (Briggs et al., 2011; DeHart et al., 2017).

8. Implications for researchers and law enforcement

Through the advent of the Internet and leaps in technology, online and offline grooming has evolved in sophistication. Both online

9
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

and offline groomers are able to stay consistently connected to their victims. Additionally, both groups are able to use privacy-
preserving technologies to reduce the risk of being caught through communications with their victims. Additionally, groomers are
able to practice their grooming techniques by contacting multiple victims at any given time (Quayle et al., 2014). Finally, groomers are
able to communicate with one another and share techniques. For instance, researchers have cited examples of grooming manuals
developed by groomers for groomers (see childrescuecoalition.org). In these manuals, groomers provide details on where to find
children and how to groom both the family of the child and the child themselves. As a result, groomers are able to research and hone
grooming strategies without taking the risk of grooming a real child.
In this study, we reviewed online and offline grooming strategies analyzed since the 1970s. While the strategies overlapped, the
timing and manifestation of strategies differed (Black et al., 2015). Additionally, some of the strategies which were more common in
online grooming but still present offline. For instance, post-Internet many offenders began to use cell phones and online apps to
maintain consistent contact with the victim. This also gave groomers a new way to send sexual content and have sexual conversations
with the offline victim without physical contact. However, the use of online apps for communication with a victim in the offline context
was still less frequent than with online offenders who used online apps as a primary means of communication. Some of the strategies
which were more prevalent in offline grooming than online grooming included substance abuse and coercion. However, many of the
strategies within offline grooming were subsumed by online grooming.
Future researchers should examine how changes in grooming strategies over time relate to the groomer's and victim's character-
istics. To our knowledge, no research assesses whether or not grooming strategies have changed from pre-Internet to post-Internet with
respect to victim age. The Internet has provided minor victims with instant access to resources which may not have previously been
available to them. It is possible access to resources has given younger minors knowledge which would help them identify unsafe
conversations with adults online. If true, offenders would have needed to adjusted their strategies from those used prior to the mass
adoption of the Internet.
The timing of strategies within various grooming interactions has implications for automation of grooming detection as well as
officers. Some describe grooming as a gradual progression towards sexual content (Erickson et al., 1988). However, the start of online
interactions can contain both sexual and risk assessment content (Conte et al., 1989; Fritz et al., 1981; Groth & Burgess, 1977), making
the grooming process faster than in offline environments. We also posit the incorporation of mobile technology into offline grooming
could also expedite the timing of offline grooming. Maintaining constant access to the victim could allow offline groomers to build
rapport more quickly. Additionally, the use of mobile technology may allow the offline groomers to expedite the grooming process by
offering new visual opportunities to sexualize the interaction.
Additionally, authors described the repeated use of various strategies and phrases as a way to reinforce what the offender wants in
both the online (Kloess et al., 2017) and offline (Foster, 2017) environments.
Repetition, the length of time an offender spends on a strategy, and the location of a given strategy within a chat may all contribute
to the feature engineering in the predator identification task.
Our scoping review also has implications for those reviewing grooming literature. The articles we analyzed varied greatly in
methodologies, datasets, location of participants, grooming environments, and participant relationships. These factors may result in
confounding variables when systematically assessing these studies. Additionally, in our analysis we saw a skew towards the use of
Internet sting datasets post-Internet. As these datasets may not always be representative of the child grooming process (Chiang &
Grant, 2017; Schneevogt et al., 2018), we would recommend caution when comparing grooming strategies between Internet sting and
real victim datasets.
Finally, this research has implications for improvement of the situation-based triage of predatory behavior by law enforcement. We
found offline groomers began incorporating cell phones and other online apps into the grooming process (Henschel & Grant, 2019;
Wolak & Finkelhor, 2013). Officers may have new locations and opportunities to gather evidence of sexual communication between an
offender and a minor. In an online-only interaction, law enforcement may need to look for seemingly innocuous questions related to
the minor's environment or validation of identity (Black et al., 2015). Further, law enforcement should expect conversations initiated
online to progress faster than those offline (DeHart et al., 2017). This may have implications for how quickly law enforcement must
intervene in a suspected case.

References

Aitken, S., Gaskell, D., & Hodkinson, A. (2018). Online sexual grooming: Exploratory comparison of themes arising from male offenders’ communications with male
victims compared to female victims. Deviant Behavior, 39, 1170–1190.
Almond, L., McManus, M. A., Giles, S., & Houston, E. (2017). Female sex offenders: An analysis of crime scene behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32,
3839–3860.
Babchishin, K. M., Karl Hanson, R., & Hermann, C. A. (2011). The characteristics of online sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse, 23, 92–123.
Beauregard, E., Leclerc, B., & Lussier, P. (2012). Decision making in the crime commission process: Comparing rapists, child molesters, and victim-crossover sex
offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1275–1295.
Bergen, E., Antfolk, J., Jern, P., Alanko, K., & Santtila, P. (2013). Adults’ sexual interest in children and adolescents online: A quasi-experimental study. International
Journal of Cyber Criminology, 7.
Bergen, E., Davidson, J., Schulz, A., Schuhmann, P., Johansson, A., Santtila, P., & Jern, P. (2014). The effects of using identity deception and suggesting secrecy on the
outcomes of adult-adult and adult-child or-adolescent online sexual interactions. Victims & Offenders, 9, 276–298.
Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims’ perspective. Child Abuse Neglect, 14, 29–40.
Black, P. J., Wollis, M., Woodworth, M., & Hancock, J. T. (2015). A linguistic analysis of grooming strategies of online child sex offenders: Implications for our
understanding of predatory sexual behavior in an increasingly computer-mediated world. Child Abuse Neglect, 44, 140–149.
Briggs, P., Simon, W. T., & Simonsen, S. (2011). An exploratory study of internet-initiated sexual offenses and the chat room sex offender: Has the internet enabled a
new typology of sex offender? Sexual Abuse, 23, 72–91.
Chiang, E., & Grant, T. (2017). Online grooming: moves and strategies. Language and Law= Linguagem e Direito, 4, 103–141.

10
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

Chiu, M. M., Seigfried-Spellar, K. C., & Ringenberg, T. R. (2018). Exploring detection of contact vs. fantasy online sexual offenders in chats with minors: Statistical
discourse analysis of self-disclosure and emotion words. Child Abuse Neglect, 81, 128–138.
Chopin, J., & Beauregard, E. (2020). Scripting extrafamilial child sexual abuse: a latent class analysis of the entire crime-commission process. Child Abuse and Neglect,
106, e104521.
Collin-Vézina, D., dela La Sablonnière-Griffin, M., Palmer, A. M., & Milne, L. (2015). A preliminary mapping of individual, relational, and social factors that impede
disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 123–134.
Colton, M., Roberts, S., & Vanstone, M. (2010). Sexual abuse by men who work with children. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 345–364.
Colton, M., Roberts, S., & Vanstone, M. (2012). Learning lessons from men who have sexually abused children. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 79–93.
Conte, J. R., & Berliner, L. (1981). Sexual abuse of children: Implications for practice. Social Casework, 62, 601–606.
Conte, J. R., Wolf, S., & Smith, T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 293–301.
DeHart, D., Dwyer, G., Seto, M. C., Moran, R., Letourneau, E., & Schwarz-Watts, D. (2017). Internet sexual solicitation of children: a proposed typology of offenders
based on their chats, e-mails, and social network posts. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23, 77–89.
Dowdell, E. B., Burgess, A. W., & Flores, J. R. (2011). Online social networking patterns among adolescents, young adults, and sexual offenders. AJN The American
Journal of Nursing, 111, 28–36.
Elliott, Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse Neglect, 19, 579–594.
Erickson, W., Walbek, N., & Seely, R. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77–86.
Erooga, M., Kaufman, K., & Zatkin, J. G. (2020). Powerful perpetrators, hidden in plain sight: an international analysis of organisational child sexual abuse cases.
Journal of Sexual Aggression, 26, 62–90.
Farber, E. D., Showers, J., Johnson, C. F., Joseph, J. A., & Oshins, L. (1984). The sexual abuse of children: A comparison of male and female victims. Journal of Clinical
Child & Adolescent Psychology, 13, 294–297.
Farrell, D. P., & Taylor, M. (2000). Silenced by god—an examination of unique characteristics within sexual abuse by clergy. Counselling Psychology Review, 22–31.
Foster, J. M. (2017). It happened to me: A qualitative analysis of boys’ narratives about child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 26, 853–873.
Fritz, G. S., Stoll, K., & Wagner, N. N. (1981). A comparison of males and females who were sexually molested as children. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 7, 54–59.
Gámez-Guadix, M., Almendros, C., Calvete, E., & De Santisteban, P. (2018). Persuasion strategies and sexual solicitations and interactions in online sexual grooming of
adolescents: Modeling direct and indirect pathways. Journal of Adolescence, 63, 11–18.
van Gijn-Grosvenor, E. L., & Lamb, M. E. (2016). Behavioural differences between online sexual groomers approaching boys and girls. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,
25, 577–596.
Gilgun, J. F. (1994). Avengers, conquerors, playmates, and lovers: Roles played by child sexual abuse perpetrators. Families in Society, 75, 467–480.
Gillespie, A. A. (2002). Child protection on the internet-challenges for criminal law. Child & Fam. LQ, 14, 411.
Green, L. (2001). Analysing the sexual abuse of children by workers in residential care homes: Characteristics, dynamics and contributory factors. Journal of Sexual
Aggression, 7, 5–24.
Groth, A. N., & Birnbaum, H. J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7, 175–181.
Groth, A. N., & Burgess, A. W. (1977). Motivational intent in the sexual assault of children. Correctional Psychologist, 4, 253–264.
Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Best, C. (1999). Factors related to the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23,
559–569.
Hassan, M., Gary, F. A., Hotz, R., Killion, C., & Vicken, T. (2015). Young victims telling their stories of sexual abuse in the emergency department. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 36, 944–952.
Henschel, M. M., & Grant, B.-J. (2019). Exposing school employee sexual abuse and misconduct: Shedding light on a sensitive issue. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28,
26–45.
Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., & Horowitz, D. (2007). Victimization of children with disabilities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 629–635.
Hui, D. T. L., Xin, C. W., & Khader, M. (2015). Understanding the behavioral aspects of cyber sexual grooming: Implications for law enforcement. International Journal
of Police Science and Management, 17, 40–49.
Ioannou, M., Synnott, J., Reynolds, A., & Pearson, J. (2018). A comparison of online and offline grooming characteristics: An application of the victim roles model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 291–297.
Itzin, C. (1997). Pornography and the organization of intrafamilial and extrafamilial child sexual abuse: Developing a conceptual model. Child Abuse Review: Journal of
the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 6, 94–106.
Jackson, S., Newall, E., & Backett-Milburn, K. (2015). Children’s narratives of sexual abuse. Child & Family Social Work, 20, 322–332.
Jamieson, S., & Marshall, W. (2000). Attachment styles and violence in child molesters. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 5, 88–98.
Katz, C., Tsur, N., Nicolet, R., Klebanov, B., & Carmel, N. (2020). No way to run or hide: Children’s perceptions of their responses during intrafamilial child sexual
abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 106, Article 104541.
Kaufman, K. L., Hilliker, D. R., Lathrop, P., & Daleiden, E. L. (1993). Assessing child sexual offenders’ modus operandi: Accuracy in self-reported use of threats and
coercion. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 213–229.
Kaufman, K. L., Holmberg, J. K., Orts, K. A., McCrady, F. E., Rotzien, A. L., Daleiden, E. L., & Hilliker, D. R. (1998). Factors influencing sexual offenders’ modus
operandi: An examination of victim-offender relatedness and age. Child Maltreatment, 3, 349–361.
Kloess, J. A., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., & Beech, A. R. (2019). Offense processes of online sexual grooming and abuse of children via internet communication
platforms. Sexual Abuse, 31, 73–96.
Kloess, J. A., Seymour-Smith, S., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., Long, M. L., Shipley, D., & Beech, A. R. (2017). A qualitative analysis of offenders’ modus operandi in
sexually exploitative interactions with children online. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29, 563–591.
Lang, R. A., & Frenzel, R. R. (1988). How sex offenders lure children. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 303–317.
Langevin, R., & Curnoe, S. (2004). The use of pornography during the commission of sexual offenses. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 48, 572–586.
Levesque, R. J. (1994). Sex differences in the experience of child sexual victimization. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 357–369.
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Izura, C. (2017). “cause ur special”: Understanding trust and complimenting behaviour in online grooming discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 112,
68–82.
Lorenzo-Dus, N., Kinzel, A., & Di Cristofaro, M. (2020). The communicative modus operandi of online child sexual groomers: Recurring patterns in their language use.
Journal of Pragmatics, 155, 15–27.
Lucenko, B. A., Gold, S. N., Elhai, J. D., Russo, S. A., & Swingle, J. M. (2000). Relations between coercive strategies and mmpi-2 scale elevations among women
survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Traumatic Stress: Official Publication of The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 13, 169–177.
Malesky, L. A., Jr. (2007). Predatory online behavior: Modus operandi of convicted sex offenders in identifying potential victims and contacting minors over the
internet. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16, 23–32.
Marcum, C. D. (2007). Interpreting the intentions of internet predators: An examination of online predatory behavior. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16, 99–114.
Margolin, L. (1992). Sexual abuse by grandparents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 735–741.
Markwei, U., & Osei-Hwedie, K. (2019). Betrayed and broken: a study of the experiences of victims of child sexual abuse in the ga community in accra, ghana. Journal
of Child Sexual Abuse, 28, 472–488.
McElvaney, R. (2019). Grooming: a case study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28, 608–627.
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2005). The internet and family and acquaintance sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 10, 49–60.
Mogavero, M. C., & Hsu, K.-H. (2018). Sex offender mobility: An application of crime pattern theory among child sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 30, 908–931.
Moulden, H. M., Firestone, P., Kingston, D. A., & Wexler, A. F. (2010). A description of sexual offending committed by Canadian teachers. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 19, 403–418.

11
T.R. Ringenberg et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 123 (2022) 105392

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? guidance for authors when choosing
between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 1–7.
Myers, W. C., & Brasington, S. J. (2002). A father marries his daughters: a case of incestuous polygamy. Journal of Forensic Science, 47, 1–5.
NCMEC. (2017). The online enticement of children: An in-depth analysis of CyberTipline reports. In Technical Report National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
and others.
O’Connell, R. (2003). A Typology of Child Cybersexploitation and Online Grooming Practices (p. 19).
Okami, P. (1991). Self-reports of “positive” childhood and adolescent sexual contacts with older persons: An exploratory study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20,
437–457.
Olson, L. N., Daggs, J. L., Ellevold, B. L., & Rogers, T. K. K. (2007). Entrapping the innocent: Toward a theory of child sexual predators’ luring communication.
Communication Theory, 17, 231–251 (Yes - added to outline).
Peters, J. J. (1976). Children who are victims of sexual assault and the psychology of offenders. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 30, 398–421.
Phelan, P. (1995). Incest and its meaning: the perspectives of fathers and daughters. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 7–24.
Proulx, J., Perreault, C., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Pathways in the Offending Process of Extrafamilial Sexual Child Molesters (p. 13).
Quarshie, E. N.-B., Osafo, J., Akotia, C. S., Peprah, J., & Andoh-Arthur, J. (2017). Some epidemiological characteristics of perpetrators and victims of incest in
contemporary ghana: analysis of media reports. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 26, 121–139.
Quayle, E., Allegro, S., Hutton, L., Sheath, M., & Lööf, L. (2014). Rapid skill acquisition and online sexual grooming of children. Computers in Human Behavior, 39,
368–375.
Quayle, E., & Taylor, M. (2001). Child seduction and self-representation on the internet. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 4, 597–608.
Rada, R. T. (1976). Alcoholism and the child molester. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 273, 492–496.
Reinhart, M. A. (1987). Sexual abuse of battered young children. Pediatric Emergency Care, 3, 36–38.
Ressel, M., Lyons, J., & Romano, E. (2018). Abuse characteristics, multiple victimisation and resilience among young adult males with histories of childhood sexual
abuse. Child Abuse Review, 27, 239–253.
Russell, D. E. (1983). The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 133–146.
Sandfort, T. G. (1984). Sex in pedophiliac relationships: An empirical investigation among a nonrepresentative group of boys. Journal of Sex Research, 20, 123–142.
Schneevogt, D., Chiang, E., & Grant, T. (2018). Do perverted justice chat logs contain examples of overt persuasion and sexual extortion? a research note responding to
chiang and grant (2017, 2018). Language and Law= Linguagem e Direito, 5, 97–102.
Seto, M. C., Wood, J. M., Babchishin, K. M., & Flynn, S. (2012). Online solicitation offenders are different from child pornography offenders and lower risk contact
sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 320.
Shannon, D. (2008). Online sexual grooming in sweden—online and offline sex offences against children as described in swedish police data. Journal of Scandinavian
Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 9, 160–180.
Shelton, J., Eakin, J., Hoffer, T., Muirhead, Y., & Owens, J. (2016). Online child sexual exploitation: An investigative analysis of offender characteristics and offending
behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 30, 15–23.
Siegel, J. M., Sorenson, S. B., Golding, J. M., Burnam, M. A., & Stein, J. A. (1987). The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: The los angeles epidemiologic
catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126, 1141–1153.
Singer, M. I., Hussey, D., & Strom, K. J. (1992). Grooming the victim: An analysis of a perpetrator’s seduction letter. Child Abuse Neglect, 16, 877–886.
Spraitz, J. D., & Bowen, K. N. (2019). Examination of a nascent taxonomy of priest sexual grooming. Sexual Abuse, 31, 707–728.
Stermac, L., Hall, K., & Henskens, M. (1989). Violence among child molesters. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 450–459.
Summit, R., & Kryso, J. (1978). Sexual abuse of children: A clinical spectrum. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 237.
Villacampa, C., & Gómez, M. J. (2017). Online child sexual grooming: Empirical findings on victimisation and perspectives on legal requirements. International Review
of Victimology, 23, 105–121.
Virkkunen, M. (1975). Victim-precipitated pedophilia offences. The British Journal of Criminology, 15, 175–180.
Whittle, H. C., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., & Beech, A. R. (2014). “under his spell”: Victims’ perspectives of being groomed online. Social Sciences, 3, 404–426.
Whittle, H. C., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., & Beech, A. R. (2015). A comparison of victim and offender perspectives of grooming and sexual abuse. Deviant Behavior,
36, 539–564.
Williams, R., Elliott, I. A., & Beech, A. R. (2013). Identifying sexual grooming themes used by internet sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 34, 135–152.
Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2013). Are crimes by online predators different from crimes by sex offenders who know youth in-person? Journal of Adolescent Health, 53,
736–741.
Wortley, R., Leclerc, B., Reynald, D. M., & Smallbone, S. (2019). What deters child sex offenders? a comparison between completed and noncompleted offenses.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 4303–4327.

12