Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159 Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved
Copyright © NISC Pty Ltd
JOURNAL OF C H I L D & A D O LES C EN T M EN T A L H EA L T H ISSN 1728-0583 EISSN 1728-0591 http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/17280583.2013.810629
Research Paper A comparison of peer and non-peer exposure to unwanted early sexual experiences among students in South Africa and Belgium Arlynn T. Revell1 and Lionel J. Nicholas2* Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, Institute for Family and Sexuality Studies, Catholic University Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium 2School of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, Roodepoort, Monash South Africa, South Africa *Corresponding author, email: [email protected] 1
Objective: This study examined peer and non-peer unwanted early sexual experiences (UESE) among 3,689 university students to establish whether peer UESE is as coercive and bothersome as non-peer UESE. Method: A self-report checklist was administered to all consenting students attending an orientation programme at one South African (SA) and one Belgian university. Results: Of the respondents 21% indicated that they had UESE before their 16th birthday (39.2% SA and 13.5% Belgians). Of respondents indicating UESE, 22.4% (173) reported that they had UESE with a person where the age difference was greater than 5 years and 54.2% (418) reported UESE with an age difference less than 5 years. Overall, a statistically significant difference was found between peer exposed and non-peer exposed groups at the time the UESE occurred related to bothersomeness of the UESE. SA men and women experienced more psychological pressure or physical force among the non-peer exposed group than the peer exposed group.
Introduction Early definitions of child sexual abuse (CSA) were based on age discrepancies of 5 to 10 years between perpetrator and victim (Finkelhor 1979). Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) in their meta-analysis of 59 studies of college samples found that the bulk of these studies used such age differences to define CSA. They reported that most studies (73%) defined CSA to include both contact and non-contact (e.g. exhibitionism) sexual experiences and 24% restricted their definition to contact experiences only. Most studies (88%) had a specific upper age limit for children or adolescents in defining CSA. Of these studies (75%) focused on middle to later adolescence. Other studies (17%) specified experiences with an adult, an authority figure, someone over 16 years of age, or someone older. About a third of the studies (32%) also included in their definition of CSA, peer experiences that were unwanted or forced. Of these studies, 14% defined sexual experiences with relatives as CSA, although this criterion generally included an age discrepancy. Finkelhor (1986) suggested defining peer sexual abuse as any forced sexual experiences between individuals less than five years apart in age. Sperry and Gilbert (2005) contended that little is known about CSA by child peers and could only find three studies investigating this phenomenon (Haugaard and Tilly 1988, Cruise 1998, Shaw et Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
150
Revell and Nicholas
al. 2000). While acknowledging that the age discrepancy criterion allows one to avoid including normative child peer sexual behaviours within the ambit of CSA, Sperry and Gilbert (2005) caution that victims of sexually aggressive children may be denied due attention and services. Sperry and Gilbert (2005) reviewed three studies examining the impact of child peer abuse and found that children abused by other children and those abused by adolescents/adults reported their experiences as equally negative and having equally pervasive negative outcomes. The authors identified only one study (Haugaard and Tilly 1998) focusing on undergraduate students, but it had a limited survey return rate and included normative experiences in the low coercion group. Haugaard and Tilly (1998) reported that when surveying large groups of undergraduates high levels of peer coercion were prevalent. Low coercion appeared to include more normative sexual experiences. Graaf and Rademakers (2006) reviewed empirical studies on the sexual development of prepubertal children and contended that studies of childhood sexuality are scarce and often focus on sexual abuse. They reported that there is no general consensus as to which sexual behaviours and feelings should be considered ‘normal’ for children of a certain age, gender or cultural background. Current evidence indicates that the touching of genital parts is observed in early childhood and even before birth and after birth. Boys of 6–8 months of age and girls of 8–11 months of age discover their genitals by unintentionally touching them. Between 15 and 19 months of age genital activity increases in some boys and girls, by means of rhythmic manipulation of the genitals, pressing the thighs together or rubbing the genitals against an object. They reported on a Flemish and an American study that indicated that parents observed less solitary sexual behaviour as their children grew older. Shaw et al. (2000) surveyed a clinical sample of 194 children and adolescents who had been sexually victimised by juveniles 17 years of age and younger compared to child victims of adults 18 years of age and older. Comparing these two groups showed no differences for the type of sexual abuse, penetration or use of force. The authors found that victims of abuse by child peers were younger, more likely to be male, more likely to be abused at school or at a relative’s home by a sibling or a non-related male. Children victimised by juveniles 17 years of age and younger manifested clinically significant sexual preoccupations and manifested borderline clinically significant symptomatology. A CSA review conducted by Loeb et al. (2002) reported that two additional exclusion criteria were used to distinguish CSA from exploratory sexual experiences before the age of 12 years or consensual sexual activity with peers. They reported that incidents were considered sexual abuse if: (a) the age difference between the perpetrator and the victim was more than 5 years; or (b) the age difference was less than 5 years, but the contact was not desired or was coercive. Loeb et al. (2002) reported that abusive incidents do not affect all children uniformly; rather, the child’s age, severity and frequency of abuse, relationship of the perpetrator to the child, and number of perpetrators are some of the factors that influence the child’s reaction to the abuse. Sexually abused children display symptoms that include varying degrees of inappropriate sexual knowledge and sexually aggressive behaviours, increased sex play with peers, and excessive masturbation and these symptoms present extra burdens for children as they struggle to meet normal sexual development challenges. They also reported that sexual perpetration by children or adolescents are distinct from age-appropriate sexual exploration that is normal according to the developmental stage. In addition to considerations of definitions of CSA, the actual behaviour that constitutes CSA, there is the question of the age at which consent may be given. Most studies include the concept of consent and many stipulate age differences, usually that of five years. However, this masks the considerable problem of peer abuse. A study in the United Kingdom by Cawson et al. (2002) found between 58% and 70% of participants who reported CSA described the perpetrator as a boyfriend or a girlfriend. Miller, Johnson and Johnson (1991) attempted to avoid conceptual and definitional problems of past CSA studies by asking respondents to report specific sexual behaviours that occurred when they did not want them to, without requiring them to make a distinction about whether the event constituted abuse or molestation. They contended that their method: (1) operationalised CSA in a broad manner that fit the most widely held definitions of CSA; (2) promised to provide less biased
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
151
reporting than asking about abuse; and (3) could be used effectively and inexpensively in large prevalence studies. They also advocated distinguishing between less severe events such as exhibition and touching of sexual organs and more severe events such as anal/vaginal intercourse and oral-genital contact, because greater severity of experience was associated with greater trauma in their pilot study. The objective of this study was to provide new information on the scope of peer and non-peer unwanted early sexual experience (UESE) among university students in Belgium and South Africa (SA) and to create public awareness. Given the paucity of research on peer UESE (Sperry and Gilbert 2005) compared to non-peer UESE, this study sought to compare these two groups (Belgium and SA) in terms of forms of UESE, frequency, duration, coercion and bothersomeness of UESE. The objectives of this study were to: 1. determine the forms of UESE among peer and non-peer exposed Belgian and SA university students 2. examine the victim-perpetrator relationship, duration and frequency of UESE among peer and non-peer exposed Belgian and SA university students 3. determine the extent to which peer and non-peer exposed Belgian and SA university students were bothered by the UESE at the time it happened and when completing the checklist 4. investigate the degree of sexual coercion used during the UESE event among peer and non-peer exposed students. Method Participants Participants in this study comprised 3 689 first year university students, 71% from Belgium and 29% from South Africa. Approximately twice as many women as men participated. Age and gender breakdown of the sample groups are given in Table 1. Procedure All possible efforts were made to conduct the study in the exact same manner in both countries. Approval for the research was obtained from the Human Ethics Committee of both universities. All first year students who attended a university orientation programme in Belgium and in South Africa were invited to participate in this study. The questionnaires were administered during the third and fourth day of the orientation programme at each of the universities. Students were requested to complete the Early Sexual Experience Checklist (ESEC); the researchers provided a brief description of the study. Participants at the respective universities were informed that the accurate completion of the checklist was important to determine better counselling services for students. They were informed that all responses were confidential and anonymous. Students were instructed not to write their names or surnames on the questionnaires. The ESEC was included as part of the Student Counseling annual research project during the orientation project with a similar rationale. A ‘warm-up’ set of demographic questions was provided to the students before assessing incidence of UESE. Students completed the structured checklist under the supervision of senior counsellors and were encouraged to consult counsellors about the issues raised in the checklist as well as any other matters of concern (e.g. possible re-traumatisation). The senior counsellors were trained counsellors and psychologists at the two universities. Participation was voluntary and participants were advised that they could withdraw from the study Table 1: Characteristics of participants in the study
Number Mean age (years) Standard deviation
Belgian women 1 587 18.2 0.96
Belgian men 1 017 18.3 1.63
SA women 739 19.6 4.10
SA men 335 19.3 3.40
152
Revell and Nicholas
at any time. The ESEC administered to the SA students was in English, while a Dutch translation was completed by the Belgian students. The questionnaire was translated from English into Dutch and back into English to ensure that the same measures were being tested. The questionnaire was translated by native English and native Dutch speakers. These were the languages of instruction at the two universities. The participants received a standard introduction and instructions on how to complete the checklist. Students completed the self-administered checklist in 10 to 15 minutes (Revell et al. 2008). Instruments The ESEC (Miller et al. 1991) used in this study had nine multiple choice items that list explicit sexual behaviours and two additional items that allow participants either to describe a further sexual event or to select ‘none of the above’. The ESEC is a straightforward mechanical checklist method, which eschews evaluative or pejorative terminology and is relatively non-invasive. The checklist includes respondent’s age at the time of the most bothersome event; age and identity of the other person involved; frequency and duration of the most bothersome experience; and presence and type of any coercion. Items using a Likert-style format, with anchors 1 = not at all and 7 = extremely, also obtained ratings of the most bothersome event (e.g. ‘How much did it bother you then?’ and ‘How much does it bother you now?’). Exposure to UESE was defined as an affirmative answer to one or more of the questions about unwanted childhood sexual experiences occurring before the age of 16 years. Respondents were requested to respond to these questions on a yes/no basis and to select any sexual behaviour that was unwanted and occurred before the age of 16 years. Participants who indicated at least one ‘yes’ were considered to have experienced CSA. Sexual behaviour in this study refers to specific behaviours such as ‘flashing’, being touched on the genitals, touching someone’s genitals, and oral/vaginal/anal sexual intercourse (Miller et al. 1991). The ESEC methodology not only replicates the findings of other techniques for assessing abuse, but also extends these findings by allowing comparison of the sequelae of different types of abuse experiences (Miller and Johnson 1998). Miller and Johnson (1998) found a one-month test-retest reliability of 0.92 for the ESEC, using Cohen’s kappa (cited in Davis et al. 1998). Statistical analysis In this study the data were processed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0. The chi-square test was used to compare differences in distribution between groups. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event and when completing the checklist. Results UESE SA women respondents reported higher (31.3%) UESE than Belgian women respondents (14.2%). That of SA men (56.4%) was also higher than that of Belgian men (12.3%). However, peer and non-peer UESE varied across subgroups (Table 2). SA men had the highest (39.7%) for peer UESE and Belgian men had the lowest (1%) non-peer UESE. For Belgian women, statistically significant differences in UESE (peer exposed vs. non-peer exposed) were found across most incident categories; this was not the case for South African women or Belgian men (Table 3). There were significant differences in some incident categories reported by South African men. Person involved (perpetrator), frequency and duration Women Table 4 shows that a statistically significant difference was found between the Belgian peer exposed and Belgian non-peer exposed women for ‘person involved’, but no statistically significant difference was found for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6). Similarly, for
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
153
Table 2: The percentages type of UESE, non-peer abuse and peer abuse of students
Type UESE UESE Non-peer abuse (> 5 years) Peer abuse (< 5 years)
Belgian women N = 1 587 231 (14.2%) 79 (4.9%) 102 (6.4%)
Belgian men N = 1 017 125 (12.3%) 11 (1%) 74 (7.2%)
SA women N = 736 226 (31.3) 70 (9.5%) 109 (14.8%)
SA men N = 335 189 (54.4%) 13 (3.8%) 133 (39.7%)
Table 3: When you were under the age of 16 years, did any of these incidents ever happen to you when you did not want them to?
Incident
1. Another person showed his or her sex organs to you 2. Someone touched or fondled your sex organs 3. You touched or fondled another person’s sex organs at his/her request 4. You showed your sex organs to another at his/ her request 5. Another person had sexual intercourse with you 6. Another person performed oral sex on you 7. You performed oral sex on another person 8. Someone told you to engage in sexual activity so that he/she could watch 9. You engaged in anal sex with another person
Belgian Belgian SA SA Belgian Belgian SA SA women women women women men men men men peer non-peer peer non-peer peer non-peer peer non-peer UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE (n = 102) (n = 79) (n = 109) (n = 70) (n = 74) (n = 11) (n = 133) (n = 13) n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 64 (62.7)* 61 (77.2)* 55 (50.4) 43 (61.4) 54 (72.9)
9 (81)
70 (68.6)* 30 (37.9)* 62 (56.8) 42 (60)
39 (52.7)
6 (54.5) 72 (54.1)
7 (53.8)
43 (42.1)* 16 (20.2)* 39 (35.7) 22 (31.4) 38 (51.3)
6 (54.5) 83 (62.4)
7 (53.8)
35 (34.3)* 14 (17.7)* 20 (18.3) 10 (14.2) 29 (39.1)
5 (45.4) 33 (24.8)*
8 (61.5)*
26 (25.4)* 10 (12.5)* 20 (18.3) 12 (17.1) 17 (22.9)
2 (18.1) 47 (35.3)
4 (31.7)
24 (23.5)*
5 (6.3)* 24 (22)
3 (27.2) 30 (22.5)*
6 (46.1)*
24 (23.5)*
7 (8.8)* 12 (11)
2 (18.1) 24 (18)
4 (30.7)
5 (4.9)
5 (4.9)
-
1 (1.26)
13 (18.5) 13 (17.5)
6 (8.5)
13 (17.5)
4 (3.6)
4 (5.7)
4 (5.4)
5 (4.5)
2 (2.8)
3
(4)
83 (62.4)* 11 (84.6)*
-
7 (5.2)
1 (7.6)
1 (9)
17 (12.7)
2 (15.3)
* = p < 0.05
SA women a statistically significant difference was found between the SA peer exposed and SA non-peer exposed women for ‘person involved’ (Table 4), but no statistically significant differences were found for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6). Men A statistically significant difference was found between the Belgian peer exposed and Belgian non-peer exposed men for ‘person involved’ (Table 4), but no statistically significant differences were found for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6). No statistically
154
Revell and Nicholas
Table 4: Person involved (perpetrator) in UESE
Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N =179) = 57.690, p < 0.001 Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N =176) = 49.920, p < 0.001 Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N = 85) = 9.316, p < 0.009 Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N = 140) = 3.339., p = 0.188
Belgium women peer UESE 15 (15) 77 (77) 8 (8) 100 (100)
Belgian women non-peer UESE 14 (17.7) 20 (25.3) 45 (57) 79 (100)
SA women peer UESE 9 (8.4) 91 (85) 87 (65) 107 (100)
SA women non-peer UESE 32 (46.4) 23 (33.3) 14 (20.3) 69 (100)
Belgian men peer UESE 6 (8.1) 62 (83.8) 6 (8.1) 74 (100)
Belgian men non-peer UESE 2 (18.2) 5 (45.5) 4 (36.4) 11 (100)
SA men peer UESE 6 (4.7) 110 (86.6) 11 (8.7) 127 (100)
SA men non-peer UESE 2 (15.4) 9 (69.2) 2 (15.4) 13 (100)
significant differences were found between the SA peer exposed and SA non-peer exposed men for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6) or for ‘the victim-perpetrator relationship’. Friends or acquaintances were also disproportionately represented as perpetrators of the peer exposed group among all the four groups (Table 4). Bothersomeness Overall a statistically significant difference was found between the peer exposed and non-peer exposed groups at the time the UESE occurred regarding bothersomeness of the UESE (Table 7). The non-peer exposed group was more bothered at the time the UESE occurred than the peer exposed group. Similarly, a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups at the time of completing the checklist. The non-peer exposed group was more bothered by the experience at the time of completing the checklist than the peer exposed group was. Variations in bothersomeness within the subgroups are given in Table 7. A statistically significant difference was found between SA women reporting peer UESE and those reporting non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event and the time of completing the checklist (Table 7). Table 7 illustrates that a statistically significant difference was found between Belgian men reporting peer UESE and those reporting non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of completing the checklist. A statistically significant difference was found between SA men exposed to peer UESE and those exposed to non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event (Table 7). Psychological pressure or physical force More non-peer exposed participants reported that psychological or physical force was used during the UESE (Table 8). Significant differences in psychological pressures or physical force between the two groups were found for items 1, 3, 5 and 6. Significant differences were found between the
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
155
Table 5: How many times did this behaviour occur?
Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 177) = 4.244, p = 0.236 Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 171) = 6.117, p = 0.106 Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 82) = 3.433, p = 0.330 Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 136) = 1.687, p = 0.640
Belgium women peer UESE 62 (62) 16 (16) 7 (7) 15 (15) 100 (100)
Belgian women non-peer UESE 55 (71.4) 6 (7.8) 8 (10.4) 8 (10.4) 77 (100)
SA women peer UESE 73 (69.5) 11 (10.5) 12 (11.4) 9 (8.6) 105 (100)
SA women non-peer UESE 38 (57.6) 10 (15.2) 5 (7.6) 13v(19.7) 66 (100)
Belgian men peer UESE 48 (67.6) 11 (15.5) 3 (4.2) 9 (12.7) 71 (100)
Belgian men non-peer UESE 6 (54.5) 2 (18.2) 2 (18.2) 1 (9.1) 11 (100)
SA men peer UESE 70 (56.7) 20 (16.3) 15 (12.2) 18 (14.6) 123 (100)
SA men non-peer UESE 5 (38.5) 3 (23.1) 2 (15.4) 3 (23.1) 13 (100)
non-peer and peer UESE groups for ‘tried to talk you into it’; ‘scared you because they were bigger or stronger’; ‘bribed you’; and ‘pushed, hit or physically restrained you’. The following variations in psychological pressure were found in the subpopulations. Women A statistically significant difference was found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed women for the item ‘you were afraid they wouldn’t like or love you’. Statistically significant differences were found between the SA peer exposed and non-peer exposed women for ‘tried to talk you into it’; ‘scared you because they were bigger or stronger’ and ‘bribed you’. SA women who were exposed to non-peer UESE reported more psychological pressures or physical force than the peer exposed group. Men Statistically significant differences were found between the SA peer exposed and non-peer exposed men for ‘tried to talk you into it’; ‘bribed you’; and ‘drugged or got you drunk’. SA men who experienced non-peer UESE reported more psychological pressures or physical force than the peer UESE group. No statistically significant differences in psychological pressures or physical force were found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed men.
156
Revell and Nicholas
Table 6: Over how long a period did this behaviour occur?
Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 174) = 0.621, p = 0.892
Belgium women peer UESE 62 (63.3) 10 (10.2) 14 (14.3) 12 (12.2) 98 (100)
Belgian women non-peer UESE 52 (68.4) 6 (7.6) 9 (11.8) 9 (11.8) 76 100)
SA women peer UESE 72 (69.9) 11 (10.7) 11 (10.7) 9 (8.2) 103 (100)
SA women non-peer UESE 42 (63.6) 6 (9.1) 7 (10.6) 11 (16.6) 66 (100)
Belgian men peer UESE 49 (69) 6 (8.5) 9 (12.7) 7 (9.9) 71 (100)
Belgian men non-peer UESE 7 (63.6) 2 (18.2) 2 (18.2)
Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 169) = .3.368, p = 0.498 Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 82) = 2.265, p = 0.519 Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 82) = 2.265, p = 0.519
SA men peer UESE 72 (59.7) 11 (22) 11 (22) 9 (6.5) 103 (100)
11 (100) SA men non-peer UESE 6 (46.2) 3 (23.1) 3 (23.1) 1 (9.1) 13 (100)
Table 7: Bothersomeness of the UESE at the time it occurred and at the time of completing the checklist
Different groups
Belgian women peer UESE Belgian women non-peer UESE SA women peer UESE SA women non-peer UESE Belgian men peer UESE Belgian men non-peer UESE SA men peer UESE SA men non-peer UESE * p < 0.05
Bothersomeness: At the time of the event Mean and standard deviation M = 3.50, SD = 1.92 M = 3.77, SD = 1.96 M = 3.54, SD = 2.29
F-value
F(1, 176) = 0.873, p = 0.351 F(1, 171) = 18.85, p = 0.001*
M = 5.07, SD = 2.21 M = 2.16, SD = 1.52
M = 4.25, SD = 2.63
M = 2.41, SD = 1.70 M = 2.49, SD = 1.93 M = 2.54, SD = 2.21
F-value
F(1, 174) = 0.083, p = 0.773 F(1, 171) = 10.67, p = 0.001*
M = 3.70, SD = 2.38 F(1, 82) = 2.911, p = 0.092
M = 3.00, SD = 1.41 M = 2.55, SD = 1.91
Bothersomeness: At the time of completing the checklist. Mean and standard deviation
M = 1.63, SD = 1.14
F(1, 82) = 4.044, p = 0.048*
M = 2.45, SD = 1.91 F(1, 135) = 8.054, p = 0.005*
M = 2.25, SD = 2.00 M = 3.50, SD = 3.08
F(1, 134) = 3.829, p = 0.052
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
157
Table 8: What kind of psychological pressures or physical force did the person use, if any?
Incident 1.They tried to talk you into it 2. You were afraid they wouldn’t like or love you 3. They scared you because they were bigger or stronger 4. They said they would hurt you 5. They bribed you 6. They pushed, hit or physically restrained you 7. They drugged or got you drunk 8. They threatened you with a weapon 9. They physically harmed you
Non-peer UESE (n = 173) n % 59 (34.1) 42 (24.2) 41 (23.6) 8 (4.6) 14 (8.1) 17 (9.8) 8 (4.6) 3 (1.7) 3 (1.7)
Peer UESE (n = 418) n % 79 (18.8) 14 (3.3) 19 (4.5) 12 (2.8) 12 (2.8) 27 (6.4) 15 (3.5) 5 (1.1) 5 (1.1)
p-value p < 0.005* p = 0.252 p < 0.001* p = 0.210 p < 0.01* p < 0.01* p = 0.352 p = 0.432 p = 0.434
* = p < 0.05
Discussion The concern with CSA has been considerable in recent years. Overall, this study found that of the respondents 21% indicated that they had an UESE before their 16th birthday. Of respondents indicating an UESE, 22.4% reported that they had an UESE with a person where the age difference was greater than 5 years compared to 54.2% who reported an UESE with an age difference less than 5 years. Belgian and SA women reporting peer exposure experienced more severe forms of UESE than the non-peer exposed group. Significant differences were found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed men and women and the South African peer exposed and non-peer exposed men regarding the type of UESE. However, no significant difference was found for South African women. This study highlighted the significantly higher prevalence of peer UESE involving a family member or a friend/acquaintance compared to the non-peer groups. Nicholas (2008) found that 67% of his SA student sample reported that the other person involved in the unwanted event was a friend or an acquaintance. Significant differences were found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed men and women and SA peer exposed and non-peer exposed women regarding the person involved; no significant difference was found for SA men. Loeb et al. (2002) concluded that not all children are affected uniformly by CSA and that the relationship between the perpetrator and the child and the number of perpetrators are some of the factors that influence the child’s reaction to the CSA. A significant difference was found between SA women and SA men exposed to peer UESE and those exposed to non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event and at the time of completing the checklist. The non-peer UESE group was more bothered at the time of completing the checklist than the peer UESE group was. No significant difference was found between Belgian women and Belgian men exposed to peer UESE and those exposed to non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event. Heiman, Verhulst and Heard-Davison (2003) concluded that the meanings and consequences of the CSA change as the child matures and are influenced by additional sexual experiences and prevalent cultural values, with younger children perhaps only fully understanding the UESE after experiencing such maturation and therefore being troubled by the event later. Among SA men and women more psychological pressures or physical force were experienced by the non-peer UESE group than by the peer UESE group. None of the Belgian women or Belgian men were threatened with a weapon. However, SA women were more likely than SA men to be threatened with a weapon. None of the SA men experiencing non-peer UESE were threatened with a weapon. Loeb et al. (2002) concluded that factors affecting age-inappropriate from age-appropriate sexual play include disparity in physical size of the perpetrator, status difference
158
Revell and Nicholas
(e.g. an older child designated as a babysitter) and use of threats, force and dominance, for which we found some support in our study. This study found that more Belgian men and women reporting peer UESE experienced psychological pressures or physical force than the non-peer UESE group. However, among SA men and women more psychological pressures or physical force were experienced by the non-peer UESE group than by the peer UESE group. The data from this study were collected retrospectively and relied on self-report measures. These are subject to socially desirable responding, acquiescence, retrospective reconstruction and current levels of psychological adjustment. The convenience non-clinical samples of Belgian and SA first year university students are not generalisable to the populations of those countries. Choosing university students as a sample provided a large group of non-clinical populations and may be more representative of a general population than clinical populations (Higgins and McCabe 1994). University samples may also exclude most individuals who are from deviant subcultures or who have been severely troubled; this study therefore may have excluded individuals who have been most negatively affected by UESE (Finkelhor 1979). Despite the limitations, this was the first study to be undertaken among the students of a SA and a Belgian university regarding the peer and non-peer UESE and establishing whether peer UESE is as coercive and bothersome as non-peer UESE. There is little exploration of theoretical underpinnings regarding peer and non-peer UESE and why some victims are symptomatic and others asymptomatic. A developmental perspective is one approach that may encourage more theory-driven research (Kendall-Tackett et al. 1993) which could explore how different developmental stages might be affected differently by the abuse experience. More research is needed in this area, in particular to document the exclusive effects of CSA, statistically controlling for other types of child abuse and family background factors. This study failed to look at the consequences of UESE such as psychological and behavioural effects. The researchers recommended that future studies include an assessment of effects. Many students enter university unprepared for the sexuality-related problems they may experience in the context of increased liberalisation of sexual attitudes and risky sexual behaviours. Students who have experienced UESE are at a further disadvantage in negotiating the sexually charged atmosphere of a campus of mainly single students. This study therefore provided baseline information on peer and non-peer UESE of first year students to enable the assessment of the extent and nature of the problem on a campus. This study found that most UESE were peer exposed experiences without the power disparity one would find with a greater age difference. In addition, the study found a higher incidence of psychological coercion for SA students than for Belgians. Counsellors and therapists should therefore be aware of peer and non-peer UESE among students and they may use the findings of this study as a guide to assist the development of appropriate interventions. References Cawson P, Wattam C, Brooker S, Kelly G. 2000. Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. London: NSPCC. Cruise TK. 1998. An examination of the differences between peer- vs. adult- perpetrated child sexual abuse: The effect and mediators. PhD thesis, Illinois State University, USA. Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman R, Schreer G, Davis SL (eds). 1998. Handbook of sexuality-related measures. London: Sage Publications. Finkelhor D. 1979. Sexually victimized children. New York: The Tree Press. Finkelhor D. 1986. Abusers: Special topics. In: Finkelhor D, Araji S, Baron L, Brown A, Peters SD, Wyatt EG (eds), A sourcebook on child sexual abuse. Beverley Hills, California: Sage. pp 89–142. Graaf J, Rademakers H. 2006. Sexual development of prepubertal children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 18: 1–20. Haugaard JJ, Tilly C. 1988. Characteristics predicting children’s responses to sexual encounters with other children. Child Abuse and Neglect 12: 209–218. Heiman JR, Verhulst J, Heard-Davison AR. 2003. Childhood sexuality and adult sexual relationships. How are they connected by data and theory? In: Bancroft J (ed), Sexual development in childhood. Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp 404–420.
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
159
Higgins DJ, McCabe MP. 1994. The relationship of child sexual abuse and family violence to adult adjustment: Toward an integrated risk-sequelae model. Journal of Sex Research 31: 255–266. Kendall-Tackett KA, Williams LM, Finkelhor D. 1993. Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin 113: 164–180. Loeb TB, Williams JK, Carmona JV, Rivkin I, Wyatt GE, Chin D, Asuan-O’Brien A. 2002. Child sexual abuse: Associations with the sexual functioning of adolescents and adults. Annual Review of Sex Research 13: 307–345. Miller RS, Johnson JA. 1998. Early sexual experience checklist. In: Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman R, Schreer G, Davis SL (eds), 1998. Handbook of Sexuality- Related Measures. London: Sage Publications. pp 23–24. Miller RS, Johnson JA, Johnson JK. 1991. Assessing the prevalence of unwanted childhood sexual experiences. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 4: 43–54. Nicholas LJ. 2008. Assessing unwanted early sexual experiences in a South African sample. Sex and Marital Therapy 34: 45–49. Revell AT, Vansteenwegen A, Nicholas LJ, Dumont K. 2008. Unwanted early sexual experiences and relationship adjustment among students in committed relationships. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 11. Available at www.ejhs.org/volume 11/Unwanted.htm. Online October 23, 11. Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. 1998. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin 124: 22–53. Shaw JA, Lewis JE, Loeb A, Rosado J, Rodrigues RA. 2000. Child on child abuse: psychological perspectives. Child Abuse and Neglect 24: 1591–1600. Sperry DM, Gilbert BO. 2005. Child peer sexual abuse: Preliminary data on outcomes and disclosure experiences. Child Abuse and Neglect 29: 889–904.
Copyright of Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Copyright © NISC Pty Ltd
JOURNAL OF C H I L D & A D O LES C EN T M EN T A L H EA L T H ISSN 1728-0583 EISSN 1728-0591 http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/17280583.2013.810629
Research Paper A comparison of peer and non-peer exposure to unwanted early sexual experiences among students in South Africa and Belgium Arlynn T. Revell1 and Lionel J. Nicholas2* Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health, Institute for Family and Sexuality Studies, Catholic University Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium 2School of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, Roodepoort, Monash South Africa, South Africa *Corresponding author, email: [email protected] 1
Objective: This study examined peer and non-peer unwanted early sexual experiences (UESE) among 3,689 university students to establish whether peer UESE is as coercive and bothersome as non-peer UESE. Method: A self-report checklist was administered to all consenting students attending an orientation programme at one South African (SA) and one Belgian university. Results: Of the respondents 21% indicated that they had UESE before their 16th birthday (39.2% SA and 13.5% Belgians). Of respondents indicating UESE, 22.4% (173) reported that they had UESE with a person where the age difference was greater than 5 years and 54.2% (418) reported UESE with an age difference less than 5 years. Overall, a statistically significant difference was found between peer exposed and non-peer exposed groups at the time the UESE occurred related to bothersomeness of the UESE. SA men and women experienced more psychological pressure or physical force among the non-peer exposed group than the peer exposed group.
Introduction Early definitions of child sexual abuse (CSA) were based on age discrepancies of 5 to 10 years between perpetrator and victim (Finkelhor 1979). Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) in their meta-analysis of 59 studies of college samples found that the bulk of these studies used such age differences to define CSA. They reported that most studies (73%) defined CSA to include both contact and non-contact (e.g. exhibitionism) sexual experiences and 24% restricted their definition to contact experiences only. Most studies (88%) had a specific upper age limit for children or adolescents in defining CSA. Of these studies (75%) focused on middle to later adolescence. Other studies (17%) specified experiences with an adult, an authority figure, someone over 16 years of age, or someone older. About a third of the studies (32%) also included in their definition of CSA, peer experiences that were unwanted or forced. Of these studies, 14% defined sexual experiences with relatives as CSA, although this criterion generally included an age discrepancy. Finkelhor (1986) suggested defining peer sexual abuse as any forced sexual experiences between individuals less than five years apart in age. Sperry and Gilbert (2005) contended that little is known about CSA by child peers and could only find three studies investigating this phenomenon (Haugaard and Tilly 1988, Cruise 1998, Shaw et Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health is co-published by NISC (Pty) Ltd and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
150
Revell and Nicholas
al. 2000). While acknowledging that the age discrepancy criterion allows one to avoid including normative child peer sexual behaviours within the ambit of CSA, Sperry and Gilbert (2005) caution that victims of sexually aggressive children may be denied due attention and services. Sperry and Gilbert (2005) reviewed three studies examining the impact of child peer abuse and found that children abused by other children and those abused by adolescents/adults reported their experiences as equally negative and having equally pervasive negative outcomes. The authors identified only one study (Haugaard and Tilly 1998) focusing on undergraduate students, but it had a limited survey return rate and included normative experiences in the low coercion group. Haugaard and Tilly (1998) reported that when surveying large groups of undergraduates high levels of peer coercion were prevalent. Low coercion appeared to include more normative sexual experiences. Graaf and Rademakers (2006) reviewed empirical studies on the sexual development of prepubertal children and contended that studies of childhood sexuality are scarce and often focus on sexual abuse. They reported that there is no general consensus as to which sexual behaviours and feelings should be considered ‘normal’ for children of a certain age, gender or cultural background. Current evidence indicates that the touching of genital parts is observed in early childhood and even before birth and after birth. Boys of 6–8 months of age and girls of 8–11 months of age discover their genitals by unintentionally touching them. Between 15 and 19 months of age genital activity increases in some boys and girls, by means of rhythmic manipulation of the genitals, pressing the thighs together or rubbing the genitals against an object. They reported on a Flemish and an American study that indicated that parents observed less solitary sexual behaviour as their children grew older. Shaw et al. (2000) surveyed a clinical sample of 194 children and adolescents who had been sexually victimised by juveniles 17 years of age and younger compared to child victims of adults 18 years of age and older. Comparing these two groups showed no differences for the type of sexual abuse, penetration or use of force. The authors found that victims of abuse by child peers were younger, more likely to be male, more likely to be abused at school or at a relative’s home by a sibling or a non-related male. Children victimised by juveniles 17 years of age and younger manifested clinically significant sexual preoccupations and manifested borderline clinically significant symptomatology. A CSA review conducted by Loeb et al. (2002) reported that two additional exclusion criteria were used to distinguish CSA from exploratory sexual experiences before the age of 12 years or consensual sexual activity with peers. They reported that incidents were considered sexual abuse if: (a) the age difference between the perpetrator and the victim was more than 5 years; or (b) the age difference was less than 5 years, but the contact was not desired or was coercive. Loeb et al. (2002) reported that abusive incidents do not affect all children uniformly; rather, the child’s age, severity and frequency of abuse, relationship of the perpetrator to the child, and number of perpetrators are some of the factors that influence the child’s reaction to the abuse. Sexually abused children display symptoms that include varying degrees of inappropriate sexual knowledge and sexually aggressive behaviours, increased sex play with peers, and excessive masturbation and these symptoms present extra burdens for children as they struggle to meet normal sexual development challenges. They also reported that sexual perpetration by children or adolescents are distinct from age-appropriate sexual exploration that is normal according to the developmental stage. In addition to considerations of definitions of CSA, the actual behaviour that constitutes CSA, there is the question of the age at which consent may be given. Most studies include the concept of consent and many stipulate age differences, usually that of five years. However, this masks the considerable problem of peer abuse. A study in the United Kingdom by Cawson et al. (2002) found between 58% and 70% of participants who reported CSA described the perpetrator as a boyfriend or a girlfriend. Miller, Johnson and Johnson (1991) attempted to avoid conceptual and definitional problems of past CSA studies by asking respondents to report specific sexual behaviours that occurred when they did not want them to, without requiring them to make a distinction about whether the event constituted abuse or molestation. They contended that their method: (1) operationalised CSA in a broad manner that fit the most widely held definitions of CSA; (2) promised to provide less biased
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
151
reporting than asking about abuse; and (3) could be used effectively and inexpensively in large prevalence studies. They also advocated distinguishing between less severe events such as exhibition and touching of sexual organs and more severe events such as anal/vaginal intercourse and oral-genital contact, because greater severity of experience was associated with greater trauma in their pilot study. The objective of this study was to provide new information on the scope of peer and non-peer unwanted early sexual experience (UESE) among university students in Belgium and South Africa (SA) and to create public awareness. Given the paucity of research on peer UESE (Sperry and Gilbert 2005) compared to non-peer UESE, this study sought to compare these two groups (Belgium and SA) in terms of forms of UESE, frequency, duration, coercion and bothersomeness of UESE. The objectives of this study were to: 1. determine the forms of UESE among peer and non-peer exposed Belgian and SA university students 2. examine the victim-perpetrator relationship, duration and frequency of UESE among peer and non-peer exposed Belgian and SA university students 3. determine the extent to which peer and non-peer exposed Belgian and SA university students were bothered by the UESE at the time it happened and when completing the checklist 4. investigate the degree of sexual coercion used during the UESE event among peer and non-peer exposed students. Method Participants Participants in this study comprised 3 689 first year university students, 71% from Belgium and 29% from South Africa. Approximately twice as many women as men participated. Age and gender breakdown of the sample groups are given in Table 1. Procedure All possible efforts were made to conduct the study in the exact same manner in both countries. Approval for the research was obtained from the Human Ethics Committee of both universities. All first year students who attended a university orientation programme in Belgium and in South Africa were invited to participate in this study. The questionnaires were administered during the third and fourth day of the orientation programme at each of the universities. Students were requested to complete the Early Sexual Experience Checklist (ESEC); the researchers provided a brief description of the study. Participants at the respective universities were informed that the accurate completion of the checklist was important to determine better counselling services for students. They were informed that all responses were confidential and anonymous. Students were instructed not to write their names or surnames on the questionnaires. The ESEC was included as part of the Student Counseling annual research project during the orientation project with a similar rationale. A ‘warm-up’ set of demographic questions was provided to the students before assessing incidence of UESE. Students completed the structured checklist under the supervision of senior counsellors and were encouraged to consult counsellors about the issues raised in the checklist as well as any other matters of concern (e.g. possible re-traumatisation). The senior counsellors were trained counsellors and psychologists at the two universities. Participation was voluntary and participants were advised that they could withdraw from the study Table 1: Characteristics of participants in the study
Number Mean age (years) Standard deviation
Belgian women 1 587 18.2 0.96
Belgian men 1 017 18.3 1.63
SA women 739 19.6 4.10
SA men 335 19.3 3.40
152
Revell and Nicholas
at any time. The ESEC administered to the SA students was in English, while a Dutch translation was completed by the Belgian students. The questionnaire was translated from English into Dutch and back into English to ensure that the same measures were being tested. The questionnaire was translated by native English and native Dutch speakers. These were the languages of instruction at the two universities. The participants received a standard introduction and instructions on how to complete the checklist. Students completed the self-administered checklist in 10 to 15 minutes (Revell et al. 2008). Instruments The ESEC (Miller et al. 1991) used in this study had nine multiple choice items that list explicit sexual behaviours and two additional items that allow participants either to describe a further sexual event or to select ‘none of the above’. The ESEC is a straightforward mechanical checklist method, which eschews evaluative or pejorative terminology and is relatively non-invasive. The checklist includes respondent’s age at the time of the most bothersome event; age and identity of the other person involved; frequency and duration of the most bothersome experience; and presence and type of any coercion. Items using a Likert-style format, with anchors 1 = not at all and 7 = extremely, also obtained ratings of the most bothersome event (e.g. ‘How much did it bother you then?’ and ‘How much does it bother you now?’). Exposure to UESE was defined as an affirmative answer to one or more of the questions about unwanted childhood sexual experiences occurring before the age of 16 years. Respondents were requested to respond to these questions on a yes/no basis and to select any sexual behaviour that was unwanted and occurred before the age of 16 years. Participants who indicated at least one ‘yes’ were considered to have experienced CSA. Sexual behaviour in this study refers to specific behaviours such as ‘flashing’, being touched on the genitals, touching someone’s genitals, and oral/vaginal/anal sexual intercourse (Miller et al. 1991). The ESEC methodology not only replicates the findings of other techniques for assessing abuse, but also extends these findings by allowing comparison of the sequelae of different types of abuse experiences (Miller and Johnson 1998). Miller and Johnson (1998) found a one-month test-retest reliability of 0.92 for the ESEC, using Cohen’s kappa (cited in Davis et al. 1998). Statistical analysis In this study the data were processed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0. The chi-square test was used to compare differences in distribution between groups. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event and when completing the checklist. Results UESE SA women respondents reported higher (31.3%) UESE than Belgian women respondents (14.2%). That of SA men (56.4%) was also higher than that of Belgian men (12.3%). However, peer and non-peer UESE varied across subgroups (Table 2). SA men had the highest (39.7%) for peer UESE and Belgian men had the lowest (1%) non-peer UESE. For Belgian women, statistically significant differences in UESE (peer exposed vs. non-peer exposed) were found across most incident categories; this was not the case for South African women or Belgian men (Table 3). There were significant differences in some incident categories reported by South African men. Person involved (perpetrator), frequency and duration Women Table 4 shows that a statistically significant difference was found between the Belgian peer exposed and Belgian non-peer exposed women for ‘person involved’, but no statistically significant difference was found for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6). Similarly, for
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
153
Table 2: The percentages type of UESE, non-peer abuse and peer abuse of students
Type UESE UESE Non-peer abuse (> 5 years) Peer abuse (< 5 years)
Belgian women N = 1 587 231 (14.2%) 79 (4.9%) 102 (6.4%)
Belgian men N = 1 017 125 (12.3%) 11 (1%) 74 (7.2%)
SA women N = 736 226 (31.3) 70 (9.5%) 109 (14.8%)
SA men N = 335 189 (54.4%) 13 (3.8%) 133 (39.7%)
Table 3: When you were under the age of 16 years, did any of these incidents ever happen to you when you did not want them to?
Incident
1. Another person showed his or her sex organs to you 2. Someone touched or fondled your sex organs 3. You touched or fondled another person’s sex organs at his/her request 4. You showed your sex organs to another at his/ her request 5. Another person had sexual intercourse with you 6. Another person performed oral sex on you 7. You performed oral sex on another person 8. Someone told you to engage in sexual activity so that he/she could watch 9. You engaged in anal sex with another person
Belgian Belgian SA SA Belgian Belgian SA SA women women women women men men men men peer non-peer peer non-peer peer non-peer peer non-peer UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE UESE (n = 102) (n = 79) (n = 109) (n = 70) (n = 74) (n = 11) (n = 133) (n = 13) n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 64 (62.7)* 61 (77.2)* 55 (50.4) 43 (61.4) 54 (72.9)
9 (81)
70 (68.6)* 30 (37.9)* 62 (56.8) 42 (60)
39 (52.7)
6 (54.5) 72 (54.1)
7 (53.8)
43 (42.1)* 16 (20.2)* 39 (35.7) 22 (31.4) 38 (51.3)
6 (54.5) 83 (62.4)
7 (53.8)
35 (34.3)* 14 (17.7)* 20 (18.3) 10 (14.2) 29 (39.1)
5 (45.4) 33 (24.8)*
8 (61.5)*
26 (25.4)* 10 (12.5)* 20 (18.3) 12 (17.1) 17 (22.9)
2 (18.1) 47 (35.3)
4 (31.7)
24 (23.5)*
5 (6.3)* 24 (22)
3 (27.2) 30 (22.5)*
6 (46.1)*
24 (23.5)*
7 (8.8)* 12 (11)
2 (18.1) 24 (18)
4 (30.7)
5 (4.9)
5 (4.9)
-
1 (1.26)
13 (18.5) 13 (17.5)
6 (8.5)
13 (17.5)
4 (3.6)
4 (5.7)
4 (5.4)
5 (4.5)
2 (2.8)
3
(4)
83 (62.4)* 11 (84.6)*
-
7 (5.2)
1 (7.6)
1 (9)
17 (12.7)
2 (15.3)
* = p < 0.05
SA women a statistically significant difference was found between the SA peer exposed and SA non-peer exposed women for ‘person involved’ (Table 4), but no statistically significant differences were found for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6). Men A statistically significant difference was found between the Belgian peer exposed and Belgian non-peer exposed men for ‘person involved’ (Table 4), but no statistically significant differences were found for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6). No statistically
154
Revell and Nicholas
Table 4: Person involved (perpetrator) in UESE
Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N =179) = 57.690, p < 0.001 Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N =176) = 49.920, p < 0.001 Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N = 85) = 9.316, p < 0.009 Relative Friend/acquaintance Stranger Total χ² (2, N = 140) = 3.339., p = 0.188
Belgium women peer UESE 15 (15) 77 (77) 8 (8) 100 (100)
Belgian women non-peer UESE 14 (17.7) 20 (25.3) 45 (57) 79 (100)
SA women peer UESE 9 (8.4) 91 (85) 87 (65) 107 (100)
SA women non-peer UESE 32 (46.4) 23 (33.3) 14 (20.3) 69 (100)
Belgian men peer UESE 6 (8.1) 62 (83.8) 6 (8.1) 74 (100)
Belgian men non-peer UESE 2 (18.2) 5 (45.5) 4 (36.4) 11 (100)
SA men peer UESE 6 (4.7) 110 (86.6) 11 (8.7) 127 (100)
SA men non-peer UESE 2 (15.4) 9 (69.2) 2 (15.4) 13 (100)
significant differences were found between the SA peer exposed and SA non-peer exposed men for ‘frequency’ and ‘duration’ of UESE (Tables 5 and 6) or for ‘the victim-perpetrator relationship’. Friends or acquaintances were also disproportionately represented as perpetrators of the peer exposed group among all the four groups (Table 4). Bothersomeness Overall a statistically significant difference was found between the peer exposed and non-peer exposed groups at the time the UESE occurred regarding bothersomeness of the UESE (Table 7). The non-peer exposed group was more bothered at the time the UESE occurred than the peer exposed group. Similarly, a statistically significant difference was found between the two groups at the time of completing the checklist. The non-peer exposed group was more bothered by the experience at the time of completing the checklist than the peer exposed group was. Variations in bothersomeness within the subgroups are given in Table 7. A statistically significant difference was found between SA women reporting peer UESE and those reporting non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event and the time of completing the checklist (Table 7). Table 7 illustrates that a statistically significant difference was found between Belgian men reporting peer UESE and those reporting non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of completing the checklist. A statistically significant difference was found between SA men exposed to peer UESE and those exposed to non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event (Table 7). Psychological pressure or physical force More non-peer exposed participants reported that psychological or physical force was used during the UESE (Table 8). Significant differences in psychological pressures or physical force between the two groups were found for items 1, 3, 5 and 6. Significant differences were found between the
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
155
Table 5: How many times did this behaviour occur?
Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 177) = 4.244, p = 0.236 Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 171) = 6.117, p = 0.106 Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 82) = 3.433, p = 0.330 Just once Twice 3–4 times 5 times and more Total χ² (3, N = 136) = 1.687, p = 0.640
Belgium women peer UESE 62 (62) 16 (16) 7 (7) 15 (15) 100 (100)
Belgian women non-peer UESE 55 (71.4) 6 (7.8) 8 (10.4) 8 (10.4) 77 (100)
SA women peer UESE 73 (69.5) 11 (10.5) 12 (11.4) 9 (8.6) 105 (100)
SA women non-peer UESE 38 (57.6) 10 (15.2) 5 (7.6) 13v(19.7) 66 (100)
Belgian men peer UESE 48 (67.6) 11 (15.5) 3 (4.2) 9 (12.7) 71 (100)
Belgian men non-peer UESE 6 (54.5) 2 (18.2) 2 (18.2) 1 (9.1) 11 (100)
SA men peer UESE 70 (56.7) 20 (16.3) 15 (12.2) 18 (14.6) 123 (100)
SA men non-peer UESE 5 (38.5) 3 (23.1) 2 (15.4) 3 (23.1) 13 (100)
non-peer and peer UESE groups for ‘tried to talk you into it’; ‘scared you because they were bigger or stronger’; ‘bribed you’; and ‘pushed, hit or physically restrained you’. The following variations in psychological pressure were found in the subpopulations. Women A statistically significant difference was found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed women for the item ‘you were afraid they wouldn’t like or love you’. Statistically significant differences were found between the SA peer exposed and non-peer exposed women for ‘tried to talk you into it’; ‘scared you because they were bigger or stronger’ and ‘bribed you’. SA women who were exposed to non-peer UESE reported more psychological pressures or physical force than the peer exposed group. Men Statistically significant differences were found between the SA peer exposed and non-peer exposed men for ‘tried to talk you into it’; ‘bribed you’; and ‘drugged or got you drunk’. SA men who experienced non-peer UESE reported more psychological pressures or physical force than the peer UESE group. No statistically significant differences in psychological pressures or physical force were found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed men.
156
Revell and Nicholas
Table 6: Over how long a period did this behaviour occur?
Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 174) = 0.621, p = 0.892
Belgium women peer UESE 62 (63.3) 10 (10.2) 14 (14.3) 12 (12.2) 98 (100)
Belgian women non-peer UESE 52 (68.4) 6 (7.6) 9 (11.8) 9 (11.8) 76 100)
SA women peer UESE 72 (69.9) 11 (10.7) 11 (10.7) 9 (8.2) 103 (100)
SA women non-peer UESE 42 (63.6) 6 (9.1) 7 (10.6) 11 (16.6) 66 (100)
Belgian men peer UESE 49 (69) 6 (8.5) 9 (12.7) 7 (9.9) 71 (100)
Belgian men non-peer UESE 7 (63.6) 2 (18.2) 2 (18.2)
Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 169) = .3.368, p = 0.498 Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 82) = 2.265, p = 0.519 Just once A month or less Several months One year or more Total χ² (3, N = 82) = 2.265, p = 0.519
SA men peer UESE 72 (59.7) 11 (22) 11 (22) 9 (6.5) 103 (100)
11 (100) SA men non-peer UESE 6 (46.2) 3 (23.1) 3 (23.1) 1 (9.1) 13 (100)
Table 7: Bothersomeness of the UESE at the time it occurred and at the time of completing the checklist
Different groups
Belgian women peer UESE Belgian women non-peer UESE SA women peer UESE SA women non-peer UESE Belgian men peer UESE Belgian men non-peer UESE SA men peer UESE SA men non-peer UESE * p < 0.05
Bothersomeness: At the time of the event Mean and standard deviation M = 3.50, SD = 1.92 M = 3.77, SD = 1.96 M = 3.54, SD = 2.29
F-value
F(1, 176) = 0.873, p = 0.351 F(1, 171) = 18.85, p = 0.001*
M = 5.07, SD = 2.21 M = 2.16, SD = 1.52
M = 4.25, SD = 2.63
M = 2.41, SD = 1.70 M = 2.49, SD = 1.93 M = 2.54, SD = 2.21
F-value
F(1, 174) = 0.083, p = 0.773 F(1, 171) = 10.67, p = 0.001*
M = 3.70, SD = 2.38 F(1, 82) = 2.911, p = 0.092
M = 3.00, SD = 1.41 M = 2.55, SD = 1.91
Bothersomeness: At the time of completing the checklist. Mean and standard deviation
M = 1.63, SD = 1.14
F(1, 82) = 4.044, p = 0.048*
M = 2.45, SD = 1.91 F(1, 135) = 8.054, p = 0.005*
M = 2.25, SD = 2.00 M = 3.50, SD = 3.08
F(1, 134) = 3.829, p = 0.052
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
157
Table 8: What kind of psychological pressures or physical force did the person use, if any?
Incident 1.They tried to talk you into it 2. You were afraid they wouldn’t like or love you 3. They scared you because they were bigger or stronger 4. They said they would hurt you 5. They bribed you 6. They pushed, hit or physically restrained you 7. They drugged or got you drunk 8. They threatened you with a weapon 9. They physically harmed you
Non-peer UESE (n = 173) n % 59 (34.1) 42 (24.2) 41 (23.6) 8 (4.6) 14 (8.1) 17 (9.8) 8 (4.6) 3 (1.7) 3 (1.7)
Peer UESE (n = 418) n % 79 (18.8) 14 (3.3) 19 (4.5) 12 (2.8) 12 (2.8) 27 (6.4) 15 (3.5) 5 (1.1) 5 (1.1)
p-value p < 0.005* p = 0.252 p < 0.001* p = 0.210 p < 0.01* p < 0.01* p = 0.352 p = 0.432 p = 0.434
* = p < 0.05
Discussion The concern with CSA has been considerable in recent years. Overall, this study found that of the respondents 21% indicated that they had an UESE before their 16th birthday. Of respondents indicating an UESE, 22.4% reported that they had an UESE with a person where the age difference was greater than 5 years compared to 54.2% who reported an UESE with an age difference less than 5 years. Belgian and SA women reporting peer exposure experienced more severe forms of UESE than the non-peer exposed group. Significant differences were found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed men and women and the South African peer exposed and non-peer exposed men regarding the type of UESE. However, no significant difference was found for South African women. This study highlighted the significantly higher prevalence of peer UESE involving a family member or a friend/acquaintance compared to the non-peer groups. Nicholas (2008) found that 67% of his SA student sample reported that the other person involved in the unwanted event was a friend or an acquaintance. Significant differences were found between the Belgian peer exposed and non-peer exposed men and women and SA peer exposed and non-peer exposed women regarding the person involved; no significant difference was found for SA men. Loeb et al. (2002) concluded that not all children are affected uniformly by CSA and that the relationship between the perpetrator and the child and the number of perpetrators are some of the factors that influence the child’s reaction to the CSA. A significant difference was found between SA women and SA men exposed to peer UESE and those exposed to non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event and at the time of completing the checklist. The non-peer UESE group was more bothered at the time of completing the checklist than the peer UESE group was. No significant difference was found between Belgian women and Belgian men exposed to peer UESE and those exposed to non-peer UESE with regard to bothersomeness at the time of the event. Heiman, Verhulst and Heard-Davison (2003) concluded that the meanings and consequences of the CSA change as the child matures and are influenced by additional sexual experiences and prevalent cultural values, with younger children perhaps only fully understanding the UESE after experiencing such maturation and therefore being troubled by the event later. Among SA men and women more psychological pressures or physical force were experienced by the non-peer UESE group than by the peer UESE group. None of the Belgian women or Belgian men were threatened with a weapon. However, SA women were more likely than SA men to be threatened with a weapon. None of the SA men experiencing non-peer UESE were threatened with a weapon. Loeb et al. (2002) concluded that factors affecting age-inappropriate from age-appropriate sexual play include disparity in physical size of the perpetrator, status difference
158
Revell and Nicholas
(e.g. an older child designated as a babysitter) and use of threats, force and dominance, for which we found some support in our study. This study found that more Belgian men and women reporting peer UESE experienced psychological pressures or physical force than the non-peer UESE group. However, among SA men and women more psychological pressures or physical force were experienced by the non-peer UESE group than by the peer UESE group. The data from this study were collected retrospectively and relied on self-report measures. These are subject to socially desirable responding, acquiescence, retrospective reconstruction and current levels of psychological adjustment. The convenience non-clinical samples of Belgian and SA first year university students are not generalisable to the populations of those countries. Choosing university students as a sample provided a large group of non-clinical populations and may be more representative of a general population than clinical populations (Higgins and McCabe 1994). University samples may also exclude most individuals who are from deviant subcultures or who have been severely troubled; this study therefore may have excluded individuals who have been most negatively affected by UESE (Finkelhor 1979). Despite the limitations, this was the first study to be undertaken among the students of a SA and a Belgian university regarding the peer and non-peer UESE and establishing whether peer UESE is as coercive and bothersome as non-peer UESE. There is little exploration of theoretical underpinnings regarding peer and non-peer UESE and why some victims are symptomatic and others asymptomatic. A developmental perspective is one approach that may encourage more theory-driven research (Kendall-Tackett et al. 1993) which could explore how different developmental stages might be affected differently by the abuse experience. More research is needed in this area, in particular to document the exclusive effects of CSA, statistically controlling for other types of child abuse and family background factors. This study failed to look at the consequences of UESE such as psychological and behavioural effects. The researchers recommended that future studies include an assessment of effects. Many students enter university unprepared for the sexuality-related problems they may experience in the context of increased liberalisation of sexual attitudes and risky sexual behaviours. Students who have experienced UESE are at a further disadvantage in negotiating the sexually charged atmosphere of a campus of mainly single students. This study therefore provided baseline information on peer and non-peer UESE of first year students to enable the assessment of the extent and nature of the problem on a campus. This study found that most UESE were peer exposed experiences without the power disparity one would find with a greater age difference. In addition, the study found a higher incidence of psychological coercion for SA students than for Belgians. Counsellors and therapists should therefore be aware of peer and non-peer UESE among students and they may use the findings of this study as a guide to assist the development of appropriate interventions. References Cawson P, Wattam C, Brooker S, Kelly G. 2000. Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. London: NSPCC. Cruise TK. 1998. An examination of the differences between peer- vs. adult- perpetrated child sexual abuse: The effect and mediators. PhD thesis, Illinois State University, USA. Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman R, Schreer G, Davis SL (eds). 1998. Handbook of sexuality-related measures. London: Sage Publications. Finkelhor D. 1979. Sexually victimized children. New York: The Tree Press. Finkelhor D. 1986. Abusers: Special topics. In: Finkelhor D, Araji S, Baron L, Brown A, Peters SD, Wyatt EG (eds), A sourcebook on child sexual abuse. Beverley Hills, California: Sage. pp 89–142. Graaf J, Rademakers H. 2006. Sexual development of prepubertal children. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 18: 1–20. Haugaard JJ, Tilly C. 1988. Characteristics predicting children’s responses to sexual encounters with other children. Child Abuse and Neglect 12: 209–218. Heiman JR, Verhulst J, Heard-Davison AR. 2003. Childhood sexuality and adult sexual relationships. How are they connected by data and theory? In: Bancroft J (ed), Sexual development in childhood. Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp 404–420.
Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2013, 25(2): 149–159
159
Higgins DJ, McCabe MP. 1994. The relationship of child sexual abuse and family violence to adult adjustment: Toward an integrated risk-sequelae model. Journal of Sex Research 31: 255–266. Kendall-Tackett KA, Williams LM, Finkelhor D. 1993. Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin 113: 164–180. Loeb TB, Williams JK, Carmona JV, Rivkin I, Wyatt GE, Chin D, Asuan-O’Brien A. 2002. Child sexual abuse: Associations with the sexual functioning of adolescents and adults. Annual Review of Sex Research 13: 307–345. Miller RS, Johnson JA. 1998. Early sexual experience checklist. In: Davis CM, Yarber WL, Bauserman R, Schreer G, Davis SL (eds), 1998. Handbook of Sexuality- Related Measures. London: Sage Publications. pp 23–24. Miller RS, Johnson JA, Johnson JK. 1991. Assessing the prevalence of unwanted childhood sexual experiences. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 4: 43–54. Nicholas LJ. 2008. Assessing unwanted early sexual experiences in a South African sample. Sex and Marital Therapy 34: 45–49. Revell AT, Vansteenwegen A, Nicholas LJ, Dumont K. 2008. Unwanted early sexual experiences and relationship adjustment among students in committed relationships. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 11. Available at www.ejhs.org/volume 11/Unwanted.htm. Online October 23, 11. Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. 1998. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin 124: 22–53. Shaw JA, Lewis JE, Loeb A, Rosado J, Rodrigues RA. 2000. Child on child abuse: psychological perspectives. Child Abuse and Neglect 24: 1591–1600. Sperry DM, Gilbert BO. 2005. Child peer sexual abuse: Preliminary data on outcomes and disclosure experiences. Child Abuse and Neglect 29: 889–904.
Copyright of Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
