Epstein Secrets

n be based on appeal/ attractiveness, ease of access, or perceived vulnerabilities of the child (Lanning 2010; McAlinden 2006; Mooney and Ost 2013; Olson, Ellevold, and Rogers 2007). Elliott, Browne, and Kilcoyne (1995) found that when selecting a victim, offenders often focused on physical character

0). This step is often regarded as the central role of the grooming process, wherein the offender establishes trust and cooperation with the victim (Salter 1995; van Dam 2001). The offender accomplishes this by befriending the child, by learning about his/her interests, being helpful, showering the chi

Berliner and Conte 1990; Craven, Brown, and Gilchrist 2007; Harms and Dam 1992; Lanning 2010; Leclerc, Proulx, and Beauregard 2009; McAlinden 2006; Olson et al. 2007; Sgroi 1982; Van Dam 2001), most focusing on male offenders, there were none that were validated until recently. Based on the similarit

al grooming in past literature (See Table 1), none of which have ultimately been widely accepted. Table 1. Definitions of Sexual Grooming. Source Salter (19951 Definitions of Sexual Grooming Howitt (1995) Leberg (1997) Gallagher (1999) McAlinden (20071 Brackenridge (20011 Gillespie (2002) Spie

tility for public prevention initiatives as they are theoretically complex and thus difficult to apply in real-world settings (e.g., Elliott, 2017; Olson et al., 2007). Winters and Jeglic (2017) model of grooming behavior proposes five overarching stages that may be involved in the complex process of

child they love them or the child is special (Lang & Frenzel, 1988), giving the child bribes or rewards (e.g., Lang & Frenzel, 1988; Lawson, 2003; Salter, 1995; Shakeshaft, 2004), or enforcing or withholding punishment (Lawson, 2003). While Winters and Jeglic (2017) SGM addresses the limitations of p