Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 135–152 | Cite as

Normal responses to sexually anatomically detailed dolls

  • Brenda Dawson
  • Allison R. Vaughan
  • William G. Wagner
Article

Abstract

The behaviors and verbalizations of normal, preschool age boys and girls during interactions with sexually anatomically detailed (SAD) dolls were examined. A structured, nonsuggestive interview with each child was videotaped, and five behaviors and five verbalizations were coded for each of five phases of the interview. A two-way ANOVA (gender × phase) showed that during those phases when the dolls were undressed, both boys and girls showed more sexual exploratory play, aggressive behavior which was nonsexual, and active avoidance. Across all phases, nonsexual aggression accounted for 31% of the boys' and 22% of the girls' total responses. Behavioral and verbal sexual exploratory play represented 42% of the boys' responses and 50% of the girls' responses. In contrast, sexually aggressive behavior accounted for only 1% and 2% of the boys' and girls' responses, respectively. Girls interacted with the dolls more than did boys. Additionally, girls demonstrated more affection to the dolls than did the boys, and boys displayed more anxiety with the dolls than did girls. Investigators should be cautious as to inferences about preschoolers' interactions with SAD dolls, especially interactions of a sexual or aggressive nature which do not clearly depict fondling or intercourse.

Key words

child sexual abuse sexually anatomically detailed dolls child abuse normative data sexual abuse assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achenbach, T., and Edelbrock, C. (1983).Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, P. S., and Rosenbaum, A. (1989). Tarasoff and the researcher: Does the duty to protect apply in the research setting?Am. Psychol. 44: 885–894.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boat, B. W., and Everson, M. D. (1988). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations.Child Abuse Negl. 12: 171–179.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson, M. (1990, January 29). Six years of trial by torture.Newsweek, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar
  5. Everson, M. D., and Boat, B. W. (1990). Sexualized doll play among young children: Implications for the use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations.J. Am. Acad. Child Adol. Psychiatry, 29: 736–742.Google Scholar
  6. Faller, K. (1984). Is the child victim of sexual abuse telling the truth?Child Abuse Negl. 8: 473–481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jampole, L., and Weber, M. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls.Child Abuse Negl. 11: 187–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Realmuto, G. M., Jensen, J. B., and Wescoe, S. (1990). Specificity and sensitivity of sexually anatomically correct dolls in substantiating abuse: A pilot study.J. Am. Acad. Child Adol. Psychiatry 29: 7433–746.Google Scholar
  9. Sivan, A., Schor, D., Koeppl, G., and Noble, L. (1988). Interaction of normal children with anatomical correct dolls.Child Abuse Negl. 12: 295–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Tellegen, A., and Briggs, P. F. (1967). Old wine in new skins: Grouping Wechsler subtests into new scales.J. Consult. Psychol. 31: 499–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. United States Bureau of the Census. (1989).Statistical abstract of the United States: 1989 (second edition). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. Waterman, J., MacFarlane, K., Conerly, S., Damon, L., Durfee, M., and Long, S. (1986). Challenges for the fuuture. In K. MacFarlane, J. Waterman, S. Conerly, L. Damon, M. Durfee, and S. Long (eds.),Sexual Abuse of Young Children, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 315–332.Google Scholar
  13. White, S., Strom, G., Santilli, G., and Halpin, B. (1986). Interviewing young sexual abuse victims with anatomically correct dolls.Child Abuse Negl. 10: 519–529.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brenda Dawson
    • 1
  • Allison R. Vaughan
    • 1
  • William G. Wagner
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburg
  2. 2.Department of Counseling PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburg

Personalised recommendations