This study examined socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic differences in the responses of 68 nonabused preschoolers during an anatomically detailed (AD) doll interview. In 9% of the observation intervals, children demonstrated behaviors that professionals have often associated with sexual abuse. Of these behaviors, children were more likely to explore dolls' sexual body parts, avoid the dolls, and display aggression with the dolls. They were least likely to display sexual aggression, sexualized behavior, and affection with the dolls. Low-SES, African American children were more likely to demonstrate sexualized behavior with the dolls. However, the independent contributions of race and SES were difficult to determine due to limited access to low-SES White children. These results underscore the need for caution in the interpretation of AD doll interviews with all preschoolers, but particularly those from a low-SES, African American background.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
. (1995). Use of anatomical dolls in child sexual abuse assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychological Association
. (1990, November). Statement on the use of anatomically detailed dolls in forensic evaluations (Supplemental Agenda Item No. 2). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
August, R. L.
, & Forman, B. D. (1989). A comparison of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children's behavioral responses to anatomically correct dolls. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 20, 39-47.
4.
Boat, B. W.
, & Everson, M. D. (1988). Use of anatomical dolls among professionals in sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 171-179.
5.
Boat, B. W.
, & Everson, M. D. (1994). Exploration of anatomical dolls by nonreferred preschool-aged children: Comparisons by age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 139-153.
6.
Cohn, D. S.
(1991). Anatomical doll play of preschoolers referred for sexual abuse and those not referred. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 455-466.
7.
Conners, C. K. (1985). The Conners rating scales: Instruments for the assessment of childhood psychopathology. Unpublished manuscript, Children's Hospital National Medical Center, Washington, DC.
8.
Dawson, B.
, Geddie, L., & Wagner, W. G. (1996). Low income preschoolers' behavior with sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 363-378.
9.
Dawson, B.
, Vaughan, A. R., & Wagner, W. G. (1992). Normal responses to sexually anatomically detailed dolls. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 135-151.
10.
Everson, M. D.
, & Boat, B. W. (1990). Sexualized doll play among young children: Implications for the use of anatomical dolls in sexual abuse evaluations. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 736-742.
11.
Everson, M. D.
, & Boat, B. W. (1994). Putting the anatomical doll controversy in perspective: An examination of the major uses and criticisms of the dolls in child sexual abuse evaluations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 113-129.
12.
Gardner, R. A.
(1994). Differentiating between true and false sex-abuse accusations in child-custody disputes. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 21, 1-20.
13.
Glaser, D.
, & Collins, C. (1989). The response of young, non-sexually abused children to anatomically correct dolls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 547-560.
14.
Hartmann, D. P.
(1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-116.
15.
Hollingshead, E. F. (1975). The four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT.
16.
Jampole, L.
, & Weber, M. K. (1987). An assessment of the behavior of sexually abused and nonsexually abused children with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 187-192.
17.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A.
(1992). Beyond anatomical dolls: Professionals' use of other play therapy techniques. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 139-142.
18.
Kenyon-Jump, R.
, Burnette, M., & Robertson, M. (1991). Comparison of behaviors of suspected sexually abused and nonsexually abused preschool children using anatomical dolls. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 13, 225-240.
19.
Realmuto, G. M.
, Jensen, J. B., & Wescoe, S. (1990). Specificity and sensitivity of sexually anatomically correct dolls in substantiating abuse: A pilot study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 743-746.
20.
Realmuto, G. M.
, & Wescoe, S. (1992). Agreement among professionals about a child's sexual abuse status: Interviews with sexually anatomically correct dolls as indicators of abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 719-725.
21.
Sattler, J.
(1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed., rev.). San Diego, CA: Author.
22.
Saywitz, K. J.
, & Moan-Hardie, S. (1994). Reducing the potential for distortion of childhood memories. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 408-425.
23.
Schachter, F. F.
, Sandberg, S., & Rutter, M. (1986). Agreement between teacher's ratings and observations of hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 14, 331-345.
24.
Sivan, A. B.
, Schor, D. P., Koeppl, G. K., & Noble, L. D. (1988). Interaction of normal children with anatomical dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 295-304.
25.
Wechsler, D.
(1989). Manual for the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
26.
White, S.
, Strom, G., Santilli, G., & Halpin, B. (1986). Interviewing young sexual abuse victims with anatomically correct dolls. Child Abuse and Neglect, 10, 519-529.
27.
Wilson, M.N.
(1989). Child development in the context of the Black extended family. American Psychologist, 39, 79-89.
28.
Yuille, J. C.
(1988). The systematic assessment of children's testimony. Canadian Psychology, 29(3), 247-262.
