Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

question: “Does Tammy have a right to disobey the man?,” the child participant responds yes, and responds to:
“Do kids have the right to disobey sometimes? Like when?” with: “Yes; Sunday.” However, the fact that the child
chose “Sunday” takes some validation from her original affirmative response: does she fully understand the
question? No; she is, as her four-year-old child counterpart, providing a script, because she knows that a
social response is necessary, but does not require the cognitive ability to fully grasp the situation.
The next question, “You said it was OK for Tommy/Tammy to listen when the man told him/her to look at
the picture of the puppy. You said it was not OK for the man to touch Tommy/Tammy. What is the difference between
those two things?”, brings the child participant to the same page as fellow four-year-old child participant—the
dilemma over the “lost dog” suddenly grasps her attention: “Tammy has to go get the puppy!” The sexual
encounter loses its importance to the child because, when compared to the picture of the puppy in the
question, the puppy suddenly takes the child’s focus—with respect to the child’s cognitive development,
the aspect of the lost dog reaches the child’s mind deeper than does the inappropriate touch.
While both four-year-old children at times seem to be aware of the abuse or aware that the abuse is
wrong and should be resisted against, at many points the children “switch” their approaches to the interview
and, at times, seem to contradict themselves. This is not a random occurrence: it is, again, a haunting echo
of the results of the 1991 parent study by Dr. Burkhardt. As in the Burkhardt (1991) study, there is an
apparent gap between what the child knows and understands. A child may know it’s “bad” for anyone but a
doctor or parent to touch his or her bottom, but does not necessarily know why, except for the fact that
they were taught that this is so, or that such touching may feel uncomfortable. The child may know what
should be done in a hypothetical situation, but may not be able to understand the complexity of an actual
situation, or may be unable to explain and perform what s/he “knows.” Again, this cognitive gap is an
important factor in the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse.
The beginning of the case of the seven-year old female participant provides hope to the study for
the category of younger children. From the onset, the child immediately recognizes the problem and is not
217