Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

With respect to resistance and reporting measures, the child did fairly well. He recognized that
Tommy would think that the touching of his bottom is “not okay”—it was, again, “not okay” for the man to
do that—and, when the touching took place, Tommy “r[a]n away” (receiving a fairly solid rating of 6). The
child recognized that Tommy has the right to disobey the man “because [the man] is being mean.” However,
like the seven-year-old participant, when asked to generalize the previous idea of noncompliance to the
universal, the ten-year-old child insists that children do not have the right to disobey. He seems somewhat
able, however, to distinguish the difference between the appropriateness of looking at the picture versus
being touched on the bottom by the man: “Touching: it’s not his parent, and looking at the picture to go
find the dog.” On the other hand, he still does not recognize the instance to view the picture as a ploy or
distraction: the ten-year-old boy genuinely believes that the purpose of the looking at the picture is “to go
find the dog.” He does not make the connection.
This case goes against the researcher’s hypothesis. This ten-year-old male is an older child—yet he
still seems, at times, to be cognitively limited. While he does not seem to have the need to create a script in
order to satisfy an expected social response, he seems unable to evaluate the situation and make the
connection between the “lost puppy” and the direction towards using the situation as a ploy for sexual
abuse.
Lastly, the oldest child participant, a male of eleven years, in complete alignment with the
researcher’s hypothesis, produced the most developed (both in structure, meaning, and cognitive ability)
responses. He immediately recognizes the problem lies within the situation of the stranger’s involvement:
“Tommy is talking to a stranger.” His proposal for what action Tammy should take, “run away from the
problem and to go to mom or dad. Because he might try to kidnap him or do something else to him,” is
clearly the most descriptive and developed response of the five child participants, receiving a rating of 7.5 in
effectiveness. He has an extensive understanding of why Tommy should take such action, as he later
demonstrates in response to the question “What does Tommy think about [the man touching his bottom]?”: “He
220