Volu m e II - Purdue University Calumet

in the 1991 study, a cognitive gap lies between what the child may say or “know,” versus what he or she
actually understands (Burkhardt 1991).
With respect to the interview questions regarding adult authority, the child participant’s responses
are very telling. To “Was it OK for the man to tell Tommy/Tammy to look at the picture of the dog”? , the child
participant simply responds “yes.” This response implies that the child does not make a connection between
looking at the picture of the dog and the posed threat he had seemed to “recognize” earlier: he fails to
recognize the invitation to view the picture as a ploy. Likewise, the child participant believes that a man
“walking down the street has the right to tell kids what to do” because “he doesn’t want to play.” Perhaps
the assumption that adults do not “want to play” is, in this child’s mind, a qualification for a person to be a
“grown-up:” an adult. Therefore, the underlying meaning behind the participant’s affirmative response,
“Yes, because he doesn’t want to play,” is “Yes, because he is an adult”—directly in line with the typical
authority figure view of a young child. Because a man walking down a street is an adult, he has the right, or
“authority,” to tell children what to do in the mind’s eye of a young child. In the same manner, when asked
“Was it okay for the man to [touch Tommy’s bottom]”, the child participant said “Yes.” Sadly, so many adult
perpetrators use their status as an authority figure to their advantage while pursuing child victims.
Upon being asked the next question, “What does Tommy think about [the man touching his bottom?]”, the
child participant is yet again quite imaginative in his response: he believes that Tommy “thinks” that, in
response to the inappropriate touching, Tommy should—or has—“just bited him [the stranger] off”…and
in the process of having “bited” the stranger, Tommy bumped his head! This is most definitely a script
provided due to the obligation the child feels to providing some sort of social response. The child is creating
a story rather than assessing a possible reality because he is not cognitively capable of such assessment.
The child’s response to his last prompted interview question conveyed many ideas. In response to
“What did Tommy do when the man touched him?,” the child participant said: “Because he just…dog…honked
horn…because he just ride in on the man’s car.” Again, it seems as though the child knows that social action
214