International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 3 2022 2
Subsequent studies, however, from around the 1980s
onwards, shifted attention away from this stereotype
to address the reality that most abused children are
violated by someone they know (Craven, Brown, &
Gilchrist, 2006 Finkelhor, 2008 Lanning, 2005. See
also Darkness to Light, 2018b, about perpetrators) and
oftentimes by someone whom they trust (Bottoms
et al., 1995 Lanning 2005 van Dam, 2001). Hence,
in addition to abuse that sometimes occurs at the
hands of strangers, children may be sexually abused
by family members—familial abuse by known
individuals outside of the family—extrafamilial abuse
and in other settings such as in schools, sports teams,
daycare facilities, and religions—institutional abuse
(Lanning, 2005 McAlinden, 2006 &2012 Pilgrim,
2018 Williams, 2015). Furthermore, Kenneth
Lanning emphasizes the importance of research on
abusers whom the child knows—persons he defines
as “acquaintance molesters” (Lanning, 2005, p. 529).
Critically, offenders may occupy more than one social
role simultaneously (Lanning, 2005), such that, for
example, the sexual offender may be both the child’s
sporting coach and fellow church member.
Increasingly, researchers also have identified the need to
examine the process of grooming children for abuse—a
practice that is part of the entire “offence chain” when
the sexual abuse of children occurs (Williams, 2015, p.
31). This vitally important feature of the abuse process
now receives more academic and legislative attention
than in the past, although additional research and legal
development and application is needed (McAlinden,
2012). Of course, not all sexual offenders groom their
victims prior to abusing them. For example, “chance/
opportunistic” offenders do not typically use grooming
strategies as their contact with, and subsequent assault
of, children, is unexpected and therefore unplanned
(Ward, Louden, Hudsen, &Marshall, 1995, cited in
Williams, 2015).
The goal of this article is to examine the grooming of
children for sexual abuse in religious settings—a context
that is scarcely addressed in the literature. We propose
that in addition to the many features that the broader
literature on grooming has identified already, grooming
in religious settings requires a discussion of the very
specific elements of this context—characteristics that
likely are not present in other grooming situations.
Therefore, to expand upon current understandings
of grooming techniques, we integrate extant findings
on grooming with some of the specific features of
religious environments. Although some other scholars
have written about sexual abuses in religion, they have
not identified the grooming process and the distinctive
features of it. Thus, our work adds to the literature on
grooming as well as to sociological (and other) research
on abuse within religious settings more broadly.
To this end, first, we provide a synopsis of the grooming
literature. Second, we present a discussion of the
religious context of grooming. This segment comprises
a general overview of the relative importance of religion
in many people’s lives in addition to an examination of
some of the distinctive features of religious settings and
how they may influence grooming. Third, we examine
some specific case studies in which this grooming
process is evident.
2. Grooming: Defining and Understanding the
Process
Defining ‘grooming’ has been a complex task for
researchers of child sexual abuse and exploitation.
Moreover, relatively little research on this process exists
(Craven, Brown, &Gilchrist, 2006 Williams, 2015
Winters, Kaylor, &Jeglic, 2017),6
1
despite the large body
of literature on child sexual abuse and child sexual
offenders. The term ‘grooming’ often appears in media
headlines and accounts of the sexual abuse of children,
and this popular usage of it has resulted in stereotypes
about what it is and where it takes place (McAlinden,
2012 Ost, 2009). Specifically, contemporary media
directs its focus mostly to online grooming, but the
process of grooming is a substantial component of
abuse that takes place in the offline environment too
(Fernandez, 2006, cited in McAlinden, 2012) indeed,
research indicates that “many more offenders make
contact with victims and gain acceptance via off-
line methods” (McAlinden, 2012, p. 12). Therefore,
this type of grooming requires academic and policy
attention.7
6 Some research examines the specific nature of online grooming
versus face-to-face grooming practices (for example, Winters et al., 2017).
This article does not examine online environments.
7 Aside from popular usage and misperceptions of grooming, Anne-
Marie McAlinden proposes that academics in a range of disciplines including
psychology, sociology, criminology, and legal studies often do not understand
the process very well. Moreover, at the legislative level, only a few countries
have introduced measures to deal with grooming, and again, the focus is on
the online environment (McAlinden, 2012).

ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0003 3
Despite the paucity of research on grooming, several
definitions and approaches to understanding it do exist
(see for example Craven et al., 2006 Lanning, 2005
McAlinden, 2012 Ost, 2004 Plummer, 2018 Salter,
2013 van Dam, 2001 Williams, 2015 Winters &
Jeglic, 2017) and the origins and history of the concept
have been documented (Lanning, 2018).8
1
Moreover,
a growing body of research contributes to the
development of the concept, and, clearly, a great deal
of consensus has emerged around several significant
features within the process, although some definitions
and approaches contribute specific additional nuances.
Craven et al. (2006) identify grooming as:
a process by which a person prepares a child,
significant adults and the environment for
the abuse of the child. Specific goals include
gaining access to the child, gaining the child’s
compliance and maintaining the child’s
secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process
serves to strengthen the offender’s abusive
pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying
or denying their actions
(Craven et al., 2006, p. 297).
The authors distinguish three types grooming: “self-
grooming, grooming the environment and significant
others and grooming the child” (Craven et al., 2006,
pp. 291, 297). First, self-grooming pertains to the way
in which the child sexual offender denies the behavior
as abusive or rationalizes and excuses it. Second, when
abusers groom the victims’ significant others and the
broader environment, they usually do so by occupying
a position of trust. Sometimes this form of grooming is
sufficiently effective that parents and other caregivers
place so much faith in the character of the offender that
if a child does reveal that he or she has been abused,
then the adults may not believe the revelation (Craven
et al., 2006). Grooming the family (via befriending
them) often is a common means to access children
(Plummer, 2018).
8 Lanning traces the use of the term ‘seduction’ in law enforcement
and criminal justice agencies and institutions through to its eventual
replacement (starting in the mid-1980s) by ‘grooming.’ Lanning proposes
that the two terms essentially refer to the same process and have been used
interchangeably over several years, although ‘grooming’ is now the dominant
term. Knowledge of the process (whether one names it seduction and/or
grooming) percolated from law enforcement to academia, media, and the
general public (Lanning, 2018, pp. 9-10).
Finally, the most frequently acknowledged form—
grooming the child—involves both psychological and
physical dimensions. Physical grooming refers to the
“gradual sexualization of the relationship” beginning
with non-sexual touching that progresses over time
to sexual contact whereby the child may not even
understand the abusive and improper nature of the
behavior (Berliner &Conte, 1990, in Craven et al.,
2006, p. 295). At the same time, the offender employs
psychological strategies to groom the child, gaining the
child’s trust (trust that they later breach9)--
1
making the
child feel good, increasing compliance, and ensuring
the child’s silence around the abuse.10
More recently, McAlinden (2012) proposes a
definition that incorporates the following criteria: “(1)
the use of a variety of manipulative and controlling
techniques (2) with a vulnerable subject (3) in a range
of interpersonal and social settings (4) in order to
establish trust or normalize sexually harmful behavior
(5) with the overall aim of facilitating exploitation and/
or prohibiting exposure” (McAlinden, 2012, p. 11).
Both Craven et al. and McAlinden offer comprehensive
definitions that are applicable in numerous settings,
including religious ones.
Existing research acknowledges the variety of locations
in which grooming might occur and explains also the
diversity of specific means the perpetrator may use
to secure the child’s trust and compliance. Common
practices include gift giving, attention, touching,
massage, hugging, praise etc. (Lanning, 2005 Salter,
2013), as well as specifically showing an interest in
the child, establishing a friendship—which in some
cases may lead to trips with the offender (Plummer,
2018). The offender may even establish a “pseudo-
parental role” (Powell, 2007, cited in McAlinden,
2012). Offenders may also groom the child with access
to prohibited activities—ones typically engaged in by
adults— for example, drug and alcohol consumption
and the viewing of pornography. Touching, however, is
9 For a discussion of the importance and dynamics of trust, see
McAlinden (2012).
10 Lanning (2018) proposes that most sexual offenders who are
known to the child do not usually use violence because effective grooming
strategies are less likely to lead to the child telling another person about what
is happening (Lanning, 2018). Offenders typically avoid using threats and
violence, resorting to them only if they fear exposure or if they believe the
victim is going to end contact with the offender (Lanning, 2018).