Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 18. No. 8, pp. 657-662.

1994
Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
01452134/94 $6.00 + .OO

01452134(94)EOO28-R

ATTORNEY ATTITUDES REGARDING BEHAVIORS

ASSOCIATED WITH CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

GEORGIA L. HARTMAN

Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

HENRY KARLSON

Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, IN, USA

ROBERTA A. HIBBARD

Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

Abstract-There appears to be a good deal of disagreement between professionals as to what constitutes child abuse.
Attorneys as a group have been found to judge behaviors associated with child abuse more leniently than other abuse
professionals. However, no one has discriminated between defense and prosecuting attorneys in these areas. It was
hypothesized that because of divergent roles in child sexual abuse cases attitudes toward adult-child behaviors associ-
ated with sexual abuse would differ among attorney groups. Two prosecuting and two defense attorneys from every
county in the state of Indiana were sent questionnaires. Participants were asked to indicate if a behavior was acceptable,
inappropriate, or sexual abuse if it occurred on one or on multiple occasions. Prosecutors had more severe judgements
than the defense attorneys on 32 of the 42 behaviors. They were more likely to indicate that a behavior was inappropriate
or abuse. Cognitive dissonance theory is proposed as a possible explanation for these findings.

Key Words-Sexual abuse, Attorney attitudes, Child abuse.

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH HAS INDICATED that professionals in the area of child abuse share no consistent
definition of abuse (Atterbury-Bennett, 1987; Dolder, 1976; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979;
Hazzard & Rupp, 1986; Zollinger, Shoemaker, & Hibbard, submitted for publication). Several
authors have indicated that attorneys were found to judge behaviors some professionals found
abusive more leniently (Atterbury-Bennett, 1987; Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979). However, no
studies discriminating between defense and prosecuting attorneys’ attitudes in this area are
available. Given their divergent focal points in a child sexual abuse case it could be hypothe-
sized that their attitudes regarding the appropriateness of behaviors describing adult-child
situations associated with child sexual abuse might differ. We hypothesize that defense attor-
neys’ attitudes towards abusive behaviors are less negative than prosecuting attorneys’ so they
can rationalize their defense of the alleged perpetrator. Similarly, prosecutors would have a
more severe judgement of the same behaviors to justify their prosecution of the defendant.

Submitted for publication September 16, 1991; final revision received September 16, 1991; accepted March 14, 1992.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Georgia L. Hartman, Department of Pediatrics, I.U.M.C., Riley, Clinic C,
Room 1237, 702 Bamhill Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46223.
657
6% G. L. Hmtman, H. Karlson, and R. A. Hibbard

This study was undertaken to determine if the two groups of attorneys differ in their attitudes
regarding adult-child behaviors that might be related to sexual abuse.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

Attorneys from prosecutors’ offices were identified through the Indiana Prosecuting Attor-
neys Council, Defense attorneys were identi~ed through the Public Defenders Office. Two
deputy prosecuting and!or prosecuting attorneys and two defense attorneys were randomly
selected using a random numbers table from every county in Indiana. In those counties with
only one prosecuting attorney or only one Public Defenders office attamey, those individuals
were included. All subjects were sent a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics,
interview components, and attitudes about sexual behaviors to complete and return.
The Attitudes About Sexual Behavior questionnaire was revised from a questio~na~~ used
in a previous study (Zollinger, Shoemaker, & Hibbard, submitted for publication). The question-
naire assessed professionals attitudes about different behaviors that could be considered sexual
involving an adult and a child (e.g., “6-year-old child sleeping in bed with an adult, opposite
sex”). Attorneys were asked to indicate if they felt the behaviors were acceptable, inappropri-
ate, or sexual abuse when they occurred on a single occasion and when they occurred on
multiple occasions. There were 21 behaviors listed in approximate order of severity, ranging
from “Adult bathing with 6-year-old child, same sex.” to “Digital or penile penetration of a
15 to 16-year-old by another 16- to 17-year-old.”

The demographic characteristics and responses to the questionnaire were compared by group
using chi-square analysis or analysis of variance where appropriate, A significant difference
was chosen at p zz .Ol because of multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 329 attorneys were sent questionnaires (178 defense attorneys and 151 deputy
and/or prosecuting attorneys). Forty-seven percent (154) of the attorneys responded, 30% (541
178) of the defense attorneys and 66% (100/157) of the prosecuting attorneys. Overall, 35%
(54) of the respondents were defense attorneys. Responding attorneys were in practice a mean
of 9-f I years (sd = .S,65), had a mean age of 39.27 years (sd = 8.53), 99% were white, 80%
were married, 74% had children, and they saw a mean of 19.06 (sd = 24.33) cases per year
involving child sexual abuse. Table 1 contains the comparison of the demographic variables
by group. Defense attorneys had been in practice longer, with more experience in sexual abuse,
but reported less training and lower sexual abuse case loads than prosecutors.
Tables 2 and 3 contain the percentage and number of attorneys, by group, who indicated a
behavior was acceptable, inapprop~a~e~ or abuse on a single occurrence (Table 2) and on
multiple occasions (Table 3). Chi-square statistics for the 3 x 2 table (acceptable, inappropriate,
abuse, by attorney group) are included.
Of the first 10 behaviors, ranging from “Adult bathing with a 6-year-old child, same sex”
to “Adult patting or pinching the bottom of a 6-year-old child, opposite sex,” none were
considered abuse by at least 80% of the attorneys when the behaviors occurred on a single
occasion. The pattern holds for the behaviors occurring on multiple occasions with the excep-
tion of “Adult photographing a 6-year-old child in the nude,” which was considered abuse
 Sexual abuse and attorney attitudes 659

Table 1. Remegraphic Variables fur fopufation by Group

Prosecuting Defense
(n = 99) (n = 54) x2 or F P

Years in Practice-Mean 7.54 12.00 F = 24.81 BOO”

Age-Mean 38.26 41.13 F = 4.02 .047
Gender-Male 71% (70) 81% (44) 1.61 .205
Race-White 99% (Q8) 100% (53) .OO# I.0
Married 79% (78) 81% (44) .167 .920
Children 73% (72) 76% (41) ,019 ,890
Years Experience-Mean 7.59 10.76 F = 9.79 .002”
Cases/Year-Mean 25.12 6.29 F = 23.86 .OOO”
Training Hours-Mean 62.57 51.14 F = ,148 .701
Previous Training
Come Work 31% (30) 8% (4) 8.80 .m3*
On-The-Job Training 87% (84) 67% (35) 5.76 .016
Workshop or Conference 78% (76) 57% (29) 6.48 .011X
None 6% (6) 16% (8) 2.50 ,114

by 29% of the prosecuting and 38% of the defense attorneys. Defense attorneys were more
likely to indicate that the behaviors, whether occurring singly or multiply, were acceptable.
Ten of the remaining 11 behaviors (exception: “Passionate kissing between two 15 to ICI-
year-olds”), were deemed unacceptable or sexual abuse by at least 80% of the prosecuting
attorneys and 60% of the defense attorneys when they occurred on single or multiple occasions.

DISCUSSION

The overall pattern of attitudes is similar to that reported from a previous study of profession-
als’ (nurses, social workers, medical doctors) attitudes towards adult-child behaviors associated
with child sexual abuse (Zollinger, Shoemaker, & Hibbard, submitted for pubiica~on~. Behav-
iors that were not “obviously” sexual in nature were not considered abuse by a majority of
the respondents even if the behavior occurred on multiple occasions. Those behaviors that
were more indicative of sexual contact (passionate kissing, fondling, penetration) between an
adult and a child or adolescent were considered abusive. The same behaviors between adoles-
cents 15-16 years old were less likely to be considered abuse even when they occurred on
multiple occasions.
There is a trend, evident when one compares Tables 2 and 3, for behaviors to be judged
more negatively if they occurred on multiple occasions. It is important to recognize that
attorneys’ attitudes are most likely influenced by their interpretation of the law. Acts are moral
or immoral dependent upon their “legality.” Most sexual abuse statutes require that the
“intent” of the act be that of sexual gratification of the perpetrator. If an act occurs on multiple
occasions it is more likeiy that there is “evil intent” involved. Therefore it is not surprising
that behaviors were more likely to be indicated abusive or inappropriate when they occurred
on multiple occasions,
Comparing groups, the prosecuting attarneys were more likely than defense attorneys to
indicate that a behavior in question was inappropriate or abuse. Cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger, 1957) may explain the differences between groups. The theory proposes that two
cognitions are dissonant if one follows from the opposite of the other. For example, one might
believe that killing a person is a sin yet be a proponent of death penalty legislation. These
seem to be contradictory beliefs. A person who has dissonant cognitions is said to be in a
state of dissonance, an unpleasant psychological tension, The person then attempts to reduce
 Table 2. Behaviors Occurring Once, Considered “Acceptable,” “Inappropriate” or “Sexual Abuse” by Group
Prosecuting Defense

ACC INAPP Abuse ACC INAPP Abuse X’lP

I. Adult bathing with 6-year-old child, same sex 64% (60) 35% (33) 0% (0) 86% (43) 14% (7) 0% (0) 6.42/.011*
2. Adult bathing with 6.year-old child, opposite sex 25% (23) 75% (70) 0% (0) 50% (25) 48% (24) 2% (1) 11.72/.003*
3 Adult photographing a l-year-old child in the nude 90% (82) 9% (8) 1% (1) 80% (41) 16% (8) 4% (2) 2.971.227
4: Adult photographing a 6.year-old child in the nude 10% (9) 78% (72) 12% (I 1) 38% (19) 44% (22) 18% (9) 19.66/.0001*
5. Six-year-old child sleeping in same bed with adult,
same sex 88% (82) 12% (11) 0% (0) 94% (48) 6% (3) 0% (0) .736/.391
6. Six-year-old child sleeping in same bed with adult,
opposite sex 77% (71) 23% (21) 0% (0) 80% (41) 20% (10) 0% (0) .055/.814
7. Adult appearing nude before 6-year-old child,
same sex 73% (68) 26% (24) 1% (I) 82% (42) 18% (9) 0% (0) 1.87/.392
8. Adult appearing nude before 6-year-old child,
opposite sex 31% (29) 68% (63) 1% (I) 59% (30) 37% (19) 4% (2) 12.79/.002*
9. Adult patting or pinching the bottom of 6-year-old
child, same sex 76% (70) 24% (22) 0% (0) 76% (39) 23% (12) 0% (0) .000/l .o
10. Adult patting or pinching the bottom of 6-year-old
child, opposite sex 68% (63) 29% (27) 2% (2) 76% (39) 23% (12) 0% (0) I .8 l/.405
$ II. Adult fondling the genitalia of 6-year-old child,
same sex 1% (1) 3% (3) 96% (93) 4% (2) 13% (7) 83% (43) 7.401.025
12. Adult fondling the genitalia of 6-year-old child,
opposite sex 0% (0) 2% (2) 98% (95) 4% (2) 11% (6) 85% (44) 10.04/.007*
13. Six-year-old child fondling or touching the
genitalia of adult, same sex 1% (1) 13% (12) 86% (82) 6% (3) 19% (10) 75% (39) 4.251.119
14. Six-year-old child fondling or touching the
genitalia of adult, of the opposite sex 1% (1) 13% (12) 86% (82) 6% (3) 15% (8) 79% (41) 3.161.206
15. Six-year-old boy fondling the breast of adult
female 10% (9) 34% (32) 56% (53) i2% (6) 43% (22) 45% (23) 1.691.429
16. Six-year-old girl fondling the breast of adult
female 13% (12) 36% (34) 51% (48) 23% (12) 39% (20) 37% (19) 3.761.152
17. Passionate kissing between a child less than 15
years old and an adult 2% (2) 52% (49) 46% (43) 6% (3) 52% (27) 42% (22) 1.38/.500
18. Passionate kissing between a 15- 16.year-old and
an adult 7% (7) 66% (61) 27% (25) 16% (8) 58% (29) 26% (13) 2.531.282
19. Passionate kissing between two 15- 16-year-olds 72% (68) 27% (26) 1% (1) 83% (43) 13% (7) 4% (2) 4.731.094
20. Digital or penile penetration of a 15 16.year-old
by adult 1% (1) 12% (11) 87% (83) 4% (2) 27% (14) 69% (35) 7.651.022
21. Digital or penile penetration of a 15 - 16.year-old
by another 16- 17-year-old 13% (12) 59% (55) 28% (26) 37% (19) 53% (27) 10% (5) 14.34/.001*

* p s .Ol.
 Table 3. Behaviors Occurring Multiple Times, Considered “Acceptable,” “Inappropriate” or “Sexual Abuse” by Group
Prosecuting Defense

ACC INAPP Abuse ACC INAPP Abuse x ‘JP

I. Adult bathing with 6-year-old child, same sex 48% (44) 48% (44) 3% (3) 70% (35) 28% (14) 2% (I) 6.141.046
2. Adult bathing with 6-year-old child, opposite sex 14% (13) 77% (70) 9% (8) 33% (16) 59% (29) 8% (4) 6.621.036
3. Adult photographing a l-year-old child in the nude 66% (59) 31% (28) 3% (3) 58% (29) 34% (17) 8% (4) I .77/.4 12
4. Adult photographing a 6-year-old child in the nude 3% (3) 68% (62) 29% (26) 18% (9) 45% (22) 37% (18) 11.98/.002*
5. Six-year-old child sleeping in same bed with adult,
same sex 66% (59) 34% (31) 0% (0) 68% (34) 32%‘(16) 0% (0) .011/.915
6. Six-year-old child sleeping in same bed with adult,
opposite sex 39% (35) 60% (53) 1% (1) 48% (24) 50% (25) 2% (1) 1.261.533
7. Adult appearing nude before 6-year-old child,
same sex 57% (51) 41% (37) 2% (2) 63% (31) 33% (16) 4% (2) 1.211.546
8. Adult appearing nude before 6-year-old child,
opposite sex 12% (1 I) 78% (72) 10% (9) 28% (14) 60% (30) 12% (6) 6.391.041
9. Adult patting or pinching the bottom of 6-year-old
child, same sex 57% (51) 37% (33) 6% (5) 62% (30) 33% (16) 4% (2) .393/.82 I
IO. Adult patting or pinching the bottom of 6-year-old
child, opposite sex 43% (38) 51% (45) 7% (6) 49% (24) 43% (21) 8% (4) .758/.684
g 11. Adult fondling the genitalia of 6-year-old child,
same sex 1% (1) 0% (0) 99% (94) 0% (0) 8% (4) 92% (47) 8.15/.017
12. Adult fondling the genitalia of 6-year-old child,
opposite sex 0% (0) 0% (0) 100% (95) 0% (0) 8% (4) 92% (47) 5.001.025
13. Six-year-old child fondling or touching the
genitalia of adult, same sex 0% (0) 2% (2) 98% (91) 0% (0) 12% (6) 88% (45) 4. I II.042
14. Six-year-old child fondling or touching the
genitalia of adult, of the opposite sex 0% (0) 2% (2) 98% (91) 0% (0) 12% (6) 88% (45) 4.1 l/.042
15. Six-year-old boy fondling the breast of adult
female 0% (0) 29% (26) 71% (65) 0% (0) 42% (21) 58% (29) 2.051.152
16. Six-year-old girl fondling the breast of adult
female 1% (1) 33% (30) 66% (60) 2% (1) 50% (25) 48% (24) 4.33/.115
17. Passionate kissing between a child less than 15
years old and an adult 2% (2) 35% (32) 63% (58) 4% (2) 43% (22) 53% (27) 1.531.466
18. Passionate kissing between a 15- 16-year-old and
an adult 5% (5) 54% (50) 40% (37) 8% (4) 63% (3 I) 29% (14) 2.011.365
19. Passionate kissing between two 15 - 16.year-olds 67% (63) 32% (30) 1% (1) 78% (40) 18% (9) 4% (2) 4.41/.110
20. Digital or penile penetration of a 15 - 16.year-old
by adult 1% (I) 10% (9) 89% (83) 0% (0) 24% (12) 76% (38) 5.751.056
21. Digital or penile penetration of a 15- 16.year-old
by another l6- I r/-year-old 12% (I 1) 56% (52) 31% (29) 34% (17) 54% (27) 12% (6) 13.03/.00 I *

*pc .Ol.
662 G. L. Hartman, H. Karlson, and R. A. Hibbard

the unpleasant tension by changing, adding, or altering cognitions. Applied to the present
situation, a defense attorney’s job is to defend an individual accused of child moIestation to
the best of his ability; he knows that it is possible or even probable that his client is guilty.
His understanding of the law and the acts involved tell him his client should pay for the
transgression, yet his job is to defend him, putting him in a state of dissonance. If the offenses
in question were heinous, how could an attorney justify his defense of the guilty party? In
order to relieve the unpleasant psychological state the attorney might alter his cognitions,
making the acts that he must defend less serious. A similar explanation could be put forward
for the attorneys in the prosecutors offices, where the job is to prosecute the defendant to the
best of their ability. If found guilty the defendant’s life would surely be profoundly changed,
he may have to serve a prison sentence, parole, or have other freedoms taken away. Thus, the
prosecuting attorneys’ cognitions regarding the acts in question are that they are more severe
transgressions of societal norms, cognitively justifying the actions.
In conclusion the present data indicate that defense and prosecuting attorneys do have
different attitudes regarding acts associated with child sexual abuse. This finding draws atten-
tion to the need to distinguish between the two types of attorneys in child abuse research
rather then combining the two under the heading of “attorney.” Further study of all individual’s
attitudes is needed to further examine societal norms and routine family practices. These
norms and practices could influence our definitions and laws regarding child sexual abuse and
acceptable child-rearing practices.

REFERENCES

AtterburyBennett, J. (1987). Child sexual abuse: Definitions and interventions of parents and professionals. Disserra-
tion Abstracts lnfernafio~a~. 49, 2369.
Dolder, S. J. L. (1976). Differential attitudes toward punishment and child abuse. ~~~~erfufjo~ Ab~tracf~ Infer~utjo~~,
34, 3598-B.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giovannoni, J. M., & Becerra, R. M. (1979). Defining child abuse. New York: Free Press.
Hazzard, A., & Rupp, G. (1986). A note on the knowledge and attitudes of professional groups toward child abuse.
Journal ofCommunily Psychology, 14. 219-223.
Zollinger, T. W., Shoemaker, J. A., & Hibbard, R. A. Professionals’ attitudes regarding behaviors thaf suggest abuse
and neglecr. Manuscript submitted for publication.

RCsum&Les intervenants ne s’accordent pas entierment sur ce qui constitue les mauvis traitements envers les enfants.
Le avocats, entre autres, sont plus port&s a tolerer les comportements qu’on associe normalement a la maltraitance.
A I’interieur de ce groupe, nul ne sait comment les procureurs et les avocats pour la defense different a cet tgard.
Les roles bien differencts qu’ils jouent dans les causes d’abus sexuels proteraient a croire qu’ils partagent des attitudes
differentes. Pour verifier cette hypothese, on a envoy& un questionnai~ a duex procureurs et a deux avocats pour la
defense dam chacun des comtes de l’etat de l’indiana, aux E.-U. On leur a presenti: des situations pour lesquelles its
devaient juger si le comportement, lequel se produisait une ou plusieurs fois, etait acceptable, inapproprie, ou de
l’ordre de l’abus sexuel. Les procureurs jugeaient les comprotements plus stverement que les avocats pour la defense
dans 32 sur 42 cas. 11s etaient plus aptes a considerer le comportememt comme inapproprit ou abusif. La theorie de
la dissonance cognitive pourrait, selon le sauteurs, expliquer des constats.

Resumen-Parece existir bastante descuerdo entre 10s profesionales en lo que constituye abuso contra 10s niiios. Los
abogados coma grupo han sido acusados de juzgar el abuso contra 10s nitios con menos severidad que 10s otros
profesionales. Sin embargo, nadie ha discriminado entre 10s abogados defensores y 10s fisicales en estas areas. Se ha
propuesto la hipijtesis de que por 10s roles divergentes en 10s cases de abuso sexual en 10s nhis las attitudes hacia
las conductas adulto-niho asociadas con el abuso sexual diferirian entre gurpos de abogados. Se 10s envici cuestionarios
a dos abogados de la defensa y a dos fiscales en cada condado en el estado de Indiana. Se les pedia que indicaran si
una conducta era aceptable, inadecuada, o abuso sexual si ocurria en una o en multiples ocasiones. Los fisicales teman
juicios m&s severos que 10s abogados de la defensa en 32 de las 42 conductas. Tenian m&s posibilidad de indicar que
una conducta era inadecuada o abuso. Se propone la teoha de la disonancia cognitiva coma una posible explication
de estos resultados.