Mental health articles

sexual abuse from authority figures The last category of extrafamilial abuse in Russell’s (1983) survey was abuse by
authority figures. Overall, 6% of respondents in her study were abused by an
authority figure. There is much confusion about what this category means, as exhibited by the conflicting findings in Table 6-2. For the reanalysis of Russell’s data,
however, it was taken to mean abuse in which the perpetrator had either a specific caretaking, supervisory, or caregiving role with the victim. This category included medical personnel, teachers, clergy, employers, and babysitters. This type of abuse
had very different dynamics than many of the other categories of abuse. It was the
most likely category to have multiple attacks, but the least likely to have the abuse reported to the police (0%). It was also the least likely to involve penetration or
force, and it also had the oldest offenders.
Teachers and tutors: A few teachers abused their students. Although one student was six years of age, the remaining victims were between the ages of 11 and 17. While
schoolteachers represented the largest group of perpetrators, other children were abused during private lessons, and one child was abused during summer camp. Much
of this abuse occurred multiple times. Teachers gained access to their victims by
asking them to stay after school, asking for help cleaning the office, threatening to
lower the victim’s grades, during daily tickling sessions (for the youngest victim), and when the victim was sent to the office. These situations are all graphic examples
of the betrayal of those who should be protecting their charges.
Employers: Of the employers, a fourth were also physicians. Other victims
working as babysitters were sleeping over when the father came into the victim’s room. Other situations were more diverse.
Medical personnel: Victims abused by medical personnel were typically in
their late teens and, as expected, perpetrators were considerably older. Perpetrators
included physicians, dentists, and a male nurse. Of the doctors, one gave the victim a
pelvic examination inappropriately, one rubbed up against her with an erection when the victim was naked, one used a vibrator inappropriately on the victim, and two
fondled the victims during the examination. Two dentists fondled victims during
appointments, and one male nurse molested an older adolescent while tending to her
when she was gravely ill in a hospital. In no cases did penetration occur or was it
attempted.
Babysitters: A few abusers were babysitters, halfof whom were female. (Overall, nine of the 462 perpetrators of extrafamilial abuse were female.) The male perpetrators
(both adolescent and adult) inflicted severe abuse.
Clergy: In situations in which the victims were abused by officials of the
church, they were at greatest risk when they were being transported by the perpetrator,
most often to or from church-related activities.

While the reanalysis of Russell’s (1983) data provides the only representative sample
of abuse by authority figures, some studies on reported abuse by nonrelated caretakers
and abuse in day care centers have been done. One of the limitations of retrospective
studies such as Russell’s is that it is impossible to gather large samples of the rarer
types of abuse. Studies of reported abuse, on the other hand, are sometimes able to
compile large samples of even a single type of abuse. It must be remembered,
however, that reported abuse is in no way representative of all abuse. Regretfully, it
is impossible to determine the nature of the bias. With these qualifications, it still remains important to review this literature.

Tags: sexual abuse