Affiliative and hostile grooming in child sexual abuse cases: Juror blame attribution and the role of expert testimony

Abstract

This study examined whether mock jurors’ evaluations of child sexual abuse (CSA) differ as a function of grooming type (affiliative vs. hostile) and the presence of expert testimony. Drawing on attribution theory, rape-myth frameworks, and the Sexual Grooming Model, it was hypothesised that affiliative grooming would be associated with greater victim blame, reduced perpetrator responsibility, and more lenient sentencing relative to hostile grooming, and that expert testimony would reduce these biases by clarifying the manipulative and strategic nature of grooming behaviours. A 2 × 2 × 2 mixed-subjects experimental design was used, in which participants (N = 271) recruited via CloudResearch Connect read a CSA vignette depicting either affiliative or hostile grooming, with or without expert testimony. Participants then completed measures of victim and perpetrator blame and provided sentencing recommendations. Contrary to predictions, grooming type and expert testimony did not significantly influence victim blame, perpetrator blame, or sentencing recommendations. Across conditions, participants attributed high responsibility to the perpetrator and minimal responsibility to the victim. Equivalence testing indicated that observed differences in sentencing were not statistically equivalent within a pre-specified one-year bound, although effects were small and generally consistent in direction with hypotheses. These findings suggest that when CSA is clearly established and offender responsibility is uncontested, juror judgments may be driven primarily by moral certainty rather than variations in grooming presentation. The absence of expert testimony effects further suggests that such interventions may be most relevant in contexts characterised by ambiguity, misinformation, or evidentiary uncertainty, rather than cases where responsibility is already clearly assigned. Overall, this study introduces an affiliative–hostile grooming framework within juror decision-making research and suggests that grooming distinctions may have limited influence under conditions of confirmed abuse. Future research should examine these effects in contexts involving greater evidentiary ambiguity and more ecologically valid trial processes.