CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 162Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesChild Abuse and Trauma

A linguistic analysis of grooming strategies of online child sex offenders: Implications for our understanding of predatory sexual behavior in an increasingly computer-mediated world

Black, Pamela J., Wollis, Melissa, Woodworth, Michael, Hancock, Jeffrey T.·2015·Child Abuse & Neglect
DOI 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.12.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is a large body of evidence to suggest that child sex offenders engage in grooming to facilitate victimization. It has been speculated that this step-by-step grooming process is also used by offenders who access their underage victims online; however, little research has been done to examine whether there are unique aspects of computer-mediated communication that impact the traditional face-to-face grooming process. This study considered the similarities and differences in the grooming process in online environments by analyzing the language used by online offenders when communicating with their victims. The transcripts of 44 convicted online offenders were analyzed to assess a proposed theory of the online grooming process (O'Connell, 2003). Using a stage-based approach, computerized text analysis examined the types of language used in each stage of the offender-victim interaction. The transcripts also were content analyzed to examine the frequency of specific techniques known to be employed by both face-to-face and online offenders, such as flattery. Results reveal that while some evidence of the strategies used by offenders throughout the grooming process are present in online environments, the order and timing of these stages appear to be different. The types (and potential underlying pattern) of strategies used in online grooming support the development of a revised model for grooming in online environments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.12.004

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of flattery ('sexy best ass') is arguably designed to ingratiate, in order to gain compliance with the request, as has been noted in previous research.

    “The use of flattery ('sexy best ass') is arguably designed to ingratiate, in order to gain compliance with the request, as has been noted in previous research (Black et al., 2015;Marcum, 2007;Williams et al., 2013;Winters et al., 2017).”

    From A discursive analysis of compliance, resistance and escalation to threats in sexually exploitative interactions between offenders and male children (2021) · cites this paper as Black et al., 2015

  • The first 20% of an online conversation can already indicate signs of grooming.

    “However, the first 20% of that conversation can already indicate signs of grooming [39].”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

  • Assessing risk and potential for victimization can be detected by analyzing 40% of an online conversation.

    “They discovered that assessing risk and potential for victimization can be detected by analyzing 40% of an online conversation.”

    From Online grooming detection: A comprehensive survey of child exploitation in chat logs (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

  • The order and timing of the different grooming stages appear to be different online compared to offline.

    “However, the order and timing of the different grooming stages appear to be different (Black et al., 2015).”

    From Offender strategies for engaging children in online sexual activity (2021) · cites this paper as Black et al., 2015

  • SOG offers new possibilities for speeding up the grooming process, and risk assessment of the victim's environment often starts in the first 20% of the conversations.

    “At the same time, SOG offers new possibilities particularly for speeding up the grooming process (as well as the risk assessment of the victim's environment which often starts in the first 20% of the conversations; Black et al., 2015).”

    From 3.2 Sexual Online Grooming of Children – A Short Overview of the Offender Literature (2025) · cites this paper as Black et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Black, P. J., Wollis, M., Woodworth, M., & Hancock, J. T.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Woodworth, Michael
ORCID
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
44
Pages
140-149
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.12.004
OpenAlex
W2027190208
Cited by
153
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
12.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
online grooming, computer-mediated communication, flattery, child sexual abuse
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Sexual, Communication, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Linguistics, Male, Middle Aged, Sexual Behavior, Crime Victims, Internet, Friends

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review